Commentary Reflection
This week's blog entry is different from that of previous weeks. Typically, we post a new entry each Thursday on a policy related issue that affects the future of agriculture and rural communities. The inferences and perspectives offered in each posting serve as a starting point for discussion and comments.
Although our blog subscribers receive e-mail notification about the original postings, they do not receive subsequent notifications about the comments that are posted (the exception is if they have made a comment on the same entry and have asked to receive an e-mail each time a new comment is made). So this week we wanted to have an entry solely dedicated to some of the comments that have been made to the blog posts.In this entry Richard Gray discusses the need for public research to be revitalized in order to maximize innovation through R&D. Alvin Ulrich posted a comment that poses several questions that attempt to get at the root of why funding priorities change. He states: "Is it always politicians who set the agenda? Is it the background of new staff that are hired (many no longer have a farm background or any connection to farming)? [Do they] assume someone else will do the fundamental research...and that their department should only fund very applied value added research?"
Doug McKell's comment offers what he feels are three things necessary to revitalize the research branch: a significant increase in funding; the involvement of key producer and producer groups in program planning and reviews; and a strengthening of the focus on economics associated with research.
If you would like to leave a comment on this entry, click here
Comment to the post titled "Rural-Urban Symbiosis"
In her entry Rose Olfert describes how rural and urban economies rely on each other, and how urban-based growth is one way to achieve rural growth. The interdependence between rural and urban serves as a reason for changes to policy and governance that would allow rural areas to take advantage of urban-based growth. Clinton Monchuk commented that changing lifestyle trends and advances in communications technologies are the main reasons for increasing the appeal of country living. Clinton feels that for the most part policy development will continue to focus on urban centres because "policy makers are, to a high degree, politicians who need to keep voters satisfied and they get the biggest bag for their buck through policies that promote urban infrastructure, living and social programs."
If you would like to leave a comment on this entry, click here
Comment to the post titled "Farm Organizations...is a Future Futile?"
In this entry Lynette Keyowski offers perspectives on why some farm organizations have been experiencing internal struggles in recent years. Lynette infers that the root of the problem is that groups do not adhere to proper governance models. The reasons for this failure include the way in which board members are elected and the restriction of board positions to the membership base rather than bringing in outside expertise. Paul Beingessner suggests a lack of training and professionalism as one reason for the troubles that groups like APAS have experienced. Paul also stated that compensation might be too low to entice farmers to run for delegate positions; the result is delegates who are chosen because they are the only ones willing to put their names forward.
If you would like to leave a comment on this entry, click here
If you or someone you know wishes to receive Illative Blog e-mail notifications, have them send us an email at: kis.project@usask.ca with the Subject line "Illative Blog Email Notification Sign-up".
Leave a comment