Shifting Subsidies And Conservation

US environmentalists are up in arms on farms across the nation because of a recent downward trend in the Conservation Resource Program. The program, established about 25 years ago, pay farmers not to grow on some of their fields. The result has been impressive: 400,000 participating farmers and an area totaling over 36.8 million acres. Duck populations rose to about two million as a result. But now wheat and other crop prices are soaring, and farmers want their land back to...what else...farm. Last year farmers took back an area the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined.

sub.png
Surprised? You shouldn't be. And those concerned environmentalists should maybe take a business course. The Conservation Resource Program is a subsidy. And guess what? Subsidies are designed to go away.

The United States is a rich nation with strong property rights and secure, standardized transactions. Especially in such environments, indirect methods of biodiversity conservation, such as subsidies, don't make sense. And in this case - they can go away. The US Government would be better off taking a slightly more direct approach: the cheapest way to get something you want is to pay for you want rather than pay for something indirectly related to it.

As they say...you get what you pay for.

For the story, see the business section of the NY Times.

Tags

More like this

Agricultural subsidies are bad policy on so many different levels. They artificially lower food prices, thus making it harder for farmers from developing nations to compete. (Cutting subsidies would do a tremendous amount of good for the third world.) They encourage the growth of monoculture…
There's quite an argument going on in the comments after my post yesterday about government crop quotas. Here's what I think those who disagree with me are missing: the government is doing what would be illegal if corporations did it. If oil companies got together and decided to all limit their…
The Miami-Herald is reporting today that food stamp use has more than doubled among Floridians in the last three years: More than 2.5 million Floridians are on food stamps, up from three years ago where 1.2 million residents received assistance. That's according to records kept by the Department of…
As I wrote yesterday in my piece for The Huffington Post, the history of Western financial involvement in Haiti has been one of growing the nation's textile industry despite the fact that 70% of Haiti's annual income comes from agriculture. By emphasizing programs such as HOPE and HOPE II, the…

So the solution is for the government to buy up land with the money they would have used for subsidies and take it permanently out of rotation? I wonder how much could be protected that way, and whether farmers would go for it.

I'm all for great swaths of publicly protected greenbelt, and I'm willing to pay a little more for food if it protects the environment. But then I'm a middle class Californian. I live in a region that produces tons of food, and I can afford to pay an extra buck a pound for my grapefruit.

These farming economies in rural areas have different priorities.

In my experience, conservation-minded farmers didn't need subsidies to spare, or even to restore natural habitat. As a societ, we should buying environmentaly sensitive areas from whoever happens to hold the current leases, and protecting them in perpetuity. Surely a nation as rich as the USA could do this.

By bob koepp (not verified) on 11 Apr 2008 #permalink

Here in NYC, we're dealing with a preposterous plan to build a multibillion dollar water treatment plan rather than spend a fraction of that cost to purchase the land in the watershed that has always provided high quality, naturally purified water to half the state. Obviously, this makes no economic sense.

On the other hand, politicians gain nothing material by making wise land use decisions on behalf of the public. They do benefit materially when they do favors for wealthy developers or funnel government money to those that don't deserve it. I'm not putting the farmers who have every right to grow crops on their land in the latter category. I'm saying that all too often, our elected officials make disastrous decisions because they put their own short term interest ahead of the long term interest of the commons.

Shifting Baselines? Meet Unintended Consequences. You two should become best friends.

I'm all for great swaths of publicly protected greenbelt, and I'm willing to pay a little more for food if it protects the environment. But then I'm a middle class Californian. I live in a region that produces tons of food, and I can afford to pay an extra buck a pound for my grapefruit.