ABP meeting

[rkaiser]

pandiana - I would like to say that debating the issue of packing plants on this forum HAS formed a consensus.
I do not know of anyone on here who ultimately opposes the idea of a bridge financed plant owned by producers and paid down by some sort of levy which ultimately turns into shares for producers in the said plant or plants.

Possibly the only sticking point here, and I will say at the ABP level as well, is the mandatory levy.

Kee Jim shook his head in agreement for most all of my (speech) question the other night, and stood up and defended BSE testing for market access when that dumb ass politician questioned me on the need for it.

Eric Butters outright said that the only thing that bothers him is the idea of forcing his neighbor to pay a levy. (Kind of a strange stance from someone who supports a mandatory checkoff for ABP) However his opinion is one opinion, as discussed after the meeting. If mandatory is out, then make an alternate suggestion that holds the clout of a levy across this country.

I truely beleive, pandiana, that we have a viable business model to work with here. I also believe that SOME of the executive and certainly most delegates see a lot of merit in this New business model. The groundwork is laid, focus can now be administered, and we (ABPCCA and the grassroots producers of this country) can move ahead with a common lobby.

[farmers_son]

“Assuming that ABP declared an emergency meeting of delegates, and working within the existing mandate of ABP, can you tell me exactly what you would expect to achieve at this meeting”.

The ABP through the CCA has a stated goal of increased packing capacity in Canada. However they have no action plan to carry out that policy. I do not think it is up to producers to find a consensus on how best to achieve the goal of more capacity. It is a challenge our leaders must meet. Assuming our producer organizations are sincere about increasing packing capacity, the minimum they could do is form a committee charged with the responsibility of putting three proposals before the delegate body who would choose the best two. Those two proposals could be taken to the producers in the form of a plebiscite to be voted on.

It should not be assumed that there are not viable solutions within the present mandate of the ABP. I believe there are several possible solutions and ways to see producers participate in value added opportunities in the packing plant industry. However I would point out that the ABP Plan Regulations are changed on a regular basis and if changes are necessary that is not an obstacle to any solution that would be chosen by the producers through a plebiscite.

I despair that the legal route will not be effective from this side of the border. But even if the border were to open we still need increased packing capacity in this province and there is absolutely no doubt that producers want to participate. The question is how and I think it is up to the ABP to answer that question.

The ABP has a responsibility to answer that question and not leave it up to a non functioning market place. I would suggest that the 'emergency' board meetings, the legal process, the traveling to Washington, Ottawa etc. and the regional Town Hall meetings are ineffective at creating solutions to the problem of not enough packing capacity. The time for talk passed a long while ago and we do need action.

What would I hope to achieve at that meeting? I would hope to hammer out a plan of action to see more packing plant capacity built in this province and that this plan would then be carried out. Up to March 7 the focus was on opening the border and a lot of effort went into that. I am suggesting that about all that can be done by our organizations has been done in that regard and that the focus from here on should be increases in packing plant capacity. Producers are looking for direction and a proposal they can hang their hat on. It is time to get busy on that.

It is not leadership to simply turn thumbs down on every suggestion for change that comes before the ABP. Producers have given the ABP direction, the ABP now needs to take that direction and turn it into action.

[grassfarmer]

I'm pleased to see we seem to be making some progress on the BIG initiative - producers may get to vote on a plebisite at some point in the future and after that a plant may be built.
Reality is what 2-3 years from now? This in itself will not solve our problems although it is a move in the right direction and would set a precedent.
Immediate action is what we need, I think the only thing that will work fast enough to save the majority of producers from going under is immediate Federal intervention. Take three weeks to formulate a ten year plan to rebuild and recapture our beef processing industry. Decide that we need more players in the market - at least 10 major packers (some producer owned) plus small local plants to serve local/niche markets. The problem of funding disappears if you rule that the current monopoly is broken - they will be forced to reduce their kill to maybe 10% each of the national kill over a period of time. Money would be appearing from all corners the next day - there is plenty of investment capital in Canada.
Although this will be deemed crazy and a socialist idea it is anything but as it is creating an arena where free enterprise and it's most crucial element - competition, can flourish. Having a permanent monopoly of two foreign corporations controlling the destiny of all producers in this country is more socialist or communist to me.

[rkaiser]

You have that right grassfarmer. The age old excuse of fighting left wing with right wing, and vice versa, is totally out the door here.

If the monopolistic situation created in Canada by bullshit border issues is Capitalist, or right wing, I'll eat my shorts.

We are caught up in this economic relationship of freedom and democracy being linked to a free market economic system. Ain't happening. Greed and power have interupted the reasons behind freedom and democracy.

At this stage the NFU has more credibility as a voice of the producer than the so called democratic process that put our Beef industry leadership in place. Does that mean I am a socialist? I don't really like any label, but it certainly means that hiding behind so called democracy, and supporting mutinational thieves is certainly not free market capitalism.

I personally do not see merit in a union like Quebec, nor do I like the idea of supply management, but standing up for the family farm the way that groups like the NFU has done is admirable, and commendable.

[farmers_son]

You might be interested to read the situation elsewhere where producers are having similar problems with non functioning markets and how they are seeking similar solutions with vertical integration upwards and moving closer to the consumer.

Check out:
http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/eca/Ecssd.nsf/0/8049AFC83E76300285256EE5005B3D27?Opendocument&Star t=1&Count=1000&ExpandView

According to this World Bank report on rural development in the central and eastern European economies which are in transition from a centrally planned economy to a market economy, there is a remarkable similarity between their situation and ours.

Trade liberalization was found to be a necessary but not sufficient condition for economic growth and poverty reduction.

Supply chains can help smallholder farmers address their major constraints – shortage of capital, low quality products, access to markets – but this requires an appropriate policy framework and an effective system of contract enforcement.

Access to credit along supply chains is essential, but requires more innovative forms of collateral including warehouse receipts, leasing and reverse factoring.

Farmer associations were also seen as critical, empowering farmers in negotiations and reducing transaction costs by acting as intermediaries in product aggregation.

Weak government was identified as a major constraint to agricultural sector growth and chain integration.

Although banks appear risk adverse with respect to agriculture, a combination of capacity building in agricultural lending and innovative collateral products can broaden their participation in this sector.

Building trust amongst farmers is critical to successful association. This can be engendered through building capacity in rural leadership, association management and membership responsibility and very transparent association operations. We cannot stop changes that are occurring in agricultural markets, but they can shape their impact through better farmer association and knowledge, improved access to credit, better market regulation and deeper economic reform.

[kpb]

Even if the ABP decided to go with the BIG C plan tomorrow we'd be looking at two to three years before a plant was actually up and running as grassfarmer has pointed out. Pandiana says that ABP has been doing more lately, by lobbying Washington and working on legal challenges but this is actually just more of the same inactivity. This organization is only good at talking about things--mostly things that are of secondary importance--and actually does nothing at all. We're almost at the two year mark of BSE and what, exactly and specifically, has the ABP done in that two years to constructively support any proposal except continue to spend our money? If anyone on this site thinks that working on legal challenges or lobbying the U.S. government--both of which will take years if ever to show any results is doing something, than they have become part of the problem too.
RKaiser is correct when he says there is already a consensus on this forum that all producers want their own packing plant. But he does not go far enough, the fact is that all producers in the country, whether on this site or not want their own plant and would endorse a levy to construct such a plant because they see the merit in such a long-term solution. It is just the do-nothing, in-the-government's-pocket cattle organizations that oppose such a plan. And they do not oppose it directly, because they know their constituents would be against that--they oppose these ideas by obstructing, delaying and endless discussion so that nothing, eventually gets done.
Grassfarmer is correct--because we have squnadered the last two years we do not have the time anymore to hope that a plebiscite is held and that more packing capacity comes on stream. I think his ideas are solid and I don't care if everyone thinks I'm pink. But I think the chances of any of them coming to pass are very slim.
Regretably I think our cattle organizations and governments have led us over the edge of the pit. Any solution that was approved now would just take too long to actually get implemented unless you go with grassfarmer's idea. I think you'll see very rough calf prices this fall and for the next couple of years. And there will be many us of who will not be around in this business in a couple of years.


kpb

[grassfarmer]

Pleased that you agree with that proposal folks but what can we do to make it happen?
It is clear the Alberta Government would oppose such a move - they refuse to accept the monopoly situation exists or is a problem. Like BIG I think we have a better chance in Ottawa. Wayne Easter and Andy Mitchell have both been presented with the NFU proposals to end the farm crisis. But we are still waiting on any action.
ABP clearly refuses to publicly speak against the packer monopoly although individual directors agree with our thoughts. High level officials of ABP still fail either to see the problem or they choose to ignore it. ABP will not fight this battle for us.
What I've seen of the Wild Rose Ag producers indicates they are just another puppet organisation of the Alberta Government.
Cam Ostercamp had another excellent article in Alberta Beef Magazine - he knows the problems why can no one else in a position of importance see it?
So we have the tiny, but vocal, NFU organisation backed by a small number of producers. What can we do next? - Will Paul Martin read a letter from an actual producer with a suggestion? or has the time come to blockade the High River and Brooks plants?

[greybeard]

Grass farmer says what can we do to make it happen?
I think as individuals the guy to lobby is Brad Wildeman. We hear more of him here in Sask. because the CBC goes to him for interviews. What he says usually happens. He is on one of the CCA boards, but I think he is the "go to" guy there for the big problems.
I also know he gets very frustrated with the slow progress.
Last summer he spoke in Moose Jaw I have pasted the itro below.
Brad Wildeman, President, Poundmaker Ag Ventures, Lanigan, Sask. Saskatchewan Cattle Industry’s Representative to the Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and the National Beef Industry Roundtable – “How Do We Build Slaughter/Processing Capacity in Canada/Saskatchewan?”

[pandiana]

Here is a clip from ranchers.net that I though was rather topical. It seems we have a lot in common.

"Soapweed March 2, 2005
It has been said that "the world is run by those who show up". Apathy can play a big part in ruling the world, also, by allowing those who do show up free rein to operate as they see fit. Awareness and participation by average citizens tends to keep the leaders honest.

If there was a problem with the way NCBA was run a few years back, we have only ourselves to blame. Apathy by the average rancher was apparent, and most of us didn't "show up" for the cattlemen's meetings. Then we griped because the NCBA wasn't going the way we wanted it to. In retrospect, all we had to do was go to the meetings and institute the changes we wanted. It could have been done, and lately has been done. The NCBA is now much more "user friendly", and perhaps R-Calf needs a pat on the back for getting the NCBA back on track."

[farmers_son]

I would add that the reason the NCBA is more user friendly is because their checkoff is being challenged in the U.S. court system.

http://www.beef.org/NEWSCourtUpholdsRulingAgainstNationalBeefCheckoff5 071.aspx

"DENVER (July 8, 2003) – In a case that could have far-reaching implications for the American beef industry, a three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the Beef Promotion and Research Act violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. At the same time, the court said the program may continue while the parties decide whether to ask the full Circuit Court to reconsider the decision."


It is only a matter of time until producers in Alberta challenge the ABPs checkoff if the ABP is not seen as being responsive to the grass roots producers.

Also see: Beef: It’s What’s in Our Courts
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_activities/litigation/judge_richard_cebull.htm