The role of agricultural conservation and politics

The role of agricultural conservation and politics

The role of agricultural conservation and politics

The foregoing analysis of monetary and other factors related to CA adoption and related practices has already captured many of the consequences of the policy, or during a more generic way, government actions on adoption. Governments use macroeconomic policies, market regulations, subsidies to production factors or training, and extension, which alter the environment during which farmers choose one practice over another. This chapter examines the present and potential role of politics in CA adoption.

The influence of policy on the adoption of conservation agriculture

Agriculture has been subject to state interest and intervention since the center of the last century, perhaps quite the other sector. Although the influence of policies on farmer decision-making tends to be overestimated (Winter, 2000), there's a growing recognition that the supply of public support within the sort of guaranteed prices, subsidies to the means of production, deficit concession in payments, low-interest loans or aid within the event of natural disasters, it's encouraged and facilitated massive investment by farmers in expanding production capacity. Some authors have characterized this dominant sort of agriculture, a minimum of within the developed world, as industrial. this is often thanks to the continuing trend towards fewer and bigger production units, regional and business specialization, more intensive tillage of the soil, a progressive dependence on agrochemicals, and, in many places, a surplus within the production. Considering its associated effects on the standard of the soil, water, or natural habitat, several authors have cited agricultural policy together of the causes that have contributed to environmental degradation.

It is during this context that a lot of governments have introduced different programs to encourage the adoption of CA-type practices. With extension services, subsidies, and taxes, these initiatives have achieved important results. for instance, the success in promoting QA practices in certain developed regions, particularly in Latin America, is noteworthy and politics has played a crucial role. Key factors cited within the expansion of CA in MERCOSUR countries in Latin America. Many of them aren't the results of government policy but of external factors and native traditions. In fact, many programs promoting CA round the world are relatively ineffective thanks to contradictory signals and incentives from existing aid programs. for instance, policies designed to market sustainable agriculture could also be overshadowed by other, typically more resource-intensive, policy measures to support highly erosive crops like in-line crops like peanuts and tobacco, or by other research initiatives. weaker or slower response

 THE ROLE OF POLICY CONTRASTING IN THE PROMOTION OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE

Different studies have examined the reasons for the success in promoting CA (zero tillage) in the MERCOSUR region, Latin America, reasoning the efficiency of the innovation system developed around said promotion. This system included a number of political elements along with external elements that contributed to its success. As an example of the latter, agrochemical companies helped initiate the programs, recognizing their own interest in promoting zero tillage. Farmers also benefited significantly, as the benefits of zero tillage were especially strong for the key soybean crop and were available to larger farms. Concerning the role of government policy, traditional research and extension services were weak and slow in responding to the perceived needs of farmers. However, this fact paved the way for other agents, such as pioneering farms, NGOs, and international aid agencies that came to fill the void left. Furthermore, farmers could easily recognize and understand the underlying problem and experiment with solutions, aided by information provided by zero-tillage farmers' associations. Local traditions also helped: although there was no precursor knowledge of zero tillage, there was a tradition of innovating with cash crops. Furthermore, a misunderstanding between the objectives of the extension and the research could have limited the success of the CA program. In New Zealand, the government cut virtually all support, including environmental aid, to the dominant pastoral agricultural sector in the post-1984. period. This action provided a unique opportunity to assess the implications of the removal of the subsidy for the use of resources in exploitation and environmental management. The results suggest that the response to the elimination of subsidies, at least in the short term, is a decrease in cultivation intensity, manifested as (1) reduced use of marginal lands; (2) less and more selective use of fertilizers; and (3) reduced the number of head of cattle and stables. At the same time, growing insecurity among farmers shortened planning time horizons and slowed certain environmental investments. While farmers still carry out practices such as planting trees for erosion control due to recognized need or conservation ethics, the elimination of aid and other subsidies has generally reduced farmers' willingness and ability to carry out land care activities, especially during periods of financial distress. Therefore, many regional governments have filled the gap left by national aid by financing new programs that encourage farm care.

Some studies have shown that government-funded extension has a positive impact on the adoption of QA practices, preventing that this is not the case in all cases. In the matter of state financial assistance, Napier and Camboni (1993) determine a positive, albeit weakened, correlation between participation within these programs and typically the adoption of conservation tillage. More specifically, based on a model of commercial crop exploitation in Southeast Ontario, Stonehouse and Bohl (1993) show that a subsidy that covers, at one time, 20 percent of disbursement costs would encourage the farmer to move from conventional tillage to no-tillage. However, the study suggests that switching to permanent cover crops, such as alfalfa, would require excessively high subsidies. Finally, in relation to the use of taxes, Aw-Hassan and Stoecker (1994) determined that if damages derived from conventional off-farm practices were subject to a tax of US $ 2.25. per tonne of soil loss, the land area with high yields / high erosion under conservation tillage would increase significantly, while the use of land with low yields would change to pastures. However, in a similar study, Stonehouse and Bohl (1993) show that it is difficult to achieve significant levels in the prevention of erosion via taxes and results in significant reductions in net benefits.

Beyond the limits of conservation tillage, the study of new conservation programs in Europe may provide some insight into the effect of policy on conservation behavior among farmers. These programs have been developed through a progressive conversion of the extensive European Union aid scheme from support for production to support for environmental practices, such as land abandonment policy (Potter and Goodwin, 1998). Based on a study in Scotland, Wynn et al. (2001) show that financial compensation alone does not ensure the success of conservation programs since a lack of awareness in such programs may limit participation. Once aware, farmers are more likely to participate, as long as there is a good fit with the farm situation and the costs to achieve it are low. Such costs are generally an obstacle. Even with full compensation for the inevitable farm income resulting from participation, administrative or transaction costs equal to only 5 percent of total compensation can inhibit farmer participation. This result in Europe suggests that financial support alone is not sufficient to encourage the adoption of CA-type practices. Such support needs to be combined with other efforts directed at the specific needs of farm management.

How can policy improve adoption of conservation agriculture

Considering the environmental impacts experienced in the second half of the last century, it has been concluded that the elimination of production-based aid to the agricultural sector would represent the most effective way of mitigating environmental degradation by governments (OECD, 1989 and 1998 ). There is a debate regarding the means employed, both direct and indirect, by which governments can promote conservation in agriculture in an efficient manner. Table 9 summarizes the numerous approaches taken by governments in the developed world to achieve different conservation objectives.

In promoting CA, a key concern for politicians is whether it provides a net positive or negative benefit to potential users. Once this uncertainty disappears, Uri (1998b) recommends:

technical assistance and training where conservation is profitable but the farmer is not aware of the techniques or their profitability, or does not have the basic knowledge to carry them out;

financial assistance where conservation is not profitable for the farmer as an individual but could provide considerable social benefits;

long-term research and development;

removal from the ground; and

regulation and taxes where a conservationist attitude is required by all farmers, or by those who participate in related aid programs

Regarding the first approach, McNairn and Mitchell (1992) maintain that promoting the adoption of conservation practices requires ensuring long-term benefits, unambiguous, easily understood and accurate information, and the promotion of multiple benefits, economic and non-economic. Training plays a determining role in motivating adoption and needs tailoring, credible and appropriate information and experience that is communicated through the appropriate channels. For this, extension services that provide information and assistance can be highly effective, especially in the case of new emerging technologies, although it is not necessary that public agents be the exclusive providers of said services.

Financial assistance for the adoption of different conservation practices is well established in Europe and, to a lesser extent, in North America. Such assistance can take different forms, such as reducing taxes on the purchase of equipment, rental of machinery, cost-sharing programs, and direct subsidies. Assistance is most appropriate to help overcome significant up-front investments and transition costs, as well as in cases where adoption is not profitable for individual exploitation. Box 5 presents an analysis of policy options to promote soil conservation on farms in Ontario, Canada, highlighting the role such analyzes can play when government assistance is needed. However, Nowak (1987) suggests that financial assistance may also be important in situations where the adoption of technology results in positive net benefits for farmers. The author argues that institutional support tends to reduce the risk farmers face in adopting "unknown technology" and thus reduces the need for detailed pre-adoption information. In other words, state support is useful in overcoming non-adoption caused by costly information demands.

A less interventionist policy approach could focus on research and development to improve the benefits of CA, improving its performance or reducing costs. This approach is based on voluntary adoption and aims to increase the advantages of this situation, making the practice more attractive. However, research and development is a long-term political strategy, with an uncertain probability of success.

The removal of the land is only adequate in those occasions in which the erosion problems are so important as to guarantee the conversion to permanent cover crops. Typically, this approach requires significant public funding to compensate farmers and is not feasible in areas highly dependent on limited land area for subsistence crop production.

Finally, although already tested in some places, the regulation of soil erosion limits is not a common approach (Libby, 1985). This approach probably arises in delicate political situations and burdensome enforcement/compliance demands, especially where regulation of soil loss through no-till results in significant declines in net benefits. A more frequent regulatory approach involves conflicting compliance measures where the right to a support program depends on the adoption of certain conservation practices. Because conformity is by choice, the implementation program will surely be more politically feasible and more economically efficient. Regarding the use of taxes in erosion, it is possible to induce the adoption of CA, including conversion to pastures. However, significant levels of soil conservation imply significant losses in income. Therefore, although possible, the collection of taxes is not feasible from a political point of view.

The role of agricultural conservation and politics

The indeterminacy in the conclusions of the empirical studies and the obvious local nature of many results suggest that a universal approach is not possible. To capture the differences between different farms, farmers, and economic circumstances, a political approach with clear objectives would be desirable. In other words, political mechanisms, such as aid or extension services, could be directed to individuals in a certain place, or preferably, to farmers and particular forms of farm management. Although a clearly targeted political approach places a heavy administrative burden on officials, it could be more efficient than a more uniform approach and could represent

Although this type of approach may be more appropriate for the design of programs that directly promote CA, there are some alternative policy guidelines that may be more universally applicable. For example, Isham (1999) points out that parallel investments in social capital may be necessary to create an environment that sufficiently allows the adoption of the planned activities, and this could be clearly applied in the case of CA. Some authors maintain that social capital is the product of a learning process. Fostering community discussions and finding consensus in decision-making can help achieve such learning. A key question is whether governments can promote social capital, as top-down efforts may not be able to promote bottom-up social capital. However, Sobels et al., (2001) suggest that this is not the case, and cite the Landcare program in Australia as an example of the success of government support in its contribution to social capital. In fact, to some degree, the success of Ontario's Environmental Farm Plan program can be attributed to the farmer's self-esteem and interest in "doing the right thing. Both pride and peer pressure can be important forms of motivation for CA adoption, and government policies may be able to contribute on this front.