There are good climate-friendly practices out there, but frankly, adopting some practices puts a burden on farmers.
For example, cover crops. Some farmers can justify the $ 30- $ 60 cost of using cover crops because of the benefits to the farm. For others, there may be a government payment of $ 20- $ 30, but that still means farmer pays $ 10- $ 40 per acre for a practice that may not have much of a return – especially in the northern regions.
A new grassroots nonprofit ag group – Rural Investment to Protect Our Environment (RIPE) – thinks they have a solution that benefits farmers and the public.
Pay farmers $ 100 / acre or $ 100 / animal unit for one conservation practice.
RIPE’s core policy principle is to pay a price floor that surpasses climate policy costs – including the cost of practice adoption and cost of inputs. Their research shows the appropriate price floor is $ 100 / acre or $ 100 / animal unit for the initial stage of the program.
People are also reading…
The dollars would come from a USDA conservation program designed for climate and other environmental benefits, including water and soil health. These practices will include a choice of rotational grazing, manure management, feed management, no-till or cover crops.
The model for the $ 100 payment comes from the utility sector – clean electric and power companies are paid a reasonable return, not a cost-share, for conservation efforts they make, so why not farmers?
“In the clean energy space, federal and state programs are designed to understand that a reasonable return is expected for the energy sector to make investments in clean energy. In the ag sector, there is a cost-share concept. Why are farmers expected to cost-share? ” said Aliza Wasserman-Drewes, Executive Director of RIPE.
Wasserman-Drewes formulated the idea of RIPE while working at the Community Alliance with Family Farmers in California, and later for the National Governors Association.
She learned that ag policies are often stuck in a “cost-share” principle that prevents wide adoption. RIPE100 could fill the payment gap to allow farmers to adopt climate-friendly practices.
“Producers must mobilize their trade associations to ask for this program with their members of Congress,” she said. “We have spoken with key members of both parties in Congress, and they are ideologically supportive of the concept, but will only move once they hear from the producer groups who are asking for this type of program within the Farm Bill. We are proposing that it be done with new funds intended for climate programs, so that we are not competing with existing programs. “
Working with a team of farmer-leaders, RIPE staff hopes to receive a pilot program for funding beginning in August through USDA’s grant programs. RIPE steering committee leaders are proposing the pilot for locations within a few states including Minnesota, North Dakota, Arkansas and Virginia.
“We don’t want RIPE to replace any programs that farmers are now participating in,” she said. “Instead, the dollars would come from a new conservation program implemented by the USDA.”
The Minnesota State Cattlemen’s Association (MSCA) joined the RIPE steering committee in May. This is the first livestock group to join.
To join the steering committee, associations agree to provide leadership, communicate the RIPE vision, and hold monthly meetings to shape policy.
Other steering committee organizations include North Dakota Grain Growers Association, North Dakota Farmers Union, Minnesota Farmers Union, National Black Farmers Association, National Black Growers Council and the Arkansas Rice Federation.
“We’re pleased to bring Minnesota’s beef producers to the table to help design this comprehensive climate policy,” said Grant Breitkreutz, president of the MSCA (in a news release). “Joining the RIPE steering committee is one way we are looking to the future and supporting our members as we seek durable solutions to help them grow and prosper sustainably.”
RIPE has an organizational budget of about $ 1.2 million. Support comes from producer groups, environmental foundations, and individual donors.
Through payments of $ 100 / acre or $ 100 / animal unit, RIPE100 rewards producers for their conservation practices of public value, including rotational grazing, manure management, feed management, no-till and cover crops.
These practices have been shown to reduce greenhouse gas, improve soil health, keep water clean, create greater biodiversity and more.
RIPE100 has two phases. In Phase 1, farmers enroll, attend a conservation workshop, and adopt at least one conservation practice from the RIPE list that is practical and appropriate for their operations.
Farmers self-certify the established conservation practice using established protocols. USDA may audit up to 5 percent of participants.
To date in Phase 1 after their first year, each farmer must develop a comprehensive conservation farm plan. Farmers would qualify for annual payments of $ 100 / acre or $ 100 / animal unit even if they were already implementing the stewardship practice. Conservation payments will be limited to delivering public value, so if a farmer is receiving $ 20 for current practice, and a practice is delivering $ 105 per acre in public benefits, the RIPE payment will cover the other $ 85 per acre.
Phase 2 comes with proven success of the program and payment terms, while always adjusting to surpassing practice costs and climate policy costs on inputs and automatically a reasonable return. An expanded budget would allow all US farmers to stay afloat.
The specific policy design elements will be co-designed with ag producers and stakeholders and will continue with a philosophy of minimal paperwork. Steering committee members want to see a streamlined process that doesn’t require complex forms. There is no ranking as all producers could qualify for the RIPE100 program.
“Farmers should be rewarded for their efforts to work against climate change, and the RIPE100 policy would do that,” said dairy farmer Eunie Biel, Minnesota Farmers Union member and RIPE board vice president (in a news release). “I like that the plan doesn’t have mandates or regulations or punishments. It is voluntary and you can include as many acres and practices as you want. And if you are already using these practices, you will still get your payments. “
In two separate polls, RIPE found large support.
A study conducted by the Trust in Food found that 76 percent of farmers support a climate policy that pays $ 100 per acre for voluntary adoption of conservation practices. In addition, 78 percent of farmers support a policy that promotes soil health and water quality, as well as carbon capture, over a policy that pays solely for carbon capture.
A study conducted by Robert Bonnie, an undersecretary at the USDA, while he was at Duke University also polling and found that in the rural Midwest only 39 percent of Republicans supported government spending on climate, but 77 percent supported government spending on helping farmers. climate. The approval number jumps to 93 percent for financial incentives to farmers for water and soil health.
“A federal program that provides support to farmers for water and soil health, and by the way, the climate gets a 93 percent support from rural Republicans, and the numbers are even higher on the Democratic side,” Wasserman-Drewes said.
“There is over 90 percent of bipartisan support from the public for a program that rewards farmers for water, soil health, and climate. If you only make it for the climate, you will dramatically reduce your rural support for that.
“We think it’s important to design this program with broader compensation and that is what the public wants. The public wants to see a climate program that includes water and soil health, and then it will be widely supported.
“There is a big momentum for a climate-smart ag program and we want to make sure it is designed in a way that puts producers’ economic needs at a reasonable return to the center,” concluded Wasserman-Drewes.
For more information, visit riperoadmap.org.
General Chat Chat Lounge