Funding for climate-smart agriculture is under threat. The Chair of the House Committee on Agriculture has proposed moving billions of dollars away from climate-smart agriculture in the next farm bill, despite the fact that related programs have been underfunded for years. Retaining this funding is critical to provide benefits to all the farmers, forest landowners, and ranchers across the country who want to implement climate-smart practices on their lands. Just-released data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) further confirm that climate-smart funding has already benefited farmers, forest landowners, and ranchers in every state, but it won’t continue to do so if it is not preserved.
Inflation Reduction Act funding benefits farmers and nearby communities
In 2022, almost $20 billion was set aside in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for producers to implement climate-smart agriculture and conservation measures on their land. The funding supports four main programs at the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Stewardship Program, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program. The $20 billion is a much-needed investment, since some of these programs have been underfunded for years.* The next farm bill can and should be an opportunity to support these historic investments, not undercut them.
Climate-smart agriculture funding from the IRA can benefit any farmer, forest landowner, or rancher, as it supports their efforts to more sustainably manage their land. These practices can also save them money. For example, climate-smart agriculture methods can help farmers use fertilizer more efficiently, which can lead to less fertilizer, and dollars, wasted. This supplemental funding also benefits local communities in multiple ways, including by improving water quality. The funding protects farms, and everyone who depends on them, from the changing climate by making them more climate resilient, which is needed as farmers must increasingly address extreme weather.
Climate-smart conservation in action
Landowners can implement a range of climate-smart practices that qualify for the climate-smart agriculture funding from the IRA. In Pennsylvania, second-generation farmer Josh Daniels received IRA funding through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program for multiple climate-smart agriculture improvements. Josh has already started developing habitat for pollinators on his land and will work toward reducing runoff from his land into neighboring waterways by creating buffers along his fields.
IRA funding is also supporting climate-smart ranching in New Mexico: Funding through the Conservation Stewardship Program enables the Pueblo of Laguna’s Bell Rock Livestock Association to better manage where its cattle grazes, benefiting both the land and the cattle.
Without supplemental climate-smart agriculture funding, Josh and the Pueblo of Laguna may not have been able to make these investments in their land. Farmers, forest landowners, and ranchers just like them, from Pennsylvania to New Mexico to Georgia to Texas, will not have the same opportunities to improve their land if the supplemental funding is not maintained.
IRA conservation funding has benefited all 50 states
$500 million
FY 2023 IRA funds for EQIP and CSP, combined
Not only does every state stand to benefit from the IRA’s climate-smart agriculture funding, but they already have, as seen below in Figures 1 and 2. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program had $250 million in IRA funds for fiscal year 2023, and every state received a portion. The Conservation Stewardship Program had $250 million in IRA funds for FY 2023, and every state but Alaska received some. Funding for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program and the Regional Conservation Partnership Program brought the IRA’s climate-smart agriculture funding total to $850 million for FY 2023. For FY 2024, total funding from the IRA increased to more than $3 billion total, $1.65 billion for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and $472 million for the Conservation Stewardship Program. Every U.S. state already has millions of dollars allocated toward climate-smart agriculture and conservation for FY 2024, through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program combined.
Climate-smart funding benefits historically underserved farmers
IRA-funded programs for FY 2023 funneled a significant share of climate-smart agriculture funding to historically underserved farmers and ranchers, including farmers who are veterans, farmers of color, and beginning farmers. Across all U.S. states and territories, 40 percent of IRA funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program was obligated to historically underserved applicants, accounting for more than 43 percent of all contracts. For the Conservation Stewardship Program, 22 percent of IRA funding was obligated to historically underserved farmers, accounting for 29 percent of all contracts. These farmers stand to lose out if future funding is directed away from climate-smart agriculture.
Demand exceeds supply of climate-smart funding across the country
Conservation programs are historically and currently oversubscribed, with many qualified projects left unfunded each year.** From 2010 to 2020, the Conservation Stewardship Program funded fewer than half of applicants, 42 percent, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program funded only 31 percent.*** In 2022, these two programs combined didn’t fund almost three-quarters of applicants—about 73 percent, or more than 100,000 applicants total.****
Despite the supplemental funding, demand was still greater than supply for the first year of IRA funding—fiscal year 2023—for multiple programs: 72 percent of valid applications received funding through the Conservation Stewardship Program, but only 36 percent and 27 percent of valid applications, respectively, received funding through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program. As seen in Figure 3, thousands of farmers, representing virtually every state, did not receive funding from FY 2023, despite having eligible applications.
Strong support for conservation funding
Support for the IRA’s climate-smart funding spans the agricultural sector. The list of vocal supporters includes the National Farmers Union, which spans 33 states and consists of more than 220,000 family ranchers and farmers; the American farm equipment manufacturer John Deere; and 644 other farms, businesses, and organizations. Beyond the agricultural sector, a poll from October 2023 found that a strong majority of voters in six agricultural states, including “likely Republican voters,” support the funding.
Conclusion
Two years ago, the Inflation Reduction Act committed almost $20 billion to farmers, forest landowners, and ranchers in support of better stewardship of the land. New data further confirm that farmers, forest landowners, and ranchers in every state benefit from this funding. But farmers, foresters, and ranchers across the country who have eligible projects are still waiting for funding. If Congress redistributes the remaining funds, they may never receive the financial support they need and deserve.
Methodology
All data for the figures on Inflation Reduction Act farm bill funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP), and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) are drawn from the National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Resources Conservation Act (RCA) Data Viewer and Financial Assistance Program Data Dashboard. Data on unfunded IRA-farm bill applications for EQIP, ACEP, and CSP are pulled from the NRCS’ “IRA Climate and Clean Energy Solutions State Fact Sheets.” The term “contracts” as it is used in the RCA Data Viewer is interchangeable with the term “applications” in other NRCS datasets; the terms are also used interchangeably in this article.
Figures for FY 2023 include IRA funding data from EQIP, ACEP, and CSP but not the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP). Figure 2a averages the share of unfunded, valid applications for each state across all three programs and is calculated based on the percentage of unfunded, valid applications out of the total number of valid applications in FY 2023. Figure 2b shows the share of unfunded, valid applications per capita and is calculated by dividing the total number of unfunded applications across all three programs by the population of each state. Figures for FY 2024 include IRA funding data from EQIP and CSP but not ACEP or RCPP. Per capita estimates are based on state population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. All figures with dollar amounts include allocated funding only, rather than obligated funding—though most states have already allocated 100 percent of obligated IRA funding for FY 2023.
In all three figures above, the population value for each state used to calculate per capita and per-100,000 values is April 1, 2020, census data.
The authors did not directly access all federal sources of data. These are indicated with asterisks in the article text above and detailed below.
* The source linked on “underfunded” cites the following federal sources in its analysis: United States Department of Agriculture (2021). EQIP – Regular: Number of Applications by State and Contract Fiscal Year, Contract Fiscal Years 2005-2020; United States Department of Agriculture (2021). CSP and CStP: Number of Applications by State and Contract Fiscal Year, Contract Fiscal Years 2005-2020.
The source linked on “years” cites the following federal source in its analysis: Natural Resources Conservation Service. Protracts 10 13 2022.
** The source linked on “unfunded” clarifies that its analysis was based on the following federal source: compiled from the data reported to Congress by USDA’s Office of Budget and Program Analysis (OBPA) in the annual explanatory notes for the Congressional justifications to the President’s budget (USDA-OBPA, Congressional Justifications: Explanatory Notes.
*** The source linked on “42 percent” cites the following federal source in its analysis: United States Department of Agriculture (2021). CSP and CStP: Number of Applications by State and Contract Fiscal Year, Contract Fiscal Years 2005-2020.
The source linked on “31 percent” cites the following federal source in its analysis: United States Department of Agriculture (2021). EQIP – Regular: Number of Applications by State and Contract Fiscal Year, Contract Fiscal Years 2005-2020.
**** The source linked on “2022” cites the following federal source in its analysis: Natural Resources Conservation Service. Protracts 10 13 2022.
The authors would like to thank Drew McConville, Nicole Gentile, Doug Molof, Kendra Hughes, Chester Hawkins, Meghan Miller, and Bill Rapp for their contributions.