Reframing Conservation Agriculture: A Focus on Economic and Environmental Impact
Relying on conservation agriculture practices as a climate solution is risky. In the U.S., we lack the right policies for achieving the long-term, consistent adoption necessary for emission reductions. Thus, emphasizing the soil health and economic benefits of conservation agriculture practices may be more effective than discussing their climate benefits.
In response to the urgency of greenhouse gas emissions reduction across sectors, governments worldwide have dedicated more resources to agricultural climate mitigation frameworks such as the 4 per 1000 initiative. This initiative, established by France during international climate negotiations, aims to achieve 0.4% growth in global soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks in the 0-40 cm soil depth annually for two decades.
Achieving this lofty goal necessitates the implementation of conservation practices on agricultural soils. Many of these practices have associated benefits, such as reducing soil erosion and nutrient loss, increasing water availability, and improving soil quality. The strength of these co-benefits suggests that political framing of conservation agriculture practices that focuses on speculative climate impacts is less effective than framing that highlights the direct economic and environmental impacts of such practices.
Another reason that a shift away from climate-focused messaging would benefit conservation agriculture practice adoption is the uncertainty of possible climate benefits. There are significant social and economic barriers to a rapid and long-term global shift towards conservation agriculture that jeopardize its contribution to meaningful greenhouse gas emissions reduction:
- Weather Conditions: No-till can negatively impact yields in cooler climates and exacerbate waterlogging due to heavy rains in tropical climates, presenting barriers to adoption in certain locations.
- Continuous Adoption: Discontinuous no-till adoption is quite prevalent, but it threatens to erase any soil C sequestration benefits, since these benefits are contingent on the uninterrupted use of conservation practices.
- Fertilizer Inputs: If soil C sequestration is the desired outcome, aboveground fertilizer inputs must be reduced drastically to avoid offsetting CO2 emissions reductions with increased nitrous oxide emissions.
- Risk-Taking Behavior: Achieving widespread adoption involves convincing stakeholders to take on additional risk, which is difficult given farmers’ conservatism and the enormous benefits they receive from subsidies and insurance programs that insulate them from risk when practicing traditional agricultural management.
- Economic Factors: The large proportion of farmers who rent cropland, the financial stress faced by farmers, and the stringent requirements of conservation finance programs also contribute to slow changes in adoption.
- Inadequate Soil C Markets: Existing soil C markets often do not reflect uncertainties in sequestration and face additional challenges like additionality and permanence, representing a potential waste of valuable investments.
USDA Subsidies for U.S. Farms Totaled $523 Billion (1995-2023)
These shortcomings, combined with the unique challenges faced by smallholder farmers, led the authors of the Nebraska Declaration on Conservation Agriculture to conclude that “payment for carbon credits does not appear to be a viable driver for promoting widespread adoption of conservation agriculture technologies by smallholders.” One study even concluded that “soils are essential for us to survive climate change, but they are unlikely to help us remediate it.”
Difficulties in achieving conservation practice adoption make it all the more important to frame conservation practices as economic boons and drivers of improved soil health. The majority of the scientific community agrees that potential climate solutions involving changes in agricultural practices merit caution, with 75% of scientists in a recent survey agreeing that there is an insufficient scientific understanding of soil C sequestration on croplands to accurately predict its extent, duration, and pace.
This uncertainty suggests that the numerous important benefits conservation agriculture offers other than potential C sequestration deserve to be emphasized. Crafting a sufficient package of economic incentives, political will, and technological advances to succeed in a widespread transition to regenerative agriculture is a formidable task. Yet doing so is paramount to halting the growing proportion of greenhouse gas emissions stemming from agriculture and land-use, making a sustainable future possible.
Jack Miklaucic
Student, Penn Carey Law SchoolJack Miklaucic is a second-year student at Penn Carey Law School, where he is on the boards of the Student Public Interest Network, Environmental Law Project, and American Constitution Society. He hopes to build a career in public interest environmental and energy law.
