Glacier FarmMedia—More than a century after its creation, there is no visible sign remaining of the File Hills Farm Colony in southern Saskatchewan. But the painful memories of an experiment that epitomized the culture of assimilation permeating that era’s attitudes towards Canada’s Indigenous peoples still live in the collective memories of residential school survivors. Likewise for some of the racist attitudes and policies that still exist today.

Rather allowing that piece of history to define the story of Indigenous agriculture, a new generation – this time under Indigenous leadership – is working to create a different future for First Nations in the sector.

Thomas Benjoe, president and CEO of FHQ Developments, points to the File Hills Colony as an example of how projects touted at the time as progressive actually held Indigenous agriculture back.

He is leading efforts by First Nations in the File Hills area to carve out a new legacy for Indigenous people in agriculture. FHQ Developments is operated by the 11 First Nations (including Peepeekisis) belonging to the File Hills Qu’Appelle Tribal Council.

Painful legacy

As the the 19th century bled into the 20th, the region’s Indian agent William Morris Graham devised the colony as a way to prevent Indigenous residential school graduates from reverting to traditional lifestyles once they completed their time at these schools.

Specially chosen graduates of residential schools were given an opportunity to farm on prime agriculture land belonging to the Peepeekisis Cree Nation, even though many of them were not members of that nation.

Members of Peepeekisis were displaced to a smaller area, while select graduates were encouraged to live like colonial homesteaders – and afforded many luxuries their peers didn’t have.

The Canadian government held out the colony as an example of how Indigenous populations could be assimilated but disregarded how it was preventing other First Nations from acquiring land, machinery and capital needed for long-term success.

Indigenous farmers were at the mercy of Indian Agents who could limit what was grown, control their access to equipment and what lands they could access.

The File Hills Colony eventually became riddled with controversy due to disputes over what amounted to illegal redistribution of reserve lands and suspicion that the government agents overseeing the operation were making off with some of the profits.

Legal action was filed in the 1950s to have the colony removed.

Earlier this year, the federal government provided $150 million in total compensation to Peepeekisis First Nation, with an option to acquire 18,720 acres of land.

“In creating and implementing the Colony Scheme, Canada breached its fiduciary duty to the Nation by failing to protect the Nation’s interest in the land and not providing any compensation to the Nation,” says a government release. “The historic and ongoing harm that the Colony Scheme caused to the Peepeekisis Nation created community divisions and animosity between families and members. The legacy of the Colony Scheme continues to impact the Nation to this day.”

Now considered to be an example of colonial oppression, the File Hills Colony colony forced a Euro-centric, agrarian way of life upon Indigenous communities.

“All of these things, all of these policies, have significantly worked against Indigenous communities to be able to actively participate and create that long history of what we need in the ag industry,” says Benjoe.

Overcoming the past

He sees overcoming that rocky history and re-engaging in agriculture as an important opportunity for First Nations.

“It’s not just from a producer’s perspective, it’s from a tech, manufacturing, and supply chain, where we’re looking at it in a in a much bigger picture of how we can invest in and how we can participate,” he says. “We need to be a part of that leading edge work that is happening all around us, and if we don’t, we’re going to miss out on huge opportunities to participate and create, and be a part of an industry that is both sustainable and renewable.”

While the potential is real, so are the barriers.

Benjoe says the legacy of the File Hills colony and other government policies have led to “barriers for success” and a drop in enthusiasm for agricultural projects among First Nations.

But access to capital is the biggest hurdle holding them back.

“We just can’t compete in an agriculture industry that requires significant capital investment where we can’t get loans,” he said.

“We just don’t have the access to capital that is required to be able to participate at the level that is needed in the ag industry.”

Without access to money for projects on reserve, FHQ Developments is now looking elsewhere: off reserve lands.

“We’re shifting as an organization towards those types of opportunities. Just because, you know, access to capital on reserve is going to be very, very difficult,” he says.

Another way of continuing to look for ways to establish collateral is by finding low-risk ways of getting in the door, says Benjoe.

“Over time, we’re able to demonstrate our capacity and be able to fully participate in much larger contracts and take on more risk with our customers. And so that’s what we need to see in the ag industry,” he says.

Engagement

Through the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, Benjoe is trying to make it easier for companies – in and outside of agriculture – to engage with First Nations through the creation of an Indigenous engagement charter.

“There’s no excuse for any organization, any business in Saskatchewan, to not do something. There’s resources, there’s tools, there’s training, there’s guidance, that’s all there for you now,” he said.

“You have all the levers to be able to allow us access. And if you don’t know how, or if you’re uncomfortable about going down this path, talk to us.”

Agriculture has a blueprint to look to on how best to engage First Nations. Benjoe points to the oil, gas and mining sectors as industries that have set a pretty good foundation of active participation with Indigenous communities.

In those sectors, First Nation-specific procurement policies, engagement and community investment are much more common than what is found in agriculture.

“What I need to be able to see and be able to advocate for is to work with those major ag companies and say, ‘Well, how can we get you thinking about reconciliation? How do we get the organization developing the right policies and making the right investments in unity?” he says.

“That’s where we see the opportunity, and that is why we are pushing forward within the ag industry.”

Champions needed

As Benjoe continues to seek “champions to step up” on the industry side of agriculture, he also expects more action from government.

“The role that government needs to play is around the policy and around the investment, we need them to make capital available, or set up loan loss provisions for us,” he says.

While government programming specific to First Nations and agriculture has increased in recent years, there is still little offered.

What is, such as the five-year, $8.5 million Indigenous Agriculture and Food Systems Initiative launched by the federal government in 2018, is oversubscribed. The program was designed to “support Indigenous communities and entrepreneurs who are ready to launch agriculture and food systems projects and others who want to build their capacity to participate in the Canadian agriculture and agri-food sector.”

Funding per project was capped at $500,000 per year, and in 2021 – three years into the five-year mandate – applications were suspended because the demand was too high.

“Indigenous communities want to participate, it’s just, you’re not putting enough effort and enough dollars towards it, that we can participate at a larger level,” Benjoe says.

“When I think about things that I want to participate in, in the ag tech or manufacturing or supply chain sector, there is a significant amount of capital that we’re going to have to invest.”

The post Reconciling the painful past creates hope for a more promising future appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

That enthusiasm was well on display during FHQ Development’s two-day, Indigenous Agricultural Innovation Conference, held virtually in September.

Attendees heard from a diverse set of speakers, including Melissa Arcand, who is an associate professor in soil science at the University of Saskatchewan.

Her research focuses on how agricultural management practices and land use can impact soil, and in turn, what that means for productivity. More recently, she’s turned her attention of that research specifically towards First Nations.

As a soil scientist, she’s working about as close to the ground level as you can get in helping First Nations communities advance their agricultural interests.

Indigenous communities, largely through land claim settlements, continue to expand agricultural land bases. Arcand and others at the conference credit this as being one of the main reasons for a renewed engagement around the role First Nations play in agriculture.

“There are a lot of barriers and gaps in knowledge to fully realizing the potential for Indigenous communities to engage in agriculture on their lands,” Arcand said during her presentation.

The legacy of the Pass System controlled the movements of people living on reserves, limiting their ability to move around even in their own territories. The Indian Act continues to prevent many First Nations from using lands as collateral to borrow, and the legacy of residential schools (and the failed farm colonies borne out of them) continue to live on.

“As a result, there are massive declines in the number of Indigenous farmers on the Prairies,” Arcand told conference attendees.

While government policies directly undermined the ability of many First Nations to farm successfully, the land they were provided was often poor for agriculture.

During her presentation, Arcand used a series of maps and soil surveys to demonstrate how the highest-quality land across large swaths of Saskatchewan was taken from First Nations and given to surrounding municipalities.

“Many of these lands that were surrendered were the best-quality lands,” she said. “So you can think about the lost opportunity of not being able to farm those lands for decades.”

Arcand demonstrated – again, using detailed maps as evidence – how Prairie reserves were largely left with marginal land to farm while neighbouring communities grew with high-grade soil.

“We had a higher proportion of marginal lands that we were meant to be able to use for agricultural purposes, and try to compete in the larger agricultural sector.”

Add this to the long list of reasons why, despite more than 50 First Nations being located in Saskatchewan’s agricultural region, hardly any farming is done by First Nations, Inuit or Métis people – there, or anywhere else.

“First Nations have historically been underserved by the public and private agricultural sector in this province,” Arcand said. “It’s really time to fill in that gap. We need to start collecting data, collecting research that can help to inform our agricultural innovations or agricultural activities.”

This conference, and events like the National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, is in part a chance for those involved in traditional agriculture to reflect on how they can help create opportunities for economic reconciliation in Indigenous communities across Canada.

Agriculture has the potential to change its legacy of being a colonial tool used to suppress First Nations communities to become an industry leading in reconciliation efforts.

Despite renewed attention to First Nations issues and a supposed dedication to reconciliation, Arcand still needs funding to complete her research.

So, she is searching for potential partners interested in collecting soil information on agricultural land that “can be used to make informed decisions about agricultural land use in developing agricultural activities in Indigenous communities.”

Here is to hoping you, the person reading this right now, will consider reaching out to assist Arcand, or others, actively engaging in tangible, reconciliatory efforts like this.

The post Opinion: Opportunities available to participate in reconciliation appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Ten days before calling the election, the Liberal government announced consultations would officially begin on carbon border adjustments. A policy paper detailing the policy was included.

BCAs aim to reduce the so-called “carbon leakage” occurring when a company leaves a jurisdiction with carbon pricing for one without it.

In these instances, the carbon that would have had a levy on it is just being emitted elsewhere with no penalty – but a BCA aims to put a price on that carbon once the product created enters the global trade market.

BCAs look to level the playing field for carbon pricing across nations and remove any “out” for industries trying to avoid paying for pollution.

Proponents say BCAs help domestic industries compete globally, particularly with nations not pricing pollution.

BCAs can be applied through measures like an import charge, where goods arriving from countries with lower carbon prices would be charged to ensure equitable carbon costs.

The introduction of the policy was teased in the government’s 2020 climate plan, which said it is “committed to ensuring that Canada’s transition to a low-carbon economy is achieved in a way that is fair and predictable for businesses, and supports Canada’s international competitiveness. To this end, the government is exploring the potential of border carbon adjustments, and will be discussing this issue with its international partners.”

Plans to explore BCAs were published in the same year, and the 2021 budget announced consultations with provinces, territories, importers and exporters – “especially those who deal in emissions-intensive goods.”

Now in the midst of those consultations, it appears to be a foregone conclusion this proposed policy will soon be reality in Canada and elsewhere.

The European Commission voted in July to adopt a BCA that will launch in 2023 and be fully operational in 2026. Like with carbon pricing, Canada will likely follow suit.

The EU says the policy will “put a carbon price on imports of a targeted selection of products so that ambitious climate action in Europe does not lead to ‘carbon leakage.’”

(Despite consultations in Canada still ongoing, there are already whispers around Ottawa that Canada will look to mimic EU policies as closely as possible.)

President Joe Biden campaigned on imposing carbon adjustment fees, leading to further speculation Canada will look to implement its own BCAs.

Still reeling from the lost debate over the merits – and pitfalls – of carbon pricing in general, producers will soon be grappling with the challenge of determining how BCAs can impact their operations.

For starters, the whole idea of BCAs rests on the premise of being able to find out the pollutants associated from individual imports (including agricultural ones), as well as the supply chains involved.

With no national example to look to (at least not yet), being worried specific products might be given an inaccurately high pollution level (and adjustment fee) appears to be warranted. There are early warnings (including one from the Bank of Canada) that supply chains will be impacted enough to raise production costs.

Already operating in a tedious global trading system, the addition of further trade mechanisms like a BCA would also add another layer of complexity, and potential tension, for international traders – even if policy-makers claim WTO rules are being abided by.

While not here yet, this policy is on the horizon – and like the introduction of the carbon levy – border adjustments have the potential to drastically impact Canadian industry, including agriculture.

The post Comment: Carbon border adjustments are coming appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Leading into this election, the governing Liberals had already spent much of the political capital they earned following their 2015 sweep to victory.

Optimism over electoral reform and climate change action, for example, was quickly swallowed up by a litany of scandals and a lack of action.

Justin Trudeau’s personal (blackface) and political (SNC-Lavalin, WE) failures meant he had to trade his majority government for a minority in 2019. (It helped that race was run against a rudderless opposition Conservative party still struggling to put a credible platform together.)

A relatively strong handling of the pandemic helped bolster Trudeau’s fortunes, leading to the current bet that enough political capital was built up to once again reach majority status.

Days out from the election, that once promising prospect for him appeared to be disappearing.

Any swing voter casting a ballot for the Liberals were likely holding their nose while they did it.

His credibility on issues attractive to centre-left voters, like the environment, feminism and Indigenous reconciliation is questionable at best.

Under Trudeau, Canada continues to be on pace to miss many of its climate targets, despite significant investments and the introduction of a carbon levy. More left-leaning voters continue to critique his pro-pipeline politics.

The firing of former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould (and her tell-all book released during the campaign) further impacted his credibility as a progressive.

Boil water advisories and continued legal challenges against Indigenous communities hamper any claims Trudeau makes about being an ally to First Nations.

This election, even those steeped in Liberal red are voting against the Conservatives more than they are for the Liberals.

For more left-leaning voters, the NDP still can’t be seen as a credible option – particularly in much of Western Canada, where winning even a single seat will be an accomplishment.

Leader Jagmeet Singh was unable to inspire the party’s base, and a small army of would-be volunteers are again parked on the sidelines because of it. We aren’t on the eve of another Orange Wave, or anything close to it. Heck, some within the NDP are already working to choreograph Singh’s post-election exit.

Conservative voters, meanwhile, didn’t have great alternatives if they weren’t satisfied with the leadership of Erin O’Toole.

Despite a relatively cohesive campaign, it’s clear he led a CPC into the election that continues to struggle with an identity crisis.

Born out of a marriage between two separate versions of conservatism, almost 20 years later the CPC’s existential battle between those ideologies wages on. MPs and CPC members are still unclear on where the party should stand when it comes to issues like abortion, reconciliation and LGBTQ rights.

Perhaps most damning to the party’s fortunes: While O’Toole led the party to adopt carbon pricing as part of its official stance, some CPC candidates continue to campaign against the policy.

Considering climate change is once again ranking high on voter concerns, this is a problem for O’Toole and the party.

The party faithful hasn’t coalesced behind a leader since Stephen Harper, and each of his successors have essentially been compromise picks attempting, but failing, to appease all members.

O’Toole’s current grasp of power over the party can’t be considered a strong one, having won on the third ballot and without overwhelming member support.

Without strong enthusiasm from within his own party ranks, O’Toole has struggled to sell Canadians on the idea the CPC is once again a “big tent” party capable of governing for everyone.

So there we were, once again shrugging our shoulders at our options for an election. I travelled a bit around Canada (five provinces!) during the campaign.

Not once did I meet a voter genuinely excited about their options for prime minister.

Is that what a healthy democracy is supposed to look like?

The post Opinion: Election didn’t offer much for PM options appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Polling suggests the CPC vote share could be on the rise, and there is a chance the party sweeps all the seats in Saskatchewan again – this time with a higher share of the vote than in 2019.

We’ve seen how this plays out in an election before.

Farmers won’t be seen as a valuable voting bloc.

Outside of a few local ridings, don’t expect parties to put in any particular effort to win over that vote.

Political organizers in opposition parties know the 14 Conservative-held seats in Saskatchewan, for example, are likely to stay that way.

Most of those seats aren’t considered “winnable” and party resources will instead be diverted to ridings that are.

(I expect the Liberals will put in at least a half-hearted effort for the Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River seat, where the left-leaning vote often splits with the NDP to deliver a CPC MP.)

Having had a Liberal government since 2015, we have a pretty good sense in the value of having CPC members represent Prairie farmers.

Farmers, what has the CPC done for you lately?

It is tough to deliver results from the opposition benches, and the CPC hasn’t been in power since 2015.

At least of this writing, the Erin O’Toole-led CPC seems destined to stay in opposition (my way-too-early bold guess: the CPC has another leadership race in its near future).

In the absence of being able to govern, CPC members were looked to be a viable opposition to the Liberals and the policies they brought in.

Advocate on behalf of constituents, rail against bad government policy. Be the opposition.

Here, too, the CPC has largely failed in recent years – particularly when it counted most.

Producers strongly opposed carbon pricing, for example, but the CPC was unable to do anything to stop that policy from impacting farmers.

Conservative provincial governments on the Prairies couldn’t stop it, either.

Any tweaks to carbon pricing (like offering further exemptions on certain fuels) that were eventually ushered in came more at the behest of the countless ag-related lobby groups operating in Ottawa than the CPC.

Once seen by some as an existential threat to modern agriculture, carbon pricing has now been in place since 2019 across the country and is poised to stay here.

The CPC now supports the policy, and any continued farmer opposition will fall on sympathetic, but mostly deaf, ears. The ship has sailed.

Farmers, compared to other industries, don’t need to rely on opposition members to represent their interests.

Producers support, and pay out of pocket, for a litany of organizations to represent their interests in Ottawa – perhaps more than any other industry in Canada.

Canada’s minister of agriculture regularly ranks among the most lobbied of politicians, and there seems to be a lobby or advocacy group in agriculture related to everything.

(For what it’s worth, none of those efforts were able to stop carbon pricing, either.)

It is also difficult for the CPC to now oppose the Liberals – on ag policy and other issues – because since the 2019 election, Liberals have regularly been supported by the CPC.

CPC members helped usher in Liberal policies during this minority government.

Sure there have been a handful of Conservative private member’s bills that passed in the most recent minority government, like one offering more punishment for animal activists who trespass onto a farm.

These will be welcomed by farmers, but in terms of substantive issues, don’t rank in the same stratosphere as issues like carbon pricing.

For farmers, the CPC has failed as an opposition, but it continues to be seen as the party with a better understanding of agriculture.

Conservative leadership knows this – but it is all kind of irrelevant, because no matter what, most farmers will still vote for it.

This is likely why there isn’t anything related to agriculture in the Conservative Party of Canada platform to get excited about.

Line by line, the party’s ag proposals are almost identical to what the Liberals are currently doing.

And that makes sense, because despite some challenging times, under a Liberal government, agriculture has continued to be a stable and growing industry.

Producers will once again support the Conservatives in the 2020 election.

Before doing so, they should ask themselves why.

The post Comment: Is it worth voting Conservative again? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Thursday evening’s debate, hosted by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, had plenty of discussion about climate change and how best to support producers in a changing environment.

Liberal candidate and Canada’s incumbent agriculture minister, Marie-Claude Bibeau, leaned on the small gains her government has made in AgriStability during the first round of questions, in which each partyt’s representative to consider how they would approach the next federal/provincial agricultural policy framework.

Negotiations for a new framework will be a key priority for the next government’s agriculture minister, as the current agreement expires in 2023.

Under Bibeau’s leadership, provinces agreed with Ottawa to remove the reference margin limit from AgriStability, but prospects for further short-term changes remain dim as provincial governments in Western Canada continue to consider other program options.

“We are waiting on the conservative provincial governments to make it happen,” Bibeau said early in the debate, adding she wants to introduce “climate risk” into business risk management (BRM) programming to “meet the new reality.”

“These programs can be improved and take into consideration climate risk, this is the conversation that has already started with my provincial colleagues and the industry,” she said

Conservative candidate Dave Epp, running for re-election in Ontario’s Chatham-Kent-Leamington riding, countered Bibeau by arguing the current Liberal approach to BRM programming is too much “Ottawa knows best” and not enough of a partnership with the industry.

Alistair MacGregor, a long-time member of Parliament’s agricultural committee and the incumbent in British Columbia’s Cowichan-Malahat-Langford riding, repeated his oft-used call for programming built around resiliency.

“We know that this next century, climate change is going to be a huge factor,” he said. “The next agricultural policy framework, in discussion with the provinces, is really going to have to center on how we manage the risk from climate change.”

Bibeau jumped on an opportunity to point out the last Conservative government reduced BRM funding before challenging Epp to say how much a Conservative government would invest if elected.

Epp responded by saying the provinces have been the ones to lead throughout the ongoing drought and other challenges. He accused Bibeau of dropping her AgriStability proposal on provinces with no warning “at the 11th hour” and “on the eve of an unnecessary election.”

He said it was the leadership of provinces that resulted in drought-specific relief being brought forward, and accused Bibeau’s government of moving slowly on promised reforms.

“The review of the BRM program promised is still not done,” he said.

Bloc Quebecois representative Yves Perron, again seeking to be the Berthier-Maskinonge MP, called on Bibeau to accept a proposal from Quebec farm groups and move forward with changes to AgriStability solely alongside the provinces willing to do so.

Bibeau responded by again blaming conservative governments, arguing federal programs need to be applied across Canada.

During a debate on threats to the food production sector and how to address them, Epp pointed to labour as a big issue.

Bibeau said her government plans to reduce red tape for good employers and allow for more mobility of employees, while strengthening regional supply chains, to address ongoing challenges.

“The labour shortage is definitely a very big issue right now, it’s what I hear about in the field,” she said.

MacGregor said processing capacity is a challenge, and one where parties have already found common, multipartisan ground to stand on.

“One of the biggest threats, particularly with meat processing, is in many cases we’ve put all of our eggs in one basket,” he said, citing a federal report saying processing plants should be expanded and diversified.

Each candidate offered a commitment to putting in place a Grocery Code of Conduct, something called for during the pandemic as grocers imposed new fees on manufacturers and producers.

Five companies run 80 per cent of grocery sales, and MacGregor said hidden fees from those major retailers is a problem he hears about often.

“We absolutely need to level the playing field,” he said.

Bibeau said the conduct was a “key piece of the puzzle” and said plans for developing a voluntary code are already underway.

Epp contended that wouldn’t do.

“It needs teeth,” he said. “There must be teeth and adherence to the code in order for it to be effective, that’s what I’m hearing from industry.”

When debate turned specifically to the environment, Bibeau again looked to lean on her government’s track record of investing in a green economy. The most recent investment, made during the 2020 budget, received mostly positive reviews from industry.

But Epp argued the industry “will respond better to incentives, than to the stick” in a shot at the Liberals much-critiqued carbon levy.

“The top-down approach doesn’t work, we need further collaboration with our producer groups,” he said.

MacGregor said that where no alternatives exist, producers should be offered exemptions from paying carbon fees, but said, “We have to understand there are opportunities to help farmers transition.”

A brief debate on supply management resulted in each candidate agreeing they support the policy but squabbling over efficiency in payments to producers who lost market share as a result of recently signed trade deals.

There was equal agreement on the need to modernize the Canada Grain Act and introduce reforms to allow for easier intergenerational farm transfers. Each candidate also committed to being more assertive in international trade.

— D.C. Fraser reports for Glacier FarmMedia from Ottawa.

The post Federal support for farmers focus of ag leaders’ debate appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Word that global warming is “widespread, rapid, and intensifying” has likely spread across the country by now.

Yet another report, this one from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is warning us serious action is needed now.

A whole section of the report is dedicated to agricultural activity and its significant contribution to pollution.

Authors warn it is already too late to reverse certain impacts of global warming, like rising sea levels. Heat waves causing droughts, and other negative effects, can still be avoided.

This fall, world leaders will meet at the UN to discuss how to better address climate change – including how it relates to agriculture.

Biden-led American enthusiasm for green policy, partnered with a reinvigorated urgency to address the issue, have added to anticipation this year’s worldwide climate talks will result in a recommitment to slow global warming.

In releasing its latest report, the IPCC offers international leaders an expansive update on the state of global warming.

After outlining just how much (hint: a lot) agriculture pollutes, the IPCC says there are several options existing to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions within the agricultural sector.

“The most prominent options are improved crop and grazing land management (e.g. improved agronomic practices, nutrient use, tillage, and residue management), restoration of organic soils that are drained for crop production and restoration of degraded lands,” the authors write.

Other, less impactful, options include better managing livestock and manure.

Canadian producers seeing that list likely feel pretty good. These practices are largely familiar to producers already.

But the most potential for mitigating emissions from agriculture can be found in soil carbon sequestration (or carbon sinks). The IPCC estimates about 89 per cent of mitigation potential can be achieved through this.

Here, too, Canada is already making moves.

A protocol that speaks specifically to soil organic carbon is expected to be developed for Canada’s greenhouse gas offset system.

If it meets the to-be-determined criteria, Canadian producers could look to enter the carbon market through the “adoption of sustainable agricultural land management activities, which reduce emissions and enhance soil carbon sequestration on agricultural lands.”

Even in the absence of this fairly new protocol development, the idea of carbon sinks is already a familiar term for many producers.

Another highlight related to agriculture speaks to a continued need for technological development to be “a key driver ensuring the efficacy of additional mitigation measures in the future.”

The most recent federal budget was praised by advocates for making a historical investment in helping farmers advance technologies and become more efficient.

Canada is already ahead of the curve in addressing climate change within agriculture, at least relative to large swaths of the global community. The latest IPCC report makes that clear.

On most key fronts raised in the agriculture section of the report, Canada at least has the ball rolling.

Trouble is, Canada’s contribution isn’t enough to stop the planet from warming at a dangerous rate, and these policies aren’t being applied around the world.

“Despite significant technical potential for mitigation in agriculture, there is evidence that little progress has been made in the implementation of mitigation measures at the global scale,” the IPCC says.

As a global industry agriculture knows plenty of ways to mitigate emissions but does a bad job of implementing them.

Given this, Canada, doing a relatively good job — but still not good enough job — of mitigating agricultural emissions, could emerge from upcoming meetings as a world leader in climate advocacy.

It would not be surprising if Canadian-made innovative technologies will be highlighted by delegates at those upcoming meetings: according to the IPCC, active promotion and sharing of technologies is needed between nations.

When ranked against other highly developed, wealthy nations, Canadian agriculture’s environmental record typically ranks near the top.

Ongoing efforts to slow global warming in Canada need to be ongoing, and continuously scrutinized, but as other nations look to navigate the climate crisis, could producers around the world look to Canada for guidance?

The post Comment: Can Canada lead on ag at upcoming climate talks? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Near the start of August, the two governments agreed to allow Saskatchewan producers early access to the 2021 payments they are entitled to.

The two ministers of agriculture involved, Marie-Claude Bibeau and David Marit, put out a joint press release outlining how the move would allow producers better access to cash.

As we’ve seen throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, negative forces can bring competing factions together.

In this instance, the drought more or less demanded co-operation between the conservative Saskatchewan Party politicians running the province and the Liberals running Ottawa.

Apparently though, it will take more than a drought or global pandemic for the two to truly get on the same page over AgriStability.

Changes to the program have long been debated.

In 2020, Bibeau offered to continue splitting the bill of the program 60-40 with the provinces, while increasing the overall cost of AgriStability by making it easier for producers to access and paying them more when they receive a payout.

After more than a year of negotiations, provinces agreed in March with Ottawa to remove the reference margin limit from AgriStability, but the prospect of further short-term changes remains dim.

Prairie provinces don’t want to pay more, and are investing resources to explore a Whole Farm Margin Insurance (WFMI) program, which would insure an entire farming enterprise for a margin decline from revenue fluctuations, expense changes or a combination of the two.

The Grain Growers of Canada is now openly pleading with governments to “put politics aside” and has encouraged acceptance of Ottawa’s offer.

In a press release, the group recognized provinces are facing financial challenges, but reiterated that investment in agriculture is “more than worth it.”

“This is a time where we must come together,” the group’s chair, Andre Harpe, said in a release. “We need everyone at the table to avoid playing politics and act quickly to provide an actionable and accessible support system for farmers.”

It’s tough for politicians to avoid playing politics, but it can be done.

And, outside of politics, it is tough to understand what else is at play here.

The federal government is willing to unlock $45 million to increase compensation rates to farmers. To make that happen, the provinces must agree to collectively contribute $30 million.

The Prairie provinces continue to prevent this from happening.

Any wholesale replacement of AgriStability favoured by Prairie provinces won’t become a reality until it can be ushered in with the next version of the federal-provincial agricultural funding agreement.

That isn’t happening until 2023.

Why not make the existing program better now, while you can?

Disasters, like droughts and pandemics, can force competing factions to work together.

The minor changes recently announced to AgriStability once again prove this can be the case, but further co-operation on the file isn’t likely.

The post Opinion: Co-operation breakdown appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Held in Rome (and virtually), the United Nations Food System Pre-Summit acted as a precursor to the main event, taking place in September. 

Simply put, the objective of attendees is to launch new strategies to help deliver on international development goals, like creating a healthier planet and ending world hunger. Action plans to transform food systems are expected to be developed, ultimately resulting in domestic policy changes that could very well impact Canadian producers. 

It’s unclear where this is all heading, but leading up to the pre-summit, and during the event’s three days, agricultural impacts on climate change were a major focus. 

Interest in the subject intensified weeks before the event after the United States announced its creation of the Agriculture for Innovation Mission for Climate (AIM for Climate). 

A partnership with the United Arab Emirates being supported by other countries (Canada isn’t one, at least yet), AIM for Climate is being funded to “increase and accelerate global research and development on agriculture and food systems in support of climate action.” 

European Union members came to the talks enthusiastic to fulfil the Green New Deal and “Farm to Fork” strategies that, among other measures, call for a reduction in pesticide use by 50 per cent and more organic farming. 

Many other countries discussed climate change as a concern when addressing delegates. 

Climate change has featured prominently in discussions domestically leading up to the summit as well. A series of dialogues held over 2019 and 2020 attempted to dispense with individual silos and put every member of Canada’s food value chain at the same table to find a way to create a better system. 

As a result, benchmarks are being developed — a sustainability index — to allow Canada’s food system to be measured better against global competitors. 

Environmental impacts will be included in that benchmarking. 

During pre-taped remarks, Minister of Agriculture Marie-Claude Bibeau spoke about other work being done in Canada, telling delegates, “We are investing in new technologies and farming practices to advance the use of regenerative agriculture and water conservation.” 

(Budget 2021 also made substantial investments in green policies aimed at agriculture.) 

It is clear the upcoming summit in September will bring further attention to the role agriculture plays in climate change. 

What policies that results in domestically — and potential impacts for producers — remains to be seen. 

The post Opinion: UN summit shows climate change not going away appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Taking place in September, many expect the summit to launch new strategies for achieving the international community’s 17 development goals.

That could mean the ushering in of a new era in sustainable policies domestically, as Canada increases efforts to hit ambitious targets, like ending world hunger. The impact holds potential to be felt on farms across Canada.

To get to that point, stakeholders and member states – including Canada – hosted dialogues, starting in December 2020. The result was 2,200 ideas and submissions, according to organizers.

Each was “assessed and consolidated” after being shared among participants.

Now they are boiled down to more than 50 “solution clusters” bringing “a menu of possible actions, which, if undertaken by committed actors joining forces across sectors and stakeholder categories, can support countries to make major strides in their national pathways towards more sustainable food systems.”

Among the long list of ideas are policy proposals to develop a “responsible meat” initiative to “incorporate environmental performance, working conditions and animal welfare into production and consumption.”

Another policy proposal considers how to morph domestic subsidies into spurring sustainable production, and consumption, across the globe.

A whole cluster is dedicated to integrating national and international plans for enhancing climate resiliency, while another commits to slashing food waste during a transformation to circular economies.

Participants at a pre-summit meeting, being held in Rome at the end of July, will key in on these ideas – and be offered an opportunity to scrutinize them.

Organizers say proposals will then be brought to the September event.

Domestically, the University of Guelph’s Arrell Food Institute hosted three independent dialogues to contribute to the international effort, and is considered a leading voice on the summit in Canada.

A summary of its three dialogues provided action points for the federal government to use at the summit.

It proposed the newly created Canada’s Food Policy Advisory Council “can be leveraged domestically to bring voices from across the Canadian food system together and advise on pressing issues.”

Members of that council were announced in February, ahead of one of the official summits. The Arrell report says that council “can help lead to pro­gress” on the UN’s sustainable development goals.

(Evan Fraser, the head of the Arrell Food Institute, is also one of the 23 members of the council.)

Arrell’s report says Canada should also commit to reducing domestic food insecurity by 50 per cent by 2030, and create a national framework to measure progress.

Like others have argued for, the report also calls for the establishment of a national sustainability benchmarking process to transparently show environmental impacts of agriculture. Plans for this, alongside an organization to oversee the process, are already in motion.

The Canadian Canola Growers Association and Pulse Canada also hosted an independent dialogue ahead of the summit, focusing largely on how growing markets can transform food systems. The Canadian Cattlemen’s Association focused sessions on grazing livestock to build sustainable protein supply chains.

Canada, as a member state, also hosted dialogue – but the summary of findings from it are not available yet.

The Food Systems Pre-Summit is being held in Rome under the leadership of the secretary general and in partnership with the Government of Italy from July 26 to July 28 before the summit in September.

The post ‘Game-changing’ policy proposals released ahead of Food Systems Summit appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.