If the federal government does as it says, every producer in Canada will soon be required to file an environmental farm plan listing the environmental hazards on his farm or ranch.
Critics of the idea see environmental farm plans as another invasive measure aimed at regulating Canada’s agriculture sector more closely. Others see benefits but say care must be taken to ensure the plans are practical, voluntary and responsive to producers’ concerns. In this report, Western Producer special reports editor Brian Cross takes a closer look at environmental farm plans, gauges their progress in Western Canada and talks to farmers about the costs and benefits of …
Read Also
Stock dogs show off herding skills at Ag in Motion
Stock dogs draw a crowd at Ag in Motion. Border collies and other herding breeds are well known for the work they do on the farm.
Going green – are farmers willing to sign on? – Special Report (main story)
By Brian Cross
Saskatoon newsroom
news
Since he took over the family farm in the mid-1990s, Saskatchewan producer Jim Moen has tried to keep an open mind about issues concerning the environment.
In principle, the Cabri, Sask., farmer supports efforts that encourage producers to pay closer attention to the health of the land and water.
Yet when it comes to environmental farm planning, he can’t help feeling some concern.
“Overall, I think the introduction of environmental farm plans will be a positive development,” said Moen, a fourth generation farmer who grows cereals and pulses in southwestern Saskatchewan.
“But I have some concerns. First of all, I think environmental farm planning has to be a voluntary process and I think the federal government has to realize that it’ll take time to phase this in.
“We can’t expect all producers to participate right away. It’ll take time. There will be resistance and I think incentives will be needed to convince farmers to get on board.”
Across the Prairies, groups promoting environmental farm plans have been hearing similar comments.
According to federal officials, every farmer in Canada will one day be required to complete an environment farm plan, or EFP.
But so far, the response from prairie farmers has ranged from enthusiastic acceptance to cautious support to outright rejection, said Therese Tompkins, director of environmental farm planning in Alberta.
In fact, many producers are oblivious to the concept.
“I’ve been to planning meetings where farmers know a lot about EFPs … and I’ve also been to meetings where it’s the first time they’ve ever heard them,” said Tompkins.
“They cover the whole gamut.”
In a nutshell, an EFP is a document that contains a complete inventory of all the potential environmental hazards on a farm, including manure, pesticides, fuel and fertilizers, to name a few.
The plans also outline practices that could cause environmental damage to soil, air, trees, wildlife and water resources, and they identify remedial measures that could be taken to address areas of environmental concern.
From Ottawa’s perspective, the introduction of EFPs will not only protect the environment and improve the quality of life for all Canadians, but it will also give producers an upper hand on farmers from other countries where environmental stewardship is a less prevalent concern.
As the argument goes, embracing environ-mentally responsible farming practices will bolster Canada’s reputation in world markets and curry favour with discerning consumers who are demanding more information about how their food is grown.
In Ottawa, environmental farm planning has already been identified as a key component of the federal government’s agricultural policy frame-work, or APF – the comprehensive farm policy initiative that is supposed to lead the country’s agri-culture sector for the next six years.
The federal government has indicated that EFPs will be a central element of the environmental pillar of Ottawa’s new agriculture policy and, according to federal spending estimates, the federal department will increase spending on environmental initiatives by $265 million over the next five years.
Federal agriculture minister Lyle Vanclief has already stated that every Canadian farmer will have an EFP by 2008. It remains to be seen whether that deadline will be met but already organizations across the country are developing strategies to get farmers accustomed to the concept.
In Prince Edward Island, organizers have been promoting EFPs since 1996 and today, more than 70 percent of the province’s farmers have completed a plan.
In Ontario, nearly 15,000 farmers have competed EFPs which have been endorsed through a peer review process.
Bob Bedggood, a Guelph, Ont., farmer who helped promote the initiative in that province, said the concept has taken years to catch on and many farmers are still skeptical about the motives behind environmental plans.
Bedggood, a past-president with the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, said financial incentives helped get some reluctant farmers on side but other farmers have yet to buy into the notion.
Even after the environmental disaster in Walkerton, Ont., where seven people died and thousands became sick after runoff from nearby livestock operations contaminated the town’s water supply, some farmers are reluctant to acknowledge the impact that farming can have on the environment.
“As farmers, we need to do a much better job of demonstrating that we understand the effects that farming can have on our surroundings and on society as a whole,” said Bedggood. “When we do that, then we will have the public’s support.”
Weldon Newton, who farms near Neepawa, Man., agrees the adoption of environmentally sound farming practices will benefit the industry but, like many producers, he has concerns about the EFP process.
Newton, who heads Keystone Agricultural Producers, the province’s farm lobby group, said there are several key issues that must be resolved before farmers buy into the idea.
Tops among those concerns are the time and costs associated with completing an EFP and the suggestion that farmers could be penalized if they refuse to participate.
So far, the federal government has suggested it will use financial incentives to encourage participation in the EFP process, but according to Newton, some farmers are concerned that refusal to complete an EFP could also result in financial penalties that could be applied through Net Income Stabilization Account, crop insurance or other federal farm assistance programs.
Federal officials have repeatedly stated there will be no linkages between EFPs and other federal farm programs, but Newton said producers are wary nonetheless.
“I think there’s a lot of suspicion among farmers and there are lots of issues that have to be addressed,” he said. “First of all, I think we have to be clear on what environmental farm plans will not do … and they will not prevent another Walkerton.
“I think there’s a feeling out there that all you have to do is regulate agriculture more closely and when you get to a certain point, then you don’t have to worry about the water supply. That’s not the case.”
Another concern is the potentially thorny issue of legal liability, particularly for farmers who complete a plan, identify potential hazards on their farms and are then deemed responsible for an environmental disaster.
“What in fact are your liabilities if you identify some potential problems and either you can’t fix them or it’s going to take some time to fix them?”
In Alberta, farmers raised similar concerns when they were introduced to the concept of EFPs, said Red Deer farmer and program facilitator Jack Swainson.
That’s why Alberta planners insisted that the EFP process should remain voluntary and that those who take part must be allowed to assess their own operations, identify their own environmental priorities and retain complete control over their plans as a means of ensuring confidentiality.
“The bureaucratic part of it is always going to be a concern but I think farmers are a lot more likely to accept something if they know it’s voluntary and they know their confidentiality is protected,” said Swainson.
“If you do that, then they won’t look at (EFPs) as something that’s being rammed down their throats.”
Moen agrees the process must be voluntary and confidential if it has hope of taking root in Saskatchewan. He also stressed the plans must be flexible and responsive to local conditions.
“In Saskatchewan, we’re not like Ontario and Prince Edward Island,” said Moen.
“We’re a rural area. We don’t have the same population, our farmers are more isolated, our farms are bigger and our input requirements are different.
“If they (the plans) are going to be looking at on-farm storage of fertilizers and pesticides and fuels, for example, that’s an area that’s going to affect a lot of farmers.”
“That’s why the people designing the programs have to do a very good job of consulting with farmers to make sure the systems they come up with are practical and reasonable.”
