Michael Brewer, Thomas Green, Joy Landis, and Brenna Wanous Michigan State University IPM Program
description
Transcript of 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 <[email protected]>
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