Shortcuts costly when buying conservation from farmers: study

Mar 05, 2012

Farmers in the U.S. and the European Union receive billions of dollars in government subsidies each year to make changes in their operations that will improve the environment. However, a new study by Paul Armsworth, assistant professor in ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, finds that these government programs may offer very poor value for money.

Armsworth led an international team of researchers examining the performance of farm subsidies. Their findings indicate that designing subsidy programs that actually deliver promised environmental benefits is easier said than done.

The study is published in the journal today.

Under these programs, farmers are paid to change their management practices to improve conditions for wildlife. For example, they might be paid to reduce the number of livestock they keep or amount of fertilizer they apply. Payments are supposed to compensate farmers for costs they incur for making the changes.

The researchers found common shortcuts in the design of farm subsidies undermined their .

"Subsidy schemes of this sort are used all over the world," Armsworth said. "However, policymakers often make shortcuts when designing these schemes to make them easier to administer. For example, they might pay participating farmers all the same amount or allow anyone to sign up regardless of how suitable their farm is for providing wildlife benefits."

Examining more than 40 farms in , the researchers conducted economic surveys. To understand wildlife impacts, they focused on how respond to farm management actions. The survey results were analyzed using mathematical models that allowed researchers to explore different ways of designing farm subsidy programs.

The results revealed between 49 and 100 percent of the promised increase in bird numbers were often not met. Instead, most scheme designs greatly over-compensated farmers for costs they incurred and served primarily to increase farm profits.

By comparing alternatives, the researchers were able to identify which simplified policies were most problematic.

"Allowing payment rates to vary depending on where a farm is located is critical," Armsworth said. "Get that right and prospects for conserving wildlife on farms greatly improves."

Armsworth collaborated with researchers in Stirling, Copenhagen, Nottingham and Exeter on the research which was funded by the United Kingdom's Research Councils' Rural Economy and Land Use Programme, a collaboration between the Economic and Social Research Council, Natural Environment Research Council and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, with additional funding from Defra and the Scottish Government.

Explore further: 'Fracking' in the dark: Biological fallout of shale-gas production still largely unknown

Provided by University of Tennessee at Knoxville

5 /5 (1 vote)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Study to make public roads safer for farmers, drivers

Nov 18, 2008

Population growth and significant increases in development across the country are leading to changes in traffic and driving behavior in many areas where motorists share the road with farmers moving their equipment – changes ...

What farmers think about GM crops

Feb 24, 2008

Farmers are upbeat about genetically modified crops, according to new research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC).

Japanese scientists track bird flu strains

Jul 11, 2005

The Japanese government will destroy 8,500 chickens at a poultry farm in Bando, Ibaraki prefecture, after scientists found genes of the avian flu virus.

Election unlikely to change US farm subsidies

Oct 15, 2010

(AP) -- Republicans might take control of Congress as they ride a wave of voter anger over deficit spending and big government, but experts who follow agriculture say they don't expect deep cuts in subsidies ...

Recommended for you

Selective logging takes its toll on mammals, amphibians

17 hours ago

The selective logging of trees in otherwise intact tropical forests can take a serious toll on the number of animal species living there. Mammals and amphibians are particularly sensitive to the effects of ...

User comments : 0