A one-page draft summary for each suggested topic is attached.

PROCESS FOR CHOOSING AND IMPLEMENTING PROJECTS:

Members of the Agreements Management Committee agreed that a wide open call for proposals would not be appropriate. However, that concept should be incorporated for at least some of the funds within most of the areas. A number of different processes would be suitable for different kinds of programs, ranging from open call for proposals, through sole-sourced negotiated agreements and administrative arrangements among government departments and agencies. A suggested process is included in the one-page write-up of each proposed program area.

GREEN PLAN - POTENTIAL PROGRAM AREAS

Table of Contents

#1. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT AND "CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING"

PART A (1A) NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT

What: .... Manure Application/Nutrient Utilization and Impact on Water Quality.

• Improved utilization of nutrients by:
  • expanded use of soil/manure analysis
  • proper rate of application to land base.
• Reduce rate of delivery of bacteria and nitrates to streams and groundwater.
• Investigation of manure management systems options and their impact on various soils/tillage systems and water quality.
• Process coordinated by committee made up of stakeholders and staff of the cooperating governments and agencies. Much of this work could be done through established channels.

• Maximize nutrient use efficiency, improve soil quality.
• Improved water quality for recreation (beaches).
• Groundwater quality maintenance and enhancement.
• Pollution Impact Reduction.

• Promote soil analysis, manure analysis - nutrient balance.
• Research on standardized application rates, management options, methods, timing.
• Education and training.
• On-Farm research, development and demonstration.

• Water quality in wells and streams.
• Beach closures.
• Groundwater quality.
• Pollution.
• Fish Habitat.

Funding ..... Nutrient Management and "Loop" 1A + 1B = $6 million

Kempenfelt Recommendations :#1, 2, 9

#1. NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT AND "CLOSED LOOP RECYCLING"

PART B (1B) "CLOSED LOOP" ORGANIC WASTE RECYCLING PROJECT

What .... A pilot project in cooperation with O.M.O.E.(Ontario Ministry of the environment), urban community and farm operators to evaluate a closed loop recycling system and, specifically, the impact of the organic waste products on the soil, water, food chain and farm environment.

• To find out if it works.
• To determine the impacts on the receiving farmlands.
• To determine costs and financial benefits.
• To identify potential problems or barriers, eg. social regulatory, technical.

• waste becomes a useable resource
• extends the life of landfill sites
• improves soil organic matter

• Make an arrangement to cooperate with O.M.O.E., who are already into the project:
• investigate what has been done elsewhere
• arrange with a farm group or group of farmers who will cooperate on the project
• put a delivery and spreading system in place
• put a monitoring system in place
• 3-8 sites likely

• Landfill site limitations.
• Costs of disposal and/or recycling.
• Impact of the product on land and environment.

#2. ENVIRONMENTAL FARM PLANS

• Financial assistance for the development and delivery of farm plans based on local objectives and review

• Farm planning is a key issue in addressing environmental sustainability
• Assist in the professional development of farmers
• Identify issues related to farming and the environment
• Highlight on-farm problem areas, identify options, and select solutions
• Participate in government environmental programs and assist in future program development
• Improve public image of farmers and increase level of farmer accomplishment

Engage one organization to deliver the program in cooperation with government

• Voluntary farmer effort with support from governments and farm organizations
• Peer review and local initiative, within the context of national and provincial priorities
• Linked to BMPs and technology transfer/extension activities of governments and universities
• Workshops, information packages, one-on-one consultations

• Co-operative role: OMAF, Agriculture Canada and other government agencies; farm organizations; environmental groups.
• Can it proceed without necessarily resolving several issues such as: cross-compliance; whether to build data-base and who can access it; access to individual plans for audit and possibly other program management purposes; who picks review panel members; long-term cost-sharing of the initiative:

Funding .... $5 million (delivery)

Kempenfelt Recommendation: #9, 17, 23

#3. AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES

What

Grants to farmers to financially assist and encourage the adoption of specific sustainable agricultural practices and activities. Most of the funding will flow in 1994 1995 and 1996 and will encourage practices that are required to address specific, eligible environmental issues at the farm level.

• To address farmers' concerns that many of the societal benefits do not accrue to them, thus they need compensation.
• Government support for sustainable agriculture.
• To promote adoption of practices.
• To cover some of the costs of risk.

• The required eligible practice may be determined by the Farm Planning Process within the priorities of the funding agencies. The program can be delivered to farmers by a government agency or contracted to a third party eg. a farm organization. Payments to defray costs will be paid directly to the producer.

• Some agricultural practices are not sustainable.
• Some agricultural practices have a negative impact on the environment.
• Costs to implement practices are high.
• Some new practices are risky.

Kempenfelt Recommendation - Some directly, some implied

#4. TECH TRANSFER / BMP / CLUBS

• To support the 50 Farm Clubs established under L.M.A.P. and up to 25 additional clubs.
• To support 50 workshops or similar technology activities per year to encourage the use of Best Management Practices (BMP).
• To prepare additional BMP publications, print and distribute new and previously published documents.
• To prepare, and distribute supporting videos, overheads and slides to BMP publications.
• To promote sustainable agricultural philosophy to urban society.

• To support farmer to farmer technology transfer.
• To provide basic current BMPs.
• To inform producers so that they understand the "sustainable agriculture" issues on their farms and have the best information on the options for remedial actions. To encourage local initiatives.
• To increase on-farm research and development, and collect uniform data from multiple sources.

• Through the club management systems developed by L.M.A.P.
• Cooperate and coordinate this activity with OMAF and other agencies and stakeholders.
• Continue with the editing, printing and distribution systems developed in E.S.I. and L.M.A.P.
• Via workshops, seminars, conferences and demonstrations.

Funding .... $2 million (mostly in 1994, 1995, and 1996)

Kempenfelt Recommendation: #9, 11, 20, 26, 27, 28

#5. WETLANDS / WILDLIFE PROGRAM

• To foster protection of wetlands by:
  • retiring or protecting farmland strips adjacent to wetlands and streams
  • achieving reduction of wetland drainage
• To reduce the rate of loss of southern Ontario Wetlands
• To fund demonstration of wetland protection/rehabilitation techniques

• Land creation through drainage has resulted in the loss of a high percentage of southern Ontario wetlands
• To maintain and enhance water quality
• To maintain wildlife wetland habitat
• To stabilize the water table

Administrative arrangement with agencies leading the Canadian Great Lakes Wetlands Strategy and Action Plan, and with other program administrators in areas such as farm planning and agricultural practices

• Financial and other incentives for wetland stewardship
• Demonstration of rehabilitation of degraded areas, wetlands, streams etc.
• Education of landowners on value of wetlands e.g. Best Management Practices Manual to include guidance for wetland protection and sustainable use; Private Woodlands Strategy (educating landowners)

• Soil erosion, water quality degradation
• Environmental protection - water quality/quantity, wildlife
• Attitude change - stewardship
• Conflict between Drainage Act & Fisheries Act
• Local commitment (municipal)
• Monitoring

Funding .... $2 million

Kempenfelt Recommendation: #10,11,12,13,14,15,21,30

#6. WOODLANDS / WILDLIFE PROGRAM

• To foster protection and enhancement of farm woodlands
• To reduce the rate of loss of southern Ontario woodlands
• To fund demonstration of woodland protection/rehabilitation techniques

• To enhance wildlife woodland habitat
• To maintain and enhance water quality through woodlands
• To maintain heritage woodlands and their biodiversity
• To encourage environmentally responsible management of commercial on-farm woodlots for commercial purposes
• To maintain and encourage buffer strip woodlands around environmentally sensitive lakes and streams.

• Administrative arrangement with the several agencies involved in woodlands, and with other program administrators in areas such as farm planning and agriculture practices
• Financial and other incentives for woodland stewardship
• Demonstration of management, protection and rehabilitation techniques
• Education of landowners on value of woodlands e.g. in Best Management Practices Manual for woodland protection and sustainable use

• Wildlife, water quality, soil protection, fisheries
• Attitude change - stewardship
• Long-term funding/cost-sharing?
• Priority to heritage woodlands, then commercially sustainable woodlands?
• Creating financially viable woodlands
• Local commitment (municipal)
• Monitoring

Funding .... $1 million

Kempenfelt Recommendation: #10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21

#7. ON-FARM RESEARCH AND CROP MANAGEMENT

• Appropriate tillage and crop management practice for a particular farm requires specific knowledge of soil type, topography, drainage patterns, organic matter content and biological resources, including crops in the rotation.
• Determine water quality differences between No-tillage and various forms of "reduced" tillage, especially pesticide and nutrient infiltration.
• Determine interaction of pest management strategies with sustainable tillage and cropping practices.

• No universal agreement as to the "best" type of reduced tillage, as it affects water quality.
• No-Tillage produces reduced soil erosion but increased water infiltration. No incorporation of pesticides or fertilizers other than with seed insertion; possible tile-drain problems for liquid manure applications.
• Successful farm management must include pest management component.

How .... PROCESS:

Open bid process managed by Agriculture Canada Research Branch

• On-farm cooperative research program with the following objectives: compare water infiltration characteristics of soil profiles under various Reduced Tillage (including No-Tillage) practices, (implications for nutrient, pesticide and manure bacteria transport, surface and tile drain flow).
• Investigate various techniques such as light surface tillage on otherwise No-Tillage systems.
• Compare water quality performance of various tillage and pest management practices at selected "innovative" farming operations having different soil types and topography, towards establishing "Tillage performance" database.

Funding .... $3.5 million

Kempenfelt Recommendations: #2, 9, 27

#8. MONITORING/EVALUATE

PART A (8A) MONITORING

• Monitor specific agricultural natural resources (water, soil, air, biological).
• Assess the current state of resources.
• Measure rates of resource-degradation.
• Measure rates of the adoption of practices.

There is an ongoing need for resource information to form the basis for improved management decisions. In addition, monitoring is essential to establish the real "state of the resource". At Kempenfelt, issues were identified often without an adequate information base. In any instances, this base information doesn't exist and monitoring and measurements will greatly assist.

The monitoring can be done over the duration of the program. The resource information (once the decision on type, etc. is made) can be contracted. What needs to be monitored would be decided by the cooperating agencies following consultation with stakeholders.

• Lack of site specific resource information.
• Improved decision on resource management issues.

Funding .... $2.0 million - Monitor/Evaluate

Kempenfelt Recommendations: - Some implied

#8. MONITORING/EVALUATE

PART B. PROGRAM EVALUATION

Program evaluation (to determine specific program objectives), to establish program benchmarks in 92/93, to collect and analyze the data so that the success of the Green Plan Program and program components can be documented.

• The program impact should be evaluated.
• The value for government expenditures can be assessed.
• Ideas to improve future programs can be important.

The program evaluation can be done either by contractors or in-house. A part of the project should be completed in 1992 (the benchmark). It may also be useful to do a mid-term evaluation in 1994-95 and then major evaluation when the program is ending.

Program evaluation is a government requirement, and is endorsed by the Accord Advisory Committee.

Kempenfelt Recommendations: - Some implied

#9. INFORMATION CENTRE

• Core funding for a central agency to provide timely, accurate, and accessible agri-food sector information on environmental sustainability.

• Information for environmentally responsible decision-making.
• Niche(s) to be determined so that gaps are addressed and duplication is avoided, so that mandate and objectives are clear.
• Topics such as farm plans info, grey literature, Best Management Practices.
• Targets such as farmer network, farm planning needs, researchers, extension workers, policy makers.

• Agreement Management Committee identifies needs, and funding agency calls for proposals
• Central collector of info needed for delivery of agri-food environmental programs.
• Development, storage and distribution of materials. Computerized data base.
• Some activities similar to present Soil and Water Conservation Information Bureau, some new.
• Base from which other activities might be proposed.

• Must clarify need, niche, objectives.
• Location -- U of G., OSCIA ("Agenda Coalition"), Pollution Control Centre
• Base funding vs broader commitment

Funding .... Base funding of $1 million. Bid on additional related components.

Kempenfelt Recommendations: #8, plus #20, 6, 7, 18, 26, 27, 28

#10. ADMINISTRATION - AFDB, AGRICULTURE CANADA

• General administration of Green Plan activities.

• To manage Green Plan resources and activities, consistent with federal administration and accountability rules

Agri-Food Development Branch will be overall manager of Green Plan funds for the Ontario region, implementing through letters of agreement with other federal agencies and contractual agreements with external organizations. Estimated at 3% of total

• tender, negotiate, prepare and administer contracts and agreements
• secretariat services for Accord and Advisory Committees, relevant fees and costs of Advisory Committee members
• miscellaneous incremental operating costs, including supplies and services, travel, audit, some communications, etc.

• Every program must be administered

Funding .... $1 million

Kempenfelt Recommendations:

#11. NON-ALLOCATED FUNDS (RESERVE/ CONTINGENCY)

Ten percent of the budget will not be allocated. These funds will be available for unforseen future initiatives over the next 5 years.

Background of Green Plan RESEARCH Program

Canada-Ontario GREEN PLAN Home

Created: 27 December, 1996 11:03:52
Last Updated: Thursday, May 12, 2011 07:14:10 AM