Financial and environmental consequences of a voluntary farm environmental assurance program in Michigan

Abstract

Abstract:The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program is a voluntary environmental management program for Michigan farms. The Michigan Agriculture Environmental Assurance Program encourages farm managers to become better environmental stewards through writing Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans and incorporating changes to comply with regulations as well as generally accepted management practices and recommendations. Early-adopting livestock producers with verified operations were interviewed to identify and measure costs incurred, environmental outcomes achieved, and producer attitudes and perceptions as a result of verification. The average total cost to become verified was $120,600 per farm, of which the average producer paid $104,423, with the remaining $16,177 provided through cost-share funds. Much of this cost was for long-term investments such as manure storage and facilities improvements. Producers realized an average postverification annual cost savings of $2,792 by curtailing unnecessary use of commercial fertilizer. The financial values had large amounts of variation in every case. The per animal unit costs of verification were generally in the same range as the US Environmental Protection Agency estimates for cost of compliance with similar (but mandatory) proposed regulations. With respect to environmental outcome, after verification, average operation mass balance improved. The primary motivation to participate in the program stemmed from existing or potential environmental regulations.

Farmers’ Willingness to Participate in Payment‐for‐Environmental‐Services Programmes

“…MAEAP does not involve adoption of changed practices to benefit the environment; instead, it is designed to reduce farmers’ legal and environmental risks by education, farm‐specific risk assessment and on‐site verification of `generally accepted agricultural practices’. A previous study on early‐adopting livestock producers found the primary motivation to participate in MAEAP was concern about existing or potential environmental regulations, rather than a predisposition toward environmental stewardship (Vollmer‐Sanders et al. , 2011).…”

A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes

“…Farmers' decisions are shaped by personal opinions, such as preferences over conservation measures, beliefs about the programme and degrees of risk aversion 21,31 . Factors such as income levels, asset ownership, age, and access to other economic opportunities also correlate with the decision to adopt, as they affect the capacity of the target population to reap benefits from the progra mme [5][6][7]12,29,[32][33][34] . The decision to adopt is also affected by the biophysical characteristics of the land plot, and the institutional and policy context.…”

Limitations of Certification and Supply Chain Standards for Environmental Protection in Commodity Crop Production

“…It is administered by the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development in consultation with an advisory council, but it was established by a coalition of farmers, commodity groups, state and federal agencies, and environmental conservation groups. The primary motivation for producers to gain MAEAP certification is to mitigate risk from existing and potential environmental regulations, and additional sources of motivation are good stewardship and technical assistance in managing nutrients (Vollmer-Sanders et al 2011). Other states have similar programs; one example is New York's Agricultural Environmental Management program (NYSDAM 2013).…”