Equity Opportunities Project
DRAWDOWN GEORGIA
Alicia Scott & Nadir Sherrod Partnership for Southern Equity (PSE)
Dr. Rebecca Watts Hull Service Learning & Partnerships Specialist Center for Serve-Learn-Sustain, Georgia Institute of Technology
We would like to acknowledge the generous funding of the Ray C. Anderson Foundation, members of the RCE Greater Atlanta who helped to shape this project (see Appendix A), and Adrianne Gore for formatting and providing the report with an attractive design.
Introduction 1
Executive in Residence Atlanta Metropolitan State College
Advancing Carbon Sequestration and Equity through Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 20
E DITORS
Michael Oxman, Managing Director / Professor of the Practice Ray C. Anderson Center for Sustainable Business, Georgia Institute of Technology
Advancing Carbon Sequestration and Equity through Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and Transit Solutions 9
Michael Oxman Managing Director & Professor of the Practice Ray C. Anderson Center for Sustainable Business, Georgia Institute of Technology
Dr. Rebecca Watts Hull, Service Learning and Partnerships Specialist Center for Serve-Learn-Sustain, Georgia Institute of Technology
Lauren Forbes, Hannah Ranson, & Susan Pavlin Taproot
C ONTENTS
References 33 Appendices 36
A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dr. Marilyn Brown, Regents and Brook Byers Professor of Sustainable Systems School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology
V. Anne Heard
4. estimating associated costs and benefits while also considering how the solutions might impact societal priorities, such as economic development opportunities, public health, environmental benefits, and equity (see Brown, Beasley, et al., 2021 for a description of the full methodology).
2. identifying the universe of Georgia-specific carbonreduction solutions that could be impactful by 2030.
The Drawdown Georgia research team systematically examined more than 100 options (including those contained in Project Drawdown) for reducing state-wide carbon footprints and for
1. understanding Georgia’s baseline carbon footprint and trends.
INTRODUCTION
Introduction 1
The Phase 1 research effort included the Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, the University of Georgia, and Georgia State University along with other local partners noted below. The effort was divided across five major categories represented by working groups: electricity, transportation, buildings & materials, food & agriculture, and land sinks. A sixth working group, beyond carbon, examined additional environmental considerations, equity, economic development, and public health across solutions. Local partner organizations working with the beyond carbon working group included the Partnership for Southern Equity (PSE), Greenlink Analytics, and Southface Institute.
Drawdown Georgia is inspired by Project Drawdown and funded by the Ray C. Anderson Foundation (RCAF). It includes a research collaborative whose purpose is to identify the highest potential carbon mitigation strategies for the state of Georgia, while also advancing equity, promoting economic development, improving public health, and nurturing the larger environment.
Background: Drawdown Georgia Research
The Phase 1 research team focused special attention on identifying equity-related issues or concerns, noting: “in states like Georgia with large historical and ongoing inequities across demographic groups, this [focus on equity] is particularly important. Ideally, implementation paths should not only mitigate existing environmental injustices and institutional barriers to access solution benefits but should also go beyond that to erase those inequities” (Brown, Dwivedi, et al., 2021, p.
Note. “A framework for localizing global climate solutions and their carbon reduction potential,” by M.A. Brown, Puneet Dwivedi et al., 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(31), (https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100008118). Copyright 2021 by Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
developing a roadmap with 20 high-impact solutions for Georgia. This down-select process involved:
3. estimating the greenhouse gas reduction potential of these high-impact 2030 solutions for Georgia.
FIGURE 1.1: THE OUTCOME OF QUALITATIVE MULTICRITERIA ASSESSMENT FOR SELECTED ATTRIBUTES, PART OF PHASE 1 BEYOND CARBON RESEARCH
• Barriers and opportunities to solution access, particularly given historic inequities and overall awareness (the figure highlights these concerns for several of the solutions that are the focus of the current project— rooftop solar, retrofitting, and afforestation/silvopasture). Note that the findings from the current study would change the above conservation agriculture rating from green to orange.
The Phase 1 research also identified promising approaches to expanding equity-related benefits and mitigating potential adverse impacts for individual solutions. This included the creation of “logic diagrams” for solutions, linking barriers and equity challenges to tools and opportunities in the ideation of a set of possible initiatives for each solution. An example is shown in Figure 1.2.
The inputs for this work came from qualitative literature reviews, stakeholder input, and expert engagement. Additional information on equity considerations for individual solutions may be found at the Drawdown Georgia website (https:// www.drawdownga.org/), Georgia Tech’s Climate and Energy Policy Laboratory (CEPL) website (https://cepl.gatech.edu/ projects/Drawdown-Georgia), and in subsequent publications such as Brown and Chapman (2021).
As shown in Figure 1.1, the Phase 1 research team identified several benefits across four different dimensions within the beyond carbon category. With respect to equity, identified benefits were largely centered around public health given the anticipated air quality improvements that many solutions will have when displacing fossil fuels. This preliminary work also identified several equity-related issues and themes across the solutions that may be summarized as follows:
• Affordability, such as cost of solutions to individuals and communities— concerns relevant to the current project were identified in the figure for rooftop solar, retrofitting, electric vehicles, and afforestation/silvopasture.
• Diversity among workforce and business owners as, for example, the 2019 Solar Jobs Census found that only 26% of the solar workforce was made up of women and that 73.2% of the overall solar workforce is white. Georgia ranks below national levels in terms of diversity, as women consist of only 18.9% of the solar workforce, and 76.6% of the workforce is white (Solar Jobs Census 2019 | Solar States, n.d.). These workforce concerns highlighted at the time of the Phase 1 research were noted for three solutions that are the focus of the current project - rooftop solar, afforestation/ silvopasture, and retrofitting.
The purpose of this project was to extend the beyond carbon work conducted by the Phase 1 research team with a primary focus on equity opportunities, barriers, and concerns. Specifically, the project sought to incorporate the perspectives and wisdom of stakeholders with expertise in equity and stakeholder groups and communities whose voices were not yet reflected in the beyond carbon equity analyses. In addition, the expanded equity analysis was expected to inform recommendations for organizations interested in advancing equity--as well as carbon mitigation--through their implementation of Drawdown Georgia solutions.
4). The team also conducted a preliminary review across all solutions, which is summarized in Figure 1.1.
Introduction 2
A growing body of scholarship and practice pointing to the complex linkages between environmental quality and human equality has increased attention to equity in efforts to address climate change and build more sustainable societies (see, for example, Agyeman et al., 2003). Similarly, Project Drawdown’s “Drawdown Lift” initiative recognizes the need to “deepen collective understanding of the links between climate change solutions and poverty alleviation” (Project Drawdown, 2022). At the same time, critics still contend that equity considerations receive inadequate attention, in relation to other aspects of sustainability. For example, the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015, which offer the only internationally agreed-upon framework for collaboration around equitable and inclusive sustainability, have been criticized for not explicitly drawing attention to structural racism and inequities and for inadequate representation from “front-line” leaders and groups (Echoing Green, 2019).
As described above, the Drawdown Georgia Phase 1 collaborative effort identified the 20 highest potential carbon mitigation solutions for the state of Georgia and completed a preliminary examination of potential impacts and opportunities related to beyond carbon dimensions, including equity. In late 2020, members of the beyond carbon working group began discussing ideas for a project that would extend that group’s initial equity analyses. For the 20 solutions or a subset of them, a team would undertake additional research and stakeholder outreach to develop a more robust analysis and set of recommendations for advancing equity and addressing historic inequities in relation to the selected Drawdown Georgia solutions. The effort would result in a set of recommendations
Project Purpose: Drawdown Georgia Equity Opportunities
Current Project Context
Acknowledging these gaps and critiques, the Drawdown Georgia Equity Opportunities Project sought to solicit and synthesize a broader array of Georgia “front-line” expertise regarding selected Drawdown Georgia solutions in order to support equity advancement in their implementation.
FIGURE 1.2: BARRIERS AND ACCELERANTS FOR SOLAR PV IN GEORGIA
Note. From “Rooftop solar for all: Closing the gap between the technically possible and the achievable,” by M. A. Brown, J. Hubbs et al, Energy Research & Social Science, 80 (2021), 102203, (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102203). Copyright 2021 by Energy Research & Social Science.
After identifying the above solutions, each team provided recommendations for statewide stakeholders with expertise or a vested interest in these solutions via an equity lens. To accelerate the work of stakeholder identification, team leaders contracted Garry Harris of the Center for Sustainable
Introduction 3 for actors and organizations interested in advancing the Drawdown Georgia solutions in Georgia.
Selecting Solutions for Equity Analysis
Equity Stakeholder Identification
RCE Greater Atlanta Engagement
In January 2021, the RCE GA team began meeting weekly to review the 20 solutions identified as priorities by the Phase 1 research team and examine the equity analyses completed by the Phase 1 beyond carbon team. Five equity working groups then completed additional research related to equity aspects of the solutions, with each focused on one of the five major categories. Each equity working group identified the top priority solution for additional equity analysis within their category, with the electricity and transportation groups also choosing a second, lower priority, solution. The full RCE GA team reviewed all the working group recommendations and the team decided, by consensus, that this project should prioritize expanding upon the Phase 1 equity analyses for five solutions, with two lower priority solutions, as indicated in Table 1.1. With this prioritization, the project moved forward with the aspiration that the remaining solutions would be the subject of a future, similar study.
The idea was further developed in consultation with members of the RCE Greater Atlanta (RCE GA). The RCE Greater Atlanta was recognized in December 2017 by the United Nations University as a Regional Centre of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development. RCE GA brings together universities and colleges across metro Atlanta with nonprofit, community, government, and business partners to advance sustainable development education and action with a strong equity and justice focus. Several Action Groups shape the network’s collaborative initiatives, and members in two of these groups-Advancing Justice for All (AJFA) and Business Engagement— volunteered to participate in this project (See Appendix A for a list of all RCE GA team members as well as members of the leadership team that managed the project). RCE GA engagement in this research project was intended to diversify and expand the types of expertise and perspectives engaged in examining equity implications and opportunities associated with the Drawdown Georgia solutions.
Communities (CSC) to expand the set of identified stakeholders for the solutions identified as equity priorities. CSC reviewed the preliminary list developed by the RCE GA team and identified additional community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations, local and state agencies, and other stakeholders with key perspectives on equity opportunities associated with the Drawdown Georgia solutions listed in Table 1.1. CSC also evaluated geographic representation of the identified stakeholders by solution, aiming to identify appropriate stakeholders for each solution across every geographic region of Georgia.
interview process revealed that it would be unlikely to find a consultant equally familiar with equity concerns and stakeholder groups associated with all five of the topic areas. As a result, the team selected two consultants to lead the research and analysis phase, with Partnership for Southern Equity (PSE) leading the outreach relating to energy, buildings and materials, and transportation, and Taproot leading on food/agriculture and land sink solutions. Specifically, PSE engaged appropriate stakeholders to conduct an equity analysis for rooftop solar, building retrofitting, public transit, and, with lower priority, energy-efficient vehicles and large-scale solar; their geographic areas of focus were Greater Atlanta, Middle Georgia, and Coastal Georgia. Taproot consultants led the equity analysis for conservation agriculture, afforestation, and silvopasture, with a focus on rural regions in Georgia (and light engagement with Greater Atlanta stakeholders).
Stakeholder Engagement and Data Collection
Introduction 4
With a preliminary list of equity stakeholders in hand, the project leadership team determined that there was a need for a stakeholder engagement and research facilitator(s) to further develop research questions, determine the type of outreach most appropriate to each solution (e.g., interviews, charettes), conduct the outreach, and collect and synthesize the data. The team developed and disseminated a Request for Proposals (see Appendix B) and interviewed eight strong candidates. The
The leadership team supported both consulting teams’ outreach planning and provided opportunities for the RCE GA team to participate in further refinement of the outreach and data collection process. Taproot and PSE reviewed the written
Celebrating the launch of the Greater Atlanta Regional Centre of Expertise on Education for Sustainable Development (RCE GA) in October 2018 at the National Center for Civil and Human Rights in Atlanta. A group of RCE GA members contributed to the project resulting in this report (see Appendix A for a list of RCE GA contributors.)
TABLE
Historical Factors Limiting Solution Access
Both reports summarize many of the historical inequities that shape current barriers to solution awareness and access, including:•solution affordability due to high upfront costs for solution adoption. This is perhaps the single most significant barrier from an equity perspective for all solutions examined in this 1.1: PRIORITIES FOR SUBSEQUENT EQUITY ANALYSIS
Afforestation
Second Choice Large-scale solar Energyvehiclesefficient NA NA NA
in July 2021, both organizations engaged "professional" stakeholders that included staff with organizations engaged in advancing the solutions. In addition, the organizations engaged "equity" stakeholders that included change agents working in related areas as well as community members who would be impacted by solution implementation. They used a combination of focus group and individual interviews to gather data. Taproot and PSE methodologies are described in detail in the full reports that follow this introduction.
Both reports that were commissioned contain a set of findings from stakeholder data (these findings are summarized in both reports in Appendices) and recommendations based upon those findings (as well as secondarily on consultant expertise). This section provides an overall summary of themes common to both reports. Where possible, these findings also incorporate highlights from the Phase 1 beyond carbon working group and other prior work of the Drawdown Georgia research team. A valuable contribution of these reports is the specificity of findings as they relate to each of the solutions examined. In addition to confirming the crucial importance of addressing challenges associated with systemic racism, identified by a number of studies, these reports also:
Summary of Findings
that address historic inequities and prioritize funding and programs that promote equity—particularly racial equity—as the Drawdown Georgia stakeholders work to reduce carbon in the Theatmosphere.projectleadership team engaged the RCE GA volunteer team and the three consulting groups to collaborate and make decisions in ways that reflect RCE’s commitment to advancing equity and justice. While undoubtedly falling short at times, throughout the process the leadership team sought to balance engagement of a large and diverse group of collaborators with the project timeline, while also managing challenges associated with stakeholder engagement during a pandemic.
Data Synthesis and Analysis
rationales for selecting the priority solutions, the stakeholder lists developed for the RCE GA team and CSC, and interviewed Drawdown Georgia solution authors before developing a plan of action. Each consulting team drew on its expertise and networks to further refine the list of equity stakeholders for the seven priority solutions, develop an outreach and research strategy, and prepare questions for use in interviews and focus groups. Georgia Tech team leaders worked with Marilyn Brown, Drawdown Georgia Phase 1 research project Principal Investigator and the Georgia Tech Institutional Review Board (IRB) to secure review and approval of the study (See Appendix StartingC).
Introduction 5
Limitations of the Project
This initiative sought to extend the breadth and depth of equity considerations, analysis, and recommendations developed by the Phase 1 beyond carbon team. The equity project was viewed as a “second step” toward more fully integrating equity advancement into Drawdown Georgia solution considerations, rather than a comprehensive literature review and engagement of all equity stakeholders in the State of Georgia. This equity report provides some guideposts for community-based organizations, nonprofit organizations (small to large), government agencies (state and local), grassroots leaders, advocacy organizations, and organizations that fund these groups to advance the seven carbon reduction solutions in ways
1. identify and elevate a set of tangible barriers and opportunities that can be addressed by various actors.
First Choice Rooftop Solar Mass transit Conservationagriculture Retrofitting silvopasture&
Following completion of the draft reports in late fall 2021, the team leaders facilitated a review process designed to strengthen this report’s usefulness for a variety of target audiences. The review and revision process included feedback from the team leaders, RCAF, and Drawdown Georgia research working group leads.
2. highlight the importance of meaningful engagement to identify issues of concern and stakeholder involvement in designing and activating potential interventions.
Electricity Transportation Food Agriculture& BuildingsMaterialsand Land Sinks
Procedural Equity
• infrastructure challenges including the lack of connectivity among rural solution stakeholders, particularly for smaller Black farmers that are the primary focus of the Taproot report. Especially in rural Georgia, limited broadband access constrains access to real-time electricity rates. Improving access would support more cost-effective energy efficiency and demand response and support access to distributed solar and other solutions that require smart devices (Brown and Chapman, 2021). Other infrastructure challenges result from racial bias (noted below) which affects, for example, expansion of, and access to, new mass transit infrastructure.
• legal barriers such as challenges associated with heirs’ property land tenure that constrains the ability of Black farmers to sustainably grow and profit from any number of farming practices. Heirs’ property status contributes to insecure land tenure, which makes it difficult for families to invest in practices that offer carbon and economic benefits, and many rural landowners have difficulty accessing affordable legal assistance (Schelhas et al., 2016).
• financial barriers including overall income disparity across the state and along racial lines. For example, Atlanta (and Georgia more broadly) has very high energy burden rates and some 40% of Georgia Power customers are at or below the federal poverty threshold (see Understanding Energy Burden and its Potential Solutions for Atlanta for additional detail). These financial barriers also encompass lending practices such as redlining that have been historically discriminatory for Black homes and businesses seeking to build wealth. With the net worth of a typical white family [in the US] nearly ten times greater than that of a Black family (McIntosh et al., 2020), disparities in wealth and income influence access to carbon reduction solutions, such as rooftop solar.
report. Upfront costs are often prohibitive whether they relate to the adoption of conservation agriculture practices or installation of rooftop solar panels. Financing alternatives (such as Pay as You Save discussed under recommendations) offer potential pathways but remain relatively limited for most equity stakeholders at the current time.
• policy barriers that render large-scale solutions more difficult to implement, particularly in under-resourced communities. Policy barriers are prominently noted in both reports. Electricity solution challenges include a lack of net metering (to advance rooftop solar) and the use of federal tax rebates to support both rooftop solar and retrofitting that are inaccessible to households without tax liabilities (Brown, Hubbs, et al., 2021 and Brown & Chapman, 2021). In addition, while there are numerous examples of utilitysponsored programs to offer low-income households retrofitting and rooftop solar, these typically have difficulty achieving scale because they are often funded via philanthropy rather than as part of the core business (such utility programming typically does not meet ratepayer and economic tests for more direct interventions). Furthermore, non-energy benefits (safety, health, air quality, etc.) are also not generally recognized in these tests, thereby further limiting the program’s economic viability (Brown et al., 2020). As another example, limitations inherent in current food procurement and contracting policies/standards are cited as significant barriers to adopting conservation agriculture practices.
Solution Awareness
Introduction 6
• institutional barriers including misalignment between actual circumstances of potential solution adopters and government programs (such as USDA assistance programs for small farmers described in the Taproot report). Similarly, rooftop solar and retrofitting programs are only suitable for homes that have reasonable “shells” with insulation and minimal structural damage. While there are federal and state programs that can help with weatherization, these are often difficult to access and have qualifying challenges for many residents (see Understanding Energy Burden and its Potential Solutions for Atlanta).
Among stakeholders consulted in this project, many offered feedback that communities across Georgia, particularly those that are under-resourced, are not well versed on the solutions themselves either overall or in terms of their specific benefits. For example, rooftop solar and residential retrofitting can have a significant impact (particularly when the two solutions are combined) not only on carbon mitigation, but also on the nonenergy benefits noted above such as air quality improvements, long-term cost reduction for residents, and potential job/ business opportunities. In other cases, such as with conservation agriculture, many farmers are aware of the benefits but may lack the resources and specific knowledge while also facing barriers such as high capital investment requirements. Sociodemographic differences in familiarity with solutions are being examined in Phase 2 by the Drawdown Georgia Research Team.
• racial bias and inequities in the areas of mass transit, retrofitting, and rooftop solar solutions, consistent with findings of Wyczalkowski et al. (2020), Brown et al. (2020), and Sunter et al. (2019). In the case of rooftop solar, racial disparities are clear, even when controlling for income. Certainly, many of the preceding challenges also reflect historical racism and racial bias that continue to impact stakeholder circumstances to the present.
While challenging to implement effectively, co-production of research projects by stakeholders and academic scientists in all stages of research (from question development through data
Nevertheless, stakeholders consulted in this project pointed to a need for more outreach and engagement on equity during the earliest stages of project design to ensure that equity is meaningfully integrated throughout the entire research initiative. Such procedural equity can help to advance a broad range of interventions and recommendations (summarized below) and can help to address many of the above barriers to solution adoption discussed in the two reports.
Recommendations for Drawdown Georgia Partners and Supporters
Each report provides summary recommendation tables for the solutions that were addressed. The recommendations that emerged from stakeholder input include both short-term and long-term proposals and range from specific and concrete actions to recommendations for institutional and policy change.
Both equity reports include recommendations that would benefit from the engagement of funders (federal funding agencies, economic development initiatives, foundations, corporate partners, etc.) in the areas of capacity-building and programmatic support. For example, stakeholder input from rural smallholders pointed to a need for greater investment in community-based organizations and networks supporting Black farmers and state-wide and regional organizations that provide technical, logistical, legal, and financial support for conservation and regenerative farming for small and mediumsized landowners. Similarly, PSE’s recommendations include greater investment in outreach, education, and investment in communities with high energy burdens to increase homeowner, renter, and rental property owner access to programs that reduce the upfront costs of home weatherization.
collection and analysis) supports the inclusion of socio-technical perspectives by bringing diverse perspectives to the table (Sauermann et al., 2020). In the case of Drawdown Georgia, equity considerations were included in Phase 1 research via the “beyond carbon” working group noted previously, through an online survey of some 1800 Georgia residents (that included an assessment of energy burden), and RCAF-led interviews and civic dinners following the Phase 1 research launch. In addition, every academic publication sponsored by Drawdown Georgia has addressed issues of equity and inclusion. The Drawdown Georgia research team also includes academic partners who are national leaders in the field of energy and climate equity.
The reports highlight issue-specific funding opportunities, such as bringing WiFi/broadband to rural farming communities; offering technical support and value proposition demonstrations for solution adoption targeting under-resourced individuals/ communities directly and/or via community-based organizations; advocating for specific policy changes such as net metering or weatherization programming, etc. This issue-led approach may help to align recommendations with specific funder priorities and focus areas. Another approach/opportunity would be to support existing organizations’ (e.g. Black Farmers Network, Rural Studies Institute, Partnership for Southern Equity) programs and priorities that address (or could expand to address) a broader range of equity issues. Finally, given the specificity, complexity, interconnectedness, and breadth of the equity-related issues uncovered in the two reports, there is a distinct opportunity and need for regional transformation efforts to focus on equity and climate holistically (e.g. launch a
In addition, the “Looking Ahead” sections offer suggestions for additional research and community engagement that could build upon the work of this project. This section draws on both sets of recommendations to highlight near-term opportunities suggested by the recommendations for various Drawdown Georgia partners: funders, nonprofit partners, corporate partners, policymakers, and academic partners. The section below also suggests several opportunities for incorporating equity recommendations from the Taproot and PSE reports into existing Drawdown Georgia initiatives.
“[T]he ways in which carbon mitigation goals are pursued through rooftop solar and conservation agriculture will have significant impacts on whether those solutions also foster equitable transitions, rather than perpetuating historic inequities.”
{ }
Introduction 7
Given these findings, it is important to consider potential impacts on the scaling of the Drawdown Georgia solutions towards their “achievable” potential (as defined for each solution in the Phase 1 research) and beyond. While the potential may indeed be achievable, the equity-related findings in this report suggest important considerations for the “how.” For example, the ways in which carbon mitigation goals are pursued through rooftop solar and conservation agriculture will have significant impacts on whether those solutions also foster equitable transitions, rather than perpetuating historic inequities. Deep engagement of equity stakeholders is required to ensure that solution implementation in conservation agriculture and land sinks do not primarily benefit large, white-owned farms or that roof-top solar programs largely benefit wealthy homeowners who can afford the investment.
Opportunities for Funders
Both reports also suggest the value of further deepening equity expertise and perspectives in all Drawdown Georgia and related climate initiatives moving forward. This is an increasing expectation among stakeholders for environmental/climate programs and organizations.
Both reports call attention to policy barriers and enablers with, for example, PSE calling for changes in legislation to enable net metering in Georgia and model legislation to help address funding needs to scale retrofitting programs. Taproot’s policy priorities include changes in USDA and other federal agency grant and loan programs to expand access to Black farmers and first-generation farmers of color, and programs to support rural landowners facing heirs’ property legal challenges.
Introduction 8
In addition to the funding opportunities described above, corporate partners can support Drawdown Georgia solution implementation through purchasing and hiring programs and through partnerships with community-based and nonprofit organizations. There are also equity-related opportunities for the Drawdown Georgia Business Compact facilitated by the Ray C. Anderson Center for Sustainable Business and comprised, as of the date of this report, of over 35 companies that are committed to achieving a just, prosperous, and sustainable transition towards net zero carbon emissions in the state of Georgia by 2050. The Compact’s planned activities include facilitating collaboration on Drawdown solution-oriented projects, catalyzing innovation, creating a community of practice, and reporting on progress. Each of these activities offers opportunities to ensure a focus on equity through a collective impact approach. For example, projects may be entirely focused on equity challenges or infused with equity-related priorities. Similarly, the innovation activity can provide opportunities for companies to engage minority-owned businesses and/or offer support for greater workforce
Opportunities for Academic Partners
The Taproot and PSE reports suggest engaging nonprofit organizations and networks as collaborators in several of the recommendations provided. The energy and transportation sectors include groups working on policy and programs to reduce on-peak energy demand and increased home efficiency, those advocating transit access and mobility for underserved regions, and advocacy to reshape incentives and policies that currently constrain rooftop solar adoption. In conservation agriculture and land sinks they include land trust organizations, nonprofits that support farmers engaged in organic, sustainable, and regenerative farming, and networks of Black farmers and other smallholder farmers that have been historically underserved by government programs. As these groups seek funding to support programs aligned with Drawdown Georgia solutions, they may find it useful to reference Phase 1 research results and the recommendations in the reports that follow as evidence for potential impact on carbon and equity.
diversification. In other recommendations, PSE refers to opportunities for engagement with different types of utilities including Electric Membership Cooperatives (EMCs) across Georgia.
Academic partners can support many of the recommendations provided through the Taproot and PSE analyses. First, like corporations, institutions of higher education can support equity initiatives through purchasing and hiring. For example, expanding farm-to-institution supply chains for Georgia’s large universities can provide stable demand and even support the ability of small, Black-owned farms to secure credit (see Rhone, 2019, for details about Emory University’s program). Second, academic institutions can explore changes to existing outreach programs that would enhance equity objectives. In Taproot’s report, academic partners at Georgia’s land grant universities— Fort Valley State University and the University of Georgia—are called on to partner with Black farming and related rural cooperatives and networks to identify ways to support historically marginalized farmers and address barriers to solution adoption. Third, academic partners with law, policy, and social science expertise can collaborate with communitybased and nonprofit organizations to advance recommended policy changes, including shaping net metering and “pay as you save” energy policies to address upfront costs and split incentives. Fourth, Taproot’s recommendation of an Equity and Climate Institute recognizes the need for a center-level investment by academic institutions to support more robust and coordinated efforts in equity-centered research and community engagement across the state. Such an institute or center also could foster deep engagement and outreach with diverse equity stakeholders. As discussed above, funding organizations can collaborate with existing academic partners to design a network or center supporting the advancement of equity in climate initiatives across Georgia. Finally, other current Drawdown Georgia research activities, such as solution activation and tracking solution progress (see https://cepl.gatech.edu/projects/ Drawdown-Georgia) offer opportunities to address equity issues and challenges.
regional Equity and Climate Institute with grant or gift funding, or infuse equity into large grant proposals such as the National Science Foundation’s Regional Innovation Engines). A first step in determining direction might be to assemble an inclusive process for assessing strategies and options.
Opportunities for Corporate Partners
Opportunities for Policy Makers
Opportunities for Nonprofit Organizations and Community-Based Groups
Project Summary
Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and Transit
Across4)
Phase 1 Research
2. identifying the universe of Georgia-specific carbonreduction solutions that could be impactful by 2030.
3. estimating the greenhouse gas reduction potential of these high-impact 2030 solutions for Georgia.
Solutions 9
Project Background: Drawdown Georgia
• Affordability, including the cost of solutions to individuals and communities.
(Brown, Beasley, et al., 2021)
The Partnership for Southern Equity (PSE) used a racial equity lens to provide an analysis of three carbon mitigation strategies proposed in Drawdown Georgia’s phase 1 research outcomes. Understanding the equity implications of these carbon mitigation strategies more deeply will help reveal potential equitable pathways for state-wide implementation. Historically marginalized communities of color and low-wealth communities across Georgia are generally the most at-risk in the face of climate change impacts in the state. This report considers the potential gains and impacts of the three solutions with a primary focus on these communities. Over a three-month period, members of PSE’s Just Energy portfolio conducted research and interviewed climate change professionals and equity stakeholders from under-represented populations most likely to be impacted by a wide-scale implementation of the selected Drawdown Georgia carbon reduction solutions. Additional research was conducted in December 2021 and January 2022 following an initial review of the first draft.
Drawdown Georgia, inspired by Project Drawdown and funded by the Ray C. Anderson Foundation, is a research collaborative whose purpose is to identify the highest potential carbon mitigation strategies for the state of Georgia. The Phase 1 research effort included the Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, the University of Georgia, and Georgia State University along with other local partners noted below. As described in the introduction, the beyond carbon working group was developed to help identify the equity implications of the Drawdown Georgia solutions. Local partner organizations working with the Beyond Carbon Working Group included PSE, Greenlink Analytics, and Southface.
In this Phase 1 assessment, the research team focused special attention on identifying equity-related issues or concerns noting: “in states like Georgia with large historical and ongoing inequities across demographic groups, this [focus on equity] is particularly important. Ideally, implementation paths should not only mitigate existing environmental injustices and institutional barriers to access solution benefits but should also go beyond that to erase those inequities.” (Brown, Dwivedi, et al., 2021, p.
• Lack of diversity among solution-related workforce and business owners at end.
• On the positive side, the public health benefits of solutions can reduce health inequities by offering improved air quality and public health benefits across communities including those that are under-resourced.
1. understanding Georgia’s baseline carbon footprint and trends.
Where feasible, the Phase 1 research also identified promising approaches to expanding equity benefits and mitigating potential adverse impacts for individual solutions. The inputs for this work came from qualitative literature reviews, stakeholder input, and expert engagement. Some of the findings from Phase 1 on the three solutions that are the subject of this report include the following (Drawdown Georgia 2021a; 2021b):
4. estimating associated costs and benefits while also considering how the solutions might impact societal priorities, such as economic development opportunities, public health, environmental benefits, and equity.
• Barriers to, and opportunities for, greater solution access.
The Phase 1 research team systematically examined over 100 options (including those contained in Project Drawdown) for reducing state-wide carbon footprints and for developing a roadmap with 20 high-impact solutions for Georgia. This downselect process involved:
the twenty solutions, a few key overarching equity concerns/opportunities emerged that intersect with historical inequities (see Introduction for further detail on this work):
• Positive air quality and public health benefits.
• Significant employment opportunities as these solutions scale.
• Lack of workforce diversity (for example, the Solar Foundation (2019) found that only 26% of the solar workforce was made up of women, and in terms of race, 73.2% of the overall solar workforce is white with Georgia
ADVANCING CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND EQUITY THROUGH RETROFITTING, ROOFTOP SOLAR, AND TRANSIT SOLUTIONS
Electricity Generation: Rooftop Solar Community rooftop solar projects are growing in popularity globally. There is considerable evidence for rooftop solar’s success in Georgia given environmental factors present in the state. Rooftop solar systems are small-scale installations that can produce electricity primarily for onsite use. Combined with battery storage, rooftop solar has significant potential to provide clean energy for Georgia. Rooftop solar also improves air quality and public health benefits as well as offers potential job/ business opportunities (Brown, Beasley, et al., 2021).
• Cost barriers (as noted above) for all three solutions (discussed below).
State of Georgia Considerations
Buildings and Materials: Retrofitting Buildings use electricity and natural gas for heating, ventilation, and cooling (HVAC); water heating; lighting; and to power appliances and electronic devices. Retrofitting existing buildings can reduce energy demand, lower the associated greenhouse gas emissions, and improve air quality. While there are many ways to retrofit a building, this solution considers a range of options including improving insulation, installing LED lighting, replacing conventional HVAC systems with highefficiency heat pumps, and switching conventional windows with high-efficiency windows (Brown, Beasley, et al., 2021).
ranking even lower in terms of diversity on these metrics –18.9% women and 76.6% white) (The Solar Foundation, 2020).
Solution Profiles
• Racial differences in solar adoption (see Sunter et al, 2019).
In Georgia, access to carbon reduction technology and solutions is often determined or limited by income level, geographical location, education, race, and other demographic attributes. Even with awareness and understanding of carbon reduction technology on a state level, many Georgia citizens do not have access to, or are unable to afford the solutions that are the focus of this report, thereby creating challenges for solution implementation and for an equitable transition to a low carbon economy. While the purpose of this report is not to review the full set of demographic considerations that may impact (equitable) solution adoption, a few indicators are offered below to provide context.
Current Project
Expanding mass transit in Georgia potentially reduces the state’s carbon emissions. Public mass transit includes modes such as buses, trains, and streetcars. This report also included
• Georgia has the 11th highest poverty rate by state at 13.98% with significant disparities by race (11.27% among the white population versus 21.5% of the Black population) (World Population Review [WPR], n.d.-c).
Transportation: Mass Transit
• 7th highest state ranking in income inequality (WPR, n.d.-b).
• 40% of Georgia Power customers are at or below $40K income (Understanding Energy Burden and its Potential Solutions for Atlanta) and Georgia ranks among the top 5 states nationally in having the highest energy burden (US Department of Energy, 2018).
The Partnership for Southern Equity’s Just Energy Portfolio conducted a field study to engage stakeholders across the state of Georgia. The study provided an equity analysis of three of the five strategies: rooftop solar, mass transit, and building retrofitting. To supplement solution implementation knowledge, PSE interviewed equity stakeholders and several industry professionals. The findings from this report and the significant historical inequities in Georgia that persist today present both challenges and opportunities for realizing the “achievable potential” of the various Drawdown Georgia solutions and serve to highlight equity-related risks for implementation. For example, the achievable potential estimated by solution authors during the Phase 1 research may indeed be achievable but there is a risk that this will be accomplished in a way that perpetuates equity-related wealth, racial, and other gaps in Georgia. The findings of this report highlight concerns and possible interventions that can inform solution implementation in ways that advance equity.
The current project is an extension of the Phase 1 work and is focused on taking a deeper dive into specific solutions and related equity considerations. A working group was formed within the RCE Greater Atlanta to help determine which solutions to prioritize for this deeper look and to offer a summary rationale.
infrastructure for bikes and smaller modes of transport in light of the interest noted from PSE’s field study and stakeholder interviews. When people rely on mass transit instead of cars, it reduces greenhouse gas emissions, improves air quality, and provides a low-cost means of transportation (Brown, Beasley, et al., 2021). PSE sought to understand the perceptions and preferences about transit and energy-efficient vehicles in Georgia’s regions.
• According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey for 2019, Georgia also has the 12th lowest homeownership rate among states at 64% (with Black homeowners at roughly 47% compared to white residents at 75%) (Suh, 2020). See Figure 2.1 for a comparison of home ownership rates with neighboring states (Georgia, n.d.).
Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and Transit Solutions 10
Retrofitting Figure 2.2 from the Phase 1 research illustrates many of the underlying challenges noted above and some possible market and policy interventions to both address barriers and increase solution uptake. For example, on-bill financing is a specific utility intervention discussed with stakeholders and highlighted later in this report. While much of the Phase 1 retrofitting solution is oriented towards commercial buildings, the high levels of residential energy burden in Georgia present a significant opportunity to implement significant carbon savings while reducing energy costs for many of Georgia’s residents. As noted above, wealth gaps and low levels of home ownership
Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and Transit Solutions 11
Note. From “Housing and living,” Georgia, n.d., Data Datageorgia#housing).(https://datausa.io/profile/geo/USACopyrightbyUSA.
FIGURE 2.1: ANNUAL GEORGIA HOMEOWNERSHIP PERCENTAGE COMPARED TO REGIONAL STATES & THE NATIONAL AVERAGE
other) data. A range of policy and market interventions may help expand uptake of these solutions and address equity-related barriers, many of which were identified during Phase 1 of the Drawdown Georgia research. These interventions are briefly summarized below and expanded on by stakeholder responses in this study.
Note. From “Retrofitting buildings & demand response | climate and energy policy laboratory,” n.d., Georgia Tech. Retrieved April 15, 2022, from Technology.GeorgiaCopyrightcepl.gatech.edu/node/202.https://2022byInstituteof
Though each of the proposed carbon reduction solutions offers substantial co-benefits of improving local air quality and the climate change resiliency of Georgia communities, equityrelated challenges remain, particularly given the above (and
FIGURE 2.2: BARRIERS AND ACCELERANTS FOR RETROFITTING IN GEORGIA
This data on Georgia’s income, poverty, and home ownership levels (those owning homes generally have a significant advantage over renters when it comes to adoption of solar and retrofitting solutions) broadly and along racial lines offers just a sampling of some of the demographic and economic challenges associated with citizens’ ability to invest in and/or be able to afford the solutions that are the subject of this report. In addition, the disparities noted above across races demonstrate the cost-related challenges associated with different population segments.
Brief Review of Market / Policy Considerations for Proposed Carbon Reduction Technologies
Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and
A recent working paper emerging from the Drawdown Georgia initial Phase 1 research offers a summary of equity/other related
In addition to general upfront cost challenges, Georgia Power’s current net metering cap at “0.2% of a utility’s peak electricity demand from the previous year” (EnergySage, 2022) remains a significant barrier to adoption for all income levels, but especially for lower-income residents/homeowners. In addition, and as noted previously, Sunter et al. (2019) find that rooftop solar adoption is much lower for minority populations even after controlling for income.
Transit Solutions 12
challenges and possible interventions, including net metering (see Figure 2.3). Additionally, it is worth noting that rooftop solar infrastructure only functions well if the buildings efficiently regulate their energy use, which means that investment in rooftop solar and building retrofitting goes hand in hand.
Rooftop Solar
FIGURE 2.3 BARRIERS AND ACCELERANTS FOR SOLAR PV IN GEORGIA
PREFERRED MODES OF TRANSPORTATION IN GEORGIA
Note. From “Housing and living,” Georgia, n.d., Data USA USA.Copyrightgeorgia#housing).datausa.io/profile/geo/(https://byData
Publicly accessible data on mass transit in Georgia is very limited. According to the 2019 U.S. Census results, the most common mode of transportation for daily commuting is by car, driving alone, and via rideshare. Many of Georgia’s densely populated areas are not designed well for other modes of transportation. Effective mass transit implementation in Georgia will require research on the demographics of transit users, the types of transit they use, why they use transit, and transit
(64% home ownership - leaving 36% not enjoying this advantage as it relates to retrofitting and rooftop solar implementation) may impact the achievability of solution implementation.
FIGURE 2.4:
Mass Transit
Note. From “Rooftop solar for all: Closing the gap between the technically possible and the achievable,” by M. A. Brown, J. Hubbs et al, Energy Research & Social Science, 80 (2021), 102203, Social2021j.erss.2021.102203).(https://doi.org/10.1016/CopyrightbyEnergyResearch&Science.
Focus Group 2 – January 2022 Georgians from all regions Building retrofitting, rooftop solar, and mass transit
Adults varying from college age to senior citizens. Mixed knowledge level of proposed solutions. The majority of participants live in a single-family home.
Chandra Farley Energy Foundation, Rural Georgia, and Atlanta Metro
Stakeholder Engagement and Data Collection Process
collected by PSE came from community leaders, climate change professionals, and community advocates. Input from community leaders and advocates from each of Georgia’s regions was important for further contextualizing of carbon reduction needs across Georgia. Some of the community members interviewed were either unaware of the carbon reduction technologies in their region, or unsure of how suggested carbon mitigation strategies could be successful in their regions. Others were quite knowledgeable, and the focus groups developed innovative ideas despite disparities in knowledge levels.
Focus Groups
Building retrofitting, rooftop solar, and mass transit
Focus Group 1 – October 2021 Rural and Coastal Georgia Stakeholders
In the beginning of PSE’s research, outreach to community leaders and advocates was challenging due to COVID-related concerns and constraints. PSE met virtually with community member focus groups, leaders, climate change professionals, and advocates across Georgia to mitigate the spread of Covid-19 and ensure attendees would not be inconvenienced. PSE created interview questions that were contextualized in relation to three key factors: region, applicable solution, and key stakeholders. These questions were designed to gather community members’ recommendations and opinions for equitable implementation of the three carbon reduction strategies. Recommendations and opinions shared were influenced by each stakeholders’ experience with rooftop solar, mass transit, and retrofitting respectively.
Challenges
Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and Transit Solutions 13
The PSE team scheduled over six community engagement sessions to gather feedback on all three solutions. While online focus groups were the best route for engaging community members, our initial focus group had little turnout and so we introduced stipends and other incentives to attract community member participation. However, the biggest barrier to equitable carbon-mitigation may be a lack of climate change and environmental science literacy in Georgia’s communities as well
TABLE 2.1: PROFESSIONAL AND FOCUS GROUP STAKEHOLDERS
Name Affiliation Solution Focus Other Information
Dr. Jairo Garcia Climate Nexus, Atlanta Metro Rooftop solar
The PSE team engaged a combination of the stakeholders identified by the Drawdown Georgia RCE Team and community members contacted through PSE’s networks. Most of the data
Adults varying from college age to senior citizens. Mixed knowledge level of proposed solutions.
Academic and expert community advocate. High level of knowledge.
J. MillerLawrence
Murphy’s Crossing, Adair Park President, Beltline Rail Now! Board member, Atlanta Metro
availability. Examining best practices for mass transit in existing systems will help to implement modes of mass transit that can best serve climate change mitigation purposes. Mass transit, as a carbon solution, also offers the potential for significantly increasing mobility and cutting transportation costs for Georgia’s under-resourced residents. As Figure 2.4 below illustrates, significant behavior change will be required for larger-scale mass transit adoption.
Stakeholder Engagement
Rooftop solar Community advocate. High level of knowledge.
Mass transit Community advocate and nonprofit professional. High level of knowledge.
Lizann Roberts Coastal Georgia Indicators Building retrofitting Nonprofit professional and community advocate. High level of knowledge.
Pamela Fann SEEA, DEI, Atlanta Metro Building retrofitting Nonprofit professional. High level of knowledge.
The PSE team conducted a series of interviews with industry professionals who represented target stakeholder groups: metro Atlanta, rural and coastal Georgia. For rural and coastal Georgia two focus groups were conducted for each solution (see Table 2.1 for the list of professional and focus group stakeholders). Each stakeholder represents both a region and constituency base representative of historically marginalized communities of color and drawn from urban, rural, and coastal Georgia communities.
Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and Transit Solutions 14
Summary of Findings
There were two primary challenges for implementing rooftop solar that emerged across all stakeholder interviews: 1) upfront costs of solar installation (with opportunity for offsetting these with significant incentives) and 2) lack of education about rooftop solar and its potential benefits. Achieving more equitable adoption of rooftop solar for Georgia depends on finding ways to mitigate the cost to install (and maintain) the systems. For example, many of those living in old housing stock would need to invest in retrofitting before rooftop solar can be a viable solution for them. Stakeholder interviewees specializing in rooftop solar also identified Georgia’s net metering cap of 0.2% and Georgia Power’s lack of net metering allowances as key deterrents in incentivizing homeowners who can convert to rooftop solar. These same stakeholders point to Georgia’s Electric Member Cooperatives (EMCs) as a major player in any
This section combines data from professional stakeholder interviews and the two focus groups conducted during PSE’s study. The “summary of findings” paragraphs synthesize the major themes discussed and expressed by both professional and equity stakeholders. Some questions as they are written in the tables (see Appendix E) were slightly modified depending on the person(s) being asked the question. For each question that was posed, we note the corresponding respondents.
Retrofitting
The following tables are amalgamations of PSE’s analysis of preliminary research conducted on each solution, data collected from stakeholder interviews, and the major themes that emerged over the course of our research. Each proposed solution has 1 to 3 recommendations listed with specific actions for implementation. The “key considerations” sections summarize action for the proposed solutions. For detailed responses to interview questions for all three solutions, see Appendix D.
Rooftop Solar
{ }
as the highly politicized/polarizing nature of some of these issues within communities. Indeed, the emergent theme during our initial interviews revealed that community members are not familiar with carbon reduction strategies and/or felt that they were not relevant to their lives for various reasons, resulting in low engagement initially.
Results and Recommendations
rooftop solar program as they provide energy for 4.4 million residents across the state. Given this, plans for engaging with EMCs should be added to the implementation of any wide scale rooftop solar projects. See Table 2.2 below for recommendations.
Concluding Key Considerations for Rooftop Solar PSE recommends a multi-phased plan to begin with deepening public awareness that should be a first step in implementing wide-scale rooftop solar. Second, policy creating a demand for workers and entrepreneurs must first be in place before any green economy (entrepreneurship and workforce development) within the solar energy industry is viable. Additionally, the costprohibitive nature of rooftop solar for low-income communities and overall lack of incentives for transition present significant challenges. Solarize programs are one way to lower the upfront costs and reduce barriers, perhaps paired with community solar (Shaver and Shea, 2020). Currently, the state of Georgia has a net metering cap of 0.2% or 10KWH per household. EMCs are more agile and service more customers than Georgia Power across the state. These utility providers are strapped with debt and locked into vestigial bulk energy purchasing contracts which obligate them to purchase more energy than is often needed for their customers. As a result, EMC customers in Georgia pay a higher rate for their energy than Georgia Power customers and they serve all of Georgia’s highest persistent poverty counties which also have some of the highest energy burdens in the country. PSE recommends creating a campaign to start engaging EMC’s first, to build a foundation for statewide rooftop solar implementation.
Stakeholders cited the state and local governments as key players for creating wide-scale retrofitting programs. In addition to funding, local assessments are needed to guide retrofitting programs, as conditions vary from community to community. Stakeholders interviewed pointed to seniors and historically marginalized communities with poor/old housing stock as the most vulnerable and with high energy burdens. As such, retrofitting offers an important benefit to them if it can be made more affordable and accessible. Similar to rooftop solar, professional stakeholders reported Georgians generally do not understand the potential benefits and concept of retrofitting. Public education campaigns in all areas of energy efficiency and
"Stakeholders interviewed pointed to seniors and historically marginalized communities with poor/old housing stock as the most vulnerable and with high energy burdens. As such, retrofitting offers an important benefit to them if it can be made more affordable and accessible."
Key Collaborators
• Send a delegation to key states where rooftop solar programs are being deployed to glean best practices.
• Provide educational material and use focus groups to define the actions localities select to implement.
• Supportive funding avenues will incentivize property owners to invest in solar energy.
• Training vocationalandschools
• Create a policy working group to pass the legislation necessary to implement a wide scale rooftop solar program. Explore funding avenues to support the working group including grant opportunities, tax incentives, and private investment funds.
• Public education programs can give Georgians the capacity for making informed energy decisions within their communities.
• organizationsFaith-based
• Property owners and PO organizations
• Create online material designed for self-directed study. Include information on how Georgia communities can get involved with rooftop solar.
• Community members
• Policy makers & legislators
Develop a Policy Council/Working Group to reform Georgia’s Net Metering laws.
• Municipal leaders
• Academic institutions
• Increase net metering cap to accommodate a growing number of property owners and businesses interested in installing rooftop solar. NOTE: In 2019, the Georgia Public Service Commission required the Georgia Power Company to establish a monthly net metering program but capped the number of rooftop solar customers at 5,000. The cap was reached in July 2021. Scrap the Cap legislation was presented to the 2022 Georgia General Assembly.
• NGOs/CBOs
• Create incentives for battery manufacturers to produce in Georgia and/or distribute battery technology to EMCs and other energy providers. This component is important as the use of rooftop solar by EMCs can depend on the localities’ ability to store energy.
• Battery manufacturers
• Create a state-funded campaign based on the rationale that Georgia’s economic and energy future relies heavily on establishing 100% clean energy infrastructure.
Target Audience
• Chambers of commerce and other organizationsbusiness
Create a state education and outreach program designed to help Georgians understand their current energy usage and the potential benefits of rooftop solar. Education and outreach will:
• Create a multimedia campaign that invites Georgians to use online educational materials to understand climate change impacts specific to their state and bioregion.
Key Collaborators
• New policies can ensure numerous pathways for low-income communities to access and/or install rooftop solar.
• Net metering will incentivize homeowners, business owners and other stakeholders to invest in rooftop solar.
• advocatesNGOs/Consumer
Recommendations Strategy Components/Opportunities Target Audience & Key Collaborators
Engage Rural Electric Membership Cooperatives (EMCs) and Municipal EMCs for rooftop solar action.
• Georgians will engage in the transition to solar by working with local stakeholders to advocate for rooftop solar.
• Other leaderscommunity
• Create an EMC coalition organized around implementation of residential rooftop solar programs.
• Community & local elected leaders
Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and Transit Solutions 15 TABLE 2.2: ROOFTOP SOLAR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY MAKERS, NGOS/CBOS, AND LOCAL CHANGEMAKERS
• Lobbyists
• EMC boards
• Build a groundswell of statewide support for rooftop solar.
Key Collaborators
• NGOs/CBOs
• Rural electric metering cooperatives serve more than 40% of Georgia residents and have greater agility to implement a residential rooftop solar program as they are not regulated by the Georgia Public Service Commission.
• Work with municipalities to create economic incentives and opportunities for businesses and property owners. This can reduce the financial burden of transitioning to rooftop solar.
• Utility residential rooftop solar programs with power banking can circumvent netmetering limitations, facilitating implementation.
• Create workforce development programs that increase Georgians’ energy literacy (where and how our energy is provided and used); and provide Georgians with the necessary skillsets to install and maintain rooftop solar.
• Local elected leaders
Target Audience
• Diversifying pathways for low-income communities to access and install rooftop solar can expand adoption.
• Conduct an analysis on what regulations at the Federal level may be a barrier or bridge to EMC implementation of rooftop solar.
Target Audience
• Solar associationsindustry
• Increase Georgia’s climate literacy; and help Georgians understand how rooftop solar can be a significant part of a resilient infrastructure.
• Faith organizationsbased
• Community members
• Depoliticize climate change and related fields to help alternate energy sources like rooftop solar gain traction in the state.
• State legislators
Develop climate change action plans by engaging multisector cooperation along with local governments to:
• Foundations focused on literacyclimate/solution
• Community members
Concluding Key Considerations for Mass Transit Mass transit expansion across Georgia is possible and desired among stakeholders. Current mass transit fails to meet the needs of many Georgians across the State and mass transit efficacy is highly affected by poor municipal infrastructure. Most of Georgia’s municipalities are designed for easy access of cars, and older areas generally have many streets that do not accommodate buses and light rail infrastructure. Stakeholders interviewed reported distrust in their local mass transit services, and some depended on the services for their commutes. All agreed that transit services can be better and pointed to other cities they lived in that had great transit systems. The consensus was that each area would need to assess the best transit options for their locality and change infrastructure based on the data gathered. Because this infrastructure change will require funding, a statewide initiative and coalition could help to not only institute better quality of service but also institute a comprehensive statewide mass transit system. While mass transit will still need to be operated and managed locally, a statewide network can open multiple avenues for funding and help to standardize mass transit in the state. Finally, stakeholders voiced a concern about the increasing amount of people that would use mass transit like buses and light rails. To circumvent potential negative impacts, stakeholders want to see investment in infrastructure that supports bike paths, scooter paths, and pathways for animals and water to travel across the landscape. This will require a comprehensive understanding of the
The primary barrier to deploying a widescale retrofitting program is funding and existing inequities. Within low-income communities, there are currently not many retrofitting programs designed to support these communities. The existing programs are also not promoted properly for these communities to buy into them. Community outreach and education for Georgians to learn about retrofitting benefits will help people to understand how they can be resilient in the face of current and potential climate change impacts. Education and outreach are best conducted by trusted sources such as NGOs/CBOs in the community, health providers, and at local municipal offices. This assertion was further supported by PSE’s focus group where two stakeholders articulated the expectation that local municipal offices and private construction businesses are well suited to offer information on building retrofitting. Additionally, for a solution such as residential retrofitting to achieve scale, ancillary industries—such as health insurance providers—need to be engaged to educate around the health benefits of retrofitting old housing stock. PSE recommends broadening stakeholders within this solution area to develop more effective means of implementation.
Concluding Key Considerations for Retrofitting
building retrofitting will help develop fertile ground within communities for support of public carbon reduction/green energy programs. Providing public education through stakeholders like health insurance providers, healthcare providers, and housing authorities can help increase community awareness and knowledge levels, particularly given the impact of the built environment on air quality and public health. See complete details in Table 2.3 below.
Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and Transit Solutions 16
As Georgia varies in environmental conditions across its regions, localized considerations for retrofitting will be of high importance in an implementation of a statewide program. These state programs can also include retrofitting workforce development plans and entrepreneurship training. Training and certification programs in support of mechanical and electrical positions, HVAC technicians, and several other important areas will provide the growing need for a workforce in retrofitting.
As seen in Table 2.4, stakeholder feedback suggested a strong interest in idealized mass transit (excellent quality of service, punctuality, and cleanliness) but mistrust of existing mass transit providers. The focus groups described a general wariness of mass transit in Georgia as many stakeholders believe the systems do not serve them well. Stakeholders interviewed pointed to poor quality of service being a major deterrent for their use of mass transit. This situation creates a culture of using mass transit as a last resort and perceiving it in a limited scope. Those who can readily afford other means of transportation, generally opt out of using mass transit and associate it with
Mass Transit
those who are more or less “forced” to use mass transit because of their socioeconomic circumstances. Low-income Georgians depend on mass transit because they generally cannot afford other means of transportation. However, they are the most at risk when mass transit fails, as without mass transit they may not have other mobility options. Simply put, Georgia’s municipalities generally favor cars in their design and need city planning to create alternative pathways such as the Atlanta Beltline. Many young people originating from low-income communities desire cars as a means to develop autonomy and relinquish dependency on the poorly functioning mass transit systems. Regional considerations play a vital role in mass transit as a solution across Georgia due to the vast rural regions. Many of the stakeholders are interested in a statewide, high-speed rail system. While the interest in such a system is high, all stakeholders interviewed in focus group 2 agreed local municipalities need to create a comprehensive mass transit system informed by the desires and needs of locals before the entire state can be connected by a mass transit system. They want a system that is safe and secure to use rather than one that forces them to ride it because they have no other options. Possible references for successful implementation can be found in countries like Japan, and U.S. metropolitan areas like Salt Lake City, Utah and Seattle, Washington.
Target Audience
• Establish a growing funding source for the advancement of Georgia’s infrastructure resiliency.
Key Collaborators
• Insurance companies
• Throughout the education process, engage community-based focus groups to develop funding and other plans. Ideally this will involve Georgians from all regions and begin to establish a network of retrofitting constituents.
• Resilience officers
• Explore the essential question:“what climate change impacts will Georgia’s respective communities need to prepare for?”
• Generate continual funding for a statewide retrofitting program.
• Utilities
• Educate the public on energy efficiency, energy burden, and health risks.
• Engage/retain state lobbyist.
• Built Environment NGOs/ CBOs consumer advocates
• Engage organizations and local governments to: Develop data on retrofitting needs in their Developlocalities.a plan for sharing this data with EmphasizeGeorgians. the benefits of successful retrofitting in the context of climate change.
• Build necessary socioeconomic infrastructure for funding Georgia’s retrofitting needs.
• Consumer advocacy groups and other community organizations
• Health insurance providers (i.e., Humana/Anthem)
Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and Transit Solutions 17 TABLE 2.3: BUILDING RETROFITTING NEXT STEPS FOR POLICY MAKERS, COMMUNITY LEADERS, AND LOCAL CHANGEMAKERS
Create a statewide education campaign for communities that shows the benefits of retrofitting.
Target Audience
• CBOs/NGO’s
• Adjust policy makers’ focus on climate change action as a global human rights issue, rather than a political debate.
• Ensure Georgia’s private and public economic sectors buy-in to the necessary updating of Georgia’s infrastructure.
• Local municipal leaders/ decision makers
Target Audience
• Create public and private funding avenues for lowincome communities and vulnerable populations like senior citizens.
• Municipal leaders
• Identify a prioritized list of retrofitting needs in Georgia and a plan of action for how they will be addressed in tandem.
• Examine the model legislation of other states and adjust to accommodate Georgia’s unique circumstance.
• Georgia Department of Community Affairs
Key Collaborators
• Technical colleges of Georgia
• Create a stakeholder engagement listening tour to build support and adjust planning.
• Convene a policy council to design draft legislation. Incorporate representatives from all regions to ensure all of Georgia is served well.
• Develop a messaging strategy for communities with the assistance of state and local governments and community organizations.
Key Collaborators
• Built Environment NGOs/ CBOs consumer advocates
• Technical colleges of Georgia
• Provide funding for assessment of retrofitting needs in Georgia’s areas.
• Develop and implement local retrofitting solutions for municipalities.
• Funding is the greatest barrier to wide-scale retrofitting programs as many Georgians are unable to afford it. There are a growing number of retrofitting programs, however the efficacy of these programs is low.
• GA Power and other utility companies
• Explore options for directing state funds towards workforce development programs. Retrofitting workers are already in demand across the state of Georgia and appeal to the economic interests of Georgia’s industries and community members.
• State and local elected leaders
• Construction trade associations
Provide funding to support existing and emerging building retrofitting workforce development programs.
• Construction trade associations
• City/County sustainability officers
• Prepare Georgians for climate change resiliency.
• Healthcare providers and similar stakeholders
Develop Model Legislation to generate state funding for community retrofitting programs at the state level for implementation at the local level. (Policy suggestions: SPLOST or Intrastate Trade Fees or legalization of recreational cannabis)
• Green trade associations
• Emory University & Fort Valley University (cannabis laws stakeholders)
• Municipal leaders
• Increase the potential positive impact of current state, federal, and local programs.
Recommendations Strategy Components/Opportunities Target Audience & Key Collaborators
Engage Mass transit policymakers, advocates, authorities, organizations, and state workgroups.
• Work with private transit companies to develop innovative plans for mass transit funding sources subsidies, and infrastructure.
• Invite community groups such as the Beltline Rail Now! into the Drawdown Georgia Working Group and NPU/NA Leaders across all regions of Georgia (rural, middle, coastal)
• SMART Union
• Destigmatize mass transit in Georgia. Create a culture of safety and trust in Georgia mass transit services.
• Garner buy-in from transportation authorities on the expansion of mass transit as a carbon reduction solution for Georgia.
• Chatham Area Transit (Savannah)
• Community members
ADVOCATESRecommendations
Target Audience
• Incorporate city planners and other municipal offices for planning the infrastructural changes necessary for accommodating alternative modes of transportation such as bikes and scooters.
• Study successful mass transit models in similar states.
• Conduct a statewide field study to gather more data via listening sessions and larger charrettes (or plenaries).
• Services like Google Maps/Earth
• Transformation Alliance and similar orgs
• Identify key transit authorities across the State of Georgia and incorporate them into a state “standard of mass transit services” reformation process.
• MTA
• Engage the Urban Land Institute to gather more data for equitable development planning within the Atlanta MSA.
• Establish plans for retrofitting mass transit to be safe in the face of increasing disease/viral transmission.
Key Collaborators
• Generate a comprehensive report and mapping system outlining the transportation routes currently available (and practical) for Georgians. This component involves all regions and municipalities.
• Beltline board members
• Establish a network of community advocate organizations that represent the concerns and feedback from community members using mass transit.
Target Audience
• MARTA
• Congress for New Urbanism
• MARTA membersboard
• Car manufacturers and car stakeholdersindustry
• sustainabilityCity/County officers
Strategy Components/Opportunities
• NPU/NA leaders
• Grassroots Groups/ Beltline Rail Now!
• Develop a statewide plan for mass transit resiliency in the context of climate change impacts facing Georgia.
Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and Transit Solutions 18
Expand mass transit options in all Georgia regions through state and private funding options.
• Create and actively promote clear pathways for community members to give their input on how to develop mass transit options in Georgia.
• Explore the mass transit options that stakeholders desire most.
• Urban Land Institute
• Grassroots Groups/ Beltline Rail Now!
TABLE 2.4: MASS TRANSIT NEXT STEPS FOR LOCAL POLICY MAKERS, GEORGIA TRANSIT WORKGROUPS, AND COMMUNITY MASS TRANSIT
Target Audience & Key Collaborators
• Develop mass transit models that incorporate the environmental considerations of each Georgia region. Use precedent from other states to inform best practices.
• APT-- Athens and Augusta
• Create pathways for low-income communities to afford mass transit services.
• Gather more data regarding ridership and infrastructure unique to each region. Make this data publicly accessible for localities to use in their local mass transit planning.
• GDOT Key Collaborators
• State legislators
• Change infrastructure of municipalities to support alternative modes of transportation. Decrease emphasis on creating access for cars and (essentially) mandating car use in the state.
• Expand the potential for car manufacturers operating in the state to provide alternative modes of transportation to Georgians. Mandate they also invest in climate change actions such as recycling used cars and building greenways throughout the state.
Retrofitting, Rooftop Solar, and Transit Solutions 19
As seen in Figure 2.5 below, most of those aware of workforce development programs in their community are homeowners and/or living in single-family houses. In contrast, those renting or in another home type were generally unaware of workforce development programs in any of the solution categories. Currently, many Georgians are unaware of the potential benefits possible through these carbon reduction strategies. Successful public programs will need the support and buy-in of Georgia citizens with readily available information provided on how they can participate. Carbon reduction via rooftop solar, building retrofitting, and mass transit advancement will require investment in community outreach and education. KNOWLEDGE OF LOCAL CLEAN ENERGY WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
During focus group two, PSE conducted a survey to understand community awareness of the local workforce development programs (if any) present in their communities. Programs such as Solarize Georgia can be aligned with workforce development contracts that emphasize pathways for entrepreneurship and job security in these industries. The results of PSE’s workforce development program poll cross-referenced with homeownership among the surveyed group is described below.
pathways already in use, where community members want to go, and practical routes for getting there. Additionally, it will require expanding a mass transit workgroup to include diverse stakeholders. (See Appendix E for summary stakeholder questions and answers)
FIGURE 2.5:
PSE Workforce Development Focus Group 2 Poll
3. estimating the greenhouse gas reduction potential of these high-impact 2030 solutions for Georgia.
• Incorporating equity-based professional practices into the work of Drawdown Georgia and implementing organizations through deeper and more intentional engagement of community organizations, institutions, and individuals.
many opportunities for Drawdown Georgia to expand engagement of Georgia’s citizens in solution planning and implementation, while strengthening its equity impact by centering racial justice and environmental sustainability. Through engagement with key actors and collaboration with local stakeholders, the delivery of inclusive strategies will create more meaningful impact in communities
This equity analysis identified opportunities in two main areas: Education and Programming and Policy & Power Shifting. The analysis also identified opportunities for additional research that could provide helpful guidance in areas beyond the scope of this project. This project’s equity analysis identified thematic areas of action with the greatest equity potential including:
the twenty solutions, a few overarching equity concerns/ opportunities emerged that intersect with historical inequities:
• Barriers and opportunities in relation to solution access—for example, studies show that after controlling for income, rooftop solar adoption is highly influenced by race.
• Incorporating and building on small farmers’ experience with land stewardship and contemporary conservation agriculture to achieve the desired change.
Project Summary
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 20
Drawdown Georgia, inspired by Project Drawdown and funded by the Ray C. Anderson Foundation, is a research collaborative involving the Georgia Institute of Technology, Emory University, the University of Georgia, and Georgia State University along with other local partners. The team systematically examined over 100 options (including those contained in Project Drawdown) for reducing state-wide carbon footprints and for developing a roadmap with 20 high-impact solutions for Georgia. This down-select process involved:
DrawdownMethodologyGeorgia
• Addressing rural infrastructure challenges that create barriers to broadband internet.
ADVANCING CARBON SEQUESTRATION AND EQUITY THROUGH CONSERVATION AGRICULTURE & LAND SINKS
The Phase 1 research team also identified equity-related issues or concerns associated with the 20 solutions, noting: “in states like Georgia with large historical and ongoing inequities across demographic groups, this [focus on equity] is particularly important. Ideally, implementation paths should not only mitigate existing environmental injustices and institutional barriers to access solution benefits but should also go beyond that to erase those inequities” (Brown, Dwivedi, et al., 2021, p. Across4).
4. estimating associated costs and benefits while also considering how the solutions might impact societal priorities, such as economic development opportunities, public health, environmental benefits, and equity (see Brown, Beasley, et al., 2021 for full methodology).
Phase One Research
• Affordability, such as cost of solutions to individuals and communities – examples include rooftop solar, EVs, afforestation/silvopasture.
2. identifying the universe of Georgia-specific carbonreduction solutions that could be impactful by 2030.
• Implementing a shift in power among policymaking institutions through an active and intentional diversity recruitment plan.
Taproot was charged with analyzing equity issues connected with two Drawdown Georgia solutions and associated carbon mitigation strategies identified by the solution authors (see Appendix E): conservation agriculture, in the “food and agriculture” category, and afforestation/silvopasture from the “land sink” category. Taproot’s approach centered on smallholder farms in Georgia’s rural, primarily agricultural regions. Drawdown Georgia’s equity goals prioritized inclusive engagement of change-makers in those regions whose work can impact each of these strategies and repair historical injustices. A focus on Black landowners captured the challenges faced by most smallholder farms in the state, while also providing a deeper analysis of equity in the context of racial injustice.
• Investing in opportunities to build the regional food and small farm economy to encourage wealth-building opportunities for economically marginalized smallholder
Thisfarmers.reporthighlights
that have historically been marginalized. Concrete steps to dismantle systemic racism and repair injustice can advance both carbon reduction and equity in Georgia.
1. understanding Georgia’s baseline carbon footprint and trends.
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 21
Taproot’s replicable approach to equity analysis combined subject matter expertise, inclusive community engagement practices, and a discovery process that was tailored to answer the early investigative questions that arose. See Figure 3.1 below for a description of Taproot’s overall approach.
Taprootstate.
• Potential impacts on available land use for farmers due to afforestation.
Identification of Equity Stakeholders Within Each Sector. In consultation with the full Drawdown Georgia team, Taproot determined that the project’s primary equity focus would be to engage and include as many change-makers as possible in Drawdown Georgia’s conservation agriculture and afforestation/ silvopasture solutions. The secondary goal of this analysis would be to identify how solution strategies might contribute to the repair of racial, geographic, and economic injustices in our
• Larger landholders (50 to ~200 acres) which consists of rowcropper and mid-size vegetable producers.
• On the positive side, the research team noted that the public health benefits of solutions can reduce health inequities by offering improved air quality and public health benefits across communities including those that are underTheresourced.Phase1research
• Overall cost and other accessibility barriers (including awareness, lack of incentives, etc.) for both solutions for under-resourced and smaller scale farms.
focused the target stakeholder list (Table 3.1 Equity Stakeholders) into two cluster groups along both solution areas:
• Overall improved air and water quality from solutions.
The Drawdown Georgia project extends the Phase One preliminary equity analysis by evaluating a subset of the 20 solutions in greater depth with respect to equity. Before engaging Taproot to conduct stakeholder research and explore equity implication in greater depth, a working group was formed within the RCE Greater Atlanta (RCE GA) to complete an initial evaluation to determine which solutions to prioritize for this deeper analysis of equity implications and opportunities (see Appendix A for a list of RCE GA team members).
agriculture (a set of farming practices that center ecosystem health) and afforestation/silvopasture (planting trees on relatively bare pasture lands and around developed urban areas) generally involve farmers in both rural and urban areas. For the purposes of this study, Taproot chose to focus primarily on rural farmers, who are situated on larger parcels of land than most urban farmers, because they have greater potential to support carbon sequestration into the soil through food cultivation and tree-planting. While larger landholders (250 to thousands of acres) are key to carbon sequestration, we focused on rural landholders with 50 to ~200 acres who have potential as changemakers for both solutions, as these farmers are most often left out of the conversation and represent a greater diversity of farmers. This study also addresses organizations that plant trees in urban areas. Please see Appendix I for a glossary of terms used in this section of the report.
• Small urban/peri-urban farms, which are generally clustered in the Atlanta metro, Augusta, and Savannah areas.
ensure maximal effectiveness and sustainability. Taproot’s initial focus was to define “what equity looks like” within the context of the focal Drawdown solution areas of conservation agriculture and silvopasture/afforestation. Taproot began this inquiry with the understanding that equity, as described by leading scholars, is about fairness of opportunity, or, in other words, a “leveling of the playing field” (Richardson, 2005; Sen, 2009). Importantly, equity and equality are not the same thing just as opportunity and outcomes, although correlated, are not the Bothsame.conservation
also identified promising approaches to expanding equity benefits and mitigating potential adverse impacts for individual solutions. This work was based upon qualitative literature reviews, stakeholder input, and expert engagement. For the two solutions that Taproot was charged with exploring, some of the initial equity considerations noted in Phase 1 included:
The Taproot Equity Analysis Rationale
• Lack of workforce diversity (for example, the Solar Foundation (2019) found that only 26% of the solar workforce was made up of women, and in terms of race, 73.2% of the overall solar workforce is white with Georgia ranking even lower in terms of diversity on these metrics –18.9% women and 76.6% white) (The Solar Foundation, 2020).
Through Drawdown Georgia, diverse and innovative individuals and organizations who recognize the importance of addressing climate change are partnering together to advance carbon reduction goals through the solutions and platforms outlined by Drawdown Georgia. Centering equity within the design, implementation and evaluation of these solutions is essential to
• Farmer perceptions regarding adverse impacts on traditional farming techniques and way of life.
The Equity Analysis Process
• Over the long term, increases in yields and reduced operating costs (by reducing the need for feed, fertilizer, and herbicides), while improving soil fertility (Brown, Dwivedi, et al., 2021).
A Focus on Smallholder Farms Owned and Managed by Black Farmers. This study focuses on smallholder Black farmers in Georgia, most of whom are in the Southeast, South Central, and Coastal region of the state. The long history of Black oppression in the South—including but not limited to chattel slavery, sharecropping, and Jim Crow violence—and ongoing structural racism have multi-faceted repercussions on the economic, physical, and psychosocial health of the Black population (see, for example, Bailey et al., 2017; Macintyre et al., 2018; Schelhas et al., 2021). Across the South, Black farmers were dispossessed of their land over the past century, resulting in a more than 90% reduction of Black-owned farmland, which is estimated at a present-day value of $250-$350 billion (Pollack & Chung, 2020). Appendix F contains maps that illustrate the distribution of Black farmers and their assets around the peak of Black farming in the early 1900s. As this study seeks to centralize equity, justice, and inclusivity in the promotion of conservation agriculture practices, it is imperative to consider the population(s) that have experienced the greatest amount of inequity and exclusion. Poor white farmers and other non-Black
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 22
FIGURE STEPS OF EQUITY ANALYSIS
3.1:
This project also focuses on smallholder Black farmers because of the potential among this group to advance the use of conservation agriculture practices in a way that supports inclusivity and racial justice. Black farmers represent the second largest group of farmers in the state of Georgia, with most Black farmers (78%) operating on less than 210 acres of land, and nearly half (47%) operating on fewer than 50 acres (USDA, 2017). Although the key conservation agriculture practice (reduced tillage) to achieve the Drawdown Georgia carbon sequestration goal is best achieved by row crop farmers who have large amounts of land acreage (e.g., 500+ acres), the majority of Georgia farmers with this amount of land are white
For these reasons, this project sought to gather perspectives of rural Black farmers and local, Black-led organizations that serve them to inform recommendations grounded in equity.
Given that most small farmers use their land in multiple ways, most of these stakeholders who cultivate both produce and livestock were able to speak to both conservation agriculture practices and pastureland management (afforestation/ silvopasture).
smallholder farmers are also relatively vulnerable when compared to large land-holding corporate farmers; however, rural white farmers have never been targeted with the extreme racialized violence, economic marginalization, or political exclusion that Black farmers have faced for generations. The landmark 1996 Miller Report publicly confirmed this widespread and intergenerational racial discrimination in USDA financial and technical assistance programs and current federal attempts to rectify some of this immeasurable damage through the 2020 Justice for Black Farmers Act have been indefinitely stalled through legal challenges (Charles, 2021; Miller, 1996).
• How can we engage more people who have traditionally been marginalized as change-makers in the specific strategies of:
The equity analysis of Conservation Agriculture and Silvopasture/Afforestation Solutions posed the following investigative questions:
Urban and small farmers who grow food using conservation practices are excellent advocates, educators and movement builders who often operate at the cutting edge of equity and climate change. Despite their smaller operational scale and impact on carbon sequestration, these farmers are often highly respected and have an important role to play in cultivating the momentum for change and equity in this movement.
Conservation Agriculture Strategies
Rural row crop farmers are the primary change agents for the conservation agriculture solution. Row cropping, which is Georgia’s dominant form of plant production, is a typically conventional practice that grows “commodity crops” (e.g., cotton, hay, corn, rye, peanuts for industrial use), as well as some food crops, intensively and at the scale of hundreds, or even thousands, of acres at a time. Row cropping is rarely practiced on less than 40 acres per crop and mostly occurs in the Southwest and Central Coastal counties.
Data Collection Methodology and Rationale. The team conducted semi-structured interviews based on Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved questions via phone and web-conference, as well as one online focus group in collaboration with Dr. Veronica Womack, Executive Director of the Rural Studies Institute at Middle Georgia College.
Interviews and group discussions took approximately one hour each, and the team used a form-based data collection tool to document these interviews for synthesis (See Appendix G for interview questions).
Rural row crop farmers are the primary change agents for this solution. Of Georgia’s more than 9.9 million acres of farmland, approximately 36% are harvested cropland (3.8 million), contributing to an estimated $11.5 billion and nearly 80,000 jobs (Mani, 2021; USDA, 2017; UGA, 2019). Approximately 47% of Georgia farmland is currently under no-till or reduced till practices (Mani, 2021). An increase in this number by 40 percentage points is estimated to reduce carbon dioxide annual emissions by 1.1 Megaton (Mani, 2021). The rate of soil carbon sequestration, while generally dependent on temperature and other factors, is also expected to increase over time when conservation agriculture practices are used in conjunction with one another in processes that replicate the natural ecological pathways (Project Drawdown, 2020).
Plantingfarming?more
(~98%) and are unlikely to have ever experienced any form of social, political, or economic marginalization (USDA, 2017). Moreover, many Black farmers produce both row and vegetable crops on their land as well as raise livestock and engage in silvopasture. This multiplicity of land uses by Black farmers, the near absence of Black and minority large landholders in Georgia, and the long history of discrimination against Black farmers, all support focusing on this population of smallholder farmers in this study.
Establishingpractices?
more tree plantings in urban settings?
Using no-till and other conservation ag practices in row crop
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 23
Specific Strategies Explored To Reach Drawdown Georgia Goals
Engaging in urban and peri-urban sustainable farming
• What opportunities do these solutions create to repair injustice and to offer economic opportunities?
• What impact do urban change-makers of diverse perspectives have on these two solutions?
trees on pasture lands and practicing conservation forestry?
Lead Strategy to Achieve Conservation Agriculture Goals: No-Tillage/Reduced Tillage.
This broad solution encompasses farming practices that intentionally restore and preserve natural ecosystems. Conventional agriculture, which dominates America’s crop production systems, emphasizes scale, chemical fertilizers and bio/chemical weed and pest solutions that fail to cultivate environmental and human health. Conventional meat and poultry farming is also a primary driver of greenhouse gases and other ecological degradation that impacts climate change.
The Identification Process of Professional Stakeholders. The identification process included locating leaders in organizations and nonprofits that engaged in either forestry, tree planting, or conservation agriculture in the state of Georgia. Some of the professionals were identified from suggestions made by the Drawdown Authors, while others were gleaned from stakeholder research completed by the RCE Greater Atlanta team and another consulting group (See Table 3.2 for a list of Professional Stakeholders).
Increased adoption of conservation agricultural practices by row crop farmers is the most effective method of meeting this solution’s carbon sequestration goal of 1.1 megatons of carbon by 2030 (Mani, 2021). Conventional tilling turns over the soil throughout a given field, releasing a significant amount of carbon in the process. In the context of row cropping, low- and no-till production requires specialized machinery and access to GPS/broadband to implement effectively.
Farmer 2 Interviewee West GA Cooperative;Farmersfamily farm (rural)
Interviewee National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT)
Director of the Rural Studies Institute and academic researcher focusing on economic development among rural farming communities throughout the Black Belt region.
Interviewee
Female leader in environmental justice, youth engagement, and equity. Author of Engage, Connect, Protect: Empowering Diverse Youth as Environmental Leaders, 2020.
Focus ParticipantGroup Square O Consulting; family farm (rural) South (BlackGeorgiaBeltregion)
Past Affiliations: Nature Conservancy- South Dekalb Equity Project; Park Pride
Experienced Black male farmer. Vegetable producer, egg chickens and cattle.
Focus ParticipantGroup McClendon Law & Consulting Bibb (CentralCountyGA, Black Belt region)
Interviewee National Recreation and Park Association
*Asterisk indicates applicability to afforestation/silvopasture only. Findings from all others have relevance to both solution areas, regardless of current practices.
Farmer 3 Interviewee family farm (rural) Troup County (West Central GA, Black Belt region)
Farmer 1 Interviewee family farm (rural) Worth and Tift (SouthCountiesCentral GA, Black Belt region)
Brandon, MS (Black Belt region)
TABLE 3.1: EQUITY STAKEHOLDERS
Farm McClendon)(VeronicaConsultantLegal
Experienced Black male farmer. Row crop producer and cattle.
Beginner Mixed race first-generation male farmer. Co-owner worker. Vegetable producer, no livestock.
Director Communityof Williams)*(AyannaResilienceEnvironmentaland-
Other Information
Farm (JamesConsultantTechnicalFord)
Georgia College and State University Rural (BlackGeorgiaBeltregion)
Harris County (West Central GA, Black Belt Region)
Founder & CEO Ezeilo)*(Angelou
Greening Youth Foundation Metro ATL, National and (Lagos,InternationalNigeria)
Farmer 5 Interviewee Cooperatively- owned farm (urban) Dekalb and Newton Counties (Atlanta Metro)
Experienced Black male farmer. Row crop producer and pigs. Trains and organizes farmers.
Farmer 4 Interviewee family farm (rural) Dougherty County (Southwest GA, Black Belt region)
Farmer/ (FeliciaConsultantRegionalBell)
Farmer 6 Focus ParticipantGroup AgriUnity; family farm (rural) South Georgia (Black Belt region)
Stakeholder Study Role Organization County or Region
Experienced Black male farmer. Vegetable producer, no livestock.
Macon-based female lawyer specializing in heirs property law. Serves Black Belt farmers.
Experienced Black female traditional (allnatural) farmer, business owner and farmer consultant. Vegetable producer and small ruminants (sheep). Consults with and trains farmers throughout the Black Belt and across the country.
Experienced male farmer and USDA retiree. Consults with smallholder farmers throughout the Black Belt.
Beginner Black male certified organic farmer. Row crop and vegetable producer, no livestock.
Focus hostParticipant/GroupCo-
Urban (Metro ATL) & National Female environmental advocate and community organizer.
Rural Womack)(VeronicaResearcherDirector;Institute
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 24
Around 60-65% of Georgia’s land is forested, with 25% on agricultural land and 11% on pastureland (Mohan, 2021). Increasing forested land by seven percent could sequester one metric ton of carbon by 2030 (Mohan, 2021). To avoid monoculture issues, such as pest and disease threats to specific trees, an even mix of hardwoods and long-leaf pine trees should be planted (Mohan, 2021). Long-leaf pines live longer, and thus provide longer-term carbon benefits. Additionally, planting
All of Georgia Recommended by Dr. Dwivedi; focus on rural forestry.
AfforestationSilvopasture/ in Rural Settings
Land Sink Strategies (Silvopasture, Afforestation, & Agroecology)
Amy Gutierrez Conservation in Coastal Habitats
These strategies involve planting specific crops and managing the placement of animals in ways that replenish soil and mitigate ecological degradation. They reduce the need for use of chemical fertilizers, absorb nitrogen from the air, improve water quality, prevent soil erosion, and improve soil health in numerous ways. Additionally, conservation agricultural practices in irrigation and pest management can not only improve climate outcomes but also increase the production quality of conservation farmers (Bell, 2021, personal communication; Silverman, 2020b).
The Nature Conservancy
Michael Wall
Brian Foster
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 25
Focus on water conservation and soil health.
All of Georgia Focus on soil and conservation practices.
If implemented, land sink solutions can offset 27% of total carbon emissions in the state, improving air quality, and providing public health and social benefits (Drawdown Georgia, 2021). These solutions have the potential to cut farmers’ operation costs and have both short-term and long-term economic benefits. The land sink solution involves three main strategies: afforestation & silvopasture, a conservation focus on coastal wetlands, and temperate forest protection and management. Following the RCE Drawdown Georgia’s identified priorities for this equity project, Taproot’s research focused on the afforestation and silvopasture strategy.
All of Georgia
Other Information
TABLE 3.2: TAPROOT PROFESSIONAL STAKEHOLDERS
Georgia Conservancy
Georgia Organics
AfforestationSilvopasture/ in Rural Settings Georgia CommissionForestry
Focus on land conservation, smart growth, environmental stewardship, and coastal habitat.
Greg Levine Afforestation in Urban Settings Trees Atlanta Urban (MATL) Focus on tree planting in urban settings and tree ordinances.
Secondary Strategies to Achieve Conservation Agriculture Goals: Cover Cropping, Crop Rotation and Rotational Grazing (Livestock Farming).
Andres Villegas
Perri Cooper Conservation in Rural Settings
AfforestationSilvopasture/ in Rural Settings Georgia AssociationForestry
The specific practices associated with afforestation include planting trees on farmland that is no longer producing crops or
Name Focus Organization CountyRegionor
All of Georgia Focus on sustainable planting and coastal habitats.
Mark McClellan
Lower Flint River Water Basin in SW Georgia
All of Georgia Focus on forestry management, forest stewardship, and land use.
Flint River Soil and Water DistrictConservation
AfforestationSilvopasture/ & AgricultureConservationin PeriUrban settings
devoid of other vegetation, as well as planting trees in urban settings (such as parks or areas without shade coverage). Silvopasture involves planting trees on pastureland to provide shade to grazing livestock, which in turn can improve soil properties and water quality. These practices are often wellknown to farmers that already engage in other conservation agriculture practices. However, silvopasture requires a bit of planning and prep work, as it mandates fencing for livestock to allow for the tree seedlings to take root and for controlled grazing to take place (USDA, 2008). The preparation and maintenance cost for these practices limit small landowner engagement, as the economic benefits do not outweigh the costs. For example, to engage in tax incentive programs, like Conservation Use Valuation Assessment (CUVA), landowners must generally have a minimum of ten acres for program enrollment (Georgia Environmental Protection Division). Whereas larger tract farmers that have the means can engage in these practices at the required scale to reap both the economic and environmental benefits.
The recommendations described in this section are derived from stakeholder interview data received through one-on-one interviews and focus group discussions (See Table 3.1 Equity Stakeholders for list, and Appendix H for issues addressed by specific stakeholders). Specific solution ideas proposed by individual stakeholders are provided in the final column located in Appendix H. The table below represents a synthesis of this input along with research, organized in alignment with the primary themes that emerged through this project. Most action items and themes identified in the table are tied to multiple stakeholders, and a review of Appendix H will present the more detailed suggestions from specific interviews. In addition, the Taproot team drew upon information from the following sources to provide context, explain purpose, and structure the recommendations: Consultations with Phase 1 Research Teams and Professional Stakeholders; research and review of data, reports, videos, and articles related to the specific topics (See References); and Taproot expertise in agriculture, land use, policy, and equity.
In-the-Field-Action: Collaboration, Education and 1)ProgrammingExpandDrawdown
Results and Recommendations
Georgia solution awareness, amplify best practices, build capacity, and develop additional resources in collaboration with under-resourced farmers, grassroots organizations, and rural practitioners.
Designing high-impact, culturally-relevant education materials that are based in traditional agro-ecological knowledge and financial analysis can help to expand the use of conservation agricultural practices and advance equity by supporting farm success. In addition, these materials must be paired with effective information delivery strategies. This is especially important for rural Black farmer communities who have been deliberately exploited for generations. Innovative, culturallyrelevant delivery strategies involving trusted community partners are critical not only to ensure that information is received and utilized, but also to ensure that two-way, nonhierarchical communication relationships exist between farmers and technical assistants.
The recommendations are organized into two categories: 1) Inthe-Field-Action: Collaboration, Education and Programming; and 2) Structural and Institutional Changes: Policy & Power Shifting. The rationales for each recommendation are outlined below. The Table 3.3 that follows provides detail about specific components for implementing each of the recommendations (reflecting direct input from stakeholders), target audiences (groups well-positioned to provide or leverage support for implementation), and key collaborators, or groups with expertise and interests aligned with the recommendation.
By creating a network of programs centered in equity and climate change mitigation, establish a platform through which farmers can test and scale up the use of the conservation agriculture (and silvopasture) practices that they determine are best for them. These programs can build upon and reinforce one another by sharing knowledge, material resources, and administrative infrastructure.
This outreach also requires investment in supporting infrastructure. Many rural families do not have access to any internet, let alone high-speed, and a disproportionate number of those families are Black (Shivaram, 2021). Expanding internet access enables farmers to access a wide variety of online information about conservation agriculture and silvopasture
native Georgia tree species is preferred, as they will prove more resilient to the effects of climate change.
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 26
By elevating the successes of local organizations and food system actors with diverse leadership who are supporting these farmers whose practices align with the formalized Drawdown equity standards (see Recommendation #7), Drawdown Georgia supports the sharing of best practices from community expertise and helps to advance equity by leveraging Drawdown Georgia influence on behalf of impactful, diverse organizations with less power.
Secondary Strategy to Achieve Land Sink Goals: Urban Tree Planting.
Increasing the number of trees on bare land is the most effective method to sequester carbon and offset the number of trees lost to timber harvesting (Mani, 2021). These practices require development of a management plan, site preparation, start-up costs for seedlings, planting labor, and fencing for livestock, in addition to maintenance labor and cost in the long term (USDA, 2008). For landowners to engage in these practices, the economic benefits associated with harvesting multiple products and/or tax incentives must outweigh the cost incurred.
Lead Strategy to Achieve Land Sink Goals: Afforestation and/or Silvopasture on Agricultural Land.
In addition to the carbon sequestration impacts of planting trees, when done in urban settings the benefits also include decreasing temperatures, which lowers energy costs and improves air and water quality. The process to plant trees in metro areas requires the planters, who are often a part of the parks department or an environmental nonprofit, to go through a permitting process, receive approval from community and local ordinances, and come up with funds to plant and maintain the new trees (Levine, 2021). On a larger level, there is a push to implement an urban forest master plan to increase green space and urban tree canopy in Atlanta. The cost of a project like this is around $16M, which would cover the cost of infrastructure like concrete removal and adding soil, as well as tree seedlings cost, and tree maintenance (Levine, 2021).
• Foundations that support grassroots organizations working for racial equity, social and environmental justice, and just and equitable food systems
TABLE 3.3: IN THE-FIELD-NEAR TERM ACTION STEPS: COLLABORATION, EDUCATION AND PROGRAMMING Recommendation Strategy Components/Opportunities Target Audience
• Georgia Land Grant Universities: Fort Valley State University (FVSU) and University of Georgia (USG)
Action steps:
• USDA (including Georgia leadership)
• Proposed Equity & Climate Change Institute
• Rural Studies Institute (Georgia College and State University)
• Design strategy to combat industry outreach that misdirects farmers.
• State and regional Black-led and sustainable agriculture networks
• Local/regional Black-led advocacy organizations
• Increase institutional diversity, valuing lived experience & equity expertise of all educator types.
• Technical College Systems of Georgia (TCSG)
Increase ruralorganizations,farmers,under-resourceddesignedexpandbuildbestawareness,solutionamplifypractices,capacity,andresourceswithgrassrootsandpractitioners.
• Drawdown Georgia Business Compact
• networksorganizationsGeorgia-basedandwithexpertise in community organizing & social impact
Key Collaborators
• Drawdown Georgia Business Compact
• Rural Studies Institute (Georgia College and State University)
• Local/regional Black-led advocacy organizations
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 27
• Proposed Equity & Climate Change Institute
• USDA (including Georgia leadership)
• Drawdown Georgia Business Compact
• Georgia land grant Universities (Fort Valley State University and University of Georgia)
Supporting infrastructure:
• Demonstrate specific solution practices via: hands-on workshops for field days and on-farm sites, targeted outreach materials, and focus on financial return (business case) opportunities for farmers.
• Train educators on new materials & delivery methods.
• Develop a tool bank cooperative to share high-value/low-use equipment.
• Foundations that agriculturecapacity-buildingsupportforsustainableinGeorgia
• Offer support and/or engage organizations with diverse leadership that are working in the field.
• Expand internet access and Wi-Fi infrastructure in partnership with utilities to promote inclusivity and digital literacy.
• Georgia and southeastern Black farmer networks and organizations
• Proposed Equity & Climate Change Institute[1]
• Establish mentoring and shared practice programs between smallholder farms.
• Rural Studies Institute (Georgia College and State University)
• Technical College Systems of Georgia (TCSG)
• Foundations that agriculturecapacity-buildingsupportforsustainableinGeorgia
• Local/regional creative content producers and communications experts
Capacity building:
• Black farmer cooperatives
• Provide outreach & scholarships/funding for solution-specific conferences/ trainings, workshops, field days, etc.
• communicationCulturally-relevantexperts
• Black farmer cooperatives
• Pilot a small-farm workforce program for workers, students, & professionals.
• Amplify the high-impact work of grassroots food production related organizations that are advancing equity & promoting conservation agriculture and/or silvopasture practices.
• Change rules & practices that limit access to existing financial resources (federal, state, local levels).
• Draw on community expertise as well as academic expertise.
• Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE)
• Drawdown Georgia solution authors and institutional partners
• Black farmer advocacy organizations
• Recognize and integrate the intersectional expertise of equity and solution area knowledge in Drawdown Georgia communications.
• Black cooperativesfarmer
• Rural Studies Institute (Georgia College and State University)
• Multi-disciplinary team with expertise in community organizing and social impact (Equity & Climate Change Institute or alternative)
• Funders supporting Drawdown Georgia and climate-related initiatives
Ordinance to standardize practices and ensure compliance by all parties (Urban Developers, Residents, etc.).
3) Change Institutional Food Procurement & Contracting Policies & Standards to provide a stable market for Blackowned farms. Drawdown Georgia partners and other foodserving institutions have a major opportunity to advance equity and climate change mitigation through their food procurement and contracting policies. By setting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and food production standards for food service vendors that prioritizes smallholder farmers who use conservation agriculture practices, institutions can not only support Drawdown Georgia carbon sequestration goals by influencing farmer production practices, but they can also provide an important economic support for smallholder farmers, stimulation for food-based local economies (rural and urban), and improved health outcomes for their students, visitors, and personnel using food-serving institutions.
Key Collaborators
Recommendation Strategy Components/Opportunities Target Audience
[1]Taproot suggests this as a framework for strategy for achieving many of the goals presented in these recommendations. Equity stakeholders suggested the coordination of efforts, the engagement of equity experts, and the resourcing of efforts to accomplish the many activities they suggested. Taproot contributed the idea of housing this in an institute that could provide leadership, coordination, and secure resources to make this happen.
1)ShiftingAdvocate for Political Investment in Urban Forestry Master Planning to support tree canopy expansion. Drawdown Georgia and solution advocates could support existing master planning initiatives such as the Urban Forest Master Plan set forth by Trees Atlanta & Central Atlanta Progress that aims to increase 14-18% of Atlanta’s tree canopy within 15 years. These actions should also be adopted within the Atlanta Tree
Structural and Institutional Changes: Policy & Power
• UGA and FVSU
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 28
Table 3.3: In-the-Field-Near Term Action Steps: Collaboration, Education and Programming (continued)
communications.climate-focusedGeorgiawithinequityProfessionalizepracticesDrawdown&other
• Promote the practice of equity-based community engagement strategies.
• Establish a multidisciplinary Equity & Climate Change Institute to steer this work.
2) Foster close collaboration with equity professionals and stakeholders to advance equity across all Drawdown Georgia solutions. Incorporating practitioners with equity expertise in teams developing communications and outreach materials will enhance collaboration that advances carbon sequestration practices in rural Georgia. In addition, the terminology, standards, processes, and accountability processes of measuring and defining equity should be both standardized and formalized within Drawdown Georgia and solution sector communications, including the Drawdown Georgia web pages. Such standardization and professionalization can ensure that all groups making use of Drawdown Georgia resources are working from the same strategy and with the same fundamental purpose and aim. Otherwise, abstract terms like “equity”, “inclusion”, “diversity” and “sustainability” become mere buzzwords that are easily co-opted by entities that are NOT genuinely interested in addressing racial justice or environmental remediation (Gunder, 2006).
4) Change Rules & Practices that Limit Access to Existing Financial Resources. Both formal (i.e., rules and regulations) and informal (i.e., norms and customs) barriers exist for smallholder Black farmers and first-generation BIPOC urban
practices, but it also supports the sustainability of their businesses by expanding their ability to access funding mechanisms, new markets, and small business resources.
2) Support the Resolution of Heirs’ Property Land Tenure Challenges, a key barrier to solution adoption. Many Black farmers operate family farms on land that was passed through the family for several generations through extralegal processes. As a result, the land tenure and business viability of their farms are often precarious, contributing to a constant state of “survival mode.” Solving these legal hurdles to secure land tenure advances racial equity in land ownership and support the capacity of farmers to prioritize conservation agriculture practices.
• Ensure equitable distribution of tree density throughout the city to address heat islands & marginalized areas void of green space.
• Tree planting organizations
Change rules & practices that limit access to existing resources.financial
• Neighborhood Associations and OrganizationsCommunity-Based
• Proposed Equity & Climate Change Institute
Support resolutiontheof heirs’ property land tenure challenges.
• Revise identified policies to prioritize marginalized farmers & food businesses.
• Establish development that results in no net loss of trees.
• UGA and FSVU
• Provide support to help farmers scale up & prepare for contracting with Drawdown institutions.
• Proposed Equity & Climate Change Institute
• GA Department of Early Care and Learning (DECAL)
• Food procurement, food services and supply chain consultants
• Design such policies & standards for adaptability & equity-centered innovation.
• Black farmer advocacy organization
• Identify targeted changes needed at federal, state and local levels and map appropriate advocacy strategies for each.
TABLE 3.4 STRUCTURAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY: POLICY AND POWER SHIFTING
• AASHE/STARS and Real Food Standards (and groups with similar frameworks)
Advocate for investmentpolitical in Urban MasterForestryPlanning.
• Utilize Drawdown Georgia partner institutions’ law schools to partner with law firms that specialize in heirs’ property law.
• Technical College and Systems of GA
• Drawdown Georgia Business Compact
• Community organizationsdevelopment
• Inventory & assess institutional food procurement policies of all Drawdown member institutions in light of DEI standards & Drawdown equity goals.
• Proposed Equity & Climate Change Institute
• Rural Studies Institute (Georgia College and State University)
• Black farmer cooperatives
• Drawdown Georgia Business Compact
• Land organizationsconservation
• Legal experts in heirs property law
• USDA
• Garner resources to advocate for change.
Recommendation Strategy Components/Opportunities Target Audience Key Collaborators
• Support the work of these firms and their network of grassroots partners to identify and support the resolution of land tenure challenges, both proactively and retroactively.
• Land trust organizationsnonprofit
• USDA
• Drawdown Georgia partner institutions’ law schools
• Foundations that support legal work in racial equity
• Proposed Equity & Climate Change Institute
institutionalChange standards.policiescontractingprocurementfood&&[1]
• Foundations that support transition toward more just and sustainable food systems
[1] While a number of stakeholders addressed economic opportunity as a critical need for Georgia’s farmers and also recommended increased purchasing of Georgia grown produce by the big buyers in the state, Taproot drew on expertise in this field to provide recommendations for the specific tactics that might achieve this goal. In most cases, this industry-specific tactical knowledge falls outside of the realm of stakeholders and solution authors, but well within the experience of the Taproot team.
• Create a standard for sustainable tree planting with an emphasis on increased lifespan & limited maintenance concerns.
• Drawdown Georgia partner institutions
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 29
• Black farmer advocacy organizations
• Black farmer cooperatives
• UGA and FVSU
In the Field: Education and Programming
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 30
The recommendations outlined above would facilitate more inclusive engagement with changemakers in the Drawdown Georgia solution areas of conservation agriculture and land sinks (afforestation/silvopasture). In addition, they have the potential to advance equity in these areas and repair injustices that have been embedded in the structure of Georgia’s institutions and the lives of almost half of Georgia’s population. Below we highlight selected key findings within each of the two major areas of recommendations that emerged through stakeholder outreach.
Georgia partner organizations have the opportunity to “make the invisible visible.” Many small farmers exhibit a commitment to land stewardship and have experience in less mechanized forms of conventional agriculture and traditions of agroecology. Black farmers, in particular, have long-standing practices and commitments to these traditions, and there are also incredible stories of success and resilience that can be uplifted and celebrated by Drawdown Georgia and solution advocates. Recognizing this rich history and cultural connection to agroecology as foundational to contemporary conservation agriculture and environmental sustainability movements helps to advance racial equity, elevate community expertise, and build rapport with historically-marginalized populations. Partnerships with the organizations and individuals cultivating this work and those that are sharing these stories, can go a long way towards building strength, diversity and collaboration between the racial justice and environmentalism movements.
As described by a leading expert in rural agriculture, state & local Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Soil and Water Conservation committees are elected groups, often consisting of individuals in each rural county. It’s rare to have representation of minority farmers in these committees, and these are the committees that determine if money will be allocated to “big agriculture” or to smallholder farmers, and within that group, to farmers of color. Local decision-making only works for everyone when there is genuine representation.
Summary of Key Findings
To prioritize the recommendations, Taproot suggests additional community engagement will be needed to identify which
Drawdownsolutions.
Structural and Institutional Advocacy: Policy and Power Shifting Policy recommendations are intended to address barriers getting in the way of solution implementation. In addition, as in the field
programming section, institutionalizing best practices in academic-community collaboration, and revising practices and policies that disincentivize investment in equitable collaboration, could advance community-academic collaboration in the implementation of Drawdown Georgia solutions. See Table 3.4 for a summary of Policy and Power-Shifting Recommendations. Policies and procedures that may seem reasonable on the surface, are often impractical, burdensome, and problematic in practice. As a result, both the design and implementation of policies often perpetuate a status quo of exclusion from opportunities for these farmers. One central reason is because the decision-makers within traditional agricultural institutions are not reflective of the diversity of our state nor of the farming population consistently excluded from agriculture policy benefits. To address this, some of the individuals that we spoke with suggested implementing an active and intentional diversity recruitment plan (along with an early retirement) within the Georgia Department of Agriculture, Extension, Farm Service Agency and more. This shift in personnel within policymaking institutions can not only contribute to equity and conservation agriculture through innovative strategies, but also they are a necessary counter-perspective within mainstream agricultural politics. The drivers of legislation like the lobbyists who influence the Farm Bill are primarily representing large commodity groups that have little or no concern for smallholder farmers of color.
The first set of recommendations focus on collaboration with farmers, particularly those that have been historically marginalized and have faced barriers in accessing state and federal support programs, to advance land management practices that sequester carbon. Some of these practices are already in place among many smallholders but could be enhanced and expanded; others are currently difficult to implement due to barriers. In most cases, respectful collaboration with farmers is key to more widespread and equitable implementation of the
Policy solutions also must address gaps in rural infrastructure that leave many people behind. The lack of rural infrastructure— specifically access to broadband internet— is cutting rural small farmers off from opportunities. From the internet-dependent technology needed to efficiently use certain farm equipment and resources to the digital literacy needed to learn about and apply for agricultural financing and support, successful farming enterprises are increasingly dependent on the internet for social connectivity and information. As long as Georgia’s rural communities are left out, there will be little hope of creating thriving local economies.
farmers in accessing the funds necessary to start and sustain their farms. Identifying these specific rules/practices and making them more inclusive, flexible, and equitable (both those that exist within USDA and other lending/granting institutions) is critical to advancing equity for farmers and expanding their use of conservation agriculture practices, which can require significant investment.
Looking Ahead
stakeholders to map out strategies to make the targeted goals come to life.
Additional Research
Further Equity Stakeholder Engagement
The goals of additional stakeholder engagement might include:
• An initial prioritization within each action category: In-the-Field-Action: Education and Programming
Structural and Institutional Changes: Policy & Power ResearchShifting & Innovation: Study and Design
Ideally, this process could be led by a small team that seeds the proposed Equity & Climate Change Institute. As priorities are set, this team would be tasked with convening the appropriate
Identify Long-Term Wealth-Building Opportunities for Historically Marginalized Communities. The racial wealth gap is a central component of racial inequities, and much of the issue is linked to racial inequities in land ownership. Little existing research examines the long-term wealth-building opportunities that exist for smallholder Black
Farmer Howard James owns and operates Jibbs Vineyard in Dooly County, Georgia. Photo courtesy of Black Farmers’ Network.
Additional economic, policy, and stakeholder research is needed to build upon report findings and uncover additional barriers and opportunities that should be considered by organizations interested in advancing the solutions identified by the Drawdown Georgia Phase One Research Team. Georgia’s Land Grant Universities— the University of Georgia and Fort Valley State University—are well-positioned to advance this research. As discussed above, stakeholder input suggests that institutions should more fully incorporate equity and stakeholder engagement expertise to partner more effectively with Black farmers and landowners in rural Georgia. In addition, several specific suggestions for future research are outlined below.
• An initial assessment of resources and commitments that can be dedicated to this work.
recommendations are the highest priority for equity stakeholders and which can be implemented in the short term, based upon available assets and resources.
• Identification of a small team composed of individuals with diverse forms of expertise that can review and prioritize actions based on the parameters set here.
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 31
farmers, many of whom do not have social security income and few assets for “retirement”. Identifying and leveraging potential in conservation agriculture, silvopasture, and related climate mitigation strategies for these farmers to generate income and build long-term wealth from participation in such practices can help to expand the use of conservation practices among a variety of actors (e.g., farmers and business partners) while supporting economic equity among rural farm families and communities.
This project provides a formative steppingstone into a future that is more equitable and just for historically marginalized smallholder farmers and landowners in Georgia, while advancing carbon sequestration solutions that are critical for achieving carbon neutrality in Georgia. Establishing equity standards and creating a comprehensive strategy rooted in these standards should guide the next phase of this initiative. Resources should be committed to establishing and institutionalizing appropriate sub-teams to ensure that effective, inclusive strategies are being implemented for each solution sector. For the specific solutions of Conservation Agriculture and Land Sinks, next steps include a deeper investigation of urban impact across Georgia’s metro regions, as well as prioritization of recommendations and investigating additional strategies for advancing each solution equitably.
Conclusion
{
}
Locate and Restore Access to Key Missing Public Data. Publicly accessible, county-specific USDA Census of Agriculture 2017 data on demographics, access, and conservation farming practices by race of farmer have disappeared from the USDA website within the past 12-18 months. Drawdown Georgia partners may be able to leverage their research expertise and partnerships to locate and restore this “missing” data to public access. This is important for trust and transparency with organizations that support smallholder Black farmers, but also for informing the strategy and execution of Drawdown solution implementation.
Further work should not only be responsive to the voices of historically marginalized smallholder farmers but also inclusive of these changemakers and the grassroots organizations and individuals that represent their interests. The proposed Equity and Climate Institute envisions a targeted approach to these efforts and can work collaboratively with the Drawdown Georgia Business Compact as appropriate. Through the launch of these parallel groups and the establishment of the equity standards that guide them, the recommendations provided in this report, and the goals set forth by Drawdown Georgia, this state is well-positioned to become a regional leader in equity-centered climate change mitigation.
"Now, you ask me what's your barrier?… first time people...say, ‘Well, have you talked to NRCS?’ I share with them politely, ‘Yes I have... Do you know the full rules of NRCS?’ And…they don't. See if you knew the full rules, you'd know that NRCS hands are tied. They can help you with cross fencing, but if you don't have no boundaries, what good is cross fencing? I mean boundary fencing. And I can't do boundaries because of the amount of money it takes to put up a fence."
- Experienced Georgia livestock farmer, discussing the infrastructure required to effectively manage silvopasture and secure border fencing that runs in the tens of thousands of dollars.
face when attempting to access resources and opportunities. For example, heirs property solutions that the USDA offers include farmers accumulating debt in exchange for access to legal services, and it excludes individuals who have not resolved these issues from being able to apply for financial assistance from many NRCS and USDA programs - while most heirs property issues stem from systematic and historical barriers.
Explore University Incentive Policies and Practices. University incentive structures are generally organized in such a way that rewards the acquisition of grants and other funding that brings research dollars into the university. Few, if any, incentives or mandates exist to support the dispersal of that money through sub-contracts. By understanding where opportunities and barriers exist within institutions, these policies can be adapted to support DEI initiatives, such as through subcontracting with grassroots technical assistance organizations with diverse leadership that support farmers to implement conservation agriculture practices. In doing so, Drawdown Georgia engaged universities can not only support expansion of carbon sequestration activities, but also can support the development of rural businesses and economies.
Our data collection revealed that the “devil is in the details,” and that generalized strategies for education and engagement fail to recognize the specific roadblocks that smallholder Black farmers
Conservation Agriculture & Land Sinks 32
Conduct Further Research Into Solution Implementation Barriers.
Brown, M. A., Soni, A., Lapsa, M. V., Southworth, K., & Cox, M. (2020). High energy burden and low-income energy affordability: conclusions from a literature review. Progress in Energy, 2(4), 042003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2516-1083/abb954
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(31). Brown,https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2100008118M.A.,Hubbs,J.,XinyiGu,V.,& Cha, M. K. (2021). Rooftop solar for all: Closing the gap between the technically possible and the achievable. Energy Research & Social Science, 80, 102203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102203
Agyeman, J., Bullard, R. D., & Evans, B. (Eds.). (2003). Just sustainabilities: Development in an unequal world. MIT press. Bailey, Z. D., Krieger, N., Agénor, M., Graves, J., Linos, N., & Bassett, M. T. (2017). Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: evidence and interventions. The Lancet, 389(10077), 1453–1463. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(17)30569-x Bell, F. (2021, September 9). Personal Communication. [WebEx] Brown, M. A., Beasley, B., Atalay, F., Cobb, K. M., Dwiveldi, P., Hubbs, J., Iwaniec, D. M., Mani, S., Matisoff, D., Mohan, J. E., Mullen, J., Oxman, M., Rochberg, D., Rodgers, M., Shepherd, M., Simmons, R., Taylor, L., & Toktay, L. B. (2021). Translating a global emission-reduction framework for subnational climate action: A case study from the state of Georgia. Environmental Management, 67(2), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Brown,s00267-020-01406-1M.A.,&Chapman, O. (2021). The size, causes, and equity implications of the demand-response gap. Energy Policy, 158, 112533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112533
May 15, 2022, from ExaminingMcIntosh,1zxNseMUZvbQs958PJTqJ5-oV_jNV9JhaDrawdownMani,Mani,collectivesocioeconomicWhatMacintyre,georgiaSeptemberLynchingLevine,30).Land26(2),roadGunder,A+Guide+to+Sharing+Farm+Equipment_2018_WEB.pdf5afa42a26d2a73b330e797f7/1526350506535/53a4e2b0e4b044c4de439e15/t/EducationGilbert,attachments/EE%20Phase%201_4-13-18.pdfSolutionsGeorgiaepd.georgia.gov/search?search=cuva&sm_site_name=epdValuationGeorgiahttps://datausa.io/profile/geo/georgia#housingGeorgia.environmental-issues/agriculture-racial-equity-climate-change-carbon-farming-reckoning.Fassler,data/net-metering/georgia-power/RetrievedEnergySage.development-goals/movement-for-justice-an-examination-of-the-sustainable-https://echoinggreen.org/news/growing-a-(2022)2022GeorgiaPowerNetMetering.Feb2,2022,fromhttps://www.energysage.com/local-J.2021,May3.RegenerativeagricultureneedsaTheCounter.https://thecounter.org/regenerative-(n.d.).DataUSA.RetrievedJanuary21,2022,fromEnvironmentalProtectionDivision.ConservationUseAssessment(CUVA)FactSheet.https://Tech.UnderstandingEnergyBurdenanditsPotentialforAtlanta.https://cepl.gatech.edu/sites/default/files/F.NortheastSustainableAgricultureResearchand(SARE).https://static1.squarespace.com/static/M.(2006).Sustainability:Planning’ssavinggraceortoperdition?JournalofPlanningEducationandResearch,208–221.https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X06289359SinksSolutionsSector:DrawdownGeorgia.(2021,Marchhttps://www.drawdownga.org/solutions/land-sinks/G.(2021,August11).PersonalInterview[Zoom].inAmerica.EqualJusticeInitiative.Accessed2021.https://lynchinginamerica.eji.org/explore/A.,Ferris,D.Gonçalves,B.,andQuinn,N.(2018).haseconomicsgottodowithit?Theimpactoffactorsonmentalhealthandthecaseforaction.PalgraveCommunications4(1):1-5.S.(2021,July15).PersonalInterview[Zoom].S.(2021).FoodandAgricultureTechnicalBrief.Georgia.https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/K.,Moss,E.,Nunn,R.,Shambaugh,J.(2020).theBlack-whitewealthgap.BrookingsInstitution.
References 33
Brown, M. A., Dwivedi, P., Mani, S., Matisoff, D., Mohan, J. E., Mullen, J., Oxman, M., Rodgers, M., Simmons, R., Beasley, B., & Polepeddi, L. (2021). A framework for localizing global climate solutions and their carbon reduction potential.
Charles, S. (2021). “After a last-ditch lawsuit is filed in Texas, Black farmers wait to learn the fate of USDA’s imperiled debt relief program”. The Counter.
REFERENCES
ExaminationEchoingwww.drawdownga.org/solutions/transportation/solutionsDrawdownwww.drawdownga.org/solutions/electricity/sector.Drawdownmiller-versus-vilsack-texas-Black-farmers-usda-debt-relief/https://thecounter.org/lawsuit-Georgia.(2021a,November14).ElectricitysolutionRetrievedMarch25,2022,fromhttps://Georgia.(2021b,November14).Transportationsector.RetrievedMarch25,2022,fromhttps://Green,2019.GrowingaMovementforJustice:AnoftheSustainableDevelopmentGoals.Retrieved
References 34 RetrievedSouthernersShivaram,Press.Sen.10.1080/14728028.2021.1980741Livelihoods,Georgia,UnderstandingSchelhas,10.1016/j.respol.2020.103978transitions.Winter,Karatzas,Sauermann,philosophy,Richardson,system/XRBQKDQvMk7KDSZ39yGdQO/partnership-will-help-preserve-farmland-boost-local-food-Constitution.preserveRhone,frompolicyRetrofitting1AuwlTqJkhTGQgaoSz4mkvd0jHULNypKV/editdocs.google.com/document/d/Prioritization.Electricity-Rooftop-SolarRCEframeworkWayProject2022,ProjectChelseaSoulPenniman,Mohan,residents-live-poverty-14th-most-us/metroatlantaceo.com/news/2021/09/report-finds-133-georgia-ResidentsMetrothe-Black-white-wealth-gap/https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/02/27/examining-AtlantaCEO(2021).“ReportFinds13.3%ofGeorgiaLiveinPoverty,14thMostinU.S”fromhttp://J.(2021,July14).Personalinterview[Zoom].L.,&Washington,K.(2018).FarmingwhileBlack:FireFarm'spracticalguidetoliberationontheland.GreenPublishing.Drawdown.(2022).DrawdownLift.RetrievedMay15,fromhttps://www.drawdown.org/drawdown-liftDrawdown.(2020).ADrawdownPrimer:FarmingOurOutoftheClimateCrisis.https://drawdown.org/drawdown-GreaterAtlantaOnePageSolutionProposals.(2021).JustificationforSolutionRetrievedJanuary19,2022,fromhttps://buildings&demandresponse|climateandenergylaboratory.(n.d.).GeorgiaTech.RetrievedApril15,2022,https://cepl.gatech.edu/node/202N.(2019,November13).Emorypartnershipwillhelpfarmland,boostlocalfoodsystem.AtlantaJournal-https://www.ajc.com/news/local-education/emory-H.(2005).JohnRawls.TheInternetencyclopediaoffromhttp://iep.utm.edu/rawls/.Excerpts.Vohland,K.,Antoniou,V.,Balázs,B.,Göbel,C.,K.,Mooney,P.,Perelló,J.,Ponti,M.,Samson,R.,&S.(2020).CitizenscienceandsustainabilityResearchPolicy,49(5),103978,1-16.https://doi.org/H.,S.,Dwivedi,P.,&Thomas,M.(2021).Blacklandowner’sengagementinforestryinUnitedStates:acloserlook.Forests,Treesand30(4),242–257.https://doi.org/A.2009.Theideaofjustice.Cambridge,MA:BelknapIntroductionandChapter2.D.(2021,October6).Morethan1in3ruralBlackLackHomeinternetaccess,anewstudyfinds.NPR.October19,2021,fromhttps://www.npr.org/
Silverman,southerners-digital-infrastructure-divide2021/10/06/1043666017/internet-access-rural-Black-L.(SeniorProducer).(2020a-present).Black Lives
Matter and the Climate. (No. 7) [Audio podcast episode]. In How to Save a Planet. Gimlet. USDAag-snapshots/ag-snapshot-2019.pdfhttps://caed.uga.edu/content/dam/caes-subsite/caed/publications/Universitycenter-for-sustainable-business/docs/EE-Phase-1_4-13-18.pdfwww.scheller.gatech.edu/centers-initiatives/ray-c-anderson-AtlantaUnderstandingpublications/pdf/National-CHMA-20.pdfCanHouseholdU.S.tid=ACSST5Y2019.S1101&g=0400000US13https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?2019U.S.https://blog.drawdownga.org/why-and-what-of-beyond-carbonCarbon”Toktay,https://www.thesolarfoundation.org/national/Thedoi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0204-zStatesDisparitiesSunter,homeownership-rates/Policygenuis.Suh,laScCVvtqigIDEASTILLStoneywww.solarstates.org/Foundation.Solarsi=c762940230e34f29https://open.spotify.com/episode/2Ckmhwn6qJkiS0BjYhSlVo?[AudioChangeSilverman,3vO0O6COrqqB9HS710UWqa?si=823ea852ed6749b4https://open.spotify.com/episode/L.(SeniorProducer).(2020b-present).ClimateisDrivingMigration:CanSmarterAgHelp?(No.51)podcastepisode].InHowtoSaveaPlanet.Gimlet.jobscensus2019|solarstates.(n.d.).TheSolarRetrievedApril15,2022,fromhttps://RidgeFarmer.(2017,September27).HOWDOESANOSEEDDRILLWORK..SEEDINGNEWPASTURETIPS,ANDTHOUGHTS.[Video].YouTube.https://youtu.be/E.(2020,December1).BlackhomeownershipintheU.S.https://www.policygenius.com/mortgages/black-D.A.,Castellanos,S.&Kammen,D.M.(2019).inrooftopphotovoltaicsdeploymentintheUnitedbyraceandethnicity.NatSustain2,71–76(2019).https://SolarFoundation,NationalSolarJobsReport2019.(2020).B.(2021,January13).WhyandWhatof“BeyondDrawdownGeorgia.RetrievedJan21,2022,fromCensusBureau(2019).GeorgiaHouseholdsandFamilies:ACS5YearEstimateTables.RetrievedJan21,2022,fromDepartmentofEnergy.(2018,December).Low-IncomeEnergyBurdenVariesAmongStates—EfficiencyHelpInAllofThem.https://www.huduser.gov/portal/EnergyBurdenanditsPotentialSolutionsfor(2018).RetrievedMarch15,2022,fromhttps://ofGeorgia.(2019).2019AgSnapshot.Retrievedfrom(1996).D.J.MillerDisparityStudyFinalReport.
References 35
USDA (2008). Silvopasture: Establishment & Management principles for pine forests in the Southeastern United States. USDA.silvopasture_handbook.pdfhttps://www.silvopasture.org/pdf_content/(2017).CensusofAgriculture2017.
Retrieved September 2021, from readingroom.law.gsu.edu/jculp/vol4/iss1/34ComparativeInequitiesWyczalkowski,worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/poverty-by-raceRetrievedWorldby-stateworldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/income-inequality-2022.Worldhttps://worldpopulationreview.com/states/georgia-population(Demographics,Worldwww.youtube.com/watch?v=JrnYIwkEiAw&feature=youtu.beRowWallaceYouTube.No-TillUSDAst13_1_0071_0071.pdfVolume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Georgia/AgCensus/2017/Full_Report/https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/NRCSVirginia.(2017,January13).ExperimentswithCoverCropsatPotomacVegetableFarms.[Video].https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boeSdALXz38Center(2019,January10).GrazingCoverCrops:WhyCropFarmersShouldWelcomeGrazing.https://PopulationReview.(n.d.-a).GeorgiaPopulation2021Maps,Graphs).RetrievedJan21,2022,fromPopulationReview.(n.d.-b).IncomeInequalitybyStateRetrievedMar25,2022,fromhttps://PopulationReview.(n.d.-c).PovertybyRace2022.Mar25,2022,fromhttps://C.K.;Welch,T.,andPasha,O.(2020).ofTransitAccess:TheCaseofAtlanta,GA.JournalofUrbanLawandPolicy,4(1),657-684.https://
Appendices
Appendix C: IRB Consent Form
Appendix E: Taproot Solution Author
Appendix G: Taproot Interview Questionnaire
Appendix I: Glossary of Terms (conservation agriculture and afforestation/silvopasture)
Appendices 36
Appendix D: PSE Interview Responses
Appendix B: Request for Applications
Appendix F: Taproot Census Maps
Appendix H: Taproot Interview and Focus Group Data
Appendix A: RCE GA Team Members
Appendices 37
Michael Oxman Georgia Tech, Ray C. Anderson Center for Sustainable Business
Taylor Spicer Emory University Sustainability
Jairo Garcia Georgia Tech, City and Regional Planning
Garry Harris Center for Sustainable Communities
Mona Ray Morehouse College, Economics
Michael Black Georgia State Sustainability
Zach Jones Georgia Tech, Undergraduate Student
Team Members
Morgan Thomasson Felder Atlanta Metropolitan State College, Student Support Services
Appendix A: RCE GA Team Members
Alicia Scott Partnership for Southern Equity
Anne Heard Atlanta Metropolitan State College
Nancy Larson Sustainable Options, LLC
Daphne Saavedra Georgia Tech, Graduate Student
Leadership Team
Mine Hasha-Degertekin Kennesaw State University, Architecture
Sing Hui Lee Georgia Tech, Undergraduate Student
Suzanne Burnes Collective Wisdom Group, Partnership for Southern Equity
Rebecca Watts Hull Georgia Tech, Center for Serve-Learn-Sustain
Appendices 38
Dates: May 17 – Sept 3, 2021
Location: Consultant may be located anywhere within the state of Georgia. Project will require virtual engagement with organizations and individuals throughout the state of Georgia.
Project contacts: Primary: Rebecca Watts Hull, Serve-Learn-Sustain, in consultation with Anne Heard, Atlanta Metropolitan State College and Michael Oxman, Ray C. Anderson Center for Sustainable Business (ACSB) (co-project leads on behalf of RCE Greater Atlanta).
Background: Drawdown Georgia (inspired by Project Drawdown) has been a collaborative effort across Georgia Tech, University of Georgia, Emory, and Georgia State (with partners: Partnership for Southern Equity, Greenlink, and Southface) to identify the highest potential carbon mitigation solutions for the state of Georgia and to consider potential impacts and opportunities related to beyond carbon dimensions such as equity. The team has narrowed the set of solutions from an original 100 (drawn from the original Project Drawdown publication) to 20 high-impact solutions for the state of Georgia across five major categories: energy, transportation, the built environment, food/agriculture, and forest/land use (land sinks). In addition to those five, a sixth working group called “Beyond Carbon” focused on additional environmental considerations, equity, economic development, and public health across all solutions.
Appendix B: Request for Applications
Project: Conduct facilitation, stakeholder engagement, and data collection activities as well as draft recommendations for the Drawdown Georgia Equity Project.
When the consulting position described in this RFA begins in May 2021, the DGE team will have identified between five and eight of the 20 DG solutions that offer significant opportunities for enhancing equity in their implementation. The team will also have developed short “equity evaluation” descriptions for each of these solutions and generated lists of key stakeholders associated with each. In addition, the team leaders and a community-based organization already engaged as a consultant will have developed preliminary recommendations for methodologies to solicit the perspectives of these stakeholders on the proposed solutions (e.g., charettes, focus groups, interviews, survey instruments).
Findings from the Beyond Carbon working group informed the work of the Drawdown Georgia Equity (DGE) Project, launched in January 2021 and led by Michael Oxman (ACSB), Anne Heard, (Atlanta Metropolitan State College) and Rebecca Watts Hull (SLS) with support from a team of volunteers within the RCE Greater Atlanta regional sustainability education network. By December 2021, the project will result in a report that provides near-, mid-, and long-term actions to advance equity within a subset of the 20 Drawdown Georgia solutions. Our aspiration is that this approach may then be replicated, in the future, on the remaining Drawdown Georgia solutions.
Position: Drawdown Georgia Equity Project Stakeholder Engagement and Research Consultant
The role of the consultant hired in response to this RFA will be to further refine and then execute the stakeholder engagement/ data collection plan by facilitating the selected mode(s) of engagement noted above and managing the data in accordance with specifications provided by the supervisor; regularly advise the project team of plans and opportunities for their participation; and complete a preliminary analysis and written summary of the qualitative data collected.
• Experience with a range of data collection/stakeholder outreach instruments (as noted above).
Appendices 39
1. Design instruments to be used for data collection (e.g., survey instruments/interview questions/ charette agendas and invitee lists).
1. Analyze data.
• Five or more years professional experience in facilitation and stakeholder engagement.
• Demonstrated commitment to equity and sustainability in past professional work.
Qualifications:
• Strong project management skills.
Collaboration and communication: The consultant will meet bi-weekly with the project contact and/or leadership team to review progress and discuss any needed adjustments. As described above, the consultant’s tasks build on the work completed by the DGE team and one other consultant. As advised by the project contact, the consultant will communicate regularly with the DGE team about the stakeholder engagement process and use the existing shared project management system to provide opportunities for DGE team members to participate.
To apply: Applicants should send a cover letter, resume, contact information for three references, and a one-page statement describing their experience with and approach to stakeholder/community engagement to the Ray C. Anderson Center for Sustainable Business: acsb@scheller.gatech.edu. Please include “Drawdown Georgia Equity Project Application” in the subject line. Application deadline is Thursday, April 15 at 8:00pm.
Further develop and engagementstakeholderfinalize and data collection plan
3. Develop a timeline for completing all data collection with stakeholders and review with project contact for approval.
2. Execute data collection plan.
planengagementstakeholderImplement
Manage all data securelycollection
1. Follow IRB protocol (to be completed by team leaders) regarding data collection and storage of 2.data. Develop and follow a clear and well-organized system for managing different kinds of data in accordance with IRB protocol. Analyze data and initialcompletereport
2. Complete a report (8-10 pages) explaining research activities and laying out initial recommendations for near-, mid-, and long-term actions to advance equity with a subset of the 20 Drawdown Georgia solutions.
4. With project contact, complete a proposed project budget to include any stakeholder/ community-based organization stipends for participation.
1. Carefully review all materials developed by the DGE team.
• Excellent writing, organization, and oral communication skills.
Task Activities & Deliverables
Scope of Work: The consultant will build on the work completed to date by the DGE team to identify and engage stakeholders and equity elements of the Drawdown Georgia solutions. Specifically, during summer 2021 (see dates above), the consultant will execute the following tasks:
2. Building upon this work, complete a detailed implementation plan for soliciting input on the DG solutions from identified stakeholder organizations and individuals. The plan should consider the most appropriate alignment of stakeholders and solutions and include stakeholder representation from the most impacted Georgia regions.
Appendices 40
Appendix C: IRB Consent Form
Do you think that property owners should install rooftop solar to provide renters with a clean energy option and help reduce their energy bills?
Question Response (summary)
In historically marginalized communities within metropolitan areas, the cost of solar installation is the primary barrier. The secondary barrier is old housing stock in need of retrofitting. In general, Georgians cannot invest in rooftop solar because of the upfront costs and old housing stock. Older homes are inefficient at using energy for various reasons and need retrofitting before they switch to renewable energy sources like rooftop solar. Additionally, there isn’t policy or many incentives from utility companies to lessen the costs of rooftop solar installations.
What are the primary barriers to wide-scale installation of rooftop solar?
(Respondents: Dr. Jairo Garcia, Chandra Farley)
In Georgia, there is a lack of incentives and funding for property owners who may be interested in rooftop solar. Property owners need funding incentives to install rooftop solar on investment/non owner occupied units to make rooftop solar an affordable option. While stakeholders in the focus groups agree that property owners should install rooftop solar, there was no consensus on who should pay for the technology. Majority of the stakeholders interviewed suggested federal and local government tax incentives become the primary investment fund for rooftop solar installment for multi family dwellings and single family rental units.
How familiar are the stakeholders you serve with rooftop solar as renewable energy technology?
(Respondents: Dr. Jairo Garcia, Chandra Farley, Focus groups 1 & 2)
If so, how do you think rooftop solar projects for rental units should be funded?
Appendices 41
Appendix D: PSE Interview Responses
All professional stakeholders believe a PAYS program is a great option for funding wide scale rooftop solar.
State-wide, Georgia’s communities lack understanding of rooftop solar and its potential for providing energy for the state according both experts. The recurring theme across all stakeholders and focus group respondents is that the public at large has little knowledge of how rooftop solar can be affordable to install and save them on energy costs while providing a cleaner environment and significant carbon reduction. Public education and outreach campaigns are needed to change the public perception of rooftop solar. Among lower wealth demographics the awareness of solar and its benefits is even lower according to Chandra Farley of Atlanta Energy Foundation.
Dr. Jairo Garcia, Chandra Farley)
(Respondents: Focus groups 1 & 2)
Rooftop Solar
Do you believe a Pay-as-you-save (PAYS) program is a feasible way to fund wide-scale rooftop (Respondents:solar?
J. Lawrence Miller, Focus group 1 & 2)
Some stakeholders reported they use cars out of necessity, because mass transit doesn’t properly serve their needs. Professional stakeholders cited racial bias as a barrier to expanding mass transit in all of Atlanta’s areas. Affluent communities in Atlanta especially oppose mass transit expansion into their communities, as according to the expert, they associate mass transit with the introduction of more low-income people into their neighborhoods. This negative perception blocks mass transit development and polarizes the issue. Education and community interfacing will help change perception of mass transit. This can also help to expand the definition of mass transit to include alternative modes of transportation besides buses, cars, trains, and light rails. Stakeholders ranked their preferred modes of transportation and most reported human powered modes as their primary preference. However, they cited poor infrastructure as the biggest barrier to consistent use of their primary transport. For example, many suggested municipalities invest in creating more bike lanes.
FocusLawrence(Respondents:transit?accessequitabletomassJ.Miller,group2)
Atlanta Metro region.
Rural/Coastal regions.
Please describe what you know of the transit systems in your community and how well that system meets the needs of (Respondents:residents.the
For bus performance improvement across Atlanta, scheduling and punctuality need to improve. Stakeholders reported high frustration with poor service provided by MARTA’s bus system. They report buses are not ideal for many of Atlanta’s smaller streets and that MARTA should invest in more van services. Additionally, MARTA is more likely to introduce buses in Black and ethnic minority communities which presents adverse health effects because of pollution levels. Of note, MARTA conducted a survey on Campbelton Rd (predominantly Black area), and PSE felt the survey was biased against implementation of light rail; however, 60% of respondents stated they wanted light rail. According to stakeholder interviewees, MARTA consistently underserves their transportation needs. The rider experience cans be very traumatizing because of regularly occurring life threatening incidents, for example, unhoused citizens with mental health or other psychological issues frequently use MARTA and may incite violence. This is also of high concern in the face of increasing climate change related disease and virus spread such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Mass transit is a fertile breeding ground for transmission of disease, as such retrofitting for disinfection is necessary for the safety of patrons.
Question Response (summary)
0 – not all, 5 –
Appendices 42
Stakeholders in the rural and coastal regions pause to the idea of mass transit. Mass transit stakeholders suppose population numbers could not justify a serious proposal for mass transit expansion in rural and coastal Georgia but focus group attendees want to expand mass transit options. Participants in the first Coastal/Rural focus group reached consensus that electric vehicle incentives and electrification of buses are the most feasible option for rural areas outside of the Atlanta area. However, the second focus group proposed the bus routes be vetted through a process of feedback from the community members they serve. Suggestions proposed in the second focus group ranged from extending bus routes to the outskirts of the metropolitan area, to surveying the most desirable mass transit options in these areas.
If there were a mass transit system that connects all of Georgia's areas how likely are you to use it 0 - 5?
Mass Transit
Professional stakeholders described the financial situation of MARTA and reasoned why mass transit in Atlanta has been less than satisfactory. While this evidence is directly from experience with MARTA’s innerworkings, it does not reflect funding routes and performance ratings possible through multi-sector collaboration. Stakeholders in historically marginalized neighborhoods in the Atlanta metro area are underserved despite being the largest demographic using MARTA. MARTA is too expensive for low income people and is rising in price. The stakeholders recommend MARTA fairs be subsidized by the local government as a means of making it more affordable for those living in poverty. Edgewood’s light rail streetcar is barely used by interviewed stakeholders because of its limited transportation routes. Investment in alternative modes of mass transit depends highly on funding sources, which communities will be prioritized, and insurance that the targeted communities are aware of and can afford the mass transit.
(This question was asked to gauge general interest in Georgians from all regions in mass transit, considering a modern mass transit system in Georgia would comprehensively connect all of Georgia’s regions conveniently and efficiently for Georgia citizens.) The majority of interviewees voted 4 and 5, while only two interviewees voted 3. One stakeholder enthusiastically demanded a mass train system. Another described their idea of an ideal route being “...from coastal area to ATL and Athens”. Additionally, a stakeholder commented they would consider using the system depending on whether it had “... direct stops or many stops”. The concerns with such a mass transit system ranged from accessibility for the elderly and timing considerations for commuters. PSE recommends close examination of wealth distribution if/when Georgia mass transit expands to this level. The essential consideration being ensuring wealth proliferation throughout the entire state without causing significant environmental degradation with increased transit infrastructure and population movement.
What are the barriers that you see to
Focus(Respondents:Definitelygroup2)
(Respondents: Focus group 2)
“Local African American contractors/builders who receive training in green living practices.”
Based on your experience and/or things you've heard, what, if any, are some of your apprehensions and concerns about mass transit?
What is your perspective on building retrofitting as one way to reduce energy burden in the communities you work with?
Stakeholders revealed wide-scale retrofitting as one of the best solutions to help reduce energy burden across low income communities with older housing stock. Stakeholders in all of Georgia’s regions cited public funding as necessary to help the majority of community members afford retrofitting. The stakeholders related that the greatest challenge to providing funding is the formation and implementation of a public process for funding. Stakeholders anticipate slow action because of the political polarization of climate change and related fields.
Stakeholders concluded that building retrofitting is a public problem that is highly influenced by the local municipalities’ architectural history. As such, local governments should lead the charge in retrofitting the buildings in their district. The state government should develop a funding source that supports local initiatives for retrofitting. One stakeholder suggested private tax incentives be developed for businesses for “weatherization/retrofitting programs.”
Who should lead, who should have a say, and how should projects be funded?
Rural Georgia: City of Brunswick Planning Department, Glynn Environmental Coalition, City of Brunswick Economic Development.
Pamela Fann, Lizann Roberts, Focus group 1 & 2)
“I would like to see local minority owned contractors in the community get top priority to complete these projects.”
Building Retrofitting
Stakeholders reported they would expect to learn about their building retrofitting options through NGOs, community centers, local zoning/municipal offices, and public service announcements.
Do you know of any community initiatives focused on building retrofitting where you live? If a program were available, who should lead the (Respondents:program? Focus group 2)
Note. The following data is sourced from interviews with J. Lawrence Miller of Murphy’s Crossing and focus groups 1 & 2 with participants from all Georgia regions.
(Respondents: Focus group 2)
Stakeholders offered that mass transit systems need strong funding and maintenance to avoid “delays or poor routes”. One stakeholder described “...formerly (living) in NYC, which is mass transit heaven, and even there the system is often struggling.” Their recommendation was to instate, “...a complex bus system with varying sizes of vehicle funded both by fares and taxes.”
Question Response (summary)
Atlanta Metro Area: Cherry Street Energy
(Respondents: Pamela Fann, Lizann Roberts, Focus Group 1 & 2)
No stakeholders had a concrete idea about who should lead a wide scale retrofitting program. Overall, all stakeholders shared the same belief that whoever funds the retrofitting programs would, by default, be who leads it.
Who should conduct the physical (actual construction work) retrofitting of your home and/ or community buildings?
What are your preferred modes of transportation ranked? (Car, bus, train, plane, scooter/bike company, etc.) Please respond in chat and explain if you would like.
(Respondents: Pamela Fann, Lizann Roberts, Focus group 2)
Majority of the stakeholders interviewed preferred biking in their localities “...I'd like to see limits on vehicular traffic through various urban redesign that also encourages public transportation”, was a stakeholder’s statement in regard to why they are sometimes forced to use their cars for commuting. Most stakeholders reported cars are necessary for commuting in their small towns. Those who reported train, bus, or bike also reported they are unable to use alternatives to cars because of poor municipal infrastructure for bikes, buses, etc.
Depending on their familiarity with building retrofitting, stakeholders reported programs in their communities or offered they were actively looking for a program in their communities and could not identify one. Some of the community retrofitting programs mentioned:
Where would you expect to gain more information about building retrofitting programs?
(Respondents: Focus group 2)
Question Response (summary)
Mass Transit (continued)
Appendices 43
(Respondents: Focus group 2)
(Respondents:plan?
Stakeholder Direct quote suggestions:
What governmental or nongovernmental organizations do you feel should be charged with leading a large scale residential (and/or commercial) building retrofitting implementation
University of Georgia, Odum School of Ecology - (Associate Professor, Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology & Biogeochemistry)
Dr. David Iwaniec Georgia State University, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies - (Associate Professor, Sustainable Futures Lab)
Conservation Agriculture
Afforestation / Silvopasture - Worked on Beyond Carbon Aspects
Appendix E: Drawdown Georgia Solution Authors for Land Sink Solutions
Dr. Jeff Mullen University of Georgia, College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences - (Associate Professor of Agricultural & Applied Economics)
Appendices 44
Conservation Agriculture - Worked on Beyond Carbon Aspects
Dr. Puneet Dwivedi University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources - (Associate Professor, Sustainability Sciences)
Dr. Sudhagar Mani University of Georgia, College of Engineering - (Professor of Biochemical Engineering)
Dr. Jacqueline Mohan
Name Professional Affiliation Solution Focus
Afforestation/ Silvopasture
Afforestation/ Silvopasture
Appendix F: Taproot Census Maps
Map 1: Percentage of Farms with “Colored” Farm Owners in Georgia, by County (1900 Census)
Appendices 45
For dynamic version of this map click https://www.socialexplorer.com/cfea13eaeb/viewhere:
Map 2: Total Value of “map” Farms (Land and Building) as a Percent of All Farms in Georgia, by County (1930 Census)
Appendices 46
For dynamic version of this map click https://www.socialexplorer.com/ea4304358e/viewhere:
For dynamic version of this map click https://www.socialexplorer.com/8b5722e754/viewhere:
Appendices 47
Map 3: Black Population Living in Poverty in GA by County, 2018
Demographic/Context Questions- All Interviewees (Both Solutions)
9. Other than the ones I just listed, are there any other sustainable farming practices that you [or the farmers in your network] use? (Probe: If so, what are they and why do you/they use them?)
Stakeholder Group 3: Larger & Mid-size Farmers/Landowners (Land Sinks)
3. What is the racial/ethnic composition of the growers/ranchers/landowners you serve? (for stakeholder organizations only)
Stakeholder Group 1: Large Farmers/Stakeholders (Row Crop and Vegetable)
11. How do you [or the farmers in your network] gather and verify information about sustainable farming practices? (Probe: When/how often; who are the primary sources of authority on farming practices; how do farmers determine the accuracy/ trustworthiness of this information)
7. How many farmers in your network [or in your community] raise livestock? (Probe: reasons why/why not)
APPENDIX G: TAPROOT INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
8. To what extent, if at all, are you [or the farmers in your network] using any of the following sustainable farming practices? (Probe: reduced tillage, crop rotation, cover cropping, none of the above; how many farmers; any other sustainable practices)
15. What solution opportunities and ideas do you have for overcoming these barriers? (Probe: How would the solutions you just stated advance equity and increase these farming practices? To what extent do these solutions you are proposing modify existing programs/structures versus generating entirely new ones?)
10. What are the primary barriers and advantages that you [or the farmers in your network] have seen with using [insert practice name]? (Probe: reduced tillage, crop rotation; probe types of advantages by level of impact e.g., farm yield v. community)
Stakeholder Group 1: Large Farmers/Stakeholders (Row Crop and Vegetable)
Appendices 48
1. What regions does your organization serve?
4. What is the economic profile of the farmers/landowners that are in your network? (for stakeholder organizations only)
13. What types of farming practices do you [or the farmers in your network] use to manage pests and why? (Probe: how does the cost of pest management factor into farmers' decisions about whether or not to use a particular strategy?)
2. How many farmers/ranchers/landowners are in your network? (for stakeholder organizations only)
Stakeholder Group 2: Urban Farmers/Stakeholder Groups
6. On average, how many personnel do farmers in your network employ? (Probe: is this part-time employment? Formalized or unformalized? By acreage?)
12. What does the term “conservation agriculture” or “sustainable agriculture” mean to you [or the farmers in your network]? (Probe/Instructions: Pick either term to define; defining it based on both their understanding of the mainstream definition, but also of their experiential interpretation of the terms)
14. To what extent are you [or the farmers in your network] interested in becoming organic certified? (Probe: how close or far from ready are you/they; what are the barriers that prevent this from happening)
16. Are you [or the farmers in your network] aware of any local, state, or federal support programs that can assist you in trying out sustainable farming practices? (Probe: if so, which ones; what has been your experience with these programs, e.g.,
5. What is the relationship like among the farmers that are in your network [the farmers in your community]? (Probe: cordial, familial, competitive, suspicious, non-existent; why?)
Stakeholder Group 4: Urban Tree and Conservation Organizations (Land Sinks)
9. What are the primary challenges/barriers that you see to implementing organic or sustainable farming practices (live cover cropping and crop rotation) that urban farmers face?
Demographic/Context Questions- Afforestation/Silvopasture Specific (Rural Focus)
1. What is the average acreage of the farms/large land parcels in your network?
Larger Farmers/Landowners: Forests & Pasture Lands (Orgs)
Core Questions
Stakeholder Group 2: Urban Farmers/Stakeholder Groups
7. What are the barriers that urban farmers like yourself face to implementing organic or sustainable farming practices, such as crop rotation and cover cropping? (Probe: Are the barriers seasonally dependent? At what level do they operate and how significant of a barrier is it?)
Appendices 49
3. What would help farmers to begin or sustain these kinds of practices? *
EQUIP, NCRS; Georgia Organics; have you/they applied for any? Why or why not? What has been your/their overall experience with them? What about agricultural research opportunities?)
6. Does your farm implement any organic or sustainable farming practices (Probe: which ones and why? Raising livestock)
12. What are the equity considerations at the core of these barriers and suggested solutions? (Probe: What does equity in this context of urban farming and sustainable agriculture look like to you? What specifically is the role that you believe local and/ or state policy should play?)
8. In what ways does your land tenure affect your choices about which, if any, sustainable farming practices you use? (Probe: name specific practices; name different types of tenure arrangement which might affect investment decisions and/or legal rights to make modifications to the land)
Stakeholder Group 3: Larger & Mid-size Farmers/Landowners (Land Sinks)
2. How many of the locally-owned and other non-corporate farmers/landowners in your network [farmers/landowners in your community] are actively pursuing afforestation/silvopasture strategies vs. are new to these practices?
1. If there are some agroecology/afforestation/land sink practices (explain if needed) that are more heavily utilized in your famer network than others, what are they?
10. What are the primary opportunities/benefits that you see to implementing organic or sustainable farming practices that urban farmers can benefit from?
2. What are the main reasons farmers/landowners engage in these (land sink) practices? (Probe: What are the benefits/ downsides?) *
11. What solutions or strategies do you see as ways to overcome these barriers to sustainable farming practices like cover cropping and crop rotation? (Probe: What sort of incentives would inspire you to convert your farm into an organic or “allnatural” farm; if your farm is already organic or all-natural, what are the key factors that support you maintaining this status?)
4. What incentives or strategies are most commonly used by the farmers/landowners you serve in regard to helping them plant trees?
5. How many land parcels do you [or the farmers in your network] operate? (Probe: what zip codes are they located in)
a. Where do these incentives fall short?
13. Are you [or the farmers in your network] aware of any local, state, or federal support programs that can assist you in switching to sustainable farming practices? (Probe: if so, which ones; what has been your experience with these programs, e.g., have you/they applied for any? Why or why not? What has been your/their overall experience with them?)
Smaller Farmers (Individual)
3. What equity concerns face underserved communities in urban settings as it relates to neighborhood tree coverage? *
3. What are some downsides to engaging in the kind of practices you named?
4. Have you ever considered engaging in other sustainable agriculture practices than what you’re already doing? (Probe: What barriers exist that create hesitation for you to engage in other sustainable agriculture practices?)
b. What would make them better?
Urban/City: (Marginalized may be implied in demographic served)
Appendices 50
5. What recommendations would you have for getting people more engaged with the practice of planting trees on pasture land? What things need to be resolved first, if any? *
1. What type of sustainable agriculture practices (planting trees, a number of conservation agriculture planting practices, etc.) do you engage in?
2. What are the main reasons you engage in these practices? (Probe: Are the specific benefits you have found helpful?)
5. What resources would benefit you to begin, and/or then sustain these practices?
2. How does your organization engage communities in planting trees? (Probe: How do you motivate communities that seem disinterested or don’t know much about the benefits of trees?)
6. What recommendations would you have for creating larger carbon sequestration practices in urban settings? What things need to be resolved first, if any? *
Stakeholder Group 4: Urban Tree and Conservation Organizations (Land Sinks)
4. How does your organization address forest conservation / tree conservation in the communities you serve? (Probe: Is there a long-term plan that focuses on current land threatened by urban development?)
1. What communities do you serve? In what ways are planting trees relevant to these communities? *
c. What reasons might a farmer have for not applying to one of these opportunities?
5. What other resources does your organization offer to community members that are most affected by environmental injustice?
6. Of the opportunities /incentives that promote sustainable agriculture practices (i.e., silvopasture, afforestation), which ones have you found most helpful? Why? (Probe: What would make these programs better? How would you change them?)
• Lack of Programs to Support Retired Farmers
• Seasonal Cover Cropping
Livestock (Y/N)? Y- Pigs
I.D.: Farmer 3
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
Appendices 51
• More Diverse USDA Leadership - Offer early retirement to those restricting needed change in the department. Bring in fresh racially/culturally diverse talent with new ideas and perspectives.
• USDA Policies: Antiquated policies that prevent innovation and diversification of system leadership.
• Cost & Time - Conservation practices like no till are more intensive (no incentive to partake).
• Low Incentives for Conservation Practices - Farmers are used to traditional practices and haven’t had any problems that would cause them to need to change.
• Use of Natural Fertilizers like Animal Waste/Bi-products
• Limited Industry/Market Demands to Incentivize Farmer Practices (i.e., high standards of perfection for produce at companies/ big box stores. Even as farmers try to meet standards, they still lose out- as companies go where cost is cheapest→ international suppliers.)
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In
• Land Management- pest issues with planting trees
• Outside Jobs Needed to Make Ends Meet - Many farmers have to take other part time jobs (i.e., school bus driver with two shifts).
Type of Farmer: Mid-size Vegetable Producer
• Land Management - hand weeding and labor shortages
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
Appendix H: Taproot Interview and Focus Group Data
• Not Enough Labor required for certain projects
• Remove Antiquated USDA Policies(i.e., 1970 policy that won’t allow loan for refrigerant trucks for produce because it isn’t seen as agriculture).
Equity Issues
• Lack of Staff Available for Labor Support
• Cover cropping
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In
• Appeal to Farmers Bottom Line -Information shared needs to note benefits of regenerative agriculture, specifically healthier soils, more robust crops (look and taste better).
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• Labor & Time Demands - required by conservation practices.
• Strengthen Available Gov. ProgramsEQIP program has been beneficial for this farmer, and others in his co-op. Remove restrictive structure of costshare program, so that it’s more accessible to small farmers.
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• Use of Animal Manure (occasional)
• Rotational grazing
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• Crop rotation
• Pathways/Opportunities to Work with Youth - Investment in the younger generation of these kinds of jobs can be a mutually beneficial opportunity.
Equity Issues
• Finances/ Access to Capital
• Industry Driving Agricultural Practices and Business Success/ Inability to Compete In Market - excluding smallholder farmers from accessing these markets, shaping consumer demand and food prices.
Livestock (Y/N)? Y- Egg Chickens & Cattle
• Access to Federal Programs: opportunities offered through NRCS and FSA have built in stipulations
I.D.: Farmer 2
Type of Farmer: Midsize Vegetable Producer
• Programs to Support Retired Farmers are needed
• Community Success Stories - Need to find ways to leverage farmer success with conservation practices to be a demonstration site for other farmers.
• Replanting grass on areas they fertilize with manure.
• Rotational Grazing (weekly)
• Succession Planting
• Rotational Grazing
• Still buys fertilizer, but it is organic
I.D.: Farmer 1
• Land Management- weed control / pest control. Have to spray crops to get them to market quality.
• Limited Access to NRCS for Cost-Share
• Cover cropping (seasonal)
Livestock (Y/N)? No
Type of Farmer: Mid-size Vegetable Producers
• Lack of Diversity in USDA Leadership
• Need to Dispel Misconception about Conservation Agriculture PracticesInformation should appeal to the efficiency and cost savings associated with regenerative ag. Many farmers associate it as being more labor intensive.
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In Stakeholder i.d. 10/12 in their co-op (and themselves) use regenerative practices.
• Weed Suppression (using fabric/plastic greenhouse material)
• Low Incentive for Certified Natural Growers- and certification renewal.
• Composting (turned once a month)
• Build Trust between BIPOC farmers and USDA.
Ideas / ProposedSolutions
• No till (helps with carbon/ nitrogen ratio)
• Integrated managementpest
Type of Farmer: Mid-Size Vegetable Producer Livestock (Y/N)? No
• Reduced (periodically)tillage
• Cover (seasonal)cropping
Equity Issues
• Composting
• Maintenance Associate with Conservation Practices -- In planting trees, it’s helpful to work closely with a forester to have them help map out a plan for trees. Stakeholder says upkeep on trees is relatively simple the first year, but after 3 years have to engage in burning and maintenance to concentrate nutrients for trees, create habitats, and get rid of any diseases/pathogens on tree, and lessens the likelihood of destructive fires. Ultimately the barrier depends on the amount of time a farmer has and what type of trees they want to plant.
• Quality Estate PlanningFarmers need access to free/ affordable resources to deal with ownership of farm business and having support in place where they can continue to work on the farm and access programs.
• Only uses organic certified products on farm
• Crop rotation
• Unequal FSA Grouping - The grouping of farmers by FSA and not size of operation/ other financial barriers causes resources received from federal government to be unfairly distributed.
• Tree Planting (edge row): Pines & wild persimmons, and certain types of grass planted around the barrier of the field
• Irrigation Management
Appendices 52
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In
• Heirs Property: Problem in minority farming communities, farmers don’t own clear title to property, so they are unable to access resources (i.e., government loans, USDA/NRCS grants/programs). This means many farmers are working off of old practices/using outdated technology, and/or can ultimately lead to bankruptcy/ foreclosure. Many farmers aren’t aware that they have to go through the legal process to resolve this-- and go into debt having to borrow money to clear up their land ownership title.
• Irrigation : micro-irrigation, plastic emulsion, wellmanagement (previous year)
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• Pilot Program for Disadvantaged Farmers - Marginalized farmers are prioritized and are supported / trained in conservation ag practices
• Address Cost Barriers
I.D.:Farmer 5
• Covercrop (use in winter to add nitrogen back to the soil)
• Starting rotation grazing
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• Land land.growersMajorityOwnership:ofurbanareonrented
• USDA Loan Stipulations - (e.g., 2018 Farm Bill, USDA loans lent out to third party programs who drive up interest rates before being given out to farmers. This leads to lack of capital available to the community.
I.D.: Farm Legal Consultant
Type of Farmer: Urban Livestock (Y/N)? No
• Access to andcausedPrograms:Federalespeciallybypreviousdebtincarcerationhistory
Equity Issues
• Farmer’s third year of conservation practices- has done different practices every year.
• Increase Access to Land and ensure farmer support programs don’t require land ownership for eligibility.
Type of Farmer: Heir Property Law: Representative of all rural farmers, specifically with heirs property management issues
• Land weedsManagement:andpest
• High Cost: incentivizeconsumerhighorganicirrigation),practicesconservationofagriculture(i.e.,dripandofcertification(notenoughpersonaldemandtoinvestment).
Technical Assistance by USDA to help solve heirs property issues without requiring a loan.
• Lack of Trust: between BIPOC Farmers and USDA
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• Plan for pasture hay planting (next year)
• Nutrient management (soil samples)
• Unaware of Resources/ Funding Available to FarmersOnly aware of what current aid is out there by what is on the news. Farmers don’t know the right questions to ask to get the information needed from government agencies like NRCS.
I.D.: Farmer 4
• Finances/ Cost for Conservation Practices - The farmer gave the example of edge row (planting trees) costs based on the demand of trees/lumber and their prices. Along with higher prices, tree seedlings can sometimes be in limited supply.
• Timing & Climate Change Effects Overall Engagement with Practices - Average farmer is 53y/o, many of which are used to traditional methods. Stakeholder says change is the only way we will survive climate change- only way you will be able to keep farming. Can't keep traditional farming going.
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In
Type of Farmer: 4th Generation Farmer (unspecified); Former USDA Employee
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In
• USDA’s Move to Online Platform - The digital divide (i.e., lack of access/ infrastructure, broadband and/or knowledge about technology) leads to farmers missing deadlines for certain programs/funding. The agency sends out alerts through emails (which can be delayed/never received). Older farmers who aren’t tech savvy have to jump over more hurdles to get the support they need (i.e., In order to the USDA office, they first have to make an appointment online (Covid), which can be a problem for farmers who don’t work normal 9-5 hours because of other part time jobs or work that has to be done on the farm. The money from these organizations is often used up before minority farmers are even aware it exists.
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
Type of Farmer: Row Crop (4th Generation Farmer, owns 12,000 acres) Livestock (Y/N)? Y- Cattle
I.D.: Farm Technical Consultant
• USDA Program Stipulations - Comprehensive conservation plans are required when applying for certain resources. There is a domino effect with many complicated steps required. There is also a stipulation around timing of project installation. (I.e., If someone applies for money towards a certain resource/input and waits to utilize it- the money for that application only covers the cost of what it was the time you applied. If cost increases, then that extra amount is not covered.)
• Prioritizing Minority Farmers/ Landowners - USDA has already set up a 90% costshare, but local work groups in each county decide how the money is going to be spent. A percentage of that needs to be set aside for minority landowners (This decision is made in October)
• Lack of Diversity in Decision-Making Leadership - Farm Bill Legislation created by the Farm Bureau and big commodity groups without minority farmers/ landowners in mind. Any benefits that are available after this bill is signed trickle down and are gone before minority landowners are even aware they exist. Decisions are also made by state & local FSA committees (elected groups) but aren’t representative of minority farmers, and thus these groups are left out of the area where decisions are being made.
• Cost & Low Profit Margins- Low income limits minority farmer’s access to technology, tools, and resources because of the high expense. The access to new tech could ultimately help reduce time/ energy input/ and need for additional tools (save money).
• Trusted Outreach - Older minority landowners need to be able to trust the person disseminating information (i.e., someone from the community, a neighbor).
• Have a prepared list of resources/talking points for these sources to help share information, simplify processes, and cut down the steps/data that is required of them.
• Expense / Expertise - Conservation Ag tools (like no-till-drills) are expensive equipment, especially when compared with standard equipment. No-till drills are typically only needed one time a year, and different equipment may be needed for specific products (i.e., soybeans, hemp, cover Sustainabilitycrops). is not a new concept to minority farmers. Historically, when faced with little access to resources- these farmers would have to resort to these practices to remain afloat. These practices would be capitalized on even more if farmers had access to the tools and resources.
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• Lucky to have built a relationship with the USDA extension agent, thus involved in the EQIP program, CSP program, and different conservation practices. Received the newsletter on a weekly basis and tries to share it with other farmers in his network.
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• Tool Share - Leasing out specific equipment to farmers (especially the kind that are only needed on the farm once a year).
• Rural Brain Drain - change in field/ kids going off to college and not returning to work on their family farms
• Sustainability & Stewardship practices: leaving the land/livestock better than they found it and supporting rural communities.
• USDA Educational & Training Support - Education around conservation practices b/c farmers don’t always value climate change vs. profit margin. The information provided needs to appeal to the bottom line for farmers. There should also be value placed on carbon credits and conservation (soil, natural resources) in terms of economic and long-term impacts on soil health. Need to teach about diversifying land on farms (i.e., utilizing every acre of the farm for some productive purpose). Also need to convey an understanding of where to apply, benefits of practices, and carbon credits, completing a conservation plan and applying for CSP.
Appendices 53
• Heirs Property Temporary Solutions Pushed - Farmers are able to borrow money to resolve title issues but are required to pay that money back (sometimes going into debt).
I.D.: Farmer 6
• Farmer Focus on the Bottom Line - What time/cost/effort will need to be put in for the desired outputs? (Input v. Output) A lot of farmers are aware of grazing rotation, silvopasture direct links to profitability/ efficiency/sustainability but limited resources don’t allow engagement.
• USDA Technical Assistance - The agents need to be connecting/spending more time with minority farmers and agencies working on conservation practices. They should be offering meetings during times (part-time) farmers are able to attend. Hiring consultants is important to understanding the value of your assets (land/timber/etc.).
• Diversified/ Representative Leadership - People that weigh in on the Farm Bill should be representative of farmers / minority landowners and be more intentional about what representation looks like.
• Accessible Language/ Terminology - Conservation practices are not new to farmers, however, the language shared by third party groups can be convoluted/ confusing. The terminology along with the information shared need to be more palatable.
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• Dissemination of Resources- Universities absorbing grant dollars and blocking the ability of local communities and farmers to benefit from funding. Interviewee believes these grant dollars should be used for sub-contracts with local community-based organizations and businesses that support small farmers because they have established networks, trust relationships, and insider knowledge of the lives, experiences and context of the farmers.
• Trains farmers and organizations throughout Black Belt in same kinds of practices
Equity Issues
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• Rotational Grazing (small ruminants)
Type of Farmer: Urban Equity Issues
• Institutional/ University Programming to connect farmers to knowledgeable conservational agricultural “gurus” through hosted trainings that have both a lecture component and field day component for hands-on learning in the field. Should be offered for free or at a nominal price.
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In
• USDA/Agriculture Extension Agents Not Promoting Conservation Practices - (i.e., conservation agriculture or silvopasture), they are promoting what big ag industries are telling them to (i.e., pesticide manufacturers, etc.). There is a lack of education about these practices as well.
• Traditional Mindset - Many older farmers “stuck in their ways” and don’t see their farm as a functioning business (or trained in business skills in general), so do not operate it as such.
• Teach Climate Resiliency -- Growing your own food to keep yourselves thriving, when/if supermarkets are open due to climate issues.
Type of Farmer: Mid-size Vegetable Producers Livestock (Y/N)? Y- Small Ruminants
Appendices 54
• Tree Planting
University Funding - Utilize grant writers/other skilled professionals to secure federal grants and secure a pipeline to distribute money through sub-contracts with on-the-ground organizations who know and work with farmers directly. Local organizations have relationships and cultural insight that academicians do not have. Bridge the current divide/disconnect between universities and rural farmers to ensure more equitable local economies, supporting best practices (i.e., conservation ag) among farmers, and ultimately the well-being of farmers and farm families.
• Prioritizing Communities of Color - Equity hasn't been prevalent as it relates to communities of color and environmentalist. It starts with waste management/ sewage treatment plants (considered undesirable for communities) - look at where they are typically placed (disadvantaged communities of color). These communities are impacted the worst and hit first with climate issues. Get to the people that are impacted the hardest -- that they can be activist and instrumental in the change that's needed in their own community. Make sure they understand the importance of climate resiliency and climate awareness in general and the simple things they can do to offset and mitigate carbon sequestration.
• Community Engagement - Teaching young people and adults to grow your own food and importance of supporting local farmers/growers -- organic practices, so you know exactly where your food is coming from. Must make sure that underrepresented communities understand how important green actions are. The voice they could have which can lead to action, they don't feel like they have the agency to actually make things change. We give this demographic voice by exposing them to different opportunities (i.e., internships, learning about environment, and ability to work in conservation field).
• Educate and engage at an intergenerational level. Actually taking part and engaging in actionable things can help minimize climate anxiety felt by young people because they are playing a role in that solution. Stakeholders also mention that the organization gives away produce that they grow in communities where their community farm is located.
• No Access to Support / Resources - Many county extension agent offices have closed over the years, so farmers don’t have them as a resource.
• All practices (as a traditional conservation farmer that trains others in Agroecological traditional farming practices.)
I.D.: Farmer/ Regional Consultant
• Ownership of Past Mistakes, Transparency, & Education - Equity has to be on the forefront. Starting off conversation in a way where disenfranchised people can understand that the way we're approaching this hasn't always been from an equitable standpoint/perspective and list the things we are doing to level the playing field and make sure that it makes sense for every single group that is engaged. Then educate (carbon sequestration-simplify terms): can't make assumptions - break down information. What can I do as individual, or in my circle of influence? Tangible things we can do. Lay out that what we've been doing has been wrong and then educate, and then tell people what they can do.
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• Planting of Variety of Tree Types - Many farmers plant Loblolly Pine, but there is little value in it. Stakeholder suggested planting diverse types of trees like fruit trees and hardwoods.
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• Industry Exploitation of Disadvantaged Farmers - i.e., promoting products of dying industries like pesticides to keep a market base, promotion of products that don’t make farmers much money.
I.D.: Founder & CEO
• Restructure university tenure programs and incentive structures to facilitate universities functioning as bridges and conduits to federal resources rather than gatekeepers.
• Expansion of Broadband - access to rural communities so they can access conservation agriculture and funding resources online
• Broadband internet access
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• Using an Equity Lens with Community EngagementThe parks department needs to be using an equity and resilience lens. There are a lot of budget issues in the dept., with deferred maintenance. But when they look at these strategies: they can save money by moving to more natural habitats and engaging community members to become stewards of the land, more active participation. A lot of support for parks, and quality parks. Opportunities for municipalities to provide stipends to community members who are participating in their programs/attending meetings. Thinking about who isn't at the table. And ways to engage communities that aren't just extractive.
I.D.: Director of Community & Environmental Resilience Type of Farmer: Urban Parks Dept.
Appendices 55
Equity Issues
I.D.: Rural Institute Director; Researcher Type of Farmer: Academician & Activist working with Rural Farmers
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• University incentive structure
• Limited Parks Dept. Budget and lack of action on how other conservation / maintenance strategies can help save money and be more sustainable in the long run.
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• Decision-Makers Need to Value Community Input / Community Engagement- People who live in communities have these valuable lived experiences, has to be the time taken to build these relationships and honor the knowledge that is already there. Intervention/ education needs to be taken as a two-way street -- most communities have people that appreciate environmental aspects: just because a community isn't implementing these interventions doesn't mean they don't desire them. There has to be communication, and an opportunity for people in the community to drive the process. Life is more complicated than just getting trees in the ground. Need to be working with people.
Equity Issues
• Persistent Environmental Injustices - communities of color/low income are hit the worst with the natural disasters (fires/floods/ hurricanes). The communities that need the most are the least likely to be the site of these dynamic projects. AND when they are -- outsiders are coming in "fixing" rather than engaging community --- which drives gentrification and displacement and fuels more issues; even when the idea was to bring the solution. Disservice to just look at the environmental issues- without looking at the whole picture.
Crop rotation: The alternation of the types of crops that are grown on a particular plot of farmland, which supports healthy soil ecology- a necessary component of soil’s ability to sequester carbon.
Appendix I: Glossary of Terms (conservation agriculture and afforestation/silvopasture)
Silvopasture: The process of adding trees to pastureland/grazing land, to integrate trees, forages, and grazing animals to manage for economic, environmental, and social benefits, Temperate Forest Stewardship: Restoring and protecting current forested lands.
DEI: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
No-tillage/reduced tillage: This refers to minimizing how much the soil is agitated in the process of preparing the land for sowing crops. Tillage disrupts soil ecology and releases carbon into the atmosphere. An estimated 47% of GA farmland (mostly rural farms) is currently under no-till or reduced till practices. Drawdown authors estimate that an increase of 40% would be necessary to achieve the Drawdown carbon sequestration goal.
Heirs’ property: “Heirs' property is property passed to family members by inheritance, usually without a will, or without an estate planning strategy. Typically, it is created when land is passed from someone who dies “intestate,” meaning without a will, to their spouse, children, or others who may be legally entitled to the property.” (Source: Center for Agriculture and Food Systems)
Afforestation: The process of creating forests in places that are not already forested, typically take place in urban areas, and degraded agricultural land.
Appendices 56
Cover cropping: the planting of certain crops in between growing seasons for the purpose of soil enrichment. This practice is done by both rural and urban farmers, and both smallholder and larger farmers. The crops take nitrogen from the air (nitrogen fixation) and deposit it into the soil, which also helps to mitigate climate change as nitrogen dioxide is a greenhouse gas. These crops include, inter alia, legumes, peanuts, silage, and clover.
Pest management: Pest management is the process of protecting crops and livestock from pests (e.g., insects, weeds, rodents, bacteria) through the use of natural pesticides and mechanisms, (e.g., diatomaceous earth, weed suppression, mesh netting) that do not cause harm to the earth. Comparatively, traditional mainstream corporate agriculture uses chemical pesticides and fertilizers that disrupt natural soil ecology and can leach into drinking water through water runoff, thereby potentially causing animal and human illness.
Rotational grazing: Rural farmers (both small-mid size and larger land holders) who raise livestock (usually either cattle, pigs, or small ruminants) regularly rotate their herd between a number of grazing areas in order to prevent overgrazing, which increases the likelihood of soil erosion and other problems. Eroded soil releases carbon into the atmosphere.
Irrigation management: Irrigation management is the process of carefully controlling the volume, frequency, and distribution of water among crops in order to prevent water waste and run off. This process leverages natural precipitation to offset water usage, and helps to conserve scarce water resources, which is both economical and beneficial for local watersheds.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE WORK BEING DONE BY THE COLLABORATORS OF THIS PROJECT, VISIT:
(L to R) Farmers Joan Vernon, Bettina Vernon and Tammy Harris are the agritourism renovators and family of This Old Farmhouse GA in Franklin County, Georgia. Photo courtesy of Black Farmers' Network.
Drawdown Georgia Research Portal https://cepl.gatech.edu/projects/Drawdown-Georgia
RCE Greater Atlanta https://rcega.org
Partnership for Southern Equity https://psequity.org Taproot www.taprootplaces.com
Drawdown Georgia www.drawdownga.org
COVER PHOTO:
