Legislative Update: Status of ADC Reform Bills
Thank you for taking action this legislative session to support good food and agriculture policy in Hawaiʻi!
We are at that time in the legislative session when House and Senate bills have either moved through all their committees in both chambers or they have failed to get a committee hearing somewhere and “died”.
SB2473 SD2 HD2, a bill that HAPA opposes, is the only measure left that aims to reform the imperiled Agribusiness Development Corporation (ADC). Senator Dela Cruz, who also serves as the Chair of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means (WAM), did not schedule our preferred ADC reform bill, HB2418 HD2, for its final committee hearing in WAM.
HAPA strongly supported HB2418 HD2 because it provided a comprehensive approach to addressing the failures of the ADC. The bill included real metrics that would’ve made ADC lands more accessible to smaller-scale, sustainable food producers.
SB2473 SD2 HD2, the remaining bill introduced by Senator Dela Cruz, largely avoids the deeper reforms needed to address the ADC’s failures. It transfers the ADC from the Department of Agriculture (DOA) to the Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT).
HAPA strongly OPPOSES this provision because It does not make sense to further alienate the ADC from agricultural expertise. While some business expertise should guide the work of the ADC it does not need to be moved to DBEDT to access business acumen. The ADC needs to be more connected to and informed by the needs of our local food producers, not less so.
WHAT DOES SB2473 SD2 HD2 DO?
This bill moves the ADC from under the purview of the Department of Agriculture (DOA) to the Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT). The following amendments were also added to the bill:
The mandate of the agency will be adjusted to include more of a focus on food production for local consumption.
Increases oversight of the Executive Director and encourages them to engage more with local farmers/food producers in the creation of the strategic agribusiness plan.
While we do agree with these amendments, these provisions do not have the same accountability and specificity as the HB2418 HD2.
WHAT IS MISSING IN SB2473 SD2 HD2?
Expanded Board Expertise
The audit of the ADC cited a lack of agricultural expertise as one problem with the agency. HB2418 HD2 would have expanded the ADC board to include a food producer engaged in sustainable/regenerative farming practices and a seat for a traditional and customary Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner. The ADC’s approach to agriculture has largely favored industrial, genetically engineered, and large-scale conventional ag. Leases are large in scale and are home to some of the heaviest restricted-use pesticide usage in Hawaiʻi. Having a producer engaged in regenerative practices and a Native Hawaiian cultural practitioner, such as a taro farmer, could have brought a more balanced perspective to the governance of the agency.
Leveling The Playing Field For Small-Scale, Sustainable Food Producers
Another key finding in the audit of the ADC was the lack of a clear inventory of its lands, as well as an unfair process for potential tenants to apply for leases/licenses.
To learn more, please review “Doing Business by Handshake” located on page 20 of the ADC Audit
HB2418 HD2 would have required a certain percentage of leases to be 20 acres or less. A certain percentage of ADC lands would have been dedicated to producing food for local consumption in accordance with the principles of sustainable agriculture. The bill would have also set a timeline for getting its lands leased for local food production.
ADC leases are currently much larger in scale and not accessible to most local food producers. As stated above, the ADC has favored large tenants such as agrochemical tenants and large conventional producers which rely on heavy pesticide usage.
The agency has also repeatedly dismissed smaller producers as “unviable”. Perhaps it is less burdensome for the agency to deal with fewer, larger tenants. However, this bias further exacerbates the unfair advantage that its agrochemical tenants receive at the federal and local levels.
GE corn and soy already enjoy generous federal subsidies. Additionally, GE crops are not taxed in Hawaiʻi (GE tax).
ADC land and water access have become just another public subsidy that benefits corporate interests. We believe that access to our public lands and waters should be prioritized for the public good, not corporate profit.
Even after receiving much less government support, some of the most innovative ag enterprises in Hawaiʻi are utilizing aggregation through food hubs and other types of cooperative models to provide small-scale producers with access to larger markets and government procurement. If guidance was sought out from ag innovators on its board and in its strategic planning process, the ADC could seek ways to foster similar cooperative models with members sharing larger infrastructure costs.
Despite the unfortunate news about the ADC, there are some significant bright spots this session in terms of our lawmakers prioritizing greater support for our ag sector.
Stay tuned for a follow-up email on what good food and ag bills are still alive. Together, we can fight for a more just and sustainable Hawaiʻi.
Check out the recent coverage of the ADC in the News:
