1. Michael Brewer, Thomas Green, Joy Landis, and Brenna Wanous Michigan State University IPM Program IPM Institute of North America Grower Incentives for IPM: Invite to the Northcentral IPM/NRCS Workgroup

2. Broad goal: Encourage adoption of IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool through grower participation in conservation programs administered by the USDA NRCS Grower Incentives for IPM Sponsors: Partners: Michigan IPM Alliance IPM Institute of North America Sister Land-Grant IPM Programs NC Region IPM Committee (NCERA 201)

3. Grower Incentives for IPM (Research + Extension) + Regulation + Conservation Research/extension incentives –Research –Extension –Special projects: Diagnostics, IPM Regulatory incentives –Pesticide registration –Pesticide applicator training Conservation (Financial) incentives

4. Farm health: plant protection –Compatible tactics –Economically and socially acceptable –Environmentally benign Environmental health: Mitigate natural resource concerns Soil Water Air Plant Animal Human States: Implement IPM with joint plant protection and resource conservation value –Reduced-risk pesticides –Reduced-risk application methods –Biologically-based management methods –Cultural management methods Joining perspectives What Farm Bill says: Agricultural production and conservation are compatible goals

5. Overview: Workgroup objectives Facilitate communications between IPM community and NRCS Assemble resources for growers and IPM personnel region-wide to facilitate grower entry into conservation programs for IPM support Explore opportunities to develop lasting cooperative mechanisms between IPM community and NRCS

6. Technical: Farm-specific conservation planning Financial: Farm Bill conservation programs Working lands: land in agricultural production EQIP: Environmental Quality Incentive Program –Assist growers to demonstrate benefit of conservation practices –Green payment (WTO) –Stable and growing CSP: Conservation Stewardship Program new FB: nationwide, acreage allocation Grower Incentives for IPM Conservation (Financial) incentives 1997-02$1 B 2008$1 B New FBmore

7. 1997-2002 Nationwide: 0.77% Top ten: 2.3% No.<1%: 35 Where we started: 97-02 EQIP investment in IPM % state EQIP budget to IPM Brewer et al. 2004 Hoard & Brewer 2006 NRCS practices (pest management): 595, Pest management 328, Conservation crop rotation 386, Field border Closer to home: IPM (reducing pesticide use) behind schedule. GAO report

8. Farm Bill says YES! Key Program attributes affecting grower participation Ranking & incentive levels : Low Guidance & tools : Lack of clear IPM standards Technical assistance : Pest management plans needed Market/help voluntary conservation! Brewer et al. 2004, Hoard and Brewer 2006 NRDC ISSUE PAPER Feb. 2007 More IPM Please EQIP analysis: IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool?

9. Facilitate communications between IPM community and NRCS Initial two-day regional meeting (face to face) Monthly topical conference calls Ranking and incentive rates Pest management planning Cooperative agreements

10. Resource concerns addressed with Resource priorities Soil Water Air Plant Animal Human Practices –Pest management (multi-functional) Reduced-risk pesticides Reduced-risk application methods Biologically-based management Cultural management –Nutrient management –Irrigation water management –Ag chemical containment facility –Field border –Residue management –Cover crops 2002 New Brewer et al. 2004 Hoard & Brewer 2006 Key attribute: Ranking and Incentive Levels

11. Implementing IPM with joint plant protection and pest management value Pest monitoring and forecasting Electronic canopy sensing and shields to sprayers Flamer/steamer weed control Pesticides with low water contamination potential Non-pesticide pest reduction strategies Disease inoculum reduction strategies Organic mulches Neglected orchard removal

12. Assemble resources for growers and IPM personnel to identify IPM tools for addressing resource concerns in conservation programs Our web site www.ipm.msu.edu/work-group/home.htm Collection of state specific data on EQIP/incentive rates Template for building collaborations Templates for pest management planning Links to IPM elements Key attribute: Guidance and Tools

13. Key attribute: Technical assistance Ongoing partnerships are key –Pest management planning –California: Extension web-facilitated pest management planning (grants) –Planning examples at our web site –Explore opportunities to develop lasting cooperative mechanisms between IPM community and NRCS –Connecticut: Extension participation in pest management planning (ongoing IPM partnership) –West Virginia: Facilitate planning (new Extension partnership)

14. 1997-2002 Nationwide: 0.77% 2005/06 Nationwide: 2.8% Top ten <1% of budget Hoard & Brewer 2006 % state EQIP budget to IPM An indicator: EQIP investment in IPM IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool

15. Farmers, consultants, agency, Extension An indicator: people served Success stories www.ipm.msu.edu/work-group/success.htm IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool

16. Key attribute: Market/help voluntary conservation Resources/shared experiences key –View our web site www.ipm.msu.edu/work- group/home.htm –Participate in our conference call –Email Brenna Wanous

17. Many thanks and IPM Symposium Award winning: Michigan State University Penn State University of California Maine Department of Agriculture Non-government organizations NRDC NRCS Michigan (state & 8 counties) DC staff CSREES EPA Grower Incentives for IPM: Report from the Northcentral Workgroup