Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill: A review of the literature
Main changes to US farm programmes under the 2014 Farm Bill aim to strengthen instruments for risk management, both in commodity and in crop insurance programmes. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill consolidated voluntary conservation programmes supporting agricultural land preservation and the adoption...
Gespeichert in:
Format: | Elektronisch E-Book |
---|---|
Sprache: | English |
Veröffentlicht: |
Paris
OECD Publishing
2017
|
Schriftenreihe: | OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers
|
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | kostenfrei |
Zusammenfassung: | Main changes to US farm programmes under the 2014 Farm Bill aim to strengthen instruments for risk management, both in commodity and in crop insurance programmes. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill consolidated voluntary conservation programmes supporting agricultural land preservation and the adoption of environmentally friendly production practices. In the literature reviewed, analysts generally acknowledge the reinforced capacity of farm programmes to reduce farm revenue losses and the diversity of options offered to farmers to manage risk. They also discuss farmers' choices of participation in programmes and coverage level in terms of optimisation of their benefits. They also outline the scope for higher budget costs if prices keep falling, but note that some provisions limit the increase. Regarding the impact of programmes on land and markets, the consensus is that by design, the two new crop commodity programmes do not influence current planting decisions, but they could generate small wealth and risk effects. Similarly the new dairy programme could affect the decisions of risk adverse farmers. Support to crop insurance on the other hand is based on current parameters, and unlimited, thus it is expected to encourage higher input use to maximise profit, in addition to the wealth and risk effects. Empirical analyses find very small effects of crop insurance subsidies on total land use, but some suggest a non-negligible impact on crop rotation, and variable input use. Overall, the literature finds that conservation payments seem to have had a positive impact on the environment. In particular, they have encouraged farmers to adopt more environmentally-friendly practices and address a broader set of environmental objectives. Some experts note, however, that some programmes may not necessarily bring additional benefits. Experts consider that cross-compliance mechanisms have partly contributed to reduce soil erosion by encouraging farmers to use less erosive cropping practices (e.g. conservation tillage, conservation crop rotations) and to retire particularly erodible land |
Beschreibung: | 1 Online-Ressource (72 Seiten) |
DOI: | 10.1787/ff39e390-en |
Internformat
MARC
LEADER | 00000nam a2200000zc 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | BV047933050 | ||
003 | DE-604 | ||
007 | cr|uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 220413s2017 xx o|||| 00||| eng d | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1787/ff39e390-en |2 doi | |
035 | |a (ZDB-13-SOC)061299065 | ||
035 | |a (OCoLC)1312707617 | ||
035 | |a (DE-599)BVBBV047933050 | ||
040 | |a DE-604 |b ger |e aacr | ||
041 | 0 | |a eng | |
049 | |a DE-384 |a DE-91 |a DE-473 |a DE-824 |a DE-29 |a DE-739 |a DE-355 |a DE-20 |a DE-1028 |a DE-1049 |a DE-188 |a DE-521 |a DE-861 |a DE-898 |a DE-92 |a DE-573 |a DE-19 | ||
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill |b A review of the literature |c Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development |
264 | 1 | |a Paris |b OECD Publishing |c 2017 | |
300 | |a 1 Online-Ressource (72 Seiten) | ||
336 | |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
490 | 0 | |a OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers | |
520 | |a Main changes to US farm programmes under the 2014 Farm Bill aim to strengthen instruments for risk management, both in commodity and in crop insurance programmes. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill consolidated voluntary conservation programmes supporting agricultural land preservation and the adoption of environmentally friendly production practices. In the literature reviewed, analysts generally acknowledge the reinforced capacity of farm programmes to reduce farm revenue losses and the diversity of options offered to farmers to manage risk. They also discuss farmers' choices of participation in programmes and coverage level in terms of optimisation of their benefits. They also outline the scope for higher budget costs if prices keep falling, but note that some provisions limit the increase. | ||
520 | |a Regarding the impact of programmes on land and markets, the consensus is that by design, the two new crop commodity programmes do not influence current planting decisions, but they could generate small wealth and risk effects. Similarly the new dairy programme could affect the decisions of risk adverse farmers. Support to crop insurance on the other hand is based on current parameters, and unlimited, thus it is expected to encourage higher input use to maximise profit, in addition to the wealth and risk effects. Empirical analyses find very small effects of crop insurance subsidies on total land use, but some suggest a non-negligible impact on crop rotation, and variable input use. Overall, the literature finds that conservation payments seem to have had a positive impact on the environment. In particular, they have encouraged farmers to adopt more environmentally-friendly practices and address a broader set of environmental objectives. | ||
520 | |a Some experts note, however, that some programmes may not necessarily bring additional benefits. Experts consider that cross-compliance mechanisms have partly contributed to reduce soil erosion by encouraging farmers to use less erosive cropping practices (e.g. conservation tillage, conservation crop rotations) and to retire particularly erodible land | ||
650 | 4 | |a Agriculture and Food | |
650 | 4 | |a United States | |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1787/ff39e390-en |x Verlag |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
912 | |a ZDB-13-SOC | ||
943 | 1 | |a oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-033314544 |
Datensatz im Suchindex
_version_ | 1818806029131972608 |
---|---|
adam_text | |
adam_txt | |
any_adam_object | |
any_adam_object_boolean | |
building | Verbundindex |
bvnumber | BV047933050 |
collection | ZDB-13-SOC |
ctrlnum | (ZDB-13-SOC)061299065 (OCoLC)1312707617 (DE-599)BVBBV047933050 |
discipline | Wirtschaftswissenschaften |
discipline_str_mv | Wirtschaftswissenschaften |
doi_str_mv | 10.1787/ff39e390-en |
format | Electronic eBook |
fullrecord | <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>00000nam a2200000zc 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">BV047933050</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-604</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr|uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">220413s2017 xx o|||| 00||| eng d</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1787/ff39e390-en</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ZDB-13-SOC)061299065</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(OCoLC)1312707617</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)BVBBV047933050</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-604</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="e">aacr</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="049" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-384</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-91</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-473</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-824</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-29</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-739</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-355</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-20</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-1028</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-1049</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-188</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-521</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-861</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-898</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-92</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-573</subfield><subfield code="a">DE-19</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill</subfield><subfield code="b">A review of the literature</subfield><subfield code="c">Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="a">Paris</subfield><subfield code="b">OECD Publishing</subfield><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">1 Online-Ressource (72 Seiten)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="490" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Main changes to US farm programmes under the 2014 Farm Bill aim to strengthen instruments for risk management, both in commodity and in crop insurance programmes. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill consolidated voluntary conservation programmes supporting agricultural land preservation and the adoption of environmentally friendly production practices. In the literature reviewed, analysts generally acknowledge the reinforced capacity of farm programmes to reduce farm revenue losses and the diversity of options offered to farmers to manage risk. They also discuss farmers' choices of participation in programmes and coverage level in terms of optimisation of their benefits. They also outline the scope for higher budget costs if prices keep falling, but note that some provisions limit the increase.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Regarding the impact of programmes on land and markets, the consensus is that by design, the two new crop commodity programmes do not influence current planting decisions, but they could generate small wealth and risk effects. Similarly the new dairy programme could affect the decisions of risk adverse farmers. Support to crop insurance on the other hand is based on current parameters, and unlimited, thus it is expected to encourage higher input use to maximise profit, in addition to the wealth and risk effects. Empirical analyses find very small effects of crop insurance subsidies on total land use, but some suggest a non-negligible impact on crop rotation, and variable input use. Overall, the literature finds that conservation payments seem to have had a positive impact on the environment. In particular, they have encouraged farmers to adopt more environmentally-friendly practices and address a broader set of environmental objectives.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Some experts note, however, that some programmes may not necessarily bring additional benefits. Experts consider that cross-compliance mechanisms have partly contributed to reduce soil erosion by encouraging farmers to use less erosive cropping practices (e.g. conservation tillage, conservation crop rotations) and to retire particularly erodible land</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Agriculture and Food</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">United States</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1787/ff39e390-en</subfield><subfield code="x">Verlag</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ZDB-13-SOC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="943" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-033314544</subfield></datafield></record></collection> |
id | DE-604.BV047933050 |
illustrated | Not Illustrated |
index_date | 2024-07-03T19:35:00Z |
indexdate | 2024-12-18T19:03:16Z |
institution | BVB |
language | English |
oai_aleph_id | oai:aleph.bib-bvb.de:BVB01-033314544 |
oclc_num | 1312707617 |
open_access_boolean | 1 |
owner | DE-384 DE-91 DE-BY-TUM DE-473 DE-BY-UBG DE-824 DE-29 DE-739 DE-355 DE-BY-UBR DE-20 DE-1028 DE-1049 DE-188 DE-521 DE-861 DE-898 DE-BY-UBR DE-92 DE-573 DE-19 DE-BY-UBM |
owner_facet | DE-384 DE-91 DE-BY-TUM DE-473 DE-BY-UBG DE-824 DE-29 DE-739 DE-355 DE-BY-UBR DE-20 DE-1028 DE-1049 DE-188 DE-521 DE-861 DE-898 DE-BY-UBR DE-92 DE-573 DE-19 DE-BY-UBM |
physical | 1 Online-Ressource (72 Seiten) |
psigel | ZDB-13-SOC |
publishDate | 2017 |
publishDateSearch | 2017 |
publishDateSort | 2017 |
publisher | OECD Publishing |
record_format | marc |
series2 | OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers |
spelling | Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill A review of the literature Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Paris OECD Publishing 2017 1 Online-Ressource (72 Seiten) txt rdacontent c rdamedia cr rdacarrier OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers Main changes to US farm programmes under the 2014 Farm Bill aim to strengthen instruments for risk management, both in commodity and in crop insurance programmes. In addition, the 2014 Farm Bill consolidated voluntary conservation programmes supporting agricultural land preservation and the adoption of environmentally friendly production practices. In the literature reviewed, analysts generally acknowledge the reinforced capacity of farm programmes to reduce farm revenue losses and the diversity of options offered to farmers to manage risk. They also discuss farmers' choices of participation in programmes and coverage level in terms of optimisation of their benefits. They also outline the scope for higher budget costs if prices keep falling, but note that some provisions limit the increase. Regarding the impact of programmes on land and markets, the consensus is that by design, the two new crop commodity programmes do not influence current planting decisions, but they could generate small wealth and risk effects. Similarly the new dairy programme could affect the decisions of risk adverse farmers. Support to crop insurance on the other hand is based on current parameters, and unlimited, thus it is expected to encourage higher input use to maximise profit, in addition to the wealth and risk effects. Empirical analyses find very small effects of crop insurance subsidies on total land use, but some suggest a non-negligible impact on crop rotation, and variable input use. Overall, the literature finds that conservation payments seem to have had a positive impact on the environment. In particular, they have encouraged farmers to adopt more environmentally-friendly practices and address a broader set of environmental objectives. Some experts note, however, that some programmes may not necessarily bring additional benefits. Experts consider that cross-compliance mechanisms have partly contributed to reduce soil erosion by encouraging farmers to use less erosive cropping practices (e.g. conservation tillage, conservation crop rotations) and to retire particularly erodible land Agriculture and Food United States https://doi.org/10.1787/ff39e390-en Verlag kostenfrei Volltext |
spellingShingle | Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill A review of the literature Agriculture and Food United States |
title | Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill A review of the literature |
title_auth | Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill A review of the literature |
title_exact_search | Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill A review of the literature |
title_exact_search_txtP | Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill A review of the literature |
title_full | Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill A review of the literature Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill A review of the literature Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill A review of the literature Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development |
title_short | Evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 US farm bill |
title_sort | evaluation of farm programmes in the 2014 us farm bill a review of the literature |
title_sub | A review of the literature |
topic | Agriculture and Food United States |
topic_facet | Agriculture and Food United States |
url | https://doi.org/10.1787/ff39e390-en |