43 minute read
Appendices
Appendix A: RCE GA Team Members Appendix B: Request for Applications Appendix C: IRB Consent Form Appendix D: PSE Interview Responses Appendix E: Taproot Solution Author Appendix F: Taproot Census Maps Appendix G: Taproot Interview Questionnaire Appendix H: Taproot Interview and Focus Group Data Appendix I: Glossary of Terms (conservation agriculture and afforestation/silvopasture)
Appendix A: RCE GA Team Members
Anne Heard Atlanta Metropolitan State College
Rebecca Watts Hull Georgia Tech, Center for Serve-Learn-Sustain
Leadership Team
Team Members
Michael Black Georgia State Sustainability
Suzanne Burnes Collective Wisdom Group, Partnership for Southern Equity
Jairo Garcia Georgia Tech, City and Regional Planning
Garry Harris Center for Sustainable Communities
Mine Hasha-Degertekin Kennesaw State University, Architecture
Zach Jones Georgia Tech, Undergraduate Student
Nancy Larson Sustainable Options, LLC
Sing Hui Lee Georgia Tech, Undergraduate Student
Mona Ray Morehouse College, Economics
Daphne Saavedra Georgia Tech, Graduate Student
Alicia Scott Partnership for Southern Equity
Taylor Spicer Emory University Sustainability
Morgan Thomasson Felder Atlanta Metropolitan State College, Student Support Services
Appendix B: Request for Applications
Position: Drawdown Georgia Equity Project Stakeholder Engagement and Research Consultant
Project: Conduct facilitation, stakeholder engagement, and data collection activities as well as draft recommendations for the Drawdown Georgia Equity Project.
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).
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.
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. 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. 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). 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.
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:
Task Activities & Deliverables Further develop and finalize stakeholder engagement and data collection plan 1. Carefully review all materials developed by the DGE team. 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. 3. Develop a timeline for completing all data collection with stakeholders and review with project contact for approval. 4. With project contact, complete a proposed project budget to include any stakeholder/ community-based organization stipends for participation.
Implement stakeholder engagement plan 1. Design instruments to be used for data collection (e.g., survey instruments/interview questions/ charette agendas and invitee lists). 2. Execute data collection plan.
Manage all data collection securely 1. Follow IRB protocol (to be completed by team leaders) regarding data collection and storage of data. 2. Develop and follow a clear and well-organized system for managing different kinds of data in accordance with IRB protocol.
Analyze data and complete initial report 1. Analyze data. 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.
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.
Qualifications:
• Five or more years professional experience in facilitation and stakeholder engagement. • Experience with a range of data collection/stakeholder outreach instruments (as noted above). • Demonstrated commitment to equity and sustainability in past professional work. • Excellent writing, organization, and oral communication skills. • Strong project management skills.
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.
Appendix C: IRB Consent Form
Appendix D: PSE Interview Responses
Question Rooftop Solar
Response (summary)
How familiar are the stakeholders you serve with rooftop solar as renewable energy technology? (Respondents: Dr. Jairo Garcia, Chandra Farley, Focus groups 1 & 2)
Do you think that property owners should install rooftop solar to provide renters with a clean energy option and help reduce their energy bills? If so, how do you think rooftop solar projects for rental units should be funded? (Respondents: Focus groups 1 & 2)
What are the primary barriers to wide-scale installation of rooftop solar? (Respondents: Dr. Jairo Garcia, Chandra Farley)
Do you believe a Pay-as-you-save (PAYS) program is a feasible way to fund wide-scale rooftop solar? (Respondents: Dr. Jairo Garcia, Chandra Farley) 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-atlarge 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. 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. 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. All professional stakeholders believe a PAYS program is a great option for funding wide-scale rooftop solar.
Mass Transit
Question Response (summary)
Please describe what you know of the transit systems in your community and how well that system meets the needs of the residents. (Respondents: J. Lawrence Miller, Focus group 1 & 2) Atlanta Metro region. 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. 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.
Rural/Coastal regions. 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.
What are the barriers that you see to equitable access to mass transit? (Respondents: J. Lawrence Miller, Focus group 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.
If there were a mass transit system that connects all of Georgia's areas how likely are you to use it 0 - 5? 0 – not all, 5 – Definitely (Respondents: Focus group 2) (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.
Question Response (summary)
Based on your experience and/or things you've heard, what, if any, are some of your apprehensions and concerns about mass transit? (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.”
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: 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. 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.
Question Building Retrofitting
Response (summary)
What is your perspective on building retrofitting as one way to reduce energy burden in the communities you work with? (Respondents: Pamela Fann, Lizann Roberts, Focus group 2)
What governmental or nongovernmental organizations do you feel should be charged with leading a large-scale residential (and/or commercial) building retrofitting implementation plan? (Respondents: Pamela Fann, Lizann Roberts, Focus group 1 & 2) Who should lead, who should have a say, and how should projects be funded? (Respondents: Pamela Fann, Lizann Roberts, Focus Group 1 & 2) 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.”
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.
Where would you expect to gain more information about building retrofitting programs? (Respondents: Focus group 2) 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 program? (Respondents: Focus group 2) 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:
Atlanta Metro Area: Cherry Street Energy
Who should conduct the physical (actual construction work) retrofitting of your home and/ or community buildings? (Respondents: Focus group 2) Rural Georgia: City of Brunswick Planning Department, Glynn Environmental Coalition, City of Brunswick Economic Development. Stakeholder Direct quote suggestions: - “Local African American contractors/builders who receive training in green living practices.” - “I would like to see local minority owned contractors in the community get top priority to complete these projects.”
Appendix E: Drawdown Georgia Solution Authors for Land Sink Solutions
Name Professional Affiliation Solution Focus
Dr. Sudhagar Mani University of Georgia, College of Engineering - (Professor of Biochemical Engineering) Dr. Jeff Mullen University of Georgia, College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences - (Associate Professor of Agricultural & Applied Economics) Dr. Jacqueline Mohan University of Georgia, Odum School of Ecology - (Associate Professor, Terrestrial Ecosystem Ecology & Biogeochemistry) Dr. Puneet Dwivedi University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources - (Associate Professor, Sustainability Sciences) Dr. David Iwaniec Georgia State University, Andrew Young School of Policy Studies - (Associate Professor, Sustainable Futures Lab) Conservation Agriculture
Conservation Agriculture - Worked on Beyond Carbon Aspects
Afforestation/ Silvopasture
Afforestation/ Silvopasture
Afforestation / Silvopasture - Worked on Beyond Carbon Aspects
Appendix F: Taproot Census Maps
Map 1: Percentage of Farms with “Colored” Farm Owners in Georgia, by County (1900 Census)
For dynamic version of this map click here:
https://www.socialexplorer.com/cfea13eaeb/view
Map 2: Total Value of “map” Farms (Land and Building) as a Percent of All Farms in Georgia, by County (1930 Census)
For dynamic version of this map click here:
https://www.socialexplorer.com/ea4304358e/view
Map 3: Black Population Living in Poverty in GA by County, 2018
For dynamic version of this map click here:
https://www.socialexplorer.com/8b5722e754/view
APPENDIX G: TAPROOT INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE
Stakeholder Group 1: Large Farmers/Stakeholders (Row Crop and Vegetable)
Stakeholder Group 2: Urban Farmers/Stakeholder Groups
Stakeholder Group 3: Larger & Mid-size Farmers/Landowners (Land Sinks)
Stakeholder Group 4: Urban Tree and Conservation Organizations (Land Sinks)
Demographic/Context Questions- All Interviewees (Both Solutions)
1. What regions does your organization serve? 2. How many farmers/ranchers/landowners are in your network? (for stakeholder organizations only) 3. What is the racial/ethnic composition of the growers/ranchers/landowners you serve? (for stakeholder organizations only) 4. What is the economic profile of the farmers/landowners that are in your network? (for stakeholder organizations only)
Stakeholder Group 1: Large Farmers/Stakeholders (Row Crop and Vegetable)
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?)
6. On average, how many personnel do farmers in your network employ? (Probe: is this part-time employment? Formalized or unformalized? By acreage?)
7. How many farmers in your network [or in your community] raise livestock? (Probe: reasons why/why not)
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)
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?)
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)
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)
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)
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?)
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)
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?)
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.,
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?)
Stakeholder Group 2: Urban Farmers/Stakeholder Groups
5. How many land parcels do you [or the farmers in your network] operate? (Probe: what zip codes are they located in)
6. Does your farm implement any organic or sustainable farming practices (Probe: which ones and why? Raising livestock)
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?)
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)
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?
10. What are the primary opportunities/benefits that you see to implementing organic or sustainable farming practices that urban farmers can benefit from?
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?)
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?)
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?)
Stakeholder Group 3: Larger & Mid-size Farmers/Landowners (Land Sinks)
Demographic/Context Questions- Afforestation/Silvopasture Specific (Rural Focus)
1. What is the average acreage of the farms/large land parcels in your network?
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?
Core Questions
Larger Farmers/Landowners: Forests & Pasture Lands (Orgs) 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? 2. What are the main reasons farmers/landowners engage in these (land sink) practices? (Probe: What are the benefits/ downsides?) * 3. What would help farmers to begin or sustain these kinds of practices? * 4. What incentives or strategies are most commonly used by the farmers/landowners you serve in regard to helping them plant trees?
a. Where do these incentives fall short?
b. What would make them better?
c. What reasons might a farmer have for not applying to one of these opportunities? 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? *
Smaller Farmers (Individual)
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?)
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?)
5. What resources would benefit you to begin, and/or then sustain these practices?
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?)
Stakeholder Group 4: Urban Tree and Conservation Organizations (Land Sinks)
Urban/City:
(Marginalized may be implied in demographic served)
1. What communities do you serve? In what ways are planting trees relevant to these communities? *
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?)
3. What equity concerns face underserved communities in urban settings as it relates to neighborhood tree coverage? *
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?)
5. What other resources does your organization offer to community members that are most affected by environmental injustice?
6. What recommendations would you have for creating larger carbon sequestration practices in urban settings? What things need to be resolved first, if any? *
Appendix H: Taproot Interview and Focus Group Data
I.D.: Farmer 1 Type of Farmer: Midsize Vegetable Producer Livestock (Y/N)? Y- Pigs
Barriers to Sustainable Practices • Lack of Staff Available for Labor
Support • 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.) • Land Management- weed control / pest control. Have to spray crops to get them to market quality.
Equity Issues
• USDA Policies: Antiquated policies that prevent innovation and diversification of system leadership. • Access to Federal Programs: opportunities offered through NRCS and
FSA have built in stipulations • Lack of Diversity in USDA Leadership • 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. • Finances/ Access to Capital
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In
• Cover cropping • Crop rotation • Rotational grazing • Replanting grass on areas they fertilize with manure.
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• 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. • 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). I.D.: Farmer 2 Type of Farmer: Mid-size Vegetable Producer Livestock (Y/N)? Y- Egg Chickens & Cattle
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• Low Incentive for Certified Natural
Growers- and certification renewal. • Not Enough Labor required for certain projects • Limited Access to NRCS for Cost-Share • Land Management- pest issues with planting trees • Cost & Time - Conservation practices like no till are more intensive (no incentive to partake). • Outside Jobs Needed to Make Ends
Meet - Many farmers have to take other part time jobs (i.e., school bus driver with two shifts).
Equity Issues
• Lack of Programs to Support Retired
Farmers
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In
• Cover cropping (seasonal) • Use of Animal Manure (occasional) • Composting (turned once a month) • Rotational Grazing (weekly) • Still buys fertilizer, but it is organic
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• Programs to Support Retired Farmers are needed • Pathways/Opportunities to Work with
Youth - Investment in the younger generation of these kinds of jobs can be a mutually beneficial opportunity. • Need to Dispel Misconception about
Conservation Agriculture Practices -
Information should appeal to the efficiency and cost savings associated with regenerative ag. Many farmers associate it as being more labor intensive. • Community Success Stories - Need to find ways to leverage farmer success with conservation practices to be a demonstration site for other farmers. I.D.: Farmer 3 Type of Farmer: Mid-size Vegetable Producers Livestock (Y/N)? No
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• Labor & Time Demands - required by conservation practices. • Land Management - hand weeding and labor shortages • 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.
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) • Seasonal Cover Cropping • Use of Natural Fertilizers like Animal
Waste/Bi-products • Rotational Grazing • Succession Planting
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• Strengthen Available Gov. Programs -
EQIP 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. • Appeal to Farmers Bottom Line --
Information shared needs to note benefits of regenerative agriculture, specifically healthier soils, more robust crops (look and taste better).
I.D.: Farmer 4 Type of Farmer: Mid-Size Vegetable Producer Livestock (Y/N)? No
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• 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. • Unaware of Resources/ Funding Available to Farmers -
Only 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. • 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. • 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.
Equity Issues
• 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.
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In
• Farmer’s third year of conservation practices- has done different practices every year. • Only uses organic certified products on farm • Covercrop (use in winter to add nitrogen back to the soil) • No till (helps with carbon/ nitrogen ratio) • Nutrient management (soil samples) • Irrigation : micro-irrigation, plastic emulsion, well- management (previous year) • Starting rotation grazing • Plan for pasture hay planting (next year) • Tree Planting (edge row): Pines & wild persimmons, and certain types of grass planted around the barrier of the field
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• Pilot Program for Disadvantaged Farmers - Marginalized farmers are prioritized and are supported / trained in conservation ag practices I.D.:Farmer 5 Type of Farmer: Urban Livestock (Y/N)? No
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• High Cost: of conservation agriculture practices (i.e., drip irrigation), and of organic certification (not high enough personal consumer demand to incentivize investment). • Land Ownership:
Majority of urban growers are on rented land. • Land Management: weeds and pest
Equity Issues
• Lack of Trust: between
BIPOC Farmers and
USDA • Access to Federal
Programs: especially caused by previous debt and incarceration history
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In
• Cover cropping (seasonal) • Crop rotation • Composting • Integrated pest management • Irrigation Management • Reduced tillage (periodically)
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• Build Trust between
BIPOC farmers and
USDA. • Address Cost Barriers • Increase Access to Land and ensure farmer support programs don’t require land ownership for eligibility. I.D.: Farm Legal Consultant Type of Farmer: Heir Property Law: Representative of all rural farmers, specifically with heirs property management issues
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• 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. • 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.
Ideas / Solutions Proposed • Quality Estate Planning -
Farmers 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.
Technical Assistance by USDA to help solve heirs property issues without requiring a loan.
I.D.: Farmer 6 Type of Farmer: Row Crop (4th Generation Farmer, owns 12,000 acres) Livestock (Y/N)? Y- Cattle
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• 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). • 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 crops).
Sustainability 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. • 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. • Rural Brain Drain - change in field/ kids going off to college and not returning to work on their family farms
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In
• Sustainability & Stewardship practices: leaving the land/livestock better than they found it and supporting rural communities.
• 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). I.D.: Farm Technical Consultant Type of Farmer: 4th Generation Farmer (unspecified); Former USDA Employee
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• 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. • 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. • 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). • 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.)
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• 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. • 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. • 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. • 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.). • 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) • 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.
I.D.: Farmer/ Regional Consultant Type of Farmer: Mid-size Vegetable Producers Livestock (Y/N)? Y- Small Ruminants
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• 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. • 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. • No Access to Support / Resources - Many county extension agent offices have closed over the years, so farmers don’t have them as a resource.
Equity Issues
• 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. • 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.
Solutions Stakeholder is Engaged In
• All practices (as a traditional conservation farmer that trains others in Agroecological traditional farming practices.) • Rotational Grazing (small ruminants) • Tree Planting • Trains farmers and organizations throughout Black Belt in same kinds of practices
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• 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.
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. • 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. I.D.: Founder & CEO Type of Farmer: Urban
Equity Issues
• 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.
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• 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. • 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). • Teach Climate Resiliency -- Growing your own food to keep yourselves thriving, when/if supermarkets are open due to climate issues. • 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.
I.D.: Director of Community & Environmental Resilience Type of Farmer: Urban Parks Dept.
Barriers to Sustainable Practices
• 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.
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.
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. • Using an Equity Lens with Community Engagement -
The 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.: Rural Institute Director; Researcher Type of Farmer: Academician & Activist working with Rural Farmers
Equity Issues
• Expansion of Broadband - access to rural communities so they can access conservation agriculture and funding resources online • Restructure university tenure programs and incentive structures to facilitate universities functioning as bridges and conduits to federal resources rather than gatekeepers.
Ideas / Solutions Proposed
• Broadband internet access • University incentive structure
Appendix I: Glossary of Terms (conservation agriculture and afforestation/silvopasture)
Afforestation: The process of creating forests in places that are not already forested, typically take place in urban areas, and degraded agricultural land.
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.
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.
DEI: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
