Farming From the Heart: Problems and Possibilities – Farmer Participation with the USDA

by Chet Kendell of Ashton, ID

Over the last 20 or more years there has been increased emphasis at the USDA to involve farmers as participants in their work and research. Sometimes this participation has been legislatively mandated. A good example is Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE). The legislation which initiated SARE states directly that “representative farmers who utilize sustainable agriculture systems and practices” be included at all levels of administrative councils and review committees.⁽¹⁾ As farmers, we could help ourselves if we better understood the dynamics of participation, the problems and the possibilities.

I am certain my opinions are biased by my experience. While some farmers curse and spit when the USDA is mentioned, there are others who offer thanks. I am neither of these. For myself I have had two significant, yet very polar experiences with direct participation with the USDA. The real question, at least for me, is why those experiences were so different; and what determines the outcome when farmers and the USDA come together?

Let me explain. In 1997 I was having pollination problems on my farm. Typical of most fruit farmers I was bringing in contract honey bees for pollination. It wasn’t that the bees were dying; they just didn’t go to work in the cool early spring when the blossoms were out. Weeks later when they did emerge, the peak bloom was over. Then later when the hives were removed from the orchard the bees left behind were cross and prone to sting.

I had read of research on alternative pollinators being conducted by the USDA, ARS, Bee Biology Lab in Logan, Utah; I called and they came down, we talked and then talked again. Finally we entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA). It was a delight to have their staff on the farm and in our home. I enjoyed working together. They were polite, humorous, considerate and professional and what’s more they honestly valued my opinion and expertise. For example, at one point they suggested a lower risk, mixed trial of honey bees and Blue Orchard Bees; I countered with the suggestion that we would get better data if we used the new bees exclusively as there were no other orchards or hives in our area. The increased risk was necessary to produce better research results and they agreed.

Together we pioneered the first commercial application of the Blue Orchard Bee, a native wild bee species, as a pollinator of Sweet Cherries. It was by all accounts a success, resulting in dozens of publications, inclusion in one Turner Broadcasting Movie, and a National Science Foundation Documentary.⁽²⁾ Most important for me was that out of this experience friends were made which will last for a lifetime. Over the next several years there were many research professionals of different disciplines and nations who frequented our orchard. They too were kind, polite and patiently included our four children as their ever-present research assistants. Our home-schooled children received a custom education that could never have been obtained in any other time or place.

The other occasion took place in 2004. I was asked to go to Washington D.C. to participate, as a farmer, with the USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) in framing research on Organic Agriculture. I went with great hope, was always treated politely, but when the other farmer and I tried to contribute to the discussion our comments were simply written in a corner of the board and largely ignored. Some minutes later we tried again. It was then suggested that there was a lot for us to see in Washington, and we were reminded that they had a great lunch and an even better dinner planned for us. Understanding that we were already excluded from their work; I found that, while Washington was indeed interesting and dinner delicious, my time would have been better spent back on the farm.

As farmers, is it possible to determine beforehand the outcomes from engagements with the USDA; when will the farmer be given a legitimate voice in a setting dominated by institutional and powerful professional interests or co-opted out. I suggest that a good place to begin is the current USDA budget:

The USDA is obviously involved with more that just farming, but $150 billion dollars is a lot of money each year in rural America. As a point of reference; when we add the States and Counties to the USDA our collective governmental spending on agriculture and related activities is likely well over $200,000 per farmer for whom farming is their primary occupation. It should be noted too, that only about 1% of the total USDA budget goes out in direct farm payments to livelihood dependent farmers.

Of the many points that could be made I will suffer the reader through only two:

1) There are some who would like to distance themselves from the USDA. That may be possible directly but the indirect effects of the USDA in rural America are unavoidable.

2) While many agricultural economists champion U.S. agriculture as a bastion of free market enterprise, it should be obvious to even the casual thinker that such is simply not the case. Agricultural markets are highly structured and influenced. Institutions matter immensely and immense institutions even more so. Institutional Economics is a better tool, especially in American Agriculture.⁽³⁾

There are things that can help the farmer as they engage with the USDA. Within the bureau there are written procedures, formal norms of behavior to be followed, but often more important are the informal norms and expectations which are typically socially enforced. These informal norms are the real determinants of outcomes. Theories on participation and institutional performance suggest the following:

• Gatherings usually take place at a location of mutual respect. Request that the site of the gathering be the farm or at least a rural setting rather than cities or large institutions.⁽⁴⁾
• Watch for vested interests. Careful listening and questioning can draw these out. Find out who stands to gain, either materially or professionally? What policies, programs and projects might be hidden and need to be supported. Ideally agreements should be structure so that all parties win.⁽⁴⁾
• Avoid arrogant professionals. Bureaucratic decision making has a cultural predisposition towards “elitist, expert-oriented norms, which often gives preferential value to the knowledge of specialists while discounting, as inferior, the knowledge claims of others. In such a setting farmers involved with the USDA will often either be co-opted out of meaningful involvement or the bureau will develop professional participators or affiliates which are more like experts than the citizen they are supposed to represent.⁽⁵⁾
• Check for rigor in their recruitment of farmer participants. If it’s just a warm body to sit in a chair that is needed, anyone will do. However, if the task is real and requires intelligence and talent the recruitment process will be thorough and deliberate. A key question to ask is, ‘were there other candidates and what were the criteria for not selecting them’?⁽⁶⁾
• When different views arise, as they always will, watch for attempts to reclaim power from, or denigrate the farmer as contrasted to the bureau exhibiting a real willingness to reconsider their position.⁽⁷⁾

Ultimately the granting of a legitimate voice to farmers rest with those who holds the power to do so; otherwise the participation is a thin façade. If such is the case I suggest that you don’t waste your time. Stay home and farm. On the other hand, if you have the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way that could benefit your farm, family or community my suggestion is that you move ahead, valuing deeply your own ability as a farmer to contribute significantly to their work.

⁽¹⁾ Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Act of 1990, in S 2334 IS. 1990

⁽²⁾ Narang, S.K., Blue Orchard Bees and other pollinators for agriculture. Forum: USDA, Agriculture Research Service, May 2000.

⁽³⁾ Schmid, A.A., Conflict and Cooperation: Institutional and Behavioral Economics. 2004, Oxford, UK: Blackwell. 360.

⁽⁴⁾ Chambers, R., Whose Reality Counts? Putting the first last. 1997, London: ITDG. 162 – 187.

⁽⁵⁾ Kweit, R.W. and M.G. Kweit, Bureaucratic Decision-Making: Impediments to Citizen Participation. Polity, 1980. 12(4): p. 647-666.

⁽⁶⁾ Fischer, F., Citizens, Experts, and the Environment: The Politics of Local Knowledge. 2000, Durham and London: Duke University Press.

⁽⁷⁾ Pretty, J.N., External Institutions and Partnerships with Farmers. Chapter 6 and 7, in Regenerative Agriculture: Policies and Practice for Sustainability and Self Reliance. 1995, Joseph Henry Press: Washington, D.C. p. 163 – 203.