"Currently, the production of federally subsidized annual crops, such as corn, wheat, and cotton, contributes to environmental problems such as water-quality degradation and habitat loss," said Greg McIsaac, an environmental scientist at the University of Illinois and one of the study's coauthors. "And while the Conservation Reserve Program has reduced some of these problems by paying farmers to take sensitive lands out of production and maintain perennial vegetation, there appear to be many potential benefits that could come from more innovative incorporation of perennials into economically competitive production systems," he said.
The team of 14 coauthors suggests that more extensive and diverse uses of perennial crops and compensating farmers for environmental benefits they provide are the keys to optimizing production of food and biomass while enhancing rural community vitality and environmental quality. But these efforts also have to be evaluated scientifically and guided by research results.
According to the report, from 1997 to 2006, U.S. producers received, on average, 30 percent of the net farm income in direct government payments. "We've spent billions on subsidizing farmers to grow annual crops that have negative environmental consequences, and then spend more money trying to address the consequences," said McIsaac.
"Agriculture is a risky enterprise, and we understand the importance of public subsidies; but the public expects something of value in return. With new science and technology, we are in a better position to examine and modify the whole production and subsidy system to improve environmental performance and to financially reward farmers for the public benefits they provide," he said.
To achieve this, the authors encourage collaboration among state, federal, and private agencies to develop research that incorporates real-world complexities and on a real-world scale ─ they suggest watersheds of 2,000 square miles. They also suggest the development of a national innovation system that would facilitate dialog among interested groups and promote experimentation with policy alternatives and crop- production systems.
The study, led by Nicholas R. Jordan, a professor of agroecology at University of Minnesota, examined recent literature that suggests some agricultural production systems that include perennial crops can be economically and environmentally preferable to annual cropping systems when there are changes to the subsidies to annual crop production. By attending to both production and environmental performance, the authors argue for a "multi-functional" view of agricultural systems.
The report proposes a federal investment of $20 million annually to provide research and development that looks at the big picture of costs and benefits, and identifies policy approaches that compensate farmers for the production of environmental benefits.
Considering that the agricultural subsidies in 2005 exceeded 24 billion dollars, Jordan and his coauthors believe it's a modest request that could produce large benefits to the environment and the economy by understanding and capitalizing on the capacities of multifunctional landscapes.
To read the complete report online, visit www.sciencemag.org.
Funding for the study was provided by the Kellogg Foundation and the Coastal Oceans Program of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.