By Sarah Derouin for Mongabay.
Broadcast version by Mark Moran for Iowa News Service reporting for the Solutions Journalism Network-Public News Service Collaboration

American agroforestry initiatives got a big boost of funding in 2022 from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which allocated $60 million to help farmers transition toward this style of climate-friendlier farming, as part of the Partnership for Climate-Smart Commodities program.

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is leading the multi-partner effort, allocating money to farmers across 30 states. Dubbed the Expanding Agroforestry Project, it will provide technical assistance and funding to farmers for planting new agroforestry acres on their land. The goal is to plant 12,140 new hectares (30,000 acres) of agroforestry across the U.S.

Recently, Mongabay checked in to see how agroforestry efforts were progressing and whether funds were making their way to farmers. After the first application cycle, farmers in 21 states submitted more than 200 applications to the program, representing about 20% of the agroforestry acreage goals.

Like agroforestry itself, the application, training and distribution of funds take some time to get off the ground — the first incentive payments are anticipated to be disbursed in the summer and fall of 2024.

Expanding Agroforestry Project

The Expanding Agroforestry Project is part of the USDA’s larger Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program — a $3.1 billion effort to fund projects to fight climate change while supporting landowners. Agroforestry practices are effective at capturing carbon while providing additional commodities and land benefits to farmers.

Above and below ground, agroforestry systems typically capture 2–5 metric tons of CO2 per acre per year. Nate Lawrence, ecosystem scientist for the Savanna Institute, expanded on the science of measuring such figures during a recent podcast.

As the lead administrator of the grant, TNC is “processing $36 million … in incentive payments directly to enrolled producers,” Audrey Epp Schmidt, the agroforestry program manager at The Nature Conservancy, explained in an email.

The remaining $24 million will support the expansion of project partner organizations, including adding staff capacity for the agroforestry work. These funds will also bolster measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification activities and develop market opportunities for agroforestry commodities, she said.

With the influx of federal funding, TNC created a five-year program to provide growers with technical help and funding to support agroforestry efforts. To get the word out, the project partners launched a communication effort that included emails, social media posts and virtual presentations, along with in-person events on farms.

“Producers typically want to hear directly from other producers, so we encourage farmer-to-farmer networks to help drive adoption whenever possible,” Epp Schmidt said.

TNC’s goal is to attract at least 200 farmers to the program, with at least 50 of those being underserved producers, said Epp Schmidt. The USDA defines underserved producers as farmers who are new, have limited financial resources, are socially disadvantaged (either by race or gender) or are military veterans.

Epp Schmidt said the program includes the adoption of alley cropping, silvopasture and windbreak projects.

Alley cropping means planting rows of trees or shrubs within crops, while windbreaks are planted on the edges of fields (stopping or slowing wind erosion while adding biodiversity). Silvopasture is an agroforestry practice that integrates trees, pasture, forage plants and livestock into a single system. She noted the program is focused on adding new fruit, nut, timber and biodiversity-supporting trees that are ecologically suitable for the project site.

Agroforestry enhances biodiversity on farms by breaking up large expanses of the same crop, called monocropping. By planting trees, shrubs and understory plants, farmers can attract beneficial insects, fungi and wildlife to their land, bolstering pollinators and potentially reducing the need for insecticides.

After being accepted to the program, farmers are matched with a technical assistance staff member — each region has its own partner organization — to support developing an agroforestry plan for the farmers’ land.

The program subsidizes the cost of tree planting, providing $36 million in incentive payments directly to producers. Wendy Johnson, a farmer at Jóia Food & Fiber Farm and active agroforestry practitioner in Iowa, said she heard about the program in its early stages and thought it was an important step forward for agroforestry support.

Johnson, who has planted more than 6,000 trees on her farm, is not able to apply for funding from the project — her trees are already in the ground. But she said learning about the program was “really exciting because it’s finally providing a dollar amount that would help with maintenance costs, too.”

She knows that young trees need a lot of care in the early years before they are fully established. “Maintenance is huge, and I can’t stress that enough,” she said. “You can’t just plant a tree and let it go — it also needs shelter and it needs care for the first three years … otherwise that investment is lost.”

Johnson noted that on her own farm, the planted saplings coincided with record drought — and regular watering of the seedlings is a time- and labor-intensive endeavor. Such issues are only likely to amplify due to the worsening impacts of climate change.

Committing to years of maintenance and switching part of a farm to more diversified land use may take a leap of faith. It can also mean farmers have to accept a risk to their profitability, often lasting for years.

“These are complex, perennial systems, and that involves a temporal mindset,” said John Munsell, forest management extension specialist at Virginia Tech. He added that an adaptive management plan will help farmers adjust in the eight-plus years between planting and maturity of trees and shrubs.

Munsell said that a program like Expanding Agroforestry can get farmers to take a chance on planting. “This will tip the scale for many,” he said. And while farmers wait for their plantings to mature, Munsell said the agroforestry community can strengthen the market for forest products. “While your hazelnuts are maturing … you have eight years to move into a market space and set things up.”

Launching the program

The initial application cycle of the Expanding Agroforestry Project received 213 applications from producers in 21 states for the incentive payment program, noted Epp Schmidt. Of these, 93% self-reported as underserved farmers. She said these farmers potentially represent more than “6,300 acres of new agroforestry plantings.”

Farmers who are interested in the program can learn more on TNC’s website. There are two application cycles each year, and the next deadline will be in late summer.



Sarah Derouin wrote this article for Mongabay.


get more stories like this via email

By Jessica Scott-Reid for Sentient.
Broadcast version by Nadia Ramlagan for West Virginia News Service reporting for the Sentient-Public News Service Collaboration

When it comes to tackling climate change and industrial animal agriculture, a long-standing debate continues to divide advocates - is it better to focus on individual dietary shifts, or demand systemic change? Over the last decade or so, environmental and animal welfare organizations have grappled with how to combine individual behavior change with a broader push for collective action. Is it more effective to urge consumers to eat less meat, or to target meat and dairy companies to transition toward plant-based alternatives? Are individual shopping choices more impactful, or should we prioritize boycotts and pressure campaigns through grassroots activism?

A new report from the World Resource Institute reveals that both strategies can - and in fact must - work together. To combat climate change, the report finds, collective change and individual action require a joint effort.

"This research shows that people really can't do it alone," Mindy Hernandez, one of the authors of the WRI report, tells Sentient. "They need help in order to realize the very significant emissions reductions that are possible." Rather than getting caught up in the idea that "'corporations need to do something, or nothing matters,' systems-level players, specifically policy and industry actors, have a massive role to play." At the same time, Hernandez adds, "that does not give individuals a free pass."

The Surprising Origins of the 'Personal Carbon Footprint'

The idea of a "personal carbon footprint" didn't come from climate scientists or environmental advocates - it actually came from Big Oil, as a means of placing the onus on us. In 2004, British Petroleum (BP) introduced the carbon calculator, reframing the climate crisis as a matter of personal responsibility. The message was simple: Don't look at us. Look at yourself.

We're still grappling with the legacy of that messaging. A little more than 20 years later, global emissions continue to rise yet conversations around food and climate tend to be framed in terms of individual choices - both the effective ones like eating less meat and the not-so-effective ones for climate emissions, like buying local, "climate-friendly," "regenerative" or organic.

Meanwhile, the beef industry continues to pump out emissions, with little political will to tackle these emissions in a meaningful way.

Impact of Diet on the Planet

Around a third of global greenhouse gas emissions come from food, and most of those food-related emissions are driven by meat, especially beef. Americans and other Global North countries must eat less meat and shift to more plant-forward diets, the research suggests. "Plant-based foods - such as fruits and vegetables, whole grains, beans, peas, nuts, and lentils - generally use less energy, land, and water, and have lower greenhouse gas intensities than animal-based foods," according to the United Nations.

WRI's research also finds that "pro-climate behavior changes" are enough, potentially, to "theoretically cancel out all the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions an average person produces each year - specifically among high-income, high-emitting populations." One of those climate-crucial behaviors, the research reveals, is cutting back on meat and dairy - especially beef and lamb.

Organic or regenerative food have various merits, but these do not include a reduction in climate emissions for beef, because organic and regenerative cattle ranching requires more land, and land has a climate emissions cost. Ultimately, none of these personal actions come close to the environmental impact of shifting away from meat and other animal-sourced products. "Full veganism can save nearly 1 ton of CO2 annually, about a sixth of the average global citizen's total emissions. But even reducing meat intake captures 40% of that impact," the report states.

Why Individual Change Is Not Enough

The WRI research also makes a larger point: focusing solely on individual behavior is not sufficient on its own. Without systemic change, we unlock just a fraction - about 10 percent - of our true climate action potential.

The other 90 percent, according to WRI, "stays locked away, dependent on governments, businesses and our own collective action to make sustainable choices more accessible for everyone. (Case in point: It's much easier to go carless if your city has good public transit.)"

Consider a student working to decrease their individual climate impact by eating less meat, WRI's Hernandez suggests. A systemic action the student could take would be to advocate for the school to adopt Meat Free Mondays or WRI's Cool Food Pledge, a program that helps organizations reduce the climate impact of their food offerings by shifting to plant-rich menus.

"Suddenly it's really easy for that student to keep their commitment to eating less meat," says Hernandez, and the collective emissions of the larger student body also then decreases.

The key is to have climate action, at both individual and systemic levels, working in unison. "Systemic pressure creates enabling conditions, but individuals need to complete the loop with our daily choices. It's a two-way street," the WRI researchers write. "Bike lanes need cyclists, plant-based options need people to consume them." And when more of us adopt these behaviors, "we send critical market signals that businesses and governments respond to with more investment."

Taking Action During Difficult Times

As the current administration continues to roll back environmental protections, it's a crucial time for both individual and collective action, Lauren Ornelas, founder of the nonprofit Food Empowerment Project, tells Sentient. "We can't say 'I can rely on the government to pass regulations that are good for the environment or that are good for the welfare of animals,' or 'I can rely on my policymakers to do those things.' It's kind of up to us," she says, "and this is the best time to acknowledge that in every aspect [where] we actually have power."

For those who care about food system impacts, that power can be found in what we choose to eat. "Food choices are always empowering," says Ornelas. So is taking part in a broader collective action, she adds, "to make sure that we are joining our voices with others to demand change."

And what could this look like? "Focus on the one thing that you think you can do in your household," Hernandez says." And then, think about what is the one systems-level thing you can do," like joining a local environmental or food justice group. Shifting diets away from meat and dairy may not solve the climate crisis alone, but eating less meat can be one empowering individual choice that can be made that much stronger by collective action.


Jessica Scott-Reid wrote this article for Sentient.


get more stories like this via email

As Florida emergency response officials conduct their annual statewide hurricane preparedness exercise this week, emergency managers are grappling with shifting federal disaster recovery policies and uncertainty about the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

David Richardson, FEMA's acting chief, said he intends to move more disaster-recovery responsibilities to the states, while President Donald Trump has floated "getting rid of" FEMA altogether.

David Merrick, emergency management program director at Florida State University, said it leaves a lot of uncertainty around support and rapid response.

"We don't know exactly what it's going to look like," Merrick acknowledged. "In places like Florida that has such a well-developed emergency management enterprise at all levels of government, I think we're going to be in a better shape than maybe some other states or territories, maybe. That's the only silver lining for us at this point."

This week's tabletop exercises and drills, which run ahead of the June 1 start of hurricane season, bring together state and local agencies to practice response coordination. This year, discussions are shadowed by federal proposals to overhaul disaster recovery, leaving officials focused on shoring up state and local resources.

Merrick takes comfort in a quote he often hears: FEMA has long held disaster response is "locally executed, state managed and federally supported."

"Which means the responsibility is at the local and then the state level to do everything and the federal role is really just support that with funding and grants and resources that we can't get access to," Merrick outlined. "No one believes that the federal support is going to vanish overnight. "

Florida still depends heavily on FEMA resources, from disaster declarations unlocking federal funds to covering 75% of recovery project costs. The timing is critical, with forecasters predicting 17 or more named storms this season.


get more stories like this via email

Congress is set to claw back $6.5 billion in climate-related Inflation Reduction Act investments to help pay for the Trump administration's priorities, including tax cuts and mass deportations but critics said the move would cost jobs and blunt the administration's goal of energy dominance by reducing domestic energy sources.

Saul Levin, campaigns and political director for the Green New Deal Network, said if passed, $580 million in funding would disappear from Colorado's 4th district, represented by Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.

"In the 3rd District, which is represented by (Republican) Jeff Hurd, there's an estimated $1 billion that has been invested through the IRA," Levin pointed out. "Regardless of people's exact politics, most people don't want that money to be pulled out."

The House Ways and Means panel plans to revoke tax credits for electric vehicle purchases and home energy efficiency improvements, according to Reuters. The House Energy panel's plan would cut funding for limiting methane emissions at oil and gas facilities, reporting greenhouse gas emissions, reducing air pollution near schools and expanding electric grids to bring wind and solar power to homes and businesses.

Philip Rossetti, senior energy fellow for the think tank R Street Institute, believes the subsidies for clean energy were too costly but did reduce climate pollution. He added the investments will need better transmission infrastructure to be effective.

"Princeton University did a study on this, and they estimated that about 80% of the emission benefits in the electric power sector from the IRA subsidies are locked behind additional transmission infrastructure buildout," Rossetti explained.

President Donald Trump campaigned on a promise to put an end to the Biden-Harris administration's efforts to mitigate climate change. Levin noted current proposals in Congress do not cut direct subsidies to fossil fuel companies.

"Even though for decades it's been really clear that there's a huge public health risk to using fossil fuels, we're still giving out subsidies to the tune of $170 billion to oil and gas companies and CEOs," Levin emphasized.


get more stories like this via email