Crop insurance could be lever for improved environmental care
The US government should incentivise farmers to work in ways that improve the quality of soil and water on their land by offering to pay more of their insurance premiums in exchange for better environmental management, according to Stanton farmer Mark Peterson. The government should promote planting cover crops and remove regulatory restrictions to them, Peterson said. He also criticises the so-called alfalfa loophole in current legislation, and called for requirements for conservation plans to be strengthened.
Des Moines Register

If there are two things that every farmer I know has an opinion about, it’s water quality and crop insurance. But we don’t talk enough about how crop insurance affects water quality and soil health. We need crop insurance to help farmers manage risk. But could crop insurance also encourage farmers to implement practices that are better for water quality and soil health? I believe it can.

There’s a powerful opportunity for crop insurance to encourage conservation practices. Right now, farmers and the government split the cost of crop insurance premiums. What if the government paid a larger share to farmers who practice conservation? If my crop insurance agent offered me a lower crop insurance premium because I plant cover crops, I’d definitely try to plant cover crops every year. I’m sure my neighbors would say the same.

Currently, though, crop insurance creates some barriers to conservation. For example, USDA has policies called “cover crop termination guidelines.” They say farmers have to spray or till a cover crop by a certain time to be eligible for crop insurance. Their concern is that a cover crop left in too long will lower yields of the main crop. Mounting evidence shows that if properly managed, cover crops actually can help enhance yields. But this ends up discouraging growers from planting cover crops. USDA could remove these restrictions today. Cover crops are good for our soil and water, so this would be a step in the right direction.

There are a few ways where crop insurance and conservation are linked. For example, the last farm bill created the “sodsaver” provision. The government doesn’t pay any of the share of crop insurance premiums on land converted from grasslands. Native grasslands are valuable habitat for wildlife and native grass species. I think it’s good that we’re paying extra when we take acres out of native grassland.

It’s not a perfect system though. Right now, “sodsaver” only applies to six states in the upper Midwest and Great Plains. Our next farm bill should expand “sodsaver” protections to the entire country. Also, under “sodsaver,” the government pays a share of the crop insurance premium on newly broken native sod if farmers then plant a non-annual crop for four years after tillage. Some call this the “alfalfa loophole.” It isn’t a good practice. Native grasses build much richer and healthier soils than alfalfa. Crop insurance rules should reflect that.

Finally, you might remember that the last farm bill reinstated conservation compliance. It linked conservation plans with commodity payments and crop insurance. This was a really good step in the right direction. But it would be stronger if the requirements for conservation plans were more robust. For example, we could lower the acceptable soil erosion rates allowed on conservation plans. Plans could also require farmers to treat ephemeral gullies. Both would help with soil and water health.

These are just a few ideas for how we could change crop insurance to encourage more conservation of soil and water. It will be important to seriously consider these ideas we enter the next farm bill debate. Because we can make crop insurance work better for farmers, taxpayers, our soil and our water. Let’s do it.

Mark Peterson is a farmer from Stanton.