SECTION 5. ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS and ISSUES

Transcription

1 SECTION 5 ENVIRONMENTAL TRENDS and ISSUES

2 Project Coordinated By: This Section Prepared by: - With input from Planscape

3 5.1 Introduction As an inherent component of the rural landscape in the Golden Horseshoe (GH) region, agricultural lands provide many environmental benefits. Agricultural lands sustain bio diversity by providing green space, habitat for natural species and corridors to allow the movement of wildlife. Woodlots retained on farms provide habitat and feeding areas for plant, animal and bird species, preserve natural heritage features, function as windbreaks and reduce soil loss. The large areas of natural surface maintained as fields, fence rows and woodlots facilitate natural infiltration of water and support a healthy ground water regime. Agricultural lands provide an amenity by preserving natural landscapes that are enjoyed by all residents of the GH. All of these functions are becoming increasingly important in this region where urbanization is replacing the natural landscape. Farming as a land use is generally more compatible with the preservation of natural heritage features than urban development. Farmers rely on the land for their livelihood and over time have proven themselves to be good stewards of the resource. Certainly there may be examples where farming practices have negatively impacted natural features but the agricultural community is knowledgeable about natural systems and adept at implementing new best management practices (BMP s) to avoid and mitigate impacts. In addition to the environmental self regulation practiced by farmers, agricultural lands are subject to an extensive and rigorous regulatory regime administered by a variety of agencies. Despite the abundance of regulations in place to regulate the environmental impact of farming, there is sometimes a perception that agriculture and natural heritage are at odds. As part of this study the current regulatory system used to manage agricultural land uses was explored to assess how effective the regulatory regime is, whether is it coordinated and if it is fair to farmers. The conclusion reached is that agriculture is one of the most heavily regulated land uses in the province. Farmers are subject to a myriad of controls designed to mitigate or avoid negative environmental impacts. Despite being complicated and expensive for farmers to implement, these controls are not coordinated by regulatory agencies. There is a failure to collect or share data and the controls are generally not monitored for effectiveness. Farmers are faced with multiple requirements to undertake expensive and complex processes with little understanding of why, what they are achieving or if the controls are necessary or effective. This is unfortunate since there are tools employed by many farmers that could be used to effectively coordinate and manage the environmental controls associated with agriculture. The Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association (OSCIA) efficiently manages a number of effective programs including the Canada-Ontario Environmental Farm Plan (Environmental Farm Plan) initiative that could function as a coordinating mechanism through which regulatory agencies could work. Without the coordination and monitoring to assess effectiveness of controls, farmers do not get appropriate credit for their role as environmental stewards. NOTE: The complete research and data chapter for this section is appended as Appendix

4 Methodology As a summary document, there was no intent to collect original data and there is a reliance on determining impacts and trends from existing sources. A primary finding of the study is confirmation that there is a plethora of legislation, policy, programs and information that regulates and/or informs farming practices. The farming industry is thus highly regulated with respect to environmental issues. There is, however, relatively little follow-up that facilitates quantitative reporting on compliance, efficacy and participation. Because of this, it is stressed that this component of the profile identifies potential impacts of farming, and does not attempt to report on any actual impacts that occur. The lack of data, and the organization of the data that is available, precludes a breakdown of trends by Region/county or local municipality. Potential impacts and identification of those that are probably mitigated is generally discussed for the entire GH region. 5.2 Environmental Trends and Issues Section Approach to Data Collection In order to assess environmental trends and issues, available data were assembled and reviewed to the extent feasible. Agricultural census farm type categories (NAICS 1 classification categories) were reviewed and were collapsed into assessable categories and subcategories in terms of assessing the potential for environmental impact per farm type. Following this exercise, the following farm types were used to assess the potential for environmental impacts: Beef Cattle, Dairy Cattle, Hog, Poultry and Egg, Equine, Sheep and Goat, Rabbit and Fur-Bearing Animal, Row Crop, Field Crop, Grains and Oilseeds, Fruit and Tree Nut, Apiculture, Mushroom, Greenhouse, Nursery and Tree, Sod, and Maple Syrup and Products. This list consists of both Farm Type Categories and Subcategories. Where enough information was available to assess the potential for environmental impacts associated with a subcategory, categories were broken out to allow for more detailed assessment. 1 NAICS = North American Industry Classification System 5.2

5 Following the review of farm types, literature addressing environmental impacts associated with farming was reviewed. A list of references is provided in Appendix 3 (Section 3.1). In addition to a literature review, key contacts from municipalities, Conservation Authorities, etc., from throughout the GH, were contacted and interviewed for their insights into the potential for environmental impacts, mitigating mechanisms including legislation, programs and publications, Best Management Practices (BMPs), and to identify trends and issues. A list of people contacted is provided in Appendix 3 (Section 3.2). Potential environmental impacts associated with farming were identified and categorized based on impact type, general impact, specific impact, and impact source. These potential impacts are summarized in Figure 5.2. General impacts were organized into the following categories: AIR: WATER: SOIL: NATURAL HERITAGE: greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, noise, light nutrient loading, sedimentation, pesticides and contaminants, pathogens and pharmaceuticals, changes to drainage/hydrology erosion, soil compaction, soil nutrient depletion, loss of soil organic matter removal/degradation of wetlands, removal/degradation of woodlands, removal/degradation of watercourses, removal/disturbance of grasslands, removal of hedgerows, removal of nuisance wildlife The Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) was heavily relied upon for identifying impact sources associated with regular farm practices Potential Agricultural Impacts on the Environment Following the identification of impacts and sources, the impacts potentially associated with the various farm types were identified. Impacts were assessed based on information collected through literature review and key informant interviews, as well as professional judgment where data gaps existed. This analysis was preliminary and would benefit from wider consultation and input. It is important to note that while Figure 5.1 identifies potential impacts, it does not take into account the mitigation from good farming practices, legislation, etc. which prevent these impacts from actually occurring. 5.3

6 Figure Environmental Impacts potentially associated with each farm type. FARM TYPE IMPACT TYPE AIR WATER SOIL NATURAL HERITAGE Beef Cattle Dairy Cattle Hog Poultry and Egg Equine Sheep and Goat GENERAL IMPACT Greenhouse Gas Emissions Air Pollution Noise Light Nutrient Loading Sedimentation Pesticides and Contaminants Pathogens and Pharmaceuticals Changes to Drainage/Hydrology Erosion Soil Compaction Soil Nutrient Depletion Loss of Soil Organic Matter Removal/Degradation of Wetlands Removal/Degradation of Woodlands Removal/Degradation of Watercourses Removal/Disturbance of Grasslands Removal of Hedgerows Removal of Nuisance Wildlife Rabbit and Fur Bearing Animal Row Crop Field Crop Grains and Oilseeds Fruit and Tree Nut Apiculture Mushroom Greenhouse Nursery and Tree Sod Maple Syrup and Products 5.4

7 5.2.3 Mitigating Mechanisms: Legislation, Programs and Publications As noted previously, the summary in Figure 5.1 only identifies potential impacts, and many of these may not occur. However, there are few monitoring data that are readily accessible to enable an evaluation of actual impacts. In order to get some understanding of how many of the potential impacts may be real, a review of legislation, stewardship programs and publications was undertaken to identify which potential environmental impacts might be mitigated, or at least where information is available to facilitate complete or partial mitigation. The results of this exercise are provided in Figures 5.2 to 5.4. A summary of existing programs offered by municipalities and Conservation Authorities within the GH area, programs offered throughout Ontario, and resources listed in the Canada-Ontario Environmental Farm Plan Fourth Edition Workbook 2013 is provided in Appendix 3 (Section 3.3). A list of existing legislation applicable to farms and farming practices is provided in Appendix 3 (Section 3.4). Figure 5.2 identifies the environmental impacts of each farm type for which existing legislation and/or policies provide some mitigating measures (e.g., environmental impacts that are likely mitigated through existing legislation are highlighted). Thirteen of the nineteen identified environmental impacts are potentially mitigated by existing legislation: greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, nutrient loading, sedimentation, pesticides and contaminants, pathogens and pharmaceuticals, changes to drainage/hydrology, removal/degradation of wetlands, removal/degradation of woodlands, removal/degradation of watercourses, removal/disturbance of grasslands, and removal of nuisance wildlife. Not all impacts are equally significant, and it is likely that those impacts that are not currently regulated are probably least damaging to the environment and human health. Many of the environmental impacts are mitigated by more than one piece of legislation/policy. Appendix 3 (Section 3.4) provides a summary of applicable legislation and policy. Overall, this assessment indicates that the farming industry is heavily regulated with respect to protecting the environment. Figure 5.3 identifies the potential environmental impacts of each farm type for which existing stewardship or other programs can provide some mitigation. Environmental impacts mitigated to some degree through existing programming are highlighted. Eighteen of the nineteen identified environmental impacts are potentially mitigated by an existing stewardship or other environmentally-focused program. Light was the only environmental impact which an existing program does not address. Of all the identified environmental impacts, light is likely the least significant impact. Figure 5.4 identifies the environmental impacts of each farm type for which existing publications (e.g., fact sheets, brochures, and reports) provide information for farmers that they could use to mitigate impacts (these impacts are highlighted). Again, light was the only environmental impact without some sort of brochure or fact sheet to assist farmers in reducing this impact. As previously stated, of all the identified environmental impacts, light is likely the least significant impact. 5.5

8 Figure Environmental Impacts per farm type, Mitigating Mechanisms existing legislation FARM TYPE IMPACT TYPE AIR WATER SOIL NATURAL HERITAGE Beef Cattle Dairy Cattle Hog Poultry and Egg Equine Sheep and Goat GENERAL IMPACT Greenhouse Gas Emissions Air Pollution Noise Light Nutrient Loading Sedimentation Pesticides and Contaminants Pathogens and Pharmaceuticals Changes to Drainage/Hydrology Erosion Soil Compaction Soil Nutrient Depletion Loss of Soil Organic Matter Removal/Degradation of Wetlands Removal/Degradation of Woodlands Removal/Degradation of Watercourses Removal/Disturbance of Grasslands Removal of Hedgerows Removal of Nuisance Wildlife Rabbit and Fur Bearing Animal Row Crop Field Crop Grains and Oilseeds Fruit and Tree Nut Apiculture Mushroom Greenhouse Nursery and Tree Sod Maple Syrup and Products 5.6

9 Figure Environmental Impacts per farm type, Mitigating Mechanisms - existing stewardship programs FARM TYPE IMPACT TYPE AIR WATER SOIL NATURAL HERITAGE Beef Cattle Dairy Cattle Hog Poultry and Egg Equine Sheep and Goat GENERAL IMPACT Greenhouse Gas Emissions Air Pollution Noise Light Nutrient Loading Sedimentation Pesticides and Contaminants Pathogens and Pharmaceuticals Changes to Drainage/Hydrology Erosion Soil Compaction Soil Nutrient Depletion Loss of Soil Organic Matter Removal/Degradation of Wetlands Removal/Degradation of Woodlands Removal/Degradation of Watercourses Removal/Disturbance of Grasslands Removal of Hedgerows Removal of Nuisance Wildlife Rabbit and Fur Bearing Animal Row Crop Field Crop Grains and Oilseeds Fruit and Tree Nut Apiculture Mushroom Greenhouse Nursery and Tree Sod Maple Syrup and Products 5.7

10 Figure Environmental Impacts per farm type Mitigating Mechanisms - existing publications FARM TYPE IMPACT TYPE AIR WATER SOIL NATURAL HERITAGE Beef Cattle Dairy Cattle Hog Poultry and Egg Equine Sheep and Goat GENERAL IMPACT Greenhouse Gas Emissions Air Pollution Noise Light Nutrient Loading Sedimentation Pesticides and Contaminants Pathogens and Pharmaceuticals Changes to Drainage/Hydrology Erosion Soil Compaction Soil Nutrient Depletion Loss of Soil Organic Matter Removal/Degradation of Wetlands Removal/Degradation of Woodlands Removal/Degradation of Watercourses Removal/Disturbance of Grasslands Removal of Hedgerows Removal of Nuisance Wildlife Rabbit and Fur Bearing Animal Row Crop Field Crop Grains and Oilseeds Fruit and Tree Nut Apiculture Mushroom Greenhouse Nursery and Tree Sod Maple Syrup and Products 5.8

11 5.2.4 Best Management Practices SECTION 5 - Environmental Trends and Issues The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (OMAF), with the help of farmers, researchers, extension staff and agribusiness professionals, has prepared a series of Best Management Practices (BMPs) publications. BMPs are a practical, affordable approach to conserving a farm s soil and water resources without sacrificing productivity (OMAF website, January 2014). According to OMAF, BMPs assist with the following: fostering an understanding of an environmental issue in the context of an operation or property; identifying options for addressing an issue that work with individual circumstances; assisting in implementing farm-appropriate environmentally responsible management practices; increasing efficiencies in terms of resource use and production on farms; improving properties over the short and long term; demonstrating stewardship to neighbours; creating long-term plans and sharpening day-to-day decision making; and enriching natural areas. Figure Best Management Practices Series, OMAF Farm and Forestry and Habitat Management Field Crop Production Soil Management Water Management Irrigation Management Integrated Pest Management Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management No-Till: Making it Work Water Wells Keeping Your Well Water Safe to Drink Pesticide Storage, Handling and Application Nutrient Management Planning Buffer Strips Manure Management Greenhouse Gas Reduction in Livestock Production Systems Agroforestry Series Vol.1 Woodlot Management Streamside Grazing Managing Crop Nutrients Agroforestry Series Vol.2 Establishing Tree Cover Deadstock Disposal Application of Municipal Sewage Biosolids to Cropland A Phosphorus Primer Cropland Drainage 5.9

12 These BMPs provide farmers information that can mitigate environmental impacts of farming. These are the types of practices implemented through Environmental Farm Plans, however, because there is no explicit monitoring or evaluation of the extent to which these practices are implemented, there is no means of quantitatively evaluating the extent to which they actually mitigate impacts. Expansion of the very effective programs administered by the OSCIA to monitor results could address this problem. Expansion of these programs should be supported by expanded funding in recognition of the benefits of such programs to the public interest Trends and Issues Trends and issues were identified and summarized based on the review of existing information, discussions with key informants and assessment of environmental impacts. Because of the lack of explicit information on the implementation or effectiveness of various programs and BMPs, and because inspection reports for regulated impacts are not readily available, it is not possible to quantitatively identify trends. General improvements in the quality of some environmental features point to overall positive outcomes as a result of better regulation and/or implementation of BMPs, however, the data to trace these large scale trends back to individual legislation, policies or practices or programs, or to specific municipalities, are not available. Similarly, state of the watershed reports produced by some Conservation Authorities may report on the implementation of programs (e.g., number of trees planted or kilometres of streams buffered, etc.), but the reporting does not allow for a breakdown by Region/County or by municipality. Notwithstanding the lack of data, the following issues and trends are identified and discussed. Increased protection of environmental features: There appears to be a trend toward increasing levels of protection for the environment, including increased protection of natural heritage features. For example, the application of local (official plans) and provincial (Provincial Policy Statement) environmental policies and the requirement for Environmental Impact Studies by municipalities, as well as the provincial Endangered Species Act has resulted in better protection of natural heritage features. However, coordination to reduce the impact on farmers is generally not addressed. Abundance of instruments to potentially mitigate impacts: Numerous regulations, programs, policies and Best Management Practices (BMPs) exist that potentially mitigate impacts of farming on the environment and the programs of the OSCIA are available to assist. Through review of existing information, it appears that there is not a lot of research available to backup what is perceived as general knowledge in terms of environmental impacts associated with farming. Overall, the agricultural sector is a highly regulated industry and is required to comply with many different pieces of legislation and standards with little acknowledgement of their efforts. 5.10

13 Data on compliance difficult to access: Monitoring programs are in place to routinely determine compliance with many regulations and aspects of environmental quality, especially those that pertain directly to human health and safety (e.g., milk production, groundwater protection). However, readily accessible summaries of compliance are not available. It would benefit the farming community to have the record of compliance with standards summarized in order to demonstrate how modern farming has reduced impacts to the environment. This could be done through the OSCIA with the Environmental Farm Plan as a potential monitoring tool and mechanism for confirming compliance. Lack of follow-up on program implementation: There is little implementation or efficacy testing of environmentally-based farm stewardship programs (e.g., Environmental Farm Plan). For example, it would be useful to know what aspects of the EFP yield the most positive gains for water quality. It is widely assumed that stewardship programs have the ability to produce a desired or intended result but it would be helpful to quantify the extent to which stewardship efforts have a positive impact on the environment. Because the EFP and many other stewardship programs are voluntary, consistent data on implementation are not always available. In projects that involve Conservation Authority resources, statistics on the number of kilometers of stream fenced, acres of marginal farmland retired, or kilometers of buffer strip planted are often available, but this is not consistently collected across the GH and cannot be broken down by municipality. Consistent monitoring of implementation and determination of improvements in the quality and condition of environmental features (e.g., water quality, woodland bio diversity) would benefit the farming community, as well as provide support of ongoing and/or increased funding support for stewardship programs. Lack of data demonstrating actual impacts: There is a lot of information on the potential impacts of farming on the environment; however, most impacts appear to be mitigated by regulations, policies, programs and BMPs. The lack of any consistent monitoring or summarizing of inspection reports results in the inability to demonstrate mitigation of impacts, and the resultant maintenance or improvement of natural heritage features. Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) implementation: Due to its voluntary nature, with the exception of projects implemented through cost-share incentive programs offered by municipalities, data on EFP implementation are not available. Although the program s success can, in part, be attributed to the voluntary nature of the EFP, because there is no requirement for follow-up, it also limits the ability to demonstrate the effectiveness of the environmentally friendly practices implemented. Expansion of the EFP should be considered to include monitoring. This would benefit the farming community by demonstrating a commitment to minimizing impacts and implementing BMPs and could be incorporated in the approvals process to coordinate the regulatory burden on farmers. 5.11

14 Data available on stewardship projects and water quality: Many Conservation Authorities have information on stewardship projects that have been implemented in their watersheds; however, links to tie stewardship practices with improvements in water quality, etc. have not necessarily been made. Connecting stewardship practices with improvements in water quality (as well as other features) would help to assess the efficacy of stewardship practices and BMPs and would also assist in highlighting the importance of stewardship outreach and the outcomes of stewardship implementation. Stewardship success stories such as the number and/or area of wetlands maintained and protected by farmers are good news stories that should be communicated to the public. Limited ability to analyze agricultural census data: There is a lot of information provided in the Agricultural Census. However, there are relatively few markers for environmental quality that can be used to quantitatively identify trends. Also, there are limitations on how Agricultural Census data can be analyzed, which limits the type of analyses that can be completed. For example, it is increasingly difficult to sort data by local municipality and then by farm type; such an analysis would be very helpful for municipalities and Regions/Counties to identify trends within their jurisdictions. With the proposed changes to the 2016 Agricultural Census these limitations are liable to get worse, not better. Difficult to demonstrate good news story on mitigation of impacts: The lack of data summaries available and the inability to easily access data has made it difficult or nearly impossible to demonstrate the uptake of agriculturally-based stewardship programs, evaluate the implementation of on-farm practices that mitigate environmental impacts, or assess the impact of other mitigation and/or avoidance mechanisms. It is suspected that there are relatively few infringements of legislation and regulations (it would be impossible to stay in business otherwise) and that most farmers implement BMPs and participate in programs to protect environmental features. However, this cannot be quantitatively demonstrated, thus making it difficult to communicate a good news story to the public (and policy makers/funding sources, etc.). Complicated system difficult to navigate: The current system of environmental legislation/policy, programs, resources, etc. is highly complicated and difficult to navigate, especially on top of the normal demands that farmers face. Better communication among the various agencies that are involved in regulating farm practices (e.g., the province, municipalities, conservation authorities, NGOs, etc.) would substantially ease the administrative and financial burden on farmers. Reducing this burden may lead to greater participation in programs, thus benefitting the environment. Consideration should be given to using existing programs such as the EFP as a basis for coordinating programs and monitoring and sharing data. 5.12

15 5.3 Conclusions There is a perception that there are many environmental impacts associated with agricultural practices. There are also many regulations, policies, programs and sources of information designed to mitigate these impacts. Through evaluation of existing resources and information, it became apparent that there is little data to evaluate the actual extent of environmental impacts from farming. Despite the prevalence of mitigation measures available, data on the participation, efficacy, uptake and/or outcome of these measures is not widely available, and tends to be difficult to access if it is available. Because of this lack of data, farmers are faced with multiple requirements to undertake expensive and complex processes with little understanding of why, what they are achieving or if they are necessary. It is recommended that monitoring of the effectiveness of various programs and policies be undertaken to gain a better understanding of the impact that environmental stewardship measures implemented on farms have on improvements in water quality, tree cover, and other environmental indicators. Not only will this assist in shedding some light on the environmental contribution of farming, it will help to highlight the extent to which stewardship programs contribute to the improvement of environmental quality on a broad scale. It could also provide a basis for rationalizing and coordinating programs to reduce the burden of compliance on farmers while protecting the heath of the natural heritage systems in the GH region. Perhaps most importantly for the farming community, assessing the efficacy of the programs and regulations will provide concrete evidence of the role that the farming community plays in protecting natural heritage and could be the basis for reducing the burden of complying with unrelated and unnecessary regulations. The potential exists to establish more efficient programs that build on the contribution agriculture can play in maintaining a robust and healthy natural heritage system and that embraces farming as an integral and essential part of the GH natural heritage system. Hopefully this information can be used to improve the regulatory system so it is effective, coordinated, less burdensome for farmers and conveys the message that agriculture is an important part of, and can exist in harmony with, natural heritage systems. NOTE: Appendices referred to in this Section are contained in Appendix