4 minute read
COVER Act: An Opportunity to Support Conservation
COVER Act: An Opportunity to Support Conservation
The bipartisan Conservation Opportunity and Voluntary Environment Resilience (COVER) Act introduced by Reps. Sean Casten (IL-6), Elissa Slotkin (MI-7), and Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and co-sponsored by Rep. Mike Bost (IL-12) provides a $5 per acre discount on crop insurance to farmers who use cover crops, an important conservation practice. This concept has been piloted in Illinois with the Fall Covers for Spring Savings (FCSS) program, in other state programs around the Midwest, and at the federal level by the USDA Pandemic Cover Crop Program (PCCP). In fact, the popular national program has shown meaningful benefits to Illinois farms, farmers, and the environment; generating more than $2.5 million in annual savings for farmers while incentivizing cover cropping on more than 500,000 acres in Illinois.
Cover crops are one of the most effective methods of controlling nutrient losses (N and P fertilizer) from agriculture fields. Additionally, cover crops have the potential to sequester carbon, reduce erosion, and build soil health. Despite the agronomic and environmental benefits that this bill would incentivize, many in the agriculture community have expressed reservations about supporting this legislation. Primarily, concerns revolve around the tie between crop insurance and conservation practices the bill would create. For example, some growers are uneasy about how the bill might impact the actuarial soundness of crop insurance programs. First, it is important to note that a growing body of data suggests that covers do have the potential to mitigate risk, especially in extreme weather. Thus, over time, the data may reveal that a lower total premium for cover-cropped acres is actuarially sound. However, it is important to understand that the COVER Act, like the Illinois FCSS and the USDA PCCP programs, does not change total premiums for crop insurance policy, nor does it change the risk profile of the insured cash crop – we know this because cover crops are already allowed under existing crop insurance rules. Since the COVER Act neither changes the total premium nor the risk profile of an insurance policy it is not impacting the actuarial soundness of crop insurance.
Another concern is that a program linking conservation practices and crop insurance creates a “slippery slope” that other groups can use as a mechanism to create on-farm regulation.
This is a reasonable worry, as the last thing any grower organization wants is for farmers to be forced to adopt practices that do not work on their farms. However, it is important to note, it is hard to find an example of a voluntary federal program becoming mandatory in this way. Additionally, it is likely that groups that support on-farm regulation would do so with or without this program. In fact, the presence of such a voluntary conservation program, supported by farmers, helps demonstrate that regulation is not needed.
However, there is risk in the agriculture community’s inaction. For years, we have argued that we must support voluntary conservation programs to help our farmers. This is a core value that has been echoed by our environmental allies, who value farmer cooperation. As a community, we risk frustrating these farmer-friendly groups when we hesitate to support voluntary programs, especially ones with demonstrated success at the state and federal levels. In contrast, supporting the COVER Act, despite the tie to crop insurance, signals the agriculture community’s serious investment in voluntary conservation programs, earning us a seat at the table with environmental groups and allowing our farmers’ voices to be heard and valued.
