I hate doing someone else's work for them, but if I wanted to design the "dual market" system it wouldn't be that hard.
It would be commercial in nature based entirely on contracts.
First, I would strongly encourage the CWB to drop the FPCs and PPOs. They are a weak immitation of the open market. The board should focus on being a pooling provider. This was mallee's term and I like it.
Second, whether it takes negotiation or arbitration, contracts between grain handlers and the CWB could be written to provide handling and terminal services to enable the CWB to serve its' customers. An axiom we use in our farm business applies here. "You don't have to own an asset (machinery, buildings, etc.) as long as you have access to it when you need it." Properly worded commercial contracts would ensure this.
In terms of rail access, this should be commercially in the realm of the elevator companies handling and loading CWB grain to secure. Revenue centers for grain co's handling board grain should shift from storage pay'ts to throughput.
Farmers of course are the important part of this supply/value chain often left out of the real commercial discussion. What I mean is conracts between farmers and the CWB don't ever seem to be binding on the board. It's some wishy washy offer/acceptance thing that the board has the only and final say on.
That said, there could be sign up dates and contracts offered to farmers, binding ofon both parties.
On our farm, a combination of cash pricing or forward selling to cover fall cash flow needs (without having to rely solely on canola or flax) then pooling from the "pooling provider" for some wheat would be an option we would explore.
Whatever develops, there is no doubt in my mind that a volutary wheat board is possible. It is a brand that some customers would no doubt want to coninue to use. Some farmers as well. But contracts between all the participants that might be involved is the way to build the framework needed.
I'll stop there and let others add their comments (or knives).
It would be commercial in nature based entirely on contracts.
First, I would strongly encourage the CWB to drop the FPCs and PPOs. They are a weak immitation of the open market. The board should focus on being a pooling provider. This was mallee's term and I like it.
Second, whether it takes negotiation or arbitration, contracts between grain handlers and the CWB could be written to provide handling and terminal services to enable the CWB to serve its' customers. An axiom we use in our farm business applies here. "You don't have to own an asset (machinery, buildings, etc.) as long as you have access to it when you need it." Properly worded commercial contracts would ensure this.
In terms of rail access, this should be commercially in the realm of the elevator companies handling and loading CWB grain to secure. Revenue centers for grain co's handling board grain should shift from storage pay'ts to throughput.
Farmers of course are the important part of this supply/value chain often left out of the real commercial discussion. What I mean is conracts between farmers and the CWB don't ever seem to be binding on the board. It's some wishy washy offer/acceptance thing that the board has the only and final say on.
That said, there could be sign up dates and contracts offered to farmers, binding ofon both parties.
On our farm, a combination of cash pricing or forward selling to cover fall cash flow needs (without having to rely solely on canola or flax) then pooling from the "pooling provider" for some wheat would be an option we would explore.
Whatever develops, there is no doubt in my mind that a volutary wheat board is possible. It is a brand that some customers would no doubt want to coninue to use. Some farmers as well. But contracts between all the participants that might be involved is the way to build the framework needed.
I'll stop there and let others add their comments (or knives).
Comment