By Jennifer Whitlock
Field Editor

Comments submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its proposed Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry (CSAF) Partnership Program suggesting a “climate-smart” commodity label garnered the attention of Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.

“I think it would be beneficial for American farmers if we had basically a standardized approach towards what a sustainably produced or climate-smart commodity actually consists of,” Vilsack said during a recent press teleconference. “In a sense, you’ve got organic crops, and you’ve got the rest. And this is, essentially, kind of the third category.”

Under the USDA’s CSAF initiative, the agency seeks to help farmers and ranchers overcome barriers it says have prevented climate-smart commodity markets from reaching scale.

The program would encourage adoption of CSAF practices and promote markets for those commodities, according to an agency brochure released earlier this year.

USDA will begin accepting applications for a CSAF pilot program in 2022, according to Vilsack. Those projects will help the agency to collect data to inform standards measuring the climate benefits of CSAF practices.

“The market is demanding sustainability. The problem is the market doesn’t do a particularly good job of defining what sustainability is,” he said. “And that’s the purpose of this…to establish that standard and help to establish that value-added component to whatever is being raised through climate-smart practices.”

Agricultural organizations that provided comments on the CSAF partnership program generally supported some sort of labeling indicating sustainability practices.

But they cautioned against making any federal labeling program too burdensome, complicated or costly.

Climate-smart labeling will need to be affordable to be attainable for smaller farms and ranches, according to American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF).

“A market’s credibility comes from its ability to certify, quantify and verify that the asset generated is legitimate. Many market-operators are relying on third-party verification systems to add a layer of credibility to their market,” AFBF wrote in submitted comments. “Regardless of how verification occurs, the bottom line is that verification will be an added cost to market participation. Farm Bureau would support efforts to reduce verification uncertainty and costs so that more of the ecosystem credit dollar goes back to the farmer.”

And any label or other climate-smart program practice should be voluntary, not mandatory, AFBF noted.

“At the heart of our work is a commitment that any climate policy should do no harm with regard to our members’ farms, forests and ranches, the environment and existing farm programs,” the organization wrote. “Farm Bureau does not believe USDA should set standards for private market activity but rather support efforts to protect and enable farmers’ participation, as well as connect farmers with opportunities, promote transparency and provide information to producers who would like to voluntarily participate in these new market opportunities.”