Navigating complex dynamics: power, structures, institutions, and access in California climate-smart agriculture programs

Abstract

The United States agriculture sector needs to adapt to and mitigate its contributions to climate change, especially with adverse impacts such as intense and frequent drought, flooding, wildfire, and extreme heat that affect crop yields, livestock health, farm infrastructure, and farmer incomes. Recently, federal and state governments have introduced new 'climate-smart agriculture' (CSA) policies and programs to help farmers mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from farming operations. However, farmers face persistent barriers to accessing government resources, which necessitates an understanding of power dynamics among CSA program actors and existing institutions and structures in the agricultural sector. I used the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) CSA incentive programs to investigate these dynamics. I examined how farmer access to CSA programs and the broader program goal of GHG mitigation are enabled or constrained by program actors involved in program implementation and decision-making, and external institutional and structural 'conditions.' I explored if and what foci should be incorporated into the California CSA approach to further achieve GHG mitigation and broader climate change adaptation. To assess these objectives in the context of the CSA programs' implementation and agenda-setting policy process stages, I employed qualitative methods. Drawing from conservation social sciences, political sciences, and human geography, I used a research approach based in concepts of power - the mechanisms of power and the enabling and constraining outcomes - and theories of institutions and structures. The findings demonstrate persisting challenges within the implementation process that ultimately constrain farmers' access to the CSA programs. External policies, market dynamics, farmland and labor access, structural discrimination, and asymmetrical power dynamics in program agenda-setting further constrain farmer access to programs and the programs' ability to mitigate GHG emissions. My findings highlight potential foci to address structural constraints for GHG mitigation and adaptation at the farm level for the CSA approach utilized in California. I recommend considering a more holistic, multi-policy approach to address climate change mitigation and adaptation in agriculture and I argue for future participatory action research with farmers, farm workers, and rural communities to determine mitigation and adaptation needs.