Farmers aren’t likely to be interested in a marketing system that allows them to voluntarily pool their grain, says the chair of the Canadian Wheat Board.
The concept was expected to be one of the options considered by wheat board directors as they met this week to look at alternative marketing models. Allen Oberg doesn’t think it will appeal to farmers.
“Voluntary pools are always plagued with problems,” Oberg said.
“I guess that’s why there isn’t a voluntary pool for canola or oats or peas or lentils.
Read Also
Going beyond “Resistant” on crop seed labels
Variety resistance is getting more specific on crop disease pathogens, but that information must be conveyed in a way that actually helps producers make rotation decisions.
“To me, voluntary pools are not impossible … and there’s no reason why one couldn’t be established, (but) I think it would be of limited interest and perhaps value to farmers because you’re never sure of how much grain is going to be contracted to that voluntary pool and that makes it difficult to make sales.”
Oberg confirmed that the board is planning to make a submission to the federal government this summer, identifying marketing models that could benefit producers.
The board hopes to make the submission in early September before Parliament reconvenes and legislation to end the single desk is passed.
“The board is going to see this material (on alternative marketing models) for the first time next week and I’m sure there will be some changes or further work that will probably asked to be done,” he said.
Oberg said he sees the board’s role in assessing alternative models as an advisory one.
The onus for creating and financing a new grain marketing entity will fall on the federal government and not the CWB, he added.
He said the federal government will likely have to offer significant concessions if the new entity is to have a reasonable chance of surviving.
Concessions could include a continuation of government guarantees and an assurance of regulated access to private sector grain handling facilities.
Jeff Nielsen, a farmer-elected director from Olds, Alta., said he is pleased the board is looking at alternative models.
“I think there are some good models that are going to be coming forward and I think the opportunity to move forward with them is key right now,” said Nielsen, an open market proponent.
“We have just under a year to get this all done and in place. You also have to realize that winter wheat growers are probably already (considering) what next year’s markets are looking like.”
The Conservative government has been criticized for its approach to eliminating the single desk.
The wheat board, the National Farmers Union and other single desk advocates insist that Ottawa should consult with prairie farmers and respect their wishes about grain marketing.
Others have questioned whether Ottawa’s agenda to eliminate the single desk as of Aug. 1, 2012, is too ambitious, suggesting more time is needed.
Agriculture minister Gerry Ritz met with the CWB May 31 but has not had a formal meeting with it since then.
Rather than imposing a new model on the board unilaterally, Ottawa wants the CWB to design its own approach to marketing in a post-monopoly environment, he said in a July 18 e-mail.
Officials from the federal agriculture department will consult with industry groups, business associations, companies, academics, individual producers and other levels of government, he added.
“The CWB has many partners and allies — brokers, buyers and sellers, inland terminals, export terminals and ports, not to mention a very extensive sales network,” Ritz said.
Ritz also told Reuters News Agency that Ottawa is considering a request from the CWB for regulated access to private grain handlers once the board loses its monopoly.
