Budget Cuts: Taking Matters Into Our Own Hands
July 21, 2011 Who is the biggest loser in the recent round of budget cuts to U.S. land grant universities? While not all the final numbers are available, it may well be where I live — Washington State University (WSU). Over the past four years, state funding at the University level has been reduced by 52%, from $245 million to $138 million per year. I have not been able to find any other peer institution that has faced such a drastic situation, although many are vying for the honor.
Fortunately, that incredible reduction was not applied uniformly across the University. An enlightened administration, with strong support from the agricultural sector, largely spared the College of Agricultural, Human, and Natural Resource Sciences (CAHNRS). Total state allocations to CAHNRS have remained around $40 million over the past few years.
Nevertheless, CAHNRS was forced to eliminate selected departments and programs, reduce staffing, leave vacant faculty positions unfilled, and trim operations at locations across the state, including the critically important Research and Extension Centers in Prosser and Wenatchee, where our specialty crop industries engage directly with WSU scientists to apply science-based solutions to our production and processing activities.
No One Is Immune
This scenario is in no way unique to WSU, even if the magnitude of budget cuts leads the pack. Institutions with long histories of productivity, creativity, and commitment to agriculture are facing potential cuts. Still, just as in Washington, many of the proposed cuts have been beaten back. Penn State received only a 10% to 15% reduction rather than the 50% initially suggested. Iowa State is only cut by 4% to 6%, and the University of Florida expects to maintain the status quo. One of the reasons many institutions have managed to maintain strong programs despite disinvestment at the state level lies in their access to federal funding sources.
For example, scientists at WSU, Penn State, and Michigan State University have been successful in the competitive process of the Specialty Crop Research Initiative (SCRI), so in the face of reductions in state funding, actual expenditures on specialty crops in many states have increased dramatically.
Unfortunately, the future of those sources and that trajectory is imperiled. Many federally-funded special projects of keen interest to specialty crop producers across the country have been zeroed out as earmarks. Cuts to the USDA budget are inevitable, and that could jeopardize the USDA Agricultural Research Service, National Institute for Food and Agriculture, and even the SCRI, which is neither an earmark nor a crop subsidy.
A Silver Lining
So, how bad can things get? The next two years look exceedingly grim from a state and federal budget perspective, but there is some silver lining in that looming black cloud. Many ag schools are reporting significant increases in undergraduate enrollment. The local food movement has inspired many to take a closer look at agriculture. Perhaps most importantly, as the national economy has tanked, the agricultural sector has generally provided a steady and reliable base. Fruit and nut industries like almonds, apples, caneberries, and grapes are doing well. The value of agriculture to regional and local economies has become more obvious. Despite food safety scares, Americans continue to enjoy a diet that is nutritious (as long as they are consuming specialty crop products), affordable, and safe. Agriculture and ag research are gaining some appreciation.
Additionally, stakeholders in agriculture, producers, processors, and allied industries, are stepping up to the plate and taking on their responsibilities to seek funding sources other than state and federal budgets to sustain and even expand research and Extension activities. We have done this via a commodity commission for some time, but we need to augment those dollars substantially.
The Center for Produce Safety (CPS) headquartered in Davis, CA, is a unique, multi-million dollar collaborative partnership that leverages the combined expertise and funding of industry, government, and the scientific and academic communities to focus the research needed to continually enhance food safety. The CPS has grown dramatically in its short existence, and, to me, exemplifies an exciting new model for future research and Extension activities.
Thus, while the budget debates rage in Washington, DC, and state capitols, specialty crop industries are taking matters into their own hands. We may still be winning the land grant disinvestment award in Washington, but we will not let that keep us from fighting to provide our specialty crop industries with the research and Extension that will keep them profitable.
Subscribe Today For
