Shortcuts costly when buying conservation from farmers

Monday, March 5, 2012

Shortcuts in the design of payment schemes to persuade farmers to undertake conservation works could be putting the potential environmental benefits at risk, a study involving researchers at The University of Nottingham has found.

Farmers in the EU and US receive billions of dollars/pounds in government subsidies. Increasingly, these payments are justified on the basis that they provide financial incentives to farmers to improve the environment through their activities.

Working in the Peak District, an international team of researchers led by experts at The University of Nottingham examined how the design of subsidy schemes influenced the conservation benefits provided by these programmes.

For the study, published in the latest edition of the journal Ecology Letters, the researchers combined detailed economic surveys of farms with studies of how different species responded to farm management actions.

Dr Paul Wilson, Director of the University's Rural Business Research Unit, said: "Environmental schemes designed to correct for market failures and provide public goods from land-use have been a feature of EU payments to farmers over recent decades.

"Many such schemes are designed with administrative ease in mind as much as achieving broad environmental outcomes. However, designing more targeted schemes is the most efficient use of public funds."

The EU and member states spend on average the equivalent of USD $7.2 billion per year on payments to farmers that are designed to safeguard environmental benefits. The largest subsidy scheme of this type in the US, the Conservation Reserve Program spends $1.7 billion per year to purchase such benefits on agricultural land.

Worryingly, the researchers found that all manner of shortcuts common in scheme design undermined environmental performance. Between 49 per cent and 100 per cent of the promised conservation gain was lost.

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

"The need for different payments, in different areas, to achieve different environmental outcomes lies at the heart of better designed agri-environmental policy," added Dr Wilson.

###

University of Nottingham: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk

Thanks to University of Nottingham for this article.

This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.

This press release has been viewed 100 time(s).

Source: http://www.labspaces.net/118137/Shortcuts_costly_when_buying_conservation_from_farmers

somali pirates navy seals navy seal team 6 tim gunn tim gunn built to last obama state of the union address 2012