America’s prairies are under attack — we need them in the fight against climate change

The U.S. has ambitious plans to zero out greenhouse gas emissions across the economy by 2050 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. A key part of this effort is maximizing the ability of landscapes and seascapes to absorb emissions. Paradoxically, two federal programs — one intended to mitigate risks for farmers through insurance subsidies, and the other to expand the use of biofuels — are unintentionally spurring the conversion of prairies, endangering one of the most potent natural allies in the climate fight.

Rather than reforming the programs, the federal government could decide in the coming weeks to increase the volume under the biofuels program, which would incentivize land conversion even more.

In 2020 alone, nearly 1.8 million acres of grasslands were destroyed in the Great Plains, leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions, damaging wildlife habitat and threatening the foundation of a vibrant ranching sector and rural communities. A study of 12 Midwestern states found that the grassland-to-cropland conversion of more than 7,700 square miles between 2008 and 2016 caused significant soil degradation and carbon losses.

Heavily subsidized federal crop insurance that reimburses farmers for yield losses or price drops significantly reduces the cost and the risk to farmers, encouraging them to shift production into marginal lands once considered too risky for farming — including drought-prone areas like grasslands — to grow more crops. Mounting evidence, including specific studies in the Northern Great Plains, shows that subsidized crop insurance encourages conversion of lands.

The federal biofuels program, which requires a certain amount of biofuels to be blended into transportation fuels, is also accelerating the encroachment into natural land. Biofuels markets are pushing farmers to turn intact prairie into rows of corn and soybeans to meet demands under the program. Today, biofuel production uses up roughly 45 percent of corn and 30 percent of soybean oil produced in the U.S.

This is happening even though, to qualify for the renewables program, producers are required to grow energy crops on farmland that already existed when the program began in 2007. By law, they cannot convert natural land to grow crops for biofuels and qualify as renewable under the program.

In reality, the federal government has failed to enforce this safeguard.

The problem is that the government tracks changes in land use only at the national level. In other words, so long as the total land used for agriculture stays the same or below the level of the 2007 baseline, the government assumes that natural lands are not being converted for biofuels. This flawed monitoring system masks conversion by failing to capture the millions of acres of cropland lost to urban and suburban development that are then replaced by an equal amount of natural land that has been converted to cropland.

This oversight has opened the door for millions of acres of grassland to be cleared for renewable fuels eligible for the program. A 2017 study found that recent grassland conversion is concentrated around ethanol refineries, establishing a direct connection between the two. In 2018, the agency that administers the program reported to Congress that the production of biofuels is responsible for expanding cropland by up to 7.8 million acres — an area nearly the size of Maryland.

Both the federal crop insurance program and the biofuels program are in urgent need of reform.

The government should deny crop insurance subsidies for all crops grown on land converted from intact grasslands and instead further incentivize regenerative farming practices that bring environmental benefits to existing farmland and sustainable grazing on grasslands.

The U.S. should also revise the current conversion monitoring approach under the biofuels program. It should use tracking options, including receipts for agricultural products as well as satellite and aerial imagery, to implement a rigorous monitoring system.

Finally, the renewable fuels volume requirements should be adjusted downward, not upward, to ease the pressure on farmers to grow energy crops.

To be clear, crop insurance subsidies are critical because they provide an important safety net to American farmers. The safety net should help farmers to responsibly manage risks and stay profitable while also protecting prairies. Likewise, renewable fuels must meet standards for cutting emissions compared to fossil fuels while also avoiding environmental harm.

The government can amend these initiatives to stop the production of a handful of commodities from driving conversion in America’s prairies and help restore biodiversity that will in turn boost productivity on existing farmland. In doing so, the U.S. will support the viability of American farmers and advance its climate goals.

Melissa D. Ho is senior vice president of freshwater and food at World Wildlife Fund in Washington, D.C.