Provincial interventions to support NGO programming
Bring family members back to the farm
Provincial interventions to support NGO programming
Since increasing new entrants and improving intergenerational farm transfer is a relatively slow process, Efficiency stage strategies must focus on ramping up what is already in place in order to increase numbers in a timely way, given existing challenges. In general, resources should be devoted to established initiatives with viable expansion possibilities, although in some provinces activity is quite low, so more start up attention is in order. At later stages of transition, a greater focus on systemic coverage and program integration will be the priority.
Much of what is needed is already weakly in place (relative to the extent of the problem). As discussed, the greatest need is ramping up programming for new farmers without farm backgrounds. Although a number of provinces are providing modest support to NGOs / farm organizations operating programs for these new farmers, these organizations spend inordinate time securing funding and resources from a wide range of public and private funders to be viable. Their limited reach reduces how widely they can have an impact and the scale of their programming. Program designs are sometimes suboptimal because not all desired elements can be funded.
Provincial governments are best positioned to accelerate new farmer succession by providing a few core functions at this stage:
- A new farmer co-ordinator in the agriculture department, with responsibilities beyond traditional farm succession
- A dedicated pot of money to support NGOs and reduce their need for continuous fundraising, and an allocation of funding to pay internship stipends for qualifying farms and programs; ideally this would be part of the next Agricultural Policy Framework funding mechanism, but given short timelines for negotiating a new deal (ministers of agriculture hope to seal a deal by July 2022 for 2023 implementation), it is more likely this will be funded outside the new arrangements and then can be integrated after the 2023-2028 deal expires
- Brokering institutional supports for delivery of new farmer programming, including access to facilities and expertise
- Disseminating information through their networks to enhance program participation
The central idea of these interventions is to enhance the following current efforts.
New farmer training
There are many new farmer training models being employed, For a scan of different types of new farmer training programs, see Shreiner et al. (2017). Quebec has the most robust history of ecological and new farmer training, for over at least 40 years using federal, provincial, municipal, and institutional funding - often training money related to employment - to offer courses. Many of these training programs have been attached to CEGEPs and agricultural technology institutes. Outside of Quebec, however, links to institutions - and the stability they can provide to help ramp up program delivery by NGOs - are typically more tenuous. The provincial governments are well placed to encourage collaboration among related training bodies and the NGOs with expertise in new farmer delivery.
Internships
Many agro-ecological farmers rely on informal internships to gain agricultural experience in Canada (Knibb et al., 2012; Ekers et al. 2015). Some are organized programs, for example, the CRAFT network in Ontario, SOIL nationally, and globally WWOOF. This reflects in part the current limitations of institutional training. Agricultural schools struggle to design farm programs for those who don't come from farms, and are typically weak on practical training for that demographic because they don't have to think about it for those who already have farm backgrounds. But internships tend to be exclusive to certain demographics, particularly those with the means to engage in minimal to no income for a period of time, and this raises critical ethical and legal questions regarding employment conditions (Levkoe, 2018).
As such, the situation is also connected to the wider problem of farm labour (see Goal 8, Labour Force Development). Many small farms with interns can not afford to pay sufficiently and living conditions can be very basic, which limits the appeal and value and of such programs. Internship stipends provided by the provincial government and passed through training and internship organizations would help redress this problem.
Farm incubator programs
While the US has over 75 farm incubators (FarmStart, 2016), according to the National Incubator Farm Training Initiative and other sources there appear to be only 6 currently operating incubator farms/market gardens in Canada: Just Food Start-Up Farm Program in Ottawa, Ontario; McVean Incubator Farm in Brampton, ON; Ignatius Centre, Guelph, Ontario; Kwantlen Polytechnic University Farm Incubator Program Richmond, British Columbia (2 sites); Plate-forme Agricole de l’Ange-Gardien in L’Ange-Gardien, and l’Incubateur d’entreprises agroalimentaires de Mirabel, Quebec. At least two, McVean and Ignatius Centre have scaled down from earlier periods, likely associated with the demise of a key NGO working in this domain, FarmStart. A few other incubators appear to have closed their doors.
Farm incubators provide a semi-permanent opportunity to develop farming businesses. They offer access to land, equipment, resources, and training opportunities. A common definition is a “land-based multi-grower project[s] that provide training and technical assistance to aspiring and beginning farmers” (Agudelo & Overton, 2013:7). Just as with other types of business incubators, they provide resources and services that are generally difficult for new entrants to access. The aim is to provide new farms a better opportunity to succeed, with a well conceived business plan, leads on accessing land and greater likelihood of favourable reception by lenders (Lelekacs et al., 2014).
There is considerable variability in their operating structure, financing and program design, but in Canada none receive significant support from the state and farm incubators are not a core part of federal, provincial, territorial renewal programs. Although analysis suggests integration with farm extension programs would be appropriate (Lelekacs et al., 2014), this has not been taken up in Canada. The most significant institutional support comes from the Kwantlen Polytechnic operation. All agriculture schools and community colleges with agriculture programs should offer one, based on the Kwantlen model. Start up support should be provided by provincial governments. They could be operated by third party NGOs. Funding once established could by provided by the institution, fees paid by participants and private foundations.
Regional New Farmer Management Clubs (FarmStart, 2016)
Quebec has for years used the agri-environmental club model as an equivalent approach to environmental farm planning. It has the advantage of being more collective and action oriented because it groups together farmers with similar interests. The model is used only sporadically in the rest of Canada but a number of NGOs have dabbled with supports for the approach. They do require facilitation in the development and startup phases, so NGO / farm organization staff support is needed.
Landowner share / rent / sell programs (land link)
Similarly, land link programs operate on shoestring budgets and don't necessarily have the reach to engage sufficient numbers of retiring farmers. The Quebec model, ARterre is more effective, but as an interim measure, provinces could provide more funding and information to NGOs operating programs.
Bring family members back to the farm
Clearly the most immediately available pool of succession farmers for large enterprises are family members raised on farms who have decided on other careers in other locations. Although some do return after spending 10-20 years in other careers, the number that do so is insufficient for the scale of the problem, and the time gap before returning is frequently too long.
This site is about valuing farming and food system work, which long term can contribute to better "successor identity" (cf. Fischer and Burton, 2014). Many of the proposals are designed to counter the current discourse that food system work is less valuable than other work, and also to improve financial viability and quality of life. Over the longer term, these efforts will hopefully increase the number of family members who continue farming, but some short term stimulus is needed. Related to this is the critical importance of good transition plans that progressively engage and transfer responsibility to the next generation.
There is some evidence from a survey of young farmers in the US that student loan forgiveness can ease the transition into farming (Hansen et al., 2015). New York’s Young Farmers Loan Forgiveness Incentive Program exists for that purpose and provides forgiveness up to $50,000 within a specified period. A Kansas program links loan repayment to settlement in specified rural counties.
Both Canada and most provinces have student loan programs and a number offer repayment assistance and interest suspension programs but not usually debt forgiveness until 10-15 years after completion of university, except for medical personnel working in remote locations. A federal program forgives up to $40,000 of a federal loan component over 5 years. BC has a program for those willing to work in public facilities or in underserved communities.The same concept should be applied now to farming as an incentive to encourage young family members to return to the farm.
In the near term, such efforts may be more successful in less remote locations where other employment and community engagement opportunities are stronger for young people and their partners, all of which can help with farm establishment. Once the merits of the program are revealed, it can be tailored more to locations more distant from larger centres.
