Growing forward 2 ‘frustrating’ | Deal pays little attention to innovation, says CFA president
The Canadian Federation of Agriculture has issued the strongest farmer criticism yet of the new Growing Forward 2 five-year policy framework that will sharply cut farm support funding levels while promoting innovation.
CFA president Ron Bonnett said the Sept. 14 Whitehorse deal to be implemented April 1 is frustrating for farmers.
Government projections estimate federal-provincial business risk management spending could decline by more than $440 million annually over the five years with less than half of the savings reinvested in innovation, competitiveness and research programs.
“I think the biggest thing for farmers is frustration,” Bonnett said last week. “Taking so much out of AgriStability and AgriInvest and investing so little of that back into innovation does not send a strong signal that governments are serious about innovation.”
Read Also
Land crash warning rejected
A technical analyst believes that Saskatchewan land values could be due for a correction, but land owners and FCC say supply/demand fundamentals drive land prices – not mathematical models
Bonnett said that by reducing the AgriStability payment trigger to a 30 percent margin decline from the current 15 percent “they are making it essentially a disaster program and that erodes both farmer and lender confidence in the stability of investing in the industry.”
Bonnett predicted governments will be under more farmer pressure for ad hoc payments when income disasters strike in the future. “That really is a heads-up for government.”
He also complained about the decision to reduce government contributions to AgriInvest by one-third. “This is a popular and effective program for farmers and CFA has suggested ways they could have made AgriInvest a more effective program rather than weakening it.”
The CFA president said the Whitehorse agreement was clear evidence that governments should have conducted more meaningful consultations with farmers before the deal was struck. Instead, farmers were asked about general principles but never given details of proposed cuts and a shift from BRM to innovation programs.
“Farmers and programming have been shifting to more emphasis on innovation and competitiveness over the last years but this is more dramatic than we could have expected,” said Bonnett. “They say the shift is needed because program payments have been masking market signals but we have asked for evidence of that and have seen none.”
With Growing Forward 2 a done deal, he said farm groups are willing to work with governments to design the best programs possible within the current framework principles.
“But really, consultations on Growing Forward 3 should begin tomorrow and farmers should be included this time and not left in the dark about the details,” he said. “We have to get back to the partnership model.”
