Abstract. Payment for ecosystem services (PES) program contracts include penalties for non-performance to ensure that these programs receive the environmental benefits they have been paying for. The standard penalty structure in PES programs requires participants to pay back all program payments received if the contract is terminated before the end of the contract lifetime. We derive the optimal non-completion penalty structure, which decouples the penalty from payments received. In contrast to the backward-looking standard penalty, the optimal penalty is forward-looking and equals the principal’s net future environmental benefits lost due to contract non-completion. The optimal penalty thus falls over the life of the contract, in contrast to the standard penalty, which rises over the life of the contract. A numerical policy simulation with heterogeneous agents based on features in federal agricultural conservation programs in the United States suggests that the optimal penalty structure can increase realized net environmental benefits significantly. Our results suggest that performance of most kinds of PES programs can be enhanced by decoupling non-completion penalties from payments and by adjusting how penalties vary over contract lifetimes.
Abstract. Payments for ecosystem services (PES) programs can mitigate economic losses from extreme weather by establishing natural infrastructure. This paper examines the flood-mitigation benefits of the U.S. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), which was originally launched to improve downstream water quality and wildlife habitat through wetland and riparian buffer restoration. Leveraging spatial and temporal variation in CREP introduction across counties, I show that the program reduced both the number of flooded crop acres and the severity of damage on those acres, significantly lowering crop insurance indemnity payouts. Potential mechanisms include the retirement of flood-prone cropland and flood-protection services from nature recovery.
Abstract. Emissions trading programs have been promoted as efficient means to reduce nonpoint source water pollution and sequester carbon from agricultural land. While trading programs are often evaluated in isolation, they compete with longstanding agricultural conservation subsidy programs. Both programs target agroforestry practices that provide environmental benefits using different payment structures: Trading pays for performance while agricultural conservation programs pay for effort. We evaluate the performance of both programs in isolation and competition using an integrated assessment model that combines a stated preference survey of agricultural landowners for establishing forests with biophysical models of water quality and carbon sequestration benefits of forests. Our numerical policy simulation suggests that the water quality trading program in isolation can provide sufficient financial incentives for landowners to engage in afforestation activities on agricultural land. However, federal agricultural conservation subsidies largely crowd out the trading program when in competition. Stacking payments for carbon offsets with water quality trading payments does not enhance trading participation. Overall, the attractiveness and effectiveness of emissions trading programs for afforestation activities on agricultural land are heavily influenced by the presence and level of federal agricultural conservation subsidies.