Research refocus must help farmers - WP editorial

The federal government has the correct idea in announcing it will more sharply focus Agriculture Canada research to help revitalize the farm economy. It is right to view research as a tool to help lift the farm economy out of its slump.

But we also urge decision makers to clearly articulate that the ultimate goal in any shift in agricultural research must be to benefit farmers.

In setting out the strategy in a May 30 speech, federal agriculture minister Chuck Strahl emphasized the national priorities of health and the environment.

Read Also

Producers face the reality of shifting grain price expectations

Significant price shifts have occurred in various grains as compared to what was expected at the beginning of the calendar year. Crop insurance prices can be used as a base for the changes.

He also promised to identify exactly where science staff fit into government priorities, which should go a long way toward alleviating problems. Former agriculture minister Andy Mitchell identified lack of focus and low morale among Agriculture Canada science staff as a problem during consultations held a year ago.

There are other needs as well.

It is time to revisit the strategy started by the previous Liberal government of attempting to fund research through matching grants from the private sector.

It is a policy that has not lived up to expectations.

Private money accounts for less than 20 percent of research funding in Canada. As well, privately funded research has a tendency to focus on quick returns on investment and chemical control solutions, instead of longer term research that could reap additional benefits for farmers, such as disease-resistant crops and better agronomic practices.

During last year’s consultations, Mitchell also reported that a common complaint was that too much money was spent on repairing old facilities instead of buying modern equipment and new laboratories.

It was also noted that in general, cereal crop research was lagging behind research into soybeans, corn and other major U.S. crops.

And with 55 percent of research scientists eligible to retire in the next 10 years, now is the time for government to attract the next generation of bright minds by demonstrating their work will not go unsupported.

Strahl’s emphasis on health and the environment for the overall public good holds potential to convince society of the value of agricultural research. With public support comes longer term funding and, hopefully, a greater share of federal government spending.

But Strahl’s announcement must be followed by assurances that farmers will not be saddled with the regulatory headaches and added costs that often come with health and environmental initiatives.

Strahl did mention that any change in Agriculture Canada’s research focus “will have a positive impact on the agriculture and agrifood industry and for Canadians generally.”

But if farmers are to adopt costly environmental practices and food safety methods, such as identity preserved crops for niche markets, and other practices that benefit society as a whole, then society should share in the expense.

Remember, unlike processors and other businesses in the middle and retail ends of the food supply chain, farmers lack the ability to pass these added costs on to consumers.