Economics
 

Click on your Choice:
download this chapter in a PDF file

view web pages:

A Conducive Business Climate

Priority Actions:

Regulatory Climate | Local Government | All Policy Areas | Federal Programs

IMPROVE REGULATORY CLIMATE:

Conclusion: Need to find ways to improve the regulatory climate so agricultural operations can comply with laws that are important to public health, safety and protection of the environment, without being placed at an economic disadvantage to foreign producers and other types of land uses that could displace agriculture and result in even greater environmental impacts. 

 Suggested Actions: Here are several ways in which this might be done in South Florida:

Industry groups should be encouraged to develop standards that can be easily adopted by producers to meet or exceed current regulations (examples: Florida Cattlemen's Association's Best Management Practices manual; U.S. Foundry Association, which defined standards that exceed OSHA's standards for its members to implement.) 
Stress that the purpose of changes is to simplify the current regulatory process, not avoid or weaken laws, rules or regulations.

 Agencies must ensure they have the authority to waive their rules and regulations if it can be demonstrated that another approach suggested by a farm group, or developed as a result of the steps suggested below, can meet the objectives of their rules and regulations, exceed minimum standards and/or produce a net environmental benefit. Use demonstration projects to test different approaches, recruit additional volunteers, demonstrate to other agencies and growers that this alternate approach works so they will support it. 

 Note: This will work only if it comes from the bottom up, and is embraced by industry groups and producers. It has to be something they are sure will work for them, will benefit them, and is designed with their input to meet their specific needs. It will not work if it is imposed from above by government, in which case, it is likely to just be viewed as another layer of bureaucracy. Government has to be the facilitator, to allow farm groups and producers to take a lead in suggesting approaches that can simplify the current regulatory climate. One possible approach is described below:

 It is recommended that the focus be on integrating all external demands — all rules, regulations, monitoring and reporting requirements, recommended practices, licenses and permits, etc. — from all sectors of society — land use, health, public safety, utilities, road and street, solid waste, occupational safety, environment, water management, unemployment and worker's compensation, farmworker housing, motor carrier safety, etc. — into the internal operating plan or plans that are used to guide day-to-day operations, so that every action that is taken by every employee ensures the smooth operation of an agricultural enterprise while at the same time ensuring compliance with all rules and regulations that govern the enterprise.

Further, it is recommended that the document that results from this process be called an Integrated Operating Plan, to indicate that all operating requirements — both external and internal — are integrated into a single, site-specific plan that can be easily understood and followed by every employee. 

The duration of the Integrated Operating Plan should be a minimum of 10 years or, preferably, 20 years before it has to be revised. 

All appropriate regulators — including planners, water management districts, environmental regulatory departments, etc. — should be involved in developing the Integrated Operating Plan. 

Once the Plan is in place, all policy makers and regulators should be required to exempt operations with approved Integrated Operating Plans from all new rules, regulations, land use changes, assessments and fees until it is time to revise the Integrated Operating Plan.

 This approach holds the potential to actually exceed current minimum standards and requirements. And it could provide a net environmental benefit over current regulatory approaches. This is because it would be an incentive-based document that includes incentives for surpassing minimum requirements, plus it would incorporate all permits, regulations and requirements into an easy to read, easy to understand "operating plan" that would act as a day-to-day operational guide for all employees. Consequently, this approach assures that all procedures necessary for meeting the objectives of these permits, regulations and requirements would become a part of the daily operating procedures followed by each employee.

 The Integrated Operating Plan would be a step-by-step "how to" guide to be used by all employees, supervisors and managers. It would be designed to highlight key actions that must be taken by all employees to properly operate equipment and follow practices to ensure efficient production and compliance with the regulations and permits that would be required in lieu of the Integrated Operating Plan. However, to ensure that it is as easily readable and easily understandable as possible, the Operating Plan also must be succinct. It therefore would act primarily as a detailed outline that would be supplemented with more specific and illustrative descriptions that are incorporated by reference. These other descriptions would include: notebooks containing details on recommended practices; supervisors' manuals that are more detailed and updated as necessary; the manuals provided by equipment manufacturers, chemical companies and other suppliers; and manuals that already in use by the agricultural operation. 

 The Integrated Operating Plan would be divided into sections, each covering a single "production location" or "operating unit" that plays a role in the integrated agricultural objectives of the company. For the purposes of this document, a "production location" or "operating unit," would be defined as "an agricultural operation with clearly defined boundaries that is not adjacent to another operating unit by the same owner."

Descriptions of the current operations for each unit would be broken down by activity. For example: 

 - Groundwater Management
- Surface Water Management
- Chemical Applications & Handling Management
- Nutrient Management
- Waste Management
- Equipment Management
- Upland Wildlife Habitat Management
- Wetland Wildlife Habitat Management
- Prescribed Grazing
- Prescribed Burning
- Brush Management
- Pest Management
- Noxious and Invasive Plant Control Management
and:
 - Opportunities for Environmental Enhancement Management (e.g., planting legumes in pastures, use of no-till and multi-crop systems, and non-chemical pest control, etc.) Note: these practices are optional, but if pursued, would help to result in "bonus payments."

Also, as appropriate to the type of operation:

 - Crop Management
- Grove Management
- Nursery Management
- Forage Production Management
- Forage Harvest Management
- Grazing Management
- Livestock Management
- Forest Planting Management
- Forest Growth Management
- Forest Harvesting Management
- Mining/Resource Extraction Management
- Packing Plant Operations Management
- Processing Plant Operations Management
- Machine Shop Operations Management
____________ (fill in as appropriate) Operations Management

 It is recommended that a 10-minute video, based on the text of the Integrated Operating Plan, also be developed for each operation at each production location, so that employees can be shown each operation step. This would be particularly useful in training employees, providing "refresher" courses to ensure consistent practices and in showing outsiders how operations are conducted.

 As part of his or her orientation with the ag operation, each employee would familiarize himself or herself with the contents of the Integrated Operating Plan at the site where he or she is going to work, and would sign an acknowledgment of understanding the contents. The Integrated Operating Plan should be easily understood and should answer any questions the employee has regarding the production element of the operation where he or she works. If any questions are unanswered or if the Operating Plan is confusing or poorly understood, the employee would notify his or her supervisor, who would explore improvement or changes needed in the Operating Plan, or help the employee understand.

 The Operating Plan — and any updates made to the Plan, which are made during its 5-year reviews, or at the request of the Landowner or Agricultural Operation Manager — should be developed and approved with the participation of all agencies that would be accepting the plan in lieu of their normal regulatory requirements and/or permits. 

 The intent is to design the Integrated Operating Plan so that it incorporates all external demands and requirements mandated by society into the daily actions and operating procedures followed by each employee. By creating an easy to read and easy to understand plan, all parties would benefit, since optimum production can be more easily assured, compliance with all permits and regulations that would have been required in lieu of the Operating Plan can be more easily assured, and optimal environmental sensitivity and compatibility, worker safety and public health requirements can be more easily assured.

 The Integrated Operating Plan should be designed to:
Simplify permitting:

 - Reduce paperwork to save time and money.
- Reduce cost of compliance.
- Simplify regulations; make them understandable to the average business owner.
- Create permit durations that fit with the realities of farming.
- Eliminate conflicts among agency staff in interpretation of rules. 
- Eliminate duplication among agencies.
- Take a team approach to multi-agency issues.
- Improve intergovernmental coordination.

"Good example of inter-governmental coordination is Suwannee River Nutrient Management Working Group," according to Pat Cockrell of the Florida Farm Bureau Federation. "Over 20 agencies and groups are signatories working for voluntary compliance"

 - Change emphasis from enforcement to compliance monitoring.
- Cultivate a "customer service" attitude among regulators toward agricultural industry.
- Provide the agricultural industry with a central source of reliable information on what rules they must comply with. 

 Pat Cockrell says: "There is a need for a ‘central clearinghouse' on all rules. This was proposed in the agricultural water policy group, but no agencies were willing to take on this project."

 Gail C. Stern suggests: "How about an agricultural Internet site for all farming interests? A one stop government address for all concerns, permitting questions, [and] a uniform farming code [that is both] reasonable and understandable." (Note: this idea has been put in practice at http://www.agregs.com)
Provide information on who to contact for more specific information within each agency.

Give each person applying for a farming-related permit an Ag advisor (champion/caseworker) — someone to assist them through the entire process

Recognize that the costs of compliance cannot be passed on to buyers of farm commodities. 
Provide producers with a way to come into compliance at a lower cost. 

Consider implementing Integrated Operating Plans at no cost to participating companies or as a cost-share program.

It is in the public's interest to require compliance with all necessary practices and safeguards to ensure environmental compatibility and protection of public health and safety, but not at the expense of forcing producers out of business and making American consumers more reliant on foreign producers who do not have to abide by the same rules and safeguards.

Hence, it is not unreasonable to ask the public to share in the cost of regulatory compliance (perhaps through the voluntary, $1, $3 or $5 per shopping trip donation recommended under Priority Action 4-D in Section

In the end, the American consumer will benefit because the U.S. can maintain its food production capability, continue to lead the world in the safety of its food and continue to provide the consumer with the world's lowest cost food.
Ensure that rules pass the test of "common sense." 
Identified as a possible task for assistance from the Governor's Commission for the Everglades 
Tie regulations to good science. 
 Identified as a possible task for assistance from the Governor's Commission for the 
Contributing action recommended by NRCS:
 Action: Increase NRCS staffing
 Responsible: NRCS
 Duration: Short term (1-2 years)

 Develop and use Best Management Practices (BMPs) in lieu of permitting. 
Identified as a possible task for assistance from the Governor's Commission for the Everglades

Pat Cockrell of the Florida Farm Bureau cautions that "as the document is approved and the physical BMPs are put on the ground, their value should not be incorporated into the value of the land under property tax assessment."

 Eliminate unfunded mandates. 

 Provide alternatives to the current regulatory approach to addressing environmental problems 
 Contributing action recommended by NRCS:
 Action: Increase NRCS staffing
 Responsible: NRCS
 Duration: Short term (1-2 years)

 Incorporate incentives for conservation practices to care for and maintain ecological values in natural areas (see Resource Conservation Agreement under Priority Action 1-B-2 in Section 4). 
 Contributing action recommended by NRCS:
 Action: Increase funding for Farm Bill programs
 Responsible: USDA
 Duration: Short term (1-2 years)/Long term (2+ years)

 Action: Provide incentives for conservation payments
 Responsible: USDA
 Duration: Short term (1-2 years)/Long term (2+ years)

 Action: Provide incentives to agriculture to maintain wildlife habitat
 Responsible: USDA
 Duration: Short term (1-2 years)/Long term (2+ years)

 Action: Seek state funding for conservation programs (Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program - CREP, Mobile Irrigation Labs MILs and Resource Conservation Agreement - RCA)
 Responsible: Conservation partners
 Duration: Short term (1-2 years)

 Train agency staff so they will be more knowledgeable about agriculture, and about the ways in which the Integrated Operating Plan can work to the benefit of each agency's mission and goals. 
Identified as a possible task for assistance from the Governor's Commission for the Everglades 

 Ferdinand F. Wirth, Ph.D., has several suggestions re: an education program for agency regulatory staff. "Having spent 4 years as an official advocate for agriculture development at the state and county level [in Delaware], my experience has been that most regulatory problems are created by overzealous regulatory agency personnel who (1) know very little about agriculture, (2) have a tendency to make the most restrictive, technical interpretation of laws, far in excess of the original legislative intent of the law, and (3) apply to agriculture laws that were originally intended to control pollution from municipalities and industrial firms. 

"The best solution I found was to slowly educate the regulatory agency staff on the differences between agriculture and other types of resource users. There should also be some form of agriculture ombudsman at the state regulatory agencies, or some other form of oversight committee to prevent regulatory agency staff from going overboard."

Funding should be continued for an extension of studies that are being done in the Kissimmee River Basin. This funding should be provided to USDA, working in concert with DOACS, IFAS and other groups, to:

 1) Conduct studies to clearly identify and document the environmental benefits of ranching and farming in Florida and demonstrate how agriculture can improve its benefit to the environment. These studies should:
Provide missing data. For example, as Frank Mazzotti, Ph.D. says: "We know very little about wildlife use in ag fields. People see it all the time, but we've never quantified it."

Emphasize how agriculture is highly adaptable and flexible on environmental issues, when compared with other types of land use (i.e., benefits of "Living Lightly on the Land.")

Provide data to justify payments of incentives for environmental benefits.

Conduct a benefit/cost analysis that demonstrates: 1) comparison between maintaining lands in agriculture versus urban development, and 2) the explicit benefits to the environment provided by maintaining land in agriculture 
Identified as a possible task for assistance from the Governor's Commission for the Everglades

Demonstrate benefits of Integrated Operating Plan concept.

Demonstrate benefits of Resource Conservation Agreement concept (see Priority Action 1-B-2, Section 4).

Demonstrate that BMPs are energy efficient, cost less, help the environment and help the bottom line.

Provide data to "show that prevention is cheaper than restoration." 

Questions that need to be addressed include the following: "What is the value of agriculture to the local society?
How can agricultural practice be modified profitably to enhance wildlife? What changes in laws, rules and regulations are desirable to make more sustainable practices profitable (or affordable)? How would such changes affect the community as a whole? What should be the relative roles of public lands versus private lands?"

 Contributing action recommended by NRCS:
 Action: Report values of private ownership
Responsible: State and federal agencies
Duration: Short term (1-2 years)

2) "Create a scientific framework to ensure the best decisions possible, build confidence and consensus in decision making process, and reconcile conflicts between protection and use." 

Recommendations:

Who: The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), USDA, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), DOACS, OTTED and water management districts (WMDs). Also, farm groups and individual producers who would like to participate in prototype projects should be recruited.
What: Need major statewide effort. DEP, working with EPA, USDA, USFWS, DOACS, OTTED and WMDs, should invite farm groups to work together in constructive efforts to improve the regulatory climate. This should include steps to:
develop standards that will simplify current rules, regulations and permitting procedures without weakening them;
develop more efficient, cost-effective approaches for agricultural enterprises and business operations to comply with all "external" demands and requirements that are placed on these operations by society;
use prototype programs to test "whole farm plans," "integrated operating plans" and other approaches to improving the regulatory climate; and
provide training to policy makers, regulators and agency staff about the differences between agriculture and other types of land uses and businesses

 Identified as a possible task for assistance from the Governor's Commission for the Everglades.

Designed & Maintained by The Mousepad, Inc.
Send email comments and inquiries to: info@privatelands.org
Photo courtesy of South Florida Water Management District
Copyright 2000 by Florida Stewardship Foundation | All rights reserved.