Marginality Principle - Principles of Sustainable Soil Management in Agroecosystems - page 46

and collective-level environmental functional goals. There are examples of working
agricultural landscapes that integrate crop production and wildlife diversity areas
that serve as diversions to manage floodplain flooding and ecosystem regulation,
and reclaim soil redistributed from uplands (Olson et al. 2011). However, integrated
practices that create a multifunctional agricultural landscape need many more inno-
vations and widespread adoption, if soils are to fully meet their multifunctional
capacities.
Agricultural public policy can no longer simply be about incentivizing greater
production alone; if we are to protect the soil resource, policy must simultaneously
address social, economic, and environmental sustainability issues. For this to hap-
pen, some level of agreement and support from farmers, environmentalists, agri-
business, and the general public will be needed. The Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll
(IFRLP), an annual random-sample, longitudinal survey of farmer beliefs, concerns,
and current practices conducted in a state whose land and economy are dominated
by row crop agriculture, illustrates what some farmers are thinking regarding agri-
cultural policy and farm bill provisions over almost 30 years. The IFRLP reported
in 1984 that Iowa farmers thought the highest priority of the 1985 Farm Bill should
be developing new international markets (6.2 on a scale of 1-7) and lowering interest
rates (6.1), with protecting agricultural natural resources ranking valued but lower
in priority (5.8) (Lasley 1984). This pattern repeats itself in farmer concerns in 1988
and 10 years later in 1998, with concerns about prices for farm products and supplies
ranking highest (6.3 in 1988, 6.4 in 1998) and soil erosion ranking sixth (5.7 in 1988,
5.7 in 1998) (Lasley 1998). This does not mean that farmers are not concerned with
soil degradation; rather, it means that other more pressing issues convey greater risk
and vulnerability to their enterprise. In Iowa, 83% of farmers supported in 1986 the
1985 Farm Bill establishment of a 10- to 15-year CRP with a goal to reduce soil ero-
sion (and reduce production during a time of excess capacity) (Lasley 1986), and in
1987, 72% of Iowa farmers supported tying approved conservation plans and imple-
mentation to government payments (Lasley 1987). In 2005, 80% of Iowa farmers
agreed or strongly agreed that CRP should be continued, and 56% thought the 2002
Farm Bill overall provided good support to funding conservation efforts (Korsching
et al. 2005). To put this in perspective, in the same survey, 84% of farmers wanted
more government effort promoting exports; 57% wanted more incentives to address
environmental issues; and 87% thought the current government incentives encour-
aged farmers to reduce soil erosion (Korsching et al. 2005).
The 2009 IFRLP focused on conservation beliefs and attitudes in depth (Arbuckle
et al. 2009). Seventy-six percent of Iowa farmers thought conservation programs
should give conservation funding preference to lands that were most vulnerable
to soil and water problems, and 74% supported targeting as a strategy for fund-
ing decisions. There was a high expectation (78%) that environmental groups in the
next 10 years would have greater influence on farm policies. It is noteworthy that
66% thought soil erosion would very likely (22%) or somewhat likely (44%) decline
because of new government programs. There was a great deal of confidence that
“I” am doing enough and “my farm” will be capable of maintaining productivity
over the next 25 years (77%). Only 7% strongly agreed that farmers should spend
more money to control soil erosion. About 46% of 2011 IFRLP farmers reported