Farms for the Future: Massachusetts - American Farmland Trust

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Farms for the FutureReport annually on the Farm Viability Enhancement Program’s progress and undertakea comprehensive program evaluation.As with the APR program, there is no regular report on the yearly milestones for the FVEPprogram nor has there been a comprehensive evaluation of the program to date. Such anevaluation is especially needed as the MDAR begins to allow farmers to seek successive FVEPimplementation grants at the end of their initial grant term. An evaluation that quantifies theincreases in sales, net income and employment on participating farms, as well as improvementsin productivity, technology and marketing could help to underscore the program’s benefits andprovide valuable perspective on program direction for the next 10 years.Encourage the transition of farms from the Farm Viability Enhancement Programto the Agricultural Preservation Restriction Program.Current policy discourages farmers who are participating in the FVEP from transitioning landinto the APR Program, by requiring farmers to reimburse the entire implementation grant whenthey enroll land in the APR program, regardless of where they may be in the length of theirFVEP contract. For example, a farmer who receives a $75,000 FVEP grant and signs a 10-yearno-development covenant on 100 acres of farmland must repay the entire $75,000 grant if, inyear seven, the farmer wishes to enroll those 100 acres in the APR program. A policy that proratesthe required reimbursement to the length of time remaining in a FVEP contract—in theabove example, $22,500 rather than $75,000—would encourage the transition of farmlandfrom one program to the other.Agricultural Environmental Enhancement ProgramInvest at least $1 million annually in the Agricultural EnvironmentalEnhancement Program.An investment of this size would require additional bond authority above the $3 millionprovided in the 2008 Environmental Bond, yet would serve to maximize the environmentalbenefits produced by the Commonwealth’s 518,000 acres of working farmland. Much as theAgricultural Conservation Planning Partnership, which funds the development of whole farmconservation plans, is comparable to the business planning phase of the FVEP, the AEEP is likePhase II of that program, funding the implementation of conservation plans. Unlike for farmbusiness plans, there are significant federal resources available for conservation plan implementation.Funding for the federal Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)—thatprovides grants to farmers to implement on-farm energy, air, soil and water conservationpractices—is scheduled to ramp up over the next five years, and the Farm Bill’s “regionalequity” provision will help to ensure that some of that funding increase comes to Massachusetts.As EQIP generally requires a 25-50 percent cost-share, increased funding for AEEP should allowMassachusetts farmers to leverage significant new federal resources for practices that will leadto cleaner air and water and reduced water and energy use.18American Farmland Trust
Massachusetts’ Investments in Farmland ConservationExpanding the Farmland Conservation ToolboxOver the past 30 years, Massachusetts has created and substantially invested in programs tohelp secure the Commonwealth’s farmland base and improve the economic and environmentalsustainability of its farms. Some of these programs, like the FVEP, and initiatives, like the APRprogram’s “option at agricultural value,” were groundbreaking policy innovations that havebeen emulated in other states. Another program not detailed in this report but valuable as a toolfor financing farmland protection projects—the Community Preservation Act—has beenanother national model.As the agricultural industry’s land uses and needs evolve and environmental conditions change,there is both a need to evaluate and examine the effectiveness of the current farmland conservationtoolbox and a need to assess whether new and complementary tools may be needed. Somepotential tools that may be worthy of additional exploration are identified below. AFT hopesthat this initial, partial list may provide a starting point for dialogue and innovative thinkingamong farmers and conservationists, community leaders and policy makers, about new policyinitiatives that can continue the Commonwealth’s important commitment to ensuring farms forthe future.New financing for farmland protection: Installment Purchase AgreementsInstallment Purchase Agreements, or “IPAs,” have been used for years by other state andcounty farmland protection programs as a means of providing landowners who sell agriculturalconservation easements with a phased payment option that defers capital gains andprovides annual interest payments while stretching public funding for farmland protectionby providing less cash to the seller up front. Offering a long-term payment contract optionthat can be sold or securitized at any time to realize the outstanding principal may attractnew interest from land-owners in the APR program.Coordinating smart growth, farmland protection and agricultural economic developmentMassachusetts’ Agricultural Incentive Area statute (M.G.L. Chapter 40L) has been largelyignored because of its lack of incentives to municipalities or farmers. A revised Chapter 40Lcould provide new incentives to communities to identify agricultural or farm and forest districtsand encourage land protection within those districts, while targeting new or currentstate benefits to the landowners within those districts.Linking farm pensions and farmland protectionFor many farmers, their land is their pension. With the equity in their land often their onlysource of retirement income, they may need to sell individual farmland parcels or theirentire farm for top value—typically for development. One possible way to avoid this situationis to actually turn the preservation of a farm into a retirement for its owner. TheDelaware Department of Agriculture is exploring the mechanics and feasibility of a programthat could link pensions and farmland protection.Compensating farmers for ecosystem servicesAs discussed in Chapter Two, Massachusetts farmers provide a number of “non-market”ecosystem services, including air cleansing, water filtration, reduction of runoff and sedimentation,carbon sequestration and wildlife habitat. A potential compensation program thatoffers payments to farmers in exchange for following prescribed conservation “best managementpractices” such as no-till cultivation, water-conserving irrigation, nutrient managementor Integrated Pest Management, could improve farm profitability while protecting farmlandand addressing some of the Commonwealth’s environmental needs and concerns.American Farmland Trust19
Page 1 and 2: Farms for the FutureMassachusetts
Page 3: CHAPTER ONECommonwealth Farms: Many
Page 6 and 7: CHAPTER TWOFarming in the Commonwea
Page 8 and 9: Farms for the Future1%25%11%Source:
Page 10 and 11: Farms for the FutureAPR Program: Be
Page 12 and 13: Farms for the Future$16.0Agricultur
Page 14 and 15: CHAPTER FOURFarm Viability and Cons
Page 16 and 17: Farms for the Futureprogram, the FV
Page 18 and 19: CHAPTER FIVERecommendationsAgricult
Page 22 and 23: Farms for the FutureEndnotesChapter

Farms for the Future: Massachusetts - American Farmland Trust

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?