The 1995 Farm Bill: Issues, Options, and an Analytical Framework for Integrated Economic and Environmental Policy Assessment

A viable agricultural policy should adapt to any changes occurring within the agricultural sector. With the growing focus on environmentally friendly agriculture, increased role for markets by reducing the influence of farm programs, agricultural-related global climate change, and budgetary pressures, the 1995 Farm Bill can lead the reorienting of farm policies toward achieving these goals and thus preserve the leadership role of the U.S. agricultural sector. The 1995 Farm Bill should enable farmers to retain their competitive edge in the increasingly free global market and also should protect the environment and rural communities. This paper identified key issues and the available options for the upcoming Farm Bill discussions

CEEPES: An Evolving System for Agro-environmental Policy

Nonpoint source pollution from agricultural production is now front-and-center in the policy debate over potential sources of environmental degradation (see, for example, Shortie and Dunn 1986; Russell and Shogren 1993). Although partially related to scientific advances in measurement and detection, perceived risks due to chemical loading have intensified the pressure to more closely coordinate agricultural and environmental policy (Cohen, Eiden, and Lorber 1986; Johnson, Wolcott, and Aradhyula 1990). But strategies to coordinate these policies have been impeded by a serious information gap on the explicit environmental and economic trade-offs of various public and private actions. Although most decision makers would agree that securing this information is critical for more effective agro-environmental policy, the question remains as to the best course of action

Corn and Sorghum Herbicides and Water Quality: An Evaluation of Alternative Policy Options

The policies restricting the use of atrazine and other triazines to achieve desirable water quality standards are analyzed in a CEEPES framework. Five policies, including atrazine post restriction, restricting atrazine to meet MCL and HAL standards in runoff, a complete ban on atrazine, and also a ban on all triazines, were evaluated. The results suggest a $764 million total economic welfare loss with a triazine ban; with all other policies there was only one-third as much economic welfare loss. Although the triazine ban produced desirable water quality benefits, the economic costs are significantly higher. The overall goal of reducing water quality risk with the least economic welfare loss would not be achieved through an atrazine ban either, unless producers adopt practices that minimize risk from substitute herbicides. The runoff standards-based policy restrictions and atrazine post restriction offer best results for minimizing environmental risks with the least welfare reduction, but the current analysis assumes zero transaction costs, namely zero cost of monitoring and assessment

Atrazine and Water Quality: An Evaluation of Restricting Atrazine Use on Corn and Sorghum to Postemergent Applications

Atrazine is the most widely used herbicide for corn and sorghum and the most commonly encountered in ground and surface water. In addition to water quality problems, atrazine poses hazards through atmospheric transport, food residues, and exposure of applications and wildlife. If atrazine use is restricted, substitute herbicides will come into wider use, increasing the likelihood of occurrence of their own sets of potentially undesirable side effects and imposing cost or efficacy penalties

Crop Residues: The Rest of the Story

Synopsis In the February 15, 2009 issue of ES&T Strand and Benford argued that oceanic deposition of agricultural crop residues was a viable option for net carbon sequestration (43 [4], 1000−1007). In reviewing the calculations and bringing their experience to bear, Karlen et al. argue in this Viewpoint that crop residue oceanic permanent sequestration (CROPS) as envisioned by Strand and Benford will not work. They further propose alternative possibilities in agricultural methods to achieve a net decrease of CO2 emissions

Using Adaptive Management to Meet Conservation Goals

Natural resource professionals should know whether or not they are doing an effective job of managing natural resources. Their decision-making process should produce the kind of results desired by the public, elected officials, and their agencies’ leadership. With billions of dollars spent each year on managing natural resources, accountability is more important than ever. Producing results is the key to success. Managers must have the necessary data to make enlightened decisions during program implementation—not just at the conclusion of a program. Adaptive management is described as an adapt-and-learn methodology as it pertains to implementing Farm Bill conservation practices. Four regional case studies describe how adaptive management is being applied by practicing fish and wildlife managers. Indicators were identified to monitor and evaluate contributions to fish and wildlife habitat for each of the case studies. Data collected at each stage of the studies were used to make mid-course adjustments that enabled leadership to improve or enhance ongoing management actions

Agriculture and the conservation of wildlife biodiversity – comparative analysis of policies in the USA and the EU (PowerPoint)

Comparative analysis of U.S. and EU policies on the conservation of wildlife biodiversity

Agriculture and the conservation of wildlife biodiversity – comparative analysis of policies in the USA and the EU (PowerPoint)

Presented to USDA Economists Group, Washington, DCWildlife, biodiversity, agriculture, cross compliance, Agricultural and Food Policy, Environmental Economics and Policy, Land Economics/Use, Q,

On Modified Symmetries for the Boltzmann Equation

In this contribution, we are using Lie group theoretical method

Offset markets for nutrient and sediment discharges in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed: Policy tradeoffs and potential steps forward

Considerable interest has been expressed recently in prospects for water quality trading markets between nutrient sources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. Allowing such flexibility in response to the terms of recently announced total maximum daily load (TMDL) restrictions might considerably decrease costs of compliance with the TMDLs. Before an effective and efficient market for offsets can be established, however, certain preconditions must be met. In particular, there must be means by which nutrients can be measured, allowances can be assigned, and limits on nutrient discharges enforced. In this paper we consider some factors that may affect the realization of these preconditions. A recurrent theme is that there are tradeoffs in policy design. A regime that imposes tight restrictions on those who are eligible to trade may also limit the cost savings that might be realized from trading. On the other hand, a regime that maximizes market participation might fail fully to achieve the environmental goals of an offset or trading policy. We conclude with some recommendations for steps that might be taken to initiate limited markets in nutrient and sediment discharges. These markets might then be expanded as experience is gained and methods developed to assure improved market performance