16
Oct
Survey of Organic Farmers Highlights Need for Improved Support from USDA
(Beyond Pesticides, October 16, 2024) In a study published in the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development (JAFSCD), researchers from New York University (NYU) identify gaps in various federal agricultural support systems for organic farmers in a sweeping analysis. The research was spearheaded by Carolyn Dimitri, PhD, chair of the Nutrition and Food Studies program at NYU and a current member of the National Organics Standard Board (NOSB) as a public interest/consumer interest representative serving through January 2026.
According to this study, there is a deficiency in institutionalized knowledge of national organic standards among existing U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) agents and staff working in various agencies, including Risk Management Agency (RMA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and Farming Service Agency (FSA). “A key recommendation from this study is the creation of specialized, highly trained crop insurance and conservation agents with expertise in organic farming systems to facilitate the application process and program use for conservation programs and crop insurance,†according to the researchers. The authors continue by echoing the sentiments of organic advocates and farmers across the nation on building organic integrity, saying, “The Organic Cost Share Program [a program of USDA’s FSA] would have more impact if its funds were used to support beginning organic farmers in addition to small-scale farm operators.â€
Key Findings from the Study
The researchers identify barriers preventing organic farmers from engaging in top federal agricultural support programs—crop insurance (administered by RMA), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) (administered by NRCS), and Organic Certification Cost Share Program (OCCSP) /Organic Cost Share (administered by FSA or certain state departments of agriculture).
34 individual farmers and organic advocates were interviewed for this study: 23 were conducted with certified organic farmers engaged in diversified, specialty crop, fruit, and grain production; 11 were organic advocates engaged in technical assistance, policy analysis, and research. The farmers operate in 13 states across the United States with farm sizes ranging from a 3-acre diversified farm to a 12,500-acre grain production farm. The goal of this study is to “understand organic farmer perceptions of these programs, their decisions to participate, experiences with the application process, and how the programs worked for their operations†and provide potential policy solutions.
“Farm programs that target risk management and farmland conservation are important for the economic and environmental health of farms, yet they fail to meet the needs of organic producers,†said Dr. Dimitri. “Our work suggests that inserting organic farms into programs that were designed for non-organic farms has not been widely successful, because they fail to consider differences between organic and non-organic farms.â€
EQIP and CSP
The goals of EQIP and CSP are to provide funding incentives for farmers already engaged in eligible practices, such as cover cropping, that support ecosystem services and biodiversity.
Even though organic farmers engage in eligible practices for both programs, recent USDA data demonstrate significantly lower organic farmer participation relative to overall chemical-intensive or conventional farmer engagement with EQIP:
- “In total, only 0.2% of EQIP contracts administered in 2022 went to organic operations. []â€
- “In 2019, organic producers had approximately 74% fewer EQIP contracts per organic farm compared to all farms.â€
CSP engagement has historically remained higher among organic farms compared to total farm participation, with organic farms “maintain[ing] twice as many CSP contracts… as compared to all farms.†17 farmers participated in EQIP and six enrolled in CSP. There were several key themes that emerged regarding participation in conservation programs:
- The knowledge of USDA agents influenced farmer perception of CSP and EQIP;
- EQIP-eligible practices may vary based on regional/local contexts, thus if there is not a robust organic farming sector there may be intense competition with chemically intensive growers; and
- Funding levels offered in EQIP and CSP “were not high enough [for some organic farmers] to bother with the lengthy and cumbersome application process.â€
Crop Insurance
Just 10 of the 23 farms purchased crop insurance, with organic grain producers making up the vast majority. “Many of the farmers who had diversified operations did not purchase crop insurance and expressed little to no interest in doing so in the future,†according to the study. For the handful of farmers who did participate in insurance, they were disappointed in the benefits.
For example, one diversified farmer was only paid $140 after losing $7,000 in revenue from a surprise overnight drop in temperature, while another farmer was disqualified from payment because an inspector “saw evidence of pests and crop disease.†Another diversified farmer, even after going through what was described as a “stressful†paperwork process, indicated that the inspector “could not figure out how much the crop was worth.†The result: no payout. Organic grain farmers, meanwhile, laud insurance as an essential component of their operations, given climate change-fueled natural disasters that could disrupt their production. This is consistent with general trends in crop insurance enrollment in nonorganic farms, according to the research.
Whether organic farms spoke highly or disparagingly about crop insurance enrollment and procedures, reforms were suggested in the report, including the creation of consistent best management practices across insurance and conservation programs.
“Farmers must follow the RMA good farming practices to be eligible for crop insurance payments, but competing priorities for organic or conservation programming might put them at fault with RMA.†An example of this was an organic grain farmer losing access to insurance for 120 acres of wheat fields in their portfolio after engaging in no-till and cover cropping.
The researchers emphasize that there is “a large potential payoff from additional research into best practices and the development of organic system-specific seed varieties.†This is consistent with advocates’ calls to establish whole-of-government coordination akin to the European Union’s Farm to Fork Strategy (See Daily News here and here) within and among relevant agencies to consider organic food production targets in national programs such as the National School Lunch Program. (See Daily News here.)
The authors did identify RMA efforts to update its rules on insurance policies for organic farmers, as reflected in an updated rule from the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation that went into effect in July this year. See here for more information.
Organic Cost Share
OCCSP, commonly referred to as Organic Cost Share, is the most popular program among surveyed organic farmers, which is not surprising given that the total per-year certification costs can range from $2,000 to $9,000, depending on the variety of production scopes.
This does not include the annual inspection costs to verify farm compliance with the organic standards, with certification prices based on a range of factors.
Small-scale and diversified operations tend to benefit more from OCCSP, whereas large-scale grain producers “can absorb that [certification] cost very easily.†Across the board, there were a variety of recommendations proposed by the surveyed farmers, including:
- Free certification for beginning farmers with less than 10 years’ experience and beginning farmers who are under the age of 35.
- Certification payment coverage based on farm income, with farmers yielding less than $75,000 to $100,000 per year receiving 100% reimbursement.
- Complete coverage for farmers transitioning to organic with existing certified farms paying no more than 10% to 15% total certification costs per year.
- Free certification for farmers grossing less than $250,000 per year.
The survey contains calls to streamline the administrative side of OCCSP. Recommendations include shifting the administration of the cost share (e.g. sharing of invoices and proof of certification) to the certifying body rather than a separate USDA administrative agency to minimize potential communication hardships for farmers.
One of the final recommendations from the authors of this report is the creation of an “Organic Agent Corps.†This would establish permanent positions for experts in various states or regions who are familiar with crop insurance, EQIP, CSP, and related programs, as well as organic certification. Given that there are only 17,000 organic certified farmers compared to the over two million total farm operations in the United States (2021 USDA data), researchers see more targeted expertise and resources as a potential pathway to expanding capacity for the thousands of farmers who may wish to transition to organic but do not know where to begin.
Organic Integrity and Policy
With Farm Bill negotiations in the U.S. Congress in a potential holding pattern until after the presidential election, advocates from the National Organic Coalition are sounding the alarm on the expiration (as of September 30) of funds for programs including Organic Cost Share that directly impacts organic and transitional organic farmers. (Beyond Pesticides will have an action on this later in the week—stay tuned!)
This week, for its fall 2024 meeting, the NOSB convenes to take public comments virtually and will meet in person on October 22-24 in Portland, Oregon. See Keeping Organic Strong for a full list of NOSB recommendations and Beyond Pesticides comments. For more information on the benefits of, and threats to, organic agriculture, see its dedicated Daily News section here.
All unattributed positions and opinions in this piece are those of Beyond Pesticides.Â
Source: JAFSCD
