December 2004
Packers reluctantly hand over their books to Commons committee
Auditors are now set to determine whether meat packers took advantage of last year's BSE crisis to "claw back" federal funds intended to help struggling producersby DON STONEMAN
Huron-Bruce Liberal MP Paul Steckle got his old job back as chair of the House of Commons agriculture and agri-food committee when Parliamentarians returned to Ottawa this fall. And, true to his promise, he began applying heat to the packers who, he says, made unwarranted profits during the BSE crisis.Steckle says that during its first meeting, which was held in camera, the committee set a deadline of two weeks for Alberta-based packers IBP and Cargill to submit their financial records to the standing committee. The long-sought records arrived on the Friday before Halloween, Steckle says, the last possible day. Subsequently, they were handed over to auditors from the Library of Parliament.
In addition to IBP and Cargill, the committee had sought records from three other companies -- Nilsson Brothers of Edmonton, Levinoff Meats of Montreal and Better Beef, located in Guelph. "They delivered their books. That's what we had asked them to do," Steckle says.The auditors received the books in a few days and went to work. Steckle says the auditors are looking for a comparison, month to month and year to year, of prices that packers paid producers for cattle, both before the start of the BSE crisis in May of 2003 and after. The prices paid for cattle will be especially scrutinized at the times that federal and provincial governments put programs into place to help producers.
Steckle believes that every time money was directed at producers, cattle prices fell and that packers "clawed back" the funds that had been directed to help producers. As well, the committee told the auditors to look at the prices that packers charged wholesalers and retailers for meat during the BSE crisis.
"Were the wholesalers able to buy cheap from them during that period or not?" Steckle asks. His question is rhetorical. "We know they were not."
Steckle asserts that the prices packers paid for cattle fell as soon as the election was called last spring and the agriculture and agri-food committee was no longer scrutinizing their actions.
The pressure on packers had been considerable. Because IBP and Cargill had refused to hand over financial records to the committee for independent and confidential scrutiny last year, the corporations were found in contempt of Parliament, the first time that corporations had been so named in 137 years. BF
© copyright 2004AgMedia Inc..
back
Don't bet the farm on the Bush administration standing up to the protectionists
The past four years of have produced bushels of Republican free trade rhetoric and tonnes of protectionism when Canadian agricultural commodities appeared to challenge Americans' share of their own market. With minor exceptions, expect more of the sameby BARRY WILSON
Logic suggests that the results of the Nov. 2 U.S. election will produce a status quo, "business as usual" result for Canada-U.S. agricultural relations. After all, the American political landscape is much as it was before Nov. 2, only more so. The Republicans affirmed their position as the nation's dominant political force with firm control of the White House, Congress and most states.But in Ottawa and within Canada's major farm lobby organizations, the reaction was positive, assuming the result will not be the status quo. The result should be good because the Republicans are a known quantity, understand the issues and have vowed to try to deal with them, goes the official line. Border actions have been prevalent only because the U.S. system was in a pre-election political frenzy and the Republicans have been pandering to protectionists in an attempt to woo their vote.
""I think there is a little more optimism, a little hope on this side of the border that the re-election of the Bush administration might lead to a faster border decision than would have been the case under Sen. John Kerry," said David Rolfe, president of Manitoba's Keystone Agricultural Producers, after the election.
This official line assumes that, during the past four years of overseeing protectionism, the Republicans have not been true to themselves. In fact, the past four years of Republican political dominance have produced bushels of free trade rhetoric and tonnes of protectionism in wheat, hogs, cattle and any other Canadian agricultural commodity that appeared to challenge Americans' share of their own market.
The American political system allows significant influence for protectionist forces and their congressional advocates and that will not change.
Protectionism, when U.S. producers can't compete with imports or snag the market share they want in third markets because of competition, has been around for half a century and is not going to end. A loss of market share for Americans means the competition is not playing fairly.
- R-CALF will continue to challenge any attempt to open the border for live Canadian cattle.
- The U.S. hog industry will continue to object that imports from Canada are subsidized or dumped, contrary to the interests of the American. Larry Martin of the George Morris Centre has called the once-free trade American hog lobby the "new R-CALF."
- The American government will continue to use World Trade Organization talks to attack the Canadian Wheat Board export monopoly and supply management agency import tariff protections.
There is little evidence that the new Republican regime will be any more free trade than the old Republican regime. But there are a couple of factors that offer at least a bit of support for the optimism.
South Dakota Democratic Senator and party Senate leader Tom Daschle was defeated and he clearly was a powerful congressional voice for protectionism, a closed BSE border and country-of-origin labelling rules.
As well, the Bush Republicans have no one to answer to now. He has been re-elected and cannot run again, so electoral issues are less relevant. This means the political grip over border-opening rules likely will be loosened and a proposal will come out of Washington. However, it will be challenged.
The real test of the new Bush regime is whether the administration will stand up to the domestic protectionists. Don't bet the farm on it. BF
Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
back
Looking ahead: Will nutrient management planning continue to evolve?
The regulatory response to manure mismanagement has changed considerably over the past decades. Are we prepared for further changes? Will the process become more flexible?by MURRAY BLACKIE
This column will look at the benchmarks related to manure management and designed to protect the environment, how they have evolved and where they may continue to evolve. Environmental standards for agriculture, as for all sectors, must be effective at protecting the environment and practicable. We should consider whether the best available technology is easily available and if the best management methods are practical and likely to be adopted. Both numerical standards or criteria and processes or practices can be used to act as standards or benchmarks.If we accept that manure management standards should address losses of nutrients and pathogens and their possible impact on water quality and health, will the best standards for addressing nutrients always be the best for addressing pathogens? If we support incorporation of manure, will this reduce the mortality of bacteria now hidden from deadly sunshine?
The benchmark for manure storage capacity has grown from six months to eight months. This provides greater flexibility in the timing and location of manure spreading to optimize fertilizer value and minimize environmental losses.
Although this concept of storage capacity seems to have grown due to concerns about liquid manure, it also relates to solid manure and the goal that manure should not spill, overflow or be spread at environmentally dangerous times, such as during winter, when it is very wet or when the farmer will not get the optimum fertilizer value from the manure.
But what about farms where livestock are only housed over the winter months and do not generate enough manure to warrant eight months storage? Will this benchmark be appropriate for operations that plan to treat their manure and claim not to require the costly storage facilities? Perhaps, as acceptable treatment options and regulatory accountability are defined, this benchmark will become more flexible and concerns that it may not be for everyone will be adequately addressed.
Winter spreading of manure brings with it the worry that nutrient losses will occur through overland run-off at the spring melt or following rains. If pathogen control is the dominant concern, will this change our view of year-round manure spreading with year-round dispersal of pathogens and spreading on snow to expose pathogens to bright sunlight and freezing temperatures?
At present, benchmarks permit manure spreading practices such as fall spreading and large, infrequent applications, which do not seem to ensure the maximum nutrient uptake by plants. Is it logical to assume that manure spreading will evolve into precise surgical additions of nutrients at the time when the specific crops will maximize uptake?
This column has only briefly touched on some of the many benchmarks now used for and relevant to manure management. In future columns, I will discuss other benchmarks and new advances which may further evolve existing benchmarks.
Our use of the Nutrient Management Plan as a regulatory tool and benchmark has evolved from the early use of the Agricultural Code of Practice and the Certificate of Compliance. A comparison of the two and discussion of what the NMP might gain from the C of C will form the basis of an upcoming column.BF
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
by HENRY HENGEVELD
December 2004
Florida may be in for more hurricane seasons as bad as 2004
With four intense storms in quick succession, the Sunshine State took its worst battering in recent memory. It could be in for several decades of the sameby HENRY HENGEVELD
Hurricane Charley was born as a tropical storm on Tuesday, Aug. 10, in the middle of the Caribbean. At this early stage, winds at its centre were still only a modest 50 m.p.h. However, within three days, as it ripped into the Gulf coast of Florida near Sarasota, it had exploded into a devastating Category 4 hurricane (defined as having sustained winds between 131 and 155 m.p.h.).Next came Frances. Having gestated for a number of days as a tropical depression in the middle of the tropical Atlantic, Frances was officially named once it developed the closed shape of a tropical storm on Aug. 25. It also rapidly escalated in intensity, reaching Category 4 hurricane status by Saturday, Aug. 28. As it marched through the Caribbean, it vacillated between a Category 3 (winds between 111 and 130 m.p.h.) and a Category 4. It finally swept into Florida as a Category 2 storm (winds of 96 to 110 m.p.h.) on Sept. 4 -- this time on the Atlantic coast a bit south of Orlando.
Even as Frances approached the Florida coast, Ivan was beginning to stir off the coast of Africa. Ivan reached the Caribbean as a Category 3 storm by Sept. 7. It was much more brutal than Frances, relentlessly pounding across the region with winds varying between 140 and 160 m.p.h. By Sept. 16, it tore into the American Gulf coast, now downgraded to a Category 3 hurricane. Although its eye passed over eastern Alabama, much of the Florida panhandle felt the brunt of the storm. And while its winds rapidly weakened over the next few days, it continued to unleash copious amounts of rain as it marched northeastward. It finally hit Atlantic Canada with heavy rains a week later.
Florida's hurricane woes were still not over. Before Ivan could reach its shores, tropical storm Jeanne was already spinning up in the eastern Caribbean. For about a week, Jeanne circled around its natal waters, seemingly unsure where it wanted to go. However, on Sept. 23, it suddenly decided to migrate westward, already a Category 2 hurricane. With winds increasing to 115 m.p.h., it reached Florida two days later, arriving almost exactly where Frances had struck its blow less than three weeks before. And it may not yet be over -- the hurricane season doesn't officially end until Nov. 30!
The devastation left by these hurricanes has been colossal. In the Caribbean, Ivan virtually flattened the infrastructure of Grenada, while the severe flooding caused by Jeanne in Haiti left behind more than 2,000 dead. Other Caribbean countries, including Jamaica, Cuba and the Cayman Islands, were also hit hard. Much of their losses relate to the inadequate coping mechanisms of these poor islands. However, the four storms also left more than 60 dead within the United States, and some estimates suggest accumulated insured damages there could reach $20-25 billion US. Uninsured losses may be just as large, hence making this the largest economic catastrophe in U.S. history. Even farmers, accustomed to gambles, have been stunned by crop losses estimated at more than $3 billion.
Never before had Florida been struck by four hurricanes in one season, three of them intense. As its citizens surveyed the damage, shock turned into questions. What was happening to the weather? Why so much damage? Were the building codes and business practices to blame, or was it time to move to safer grounds?
Unfortunately, hurricanes, like tornados, seem to have a mind of their own and are among the most difficult of weather phenomena to understand and predict. Most hurricanes begin to form over large pools of ocean waters where surface temperatures are at least 27 C. Warm seas heat the air above, causing it to rise and thus form a centre of moist low pressure. Trade winds rush in toward this depression. Combined with the planet's rotation, they spin clouds counter clockwise around the steamy core or "eye" of the storm.
As the storm develops, it can seethe and spin across the ocean surface for 5,000 kilometres, inhaling the energy from billions of tonnes of warm seawater. The amount of mechanical energy generated by a fully developed hurricane can translate to a power supply of 360 billion kilowatt hours per day, more than the total amount of electricity produced in Ontario in two years.
However, surface ocean temperature is only one of the factors involved in the evolution of a tropical storm. Incoming dry air from high pressure zones can choke it off, or landfall can quickly deflate it. Furthermore, hurricanes reflect the complex dance between the atmosphere and the oceans. When the Pacific Ocean cools during the La Niņa climate phenomenon, the Atlantic warms up, and more hurricanes are the result. Over the Atlantic, wind shear that knocks down rising storms tend to slacken, while humid westerly winds from Africa's bulge grow stronger. The reverse can happen during an El Niņo.
Some have already suggested that, since warmer ocean surfaces provide more heat and moisture input into these giant engines of nature, global warming may be part of the explanation for the recent increase in Atlantic hurricane activity. After all, research has shown that an ocean surface warming of a few degrees could increase the maximum intensity of hurricanes by more than 10 per cent, and rainfall intensity by about 30 per cent. Most experts, however, argue that it is too early to lay the blame on the climate change doorstep. Rather, they argue that the climate of the North Atlantic has a natural long-term variability that caused an unusual benign intense storm period during the 1970s and 1980s. This natural back and forth sloshing of the ocean system means that the United States may now be in for several decades of enhanced hurricane activity, whether or not the climate is warming. Hence, Florida citizens might do well to batten down the hatches and learn to bear it.
Kinda makes me glad that I live in Ontario, far away from the traditional paths of hurricanes. On the other hand, this fall also happens to be the 50th anniversary of Hurricane Hazel. Hence, we might well remember not to become too complacent. Furthermore, don't be surprised if the hurricane devastation further south also affects our property insurance as well. BF
© copyright 2004 AgMedia Inc..
Henry Hengeveld is the former senior science advisor on climate change at Environment Canada.
back