|
|
Sustainable Ag |
|
|
|
Local organizations question sustainability process USDA defines Sustainable Agriculture A growing debate about the meaning and application of sustainable agriculture raises more questions than it answers, about what is sustainable and who decides. An attempt to define sustainable agriculture and impose national certification on the industry -- with little input from farmers and ranchers -- met with resistance. A letter from four Central Coast agricultural organizations raises questions about development of sustainability standards. The April 25, 2008, letter was signed by Kay Filice, chairwoman of Grower-Shipper Association of Central California, Jason Smith, president of Monterey County Farm Bureau, George Bonacich, president of San Benito County Farm Bureau, and Steve Bontadelli, president of Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau. Copies of the letter were provided to the American National Standards Institute, Scientific Certification Systems, University of California’s Davis Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems Project, UC’s Agricultural Issues Center, and the California Institute of Food and Agricultural Research. Their letter states: A working group made up of local industry representatives is regularly meeting and reviewing the Sustainable Agricultural Practice Standard as proposed by SCS and the process for vetting these standards among stakeholders. These standards present a great opportunity for our industry to become a part of this national movement, to illustrate to buyers and consumers our philanthropic spirit and environmental stewardship. However, we have concerns with the process that’s already taken place in creating draft standards and the proposed course of action for finalizing these standards. In their current form these draft standards would be impossible for almost any grower in our valley to meet and still remain economically viable. First and foremost, the development of the proposed draft standards and the process for creating standards is flawed. There appears to be a direct conflict of interest when the certifying agency proposes the standards that it intends to be certifying. The draft standard was formed by SCS, then a process was developed, and finally the industry and stakeholders that the process affects were included. This process should have begun with industry and stakeholder collaboration and then a procedure for generating and approving the standards should have been created and development vetted at various intervals among the industries and stakeholders who will carry out these standards. The various stakeholders should have an opportunity to contribute to the formation of the process that will be creating these standards, including deciding how many people from each segment of the industry are involved, which subcommittees are formed, and the approval policies. The allocation of committee seats and the scope of the standard approval process must be fair, equitable and agreed on by all of the stakeholders. At this time producers make up only ¼ of the committee seats, yet they are the ones who will have to make changes to their farming practices to meet sustainability standards. This is not an equitable distribution of committee seats and a fair process is completely unattainable under these circumstances. We are also concerned that the current manner of educating the industry about this process and the draft standard is not reaching all parties. What is ANSI’s method for alerting the industry? Are trade associations and farm bureaus engaged? Are you alerting trade publications such as The Packer, The Produce News, Ag Alert, etc. to your process? It’s absolutely essential that specialty crops are represented during draft standard discussions. According to the California Department of Food and Agriculture, specialty crops make up 53 percent of the total value of crops grown in the United States (2004 statistic). Specialty crops cover a national geography, and must be represented as such. The approach must review regional and commodity-specific standards; obviously one size does not fit all. The differences in climate, soil, cropping pattern, land use standards, water and air quality requirements, and the diverse number of specialty crops grown in California and throughout the rest of the nation requires a major overhaul of this document and the process. It is disappointing that this document automatically assumes that organic production is sustainable while conventional is not. This notion is inaccurate and has never been validated. Organic and conventional producers should have the opportunity to come together and create a fresh draft collaboratively, not start from a point that is favoring organic production to the detriment of conventional. The current draft standards for sustainability have not taken into account industry food safety standards, and are actually in direct conflict with them in some cases. Given the overriding importance of food safety, we feel this oversight exemplifies our conclusion that this proposed process of establishing sustainability standards is flawed. Had a dialogue occurred among stakeholders before the draft was created the creators would have realized that these standards are contradicting state policies. We must address how to meet sustainability standards without conflicting with current legislation and growing practices in California and other states. We look forward to being a part of this process when the above concerns are addressed. California agriculture is made up of generous and environmentally minded growers, shippers and processors. California has the most stringent water, pesticide use and air quality regulations in the nation. Our agriculturalists pay amongst the highest wages and are the most socially responsible and philanthropic community members in their growing regions. California growers believe in sustainability and on a daily basis they balance the elements of environmental protection, social equity and economic feasibility. The more we continue to understand the current process the more questions we have. Our overarching concern is that the ANSI process as proposed will be unable to represent all of the diverse needs and voices of agricultural producers throughout California, let alone the United States and the process is not inclusive. California agriculture is already meeting many of the requirements in this document yet there are certain standards that are unrealistic for any farming operation. We must recreate this process and create a new set of draft standards with involvement by all stakeholders to take into account economic feasibility and regional needs if we’re ever going to have a national standard that meets the needs of all United States growers.
USDA defines Sustainable Agriculture The United States Department of Agriculture already published a definition of sustainable agriculture in the 1990 Farm Bill: Board established in section 1408A.". You can find the definition above in Section 6 of the 1990 Farm Bill on the National Agricultural Law Center as a PDF (3mb) at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/farmbills/1990-6.pdf The National Agricultural Law Center offers the full text and resources for all U. S. Farm Bills since 1933 at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/farmbills/ You can also find the definition on USDA's website on the last page of a PDF (1.5mb) document at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/aib624/aib624d.pdf, which is actually page 80 of a document published by the USDA Economic Research Service beginning at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aib624/ |
|
|