Other Ag News:

Editor’s Note: This is the fourth and final post in a four-part blog series analyzing the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, which was reported out of the House Agriculture Committee on March 5. The first post provides an overview of the markup process and the bill as a whole. The second post provides a deep dive analysis of the bill’s potential impacts on local and regional food systems. The third post offers an analysis of its impacts on the farm safety net, farms’ ability to access land and capital, and fair competition. This post covers conservation, climate resilience, and sustainable and organic research. 

The past eleven years have been the hottest on record, and for American farmers and ranchers, the effects of climate change continue to pose a severe, even existential, threat. Farmers and farmworkers continue to face unprecedented heat and drought, more intense weather from heavy rains to erratic freezes, increasing pest pressures, and rising hospitalizations and fatalities from heat. In the face of these challenges, significant policy improvements and robust financial investments are critical to ensuring successful farms and a resilient agricultural economy for future generations. 

As the weather becomes more volatile, the need to fund technical assistance, conservation projects, and research that supports farmers in preparing for and bouncing back from extreme events is increasingly urgent. While Americans, more than ever before, recognize the impact of extreme weather on farmers, unfortunately, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026 (FFNSA) fails to fully grasp the challenges and consequently falls short. 

The farm bill should seize the moment by prioritizing long-term solutions that build a resilient future. This includes solutions that improve access to on-farm conservation programs for all farmers who steward our environment and serve our communities, and that prioritize investments into diversified farming systems and agroecological approaches that work with our natural resources, such as agroforestry, organic, and regenerative production systems. While the FFNSA includes some policies that head in the right direction, the bill categorically falls short of the moment. Its shortcomings are especially disappointing given the recent abandonment of targeted support to help farmers deal with the impacts of climate change and increasingly severe weather, USDA’s extreme staffing reduction that weakens its ability to deliver conservation assistance, and the administration’s cancellation and disincentivization of climate research. The following analysis is divided into two primary sections addressing:

• Conservation Programs and Funding
• Research, Education, and Extension Programs

Funding

The FFNSA largely maintains recent investments in conservation programs from 2025’s budget reconciliation bill, which moved the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) climate-smart conservation funding into programs’ permanent baseline budgets. There are, however, two major exceptions.

First, FFNSA siphons off $1 billion in Conservation Stewardship Programs (CSP) funding over 10 years for a new grant program supporting states and Tribes administering soil health programs (Section 2303). While the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) has championed providing federal support for state and Tribal soil health programs, the FFNSA’s iteration of that idea is a non-starter. Currently, only about 53% of farmers applying to CSP have been able to secure contracts. It makes little sense to further stretch already limited and clearly popular resources across new purposes and subprograms. Doing so would ensure that farmers interested in CSP continue to get left behind.

Further, CSP is capable of delivering funds to farmers quickly, as was demonstrated by the speed with which IRA investments flowed through the existing CSP infrastructure within nine months of IRA’s passage. Conversely, brand new programs take time to set up and require procedural steps such as rulemaking before the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) can administer them, which can take years. As the agricultural economy writ large continues to struggle and farmers need all available forms of support right now, it would be a poor decision at this moment in history to disinvest in an existing, successful program that can quickly provide producers with five years of financial support for their ongoing conservation efforts to experiment with a new program. Now is not the time to rob a helpful Peter to pay a new Paul.

Placing a state and Tribal soil health assistance program in CSP makes even less sense, given that other conservation programs, such as the Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP), are already designed to provide federal support for conservation work led by non-federal partners. NSAC hopes that Congress continues to see the wisdom of authorizing state and Tribal soil health programs, either as a new stand-alone program with its own funding source, as proposed in the Agriculture Resilience Act (ARA), or as part of RCPP as proposed in the Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act in the Senate. NSAC opposes diverting CSP funding for subprograms or initiatives.

The second proposed change to funding is in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The FFNSA proposes reducing EQIP’s budget authority (BA) by just over $1 billion over the first five years of its 10-year implementation window. This means farmers would experience an immediate cut to EQIP funding in the field, since BA is the total amount of money that NRCS is authorized to spend. When NRCS is fully staffed and there are no administrative disruptions to programs, EQIP often obligates all available funding every year. However, since BA was left intact for the final five years of the budget window, or the “out years”, EQIP’s long-term increased baseline was not reduced in the FFNSA. This means that the next time Congress tinkers with EQIP, whether in a farm bill extension, budget reconciliation, or a full farm bill reauthorization, EQIP’s budget will remain as high as it is today. NSAC strongly supports maintaining a strong long term baseline budget for EQIP, though it questions the wisdom of the proposed reductions in near term BA.

This reduction in EQIP BA appears to be paying for two things: a small list of other conservation programs that also needed funding; and policy reforms across FFNSA’s conservation title (Title II) that are projected to increase outlays for a given program, or were “scored as a cost” by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Starting with smaller conservation programs that receive funding, totals are clearly listed in the text of the FFNSA:

• Conservation Reserve Program – Transition Incentive Program – $50 million
• Conservation Reserve Program – Forest Management Incentive Program = $12 million
• Forest Conservation Easement Program = $240 million
• Feral Swine Eradication & Control Program = $150 million  

Total new baseline authority = $452 million 

This accounts for just under half of the lost EQIP BA. For the CRP TIP program in particular, NSAC is glad to see efforts to find funding for one of the primary tools in Title II of the farm bill for improving land access for beginning producers. Access to land remains one of the most significant challenges for new and beginning producers, and Congress should seek to invest in and improve these tools at every opportunity. However, EQIP can also be a useful tool for beginning producers, who may be making major purchases for the first time, such as buying fencing to support a new rotational grazing business. As such, this again seems like an unnecessary instance of robbing Peter to pay Paul.

For the second source of EQIP BA reductions, the picture is less clear. As of posting, there’s no reliable indicator on which specific provisions increased outlays and therefore drove the reduction in EQIP BA, though it is clear that outlays increased. CBO’s summary cost estimate for the FFNSA showed increased outlays for all major conservation programs, indicating that many policy provisions sought in this bill “cost” money that could otherwise be going to farmers interested in the EQIP program as it exists right now. NSAC strongly encourages Congress to be more transparent regarding trade offs like these, so producers and agricultural stakeholders can make informed choices about the trade offs being proposed.

Precision Agriculture

The FFNSA dramatically increases support for precision agriculture technologies in conservation programs (Section 2202, 2204, 2302). While NSAC recognizes that precision agriculture has demonstrable benefits for some operations, it remains a relatively high-cost conservation solution that does not serve all farmers. Conservation program funding is limited, and providing overly robust support for practices unsuitable for all operations leads to a small set of farms consuming an outsized portion of program resources. This is an irresponsible use of limited government funding, especially when there are size- and scale-neutral management alternatives that serve far more farmers and deliver greater environmental benefits per dollar spent. NSAC calls on Congress to consider a fairer and more balanced approach to supporting precision agriculture in this farm bill.

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)

CSP is perhaps the most impactful tool available to address climate change on farms today. The program rewards producers who build holistic conservation systems across their entire operation, investing in new practices and practice permanence over the long term – both of which are necessary to address the climate crisis. CSP is the only conservation program designed to achieve both goals. Unfortunately, the FFNSA proposes some negative changes to CSP.

While proposed diversions of CSP funding are discussed above in the funding section, the FFNSA also proposes creating Supplemental Activity Payments (SAP) for adopting and acquiring precision agriculture technologies through CSP. Currently, CSP only offers SAPs for Resource Conserving Crop Rotations, Improved Resource Conserving Crop Rotations, and Advanced Grazing Management. Each of these three conservation activities represents a holistic approach to improving conservation across an entire operation, either by requiring producers to adopt multiple practice enhancements on the same acres or to pursue ambitious, measurable soil health goals, such as increasing organic matter (OM) over the life of their CSP contract. NRCS offers 150% of a normal activity payment through SAPs for these high level activities because of the increased conservation benefits they create and the additional labor it takes to plan and manage such holistic systems. 

However, purchasing or utilizing precision agriculture technology does not rise to the same level of stewardship as these holistic practices, nor does it require the same level of increased labor. Further, CSP already offers sufficient support for precision agriculture through five separate precision agriculture bundles that compensate producers at 115% of the normal activity payment rate. These bundle payments reflect the value of using precision agriculture technologies in concert with other base conservation practices, and NRCS already has the authority to create additional precision agriculture bundles at any time. Therefore, NSAC opposes FFNSA’s proposal to create additional, outsized payments for precision agriculture in CSP.

Perhaps the most positive change to CSP proposed in the FFNSA, compared to the previous version of the bill, is the codification of a $4,000 minimum payment option. Raising the minimum payment has long been a priority for NSAC to reduce administrative burden and ensure adequate cost share for smaller farms enrolling in the program. NSAC is pleased to see FFNSA adopt our position and create in statute a $4,0000 minimum CSP payment. This mirrors the minimum payment that NRCS began offering to producers in recent years, and would ensure producers will have that option going forward. NSAC strongly supports including this provision in any final farm bill.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

EQIP is a voluntary conservation program that offers farmers and ranchers financial cost-share and technical assistance to implement conservation practices on working agricultural land. EQIP assistance is available through both a general pool and special initiatives. EQIP’s special initiatives highlight specific practices or natural resources, such as the Organic Initiative, which provides separate funding pools for transitioning and certified organic producers. Beyond the funding reductions discussed above, the FFNSA makes several modifications to EQIP, some of which are deeply concerning.

The most meaningful and problematic changes to EQIP in the FFNSA adjust which practices and farmers stand to gain the most from the program. Once again, the bill plays favorites by offering an excessive cost share – increased to 90% – for acquiring or adopting precision agriculture technology. Current EQIP payments cover 75% of costs associated with planning, design, materials, equipment, installation, labor, management, maintenance, or training needed for conservation activities that involve precision agriculture technologies. Raising the rate to 90% is an unnecessary overinvestment with the potential to exacerbate trends in farmers being turned away from the program due to insufficient funding. Further, individual states can already raise cost share rates for precision agriculture conservation activities if they deem such activities to be among their top 10 priorities for the year (16 USC 3839aa(2)(d)(7)). Therefore, mandating that all states raise cost share rates for precision agriculture to 90% is not only excessive, but it also stands in stark opposition to the locally-led conservation planning process that House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson (R-PA-15) has championed. 

The FFNSA maintains the existing carveout that ensures livestock producers will receive 50% of total EQIP funding during the life of the farm bill. This long standing set aside has led to significant portions of EQIP spending going towards infrastructure practices of questionable environmental value. This is a major loss, as the ARA proposed retargeting two-thirds of this carveout towards sustainable grazing practices, which have been shown to help mitigate climate change and build increased resilience to drought and floods on farms and ranches around the nation.

Additionally, the FFNSA fails to make a series of important improvements to EQIP that were proposed in former Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow’s Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act (RPFSA), leaving in place long standing obstacles barring certain producers and stakeholder groups from meaningful participation in EQIP. The FFNSA fails to create a funding set-aside for small farms, as proposed in the Small Farms Conservation Act (bill #) and the RFPSA, signaling loudly and clearly the FFNSA’s bias toward farmers and ranchers who have amassed a minimum amount of acreage. Similarly, the FFNSA does not add a requirement that NRCS State Technical Advisory Committees consult with Tribes when determining the top 10 priority practices that will receive increased cost share support through EQIP, as proposed in the RPFSA. This leaves in place a barrier for Tribes seeking to ensure EQIP addresses the most pressing natural resource concerns impacting their communities. Finally, FFNSA leaves in place a discriminatory lower payment limit for organic producers accessing EQIP. While it does increase the limit to $200,000, a small step up from the existing $140,000 organic payment limit, the FFNSA still falls well short of providing organic producers with the same payment limit of $450,000 to which all other producers are subject. The RPFSA, on the other hand, would establish equal payment limits for both organic and non-organic producers.

Elsewhere, the FFNSA does make a few changes to EQIP that are not outright harmful. The bill authorizes a producer enrolled in EQIP to receive a loan or loan guarantee through the Conservation Loan Program to cover costs for the same practices on the same land covered by the EQIP contract. Further, FFNSA requires the Secretary to notify producers participating in EQIP that they may be eligible to participate in the Conservation Loan Program. While this policy comes dangerously close to paying for the same conservation practices twice with different pools of public funds, if well implemented, it has the potential to be a more judicious option for providing increased support to producers without building outsized cost share rates into EQIP. NSAC is hopeful that this concept can be refined and improved as the farm bill debate continues.

The FFNSA also addresses the Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG) program. CIGs support the development and testing of promising new conservation technologies and approaches with the goal of making them available for use as quickly as possible by farmers and ranchers. In addition to providing funds directly to farmers and ranchers looking to adopt and enhance conservation practices on their land, NRCS also provides CIGs to fund projects that seek to develop and improve access to innovative conservation solutions for farmers and ranchers nationwide through on-farm pilots and demonstration projects. The FFNSA directs the Secretary to use CIGs for the development and evaluation of new and innovative technologies that may be incorporated into Conservation Practice Standards (CPS), including CPS that involve precision agriculture technology. NSAC sees this explicit instruction to use CIGs to improve CPS as positive. It’s a common sense policy that ensures the latest information USDA has on conservation practices is put to use when designing conservation practices on the ground across the country. However, NSAC has reservations about building an overemphasis on precision agriculture technology into conservation programs.

Further, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) set aside $37.5 million for each fiscal year for CIG projects that address air quality, an increase from the $25 million annual allocation in the Agricultural Act of 2014 (2014 Farm Bill). The FFNSA preserves this allocation for air quality projects, though NSAC advocated for an increase to $50 million per year. Given the pressing climate crisis, more CIG funds need to be dedicated to addressing air quality concerns, especially if projects will be utilized more consistently to improve CPS under the next farm bill. Such a combination of policies would help build NRCS’ capacity to support farmers in mitigating climate change and building resilience in their operations through all conservation programs offering practice cost share.

Similarly, the 2018 Farm Bill established On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials (On-Farm Trials), a CIG subprogram, to provide funding directly to partners, who can then offer technical assistance and payments to producers interested in implementing innovative conservation practices on their land. On-Farm Trials support the implementation of innovative approaches that have a positive conservation effect but have not yet been widely adopted by producers. NRCS is authorized to provide $25 million per year for on-farm trials. The FFNSA continues this $25M funding for on-farm conservation innovation trials, a slim silver lining given the need for more funding. On-Farm Trials have their own subprogram, the Soil Health Demonstration Trials, which focuses exclusively on conservation practices and systems that enhance soil health and increase soil carbon. Improving soil health on farms provides producers with a host of environmental and financial benefits, and as such, NSAC has been advocating for at least $50 million in funding each year for this subprogram. As the farm bill debate continues, NSAC hopes Congress will consider increasing funding for these high impact CIG subprograms.

Finally, the FFNSA makes a few meaningful improvements to EQIP. The existing statute allows states to raise the cost share to 90% for up to 10 practices that meet at least one of four broad environmental goals (16 USC 3839aa(2)(d)(7)). The FFNSA adds carbon sequestration and GHG reduction as a new fifth goal that states can seek to address when selecting priority practices that receive 90% cost share. NSAC agrees wholeheartedly with this common sense approach to targeting conservation funds to address the climate crisis, especially since it closely mirrors the program-wide targeting of EQIP funds formerly built into the IRA. NSAC encourages Congress to adopt this change in a final farm bill, as well as similar climate-targeting language for all major conservation programs.

Turning back to the CIG program, the FFNSA adds “perennial production systems, including agroforestry and perennial forages and grain crops” to the scope of CIG On-Farm Conservation Innovation Trials. Perennial systems are among the most powerful agriculture systems for mitigating the climate crisis, building resilience in the landscape, and realizing a host of additional conservation benefits. As such, NSAC strongly supports an explicit focus on perennial systems in the CIG program.

Alternative Manure Management Practices (AMMP)

The FFNSA does not contain a proposal to support AMMP technologies as envisioned in the ARA or the COWS Act. NSAC is disappointed to see this omission, as shifting the technologies used to handle manure on midsized livestock operations is critical to addressing agriculture’s contributions to climate change. As many parts of the country cannot transition fully to year-round, grass-based livestock systems, it is vital to dedicate funding to AMMP technologies to ensure that instances where confinement is likely to continue are as ecologically friendly as can be. NSAC calls on the House and Senate to include the bipartisan COWS Act provisions in a final farm bill.

Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI)

The FFNSA maintains the current appropriations authorization of $60 million per year for GLCI. NSAC believes strongly that grazers need dependable access to technical assistance and that such funding should not be subject to the whims of the annual appropriations process. Therefore, GLCI needs a minimum of $50 million per year in mandatory funding to provide sufficient funding to meet the strong demand for technical assistance and ensure such assistance is provided without interruption.

In comparison to the enormous opportunity that sustainable agriculture represents for farmers and rural communities, federal investment in sustainable agriculture research, education, and extension has been minuscule. Without robust funding for public research that promotes ecologically-based production systems, scientific and technical innovation is stifled, and U.S. farmers and ranchers are unable to fully participate in and benefit from emerging markets for sustainably-produced foods. At a time when the effects of climate change on farmers are becoming ever more apparent, and the country is losing small and mid-sized family farms at an alarming rate, the FFNSA maintains the status quo. Instead of investing in research and innovation that builds on-farm resilience and moves our food and farm system forward, the bill continues down the same detrimental path for the next five years.

Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program

While FFNSA meets the low bar of reauthorizing popular sustainable and organic research programs like the SARE program (Section 7201) and the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) (Section 7205), the bill does not include additional funding for either program. SARE was first created in 1988, and in 1990, Congress authorized the SARE program and determined that it should be funded at no less than $60 million a year, consistent with recommendations by the National Academy of Sciences. However, after nearly 40 years as USDA’s only farmer-driven, sustainable agriculture competitive research grant program, SARE has yet to see an increase in funding authorization. Combined with inflation, level funding for SARE in a new farm bill would effectively amount to a funding cut. 

SARE provides farmers and researchers with vital opportunities to better understand agricultural systems, increase profitability, and build resilience to climate change. Farmers and ranchers have critical insight when it comes to improving their systems. Yet, the demand for farmer-led research continues to outpace federal funding. According to SARE’s 2025-2026 Biannual Report, 60% of eligible farmer/rancher grant proposals go unfunded.

Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI)

OREI is one of a still limited number of research, education, and extension programs that provide focused support for organic systems. Strong investments in research underpin growth in numerous sectors, as all farmers – sustainable, organic, conventional, or otherwise – rely on cutting-edge research to maintain robust and thriving operations. Although FFNSA maintains level funding for OREI, it does not reflect the growth of the organic market since 2018 or the current challenges facing organic farmers. Level funding fails to provide the organic sector with the tools to create thriving businesses in the face of changing weather patterns and shifting markets. 

Organic Transitions Program (ORG)

A long time priority for NSAC has been official authorization for the Organic Transitions Program (ORG), which supports research helping farmers move from conventional to organic production. The program has historically been funded through appropriations, but has never been formally authorized in statute. Amendment 102, introduced by Representative Eugene Vindman (D-VA-07), proposed to formally authorize ORG, renaming it to the Researching the Transition to Organic Program (RTOP) and providing $7.5 million in discretionary funding. NSAC supported this amendment, and it was glad to see it approved by voice vote during markup.

Precision Agriculture

FFNSA’s focus on precision agriculture, automation, and “high risk high priority research” across the research title detracts from much needed investments in farmer-led, scale-appropriate research. Programs like the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority, a $30 million carve out in the Speciality Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) for mechanization and automation (Section 7305), and a greater emphasis on automation and precision agriculture in the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), demonstrate a continued quest for “silver-bullet” solutions to climate change and other agricultural challenges, and appear to come at the expense of more robust research investments in diversified agriculture.  

While NSAC supports research that directly contributes to “a reduction in, or improved efficiency of, inputs used in crop or livestock production,” it is clear that the prevailing narrative surrounding these types of agriculture research is aimed not at improving diversified systems, but at further enabling large-scale, monoculture agriculture. This approach is misguided given the ample evidence that scale-neutral, management-intensive practices likely yield even greater environmental benefits. USDA funding should be directed toward building an understanding of the ecological aspects of our food and farm systems and integrating the diverse knowledge and practices of agroecological farmers and farm workers, rather than continuing to explore and promote the narrow constraints of monoculture-based systems.

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI)

NSAC is pleased to see some inclusion of the ARA in FFNSA’s proposal for AFRI. For example, NSAC welcomes the addition of regionally adapted cultivar and breed development, breeding for environmental resilience, and the addition of workforce training and development, including meat and poultry processing in the agriculture economics and rural communities priority area (Section 7305). However, these new additions, alongside several others – like controlled-environment agriculture production and precision agriculture – all come without any additional funding for AFRI, spreading the program across many issue areas, likely resulting in the program’s limited ability to support more agroecologically focused agricultural research.

Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach (FOTO) program

FFNSA reauthorizes FOTO and maintains $50 million in mandatory funding. FOTO was a new initiative established in the 2018 Farm Bill that combined two of USDA’s flagship training and technical assistance programs for historically underserved farmers – the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) and the Section 2501 program. However, management of BFRDP was kept under the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), while management of 2501 was moved into the newly created Office of Public Partnerships and Engagement (OPPE). In addition to maintaining mandatory funding for FOTO established in the 2018 Farm Bill, FFNSA proposes moving the management of 2501 back to NIFA.

During markup, Representative Brad Finstad (R-MN-01) introduced Amendment 19, which proposed significant changes to FOTO – affecting both 2501 and the BFRDP.  

For 2501, the amendment proposed moving the program to NIFA, altering its priority in making grants and contracts to “organizations that provide training and technical assistance in budgeting, business planning, and similar financial and management skills that focus on the ongoing economic viability of beginning farm and ranch enterprises”, and changing the peer review process by removing the requirement for review panels to include a broad representation of peers and instead include “a broad representation of individuals with demonstrated expertise in farm business management.” 

For BFRDP, similar changes were made to entities prioritized when making agreements and contracts and peer review panels. However, this amendment went one step further with BFRDP, removing prioritization in making contracts and agreements to partnerships and collaborations that are led by or include nongovernmental, community-based organizations and school-based educational organizations with expertise in new agricultural producer training and outreach, and instead prioritizing programs that provide training and technical assistance in budgeting, business planning, and similar financial and management skills that focus on the ongoing economic viability of beginning farm and ranch enterprises. 

While NSAC supports giving NIFA clearer authority to run 2501, the changes to priority areas and peer reviews with FOTO deprioritizes community based organizations, and give USDA greater authority to influence peer review panels, watering down the effectiveness of the program. NSAC opposed this amendment, and it was approved by voice vote.

1890 Land Grant Institutions

NSAC was pleased to see FFNSA provide several important investments in 1890s Institutions, including increasing mandatory funding for the 1890s Scholarship program to $100 million until expended, increasing funding for 1890s Extension from its current 20 percent to no less than 40 percent, and increasing the number of 1890 Centers of Excellence.

National Organic Program (NOP)

FFNSA caps funding for the National Organic Program (NOP) at $24 million annually and does not increase the funding level over the life of the farm bill. In addition, the bill authorizes NOP to provide technical assistance to farmers transitioning to organic, but does not provide any additional funding to support TA.  NOP currently oversees more than 46,000 operations in more than 100 countries, and the organic sector continues to grow.  NOP’s expanded authority, coupled with the growth of the organic sector, signals the need for more, not level funding, to adequately enforce organic regulations, provide TA to transitioning farmers, and tackle fraud in organic supply chains.

The post Unpacking the House Farm Bill: Part 4 appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.