Inscrease funding for the Organic Cost Share Program

The most fundamental problem with the cost share program is the amount of reimbursement.

This was exacerbated by the 2020 funding cut. Organic certification is no small feat. It involves record keeping, detailed planning, clear comprehension of regulations and input requirements, as well as a three-year transition period of organic practices without the benefits from organic premiums.

The cost of organic certification (and inspection) comes on top of these investments. While average certification costs vary by state and range up to $5,000 a year in some states, the average cost of certification is $2,813.16 which is a dramatic increase of more than 85% from 2012 when the national average was only $1,516.

This increase in certification costs is directly linked to increased oversight and verification protocols to protect organic integrity. In those years organic certifiers have strengthened systems to prevent fraud and implemented additional regulations.

To keep up with this increased cost of certification, total funding for the OCCSP should be increased to meet 75% of certification costs, up to $1,500 per scope while reimbursing broader costs like transition, soil testing, technical assistance and more.

Further, the program should prioritize Historically Underserved operations that would benefit the most from the cost share. The 2018 Farm Bill definition of Historically Underserved includes socially disadvantaged, beginning, limited resource, and veteran farmers and ranchers. These producers should be prioritized by giving them first access to funds and/or providing them higher cost share levels.

In the Oregon Tilth Client Farm Bill Feedback Survey, many respondents noted the cost of certification as a barrier. One respondent wrote that the cost of certification and inspection is “staggering & stifling for [a] smaller farmer,” with another respondent claiming certification and inspection costs are simply “Way too expensive,” especially considering how producers “must pay travel costs [of] inspectors.” It was also noted that the cost share program has to be significant enough in order to merit all of the paperwork and effort that is required.

Jacobs Farm del Cabo Photo by Francisco Salas

Moreover, similar conclusions were found in the 2017 report, Breaking New Ground: Farmer Perspectives on Organic Transition, conducted jointly by Oregon Tilth andOregon State University’s

Center for Small Farms & Community Food Systems. The Breaking New Ground report is based on survey responses from over 600 farmers who had identified as transitioning to organic between 2010 and 2015. Those surveyed were grouped into four different categories: one hundred percent certified organic farms, farms transitioning to organic, split farms (part organic and part non-organic), or farms not pursuing organic farming. The report concluded the cost of organic certification was a major obstacle for 43.2% of all respondents 8 . The cost of organic certification is simultaneously an impediment for those already certified organic and prevents producers from becoming certified organic in the first place.

The National Organic Research Agenda is a report released by the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) every five years and informed by surveys and focus groups made up of both certified organic producers and those transitioning to organic.

The concept that certification cost is a barrier to producers is further reflected within the 2022 National Organic Research Agenda (NORA) 9 . The NORA report specifically recommends increasing the per-farm reimbursement limit of the cost share program, maintaining that in order to increase support to organic producers and farmers during the organic transition, it is recommended to “Increase total funding and [the] per-farm funding limit for the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program (NOCCSP)”. This is notable because, as revealed in the report, certification costs and recordkeeping requirements both posed challenges for one-quarter to one-third of all respondents.

The time, labor, and cost necessary to become certified organic is noteworthy and should be better supported, in recognition of the multiple benefits organic practices and products offer.

Although the USDA attempted to remedy someof the cost share funds lost in 2020 with theintroduction of the Organic and TransitionalEducation and Certification Program (OTECP) in

2021 and 2022, the complexity of the two separateapplications for one year of cost share has deterredapplicants. Further, the program is set to expire atthe end of this year, leaving organic producers witha mere 50% or up to $500 per scope reimbursement.

To put the funding solution plainly, as onerespondent wrote in the Oregon Tilth Client FarmBill Feedback Survey, the cost share programneeds “More funding, [and a] simpler application,”making “it as easy as possible for people to do theright thing.” After speaking with representativesfrom various organic certifiers and various StateDepartments of Agriculture, it appears increasingfunding levels is a widely accepted solution.We maintain that funding levels should be increasedso that maximum reimbursement is 75% ofcertification costs or $1,500 per scope and fundingexpands to cover costs of transitional certification,soil testing, and more.

Photo courtesy of USDA