IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/endesu/v23y2021i1d10.1007_s10668-019-00572-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriel Medina

    (University of Brasilia)

  • Catherine Isley

    (Iowa State University)

  • J. Arbuckle

    (Iowa State University)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriel Medina & Catherine Isley & J. Arbuckle, 2021. "Promoting sustainable agriculture: Iowa stakeholders’ perspectives on the US Farm Bill conservation programs," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 173-194, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10668-019-00572-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10668-019-00572-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10668-019-00572-5
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10668-019-00572-5?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Álvarez, X. & Valero, E. & Santos, R.M.B. & Varandas, S.G.P. & Sanches Fernandes, L.F. & Pacheco, F.A.L., 2017. "Anthropogenic nutrients and eutrophication in multiple land use watersheds: Best management practices and policies for the protection of water resources," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-11.
    2. Toderi, Marco & Francioni, Matteo & Seddaiu, Giovanna & Roggero, Pier Paolo & Trozzo, Laura & D’Ottavio, Paride, 2017. "Bottom-up design process of agri-environmental measures at a landscape scale: Evidence from case studies on biodiversity conservation and water protection," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 295-305.
    3. McWilliam, Wendy & Balzarova, Michaela, 2017. "The role of dairy company policies in support of farm green infrastructure in the absence of government stewardship payments," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 671-680.
    4. Bellemare, Marc F. & Carnes, Nicholas, 2015. "Why do members of congress support agricultural protection?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 20-34.
    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. Inman, Alex & Winter, Michael & Wheeler, Rebecca & Vrain, Emilie & Lovett, Andrew & Collins, Adrian & Jones, Iwan & Johnes, Penny & Cleasby, Will, 2018. "An exploration of individual, social and material factors influencing water pollution mitigation behaviours within the farming community," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 16-26.
    7. Catherine DeLong & Richard Cruse & John Wiener, 2015. "The Soil Degradation Paradox: Compromising Our Resources When We Need Them the Most," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-14, January.
    8. Qu, Mei & Liu, Guangzhe & Lin, Yin & Driedger, Erika & Peter, Zsuzsanna & Xu, Xiaoqian & Cao, Yang, 2017. "Experts’ perceptions of the sloping land conversion program in the Loess Plateau, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 204-210.
    9. McFadden, Jonathan R. & Hoppe, Robert A., 2017. "The Evolving Distribution of Payments From Commodity, Conservation, and Federal Crop Insurance Programs," Economic Information Bulletin 291932, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    10. Sternweis, Laura & Arbuckle, J. Gordon, Jr., 2016. "2012 Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll: Land Values," ISU General Staff Papers 201603231539481402, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    11. Oliver Taherzadeh & Peter Howley, 2018. "No net loss of what, for whom?: stakeholder perspectives to Biodiversity Offsetting in England," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 1807-1830, August.
    12. Hendricks, Nathan P. & Er, Emrah, 2018. "Changes in cropland area in the United States and the role of CRP," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 15-23.
    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. Ruining Li & Qinghua Chen & Meng Li, 2024. "The Impact of Digital Finance on Enhancing the Spatial Effects of Heterogeneous Environmental Regulations in Supporting Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 14(7), pages 1-21, June.

    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. Simon R. Swaffield & Robert C. Corry & Paul Opdam & Wendy McWilliam & Jørgen Primdahl, 2019. "Connecting business with the agricultural landscape: business strategies for sustainable rural development," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(7), pages 1357-1369, November.
    2. D'Alberto, R. & Targetti, S. & Schaller, L. & Bartolini, F. & Eichhorn, T. & Haltia, E. & Harmanny, K. & Le Gloux, F. & Nikolov, D. & Runge, T. & Vergamini, D. & Viaggi, D., 2024. "A European perspective on acceptability of innovative agri-environment-climate contract solutions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    3. Muhammed Ernur Akıner & İlknur Akıner, 2021. "Water Quality Analysis of Drinking Water Resource Lake Sapanca and Suggestions for the Solution of the Pollution Problem in the Context of Sustainable Environment Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-13, April.
    4. Nathan P. Hendricks, 2022. "Would farmers benefit from removing more land from production in the next farm bill?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 44(3), pages 1139-1157, September.
    5. Spawn-Lee, Seth A. & Lark, Tyler J. & Gibbs, Holly & Houghton, Richard A. & Kucharik, Christopher J & Malins, Chris & Pelton, Rylie & Robertson, G. Philip, 2021. "Refuting recent claims of an improved carbon intensity of U.S. corn ethanol," EcoEvoRxiv cxhz5, Center for Open Science.
    6. Eric Britt Moore, 2023. "Challenges and Opportunities for Cover Crop Mediated Soil Water Use Efficiency Enhancements in Temperate Rain-Fed Cropping Systems: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-14, April.
    7. Rachel M. Shellabarger & Rachel C. Voss & Monika Egerer & Shun-Nan Chiang, 2019. "Challenging the urban–rural dichotomy in agri-food systems," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 36(1), pages 91-103, March.
    8. Quintana, Diana C. & Díaz-Puente, José M. & Gallego-Moreno, Francisco, 2022. "Architectural and cultural heritage as a driver of social change in rural areas: 10 years (2009–2019) of management and recovery in Huete, a town of Cuenca, Spain," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    9. Tiziano Gomiero, 2016. "Soil Degradation, Land Scarcity and Food Security: Reviewing a Complex Challenge," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-41, March.
    10. Cornish, Brian & Miao, Ruiqing & Khanna, Madhu, 2020. "How will changes in Title II of the 2018 Farm Bill affect CRP Acreage?," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304304, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Gastineau, Pascal & Mossay, Pascal & Taugourdeau, Emmanuelle, 2021. "Ecological compensation: How much and where?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    12. Jayalath, Tharaka A. & Grala, Robert K. & Grado, Stephen C. & Evans, David L., 2021. "Increasing provision of ecosystem services through participation in a conservation program," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    13. Lark, Tyler J., 2020. "Protecting our prairies: Research and policy actions for conserving America’s grasslands," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    14. Thomas, Alban & Chakir, Raja, 2020. "Unintended consequences of environmental policies: the case of set-aside and agricultural intensification," TSE Working Papers 20-1066, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    15. Jacek Kulawik, 2015. "Wspólna polityka rolna Unii Europejskiej w perspektywie globalnej," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 5, pages 119-143.
    16. Todd, Jessica E. & Whitt, Christine & Key, Nigel & Mandalay, Okkar, 2024. "An Overview of Farms Operated by Socially Disadvantaged, Women, and Limited Resource Farmers and Ranchers in the United States," Economic Information Bulletin 340512, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    17. Jennifer Ifft & Deepak Rajagopal & Ryan Weldzuis, 2019. "Ethanol Plant Location and Land Use: A Case Study of CRP and the Ethanol Mandate," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 37-55, March.
    18. Sponagel, Christian & Bendel, Daniela & Angenendt, Elisabeth & Weber, Tobias Karl David & Gayler, Sebastian & Streck, Thilo & Bahrs, Enno, 2022. "Integrated assessment of regional approaches for biodiversity offsetting in urban-rural areas – A future based case study from Germany using arable land as an example," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    19. Fengxia Dong, 2022. "Cover Crops, Drought, Yield, and Risk: An Analysis of US Soybean Production," NBER Chapters, in: American Agriculture, Water Resources, and Climate Change, pages 241-267, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    20. Zhike Lv & Ting Xu, 2019. "Do economic sanctions affect protectionism? Evidence from agricultural support," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 27-42, March.

    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:spr:endesu:v:23:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s10668-019-00572-5. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.