The USA has lands of different types; some of them are perfect for agricultural production while others tend to be very erodible. In order to improve the quality of the soil and to ensure its long-term health, governments can use various initiatives. In some cases, it is enough to keep lands covered with grass for a couple of years. In other cases, it may be possible to facilitate the productivity of fields with the help of specific conservation buffers. For instance, professionals recommend using grassed waterways that provide an opportunity to prevent water pollution. Having realized the necessity to minimalize the amount of soil that is of poor quality, governmental bodies developed the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) (“Conservation Reserve Program”). With the help of it, the country is willing to conserve soil. In addition to that, the implementation of this policy leads to the improved protection of water quality. As a result, wildlife habitat is likely to benefit due to the CRP because those lands that used to be in row crop production can now return to nature.
To practice the policy in the USA, governmental bodies provide cost-share and rental payments. They benefit those farmers who agree to stop using their land for some period of time so that the quality of soil can improve. In view of this, farmers do not use the environmentally sensitive land for agricultural purposes, and production stops. Farmers utilize resource-conserving land cover instead and plant it over the whole territory (“Conservation Reserve Program: Encouraging the Establishment of Permanent Covers”). As a result, soil renews and becomes fruitful again over the course of time, providing people with an opportunity to start using it again.
There are different types of CRP contracts, but all of them have a particular duration. Landowners can choose whether they want to have an agreement for 10 or 15 years. Those contracts that last longer are meant for tree plantings. When the contract term expires, farmers can re-enroll for an additional term if they want. Annual payments used according to the CRP can be of several types (“Conservation Reserve Program: Taking Environmentally Sensitive Land out of Production”):
- Rental payments. Rental rates are not the same throughout the USA; moreover, each county can determine them individually. The involved parties identify the maximum rate before the enrollment. However, it is possible to lower it to ensure that the opponents accept the offer. In addition to that, the rental payment is based on “the average dryland cash rent” (“Conservation Reserve Program”).
- Cost-share assistance. Governments can offer up to 50% of the amount needed to establish the cover.
- Incentive payment. The government may also provide up to 150% of the cost of those practices that are crucial for conserving resources and meet the goals of the policy. Authorities may offer up to 20% bonuses. They are provided on rental rates for the implementation of various tools needed to protect selected areas until the end of the contract.
In the majority of cases, the amount of land in the CRP is limited to 25% of the county’s resources. Some alterations are possible under the permission of the local authorities. It is economically beneficial for farmers to use the land in the CRP even though it is not appropriate for production. The possibility of grazing and haying is available. People who have an expiring CRP can minimalize their expenses (Coppess 1). They may enroll in “the Conservation Stewardship Program” or “the Transition Incentives Program” without any expenses but with extra payments to farmers (“Conservation Reserve Program: Taking Environmentally Sensitive Land out of Production”).
Among the key market issues that require further management, one should mention the inability to allocate available resources and, thus, provide opportunities for remote areas to receive the support required for boosting the performance levels. As a result, farmers not only fail to discover the full potential of their lands but also experience significant difficulties managing the bare minimum of tasks that they need to accomplish in order to gain the expected revenue. Therefore, it is important to consider introducing a more coherent strategy for assisting the farmers living in remote areas. One must explore specifically the problem of communication and infrastructure as the primary points of concern since it affects the quality of the product to a considerable degree. Particularly, the lack of a coherent communication framework causes misconceptions and misrepresentation of data. As a result, farmers cannot use the available information to modify their strategies for improving their crops.
The lack of a proper financial strategy that could help farmers use their inventory more efficiently, as well as invest in new tools, is also a current concern. Because of inconsistencies in their use of information, farmers fail to explore new opportunities regarding the investment in new farming tools. As a result, farmers continue to use inefficient devices that not only cause them to work less efficiently but also damage the crops and make their performance even less impressive. Because of the unavailability of the relevant data, farmers cannot consider investing in devices that are more expensive. As a result, the quality of their work and the number of crops drop every year.
Therefore, a change in the current approach toward the allocation of the available resources, as well as the management of crucial data, could help farmers improve their performance and deliver the products that would be competitive in the target market. Therefore, there is a direct correlation between the efficacy of applying the conservation program and the promotion of sustainable use of all available resources, including financial ones. By incorporating the principles of sustainability and reasonable use of corresponding materials and finances, farmers would be able to develop a significant competitive advantage. However, the specified change also requires alterations in the use of technology in the rural environment. The specified task, in turn, requires a significant effort to encourage the target demographic to learn new skills and acquire new knowledge. Thus, changes are bound to occur at a very slow pace.
The identified issue also relates to the management of buyers’ needs. To ensure that farmers could have a strong position in the modern agricultural market, one must ensure a coherent and consistent dialogue with customers. The specified task, in turn, requires the application of innovative technologies that could help keep in touch with the target population on a regular basis. Combined with the rest of the responsibilities that farmers have to face in the modern economic environment, the identified challenge puts too much pressure on farmers. As a result, the latter fails to explore the target market, analyze the demand, and meet the needs of potential buyers. Therefore, immediate changes must take place in the context of the contemporary agricultural sector. Otherwise, the efficacy of producers is likely to drop massively. Communication is the key issue that demands sharp focus. By exploring the existing information management options and avoiding limitations, one will propel the agricultural industry to the top of the global market.
Farmers should use their land for at least one year to be enrolled in the CRP. Exceptions occur if a person inherited it or governmental bodies are satisfied with the new owner. The area, in its turn, should be highly erodible cropland that farmers will use for production for at least 4 previous years. It may also be a marginal pasture, ecologically significant grasslands, or farmable wetland (Mangold and Lansverk 509). The policy allows conserving these lands by planting prairie or trees, establishing meadows with wildflowers, and develop nesting habitats. Primary benefits include the opportunity to expand agricultural activities. Additional benefits also exist, including but not limited to the possibility for students to improve their knowledge of natural resource conservation.
It is vital to emphasize that participation in the CRP is voluntary, which presupposes that no one can force farmers to leave their lands and stop production. In this way, the implementation of this policy does not threaten their financial condition. Moreover, farmers can avoid additional expenses due to it. By dividing their land into two parts, these individuals can use one area for the production and another one for the CRP, changing them when the contract ends. As a result, there will always be a particular amount of land for production.
The benefits of the CRP for the environment are undeniable. First of all, CRP allows overcoming the issue of soil erosion. By referring to the appropriate agricultural practices, farmers can protect soil productivity and reduce the risk of erosion. In view of this, water quality improves. Runoff materials (that include popular pesticides and other farming chemicals) do not reach waters or affect them adversely due to the use of appropriate practices. Finally, the CRP supports wildlife. Many birds, especially grassland ones, will return to their natural habitat as a result.
The CRP is a policy focused on the land. Currently, individuals, businesses, and governments can own this resource. The program tends to benefit individuals and businesses because governmental bodies finance public lands, and there is no necessity to include them in the CRP. Land is both a renewable and depletable resource. Farmers can utilize it for years, but active production uses all the nutritional chemicals needed for crops. As a result, the land requires some time to have a rest and improve its quality. It is beneficial for farmers because they do not need to make additional purchases, and the amount of land that farmers can use does not reduce after every production. Nevertheless, it is critical to facilitate the process of renewal to both postpone and streamline it. Moreover, owners have the possibility to use the land for grazing and haying while it is enrolled in the CRP. As a result, farmers are able to obtain momentary benefit from their lands both while farmers use them actively and while they are renewing.
Economic characteristics of the land affect the way authorities develop the policy. For instance, the ownership identifies the parties involved in the development of the contract. Farmers look for an opportunity to minimize their expenses associated with land conservation, which is required, because without, it long-term production cannot be practiced (Hellerstein 601). Governmental bodies, in their turn, are willing to preserve nature and ensure that landowners continue working and supplying the population of the USA with the required resources. The CRP is supported by the permanent income hypothesis. According to it, the consumption of products depends on both current and future incomes. Farmers can observe changes in their permanent income if their lands are exhausted and become unfruitful. In order to overcome them, they agree to implement changes and enroll in the CRP. This economic theory indicates that people’s income consists of planned and unplanned components. Their decisions regarding resource consumption mainly base on the first component. In order to ensure its stability, people are ready to alter their usual performance and the way they earn money. Hence, being aware of the influences of erosion on the quality of soil and expected productivity, farmers prefer benefiting from the use of the CRP.
Landowners can obtain the greatest benefit when they have several areas of land. In this way, they can use one part for the production purposes that presuppose the possibility of obtaining the greatest profit. Another part, in its turn, should participate in the CRP. In this way, farmers allow the land to become renewed and use it for grazing and haying. Thus, the landowner will be able to avoid expenses needed for natural resource conservation because the government will cover them at least partially. At the same time, the landowners will receive additional income from grazing and haying. As a result, even the land that is not used can become profitable or at least not cost-prohibitive. Every 10, 15, or more years (depending on the type of the contract), the farmer will be able to change these lands. In such a manner, long-term productivity.
Works Cited
“Conservation Reserve Program.”United States Department of Agriculture, Web.
“Conservation Reserve Program: Encouraging the Establishment of Permanent Covers on Sensitive Croplands.” US Forest Service. 2013, Web.
“Conservation Reserve Program: Taking Environmentally Sensitive Land out of Production and Establishing Long-Term Ground Cover.”National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Oct. 2016, Web.
Coppess, Jonathan. “Historical Background on the Conservation Reserve Program.” Farmdoc Daily, vol. 7, no. 82, 2017, pp. 1-3.
Hellerstein, Daniel. “The US Conservation Reserve Program: The Evolution of an Enrollment Mechanism.” Land Use Policy, vol. 63, no. 1, 2017, pp. 601-610.
Mangold, Jane, and Allison Lansverk. “Testing Control Options for Western Salsify (Tragopogon Dubius) on Conservation Reserve Program Lands.” Weed Technology, vol. 27, no. 3, 2013, pp. 509-514.