Saskatchewan Pulse Growers’ mandatory levy is creating calls for change among farmers who now pay one percent of gross sales to a fund earmarked for research.
As the last non-refundable checkoff in Saskatchewan and a rare remaining one in Canada, the pressure for change is going to build.
But should it?
It’s true that the pulse checkoff does not fall in line with what is happening in other sectors. But there are reasons why what works for canola, for example, may not work for pulse funding.
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?
A refundable checkoff, and the de-creased revenue that follows, has potential to damage pulse research much more than it would in other sectors. Experience shows that when other checkoffs allowed farmers to opt out, they typically saw a refund rate of two to six percent.
Canola, soybeans, and to a lesser extent, wheat, all enjoy greater research spending from private sector corporations, which recoup their investments through the price of the seed.
Meanwhile, most of the pulse varieties that are available today were developed with grower funding. The sector’s dependence on the producer checkoff reaches far deeper than it does for other crops.
Yet farmers who drafted and passed a resolution at SPG’s annual meeting earlier this month calling for the group to change to a refundable checkoff raise good points.
A refundable checkoff would make the pulse board and executive more accountable, they say. As well, strong prices have led to what seems like an abundance of cash for the check-off fund this year. SPG raised $5 million more than budgeted, and that extra cash could no doubt find many uses if farmers were able to spend it on their own farms.
But before initiating change, there are larger picture items to consider. Even if SPG earned more money due to high prices, having money set aside for the leaner times that inevitably follow isn’t a bad thing. The checkoff is based on farmer gross sales, so when lentil and pea prices fall, the group would be wise to have a cushion that ensures research projects won’t be abandoned.
As well, farmers who want to opt out of the checkoff to make SPG more accountable might find more effective ways. Typically, voter participation in director elections for any commodity group runs below 10 percent. Those who want to influence policy or direct funding could start there.
Plus, in many commodity groups, a request for a check-off refund also disqualifies that person from voting, since they no longer have any skin in the game.
Farmers wanting to influence policy would also be welcomed to put forward their names to fill one of the many board and executive positions that commodity groups normally have available each year. People who want accountability should seek a seat at the table.
Short of that, there are many semi-regular meetings, in addition to the annual general meeting held during Saskatoon’s crop week, which many farmers could attend to press forward their ideas.
In the end, only farmers should decide the future course for SPG check-off funding, but there are a few options: refundable or nonrefundable; payment based on gross sales or tonnage; and imposing cap limits on check-off earnings.
Whatever pulse growers decide, it’s important that the decision not be an over-reaction to a single year’s riches. The pulse checkoff, which has been in place since 1983, is a major reason the pulse industry is one of agriculture’s great success stories of the past three decades.
