April 18, 2002

CRP Popular With North Dakota Landowners

The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is still very popular with North Dakota landowners, and assuming no major changes in the program, participation levels will likely remain high, according to a study at North Dakota State University. The environmental, wildlife and recreation benefits of CRP are especially regarded as a success by all groups involved in the study.

Long-term land retirement programs are popular with participating landowners and offer a combination of supply control and environmental benefits, but their economic impacts, especially in areas with high levels of participation, have been a concern, says Nancy Hodur, research associate in the NDSU Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics.

Hodur, along with Larry Leistritz and Dean Bangsund, conducted a study to assess the socioeconomic effects of CRP in North Dakota. The study was based on interviews with agricultural and community leaders in six rural areas of North Dakota and a survey of more than 1,000 CRP contract holders.

CRP, created in 1985, was designed to protect highly erodible lands, as well as to augment efforts to control supplies of agricultural products. Since a peak enrollment of 3.4 million acres in 1997, North Dakota’s CRP acreage has fluctuated between 3.1 and 3.3 million acres.

Most agriculture and community leaders interviewed identified both positive and negative aspects of CRP, Hodur says.

Positive aspects most often mentioned were income stability for participating landowners, environmental benefits and emergency haying or grazing. Guaranteed income improved farm viability in some cases and in other cases was used as a transition to retirement. Wildlife populations have thrived with CRP, expanding recreation opportunities and creating income for local businesses. CRP land has provided emergency haying or grazing during drought or flooding, though some respondents felt opening CRP land depresses prices for individuals who sell hay.

Negative aspects most often identified by leaders included contraction of the farm supply and service sector, attributed to reduced demand for farm inputs as a result of land retirement. CRP is seen by some leaders as contributing to the decline of rural populations. However, other leaders believe contractions in rural population would have occurred regardless of the CRP. CRP tracts are also seen as contributing to noxious weed problems, with absentee landowners often criticized for not being aware of developing weed problems.

Several leaders expressed concern that wildlife and environmental benefits were given too much consideration in setting enrollment criteria, permitting too much productive farmland to be enrolled.

In the landowner survey, average CRP enrollment by respondents was 283 acres. Landowners indicated a number of reasons for enrolling land in CRP. Financial reasons were the most common, with 46 percent enrolling because it was economically attractive, or to stabilize income and reduce risk. Only about 2 percent said the main reason for enrolling was to increase hunting opportunities.

When asked to rate benefits of CRP, 59 percent felt that removing marginal or uneconomical farmland from production and providing a more stable income source were very or somewhat important.

Most landowners agreed that the CRP is a cost effective way to idle cropland and that CRP has helped stop soil erosion on marginal cropland, helped reduce flooding and improved water quality.

There was clear consensus among landowners on only one wildlife and recreation issue: 82 percent of respondents agreed that the CRP benefits both farmers and sportsmen. Regarding landowners using land enrolled in CRP for fee and lease hunting, about half the respondents felt landowners should have that right, 23 percent disagreed and 21 percent were neutral.

Assuming criteria and payments remain the same, 88 percent of landowners said they would re-enroll at least some of the land currently enrolled in CRP. Asked about land use if land were not re-enrolled or if the program were eliminated, landowners indicated that 57 percent of the acreage now in CRP would return to crop production. The remaining 43 percent would convert to some other use, primarily hayland, pasture or permanent cover.

For a copy of Report No. 476, "Local Socioeconomic Impacts of the Conservation Reserve Program," or Report No. 476-S, a 16-page summary of the report, contact Carol Jensen, P.O. Box 5636, Fargo, ND 58105-5636, telephone (701) 231-7441 or e-mail cjensen@ndsuext.nodak.edu . The publication is also available at http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/ .

###

Source: Nancy Hodur, (701) 231-7357, nhodur@ndsuext.nodak.edu
Editor: Gary Moran, (701) 231-7865, gmoran@ndsuext.nodak.edu