Financing Agricultural Resilience Begins With Farm Economics

Terryn Lawrence And Ryan Barr Explore The Decisions That Connect Conservation, Producer Cash Flow, And Responsible Investment In A Stronger Food System.

A more resilient food system depends on farms being able to invest in the land, water, and practices that support their long-term productivity. Making those investments possible requires careful attention to the business carrying them out. Costs arrive on a schedule, benefits take time to develop, and uncertainty must be shared fairly. Leaders across agriculture, food production, and finance can make progress by connecting conservation support with the practical realities of running a farm.

At the 2026 Climate & Sustainability Leadership Forum, Terryn Lawrence, SVP and Chief Sustainability Officer at Rabobank North America, presented a practical approach to that challenge in Common Ground: The Bipartisan Power Of Regenerative Agriculture And Water Stewardship. In the conversation that followed with Ryan Barr, Managing Partner and Global Financial Services Practice Leader at FINN Partners, she sharpened the argument around access, responsible lending, and producer involvement. The opportunity is to organize existing programs and capital into an investment process that farmers can understand and use.

Connect Environmental Pressures With Farm Performance

Lawrence identifies four connected pressures: climate extremes, water scarcity, soil degradation, and biodiversity loss. Their significance becomes clearer when viewed through the operating decisions of a farm. Heat can increase water demand as supplies become more constrained. Erosion can weaken productive soil and raise input needs. Changes in habitat can affect ecological functions on which production depends.

These pressures can influence yields, operating costs, insurability, repayment capacity, and the value of agricultural land. Lawrence also highlights the regional nature of disruption. A major weather event can affect farms, transport, storage, energy, and local labor together, creating exposure for buyers and lenders that reaches beyond an individual operation.

Her definition of resilience is therefore grounded in the ability to absorb shocks, maintain productive capacity, and continue serving customers as conditions change. For business leaders, that creates a practical connection between environmental stewardship and the continuity of food production.

Design Investment Around The Farm’s Cash Flow

A practice can offer an attractive five-year outlook while remaining difficult to adopt if most of the expense arrives in the first year. Lawrence describes costs for equipment, seed, technical support, and potential foregone revenue that can precede evidence of improved performance. The producer carries that early exposure while the benefits of a more reliable supply base extend through the wider food system.

Her proposed sequence starts with eligible public incentives, adds buyer or outcome payments where they can reduce the producer’s exposure, and finances the remaining gap on terms that reflect the period of uncertainty. The design needs to show when expenses occur, when support arrives, and which conditions must be met for a payment to be dependable.

Lawrence points to PepsiCo and Walmart’s 2023 announcement of a seven-year collaboration seeking $120 million in investments to support regenerative agriculture across more than two million acres in the United States and Canada. The announcement illustrates the commercial interest of downstream buyers in agricultural resilience. The 2023 announcement describes an investment ambition and does not establish that the planned outcomes have been achieved.

Make Conservation Support Easier To Use

Lawrence’s central observation is that substantial capabilities already exist. Conservation programs, agricultural lenders, insurance arrangements, technical advisers, and buyer commitments each contribute something useful. The difficulty arises when a farmer must navigate separate applications, contracts, payment schedules, and reporting demands to bring them together.

She distinguishes the functions of public programs. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program supports conservation implementation with financial and technical assistance. The Conservation Stewardship Program supports a broader approach to maintaining and improving stewardship across an operation. Easement, partnership, and land-retirement programs serve other purposes. Their different rules and objectives need to remain clear when designing a combined offer.

Durable policy is part of that usability. Investments and conservation commitments can span multiple seasons, so Lawrence emphasizes understandable eligibility, consistent contract administration, and policy that supports planning through changes in government. Her case for bipartisan continuity is grounded in the time farmers and capital providers need to make responsible decisions.

Give Each Financing Tool A Specific Job

Lawrence starts with technical assistance because implementation is itself a source of financial risk. A proposed practice must suit the farm’s soils, equipment, rotations, water conditions, and management capacity. Better preparation can reduce avoidable problems before credit is extended.

The financial tools then address different needs. An advance payment helps cover near-term expenses. An outcome payment rewards performance after it has been verified. A loan guarantee protects a defined share of eligible lender losses under its terms. First-loss capital absorbs a specified initial layer of losses, while insurance covers defined events. Clear contracts establish eligibility, timing, evidence requirements, and what happens when circumstances prevent an expected result.

Her argument is to select and combine tools according to the barrier each addresses. Limited public, philanthropic, or corporate risk support can help during a period of uncertainty, with explicit underwriting standards and responsibilities. As operating evidence and repayment performance accumulate, the financing structure can be reassessed. The aim is to establish economics that support continued participation by commercial lenders.

Keep Evidence Useful And Proportionate

Reporting can become an obstacle when every participant requests a different dataset or verification process. Lawrence calls for evidence that serves a clear decision. A payment for implementing a practice may require confirmation that the work occurred. A lending decision also needs operating information and a credible account of repayment capacity.

She cautions against assuming that every producer has complete digital records or can move data easily between platforms. The cost of measurement, access to technology, and control over information all influence whether a program is usable. Coordinating requirements can reduce that burden while preserving the evidence needed to assess performance.

The same discipline applies to environmental claims. Participants need to understand who owns an outcome or attribute, what has been transferred, and how to avoid counting it twice. Transparent permissions and clear contracts help producers and capital providers work from the same understanding.

Preserve Farm-Specific Credit Discipline

Barr asks directly how banks can support agricultural transition while maintaining underwriting standards. Lawrence’s answer emphasizes repayment capacity, farm-level economics, and downside scenarios. Public incentives and buyer payments can change project costs, while technical support can affect execution risk. Those factors belong in the assessment when their conditions and financial effects are understood.

She illustrates both the opportunity and the need for caution through Soil Health Institute research on 100 farms. The study estimated average increases in net income of about $52 per acre for corn and $45 for soybeans following adoption of soil health management systems. Lawrence stresses that these were observational cases involving experienced adopters, with differences in soils, practices, and market conditions. The findings offer evidence to investigate rather than a return assumption to apply to every farm.

A sound assessment considers the operation’s crop mix, tenure, labor, equipment, yields, insurance, existing debt, and realistic adoption timeline. Testing weaker outcomes alongside the expected case helps establish whether the proposed investment can remain manageable under pressure.

Build The Pilot With Producers

Lawrence recommends beginning with a defined region and commodity, a limited set of practices, a coordinated application, and agreed payment timing and data requirements. In the closing conversation, she uses a dairy supply area to illustrate the value of starting with a relatively focused group of producers and connected buyers.

The pilot should track adoption, producer cash flow, repayment, and outcomes. Those results can reveal which assumptions hold, which require correction, and what can be standardized before expansion. Farmers must help design the offer from the outset. Lawrence makes their participation central to understanding which requirements are practical and where a proposed model will fail to fit everyday operations.

Agricultural resilience offers a shared interest in productive land, dependable supply, and stronger rural businesses. Turning that interest into lasting progress requires institutions to coordinate around the people doing the work. With appropriate technical support, clearly assigned financial responsibilities, and evidence drawn from real operations, leaders can make conservation investment more accessible and commercially credible. The foundation for a stronger food system is built one workable farm decision at a time.

Watch The Full Conversation With Terryn Lawrence And Ryan Barr.↗