This report examines evidence on the relationship between agricultural land-use changes, soil productivity, and indicators of environmental sensitivity. If cropland that shifts in and out of production is less productive and more environmentally sensitive than other cropland, policy-induced changes in land use could have production effects that are smaller -- and environmental impacts that are greater -- than anticipated. To illustrate this possibility, this report examines environmental outcomes stemming from land use conversion caused by two agricultural programs that others have identified as potentially having important influences on land use and environmental quality: Federal crop insurance subsidies and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Nation's largest cropland retirement program. The report finds that lands moving between cultivated cropland and less intensive agricultural uses are, on average, less productive and more vulnerable to erosion than other cultivated lands, both nationally and locally. These lands are also associated with greater potential nutrient runoff and leaching compared with cultivated cropland nationally. Crop insurance subsidies and CRP have estimated effects on erosion and other environmental factors that are disproportionate to the acreage and production effects, but specific environmental impacts vary with the features of each program.

This report examines evidence on the relationship between agricultural land-use changes, soil productivity, and indicators of environmental sensitivity. If cropland that shifts in and out of production is less productive and more environmentally sensitive than other cropland, policy-induced changes in land use could have production effects that are smaller -- and environmental impacts that are greater -- than anticipated. To illustrate this possibility, this report examines environmental outcomes stemming from land use conversion caused by two agricultural programs that others have identified as potentially having important influences on land use and environmental quality: Federal crop insurance subsidies and the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), the Nation's largest cropland retirement program. The report finds that lands moving between cultivated cropland and less intensive agricultural uses are, on average, less productive and more vulnerable to erosion than other cultivated lands, both nationally and locally. These lands are also associated with greater potential nutrient runoff and leaching compared with cultivated cropland nationally. Crop insurance subsidies and CRP have estimated effects on erosion and other environmental factors that are disproportionate to the acreage and production effects, but specific environmental impacts vary with the features of each program.

This synopsis covers evidence for the effects of conservation interventions for native farmland wildlife. It is restricted to evidence captured on the website www.conservationevidence.com. It includes papers published in the journal Conservation Evidence, evidence summarized on our database and systematic reviews collated by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence. It is the thrid volume in the series Synopses of Conservation Evidence. Evidence was collected from all European countries west of Russia, but not those south of France, Switzerland, Austria, Hungary and Romania. A list of interventions to conserve wildlife on farmland was developed collaboratively by a team of thirteen experts. A number of interventions that are not currently agri-environment options were added during this process, such as ‘Provide nest boxes for bees (solitary or bumblebees)’ and ‘Implement food labelling schemes relating to biodiversity-friendly farming’. Interventions relating to the creation or management of habitats not considered commercial farmland (such as lowland heath, salt marsh and farm woodland) were removed. The list of interventions was organized into categories based on the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifications of direct threats and conservation actions. Interventions that fall under the threat category ‘Agriculture’ are grouped by farming system, with separate sections for interventions that apply to arable or livestock farms, or across all farming types.