| 1- INTRODUCTION | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Today I will provide a snapshot of agriculture inCalifornia. Then I will talk about the challenges that agriculture facesin the State, and how the agricultural community is dealing with them.The major challenges are land availability, water supply and quality, andeconomics. California agriculture can serve as a microcosm of the UnitedStates. Most often, as goes California, so goes the nation. I think youwill find many similarities between California and São Paulo State,and some interesting differences as well . | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2- AN OVERVIEW OF CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| According to the California Department of Food andAgriculture, the State's farmers grow 55 percent of the nation's fruits,nuts, and vegetables. Because of its unique and diverse climate and geography,California produces 250 different crops and livestock commodities, tenof which are grown commercially nowhere else in the United States. Thosetenare almonds, artichokes, dates, figs, kiwi, olives, pistachio, pomegranate,prunes, raisins and walnuts (CDFA, 1998). For the past 50 years, California has been the numberone ranking agricultural state in the nation, leading in 75 different commodities.Cash farm receipts for 1996 were U.S. $24,5 billion and generated and overU.S. $70 billion in related economic activities and one in ten Californiajobs (CDFA). Nationwide, however, only 1,3 percent of the working forceis involved directly in agriculture (Blank, 1998). California's increasing agricultural exports accountedfor 20 percent of the U.S. total agricultural exports in 1996. California,if it were a nation, would be the sixth largest exporter of agriculturalproducts in the world, outpacing China, Canada, Australia, and Brasil. Sixty-eight percent of the State's total agriculturalproduction is exported, 55 percent of it to other states. Of the rest,55 percent goes to Pacific Rim nations, 18 percent to Canada, 9 percentto Europe, and 5 percent to Mexico. The value of these exports totaledU.S. $12 billion in 1996. For every one billion dollars in agriculturalexport sales, 27.000 jobs are created in the State (CDFA, 1998). The value of the State's agricultural annual productionbegan to decline after 1975, when adjusted for inflation. In constant 1992dollars, 1975 value of production was U.S. $25 billion, in 1993 it wasU.S. $8 billion. However, production value has shown an upward trend inthe past five years (Sanders, 1998). Indeed, U.S. and California agricultureis probably at its peak production right now (Blank, 1998). While California?s agricultural production, cashreceipts, and exports are growing steadily, the land available for cropsin the State is not. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2.1- CHALLENGE NUMBER ONE: LAND AVAILABILITY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In 1950, California had 144.000 farms (places withannual agricultural sales of U.S. $1.000 or more) with an average sizeof 105 hectares. By 1970, there were less than half as many farms, 64.000but they had better than doubled in size to 231 hectares. Most recently,in 1996, there were 82.000 farms with an average size of 148 hectares (CDFA,1998). Nationwide, there were 1,9 million farms in the U.S. in 1994, comparedto an historic high of 6,8 million farms in 1935 (Blank, 1998). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Between 1950 and 1993, urbanization and market forcesreduced California farm land from 15 million to 12 million hectares. Landmost suitable for growing crops is also most desirable for building housesand businesses (Sanders, 1998). In addition to traditional urban encroachment, arelatively new phenomenon called "rurbanization" is gaining ground. "Ranchettes"from one to two hectares of land have become popular semi-rural abodesfor many Californians. Today 161.880 hectares of land are designated as"rural residential use." This land is "too big to mow, too small to grow"(Handel, 1998). Along with residential and commercial development,public projects such as highways and water systems are eating into agriculturallands. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| FARMLAND PROTECTION STRATEGIES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| In California, most land use decisions are madeat the local level. The economic and political power of land developmentis formidable. But efforts at the State and local levels are underway topreserve high value agricultural land. The Williamson Act of 1965 was the first State actiontaken to provide tax relief to growers who committed to keeping their landin agricultural production for a period of ten years. More recently, theAgricultural Land Stewardship Act of 1995 provides State grants for landtrusts and to local governments to acquire and preserve environmental easem*ntson agricultural land. Local governments are establishing their own landtrust programs and are using urban limit lines and other creative zoningpolicies to protect farmland. And growers themselves are taking actionsto preserve their way of life. The farm community is becoming more united,organized, and aggressive to hold on to the land. They are also formingcoalitions with others, including urban interests, environmentalists, watersuppliers, and local officials. For example, the American Farmland Trust is an organizationdedicated solely to preserving existing farmlands. The California FarmBureau is a strong advocacy association for farmers. Additionally, an AgriculturalTask Force has been formed by Central Valley growers to establish policypositions and lobby on behalf of farmland and related issues. A recently released report from the AgriculturalTask Force outlines a package of incentives intended to persuade farmersto stay in business. The incentives include government actions such asextending the tax breaks offered through the Williamson Act and providingguaranteed water in exchange for long term agricultural commitments. Thegroup is also asking for local governments to take more control over urbansprawl. This effort has gained the support of the California Farm Bureauand the Agricultural Bureau of California, representing 40.000 growers(King, 1998). Farmers are walking a fine line here. They want to preservefarmland, but also to preserve their right to sell it when they wish tothe highest bidder. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2.2. CHALLENGE NUMBER TWO: WATER SUPPLY AND WATERQUALITY WATER SUPPLY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Along with land tenure, water is of vital importanceto California agriculture. For the majority of crops in most areas of California,irrigation is a necessity. Each year California's farmers face greaterchallenges in securing reliable water supplies at the cost to which theyhave become accustomed. The water supply situation in California is complexand often contentious. California is a land of great geographic and climaticdiversity. The state's 41 million hectares of land boasts the Pacific coastline, mountain ranges, hills, valleys, and deserts. The average precipitationstatewide is 610 millimeters, ranging from over 1.020 millimeters alongthe north coast to less than 150 millimeters in the desert. Most of the precipitation occurs during the wintermonths while the greatest demand for water is in the summer. Seventy percentof the precipitation occurs in the northern part of the state while 70percent of the population and demand is in the south. <BR.ALIGN="JUSTIFY"The State has constructedmore than 1.200 reservoirs and hundreds of miles of canals to store andmove water. Two major water projects, the State Water Project and the federalCentral Valley Project provide water for two out of three people in theState and irrigate over half of California crops. The amount of "developed water," that which is capturedin reservoirs or is accessible from ground water basins, is 45.004 millioncubic meters. Seventy-seven percent of California's developed water isdedicated to 3,8 million hectares of irrigated agriculture. Approximatelyone-third of California's 12 million hectares of cropland is irrigated,whereas 17 percent of the U.S. cropland is irrigated (CDWR, 1998). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Table Two: 1995 Irrigated acreageby crop in California
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The general trend in cropping patterns since 1970appears to be that less acreage is being planted in field crops, thereis a slight increase in trees and vines, and a larger increase in truckcrops. California's irrigated agriculture is expected todecline from 3,8 million hectares using 41.700 million cubic meters ofwater in 1995 to 3,7 million hectares using 38.900 million cubic metersby 2020. Urban encroachment, as mentioned earlier, and land retirementdue to poor drainage in the San Joaquin Valley will account for most ofthe reduction in acreage (CDWR, 1998). Twenty percent of California's developed water isused primarily for residential, commercial, industrial, and governmentalpurposes, with the remaining three percent being dedicated to environmentalpurposes. California will experience greater challenges to meet the growingdemand for water in part because of a rapidly growing population. From1995 to 2020 the population is expected to increase from 32 million tonearly 47,5 million people. Urban water demand is expected to grow from10.900 million cubic meters in 1995 to 14.800 million cubic meters in 2020(CDWR, 1998). Considering the total anticipated increase in thedemand for water statewide, the Department of Water Resources estimatesthat the State will need an additional 3.600 million cubic meters duringaverage water years annually by 2020. The state is looking to improvements and expansionof existing water facilities, water reclamation projects, water banking,water transfers, water sharing, conjunctive use, new technologies suchas desalinization, and, water conservation to meet the state's growingneeds. As competition for water increases, California'sagricultural community is learning to forge new partnerships with urbanand environmental interests to help insure future water supplies. Duringwater rights negotiations between these competing interests, the agriculturalsector, along with the other water users in the State, has agreed to theadoption of water management practices to improve the efficiency of wateruse. These water management practices are becoming part of the regulatoryapparatus at the State and federal levels. Efficient agricultural watermanagement practices include actions such as measuring water to each customer,pricing water appropriately to encourage efficient use, hiring a conservation staff, lining ditches andregulatory reservoirs, and providing educational and technical supportto growers, such as on-farm evaluations, evapotranspiration information,and water quality data. More recently, California has embarked on a giganticeffort to improve the sustainability of the State's major water hub: theSacramento- San Joaquin Bay-Delta (the Bay-Delta). The CALFED Bay-DeltaProgram, initiated in 1995, is a consensus-based, cooperative effort involving15 state and federal agencies with management and regulatory responsibilitiesin the Delta. The CALFED process involves a large cast of stakeholders:urban and agricultural water users, fishing interests, environmental organizations,businesses, and others. CALFED's mission is to develop a long-term comprehensiveplan that will restore the ecological health and improve water managementfor beneficial uses of the Bay-Delta system. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| STRATEGIES TO SECURE FUTURE WATER SUPPLIES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The outcome of this titanic water effort calledCALFED is as yet unknown, but all stakeholders, including the agriculturalcommunity, will need to make an extra effort to remain involved for manyyears to come. Meanwhile, California agriculture is committed to adoptingefficient water management practices that improve on-farm production andmake economic sense. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| WATER QUALITY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| California growers today need to be aware of thequality of water both coming onto their fields and leaving them. As methodsfor analyzing water quality data become more sophisticated, water qualityproblems and the associated environmental degradation at the watershedlevel can be traced back to practices at the field level. Thus, more emphasisis being placed on growers to take responsibility for their cultural practicesthat may impact water quality downstream. Even in areas where farmland is not irrigated (84percent of the world's croplands), many of these water quality problemscan threaten water resources because of rainfall, runoff, or deep percolation.In the consideration of agricultural degradation of water quality, themajor categories of concern are salinity, erosion and sedimentation, nutrients,pesticides, bacteria, trace elements, and water temperature. Salinity is the most pervasive water quality problemassociated with irrigation, affecting about one-third of all irrigatedland. In the United States, about 28 percent of irrigated land suffersfrom depressed yields due to salinity (Logan, 1990). The State Water Projectand federal Central Valley Project are required to release sufficient amountsof fresh water to meet Delta salinity standards. Sea water intrusion isa major source of salts in Delta water supplies. Water soluable minerals,municipal and industrial water discharges, and agricultural drainage increasethe salt content of the Delta. High water tables, and related salinityproblems impact approximately 40 percent of the land on the west side ofthe San Joaquin Valley (CWRCB, 1995). Worldwide, compaction, erosion, salinity, and toxicityare the main causes of soil degradation. Thirty-five percent of the earth'sland is already degraded and soil loss currently out paces soil formationby at least 10 times (Norse, 1992). Irrigation-induced erosion is estimatedto occur on 0.5 million hectares of highly erodible soils in California(CWRCB, 1992). Potassium, nitrogen and phosphorus represent thebulk of the chemical fertilizers applied in the United States. Accordingto the California Fertilizer Association, over three million tons of fertilizerswere used by agriculture in the State during 1996 (CFA, 1998). Unlike solvent contamination, nitrates are oftenso expensive to clean up that many communities must abandon their groundwater wells and turn to bottled water for cooking and drinking. The CaliforniaDepartment of Health Services reports that more water supply wells in Californiahave been abandoned due to nitrate contamination than from any other classof contaminants (Saracino, 1995). Pesticides include insecticides, herbicides, fungicides,rodenticides, and sanitizers. In 1990, California became the first Stateto require that all pesticide use be reported. According to the CaliforniaDepartment of Pesticide Regulation, pesticide applications in the Statehave grown from 73 tons in 1991, to 91 tons 1993, and 96 tons in 1995.(CDPR, 1998). Irrigation water can mobilize bacteria in animalwaste. Seven of the nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards of Californianoted elevated bacterial levels as a water quality problem. In all cases,the sources of pollution were associated with animal waste (CWRCB, 1994). Selenium is the primary trace element of concernfor California's irrigated agriculture. Because of selenium problems, someof the lands on the west side of the San Joaquin Valley are beginning tobe taken out of production. Elevated water temperatures occur when irrigatedfields are warmed by the sun and tailwater from these fields is then discharged,causing a rise in the stream temperature. This problem is often aggravatedwhen diversions for irrigation also lower the overall stream flow. California'ssalmon population is especially sensitive to elevated water temperature. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT STRATEGIES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Increasingly, regulatory requirements, policies,or guidelines are defining practices that will contribute toward the improvedwater quality in a basin and the overall health of the ecosystem, includingthe fish and wildlife of a region. In response to water quality conditions,farmers are embarking on many activities that they never dreamed of tenyears ago. Some of these practices make economic sense for the grower.Other practices, while not be justifiable economically by the individualgrower may benefit a larger region and are subsidized, supported, or fullyexecuted by federal, State, or local agencies. Here are some of the practices that are being pursuedby growers and water agencies to improve the sustainability of the agriculturalsystems in terms of crop production, water quality, and environmental conditions: . Managing irrigation applications more carefullyto cut water costs and to reduce runoff, deep percolation, and erosion; . Using recycled municipal water as a less expensivewater supply alternative; . Practicing integrated pest management; . Establishing buffer zones between range landsand water ways to reduce nitrate leaching; . Planting vegetative filter strips along canalsto reduce erosion and provide habitat; . Flooding harvested fields for habitat, to aiddecomposition of field residues as an alternative to burning; . Installing fish screens and temperature controldevices. Sometimes practices that may have a positive effectat one end can have a negative effect on another. For example, winter floodingof rice fields helps migratory birds, but may hurt salmon at spawning time,as water is taken from the river to flood the fields. Coordination, cooperation,and good faith negotiations are often required between farm interests andother stakeholders, including regulatory agencies and environmentalists,to resolve conflicts. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 2.3.CHALLENGE NUMBER THREE: ECONOMICS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Economic forces will continue to drive resourcedecisions in agriculture. Changes in local economic conditions, world marketconditions, international trade agreements, and federal agricultural policycan have a significant effect on the economic sustainability of an individualfarm and the entire agricultural industry. The rising cost of water is often cited as a majorreason why California farmers are calling it quits. The price of watervaries greatly throughout California. An informal survey conducted by theCalifornia Department of Water Resources indicated that water costs arethe lowest in the north coast, Sacramento River, and Colorado River regions,while the south coast region experiences the highest water costs. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Table Three: Water cost byregion in California, U.S.A. (in U.S. dollars)
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| But water is only one variable in the total productioncosts of a crop. A survey of the Tulare Lake Region in central Californiaby the California Department of Water Resources showed these results: Table Four: Average water costs as a percentof total production costs for selected crops in the Tulare Lake Region,California, U.S.A.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| As is demonstrated above, water costs have a minoraffect on the growing of wine grapes, as compared to irrigated alfalfa.The availability and cost of labor, energy costs, irrigation equipmentinvestments, and other various expenses all figure into the total productioncost of a crop, contributing toward to overall risk of maintaining a farm. Production risks, profit, and credit are key elementsthat determine whether a farmer stays in the business (Blank, 1998). Arisk survey conducted by Steven Blank indicated the following: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Table Five: Sources of risk to Californiaagribusiness.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| While this survey demonstrates an almost universaluneasiness on the part of farmers toward government, public programs thatprovide financial support to farmers are heavily lobbied for and rarelydenied by the agricultural community or the individual farmer. Much of U.S. agriculture is sustained economically,at least in part, by government funding. But support for these programsis not as strong as it has been in the past. For many years, agriculturein the western states has received subsidized water from the state andfederal governments. While such subsidies can help keep food costs down,they can also have a negative effect. Underpricing of irrigation waterhas resulted in extravagant use, and has led to problems of water logging,over-salinization of land, and exacerbation of existing soil erosion problems.In addition, the failure to recover costs undermines long-term operationand maintenance of supply systems (Barbier, 1995). The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation is in the processof renewing long term contracts with water districts throughout the Stateand re-establishing the cost of water to its contractors. Even if Californiaagriculture continues to receive water at subsidized prices, they haveother challenges ahead. Price supports and crop subsidies in other countries,along with trade policies or barriers, compound the economic situationfor American farmers. And, as California exports more agricultural products,market conditions in other parts of the world can have a significant impacton the success of California growers. For example, the recent Asian economiccrises are especially important to California agriculture because 55 percentof the State's international exports go the Asia. Finally, as the open land values continue to increaseacross the State, some economic opportunities may become irresistible toCalifornia growers or speculative profiteers. For example, three yearsago, the Texas billionaire Bass Brothers bought Western Farms, 100 milliondollars-worth of prime agricultural land near Palm Springs. Their intentionwas to let the land go fallow and transfer the Colorado River water tothe City of San Diego. The deal went sour, but the Bass Brothers were stillable to sell the property for U.S. $250 million to another land speculatorwith the same intentions. The water transfer deal is still pending Stateapproval (Lifsher, 1998). Similar deals, large and small, are being proposedall across California. Land values, production costs, risk factors, creditavailability, and other factors influence farmers' decisions about whetheror not to stay in the business. Most often, though, farmers leave agriculturebecause of the harsh reality of personal finance (Blank, 1998). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ECONOMIC STRATEGIES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| While individual farmers can have little impactover federal water pricing or trade policies, international markets, oropen land values, agricultural associations and their lobbyists have beenquite successful in impacting governmental decisions. No matter what happensat the global, federal, state or local level, ultimately, whether or notto continue farming is either an individual or corporate decision, madewithin the context of each particular economic situation and existing values. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 3- CONCLUSIONS | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| There are great expectations of the agriculturalcommunity. Farmers are expected to be smart, to work hard and to providesafe, high quality food at affordable prices. They are expected to be goodstewards of the land while at the same time to turn a good profit likeany other business. In addition to planting, cultivating, harvesting,and selling their crops, farmers must be well educated in many other fieldsincluding: ecology, biology, chemistry, hydrology, soil science, engineering,accountancy, financial management, labor relations, public relations, politics,and community affairs. It's not easy being a farmer in California, butit still can be quite profitable. As California is entering a state oftransition, for agriculture to survive, changes will be necessary. Buteven if the California agricultural community fulfills all our expectations,will it survive? Here are two perspectives on the future of California,U.S., and global agricultural systems. Lester Brown, in his State of the World, 1998,foresees a world of land and water scarcity, leading to food scarcitiesfor the earth's burgeoning population. Brown notes that the growing demandfor food, pulp, and other commodities of an increasingly affluent populationof nearly six billion is putting more pressure on the land. He believesthe demand for food alone will require an additional 90 million hectaresby 2010. Brown notes that farmers expand food productioneither by expanding cultivated area or by raising land productivity. Notonly are California farmlands being lost to urbanization, but many otherparts of the world are facing the same problem. In India, 58 million newresidences will need to be built by 2030 to accommodate an expected populationgrowth. Since India's villages and urban areas are located in the heartof fertile agricultural regions, this projected growth will lead to heavycropland losses. He observes that recreational land uses are alsobeginning to compete with food production. Each year, 120 new golf coursesopen in the U.S. alone. Golf courses are being constructed by the thousandsin Japan, the Philippines, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and China. Recently,Vietnam has banned the construction of golf courses on rice land. If there is little hope for expanding the world'scultivated area to any great extent, can increased productivity bail outa hungry humanity? The 2.5-fold increase in world grain land productivitysince mid-century has come from three sources: genetic advances, agronomicimprovements, and synergies between the two. For the three major grains:wheat, rice, and corn, the major world wide gains in productivity tookplace between 1950 and 1990. Many countries have ?hit the wall? in termsof grainland productivity. There will eventually come a point in each country,with each grain, when farmers will not be able to sustain the rise in yields. Brown admonishes that there is a pressing need fora much greater investment in the agricultural sector, agricultural research,extension, soil conservation, and irrigation efficiency. Securing foodsupplies for the next generation goes far beyond agriculture. In a worldof land and water scarcity, policies that govern the allocation of landand water between agriculture and other uses will directly affect futurefood security. Brown contends that a concerted effort is necessary to preserveagricultural land wherever possible in an environmentally sustainable way. On the other hand, Steven Blank in his new bookTheEnd of Agriculture in the American Portfolio, expresses another viewof the future. Indeed, he agrees with Brown that agriculture in the UnitedStates will meet economic conditions that are too good or too bad to deny(big profits from selling farmland to urban interests or going broke becauseof international competition). But, Blank does not think that the shrinking, andultimately the death of traditional American agriculture would be so badfor the country or the world. This is simply an economic evolution, ofsorts, from an agricultural based society to a society based on the "industriesof the future." His mantra is that "risk, profit, and credit" will determinethe future of agriculture in the U.S., as well as the rest of the world.In the U.S., he argues, the risks are becoming too high, the profits toolow, and the credit lines less available. He observes that other countries in the world withlower production costs will fill the void as the U.S. gradually exits theagricultural scene. Blank points to Brasil, Argentina, and Mexico, allcountries that are expanding their agricultural sectors. He notes thatthe 100 largest agribusinesses in Brasil increased their revenues by 30,5percent to 20 billion reais in 1994. Argentina's beef exports increased36 percent in 1995 to over U.S. $1 billion. Mexico's trade surplus rose40 percent to over U.S. $2,4 billion in 1995. Furthermore, Blank observes that Egypt has a hugepool of unskilled laborers who are willing to work in agriculture for $1per day. In comparison, in the U.S., non-owners working in agricultureare mainly immigrants from Latin America and Asia, who are becoming harderand harder to find. Without immigrants, legal or illegal, America wouldbe much closer to leaving agriculture. Another guest-worker bill has been introduced tothe U.S. Congress this year. It would simplify the application processfor farmers seeking foreign workers, and would make foreign workers eligiblefor permanent residency if they work in the fields in four consecutiveseasons. It is estimated that 600,000 of the nation's 1,6 million agriculturallaborers are undocumented. This new program would allow for only 25.000visas per year (Wilgoren, 1998). As U.S. agribusiness firms link up with foreignfarmers, and as trade agreements facilitate global marketing, Blank believesthe world will become a more stable place. Blank's cavalier attitude toward the demise of Americanagriculture is at times disturbing and rather flippant. He believes thatAmericans will always have plenty to eat because we live in a rich country.And, he notes, three out of four Americans are overweight and can affordto cut back on their eating anyway. Even in a rich country, there are always poor peoplewho struggle to put food on the table, and in poor countries, much moreof a family's income is spent on food. In the U.S., 10,9 percent of ourincome is spent on food compared to India where their food budget accountsfor 51,4 percent of their income. He believes that Americans will thinkabout others in the world who may need our land to produce agriculturalproducts, but we will continue to "act in our own self interest." No matter the food supply scenario, Blank claimsthat "no amount of complaining is going to change the economic facts. Agriculturein America is losing its economic competitiveness. We need to let go offarming and ranching." Not to worry, Blank reassures, we still have a formof sustainable agriculture that will survive in America: invest in golfcourses, nurseries, and turf farms, he advises. These "agricultural" venturesare compatible with urban life, a prerequisite for Blank's definition ofsustainability: a venture that guarantees continued profitability. He emphasizesthe economic side of sustainability, rather than the ecological side thatBrown espouses. California farmers will not go out of business overnight,or without a fight. But once prime agricultural land is lost to urban development,it will not be reclaimed. While large scale agriculture could be greatlyimpacted by this trend, perhaps a smaller scale form of agriculture, asrepresentative of the growing organic farming movement, will be profitableand ecologically sound enough to move California agriculture in a new direction.Time will tell whether California will take all means necessary to preserveagriculture in the State, as Brown suggests, or give it up, as Blank suggests,or perhaps take a different course entirely. In any event, it seems likely that countries suchas Brasil will have new opportunities to increase their portion of themarket share of the global agricultural economy. Brasilian farmers, asthose in the U.S. and the rest of the world, face the same economic questionsrelated to risk and profitability. Water quality issues, too, are universal.Water supply is probably not a big concern in most parts of Brasil, butmore irrigation projects are being proposed to increase the yield of cultivatedlands. Unlike the diminishing farm land situation in California,in Brasil there is a good deal of arable land as yet uncultivated, andthere is still an opportunity to increase the yield of existing farmland.The challenge related to farm land in Brasil, however, may be related moreto social rather than economic issues. The Landless Movement in the Northeast of Brasilis calling into question the status quo of the present land tenure system.They are calling for a more equitable distribution of land and water resources.As El Nino intensifies the perennial drought in the Northeast, and as highurban unemployment makes migration to São Paulo and other citiesless attractive, more people are joining the demonstrations. In responseto the drought, the government will offer a U.S. $500 million aid programin the form of food baskets, irrigation projects, temporary jobs, and jobtraining and literacy programs. Activists are asking for more long term,structural reforms of land holdings (Rotella). The way Brasil deals withthis situation and others will determine the success and sustainabilityof agriculture into the future. As we enter the twenty-first century, there aremany questions related to the face of agriculture in California, SãoPaulo State, the United States, Brasil, and the world. While the challengeswill be different from place to place and time to time, the need for ecologicallyand economically sound agriculture is essential for the well being of futuregenerations. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 4- REFERENCES | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Barbier, E.B. and J.T. Bishop. 1995. Economic valuesand incentives affecting soil and water conservation in developing countries.Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 50:133-137. Blank, Steven C. 1998. The End of Agriculture inthe American Portfolio. Quorum Books. West Port, Connecticut. Brown, L.R. 1998. State of the World 1998. Norton.New York. California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA).1998. Web site: http://www.cdfa.ca.gov.agfacts. California Department of Water Resources (CDWR).1998. Draft California Water Plan, Bulletin 160-98. Sacramento, CA. California Farm Bureau (CFB). 1998. Web site, http://www.cfbf.com/ffnews.htm. California Water Resources Control Board (CWRCB).1994. Irrigated Agriculture Technical Advisory Committee. Irrigated Agriculture.Sacramento, CA. Gugliotta, Guy. 1998. Lawmakers, Clinton urges subsidies,other aid for farms. Los Angeles Times, July 18: A13. Handel, Mary E. 1998. Conflicts arise on the urbanfringe. California Agriculture. May: 11. King, Peter H. 1998. Farmers plant seeds of neweffort to save land. Sacramento Bee, July 15: A3. Lifsher, Marc. 1998. Why shipping water to San Diegohas been harder than it looked. Wall Street Journal, July 1: CA1. Logan, T.J. 1990. Sustainable agriculture and waterquality. pp. 582-613. In C.A. Edwards (Editor). Sustainable agriculturalsystems. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeney, Iowa. Motavalli, Jim. 1998. The desert's open veins. E-Magazine,July 14-15. Norse, D. 1992. A new strategy for feeding a crowdedplanet. Environment 34-5: 6-39. Rotella, Sebastian. 1998. 'Drought industry' feedsa hunger crisis. Los Angeles Times, July 13: A-12. Steve Sanders. 1998. Statewide farmland protectionis fragmented, limited. California Agriculture. May: 5. Saracino, A. Vanishing water. 1995. Comstock's (Feb.):71-72. Trends in Agricultural Land and Lease Values. March25, 1998. California Chapter of the American Society of Farm Managers andRural Appraisers. Visalia, California. Walters, Dan. 1998. Plowing some narrow furrows.Sacramento Bee, July 15: A3. Wilgoren, Jodi. 1998. Guest-worker bill passes.Sacramento Bee, July 24: A1. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
