Improving Federal Agricultural Conservation Incentives: Lessons from the Schuylkill River Watershed

Abstract

This study examines the perceptions of local stakeholders about the effectiveness of Farm Bill working lands incentives in the Schuylkill River Watershed in southeastern Pennsylvania. Farmers and program implementers were interviewed about program characteristics that are perceived as effective, gaps and inconsistencies across the full system of conservation incentives, and the actual or potential value of emerging strategies to maximize program performance, encourage management-intensive conservation, and reward stewardship. Such strategies, often associated with the “green payments” concept, strongly influenced the 2002 Farm Bill and its enactment of the Conservation Security Program (CSP). Since Schuylkill River Watershed farmers had the opportunity to participate in CSP in 2005, interviewees were asked about the usefulness of, and obstacles to implementing, the innovative components of CSP. Finally, this study also examined the relevance of federal programs to local conservation priorities, with special focus given to the effectiveness of NRCS programs in furthering the Schuylkill River Watershed’s water quality objectives. Interviews were conducted with seven farmers with diverse operations and conservation program involvement histories (six of whom participated in CSP), seven implementers of Farm Bill programs (both NRCS and County Conservation District agents), and several implementers of water quality conservation efforts on agricultural land (led by local nonprofits, the EPA, and the state of Pennsylvania). Interviews covered the perceptions of 1) the most important local resource concerns, 2) the best practices for addressing those issues and barriers to such practices, 3) the effectiveness of the full range of available conservation programs in promoting the best practices and addressing priority resource concerns, and 4) the value of emerging program strategies to reward stewardship payments, emphasize management rather than structural conservation practices, and increase conservation performance. Several themes emerged from the interviews. First, all participants were deeply concerned about low NRCS staffing levels. Insufficient staffing appears to have serious consequences for basic program delivery, conservation planning, and managementintensive conservation initiatives. Farmers also expressed strong desires for more sophisticated technical assistance to address complex management challenges. Second, Farm Bill conservation investments do not appear to directly target locally important conservation objectives, nor do they appear to stimulate significant improvements in nutrient management practices, the most critical ingredient for improved water quality in the Schuylkill River Watershed. Third, respondents revealed a dearth of contract enforcement and program evaluation activity, both of which hinder the potential of performance-based programs. Fourth, farmers shared deep frustrations with the tendency of Farm Bill programs to provide more ample rewards for poor stewards than for good

ones. Fifth, CSP was criticized for many problems: for perpetuating inequitable payments between longstanding versus new stewardship commitments, for extremely limited outreach and sign up periods, for not having a continual presence in the same watershed, and for staffing levels too low to ensure accountability. Simultaneously, interviewees believed a stewardship payments program like CSP, if improved, has potential to create stronger incentives and more equity in the NRCS conservation program portfolio. Finally, farmers expressed tentative support for the “greening” of income support by shifting payments from commodity production to stewardship.