I think I'm slowly understanding the issue of core funding (or lack of) for non-government agriculture organizations. The solutions: I'm not sure.
A little over a week ago I had the opportunity to travel to a workshop convened by Soil Conservation Council of Canada that involved farmers and their conservation organizations from all across Canada. This was the first time total representation was achieved from across the country with a spirited delegation from Newfoundland in attendance. I'm always comforted that when you get a chance to hear from others like yourselves you find out you're not alone. Our problems are similar to their problems and our successes are being achieved elsewhere from similar efforts. The biggest issue, by far, is how to get the funds for non-government organizations to keep working.
We did get a chance to vent a bit at this workshop. One of my colleagues grabbed me Thursday evening and while whisking me towards the other end of the hall he informed me he had found someone who works with the federal Canadian Adaptation Rural Development Strategies (CARDS) program. I didn't need him to hold my arm after finding that out. The CARDS program was suggested to us as the most likely source of funds that would keep the SSCA going after March 2000. As we have been desperately searching for adequate funding, I solicited the help of our partners in conservation, PFRA and Sask Ag & Food, for their input and help in preparing a CARDS proposal. We spent the good part of three months putting together a proposal that we thought fit nicely into the goals of the CARDS environmental sustainability component. After all the numerous drafts were approved we sent the package off to have it reviewed by the CARDS committee. After patiently waiting for a few weeks we received a letter from CARDS. They completely rejected our proposal. Apparently we are not new and innovative and their policy is such that they do not support core funding. Not that we ever mentioned the word core in our proposal but, that's what the committee perceived it to request.
I don't buy the argument that we are not new and innovative. We have been promoting the same concept, low disturbance seeding, for a few years but the level of adoption is only at 30% of total seeded acres in Saskatchewan. Couple that with the fact that the technology and agronomics associated with this technique are constantly changing and I think there are a lot of new, innovative things going on with the low disturbance practice. Carbon sequestration through soil sinks is a good example.
So core funding is the biggest problem. And that is pretty much what this nice lady from Ottawa confirmed. Core funding seems to elicit the same response from most bureaucrats. They put their hands over their ears and keep repeating, don't ask for core funding. And when you talk to other non-government organizations they all have the same problem; getting the funds to keep their people working. Core funding is the most pressing need of non-government organizations and it is the one thing that governments will absolutely not provide.
So if core funding is not allowed what is the suggested solution? Well, it was suggested to us by the CARDS people that we should submit to them other applications on a project-specific basis. Let's think about this process. They like what you have accomplished but you can't have funds that allow you to have experienced people in place who have developed and conducted successful projects and who could develop and conduct further successful projects. You have to lay off your people, come up with an idea for a project, submit a proposal and when you receive your acceptance notice go out and try to find people who have the expertise to do the job. You then have to train them (because the ones you have employed in the past have likely found other work) and hope they will be accepted by the people to whom you are delivering the message or product. Apparently these people will not become confused when they see new people at their door every couple of years. Then after your project is completed you lay your people off and go off in search of another program with funds that will allow you to go out and hire and train a whole new group of people who will conduct your next project. Sound like an efficient process to you? This idea would seem to work for organizations or government departments or universities that have a core of people who can deliver short term programs because they have funds or stable revenues from other sources. For organizations like ours, and many others across Canada, it's a nightmare and the kiss of death.
I guess I just don't understand the thinking process behind these government programs. My thinking comes from years of running a farm and in private business. In these operations if a business provided me with years of effective service at an acceptable cost, I would keep going back to them. I may check around to see if they were competitive but unless they went in a totally different direction than they had in the past, I think they would get my money. Why contract with someone else who has no track record and no people expertise in this business? With that thinking in mind, here's my suggestion for a really good government program. If you have a goal to achieve environmental sustainability (which all governments have, its listed in their state of the environment reports) and you have allocated funds to achieve that goal and you know of a group that has a proven, ten year track record of conducting successful and cost efficient environmental sustainability programs but you know they need funding to conduct these types of programs; then wouldn't it make sense to approach this group and suggest to work together in an effort to develop an acceptable plan to achieve your goal and then give them the mandate and resources to do the job? It just sounds too logical to me.