CWB - 2010 Combine to Customer Alumni Conference Summaryþ

[gustgd]

I never went this year but have in the past, I have come away very frustrated, but also with some hope that either the BOD or management listen to some of the constructive criticism as well as some of the anger out on the farm. They don't learn anything from those that just go for the free meals and say whatever you decide is good for me.


The CWB held its sixth Combine to Customer (C to C) Alumni Conference inRegina from January 4 to 6, 2010. Although you did not attend this year,we are pleased to provide you with a conference summary. The conference featured presentations on broad-ranging grain marketingtopics like customer trends, market information, and details of CWBprograms. There were also many opportunities for participants toexchange ideas with the presenters, the CWB board of directors and otherwestern Canadian farmers. As in the past, a key element of theconference was the small group breakout discussions focusing on CWBprograms. These discussions brought together groups of 12 to 15 farmersand one CWB director,, facilitated by farmer participants. The small group sessions focused on CWB services, products, policies andprocesses, accountability and delivery policy. Since the conference, wehave reviewed and summarized all of the input and provided it to ourboard of directors for use in their ongoing strategic planning. Thesummary provides good information as well as a look at the future andthe next steps needed to move forward and build on the direction of theconference. When you have had a chance to read this document, please feel free toshare any comments or opinions with us by contacting Bev Staniland at204-983-2650 or bev_staniland@cwb.ca. As a Combine to Customer alumnus, your contribution is important to thefuture of the CWB and the grain industry in Western Canada. Theconference in Regina was an excellent opportunity for the CWB board ofdirectors to interact with your peers on vital issues and we want tocontinue that dialogue with you. We hope you feel the same and see yourinput guiding progressive change in your CWB. The next C to C Alumni event will be held in January 2011, so look foryour invitation this fall. I hope those of you who have not participatedin previous events will take the opportunity to attend and provide yourinput about the future of your industry. Sincerely, original signed by Ian WhitePresident and Chief Executive Officer

[gustgd]

2010 Combine to Customer Alumni Conference Summary
Introduction
The CWB hosted a two-day conference for Combine to Customer (C to C) Alumni from January
4th to 6th in Regina. The conference was designed to bring C to C Alumni together with the CWB
board of directors in a forum to discuss a number of topics including CWB products, policies and
processes, accountability, and delivery policy. Approximately 150 alumni attended.
Agenda and process
Agenda
Registration
Larry Hill (CWB), Opening remarks
Kyle Korneychuk (CWB), From the board table
Bill Nicholson (CWB), Grain research
Bill Woods (CWB), Producer car update
Jeff Nielsen (CWB), Emerging issues: biotech, grain quality and food safety
Ian White (CWB), CWB strategic plan
Service show
Larry Hill, Andrea Carlson (CWB), The WTO and you
Dave Burrows (CWB), CWB branding initiative
Pedro Vega (Grupo Moderna -Ecuador), Ecuador: A country with an appetite for Canadian wheat
Alison Sass, (CWB), WeatherFarm: the CWB’s growing weather initiative
Dave Simonot (CWB), Breakout sessions – Description of process and background information
Breakout sessions
Ron Davidson (CWB), Representing farmers – the CWB in Ottawa
Rick Steinke (CWB), A closer look at the CWB’s supply chain
Ward Weisensel (CWB), Market outlook
Allen Oberg (CWB), Looking forward and closing comments
The presentations and speakers were intended to provide information that would help build
participants’ knowledge of the global marketplace. Participants were divided into smaller groups
for the three hours of breakout sessions. Each group, led by a farmer facilitator and including a
CWB director, a CWB staff member in the role of subject matter expert and a CWB staff
member in the role of secretary discussed CWB products, policies and processes,
accountability and delivery policy.
Summary of results
The results from the conference are summarized by topic below.
1. Products, Policies and Processes
Participants were asked what one product, policy or process they would change or fix if
they were elected to the board of directors. This topic was intended to provide an open
forum to bring suggestions forward. The following suggestions were provided:
Provide education on the costs of marketing through the CWB, where Canadian
wheat is used, the Australian situation after the loss of the single desk, the status
of the WTO negotiations and the benefits of the CWB (not all farmers supported
increasing education on the benefits of the CWB).
Provide opportunities for farmers to market outside of the single desk (i.e. allow
25 per cent outside of the single desk, allow a dual market, or allow farmers to
opt out of the pool and single desk).
Work with government to gain their support at the WTO, in bilateral trade
negotiations and domestically.
Improve malt barley contracting, GrainFlo contacts, PPO (basis calculations) and
producer direct sales for organic and conventional grains.

[gustgd]

Summary Report February 2, 2010
2010 Combine to Customer Alumni Conference Page 2 Advocate for joint running rights, a rail costing review, the continuation of
producer car options, and rail line abandonment (supportive and non-supportive
positions were expressed for the rail line abandonment issue).
Continue branding and create partnerships to increase demand for Canadian
products.
Market aggressively (maximize revenue and reduce costs).
Provide an organic pool for better market access.
Purchase grain on a dry-matter basis.
Create the ability to project cash flow on e-services.
Create new information services for mobile devices (i.e. blackberry).
Provide more flexibility in regard to delivery opportunity to increase cash flow.
Increase level of initial payments, remove the crop year transfer levy and pay
storage on later deliveries.
Hold elevators accountable for shipping plans.
Re-evaluate how ballots are distributed in CWB elections.
Decouple the single-desk from the pool.
CWB should stick to its core marketing function, provide better market signals
and simplify/reduce the number of programs offered.
2. Delivery policy
Conference participants were asked what aspects of delivery of CWB grains added
value to their business. They indicated that the Canadian Western Red Winter (CWRW)
guaranteed delivery contracts (GDC), Churchill Storage Program, Early Payment
Options (EPO), the Wheat Storage Program (WSP) and GrainFlo (despite needing some
improvements) all added value to their operations. In addition, they felt that the
consideration given by the FBR to personal contracting and delivery situations was very
valuable.
Participants were also asked what aspects of delivery of CWB grains reduced or
removed value from their operations. They indicated that the CWRW Select program,
aspects of GrainFlo, New Pool Pricing, Malt Barley contracting, Soft White Spring
movement and durum acceptance and movement all removed value from their
operations. Suggestions of a daily cash price, improved clarity in the basis calculation
and a flexible delivery basis were provided to offset some of the issues raised.
Participants were asked about delivery equity and what that means to them. This
question received mixed reaction with some suggestion that equity did not exist now and
that the system needed to be more fair moving forward. They indicated that this would
be difficult to achieve with the ability of both the grain companies and the railroads to
affect grain movement. Some participants also indicated that the price should drive
delivery and knowing when they would be able to deliver was more important than truly
equal access to the delivery system. Durum producers attending expressed their
concerns over durum marketing, acceptance levels and the resulting carry out of stocks.
Farmers in attendance were asked if they would be willing to provide an indication of
preferred delivery timing as a part of contract sign-up. The majority of participants were
supportive of this concept asking that the timeframes be two weeks to a month in length,
that the contracts be binding and that there be the opportunity to trade delivery periods if
problems arose.

[gustgd]

Summary Report February 2, 2010
2010 Combine to Customer Alumni Conference Page 3
When asked if additional payments (i.e. storage payments) for specific delivery timelines
on the Series contract would affect delivery preference, most participants indicated they
would to some degree. They felt that sales patterns, elevator space and rail service
would all impact the delivery pattern and the ability to offer meaningful storage
payments. Participants indicated that they felt that this would further complicate the
system. Others suggested that there would need to be a direct transfer of funds from
those producers getting to deliver early to those having to wait for delivery opportunity
for this concept to work.
Participants were asked to complete a questionnaire on issues related to delivery of
CWB grains. Ratings listed in brackets are the average scores received when
participants were asked to rate each option on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 is not very
important and 5 is very important. They indicated the following (based on 134 returned
questionnaires, survey questions are listed below in italics):
o How important is it that the CWB calls for delivery in a manner that achieves the best
price and lowest cost for marketing your grain? (4.59)
o How important is it that the CWB calls for delivery in a manner that achieves
equitable delivery timing for all farmers? (3.71)
o Thinking of your farming operation and business needs and the usual pattern of
delivery opportunity you experience, please rank your preferences:
o Greater early delivery opportunity – from harvest through December 31?
(3.83)
o Greater delivery opportunity through winter (January – end of March)? (3.59)
o Greater delivery opportunity in spring (April through June)? (2.36)
o Greater delivery opportunity late in the crop year (July)? (2.52)
o Thinking of your farming operation and business needs, how important is each of the
following aspects of delivery?
o Ability to contract for specific delivery timing? (3.71)
o Ability to earn additional revenue for delivery when most needed? (4.02)
o Flexibility to deliver when it suits your operational and business needs? (4.14)
o Would you like to see additional payments introduced for storage and/or delivery with
specific time periods on the general Series contracts? Yes - 88 per cent
o If additional payments for storage or specific delivery timing were available on the
general series contract, how likely would you be to consider adjusting your delivery
pattern to capture such payments? The majority (95 per cent) of participants
indicated that they would be very likely (47 per cent) or somewhat likely (48 per cent)
to adjust their delivery pattern to capture the payment.
3. Accountability and performance
Participants were asked what it is that the CWB does that provides value to their
business. Participants identified the following benefits (numbers in brackets indicate the
number of groups of the possible 10 identifying the benefit):
o Coordinate rail transportation/logistics (10);
o Support Canadian International Grain Institute (CIGI) (8);
o Provide branding of western Canadian wheat, durum and barley (8);
o Lobby/provide a voice for farmers with government and on transportation issues (6);
o Provide risk management, pooling (6);
o Establish customer relationships and provide customer service (6);
o Extract good value for top quality grains (5);
o Provide a single desk, orderly marketing (4);

[gustgd]

Summary Report February 2, 2010
2010 Combine to Customer Alumni Conference Page 4
o Market wheat, barley and durum (4);
o Provide product quality and consistency to customers (4);
o Returns all revenues less costs to farmers (4);
o Have a reputation for quality (4);
o Provide education (4);
o Provide cash advances (4);
o Support producer cars (3);
o Provide year round pricing options (3);
o Promote grains/market development (3);
o Provide blending opportunities (2);
o Support Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) (2);
o Support research on grains, value added (2);
o Provide a venue for farmer concerns (2);
o Provide financial guarantees (i.e. the cheques will not bounce) (2);
o Provide leadership in agriculture industry (1);
o Pleasant and knowledgeable staff (1);
o Provide Identity Preserved (IP) programs (1); and
o Partner with Weatherbug (1).
Participants were also asked what it is that the CWB does that removes/reduces value to
their business. Participants identified the following issues (numbers in brackets indicate
the number of groups of the possible 10 identifying the issue):
o Provide pricing options that are too confusing (i.e. basis calculations, adjustment
factor) (3);
o Are reactive vs. proactive (2);
o Need to cut costs (2);
o Offer malt barley contracts (2);
o Provide poor market signals (i.e. durum) (2);
o Are the source of too much debate (2);
o Provide no system of price discovery 365 days a year (1);
o Are not subjected to competition (1);
o Are not effective enough with the railways (1);
o Provide GrainFlo contracts that are inaccessible (1);
o Removed the Daily Price Contract (DPC) (1);
o Increased the organic buyback cost (1);
o Implemented a fee for New Pool Pricing (1);
o Offer signup deadlines for PPO contracts that do not work for farmers (1);
o Set initial payments too low (1);
o Offer too many programs, creating too much confusion (1);
o Suffer from a lack of accountability (1); and
o Deter value added processing (1).
Participants were asked what information that they needed to assess the performance of
the CWB. They provided the following:
o Farmers need to trust that the elected directors are seeing all sales values and
ensuring that the CWB is acting in farmers’ best interests (6);
o Provide historical information/sales documents (3);
o Provide a marketing comparison to canola marketing system;
o Compare CWB prices to the weighted average of U.S. grain sales;
o Allow independent 3rd party audits of contracts;
o Indicate which sales are being made by accredited exporters;

[gustgd]

Summary Report February 2, 2010
2010 Combine to Customer Alumni Conference Page 5
o Provide the highest dollar value and lowest dollar value sales information at the end
of the crop year;
o Indicate per cent sold on each PRO;
o Let farmers vote on CWB issues and policies;
o Provide customer testimonials;
o Provide the ability to fix a price (cash pricing) year round;
o Provide posted price comparison between Canadian grain companies; and
o Farmers need to know the CWB is working for them and that the CWB will do the
right thing on their behalf.
Participants would like to see this information communicated through reports from the
Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and directors or an executive summary of performance.
This information could be delivered via:
o Current communication vehicles (e-mail, Grain Matters, website, PPO updater,
meetings, webinars, FBR, farm papers, etc) (8);
o More director meetings (farmers expressed both negative and positive comments on
this) (3);
o More web-based communications and a website that is easier to navigate and
download from (3);
o External studies (farmers expressed both negative and positive comments on this);
o Increased accountability (i.e. if errors are made farmers want to hear about them);
o A new CWB newsletter that farmers can subscribe to;
o Customer testimonials (via DVD, webcasts, etc);
o Breakdown the cost of marketing and show a number that reflects the cost of CWB
selling western Canadian farmers’ grain; and
o More weather information.
4. What does the CWB need to do to better meet farmers’ needs?
o Provide more communication (i.e. timing of payments, C to C information) (4);
o Make more money for farmers, (i.e. extract higher prices, more premiums) (3);
o Look at voting rules for CWB elections (e.g. proportional voting, ensure those with
multiple permits have same voice, farmers producing wheat having say on wheat
issues and barley farmers having say on barley issues) (3);Provide education (e.g.
PPO or C to C type information) (2);
o Encourage government to increase interest free portion of cash advance (2);
o Sell/promote the CWB and western Canadian farmers in Western Canada (2);
o Engage in more branding activities (2);
o Sell more grain (2);
o Allow more freedom (i.e. Allow farmers to market 25 per cent outside the CWB) (2);
o Address carbon credit issue (1);
o Provide better accountability (1);
o Listen to farmers (1);
o Continue long-term planning efforts (1);
o Bring back the DPC (1);
o Work with terminals to improve delivery of farmers’ grain (1);
o Provide a diversity of options (delivery, pricing, etc) (1);
o Increase the number of staff in the country (1);
o Promote the cost savings of direct deposit (1);
o Provide higher initial prices (1);
o Put more pressure on the railways (1);
o Design more balanced contracts (i.e. current contracts are felt to be one-sided) (1);

[gustgd]

Summary Report February 2, 2010
2010 Combine to Customer Alumni Conference Page 6
o Provide regularly scheduled payments (1);
o Offer the Fixed Price Contract (FPC) earlier than Feb 28 (1);
o Streamline and simplify programs (1);
o Provide better market signals (Canadian Western Amber Durum) (1);
o Offer defined delivery periods on contracts (1);
o Offer a premium for dry grain (1);
o Consider marketing other crops (1);
o Offer financial services (e.g. insurance programs) (1);
o Offer a grain shop for farmers (e.g. discounts on fertilizer, farm equipment, inputs,
etc) (1); and
o Be proactive vs. reactive (1).
In addition to participating in the conference, the CWB board of directors has used this
information for ongoing strategic planning. The information will also be used in our ongoing work
to improve our services and offerings to producers.

[bucket]

Same old, same old.

Still trying to push the same agenda.

And if they don't like the results see TOM4CWB's thread below about the surveymonkey.

Durum should have been at the top of the discussion.

Selling high quality wheat in the current environment is monkey's work.

Everything else is a non issue.

Letting people out out of their grainflo durum contracts obviously got alot of "out of conference" politicing.

Makes me wonder who the board really listens to.