Sustainability
Understand the limits on combining EQIP support and carbon credits
Under 7 C.F.R. §1466.36, EQIP contracts prohibit actions that defeat the program’s purpose, including double payment for the same environmental benefit on the same land.
Indigo Ag uses an outcomes-based model and requires additionality under CAR standards. Its contracts often restrict stacking when EQIP paid for the same practice on the same acres.
If EQIP pays part of the cost of cover crops on 200 acres and a carbon program pays for those same cover crops there, NRCS could view it as duplicate compensation.
Before signing, match each EQIP-funded practice and acreage against the carbon program’s activities. A clear map and record of overlaps can help identify potential conflicts early.
Review your EQIP contract and the carbon program’s stacking terms, even if private carbon markets are not named in the EQIP language. Ask your NRCS representative before enrolling.
EQIP and CSP are designed to complement each other: EQIP can fund one-time practice implementation, while CSP can pay annually for maintaining practices and making enhancements.
The key distinction is whether payments support separate conservation activities or duplicate the same environmental benefit. Private carbon programs may apply their own stricter additionality rules.
In the article’s 200-acre Iowa example, EQIP contributes $3,500 annually, average CSP payments $10,000, and Bayer Carbon $2,400, for a stated total of $15,900 per year.
Successful stacking requires careful contract review, mapping practices and acres, and confirming program rules with the relevant representatives before you commit to either agreement.
Generally, you cannot stack EQIP cost-share and carbon credits for the same cover crop benefit on identical acres. It may be possible when the payments support distinct benefits.
Keep reading