The team behind the groundbreaking “Blue Carbon, Green Fields” project in Hood Canal, Washington is facing an uncertain future after the USDA abruptly canceled the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities initiative. This decision has put their innovative supply chain at risk and threatens to undo the progress they have made in addressing the issue of excess seaweed in Puget Sound.
The project, which aimed to harvest seaweed from shellfish farms and use it as a soil-building replacement for chemical fertilizers, was a collaboration between shellfish farmers, researchers, conservationists, and agricultural producers. With federal support from the Biden administration, the team had high hopes for the project’s success in reducing excess seaweed, improving soil health, and sequestering carbon.
However, just a year into the project, the USDA announced the cancellation of the initiative, citing high administrative fees and a lack of direct benefits to farmers. This decision has left the team in limbo, with their equipment unused and their supply chain in jeopardy.
Former USDA Under Secretary Robert Bonnie has disputed the agency’s claims about administrative costs, arguing that the diverse nature of the projects required different levels of support. He maintains that the initiative was designed to provide flexibility and support to a wide range of projects, including those that may have higher administrative costs.
Despite the setback, the team remains determined to continue their work. They are exploring alternative funding sources and are hopeful that they can find a way to revive the project and continue their efforts to address the environmental challenges facing Puget Sound.
The cancellation of the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities initiative may have thrown a wrench in their plans, but the team behind “Blue Carbon, Green Fields” is not giving up. They remain committed to their mission and are determined to find a way forward, even in the face of uncertainty. The new Advancing Markets for Producers initiative was born out of the sunset of the Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program. This transition marked a significant shift in priorities and criteria for grant awardees, leading to confusion and distress among former grantees.
Under the Trump administration’s new policy, grant recipients were required to ensure that a minimum of 65 percent of their funds went directly to farmers. Projects that did not meet this threshold were terminated, with grantees given the option to resubmit their proposals to align with the new priorities.
One such grantee, the group behind Blue Carbon, Green Fields, found themselves among the 115 projects that were initially terminated. The University of Washington, which led the initiative, received a termination notice citing their failure to meet the Farmer First policy priorities outlined by the USDA.
Sarah Collier, the UW assistant professor leading the initiative, described the impact of the termination as devastating. The project had to come to a halt, affecting not only the research team but also the farmers who were involved in the program. Despite the challenges, Collier and her team decided to resubmit their proposal in the hopes of salvaging their funding.
However, the resubmission process has been shrouded in secrecy, with former grantees hesitant to speak out for fear of retaliation. The lack of clear communication and changes in guidance leading up to the submission deadline have added to the confusion and distress experienced by the grantees.
The uncertainty surrounding the final funding decision has left many grantees on edge, anxiously awaiting a verdict that could determine the future of their projects. Hannah Smith-Brubaker, executive director at Pasa, a nonprofit organization that also had to resubmit their proposal, expressed concerns over the outcome and the potential implications of their involvement in a federal lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s funding freeze.
Despite the challenges, both Collier and Smith-Brubaker remain hopeful that they will be able to leverage the funds for the benefit of farmers. They acknowledge the importance of adapting to the new reality and are grateful for the opportunity to continue their work in support of sustainable agriculture.
In the midst of these transitions, the USDA has taken steps to comply with President Biden’s executive orders on climate action, environmental justice, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. These actions signal a commitment to addressing pressing issues in the food and farming industry, despite the challenges faced by grant recipients during this period of change. In a surprising move, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently announced the termination of more than 145 awards totaling $148.6 million of “Woke DEI Funding” in mid-June. This decision was followed by the posting of a final rule in the Federal Register on July 10, revoking a longstanding provision that ensured “disadvantaged” producers have equitable access to federal support. This rule allowed for carve-outs specifically for groups that have historically faced discrimination, such as Black and Indigenous farmers. Additionally, guidelines implemented during the Biden administration that mandated schools administering federal meal programs to ban discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation were also revoked by the USDA.
Among the terminated projects was the Blue Carbon, Green Fields initiative, a climate-smart project aimed at promoting sustainable agricultural practices. The sudden termination of this project has left many stakeholders shocked and disappointed. Some believe that the USDA’s decision was influenced by pressure to align with far-right ideologies and to be perceived as anti-climate and anti-woke.
Bonnie, who was involved in designing and implementing the PCSC initiative, expressed disappointment in the USDA’s actions. He believes that the administration initially underestimated the support for the program and the importance of climate-smart agriculture. The decision to invite grantees to resubmit their applications may indicate a realization of the backlash against the termination of the project.
If the Blue Carbon, Green Fields project receives new funding from the USDA, changes to the budget proposal will have significant implications for how the project is carried out. Under the new requirements, a substantial portion of the funds will need to go directly to participating producers instead of project partners like the University of Washington team. This structural change may pose challenges for small farmers who already struggle with limited resources and time.
Ellen Scheffer, a small farmer involved in the project, expressed feelings of defeat and frustration about the future. She believes that the revised resubmission process will make it more complicated for farmers to access the services they need. Other stakeholders, like Viva Farms, feel that the momentum of the project has come to a halt and the likelihood of revival seems low.
Overall, the termination of the Blue Carbon, Green Fields project and other climate-smart initiatives has raised concerns about the USDA’s commitment to sustainable agriculture and environmental stewardship. The decision to revoke funding and support for these programs has left many stakeholders feeling disheartened and uncertain about the future of sustainable agriculture in the United States. After facing setbacks with the USDA grant program, farmer Jim Davis has decided to take matters into his own hands. Instead of following the traditional route of directing grant money to project leads, Davis is focusing on supporting local farmers in his community. He believes that this approach makes more sense and is more beneficial in the long run.
Working alongside his daughter Hannah and colleague Emily Buckner from the Puget Sound Restoration Fund, Davis is spearheading a new project to create a shorter seaweed supply chain. By collaborating with producers in the Chimacum Valley, all within a twenty-mile radius of his farm, Davis aims to streamline the process and reduce unnecessary research efforts. While this new venture may not have the same scope as the previous project funded by the USDA, Davis is determined to pursue his passion and see where it leads.
Despite the challenges he faced with the grant program, Davis is making use of the equipment purchased with the funds. He is currently testing a raft-based suction system to harvest excess seaweed around sensitive geoduck habitats. This innovative approach demonstrates Davis’s commitment to finding practical solutions and moving forward with his plans.
“We’ve got the equipment, and we’re going to harvest it and dry some and see where this can go,” Davis stated. “We want to move forward with that, just to see if it works.” By taking a hands-on approach and utilizing available resources, Davis is paving the way for a more sustainable and efficient seaweed harvesting process.
In conclusion, Jim Davis’s determination and resourcefulness are evident in his decision to forge his own path in the world of seaweed farming. By focusing on supporting local farmers and exploring new methods of harvesting, Davis is shaping a more resilient and community-driven industry. His dedication to his craft and willingness to adapt to challenges make him a true pioneer in the field of sustainable agriculture.
