There is growing interest in green payments subsidizing conservation measures on working farmland based on the premise that they have positive effects on the environment and agriculture simultaneously without causing international trade distortions. This paper uses a Ricardian land market equilibrium model to examine the impacts of green payments. The analysis shows green payments can worsen ambient pollution damage by subsidizing the expansion of more intensive crop cultivation. Some forms of green can increase cultivation intensity (and thus environmental damage) as well. These adverse effects can be avoided by careful targeting, but such targeting is likely to be quite difficult.

The decision to adopt a potentially profitable but unfamiliar conservation technology is cast in a multi-period Bayesian framework. Specifically, dairy farmers who are both risk-averse and susceptible to peer group influence progressively learn about the true impact of adopting reduced phosphorus dairy diets on their income distributions as they repeatedly experiment with this new technology. Empirically calibrated simulations are used to examine the effects of a voluntary green payment program on the rate of technological diffusion. Results suggest that (a) green payments can accelerate learning and produce significant, permanent changes in behavior relatively quickly and for a reasonable cost; (b) shorter contracts offering larger incentives may be more cost-effective when learning plays an important role in behavioral change; and (c) unknown prior beliefs can reduce the efficacy of a green payment program, implying efforts to verify these priors or to ensure against them by increasing the payment level may be worthwhile.

Many conservation programs under the 2002 Farm Act address resource concerns such as water quality and aquatic communities in streams. Analyzing two such programs, simulated changes in agricultural practices decreased field-edge sediment losses by 25–31% in two geophysically distinct Minnesota watersheds. However, while in-stream sediment concentrations and lethal fisheries events decreased significantly in one watershed, there was no discernable improvement for the fisheries in the other, despite potentially spending over $100,000 annually in conservation payments. These results highlight the importance of performance-based conservation payments targeted to genuine resource concerns in watersheds and the value of integrated bioeconomic modeling of conservation programs.

The use of emergency, disaster, and other ad hoc sources of income support to American farmers escalated dramatically between 1991 and 2002, increasing year-to-year uncertainty about the magnitude and distribution of farm program benefits. Ad hoc payment mechanisms, while meeting needs now apparently unsatisfied by other farm programs, have the potential to substitute for or conflict with agri-environmental and conservation program goals. Federal budget constraints likely make continued growth in ad hoc payment schemes unsustainable, raising questions about what will take their place. There is ample room for new research on how alternative farm program approaches and program combinations interact to affect stewardship behavior and associated agri-environmental outcomes.