INADEQUATE income is still at the top of most farmers complaint lists, but other problems frustrate and cause producers to wonder why they carry on.
Growing regulation tied to the environment, wildlife, water and food safety, high property taxes and declining services Ñ the list goes on, with the impact ranging from irritation to lost business.
Rural anger is building and most recently became public, ironically, in Toronto, Canada’s largest city. Thousands of farmers turned out earlier this month to protest at the Ontario legislature. That event mainly addressed the farm income problem, but other recent protests in Toronto and around Ontario have focused more on regulatory issues.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
Of particular interest in Ontario is the province’s Nutrient Management Act and the Greenbelt Act. The intentions behind both laws have merit: the former is to protect the province’s water, and the latter is to limit urban sprawl and protect farm and recreational lands.
But the nutrient act has become an environmental catch-all, drowning farmers in red tape, and the greenbelt act threatens to slash land values within the belt.
Such concerns are not limited to Ontario. Western farmers also have reservations about provincial water protection laws, federal fisheries regulations, onerous environmental laws and the implications of the Kyoto Accord.
Farmers are not against protecting the environment. Most are appalled by wasteful practices and condemn those who willfully damage land and water.
The problem is that laws are blunt instruments, often bureaucratic and laden with unforeseen costs and consequences. Too often, farmers are caught in these consequences and are obliged to carry the costs alone, although the benefits accrue to society at large.
If farming was a highly profitable industry, there would be less concern. But after drought, grasshoppers, BSE, trade barriers and weak grain prices, profit is only a memory for many farmers.
Other industries can pass regulatory costs to the public by increasing the price of their products, but the value of farmers’ production is usually set on a commodity market over which they have no control.
Governments must recognize this limitation to avoid placing unfair burdens on farmers. They must also consider the impact of regulation on the lives of those expected to carry them out.
On a wider basis, governments should also seriously consider a concept gaining attention in the agriculture community: Alternative Land Use Services. ALUS is an incentive-based concept that recognizes the public environmental services such as healthy soil, clean water and biodiversity that farmers provide.
Producers would be able to enroll a percentage of their land in the program to accomplish a certain environmental goal and be paid for it.
This way the costs of maintaining a healthy environment would be more fairly borne by all who benefit from it, society at large.
