The farm bill establishes three tiers or levels of participation. In part, this reflects CSP’s  newness. Estimates of CSP Costs Generally Increased because of Better Information on Program Implementation and Changes to the Time Frames Covered by the Estimates

Various factors explain why CBO and OMB estimates of CSP costs  generally have increased over time. Of most importance, CBO and OMB  officials indicated that little information was available regarding how the  program would be implemented at the time of its inception in May 2002. In addition, increases in  estimated CSP costs also can be attributed to revising the time frames on  which the estimates were based. In early May 2002, just before the farm bill’s enactment, CBO  estimated CSP costs to be $2 billion for the same 10-year period. OMB’s estimate for these years was $4.049 billion. While  USDA’s NRCS has established several cost control measures under this  statutory authority, its efforts to restrict program spending could be  improved by addressing (1) weaknesses in internal controls used to ensure  the accuracy of program payments and (2) inconsistencies in the wildlife  resource criteria used by NRCS state offices to determine producer  eligibility for Tier III, the highest CSP payment level. The Farm Bill Provides USDA Authority to Control CSP Costs

The farm bill establishes some eligibility requirements for CSP but gives  USDA the authority to establish additional requirements that would enable  it to control CSP costs, even absent legislative caps on CSP funding. For example, NRCS restricts CSP  participation by limiting program enrollment each year to producers in  specified, priority watersheds. For example, as authorized in the statute, CSP can reward  producers for conservation actions that they have already taken, whereas  other programs generally provide assistance to producers to encourage  them to take new actions intended to address conservation problems on  working lands or to idle or retire environmentally sensitive land from  production. In addition, NRCS does not have a  comprehensive process to preclude or identify such duplicate payments. In addition, other farm bill provisions reduce potential duplication by  prohibiting certain payments from being made through CSP. CSP regulations and procedures also provide financial incentives for  enhancements. As indicated in the table, the farm bill allows cost-share payments for the  adoption of conservation practices that could be implemented through any  of these programs, creating the possibility that a producer could receive  duplicate payments for the same conservation practice under CSP and  another program. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve NRCS’s implementation of the Conservation Security Program,  we recommend that the Secretary of Agriculture direct the Chief of NRCS  to take the following four actions:   Review and field check each NRCS state office’s wildlife habitat  assessment criteria to ensure that states use consistent criteria and  achieve the habitat benefits intended by the national guidance;   Include a reference to the national guidance for wildlife habitat  assessment criteria in NRCS’s Conservation Programs Manual;   Develop a comprehensive process, such as an automated system, to  review CSP contract applications to ensure that CSP payments, if  awarded, would not duplicate payments made by other USDA  conservation programs; and  Develop a process to efficiently review existing CSP contracts to  identify cases where CSP payments duplicate payments made under  other programs and take action to recover appropriate amounts and to  ensure that these duplicate payments are not repeated in fiscal year  2006 and beyond. Specifically,  we determined (1) why Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) cost estimates for CSP generally increased  over time; (2) what authority USDA has to control CSP costs and what cost  control measures are in place; and (3) what legislative and regulatory  measures exist to prevent duplication between CSP and other USDA  conservation programs, and what duplication, if any, has occurred.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Conservation Security Program (CSP)--called for in the 2002 farm bill and administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)--provides financial assistance to producers to reward past conservation actions and to encourage further conservation stewardship. CSP payments may be made for structural or land management practices, such as strip cropping to reduce erosion. CSP has raised concerns among some stakeholders because CSP cost estimates generally have increased since the 2002 farm bill's enactment. For example, the Congressional Budget Office's estimate increased from $2 billion in 2002 to $8.9 billion in 2004. GAO determined (1) why CSP cost estimates generally increased; (2) what authority USDA has to control costs and what cost control measures exist; and (3) what measures exist to prevent duplication between CSP and other USDA conservation programs and what duplication, if any, has occurred.

What GAO Found

Various factors explain why estimates of CSP costs generally increased since the 2002 farm bill's enactment. Of most importance, little information was available regarding how this program would be implemented at the time of its inception in 2002. As more information became available, cost estimates rose. In addition, the time frames on which the estimates were based changed. While the initial estimates covered years in which the program was expected to be nonoperational or minimally operational, subsequent estimates did not include these years. The farm bill provides USDA general authority to control CSP costs, including authority to establish criteria that enable it to control program participation and payments and, therefore, CSP costs. For example, NRCS restricts participation by limiting program enrollment each year to producers in specified, priority watersheds. NRCS also has established certain CSP payment limits at levels below the maximum allowed by the statute. However, efforts to control CSP spending could be improved by addressing weaknesses in internal controls and inconsistencies in the wildlife habitat assessment criteria that NRCS state offices use, in part, to determine producer eligibility for the highest CSP payment level. Inconsistencies in these criteria also may reduce CSP's conservation benefits. The farm bill prohibits duplicate payments for the same practice on the same land made through CSP and another USDA conservation program. Various other farm bill provisions also reduce the potential for duplication. For example, as called for under the farm bill, CSP may reward producers for conservation actions they have already taken, whereas other programs generally provide assistance to encourage new actions or to idle or retire environmentally sensitive land from production. In addition, CSP regulations establish higher minimum eligibility requirements for CSP than for other programs. However, despite these legislative and regulatory provisions, the possibility that producers can receive duplicate payments remains because of similarities in the conservation actions financed through these programs. In addition, NRCS does not have a comprehensive process to preclude or identify such duplicate payments. In reviewing NRCS's payments data, GAO found a number of examples of duplicate payments.