The American non-governmental organization Environmental Defense has estimated how agricultural subsidies would be distributed among farmers if direct payments were converted to land conservation programs. Current direct payments are linked to a farmer's production history. While less economically distorting than commodity-linked payments, they.are a poor way to distribute subsidies equitably amongst farmers, and generally favour large producers.

The report, Subsidy Reform Would Help More Farmers in Freshman Districts, considers three scenarios: diverting US$ 10 billion, US$ 15 billion and US$ 20 billion of direct payments to land conservation programs over five years. Environmental Defense applied the experiment to 55 districts represented by freshman members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The results reveal that farmers in 36 of the 55 districts would receive a more equitable share of funding through land conservation programs than direct payments.

Farmers in 12 districts would see little change; however, these are largely in states that receive relatively little agricultural subsidies. Meanwhile, farmers in the Midwestern districts of Iowa, Illinois and Minnesota would receive moderately less funding under the formula.

"Helping farmers help the environment would also ensure that more farmers and more regions receive a fair share of federal farm spending," said Scott Faber, Farm and Food Policy Campaign Director for Environmental Defense, in a press statement. "Freshmen members who vote against reform and for the status quo are voting against the interests of their own farmers."