PES Working Group Update: Program Objectives Uninformed by Farmers' Qualitative Analyses
The Payment For Ecosystem Services and Soil Health Working Group was created by the legislature in 2019 to explore a State-wide system for valuing the ecological benefits generated by land managers. Rural Vermont is participating in and encouraging farmer participation in the process and, in 2021, has promoted farmer discussions hosted by the Conservation Districts, and submitted a sign-on letter to the working group recommending to facilitate a democratic decision-making process with farmers. In 2022, the working group hired a UVM research team to, among other tasks, conduct a farmer survey with a focus on payment levels. Part of that research were 31 interviews with farmers that UVM conducted. To date we are missing the delayed qualitative analyses of the farmer discussions in 2021 as well as the farmer interviews in 2022 that could reveal a diverse range of farmers perspectives on what a Just Transition in agriculture could look like through payment for ecosystem services in Vermont.
The analysis of the 2022 UVM survey was presented to the working group in June and is available online here. Take some time to look into the survey results. Rural Vermont regrets that the survey was not broad enough to inform the direction of program development like payments for practices vs. outcomes, or assess the potential for improving existing programs to achieve desired outcomes. Instead, the survey had a focus on gauging the feasibility of paying farmers for conducting soil tests, and what payment levels would be accepted as compensation. The PES working group agreed upon a vision and objectives for program development before the summer break (final objectives here; program design poll here). The proposed pilot program would compensate farmers for the additional workload required, including data gathering and associated paperwork, soil sampling, and consultations when they meet standards based on the measured outcomes in the soil (e.g., improved carbon sequestration), in the field (e.g., more diverse cover crops to support biodiversity), and at edge of field (e.g., increased stormwater retention).
Rural Vermont engaged through public comment and shared that some farmers have a preference for financially rewarding the soil health practices they already do or adopt to do and to gauge options for combining or improving existing programs to lower bureaucratic burdens on farmers (while also highlighting that such analysis was a critical part of the 2019 legislative charges). While staying vague, it is positive that the PES WG aims in their objectives to streamline existing data acquisition through programs and to “coordinate with, be additive to, and be compatible with existing funding programs to the greatest extent possible.” An outcome based program was the preference of the watershed alliances who initiated the legislation in 2019. In contrast, a 2021 NOFA white paper “Farmers Share Experiences and Challenges Adopting Healthy Soils Practices - A Report from the Northeast Organic Farming Association on Two Years of Collaborative Work” states:
“Incentives for healthy soils practices adoption were the second most-discussed topic. Recorded commentary shows a preference for payment for practice, while a smaller number of farmers suggested that payments should be outcome-based.”
We acknowledge that farmers are also represented on the working group, with Scot Megnan (FWA), Paul Doton (CRWFA), Ed Pitcavage (Philo Ridge Farm). In addition, Maddie Kempner is representing NOFA-VT and Cat Buxton, who is officially representing the VT Healthy Soils Coalition, also serves on the Rural Vermont board. A few farmers also submitted and presented their visions for program development directly to the group - learn more here. As part of the small farmer group facilitated by Cat Buxton, Rural Vermont continues to engage with the process and to gauge opportunities to include visions like those of Stephen Leslie and CSP+, that the White River Conservation District worked on with Guy Choiniere.
It is unclear to Rural Vermont at this point what the missing qualitative analyses will reveal about farmer preferences and trends that may compare or contrast to the PES WG objectives. Noticeably, the PES WG lists as “farmer engagement” in their objectives to “partner with existing agencies and initiatives across the state to increase public understanding and appreciation of the role agriculture [plays] in healthy landscapes and the importance of ecosystem services for a healthy environment and quality of life.”
Rural Vermont works collaboratively to ensure that the processes and outcomes of any “PES” programs in VT are equitable, informed by a diversity of farmers’ voices, adequately consider varied ecological outcomes, and are situated within a greater context of a transition to an agricultural and food system that is economically, ecologically, and socially just.
Send us feedback and your thoughts on Payments for Ecosystem Services and the PES WG to caroline@ruralvermont.org.