Why do you need a single desk to advocate?

[Fransisco]

From today's CWB monitor...

[Fransisco]

<b>The CWB Doesn't Need the Single Desk to be a Producer Advocate</b>

Single desk supporters often that the CWB and its single desk need to be protected at all costs because it is such an important and effective lobbyist on behalf of farmers.

For example, Allen Oberg, director candidate for District 5, says “Building on the strength of the single desk, the CWB is speaking out more and more for farmers.” He gives examples of issues where CWB is acting on behalf of farmers: a railway costing review, producer cars, WTO, branding of Canadian wheat and terminal agreements and tendering. His message is, if you lose the single desk, you’ll lose your voice on these matters.

I disagree that the CWB needs the single desk to be a producer advocate. Take a minute and look at the Canola Council of Canada and what it does for the canola industry (including producers), without being involved in selling canola or its products.

The Canola Council of Canada is a national, non-profit association with a mission to enhance the industry’s ability to profitably produce and supply seed, oil and meal products that offer superior value to customers throughout the world. And it does a darn good job of it. Members include canola growers, crop input suppliers, grain handling companies, exporters, processors, food and feed manufacturers and governments. It’s a good model to consider for the CWB.

The Council has a number of policy positions similar to the CWB:
- Equitable grading standards
- Accountable, open, competitive and commercial system of grain transportation
- Equitable treatment and level playing field under WTO
- Domestic and North American harmonization of pesticide regulations
- Canadian variety registration system and maintenance of high quality standards in that system.
- Mandatory labelling guidelines

In addition, the Council has successfully branded Canadian canola products; in fact the name “canola” indicates a Canadian identity.

Even without the single desk, the CWB could continue to play an activist or advocacy role for wheat and barley producers, much like the Canola Council does for the canola industry.

The Canola Council’s average annual budget of $5 million is funded by:
- a voluntary levy paid by processors and exporters;
- program grants received from corporate and grower organization members for specific activities (the largest sources being the canola grower check-off commissions in each of the Prairie provinces);
- government programs, both federal and provincial; and
- funds raised by Council program areas such as the Council's Annual Convention and the sale of publications.

Looking at the CWB, assuming annual exports and domestic use of 20 million tonnes of wheat, durum and barley, the CWB could generate twice as much as the Canola Council's budget with a grower check-off of only $0.50/tonne. This compares quite favourably to the current (2008-09) cost of the CWB of about $3.26/tonne, paid by farmers.

CWB supporters like Allen Oberg will use the fear of losing the advocacy of the CWB if it lost the single desk as a way to garner support for the status quo. Mr. Oberg isn’t alone in this thinking. Other candidates that echo this same message include:

- Dan Gauthier, District 1
- Stewart Wells, District 3
- Lynn Jacobson, District 3
- Kyle Korneychuk, District 5
- Garry D****r, District 9
- John Sandborn, District 9


As I’ve shown already, the single desk is costing farmers millions. Don't embrace it just to protect the CWB's advocacy role; it's just not worth it. Judge it on its own.

Ask your director-candidates to explain why they think the CWB needs the single desk to be your advocate and to promote wheat. And ask them how they think the Canola Council can do it so well without one.

[Wheatking]

The CWB is only an advocate for the CWB and what is in their best interests, they are not an advocate for me. It pisses me off to no end that they are using my money to campaign for things that I disagree with.

[Fransisco]

Good comment <a href=http://cwbmonitor.blogspot.com/2010/11/cwb-doesnt-need-single-desk-to-be.html>here</a> from "Farmer Joe".

"You're right you don't need a single desk to have an industry association devoted to advocacy. Not only is it unnecessary I think in this particular case its also inappropriate. The CWB is at its heart a government agency. A bureaucracy of sorts. It even has its own federal minister(Gerry Ritz). There is a big conflict of interest here having a government agency, lobby government on its own behalf. Its an incestuous relationship at best.

Farmers should have farmers doing advocacy on their behalf not government bureaucrats or farmers(elected board directors) who get fat pay cheques from government bureaucrats(the CWB)."

[cchurch]

Vittera knows what's best for me.

Oh wait.

[Fransisco]

I don't see Viterra pretending to talk on anybody else's behalf.

[newguy]

I do not get the comparison between CWB and Viterra. The CWB is being paid by farmers to market their grain. When farmers sell to Viterra the farmer markets their own grain and Viterra is a buyer. So if you want to compare marketers to marketers you would have to compare CWB to the farmer. Had a survey done by CWB and they tried to compare also.

[wmoebis]

I have no qualms with the CWB advocating on my behalf. Even tho I don't agree with everything they advocate sometimes and I make that clear to them.

I also have no problem with orgs like the WCWGA advocating on behalf of thier members and possably for all producers. I do agree with some of thier policies and hope they don't mind that I do, even tho I'm not a paid member.

I haven't made my mind up on CWB Monitor yet, because I am not sure who he is advocating on behalf of. Maybe someone could enlighten me. Is he producer motivated, private industry/corp. motivated or self serving?

[cchurch]

When you sell grain to Cargill or Vittera, do they give you shares in the company or even votes in the BOD elections?

[Fransisco]

When you sell grain to someone other than Cargill or Vittera do they throw you in jail?

[furrowtickler]

HTF gets shares in the wheat board???? Not that they would be worthwhile anyway.

[charliep]

Actually won't laugh at having CWB shares in the future. With the demise of government guarantees, the CWB will require some type of equity/contingency fund. It will be interesting the goverance and ownership structure that accompanies this. Perhaps also the accountability.