The quality of sustainability: Agroecological partnerships and the

15 Pages·2007·0.26 MB·English

This article was originally published in a journal published by
Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the
author’s benefit and for the benefit of the author’s institution, for
non-commercial research and educational use including without
limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific
colleagues that you know, and providing a copy to your institution’s
administrator.
All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without
limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access,
or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s
website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission
may be sought for such use through Elsevier’s permissions site at:
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial
ARTICLE IN PRESS
JournalofRuralStudies23(2007)142–155
www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud
y
The quality of sustainability: Agroecological partnerships and the
p
geographic branding of California winegrapes
o
Keith Douglass Warner
c
EnvironmentalStudiesInstitute,SantaClaraUniversity,CA95053,USA

Abstract l
a
Qualityandsustainabilityarebothsociallyconstructed,ambiguousterms,buttheyhavenotbeenheretoforelinkedintheruralstudies
literature. The ‘‘quality turn’’ has received particular attention from researchenrs for its potential to organize linkages among various
forces in agrofood systems, providingmore income toproducers byappealing to affluent,reflexive consumers. Adistinct line of rural
researchhasattendedtothechallengeofagro-environmentalpollutionandoregulation,butthisresearchtrajectoryhasbeensubsumed
under the broader paradigm of sustainability. This article seeks to contribute to discussions about quality in the agrofood sector by
analyzingthepotentialoffusingruralresourceprotectionpracticeswithplace-basedmarketingofenhancedquality,drawingfroman
s
empiricalstudyoftheCaliforniawinegrapeindustry.InseveralCaliforniacommodities,agroecologicalpartnershipsarebecomingthe
chief vehicle for extending sustainable agricultural practices. California’s winegrape farmers have undertaken more partnerships to
r
greatereffectthanthoseofanyotherUScrop,andtheyarenowdiscursivelylinkingtheirsustainablefarmingpractices,environmental
quality,andwinequality.Thismarksanewlinkageoftwohereetoforediscretesocialimaginaries.Thisarticlearguesthat‘‘quality’’isa
term that can conceptually link increasing consumer demand for differentiated product taste with increasing regulatory pressure for
environmentalprotection.Synergisticbenefitsfromsuchalpinkagehavethepotentialtostrengthenruraldevelopmentinitiatives.Making
progresstowardsustainabilityrequirescollectiveactiononthepartofproducers,andinsomecommodities,maymeshwellwithefforts
to enhancefoodstuff quality.

r2006Elsevier Ltd. Allrights reserved.

s
1. Introduction agrofood systems: rising expectations among affluent
'
r discerning consumers (Murdoch et al., 2000), food scares
‘‘Quality’’ is a particularly ambiguous term, but this and consumer food safety concerns (FitzSimmons and
o
propertymay,infact,renderitmoreusefulforlinkingtwo Goodman, 1998; Stassart and Whatmore, 2003), the
distinct trends in rural studies: distinctive, local, or presence and representation of nature in food products
h
differentiated food, and sustainability in farming and (Goodman, 1999; Murdoch et al., 2000; Murdoch and
environmental resource management. Many rural devel- Miele,1999),andproducerambitionsforagreatershareof
t
opment scholars have recently examined the ‘‘quality the food economy (Ilbery and Kneafsy, 2000). Debates
u
turn,’’ investigating how differentiated food products, over alternative agrofood networks, food relocalization,
appealing to affluent, reflexive consumers, can provide and the turn to ‘‘quality’’ food production are thriving
additional income toAfarmers and rural areas (Goodman, (Watts et al., 2005), with a heavy emphasis on the
2004). These have sought to bring the broader ‘‘cultural transformative potential of embeddedness and local
turn’’andassociatedsociologiesofconsumptiontobearon relationships of trust to stimulate change in the agrofood
rural sociology and agrofood geography (Goodman, 2003; sector (Winter, 2003). To date, no research has documen-
Goodman and DuPuis, 2002). The ‘‘quality turn’’ has ted the impact of increasing sales of quality foodstuffs
receivedparticularattentionfromresearchersforithasthe directly back to concepts of sustainability.
potential to organize linkages among various forces in At the same time, a distinct line of rural research has
attended to the challenge of agro-environmental pollution
E-mailaddress:[email protected]. (Clark and Lowe, 1992), and associated policies and
0743-0167/$-seefrontmatterr2006ElsevierLtd.Allrightsreserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.09.009
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.D.Warner/JournalofRuralStudies23(2007)142–155 143
regulation (Lowe et al., 1997). More recently this research economic demand for differentiated product taste with
trajectory has been subsumed under the broaderparadigm increasing grower interest in sustainable farming practices.
of sustainable rural development (Ilbery et al., 1997), California winegrape growers are conceptually and discur-
examining the role of environmental regulatory initiatives sivelyfusingproductandenvironmentalquality,markinga
anddivergentconceptualizationsofsocialnature(Marsden new linkage of two heretofore discrete social imaginaries.
et al., 2001). This literature has fretted over the impact of This paper provides an early report from California in the
agro-environmental regulation, especially the economic interest of contributing to a transy-Atlantic dialogue about
burdenitplacesonfarmersanditscontradictoryoutcomes the potential of linking food product and environmental
p
(Marsden, 2001). To reshape and redirect the undesirable quality, and thus contributing to conceptualizations of
consequences of agro-environmental regulatory burden, sustainable rural development.
scholarly interest has grown in an alternative integrated, This article begins witoh a summary and discussion of
agroecologicalframework(Altieri,1989;Warner,inpress). effortstobringtheorytobearontherelationshipsbetween
Some linkages between sustainable rural development and quality,sustainabilityc,andgeographicbranding.Secondly,
agroecology are beginning in Europe (Marsden et al., itdescribesthegeographicbrandingofwinesinCalifornia,
2001), but no scholarly work on these topics has thus far and the dynamic relationship between premium quality
integrated the quality turn into its consideration. winegrapes, new vineyard development, and tensions on

In the US, many rural regions are under increasing the urban/rural interface. Thirdly, it investigates the
l
pressure to address agricultural pollution (US Geological opportunities and vulnerabilities associated with product
a
Survey, 1999; Warner, in press), but government agencies differentiation by geographic branding. It then describes
heredonotprovidecoherentruralenvironmentalplanning how the California winegrape and winery industries have
n
to address this. Consequently, initiatives for agricultural createdagroecologicalpartnershipstopromotesustainable
pollution prevention are being led by farmers, farmers’ production practices, convey their message of environ-
o
groups, and scientists (Warner, 2006). In several commod- mental and product quality to regulators and consumers
ities in California—and other states—agroecological part- and enroll all actors in environmental resource protection.
s
nerships are becoming the chief vehicle for extending Wine is an unusual and highly differentiated commodity,
sustainable agricultural practices (Swezey and Broome, but the trends emerging in this sector provocatively
r
2000; Warner, in press). California’s winegrape growers demonstrate potential strategies for articulating resource
have undertaken more partnerships to greater effect tehan protection with quality marketing initiatives and the
those of any other US crop, and they are now discursively viability of agriculture in the industrial world.
linking their sustainable farming practices, enviropnmental The empirical evidence in this article is based on 2 years
quality, and wine quality (Dlott, 2004). of field work with participants in winegrape partnerships
More than any other sector of US agri culture, the andareviewofassociateddocumentation.Data collection
California winegrape industry has invested time, money, consisted of 26 semi-structured interviews with winegrape
and effort in collective enterprises to reac h their growers growers, agricultural consultants, winery personnel, and
s
about winegrape quality and issues of sustainability, using environmental regulatory staff; 4 focus groups with 30
pre-existing, place-based networks of production to foster partnership members; participant observation in the field
'
social learning about resource protective practices. Pre- with 4 consultants inspecting for crop pests; and observa-
r
mium winegrapes in California are grown in distinct tionof8fielddaysandworkshops.Thisdataformedacase
o
regions highly charged by environmental politics. Growers studyinaPh.D.dissertation,whichhasresultedinabook
here have found the value of cooperative initiatives to about the phenomenon of US agroecological partnerships
improve their practices and rhepresent the sustainability of (Warner, in press).
these practices. More than any other group of California
growers, winegrape grotwers are operationally defining 2. Quality, sustainability, and farming in place
sustainability as agricuultural enterprise viability, environ-
mental quality and product quality. Winegrape partner- Both quality and sustainability are highly ambiguous
shipsconstituteanAdintensifycooperativesocialrelationsas and socially constructed terms (Allen, 1993a; Goodman,
a way to defend the social space of winegrape production 2003). In the past, quality was commonly understood in
inthefaceofsocialcriticismofandregulatorypressureon terms of taste, ripeness, freshness, or flavor, as defined by
theirproductionpractices.Thesepartnershipsdemonstrate actors involved in production, but recent consumer
the potential of producer-led cooperative initiatives to displeasure with the health, safety, homogeneity and
substantially reduce agricultural pollution. environmental impacts of industrial farming finds expres-
This article seeks to contribute to discussions about sion through seeking alternatives to mass-produced,
qualityintheagrofoodsectorbyanalyzingthepotentialof undifferentiated foods. Foodstuffs can now be defined as
fusing rural resource protection practices with place-based quality, meaning local (Dupuis and Goodman, 2005;
marketingofenhanced quality, drawing from anempirical Hinrichs, 2003), traditional or produced in small scale
study of the California winegrape industry. It argues that (Ilbery and Kneafsy, 2000), fairly traded (Renard, 2003;
‘‘quality’’ is a term that can conceptually link increasing Whatmore and Thorne, 1997), or perhaps ‘‘sustainable.’’
ARTICLE IN PRESS
144 K.D.Warner/JournalofRuralStudies23(2007)142–155
AsIlberyandKneafsy(2000)underscore,however,quality products through marketing networks. Initial ambitious
is a highly subjective term. Food producers, distributors, quality and ethics claims, exploiting niche marketing
and consumers may perceive product quality quite opportunities, are being joined by more pragmatic efforts
differently. An increasing number of consumers are tolabelfoodstuffsthroughconventionalmarkets(Codron,
demonstrating interest in purchasing foods that reflect 2006).
their environmental values (Barham, 2002), and producers Sustainability, like quality, carries emphases that differ
are positioning their products to appeal to these con- according to one’s position in ythe agrofood system.
sumers. Producers and marketers generally perceive Concern about the environmental impacts of agriculture
p
economic opportunity in differentiating their products has given rise to arguments for making agriculture more
through changes in farming practices, association with a sustainable, but without necessarily resolving significant
local food tradition, enhanced food safety, or conveying contradictions in that termo(Allen, 1993a). Sustainability
more information about these to consumers. entered agricultural discourse about two decades ago, and
Ilbery and Kneafsy (2000) proposed four criteria to this term too was socically constructed, largely by actors
conceptualize the marketing of food quality: achieving with an alternative vision, at least initially (Lockeretz,
certification by an off-farm organization, association with 1997). As Buttel (19 97) argues, sustainable agriculture can
a desirable location or historical tradition of production, be approached thr ough three lenses: as a social movement

attraction of consumer interest, and specification of (Barham, 1997; Hassanein, 1997; Vos, 2000), as a policy
l
production method. They emphasize all of these are goal (Youngberg et al., 1993), and a set of technoscientific
a
socially constructed, whatever blend of ‘‘objective’’ (mea- practices (Ro¨ling and Wagemakers, 1998; Warner, 2006).
surable) indicators of quality, or ‘‘subjective.’’ Perhaps a Sincethetermsustainabilityhasbeenincreasinglyadopted
n
more useful distinction would be distinguishing between by US agro-scientific (National Research Council, 1989,
criteria that can and cannot be tied to measurable 2003) and economic institutions (Allen, 2004), it has
o
indicators. ‘‘Objective’’ criteria, such as human and generally been used in this narrow, technoscientific sense
environmental health claims, can be traced to measurable (Warner,inpress).‘‘Sustainability,’’likeefficiency,conveys
s
performance at some point in the agrofood system. no inherent meaning. Without defining what is to be
Objective criteria form the basis for quality claims, but sustained, for whom, and for how long, the term may
r
the subjective characteristics reveal how producers wish to obscure more than it illuminates (Allen, 1993b). It is used
representtheirproductinthemarketplace,andwhattraiets by actors within the agrofood system seeking to represent
they use to construct their quality claims. themselves as environmentally responsible, and thus
For foodstuffsto assure theconsumer ofsome objpective meritingapremiumpriceandregulatoryleniency.Scholars
criteria while traveling beyond local, embedded social now describe this as the commodification of sustainability
relationships, mechanisms must be devised, such as (Allen and Kovach, 2000; Guthman, 2002).
geographic branding or a specialized label. Th e prolifera- IntheUS,mostofthepressureonagriculturetoprevent
tionoflabelingschemesrepresentsanetwork strategyasan pollution is applied through national and state regulatory
s
alternative rural development scheme (Murdoch, 2000; agencies. Agriculture here is the primary source of non-
Whatmore and Thorne, 1997). Labels try to persuade pointsourcewaterpollution(USGeologicalSurvey,1999),
'
consumers of product quality, and justify the payment of and most regulatory enforcement against agriculture is
r
any additional price. Labels are an attempt to extend being pursued under the US Federal Clean Water Act
o
networks of trust beyond face to face relationships, often (Warner,inpress).Untilrecently,conventionalagriculture
through the conventional food supply chains. Interest in has been able to deflect criticism of its polluting practices
specialized labels has coincidedhwith the ‘‘quality turn’’ in withdiscoursesaboutthevirtueof‘‘familyfarms’’(Browne
agrofood studies. Organic agriculture has emerged as the et al., 1992) or the exceptional place of agriculture in US
best known alternative footd label (Guthman, 2004b), but society (Andrews, 1999), but the cumulative evidence of
as Guthman (2004a) hasuargued, certification and labeling environmental impacts at the regional level is beginning to
schemes may create perverse incentives for growers. break down this discourse, and is to some extent driving
Despite the claims ofAbeing alternative, much labeled food changes in practices.
mimics conventionalfoodsquite closely (Buck etal.,1997; Becauseofitsknowledge-intensivecharacter,sustainable
Guthman, 2004a; Whatmore et al., 2002). Barham (2002) agriculture requires cooperative social relations, although
proposed a theory of values-based labeling that presents insufficient work has been done on this topic (Thrupp,
these as initiatives to create ethical space within the 1996; Warner, in press). The Netherlands appears to host
marketplace. Drawing from the work of Karl Polanyi, the most developed collection of environmental coopera-
she recommends investigating these labels as a social tives, local farmers’ associations that promote sustainable
movement. Non-governmental organizations are using agriculture and rural development (Renting and Van der
specialized labels inferring quality to enhance farmer Ploeg, 2001). Dutch environmental cooperatives and
income based on human values (Allen et al., 2003), yet California’s agroecological partnerships share a remark-
many producers are labeling their foods to capture more able number of traits: they began about 1992 in large part
income at the farmgate by carrying knowledge about food as a response to increasing regulatory pressures; they
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.D.Warner/JournalofRuralStudies23(2007)142–155 145
emerge from on-going cooperative efforts; the specifics of examined how producers are perceiving quality to link
their social organization are highly diverse, influenced by agroecological practices, efforts to counter criticism, and
the commodity produced and their specific regional consumer perception of their product. The agroecological
context; they emerge as farmer-initiated responses to re- partnershipsintheCaliforniawinegrapesectordescribedin
assert some autonomy over their farming decisions. subsequentsectionsofthispaperrepresentpracticeleading
Participating farmers in both countries recognize the the theorization of the relationship between quality and
importance of fostering greater accountability and trust sustainability. y
among the public and regulatory agencies. Wiskerke et al.
p
(2003) argue that Dutch environmental cooperatives
3. Quality regions in California winegrape production
represent a new mode of rural governance. Renting and
Van der Ploeg (2001) present them as a new form of o
Californiaproducesroughly90%ofUSwinegrapesand
institutional relations between the state and agriculture,
withthepotentialtoreconnectnature,farmingandsociety. wine, valued at $1.8cand $12 billion, respectively. The
winegrape and wine sector collectively contributes more
DespitethesimilaritiesbetweentheseDutchandCalifornia
initiatives, the broader claims about agriculture, govern- than $33 billion to the state economy (Motto Kryla &
ance and society made about Dutch cooperatives have Fisher LLP, 20 00). Hectarage expanded from 60,000 in
1975 to 90,00 0 in 1982, to 185,000 in 2000.1 The most
limited applicability to the US situation. Goodman (2003)
importantdlistinctioninCaliforniawinegrapegeographyis
observed a significant cross-Atlantic divergence in how
that betwaeen the mountainous coastal regions, and the
researchers link their case studies of alternative agrofood
long, flat Central Valley. Beginning with Napa, growers
networks with meso-level analyses. European researchers
and vinntners discovered that the coastal counties offered
have forged closer relationships with government officials,
soilsandmicro-climates amenabletoproducing arangeof
and are able to recommend incremental institutional
proemium varietals, and the dramatic diurnal swings in
changes, while North American rural research is not
autumntemperaturesnecessarytoproduceacidsandflavor
generally considered by policy makers (Goodman, 2003).
scontent of grapes. This has resulted in an expansion of
California’s agroecological partnerships have particular
vineyardsinthecoastalcounties, even asmost other crops
appeal to growers who perceive agroecologically informed
rshrank here in the face of suburban and exurban sprawl.
practicesas defense against agro-environmental regulatory
action,andasalegitimationstrategyessentialforoutreeach The geographic branding of winegrapes has been a key
cooperative strategy of California winegrape growers and
to critical neighbors. They also see it having the potential
to gain economic advantage by being able to reppresent wine makers for almost 40 years (Lapsley, 1996). Inspired
by the French use of appellation, they have successfully
themselves as more ‘‘sustainable.’’ There is no precise nor
fixed definition of sustainability or sustainab le practices, convinced the wine-consuming public that a significant
but the scale, reach and impact of these par tnerships has differenceinwinequalitycanbetracedbacktothelocation
been so great that they have become the p rimary strategy and agroecological conditions of grape production. Geo-
s graphic branding is now a popular strategy for commu-
for extending alternative, agroecological practices in
nicating with increasingly educated and affluent wine
California (Warner, 2006). Growers and their organiza-
' consumers(Bissonetal.,2002).ThebrandingofCalifornia
tions have simultaneously engaged in developing more
r winegraperegionsrequiredcooperationbetweenwinegrape
sustainable practices while reaching out to other growers,
o growers and wineries, and their economic successes have
regulatory agencies and neighbors concerned with pollu-
stimulatedcontinuingcollaboration,to an unusualdegree.
tion.ThesepartnershipsareaCaliforniaversionof‘‘Third
Way’’ agriculture (El Titi, 1h992), signifying a pragmatic ‘‘Winegrapes are a product of a place,’’ in the words of
John Clendenen, a Sonoma County vineyard manager.
and opportunistic blend of organic and conventional/
chemical strategies. Thtey are a form of ‘‘Integrated California winegrape growers are acutely aware that they
Farming Systems’’ (Muorris and Winter, 1999), designed
1ThisdataisfromtheCaliforniaAgriculturalStatisticsServicereports,
to shape change in agricultural knowledge systems.
variousyears.Awordofwarningaboutwinegrapestatisticsisinorder.
CaliforniapartnersAhipspresentanagroecologicalapproach There is disagreement over winegrape acreages statistics due to several
tofarming,whichhasappealtoabroadsectionoffarmers factors.Growersarenotrequiredtoreportacreageuntilitbeginsbearing,
(Brodtetal.,2004).Partnershipshavehelpedgrowerscope andeventhen,notallacresarereported.Acreagesarereportedseparately
with the extra risks and the additional costs of expert to the Grape Crush Districts, and to the County Agricultural Commis-
sioners.GrapeCrushDistrictssometimesarecoterminouswithcounties,
monitoring associated with agroecological strategies, but
butnotalways,especiallynotintheSanJoaquinValley.Thesedifferent
once partnership funding ends, a significant number of
boundaries frustrate attempts to reconcile these sources of information.
growers revert to previous farming practices (Warner, in Reporting acreage to agricultural commissioners often sets in motion
press). increased taxes, and this serves as a disincentive. Grape Crush District
The literature addressing the ‘‘quality turn’’ has exam- reports are more reliable, but Jim Lapsley (pers. commun.) is cautious
about any winegrape acreage. He believes tonnage crushed is the only
inedthepotentialforthis plastic termtobe extended back
meaningful measure for relative changes in acreage, but with annual
to farm and agricultural landscape management. Sustain-
variationincrop,thisfigureis problematicaswell.Countingwinegrape
ability initiatives in the rural studies literature have not acreagecanhavehighlychargedpoliticalramifications(seebelow).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
146 K.D.Warner/JournalofRuralStudies23(2007)142–155
are paid on the quality of their grapes, and that this is this began to change when winegrape growers recognized
inseparable from their location of production. theirpotentialtoproducequalitywinesandUSconsumers
The notion of appellation, or a region of production, began to develop a taste for them. Two key events
developed originally in France, is the best known prompted California winegrape growers to turn toward
geographic branding (Barham, 2003). France has an array premium production. In 1976, French judges chose two
of government-approved geographic designations with California wines as superior to their French counterparts
varying degrees of specificity and quality reputations. for the first time (Heien and Marytin, 2003). In 1991, a
European countries have created other branding systems, medical study indicatedthat moderateconsumptionofred
p
known as Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) and wine could result in health benefits despite high fat intake,
Protected Geographic Indications (PGI), for a wide range popularly known as the ‘‘French paradox’’ (Bisson et al.,
of other regionally specialized agricultural products. 2002). These events prompoted increased interest in wine
Geographic branding represents the fusion of social consumption by the US professional classes and social
practices, political coordination and biological particular- elites, who were willincg to pay from their additional
ity (Moran, 1993). This kind of branding communicates disposable income. The California wine and winegrape
more knowledge about nature-in-place, even if it is industries have prom oted ‘‘wine consumption as part of a
commodified, than generic foodstuffs do. healthy lifestyle’’ while at the same time proclaiming their

California’s specialty crop growers have a very long qualityasamongthebestintheworld.Theobjectivemerits
l
history of intensive cooperation to improve the profit- of these quality claims are difficult to evaluate, but it is
a
ability of their specialty crop production (Stoll, 1998), but quiteclearthatthepremiumpricethatsomeconsumersare
winegrape growers have moved most aggressively to willing to pay for quality has driven a dramatic expansion
n
enhance their farmgate income by geographic branding. of vineyards in the state, at least in the coastal counties.
These geographic designations are neither as static nor as Place is especially important in winegrape production
o
clearly regulated in the US as in France (Moran, 1993). because soils and climate cannot be modified by humans,
Here the process began informally during the mid-part of and thus geographic branding has become increasingly
s
the past century as Napa and California wine producers spatially specific. Jim Lapsley argues that California
recognized the opportunity to enhance their reputation of winegrape production is in its fourth era or stage of
r
quality by providing more information to consumers development since 1950 (Lapsley, 2001).
(Lapsley, 1996). The US government only began legeal
designation of American Viticultural Areas (AVAs) in (1) Themovementfromfortifiedanddessertwinestotable
1978. AVA designations are managed by a bureau ipn the wines (1950s–1960s).
US Department of Treasury. As of 2001, there were 145 (2) The movement from generic table wine to varietal
appellations in US (The Wine Institute, 2001), and this wines (1970s–1980s).
number continues to grow. In California new AVAs are (3) The movement from varietal wines to ‘‘appellation’’
sometimes designated within previous area s. The north (AVA)-based wines (1980s–present).
s
coastcountiesofNapaandSonomahave15and13AVAs (4) Themovementfrom‘‘appellation’’(AVA)-tovineyard-
respectively, and most of these have been nested within based or ‘‘terroir’’ wines (1990s–present).
'
earlier, county-wide designations.
r
CasualuseofthetermsappellationandterroirintheUS This movement toward increasing geographic specificity
o
is generally misleading. Many actors in the California and segmentation has been facilitated by social, economic,
winegrape industry use them interchangeably with AVA. and scientific shifts by actors within the winegrape and
This is not correct because thehUS does not have specific, wine industry, and broader society. California still pro-
legal definitions of appellation or terroir. European duces some cheap sweet and fortified wines, but these are
countries carefully regulatte the geographic branding of possiblewithvirtuallyanyvarietalandminimalviticultural
winegrapes and wine, inusome cases specifying the size of expertize. Economy wines (retailing less than US$7 per
vineyards, the varietals, the mix of varietals, the spacing bottle) still occupy about two-thirds of the US market
ofvinerows,thecultAuraltechniques,andyield.Incontrast, (Bisson et al., 2002), but premium and ultra-premium
an AVA designation merely represents the regional wines(costingUS$20uptohundredsofdollarsperbottle)
production of the winegrapes. The California winegrape offer growers and vintners the opportunity to capture
industryhasbeguntousethetermsappellationandterrior, muchmoreprofit.ACentralCoastwinegrapegrowersaid:
but they do not carry the same historical, cultural, ‘‘Wine grapes are differentiated by region and grower
viticultural or enological meaning as in Europe (Barham, input, much more so than most commoditiesy . (E)ven
2003). though there are (other) commodity growers who can
Four main material factors determine quality wine: probably differentiate themselves based on bottom-line
environmental conditions ofproduction, varietal selection, quality, it’s hard to get paid for thaty . In the wine
vine management, and winemaking skills (Gladstone, industry, you can be paid for differentiated quality.’’ The
1992). Fifty years ago, winegrape production was largely increasingly specific geographic branding of wines makes
indistinguishablefromtablegrapeorraisinproduction,but sense if they have distinct sensory qualities, and they can
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.D.Warner/JournalofRuralStudies23(2007)142–155 147
200,000
175,000
150,000
125,000 y
100,000 p
75,000
o
50,000
c
25,000

0

1982 1987 1992 1997 2002
l
Central Coast Central Valley State total
a
Fig.1. Californiawinegrapesinhectares,1982–2002.
n
thus capture a quality price premium. The pursuit of this US$8000perhectare.Therisingpricesreceivedbygrowers
o
quality has triggered the planting of more vineyards, but of premium winegrapes have pushed other commodities
also a shared commitment in the winegrape and wine out of coastal counties. The non-agricultural residents of
s
industries to exchange information about improved viti- these regions resented and resisted vineyard expansion,
culture and wine making. threateningtheviabilityofwinegrapegrowing.Thissection
r
Most of the growth in vineyards took place during two relateshowthesamelandscapethatprovidesopportunities
periods: the late 1970s and late 1990s. In the 19e90s, related to geographic branding—integral to the winegrape
California winegrape hectarage expanded 24%, with quality premium—also exposes growers to greater envir-
almost half of this in just six coastal counties (pFig. 1). onmental criticism of vineyards precisely because their
The economic benefits of the premium wine market are monocultural production has become so concentrated in
reflected in the rising price paid per ton in the coastal specific places.
regions (Fig. 2). The value of winegrapes in Napa and The Napa Valley is the most famous location of wine
Sonoma Counties doubled during the 1990s. Inferior production outside of Europe (Conaway, 1990, 2002;
s
quality Kern County winegrapes were worth less in 2002 Lapsley, 1996). The valley itself is actually quite small,
than in 1992. roughly 50km long and 8km wide, but influential within
'
the winegrape industry far beyond its relative size. Since
r
4. The quality of sustainability the 1950s, Napa Valley winegrape growers and wineries
o
have promoted wine as an American beverage and the
The expansion of vineyard acreage brought in new market for premium wines. They have pursued enhanced
growers,newcapital,andnewhideastothecoastalcounties. quality with a near-religious zealotry, and have been
Someofthesenewgrowerscametowinegrapegrowingfor consistently rewarded economically for this (Lapsley,
non-economic reasons, tespecially the social status that 1996). They have also learned the value of cooperative
comes from producinug wine (Conaway, 2002). Unfortu- action in branding their place. They learned that the more
nately for the industry, the best regions for winegrapesare theyarecollectivelyabletoenhancethereputationofNapa
also highly desiraAble exurban real estate. As the greater wines,themoretheywillindividuallyberewarded.Robert
metropolitanareasofSanFranciscoandLosAngeleshave Mondavi was one key leader in this movement. After
sprawled out onto the coastal region’s agricultural land- visiting European vineyards in the 1960s, he launched an
scape, they have displaced almost all other crops; only incentive system for quality grape growing by teaching
premium winegrapes have the ability to bring in sufficient growers how to recognize wine quality, and the conditions
farmgate income as to compete with housing. Napa ofproductionthat helped create it(Mondavi,1998). Napa
harvests the fewest average tonnes per hectare, about 6, winegrape growers invested in quality production in
but captures the highest per ton income, resulting in an anticipation of receiving future profits, a strategy possible
average of US$18,500 gross income per hectare. At the in part because of the capital this agricultural sector has
lower end of the premium districts, Lodi averages 16 attracted. There are now 12,000 hectares of vineyards in
tonnes per hectare, and with per ton prices averaging Napa,andtheyproducedUS$221millionin1999,or97%
US$500, growers here capture gross income of roughly of all agricultural revenue in the county.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
148 K.D.Warner/JournalofRuralStudies23(2007)142–155
$3,000
4 (Napa County)
$2,500 3 (Sonoma & Marin
County)
7 (Monterey & San
$2,000
Benito Counties)
y
8 (San Luis Obisbo,
$1,500
Santa Baprbara &
Ventura Counties)
$1,000 11o (Lodi region:
Sacramento & San
cJoaquin Counties)
$500
14 (Tulare & Kern
Counties)
$0
1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001
l
Fig.2. Californiawinegrapecrushpricepertonne,byselectedcrushdistrict.
a
n
Due to its relatively small size, the Napa Valley as a stronglyconflictingviews.SomeofthefissuresinNapacan
place has a strong regional identity. Vineyards cover the befoundbetween:smallandlargegrowers;establishedand
o
valley floor, but the hillsides still host natural vegetation. new growers; winery owners and grape growers; winery
No place in the valley is without a beautiful view of the owners with vineyards versus those without; environmen-
s
hillsides, and this fosters a strong sense of place (Poirier- talists who see agriculture as pivotal to forestalling sprawl
Locke, 2002). Environmental conflicts entered a new stage in the valley and environmentalists who are infuriated by
r
whenthevalleyfloorwas‘‘plantedout’’intheearly1990s, the winegrape industry and see it as an environmental
and growers increasingly began to plant vineyards on thee villain. Napa critics have called winegrape growing
steep and erodible hillsides, triggering intense public ‘‘alcohol farming,’’ and vineyard expansion ‘‘graping the
controversies over land use. Several of the new hpillside land’’ (Conaway, 2002).
vineyards did not include adequate erosion control Winegrapes became Sonoma County’s most valuable
measures, and some spectacular erosion events h ave taken crop in 1989. Winegrapes have been grown in Sonoma
place. In 1989, 2000tonnes of sediment erode d into Bell County for over a century, but as other crops have been
Reservoirfromonerecentlyplantedvineyard ,contaminat- forced out due to development pressures and declining
s
ing the public water source for St. Helena (Poirier-Locke, prices, premium winegrape vineyards have taken some of
2002). The Napa River routinely violates water quality theirplace.From1994to1999,bearingSonomawinegrape
'
standards, and this will apparently result in requirements acreage jumped over 20% to over 20,000 hectares, and
r
forvineyardstobesetbackfromriparianzones(Conaway, winegrapes now account for just over 60% of the total
o
2002). value of agricultural production of the county. Land use
These events became the flashpoints in a protracted battles began earlier in Napa, but have since spread to
struggle over the best way to phrotect Napa’s environment Sonoma County (Guthey et al., 2003), and now echo
and winegrape industry. They became bitter and fractious throughout the coastal counties where grapes are grown.
because there are many dtifferent views as to the exact Anger at vineyard expansion in Sonoma County had
natureofthethreat.Somueseethevineyardsasthecauseof been building throughout the 1990s, with water use and
environmental problems, while others see vineyards as the oak woodland loss being thesource of particular irritation
last economically viaAble crop prior to converting the land (Friedland, 2002). Controversial vineyard development
to housing. Environmental activists have demanded local projects have used massive earth moving equipment to
land use regulations, angering property rights activists. radically re-configure hillsides (Cobb, 1998; Friedland,
Vineyards are agriculture, but most wineries operate at an 2002). Anti-vineyard environmental activists began a
industrial scale, and local officials engage in heated public campaign to limit vineyard expansion in the county, and
debates about regulations on winery sales of objects received a big boost when a university researcher dis-
unrelatedtoagriculture,suchasT-shirtsandbooks.These covered that the County Agricultural Commissioner had
may seem like an innocuous consideration, but with five undercounted new vineyard hectarage by almost 20%
million visitors clogging rural roads, non-grape growing (Merenlender, 2000). The adjusted numbers were reported
residents are frustrated. on the front page of the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat
All parties claim to be pro-environment and pro- (1 June 1998) and galvanized opposition to further
agriculture, but subtle variations in perspective result in vineyard expansion.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
K.D.Warner/JournalofRuralStudies23(2007)142–155 149
The Central Coast region of Santa Barbara, San Luis was once considered y clearly an asset to the
Obispo, and Monterey Counties is the latest to enter the community. And we have turned that corner. There is
premium winegrape market. Commercial winegrape pro- asignificantportionofthepopulationthatdoesnotfeel
duction beganhereinthe1970swhen theboominvarietal that way anymore.
winescoincidedwithachangeinthetaxlawstructurethat
Thisshiftinthepublicperceptionofagricultureappearsto
allowed corporations and individuals to write off invest-
ments in perennial crops (FitzSimmons, 1983). Major be growing throughout the coasytal counties, where wine-
grape growers and the exurban population are competing
wineries discovered parts of the Central Coast offered
for rural space. p
growing conditions similar to Sonoma. Winegrapes have
Bill Friedland (2002) analyzes these conflicts and
expandeddramatically,andmuchofthenewvineyardland
has been converted directly from grazing, e.g., not first to suggests this is anotheor stage in the separation of
agriculture from rurality. Forty years ago one could speak
other, lower value irrigated crops. Since the original
about the coastal counties and justly claim that they were
vineyard developments 25 years ago, many large wineries c
rural. Changes in the nature of the US economy and
boughtlandorcontractedforgrapestobegrownhere,and
functional control of the winegrape landscape is quite transportation ha ve turned portions of all these counties
concentrated. Collectively, five major wineries farm or into ‘‘exurbia,’’ regions populated by wealthy individuals
contracttohavemanaged7250ha,andbuyfrom7700ha.2 who have fled the social problems of urban California.
They bringlwith them acute environmental values, and the
This constitutes 42% of the region’s 35,000ha production.
expectatioan that they will be able to live in ‘‘natural’’
When residents began to campaign for vineyard develop-
beauty,withoutbeingexposedtopollution,agriculturalor
ment restrictions (Cobb, 1998), the region’s winegrape
otherwnise. This is particularly true in the coastal counties
growersandvineyardsrecognizedtheimportanceofpublic
(see Fig. 3).
outreach about their efforts to promoted sustainable
oIn addition tovineyardexpansion,agriculturalpractices
viticulture.
came under fire. Criticism of practices has been used as a
California’sCentralValleyisstillhometohalfthestate’s
sbuttressing argument against vineyard expansion specifi-
winegrape hectarage, however. The long, hot summers are
cally and the winegrape industry in general. Established
helpful for growing large volumes of sweet grapes (many
rvineyard owners and managers are understandably reluc-
times the per area yield of Napa), but are not well suited
tanttoquestionexpansionbytheirfellowgrowers,butthey
for growing varietal wines. About 20 years ago, howeever,
have felt wronged by complaints about their vineyard
growersintheLodiregionrecognizedthattheycouldtake
advantage of the coastal breezes passing through fprom the practices, and are motivated to disprove critics. Grower
John Clendenen of Sonoma County said:
Sacramento Delta over their vineyards to produce higher
quality wines. This required them to graft ove r their vines Traditionally the farmer had the full say over what
to varietal grapes, an expensive gamble, but one that has happenedonhisland,andthatpicture’schangingreally
paid off. The Lodi region has been able to differentiate fast. And so it was very important to us to present a
s
itself from other Central Valley production areas, and present a positive light on what we did. We were
capture someofthequalitymarket.Its vineyardhectarage perceived as the ‘‘green desert,’’ and then there were
'
has more than doubled over the pasrt 15 years. The grower particular hot points that we’ve started to be attacked,
organization that coordinated winegrape quality improve- viciously attacked on, usually sprays, methyl bromide
o
ment simultaneously addressed issues of environmental use, certain pesticide use.
stewardship.
Vineyard expansion in Cahlifornia has come at the price At the same time, winegrape growers recognized that
of public perception. A Central Coast vineyard manager consumers have higher expectations of their crop than
said: t others. Clendenen said:
u
yalotofwhatwesellinwinegrapesisperception.You
yI’vebeen(avineyardmanagerfor)30years.Formore
know, it isn’t all our crop goes in, sits in a silo
than 20, I would say vineyards were considered the
A
somewhere, and it’s sold through Cargill or something
ecological friend ofthe state ofCalifornia when it came
like that (laughter). A lot of it is perception, so beyond
to agricultural production endeavors. And somewhere
sellingjustanendproduct,wine,peoplewanttofeelthe
in this growth periodywe became an environmental
whole environment in which the wine is growing. And
concern.
that’saperceptionthattheygetinaglass.So,weendup
A Napa vineyard manager reported: needing to be more perceived as environmentally
friendly, consumer friendly from the start.
ywhat’s happened in this area, as in a lot of other
Growers throughout the coastal regions realized that
areas, agriculture and especially here in Napa Valley,
environmental criticism threatened the future of their
2Thesefiveare:RobertMondaviWinery,Beringer-Blass,Diageo,E&J industry, and that collective action was necessary to
Gallo,andFetzer. address a crisis in public perception. The geographic
ARTICLE IN PRESS
150 K.D.Warner/JournalofRuralStudies23(2007)142–155
500,000
400,000
300,000 Napa y
Sonoma
p
200,000 Monterey
oSan Luis Obsipo
100,000
c

0

1970 1980 1990 2000

Fig.3. Populationofselectedcoastalcountiesproducinlgwinegrapes.
a
brandingofwinesofferedtheopportunitytoenhancetheir learning how to better monitor pests, tolerate sub-
n
income through quality premiums, but carried with it the economic damage levels of pest pressure, use less ecologi-
danger of associating their region or vineyard with callydisruptivepesticides,morepreciselymeasurefertilizer
o
environmentally harmful practices. Industry leaders recog- inputs and irrigation, and attend more closely to soil
nized that the winegrape industry as a whole was facing fertility. They frequently use agroecological knowledge
s
this crisis, and that they could best address it through from organic farming systems, but only a few growers
collective action. pursue organic certification, for reasons discussed below.
r
Theagroecologicalpartnershipmodelistheleadingvehicle
5. Agroecological partnerships and the message of efor extending sustainable farming practices in California
sustainability (Warner, 2006).
p Winegrape growers have organized six partnerships, the
California winegrape growers in local networks orga- plurality in California. This semi-privatized model of
nized agroecological partnerships to educate th eir fellow extension has particular appeal to the winegrape industry
growers, neighbors, and environmental regula tors about for several reasons.3 First, winegrape growers have a
sustainable farming practices, drawing on t he same net- history of cooperative relations that have benefited them,
s
work of social relations they did for regional AVA-based more so than growers of any other crop. Second, state
initiatives to improve wine quality. They grafted ‘‘sustain- officials have slashed budgets to public extension services
'
ability’’ initiatives onto their existing quality improvement atthesametimeasthesecondpulseofvineyardexpansion
r
efforts using the same cooperative strategies, and over inthestate,sowinegrapegrowersrealizedthattheywould
o
time, they began to recognize that the vulnerabilities havetoundertakeextensionactivitiesformerlyledbystate
associated with geographic branding of their wines could institutions. Third, growers discovered that some of the
be converted into a marketinghadvantage. farming practices that produced superior winegrapes also
Winegrape partnerships are a subset of the California reduced some environmentally harmful practices. For
agroecological partnershiptphenomenon. Between 1993 example, careful reductions in irrigation, combined with
and 2003, 32 partnershiups were created in 16 California vine canopy management, can improve winegrape quality
commodities for crop-specific knowledge (Warner, in and reduce resource use. Conversely, during the 1990s,
press). All partnershAips promote practices to improve the several wineries discovered that certain pesticides compro-
quality of farm management through the application of mised wine flavor, and prohibited their use through
improved knowledge of farming systems. They try to help contracts. Winegrape growers recognized the value of
the growers perceive, understand, and manipulate ecologi- using cultural practices so as avoid compromising quality.
calrelationshipsbetweenon-farmorganismssoastomake The same outreach strategies that attracted many growers
better decisions, and to use the least environmentally to improve regional quality and enhance winegrape price
disruptive materials, preferably other biological organisms also helped them to recognize the value of adopting more
such as cover crops and beneficial insects. These initiatives sustainable practices.
are agroecological because they assume integrated pest
management (IPM) and seek to ecologically optimize all
3In the U.S., extension, or the practical field education of farmers, is
components of farming systems, thus accruing synergistic
conductedundertheauspicesofpublicuniversities.Foradescriptionof
benefits (Altieri, 2002). In practical terms, this means thisprocess,seeWarner(2006,andinpress).