Agriculture Reference
In-Depth Information
regional or a statewide scale. That was an ambitious scaling up from
previous pest-management planning efforts. The DPR wanted to facili-
tate the implementation of reduced risk practices by emphasizing the
whole pest-management system while building stronger relationships
with industry groups.
18
The Pest Management Alliance program is the first and only state pes-
ticide agency-initiated pest-management extension effort in the United
States. Between 1998 and 2002, the DPR sponsored eight PMA grants
that qualify as multi-year partnerships.
19
In contrast to the place-based
BIFS model, which emphasizes growers' participation, the PMA partner-
ships are based on the public/private industry partnerships developed
between the USEPA and manufacturers using the USEPA's language of
risk assessment and reduction. The PMA program was designed to work
extensively with commodity groups on a statewide basis to focus applied
scientific research on pest management. Before applying for a PMA
grant, a commodity group is required to undertake an evaluation of an
existing pest-management system. PMA partnerships provide funding
and direction to commodity organizations, which recruit UC Farm
Advisors, who work with individual growers to manage comparison
blocks with “soft” pesticides. Farm Advisors usually pick growers whom
they have known for years or decades.
The PMA program does not articulate any alternative strategies for
developing or extending alternative knowledge. The PMA partnerships
insert newer, alternative, soft pesticides into conventional models of
extension, which in some cases have helped reduce pesticide use. The
program carries forward the assumption that innovative, alternative
practices are developed by UC scientists, not growers, and that growers
participate in partnerships through commodity organizations. Some
commodity organizations, however, have adopted an integrated farming
systems approach.
The DPR and PMA partnerships cope with the same UC bias against
practical, applied environmental problem solving research that CAFF
and others had noted. UC leadership had complained that CAFF was
taking resources for research and extension that should rightly flow to
the university, that all SAREP's funds should be under their direct
control, and that state dollars used to support PMA research should
properly be allocated by UC. DPR staffers note that most of their scien-
tists are the product of the UC system and many have been trained in the
