Michael Brewer, Thomas Green, Joy Landis, and Brenna Wanous Michigan State University IPM Program...

Michael Brewer, Thomas Green, Joy Landis, and Brenna Wanous

Michigan State University IPM ProgramIPM Institute of North America

Grower Incentives for IPM: Invite to the Northcentral IPM/NRCS Workgroup

Broad goal: Encourage adoption of IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool through grower participation in conservation programs administered by the USDA NRCS

Grower Incentives for IPM

Sponsors:

Partners:

Michigan IPM Alliance

IPM Institute of North America

Sister Land-Grant IPM Programs

NC Region IPM Committee (NCERA 201)

Grower Incentives for IPM

(Research + Extension) + Regulation + Conservation

Research/extension incentives– Research– Extension– Special projects: Diagnostics, IPM

Regulatory incentives– Pesticide registration– Pesticide applicator training

Conservation (Financial) incentives

• Farm health:plant protection– Compatible tactics– Economically and socially

acceptable– Environmentally benign

• Environmental health: Mitigate natural resource concerns

Soil Water Air

Plant Animal Human

• States: Implement IPM with joint plant protection and resource conservation value– Reduced-risk pesticides– Reduced-risk application methods– Biologically-based management methods– Cultural management methods

Joining perspectives

• What Farm Bill says:

Agricultural production and conservation are compatible goals

Overview: Workgroup objectives

• Facilitate communications between IPM community and NRCS

• Assemble resources for growers and IPM personnel region-wide to facilitate grower entry into conservation programs for IPM support

• Explore opportunities to develop lasting cooperative mechanisms between IPM community and NRCS

Technical: Farm-specific conservation planning

Financial: Farm Bill conservation programs Working lands: land in agricultural production

EQIP: Environmental Quality Incentive Program– Assist growers to demonstrate benefit

of conservation practices – ‘Green payment’ (WTO)– Stable and growing

CSP: Conservation Stewardship Programnew FB: nationwide, acreage allocation

Grower Incentives for IPMConservation (Financial) incentives

1997-02 $1 B

2008 $1 B

New FB more

1997-2002 Nationwide: 0.77%Top ten: 2.3%No.<1%: 35

Where we started: 97-02 EQIP investment in IPM

% state EQIP budget to IPM

Brewer et al. 2004Hoard & Brewer 2006

NRCS practices (pest management):

595, Pest management

328, Conservation crop rotation

386, Field border

Closer to home: IPM (reducing pesticide use) behind schedule. GAO report

Farm Bill says YES!

Key Program attributes affecting grower participationRanking & incentive levels: Low

Guidance & tools: Lack of clear IPM standards

Technical assistance: Pest management plans needed

Market/help voluntary conservation!

Brewer et al. 2004, Hoard and Brewer 2006 NRDC ISSUE PAPER Feb. 2007 “More IPM Please”

EQIP analysis: IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool?

Facilitate communications between IPM community and NRCS

Initial two-day regional meeting (face to face)

Monthly topical conference callsRanking and incentive ratesPest management planningCooperative agreements

Resource concerns addressed with

Resource prioritiesSoil

Water

Air

Plant

Animal

Human

Practices

– Pest management (multi-functional)

Reduced-risk pesticidesReduced-risk application methodsBiologically-based managementCultural management

– Nutrient management

– Irrigation water management

– Ag chemical containment facility

– Field border

– Residue management

– Cover crops

2002

New

Brewer et al. 2004Hoard & Brewer 2006

Key attribute: Ranking and Incentive Levels

Implementing IPM with joint plant protection and pest management value

• Pest monitoring and forecasting • Electronic canopy sensing and shields

to sprayers • Flamer/steamer weed control• Pesticides with low water

contamination potential • Non-pesticide pest reduction strategies• Disease inoculum reduction strategies• Organic mulches • Neglected orchard removal

Assemble resources for growers and IPM personnel to identify IPM tools for addressing resource concerns in conservation programs

Our web site www.ipm.msu.edu/work-group/home.htm

Collection of state specific data on EQIP/incentive rates

Template for building collaborationsTemplates for pest management planningLinks to IPM elements

Key attribute: Guidance and Tools

Key attribute: Technical assistance

Ongoing partnerships are key– Pest management planning

– California: Extension web-facilitated pest management planning (grants)

– Planning examples at our web site

– Explore opportunities to develop lasting cooperative mechanisms between IPM community and NRCS

– Connecticut: Extension participation in pest management planning (ongoing IPM partnership)

– West Virginia: Facilitate planning (new Extension partnership)

1997-2002 Nationwide: 0.77%

2005/06 Nationwide: 2.8%

Top ten<1% of budget

Hoard & Brewer 2006

% state EQIP budget to IPM

An indicator: EQIP investment in IPM IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool

Farmers, consultants, agency, Extension

An indicator: people served

Success storieswww.ipm.msu.edu/work-group/success.htm

IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool

Key attribute:

Market/help voluntary conservation

Resources/shared experiences key

– View our web sitewww.ipm.msu.edu/work-group/home.htm

– Participate in our conference call

– Email Brenna Wanous <bwanous@ipminstitute.org>

Many thanks and IPM Symposium Award winning:• Michigan State University• Penn State• University of California• Maine Department of AgricultureNon-government organizations• NRDCNRCS• Michigan (state & 8 counties) • DC staffCSREESEPA

Grower Incentives for IPM: Report from the Northcentral Workgroup