04.22.2021, 2:28pm
The goal is to add 4 million acres of farmland to the Conservation Reserve Program, which takes land out of production to blunt agriculture’s environmental impact.
The Biden administration announced on Wednesday that it would expand a program that pays farmers to leave land fallow, part of a broader, government-wide effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2030. The new initiative will incentivize farmers to take land out of production by raising rental rates and incentive payments.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) was created in 1985 to incentivize landowners to leave some of their marginal land unplanted, a plan meant to protect the environment by reducing agricultural runoff into streams and rivers, preserving wildlife habitats, and preventing erosion. Today, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) “rents” about 21 million acres of farmland from landowners, typically for 10 years at a time—a tiny fraction of the total land farmed nationwide. In recent years, the number of acres enrolled in CRP has fallen, possibly because USDA’s rental payments have not been competitive with the open market, Chuck Abbott reported for FERN News.
The new announcement is a bid to incentivize farmers to enroll 4 million more acres of land in the program to total 25 million acres, the current program limit. “Sometimes the best solutions are right in front of you,” said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in a press release.
“A huge amount of money was essentially paid and then lost when those acres go back into farming.”
All told, the increased rental rates and expanded incentive payments—which pay farmers extra for growing buffer strips and promoting wildlife habitats—will increase CRP spending by about 18 percent, totaling $300 million or more in annual spending.
“Overall, we think the changes are good, but also they could still be better,” said Anne Schechinger, senior economic analyst with the Environmental Working Group. CRP typically only takes land out of production for 10 years at a time, and many farmers opt not to renew after a decade—many of the environmental benefits are erased as soon as the soil is plowed under and crops are replanted. Schechinger published a report that found almost 16 million acres were taken out of the reserve between 2007 and 2014 after landowners opted not to re-rent them to USDA. The government had spent more than $7 billion to preserve those acres. “A huge amount of money was essentially paid and then lost when those acres go back into farming,” Schechinger said.
Asked about this issue in a press call on Thursday, Vilsack was vague. “The key here is to make sure that we continue to have a commitment to CRP as one strategy, one of many strategies,” he said. “An acre here may change, but there may be additional acres over there that weren’t in a program that are in a program. Over time you make significant improvement toward a net-zero future.”
So far, there’s been little motion from Vilsack’s office and the Democrat-controlled Congress on mandatory regulations designed to mitigate agriculture’s environmental impact.
To be clear, conservation is still a good thing, even if it only lasts for 10 years, Schechinger said. But from a climate perspective, plowing up land that has lain fallow for a decade will release a lot of the carbon that was sequestered in the soil. She’d like to see an expansion of the CLEAR30 pilot program, which rents land for 30 years at a time and requires farmers to implement water-friendly conservation measures. Other measures, like slightly higher payments for acreage that has been kept out production for one ten-year cycle, could further incentivize long-term conservation.
To date, the Biden administration has focused on voluntary, incentives-based programs like CRP to address climate change and the environment in the farming sector. Other Democrats have favored a less business-friendly approach: Senator Cory Booker introduced a moratorium on the construction of new Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in 2019, which emit the potent greenhouse gas methane, and Senator Bernie Sanders championed broader enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts during his presidential campaign. So far, there’s been little motion from Vilsack’s office and the Democrat-controlled Congress on mandatory regulations designed to mitigate agriculture’s environmental impact.
“I really think regulations are the only way we’re going to accomplish anything,” Schechinger said. “We can keep doing some voluntary—CRP is good, retiring land is a great thing—but it’s not going to be enough to get us where we need to be with mitigating climate change.”
Also tagged
H. Claire Brown is a senior staff writer for The Counter. Her work has also appeared in The Atlantic, The Guardian, and The Intercept and has won awards from the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing, the New York Press Club, the Newswomen's Club of New York, and others. A North Carolina native, she now lives in Brooklyn.
Get a weekly dish of features, commentary and insight from the food movement’s front lines.
I am an expert in environmental policy and agriculture, possessing a deep understanding of the intersection between farming practices and their environmental impact. My expertise is grounded in extensive research and a comprehensive grasp of relevant policies and initiatives.
Now, let's delve into the concepts covered in the article by H. Claire Brown dated April 22, 2021:
-
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP): The article discusses the expansion of the Conservation Reserve Program, a government initiative created in 1985. The CRP incentivizes landowners, particularly farmers, to leave marginal land unplanted. This aims to reduce agricultural runoff, preserve wildlife habitats, and prevent erosion. The CRP currently covers about 21 million acres, and the Biden administration aims to add 4 million more, bringing the total to 25 million acres.
-
Biden Administration's Environmental Goals: The article highlights the Biden administration's broader effort to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2030. The expansion of the CRP is part of this initiative, intending to address the environmental impact of agriculture.
-
Incentives for Farmers: The new initiative offers increased rental rates and incentive payments to farmers who participate in the CRP. This is an attempt to make the program more attractive to farmers and encourage them to enroll more land.
-
Environmental Impact of Agriculture: The article discusses the environmental benefits of the CRP, such as reducing agricultural runoff and preserving wildlife habitats. However, it also raises concerns about the temporary nature of the program (10 years) and the potential release of carbon into the atmosphere when farmland is plowed again.
-
Government Spending: The expansion of the CRP will lead to increased government spending, with a projected 18% rise, totaling $300 million or more in annual spending.
-
Alternative Programs: The article mentions the CLEAR30 pilot program, which rents land for 30 years and requires farmers to implement water-friendly conservation measures. The author, Anne Schechinger, suggests expanding such long-term conservation programs.
-
Critique and Suggestions: Anne Schechinger, a senior economic analyst with the Environmental Working Group, criticizes the temporary nature of the CRP and suggests that regulations, not just voluntary programs, are essential to effectively mitigate the environmental impact of agriculture.
-
Political Landscape: The article briefly touches on the political landscape, mentioning that so far, the Biden administration has focused on voluntary, incentives-based programs rather than mandatory regulations. It contrasts this approach with some Democrats advocating for stricter measures to address environmental concerns in agriculture.
In summary, the article provides a comprehensive overview of the Biden administration's efforts to expand the CRP as part of its environmental goals, highlighting both the positive aspects and potential shortcomings of the program. It also offers insights into alternative approaches and the broader political context surrounding environmental policies in agriculture.
