On May 13, IATP hosted a new installment of our “Shaping the Future of Food” webinar series with Michael Happ, IATP program associate for climate and rural communities. In the webinar, Michael discussed the unmet demand among U.S. farmers for the popular USDA conservation programs EQIP (Environment Quality Incentives Program) and CSP (Conservation Stewardship Program).
We caught up with Michael to ask him a few of the key questions raised in the webinar, including the benefits of these conservation programs and what we stand to lose if these programs and other conservation initiatives are taken away. You can watch the full webinar here.
What are some example projects that farmers undertake using the funding from EQIP and CSP?
A farmer might look out at their field and see a gully forming — water is powerful and can take soil away pretty quickly. A farmer can apply to EQIP to plant a grassed waterway or trees where the gully is forming to keep soil in place. If a farmer likes the results of this project, they might graduate to CSP to conserve resources across their whole farm, including planting a conservation crop rotation, buffers around their streams, and assistance with planting nutrient-dense and native forage mixes for grazing animals.
How can we better develop policies to help drive sustainable agriculture and ensure the systems are appropriately supported?
We need to make sure that farmers at all scales are represented at all levels of decision-making, from the county level to the congressional. The farmers at the table should not only include those who have farmed sustainably, but also those who wish to but face barriers, financial or otherwise. Existing conservation programs are popular partly because they are voluntary and can be used at different scales, and have enough flexibility to fit a farm’s unique needs. At the same time, we need to ensure there is stable funding and staffing at the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to keep the programs running smoothly while addressing the most pressing natural resource concerns and helping the bottom lines of the farmers who need support the most.
Could you tell us about the broader goals and agendas within USDA? How do you see conservation and sustainability factoring into the USDA under the current administration?
The USDA’s new leadership has made a concerted effort to target its work as “Farmers First,” diverting grants away from nonprofit groups working with farmers and stating it wants more of its funds to go directly to farmers. At the same time, they have called funds from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) “the Green New Scam,” and frozen funds going to climate and sustainability-related projects that include and support farmers. Any farmers wishing to address climate and sustainability on their farm will have to highlight other benefits of their planned projects, all while the effects of climate change show themselves on the farm.
What would change or be lost if USDA conservation programs were completely shut down?
We would lose a lot if USDA conservation programs were completely shut down. For many farmers, these programs are gateways to conservation — the financial boost that can make the difference between having their soil covered or not, that can help them add that third crop to their rotation, or to graze their livestock on pasture and access the new market opportunities that come with it. If you take away the remaining IRA funds set aside just for EQIP, you could see more than 900,000 potential on-farm projects disappear.
The funding from EQIP and CSP are designed mostly to provide incentives to make a transition in farming practices. Would the widespread adoption of these new practices eventually provide sufficient benefits (not just yields) to cover the costs over time?
There are studies that have shown farmers can increase profits and yields from implementing conservation, but that is just one view of conservation's benefits. Widespread adoption of conservation would likely save taxpayer dollars — if pollution is addressed upstream on farms, cities wouldn’t have to spend as much on advanced water filtration systems. More edge-of-field conservation would provide wildlife habitat for birds that eat pests, saving farmer dollars on pesticides while reducing runoff. And even if conservation projects don’t lead to short-term economic gains for farmers, we should support these farms so that there will still be healthy soil for farmers and eaters of future generations. The costs of not conserving our resources are too high not to act now.
