Excerpt
AMONG the strategies proposed in the Soil and Water Resources Con servation Act (RCA) process was cross-compliance. This strategy would require that farmers carry out a program of soil and water conservation acceptable to the U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) in order to participate in USDA's commodity, loan, and insurance programs (18). The final RCA program proposes that cross-compliance only be applied to the extent that a conservation plan and commitment to correct serious soil erosion problems is required of Farmer's Home Administration (FmHA) loan recipients (20).
This or any other cross-compliance proposal raises a variety of conservation policy questions. Were voluntary conservation programs effective, and will cross-compliance erase that progress? Does cross-compliance violate a property-owner's right to do as he or she pleases with land? How will USDA determine violations of any cross-compliance requirement? How do administering agencies enforce a cross-compliance contract? What are the costs of cross-compliance? Which is more important: altering land use to curb erosion and runoff or maintaining agricultural production? What impact will cross-compliance have on existing USDA programs?
The politics of cross-compliance
Cross-compliance is not …
Footnotes
Jay I. Kaplan-Wildmann is a graduate student, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 53706.
- Copyright 1983 by the Soil and Water Conservation Society
This article requires a subscription to view the full text. If you have a subscription you may use the login form below to view the article. Access to this article can also be purchased.