Careful what you wish for: commodity groups ditch Sustainable Agriculture Strategy
Rural Revival
By: Laura Rance ([url]https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/biographies/laura-rance[/url]) Posted: 2:01 AM CST Saturday, Dec. 21, 2024
Opinion
It is the season for many things, including, it appears, some not-so-quiet quitting.
Lost in the political firestorm around now former finance minister Chrystia Freeland’s noisy exit from the Trudeau cabinet this week was an announcement by six commodity organizations they will no longer participate in developing the federal government’s Sustainable Agriculture Strategy.
The Canadian Canola Growers Association, Canola Council of Canada, Cereals Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, Pulse Canada and Soy Canada, later joined by the Canadian Cattle Association, have withdrawn from the 24-member advisory committee “as the strategy’s direction does not fully represent the interests of our members.”
The SAS is positioned in government documents as developing “a shared long-term vision for collective action to improve the environmental performance in the sector, support farmers’ livelihoods and strengthen the business vitality of the Canadian agricultural industry.”
Key areas of focus are on adaption and resilience, biodiversity, climate change mitigation, soil health and water. Farmers and organizations that participated in a consultation process generally supported the goals, but with the caveat achieving them mustn’t come at the expense of farmers’ profitability.
The groups that withdrew have offered no further details other than to say Canadian farmers are already the most sustainable in the world and the strategy’s measures must be practical, science-based, market-driven and beneficial for the entire sector as well as the environment.
Only the insiders know what was said around the table, but from the outside looking in, it’s unclear where the misalignment lies. The one thing that’s certain is the farmers these groups represent no longer have a voice.
However, it’s no secret most of the farmers who belong to these checkoff-funded groups are no fans of the government in power, to put it mildly, and it’s fair to assume they won’t have to worry about working with it much longer.
Other than the satisfaction that comes from kicking the coffin of a sworn enemy, this protest will have little effect on that outcome. Farmers’ lobbyists generally punch above their weight, but the “ditch the Liberals” train has long since left the station.
More importantly, swapping the government’s stripe doesn’t change the reality farmers are on the front lines of increased risks and volatility at a time when governments’ ability to backstop the sector is becoming more challenged. That $61.8-billion federal deficit won’t evaporate the day after an election.
Agriculture contributes just over seven per cent of the national GDP. Where does that rank in the competing milieu of priority demands for shrinking government resources? Axing the carbon tax won’t put out the wildfires, fix washed-out roads or flooded urban basements, cool the heat waves or stop the droughts.
It’s fair to ask why governments should care about supporting the sector’s adaptation and resilience when the polls suggest farmers don’t.
O
ver the past year, several polls gauging farmer opinions on their top concerns found although they acknowledge climate change to varying degrees, they are far more fussed about regulations, market prices and input costs — all of which, by the way, are influenced by climate.
The financial numbers, however, illustrate why governments are stepping up to lead the sustainability discussion. Production volatility is becoming more expensive for taxpayers as well as farmers.
Federal government payments devoted to stabilizing the sector — which totalled $6.5 billion in 2023 — have more than doubled in the past five years and tripled over the past decade. An increasing proportion of that spending is going to crop insurance payments to compensate farmers for weather-related production shortfalls caused by drought, excess moisture or killing frost.
Between 2019 and 2023, crop insurance payouts have averaged 56 per cent of total direct federal payments. In the five years previous, that average was 44 per cent. In the five years before that, they averaged 34 per cent. At this pace, it won’t be long before propping up the status quo consumes the entire agriculture budget. That’s unsustainable.
The message from major commodity groups this week is a powerful one: farmers don’t need to change, the government does.
They’re about to get their wish. Then what?
Laura Rance is executive editor, production content lead for Glacier FarmMedia.
?
Rural RevivalBy: Laura Rance ([url]https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/biographies/laura-rance[/url]) Posted: 2:01 AM CST Saturday, Dec. 21, 2024
Opinion
It is the season for many things, including, it appears, some not-so-quiet quitting.
Lost in the political firestorm around now former finance minister Chrystia Freeland’s noisy exit from the Trudeau cabinet this week was an announcement by six commodity organizations they will no longer participate in developing the federal government’s Sustainable Agriculture Strategy.
The Canadian Canola Growers Association, Canola Council of Canada, Cereals Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, Pulse Canada and Soy Canada, later joined by the Canadian Cattle Association, have withdrawn from the 24-member advisory committee “as the strategy’s direction does not fully represent the interests of our members.”
The SAS is positioned in government documents as developing “a shared long-term vision for collective action to improve the environmental performance in the sector, support farmers’ livelihoods and strengthen the business vitality of the Canadian agricultural industry.”
Key areas of focus are on adaption and resilience, biodiversity, climate change mitigation, soil health and water. Farmers and organizations that participated in a consultation process generally supported the goals, but with the caveat achieving them mustn’t come at the expense of farmers’ profitability.
The groups that withdrew have offered no further details other than to say Canadian farmers are already the most sustainable in the world and the strategy’s measures must be practical, science-based, market-driven and beneficial for the entire sector as well as the environment.
Only the insiders know what was said around the table, but from the outside looking in, it’s unclear where the misalignment lies. The one thing that’s certain is the farmers these groups represent no longer have a voice.
However, it’s no secret most of the farmers who belong to these checkoff-funded groups are no fans of the government in power, to put it mildly, and it’s fair to assume they won’t have to worry about working with it much longer.
Other than the satisfaction that comes from kicking the coffin of a sworn enemy, this protest will have little effect on that outcome. Farmers’ lobbyists generally punch above their weight, but the “ditch the Liberals” train has long since left the station.
More importantly, swapping the government’s stripe doesn’t change the reality farmers are on the front lines of increased risks and volatility at a time when governments’ ability to backstop the sector is becoming more challenged. That $61.8-billion federal deficit won’t evaporate the day after an election.
Agriculture contributes just over seven per cent of the national GDP. Where does that rank in the competing milieu of priority demands for shrinking government resources? Axing the carbon tax won’t put out the wildfires, fix washed-out roads or flooded urban basements, cool the heat waves or stop the droughts.
It’s fair to ask why governments should care about supporting the sector’s adaptation and resilience when the polls suggest farmers don’t.
O
ver the past year, several polls gauging farmer opinions on their top concerns found although they acknowledge climate change to varying degrees, they are far more fussed about regulations, market prices and input costs — all of which, by the way, are influenced by climate.
The financial numbers, however, illustrate why governments are stepping up to lead the sustainability discussion. Production volatility is becoming more expensive for taxpayers as well as farmers.
Federal government payments devoted to stabilizing the sector — which totalled $6.5 billion in 2023 — have more than doubled in the past five years and tripled over the past decade. An increasing proportion of that spending is going to crop insurance payments to compensate farmers for weather-related production shortfalls caused by drought, excess moisture or killing frost.
Between 2019 and 2023, crop insurance payouts have averaged 56 per cent of total direct federal payments. In the five years previous, that average was 44 per cent. In the five years before that, they averaged 34 per cent. At this pace, it won’t be long before propping up the status quo consumes the entire agriculture budget. That’s unsustainable.
The message from major commodity groups this week is a powerful one: farmers don’t need to change, the government does.
They’re about to get their wish. Then what?
Laura Rance is executive editor, production content lead for Glacier FarmMedia.
?
Because I am still actively farming.
Comment