Ontario, Canada has a combination of unique factors, which has encouraged voluntary participation in an Environmental Management System called the Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) program. To date, there are over 20,000 farmers, representing half of the farmed acreage, who have voluntarily enrolled in the EFP. There is a history of circumstances that has led to this success.
Prior to 1992, as in most farming jurisdictions in the world, there have been many organizations, agencies, academics, researchers and extension staff that provided a prescription on addressing agriculture and the environment. Although well-meaning and successful in their own right, different messages were often provided and one has to question if that message or in fact any message was heard within the farm communities.
In Ontario, farm leaders became concerned about the mixed messages on how farmers should manage the environmental concerns around their farms. As a result, a proactive approach was taken whereby an agenda was developed by farm organizations on how we, as an industry, would address environmental concerns and what was realistic to expect farmers to do. "Our Farm Environmental Agenda" was developed by the "Ontario Farm Environmental Coalition" made up of four lead groups - Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, AGCare (Agricultural Groups Concerned About Resources and the Environment), and the Ontario Farm Animal Council. This Coalition represents over 30 agricultural organizations in Ontario. A neutral Chair is provided by the University of Guelph. The Agenda suggests, "We are committed to a process which will encourage every farmer to conduct farming activities in a manner which respects the environment."
A major thrust in the "Agenda" document was that all farms should undertake an environmental farm plan. Many models of farm planning were examined but it was the Wisconsin Farm*A*Syst model that caught our attention because it defined the Best Management Practices (acceptable standards), provided an on-farm risk assessment and encouraged development of an Action Plan plus timetable to address areas of concern. Ontario took the Farm*A*Syst Workbook and modified it to suit Ontario conditions. The Workbook was also expanded to encompass field operations and adjacent resources around the farm.
The 23 EFP topics include: Soil and Site Evaluation; Water Wells; Pesticide Storage and Handling; Fertilizer Storage and Handling; Storage of Petroleum Products; Disposal of Farm Wastes; Treatment of Household Wastewater; Storage of Agricultural Waste; Livestock Yards; Silage Storage; Milking Centre Washwater; Noise and Odour; Water Efficiency; Energy Efficiency; Soil Management; Nutrient Management in Growing Crops; Manure Use and Management; Horticultural Production; Field Crop Management; Pest Management; Stream, Ditch and Floodplain Management; Wetlands and Wildlife Ponds; and Woodlands and Wildlife. A committee of experts made up of extension staff, knowledgeable farmers and wildlife groups developed each one of these modules.
A professional "Plain Language" writer and a professional design firm were hired to assemble the EFP Workbook, which received a Blue Ribbon Award for excellence in educational material from the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. Staff from the agricultural extension of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) were assigned the task of providing technical and regulatory information.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has been the funding partner for the Ontario project, initially through Canada's Greenplan and more recently by CARD funds through the Ontario Agricultural Adaptation Council. Environment Canada and two other provincial Ministries, Environment and Natural Resources, participate on the Working Committee.
But the EFP Workbook, although appealing and comprehensive, was not the only principle for success. The program was established with the following philosophy: voluntary; self-directed; encompassing of all farming philosophies; relevant to all commodities; farmer to farmer delivery; risk reduction; financial incentives; awards/recognition for innovation; and confidentiality.
It is a farmer's self-assessment, not an outside third party on site. This approach may not be supported in all circles but farmers are required to reveal very sensitive information about their farms and unless the government is willing to bring a large cheque book with them to conduct the farm assessment, farmers don't want government to have access to this information. Compliance may take years or even generations, due to conditions that have evolved from the days of settlers. Besides, a very basic principle of learning would suggest that farmers learn more by doing than by having it done for them.
Delivery of EFP to engage farmers is a major key to success. Since 1939, the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) has been involved in farmer to farmer exchange (through demonstrations and on-farm trials) of new ideas, technological advances where farmers at local field days share results with other local farmers. OSCIA has had a proven track record of county delivery by assigning a committee of progressive farmers (3-4) who are influential and persuasive. They have the ability to market new programs and that ability has been proven on numerous occasions when OSCIA contracted with both provincial and federal governments to deliver financial incentives for adoption of conservation practices long before EFP came on stream. In summary, OSCIA, as a highly credible farm organization, provides access to the farm community.
OSCIA tends to operate in a non-political manner. It is considered a communication and educational organization, so it became a natural fit to take the lead on setting up farmer workshops of 12-20 farmers who would be introduced to the EFP. An extension staff person from OMAFRA assists in the workshop and provides technical interpretations. It is expected that the farmers go home to conduct their farm assessment and return to a second workshop several weeks later to clear up any questions and hand in their EFP Action Plans for Peer Review.
Why Peer Review? It provides a level of quality control that is non-threatening to the farm community. The local committee of farmers is in charge of the EFP delivery and their collective knowledge and wisdom keeps a farmer accountable for their proposed EFP actions and timetable, which are anonymously reviewed. A review letter is sent back to the farmer with suggestions, comments, resource material and contacts of experts who can assist them with implementation of their projects. This truly is local ownership and most farmers like this low-key approach to environmental change. The best promoters of this program to solicit new recruits are satisfied past participants.
Concerns over confidentiality have been further addressed with assurance from government enforcement agencies that the EFP will not be used for any fishing expeditions. Protection of privacy is a highly guarded value in Ontario and so far with close to 10 years of operation, there has not been one violation of that promise. Governments have admitted that voluntary environmental self-assessment by businesses in any industry, whether it be industrial, commercial or agriculture, are effective management tools to encourage compliance. Ensuring confidentiality will encourage their use. In fact, it is anticipated that environmental farm planning is a due diligence defence in the event that something does go wrong.
Exit surveys are provided to farmers at the end of the workshop. Over 95% indicate satisfaction from the process. 98% would recommend the program to their neighbour! Of the 20,000 enrolled, 12,000 have completed Peer Review and 9,000 have participated in the $1500 Financial Incentive. Government's $12 million has resulted in a total investment of about $50 million - a leveraging ratio of about 4:1. Additional in-kind labour contributions by farmers for these projects are close to 300,000 hours. Further follow-up through on-farm inspections and audits indicate that farmers continue to invest in improvements long after the initial incentive expanding the leveraging ratio to about 7:1. The initial EFP Action Plans average 20 action items or conditions that need attention per farm. Although some actions may be simple management changes that may in fact increase profitability with little or no investment, other actions are very capital intensive and may never happen.
Encouraging is the fact that there are a growing number of municipalities who are making significant investments for capital projects (manure storages, erosion control structures, riparian management) on farms as part of "Clean Water" programs. The philosophy of municipalities is that it is by far more cost-effective to reduce or prevent water quality problems than to clean up after the fact. EFP is becoming a prerequisite to participation in these more lucrative programs, which may offer up to $25,000 per farm. The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs provides assistance to targeted regions through the Healthy Futures program.
An EFP Award program provides special recognition to innovative ideas for low-cost solutions to solve environmental problems on the farm. A $1000 award has been given to 25 farmers and our office issues a news release with a coloured photo, which is picked up as a news story in the farm media at no additional cost to the program.
EFP has been the most studied and evaluated program in Ontario history. Four graduate students and one Ph.D. have conducted research on this program and there have been many more internal audits and evaluations. A textbook on EFP is expected to be published soon, written by Ph. D. researcher, Dr. Nancy Grudens Schuck, who is now Associate Professor at Iowa State University.
One area of evaluation, which is a challenge, is how to quantify or place a value on risk reduction or prevention. As we look to the future and make improvements to the program, physical scientists demand quantifiable data for environmental improvement. If EFP is about risk reduction and prevention, how does one measure something that didn't happen? We plan to do more work in this area to get better recognition for human activities as indicators that provide quantifiable value to society. There is an opportunity for social and physical scientist to work together more closely on measuring impacts.
By 1994, an EFP process was launched in the Atlantic Provinces of Canada. The EFP Workbook was modified to meet their local conditions and the delivery even today, is carried out in a different manner than Ontario. In Prince Edward Island, the EFP opens the window for the province to provide up to $30,000 per farm per year for capital investments in manure storages, erosion control structures and riparian management. Currently, Alberta is modifying the EFP Workbook to meet their needs and will be launching their EFP program this winter. Since the federal Minister of Agriculture announced that all farms in Canada should complete an EFP within five years, additional provinces are taking an interest. Ontario was also a member of the Great Lakes Basin Whole Farm Planning Network, which shared information on farm planning among Canada and USA jurisdictions. An EFP Workbook sample has gone out to over 30 counties around the world.
The EFP Workbook (Second Edition, 1996) will require revisions to incorporate new issues such as agriculture's response to the greenhouse gas issues. There are legislative changes that need updates also. The proposed Nutrient Management Act in Ontario will influence the content on some of the revised worksheets.
There is increasing pressure to build into the delivery, a mechanism to track continuous improvement, including indicators to measure environmental change. There is particular interest by the federal agriculture department and some larger farm operations to develop a third party verification and certification system that will be recognized by consumers and international buyers.
What started as an educational, awareness and self-directed assessment program for farmers to take action voluntarily - with no government intervention and extremely low administration costs per farmer - is slowly evolving into a process of more accountability, more recognition through third party inspections and potentially more cost. What do these increased costs of certification and continuous monitoring and improvements buy? Ideally they buy societal assurance, market access and a cleaner environment.
These are the arguments brought forward in support of ISO 14001, an industrial process that has seen limited adaptation by agriculture on a pilot program basis in Canada. At this stage, the consensus in the farm community is that ISO 14001 may have limited acceptance by the general farm population. There are, however, indications that markets in Europe and Asia attract attention when ISO 14001 certification is provided and aggressive marketers will be looking for every market advantage.
But the ISO process needs to be farmer-friendly and the cost will have to be justified by additional market access or higher returns. By building on the EFP to meet ISO requirements, we have an accepted process that is farmer friendly, and for only marginal increases in administration costs, could become certifiable. In addition, as food safety standards are increasing around the world, (whether it be HACCP [Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point] or similar certification), EFP certification could be a complementary component as a requirement under a food safety certification program. This vision will require buy-in by all commodities and all provinces, not an easy task in countries as geographically diverse as Canada.