Release: Farm Bill Extension, USDA Funding Bill Underwhelm – National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

Analysis of US Agricultural Legislation and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

Recent legislative actions, including a one-year extension of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 and the fiscal year (FY) 2026 agriculture appropriations bill, present significant challenges to the advancement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The legislative package, as detailed by the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC), curtails funding for critical conservation programs and weakens support for family farmers. These measures risk undermining progress on key SDGs, including SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), SDG 13 (Climate Action), and SDG 15 (Life on Land).

Farm Bill Extension: A Setback for Sustainable Development

The decision to pass a one-year extension instead of a comprehensive five-year farm bill introduces instability and fails to address systemic issues. Several provisions within the extension directly conflict with established sustainability targets.

Impact on SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production)

The extension’s failure to renew payment limits for key conservation programs disproportionately benefits large-scale agricultural operations, thereby exacerbating inequalities within the farming community.

• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): The removal of payment caps allows a small number of large operations to receive a disproportionate share of federal conservation funding.
• Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP): Similar to EQIP, the lack of a payment limit biases the program away from small and medium-sized family farms that are often leaders in sustainable production.

This policy shift directly contravenes SDG 10 by favoring the wealthiest producers and hinders the broad adoption of sustainable practices necessary to achieve SDG 12.

Impact on SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth)

The extension discontinues a vital program aimed at supporting the next generation of farmers, which is critical for ensuring long-term food security and rural economic vitality.

1. Conservation Reserve Program-Transition Incentive Program (CRP-TIP): Funding for this program has not been extended.
2. Consequences: The program can no longer provide incentives for landowners to rent or sell land to beginning farmers and ranchers. This directly impacts those committed to sustainable methods such as resource-conserving cropping systems and organic production, impeding progress toward SDG 2 and SDG 8 by creating barriers to entry for new, sustainability-focused agricultural entrepreneurs.

FY2026 Appropriations Bill: Funding Reductions Undermine Sustainability Targets

The FY2026 appropriations bill implements significant funding cuts to programs essential for achieving environmental and social sustainability goals, while maintaining level funding for others.

Erosion of Support for Climate Action and Ecosystem Health (SDG 13 & SDG 15)

Reductions in technical assistance and conservation initiatives directly limit the agricultural sector’s capacity to mitigate climate change and protect terrestrial ecosystems.

• Conservation Technical Assistance: Funding cut by nearly $100 million to $679.6 million. This reduction impairs farmers’ ability to implement practices that build healthy soil, protect water resources, and sequester carbon.
• Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative: Funding cut by $2 million to $8 million, weakening support for sustainable grazing management that is crucial for grassland ecosystems and biodiversity (SDG 15).

Weakening Local Food Systems and Community Resilience (SDG 2 & SDG 11)

Cuts to programs supporting local and urban agriculture undermine efforts to build resilient, sustainable food systems and communities.

• Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production: Funding reduced by $2 million to $5 million, hindering progress on sustainable urban food production (SDG 11).
• Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP): Funding for Value Added Producer Grants was cut from $11.5 million to $8 million, and Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Grants were reduced to $7.3 million. These cuts directly impact small farmers’ ability to access local markets, affecting food security (SDG 2) and local economic growth.

Stagnation in Sustainable Agriculture Research and Training

While some programs avoided cuts, the level funding represents a missed opportunity to accelerate the transition to more sustainable agricultural systems.

• Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education (SARE): Maintained at $48 million.
• Organic Transitions Program: Maintained at $7.5 million.
• Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach (FOTO): Maintained level funding.

Broader Socio-Economic Implications for Rural Communities

Challenges to SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being)

The legislative process has failed to ensure the stability of programs vital for the health and well-being of rural populations. The lack of progress on ensuring timely disbursement of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and access to affordable healthcare directly threatens the achievement of SDG 2 and SDG 3. Thriving rural communities are a foundational component of a just and sustainable food system, and ensuring access to nutrition and healthcare is a critical part of that goal.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • The article focuses heavily on sustainable agriculture, support for family farmers, and food systems. It discusses policies affecting agricultural productivity, the viability of different farming operations, and access to nutrition through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), all of which are central to SDG 2.
2. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • The core of the article revolves around conservation efforts. It explicitly mentions programs aimed at protecting natural resources, building healthy soil, ensuring clean water, and promoting sustainable land use practices like sustainable grazing and resource-conserving cropping systems. The funding cuts to these programs directly impact the goals of protecting terrestrial ecosystems.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article highlights a growing disparity between small family farmers and large agricultural operations. It states that the legislative changes “bias federal conservation programs towards serving the largest operations first and foremost” and undermine support for “beginning farmers and ranchers,” thereby increasing economic inequality within the agricultural sector.
4. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The text directly points out the failure to “make progress toward ensuring… access to affordable healthcare” for farmers, families, and rural communities. This connects the economic and environmental issues of the farm bill to the broader well-being of the population it affects.
5. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The article mentions funding cuts to the “Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production” and the “Local Agriculture Market Program.” These programs are crucial for building resilient local food systems and strengthening the economic and social links between urban consumers and rural or local producers, a key aspect of sustainable community development.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular… family farmers…
   • The article indicates a move away from this target by highlighting how the farm bill extension and funding cuts “limit support for family farmers” and fail to support “beginning farmers and ranchers,” while changes to payment limits pave the way for “very large operations to consume disproportionate amounts of conservation dollars.”
2. Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices… that progressively improve land and soil quality.
   • This target is central to the article’s concerns. The legislation is criticized for restricting farmers’ ability to “invest in clean water, and build healthy soil.” The cuts to conservation programs and support for “sustainable grazing practices” and “resource-conserving cropping systems” directly threaten the achievement of this target.
3. Target 15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil…
   • The emphasis on the need to “build healthy soil” and the funding for programs like the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) and Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative directly relate to this target of restoring land and soil quality. The funding cuts mentioned are a setback for this goal.
4. Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all…
   • The article implies that the policy changes are exclusionary. The failure to extend the CRP-Transition Incentive Program, which helps beginning farmers, and the removal of payment caps for large operations actively work against the economic inclusion of smaller, new, and family-run farms.
5. Target 3.8: Achieve universal health coverage, including… access to quality essential health-care services…
   • The article explicitly states that “negotiations over the weekend have so far failed to make progress toward ensuring… access to affordable healthcare,” particularly for rural communities, directly referencing the challenge of achieving this target.
6. Target 11.a: Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas…
   • The funding cuts to the “Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production” and the “Local Agriculture Market Program” (including Value Added Producer Grants and Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Grants) directly weaken the infrastructure and financial support for creating and maintaining these vital links.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Financial Investment in Conservation and Sustainable Agriculture: The article provides specific monetary figures that serve as direct indicators of commitment to environmental and sustainable farming goals.
   • Funding for Conservation Technical Assistance: Cut by nearly $100M to $679.6M.
   • Funding for the Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production: Cut by $2M to $5M.
   • Funding for Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative: Cut by $2M to $8M.
   • Funding for Value Added Producer Grants: Cut from $11.5M to $8M.
2. Policy Mechanisms for Equity and Support: The presence or absence of specific program rules and incentives are key indicators of whether policy is supporting small and beginning farmers.
   • Status of payment limits for EQIP and CSP: The article notes the “failure to extend payment limits,” indicating a policy shift that benefits large operations.
   • Funding for the CRP-Transition Incentive Program: The article states the program “will no longer be able to offer incentives,” indicating a complete halt in support for transitioning land to beginning farmers through this mechanism.
3. Access to Social Services: The article implies that access to essential services is a key measure of well-being in rural communities.
   • Timely disbursement of full SNAP benefits: Mentioned as an area where progress has failed.
   • Access to affordable healthcare: Explicitly cited as a goal that has not been advanced for rural communities.

4. Summary of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: sustainableagriculture.net