Interest is growing in broadening the
array of government programs that
would help to improve the environ-
mental performance of agriculture and at
the same time provide some income sup-
port to agricultural producers. Associated
with agricultural production are beneficial
environmental impacts—e.g., rural land-
scape amenities, habitat for plants and
wildlife, and cleaner air from emissions-
absorbing land sinks—as well as adverse
impacts—e.g., soil erosion, runoff from
nutrients and pesticides, and loss of wet-
lands and other natural habitats. In a com-
petitive economy, agricultural producers
have few, if any, financial incentives to
provide environmental services—i.e.,
maintain beneficial impacts or mitigate
adverse environmental impacts—without
government involvement. Government
“agri-environmental” payments programs
pay producers to provide environmental
services.
Existing agri-environmental payments
programs include the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP), the Wetlands
Reserve Program (WRP), and the
Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP). Efforts undertaken
under these programs have significantly
reduced erosion of farmland, restored over
900,000 acres of wetland previously con-
verted to crop production, and generally
improved wildlife habitat on agricultural
land. Nevertheless, agriculture continues
to confront environmental problems, par-
ticularly water pollution from runoff that
carries nitrogen and phosphorous from
fertilizer and animal waste. Government
efforts to help reach environmental goals
as well as to supplement farm income
could include a program of payments to
farmers who are “certified” as environ-
mentally sound or could resemble a
recently proposed “conservation security
program” to provide payments to farmers
based on their adoption of designated
conservation practices.
This article explores some common but
complex features of agri-environmental
relationships that will affect the design of
agri-environmental payments programs.
While not critiquing current or proposed
policies