![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() Business Risk ManagementSupport for this component is heavily qualified, with many expressing concerns regarding the APF's lack of detail on funding and program development. That said, participants appreciated the APF's acknowledgement that agriculture involves special risks. Areas of SupportStakeholders support the notion of national programs, although this support comes with conditions:
The APF's recognition of farm diversification is welcomed, as many feel that current programs penalize multi-commodity farms. The APF's focus on predictable, stable and simple programs is also welcome. There is support for maintaining and enhancing some existing programs. Specifically, participants feel that Net Income Stabalization Account (NISA) would benefit from additional top-ups and crop protection insurance should be made more accessible. Areas of ConcernParticipants want the APF to be clearer on its definition of a “farm”, particularly for the purposes of program eligibility and allocating funding. Many question whether the overall objective of this component should be to mitigate business risk or to support a broader social policy. There is also significant concern that safety nets could be compromised by the APF. The international dimension of agricultural policy was an area of concern for many. Any new policy should comply with Canada's trade obligations and be defended in trade negotiations. Producers stressed that compensation for trade injury should also be addressed. It is strongly felt that eligibility for risk management and safety net payments should not be linked to compliance with other APF components, such as food safety and environmental protection. Representatives from supply-managed sectors believe that the best risk management tool is supply management.
|
|||||||||
![]() |
|