Draft Ag Report - from April 1999 Agricultural Workshop

INTEGRATING AGRICULTURAL AND ECOLOGICAL SOLUTIONS IN SOUTH FLORIDA

On April 28 and 29, l999, the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Taskforce Science Coordinating Team held a workshop in West Palm Beach entitled Integrating Agricultural and Ecological Solutions in South Florida. The organizers invited four people to act as a Technical Review Committee (TRC). This document is the report of the TRC. A preliminary report was submitted on May 17, in advance of receipt of the notes generated at the conference and processed by four facilitators.

The objective of the conference was to address an agricultural research plan that would help lead to sustainable agricultural systems in harmony with ecological values and compatible with urban‑industrial development in the area. The organizing committee set forth eight specific objectives:

1) Enable agricultural lands to provide important hydrologic functions to adjacent natural ecosystems similar to those that were provided by these same lands prior to their use for agriculture.

2) Enable agricultural lands to provide important hydrological and water quality functions in an integrated landscape of urban, agricultural and natural areas.

3) Reduce nutrient loads from agricultural areas to downstream receiving waters and marshes.

4) Preserve, accrete or accumulate organic soils.

5) Create and enhance habitat for native wildlife within the agricultural landscape.

6) Reduce the negative impact of agricultural pesticides released to the environment.

7) Improve the competitiveness in the nursery industry.

8) Increase agricultural diversity (crops, products, participants).

The first day of the conference was devoted to a series of presentations by a number of knowledgeable people, all of whom were involved in some aspect of the ongoing South Florida studies. These speakers set the stage, pointing to progress and gaps in knowledge, but also in mutual understanding of the various interests represented. These presentations and associated discussions indicated the wide range of issues that have been identified, the diversity of problems or opportunities depending on the area on which one focuses, and depending on one's interests.

The second day was devoted to discussions in four concurrent work groups, i.e. the Kissimmee Region, the South Dade Agricultural Area, the Everglades Agricultural Area, and the Upper East and Southeast Coasts. Participants included farmers, State and Federal agency personnel, University staff, non‑profit representatives, interested citizens and others. Each participant chose which group s/he wished to attend, and each group was led by a facilitator who arranged for a summary of the proceedings. These summaries are available from the organizers.

The task of the TRC, other than participation in the two days of activity, was to distill from these discussions some overriding conclusions or "outcomes". These overview comments will leave out much of the detail of what took place, but will attempt to provide a fair, if necessarily somewhat personally biased, picture, in the hope that this picture will be useful to planners and decision makers in the South Florida programs.

As a starter, no thinking person contemplates full restoration of the Everglades ecosystem, or of other South Florida ecosystems. Terminology such as "Everglades Restoration" is unfortunate if common. The goal is to modify land and water management in ways that will restore (or enhance) as many of the interacting functions as possible, and, specifically, to find ways in which agriculture and environmental values can support each other. It is also noted that this conference was specifically dedicated to agricultural issues. Of course, one cannot separate agricultural issues and study them in isolation, and one must acknowledge the interaction between agricultural, municipal and environmental sectors.

One of the challenges faced by the organizers, and clearly illustrated in the course of the two days of the conference, was the great diversity encountered from site to site. For example, the coral rock derived sandy soils encountered in South Dade County offer very different management challenges from the organic soils in the Everglades Agricultural Area., while the problems and opportunities upstream from Lake Okeechobee again are of a different nature from those downstream of the lake. This, of course, was the reason for the four breakout groups. It also complicates the task of the TRC.

Encouraging were the signs that the community has advanced from an era of distrust and confrontation among various interest groups to one of mutual understanding and cooperation ‑‑ as someone expressed it, from a jihad to constructive activities. There will always be conflict and disagreements, but it is now generally recognized 1) that agriculture is a vital component of the South Florida economy and 2) that agriculture can play and must play a significant role in finding solutions to the water and ecology problems. At the same time, it is clear that agriculture must change.

Each of the four groups took issue (some mildly, some more urgently) with the eight objectives spelled out by the organizers. However much one may sympathize with the recommended changes or additions, the TRC is persuaded that the essence of the problem is not changed by these modifications. For the purposes of this report, the TRC chose to stay with the original eight objectives.

A recurring theme was the need for financial feasibility, or for profitability. These concepts have several ramifications. First, any policy design has to recognize that farmers must make a profit to stay in business, so that economic viability is a key consideration in policy design. Second, farmers will modify their behavior if they have economic incentives to do so. Use of the carrot and the stick may be appropriate to achieve socially desirable outcomes. Third, the system is not static, and changes in economic conditions resulting from regulation may lead to new activities with profound consequences. For example, strict regulation of agriculture may accelerate urbanization. Finally, what is profitable for one may not be profitable for another. Thus, it is proposed that the stress on "profitability" be interpreted as a need for social science research.. There is a need for research by sociologists, planners and economists to provide a basis for evaluating the impact of proposed (or conceived) actions on the structure of the total ecosystem in its broadest sense: Agriculture, wildlife, natural ecosystems, urban areas and suburbia, and on equity of income distribution, and on benefits and disbenefits to various interest groups.

Questions that need to be addressed include the following: What is the value of agriculture to the local society? How can agricultural practice be modified profitably to enhance wildlife? What changes in laws, rules and regulations are desirable to make more sustainable practices profitable (or affordable)? How would such changes affect the community as a whole? What should be the relative roles of public lands versus private lands?

Another frequent point of discussion was the adequacy of planning to date. Dr Richard Pummett of the USArmy Corps of Engineers gave an overview of the progress that has been made in the "Restudy". He stressed that the Restudy is open ended and that there will be continuing efforts to update it as more information becomes available. Some at the conference were strongly supportive of the Corps' work and felt that great efforts had been made to see to it that all interest groups were represented, and that the best available data had been used. Others expressed concern that inadequate input data might lead to distorted conclusions. One specific concern (strengthened by past experience in other watersheds) is that subtle changes in hydrologic conditions (e.g. seasonal water table heights) can have drastic impact on agriculture but often are not reflected in hydrologic models, and vice versa that anticipated changes in agricultural practices may significantly affect hydrologic parameters. The TRC supports and praises the Restudy efforts to date, while it wishes to stress the need for caution. Detailed hydrologic modeling is needed to enable refinement in the understanding of the interaction between hydrology and agricultural water management.

Each of the four groups brought out points of interest and concern. For example, the Kissimmee group showed concern for wildlife values and stressed the need for further study of enhancing agriculture/wildlife interactions. They also recognized the gains made recently in cooperation among all parties. In South Dade, where soils can be droughty yet subject to flooding, emphasis was on sustainable agricultural production systems compatible with adjacent ecosystems and in support of wildlife values. The group also expressed concern for hydrologic management. In the Everglades Agricultural Area, emphasis was placed on soil preservation, reducing nutrient loads and hydrologic interactions. It was noted that emphasis on phosphorus to the exclusion of other water quality parameters may be shortsighted. This group also stressed new (or altered) crops tolerant of high water tables and appropriate cropping and water management practices therefor.

In the group concerned with the Southeast, a special interest was expressed in exploring institutional incentives to make agriculture more economically sustainable.

Recognizing the many pertinent and often divergent observations made in the four workshop groups, the TRC proposes the following six priority areas for research support, more or less in priority order. Clearly, not all proposals made during the workshop are here repeated, but the hope is that these six represent the core of the discussion. For clarity, a brief and incomplete explanation is given with some examples.

1) Social science. This subject was discussed earlier. We need to understand not only the physical/biological /hydrologic interactions as impacted by changes in management and use; we also need to evaluate the economic (profitability?), social (equity?), and political (incentives, regulations?) implications and options. Social science research should be done at various levels. First, we need to better understand the microeconomics of alternative forms of agriculture, that is, the economic considerations facing individual firms when they make use of resources in Florida and how their decisions are affected by various policies. Such microeconomic analysis requires interdisciplinary cooperation among economists, agronomists and resource managers. Once the micro foundation is established, one needs to establish some aggregate relationships (understand how various policies affect the overall economic and environmental perspective of the region) and use these to assess the impact of various policy proposals‑‑the impact on equity, profitability, environmental conditions and natural resources. What is needed is research aimed at the development of policies that are efficient economically, sound environmentally and politically acceptable.

2) Soil management. It has been proposed that organic soils can be preserved by maintaining high water tables for much of the year, and that some crops (specifically sugar cane) can be grown profitably when water tables are maintained at or near the surface for some nine months out of the year. Drainage must be provided for harvest and replanting. The long wet period should reduce the microbial population to the point that subsidence is minimized. In the coarse soils of Dade County, water management is crucial for profitable production, as are nutrient and pest management. To protect both the quantity and the quality of the water supply, soil management must be adapted to the emerging conditions, often influenced by market conditions that will lead to changes in cropping.

3) Hydrology. The impact of possible changes in water delivery and removal practices on agriculture is, to a large extent, unknown but of great importance. Equally important is the effect of agricultural practices on the hydrologic response in the region. Besides water quantity, there is concern for water quality. Whereas principles are reasonably well established, detailed information for South Florida is sorely lacking.

4) Enhancing wildlife in agricultural settings. One of the prime driving forces behind the "Everglades Restoration" effort was the loss of habitat for a number of species. Besides changing water quantity and quality delivered to the Everglades, there also is substantial opportunity to enhance the habitat for a number of species in agricultural settings. Wildlife management research is the proverbial stepchild in agricultural research planning, and especially in South Florida, it must be given its due.

5) Plant nutrition and nutrient loading. There is overlap and duplication among soil management, hydrology and nutrient management research. However, a major part of the perceived South Florida problem is associated with nutrient loading ‑‑ in Lake Okeechobee and south. Past emphasis has been primarily on P, and it is anticipated that regulatory standards will be changed from the current 50 ppb to 5 or 10 ppb. This may be justified, but such drastic action must be based on detailed evaluation, both of its ecological need and of its economic impact. It also should not be overlooked that, as P problems are brought under control, other contaminants ‑‑ sulfur, copper and pesticides among them ‑‑ may become relatively more important.

6) Pest management. Most groups concluded that reducing pesticide use and thus losses was not a high research priority, in part because it was felt that industry would take the lead in this area. That assumption is open to question. In any case, biocontrol of invasive weeds and insects has never been an area for industrial investment and must be supported with public funds. A clear example is control of melaleuca in the Everglades.

A great deal more could be written in support of an expanded research program for agriculture. We believe, however, that not much would be gained by adding further detail. The purpose of the conference, as we understand it, was to highlight the need for more research in agriculture, to stress the importance of maintaining a viable agriculture in South Florida and to demonstrate that disparate groups of diverse interests can work together. We believe the conference was successful on all three counts.

Prepared by Technical Review Committee,

Jan van Schilfgaarde, chair

Michael Duever

E. T. York

David Zilberman