Archives for the 'Renewable Energy / Climate Change' Category
House Ag Appropriation Hearings kick off with questions for Vilsack
Thursday, February 25th, 2010
Yesterday’s hearing before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture kicked off the annual ag appropriations cycle with a round of questions for Secretary Vilsack on the USDA’s budget proposals for 2011. Members covered a wide swath of issues, and specifically addressed a number of programs of interest to NSAC members, including the Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP), climate change, food safety, farm to school, and the recently announced Healthy Food Financing and Rural Innovation Initiatives.
Notably missing from the mix were questions on the Administration’s proposed major cuts to mandatory conservation programs. Despite urging from NSAC and a number of other farm, conservation and environmental groups to reject cuts to mandatory farm conservation programs, no subcommittee member raised the issue with Secretary Vilsack throughout the three-plus hours of questioning.
But on the other side of the budget spectrum, the ballooning Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) prompted Ranking Member Jack Kingston (GA) to dub it the USDA’s “cash for clunkers” equivalent and admonish that the agency could “do better.” BCAP was written in the 2008 Farm Bill at an estimated $70 million, but is projected to cost $479 million dollars in FY 2011.
Both Kingston and Representative Tom Latham (IA) also criticized the proposed $50 million within the Agriculture and Food Research Institute (AFRI) on climate change research to develop mitigation and adaptation strategies. Secretary Vilsack responded in defense of the investment, stating that the research was “consistent with the USDA’s responsibilities” and essential in order for the US to continue to be the “most productive and adaptive” agricultural power in the world. Kingston later questioned the impact that EPA regulations on greenhouse gases (GHGs) might have on farmers. The Secretary cautioned that the impact was difficult to assess in the absence of a specific proposal, but that preliminary studies show that GHG regulation could represent an economic opportunity for commodity growers.
Following on her press statement on the release of the budget earlier this month, Chairwoman Rosa De Lauro (CT) questioned the Secretary about the lack of increased funding for the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) in light of growing concerns by consumers and policy makers about food safety. De Lauro drilled the Secretary on details about terminating School Lunch Program suppliers who violate safety standards, and about the agency’s role in beefing up oversight of the current Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) management system, which she described as “too much industry self-policing.”
Multiple committee members chimed in on the issue of Child Nutrition spending. Notably, Representative Sam Farr (CA) reminded the committee of his pending Children’s Fruits and Vegetable Act which includes $10 million in competitive grants and technical assistance for farm-to-school programs. Representative De Lauro asked for a breakdown of spending within the Administration’s proposed $1 billion per year increase for improvements to Child Nutrition Programs. The Secretary did not outline details, and in particular did not offer additional information on how Farm to School might be funded within Child Nutrition reauthorization, though he did reiterate the USDA’s commitment to the strategy and mentioned the potential for using Rural Development funds to address supply chain development for Farm to School programs in rural areas.
Rural development was another reoccurring theme with questions ranging from broadband spending to housing to electric loans. In response to each question about specific programs, Secretary Vilsack brought the conversation back to the concept of regional change made tangible in the USDA’s proposed Regional Innovation Initiative. In response to concerns about the program eating away at existing competitive grant programs (the initiative would establish modest funding set-asides from twenty different programs across the USDA but does not propose additional new funding), the Secretary reiterated the need for a new approach to rural development that leveraged resources from across communities and encouraged strategic planning to create better places to live rather than focusing on individual business development. With all respect to the work that’s been done, said the Secretary, “rural development is not working.” Based on 25 years of experience working on these issues, the Secretary views the new initiative as an exciting and innovative alternative make real improvements in the lives of rural Americans.
Click here to view the full webcast. Or click here to download a pdf of Secretary Vilsack’s testimony.
NSAC’s 2010 Policy Priorities
Monday, February 15th, 2010
Each year, the NSAC membership engages in a set of discussions within NSAC’s four policy issue committees and then at our annual face-to-face meeting in January about the coming year’s policy priorities. The NSAC Policy Council, made up of formally represented members, makes the final decision about the slate of issues the coalition will together advocate for.
As our membership grows in size (we’re 80 organizations strong!) so does our diversity and power. Our priorities reflect long-standing work on conservation, rural development, and research, as well as emerging issues that are increasing important to sustainable agriculture.
The following are NSAC’s 2010 priorities categorized by issue committee. To learn more about each of the committees, click on the header of each section.
Conservation, Energy and Environment
- Conservation Stewardship Program
- Organic Conversion Assistance & Organic Systems Conservation Program Integration
- Farm Bill Conservation Program Implementation & Funding
- Agriculture Issues in Climate Change Legislation
- Funding for Conservation Technical Assistance
Farming Opportunities and Fair Competition
- Beginning and Socially Disadvantaged Farmer Outreach and Training Grant Programs & Conservation Programs
- Livestock Competition and Contract Agriculture Reform Rulemakings and Public Hearings
- Funding for Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) & Direct Farm Ownership and Operating Loans
Marketing, Food Systems, and Rural Development
- Agriculture, Food Systems, and Rural Economic Development Grant and Loan Programs
- Food Safety Legislation
- Farm to School Legislation and Funding in the Child Nutrition Act Reauthorization
- Funding for Value-Added Producer Grants, Rural Micro-entrepreneur Assistance Program, and Regional Rural Innovation Initiative
Research, Education, and Extension
- Agriculture & Food Research Initiative (AFRI) – Sustainable Food, Agriculture & Rural Development Considerations
- Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program
- Funding for SARE, Organic Research, and Antibiotic Resistance Research
USDA Proposal for Biomass Crop Assistance Program Falls Far Short of Promoting Sustainable Bioenergy Production
Wednesday, February 10th, 2010
This week USDA issued a proposed rule for the increasingly controversial Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP). The department will take public comments on the proposed rule until April 9, 2010.
The 2008 Farm Bill and the accompanying Manager’s Statement clearly spells out BCAP’s primary focus: to promote the cultivation of perennial bioenergy crops that show exceptional promise for producing highly energy-efficient bioenergy or biofuels, preserve natural resources, and are not primarily grown for food or animal feed. BCAP may also be used to promote annual bioenergy crops when inclusion in resource-conserving crop rotations can improve existing row crop systems.
It was on this basis that NSAC was supported BCAP. USDA’s current proposal for BCAP, however, falls far short of these goals.
NSAC will work with other concerned organizations throughout the comment period to demonstrate to USDA officials that without a requirement for environmentally sound production systems, BCAP will do little in the long run to address the nation’s need for truly renewable and sustainable bioenergy production.
Recap of BCAP to date
As noted in a previous blog post, as currently implemented, BCAP is little more than a boondoggle.
First, last June, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) issued a Notice of Funding Availability for the Collection, Harvest, Storage and Transportation (CHST) component of the program without a proposed regulation or environmental review. In the notice, the FSA interpreted the CHST component as an “entitlement” to BCAP matching funds of $45 per ton for any and all entities that collected just about any organic material from agricultural or forest land and delivered it to a BCAP eligible “bioconversion facility.”
Not surprisingly, the number of registered facilities burgeoned to over 400, led by lumber and paper mills burning wood for their own energy use– something many already did with no federal subsidy. Consequently, funds allocated (though not yet spent) for BCAP through the end of March 2010 soared to over $500 million, more than seven times BCAP’s estimated budget of $70 million in the 2008 Farm Bill.
The Proposed Rule
In the proposed rule issued Monday, USDA says it will terminate the June 2009 Notice and that CHST matching payments will be governed by the final rule. Yet it also estimates BCAP costs at an astounding $2.1 billion on CHST from 2010 through 2013. Moreover, FSA proposes to include commodity crop residue and feed grains other than corn in the CHST. Under the proposal, collected crop residues, including corn stover, would be subsidized with no attention to impact on soil health other than an existing conservation compliance (soil erosion) plan, if applicable. Similarly, forest biomass removal has no environmental controls.
Far from the new proposed rule offering re-assurances on CHST, it instead presents additional reasons to be extremely concerned.
The mainstay of the BCAP program, projects to establish bioenergy crops, is vague and deficient. First, there is no process for assessing and ranking project proposals. Instead, USDA proposes a continuous application process, which appears to be a simple first-come, first-serve approach.
In addition, although the proposed rule gives lip service to the statutory requirement for a conservation plan for participants in projects, the proposed rule references the Conservation Reserve Program conservation plan, which is designed for land removed from production, not land producing bioenergy crops. The planning language references permanent cover, not biomass production and residue removal, hence completely missing the mark.
There is also no clear process for providing technical assistance for conservation plans and no role provided for the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The proposed rule calls for conservation districts to review conservation plans if they want to, but if the conservation district declines to review a plan or even disapproves a plan, FSA can waive the need for conservation plan approval.
In essence, the proposed rule seems to reflect USDA and White House approval for FSA’s view that BCAP payments are another “entitlement” and its light disregard for the goal of developing the nation’s next generation of bioenergy crops in environmentally sound production systems.
As stated above, NSAC will work with its partners through the comment period to address these concerns. If you or your organization would like to submit its own comments, click here to access the regulations.gov page for the BCAP proposed rule.
2011 Budget Drill Down: EPA on Water and Air
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010
This post is the third in a series of commentaries by NSAC staff on the President’s 2011 budget, released on February 1st. To read the overview by Executive Director Aimee Witteman click here. Look out in the following days for more budget analysis on research programs, conservation, rural programs and more.
The proposed EPA budget for FY 2011 includes $17 million in new funding for a Mississippi River Basin Initiative (MRBI) to respond to non-point source pollution control, including nutrient pollution from agriculture.
This effort would happen in conjunction with the new USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service MRBI. An EPA press release noted that the Mississippi River Basin funding is in response to a report of the nationwide Nutrients Innovation Task Group and the recommendations outlined in the Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia Action Plan, both of which call for greater control of nutrient pollution from agricultural sources.
The budget request also proposes to increase funding for Chesapeake Bay restoration from $50 million to $63 million. Most of the Chesapeake Bay funding will be use to implement a comprehensive, multi-state total maximum daily load (TMDL) for the Bay which targets control of nutrient runoff from urban stormwater and agricultural fields.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 included $6 billion in supplemental funds to the states for wastewater and drinking water infrastructure improvements. With this funding boost, the Administration is requesting a decrease of $100,000 in the Clean Water Act’s State Revolving Loan Funds, requesting $2 billion, and the same decrease in the State Drinking Water Loan Funds leaving $1.3 billion. The State Revolving Loan Funds can be used for nonpoint pollution projects, including those that target agriculture. EPA is developing a new approach for using the State Drinking Water Loan Fund to improve small water systems, many of which are in rural areas.
For the Clean Water Act Section 319 program, the President is requesting $200.9 million, the same level as FY2010 funding. The program funds grants to states, territories and tribes for projects to reduce polluted runoff. The budget request includes an additional $45 million for Section 106 grants which are intended to strengthen the state, interstate and tribal programs that address emerging water quality issues such as nutrients and new regulatory requirements, and support expanded water monitoring and enforcement efforts.
The budget request clearly signals President Obama’s strong support for EPA’s measures to deal with climate change, including regulation of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) under the Clean Air Act. The request includes $169 million targeted to measures to reduce GHG emissions, a slight increase over the FY2010 level. The request also includes $56 million, with $43.5 million in new funding, for EPA GHG regulation. The funds would be used by EPA to develop guidance on GHG permitting for state and local governments in anticipation of work on GHG Clean Air Act permits.
2011 Budget Drill Down: Biomass Crop Assistance Program
Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010
This post is the second in a series of commentaries by NSAC staff on the President’s 2011 budget, released on February 1st. To read the overview by Executive Director Aimee Witteman click here. Look out in the following days for more budget analysis on research programs, conservation, rural programs and more.
The President’s 2011 budget estimates spending in FY 2011 for the Biomass Crop Assistance Program at $479 million and $263 million for the current fiscal year. These are pretty heady figures for a program that was assigned a total of $70 million in the Congressional Budget Office estimate for the 2008 Farm Bill, and are not immediately easy to match to the $514 million allocated previously by the Administration for the program in FY 2010.
The budget request failed to distinguish funding estimates for the “collection, harvest, storage and transport” or CHST portion of the program from the heart of the program, which funds projects to jumpstart the production of new bioenergy perennial crops in environmentally sound systems. To date, only CHST payments have been made; the cropping system portion of the program is under environmental review. We hope to learn more about the Administration’s assumptions from the USDA budget office soon.
As noted in an earlier post, the payments for CHST are turning out to be a boondoogle, with hundreds of millions of dollars reportedly going for the delivery of wood and wood shavings to timber mills which use the wood for energy. The cabinetry and forest products sector is outraged with the payments, which they say are artificially raising the market price of wood for products. USDA’s Farm Service Agency issued a warning on January 13 of possible fraud based on reports requiring farmers delivering biomass materials to mills pay kickbacks.
The issue has the attention of Rep. Collin Peterson, Chair of the House Agriculture Committee, who stated yesterday that if USDA regulations did not rein in the program, the Committee would consider revisions to BCAP. As reported by Environment and Energy (E&E) News, Peterson said the program has turned into a big problem, adding “I am not very happy about what happened. It is not what I envisioned.” We applaud the Chairman for his concern and hope the White House, USDA, and Congress can get this program back on track.
Obama Budget – Snapshot of Sustainable Agriculture
Monday, February 1st, 2010
By Aimee Witteman
Today, President Obama unveiled his $3.8 trillion budget for fiscal year 2011. The big fat volumes with all of the program line items for each department of government were published online at the U.S. Government Printing Office this morning.
This post summarizes just a few of the proposed losses and gains for sustainable agriculture. Additional blog commentaries on priority sustainable agriculture issues, including more details about what the President’s budget means for conservation and bioenergy, research, organic, child nutrition, beginning farmers, credit, regional food systems and rural development, will be posted here by NSAC staff over the next few days.
For a quick snapshot of how NSAC’s sustainable agriculture priorities fared, check out our updated appropriations chart.
How Sustainable Agriculture Fared
In general, the President’s budget is a mixed bag for sustainable agriculture. The following are a few of the highlights and lowlights.
Conservation: We are extremely disappointed that President Obama—who campaigned on the promise to increase support for conservation on private agricultural land—decided to cut $500 million in the short term and over $1 billion long term from farm conservation programs.
In particular, the President’s budget includes a $70 million (and $700 million over ten years) cut to the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP). We’re sorely disappointed by the Administration’s short-sighted decision to make cuts to this popular, important program that supports farmers’ livelihoods on the land while also protecting and enhancing soil, water, and carbon sequestration—ultimately making agriculture more resilient in the face of a changing climate.
Sustainable Ag Research: In more hopeful news, the President includes a 56% increase in funding for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) competitive grants program, a sure sign of investment in the future of sustainable agriculture systems. This is the biggest increase in the 22-year history of the program and long overdue. SARE has won myriads of awards over the years for its farmer-centered research that has produced real results that help farmers get started and be more profitable by growing and marketing crops and livestock sustainably.
Regional Food Systems and Rural Economic Development: Two new proposals in the President’s budget signal a continued commitment to rural economic wealth creation through regional food system development. Details are still limited, but NSAC applauds the Administration’s decision to set aside 5 percent of a wide range of rural development, marketing, and conservation programs for strategic regional planning that includes a redevelopment of local and regional food and agricultural systems. We also welcome a proposed $35 million for a Healthy Food Financing Initiative that would provide loans for new grocery stories in urban and rural food deserts, though hope it will be firmly linked with regional food system and rural development objectives in addition to food access.
One proposal we expected to see but have not is White House support for a well-funded Farm to School program. The Administration has proposed a $1 billion a year increase in the school feeding programs, but for now, we will have to await USDA Secretary Vilsack’s speech next Monday to learn more about the details of their proposal.
Congress Cuts the Checks – Make Your Voice Heard!
The annual announcement of the President’s budget draws a line in the sand and creates expectations, but ultimately Congress will make the final spending decisions. If you want to brush up on your federal budget 101, here’s a link to a budget process interactive. Negotiations will begin soon and continue through the summer and into the fall before a final vote.
Congress has tough decisions to make given the enormous budget deficit. We will be calling on you as sustainable agriculture advocates to contact members of the House and Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees to urge them to make sure they support a sustainable agriculture agenda that includes full funding for all conservation, regional food system, organic, sustainable agriculture research programs.
These programs are more than just dollars and cents, they make a real difference on the ground—for the environment, farmers, and rural communities.
Thank you for your solidarity and support for sustainable agriculture!
Updated Farm Bill Programs and Grants Page
Friday, January 22nd, 2010
By Jess Daniel, NSAC
Introducing… an updated “quick-guide” to federal programs and grants for farmers, ranchers, food entrepreneurs, and the researchers, educators and community groups who serve them.
This chart is a one-stop shop for links to the relevant USDA program websites (where they exist), brief descriptions of programs, and important dates and deadlines.
Check it out here.
At our recent winter meeting in Santa Fe, member groups and staff kicked off the discussion of NSAC’s strategy going into the 2012 Farm Bill. While legislative efforts make up a large part of NSAC’s work, we also recognize the importance of making sure that programs we fight for are funded, implemented, and ultimately used by the farmers, ranchers, and other producers who we ultimately serve.
New Mexico ranchers share their experiences in a farmer listening session at the recent NSAC Winter Meeting in Santa Fe.
We hope this chart is a small contribution towards this end. It will continue to be updated as RFAs are announced.Take a look.
Kemp responds to comments on “BCAP Boondoggle”
Wednesday, January 20th, 2010
By Loni Kemp, consultant to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy in response to a comment by FSA employee Paul Harte on the article “BCAP Boondoggle” from January 11, 2010.
Mr. Harte from USDA is quick to accuse, but the BCAP law is quite clear about where there is discretion that the Farm Service Agency should use. It is also clear where they are directed to do certain things. (Excuse me on the FSA’s proper name.)
Specifically, the definition of eligible materials is renewable biomass, as defined in Section 9001 to include materials from national forests and public lands “that would not otherwise be used for higher-value products.” Thus the law says FSA should not provide payments for materials from these lands that other industries can make into furniture and building supplies.
While it is true that the law first states that “in general” USDA shall make a payment for the delivery of eligible material to a biomass conversion facility, two sentences later it explicitly states that USDA “may provide matching payments… in an amount equal to not more than $45 per ton.” Clearly, FSA can decide whether to make payments and what the amount should be.
The manger’s amendment described the core purpose of the final bill this way: “The Managers also intend that the primary focus of the BCAP will be promoting the cultivation of perennial bioenergy crops and annual bioenergy crops that show exceptional promise for producing highly energy-efficient bioenergy or biofuels, that preserve natural resources, and that are not primarily grown for food or animal feed.”
Several Agriculture Committee members who supported BCAP have told us they were astonished to see the four sentences creating the collection, harvest, storage and transportation payments morphed into the monster subsidy it has become. Meanwhile, the four pages directing the FSA to implement the crop establishment program have received no action whatsoever. It is called the Biomass Crop Assistance Program, is it not? It is not called the Forestry Biomass Subsidy Program.
As for environmental requirements, the manager’s amendment did describe the House bill as saying “Forest land owners are eligible for this Matching Payment if acting under a forest stewardship plan.”
FSA should have taken the advice provided in comments to the agency to include the matching payments in the programmatic environmental impact statement now under review. The matching payments would then receive extensive environmental and economic analysis to guide effective rulemaking.
We stand by the article. Perhaps the time has come for FSA to realize that not everything is an entitlement.
Avalos Addresses Family Farm Issues at NSAC Annual Meeting
Friday, January 15th, 2010
At the annual meeting of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) in Santa Fe this week, USDA Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs, Edward Avalos told the gathered delegates of his desire for USDA to listen to and serve the needs of small and mid-sized farms, including through buy local campaigns, value-added agricultural development, and collaborative food safety group training.
Under Secretary Edward Avalos addresses NSAC members
Under Secretary Avalos also spoke to advancing USDA’s Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food initiative to foster sustainable, local and regional food systems and to issuing strong livestock market competition rules to give family farms and ranches fair and equitable prices and market access.
In response to questions from NSAC delegates, Avalos indicated he would have the agency look into advancing sustainable livestock meat label claim standards, making organic data collection a regular part of the baseline activities and budget at the Agricultural Marketing Service, and ensuring that the Farmers Market Promotion Program funds the full range of direct marketing options for farmers.
At the meeting, NSAC delegates from 60 member organizations voted to approve its 2010 federal policy priorities, including directed work on the Conservation Stewardship Program, beginning and minority farmer programs, sustainability research within the National Institute for Food and Agriculture, and rural development programs to create jobs and strengthen emerging local and regional food systems.
NSAC Winter Meeting session in Santa Fe, NM
In addition, NSAC members agreed to continue efforts to win a fully funded Farm to School initiative within the upcoming reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act, to ensure that pending food safety legislation does not put small and mid-sized farms at a disadvantage nor place unnecessary barriers on local and regional food systems, and to help pass strong climate change legislation that highlights sustainable and organic climate-friendly farming systems.
The delegates reiterated their dismay over the recent decision by the White House and USDA to renege on the President’s campaign promise to close farm subsidy loopholes and called for it to be overturned. Despite that disastrous Obama Administration decision for crop agriculture, members were heartened by the Under Secretary’s promise that another set of Farm Bill rules — for fair competition and contract agriculture reform in livestock and poultry markets — would be strong reform measures. Those rules are expected to be released in February for public comment.
BCAP Boondoggle
Monday, January 11th, 2010
By Loni Kemp, consultant to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
While the Biomass Crop Assistance Program designed to help farmers plant new energy crops languishes in administrative limbo—the BCAP that NSAC and others fought so hard for in the 2008 farm bill—the other BCAP has grown into a monster. What started out as a couple of paragraphs in the law to help pay for collection, harvest, storage and transportation of biomass has, under the hand of the Farm Services Administration, morphed into another commodity entitlement program, this time for the wood products industry.
It caught the eye of the Washington Post this weekend, as the unintended ripples from the biomass subsidy program went public. It turns out that the vast majority of the 300-some renewable energy facilities approved on FSA’s list are pulp, paper, and wood companies, most of which have burned their own wood wastes for energy for decades. Some have seen declining sales to biomass energy facilities which are now turning to cheaper energy supplies. USDA gave away $24 million last year in matching biomass payments, and announced they are giving away $514 million this year—the vast majority of which won’t support any new biomass or new renewable energy, but instead is free money for a struggling pulp and wood industry. They didn’t lobby for it, Congress certainly didn’t intend it, and yet once the loophole was opened, the industry has come rushing in for it.
In a flash BCAP went from an estimated $70 million cost over five years, to $514 million in 2010 alone, and that is without the core program to help farmers plant energy crops.
Yet not all industry is happy. Composite wood manufacturers charge that BCAP is taking their feedstocks away by paying double the established market price for residual wood that can also be made into furniture, flooring, and construction material, according to the Composite Panel Association. Others are concerned that established markets for all biomass are being destroyed, and will result in chaos when each facility comes to the end of their two year eligibility period.
How could FSA have gone so far astray? They seem to have interpreted the law itself in a number of unusual ways. They claim the program is an entitlement and that they have to make the full payments, despite the fact that BCAP says they “may” — not “shall” — provide payments of “not more than $45 per ton.” They could have limited payments to biomass with no higher-value products, no adverse environmental impacts from over-harvest, and not already being used for energy. The draft environmental impact statement failed to consider impacts from the matching payments. Requirements for biomass removal only under a Forest Stewardship Plan or conservation plan do not seem to be monitored or enforced.
The opportunity for the Obama Administration to fix all of these problems is at hand. A draft rule covering both the matching payments and crop establishment is going to be released in the next couple of months. While the money for 2010 will probably be gone by then, USDA could put in place requirements for a sensible program that furthers renewable energy without the pulp and wood products boondoggle.