The
Soil and Water Environmental Enhancement Program (SWEEP) is a
coordinated federal/provincial program to deal with soil conservation
and water quality. As part of a Canada/US Agreement to reduce the
phosphorous loading to Lake Erie, Canada accepted the goal of reducing
its phosphorous loading to the lake by 300 tonnes per year, 200 of which
would be from agricultural sources. The reduction of 200 tonnes was the
responsibility of SWEEP. The beginning of the SWEEP program was
announced in August 1985 and the agreement was signed in May, 1986.
Several subprograms were established under SWEEP.
Formation of TAP:
One of the sub-programs of SWEEP was the
Technology Assessment Panel (TAP) which came into being in August,
1986 when panel members were appointed by the Honourable John Wise,
Minister of Agriculture. When no vacancies existed, the Panel was
composed of seven farmers, one person from the Ontario Agricultural
College, three from agribusiness, three from Agriculture Canada and
three from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food. An Executive
Secretary, Herb Norry, under contract, was provided by Agriculture
Canada.
Functions: TAP had
several functions, one of which was to provide peer group comments for
management, which term includes program managers. Comments were
basically about technologies - needs, availability, usefulness,
strengths, weaknesses, erroneous perceptions, research needs, research
results, etc.
TAP members were a
network by themselves. Each of them belonged to many other networks,
many of which involved persons very interested in conservation. Ideas
that could be of benefit to SWEEP managers were picked up from hither
and yon. It would have been a mistake not to pass on to managers, ideas
that might improve the SWEEP program. The result was that while TAP
concentrated on technologies in their study and searchings, they passed
on to managers any and all ideas that might be of benefit to the SWEEP
program.
Process: Peer
group comments were conveyed to management in a variety of ways.
Managers were welcome to attend all TAP meetings and many did. Notes
taken at TAP meetings went to managers. Managers had an open invitation
to present information to TAP or request comments from TAP. Program
managers took part in TAP tours and fact-finding missions. TAP tried to
have the panel represented at events sponsored by other programs.
Informal conversations when at meetings or on tours and direct telephone
calls were found to be excellent means for managers and TAP members to
exchange views.
Results: Since TAP
is a service program, it is successful only if it aids in the success of
the SWEEP program. It is successful if it provides managers, including
program managers, with information and viewpoints so that they are able
to make better decisions and thereby achieve more success in programs.
How well has TAP
succeeded in helping managers? In a period of seven years, it is likely
that TAP pleased at times and displeased at times. Hopefully, there were
more of the former than the latter. TAP has asked management at times,
"Tell us what you want us to do?" The standard answer, reassuring to
TAP, has been "Keep on doing what you are doing in the same way."
Since TAP has been
successful only if it has helped in the overall success of SWEEP, and
since TAP does not want to lay claim to pockets of success, nor repeat
results that are better reported elsewhere, we asked our members and
close associates to tell us some of the things about SWEEP that they
though should be recorded. Some of the points raised by members are
about accomplishments of SWEEP and some are about groups or individuals
responsible for the accomplishments of SWEEP.
Accomplishments of
SWEEP: One TAP member told us that the attitudes of farmers,
researchers, extension workers, etc. have been changed by the process of
participation in SWEEP programs. This most important accomplishment of
SWEEP will not likely show up in SWEEP reports. New partnerships have
been formed and individuals have greater respect for other stakeholders.
An increased interest in
conservation in farm communities is another benefit noted. Younger
farmers, in particular, have great interest in trying new conservation
technologies. There is debate as to whether this interest is caused more
by perceived conservation benefit or perceived profitability. The cause
is immaterial.
Tillage 2000 was a great program that has received much
well-deserved favourable comment. Many believe that future use should be
made of some of these sites.
Increased cooperation
between the many stakeholders involved in SWEEP has been mentioned often
and enthusiastically. This could well be one of the most beneficial
unplanned side-benefits of SWEEP. Cooperation between farmers,
agribusiness, researchers, Ag Canada, OMAF, Environment, Conservation
Authorities, etc. has been excellent. Hopefully, such will continue.
On-farm research has been
made more prominent and more acceptable as a result of SWEEP. Well
conducted research on farms complements the research that is conducted
in laboratories and in small plots at research stations and elsewhere.
OMAF appointed 26 Soil
Conservation Advisors to assist in the SWEEP Program. These advisors
increased their knowledge as they worked on conservation projects. In
the government services or elsewhere, these people are a powerful
potential for leadership in conservation efforts.
Some of the Soil
Conservation Advisors became the Technology Transfer Committee of SWEEP.
Their accomplishments through that committee are highly commendable.
Some aided in the writing of Best Management Practices publications
which puts into writing some of the good extension information
previously not available in that form.
The Technology Transfer
Committee assembled and merged the suggestions for future research as
found in the SWEEP Research Reports. They and TAP have assigned priority
ratings to these suggestions which are included in this report.
The
Conservation Information Bureau, started as a SWEEP project, has
assembled a data bank of conservation information and is in a position
to service an increasing number of clients. Staff are knowledgeable
about conservation practices, aggressive and cooperative. The Bureau
should continue to grow and serve well.
Finally, TAP wants to
join many others in paying tribute to Dr. Wally Findlay, a great war
horse in the SWEEP Program. TAP members consider Wally as one of their
own since he seldom missed a TAP meeting. He has been a wise,
forward-pushing steadying influence in the SWEEP program.
Wally would want mention
made of many other very dedicated participants in SWEEP who may have
achieved less prominence in SWEEP mainly because they had less knowledge
and less stature to begin with and a less prominent role to play in the
program. Names of researchers, administrators, farmers, etc. leap to
mind. It would be folly to start naming them.
Members of TAP, that
multi-disciplinary group, with an abundance of varied talents, and
plenty of esprit de corps are proud to have been associated with other
participants in a successful program.
SWEEP came to an end on
March 31st, 1993, when many of those who had been involved with the
SWEEP program, plus some who will be involved with some subsequent
programs, gathered to exchange views and opinions. A summary of this
meeting is in the Appendix.
