MAKING HAY -- March 2000 Thu, 16 Mar 2000 From: "Sustainable Ag. Coalition" <[log in to unmask]> Making Hay March 2000 A sustainable ag e-mail bulletin on federal agency news and activities. This bulletin is produced by the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (SAC). It is not meant to be a polished newsletter but an alert system. We will not worry about our prose and ask that our work not be reproduced or quoted. *********** CONTENTS * Breaking News <> Draft National Organic Standards <> Pork Checkoff Vote <> USDA to Release Mandatory Price Reporting <> Initiative for Future Ag & Food Systems RFP <> CNMP Comment Extended * US Army Corps of Engineers <> Corps Replaces NWP 26 * Food Safety <> FDA $$$ on Livestock Microbio Hazards * Trade <> EU & Hormone-free Beef * USDA News <> SAC Analysis of Administration Budget <> Website on Conservation Initiative <> Dairy Forward Contracting <> Glickman “Singing our Song” at Ag Forum <> RMA Organic Focus Groups <> GE Potato Comment Request <> First Meeting of Biotech Advisory group <> Virginia CREP Announced * Resources and RFPs <> Catalog of Fed Funding Sources for Watershed <> Biotech Risk Assessment Grants RFP <> IPM Grants for FQPA Issues *********** *** BREAKING NEWS *** <> Draft National Organic Standards On the off chance that this is actually news to someone reading MAKING HAY, the USDA issued its revised draft rule for the National Organic Standard on March 7 at a full- dress press conference at which Secretary Glickman found several different ways to say “we listened to you.” Whether or not they actually heard is another question, which is still up in the air as organic growers & advocates plow through the hundreds of pages of the new rule. If you want to be one of them, you can download the whole proposed rule or parts of it from the website of the National Organic Program at <www.ams.usda.gov/nop> and read more of the Department’s press statements at <www.usda.gov/news/releases/2000/03/march.htm>. Comment on the new draft rule is due by June 13, 2000. You can find out more about outside opinions on the new rule at the website of the Rural Advancement Foundation International <www.rafiusa.org/>. Official comment by the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture should be available by mid-April; contact them at <[log in to unmask]>. <> Pork Checkoff Vote Also probably not news to any of you is the Secretary’s announcement of a vote on the Pork Checkoff that funds the National Pork Board and, through the NPB, the National Pork Producers’ Council (NPPC). In making his announcement at the National Farmers Union’s meeting in Salt Lake City, Secretary Glickman noted that he was exercising his own authority to call for a vote, and that the costs of the vote would come out of the USDA, rather than from pork checkoff funds. There’s very little information available on the AMS or broader USDA website about this announcement, but the Secretary’s memo outlining his reasons for calling the vote is illuminating. He notes that: “Having reviewed the AMS verification process, I have concluded that it is vulnerable to criticism in a number of respects. Among other things, USDA’s data entry process was flawed, valid petitions were deleted, and duplicate entries not removed, making it impossible to state precisely the final number of petitioners. AMS’ judgements about individual petitions where producers did not fill out forms perfectly or legibly are open to challenge.” Due to the uncertainty, the Secretary made the determination that “equity” and “democratic process” demanded a vote. The NPPC went into full panic mode, indicating that they might sue to block the vote and other clumsy steps that would only serve to further alienate the hog producers who will vote on the checkoff. One thing they have done effectively is to spin the USDA announcement in such a way that many news stories are reporting that the department could not verify enough signatures, but is bowing to political pressure to hold the vote anyway. As is clear from the Secretary’s memorandum, this is simply not the case. For a copy of the Secretary’s Memorandum, contact the offices of the Campaign for Family Farms at 612-722- 6377, or the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition at <[log in to unmask]> or 202-547-5754. <> USDA to Issue Reg on Mandatory Price Reporting On March 14, USDA Secretary Glickman announced that the proposed rule for mandatory livestock price reporting will be published in the Federal Register on March 17, 2000, with a 30-day comment period. The proposed rule imposes price reporting requirements on livestock packers and product processors who slaughter on average more than 125,000 cattle, 100,000 swine, and 75,000 lambs per year. Importers who annually import more than 5,000 metric tons of lamb meat are also required to report. The proposed rule requires that price reporting take place at specified times and will require the reporting of certain details of transactions. Additional information on the rule is available on the Agricultural Marketing Service website at <www.ams.usda/gov/lsg/price.htm>. <> Initiative for Future Ag & Food Systems RFP The Cooperative State Research, Education & Extension Service (CSREES) has issued a Request for Proposals for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems program. The IFAFS Program will total approximately $113.4 million in this fiscal year. The Federal Register notice on this RFP is in Vol. 65, No. 44, pp. 11838-11857, March 6, 2000. The RFP includes a groundbreaking section on research on farm efficiency and profitability, including the needs of small and moderate-sized family farms. This section of the RFP implements a major win of the sustainable agriculture movement in the 1998 agricultural research act. The request calls for new research partnerships, systems approaches, extensive farmer involvement, low-capital and input approaches, and both production and marketing/value- adding processing research. This section of the RFP is far superior to the small farm section of the NRI RFP and most other earlier USDA proposals. For more information on this area, contact Program Director Don West, at (202) 720-5633, e-mail <[log in to unmask]>, or Denis Ebodaghe at (202) 401- 4385, e-mail <[log in to unmask]>. Overall funding was divided as follows: Agricultural Genome and Biotechnology - $32.8 million; Food Safety and Nutrition - $23.6 million; New and Alternative Uses - $9.4 million; Natural Resource Management - $23.6 million; and Farm Profitability/Small and Moderate-Size Farms - $18.9 million. In addition, no less than 30 percent of total funds are being set aside for “consortia” proposals for large collaborations, with 4 year awards of between $1 million and $5 million. The balance will be smaller grants with a top limit of $1 million. As we have reported previously, the funding for the Initiative became available late last year when USDA budget and legal staff discovered a loophole in the congressional prohibition in spending any funds on this program. Needless to say, it continues to be controversial. The House Appropriations Committee, in a supplemental appropriations bill reported out of Committee on March 9, repeals the funding (again). As we go to press, the Senate Committee has scheduled a markup on its version of the supplemental for March 21. Early indications are they will not repeal the Initiative’s funding. The final outcome remains very uncertain. However, those considering submitting proposals should forge ahead, at least until the funding prospects become clearer. It is likely, though not yet confirmed, that USDA will extend the May 8 deadline for submissions. For e-mail updates on the situation, subscribe at <[log in to unmask]> or call the SAC office. <> CNMP Comment Extended NRCS has informed the SAC office that it will extend the comment period on its draft Technical Guidance for Comprehensive Nutrient Management Plans (CNMPs) for animal feeding operations. The comment period will be extended to a date in April, 2000 which will be announced soon in the Federal Register. Note that in addition to use by NRCS in voluntary programs, the CNMPs have also been proposed by EPA for inclusion in Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits under the regulatory program for large- scale concentrated animal feeding operaitons. The SAC office has prepared suggested comments on the draft Techincal Guidance and is finalizing a detailed letter which may be endorsed by other organizations. For further information, contact Martha Noble by phone at (202) 547-5754 or by e-mail at <[log in to unmask]>. *** US Army Corps of Engineers *** <> Corps Replaces NWP 26 The US Army Corps of Engineers has issued new and modified Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permits (NWPs) to replace NWP 26. See Federal Register, Vol. 65 at pp. 12817 (March 6, 2000); for additional information see the Army Corps website at <www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/cecwo/reg/>. NWP 26 is scheduled to expire on June 5, 2000. The new NWP program applies to development activities of ½ acre or less which do not occur in tidal wetlands and provides additional protection for wetlands in 100-year floodplains. The old NWP program allowed development on up to 3 acres without an individual section 404 wetlands permit. The Army Corps must also be notified if an activity will destroy more than 1/10 of an acre, a reduction from the old standard of 1/3 acre. With regard to agricultural wetlands, NWP 40 has been increased from a permit limited to the construction of farm buildings to a permit allowing wetlands destruction to increase agricultural production, including ranching and silviculture activities. Revised NWP 40 allows conversion of up to ½ acre of non-tidal wetland and up to 300 linear feet of wetland for the purpose of relocating existing drainage ditches constructed in non-tidal streams. The revised NWP 40 also uses farm tracts, rather than farms, as the measure of single and complete projects. This change will allow more than one wetland conversion on a farm under NWP 40. The NRCS will oversee activities on agricultural land enrolled in the federal farm programs and Army Corps district engineers will oversee activities on other agricultural land. The revised NWP 40 does not provide any additional protections for playas, prairie potholes, vernal pools, or other highly sensitive wetland areas. In addition, the Army Corps has prohibited the imposition of more restrictive regional conditions on these wetlands in acreage enrolled in federal farm programs subject to NRCS oversight. The next step is state certification of the revised NWP permit program. States have 90 days from the release of the revised NWP permit program to certify, deny, or place conditions on the revised permits. The Clean Water Network has started a state certification campaign to help ensure the best nationwide permits possible. If you are working on the state certification process, contact Ami Grace at CWN (phone: 202-289-2421 or e-mail: <[log in to unmask]>so) to link with activists within your state and to obtain fact sheets, suggested regional conditions, and other tools developed by the CWN and the National Audubon Society. *** Food Safety *** <> FDA $$$ on Livestock Microbio Hazards The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it would make available approximately $600,000 in fiscal 2000 for study of microbiological hazards associated with food animal production. The announcement by FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) indicates that this research will focus on pre- harvest phases of food animal production, including aquaculture, and the microbial hazards prior to harvest that impact upon food safety. The announcement specifically notes the need for research into the effects of therapeutic and subtherapeutic antibiotic usage in livestock on bacterial pathogens. The FDA plans to work through a small number of cooperative agreements of $100,000 or $200,000 per year, for up to three years. Application deadlines are short; letters of intent to apply should be received at FDA by April 3, and completed applications by April 17. For more information on administrative and financial management aspects of the project, contact Cynthia Polit, FDA Grants Management Specialist at (301) 827-7180. For information on the program, contact David Batson at the CVM at (301) 827-8021. *** Trade *** <> EU Agrees to US Hormone-Free Beef Plan On March 9, the European Union approved new US measures to certify the reliability of US exports of hormone-free beef to Europe. Without this action, the existing 11,500-ton quota for US hormone-free product would have been cut off on March 15. The EU is now hoping that, in exchange for increasing the quota on hormone-free beef and possibly reducing the 20% import tariff, the US will agree to remove some of the US sanctions against European exports approved earlier by the World Trade Organization as a result of the EU’s refusal to accept hormone-treated beef. Those sanctions impose 100% import duties on $117 million worth of European products. If a deal is struck, it could mean increased export opportunities for organic and hormone-free cattle producers. *** USDA News *** <> SAC Comment on Administration Farm Proposal As a part of it’s budget request for fiscal 2001, the White House outlined a number of farm proposals, most notably a new system of “Supplemental Income Payments” (SIP) and a Conservation Security Program (see story below). SAC has prepared a brief critical analysis of the Clinton Administration’s farm plan, crediting it with making very significant advances on targeting income relief to small and moderate-sized farms, but faulting the proposal for abandoning planting flexibility and leaving diversified producers out of the scheme. The paper also notes the major missing piece in the proposal - its complete lack of any short term conservation-oriented supply management features to help stem continued low prices. For a copy of the SAC analysis, contact Ferd Hoefner <[log in to unmask]> or Brad DeVries <[log in to unmask]> by e-mail or at (202) 547-5754. <> Website on Conservation Initiative The USDA announced that information for farmers and ranchers on the Administration’s new Conservation Security Initiative (outlined in the President’s budget request for fiscal 2001) is available on the web at <www.nrcs.usda.gov>. Not included in the announcement were the White House’s plans for getting this initiative, closely associated with Vice President Gore and his presidential bid, through a Republican-controlled Congress. <> Dairy Forward Contract Rule and Contract Reform As we go to press, a short 15-day comment period is ending on a proposed rule for the “dairy forward contracting” pilot program. The rule <www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/dockets.htm> or Federal Register, March 1, pp. 10891-10894) is the first testing ground for AMS Administrator Kathleen Merrigan’s initiative to establish new contract agriculture ground rules that enhance producers’ rights with respect to handlers and processors. Congress mandated the dairy forward contract pilot program last year, in part as an experiment to test granting private proprietary dairy plants the same forward contracting opportunities currently allowed for dairy cooperatives. Under forward contracts, the contract sets the price the farmer or coop will receive rather than the Federal milk marketing order. Participation in the pilot is voluntary for both the farmer and the handler. Handlers will still be subject to all other provisions of the federal order. As part of an evolving farmer “right to know” initiative, AMS is developing educational and regulatory proposals to aid farmers who, for whatever reason, are entering production or marketing contracts. With regard to this specific pilot project, several safeguards are proposed: * a clear, plain language disclosure statement must be signed by the producer before signing a forward pricing contract; * the disclosure form verifies that the producer has received and read a USDA Fact Sheet describing the pilot program, the risks involved, and useful tips for the producer to use in deciding to enter into a contract; * a 3-day period in which the producer can change his or her mind and rescind the contract; * a 6 month limit on first-time contracts (which may then be renewed) to help producers become familiar with the pros and cons of forward contracting as a means of managing risk. SAC has written to support for the mandatory disclosure statement, the 6-month limit on first time contracts, and a revised version of the 3-day waiting period mechanism. We also urged AMS to immediately suspend or terminate the program if they obtain any evidence that handlers are coercing farmers into signing forward contracts, and to move quickly on development of disclosure statements for production contracts, in addition to marketing contracts. The proposed rule, fact sheet, disclosure statement, and other information are available at www.ams.usda.gov/dairy/dockets/htm. <> Glickman “Singing our Song” at Ag Forum In several recent policy speeches, USDA Secretary Dan Glickman has articulated five new policy principles to “break out of the farm policy paradigms...that have hemmed in our thinking for several years.” Several of these principles are right in line with things the sustainable agriculture movement has said about federal policy for a long time. In Glickman’s view, federal farm policy for the next generation should: * support farmers, not commodities, with federal assistance supporting farm income rather than crop prices and getting away from subsidizing “massive consolidation” * be more comprehensive and national in scope, including all types of farms, not just the 8 major commodities * make risk management programs “more inclusive,” including coverage for livestock * make conservation a centerpiece, not an afterthought, with broad incentives for environmental stewardship * integrate rural development and agriculture, with support for diversified rural economies and entrepreneurship. While we can and should press on substance and raise questions on details, these are certainly themes that work very well with previous and new emerging sustainable agriculture proposals for the farm bill, appropriations, and USDA administrative reform. Stay tuned! <> RMA Organic Focus Groups The Risk Management Agency is in the process of holding farmer focus groups in different areas of the country to better understand the possible crop insurance needs of farmers during the transition phase to organic production. The issue of transition insurance has been around for a number of years, and was proposed to RMA in a letter from SAC and the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture two years ago. This is the first detailed attempt by the agency to try to figure out what is needed and how it might work. <> GE Potato Comment Request The USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has issued an environmental assessment and a request for comments on a proposed decision to give nonregulated status to a genetically engineered strain of potato. See Federal Register, Vol. 65 at pp. 11758-59 (March 6, 2000). Comments are due by April 5, 2000 and should be sent to Docket No. 99-036-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Monsanto Company has made the request for nonregulation with regard to a Russet Burbank potato line engineered for resistance to the Colorado potato beetle and the potato leaf roll virus by the inclusion of Bt genes, genes from the potato leaf roll virus, and marker and controller genes from plant viruses. A copy of the Monsanto request and the environmental assessment may be requested from Ms. Kay Peterson by phone at (301) 734-4885 or by e-mail at <[log in to unmask]>. <> First Meeting for Biotech Advisors The USDA has announced that the first meeting of the Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology will be held on March 29-30, 2000 from 8:30 am to 5 pm in the Atrium Ballroom of the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. See Federal Register, Vol. 65 at p. 13710 (March 14, 2000). The meeting will be open to the public and, if time permits, the public may make oral presentations of no more than 5 minutes each on March 30, 2000. To attend the meeting you must contact Ms. Diane Harmon by phone at (202) 720-4074, by fax at (202) 720- 3191, or by e-mail at <[log in to unmask]> at least 7 days before the meeting. If you wish to speak at the meeting, you must contact Dr. Michael Schechtman in writing at least 3 business days before the meeting at Office of the Deputy Secretary, USDA, 202B Jamie L. Whitten Federal Building, 12th and Independence Ave. SW, Washington, D.C. 20250; telephone (202) 720-3817; fax (202) 690- 4265; e- mail: <[log in to unmask]>. You may also file written comments with Dr. Schechtman until May 1, 2000. <> Virginia CREP Announced On March 8, 2000, the USDA announced that it has finalized an agreement with the state of Virginia which established a Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) for the state. The $91 million dollar program targets 25,000 acres in the Chesapeake Bay watershed and 10,000 acres in non-Bay drainage areas in southern Virginia. The federal govenment will spend $68 million on the CREP and Virginia will contribute $23 million. The CREP will focus on reduing nitrogen and phosphorus pollution from agricultural lands and will also provide for restoration of wetlands and wildlife habitat and the establishment of permanent conservation easements on some acreage. For more details on the CREP, see the USDA news release, which includes an question and answer fact sheets, posted on the web at <www.usda.gov/news/releases/2000/03/0075>. *** Resources and RFPs *** <> Catalog of Fed Funding Sources for Watershed The EPA recently published the Catalog of Federal Funding Sources for Watershed Protection (2nd Edition) EPA 841-B-99- 003. The Catalog provides information on Federal funding programs that might be available to fund different aspects of watershed protection and local-level watershed projects. It contains one-page fact sheets for each of the 69 funding sources (grants and loans) that provide information on the type of projects funded and eligibility requirements. Copies of the new funding catalog are available at no charge from the >National Service Center for Environmental Publications (NSCEP) at: Phone: (513) 489-8190 or (800) 490-9198, Fax: (513) 489-8695). (Please include the document number EPA 841-B-99-003 when ordering the document.) <> Biotech Risk Assessment Grants RFP The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) have issued a Request for Proposals (and for comment on the RFP) for a new $1.5 million “Biotechnology Risk Assessment” research grants program for the coming year. See Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 43 at pp. 11706-11709 (March 3, 2000) The grants will be competitively awarded and support “science-based biotechnology regulation, thereby helping to address concerns about the effects of introducing genetically modified organisms into the environment and helping regulators develop policies regarding such introduction.” The RFP specifically notes that proposals for risk management, as opposed to risk assessment, are not acceptable. There is a particular emphasis in the RFP on encouraging research on genetic outcrossing, pest resistance, and other key issues raised regarding GE crops. Proposals must be received by April 10, 2000. For more information on this program, contact Dr. Deborah Sheely, CSREES; telephone (202) 401-1924, or by e-mail at <[log in to unmask]>. <> IPM Grants for FQPA Issues Also in the mix is a CSREES RFP for both research and stakeholder input for a program entitled “Pest Management Alternatives Program: Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues for Fiscal Year 2000.” The RFP is available in the Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 43 at pp. 11712-11717 (March 3, 2000). The RFP calls for proposals that “develop, test, and implement pest management alternatives and possible mitigation strategies to ensure that crop producers have reliable methods of managing pests considered a high priority under the Food Quality Protection Act and related regulatory actions.” Proposals are due by April 17, 2000; comments on the RFP are requested within six months of this Federal Register notice. Application materials may be requested via e-mail at <[log in to unmask]> by sending your name, mailing address (not e-mail) and telephone number. Be sure to note that you are requesting a copy of the application materials for “FY 2000 Special Research Grants Program Pest management alternatives research: Special Program Addressing Food Quality Protection Act Issues.” END TEXT - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To get off the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to: [log in to unmask]