Rural Development

[rodbradshaw]

I was at a meeting a month ago and a fellow made a comment that really struck home. He asked "When are farmers going to quite subsidizing their farming operations and the products they sell?". As long as we go out and keep producing, no matter whether it is profitable over the long run, we send the wrong message to our customer whether that be the hog or beef operation or the flour or pasta plant in some other country. Maybe the Focus on Sabbatical guys had the right idea but we just need to quit producing more than what is needed and the price will come up.

It is not going to pay to diversify and value add as long as there is no shortage, there will be no profitable times in agriculture.

[rhg]

I am pleased to see the positive direction this conversation is headed. As an urban resident interested in rural affairs, I have been disappointed that agricultural leaders have not brought positive ideas forward on how to deal with the rural problems.

Here is an example of a positive program that could be promoted:
We are aware that Europe directly supports the prices of many commodities, and we in Canada are moving away from that approach. But Canadians are generally not aware that European countries also provide payments for certain agricultural practices, regardless of whether any "product" is sold. For example, hedgerows that support wildlife may generate a payment of $? per metre, and refraining from using herbicides may result in $?? per hectare.

This is one way for urban tax payers to pay for what they value. In these examples, the product would be songbirds and wildflowers. Other "products" could include forested watersheds, wildlife management or recreational access.

The program is voluntary, as it should be, but recognizes the many services provided by landowners.

What do you think? Would the Species At Risk Act make more sense if ranchers received a couple of hundred dollars for every Burrowing Owl nest that they could document on their land?

The bottom line is: there are positive solutions, but we need to work together to find them, and convince politicians that they will be welcomed by farmers.

[rodbradshaw]

rhg
That is one way, and a more palatable way for the SAR legislation. The problem up to now with it is that the producer suffered all the consequences for the benefit of society as a whole.

Having looked at subsidies and what they do in other countries, we would all be better off if they were eliminated altogether as they soon get capitalized into the operation and then you need more, sort of the heroin of the business world.

[ianben]

As a beneficery of subsidies I see some benefifs to society.

The main problem I have with the world today is that in rich countries people continue to spend less and less of their earnings on food.

The rich become richer and fat while the poor get poorer and hungrier.

At least a subsidy allows the rich to pay more than the poor as they generally pay more tax.

Just how will unsubsidize food solve this problem.

I agree subsidies are capitalized but removal will just result in farmers going broke and the land being farmed by different people producing possibily even more.

There is no food surplus just a shortage of people who can afford to buy it.

A way to make the rich pay a realistic part of their income into the food chain would be the solution.

But how?

[flatbroke]

ianben; did I miss something? when did the rich begin paying more tax than the rest of us? ...on a more serious note, I heard an interesting idea on a call-in radio show this summer. In a nutshell, this city-dwelling caller sugested a tax on all derivative products at the retail level to be returned directly to primary producers. (provincial level, as we all know anything that goes to the feds ends up in Quebec.) The problem, however, is that whenever ANYTHING happens to put more money in farmers pockets, be it subsidies or just higher prices, the price of our inputs mysteriously increases accordingly. Unfortunately this trend does not follow on the way down.

CHEERS!

[flatbroke]

rhg; some intriguing ideas! I guess we never consider such things as "commodities", but why not? If hedgerows, wildlife etc. are what the public values more than conventional crops, perhaps we owe it to ourselves and them to explore this!

[ValueChainFX]

Seeing a community come together is something to behold. We are moving into 2003 with many challenges ahead, but as you all can see from the posts here, many of you see the challenges already.

As individuals it is going to be hard to work these challenges out, but when you have many people working in the same direction (on a positive note) then you can identify the problem and work on a solution. Never will you have everyone agree with a single solution, but when you offer choices then it is easier to buy in.

Working together I can see our input costs drop, we see this in some of the solutions in other forums where people are looking at more direct ways to cut costs, cut out middle men and market more directly to their customers what they want. Aligning yourself with like minded people and sharing information makes you stronger. Yes we have a me me me group of people in our agriculture community but if that me happens to have a choice that fits his / her desires then we can move forward. We all pay for subsidies one way or the other, but then do we make subsidies work for us or against us? How can we restructure our operations and make the industry strong and respected again?

Time for more solutions? Do YOU have some?

Happy New Year all!