Those fundamentals drive a lot of optimism in the sector. But — and it is a big but — no matter how good the fundamentals are, it is hard to get past the significant headwinds facing the sector.

That is why the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute undertook a national, cross value chain survey to inform the first phase of our Agri-Food Risk Report. This initial survey provided a snapshot that highlighted a sense of optimism in the face of significant risk.

Arguably, things have gotten worse since the survey was done in May. China launched an anti-dumping investigation into Canadian canola. The trains temporarily ground to a halt on Canada’s two national railways. The weather has complicated harvest on the Prairies.

Unfortunately, as much as these risks drive headlines, they are also more of the same: more risk, more disruption, more challenge for the sector as it works to grow and prosper and contribute to Canada’s economic, environmental and social success.

It is easy to understand why extreme weather, trade and market access are risks that are top of mind for the sector. They represent external threats that can wreak havoc, impact farm and value chain profitability, and are hard to mitigate and manage.

These are clear and present threats to Canada’s agriculture and food system. However, the risk that topped the survey, policy risk, is as clear as mud.

While the survey did not define policy risk, it is clear enough that the largest number of respondents identified it as the risk that they worry about the most. Better understanding this risk is part of the work CAPI is doing.

One way to understand this risk is to look at the differences in survey responses. The differences between respondents from the government and from other parts of the sector were often greater than the differences between any other demographic group.

For example, when asked what priorities governments should address, government respondents were more likely to prioritize climate change and less likely to select trade policy and advocacy than farmers and other industry respondents.

There are a variety of realities driving that difference in perception. There is a growing rural-urban divide and its corresponding political consequences and a declining confidence in politicians and the bureaucracy. Increasing attention is being paid to challenges with the public service and a lack of state capacity. Beyond the gap between government and the sector, there is an increasing perception gap between farmers and consumers. These all contribute to the concern about the policy and regulatory environment.

One of the challenges in trying to understand what drives the perception of a policy risk is the challenge separating the rhetoric from the reality.

For example, stakeholders often say the government needs to consult more, that farmers need to be involved earlier in the policy process. However — while it is hard to measure this — anecdotally, the government is consulting more than it has in recent history. In fact, some agriculture associations talk of consultation fatigue.

It is more accurate to say there is a need for better engagement, not more engagement.

There are also often calls about the need for a strategic vision or policy for the sector. However, the government has a Food Policy for Canada, is consulting on a Sustainable Agriculture Strategy and there is the five-year federal-provincial-territorial agreement.

It is more accurate to say that the sector wants to write its own strategy, not that the government needs one.

There are also increasing calls for governments to invest more in agriculture and food. However, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is spending more, almost 40 per cent more, than when the government changed in 2015.

So, it is not that the government needs to spend more, but that stakeholders want the money spent differently.

When you spend a lot of time talking to people about the risks that keep them up at night, it is easy to fall into thinking that all the headwinds can be overpowering. It is important to keep the risks in perspective.

That is why CAPI undertook a series of dialogues to dive deeper into the results of the first phase of the Agri-Food Risk Report. While phase one provided a snapshot, the dialogues provide an opportunity to dive deeper and fill in the story behind the numbers. They will inform phase two, which will be released later this fall.

Mitigating risk is essential for any business, organization or sector to succeed. However, the first step is understanding that risk. The work to understand policy risk continues and CAPI looks forward to continuing to work with the sector to manage that risk and to ensuring that the optimism the sector feels is well founded.

The post Policy risk is on farmers’ minds, but it’s as clear as mud appeared first on Farmtario.

It is foundational to putting food on tables in Canada and worldwide. Healthy soil can also boost production, fight climate change and promote biodiversity. However, for soil to deliver on its full potential, farmers must adopt a holistic approach that uses the right tools and techniques in the right place and at the right time.

A recent Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI) webinar highlighted how soil is a complex, dynamic, organic ecosystem with huge variability across Canada.

This means that a farming practice that delivers the desired outcome in one field may not in another. For example, implementing cover crops, often touted as an important tool for sequestering carbon, may lead to increased carbon emissions in some situations.

Today, the federal government is looking for soil to play an important role in meeting its climate targets by sequestering carbon and reducing emissions through reduced fertilizer use. At the same time, markets are telling farmers to grow more to feed the growing global population.

Farmers respond to these calls by investing in new technologies and changing their practices, but these things cost money, take effort and may impact productivity.

Farmers are looking for support from those who are asking them to do more, including governments, processors and markets.

Agriculture is a shared jurisdiction, which can lead to government overlap and duplicated services.

Provinces have typically been responsible for on-farm programs, targeting support to the realities within their regions. This includes being responsible for Environmental Farm Plans and the programs that fund their implementation.

However, Ottawa announced $200 million in funding for on-farm action in the 2021 budget. Supporting only three solutions — nitrogen management, cover crops and pasture management — and seeking new delivery partners across the country.

The program is driven in part by a reality that some provinces cannot afford new investments or may not share the federal government’s desire for ambitious climate action.

There needs to be a more collaborative approach. Federal-provincial-territorial governments are finalizing negotiations on the next five-year agriculture funding agreement. Governments should use the opportunity to make provincial governments responsible for on-farm programs, while agreeing to a common set of ambitious objectives.

That does not mean there is no space for federal funding.

First, the federal government should support more research, innovation and knowledge transfer. The Living Labs Initiative is an excellent example of where Ottawa should lead. Canada must do more if it wants to be a world leader in the science of soil and the solutions required to deliver on its full potential.

Second, the federal government should lead the development of a national network to measure and monitor emissions from soils.

Canada needs more investment in emissions measurement and monitoring, including test sites, remote sensing, and new technologies. Better measuring emissions will allow farmers to be supported for actual results, rather than funding practices that may or may not deliver any.

Better data would also improve Canada’s emissions reporting and facilitate a diverse suite of market-based solutions. Facilitating these tools, including carbon credits, inset protocols and conservation payments, facilitate other actors, such as investors, processors and consumers, to pay for their desired sustainability outcomes.

Governments may prefer simple solutions and low-hanging fruit, and politicians may want to fund on-farm action to be closer to voters. Still, these approaches may not deliver the comprehensive solutions that are needed. Soil is complicated and getting soil to do all we need it to do is complicated, too.

– Tyler McCann is managing director of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI).

The post Comment: Better approach needed for soil health appeared first on Farmtario.