Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-h4f6x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-04T22:21:46.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Green Payments Good for the Environment?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Erik Lichtenberg
Erik Lichtenberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is growing interest in green payments subsidizing conservation measures on working farmland based on the premise that they have positive effects on the environment and agriculture simultaneously without causing international trade distortions. This paper uses a Ricardian land market equilibrium model to examine the impacts of green payments. The analysis shows green payments can worsen ambient pollution damage by subsidizing the expansion of more intensive crop cultivation. Some forms of green can increase cultivation intensity (and thus environmental damage) as well. These adverse effects can be avoided by careful targeting, but such targeting is likely to be quite difficult.

Keywords

conservationcost sharingEnvironmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)green paymentsnonpoint source pollution

Information

Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 33 , Issue 1 , April 2004 , pp. 138 - 147
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bastos, G. S., and Lichtenberg, E. (2001). “Priorities in Cost Sharing for Soil and Water Conservation: A Revealed Preference Study.” Land Economics 77, 533–547.Google Scholar
Caswell, M. F., and Zilberman, D. (1986). “The Effects of Well Depth and Land Quality on the Choice of Irrigation Technology.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68, 798–811.Google Scholar
Lichtenberg, E. (1989). “Land Quality, Irrigation Development, and Cropping Patterns in the Northern High Plains.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 71, 187–194.Google Scholar
Lichtenberg, E. (2002). “Agriculture and the Environment.” In Gardner, B. L. and Rausser, G. C. (eds.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 2B (pp. 1249–1313). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Lichtenberg, E. (2004, April). “Some Hard Truths About Agriculture and the Environment.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 33(1), 24–33 [this volume].Google Scholar
Lichtenberg, E., and Smith-Ramirez, R. (2003, July 27-30). “Cost Sharing, Transaction Costs, and Conservation” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Malik, A. S., and Shoemaker, R. A. (1993, June). “Optimal Cost-Sharing Programs to Reduce Agricultural Pollution.” Technical Bulletin No. 1820, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003, April). “Agricultural Conservation: USDA Needs to Better Ensure Protection of Highly Erodible Cropland and Wetlands.” Pub. No. GAO-03-418, Washington, DC.Google Scholar