A Hudson Valley Foodshed Protection movement?
This is a blog post I wrote (it could use some editing) directed at city folks, but it applies to all of us in the Northeastern US really, as we are net food importers as a region. Whether you believe we are going to need 50 million more farmers by 2050, or 20 million by 2020 might depend a bit on which food writer you are reading, but whatever the case new farmer opportunities are critical as we work to rebuild a sustainable, just, healthy local food system.
People in NYC are concerned about a fair, clean, healthy, and equitable local food supply, but how is that going to happen without access to land by new farmers? Speculation on land in the Hudson Valley has driven the price of farmland far beyond its "agricultural carrying capacity". This is not just a problem for new farmers, this is a threat to the long term food security of everyone in the region.
NYS and NYC do not currently have a coherent, or well funded foodshed protection effort, and if NYC people want to eat secure, healthy, local affordable food they are going to need one.
Massachusetts, and Vermont both have pretty good statewide programs
whose goal is not just preserving farmland from development (open space
protection) but that endeavor to make the land affordable to new farmers
and make sure that the land actually remains in productive farming.
http://www.mass.gov/agr/landuse/APR/objectives.htm
http://www.vhcb.org/Conspage.html
NYS does not have such a program, though it does have a PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) program that
works with existing land owning farmers. This is a needed and useful
effort in and of itself, but doesn't do a whole lot to address our
communities need for new farmers. It also does not have mechanisms in
place that guarantee either that the protected land remain in
food-production, or that it will be transferred to a new farmer when
sold. This limitation has to do with how the conservation easements and the
PDR program are actually implemented in NYS.
A strong argument can be made that NYS taxpayers
are not getting the most out of their direct subsidy dollars in these programs if their goal is
protecting the food-shed, and not just the "view-shed".
If we look at the work of large and small non-profit Conservation Land
Trust organizations in the downstate region, they have had limited
success in creating opportunities for new farmers. They work primarily by providing tax
incentives (facilitating an income tax deduction) to
private landowners who donate their development rights.
are not getting the most out of their direct subsidy dollars in these programs if their goal is
protecting the food-shed, and not just the "view-shed".
If we look at the work of large and small non-profit Conservation Land
Trust organizations in the downstate region, they have had limited
success in creating opportunities for new farmers. They work primarily by providing tax
incentives (facilitating an income tax deduction) to
private landowners who donate their development rights.
Now, this may not be a direct subsidy from the NYS budget, but it is a subsidy from taxpayers
nonetheless, and taxpayers have a stake in the public benefit these subsidy
dollars achieve.
nonetheless, and taxpayers have a stake in the public benefit these subsidy
dollars achieve.
Open space is a public benefit, but open space that provides
food is a greater, and more equitable public benefit.
While the work of Conservation Land Trusts like Dutchess Conservancy have been
very effective at preserving "open space" they have done little to benefit
working farmers who usually cannot benefit from the large income tax deductions that is the heart of their conservation strategy. In this regard unfortunately, the work of these organizations has
only exacerbated (and subsidized) the land rush on Hudson Valley farmland by estate
buyers, who typically do not grow food, and have further driven the
price of farmland out of reach of new farmers.
In fairness, many of the folks that work at these land trusts "get it",
and some of them are working on ways to get new farmers onto the land,
usually through leases with private landowners. Columbia Land Conservancy in
particular is working on this. They will be the first to admit though
that there are real limitations in this approach, as the needs for
permanence, housing, and an equity stake, which are often the greatest needs for
new farmers, are usually missing from
these arrangements.
We have also found that the existing land trusts, though they may be
sympathetic to the needs of new farmers, are just so heavily invested in
the private conservation model, that they don't have the time,
organizational ability, or even more powerfully perhaps the desire to
adapt/change their paradigm enough to create these opportunities.
I think this all means there is both a desperate need for, and growing
new opportunities for raising funds and support for efforts that clearly
articulate the need to protect the "foodshed" as much as the "viewshed".
And the people who will make this happen will probably not be the upstate estate owners protecting their property values and their "viewshed" but downstate eaters who are protecting their communities long term needs, and their own sustainable "foodshed"
Kevin Skvorak
Hudson Valley Community and Agricultural Land Trust www.HVCALT.org
food is a greater, and more equitable public benefit.
While the work of Conservation Land Trusts like Dutchess Conservancy have been
very effective at preserving "open space" they have done little to benefit
working farmers who usually cannot benefit from the large income tax deductions that is the heart of their conservation strategy. In this regard unfortunately, the work of these organizations has
only exacerbated (and subsidized) the land rush on Hudson Valley farmland by estate
buyers, who typically do not grow food, and have further driven the
price of farmland out of reach of new farmers.
In fairness, many of the folks that work at these land trusts "get it",
and some of them are working on ways to get new farmers onto the land,
usually through leases with private landowners. Columbia Land Conservancy in
particular is working on this. They will be the first to admit though
that there are real limitations in this approach, as the needs for
permanence, housing, and an equity stake, which are often the greatest needs for
new farmers, are usually missing from
these arrangements.
We have also found that the existing land trusts, though they may be
sympathetic to the needs of new farmers, are just so heavily invested in
the private conservation model, that they don't have the time,
organizational ability, or even more powerfully perhaps the desire to
adapt/change their paradigm enough to create these opportunities.
I think this all means there is both a desperate need for, and growing
new opportunities for raising funds and support for efforts that clearly
articulate the need to protect the "foodshed" as much as the "viewshed".
And the people who will make this happen will probably not be the upstate estate owners protecting their property values and their "viewshed" but downstate eaters who are protecting their communities long term needs, and their own sustainable "foodshed"
Kevin Skvorak
Hudson Valley Community and Agricultural Land Trust www.HVCALT.org
--
Tags: farmland, foodshed protection, new farmers
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by D. C. Rowland on -
This is an excelent post. I would suggest focusing both geographically and by farming type. The Hudson Valley can do four types of agriculture very well, and they more or less fall in different areas; animals/grazing land; row-crops/bottom land; and horticulture crops, including both fruit crops/orchard and vineyard land and vegetable crops/field land. The best Hudson Valley grazing/dairy land is in the Catskills and the Taconics, focus your dairy and grass-fed efforts there. The best row-crop land is in the flood plains of rivers like the Wallkill, Roundout, and Esopus, focus on grain, alleiums, brassicas, rootcrops, etc. Focus on the fruit farms in the Marlboro - Lloyd - Esopus area and the river towns on the Dutchess/Columbia side as well. The best land here, aka the closest to the river, should be dedicated to wine grapes, other areas to cider apples, cherries, plums etc, and specialty vegetable crops like tomatoes, peppers, tomatillos, cucumbers, eggplant, okra, etc.
-
Permalink Reply by greg draiss on -
It would seem that the United States is inwardly focused on self preservation through organics and environmental practices these days. "Green Washing" a term coined to define products that claim to be green but may only be on a limited level. Now that "Organic" has federal guidelines before being applied to many products the race is on to define "Natural" in the same way. Rest assured that the predicament is not just in the U.S. but down under as well. Free Range Chickens may get a new definition allowing an increase in the number of chickens per ,ot by ten fold and also allow for de-beaking.
Plans by the Australian Egg Corporation Ltd to review the standards of free range egg production have caused a schism in the industry, with free-range producers refusing to agree to changes that could see the maximum number of 'free range' birds per hectare increase from 1500 to as many as 20 000, and allow de-beaking.
Small farmers, free range producers and animal welfare groups are outraged over the proposed changes, saying that they are a concession to the AECL's main members - larger cage and barn producers.
Industry players got away with labelling their eggs 'free range' simply by putting doors in the sides of their 30 000-bird sheds, but kept all food and water inside.
Phil Westwood said that the AECL could avoid the watering down of the 'free range' label by introducing more specific labels, such as 'semi-intensive' (as used by the EU) or 'cage-free'.
The above is from the publication Australia Food News. Click for more information on the story.
The next time yo see a biodegradable flower pot, a bird feeder made from recycled milk bottles think twice. What good is a biodegradable flower pot if you have to buy another one in two years? How much energy goes into manufacturing, shipping, and distribution of that flower pot. A "normal" plastic pot lasts for decades.
In theory just going organic is passe'. Think about the total "footprint" a product or practice makes. Footprints are important not only if you are green conscious footprints also equate to dollars. The larger the footprint the more dollars it costs you in the end. And who said greens and capitalists could no co-exist?
-
Permalink Reply by sarah williford & kevin skvorak on
-
Hey folks,
There are some of us contemplating organizing a meeting to discuss some of the issues around farmland protection in New Paltz in the near future. Anyone like to be part of this conversation?
pls give us a call if so. thanks!
kevin
www.regenerationcsa.org
-
Permalink Reply by Joyce Henion on -
The issue of farmland protection is not just one of concern to New Paltz. New Paltz, Marbletown and Shawangunk took state grant money last year to develop farmland protection plans and in the town of Shawangunk that process has pretty much been a joke. Too often what is labled farmland protection is actually open space preservation and that is often because open space doesn't make noise, is odorless, and makes a pretty picture. Farmland protection needs to be defined in a more broad working sense as a means to helping working farms of all sizes to be recognized as an important asset and intergrated into the community at large . Working farms provide food security, keep money in the local economy, and facilitate a diversity that is impossible in a development/mcmansion driven town vision. Ultimately much of the solution has to be worked through the local governments that create and enforce zoning, promote development/tax base driven economies, and side with NIMBY minded transplants thus making farming economically more difficult than weather and Mother Nature's sense of humor already pulls off.
So, having said all of that IMHO the conversation needs to be inclusive of the region if it is to truely make a difference.
-
-
YES!
We are organizing the actual meeting to be in New Paltz, but we want to invite folks from around the region. Let's all help each other get up to speed on what is working at what is not. We have identified the Hudson Valley watershed as our working region. www.HVCALT.org
-
Permalink Reply by Joyce Henion on
-
Excellent, would love to be part of that discussion. Thanks for organizing!
-
-
I hope the Huguenot St farm situation becomes a catalyst to get folks engaged about this! "Open Space" is not enough! We want farms!
http://www.hvfoodnetwork.com/forum/topics/huguenot-street-farm-csa-for
-
-
Subject: Letter to the editor
To: newpaltztimes@ulsterpublishing.com
The Huguenot Street CSA land is for sale for $1.5million - what can we learn from this?
What business is that of anyone else you might ask? Surely the farmers who own it are entitled to make as much hay as they can out of
their private land, right? Well, it is probably a little more complicated than that....
That land has a conservation easement on it, purchased by the Wallkill Valley Land Trust, with private donors dollars and taxpayer
dollars. This makes the future of that farmland a topic of public conversation. How well our public policy and dollars protect farmland
as working farms (or just as "open space") is a matter of public interest, and matters to more than just the buyers and sellers of a protected property. $1.5 million is way beyond that lands "agricultural carrying capacity", so it is unlikely that working farmers could ever pay for
that and make a living.
So the likely buyer is an estate owner, who may or may not hobby farm. Who does this benefit the most? Does it benefit the community of eaters in New Paltz that thought they were protecting a CSA for their families future food-security when they wrote checks to WVLT to preserve that land?
If we carefully access the work of large and small non-profit Conservation Land Trust organizations like WVLT in the downstate region, they have had limited success in creating opportunities for new farmers. While they have been effective at working with estate buyers to preserve "open space" they have been much less effective working with farmers who usually cannot benefit from the large income tax deductions that is the heart of their conservation strategy. In this regard unfortunately, the work of these organizations has only exacerbated the land rush on Hudson Valley farmland by estate buyers, who typically do not grow food, and have further driven the price of farmland out of reach of new farmers.
While this may not be a direct subsidy from the NYS budget, it is a subsidy from taxpayers nonetheless, and taxpayers have a stake in the public benefit these subsidy dollars achieve. "Open space" is a public benefit, but open space that provides food is a greater, and more equitable public benefit!
Massachusetts, Vermont, and most recently Connecticut all have statewide programs that preserve farmland from development and ensure that it remain affordable to new farmers and actually remain in productive farming. New York's PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) program was specifically designed to exclude and any such "restrictions" that ensure the protected farmland transition to a new farmer. This means that NYS taxpayers are not getting their dollars worth if they want to protect their "food-shed" as much as their "view-shed".
We can do better. Hopefully this will be an opportunity for the people of New Paltz, and the supporters of Walkill Valley Land Trust to educate themselves on these issues and make the appropriate changes to their practices to assure protected farms stay farms!
Kevin Skvorak
Regeneration CSA
www.RegenerationCSA.org
Hudson Valley Community and Agricultural Land Trust
www.HVCALT.org
--
© 2012 Created by Meghan E. Murphy.
Powered by
