Minnesota farmers are showing great interest in federal incentives to improve their conservation practices, but only a small minority have been successful in winning the grants.
That's not unique to Minnesota's farmers, according to a new study by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. It found that, between 2010 and 2020, successful applications from farmers around the country dropped significantly in two U.S. Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers pay for equipment and adopt practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help them adapt to climate-related changes.
"It's going in the wrong direction in terms of making sure farmers have access to programs that incentivize the fight against climate change," said Michael Happ, who led the study.
The gap between applications and grantees is particularly stark in Minnesota. Last year, just 17% of Minnesota applicants to the Environmental Quality Assistance Program (EQIP) were awarded contracts, and only 14% had success applying to the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).
As the Biden administration and Congress hash out a federal spending package and Democrats push for big new investments in fighting and mitigating climate change, advocates for the two programs administered by the USDA's Natural Resource Conservation Service say that EQIP and CSP are a proven, successful way to enlist farmers directly in the battle.
"If we want to talk about how can farmers be part of the climate solution — well, literally they're asking to be, all we have to do is fund them," said Jessica Kochick, federal policy organizer at the Land Stewardship Project.
The Land Stewardship Project and the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, both Minnesota-based nonprofits that promote sustainability in agriculture, are advocating at the federal level for a boost in spending on the two programs as Democrats shape their reconciliation package.
Kochick said many in agriculture's progressive movement prefer established programs that promote beneficial land management, as opposed to proposals for carbon markets in which companies looking to offset their own carbon emissions would pay farmers to adopt more environmentally friendly practices.