The purpose of NOFA-NY’s policy work is to advocate for sustainable, local, organic food and farm systems. Our advocacy efforts are grounded in the principles of organic agriculture, health, ecology, fairness, and care, established by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM).
Policy Resolutions
Each year NOFA-NY members vote on policy resolutions that guide the advocacy work of our organization.
Proposed policy resolutions are drafted and formally approved by both the member-based Policy Committee and the Board of Directors in the fall. The approved resolutions are then sent to our membership and posted on our website before a vote of the membership occurs at the annual meeting. A 2/3 majority vote is necessary to pass a resolution. Current members are encouraged to submit proposals for policy resolutions to be considered by the Policy Committee and Board of Directors. View all policy resolutions from years past here (PDF).
2025 NOFA-NY Policy Resolutions:
Whereas the purpose of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programs is to increase New York State’s capacity to mitigate, adapt to, and weather the effects of climate change by increasing understanding of how we can grow food and regenerate ecosystems;
And whereas, in 2019 New York State passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act (Climate Act), which requires the state to reduce economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 40% by 2030 and no less than 85% by 2050;
And whereas, to implement this act, the Climate Action Council’s Scoping Plan, finalized in late 2022, includes a chapter on agriculture and forestry that, among other strategies, recommends a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) program for agriculture (AF16) and charges the Department of Agriculture and Markets with finding a funding source and designing a program “that will sustain our natural capital providing ecosystem services of water quality, flood resilience, and climate stability and includes fair compensation for program participants;”
And whereas, the Climate Act recognizes that the burdens of climate change fall more heavily on lower-income residents of the state and requires that at least 35%—with a goal of 40%—of the benefits from the State’s investments be directed to the most disadvantaged communities (DACS), which as defined by the Climate Justice Working Group includes many small-scale farmers, farmworkers, and BIPOC farm and food workers;
And whereas, climate justice advocates recognize Indigenous traditional knowledge and local ecological knowledge as central to any long-term strategy for withstanding future shocks, droughts, floods and violent storms resulting from climate change and warn against false solutions, particularly those, such as anaerobic digesters added to manure pits with caps, and unregulated carbon markets, that provide few if any benefits to small farmers practicing regenerative land use methods while enabling large-scale conventional farming operations and the corporations they supply to continue generating fossil fuel emissions by trading carbon offsets. As the Climate Justice Working Group identifies in their 2021 response to the Draft Scoping Plan, there are much more sustainable alternatives to this type of manure storage and handling. We join their call to “fund transformative practices upstream of manure storage and towards practices that smaller producers can adopt.”
And whereas, various goals of PES are biodiversity, ecological function, clear water, clean air, species richness, conservation, and farming within nature, we must be careful to not let it lead to (and stop at) what seem to be easily reached goals of carbon sequestration and large scale commodity favoritism. It has been suggested that “small holdings” with their rich diversity can have just as much environmental value as large tracts of land with lesser diversity.
And whereas, a scientific review of over 1000 studies of PES programs found that PES programs can be “hyped as a proposed solution to ecological challenges, often without any credible evidence.” However, the Finger Lakes Payment for Ecosystem Services Plot Program and the Vermont Agency of Agriculture’s Payment for Ecosystem Services and Soil Health Working Group report provide detailed examinations of program design possibilities and limitations.
And whereas, PES programs that are initiated and driven by communities or community members in collaboration with farmers or landowners are more successful and longer lasting when compared to programs that are started and funded by outside private interests.
Therefore, members of NOFA-NY resolve that a Payment for Ecosystem Services program should:
- Include opportunities for networking and collective learning that are built on a common understanding and interest in protecting and enhancing ecosystems and supporting farm viability
- Support building relationships among farmers, and between farmers and other community members, and with governmental representatives, and supporting agencies
- Prioritize the participation of socially and economically disadvantaged farmers and small and mid-sized farms and be designed with meaningful input from diverse stakeholders including socially and economically disadvantaged farmers and other groups of farmers who are less engaged in state-run agricultural programs like farmworkers, small farms, and organic farms
- Be set at a geographic scale that ensures shared ecological interests of participants and beneficiaries such as a watershed or local foodshed
- Be regularly evaluated and improved with consistent, transparent, publicly available program reports and ongoing opportunities for feedback and stakeholder engagement
- Include multiple points of entry and incentives to engage in the program including benefits for both experienced agroecological and organic farmers and for beginning farmers or those working to improve depleted soils and habitats
- Provide a pathway for participants to become USDA-certified organic
- Utilize public federal and state climate funding in the initial years of the program and ultimately aim to become self-sustaining
- Engage participating farms in research to deepen our understanding of how farmers, farms, and farming methods contribute to ecological health and community well-being– while published publicly as appropriate, the data collected should be owned by the farmers themselves
Whereas plastics are used widely in organic production, and plastics degrade into microplastics (fragments of less than 5 millimeters); and nanoplastics (fragments smaller than one micrometer);
And whereas, recent peer-reviewed research has documented the ubiquitousness of micro and nanoplastics in agricultural soils, rivers and streams, irrigation water, tap water, and bottled water as well as human bodies, including in the placentas of unborn babies, the first bowel movement of newborn babies, and people’s hearts, brains, and other organs;
And whereas, micro and nano plastics act as carriers of toxic synthetic chemicals, including endocrine disruptors and PFAS;
And whereas, micro and nanoplastics negatively affect the health soil microbial communities and their ecological functions, and microplastics can increase the spread of antibiotic resistance in the environment;
And whereas, soil organisms and plants have been shown to ingest microplastics and when animals consume plants containing microplastics or breathe in microplastics, they may end up in their flesh and organs or be excreted in their milk and manure;
And whereas, these tiny plastic particles persist in the environment for centuries or millennia;
And whereas, the health effects of micro and nanoplastics on the health of humans and other animals are of increasing concern, though this is an emerging research area and most toxicological studies on microplastics are based on animal research and human-derived cells;
And whereas, in the past few decades, the use of plastics in agriculture has become more prevalent; with agricultural plastics used by organic farmers including spun polyester and other row cover materials; insect exclusion netting; plastic trellises; round bale netting and square bale twine; plastic mulch; and silage tarps used to suppress weeds in some no-till systems; cell trays, 6-packs, nursery pots, and other seedling and plant production containers; as well as harvest crates, and product containers and other packaging;
And whereas, agricultural plastics also become a solid waste problem, when they are discarded; and waste incineration (and outdoor burning of plastics, which is prohibited in NYS) produces dioxin and other persistent organic pollutants, which contaminate soil, livestock, and crops, and pose significant environmental health risks; and most agricultural plastics cannot be truly recycled; and “chemical recycling” is a misleading term for a controversial process which generates large amounts of hazardous pollutants, and does not contribute to a circular economy. Landfilling is likely the least harmful option.
And whereas, farmers and handlers can properly dispose of any waste plastics that they generate by removing all agricultural plastics from farm fields after they are used; avoiding stockpiling, burying, or dumping waste plastic from any application on the farm; choosing the least hazardous method for disposing of waste agricultural plastic (currently shown to be landfilling); never burning plastic or allowing it to be taken to a trash incinerator/waste-to-energy facility or a chemical recycling facility which typically subjects waste plastic to pyrolysis, a form of incineration, and is not capable of producing recycled plastic.
Therefore, the members of NOFA-NY advocate for research into the primary sources of micro and nanoplastics on organic farms, research into practical ways to reduce or eliminate the use of plastics in all aspects of organic production and handling, and improved management and disposal of plastics in organic production to minimize the degradation of these plastics into micro and nanoplastics.
Whereas, food insecurity is widespread in both urban and rural areas of NYS, especially in households with children. In January 2024, the NYS Department of Health released a report on food insecurity, Self-Reported Food Insecurity Among New York State Adults by County, BRFSS 2021, which shows the counties with the highest rates of food insecurity among adults are the Bronx, Queens, Kings, Herkimer, and Oswego. Food insecurity is characterized by limited or uncertain access to adequate food due to limited economic resources. According to the report, approximately one in four adults (24.9 percent) in New York State experience food insecurity. Within New York State, the percentage of adults who report that they are food insecure varies by county and ranges from 11.2 percent to 39 percent. Adults experiencing food insecurity have a higher probability of several chronic diseases, including hypertension, coronary heart disease, diabetes, stroke, cancer, asthma, arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and kidney disease, the report indicated.
And whereas, the federal nutrition programs within the Farm Bill provide a critical safety net for the 1 in 4 people in New York who experience food insecurity. The reauthorization of these programs by Congress provides an opportunity to improve and strengthen the way they work in New York and ensure all who are in need have equitable access to strong and responsive programs that improve nutrition security and local farm viability.
And whereas, farmers benefit from the produce sales paid for by nutrition programs which bring new low-income customers who seek healthier fresh food to farmers markets and CSAs. Direct sales cut out the middlemen and allow farmers to receive a larger portion of the food dollars. The NYS Department of Agriculture and Markets reports that in 2021, Fresh Connect Checks were issued at 87 market locations and 31 Division of Veterans Services offices in NYS, amounting to $538,478 in revenue for more than 500 farmers’ market vendors and farm stand operators.
And whereas, since 2014, Field & Fork Network’s Double Up Food Bucks has expanded from WNY to over 230 access points at farmers markets and grocery stores statewide. The program, which matches SNAP benefits dollar for dollar on fresh fruit and vegetable purchases, supports over 550 farms supplying their communities with affordable produce while being fully compensated.
And whereas, the NYS Enacted Budget for the fiscal year 2024 – 2025 included $54.3 million for the Nourish New York program (created during the pandemic to connect New York agricultural products with food banks serving those experiencing food insecurity). These funding levels reflect year-over-year increases of $1.3 million and $4.3 million, respectively.
And whereas, the members of NOFA-NY have previously resolved that the concept of Food Sovereignty (food as a basic human right, agrarian reform, protection of natural resources, domestic production and consumption of food, ending hunger, social peace, and democratic control), as understood by the world community, is in line with our basic principles and beliefs, and that NOFA-NY will support policy initiatives that promote food sovereignty for disadvantaged communities to ensure nutrition security for all;
Therefore, the members of NOFA-NY resolve that we strongly support increasing funding for state and federal nutrition programs that provide for the needs of food-insecure people by purchasing food grown by NY family-scale farmers improving food access and supporting food sovereignty in NY communities.
New York Organic Action Plan
After four decades of spreading organic food, farming, and gardening, NOFA-NY continues to pursue the vision of healthy communities, where everyone has access to fresh, locally grown food and the resources to produce. That goal led to the creation of the New York Organic Action Plan (NYOAP), using the National Organic Action Plan as a model. Volunteer members of the NOFA-NY Policy Committee set out in 2010 to coordinate a state version. To learn how you can support organic, check out the New York Organic Action Plan here.
Our Networks
NOFA-NY maintains membership within several organizations that work to grow a robust organic food and farm system regionally, nationally, and internationally. You can learn more about our partners by visiting their websites linked below.
NOFA-NY is a member of:
