Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Finance, funds and markets · United States · 1985–2026

US Conservation Reserve Program: annual rental payments to take cropland out of production

Nature's voice · report
Total row of the Farm Service Agency's outlay table: rental payments US$52,645 million, cost-share payments US$3,172 million, incentive payments US$1,399 million 57.22 billion US dollars were spent in my name. The benefit that was measured: Water quality on and near CRP land, Lower nitrogen and suspended solids.
Did nature suffer? Not measured. Accounts differ ↓
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 2 none on record · 1 insufficient · 1 not measured · 2 disputed · 1 unclear See the gaps
Accounts of the harm differ
How large the programme's environmental benefit is and how well it is measured
  • Government and regulators USDA Economic Research Service (2010): "ERS research conservatively estimates CRP benefits of $1.3 billion per year" and "Scientific literature clearly documents the benefits of the CRP". USDA Economic Research Service
  • Government and regulators GAO (2024): FSA "does not have a systematic process to periodically review its methods" for selecting offers, which could raise environmental benefits and cost-effectiveness. US Government Accountability Office
  • Researchers Nessel and colleagues, PLoS One (2025): "we found few wildlife and vegetation studies that directly measured ecosystem services"; the review calls for long-term studies. PLoS One
  • Researchers Leal, Roy, Uden and Schoengold, Frontiers in Water (2024): The programme appears to have a positive impact on water quality, with lower nitrogen and suspended solids; groundwater effects varied by location and findings are based on a limited number of studies. Frontiers in Water

The Conservation Reserve Program, run by the US Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency since the 1985 farm act, pays farmers annual rent to keep environmentally sensitive cropland out of production. GAO reported US$1.8 billion in rental payments for 22.9 million acres in fiscal year 2023 and found that the agency has no systematic process to review how it scores land for environmental benefit; peer-reviewed reviews report water-quality benefits, and a 2025 scoping review found few studies that directly measured ecosystem services.

US$1.8 billionRental payments for the Conservation Reserve Program, fiscal year 2023
GAO, September 2024: USDA paid US$1.8 billion in rental payments for 22.9 million acres enrolled in the programme in FY 2023.

Status As of 2026: the programme continues; GAO's 2024 recommendations on periodic review of selection methods are open on its page, and the figures from FSA's FY 2024 and FY 2025 benefit analyses are not in the sources reviewed.

What?
A federal programme that pays producers annual rent for 10 or more years to take highly erodible and environmentally sensitive cropland out of production. Congressional Research Service
Where?
Cropland across the United States; 22.9 million acres were enrolled in FY 2023, and research on the programme is concentrated in the Great Plains. US Government Accountability Office
When?
Enacted in the 1985 farm act; enrollment peaked at 36.8 million acres in FY 2007; GAO audited the selection of land in 2024; FSA posted FY 2024 and FY 2025 benefit analyses in 2026. US Government Accountability Office
Who?
Gained
  • Landowners and producers who enrol land — Receive annual rental payments; the average was US$63.65 per acre in 2014 (CRS) and total rental payments were US$1.8 billion in FY 2023 (GAO) US Government Accountability Office
Lost
None on record
Harmed
None on record
Why?
CRS wrote that proponents sought to reduce excessive erosion, stabilize land prices and slow chronic excess production; later reviews describe goals of improving the natural environment and wildlife habitat. Congressional Research Service
How?
FSA ranks offers in general signups by points for environmental benefits (soil erosion, wildlife habitat, water quality) and relative cost; continuous enrollment typically accepts offers that meet eligibility criteria (GAO). US Government Accountability Office
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

Congress enacted the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in the 1985 farm act. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) wrote in 2001 that "Program proponents sought to reduce excessive erosion, stabilize land prices, and slow chronic excess production." By 2014 CRS described the programme as one that "provides payments to agricultural producers to take highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land out of production" for 10 or more years, administered by USDA's Farm Service Agency (FSA). The 1996 farm act capped enrollment at 36.4 million acres and made funding mandatory through the Commodity Credit Corporation. Enrollment peaked at 36.8 million acres in FY 2007; USDA's Economic Research Service (ERS) wrote that the programme was capped at 32 million acres from 1 October 2009, and CRS recorded that the 2014 farm bill reduced the cap from 32 million to 24 million acres by FY 2018. CRS put the average annual rental payment at US$63.65 per acre in 2014 and wrote that "the average annual federal cost for CRP is close to $2 billion."

GAO's report GAO-24-106311 (25 September 2024) recorded that in FY 2023 USDA paid US$1.8 billion in rental payments for 22.9 million acres. GAO found that FSA has room to improve how it selects offers, which could raise environmental benefits and cost-effectiveness: FSA "does not have a systematic process to periodically review its methods". FSA made a larger change in 2023 to how it estimates soil erosion benefits. GAO made four recommendations to FSA's Administrator and USDA generally agreed with all four. On GAO's page, the recommendations to use science-based information in assigning selection points and to analyse and publicly report environmental benefits annually are closed as implemented; the recommendations to create periodic reviews of selection methods and to address their findings are open. The page states that FSA incorporated updated science-based erosion models into its February 2026 CRP announcement and, in 2026, analysed FY 2024 and FY 2025 environmental benefits and posted the results in its CRP annual summaries; the figures in those summaries are not in the sources reviewed.

ERS published its own assessment in 2010. It wrote that "ERS research conservatively estimates CRP benefits of $1.3 billion per year", excluding carbon sequestration, ecosystem protection and other benefits that are harder to quantify, and that "Scientific literature clearly documents the benefits of the CRP", including reduced erosion, increased wildlife abundance and improved water quality. ERS also wrote that "the available data may not be sufficiently precise for use at the field level" and that efforts "would benefit from better—even if still imperfect—scientific information." The ERS cost figures in that article come from simulation scenarios, not forecasts. The benefit estimate is USDA's own and is not an independent measurement.

Two peer-reviewed reviews addressed outcomes. A mini review in Frontiers in Water (9 December 2024) of research on CRP and hydrology wrote that "the CRP appears to have a positive impact on water quality", decreasing the levels of nitrogen and suspended solids, that effects on groundwater volume varied by location, and that conversion of CRP land back to cropland worsened hydrological outcomes; it called for further research. A scoping review in PLoS One (12 August 2025) mapped 577 peer-reviewed CRP studies (169 on wildlife, 77 on vegetation, 188 on air, soil and water). It did not synthesise results; its authors wrote that the review "highlights the need for long-term studies and additional research", that research is concentrated in the Great Plains and that vegetation and wildlife studies averaged about 2 to 2.5 years, and noted that "we found few wildlife and vegetation studies that directly measured ecosystem services".

  1. 1985Congress enacts the Conservation Reserve Program in the 1985 farm act
  2. 19961996 farm act caps enrollment at 36.4 million acres and makes funding mandatory through the Commodity Credit Corporation
  3. 2007Enrollment peaks at 36.8 million acres (FY 2007)
  4. 2009Programme capped at 32 million acres from 1 October; 31.2 million acres enrolled in February 2010
  5. 2010ERS estimates CRP benefits conservatively at US$1.3 billion per year (1 June)
  6. 2014CRS records that the 2014 farm bill reduces the enrollment cap from 32 million to 24 million acres by FY 2018 (29 August)
  7. 2023FSA changes how it estimates soil erosion benefits; USDA pays US$1.8 billion in rental payments for 22.9 million acres (FY 2023)
  8. 2024GAO-24-106311 finds FSA has no systematic process to review its selection methods (25 September); Frontiers in Water mini review on hydrological effects (9 December)
  9. 2025PLoS One scoping review of 577 CRP studies (12 August)
  10. 2026FSA incorporates updated erosion models in its February CRP announcement and posts FY 2024 and FY 2025 environmental benefit analyses in annual summaries

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

“ERS research conservatively estimates CRP benefits of $1.3 billion per year”

“Scientific literature clearly documents the benefits of the CRP”

“the available data may not be sufficiently precise for use at the field level”

“Program proponents sought to reduce excessive erosion, stabilize land prices, and slow chronic excess production.”

“does not have a systematic process to periodically review its methods”

“the CRP appears to have a positive impact on water quality”

Leal, Roy, Uden and Schoengold, Frontiers in Water · 9 December 2024 · Frontiers in Water

“we found few wildlife and vegetation studies that directly measured ecosystem services”

Nessel and colleagues, PLoS One · 12 August 2025 · PLoS One

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

How large the programme's environmental benefit is and how well it is measured
Government and regulators
USDA Economic Research Service (2010)

"ERS research conservatively estimates CRP benefits of $1.3 billion per year" and "Scientific literature clearly documents the benefits of the CRP".

USDA Economic Research Service
Government and regulators
GAO (2024)

FSA "does not have a systematic process to periodically review its methods" for selecting offers, which could raise environmental benefits and cost-effectiveness.

US Government Accountability Office
Researchers
Nessel and colleagues, PLoS One (2025)

"we found few wildlife and vegetation studies that directly measured ecosystem services"; the review calls for long-term studies.

PLoS One
Researchers
Leal, Roy, Uden and Schoengold, Frontiers in Water (2024)

The programme appears to have a positive impact on water quality, with lower nitrogen and suspended solids; groundwater effects varied by location and findings are based on a limited number of studies.

Frontiers in Water

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

  • CRP benefits described as conservatively estimated at US$1.3 billion per year, with scientific literature said to document reduced erosion, increased wildlife abundance and improved water quality.
    USDA Economic Research Service · USDA Economic Research Service
  • The programme described as one that pays producers "to take highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land out of production".
    Congressional Research Service · Congressional Research Service

Recorded

  • FY 2023: USDA paid US$1.8 billion in rental payments for 22.9 million acres enrolled.
    US Government Accountability Office
  • GAO (2024) found that FSA has no systematic process to review its selection methods; four recommendations, two closed as implemented and two open on GAO's page.
    US Government Accountability Office
  • Frontiers in Water (2024): peer-reviewed research appears to show a positive impact on water quality, with lower nitrogen and suspended solids; groundwater effects varied by location.
    Frontiers in Water
  • PLoS One (2025): of 577 peer-reviewed studies mapped, few wildlife and vegetation studies directly measured ecosystem services; the review did not extract results.
    PLoS One
  • No source reviewed gives a current independent dollar valuation of CRP benefits or a national measurement of species outcomes on CRP land.

In nature's name

What was promised in nature's name, the money that moved, and what was measured.

Promised

  • “Program proponents sought to reduce excessive erosion, stabilize land prices, and slow chronic excess production.” — Congressional Research Service, describing what proponents of the 1985 programme sought (8 May 2001) Congressional Research Service
  • “provides payments to agricultural producers to take highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land out of production” — Congressional Research Service, describing the programme (29 August 2014) Congressional Research Service

Money moved in nature's name

WhatKindAmountPeriod
Annual rental payments, Conservation Reserve Program
US Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency)
US Government Accountability Office		Paid out$1.8bnFY 2023
Average annual federal cost of the programme
US federal government (Commodity Credit Corporation)
Congressional Research Service		Spent$2bn estimate2014 (annual average)
Total financial outlays on the Conservation Reserve Program, fiscal years 1986 to 2020
US Department of Agriculture (Farm Service Agency)
USDA Farm Service Agency		Spent$57.2bnFY 1986-2020

What was measured

Benefit measured

Peer-reviewed reviews (Frontiers in Water 2024; PLoS One 2025) report that research on CRP land shows lower nitrogen and suspended solids and a role in reducing soil erosion, which is an independent finding of benefit. The size of the benefit is not quantified in the sources reviewed, few studies directly measured ecosystem services, and the only dollar estimate of benefits (US$1.3 billion per year, 2010) is USDA's own. GAO (2024) found that FSA has no systematic process to review how it scores land for benefit.

Water quality on and near CRP land
Lower nitrogen and suspended solids
Frontiers in Water mini review of peer-reviewed research; groundwater volume effect varied by location Frontiers in Water
Studies that directly measured ecosystem services
Few
PLoS One scoping review of 577 studies; vegetation and wildlife studies averaged about 2 to 2.5 years PLoS One
Benefit estimate by USDA's Economic Research Service
US$1.3 billion per year (conservative)
USDA's own estimate, 2010; not an independent measurement USDA Economic Research Service

Operation Ongoing · GAO's page records FSA's 2026 CRP announcement and 2026 benefit analyses. US Government Accountability Office

Findings on record

  • Official audit US Government Accountability Office (2024-09-25) · GAO-24-106311: “does not have a systematic process to periodically review its methods” US Government Accountability Office
  • Peer-reviewed study Leal, Roy, Uden and Schoengold, Frontiers in Water (2024-12-09) · Hydrological impacts of the conservation reserve program: a mini review: “the CRP appears to have a positive impact on water quality” Frontiers in Water
  • Peer-reviewed study Nessel and colleagues, PLoS One (2025-08-12) · Scoping review of the literature on outcomes of the conservation reserve program: “we found few wildlife and vegetation studies that directly measured ecosystem services” PLoS One
  • Own admission USDA Economic Research Service (2010-06-01) · Challenges Facing USDA's Conservation Reserve Program, Amber Waves: “the available data may not be sufficiently precise for use at the field level” USDA Economic Research Service

Who gained

Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

Reached nature or the ground

Not published
No figure published.

Gained elsewhere

Not totalled
Currency: USD · Window: FY 2023. All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

Responses on record

  • US Department of Agriculture (2024; status 2026): Generally agreed with all four GAO recommendations; FSA incorporated updated science-based erosion models into its February 2026 CRP announcement and posted FY 2024 and FY 2025 environmental benefit analyses in its CRP annual summaries, according to GAO's page. · US Government Accountability Office
  • USDA Economic Research Service (1 June 2010): Wrote that its research "conservatively estimates CRP benefits of $1.3 billion per year" and that the available data may not be sufficiently precise for use at the field level. · USDA Economic Research Service

In court and with insurers

Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

Lawsuits and rulings

No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

Insurers

No insurer decision on record.

What nature saw

Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

Rental payments, FY 2023
US$1.8 billion
GAO-24-106311; 22.9 million acres enrolled
Benefits estimated by USDA's own Economic Research Service, 2010
US$1.3 billion per year (conservative)
USDA's own estimate, excluding carbon sequestration and ecosystem protection
Effect on water quality in peer-reviewed research
Lower nitrogen and suspended solids
Frontiers in Water mini review, 2024; findings mixed on groundwater volume
Studies that directly measured ecosystem services
Few
PLoS One scoping review of 577 studies, 2025

What we don't know

Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
Official audit findingPeer-reviewed findingOwn admission

Nature

  • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.
  • Disputed How large the programme's environmental benefit is and how well it is measured

Record

  • None on record None on record: an independent dollar valuation of the programme's benefits. The only valuation in the sources reviewed is the ERS estimate of US$1.3 billion per year (2010), which is USDA's own.
  • Insufficient Insufficient: direct measurement of ecosystem services. The 2025 scoping review found few wildlife and vegetation studies that directly measured them, and vegetation and wildlife studies averaged about 2 to 2.5 years.
  • Disputed Disputed: how reliably benefits are scored. GAO found FSA lacks a systematic process to review its selection methods; USDA generally agreed with GAO's four recommendations.
  • None on record None on record: annual rental payments or acreage after FY 2023 in the sources reviewed; FSA's FY 2024 and FY 2025 analyses are described on GAO's page but their figures are not in the sources reviewed.
  • Unclear Unclear: the current statutory enrollment cap. The sources reviewed give 36.4 million acres (1996), 32 million acres (2009) and a reduction to 24 million acres by FY 2018 under the 2014 farm bill.

Did the harm stop?

The sources reviewed describe the programme as reducing erosion and nutrient runoff on enrolled land, and a peer-reviewed review reports lower nitrogen and suspended solids; they give no national total for harm avoided, and they record that converting CRP land back to cropland worsened hydrological outcomes.

Who paid?

Rental payments are federal funds. CRS recorded that funding is mandatory through the Commodity Credit Corporation and that the average annual federal cost was close to US$2 billion (2014); GAO recorded US$1.8 billion in rental payments in FY 2023.

Sources

Voices on record: — Company or project✓ Government and regulators— Courts— Press and investigations— Communities and civil society✓ Researchers

Government and regulators

Researchers

Connected cases

Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
Terms used on this page

Science and environment

Groundwater
Water held underground in soil and rock, drawn through wells.
PFOA (C8) and PFAS
PFAS are a large family of human-made chemicals that persist in the environment and the body; PFOA, also called C8, is one of them and was used to make Teflon.
Similar cases
Water use · Finance, funds and markets · Mining · Iran · 2016–2025
Persian Gulf and Oman Sea desalinated water transfer to Kerman, Yazd and Isfahan
Same type: Water use, Finance, funds and marketsHarm to nature disputedHarm to nature not measured
Finance, funds and markets · Protected area / relocation · Water use · Global · 2020–2026
Global Fund for Coral Reefs (GFCR)
Same type: Finance, funds and markets, Water useHarm to nature disputedHarm to nature not measured
Finance, funds and markets · Green subsidy or budget claim · Protected area / relocation · Brazil · 2011–2026
Bolsa Verde (Brazil): quarterly payments to families for forest conservation, 2011–2016 and the 2023 relaunch
Same type: Finance, funds and markets, Green subsidy or budget claimHarm to nature disputedHarm to nature not measured
Finance, funds and markets · Green subsidy or budget claim · Tree planting · China · 1999–2026
China's Grain for Green (Sloping Land Conversion) Programme
Same type: Finance, funds and markets, Green subsidy or budget claimHarm to nature disputedHarm to nature not measured
Water use · Green subsidy or budget claim · Tree planting · China · 1994–2005
Loess Plateau Watershed Rehabilitation Project (World Bank, China), 1994 to 2005
Same type: Water use, Green subsidy or budget claimHarm to nature disputedHarm to nature not measured
Finance, funds and markets · Green subsidy or budget claim · United Kingdom · 2015–2026
England's Environmental Land Management schemes: Sustainable Farming Incentive and Countryside Stewardship
Same type: Finance, funds and markets, Green subsidy or budget claimHarm to nature disputedHarm to nature not measured