 |
 |
|
Home | Contents | Send Email |
|
|
|
|
Home | Contents | Send Email |
|
| The following information provides
additional background to describe the rationale behind
some of Florida Stewardship Foundation's goals: | Driving With the Brakes On | |
| No mechanism is now in place to
help the vast majority of Florida farmers pass on the
costs of environmental protection to the public. They
produce 253 agricultural commodities, of which only five
-- tobacco, peanuts, cotton, milk and sugar -- qualify
for federal subsidies or price supports. For the balance,
the market sets their price, and that price is constantly
changing. The costs of maintaining land that produces
little or no economic return, of installing conservation
systems, of hiring consultants and attorneys to comply
with regulations whittle away at profit margins ... and
make the Florida farmer less competitive with foreign
producers. The market currently pays Florida farmers to produce vegetables, citrus, timber and homesites. But it does not pay for the other "products" of the land for which they are the custodians -- open space, wildlife habitat, water resources, wetlands and more. And therein lies the dilemma: As much as agricultural landowners may want to protect wetlands or wildlife, they have a powerful inducement not to do so. The market economy offers landowners a strong incentive to manage their holdings for the highest and best economic return. And that can translate into intensive development that may be at odds with natural resource protection. |
| Of course, landowners are not
forced to seek the highest profit obtainable. That
is their choice. But if it is profitable to convert land
from native habitat to agriculture and from agriculture
to condominiums, chances are land will be converted. As a result, Florida is literally "driving with the brakes on." Public policies are being enacted and expenditures made that are in conflict with each other -- "stepping on the accelerator" to promote the market economy, and "stepping on the brakes" to constrain its undesirable effects. Farmers (and other landowners) are often caught in the middle. They may enjoy the natural resources on their property, but the market economy does not reward them for giving up development of their land so wetlands ... or wildlife species ... can survive. Laurie Ann Macdonald, a St. Petersburg zoologists/ecologist, once said: "Ecological systems will exist in the absence of a human economy. But human economic systems cannot exist without a reasonably healthy environment. " That may be true. But the question is: what is the best way to motivate a landowner to care for these resources? When economics and natural resource protection come into conflict -- as in the case of efforts to preserve the Everglades and critical habitat for the Florida panther -- many landowners feel they have only two choices: sell their land to the government so its resources can be protected or live with more regulations that may ultimately drive them out of business. |
| Why not take a new approach to
natural resource protection? First, think of wetlands,
the Florida panther, natural resources and open space as
"environmental products. " Then compensate
landowners for producing or caring for these products ...
on our behalf. Won't that, in turn, reduce the chance
that a landowner might want to replace wetlands or
critical panther habitat with a more traditional
commodity that would earn a profit or sell out so the
land can be developed for a higher cash return? This may require a new way of looking at environmental protection and the market economy. But it is one many landowners can easily understand. When one landowner in southwest Florida was asked what he would say if he was paid to grow panther habitat, he responded immediately by saying, "Here, kitty, kitty ... " Finding workable ways to tie good stewardship to good business decisions is important. The intent is to turn wetlands, panthers and other natural resources into an asset for landowners ... to encourage them to grow and maintain these resources just like any other crop that they might produce on their land ... and to provide them with an economic return for doing so. This is an approach that applauds and compensates landowners who choose to nurture rare and precious commodities -- such as the endangered Florida panther or areas of natural habitat and open space -- that society wishes to preserve. The approach also makes good economic sense. An economic analysis conducted in 1994 by Hendry County Extension Director Dallas Townsend indicates it is far cheaper to keep land on property tax roles and in economic production while paying landowners for stewardship efforts than it is to buy land, take it off tax roles and maintain it at public cost. It also may be cheaper to pay incentives to a landowner to encourage proper stewardship, than to let a resource degrade and pay to clean it up later.
|
| Part of the problem lies with our
land appraisal process. Land is valued on the basis of
how many houses or condos it will accommodate ... not on
how effectively it will grow our food ... or how
important it is for water recharge ... or as wildlife
habitat. In fact, there presently is no way within the market economy to assign a dollar value to the land's ability to grow food ... or to the natural resources and wildlife it harbors. As a result, our society tends to view open, green land as a temporary holding pattern ... awaiting conversion to a higher and better use ... such as condominiums. This has led to the destruction of many agricultural and natural resources ... a trend that is continuing in Florida ... and throughout the United States. Because of the false economics created by the land appraisal process, these lands are under constant pressure to be converted to other uses. Some people think the solution is stronger zoning regulations ... and more rules. Unfortunately, zoning can be changed by a simple majority vote. And it often is changed ... usually because someone can make more money selling land for development than farming it or keeping it in its natural state. As a result, zoning has not worked as a means of protecting farmland ... or natural resources. |
| Nationwide, we lose almost 1
million acres of productive farmland to urban conversion
every year. In Florida, the conversion rate has averaged
150,000 acres per year since 1980. That's 17 acres ... or
about 13 football fields ... each and every hour. To understand this trend, consider Broward County. It once was one of Florida's most important agricultural counties. And it contained a significant portion of the original Everglades. Today it is almost wall-to-wall subdivisions. Now, Dade County is at a crossroads. Dade County planners would like to make another attempt to retain "a critical mass" of the county's remaining agricultural land. Traditional approaches to farmland protection, such as land use planning, regulation, purchase of development rights (or agricultural conservation easements) -- are not likely to work in Dade County. A majority of farmers and farm groups do not feel these concepts or the agencies and organizations promoting them will advance their interests. |
|
Florida
Stewardship Foundation || 621 N.W. 53rd Street, Suite
240 || Boca Raton, Florida 33487 |
