Programs such as CRP and EQIP are some of the more publicized programs, but we still hear terms such as Swampbuster and Grassland Reserve Program. As the 2002 farm bill authorizes an increase in conservation programs spending, we have been asked "Why don't more farmers participate in the conservation programs?"

To get a better understanding of farmer attitude toward conservation, a survey of Georgia county Extension agents was conducted in September, 2002. The one-page survey form asked these agents to indicate why more farmers in their respective counties did not participate in conservation programs.

Be aware these reasons are given by county Extension agents as their interpretation of the actions of farmers in their individual counties.

The questions were divided into three types of reasons 1) Inadequate information; 2) Participation costs; and 3) Participation benefits - for four programs - Conservation Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentive Program, Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program and Grassland Reserve Program.

Approximately fifty agents responded.

A detail of all questions is shown later in this discussion. The agents ranked these reasons for each of the programs.

The latter two programs (WHIP and GRP) received little response, as most respondents reported there was little or no information available. And the same reason(s) were reported for all programs, in specific:

1 --"Don't know program exists", and

2 -- "Don't know if they are eligible", and

3 -- "Don't know enrollment procedures"

Specific Reasons for Conservation Reserve Program

The reasons listed above were given as 2^nd, 3^rd and 4th most common reasons for not participating in CRP.

The ^1st most common reason given was:

- "Reduces future farm management flexibility", and the 5^th most common reason was,

- "Too much paperwork".

Specific Reasons for Environmental Quality Incentive Program

The three reasons listed most frequently for this program were:

1 - "Don't know program exists", by a wide margin as number one. Number two was,

2 - "Don't know if they are eligible", and number three was,

3 - "Out-of-pocket costs are too high".

Individual Agent Comment

Several agents took time to write an explanation of the attitude of farmers in their respective counties. Several were similar. These can be summarized in the following discussion.

• Most of the farm bill attention is directed toward commodity programs. If the conservation programs are legislated to conserve the various natural resources of eligible farmers, then additional efforts should be directed toward more adequate publicity of the different conservation programs.

One commented, "Most of the farmers in my county don't now what the programs are all about. They are not well publicized".

• "The reason there aren't more participants in the programs (especially WHIP and EQIP) is there is not enough money. For example, if (say) $100,000 is appropriated to a program and there are 2,000 applicants, how much money does that provide? Actually they rank all the applicants and maybe only 200 get funded. The rest get nothing."

Another agent commented; "EQIP, for example was given a big buildup, many farmers had applications or farm plans developed, and then there was not enough money even for those who ranked highest in the program. After several attempts, some of my farmers told me they can find better ways "to waste my time'".

III. Agents in parts of the state where there is little crop production (mostly livestock - cattle) made statements such as "Don't trust government programs", and "Don't want USDA knowing their business".

• Another concern is "How do we fully understand the transition from traditional farm programs to those of the 21^st century, if conservation program emphasis is the way of the future." "How do we measure the benefits of conservation programs?"

This uncertainty is reflected by one who said, "Traditional farmers don't trust folks like SERA who they think don't fully understand today's agriculture." "How can we get farmers to evaluate these programs when there is an apparent lack of support by FSA, NRED and even our Agricultural colleges?"

• Another commented "My farmers have questions about future eligibility after they have been turned down." Then one said "It takes too long to get approval for a little money."

Summary and Implications

Two major points are made here. First, there is little educational materials available to explain these program - purpose, eligibility, costs, benefits (short and long term).

Second, appropriations are not always certain - and may come a various times.

A coordination of these two points will not be easy. Those working in outreach (Extension) don't have time to prepare educational materials for programs that may not be funded . And if they are underfunded, then growers are mislead if they are told some funds are available -- which means only part of applications will be approved.

Which brings us to the final analysis, "What are the benefits to be gained from participation -- both the farmer and the public, as these programs are funded by public monies?" While farmers who have applications approved receive some funds to conduct the conservation program, they are faced with the decision of deciding if funds received are a better alternative than other use of this resource. As farmland is the farmer's principle resource, he (she) is looking for the greatest return from this resource. The other return is resource conservation, which is hard to measure in absolute terms.

_______________________

Questions asked:

INADEQUATE INFORMATION

• Don't know program exists
• Don't know if they are eligible
• Don't know enrollment procedures

PARTICIPATION COSTS

• Out-of-pocket costs too high
• Labor costs are too high
• Too much paperwork
• Reduces future farm management flexibility
• Don't know costs of participation

PARTICIPATION BENEFITS

• Benefits are too low
• Size of benefits are uncertain (not guaranteed)
• Benefits are too far in the future
• Don't know benefits of participation

OTHER REASONS (LIST)