Coming out of a March 22 hearing by the House Agriculture Committee, some strands in the tug and pull of agriculture over climate change continue getting teased out and show how the committee might try navigating around climate programs at USDA over the next couple of years.
Rep. Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-PA-15), the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee, continued to throw down a marker on climate. Thompson has spent the last year going back and forth on conservation programs and carbon markets with the only repeated theme being his disdain for USDA using Commodity Credit Corporation funds in any capacity to support climate programs.
Thompson at the hearing said he believes U.S. farmers are climate champions, “But I will not fundamentally upend our commodity, conservation and crop insurance programs to appease Washington think tanks,” he said. “I will reject complicating our programs and making climate the focus of every title of the upcoming farm bill reauthorization.”
Thompson’s comments on climate and farm bill programs ring loudly because if political projections and prognostications are accurate, Thompson will take over as chairman of the committee next January as agriculture gears up for the 2023 Farm Bill. The realistic odds that a GOP-led Congress would pass a farm bill next year—or even in the next Congress—are probably lower than those of a 16th seed winning the Final Four over the next three weeks.
Thompson criticized USDA’s “half-baked pilots”—the Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities—saying, “I do not believe USDA or taxpayers should be subsidizing arbitrary climate goals, nor do I believe we should be funding a climate cottage industry.”
The congressman then leaned on Texas A&M agricultural economist Joe Outlaw to support his case. Outlaw called the climate effort “a positive” but then added that unless every area of the country can participate equally, it creates “segmented markets,” potentially putting some growers at a disadvantage.
Outlaw noted when it comes to conservation and the 675 producers A&M follows as “representative crop and livestock operations” in 29 states, farmers support USDA conservation programs but often have more needs than there is money available under the conservation programs. Outlaw then added his representative farmers do not support “tying climate-smart practices” to crop insurance—not in premiums, not in participation and not in indemnities.
Yet, crop insurance is already tied to climate change in different ways. After a prolonged drought hit Texas and other states in 2011, the 2014 Farm Bill created the actual production history (APH) yield exclusion. The crop insurance provision allows farmers to drop exceptionally bad years from their APH during crop years that the county yield is at least 50 percent below its average.
Congress also already supports funding for climate change in several ways. Since the 2018 Farm Bill was passed, lawmakers have repeatedly needed to provide a range of new disaster aid payments under the Wildfire and Hurricane Indemnity Program Plus (WHIP+) to make up for the growing range of agricultural disaster losses traditional crop insurance doesn’t cover.
USDA has had to define what is covered under a derecho loss, grain losses in floods or derechos, polar vortex losses and quality losses to crops from drought. They also had to consider increases in 2019 prevented planting payments, and USDA is now trying to figure out a payment plan for “smoke-tainted” grapes as well. Unforeseen disasters are averaging roughly over $3 billion a year under WHIP+. Congress came up with $10 billion last year to pay for 2020-2021 disaster losses.
WHIP+ has become its own permanent, ever-expanding disaster program to cover all the unforeseen losses not spelled out or covered in a crop insurance policy. WHIP+ has become so prevalent that there are calls to reestablish a new permanent disaster program in the next farm bill to respond more readily with aid to farmers, though a farm bill crafted disaster program might not have the same freestyle funding and flexibility that comes from an ad hoc bill drafted by Congress every couple of years.
Some groups keep trying to make the point that expanding conservation programs can make producers more resilient to these disasters as well. In the end, that could provide more potential premium discounts for producers along the way. Representing the AGree Coalition at the hearing was Minnesota farmer Kristin Weeks Duncanson, who called for “improving the connection between conservation and crop insurance.” Duncanson added conservation measures help reduce drought risks.
“Farmers use conservation and they become less risky and more resilient,” Duncanson said. “The probability of (yield) loss decreases as conservation increases.”
Then there is the Food and Agriculture Climate Alliance (FACA), represented in the hearing by Chuck Conner, president and CEO of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives. Now representing more than 80 farm groups, FACA has a long list of recommendations, including calling on the House to follow the 92-8 vote last year in the Senate and pass the Growing Climate Solutions Act.
That bill would essentially give USDA authority to set standards and provide certification for private carbon markets. Conner also backed USDA’s $1 billion Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities as well. “FACA is especially pleased to see the program structure consistent with our recommendations for climate-smart projects,” Conner said.
Conner also offered a few FACA recommendations for a 2023 Farm Bill, including a 10-20 percent increase in USDA’s conservation programs through the Natural Resources Conservation Service “for new and existing greenhouse gas reductions, adaptation and soil health efforts,” Conner said.
FACA also wants 1 percent of total mandatory funding to go toward new technical assistance programs as well “to ensure producers receive critical on-the-ground support” to help them become eligible for carbon credit programs. Conner also plugged the Rural Energy for America Program to expand renewable energy projects on farms.
Moving ahead, FACA, AGree and others are going to have to find a way to convince Thompson that agriculture broadly supports some climate initiatives that don’t just come from some well-meaning think tanks in D.C. — Chris Clayton, DTN ag policy editor
