Sustainability: A Tradition of Grassroots Participation

(Editor's Note: After 11 years, Bill Liebhardt steps down as director of SAREP on June 30 to return to Extension work in the Department of Agronomy and Range Science at UC Davis.)

Eleven years ago I started these conversations with those of you who read our newsletter; this will be my last one. I have always tried to be straight and honest in my conversations, even when it was controversial, and I will try to keep to that standard here. In 1986 California legislation was passed (Petris SB872) which gave birth to this program. When I came here from the Rodale Research Center in Pennsylvania to direct SAREP, I read the legislation many times; I have continued to use it as the guiding principle for our actions here. The legislation was crafted by the people of California who were especially concerned about the sustainability of this state’s agriculture: family farmers and ranchers, organic growers, environmentalists and consumers who had a different vision for the state. They wanted a change in the status quo for research and education efforts in the UC system. Their actions, were, in a large sense, a call by the citizens of California to those of us in the land grant system to get back to the business of the people. It made many inside and outside the system unhappy because it questioned the track we were on; those tensions remain today.

Many of the farmers and ranchers who helped create SAREP are around today helping us develop research and information. They have let me know when they think we’re off base. Some of these farmers are advisers on major experiments on the UC Davis campus, including the Long Term Research on Agricultural Systems project and the Sustainable Agriculture Farming Systems project. They are involved in the Biologically Integrated Orchard Systems (BIOS) or Biologically Integrated Farming Systems (BIFS) programs and others that stress biological and soil-building approaches in farming systems, and which include diverse management teams of farmers, researchers, Cooperative Extension personnel, and pest control advisers.

There is still much work to be done; SAREP’s grants budget is strained yet there is a huge need for research on crop and animal farming systems that are more biologically based and that improve the sustainability of our rural and urban communities. I am personally troubled by the gap between the richest and poorest sections of our society; the inequities show up clearly in the rural farming communities where many are hungry and lack decent housing. I wonder at times if the message of sustainability can be translated into reality for all of us.

I was heartened recently, however, by the fight over the proposed USDA organic standards. Why would a fight raise my spirits about sustainability? In its initial draft of the rule, the USDA essentially ignored seven years of study and input from farmers, environmentalists, retailers, scientists, consumers and the experience of state certifying agencies, and would have included genetically engineered crops, irradiated foods, and the use of municipal sludge in its new organic criteria. On the face of it, it looked like corporate special interests were once again going to win out over the wishes of the grassroots farming community. The organic share of the food market basket is still small, although its revenues now are more than $4 billion a year, and most of the farmers who supply this alternative to consumers are small-scale.

Yet there was a huge outcry during the USDA’s extended 120-day public comment period on the proposed standards. More than 200,000 public criticisms were received–the largest community reaction in USDA history.

No matter how the proposed regulations are finally worded, this tremendous response on the part of thousands of individuals concerned for the land, their farms and families and for the food they produce, shows that they won’t be silenced and give up their participation and power in the legislative process. For me, this is incredibly hopeful–and a good case for sustainability.

Those of us within the university are also struggling with the influence of corporate sponsorship and influence: We are encouraged to be entrepreneurial–seek out funds and work with the private sector. It is a trend here at the UC and across the country. Universities are doing this because there is a lack of money from public sources. "Privatizing" is the battle cry in our country today. I fear that in our rush to obtain short-term funding and resources, we will sell out the basic reasons that universities exist. We learned the corrupting influence of the military-industrial complex, but I think the university-industrial-governmental complex is more dangerous to our society, as everything will be driven by the corporate agenda. The business of universities is becoming the business of the corporate agenda. Is that what we want?

As always, there is still much to do regarding the organic standards and the many other issues that face us in our quest for agricultural sustainability here in California and beyond. I hope the power of individuals across the country can inspire thousands of people right here in California to demand and get the best sustainable research and information that is available. Good luck to us all. —Bill Liebhardt, director, University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program.