|
| |
The Partnerships for Livestock Environmental Management Assessment Systems
Project: New Tools for Producers
Remarks by Bruce I., Knight, Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service
at the National Forum on Agricultural Environmental Management Systems
Arlington, VA
March 3, 2004
Thank you, and good morning everyone. It is a pleasure for me to represent
Secretary Veneman at today’s opening session of the National Forum on
Agricultural Environmental Management Systems.
Today, we recognize the success of the Partnerships for Livestock Environmental
Management Assessment Systems Project. The project was funded through a USDA
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems Year 2000 Grant. It received
additional support from the Environmental Protection Agency Non-Point Source
Control Branch and my agency, the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.
On behalf of Secretary Veneman, I want to congratulate everyone involved on the
completion of a very successful four-year effort to develop the concept of
Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) into practical tools that can help
farmers and ranchers meet environmental quality standards in an economical
manner.
This has been a wide-ranging effort, involving working with producers and
industry representatives in tailoring the EMS model for a variety of beef,
swine, dairy, and poultry production systems; developing risk assessments and
other support tools for designing an EMS; working with collaborators and
stakeholders to explore how an EMS can best reduce the adverse environmental
impacts of livestock production; and exploring policy implications of the EMS
approach.
I particularly want to thank everyone involved in the EMS effort in the nine
pilot States. This week’s forum will highlight the results and materials that
have been developed in the pilot States to serve producers in the beef, dairy,
poultry, and swine industries. Each State had its own area of emphasis,
• In Texas, efforts focused on dust and odor management in feedlots.
• In Georgia, most poultry farmers in the study are already involved in nutrient
management programs, so the producers focused on other operational issues, such
as mortality management, petroleum storage, and record keeping.
• Producers in Virginia developed environmental assessment tools for poultry
producers to use in protecting the Chesapeake Bay.
• In Pennsylvania, they tested assessment tools.
• In New York, the focus was Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans for dairy
operations.
• Wisconsin producers evaluated the effectiveness of a dairy environmental
management system.
• Iowa producers developed and implemented a feedlot environmental management
compliance assessment that meets the needs of both producers and regulatory
agencies.
• Montana producers helped develop beef environmental assessment tools.
• And producers in Idaho developed conservation plans utilizing a GIS interface.
The pilots in every State are the effort of many cooperators, including more
than 200 producers across the nine States; Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service programs in each State; industry associations;
State Farm Bureau Federations; executive departments in the State governments,
including departments of agriculture, natural resources, conservation, trade,
and others; conservation districts; and the Environmental Protection Agency.
I would also like to recognize the three universities that provided leadership
for this effort: the University of Georgia, the University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
and the University of Wisconsin-Madison, as well as all the other colleges and
universities that helped make this effort such a success.
And, of course, I would like to applaud the Cooperative States Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) for coordinating the effort
nationally.
The EMS Approach
EMSs are a flexible and voluntary management tool to improve an operation’s
environmental performance. The EMS sequence of plan, implement, check, and
improve, offers a common-sense approach to improved farm management and enables
producers to continually improve their operation.
Planning
In the planning step, producers assess their current environmental performance;
identify risks; evaluate options for improvement; and determine roles,
responsibilities, and methods for improving. In the planning step, the EMS lays
out the operating procedures – duties and responsibilities, step by step
procedures, and record keeping systems.
Implementing
In the implementing step, producers build on systems already in place to address
the important bottom line of their operations, both financially and
environmentally. Building on existing systems, such as Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plans (CNMPs), is an important aspect of the EMS concept, because we
do not want an EMS to duplicate existing methods, but to add to them.
Checking
The checking step involves regular monitoring, which helps producers determine
actions that are needed to prevent problems and to demonstrate the results of
their stewardship. Monitoring and improving are two aspects that make EMSs
different than traditional conservation planning. How the farmer or rancher
actually manages his or her operation goes beyond having a plan.
Obviously, the plan is just paper – or disk space on the computer – until it is
implemented as part of the agricultural operation.
Improving
The improving step involves reviews of goals and plans to make sure they are
meeting the individual producer’s needs and then revising the EMS to guarantee
continual improvement. Because they are true management systems, as Under
Secretary Brown has emphasized, EMSs go a step beyond traditional conservation
planning and add quality management principles.
The EMS helps the producer put operating procedures into action for existing
conservation and environmental plans to ensure environmental protection and
continuous improvement of their operations. For example, an EMS can take a
Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan from waste management to address the
entire impact of the producer’s operation.
EMS and Food and Agricultural Policy
A couple of years ago, the U.S. Department of Agriculture published a document
called “Food and Agricultural Policy: Taking Stock for the New Century.” In that
document, Secretary Veneman listed modernizing the infrastructure of our farm
and food system as one of the important challenges we must meet to ensure
continued growth and development for the 21st century.
She wrote, “The changes are so sweeping that we must pause to take stock of the
new operating environment, with a view to ensuring that our system continues to
have the foundation it needs to serve us as well in the future as it has in the
past.”
Environmental Management Systems embody many of the principles outlined in the
Food and Agricultural Policy document, both for farm policy and for
conservation. I would like to mention just a few of these principles today.
Principles of Farm Policy
One important principle for farm policy is to recognize our new operating
environment.
Our farm sector and food system operate today in a new and evolving business and
social environment. It is a competitive, consumer-driven environment, global,
and rapidly changing, with enormous implications for the place and role of the
farm sector in the overall food system.
The impact of this consumer demand is showing up in the market place. Large
commercial chains that directly interact with the consumer, such as McDonald’s
and Wal-Mart, are responding to these demands and, in turn, are dictating these
requirements onto the producer. The EMS concept, or any planning concept, helps
producers make the adjustments they need to make to respond to such emerging
market forces.
Another principle for farm policy is to accommodate, and build on, the wide
diversity in the agriculture industry.
Our producers span a wide range in terms of size, location, financial status,
products, income sources, managerial ability, and other factors. The EMS concept
can be adapted to accommodate virtually any producer’s needs.
A third principle for farm policy is to focus on a broader infrastructure.
To maintain a healthy and prosperous agriculture industry, we must make the
right investments throughout the system, including the infrastructure that
underpins the entire industry. The EMS concept is rapidly becoming an important
component of that infrastructure. It will help give producers the flexibility
they need to respond to market demands and help them improve their environmental
and financial performance.
Principles of Conservation
In terms of conservation, it is important that we sustain past environmental
gains. The EMS concept does that by building on USDA’s existing conservation
planning processes and efforts.
EMSs enable a farmer to put operating procedures into action for existing
conservation plans, to ensure environmental protection and continuous
improvement of their operation. For example, an animal feeding operation could
easily use USDA’s Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plan as the nucleus of an
EMS.
We must also accommodate new and emerging environmental concerns, such as air
quality, as Dr. Brown mentioned. Because the EMS concept is continuous,
producers can adjust their system to accommodate new environmental issues or
regulations as they come up.
Another principle of conservation is to use a portfolio approach to conservation
policies. USDA offers technical assistance, incentives for improved practices on
working farm and forest lands, and compensation for environmental achievements –
all of which can be used to help producers reach their environmental goals. The
EMS concept allows the producer to incorporate the entire portfolio of services
into a unified effort.
It is also important to coordinate our conservation and farm policies. We should
work to eliminate conflicts between farm program incentives to increase
production and conservation programs seeking to reduce environmental problems.
The EMS concept allows producers to take both production variables and
environmental objectives into account.
Finally, it is important that our conservation effort recognize the importance
of collaboration. I think I can safely say that the EMS concept honors the
collaborative process. Just look at that number of producers, educational
institutions, trade associations, and government offices that have helped with
the EMS effort over the past four years.
Conclusion
On behalf of Secretary Veneman, I would like to once again thank everyone who
has been involved in this pilot program. This week’s forum will help program
managers, industry groups, consultants, agricultural and environmental
organizations, and extension educators. It will also give others a chance to
learn more about how Agricultural Environmental Management Systems work and how
they can help producers with the regulatory, economic, and environmental
challenges they face.
The forum is a good chance to look at the effectiveness and potentials of this
emerging tool.
Thanks for coming.
| |
|
About Us
Back to Top