of conservation organizations (e.g. Audubon International, Ducks Unlimited), non-governmental collaborations (e.g. National Black Food and Justice Alliance, Global Animal Partnership), and other cause- driven organizations (e.g. the Non-GMO project, Women Food & Ag Network). Of the smaller number of private-sector programs available to institutional entities, these organizations focus on supporting federal (e.g. Forest Stewardship Council’s Federal Lands Certification) or municipal governments (e.g. Trust for Public Land’s Climate -Smart Cities), non-governmental organizat ions (e.g. Land Trust Alliance’s Land and Climate Catalyst Planning Grants), or other forms of professional services (e.g. Green Leadership Trust’s Technical Services).
Table 6. Federal agencies with the largest number of programs in this sample
U.S. Department of Agriculture, total number of programs
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS)
Farm Service Agency (FSA)
National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)
Forest Service (FS)
US Department of the Interior (DOI), total number of programs
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Park Service (NPS)
State-level programs hold the largest representation in our sample (n=847, 65.0%). It is important to note that some federal agencies are included in this list if the programs they offer are specific to that state only and not the nation as a whole. The most common form of state-funded incentive programs were technical assistance (total n= 133) and implementation grants (total n=115). While these trends were true across the states, there was also notable variability of the number of programs available in each state. For example, Maryland and Connecticut had the greatest number of state-supported programs available, while Washington D.C. and New Hampshire had the least. Programs led by the private sector included those available nationally as well as programs available at smaller scales, both regionally and by state. The most frequently occurring private-sector programs came from organizations such as the Audubon Society and its state chapters, the state-level NOFAs (U.S. Northeast Organic Farming Associations), the Conservation Fund, the Chesapeake Bay Program, and various Aquaculture Associations and finance organizations. This assessment also took stock of a number of programs available through PPP.s These PPP programs were most often available at the regional scale (n=21 total), like the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units (CESUs) (Figure 6), but there were fewer PPP programs overall. After the initial data collection was completed, several funding streams were found to be either suspended or repealed and were removed from the final analysis. A summary of these programs is included in Appendix 1.
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker