1.這是本文的論點(diǎn),雖然有人可能會(huì)被鼓勵(lì)去定位一個(gè)在美國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)合作社和電之間的相互關(guān)系，但是糧食出口是重要問(wèn)題。更有可能關(guān)系涉及個(gè)人的農(nóng)場(chǎng)、農(nóng)業(yè)合作社、各種企業(yè)，這與農(nóng)業(yè)有關(guān),這對(duì)美國(guó)政府部門的所有的行動(dòng)和應(yīng)對(duì)國(guó)際糧食出口面臨著挑戰(zhàn)。

2正常的供給和需求波動(dòng)的影響使得新的市場(chǎng)開放,和其他無(wú)數(shù)的政治經(jīng)濟(jì)因素一樣,當(dāng)然,對(duì)不同的球員有不同的影響。例如,農(nóng)業(yè)合作社和麥片制造商不同,甚至超過(guò)大型獨(dú)立的農(nóng)場(chǎng)。合作社是這里討論的重點(diǎn),但主要的一點(diǎn)是:不管生產(chǎn)谷物還是出口，美國(guó)都會(huì)面臨復(fù)雜的因素。
 

3.此外,討論將包括一些面向未來(lái)的可持續(xù)發(fā)展的問(wèn)題?？沙掷m(xù)發(fā)展已不再是觀看一些直言不諱的環(huán)保主義者?，F(xiàn)在是巨大的生存環(huán)境和快速增長(zhǎng)人口的世界。糧食出口是可持續(xù)發(fā)展對(duì)話的一部分。

4.有許多當(dāng)前的市場(chǎng)潛力是現(xiàn)有的。美國(guó)可能不會(huì)對(duì)新市場(chǎng)開放,或者因?yàn)楦鞣N國(guó)際禁運(yùn)/條約,美國(guó)糧食生產(chǎn)者不能訪問(wèn)。此外,歷史變化表明,市場(chǎng)本身隨時(shí)間變化。例如,前蘇聯(lián)的解體改變了糧食出口的模式，這一領(lǐng)域的一些新的國(guó)家例如俄羅斯，但是它并不是一個(gè)主要競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手,這直接影響了糧食出口。
 

.It is the contention of this paper that although one might be encouraged to locate a nexus of interrelationships between agricultural cooperatives in America and current, significant issues in grain exports. It is more likely however, that the crucial relationships involve a "meta-organization" of individual farms of various sizes, agricultural co-ops, various corporations related to agriculture, and United States government departments and organizations; all of which act and react to international grain export challenges.

 

 The effects of normal supply and demand fluctuations, new markets opening, and a myriad of other political-economic factors will, of course, have differing effects on different players. For instance, the agricultural cooperatives will be effected differently than the cereal manufacturers, or even than a large independent farm. Cooperatives are the focus here, but the primary point remains: no matter what the producer-source, grain exports from America are part of a complex constellation of factors. 

 

Moreover, the discussion will include a few concluding remarks on future-oriented issues which focus upon sustainable development. Sustainable development is no longer the watch word of a few outspoken environmentalists. It is now a matter of survival for a huge and rapidly growing world population. Grain exports are, by default, a part of the sustainable development  dialogue. 

 

There are a number of current market potentials as well as existing ones. The new markets are those which may not be open to American exports currently, or because of various international embargos/treaties, can not be accessed by American grain producers. In addition, historical changes indicate that the markets themselves change over time. The break-up of the former Soviet Union for instance, has altered the pattern of grain exportation to some of the new nations of that area. Russia is not an arch rival and nuclear enemy any more and this directly effects the grain exports to there. 

 

The FAS (Foreign Agricultural Service sums up the political changes in foreign markets in this way: "Economic sanctions can be powerful foreign policy tools targeted to further U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives." It is a case of the American government causing some degree of economic restraint and even burden, on private grain producers keen to expand their markets worldwide. The results are often negative, but always rather complex:

 

Trade restrictions imposed by the U.S. Government, however well-justified, do impact U.S. commodity exporters and consequently the entire agricultural sector. Furthermore, the effects of these restrictions are not limited to just the markets that U.S. exporters are prohibited from trading with: other exporters change their marketing strategies to the detriment of the U.S. (F.A.S. 2000) #p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#

 

The restrictions in trade are controlled by the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC). The main countries targeted for restrictions are:

 

According to the FAS, the OFAC restrictions on these countries is fairly substantial. Taken as a total, the countries will import approximately 11% of the world wheat trade. This is not a trifling amount in terms of world market demand. It is enough to cause fairly serious economic concerns to American coops and grain exports.

 

In general, there is a large international market awaiting American grain exports. It has not changed in size, at least appreciably, in the past decade. The following graph of wheat data for the 1990's indicates a peak reached around 1993, and a small drop since then. In general though, the curve is shape is flat showing a steady market available for U.S. exports.

 

In April of 2000, the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports reported on its Internet site that it was officially comprised of "¡K an ad hoc coalition of over 80 organizations, representing farmers and ranchers, cooperatives, small businesses, regional trade groups, and the State Departments of Agriculture."  

 

Members of this Coalition are supposedly united in their efforts to strive together to "support of U.S. policies and programs." These officially consist of:  

 

¡P Promote U.S. agricultural exports 

 

¡P Counter subsidized foreign competition 

 

(The Coalition, April, 2000). Clearly this organization is the type of meta-group mentioned at the beginning of this paper, which has been created to represent a diverse group to a diverse and changing, and complex international market. It supports U.S. government policies and this means all groups, including agricultural cooperatives, participate in specific programs. 

 

MAP (Market Access Program) of the USDA is one such strategy. It is particularly beneficial to agricultural cooperatives in the U.S. The official statement concerning the objectives and nature of MAP is:

 

The Market Access Program (MAP) uses funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture¡¦s (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to help U.S. producers, exporters, private companies, and other trade organizations finance promotional activities for U.S. agricultural products. The MAP was authorized by Section 203 of the Agricultural Trade Act of 1978 as amended, and is administered by USDA¡¦s Foreign Agricultural Service. The MAP forms a partnership between cooperatives, state-regional trade groups, trade associations, and USDA¡¦s Foreign Agricultural Service.#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#

 

The Market Access Program uses funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture¡¦s (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) "¡Kto help U.S. producers, exporters, private companies, and other trade organizations finance promotional activities for U.S. agricultural products." 

 

The program encourages the participation of agricultural cooperatives specifically; and small farm organizations as well. 

 

There is also an FAS program promoting agricultural exports, including grains, and it is a third important organization which connects (potentially), all producers with foreign markets. The Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program (FMD), also known as the Cooperator program, is administered by the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The goal of the program is to develop, maintain, and expand long-term export markets for U.S. agricultural products. 

 

Finally, as J.T. Smith points out in an article on one of Glickman's (1998) conflicts with the Europeans, American agricultural producers usually have the full support of the American government. Glickman was willing to take on the European community as a whole when it subsidized barley production in Europe to the detriment of American barley producers. There was no question that American farmers were placed at a serious disadvantage when unable to compete, in terms of price, with Europeans barley producers whose product prices were clearly influenced by the subsidies. The weight of the American government was thrown against the European community in an effort to maintain treaties (GATT),and to protect American grain producers.  

 

American agricultural cooperatives have the financial capability of tapping into the seemingly fathomless well of American technology and agricultural science. This is not small point in reference to grain exports. As will be shown in the conclusion, the profitability of grain production depends partly on the ability to expand markets which in turn requires an increased land yield, and usually an increase in product quality )or at least a change which is seen as favorable by the market). 

 

McGraw, Comis, Barry, and Hardin are unabashedly pro-American in their report on technological achievements in grain quality and production. However, their report is not without merit. It indicates that agricultural cooperatives, and others as well, have access to powerful techniques, genetic manipulations, and other scientific achievements which can yield a superior grain product for the world market and may even increase production substantially.

 

In addition, as the previous section on  "meta-groups" indicated, Americans have an advantage comprised of marketing skills and large, unified support for grain exports which consists of public and private sector forces. This combination of marketing skill, relatively harmonious goals across many diverse groups, and scientific, technical advances in the agricultural scenes gives the U.S. almost overwhelming power to successfully export agricultural products. #p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#

 

V. Conclusions: Sustainability and Agriculture's Future 

 

Brown and Halweil (1998) observe that grain production and grain exports are limited by the hard facts of natural limitations:

 

In the United States, where the cropland base is essentially fixed, growth in the grain harvest is limited to the rise in land productivity. With this rise now barely keeping up with the growth in U.S. population, there is no growth in exportable supplies. 

 

Agricultural sustainability in grain production therefore, is something of a given. It is not a negotiable matter since the amount of land is fixed. As Brown and Halweil note, only increased land yield can in crease production. 

 

Wilken's analysis of the effect of modern production levels and techniques on  soil "health" is essential. Many effects on soil are presented here and there throughout the article and they mixed with the causes of such effects. They include: degradation, blocking of soil formation, erosion, microbial destruction, compacting, high production levels, natural causes such as insufficient rain or too much rain, tilling, fertilizers, drainage, wind erosion, filed waste removal, and what may be the most important: greed.

 

The two most interesting points made were about the consequences of bad farming practices, and the role of greed and/or increased production levels. Outright greed drives the wealthy landowners in Latin America to force land conversions from sustainable, small operations to large cash crop operations. (223). This results in pushing smaller farmers to more erodible land where erosion rates are thus increased.  Production levels and conservation of soil are called "diverging imperatives" according to Wilken. (226). This means that the high levels of production required by an increasing population cause more strain on soil and may eventually result in the loss of huge areas of farmland because soil erosion and degradation are so high. Finally, Wilken notes that in areas where there have been bad practices (The former Soviet Union e.g.), recovery may take years, even decades. There are consequences to farming actions taken in the past. Therefore, sustainability will require the c!

 

orrection of past practices, research to determine the complex interactions involved in modern agriculture, and less demand on the land currently being farmed. 

 

Wilken's point is no different from that of other critics of traditional farming in the united States; namely, that farm practices will  have to change somewhat radically in order for there to be a sustainable future. This means that in the future, grain producers and exporters in the US at the cooperative level, will have to consider new market levels which make sense for the land and for future productivity. In the end analysis, this is the single most important grain export issue.#p#分頁(yè)標(biāo)題#e#

 

Bibliography:

Brown, L. and Halweil, B. "American Grain Exports." World Watch Magazine. 1998.

 

Foreign Agricultural Service (F.A.S.) "A Review of U.S. Trade Restrictions and Grain Exports." June, 1998. 

 

McGraw, L., Comis, D. Barry, K. and Hardin, B. "New Wheats." Agricultural Research Magazine. No date.

 

Smith, J.T. "Glickman to fight entry of subsidized grain exports from Europe" Abilene Reporter-News. 

 

Foreign Agricultural Service. "Market Access Program" December 1998

 

Foreign Agricultural Service. "Foreign Market Development Program." November, 1997.

Wilken, Elena. "Assault of the Earth." World Watch March/April 1995.