IT IS RARE to see a government initiative elicit the support that the Environmental Farm Plan program has.
The federal-provincial program launched in 2005 struck a chord with farmers, attracting more than 50,000 to sign on.
Farmers attend EFP workshops, identify their operation’s environmental strengths and weaknesses, draft a plan to fix the problems, have it approved and then make improvements with the help of government money that covers 30 to 50 percent of the costs.
The program works because it enables farmers, not bureaucrats, to decide what is most appropriate for the environmental health of their operations.
Read Also
Agriculture needs to prepare for government spending cuts
As government makes necessary cuts to spending, what can be reduced or restructured in the budgets for agriculture?
By the end of its approved funding agreement in March 2008, an expected 35 percent of Canada’s farmland will be covered by an environmental plan.
It would be a boon to the environment, farmers and society to continue this program beyond the current expiry date.
Federal agriculture minister Gerry Ritz and his provincial counterparts support the program but slow progress on the next generation of farm policies to replace the agriculture policy framework has EFP administrators worried.
Farmers might be reluctant to sign up this winter if funding is not guaranteed beyond March.
Ritz has said he’d support continued funding even if agreement has not been reached on a new farm policy package.
It would be good to firm this support into a solid commitment to give producers confidence to continue signing up.
And it would be wise for farmers who have not yet investigated the program to get involved.
Farmers have long known it is in their long-term interests to treat their land, water and animals well. But the relentless pressure for efficiency and years of inadequate income have at times forced some into practices that are not ideal.
As public awareness grows about environmental threats, the danger develops that farming could be viewed as a problem that should be regulated.
In the United States and European Union farm environmental programs are mandatory, supported by the argument that if farmers get assistance from the public purse, the public should have a say in how they run their farms.
The voluntary EFP is a tool to help farmers preempt the type of strict mandatory regulation that farmers in Britain and elsewhere say is pushing them away from commercial food production toward being glorified park keepers.
The EFP is also valuable as a marketing tool. Farmers who complete an EFP can prove to buyers and consumers their commitment to stewardship.
Because of its many benefits, Canadian farmers would serve their interest by contacting their members of Parliament to emphasize their desire to see the EFP continue.
Bruce Dyck, Terry Fries, Barb Glen, D’Arce McMillan and Ken Zacharias collaborate in the writing of Western Producer editorials.
