FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 15, 2000
CONTACT: Jean F. Reuter
301.405.4622
[email protected]
Farmers, Environmentalists Hold Similar Values Regarding Pollution, Pfiesteria -- UM study shows 'farmer environmentalism' key to reducing pollution
COLLEGE PARK, Md -- Environmentalists may have a surprising ally in the fight to prevent pollution in the lower Eastern Shore's waterways -- farmers. Results from an ongoing study conducted by a team of University of Maryland anthropologists shows that the same farmers who routinely have been accused of being the source of water pollution -- specifically the toxic algae bloom Pfiesteria -- consider themselves true environmentalists. It also suggests environmentalists might be better served by tapping into farmers' expertise as a credible resource in their efforts to protect the area's natural resources.
Since summer 1998, Maryland anthropologist Michael Paolisso, Erve Chambers and Shawn Maloney have been using in-depth interviews and questionnaires to understand cultural beliefs and values regarding the environment and pollution among farmers and environmentalists. The researchers found that both groups share similar values toward preserving and conserving the environment although they differ on the effectiveness of voluntary self-regulation among farmers as a strategy to protect the environment.
"These farmers and environmentalists talk the same talk. They are equally passionate about protecting the environment," said Paolisso. "Neither one wants to see the water or the land polluted. Based on their values, they are natural allies."
The study also identified a clear "farmer environmentalist" point of view among the Delmarva peninsula's poultry and grain farmers that is consistent in scope with views commonly held by environmentalists. Many of the farmers, who run the area's 5,800 broiler houses that produce 606 million birds annually, consider themselves "real environmentalists" whose livelihoods are dependant on the quality of their land and environment, thus making them very concerned about pollution.
Farmers also expressed deep feelings of disenfranchisement following the Pfiesteria scare in the late '90s, when they were branded as polluters, putting to question their integrity. Resentment and bitterness built up when outside groups began calling for tough regulations of farmers. Farm owners and operators for years have used best management practices to regulate themselves -- in fact, Delmarva farms had one of the most successful voluntary nutrient management programs in the nation. However, according to the study, when farmers felt they were being accused of knowingly -- and unknowingly -- polluting the Bay and its tributaries, they dug their heels in and assumed an adversarial stance against environmentalists. Farmers believed they were viewed as part of the problem, instead of part of the solution.
In interviews, farmers expressed beliefs that environmentalists saw an opportunity in the "Pfiesteria hysteria"to push long-standing water quality issues by unfairly and unscientifically targeting poultry and grain farmers on the lower Eastern Shore as the Pfiesteria culprits. The farmers felt alienated and ignored, and rallied against nutrient management regulations.
"By not tapping into the expertise that these farmers can provide, we are losing resources to improve water quality. Our study shows that an adversarial relationship among farmers and environmentalist groups is not inevitable," said Maloney. "Rather, these groups have much more in common than it would appear on the surface. The health of the water and land on the lower Eastern Shore depends on highlighting these similarities in points of view, respecting the differences in core values and beliefs, and realizing that consensus building by environmentalists and government agencies among farmers can provide new insight for environmental health solutions."
Ultimately, the research shows that incorporating farmers into key decision-making processes is essential in garnering farmer support.
# # #
00032r, 3/15/00/, Reuter
RSS