Environmental Quality Incentives Program Research Articles

Methods for assessing spillover effects between concurrent green initiatives

This research presents the methods that are used to examine the dynamics and potential spillover effects of various global environmental conservation programs. We specifically show the data and models that we use to analyze the interactions and mutual influences between the U.S.'s Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), as well as those between China's Grain-to-Green Program (GTGP) and Forest Ecological Benefit Compensation (FEBC). Additionally, this study illustrates information about global initiatives, their interconnected impacts, and the associated policy strategies for environmental conservation. By utilizing multivariate regression, logistic regression, eigenvector spatial filtering, and scenario modeling, the research aims to understand the collective influence of these initiatives on broader environmental objectives. The findings of this study provide valuable insights for improving conservation policy designs and effectiveness.•Multivariate and logistic regression analyses to dissect global environmental conservation program interactions and mutual influences.•Eigenvector spatial filtering to address spatial autocorrelation and enhance the accuracy of the model results and our interpretations.•Scenario modeling to project potential future outcomes and impacts.

Financial incentive programs and farm diversification with cover crops: assessing opportunities and challenges

Farmers in the Great Lakes region of the U.S. face tremendous pressure to reduce nutrient losses from agriculture. Increasing crop rotation diversity with overwintering cover crops can support ecological processes that maintain productivity while improving multiple ecosystem functions, including nutrient retention. We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand how financial incentive programs impact transitions to cover cropping in Michigan. Michigan farms span a wide range of soil types, climate conditions, and cropping systems that create opportunities for cover crop adoption in the state. We tested the relationship between Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) payments for cover crops and cover crop adoption between 2008–2019, as measured by remote sensing. We coupled this quantitative analysis with interviews with 21 farmers in the Lake Erie watershed to understand farmers’ perspectives on how incentive programs could support greater cover crop adoption. Panel fixed effects regressions showed that EQIP increased winter cover crop presence. Every EQIP dollar for cover crops was associated with a 0.01 hectare increase in winter cover, while each hectare enrolled in an EQIP contract for cover crops was associated with a 0.86–0.93 hectare increase in winter cover. In semi-structured interviews, farmers reported that financial incentives were instrumental to cover crop adoption, but that program outcomes fall short of intended goals due to policy design problems that may limit widespread participation and effectiveness. Thus, strengthening EQIP and related conservation programs could support broader transitions to diversified farming systems that are more sustainable and resilient.

Examining cover crop agri-environmental program participation: Evidence from a western US farmer survey

Agri-environmental programs (AEPs), which pay farmers to adopt conservation practices, are increasingly important environmental and agricultural policy tools used in both the US and the EU. Despite large budgetary shares allocated in a 20-year application window, several studies identify lower-than-expected environmental outcomes. In the US, reasons for low environmental outcomes include low participation rates, lack of program awareness, and poor targeting levels. Research has identified low levels of awareness and variation in participation across the US in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the largest working lands program in the US. Using a survey of Western US farmers, this paper provides an analysis of awareness and participation levels in cover crop AEPs in the Western US. Second, this paper analyzes motivations and barriers to participation in cover crop AEPs through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). Third, the paper uses a survey experiment to examine different types of incentives. The results highlight that participation is low due to lack of awareness and policy barriers. Using a logistic regression, predictors of AEP participation include frequent contact with NRCS, having a succession plan, and a positive attitude toward governments’ role in conservation programs. The survey experiment found that non-financial factors, such as more information on cover crops, is an effective policy incentive.

Lessons from the Archives: Understanding Historical Agricultural Change in the Southern Great Plains

In the US, agriculture rapidly expanded beginning in the 1850s, influenced by homesteader policies and new technologies. With increased production also came widespread land-use/land-cover change. We analyze historical agricultural policies and associated land and water use trajectories with a focus on the Southern Great Plains (SGPs). Rapid changes in agriculture and reoccurring drought led to the infamous Dust Bowl, triggering new agricultural and land management policies, with lasting impacts on the landscape. To understand historical agricultural change, we use mixed methods, including archival literature and historical agricultural census data (1910 to 2017) from three counties in a tri-state (Oklahoma, New Mexico, Colorado) area of the SGPs. Our archival policy and agricultural census analysis illustrates 110 years of agricultural change, showing that agricultural policies and technological advances play an integral role in the development of agroecological systems, especially the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and the Livestock Forage Disaster Program (LFP). Further, while communities began with distinct agricultural practices, agricultural policy development resulted in increasing uniformity in crop and livestock practices. The results suggest that there are sustainability lessons to be learned by looking to the land and water trajectories and accompanying unintended consequences of the past.

Discerning the process of cultivated land governance transition in China since the reform and opening-up-- Based on the multiple streams framework

Cultivated land is a key resource for human survival and development. Understanding what has promoted the cultivated land governance transition (CLGT) is enlightening to improve cultivated land governance (CLG), then cope with the problems closely related to cultivated land that challenge the sustainable development of human societies, of critical importance. Based on the concept of transition, this paper constructs a theoretical model of the CLGT in China, designs an evaluation index system of CLG, and uses the elbow-kmeans method to identify the cycle and turning points of the CLGT in China from the reform and opening-up to 2020. Then, it introduces the multiple streams framework to summarize the paths of the CLGT. The results indicate that the curve of the CLGT in China shows a "W-shape", including two transition cycles in 1984–1999 and 1999–2020 and two turning points in 1989 and 2003. The first CLGT in China is a demand-induced passive transition, and the second CLGT is a supply-led initiative transition. There are three paths promoting the CLGT, namely, the institutional path, the emergency path and the reconstruction path. The positive benefits of the first two paths counteract the negative impact of the problem stream and halt the decline in CLG output, and the third path promotes the CLG output increase. Finally, China's CLG has not yet achieved SDG 12. This paper recommends the establishment of a CLG early warning platform and the launch of a Cultivated Land Environmental Quality Incentive Program to promote an increase in the output of CLG in China, and ultimately achieve the Sustainable Development Goals.

Missouri natural resource professionals share key insights for supporting agroforestry practices through cost-share funding available from USDA conservation programs

Abstract Agroforestry plantings offer a promising ecologically based solution to address agricultural resource concerns while simultaneously achieving conservation goals, because they provide multiple benefits including reduced soil erosion, decreased nutrient runoff, increased biodiversity and greater farm income stability. Despite these benefits, the adoption of agroforestry practices remains low throughout the United States. One approach intended to increase the implementation of these ecologically beneficial practices is to offer financial incentives for landowners. Several USDA conservation programs provide applicant landowners with financial and technical resources to implement approved conservation practices, including tree planting. Missouri offers a unique socio-political context for the application of agroforestry tree plantings in established conservation programs as it is currently the only state with an Environmental Quality Incentives Program fund pool dedicated to agroforestry and woody crop establishment. To gather initial information on the potential for agroforestry in Missouri, seven conservation professionals from prominent agencies, including Natural Resource Conservation Service and University of Missouri Extension, were interviewed. The purpose of these interviews was to gather in-depth knowledge on (1) the current dialogue around trees in conservation programs between natural resource professionals and landowners (2) the relationships between landowners and conservation agencies and (3) the professionals' knowledge of and familiarity with agroforestry practices. Preliminary findings suggest there are misconceptions about the requirements and regulations for conservation programs among landowners and conservation professionals. Another common theme was that conservation agencies face challenges in forming long-term connections with landowners, and they rely primarily on landowners to reach out for assistance. Lastly, conservation professionals are supportive of agroforestry but wish for greater knowledge of the practices before promoting them to landowners. Due to the small sample size of interview participants, these insights provide one perspective into the agroforestry knowledge of natural resource professionals. These initial findings will help direct future research on how well natural resource professionals understand agroforestry concepts and how they are engaging with Missouri farmers to support them in planting trees on their land.

Landowner Satisfaction with Conservation Programs in the Southern United States

Landowner satisfaction with conservation programs affects their participation decisions and subsequently effectiveness of these programs in improving environmental quality. This study determined the influence of landownership goals, environmental concerns, frequency of contacts with federal agencies, and socioeconomic factors on landowner satisfaction with available conservation programs in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley and East Gulf Coastal Plain sub-geographies of the Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative. A generalized ordered logit model for each conservation program was constructed to analyze factors influencing landowner satisfaction levels with these programs. Of the 14 federal conservation programs assessed, the top programs, based on a satisfaction level, included Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP). The size of agricultural land owned, landownership goals including profit-making and personal recreation, concerns about wildlife habitat losses, and frequent contacts with federal agencies were positively related to landowner satisfaction levels. Better strategies addressing landowner’s environmental concerns, communicating technical knowledge, clarifying contract terms, and supporting financial resource leveraging will help reach the enrolled and non-enrolled landowners to increase their participation in conservation efforts.

The influence of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program on local water quality

AbstractThe Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is the primary conservation program on working agricultural land. The United States Department of Agriculture obligated over $15 billion through EQIP cost‐sharing contracts during the fiscal years 2009–2019. The voluntary nature of the program and the lack of performance assessment have led to speculations regarding the effectiveness of the program in delivering environmental benefits, in particular for improving water quality. This study provides quantitative estimates of the influence of EQIP payments on local water quality at a national scale. We link monitoring station level water quality readings with EQIP contract data and exploit the direction of river flow for identification. The estimated effects of EQIP vary across water quality measures. Estimates indicate that EQIP payments have significantly reduced biochemical oxygen demand and nitrogen, indicating improvements in water quality, but increased total suspended solids, fecal coliform, and phosphorus, suggesting that the implementation of certain conservation practices might have increased soil erosion and pathogen transfer, especially in watersheds with more agricultural production.

Payments from agricultural conservation programs and cover crop adoption

AbstractThis study explores how aggregate payments received from two different U.S. agricultural conservation programs—the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)—influence county‐level cover crop adoption rates in the Corn Belt. We utilize 2006–2015 county‐level panel data with information on cover crop adoption rates and per acre conservation program payments to achieve the study objective. Cover crop adoption information is collected from a unique satellite‐based data set of soil health practices. Linear fixed effect models, fractional regression models, and a moment‐based instrumental variables model are used in the empirical analysis. Our estimation results suggest that EQIP payments have a statistically significant positive effect on cover crop adoption at the county level. In contrast, we find statistical evidence that CSP payments reduce the county‐level proportion of acres planted to cover crops. These opposing effects indicate that it is possible for conservation payment programs to have differing aggregate effects on adoption rates of specific conservation practices (e.g., cover crops in this case). Moreover, these results imply that not all conservation programs “are created equal” and differences in policy designs and focus areas may induce diverging effects in the uptake of particular conservation practices.

Improved Cost Estimates for Agricultural Conservation Practices

HighlightsDeveloped Useful Life Total Cost (ULTC) functions for 23 types of agricultural conservation practices.Derived each cost function from multiple ULTC estimates bracketing a range of design variations and sizes for each agricultural conservation practice.Developed Annual ULTC based on practice life cycle duration.Compared Prioritize, Target, Measure Application costs to ULTC.Recommend using ULTC rather than Prioritize, Target, Measure Application Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment as a cost surrogate. Abstract. The cost to achieve water quality goals is an essential piece of information necessary for assessing whether the expected societal benefits are worthy of investment.Within the United States, taxes generate the “public money” to pay to improve water quality. State and Federal Agencies distribute the public’s money to local governments and landowners as grants and cost-share to implement agricultural conservation practices (“practices”). Comparing the cost to improve water quality and the anticipated public benefit helps inform the investment decision.The lack of a robust method for estimating the cost of practices and developing a Water Quality Strategy hampers the ability to compare cost and benefits. Within Minnesota and North Dakota, Water Quality Practitioners commonly use the Prioritize, Target, Measure Application (PTMApp) to develop strategies to improve water quality. PTMApp utilizes the Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment as a surrogate to estimate practice cost. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program payment is a percentage of the estimated cost to implement a typical practice scenario, excluding the labor to plan, design and permit the practice; inspect the practice during construction; operate and maintain the practice; finance costs; and in most cases forgone income.We addressed the need for estimates of practice cost by developing Useful Life Total Costs (UTLCs) for 23 agricultural conservation practices. Useful Life Total Costs incurred throughout the practice life cycle begin with planning and end with reconstruction to maintain proper function. We developed multiple ULTCs (year 2020) for each practice by bracketing the range of design variations and sizes. Legacy PTMApp costs ranged from 1% to 55% of the UTLC, confirming underestimation of the actual practice costs.Cost functions developed by selecting the best-fit line between the ULTCs and a predominant practice physical characteristic are useful for developing Water Quality Strategies. The cost functions, recently incorporated into PTMApp, considerably improve the ability to estimate the actual cost to achieve water quality goals and societal benefits. Keywords: Benefits, Implementation, Life cycle, Planning, PTMApp, Useful life, Water quality.

Estimating Northern Bobwhite Density in Privately-Owned Forests Across the Southeast

Rigorous density estimates can inform management, conservation planning, and policy decisions. Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus; hereafter, bobwhite) populations are declining throughout their range, including the southeastern United States. Numerous private land conservation initiatives are underway to restore bobwhite populations in these areas, but baseline estimates of density spanning privately owned forests are sparse. This information gap makes it difficult to evaluate the population-level effects of these conservation programs or develop expectations for timelines to reach population targets. We sought to understand baseline densities across privately owned pine forests in the southeastern United States in areas targeted for bobwhite conservation. We sampled 138 pine stands a total of 286 times across Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina from 2018 to 2020 using autumn distance sampling point counts. We sampled 110 stands that were either planned or applied U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) management contracts, specifically Working Lands for Wildlife (WLFW) Northern Bobwhite partnerships or similar Environmental Quality Incentives Program contracts. The WLFW contracts were solely in focal counties identified in the National Bobwhite Conservation Initiative 2.0 plan and by cooperating state wildlife agencies. Contracts were on average 17.4 ha (SD = 27.0). We also sampled 28 areas with extensive (>200 ha) and intensive (e.g., at least every 3 years for the last ~10 years) habitat management for bobwhite. We used a hierarchical distance sampling model to estimate density. Density was lowest in North Carolina and South Carolina. Densities in Alabama were slightly greater, and greatest densities were in Georgia and Florida. However, the majority of observed densities were 2 coveys/40 ha or below, and all were below 4 coveys/40 ha. Large and intensively managed sites on average had 4 times greater density compared to smaller contracts. Specific densities will be reported in the future. Our sampling efforts fill an important information gap regarding densities throughout private lands in the southeastern United States. Our models indicate that bobwhite densities are generally low in pine forests of the Southeast even in counties identified as having the greatest conservation potential. The relatively greater densities at large and intensively managed sites illustrate the need for more intensive landscape-scale planning when implementing private land conservation. Pending research will compare densities at planned and applied NRCS contracts in the context of landscape-scale habitat amount.

Prairie and tree planting tool-PT2 (1.0): a conservation decision support tool for Iowa, USA.

This article overviews the prairie and tree planting tool or PT2 (1.0), an online GIS-based decision support tool for landowners interested in exploring opportunities to plant prairie or trees in and around their farm fields for conservation or production purposes. PT2 1.0 can be found online at: https://pt2.nrem.iastate.edu/. With the PT2 (1.0) users locate farm fields of interest in an online aerial photograph and mapping geographic information system (GIS). Users explore areas they are considering for prairie or tree cover by examining different data layers: soil maps, 2-foot contour topography maps, LiDAR hillshade maps, and a map of current land values based on estimated land rent. Users then utilize scaled dimensional drawing tools to measure and delineate areas of interest for planting trees and or prairie. Once an area is delineated, users select from drop-down menus prairie seed mixes or woody species that are suitable for the soils present, and users can select basic long-term management options. PT2 (1.0) estimates total annualized costs for tree or prairie establishment, long-term management, and opportunity costs (based on area weighted expected soil rent), and factors in the potential benefit of utilizing government cost-share programming, e.g., Environmental Quality Incentive Program or the Conservation Reserve Program. Key data layers are currently functional in Iowa, likewise the financial data underlying the cost analysis are specific to Iowa. PT2 (1.0) is, however, open source and open code and guidance is provided regarding how to access and adapt the data for use in other states.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10457-021-00686-8.

Perspectives on organic transition from transitioning farmers and farmers who decided not to transition

AbstractDespite continuous growth in demand for organic food and farm products, US domestic supply is not keeping pace. Increasing domestic supply requires, in part, that more farms transition to certified organic production. This in turn requires a better understanding of the transition process. This paper reports on a national survey of farmers transitioning to organic certification through participation in the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Environmental Quality Incentives Program Organic Initiative (EQIP-OI). Our analysis focuses on what motivates farmers to undertake transition to organic certification and what obstacles they confront in the process. The survey population included farmers in the midst of the transition process and farmers who began transition but decided not to pursue organic farming, allowing us to compare both groups to farmers who successfully transitioned to certified organic. Because farmers do not control all of the factors that influence their success, we use a ‘spheres of influence’ framework to analyze obstacles at four levels: the farm, local and regional infrastructure, the marketplace and policy. Our results improve our understanding of the transition process and apply to a wide range of stakeholders and service providers who support farmers in different ways, through crop research, infrastructure development, market development and policy.

Aligning agri-environmental subsidies and environmental needs: a comparative analysis between the US and EU

The global recognition of modern agricultural practices’ impact on the environment has fuelled policy responses to ameliorate environmental degradation in agricultural landscapes. In the US and the EU, agri-environmental subsidies (AES) promote widespread adoption of sustainable practices by compensating farmers who voluntarily implement them on working farmland. Previous studies, however, have suggested limitations of their spatial targeting, with funds not allocated towards areas of the greatest environmental need. We analysed AES in the US and EU—specifically through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and selected measures of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)—to identify if AES are going where they are most needed to achieve environmental goals, using a set of environmental need indicators, socio-economic variables moderating allocation patterns, and contextual variables describing agricultural systems. Using linear mixed models and linear models we explored the associations among AES allocation and these predictors at different scales. We found that higher AES spending was associated with areas of low soil organic carbon and high greenhouse gas emissions both in the US and EU, and nitrogen surplus in the EU. More so than successes, however, clear mismatches of funding and environmental need emerged—AES allocation did not successfully target areas of highest water stress, biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and nutrient runoff. Socio-economic and agricultural context variables may explain some of these mismatches; we show that AES were allocated to areas with higher proportions of female producers in the EU but not in the US, where funds were directed towards areas with less tenant farmers. Moreover, we suggest that the potential for AES to remediate environmental issues may be curtailed by limited participation in intensive agricultural landscapes. These findings can help inform refinements to EQIP and EAFRD allocation mechanisms and identify opportunities for improving future targeting of AES spending.

Assessing the Benefits and Economic Feasibility of Stand Improvement for Central Hardwood Forests

Abstract Stand improvement (SI) has been widely accepted as an effective forest management tool. Yet most studies on its economic feasibility for nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) landowners are outdated and focus on the single stand level. The objective of this study was to conduct an economic assessment of SI’s effects and feasibility in hardwood stands for a case study in the White River Basin in Indiana. It is shown that SI could make these forests more productive and sustainable than the prevalent “hands-off” practice by enhancing the timber value of the residual stand (TV), generating regular timber income, and to some degree, reversing the decline in oak dominance. On average, a 25% increment in the TV could be achieved. Although costly for some NIPFs, once combined with voluntary financial incentive programs, SI could meet landowners’ demands for low-cost, high-return investment options. In particular, participation in the Environmental Quality Incentive Program could, on average, increase the net present value of timber income from thinning activities by nearly $1,600 per hectare over the course of 30 years. The spatial analysis revealed that there existed considerable spatial heterogeneity in SI benefits and impacts, suggesting that public incentive programs should be spatially targeted to achieve greater efficiency.

A mixed-methods analysis for improving farmer participation in agri-environmental payments for ecosystem services in Vermont, USA

We examine whether using a payment for ecosystem services (PES) framework for agri-environmental programs could increase farmer participation through a mixed methods approach. We assess the institutional design of two U.S. agri-environmental programs, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), in the Lake Champlain Basin in the northeastern US, where managing eutrophication from phosphorus pollution remains a challenge. We synthesize a checklist of institutional markers previously derived from past PES literature and assess the extent to which these two programs increase participation and achieve environmental goals. Our analysis demonstrates EQIP and CREP meet several PES principles. However, transaction costs present a barrier towards participation with both programs. We suggest these costs can be lowered by greater technical assistance. We categorize EQIP program data by their ecosystem service provision using the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment classification. We find EQIP demonstrates cost-effective targeting and conditionality yet may have an institutional focus on large-scale structural practices focused on “end of pipe” prevention of nutrient runoff. The positive effect that PES institutional design criteria have on participation in agri-environmental incentive programs motivates further research on synergies and tradeoffs between farmer participation and environmental outcomes.

Evaluating the Untapped Potential of U.S. Conservation Investments to Improve Soil and Environmental Health

There is increasing enthusiasm around the concept of soil health, and as a result, new public and private initiatives are being developed to increase soil health-related practices on working lands in the United States. In addition, billions of U.S. public dollars are dedicated annually toward soil conservation programs, and yet, it is not well quantified how investment in conservation programs improve soil health and, more broadly, environmental health. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is one of the major U.S. public conservation programs administered on privately managed lands for which public data are available. In this research, we developed a multi-dimensional classification system to evaluate over 300 EQIP practices to identify to what extent practices have the potential to improve different aspects of soil and environmental health. Using available descriptions and expert opinion, these practices were evaluated with a classification system based on the practice's potential to exhibit the following environmental health outcomes: (i) principles of soil health to reduce soil disturbance and increase agrobiodiversity; (ii) a transition to ecologically-based management to conserve soil, water, energy and biological resources; and (iii) adaptive strategy to confer agroecosystem resilience. Further, we analyzed nearly $7 billion U.S. dollars of financial assistance dedicated to these practices from 2009 through 2018 to explore the potential of these investments to generate environmental health outcomes. We identified nine practices that fit the highest level of potential environmental health outcomes in our classification systems. These included wetlands and agroforestry related practices, demonstrating that ecologically complex practices can provide the broadest benefits to environmental health. Practices with the greatest potential to improve environmental health in our classification system represent 2–27% of annual EQIP funding between 2009 and 2018. In fiscal year 2018, these practices represented between $13 and 121 million, which represented ~0.08% of total annual USDA expenditures. These classifications and the subsequent funding analysis provide evidence that there is tremendous untapped potential for conservation programs to confer greater environmental health in U.S. agriculture. This analysis provides a new framework for assessing conservation investments as a driver for transformative agricultural change.

Estimates of Conservation Tillage Practices Using Landsat Archive

The USDA Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) provides financial assistance to encourage producers to adopt conservation practices. Historically, one of the most common practices is conservation tillage, primarily the use of no-till planting. The objectives of this research were to determine crop residue using remote sensing, an indicator of tillage intensity, without using training data and examine its performance at the field level. The Landsat Thematic Mapper Series platforms can provide global temporal and spatial coverage beginning in the mid-1980s. In this study, we used the Normalized Difference Tillage Index (NDTI), which has proved to be robust and accurate in studies built upon training datasets. We completed 10 years of residue maps for the 150,000 km2 study area in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Minnesota and validated the results against field-level survey data. The overall accuracy was between 64% and 78% with additional improvement when survey points with suspect geolocation and satellite tillage estimates with fewer than four dates of Landsat images were excluded. This study demonstrates that, with Landsat Archive available at no cost, researchers can implement retrospective, untrained estimates of conservation tillage with sufficient accuracy for some applications.

Promoting sustainable agriculture: Iowa stakeholders’ perspectives on the US Farm Bill conservation programs

Farmers perceive a tension between short-term profit and long-term sustainability, which can be bridged by external investments in conservation. In the USA, the Farm Bill plays an important role in providing this investment through conservation programs. Since the Farm Bill is influenced by various stakeholders, their perspectives tend to inform its programs and practices. We aim to understand influential stakeholders’ viewpoints on strengths and weaknesses of major conservation programs as a means for either incremental or transformative changes leading to policy improvements. Interviews were conducted with representatives from key stakeholder groups, including farmer and agribusiness groups, commodity groups, government agencies, and environmental NGOs. Results reveal that commodity group and agribusiness representatives maintain that current conservation programs have been effective at reducing soil erosion and proposing incremental changes to them. Specific issues include simplifying the conservation stewardship program, easing requirements attached to the environmental quality incentive program, avoiding excessive conservation reserve program payments to compete with tenant farmers for good agricultural lands, and preventing farmers from being out of compliance on highly erodible land. However, results also reveal that stakeholders now appear to be more concerned about water quality and nutrient management rather than soil erosion. Environmental NGOs and research groups present transformative ideas to address this issue. At the farm level, they promote both infrastructural improvements and conservation-conscious management practices. At the landscape level, many stakeholders recognize the need for holistic, scalable approaches to soil and water quality conservation. However, interviewed stakeholders unanimously foresee incremental, not transformative, changes to Farm Bill conservation programs and policies.

Effects of cover crops on multiple ecosystem services: Ten meta-analyses of data from arable farmland in California and the Mediterranean

Cover crops are considered to be beneficial for multiple ecosystem services, and they have been widely promoted through the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in the EU and Farm Bill Conservation Title Programs, such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), in the USA. However, it can be difficult to decide whether the beneficial effects of cover crops on some ecosystem services are likely to outweigh their harmful effects on other services, and thus to decide whether they should be promoted by agricultural policy in specific situations. We used meta-analysis to quantify the effects of cover crops on five ecosystem services (food production, climate regulation, soil and water regulation, and weed control) in arable farmland in California and the Mediterranean, based on 326 experiments reported in 57 publications. In plots with cover crops, there was 13% less water, 9% more organic matter and 41% more microbial biomass in the soil, 27% fewer weeds, and 15% higher carbon dioxide emissions (but also more carbon stored in soil organic matter), compared to control plots with bare soils or winter fallows. Cash crop yields were 16% higher in plots that had legumes as cover crops (compared to controls) but 7% lower in plots that had non-legumes as cover crops. Soil nitrogen content was 41% lower, and nitrate leaching was 53% lower, in plots that had non-legume cover crops (compared to controls) but not significantly different in plots that had legumes. We did not find enough data to quantify the effects of cover crops on biodiversity conservation, pollination, or pest regulation. These gaps in the evidence need to be closed if cover crops continue to be widely promoted. We suggest that this novel combination of multiple meta-analyses for multiple ecosystem services could be used to support multi-criteria decision making about agri-environmental policy.