Farmers in one Midwest state may lose conservation resources, allowing soil to ‘fly in the breeze’ – KCUR

Impact of Illinois Budget Cuts on Sustainable Development Goal Attainment in Agriculture

Executive Summary

Recent state budget cuts to Illinois’ Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs) present a significant challenge to the state’s progress on several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Reductions in funding threaten established programs that support sustainable agriculture, directly impacting goals related to food security, clean water, terrestrial ecosystems, and climate resilience.

Threat to SDG 15 (Life on Land) and SDG 2 (Zero Hunger)

The primary function of SWCDs is to promote soil conservation, a practice fundamental to achieving SDG 15.3 (combat desertification and restore degraded land) and SDG 2.4 (ensure sustainable food production systems). Severe budget cuts, which have reduced funding by nearly half over two years, jeopardize these efforts.

• Increased Soil Degradation: Reduced support for conservation practices risks a return to conditions that foster soil erosion, as evidenced by a recent major dust storm originating from agricultural fields. This directly contravenes the objective of achieving a land degradation-neutral world.
• Compromised Food Security: Healthy soil is the foundation of agricultural productivity. The erosion of this vital resource threatens the long-term viability of farming in Illinois, undermining the resilience and sustainability of food production systems as outlined in SDG 2.

Jeopardizing SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation)

SWCDs are instrumental in implementing practices that protect water resources, a core component of SDG 6. For decades, farmers have utilized SWCD-supported programs to protect local water quality.

• Water Pollution: The districts facilitate the creation of filter strips and other measures that reduce sediment and nutrient runoff into waterways, directly contributing to SDG Target 6.3 (improve water quality by reducing pollution).
• Ecosystem Health: By mitigating agricultural pollution, SWCDs help protect and restore water-related ecosystems, aligning with SDG Target 6.6. The reduction in their operational capacity poses a direct threat to the health of these ecosystems.

Undermining SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals)

The operational model of SWCDs exemplifies the effective public-private partnerships called for in SDG 17. They serve as a critical link between government conservation programs and local farmers. The current funding crisis threatens to dismantle this effective partnership structure.

1. Trusted Intermediaries: SWCD staff are often members of the local community, enabling them to build trust with farmers and encourage the adoption of new, sustainable practices more effectively than centralized government agencies.
2. Expert Guidance: The districts provide essential technical expertise, helping farmers navigate complex conservation programs and ensure legal compliance, thereby facilitating the successful implementation of national and state-level sustainability policies.
3. Resource Accessibility: SWCDs connect farmers to grants, funding, and equipment, removing barriers to the adoption of conservation methods. Impending layoffs and operational cutbacks will severely limit this accessibility.

Conclusion: A Setback for Climate Action and Sustainable Development

The drastic funding cuts to Illinois SWCDs represent a significant setback for integrated sustainable development. By weakening the state’s capacity for soil and water conservation, the cuts not only threaten progress on SDG 2, SDG 6, and SDG 15 but also diminish the state’s resilience to climate-related hazards like drought and extreme weather, as targeted by SDG 13 (Climate Action). The erosion of this institutional framework compromises Illinois’ ability to maintain its natural resource base and ensure a sustainable future for its agricultural sector.

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

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
• SDG 15: Life on Land
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

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

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices that increase productivity and production, that help maintain ecosystems, that strengthen capacity for adaptation to climate change, extreme weather, drought, flooding and other disasters and that progressively improve land and soil quality.
     
     Explanation: The article focuses on conservation programs for farmers, such as using filter strips and promoting new farming methods to maintain soil health. These practices are essential for sustainable agriculture. The article highlights the risk of soil degradation (“soil could dry up and blow away in dust storms”) if these programs lose support, directly impacting the resilience and sustainability of food production systems.

2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials…
     
     Explanation: The article explicitly mentions that conservation programs on farms include “filter strips, which slow sediment and pollution from entering nearby waters.” It also references efforts in Iowa focused on “nutrient reduction, and specifically nitrate reduction in certain areas,” which directly addresses the goal of improving water quality by reducing agricultural pollution.

3. SDG 15: Life on Land

   • Target 15.3: By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world.
     
     Explanation: The primary role of the Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs), as described in the article, is to “slow down soil erosion and promote conservation.” The article warns that without the support of SWCDs, “farmers’ soil could dry up and blow away in dust storms,” citing a recent dust storm as a “direct result of poor soil health.” This directly relates to combating land degradation and soil erosion.

4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     Explanation: The article centers on the operational viability of SWCDs, which are described as a “subdivision of the state government” and a critical local institution. The state budget cuts from “$13 million to about $7 million” threaten their effectiveness, leading to potential layoffs and a reduced capacity to support farmers. This highlights the challenge of maintaining effective local institutions.

5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.
     
     Explanation: The article emphasizes the importance of the partnership between farmers and SWCDs. It notes that SWCDs “connect farmers to programs, grants and funding” and that trust is key to their success: “If a farmer’s talking to somebody that they know grew up in an adjacent town, they’re a lot more willing to have conversations about new ways of doing things.” This trust-based, local partnership is crucial for implementing conservation practices.

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

1. Target 2.4 (Sustainable Agriculture)

   • Indicator: Adoption of conservation and sustainable farming methods.
     
     Explanation: The article implies this through its discussion of SWCDs helping farmers enroll in conservation programs and offering “educational opportunities for new farming methods.” The success of these programs can be measured by the number of farmers participating and the acreage of land under conservation management.

2. Target 6.3 (Water Quality)

   • Indicator: Reduction in water pollutants from agricultural sources.
     
     Explanation: The article specifically mentions “nitrate reduction” as a focus in Iowa. Progress can be measured by monitoring the levels of nitrates, sediments, and other pollutants in water bodies adjacent to agricultural lands where conservation practices are implemented.

3. Target 15.3 (Land Degradation)

   • Indicator: Area of land affected by soil erosion.
     
     Explanation: The article’s core concern is preventing soil erosion. It mentions the historical context of the Dust Bowl and a recent dust storm caused by “poor soil health.” The amount of topsoil loss or the frequency and intensity of dust storms from agricultural fields can serve as direct indicators of land degradation.

4. Target 16.6 (Effective Institutions)

   • Indicator: Government budget allocated to relevant institutions and staffing levels.
     
     Explanation: The article provides precise figures for this indicator. The state funding for Illinois SWCDs was cut “from nearly $13 million to about $7 million,” and the current allotment is “about $40,000 per district.” The article also mentions an ideal staffing level of “two full-time officers” per district, which is now threatened by layoffs.

5. Target 17.17 (Partnerships)

   • Indicator: Number of farmers engaged in conservation programs through partnerships.
     
     Explanation: The article states that SWCDs are crucial for farmers to “successfully enrolling in conservation programs.” The number of farmers who work with and receive support from their local SWCD can be a measure of the effectiveness of this public-civil partnership.

4. Create a table with three columns titled ‘SDGs, Targets and Indicators” to present the findings from analyzing the article. In this table, list the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), their corresponding targets, and the specific indicators identified in the article.

Source: kcur.org