|
Privacy and Natural Resources Workshop White Paper Data and Information About Natural
Resources By Jeffrey A. Zinn ________________________ Executive Summary The Arbor Day Foundation (NADF), supported by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), convened a diverse group of about 60 invited participants - landowners as well as representatives of agribusiness, interest groups, and government agencies - to discuss evolving relationships between the rapidly increasing volume of valuable natural resource data and information in agriculture and growing concerns about confidentiality. Farmers, ranchers, and other landowners often characterize these relationships as a debate between public access to data and information that could be used to regulate their production activities and the protection of personal privacy, but the relationships are far more complicated, as this workshop demonstrated. Participants shared their knowledge about the laws and rules that govern disclosure and confidentiality, about recent changes in data collection and information technology, and about their expectations regarding the rate and nature of change in the future. They identified possible responses and solutions during discussion periods. Some of the themes that emerged during the workshop had to do with the growing value of data, the increased interest by private industry in this value, the need to create a climate of trust among agricultural producers, the need for better communication and new partnerships, and the growing importance of information in distinguishing more successful producers from less successful ones. The workshop did not reach closure on these themes for agriculture generally or for natural resource conservation. This group left development of recommendations for future gatherings. __________________________
__________________________ Introduction The Arbor Day Foundation (NADF), supported by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), convened a diverse group of about 60 invited participants - farmers, ranchers and other landowners; agribusiness representatives; interest-group staff members; and government agency personnel -to discuss evolving relationships between the rapidly increasing volume of valuable natural resource data and information in agriculture and growing concerns about confidentiality. These relationships often are characterized as a debate between public access to data and information that could be used to regulate agricultural producers and the protection of personal privacy, valuable databases, and confidential business information, but the workshop demonstrated that the relationships are far more complicated.The workshop had several goals. One goal was to improve understanding within the agricultural community of the legal setting for privacy concerns, especially as it applies to natural resource data and information. A second goal was to describe current data and information efforts. The third goal was to communicate views on this topic among key representatives of producer groups, agribusiness, and the public sector. The fourth goal was to increase awareness about how anticipated changes in production agriculture and information technology have the potential to increase concerns about privacy. The workshop made promising starts in addressing each goal. One speaker captured the essence of the workshop when he stated "This workshop is about how various organizations can help collect information while still protecting individuals= rights, their responsibilities, and the roles they play.@Workshop participants discussed changes in technology as an array of tools, especially computers, with increasing penetration into all aspects of agriculture. They recognized that those who can effectively use these tools and the information that results are likely to be more successful in the business of farming than those who cannot. Participants generally did not try to improve the group=s understanding of technology itself, however, or connections between technology and success. They seemed far more interested in questions that arise when data and information are collected, stored, and released, including accessibility and confidentiality, and in processes and conventions that underlie how these questions are now answered. As the moderator instructed the audience at one point: "We=ll let the techies worry about techie terms.@ ______________________ "Changes in technology affect the sources of information, what is available, and how it is transmitted." ______________________ Agriculture is not the first business sector to confront privacy and confidentiality challenges, nor are these challenges unique, according to Robert Gellman, an expert on privacy law. His opening presentation placed the concerns of agriculture in broader and legal settings. He emphasized the evolution of law and conventions over the past 30 years. He provided informed insights about both the policy setting and about how other sectors have addressed these challenges. Agriculture can learn from experiences in other sectors, according to Gellman, but it is not clear whether agriculture should try to assimilate conclusions reached by other sectors or try to develop its own approach. Few of the other participants were knowledgeable about experiences in other sectors, beyond anecdotes. Other sectors have long been addressing these issues, however. The Privacy Journal, for example, has been reporting on them monthly for 25 years. Representatives of producer groups, agribusiness, and public agencies provided three distinct perspectives on privacy and confidentiality. These perspectives were so distinct that three separate meetings could have been occurring at times. Many have characterized privacy and confidentiality issues in resource conservation as conflicts, whether potential or real, between an overzealous public sector with regulatory responsibilities and producers who are concerned over the unauthorized distribution and use of their data beyond the stated purposes for its collection. One participant commented that this characterization is inaccurate. The purpose of collecting data and information, he said, is not to punish certain individuals or segments of society but to further knowledge that can be used to improve the overall environment. Interactions at the workshop demonstrated that the issues are far more complex and that roles and responsibilities are changing. Agribusiness, for example, appears to be moving ahead of governmental agencies on aspects of information collection and analysis as well as towards a market driven system of data protection, transfer, and ownership. The pace and the nature of change create a sense of uneasiness and loss of control in the producer community. This uneasiness is amplified as the ability of others to extract and store large volumes of data increases. Solutions to reducing this uneasiness revolve around building trust, which one participant called "end-use trust.@ What is perceived as a threat to a landowner who believes that he or she can no longer protect his or her anonymity or property interest in his/her data, may be viewed as an opportunity by a public employee who is developing a broad data set or an agribusiness employee trying to ascertain markets.Uneasiness may also occur because many of the rules that govern the life cycle of data, from collection through storage, use, and sharing, are poorly understood in the agricultural community, as are the implications of changes in technology. "What is@ and "what should be@ have been seldom debated within the agricultural community, but the need to address these questions continues to grow. Workshop participants agreed that the magnitude of change is great, that the pace of change is rapid and accelerating, and that the direction of change is toward:
____________________________
__________________________ The Language of Privacy The terms used to define privacy topics and the basic laws that govern federal activities were identified in Gellman=s opening presentation, then discussed throughout the workshop. Answers to questions, such as who owns data and what are the rules that govern the collection and dissemination of data, appear to be understood by few in the agricultural community. This lack of understanding may be because this is a new issue for many in agriculture and it may contribute to the sense of some producers that they are increasingly being placed at a disadvantage by changes in technology and its application over which they have no control.Key Terms Terms used to discuss privacy are poorly understood and frequently misused, according to Gellman. He emphasized that an understanding of language was critical, for "fuzzy terminology leads to fuzzy thinking.@ Others repeated this notion during the meeting. If precise language is not used, the discussion can become so entangled that participants cannot reach a serious conversation about issues. He started his presentation by using the example of bank records to show that, even when an institution claims that personal records are entirely confidential, its representatives are either lying or they don=t understand the numerous ways by which records are routinely disclosed.Privacy is the most commonly used term in this topic. It defines a bundle of rights and interests. While it does not appear in the constitution, several provisions convey notions that have helped to define it. Privacy rights and interests come in two broad forms: the autonomy of personal decision-making, such as the right to educate one=s children; and information disclosure, or the control of personal information. Legal Scholars have long discussed the privacy concept. In a famous 1890 law journal article, Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren characterized privacy as "the right to be left alone.@Privacy is used in so many different ways that the term is almost meaningless. Therefore, according to Gellman, if the discussion is about how data are being used, talk about policies for use and disclosure rather than privacy. If one discusses personal access to records, talk about access rather than privacy. If the discussion is about data collection techniques that are improper or unwarranted, talk about what is objectionable rather than suggesting that your privacy has been violated.Privacy only involves individuals. Confidentiality is probably even less precise than privacy because it not only applies to individuals, but also to corporations and other legally defined entities, as they protect trade secrets, for example. Privacy questions become even more complicated and uncertain when corporate entities, including their representatives, and other forms of organizations (which are becoming more common in agriculture), such as sole proprietorships and groups (as opposed to individuals), are considered. Data protection is a more precise term, developed in Europe, which encompasses the rules about the collection, maintenance, use, and disclosure of personal information. Some think that data protection refers to security, but it is broader and appears in Europe=s updated version of the Fair Information Practices discussed below.Data ownership received considerable comment during the workshop. Gellman stated that ownership has not been a useful concept for discussing data. Instead, if one thinks about data in terms of rights and responsibilities, one can explore who else has an interest in or a right to use data. Much of the data this workshop addressed is used to characterize land or natural resources, and several participants stated that a person who owns land should have some control over data about that land. An underlying question related to ownership raised by one participant, but not explored in depth, was whether a marketplace can be developed for data protection and how to balance potential conflict between government interest in data collection and distribution and the desire to protect value of privately owned data as a commodity in the marketplace. One pair of terms that received little attention, although the terms are at the heart of this topic and at the core of the careers of many participants, was data and information. The distinction between the two was mentioned, and there was little confusion about them, although the terms were often used interchangeably by speakers, sometimes with little apparent sensitivity to the differences. One participant pointed out that data could either be a general descriptor of a large area or describe a point, which are two very different uses. The differences between agencies and private entities in the data world was discussed in many ways. One person placed these differences in the context of the life cycle of data, from collection through processing, sharing, maintenance, and disposal. ___________________________
__________________________ Laws and Principles The principles of fair practice have been widely adopted, and they have been the essence of data protection in the activities of federal agencies over the past 25 years. They were developed in 1973 by an advisory committee convened by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. This committee had been set up to explore data protection relative to computers. Congress first adopted the principles in the Privacy Act of 1974, which applies to federal government records. As one of the earliest data protection laws, it is also becoming more dated. Few other data protection laws have been enacted since 1974, however. Fair practice encompasses eight principles in all:
Disclosure of government records, or access, is another aspect of this issue; in some ways it is the opposite of data protection. The key federal law is the Freedom of Information Act of 1966 (FOIA). All states have similar laws. Disclosure is often couched in the slogan "right to know.@ This is a misnomer, according to Gellman, because there is no constitutional right of access to most government records, except to some court and law enforcement records. The 1966 law has guided federal policy, which is based on the notion that there will be public disclosure of government records unless there is a reason for secrecy. Any person can ask for any record that is created, retained, or controlled by the government, the government being defined as a federal agency. This policy has generated disagreements over what are valid reasons for secrecy. Federal policy includes nine exemptions to retain secrecy. Some exemptions, such as national security, seem obvious. Two exemptions are particularly relevant for agriculture. One, the privacy exemption, prohibits the disclosure of personnel files, medical files, and the like where the disclosure would clearly be an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The second is a business record exemption, which covers "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged and confidential.@ The test for exempting business information is whether disclosing it would harm the competitive interests of the submitter. Business interests have argued unsuccessfully for a broader and more subjective interpretation that would require the government to treat as confidential any information that they ask the government to treat that way. Several participants pointed out that information that has been voluntarily submitted has been granted greater protection from disclosure than information that was required or compelled. The laws and principles may appear straight-forward, but they may not resolve many of the specific situations and relationships that workshop participants identified. These relationships differ when they involve agencies as both the source and the user, private entities as both the source and the user, or some combination of the two. For example, when a government agency collects data, anyone can ask for it. If a federal employee wants to collect data and doesn=t want to worry about the FOIA, he or she can contract with a private entity to collect and maintain the data. Using a private entity, however, may create other problems because the entity can disclose data without constraints that apply to the government. An issue that is often raised by agricultural interests (and others concerning other sectors) is controlling the anonymity of data. Even if the data do not include a name, address, and social security number, it is likely that the specific source or site still can be identified because so much personal information has been collected and can be retrieved on most everyone. __________________________
__________________________ Federal agencies have different rules when they share data with each other because FOIA does not apply. Agencies usually share records, however. Of particular concern is when an agency collects records for one purpose, and another agency wants to use those records for a different purpose, such as administering regulations. Gellman responded that each agency has developed a system of records under which disclosure is allowed for "routine uses.@ He commented "you can learn a lot about what any agency does by knowing what kinds of records it keeps and how it uses them.@ When only private entities are involved, a major question is what are the rights and responsibilities of third parties that collect or aggregate data that has potential value to other companies or individuals in support of agricultural producers. When rights to data are not defined in contracts, there are no general guidelines or laws that provide default rules, thereby creating considerable legal uncertainty. This question is being raised more frequently with the generation of data associated with precision farming, also referred to as "site-specific farming,@ which is discussed below. One person asked whether data that had been collected was a part of the property to be provided to the new owner or operator with the sale or lease of a property. The basic response was that there were few firm rules absent contractual agreement, when only private entities were involved, although a person familiar with private forestry stated that industry has codes of conduct. During discussion of these topics, it was also brought up that data cannot be protected from subpoenas. The European Experience Europe has addressed the data protection question more recently, and it has now moved ahead of the United States, according to those at the workshop familiar with public efforts on both sides of the Atlantic. In 1995, the European Union issued a directive because the countries of Europe had separate and sometimes incompatible data protection laws that were viewed as disruptive to the development of the Union. The directive took affect in October 1998 and includes the following principles:
The European Union characterizes the U.S. approach to protecting privacy as reliance on self-regulatory mechanisms that vary from sector to sector, while their approach is legislative. Some European countries require any entity that maintains databases to either obtain a government license or to register those data bases with the government. The registration statement, which outlines the purpose for collecting data, may be negotiated if the government finds it to be too broad or vague. To coordinate approaches in the European Union and the United States, the European Commission and the Department of Commerce discussed creating "safe harbors@ for U.S. companies that voluntarily agree to adhere to these principles. Issues Today Data and information issues have entered a dynamic period for agriculture generally and natural resources specifically. Rapid change and pressures to do things differently both will characterize agriculture for the foreseeable future. Issues were identified by participants throughout the workshop, but especially during the three breakout sessions. These sessions addressed data in a regulatory setting, data and the private sector, and data and public policy. The results of each session were reported back to the entire group. Two Examples: Privacy and Natural Resource Data Two case studies were presented to illustrate how data protection issues arise and are being addressed in agriculture. These presentations generated lively discussion and provided a common basis for thinking about these issues. One, from New York, emphasized how a specific program was able to allay producer worries related to data protection. The second described a federal interagency conflict between the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NRCS over protecting the privacy of NRCS clients who were dairy farmers in California. Larry Beckhardt from the New York City Department of Environmental Quality and director of the city=s watershed agricultural program described the complicated institutional framework to maintain the quality of New York City water supplies. The watershed program, which has been operating since about 1992, is a voluntary, well-funded, and farmer-led program to develop and implement whole farm plans on about 300 farms. If this program is successful, the city will not have to build and operate a large, expensive water treatment facility. Information plays an important role in the whole farm planning process because it is used to:
Each area of information has raised questions of data protection, especially because this is a voluntary program set in a regulatory context. The program started with a year of mutual education between the farm community and the city in the early 1990s. After this education period, a new partnership, called the watershed agricultural council, was formed to address questions like data protection. It has 20 farmers on its board of directors and is under contract with New York City to administer the program. The council is the forum where farmers address how the program is administered and implemented, including how information is developed and used. Financial information about participating producers has been kept confidential, held at the local soil and water conservation district office and not shared with the city. This arrangement has helped build trust in the farm community. Monitoring has been more contentious recently, although farmers have supported it to provide useful feedback about program effectiveness, which will help protect the viability of agriculture in that area. When the program tries to monitor on individual farms rather than in streams that gather runoff from multiple landowners, there has been conflict because some farmers are anxious that the information could be used against them in a regulatory setting. Recent changes that are altering the regulatory setting include implementing the Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL) process and the appearance of the new federal feedlot operation strategy. The Council is the forum where these channels are addressed by the farm community, and addressing them is a "constant process.@ Helen Flach, assistant state conservationist for NRCS in California, presented the second case study. She explained that NRCS works with conservation districts established under state law at the local level and keeps records on individual farmers and ranchers. In March 1998 a contractor employed by EPA asked two districts for detailed information about all dairies so the agency could inspect them under its Clean Water Act responsibilities. The week before this request was made, a dairyman in another jurisdiction had been jailed for violating that act. Flach contacted the EPA Region 9 office to find out more about the request and was told that EPA had the right to demand NRCS records. Flach was informed that if she did not comply she would be in criminal violation. The EPA representative also stated that other states were cooperating in this effort. Flach responded that this request was inappropriate because the data had been collected for a different purpose and under the assumption that it would not be used to identify dairies. The representative said that NRCS data are public information and that EPA would file a FOIA request if the data were not provided. He asserted that the contractor, as a representative of EPA, could compel these records to be produced. Flach was familiar with the NRCS rules under FOIA because she helped write them in 1987. A later inspection of the CleanWater Act showed only that EPA can compel records from owners or operators of point sources of pollution, and this ability does not apply to federal records. Flach suggested that this disagreement be elevated in both agencies and argued about whether the ability of EPA to secure some records earlier in Washington State had set a legal precedent. National headquarters staff in NRCS agreed that complying with the EPA request could threaten the basic trust that NRCS relies on to attract voluntary participation by producers. In May, in response to this threat, a new policy was issued. The administrator of EPA agreed not to request these data again in a meeting with the Secretary of Agriculture. In California, a state law that considers a record to be confidential if it is so characterized by a federal agency further protects this data. The new policy with EPA seeks to improve relationships with traditional farm groups, such as the American Farm Bureau Federation. According to Flach, the new policy is also leading to greater cooperation in other areas. __________________________
__________________________ Three Perspectives on Data and Information Workshop participants represented three groups - public agencies, agricultural producers, and agribusiness - that have very different perspectives on privacy issues affecting natural resource conservation. Landowners and producers have often cast these issues as the private citizen against those parts of government that would use information to regulate. Participants identified more complex relationships and some of the challenges that need immediate attention because they create inefficiencies or lost opportunities in the use of data and information. Some of these challenges are more serious in the public sector and others in the private sector. They include:
Public-sector representatives work for agencies that have been the traditional gatherers, organizers, and suppliers of vast amounts of information about natural resources. Agencies have extensive rules and procedures for finding and organizing information and large staffs skilled in data and information management. The National Resources Inventory (NRI) collected by the NRCS is an example of a complex data set that is assembled periodically to monitor current and changing conditions, assess the effectiveness of federal policies, and analyze policy options. Agency staff at the workshop were generally comfortable with their understanding of changes that are occurring and in their collective abilities to accommodate these changes, although the new government-wide emphasis on ac-countability may mean that some additional data needed to measure program accomplishments will now have to be collected. Carol House, representing the National Agricultural Statistical Service, described her agency=s data mission. "Our entire existence is for collecting statistical information about the farm sector, then releasing it back to the public as quickly as we can and in as desegregate a fashion as is both statistically appropriate and guards the confidentiality of the farmers who supplied the data.@ Farmers, ranchers, and other landowners were at the center of expressions of concern about change and the unknown. These concerns manifest themselves in anecdotes, usually about friends or neighbors, and in fears about challenges that have resulted from a loss of anonymity, misuse of data, or unauthorized use denying them he opportunity to control or commercially exploit their data. An underlying goal for many in this group is to gain more control over data about themselves and their businesses, especially as the ability of outsiders to extract data grows. The moderator characterized this perspective as "the big government beating up on the private citizen theme.@ Many people representing this group were trying to learn more about the law and how it protects them, more about whether changing technologies provide opportunities or threats in the future, more about the pace of change and the key players in those changes, and more about whether they have any control or even input to better protect themselves as these changes occur. They decried what they perceive to be a lack of rules and tied these concerns to the potential to become a target of regulatory activities of government. However, they generally expressed little awareness of government activities and policies that are designed to protect their anonymity. They indicated an interest in becoming more involved in protecting their data in response to the expanding role that agribusiness plays in collecting, storing, analyzing, and sharing data. ___________________________
__________________________ In times of uncertainty, those in a position to lose often focus on preventing the most negative things from happening. One response that could have major implications and was offered several times is the declining willingness of agricultural producers to volunteer information. This decline in participation is being driven by a fear that information could be used against them, even if it was initially collected for benign purposes. This response was confirmed by several agency representatives, who stated that traditional sources of information were drying up and it was becoming harder to collect information. __________________________ "Listening to each other will make us less adversarial." __________________________ Agribusiness representatives see growing opportunities from collecting data and creating information. Many businesses are reportedly investing heavily in these activities. Even when these companies are not sure of the value, they are willing to collect data today and risk that value will be created in the future. Business seems to assume that more nuggets of great value can be mined from a sea of data. One person at the meeting characterized the agribusiness approach as a "frontier mentality@ because, unlike the public sector, these businesses have little guidance from codes of conduct for gathering and releasing data and because there is so much competition among companies. Many attendees were in agreement that there is a danger of data producers losing out on any interest they may have in their data by entering into agreements with agribusinesses to share or assign rights to their data without restrictions on its further dissemination and use. In many instances, agribusinesses have no clearBcut or stated policy regarding limits on sharing this data or how they might use it, since that knowledge might decrease its as yet undetermined value. Gellman stated that this is one manifestation of a major debate over whether and how the United States should regulate to protect personal privacy when data are collected in the private sector. Laws in many European countries, as mentioned earlier, apply to all government and private record-keeping. Data issues are very different for each of the three groups. It was clear from the discussion that representatives of these three groups have not been communicating with each other regularly about privacy issues and that they would benefit from establishing mechanisms for interaction. One participant with an environmental organization commented, "Listening to each other will make us less adversarial.@ The solution that most envisioned was the need to develop a "trustworthy environment.@ One suspects, however, that the definition of such an environment might vary widely. Within agribusiness, for example, one participant described initial efforts by a firm named RAPID, Inc., to develop standards, processes, and data bases that will enable businesses to realize the benefits of electronic commerce, while a representative of the American Farm Bureau Federation mentioned its development of data protection agreements to create contractional relationships between agricultural producers and agribusiness. Depending on their business, they may be collecting information on many aspects that relate to natural resource conservation; some of these data are also collected by agencies, but most probably are not. Another complication, according to Gellman, is that privacy almost always is balanced against something else. He gave an example in the medical area where privacy butts up against cost containment and it is impossible to have both expanded privacy and greater cost containment. More generally, he stated that in all cases one has to win and the other lose. Other viewpoints were also expressed in addition to these three perspectives. For example, one person who works with sustainable agriculture worried about the potential for too much secrecy by the government under some circumstances that would not be in the public=s interest. She recommended three different policies for access and individual identification, depending on the government role:
Changes in Technology Changes in technology - the spreading adoption of computers, the internet, and the use of georeferencing in association with precision farming - were discussed throughout the meeting. Not only does the nature of change create issues, but the rapid pace does as well. Other changes from other sectors that might be of interest to agriculture were also discussed by various participants, such as the use of shopping cards by grocery corporations to determine consumer preferences and store sales patterns with great precision. Also, the collection and use of data to identify and profile populations received some comment. Change is rapid, in part because of advancements in information technology. Vanacht reported that the capacity of transistors on a computer chip continues to double every 18 months, as Gordon Moore, one of the founders of Intel, had predicted in the late 1970s. The technology is already available to continue the doubling cycle at this rate another five or six times. This pace of change causes problems for customers when the computer industry=s support for products moves to the next generation every 18 months, unless they can afford each upgrade. Other advances in computer technology can be anticipated. Computers will be imbedded in chips so that they will not be in boxes on desks, but rather disappear into other things. Imaging chips have become increasingly important and will evolve into digital sensors, or eyes, that will be imbedded, for example, so that a cellular phone or a pistol can read a thumb print allowing only the owner to use it. As technology proliferates, the need for data standards that create a common language has increased. The federal government already has established such standards through an interagency group, the Federal Geographic Data Committee. This committee, with 16 member agencies, coordinates federal interests in data that has a geographic reference and therefore is associated with a particular land parcel and provides a forum for agencies to interact and resolve differences. In the private sector, where this type of formal coordination may be less common, some members of the agribusiness community have started to discuss the development of similar standards, according to workshop participants. Advances in use of the internet may affect many people and transactions. According to Vanacht, the internet has grown more sophisticated; it started as one-way communication, basically publishing, then moved to dialog, or two-way transfer of data, then to communication, or two-way transfer of information. The current iteration is in the two-way transfer of money, and the next iteration will be aggregation, characterized by cumulative knowledge, symbiosis, and win-win relationships. But this next step can only happen if privacy issues are resolved. Changes in Production Agriculture Changes in production agriculture are integrated with changes in technology. For example, biotechnology can be viewed as a new and sophisticated form of information management at the genetic level. Vanact presented a vision of agriculture=s future that ties these changes together. In his vision, which was not shared by all in attendance, production will grow more dependent on life sciences and genetics, information technology, digital sensors, and the internet. Agriculture=s changes also are occurring in the context of evolving business models and social and economic trends. The market place is demanding new products that more precisely meet consumer needs and preferences. As markets become increasingly fragmented, contracts to supply the necessary materials, including raw agricultural commodities, are being used more. These changes, in turn, make risk management a greater challenge. Risk is also changing as the role of government in agricultural research declines. In the early 1980s, the private sector passed the public sector as the larger investor in research. Vanacht listed changes for producers to include shifts from:
Looking into the future, successful farmers in 2010 will have several characteristics that may not be too common among producers today. One is that they will excel at both learning about and adapting innovation and efficiently managing operations. They will recognize the value of continuous reeducation. Also, these people will have to manage networks where people skills will be more important than mechanical or information technology skills. These people will constantly be making decisions about what they do not want to do themselves. They will be able to choose to do what they are good at and what they enjoy, and they will build a trustworthy network to do the rest. These changes have broader implications as well. Among them are the further depopulation of rural America, the "blooming@ of rural "service centers,@ and the fact that high-input agriculture will benefit more rapidly from these changes because it will concentrate on cost savings rather than yield growth. Many of these changes converge in precision farming. Precision farming means analyzing data from specific locations in a field to determine the characteristics of factors that affect production or physical conditions. Measurements are made to quantify variability. These data are analyzed to develop a prescription of possible actions taken to correct variability. Results from these actions provide further feedback. Ultimately, precision farming allows producers to measure whether they are achieving whatever goals they have set, such as achieving higher yield. Precision farming will provide much more information and much better feedback about field performance, about the cost-effectiveness of inputs and field operation, and even enable producers to automate commercial transactions, such as a bill for field spraying. The notion that a producer knows more about his natural resources than agencies with their databases and can document that knowledge will be a sea change from the past. Workshop participants identified changes in both the demand for data and its supply that will create many opportunities to support farmers. New service providers, such as information retailers, and new partnerships may start to appear. Benefits that might accrue to producers include lower costs, increasing value or profits, reduced environmental impacts, and an increasing ability to make better or timelier decisions. These changes can also result in broader societal benefits that were mentioned, including improving U.S. competitiveness and enhanced environmental benefits. Many of these benefits will come from increased standardization of data or services, according to other participants. During the breakout sessions, some problems were identified that will have to be addressed before these opportunities can be realized. For example, several participants stated that advances in technology are ahead of improving user ability to adopt them, and the gap is growing. The pressure is increasing to make the technology more user-friendly, to improve access and affordability, and to recognize that structural change in agriculture is accelerating. If responses to these pressures are inadequate, there will be a loss in control of decisions. Agreements on goals need to be developed that outline how technologies will be used and how privacy of data sources will be protected. Data ownership challenges include:
Changes in Agribusiness Agribusiness is aggressively entering the data collection, analysis and distribution business. Many firms are attempting to develop these capabilities in support of their established business activities. These information activities are focused from the perspective of individual businesses, but from the perspective of producers, it may appear that these companies are exploring opportunities in every imaginable aspect of farming and are seeking information on resource conditions and change, production, economics, and products used. These activities are raising new questions that businesses are trying to address. For example, a representative of a large property management firm discussed questions that arise related to ownership of soil testing and yield data. He explained that soil test data are often collected and stored by a third-party vendor, which can raise ownership and use questions. At the same time, he stated that it had become more difficult to obtain crop base and yield data that the company uses for land appraisals from the local offices of the Farm Service Agency. The breakout session on data and the private sector was lead by Darrin Drollinger from the Equipment Manufacturers Institute and Ag Electronics Association. Walt Armbruster from the Farm Foundation served as the reporter. Changes identified in this session revolved around the increasing volume of data. The group noted that sources and amounts were growing because of automated collection techniques and declining acquisition costs. At the same time, the value of data is growing. Many questions centered on the cost of access to these data, who has the ability to use them, and how they are shared. Control of data is a new concern as the value increases, with competitive advantages to be gained. Workshop participants recognized that these data will empower new players in agriculture. Changing Role of Public Agencies Public agencies have a rich history and many established conventions and partnerships, but pressures for change are growing. The pressures are based on the expanding capacity and availability of technologies, especially the computer. The pressures create complications that may eventually lead to a very different role for federal agencies in the future. Representatives of federal agencies indicated that they were starting to address some of these pressures, but these efforts must overcome entrenched agency activities. Two breakout sessions addressed aspects of these pressures. Alan Margolis from EPA led the discussion of data in a regulatory setting. The reporter for this group was Kathy Covert of the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Major changes that the participants identified included the penetration of the internet, the emergence of E-FOIA (for electronic data systems), and the development of parallel electronic and paper systems. Many data collection and release issues were identified, including those that revolve around whether too many data are released, whether the needed types of data are collected, whether there are conflicts or other problems among multiple sets of data, who decides which data sets to use, the timing of collection and release (including the sometimes very long delays between when data are collected and when they are made available), and the interpretation of data. _ Several ways to address these challenges were identified. These included allowing more local control of data, forming new coalitions designed to build trust (as well as knowledge), formulating and then enforcing policies that include "fair play guidelines,@ adopting needed standards, harmonizing federal and state laws, creating processes to elevate issues and responsibilities as appropriate, and creating incentives. Successfully resolving these challenges will result in savings of time and money and the generation of common data sets and common solutions. Discussion leader for the data and public policy group was Craig Cox from the Soil and Water Conservation Society. The reporter for this group was Tom Iivari from NRCS. Changes identified in this group start with information technology, including the ability to collect and analyze data. It also identified the growing demand for data and information, including information as an input to agricultural production, a basic shift in national environmental policy from point to nonpoint issues that could play roles in major policy topics, including air and water pollution, and global climate change. It also identified the localization of issues, which means dealing with programs at a smaller scale and with a finer resolution. Another change was increased sensitivity about how data and information can be used, such as a recognition of the growing ability to combine fragmented data into profiles, the accumulation of information about individuals, the ability to georeference data, increased awareness of the potential for erroneous data or erroneous interpretations, and continuing consolidation in information-related activities in both the private sector and agencies. The combinations of problems and opportunities that were created represented a long list. One opportunity was local empowerment. A second was the development of public and private sector partnerships to improve access and usability of data and information. Third was a streamlining and rationalization of data collection and analysis efforts by the federal government. Many people identified the European experience in data protection as a useful model. In the private sector, the group stated that too little attention had been given to policy issues that surround privacy concerns, so a major education effort might be needed. Protocols and standardization are still needed. More specifically, issues that connect agriculture with natural resources should be a particularly high priority.
This group had two basic recommendations. First, some principles for Fair Information Practices need to be developed for dealings among agencies, for dealings between agencies and businesses, and for dealings among businesses. Second, the public sector needs to improve access to the data and information it holds by improving tools that allow broader use and manipulation of federal data sets. Characterizing Relationships Workshop attendees explored relationships where data or information is exchanged. Any participant in these relationships can serve as a source or be a user. Workshop participants developed a matrix in which one axis was divided between agency (public) and private, and the other axis was source (including collection and aggregation) and user. During the discussion it became clear that this matrix, while useful for understanding basic relationships, was a great simplification of reality. Workshop participants nominated terms that characterized each of these relationships. At this general level of characterization, most identified terms are unique in each relationship. This lack of uniformity suggests that both the concerns and the solutions are different with each of these four combinations. A corollary is an accurate assessment of relationships between one type of source and one type of user could be inaccurate for a different pairing, even if the information is the same, because so many characterizations are not about the information itself, but about the ways it is handled and protected. If the private sector becomes a more important source of data and information, than some of the boxes will grow more important, and their characterizations will warrant more attention. Many of the characterizations involving agencies have already been addressed. Many of the characterizations involving private participants need to be resolved, however, such as the development of end-user trust. Furthermore, on the private side, there is no structure that would be the equivalent of the Federal Geographic Data Committee that could serve as a forum, no code of conduct or code of ethics, and no sense that private entities would make such a code, should one be worked out, voluntary or binding with penalties for violators. As producers and land owners become more aware of issues relating to data use and privacy, however, a private market for data collection and use may evolve. Despite an absence of a code of ethics or conduct, contractual relationships seem likely to develop that would regulate commerce in a data industry. __________________________
__________________________ The Future for Natural Resource Data and Information This workshop was only a first step in what should be a long process of discussion and education to create what was called a "trustworthy environment.@ In working toward this environment, this topic will require many more interactions among members of the agricultural community, broadly defined, who might otherwise not talk with each other, and extensive educational initiatives, especially in the landowner and producer communities. Information technology will continue to change rapidly. Experts anticipate that it will become more user friendly, accessible, and affordable. For those in agriculture, these qualities will help to widen the economic chasm that separates the producers who effectively use modern information collection and analysis tools from those who continue to farm the "old fashioned way.@ More successful producers will use the tools of business, like contracts and computers; have the ability to manage far more information; and have the potential to be more profitable. This workshop did not explore the social issues that are likely to accompany these changes. Concerning natural resources, the value of information will grow, along with the demand for more data. This demand will elevate concerns about data protection and protection of anonymity. This period of rapid change will continue to precipitate uncertainty. One participant captured this when he stated, "We are headed into a brave new world, and we need to discuss the kind of world we want, the kind of world we think we should have, and the kind of world that we can have." He stated that leadership will be critical and envisioned that the outcomes could either be characterized by cooperation and coordination or by conflict and chaos. Participants clearly had many different visions of the future, which started to emerge during the discussion, stimulated by Marc Vanacht's presentation. Landowners and producers may believe that they are losing their ability to define that future because they only partially understand applications of emerging technologies, the rules of data protection and disclosure, and changing roles of government and agribusiness in data collection. If the workshop were to be reconvened in five years, the relative roles of agencies and private industry likely will have changed. Agencies may still be the largest collector of data and producer of information, but the private sector will be catching up - fast. Relationships will be changing as private industry becomes a growing collector and disseminator, but continues to search for rules to guide the privacy issue. Relationships will also be subject to change as agencies decide how to accommodate data collected by others that supplement federal collections. Producers will remain concerned, especially if they are uncertain about how these changes will affect them. Tales of misuse or abuse will fuel concern, and these anecdotes will resonate strongly with other landowners. A central question left for future discussions is what can people do to share data in a way that benefits everyone. Most participants indicated that the current situation is creating winners and losers, and the losers have few ways to protect themselves. Robert Gellman and others suggested a need for standards, conventions, and protocols. Agriculture is well behind many sectors (and probably ahead of others) in recognizing and responding to this topic. When asked what topics should be discussed at future workshops, there was no shortage of suggestions. The list included:
If these topics are not addressed soon, penalties for government are likely to be slight and may be only somewhat more significant for agribusiness. But penalties for farmers, ranchers, and other landowners are already significant and likely to grow. Biographies for Program Presenters and Panelists KEYNOTE Robert Gellman, Privacy and Information Consultant ROBERT GELLMAN is a privacy and information policy consultant in Washington, D.C. Areas of specialization include health records confidentiality policy, privacy and data protection matters, access to government record, and legislative affairs. A graduate of the Yale Law School, Gellman served for 17 years as chief counsel to the Subcommittee on Government Information in the House of Representatives. His responsibilities on the Sub committee included privacy, freedom of information, and health record privacy issues. Gellman was appointed in 1996 to be a member of the Department of Health and Human Service=s National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics. Recent publications include: Does Privacy Law Work? in Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape (Agre & Rotenberg, eds) (MIT Press); Can Privacy Be Regulated Effectively on a National Level? Thoughts on the Possible Need for International Privacy Rules, 41 Villanova L. Rev. 129 (1996); Disintermediation and the Internet, 13 Govt. Info. Quar. 1 (1996); Confidentiality and Telemedicine: The Need for a Federal Legislative Solution, 1 Telemedicine J. 189 (1995); Public Records -- Access, Privacy, and Public Policy: a Discussion Paper, 12 Govt. Info. Quar. 391 (1995); Twin Evils: Government Copyright and Copyright-Like Controls Over Government Information, 45 Syracuse L. Rev. 999 (1995); Fragmented, Incomplete, and Discontinuous: The Failure of Federal Privacy Regulatory Proposals and Institutions, VI Software L.J. 199 (1993); Prescribing Privacy: The Uncertain Role of the Physician in the Protection of Patient Privacy, 62 N.C.L. Rev. 255 (1984). Dr. Keith A. Argow, President DR. KEITH ARGOW is president of the National Woodland Owners Association, a post he has held since 1983, and is the CEO of the National Forestry Association. He coordinates legislative and private forestry advocacy programs for the Alliance of Forest and Woodland Owner Associations. Dr. Argow graduated from Colorado College with a major in economics and earned two degrees in forestry from the University of Michigan and a Ph.D. in forestry and political science at North Carolina State University. He has served 15 years with the U.S. Forest Service including assignments in Washington, D.C. He served on the forestry faculty at Virginia Tech and North Carolina State before being named Executive Director of Trout Unlimited in Denver and Washington, D.C. Larry Beckhardt, Director LARRY BECKHARDT is Director of the Watershed Agricultural Program for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). DEP is responsible for supplying water to 9 million residents of New York City and communities in southeastern New York State. On average, the DEP supplies 1.3 billion gallons of water daily from reservoirs located in a 2000 square mile watershed north and northwest of the City. Most of the land in the watershed is privately owned, with forest and agriculture as the two main land uses. The Watershed Agricultural Program is a City-funded pollution prevention effort, working in partnership with the farm community. As Director of the Watershed Agricultural Program, Mr. Beckhardt has represented the City in the development, negotiation and implementation of the $40 million program since 1991. Lisa Blackburn, Records Administrator LISA BLACKBURN is Records Administrator for the Bureau of Land management at the Oregon State Office in Portland, a post she=s held since 1992. She serves as the FOIA and Privacy Act Officer, and handles GIS data release for BLM Oregon and Washington. Ms. Blackburn has served in other positions at BLM Oregon state Office: as Computer Specialist from 1982-1992, responsible for security, information resources planning, and Geographic Information System (GIS) support;/ and as Environmental Protection Specialist from 1978-1982, serving as a resource specialist writing Environmental Impact Statements. From 1975 to 1977, Ms. Blackburn was Range Conservationist with the U.S. Forest service and BLM in California and Oregon. She earned a B.S. in Renewable Natural Resources in 1974 and a M.S. in Range Management in 1975, both at the University of California, Davis. Kathy L. Covert, Partnership Coordinator KATHY COVERT is the Partnership Coordinator for Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) secretariat and works in the National Mapping Division of the U.S. Geological Survey. Ms. Covert is responsible for establishing cooperative agreements with state and local geographic information coordination councils, and for initiating activities to promote data sharing. She holds Bachelor and Masters degrees in Geography from the University of Colorado and Syracuse University. Ms. Covert is a member of the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping and serves on the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association Board of Directors. Ronald A. Farrell, Executive Director RONALD FARRELL graduated from Iowa State University in 1966 with degree in Agronomy-Science. In 1986, he was asked to join Wilbur-Ellis Company's Brayton division as General Manager. From 1991 to 1997, Mr. Farrell served as corporate vice president of Wilbur-Ellis Company, with responsibility for all Southern Division operations. The geography encompassed SE United States from New Mexico to the Atlantic Ocean. In 1992, he was asked (in addition to previous responsibilities) to develop the Wilbur-Ellis strategy and direction for our entry into Mexico. He remained responsible for all operations in SE United States and Mexico until taking early retirement in October of 1997. Mr. Farrell is currently the Executive Director of RAPID, Inc., the Crop Protection Industry=s e-commerce initiative. RAP ID=s objective are to develop the transaction set standards and the supporting directories and databases necessary to conduct e-commerce efficiently. Dr.
Helen R. Flach, Assistant State Conservationist DR. HELEN FLACH is Assistant State Conservationist for the USDA Natural Resources Service in Davis, California. She received her Ph.D. in Public Policy at George Mason University located in Fairfax, Virginia. Her present duties include leadership for all farm programs administered by NRCS. Before coming to California in 1994, she served the agency for 17 years in Washington, D.C. Maureen Hinkle, Director of Agricultural Policy MAUREEN HINKLE graduated from Wellesley College with a B.A. in political science. She has directed Audubon=s agricultural policy program for 18 years. For nine years prior to that, she worked for the Environmental Defense Fund on pesticide issues. Her work has involved lobbying for the 1978 Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), and the 1985, 1990, and 1996 farm acts. She has also worked on implementation of each of these acts, including budget and appropriations. She assisted with litigation for EDF and Audubon. Her work has involved use of the Freedom of Information Act and discovery. Carol
House, Director CAROL HOUSE has 23 years of experience as a statistician working for the National Agricultural Statistics (NASS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In her current position as Director of the Survey management Division, Ms. House oversees the design and administration of several hundred surveys used to produce information on agricultural production, on the economic status of the farm sector, and on the environmental impact of farming. Ms. House works extensively with users of NASS data, both in designing special purpose surveys and facilitating access to previously collected information. C. Scott Johnson, Farm Manager SCOTT JOHNSON began his career with Capital Agricultural Property Service, Inc. (CAPS) in 1992, and he currently manages over 14,000 acres of corn and soybeans out of the Champaign office. Promoted to Executive Manager in 1998, his primary responsibilities are farm management and real estate transactions. His clients include investors, bank trusts, institutional investors and individuals. Mr. Johnson works with a variety of lease types, such as crop share, custom, cash and fixed bushel. As a member of the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers (ASFMRA), Mr. Johnson was awarded the title of Accredited Farm manager (AFM) in 1997 after successfully completing the Society=s requirements of education, experience and examination. He received the designation of Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) in 1995, and is a licensed real estate broker. Loni Kemp, Senior Policy Analyst LONI KEMP is Senior Policy Analyst at the Minnesota Project, where for nearly 20 years, she has helped address issues of rural communities that cross a broad range of environmental concerns. She is currently Co-Chair of the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, and a member of the Midwest Sustainable Agriculture Working Group. She served for six years on the Board of the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture and the Sustainers= Coalition. She was an advisory member of the Sustainable Agriculture task Force of the Presidents Council on Sustainable Development, and has served on the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Citizens= Board and the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Ms. Kemp holds a Master=s degree from the Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. Ronald L.
Lauster, National Conservation Planning Team Leader RON LAUSTER is the National Conservation Planning Leader for USDA=s Natural Resources Conservation Service in Washington, DC. Mr. Lauster leads a team that works on conservation planning issues for the agency including policy and program development, training, coordination, and evaluation. Recent major projects have included Resource Management or Whole Farm and Ranch Planning, Locally Led Conservation, Area-wide Conservation Planning, Technical Assistance from Third Party Vendors, A New Conservation Planning Course, and New Farm Bill conservation Planning Issues. Mr. Lauster has also been involved with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) efforts on updating the Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG), the NRCS Internet Home Page, Progress Reporting and Measurement System (PRMS), and the Conservation Assistance Toolkit Computer System. He began his position in National Headquarters in 1995. Previous to his current position in the Conservation Operations Division in Washington, DC, Mr. Lauster was Deputy State Conservationist for NRCS in Albuquerque, New Mexico for eight years. He has also worked in various other positions in his 34-year career with Natural Resource Conservation Service, formally known as the Soil Conservation Service. He has served as Water Quality Specialist in Washington, DC, Area Conservationist in New York, SCS Detail to Region 6 of the Environmental Protection Agency as Nonpoint Source Coordinator in Texas, and Water Quality Leader & District Conservationist in several locations in Indiana. Alan Margolis,
Assistant General Counsel ALAN MARGOLIS is a 1983 graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and received his J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh Law School in 1985. Upon his graduation, he clerked for two years for the Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, PA. He joined the EPA in 1991, specializing in information law. He has been assistant general counsel for information law, including Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act issues, since 1997. he has recently worked on the development of strategies for protection of natural habitat data. Pete Nowak, Professor PETE NOWAK received his Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota=s College of Agriculture in 1977. He served as both an assistant and associate professor at Iowa State University before joining the faculty at eh University of Wisconsin in 1985. At the college of Agricultural and Life Sciences in Madison, he holds an appointment as a research professor in the Department of Rural Sociology, a Soil and Water Conservation Specialist in UW Extension=s Environmental Resources Center and is a Co-Director of the College=s Nutrient and Pets Management Program. Mr. Nowak=s work has focused on the adoption of new agriculture technologies with a special emphasis on those practices with natural resource implications. he also served on the board of Directors of the Soil and Water Conservation Society, the Editorial Board of the Journal of soil and Water Conservation, Editorial Board of the Journal of Precision Agriculture and serves on the Board of the Foundation for Environmental Agricultural Education. Bruce Nowlin, Certified Professional Independent Crop Consultant BRUCE NOWLIN is a Certified Professional Independent Crop Consultant and co-owner of Blue Earth Agronomics in Lake Crystal, Minnesota (in south Central Minnesota near Mankato). He has been a crop consultant since 1980 and is a past president of the national Alliance of Independent Crop Consultants. Mr. Nowlin received his education in Oklahoma, receiving his Master=s degree in Plant Pathology from Oklahoma State University in 1977. He then served in an extension position at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for two years working on nematodes in corn and soybeans. In 1980, Mr. Nowlin returned to western Oklahoma and began his career in crop consulting, working on such crops as irrigated peanuts, cotton, potatoes, watermelons, and winter wheat. Mr. Nowlin moved to southern Minnesota in January 1994 and assumed his current position as co-owner of Blue Earth Agronomics. His clients are progressive cash grain and livestock farmers within a 60-mile radius of the home base. The major crops in the area are corn and soybeans, and the livestock consists largely of hogs and dairy. Blue Earth Agronomics has been a leader in facilitating adoption of precision farming in southern Minnesota. Mr. Nowlin=s clients are rapidly adopting precision farming methods and learning how to profit from it as quickly as possible. Chuck Pritchard, California Director CHUCK PRITCHARD currently serves as the California Director of the National Association of Conservation Districts. he received his A.A. degree in pre-veterinary medicine from San Francisco City College. His B.S. degree in farm management and animal science for Cal Poly, and is a graduate of the California Agricultural Leadership Program. Mr. Pritchard belongs to several professional organizations including: the Cattlemen=s Association, Farm Bureau, the Society of Range management, and the Range Management and Advisory Committee to the California Board of Forestry. The two most recent awards he=s received are: National Outstanding Council Member for the National Association of Resource Conservation and Development Councils and the Harley Geisman Memorial Award for Spirit from the California Biodiversity Council. Anne Simmons, Professional Staff ANNE SIMMONS is a Professional Staff member of the House Agriculture Committee=s Democratic staff. She is responsible for issues related to wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, USDA conservation programs, minority farmers, and organic and sustainable agriculture for Ranking Democrat, Charles W. Stenholm of Texas= 17th District. She also serves as Minority Consultant for the Forestry, Resource Conservation and Research Subcommittee. Anne has been involved in several major agriculture-related initiatives, including the conservation and rural development titles of the 1996 farm bill, the 1994 crop insurance reform creation of a national Appeals Division within the USDA, establishment of tribal colleges as land grant institutions, reauthorization of the Federal Grain Inspection Service, creation of the Indian Reservation Extension Agent program, establishment of an oilseed marketing loan program in 1990 farm bill and the 1988 Drought Assistance Act. Brad Starr, Chairman & Member BRAD STARR of Brad Starr Farms, Inc., is a producer of corn, soybeans, and a small beef herd. He has served three years on the AFBF Information and Technology Users Committee as Indiana=s representative, being chairman for the past two years. One of the key components of the committee has been the discussion of intellectual property rights of the producer and the data being generated. Mr. Starr has been keeping GIS information for six years and GPS data the past four. Marc Vanacht, President MARC VANACHT is recognized for his insights in strategic applications of information technology in agriculture like precision farming, the Internet, intranets, strategic databases, and customer service. He works with and consults to commercial companies involved in agriculture, both in the U.S. and abroad. He has given briefings to consulting, aerospace, consumer goods, financial, information services, and computer companies about recent structural and information technology trends in the agricultural market. Mr. Vanacht was a member of the "Task Force on Future Directions in Field Office Business Process Automation@ (1997), and the "Blue Ribbon Panel on Data Collection and Analysis@ (1995), and also of the natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency of the USDA. Mr. Vanacht has Bachelors degrees in Philosophy and Economics, and Masters degrees in Law and Business Administration. He is fluent in five languages. Dr. Jeffrey A. Zinn, Senior Specialist in natural
Resource Policy DR. JEFFREY ZINN, a geographer, is a Senior Analyst in Natural Resources Policy and former Head of the Oceans and Natural Resources Section at Congressional Research Service. he provides analytical support to congressional committees and Members of Congress on wetlands, soil and water conservation, land use planning, and coastal topics. He has been actively involved in congressional debates over conservation and wetlands protection policy in recent years. Also, Dr. Zinn served on the editorial board of Choices, a magazine of the American Association of Agricultural Economics, until 1998, and is on the editorial board of Coastal Zone Management Journal. He occasionally writes articles for the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. He also teaches a course on conservation policy through the Geography Department at George Mason University. Participating Agencies, Organizations, Business Firms
AGENDA A National Workshop Arbor Day Farm • Lied Conference Center • Nebraska City, Nebraska
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||