Participation in Conservation Programs by Targeted Farmers: Beginning, Limited-Resource, and Socially Disadvantaged Operators' Enrollment Trends
by
Cynthia Nickerson and Michael S. Hand
Economic Information Bulletin No. (EIB-62) 41 pp, December 2009
Targeted farmers include those with 10 or fewer years of
experience, farmers with limited farm sales and income, and farmers
belonging to segments of the population that have historically been
subject to discrimination, such as African American, American
Indian, Alaskan Native, Hispanic, Asian American, or Pacific Island
farmers. Targeted farmers make up as much as 40 percent of all U.S.
farms, and, although many participate in conservation programs,
targeted farmers typically have not participated in government
agricultural programs at the same rate as other farmers. To help
offset potential barriers to participation, USDA offers targeted
farmers more favorable payment and enrollment terms in conservation
programs than are available to other farmers.
What Is the Issue?
Farm legislation in both 2002 and 2008 encouraged targeted
farmers to participate in conservation programs by making them
eligible for more favorable payment and enrollment terms than other
farmers received. Such Federal provisions can alter program
outcomes in unintended ways if targeted farmers adopt different
conservation practices, address different environmental needs, or
operate land that is more or less environmentally sensitive than
the land operated by other farmers. Targeting certain farmer types
could result in tradeoffs between environmental performance,
cost-effective delivery of program benefits, and improved access to
Federal conservation programs. This report addresses this issue by
examining participation patterns in the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) to provide information on the types
of farmers who enroll, the geographic distribution of participants,
the types and costs of conservation practices they implement, the
resource issues they address, the natural resource characteristics
associated with their farms, and whether different types of farmers
participate in different ways. Participation rates are measured
based where possible on both the number of farms and acres enrolled
in conservation programs, as these two measures can provide very
different pictures of targeted farmer participation. Those three
conservation programs account for 74 percent of authorized
conservation spending in the 2008 Farm Act.
What Did the Study Find?
During 2004-07, targeted farmers participated differently in
conservation programs than did other farmers. While not definitive,
evidence shows that targeted farmers tended to operate more
environmentally sensitive land than other farmers, had different
conservation priorities, and received different levels of payments.
Those differences suggest that economic and environmental outcomes
could change if the proportion of targeted farmers enrolled in the
programs increases significantly.
Enrollment Patterns
Beginning and limited-resource farmers-two of the three
targeted-farmer groups-were less likely to participate in EQIP than
was the U.S. farm population as a whole (data on socially
disadvantaged farmer participation in EQIP were not available).
These two farmer types operated about 27 percent of all farms in
2006 but held 12 percent of EQIP contracts. This participation
trend was observed in nearly every region of the country,
suggesting that policies that make it easier for these farmers to
enroll could increase participation. One new policy aimed at
encouraging participation, however, is likely to have little
effect. The 2008 Farm Act requires that 5 percent of EQIP funds be
set aside annually for beginning farmers, but beginning farmers
have typically received more than 10 percent of EQIP payments
annually in recent years.
Like their participation patterns in EQIP, targeted farmers
enrolled disproportionately fewer farms in conservation programs
that retire land from production. Twenty-two percent of farms
operated by all three groups of targeted farmers were enrolled in
the CRP and WRP, even though they operate 31 percent of all farms.
A different pattern emerges, however, when the amount of enrolled
acreage is evaluated instead of the number of enrolled farmers:
Targeted farmers enrolled disproportionately more acreage in CRP
and WRP than other farmers. Targeted farmers operated 15 percent of
farmland acres in 2007 but controlled 17 percent of acres enrolled
in these programs.
Environmental Problems and Priorities for
Treatment
Beginning farmers in the Delta region (the only area for which we
could analyze soil data) who participated in EQIP tended to enroll
more highly erodible land than other participating farmers. This
trend suggests that conservation efforts by these farmers could
provide more program benefits than efforts by other farmers. The
available data, however, make it difficult to determine with
certainty if targeting these farmers would increase program
benefits because the characteristics of program participants may
not represent this farmer group as a whole. If, in general, few
beginning farmers operate highly erodible land (and the few that do
have "self-selected" and have already chosen to enroll), targeting
more of these farmers for enrollment may not provide more
conservation benefits than are provided by other farmer types.
Conservation priorities of farmers participating in conservation
programs differ by farmer type. Beginning and limitedresource
farmers enrolled in EQIP addressed livestock forage and health
needs and plant productivity/quality issues more often than did
other farmer types. And although both beginning and
limited-resource farmers participating in EQIP were more likely to
farm closer to quality-impaired waters, the limited-resource
farmers were less likely to address water quality problems. Several
possible reasons may explain these tendencies. First,
limited-resource farmers may face financial or other constraints in
adopting practices that might improve water quality. Second, these
farmers may derive more direct benefits by focusing on other issues
(like improving plant health and vigor). Finally, limited-resource
farmers tend to operate smaller farms that are not subject to the
same regulatory requirements facing larger farm operators who use
EQIP to fund water pollution reduction practices (e.g., pollutant
discharge regulations for concentrated animal feeding operations).
In land retirement programs, targeted farmers of all types were
more likely than other farmer types to be located in areas where
proposed conservation efforts were expected to achieve the greatest
reduction in soil erosion and the greatest improvement in water
quality.
Costs of Treatment
The size of conservation payments varied among farmer
groups.
• In EQIP, average payments (which represent the cost to
government) to beginning farmers were significantly higher than the
average payments to other farmers, while payments to
limited-resource farmers were significantly lower. Both beginning
and limited-resource farmers implemented a larger number of
conservation practices than other farmers did, but the scale of
those practices tended to be smaller.
• In CRP and WRP, targeted farmers enrolled a greater share of
operated acreage and received smaller per acre payments, but the
number and types of conservation practices adopted did not differ
significantly from those of other farmers.
How Was the Study
Conducted?
The analysis relied on USDA data from EQIP and CRP
administrative records, the 2007 Census of Agriculture, and the
National Resources Inventory (NRI). The analysis also used data
from the Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS), which is
conducted annually by the National Agricultural Statistics Service
and the Economic Research Service The EQIP and CRP contract data
identified the resource problems that received treatment and, for
EQIP, how payments and adoption of practices varied between
beginning/limited-resource producers and other participant types.
The analysis used the ARMS data from 2004-07 to analyze payment and
acreage enrollments in CRP and WRP by farmer type and to summarize
the characteristics of targeted farmers. The 2001 ARMS data on
conservation practice adoption (the most recent year data were
available) were used to examine conservation practice adoption
patterns in land retirement programs. The census, NRI, and other
data characterized the distribution of farmer types relative to
measures of environmental conditions.
EQIP, CRP, ARMS, NRI, and census data were used to characterize
differences among current conservation program participants and to
suggest that targeted and other farmers may differ in their ability
to provide environmental benefits cost effectively. Providing firm
answers about the impacts of favoring particular farmer types would
require more information, including quantitative estimates of the
environmental benefits provided by different farmer types and
whether targeted participants are more cost-effective providers of
benefits than nonparticipants. Also, targeted farmers' acreages are
disproportionately small, and information about program
participants' farm sizes would be needed to distinguish whether
differences between farmer types are due to the type of farmer or
farm size.