AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD AGENDA
The Agricultural Service Board will hold a meeting on Monday, November 16, 2020 at 9:00 a.m. in Council Chambers, 1408 Twp. Rd. 320, Didsbury, AB and live streamed via Zoom Cloud Meetings.
1. Call to Order
2. AGENDA 2.1 Adoption of Agenda
3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 3.1 Agricultural Service Board Meeting Minutes of September 21, 2020
4. BUSINESS ARISING
5. DELEGATIONS Nil. 6. OLD BUSINESS 6.1 ALUS Update & Projects November 2020 6.2 REEP Projects November 2020 6.3 Do More Ag – Mental Health Session 7. NEW BUSINESS 7.1 Agricultural Service Board Appointments 7.2 Carcass Composting Grant Application
8. REPORTS 8.1 a. Seed Plant Updates (verbal report) b. Workshop Updates c. 2020 Resolution Report Card d. Alberta Crop Report – Final Report for 2020
9. CORRESPONDENCE 9.1 a. Foothills Forage and Grazing Association 2021 Funding Request b. Strychnine Update 10. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS Nil. 11. ADJOURNMENT NEXT MEETING DATE – December 14, 2020
1 UNADOPTED
MINUTES
AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD MEETING
Mountain View County
Minutes of the Agricultural Service Board Meeting held on Monday, September 21, 2020, live streamed via Zoom Cloud Meetings.
PRESENT: B. Rodger; Chairman Councillor P. Johnson Councillor D. Milne Councillor D. Fulton B. Buschert, Vice Chairman S. LaBrie T. Jackson
ABSENT: Nil.
IN ATTENDANCE: J. Fulton, Assistant Director of Legislative, Community and Agricultural Services C. Chrenek, Assistant Agricultural Fieldman L. Grattidge, Sustainable Agricultural Specialist D. Archer, Administrative Support
CALL TO ORDER: B. Rodger, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:06 a.m.
J. Fulton advised of the following amendments to the agenda: 8.1 g. Weed Control Rebate Program
AGENDA Moved by Councillor D. Milne ASB20-037 That the Agricultural Service Board adopt the amended agenda of the Agricultural Service Board Meeting of September 21, 2020.
T. Jackson joined the meeting at 9:07 a.m.
Carried. MINUTES Moved by S. LaBrie ASB20-038 That the Agricultural Service Board adopt the Minutes of the Agricultural Service Board Meeting of August 17, 2020.
Carried. BUSINESS ARISING OUT OF THE MINUTES Nil.
OLD BUSINESS ALUS Projects September 2020 L. Grattidge provided a short overview of the Riparian &
1 September 21, 2020 2 UNADOPTED
Ecological Enhancement Projects.
Project located SW 36-29-02-W5; 100 cow/calf operation. The project is for a fence line and watering system in the amount of $7,066.25 as outlined in the project spreadsheet.
Moved by S. LaBrie ASB20-039 That the Agricultural Service Board approves funding for 50% of the materials for the riparian fencing project to a maximum of $1,500.00 and 25% of the watering system materials to a maximum of $1,697.50 on the SW 36-29-02-W5 and additionally $2,368.75 to annual payments for the maintenance of this project from the 2020 ALUS budget. Carried. Moved by Councillor D. Milne 9:32 am ASB20-040 That the Agricultural Service Board re-visit project funding limits, for REEP participants at the end of 2020 who complete projects in 2020 but do not receive CAP funding approval. Carried.
Draft 2020 Report Card on the Resolutions J. Fulton provided information to the Board regarding responses and reviewed the resolutions.
Moved by Councillor D. Milne ASB20-041 That the Agricultural Service Board forward their input on the 2020 Resolutions Responses Grading. Carried.
NEW BUSINESS FarmTech 2021 Cancellation J. Fulton briefly reviewed the information provided.
Moved by B. Buschert ASB20-042 That the Agricultural Service Board receive for information the FarmTech Sponsorship of a young farmer will not be offered due to the cancellation of FarmTech 2021. Carried.
Living in the Natural Environment 2021 Cancellation J. Fulton informed the Board on the current status of the event.
Moved by B. Buschert ASB20-043 That the Agricultural Service Board receive for information the cancellation of Living in the Natural Environment for 2021. Carried.
REPORTS Seed Plant Updates S. LaBrie did not have any updates.
2 September 21, 2020 3 UNADOPTED
B. Rodger updated the Board on the Mountain View Seed Cleaning Plant who met and has put expansion plans on hold until the end of harvest 2020.
Workshop Updates L. Grattidge provided the following information regarding upcoming workshops:
• GWFA – Grazing for Soil Carbon workshop • FFGA – Marginal Areas on Your Land workshop • EFP Workshops are still in the planning stage • Do More Ag – Free Webinars on domore.ag
The Board requested a workshop be organized about the new on-farm slaughter regulations in Alberta.
Central Region ASB Conference J. Fulton reviewed the information provided in the RFD.
Agricultural Plastics Recycling Pilot Update J. Fulton provided an update on the Provincial program; 526.35 tonnes of grain bags and twine have been collected and recycled under the pilot program since October 1, 2019; of this, 501.87 tonnes were grain bags while 24.48 tonnes was twine. An addition of six collection sites have been announced for year two of the Alberta Ag-Plastic. Recycle It! in Alberta.
L. Grattidge provided an update on the MVC Ag Plastics Recycling Program. There have been 20 participants in 2020 with 114 bags brough in to date. There are two more collection dates in October (2nd and 16th), 2020. Drop offs are arranged by appointment only.
Land Stewardship Centre Annual Report 2019-2020 L. Grattidge summarized the information provided in the agenda.
ASB Grant Update J. Fulton updated the Board on the status for 2020 funding.
Moved by Councillor P. Johnson 10:21 ASB20-044 That the Agricultural Service Board recommend to Council a co- signed letter from the ASB and Council inquiring about the status of the ASB Grant sent to the Minister. Carried.
Weed Control Rebate Program J. Fulton informed the Board on the options to continue funding this project from other unspent budget lines for 2020.
Moved by Councillor P. Johnson ASB20-045 That the Agricultural Service Board support an increased budget for the 20% Regulated Weed Control Rebate from
3 September 21, 2020 4 UNADOPTED
existing unspent budget lines to a total of $20,000 for 2020 to be funded from existing budgets.
Moved by B. Buschert ASB20-046 That the Agricultural Service Board receive the following as information: a. Seed Plant Updates (verbal report) b. Workshop Updates (verbal report) c. Central Region ASB Conference d. Agricultural Plastics Recycling Pilot Update (verbal report) e. Land Stewardship Centre Annual Report 2019-2020 f. ASB Grant Update g. Weed Control Rebate Program Carried.
CORRESPONDENCE 2021 ASB Summer Tour Cancellation Letter J. Fulton introduced the letter provided for the Board’s information.
GWFA Weevil Project Letter L. Grattidge forwarded the letter to the Board for information.
Moved by S. LaBrie ASB20-047 That the Agricultural Service Board receive the following correspondence for information: a. 2021 ASB Summer Tour Cancellation Letter b. GWFA Weevil Project Letter Carried.
NEXT MEETING DATE October 19th, 2020.
ADJOURNMENT Moved by Councillor D. Milne ASB20-048 That the Agricultural Service Board Meeting of September 21, 2020 be adjourned at 10:31 a.m. Carried.
Chair
I hereby certify these minutes are correct.
Assistant Director of Legislative, Community and Agricultural Services
4 September 21, 2020 5 Agricultural Service Board Meeting
Request for Decision
Date: November 16, 2020
SUBJECT: ALUS Update & Projects
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agricultural Service Board approves additional funding to equal 25% of the materials for the watering system project to a maximum of $1,359 on the SE 25-32-06-W5 and an additional increase to $2,827.50 for annual payments for the maintenance of this project which equates to a difference of $1,593.56 from the 2020 ALUS budget, in addition to what was previously approved under the 2018 ALUS budget.
That the Agricultural Service Board approves funding for 100% of the materials for the riparian fencing project to a maximum of $2,200 on the NW 12-29-04-W5 and $1,140 to annual payments for the maintenance of this project from the 2020 ALUS budget.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS: That the Agricultural Service Board receives for information the ALUS project applications as presented.
BACKGROUND: In 2020, seven landowners have been approved for ALUS projects in Mountain View County impacting 269 acres of wetland, riparian and upland areas. Additional projects will be presented for approval consideration. Project Decision Consideration Guidelines are attached for reference purposes. Applications have been scored using the project rating form and funding recommendations are based on the rating. Agricultural Services has developed a funding spreadsheet based on these evaluations for review.
ALUS Program Highlights ALUS Canada’s Trailblazers series showcases farmers and ranchers who are doing an outstanding job producing cleaner air, cleaner water, increased biodiversity, and other valuable ecosystem services for their communities through their ALUS projects. Two ALUS farms in Mountain View County have been highlighted:
ALUS Alberta Trailblazers - Lisa Kennedy and Joey Halter
ALUS Alberta Trailblazers - Sean and Holly LaBrie
The County of Vermilion River is celebrating their 10th Anniversary of ALUS in the county and to celebrate they created the online ALUS Vermilion River Project Showcase. Project 10 completed by Five L Farms is unique as they converted field approaches into permanent perennial cover to help mitigate the spread of clubroot. While small in footprint, these welcome mats for cleaning mud, dirt, and loose vegetation off farm equipment will have a positive impact not only for their farm operation but also for adjacent wetlands and birds, pollinators, and wildlife. The 1-acre clubroot mitigation projects are the first of their kind in the County of Vermilion River. They were jointly funded by ALUS and The CVR Ag
6 Page 1 of 2 Department as demonstration sites for other producers who are interested in proactively managing clubroot on their farms.
For the latest in ALUS Canada news: The Post, October 2020: A special update from ALUS Canada
RELEVANT POLICY: Policy/Procedure #6309 Riparian and Ecological Enhancement Program Funding
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: 2020 ALUS W. Garfield Weston Foundation: $2,225 2020 Canada Nature Fund for Aquatic Species at Risk: $42,200.10 2020 RBC: $1,700 2020 Anonymous Donor: $20,000
Attachments Nil 1. ALUS PAC Project Decision Considerations Guidelines – Nov 2020 2. ALUS Projects – Nov 2020 3. ALUS Project Spreadsheet – Nov 2020
PREPARED BY: LG REVIEWED BY: JF
7 Page 2 of 2 Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS)/ Partnership Advisory Committee (PAC) Project Decision Considerations Guidelines 1408 Twp. Rd. 320 / Postal Bag 100, Didsbury, AB Canada T0M 0W0 T 403.335.3311 F 403.335.9207 Toll Free 1.877.264.9754 www.mountainviewcounty.com
Mountain View County Agricultural Service Board and Partnership Advisory Committee The Mountain View Agricultural Service Board (ASB) is acting as the Partnership Advisory Committee (PAC), under the Policy #6301 Agricultural Service Board. All members of the ASB/PAC are encouraged to promote and participate in ALUS projects.
Goals Mountain View County Agricultural Service Board (ASB) / Partnership Advisory Committee (PAC) values, protects and promotes a thriving agricultural community and the preservation of the Region’s unique and precious natural environment. The administration and delivery of the ALUS program encourages and supports agriculture into the future, promoting beneficial management practices that are environmentally sustainable. Mountain View County’s agricultural community implements projects on working landscapes to create, restore and enhance natural areas such as wetlands, grasslands, riparian areas and treed areas; resulting in cleaner air and water, healthy soils, sustainable food production and habitat for: fish and wildlife, species at risk and native pollinator insects.
Mountain View County identified areas of focus for ALUS program • Preserving and establishing trees in areas of low concentration • Reclaiming Alkali or Marginal Soils to Native stands • Increasing and promoting pollinator establishment • Reclaiming marginal cropland for buffering around streams; preserving potholes or wetlands
ALUS Applicants • Farmers or ranchers with a registered or legally defined farming operation are eligible recipients of ALUS annual payments. • Land zoned Agriculture in MVC is eligible for ALUS projects. • Land renters with a registered or legally defined farming operation are eligible recipients of ALUS payments (a letter of authorization from the landowner is required) or the owner of rented farm land may qualify if they are receiving less rent due to the establishment of a project. • Rural non-farm landowners are ineligible for payments under ALUS.
To compare the Canadian Agricultural Partnership definition to be eligible for funding is: Active producer: An individual or a registered corporation responsible for the day-to-day management and work on the farm, including responsibility for input costs for agricultural crops or livestock producing at least $10,000 worth of farm commodities annually, but does not include a landlord whose only interest in the crop or livestock is that of ownership of the land.
Non Farm Lands As stated above generally non-farmers are ineligible to participate in ALUS. ALUS projects have been implemented on a couple of commercial properties to showcase the concept and the project, but no annual payments are made.
ALUS priority targets include: • Improvements to environmentally-sensitive, marginal or inefficient farm land. • Enhancing natural features contained within the farmed portion of the land. • Complexes of wetlands, riparian zones and grassed uplands on and adjacent to selected parcels of farmland. • Working lands and adjacent areas with special biodiversity features or ecological assets/opportunities.
ALUS does not want to retire productive farm land but there are exceptions. Rental rates for productive farm land are generally higher than the ALUS annual payments and thus there is increased risk of reversal of ALUS projects when commodity prices are high. However, there are a couple of examples where productive land might be retired to conservation – i.e. on productive but environmentally sensitive lands such as a floodplain beside a water body or where
8 Page 2 of 4
the productive lands are inefficient to farm. Additionally, this could include odd areas, narrow corridors along shelterbelts, corners of fields, or where farm equipment is too large to efficiently work the ground.
Project Selection Guidelines Things to consider when approving a New Project proposal Is the project on marginal or environmentally sensitive lands that are currently under agricultural production? Does the project meet current local environmental priorities? Does the project provide new or complement existing “ecosystem services”? Does the project improve diversity? Does the project complement existing programs ie: EFP, Growing Forward? Has the Participant shown interest in contributing to project establishment? Are their opportunities for delivery partnerships, cost savings, non-duplication etc..? Will this project likely remain if annual payments cease to continue? Can this project be used as a Demonstration Site? Does the Landowner plan to retain the property for at least 10 years? Does the project link existing natural features? Is the project on less than 20% of the farmed portion of the land?
ALUS projects for review by the PAC’s should make note of the local environmental priorities identified by locally driven environmental report cards, studies or environmental assessments.
Initial Project Establishment costs Funding amount allocated will be prorated based on other funding received for the project. The maximum amount an applicant can receive per voluntary project will be evaluated case by case.
Material costs for project establishment are eligible for funding. Additional expenses may be eligible for funding in Wetland restoration projects due to expertise required to ensure success ie: consultation, planting, monitoring and reporting costs. In the event of poor initial vegetation establishment, reseeding will not be considered for funding.
Project Annual Payments (November or December) PAC’s should consider: Land rental rate base Cropland vs pasture vs marginal land – link to opportunity costs Extent of continued agricultural use/benefits Existing vs new services; recognition for existing services
ALUS Alberta payment schedule - updated June 2015, should be reviewed regularly Maximum amount Quality adjustment Use adjustment Cropland $50/acre Case by Case If grazed or Hay / 50% approved practice Pasture $30/acre Case by Case If grazed or Hay / 50% approved practice Existing native upland (sm)* $10/acre n/a If grazed or Hay / 50% approved practice Existing native upland (med)* $5/acre n/a If grazed or Hay / 50% approved practice Existing native upland (lg)* $2/acre n/a If grazed or Hay / 50% approved practice Permanent wetland (sm)* $5/acre n/a n/a Permanent wetland (lg)* $2/acre n/a n/a Ephemeral wetland* $5/acre n/a n/a Restored/created wetland $50/acre n/a n/a
Cropland - this is based on the average rental rate for the county. Restoration, enhancement or creation of habitats in these areas receive the cropland payment. This could include the establishment of new shelterbelts or eco-buffers. ALUS is not meant to compete for good cropland areas, rather it focuses on marginal and odd areas that will complement adjacent natural areas. Cropland rates will also be paid for pasture/hayland areas if the soils are good.
9 Page 3 of 4
Pasture - this is areas that are marginally productive that are in either pasture or hayland. Should the pasture be hayed or grazed later season (after Aug 1) or during dormant season (Oct 15-Mar 15), the payment will be reduced accordingly (typically by 50%) unless this is deemed necessary for maintenance. Restoration, enhancement or creation of habitats in these areas receive the pasture payment. This could include the establishment of new shelterbelts or eco-buffers.
Existing Native uplands - these are areas that have often been left unused/untouched on a farm. These include areas surrounding a wetland or riparian area, bush, forested area, grasslands, etc. Small native patches are areas up to 10 acres in size. Medium native upland are areas between 10 and 25 acres. Large native upland are areas over 25 acres in size. Existing shelterbelts or eco-buffers will be considered at similar payment rates.
Permanent Wetlands - this includes any waterbody, focuses on sloughs (potholes) but also includes creeks. Different sizes of wetlands are generally more or less vulnerable to being drained so payments are greater for smaller (up to 2 acres) versus larger wetlands. A payment may be considered for shallow, temporary, ephemeral wetlands (potholes) in annual cropland if they are not ditched or drained, farming through is acceptable if feasible; payments will continue in dry years. * These areas will only be consolidated if new creation, enhancement or restoration has taken place on the property.
Use Adjustment - In some cases the PAC might allow the farmer/rancher to use the ALUS project for part of their farm operation. For instance, the farmer may want to let their cows pasture on the prairie project, or even bale those acres for winter feed. To encourage management practices that ensure the project still offer’s the ecosystem services, the PAC may agree to a partial payment to the farmer. An example of this might be allowing a farmer/rancher to hay the prairie acres only once in August so the prairie can provide nesting habitat for grassland birds.
By your own hand This refers to projects that have been completed in the past by a farmer now applying to ALUS. In some communities the PAC has recognized existing projects if they were done since 1990 by the farmer’s own hand AND that acreage is matched by a new project. ie: If the participant had 8 acres of hedgerow already on the farm and they put in a new project of 8 acres of new prairie, the participant could receive annual payments for 16 acres. Another example in Western Canada includes existing wetlands and bush that have not been drained or cleared whereby we can enroll such existing habitats into ALUS assuming some improvements are made on the same parcel of land.
Annual payment agreement terms ALUS payment agreement terms are for 5 years. Consideration should be given to allowing term renewals.
Project Monitoring All projects will be monitored on an annual basis and the farmer will be responsible for maintenance, 10% of past projects will be verified by a third party annually.
ALUS Funding National Wetland Conservation Fund / National Conservation Plan (NCP) of Environment Canada (wetland associated projects only, up to 15% for administration) Year 1 (2014): $36,812.50, Year 2 (2015): $30,000
W. Garfield Weston Foundation (new acres, renewals, annual payments, program delivery) Year 1 (2015): $2,000, Year 2 (2016): $10,000, Year 3 (2017): $10,000, Year 4 (2018): $52,000, Year 5 (2019): $28,381.29, Year 6 (2020): $2,225
Bissett Action Fund (new acres establishment costs and annual payments) Year 1 (2017): $40,000
ACA Conservation, Community and Education Grant (establishment costs) Year 1 (2017): $11,800 Year 2 (2018): $14,083.50 Year 3 (2019): $14,697.04
10 Page 4 of 4
Canada Nature Fund for Aquatic Species at Risk (new acres, establishment costs, year one of annual payments, program delivery) Year 1 (2019): $2,429.26 Year 2 (2020): $42,200.10
RBC – (administration, outreach activities, establishment costs, annual payments) Year 1 (2020): $1,700
Anonymous Donor – (50 new acres, establishment costs, year one of annual payments, program delivery) Year 1 (2020): $20,000
ALUS Projections 2020: 6 new ALUS participants with projects covering a total of 180 acres
11 2018 ALUS project revised Dugout 48 cow/calf In and Adjacent to a Very High ESA Red Deer River Watershed 0.6 acres of small wetlands 14.4 acres of riparian pasture Cost for watering system (in pasture): $5,432 Rating: 100%, 37/50
Riparian Existing Fence Pasture New Well New Watering System
12 Dogpound Creek 40 cow/calf pairs Entire Quarter is in High ESA Little Red Deer River Watershed 0.6 acres of small wetlands Riparian 7.5 acres of riparian pasture Pasture Cost for riparian fencing: $2,200 Rating: 100%, 41/50
Existing Fence New Fence Existing Crossing Existing Waterer
13 Past ALUS 2020 Projects ALUS Project - NW-19-31-04-W5 Estimated 5 year Contract $ CAP Project Expenses Costs CAP% MVC% Acres $/acre Annual Payment Estimated $ MVC Allocated Fencing Materials $3,200.00 100.00% $0.00 $3,200.00 Fencing Labour & Equipment $3,200.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 Annual Payments Large Wetlands 2 $2.00 $4.00 $20.00 Total Annual Payment $4.00 $20.00 Totals $6,400.00 2 $4.00 $3,220.00 Total ALUS Funds $66,125.10 Total ACA allocated from REEP $22,595.00 Total Carry-over from projects not completed $15,390.25 Total ALUS Funds Remaining $100,890.35
ALUS Project - N-18-32-05-W5, S-19-32-05-W5 Estimated 5 year Contract $ CAP Project Expenses Costs CAP% MVC% Acres $/acre Annual Payment Estimated $ MVC Allocated Fencing Materials $4,250.00 50.00% 50.00% $2,125.00 $2,125.00 Fencing Labour & Equipment $4,250.00 50.00% 0.00% $2,125.00 $0.00 Annual Payments Small Wetlands 1 $5.00 $5.00 $25.00 Large Wetlands 102.3 $2.00 $204.60 $1,023.00 Riparian Pasture 50.73 $30.00 $1,521.90 $7,609.50 Total Annual Payment $1,726.50 $8,657.50 Totals $8,500.00 154.03 $1,731.50 $10,782.50 Total ALUS Project Funds $100,890.35 Total ALUS Funds Remaining $90,107.85
14 ALUS Project - NE-16-33-03-W5 Estimated 5 year Contract $ CAP Project Expenses Costs CAP% MVC% Acres $/acre Annual Payment Estimated $ MVC Allocated Fencing Materials $13,110.00 50.00% 38.14% $6,555.00 $5,000.00 Fencing Labour & Equipment $12,400.00 50.00% 0.00% $6,200.00 $0.00 Solar Winter Watering System $10,000.00 50.00% 25.00% $5,000.00 $2,500.00 Annual Payments Large Wetlands 23.4 $2.00 $46.80 $234.00 Small Native Uplands 5.5 $10.00 $55.00 $275.00 Total Annual Payment $101.80 $509.00 Totals $35,510.00 28.9 $101.80 $8,009.00 Total ALUS Project Funds $90,107.85 Total ALUS Funds Remaining $82,098.85
ALUS Project - NW-34-31-05-W5
Estimated 5 year Contract $ CAP Project Expenses Costs CAP% MVC% Acres $/acre Annual Payment Estimated $ MVC Allocated Fencing Materials $3,000.00 100.00% $0.00 $3,000.00 Fencing Labour & Equipment $3,000.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 Watering System $4,750.00 25.00% $0.00 $1,187.50 Crossing $250.00 100.00% $0.00 $250.00 Annual Payments Riparian Pasture 13.7 $30.00 $411.00 $2,055.00 Total Annual Payment $411.00 $2,055.00 Totals $11,000.00 13.7 $411.00 $6,492.50 Total ALUS Project Funds $82,098.85 Total ALUS Funds Remaining $75,606.35
15 ALUS Project - SE-18-31-04-W5
Estimated 5 year Contract $ CAP Project Expenses Costs CAP% MVC% Acres $/acre Annual Payment Estimated $ MVC Allocated Fencing Materials $2,700.00 50.00% 50.00% $1,350.00 $1,350.00 Fencing Labour & Equipment $2,700.00 50.00% 0.00% $1,350.00 $0.00 Watering System $500.00 33.33% 25.00% $166.65 $125.00 Annual Payments Large Wetlands 23 $2.00 $46.00 $230.00 Total Annual Payment $46.00 $230.00 Totals $5,900.00 23 $46.00 $1,705.00 Total ALUS Project Funds $75,606.35 Total ALUS Funds Remaining $73,901.35
ALUS Project - NE-22-33-07-W5
Estimated 5 year Contract $ CAP Project Expenses Costs CAP% MVC% Acres $/acre Annual Payment Estimated $ MVC Allocated Fencing Materials $5,750.00 0.00% 86.96% $0.00 $5,000.00 Fencing Labour & Equipment $5,750.00 0.00% 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 Annual Payments Large Wetlands 4 $2.00 $8.00 $40.00 Riparian Pasture 6.9 $30.00 $207.00 $1,035.00 Medium Native Uplands 21 $5.00 $105.00 $525.00 Total Annual Payment $320.00 $1,600.00 Totals $11,500.00 31.9 $320.00 $6,600.00 Total ALUS Project Funds $73,901.35 Total ALUS Funds Remaining $67,301.35
16 ALUS Project - SW-36-29-02-W5
Estimated 5 year Contract $ CAP Project Expenses Costs CAP% MVC% Acres $/acre Annual Payment Estimated $ MVC Allocated Fencing Materials $3,000.00 50.00% 50.00% $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Fencing Labour & Equipment $3,000.00 50.00% 0.00% $1,500.00 $0.00 Watering System $6,790.00 50.00% 25.00% $3,395.00 $1,697.50 Annual Payments Small Wetlands 0.55 $5.00 $2.75 $13.75 Riparian Pasture 15.7 $30.00 $471.00 $2,355.00 Total Annual Payment $473.75 $2,368.75 Totals $12,790.00 16.25 $473.75 $5,566.25 Total ALUS Project Funds $67,301.35 Total ALUS Funds Remaining $61,735.10
New ALUS 2020 Projects ALUS Project - SE-25-32-06-W5
5 year Contract at Renewal - Estimated 1 year Contract Annual Project Expenses Costs CAP% MVC% Acres $/acre Annual Payment Payment $ MVC Allocated Watering System $5,432.23 25.00% $1,358.06 Annual Payments Small Wetlands 0.6 $5.00 $3.00 $3.30 $19.50 Riparian Pasture 14.4 $30.00 $432.00 $475.20 $2,808.00 Total Annual Payment $435.00 $478.50 $2,827.50 Totals $5,432.23 15 $435.00 $478.50 $4,185.56 New acres and funds allocated for 2020 9.1 $1,593.56 Total Funds Allocated in 2018 $2,592.00 Total ALUS Project Funds $61,735.10 Total ALUS Funds Remaining $60,141.54
17 ALUS Project - NW-12-29-04-W5
Estimated 5 year Contract $ CAP Project Expenses Costs CAP% MVC% Acres $/acre Annual Payment Estimated $ MVC Allocated Fencing Materials $2,200.00 100.00% $0.00 $2,200.00 Fencing Labour & Equipment $2,200.00 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 Annual Payments Small Wetlands 0.6 $5.00 $3.00 $15.00 Riparian Pasture 7.5 $30.00 $225.00 $1,125.00 Total Annual Payment $228.00 $1,140.00 Totals $4,400.00 8.1 $228.00 $3,340.00 Total ALUS Project Funds $60,141.54 Total ALUS Funds Remaining $56,801.54
MVC Administration & Outreach Total $53,983.00 Total ALUS Project Funds $56,801.54 Total ALUS Funds Remaining $2,818.54
18 Agricultural Service Board
Request for Direction
Date: November 16, 2020
SUBJECT: Riparian & Ecological Enhancement Program (REEP) Projects
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agricultural Service Board approves funding for the fencing project on the SW-13-32-06-W5 for 50.25% of the material costs to a maximum of $753.75 from the 2020 Riparian and Ecological Enhancement Program budget.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS: That the Agricultural Service Board receives for information the REEP project application as presented.
BACKGROUND: In 2020, one project has been allocated a total of $1,651.25 in funding. An additional project will be presented for approval consideration.
The application has been scored using the project rating form and funding recommendations are based on the rating. This project was previously approved in 2016 but was not completed. Agricultural Services has developed a funding spreadsheet based on these evaluations for review.
RELEVANT POLICY: Policy/Procedure #6309 Riparian and Ecological Enhancement Program Funding
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: 2020-21 ACA Conservation, Community and Education Grant: $25,000 2020 Mountain View County Project Funding: $25,000
Attachments Nil 1. REEP Projects – Nov 2020 2. REEP Project Spreadsheet – Nov 2020
PREPARED BY: LG REVIEWED BY: JF
19 Page 1 of 1 New Fence New Waterer New Dugout
New Dugout, Community Creek Watershed 200 cow/calf Adjacent to a Very High ESA Red Deer River Watershed 250m of fence $ Requested for Fencing: $1,500 50.25% Funding: $753.75 Rating: 75%, 27/50
20 2020 MVC REEP Projects
Total Material LSD CAP% MVC% Cost CAP Estimated $ MVC Allocated Waterbody/Wetland Watershed Project SW-20-31-04-W5 33% 25% $ 7,400.00 $ 2,442.00 $ 1,651.25 Tributary to Elkton Creek, Dugout, Wetlands Little Red Deer River Watershed Watering System SW-13-32-06-W5 33% 50% $ 1,500.00 $ 495.00 $ 753.75 Dugout, Community Creek Watershed Red Deer River Watershed Fencing
Total for approval November 16, 2020 $ 753.75 Total approved to date $ 1,651.25 Total allocated to ALUS projects $ 22,595.00 Total MVC REEP Funds $ 50,000.00 Total MVC REEP Funds Remaining $ 25,000.00
21 Agricultural Service Board
Request for Direction
Date: November 16, 2020
SUBJECT: Do More Ag - Mental Health Session
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agricultural Service Board receive for the information that Mountain View County has been chosen for the Community Fund 2021 to receive a Free Do More Ag Mental Health Session presented by Farm Credit Canada, Bell Canada and The Do More Agriculture Foundation and to engage partnership with the Town of Carstairs and the Town of Sundre for delivery.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS:
BACKGROUND: The Do More Ag Foundation is a not-for-profit organization focusing on mental health in agriculture across Canada. They are champions for the mental wellbeing of all Canadian producers and are committed to changing the culture of Agriculture to one where all producers are encouraged, supported and empowered to take care of their mental wellbeing.
“Agriculture is an industry with a foundation of deep rural roots, hard work, resilience, strength and community. In order to uphold that image, those traits can also be the industry’s weakness as they become barriers for speaking up and seeking help. Producers are among the most vulnerable when it comes to mental health issues. Stress, anxiety, depression, emotional exhaustion and burnout are all high among producers.” https://www.domore.ag/about-us
The Do More Ag Foundation is focused on educating the Ag industry on mental health, breaking the stigma that currently exists, creating a community of belonging, support and resources, as well as ensuring research in this field can continue.
As part of the education component they have partnered with Bridges Health to offer a 4-hour Mental Health in Ag Workshop that will provide participants with a base understanding of mental health and mental illness as well as practical strategies they can implement in their daily lives in terms of supporting others and their own mental wellbeing in a condensed hands on format.
Mountain View County has been selected for the Community Fund 2021 to receive a Free Do More Ag Mental Health Session presented by Farm Credit Canada, Bell Canada and The Do More Agriculture Foundation. The Town of Carstairs and the Town of Sundre also applied for the Community Fund, the Foundation has requested that we work together to host this training, with virtual components set up in multiple halls and also a view from home option.
RELEVANT POLICY:
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: Workshop Cost - Virtual $2,000 or In-Person $3,000 + travel expenses, hall rental & snacks funded through the 2021 Community Fund
22 Page 1 of 2
Attachments Nil 1. 4-hour Workshop Session Outline
PREPARED BY: LG REVIEWED BY: JF
23 Page 2 of 2 Introduction
Program Partnership The development of this workshop began with a vision by Co-Founder Kim Keller, to provide education and experience to producers to equip them with the ability to Talk More, Ask More and Listen More. There are many workshops that focus on mental health training, however we felt there was a gap between general mental health education, and mental health education that was specific to the unique needs and experience of our Canadian Agriculture Producers. Therefore, Do More Ag partnered with Bridges Health, to utilize their existing mental health content, specialize it to agriculture, and include a hands on workshop component and experiential group learning. The Do More Agriculture Foundation
Do More Ag is a not-for-profit organization focusing on mental health in Agriculture across Canada. Agriculture is an industry with a foundation of deep rural roots, hard work, get it done attitude, strength and community. In order to uphold that image, those traits can also be the industry’s weakness as they become barriers for speaking up and seeking help.
Producers are among the most vulnerable when it comes to mental health challenges. Stress, anxiety, depression, emotional exhaustion and burnout are all higher among farmers than among other groups. As well, Canadian farmers are more stressed than those living and working in the general population.
For more information on Do More Ag visit https://www.domore.ag
Bridges Health
Bridges Health is a national organizational wellness provider, specializing in both award winning proprietary programming (Managed Abilities Program and MINDfull Psychological Health & Safety Training) as well as the Mental Health Commission of Canada’s Mental Health First Aid Certification training. Having certified over 2000 individuals in MHFA, and over 6000 employees and leaders in their MINDfull Psychological Health & Safety Training, they are a leader in mental health education across Canada.
For more information on Bridges Health visit https://www.bridgeshealth.com/
1 | P a g e All information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Do More Ag & Bridges Health
24 Workshop Background
1 in 4 Canadians will experience a mental health problem at some point in their life. 1 in 8 jobs in Canada are related to Agriculture yet producers are lacking resources related to mental health. Through Do More Ag, the feedback we have received is that people want to understand more about mental health and how they can help. The commitment of a full two day certification course in Mental Health First Aid is not always a feasible option. Our presentation and workshop options will provide participants with a base understanding of mental health and mental illness as well as practical strategies they can implement in their daily lives in terms of supporting others and their own mental wellbeing in a condensed yet hands on format.
Mental Health In Ag Workshop Outline – 4 Hours
Module 1: Mental Health Awareness a) Mental health b) Mental Illness c) Stress d) Substance Use e) Depressive Disorders f) Anxiety Disorders g) PTSD
This initial module is lecture based with all examples tied to agriculture, case studies, as well as time for questions.
Module 2: Providing Support a) What does support look like b) How to start a conversation c) How to direct to resources d) Follow up
This module begins with relevant examples then practical mock conversations between participants based on case studies provided.
Module 3: Supporting Within Your Means a) Understanding appropriate intervention based on comfort and training b) Receiving Training c) Resources for yourself and others d) Boundaries
Module 3 is lecture based and closes with two unique personal reflection and life balance exercises to assist participants in understanding their own current state.
Module 4: Self Care a) What is Self Care b) Self Care Strategies c) Practical Applications
Wrap Up/Questions/Clarification
2 | P a g e All information contained herein is proprietary and confidential to Do More Ag & Bridges Health
25 Agricultural Service Board Meeting Request for Decision
Date: November 16, 2020
SUBJECT: Agricultural Service Board Appointments and Meeting
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agricultural Service Board appoint ______as Chair.
That the Agricultural Service Board appoint ______as Vice Chair.
That the Agricultural Service Board appoint ______as the Agricultural Service Board representative on the Olds Seed Processing Co-op Board.
That the Agricultural Service Board appoint ______as the Agricultural Service Board representative as an alternate on the Olds Seed Processing Co-op Board.
That the Agricultural Service Board appoint ______as the Agricultural Service Board representative on the Mountain View Seed Cleaning Plant Board.
That the Agricultural Service Board appoint ______as the Agricultural Service Board representative as an alternate on the Mountain View Seed Cleaning Plant Board.
BACKGROUND: The Agricultural Service Board (ASB) is a Committee of Council administered by Bylaw NO. 13- 20 Committees of Council, the Agricultural Service Board Policy 6301 and the Committee’s Terms of Reference.
As per Bylaw NO. 13-20 Committees of Council Section 12 & 13 there is a code of conduct to ensure that Committee Members act honestly, in good faith and in the best interests of Mountain View County. Section 14 ensures there is respect for other Member’s personal views and respect for Committee decisions.
As an appointed member to a Committee of Mountain View County Council, to ensure ongoing effectiveness and accountability to the residents of Mountain View County and as per Section 6, Committees of Council shall provide a year-end report in advance of the annual organizational meeting. The intent of this report is to provide formal communication between Council and the Committees that conduct County business on behalf of Council. In coordination with fellow committee members the year-end report may be presented verbally or via written submission.
Procedure and Conduct of Council Meetings (Bylaw No. 21/07) shall govern the Agricultural Service Board meetings and shall be binding upon all Committee members whether Councillors or Members at Large. Motions do not require a seconder and motions may be withdrawn by the mover at any time before voting, subject to there being no objection from any other member of the Board. The meetings are recorded to assist with the accurate composition of draft minutes as per Policy/Procedure 1005 Electronic Recordings.
The Chair is the official spokesperson of the Committee. Official comments made by the Chair must reflect the majority position of the Committee. The Agricultural Service Board Chairman must be selected by the Agricultural Service Board at the first meeting, following Council’s organizational meeting, as per Mountain View County’s Agricultural Service Board policy. The Chair position is a one year term appointment. Council has directed that the Chair of external committees, such as the Agricultural Service Board, should be selected from the appointed members at large.
7 1 - RFD - Agricultural Service Board Appointments (ID 494932)26 Page 1 of 3 A Vice Chair must be selected by the Agricultural Service Board at the first meeting following Council’s organizational meeting, as per Mountain View County’s Agricultural Service Board policy. The Vice Chair would assume the role of Chair in their absence. This position is a one year term appointment.
The Agricultural Service Board annually appoints a representative to sit on the Board at each Seed Cleaning Plant operating in the County. There are currently two Co-operative plants, Olds Seed Processing Co-op Ltd. and Mountain View Seed Cleaning Plant. Appointed members are expected to attend all Seed Plant Board meetings and relay any pertinent information back to the Agricultural Service Board and Council. Recently alternates have also been pointed to ensure ASB representation at meetings. This position is a one year term appointment.
Agricultural Service Board Members are eligible for per diem, mileage and approved expenditures paid in accordance to Policy 1004 – Councillor Remuneration. A member of the Agricultural Service Board who is absent from three (3) consecutive meetings of the Committee without valid reason shall forfeit his or her office.
Along with Agricultural Service Board meetings taking place the third Monday of the month, there is a one day Central Region Agricultural Service Board Annual Conference in October or November hosted by a different Central Region municipality. At the Conference timely topics are presented followed by the resolution process. Resolutions are a formal expression of opinion or intention prepared by a municipality, supported by their Agricultural Service Board for discussion and voting, as per the Regional Agricultural Service Board Conference Resolutions Rules of Procedure.
At the annual Provincial ASB Conference all the resolutions passed by the various five regions are voted upon as per the Provincial Agricultural Service Board (ASB) Committee Rules of Procedure. The resolution process is an important part of the relevance of Agricultural Service Board’s and the Conference, while it is also a forum for learning; resolutions try to raise awareness on the issues affecting agriculture and the community through a collective voice. The 2021 Provincial Agricultural Service Board Conference will be held virtually on January 21.
Agricultural Service Board members are eligible for reimbursement of the monthly costs of high speed internet service to a maximum of $75.00 per month as per Policy/Procedure #1027 Council Communication and Technology Devices.
The Provincial Orientation Manual for ASB Members is available online as a downloadable PDF.
RELEVANT POLICY: Bylaws Committees of Council Bylaw 13-20 Procedure and Conduct of Council Meetings.Consolidated Bylaw 21-07
Policies Policy/Procedure #1003 Councillor Attendance at Conferences & Development Sessions Policy #1004 Councillor Remuneration Policy/Procedure #1005 Electronic Recordings Policy/Procedure #1027 Council Communication and Technology Devices Policy #6301 Agricultural Service Board
Other Resources Orientation Manual for ASB Members Regional Rules of Procedure Approved Jan 22, 2020 Provincial Rules of Procedure Approved Jan 22, 2019
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS:
Attachments Nil 1. Agricultural Service Board Terms of Reference 27 Page 2 of 3 2. FOIP Provisions - Committee Considerations 3. ASB Calendar October 2020 to October 2021
PREPARED BY: JF REVIEWED BY: JF
28 Page 3 of 3 Terms of Reference Agricultural Service Board 1408 Twp. Rd. 320 / Postal Bag 100, Didsbury, AB Canada T0M 0W0 T 403.335.3311 F 403.335.9207 Toll Free 1.877.264.9754 www.mountainviewcounty.com
Preamble Established by Council, the Agricultural Service Board provide services that promote and enhance agricultural production within the County in accordance with Provincial legislations and County policies.
Scope/Purpose The Agricultural Service Board established under the Agricultural Service Board Act shall be responsible for the following: - Promotion and enhancement of Agricultural Production within the County in accordance with Provincial legislation and County Policy and Strategic Objectives. - Acting as an advisory body to assist Council and the Minister of Agriculture in matters of mutual concern. - Advising on and helping organize and direct weed and pest control and soil and water conservation programs. - Assisting in the control of livestock disease under the Livestock Diseases Act. - Promoting, enhancing and protecting viable and sustainable Agriculture with a view to improving the economic viability of the agricultural producer. - Developing and Promoting agricultural policies to meet the needs of the municipality. - Ensuring that all Provincial Statutes (Weed Control Act, Soil Conservation Act, Agricultural Pests Act and Agricultural Service Board Act) are administered to the benefit of all municipal residents. - Annually, preparing and submitting operating and capital budgets and an annual report on programs and expenditures to Council for approval. - Carrying out the agricultural programs approved by Council in the annual operating and capital budgets. - Developing, and reviewing annually, the Strategic Business Plan document describing all of the goals and programs provided by the Agricultural Service Board to ensure that it aligns with Mountain View County’s Strategic Goals and Objectives. - Members will advise the Board on the level of success of ASB programs and policies in their area. - Advising Council with respect to proper land utilization in general terms with the view to improving the economic welfare of County farmers. - Developing and Overseeing Environmental Programs with agricultural impacts. - Overseeing program and project approvals for Riparian Enhancement Projects
Applicable Legislation Bylaw 13/20 – Establishing Committees of Council Agricultural Service Board Act RSA 2000, Chapter A-10
Membership Councillors - 3 Citizens at Large – 4 Citizens at Large shall reside within Mountain View County who are interested in the betterment of Agriculture and meet the following criteria: o Be an active Agricultural Producer; o Be well versed in diversified County Agriculture; o Be able to attend Regional and Provincial Agriculture Service Board Conferences and monthly Board Meetings.
Appointment and Term Councillors shall serve a one (1) year term.
Citizens at Large shall be appointed for three (3) year terms unless determined otherwise by Council. In the event that a vacancy occurs, Council may appoint an additional Citizen at Large to fill the remaining term of that vacancy.
29 Page 2 of 2
Chair Chair and Vice-Chair shall be elected by the Board at their first meeting following the County’s Organizational Meeting and shall serve a one (1) year term in that position.
Administrative Support Agricultural Fieldman, Assistant Director Legislative, Community and Agricultural Services
Assistant Agricultural Fieldman
Administrative Support to the Assistant Director Legislative, Community and Agricultural Services
Other personnel may be invited with the approval of the Assistant Director Legislative, Community and Agricultural Services to attend meetings to discuss relevant business
Quorum Quorum shall consist of four (4) Members.
Meeting Frequency Agricultural Service Board shall meet monthly on the third Monday of each month. In the event that a meeting is not required, it may be cancelled at the Chair’s discretion.
Additional meetings may be scheduled at the call of the Chair.
Spending/Payment Authority Agricultural Service Board shall have the authority to spend funds allocated for Agricultural Services Operating and Capital Programs as allocated annually by Council.
Decision Making Authority Agricultural Service Board shall have decision making authority on all programs and policies within their Scope.
All decisions will be made by a simple majority of the Board.
All decisions of the Board must comply with County Bylaws and Policies.
Committee Administration (Agenda Timelines/Minutes) Agendas will be developed by the Administrative Support to the Agricultural Service Board and circulated to the Committee within three (3) working days of the Committee Meeting.
Minutes of the Committee will be recorded by the Administrative Support to the Board.
General Guidelines No further guidelines identified.
Approval Date: October 7, 2020 Last Review Date:
30 Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy
~ 1408 Twp. Rd. 320 / Postal Bag 100, Didsbury, AB Canada TOM OWO Mountain View T 403.335.3311 F 403.335.9207 Toll Free 1.877.264.9754 COUNTY www.mountainviewcounty.com
To: Mountain View County Committee Members
From: Christofer Atchison FOIP Head Director of Legislative, Community and Agricultural Services
Date: November 5, 2020
Subject: FOIP Provisions - Committee Considerations
Congratulations on your recent appointment to one of our various Committees. As part of our annual orientation process, Mountain View County provides information to Committees on the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FOIP) Act, the County's FOIP program and how it relates to your Committees operations.
Like all municipalities in Alberta, Mountain View County is required to comply with the FOIP Act and associated regulations which governs the manner in which personal information is collected, used, stored and disclosed by Mountain View County and how information can be accessed by members of the public. Mountain View County's FOIP program encourages open and transparent communications with residents and stakeholders and attempts to provide as much information as possible except where the County is required by the Act to control the disclosure of that information.
The entire FOIP Act can be found on line at this location, if you are interested in reading it in its entirety or specific sections: https://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=F25.cfm&leg type=Acts&isbncln=9780779762071
I would like to highlight a few areas of FOIP that will likely be most applicable to your Committee operations:
Meetings held in Public Section 197(1) of the Municipal Government Act states that Councils and Council Committees must conduct their meetings in public unless subsection (2) or (2.1) applies.
Therefore, unless your Committee meeting explicitly goes to Closed Session, please remember that your meeting, all documentation provided, decisions and your personal comments are open to public disclosure if a request is made to Mountain View County.
Closed Session Meetings Section 197(2) of the Municipal Government Act states that Councils and Council Committees may close all or part of their meetings to the public if a matter to be discussed is within one of the exceptions to disclosure in Division 2 of Part 1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.
Division 2, Part 1 of the FOIP Act allows for the following disclosures: Disclosure harmful to businesses interests of a third party; Disclosure harmful to personal privacy; Disclosure harmful to individual or personal safety; Confidential Evaluations; Disclosure harmful to law enforcement; Disclosure harmful to intergovernmental affairs; Local public body confidences; Advice from officials; Disclosure harmful to economic and other interests of a public body; Testing procedures, tests and audits; 31 Page 2 of 2 Privileged Information; Disclosure harmful to the conservation of heritage sites, etc.; Information that is, or will be available to the public;
It should be noted that within each exemption, specific situations apply, so in the event that you have an item to discuss that you feel is protected by the FOIP Act, I encourage you to reach out to your Administrative Representation to determine if the item, or a portion of the item, should be protected and therefore be discussed in a closed session.
Collecting Personal Information You will note that Mountain View County collects personal information for a variety of purposes, many of which may relate to your Committee's operations. When this information is collected, it is important that the individual understands why the information is being collected, under what authority, and who they can contact if they have questions on the information. This is usually done through a disclosure statement on the bottom of Application Forms, however I encourage you to maintain those best practices in the event that your Committee undertakes a survey, requests the submission of letters or other data in which personal information will be collected. I would urge you to reach out to me prior to the release of these projects to ensure that FOIP Considerations are implemented.
Managing Confidential Information If your Committee receives Confidential Information, it is important to ensure that the information is managed appropriately. If the information is provided in a hard copy form, I encourage you to ensure that it is destroyed by placing it into one of the many Shredding Boxes located in the County Office. In the event that it is provided in an electronic format, deleting it when it is no longer required is a good practice or ensuring that it is stored on a password protected device will decrease the risk of inadvertent access.
When working with information at home, please ensure that your technology is locked at any time that you are not using the device. Further, it is important to remember that protection of privacy also extends to verbal communication and therefore in the event that they are taking Committee related phone calls at home, or participating remotely in a Committee Meeting, that they are in a private location to maximize the protection of any information protected or received;
Conclusion The protection of confidential information is all of our responsibilities and I am encouraged by the work done by our Committee Members historically to ensure that personal information remains protected. In the event that you have any questions on FOIP, how it applies specifically to your Committee, or a specific situation that arises in which you need further clarification, please reach out to your Administrative Representation for information.
Further, I can also be reached by email at: [email protected] or by phone at (403) 335-3311.
Christofer Atchison FOIP Head Director of Legislative, Community and Agricultural Services
32 October 2020 – October 2021
October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 January 2021 February 2021 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 C S 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 C S C C 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 S C A C A C S 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 C S A C 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 OC S C 31
March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 S S 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 C S C 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 A C C C 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C A A A C 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 C S C 30 31
August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 Dates Legend: RMA November 2 – 5 C = Regular Council S M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M T W T F S 2020 Fall S = Stat Holiday 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 2020 Christmas Weeks of: O = Organizational Meeting S Break Dec 21 & 28 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2021 ASB Conference January 18-21, 2021 C S C 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 RMA March 15 - 17 A S C 2021 Spring 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 FCM 2021 June 3 – June 6, 2021 C A E 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 2021 Summer Break Weeks of: C OC July 19, 26 & Aug 2 31 AUMA 2021 September 22-24, 2021 TBC
Approved by Council October 28, 2020 33 Agricultural Service Board
Request for Direction
Date: November 16, 2020
SUBJECT: Carcass Composting Project Application
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agricultural Service Board approves $3,944.25 of funding from the Canadian Agricultural Partnership Risk Management Risk Mitigation Program funding towards the Carcass Composting Project application.
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS: That the Agricultural Service Board receives the Carcass Composting Project application for information.
BACKGROUND: Managing carcass disposal is a consideration for producers, their neighbours, their communities, the governing agencies and the environment. Deadstock and carcasses, if abandoned or disposed of incorrectly, become an environmental, biosecurity and/or wildlife conflict hazard. Improper carcass disposal causes odour, nuisance; attracts scavengers; it has the potential to threaten water quality through contamination, and to become a vector for zoonotic disease outbreaks or soil contamination.
Mountain View County is home of many large carnivore species such as grizzly bear, black bear, cougar, coyote and wolf. These species both represent an ecologically sound ecosystem and a potential for human wildlife conflict. As well documented in the area (Cochrane, Sundre and Clearwater districts) and in Southern Alberta, Montana and other States, improper carcass disposal become a significant source of conflict, particularly during calving season and late summer.
Because of the financial and logistic challenges around carcass disposal prompted by BSE, the risk of wildlife human conflict due to improper disposal of deadstock has significantly increased. Also, emerging diseases such as Avian Influenza and Porcine Epidemic Diarrhea require on-farm bio-secure mortality disposal.
Proper carcass composting provides an affordable and effective solution to both, securing the attractant from carnivores and scavengers as well as degrading the bio-hazard and reducing the risk for disease outbreaks. To be effective, however, carcass composting must be planned and managed correctly. Carcass composting requires good management but only minimal training. It requires little equipment that is already available on farm and utilizes readily available organic materials.
Through a successful application under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership Risk Management Risk Mitigation Program, Mountain View County ASB has partnered with Mountain View Bearsmart (MVBS) to fund and monitor a on farm carcass composting project. Mountain View Bearsmart has been interested in implementing ground-up carcass composting projects in Mountain View County since 2014, modeling the numerous successes documented in Southern Alberta and Montana in the last 15 years.
34 Page 1 of 2 The intent is to provide technical information and hands-on exposure to ranchers and producers in Mountain View County. The project was announced at the 2020 Mountain View County and MD of Bighorn Predator Workshop. Alberta Environment and Parks and Mountain View BearSmart were engaged to recommend potential applicants.
Mountain View County has completed site visits to meet with the applicant and to assess the site to ensure it would be an appropriate location for the project. Mountain View County met on-site with subject expert Dr. Kim Stanford and the applicant to discuss the proper procedures and materials required for the project. Mountain View County has also met with Alberta Environment and Parks and Mountain View Bearsmart to discuss the project and partner with both parties. A fencing contractor has been contacted and has agreed to install the electric fence, which will help mitigate bears and coyotes from scavenging in the project area as well as acting as an example for the success of a properly installed electric fence.
If the application is approved Mountain View County in collaboration with Mountain View Bearsmart will monitor and assess the success of the site. Subject experts will be engaged to provide support and expertise and constructive critic in order to expand similar projects elsewhere through the County and surrounding areas.
Attached is the only a pplication form Mountain View County received for the project for the ASBs review.
RELEVANT POLICY:
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: Canadian Agricultural Partnership Risk Management Risk Mitigation Program Funding - $10,000
Attachments Nil 1. 2020 Carcass Composting Project Application
PREPARED BY: CV
REVIEWED BY: JF
35 Page 2 of 2 Carcass Co mposting Progra m Application & Agree ment 1408 T wp. Rd. 320 / Postal Bag 100, Didsbury, AB Canada T0 M 0 W0 T 403.335.3311 F 403.335.9207 Toll Free 1.877.264.9754 w w w. mountainvie wcounty.co m
A P P LI C A N TTAP D E T AI L SDE S
APPLICANT/FAR M NA ME: Grace Feedyards Ltd. RURAL ADDRESS: M aili n g A d dr e s s: Postal Code: E-mail address : Preferred Phone # : EFP co mpleted? Alternate Phone #: CARCASSC A R C A S S CO C O MPOSTINGM P O STI N G PPR R OJ E CT D ET AI L SDET S
L E G A L D E S C RI P TI O N: P art of / All of NW ¼ S e cti o n 8 T o w n s hi p 3 2 R a n g e 4 W 5 M LAND USE DESIG NATIO N: Agriculture Is t his locatio n a re ntal pro perty? Y e s N o Have you had issues with predation? Y e s N o Wildlife Type (coyote, bear, cougar, etc.):______B e ar Have you had issues with deadstock attracting predators or scavengers? Y e s N o Please describe your past issues______L ot s of b e ar tr affi c t hr o u g h t h e y ar d a n d ar o u n d t h e c attl e p e n s c a u g ht o n g a m e c a m er a s. ______I s s u e s wit h b e ar s f e e di n g o n d e a d a ni m al s. Al s o f o u n d r e m ai n s of a d e a d c o w i n a n e m pt y p e n r e c e ntl y. Nu mber and type of livestock carcasses i mpacted by the project______2 5 Describe the proposed carcass co mposting project______T h e c o m p o sti n g ar e a will b e 3 5 m x 3 5 m a n d f e n c e d wit h el e ctri c f e n c e. T h e b a s e will b e a mi x of ol d str a w a n d s h a vi n g s. ______T hi s b a s e will a ct a s a gr e at c ar b o n s o ur c e a s w ell a s li miti n g a n y fl ui d s e s c a pi n g fr o m t h e sit e. T h e c ar c a s s e s will b e pl a c e d o n t o p of t h e b a s e a s cl o s e t o g et h er a s p o s si bl e wit h o ut a n y t o u c hi n g b et w e e n t h e c ar c a s s e s. M a n ur e will t h e n b e a d d e d o n t o p t o ______f ull y c o v er t h e c ar c a s s e s. T hi s will st a y f or a p pr o xi m at el y 3 m o nt h s a n d t h e n t h e c o m p o sti n g pil e will b e fli p p e d o n t o a fr e s h str a w a n d s h a vi n g b e d. T hi s pr o c e s s will b e r e p e at e d e v er y 3 m o nt h s u ntil t h e c ar c a s s e s ar e f ull y c o m p o st e d, a p pr o xi m at el y 9 m o nt h s. Describe h o w this project mitigate predator or scavenger activity and reduce disease spread______T h e ar e a will b e f e n c e d wit h 6 str a n d ______hi g h t e n sil e wir e a n d el e ctrifi e d b y a s ol ar e n er gi z er. T h e ar e a will al s o b e m o nit or e d b y g a m e c a m er a s t o s e e h o w w ell t h e f e n c e i s w or ki n g. ______BudgetB u d g et ( MaterialsM at eri al s only) o nly) Category ( Stra w, wood chips, Ot h er p arti cl e m at eri al, f e n c er, T ot al Description of Materials F u n di n g c harger, wire posts, post pi n A m o u nt S o ur c e s cli p, r u b b er g at e h a n dl e, et c. ) Fencing Posts $ 3 5 0. 0 0
Hi g h T e n sil e Wir e, I n s ul at or s, Gr o u n d R o d s, Cl a m p s, a n d r el at e d h ar d w ar e $ 7 1 9. 2 5 G at e s $ 8 4 0. 0 0 R ail s $ 1 1 5. 0 0
Solar Energizer $ 4 8 0. 0 0 Mountain Vie w Bear S mart
B att er y Included in price above Mountain Vie w Bear S mart
Jeff Marley's Expenses C o ntr a ct or t o i n st all t h e el e ctri c f e n ci n g a n d g at e s. $ 1, 1 0 0. 0 0 Mountain Vie w Bear S mart
Co mpost Chips Mi x e d s h ai vi n g s fr o m Lil' S h a v er i n S u n dr e. Pri c e v ari a n c e i s d u e t o eit h er 2 8' tr ail er l o a d or 5 3' tr ail er l o a d $ 1, 5 0 0. 0 0
Te mperature Probes St ai nl e s s st e el pr o b e s t o m o nit or t h e t e m p er at ur e wit hi n t h e c o m p o st pil e. $ 4 2 0. 0 0 Dr. Ki m St a nf or d Carcass Co mposting Consultant 0. 0 0
Total Costs $ 5, 5 4 9. 2 5 ( R e q u e st e d $ 3, 9 4 4. 2 5) 36 P a g e 2 of 3 CARCASS CO MPOSTING SITE SKETCH T h e Sit e S k et c h s h o ul d i n cl u d e all of t h e f oll o wi n g i nf or m ati o n i n or d er f or it t o b e c o n si d er e d c o m pl et e Property lines of the parent parcel and any subdivisions Location of rivers, creeks, wetlands, dugouts, springs and wells Location of existing peri meter fencing and cross fences I d e ntify fi el d ty p e s - p er e n ni al ( h ay) or p er m a n e nt p a st ur e, a n n u al ( c a n ol a, b arl ey, w h e at, et c.) Location of carcass co mpost site (existing or proposed) Location of all proposed carcass co mpost fencing (all fencing projects must be wildlife friendly)
The belo w square may be used to represent ¼ Section I n di c at e n a m e of R O A D if a p pli c a bl e T w p 3 2 2 N ort h R R 4 5
Pr o p o s e d project area
I n di c at e n a m e of R O A D if a p pli c a bl e
PPR R OJE CT AAGGREE REE MENTM E NT CONDITIONS C O N DITI O N S The grantee agrees to the conditions belo w if project funding is approved: • The grantee will provide Mountain Vie w County ( MV C ) right of entry on their property for project related visits with prior notice to conduct an a ssess ment of the project area in funding year and again five ( 5) years later. • The grantee will acquire and maintain all required per mits, approvals, per missions for the project. • The grantee will be responsible for the construction and maintenance of the project. • Projects co mpleted on leased land require lando wner’s per mission. • The project detailed on the attached application will be co mpleted by October 31 , 2020. • The grantee will ensure the project re mains per manent/functional for a mini mu m of 5 years. • MVC will prorate the allocat ed funding a mount based on additional funding received for the project • MVC will disperse the funds to the grantee upon revie w of receipts and project inspection • MVC may post a road -side sign describing the project on the property of the grantee. • MV C will conduct public tours of the project site with prior approval of tour date fro m the grantee.
37 P a g e 3 of 3 A U T O RI Z TI O N
I/ t h e r e gi st er e d l a n d o w n er
a m n ot t h e r e gi st er e d l a n d o w n er o n w hi c h t h e pr o ject is t o b e i m pl e m e nt e d; h o w ev er, I h a v e di s c u s s e d t h e pr o Je ct wit h t h e p er s o n w h o o w n s t h e l a n d a n d h a v e r e c eiv e d R er m1 s si o n t o c o m pl et e t hi s pr o je ct. N a m e of t h e l a n d o w n er ( pl e a s e ______
h er e b y c ertif y t h at:
t h e i nf or m ati o n gi v e n o n t hi s f or m is f ull a n d c o m pl et e a n d 1 s, t o t h e b e st of m y k n o wl e d g e, a tr u e st at e m e nt of t h e f a ct s r el ati n g t o t hi s a p pli c ati o n.
Co unty e mployees, a ny losses, costs, expe nses, actions to a gree ment to
D at e A p pli c ati o n i s s u b mitt e d: _ _ _ N ov e m b er 2 , 2 0 2 0 ______
Pl e a s e N ot e: T h e p e r o n al I nf or m ati o n o n t hi s f or m i s b ei n g c oll e ct e d u n d er t h e a ut h ori ty of S e cti o n 3 3( c) of t h e Al b e s a Fr e e d o m of I nf or m ati o n a n d Pr ot e cti o n of Pri v a c y A ct ( F 0I P) f or t h e p ur p o e of ev al u ati n g a n d a d mi ni st eri n g t h e a p pli c a bl e gr a n t pr o gr a m. T h e a p pli c ati o n f o r or i nf or m ati o n pr o vi d e d m a y b e i n cl u d e d i n a p u bli c a g e n d a p a c k a g e pr e p ar e d f or C o u n cil or a c o m mitt e of C o u n cil. A n y I n q uiri e r el ati v e t o t h e c oll e cti o n or u s e of t hi s i nf or m ati o n m a y b e dir e ct e d t o w ar d s: M o u nt ai n Vi e w C o u nt y F OI P C o or di n at or, 1 4 0 8 - T w p. R d 3 2 0, 4 0 3- 3 3 5 3 3 1 1, P o st al B a g 1 0 0. Di d s b u r A B. T O M 0 W 0
38 Agricultural Service Board
Request for Direction
Date: November 16, 2020
SUBJECT: Reports
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agricultural Service Board receive the following as information: a. Seed Plant Updates (verbal report) b. Workshop Updates c. 2020 Report Card on the Resolutions d. Alberta Crop Report – Final Report for 2020
BACKGROUND:
RELEVANT POLICY: Nil.
BUDGET IMPLICATIONS: Nil.
Attachments Nil
1. EFP Webinar/Workshop Series Poster 2020 2. Working Well Virtual Workshop Poster November 2020 3. Marginal Lands and Hidden Opportunities Webinar 4. 2020 Report Card on the Resolutions FINAL 5. Alberta Crop Report: Final Report for 2020
PREPARED BY: LG, DA REVIEWED BY: JF
39 Page 1 of 1 Complete your Environmental Farm Plan Building on a solid foundation
Why should you have an EFP for your farm? Come find out by joining one of our webinars.
Need help getting started on your EFP? Join us for a virtual workshop. Registration is required. Email [email protected] or EFP Workshops call 587-200-2552. October 20 1:30 pm - 3:30 pm EFP Webinars
October 27 November 4 2 pm - 2:30 pm 6 pm - 8 pm
November 10 November 19 10 am - 10:30 am 9:30 am - 11:30 am
November 25 November 30 9 am - 9:30 am 2 pm - 4 pm
40 alberta.ca/working-well.aspx WATER WELL MANAGEMENT FOR WELL OWNERS
During this live, online workshop you will learn: • The basics of groundwater and how your well works. • How to protect your well from contamination. • How to test your well water. • How to properly operate and maintain your well. • How and when to shock chlorinate your well. • What to do with old, abandoned wells on your property. • And more.
HOSTED BY:
JOIN US AT THIS LIVE, ONLINE (via Zoom) WORKING WELL WORKSHOP
HOSTED BY: Kneehill County & Mountain View County
DATE: November 17, 2020 START TIME: 6:30 pm
PLEASE PRE-REGISTER HERE: https://bit.ly/2SaVTmn
41 Marginal Lands and Hidden Opportunities Webinar Production & Ecological Benefits TOPICS: Mick Plemel-Stronks with Ducks Unlimited Canada will discuss: To seed or not to seed, that IS the question How to get back to 'natural' wetlands Saline area challenges Ecological goods & services - biodiversity benefits & habitat Management solutions for riparian buffers Christine Campbell with ALUS Canada will discuss: What the ALUS program is and how it works Financial assistance & annual payments for ecosystem services on marginal farmland Sarah Nixdorff with SNS Herefords will: Showcase her marginal lands project on her ranch with before and after photos Talk about the process, opportunities, and learnings DETAILS: Thursday December 10, 2020 1:00pm to 2:30pm Register at - https://marginallands.eventbrite.ca
42
Report Card on the
Resolutions
2020
Provincial Agricultural Service Board Committee
43
Table of Contents
Contents Introduction 3 Executive Summary 4 Response Summary 5 2020 Activities 6 Definition of Terms 8 Accept the Response 8 Accept in Principle 8 Incomplete 8 Unsatisfactory 8 2020 Resolutions 9 RESOLUTION 1-20: ROPIN’ THE WEB 10 RESOLUTION 2-20: WEED AND PEST SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING TECHNOLOGY GRANT 13 RESOLUTION 3-20: CLUBROOT PATHOTYPE TESTING 15 RESOLUTION 4-20: EDUCATION CAMPAIGN FOR CLEANLINESS OF EQUIPMENT FOR INDUSTRY SECTORS 18 RESOLUTION 5-20: AFSC ASSIST IN PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF REGULATED CROP PESTS 21 RESOLUTION 6-20: BEEHIVE DEPREDATION 25 RESOLUTION 7-20: AGRICULTURAL RELATED LEASE DISPOSITIONS 27 RESOLUTION 8-20: EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK REMOVAL 29 RESOLUTION 9-20: MANDATORY AGRICULTURE EDUCATION IN THE CLASSROOM 32 RESOLUTION 10-20: REINSTATE A SHELTERBELT PROGRAM 36 RESOLUTION 11-20: COMPENSATION TO PRODUCERS ON DENIED LAND ACCESS TO HUNTERS 38 RESOLUTION 12-20: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PART XV OF THE FEDERAL HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS 39 RESOLUTION 13-20: CANADIAN PRODUCT AND CANADIAN MADE 42 RESOLUTION E1-20: REVIEW OF BUSINESS RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 44 RESOLUTION E2-20: INITIATE AGRIRECOVERY FRAMEWORK 47 RESOLUTION E3-20: AGRIINVEST AND AGRISTABILITY CHANGES 51 Update on Previous Years’ Resolutions 55
1
44
2019 Resolutions 55 2018 Resolutions 57 2017 Resolutions 58 Expiring Resolutions 59 Current Advocacy 59 Appendix 60 Resolution 4-20: Education Campaign for Cleanliness of Equipment for Industry Sectors 60 Resolution 9-20: Mandatory Agriculture Education in the Classroom 70 Resolution 13-20: Canada Product and Canadian Made 73 Resolution E1-19: Access to Agriculture Specific Mental Health Resources 85
2
45
Introduction The Provincial Agricultural Service Board Committee is pleased to provide Agricultural Service Board (ASB) members and staff with the 2020 Report Card on the Resolutions. This report contains the government and non-government responses to resolutions passed at the 2020 Provincial ASB Conference. The Report Card on the Resolutions includes the Whereas and Therefore Be It Resolved sections from the resolutions, response, response grade and comments from the Committee and ASBs for each resolution. The resolutions and responses are also posted on the Agricultural Service Board website at agriculturalserviceboards.com. Actions taken by the Committee on current and prior resolutions are also included in this report. 2020 ASB Provincial Committee Members
Members Alternates Representation Corey Beck, Chair Dale Smith Peace Marc Jubinville, Vice Chair Kevin Smook Northeast Morgan Rockenbach Shawn South Rodgers Wayne Nixon Brenda Knight Central Dale Kluin Vacant Northwest Brian Brewin Rural Municipalities of Alberta Sebastien Dutrisac Association of Alberta Agricultural Fieldmen Doug Macaulay Agriculture and Forestry Jane Fulton, Secretary Association of Alberta Agricultural Fieldmen Pam Retzloff, Recording Agriculture and Forestry Secretary
The Committee reviewed the responses and assigned one of four grades: Accept the Response, Accept in Principle, Incomplete and Unsatisfactory. The Committee considers the quality of each response and grading and comments submitted by ASBs when grading the resolutions. The grades assigned by the Committee are intended to provide further direction for advocacy efforts for each resolution. Please contact your Regional Representative if you have questions or comments about the grade assigned to a resolution or advocacy efforts. A summary of grading provided by ASBs is attached for information. The Committee appreciates the input of ASBs into the grading process.
3
46
Executive Summary
The Provincial ASB Committee has assigned the following grades to the 2020 resolution responses received from government and non-government organizations based on the grading received from the participating ASBs.
Resolution Resolution Grade Grade Updated Number 1-20 Ropin’ the Web Accept the Response 2-20 Weed and Pest Surveillance and Monitoring Incomplete Technology Grant 3-20 Clubroot Pathotype Testing Unsatisfactory Accept in Principal 4-20 Education Campaign for Cleanliness of Equipment Unsatisfactory for Industry Sectors 5-20 AFSC Assist in Preventing the Spread of Regulated Unsatisfactory Crop Pests 6-20 Beehive Depredation Accept in Principle 7-20 Agricultural Related Lease Dispositions Accept in Principle 8-20 Emergency Livestock Removal Accept in Principle 9-20 Mandatory Agriculture Education in the Classroom Unsatisfactory 10-20 Reinstate a Shelterbelt Program Accept in Principle 11-20 Compensation to Producers on Denied Land Access Defeated to Hunters 12-20 Proposed Amendments to Part XV of the Federal Accept in Health of Animals Regulations Principle 13-20 Canadian Product and Canadian Made Incomplete E1-20 Review of Business Risk Management Programs Unsatisfactory E2-20 Initiate Agri-Recovery Framework Unsatisfactory E3-20 Agri-Invest and Agri-Stability Changes Unsatisfactory
4
47
Response Summary
Number of ASBs that Responded
Region No. of ASBs Responding % of Region Responding South 6 33% Central 6 43% Northeast 3 15% Northwest 4 31% Peace 3 23% Overall 22 32%
2020 Summary of Grading Responses Submitted
Resolution No. Accept the Response Accept in Principle Incomplete Unsatisfactory 1-20 18 2 1 1 2-20 1 1 20 0 3-20 6 3 0 12 4-20 0 2 2 17 5-20 2 1 1 18 6-20 0 22 0 0 7-20 0 19 1 2 8-20 1 21 0 0 9-20 1 3 1 17 10-20 2 19 1 0 11-20 N/A N/A N/A N/A 12-20 0 22 0 0 13-20 0 3 16 2 E1-20 0 2 1 19 E2-20 0 0 2 20 E3-20 0 0 2 20
5
48
2020 Activities
This February the Committee said good bye to their Executive Assistant Maureen Vadnais-Sloan who has faithfully served the ASBs in one capacity or another for just over 4 years. In June, Linda Hunt was hired as the new Executive Assistant to the Committee. Maureen’s background and experience is irreplaceable and the Committee wishes her all the best in her new role with AFSC.
The change in staff provided a good opportunity for the Committee to reflect on the Strategic Plan, the ministry recommendations from the 2019 ASB Grant Program review, and the role of the Committee in providing advice to the minister and advocacy for the ASBs. Improving engagement and communication with ASBs, Ministry and industry partners is a top priority and to do that the development of key messages, position statements and process for regular communication are being discussed. The Executive Assistant role is key to any increased engagement and communication by the Committee and so a stable sustainable funding model is desired. In the meantime the Executive Assistant has been working on the format and organization of the website and is beginning to use the blog page as a means to communicate with the ASBs. Please take the time to visit the website and subscribe to receive email updates when new blogs are posted.
Ministry engagement has also been a challenge this year with the COVID response disrupting priorities. ADM John Conrad was seconded to a position with the COVID response, and returned to his ADM position in September. He will be joining the Committee’s regular meeting on Oct 9th to talk about ASB grants, updates to resolutions and the timelines for receiving resolution responses. The Committee did manage to reschedule the March meeting with the Ministry of Transportation DM Lajeunesse and ADM Tom Loo for this September, results of which are posted on our website. We are still waiting to be scheduled for a meeting with Minister Dreeshen. Despite the disruptions to communications and responses, 32% of the ASBs contributed to the resolution grading process.
Meetings: January 21, 2020 ● Regular ASB Provincial Committee Meeting ● AAAF Meeting ● Rural Municipalities of Alberta Meeting March 16, 2020 ● Regular Meeting ● Delegation: John Conrad, Assistant Deputy Minister, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry April 30, 2020 ● Regular Meeting May 22, 2020 ● Regular Meeting June 23, 2020 ● Regular Meeting ● Delegation: Jamie Whyte, Acting Deputy Minister, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry September 1, 2020
6
49
● Meeting with Deputy Minister Lajeunesse and Assistant Deputy Minister Loo ● Meeting with Jake Kotowich, Executive Director for Plant and October 9, 2020 ● Regular Meeting Other Activities: Hiring of new Executive Assistant South Caucus Invitation - TBD Events: January 21 – 24, 2020: 75th Anniversary of ASBs, Provincial Conference
7
50
Definition of Terms The Provincial ASB Committee has chosen four indicators to grade resolution responses from government and non-government organizations. Accept the Response A response that has been graded as Accept the Response addresses the resolution as presented or meets the expectations of the Provincial ASB Committee. Accept in Principle A response that is graded Accept in Principle addresses the resolution in part or contains information that indicates that further action is being considered. Incomplete A response that is graded as Incomplete does not provide enough information or does not completely address the resolution. Follow up is required to solicit information for the Provincial ASB Committee to make an informed decision on how to proceed. Unsatisfactory A response that is graded as Unsatisfactory does not address the resolution as presented or does not meet the expectations of the Provincial ASB Committee
8
51
2020 Resolutions
9
52
RESOLUTION 1-20: ROPIN’ THE WEB
WHEREAS: The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is responsible for the policies, legislation, regulations, programs, and services that enable Alberta’s agriculture, food, and forest sectors to grow, prosper, and diversify; WHEREAS: The Ministry of Alberta Agriculture and Forestry’s Ropin’ the Web provided relevant and reliable information from knowledgeable specialists and experts and a general store for agricultural and forestry related supplies and services;
WHEREAS: Rural businesses and organizations were provided opportunities to facilitate business networks with assistance from the Ministry through the Ministry website Ropin’ the Web; WHEREAS: As part of a larger Government of Alberta web consolidation project, Agriculture and Forestry’s web presence, including Ropin’ the Web, moved to Alberta.ca and by March 31, 2019, online government directories and some relevant agricultural information was no longer available; WHEREAS: The intent of the consolidation of the various Alberta Government websites on Alberta.ca to provide a one-stop shop for government information and services that is useable and accessible to all Albertans, is no longer providing a valuable services and information for Alberta’s farmers;
WHEREAS: The former Alberta Agriculture Website “Ropin the Web” was easy to use and navigate for farmers and those involved in agriculture;
WHEREAS: Many farmers and people working in the agriculture sector appreciate web-based learning, information sources, and web-based tools;
WHEREAS: The current revised Alberta Agriculture Website is difficult to navigate and with some of the useful extension material no longer available;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that the Government of Alberta review its Agriculture section of the website ensuring that extension material, online courses and other useful items are easy to find and access for farmers and those in the agriculture industry and reintroduce the general store.
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Agriculture and Forestry's web presence is an important source of information for Alberta farmers. In early 2019, Ropin' the Web content was moved over to the main government website, Alberta.ca. More than 700 pages of content were transferred. Many of the reports and
10
53
publications that were found on Ropin' the Web can now be found on the Alberta government's Open Data site, open.Alberta.ca
Our former website also offered a listings service for producers seeking to purchase and sell hay, straw, pasture and various species of livestock. While these directories have been discontinued, the demand for these services have remained strong. Alberta farmers have been clear that the hay and livestock listings are a well-used tool for producers in their day-to-day business.
With the operation of buy-and-sell product and services websites falling outside the role of government, Agriculture and Forestry has provided the Alberta Forage Industry Network with a one-time grant through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership to host the hay, straw, pasture and livestock marketplace listings. Progress on this project was shared at the Alberta Forage Industry Network's March 10, 2020, Annual General Meeting with a final product projected for late spring.
SERVICE ALBERTA No response received; Alberta Agriculture & Forestry submitted response on their behalf.
GRADE: Accept the Response
80% of the participating ASBs Graded this resolution as Accept the Response, 10% as Accept in Principle, 5% Incomplete, and 5% as Unsatisfactory
COMMENTS from ASBs:
Accept in Principle: “Is a one time grant enough to carry on?”
Incomplete: “The response did not address the whole issue”
COMMENTS from Committee: The Committee graded the resolution as Accept the Response as the government is continuing to provide access to extension materials and other documents through the open.alberta.ca data site, and has granted funding to an industry organization to develop a market place replacement website.
The Farming the Web website was launched this summer. The Alberta Forage Industry Network was the association that received the government grant to develop and launch the website that replaces the Ropin’ the Web Marketplace. https://farmingtheweb.ca/
Many of the publications that have been published by the Alberta government are available on the Open Alberta web portal. https://www.alberta.ca/open-government-program.aspx
The ForageBeef.ca website, previously maintained by the Government of Alberta, was granted to the Beef Cattle Research Council and is being updated to a new online format and made available through their website. http://www.beefresearch.ca/research/foragebeef- website.cfm?utm_campaign=foragebeef.ca&utm_medium=Redirect&utm_source=/
The Alberta government invested in the Farm Management Canada initiative, and got it started, but seems to have pulled back. Their website and resources are available https://www.fmc-gac.com/
11
54
Many of the Commodity Commissions have increased their extension capacity and are investing in the development of production manuals, decision tools, pod casts, newsletters and workshops.
12
55
RESOLUTION 2-20: WEED AND PEST SURVEILLANCE AND MONITORING TECHNOLOGY GRANT
WHEREAS: Agricultural Service Boards (ASBs) advise on and help organize direct weed and pest control;
WHEREAS: ASBs promote, enhance and protect viable and sustainable agriculture with a view to improving the economic viability of the agricultural producer;
WHEREAS: ASBs promote and develop agricultural policies to meet the needs of the municipality;
WHEREAS: All ASBs must report weed and pest monitoring and surveillance as part of their grant requirement;
WHEREAS: The compilation of data collected from the 69 different Agricultural Service Boards requires extensive labour and time on the part of Alberta Agriculture and Forestry and municipalities;
WHEREAS: The information received may be for up to 2 growing seasons and has become dated for municipal and provincial use;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Alberta Agriculture and Forestry provide a technology grant and personnel resources to assist municipalities in establishing a provincial pest and weed surveillance and monitoring system to improve timely access to data for all the Agricultural stakeholders.
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Agriculture and Forestry administers the Weed Control Act and Agricultural Pests Act, and their associated Regulations, and it is our mandate to monitor regulated pests and survey for new and evolving pests that pose a risk to Alberta crop production.
We recognize the limitations in the current pest tracking and reporting system, and the challenges in accessing data in a timely manner. In this regard, Agriculture and Forestry had begun development of a data management system in the early 2010s, but rapidly changing technology advancements made the computer-based system redundant.
We are currently exploring the development of a new database that effectively Interacts (communicates) with mobile devices and allows for timely dissemination of data. At this time, no timeline is available for initiation/completion of this initiative.
13
56
GRADE: Incomplete
90% of the participating ASBs rated this resolution Incomplete, 5% Accept in Principle, and 5% Accept the response.
COMMENTS from ASBs:
Accept in Principle: “Tough to accomplish with diminishing funds”
Incomplete: “Need information of who is paying for cost.”
COMMENTS from Committee: The committee graded this resolution as Incomplete as the response did not include important details about the new database that is being explored. A letter has been drafted to send to the Minister requesting further information and the Committee plans to bring up the issue with the Minister when they are able to meet.
On Aug 18, 2020 the Committee wrote to Minster Dreeshen informing him of the proposed grade of incomplete, and that the Committee thought the response to resolution 2-20 “Weed and Pest Surveillance and Monitoring Technology Grant” was missing information. We took this opportunity to clarify the issue in hopes of receiving a better response. The Committee stated that the intended result of the resolution was for “the province to work with municipalities to design and maintain one software program that allows municipalities to keep their weed inspection, treatment and response records and automatically exports the data at the township level to a map that is made available in real time.”. We received the following response on September 11:
“Regarding “Resolution 2-20: Weed and Pest Surveillance and Monitoring Technology Grant,” Alberta Agriculture and Forestry does not currently have a grant program in place to create/manage the database, as requested in the resolution. Opportunities may exist for the Agricultural Service Boards to access funding to develop a database through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) Risk Mitigation and Surveillance program. I encourage you to contact Tanya Warren ([email protected]), CAP Coordinator, for more information.”
This issue was also submitted through the Red Tape Reduction website and the committee has not received a response.
14
57
RESOLUTION 3-20: CLUBROOT PATHOTYPE TESTING
WHEREAS: Canola production generates over $7 billion in revenues in the Province of Alberta annually, is adversely impacted by clubroot;
WHEREAS: Clubroot surveillance and pathotype testing completed by the University of Alberta Clubroot Research Team led by Dr. Strelkov is the only testing of its kind being done in Western Canada, and is used to inform the Industry, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry and producers;
WHEREAS: The unbiased, world recognized testing conducted by the University of Alberta has been vital to the agricultural industry in breeding canola cultivars resistant to the ever- evolving number of pathotypes being found in Alberta agricultural fields;
WHEREAS: Alberta Agriculture and Forestry recently denied a Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) Project funding application which would allow this extremely important research to continue;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUES the Province of Alberta commit to consistent and sustainable funding for the Clubroot Surveillance and Pathotype Monitoring conducted by the University of Alberta.
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Agriculture and Forestry has a mandate to monitor regulated pests like Plasmodiophora brassicae, the causal agent of clubroot. The department conducts clubroot surveillance activities in collaboration with stakeholders such as rural municipalities, Applied Research Associations, the canola industry, and the University of Alberta. • The recent profiling of virulent pathotypes of clubroot, for which current sources of resistance are not effective, and the development of the Canadian Clubroot Differential Set are both positive examples of results delivered through effective collaboration. • A significant portion of this work took place in Agriculture and Forestry facilities located at the Crop Diversification Centre North in Edmonton.
In 2019, we provided $1.1 million for two three-year projects at the University of Alberta via the Strategic Research and Development Grant Program to support further research on management options (such as resistance testing, rotations, liming, weed implications, impact of inoculum pressure) and pathotyping through the development of a polymerase chain reaction based assay. In addition, through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership Plant Health Surveillance Program, Agriculture and Forestry approved a project supporting clubroot surveillance activities in six
15
58
county and municipal districts in the North East Region, and a second project supporting clubroot surveillance activities by 13 county and municipal districts in the Peace Region.
The department also provides support to the crop community in the area of crop assurance through grants, a dedicated Agriculture and Forestry monitoring/surveillance program, and a Level Two Diagnostics Lab.
GRADE: Unsatisfactory
60% of the participating ASBs graded this resolution Unsatisfactory, 30% as Accept the Response, and 10% as Accept in Principle.
COMMENTS from ASBs:
Accept the Response: “UofA has funding now”, “$$ until 2024”, “due to the correspondence email, this grade should be changed to Accept the Response”,
Accept in Principle: “based on the reply from Dr. Strelkov”, “Based on comments/info received after grading, there was funding put forwards. Suggests resolution be graded to Accept in Principle based on the new info provided”
Unsatisfactory: “Some discussion occurred regarding supporting testing through use of checkoff funds”,
COMMENTS from Committee: The Committee graded this resolution as Unsatisfactory as the response does not acknowledge the importance of committing to consistent sustainable funding for Clubroot Surveillance and Pathotype Monitoring. The response does not respond to the current situation being experienced by the municipalities and the issues that the U of A researchers have put forward.
Going forward the Committee will write a letter to the minister reiterating the need for ongoing monitoring and surveillance support at the U of A and clarifying the value of this work to the industry. The committee will also continue to discuss this issue with the minister when they meet.
UPDATE
Aug 10 update: An email was received from Dr. Strelkov regarding the outcome of this resolution. His email is copied below and will be used to inform the final grading of this resolution: “I appreciate the strong support from the ASB for the important clubroot pathotyping and monitoring work. I would like to update you on the status of the situation.
We had submitted two proposals for pathotyping research to Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (AAF), for support under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP) Program. The first was rejected in a letter dated Oct. 16, 2019, and the second (revised based on the comments on the first proposal) was rejected in a letter dated Jan. 6, 2020.
However, I would like to share some good news: in an email dated Jan. 21, 2020 from Brian Karisa, Science Lead, Innovation Agriculture Grants (AAF), we were invited to resubmit our pathotyping proposal for consideration through the Strategic Research and Development Program (SRDP).
16
59
We submitted the revised proposal as requested, and I'm happy to inform you that this proposal was SUCCESSFUL, with funding to be provided for continued clubroot surveillance and pathotyping for the period March 2020 - March 2024. Hence, there is now support for this research for the next few years under the SRDP program.
I am happy to chat further in person if you have any questions: I am available anytime this afternoon from 1:00 - 4:30 pm or other times this week. However, given that we did receive support in the end, albeit via the SRDP rather than CAP program, I think the matter has been resolved in an acceptable manner.
Thank you once again for your support. I believe that the resolution and support from the Ag Service Boards helped to secure this continued funding.
Sincerely, Steve” Aug 10, 2020
17
60
RESOLUTION 4-20: EDUCATION CAMPAIGN FOR CLEANLINESS OF EQUIPMENT FOR INDUSTRY SECTORS
WHEREAS: Farm and construction equipment can be purchased from any dealership and moved to any area;
WHEREAS: Equipment dealerships could play a better role in ensuring weeds and pests from one area stays out of another area;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST Alberta Agriculture and Forestry create an education campaign directed specifically at equipment dealerships or equipment auction services that outlines their role and promotes the importance of moving clean, uncontaminated equipment.
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Equipment in multiple sectors—including farming, construction, and oil and gas—can inadvertently transport soil-borne diseases as well as plant material and weed seeds. Alberta Agriculture and Forestry's pest management programs focus on integrating monitoring and policy to protect Alberta's agricultural crops from the invasion and spread of plant pests. The Agricultural Pests Act is the provincial legislation to help prevent the introduction and spread of pests in Alberta. Certain parts of the Act prohibit the propagation, sale and distribution of anything containing a pest, which would include soil movement.
As part of AFs mandate to monitor soil-borne regulated pests, such as clubroot {Plasmodiophora brassicae), we have evaluated methods of reducing the inadvertent movement of this and other soil borne pests, including methods of transmission and control options.
The department has published sanitation options for managing the inadvertent movement of soil borne pests. For example, the 'Clubroot Management Plan', describes best management practices for producers and industry for cleaning equipment that may spread soil borne disease. The Clubroot Management Plan was revised in 2019 and can be found on Alberta.ca at the following link: https://www.alberta.ca/alberta-clubroot-management-plan.aspx. Many of the strategies for sanitation can be extrapolated to weeds and weed seeds in soil as well. For example, Aphanomyces root rot of peas is also soil borne, and AF's sanitation measures can be applied to help control this disease in Alberta.
AF also supports industry/government activities such as the Clubroot Management Committee, a multi-stakeholder group with interest in canola and clubroot. The Clubroot Management Committee provides a forum to represent the interests and views of the agriculture and oil and
18
61
gas industries in Alberta and Western Canada regarding the management of clubroot. The Committee: • Recommends management strategies, and • Assists in educating the agriculture, oil and gas industries in Western Canada about clubroot and the threat it represents to canola and cole crop production.
Extension activities by AF include presentations to industry as well as field demonstrations on sanitation and mitigating the risk of pest spread through equipment cleaning measures. Lectures at colleges and universities reach both agriculture students as well as those in natural resource management, land reclamation, and energy programs.
Additionally, AF co-leads the Biosecurity Working Group under the umbrella of the Canadian Plant Health Council. The working group is invested in assessing gaps in on-farm biosecurity, which includes equipment sanitation and mitigating the threats to crop health.
While we promote equipment sanitation in our presentations and field demonstrations, we do not currently have additional educational activities planned.
GRADE: Unsatisfactory
80% of the participating ASBs graded this resolution response as Unsatisfactory
COMMENTS from ASBs:
Accept in Principle: “The program already exists for the public. Dealerships and auction services should not be singled out”
Incomplete: “discussed clubroot but not other pests”, “The comment section states it has been added to the advocacy topics of Canola Producers commission. Change grading to ‘incomplete’. If this is brought to the Commission and accepted, intent of the resolution will be met”
Unsatisfactory: “They have all the material, now they just have to put it in a package for Industry”, “Caution that there not be a shift of responsibility to industry sectors only. This should be considered an effort to encourage industry to assist”
COMMENTS from Committee: The Committee graded this resolution as Unsatisfactory as it did not address the intent of the resolution or meet the expectations of the Committee. The intent of the resolution was to encourage the government of Alberta to commit to a campaign similar to the one they have for zebra mussels. A letter from the Committee to the ministry explaining the unsatisfactory rating and clarifying the type of response being requested will be sent. This topic will be brought up with the minister when the Committee meets with him later this year.
This topic has been added to the list of advocacy topics to be brought to the attention of the Alberta Canola Producers Commission to see if there is a fit with their organization or partners.
On August 18, the Committee wrote to Minister Dreeshen informing him that we felt that the response received for 4-20 “Education Campaign for Cleanliness of Equipment for Industry Sector” was Unsatisfactory as the intention of the resolution was to “encourage the Government of Alberta to
19
62
commit to a campaign (for clubroot) similar to the one they have for zebra mussels.”. We received the following response on September 11:
“With respect to “Resolution 4-20: Education Program for Cleanliness of Equipment for Industry Sector”, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry does not have the capacity to expand educational programs over what is currently in place. CAP may be a source of support for such a program if you wish to pursue that avenue. If you have any further questions on the Ministry’s response, please contact Dr. David Feindel ([email protected]), Director, Plant and Bee Health Surveillance.”
20
63
RESOLUTION 5-20: AFSC ASSIST IN PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF REGULATED CROP PESTS
WHEREAS: Crop diseases are becoming more prevalent and wide spread in Alberta due to shortened crop rotations;
WHEREAS: Disease resistance is breaking down more quickly due to shortened crop rotations;
WHEREAS: Longer crop rotations can significantly decrease pest and disease infestations;
WHEREAS: Most crop producers carry crop insurance through the provincial crown corporation Agricultural Financial Services Corporation (AFSC);
WHEREAS: AFSC has the ability to promote better and longer crop rotations by declining or pricing insurance in a manner that discourages short crop rotations;
WHEREAS: Other jurisdictions such as Saskatchewan use their provincial Crown corporations for crop insurance to promote recommended crop rotations;
WHEREAS: The Minister has the ability under the Agricultural Pests Act Section 3(d) to enter into an agreement with AFSC to prevent establishment of or control or destroy pests;
WHEREAS: During the 2015 ASB Provincial Conference Resolution #1 ADAPT CROP INSURANCE TO PROTECT CLUBROOT TOLERANT VARIETIES was passed. The resolution requested similar actions to be taken, the response report card deemed actions taken to be unsatisfactory;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED
THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST
That the Alberta Minister of Agriculture and Forestry per section 3(d) of the Agricultural Pests Act enter into an agreement with AFSC to decline insurance on canola acres under their program if canola has been planted back to back in rotation.
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED
THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST
That the Alberta Minister of Agriculture and Forestry per section 3(d) of the Agricultural Pests Act enter into an agreement with AFSC to impose an insurance premium on land which has been planted to canola in contradiction to the Province’s Clubroot Management Plan.
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
21
64
Clubroot and blackleg of canola are some of the declared pests under Agriculture and Forestry's Agricultural Pest Act (APA). This act sets out the duties of individuals and local authorities (municipalities) related to the prevention and destruction of pests, and allows the local authority to deal with pests that affect agricultural production. In addition, it also outlines the appointment and powers of inspectors to enforce the APA.
With support from the province, enforcement of the APA and the Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation is done through Agriculture Service Boards and the Alberta Association of Agricultural Fieldmen. Alberta also has a Clubroot Management Plan that outlines best management practices for clubroot, which include various practices such as the use of resistant varieties, equipment sanitization, and a one-in-four year crop rotation for crucifer crops.
In 2015 and 2016, Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) included the topic of clubroot management as a topic in the client consultation meetings held in several locations throughout the province. Feedback indicated clients did not feel AFSC should enforce crop rotations or advise on management practices. The current crop insurance mechanisms were seen as reasonably able to cover most cases. For instance, while AFSC does not expressly prohibit growing practices that may contribute to clubroot, the organization does encourage producers to use best management practices through:
• The option to deny or reduce an indemnity on a claim when best practices are not followed; • The ability to provide coverage based on individual yield history. As a disease such as clubroot adversely impacts crop yield, the subsequent coverage for that crop will be adversely affected; • Applying a surcharge on subsequent coverage for producers with high loss experience; and • Denying, limiting or restricting crop insurance coverage when any practice or action taken by the insured would prove detrimental or would limit the production of a producer's crop.
The removal of Fusarium head blight as a declared pest under the Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation is a Red Tape Reduction initiative by Agriculture and Forestry. Alberta was the only jurisdiction to regulate Fusarium, limiting growers and producers access to seed varieties. Fusarium is established in significant portions of the province making absolute control of the pest untenable. Moving to a best management practice approach to mitigate spread recognizes the significance of the pest while allowing for more flexibility for producers to manage their operations. Agriculture and Forestry has worked closely with our industry partners on this change to ensure it is supported and the benefits recognized.
AGRICULTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION ALBERTA
Clubroot, a serious soil-borne disease, is a declared pest under the Alberta Agricultural Pest Act (APA). This act, which is administered by Alberta Agriculture and Forestry (AF), is the legislative authority for the enforcement of control measures for declared pests.
22
65
This act sets out the duties of individuals and local authorities (municipalities) related to the prevention and destruction of pests, and allows the local authority to deal with pests which affect agricultural production. In addition, it also outlines the appointment and powers of inspectors to enforce the APA.
Under the act, Agricultural Service Boards (ASBs) have the responsibility to administer and enforce the APA. With support from the province, enforcement of the APA and the Pest and Nuisance Control Regulation is done through Agriculture Service Boards, the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, and the Alberta Association of Agricultural Fieldmen. Under the APA, all agricultural fieldmen are inspectors. As such, the County is responsible for limiting the spread of clubroot and providing adequate enforcement.
Alberta has a Clubroot Management Plan (CMP) that outlines best management practices for clubroot. These best management practices include various practices such as the use of resistant varieties, equipment sanitization and a one-in-four year crop rotation for crucifer crops.
In 2015 and 2016, AFSC included clubroot management as a topic in the client consultation meetings held in several locations throughout the province. Feedback indicated clients did not feel AFSC should enforce crop rotations or advise on management practices. The current crop insurance mechanisms were seen as reasonable to cover most cases.
AFSC does not provide compensate producers for clubroot-related losses, even though clubroot is a declared pest under the APA.
While AFSC does not expressly prohibit growing practices which may contribute to clubroot, it encourages the use of best management practices through the following:
• The ability to deny or reduce an indemnity on a claim when: o improper crop rotation practices are used; o seed not recommended for the area is used; o unapproved, untimely or improperly applied methods for the control of plant diseases are used; and o failure to follow acceptable practices as recommended by the Alberta government responsible for Agriculture (Alberta Agriculture and Forestry). • The ability to provide coverage based on individual yield history. As a disease (e.g., clubroot) adversely impacts crop yield, the subsequent coverage for that crop will be adversely affected. • The ability to apply a surcharge on subsequent coverage for producers with high loss experience. • The ability to deny, limit or restrict crop insurance coverage when any practice or action taken by the insured would prove detrimental or limits the production of a producer’s crop.
GRADE: Unsatisfactory
80% of the responding ASBs graded this resolution response as Unsatisfactory. 10% Accept the Response, 5% Accept in Principle, and 5% Incomplete.
23
66
COMMENTS from ASBs:
Accept in Principle: “AFSC is not about rewarding the low risk, but penalizing the high risk. The Clubroot management plan is in place for producers to follow, and the municipalities to help guide.”
Incomplete: “options are available to AFSC but unclear if they’re utilized or effective”
Unsatisfactory: “Did not address the issue in the resolution of AFSC entering into an agreement with producers”
COMMENTS from Committee: The Committee graded this resolution as Unsatisfactory since the responses did not meet the expectation of the ASB. The intent of the resolution was to reward producers who followed best management practices outlined in the Clubroot Management Plan. We believe that offering lower premiums to farmers that have a lower risk of clubroot, encourages producers to look at the Clubroot Management Plan and consider adopting the recommended practices. Rewarding lower risk clients with lower premiums is a common practice in the insurance industry, and fits with the mission of AFSC to “…grow agriculture in Alberta.”. Following the recommendations of the Clubroot Management Plan lowers the risk of clubroot increasing to levels that affect crop yields, and the profitability of the farms that support rural economies. The intent is not to impose further regulations, red tape or burden on producers, or restrict in anyway the rights of producers to make decisions on their crop rotations.
24
67
RESOLUTION 6-20: BEEHIVE DEPREDATION
WHEREAS: Alberta agriculture has a spectrum of different farming and ranching operation; WHEREAS: The Ungulate Damage Prevention Program, offers producers advice and assistance to prevent ungulates from spoiling stored feed and unharvested crops; WHEREAS: All commercially grown cereal, oilseed, special and other crops that can be insured under the Production and Straight Hail Insurance programs are eligible for compensation; WHEREAS: The Wildlife Predator Compensation Program provides compensation to ranchers whose livestock are killed or injured by wildlife predators; WHEREAS: Alberta Beekeepers, as an Alberta Agricultural Producers, also experiences wildlife damages such as hive destruction every year by bear depredation but is not covered by a program;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Alberta Environment and Parks work with Agriculture Financial Services Corporation to amend the Wildlife Compensation Program to include coverage for hive destruction by bear activity. STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
From February 6 to 13, 2020, AFSC conducted five Input Advisory Groups meetings throughout the province with Alberta beekeepers. These meetings—held in Falher, Lacombe, Lethbridge, Vermillion, and Westlock—focused on the suite of Business Risk Management (BRM) and Wildlife programs currently administered by AFSC and how those programs work for beekeepers.
AFSC is reviewing the feedback collected at these meetings and formulating potential program improvements that will be vetted through additional industry consultation. Program improvements are expected to be implemented by 2021.
AGRICULTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION ALBERTA
From February 6 to 13, 2020, AFSC conducted five Input Advisory Groups (IAG) meetings throughout the province with Alberta beekeepers. These meetings, held in Falher, Lacombe, Lethbridge, Vermillion and Westlock, focused on the suite of Business Risk Management and Wildlife programs currently administered by AFSC and how those programs work for beekeepers.
AFSC is reviewing the feedback collected at these meetings and formulating potential program improvements that will be vetted through additional industry consultation. Program improvements are expected to be implemented by 2021.
25
68
ALBERTA ENVRONMENT AND PARKS
GRADE: Accept in Principle
100% of the responding ASBs graded this resolution response as Accept in Principle.
COMMENTS from ASBs: none.
COMMENTS from Committee: The Committee graded this resolution as Accept in Principle as the responses to the resolution were that there were consultations ongoing and changes to the program to be implemented by 2021. The Committee has added this resolution to the list of resolutions to monitor and request information as it becomes available.
26
69
RESOLUTION 7-20: AGRICULTURAL RELATED LEASE DISPOSITIONS
WHEREAS: Agricultural Lease Dispositions on Public Lands are an integral component of many livestock operations throughout the Province of Alberta;
WHEREAS: The demographics of the Province of Alberta’s Agricultural Producers indicate that the sector is experiencing and will continue to experience the rapid succession of livestock operations for the foreseeable future;
WHEREAS: The sale and/or purchase of Agricultural Lease Dispositions represent the transfer of an asset and the capital used to develop that asset;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST the Government of Alberta streamline and/or provide increased resources to expedite the disposition of Agricultural Leases within the Province of Alberta.
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Environment and Parks is modernizing and bringing into compliance all agricultural dispositions under the Public Lands Administration Regulation. As part of this process, Environment and Parks is overhauling its approach to agricultural dispositions to improve the assignment process, and their goal is to ensure that department's approach is as streamlined as possible. So far, they have updated the grazing rental rates and assignment fees. For more information, please visit www.alberta.ca and search for "public lands fee updates".
Additionally, Environment and Parks has embarked on a grazing lease renewal backlog project, as many of our agricultural dispositions have expired. They are excited about this project and have already seen a significant positive impact on both their department and those that hold grazing leases.
Environment and Parks is confident the work being done to streamline agricultural disposition processing will better serve Albertans by shortening processing times.
ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS
Response as above
GRADE: Accept in Principle
86% of the responding ASBs graded this response as Accept in Principle. 5% of the responding ASBs graded the response Incomplete. 10% of the responding ASBs rated the response Unsatisfactory.
COMMENTS from ASBs:
27
70
Incomplete: “no details about this process of timelines were provided”
Unsatisfactory: “Process is not going as stated in response”, “Refer to the MD of Greenview Response?”
COMMENTS from Committee: The Committee graded this resolution as Accept in Principle as the responses indicated that the government was aware of the issues and working to address them. It is noted that there was no commitment to increased resources to address the problems, however streamlining the process was their intention. The Committee will monitor this process and revisit when new information becomes available.
28
71
RESOLUTION 8-20: EMERGENCY LIVESTOCK REMOVAL
WHEREAS: Maintaining livestock health, viability and profitability during emergency situations such as, but not limited to, disease, fire and flooding is a major priority to livestock producers; WHEREAS: Livestock removal during emergency situations pose major challenges to producers’ safety, livelihoods and animal welfare; WHEREAS: Major challenges arise from transportation, acquiring pasture and red tape from various departments to access grazing reserves; WHEREAS: These major challenges restrict the ability of these producers to evacuate rapidly and pose serious risk to life and property; WHEREAS: Removal of red tape and rapid access to grazing reserves and/or created areas allotted for the use during emergency situations would improve the evacuation process, protect life and property; WHEREAS: Currently Municipal Affairs and Agriculture and Forestry do not coordinate an effort to make livestock removal a priority under the Emergency Management Act in rural areas; WHEREAS: The purpose of an Agricultural Service Board is to improve the economic welfare and safety of producers and by not having a provincial streamlined system to safely and effectively remove and rehome livestock; emergency situations will continue to plague the life and property of producers;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD REQUEST that Municipal Affairs and Agriculture and Forestry work together to research and develop best practice procedures in the event livestock are to be left behind due to an Evacuation Order issued under the Emergency Management Act. STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Agriculture and Forestry and Municipal Affairs, through the Alberta Emergency Management Agency, acknowledge that livestock removal during emergency situations poses major challenges to producer safety, livelihoods and animal welfare. We have been working together to improve the emergency management systems' ability to address livestock concerns during emergencies, including evacuations. The emergency management system is intricate and has a number of different levels that need to be considered when addressing livestock in emergencies.
The initial responsibility for being prepared for emergencies rests with individuals (including farmers and other small businesses). Each farm should have its own plan for when, how and to where the farmer would evacuate their livestock should it be necessary. When the emergency event is more than an individual or business can manage on their own, they should reach out to
29
72
their municipality for assistance, who can provides support through the traditional emergency services. The municipality is also responsible for developing response plans and strategies. When the emergency event is greater than a community can manage on their own, they can reach out to the provincial government for assistance. Requests for provincial assistance are coordinated through the Alberta Emergency Management Agency's Provincial Emergency Operations Centre, at which all provincial departments work collaboratively to provide support and assistance to communities in need.
Following discussions with communities after the 2019 Wildfire season, Agriculture and Forestry is looking at a multipronged approach to improving the emergency management system's ability to address livestock issues, while enhancing farmers' awareness of the emergency management system and their own emergency preparedness. In this regard, we will provide support to the extension efforts of Agriculture Service Boards to enhance emergency planning at the community level. Agriculture and Forestry will also continue to work with agriculture industry associations to support on-farm emergency preparedness and the development of response and recovery strategies for large emergencies, disease outbreaks or other disasters.
Further efforts in this area include finalizing the development of a temporary re-entry process that communities could build upon and implement after they have ordered an evacuation; working with the Alberta Emergency Management Agency to complete a "Livestock Emergency Planning Guide" for communities; and working with Environment and Parks to develop a rapid access protocol for the provincial grazing reserves, so that communities or the Provincial Emergency Operations Centre will have a quick option to consider when there is a need to evacuate large numbers of animals.
ALBERTA ENVIRONMENT AND PARKS
Answer was coordinated with AF. See above response.
ALBERTA MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Alberta's emergency management system operates on a decentralized model with local authorities, such as municipalities, Metis Settlements, and First Nations having the primary responsibility for managing emergency or disaster events within their boundaries. In January 2020, the Local Authority Emergency Management Regulation came into effect, and is intended to strengthen local authority emergency management systems.
Decisions on evacuation are generally made by the local authority under a state of local emergency, and would include considerations such as evacuation of livestock. I encourage local authorities having a significant livestock presence in their communities to ensure they have considered livestock evacuation within their municipal emergency management plans.
Thank you again for writing and for your efforts on behalf of Alberta's economic growth and development.
GRADE: Accept in Principle
95% of the responding ASBs graded this resolution response as Accept in Principle, 5% as Accept the Response.
30
73
COMMENTS from ASBs: none
COMMENTS from Committee: The Committee graded this resolution as Accept in Principle as the ministries are aware of the need for Emergency Livestock Removal to be addressed in emergency response planning and have been working with the Alberta Emergency Management Agency to address the concerns that have come out of the 2019 wildfire responses. The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is working on a “multipronged” approach to improve the emergency response system and increase awareness of the need for emergency response planning to be done by producers who own livestock, and states that they will “support” efforts of municipalities to increase awareness with livestock owners. There were no firm commitments to resources or activities in the resolution response, the Committee will monitor the progress and follow up if needed.
31
74
RESOLUTION 9-20: MANDATORY AGRICULTURE EDUCATION IN THE CLASSROOM
WHEREAS: Agricultural production in Alberta has historically been and continues to be a major economic force and employer of workers; WHEREAS: Generations ago, most Albertans grew up on the family farm and had an intimate knowledge about how livestock, crops, and other agricultural commodities were raised; WHEREAS: Most Albertans now live in urban non -farm environments and do not have the same level of knowledge about how livestock, crops, and other agricultural commodities are being raised; WHEREAS: The general public has historically had a high regard for agriculture and farmers as they put food on their table in Alberta, Canada, and the rest of the world; WHEREAS: Modern agriculture in Alberta is being severely tested by concerns about how livestock, crops, and agricultural produce is being raised, especially regarding environmental impacts, animal cruelty, and farm safety; WHEREAS: Many of these concerns stem from a lack of knowledge about agriculture in the general community; WHEREAS: Alberta Education is currently reviewing the teaching curriculum making it very timely to consider this resolution; THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that the Agricultural Service Boards, Rural Municipalities of Alberta and Alberta Agriculture & Forestry work with other rural stakeholders, Alberta Education, and the Alberta Teachers’ Association to request that mandatory agriculture education be implemented in the school curriculum in Alberta.
FURTHER THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Alberta Education be approached to add Canada Agriculture Day as an event to their school activities.
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
The Government of Alberta recognizes the need to connect consumers with where their food comes from. To facilitate public understanding of the industry, government has taken concrete steps to support agriculture education in our province.
In partnership with Alberta Education, Agriculture and Forestry has developed the Green Certificate Program, a dual-credit program where students can earn both high school credits and an industry certification in a variety of agriculture career paths. Students select a specialization,
32
75
and under the guidance of a trainer, work towards mastering all of the skills within their training program. Upon completion, the trainee receives 16 grade-12 credits.
We are also committed to working with Alberta Education as it reviews the curriculum to find ways to integrate agriculture into Alberta's K-12 core courses like science and social studies. Currently, agriculture is represented in subjects like Social Studies, Science, Foods and Health, but many teachers may not have the knowledge or the resources to be able to integrate agriculture themes into the curriculum.
To help facilitate getting agriculture into classrooms, Agriculture and Forestry developed a Canadian Agricultural Partnership Public Trust Youth Agriculture Education Grant for industry organizations and education organizations to develop curriculum-linked programs that build public trust in agriculture. The grant has $2 million dollars allocated over the five-year agreement.
RURAL MUNICIPALITIES OF ALBERTA
Thank you for your letter dated February 7, 2020 regarding ASB resolution 9-20: Mandatory Agriculture Education in the Classroom. I wanted to share with you a similar resolution endorsed at our fall 2019 RMA convention, 23-19F: Mandatory Agriculture Education in the Classroom.
https://rmalberta.com/resolutions/23-19f-mandatory-agriculture-education-in-the-classroom/
We received a response from the Government of Alberta (GOA) outlining the current agricultural education opportunities offered in Alberta schools. However, the GOA response does not indicate action to have mandatory education in agricultural topics for all Alberta students. As a result, RMA has assigned this resolution a status of intent not met.
I look forward to working together as we continue to advocate on this issue.
ALBERTA EDUCATION
I believe all Albertans share the same values in wanting a strong, vibrant education system that meets the learning needs of all students and gives them the skills and knowledge they will need to be successful in school, work and life.
As a farmer myself, I am very aware that agriculture is an important part of Alberta's economy, and I appreciate the value of providing students with an understanding of this industry and of its role in food production. Both the current Science and Social Studies Kindergarten to Grade 12 curriculum provide students opportunities to learn about a wide range of topics, including concepts related to agriculture in Alberta. I have asked my department to explore the possibilities of further enhancement to the curriculum.
Alberta's provincial Kindergarten to Grade 12 curriculum outlines what students are expected to know, understand and be able to do in each subject and grade. While Alberta Education determines curriculum content, teachers use their professional judgement to determine how students achieve the learning outcomes in the provincial curriculum. School authorities have the
33
76
autonomy, flexibility and responsibility to determine which supports, resources or programs are most appropriate for their students and school community. This provides Alberta's school jurisdictions with the opportunity to best address the needs of the students and the communities they serve, using the resources available to them.
In order to ensure students in Alberta receive the best education possible, our government established an independent curriculum advisory panel to provide a new vision for student learning, as well as recommendations on the direction for future Kindergarten to Grade 12 curriculum. The panel's report is available at open.alberta.ca/publications/curricuJum- advisory•panel-recommendations-oi1-direction-for-curriculum, and a link to the draft vision for student learning is available at www.alberta.ca/assets/documents/educ-draft-rninisterial- order.pdf .
The draft vision for student learning emphasizes the knowledge, skills and competencies that students should have when they finish high school. Establishing a new vision for student learning is an important first step in ensuring we take the right approach in updating the provincial curriculum.
Government has engaged with Albertans through an online survey to gather feedback on the panel's draft vision. This feedback, along with the recommendations from the curriculum advisory panel, will help guide our work as we move forward with updating the curriculum.
I hope this information is helpful, and I appreciate you taking the time to write.
https://open.alberta.ca/publications/curriculum-advisory-panel-recommendations-on-direction- for-curriculum
ALBERTA TEACHERS ASSOCIATION
Thank you for providing the Alberta Teachers' Association with a copy of Resolution 9-20, Mandatory Agriculture Education in the Classroom.
The Association is pleased to receive the resolution as information. However, Alberta Education, not the Association, establishes the curriculum and the resolution is best directed to the ministry for action. As the resolution notes, your advocacy is especially timely given that the ministry is currently updating the curriculum.
Once again, thank you for sharing the resolution.
GRADE: Unsatisfactory
76% of the responding ASBs graded this resolution response as Unsatisfactory, 14% rated it Accept in Principle, 5% as Incomplete, and 5% as Accept the Response.
COMMENTS from ASBs:
Accept the Response: “There are programs already available to teach agriculture to youth (i.e. Green Certificate, Open Farm Days, CAP). Who will be the person teaching the full course. An experienced farmer? An anti-GMP activist? A Vegan?”
34
77
Accept in Principle: “Inconsistency of delivery throughout the province”
Incomplete: “discussed the resolution but sounds like more information is coming and other curriculum enhancement possibilities are being considered”
Unsatisfactory: “Mandatory agriculture in the classroom is simply not done”, “Comments made that perhaps this resolution should be directed to Trustees rather than the ATA”, “Based on review of the AB Agriculture and Forestry’s role, they are an advocated to having more ag in schools, but not their mandate to provide that. Can this be brought forward as an advocacy standpoint to keep focus on it? Bring forward to MLA, draft letter from Board to Mayor Hnatiw to bring forward?”
COMMENTS for Committee: The Committee graded this resolution response as Unsatisfactory as the response from the ministry did acknowledge the need for increased awareness of food and where it comes from, but did not commit to making Agriculture Education mandatory. There was no response to the request to add Canada Agriculture Day as an event in the school calendars. This response from the Ministry, the Alberta Teachers Association and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is consistent with past responses. The Committee will reach out to other organizations that are working to address this issue and see if there are other opportunities to have influence on this topic, and looks forward to hearing about activities funded through the Canadian Agricultural Partnership Public Trust Youth Agriculture Education Grant.
35
78
RESOLUTION 10-20: REINSTATE A SHELTERBELT PROGRAM
WHEREAS: The Government of Canada cancelled the Prairie Shelterbelt Program in 2013, a program which ran successfully from 1901-2013;
WHEREAS: Shelterbelts provide many direct benefits to landowners, including snow trapping, reducing soil erosion from wind, and acting as visual screens;
WHEREAS: Shelterbelts provide indirect benefits to all Canadians by providing ecosystem services, including carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, and pollinator habitat;
WHEREAS: Weather conditions and high levels of pest pressure has taken its toll on existing shelterbelts;
WHEREAS: Municipalities bear the extra cost of road maintenance (snow clearing, dust control) when shelterbelts start to die;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Alberta Agriculture and Forestry implement a shelterbelt program
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
The Government of Alberta shelterbelt program closed in 1997, and the Government of Canada's Prairie Shelterbelt Program closed in 2013. The programs provided technical services and tree and shrub seedlings at no cost to eligible landowners. Municipalities also assisted with distribution of seedlings as well as access to planting and maintenance equipment.
We recognize that shelterbelts provide a variety of positive benefits, including decreased soil erosion, improved soil fertility and soil moisture retention, wildlife habitat, and carbon storage. While there is no government shelterbelt program currently being considered, a number of commercial nurseries have taken over the large-scale production of shelterbelt stock, and they make them available at low cost to bulk orders. Agriculture and Forestry believes the private sector can efficiently supply the need for shelterbelt stock in Alberta, while some Alberta counties still make planting and maintenance equipment available through their Agriculture Service Boards.
Shelterbelts and eco-buffers are eligible projects under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership Environmental Stewardship and Climate Change - Producer program. The minimum shelterbelt length is 100 meters, and there is a maximum price per tree of $5.00. Only native species of tree will be approved. Program details and applications can be accessed at:
https://cap.alberta.ca/CAP/program/STEW_PROD
36
79
AGRICUTLURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA – Minister
The Government of Canada has a long history of working with provincial and territorial partners and industry stakeholders to help support and enhance the sustainability of Canada’s agriculture sector. This has included researching the benefits of on-farm woodlots and shelterbelts, and
encouraging their establishment on working lands. The Canadian Agricultural Partnership is
continuing to help producers to address soil and water conservation, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and adapt to climate change.
Under the Partnership, approximately $430 million is available for FPT cost-shared programs that are designed to raise producer’s awareness of environmental risks and accelerate the adoption of on-farm technologies and practices to reduce these risks, including the on-farm shelterbelts. These cost-shared programs are delivered by provinces and territories, enabling them to reflect the environmental priorities of the sector in each region, including identifying the practices and technologies eligible for incentives to producers.
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) remains committed to collaborating with provinces, territories, and the sector to explore alternate approaches that support and encourage the adoption of innovation and nature-based climate solutions, such as establishing shelterbelts, as a way to address climate change and contribute toward Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets.
GRADE: Accept in Principle
86% of the responding ASBs graded this response as Accept in Principle, 10% Accept the Response, and 4% Unsatisfactory.
COMMENTS from ASBs: none
COMMENTS from Committee: The committee graded this as Accept in Principle as it addresses the resolution in part, but does not meet the expectations of the resolution. It is clear from the response that the ministry feels that the funding provided to producers for native shelterbelt species under CAP and the programs offered by commercial nurseries are sufficient.
37
80
RESOLUTION 11-20: COMPENSATION TO PRODUCERS ON DENIED LAND ACCESS TO HUNTERS DEFEATED AT THE 2020 PROVINCIAL ASB CONFERENCE
WHEREAS: Damage to livestock fencing, stacked feed, green feed or silage pits has increased due to the growing deer and elk population;
WHEREAS: Damage caused by deer and elk may be reduced through best management practices including issuance of additional hunting tags;
WHEREAS: Controlled reduction of the ungulate population cannot be undertaken on lands where hunting is not permitted;
WHEREAS: No compensation should be paid to landowners for damage to fences, stacked feed, green feed losses or silage pits and tubes if land access to hunters is denied;
WHEREAS: Landowners can develop their own system to allow land access to hunters;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Alberta Environment and Parks withhold compensation for damage caused to fences, stacked feed or green feed to landowners that do not permit access to land for hunting of wildlife.
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE: N/A
38
81
RESOLUTION 12-20: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PART XV OF THE FEDERAL HEALTH OF ANIMALS REGULATIONS
WHEREAS: Under the authority of the Federal Health of Animals Regulations, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency is proposing significant amendments to the reporting requirements regarding the movement of livestock in Canada;
WHEREAS: The “data requirements” as identified by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency are exhaustive, unreasonable and seriously taxing to many livestock producers and farm operators;
WHEREAS: Dependable, long range, high frequency identification tags and consequent readers are not currently readily available;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST The Canadian Food Inspection Agency postpone their proposed amendments to the federal Health of Animals Regulations until such a time that the identified “data requirements” can be accurately collected by livestock producers and farm operators.
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is proposing amendments to the Federal traceability regulations (Part XV of the Health of Animals Regulations, within the Health of Animals Act) that will expand the scope of requirements for identifying and reporting the movement of beef, bison, sheep and pigs, while introducing traceability requirements for goats and cervids.
The goal of the proposed amendments is to address gaps in Canada's traceability system, identified during consultations in 2013 and 2015, to ensure a robust system and ability to trace livestock in the event of a disease outbreak or natural disaster event.
As a result of the consultations, the CFIA revised several elements of the regulatory proposal and ensured alignment with the Cattle Implementation Plan supported by the beef cattle sector.
Alberta supports and will continue to work with industry and our federal and provincial partners on an integrated national traceability program. Alberta also remains committed to maintaining its Premises Identification (PID) system and increasing PID registrations (with over 50,000 active accounts in its PID system, Alberta has the highest level of PID registrations in the country).
In addition, Alberta is looking at ways to use current livestock movement reporting tools/systems (e.g. livestock movement manifests) to report traceability information both provincially and federally. The use of existing provincial movement reporting processes will simplify the process for Alberta users and reduce duplication.
39
82
Alberta has also developed a "Locate Premises" application (accessible online or through a mobile device), which will allow producers and other livestock industry stakeholders to easily look up PID Numbers for entry on livestock manifests. The URL address for the Locate Premises application is https://lp.aqric.qov.ab.ca.
Finally, we encourage producers and other livestock industry stakeholders to express their concerns to CFIA during the Canada Gazette 1 comment period. The proposed amendments were expected to be published in spring 2020 at the earliest; however, due to COVID-19, only urgent items are being published in the Canada Gazette at this time. Following the publication, stakeholders will have 75 days to review and provide comment.
CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY – PRESIDENT Siddika Mithani, PhD
As detailed in Dr. Jaspinder Komal's response to Mr. Lawson's letter of July 22, 2019, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is considering advancing proposed regulations to strengthen the traceability system in order to enable effective and timely disease control investigations, better manage animal health, and help improve Canada's capacity to maintain market access as well as consumer confidence.
With respect to resolution 12-20 of the Alberta Agricultural Service Board, I wanted to take this opportunity to note that the current and proposed livestock traceability regulations are outcome- based; in that there is no prescribed method or technology by which regulated data is provided to the administrators of the program or by which the identification numbers of tags must be read and reported. CFIA encourages industry to innovate and explore effective technology that allows for the introduction of effective identification tags and readers.
CFIA is having ongoing dialogue with industry sectors on the proposed requirements and open to feedback. All stakeholders will have an opportunity to provide comments during the formal consultation period upon publication in Canada Gazette, Part I.
I appreciate you forwarding the resolution, which will be taken into consideration as CFIA further develops the regulatory proposal.
Thank you for writing about this important matter
CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCEY – Chief Veterinary Officer
AGIRCULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA - Minister
GRADE: Accept in Principle
100% of responding ASBs graded this response as Accept in Principle
COMMENTS from ASBs: none
COMMENTS from Committee: The committee graded this resolution as Accept in Principle as there is still an opportunity to participate in CFIA consultations through the federal government Gazette, and the resolution is being taken under advisement by the CFIA. The referred to regulations were not published in this springs Part 1 of the Gazette so the Committee will watch for consultation opportunities in future
40
83
Gazettes. It is clear that the issue of long-range tag reading technology was not addressed or a concern to the CFIA or AF, however the changes are being made in consultation with industry.
41
84
RESOLUTION 13-20: CANADIAN PRODUCT AND CANADIAN MADE
WHEREAS: The guidelines for "Product of Canada" and "Made in Canada" claims promote compliance with subsection 5(1) of the Food and Drugs Act and subsection 6(1) of the Safe Food for Canadians Act, which prohibit false and misleading claims; WHEREAS: A food product may use the claim "Product of Canada" when all or virtually all major ingredients, processing, and labour used to make the food product are Canadian; WHEREAS: A "Made in Canada" claim with a qualifying statement can be used on a food product when the last substantial transformation of the product occurred in Canada, even if some ingredients are from other countries; WHEREAS: Products will qualify for a “Made in Canada” when at least 51% of the total direct cost of producing or manufacturing the good must have occurred in Canada; WHEREAS: Some of our “Made in Canada” raw products such as honey could be mixed with up 30% of imported honey which is misleading to the Canadians consumers;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST That Canadian Food Inspection Agency amend the Guidelines for "Product of Canada" and "Made in Canada" claims to not include pure products such as honey. STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Agriculture and Forestry supports and advocates for food labelling requirements that are modern, consistent, and relevant to meet the needs of industry and consumers.
Agriculture and Forestry does not have jurisdiction on product claims or labelling guidelines for food products. All food labelling requirements, including "Product of Canada" and "Made in Canada", are enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency as per their Guidelines for “Product of Canada" and "Made in Canada" Claims. As per the guidelines, the "Product of Canada" label can be used when 98 per cent or more of the major ingredients, processing, and labour used to make the food product are Canadian in origin. The "Made in Canada" label can be used when the last substantial transformation of the product occurred in Canada, with a qualifying statement to indicate that the food product is made from imported ingredients or a combination of imported and domestic ingredients.
The federal government conducted industry and public consultation on potential changes to these guidelines in 2019. Some of the feedback they received to increase the number of products eligible to use the claims, to promote Canadian products, recognizes investment, economic growth in Canada (labour and manufacturing), to respond to consumer interest in knowing where their food is coming from, and to help consumers make informed purchasing decisions.
42
85
CANADIAN FOOD INSPECTION AGENCY- President
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA- Minister
I recognize that industry has raised concerns that the current “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada” guidelines are overly restrictive and inconsistent with some provincial requirements. Recommendations to revise these guidelines were included in the Agri-Food Economic Strategy Table Report. In response to these recommendations, CFIA and AAFC committed to review the guidelines as part of the Agri-Food and Aquaculture Regulatory Roadmap.
The review sought to encourage increased use of the claims on food labels. AAFC consulted with industry in March 2019 on a proposal to lower the 98 percent percent threshold for “Product of Canada” claims to 85 percent, and to allow more flexibility for “Made in Canada” claims. CFIA’s survey of Canadians in June 2019 sought to verify that any proposed changes continue to provide valuable information for making purchasing decisions. These consultations generated a number of comments from consumers and industry, including some similar to those outlined in your resolution 13-20. These comments are being taken into consideration as the Government considers next steps. The Government of Canada will communicate any changes that are made to the guidelines to industry stakeholders and Canadians.
The 51 percent Canadian content requirement quoted in your resolution comes from a previous policy. Currently, the use of the “Made in Canada” claim applies to food products whose substantial transformation has occurred in Canada. You can find more details on CFIA’s current guidelines for these claims at www.inspection.gc.ca/food-label- requirements/labelling/industry/origin-claims-on-food- labels/eng/1393622222140/1393622515592?chap=5#s1c5.
You may also be interested to know that, regarding honey, the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations require any blended varieties to state the country or countries of origin on the label. Any changes to “Product of Canada” and “Made in Canada” guidelines would not alter this requirement. You can view the guidance on labelling blended honey at www.inspection.gc.ca/food- labelrequirements/labelling/industry/honey/eng/1392907854578/1392907941975?chap=6.
GRADE: Incomplete
71% of the responding ASBs graded this response as Incomplete, 14% as Accept in Principle, and 10% as Unsatisfactory.
COMMENTS from ASBs:
Incomplete: “Board member comment that this resolution misses the mark, that this is a food labelling issue”
COMMENTS from Committee: A response from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency was not received. The Agriculture and Agrifood Canada response was received after the initial grading but will be reviewed in the final report card.
43
86
RESOLUTION E1-20: REVIEW OF BUSINESS RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
WHEREAS: Current Business Risk Management Programs do not currently reflect the rising cost of agriculture;
WHEREAS: Western Canadian agricultural producers are in dire straits following this past year’s cropping issues and marketing issues, both of which are from forces beyond their control;
WHEREAS: The current suite of programs available to farmers are insufficient to address the crisis facing many agricultural producers; either new programs need to be developed or increased competition in existing programs needs to occur;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada immediately begin a review of all Business Risk Management Programs involving all stakeholders, including producers, to explore potential new programs or amendments to current programs.
FURTHER THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada look to increase competition by allowing private industry access to cost shared subsidies through programs like AgriInsurance to prevent certain companies from having a monopoly on government subsidies.
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
In 2018, the Canadian and provincial governments committed to a review of BRM programs. An external panel, drawn from producers from across the country, was created to review the existing programs and make recommendations to the ministers. At the ministers' meeting in July 2019, the external panel made several recommendations to improve the BRM suite. Recommendations included reviewing the AgriStability program, examining its complexity, timeliness and predictability. Since the external panel's recommendations, federal and provincial officials have been working on possible options to improve the program.
In December 2019, the ministers made an announcement that AgriStability would exclude private-sector, producer-paid insurance payments as eligible AgriStability eligible income. This change will allow AgriStability to provide more coverage in times of severe losses with private insurance options (such as hail insurance, Global Ag Risk Solutions) complementing AgriStability, bringing the producer back to a higher support level.
44
87
At the same December meeting, ministers extended their commitment to the BRM review by challenging federal and provincial officials to evaluate the BRM programs against specific objectives and start to explore possible alternative approaches to BRM programming in Canada. Ministers are aware of industry's ask to remove the Reference Margin Limit and return the AgriStability trigger to 85 per cent of a producer's historical support level.
Federal and provincial ministers also acknowledged there are changing risks in the agriculture sector, with climate and international trade highlighted as specific risks. Similarly, following the last federal election, the federal mandate letter specifies that the BRM review should seek to "draw on lessons from trade disputes" and emphasize "faster and better adapted support". Federal and provincial officials are considering various options as potential replacements for AgriStability as part of a longer-term approach to refreshing the BRM suite. On a parallel track, work on short-term changes to AgriStability will continue.
For the past two years, AFSC has been meeting with producers at Input Advisory Group meetings to seek input on how to improve AgriStability's simplicity, timeliness and predictability. AFSC is currently engaged in province-wide Input Advisory Group meetings to facilitate producer discussions on the way forward for our BRM programs. A summary of their findings will be made available as soon as possible.
AGRICULTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION ALBERTA
(Same as above)
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA - Minister
Federal, provincial, and territorial (FPT) officials are continuing to examine ways to improve business risk management (BRM) programs. In December 2019, FPT ministers agreed to conduct an assessment of the BRM programs to help guide the ongoing work to develop approaches to better meet the needs of producers and make programs more effective, agile, timely, and equitable for producers. We continue to work with our provincial and territorial partners to ensure that the suite of programs is meeting new and evolving risks in the sector.
Under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, FPT governments continue to provide support to producers through BRM programs, as well as strategic initiative programs. This includes $2 billion in FPT cost-shared strategic initiatives and $1 billion in federal activities and programs aimed at growing trade and expanding markets, fostering innovative and sustainable growth in the sector, and supporting diversity in a dynamic, evolving sector. Over the Growing Forward 2 period (2012 2017), FPT governments provided producers across Canada with over $8 billion in support.
GRADE: Unsatisfactory
86% of the responding ASBs graded this response as Unsatisfactory, 10% graded it as Accept in Principle, and 5% as Incomplete.
COMMENTS from ASBs:
Accept in Principle: “the ask in the resolution was addressed however updates are expected”,
45
88
Unsatisfactory: “Municipality-specific impacts on local producers vastly different from one part of the province to another”, “Additional info provided afterwards may change grading”
COMMENTS from Committee: The Committee graded this resolution as Unsatisfactory as the response from Alberta Agriculture and Forestry did not address trade relations and they have not committed to doing anything to address the resolution. The Agriculture and Agrifood Canada response was received after the initial grading but will be reviewed in the final report card. The Committee will draft letters to the respective ministries relaying the grade and the reasons.
46
89
RESOLUTION E2-20: INITIATE AGRIRECOVERY FRAMEWORK
WHEREAS: AgriRecovery is a federal-provincial-territorial disaster relief framework intended to work together with the core Business Risk Management Programs to help agricultural producers recover from natural disasters and the extraordinary costs producers must take on to recover from disasters;
WHEREAS: Numerous municipalities have declared an agricultural disaster due to drought, fire, flood, early frost, disease and excessive moisture;
WHEREAS: These producers accrued exorbitant costs to even attempt harvest or put up feed, manage tough grain, feed shortages and the rehabilitation of land in the coming years;
WHEREAS: The current agriculture and economic climates is plagued by lower commodity prices from trade restrictions and poor relations leading to lower profits and decreased cash flow;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Alberta Agriculture and Forestry work together to initiate the AgriRecovery disaster framework and begin an immediate analysis of impact for additional financial support to assist field rehabilitation, costs accrued to attempt harvest and manage tough grain, feed shortages, losses incurred from lower commodity prices due to trade wars and any other out of the ordinary accrued expenses upon assessment.
FURTHER THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada immediately work to resolve trade restrictions and improve relations with countries like China and India to improve movement and commodity prices.
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
The Government of Alberta appreciates that harsh weather conditions experienced by Alberta producers in 2019 have created challenges, and have resulted in the declaration of a State of Agricultural Disaster by several municipalities. Many of the expenses identified as part of these weather events are covered within the full suite of BRM programs, which include AgriStability, Agrilnsurance, and Agrilnvest. These programs are designed to cover severe margin declines and production declines in perennial and annual crops, and they also provide self-directed saving accounts for investments.
Part of this suite is the AgriRecovery framework. AgriRecovery works in conjunction with the existing programs to help producers recover from natural disasters. The focus of AgriRecovery is the extraordinary costs producers face to recover from natural disasters like disease, pests, or weather-related events, such a large-scale flooding or tornadoes. The AgriRecovery framework
47
90
provides a method for officials to determine if an AgriRecovery initiative should be pursued. This is a two-stage process that includes a preliminary assessment and a secondary, or full, AgriRecovery assessment.
The preliminary assessment evaluates each disaster event individually. This is done to determine the size and scope of a situation by looking at specific criteria that answer the following questions: Is it a recurring event (has it happened before)? Is it an abnormal event (how often has it happened)? And are there significant, extraordinary costs that threaten the viability of an operation?
While the situation farmers currently face is difficult, it is unlikely this year's situation would pass the preliminary AgriRecovery assessment. There have been challenging harvests in the past, including snowed under acres, and an AgriRecovery program has not been declared.
The secondary, or full assessment, would evaluate each of the extraordinary costs identified and whether those costs would be covered by existing programs, insurance or other initiatives•such as the Livestock Tax Deferral Program. There are some items that would not be eligible for compensation under the AgriRecovery framework. These include costs such as taxes, machinery costs, repairs or alterations, or the sale of agricultural commodities. The secondary assessment also looks at what programs were/are available to producers and determines how well the existing programs respond to the identified extraordinary expenses.
The majority of costs accrued to harvest and manage tough grain or to purchase feed are eligible expenses under the AgriStability program. This program is designed to respond when there is a fluctuation in prices, be it from normal market fluctuations or trade restrictions put in place by other countries. In order to pass the secondary assessment, these costs would have to equate to a 30 per cent decline in a producer's program year margin compared to historical or the program reference margin. These estimates are done regardless of whether a producer in enrolled in the program, as it is support already available to producers.
AFSC is also monitoring the spring harvest conditions, as many of the producers in the province will try to harvest their crops this spring. Producers who are not able to harvest their crops and who have crop insurance coverage may be eligible for benefits under Agrilnsurance.
At this time, there is a sense that the existing suite of programs should be able to address many of the challenges faced by producers, as the programs are designed based on an individual producer's situation. This individual design ensures producers that are impacted have access to support even if other producers or areas are impacted less by the specific events.
Under AgriStability, producers are eligible for compensation when their current year margin falls below 70 per cent of their historical level of support or reference margin. The program is designed to focus on helping producers experiencing severe margin declines, beyond normal risks or fluctuations. Producers participating in AgriStability may be able to receive an interim AgriStability advance, depending on their current situation, which may help with cash flow.
Also to assist with cash flow, impacted producers may want to consider applying for a cash advance through the Feeders Association of Alberta, Canadian Canola Growers Association, or the
48
91
Alberta Wheat Commission. Eligible producers are able to access up to $1 million, with the initial $100,000 being interest free for eligible commodities.
AGRICULTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION ALBERTA ndividual producers have access to a suite of Business Risk Management (BRM) programs – AgriStability, AgriInsurance, and AgriInvest. These programs are designed to cover severe margin declines and production declines in perennial and annual crops and also provide self-directed saving accounts for investments.
Part of this suite is the AgriRecovery framework. AgriRecovery works in conjunction with the existing programs to help producers recover from natural disasters. The focus of AgriRecovery is the extraordinary costs producers face to recover from natural disasters like disease, pest or weather-related events, such a large-scale flooding or tornadoes.
The AgriRecovery framework provides a method for officials to determine if an AgriRecovery initiative should be pursued. This is a two-stage process that includes a preliminary assessment and a secondary, or full, AgriRecovery assessment.
The preliminary assessment evaluates each disaster event individually. This is done to determine the size and scope of a situation by looking specific criteria that answer the following questions:
• Is it a recurring event (has it happened before)? • Is it an abnormal event (how often has it happened)? and • Are there significant, extraordinary costs that threaten the viability of an operation?
The secondary, or full assessment, would evaluate each of the extraordinary costs identified and whether those costs would be covered by existing programs, insurance or other initiatives— such as the Livestock Tax Deferral Program. There are some items that would not be eligible for compensation under the AgriRecovery framework. These include costs such as taxes, machinery costs, repairs or alterations or the sale of agricultural commodities. The secondary assessment also looks at what programs were/are available to producers and determines how well the existing programs respond to the identified extraordinary expenses.
Under AgriStability, producers are eligible for compensation when their current year margin falls below 70 per cent of their historical level of support or reference margin. The program is designed to focus on helping producers experiencing severe margin declines, beyond normal risks or fluctuations. Producers participating in AgriStability may be able to receive an interim AgriStability advance, depending on their current situation, which may help with cash flow.
Additionally, to help assist with cash flow, impacted producers may want to consider applying for a cash advance through the Feeders Association of Alberta, Canadian Canola Growers Association or the Alberta Wheat Commission. Eligible producers are able to access up to $1 million, with the initial $100,000 being interest free for eligible commodities.
Although the harsh weather conditions experienced by Alberta producers in 2019 have resulted in the declaration of a State of Agricultural Disaster by several municipalities, many of the expenses identified are covered within the full suite of BRM programs.
49
92
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA – Minister
In addition, the recently announced national AgriRecovery initiative, of up to $125 million in funding, will help producers faced with costs incurred by COVID-19. This includes a $50-million set-aside program for cattle producers dealing with the consequences of market disruptions. I encourage your organization and industry groups across Canada to continue to work with provincial and territorial governments to initiate AgriRecovery assessments to provide support to producers facing extraordinary costs associated with recovering from a disaster.
GRADE: Unsatisfactory
90% of responding ASBs graded this resolution response as Unsatisfactory, 10% graded it Incomplete
COMMENTS from ASBs:
Incomplete: “didn’t fully address the resolution specifically the further therefore be it resolved”,
Unsatisfactory: “Trade partner reference to specific countries is sensitive to changing politics and should have been avoided”, “Additional info provided afterwards may change grading”
COMMENTS from Committee: The Committee graded this response as Unsatisfactory as it does not address the resolution but rather lists in detail the programs currently available. The Agriculture and Agrifood Canada response was received after the initial grading but will be reviewed in the final report card. The Committee will draft letters to the respective ministries relaying the grade and the reasons.
50
93
RESOLUTION E3-20: AGRIINVEST AND AGRISTABILITY CHANGES
WHEREAS: Business Risk Management Programs such as AgriInvest are administered federally by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada;
WHEREAS: AgriInvest lowered the percentage of allowable net sales and does not keep up with the rising cost of farms production;
WHEREAS: Business Risk Management Programs such as AgriStability are administered through Agriculture Financial Services Corporation in Alberta;
WHEREAS: AgriStability recently lowered the reference margin and added reference margin limits;
WHEREAS: The purpose of AgriStability is to provide support for a large margin decline and the purpose of AgriInvest is to help manage small income declines;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, and Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) work collaboratively to adjust AgriStability to increase covered losses starting at 85 per cent of reference margins and for the removal of Reference Margin Limits.
FURTHER THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT ALBERTA’S AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARDS REQUEST that Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Alberta Agriculture and Forestry and Canada Revenue Agency adjust AgriInvest to move the Allowable Net Sales under AgriInvest to 3 percent with maximum Allowable Net Sales of $500,000.00.
STATUS: Provincial
RESPONSE:
ALBERTA AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership, the federal and provincial governments committed to a review of BRM programming to ensure that producers were covered for severe losses. An external panel completed the review and provided recommendations to the federal and provincial governments on how to improve the current suite of BRM programs, while remaining cost neutral.
The review panel indicated they did not want to see Agrilnvest maintained. At this time, there has been no commitment or desire to increase the maximum deposit to Agrilnvest accounts from $10,000 to $15,000. There are currently over 23,600 producers in Alberta that have Agrilnvest balances that average over $27,500. Producers could use these account balances to help offset the costs associated with the difficult harvest conditions of 2019.
51
94
In response to the recommendations, AFSC conducted Input Advisory Group meetings at seven locations across Alberta, from north to south Alberta, to get producer input on possible programming changes. To date, the BRM review has been focused on improving the timeliness, predictability and simplicity of the AgriStability program. AFSC found most Alberta producers would like to see the program simplified, which, in tum, could make it more predictable. To simplify and improve the program responsiveness, all private-sector insurance payments have been removed as income for the program year margin for the 2020 AgriStability program year. This will allow producers to benefit from participating in private insurance programs without having their AgriStability payment reduced when receiving a payment from a private-sector insurance program, such as hail insurance or the Western Livestock Price Insurance Program.
Additionally, in response to the numerous requests received by industry, we have prioritized our efforts to explore the feasibility of removing the Reference Margin Limit. Removing the limit would increase the total liabilities covered by governments, which would translate into increased costs to the program. At this time, the costs to remove the limit is unknown, and as such, governments are not able to commit to seeking additional funding to pay for these costs.
Under the Growing Forward 2 and Canadian Agricultural Partnership agreements, governments developed a policy position stating that BRM programming should not cover normal losses, and should focus on severe or disaster situations. This is one of the reasons the AgriStability trigger was changed from 85 to 70 per cent of a producer's reference margin. This move was a shift away from the previous Agriculture Policy Framework and Growing Forward agreements that were more focused on providing income assurance. Returning to the 85 per cent trigger will require a review of how it conforms with our international trade obligations, as well as determining the costs to governments.
The federal and provincial governments have committed to continuing the BRM review. Some of the focus will continue to be on program design, although the review will also include program objectives. This includes a review of the fairness and accessibility of producers to BRM programming. For example, the AgriStability program is a whole-farm program, intended to provide coverage for all producers, in all sectors, regardless of their farm structure. As such, AgriStability provides coverage to areas within the agriculture sector that do not have access to, or have limited access to, crop insurance products.
With an understanding of the current trade, market, and production challenges faced by many producers, it is important that government and industry at the national, provincial, and regional levels work together to improve our suite of BRM programming.
AGRICULTURE FINANCIAL SERVICES CORPORATION ALBERTA
Under the Canadian Agricultural Partnership (CAP), the federal and provincial governments committed to a review of BRM programming to ensure that producers were covered for more severe losses and not for what is considered normal risk. An external panel completed thereview and provided recommendations to the federal and provincial governments on how to improve the current suite of BRM programs, while remaining cost neutral (no new funding).
52
95
In response to the recommendations, AFSC conducted Input Advisory Group meetings at seven locations across Alberta, from north to the south, to get Alberta producers’ input on possible programming changes. To date, the BRM review has been focused on improving the timeliness, predictability and simplicity of the AgriStability program. AFSC found most Alberta producers would like to see the program simplified, which, in turn, could make it more predictable. To simplify and improve the program responsiveness, all private-sector insurance payments have been removed as income for the program year margin for the 2020 AgriStability program year. This will allow producers to benefit from participating in private insurance programs without having their AgriStability payment reduced when receiving a payment from a private-sector insurance program, such as hail insurance or the Western Livestock Price Insurance Program.
Additionally, in response to the numerous requests received by industry, we have prioritized our efforts to explore the feasibility of removing the Reference Margin Limit. Removing the limit would increase the total liabilities covered by governments, which would translate into increased costs to the program. At this time, the costs to remove the limit is unknown, and as such, governments are not able to commit to seeking additional funding to pay for these costs.
Under the Growing Forward2 and Canadian Agricultural Partnership agreements, governments developed a policy position, stating that BRM programming should not cover normal losses, and should focus on severe or disaster situations. This is one of the reasons the AgriStability trigger was changed from 85 to 70 per cent of a producer’s reference margin. This move was a shift away from the previous Agriculture Policy Framework and Growing Forward agreements that were more focused on providing income assurance. Returning to the 85 per cent trigger will require a review of how it conforms with our international trade obligations, as well as determining the costs to governments.
The federal and provincial governments have committed to continuing the BRM review. Some of the focus will continue to be on program design, although the review will also include program objectives. This includes a review of the fairness and accessibility of producers to BRM programming. For example, the AgriStability program is a whole-farm program, intended to provide coverage for all producers, in all sectors, regardless of their farm structure. As such, AgriStability provides coverage to areas within the agriculture sector that do not have access to, or have limited access to, crop insurance products.
AGRICULTURE AND AGRI-FOOD CANADA – Minister
To enable AgriStability to help more producers manage the challenges of COVID-19, the enrollment deadline for the 2020 program year has been extended without penalty, from April 30 to July 3, 2020. Furthermore, interim payments have been increased from 50 to 75 percent in most jurisdictions, facilitating greater access to cash flow.
CANADA REVINUE AGENCY – Minister
PROPOSED GRADE: Unsatisfactory
90% of responding ASBs graded this response as Unsatisfactory, 10% as Incomplete.
COMMENTS from ASBs:
53
96
Incomplete: “didn’t fully address the resolution”
COMMENTS from Committee: The Committee graded this resolution as Unsatisfactory as it did not address moving the Allowable Net Sales under AgriInvest to 3 percent with maximum Allowable Net Sales of $500,000. The Agriculture and Agrifood Canada response was received after the initial grading but will be reviewed in the final report card. The Committee will draft letters to the respective ministries relaying the grade and the reasons.
54
97
Update on Previous Years’ Resolutions 2019 Resolutions Resolution Resolution Name Grade Number 1-19 Loss of 2% Liquid Strychnine Accept in Principle ● Resolution Ask o Health Canada/PMRA leave 2% LS permanently available to farmers for control of RGS ● Follow Up o discussed with Agriculture Minister who expressed support to maintain registration o Agriculture Minister requested that letter be sent to PMRA with concerns for alternate products – letter dated Dec 19, 2019 cc Minister Dreeshen ● Update o March 4, 2020, Re-Evaluation Decision by PMRA is published https://www.canada.ca/en/health- canada/services/consumer-product- safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest- management/decisions-updates/reevaluation- decision/2020/strychnine.html o The Committee’s letter was included in PMRA’s Re-evaluation Decision, however as stated in the final decision our letter had no effect on the decision. o A reversal of the decision requires significant scientific evidence to show that there is little risk to non-target species, particularly species at risk. ● Recommendations o Advocate for research into adapting or improving alternative RGS control methods, or further scientific evaluation of methods to use 2% liquid strychnine in a way that is safe for non-target species. o Tracer products be included with Strychnine o Producers using Strychnine be trained 2-19 Wildlife Predator Compensation Program Enhancement Incomplete ● Resolution Ask Changed to Accept o Implement using smartphone technology to in Principle provide photographic/video evidence for confirmation of livestock injury and death in a timely and prompt manner ● Follow Up 2020 o Committee is connecting with the Predator
55
98
Compensation Program working group 3-19 Deadstock Removal Unsatisfactory ● Resolution Ask o Province compensate producers 50% of deadstock pick up fees ● Follow Up 2020 o Continuing to monitor what other provinces are doing to find a recommendation for the minister
4-19 Carbon Credits for Permanent Pasture and Forested Lands Accept in Principle ● Resolution Ask o Development of process to allow farmers to access carbon credits under permanent cover (pasture, perennial forage crops, forested) ● Follow Up 2020 o Waiting to see how to engage with the Ministry of Environment consultations on carbon credits ● Recommendation o Keep tabs on the Carbon offset market and continue to advocate for perennial cover carbon off sets.
The Canadian Forage and Grassland Association (CFIA) partnered with a carbon offset company called Climate Action Reserve out of California to develop a Canadian Grassland Protocol. The Protocol Version 1 was announced in October 2019, and is available through their website http://www.climateactionreserve.org/how/protocols/canada- grassland/
This is a “conversion avoidance” protocol that pays to producers who can convert grassland into cropland but choose not to. Eligibility and process are available through the Climate Action Reserve website.
CFGA media release can be viewed here: https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Media-Release--CFGA- leads-First-Ever-Canadian-Grassland-Offset-Protocol-for- Producers.html?soid=1104692932142&aid=BUbfaGjEokk
5-19 Multi-Stakeholder Committee to Work at Reducing the Use of Incomplete Fresh Water by the Oil and Gas Industry in Alberta ● Resolution Ask o Govt of Alberta sets up a multi-stakeholder committee to work at reducing the use of fresh water by the oil and gas industry in Alberta
56
99
● Follow Up 2020 o referred the committee to ‘Directive for Water Licensing of Hydraulic Fracturing Projects – Area of Use Approach’ found at the following link : https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/ef2df211-1091- 4470-9b42-defe6529a862/resource/abce01b3- 2011-494c-bc50- a42774d49995/download/directivehydraulicfractu ring-feb16-2018.pdf
6-19 STEP Program Agricultural Eligibility Accept the Response E1-19 Access to Agriculture Specific Mental Health Resources Unsatisfactory https://www.farms.com/mental-health-and-suicide-prevention- resources/ https://www.farms.com/mental-health-and-suicide-prevention- resources/alberta.aspx E2-19 No Royalties on Farm Saved Seed Accept in Principle ● Resolution Ask o AAFC/CFIA abandon the proposal to implement royalties on farm saved seed ● Resolution Response o CFIA is still doing consultation ● Follow Up 2020 o Winter of 2020 is when the federal government decision on which royalty option will be pursued is expected. o Engaging commodity groups to gather further information
2018 Resolutions Resolution Resolution Name Grade Number Environmental Stream Funding of the Agriculture Service Board 1-18 Accept in Principle Grant Appeals to the Minister Under the Weed Control Act and 2-18 Unsatisfactory Agricultural Pests Act 3-18 Requirement to Report Certain Pests to the Local Authority DEFEATED 4-18 Weed Control on Alberta Vacant Public Lands Within Green Areas Incomplete 5-18 Wildlife Predator Compensation Program Enhancement Accept in Principle Review of Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) Crop 6-18 Unsatisfactory Insurance Program
57
100
Accept the 7-18 Crop Insurance for Alberta Fruit Producers Response Increasing limits for Farm Direct Marketing of Chickens for All Farm 8-18 DEFEATED Direct Producers 9-18 Farm Direct Marketing of Eggs and Products using Eggs Accept in Principle Accept the 10-18 Proposed Federal Tax Changes Response 11-18 Organic Food Testing and Labeling Accept in Principle 12-18 Chemical Control of Wireworms DEFEATED
2017 Resolutions Resolution Resolution Name Grade Number 1-17 Vegetation Management on Alberta Provincial Highways Accept in Principle ● Resolution Ask: o Deliver a more effective weed control and mowing program along primary and secondary highways o Control regulated weed species and unsafe vegetation on full right of way using appropriately timed herbicide applications and mowing o Allow municipalities to enter in service agreements in all districts ● 2020 resolution response o Committee met with the Ministry of Transportation in September 1, 2020, to discuss a continuation of the 2017-19 Integrated Vegetation Management Plan. o Alberta Transportation is working on a process to improve communication between municipalities and the Regional Managers who oversee the Hwy maintenance contracts. o Regional Managers have been invited to attend and speak at 2020 Regional ASB Conferences ● Recommendation o ASB Committee to continue to check in with the ministry of Transportation key contact and monitor progress on the development of the 2021-2023 Integrated Vegetation Management Plan. 2-17 Ensuring Competition for Seed and Crop Protection Products Incomplete 3-17 Incorporating Agriculture and Agri-Food Education in the Classroom Incomplete E1-17 Carbon Levy Exemption on Natural Gas and Propane for All Accept the Recognized Agriculture Production Response E2-17 Agricultural Disaster Policy DEFEATED
58
101
E3-17 Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis and Brucellosis Prevalent in Bison Unsatisfactory Within and Surrounding Wood Buffalo National Park
Expiring Resolutions The Provincial Rules of Procedure state in section 3(10) that the Provincial ASB Committee will actively advocate for resolutions for a period of five years. Any expiring resolutions that an ASB wishes to remain actively advocated for must be brought forward for approval at the next Provincial ASB Conference.
The following resolutions are set to expire December 31, 2020.
Resolution Resolution Name Grade Number 1-16 Proactive Vegetation Management on Alberta Provincial Highways Unsatisfactory 2-16 Reinstate Provincial Funding for the Canada and Alberta Bovine Unsatisfactory Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program 3-16 Agricultural Plastics Recycling Accept in Principle 4-16 Agricultural Opportunity Fund for Agricultural Research and Forage Accept the Associations Response 5-16 Climate Stations Accept in Principle 6-16 Compensation for Coyote Depredation Accept in Principle 7-16 Hay Insurance Program DEFEATED 8-16 Species at Risk Act (SARA) Accept in Principle E1-16 Bill 6: Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers Accept in Principle E2-16 Genetically Modified Alfalfa DEFEATED
Current Advocacy 1. Integrated Vegetation Management Plan see resolution 1-17 2. Research and Innovation projects around alternative Richardson Ground Squirrel control 3. Timely and appropriate ASB grant payments 4. No Royalties on Farm Saved Seed see resolution E2-19 5. Government Support for Surveillance and Monitoring for agriculture pests 6. Weed Control Act appeal
59
102
Appendix Resolution 4-20: Education Campaign for Cleanliness of Equipment for Industry Sectors
60
103
61
104
62
105
63
106
64
107
65
108
66
109
67
110
68
111
69
112
Resolution 9-20: Mandatory Agriculture Education in the Classroom
70
113
71
114
72
115
Resolution 13-20: Canada Product and Canadian Made Origin claims on food labels (from federal government website) Guidelines for "Product of Canada" and "Made in Canada" claims
73
116
74
117
75
118
76
119
77
120
78
121
79
122
80
123
81
124
82
125
83
126
84
127
Resolution E1-19: Access to Agriculture Specific Mental Health Resources Alberta Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Resources
Farmer Specific Resources
Farm Debt Mediation Service Regional Office 1-866-452-5556 (toll Free) 306-780-5544 613-773-2600 (TDD/TTY) 306-780-7353
Canadian Agricultural Partnership- Alberta https://cap.alberta.ca/CAP/
Alberta Association of Agricultural Societies http://albertaagsocieties.ca/grants-funding/ Support Groups
Coping with Anxiety and Depression Address: Centre 104 Building Suite 706, 5241 Calgary Trail NW Day and Time: Wednesdays from 5-7pm Contact: Kimberly Masliuk-Giddings, MSW RSW (780) 757-0900
Suffering from Anxiety, Depression or Negative Thoughts? We Can Help. Address: Mira Health Centre, 130, 11910 111 Ave, Edmonton Contact: 780-453-3757 at Ext. 116, 132 or 113 Additional Information: Free, 6 Week Course, pre-registration required
A Gift of Hope - Community Mental Health Address: Provincial Building 346 - 3rd St SE, Medicine Hat, AB Day and Time: Mondays and Wednesdays from 11am-12pm Contact: 403-529-3500 Additional Information: http://palliserpcn.ca/Resources/Pages/Anxiety,-Stress-and-Trauma-Support.aspx
Catholic Family Services – Men’s Support Group Address: 9902-101 Street (lower level), Grande Prairie, AB Contact: Erna (780) 532-9381 [email protected]
Sharing Our Loss – Lethbridge Family Services Address: 1107 – 2nd Avenue North, Lethbridge, AB Contact: Mary Shillington (403) 327-5724 [email protected]
Hope & Healing Through Grief Suicide Survivors Bereavement Support Group Address: 10015 – 98 Street, Peace River, AB Contact: (780) 624-6151 [email protected] Additional Information: www.pchr.ca
CMHA Bereavement Support Program Address: 5017 50th Avenue, Red Deer, AB Contact: (403) 342-2266 [email protected]
Living with Loss to Suicide
85
128
Address: Queen Street Medical Centre, 105 – 505 Queen Street, Spruce Grove, AB Day and Time: last Monday of the month from 7-9pm Contact: Meryl Murray R.S.W. (780) 342-1340
86
129 Alberta Crop Report
Crop Conditions as of October 20 – Final Report for 2020 Weather cooled down drastically this past week with the vast majority of the province seeing temperatures at least 6 degrees, some areas more than 10 degrees, lower than the long-term average. This cooling trend ended the week with a snowfall event affecting a wide swath down the length of the foothills, creeping east to include the Red Deer area. Table 1: Regional Harvest Progress as of October 20, 2020 Per cent Combined
South Central N East N West Peace Alberta
Spring Wheat* 99.8% 97.7% 99.2% 99.9% 99.0% 99.1% Durum Wheat 99.8% 99.0% ------99.7%
Barley* 99.7% 97.4% 99.0% 99.9% 99.1% 98.8% Oats* 99.0% 96.9% 97.8% 99.8% 99.0% 98.5% Winter Wheat 99.8% 100% 100% ------99.8% Mixed Grain 100% 97.8% --- 100% --- 98.1% Canola* 98.6% 95.3% 98.5% 99.4% 98.6% 98.0% Dry Peas* 100% 99.9% 100% 100% 100% 100% Lentils 100% 100% ------100% Chickpeas 100% 100% ------100% Mustard 99.8% 99.9% ------99.9%
Flax 99.4% 98.2% 90.0% ------98.2%
Potatoes 100% 100% --- 100% --- 100%
All Crops 99.1% 96.9% 98.7% 99.6% 98.7% 98.7% Major Crops (*) 99.3% 96.9% 98.8% 99.6% 98.7% 98.6% Major Crops Last Week 99.1% 96.4% 97.2% 95.4% 92.0% 96.5% 5-year Average 90.4% 74.3% 72.4% 64.6% 72.7% 77.3%
10-year Average 91.7% 82.6% 83.0% 77.8% 79.6% 84.5% Source: AF/AFSC Crop Reporting Survey Despite the weather, harvest progress was made with the province now reporting nearly 99 per cent of crops in the bin (Table 1), well ahead of the five and 10-year averages. As you move northward through the regions, the change in progress increases, with the biggest adjustment evident in the Peace region, where combining swelled seven points over last week. Both South and North West regions are currently over 99 per cent harvested, closely followed by North East and Peace at just under 99 per cent. Central region is slightly behind the other areas at 97 per cent in the bin. Remaining acres will be a challenge to harvest, and some may be grazed.
Soil moisture reserves vary greatly throughout Alberta with pockets of one-in-50- year lows in Central, North West and Peace regions (dark pink areas on map) contrasting with areas experiencing one-in-25-year highs (dark blue on map) in the North East and Peace. Southeastern Alberta was experiencing very dry conditions this summer, but rains within September have replenished the soil moisture in this area. Producers will be looking for winter snows in parts of all regions to replenish the soil moisture in preparation for spring planting.
Our thanks to Alberta Agricultural Fieldmen and staff of AFSC for their partnership and contribution to the Alberta Crop Reporting Program. The climate map is compiled by Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Environmental Stewardship Branch, Engineering and Climate Services Section. 130 Table 2: Dryland Yield Estimates (Major Crops) as of October 20, 2020
Estimated Yield (bushel/acre)
South Central N East N West Peace Alberta Spring Wheat 53.6 66.6 53.0 48.0 40.6 54.2 Barley 73.9 87.9 76.0 46.8 52.9 74.4 Oats 76.9 84.7 94.6 78.9 84.2 85.2 Canola 44.0 50.3 39.8 31.0 32.3 40.0 Dry Peas 48.1 46.5 42.3 32.0 35.3 42.8 5-Year Index 138.9% 117.0% 99.8% 73.2% 87.8% 108.4%
10-Year Index 125.2% 119.0% 101.0% 72.5% 94.7% 107.1% Source: AF/AFSC Crop Reporting Survey Yield reports for Alberta remain high overall at 108 per cent of the five-year and 107 per cent of the 10-year indices (Table 2). The unstable weather patterns resulted in highly variable yields across the province, and within each region. Excess moisture caused flooding primarily in the North West, North East and Peace regions, which reduced yields in those wet areas and has led to acres being plowed under or abandoned this fall, and considerable crop coming off tough or damp and having to be dried. Grades are also variable, yet higher than the norm on a provincial level, with hard red spring wheat grading 87 per cent and durum 97 per cent in the top two grades, 43 per cent of barley is malt grade while 51 percent is grading 1CW. Oats are reported at 59 per cent in the top two grades, 89 per cent of canola is 1 Canada while 85 per cent of peas are 1 and 2 Canada followed by 12 per cent at 3 Canada. Regional Assessments: Region One: Southern (Strathmore, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, Foremost) Harvest is very near to completion with over 99 per cent of crop in the bin for this region. Sugar beet harvest came to a halt with the freezing temperatures, and are 83 per cent complete. The sugar factory is hoping for a controlled harvest once the freeze lets up. Grain corn and sunflower harvest will start after the freeze. Dryland yields are above the five- and 10-year provincial averages in this region for most crops, with the exception of oats, which are one point lower at 77 bushels per acre. Spring wheat is averaging 54 bushels, durum 54 bushels, barley 74 bushels, canola 44 bushels while peas are averaging 48 bushels per acre. Irrigated acres are estimated at 81 bushels for spring wheat, 84 bushels durum, 104 bushels barley, oats 103 bushels, canola 63 bushels and peas 60 bushels per acre. Dryland potato yields are estimated 11 tons per acre, while irrigated are 17 tons per acre. Irrigated dry bean estimates are 29 cwt per acre with sugar beets at 28 tonnes per acre. Crop quality estimates 96 per cent of hard red spring wheat and 97 per cent of durum in the top two grades, 66 per cent of barley reported as Malt with 31 per cent as 1CW, oats are all in the top two grades, canola is 88 per cent 1 Canada and peas are 97 per cent in the top two grades. Dry bean quality is reported high. Surface soil moisture is 26 per cent good or excellent, with sub-surface moisture 29 per cent rated good or excellent. Forage reserve estimates in this region are 79 per cent adequate with 18 per cent surplus while feed grain supplies are 77 per cent adequate and 21 per cent surplus. Pasture condition is rated at 32 per cent good with an additional four per cent excellent. Region Two: Central (Rimbey, Airdrie, Coronation, Oyen) This region is slightly behind the rest of the province with 97 per cent of crops now combined. Dryland yields are above the five and 10-year provincial averages in this region. Spring wheat is at 67 bushels, barley is 88 bushels, oats 85 bushels, canola 50 bushels, while peas are 47 bushels per acre. Durum is the exception being reported at 31 bushels per acre, compared to the five-year provincial average of 34 and 10-year average of 39 bushels per acre. Potato yields are estimated at 14 tons per acre. Crop quality estimates 94 per cent of hard red spring wheat and 100 per cent of durum in the top two grades, 50 per cent of barley reported as Malt with 42 per cent as 1CW, oats are 94 per cent in the top two grades with six per cent grading 3CW, canola is 88 per cent 1 Canada and peas are 92 per cent in the top two grades. Surface soil moisture is 77 per cent good or excellent with sub-surface moisture 81 per cent rated good or excellent.
The 2020 Alberta crop reporting series is available on the Internet at: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/2830245 2 131 Forage reserve estimates are 79 per cent adequate with 19 per cent surplus while feed grain supplies are 82 per cent adequate and 17 per cent surplus. Pasture condition is 62 per cent good with an additional five per cent excellent. Region Three: North East (Smoky Lake, Vermilion, Camrose, Provost) Harvest is very near to completion with just under 99 per cent of crop in the bin for this region. Dryland yields are above the five and 10-year averages in this region for most crops with the exception of canola, which is on par at 40 bushels per acre. Spring wheat is averaging 53 bushels, barley 76 bushels, oats 95 bushels, while peas are averaging 42 bushels per acre. Crop quality estimates 78 per cent of hard red spring wheat in the top two grades, 17 per cent of barley reported as Malt with 75 per cent as 1CW, oats are 60 per cent in the top two grades with an additional 39 per cent grading 3CW, canola is 94 per cent 1 Canada and peas are 65 per cent 2 Canada with none reported as 1 Canada. Surface soil moisture is 71 per cent good or higher ratings, with sub-surface moisture 88 per cent good or higher. Forage reserve estimates in this region are 70 per cent adequate with 27 per cent surplus while feed grain supplies are 64 per cent adequate and 27 per cent surplus. Pasture condition is rated at 39 per cent good with an additional two per cent excellent. Region Four: North West (Barrhead, Edmonton, Leduc, Drayton Valley, Athabasca) Harvest is very near to completion with over 99 per cent of crop in the bin for this region. Dryland yields are on par with the five and 10-year provincial averages for spring wheat and oats, which are reported at 48 and 79 bushels per acre respectively. Barley is 20 points lower at 47 bushels, canola is 10 points lower at 31 bushels while peas are eight points lower at 32 bushels per acre. Potato yields are estimated 10 tons per acre. Crop quality estimates 91 per cent of hard red spring wheat in the top two grades, 10 per cent of barley reported as Malt with 86 per cent as 1CW, oats are 98 per cent grading 3CW, canola is 88 per cent 1 Canada and peas are 15 per cent 1 Canada with 55 per cent 2 Canada and 29 per cent 3 Canada. Surface soil moisture is currently 76 per cent excellent with 10 per cent excessive ratings, with sub-surface moisture 66 per cent rated excellent and 22 per cent excessive. Forage reserve estimates in this region are 79 per cent adequate with 21 per cent surplus while feed grain supplies are 49 per cent adequate and two per cent surplus. Pasture condition is 40 per cent good with none excellent. Region Five: Peace River (Fairview, Falher, Grande Prairie, Valleyview) Harvest is very near to completion with just under 99 per cent of crop in the bin for this region. Dryland yields are below the five and 10-year provincial averages in this region for most crops with the exception of oats, which are six points higher at 84 bushels per acre. Spring wheat is averaging 41 bushels, barley 53 bushels, canola 32 bushels, while peas are averaging 35 bushels per acre. Crop quality estimates 77 per cent of hard red spring wheat in the top two grades, 26 per cent of barley is Malt with 57 per cent as 1CW, oats are 87 per cent in the top two grades with an additional 13 per cent grading 3CW, canola is 83 per cent 1 Canada and peas are eight per cent 1 Canada, 75 per cent 2 Canada and 11 per cent 3 Canada. Surface soil moisture is currently 81 per cent good or excellent ratings with one per cent excessive. Sub-surface moisture 80 per cent rated good or excellent with one per cent excessive. Forage reserve estimates are 82 per cent adequate with 17 per cent surplus while feed grain supplies are 84 per cent adequate and 14 per cent surplus. Pasture condition is 69 per cent good with an additional two per cent excellent.
Contacts
Agriculture Financial Services Corporation Jackie Sanden – Product Coordinator Business Risk Management Products Unit Ken Handford – Product Development Analyst Lacombe, Alberta Email: [email protected] October 23, 2020
Note to Users: The contents of this document may not be used or reproduced without properly accrediting AFSC and Alberta Agriculture and Forestry, Economics and Competitiveness Branch, Statistics and Data Development Section
The 2020 Alberta crop reporting series is available on the Internet at: https://open.alberta.ca/publications/2830245 3 132 Agricultural Service Board
Request for Direction
Date: November 16, 2020
SUBJECT: Correspondence
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agricultural Service Board receive the following correspondence for information: a. Foothills Forage and Grazing Association 2021 Funding Request b. Strychnine Update
BACKGROUND: Nil.
RELEVANT POLICY: Nil.
Attachments Nil 1. FFGA 2021 Funding Request Letter 2. Strychnine Newsletter – October 3. Strychnine Poster - October
PREPARED BY: LG REVIEWED BY: JF
133 Page 1 of 1 134
October 13, 2020
Greetings Mountain View County Agricultural Service Board,
The Foothills Forage and Grazing Association (FFGA) is a producer driven group that has been a leader in delivering pertinent forage and livestock information to southern Alberta producers for 48 years. The board of directors is made up of 11 volunteer producers from across the FFGA region (Attachment # 1). The organization brings producers together by offering practical, profitable and regenerative strategies to producers by hosting demonstration projects, events, workshops, field tours, webinars and networking opportunities as well as information through our monthly newsletter and social media. Currently FFGA has a membership of 123 Farm Businesses, 800 hits on the website monthly, 2119 followers on Facebook and 1248 on Twitter.
The partnerships we have created with counties, industry, government, corporations, and the agricultural community enhance the delivery of strategies that FFGA applies at the grassroots level in cooperation with producers. FFGA has been involved in 13 events with an attendance of 559 producers and 13 webinars with 1,994 registrants thus far in 2020. We continue to plan events and webinars in the coming months with close monitoring of COVID-19 and recommendations from Alberta Health Services.
FFGA is continually developing our program to address the current needs of our producer members and to cover a diverse range of topics while maintaining a high level of producer engagement. County partners provide valuable insight into topics and areas of interest within their region. Feedback from our events confirm that producers are willing to travel up to three hours to attend FFGA workshops which results in a wide spread of information and networking.
We are asking Mountain View County to continue to partner with us by identifying areas of interest within your region, delivering pertinent information as well as financially. FFGA is requesting your support in the amount of $5,000 in 2021. Your funding will support the delivery of our 2021 program including events, webinars, conferences, tours, workshops, demonstration trials, newsletter, social media as well as delivery of the Environmental Farm Plan.
Alberta Agriculture & Forestry supports our program; however, it is crucial that we also have support on a local level, so we can meet our required matching dollars for these grants which we cannot operate without. We are committed to recognizing our MD and County supporters through our newsletters, website, social media, and at events and workshops. By working with our sister associations, county and industry partners FFGA is more effective and efficient in the delivery of our program, such that we can arrange world-renown agricultural speakers and provide workshops to Southern Alberta producers at affordable rates.
We are happy to meet with the Mountain View County Agricultural Service Board if you would like us to share more information on our association, activities, and opportunities for collaboration. Thank you for your support and we hope you will continue to grow with us in 2021.
Warm Regards,
Laura Gibney FFGA Manager
135 ATTACHMENT #1: Foothills Forage & Grazing Association Region Map
Board of Directors & Staff 2020
Chairman – Alex Robertson Longview Director – Mike Roberts ARECA Rep – Tamara Garstin Nanton Lethbridge Vice Chairman – Rod Vergouwen, Strathmore Director – Daryl Chubb Manager – Laura Gibney Irricana Treasurer – Justin Blades Environmental & Nanton Director – Tanis Cross Communication Coordinator Nanton – Sonja Bloom Director – Ben Campbell Black Diamond Director - Daniel Doerksen Gem FFGA Office is located at: Director - Steve Yule Unit 4A, 710 Centre St SE Gleichen Director – Emily Lowe High River Nanton Director - Marcel Busz Duchess
136 ATTACHMENT #2:
Summary of Activities 2020 Innovation, education and regenerative agriculture FFGA 2020 Tours, Field Days & Webinars Partners Location Attendance If You Can't Beat It, Eat It January 9 Waterton Biosphere Reserve, Fort 82 Lethbridge County, SALTS, MD Macleod • Grazing sheep & goats and the use of guardian dogs on public & private land Ranchland, Town of Fort • Conditioning cattle to graze weeds Macleod, Cardston County, MD • Grazing practices/shepherding Pincher Creek, MD Willow Creek Environmental Farm Plan January 14 Rocky View County, MD of Big Rocky View 11 • Hands on administration of EFP’s for producers Horn, ARECA (EFP Division) County • Canadian Ag Partnership producer funding opportunities Ladies Livestock Lessons January 18 Red Bow Partnership (Mountain Mountain 67 View County, M.D. of Bighorn, View County • Breaking Barriers in Ag: Mental Health on the Ranch Kneehill County, Red Deer • Animal Health: Preventative Medicine & Pain Management County, Wheatland County, • Canadian Beef Centre of Excellence; Culinary Demonstration & Tasting Rocky View County, Clearwater • Female Producer Panel - Highlighting Stewardship & Best Management County, Alberta Agriculture & Practices in Agriculture Forestry, Cows & Fish), Grey • Species at Risk & Grazing Management Wooded Forage Assoc., UFA, • Livestock Nutrition & Alternative Feeds Simonin Law • Online Tools & Ag Apps • Grazing Basics for Success International Tour to Costa Rica February 3 to 16 Leader Tours, Alberta Beef Costa Rica 35 • Tropical Agricultural Research Center Magazine • Sustainable tropical dairy tour • Starbuck’s coffee tour • Beef cattle ranch visits • Pineapple, pepper and chocolate factory tours • EARTH University - Banana operation, cattle farm • Tourist attractions including Irazu Volcano and much more Rural Roots Ag Days February 11 Rural Roots Canada, MD’s of Fort 21 • Advancing Ag, knowing what you grow: knowing the quality of your inventory, Pincher Creek, Willow Creek & MacLeod • Preparing for calving season & mental health Ranchland, Cardston County
137
• Ducks Unlimited & Guardians of the Grassland showing • Jim Gerrish on the dollars & sense of grazing and managing cow costs Ranching Opportunities February 13 Red Bow Partnership Olds College 158 Olds College • Getting the most of your pasture with Jim Gerrish Grey Wooded Forage Assoc. • Managing cattle with drones Lone Star Ranches & Sales • Low stress cattle handling • Producer panel - Using livestock water as a tool for pasture management • Large animal emergency response • AB soil carbon quantification • Grazing Workshop featuring Jim Gerrish February 14 Wheatland County Strathmore 45
• Management intensive grazing for soil health, animal health and profitability
Soil Sample Review Workshop February 28 Chinook Applied Research Airdrie 20 Association (CARA) • Review of soil health benchmark results with Dr. Yamily Zavala • Management implications on soil health Getting Your Grazing Season Started on the Right Foot April 22 Maia Grazing Webinar 190 • evaluating your pasture for grazing readiness • Varying pasture rotation annually • Grazing days and recovery time, stocking rate, developing a grazing plan - how to and software options Agriculture Taxes 101 May 14 FBC Webinar 52
• Top 12 tax tips you need to know for your agricultural business • CRA changes that may affect your business • Understanding business deductions Hay & Tame Pasture Rejuvenation May 20 Union Forage Webinar 120 • Rejuvenation strategies, things to consider, species selection, goal setting and achievement • The deep dive into mixed species cropping and pasture stitching Paddock Design 101: Planning Grazing Fundamentals with Jim Gerrish May 27 Maia Grazing Webinar 702 • Designing a planned grazing system
138
• Smart evaluation of your existing resources • Stock water development • Enriching grazing data with defined unites of record Electric Fencing Tips and Troubleshooting June 3 DATAMARS Webinar 61 • Understanding grounding • Construction tips & troubleshooting • Training livestock Southern Alberta Grazing School for Women July 16, 21, 23, 28 & 30 Starland & Warner Counties, Webinar 321 • Grazing principles & practices Oldman Watershed Council, Series • Range & Riparian health & assessments MD’s of Willow & Pincher Creek, • Ranching Women – producer panel Operation Grassland, Alberta • Mental health in the Ag industry; tools and resources for coping with mental Conservation Assoc., Nature Conservancy Canada, Chinook health struggles Applied Research Assoc., MULTISAR, Cows & Fish, ABP FFGA’s Annual General Meeting July 29 High River 25 • FFGA’s annual business meeting Building Soil Secrets with Ray Archuleta August 4 Albert Beef Magazine, North Webinar 295 • How soil functions: how plants, animals, and organisms work together to Peace Applied Research Assoc, transform and extract nutrients from the soil Lakeland Agriculture Research • Utilizing diversity, cover crops and livestock to enhance soil health Assoc Riparian & Range Pasture Walk August 6 Cows & Fish, Kneehill County Linden 10 • Riparian health & forage productivity • Native and non-native plant ID • Pasture assessment & management • Alternative watering • Fencing for riparian pastures and grazing management Grazing Management for Soil Health August 19 MD Willow Creek, Rangeward MD of 28 • Grazing management, soil quality, carbon sequestration, forage production, Pincher fencing, livestock water Creek • Cell grazing on native range
139
Adaptive Grazing with Dr. Allen Williams August 20 North Peace Applied Research Webinar 316 • Defining adaptive grazing Assoc, Lakeland Agriculture • Practical implementation on the ranch Research Assoc Lowering Input Costs & Rejuvenating Soil with Gabe Brown Sept 1 Gemstone Cattle Co., North Webinar 232 • Finding profit in your agricultural operation by improving soil health, Peace Applied Research Assoc, increasing biodiversity, working in harmony with natures and lowering Lakeland Agriculture Research input costs Assoc Perennial Pasture Rejuvenation Workshop Sept 9 MD of Big Horn, Rocky View Madden 27 • Preparing the seed bed, species selection, financial considerations, County, FCC, Corteva, Greentech direct seeding into sod, spring seeding, frost seeding, establishment, weed control, grazing management for success Perennial Pasture Rejuvenation Workshop Sept 29 MDs of Willow Creek & Claresholm 30 • Preparing the seed bed, species selection, financial considerations, Ranchland, Vulcan County, AFSC, direct seeding into sod, spring seeding, frost seeding, establishment, NEOGEN weed control, grazing management for success
Upcoming Event and Webinar Ideas Tours, Field Days & Webinars Date Location Partners Tech Talks: Applicable technology on the ranch Nov 2020 TBD Seeding Marginal Lands to Forage webinar Nov/Dec 2020 Webinar Mountain View County, Wheatland County & Ducks Unlimited Integrated Soils: What’s new in soil health and Early 2021 TBD making it pay Successful Ranching with Burke Teichart TBD TBD Western Canada Conference on Soil Health & Dec 2021 Edmonton Sister associations: NPARA, CARA, GWFA, LARA, GRO, WCFA, Grazing MARA, PCBFA, BRRG Red Bow Ranching Virtual Conference Feb 4 & 6, 2021 Webinars Red Bow Partnership EFP Workshops Ongoing
140
Demo Projects
Project Location Year Established Projected End Year Soil Health Bench Marking 21 Operations across the 2018 2022 FFGA region Rancher Researcher Enhancing Technology Adoption Project 2 Producer cooperators 2019 2023 Information Hub Monthly Newsletter Over 500 distributed/month FFGA 2020 Membership 128 Farm Business Units Website (www.foothillsforage.com) 800 website hits per month Facebook Page (Foothills Forage & Grazing Association) 2,119 followers and 1720 likes Twitter (@foothillsforage) 1,248 followers YouTube (FoothillsForage) 4 Original Informational Videos
Bursaries Every year FFGA awards 1 to 3 $500 bursaries to post-secondary students with aspirations to improve the forage and livestock industry. FFGA supports an annual Canadian Nuffield Scholar when their area of study compliments FFGA’s mandate. CONTACT US Foothills Forage and Grazing Association Laura Gibney Sonja Bloom Unit 4A, 710 Centre St Se Manager Environmental & Communications High River, AB T1V 0H3 [email protected] Coordinator 403-995-9466 [email protected]
141 2% Liquid Strychnine Concentrate Final Re-evaluation Decision by Health Canada This article is intended to provide information to Retailers (Rural Municipality Offices or County Offices) and end Users (Farmers) on important dates regarding the cancellation of 2% Liquid Strychnine Concentrate (Registration No. 30433 PCP Act) for use on Richardson’s ground squirrels (the gopher).
On March 4, 2020, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) published the final re-evaluation decision RVD2020-06, Strychnine and its Associated End-use Products (Richardson’s Ground Squirrels). The PMRA reviewed available scientific information and considered comments submitted by stakeholders when making their decision.
The re-evaluation concluded the environmental risks associated with the use of strychnine to control Richardson’s ground squirrel are not acceptable when the product is used according to the label directions, or when additional risk mitigation measures are considered. Under the authority of the Pest Control Products Act, PMRA cancelled strychnine products used to control Richardson’s ground squirrel populations
Key Messages:
• Health Canada’s primary objective in regulating pesticides is to protect the health of Canadians and the environment. Pesticides must undergo a rigorous science-based review before being-approved for sale and use in Canada. • Health Canada regularly reviews pesticides under the Pest Control Products Act to ensure that they continue to meet modern health and environmental safety standards. • Following a re-evaluation process, Health Canada cancelled the use of Strychnine to control Richardson’s ground squirrels to protect non-target animals, including species at risk, such as the swift fox and burrowing owl, from strychnine-related poisonings. • The March 4, 2020 re-evaluation decision applies only to the strychnine products registered for the control of Richardson’s ground squirrels. Strychnine products registered to control wolves, coyotes, skunks and black bears are unaffected by this decision. The distribution and use of these
142 products is only for use by applicators authorized by the Province of Alberta. Please refer to the label of the pest control product and the government department responsible for its use.
Important Dates: To comply with the re-evaluation decision, the registration of 2% Liquid Strychnine Concentrate (Registration No. 30433 PCP Act) is cancelled and is subject to the following phase out timelines:
• Last date of Sale by Registrant is March 4, 2021, • Last date of Sale by Retailer is March 4, 2022, • Last date permitted for use by the User is March 4, 2023.
Proper disposal of all unsold existing stock is the responsibility of the registrant of 2% Liquid Strychnine and is to be done in accordance with the label directions and any applicable provincial laws. This includes disposal of all unsold stock in the distribution and retail chain following the above schedule. Furthermore, the registrant is responsible for providing information to members of the distribution and retail chain regarding the above-specified last dates. The registration of 2% Liquid Strychnine Concentrate will expire after the March 4, 2023 the last day of permitted use. Continued possession and/or use of the product after this date is a violation of the Pest Control Products Act.
If you have questions about the cancellation of 2% Liquid Strychnine Concentrate, a copy of the Final Re-evaluation Decision RVD RVD2020-06 can be found at this link: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer- product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/decisions- updates/reevaluation-decision/2020/strychnine.html.
Questions about this re-evaluation decision can be directed to the PMRA’s Pest Management Information Service by phone (1-800-267- 6315) or by e-mail ([email protected]).
143
ATTENTION
2% LIQUID STRYCHNINE USERS
On March 4, 2020, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) published the final re-evaluation decision on strychnine used to control Richardson’s ground squirrels (RVD2020-06).
Under the authority of the Pest Control Products Act Health Canada is cancelling the registration of all strychnine products used to control Richardson ground squirrels. Environmental risks associated with the use of strychnine to control Richardson’s ground squirrels are not acceptable.
Important Dates:
Proper disposal of all unsold existing stock is the responsibility of the registrant of 2% Liquid Strychnine and is to be done in accordance with the label directions and any applicable provincial laws. This includes disposal of all unsold stock in the distribution and retail chain following the above schedule. Furthermore, the registrant is responsible for providing information to members of the distribution and retail chain regarding the above-specified last dates.
The registration of 2% Liquid Strychnine Concentrate will expire after the March 4, 2023 the last day of permitted use. Continued possession and/or use of the product after this date is a violation of the Pest Control Products Act. For more information on the regulation of pesticides, you are encouraged to contact PMRA at [email protected] or telephoning 1-800- 267-6315. October 2020
144