Environmental groups petition to end federal grants for on-farm digesters – Waste Dive

Report on U.S. Department of Agriculture Funding for On-Farm Manure Digesters and Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

A coalition of 34 environmental and agricultural organizations has petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to exclude on-farm manure digesters from eligibility for funding under the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP). This petition highlights concerns regarding the environmental and economic impacts of digesters and emphasizes alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those related to responsible consumption and production, climate action, clean water, and sustainable communities.

Background and Petition Details

• The coalition includes prominent environmental groups such as Friends of the Earth, Waterkeeper Alliance, and Food & Water Watch, alongside agricultural advocacy organizations like Farm Aid and the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
• According to the petition, approximately $257 million of the $3.2 billion disbursed by REAP from 2021 to 2025 was allocated to manure digester projects.
• The average grant or loan guarantee for digesters was significantly higher than for solar or wind energy projects, which are also supported by REAP.
• Earthjustice has filed a lawsuit requesting the USDA to disclose records detailing the methodology used to justify funding for digesters.
• REAP funding has experienced delays due to a backlog of applicants.

Analysis of Environmental and Social Impacts in Relation to SDGs

Environmental Concerns

• Opponents argue that manure digesters may cause more environmental harm than benefits, potentially undermining SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation).
• Studies cited in the petition indicate that digesters contribute to the consolidation of dairy herds, increasing risks of air and water pollution, which conflicts with SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
• The anaerobic digestion process increases production of ammonia and enhances solubility of nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus, raising concerns about water quality and ecosystem health.
• Documented cases of water pollution from digester projects funded by REAP highlight potential violations of environmental permits.

Economic and Social Considerations

• The petitioners emphasize that REAP should prioritize projects that provide environmental benefits, support small farms in lower-income rural communities, and are cost-efficient, aligning with SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).
• Analysis of EPA data revealed that 17% of on-farm digesters have ceased operations, often due to financial difficulties, raising concerns about the sustainability and economic viability of these projects.
• Critics argue that funding digesters may inadvertently support factory farms rather than fostering resilient rural economies and communities.

Stakeholder Perspectives

1. Petitioners’ Viewpoint:
   • REAP funding should not support digesters as they do not fulfill the program’s environmental and social criteria.
   • Resources should be redirected to projects that more effectively reduce energy costs and strengthen rural communities.
   • Quote: “REAP exists to help farmers and rural small businesses lower energy costs and foster stronger communities, not prop up factory farms.” – Molly Armus, Friends of the Earth.
2. Biogas Industry Response:
   • Biogas advocates argue digesters capture emissions more effectively than alternative methods, contributing to SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action).
   • They highlight economic benefits for farmers, including additional revenue streams and reduced fertilizer costs.
   • Quote: “Biogas systems and digesters align directly with REAP’s statutory goal of providing environmental and public health benefits in rural America.” – Patrick Serfass, American Biogas Council.

Broader Context and Policy Implications

• The debate over digester subsidies is influencing other incentive programs nationwide, including California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard and New Mexico’s clean fuels program.
• Environmental justice advisors have advocated for removing digester incentives to better align with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).
• The USDA has previously excluded projects involving fossil fuel co-burning from REAP funding, indicating potential for policy adjustments regarding digesters.

Conclusion and Recommendations

1. Policy Review: The USDA should thoroughly evaluate the environmental, economic, and social impacts of manure digesters in relation to the Sustainable Development Goals before continuing funding.
2. Transparency: Release of detailed methodologies and data supporting funding decisions is essential for accountability and informed policymaking.
3. Focus on Sustainable Alternatives: Prioritize renewable energy projects such as solar and wind that demonstrate clear environmental benefits and support small-scale rural development.
4. Address Environmental Risks: Implement stricter monitoring and regulation to mitigate pollution risks associated with digestate management.
5. Support Rural Communities: Ensure funding programs promote equitable economic opportunities and environmental health in rural areas, advancing SDGs 1, 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

1. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Addressed or Connected to the Issues Highlighted in the Article

1. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • The article discusses funding for renewable energy projects such as anaerobic digesters, solar, and wind projects through the Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).
2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • The debate over the environmental impact of manure digesters, including concerns about pollution and waste management, relates to sustainable production practices.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Discussions about emissions reduction from manure digesters and biogas systems relate to efforts to combat climate change.
4. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Concerns about water pollution from digester waste affecting surface and groundwater quality connect to the protection of aquatic ecosystems.
5. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Issues related to land pollution and the environmental impact of farm consolidation affect terrestrial ecosystems.
6. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article touches on agriculture practices and the economic viability of farms, which relate to sustainable agriculture and food security.
7. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The petition emphasizes favoring small farms in lower-income rural communities, addressing inequalities in access to funding and resources.

2. Specific Targets Under Those SDGs Identified Based on the Article’s Content

1. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • Target 7.2: Increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix.
   • Target 7.a: Enhance international cooperation to facilitate access to clean energy research and technology.
2. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • Target 12.4: Achieve environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle.
   • Target 12.5: Substantially reduce waste generation through prevention, reduction, recycling, and reuse.
3. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • Target 13.2: Integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies, and planning.
4. SDG 14: Life Below Water
   • Target 14.1: Prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds.
5. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: Ensure the conservation, restoration, and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems.
6. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • Target 2.4: Ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices.
7. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • Target 10.2: Empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, or economic status.

3. Indicators Mentioned or Implied in the Article to Measure Progress Towards the Identified Targets

1. Funding Allocation and Distribution
   • Amount of funding disbursed to different renewable energy projects (e.g., $257 million to digesters vs. solar/wind projects).
   • Average grant or loan guarantee size for digesters compared to other projects.
2. Environmental Impact Indicators
   • Incidence of water pollution events or permit violations related to digester projects (e.g., documented discharges, runoff, leachate).
   • Levels of pollutants such as ammonia, nitrogen, and phosphorus in ground and surface water.
   • Changes in herd sizes and their correlation with environmental pollution.
3. Operational and Financial Sustainability
   • Percentage of digesters that have shut down due to financial challenges (17% as per EPA data analysis).
   • Economic returns and cost-effectiveness of digesters in rural communities.
4. Social and Economic Inclusion
   • Extent to which funding benefits small farms and lower-income rural communities versus large factory farms.
5. Emission Reduction
   • Effectiveness of digesters in capturing methane and reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to other methods.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wastedive.com