While the ink is barely dry on the new farm legislation, the campaign for the 2012 Farm and Food Bill has already begun. The group of grassroots advocates met in D.C. last week to wipe the sweat from their brows, roll up their sleeves, and begin to strategize a coordinated effort to ensure $14 billion of funding won in the new farm bill translates into real support for sustainable farmers, environmental stewardship, rural economic development, urban food projects, and other good food efforts.

The $14 billion worth of programs can grow and nourish sustainable food and agriculture efforts around the country and in doing so, build the power of the 2012 Farm and Food Bill movement along the way. One of the keys is getting the word out about these new programs so that farmers and organizations can benefit from them.

Critics have likened the farm bill wins to “crumbs” because they represent a small part of the overall farm bill loaf. The relative merits of incremental change can be debated in another post, but for people serious about changing the food system, the programs in the new farm law that support everything from beginning farmers to organic production to conservation on working land represent real reforms that can benefit real people doing some really good things on the land and in their communities.

Maria Luz and her husband Florentino Collazo are an example of the kind of farmer success story that we could see blossom throughout the country if farmers and organizations take advantage some of the new farm bill wins.

Maria and Florentino currently grow organic produce, including melons and orchard crops, on their farm in Monterey County, California. Before becoming full-time farmers, Maria worked for fifteen years at an asparagus-packing facility, while Florentino harvested and packed lettuce in the fields of the Salinas Valley.

When Maria and Florentino decided to take steps toward realizing their dream of someday owning their own farm, they went to the Agriculture and Land-Based Training Association (ALBA), a community-based organization in Salinas. ALBA’s research shows that a farmworker in the Salinas Valley typically earns less than $20,000 a year. The opportunity for Maria and Florentino to earn a gross income of more than $10,000 per planted acre was significant, but like most new farmers, they needed access to technical skills and financial assistance.

Through ALBA’s farm incubator program, Maria and Florentino learned organic farming methods and honed their marketing skills. After several years of farming three acres rented from ALBA and putting away some savings, Maria and Florentino were able to purchase their own farm. The financing was made possible through an Individual Development Account organized by California FarmLink and a beginning farmer purchase loan through the Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency. Along with their savings, these programs allowed Maria and Florentino to buy 10 acres and start their own farm.

Today, Maria grows and sells hot-season crops from her 10 acres as well as cool-season crops from three acres she continues to rent from ALBA. She and Florentino market their produce through ALBA Organics and at the farmers’ markets and farm stand at the Carmel Mission every Sunday morning.

Over the next five years, beginning farmers throughout the country will have the opportunity to benefit from the kinds of technical and financial assistance offered to Maria and Florentino. This is because there is more funding for beginning farmer and rancher programs in the new farm law than ever before, including a Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, Individual Development Account Pilot Program, down payment loan program, and others. Not only may more farmers get a start on the land because of these wins, they can also make a connection to the grassroots movement fighting for long-term policy change. Ultimately, this is the best way to ensure that legislative support for good policy alternatives will continue to grow.

There are all sorts of ways that we as advocates for a healthier food system can be engaged in making the change we want to see, but some things can’t be left to the market. These include making sure that private agricultural land is managed sustainably, and guaranteeing there is adequate public funding for classical plant and animal breeding at land-grant universities, and bringing farmers markets to vulnerable rural towns and urban centers. These, in addition to the beginning farmer programs mentioned above are just a few examples of the kinds of good programs that survived the farm bill fight.

So what happens now that the farm bill is over? We take the “crumbs” that we won, invest in our land, farmers, and communities, and build an even stronger grassroots movement for 2012.

But if the new bill is not to be the visionary document that many hoped and advocated for, what, if anything, do we stand to lose if the new bill is vetoed or negotiations reach an impasse and the 2002 farm bill is extended for two years?

There are several small but important gains that we are poised to win if the new farm bill gets passed, making it an improvement over the underlying bill from 2002. These improvements include provisions that support local and regional food systems, organic production and research, beginning farmers, nutrition, and the environment, and they are the reason why Congress should pass a new farm bill.

These bright spots in an otherwise murky and massive bill are not likely to induce a major change to our broken-down food system, but they are seeds we must plant for greater reform and broader transformation in the years to come.

Anyone stalwart (or nutty) enough to still be following the protracted farm bill negotiations knows that Congress has a week to tie things up before the current farm bill extension expires on April 18. If the deadline is not reached, Congress will either pass a third short-term extension so they can continue their wrangling, or they will opt to set the bill aside for at least a year (maybe two) and redirect their attention to other legislation and upcoming elections.

Even if the farm bill conference committee members do reach an agreement, a new farm bill is not a done deal. After both chambers vote on it, the bill has to receive final approval from the president. The Bush administration remains poised to veto the bill if it includes tax increases.

So, what happens if, after the years of deliberation, political theater, and public debate, we don’t get a new farm bill in 2008? Do the new bill’s seemingly small changes to the status quo mean, as some have suggested, that it might be better for the underlying 2002 bill to be extended for a year? Should we support a presidential veto so that Congress is forced to start from scratch?

Many farmers and consumers stand to benefit from new farm bill policies that advance local food systems, organics, the environment, nutrition assistance, and beginning and socially disadvantaged producers. These programs are worth hundreds of millions and, in some cases, billions of dollars each year. They represent small, distinct wins that would be squandered if the 2002 bill is extended or the new bill is vetoed.

Compared with any previous farm bill, there is more support in this new farm bill for local and regional food systems. Communities all over the country that are interested in starting up farmers markets stand a better chance, because the new bill is likely to include a sevenfold increase in funding to improve and expand farmers markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture (CSAs), and other direct producer-to-consumer marketing opportunities. The bill includes a new loan guarantee program for food enterprises that help rebuild a local and regional food infrastructure, and the Value-Added Producer Grants program is expanded to include mid-tier value chains and local and regional food businesses.

If a new farm bill passes, more kids could be eating good food grown by neighboring farms because of geographic preference language that would encourage schools to purchase locally-produced foods (similar language was used in the recent farm-to-school win in Washington state). The new bill would also double the funding levels for Community Food Project Grants, helping more low-income communities feed themselves through urban and peri-urban garden projects. If the current farm bill is extended rather than reauthorized, the Community Food Project Grants program will disappear completely due to its lack of baseline funding in current law.

Compared with any farm bill of the past, we also stand to gain much more federal support for organic production and research. With huge consumer demand for organic food running up against the significant challenges preventing many producers from converting to organic production practices, new farm bill programs would help farmers with their organic certification costs, as well as the costs associated with three-year conversion from conventional to organic. The new farm bill would also increase funding for organic research five times the current level. It also takes significant steps toward improving crop insurance policies for organic producers. This is a solid and important start to helping farmers keep up with demand for food that is produced organically.

One of the most exciting and comprehensive changes in the new farm bill is the suite of policies aimed at supporting the next generation of farmers. The average farmer in the U.S. is nearing retirement age, and over 400 million acres of farmland are expected to transition to new ownership in the next couple of decades. A new grants program will target farm bill funds to training, mentoring, and land link programs, interest rates for down payment loans will be as low as 1 percent, while 5 percent of funding in each conservation program will be set aside for beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers (equating to tens of millions of dollars each year). To ensure oversight and coordination between all programs that address the needs of these farmers, a new Office on Small Farms and Beginning and Socially Disadvantaged Farmers at USDA will report directly to the Secretary of Agriculture.

In the new farm bill we are also poised to win $4 billion in much-needed additional funding for conservation programs including a new $2 billion for the Conservation Stewardship Program (formerly Conservation Security Program), an innovative program that recognizes the multifunctionality of agriculture by supporting farming livelihoods through “green” payments to farmers and ranchers for environmental enhancements and good stewardship, and $2 billion for the Wetlands and Grasslands Reserve Programs.

There are many additional advances in the next farm bill, like an Office of Farm Workers and a $9.5 billion increase for nutrition assistance, including food stamps (especially vital at a time of rapidly escalating food costs) and fresh fruits and vegetables for schools. For more information on all of these, you can visit the Farm and Food Policy Project and Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

The new farm bill is still being negotiated, and we must not stop urging full funding for these programs as well as larger structural reform via a strong Livestock Competition Title and cap on commodity payments. We do have something to gain from keeping the heat on members of Congress to deliver a new bill this year. Besides having real on-the-ground impact, the new programs and increased funding in the new farm bill will assist our ongoing work of changing the public conscience around deeper food system change.

Farm Bill "conference" negotiations are underway at the staff level. Please call your Senators and Representative today and tell them what you want to see in the final Farm Bill!

Increasing consumer demand for healthy, sustainably-produced food and agricultural products from local and regional markets has great potential to improve farm income. However, tremendous challenges stand in the way of producers satisfying these consumer preferences, in part because federal policies and programs have been slow to respond.

A number of grassroots farmer and consumer organizations have been working to ensure that the final farm bill includes increased funding for direct market and value-added enterprise opportunities, and the removal of the prohibition on interstate sale of meat products processed in state-inspected plants. Greater federal support for these programs in the 2008 Farm Bill will help a larger number of consumers access good food and allow more producers to stay on the land.

WHY PUBLIC POLICIES ARE NEEDED

* Farmers and ranchers take home a larger portion of the food dollar when they sell directly to consumers, turn farm products into food products, or join farmer cooperatives/alliances that do their own processing and marketing. The farm value share of the money spent in conventional supply chains shrunk from 36 cents for every food dollar in the 1970s to only 22 cents in 2005. Meanwhile, an informal survey performed by the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition of growers selling at New York City’s Greenmarket in 2007, revealed that farmers there take home roughly 75% of the food dollar spent at the market.

* Despite the huge demand for farmers’ markets and other farmer-to-consumer direct marketing opportunities, federal support for developing, improving, and expanding these markets has not kept pace. In 2007, 326 applications equaling $15.6 million were submitted for funding under the Farmers’ Market Promotion Program, but because the program was appropriated $1 million in FY07, only 23 grants were awarded. Similarly, from 2001 through 2006, USDA could only fund 35% of the Value Added Producer Grant applications submitted.

* Interstate commerce restrictions for state-inspected meat processing plants have shut smaller processors out of key markets, contributing to their decline. Although the Federal Meat Inspection Act requires state inspection standards to be “at least equal to” their federal counterparts, federal law bars meat products processed in state-inspected plants from being sold in interstate commerce. An increasing number of farmers, ranchers, and small meat processors have been calling for a repeal of this ban because of the unfair limits it places on potential markets for small and sustainable livestock producers, and the prohibitive expense small-scale producers must bear to comply with federal inspection standards.

STATUS OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS IN HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS

There are key differences between the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill that affect marketing opportunities for producers that must be resolved during conference committee negotiations:

Value-Added Producer Grants Program

* Despite the success of value-added grants in raising farm income and the overwhelming popularity of the VAPG program, the House version of the farm bill cuts the program by $10 million to $30 million in annual mandatory funding and the Senate bill includes no mandatory funding at all. Urge the 2008 Farm Bill conferees to provide no less than the current $40 million in annual mandatory funding for the program.

* The House bill includes a 10% set-aside for mid-tier value chain food network projects. The Senate bill, on the other hand, includes a 10% set-aside for technical assistance, outreach, and market research, including funding for local food system infrastructure grants and mid-tier value chain grants. Both bills include a funding priority for projects targeting small and mid-sized farms. The conference committee should combine the House’s mid-tier value chain provisions with the Senate technical assistance and local food system provisions, with the preference for small and mid-sized farms and renewed full funding to create a strong, comprehensive package.

Farmers Market Promotion Program

* The House bill provides $35 million in mandatory funding over 5 years and clarifies that the program is intended to promote all forms of direct farmer-to-consumer marketing. The House bill also includes funding for Electronic Benefits Technology (EBT) at farmer markets to provide access to local food for food assistance program participants. The Senate bill provides $30 million in mandatory funding over the five years for FMPP plus an additional $5 million in a separate program for farmers market EBT. Urge the 2008 Farm Bill conferees to retain the funding for this program in the final bill, to adopt the House clarifying language, and to ensure $5 million in EBT funding is included in some manner.

Interstate Shipment of State-Inspected Meat

* The Senate bill includes a provision that is the result of a compromise between farmer, consumer safety, and union groups which allows meat processed in state-inspected facilities to be sold in interstate commerce, but only those plants with 25 or fewer employees. It also provides federal oversight of state plants, an outreach and training program for small plants, and cost share for inspection and testing. The House bill, on the other hand, includes a provision that allows state-inspected meat to be shipped across state lines, but requires the state inspection criteria to be identical to the federal with no provision for improved regulation, training or inspection. Urge the 2008 Farm Bill conference committee to adopt the Senate version of in the final farm bill.

In addition to food and fiber, farmers and ranchers are in a unique position to help provide healthy soils, clean air and water, habitat for native wildlife, carbon sinks to help mitigate global warming, energy savings and renewable energy sources, and other conservation benefits. The Conservation Security Program rewards environmental performance rather than the overproduction of commodity crops or expansion of industrial livestock waste storage, and in doing so, provides an alternative form of farm and conservation program support for family farmers and rural communities that re-enforces the public interest in a more resilient, healthy environment.

The added ecological stress caused by the recent ethanol boom and associated expansion of corn acreage makes it more important than ever that the 2008 Farm Bill provide for a strong Conservation Security Program (CSP).

—–

WHY A STRONG CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM IS NEEDED

• Agro-industrial production practices have a significantly negative impact on natural resources. According to EPA water quality assessments, pathogens, sediments, and nutrients from agriculture make it the leading source of pollution in roughly half of total stream miles and more than 40 percent of lakes. Despite soil conservation efforts stemming back to the Dust Bowl, over 100 million acres of cropland still erode at unsustainable levels. Nearly two-thirds of threatened or endangered species are listed due in some part to agriculture and agro-chemicals.
• The Conservation Security Program is unique among traditional conservation programs because it rewards strong conservation while also encouraging even higher environmental performance. To be eligible to enroll in CSP, producers must already meet a substantial level of environmental stewardship. At the same time, enhancement payments provide real incentives for farmers to add new conservation practices. In fiscal year 2006, for instance, U.S. farmers received more than $44 million in payments for enhancements that went above and beyond the basic, high conservation CSP requirements. The majority of these payments were for enhanced soil, pest, and nutrient management.
• In its first three years, the CSP enrolled nearly 20,000 farmers in 280 watersheds across the country, obligating over $2 billion in long-term contracts for excellent conservation on 16 million acres. While great progress has been made in launching the CSP, funding cuts have limited the impact of the Conservation Security Program. Although $9 billion was authorized for the Conservation Security Program for the period of 2002-2011, only about $500 million was made available nationwide for initial enrollments through 2006, forcing USDA to limit enrollment to selected watersheds rather than offering the program nationwide as the farm bill intended. Since passage of the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress has stripped the program of $4.3 billion, funding that the new farm bill should restore.

STATUS OF CSP IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE VERSIONS

The House and Senate bills’ versions of Conservation Security Program make similar, important changes to the detailed substance of the program, but are at polar extremes when it comes to funding. The House bill would cut another nearly $5 billion out of the program and postpone any new enrollments until 2012, essentially killing the program.

The Senate bill restores more than $1 billion of the over $4 billion cut from the program since 2002 and, with other substantive changes, puts the program on a path to reach a total enrollment goal of approximately 80 million acres by 2013. While this does not go far enough, the Farm Bill conferees should adopt the overall Senate approach to funding and acreage levels.

Though far apart on funding, the two bills are much closer on CSP reforms. Both bills:

• Restore the program to a nationwide, continuous sign-up approach, but with a new ranking system to determine acceptable contract offers.
• Retain and improve features making CSP the first and only federal conservation program requiring farmers and ranchers to solve natural resource problems and reach high stewardship standards and to commit to continual improvement to achieve enhanced environmental outcomes.
• Simplify and streamline the program by eliminating enrollment tiers, collapsing the types of payments down to a single stewardship enhancement payment, eliminating the option to enroll just parts of farms in the program, and making all contracts 5 years in length.

There are a variety of substantive differences remaining to be worked out in conference, among them:

• The Senate version attempts to coordinate CSP more closely with the Environmental Quality Incentives Program through a programmatic umbrella known as the Comprehensive Stewardship Incentives Program. This enhanced coordination should be adopted in the final bill.
• The Senate bill requires farmers to have met high soil and water quality standards as a condition of eligibility, and to reach high standards for at least one more resource concern during the initial 5-year contracts, whereas the House bill requires farmers to address at least one resource concern to the high standard level as a condition of eligibility, but then address all applicable resource concerns to the high standard level within the first 5-year contract. Urge farm bill conferees to include a meld of the House and Senate criteria in the final bill.
• The House bill provides ranking points, and the Senate bill supplemental payments, for adoption of resource-conserving crop rotations. Urge the adoption of both provisions during conference negotiations.
• Both the House and Senate bills include a crosswalk provision to provide farmer-friendly coordination between the CSP and the National Organic Program for producers using both programs. The House bill provides ranking points for adoption of organic systems, and the Senate bill directs USDA to provide programmatic consideration of organic systems in all elements of CSP implementation. Urge the farm bill conference committee to adopt of all of these provisions.

Despite the fact that organic agriculture is one of the fastest growing sectors of American agriculture, the U.S. is currently experiencing a domestic shortfall of organically produced food as consumer demand continues to outpace supply. Considering the enormous potential organic practices have to increase farm revenue in our rural communities, preserve and enhance the environment, and provide nutritious food to our citizens, federal policies aimed at assisting farmers’ and ranchers’ transition to organic production must be a priority in the 2008 Farm Bill.

—–

WHY PUBLIC POLICIES ARE NEEDED

• Organic farming relies intensively on information and management for its success, yet the USDA does not spend a fair share on organic research. The U.S. retail market share of organic foods is currently approaching 3.5% and established trends should take the market share of organic to nearly 10% by 2012. Yet USDA-REE expenditures explicitly directed to research and information programs for organic agriculture in FY 07 are less than 1.5% of total REE spending.
• The majority of U.S. farmers have been deterred from converting to organic production systems because of the high costs associated with conversion and their lack of technical expertise. While consumer demand for organic products is projected to continue doubling every 3-4 years, in 2005, less than 1 percent of all U.S. cropland and pasture was certified organic. During the three-year conversion to organic production, farmers have to incur up front costs but do not receive the higher price premium of the organic crop. The high costs coupled with lack of technical expertise makes organic conversion prohibitive for many farmers, despite the market incentives.
• Organic farmers are treated inequitably under the Federal Crop Insurance Program, deterring some farmers from transitioning to organic production. Currently, organic farmers applying for crop insurance are automatically and unfairly charged a 5% surcharge on crop insurance premiums [PDF] because they are organic. Furthermore, under this policy organic producers are reimbursed at the lower conventional crop price (not the premium for organic products) if their crop suffers damage.
• The organic sector is still without comprehensive data on par with what is provided by USDA to the conventional farming sector. Data are vital to farmers in making planting decisions, accessing markets, and applying for crop insurance. While the 2002 Farm Bill authorized the Organic Production and Marketing Data Initiative requiring USDA to collect segregated organic farm financial indicators, market trends, and census-type data, efforts have been sporadic without a specific funding designation for these efforts.
• For many small and medium-sized farming operations, the annual cost of organic certification can be quite burdensome. The annual cost of organic certification varies greatly depending on the size and complexity of the operation, but ranges from $500 to $20,000 a year.

STATUS OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS

There are key differences between the organic conversion, research, and crop insurance provisions of the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill that must be resolved during conference committee negotiations:

• Both House and Senate Farm Bills increase the mandatory funding levels for the Organic Farming Research and Extension Initiative, with the House version providing $5 million a year and the Senate version providing $16 million a year. Urge the 2008 Farm Bill conference committee to adopt the Senate version in the final bill.
• Both the House and Senate Farm Bills create an Organic Conversion Assistance Program, but the House bill authorizes the program but does not provide mandatory funding. The Senate bill provides mandatory funding for the program through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. Urge the 2008 Farm Bill conferees to adopt the Senate version, but with the House provision that stipulates a specific percentage (at least 50%) of funding to be used for technical assistance.
• The Senate bill prohibits the 5% surcharge on organic producers unless the surcharge can be proven warranted on a crop-by-crop basis. The Senate bill also requires the USDA to develop and implement procedures to allow for reimbursement of organic farmers at the organic rate for their crop when farmers suffer a loss. The House Farm Bill, on the other hand, prolongs current discriminatory crop insurance practices by requiring a study to be conducted on the issue, but stipulating no immediate action to rectify the situation. Urge the 2008 Farm Bill conference committee to adopt the Senate provisions in the final farm bill.
• Both House and Senate bills reauthorize the Organic Production and Marketing Data Collection program and provide mandatory funding over five years (the House bill provides $3 million over five years and the Senate bill provides $5 million over five years). Urge the conference committee to adopt the Senate version in the final farm bill.
• Both House and Senate bills provide $22 million in mandatory funding for the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program over the life of the farm bill and increase the annual payment cap from $500 to $750.

A shrinking number of companies dominate the nation’s food supply, exerting market power over the entire supply chain from farm gate to dinner plate. In the livestock sector, the increasingly concentrated market has left farmers and ranchers in a position to negotiate with corporations that have far greater bargaining power and control over price information. The 2008 Farm Bill is the country’s last best chance to restore competition and fairness to livestock markets for the next five years.

Contact your senators and representative today, and tell them to urge the Senate and House Agriculture Committee leadership to include a comprehensive Livestock Title in the final farm bill.

—–

WHY PUBLIC POLICIES ARE NEEDED

• Packer ownership of livestock has a documented negative impact on independent producers. A 2007 report paid for by the USDA documented that a 1% increase in packer-owned hogs sold caused the cash/spot price to decline by 0.24 %. According to the Organization for Competitive Markets, this means that packers forced down the price for hogs at least $15-per-head lower than free market prices. Consequently, a five-thousand-head hog producer will lose $75,000 because of packer ownership in 2008.
• Agricultural contracts developed in an environment where corporate processors, handlers, packers, or buyers have a monopoly-like market power means that producers and growers have less bargaining power when negotiating contracts. The most recent data (PDF) from University of Missouri illustrates that two companies control 60% of the U.S. seed market, four companies control 49% of pork production, and another four companies control 58% of broiler chicken production. In 2007, 40% of all U.S. agricultural products were produced with either a marketing and/or production contract, many of which were with companies that dominate their sector. This trend of production and marketing contracts is rapidly spreading from poultry to hogs, to tobacco, specialty crops and grains.
• Mandatory arbitration forces livestock or poultry producers to sign away their rights to court through a non-negotiable contract. Many farmers and growers are forced to sign binding, mandatory arbitration clauses as part of a non-negotiable contract with large, vertically integrated processing firms. In doing so, they are forced to give up their basic constitutional right to a jury trial and instead must accept an alternative dispute resolution forum that limits their rights and is often prohibitively expensive.

STATUS OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS IN HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS

The House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill contain many differences in terms of enforcement of fair and competitive agricultural markets that must be resolved during conference committee negotiations:

• The Senate bill contains a strong set of competition provisions within the Livestock Title. The Senate bill:
  
  • includes a ban on packer ownership of livestock, a requirement that USDA write regulations defining “unreasonable preference or advantage” to reduce price discrimination against small and medium-sized producers, an expanded Packers and Stockyards Act enforcement authority to all types of poultry, and a variety of contract grower protections, including investment protections and the right to discuss contract terms with business associates and other producers;
  • makes it unlawful under the Agricultural Fair Practices Act for any firm to refuse to deal with a producer for belonging to a producer association or cooperative, requires good faith bargaining with producer associations, and provides legal remedies for producers injured by a handler;
  • creates Special Counsel for Agricultural Competition within USDA to coordinate investigations and prosecutions under the Packers and Stockyards Act.

Soaring demand for organic and local foods means exciting market opportunities for beginning farmers and ranchers, but the current public policies required to support their entry are woefully inadequate. The future health and vitality of agriculture, the food system, and rural communities depends on policies in the 2008 Farm Bill that encourage this next generation of producers to get a start on the land.

Now is the time to call your senators and representatives and tell them to urge the Senate and House Farm Bill conferees to include important provisions for beginning farmers and ranchers in the final farm bill.

—–

WHY PUBLIC POLICIES ARE NEEDED

• The average age of farmers and ranchers is increasing. USDA estimated that in 2004 about 4 percent of America’s farmers were under 35 years of age, while nearly one-fourth were 65 years or older. The fastest growing cohort of farmers and ranchers are those 70 years or older, while the fastest declining is those 25 years old or younger.
• Over the next two decades an estimated 400 million acres of U.S. agricultural land will be passed on to heirs or sold. USDA estimates that currently over one-third of farmland is owned by landowners over the age of 65.
• Beginning farmers and ranchers face unique challenges. With comparatively less experience, financing for beginning farmers and ranchers can be especially difficult to obtain. In addition, the rising cost of farmland, driven in part by farm subsidies and the ethanol boom, can make it difficult for beginning farmers and ranchers to purchase or rent land. Furthermore, given the non-traditional background of some emerging farmers and ranchers, there is a critical shortage of training and on-farm mentoring opportunities.

STATUS OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS IN HOUSE AND SENATE BILLS

There are key differences between the beginning farmer and rancher provisions of the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill that must be resolved during conference committee negotiations:

• Both House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill contain lowered interest rates and better terms for Beginning Farmer and Rancher Down Payment Loans, a higher loan limit on direct operating and direct ownership loans, a revitalized conservation loan program with a preference for beginning farmers and ranchers, and a special set aside of conservation funds and a special higher cost share rate for beginning farmers and ranchers and socially disadvantaged farmers. Each of these provisions should be retained in the final bill.
• The House reauthorized the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program with $15 million in annual mandatory funding, while the Senate strengthened the authorizing language but only with an authorization of appropriations of up to $30 million a year. Urge the 2008 Farm Bill conference committee to adopt the Senate language but defer to the House’s funding levels in the final bill.
• The Senate authorized the exciting new Beginning Farmer and Rancher Individual Development Account (IDA) Program with an authorization for appropriations of up to $10 million a year. The House bill does not include the IDA program. Urge the 2008 Farm Bill conference committee to accept the Senate’s version in the final bill but authorize the program with mandatory funding of $5 million a year.
• The House bill includes a special incentive for owners of Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land returning to production to rent or sell to beginning farmers and ranchers that are using sustainable grazing practices, resource-conserving cropping systems, or are transitioning to organic. The Senate version of the bill does not include this provision. Urge the Farm Bill conferees to adopt the House version.
• The Senate farm bill increased the authorization for appropriations for direct farm operating loans from $565 million to $850 million and for direct farm ownership loans from $205 million to $350 million. The House bill left the authorizations unchanged. Urge the 2008 Farm Bill conference committee to adopt the Senate version in the final bill.

Despite the stir, most of the public attention has been narrowly focused on only one aspect of the $280 billion policy package: the farm payments paid to corn, soybean, wheat, rice, and cotton producers. Though concerns over the current commodity programs are well-founded, their emphasis has given a negative cast to the Farm Bill debate: we should be against farm subsidies.

But there are also things worth fighting for in the Farm Bill — conservation programs that promote environmental enhancement, sustain family farms, and support rural communities are some of them.

By now, many of us are familiar with some of the arguments against the current commodity payment programs: public health advocates associate the abundance of cheap (subsidized) corn with higher rates of obesity, the Bush administration and other free traders are concerned that the current payment structure will trigger further WTO litigation, and environmentalists are fed up with industrial agriculture’s negative impacts on air, water, and biodiversity.

The current farm payment program certainly needs to be reined in and re-examined. But the debate over the future of farm support — as played out in the media and by some reform groups — has been distilled down to one false choice: we can either maintain the status quo or eliminate farm payments altogether.

Instead of restricting the public conversation to this dichotomy, we must vigorously elevate the innovative ways that farm policy can support family farms and conserve our natural resources, increase access to good food, and encourage new markets. Put another way, good public policy is an important component of fostering a healthy food system.

This week and last, Grist has been featuring a series on food and farming. A great article by Elizabeth Royte explores the monumentally negative impact that intensive row cropping and factory farms have had on drinking water in the Mississippi River basin. How might the Farm Bill encourage farmers’ transition away from the industrial production described by Royte to more sustainable farming practices?

It might come as a surprise that there are several programs in the current Farm Bill that incorporate environmental objectives or encourage land stewardship. The problem is that they receive very little funding compared to the commodity programs. The two conservation provisions described below are just a sample of what we must fight for in the next Farm Bill.

Conservation Security Program

The Conservation Security Program (CSP) was created in the 2002 Farm Bill and is the first serious attempt to reward farmers for providing environmental services on land that they are actively farming or ranching. The idea underlying CSP is that taxpayers’ money should go towards the best farmers — those who increase environmental enhancements through practices like rotational grazing or resource-conserving crop rotations. By rewarding environmental services, CSP also serves as an incentive for other farmers to transition to more sustainable agricultural conservation systems.

Whereas commodity payments encourage overintensive production of a few crops, CSP demonstrates an appreciation for the multiple benefits of agriculture: food and fiber production can be promoted in a way that reinforces the public interest in soil tilth, wildlife habitat, and unpolluted waterways.

Status
Although $9 billion was authorized for CSP for the period 2002-2011, only about $500 million was made available nationwide for enrollments through 2006. That means enrollment in the program has been restricted to a limited number of specific watersheds. Rather than restore the funding cuts to and increase funding levels for the program, the House Farm Bill passed in July cut nearly $5 billion more from CSP and delayed new farmer signups until 2012 — essentially putting the program on ice for four years.

Fortunately, the Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee also happens to be the grandfather of CSP. Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) announced on Wednesday of this week that CSP (renamed the Conservation Stewardship Program) will receive nearly $2 billion in new funding in his Farm Bill proposal. The Senate Agriculture Committee is set to vote on this new version next week.

Take Action
Even if Harkin’s funding level for CSP stays intact through the Senate Agriculture Committee’s markup, it still needs to survive on the Senate floor and through “conference” (when senators and representatives reconcile the differences between their two versions and produce a final bill). Contact your senators and representative and urge them to support Chairman Harkin’s version of CSP.

Sodsaver

If passed, the Sodsaver program would be a new addition to the Farm Bill. Currently, the ‘Sodbuster’ provision of the conservation compliance section of the Farm Bill allows landowners who plow up valuable native prairies and convert the land from pasture for livestock grazing into crop production to still receive commodity payments, disaster payments, and subsidized crop insurance as long as they develop and implement a soil conservation plan. The plan is only required for land that is determined to be highly erodible.

Not surprisingly, a recent study from the GAO suggests that Sodbuster has done very little to protect uncropped grasslands. Sodsaver, on the other hand, would be an extension to existing law and would deny farm commodity programs, crop insurance, disaster, and conservation subsidies on previously uncropped grasslands that are converted to crop production.

Not only would the Sodsaver proposal help reduce overproduction of commodities that result in low prices for farmers, it would decrease soil erosion and protect a valuable ecosystem for a wide variety of plant and animal species. The money saved from Sodsaver could be reinvested in conservation payments to support increased grassland biodiversity.

Status
The House Farm Bill passed in July only includes a partial Sodsaver provision prohibiting crop insurance subsidies for the first four years following grassland conversion, but does not prohibit commodity or conservation payments.

The draft Farm Bill proposal announced by the Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman includes the full Sodsaver provision prohibiting all taxpayer subsidies from going to newly converted grassland.

Take Action
Like CSP, the Sodsaver provision must survive through the Senate Agriculture Committee, the Senate floor debate, and conference. Call your senators and representative and urge them to support Chairman Harkin’s version of Sodsaver.

When Farm Bill reform is only portrayed as a zero-sum game, anyone who advocates for change stands to be labeled as an antifarmer city slicker. This only serves the interests of the Agriculture Committee members who want to defend the status quo.

In contrast, real reform may stand a better chance if we throw our weight (and our words) behind the kinds of policies that support family farmers and the public good.

Last Wednesday, Monsanto announced that the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) approved a pilot program that will give farmers a 20 percent discount on insurance premiums if they plant a majority of their corn acres with seeds featuring Monsanto’s trademarked YieldGard Plus with Roundup Ready Corn 2 or YieldGard VT Triple stack technology. This is the first time the FCIC Board has approved a crop insurance discount for specific crop traits, but not likely the last.

For the moment, let’s set aside the potentially sordid nature of this public/private arrangement. What is particularly ironic and imbalanced is that organic producers pay an extra 5 percent surcharge when they sign up for crop insurance because of the perceived additional risks associated with organic production.

That’s right. Organic producers are actually penalized for using production practices that have been shown to lessen risks.

Simply put, this is bad policy that should be reformed when the Senate takes up the farm bill this month.

It’s tempting to want to forget about the behemoth that is federal farm policy and concentrate on local solutions to the food system crisis. There is no question that making change on a local, human scale is critical, not to mention more accessible and arguably more gratifying. We should not view advocacy as an either/or proposition, however. If we do not address federal policy, the scaffolding that shapes our decisions as producers and consumers, our efforts to make sweeping changes in the food system will likely amount to no more than a few heirloom tomatoes in a sea of GM corn.

Scott Marlow, Director of Farm Sustainability for RAFI-USA, explains how our current crop insurance policies affect producer behavior — behavior on which a large-scale food revolution hinges.

In May, Marlow testified before Congress about the impact crop insurance has on the ability of farmers to adjust to shifts in our agricultural economy. Currently, crop insurance for organic producers not only carries a 5 percent surcharge, it does not cover the added value of specialty marketed crops. Instead, the crop insurance payments are calculated based on the conventional price.

In other words, if you are an insured organic producer like the ones devastated by August floods in southwestern Wisconsin this summer, you will likely receive assistance based only on the conventional price for the crops you have lost.

Because the added value of specialty marketed crops is uninsured, it is frequently not included in either collateral valuation or anticipated income. As Marlow remarked in his testimony, "while lenders do not recognize the higher value of specialty crops, they do recognize the higher expense of producing them."

Marlow says that the lack of risk management for value-added products and the reduction in access to credit and other disaster programs that accompanies it, creates a financial disincentive for farmers to make the transition to organic production, and increases the risk and vulnerability of those that do.

And there’s the farm bill rub.

Unfair, punitive crop insurance policies may not raise the eyebrows or pitchforks of smaller organic producers who are less likely to take out operating loans or are sheltered from risk by a growing a huge variety of crops. For mid-sized "agriculture of the middle" family farmers, however, it can be the deciding factor in choosing whether to transition relatively large amounts of land out of monoculture commodities and into diversified, specialized crops and livestock.

The upside of Congress’ slow progress in reauthorizing the current farm bill is that we still have a chance to steer this ship around. The farm bill is an opportunity to reform current inequities and support the kinds of farming that results in healthier people and landscapes. Contact members of the Senate Agriculture Committee today.

After giving two thumbs up to the House Agriculture Committee’s farm bill last Thursday, Rep. Nancy Pelosi’s rise to rural populist hero-status seems as likely as old Bessie having twins. Said Pelosi:

… the bill represents a critical first step toward reform by eliminating payments to millionaires, closing loopholes that permit evasion of payment limits, and promoting our nation’s family farmers.

But Pelosi still has a chance to emerge as the defender of real farm bill reform. And why shouldn’t she? After all, the farm bill is about food and taking care of the land. It impacts all of us whether you live in Schuyler, Nebraska or San Francisco.

Rep. Pelosi has an opportunity to make good on the failure of her Democratic comrades in the House Ag Committee and help her party win the hearts (and votes) of rural and urban constituents alike when the bill goes to the floor of the House next week.

Currently, the farm bill approved by the House Ag Committee and blessed by Pelosi falls short on several counts, but it is particularly lacking when it comes to effectively limiting commodity payments and supporting conservation on agricultural lands.

The payment limits provision of the bill denies payments to millionaires — this sounds like reform, right? Make no mistake, all you are really hearing is more corn growing in Iowa and agribusiness investors laughing all the way to the bank. The Committee bill actually removes any cap on loan deficiency payments and increases the cap on direct payments by 50 percent to $120,000.

The result is higher land prices that lead to farm consolidation, fewer family farmers, and reduced farming opportunities for a new generation trying to make a living on the land.

What’s more, the Committee bill fails to fully restore the $4 billion cut to the Conservation Security Program and freezes program sign-ups until 2010. This move essentially snuffs out one of the country’s best agri-environmental programs, which rewards and encourages environmental stewardship on working land.

If effective (PDF) payment limits were applied to commodity programs and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the savings could be used to make CSP stronger, which is more important than ever.

It is not too late! Speaker Pelosi should work with Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee Collin Peterson (D-MN) to include a $40,000 cap on direct payments, close all of the loopholes, and restore the $4 billion stolen from the Conservation Security Program before the bill goes to the floor for debate.

Tell Rep. Pelosi to take the next step!