Editorial
Forging Ahead in the APF-World
At the beginning of
each new year, it’s natural to look back, assess both what’s been achieved
and what could have been done better, and use the knowledge gained from experience
to make plans for continued, or even greater, success in the months ahead.
First – where we’ve been.
For the grain and oilseeds sector, there’s been no shortage of frustration,
thanks in large part to the impact of forces over which producers have no control,
such as U.S. farm policy. But ongoing efforts to demonstrate the inequities faced
by Canadian producers in relation to their competitors in the North American market
have been reasonably successful, at least in the short term.
Success came as the result of a number of factors, including the joint efforts
of all of Ontario’s agricultural commodity organizations, as well as our
general farm organizations, to support the delivery of federal and provincial
transition funding as a total package that could effectively address the needs
of Ontario’s farmers. When the industry speaks with a single voice, we are
heard.
To those who helped, and to those who listened, then acted upon what they heard,
our thanks.
But our challenge will continue: the current U.S. Farm Bill is in effect through
2007, and Canada’s federal officials are steadfast in their contention that
‘trade injury’ is outside of the acceptable scope of Business Risk Management
programming. And although OCPA supports Canada’s efforts to negotiate through
the WTO to end such unfair trading practices by foreign competitors, it is unrealistic
to expect that resolution will be achieved in the short term. As a result, producers
– especially those in the grains & oilseed sector – NEED access
to counter-cyclical programs that will provide benefits when support is needed.
We’ve seen many developments on the environmental front as well, many of
them likely to have a substantial and long-term impact on Ontario’s farmers.
As this editorial is written, our federal government has just voted to ratify
the Kyoto Accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions – a development that
provides both opportunities and potential challenges to agriculture (see related
story, this issue).
On the provincial front, the Nutrient Management Act was passed, and the accompanying
proposed regulations (Phase 1 and 2) have been introduced. More information on
the latest phase of the regulations, along with an analysis of the potential impact
for cash crop farmers, is provided elsewhere in this issue.
A community in Northern Ontario has become the first to ban the use of pesticides
on private property. Although farmers will still be allowed to use pesticides
under this bylaw, they will be subject to rigorous reporting requirements, including
the filing of a written declaration, in the month of March of each year, indicating
the pesticides that will be stored or used during that year, the application schedule,
and the areas where products will be applied. Unrealistic? Perhaps. But now duly
accepted as law in the Town of Cobalt.
A Private Member’s Bill (Bill 208) which calls for an amendment to the Municipal
Act to enable municipalities to ban pesticide usage has passed second reading
and is now being studied by Ontario’s Justice and Social Policy Committee.
Should it pass, look for more efforts to enact Cobalt-like bylaws in other Ontario
municipalities as well.
Biotechnology issues also prevailed, with GM food labelling controversies, the
refusal of developing countries to accept GM crops as food aid, and regulatory
glitches such as the recent Prodigene fiasco (whereby the company failed, in two
separate incidents, to take adequate measures to destroy bio-pharmaceutical producing
corn from 2001 field trials) continuing to cast a shadow over the substantial
production, environmental and social benefits the technology may offer.
Now – where we’re going.
This is the year of the Agricultural Policy Framework (APF), which promises to
bring new growth and profitability to the sector by positioning Canada as world
leader in food safety and quality, innovation and environmentally responsible
production.
Still in the federal-provincial negotiation process and largely devoid of publicly
available details, the APF is nevertheless scheduled to be rolled out as of April
1, 2003. This, despite the fact that there has been little opportunity for meaningful
input from those most affected, and consultations that have occurred have revealed
substantial misgivings within the farm community. Can it deliver on its promises,
particularly if it is launched before adequate program development and refinement
have taken place?
Of the framework’s five proposed pillars, the Business Risk Management (BRM)
component has been the primary focus. But OCPA has significant concerns that Business
Risk Management programs offered under the APF are lacking in the detail required
to make a full assessment of their implications for producers.
Without such an assessment, it is not possible for farm organizations, on behalf
of the producers they represent, to offer an endorsement of such programs. More
information on what we know, and what we need to know, are provided elsewhere
in this issue.
With the implementation deadlines looming, and with farmers struggling to grasp
the implications of new programming as they make plans for the upcoming season,
we have urged federal officials to extend the current package of safety net programs
for 2003/04 as new programs are still in the process of being developed, assessed
and refined. We could use your assistance in this effort: MPs need to hear from
the farm community on this issue.
The APF’s other pillars – Environment, Food Safety, Science and Innovation,
and Renewal – are currently in development, with little apparant effort to
elicit input from the producer community. And yet these components will also have
a substantial impact on the way we do business.
It’s going to be an interesting year.