A woman farms in Plainfield as her daughter watches on. Photo by Josh Larkin
The recent designation of Vermont as the number five destination in the world and the number one destination in the United States by National Geographic Traveler Magazine further highlights the importance of our working landscape to those who visit Vermont. It is an attribute that carries with it a great deal of importance to our economy, our way of life, and what many of us believe is the essence of our state.
Vermont’s working landscape, however, is under a great deal of stress and many working farms are in financial jeopardy. Dairy farming utilizes the majority of land in Vermont. Since January of this year, some fifty-three Vermont dairy farms have ceased operating. Keeping the land open and having it productively used continues to be a challenge that policy makers, farmers, and others have wrestled with for many years.
Programs to address the challenges have included the development of the Use Value Tax program, the purchase of development rights under the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, the Act 250 mitigation approach for any development on prime or statewide soils, the Interstate Dairy Compact, to mention a few.
These important, but less than comprehensive approaches, some are arguing, have not been enough to stem the tide of the loss of productive agricultural land conversion and the loss of working farms.
It is therefore encouraging that the Vermont Council on Rural Development, as part of its effort to determine what policies will help Vermont retain its rural working landscapes, has put in place a process to address these issues. It is an effort that policy makers at all levels should take note of too. As Vermont’s Secretary of Agriculture, I applaud this effort.
Roger Allbee
Townshend Vermont
Permalink |
Dear Secretary Albee,
Please say more about the process that has been put in place. Right now we need more creative thinking and solutions, a diverse set of strategies. These problems are neither new nor unanticipated – groups like NOFA have been calling for greater diversification and local marketing for upwards of 30 years.
One approach a group of us are taking is to develop a rural cohousing community that will be integrated into two small farms, which will be preserved and kept in production to feed the residents and the surrounding community of Ryegate. This will also make it possible for at least a couple of young farmers to have access to farm land and capital without having to go into massive debt.
What will this process do to help projects like ours become reality?
Respectfully,
Grace Gershuny
Barnet, VT
Permalink |
Keeping Vermont’s landscape working will require far more than policy discussions. The task is huge, but important to the state for the many reasons that Sec. Albee lists.
First and foremost is a viable economic use of land that is more sustainable than dairy. The economic reality that land use must generate income for its owners that covers the costs of ownership and operations must not be abandoned.
Ever more tax incentives cannot be a long-term substitute for a healthy Vermont economy where profitable income is derived from the open land.
What’s needed are viable business plans for profitable land use, whether different crops or types of farming. Yes, there are tourism spin-off benefits, but taxpayer dollars, real or uncollected, cannot substitute for a sound business use of the land.
Permalink |
Income derived strictly from production seems to have its limits. Production can meet operating expenses and provide
a livelihood, and there is some money, grant and loans available for infrastructure improvement and expansion.
Labor, especially working the land does not pay as well as head work and successful farming seems to rely on the age old cash sink, starting out with money.
A real challenge is finding the money and time simply for repair and upkeep of farm buildings and equipment, without consideration to keeping the place looking “attractive” to visitors.
The aesthetic of the landscape is nice, and showcase non-working farms and “historic” barns seem to be an attraction, but what about our decaying productive farms.
Hopefully we can figure out a way to shift “tourist” money to general repair and upkeep of working farms for the sake of function and aesthetic.
Permalink |
Not long ago, our guv stood before the TV cameras and voiced his commitment to small farms and preserving the land base.
We have come a long way during his tenure, but more in grassroots than at the Capitol.
I spent a lot of time covering the subject a dozen years ago. Most of
the primary actors (State, Extension, Farm Bureau,…) would barely dance together. Left-hand, right-hand. Good programs round-filed (like AG VT Ltd). The issues of food security and viable farming economics now reach everywhere in the State. in 1996 you couldn’t even get most farmers to think about pasture rotation or IPM.
I would argue that the working landscape is looking much better now than then, despite having a long way to go. Ag coops (producer and consumer), Buyers’ Clubs, Food shelves and seed banks, the increasing levels of Awareness and Education, makes one hopeful.
One problem is that it may not meet needs without the full commitment of those entities mentioned above.
For references to this opinion see:
http://www.dluz.com/Rion/Advocacy
http://www.dluz.com/Rion/Advocacy/Ag/index.html
P.S. I would have asked Mr. Douglas if he agreed (in good conservative form) that homesteading is the highest form of resourcefulness and good land stewardship; bearing the least burden on community? If so, why is that nobody can afford to homestead? Even if I carried no mortgage (succession issues), and derive no income from my farm, will the tax collector take my farm?
P.P.S. (if you ever read this)
Grace – Rural Co-housing is a fantastic idea! Good Luck. I wrote a paper long ago suggesting that every co-housing development could support a farm family and even address succession issues effectively.
http://www.dluz.com/Rion/Advocacy/Ag/Cohousing/cohousing.html
Permalink |
Praising the commitment of Mr. Albee and the dedication of a small army of scientists, researchers, and PHB’s notwithstanding; I should add that the concern as expressed in the article is belied by the fact that neither he nor any of the other actors around long enough to understand the perils had the least interest in doing something about it when the circumstances, though very problematic, were less daunting.
I knew going in that there would be little hope for a outsider to get anyone’s ear, but I’m surprised that beside myself, few in the places that mattered saw the necessity to perform a comprehensive, State-wide survey of small ag operations. I wonder if anyone has bothered to do one 13 years later; and just relying on N.E. data is not representative enough of Vermont.
http://www.dluz.com/Rion/Advocacy/Ag/Survey/summary.html