Relative Effectiveness of Pay-for-Practice Versus Pay-for-Outcomes inPhosphorus Abatement

This report seeks to answer the question “Are water quality improvements more cost-effective when generated by paying farmers to adopt conservation practices (pay-for-practice), or when generated by paying them for quantified environmental results (pay-for-outcomes)?” By comparing the US Department of Agriculture’s EQIP program to a privately-run water quality trading market in Wisconsin, the analysis finds a substantial cost advantage for the pay-for-outcomes approach.