When there's a profit to be made, lets all turn it to slag for profit :P

EU biofuel producers are very happy, but BirdLife International sees this decision as dealing a severe blow to the EU's already struggling farmland bird populations. To quote their recent press release:

Set-aside represents an important refuge for wildlife in intensive farmed landscapes. For example, researchers in the UK have observed that when the set-aside area was halved in the 1990s, the number of farmland birds also showed a serious decline. Recently published research from Sweden has demonstrated the link between set-aside level and numbers of farmland birds such as Northern Lapwing (Vanellus vanellus), Eurasian Skylark (Alauda arvensis), Common Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and Eurasian Linnet (Carduelis cannabina).

... The EU's justification given for this decision rests on concern for the low availability of cereals on the market which could result in increasing food prices.

"This justification is in complete contradiction to numerous declarations made by the European Commission in the context of the biofuel debate where it is repeatedly stated that Europe has a huge potential for increased use of agricultural land for energy production," argues Ariel Brunner, BirdLife's EU Policy Officer.

"If we are already facing a crisis in the cereal sector, how can we pursue a vast increase in biofuel production?" he says. "On the other hand if the Commission claims that we have potentially up to 17.5 million hectares available for biofuel expansion, how can we justify the haste in tapping into set-aside without any proper evaluation?" [My emphasis]

It's heartening to see conservation groups on this side of the Atlantic asking the right questions. Unfortunately, as in North America, nobody in authority seems to feel they need to bother answering them.

These are only my personal opinions.

Investors and small groups of hunting partners actually bought farmland and paid for the land with their CRP land rents during the length of one contract.

Very little oversight was applied to targeting only the most erosive or sensitive lands so there was too much good productive farmland enrolled in the program to begin with and some of the most erosive land remained in production.  

And, as I see it, the greatest fault of the CRP program was the requirement that only farmland that had been under cultivation could be enrolled.  So, this left out woodlands, prairie, savanna or wetlands that were suffering from neglect or abuse and that offered a substantial base for doing the most good with the application of sound ecological restoration.  It is sadly ironic to see these lands going to hell while money was essentially wasted by trying to convert croplands into some weak facsimile of a natural system.  

Much of the cover that did get planted in CRP was designed to provide cover for game birds.  A lot of it did not greatly benefit many of the declining grassland birds that needed shorter grasses for their nesting cover.  And much of the CRP lands received really lousy management by the landowners and by government personnel who did not take their oversight responsibilities seriously.  

Corn yields are phenomenal in central IL this season.  Corn is being piled on the ground (emergency storage) by many elevators.  So yeah, let these farmers get out of their contracts early without penalty so they can grow more corn.  The system is so screwed up that this just adds a bit more crust to a terribly sour pie.

Ron

These are only my personal opinions.

Of greatest interest to me is what you said about the different effects of the Conservation Reserve Program on game birds and on grassland birds.  I have not heard about that before.  Here is an article that appeared in Audubon a couple of years ago, which explains the general situation in a vague way, regarding CRP and other more or less promising programs, and difficulties with funding:

http://audubonmagazine.org/features0511/workingLands.html ...

You imply that there is an active, intentional choice to enhance the habitat of game birds, presumably including introduced species, to the disadvantage of native grassland birds.  Given that one of the intended benefits of CRP is to help wildlife, and given also that funds are limited, no doubt the implementers have decided, for reasons of their own, that the game birds are the wildlife they would most like to help.  But can we be clearer about what the "reasons of their own" are?

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

First, let me clarify my earlier comments a bit.  There are some native species of grassland birds that are favored by some of the native grass species planted for game birds.  But the tall grasses often planted are not that good for bird species that thrive in short grass habitats.  In fact, pheasants really do better in shorter nesting cover like an alfalfa and brome grass mix.  The heyday of pheasants in corn/bean land happened when mixed crop and livestock agriculture dominated the landscape and pasture and hay crops densely dotted the map.  This more diverse farm habitat also favored many of the grassland birds.  As livestock left the farms and corn and soybean acreage muscled in, both pheasants and native grassland birds declined precipitously.

Also some of the declining grassland birds need very large, nearly contiguous blocks of habitat.
The fragmented, widely scattered character of CRP plantings have not been that good for these species.  

Now to your question.  Conservation organizations like Pheasants Forever have been a very strong voices in how CRP is administered.  Their species of choice is  Chinese Ditch Chickens, aka pheasants.  Although many members of PF do have  conservation interests beyond making habitat for pheasants, their main focus has been to boost declining pheasant populations in the Midwest.  

Also state departments of natural resources or conservation are very instrumental in writing up conservation plans for CRP participants.  And the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) has required specifications for planting cover that is designed for pheasant or quail habitat.  NRCS is very tight with PF.  NRCS often refers their CRP clients to PF for seed and planting services.  

PF will be the main lobbying force in fighting early outs from CRP.  They have worked diligently in Washington to maximize and maintain CRP acreage.

All of this is based on a rich tradition of pheasant hunting on the farms.  Many middle aged farmers hunted birds during the heyday of the 50s when pheasants flourished.  So many of them were open to groups promoting a pheasant revival.
But this interest among farmers will fade with $4.00 per bushel corn and $10 per bushel soybeans.

I don't want to be completely negative about CRP -- it has done some good -- but I would not be averse to completely scraping CRP in favor of a program more aligned with ecological restoration of natural remnants on private and public lands.

Thank you for your kind comments.  

It is well worth reading the House Version of the Farm Bill.  That is the starting point for Senate debates.  It APPEARS the Senate Ag Committee may put more muscle behind conservatin issues, but that is yet to be seen.

In past Farm Bills, Swampbuster provisions prevented growers/landowners from receiving ANY USDA payments if they drained wetlands drained.  Swampbuster did prove effective in preserving & protecting our wetlands.  Ducks unlimited is currently pushing a watered down version of the same provision.  Nicknamed "Sodbuster", a grower / landowner could not receive government subsidies previously unfarmed land that is converted to crop production... Again, that only negates payments related to that land.

Not All Potholes Need Fixin'


LH

As for starting afresh with "a program more aligned with ecological restoration," sure, that sounds sensible.  But seeing that having to accommodate agricultural interests at various levels has always made environmental reform in the Midwestern states difficult and vexed -- and as you point out, the dawning Golden Age of corn and soybeans will only add to the difficulties -- , it is perhaps unrealistic to be too ambitious.  HLisa points out, "CRP is not perfect."  That is entirely believable.  Whether or not it is her point, for better or worse we live in a world in which too often the perfect can become the enemy of the good.  Could CRP be considered at least a little bit good?; and, practically, could it be altered for the better, without our having to wait for the next Farm Bill?

As for the NRDC, I get a newsletter from them every now and again, so I suppose once upon a time I sent them some money.  But it is so hard to know who is in bed with whom, in the family of environmentalist organizations.

In fact just yesterday I sent a little money to the NRDC, to help them air a powerful little TV ad opposing the aerial hunting of wolves in Alaska.  Stylistically it is derived from that fascinating, horrifying scene in "Apocalypse Now," in which Robert Duvall, as the Wagnerian reincarnation of George Armstrong Custer, leads a deadly charge of attack helicopters against a peaceful, charming Vietnamese village.  In the ad, a family of peaceful, charming, innocent, defenseless wolves, their pups playing and licking each other, take the part of the Vietnamese; but the hunters' approaching helicopter-of-doom is much closer to Coppola's original.

Thanks also to Ron Steenblik, for his interesting report on the plight of farmland birds in Europe.  It is rather touching, to know that there are at least a few people who have a soft spot in their hearts for starlings.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.