Taxpayers Asking for Clear Outcomes
to Farmland Conservation Programs

Excerpted from a report prepared by Caroline van Schaik and George Boody,
Land Stewardship Project, and Dennis Keeney, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

Taxpayers are increasingly asking for clear outcomes to tax dollars spent on conservation policy, such as erosion control, wildlife habitat and improved water quality. However, the success of federal and state-based conservation programs is still largely measured by installed acres and miles of terraces or waterways, for example. The interest in moving beyond paying strictly for practices has not been central to current conservation policy, even though it makes sense to the taxpayers who foot the bill.

How to focus attention and dollars on clear outcomes from farmland conservation programs was the overarching theme of a day long “Dialogue on Performance-based Conservation Policies for Agriculture,” held November 14, 2005, in Ames, Iowa. Forty diverse specialists and practitioners in soil and water conservation representing many states and multiple organizations, agencies and farms, took part in frank and challenging conversations as they moved between large and small group discussions.

In preparation for the dialogue, Dennis Keeney, senior fellow at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and George Boody, executive director of the Land Stewardship Project, wrote a concept paper on performance-based approaches to conservation programs, compiling current principles, tools, barriers and recommendations.* Participants expanded upon the major themes in the paper to address issues such as stakeholders, measuring, good vs. bad actors, market vs. government forces, science and research, subsidies and commodities, existing models world-wide, and scale. Recurring themes emerged as the day unfolded. For example:

• The need to monitor.
• The lack of and need for performance goals at every level.
• Existing policy that pays for practices.
• The “bad actors syndrome.”

At the beginning of the dialogue and again near the end of the day, participants were asked to place themselves along a gradient of agreement in response to the statement: “Performance-based measurements should form the basis for federal farm policy.” After a day of discussion, all but three participants thought they could “live with the decision” or were “interested, even enthusiastic.”

Organizers report that the dialogue was a success and that their performance goal for the meeting was met—to stir the conversation with regard to the role (realized or otherwise) of performance or measured outcomes in the conservation title of the 2007 federal farm bill.

The “Dialogue on Performance-based Conservation Policies for Agriculture” was convened by
Cornelia Flora of the North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, George Boody and Caroline van Schaik of the Land Stewardship Project, Dennis Keeney of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, and Laura Jackson of the Leopold Center Board of Directors. A more detailed report on the day’s dialogue can be found at http://landstewardshipproject.org.

* “Performance-based Approaches to Agricultural Conservation Programs Dealing with Non-point Source Pollution, including Utilization of the Provisions of the Conservation Security Program.” The full paper and an abbreviated 2-page version are available at http://landstewardshipproject.org.

Next Article

Previous Article

Return to Inside this Issue (Vol. 28, No. 3, 2006)

Return to Rural Development News Index

North Central Regional Center for Rural Development
Iowa State University
107 Curtiss Hall
Ames, IA 50011-1050
(515) 294-8321, (515) 294-3180 fax

For questions, comments or concerns about the NCRCRD website, contact .

Last updated May 12, 2006 .