Reimbursement Transportation Cost Program (RTCP):
RTCP was established within Section 1621 of the 2008 Farm Bill and was amended in the 2014 Farm Bill. RTCP provides support for producers in Alaska and Hawaii, and other US territories only to help offset transportation costs associated with production. It recognizes that the high costs of doing business here are a result of our location and put us at a competitive disadvantage. RTCP compensates Alaska farmers for a portion of their transportation-related costs to slightly level the playing field. Across the region, demand for the program exceeds appropriated annual funding. Annual appropriations and authorization levels should be increased or move funding under CCC where it is funded as needed. Current funding through appropriations is $4M.

The FFNSA that was moved out of the House Ag Committee does not include additional RTCP language for expanded funding authorization.

Marker Bill:
RTCP Revitalization Act S.1676, Sen. Hirono (HI) and Sen. Sullivan (AK)

News:
USDA Program Helps Hawaii Farmers Offset High Shipping Costs (Aug 2023), Talking Agriculture with Governor Little and Governor Bryan (Feb 2024)

Agriculture Conservation Easement Program (ACEP):
ACEP provides financial and technical assistance to help conserve agricultural lands and their related benefits. NRCS provides financial assistance to eligible partners (such as Alaska Farmland Trust) for purchasing Agricultural Land Easements that protect the agricultural use and conservation values of eligible land. In the case of working farms, the program helps farmers and ranchers keep their land in agriculture. This program is critical for protecting prime farmland; recommend increased funding.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP):
This program is important to Alaska food production by providing cost-share funding for high tunnels in communities across the state. It has also supported multiple other Alaskan projects, like repairing eroded riverbanks and improving moose habitat. EQIP is a voluntary program that provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers to plan and implement conservation practices that improve soil, water, plant, animal, air, and related natural resources on agricultural land and non-industrial private forestland. Recommend full funding be reauthorized at $1.75 billion.

Market Access Program (MAP): Through the MAP program, FAS partners with U.S. agricultural trade associations, cooperatives, state regional trade groups, and small businesses to share the costs of overseas marketing and promotional activities that help build commercial export markets for U.S. agricultural products and commodities. MAP reaches virtually every corner of the globe, helping to build markets for a wide variety of U.S. farm and food products. FAS provides cost-share assistance to eligible U.S. organizations for activities such as consumer advertising, public relations, point-of-sale demonstrations, participation in trade fairs and exhibits, market research, and technical assistance. The Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute (ASMI) has been a long-time recipient of USDA MAP funding. Recommend the program be reauthorized.

Foreign Market Development Program (FMD):
The FMD Program, also known as the Cooperator Program, helps create, expand, and maintain long-term export markets for U.S. agricultural products. Under the program, FAS partners with U.S. agricultural producers and processors, who are represented by non-profit commodity or trade associations called “cooperators,” to promote U.S. commodities overseas. The FMD program focuses on the generic promotion of U.S. commodities, rather than the consumer-oriented promotion of branded products. Alaska Peony producers are one example of an Alaskan farmer who could benefit from this type of foreign marketing assistance. Recommend the program be reauthorized.

Nutrition programs impact all of Alaska because of the high poverty and hunger levels we see in Alaska. Broadly, we support proposals to increase access to and the buying power of SNAP and oppose any policies that would restrict participation. We support all the Farm Bill nutrition priorities put forward by Feeding America and the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC), but will highlight a few that will have a particular impact on Alaska here, as well as include a few additional ones.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):
SNAP (“food stamps”) is efficient and effective, reduces food insecurity, and helps working families put healthy food on the table. AFPC would like the Farm Bill to address the following:

* Lift SNAP’s arbitrary three-month time limit to ensure that all eligible people have access to nutrition assistance and stay healthy (see H.R. 1753 - Improving Access to Nutrition Act of 2021). This rule is particularly challenging in Alaska due to the lack of jobs in rural areas, the seasonal nature of work, and the technology challenges that the state Division of Public Assistance faces. (H.R. 1753 - Improving Access to Nutrition Act of 2021).

* Eliminate the asset limits test on SNAP, TANF, and LIHEAP, making nutrition assistance more accessible to more eligible families with children, low-wage workers, seniors, and people with disabilities on fixed incomes. (S. 1809/H.R. 3822 - ASSET Act). Alaska uses the low federal baseline for SNAP asset limits ($2500 or $3750 for households with an elderly or disabled member). We saw many Alaskans who fell on tough times during the pandemic fail to qualify for SNAP when they needed it because they were over this low asset limit. Low asset limits also discourage savings - a method proven to help families rise out of poverty.

* Ensure more working poor households can enroll in SNAP by setting broad-based categorical eligibility at 200% FPL (as 19 states currently do). Alaska does not implement broad-based categorical eligibility, which helps eliminate the benefit cliff, gradually reducing benefits as incomes rise.

* Make allowances in SNAP nutrition requirements for easier local food purchasing in states with insufficient infrastructure, particularly school meal programs. Local Food Purchasing programs for school meals are not able to purchase local milk due to the SNAP requirement for low-fat milk.

* Provide $100 million for SNAP Doubling for Farmer's Markets, Farm Stands, and CSAs.

* Allocation of funding - a higher percentage of funding should be given to those states with higher insecurity

From 2011 to 2013, the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services piloted a successful program with Alaska’s farmers' markets to build capacity for markets to accept SNAP benefits on behalf of their local farmers, fishers, and value-added producers. The program also provided matching dollars to help launch these initiatives at markets statewide. The program was very successful and many markets are still operating SNAP programs today. We seek to replicate and expand.

The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP):
Monthly TEFAP food boxes are the Food Bank of Alaska’s biggest source of food for rural Alaska. As the demand for food remains high at food banks across the country, a reliable and continuous stream of TEFAP is necessary for the provision of a steady emergency food supply. AFPC believes the following need to be addressed in TEFAP:

* Include additional mandatory funding for TEFAP food in recognition of the sustained high need for food assistance at food banks nationwide. TEFAP mandatory funds should be authorized at least $450 million per year in the next farm bill. TEFAP Storage and Distribution Funds should increase to reflect the actual distribution costs needed to $200 million per year and TEFAP Infrastructure Grants should remain at $15 million per year. The allocation should be based on actual place-based transportation costs; those states with higher costs should receive a higher percentage of funding.

* Strengthen TEFAP so that food bank shoppers can access more nutritious, culturally responsive food with dignity

* Expand the local purchasing, flexible funds to states to provide food bank commodities purchased from local and disadvantaged producers to secure food items that meet local needs and invest in local food economies.

* Support USDA AMS plans for local and regional food systems.

* Change client intake requirements to balance the need for fiscal accountability without adding to the chilling effect caused by collection of personal information or attestation that assumes fraudulent intention from the recipient.

* Give states the option to set income eligibility limits in order to maximize participation by low-income populations with regard to local needs and costs of living.

Families Food Box Program:
Reinstate the Farmers to Families Food Box Program (also known as the Coronavirus Food Assistance Program/CFAP), applying lessons learned from the first round. One chief improvement we would like to see is a guarantee of more local food distributed. This program worked extremely well in rural Alaska, but we recognize there were significant issues in other states. The overall program could be narrowed to target rural and frontier communities that have significant challenges receiving quality, nutritious produce.

Federal Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR):
FDPIR provides a monthly food box to specific rural communities.

Congress should end the ban that disallows participants to use benefits from the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) and SNAP within the same month. FDPIR is the only commodity food program that cannot be used in conjunction with SNAP benefits. Recognizing that food insecurity is highest in Alaska’s rural areas and that there are fewer resources in many of those communities, this change could have a big impact on hunger in rural Alaskan communities.

Strengthen donation policies and incentives in the Farm Bill:
Feeding America urges Congress to address policy and regulatory barriers to food donation through expanding FSIS and FDA guidelines to include food donation; expand access to USDA grant programs addressing agriculture policy and programs to ensure food donation and food banks are a key component of connecting US consumers with US grown food and expand resources to invest in agriculture surplus removal programs in state and regional ag economies to provide growers and food banks a method to connect excess wholesome food with communities in need.

The Micro-Grants for Food Security Program (MGFSP):
MGFSP assists agricultural agencies or departments in eligible states and territories to increase the quantity and quality of locally grown food in food-insecure communities through small-scale gardening, herding, and livestock operations by competitively distributing sub-awards to eligible entities. In FY 2020, AMS awarded $4.4 million in funding to six agricultural agencies or departments in Alaska, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Hawaii, and the United States Virgin Islands. This program is a great fit for Alaska and benefits a wide range of food system participants and communities. We recommend the following additions to the program:

* Allow farming businesses to apply for micro-grants

* Fully fund the $10 million annually, so that projects may have a grant period of up to three years.

* Remove tax liability. These grants are often utilized by food-insecure communities. Counting this grant as income can affect eligibility for other assistance programs.

* Additional allocations for agricultural agencies and departments to adequately administer the grants. In 2021, over 2,000 applications were received in Alaska. In 2022, 5,000 applications are projected.

Farm Services Micro-loans:
Farm loan programs provide an important source of financing in Alaska, where most commercial banks are reluctant to loan to agricultural producers. Alaskans have particularly benefited from the FSA Microloan program, which provides small loans with a simplified application process.

* Increase FSA staffing/increase efficiencies to make a more streamlined process for FSA loan programs - including microloans.

Rural Development is a priority in Alaska because most producers are considered small/medium-sized farms and ranches, beginning farmers/ranchers, socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers, and veterans.

The top recommendation would be to classify Alaska as a rural state instead of having Anchorage classified as urban and everywhere else as rural. If Anchorage could access rural programs that would trickle to all Alaska rural communities in the state.

Business and Industry Direct and Guaranteed Loan Program: This program improves the economic health of rural communities by increasing access to business capital through loan guarantees that enable commercial lenders to provide affordable financing for businesses in eligible rural areas.

We recommend funding be reauthorized.

Conservation programs are vital to Alaska because of how much land and water the state has. These programs protect Alaska’s natural resources for future generations' use and benefit.

* Alaska is lacking research specific to this area and climate to assist in increasing production.

* Reestablish funding for an Agricultural Research Service location in Alaska and increase research dollars.

Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG): The VAPG program helps agricultural producers enter into value-added activities related to the processing and/or marketing of new products. The goals of this program are to generate new products, create and expand marketing opportunities, and increase producer income.

* Recommend $63 million/year of mandatory funding.

* Reduce the match requirement - Alaska’s farmers are building needed infrastructure & developing markets - all projects are high risk as Alaska’s farmers are competing with national & international large-scale food companies. Requiring 100% matching funds is unreasonable for a program that should be focused on improving rural economies and food production.

The Specialty Crop Block Grant (SCBG) Program:
SCBG provides important tools to enhance specialty crop production, while also advancing foods with critical health benefits to the American people. To the extent additional funding is available, funding for the SCBG Program should be increased and Congress should ensure a flexible, locally responsive, and state-led program. Alaska’s specialty crops include fruits, vegetables, horticulture, and nursery crops. These grants fund projects that support the peony, farmer’s market, and fruit and vegetable industries.

The problem is this program is that allocation is not equitable for a state with a small Specialty Crop industry. For example, CA gets approximately $19,000,000 a year while AK gets just over $200,000 a year. Currently, the funding is calculated based on the average of the most recent available value of specialty crop cash receipts in the State (2015 calendar year estimates) and the acreage of specialty crop production in the State (2012 Census of Agriculture).

*Recommend funding at the current level or more AND raise the minimum award to each state to at least $500,000.

*Require that all states accept indirect rates at 10%.

*Recommend changing the calculation for awarding funds, below are three potential ways to improve the calculation for awarding funds:
-Factor in growth potential including available land and innovative growing methods such as indoor growing operations.
-Factor in the percentage of specialty crop growers compared to all agricultural commodities.
-Flip the logic of how funds are distributed, instead of giving the most money to a state that has a thriving specialty crop industry, invest the funds in the states that need to build a thriving industry.

The biggest challenge Alaska faces with the other Horticulture programs is that there are too many grant programs being offered at the same time and the state spends a lot of time helping stakeholders navigate the different funding sources. These would be better run and accessible if the state were to run the grants instead of USDA.

Specialty Crop Research Initiative: Specialty Crop Research Initiative addresses the critical needs of the specialty crop industry by awarding grants to support research and extension that address key challenges of national, regional, and multi-state importance in sustaining all components of food and agriculture, including conventional and organic food production systems. Recommend $75 million/year of mandatory funding.

Farmers Market and Local Food Promotion Programs & Regional Food System Partnership Programs:
The purpose of the Farmers Market Promotion Program is to increase domestic consumption of, and access to, locally and regionally produced agricultural products, and to develop new market opportunities for farm and ranch operations serving local markets by developing, improving, expanding, and providing outreach, training, and technical assistance to, or assisting in the development, improvement, and expansion of, domestic farmers markets, roadside stands, community-supported agriculture programs, agritourism activities, and other direct producer-to-consumer market opportunities. The Local Food Promotion Program offers grant funds with a 25% match to support the development and expansion of local and regional food business enterprises to increase domestic consumption of, and access to, locally and regionally produced agricultural products, and to develop new market opportunities for farm and ranch operations serving local markets.
*Recommend $60m per year mandatory funds
*Recommend rolling this into state block grants to consolidate grant programs, decrease competitiveness, and increase funded projects that are more likely to succeed; state-run grant programs can better identify successful projects than federally-run ones.
*Improve FMPP, LFPP, RFSP Grants to make them simpler, more accessible, easier to understand, and provide greater support to applicants and potential applicants, and increase funding to BIPOC-led organizations and regions of the country that have received fewer grants historically. Specific changes would include:
-A simplified application process for grants (likely under a set dollar amount)
-Reduce or eliminate match requirements; or allow in-kind match for all grant programs
-Build a mechanism (likely modeled after “centers for excellence in GusNIP”) to provide assistance and training to grantees and potential grantees, to review and report on FMPP grant impacts, and conduct analysis in the field of farmers' markets
*Define farmers' markets as essential infrastructure in the Critical Infrastructure Workers Guidance.

National Organic Program (NOP):
National Organic Program is a regulatory program housed within the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service. We are responsible for developing national standards for organically produced agricultural products. These standards assure consumers that products with the USDA organic seal meet consistent, uniform standards.

* Recommend mandatory funding for the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program is reauthorized with $11.5m/year.