To the Editor:
I am a Canadian citizen and have been living and farming in Denmark for the last 30 years. I graduated from the U of S, Saskatoon in 1980 with a Bachelor of Science in Agriculture. I have family farming in Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I feel that the farmers voting to keep the CWB are not being heard and Minister Ritz and PM Harper with their barrelling train (article by Bruce Johnstone, Leader-Post Oct. 8) are going at such a speed that all the aspects of the free trade train are not being properly addressed.
Farmers should have a chance to see this from all angles and be aware of the possible consequences...
Agriculture is being subjected to powerful forces. The WTO (Doha Rounds) is trying to liberalize trade. The EU through their TRIPS agreement is trying to initiate and secure value-added agricultural products through "GI's" (geographical indicators) or origin of production criteria. It is a move toward quality based export products produced in specific geographical areas. If the quality of Canadian wheat is compromised Canadian farmers lose an important competition parameter.
"Value-added "means 'offering customers superior perceived value' (Vincent Amanour-Boadu, Kansas State University). This can be achieved in a number of ways such as distribution, processing innovation, and coordination along the different food-chain levels. Processing companies are better equipped than commodity producers to give consumers what they want (David Coltrain et. al. Kansas State University). These companies can profit by using the value-added concept, but excess profit is not passed on to the raw commodity producers.
While Europe and the US are securing production and processing rights, Canada is more interested in reaching outward to foreign companies (f. ex. Alliance Grain Traders a subsidiary of Arbel Group with Semolina milling facilities in Turkey). The only ones to truly benefit from value-added opportunities are these companies and their investors. Semolina is wheat middlings of durum wheat used in pasta making, but research is examining their use in the production of biofuel. This perfectly illustrates the concept of value-added opportunities and is misleading when being used as an argument for free trade benefiting farmers.
Don Hofstrand, Iowa State University comments on the 'Pac Man' growth strategy prevalent in farming today, which he says will not benefit a community in the long run. If our prairie provinces lay deserted does Canada become richer? Even multinationals are dependent on the buying power of consumers.
Hofstrand suggests "value-added agriculture" as an alternative growth strategy for farmers. It allows them to move up the food chain and increase their income. This strategy has nothing to do with "value-added opportunities" which is often processor oriented and puts farmers at the bottom of the income chain. Taking advantage of the "value-added agriculture" option for growth requires capital, increased skills and technologies provided by research. This is out of the reach of independent farmers and will not necessarily be a part of a grain buyer's or processor's investment plan. The CWB has already embraced the value-added concept with for example, its' VIP incentive program. The CWB also finances research. These can be developed and work well together.
CWB opponents need to face facts. There is fierce competition in the agricultural world markets. Cairns Group, an Australian based organization has an 'Aid for Trade' program. It offers financial and technological support to underdeveloped countries to help them build their infrastructures and gain entrance to international markets. Cairns Group states that these countries can produce and export wheat and coarse grains more cheaply (carinsgroup.org). This may pose a future threat to Canadian farmers.
Canola, lentils and oats marketing structure is different from that of wheat (McCann SP 09-09). Who will ensure the quality and consistency of Canadian wheat on an open market? What will happen to price and demand when these standards disappear?
Another question not being addressed is farmer owned CWB equity. The integration, experience and research funding of this organization could be a valuable asset in future competitive markets.
Large companies are moving processing plants closer to more efficient growers (Cargill and soybean production in Brazil). This business model is being implemented throughout the world and costs jobs and loss of small businesses. The CEO of Cargill stated (Leader Post Sept. 24) that Canada's scrapping of the CWB would not likely result in more wheat milling or barley processing in western Canada.
Most farm operators know that a stable income is the best option when trying to meet cost of inputs and plan investments over a period of years. The CWB already offers possible options.
Starting a new voluntary wheat board seems like trying to reinvent the wheel. Western Canadian farmers need the branding value of the CWB and the CWB needs farmer input to keep it focused on being competitive in the market. It will fall apart without 100 per cent participation and there are plenty of competitors waiting to pick up the pieces.
Minister Ritz and PM Harper, in their pursuit of free trade, are rushing this matter and not addressing the general consensus for keeping the CWB and consequences of their actions. They may also be underestimating the possible damage of signals the world import markets are getting.
Lynden Kjaer, Denmark farmer.
