However, with the federal government in disarray after the Dec. 16 surprise resignation of former finance minister and deputy prime minister Chrystia Freeland, the strategy may never see the light of day.

Pundits suggested her resignation, along with several others in recent weeks, indicates non-confidence in prime minister Justin Trudeau, and an election could come sooner rather than later.

Trudeau had not spoken publicly at time of writing.

Freeland resigned just hours before she was to deliver the fall economic statement and days after she said Trudeau asked her to leave finance for another portfolio.

The statement was to be tabled later Dec. 16, but without a speech from the finance minister.

In it, farmers were looking for possible announcements on extended interswitching and capital gains measures.

In the meantime, the Canadian Canola Growers Association, Canola Council of Canada, Cereals Canada, Grain Growers of Canada, Pulse Canada and Soy Canada issued a statement Dec. 16 regarding their concerns about the strategy.

They said Canadian agriculture is already the most sustainable in the world, and the strategy must contain measures that are practical, science-based, market driven and beneficial for the entire sector as well as the environment.

“Together, we have consistently voiced that there is a lack of industry alignment regarding the targets and actions proposed in the SAS. As a result, we have collectively decided to step back from the advisory committee, as the strategy’s direction does not fully represent the interests of our members,” they said.

The organizations also said they would continue to work with the government on market access, research, innovation and supply chain resiliency.

None would comment further.

Annie Cullinan, spokesperson for agriculture minister Lawrence MacAulay, said farmers are facing many climate threats, and customers are looking for quality, sustainable products. She said the six organizations said they will not participate in the strategy at large, not just the advisory committee.

“It’s deeply disappointing that these organizations have chosen to step away from this important initiative,” she said. “Every opportunity was taken by minister MacAulay to ensure the voices of grain and oilseed farmers would be heard loud and clear in the strategy. We will continue to work hand in hand with farm groups who believe in the importance of improving environmental sustainability in Canadian agriculture.”

The strategy is supposed to be a roadmap to balance environmental sustainability, profitability and competitiveness, but consultations began two years ago and the plan hasn’t yet been released.

Also Dec. 16, Canada’s premiers met in Ontario to discuss the country’s approach to the 25 per cent tariffs that U.S. president-elect Donald Trump says he will impose on Canadian goods as soon as he is in office.

The premiers said they are concerned that Freeland’s resignation leaves a hole in the negotiating team.

Alberta premier Danielle Smith said Canadians should go to the polls. She said a prime minister with a four-year mandate would have more clout in the negotiations.

Parliament was set to rise for the holiday break on Dec. 17 and return Jan. 27.

The post Farm groups back away from Sustainable Agriculture Strategy appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

“The [Sustainable Agriculture Strategy] is and can be a big opportunity, and organic and regenerative have a lot to offer,” said Katie Fettes, COG’s director of policy and research, in an online presentation yesterday.

The federal strategy, announced in late 2022, is touted as positioning Canada to be a world leader in sustainability.

COG is a member of the strategy’s advisory committee, along with multiple producer groups, conservation groups, and the Manitoba Metis Federation, which Fettes said has coordinated Indigenous community engagement.

Following public consultation, the federal government published a ‘What We Heard’ report late last year.

Fettes said the strategy is forming around six principles: supporting productivity (i.e. economics and profitability), forward thinking, respecting regionality, integration and collaboration, inclusivity (e.g. recognition of Indigenous groups’ interests, the diversity of farmers across operational scales, demographics, etc.), and basis in evidence.

COG and its partners in the organic sector have been making the case that organic producers can fulfill some of the goals of the strategy, Fettes said.

For instance, while ecological practices aren’t exclusive to organic farming, organic farms often “can’t do without them,” she said.

The sector’s third-party verified system also has built-in incentives to help maintain those ecological practices.

“We don’t just want to see uptake of practices. We also want to see them maintained and built upon,” Fettes said.

Other key messages have included the need for the strategy to include multiple pathways for a diverse Canadian agricultural sector; that systems-based approaches like organic are complementary to the strategy; and that the demand for organic food is outpacing the Canadian supply.

Ahead of the next meeting to discuss the strategy, COG is asking for producer feedback via a survey on their website. The deadline for that survey is June 7.

The post Organic growers push for recognition in federal agriculture strategy appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.

It should reflect regional differences, recognize early adopters and improve data and measurement.

The “what we heard” report was posted to Agriculture Canada’s website during the holiday season. It outlines the feedback from consultations, workshops and written submissions gathered between December 2022 and March 2023.

A final strategy was supposed to be released in late 2023, but the department now says it will be sometime this year.

Stakeholders said direct incentives to increase the adoption of best management practices and technology were critical. Farmers have to see the financial sense of changing practices.

“They emphasized that incentives needed to be long-term and should consider the cost of adoption, return on investment and the ecological goods and services provided. Furthermore, incentives and support must be made available to a variety of farm sizes, particularly to those who do not have the capacity to measure GHG emissions or carbon sequestration, or are unable to afford costly clean technologies,” the report said.

Both smaller and larger farmers had concerns.

Small and medium-sized farmers said they didn’t have large enough financial buffers if they attempted to implement a new practice and failed.

“Large-scale producers were concerned around their ability to remain competitive and profitable in global markets, competing against producers from other countries with different policy and programming support from their respective governments,” said the report.

“Small-scale producers who participated in the consultation noted their financial struggles and inability to access government funding and programming for a variety of reasons, including high cost-share ratios and disappearing local and regional infrastructure (grain terminals and abattoirs) vital for their survival.”

The need to recognize early adopters was often mentioned in the best management practices discussion. These producers have already tackled change but can’t access current government programs. The report said these producers should be viewed as mentors and leaders and their success publicized to encourage others to follow suit.

The loss of agricultural land was also mentioned, particularly by respondents from Ontario and British Columbia. Participants were concerned about who was buying land and why, and the discussion included increased calls to better regulate foreign ownership of farmland, the purchase of farmland for non-agricultural purposes and the overall consolidation of agricultural land in fewer hands.

Respondents noted data gaps and the lack of a cohesive, consistent measuring policy around agri-environmental data collection and analysis at all levels.

Nationally, there were concerns about how agriculture is modelled in the National Inventory Report. Regionally, the data is fragmented and drawn from many sources, which makes it difficult to develop comprehensive, valid data sets.

“And at the local level, producers need tools to measure and collect data on their farms, helping them make production decisions and more informed investments. Overall, there was a strong call for a data strategy to collect, manage and communicate data on GHG emissions, biodiversity, water, soil health and resilience, with solutions to address the data and measurement challenges developed with the sector and various stakeholders at different levels to effectively measure change,” said the report.

The report is based on 420 responses; 41 percent of those were producers while six percent represented producer or industry associations.

—Karen Briere writes for the Western Producer from Saskatchewan.

The post Farmers demand incentives for environmental changes appeared first on Alberta Farmer Express.