How to Win the Public Policy Debate, and the Annual Government Agency Funding Battles for the Bioeconomy
by Craig (CJ) Evans (American Diversified Energy Consulting Services/Lee Enterprises Consulting/Biofuels Digest) More than almost any other industry, financing for the bioeconomy is heavily influenced by and, in many cases, reliant on favorable public policies. Everyone involved in the bioeconomy – companies, entrepreneurs, visionaries, vendors, employees, and local communities – should be aware of, keep track of, and speak up for their interests about public policy issues that affect the bioeconomy.
This goes for all issues related to the bioeconomy. Some companies advocate aggressively for a single issue, such as the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS), but are missing in action on other issues. Federal support (and state support as well) is made up of a network of programs. Lose one program, and opponents become emboldened. They step up attacks on other programs, and support for the bioeconomy begins to weaken through a process of attrition.
…
It’s a jobs issue. It’s also a local tax revenue and economic development issue. And it’s a global competitive issue.
…
I often am stunned by how few companies in the bioeconomy industry and, in particular, how few communities that can benefit from bioeconomy projects, give adequate – or any – attention to the funding changes, threats, and opportunities that arise with each state and Congressional legislative session.
…
More than $25 billion in bioeconomy funding at the federal level almost was lost this year due to complacency.
…
The programs targeted are those that fund research and development, piloting and prototyping, and commercialization of new bioeconomy technologies, products, and projects. The same programs also are key to maintaining U.S. leadership in technological innovation and our nation’s competitiveness in the global market.
…
When I began meeting with Congressional staff at the beginning of the (2017) August recess, I learned that, in far too many cases, I was the first person to visit their offices to discuss several programs, or only the second or third person who had taken time to explain the value of these programs and the impact their loss would have on the economies of local communities and the U.S. This was five months after the FY2018 budget process had started.
…
I joined forces with the coalition, developed by Taite McDonald of Holland Knight, Mark Riedy of Kilpatrick Townsend, and other industry leaders, and took on a principal role in visiting offices on Capitol Hill. The coalition and I worked together to develop a one-page list of bullet points showing how the majority of these programs more than pay for themselves, generate revenues for the U.S. Treasury, and stimulate private investment, all of which exceed the cost of these programs and any savings that could be realized by eliminating them.
These arguments finally turned the tide.
…
Next stop for the Farm Bill is floor debate and passage in the Senate, followed by conferencing of the House- and Senate-passed bills to resolve differences. It is too late to do anything about these funding levels. There is only one option now: to make an all-out effort to influence the House and Senate conferees to allow the Senate language for these two programs to prevail … and hope for the best.
Here’s the lesson to be learned
Every person’s voice is important. Each person who reaches out to his or her policymakers can make a difference. Assuming someone else will do it is a mistake. The more people who reach out, and the more people who take the time to craft and make a quick, easy-to-understand, compelling argument to support their views and requests, the better.
…
I can be much more effective if I walk into a meeting to discuss a subject that has become a hot issue, or that members of Congress and their staffs have been hearing about. You can be much more effective in those circumstances as well.
It is much harder – and often impossible – to make a difference when I am the only person trying to raise an issue, especially if the administration, other lobbyists, and members of Congress are trying to rip it apart.
Encouraging others to reach out and generate calls are key parts of any legislative strategy.
Here’s how to be effective
Lobbying involves education, psychology, networking, ally- and relationship-building, creating a bullet proof case built on a solid foundation of verifiable data, and making well reasoned, easily understood, compelling arguments for policies that will have a positive effect and against policies that will have a negative effect.
The best arguments are those that demonstrate how jobs, wages, and the economies of communities will be impacted in a congressional member’s district or state.
…