Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nature Based Agriculture topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Advocates press for dedicated continuous appropriations for nature-based and agricultural climate solutions
Summary
Conservation groups, agricultural coalitions and climate advocates urged the Assembly to set continuous GGRF allocations for natural and working lands and for agricultural climate practices, citing cost-effectiveness and multiple co-benefits.
A broad coalition of conservation, agricultural, climate and community groups urged the Assembly subcommittee to dedicate permanent, continuous appropriations from GGRF to nature-based climate solutions, natural and working lands, and agricultural climate programs.
Speakers from the Climate Center, Nature Conservancy, California Council of Land Trusts, Pacific Forest Trust, Defenders of Wildlife and others argued nature-based interventions (forest and watershed restoration, wetland and riparian protection, urban greening and community forestry) are cost-effective, provide multiple public health and resilience co-benefits, and deserve a predictable funding stream. The Nature Conservancy and Climate Center speakers asked for continuous appropriations of 25% of GGRF to natural and working lands in line with AB 1757 targets; other witnesses proposed 15% set asides for agricultural climate solutions.
Agriculture advocates including the California Climate and Agriculture Network and the California Certified Organic Farmers called for a 15% continuous appropriation for agricultural practices that reduce emissions and support farm income and resilience. They argued such investments are high-return, citing manure management and dairy digester programs as cost-effective methane reductions and proposing set-asides to help expand organic cropland per state targets.
Composters and waste-reduction advocates urged stable funding for CalRecycle programs and for SB 1383 implementation, saying compost and food diversion programs are among the most cost-effective per-ton short-lived climate pollutant reductions. Several speakers called for dedicated, reliable GGRF support for composting infrastructure and local program stability.
Why this matters: Nature-based and agricultural practices can deliver near-term and long-term climate and resilience benefits with multiple co-benefits for biodiversity, water and community health. Advocates argue predictable funding is required to scale outcomes.
What comes next: The committee heard requests for continuous set-asides (15–25%) and asked advocates and agencies to deliver more rigorous cost-effectiveness comparisons and implementation pathways during the reauthorization process.
