2016 Agricultural Service Board resolutions

 
 
Subscribe to our free E-Newsletter, "Agri-News" (formerly RTW This Week)Agri-News
This Week
 
 
 
 2016 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
Resolution #1Proactive Vegetation Management on Alberta Provincial Highways
Resolution #2Reinstate Provincial Funding for the Canada and Alberta Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program
Resolution #3Agricultural Plastics Recycling
Resolution #4Agricultural Opportunity Fund for Agricultural Research and Forage Associations
Resolution #5Climate Stations
Resolution #6Compensation for Coyote Depredation
Resolution #7Hay Insurance Program - DEFEATED
Resolution #8Species at Risk Act (SARA)
Emergent Resolution ER 1Bill 6: Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers
Emergent Resolution ER 2Genetically Modified Alfalfa - DEFEATED

Resolution #1
Proactive Vegetation Management on Alberta Provincial Highways
Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
The Government of Alberta restores funding levels to Alberta Transportation for summer maintenance programs for vegetation management (weed control and mowing).

Further Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
Alberta Transportation gives the option in all districts of the province to enter into Service Agreements with municipalities for weed control as the prime contractor, but if highway maintenance contracts do not allow for that then the Government of Alberta reopen those contracts to allow municipalities to become prime contractors.

Response:
Alberta Transportation
  • Maintaining safety on our province's highways is a top priority and I appreciate the committee's concerns about the adverse impact of reduced chemical vegetation control along the provincial network. Alberta Transportation is committed to working with cross-ministry officials, municipalities, the Agricultural Service Board and the field personnel to control the spread of noxious weeds.
  • The decision to reduce mowing and weed spraying along provincial highways for summer 2016 was not made lightly. We evaluated and considered all possible risks, including the spread of noxious and prohibited weeds, blocking sight lines at intersections and curves, the risk of wildlife collisions, and wildfires. Scheduled mowing is limited to a single shoulder cut, and vegetation control is restricted to spraying or hand picking individual patches of noxious weeds, as required by the Weed Control Act. Funding for spot spraying of weeds was not affected; however, funding for scheduled area spryaing was eliminated.

Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
  • Agriculture and Forestry staff have discussed this issue with staff in Alberta Transportation, and Transportation is currently aware of their responsibilities under the Weed Control Act and Agricultural Pests Act. As the owner/occupant of the right of ways along provincial highways, the Crown is bound by these Acts.
  • Municipalities have full authority to give notices in order to ensure compliance with the Acts, even if issued to the Crown. Transportation was advised that reactive measures (such as requiring a weed notice every time weed control work was necessary) would be more expensive and time consuming for both the municipalities and Transportation.
  • Transportation has informed our staff that no information was provided to contractors that requested they cut their vegetation management program as part of the budget reduction. It appears this was a decision that the contractors are making on their own, possibly as a way to cut back costs. Transportation staff have indicated they may be able to free up additional funding for contractors to use for their vegetation management programs.
  • Transportation was referred to the Pest Surveillance Branch if they required any additional help with the legislation.
Resolution #2
Reinstate Provincial Funding for the Canada and Alberta Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program
Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
That Alberta Agriculture and Forestry reinstate the $150.00 incentive given to producers for participating in the BSE program.

Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
Agriculture and Forestry shares this concern regarding the progressive decline in BSE samples submitted to the Canada/Alberta BSE Surveillance Program (CABSESP), and any possible international reprecussions.

We have explored a number of options to improve the BSE surveillance numbers in the province.
As of 2012, the Department called for a broader and more inclusive approach on BSE surveillance by creating a Western Canadian BSE Surveillance group, which later became part of the national CanSurvBSE.
      • The objective of this group is to gather different stakeholders, such as cattle industry representatives, veterinary organizations, and provincial and federal governments, in order to propose solutions to improve BSE surveillance in Canada
      • Based on the feedback we received from stakeholders, changes have been made to the CABSESP'S terms and conditions during the past four years in an effort to eliminate restrictions in eligibility criteria to allow more animals to be tested.
      • There have also been extensive education and awareness campaigns to highlight these changes and the importancre of surveillance. Most recently, we contracted several private veterinarians to work with us in promoting the program and the importance of producer participation to preserve our market
      • Going forward, the Ministry is continuing to examine options to improve BSE surveillance numbers
We cannot overstate the importance of a collaborative approach and producer identification and submission of eligible samples. This program is a joint program between industry and government that helps to ensure maintenance and expansion of market access and ultimately, the profitability of the industry.

Resolution #3
Agricultural Plastics Recycling
Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
That the Ministry of Environment and Parks and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry research, develop, and implement an agricultural plastics recycling program modelled after the pilot program in the Province of Saskatchewan.

Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
  • Agriculture and Forestry is aware of the agricultural plastics recycling pilot program in Saskatchewan.
      • The Saskatchewan Agricultural Stewardship Council, which is made up of representatives from the agricultural industry and formed under the CleanFARMS umbrella, has been tasked to develop and implement a permanent agricultural plastics program for the province. This organization, as well as Simply Agriculture Solutions, is working with the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment to develop waste management regulations and implementation of an overall program plan
      • CleanFARMS presented a draft regulation to the Saskatchewan Ministry of Environment in July 2013. This regulation is still with the Minister, and no real progress on a regulation has been made
  • Agriculture and Forestry was working with Environment and Parks to scope and develop options to address the issue in Alberta, beginning with the development of an education program (including a fact sheet) around the harmful effects of burning. However, based on further feedback from producers and other Alberta stakeholders, it was concluded that an education piece alone was not going to solve the issue
  • AF contributed to a waste characterization study that was completed by CleanFARMS. The results of the study suggest that agricultural plastic waste is less than one per cent of the total annual waste being sent to landfills in Alberta
  • In the interim, we continue to gather information about agricultural plastics, including a study on markets for agricultural plastics.
  • Agriculture and Forestry staff have been asked by the Alberta Recycling Management Authority to sit on a committee to develop policy options for agricultural plastic recycling. The first meeting was on December 10, 2015 and consists of members from Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties, Alberta Recycling Management Authority, CleanFARMS and Recycling Council of Alberta.

Alberta Environment and Parks
  • Environment and Parks recognizes that the management of waste agricultural plastics continues to be an important issue to Alberta stakeholders. We encourage all agricultural producers and stakeholders using agricultural plastics to responsibly manage the material at end-of-life, including recycling where facilities exist.
  • My department is focused on a number of priority waste issues at this time, including regulatory amendments and further consultation for existing programs. We also recognize that we need further information about what a regulated option for managing agricultural material at end-of-life in Alberta would look like, including determining stakeholders, the best policy tool for managing a program, the costs of a program and who would pay.
  • Staff understand that the work in Saskatchewan is a pilot program and the development of regulations in that province are ongoing; we will continue to monitor the progress of this work. However, at this time, our department is not considering a regulated program based on the Saskatchewan model.
  • We invite agricultural producers and stakeholders to share any information with department staff regarding the management of agricultural waste material at end-of-life to help inform future policy on the issue.

Resolution #4
Agricultural Opportunity Fund for Agricultural Research and Forage Associations
Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
That Alberta Agriculture and Forestry reinstate the 2014 Agricultural Opportunity Fund increase that was allocated for the Agricultural Research and Forage Associations.

Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
  • The Agricultural Opportunity Fund (AOF) is proud to support eight Applied Research Associations (ARAs) and four Forage Associations (FAs) throughout the Province of Alberta. These organizations, including the Agricultural Research and Extension Council of Alberta, are located throughout the province, and virtually all producers in Alberta can access any one of these organizations
  • Since 2002, support for this program from Agriculture and Forestry has been consistent and reliable at $1.95 million ($1.5 million from AOF and an additional $450,000 from our Environmental Stewardship Division)
  • We have also provided several one-time grants to assist these organizations to support their manpower capacity, capital requirements, and extension programming since 2002. Total support has amounted to an additional $5 million
  • Agriculture and Forestry is unable to reinstate the 2014 funding levels for the AOF.

Resolution #5
Climate Stations
Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
That Alberta Agriculture and Forestry increase the amount of weather stations in a geographically consistent manner in the agricultural areas to ensure accuracy of weather data used by Agriculture Financial Services Corporation and other departments.

Further Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
That Alberta Agriculture and Forestry and Agriculture Financial Services Corporation give authority to the adjusters to modify the data when the adjuster is of the opinion that the claimant is in a microclimate that is different from the closest weather station for the crop insurance and farm income disaster assistance claim purposes.

Response:
Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
  • Since 2007, Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) and Agriculture and Forestry have installed over 120 new weather stations throughout the agricultural areas. This is a historic accomplishment, as no other government agency in the country has ever installed as many new all season, meteorological stations that meet national standards. Alberta's meteorological network is the most dense, complete and sophisticated in Canada. Data is all available publically through our website and is used for a wide variety of purposes
  • We recognize that there are several areas that still need a local weather stations. We will continue to add to the network as resources are available
  • AFSC has four area-based insurance programs that utilize the meteorological data provided by the Engineering and Climate Services Branch of Agriculture and Forestry. The programs include:
      • Pasture - Moisture Deficiency Insurance (MDI) Program provides coverage on pasture. Losses are paid when accumulated precipitation at a selected weather station(s) in a given year falls below the normal expected precipitation for that weather station according to a payment schedule determined by AFSC.
      • Hay - Moisture Deficiency Endorsement (MDE) provides additional top-up coverage to clients insuring hay. Losses are paid when accumulated precipitation at a selected weather station(s) in a given year falls below the normal expected precipitation for that weather station according to a payment schedule determined by AFSC.
      • Silage Greenfeed - Lack of Moisture (LOM) Insurance Program provides coverage on annually seeded crops that are intended for livestock feed and not grain production. Losses are paid when accumulated precipitation at a selected weather station(s) in a given year falls below the normal expected precipitation for that weather station according to a payment schedule determined by AFSC.
      • Corn Heat Units (CHU) Insurance is an area based program which proves protection against a lack of heat on irrigated corn. There are 13 weather stations in the irrigation district that clients are allowed to purchase CHU insurance on.
  • There are approximately 394 weather stations in the province from which Agriculture and Forestry collects meteorological information during the growing season
  • In 2016, for the MDI, MDE and LOM programs, AFSC uses date from an insurable network of 245 stations. AFSC's goal when the programs were introduced in the early 2000s was to have all insurable land no more than 20 km from an insurable weather stations
  • The breakdown of the numberr of stations by owner is as follows:
        Owner
      Insured stations
Agriculture and Forestry (Ag)167
Environment and Parks33
Environment Canada31
Agriculture Forestry (Fire)7
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada5
NAV Canada2
  • In program literature, AFSC clearly states that the four area-based insurance programs may not reflect the actual production, and conditions on insured fields may not reflect conditions at the selected weather stations. Thus, clients know when they sign up that the payments will be based on the independent third party weather information from the insurable weather stations, and will not be based on assessments from the AFSC's inspectors. As such, it is impractical to have the inspector provide an opinion, as they are not involved in the final calculation
  • Many provincial and federally-run meteorological stations report hourly, and some specified un-insured stations could be used for insurance; however, these are typically in higher elevations, or areas that do not reflect local agricultural areas. In addition, some stations are not year-round measuring stations, and are therefore not ideal for insurance purposes.
  • Across the province there are approximately 150 other "manned" stations that report daily or twice daily information. Some of this data is difficult for quality control, and is often not timely. As such, they are not considered as viable candidates for insurance purposes.

Agriculture Financial Services Corporation
As the resolution points out, Agriculture Financial Services Corporation (AFSC) utilizes meteorological information from weather stations to provide insurance coverage on. The resolution contains two separate issues.

1. Increase the number of weather stations
Currently there are four area based programs that use this data. The programs include:

Pasture - Moisture Deficiency Insurance (MDI) Program provides coverage on pasture. Losses are paid when accumulated precipitation at a selected weather station(s) in a given year falls below the normal expected precipitation for that weather station according to a payment schedule determined by AFSC.

Hay - Moisture Deficiency Endorsement (MDE) provides additional top-up coverage to clients insuring hay. Losses are paid when accumulated precipitation at a selected weather station(s) in a given year falls below the normal expected precipitation for that weather station according to a payment schedule determined by AFSC.
    Silage Greenfeed - Lack of Moisture (LOM) Insurance Program provides coverage on annually seeded crops that are intended for livestock feed and not grain production. Losses are paid when accumulated precipitation at a selected weather station(s) in a given year falls below the normal expected precipitation for that weather station according to a payment schedule determined by AFSC.

    Corn Heat Units (CHU) Insurance is an area based program which proves protection against a lack of heat on irrigated corn. There are 13 weather stations in the irrigation district that clients are allowed to purchase CHU insurance on.

    AFSC does not own or operate any of the weather stations. We rely on the existing networks in the province of Alberta. Alberta Agriculture and Foresty (AF) collect meteorological information from over 390 weather stations from 6 different providers. The locations and owners of the weather stations have been provided in Appendix 1.

    AFSC has developed a long-term partnership with AF to continually expand the insurable network to use all the suitable stations. As a result of this partnership, the number of insured stations has increased from 53 stations when the MDI program was piloted in 2002 to the 245 insurable stations that are available in 2016. The breakdown of the number of insurable stations by owner is summarized in the following table:


          Owner
        Insured stations
    Agriculture and Forestry (Ag)167
    Environment and Parks33
    Environment Canada31
    Agriculture Forestry (Fire)7
    Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada5
    NAV Canada2

    AFSC will continue to monitor our partner's networks and will add suitable stations as new stations are installed and/or upgraded. For example, AF has installed 4 new weather stations in the northern Peace and has plans for an additional 5 stations to be installed in the area in the next two years. As these stations come on-line they will be included in the network.

    2. Use Adjusters Opinions to Modify Data
    In the annual program literature for the area based programs it is clearly spelled out to clients that the program payments may not reflect the actual production and conditions on insured fields. So clients know when they purchase the insurance the payments will be based on the independent third party weather information from the insurable weather stations and will not be based on assessments from the AFSC's inspectors.

    This reduces the program administrative costs and also has the added benefit of offering a program that is based on third party data that is not subject to manipulation by AFSC or by the clients. Involving the inspectors in the process will add a level of subjectivity to the process which could add to additional questions as to how payments are arrived at. The administrative costs would also increase disproportionally to the relative benefit that would be seen. Therefore it is impractical to have the inspector provide an opinion because they are not involved.

    Resolution #6
    Compensation for Coyote Depredation
    Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
    That Minister of Environment and Parks add coyotes to the compensation list as a predator under the Alberta Wildlife Regulation paying the same level of compensation for depredation that is paid for livestock death and injury from wolves, grizzly bears, black bears, cougars and eagles.

    Response:
    Alberta Environment and Parks
    • The designation of coyotes under the Agricultural Pest Act, in conjunction with liberal harvest regulations outlined in the Wildlife Act, provide many tools to agricultural producers in addressing coyote problems they may face.
    • The Wildlife Predator Compensation Program strives to balance the loss of livestock with funding from hunting licence fees. Because coyotes are not an important big game species, the addition of coyotes as an eligible species for compensation would not be an appropriate use of hunting licence fees.
    • Environment and Parks acknowledges the financial cost to agricultural producers due to coyote predation on their property. However, there are currently no plans to consider compensation changes at this time.

    Resolution #7 - DEFEATED AT THE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE - January 19, 2016
    Hay Insurance Program
    Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
    That Alberta Agriculture and Forestry update the Hay and Pasture Insurance Program to accurately cover the impact of the market fluctuation on hay production for livestock producers based on hay commodities. Amendments need to include removing the 50% price cap on the VPB, assistance to cover the cost of feed supplements due to poor quality as well as trucking costs due to insufficient quantity of feed.

    Further be in resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service boards request
    That Alberta Agriculture and Forestry and Agriculture Financial Services Corporation give authority to the adjusters to modify the amount when the adjuster is of the opinion that the livestock producer is facing additional expenditures that are directly linked to poor hay and pasture yields.

    Resolution #8
    Species at Risk Act (SARA)
    Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
    AAAF, Agricultural Service Board Provincial Committee and AAMDC facilitate a round table discussion with representation from the Federal Environment Minister, the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry and the Minister of Environment and Parks to rebuild the current Species at Risk Act to improve it in a way that seeks a balanced and cooperative approach (economic, environmental, and social) to species protection that focuses on ecosystem protection; limiting impact on agriculture, industry, rural development, and land use in Alberta.

    Response:
    Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
    • If a round-table discussion were recommended by the Government of Canada, as suggested in the Resolution, department staff would be willing to participate
    • We agree with the Agricultural Service Board Provincial Committee that agriculture and species-at-risk can co-exist on the landscape. The Department also agrees that protection of biodiversity, species-at-risk and species-at-risk habitat are extremely significant.

    Alberta Environment and Parks
    • Environment and Parks agrees with Agricultural Service Board that agriculture, industry and rural development can co-exist with species at risk, if effective stewardship and conservation measures are implemented.
    • Continuing collaboration with landowners, lessees, municipalities, industry, other stakeholders and the federal government is essential to achieving recovery of species at risk in Alberta and providing certainty to affected stakeholders.
    • My department believes challenges related to species at risk conservation can be best addressed through provincial regulatory and policy approaches, federal policy development and improved inter-jurisdictional cooperation and stewardship
    • From time to time, legislation is amended. If invited, Environment and Parks would be pleased to provide its input to any federal process for the development of legislative amendments to the Species at Risk Act.

    Environment Canada
    • I share the view that SARA should be implemented in a manner that seeks a balanced and co-operative approach to species conservation and recovery. As species are listed, recovery strategies and management plans are developed, and as critical habitat is identified for endangered and threatened species, consultation with landowners and others that might be directly affected is undertaken to the extent possible.
    • I encourage the Agricultural Service Board Provincial Committee to fully explore the Species at Risk Public Registry at www.registrelep-sararegistry.gc.ca. This website is designated to help Canadians better understand Canada's approach to protecting and recovering species at risk, learn about what is being done to help them, to get involved in decision making and recovery activities.
    • There are many examples where landowners and agricultural producers are contributing to the protection and recovery of species at risk in this country. For example, the Habitat Stewardship Program for Species at Risk has, for many years, supported voluntary stewardship of organizations and individuals in Canada to take meaningful actions for the protection and recovery of species at risk, including those found in agricultural landscapes.

    Emergent Resolution E1
    Bill 6: Enhanced Protection for Farm and Ranch Workers
    Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
    That, since the Government of Alberta has refused to rescind Bill 6: Enhanced Protection for
    Farm and Ranch Workers in spite of overwhelming opposition. It is imperative that local
    Agricultural Service Boards, the Alberta Association of Municipal District and Counties, the
    Provincial Agricultural Service Board Committee, the Association of Alberta Agricultural
    Fieldmen, and any and all commissions, boards, associations, and producer or grower groups
    related to agriculture should be directly involved in any and all consultations regarding the
    writing of regulations surrounding any and all legislation amended by Bill 6 Enhanced Protection
    for Farm and Ranch Workers.

    Response:
    Alberta Agriculture and Forestry
    • The next phase of farm and ranch consultation with the agriculture sector begins this spring. This process will include establishing working groups of stakeholders and experts that will make recommendations on how employment standards, occupational health and safety, and labour relations requirements should be applied
    • These technical working groups will provide an opportunity for a broad and diverse range of voices from the farming and ranching sector to ensure their way of life is preserved, while at the same time ensuring paid workers come home safely at the end of each day
    • Producers who are members of agricultural organizations and groups can also provide their input and feedback through their organization
    • Nominations to become a member of these working groups closed on February 26, 2016
    • Once we are ready to select members from the nominations received, we plan to get started right away. We plan to have the initial working group meetings in March before taking a break durisng the busy spring season to allow farmers and ranchers time to get their work done. The working group meetings will resume in June-July 2016.
    • For more information on farm and ranch legislation and for the latest updates, visit www.farmandranch.alberta.ca

    Alberta Jobs, Skills, Training and Labour

    Emergent Resolution E2 - DEFEATED AT THE AGRICULTURAL SERVICE BOARD PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE - January 19, 2016
    Genetically Modified Alfalfa
    Therefore be it resolved that Alberta's Agricultural Service Boards request
    That Alberta Agriculture & Forestry and CFIA work with the province's ASBs, marketing groups, Forage Genetics Canada and Monsanto to prevent the introduction of genetically modified/engineered alfalfa from being introduced into the province of Alberta until there is marketplace and consumer acceptance in Alberta's export markets including China, Japan, European Union and the Middle East.
     
     
     
     
    Share via AddThis.com
    For more information about the content of this document, contact Pam Retzloff.
    This information published to the web on January 27, 2016.
    Last Reviewed/Revised on January 11, 2017.