Conservation, Wildlife, and Farmland Protection Educational Programs: The Georgia Experience R. Curt Lacy 1, Wes L. Harris 2, Keith D. Kightlinger 1 and Amanda Ziehl 1 1 Extension Economists, Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics 2 Special Projects Coordinator, Center for Agribusiness & Economic Development The University of Georgia Contact: Dr. Curt Lacy,

Background The 2002 Farm Bill added additional funds to conservation programs such as the CRP, WRP, EQIP, WHIP, FRLPP and GRP. The 2002 Farm Bill also introduced a new program, the Conservation Security Program (CSP). Other than CRP, participation in many of these programs has been low. A survey of Georgia County Agents and producers confirmed that reasons for the low participation were lack of knowledge about the programs specifically as it related to:  Focus,  Mechanics,  Requirements and  Benefits

Background-continued With an average farm size of 56.5 acre in Georgia there is also considerable interest in:  Conservation easements.  Sale of development rights.  Other tools used to limit residential or commercial development of rural property.

Response State  UGA – CAES  GASWCC  GFC  DNR  RC&D Councils Federal  FSA  USFS  NRCS NGO  National Wild Turkey Federation To address this need a multi-agency educational program was proposed.

Program Delivery Wildlife, Conservation and Farmland Protection Workshops County meetings regarding conservation easements State and regional presentations on the CSP and operation level impact County-agent in-service trainings

Wildlife, Conservation and Farmland Protection Workshops Four day-length workshops were held in Georgia. Workshops were held on Saturday to facilitate participation. Participants had the opportunity to hear from and interact with most agencies.

Wildlife, Conservation and Farmland Protection Workshops

Program Contents Welcome & Overview of Agenda Overview of Government Conservation & Wildlife Programs Overview of NGO Conservation and Wildlife Programs Economic and Other Considerations of Conservation Easements and Farmland Protection Programs in Georgia Tax Implications of Conservation, Wildlife and Farmland Protection Programs Presentations by various state and federal agencies about their particular programs

Evaluations and Results Attendance was disappointing  Carrolton – 15  Athens -25  Tifton – 20  Statesboro – 35 However, those that attended were especially grateful about the descriptions and requirements of the programs. Several agency representatives were AMAZED at the level of duplication AND competition between some programs. Most agencies are interested in cooperative education. Saturday meetings are a problem for some federal agencies.

Other Programs County meetings regarding conservation easements State and regional presentations on the CSP and operation level impact County-agent in-service trainings

What Now?? Plan and execute field days. Get tooled up for 2007 Farm Bill. Develop decision-aids to help producers make farm/ranch level decisions.