If there's a need will this fill it?

[farmaholic]

Articles on Growing Forward 2 and Agristability from The Western Producer


BY KAREN BRIERE
REGINA BUREAU
AgriStability still works for most
Canadian farmers, even if they
don’t think so, says a farm income
program expert.
And where it doesn’t work, it’s
because of a poorly understood
change made in 2013, said Steve
Funk, farm income programs
technical director at MNP in Lethbridge.
Many critics of the changes made
to Growing Forward 2 focused on
dropping the payment claim trigger
from 85 percent of a farm’s
reference margin to 70 percent,
suggesting fewer would qualify
for payments from a program that
is supposed to help during margin
declines.
However, a more complex change
was made at the same time. Reference
margins were limited to
using either the lower of a farm’s
historic reference margin or
allowable expenses from the years
used to calculate that margin.
This is called reference margin
limiting and it flew under the
radar, Funk said.
That’s where many are getting
caught, including grain farmers,
pollinators and maple syrup producers.
He said farmers could see their
reference margins were limited
when they received their assessment
notices for 2013 AgriStability,
but don’t really know why.
“Even with the limiting of reference
margins, it’s still the first
program to kick in when there’s
some type of whole farm disaster
for a lot of producers,” Funk said.
“But there are some cases where
the producers’ margins have been
limited to such a great extent that
the program doesn’t kick in in a
reasonable time.”
Grain farmers seem to be most
affected because they have low
allowable AgriStability expenses
relative to their reference margins,
he said.
MNP uses a computer model to
show producers how they benefit
from crop insurance, AgriStability
and private insurance providers
such as Global Ag Risk Solutions
and when each type of coverage
would kick in.
The company’s Ag Risk Management
Projector plugs in the numbers
for individual operations and
calculates how the programs
would work for them.
The model generally predicts
AgriStability will provide benefits
in most situations of low to moderate
reference margin limiting
and even in some cases of severe
margin limiting.
However, Funk said the margin
limiting is so severe for some that
the program won’t work at all.
Governments changed AgriStability
because they believed the
program was “paying into profitability”
rather than helping farmers
stabilize their income.
Even with the changes, it still
pays into profitability for some
and moved others who hadn’t
been close into the profitable category.
Funk said the 2013 changes
made a great program only good.
It pays out first, remains the
cheapest form of insurance and
the benefits are still likely to
exceed costs. However, farmers
are dropping out because of the
negativity toward it.
“I see that as a huge problem.”
Funk would like to see the issue
resolved soon.
Organizations such as a Manitoba
task force have already
begun reviewing Growing Forward
2 and planning for Growing
Forward 3, and a formal review is
to begin next year.
Funk has met with federal agriculture
minister Gerry Ritz, the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture
and others to demonstrate
the model and plans further discussions
with federal agriculture
officials.
An Agriculture Canada spokesperson
said it’s too early to assess
the full impact of reference margin
limiting because processing of
2013 applications is just finishing.
“However, it is clear that AgriStability
continues to play an important
role in risk management for
producers with over $324 million
in payments to date since the
introduction of the new suite for
the 2013 year,” the spokesperson
said an emailed statement.
Ottawa administers AgriStability
in Manitoba, where payments
in 2013 were $21.5 million. Saskatchewan
and Alberta administer
their own programs and paid out
$71.8 million and $52 million,
respectively.
Funk said producers and their
organizations have to let the federal
government know what they
think about programs.
Federal officials generally analyze
data in aggregate and need to
be aware of how the programs
affect individual farmers.
“They need to come to the table
with their position and some way
of demonstrating whether or not
the program is meeting their
objectives,” he said.
“They need a voice to adequately
explain this to the government.”
The negativity toward reference
margin limiting has likely caused
some to drop out.
“Even though there is a drought,
they’re not going to be getting a
payment,” Funk said. “For those
that stayed in, it is going to be a big
test for the program this year.”
karen.briere@producer.comBY KAREN BRIERE
REGINA BUREAU
AgriStability still works for most
Canadian farmers, even if they
don’t think so, says a farm income
program expert.
And where it doesn’t work, it’s
because of a poorly understood
change made in 2013, said Steve
Funk, farm income programs
technical director at MNP in Lethbridge.
Many critics of the changes made
to Growing Forward 2 focused on
dropping the payment claim trigger
from 85 percent of a farm’s
reference margin to 70 percent,
suggesting fewer would qualify
for payments from a program that
is supposed to help during margin
declines.
However, a more complex change
was made at the same time. Reference
margins were limited to
using either the lower of a farm’s
historic reference margin or
allowable expenses from the years
used to calculate that margin.
This is called reference margin
limiting and it flew under the
radar, Funk said.
That’s where many are getting
caught, including grain farmers,
pollinators and maple syrup producers.
He said farmers could see their
reference margins were limited
when they received their assessment
notices for 2013 AgriStability,
but don’t really know why.
“Even with the limiting of reference
margins, it’s still the first
program to kick in when there’s
some type of whole farm disaster
for a lot of producers,” Funk said.
“But there are some cases where
the producers’ margins have been
limited to such a great extent that
the program doesn’t kick in in a
reasonable time.”
Grain farmers seem to be most
affected because they have low
allowable AgriStability expenses
relative to their reference margins,
he said.
MNP uses a computer model to
show producers how they benefit
from crop insurance, AgriStability
and private insurance providers
such as Global Ag Risk Solutions
and when each type of coverage
would kick in.
The company’s Ag Risk Management
Projector plugs in the numbers
for individual operations and
calculates how the programs
would work for them.
The model generally predicts
AgriStability will provide benefits
in most situations of low to moderate
reference margin limiting
and even in some cases of severe
margin limiting.
However, Funk said the margin
limiting is so severe for some that
the program won’t work at all.
Governments changed AgriStability
because they believed the
program was “paying into profitability”
rather than helping farmers
stabilize their income.
Even with the changes, it still
pays into profitability for some
and moved others who hadn’t
been close into the profitable category.
Funk said the 2013 changes
made a great program only good.
It pays out first, remains the
cheapest form of insurance and
the benefits are still likely to
exceed costs. However, farmers
are dropping out because of the
negativity toward it.
“I see that as a huge problem.”
Funk would like to see the issue
resolved soon.
Organizations such as a Manitoba
task force have already
begun reviewing Growing Forward
2 and planning for Growing
Forward 3, and a formal review is
to begin next year.
Funk has met with federal agriculture
minister Gerry Ritz, the
Canadian Federation of Agriculture
and others to demonstrate
the model and plans further discussions
with federal agriculture
officials.
An Agriculture Canada spokesperson
said it’s too early to assess
the full impact of reference margin
limiting because processing of
2013 applications is just finishing.
“However, it is clear that AgriStability
continues to play an important
role in risk management for
producers with over $324 million
in payments to date since the
introduction of the new suite for
the 2013 year,” the spokesperson
said an emailed statement.
Ottawa administers AgriStability
in Manitoba, where payments
in 2013 were $21.5 million. Saskatchewan
and Alberta administer
their own programs and paid out
$71.8 million and $52 million,
respectively.
Funk said producers and their
organizations have to let the federal
government know what they
think about programs.
Federal officials generally analyze
data in aggregate and need to
be aware of how the programs
affect individual farmers.
“They need to come to the table
with their position and some way
of demonstrating whether or not
the program is meeting their
objectives,” he said.
“They need a voice to adequately
explain this to the government.”
The negativity toward reference
margin limiting has likely caused
some to drop out.
“Even though there is a drought,
they’re not going to be getting a
payment,” Funk said. “For those
that stayed in, it is going to be a big
test for the program this year.”
karen.briere@producer.com


BY KAREN BRIERE
REGINA BUREAU
CHARLOTTETOWN, P.E.I. —
Canadian agriculture ministers
and farm leaders are turning their
attention to what a new agricultural
policy framework should contain.
It’s not yet clear how changes
made to business risk management
(BRM) programs for the
2013-18 Growing Forward 2 program
have affected farmers.
However, there is widespread
discontent with AgriStability and
many farmers claim they have no
hope of payments because of cuts
to the program in 2013.
A Manitoba BRM task force is
gathering information from farmers
in that province and the Canadian
Federation of Agriculture has
a committee working on it as well.
CFA president Ron Bonnett said
he is curious to see how AgriStability
performs for those affected by
drought this year.
Federal agriculture minister
Gerry Ritz said officials continually
analyze data from AgriStability as it
comes in but it’s too soon to say
exactly how the changes affected
farmers. A more formal review of
the policy framework begins next
year.
He said crop insurance is the first
line of defence and AgriStability is
there to cover drops in five-year
average incomes.
While many focus on the reduction
in the payment trigger from 85
percent of the five-year reference
margin to 70 percent, Ritz said they
don’t talk about the improvement
in negative margin coverage.
“That’s the most important for
guys that got caught in a flood or a
drought and now a drought on top
of a flood,” he said. “That’s where
they’ll really do an analysis.”
Ritz also said there is about $2 billion
in AgriInvest that farmers can
access if they need immediate help.
“If they need to buy feed or whatever,
they’ve got that pool of money
there,” he said. “We’ve eased up on
the triggers and what it takes to trigger
that money out.”
The minister added that constant
analysis of GF2 will lead to a clearer
picture of what GF3 should look
like.
Saskatchewan agriculture minister
Lyle Stewart, who was unhappy
with the 2013 changes, said the
weather challenges of 2015 will test
the program and get more people
thinking about the future.
“I had to accept the fact that other
governments were not prepared to
fund AgriStability at its previous
level,” Stewart said.
“Clearly the coverage won’t be
what it would have been before
those changes were made. I didn’t
like it at the time and I might still
not like it but it’s the new reality.”
Stewart said everyone gets a vote
on the programs, including provinces
where agriculture might not
be as important to the economy as
it is in Saskatchewan.
“We’ll do the best we can and try
to have the programs in place that
will serve the needs of our producers,”
he said.
Bonnett said programs will always
need fine-tuning to deal with
changing market conditions or climatic
events, but having frameworks
in place has alleviated the
stress of asking governments for ad
hoc payments to deal with crises.
Farmers no longer stage tractor rallies
or protests to get help.
“With the five-year windows, at
least you know what the rules are,”
he said.
CFA says programs should stabilize
income, provide disaster assistance,
provide production insurance
and offer companion programs.
Ritz said that’s what farmers have.
“The trick with BRM programming
is one will never do it. It takes
a suite of programming and we
have that.”
karen.briere@producer.com


Articles from "The Western Producer" August 13, 2015 Edition.

[bucket]

It works for mnp because they designed it for the federal government.

Because it's just too hard to calculate your average gross income off a quarter of land over X number of years and expect a reasonable support program.

[farmaholic]

My apologies for the hard to read format. Just copied and pasted and that's what I got.

Sorry.

[ajl]

Who is collecting. They are claiming that they paid out for the 2013 year but for most that was the best crop ever. Who is collecting and how? The other questions is how much money do those payouts represent relative to premiums collected?

[Hopalong]

Could be some who did not have a good crop and chose to sell at very worst time.
Still hearing that western grain farmers lost five billion over lack of movement.
Take it with a grain of salt.

[farmaholic]

Hopalong. I don't think it matters when people decided to sell. Isn't it Producer's production multiplied by the "program's" value for the commodity when they do the calculations for the margin?

I know of no one who has recieved benefits. What about the flooded out guys?

[sumdumguy]

Hard to imagine that anyone would qualify for 2013 2014. Likely to get it all clawed back when error is found. Now I can see this year, a probability of a payment in areas with 6 bushel crops where reference margins are high. Should trigger, if it's anykind of program, but then take out the income from crop insurance, hail insurance and your calf-crop and voila figus mockem for you.

[Tucker]

MNP the accounting firm that sent out CWB ballots to dead farmers thinks that everyone should hire them to enroll in Agristability. Shocking. In other news, water is still wet. Hope those articles were printed on soft paper at least.

[farmaholic]

Even this year, I don't think it is bad enough here to trigger. I'd rather make it on my own anyway but would be grateful if I needed it badly enough it was there to do some good. I think a producer has to be in a REAL world of hurt for this to trigger.

[blackpowder]

My question is. Does your accountant really have to cost the same per hour as your lawyer??
2016 will tell if agstability pays.

[Richard5]

Tucker, if you know anything about elections or lotteries etc this list is provided by the company, not the firm that sends out the ballots or tabulates the results.

[Tucker]

Richard, I know they would not have made those lists. That voter list was obviously fraudulent and a reputable company would have refused to be involved with that joke of a referendum. MNP will NEVER get my business because of that.

[Richard5]

Tucker, you have that right and I sure don't care what MNP does, but why hold this firm accountable for a list that may be fraudulent as you are stating?

How would they know who has passed on or not?

You know as well as I do that permit number can be inactive for a number of years. Mine is a good example. Never sold any grain through the wheat board for a number of years prior to this election or removal of the board monopoly.

If the post office agent puts someones mail in your box do you switch post offices?

Stars, children's wish and roughrider lotteries had sent addressed mailings for tickets to my deceased parent for a couple years. Doesn't mean I don't support them going forward

But maybe for you its different

[riders2010]

So tell me why Ritz says it works the sask minister knows its horseshit and yet nearly every post on here has no idea what to expect and people are still worried if they do get a drivvling they may have to pay it back.

The only thing bankable about GOING BACKWARDS programs is we have an ag minister that either is misleading everyone or is a complete retard. imo
but hey elect them again right? and changes for the better will happen, how much has rail bullshit elevator grain seed bullshit cost all of us.

[sumdumguy]

AgStability easy to fill out yourself. Who needs an accountant?