An environmental group has published a report contending USDA’s climate-smart conservation practices are unlikely to reduce agriculture’s effects on greenhouse gas emissions.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit advocacy group, found that recently added conservation practices to USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) do little to combat climate change, and funding from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) should not be used to pay farmers for using the practices.
“USDA says that they have literature showing that these practices have climate benefits,” report author and EWG Midwest Director Anne Schechinger told public radio station KCUR. “But they don’t actually have any quantifiable data showing that these practices reduce greenhouse gas emissions.”
While USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) plans to investigate the potential climate advantages of these added practices in 2024, EWG asserts the practices should be removed from the USDA’s climate-smart list and IRA funds should not support them.
EWG disclosed IRA funding totaled about $19.5 billion, with $8.45 billion for EQIP practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions or sequester carbon in soil between fiscal years 2023 and 2026.
EWG states that NRCS updated its climate-smart practices for fiscal year 2024 to include 57 EQIP practices intended to cause “quantifiable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and/or increases in carbon sequestration.”
EWG continues that many of the recently categorized practices may lack climate benefits. Eight focus on irrigation and livestock management, which are unlikely to reduce emissions, and one, based on USDA data, potentially increases emissions, the group claimed.
The new practices added were:
• Brush management.
• Composting facility.
• Feed management.
• Fuel break.
• Herbaceous weed control.
• Irrigation pipeline.
• Irrigation system, micro.
• Irrigation system, sprinkler.
• Pumping plant.
• Prescribed burning.
• Waste facility cover.
• Waste storage facility.
• Wildlife habitat- restore and management.
• Woody residue treatment.
According to available USDA data, the report states structures like “waste storage facilities” that contain animal waste are associated with increased greenhouse gas emissions. EWG asserts that EQIP funding to manage large amounts of livestock in concentrated facilities may perpetuate this emission-intensive model rather than promoting alternatives like pasture-raising, which could reduce emissions.
EWG further asserts while EQIP irrigation practices may enhance water use efficiency, their effectiveness in reducing overall water consumption remains uncertain, particularly in regions like the West where “use it or lose it” water rights policies prevail. In such cases, water rights holders are incentivized to maximize water usage to avoid forfeiting unused allocations. This makes installing more efficient irrigation systems potentially ineffective in water conservation efforts.
“So calling the livestock and irrigation practices climate-smart, provisionally or not, is problematic since the IRA states that its agricultural funding should go to conservation practices that reduce emissions or sequester carbon,” EWG said.
USDA spokesperson Allan Rodriguez told KCUR the findings from EWR were “fundamentally flawed, speculative, and rest on incorrect assumptions around USDA’s selection of climate-smart practices.” Rodriguez said the agency used “rigorous, science-based methodology” to determine eligible practices.
Rodriguez continued that the extra funding from IRA is broadening the scope of farmers served by EQIP and funding initiatives for monitoring and verifying the efficacy of new practices. These endeavors aim to quantify the influence of conservation practices on greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration, ensuring that resources are allocated to the most impactful practices. — Charles Wallace, WLJ contributing editor
