As last week’s editorial recognized, there certainly are no shortages of challenges confronting farmers. That’s not new – farm families have passed through traumatic times before, and farm organizations have at other times been in sharp conflict.
Identifying problems is easy. But where are the solutions?
One possibility is that, in a sense, there may be no “solution.” In other words, farm population and influence will continue to decline, rural communities will disappear, and no matter what happens in the grain marketing debate, many farmers will feel unjustly treated.
Read Also
Kochia has become a significant problem for Prairie farmers
As you travel through southern Saskatchewan and Alberta, particularly in areas challenged by dry growing conditions, the magnitude of the kochia problem is easy to see.
If this is the rural future, then farm families will have to cope with it as best they can – cherishing their neighbors and communities while they exist, investing in telecommunications equipment to offset the loss of local schools, and eventually seeking non-farming jobs.
If there are practical solutions to be found, however, they will not come from politicians or bureaucrats or professors or journalists.
To be workable, solutions will have to come from farmers themselves.
Developing and testing grassroots ideas is a slow process. It requires extensive discussion and debate at all levels. It requires farmers who are willing to participate and make their views known. It also requires farmers and other players to be able to listen, to respond to differing viewpoints and recognize their legitimacy.
At one time, people could talk, rightly or wrongly, about farm “unity,” about the vast majority of farmers being solidly behind whatever policies their interlocking umbrella organizations put forward.
That’s not the case any more. There are too many competing lobby groups for there to be a united farm voice.
But all those groups should ultimately be under farmers’ control. If farmers want to have constructive discussion and work together to find common ground, they can do so. And they can force their organizations to do so. Even if two groups can never agree on marketing ideology, perhaps they can co-operate on issues like crop insurance or rail-car ownership.
As a farmer said recently on an open-line show, just because you have a different religion from your neighbor doesn’t mean you can’t work together to build a curling rink.
Today’s farm issues will determine the futures of farm families, and farm families need to work together to find solutions. If they see themselves as competing food business units, they will have trouble finding those solutions. If they consider themselves neighbors with similar interests, then they have a fighting chance.
