Ms. Madhu Malhotra, Manager…

Ms. Madhu Malhotra, Manager
Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change
Climate Change and Environmental Policy Division
Land and Water Policy Branch
40 St. Clair Avenue West, Floor 10
Toronto, ON M4V 1M2

EBR reference: EBR Registry number 012-9971

Dear Ms. Madhu,

The Ontario Sheep Marketing Agency (OSMA) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Ontario’s Draft Action Plan for Lake Erie.

OSMA is a producer organization representing 3,000 plus sheep producers who contribute over $465 million to Ontario’s economy. Established in 1985, OSMA’s mission is to enhance producer returns and provide consumers with premium lamb and sheep products by encouraging Ontario sheep producers to provide quality, year-round product through advocacy, marketing development, industry capacity and organizational capacity.

The Draft Action Plan acknowledges that the Lake Erie algal problems are complex and factors such as ecology, climate change and changing agricultural production systems and land use are all contributing factors. The complexity of the issue demands a balanced approach that builds on the strengths of existing policies already in place, while allowing Ontario to gain information that would be able to inform future evidence-based actions.

While we support the implementation of strategies that reduce the amount of phosphorus that enters Lake Erie, we do believe that Ontario’s approach should take into consideration the existing layers of legislation, regulation and other policy tools already in place on Ontario farms. These include those from the Nutrient Management Act, the Clean Water At and its associated Source Water Protection Plans. Many producers are already regulated under these policies, including restrictions on when and under what conditions they can apply nutrients on their farms. Adding further restrictions and requirements to those already following existing rules would be unduly burdensome, especially in light of the fact that other jurisdictions such as in the U.S. have only recently started to implement standards similar to Ontario.

Ontario should focus on ensuring greater consistency in the way existing regulatory standards for nutrient application during the non-growing season are applied across farms.

In addressing such a complex issue, OSMA recommends the following guiding principles:
•Risk should be at the core of any approach to address nutrient application in the non-growing season; the risks to Lake Erie are independent of nutrient source (e.g. manure, biosolids and commercial fertilizer) and should be consistently approached.
•Where possible, the site-specific risk characteristics of the soil should be taken into account. OSMA looks forward to participating in the development of improvements to phosphorous-loss models such as the P-index.
•Where possible, use and harness the power of constructive peer-to-peer dialogue and education to achieve behaviour change, before escalating to confrontational compliance activities.
•Any regulatory approach to broadening restrictions during the non-growing season must be accompanied by targeted 90% cost-shared funding programs to help farmers to build and refurbish the storage capacity needed to adhere to the restrictions without unduly impacting the competitiveness of their farms.
•Achieving better results from nutrient management standards does not always have to mean tightening the parameters; in some cases, added flexibility may need to be considered to address unintended consequences. For example, there may be years in which a wet fall means it is environmentally beneficial to allow producers to shift application until later in the fall following harvest, e.g. mid-December. This may be appropriate to reduce phosphorous runoff, avoid compaction, and also would likely reduce nitrogen losses from the field.

OSMA also supports the following three-layered approach to achieving a more consistent application of proper nutrient management practices during the non-growing season:

Performance based set of rules should be in place to ensure clarity.
1.Continue phase-in of farms under the Nutrient Management Act based on building permits.
2.Streamline regulatory reporting requirements: shift away from red tape that provides minimal value to regulators, producers and the public (e.g. requirement for full Nutrient Management Strategy/Plan renewal even when farms are unchanged), and towards practical tools that allow producers to measure their nutrient balance in a way that supports their cropping activities.
3.Improve consistency of rules: Existing technical standards for nutrient application during the non-growing season as currently found in the Nutrient Management Act are applied consistently, independent of farm type, farm size or nutrient source.

The compliance regime should also be performance based with a goal to continued behaviour changes in line with BMP’s. This would include a progressive enforcement approach that includes active education and incentives (e.g. cost-sharing measures), outreach and industry peer-to-peer accountability.
4.Improve communication of compliance expectations: Standards are communicated clearly and consistently, including the consequences for when standards are not followed.
5.Industry-led resolution process: Industry to work in partnership with OMAFRA to resolve incidences where technical standards are not met but no adverse environmental effects are observed.
6.Financial support to meet standards: Cost share incentives to allow producers to make investments need to adhere to technical standards and adopt associated BMPs.

Governance over adaptive management change modalities:
As data collection and monitoring systems improve over time it will become necessary to “trigger” changes to rules, standards and best management practices. It will be imperative for the agriculture sector to have a meaningful role in the governance over adaptive management, information and adaptation triggers
7.Develop the governance for a robust and credible adaptive-management process which uses data and research upon which to update science-based BMP's or standards over time.

We would be remiss if we did not mention that while the draft Action Plan does mention erosion-control benefits of forage and grazing livestock production, there is no mention of policies or programs that could encourage forage and sheep production. Forage production, pasture-based cropping systems and grasslands managed by sheep farmers do more than just produce food – they play an integral role in the health of Ontario’s agricultural soils and nutrient run-off management. The presence of sheep on agricultural land improves soil structure, provides erosion control from fencerows and windbreaks, and promotes soil ecosystem health through the production of perennial forage corps that minimize tilling and soil disruption.

These benefits of forage and pasture land have an important role to play in reducing the phosphorous load to Lake Erie, and OSMA recommends that Ontario’s Draft Action Plan place more emphasis on the importance of soil heath and erosion control. Further to this, we recommend that the Draft Action Plan address the potential policies or programs that could incentivize forage and sheep production and the conversion of crop acres to forage acres.

When considering best management practices for soil health, it should be noted that government policy can have a significant influence on production practices in Ontario, and there are wide-ranging benefits that stem from increasing Ontario’s sheep flock. Diverse crop rotations that include perennial crops for forage production, cover crops that protect the soil and provide feed for livestock, and fencing that acts as both an erosion control measure and critical infrastructure for sheep production speak to the need for better integration of livestock into crop production.

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide comment on the Draft Action Plan.

Sincerely,

Robert Scott
Chair

[Original Comment ID: 209375]