photo: Carol Mitchell (fourth from left), Ontario's minister of agriculture, was on hand at B&D Fullarton Farms near Mitchell on Wednesday to announce the release of final details about a risk management insurance program for non-supply managed farmers.
by BETTER FARMING STAFF
Not sure if Ontario’s new risk management program is for you?
You’ll have a year to try the brand new market insurance program for free, says the province’s minister of agriculture. Carol Mitchell made the announcement Wednesday morning on a farm near Mitchell flanked by members of the Ontario Agriculture Sustainability Coalition, an industry-led committee that spearheaded the development of the program.
The grains and oilseeds sector will be able to apply to the program that will cover the 2011 crop year in August. Applications for farmers in other commodities will be available in the fall. There will be commodity specific information sessions held across the province, notes Wilma Jeffray, chair of Ontario Pork. The province has posted its eligibility requirements for 2011 on its website as well as details about the programs serving individual commodities.
The program is voluntary and, this year, will be open to farmers within the commodities covered — grains and oilseeds, hogs, cattle, sheep, veal and fruit and vegetables — regardless of whether they have applied for AgriStability coverage. Beginning 2012, farmers will also have to be enrolled in AgriStability to be eligible.
It’s the first time “in more than 25 years that the province went it alone to deliver a made in Ontario agriculture program,” Mitchell said. Speaking to a crowd of about 60, she credited the grains and oilseeds sector for leading the way. “Four years ago they came forward with a program that talked about what they needed for their commodities; today we have the opportunity for risk management programs for the other non-supply managed sector because of the work, because of the foundation that was laid by grain and oilseeds.”
“This program was always designed to be a part over and above AgriStability,” Mitchell said during a session with media after the announcement. One of the concerns about AgriStability is it “isn’t giving the bankability, the predictability, the stability that our farmers need. So coming forward with an insurance program, it then starts to speak to address the volatility,” Mitchell says. “That’s what today represents and that’s what (farmers) were looking for.”
In recent months, the risk management program has come under criticism because the money it pays out is eventually deducted from AgriStability payments.
Mitchell downplayed a drop in enrollment in the already running grains and oilseeds risk management program. According to Agricorp, which operates the program and will administer the other commodity insurance programs, in 2010 only 5,900 enrolled in the program, a drop of more than half from the 12,200 that enrolled when the pilot was first launched in 2007.
She attributed the drop to an uncertainty about the program’s future, which the province addressed in March by making RMP permanent. “It was a three-year pilot to begin with and then it was an extension of the year but that extension came later,” she explained. “I would have to say that the G&O farmers who chose to be a part of the program that the participation was quite high given the uncertainty that they felt from the pilot project to the extension to the permanent program today.”
Judy Dirksen, president of the Ontario Veal Association, remembers in 2009 when she and four others visited Leona Dombrowsky, the province’s former agriculture minister, to pitch the concept. “Leona’s message to us was very clear,” she said. “‘Get your act together, get your ask . . . together and we’ll see what we can do.”
“This day is the culmination of all of those efforts, the efforts of a lot of people,” Dirksen said.
Bette Jean Crews, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and chair of OASC, congratulated the province for its efforts and noted that agriculture not only provides “safe and nutritious food” but also jobs for those in urban areas. With the risk management program now in place, “we can continue to produce the food we need and generate the jobs that made this province the great place that it is.”
Henry Stevens, president of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, called the program a “milestone for the Ontario farmers and the agricultural industry and agribusiness as a whole.” He credited commodity groups for doing the work to get the idea rolling.
Curtis Royal, president of the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, noted that the program would give cattle producers “the confidence to make all the investments necessary to keep all these operations going.” It also creates a sense of security for consumers, he said: “they know now there’s going to be a solid base, there’s going to be a good high quality product coming to the (grocery) shelf, locally produced product.”
With the first year of the program being free, Dirksen anticipated veal producer enrollment would be strong. There’s only a short time during a year when market prices exceed costs of production, she noted. “It makes it difficult for farmers to keep farming.”
Brian Gilroy, chair of the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers’ Association, said the self-directed insurance program for horticulture will differ from the one offered to other commodities. “We have over 100 fruit and vegetable commodities grown here in Ontario and it’s challenging to design a program that works for everyone but this one fits the need,” he said. BF
Comments
If RMP continues to be clawed back by AgriStability, even free is too much to pay for RMP, because of the dilution in the purchasing power of a farmer's AgriStability premium.
It makes no sense why farmers would appear to fall all over themselves to praise something which will continue to be (after the first year), in effect, paying two fees to get exactly the same benefit they'd get if they'd paid only one fee - or, in other words, the year they could really use a big payout from RMP, the year they're likely to also be collecting from AgriStability, they'd be absolutely better off if they weren't in RMP at all.
It would appear RMP will continue to be predictable, and bankable, but only in the sense that it predictably lowers your bank balance.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton Ont.
First time ever seen livestock and grain farmer organizations all smiling at the same time---hope they cap payments at say $100k
No caps will be needed on RMP because the bigger the RMP payout, the greater the liklihood a farmer will also qualify for AgriStability, thereby neatly, and quite effectively, eliminating any chance that a farmer will get to keep any big RMP payment.
These people are all smiling because it would appear none of them has yet figured out that, after the first year, the bankable and predictable aspects of RMP will be big premiums, low payouts, and a good chance of being absolutely worse off by being in the program in the first place.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON
Caps are not needed as you say, because of the claw-back clause.
So RMP is free this year? I haven't seen the fine print but you can bet that signing up means a multi-year commitment of a multi-year exclusion.
RMP fees for a 40% program and then in 2012:
Must enroll in AgriStability- more fees to Agricorp with claw-backs.
Must enroll in Agri-Production- more fees to Agricorp with clawbacks.
Must have Premise ID.- to capture all producers for liability issues.
Sounds like McGuinty found a way to pay down the provincial debt with farmers fees under the guise of a "support program".
Who is McGuinty really supporting?
Rmp and everything will not solve our problems, we need Audits of omafra to make our civil servants accountable.Farmers have passed audits at annual meetings but our boards refuse to demand audits and staff wont agree because they might want a job with the government some day, burn no bridges.
The only way to get some legal hounest Goverment ruling farmers and citizensis audits
WORNING! AUDITS with facts of non accountability with posible misdeads could csuse OMAFRA, Agricorp CEOs,and management of farm organizationstobe questioned on poor records performance,law suits,etc .
It just might show the double standard of farmers paying $10000.00 per acre land purchases, at the same sime Onatrio green Belt farmers are being screwed by all
Seems like this is the second time in 15 years Stephen has advised of the shortcomimings and legal crossfire of programs . This time the program was designed by farmers and farm organizations. Therefore farm orgs wont do anything , what ahell of a mess and cluster. Something doesnt sound in the best and correct but nothing will be done .
You cant get accountable results from OMfara
You cant get accountable results from farm organizations
Is there a solution for farmers?
The last really-botched program, was the use of the P2/P2 inventory pricing model in the earliest AIDA/OWFRP programs.
Even though I personally helped get resolutions calling for the end of P2/P2 pricing passed at both OFA, and the former Ontario Corn Producers Association, both organizations said, and did, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and never-ever did do anything.
P2/P2 ended seven years later when Federal Ag Minister, Chuck Strahl, ended it, and if my information is correct, Ontario went along with Strahl's decision most-grudgingly.
It's even worse this time around because no farm organization wants to lose face by admitting they were part of the design team for this albatross, and, in addition, since the feds aren't in RMP, and never will be, we can't rely on them to rescue the program, even seven years from now.
Stephen Thompson, clinton ON
Even though I personally helped get resolutions calling for the end of P2/P2 pricing passed at both OFA, and the former Ontario Corn Producers Association, both organizations said, and did, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and never-ever did do anything.
our organizations dysfunctonal?
lf the board dirctors of OFA and ocpa did nothing why did not farmers vote them out
It's even worse this time around because no farm organization wants to lose face by admitting they were part of the design team for this albatross, and, in addition, since the feds aren't in RMP, and never will be, we can't rely on them to rescue the program, even seven years from now.
Looks like we have worse than nothing for many years of farm programs. You hit the problem dead on so why is farmers allowing our legal elected people to continue this predictable path?
Stephen I have never heard you comment on the subject of complete management audits of omafra. Why?
OMAFRA is simply carrying out the wishes of the Minister and/or the Premier and his advisors, and given the limitations inherent in any organization staffed primarily by people who have never been, and will never be, employed anywhere else, OMAFRA staff are doing as good, or as poor, a job as can be expected.
OMAFRA, therefore, is merely implementing, and running, the policies decided by others, and we get to "audit" the designers either out of, or into, office each election.
A complete management audit of OMAFRA would, therefore, be pointless because, as a top-down organization, the only audit that matters, or would ever matter, is the political audit right at the top.
However, that being said, there's no way any Minister could ever have been incompetent enough to design P2/P2 - and since that had to have been staff, the only thing a management audit would uncover is that many staff are (or were) technically incompetent.
And big deal, we already know that - why waste an audit to find out both what we already know, as well as what won't ever change?
Stephen Thompson, Clinton ON
I guess Clinton was too far from the audit truths of e-health and the discovered public waste. There is also the issue of agriculture as a "public trust" and the unaddressed food sovereignty issues. A correctly worded audit mandate could not hurt to identify what we already know about in-adept ministers staff and lifer bureaucrats.
A whole "agricultural ministry operating as a public trust" (read as public money too, same as any other public trust, police services, health, education) with no goals is never measured without audits.
The concept of agriculture as a public trust, and the concept of food sovereignty, are both nonsense, and are issues no responsible auditor would touch with a ten-foot pole.
Again, what's the point of an audit when OMAFRA seems to be doing what they are being asked to do? - the only relevant issue is whether what they are being asked to do, is fair, sound, and reasonable, and we get to decide that every four years.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON
You are not correct, Displaying 1 - 10 of 4724105 for "OMAFRA as a public trust" Do your homework before decreeing a worthless incorrect opinion.
When farmers in the mail, over the radio, get information from the agriculture related press, farmers question no advanced reporting of how when,where and why farm problems are no solved ? Farmers see the press bombarding farmers with advertising, farmers have very little direct pay subscriptions.
Economic and structural problems of farmers continuing year after year and few workable solutions, ONE HAS TO ASK ARE THERE ANY SOLUTIONS
Here is the perfect chance for BETTER FARMING TO DO A STORY by asking qualified experts from U of T and U of Western Ontario, lawyers bar of Ontario, Ombudsman of Ontario,if Omafra, agriculture,farmers has any element of being a " Public Trust" and if there are rights to a public trust
Farmers are starting to wise up and have questions how the press makes its income and cash flow? Does it have balance helping or stagnating farmers?
Judging another point of view to be worthless without presenting supporting a shred of factual discernment is a paradoxical statement.
Our own government, especially OMAFRA, have conscientiously deployed a level of proficiency in "knowledge filtration" in regards to all things of the "soil".
OMAFRA, it would appear, is suppressing evidence of the fact that Agriculture is a "Public Trust" by inherently altering esoteric rights that farmers possess.
Our presiding government is deathly afraid of a full out audit of OMAFRA.
Any Leading candidate for the next election that promises a complete comprehensive Audit of OMAFRA will garner huge support in rural areas.
The claim that agriculture is a public trust is simply political pandering to those gullible souls in agriculture who believe themselves, and what they do, to be more important than what is actually the case.
If I was a politician, I'd fall all over myself to boast that agriculture is a public trust, but none of them believe a word of it, and neither do I.
Stephen Thompson, Clinton, ON
OMAFRA Search Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 1513767 for "public trust"
You can use more search keywords to narrow down your search results.
1. Ontario Ombudsman - The ABCs of Rebuilding Public Trust:...
...2009 / The ABCs of Rebuilding Public Trust: Restoring Accountability to Ontario...Agencies The ABCs of Rebuilding Public Trust: Restoring Accountability to Ontario...another reminder of how quickly the public trust can be destroyed, and how long...
The concept of agriculture as a public trust, and the concept of food sovereignty, are both nonsense, and are issues no responsible auditor would touch with a ten-foot pole.
Still seems this governmnet, and all those before the, and likely all those to come have zero plan for the future of agriculture in Ontario. If one of them could answer the question what will agriculture in Ontario look like in 25 years- who will be farming, about how many farmers will there be and what kind of income will they have I would be amazed.
Would really like to see someone, anyone - stand up and say here is our plan and here is the outcome we are attempting to create. As it is this program and many others are simply an exercise in re-arranging deck chairs.
Would really like to see someone, anyone - stand up and say here is our plan and here is the outcome we are attempting to create. As it is this program and many others are simply an exercise in re-arranging deck chairs.
very true statement
The optics in advance of an election is always about who can cheer the loudest facts be damned. This motley crew of cheer leaders is not very convincing or inspiring consolation for the reality of the hard working people the details of the program are intended to safeguard.
What will the spin be in a year when the accounting worlds advice is to stay away and the enrollment numbers continue to decline? Hope they will remember this picture of the gleeful not so trim cheerleaders all looking and doing something different.
Of course they are clapping, laughing and cheering on stage about the RMP.
The program is nothing but a short term advance of other monies but we have to pay a fee for the advance.
Recycling Money Policy.
Can't get any greener than that.
Maybe we are just as far ahead with out RMP as hog guys have too enroll as SEW,Weaner or F-F producers so a lots have a mix of arrangements for selling hogs will they only "maybe" collect on 1 and nothing on others. As our ag minister tossed out pork bd. maybe she would do that too all "programs" as sometimes you have too question subsidizing farmers with several million dollars in assets.As farmers complain about how hard it is financially they are paying $10k acre for land and $400k for combines either things are not that bad or they are making gravely bad financial decisions in investing that much more in there farm.And if Tin Hudak keeps a low profile and doesn't screw up he will with out a doubt be the next premier.
For the Liberal Party to roll out this pointless program tells me 2 things:
Either they are bankrupt of true leadership when it comes to agriculture:
or they purposely recycled the former dysfunctional program to try and redeem a shred of faith from farmers.
RMP
Reckless but Mostly Pointless
Post new comment