Today, the first in a series of guest posts. Each entry is uploaded unedited by the blog author, and is a commentary on the state of Alaskan agriculture. Please feel free to comment with your thoughts and concerns.
---------------------------------------------
The authors of this guest post have varied on the farm experience but are very familiar with the State and Federal bureaucratic and regulatory processes. Such processes can be, at best, confusing and they would like to help people take matters into their own hands and reform the way Alaska’s Division of Agriculture interacts with its stakeholders, creates and maintains programs, allocates grants, and most importantly how this government agency represents Alaskan agricultural industry at home and oversees.
Why write about government occupied agriculture?
If you are reading this article then I believe that you are a conscientious stakeholder in government occupied agriculture. If you are not reading this article, but you are breathing, then you are still a stakeholder in agriculture you just avoid governments occupation of it. As the sayings go: “Did you eat today? Then you may thank a farmer. Did your food travel more than 100 miles? Then you should thank the global food supply chain. Are you delighted by the fact that you do not understand what's in your food? Then you can thank the FDA. Do you delight in purchasing your meat from other unknown countries? Then you should applaud the USDA. Does a poor Alaskan agricultural domestic growth and export economy continue to give you hope in our government institutions? Yes! Then you should thank the government occupation of Alaskan Agriculture or Division of Agriculture (DOA). Are you filled with encouragement when you read that 96% of Alaska’s food is imported? Then tell an entrepreneur and they can try to deal with the DOA. Sarcasm aside, the State of our agriculture is not a burden for the DOA alone, it is one we all should share. As Americans we should all play a role in how our government functions, we should pay attention and have the right to a transparent process. Our lack of involvement further enables government agencies like DOA to do as it pleases for the benefits of a few rather than diligently working to secure a stronger agricultural future for all Alaskans. It is not so easy to ignore government as it is involved in nearly every transaction or process needed to be a successful business. So if we have to live with government let us use the tools we have to shape it in a way that benefits trade and supports agricultural development. Easier said than done!
When compared with other States, agriculture in Alaska is a relatively small scale industry. In fact it is so small that the State of New Hampshire, a State competing for the leased amount of agriculturally designated land in the U.S., receives near double the federal funding with several thousand more farms. Yes, I know they have had a long established agricultural economy, Alaska has near the same amount of agriculturally designated lands, New Hampshire has better infrastructure and is closer to the wealthy and high density populations of the contiguous US. So, maybe we should give up as our future agricultural economy is a little bleak and should be likened to that of an isolated ice sheet where it is near impossible to grow and trade Alaska grown agricultural products. However, the position of isolated ice sheet is held by non other than the country of Iceland. An oddly entrepreneurial country with cheese exports generating more in revenue for Iceland than the State legislature appropriates for the Division of Agricultures main office operating budget. In 2015 Icelands agricultural meat export economy grossed more than Alaskan agricultural exports combined. Clearly this would not be the case if the Alaskan fishing industry fell under the penumbra of Alaskan State Agriculture, which is the case for most other States. Instead this prized industrial nugget is governed by Alaska State fish and game and a hand full of other State agencies which is maybe for the best. It is possible that once Alaska state fish stocks hit rock bottom the powers that be will re- delegate statutory authority to the State DOA like other other failed programs. For example, the dairy industry, planned and implemented by the Alaska Agricultural Action Council (AAAC) reporting directly to the Governors office while the going was good, as the dairy industry began to crumble the AAAC dissolved and the program became DOA’s responsibility - RIP.
But I digress from my point that if a remote and glaciated land mass can pull of an agricultural export industry why can’t we? The usual suspects highlighted by the numerous and often expensive feasibility reports and reviews are a lack of federal and private funding, a burdensome regulatory process, isolation, transportation, infrastructure blah, blah, blah… Or is it that our Division of Agriculture bleeds incompetence to such a degree to scare off any potential investors in Alaska State agricultural future? History would certainly suggest the latter, especially when you consider Potatoes to China, MMMS, Point Mackenzie agricultural land sales and dairy farming, or agricultural land sales in general, and lets not forget the number of DOA employees fired or resigned all of which are labeled as disgruntled past employees! For now I will try not dwell on the past, as there is far too much ammunition and this State agency appears bullet proof! Instead, let us look to what our investment in government occupied agriculture has secured for the future of this industry by embarking on a fact finding journey to discover why the DOA gets such a bad rap and how we can help them do a better job.
So here is what I will propose going forward. I will take a program currently administered by the DOA and post an article on its value to Alaska State agriculture. Each article will be based on known facts with links and proof attached. I will clearly indicate my personal opinions on these articles. I will try to provide you with a process and maybe even contacts to enable you to also encourage change in how your DOA does business. I strongly encourage feed back from readers and those who may be affected by the program as I do not have all the answers and I may sometimes be wrong in my opinions. But I, like you, have my own opinion based on the information available. If DOA wants a more informed audience with a uniformed understanding of how it conducts business then it behooves DOA to provide clear guidance through transparent processes.
Together we can make the DOA work for Alaska.
No comments:
Post a Comment