Search results

The Farm Service Agency (FSA) conservation loan program was introduced in the 2008 Farm Bill to provide additional credit to assist producers implementing approved Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation projects. This paper explores why this program has been widely underutilized despite an overall increase in United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Conservation Program participation.

The FSA administrative loan data are merged with NRCS program participation and payments data for 2010–2021. The share of project costs paid by producers and resulting savings achieved by farmers participating in both programs if their cost-share portion was paid by FSA loans are estimated, as well as the impact on farmer conservation spending under different estimates of increased participation.

A significant share of FSA farmers are likely to take advantage of NRCS programs, with the majority of participants paying under $25,000 in cost-share portions. These loans are less suited to guaranteed conservation loans and more appropriate for the discontinued direct conservation loan program. Few FSA borrowers participating in NRCS cost-share programs pay more than $50,000 in cost-share portions. These loans would receive the majority of benefits from interest reduction schemes under the current guaranteed loan program.

Our results and suggestions provide valuable information when discussing the Guaranteed Conservation Loan Program in the 2023 Farm Bill legislation.

No prior research has attempted to merge FSA guaranteed or direct loan data with conservation program participation and payment data, focused on producer cost-share levels or the FSA Guaranteed Conservation Loan Program in the last decade, making this study a valuable contribution to the literature.

This paper examines the state’s accountability to its citizens, in particular the First Peoples of settler colonial nations such as Australia, and how these responsibilities may be enacted via a process of compensatory justice in Native Title claims. We focus on the landmark Timber Creek ruling and the impacts of racialized preconceptions on the accountability outcomes of the case.

This study draws on critical race theory to reveal embedded racialised perspectives that perpetuate exclusion and discriminatory outcomes. Court documents including hearing transcripts, case judgements, witness statements, appellant and respondent submissions, expert reports and responses from First Nations leaders, form the basis of our analysis.

The case highlights how the compensation awarded to Native Title holders was based on racialised assumptions that prioritised neoliberal values, commercial activities and reaching a “socially acceptable” judgement over valuing Aboriginal uses of land. A critical analysis of court documents reveals the pervasiveness of presumed “objectivity” in the use of accounting tools to calculate economic value and the accountability implications of a process based on litigation, not negotiation. These findings reveal the hiding places offered by calculative practices that equate neoliberal priorities with accountability and reaffirm the importance of alternative accountings to resist inequitable distributive outcomes.

Novel insights, drawing on First Nations peoples’ connections to land and their perspectives on accountability and justice, are offered in this study. Our analysis of Native Title holders’ submissions to the courts alongside historical and anthropological sources leads to the conclusion that compensation decisions regarding Native Title land must be approached from the perspective of Aboriginal landowners if accountable outcomes are to be achieved.