Havens for Threatened & Endangered Species Report on the May 1998 Workshop

Please click on your choice:

| Attendance | Sponsors | Overview |
| Discussion Group 1 -- Lease Concepts | Discussion Group 2 -- Points of Concern |
| Discussion Group 3 -- Applying the Lease | Additional Comments (submitted on 4x6 cards) |
| Discussion Groups 4 & 5:  Steps to Creating Landowner/Government Partnerships |
| Discussion of Model Project (Hall Ranch) | Workshop Highlights | Workshop Evaluation |

Sixty people attended the two-day workshop at the Best Western Waterfront Hotel in Punta Gorda, Florida May 11 and 12, 1998.  The participants included:

Sponsors

Funding for this phase of the project (Phase 3) is being provided by the generous support of The Curtis and Edith Munson Foundation; Florida Game & Fresh Water Fish Commission, Advisory Council on Environmental Education; and Turner Foundation.

The host sponsor for the workshop was Babcock Florida Company.   Workshop funding also was provided by the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and Florida Farm Bureau Federation.

Overview

Participants gathered for their third workshop meeting with the objective of finding as many points of consensus as possible on items as yet unresolved. These concerns were framed in three primary groupings: lease concepts, points of concern, and guidelines for applying the lease. There was significant evidence of previous workshop consensus reflected in the evolving lease document.   The primary task for this workshop was to recommend further bridging solutions on outstanding items that could then be similarly incorporated into the lease documents.

The process used was a combination of listening/learning, thinking/responding and talking/proposing.

The workshop began with an overview of an economic analysis comparing the cost of the proposed lease program with government ownership and maintenance of land, given by Martin B. Main, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Southwest Florida Research and Education Center., University of Florida. Comprehensive information on this and other agenda items were included in participants' workbooks. (For information on this analysis, go to study summary.  For copies of the materials included in the participant notebooks, go to workshop agenda and workshop materials, #2 through #8.)

The second segment involved a "walk about" to view and comment on the three subject areas of outstanding items. Participants were given three colors of post-it flags, and asked to use a consensus model to guide their "voting":

1.     Green flag:  This is good; I agree:

2.     Yellow flag:  I may not agree 100%, but I can live with it: 

3.     Orange flag:  I cannot agree; this needs major work: 

Participants were also encouraged to offer specific suggestions for alternative language in all cases where a 3 (or Orange flag) was their vote. The third and fourth segments were breakout sessions where three small groups considered in detail the orange-flagged items, talking about and developing proposals to address any polarized positions. The walk about allowed everyone to have input on the two subject areas that were considered by groups outside their own assignment. All participants were heartened to see the preponderance of green post-it flags in all three arenas.

Participants were presented with a resolution adopted by the Florida House of Representatives supporting the project's premises and objectives in a luncheon presentation by Rep. Ralph L. Livingston (District 75, Ft. Myers).  For the text of the resolution, go to House Resolution No. 9477.

The day wrapped up with a tour of a portion of the 90,000-acre Babcock Ranch followed by a  barbecue dinner, both provided by the Babcock Florida Company. Comments about the time that was spent as guests of the Babcock family included several expressions of pride (from other landowners) and approval (from conservation and government representatives) of the fine land stewardship practices this operation represented.

News teams from the local CBS and FOX television affiliates recorded portions of the day's activities and tour and comments from participants for reports on Ft. Myer's 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. news.  A reporter from the Sarasota Herald-Tribune spent most of the day with the group and wrote a positive, balanced story for the May 12 edition of the paper.

Day two began with a brief break-out session to prepare recommendations and proposals for presentation to the full group. There was overlap between the groups as a few of the more challenging issues were once again considered (i.e. access and monitoring, habitat versus species protection, additional payments to landowners if an intensified agricultural use is denied). The general tone of the meeting was conciliatory and, in a number of cases, groups were able to craft compromises that maintained flexibility while honoring differing approaches. These proposals are shown in detail below.  See:

| Discussion Group 1 -- Lease Concepts | Discussion Group 2 -- Points of Concern |
| Discussion Group 3 -- Applying the Lease | Additional Comments (submitted on 4x6 cards) |

The segments before, during and after lunch involved providing feedback to government agencies on the criteria perceived by the participants as necessary for sustaining a viable and profitable agricultural industry in Florida. Responses were captured and are presented following the proposals.  See:

| Discussion Groups 4 & 5:  Steps to Creating Landowner/Government Partnerships |

A test of the lease concept, to be conducted on the 5,500-acre Hall Ranch in DeSoto County, was presented by Craig Evans and discussed by the group. Responses to the question, "What can we do to help?" were charted (see Discussion of Model Project (Hall Ranch) ).  At the end of the day, Craig summarized progress, outlined next steps, and thanked the group for its hard work, valuable contributions and ongoing involvement in this important project. Comments were collected in three formats: 4x6 cards were available throughout the workshop and participants were encouraged to express their ideas, suggestions and concerns by writing them on a 4x6 card. Comments were expressed verbally in the closing conversation at the end of the workshop, and finally comments were submitted on written workshop evaluation forms. The group closed on a positive note, buoyed with both confidence and hope -- confidence based on real consensus achieved, and hope that the still outstanding issues will be similarly resolved.

Go to (click on your choice): | Top | Bottom | Workshop Highlights | Workshop Evaluation |

Concept 1; paragraph 2, line 4 reads:

Because the term easement will represent an interest in land, only government agencies with authority to purchase interests in land would be able to negotiate leases, and....

Discussion Point: government is not the only entity that can enter into agreements.

The following change was agreed upon:  Because the term easement will represent an interest in land, only ORGANIZATIONS AND agencies with authority to purchase interests in land would be able to negotiate leases, and....

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Description of Lease Concepts (as revised, based on workshop input) |

The focus of the leases should be on ensuring the viable function and integrity of natural habitats, not on the health or numbers of specific species. While there is still disagreement on this point among some members of the project's Review Committee, there is unanimity among landowners and agreement among many members of the conservation community that the project should focus only on protecting essential habitat. The factors involved with the Florida panthers' genetics and other factors affecting the species' health are beyond the control of any single private landowner.

Discussion Points:   The two principle issues, which are agreed upon by all, held in this paragraph are:

1) preserving species is the overall program objective

2) landowners have no control over their numbers or condition

While point two is articulated clearly, point one has not been. Therefore: 

The following change was agreed upon:

WHILE THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE OF THIS PROGRAM IS TO ENSURE THE PERPETUATION OF THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES, The focus of the leases should be on ensuring the viable function and integrity of natural habitats, WHICH IN TURN SHOULD IMPROVE the health or numbers of specific species.

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Description of Lease Concepts (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Concept 7, paragraph 1, item 2 reads:

2) it would be less restrictive than a conservation easement

Discussion Points:   The way this provision (and much of the document) is framed implies that this lease concept is "better" than the current alternatives when this program is untried and not in place.

Additionally, a few comments suggested misunderstanding that this program replaces the current conservation easement. That it doesn't' is clearly stated in item 5 of this concept (i.e. one of the characteristics of the lease is that it would contain "incentives to convert this lease into a permanent conservation easement"), which should clarify this misunderstanding.

Change:  With respect to the first concern, the following change was proposed and agreed to:

2) it MAY be less restrictive than a conservation easement

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Description of Lease Concepts (as revised, based on workshop input) |

The basic lease document would not include provisions for monitoring or data gathering, except in a very limited, non-invasive basis. But it would provide flexibility and opportunity to negotiate arrangements with individual landowners to conduct research on one or more species -- in return for additional compensation over and above that contained in the basic lease agreement.

Discussion Points:   The distinction between "monitoring" for compliance with the terms of the agreement and "monitoring" as data gathering and research access is not clear.   Indeed, these are two separate issues. It was agreed that limited non-invasive access in the first instance would be appropriate, and that access for the second instance would be subject to the negotiated terms of the lease.

The basic lease document would [delete NOT] include provisions for monitoring TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT. [delete BUT] It would ALSO provide [delete THE] flexibility and opportunity to negotiate arrangements with individual landowners to conduct research on one or more species -- in return for additional compensation over and above that contained in the basic lease agreement.

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Description of Lease Concepts (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Concept 8, paragraph 2 secondary concern: a philosophical difference about compensating landowners "to follow the law" was raised.   It was agreed that this concern has been noted, but is outside the scope of this program which focuses on providing incentives and compensation for private landowners to maintain and protect endangered species habitat.

 Go to: | Top | Bottom | Description of Lease Concepts (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Concept 9, sliding scale payment option

Discussion Point:   lump sum payment should be an option

Resolution: With the lease document as currently framed, this is an option; each agency has the flexibility to enter into agreements with payment options acceptable to both parties.

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Description of Lease Concepts (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Discussion Group 2 -- Points of Concern

Habitat vs. Species:  Concern #2 reads in part:

Any incentive program must meaningfully advance recovery of all endangered, threatened and candidate species.

Suggestions:

1. This concern/goal can best be met by protecting the habitat through the lease agreement.

2. A sliding scale compensation approach should be pursued for set aside habitat which is species dependent.

3. Note A: baseline data which identifies quality of habitats and species composition is necessary to determine the habitat to be protected.

Note B: lease agreement may be initiated by any landowner, agency or interested party.

Note C: Observation may be done by any landowner. This could be part of the lease agreement that the landowner will assist in the monitoring processes. Some training by trained observers could be included.

Note D: This issue was also discussed and a language change was recommended by group 1. (See discussion re: Lease Concept #8, above.)

 Go to: | Top | Bottom | Points of Concern (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Concern #8: Additional payments to landowners if expanded use of land is denied.

Break-Out Group Suggestions: 

The breakout group considering this issue proposed that the following language be considered:

"If lessor is denied the opportunity to expand or escalate a land use, a lease amendment will need to be negotiated. At the time of renegotiation, the lessee needs to determine whether additional compensation will be paid to the lessor [to preclude the proposed use]. The other option will be for the lessee to terminate  the lease on that portion of the property affected."

Additional payments -- including payments for a permanent conservation easement or fee-simple purchase -- may be considered if expanded use is denied.

This issue was deferred to Web/committee for further discussion.  To post a comment to the web discussion group, click: Post Comment.

 Go to: | Top | Bottom | Points of Concern (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Concern #20:  Determining Program Success (not lease)

Suggestions:

• Panther use (alone) of leased property is not a good measure of success.
• Means to determine success for each lease should be negotiated for each lease.
• Some sort of baseline (habitat quality, species present, etc.) needs to be established for each lease.
• Success should be based on habitat quality, number and amount of species present, also quality of land.
• The cost effectiveness of the process will also dictate the effectiveness of the program.

Total Program Measures of Success

• Identify the scope and acreage in the program. Breakdown by percentage of the quality habitat or potential threatened & endangered species.
• Annual determination of landscape changes that lessen or increase
• threatened & endangered species potential. Define an annual acceptable level of habitat loss or goal for habitat increases
• Annual goals: the amount of acreage that comes into the program and the acceptable level of acreage into leases.
• Applications for leases should be taken twice per year.
• Selection of participants should be based on a ranking process.
• No landowners would be excluded, but the best land would have a higher rank for inclusion.

There was general acceptance of these proposals (no outright rejection #3's or orange flags); however, the group would like to continue the conversation though the web site and committee work.

 Go to: | Top | Bottom | Points of Concern (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Discussion Group 3 -- Guidelines for Applying the Lease

There was very little controversy in the proposed guidelines; mostly green stickers, with some yellows, particularly on the issue regarding the proposed term of the lease (see Proposed Guideline #5 below).

Proposed Guideline #2  needs editorial rework.

Currently reads: This program will offer the opportunity to establish long-term management plans on many thousands of acres of habitat that may never be protected through any other means, nor prevented through any law, rule, regulation or limitation on private property rights from being converted to uses that could destroy most or all of their habitat value.

Suggestions are welcome.  To post comments to the web discussion group, please click Post Comment.

Other Comments: Also, clarify language throughout document re: Lessor and Lessee.  One way to keep this straight is to remember that LessOr = landOwner

While we are working together during this preliminary planning period, it would be helpful to specify lessor is landowner and lessee is agency.

Response:  The draft lease documents now include identifiers in each instance in which the terms Lessor [Landowner] and Lessee [government agency or land trust] are used.

 Go to: | Top | Bottom | Guidelines for Applying the Lease (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Proposed Guideline #5

It was recommended that the initial term of the lease be changed from 25 years to 20 years, with responses on this proposal pretty well balanced between various groups (landowners, representatives of government agencies and conservation interests).

Rationales/in favor:

• Dropping term to 20 years might make this more attractive to landowners
• Increase participation
• Forestry and citrus planning is done on 20-year cycles
• Generations are about 20 years between parents and children
• Amortization schedules are in the 15- to 20-year range
• NRCS programs are in increments of 10 years

Negative response:

• Easier to manipulate on agri-planning

 Go to: | Top | Bottom | Guidelines for Applying the Lease (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Proposed Guideline #6

Automatic renewal is OK -- benefit to both landowner and state/federal agency

 Go to: | Top | Bottom | Guidelines for Applying the Lease (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Proposed Guideline #7

The proposed five-year transitions had a lot of discussion.

• Notice at 15 years -- agency contacts landowner
• Transition period benefits state re: purchase plans
• Not believed to be a major disincentive to landowners for major land-use change

Participants felt that the agency should notify the landowner of the five-year milestone. It also was suggested that the group might want to revisit the concept of periodic five-year review of the entire lease document that was discussed in Phase 2. It needs to be clear, however, that the landowners may make any changes that are acceptable within the parameters of the lease.

 Go to: | Top | Bottom | Guidelines for Applying the Lease (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Proposed Guideline #11

Original text: Public access to private lands subject to the leases is not acceptable and is not to be required as a condition of the leases. In the exceptional case where a landowner is willing to allow public access for specific purposes, such access should be negotiated with each individual landowner in a manner acceptable to the landowner, and for additional compensation over and above the base payments provided in the lease agreement.

Edited to read: Public access to private lands subject to the leases is not required as a condition of the leases. In the exceptional case where a landowner is willing to allow public access for specific purposes, such access should be negotiated with each individual landowner in a manner acceptable to the landowner, who may receive additional compensation over and above the base payment provided in the lease agreement.

 Go to: | Top | Bottom | Guidelines for Applying the Lease (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Proposed Guideline #12

Original text:  It is agreed that some level of monitoring is necessary; however, the specific details governing how much monitoring will be permitted or required, at what intervals and under what circumstances should be site specific, and negotiated with each individual landowner.

Edited to read: It is agreed that some level of monitoring is necessary, however the specific details should be site specific and negotiated with each individual landowner.

 Go to: | Top | Bottom | Guidelines for Applying the Lease (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Proposed Guideline #13

Rework.

Currently reads:  It must be understood from the onset that "business as usual" will not work. Individuals from land trusts and agencies involved in negotiations with landowners must work to understand the motivations of private landowners -- their desire to to be left alone, to pursue the quiet and peaceable enjoyment of their property, to be given a goal to work toward (maintaining and improving habitat on their property) and to be rewarded for the actions they take in that regard.  If the leases are perceived as another layer of regulation, or contain lengthy lists of "do's and don'ts" governing every aspect of a landowner's behavior, and give the impression that every action is going to be watched and measured, they won't be accepted and won't work.

Suggestions:  This program is proposing a change in social behavior, in public and private perception of each other. Both sides have valid basis for caution and new tools are needed to try to mend some of these fences. The wording of this section is not adequate to express what needs to happen. A thoughtful careful and precise discussion needs to be held. How this relationship is developed is a critical component in the success of this program -- the whole key is the private landowner and the government and their relationship must be crafted carefully to make it a good one.

Deferred to Web/committee.  To post comments to the web discussion group, please click Post Comment.

 Go to: | Top | Bottom | Guidelines for Applying the Lease (as revised, based on workshop input) |

Additional Comments (submitted on 4x6 cards)

Regarding transition period:

Initial lease period has expired and lease is renewed annually. Landowner notifies in year 27 of intent to terminate.  Landowner wants to intensify use. The transition is five years.  Questions:

1. Is the agency required to continue lease payments during the five year period?
2. If the agency (state) intends to purchase, should they be required to purchase an option?
3. Should they be required to notify the landowner immediately?
4. Should the agency be required to reimburse landowner intensification soft costs if option is not purchased?
5. How can a purchase price be arrived at? Appraisal based on leased use or intensified use?

Responses: 

1. Yes.
2. Yes.  As proposed in current draft of the lease, this would be a part of the agreement from the start.
3. Yes, once agency proposes to exercise its option.
4. This would be negotiated between the parties.
5. Current market value of property at the time that the purchase option is exercised: i.e. price would be based on the recent selling prices of similar properties in the same general vicinity in similar condition. The value of the property would be affected by the lease only if the lease still had a portion of its term to run and, therefore, placed restrictions on the use of the property for that term.

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Lease Concepts | Points of Concern | Guidelines for Applying the Lease | Workshop Materials |

Suggestion

When entire lease is presented in future, consider shading the portions that are not part of the basic lease.

Response:  The basic lease or, what is now called the "Standard Version" is posted separately on the web site (to see current working draft, click on: standard version of proposed lease).  Sections that have been added to the standard version, to create what is now called the "Extended Version -- To Accommodate Expanded Agency Access," are underlined and set off in a different color (to see current working draft, click on: extended version of proposed lease).

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Lease Concepts | Points of Concern | Guidelines for Applying the Lease | Workshop Materials |

Regarding the 5 year transition period

Scenario: Landowner enters a 20 year lease and allows lease to continue for seven years beyond initial term. Understand that landowner is paid under terms of lease for 27 years. Is there a clause that provides for payment during the 5 year transition period?

Response:  Yes.  See the second half of Paragraph 3.02(a) and Paragraph 3.02(b) in the lease.

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Lease Concepts | Points of Concern | Guidelines for Applying the Lease | Workshop Materials |

Comment

I agree that the protection of habitat should be the primary or only responsibility of the landowner, and that increases/decreases of given species is outside the scope of the standard agreement.

Response:  Good.  That it consistent with the way the proposed lease is now written.

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Lease Concepts | Points of Concern | Guidelines for Applying the Lease | Workshop Materials |

Comment

In response to the proposal to prioritize properties to lease -- different agencies will have different priorities and because the lease may be implemented by different agencies, each agency should have freedom to identify and enter into lease agreements as they deem appropriate.

Response:  Good suggestion.  We'll incorporate it.

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Lease Concepts | Points of Concern | Guidelines for Applying the Lease | Workshop Materials |

Concern #8

Terminating the lease by the landowner should not be an option available in negotiating expanded activities. The lease should require the agency to provide the second level of funding for denied expansion, or that the agency terminates the lease.

Response:  That, I believe, is the intent of the proposed language that was advanced by the break-out group that discussed this issue.  See Discussion of Concern #8 above.

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Lease Concepts | Points of Concern | Guidelines for Applying the Lease | Workshop Materials |

Comment

In the current climate of regulatory reform and emphasis on property rights, could the proposed Draft Lease affect the ability of the government to administer the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act or other environmental regulations? Within identified habitats for threatened and endangered species, plotted lands seem to be a major concern. How will the private habitat conservation lease address this concern?

Response:  First question:  The intent of this project and the proposed lease is to IMPROVE the government's ability (and, therefore, the public's ability) to attain the goals and objectives set forth in its environmental regulations.   By augmenting existing rules, regulations and purchase programs with an incentive/compensation program directed to private landowners, the hope is that MORE landowners will WANT to comply with these environmental regulations and, as a result, MORE land will be managed for conservation purposes.  In addition, the program will include additional incentives and compensation to REWARD landowners who are willing to not just comply with environmental regulations, but to INNOVATE on their own, and develop management practices that will help them EXCEED the minimum standards set forth in existing environmental regulations.

Second question:   Whether lands have been plotted or not, the lease will be based on the CURRENT USE of these lands.  The lease will then pay landowners to MANAGE these lands so that natural areas maintain their ecological functions and provide habitat for threatened and endangered species, while uses on "adjoining lands" are carried out in such a way that they do not interfere with the ecological functions of the natural areas.  Again, the landowner will be rewarded with additional compensation if actions are taken that IMPROVE the ecological functions or habitat values of these natural areas.

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Lease Concepts | Points of Concern | Guidelines for Applying the Lease | Workshop Materials |

Comment

A meeting or brochure should be compiled to educate all about the different government and regulatory agencies, their roles, responsibilities and limitations so there is less confusion about this.

Response:  Good idea.  Perhaps the Public Education/Public Policy Committee could take this on as a project.

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Lease Concepts | Points of Concern | Guidelines for Applying the Lease | Workshop Materials |

Comment

First we had tax incentives, now we have direct payments. This needs clarification.

Response:  The intent is to have BOTH.  Tax incentives currently are not available.  Legislation will be required to put them in place.  Existing programs in government with dedicated or discretionary funding are available and may be modified to accommodate the lease/management agreement concept, thus providing several sources of direct payments.  All of these options are currently being pursued.

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Lease Concepts | Points of Concern | Guidelines for Applying the Lease | Workshop Materials |

Discussion Groups 4 & 5:
Steps to Creating Government/Landowner Partnerships

This segment of the workshop was devoted to stimulating discussion and feedback on "How Can Government Agencies Help Improve South Florida Agriculture’s Ability to be Competitive, Profitable, Environmentally-Compatible and, as a result, Sustainable?" The segment was introduced by John Folks of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services and Ron Smola of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.  The issue was discussed over lunch, then in two break-out groups, where participants generated the input listed below on the criteria they perceived as necessary for sustaining a viable and profitable agricultural industry in Florida.

Please click on your choice:

| Focus Questions | Education | Partnerships | Marketing | Research | Trade Policy | Regulations | Public Policy | Tax Changes | Land Use | Further Input |

| Web site devoted to this subject: A New Look at Agriculture |

Focus Questions:

• What do landowners need in order to stay in business over the next fifty years?
• What roadblocks can government help overcome?
• What are some ways we can partner for a sustainable agricultural future.

Above all and including all -- maintain profitability and positive cash flows $$$

Education

• Educate Floridians about agriculture/environmental issues
• Public education of benefits to sustainable agriculture crops
• More understanding on policies
• Funding for agriculture/education and outreach that is focused on coastal Floridians
• Diffuse hot-button issues through education of both sides points of view (i.e. private property rights)
• Consumer education
• More information to the consumer

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Top of this Section | Workshop Materials |

Partnerships

• Agriculture/environmental groups can partner to establish/maintain long-term planning to protect agricultural land use over urban development
• Agricultural/environmental partnerships
• Funding for "consortiums" devoted to creating a sustainable dialogue between the agriculture community and urban/suburban
• Agriculture/environmental groups can partner to restrict production/sale of chemicals not legal in the US
• Hold agriculture conferences in agricultural areas
• Pay landowners to attend conferences
• Continue to improve communication between government and private sectors
• Long-range land use and management plans endorsed by state and local government
• Provide technical support to private co-operators
• Form groups to foster exchange of ideas between urban and agricultural people

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Top of this Section | Workshop Materials |

Marketing

• Increase public awareness on food safety and stress buying locally grown food
• Market diversification
• Pay the same advertising agencies used to stop teen smoking to raise awareness in the public about the value of agriculture
• Focused market research
• More organized marketing
• Research on commodity marketing strategies
• Sponsor research to distribute information on best practices and sponsor market development

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Top of this Section | Workshop Materials |

Research

• Government assistance in development and release of natural pest controls
• Funding for economic studies that clearly identify the environmental values of ranching and farming in Florida
• Research on innovative practices
• Cooperative production practices

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Top of this Section | Workshop Materials |

Trade Policy

• Trade agreements must provide a level playing field
• Balanced and equitable trade policy
• End NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)
• National food labeling laws
• True global free trade open market
• Require imported fruits and vegetables to be labeled with point of origin
• Changes in the policies and international agreements of the federal government
• Impose the same chemical requirements on imports as on domestic products
• Global economy must have level regulations (global regulations?)
• Equitable trade rules
• Improved product labeling
• Ensure public health (safety from chemical poisoning)
• Regulations for imports consistent with domestic products
• Enforce trade agreement balance
• National food security policy
• Have a food policy
• Monitor more
• Level the playing field

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Top of this Section | Workshop Materials |

Regulations

• One clearing house for governments
• Reduced number of regulations and cost
• Less government regulations at local level
• No unfunded mandates
• More regulation of fresh imports
• Streamline permitting
• Encourage and fund whole farm planning
• Reduce & simplify regulation compliance
• Tie regulations to good science
• Environmental and water regulations must be based on sound science
• Coordination of water permitting, water availability between local government and water management districts
• Equitable access to water
• Water use is state/federal issue -- need legislation or approach that links land use (local/regional issue) to water use

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Top of this Section | Workshop Materials |

Public Policy

• Establish public policy that acknowledges the value of agriculture to public interest
• Change government agency attitude about public access on less-than-fee conservation purchases
• Assist in labor procurement
• Long term water management policies that work
• Fewer loan programs
• Changes in federal government laws and policies that encourage non-industrial agriculture
• Control population
• Rent easements
• The Florida right to farm law is inconsistent (in contradiction with) the 163 comprehensive plan
• Team permitting -- encourage BMP's

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Top of this Section | Workshop Materials |

Tax Changes

• Estate tax relief
• Provide incentives for sound agricultural practices
• Inheritance tax relief or removal
• Changes in federal government laws on inheritance taxes
• Establish tax incentives for environmental benefits
• Give marketable credits to landowners practicing sound land management of natural habitats
• Tax relief
• Help with taxes
• Improve tax incentives for large landowners
• Establish federal tax incentives for less-than-perpetual easements or management agreements
• Eliminate estate taxes
• Pay inheritance taxes for family farms that would otherwise be lost (in exchange for continued farming)
• Triple the amount of estate value exempt from inheritance taxes (in addition to current planned increase)

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Top of this Section | Workshop Materials |

Land Use

• Failure of zoning as a tool to manage agricultural land, open space and conservation
• Link land use to water use
• Maintain equity in the land
• Mandate/preserve agricultural zones
• Provide avenues to support total resource management practices
• Provide agricultural economist to aid producers in management practice decisions

Go to: | Top | Bottom | Top of this Section | Workshop Materials |

Further Input