FARMERS may find a measure of security now that it appears Ottawa’s new agriculture program will become a reality.
Ontario and Saskatchewan, the last two provinces to sign the agricultural policy framework, allow the federal government to implement the APF and its contentious risk management aspect.
But while the APF may bring a modicum of stability to farmers beset by two years of drought, insect problems and foreign subsidies, the bovine spongiform encephalopathy crisis has sounded a warning. The discovery of BSE in North America shows the APF is not the program to end all other farm programs, as touted by Ottawa.
Read Also
Topsy-turvy precipitation this year challenges crop predictions
Rainfall can vary dramatically over a short distance. Precipitation maps can’t catch all the deviations, but they do provide a broad perspective.
The APF is a five-year agreement. Within that, the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization Program allocates $5.2 billion to help farmers during difficult economic times. CAISP takes over from the Net Income Stabilization Account and revises crop insurance programs.
Changes introduced in December to entice Ontario to sign the agreement are improvements. The program now covers up to 60 percent of negative margins, allows provincial programs to run alongside the APF and increases the cap on payments to individual farms to $3 million from $975,000.
Saskatchewan, which reluctantly signed so its producers would be eligible for federal dollars, continues to press for additional changes. It wants money for trade injury to help farmers compete against foreign subsidies, help for beginning farmers and extra money for dire emergencies such as BSE.
These points are exactly the sorts of changes officials must consider when planning future adjustments. Ottawa has promised that regular reviews will fix problems that appear in the safety net once the program gets under way.
The BSE crisis has cost Canadian producers billions of dollars. If the APF alone was left to deal with the crisis, it would already have spent a sizable chunk of the $5.1 billion intended to last five years. What would happen to farmers’ safety nets in subsequent years with the fund depleted?
The APF may reduce the turbulence that seems to shake Canadian agriculture year after year, but it is not a substitute for real emergency aid.
The program must include a mechanism to address dire situations. A predetermined emergency fund falls short of the goal because it easily falls prey to overuse. Many would call on governments to dip into it for less-than-livelihood threatening problems. As well, a preset amount may backfire by limiting emergency aid. Governments could refuse to spend more than the amount in the fund, regardless of the need.
The APF must outline criteria for situations when farmers would be eligible for emergency aid. The aid must be in addition to that already available within the main safety net programs.
