Avoiding Loss of Agricultural Subsidies: Swampbuster

Reference work entry

Abstract

Throughout past centuries, wetland loss has developed into a serious issue that carries profound environmental, economic, and political implications in the United States. The lower 48 states have lost an estimated 53% of their original wetlands over the last 200 years, largely because the United States’ agricultural sector has grown and developed, a profound amount of wetlands have been converted into cropland in order to capitalize on their fertile, nutrient-rich soils. This diminishes the capacity of ecosystems to generate a wealth of beneficial services. Historically, economic incentives embodied in agricultural statutes have influenced wetland decline by increasing short-term profitability. To reverse this trend, efforts to protect wetlands were implemented through the Highly Erodible Land Conservation and Wetland Conservation Compliance provisions – widely known as “Swampbuster” – as a part of the 1985 US Food Security Act. Along with key amendments in the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, the statute encourages crop producers to conserve wetlands through financial incentives, substantially changing the working relationship between farmers and their lands. In order to effectively display how the loss of agricultural subsidies relates to wetlands, this chapter will detail specific Swampbuster provisions, identify their strengths and weaknesses, and discuss future challenges that affect Swampbuster’s role in environment, agriculture, and politics.

Keywords

Wetlands Swampbuster Agricultural program benefits Agricultural subsidies 

References

  1. Claassen R. The Future of Environmental Compliance Incentives in U.S. Agriculture: The Role of Commodity, Conservation, and Crop Insurance Programs. Washington, D.C.: United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service; 1 Mar 2012. USDA-ERS Economic Information Bulletin No. 94.Google Scholar
  2. Desteven D, Lowrance R. Agricultural conservation practices and wetland ecosystem services in the wetland-rich Piedmont-Coastal Plain region. Ecol Appl. 2011;21(S):3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Lubben B, Stockton M, Protopop I, Jansen J. Analyzing federal farm program and crop insurance options to assess policy design and risk management implications for crop producers. Paper presented at: Agricultural & Applied Economics Association’s 2013 Crop Insurance and Farm Bill Symposium; 8–9 Oct 2013; Louisville.Google Scholar
  4. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Wetland Conservation Provisions (Swampbuster). 2013. Available from: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detailfull/national/programs/alphabetical/camr/?cid=stelprdb1043554
  5. United States Department of Agriculture. Crop Production 2012 Summary. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service; 2013 January, p. 55 ISSN: 1057-7823.Google Scholar
  6. United States Department of the Interior. The impact of federal programs on wetlandsVol.II.Washington, DC: Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance; 1994 March, Ch. 3.Google Scholar
  7. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Wetland conservation- Swampbuster. Washington, DC: Division of Fish and Wildlife Management and Habitat Restoration; 2003 Sept 24. 504 FW 4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Agricultural and Applied EconomicsVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations