Report on the Termination of the Regional Food Business Center Program and its Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Marketing Service has announced the termination of the Regional Food Business Center (RFBC) program. This decision directly impacts federal initiatives designed to strengthen local food systems and support small to medium-sized agricultural enterprises, presenting significant setbacks to the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Program Background and Termination

The Mandate of the Regional Food Business Centers

The RFBC program was established to foster resilience and equity in local and regional food systems. Its core objectives were directly aligned with key SDGs:

• Strengthening Food Supply Chains: By supporting local producers and processors, the program aimed to create more robust and shorter supply chains, a critical component of ensuring food security (SDG 2: Zero Hunger) and building resilient communities (SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities).
• Improving Access to Local Foods: The initiative facilitated easier consumer access to fresh, local foods, contributing to better nutrition and public health outcomes (SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being).
• Fostering Economic Growth: Through grants and technical assistance, the centers promoted entrepreneurship and sustainable livelihoods for small-scale farmers and food businesses (SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth).

The Heartland Regional Food Business Center

Operating since 2023, the Heartland Regional Food Business Center served Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, and northwest Arkansas. It functioned as a collaborative partnership (SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals) involving 14 key regional partners. The center’s primary function was to distribute federal funds and connect businesses with resources to scale their operations, identify markets, and improve logistics, thereby advancing responsible production patterns (SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production). The Heartland Center will cease normal operations on September 15.

Impacts of Program Cancellation on Sustainable Development

Economic Setbacks and Food Security (SDG 2 & SDG 8)

The termination has led to the cancellation of the second round of Business Builder grants, withdrawing a planned $8.3 million in funding for the region. While the 90 projects in the first round will receive their allocated $3.7 million, the cancellation represents a significant loss of investment in the local food economy.

1. Missed Economic Opportunity: The program was created to help farmers and ranchers capitalize on the business opportunity of selling directly to consumers. Its termination curtails support for local entrepreneurship and economic diversification in rural areas.
2. Threat to Small Producer Viability: Small producers often face significant barriers to market entry. The center provided crucial coordination and resources, and its absence will make it harder for these businesses to grow and remain viable, undermining efforts to support small-scale food producers as outlined in SDG 2.

Disruption to Resilient Food Systems and Community Well-being (SDG 3, SDG 11, & SDG 12)

The RFBC program was a strategic response to supply chain vulnerabilities exposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, aiming to build national security through decentralized, local food systems.

• Weakened Supply Chain Resilience: The program’s goal was to reduce dependence on long, complex supply chains. Its cancellation removes a key mechanism for building local capacity to feed communities, particularly during supply shocks.
• Negative Health Implications: A stated goal of the program was to improve public health by promoting the consumption of fresh, local foods over processed alternatives. The loss of support for these local food systems is a setback for public health initiatives (SDG 3).
• Hindrance to Sustainable Consumption: Businesses like Robinette Farms, a grant recipient, focus on production methods that “improve human and environmental health.” The program was tailored to support such businesses, and its termination weakens the infrastructure promoting responsible consumption and production (SDG 12).

Case Study: Robinette Farms

A Beneficiary’s Perspective

Robinette Farms, a food producer and aggregator in Martell, Nebraska, was a recipient of a Business Builder grant. The farm’s mission aligns with sustainable development by producing vegetables and grass-fed beef while partnering with other local businesses. Co-owner Alex McKiernan stated, “this grant really is tailored to businesses like ours that are trying to get local foods to local consumers.” The grant funds were designated for marketing, distribution, and delivery infrastructure, directly supporting the farm’s capacity to contribute to a sustainable local food system. The owners expressed disappointment, viewing the program’s cancellation as a “missed opportunity to support farmers and ranchers and also food consumers in Nebraska.”

Future Outlook

Rationale and Farmer Response

The USDA justified the termination by labeling the RFBC a “pandemic-era, Biden program” created without a plan for long-term funding. This decision, along with cuts to other initiatives like the Local Food for Schools program, has caused frustration among farmers who are concerned about a perceived shift in USDA priorities away from small farms and local food production.

Sustaining Collaborative Efforts (SDG 17)

Despite the loss of federal funding, partners of the Heartland Center are exploring ways to continue their support for local food businesses. However, co-director Mary Emery noted that “work is harder to sustain without some resources to support it.” While limited support will be available to existing grantees through August 2026, the termination of the central program undermines the collaborative structure that was effectively advancing regional sustainable development goals.

Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

Explanation

The article discusses the cancellation of the Regional Food Business Center (RFBC) program, a federal initiative designed to support local food systems. The program’s objectives and the impacts of its termination connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that focus on food security, economic growth, sustainable communities, responsible production, and partnerships.

• SDG 2: Zero Hunger: The program’s core mission to strengthen local food supply chains, support small-scale farmers, and improve access to fresh, local food directly addresses the goal of ending hunger and promoting sustainable agriculture.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: By providing grants and business development resources to small and medium-sized food businesses, the program aimed to foster entrepreneurship and support the economic viability of local enterprises.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The initiative worked to strengthen the economic and social links between rural food producers and consumers, contributing to more resilient and sustainable local and regional food systems.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The emphasis on local food systems promotes shorter supply chains, which can reduce food loss and support more sustainable production and consumption patterns.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The structure of the RFBC, particularly the Heartland Center, exemplifies a multi-stakeholder partnership involving government agencies, universities, and private businesses to achieve common goals.

What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Explanation

The article provides specific details about the RFBC program’s activities and goals, which align directly with several SDG targets.

1. Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers… The article states the program “provides grants to small and medium-sized local farm and food businesses” and helps them “grow your business in farm production or food processing.” This directly supports the goal of improving the economic standing of small producers like Robinette Farms.
2. Target 2.4: By 2030, ensure sustainable food production systems and implement resilient agricultural practices… The program was established to “strengthen food supply chains” and address vulnerabilities exposed by COVID-19, thus building resilience. The mention of a grant recipient being “passionate about the fact that the food we eat can improve human and environmental health” also points toward sustainable practices.
3. Target 8.3: Promote development-oriented policies that support… entrepreneurship… and encourage the formalization and growth of micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, including through access to financial services. The RFBC program is a clear example of such a policy, providing “Business Builder grants” and technical assistance to help small food businesses break into the market and grow.
4. Target 11.a: Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning. The program is explicitly regional, with the “Heartland Regional Food Business Center” serving six states to “get product from the farm… to wherever those consumers are,” thereby strengthening rural-consumer links.
5. Target 12.3: By 2030, halve per capita global food waste… and reduce food losses along production and supply chains… By creating shorter, more direct supply chains to “get food directly to consumers,” the program helps reduce the potential for food loss that occurs in “very complicated, long supply chains.”
6. Target 17.17: Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships… The Heartland Center is described as a “strong, collaborative effort with 14 key partners across the Midwest,” including the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (a public entity) and various food businesses (private sector), funded by the USDA (public). This is a model of a public-private partnership.

Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

Explanation

The article contains several quantitative and qualitative data points that can serve as indicators to measure the program’s activities and impact, thereby tracking progress toward the identified SDG targets.

1. Financial resources provided to small-scale producers: The article specifies the amount of grant money distributed and planned. An indicator would be the total value of grants. The article states, “$3.7 million will be divided among” the first-round grantees, out of a planned “$12 million in Business Builder grants.”
2. Number of small enterprises supported: Progress can be measured by counting the number of businesses receiving support. The article mentions, “Ninety projects were chosen for the first-round grants.”
3. Number of partners in multi-stakeholder collaborations: The strength of partnerships can be measured by the number of participating entities. The article notes the Heartland Center was a “collaborative effort with 14 key partners.”
4. Investment in resilient infrastructure: The article implies this indicator by stating that the grant funds for Robinette Farms “will be focused on marketing, distribution and delivery infrastructure,” which is crucial for building resilient local food systems.
5. Establishment of direct producer-to-consumer links: The success of shortening supply chains can be measured by the creation of systems that “get food directly to consumers.” The article highlights this as a primary goal of the grant program.

Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: iowapublicradio.org