Unhealthy soils, outdated policies: Why our agricultural programs must adapt

Images of heavy rains, flooded fields, historic droughts, and compromised harvests are multiplying. Every year, climate change reminds farmers of an increasingly costly reality: producing our food is becoming riskier.

The government's response has so far consisted of compensating for losses. These programs remain essential. But as climate disasters intensify, we must stop prioritizing damage repair and focus more on prevention.

In 2022, compensation paid out by Canada's crop insurance program reached nearly $5 billion, almost three times more than in 2020. This trend is not sustainable in the long term. Not for public finances, nor for farmers.

Yet, a more discreet problem is undermining our capacity to adapt: the state of our agricultural soils.

In Quebec, in the main field crop regions, about 90% of soils are now considered to be in poor condition. Decades of monoculture, short crop rotations, the disappearance of grasslands, and soil compaction have reduced their ability to absorb water, resist droughts, and support sustainable harvests. The economic consequences are already visible: according to the Institut de la statistique du Québec, corn yields in southwestern Quebec are decreasing by an average of 1% per year.

Soil compaction is not limited to what we observe on the surface: the use of increasingly heavy agricultural machinery causes deep soil compaction, which is harder to detect but carries severe consequences. To act effectively, diagnostics and support practices must measure this deep-seated reality; otherwise, they risk missing a major factor in soil degradation.

In short, we spend billions to repair the damage caused by extreme weather events, while investing too little in the main solution capable of reducing their impacts: healthy soils.
 

Being proactive, not reactive

Overall, our governments protect harvests, but not always what makes the harvest possible. As the first phase of consultations on the next agricultural policy framework for Canada has just concluded and agriculture ministers are about to meet, the federal, provincial, and territorial governments have an opportunity to modernize agricultural risk management programs to adapt them to today's challenges¹.

First, we must recognize that not all risks are equal. A farm that diversifies its crops, protects its soils, and maintains vegetative cover presents a better risk profile than a farm that relies on a monoculture vulnerable to climate hazards. Yet, our programs treat these situations the same way.

Practices that reduce risks should be financially rewarded. Farms that extend their crop rotations or improve soil health should benefit from reduced insurance premiums or better coverage. Just as with car insurance, less risky behaviors should be rewarded.

Next, we must better measure what truly matters. Systematically producing deep soil health diagnostics would better guide public investments and farmers' decisions. Draining deeply compacted soil does not solve the problem of crop waterlogging. We cannot improve what we do not measure.

Furthermore, innovation must be valued, not penalized. Every farm that tests a new agri-environmental practice takes a financial risk. Insurance programs dedicated to experimentation would accelerate the adoption of effective practices while limiting financial risks during the initial learning years.

Unfortunately, the federal government plans to close seven agricultural research centers or farms in the coming months, including the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre in Sainte-Foy, Quebec. The closure of these centers deprives us of key personnel and data needed to develop strategies that improve soil health.

Finally, short food supply chains must be better recognized. Compensation calculations do not always reflect the reality of farms that sell directly to consumers. Those who bring food closer to communities should not be penalized by programs designed for a single marketing model.

Faced with the climate crisis, we can no longer settle for paying the bill after the fact. Government programs must adapt. It is a matter of food security, sound public finances, and the economic vitality of our regions.

^{1 All data and recommendations are from the study La gestion des risques de l’entreprise agricole face à la crise climatique, Équiterre, online.}

_{Other signatories:}
 

• _{Véronique Bouchard, President of the Family Farmers Network (Réseau des fermiers-ères de famille)}
• _{Louis Béchard, Co-director at Protec-Terre}
• _{Jean Caron, Agronomist and Ph.D. in Soil Physics}
• _{Elizabeth Hunter, Co-founder and Executive Director, Terre à table}
• _{Jean Larose, Former Director General of the Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA)}
• _{Louis Robert, M.Sc., Agronomist and Consultant}
• _{Karen Ross, Executive Director of Farmers for Climate Solutions}
• _{Colleen Thorpe, Sustainable Food Systems Consultant and Former Executive Director of Équiterre}