Agriculture

Resolving the Food Crisis: Assessing Global Policy Reforms Since 2007

Andrew Ranallo — Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:48:00 +0000

Author

Executive summary

The recent spikes in global food-prices in 2007-08 served as a wake-up call to the global community on the inadequacies of our global food system. Commodity prices doubled, the estimated number of hungry people topped one billion and food riots spread through the developing world. A second price spike in 2010-11, which is expected to drive the global food import bill for 2011 to an astonishing $1.3 trillion, only deepened the sense that the policies and principles guiding agricultural development and food security were deeply flawed.

There is now widespread agreement that international agricultural prices will remain significantly higher than precrisis levels for at least the next decade, with many warning that demand will outstrip supply by 2050 unless concerted action is taken to address the underlying problems with our food system.

The crisis certainly awakened the global community. Since 2007, governments and international agencies have made food security a priority issue, and with a decidedly different tone. They stress the importance of agricultural development and food production in developing countries, the key role of small-scale farmers and women, the challenge of limited resources in a climate-constrained world, the important role of the state in “country-led” agricultural development programs, the critical role of public investment. For many, these priorities represent a sea change from policies that sought to free markets from government policies seen as hampering efficient resource allocation. Now that those policies and markets have failed to deliver food security, the debates over how countries and international institutions should manage our food system are more open than they have been in decades.

The purpose of this report is to look beyond the proclamations and communiqués to assess what has really changed since the crisis erupted. While not exhaustive, the report looks at: Overseas Development Assistance, both in terms of how much and what is funded; Multilateral Development Banks’ policies and programs; selected U.N. agencies and initiatives, notably the Committee on Food Security (CFS); the G-20 group of economically powerful governments; and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to food, who has injected a resonant “right to food” approach to the issue.

low levels of investment in developing-country agriculture in general and small-scale agriculture in particular;
reduced support for publicly funded research and development and increased reliance on private research;
a reliance on international trade to meet domestic food needs in poor countries that can ill-afford the import dependence and declining local production;
a bias toward cash crops for export over food production for domestic markets;
increasing land use for non-food agricultural crops such as biofuels for industrial uses;
support for high-input agricultural methods over more environmentally sustainable low-input systems;
inadequate attention to the linkages between climate change and food security; and
deregulation of commodity markets and increasing financial speculation in agricultural commodities, including staple food crops as well as land.

Findings

Our review suggests that on the positive side, the food crisis was an important catalyst for change. As high prices persisted and public protest mounted, many governments were confronted with “moments of truth,” the cumulative result of which was to question some of the assumptions that had driven food and agriculture policy over the past few decades. This prompted renwed attention to agricultural development, reversing the long-standing neglect of agriculture as a vital economic sector. It also brought some important new funding, though at levels still far short of what is needed.

The stated priorities for much of that funding suggest distinct improvement over the policies of the past few decades. The needs and political voices of small-scale farmers and women; environmental issues, including climate change; and, the weaknesses of international markets now receive more attention. The additional funding for these important areas is also driven by greater openness to country-led programs with strong state involvement, a marked change from past priorities.

Our review suggests areas of great concern, though. We see neither the necessary urgency nor the willingness to change policies that contributed to the recent crisis. New international funding is welcome, but only $6.1 billion of the G-8’s pledged $22 billion, three-year commitment represents new money, and those pledges have been slow to materialize and are now threatened with cutbacks as developed countries adopt austerity measures. The overwhelming priority is to increase production. There are reasons to focus on this, specifically within low-income net-food importing countries. The setting of production targets at the global level, however, encourages an expansion in industrial agriculture and the consolidation of land holdings, including land grabs, and ignores environmental constraints and equity issues.

Beyond funding, we find that the policies that contributed to the recent food-price crisis have gone largely unchanged, leaving global food security as fragile as ever. The world needs policies that discourage biofuels expansion, regulate financial speculation, limit irresponsible land investments, encourage the use of buffer stocks, move away from fossil fuel dependence and toward agro-ecological practices, and reform global agricultural trade rules to support rather than undermine food security objectives.

Unfortunately, we find that the international institutions reviewed have shown too little resolve to address these issues. Although at the G-20 the world’s most economically powerful nations have asserted leadership on food security, their actions have been tepid if not counterproductive. This has had a chilling effect on reform efforts elsewhere in the international system, most notably at the United Nations. This raises important governance issues. The U.N.’s CFS is formally recognized by most institutions as the appropriate body to

coordinate the global response to the food crisis, because of both its mandate and its inclusive, multi- takeholder structure. Yet in practice the G-20 has systematically constrained the reform agenda. Similarly, the WTO’s recent efforts to give the Doha Agenda more relevance by including food security issues in the form of restrictions on exporting countries’ use of export tariffs have failed, because many of the exporters (most of the G-20 members) refuse to surrender that policy space. Not surprisingly, importing countries’ wish for the same policy space with regard to their imports are now more determined than ever to insist on their rights.

The recent food-price crisis exposed the fragility of the global food system. A paradigm shift is underway, caused by the deepening integration of agricultural, energy and financial markets in a resource-constrained world made more vulnerable by climate change. Powerful multinational firms dominate these markets. Many benefit from current policies and practices and their interests are a dominant influence in national and global policies—slowing, diverting, or halting needed action. This leaves international institutions promoting market-friendly reforms but resistant to imposing the concomitant regulations required to ensure well-functioning food and agricultural markets.

Three areas in particular demand decisive action:

Biofuels expansion – There is a clear international consensus that current policies to encourage biofuel expansion, particularly in the United States and Europe, are a major contributor to rising demand, tight supplies and rising prices. Yet international institutions, from the G-20 to the U.N. High-Level Task Force to the CFS, have diluted their demands for actions to address this problem.
Price volatility – High spikes in prices remain a major problem for poor people worldwide, and for foodimporting developing countries in particular. The policy goal, for effective market functioning and for food security, should be relatively stable prices that are remunerative to farmers and affordable to consumers. We find few concrete actions toward this goal. There is strong evidence that financial speculation contributed to recent food-price volatility, though there remains considerable debate on the subject. As an FAO report on the topic noted, there is no demonstrated benefit to the public of allowing such speculation, and the potential costs are huge. Precautionary regulations are warranted but few have been taken. Similarly, the lack of publicly held food reserves contributes to the shortages that make speculation possible while leaving vulnerable countries at risk. Reserves should be explored more actively than simply as emergency regional humanitarian policy instruments.
Land grabs – The scale and pace of land grabs is truly alarming, driven by financial speculation and land-banking by sovereign wealth funds in resource-constrained nations. The consensus is that such investments are not good for either food security or development. As laudable as recent efforts are to promote “responsible agricultural investment,” these initiatives risk being “too little too late” for a fast-moving phenomenon. Meanwhile, international institutions, such as the World Bank, must do more to protect smallscale producers’ access to land.

Fortunately, many developing countries are not waiting for international action or permission to more aggressively address the problems that can be dealt with at a national or regional level. Many of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) projects in Africa, for example, emphasize the kinds of changes that are needed. CAADP has four pillars: land and water management, market access, food supply and hunger, and agricultural research. Bangladesh and other countries used food reserves to reduce the impact of the food-price spikes in far more ambitious efforts than the G-20 is proposing to support in West Africa.

Developing-country governments will be central to bringing about such changes. They need the policy space to pursue their own solutions and they need the support of the international community to demand deeper reform in developed-country policies. The evidence discussed in this report suggests the paradigm shift has started but is incomplete. Many developing-country governments have chosen to step away from the prevailing orthodoxy of the last several decades and are again exploring a larger role for the public sector in governing agriculture and food. Donors, too, have shown some willingness to re-order priorities and to give greater space to agriculture, and to changing priorities within agricultural spending to acknowledge the need for more inclusive and sustainable outcomes. But they still resist more fundamental reform and continue to promote private investment and liberalized markets, relying on humanitarian aid and social safety nets to try to help those who are displaced by the policies.

Perhaps not surprisingly, developed-country governments have yet to make the needed changes to their domestic policies. Comfortable with re-ordering development priorities, governments of rich countries have proved unwilling to look at their domestic agricultural economies to see what changes are needed there. If the most powerful countries are not willing to make the changes at home that would help international markets perform better, they should at a minimum stop undermining international efforts, at the U.N. and within

and among developing countries, to address the fundamental causes of the food crisis.

Upload

2012_01_17_ResolvingFoodCrisis_SM_TW.pdf865.04 KB

Primary category

Agriculture

Energy transition or false solution? How the EU’s plan to boost biomethane feeds the factory farm system

Lilly Richard — Mon, 07 Jul 2025 20:37:40 +0000

Energy transition or false solution? How the EU’s plan to boost biomethane feeds the factory farm system Lilly Richard Mon, 07/07/2025 - 15:37

As the European Union (EU) looks for ways to cut its agricultural greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and manage its energy transition, biogas and with it biomethane has gained renewed traction.

New ideas on addressing the concentration of corporate power in global food systems

Lilly Richard — Fri, 27 Jun 2025 17:48:57 +0000

New ideas on addressing the concentration of corporate power in global food systems Lilly Richard Fri, 06/27/2025 - 12:48

Earlier this month, IATP and allies responded to a call for input by the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food on Concentration of corporate power in global food systems and its implications for the realization of the right to food.

Joint Submission to the U.N. Special Rapporteur (Right to Food) on Corporate Concentration in global food systems

Lilly Richard — Thu, 26 Jun 2025 18:45:24 +0000

The following comments were submitted on June 12, 2025 in response to the Call for Input from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food for the forthcoming thematic report to the UN General Assembly: Concentration of corporate power in global food systems and its implications for the realization of the right to food.

This is a joint submission from the following civil society organizations: Friends of the Earth U.S., Foodrise, BankTrack, Rainforest Action Network, and Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

Download a PDF of the full comments here.

RESPONSES TO KEY QUESTIONS

1. How does the concentration of power in the hands of a relatively small number of corporations affect food sovereignty and the right to food in your country or region?

As highlighted in a recent scoping paper from the UN Development Programme’s Food and Power Initiative, concentration of power works on multiple dimensions to erode food sovereignty and the rights and dignity of peoples. Visible power operates through formal decision-making processes, such as laws, policies, budgets and institutional mandates; hidden power shapes policy agendas by allowing corporations, banks and other elite institutions to influence policymaking in their favor; invisible power shapes societal norms and beliefs to exclude, divide and control; and systemic power underpins all relationships through entrenched structures of domination, such as patriarchy, extractive capitalism, colonialism and white supremacy, which limit alternative ways of thinking and organizing. These four types of power, wielded explicitly and implicitly by a handful of global entities, are the greatest obstacles to the achievement of food sovereignty, locally, regionally, nationally and globally.

Below we describe two interlocking elements of this concentration of power: corporate dominance across the food chain; and financial incentives that entrench and enable these corporations to hold such dominance.

Buoyed by the multiple dimensions of power, corporations effectively lobby governments, resulting in further financial incentives, technological lock-ins, and skewed regulatory environments. This limits other duty bearers’ and rights holders’ abilities to implement necessary changes in support of healthy, just and sustainable food systems.[1]

Part One: Corporate dominance

Each stage of the food supply chain is dominated by a handful of companies. This concentration results largely from horizontal and vertical mergers that reduce competition, and typically increase market share or control over related markets.

Key areas of corporate concentration, as highlighted by the UNDP Food and Power Initiative, include:

Field to point of sale: A few multinational corporations control most of the global market for seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, farm equipment and machinery, leading to high costs for smallholder farmers, reduced autonomy, loss of local food sovereignty, and increased economic disparities. Meanwhile, a handful of international commodity traders and processors dominate the middle of the industrial agri-food chain, exerting outsized influence on market structure and pricing. These processes work hand in hand with big data, biotech and digitalization strategies being rolled out across the industrial food chain, favouring the interests of a small number of large data companies, alongside the field to point of sale industrial agribusiness players.
Retail: Major supermarket chains and fast-food restaurants dominate food retail in many countries, exercising monopsony power to undermine small producers' livelihoods, displacing local and territorial markets, influencing prices and product availability, and advancing policies favoured towards big business. Retail concentration also reduces people's access to local, healthy and culturally appropriate diverse food, and shapes food environments towards less healthy options such as ultra-processed foods and beverages.
Ultra-Processed Food and Beverages (UPFBs): Large corporations control significant portions of this market, impacting consumer preferences through marketing and the shaping of narratives that support the consumption of UPFBs, contributing to the ballooning of chronic disease, favouring (heavily subsidized) monoculture commodities, and undermining local food systems.[2] Corporate actors also exert significant pressure on lawmakers, using lobbying to shape legislation and policies in ways that serve their interests—often at the expense of public health and social well-being, particularly for the most vulnerable. Asian markets have been particularly targeted by transnational food and beverage corporations due to market growth potentials.[3]
Land markets: Interconnected trends of land grabbing and increasing land inequality have led to the emergence of a select group of transnational landowners who own and control huge amounts of land around the world. According to new research by FIAN, the top ten institutional landlords control over 400,000 km² globally – an area roughly the size of Japan, Zimbabwe, or Paraguay. The ownership of vast tracts of land by distant corporate entities for the sake of global supply chains or global financial capital flows, undermines state sovereignty and people’s self-determination. Land inequality and associated extractive uses are major drivers of climate change, biodiversity loss, and ecosystem destruction, and undermine just transitions to more equitable and sustainable food systems and economic models.

Beyond yielding power over these parts of the food chain, corporate concentration of land is a major part of the problem. Due to investments, landgrabs, and continued expansion of large-scale industrial farming and economic and trade policies that prioritize global commodity production, 70% of the world’s farmland is now controlled by just 1% of the world’s largest farms. Meanwhile, farms smaller than two hectares account for 84% of all farms but operate only 12% of the world’s farmland.

To continue reading, please download a PDF of the full comments here.

[1] In 2024, there were 736 child labor law violations in the United States, according to the Department of Labor. Two large meat companies, Tyson and Perdue, have been investigated for illegal child employment, and immigrant children have reported the dangerous and exploitative conditions in meatpacking plants. The combination of corporate lobbying, subcontracting to avoid responsibility, and various states loosening child labor laws results in these human rights violations flowing from concentrated corporate power. See: https://sentientmedia.org/agricultures-child-labor-problem/

[2] “The production of UPFDs utilizes only a limited number of ingredients (ultra-processed flour, sugar, vegetable oil and milk) and a few crops, such as wheat, soy and corn. This focus and over concentration on a few crops to make UPFDs has been at the cost of biodiversity — other crops and a range of animals and microorganisms that have been traditionally used as food that had helped make a more wholesome and healthier diet — and public health.” https://www.iatp.org/rethinking-food-systems-southeast-asia

[3] “According to a 2019 study of total food and drink volume sales per capita in 80 countries during the period 2002‐2016, the increase in volume sales of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) were highest in South and Southeast Asia (67.3%) followed by North Africa and the Middle East (57.6%), while for ultra-processed drinks (UPDs), the increases in volume sales were highest in South and Southeast Asia at 120%, with Africa ranking next at 70.7%.” https://www.iatp.org/rethinking-food-systems-southeast-asia

Upload

Joint CSO Submission to UNSR_Foodrise-FoEUS-RAN-BankTrack-IATP_06.12.25.pdf355.97 KB

Primary category

Agriculture

Three questions for CFTC Chair nominee Brian Quintenz

Lilly Richard — Tue, 10 Jun 2025 18:05:23 +0000

Three questions for CFTC Chair nominee Brian Quintenz Lilly Richard Tue, 06/10/2025 - 13:05

Later today, the White House nominee for Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Brian Quintenz will appear before the Senate Agriculture Committee. Quintenz is a former CFTC Commissioner. After leaving the CFTC, Mr.

House Budget boosts factory farm gas and biofuels

Lilly Richard — Thu, 05 Jun 2025 15:05:05 +0000

House Budget boosts factory farm gas and biofuels Lilly Richard Thu, 06/05/2025 - 10:05

The Republican-led budget approved in late May after an all-night debate is a case study in backroom dealing and corporate influence.

Let's Keep the Door Open

Lilly Richard — Tue, 03 Jun 2025 14:54:56 +0000

IRA helps fund most on-farm conservation in a decade

Author

Michael Happ

Download a PDF of this report here.

Summary

After years of underfunding and oversubscription, fiscal year 2024 (FY24) saw thousands more farmers enroll in two federal conservation cost share programs: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). In FY2024, 43-44% of EQIP applicants and 53-55% of CSP applicants were awarded contracts. That is an increase of roughly 18 percentage points for EQIP and 23 for CSP from the year before and a marked improvement since IATP began tracking applications in 2021, largely attributable to additional funding from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). In many states, the additional IRA resources have awarded contracts to farmers on years-long waitlists for these two programs.

Unfortunately, this momentum on conservation is at risk, with IRA funds currently frozen as of early May 2025. It is time to build on the success of the IRA, not cut off the funding in favor of other priorities. The Republican-controlled Congress is under pressure to slash Farm Bill funding. If IRA conservation funding is ended now, it could potentially deny funding for 900,000 farmer conservation projects through EQIP. These projects can improve both farms and bottom lines.

Introduction

The health of farm country in the United States is often in the eye of the beholder. If you just look at average net farm income, we’re coming down sharply from a 2022 peak.[1] If you look at life expectancy, we’re going in the wrong direction.[2] We have fewer farmers on the land, more farm consolidation, and a high percentage of farmers needing to have off-farm jobs just to get by.[3] New and beginning farmers have a hard row to hoe even to access land, let alone starting up a profitable and sustainable farm operation. Lastly, if you look at on-farm conservation, the data points to some hope while underscoring how much work still needs to happen.

The most recent Census of Agriculture told us that the U.S. has the most acres planted in cover crops in modern history, nearly 18 million acres[4], still just 2% of U.S. farmland.[5] Still, for those farmers, planting cover crops means soil stays in place and there is the potential for an extra source of income or feed for livestock. Other conservation strategies continue to spread, including reduced tillage and organic agriculture. At the same time, in parts of the Upper Midwest, we face a nitrate crisis[6] — drinking water is well beyond safe levels, Iowa’s cancer rate continues to climb[7], and we have lost most of our grasslands and biodiversity.[8] The loss of native landscapes combined with modern agricultural systems means agriculture is a major driver of climate change,[9] and also a major avenue for mitigating its worst effects.[10] It is clear that the status quo of working lands conservation is not working, or at least has not been adopted at a large enough scale to make a dent in these growing pollution problems. We need more on-farm conservation, and farmers need more financial help to make this conservation a reality on their farms.

Which brings us to two conservation cost-share programs IATP has written plenty about: the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). These two programs are meant to help farmers pay for conservation improvements on their land — for EQIP a farmer might receive help planting cover crops or installing fence for management of intensive rotational grazing. If a farmer likes the results from EQIP, they might graduate to CSP and implement conservation across their whole farm, bundling multiple practices together to improve wildlife habitat, water quality, soil health, or a number of resource concerns.

Over the course of these two programs’ histories, more farmers have applied for funding than is available to meet demand. Budget sequestration of the early 2010s and then the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills weakened the funding streams for these two programs, hitting CSP especially hard. In 2022, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) injected $8.45 billion into EQIP and $3.25 billion into CSP to make up for the years of underinvestment and bring the programs back to historic levels of service to farmers. IATP has been reporting on EQIP and CSP application and approval rates for the past four years, starting with our 2021 report Closed Out. With new USDA data, we show that, while each program only accounts for roughly 2.1% of U.S. farmland, the added resources from the IRA connected thousands more farmers with conservation than would otherwise have it.

How many farmers enrolled in EQIP and CSP in FY24?

In FY24, 43-44% of EQIP applicants and 53-55% of CSP applicants were awarded contracts. For EQIP, this was the highest percentage since FY18, and for CSP, this was the highest percentage since FY12. Figure 1 compares the percentage of applicants who were awarded contracts for EQIP and CSP over time from FY10 to FY24. Some clear markers in time in this line graph include the 2014 and 2018 Farm Bills, and the passage of the IRA, with farmer access to conservation contracts attributable to changes in funding from these policies.

As is evident in Figure 2, FY24 saw the most EQIP awards in the 15 years that we have data for, at more than 46,000 awards nationwide. CSP is still digging out of the hole left by a decade and a half of cuts, managing to award nearly 14,000 contracts to farmers in FY24, the highest since FY10.

For both EQIP and CSP, the data shows a decline in the number of applications from the previous year. The reason for the decrease is unclear — possible explanations could include an initial rush of applications after the passage of the IRA that brought in those most likely to apply for FY23, the first year IRA funding was available.

Which states connected the most farmers to contracts?

With the addition of IRA dollars to traditional Farm Bill funding, most states were able to improve on their previous numbers of farmers closed out of EQIP and CSP. Several states were able to match demand for the programs — up to eight states for EQIP and up to 20 states for CSP — and make headway on their application backlog. These states matched demand from FY24’s applicants and dipped into their deferred contracts, including those who applied in previous years but were unable to be awarded contracts due to a lack of funding.

For EQIP, states in the Northeast and Mountain West were most successful in connecting applicants to contracts, with Rhode Island, Connecticut, Idaho, Arizona, and Virginia in the top five. As in previous years, agricultural states in the Mississippi River basin rank toward the bottom, plus the repeat inclusion of North Carolina and Puerto Rico along with Illinois, Missouri, and Minnesota in the bottom five. Full details are included in Table 1.

Map 1: Percentage of EQIP applicants awarded contracts by state, FY24

Map created with Mapchart.net

For CSP, some of the Pacific territories and the Mountain West were able to chip away at their backlog, with Nevada, American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, Idaho, and Alaska ranking in the top five. The bottom five include the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Minnesota. The full list of states and territories can be viewed in Table 2.

Map 2: Percentage of CSP applicants awarded contracts by state, FY24

Map created with Mapchart.net

Why are some percentages above 100%?

In some states, (up to eight for EQIP and up to 20 for CSP), the percentage of applicants awarded contracts is shown as above 100%. This is not a typo! In states with percentages above 100, the number of contracts awarded outnumbered the number of applicants in FY24. Some of these contracts were awarded to those who applied in previous years whose applications were put into the “deferred category.” This essentially means that the application was eligible for a contract, but money might not have been available to fund the contract until later. In short, these percentages are evidence of states working through their backlog of unfunded projects.

Table 1: EQIP applications and contracts by state, Fiscal Year 2024[11]

Ranking by % approved	State	Number of applications	Number of contracts awarded	Financial assistance	% of applicants awarded contracts	Percentage point change since FY23
1	Rhode Island	135-141	230-233	$5,603,117	165-170%	+100-105
2	Connecticut	157-160	251-254	$12,182,269	158-160%	+113-115
3	Idaho	704-710	879-887	$65,706,098	124-125%	+72-73
4	Arizona	221-224	235-237	$24,675,758	105-107%	+61-63
5	Virginia	743-746	772-776	$48,640,348	103-105%	+72-74
6	Alaska	58-76	68	$12,403,571	89-118%	+27-56
7	New Hampshire	413-416	418-430	$11,445,376	101-104%	+62-65
8	Massachusetts	287-299	288	$11,485,943	96-101%	+39-44
9	Nevada	148	141-144	$13,258,847	95-98%	+46-49
10	Indiana	1,464	1,339-1,351	$54,409,901	91-93%	+55-57
11	Maryland	521	450	$24,962,347	86%	+47
12	New Jersey	549-555	467-477	$26,171,235	85-86%	+49-50
13	New York	652-661	551-558	$33,554,783	84-85%	+42-43
14	Hawai’i	252-258	214	$22,192,534	82-85%	+55-58
15	Wisconsin	1,799-1,805	1,481-1,489	$58,357,182	82-83%	+44-45
16	Ohio	2,128	1,574-1,582	$58,478,033	73-75%	+43-45
17	Delaware	270-276	200	$16,706,098	72-75%	+45-48
18	Washington	722-728	488-492	$50,837,726	67-68%	+39-40
19	Montana	943-949	619-627	$57,391,088	65-67%	+30-32
20	New Mexico	784	479-483	$52,221,321	61-62%	+30-31
21	Wyoming	605-614	364-368	$36,975,760	59-61%	+34-36
22	Alabama	2,782-2,788	1,653-1,663	$57,872,565	59-60%	+21-22
23	Michigan	1,676	995-999	$47,665,008	59-60%	+28-29
24	Maine	1,054-1,057	625-629	$24,825,444	59-60%	+27-28
25	Tennessee	2,785-2,797	1,639-1,643	$94,195,509	58-59%	+30-31
26	Oregon	1,338	719-727	$52,052,292	53-55%	+11-13
27	Kentucky	2,400	1,162-1,170	$40,889,292	48-49%	+23-24
28	West Virginia	1,464-1,467	687-693	$21,697,767	46-48%	+13-15
29	Oklahoma	4,055-4,058	1,877-1,896	$60,249,870	46-47%	+29-30
30	Georgia	5,224-5,230	2,410-2,431	$107,532,274	46-47%	+26-27
31	Texas	8,235	3,765-3,778	$222,632,335	45-46%	+18-19
32	Vermont	725-737	321-322	$21,031,640	43-45%	+9-11
33	South Dakota	1,418	596-604	$44,837,034	42-43%	+15-16
34	Iowa	2,890-2,893	1,212	$65,520,714	41-42%	+19-20
35	Nebraska	3,355	1,304-1,313	$64,228,924	38-40%	+12-14
36	California	4,430-4,433	1,711-1,719	$149,208,612	38-39%	+17-18
37	Pennsylvania	2,048	787	$61,327,321	38%	+18
38	Colorado	1,420-1,423	538-547	$28,028,554	37-39%	+9-11
39	Florida	2,079-2,082	774-782	$52,303,014	37-38%	+12-13
40	Utah	1,240-1,246	457-463	$38,063,925	36-38%	+12-14
41	Kansas	2,489	834-838	$64,952,657	33-34%	+4-5
42	Louisiana	2,437	787-795	$40,021,894	32-33%	+13-14
43	South Carolina	3,133-3,136	913	$57,430,831	29-30%	+8-9
44	North Dakota	1,375-,1381	399-403	$57,093,711	29-30%	-6-7
45	Mississippi	8,762	2,473-2,477	$109,926,797	28-29%	+11-12
46	Arkansas	7,099	1,971-1,974	$101,706,271	27-28%	+8-9
47	Minnesota	4,254-4,257	1,149-1,153	$94,754,861	27-28%	+5-6
48	Missouri	4,853	1,309-1,317	$66,600,487	26-28%	+1-3
49	North Carolina	3,481-3,484	841-845	$52,533,506	24-25%	+8-9
50	Illinois	2,989-2,998	650-658	$48,480,897	21-22%	+1-2
51	Puerto Rico	1,648-1,654	213-216	$23,178,479	12-14%	-14-16
TOTAL	United States	106,693-106,894	46,279-46,575	$2,697,435,026	43-44%	+18-19

Table 2: CSP applications and contracts by state, FY24[12]

Ranking by % approved	State	Number of applications	Number of contracts awarded	% of applicants awarded contracts	Percentage point change since FY23
1	Nevada	8-17	35	205-438%	+146-379
2	American Samoa	11-26	48	184-437%	NA
3	Northern Mariana Islands	12-27	42	155-350%	NA
4	Idaho	40-52	111	213-278%	+152-217
5	Alaska	3-12	7	213-278%	+180-245
6	Connecticut	19-37	58	156-306%	+105-255
7	Rhode Island	22-31	51	164-232%	+64-132
8	Michigan	329-338	644	190-196%	+132-138
9	New Jersey	35-44	69	156-198%	+131-173
10	Puerto Rico	40-49	66	134-165%	+52-83
11	New Hampshire	97-106	130-133	125-135%	+70-80
12	New York	181-184	230	125-128%	+69-72
13	Utah	144-153	185	120-129%	+59-68
14	Massachusetts	53-65	69	106-131%	+40-65
15	California	231-237	268	113-117%	+65-69
16	Kansas	185	210	114%	+76
17	Hawai’i	39-51	47	92-121%	+37-66
18	Wisconsin	910-919	944-950	103-104%	+58-59
19	West Virginia	292-301	296	98-102%	+23-27
20	Ohio	415-424	383	90-93%	+19-22
21	Kentucky	489-492	450	91-93%	+46-48
22	Delaware	11-17	12	70-110%	+44-84
23	Wyoming	34-43	34	79-100%	+22-43
24	New Mexico	104-116	98	84-95%	+41-52
25	Maryland	96-105	90	85-94%	+34-43
26	Oregon	285-291	251	86-89%	+44-47
27	Colorado	204-216	177	81-87%	+30-36
28	Missouri	1,083-1,086	906	83-84%	+52-53
29	Pennsylvania	434	342	79%	+28
30	Virginia	336-339	257	75-77%	+17-19
31	Texas	351-357	250	70-72%	+39-41
32	Nebraska	522	367-370	70-71%	+49-50
33	Montana	271-280	189	67-70%	+42-45
34	Tennessee	843-852	578	67-69%	+11-13
35	Indiana	609-618	406	65-67%	+19-21
36	Iowa	920-923	593	64-65%	+19-20
37	Illinois	707-710	439	61-63%	+30-32
38	Arizona	33-48	21-24	50-64%	-1-+13
39	Washington	285-288	148	51-52%	+18-19
40	North Dakota	497-506	255	50-52%	+23-25
41	Alabama	441-450	226	50-52%	+11-13
42	Maine	68-80	36	45-53%	-2-10
43	Louisiana	617-623	295	47-48%	+16-17
44	Vermont	148-163	70	42-48%	-3-9
45	South Dakota	685-694	300	43-44%	+22-23
46	Georgia	1,009-1,015	430-433	42-43%	+24-25
47	Florida	578-581	217	37-38%	-8-9
48	South Carolina	1,072	394	37%	-4
49	Oklahoma	993-999	339	33-35%	+13-15
50	Arkansas	1,454	477-483	32-34%	+13-14
51	Minnesota	2,919-2,925	585	20-21%	+8-9
52	North Carolina	1,545-1,548	298	19-20%	-5-6
53	Mississippi	2,807	397	14%	+6
54	Guam	1-4	0	0%	NA
55	U.S. Virgin Islands	1-4	0	0%	NA
TOTAL	United States	25,518-25,920	13,820-13,844	53-55%	+22-24

What happens if the IRA goes away?

So far in 2025, USDA has shown that it does not intend to implement the IRA as it was passed. It has placed IRA-funded contracts under review and has asked recipients of Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) grants to revise their applications and remove references to climate change.[13] Meanwhile, USDA has moved to end the Partnership for Climate Smart Commodities (PCSC)[14] while keeping some of the farmer-focused grants, calling the PCSC a “Biden-era climate slush fund.”[15]

On top of the canceling and repackaging of IRA contracts, USDA and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have announced the ending of leases for at least 48 offices of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) across the country, reducing the ability for farmers to access essential services in their communities.[16] NRCS is the service that administers EQIP and CSP contracts. Across NRCS, thousands of employees have resigned or been fired by DOGE, just after a years-long push to hire to adequate levels in county offices.[17] Knowledgeable local staff are a key part of connecting farmers with resources, especially those who are new to NRCS programs or who have unique on-farm needs.[18] This one-two-three punch of reduced resources, reduced staffing, and reduced ability for farmers to access a local office means we will see farm country’s natural resources continue to degrade.

The Agriculture Committees in the U.S. House and Senate have repeatedly tried and failed to incorporate the remaining funds from the IRA into the baseline of the Farm Bill, ensuring stable funding for conservation programs for years in the future instead of seeing the extra funds disappear by FY31. While the IRA still has funds left, Congress should pass a Farm Bill that incorporates these funds into Farm Bill baseline, providing more predictable funding for the future, while expanding cost-effective practices with climate benefits. Additional reforms such as payment caps on EQIP and a focus on serving small and diversified farms could extend the reach of conservation programs even further.

If we look at the money from the IRA set aside for EQIP and CSP that has yet to be obligated, Congress has roughly $2.62 billion left for CSP and $6.96 billion for EQIP.[19] If you have an average EQIP contract size of $7,582 (the average in FY23[20]), Congress could connect roughly an additional 917,700 farmers with EQIP contracts in future years using this funding. That’s potentially millions of acres of conservation that may never take root. While there has been a healthy debate on ways to preserve IRA funding to best benefit farmers and the land,[21] it is clear that clawing back this money and using it for other budget items is not a wise investment.

Policy Recommendations

Protect and incorporate IRA conservation funding into the Farm Bill baseline through a regular Farm Bill process.
Target conservation funds to high impact, low-cost practices[22].
Enact a cap on how much any farmer can receive from EQIP.
Increase set-asides for socially disadvantaged producers in EQIP and CSP.
Immediately rehire all fired NRCS employees and continue the push to have county offices fully staffed.
Keep NRCS’s county offices intact.

Conclusion

2025 marks the 90^th anniversary of NRCS, rooted in helping farmers conserve land and water in the wake of the 1930s Dust Bowl. The investments in NRCS conservation programs over the past few years have been historic and have made measurable progress in solving the underfunding and oversubscription of EQIP and CSP, with access to programs matching or exceeding levels from over a decade ago. Recent actions by the administration have jeopardized the success of these investments and will likely close out thousands more farmers from needed resources while degrading working lands across the United States. If we want conservation roots to grow, we need to continue to water them. Let’s not invite another Dust Bowl.

Download a PDF of this report here.

For further reading from IATP on CSP and EQIP

Closed Out Series

Payments for Pollution Series

A note on this year’s data:

We were unable to be as precise with our data this year because of a change in NRCS’s data policy. NRCS now suppresses the number of applicants and contract awardees if there are between one and four in a state, citing privacy for farmers. This is true across all categories of applications — and because we reach our numbers by adding together all categories of applications and awards, we ended up with a wider range of possibilities than in previous years.

We believe that NRCS is misinterpreting Farm Bill statute to suppress this information, as no names or financial information of farmers are attached to this aggregate data. While NRCS cites data privacy as a reason to suppress contract numbers, those submitting FOIA requests to NRCS, the Farm Service Agency, and USDA Rural Development are still able to access farmer names, addresses, and grant amounts, which we believe is more sensitive information than the data requested for this report. We request that NRCS share aggregate data on farmer contracts as they have in the past, for the sake of transparency.

In deciding how to rank states against each other, we used the average of a state’s total range. If given more precise data, the rankings would likely shift slightly. We believe that sharing the data we have, as it is, is still helpful for public information and understanding the progress that has been made in tackling the underfunding and oversubscription issues facing EQIP and CSP.

We calculated applications by adding together all categories of applications recorded by NRCS, including eligible, ineligible, pending, deferred, and canceled. The number of applications includes those funded through regular Farm Bill funding as well as IRA funding. As we have in past reports, we combine these categories to accurately depict all applications entering into NRCS systems. NRCS does not share much information on what deems an application eligible or ineligible for funding — reasons could range from a lack of control of the land by the applicant to paperwork issues in submitting the application. Until this data is provided publicly, we will continue to include all categories of application.

Lastly, we believe it is important to report program trends in the U.S. territories. We were unable to acquire data for all territories for EQIP, but were able to do so for CSP. We encourage NRCS to collect and report data on the territories in a consistent and usable way for the public.

Acknowledgements:

We would like to thank the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition for collaborating with IATP in the drafting and submission of the FOIA request which provided the data used in this report. We would also like to thank the knowledgeable people who fact-checked the numbers used in this report.

Endnotes

[1] Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Farm Sector Income & Finances – Highlights from the Farm Income Forecast.” https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-sector-income-finances/highlights-from-the-farm-income-forecast.

[2] Abrams LR, Myrskylä M, Mehta NK. The growing rural-urban divide in US life expectancy: contribution of cardiovascular disease and other major causes of death. International Journal of Epidemiology. 2022 Jan 6;50(6):1970-1978. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyab158. Epub 2021 Aug 12. PMID: 34999859; PMCID: PMC8743112. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34999859/.

[3]National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2022 Census of Agriculture. “Historical Highlights: 2022 and Earlier Census Years.” https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_001_001.pdf.

[4]National Agricultural Statistics Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2022 Census of Agriculture. “Land Use Practices: 2022 and 2017.” https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2022/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/st99_1_047_047.pdf.

[5] Lacy, Katherine. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. “The number of U.S. farms continues slow decline.”https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-detail?chartId=58268.

[6] Marohn, Kirsti. Minnesota Public Radio News. “Southeast Minnesota struggles for common ground on nitrate pollution as health worries rise. https://www.mprnews.org/story/2023/10/31/does-nitrate-in-southeast-minnesotas-water-present-a-public-health-crisis.

[7] Elkadi, Nina B. Sentient Health. “What’s Driving Iowa’s Outlier Cancer Rate? It’s Complicated.” https://sentientmedia.org/what-is-driving-iowas-cancer-rate/.

[8] World Wildlife Fund. 2024 Plowprint Report. https://files.worldwildlife.org/wwfcmsprod/files/Publication/file/8mq6fdcmt4_PlowprintReport_2024_FINAL.pdf.

[9] Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. “Greenhouse gas emissions in Minnesota 2005-2022: Report to the legislature. https://pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/Iraq-3sy25.pdf.

[10] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Greenhouse gas emissions from agrifood systems: Global, regional and country trends, 2000-2020. https://shorturl.at/3E3CQ.

[11] Data acquired via FOIA request to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

[12] Data acquired via FOIA request to the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

[13] Tri-State Livestock News. “USDA releases energy money if groups take out DEI, climate provisions.” https://www.tsln.com/news/usda-releases-energy-money-if-groups-take-out-dei-climate-provisions/.

[14] Clayton, Chris. Progressive Farmer. “USDA reboots Biden-era climate program.” https://www.dtnpf.com/agriculture/web/ag/news/business-inputs/article/2025/04/14/usda-rebrands-partnership-climate.

[15]U.S. Department of Agriculture. “USDA Cancels Biden Era Climate Slush Fund, Reprioritizes Existing Funding to Farmers.” https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/press-releases/2025/04/14/usda-cancels-biden-era-climate-slush-fund-reprioritizes-existing-funding-farmers.

[16] Happ, Michael. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “Local USDA offices in the crosshairs.” https://www.iatp.org/local-usda-offices-close.

[17] Wicks, Noah. Agri-Pulse. “Workforce cutbacks strip many NRCS offices of staff.” https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/22487-workforce-cutbacks-strip-many-nrcs-offices-of-staff.

[18] Happ, Michael. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “Opening the door for more conservation.” https://www.iatp.org/opening-door-more-conservation.

[19] National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition. “Broken promises: Over 30,000 farmers denied funds.” https://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/trump-denies-over-2-billion-in-payments-owed-to-30000-farmers/.

[20] Happ, Michael. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. “Costly versus cost-effective: How EQIP can be improved to serve more farmers and the climate.” https://www.iatp.org/costly-versus-cost-effective.

[21]Coppess, Jonathan and Yifan Peng. FarmDoc Daily, Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics, University of Illinois. “Taking a closer look at the conservation tradeoff issues.” https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2024/11/taking-a-closer-look-at-the-conservation-tradeoff-issues.html.

[22]Happ, “Costly versus cost-effective.”

Upload

letskeepthedooropen.pdf6.25 MB

Primary category

Agriculture

Teaser image

High tunnel

USDA Farm Conservation Program Q&A

Lilly Richard — Tue, 20 May 2025 21:03:45 +0000

USDA Farm Conservation Program Q&A Lilly Richard Tue, 05/20/2025 - 16:03

On May 13, IATP hosted a new installment of our “Shaping the Future of Food” webinar series with Michael Happ, IATP program associate for climate and rural communities. In the webinar, Michael discussed the unmet demand among U.S. farmers for the popular USDA conservation programs EQIP (Environment Quality Incentives Program) and CSP (Conservation Stewardship Program).

House budget bill slashes anti-hunger and rural programs to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy

Lilly Richard — Tue, 20 May 2025 17:49:16 +0000

The House must reject this bill that cuts food assistance programs and breaks apart the Farm Bill, leaving rural economies behind

MINNEAPOLIS — The House of Representatives is set to vote on a budget reconciliation bill this week that damages rural economies and livelihoods while cutting taxes for large corporations and the wealthy. The bill, which was shoved through the House Budget Committee on Sunday night, includes massive cuts to programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which are widely accessed and relied upon by rural communities across the country.

The proposed cuts to SNAP will threaten the food security of millions of families who depend on it, at a time when demand at food shelves is already skyrocketing. The cuts would also shift massive costs to states already facing budget constraints.

“Families all over Minnesota depend on SNAP to put food on the table—37% of recipients are children, 17% are seniors, and 12% are individuals with disabilities,” says Erin McKee, community food systems program director at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). “Beyond providing critical access to nutritious foods, SNAP supports businesses across the state, including farmers, grocers and small business owners. If these cuts go through, it will have a huge impact not only on Minnesota families, but on our rural economies and the state’s bottom line.”

The Republican-led bill breaks up the Farm Bill, electing to make changes to only sections of the nation’s most important food and agriculture policy, while leaving the rest of that bill behind. Specifically, the bill takes cuts from the SNAP program to increase farm subsidies and insurance payments for a handful of commodity crops, along with lifting payment limits that benefit the largest producers. Instead of debating reforms to those farm programs as part of a full Farm Bill, the House budget throws more money at them, at the expense of those facing hunger.

“This bill leans into a broken crop insurance system that does not measure true risk, disincentivizing climate mitigation and adaptation and punishing diversified farms at any scale,” says Michael Happ, IATP’s program associate for climate and rural communities. “By making this historic decision to break apart the Farm Bill, this House bill would leave behind critical programs, including those that support local food systems, rural businesses and on-farm renewable energy.”

“This bill hits rural economies hard in many ways, from cuts to Medicare and SNAP to ending renewable energy and infrastructure investments to providing a fast track for new pipeline permitting that could run through Midwest farmland,” says Ben Lilliston, director of rural strategies and climate change at IATP. “This bill protects corporate, wealthy interests, leaving rural communities to pay the price.”

For more information and history of the Farm Bill, including articles, podcasts, and more, visit www.iatp.org/farm-bill-23

Upload

Press Statement_Trump Budget Recon Bill.pdf83.89 KB

Primary category

Agriculture

Teaser image

US capitol

IATP Europe comments on the EU’s next long-term budget

Lilly Richard — Mon, 12 May 2025 21:25:03 +0000

IATP Europe comments on the EU’s next long-term budget Lilly Richard Mon, 05/12/2025 - 16:25

Society needs to transition to more sustainable, resilient and agroecological food systems in the coming decades, so that we grow healthy and nutritious food in a way that respects animals and nature, and fairly reward those who produce it.

Public money is needed to help support and accelerate that transition to ensure that it is done fairly for farmers and consumers.

Agriculture

Resolving the Food Crisis: Assessing Global Policy Reforms Since 2007

Executive summary

Findings

Energy transition or false solution? How the EU’s plan to boost biomethane feeds the factory farm system

New ideas on addressing the concentration of corporate power in global food systems

Joint Submission to the U.N. Special Rapporteur (Right to Food) on Corporate Concentration in global food systems

RESPONSES TO KEY QUESTIONS

Three questions for CFTC Chair nominee Brian Quintenz

House Budget boosts factory farm gas and biofuels

Let's Keep the Door Open

IRA helps fund most on-farm conservation in a decade

Summary

Introduction

How many farmers enrolled in EQIP and CSP in FY24?

Which states connected the most farmers to contracts?

Map 1: Percentage of EQIP applicants awarded contracts by state, FY24

Map created with Mapchart.net

Map 2: Percentage of CSP applicants awarded contracts by state, FY24

Map created with Mapchart.net

Why are some percentages above 100%?

Table 1: EQIP applications and contracts by state, Fiscal Year 2024[11]

Ranking by % approved

State

Number of applications

Number of contracts awarded

Financial assistance

% of applicants awarded contracts

Percentage point change since FY23

1

Rhode Island

135-141

230-233

$5,603,117

165-170%

+100-105

2

Connecticut

157-160

251-254

$12,182,269

158-160%

+113-115

3

Idaho

704-710

879-887

$65,706,098

124-125%

+72-73

4

Arizona

221-224

235-237

$24,675,758

105-107%

+61-63

5

Virginia

743-746

772-776

$48,640,348

103-105%

+72-74

6

Alaska

58-76

68

$12,403,571

89-118%

+27-56

7

New Hampshire

413-416

418-430

$11,445,376

101-104%

+62-65

8

Massachusetts

Ranking by
% approved

Number of
applications

Number of
contracts awarded

Financial
assistance

% of applicants
awarded contracts

Percentage point
change since FY23