Rep. Pingree and Russell Libby

Chairwoman Jean Schmidt (R-OH) opened the hearing by stating, “In order for us to reauthorize and craft responsible farm programs, it is our duty and responsibility to ensure that every dollar spent is a wise dollar spent.   Investing wisely in specialty crops and ensuring that nutrition programs are being administered effectively is critical at this time.”

Schmidt highlighted the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) because it has no baseline funding going forward.  She cited SCRI as a “critical element” of specialty crops, and one that promotes health– “A diet with more specialty crops is more nutritious.”

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-ME) echoed the interrelated nature of nutrition and specialty crops as both “important links in ensuring that all families have the option of putting fresh and good food on their tables.”  According to Pingree, thinking about how to link nutrition programs to farmers involves expanding local markets.

“When farmers sell to local markets, they get to keep a bigger share of the dollar.  It’s a win for farmers and it’s a win for our families,” said Pingree.

The first panel included five witnesses involved in production and packing of specialty crops.  As a whole, members of the panel stressed the importance of both SCRI and the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBPG) which fund food safety, education, research, and marketing efforts that advance the competitiveness of specialty crops.  Several witnesses, asked for changes or more funding for the program.  Jerry Lee, the Environmental Services Manager of Monrovia Growers, suggested the Committee “support your Senate counterparts’ efforts to expand funding for this program and allow the opportunity for multi-state proposals.”

Russell Libby, the Executive Director of Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, was the only one of the first panelists to discuss organic specialty crops.  Libby also referenced the Senate farm bill, asking the House to consider funding the National Organic Certification Cost Share at the level included in the Senate bill.  He warned that without the program “farmers here at home will opt not to certify, and organic companies will have to source from overseas instead of from American farmers to meet strong consumer demand.”

Libby also asked to expand organic production through a more efficient National Organic Program, through streamlined inclusion in programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program, and through the development of a workable organic crop insurance program.

During the question and answer portion of the hearing, Rep. Pingree inquired about  potential barriers to farmers, especially those concerning beginning and organic farmers and farmers selling into local markets.  Generally panelists agreed that farmers needed access to capital to aggregate product and scale up supply networks.

During his round of questioning, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA) pointed out that cutting nutrition assistance programs also meant cutting benefits for farmers.  Phil Blalock, the Executive Director of the National Association of Farmers Market Nutrition Programs, made a similar point in the second panel.  He discussed the role the Farmers Market Nutrition Program and the Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program play in supporting agriculture, explaining that these programs “increase income to small family farmers by increasing use and awareness of farmers markets.”

The bill that the Senate Agriculture Committee voted out of committee last week now makes its way to the Senate floor and hopefully will be taken up by the House later this spring.  While there were some key highlights included on commodity program reform, organic agriculture, and local food, there was not much headway made on sustainable agriculture research priorities in the current bill that came out of the Senate.

A detailed breakdown regarding what research provisions were (and were not) included in the draft bill presented to the Committee by Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Ranking Member Pat Roberts (R-KS) is available in this earlier post.  This post focuses on amendments to the bill pursued before and during Committee markup last week.

Seeds and Breeds

We were pleased to see that Sen. Gillibrand (D-NY) filed and offered an amendment in support of classical breeding during the Senate markup.  Her amendment proposed to allocate 5 percent of total funding within the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) to projects involving classical plant and animal breeding – which closely mirrors the report language included in the 2008 Farm Bill which clarifies Congress’ intent in making public breeding a research priority in the newly created competitive grants program.  Despite this congressional mandate and the tremendous demand for more research on conventionally bred and locally adapted seeds and breeds, USDA has failed to sufficiently address the nation’s public breeding needs.  Ultimately, Sen. Gillibrand withdrew her amendment and we were disappointed to see no improvements to the AFRI program in the Senate bill voted out of committee.

Beginning Farmers and Local Food

There were no major revisions to beginning farmer research priorities, aside from one small change made to the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program which added military veterans to the 25 percent set-aside which currently funds projects that meet the needs of socially disadvantaged and limited resource farmers and ranchers, as well as farmworkers aspiring to become farmers.  For more details on other beginning farmer related provisions, see our previous blog post.

On the local food research agenda, we were pleased to see that the local and regional food data collection initiative included in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act was left intact from the draft farm bill presented by Chairwoman Stabenow (D-MI) and Ranking Member Roberts (R-KS) that was released prior to mark up.  We were disappointed, however, to see that there was no money provided to this new initiative, and will be working with other champions in the Senate and House to hopefully obtain mandatory funding to kick start this program.  For more details on other local food related provisions, see our previous blog post.

Horticulture and Organic

There were no changes made to two key mandatory programs that fund research on specialty crops and organic agriculture.  The Specialty Crop Research Initiative received a total of $200 million over the life of the farm bill and its funding levels are made permanent into future farm bill cycles at $50 million per year.  The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative maintains the funding levels included in the mark – $80 million over the life of the farm bill, or $16 million per year plus an authorization for $25 million per year in appropriations.  This is 20 percent decrease in annual funding, and NSAC will be continuing to advocate for additional resources to support organic research as the farm bill process moves forward.  For more details on other organic provisions, see our previous blog post.

Other Research Provisions

Sen. Leahy (D-VT) filed an amendment that included an authorization for the Regional Integrated Pest Management Centers, a public health reporting requirement for USDA programs and policies, and re-establishing the Agricultural Science and Technology Review Board which has historically provided oversight of federally funded technology development related to agriculture.  We are happy to report that the IPM Centers authorization made it into the final manager’s amendment presented at markup.  Sadly, however, the other two provisions included in Sen. Leahy’s amendment were not accepted.  We will continue to work on them as the farm bill process moves forward.

Another disappointment in the research title was the so-called “sun setting” of the provision that authorizes the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program.  SARE has until now functioned under a permanent authorization.  While not an imminent threat in any way, this change now makes the future of this incredibly successful program somewhat more precarious, as sustainable agriculture stakeholders will need to ensure that the program gets reauthorized in every future farm bill.

There were no other changes in the Research Title from what was included in the draft mark released prior to markup.

One issue which NSAC was especially frustrated was not included in the final bill was a proposal to clarify the eligibility requirements within AFRI.  The statute clearly states that USDA should solicit applications from wide variety of eligible applicants, including private organizations, federal agencies, and research foundations, in addition to public and private colleges and universities.   However, the statute has been interpreted we believe in a manner contrary to the intent of Congress, to restrict eligibility for integrated projects to only academic institutions.  The ball is now in Congress’ court to clarify whether the program will be competitive or non-competitive.  We hope before the farm bill process is concluded the farm bill will restore all of AFRI to fully competitive status.

For more information on which research provisions were included in the draft mark, see our previous blog post.

Overall, the bill that was reported out of Committee last Thursday supports key pieces of the suite of unique programs that serve the organic sector.  Most of the organic provisions included in the draft bill presented by Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI and Ranking Member Pat Roberts (R-KS) we reported on early last week remained unchanged in the package that the Committee approved.  Several organic amendments were filed before the markup, and two of them were included in the bill passed out of Committee.

Overview of Organic Provisions

The bill reported out of Committee maintains the mandatory funding levels included in the Chairwoman’s mark for organic programs.  Funding for national organic certification cost-share remained at $11.5 million per year, for the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) at $16 million per year, and for the Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives (ODI) at $5 million over the life of the bill.  The bill also provided $5 million in mandatory funding for technology upgrades at the National Organic Program (NOP).

The modifications to OREI priorities and to ODI that we reported on last week remained in the bill, and the no-cost policy changes to the Environmental Quality Incentives Program organic provision that NSAC supported sadly were not made.

Organic Crop Insurance

The mark did not include changes to make crop insurance more appropriate for organic farmers, and Sen. Casey (D-PA) filed an amendment to make these changes.  Sen. Casey’s amendment would have eliminated for all crops the unjustified premium surcharge that organic farmers pay for coverage of all but a dozen organic crops, and would have directed the Risk Management Agency to develop and publish a complete organic price series.

Although the amendment was filed, and these changes were included in the Senate’s version of the 2008 Farm Bill, the Committee did not vote on the amendment and it was not included in the approved bill.

National Organic Program Enforcement

Sen. Leahy (D-VT) championed an amendment to improve NOP’s enforcement authority that was included in the revised bill provided to the Committee by the Chair and Ranking Member on April 25 and remained in the bill reported out of Committee.  With an increased focus on enforcement of organic standards at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, NOP has identified areas of needed authority to improve organic enforcement.  Sen. Leahy’s amendment grants NOP stronger enforcement authority.

Specifically, Sen. Leahy’s amendment requires organic producers, handlers, and certifying agents to submit records – that will be kept confidential – associated with organic certification at the Secretary’s request, and requires those records to be kept for 5 years for most people participating in organic, and 10 years for certifiers.  The amendment allows the Secretary to carry out an investigation to verify the accuracy of the information provided, and provides USDA with authority to subpoena the records.  Through the amendment, the Secretary can also issue an order to stop the sale of a product misrepresented as organic, and suspend and revoke organic certification.  The amendment also outlines an appeals process, and provides a penalty for a person that violates an order or revocation.

Organic Research and Promotion Program

Sen. Casey also championed an organic check-off amendment.  The amendment would have provided USDA with the authority to issue an organic commodity promotion order; would have allowed organic producers that currently participate in conventional check-off programs the ability to choose whether to participate in the conventional commodity check-off or an organic check-off if one is created; and would have clarified that an organic-only producer can choose to be exempt from a conventional check-off.  The Organic Trade Association is the lead stakeholder advocating for these changes.

A much modified version of the amendment was included in the revised draft bill issued April 25 and in the bill reported out of Committee.  The bill requires USDA to submit a report to Congress that describes what the Secretary is doing to ensure that check-off activities reflect the priorities of all members in a check-off, and assesses the feasibility of creating an organic check-off.

We are thrilled to report the bill approved by the Appropriations Committee endorsed the Administration’s proposal to fund for the first time the Sustainable Agriculture Federal-State Matching Grant Program as a new component of the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) program.  Combined, the Committee bill provides for $22.7 million for SARE, including $3.5 million for the matching grant initiative.  The latter was authorized by Congress, along with the rest of SARE, back in 1990, but to date it has never received an appropriation.  The Committee’s proposed funding level represents a long overdue 18 percent increase in funding.

We are also glad the Committee endorsed the Administration’s proposal to increase spending for the Value-Added Producer Grants program by $1 million to $15 million.  This is still $5 million less than the long-term funding level for the program and $25 million less than the 2002 Farm Bill provided for the program, but at least a modest step back in the right direction.

In the conservation part of the bill, we are delighted the Committee chose to reject the Administration’s proposal to cut a portion of farm bill mandatory funding for the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).  We strongly oppose backdoor efforts in the appropriations bill to reduce mandatory farm bill funding for conservation and applaud the Committee for keeping CSP funding intact.

The Committee bill also steered clear of cuts to the Farmland Protection Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, and several other conservation programs.  However, they did propose to cut $350 million out of the farm bill mandatory funding level of $1.75 billion for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the same amount as in FY 11 and FY 12.  Also cut was farm bill funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, down $12 million from the farm bill level of $85 million, a smaller cut than made in the FY 12 appropriations act.

We are also pleased to report the Senate Committee did not include the legislative rider from the FY 12 appropriations act that acts to prevent USDA from doing its job to ensure fair competition in the livestock and poultry marketplace.

The Committee also:

• includes a big bump up for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, a quasi-competitive research, education and extension grants program, from $264 million currently to $298 million, a 13 percent increase;
• keeps direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loan funds constant at FY 12 levels; NSAC has requested an increase for direct farm ownership loans targeted to beginning farmers and ranchers;
• allows $3 million in remaining 2008 Farm Bill funding for the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program to be spent in 2013; we had advocated for additional discretionary funding but none was granted; and
• maintains level funding or very modest increases for a variety of other programs we follow closely including ATTRA, Organic Transitions Research, IPM Regional Centers, Office of Advocacy and Outreach, Local and Regional Food Enterprise Loan Guarantees, State Mediation Grants, Conservation Operations including Technical Assistance, and others.

For more details, see the NSAC Appropriations Chart on our website, which is now up-to-date with Senate Committee action.

For general details on the bill refer to the Committee’s summary.

To read about the big conflict between House and Senate spending levels for 2013, read our earlier post.

The Senate Agriculture Committee voted the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act — the proposed name for the 2012 Farm Bill — out of Committee on Thursday, April 26.  The markup and negotiations that immediately preceded the markup resulted in some significant improvements in the bill for beginning farmers, though the bill still needs to do more in this area in our view.

Last year, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) along with Agriculture Committee members Sens. Leahy (D-VT), Kloubhar (D-MN), Casey (D-PA), Brown (D-OH) and nine off-Committee sponsors introduced the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act (S. 1850) as a template for provisions that should be included in the new Farm Bill.  An identical bill (H.R. 3236) was introduced at the same time in the House by Reps. Walz (D-MN) and Fortenberry (R-NE).

Here’s a title by title breakdown of what beginning farmer related provisions were (and were not) included in the Farm Bill that emerged out of the Senate Committee markup.  This post focuses on changes adopted since a week ago when the the draft farm bill bill was first presented by Chairwoman Stabenow (D-MI) and Ranking Member Roberts (R-KS).  A previous blog post on beginning farmers summarizes the provisions as presented in the original draft bill.

Conservation

The popular Transitions Incentive Program (see previous blog post for more details) was championed by Sen. Johanns (R-NE) and included in the manager’s amendment that was presented during committee markup with increased funding of $50 million over the life of the farm bill, rather than just the $25 million included in the bill presented for Committee conservation.  NSAC applauds the Senator for his leadership on this issue which addresses the common challenge of accessing land that many beginning farmers and rancher face when looking to farm.  It is not clear if $50 million will prove to be sufficient for the program over the next five years and it may well be a bit short, but the amendment definitely made it closer to the mark.

Another win for beginning farmers in the conservation title was Sen. Leahy’s addition of “promoting agricultural viability for future generations” to the purpose of the newly created Agricultural Land Easements Program, which consolidates the existing Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP) with other conservation easement programs.  The farm viability provision is an important improvement to what is today the FRPP.  The amendment did not cover the full breadth of the proposal in the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act, but is an important step in the right direction.

The existing set-asides, higher cost-share rates, and the advance payment option within the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) were left intact, however the proposed increases in these provisions that were included in the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act, were not included.

Two other amendments that were included in the final bill were one that adds veteran farmers to the list of eligible applicants (along with beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers) who can receive an increased cost-share rate under EQIP and one that creates an exemption to allow beginning farmers and ranchers to graze on land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program.

Credit

There were no huge changes in the credit title from what was included in the bill prior to markup and the bill that was voted out of committee this week.  Of note, the Down Payment Loan Program maintained the higher value of land that can be financed that was included in the draft bill, as proposed and championed by Sen. Harkin.  This change will increase the utility of the down payment program in areas with high land costs.

The Beginning Farmer Individual Development Accounts program, for which NSAC has been advocating for funding since it creation in the last farm bill, was maintained but unfortunately still not funded.

One minor change included in the final committee bill changed loan eligibility criteria to require a farmer to have “participated in a farm operation” in order to receive a direct farm ownership loan, rather than having “operated” a farm to qualify.

Sadly, language included in the original draft bill presented to the Committee that restricted conservation loans to family-sized farms was stripped out of the final bill that is now headed to the Senate floor.

Finally, we were disappointed to see that despite efforts of key champions on the Committee, an authorization for a microloan program was not included in the final package.  On the bright side, USDA is currently in the process of creating a microloan program, although it is not specifically targeted at beginning farmers nor does it include any special features for young or beginning farmers, as is proposed in the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act.  NSAC will continue to work for an authorization in the farm bill, and also plans to comment on USDA’s forthcoming proposed rule for the new program.

For an overview of other credit programs that were included in the bill prior to mark-up, see our previous blog post.

Rural Development

On the rural development front, Sen. Casey won an amendment that clarifies the priority for beginning farmers within the Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) program into the final package.  The new provision requires that at least a quarter of the beneficiaries of a VAPG grant be beginning or socially disadvantaged producers in order to qualify for this priority.  This is a program implementation issue that NSAC has been working on for the past few years, and which has not been sufficiently addressed in the rulemaking process.  Hopefully, if this provision becomes law, more projects will be given priority and funded that benefit and create value-added entrepreneurial opportunities for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers.

Unfortunately, the funding issue for VAPG has yet to be resolved as the farm bill makes its way to the Senate floor.  Sen. Brown commented during markup that without a strong investment in rural development programs, this bill cannot truly be considered a “jobs bill.”  While there is currently no funding for any rural development programs (other than energy title programs) in the bill as reported by Committee, Sen. Brown did offer and subsequently withdraw an amendment that would have provided some funding for VAPG as well as the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program (RMAP).  There may well be an opportunity for the Brown amendment to be offered and accepted on the Senate floor.

Sen. Casey offered, spoke to the importance of, and then withdrew in light of opposition his amendment to give USDA clear guidance and flexibility to use rural development loan and grant programs to spur new agricultural enterprises that benefit beginning farmers.  This provision is included in the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act, but did not make it into the final package voted on by the Committee.

Research, Education, Extension

Perhaps the most disappointing outcome for beginning farmers of the current bill as it stands is the insufficient funding providing to fund new farmer training and education programs under the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP).  In the bill as reported by the Committee, this program receives $50 million over the course of the farm bill (compared with $75 million included in the last farm bill), which cuts annual program funding almost in half – from $19 million to $10 million per year.  This will severely impact the number of grants that will be able to made under this program, and will decrease the number of new farmer training programs established, and ultimately the number of new farmers successfully entering farming each year.

Despite efforts to introduce an amendment that would create the offsets needed to provide adequate funding for this program, we were unable to secure additional funding for this program during markup.  NSAC will continue to press for $25 million a year for this program as the farm bill process moves forward.

Miscellaneous Title – Minority Farmers and Veterans

There were a few bright spots specifically for veteran beginning farmers hidden in the Miscellaneous Title.  Sen. Nelson (D-NE) championed a new provision that creates a veterans agricultural liaison position within USDA, who would be responsible for assisting returning military veterans in accessing federal programs, specifically new farming training and agricultural rehabilitation programs.  Additionally, this position would advocate on behalf of veterans within the Department.  This was part of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act.

Sens. Baucus (D-MT) and Johanns pushed to include an emphasis on veterans within the Office of Advocacy and Outreach, and the 2501 Outreach and Technical Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmer and Ranchers program.

NSAC was also pleased to see that $5 million a year in mandatory funding was provided in the final bill for the 2501 Outreach program, compared with zero dollars contained in the draft bill released before committee mark up.  Sen. Harkin, with support from Sens. Baucus and Johanns and others, was instrumental in pushing for this funding and we commend all who helped make it happen.

NSAC collaborated with several other groups that work on minority farmer issues on a letter addressed to the Senate Agriculture Committee urging $25 million a year in funding for both the 2501 program and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program.  As the farm bill progress proceeds in the Senate, NSAC will continue to work with beginning, minority, and veteran farmer champions in the Senate to renew critical funding for these two programs.

NSAC commends Chair Stabenow and Ranking Member Roberts for including some of the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act provisions in their mark and for working with the various members of the Committee who offered further amendments this week to assist beginning, socially disadvantaged, and veteran farmers and ranchers.

For more information on which provisions were included in the draft farm bill, see our previous blog post on beginning farmers.

Today, the House Appropriations Committee set its own discretionary spending allocations, but rather than abide by the spending caps agreed to by both the House and Senate in last year’s Budget Control Act, it lowered them an additional $19 billion.

On the Senate side, the allocation allows the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee to provide discretionary funding of $20.785 billion for USDA and FDA programs.

The House allocation, as it passed today, caps House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee discretionary spending on USDA and FDA programs at $19.4 billion, roughly $1.4 billion below the Senate level.  (The House Democrats put forth an unsuccessful amendment to peg the agricultural allocation at $21.1 billion).

To put this $1.4 billion in perspective, the entire discretionary spending appropriation in FY 2012 for the Food Safety Inspection Service was $1 billion.  The difference is also more than all discretionary spending for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and over half of all rural development spending in FY 2012.

As the House and Senate move forward with their respective agriculture appropriations bills, they will be moving on very different paths.

The Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to mark up its agriculture appropriations bill tomorrow morning.  We do not know much about the Chairman’s mark, which has yet to be released; however, funding levels for most programs are expected to be very close to if not the same as last year’s levels.

On the House side, the future of the agriculture funding bill is much less clear.  The House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has yet to set a date to mark up its bill.  An allocation this low complicates matters, making it extremely difficult for the members of the Subcommittee to do their work.  Moreover, President Obama has said that he will veto any spending bill that does not conform to the levels set out in the Budget Control Act.

More likely than not, the House’s unwillingness to abide by the agreement struck in 2011 will lead to a rancorous and drawn out fight over vastly different spending bills come the end of the fiscal year.  We hope that, instead, the two chambers are able to reconcile their bills in conference at the Budget Control Act level and pass something that supports and enhances rather than undermines important rural development, research, conservation, and beginning farmer programs.

Stay tuned for a detailed analysis of the FY 2013 Senate Agriculture Appropriations Bill after it is released tomorrow.

We worked last fall with Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-ME-1) and many other members of Congress to develop the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act.

We are both pleased and disappointed with how the local food bill compares to the Senate’s draft Farm Bill, which makes some steps in the right direction but also missed the mark on vital funding needs as well as no-cost policy tweaks with enormous prospective impact for our economy.

The Good

• The Crop Insurance Titles adds a directive to USDA to create a Whole Farm Diversified Risk Management Insurance product for diversified operations, including specialty crops and mixed grain/livestock and dairy operations.
• The Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP) is renamed the Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Program, thus serving not only direct producer-to-consumer marketing channels but also “scaled up” local food sales to retailers and institutions.  The program receives $20 million in annual mandatory funding, double the current level in light of the new expanded program purpose.  The Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act calls for $30 million a year, a level we will continue to advocate for.
• Funding for Community Food Projects receives an increase of $5 million a year for the next 5 years, above its permanent funding of $5 million a year.
• Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), which provides research-based information on sustainable agriculture, remains intact with $5 million in annual discretionary funding.
• Funding for national organic certification cost-share fares well.  Click here to read our analysis of organic agriculture in the bill.

The Half-Baked

• The bill levels the playing field between wireless and wired vendors by requiring all retailers to fund their own SNAP Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT, formerly food stamps) equipment, with a discretionary exemption for farmers markets.  NSAC advocates to expand this exemption beyond just farmers markets to all direct producer-to-consumer marketing outlets.  The bill also establishes a pilot program for mobile technology to accept EBT at farmers markets and other direct marketing outlets, however the pilot does not include the development of technology that can accept other nutrition assistance program benefits, which would further expand access to fresh, local foods for low-income Americans.
• The Rural Development Title’s Business and Industry Direct and Guaranteed Loans includes the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act provision for publishing information on and outreach for the program’s set-aside for Local and Regional Food Enterprises loans.  However, none of the proposed food enterprise program improvements were included in the draft bill.  We hope this will be rectified in markup this week and as the farm bill process continues.
• The Rural Business Enterprise Grants (RBEG) and Rural Business opportunity Grants (RBOG) are combined into a single program called Rural Business Development Grants.  NSAC advocates for authority for developing local food enterprises in these programs and in the Community Facilities (CF) program, though none of these no-cost policy changes are included.  We hope these will be added as the bill moves forward.
• Most of the needed policy changes to the Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program are included in the draft bill, which is good news.  However, the program receives no mandatory funding, a disappointing loss after the 2008 Farm Bill funded the program.  Hopefully funding will be added as the Senate considers the new farm bill.
• The Horticulture Title creates a study on local food production and program evaluation, which is critically important.  Unfortunately, the study receives no mandatory funding.
• The Specialty Crop Block Grant Program (SCBGP) receives a mandatory funding increase from $55 million to $70 million per year, however none of the Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act’s no-cost local food policy asks were included.  In particular, we support an allocation of program funding for locally marketed specialty crops.

The Ugly

• Organic crop insurance does not fare well at all.  Click here to read our analysis of organic agriculture in the bill.
• The bill leaves out several no-cost policy provisions to expand Farm to School, which benefit both American schoolchildren and our nation’s agricultural producers by ensuring more local foods are served in cafeterias.
• The Senior Farmers Market Nutrition Program, already receiving less funding that there is demand, does not receive an increase in its mandatory allocation.
• The Credit Title does not address the specific needs nor enhance lending opportunities for producers selling in local and regional markets.
• No funding was provided for the Rural Development Title.  NSAC advocates for a Rural Community Prosperity Fund with mandatory funding to drive economic growth in rural communities.
• Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG) receives no mandatory funding, despite the program’s proven track record of creating jobs and stimulating the economy.  Click here to read about VAPG and beginning farmers and ranchers.
• The bill does not include a proposal called “Local and Regional Food Enterprise Facilitation,” which would authorize Extension to provide training and technical assistance in the neediest parts of the country in order to develop economically-viable local food businesses.
• The Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) is untouched in the bill, thus leaving out chances to shore up research on local food.  Click here to read more about research in the bill.

The Good

The major win in the Research Title was a new initiative aimed at improving the data collection efforts regarding local and regional food systems, and also evaluating programs that seek to benefit local food systems.  Unfortunately, the program receives no money, which NSAC will be advocating for into the Senate mark up.  For more details about other local food provisions, see our blog post on local food.

The draft bill also provides level funding at $5 million in mandatory funding (and $5 million in appropriated funds) for the Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives (ODI), and includes a new reporting requirement for USDA to detail how data collection agencies are coordinating with data user agencies on issues like the development of organic price elections.  For more details on the organic provisions in the draft bill, see our organic drilldown blog post.

Another minor win was a new streamlining requirement which requires USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture to assess barriers that institutions with limited capacity face in successfully applying and competing for federal research grants.  Hopefully, this new requirement will force the agency to streamline its application process and take steps to better serve all eligible research institutions, not just large land-grant colleges and universities with a dedicated grants support staff.

The Half-baked

There were several mandatory research programs that were reauthorized and provided manadatory dollars, although at decreased funding levels.  They includethe Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI), which received $16 million per year (down from $20 million currently) and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, which received $10 million per year (down from $19 million currently).  Both of these receive 5-year as opposed to permanent funding.

The Specialty Crop Research Initiative, on the other hand, does receive permanent funding, starting at a lower annual funding level for a few years but then fully restored to its current level after that phase in period.  Although some positive policy improvements were made for OREI, there were no changes made to SCRI to place an additional emphasis on sustainable, ecologically based systems or public breeding research.

The Ugly

Perhaps the most disappointing outcome of the Research Title was the refusal to make any modifications to the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI).  This program is the largest federal competitive grants program that funds agricultural research, education, and extension projects across the country.  There have been some serious challenges during the program’s implementation since it was first authorized in the last farm bill.

Two of the major changes that NSAC has been advocating for since the program’s inception is to increase the amount of research devoted to public plant and animal breeding that leads to the release of public cultivars, and to clarify the program’s eligibility requirement so that all programs within AFRI are open to land-grant colleges and universities, as well as federal agencies, non-profit organizations, private academic institutions, and other eligible applicants that are listed in the statute.

Additionally, the proposal for a new Local and Regional Food Systems Enterprise Facilitation initiative within the Extension service, which was included in the Local Farms, Food, and Jobs Act, was not included in the Research Title provisions contained in the draft farm bill.  Public health also took a back seat in this piece of legislative: the research program on antibiotic resistance was allowed to expire, and there was no other provision regarding the impact of federal agricultural policies and programs on the nation’s public health.  Hopefully these issues will be addressed in markup of the bill later this week and as the farm bill process moves forward.

Finally, the draft bill does not include mandatory funding for the National Food Safety Training, Education, Extension, Outreach, and Technical Assistance competitive grants program that Sen. Stabenow (D-MI) successfully championed in the Food Safety Modernization Act, but the bill does create a new food safety training program with an authorization for appropriations of $20 million per year.  The new program is created for the purposes of “establishing a Comprehensive Food Safety Training Network.”  While food safety training goals are critical to improving the safety of our food supply, neither program can really go anywhere in this tight fiscal environment without mandatory funding.  It is also unclear why a duplicative program is really needed.  We are interested in finding out what the reasoning is for the new proposal.

The Good

The best news on the organic front is that the draft farm bill provides mandatory funding for organic certification cost-share.  Despite the program’s success and unique function, it has faced repeated attacks over the past few years, and the program was essentially gutted in the Super Committee farm bill proposal.  The Senate draft farm bill funds national organic certification cost-share at $11.5 million in mandatory funding annually.

The draft bill provides level funding at $5 million in mandatory funding (and $5 million in appropriated funds) for the Organic Production and Market Data Initiatives (ODI), and includes a new reporting requirement for USDA to detail how data collection agencies are coordinating with data user agencies on issues like the development of organic price elections.

The draft bill includes important modifications to the Organic Agriculture and Research Extension Initiative (OREI) to address emerging research issues such as food safety, rural economic development, and producer research needs to comply with National Organic Program regulations.

Finally — not an NSAC priority but of interest to our organic readers — the draft bill includes $5 million in mandatory funding for technology upgrades and improvements for the National Organic Program.

The Half-Baked

While the bill makes important policy modifications to OREI, it provides funding for the program but at $4 million less per year than current levels – so, down from $20 million to $16 million.

On ODI, the bill does not include an important modification that would specify that the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) should conduct a regular follow-on survey to each Census of Agriculture, building on the success of the 2008 NASS Organic Production Survey.  The funding provided for ODI, however, enables this, and hopefully the Census language can be added as the bill moves forward.

The Ugly

On organic crop insurance, the bill neither eliminates the unfair 5% premium organic surcharge nor directs the Risk Management Agency to develop organic price elections for all organic crops.  This is surprising, given that these provisions were included in the Senate version of the 2008 Farm Bill and given that the new farm bill is being touted as one that has crop and revenue insurance as one of the highest priorities.

The bill does not include any of the important no-cost policy changes that would improve the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Organic Initiative:  streamlining planning and record-keeping for producers, strengthening assistance to transitional producers, and bringing the provision’s payment limit under the general EQIP payment limit rather than forcing organic farmers and only organic farmers to abide by a lower cap.

NSAC collaborated with the Rural Coalition and many other organizations on the letter.  The letter focuses on restoring funding for two key farm bill programs whose continued existence rests heavily on  Senate Agriculture Committee deliberations next week over what direct funding items will and will not be included in the next farm bill.

These two programs addressed in the letter are the:

• Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, which provides grants to academic institutions and community based organizations to offer financial and credit training, mentoring, land-linking, and educational opportunities for new farmers.  This program was first authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill, but never received any funding until the last farm bill, when it was given $75 million in mandatory funding divided over a four year period.  In the draft farm bill proposal prepared for the Super Committee last fall, annual program funding for this program was cut nearly in half — from $19 million to $10 million per year.  The Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act introduced last fall calls for the new farm bill to fund the program at $25 million a year.  The Senate Agriculture Committee will decide on a funding level next week when it marks up the 2012 Farm Bill.

• Outreach and Technical Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers (Section 2501) program, which provides grants to organizations and academic institutions who work directly with minority, limited resource, and tribal producers, as well as farmworkers.  The grants are used to conduct outreach to these groups on federal agricultural programs and provide technical assistance that will assist farmers in owning and operating farms.  This program was established in the 1990 Farm Bill, but suffered from meager appropriations until the 2008 Farm Bill provided it with $75 million in mandatory funding divided over a four year period.  The draft farm bill from the fall included no funding for this program.  The Senate Agriculture Committee will decide on a funding level for the next five years when it marks up the 2012 Farm Bill.

Both of these programs were provided mandatory farm bill dollars in the last farm bill, and moved together as a historic package of federal programs aimed specifically at providing the training, education, and technical assistance that new and historically underserved producers need to be successful in their farming careers.  Both programs have proved to be tremendously successful and popular, and will need to be scaled up in order to meet the increased need for new farmers to step in and continue farming our land as the current generation of farmers starts eying retirement options.

“With an aging farm population and a large segment of existing producers at or beyond retirement age, it is paramount to invest in those new entrepreneurs that will farm and ranch our nation’s land in the future,” the letter reads.  “It is also equally important to write a new farm bill that takes into account specific equity considerations by investing federal dollars into programs that support historically underserved groups and ensuring adequate access to federal training and technical assistance.”

This letter was delivered at a crucial time during the 2012 Farm Bill process with Senate committee action on the bill scheduled for next week.  The letter serves as a reminder to Senate Agriculture Committee Members to make policy and funding decisions with a “commitment to all of our nation’s farmers.”

Sign on to Support Beginning and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers!

If your organization has not yet signed onto this letter, you can do so by following this link: http://bit.ly/BFRDP2501SignOn.  We will be resubmitting this letter as the farm bill progresses in both the House and the Senate. If you’re an individual, you can sign on to endorse NSAC’s farm bill platform, Farming For the Future, by clicking here.

More Information

Read the full letter submitted to Senators Stabenow and Roberts.

Listen to a Public News Service story about minority farmers and the 2501 Program.

Learn more about the Senate’s path to the 2012 Farm Bill.

Learn more about the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act.