The NRDC’s report on regenerative agriculture, released in March of this year, draws on interviews with 113 farmers and ranchers to discuss regenerative agriculture, its benefits, opportunities to scale up regenerative practices and incentivize more farmers to make the transition from conventional to regenerative, and barriers standing in the way.
While reading academic literature on regenerative agriculture over the last few months has provided a good insight into its common practices, principles, and outcomes, reading a text that centered around farmer interviews and policy recommendations provided a different perspective. The policy recommendation portion of the report, which was largely informed by farmer and rancher interviews, centered around 4 main areas: federal investment, infrastructure, farmer support, and regenerative agriculture research and extension. While many different program and policy suggestions were made, this post will narrow in on a few of my main takeaways and a few of the key barriers/opportunities to scaling up regenerative agriculture in the U.S.
One of the surprising points made in the report is that only 7% of the total Farm Bill budget goes to conservation projects, despite the fact that agriculture accounts for 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and USDA conservation programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, Conservation Stewardship Program, and the Conservation Reserve Program are historically popular and receive an abundance of applicants. There is a clear discrepancy between the lack USDA funding and programming centered around conservation and sustainability and the urgency of the climate crisis–which agriculture plays a sizable role in.
Aside from funding, the report also highlights the importance of infrastructure access. Interviewees report needing access to more infrastructure such as slaughterhouses, mobile meat processing units, mills, washing stations, farming cooperatives, composting services, storage warehouses, commercial kitchens, and more to support their businesses. The costs necessary to transition from conventional practices to regenerative (such as the cost of fencing needed for rotational grazing) is a barrier to entry, and a lot of the processing infrastructure in the U.S. is built in a way that favors industrial agriculture and prioritizes appointments for industrial-scale farmers. Additional facilities, and making sure that facilities function equitably for smaller scale regenerative farmers is key. Public sector procurement contracts for regenerative farmers can also help these farmers get their products to consumers and provide them with more financial backing necessary to continue their operations.
The report also touches on the discrimination that BIPOC farmers and ranchers have faced by the USDA, which has prepetuated inequitable access to land, lending, and other federal support (this history is illustrated by Supreme Court cases such as Pigford v. Glickman, Keepseagle v. Vilsack, and Garcia v. Vilsack, which addressed USDA lending discrimination against Black, Native American, and Hispanic farmers). While the Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach program seeks to support beginning farmers and farmers who are socially disadvantaged, it is clear from the history of systemic racism and discrimination has altered the landscape of who farms and owns land in the U.S. and more inclusive practices and representation are needed across all levels of the USDA programming. This is especially important with a topic such as regenerative agriculture, which is defined by practices and principles that are closely tied to indigenous knowledge and stewardship.
Lastly, another interesting point brought up by this report is the need for a PES program (payment for ecosystem services program). A PES scheme could include baseline data that would allow for farmers and researchers to track improvements over time on topics such as carbon sequestration, water quality, biodiversity, etc., and then pay farmers based on these improvements. Not only would this provide an additional form of revenue for farmers who are working to restore or preserve the ecosystem, but it could more closely tie together agricultural land and conservation work–which have become ever disconnected by our modern industrial agricultural methods.
Much of my latest reserach on regenerative agriculture has been reading up on the more scientific side of things, looking at individual farming practices and the effect they have on soil carbon levels, but this report offers a chance to ground that research within the larger social and political sphere of how farming really functions in the U.S. I highly recommend giving the report a read if you’re interested in learning about the experiences of regenerative farmers today and what types of policy changes could best support their work.
Learn more about the report and hear from some regenerative farmers in the video from the NRDC below:
Sharma, Arohi, et al. NRDC, 2022, Regenerative Agriculture: Farm Policy for the 21st Century.