• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

Supporting the economic and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities.

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Our Work
  • Publications
  • Press
  • Take Action!
  • Blog
  • Donate

Search National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

NSAC's Blog

Who Benefits? A Look at the Partnership for Climate Smart Commodities Preliminary Awards

June 2, 2023

Photo credit: USDA NRCS Texas

In February 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) first announced details of its Partnerships for Climate Smart Commodities (PCSC). The PCSC is a centerpiece of the Biden Administration’s strategy to help farmers and ranchers address climate change. In late 2022 USDA announced further details about projects, and more recently debuted the Partnerships Network. As the PCSC ramps up in earnest, now is an important moment to take stock of where the program stands in spring 2023. 

Overview

The Partnerships hold both promise and unanswered questions. The potential of USDA’s largest ever investment in climate-smart agriculture is undeniable, yet the specific details of each Partnership project–from which practices are implemented on which acres and how well, to the types of farmers participating in each project–matter greatly, and remain unknown. As the Partnership projects launch in earnest throughout late spring and summer 2023, it’s unreasonable to expect this data to be available now. Yet it is absolutely imperative that USDA make this data publicly available in a timely manner so that stakeholders and taxpayers alike can evaluate the investments for themselves.

To date, the extent of publicly available project information comes from the project summaries released in September and December 2022, and the dashboard listing information for finalized projects–41 of them as of May 19, 2023. Although it’s possible to glean understanding from these sources, substantially more detail will be necessary to provide an in-depth analysis of the likely impacts of these projects. Most information within individual project descriptions remains unavailable due to USDA’s commitment to applicants to keep proprietary information out of the public eye. 

Despite these limitations in our current understanding, there are nevertheless conclusions to be drawn from the data that is available. Throughout the remainder of this post–and in future analysis–NSAC will evaluate the available data, and ultimately the success of the Partnerships, based not only on their overall climate benefit, but the extent to which the Partnerships invest in small and midscale farmers, especially BIPOC farmers, and direct funds toward highly diversified, increasingly perennial systems. Such systems should be strongly influenced by indigenous and other traditional agricultural practices that inherently focus on creating highly biodiverse landscapes focused on food more than feed or fuel. 

PCSC 101

The PCSC is divided into two rounds of funding, referred to by USDA as “pools”. Through the first round of grants, USDA prioritized proposals with high greenhouse gas (GHG) and carbon sequestration benefits. The second round prioritized equity and racial justice. Centering equity meant a focus on economic benefits for underserved (and other) producers, significant enrollment of underserved producers, and partnerships with environmental justice organizations, minority-serving institutions of higher education, and other organizations that “serve equity goals or represent small farmers.” 

Roughly half of first pool recipients (29 at the time of the Partnership Network launch) have completed contracts with USDA and are beginning work. As of the publication of this post, those from the second round of funding are still negotiating their contracts with USDA. Both rounds of funding saw successful NSAC member proposals, including three projects on which NSAC members – the National Center for Appropriate Technology, Pasa Sustainable Agriculture, and Marbleseed – are leads. Fifteen projects include NSAC members as either leads or major partners. 

Although USDA is treating much application information as proprietary and consequently the brief project summaries contain little information on the scope of the projects, the summaries do offer a sufficient sketch from which to draw some conclusions.

Distribution of Program Funds

Figure 1. Distribution of funding across Round 1 and Round 2. Almost 90% of funding went to projects in the first funding round, where many of the benefits will flow through lead partners that include large transnational corporations, well-recognized national environmental organizations, and predominantly White-serving universities.

USDA distributed first-round funding across a variety of partners. Since any given project includes multiple types of organizations, this analysis will mostly focus on project lead organizations. 

In the first round, lead partners included a number of for-profit organizations, including a few large, transnational corporations, and some carbon market verifiers whose carbon certification schemes sometimes rest on a shaky foundation. Among the nonprofit lead partners are several well-recognized, national environmental organizations, as well as a variety of other organizations that variously serve farmers, advocate for policy, or offer environmental services payments (Figures 2 and 3). A fuller list of descriptions of Round 1 partners is in Appendix 1, and for Round 2 in Appendix 2. The geographic distribution of currently active projects can be viewed via the USDA Partnerships dashboard. A count of projects in each round touching down in each state, region, or Tribal areas, can be found in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4. 

Figure 2. Round 1 distribution of projects by lead partner type
Figure 3. Round 1 distribution of funds by lead partner type. The average award size was approximately $40 million, ranging from $5 million to $95 million. Three corporate (for-profit) projects received $90 million each. Two non-profit projects received $90 million or more. Three trade association projects exceeded $79 million. Two universities received $80 million each. A table detailing characteristics of lead partners is included at the end of this article. 

In breaking down some of the project categories, it is apparent that some account was taken for equity and racial justice factors in Round 1. Equity was a secondary evaluative factor in the first round. Among recipients were two minority-serving institutions of higher education and one Tribal government (Figures 4 and 5).

Figure 4. Round 1 University lead partner breakdown. Minority-serving institutions made up two of 12 projects led by universities in Round 1. Data labels above include university category, the number of projects in that category, and the total funding for that category.
Figure 5. Round 1 Government lead partner breakdown. One Tribal government project received funding in Round 1. 

By comparison the distribution of lead partners in Round 2 looks fairly similar (Figures 6 and 7). However, the breakdown within the broader categories of lead partners reveals that the distribution of funds more clearly points to the second round focus on equity concerns (Figures 8 and 9). 

Figure 6. Round 2 distribution of projects by lead partner type
Figure 7. Round 2 distribution of funds by lead partner type. Lead partners in Round 2 look fairly similar to Round 1 at first glance, but see breakdowns of government and university lead partners in Figures 8 and 9.
Figure 8. Distribution of projects and funds among Round 2 government lead partners.
Figure 9. Distribution of projects and funds among Round 2 university lead partners.

USDA expected proposals for the Partnerships to focus explicitly on the marketing of certain “commodities.” The Department left the definition of commodity wide open–anything grown on a farm counts. With the large grants awarded in Round 1, projects focused on a wide range of commodities, but more than half of the projects focused on dairy, livestock, or traditional grain, pulse, sugar, and oil commodity crops (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Categories of commodities receiving focus in Round 1. Note that the total (134) adds up to well over the total of 70 projects because many projects will work on more than one category of commodity. Further note that the category of specialty crops includes everything from temperate vegetables, fruits, and nuts, to coffee and bananas. Finally, note that 16 of the 40 dairy and livestock projects include dairy, and eight of those 16 also include other livestock products. 

The biggest difference between the commodities in the first and second round was that Round 2 included more focus on specialty crops, with over a third including them as part of the project focus (Figure 11). 

Figure 11. Categories of commodities receiving focus in Round 2. Again, the total commodity categories (99) exceeds the number of projects (71) because many projects include multiple commodity categories. Just four of the dairy and livestock projects include dairy.

Another important difference between the first and the second round of funding was in the degree of participation by historically underserved farmers. In the first round, 13 projects mentioned some form of outreach to or participation by historically underserved farmers. In the second round of funding, 57 projects explicitly list underserved populations among their foci. 

The focus on measurement and validation in Round 2 was also apparent, with 25 projects explicitly mentioning a focus on measurement, quantification, or validation. Only 15 projects in the first round discussed their measurement approaches as explicitly. 

There was a strong focus on incentive payments for farmers in the second round, with 47 projects mentioning some form of farmer incentive payment. Round 1 included only 18 projects that mentioned farmer incentive payments in their summaries. There was also a stronger focus on technical assistance in the second round, with 34 project summaries mentioning it. Of Round 1 projects, only 16 mentioned technical assistance as part of their approach. By contrast, the first round had 39 projects that mentioned building up markets, and only 13 projects in Round 2 did the same. 

One of the approaches that is likely to offer substantial benefits is a focus on building up networks among farmers and, in some cases, their broader networks, including consumers. Thirteen projects mention some form of network building, six in the first round and seven in the second round.

Although the Partnership is framed as a marketing program, it is, of course, intended to help farmers and foresters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and increase their carbon sequestration. The approaches described in the project summaries vary widely, but 15 projects overall mention cover crops (most in Round 2), and three projects focused on agroforestry. A number of projects discuss the conservation practices only in broad terms such as, “climate-smart agriculture practices,” “climate-smart grazing,” or “decrease greenhouse gas emissions.” However, others, such as the Rice Stewardship Partnership, specifically mention use of alternate wetting and drying cycles and furrow irrigation. 

Because of the Partnerships’ focus on building out markets for climate-beneficial commodities, 52 projects mention some form of building or expanding markets, including 39 of the projects in Round 1. Eight projects also mention easing market access for participating farmers, with six of those in Round 1. Ten projects mention developing supply chains (5 in each round), and twenty-six projects discuss some form of branding, verification, or certification system as an element of their projects. That includes 20 projects in Round 2.  

Further Concerns to Track During Contracting and Implementation

Once USDA begins to release data tracked from these projects, the greater level of detail on conservation practices used, the acres on which they were implemented, and the demographics of farmers that benefited most from them will be essential in determining the success of the Partnerships. Furthermore, from the list of data USDA intends to track, it does not appear that farmer demographic data such as historically underserved status will be available, which will make it especially difficult to judge whether the outcomes of the project serve USDA equity goals. However, it’s possible USDA may include this data in contracts.  We strongly encourage USDA to commit to the public release of substantial data on these and related questions of how Partners spend taxpayer resources. 

In addition, the application process did not require letters of commitment from organizations that project leads listed as part of the project, which has led to some instances of organizations surprised and mystified by their inclusion as a project partner. It is encouraging to hear that such letters are being integrated into the final contracts.

Launch of the Partnerships Network and Opportunities to Share Experiences

Among the goals of the Partnership for Climate Smart Commodities is for the participants to share ideas with each other, including implementation challenges and lessons learned. The Partnership Network had both a public and private kick-off event on April 27, 2023. The public event offered Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack and Under Secretary of Agriculture for Farm Production and Conservation Robert Bonnie an opportunity to have two of the lead partners–the National Black Growers Council and American Forest Foundation–as well as the National Farmers Union, share their goals and outlook for the projects. 

Meanwhile, the closed sessions were intended as an opportunity for Partnership Network members to get to know one another and share details of their experiences. NSAC hears that some Partnership participants discussed concerns about the level of paperwork required, and about the potential of bureaucracy to deter producer participation, especially among historically underserved farmers.

However, participants appreciated the opportunity to get to know one another and look forward to meeting in person in Denver in mid-June.

Closing

The Partnerships offer potential for conservation improvements as well as unanswered questions. NSAC hopes to see project outcomes that reflect both holistic conservation improvements and reversals of some of USDA’s legacy of fraught relationships with historically underserved producers. Finally, with the projects’ focus on market development, the new options that emerge will be of great interest, especially to organizations long involved in the work of organic certification.


Appendix 1: Round 1 Lead Partners Detailed Descriptions

Cooperative lead partners descriptionCountAward Amount
Milk marketing cooperative1$50,000,000
Almond growers Cooperative1$45,000,000
Dairy cooperative1$45,000,000
Certified organic producers, mostly animal products1$25,000,000
Sugar cooperative held by growers and shareholders1$6,000,000
For-profit lead partners descriptionCountAward Amount
Food Corporation’s Farmer Sustainability & Data Services1$90,000,000
Agricultural data and reporting1$90,000,000
Transnational food corporation2$150,000,000
Biofuel or Biomass energy company3$140,000,000
Carbon-focused agricultural consultancy1$70,000,000
Ecosystem services focused, including carbon offsetting2$32,500,000
Environmental science and technology company1$40,000,000
Agronomic services1$30,000,000
Rice miller1$45,000,000
Grain-focused wholesaler, transporter, services1$40,000,000
Seed corporation1$35,000,000
Grassfed organic dairy1$20,000,000
Produce company1$20,000,000
Natural beef farmer1$15,000,000
Low-carbon beef certifier and consultancy1$10,000,000
No publicly available data beyond articles of incorporation1$15,000,000
Government lead partners descriptionCountAward Amount
State government2$85,000,000
County1$10,000,000
Tribal 1$7,000,000
Nonprofit lead partners descriptionCountAward Amount
National environmental protection organization2$155,000,000
Conservation District support1$90,000,000
Membership-based agricultural network1$70,000,000
Agricultural education and outreach1$30,000,000
Sustainable agricultural education and resources1$55,000,000
Organic research and education1$25,000,000
Center for agriculture and environment1$35,000,000
Environmental and racial justice policy advocacy1$35,000,000
Conservation science, governance, and policy advocacy1$25,000,000
Farmland protection and advocacy1$30,000,000
Conservation science, governance, and policy advocacy1$10,000,000
Nonpartisan diplomacy center1$20,000,000
Social, agricultural, environmental development1$20,000,000
Land conservation, community-informed development1$20,000,000
Regenerative business accelerator, focus on carbon sequestration1$20,000,000
Carbon offsets1$15,000,000
Reforestation, food security1$7,500,000
Forest carbon storage1$35,000,000
Forest protection1$30,000,000
“Accelerates economic capacity building”1$15,000,000
Trade association lead partners descriptionCountAward Amount
Farm Bill check-off program2$115,000,000
State Dairy Checkoff program1$85,000,000
Grain association2$145,000,000
Produce and floral1$15,000,000
University lead partner descriptionCountAward Amount
Not a minority-serving institution10$490,000,000
Hispanic-serving institution1$35,000,000
Historically Black College or University1$5,000,000

Appendix 2: Round 2 Lead Partners Detailed Descriptions

Cooperative lead partners descriptionCountAward Amount
Specialty crop cooperative focused on perennial cover crops1$4,900,000
   
For-profit lead partners descriptionCountAward Amount
Carbon marketing company1$3,800,000
Cattle company*1$4,467,000
Cover, turf, and forage seed1$4,722,000
Farms (4)4$13,870,199
Farm services1$4,999,500
Farmer-owned mutual aid and food access1$4,999,999
Forest management1$4,800,000
Hydroponic equipment vendor1$4,697,000
Malt processor and supplier1$4,999,500
Milling company1$4,999,700
Plant-based single-use products1$4,940,000
Supply-chain management1$4,999,600
Vertical farming1$4,999,900
   
Government lead partners descriptionCountAward Amount
County1$      3,250,000
Tribes2$      9,976,700
   
Non-profit lead partnersCountAward Amount
Support for Black row crop growers1$4,789,000
Conservation District support 4$18,094,000
Western working lands education2$8,535,900
Environmental protection1$4,999,997
Farm certification, education, support1$4,935,000
Farm certifier1$4,000,000
Farm policy and education1$4,925,000
Farmer legal and professional education1$4,926,300
Farmer training1$4,770,000
Farmer-led organic support network1$4,500,000
Fiscal sponsor for progressive groups1$4,999,000
Food hub, food & climate education1$4,999,900
Land trust1$4,980,000
Organic education and support1$4,407,000
Peer network for Western landowners**1**$14,997,660
Regenerative stewardship and education1$4,633,900
Rural community development1$560,000
Tribal2$9,850,000
Watershed restoration1$4,994,000
   
Trade AssociationCountAward Amount
Farm Bill checkoff organization1$4,995,000
University project lead partnersCountAward Amount
Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution4$19,763,798
Hispanic-serving institution7$30,396,790
Historically Black College or University12$56,329,198
*details difficult to find on this lead partner; **3 projects funded under this leader

Appendix 3: Round 1 Projects by State, Region, or Tribal Designation

Project LocationsCount
Nationwide3
Tribal14
“Territories”1
Alabama13
Alaska0
Arizona5
Arkansas17
California18
Colorado14
Connecticut4
Delaware4
Florida9
Georgia15
Hawaii3
Idaho11
Illinois12
Indiana17
Iowa15
Kansas17
Kentucky11
Louisiana11
Maine5
Maryland11
Massachusetts5
Michigan12
Minnesota17
Mississippi12
Missouri22
Montana13
Nebraska15
Nevada2
New Hampshire5
New Jersey6
New Mexico8
New York15
North Carolina15
North Dakota14
Ohio13
Oklahoma13
Oregon9
Pennsylvania15
Rhode Island3
South Carolina12
South Dakota15
Tennessee16
Texas18
Utah4
Vermont5
Virginia13
Washington11
West Virginia6
Wisconsin12
Wyoming 11
Puerto Rico2

Appendix 4: Round 2 Projects by State, Region, or Tribal Designation

Project LocationsCount
Nationwide2
Tribal11
Territories1
Alabama8
Alaska1
Arizona6
Arkansas7
California9
Colorado4
Connecticut2
Delaware1
Florida7
Georgia8
Hawaii0
Idaho1
Illinois5
Indiana4
Iowa7
Kansas4
Kentucky5
Louisiana3
Maine1
Maryland3
Massachusetts5
Michigan9
Minnesota5
Mississippi6
Missouri7
Montana3
Nebraska3
Nevada0
New Hampshire2
New Jersey3
New Mexico5
New York5
North Carolina3
North Dakota2
Ohio4
Oklahoma8
Oregon4
Pennsylvania3
Rhode Island0
South Carolina5
South Dakota4
Tennessee3
Texas10
Utah1
Vermont3
Virginia8
Washington4
West Virginia1
Wisconsin4
Wyoming 1
Puerto Rico1

Filed Under: Carousel, Conservation, Energy & Environment, Grants and Programs

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • Action Alerts
  • Beginning and Minority Farmers
  • Budget and Appropriations
  • Carousel
  • Climate Change
  • Commodity, Crop Insurance & Credit Programs
  • Competition & Anti-trust
  • Conservation, Energy & Environment
  • Coronavirus
  • Farm Bill
  • Food Safety
  • General Interest
  • Grants and Programs
  • Implementation & Rule-making
  • Local & Regional Food Systems
  • Marketing and Labeling
  • NSAC Coalition
  • Nutrition & Food Access
  • Organic
  • Press Comment
  • Press Releases
  • Research, Education & Extension
  • Rural Development
  • Sustainable Livestock

Take Action

What's happening right now »

Subscribe for Updates

Footer

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
110 Maryland Avenue NE, Suite 209 Washington, DC 20002
Contact Us

Copyright © 2025 · National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition · All Rights Reserved · Website by Tomatillo Design