Conservation and the 2018 farm bill
•Als PPTX, PDF herunterladen•
1 gefällt mir•416 views
2018 SWCS International Annual Conference July 29-August 1, 2018 Albuquerque Convention Center
Empfohlen
Weitere ähnliche Inhalte
Was ist angesagt?
Was ist angesagt? (20)
Ähnlich wie Conservation and the 2018 farm bill
Ähnlich wie Conservation and the 2018 farm bill (20)
Mehr von Soil and Water Conservation Society
Mehr von Soil and Water Conservation Society (20)
Kürzlich hochgeladen
Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)
Conservation and the 2018 farm bill
- 1. SWCS August 2018 THE 2018 FARM BILL UPDATES FROM WASHINGTON, DC Alyssa Charney, NSAC Senior Policy Specialist
- 2. About NSAC NSAC is a grassroots alliance of 120 member organizations (and hundreds more partners and allies) from around the country working together to improve federal food & farm policy for 30 years!
- 3. Our Members
- 4. How NSAC Works FARMERS & STAKEHOLDERS Share their experiences, ideas, challenges related to federal policy, programs, rules with local groups MEMBER GROUPS Collect input from farmers & stakeholders as well as their own experiences, bring asks to NSAC NSAC Helps members: identify top priority sustainable food & farm policy issues nationwide, set campaign strategies, campaign to win! CONGRESS & FED AGENCIES NSAC brings – directly and thru members – priority asks to Congress and agencies like USDA to improve federal food & farm policy
- 6. PART 1 – Farm Bill 101 + the big picture PART 2 – 2018 Farm Bill: Where are we in the process and what comes next? PART 3 – Conservation Title: House & Senate Bills Today’s Workshop
- 7. Part I: Farm Bill 101 & The Big Picture
- 8. Policy 101 Refresher Elections: Getting people who care about sustainable agriculture into office. (Note: NSAC does not work on electoral campaigns and is nonpartisan) Authorization: “How a bill becomes a law,” i.e. supporting good legislation, stopping bad legislation (developing programs, winning $$$, making changes to policies/programs to reflect farmers’ and communities’ changing needs) Appropriations: Ensuring funding goes where it’s needed Implementation: Ensuring programs and policies work as intended at the agencies and in the field Evaluation: An ongoing process!
- 9. So let’s talk Farm Bill
- 11. The Farm Bill is… Comprehensive bill that impacts federal food and farm policy Reauthorized every 5-7 years First farm bill passed in 1933 Last farm bill passed Feb 2014 Almost $1 trillion (over 10 years) Everything from conservation to rural development to organic research and farmers’ markets
- 12. The Farm Bill Influences… What is produced How it’s produced By whom is it produced What’s done with those products and where are they sold Who can afford and access those products Farmer livelihoods, the health of our environment, local economies, and public health
- 13. What’s in the 2014 Farm Bill? Title 1: Commodities Ex. Price Loss Coverage Title 2: Conservation Ex. EQIP; CSP; CRP; ACEP Title 3: Trade Ex. International Food Aid Title 4: Nutrition Ex. Food Stamps Title 5: Credit Ex. Farm Loans Title 6: Rural Development Value Added Agriculture; Rural Microenterprise Development Title 7: Research & Extension Ex. Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program Title 8: Forestry Ex. Healthy Forests Reserve Program Title 9: Energy Ex. Rural Energy for America Title 10: Specialty Crops & Horticulture Ex. FMLFPP; NOCCSP; SCBG Title 11: Crop Insurance Ex. Organic Price Elections Title 12: Miscellaneous Ex. Outreach to Minority and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers
- 14. How the Pie Got Sliced! Nutrition 80% Commodities 5% Crop Insurance 8% Conservation 6% Other 1% Nutrition Commodities Crop Insurance Conservation Other Source: Congressional Research Service 2014 Farm Bill Spending Overview
- 15. How Does a Farm Bill Get Passed?
- 16. Part II: The 2018 Farm Bill: Where are we in the process and what comes next?
- 17. Where are we now in the farm bill process? House – Passed 5/3 Senate – Passed 6/13 House – Failed 5/18, Passed 6/21 Senate – Passed on 6/28 Process started in House TBD 2014 Farm Bill expires September 30, 2018
- 18. Who are the conferees? House 47 conferees total Chairman Conaway (R-TX), Ranking Member Peterson (D-MN) 28 Republicans, 19 Democrats Ag committee members + Committees with shared jurisdiction Senate Likely 9 conferees (5 R, 4 D), but not yet announced Chairman Roberts (R-KS), Ranking Member Stabenow (D-MI)
- 19. Issues at Play (outside of conservation) Fixes to farm commodity programs Nutrition title – Major Differences between bills Protecting crop insurance subsidies Paying for "stranded programs” Environmental riders Election Year Politics Funding the Government Immigration Debates …
- 20. Stranded Programs Programs that Expire Sept. 2018: Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged and Veteran Farmers (2501) Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Value-Added Producer Grants Food Insecurity Nutrition Incentives Organic Agriculture Research and Education National Organic Cost-share Certification
- 21. September 30th deadline? What happens if there’s no deal by then? Legislative days left to get it negotiated and passed? (only 11 for the House!) Formal first conference meeting with all conferees will not happen until September… Extension scenarios? Programs without baseline?
- 22. Part III: Conservation Title – What’s in the House & Senate bills?
- 23. Conservation Title - What’s at Stake?
- 24. Conservation in House and Senate bills What’s at stake? Working Lands Conservation Programs Land Protection Programs Partnership Programs Conservation Outcomes Conservation & Crop Insurance Overall Funding Levels AND MORE…
- 25. Working Lands Conservation Programs Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) Comprehensive (whole farm) conservation assistance Based on stewardship thresholds and continued improvement Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Financial and technical assistance through cost share support for management, vegetative, and structural conservation practices House & Senate bills take significantly different approaches to funding and policy reforms to the two largest working lands conservation programs
- 26. Working Lands Conservation House (H.R. 2) Senate (S. 3204) CSP Acreage CSP completely eliminated Acreage cap reduced from 10 to 8.8 million acres/ year CSP Policy CSP completely eliminated Improvements for cover crops, rotational grazing, stewardship threshold, ranking, comprehensive conservation planning, and more.. EQIP Funding $24.4 billion (outlays over 10 years, including stewardship contracts) $15.2 (outlays over 10 years) EQIP Policy Eliminates livestock set aside, irrigation districts, stewardship contracts, CIG Organic Initiative, Wildlife funding increase, Soil Health Pilot, Irrigation districts Total Working Lands Funding $29.5 billion (outlays over 10 years) $31.9 billion (outlays over 10 years) Historically Underserved Producers No Improvements Increases set asides from 5 to 15 percent in both programs, improves EQIP advance payment Coordination between EQIP and CSP Folds CSP into EQIP but fails to include acreage reservation or core components Authorizes coordination and allows for seamless graduation from EQIP to CSP
- 27. Land Protection Programs Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) Sensitive land removed from production – rental payments to replace with long term cover Continuous enrollment option for partial field enrollments of conservation buffers Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) Includes agricultural land easements (farmland and grassland) & wetland reserve easements (to protect and restore wetlands) Consolidation of programs/ funding reduction in 2014 Farm Bill
- 28. Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) House (H.R. 2) Senate (S. 3204) CRP Acreage Cap Increases from 24 to 29 million acres Increases from 24 to 25 million acres CRP Rental Rate Reduces to 80 percent for first enrollment, and further down for subsequent (65, 55, ….) Reduces rental rate to 88.5% of average county rental rate Continuous CRP No reservation for CCRP Reserves at least 30% for CCRP, and within it, authorizes CREP, CLEAR, and SAFE Cost Share and Incentive Payments Reduces cost share from 50% to 40%, and 25% for seed costs, eliminate incentive payments No changes to cost share rates, makes incentive payments counter-cyclical Grasslands Initiative Increases enrollment cap to 3 million acres reserved for grasslands No increase to enrollment cap Clean Rivers, Lakes, and Estuaries Initiative CLEAR not included Authorizes CLEAR, directs 40% of CCRP acres to go to CLEAR CRP TIP $33 million, no funding for outreach $50 million, including $5 million for outreach Permanent Easements Not authorized Authorizes new CRP easement program for contracts signed under this farm bill for CLEAR or SAFE
- 29. Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP) House (H.R. 2) Senate (S. 3204) ACEP Funding Increases funding to $500 million per year Increases over 5 years: $400, $400, $400, $425, $450 million Conservation Plans Removes requirement for conservation plan on non HEL land Retains current ALE conservation plan requirements Mineral Development Allows for mineral development on agricultural land easements Mineral development not addressed Farm Viability Does not include farm viability provisions Prioritizes projects that maintain farm viability and includes affordability protections Forestland Allows for 100% forestland to qualify for ALE if provides significant conservation benefit Does not allow for 100% forestland
- 30. Partnership Programs Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) Financial and technical assistance for multi-state or watershed-scale projects Partnership opportunities to target and leverage conservation funding for specific areas or resource concerns Eligible partners (who apply directly to NRCS) include producer associations, state/ local government, tribes, farmer cooperatives, irrigation districts, institutions of higher educations, nonprofits, and more..
- 31. Regional Conservation Partnership Program (RCPP) House (H.R. 2) Senate (S. 3204) Funding Increases baseline funding to $250 million/ year and eliminates funding from covered programs Increases baseline funding to $200 million/ year and continues to take 7% funding from covered programs Funding Allocation Does not modify existing funding pools (state, national, CCA) Eliminates national funding pool and increases State (40%) and CCA (60%) pools TA and Outreach Does not include Authorizes funding to partners for TA and farmer outreach as part of project Program Outcomes Specifies partner responsibilities to quantify environmental outcomes Requires partners to quantify project’s environmental, economic, and social outcomes Covered Programs Removes CSP from list of covered programs and adds CRP and PL566 Adds CRP and PL566 authority but not funding; direct NRCS to distribute funds to projects that reflect purposes, proportionally, of covered programs Partnership Agreements Continue to utilize covered programs Increased flexibility with requirement that natural resource concerns/ standards continue to be met Grant Program Does not include Authorizes new option for grant agreements, up to 30% funding
- 32. Conservation Outcomes Measurement, Evaluation, and Reporting of conservation program outcomes Benefits to the farmer, natural resource protection, and utilization of taxpayer dollars Proposal included in House bill, included from the bipartisan Healthy Fields and Farm Economies Act, introduced by Rep Faso (R-NY) and Rep Fudge (D- OH) Provision not included in Senate bill but strong champions (Casey, Moran)
- 33. Conservation & Crop Insurance House (H.R. 2) Senate (S. 3204) Sodsaver No changes to existing sodsaver provision Closes “first four years” loophole; strengths reporting requirement, allows additional states to opt in Conservation Incentives Not included Authorizes RMA to offer annual premium discounts for risk-reducing conservation practices Good Farming Practices Not included Directs RMA to recognize all conservation practices as “good farming practices” and remove barriers to cover crop adoption Conservation Data Not included Establishes a Conservation Data Initiative including a data warehouse – to explore risk reducing potential of advanced conservation practices and systems
- 34. Title II Funding Farm bills are scored by CBO in terms of how much they are projected to spend over a ten-year period Why do the “out years” matter? What does it mean for program funding to have permanent baseline? How much conservation funding in House and Senate bills?
- 35. Title II Funding (10-year outlays) House (H.R. 2) Senate (S. 3204) Cut from baseline funding (April 2018) - $795 million $0 Cut to working lands conservation programs - $5.7 billion - $2.5 billion Programs without permanent funding $624 million $0
- 36. Why My Advocacy Matters If you aren’t speaking up for yourself, someone else is speaking for you Policy sets the rules of the road for just about everything in our food and farm system Want to see changes in that system? Policy is just one means to get there…
- 37. Stay in Touch with NSAC! Website: http://sustainableagriculture.net Twitter: @sustainableag Facebook: http://on.fb.me/sustainableag Alyssa Charney, Senior Policy Specialist acharney@sustainableagriculture.net
- 38. Questions?
Hinweis der Redaktion
- Welcome Intro me Intro NSAC Ask questions of the audience – farmers? Students? Etc What we are covering today Get you informed and ready to take action on the farm bill. Info useful whether you are a farmer, a student, a nonprofit, an individual. Farm bill 101 Opportunities – what we see as some key opportunities to change the system thru the farm bill – our PLATFORM Advocacy for busy ppl – getting involved and being effective
- On October 24, NSAC released our 2018 Farm Bill Platform, An Agenda for the 2018 Farm Bill. Our Farm Bill Platform provides a comprehensive vision for a more sustainable farm and food system based on expert analysis and experience of farmers and ranchers and the groups who represent them. As part of providing a comprehensive forward looking vision for American Agriculture, the platform full 128 page platform which available online, contains a series of high-level overarching recommendations for the next farm bill such as: keeping it as one single comprehensive bill and not splitting apart the food program from the farm programs, no cuts to SNAP, protect and fund the innovative programs that were stranded for a couple years during the last farm bill legislative process, and payment limitations. Our platform also outlines a number of other positions on key issues, such as racial equity, urban agriculture and more. The bulk of the platform is focused on NSAC’s 5 major priorities for the next farm bill, which is what we will be focusing on the most today. Those 5 priorities are: Increasing Opportunity: Beginning Farmers and Ranchers Advancing Land Stewardship: Comprehensive Conservation Title Reform Investing in Regional Food Economies: New Markets and Jobs Securing Seeds for the Future: Public Plant Breeding Research & Development Aligning Risk Management, Conservation and Family Farming: Crop Insurance Reform
- Mention Wes and Paul’s session that will go over in more detail farm bill
- Before we get to the farm bill… let’s situate it in the overall landscape of federal policy.
- Congress has been writing farm bills since 1933 – the first one was part of FDR’s New Deal The farm bill came about as a means to address two concurrent problems: Rock bottom prices for farmers due to overproduction and extensive hunger and poverty both on and off farms. Early farm bills also sought to tackle: catastrophic erosion and soil loss from drought and poor land stewardship (think: Dust Bowl), lack of credit for small farmers, basic rural infrastructure needs, unfair export and trade policies, and more. These historic origins can still be seen in the outlines of new farm bills today.
- About every 5 years, give or take, Congress develops a massive fairly comprehensive and multi year piece of legislation known as the farm bill. The farm bill essentially sets the “rules of the road” for our nation’s food and farm system, The farm bill contains policies, programs and funding; everything from who is eligible for farm loans and who isn’t to funding for food assistance for low income families.
- We’ve covered the farm bill from a big picture perspective. So what’s actually in the thing? The 2041 Farm Bill was organized into titles – 12 of them Part of being “conversant” in the language of the farm bill – understanding its titles and where ’your’ issues and programs live
- At the time of enactment the 2014 Farm Bill cost in mandatory funding was nearly $489 billion, 80% for the nutrition title (SNAP), 8% crop insurance, 6% conservation, 5% commodities, 1% for the rest (research, extension, local/regional food, organic, specialty crops, rural development, forestry, etc) However the actual number have changed some as those number were projections, what happens in the real world impacts total costs in each bucket, for instance as the economy has improved SNAP spending has gone down but as commodity prices have gone down commodity subsidy costs have gone up The price tag for the bill is actually coming in at less than originally expected to cost, $32 billion less, $24 billion of which is from SNAP decreases
- Think of the farm bill as a long freight train with two powerful engines up front that are driving or pulling along the whole process 1st and original engine is the farm commodity programs which support the production of staple, non-perishable and generally storable commodities – corn, soybeans, other feed grains, wheat, rice, peanuts, beans, oilseeds, sugar, cotton and dairy The 2nd engine is Nutrition programs. From the beginning but growing in importance over the past 5 decades that farm bill has included a variety of federal nutrition programs most importantly food stamps or as it is now known as SNAP. The interplay between the two engines has long been central to the passage of modern farm bills The engines drive and pull the process along with the rest of the programs and policies – conservation programs, credit, rural development, local food programs, research programs and more representing the freight cars of the train. The freight cars go now where without the 2 engines pulling the process along. The process of fixing up the train engines and determining what is in the freight cars or in other words the process of developing the farm bill is under the join jurisdictions of the House Committee on Agriculture and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
- HOUSE – HR2 – passed Committee 5/3, failed on floor 5/18 SENATE– S3024 – passed committee 6/13 POSSIBLE EXTENSION SCENARIOS?????
- These are the members who will seek to reconcile/ negotiate the differences between the two bills in House – include members for committees that have jurisdiction over issues included in the bill: HOUSE REPUBLICAN CONFEREES House Agriculture Committee Conferees: 1. Chairman Mike Conaway (TX-11) 2. Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson (PA-05) 3. Bob Goodlatte (VA-06) 4. Frank Lucas (OK-03) 5. Mike Rogers (AL-03) 6. Austin Scott (GA-08) 7. Rick Crawford (AR-01) 8. Vicky Hartzler (MO-04) 9. Rodney Davis (IL-13) 10. Ted Yoho (FL-03) 11. David Rouzer (NC-07) 12. Roger Marshall (KS-01) 13. Jodey Arrington (TX-19) House Education and the Workforce Committee Conferees: 1. Chairwoman Virginia Foxx (NC) 2. Rick Allen (GA-12) House Energy and Commerce Committee Conferees: 1. John Shimkus (IL-15) 2. Kevin Cramer (ND-AL) House Financial Services Committee Conferees: 1. Chairman Jeb Hensarling (TX-05) 2. Sean Duffy (WI-07) House Foreign Affairs Committee Conferees: 1. Chairman Ed Royce (CA-39) 2. Steve Chabot (OH-01) House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Conferees: 1. Mark Walker (NC-06) 2. James Comer (KY-01) House Natural Resources Committee Conferees: 1. Chairman Rob Bishop (UT-01) 2. Bruce Westerman (AR-04) House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Conferees: 1. Ralph Abraham (LA-05) 2. Neal Dunn (FL-02) House Transportation and Infrastructure Conferees: 1. Jeff Denham (CA-10) 2. Bob Gibbs (OH-07)
- Mention Wes and Paul’s session that will go over in more detail farm bill
- As we’ve just talked about, there’s a very short window of time that Congress has to reconcile the differences between the two bills (11 leg days for House!), and a lot to figure out. While the Nutrition title is absolutely front and center when it comes to major differences to reconcile between the two bills (and if they manage to figure that out, then they’ll be able to figure everything else out too), BUT conservation is definitely not going to be simple/easy when it comes to differences.
- There’s absolutely a lot at stake (and more than we have to talk through today) – I’m going to walk us through these topics in terms of where the House and Senate bills landed….
- Working lands conservation programs ARE – land in production while adopt/ manage/ improve conservation on that land TWO MAJOR working lands PROGRAMS = CSP AND EQIP Within the title, this is the most signficant differnces in terms of how the two bills are structured
- Biggest diff in terms of working lands programs is the structure of funding: House bill eliminates CSP – folds it into EQIP in the form of “stewardship contracts,” but fails to retain core components of CSP, and also does not reserve a set of funding for stewardship contracts Senate bill retains CSP –though does include a cut to the amount of acres can be enrolled in each year (down to 8.8 million acres), but at the same time includes important policy reforms to benefit soil health and water quality Additionally, the Senate bill includes several improvements related to conservation program access Ranking criteria simplified Coordination between programs Increased set aside for historically underserved participants
- CRP CRP provides annual rental payments, usually over 10 years, to producers to replace crops on highly erodible and environmentally sensitive land with long-term resource-conserving plantings. Bids to enroll land are solicited during a limited time period, then compared using an Environmental Benefits Index (EBI). Those with the highest EBI scores are accepted. This is referred to as general sign-up. Embedded in the CRP are several small and more focused subprograms and initiatives—some established in law and others established administratively— that bypass the general bidding process and address specific resource topics. Examples of these focus on concentrated resource problems in a portion of a state, protection of small isolated agricultural wetlands, or improvement of habitat for upland game birds. All lands that qualify for these subprograms and initiatives are automatically accepted and enrolled on a continuous basis. This is referred to as continuous sign-up. ACEP Agricultural Land Easements (ALE)—Enrollment is through eligible entities that enter into cooperative agreement to obligate ACEP funds. The entities acquire easements and hold, monitor, manage, and enforce the easements. The federal share of easement acquisition cannot exceed 50% of the appraised fair market value or 75% if it is determined to be a grassland of special environmental significance. Wetland Reserve Easement (WRE)—Enrollment options (federal share) include permanent easements (100% easement value and 75%-100% restoration cost), 30-year easements (50%- 75% easement value and 50%-75% restoration cost), term easements or the maximum duration under state law (50%-75% easement value and 50%-75% restoration cost), and 30- year contracts only available to Indian tribes (50%-75% easement value and 50%-75% restoration cost). NRCS pays all costs associated with recording the easement.
- Big differences in CRP, but it’s easier to envision a middle ground (somewhere between 25 and 26 million acres) than it is to figure out how to reconcile the differences between working lands programs
- Farm viability provisions – The 2014 Farm Bill created the ALE component of ACEP to replace FRPP, and added “farm viability” to the new consolidated program purpose. This clarification was intended as a clear directive to USDA to ensure that ACEP would be as helpful as possible to the cause of creating viable new farming opportunities for beginning farmers. This statutory change has encouraged the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to do more to ensure that the program protects working farms rather than rural estates. However, further clarity is needed in statute to ensure that NRCS targets ACEP funding to those easements that best foster opportunities for new farmers and increase new farmer access to affordable farmland.
- RCPP provides financial and technical assistance for multi-state or watershed-scale projects. The program creates partnership opportunities to target and leverage federal conservation funding for specific areas and resource concerns. Project areas are defined by eligible partners and are selected through a competitive state or national competition. Partnership agreements are for five years with a possible one-year extension. In addition to defining the project area, providing assistance, and possibly acting on behalf of the producers within the project area, partners must also provide a “significant portion” of the overall cost of the project. Funds are also directed through “critical conservation areas” (CCA) selected by NRCS. Current CCAs include Chesapeake Bay Watershed, Great Lakes Region, Mississippi River Basin, Colorado River Basin, Longleaf Pine Range, Columbia River Basin, Prairie Grasslands Region, and California Bay Delta. Funding is statutorily divided as: critical conservation areas—35%, national projects—40%, and state projects—25%. Created in the 2014 farm bill from four repealed programs—Agricultural Water Enhancement Program, the Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program, and the Great Lakes Basin Program for soil erosion and sediment control. RCPP contracts follow the existing rules and requirements of the covered programs. To be eligible for an RCPP contract, a producer must be located in either a CCA or a selected partnership area, but is not required to work with the sponsoring project partner and may choose to work directly with NRCS. Partnership applications are accepted in two phases: pre-proposal and full proposal. In FY2018, 91 projects were selected totaling over $220 million in federal spending.
- Despite a steady increase in mandatory funding authority, select conservation programs have been reduced or capped through annual appropriation acts since FY2003. Many of these spending reductions were at the request of the Administration. The mix of programs and amount of reductions vary from year to year. Some programs, such as the CRP, have not been reduced by appropriators in recent years, while others, such as EQIP, have been repeatedly reduced below authorized levels. Authorized mandatory funding for conservation programs has been reduced by a total of more than $4 billion over the past 10 years. FY2018 marks the first time in 15 years that an appropriations act does not reduce mandatory conservation program funding Sequestration has also had an effect on conservation programs. Sequestration is a process of automatic, largely across-the-board reductions that permanently cancel mandatory and/or discretionary budget authority to enforce statutory budget goals.9 Discretionary accounts have avoided sequestration in recent years through adjustments to spending limits, although sequestration continues on mandatory accounts. Most all mandatory conservation programs were subject to sequestration in FY2014 through FY2018.
- Why does my advocacy matter? If you’re here you get it. In short: if you aren’t speaking up for yourself and the issues you believe in, someone else is speaking for you – or your issues may not be heard at all. Policy sets the rules of the road – so advocating for changes is a way to improve our food and farm system. NOT the only way! But one way. And you don’t have to do this full time to have an impact. Even occasional actions are really helpful. Advocating around policy issues is a real complement to doing the work in communities and you can definitely do both – work on the ground / in the field and also thinking about the larger system and trying to improve it. WHAT ARE WE ULTIMATELY TRYING TO DO? Use policy change as a TOOL TO BUILD A BETTER FOOD SYSTEM TO DO THAT WE NEED TO ADVOCATE. In advocating we are…. Making sure farmers’ and communities’ needs – and the solutions we want to see – are heard in Washington! This is most effective and powerful when it’s in YOUR voice and in the voices of folks in your community.