Most producers probably don’t know much about the Byzantine legislation that goes back to 1905, when the Seeds Control Act was proclaimed, but then as now one of the main purposes was to ensure farmers get good-quality seed, the foundation upon which Canada’s reputation for producing high-quality crops rests.

Why it matters: Canada produces $2.5 billion worth of pedigreed seed annually, which, along with common and farm-saved seed, grows into crops valued at $33.8 billion.

And while the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) says the review is intended to make for a better seed system, clashes are likely over the extent to which the seed industry should self-regulate, with less CFIA oversight, and the future role of the variety registration system, which some farmers and seed growers say is key to Canada’s grain quality control system, especially for western Canadian milling wheat.

Will the 117-year-old Canadian Seed Growers Association’s (CSGA) regulatory role in seed certification change?

How might Seeds Canada fit in? It was created Feb. 1 after the Canadian Plant Technology Agency, Commercial Seed Analysts Association of Canada, Canadian Seed Institute and Canadian Seed Trade Association, voted to merge last year, prompting speculation of a possible power struggle with CSGA.

In anticipation of the regulatory review the groups agreed a few years ago to form a one-stop “industry-led, government-enabled seed system.”

But last year CSGA members voted against merging.

“The CFIA has not heard from stakeholders that they would like the CFIA to examine CSGA’s role in seed certification,” Wendy Jahn, national manager of CFIA’s Seeds Section, said in an email Feb. 4. “We are open to all input so that the seed system meets the needs of the value chain now and into the future… ”

Writing last fall in the CSGA’s Seed to Succeed magazine Jahn wrote: “Amalgamation is not necessary for seed regulatory modernization, nor is it part of the seed regulatory modernization.”

Some observers say it’s unlikely the CSGA’s role in seed certification will change, since it has been doing that job for more than 100 years.

Changes to seed regulations will affect all Canadian farmers. That’s why Jahn wants farmers to participate in the review, expected to take two years.

While CFIA has been talking to the seed sector for a couple of years, the review process started ramping up in September when the Seed Regulatory Modernization Working Group, made up of representatives from the seed trade and farm groups, started meeting, Jahn wrote.

“One of the first products from the working group is the development of the Needs Assessment Survey,” she wrote.

“The Needs Assessment Survey is a tool to reach out to all stakeholders this winter to get an understanding of:

1) What are the benefits of the current regulatory framework and seed system?
2) What are the opportunities for change and what issues need to be addressed?
3) What is the comfort with further industry delivery of regulatory services?”

The survey asks farmers about the process for cancelling varieties. Currently registrants can cancel a variety’s registration without interference. That’s raised concerns among some farmers that over time they will have fewer choices to grow varieties where they are allowed to save seed royalty free.

CFIA will post survey results on its website this spring, Jahn wrote. The working group will then start working on possible changes. It will also assign eight task teams to dig deeper into possible options.

“These task teams will include additional members outside of the working groups so there will be additional stakeholder input into the development of regulatory amendment options,” Jahn wrote.

Recommendations for changes will be developed this summer and fall for broad-based consultations in the winter of 2022.

That spring the results will be analyzed and by summer proposed new regulations will published in the Canada Gazette Part I and II.

“Though the legislative framework has evolved, the main purpose of the Seeds Act and the Seeds Regulations remains intact: to ensure the overall quality and reliability of seed and seed potatoes for producers and protect against fraud,” a background paper on the process states.

The eight ‘task teams’ will work on the following:

1) Variety registration;
2) Seed certification (pedigree system);
3) Seed standards and grade tables;
4) Seed testing labs and analysts;
5) Common seed (how or if to regulate it);
6) Seed exports;
7) Seed imports;
8) Information (labelling and record-keeping).

Crop farmers are seed consumers therefore it’s in their interest to participate in the review, Michael Scheffel, the CSGA’s managing director, policy and standards, said in an interview Feb. 3.

“They (CFIA) are interested to know if producers feel the current system is providing what they need,” he said. “Are there things preventing farmers from doing things or are there things they don’t value?”

CSGA hopes the review allows certain changes such as grade tables to be amended through “incorporation by reference, instead of requiring cabinet approval, which takes much longer.

“There would still be a process of consultation and notification (before the changes are implemented,” he said.

Seeds Canada doesn’t have formal position on regulatory changes yet, but some members also support incorporation by reference, Claudio Feulner, manager of regulatory affairs and trade, said in an interview Feb. 5.

Some members complain the variety registration system delays the introduction of American varieties into Canada by two years.

“Two-thirds of all imported and exported seed is to and from the U.S. so we are highly integrated with their seed trade,” Feulner said.

“We are fully cognizant that we need support and we need to talk to the specific commodity groups for each crop kind and listen to their views. If they are vehemently opposed, or have different views than the seed industry, then it’s hard to move the process along.”

Feulner said he hopes everyone approaches the review with an open mind and considers how the seed industry needs to evolve.

A discussion paper predicts farms will get even bigger — some up to 100,000 acres. Such operations might do their own plant breeding and seed multiplication.

Some food companies will develop their own varieties and control the process from field to plate, raising questions about the usefulness of current seed regulations in the future.

It makes Terry Boehm uneasy.

“All of it is built around a private sector seed system where the farmer is just the consumer… ” the National Farmers Union member and Colonsay, Sask. farmer said in an interview Feb. 4

“I think in general it’s a justification of an increasing privatization of the seed system… The modernization piece just flows from these same sorts of ideas without stepping back and saying, ‘OK what’s our end objective here?’

“If farmers don’t participate it definitely will be going to that place where we don’t want.”

Nobody is outright saying the current seed system is broken, or needs a lot of fixing, but things can always be improved, Scheffel said.

“I think there is a certain Canadian advantage to the way we do things,” he added. “We do have a reputation for quality seed in international markets. I think we are seen as being trustworthy and that seed produces millions of acres of crops of some of the highest-quality wheat and barley in the world and it’s in demand continuously. That’s got to be saying a few things about the whole system as well.”

Some questions to think about for modernizing Canada’s Seeds Regulations

Innovative Technologies
Will traditional seed crop inspection one day be replaced with inspection using drones or post-harvest molecular testing of seed?

Responsive Registration
Is the variety registration system able to be nimble and responsive to future market needs?

Data and Digital Systems
Will the increase of farm data management and food traceability systems have any implications on how Seeds Regulations should be structured?

Market Access for Seed
How can we ensure that Canadian-produced seed has a “passport” to access global markets?

Efficient Service Delivery
Are there any other opportunities for alternative service delivery in seed? Is there anything in the current system that no longer needs to be done?

Role of Government
What aspects of the system should stay with government? What aspects should move to industry delivery (with government oversight)?

Who’s involved?

These are the member organizations contributing to the Seed Regulatory Modernization Working Group:

Seed industry:

1) Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA)
2) Canadian Seed Growers Association (CSGA)
3) Canadian Seed Institute (CSI)
4) Commercial Seed Analysts Association of Canada (CSAAC)
5) Authorized Seed Crop Inspection Services (ASCIS)
6) Canadian Plant Technology Agency (CPTA)

Producer groups:

1) Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA)
2) Grain Growers of Canada (GGA)
3) Union des Producteurs Agricoles (UPA) orProducteur de Grains du Québec (PGQ)

Value chain groups:

1) Pulse Canada
2) Cereals Canada
3) Canadian Horticultural Council
4) Canadian Potato Council

Public breeders:

1) Crop Development Centre (University of Saskatchewan)
2) Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

Other:

1) SeedChange
2) Canadian Organic Trade Association

The post Calling all farmers: Seed regs review kicks off appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA), Canadian Plant Technology Agency (CPTA); Commercial Seed Analysts Association of Canada (CSAAC) and Canadian Seed Institute announced plans Tuesday to seek approval from their respective boards and memberships for a four-way amalgamation.

No longer in the Seeds Canada hopper is the Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA), whose membership “did not vote in favour” of a five-way amalgamation proposal during a vote held over six weeks ending in late August.

The amalgamation proposal dates back to a 2015 brief from the CSGA and CSTA, followed by a 2017 “green paper” on the “core ideas and context for the next-generation seed system.”

A 2018 white paper from the five organizations pointed out that, among other issues facing the seeds sector, the groups have “overlapping memberships and even directors, creating a significant draw on member time and resources.”

The CSGA, which would have been the largest participating group in a five-way merger, represents pedigreed seed producers, with a membership made up mainly of farmers. It also has statutory power to certify pedigreed seed.

The CSTA, meanwhile, represents seed companies including major multinationals such as BASF and Bayer as well as smaller seed grower/retailers. CSTA president Ellen Sparry said last month it’s hoped the CSGA would co-operate with a separate Seeds Canada organization, possibly through a formal agreement.

The four other organizations said Tuesday they now plan to build on the momentum from their previous votes in favour, and update the Seeds Canada ratification package before undertaking a new membership vote.

“The goal is to ensure that members and stakeholders, including seed growers, will see value in the new amalgamation package,” they said in a release.

Implementation work on the new plan will take place “concurrently,” with the goal of bringing Seeds Canada into existence in February 2021 pending board and membership approvals, the groups said.

“While there may be one less amalgamating partner, the vision for Seeds Canada to become the voice of the seed sector, including seed growers, analysts and the seed trade, remains the same,” the groups said.

The new plan’s goal, they said, is for Seeds Canada’s membership to eventually include national and provincial seed associations, “as well as seed growers from across the country.” — Glacier FarmMedia Network

The post Second Seeds Canada merger vote to proceed sans CSGA appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

“We want to ensure the momentum keeps going,” Sparry, who is president of C & M Seeds in Palmerston, Ont., said in an interview Sept. 1. “We want to move things along and hope that we can get Seeds Canada off the ground and that, at some point, growers see value in it.”

The CSTA represents 119 seed companies, including multinational giants such as Bayer and BASF, as well as mom-and-pop seed grower-retailers.

All CSTA members, including an additional 18 affiliate and honorary members, were to vote on merging.

Fifty-seven per cent of CSTA members voted, with 71 (92 per cent) in favour of the merge to Seeds Canada, six (eight per cent) voting against, plus one abstention, the CSTA said in an email.

The CSTA said they are disappointed the majority of Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA) members who cast a ballot voted against the merger.

Seeds Canada would be stronger if the CSGA was part of it, Sparry said.

“I think having that one voice is pretty key,” she said.

If Seeds Canada is formed, it’s possible it could co-operate with the CSGA, perhaps through a formal agreement, Sparry added.

“I think the potential is there to think about that down the road,” she said. “It’s hard to say what might happen, but discussion is always an option.”

That might even lead to the CSGA joining Seeds Canada after four or five years as growers see the benefits, Oak Lake, Man., seed grower Eric McLean said in an interview Sept. 1.

No matter what happens, the CSGA must work with other seed industry organizations, according to CSGA past president Jonathan Nyborg, a seed grower from New Denmark, N.B.

“We have to because we still have the seed regulatory modernization coming up,” he said in an interview Sept. 3. “There are going to be aspects we’ll have to work on collectively.

“Now whether we do something formal with an MOU (memorandum of understanding), that remains to be seen.”

Nyborg, who was active in the merger process while serving as CSGA president, said he thought the vote could go either way.

“I wasn’t surprised that it was a ‘No’ vote,” he said. “I think what shocked me the most was the fact that it was such a strong ‘No’ vote.”

CSGA members voted 55 per cent against the merger. The vote needed two-thirds in favour to pass.

Since the vote wasn’t close, Nyborg doubts another vote will be held.

“When you get a vote like we got, then you get a clear message from your membership that’s not what they want to do,” he said. “They don’t want to move forward with the amalgamation.”

Nyborg said he understands why some farmers worry about the potential for multinational seed companies to have too much control within Seeds Canada, but it’s not a fear he shares.

“As soon as you say ‘multinational,’ you get people who are already tensing up and they’re getting nervous,” Nyborg said. “I understand that… but sitting on the oversight committee and working behind the scenes and trying to get the amalgamation agreement put together, I’m privy to a lot more information and I never got the feeling that there was any underlying ulterior motive of anybody trying to take over the industry.”

Although the industry spent five years and large dollar amounts on a merger plan, it wasn’t a wasted effort, Nyborg said.

The process has brought the different seed organizations closer together, he said, and things were learned that can be used in CSGA 2.0.

“Another positive that came out of this is we had 23 per cent of our membership engaged,” Nyborg said. “That’s an unprecedented amount of people voting at a special members’ meeting or at an AGM.

“If we can continue to get folks engaged like that, to me that’s great.”

Nyborg doesn’t expect the federal government to push the CSGA out of its seed certifying seed role.

“We still have to be part of it,” he said.

“I think the farmer pulls a lot of weight with the Canadian public. So I am not too worried about the farmer being pushed out and the seed growers being pushed out.”

The CSGA worked hard to get the best merger deal it could, he said.

“I hope nobody is harbouring any bad feelings about the whole situation,” Nyborg said. “As we moved along… we asked the membership if we were headed in the right direction. We were getting the same answer back and that was, we were.”

The post Seeds Canada likely despite CSGA rejection appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

But the controversial issue isn’t dead. Some farm groups and the seed industry are trying to find consensus on how to proceed.

“What we’re trying to do… while government takes a back seat is figure out where that common ground is, and… try to drive the conversation forward,” Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA) interim executive director Tyler McCann said in an interview Aug. 11.

Questions are also being asked about Ottawa’s commitment to AAFC’s plant-breeding programs as the deficit and debt rise in the wake of COVID-19.

Why it matters: Canada’s seed sector says to be competitive Canadian farmers need to contribute more money for crop breeding. Many farmers say if they have to pay more they want to be sure the money goes to breeding and that publicly funded breeding continues.

“Given the work currently underway within the sector, AAFC is not planning further consultations at this time, and will remain engaged with farmers and the sector until a consensus can be reached on a way forward,” an AAFC official stated in an Aug. 7 email.

AAFC is aware of two industry-led initiatives on ‘value creation,’ the term used to describe proposals to get farmers to contribute more to variety development.

One is ‘guiding principles’ for a producer-approved value creation system set out by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and Grain Growers of Canada (GGC).

The other is the Variety Use Agreement (VUA) pilot project set up by the CSTA with several seed company members attaching trailing royalties to a few new varieties.

End point royalties would be collected when farmers delivered grain to buyers; trailing royalties would be paid when farmers keep seed for planting.

Consultations

In the fall of 2018 and winter of 2019 AAFC and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency held several public meetings on the two options. Officials said by paying more for seed farmers would benefit from better varieties.

Initially the government said it wanted to implement one of the options in late 2019.

While some farmers supported one or the other option, many more either opposed them outright, or wanted other options explored.

Some farmers, including Ian Steppler of Miami, described the proposals as a cash grab, potentially guaranteeing seed companies revenue without having to necessarily earn it.

Many farm groups, including the Keystone Agricultural Producers (KAP), said if farmers were going to pay more, farmers needed a say on how the money is used.

KAP president Bill Campbell expressed concern about the royalty issue during an online KAP advisory council meeting July 30.

“I would suggest there is some concern about the whole evolution of the process — that AAFC has kind of backed away,” he said in an interview July 31. “My thoughts are this is leading to the seed companies doing what they wish to do and that is to impose these trailing royalties on certain varieties.

“Will farmers’ money go to research or will it go to the shareholders?

“Will it be like canola? I pay 70 bucks an acre for canola seed. My understanding is not a lot of that went to research. Now is the time to address those issues and deal with the public-private research and delivery of seed today, tomorrow and in the future.”

A year ago KAP, Agricultural Producers of Saskatchewan and Alberta Federation of Agriculture issued the following six principles for funding plant breeding:

• Maintain and enhance public research, development and finishing of new varieties.
• Preserve or enhance current public funding.
• Be transparent with farmer involvement.
• Maintain the privilege of farm-saved seed.
• Fair and equitable administration.
• Ensure farmers remain competitive.

CFA and GGC support some of the same principles.

KAP members voted 92 per cent in favour of a resolution calling on the federal government to increase its funding for public research on grains, oilseeds, pulses, and other crops grown in Western Canada.

“It seems the seed companies are cleverly trying to devise some system where they can get more money from farmers,” Lowe Farm farmer Wilfred (Butch) Harder told the meeting. “That seems to be — pardon the pun — the end point of all these discussions.”

KAP is also worried about future government funding for AAFC.

“If AAFC determines that industry will fund this (breeding) their commitment will be reduced… so that is something that needs to be watched as well,” Campbell told the meeting.

Common worry

That concern is shared by farm groups that collect checkoffs on farmers’ grain sales to help fund AAFC and other public breeding programs.

“We’re all prepared to fund it, but we fund it equitably and we want to fund it in a transparent manner and we don’t want it to displace federal funding,” Manitoba Crop Alliance chair Fred Greig said in an interview Aug. 11. “For every dollar we put in if they pull out a dollar what’s the point?”

Ottawa has cut AAFC’s plant-breeding budgets for 20 years. Greig doesn’t want further cuts but worries Ottawa’s projected $343-billion deficit and $1.2 trillion in net national debt could result in just that.

“I think we’re bracing for some of that and how it is going to change our strategies,” he said. “If we can understand where the feds and AAFC are going then maybe producers are prepared to be involved and step up with more funding through the present checkoffs… There’s a whole pile of uncertainty. The Seed Variety Use Agreement is just one of them.”

Harder told the KAP meeting AAFC officials are evasive when asked about the future of plant breeding. KAP should lobby politicians to commit to plant breeding ahead of the next election, he said.

Funding for public breeders is needed more now than ever, Todd Hyra, SeCan’s manager for Western Canada said in an interview Aug. 11. The VUA supports public plant breeders and private ones.

“SeCan, FP Genetics, Alliance Seeds, SeedNet, Seed Depot — all of those independent seed companies rely on the public system, whether it be Ag Canada or the universities,” he said. “That is most of what we sell. And so we are very much aligned with what farmers want. We want to maintain that, but we also see the benefit of private breeding having a fair shot and a fair shake at this as well.”

The divide between the seed trade, farmers and the government is not that big, McCann said.

“Everybody wants to see more plant breeding in this country,” he said.

“Everybody wants to see more innovation. I think everyone understands greater investment in variety development results in greater returns to farmers. I don’t think there is any debate over that. The debate is just on how we do it.”

Dissent

The National Farmers Union (NFU) supports more plant breeding, but not by private companies, if it comes with additional royalties.

“We’re totally skeptical of any sort of private scheme for revenue collection and we think it’s just another way to extract more money out of farmers,” Colonsay, Sask., farmer and NFU member Terry Boehm, said in an interview Aug. 12. “Farmers are coming to the plate through their various commissions. The refund request is very, very low… At least with the commissions we have the possibility to elect representatives and have them place some direction on where research goes.

“Farmers are contributing and there’s more than enough money to keep it going coming from farmers.”

CSTA knows about the principles farm groups want included in a value creation system and has set up a working group, which includes farmers, to provide additional input, McCann said.

“Regardless of the model — and we think the SVUA (Seed Variety Use Agreement) is the right one — it’s only going to work if farmers see the value in it,” he said.

VUA agreements are self-regulating. Breeders who don’t offer superior varieties won’t find a market and the same holds if royalties are too high.

But some farmers fear eventually VUAs will apply to all varieties and that royalty-free varieties will no longer be competitive.

“That would be one of the downfalls,” Minto farmer David Rourke told the KAP meeting.

Rourke also worries companies will deregister royalty-free varieties.

“So again potentially we could have less and less choice going forwarded so we’ll have to be proactive,” he said.

So long as farmers are buying a variety companies will sell it, McCann said.

But even if a variety is available, if it’s deregistered it must receive the lowest grade in the intended class under Canadian Grain Commission rules, Boehm said. Boehm stopped growing Ebony canola, an open-pollinated variety that he could grow from his own seed, after Monsanto deregistered it a few years ago because it would be graded ‘sample’ at the elevator.

Campbell said canola seed is overpriced and worries the same will happen with other crops if private companies take them over.

Canola is the most grown crop in Western Canada so farmers see value in growing it, even if they feel seed prices are high, McCann said.

“It’s important for people to remember that Ag Canada’s transition out of variety breeding for canola was because farmers stopped buying those public varieties,” he said. “Farmers left Ag Canada, Ag Canada didn’t leave farmers… “

McCann also expects the Canadian government will be looking to spend smarter as it tries to cut its deficit. One way is to hand off germplasm and traits to companies to commercialize.

AAFC itself has proposed that. But many farmers want AAFC finishing varieties to provide competition to the private sector, Greig said.

The status quo in plant breeding wasn’t sustainable even before COVID-19, McCann said.

“So we think it’s in our interests to move this discussion forward relatively reasonably quickly,” he said. “But it’s also important to take the time to get it right and… have the discussions that obviously didn’t happen to the extent that they should’ve beforehand.

“But it can’t go forever and we’ll see six or 12 months from now what the world looks like and hopefully the discussions have evolved enough that government can get back engaged and we can get back to a more constructive and positive discussion on how to move forward on this file.”

While VUA works on contract law, new royalties should be implemented through plant breeders’ legislation, McCann said.

“It’s in all our interests to get government back engaged at a certain point in time but we need to make sure that industry, the growers and the trade and our other partners are ready for it to do that.”

The post AAFC sits on value creation sidelines appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

The Seed Synergy groups that want to merge their organizations into a new “Seeds Canada‚” The Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA), Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA), Commercial Seed Analysts Association of Canada (CSAAC), Canadian Seed Institute (CSI), Canadian Plant Technology Agency (CPTA) “were encouraged to see a mere 90 seed growers out of 3,300 total on the virtual Canadian Seed Growers’ Association (CSGA) annual general meeting July 7.

Apparently, some are buying in to the one-sided pro-Seeds Canada propaganda published, but the fine print is there, and very evident that this is a pro-multinational proposal.

A quick internet search points to individuals sitting on seed grower-associated boards who are also leaders in organizations that represent the large multinationals, and who have publicly stated support for “Seed Synergy” and/or “value creation.”

Governance on the new merged “Seeds Canada” organization will be stacked against the seed grower. Only one board seat out of 15 is guaranteed for a seed grower’ yet seed growers are the most numerous and important pieces of the seed industry.

If regional seed grower seats are not filled, seed company representatives will fill them.

Additionally, proponents have made sure to cut the membership out of the nomination process by inserting a board-appointed nomination committee able to screen those who run. All of these measures have been baked in to minimize seed growers’ say in Seeds Canada.

Make no mistake, it’s the same powerful interconnected players at the top who are pushing for “Seed Synergy” and also pushing for farmers to pay royalties on farm-saved seed (“value creation”), defunding public breeding institutions and devaluing the Canadian Grain Commission — all during a growing season and global pandemic.

Many growers, along with the wheat and barley commissions, have expressed concern about these proposals. In spite of farmer opposition to “value creation,” the Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA) and the Canadian Plant Technology Agency (CPTA) — some of the Seeds Canada proponents mentioned above — went ahead and announced a Seed Variety Use Agreement (SVUA) pilot program anyways.

If the Seeds Canada scheme is not voted down, it will be the beginning of the end of a very successful public breeding system that returns $11 for every dollar of investment, the extinction of independent seed growers as we know them, the end of farmer-interest quality control, and a move to hand big business corporations ownership of the very seed that our livelihoods depend on.

Seed growers — you are the majority and the writing is urgently on the wall. Show up online at investorvote.com and vote using your CSGA-mailed voting card by Aug. 26 or during the Special General Meeting Aug 27.

Lyndon Stoll is a seed grower and professional agrologist based in west-central Saskatchewan.

The post Comment: Seed growers — wake up! appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

At least, it seems that way.

Consider first the process officially began in 2013 when the then federal government led by the Conservative party introduced a law allowing royalty collection on seeds.

(Some may recognize this as part of the massive Bill C-18, the Agriculture Growth Act or more specifically, “UPOV 91”).

The law didn’t actually pass until 2015, eight months before the Conservatives were voted out and replaced by the still-governing Liberals.

Despite the change in government, discussions in and outside of government on the topic continued – a number of reports from agriculture groups have come out in recent years, and a federal working group undertook the job of proposing potential models.

By 2018 Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) was doing stakeholder consultations and presenting information on end point royalties and contract-enabled royalty collection (such as the eventually proposed “trailing contracts” royalty option).

But response to the two models ultimately selected by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada were routinely rejected. It would seem there was little appetite among producers for royalties being collected on commercial sales of eligible varieties or paying predetermined fees to replant farm-saved seed.

While it is safe to say there is a general consensus across the ag world that a value creation model is needed, there are some circles suggesting AAFC has yet to prove a benefit for moving forward with either of the options presented.

At last check AAFC had turned to suggesting it was, “supportive of industry-led projects that are underway and is listening to stakeholders as it determines next steps.”

A major industry-led project has now been launched, with the Canadian Plant Technology Agency (CPTA) and the Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA) announcing a pilot for testing what it is calling a “Seed Variety Use Agreement” (SVUA) that will provide evidence of value to having a system in place.

It will be a contract-enabled royalty collection system, with producers keeping seed year to year and being invoiced a predetermined amount each year the SVUA variety is grown.

Despite the announcement, Agriculture and Agri-Food Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau is aware of the varying opinions on the subject.

(A quick aside: I first asked Bibeau about this a few weeks ago, and she admitted she was unaware of the issue, prompting a column on why she should be prepared to answer questions on agriculture policy her government is proposing. Asked again weeks later, she said the topic, “Wasn’t fresh in my mind last time.”)

“We got very different opinions and positions on this issue,” she said. “So the department is really working on the economic analysis of that. We wanted and we’re proud of making decisions based on facts and evidence. So this is why the department will provide me with the economy analysis.”

That analysis has been a long time coming. There’s suggestion it may be coming as soon as early March, but Bibeau wouldn’t say – she gave a flat “no” when asked if she knew when it would be released.

She maintains she is still, “very open to different options” and wants to make a decision supported by data.

The new pilot project has potential to provide her with just the data she is looking for, and finally bring the process to a closure in spite of continued opposition.

Time will tell.

The post Debate over seed royalties could be nearing end appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Seed Synergy, a plan to unite Canada’s five main seed-related organizations, could be put to a vote in July at the Canadian Seed Growers Association’s (CSGA) 116th annual meeting.

It would see five organizations combine into one single group, with a united voice, including the Canadian Seed Growers Association, the Canadian Seed Trade Association (CSTA), the Canadian Seed Institute (CSI), the Commercial Seed Analysts Association of Canada (CSAAC), and the Canadian Plant Technology Agency (CPTA). CropLife Canada, which represents the life science companies that produce and market new varieties and crop protection products, was part of the group, but later opted out. It intends to work with the new organization, if it passes the vote, through a memorandum of understanding.

Outgoing Manitoba Seed Growers Association president Andrew Ayre told the group’s annual meeting, held late last year, he thinks there’s a good chance the proposal will be voted on this summer.

“It’s just a case of getting the details worked out,” he said.

Canadian Seed Growers Association president, and New Brunswick seed grower, Jonathan Nyborg told attendees he’s hopeful the vote will happen, but there is a Plan B. A ratification vote could be delayed six months if necessary, he added.

Nyborg said he hopes the CSGA’s board of directors will be able to approve a “target operation model” for the ‘New Seed Organization’ (NSO) in early March.

The next step would be to send out ratification packages by mid-March to the CSGA’s 3,400 members — farmers who produce pedigreed seed.

That would be followed by sending out the final ratification packages in May to CSGA members as well as other members of the Seed Synergy Collaboration.

At least two-thirds of voting members of each of the five organizations will have to vote in favour of the merger for it to happen.

In the meantime, the CSGA will hold a special members’ meeting Feb. 18 in Saint-Hyacinthe, Que., in hopes of changing its rules allowing members to vote on the merger without necessarily having to attend the July annual meeting, Nyborg said.

If the merger vote isn’t held in July, the goal is to do it in December, he said.

Long road

The merger process isn’t easy, consultant Jaiman Chin told the Manitoba Seed Growers’ Association (MSGA) meeting. Chin is with Strategy Corp, the firm hired by the Seed Synergy Collaboration, to assist in the process.

While the five organizations have ‘seed’ in common and some overlap in members, they each have different roles and organizational structures.

With about 3,400 members the CSGA, which represents pedigreed seed producers, is the largest. Most of its members are farmers.

In addition to representing seed growers the CSGA has the statutory power to certify pedigreed seed.

The CSTA represents the seed trade, which includes some farmer-seed growers, as well as large, multinational seed companies. It has 130 members.

CSI delivers accreditation and monitoring programs for the Canadian seed industry.

The CSAAC represents seed-testing laboratories.

CPTA supports intellectual property protection in the Canadian seed industry.

A merger will affect how the MSGA operates. The MSGA is a stand-alone legal entity that will retain all its assets and liabilities if the NSO is created, Roy Klym, a Regina seed grower and member of the merger oversight committee, told the MSGA’s meeting.

However, to be recognized as an NSO chapter the MSGA will have to meet certain criteria, including opening up membership to regional members of the other seed organizations, Chin said. Work is underway on how to do that.

“The feedback we’ve been getting so far is a lot of folks across the branches are very open to looking at changes in membership and allowing the trade in, allowing the analysts in,” Nyborg said.

MSGA members will automatically be members of the proposed new organization, he said.

“Regional chapters are very much part of the model and have an important role to play in ensuring there is a regional voice on the board of directors,” Chin said.

Voluntary

Membership in the new organization will be open only to those with a direct interest in the seed sector and will be voluntary. As a result, Manitoba seed growers will no longer have to be members of the MSGA to get pedigreed seed certified.

That, and the fact that currently the MSGA is funded by services paid to the CSGA by Manitoba seed growers, raises questions about how the MSGA will be funded if the NSO is created.

Dauphin seed grower Rod Fisher asked Chin if membership in the provincial associations shouldn’t remain mandatory otherwise a few members could end up doing all the work for non-members.

“Membership should be a benefit in its own right,” Chin said earlier in the meeting.

Voluntary membership is an incentive to keep membership fees low and for the new group to provide enough value that those in the seed sector will want to join, he added.

Initially the merger plan called for 11 directors to oversee the proposed organization, but the number has been raised to 15 to ensure representation from across the seed sector, Chin said.

There will be a minimum of two seed grower directors on the NSO board, he said.

Each member of the new group will get one vote. That means, to start, seed growers will make up a large majority, Chin said.

The merger idea was first floated in a brief by the CSGA and CSTA in March 2015, Klym said.

In November 2018 the Seed Synergy Collaboration issued a ‘white paper’ entitled “The Next Generation Seed System in Canada.”

The document lays out three challenges for the seed sector to tackle, Chin said — stimulate innovation, modernize seed regulations and create a single, united seed organization.

One of the ideas for stimulating innovation is to collect more money from farmers through seed royalties on cereal crops. However, so-called “value creation” has encountered a lot of farmer opposition. Some farmers say they don’t want to pay any more than they do now for seed, while others say they might agree to pay more, but only if farmers have control over how the money is invested in variety development.

The ‘New Seed Organization’

The Seed Synergy collaboration’s white paper from Nov. 2018 says the seed industry needs to focus on the following:

• Update novel product regulations for plant-breeding innovation. (Under Canada’s current regulations all novel plants are subjected to intense scrutiny, even if they aren’t genetically modified organisms. The seed industry sees that as a disincentive to developing new varieties.)
• Implement a seed variety use agreement system for Identity Preserved protected seeds.
• Streamline seed requirements and modernize the regulatory framework.
• Define a new industry model for the seed certification program.
• Create a ‘single window’ for all seed regulatory and member services.
• Create a more efficient and effective industry organizational model.

The paper says the result will drive more investment in the seed sector, level the playing field for all members in the value chain, and enhance efficiency of the services provided.

Jaiman Chin, a consultant with Strategy Corp, the firm hired by the Seed Synergy Collaboration, spoke about the principles for a proposed ‘New Seed Organization’ at the Manitoba Seed Growers’ Association’s annual meeting in late 2019.

They are as follows:

• Maintain broad representation and authority for members.
• Enhance member experience through a single window for support.
• Eliminate uncertainty and duplication.
• Focus services and resources on maximizing value for members.
• Improve the ability to engage and influence regulators and stakeholders by speaking with a unified voice.
• Maintain and expand capabilities to deliver on delegated regulatory authorities.
• Balance seed industry advocacy with service and regulatory mandates.
• Increase the capacity for professional development across the seed sector.

The post Come together? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Western Canadian farmers collectively should consider partnering with plant breeders to fund new varieties as an alternative to the two new seed royalty options farm leaders say lack widespread farmer support.

The idea has merit, says University of Saskatchewan agricultural economist Richard Gray, who has studied variety funding for 15 years.

The Alberta Federation of Agriculture (AFA) is exploring the concept along with its sister general farm organizations, Keystone Agricultural Producers (KAP) and the Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan (APAS) and wants a general discussion among western grain producers.

“I’m working on the idea that you need to create a different entity to do breeding that is literally a government-producer partnership…” Gray said in an interview Jan. 31.

“It does a few things. One, is it keeps the largest wheat-breeding program we have in the country [at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC)] alive. Two, it means Ag Canada can’t walk away without at least giving producers complete control over how that’s going to be commercialized.

“We need something like that here if we’re going to have any kind of assurances that as soon as you create value creation the government is not going to walk away and sell it to Bayer or give it to Bayer.”

Why it matters: Farmers say they’re willing to fund varietal research, but some worry the two proposed funding models from the federal government are the equivalent of handing life science companies a blank cheque. This proposal could address those concerns.

After years of discussion, Canada’s seed industry last fall released two options to get farmers to pay more royalties on cereal crops. They say it’s necessary to drive more work by public and private plant breeders to develop new varieties that will benefit farms.

A trailing royalty would compel farmers, through a Seed Variety Use Agreement, to pay a per-acre or bushel royalty on farm-saved seed.

The other option, an end point royalty, would see farmers pay when they sell their grain.

The Praire wheat, barley and oats commissions came out against the proposal Jan. 14 in a joint media release, stating “… the likelihood of an industry-wide agreement on either of the proposed models is low and (we) are asking for more consultation, including consideration of other options. Further consultations must focus on engaging producers with a new value proposition.”

Deerwood farmer Ian Steppler sees both sides of the argument.

”But I just feel farmers are losing control,” he wrote in a message Jan. 21.

“We are not puppets. Let these companies invest their dollars into their products to buy my business. Ultimately that is how business works. The way I read this, we subsidize their plant-breeding efforts for the breeders to charge us whatever market bears for the crops we grow. Get your hands out of my pockets.”

Some farmers fear private seed companies will pressure the federal government to get out of variety development, AFA president Lynn Jacobson said in an interview Jan. 30.

Angusville farmer James Melnyk agrees.

“The yield gains percentage-wise with wheat have grown at the same percentage as canola without it being privatized,” he said Jan. 23 during an interview at Ag Days in Brandon.

Crop insurance data shows on average Manitoba wheat and canola yields have increased 102 and 80 per cent over the last 25 years.

“We’re getting our yields,” Melnyk said. “We’re getting our quality and we have a public system. The farmers, the taxpayers, the gross domestic product — everybody is benefiting and I think it should stay that way.

“It’s very important.”

Overcharged

Few dispute the value private canola breeders have brought to their varieties, but some farmers believe they pay more than they should because they can’t save canola seed and there are no publicly developed alternatives.

Ag economist Richard Gray agrees.

“Under alternative ways of developing that canola they could still have something similar and not pay nearly as much,” he said.

The marginal cost of producing non-hybrid canola seed is around 40 cents a pound and probably more than $1 a pound for hybrid, Gray said.

“If it’s $1 a pound or even $2 a pound to produce hybrid canola seed that’s a lot cheaper than the $12 to $14 a pound being charged now. At $1 a pound canola seed companies have a billion dollars left over that goes to companies to support their other activities. There’s a lot of rent there.”

Most of that billion dollars leaves Canada and only around $60 million is reinvested in canola variety development, Gray said.

But neither royalty option being discussed would result in wheat following the canola model, Canadian Seed Trade Association president Todd Hyra said in an interview Jan. 23 at Ag Days. Both support AAFC breeders as much as private ones, he said.

“We want to make sure the federal dollars remain part of this puzzle and we want to add some incremental dollars to make sure we are generating some revenue for those programs into the future,” he said. “At the same time we want to create an environment that attracts investment from other parts of the world.”

AAFC says it’s not going to abandon crop research, but if seed companies ramp up AAFC will shift to ‘discovery’ research, Felicitas Katepa-Mupondwa, AAFC’s director of research, development and technology told a meeting on the proposed royalties in Winnipeg Nov. 16, 2018.

“Our long-term vision is that we will partner with those who want to work in this field and when that capacity builds in the sector so there are those who are finishing varieties we may move our resources to upstream science, which is the appropriate strong role for a public institution,” she said.

“If there isn’t capacity in the sector we will continue to finish varieties. If organizations… decide to get into the variety-finishing space… we do not need to compete with those… who are finishing varieties. So if there’s capacity we don’t need to be there — we move our resources elsewhere.”

*UPDATE: The article now contains a clarified statement regarding the amount being charged to produce hybrid canola seed.

The post If farmers must pay more for seed, they want more say appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

Following the last public meeting Nov. 30 in Ottawa, officials from Agriculture Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency will spend time assessing all the input they’ve gathered and holding discussions with participants in the consultations before releasing their conclusions, possibly in the spring.

With a federal election expected in August, whatever plan they come up with will likely be on hold until after Parliament returns following the vote.

A hot-button issue in the consultations was a seed-industry proposal for a royalty on seeds farmers save for planting. The National Farmers Union blasted that idea because it would cost farmers millions of dollars a year and give governments an excuse to reduce public research spending.

However, Todd Hyra, president of the Canadian Seed Trade Association and a SeCan employee, said the royalty would only apply on varieties introduced since the latest changes to the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) signed in February 2015.

The impact would fall mostly on grain and pulse growers because most other crops use registered seeds. SeCan and its partners in the Seed Synergy Project support the royalty on saved seeds as part of their Seed Variety Use Agreement (SVUA) proposal.

Groups such as Grain Farmers of Ontario and the Western Canadian Wheat Growers want to keep an open mind to where the discussions might lead in recognition of their members’ concerns about additional costs but also the need for increased research on new crop varieties.

“Why wouldn’t farmers want both public and private breeders to develop new wheat varieties to provide more technology and choice?” Gunter Jochum, a Manitoba director of the Wheat Growers said. “We’re letting the consultation process run its course before stating a preferred choice.”

GFO vice-president Crosby Devitt said his group wants to evaluate “what’s in front of us. We need more investment in research; the question is how do we secure it?”

Hyra said there is widespread agreement on the need to maintain public research and to attract additional funding for crop research. SeCan and its partners developed the SVUA to address “the serious need for increased investment in plant breeding to support Canada’s cereal, pulse and specialty crop producers. Variety development research for these crops is significantly under-resourced when we consider the long-term view with increased global competition and the rapid pace of new technology innovations.

“In cereals, for example, we are missing out on the potential to generate $170 million in annual benefits for producers, and $340 million for the economy at large with a value creation model, such as an SVUA, that increases investments for research.”

The benefit for farmers would be “accelerated future access to better varieties adapted to a broader range of growing conditions,” the seed sector said. “The SVUA system will position you to be more competitive in international markets. Producers will still have a ‘Farmer’s Privilege’ to keep farm-saved seed, but will need to pay a Seed Variety Use Fee (SVUF) to the plant breeder for use of the seed genetics marketed under an SVUA.”

An SVUA will only be used on farm-saved seed of protected varieties, he said. Many of the current varieties in use today won’t have an SVUA.

Currently the use of certified seed is as low as 12 per cent of planted acres for some crops.

There’s more information on the SVUA proposals at seedvaluecreation.ca.

The post Federal consultation on new seed royalties will stretch into next year appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.

That’s the message organizers delivered at the first consultation meeting on two new proposed royalty options in Winnipeg Nov. 16.

“Cereals are necessary in crop rotations to prevent pest and disease pressures from emerging,” a government slide presentation said. “However, due to declining profitability relative to other crop types, acreage for wheat and barley has been declining in favour of other crops — e.g. canola.”

Only eight per cent of the money invested in Canadian cereal variety development is from private companies. The rest comes from tax dollars and farmer contributions.

In contrast private companies cover 90 per cent of the variety development costs for corn, soybeans and canola.

“Private sector activity in cereals research and variety development… has been minimal due to high rates of farm-saved seed,” the presentation said.

Why it matters: Lack of investment has long been blamed for falling wheat acreage but the productivity growth numbers don’t paint a picture of a failing crop.

When farmers save seed they are not paying royalties to breeders. Less money, means fewer new varieties are developed.

Most corn and canola is hybridized, forcing growers to buy new seed every time they plant and earning seed companies more money.

One farmer said a lack of private investment in wheat has resulted in poorer genetics making the crop less profitable for farmers to grow.

But several other farmers challenged that. One said wheat was one of the most profitable crops on his farm, accounting for a third of his seeded acreage.

That farmer also said he sows certified wheat seed every year, paying a $3-a-bushel royalty.

“I don’t mind paying that because of the results I’ve seen on my farm,” he said. “It has driven my profitability.

“I’m willing to pay to play.

“If you love growing wheat like I do… what can it hurt sitting at a table and making a deal (with seed companies)… and saying I am going to get a return, you’re going to get a return. Let’s just make sure we’re both in check.”

Boissevain farmer Mitch Janssens said average canola yields on his farm over the last 20 years jumped 64 per cent, but the percentage increase has been even higher for wheat.

That fits with crop insurance yield data from the Manitoba Agricultural Services Corporation.

Over the most recent 10 years, 2017 to 2008, spring wheat yields for varieties in the top milling quality Canada Western Red Spring class averaged 51.3 bushels an acre, up 28.6 per cent from the 2007-1998 average of 39.9.

During the same time periods canola averaged 37.8 and 30.2 bushels an acre, respectively, for a 25.2 per cent average yield increase.

Statistically both crops have seen yields increase by similar percentages.

Some of it is believed to have come from improved agronomy.

During those two 10-year periods wheat plantings in Manitoba declined 7.5 per cent, while canola jumped 39.6 per cent.

Stonewall farmer Bill Matheson suggested canola is more profitable because there’s more demand for it than wheat.

Garth Patterson, executive director of the Western Grains Research Foundation, made the same point during a panel discussion on attracting more investment to wheat Nov. 23, 2016 during the 3rd Canadian Wheat Symposium in Ottawa.

“The markets aren’t treating wheat as favourably as some of the other crops,” he said, alluding to the impact of supply and demand.

He said a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report on demand for commodities such as corn, vegetable oil and sugar are driven by a growing world population and poor people earning better incomes, but wheat demand is driven only by population growth.

Between 2002 and 2004 world food prices were up an average of 73 per cent. Meat (much of it produced by feeding corn and soybean meal) went up 63 per cent, while vegetable oil and sugar jumped 68 and 215 per cent, respectively. Cereal prices, up 43 per cent, were well below the average, Patterson noted.

Average annual world corn consumption was up three per cent the last five years, but wheat consumption rose 1.8 per cent a year, International Grains Council figures showed. It projected in the next five years corn consumption will see an average increase of 1.8 per cent a year — almost double wheat’s expected one per cent annual rise.

“It makes sense because as people upgrade their diets they usually lower consumption of cereals for the other foods,” Patterson said in an interview Dec. 8, 2016. “The point I was making was, we shouldn’t expect high growth rates in cereal consumption.”

Farmers respond to market signals, Patterson said. They plant what they think will make them the most profit.

But that doesn’t mean investing in wheat innovation is a waste. Increasing wheat productivity through improved varieties and agronomic practices is what farmers need to make growing the crop more profitable, Patterson said.

Canadian Seed Trade Association president Todd Hyra made the same point in response to Matheson’s comments.

Canadian wheat yields have been rising slightly faster than the world average, Agriculture and Agri-Food winter wheat breeder Rob Graf said during that panel discussion two years ago. Between 1991 and 2012 they rose an average of 0.7 per cent a year, even though wheat hasn’t been genetically modified to resist herbicides or insect pests.

In 2016, 95 per cent of the Canada Western Red Spring wheat grown in the West were public varieties.

“From the standpoint of… yield increases, largely from the public sector, I would say we have done a really good job,” Graf said.

On-farm increases were double that due to improved agronomy.

“Long-term, stable, well-funded programs have been an effective strategy… (due to) WGRF (Western Grain Research Foundation) funding… ” Graf added.

Most of the foundation’s money came from farmers through provincial wheat checkoffs.

There are the equivalent of 11 publicly funded wheat breeders in Canada and four with private companies — one breeder for about every two million acres of wheat, Graf said.

“So I would say there is ample room for the private sector,” he added.

“My question would be… how long patience lasts in the private sector if there is no product?

Graf bred wheat for Saskatchewan Wheat Pool until it pulled out after several years.

A Bayer Crop Science official said at that same meeting five years ago Bayer decided to invest $1.9 billion into worldwide wheat over 10 years.

To encourage frank discussion AAFC asked reporters not to name or photograph participants at the royalty consultation. Some, however, later gave the Manitoba Co-operator permission to report what they said.

The post Why is canola winning acres and not wheat? appeared first on Manitoba Co-operator.