Working With Government

Effective government leadership might not be making the news right now, but it’s out there to be built upon, and it’s working to inspire confidence and financial resiliency in Canadian agriculture.

This week in Canada, ‘leadership’ might be the last word anyone would use to describe politics in Ottawa. Meanwhile in Alberta, a group of government agencies just delivered one of the most popular, informative and inspiring events in Prairie agriculture.

The Western Canadian Conference on Soil Health and Grazing boasts sell-out crowds and sponsorship slots thanks to its irresistible agenda and vibe, created through a collaboration of values-aligned independent regional researchers. The success of this public-private collaboration shines in stark contrast to concurrent news in Prairie agriculture this week, that 6 commodity grain groups just walked off Canada’s Sustainable Ag Strategy’s Advisory Committee.

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

Commodity grain producers don’t just mistrust government, they have an aversion to funding programs that goes a lot deeper than the administrative hassle of filling out the application forms. First, there is the fear of letting the government into their operation and then being told how to farm. Second, pride prevents partnership thinking, via the misconception that incentives are the same as handouts.

These are the kinds of big emotions behind the division and online vitriol in production agriculture, and the recent decision of checkoff-funded associations representing Canadian canola, pulse, soy and cereal grain farmers. Underneath their defensiveness, Board Directors are also in a conflict of interest that forces them to resist any talk of emissions, soil health, regenerative agriculture, sustainability, etc.

Here’s how it works:

1. Kind of like a government with taxpayer’s money, Board Directors hold a fiduciary duty to protect the finances of the organization.

2. Funding comes from levies automatically deducted from farmer sales.

3. Unlike taxes, legislation allows individuals to request a ‘check-off refund’ after the fact, which members could be triggered into doing if the organization engages in defining some grain producers as ‘unsustainable’.

In agroecology circles, it is well understood that grain production may be the biggest source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the agriculture industry due to the escape of nitrous oxide from synthetic fertilizer use. But the science remains unsettled and the markets unregulated, allowing the grain sector’s dialogue to focus on rejecting any need for change.

All of this avoidance might make it seem like a popular move to quit working with the government and other farms groups on sustainability in agriculture, but to what end? Aren’t we right now witnessing the downfall that follows popularity-driven political plays in Canada?

Protecting one’s own power, wealth and the status quo at the expense of responsible management of society’s collective resources, is not a good look. As Prairie Routes Research predicted early on, the assertion that “Canadian agriculture is the most sustainable in the world” set up this committee and its mandate to fail from day 1.

What is Sustainable?

Nobody in Edmonton last week had a problem celebrating the end goal. Arizona State University prof and filmmaker Peter Byck kicked off the conference delighting the crowd with clips from the documentary film series, “Roots so Deep You Can see the Devil Down There,” and his previous work featuring early U.S. regenerative agriculture pioneers.

Adaptive multi-paddock (AMP) grazing isn’t the only way to make farming sustainable, but it is the fastest way to fix broken ecological functions including water and nutrient cycling in soil. It’s also becoming apparent through research that it drives family farms to become more positive, profitable, and resilient businesses.