Just Fiddlin...?

Print Posts   
| | Comments (3)
Agriculture has been making headlines over the last few weeks and months, as higher food prices and soaring fertilizer stock prices have focused the country and the world's attention on the production of food. The issues are important - rapidly rising commodity prices, for instance, are making it extremely difficult for the world's poor and very poor to get enough to eat. While attention has to be paid to these global issues, attention also needs to be paid to what are clearly domestic issues - issues that not only threaten the competitiveness of the Canadian agricultural sector but also affect our ability to be a reliable and secure food supplier.

In this and next week's blog entry, we will sketch out six issues that we believe require attention from policy makers and thinkers both inside and outside of government. These issues, we believe, have not received sufficient attention by economists and policy analysts; given their importance, it is our view that the returns to additional policy analysis in any one of these areas could be very large. Since this posting does not provide enough space to deal with the issues in depth, we can only sketch out each issue; a follow-up blog entry in a couple of week's time will provide an estimate of the potential benefits associated with properly aligned policy changes. We will also return to each of these issues in subsequent blog entries for a more in-depth examination.

1. Rail Transportation - This issue is arguably the most important problem facing the western Canadian grain industry today. With the exception of the railways, virtually everyone in the grains industry - from the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) to small independent marketers of specialty crops - agrees that service provision and car allocation is poor (see link); evidence to support these views is provided from numerous Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) rulings (see link) and the Grain Monitoring Program (see link). The direct cost of poor service provision is added costs for farmers and shippers; the indirect cost - which can also be large - is the loss in Canada's reputation as a reliable grain supplier. While there is hope that Bill C8 (formerly Bill C58) will deal with some of the problems, greater attention to the underlying problem - namely the power of the railways - is required.

2. Commodity Markets - The meeting on April 22, 2008 held by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission to investigate whether futures markets are properly performing their risk management and price discovery roles (see webcast link) highlights the importance of this issue. The direct cost to farmers and agri-business firms of poorly functioning futures markets, as well as the indirect cost associated with poorer market signals, is potentially enormous.

3. Ethanol and Biofuels - The recent rise in grain and oil prices, and the subsequent lack of interest in investing in ethanol plants, suggest that Canada's policy towards biofuel production needs a major rethink. Given that that economic costs of the ethanol programs in the United States are in the billions of dollars (see, for instance, Bruce Gardner. 2007. "Fuel Ethanol Subsidies and Farm Price Support," Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization 5(2): Article 4), the development of a well thought out policy on this highly visible issue would be very beneficial.

Next week we will discuss the Canadian Grain Commission, Safety Nets, and Innovation and R&D. We welcome your thoughts on any or all of these issues (as well as those we have not mentioned).

This blog entry was co-authored by Murray Fulton and Richard Gray. To read additional Illative Blog entries or to leave comments on this entry, please visit www.illativeblog.ca. The Illative Blog is an initiative by the Knowledge Impact in Society (KIS) Project based out of the University of Saskatchewan. Email correspondence can be sent to kis.project@usask.ca

3 Comments

Carl Lynn said:

Thanks for looking at the bigger picture of issues facing our agricultural industry.
While we conduct analysis of economic sustainability or viability of transportation, costs of production, biofuel efficencies of production, etc., we are missing the optics of what we are undertaking through the eyes and understandings of many people outside of North America. The optics of using food crops to produce energy needs are negative outside of North America.
Non-North Americans are becoming agitated that we would use crops to produce energy needs for NA needs while those outside of NA use much less energy and are living close to their last meal. The optics are going to creat worsening perceptions of who we are and what our attitudes are towards countries who struggle with food production needs. What impact will this have on our future marketing of out products?

Just a thought.
Carl Lynn.

Red Williams said:

Thanks guys. This exactly the debate I wanted....Red

Hello - A grain transportation review is necessary. This is the policy of APAS.

I am interested in how the stock markets affect farmgate prices? Actually just a question to start using this blog.

This blog is a great source for me to monitor Agribussiness Policy in Saskatchewan. Thanks

Adam

Leave a comment

this entry

This page contains a single entry by Murray Fulton and Richard Gray published on May 1, 2008 9:50 AM.

Commentary Reflection - Part II was the previous entry in this blog.

Just Fiddlin...? (Part 2) is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

links