What’s next for the EFP?

Changes could be coming to the Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) under the next agricultural policy framework. Although changes have yet to be formalized, users say the focus should be on delivery flexibility and improving farm businesses.

The Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute (CAPI) hosted a presentation on May 5 detailing how the EFP could change. Researchers from the Fergus, Ont.-based Wilton Consulting Group outlined the advantages and problems of EFP programming to date, as well as the needs and wants of farmers and those who deliver the program.

Why it matters: Supporting farm profitability, increased flexibility and more reliable funding could give the EFP a more significant impact nationwide.

Bronwynne Wilton, lead consultant on the analysis, described the EFP program as being “in a state of evolution” as it adapts to environmental goals. Three main points were made:

• Delivery: The EFP needs to be flexible. This means balancing market-driven environmental standards with environmental education, while enabling access to funding for best management practices.
• Coverage: There is opportunity to evolve and diversify focus areas, and the types and sizes of farms that can participate.
• Staff: Staff cuts have affected delivery and institutional memory. There is opportunity to place more emphasis on extension and staffing nationwide.

Based on this list, and given Canada’s climate change policy goals and the variety of sustainability standards in the private sector – Wilton provided several recommendations:

• Formalize what is now a provincially varied program into a national EFP group.
• Core fund the EFP and make funding more stable and accessible.
• Integrate other environmental sustainability programs and standards into EFP content.
• Develop a national framework to harmonize EFP programming without compromising flexibility.
• Incorporate a focus on adapting to climate change.

Overall, Winton says the EFP faces three possible futures. The first is sticking with the status quo, though the second is re-orientation to a more proactive program. Revitalizing the EFP as it now stands is another option, involving more extension tools, staff, risk management, and other factors.

What the EFP needs

Also speaking during the CAPI presentation were panelists Julia Buckingham, Dairy Farmers of Canada sustainability strategy advisor, Susie Miller, executive director for the Canadian Roundtable for Sustainable Crops, and Andrew Graham, executive director of the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association.

They described the EFP as a valuable way to build environmental awareness, generate on farm action, and help farmers get funding. But while survey data suggests two-thirds of participating farmers have completed or implemented changes – based on the information identified in their plans – understanding what’s needed to reach non-participants is a harder nut to crack.

The need for flexibility was also emphasized. Miller says the EFP should be considered “a living document” that supports a farm’s bottom line. She says farmers often say the EFP should include mechanisms to minimize financial vulnerabilities.

Graham had a similar position.

“I think we have to recognize the needs of farmers… There has got to be recognized return on investment,” he says. And although there never seems to be enough funding, efforts should redirect dollars to the projects of greatest benefit.

“Just as the EFP needs to remain relevant, the list of supported [best management practices] needs to be revisited frequently.”