Safety Nets Update
Revisions to Phase II Nutrient Management Regulation Announced
The Other APF Pillars
Grain Growers of Canada
Support for Biotech Crops Increases
GM Food Labelling
Canadian Environmental Reports Released
Changes at OCPA
National Corn Growers Meeting in Ontario
Corn Prices - April 10, 2003

Safety Nets Update
April 1 has come and gone, Stanley Cup playoffs are upon us, yet no one knows what the ‘score’ is on the Ag Policy Framework (APF). We appreciate Minister Vanclief’s flexibility in not unilaterally implementing the provisions of the Business Risk Management pillar, nor any of the other four pillars, of the APF on April 1, 2003 as scheduled. However, the uncertainty of not knowing exactly what safety net programs are in place for the crop about to be planted is very difficult for farmers and the organizations that represent them. OCPA’s position remains unaltered. Until we are assured that producers will receive enhanced support under the APF, we ask that the existing funding of the last three years and the suite of safety net programs be continued in their entirety.

Many producers have phoned, confused by media and Agriculture & Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) releases surrounding recent announcements of Saskatchewan and Prince Edward Island ‘signing the APF’. Don’t be confused. What these two provinces signed was the overall APF agreement in principle which all other provinces (with the exception of Quebec) had signed in Halifax some months ago. Not a single province has signed an APF implementation agreement ... yet. It was these implementation agreements (one for each province) which were supposed to be signed by April 1. Not one of them was.
Not one province signed because no commodity group, association or general farm organization in Canada has agreed that the APF safety net programs provide better or even equivalent support compared to existing program suites.

Many producers are also confused by AAFC claims about the effectiveness of safety net programs under the APF. AAFC claims that the Business Risk Management pillar of the APF offers equivalent or improved stabilization compared to the combination of the existing NISA and CFIP (disaster) programs. It likely does. That is to be expected because the new NISA removes expenses that are highly variable (such as machinery expenses and family labour) from the new production margin that acts as both the deposit measure and the payout trigger. Including only those expenses that don’t vary much means that of course the new NISA is more stable. But stabilization is not the issue. Grain and oilseed farmers have had their revenue and net incomes artificially reduced for years on end by factors beyond their individual ability to combat ... foreign ag policies, especially U.S. subsidies. Because trade issues are a federal government responsibility, offsetting the injury caused by the impact of foreign ag policies must also fall within federal government jurisdiction. And until some meaningful success can be achieved in reducing U.S. trade-distorting domestic subsidies through WTO negotiations, that means providing offsetting support. But to date, AAFC continues to ignore the need for such support, choosing instead to focus only on the need for stabilization.

Grain and oilseed farms need support as well as stabilization. The total level of government support provided to a producer under the new programs versus under the old programs is the issue. Stabilization is not the issue; total income support is the issue. This is where the APF falls short. Total support provided to individual producers under the existing suite of safety net programs (NISA plus CFIP plus Market Revenue Insurance (MRI)) exceeds total support provided under the APF (only new NISA which incorporates a disaster component). Need proof? Dig out your farm’s financial records over the last 5 or 6 years. The new NISA is roughly equivalent to the old NISA plus Disaster (although not always; sometimes it falls short). Whatever you received from Market Revenue will not be made up under the APF because existing companion programs like MRI disappear over the next 3 years as federal funding dries up. Ask yourself this: would I have been better off over the last 6 years without Market Revenue Insurance? That question applies to cash crop and livestock producers alike.

Meaningful comparisons by AAFC and/or OMAF of support to individual producers provided by the existing suite of safety net programs (including companion programs) versus the new NISA would be most welcomed by OCPA. We have supported such requests; we continue to do so. But we cannot support Mr.Vanclief’s recent announcement of a 3rd party review of AAFC data and stabilization results. AAFC’s terms for the 3rd party study do not include analysis of alternative proposals already submitted by Canadian producer groups, nor do they include the impact of companion programs, or an assessment of stabilization versus support results. As a result, OCPA has supported a call for OMAF to conduct a more comprehensive assessment that incorporates companion programs and income support as well.

Revisions to Phase II Nutrient Management Regulation Announced
On March 21, the provincial government announced some substantial revisions for the province’s proposed nutrient management regulations, compared to the draft Phase II regulation announced in early December 2002. Many of the recently announced changes reflect the feedback that OCPA and other farm organizations had been conveying to the government throughout this past winter’s consultation period. (See the articles and/or newsletter items in each of the January, February, March and April issues of the Ontario Corn Producer magazine).

A synopsis of the proposed changes follows.
• July 1, 2003 will be the target date for implementing the proposed regulations for all new livestock operations and those expanding to greater than 300 nutrient units (a NU is the amount of manure giving fertilizer replacement value of the lower of 95 pounds of nitrogen or 121 pounds of phosphate).
• 2005 will be the target implementation date for all existing large (more than 300 NU) livestock operations.
• A provincial advisory committee, to be comprised of farmers, environmental scientists, municipal representatives and others, will be established to provide recommendations to the government on a range of issues pertaining to the NM regulation. Areas the advisory panel will address include:
- When other farm operations (i.e., all except new livestock operations or expanding or existing livestock operations with greater than 300 NU) will be phased-in under the NM regulations
- Issues pertaining to manure storage and handling, such as restrictions on siting and construction of manure storage, manure storage issues for existing farms, decommissioning of manure storages, and manure handling and application near municipal wells
- Standards for seasonal outdoor livestock feed areas
- Nutrient application on tile-drained land and on shallow soils
- Odour-related setbacks and standards
- Winter spreading restrictions for nutrients sourced from the pulp and paper sector.
• Implementation dates for the regulations, other than for new and expanding livestock operations, will be tied to the availability of cost-shared funding.
• The Ministry of Environment will have the ultimate authority to ensure compliance with the regulations through investigations and enforcement; however, OMAF “will be the first point of contact for on-farm nutrient management issues, including monitoring”.

These proposed changes represent a substantial repositioning and simplification of the proposed regulations by the government, in response to the feedback heard during the consultations. The government’s responsiveness to the concerns raised is to be commended, and the efforts of Minister Johns (Agriculture and Food) and Minister Stockwell (Environment) in securing these changes are much appreciated.

Certainly there is much more work to be done before the final version of the NM regulations is determined, but the government has taken important steps to obtain input on development of workable regulations that protect the environment but do not impose undue economic or regulatory burden on farmers. The next step forward is the establishment of the advisory committee. OCPA will be working through AGCare to ensure that the field crops sector is adequately represented.

The Other APF Pillars
Presentations were made by AAFC and OMAF staff to the OACC in late February outlining plans being formulated for the ‘other’ APF pillars – Science and Innovation, Food Safety and Quality, Environment and Renewal, as well as the federal ‘Branding Canada’ initiative (see article elsewhere in this magazine). OCPA, as well as the Ontario Field Crops Research Coalition (OFCRC), have subsequently reviewed the information presented, and we are left with several major concerns.

The programs to be included under the federal-provincial APF agreement for Ontario have been selected with limited, if any, farm group input. There have been a few ‘national advisory committees’ holding meetings over the past half year or so, but farm representatives to these have been bound by confidentiality requirements not to discuss with their members or constituents the issues brought before the advisory committees. From reports we have heard, it appears that much of the advice being put forward by the few farm representatives to these committees has been largely ignored by the government representatives in any case. With many of the plans developed in a vacuum, and not adequately reflecting sector priorities and business realities, substantial buy-in from the agri-food sector seems quite unlikely.

Many of the programs proposed for funding under the APF agreement are programs that already exist. Granted, the APF agreement may enhance or extend the funding of these existing programs, but it is clear that many of the APF contributions do not involve ‘new’ money.

Under the programs as outlined, there is no provision for continuation of the Canada-Ontario Research & Development (CORD) Program. This and the previous ‘Safety Net R&D’ programs have provided Ontario’s field crops groups almost $6.6 million in funding since 1997 (the hort and livestock sectors received comparable amounts) for research and market development projects promoting viability and diversification of the agri-food sector objectives, thus reducing financial risks

Grain Growers of Canada
Although the Grain Growers of Canada (GGC) recognizes that concerns about potential negative market impacts of new plant varieties need to be addressed, the group is adamant that such concerns must not detract from Canada’s current science-based regulation system for genetically modified plants. GGC is strongly supportive of that system, in which regulatory approval decisions are based solely on health and environmental risk assessments.

GGC believes that introducing additional, nonscientific regulations into the approval process would negatively affect farmers currently growing GM plants and could also prevent the further introduction of GM products into Canada, thereby preventing Canadian farmers from taking advantage of future innovations in life sciences. In countries where such regulations have been introduced, subsequent investments in research and innovation have declined markedly, expanding the impact of such decision-making well beyond the farm gate.

Rather than incorporating non-scientific factors such as market acceptance into the regulatory approval process for the licensing of new plant varieties, GGC believes that such issues should be dealt with on a voluntary basis by industry.
OCPA Directors Don Kenny and Don McCabe, working on behalf of GGC, outlined the group’s proposal for a voluntary industry process to address market concerns in a recent presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. A full copy of the presentation is available on the OCPA website: http://www.ontariocorn.org
In brief, the group proposes the establishment of a voluntary Advanced Stakeholder Review Committee (ASRC) that would deal proactively with the marketing issues surrounding the commercial introduction of genetically modified wheat. It is expected that the process could also extend beyond wheat into other commodities that do not currently utilize commercialized GM products.

The committee would include technology developers, seed growers, grain farmers, marketers and exporters, representatives from the grain handling and transportation sectors, food processors and consumers.

Under this voluntary process, technology developers would agree to delay commercialization of new GM plant varieties for commodities not currently using GM technologies until the ASRC has completed its evaluation and concluded that adequate segregation and testing systems are in place to meet both national and international marketing demands.

It is expected that such a process would not only address the marketing concerns of technology developers, farmers and grain exporters, but would also provide governments and consumers with increased transparency and input into the development and commercialization of GM crops.

The presentation also emphasizes the progress already achieved in the Canadian grain and oilseed industry in the capability to deliver identity preserved products to market, and suggests that further development of the identity preservation system will provide wide-ranging benefits.

Support for Biotech Crops Increases
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Agricultural Statistics Service predicts that biotech crop plantings will increase again in 2003. The study of 2003 Prospective Plantings, released on March 31, indicates that 38% of the corn, 80% of the soybeans and 70% of the cotton crops are expected to be planted to genetically modified (GM) varieties.

Although the GM cotton percentage has remained steady from 2002 figures, GM corn and soybean acreages are up by 4 and 5 percentage points respectively. The full survey is available on the USDA website: http://www.usda.gov/nass/
The continued strong support in the U.S. for crops developed through biotechnology is consistent with general trends: in every country where genetically modified crops are grown, the adoption rate of GM varieties continues to increase steadily.

According to AGCare, farmers’ adoption of GM crops in Ontario has increased steadily each year since the biotech-enhanced varieties were introduced. In 2002, 45% of soybean, 45-50% of corn and more than 90% of canola acreage in Ontario was planted to GM varieties. Although comprehensive information regarding 2003 planting levels will not be available for some time, GM plantings are expected to increase over 2002.

Such expectations are consistent with the global trend in biotech crop plantings according to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Research conducted by ISAAA shows that biotech crop acreage increased by 12 per cent, or 15 million acres, in 2002, bringing total global acreage to 145 million acres. The U.S., Argentina, Canada and China continue to be the leading growers of GM crops, with many developing countries now beginning to adopt them as well in the effort to address agricultural production challenges.

GM Food Labelling
As reported previously in this newsletter, progress continues to be slow on the Canadian General Standards Board (CGSB) process for defining a voluntary labeling standard for genetically modified food.

Recent public comments by the chair of the committee expressing frustration at the lack of progress to date have resulted in renewed activity on the mandatory labeling front, with groups opposed to the use of biotechnology taking the comments as a signal that the CGSB process had failed.

In a parallel development, NDP MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre) has introduced a new Private Member’s Bill calling for mandatory labeling for all foods that contain ingredients that are products of genetic technology. A similar bill was narrowly defeated in 2001.

OCPA continues to support the development and implementation of a clear and consistent voluntary GM food labeling standard that can provide those consumers who want it with more information about the methods by which their food is produced. Such a standard remains far preferable to mandatory labeling of all GM foods, which would require either the enormous costs involved in a full farm-to-fork tracing and segregation process in order to guarantee the origins of even the most minor of ingredients in all food products, or an extensive array of exemptions that would compromise the honesty of the information provided.

Canadian Environmental Reports Released
Early in April, the Honourable David Anderson, Minister of the Environment, released two new reports on the Canadian environment.

Don LeDrew

National Corn Growers Meeting in Ontario
The U.S. National Corn Growers’ Association (NCGA), founded in 1957, is a trade association representing the interests of U.S. corn growers. With a national headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri as well as an office in Washington, D.C., the group represents more than 32,000 members, from 48 states, on issues related to corn production and the corn industry. The interests of more than 300,000 farmers who contribute to corn checkoff programs in 20 states are represented as well.
OCPA was pleased to learn that the group has scheduled a summer meeting to be held in Guelph this June.
The Michigan Corn Growers’ Association will also be in attendance.

OCPA looks forward to the opportunity to meet with our U.S. counterparts to exchange ideas and perspectives on the many issues we share.

Look for a full report in our August/September issue.

The above figures are based on levies received by OCPA for commercial sales.

1