Researchers know that a comparatively small share of cropland accounts for a disproportionate amount of erosion and nutrient runoff, writes economist Marc Ribaudo in Choices, the ag econ journal. For example, 10 percent of cropland is responsible for an estimated 30 percent of the entire nitrogen load from cultivated land in the Mississippi River basin. In fields that use subsurface tile lines to control soil moisture, practices that would be considered good management on most fields can result in excessive nutrient loss. “The question for policy makers is how to engage these farms in a voluntary setting,” Ribaudo writes. Voluntary adoption of conservation practices, often aided by federal cost-share funds, is the traditional U.S. approach.
One option is to increase so-called compliance standards. Growers now are required to practice soil and water stewardship to be eligible for crop subsidies and for premium subsidies that greatly reduce the cost of crop insurance. “Nutrient compliance would add the adoption of nutrient management practices as a condition for eligibility for program benefits,” Ribaudo contends.
Another possibility would be to tie financial assistance for conservation work to a demonstrated result, such as less nitrogen leaching. At present, payments are based on adopting a practice or building structures such as terraces or grass waterways. “A pay-for-performance approach could change this,” says Ribaudo, and could encourage growers to develop novel approaches to win higher financial rewards. “Another approach would be to work directly on cultivating stewardship values in farmers through extension and outreach,” perhaps by encouraging farmers to work together on a project to improve a waterway that crosses several farms.
“Conservation decisions are influenced by a more complex array of attitudes and factors than costs and returns,” concludes Ribaudo. “Understanding these factors is therefore critical to designing effective policies.”