OTTAWA – The federal government should tie its farm income safety net programs to good environmental farming practices, consultants have advised Ottawa.
Environmental impact studies of the Net Income Stabilization Account and crop insurance programs prepared for the government in 1993 and 1994 suggest both programs have environmental drawbacks.
And the answer, say the consultants who prepared the studies, is to tie farmer benefits from the programs more closely to good stewardship.
“Farm conservation plans with clearly defined environmental objectives should be required on a broader basis across Canada,” said Calgary’s Environmental Management Associates in its 1993 review of the NISA program.
Read Also
Canada’s plant hardiness zones receive update
The latest update to Canada’s plant hardiness zones and plant hardiness maps was released this summer.
Alberta, Ontario and Quebec have considered farm conservation plans but so far on a voluntary basis.
The study suggested NISA benefits could be reduced for farmers with bad environmental records or increased for farmers with good records.
Consultants found that some farmers said NISA rules encouraged them to drain wetlands to plant crops that are covered by the program.
While farmers surveyed said NISA encouraged them to reduce summerfallow, which reduces land erosion, the consultants decided the damage from loss of wetlands outweighed the benefits from reduction in summerfallow.
It led to recommendations that the rules of NISA become more environmentally sensitive.
Similarly, in an environmental assessment report prepared last year by Price Waterhouse on the environmental influence of crop insurance, the consultants concluded that existing rules do not encourage good environmental practice.
Attempts should be made to cover and encourage organic production, they said.
Coverage for wildlife and waterfowl damage should be enhanced and national “minimum acceptable guidelines” should be established.
This would include a provision that crop insurance provide full coverage only to farmers engaging in “good farming practices” that include proper treatment of environmentally sensitive land, habitat preservation and erosion control.
Although these consultants’ assessments have been in government hands for more than a year, at a time when safety nets are being redefined, there is little public indication yet that the proposals for environmental standards will become central to the new system.
Proposals for “cross-compliance” have been avoided by past governments as too heavy-handed a way to encourage farmers to be environmentally responsible.
