IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/eurcho/v18y2019i1p49-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conservation and the Environment in US Farm Legislation

Author

Listed:
  • Erik Lichtenberg

Abstract

Conservation programmes have been a feature of US agricultural policy since the 1930s. Farmers are paid to take farmland out of production and to install or maintain farming practices to reduce erosion and runoff or to protect wildlife habitat. Budgets for these programmes have grown substantially over the past two decades and they have become major vehicles for making payments to farmers. The goals are to promote agricultural sustainability and to enhance environmental quality. Providing income support to farmers is an explicit goal of some of the programmes and an implicit function of others. They operate by paying farmers to convert environmentally sensitive land to more sustainable uses; to adopt or maintain runoff‐ and erosion‐reducing practices on working farmland; or to preserve land of environmental or cultural importance in its current condition. The benefits of conserving agriculture's natural resource base are largely private while the benefits of environmental quality improvements are largely public. Income support (and thus political) considerations have dominated the geographic distribution of spending, to the detriment of potential achievements in environmental quality improvement. These programmes remain important as virtually the only means by which non‐point source pollution from agriculture is addressed in the United States. Les programmes de conservation font partie intégrante de la politique agricole américaine depuis les années 1930. Les agriculteurs sont payés pour mettre hors production des terres agricoles et pour y introduire ou y maintenir des pratiques agricoles visant à réduire l’érosion et le ruissellement ou à protéger l'habitat de la flore et de la faune. Les budgets alloués à ces programmes ont considérablement augmenté au cours des deux dernières décennies et sont devenus un moyen important de verser des paiements aux agriculteurs. Les objectifs sont de promouvoir la durabilité de l'agriculture et d'améliorer la qualité de l'environnement. Fournir un soutien du revenu aux agriculteurs est un objectif explicite de certains de ces programmes et une fonction implicite d'autres. Les programmes de conservation opèrent en payant les agriculteurs pour convertir les terres écologiquement sensibles à des utilisations plus durables; adopter ou maintenir des pratiques réduisant le ruissellement et l’érosion sur les terres agricoles en production; ou pour préserver des terres d'importance environnementale ou culturelle dans leur état actuel. La préservation des ressources naturelles de l'agriculture profite en grande partie aux intérêts privés tandis que l'amélioration de la qualité de l'environnement profite largement aux intérêts publics. Le soutien des revenus, et donc les considérations politiques, ont dominé la répartition géographique des dépenses, au détriment des réalisations potentielles en matière d'amélioration de la qualité de l'environnement. Ces programmes restent importants car ils sont pratiquement le seul moyen par lequel la pollution diffuse de l'agriculture est traitée aux États‐Unis. Seit den 1930er Jahren sind Naturschutzprogramme ein fester Bestandteil in der Agrarpolitik der USA. Die Landwirte werden dafür bezahlt, Ackerland aus der Produktion zu nehmen und landwirtschaftliche Praktiken zu etablieren oder aufrechtzuerhalten, welche die Erosion und den Oberflächenabfluss reduzieren oder die den Lebensraum der Tiere schützen. Die Budgets für diese Programme sind in den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten erheblich gestiegen und haben sich zu einem wichtigen Instrument für Zahlungen an Landwirte entwickelt. Ziele sind die Förderung der landwirtschaftlichen Nachhaltigkeit und die Verbesserung der Umweltqualität. Die Gewährung von Einkommensbeihilfen für Landwirte ist ein ausdrückliches Ziel einiger dieser Programme und eine implizite Funktion anderer. Sie werden eingesetzt, um Landwirte dafür zu bezahlen, ökologisch sensible Flächen in nachhaltigere Nutzungsformen umzuwandeln, abfluss‐ und erosionsmindernde Praktiken bei der Bewirtschaftung von Ackerland einzuführen oder aufrechtzuerhalten oder Flächen von ökologischer oder kultureller Bedeutung in ihrem derzeitigen Zustand zu erhalten. Die Vorteile der Erhaltung der natürlichen Ressourcenbasis der Landwirtschaft sind weitestgehend privater Natur, während die Vorteile der Verbesserung der Umweltqualität weitgehend öffentlich sind. Subventions‐ (und damit politische) Überlegungen dominierten die geografische Verteilung der Ausgaben – zum Nachteil potenzieller Erfolge bei der Verbesserung der Umweltqualität. Diese Programme sind dennoch nach wie vor wichtig, da sie praktisch das einzige Mittel darstellen, mit dem die Verschmutzung durch die Landwirtschaft durch nicht punktuelle Quellen in den Vereinigten Staaten angegangen wird.

Suggested Citation

  • Erik Lichtenberg, 2019. "Conservation and the Environment in US Farm Legislation," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 18(1), pages 49-55, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:1:p:49-55
    DOI: 10.1111/1746-692X.12214
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1746-692X.12214
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1746-692X.12214?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guilherme S. Bastos & Erik Lichtenberg, 2001. "Priorities in Cost Sharing for Soil and Water Conservation: A Revealed Preference Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 533-547.
    2. Katherine Reichelderfer & William G. Boggess, 1988. "Government Decision Making and Program Performance: The Case of the Conservation Reserve Program," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 70(1), pages 1-11.
    3. Kling, Catherine L., 2013. "State Level Efforts to Regulate Agricultural Sources of Water Quality Impairment," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(3), pages 1-4.
    4. Horowitz, John K. & Just, Richard E., 2013. "Economics of additionality for environmental services from agriculture," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 105-122.
    5. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2014. "Conservation, the Farm Bill and U.S. Agri-Environmental Policy," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 1-6, September.
    6. Stacy Sneeringer, 2009. "Does Animal Feeding Operation Pollution Hurt Public Health? A National Longitudinal Study of Health Externalities Identified by Geographic Shifts in Livestock Production," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(1), pages 124-137.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ali Ajaz & Sumon Datta & Scott Stoodley, 2020. "High Plains Aquifer–State of Affairs of Irrigated Agriculture and Role of Irrigation in the Sustainability Paradigm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-17, May.
    2. Joseph Glauber & Vince Smith, 2021. "Trends in US Agricultural Policy since 2000 and Implications for the Next Twenty Years," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(2), pages 58-63, August.
    3. Pathak, Santosh & Wang, Hua & Adusumilli, Naveen C., 2022. "Contract Non-compliance and Moral Hazard: Evidence from Cost-share Programs in Louisiana, USA," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322324, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pates, Nicholas J. & Hendricks, Nathan P., 2016. "Additionality in Payments for Environmental Service Contracts with Technology Diffusion," 2016 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Boston, Massachusetts 236066, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2004. "Some Hard Truths About Agriculture and the Environment," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 33(1), pages 24-33, April.
    3. Cattaneo, Andrea & Claassen, Roger & Johansson, Robert C. & Weinberg, Marca, 2005. "Flexible Conservation Measures on Working Land: What Challenges Lie Ahead?," Economic Research Report 7248, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    4. Lichtenberg, Erik & Smith-Ramirez, Ricardo, 2003. "Cost Sharing, Transaction Costs, And Conservation," 2003 Annual meeting, July 27-30, Montreal, Canada 22141, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    5. Valle, Haydn & Capon, Timothy & Harris, Michael & Reeson, Andrew, 2012. "Coordination and Strategic Behaviour in Landscape Auctions," 2012 Conference (56th), February 7-10, 2012, Fremantle, Australia 124466, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    6. Markus Groth, 2005. "Auctions in an outcome-based payment scheme to reward ecological services in agriculture – Conception, implementation and results," ERSA conference papers ersa05p180, European Regional Science Association.
    7. Latacz-Lohmann, U. & Schilizzi, S., 2008. "Quantifying the Benefits of Conservation Auctions: Evidence from an Economic Experiment," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 43, March.
    8. Hongli Feng & Catherine L. Kling & Lyubov A. Kurkalova & Silvia Secchi & Philip W. Gassman, 2005. "The Conservation Reserve Program in the Presence of a Working Land Alternative: Implications for Environmental Quality, Program Participation, and Income Transfer," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 87(5), pages 1231-1238.
    9. Vukina, Tomislav & Zheng, Xiaoyong & Marra, Michele & Levy, Armando, 2008. "Do farmers value the environment? Evidence from a conservation reserve program auction," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1323-1332, November.
    10. Hope Corman & Dhaval Dave & Nancy E. Reichman, 2018. "Evolution of the Infant Health Production Function," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 85(1), pages 6-47, July.
    11. Wu, JunJie & Zilberman, David & Babcock, Bruce A., 2001. "Environmental and Distributional Impacts of Conservation Targeting Strategies," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 333-350, May.
    12. B Kelsey Jack, 2009. "Auctioning Conservation Contracts in Indonesia - Participant Learning in Multiple Trial Rounds," CID Working Papers 35, Center for International Development at Harvard University.
    13. Robert C. Johansson & Andrea Cattaneo, 2006. "Indices for Working Land Conservation: Form Affects Function," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 28(4), pages 567-584.
    14. Fleming, Patrick & Lichtenberg, Erik & Newburn, David, 2018. "Water Quality Trading Program Design with Heterogeneous Behavioral Responses," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274429, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    16. Naveen Adusumilli & Rowell Dikitanan & Hua Wang, 2019. "Effect of Cost-Sharing Federal Programs on Adoption of Water Conservation Practices: Results from Propensity Score Matching Approach," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(01), pages 1-16, July.
    17. Kim, Youngho & Lichtenberg, Erik & Newburn, David, 2022. "Payments and Penalties in Ecosystem Services Programs," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322103, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Stoneham, Gary & Chaudhri, Vivek & Ha, Arthur & Strappazzon, Loris, 2003. "Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria’s BushTender trial," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 47(4), pages 1-24.
    19. Lu, Na & Villa, Kira M., 2018. "The effect of farming on rural household’s health: A natural experiment in China," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274441, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    20. Feng, Hongli & Kurkalova, Lyubov A. & Kling, Catherine L. & Gassman, Philip W., 2006. "Environmental conservation in agriculture: Land retirement vs. changing practices on working land," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 600-614, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:eurcho:v:18:y:2019:i:1:p:49-55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.