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