Commission on the Future of Agriculture

Pierre-Yvon Bégin

“People will be able to express themselves freely”— Jean Pronovost

As president of the new Commission on the Future of Quebec’s Agriculture and Agri-food Sector , Jean Pronovost is not afraid that groups or individuals will disrupt the public consultation to be held in 26 municipalities.

“People will be able to express themselves freely,” he promised last week at a press conference to publicly launch the work of the commission. The statement was reassuring to agricultural producers who still have bitter memories of the Bureau d’audiences publiques (BAPE) hearings regarding pork production. After meeting with several pressure groups, he says he is convinced that no one will try to monopolize the microphone.

“Everybody is insisting that we must have a genuine debate—that we must talk about the real issues,” he acknowledged. “What is most interesting is that many of these groups take advantage of my visit with them to tell me that they have pushed hard for this forum to take place, and that it is thanks to them that the government was persuaded to hold it. They are, in a way, claiming credit for it.”

Following the publication of a consultation document in November, the Commission will begin its public meetings in 16 regions of Quebec in January. In each city visited, they will stay two or three days to hear groups and individuals who wish to give their opinions. Pronovost indicated that representatives of various groups would also be invited to take part in round table discussions on specific themes. If these themes could be tied to the particularities of each region visited, they should necessarily include the problems of future farmers, the needs of young farmers, the impact of changing demographics on rural communities and the potential of new farming practices and new crops. “We strongly feel the need,” he added, “to promote dialogue and exchange that will permit people to go much further than merely presenting their opinions to the commissioners.”

Pronovost also introduced Mario Dumais to the media, one of two commissioners who will accompany him. Pascale Tremblay was absent due to illness. Mario Dumais explained that the Commission would be an opportunity to explore avenues of sustainable development that are economically viable, respectful of the environment and socially acceptable.

“We will be known for our open-mindedness,” he added, in response to some groups that criticized his nomination because of previous positions he had taken, notably in favour of genetically modified organisms (GMO). “I am very aware,” he affirmed, “that I have not been named to the Commission to endorse any particular opinion that I may have expressed during my professional career.”

Greenpeace, a group categorically opposed to GMOs, welcomes the Commission, stating that the present system of agriculture is a major cause of environmental problems. The group hopes that the Commission will recommend that Quebec should become a GMO-free zone. For his part, Laurent Pellerin, president of the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) writes, “It is imperative that the process encourages respectful exchange of ideas, open and constructive, while taking account of its global context, as much regional, provincial and Canadian, as international.” In his opinion, the Commission seems to be off to a good start.

No progress on agriculture at WTO public forum

Jean-Claude Gagné

“The Doha round of negotiations is not necessarily dead, but it would take a lot more time to complete it.” That’s the verdict from renowned Canadian international negotiations consultant, Peter Clark, describing the delicate situation of the diplomatic talks at the World Trade Organization (WTO). Clark was speaking at a public forum of the WTO held in Geneva on September 25 and 26 2006, under the theme “What WTO for the 21 ^st Century?”

The prospects have not improved much concerning agriculture since the impasse reached last July. “If negotiations re-started now, we would be facing the same unacceptable conditions that existed at the moment they failed last summer,” declared UPA President Laurent Pellerin, from Geneva. “We are no farther ahead on supply management or on the question of sensitive and special products, which were practically ignored during the two-day forum. There is still nothing guaranteed for Canadian farmers, or for farmers from Europe and developing countries, for that matter. Few people are counting on any big breaks for farmers, including the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).”

At the same time, everyone hopes for a re-opening of negotiations in order to come to some agreement, even if it is a minimal one, Pellerin noted. The impasse will not disappear until the United States make concessions on their domestic support policy and until the European Union allows more access to their markets. Presently, these two giants are in a deadlock.

The Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA) took advantage of the forum to present the Canadian position, which supports supply management as well as export production. On one hand, Canada follows the WTO rules concerning export markets and gives access to five per cent of its markets, as required. On the other hand, Canada does not export agriculture products from sectors under supply management (milk, poultry, eggs). “What more can we do?” exclaimed CFA president, Bob Friesen. The executive director of the Canadian Pork Council, Martin Price, explained that the simple application of the present WTO rules would permit Canadian pork producers to gain sales opportunities without disrupting other markets. A small opening in the lucrative European market, going from 0.05 per cent to only two per cent, would almost double Canadian exports—a revelation that surprised many people.

“Why are you afraid of us? What more do you want in order to come to an agreement? The countries insisting on an agreement must make concessions.” Pellerin also added that he appreciated the words of the Japanese Minister of Agriculture, who was explaining that his country is only 40 per cent self-sufficient in agricultural products, that 30 per cent of his farmers are 65 years old or more and live off 1.7 hectares.

DEALING WITH STRESS IN FARMING

Resources are available

According to a survey done by the firm Western Opinion Research, conducted with 1100 Canadian farmers, less than half of them were familiar with the resources available to them for dealing with stress and mental health. “The results clearly show that the causes of stress in rural areas are much different than for the general population”, explained Marcel Hacault, Director of the Canadian Agriculture Safety Association (CASA).

Stress factors

Farmers identified three main causes of stress in agriculture: a poor harvest or production, government policies and farm finances. This survey also revealed that farmers prefer one-on-one meetings to talk about stress or mental health rather than participating in group sessions or getting information by telephone. In general, they do not think it is important to speak to someone from their own region about stress or mental health, but they do believe, however, that it is extremely important that the person with whom they share their problems is knowledgeable about agriculture.

About 20 percent of Canadian farmers have spoken to a health professional concerning stress and mental health. The survey did not ask the respondents to comment on their use of peer counselling. This type of service would meet the requirement of having a good knowledge and understanding of farmers’ concerns. However, a peer counsellor’s understanding must be complemented by specific training in this area, including competence in re-orientation, suicide prevention and a good knowledge of the issues regarding farm debt.

A majority of farmers indicated that in case of stress, they would consult their family doctor, a professional dealing with mental health or stress reduction, or a priest or other religious figure.

A majority of farmers prefer individual dealings with their health professional rather than group sessions or telephone help-lines.

Over the last several months, the UPA has been conducting an information campaign to better inform health-care givers on the realities of rural life and of farmers’ needs in particular. This campaign has been successful in sensitized regional health and social service agencies to this phenomenon, which has seen unprecedented increases over the last several years. Under the theme “Psychological distress, we can talk about it”, the UPA’s campaign should help us all realize that mental health concerns us all.

Pierre Rhéame

The Canadian Wheat Board could lose supply management

Thierry Larivière

The Harper government’s firm intention to end the Canadian Wheat Board’s (CWB) monopoly is becoming more and more apparent.

The first real meeting between the CWB board of directors and the Minister of Agriculture, Chuck Strahl, finally took place on August 25. The minister had spoken briefly to the board on two occasions, but without dealing with the question of the “single desk” monopoly. It has not been possible to come to any agreement on this point and the minister has maintained his opposition all along.

On one side, the government has clearly refused to maintain the present formula, in order to give grain producers a free choice. “The CWB recently submitted its proposal, entitled ‘Harvesting Opportunity.’ This position, which continues to defend the monopoly, does not reflect the position of the government,” declared Minister Strahl, who is also responsible for the CWB, in his August monthly chronicle. He repeated his remarks directly to the CWB. Strahl was reiterating his party’s promises concerning “marketing choices” and on wheat transportation. According to the minister, the CWB can continue to prosper as one of the marketing agents for grain. The Australian and Ontario marketing boards were cited as examples.

The minister recently formed a task force on the implementation of mixed marketing for wheat and barley, to deal with possible transition difficulties in going towards new marketing methods for wheat (dual market). Furthermore, Ken Motiuk, an ardent defender of free-choice marketing, was named to the CWB’s board of directors. In short, the minority Conservative government seems to be making a number of administrative decisions in order to succeed in keeping its promise to break the CWB’s monopoly and open the marketing of grain to other businesses.

On the other side, the Wheat Board has presented its “Harvesting Opportunity” development plan. Not only does the outline maintain its monopoly, but it proposes a greater independence from government, as well as the creation of a subsidiary, for-profit company to invest in the wheat handling and processing industry. In short, it is a proposal similar to the Colbex example for cull-cattle in Quebec. “The new approach chosen by our farmer-controlled board of directors, is based on ideas first discussed in 1998 and consists of yielding the ownership of the CWB to Prairie farmers,” declared Ken Ritter, president of CWB’s board of directors.

Maureen Fitzhenry, media relations manager for the CWB, does not entirely accept the comparison with the Australian Wheat Board (AWB), which continues to exercise a monopoly on exports, even if the domestic market has been converted to free market. She explains that Australia is an island that does not have wheat-producing neighbours like we do. It would be much more difficult for Canada to maintain a free domestic market and also prohibit American producers from selling to Canadian buyers. It should also be noted that the AWB grain elevators and silos were sold to Australian producers who own class A and B shares. It is therefore different than in Canada where the facilities are owned, for the most part, by the four multi-nationals who control over 70 per cent of the world’s grain markets. The large cooperatives in the West have, in effect, disappeared.

The battle will likely continue in Ottawa, with Conservative MP Gerry Ritz’s bill, which proposes the Australian model—but Canadian wheat producers will have to wait for the opposition parties’ reactions to the question. Many observers expected that the WTO negotiations would seal the fate of the CWB, but it does not seem to be the case for the time being.

In the meantime, up-coming elections for half of the CWB regional directors will take place between September and December. Many observers see this election as a test between the supporters of the monopoly and those for free choice (free market or dual market). The CWB however, believes that only a referendum of all producers can terminate its exclusive role in the supply management of western wheat and barley.

Only MRCs have the right to expropriate for snowmobile trails

Jean-Claude Gagné

In spite of its major contribution to the economy, snowmobiling does not have unrestrictive rights in rural areas. The Quebec Superior Court has, in fact, ruled that local municipalities do not have the right to expropriate in order to create snowmobile trails. According to Justice Jocelyn Verrier, this is the exclusive right of Municipalités régionales de comté (MRC). Therefore he dismissed the case of the Municipality of Saint-Zénon in the Lanaudière region, which had passed a by-law to expropriate land from two local residents, Carmen Gignac and Allan Payrard, to create a four-kilometre recreation trail for snowmobiles.

“The creation of recreational paths or trails to practice sports, such as snowmobiling and all-terrain vehicles (ATV) fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the MRC, in a similar fashion as creating a regional park,” concluded Justice Verrier.

The judge also emphasized that the decision of Saint-Zénon’s municipal council did not respect the “public interest” criteria. “The proposed trail is not primarily intended as a foot or cycling path for the benefit of all Saint-Zénon citizens, but rather for visiting snowmobilers and in the interest of a few businesses,” he declared. It is not known if Saint-Zénon will appeal the case.

Danger?

Does this acknowledgement of the right of an MRC to expropriate for the establishment of recreation pathways put farmers, who have given a right-of-way for snowmobiles and ATV’S on their land, in a delicate situation?

“The Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) has already expressed its opposition to any expropriation of agricultural land, especially in the green zone, whether it is done by a local municipality or an MRC,” declared Denis Bilodeau, the 2 ^nd vice-president. The Quebec government seems to have understood this message to encourage collaboration rather than expropriation when locating these trails.”

The Quebec government passed a law modifying the Act respecting off-highway vehicles in June 2006 in order to better control ATVs and snowmobiles. A departmental order should soon define the primary arteries of the inter-regional network, which were identified following consultations with snowmobile clubs. The Tables de concertations régionales (regional discussion tables), which also include representatives from the UPA and the wood industry, will have to agree on a more detailed network of trails for off-road vehicle travel. These regional groups will have three years to complete their work.

The president of the Table de concertation régionale concerning off-road vehicles for the Laurentides region, Charles Garnier, considers that this judgment deprives local municipalities of a tool that could ensure the permanence of the off-road vehicle trails. But in his other capacity as prefect of the MRC, Garnier also believes that the judgment could be good news, because it will result in better coordination at the regional level. “We must find a way for snowmobile clubs to avoid having to re-negotiate leases every year with farmers. I want to come to a consensus with everyone around the Table régionale de concertation. But if that fails, we will have to resort to other methods, and the MRCs right to expropriate, as confirmed by Justice Verrier, is one of them.”

Income Stabilization—Harper and Strahl to be flooded with postcards

Jean-Claude Gagné

Farmers from across Canada plan to flood Prime Minister Stephen Harper, along with his agriculture minister, Chuck Strahl and all federal MPs with postcards this fall—and it’s not to share beautiful vacation scenery with their elected representatives. Canadian farmers are seeking to apply pressure on parliamentarians to approve a farm income protection program that really meets their needs.

The orientation taken by federal and provincial ministers of agriculture last summer certainly improved the Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program, acknowledged Bob Friesen, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture (CFA). But this approach gives neither the necessary guarantees nor the required predictability. Friesen compared farmers to circus tight-rope walkers who are asked to do their show without knowing if there is a safety net below, or if it is big enough to catch them if they fall. “Go and cultivate your land, the government tells us. If you have a bad year, you will find out later if the government income protection program will cover you and how much help you can count on.”

Inefficient

Minister Strahl did say last August that the government wanted to “replace the CAIS program with something simpler and more predictable, that would provide tangible assistance. We are still resolved to replace this program with a new program based on the reference margin and that will separate disaster relief from the farm income stabilization program. We acknowledge that the present farm income stabilization program does not work.”

Following consultations during the summer, farmers are demanding a program that separates disaster relief from farm income protection. In addition, they want the government to seriously consider the creation of a NISA-type program (net income stabilization account), which would come into effect on a drop of the historic margin of less than 15 per cent. According to Friesen, farmers would then know how much money would be available to them in case of emergency, without costing the government any more. Finally, since no single program can cover all the needs of all provinces, Friesen is calling for the federal government to help fund the complimentary provincial programs.

Not won yet

“The working group set up by Minister Strahl in March 2006, which includes five farmers, recommended a farm income stabilization based on the reference margin as being the best protection for all farmers,” declared Lynn McGuire, interim director for AAC’s risk management programs. “The creation of a NISA program for the first 15 per cent drop in the historic margin was one of the options looked at, but it was not retained.”

The group will present its recommendations on disaster relief and production insurance during the meetings of federal and provincial agriculture ministers in November. As for the complementary programs, McGuire added that the Agricultural Policy Framework does not prevent any province from developing programs that respond to the specific needs of their producers.

Farm income crisis is up-staged by windmills at Saint-Hyacinthe UPA

Jean-Charles Gagné

The delegates at the 75 ^th Congress of the Saint-Hyacinthe UPA were not protesting loudly on September 27, 2006, although they are in a region that has suffered from torrential spring rains and includes many pork and grain producers who are struggling with an unprecedented income crisis. To be sure, the delegates demanded that their regional and provincial leaders focus on finding a solution to the farm income crisis and continue to lobby for the equivalent of the American Farm Bill. However, it’s the installation of windmills on farmland that is dividing farmers in Saint-Sebastien and which generated the most debate.

The assembly voted down a resolution asking a local syndicate (Venise) and the regional UPA to refuse all windmill construction in the agricultural zone. The supporters of this motion maintained that it is important to protect farm land, which represents only two per cent of the total Quebec land base and to take steps to increase the farm income of all producers, rather than authorizing the construction of windmills, which benefits only a few. To them, it was scandalous to sacrifice 30 hectares of the 300 hectares of good farmland in Saint-Sebastien. In their opinion, farmers would refuse windmills if they had a decent income.

On the other hand, the delegates favouring windmills explained that they could not refuse the $32,000 per hectare per year offered by the promoters during this period of income crisis and that this revenue could, in certain cases, ensure the succession of the farm to the next generation. They added that these windmills were not necessarily permanent fixtures and that promoters would have to restore the land back to crops at the end of the operation. The former president, Jean-Guy Raymond, argued that it would not be appropriate to say no to windmills before getting the full picture, including the financial benefits to the farmers, who have the last word on the matter.

More blockades?

Following the blockades of snowmobile trails, farmers are now threatening to block their farms to hunting, if the moratorium on increasing cropland in the so-called “degraded” watersheds is not lifted between now and next summer. They feel that this requirement is unnecessary, especially regarding poor quality woodlots or fallow land. They are demanding a compensation program and a tax exemption when farmers are obliged to preserve a woodlot. To control land speculation, the assembly voted in favour of a motion to make it illegal to let farmland lie fallow if it has been cultivated within the last 14 years prior to 2004, and to apply a surtax on the owners.

The delegates also demanded a government policy to promote a high percentage of ethanol in gasoline sold in Canada, and for the development of “green energy” from agricultural biomass (grain, cereal crops, liquid and solid manure, carcasses). The 300,000 tons of corn required for the proposed Quebec ethanol plant will no doubt improve the price of grain corn. As for the golden nematode found in a potato field in Saint-Amable, the delegates demand that the federal government take steps to reduce the risk of it spreading and to compensate the industry for losses already incurred. Subsequently, if the U.S. does not lift its embargo, they believe the federal government should help the affected farmers switch to a different type of production.

The assembly requested that their regional federation and the provincial confederation utilize the Commission on the Future of Agriculture to ensure recognition of the important role played by farmers, to obtain fair market prices for their products, and to promote food sovereignty. In reaction to citizens preoccupied by animal odours, the assembly demanded that the government revise the government orientations to make it clear that farming activities that occur in the agricultural zone are to be expected.

Other resolutions that were passed unanimously during the plenary session included the preservation of supply management in its entirety, the right to stockpile manure in fields, the establishment of a carcass recuperation network, and the implementation of a specific program to reconcile work and the family.

Is Ottawa giving Quebec its fair share?

Thierry Larivière

The leaders of the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA) are convinced that Quebec is not getting its fair share of the federal income support programs.

According to figures from the Financière agricole du Québec compiled by the UPA, Quebec received 6.8 per cent of the total budget paid out by Agriculture Canada through the three main income support programs in 2006. However, according to the UPA, Quebec’s share should have been between 12 and 18 per cent.

On a more detailed analysis, it can be seen that Quebec received 6.1 per cent, or $46 million of payments to grain and oilseed producers, from a total budget of $755 million for the program. With regard to the new assistance measures paid out by the Canadian Agriculture Income Stabilization program (CAIS), $50 million seems to be Quebec’s share, out of a total budget of $900 million for all of Canada. Preliminary estimates on the Canadian Farm Families Option Program, which ensures a minimum income for farmers, puts Quebec’s share at $55 million, from a total of $550 million.

“Everybody knows that more money should be coming from the federal side,” commented Martine Mercier, UPA’s 1 ^st vice-president, adding that she is “exasperated” by the difficulty that Quebec is experiencing in obtaining its “fair share.”

Mercier applauded the collaboration between the UPA and MAPAQ in trying to resolve this differential treatment. “There is no good reason why the federal government should not give Quebec its fair share,” declared the vice-president.

The missing six per cent represents approximately $150 million per year, an amount that could be used to cover part of the “glaring” needs of the Financière agricole.

Ag Canada’s side of the story

“To accuse us of giving certain provinces more than their share is completely unfounded,” asserted Conrad Bellehumeur, spokesperson for the federal agriculture minister, Chuck Strahl. “Quebec already had a similar program that included inventory valuation,” explained Bellehumeur. According to Ottawa, this explains Quebec’s share of $51 million out of a total of $900 million, because some of the funds have already been paid out to Quebec. Concerning the Farm Families Options Program, said Bellehumeur, it is a program administered by Ottawa and producers still have time to apply. “We are waiting for applications,” stated the spokesperson, adding that the budget can be increased if required but, until now, there have been fewer requests than expected. Finally, Quebec’s share of the grain program is considered normal because of the “percentage of grain producers” in Quebec. Producers that use their own grain were excluded from the program, but Quebec is not treated differently than the others on this point. Quebec’s overall share of the CAIS program, from 2003 to the present, is $425 million, out of a total of $3500 million or 12 per cent.

EDITORIAL: A change of tone

Laurent Pellerin

UPA President

You would have to have heard the words of some of the elected municipal officials who were speaking at the recent Congress of the Fédération québecoise des municipalités (FQM) to understand the turmoil that certain communities are facing because of the recession in the forestry sector.

Emotions were running high. When a big chunk of the local economy collapses (in some cases, the only chunk), we can understand the seriousness of the situation for those who depend on it for their livelihood. Nothing remains but faith in the solidarity of the community and its government. I don’t dare to imagine the same thing happening in agriculture…

But is it really that impossible? When I hear the negative comments that some people are making regarding agriculture, which is also going through more than its share of difficulties, I have my fears. Do we have to wait until the worst occurs, as we see in the forestry sector, before we realize just how important the agriculture sector is to our local communities?

With their backs to the wall, these elected officials are calling for an appeal for solidarity, thus underlining the need for a change of tone towards the economic and social pillars that form the foundation of many of our rural communities: that is, agriculture and private woodlots.

Fortunately, this change in attitude is becoming more apparent in the speeches of many municipal leaders, especially during the last meeting of the FQM. I have also noticed the same thing happening with the Union des municipalités du Québec (UMQ). In fact, the UPA believes that it is urgent, in view of the nature and seriousness of the stakes, to stop “squabbling” and to build new solidarity with new objectives. The agricultural and municipal players have too much in common to turn their back on each other. However, more often than not, the news media highlights the conflicts that sometimes divide us. Nonetheless, there have been some “success stories” between us—some friendly collaboration. But that kind of story doesn’t make the news…

Indeed, there are many issues on which we are “natural” allies, such as regional development and the management of the territory’s natural resources (forests, windmills). Another good example is the recent partnership for the promotion and protection of rural watercourses, led by the Fondation de la faune du Québec and the UPA, with the collaboration of many municipal partners. It is to everyone’s advantage to encourage these “joint ventures.” For example, in this forestry “crisis,” why not call upon the participation of private woodlot owners? The wood producers affiliated with the UPA are ready to do their share, the structural organizations exist, the expertise is available, and the players are ready. All that is missing is a bit of goodwill.

A change of tone is required—that much is clear. Some good opportunities will soon be coming our way, such as the consultations on the Politique nationale de la ruralité, where we will be claiming our rightful place. Another similar occasion will be the Commission on the Future of Agriculture and Agri-food. Either we can continue to complain while looking at the past, or we look toward the future with a burst of solidarity. While keeping in mind that agriculture and forestry are still, today, the pillars of development in many regions and that their presence, in synergy with other activities, is a vital ingredient in building the social and economic fabric of rural communities. Communities that we are all jointly responsible for, since we are a part of them.

Challenging words at Agricultural Credit confederation

Pierre-Yvon Bégin

There were important visitors in Quebec City last week. The VIPs of the world’s farm credit organizations met in the Château Frontenac for the 36 ^th general assembly of the International Confederation for Agricultural Credit. The event was organized in collaboration with the Financiére agricole du Québec and brought together confederation representatives from over 100 banks and financial institutions.

“The major obstacle for agriculture today is the international regulation of markets,” declared the confederation’s president, René Carron, at a press conference. Carron is also president of Crédit Agricole SA, a cooperative financial institution composed of 41 regional credit unions that control 55 per cent of the stock. After acquiring Crédit Lyonnais in 2003, Crédit Agricole SA is now extending its business around the world. In fact, it has opened a branch in Montreal through its subsidiary company Calyon.

“The problem,” added René Carron, “is not in the tools at the disposal of agriculture; the financial, land base and technological tools. It is rather in the market opportunities, and the fact that markets are not balanced. This is a problem for exporting countries. For us (in France), the failure of the WTO negotiations is a real problem, as it is for you.”

Generally speaking, Carron does not believe that the globalization of the economy is a bad thing, admitting that it is only fair to recognize that certain countries must be given the same opportunities that others have had for years. However, he does underline that the role of agriculture is not only an economic one. The food supply for the world’s population by 2030 will require double the production.

“We must not forget that the role of agriculture is to feed people and a part of humanity is presently starving to death. Economic reasoning alone is not enough, because we know that economics would no doubt systematically eliminate regions that cannot compete economically. But by doing so, we risk condemning the soil, the land that we will need in the future.”

“Who can contest the fact,” he also asked, “that farmers play an important role in the stewardship of the ecological, agricultural, and landscape heritage that we all need? But admitting this is one thing; translating it into economic and financial terms is another.”

Specialized products

The president and CEO of the Financière agricole du Québec, Jacques Brind’Amour, recognized the necessity for Quebec’s agriculture to become more diversified. Often, young farmers do not have the financial means to take over the farm business. He believes that Quebec agriculture must explore new avenues and noted that the Financière agricole is trying to generate favourable conditions for financial investments, notably by encouraging education and training.

“We must identify products which are less susceptible to competition from the big market players,” he asserted. “We must also allow young farmers to explore specialized or ‘niche’ markets, where initial costs to become a producer are much lower. Banks are now showing an interest in this diversification.”