Better Pork - December 2004

Better Pork - December 2004

BEHIND THE LINES
by ROBERT IRWIN
As we prepared to send this magazine to press, Better Pork's editors took a look backwards -- to six years ago, before the existence of this publication.
It was December, 1998. The North American pork industry was in a crisis because of a lack of shackle space. Hogs were backed up at the plants and Ontario producers were receiving rock-bottom returns. Quality Meat Packers was on strike, and National Pork Producers Council in the United States – then, as now, our largest trading partner -- was making loud noises about the number of pigs crossing the border from Canada. At that time, the flashpoint issue was Canada's failure to approve regulations to allow hog imports.
Now come forward to late 2004. Once again, Quality Meat Packers was on strike and the timing for producers could not be worse because pigs were diverted to the United States and the accelerating numbers led to a dramatic increase in the deposit required at the border required under an anti-dumping ruling of the U.S. commerce department in mid- October. The flash point is still live pig exports, but now it is both hogs and weanlings, which have become a highly-specialized and growing industry in itself.
The industry is aiming towards a shift, but it is not clear which way it will go. The anti- dumping action is the most immediate threat in the long term, but there are no signs that the American dollar is going to appreciate any time soon and so Ontario's advantage in that market is likely to continue to erode.
Recently, former Ontario agriculture minister Helen Johns, who has a role in sorting through problems at the deeply troubled Lucan-based Premium Pork, said it is possible that the former weaner-exporting powerhouse will begin finishing pigs here in Ontario.
Our cover story this month deals in some depth with the industry's attempts to respond to the U.S. anti-dumping action. Alas, in Ontario, this has been marred by a dispute between major producers and Ontario Pork over the defence fee the latter has imposed. In an accompanying story, we note that the Canadian pork industry has not so far been capable of the same kind of united front that the softwood lumber and greenhouse industries have used to good effect in similar disputes. Is there a lesson to be learned here?BP

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - December 2004
The Pork Trade War: Americans have us in their sites
Ontario Pork is struggling to combat criticism from the industry for not joining a "national front" against the U.S. commerce department's anti-dumping ruling and for the fees it has imposed to cover the duty deposit and fight the action
by SUSAN MANN and DON STONEMAN
Canada easily made it across the first hurdle in the live hog trade dispute with the United States. The second, and higher hurdle, is still to come.
In the first investigation, the U.S. Department of Commerce looked at whether Canada offers subsidies that provide a benefit that is specific to an industry or enterprise. In a preliminary ruling released in August, the department found that Canada is not illegally subsidizing its hog producers and no countervailing duties were applied by the United States in this case. The final decision on the countervail case is expected in March, 2005.
The dumping issue is another matter and past experience with other commodities suggests that it is harder to fight because dumping is difficult to disprove.
There are a number of definitions for "dumping." In the simplest terms, dumping means selling product into another country at a price less than it cost to produce or at a price less than the product would sell for in the country of origin.
In mid-October, the U.S. commerce department ruled that Canada had been dumping live pigs into the United States in 2003 and imposed a preliminary duty on imports. Ontario Pork has been named as one of the respondents, and the pigs it sells to the United States are being assessed a duty of 13.25 per cent, while the rate for all other Canadian exporters is 14.06 per cent. Based on sales in 2003 of 5,000,000 weaners and early wean pigs, and 2,000,000 market hogs worth a total of $400 million, the duties collected at the U.S. border are estimated to be $50-60 million Cdn annually -- money that will come out of farmers' pockets.
The duties are being held in trust (duty deposit) until final determinations are made. If the International Trade Commission, which is to make a final ruling on injury next April, rules that the Canadian live swine imports have injured the U.S. industry, the commerce department will assess a final anti-dumping duty. If the trade commission finds there was no injury, the preliminary duty will be lifted and all duty collected at the border will be returned to producers.
For its part, Ontario Pork is clear that pricing to the U.S. market has been fair. "Ontario hogs are fairly traded," says Ontario Pork chair Larry Skinner. "There is one North American price and we sell at that price in both Canada and the United States. Ontario farmers should not have to defend themselves against protectionist litigation."
Though the commerce department's anti-dumping ruling is bad news for Canada because it will lead to increased costs for doing business in the United States, in the short term not much will alter, says Tavistock producer Clare Schlegel, president of the Canadian Pork Council. The movement of 7,000,000 pigs a year into the 100-million hog U.S. market can't be changed overnight, Schlegel explains. "I believe hogs will have to continue to move. The costs will go up and the competitive position of both the United States and Canadian industries will go down" because packers south of the border will be running at less than capacity.
In the long term, however, business decisions will be made in reaction to the U.S. trade ruling, especially if the duties become permanent. In Canada, there may be more finishing barns built and processing capacity added to deal with pigs that stay here. In the United States, additional sow barns may be built to fill the finishing barns empty because of the cutoff of Canadian pigs. This would cause "huge overproduction in the entire North American industry," Schlegel predicts.
Mid-October, all Ontario hog farmers began paying a $2.11 per hog marketing operations fee, to cover the duty deposit. Beginning Nov. 1, the fee for the duty was to be adjusted monthly, based on three factors -- the estimated volume of hog exports to the United States, the estimated total hog volume in Ontario, and prevailing market prices. When Quality Meats went on strike Nov. 1 and hog exports rose, the duty deposit went to $4.89 a pig.

Defence fee blocked
At the same time that Ontario Pork fights the U.S. trade action, it must also defend its decision to implement a province-wide 80-cent-a-hog interim trade action defence fee, effective June 14. Some large producers have appealed the defence fee to the Farm Products Appeal Tribunal. Its collection was supposed to have been stopped as of Aug. 29 until the tribunal ruled on the merits of the appeal. Since Ontario Pork continued to collect the fee, a hearing was held and the tribunal told the board to stop collecting the money and refund what it had collected on or after Aug. 30 to all hog farmers.
"As soon as we had clarity" as to when it should stop, it was stopped and producers were reimbursed, says Ontario Pork spokesman Keith Robbins. The act the tribunal operates under creates an automatic freezing of all decisions or regulations appealed to the tribunal as soon as an appeal is filed.
Elite Swine Inc. and Cold Springs Farm Ltd. initiated the appeal and were joined later by Synergy Services Inc., Progressive Pork Producers Co-operative Inc., and Selves Farms Ltd. Elite Swine and Cold Springs Farm have also asked the pork board for a hearing on the $2.11 duty deposit fee. At press time, no date had been set for that hearing.
Better Pork spoke to the dissidents before the Tribunal hearings. Representatives from these companies said they were dissatisfied with Ontario Pork's explanation of how the 80-cent-a-hog figure was reached, how long the fee would be in place, the type of producer consultation that was held before the fee was implemented and whether consideration was given to using Ontario Pork's $7 million reserve fund to pay for the defence.
"We felt there was a lack of producer consultation," says Phil Dykstra, director of operations (Ontario) for Elite Swine, which is Canada's largest pork producer, with most of its production in Manitoba, and an arm of Maple Leaf Foods, Canada's largest pork processor. "We haven't had any information come back to us to substantiate why it's specifically 80 cents or on how long it is going to be in place."
The 80-cent-a-hog fee amounts to a 45-per-cent increase to the $1.75-a-hog service fee Ontario Pork charges producers for marketing services and research, Dykstra says, noting that Ontario's pig farmers pay the highest service fee of any producers in North America.
Dykstra adds that the Canadian Pork Council and other industry players are developing their own strategy to deal with this trade issue, but Ontario Pork chose to fight it on its own. "It would have been far more cost-effective to join the national front," he asserts.
The trade defence is expected to cost Ontario Pork about $4 million. The 80-cent-a-hog fee was levied to pay for lawyers, accountants and audits.
Stringent efforts are being made to protect Ontario Pork's legal strategies and information that might be used against pork producers during the trade dispute. Ontario Pork argued that "there maybe serious legal consequences should privileged information be inadvertently disclosed." The Farm Products Appeal Tribunal made an unusual ruling to hold the hearings in camera. All parties attending, including witnesses were required to sign an undertaking not to disclose any information deemed as privileged. "We further order that all privileged documentary evidence tendered during the hearings and any transcripts of privileged evidence be sealed and kept separate from the public hearing record." Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered that the court reporters tape be returned to the Tribunal and destroyed once the transcript of the hearing was finalized.

Ontario's case solid
Unlike the countervail case, which focused on government support programs that complied with World Trade Organization rules, the anti-dumping case is based upon the economic circumstances of individual businesses and is far more complicated, says Ontario Pork's Skinner. "They (the U.S. commerce department) actually examine the books of individual producers or business entities," Skinner says.
It would have been hard to fight the anti-dumping action nationally, Skinner says. As for how Ontario Pork came to be chosen as a named respondent in the anti-dumping case, Skinner says that generally the Department of Commerce picks the businesses that export the largest volumes and Ontario Pork is the largest single exporter of market hogs. Skinner says Ontario Pork was told at a meeting in April with producers and Washington trade lawyers that it was likely Ontario Pork would be targeted. Ontario Pork offered to be a named respondent because it has access to records and it could help producers with accounting, so they could come up with the best respondent information.
It's useful to be a mandatory respondent in these cases because you can manage your own fate better, says Mark McConnell, a partner in Hogan & Hartson of Washington D.C., the law firm representing Ontario Pork in the anti-dumping case. "If you're Ontario Pork in this situation, you can manage your own fate."
He also notes that Ontario Pork has a solid case that it's not injuring the U.S. industry. "Given the fact that imports have stayed fairly steady and yet prices have recovered very significantly in 2004 (compared to 2003, the period being used for the investigation), I think it's awfully hard for the U.S. industry to show they're being hurt." The 80 cents was based on the estimated costs of the defence ($4 million) spread over anticipated hog volumes during a 12-month period. Ontario Pork planned to have the fee in place for 12 months from its introduction in June.
Skinner says Ontario Pork didn't ask all producers whether it should participate in the trade action. "Clearly, the board felt this is why we had been elected. This was a significant threat to the industry." He adds there was very little time from when the case was launched on March 5 and when the respondent selection was made. "If there had been an opportunity or if it was felt to be prudent to discuss the decision (about the 80-cent fee) with the producer base, then it would have been discussed at that time."
Skinner says Ontario Pork has tried to disclose as much information as it possibly can as the situation unfolds. To producers who feel Ontario Pork hasn't been sufficiently forthcoming, he notes that the board is "ramping up our communication efforts in response to that criticism. We want to try to make them aware of anything and everything that's going to affect their businesses from a marketing perspective.
"I hate to think about what it would be like if Ontario Pork was not here," he says. "It would be a free-for-all. There would be a lot of producers hurt very badly."
In an Aug. 5 letter on Ontario Pork's Web page, Skinner acknowledged that some producers question of the fairness of spreading the duty among all farmers, even those who don't ship to the United States. "In the big picture, the industry needs to be viewed as a whole. Ontario is very dependent on what happens in the rest of North America, and selling prices in the U.S. will quickly impact prices in Canada. Ontario Pork is ultimately responsible for all selling agreements in Ontario, and we believe this action is in our best interest long term."

Fundamental disagreements
The decision to spread the fees and duties over all producers is based on the fundamental philosophy that Ontario's collective marketing system confers benefits on all producers.
Many of the comments made by Dykstra were echoed by representatives from other operations that joined in the appeal of the 80-cent-a-hog fee. One of them is John Alderman, vice-president, farming operations at Cold Springs Farm Ltd., a subsidiary of Schneiders, which in turn is owned by Maple Leaf Foods.
"Basically, we haven't been provided any information to determine why it should be any amount," says Alderman. "We have no idea how they arrived at 80 cents and we asked them to please explain how they chose 80 cents and how long they're going to collect it for."
Synergy Services Inc., based in Listowel, claims to be one of the top two or three producers of market hogs in Ontario. It produces in excess of 5,000 market hogs a week and doesn't ship any to the United States.
"We fundamentally disagree that the cost to defend the action is to be shared among all shippers of hogs in the province," explains Mark Yungblut, one of the founders of Synergy Services. "We've attempted to differentiate the pork that we produce and we've built our business plans around the demands of our processing customers that are based here in Ontario.
"It's a communication thing. We send them a pile of money and we don't get very much feedback," notes Yungblut. "We got zero feedback on this."
Joanne Selves, president and CEO of Selves Farm Ltd., a 3,000-sow farrow-to-finish operation based in Fullarton, says "my concern is that they made their decision to charge the 80 cents, which was a 45 per cent increase in fees, without any explanation of how they arrived at the figure. They also did it without any discussion of any other options that might exist, such as the use of the reserve fund."
Selves says she has no idea what the pros and cons of using that fund might be or whether 80 cents or any other number is the right one. "My point is they didn't consult about any of those things."
Bob Hunsberger, vice chair of the board of Progressive Pork Producers Co-operative Inc., based in Breslau, says they have been concerned about the 80-cent fee since it was announced.
The co-op was formed 10 years ago when there was a countervailing duty in place, partly "to address that issue and to try and avoid countervailing duties. We don't feel that countervailing duties are our problem," he explains. But Progressive Pork is supportive of the Ontario pork industry and of co-operative activities within the industry. "We do want to work with Ontario Pork," he adds.
Hunsberger says Progressive Pork's first impression is that the 80 cent fee is too high and that it was put in place too quickly, "particularly for an organization that has $7 million in the bank."
Progressive Pork is in a bit of a dilemma over this trade action, he notes. "We certainly want to be supportive of the industry. We realize trade action by the U.S. is detrimental for the entire industry. On the other hand, our members have made a substantial investment in their plant (Conestoga Meat Packers Ltd.) in order to avoid having to ship live hogs to the United States and be able to ship meat which is not countervailable or subject to dumping duties.
"We feel that we have already taken major steps to avoid being caught up in countervail."BP

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back

Better Pork - December 2004
How Pig and Bear went into business
A fable that may have a moral for the pork industry

by RICHARD SMELSKI
Long ago, I read an article in a business magazine that has haunted me ever since. Let me share it with you.
Pig and Bear decided to go into business. "We'll make lots of money," they thought. Pig baked a bushel of potatoes and Bear fried a heap of doughnuts. They went to the market early in the morning to get the best location. Nobody was around and the morning was wet and chilly. Bear had a nickel in his coat. After a while he went over to Pig's stand to warm up and share some stories.
"How much for a potato?" he growled.
"A nickel for you," snorted Pig.
Bear was about to say he'd just wanted to ask, but then changed his mind. He fished for the nickel in his fur, took out the biggest steaming potato and returned to his stand.
The business is moving, rejoiced the Pig. But since there were no more customers for a while, and he hadn't eaten since they started at dawn, he crossed over to Bear's stand and bought himself a blueberry doughnut for a nickel.
Bear was happy to have his first customer. He felt he should eat something before they started to flock in. He went over to buy another baked potato. The move brought him luck. He had hardly finished eating when Pig was over for another doughnut. Then business slacked off again until Bear bought a potato.
Soon Pig was over again and Bear went right back to his stand with him. Business was getting brisk. This back and forth continued until, at the end of a busy and tiring day, there were no more potatoes or doughnuts left. Exhausted, they began cleaning up.
"How did you do?" asked the Bear.
"Actually I was quite busy and sold all my potatoes," said Pig.
The Bear added, "Yeah, me too." And no doubt silently thought, I am going home with more money than him. Meanwhile, Pig was planning how he could expand his business since he had sold everything he brought to the market.
What lessons are there in this story for the pig business? The obvious is not always so obvious. Could the same scenario apply to farmers selling early-weans or Perth County Pork Chops and buying John Deere tractors or computers? Should Bear contract Pig or his location and move into three-site locations? Or should they hire a consultant, probably for a doughnut and potato?
Obviously they have already planned for many things we discuss in our market: value-added, marketing plans, ideal location, supply management and negotiating a better price. Or did Bear and Pig do "things right" or were they doing the "right things?"
The solution (and probably the problem) is in the eye of the beholder. BP
Richard Smelski is general manager of Ontario Swine Improvement Inc. and a former Ontario government swine specialist.

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - December 2004
Should we take environmental bounty hunting seriously?
Private individuals have used the Federal Fisheries Act to lay charges and the legislation provides that they may share half of any fine levied. Though such cases may not be common, they reinforce the need for farmers to be proactive and not reactive
by MURRAY BLACKIE
The August issue of Better Pork covered the summer visit to Ontario of Robert Kennedy Jr., president of the U.S.-based Water Keepers Alliance. Kennedy indicated that his organization takes advantage of legislation which shares fines levied in cases which it initiates on water quality issues. He noted that there was legislation here which provided the same opportunity to environmental groups.
Our Behind the Lines section that month identified the federal Fisheries Act as one piece of legislation which has been used twice by private citizens to initiate actions regarding discharges of deleterious substances into waters frequented by fish. And it posed the question: "What does all this mean for pork producers?"
Although private citizens can lay charges under environmental legislation such as the Environmental Protection Act, they cannot share in the fines levied. If it is deemed in the best federal interest, the Department of Justice can take over a Fisheries Act prosecution.
In 2000, the city of Hamilton pleaded guilty to charges under the Fisheries Act, Section 36(c), that the city permitted the discharge of toxic leachate into Red Hill Creek which flows into Hamilton Harbour which is a heavily polluted "Area of Concern" under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the U.S.. The charge or information was laid by a private citizen, Ms. Linda Lukasik. Because of mandatory provisions in the legislation, the informant shared half of the $300,000 fine.
A similar case against the city of Kingston led to a conviction, which was unsuccessfully appealed. However, the city continues to investigate appeals and the case has not been finally decided. And a third case has been initiated in the Toronto area, though it is not clear whether it will go ahead under the Department of Justice or continue being pursued by the private citizen who initiated charges.
Should agriculture be concerned that private citizens or environmental organizations may use the Act to initiate charges? For those considering a fast buck, the following are some questions and issues to consider:

Will the federal Department of Justice take over the case, so presumably negating the fine-sharing potential even if a private citizen initiated the charges?

Have you involved the appropriate regulatory agencies?

Have the regulatory agencies failed to move ahead with steps to address the violation of the Act?

If a lawyer is required, the informant will need to pay.

If samples are needed to document the toxic nature of the discharge, the informant must pay for analysis, which may be very expensive depending on the number of samples and the local availability of accredited labs.

If experts are needed to provide impact assessments and evidence, the informant pays.

Who interviews the polluter, employees or other witnesses?

Logic suggests that individuals would have to consider seriously whether to initiate costly proceedings on their own against agricultural sources with little likelihood of fines in the neighbourhood of those levied against Hamilton. Even so, here are some sobering thoughts for those who think they are safe:

If the informants are members of large environmental groups with in-house lawyers, experts and maybe ties to accredited laboratories, costs may not be a significant consideration.

If regulatory agencies do not rigorously and consistently enforce their regulations, frustrated individuals or groups may feel that they have to act.

Some practices, such as unrestricted livestock access, continue to be handled in an ambiguous way in Ontario, although Environment Canada seems less tolerant of this behaviour. Could delayed or ineffective regulation of these continuous, cumulative, low-impact practices fuel frustration and prompt action?

With regulations to address manure management apparently slow in being implemented, frustration will grow.

Although it seems unlikely that we will see a rash of individuals initiating charges against farmers under the Fisheries Act, the potential for this reinforces the need to be as pro-active as possible in developing nutrient management and contingency plans, in monitoring them, and in generally ensuring that you are being duly diligent in minimizing the likelihood of contravention of the Fisheries Act. Be pro-active not re-active.BP
Murray Blackie is the former agricultural specialist with the Ministry of the Environment and is now a consultant, expert witness and writer on agro-environmental issues.

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..

back

Better Pork - December 2004
Why do we need legislation on nutrient management and source water protection?
Farmers are worried about the cost burdens and the overlap of the Nutrient Management and Drinking Water Source Protection acts. But at least the environment and agriculture ministries are showing they are listening
by JAMIE BOLES
Environmental protection on the farm has always been the norm for properly managed operations. It is not a question of the farm's size or the sector it is in. It is not because of a fear of government enforcement. Beneficial farm practices form the basis of profitability and sustainability, which are likely the main reasons why people farm in the first place. That doesn't mean that 100 per cent of farmers are perfect -- we all know and can spot the few that use poor farm practices. But history indicates that those operations never last long and it is those few poor farm practices that create the stereotypes non-farm media love to write about, and that allow urban people to generalize about "rural polluters."
All that needs to be asked is the simple question: Is farming the greatest threat to municipal drinking water? That is the question for government. Unfortunately, that is a question that all too often gets left unanswered.
Make no mistake, farming will never be the greatest risk to municipal drinking water. It is a municipality's responsibility to secure safe and plentiful sources of drinking water as well as having a properly managed, reliable treatment and distribution system. There should be no mystery in coming to this conclusion -- or about the waste of time and tax dollars spent targeting agriculture as a significant risk to municipal drinking water.
Ontario has centuries of farming history where families have worked the land, grown crops and livestock, and sold to the local markets so that people who worked in jobs other than farming could eat. Today, this still happens, but with costs of production going up, foreign food producers are selling food that is cheap and less than fresh in our local markets.
Herein lies the dilemma for the consumer. Ontario farmers have an abundance of knowledge about how to protect the environment on their farms, but we don't know what South and Central American, Asian, European and African farmers do in their stewardship efforts or lack thereof. Yet, standing in line at the grocery store, you can bet the cost of the product will be all that matters for consumers, even though Ontario farmers produce arguably the world's best and safest food.
But because of the perverse nature of federal, provincial and municipal governments, farmers have felt abused, tormented and bewildered. It can be argued that rural Ontario is becoming Canada's "third world" thanks to the burden and costly expectations of ungrateful governments. How soon politicians forget that we produce the food they eat, provide the green-space that allows the rain to safely replenish the drinking water sources, and keep the land free of concrete and development.
Some municipalities created confusion by adopting Interim Control By-laws that targeted livestock farmers, preventing them from producing food on agriculturally zoned land. As a response to Walkerton, Ontario's previous Tory government created the Nutrient Management Act, which was heavy on regulations and technical requirements but light on funding support. As for the federal government, who really knows what Environment Canada is up to by driving around and threatening livestock farmers with $300,000 fines for not fencing every creek and drain in the countryside.
But before we cast the same stone as the uninformed, non-farm media, we must remind ourselves that not all governments and not all politicians are created equal. There are many politicians who care about farmers, and deserve applause for their efforts.
However, there is no question the anxiety and cynicism levels went up in February in the farming community, when the new Minister of the Environment announced the White Paper that led to the introduction of the Drinking Water Source Protection Act.
So the question now becomes what is the best way to protect municipal drinking water sources?
The Drinking Water Source Protection Act proposal and the Nutrient Management Act (NMA) must be our starting point. To its credit, the Ontario government has attempted to analyze how these two pieces of legislation could overlap and further burden farmers.
What we do know is that on Dec. 31, 2005, the Ontario government plans to implement the first phase of the regulations proposed in the NMA, but only for those farms greater than 300 nutrient units. The government has allocated $5 million this year and $15 million next year for these so-called "large" farms to comply with the new standards.
We also know that the government is moving ahead quickly on Drinking Water Source Protection (DWSP). However, concerns have been raised that we may not know the DWSP requirements until long after we have invested in NMA requirements. So perhaps part of the is that DWSP needs to come before the NMA. That way, farmers won't be forced to pay for trying to clean up municipal drinking water supplies through their nutrient management efforts.
Even with NMA in place, some municipalities still seem to do whatever they want and farmers that have fully completed NM plans and have been approved under the NMA still face uncertainty. Continued interference by federal and municipal governments should be a serious cause for concern. It would be helpful if a Memorandum of Understanding was struck, so that the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF) can create a working climate with the farmer. One window access would be a novel idea.
We also know that the provincial government plans on utilizing the Conservation Authorities as Source Protection Planning Boards and will be appointing local Source Protection Committees to help co-ordinate implementation of DWSP on a regional and watershed basis. These local committees will play an integral role in determining the impact of source water protection on agricultural land, and we have encouraged government to ensure that major landowners, such as farmers, are well represented on these committees.
If you add the greenbelt legislation and food safety proposal to the mix of DWSP and NMA, the government has an awful lot of critical items on the agenda. Of course, if the government is this overwhelmed, then farmers should be anticipating a surge of record-keeping requirements and costs for new regulations in the not too distant future.
What is the link between DWSP and NMA? Well, let's hope the answer will be simple, that there will be no overlap, and that our farmers will not be at a competitive disadvantage with competing jurisdictions. The simplest way to consider these initiatives with this outcome in mind is to explore the ways they contrast.
At least initially, NM was based on the notion that all nutrient users, regardless of the size or type of operation could benefit their own bottom line and the environment by paying closer attention to the agronomic balance of nutrients on their farms. It was a universal approach. From this starting point, NM has morphed into an initiative that targets farms based on size, specifically larger farm operations, with an uncertain timeframe for phasing in smaller farms and non-agricultural nutrient users.
On the other hand, DWSP is based on risk. Essentially, the most important component of the DWSP process is that it doesn't isolate a sector or target the size of an operation like the NMA does. DWSP proposes to focus on a relative risk by targeting, in a non-confrontational way, the greatest threats to drinking water. There is a lot to like in that approach.
The key questions that needs to be asked and answered is why we need two pieces of legislation, one to regulate farm land uses and another to protect drinking water. The answer might be as simple as having the NMA manage nutrients and DWSP manage drinking water sources.
Sometimes governments get it right and sometimes they get it wrong. But in this case, the present provincial government has shown a willingness to listen and work toward solutions, and we must take them up on that offer. The Ontario government and the two ministries involved -- MOE and OMAF -- are attempting the unthinkable in government and trying to work together.
We should congratulate them on this effort, and support the process, while reserving the right to complain for only those farmers who are already good stewards of the land.BP

© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
Jamie Boles is Policy Analyst, Source Water Protection, for Ontario Pork, Ontario Cattlemen's Association, Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency and Ag-Care.

back