Michael Brewer, Thomas Green, Joy Landis, and Brenna Wanous Michigan State University IPM Program

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

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

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. Joining perspectives • Environmental health: Mitigate natural resource concerns • Soil Water Air • Plant Animal Human • Farm health: • plant protection • Compatible tactics • Economically and socially acceptable • Environmentally benign • 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 • 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. Grower Incentives for IPM • Conservation (Financial) incentives • 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

7. Brewer et al. 2004 Hoard & Brewer 2006 Where we started: 97-02 EQIP investment in IPM 1997-2002 Nationwide: 0.77% Top ten: 2.3% No.<1%: 35 % state EQIP budget to IPM 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. EQIP analysis: IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool? 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”

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. Key attribute: Ranking and Incentive Levels • 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

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. IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool An indicator: EQIP investment in IPM 1997-2002 Nationwide: 0.77% 2005/06 Nationwide: 2.8% Top ten <1% of budget % state EQIP budget to IPM Hoard & Brewer2006

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

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 <bwanous@ipminstitute.org>

17. Grower Incentives for IPM: Report from the Northcentral Workgroup • 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