[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.). 150 Together at the Tablegroups have not been formally represented, either on sare administrativecouncils or on review panels.In a U.S.General Accounting Office (1992b)study of the involvement of various types of groups on the sare adminis-trative councils, technical review panels or committees, and ten regionalprojects, reviewers found that of those participating, 26 percent were pro-ducers, 56 were scientists, and only 7 percent were representatives of non-profit organizations (Table 6).This distribution became even more skewedtoward producers and scientists at the level of regional project implemen-tation.It is not possible to know if women and ethnic minorities werebetter represented on the committees than on traditional agriculturalcommittees because no data were presented on participation by women orethnic minorities.The disproportionate emphasis on agricultural production is both a causeof and the result of some alternative agrifood priorities and premises.Thereis a tendency to privilege farmers as agents of change, the rightful benefi-ciaries of that change, and the savants who know what is to be done andhow to do it.Most alternative agrifood advocates see farmers as the cen-tral figures.The importance of farmers and a family farm structure isassumed as a basic premise, rather than argued as a proposition.Robertsand Hollander (1997) argue that characteristics of the family farm partic-ularly suit it to be the social basis for achieving agricultural sustainability.In their view, family farms can best adopt new sustainable technologies,which in turn will make them more successful.The W.K.Kellogg Foundation s broad approach to agrifood systemactors also seems to contract toward farmers in the articulation of ifsprogram goals.The first is to help farmers integrate into their crop andlivestock systems new methods that are productive, profitable, and environ-mentally sensitive.Those methods would also benefit the personal healthof farmers and their families. The second is to help people and their com-munities overcome any barriers that might otherwise prevent them fromadopting improved, more sustainable agricultural systems. While lowerpriority was given to projects that focused solely on developing technolo-gies than to those that also focused on the adoption of these technologies,farm technology remains at the core.Once again, the subjects and benefi-ciaries of sustainable agriculture are seen as farmers, and the path to achiev-ing sustainability is through changing farm practices.Seventeen out of theeighteen projects explicitly mention producers, production practices, orfarm families as the central focus in their statements of purpose.This con-striction is not viewed as such by the Foundation, which requires that the Participation and Power in Alternative Agrifood Movements 151Table 6 Types of groups participating in sareGroups Administrative Technical Regionalcouncils review projects Total Percentpanels of totalResearchers/extensionpersonnel 19 53 99 171 56Farmers/ranchers 7 23 49 79 26Governmentpersonnel 18 14 1 33 11Agents of nonprofitorganizations 10 6 6 22 7Total 54 96 155 305 100Source: calculated from gao 1992.projects all involve a holistic approach to food production and distribution (W.K.Kellogg Foundation 1996).Once again, this emphasis on farmers in the Kellogg ifs projects isextolled by the outside evaluator for the projects: These are farmer-drivenprojects.universities and public policymakers are more responsive tofarmers than to paid advocates working for nonprofit organizations andother institutions.extension agents and other professionals who aren tfarmers need to learn better how to be a guide on the side, not a sage onthe stage (Scheie 1997: 9).The evaluator is concerned, in fact, that broader collaborations mayresult in more conflict and less productive action.casa recognized that theoriginal collaborating institutions were primarily oriented toward farmersand farm practices
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
