Excerpt
How to define natural resource conservation is always a point of debate, and that debate is growing more vigorous. Debate is a healthy sign that current premises are being reexamined. It produces new insights that appear in the philosophy that justify how conservation is approached, in the policies and programs that translate philosophy into activities, and in the processes adopted to develop and implement programs and policies. But a distressingly common feature of the debate is how participants' interchangably mix the three different levels at which it occurs; philosophy, policies and programs, and processes. This mixing clouds the debate.
That more vigorous debate is occurring now is no surprise. Conservation policies and programs have been changing rapidly and with little pause since 1985. Professional conservationists have been confronted by added assignments, new programs and policy tools, and a higher volume of work to be accomplished under more deadlines, all of which have changed their relationship with landowners. These demands mean less time to be in the field, more unique situations to deal with, and less time to evaluate or monitor conservation success on the land. The conservation provisions in the 1996 farm bill insure that change will continue. And …
Footnotes
Jeff Zinn is a senior analyst in natural resource policy at the Congressional Research Service. The views expressed here are the author's opinion and do not reflect the views or positions of the Congressional Research Service.
- Copyright 1998 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.