The Office of Advocacy and Outreach (OAO) was established in the 2008 Farm Bill in order to increase access to USDA programs and to improve the viability and profitability of small farms and ranches, beginning farmers and ranchers, and socially disadvantaged farmers or ranchers.  The office is intended to serve as a focal point for the development of improved policies to foster increased farming opportunities and as a conduit between USDA agencies and the Secretary of Agriculture to aid in the better alignment of programs and rules and regulations with the goal of advancing farming opportunities and viability.

NSAC helped develop the original proposal for the office, and was successful in working with congressional champions to get the office included in the last farm bill.

The Office has five key program areas, the first three of which were included in the last farm bill with the other two added administratively:

• Socially Disadvantaged Farmers, which coordinates with USDA agencies to enhance access to USDA programs by minority farmers and ranchers, and also administers the Outreach and Technical Assistance to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (OASDFR), also known as “Section 2501 Program.”  The Advisory Committee on Minority Farmers is housed within OAO and makes recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture on how USDA can better meet the needs of minority farmers.

• Small and Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, which coordinates and collaborates across USDA to enhance services to small and beginning farmers and ranchers, and manages the activities of the Advisory Committee on Beginning Farmers and Ranchers.  The Committee advises the Secretary on ways to develop programs to provide coordinated assistance to beginning farmers and ranchers while maximizing new farming and ranching opportunities.
• Farm Worker Coordination, which administers two grant programs to assist low-income and migrant seasonal farm worker, works to improve agricultural education opportunities for low-income and migrant seasonal farm workers, and houses a Farm Worker Coordinator who is charged with integrating farm worker interests into USDA programs.
• Higher Education Institutions Program, which administers a nationwide network of USDA liaisons to the various institutions of higher learning including 1890 land-grant institutions, 1994 tribal land-grant institutions, and Hispanic-serving institutions.
• Community Engagement, which seeks to engage community members and stakeholders in the outreach and advocacy work of the Office.

OAO’s website features several important resources for small, beginning, women, minority, and limited resource farmers and farmworkers.  Their financial resources page includes helpful links to USDA credit programs managed by the Farm Service Agency, for both individual farmers and groups, cooperatives, and non-profit organizations or local government.  The new website also helps connect producers with their local USDA offices in order to sign up for federal programs, such as FSA loan programs or conservation programs offered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

There are also links to online resources where farmers who believe they were treated unfairly by USDA while applying for federal farm programs, can appeal or file a discrimination claim with the Department of Justice.

This website is a work in progress, and we hope will serve as a valuable resource to connect farmers and ranchers with federal programs and funding opportunities offered through the Department of Agriculture.  If you have any feedback on how to improve the site, we encourage you to contact the Office of Advocacy and Outreach.

Through a streamlined administrative process, claimants can apply, without cost, for remunerations rather than pursue the matter in court.  According to the USDA news release, “the voluntary claims process will make available at least $1.33 billion for cash awards and tax relief payments, plus up to $160 million in farm debt relief, to eligible Hispanic and women farmers and ranchers.”

Reactions to the announcement were ambivalent.  Both the Rural Coalition and National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association praised the Obama Administration for upholding its promise to provide equal access to USDA programs to minorities.  Yet some feel the updated claims process announced yesterday does not parallel similar programs created for African American and Native American farmers.  Regardless of reactions, the increased claims amount marks an important step in resolving USDA discrimination suits.

NSAC and its allies support equity and justice for underserved and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers when accessing federal agriculture programs, including important loan programs offered by the Farm Service Agency.  In December 2011, NSAC joined with the Rural Coalition, along with many other allied organizations, on a letter to President Obama, and urged his administration to strive toward a more equitable claims process for Latino and women producers.

To read more about the revised claims process, click here to see the USDA press release.

This final rule follows one year behind a draft proposed rule, which was issued last December, and makes only minor technical corrections to improve the clarity of the rule.  NSAC and its allies provided comments in advance of this rule and commends FSA for producing a final rule which allows USDA to implement this program on a permanent and national basis.

In its notice, the FSA states that “the Land Contract Guarantee Program will provide a valuable alternative for intergenerational transfers of farm real estate to help ensure the future viability of family farms.”

The program, initially launched in 2002 as a pilot program in 9 states, reduces the financial risk for retiring farmers who sell their farm land to a beginning or socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher, by providing a federal guarantee of three years of “prompt payments” in case the beginning farmer runs into trouble making their payments.  The 2008 Farm Bill and the final rule also provide a second option of a standard 90 percent guarantee of the outstanding principal on the land contract.  The retiring farmer has the option of choosing the prompt payment guarantee or the regular guarantee on the value of the asset.

In order to be eligible for this program, the seller needs to self-finance the sale of their land, and sell to either a beginning or socially disadvantaged farmer.  The buyer of the farm or ranch must a) be a beginning or socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher, b) be not larger larger than a family farm (in which most of the management and labor is provided by family members), c) be the owner or operator of the farm when the contract is complete, and d) have an acceptable credit history and be unable to obtain sufficient credit elsewhere.

This final rule also amends the experience requirements for direct loan eligibility to consider all prior farming experience of the applicant, including on-the-job training or education that occurred within the last 5 years prior to the date of the application, as required by the 2008 Farm Bill.

NSAC developed the policy proposal for this program, and fought for its inclusion in the 2002 and again in the 2008 Farm Bill.  To read more about the program, visit NSAC’s Grassroots Guide.

What We Know About the Farm Bill that Did Not Happen – The Basic Outline

The basic cost-cutting outline of the farm bill deal did not change in gross terms from the time the Agriculture Committee leaders signaled to the Super Committee that they would aim to cut a net of $23 billion over the next decade.  The final deal tracked the original numbers – a $15 billion net cut in commodity programs, a little over $6 billion net cut in conservation programs, and a $4 billion slice from the largest of all farm bill programs, the SNAP or food stamp program.  About $2 billion was thereby freed up to help fund farm bill programs that lacked secured budget baseline after the current farm bill expires in 2012 and to fund new programs.

In round numbers, the combined commodity and crop insurance subsidy programs would therefore be cut by 10 percent, the conservation programs by 10 percent, and the food stamp program by a small fraction of one percent.   The conservation cut, however, would be considerably larger if the “changes to farm bill mandatory spending programs” in the agricultural appropriations bills are added, bringing the total to 15 percent, and much more than that if the appropriations bill continues in the same direction as this year.

Based on the best information available to us, the following should be a fairly accurate summary of some key provisions in the new proposed farm bill.  We stress, however, that without access to the bill itself or even an up-to-date detailed summary, we cannot be absolutely sure about each and every detail.

What We Know About the Farm Bill that Did Not Happen – Some Highlights

Local Food and Nutrition — The proposed bill adopted the policy provision contained in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act (LFFJA) for a competitive grants program that combined direct marketing promotion (formerly Farmers Market Promotion Program) and scaling up of local food systems for larger scale retail and institutional markets.  Called the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program (FMLFPP), the proposed bill would have funded the program at $100 million in mandatory money over five years.  The LFFJA advocates for $30 million a year, or $150 million over five years.

The Community Food Projects, a competitive grants program that aims to fight food insecurity by supporting the development of community-based food projects in low-income communities, would have received an increase in funding from $5 million a year to $10 million a year.  The LFFJA also includes this policy provision.

The proposed bill would have created a new nutrition incentives program, called Hunger Free Communities Incentive Grants.  Advocated for by the Fair Food Network, Wholesome Wave, and others, and modeled after already-existing state and regional examples, this new program was slated in the proposed bill to receive $100 million in mandatory funding over five years and would have incentivize purchases of fresh produce by SNAP participants at farmers markets and other direct marketing outlets.

Beginning Farmers — The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) provides grants to institutions and organizations that offer education, training and outreach to beginning farmers and ranchers.  This program was slated to receive $50 million over the next five years, which is a significant decrease from its current mandatory funding levels of $75 million, and far less than the $125 million included in the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act and advocated by NSAC.  However, BFRDP has no baseline after fiscal year 2012, so although funding is less than current levels, it nonetheless represented $50 million in new money over the next five years.

Organic Agriculture — The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), which provides competitive grants to fund public research on organic production systems, was slated to receive renewed mandatory funding of $80 million over five years, with an authorization for an additional $25 million in annual appropriations.  This is a slight increase in funding from its current mandatory funding of $78 million during the life of the 2008 Farm Bill.  However, per year funding levels would have decreased slightly from $20 million to $16 million, since OREI was funded at lower levels in fiscal year 2008.

The Organic Data Initiative (ODI), which facilitates USDA data collection efforts for the organic sector, would have also received a renewed $5 million in mandatory funding, plus an authorization for annual appropriations, in the proposed bill.

The National Organic Program (NOP), which administers the USDA organic certification program, was slated to receive first-time ever $5 million in mandatory funding, plus authorization for appropriations up to $15 million per year.

Specialty Crops — The Specialty Crop Block Grant (SCBG) program provides grants annually to assist State Departments of Agriculture in enhancing the competitiveness of specialty crops (fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, and nursery crops).  The program would have received an increase in mandatory funding from $55 million a year to $70 million a year.  On the negative side, though, the policy provisions for this program contained in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act (LFFJA) were not included.  LFFJA includes set-asides of program funds for local and regional specialty crop market development and research and includes a more equitable division of program funds across the specialty crop sector.

The Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI), which funds research on fruits, vegetables, and other non-commodity crops, was slated to receive renewed funding at $40 million per year, over ten years – a slight decrease from its current annual funding levels of $50 million.  The SCRI has no baseline for funding beyond fiscal year 2012, so this would have represented $400 million in new money over the next ten years and ensured funding would be available for this program in the following farm bill.

Crop Insurance — The proposed bill’s crop insurance title included a provision in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act (LFFJA) that would have authorized the Risk Management Agency (RMA) to develop a whole farm revenue insurance product for diversified operations, including specialty crops and mixed grain/livestock or dairy operations.  As in the LFFJA, the proposed bill would have set the coverage level at 85 percent, provided a bonus for diversification, and classified costs necessary to get products to market (e.g. the cost of packing materials) as allowable costs.  Unlike the LFFJA, in the proposed bill, RMA would have had the option of contracting out the development of the new product if it decided not to do it in-house.

The proposed bill would also have increased the incentive for private consulting firms to develop new risk management products for specialty crops, and would have returned to RMA the general authority to develop products in-house.

Renewable Energy — As far as we know, only one program within the Energy Title of the proposed bill was slated to receive renewed mandatory funding.  The Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), which has been funded in the current farm bill cycle partly by mandatory funds and partly by appropriated funds, would have continued down that path, though with a very significant reduction in mandatory funds.

The mandatory funding for the controversial Biomass Crop Assistance Program (BCAP) would have been allowed to expire in the proposed bill, but the program would be authorized to receive up to $75 million in annual appropriations for projects and for collection, harvest, storage, and transportation.

What We Know About the Farm Bill that Did Not Happen – Conservation Title

If the proposed farm bill had become law, the total cut to the Conservation Title would be $6.3 billion over ten years.  Roughly 60 percent of the cut to conservation ($3.8 billion) would come from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).  The program’s total acreage cap would be ratcheted down over 3 years from its current level of 32 million acres to 25 million acres.  To a significant degree, this reduction would track changes in CRP enrollment expected as a result of market forces, though with the declining cap the opportunity for new general sign-ups would be small.

Related to CRP, $25 million in renewed funding would have been retained for the CRP-Transition Incentives Program (CRP-TIP), which offers a special incentive of two years of extra CRP rental payments to owners of land that is currently in the CRP but returning to production, who rent or sell to beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers who will use sustainable grazing practices, resource-conserving cropping systems, or transition to organic production.  The bill would not have expanded CRP-TIP to cover intra-family deals under certain circumstances, as had been proposed in the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act (BFROA).

The proposed bill would have cut the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) by $2 billion, or approximately 10 percent.  The average payment rate would have remained at $18 per acre, however the acreage cap would be reduced to 10.34 million acres a year from 12.769.  The proposed farm bill also included a number of positive substantive changes to CSP beyond the numbers.

The proposed bill would have combined the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) into a single program and cut total funding by $1.865 billion, or approximately 10 percent.  As has always been the case for EQIP, 60 percent of the consolidated program’s funding would go to livestock operations.  The program would have also included a 5 percent set aside for wildlife in lieu of WHIP.  The statutory language that led to creation of the EQIP Organic Initiative would not change.  Both the Beginning Farmer and Rancher and Socially Disadvantaged Farmer and Rancher set asides within EQIP would have been retained at 5 percent.  The advanced EQIP cost share for Beginning, Socially Disadvantaged, and Limited Resource Farmers and Ranchers would have also been retained at 30 percent, as opposed to 50 percent proposed by the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act.

The proposed bill would also have combined the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI), Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP), Chesapeake Bay Watershed Initiative (CBWI), and Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) to create a single regional partnership program.  While the CBWI and AWEP had a combined baseline of $1.1 billion through 2012, the new regional partnership program would have had a $1 billion baseline, equating to a $100 million or slightly less than 10 percent cut.  Like the current CCPI, 6 percent of EQIP and CSP funds would be reserved for the regional partnership program.  However, unlike the current CCPI statute, which splits funding authority between the states (90 percent) and national (10 percent), the new bill would have split the authority between national (50 percent), states (25 percent), and “critical areas” (25 percent), which would include the Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, Ogallala Aquifer, Red River, Great Lakes, Everglades and other areas determined by the Secretary.  The regional partnership program would also have had an easement option through existing programs, such as the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP).

On the easement side of the Title, three programs–the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), Grasslands Reserve Program (GRP), and Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP)–would have been combined into a single easement program with two branches.  The first branch would combine FRPP and GRP into an ‘agricultural lands easement program.’  The second branch would consist of wetlands easement program very similar to the WRP.  Nationally, the split between wetland easements and agricultural land easements would be 60/40, respectively; however, each state conservationist would be able to request an adjustment to that split to better reflect the needs of their state.  Perhaps most importantly, the easement program would have had a 10-year baseline of $3.2 billion.  The WRP and GRP have been funded one farm bill at a time, so while the funding available, especially for WRP, would be lower, the tradeoff was to create a permanent, more secure baseline.

The bill would have made no changes to the Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) program.  It would have funded the Voluntary Public Access (VPA) program at $30 million and the Watershed Rehabilitation Program at $150 million over the course of the farm bill.  The VPA program and Water Rehabilitation Program previously had $50 million and $100 million, respectively, and both lack baseline funding after 2012 if not renewed.

Finally, under the proposal, all conservation programs would now be “no year funding” programs, which means that unused money in a given year does not revert back to the general treasury.  Under current law, if a conservation contract is broken, for example, because a contract holder dies or just decides not to go through with a conservation project, that money must be sent back to the treasury.  A significant amount of mandatory conservation money is lost from the Conservation Title through this process.  Instead, under a situation like the one described above, the money would be retained within the Conservation Title.

What We Know About the Farm Bill that Did Not Happen – Some Lowlights

Commodity Payments – The commodity title of the proposed farm bill would have replaced direct payments (payments based on historical base acres and paid each year regardless of market price or farm income conditions) with a “grab bag” of commodity support options.  Producers would be able to decide which program to enroll in.

One option included a farm-level shallow loss program to pay commodity crop producers when they experience small but long-term losses in revenue.  Payments would cover losses between 13 and 25 percent, would be triggered by revenue circumstances at the individual farm level, and would be made on 60 percent of planted and prevented planted acres.  It was expected that many corn, soy, and wheat producers would choose this option, though likely a considerably smaller percentage than if it were the only option available.

A second option was substantially higher target prices with ongoing receipt of counter cyclical payments when prices fall below the target, expected to be of most interest to rice, peanut, and sorghum producers, but perhaps many corn, soy, and especially wheat producers as well.

A third option was a special revenue insurance program for cotton (only) known as the Stacked Income Protection Plan or STAX.  The movement of cotton’s share of commodity title funding to the crop insurance side of the ledger, via STAX, would have moved cotton out of adjusted gross income eligibility standards, payment limitations, and conservation requirements.

Due to the proposed termination of direct payments, saving nearly $5 billion a year, and to the relatively rosy projections of future commodity prices over the next decade, all of these commodity options could be put in the bill and estimated to result in a $15 billion savings over the next decade, or about $1.5 billion a year.  If, however, a substantial price drop occurred outside the predicted range, the taxpayer exposure could be very high, easily wiping out any savings.

Payment Limits and Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) — The new payment limitation for the shallow-loss revenue program option and counter-cyclical program option would have been $210,000 for a married couple.  This is significantly higher than the current $130,000 payment limit for counter-cyclical and revenue insurance payments.  The new higher payment limit is the result of adding the current $80,000 payment limit for direct payments to the total.  This outcome is baffling, given that direct payments were being proposed for elimination.

(Note: The proposal to the Super Committee from Senators Grassley (R-IA) and Johnson (D-SD), which had NSAC’s support, would have established a $100,000 per farm annual limit on revenue and counter-cyclical payments.  In June, Grassley and Johnson introduced the Rural America Preservation Act of 2011 to lower the per farm cap on farm commodity program payments, simplify eligibility, and ensure that payments flow to working farmers.  Visit our blog on the bill to read more about their effort to build a reasonable payment limit into the new farm bill.)

The proposed bill would have done nothing to close the biggest legal loophole that has been built into the support system over the last two decades, a loophole that allows individual farming interests to secure nearly unlimited taxpayer support.  The loophole — allowing people to dodge the requirement to be “actively engaged in farming” to be eligible for support — allows mega farms to capture multiples of the nominal payment limit.  These taxpayer-provided funds in turn can be used to bid land away from young, beginning farmers trying to get a start in farming.  Unlimited payments over-inflate land values, increasing the land carrying costs for all farmers.

The proposed bill included no limit at all on marketing loan gains or loan deficiency payments, no limit at all on STAX subsidies, and no limit at all on highly subsidized crop insurance premiums.  For each of those, the sky was the limit.

Finally, the adjusted gross income (AGI) limit for eligibility for commodity and conservation program payments was proposed to be $950,000, including both farm and non-farm adjusted income (generally multiplied times two if married).  This is down $50,000 from the $1 million limit that was included in the FY 2012 agriculture appropriations bill that became law last week.  The AGI test excludes from income all regular business expenses including the costs of renting or purchasing additional land or equipment; hence the AGI test  encourages farm expansion by anyone who receives commodity subsidies and makes more than a million dollars a year, or a couple of million in the case of married persons.

For more information on payment limits, visit NSAC’s commodity program payment limitations and adjusted gross income limitations page.

Conservation Compliance — Despite the call of 56 national farmer and conservation organizations, including NSAC, to maintain and strengthen conservation compliance provisions in the farm bill, the bill would neither reattach conservation compliance to crop insurance nor establish a nationwide Sodsaver provision.  Conservation compliance helps ensure that producers do not farm the most environmentally sensitive land, primarily highly erodible land and wetlands.  In 1985, conservation compliance requirements have applied to commodity, crop insurance, and conservation program payments, but since 1996 it has not applied to receipt of crop insurance subsidies.

With direct payments gone, the proposed new farm bill would have only applied this minimum standard of environmental protection to counter-cyclical payments and the shallow-loss revenue insurance program.  There would be no conservation compliance requirements for those who choose to receive STAX benefits or those who receive crop insurance subsidies only.  NSAC has consistently advocated that crop insurance, which is the single largest farm subsidy, should be part of the same social contract that applies to commodity, credit, and conservation programs.

The agreement also did not include a nationwide “Sodsaver” provision.  Sodsaver would have strengthened existing compliance rules by prohibiting all commodity and insurance subsidies on all native prairie and permanent grasslands and other remaining native land that does not have a cropping history if such land were to be cropped.  In doing so, it would have protected prairie, critical habitat and biodiversity, reduced the cost of subsidy programs, and taken the pressure off of already over-subscribed conservation incentive programs.  This Sodsaver provision was included in the last farm bill, but only as a voluntary pilot project that never got off the ground.

The bottomline is the proposed bill’s commodity and crop insurance titles would have encouraged and subsidized farm consolidation and diminish economic opportunity for young and beginning farmers.  It would have created a “too big to fail” protection that could have left the taxpayer with a huge new exposure should the market tumble.  Despite an ongoing economic crisis and need to spur rural job growth, the bill would have maximized payments and insurance subsidies to the nation’s largest farms while putting almost no money into rural economic development.  There would have also been no improvements at all to the existing weak set of conservation conditions required as a condition of being eligible for production subsidies, and no re-linkage to crop insurance subsidies.  These are all very major failings that need to be addressed when farm bill consideration resumes.

Rural Development –The Rural Development business programs did not fare well in the bill from a funding standpoint.  The Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) program, which provides competitive grants to create or develop value-added producer-owned businesses, would have been the only rural development program to receive farm bill funding.  The VAPG program, however, would have received only $15 million in mandatory funding over five years, a very nominal amount.  This is the same amount of funding from the 2008 Farm Bill, which was used up entirely in the first year of that farm bill cycle.  In LLFJA and the BFROA, NSAC is advocating for $30 million per year in mandatory funding for the program, which has a proven track record in boosting farm income and creating rural jobs.  The proposed bill would have authorized up to $40 million a year in discretionary funding, the same as under current law, but current appropriations are at only 40 percent of that level and the pressure on appropriations bills from discretionary cuts already approved by Congress will grow each year.

The Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program (RMAP) provides entrepreneurs in rural areas with the skills necessary to establish new businesses and continue operation of existing rural microenterprises.  While the 2008 Farm Bill included $15 million over four years in mandatory funding for the program, the proposed new bill would have included no mandatory funding for the program at all and authorized only $20 million a year in discretionary funds compared to $40 million a year last farm bill cycle.

Additionally, many of the policy proposals included in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act (LFFJA) that would bolster “food hub” and value chain activities are not found in the new bill.  For instance, the Business and Industry (B&I) Direct and Guaranteed Loan Program bolsters rural businesses and industries and includes a minimum five percent set-aside for local and regional food system activities including aggregation, storage, processing, distribution, and marketing.  LFFJA proposes an increase of this set-aside to ten percent and makes other improvements; however, the proposed new bill did not adopt this proposal.

Local Food and Nutrition – The proposed new bill did not contain any of the EBT or school food provisions contained in the LFFJA.  The LFFJA includes a leveling of the playing field so that direct marketing outlets such as farmers markets and CSAs can serve as SNAP vendors just as wired retail outlets do.  The LFFJA’s school food provisions includes a “local food credit program” that would allow School Food Authorities to use up to 15 percent of their commodity dollars for making purchases of agricultural products from local and regional farmers and ranchers.  Not only would this foster economic development but it would also bolster farm to school relationships.  Additionally, while the proposed new bill would have maintained funding for the Department of Defense Fresh program, which gets produce into schools, the bill would not have allowed schools to use these dollars for their own purchases of more fresh, local food.  On a positive note, the proposed new bill would have allowed USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service to continue to pursue a pilot program that explores avenues for local sourcing in the program.

Organic Agriculture — The National Organic Certification Cost Share Program (NOCCSP), which assists producers in 34 states and handlers in all 50 states with the regulatory costs of entering into organic production, was left in tatters in the proposed new bill.  It would have ended any farm bill mandatory funding for the program and placed a five-year benefit limit on each farmer if, as is unlikely, the program were to shift from the farm bill to the appropriations bill.  The proposed bill would have allowed farmers in the 12 Northeastern states plus HI, NV, UT, and WY to receive mandatory funding from a different source for organic certification cost share.  The result would have been an absurd situation where eligibility for a farm program benefit depended on which state one resides in.  For comparison, imagine if corn program subsidies were available only in 16 out of 50 states – it would not have passed the smell test.

The proposed bill also did not include the provisions in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act (LFFJA) regarding organic crop insurance.  The LFFJA would eliminate the organic premium surcharge and would direct RMA to complete development of an organic price series to allow organic policies to pay out at the organic price.

Minority Farmers and Ranchers

The proposed bill left the Outreach and Technical Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers program (also known as “Section 2501” program) high and dry.  The program received $75 million in mandatory funding under the current farm bill, but was left unfunded in the proposal.

Beginning Farmers and Ranchers

The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Accounts (BFRIDA) Pilot Program also was not provided with farm bill funding under the proposal.  The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act proposes to fund the innovative pilot program at $5 million a year in mandatory funding.

Many credit programs that are essential to helping beginning farmers start farming, would have been reauthorized, including the Conservation Loan Program, the Down Payment Loan Program, and funding set-asides for beginning farmers within the guaranteed farm ownership and direct operating loan funds.  None of the important policy changes that are needed and are contemplated by the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act were included, however.

Research and Extension

While the proposed bill would have provided important renewed mandatory funding for the Specialty Crop Research Initiative, Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative, and Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Act, it contained no policy changes that we know of to other programs and offices with the research area.

This notice announces the availability of fiscal year 2012 funding for the program, and encourages all eligible entities to apply for either new awards or supplemental funding for existing awards.  Eligible applicants include higher education institutions, tribal governments, and community-based non-profit organizations.  This program will assist these entities in providing outreach and technical assistance to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

Some of the specific priority areas for grants that will be funded under this program include:

• assisting socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in owning and operating successful farms and ranches
• improving participation among socially disadvantaged farmers and rancher in the full range of USDA programs
• building relationship between current and prospective socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers and USDA’s local, state, regional, and national offices
• communicating with socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in a linguistically and culturally appropriate manner
• providing outreach and education to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers on USDA class action lawsuits
• introducing agriculture-related information to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers through innovative outreach and technical assistance
• providing training and technical assistance on the effective use of combining programs offered by various USDA agencies for the purpose of creating an economical safety net for commodity producers

This program was established in the 1990 farm bill, and was strengthened greatly in the 2008 farm bill, which moved OASDFR to the Office of Advocacy and Outreach and authorized $75 million in mandatory funding from 2009 to 2012.  NSAC has advocated for continued and expanded funding for this program, along with several other programs that benefit socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

USDA estimates that approximately 70 awards will be granted in the FY 2012 round of funding, accounting for the $19 million available in program funding.  Applicants can apply for grants up to $800,000 through this RFA.  Applications are being accepted until December 21, 2011.  To access the online application, click here.

To view a synopsis of the program, please visit NSAC’s page on Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers.

The notice says a total of approximately $10 million for FY 2012 is available.  The maximum amount of federal funding granted to eligible recipients shall not exceed $800,000 for  two tear project proposals, and $400,000 for one year proposals.  Proposals requesting federal funding exceeding $400,000 annually will not be considered for funding.  OAO anticipates awarding between 15-20 competitive grants through this RFA.

OASDFR, otherwise known as the “Section 2501″ program after its Farm Bill section number, is intended to assist community‐based organizations, higher education institutions and eligible tribal entities in providing outreach and technical assistance to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.  The overall goal of the program is to assist socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers in a linguistically appropriate manner in owning and operating farms, ranches and nonindustrial forest lands while increasing their participation in USDA-administered agricultural programs.

The program was authorized by the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990, and expanded and provided with mandatory funding in the 2008 Farm Bill.

Projects are intended to build lasting relationships between USDA and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers to improve their ability to start and maintain successful agricultural businesses.  Despite the program’s success, program funding has not been sufficient to reach counties throughout the U.S. where outreach is needed, making this a highly competitive program.

Proposals must be received by 5:00 pm EST on December 12, 2011 to be considered for funding.  Please visit the Grants.gov application site to submit a proposal.

The purpose of these cooperative partnership agreements is to deliver crop insurance education and risk management training to U.S. agricultural producers to assist them in identifying and managing production, marketing, legal, financial and human risk, including States where there is a low level of crop insurance participation and availability.

These two programs give priority to partnerships that provide education and outreach to specialty crop producers (who are not currently insured under Federal crop insurance); underserved commodities (such as livestock and forage); and limited resource, socially disadvantaged and other traditionally underserved farmers and ranchers.

Many of the organizations that received grants from these RMA partnership programs offer risk management education to underserved producers and focus on crop diversification, farm viability, and place an emphasis on sustainably grown products.  Of the 104 grants awarded this year, 21 went to NSAC member organizations, including:

• Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association (Salinas, CA) – to prepare socially disadvantaged and beginning farmers to confidently manage sources of regulatory and legal risk
• Center for Rural Affairs (Lyons, NE) – to help 100 veterans gain knowledge about managing farm and ranch startup strategies and managing business risk
• Kansas Rural Center (Whiting, KS) – to fund a sustainable agriculture risk management strategies conference
• Land Stewardship Project (Minneapolis, MN) – to train beginning, immigrant, women and existing farmers seeking to diversify their enterprise at the whole farm or field level
• Michigan Food and Farming Systems (East Lansing, MI) – to improve and expand African American and Hispanic producers’ strategies to reduce risk on their specialty crop family farms
• Midwest Organic and Sustainable Education Services (Spring Valley, WI) – to provide information and resources on sustainable farm management to new farmers, women farmers, and young farmers
• National Center for Appropriate Technology (Butte, MT and nationwide) – to deliver a risk-management training series for small-acreage specialty crop and livestock producers in various regions of the country, train women and Hispanic farmers and ranchers in Oklahoma, and do pastured poultry training in California;
• Northwest Center for Alternatives to Pesticides (Eugene, OR) - to do risk management education at specialty crop producer conferences in Idaho
• Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York (Rochester, NY) – to deliver on-farming training to farmers in NYS
• Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (Fayetteville, AR) – to provide risk management education on direct marketing strategies for producers of specialty horticultural crops and/or livestock in various areas of the South
• Wallace Center at Winrock International (Arlington, VA) – to educate producers about new business enterprise models for local and regional markets

NSAC will be advocating for increased funding for this important program that serves beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers across the country in the upcoming farm bill debates.  NSAC has worked with champions in Congress to incorporate provisions into The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2011 [HR 3236] that, if rolled into the farm bill, would expand and strengthen risk management education programs and place a particular emphasis on beginning farmers.  To learn more about the bill, click here.

To learn more about RMA’s Risk Management Education and Outreach Programs, click here.

For a complete list of awards, click here.

The 2008 farm bill included a provision that allowed the Pigford I case to be reopened, but only provided $100 million for the settlement.  In 2010, Congress passed legislation which allowed an additional $1.15 billion to be provided for settling cases that had not been filed in the original discrimination lawsuit against USDA.  NSAC worked in support of both funding bills.

Under the recent decision, as many as 68,000 African-American farmers who filed claims between 1999 and 2008 could apply for monetary relief as part of the settlement.  ”So many farmers had ever given up hope that this would ever come to pass,” said John Boyd, the head of the National Black Farmers Association.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsak said in a statement about the Pigford II settlement the decision is “an important step to ensure some level of justice for black farmers and ranchers who faced discrimination when trying to obtain services from USDA.”

Attorney General Eric Holder also issued a statement,saying the settlement “allows the Department of Agriculture and African-American farmers to focus on the future, and brings us one step closer to giving these farmers a chance to have their claims heard.”

To read the case report by the United States District Court, click here.

The letter was delivered to members of both the Senate and House Agriculture Committees, as they continue farm bill deliberations in advance of their November 1st deadline to deliver policy recommendations to the Super Committee.

In the letter, NSAC and the other organizations urge the Agriculture Committees to provide long-term protection and continued funding to a critical subset of small programs and offices charged with serving the most chronically underserved segments of agriculture.  These policy priorities represent a fraction of the full agriculture budget but are the lifeblood of the sustainable agriculture community, beginning, socially disadvantaged and veteran producers, and farmworkers.

Some of the top priorities that were highlighted in the letter include:

• reauthorizing the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program;
• support for the Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers Program;
• reauthorizing the Conservation Reserve Program-Transition Incentives Program;
• reauthorizing the Value Added Producer Grants Program;
• support for the Office of Tribal Relations Program and the Federally Recognized Tribal Extension Program;
• continued funding for the Grants to Improve the Agricultural Labor Workforce Program;
• amending the Emergency Disaster Grants for Farmworkers program to include increase funding support;
• strengthening the Office of Advocacy and Outreach to improve the ability of USDA to offer equitable access to federal programs; and
• increasing authorized levels for Direct and Guaranteed FSA loans in order to meet the unmet demand for these loans.

To see a copy of the letter, please click here.

National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
For Immediate Release
October 25, 2011
Contact: Ferd Hoefner, Juli Obudzinski, 202-547-5754

Beginning Farmer Bill Introduced in Congress for Inclusion in New Farm Bill

Washington, D.C. October 25, 2011 – House and Senate members today announced the introduction of  the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2011 [H.R. 3236], a comprehensive bill intended for inclusion in the 2012 Farm Bill that highlights federal programs that help support economic opportunities for young and beginning farmers and ranchers.  The bill addresses many of the barriers that new agriculture entrepreneurs face such as limited access to land and markets, hyper land price inflation, high input costs, and a lack of sufficient support networks.

The Beginning Farmer Rancher Opportunity Act is a bipartisan and bicameral bill introduced in the House by Representatives Tim Walz (D-MN) and Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE), and an identical companion bill will be introduced by Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and other members of the Senate Agriculture Committee in the Senate next week once they return from their current recess.  There are additional members of both houses that have indicated their support for the bill and will likely be signing on as co-sponsors shortly after introduction.

“We applaud Congressmen Walz and Fortenberry and Senator Harkin for introducing this legislation which is so important to the future of farming in this country,” said Juli Obudzinski, a policy specialist with the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.  “Congress should include it as a critical, forward-looking component of the the farm bill.”

The bill is a result of strategic collaboration among many individuals and farmer advocacy organizations, including the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and many NSAC member groups, including Land Stewardship Project, Center for Rural Affairs, National Young Farmers’ Coalition, California FarmLink, and Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance, among others.  Over the past two years, NSAC and its allies have met with numerous officials at various USDA agencies, many legislative offices both in-district and on Capitol Hill, and with other farm and membership groups to solicit input on the bill’s provisions in order to make them as strong and targeted as possible.

“The scope of this bill represents a historical investment in beginning farmers.  The programs will nurture the next generation of family farmers by building human capital and assets,” says Steve Schwartz, founder of California FarmLink, an NSAC member group which was one of the first in the country to design and implement a successful Individual Development Accounts program to help new farmers save money and accumulate sufficient capital to begin farming.  “The Act builds a foundation to develop jobs and farm businesses in rural communities with a very small investment of government funds.”

The bill includes provisions that cut across six titles of the Farm Bill, including proposals that address conservation program set asides and incentives, access to credit, rural development, research and extension, and access to crop insurance and risk management.

Some of the specific proposals that are included in the Beginning Farmer bill are:

Individual Development Accounts and FSA Microloans

Passed in the 2008 Farm Bill but never appropriated to date, the IDA pilot program would support the establishment of matched savings accounts for beginning and socially disadvantaged producers, the proceeds of which may be used on capital expenditures for a farm or ranch operation, including purchases of land, buildings, equipment, or livestock.  The program would be administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) and would include 15 state pilot programs.  The Bill also includes a proposal for FSA to deliver microloans not to exceed $35,000 that would serve the financial needs of young beginning farmers and ranchers.

“Access to capital is the number one challenge for beginning farmers,” says Lindsey Lusher Shute, Director of the National Young Farmers’ Coalition – an NSAC member group based in the Hudson Valley in upstate New York.  “Through the Individual Development Accounts pilot program and FSA microloans, the Act will get funds where they’re needed and help new farm businesses get off the ground.”

Other credit provisions in the bill offer support for the direct and guaranteed loan set-asides for beginning farmers and ranchers, and increasing the loan amount that beginning farmers can request under the Down Payment Loan Program.

“Access to capital is a must for beginning farmers,” said Tyler Benson, a farmer member of Land Stewardship Project who raises crops and cattle near Rushford, Minnesota, thanks in part to an FSA beginning farmer loan which was key in getting his operation started.  “These programs are good investments—new farmers are new jobs.  They buy products and supplies for their business and create economic activity.  We need more of that in rural America.”

Loans and set asides for conservation programs

The Bill would also reauthorize many existing conservation programs targeted at beginning farmers, such as the Conservation Reserve Program-Transition Incentives Program (CRP-TIP) which provides incentives to retired or retiring farmers to rent or lease land expiring from CRP contracts to beginning or socially disadvantaged farmers.

“This bill will not only help beginning farmers get started in agriculture, but it will help them get started right by making conservation programs work for them,” noted Traci Bruckner with the Center for Rural Affairs—an NSAC member based in Lyons, Nebraska.  Bruckner continues: “It will also help them gain access to land by continuing the Conservation Reserve Program Transition Incentives Program, which helps beginners bring land that was enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program back into production in a conservation-based manner.”

Additional conservation provisions support reaffirming the existing cost-share differential and funding set-asides for beginning farmers in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), and to include a priority for beginning farmers in the Conservation Innovation Grant subprogram.  The bill would also provide a priority for beginning farmers within FSA’s Conservation Loan program, which provides loans to producers to establish conservation practices and structures on their operation.

Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program

One of the most important provisions in this bill is a proposal to reauthorize and increase mandatory funding for the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP) – a highly successful program first authorized in the 2008 farm bill, which provides competitive grants to a wide range of community-based training and education programs for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.  To date, BFRDP has funded 105 projects in 48 states and territories, including programs that assist with farm transition, provide technical assistance for beginning farmers, and offer financial and business training curriculum.

“Networking and connecting to farmers and others through community based [farmer training] programs was invaluable to helping us get started in farming,” said beginning farmer Katie Felland, who operates a farm that produces eggs, apples, pumpkins, berries and popcorn in Owatonna, Minnesota.  “We hope to grow our farm in the future, and getting support and assistance from community groups, we know can be effective.  That’s partly why this legislation makes sense—it provides community-based groups with the resources to work on local issues new farmers face.”

The bill also includes a provision to coordinate the borrower training program requirement administered through FSA with BFRDP-funded programs that offer financial training.  A final research provision in the bill would authorize research, education, and extension, projects to be funded under USDA’s Agriculture and Food Research Initiative that are related to beginning farmers and ranchers, socially disadvantaged and immigrant farmers, farm transition, farm transfer, farm entry, new marketing and farm viability alternatives, and related issues.

Agricultural opportunities for military veterans

This bill also includes provisions to strengthen USDA’s support for military veterans, by adding a new grant priority for agricultural rehabilitation and vocational training programs for military veterans within the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program administered by USDA.  The bill would also establish a Veterans Agricultural Liaison Position within USDA’s Office of Advocacy and Outreach to help connect returning veterans with beginning farmer training and rehabilitation programs and assist them with program eligibility requirements for participation in farm bill programs.

“We are extremely excited about the bill’s inclusion of a program to support military veterans who want to get into farming,” says Taylor Reid, founder of BeginningFarmers.org – an online resource for beginning farmers and ranchers, and Policy Coordinator for the NSAC member group Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance.  “We owe the military men and women who have proudly served their country, and often made significant sacrifices in doing so, the opportunity to find meaningful careers in agriculture.”

Next Steps

With the new Farm Bill, Congress has an opportunity to expand and improve a comprehensive beginning farmer and rancher initiative that breaks down barriers to entry and gives real support to ensure the effective start-up and success of new small and mid-scale producers across the country.

“The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition supports the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act of 2011, and advocates for fully incorporating the bill’s provisions in the new farm bill,” said Juli Obudzinski, an NSAC Policy Associate.  “The bill pulls together the best ideas from around the country for advancing new farming opportunities by building on the progress of previous farm bills, and stepping up the pace of reform.”

For more information on the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Act, visit NSAC’s website.

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is a grassroots alliance that advocates for federal policy reform supporting the long-term social, economic, and environmental sustainability of agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities.

-30-