One of the Department of Agriculture’s largest farm stewardship programs doesn’t make a big enough priority of helping farmers reduce greenhouse gases – even though food and farming emissions keep rising and could make a climate crisis unavoidable.
The USDA’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, or EQIP, provides $1.2 billion annually to help farmers deliver environmental benefits like improved air and water quality. But just a fraction of program spending in 2019 and 2020 went to efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, a new EWG analysis finds.
Even if we stopped burning fossil fuels today, lowering agriculture’s annual greenhouse gas emissions would still be necessary to avoid a climate catastrophe, according to experts in food, climate science, agriculture and sustainability.
Methane and nitrous oxide make up most of these emissions. Fertilizing crops grown for animal feed and ethanol produces nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide. Both livestock manure and cow burps emit methane, which is 80 times more powerful than carbon dioxide in the first 20 years after it reaches the atmosphere.
EQIP could do more to help, if the program were to make a priority of helping farmers tackle climate change. But EWG’s analysis of USDA data from 2019 and 2020 found:
- In 2020, only 21.5 percent of EQIP spending went to practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, down from 22.7 percent in 2019.
- In 2019 and 2020, more than $100 million went to EQIP practices, like animal waste storage facilities, that increase greenhouse gas emissions.
- Much of the EQIP spending on practices that reduce emissions went to cover crops, which may only increase soil carbon temporarily if they are not used in more than one year.
- Three-quarters -- or 24 of the 32 practices that may reduce emissions -- received less than $10 million each in funding each year. Of those, 19 received less than $1 million in 2019, and 18 received less than $1 million in 2020.
- No EQIP funding reduces methane emissions from cow burps through better feed management – even though enteric methane is the biggest source of greenhouse gases from animal agriculture.
House and Senate leaders, including Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.) successfully included $27 billion for farm practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the Build Back Better bill that has passed the House and is pending in the Senate.
USDA’s ranking tool, called the Conservation Practice Physical Effects, or CPPE, matrix, provides a score between -5 and 5 for the impact of every EQIP-funded conservation practice on resources such as water and soil quality. A positive score means the practice is good for a resource – it helps prevent wind erosion or pesticides getting into surface water. A negative score means it is harmful.
EWG used USDA’s tool to develop a list of “climate smart” agricultural conservation EQIP practices that are good both for the climate and for the reduction of nutrients, like phosphorus and nitrogen, that get into water. (See Table 1.)
We included practices on our list if they’ve been assigned a positive score by the USDA for both reducing emissions of greenhouse gases and cutting the amount of nutrients transported to surface water, or if they had a positive score for those two categories and a positive score for reducing nutrients transported to groundwater. Table 2 provides the descriptions of all 32 climate- and nutrient-smart EQIP practices on EWG’s list.
Table 1. EWG’s list of climate- and nutrient-smart EQIP practices
Climate/nutrient smart EQIP practices | 2019 financial assistance | 2020 financial assistance |
---|---|---|
Cover crop | $126,013,513 | $84,348,417 |
Pasture and hay planting | $32,454,414 | $32,329,485 |
Tree/shrub establishment | $28,419,412 | $29,289,247 |
Nutrient management | $18,154,604 | $28,462,459 |
Prescribed grazing | $15,329,172 | $18,150,643 |
Range planting | $12,639,864 | $10,530,643 |
Conservation cover | $11,196,323 | $11,039,889 |
Residue and tillage management, no till | $10,075,880 | $11,997,911 |
Grassed waterway | $7,188,271 | $5,877,484 |
Residue and tillage management, reduced till | $6,190,220 | $6,708,720 |
Conservation crop rotation | $4,876,404 | $7,273,300 |
Critical area planting | $1,817,783 | $1,559,770 |
Windbreak/shelterbelt establishment and renovation | $1,498,402 | $1,265,935 |
Riparian forest buffer | $780,036 | $945,280 |
Slavopasture | $663,602 | $463,350 |
Hedgegrow planting | $598,228 | $910,390 |
Field border | $571,170 | $280,119 |
Wetland restoration | $392,214 | $714,072 |
Wetland enhancement | $246,137 | $118,226 |
Multi-story cropping | $160,789 | $865,510 |
Riparian herbacous cover | $149,174 | $80,672 |
Constructed wetland | $143,001 | $4,936 |
Wetland creation | $142,169 | $316,778 |
Vegetative barrier | $59,491 | $86,082 |
Filter strip | $29,180 | $69,111 |
Alley cropping | $8,935 | $902 |
Contour buffer strips | $7,450 | $2,960 |
Contour orchard and other perennial crops | $1,704 | $5,815 |
Herbaceous wind barriers | $22 | $5,531 |
Wildlife habitat planting | - | $5,963,909 |
Feed management | - | - |
Cross wind trap strips | - | - |
Total | $279,807,563 | $259,667,739 |
EWG’s analysis of USDA spending also found that considerable funding goes to practices that do not benefit the climate. In 2019 and 2020 combined, more than $222 million in EQIP funds were used to upgrade irrigation pipelines and sprinklers, and $101.8 million funded animal waste storage facilities. These are practices that do not reduce greenhouse gases – and, in the case of waste storage facilities, produce emissions.
Table 2. Descriptions of climate- and nutrient-smart EQIP practices