Other Ag News: Path to a New Farm Bill: Sustainable and Organic Research 

Editor’s Note: This post is the fifth post in a multi-part series exploring some of the key sustainable agriculture and food systems challenges that the farm bill can address. Through a series of posts comparing the House and Senate Agriculture Committees’ proposals, we provide an assessment of how each chamber’s bill would address a given challenge, and our recommended path forward. Other posts explore how the next farm bill can tackle issues in regional market development, crop insurance access, and more.

In comparison to the enormous opportunity that sustainable and organic agriculture represents for farmers and rural communities, federal investment in related research, education, and extension has been minuscule. Failure to robustly fund public research that promotes ecologically-based production systems stifles scientific and technical innovation and leaves US farmers and ranchers unable to fully participate in and benefit from emerging markets for sustainably-produced foods. The effects of climate change on farmers are becoming ever more apparent. At the same time, the US is losing small and mid sized family farms at a rapidly increasing rate. It is therefore imperative that the next farm bill prioritizes research that benefits a broad range of farmers through the growth of more diversified and resilient farming systems, instead of directing limited public funding into research that promotes monoculture-based systems and benefits only a small subset of farmers.

Over the last several decades, publicly funded agricultural research has led to the advancement of countless innovative techniques and practices that have helped farmers across the country increase their profitability and sustainability. This public research and development (R&D) investment is the primary driver of long-term productivity growth in US agriculture. In addition to increasing farm productivity, public agricultural R&D investment also supports improvements in natural resources and forestry management, helps advance rural development, and enhances food safety and quality. All farmers need access to high-quality research, and investing in research at the intersection of agriculture and climate change is critical to both short-term and long-term efforts to protect the viability of the agricultural industry. In its key public role,  research funded by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) can seek to optimize the balance among production, nutrition security, environmental services, and socio-economic sustainability.

Land-grant universities and other non-federal institutions perform about 70 percent of US public agricultural research. USDA agencies, such as the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) perform the remainder. USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) administers most of the funds for extramural research funded by USDA. Extramural research programs like the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension Program (SARE), Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), Organic Research and Education Initiative (OREI), and Organic Transitions Program (ORG) are available to land-grant institutions, farmers, non-profits, private entities, and individuals.

Despite its strong record of serving public needs, US public agricultural R&D investment has fallen by about one-third since its peak in 2002, according to a 2022 report by the Economic Research Service (ERS). Underscoring the important role of public research, the study found that every dollar invested in publicly funded agricultural research generates $20 in economic activity. 

In addition to the overall drop in US public agricultural R&D investment, organic research continues to be significantly underfunded compared to its share of the food sales market. Currently, the ARS invests less than 1% and NIFA invests approximately 2% of their budget into direct organic agriculture research, while organic agriculture makes up more than 6% of the food sales market. A review of the research projects awarded through the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI) and AFRI from 2009-2023 shows that the allocation for organic research does not meet the ongoing need. Within AFRI, funding levels have been historically substantial but have been falling short recently, while organic continues to grow its market share and presence. Through SCRI, funding has been sporadic and ultimately makes a small dent in the total funding for organic research topics. While OREI exists to support organic agriculture, one program alone cannot meet the full range of research needs the organic sector faces. Ultimately, decreased dedicated funding for organic research across USDA research programs undermines the growth of organic farming practices vital to addressing environmental challenges and health concerns.

Finally, the current demand for SARE grants far outweighs available resources. Since 1988, more than $26.6 million in research funds have gone directly to America’s most innovative farmers and ranchers. In total, SARE has invested over $334 million in more than 7,700 projects.

However, according to SARE’s 2021-2022 Biannual Report From the Field, less than half of all Farmer Rancher Grant proposals were able to receive funding in 2021. Farmers and ranchers have critical insight when it comes to improving their systems, and the increasing demand for farmer-led research continues to outpace federal funding. Increased funding for SARE will play a crucial role in helping SARE’s farmer-driven research keep pace with the growing challenges related to the state of the rural economy, soil health, and competitiveness of American producers.

Chairwoman Stabenow’s (D-MI) Rural Prosperity and Food Security Act (RPFSA) proposal offers some provisions that would increase coordination and funding for sustainable and organic agriculture. Notably, this includes provisions from the Agricultural Resilience Act, the Organic Science Research and Investment Act, and the Seeds and Breeds for the Future Act.

Two of the more exciting provisions offered in the Senate proposal include the creation of an Organic Agriculture Research Coordinator within the Office of the Chief Scientist and formal authorization for USDA’s “Climate Hubs” network. This organic initiative charges USDA’s Research, Education, and Economics agencies to catalog current, ongoing research on organic food and agriculture topics and provide a path to increase organic agriculture research conducted and funded by USDA. Authorization of Climate Hubs will help USDA meet the needs of farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners in addressing the climate crisis. 

The Senate proposal also offers meaningful steps forward to address the hyper-consolidation of seed systems that has led to a dominant culture of seed commodification. This problem has grown over the past several decades. To take steps toward combating it, the Senate proposal includes the addition of regionally adapted cultivar and breed development for priority areas in AFRI and requires the Secretary of Agriculture to submit a report to Congress on the public cultivar and animal germplasm research funded by USDA and any research gaps in these areas. However, the framework also adds shellfish; measuring, monitoring, reporting, and verifying (MMRV) greenhouse gas emissions; precision agriculture technologies; controlled-environment agricultural technologies; technologies for food loss and waste prevention and reduction; and agricultural climate adaptation and mitigation to priority areas for the Initiative, without any additional funding for the program. While many of these priorities – such as agricultural climate adaptation and mitigation, MMRV of greenhouse gas emissions, and public cultivar development – are important additions to improve AFRI’s focus on agroecological research, without increased funding, AFRI will be limited in its ability to address these new priority areas.

Another promising piece of the senate proposal increases SCRI mandatory funding from $80 million to $130 million per year and allows the Secretary to waive the matching funds requirement for SCRI grants, which can help make the program more accessible to a wider range of applicants. 

The Senate proposal also greatly expands investments in 1890 institutions, including for first time mandatory funding for the 1890s Scholarship Program and the addition of four new 1890s Centers of Excellence focusing on climate change; forestry resilience and conservation; food safety, bioprocessing, and value-added agriculture; and food and agricultural sciences and the social sciences. 

Despite these positive steps, RPFSA falls short in several critical areas important to NSAC members. While reauthorizations of SARE and OREI are important, RPFSA includes no additional investment in discretionary or mandatory funding for either program. It is disappointing that effective, popular, and climate-oriented research programs like SARE, OREI, and ORG receive no additional funding despite tens of millions in discretionary and mandatory funding increases disbursed elsewhere in the title. RPFSA makes the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority (AgARDA) a permanent program with an authorization of $100 million per year, increases mandatory funding for SCRI from $80 million to $130 million per year, increases authorization of FFAR from $200 million to $250 million in mandatory funding over the life of the farm bill, and provides $100 million in mandatory funding for fiscal year 2025 in relation to the agricultural research facilities act. It is not that case that none of the programs within the research title are going without increases in funding authorization.   Rather, RPFSA chooses not to invest in programs like OREI, SARE, and ORG which  have decades of on the ground results that have helped drive innovation on farms across the country, funding some of the most cutting-edge and relevant research projects among any federal agriculture-focused grant programs. This underinvestment will lead to limits on the ability of sustainable and organic agriculture sectors to thrive or innovate at the pace required to address pressing agricultural challenges.

Finally, the focus on precision agriculture, automation, and “high risk high priority research” across the research title detracts from much needed investments in farmer-led, scale-appropriate research. Programs like AgARDA, a carve out in SCRI for mechanization and automation, and a greater emphasis on automation and precision agriculture in the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI), demonstrate a continued quest for reductionist or “silver-bullet” solutions to climate change and other agricultural challenges.  

It is clear that the prevailing narrative surrounding these types of agriculture research is aimed not at improving diversified systems, but at further enabling large-scale, input-intensive, monoculture agriculture. This approach is misguided and will not meaningfully address the climate crisis. Instead, USDA funding should be directed toward building an understanding of the ecological aspects of our food and farm systems and integrating diverse knowledge and practices of agroecological farmers and farm workers, rather than continuing to explore and promote the narrow constraints of monoculture-based systems.

For the most part, when it comes to the research title, there is little difference between the Senate proposal and the House’s Farm, Food, and National Security Act (FFNSA). Similar to the Senate proposal, FFNSA meets the low bar of reauthorizing popular sustainable and organic research programs like SARE and OREI, but without the inclusion of additional funding for either program.

Another similarity is the welcome addition of regionally adapted cultivar and breed development, breeding for environmental resilience, and the addition of workforce training and development – including for meat and poultry processing – in the agriculture economics and rural communities priority area. However, these new additions alongside several others – like controlled-environment agriculture production and precision agriculture – all come without any additional funding for AFRI, spreading the program across many issues areas and likely resulting in the program’s limited ability to support more agroecologically focused agricultural research.

The Senate and House also agree on various funding opportunities for 1890s. FFNSA provides several important investments, including increasing mandatory funding for the 1890s Scholarship program to $100 million until expended, increasing funding for 1890s Extension from its current 20 percent to no less than 40 percent, and increasing the number of 1890 Centers of Excellence from no less than 3 to no less than 8.

Finally, equally disappointing in both the House and Senate bills is the focus on what they classify as “high-priority research”. Significant levels of funding for programs like AgARDA, a carve-out in SCRI for mechanization and automation, and a greater emphasis on automation and precision agriculture in AFRI will direct limited public funding into research that promotes monoculture-based systems and benefits only a small subset of farmers. 

It is a troubling narrative promoted by both the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, to classify research that further enables large-scale, monoculture agriculture as “high priority” suggesting that agricultural research that benefits a broad range of farmers through the growth of more diversified and resilient farming systems is “low priority”. This narrative is particularly troubling given the proven benefits of diversification for climate resilience. Many practices can lower a farm’s greenhouse gas emissions, including alternative manure management techniques and the use of renewable energy. Other practices that build soil organic matter, such as cover crops, compost, perennials and conservation tillage, can sequester carbon in the soil. Research that focuses on soil health and diversifying farm enterprises are prime examples of how USDA can help farms adapt to climate change.

Over the last several decades, publicly funded agricultural research has led to the advancement of countless innovative techniques and practices that have helped farmers across the country increase their profitability and sustainability. Investments in research underpin the success of any sector, including agriculture. All farmers need access to high-quality research relevant to their particular region and type of operation. This is particularly critical for diversified and organic growers – who on average tend to be younger, operate smaller operations, and have less access to capital and other resources. Federal research programs help farmers learn which crops will do well in their soils, which varieties and breeds are best suited for their climates, and how they and their communities can drive innovation and market opportunities. The farm bill provides an immediate opportunity for Congress to invest in agriculture as a climate solution. 

This means a final farm bill must:

• Prioritize climate change mitigation and adaptation agricultural research and outreach, which spans disciplinary boundaries and includes agroecological, applied economics, integrated human nutrition science and policy, and system science principles across Research, Education, and Economics (REE) agencies;
• Direct USDA to prioritize capacity-building for BIPOC farmers within key programs in the REE mission area such as 1890s Centers of Excellence, 1890s Extension, 1890s Scholarship Program, New Beginning for Tribal Students, and the Federally Recognized Tribal Extension Program;
• Establish soil health and agricultural resilience to climate change and other stresses as research priorities within ARS and across all NIFA competitive grant programs;
• Establish diversified, perennial-based and perennial annual integrated farming systems, advanced grazing management, and livestock-crop integrated systems as ARS and NIFA priorities;
• Prioritize organic agricultural research at ARS and NIFA with funding commensurate to organic’s market share;
• Prioritize research, development, and release of new, regionally adapted, public crop cultivars and livestock breeds;
• Add climate change mitigation and adaptation as a new priority and purpose within SARE’s statutory mission, provide $50 million in mandatory funding, and increase the authorization of appropriations for SARE;
• Provide mandatory funding for OREI at no less than $60 million per year in 2024, stair-stepping up to $100 million per year in 2028, to ensure that the organic industry continues to grow;
• Provide first-time Congressional authorization for the Researching the Transition to Organic Program (RTOP), currently known as the Organic Transition Research Program (ORG).

The post Path to a New Farm Bill: Sustainable and Organic Research  appeared first on National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.