The following report is by The Daily Yonder, republished by Successful Farming:
According to a new report by Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP), “Payments for Pollution: How Federal Conservation Programs Can Better Benefit Farmers and the Environment,” that’s because in many cases limited budgets are being “misdirected to large, polluting operations while thousands of farmers are being turned away from contracts that could help them pay for conservation improvements and help their bottom lines.”
The report looks at both the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), two of the largest and most popular conservation programs available at USDA. Through its research in 2021, IATP found that only 42% of CSP applicants and 31% of EQIP applicants were awarded contracts between 2010 and 2020.
There’s just not enough money to go around. That’s partially because conservation programs have been defunded through the farm bill. But it’s also because of a lot of other factors, most concerning to us is that factory farms [livestock operations containing thousands of animals] use up a lot of the allocations.
Said Michael Happ, the report’s author, in an interview with Daily Yonder.
Happ said that IATP launched the study because of anecdotal evidence from the Environmental Working Group and other sources raising questions about large conservation payments being made to operations with a history of manure pollution in rural communities.
Overall, EQIP is a very good program that in the past excluded CAFOs [concentrated animal feeding operations] from funding. But now some states actually set aside EQIP dollars for CAFOs.
Happ said
The report focused on the 12 states often referred to as the Midwest, and documents the difference between EQIP-practice-spending in each state. EQIP applications are evaluated and prioritized through a scoring system governed by each state’s USDA Natural Resource and Conservation Service (NRCS) state technical advisory committee.
North Dakota (2.1%) and Nebraska (9.7%) were the states least likely to award contracts to “EQIP industrial practices,” based on IATP’s definition. Both states were more likely to support pasture-based livestock and grazing systems through EQIP than CAFOs. Illinois (37.3%) and Minnesota (30.8%), on the other hand, were most likely to award limited EQIP funding to industrial practices that IATP says should be avoided.
Part of the problem with EQIP is the 50% livestock set-aside. Fifty percent of EQIP funds are earmarked for livestock practices, and some of that money does go toward practices we support, like rotational grazing and better rangeland management. But in some states, Iowa for instance, half of that livestock allocation is mandated to go to CAFOs specifically.
Happ said
These kinds of mandates “get away from the locally-led conservation support and nuance that NRCS is so good at providing to farmers,” he said. “Some states can even lose out on large amounts of funding because they don’t have enough livestock applications,” to meet the 50% threshold. When that happens, states with a small volume of livestock practice applications send their allocations to other livestock-driven states.
The study also looks at EQIP’s 5% set-aside for “socially disadvantaged producers,” USDA’s definition for Black, Indigenous, Hispanic and Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, and other farmers of color.
In these 12 Midwestern states, only South Dakota and Michigan met the 5% target. While little information is known about this racial and ethnic disparity, the report states that South Dakota’s better representation of farmers of color likely reflects the large number of farmers in the state who identify as Native American.
IATP, along with dozens of other groups around the country that support conservation program reforms to better serve pasture-based livestock operations and socially disadvantaged producers, want to remove harmful industrial practices from EQIP’s funding eligibility, which would require Congress to outline specific practices to remove from funding eligibility in the 2023 Farm Bill, according to the report.
They are also calling for improving the outreach to farmers of color and prioritization of sustainable grazing systems in livestock set-asides, including an option to opt out of the 50% livestock requirement for states that may benefit from it.
The simplest fix for EQIP is bringing the program back to its original intent. In the next farm bill we could make it so that CAFOs are not eligible, and we could use the EQIP funding to support the large majority of practices that have a big environmental benefit … things like prioritizing soil health, improving water quality, and carbon sequestration.
Happ said
The Largest Land Grab In The US Is Taking Place And No One Seems To Notice Or Care
AUTHOR COMMENTARY
Oh, but the government has plenty of money to allocate to fund a proxy war with Russia-Ukraine – money that they had to steal from the American tax-cattle!
Simply put, by the USDA rejecting the requests from farmers who want to do things that are more cleaner and more sustainable, they are helping to usher in and generate deliberate famine.
As noted in other WinePress reports, I have noted the string of fires that are destroying food processing and distributing plants, which will only cause more food shortages and supply chain issues in the weeks and months ahead. On top of that, some states are passing legislation to ban some of these toxic agricultural practices, which, in of itself is a good thing, but the timing of it is only guaranteeing that there will be less and less food on the shelves for the masses to eat.
[17] Thus saith the LORD of hosts; Behold, I will send upon them the sword, the famine, and the pestilence, and will make them like vile figs, that cannot be eaten, they are so evil. [18] And I will persecute them with the sword, with the famine, and with the pestilence, and will deliver them to be removed to all the kingdoms of the earth, to be a curse, and an astonishment, and an hissing, and a reproach, among all the nations whither I have driven them: [19] Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the LORD, which I sent unto them by my servants the prophets, rising up early and sending them; but ye would not hear, saith the LORD.Jeremiah 29:17-19
[7] Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? [8] Say I these things as a man? or saith not the law the same also? [9] For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? [10] Or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and that he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. (1 Corinthians 9:7-10).
The WinePress needs your support! If God has laid it on your heart to want to contribute, please prayerfully consider donating to this ministry. If you cannot gift a monetary donation, then please donate your fervent prayers to keep this ministry going! Thank you and may God bless you.
