Agriculture sector identifies gaps in farm safety net

Canada’s farm risk management programs are lagging behind rising risks on Canadian farms, leaving coverage gaps, a group of ag experts say.

Producers are facing more risk than ever, from volatile input costs to geopolitical trade disruptions, according to Tyler McCann, managing director of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute.

“The risk landscape is changing, and it’s changing pretty significantly,” McCann said at a webinar held earlier this month.

Why it Matters: With higher costs, tighter margins and more volatility, gaps in Canada’s risk programs are becoming harder for farmers to ignore.

Business risk management programs aren’t keeping up, McCann added. That mismatch is showing up both in farmer sentiment and in participation rates in key programs.

While farmers report rising risk levels, optimism is beginning to slip, McCann said.

At the same time, existing programs tend to work better for some sectors than others.

“They deal with production risk … but if you are a beef (producer) trying to deal with forage and pasture production challenges … you don’t see that same equitable coverage,” McCann said.

Uneven coverage becomes more pronounced as participation in AgriStability drops. Program unpredictability and delayed response times reduce usefulness for farm operations.

“There is a gap regardless … and that gap really is around effective margin coverage,” McCann said.

Timely support

For producers, the issue is less about eliminating risk and more about being able to plan around it.

“If there’s rules, we have to be able to get money in, get it out when necessary,” said Saskatchewan farmer Gerrid Gust.

Delays in payments remain a major frustration.

“If it takes 18 months to get our AgriStability payment … that’s not helping me,” Gust said.

Faster interim payments and better program delivery could make a significant difference, especially for managing short-term cash flow, said Stuart Person of MNP.

“You need to be able to come off of your harvest … and be able to put out at least an interim payment.”

Broader risk ecosystem

Rather than relying solely on government programs, a combination of public and private tools would offer a more layered approach, said LysaPorth, an economist at the University of Guelph.

“I think we need to think about agricultural risk management as an ecosystem.”

That could include a public safety net for catastrophic risk, alongside private-sector tools for more tailored or higher-level coverage.

However, current program structures, including subsidy levels, make it difficult for private options to compete or integrate effectively, Porth added.

Complicating the situation is the fact that producers still face a lack of clarity around what the system is ultimately meant to achieve, McCann said.

MNP research found many producers believe programs should guarantee profits, while others expect them to simply limit losses, Person said.

“The purpose … is more in that minimize-the-loss category.”

Natonal consultations are now open for the Next Policy Framework, which will shape agricultural policy from April 1, 2028, through to March 31, 2033.

This framework will set the direction for farming operations for those years, and its decisions will impact how risk is managed and how farms can plan for the future.

Tighter government budgets and rising global uncertainty is making reform more difficult, but also more urgent, McCann said.

“This really is our best opportunity to drive that change forward.”