Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
California Sustainable Agriculture Working Group prevented this from
coming to pass, but UC will try again. Agroecological partnerships
brought less than a million dollars annually in extramural funds between
1994 and 2004. Relative to private sector grants for agricultural biotech-
nology research, alternative agriculture just does not pay enough. UC's
active efforts to suppress dedicated IPM and sustainable agriculture
programs seem all the more petty in this context of their modest costs.
The University of California's lack of interest in agroecological initia-
tives is ironic in at least three ways. First, UC now operationally defines
its primary clients as input suppliers, not growers, taking Charles
Woodworth's recommendation of a century ago to an extreme. Second,
UC denies a role for public interest NGOs in setting its agenda, even
though it is substantially supported by public funds. Third, it solicits
private industry funds—and their strings—that compromise its public
interest charter while actively working to squelch legislative public funds
that would advance its public mission. UC leaders often behave as
though they were beyond the reach of legislative input and oversight.
Given the history of public criticism of LGU research impacts, the
unwillingness of UC leadership to support agroecological partnerships is
all the more scandalous.
Other major farming states, such as Florida and Texas, do not even
have alternative agriculture programs, and the public extension services
in many other states are being dismantled due to budgetary pressures
and the inability of public officials to recognize the public good provided
by them. Agriculture varies tremendously by crop and region, and so do
LGUs. Agroecological initiatives will have to take these differences into
account.
For the immediate future, agroecological initiatives will be organized
and animated by leading growers and their groups. Partnerships are
thriving among winegrape organizations, and some practices promoted
by pear and almond partnerships have apparently been adopted widely
by growers. But these represent privatized, or at least semi-privatized
initiatives, and the difficulties they report in securing the work of public
scientists defies common sense. Agroecology will never break out of its
jacket of “alternative agriculture” without sustained efforts to engage
agricultural science institutions. Non-governmental organizations will
have to find new ways to mobilize the public to pressure these public
