1998 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions

Subscribe to our free E-Newsletter, "Agri-News" (formerly RTW This Week)Agri-News
This Week
 Table of contents
Resolution 1:Endangered Species Legislation
Resolution 2:The Canada Endangered Species Protection Act
Resolution 3:100% Funding For Secondary Highway Program
Resolution 4:Urban/Rural Communications
Resolution 5:Assessment of Agricultural Land
Resolution 6:Weather Modification - Hail Suppression
Resolution 7:Illegal Drainage Projects
Resolution 8:Environmental Protection - Weed Control
Resolution 9:Environmental Protection - Weed Control
Resolution 10:Noxious Weed Control Along Railway Right-of-Ways
Resolution 11:Weed Control on Federal Lands
Resolution 12:Alberta Farm Income Disaster Program
Resolution 13:Provincial Agriculture Service Board Conference
Resolution 14:Additional Agricultural Service Board Grant Funding
Resolution 15:Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture Funding and Agriculture Service Board Grant Applications
Resolution 16:Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture
Emergent Resolution 17:National Identification System for Beef Cattle

Resolution #1

Endangered species legislation
Be it resolved - That the Government of Canada reject proposals for federal endangered species legislation and ensure that future efforts to protect Canada's endangered species and their habitats focus on cooperative, compensatory, voluntary programs driven by local officials and private landholders and not through mandatory, restrictive and unenforceable federal legislation.

Response - Alberta Environmental Protection. As this resolution is directed strictly to the Government of Canada, a departmental response is unnecessary.

Environment Canada. The federal government remains committed to protecting endangered species. Minister Stewart is aware that private property owners and farmers in particular have raised concerns regarding the legislation that was before the House in April 1997. She also appreciates the agricultural community's cooperative, voluntary approach to conservation activities. Environment Canada officials are reviewing the legislation with the intent of ensuring that landowners are not unfairly penalized. The review also seeks to ensure that the voluntary efforts of landowners to protect and conserve endangered species are recognized and encouraged.

Programs and policies must be developed to support and reinforce the stewardship of our lands, the conservation of species and the protection of species at risk. To this end, work has started on the issue of stewardship to complement legislation, and we will hold workshops this summer. Representatives of the provincial and territorial governments will be well informed of the plans.

I am confident that the legislation that emerges from the current review will foster the cooperation and partnership required to protect Canada's species at risk. Please be assured that your comments will be taken into account as we prepare for the re-introduction of federal endangered species legislation.

Resolution #2

The Canada Endangered Species Protection Act
Be it resolved - The Provincial Government of Alberta actively lobby the Federal Government of Canada to ensure that the Canada Endangered Species Protection Act does not unduly inhibit the ability of individuals involved in the agricultural industry and others to carry on their normal business activities.

Response - Alberta Environment. The Government of Alberta is actively lobbying the federal government to ensure that federal endangered species legislation is consistent with the National Accord for the Protection of Species at Risk and its supporting framework. The National Accord is the umbrella agreement under which all provinces, territories and the federal government agreed to cooperatively establish national endangered species programs and legislation. Based on the principles of cooperation, education, awareness, and partnerships, it encourages a cooperative approach to endangered species conservation by governments, private organizations, industry and citizens. We are also lobbying the federal government to abandon its confrontational approach respecting civil remedies which will avoid costly and time consuming delays in resource and land management decisions, and better respect the rights of individuals.

Resolution #3

100% funding for secondary highway program
Be it resolved - That the Province of Alberta encourage expansion of agricultural industries by reinstating 100% funding on secondary highways.

Response - Alberta Transportation and Utilities. The Government of Alberta recognizes the importance of the municipal road network, which includes the secondary highway system, to the rural municipalities who are the responsible road authority. In the 1998/99 fiscal year, Alberta Transportation and Utilities will provide more than $140 million to rural municipalities for local roads and secondary highways. This includes the final year of the Resource Roads Improvement Program which is a three-year program introduced specifically to provide additional funding for the upgrading of local roads impacted by agricultural and industrial truck traffic.

It is felt that the department's current policy for the Secondary Highway Partnership Program and these other funding sources permit adequate flexibility for municipalities to address these special resource needs as they arise.

There are no plans to increase funding or alter the current cost share formula for secondary highways within the Alberta Transportation and Utilities' three-year Business Plan.

Resolution #4

Urban/rural communications
Be it resolved - The Minister of Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development and the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties develop regular methods of communication between the Agricultural sector of Alberta and the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association.

Response - Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The sponsors of this resolution indicated the main concern was with the AUMA and some of the comments and resolutions emanating from them, especially as it relates to Intensive Livestock Operations (ILO). The sponsors felt the AUMA should be speaking more often to the AAMD&C to better understand rural issues. The resolution cast a wide net that included AAFRD. However, the primary response should come from the AUMA and AAMD&C.

This is an on going quest, to have urban Albertans understand agriculture. As it relates to ILO we have Terry Church's LEAD group and the many activities they are involved in as well as the Growing Alberta initiative through the Agriculture and Food Council.

This group represents the majority of farm groups as well as many commodity and retail groups associated with our industry. They are currently planning both a spring and fall campaign to profile real examples of soil, air, water quality and food safety. Through this they hope to establish a better understanding of rural Alberta's concern for both protection as well as enhancement of the environment through good stewardship of our natural resources.
They will do this through feature articles, media tours, editorial board meetings, news conferences, media buys (both TV and radio), and tabloid distribution through retail food stores as well as through banks. They will also build special events around Agriculture Week (which will now be held in the fall) as well as during the spring campaign being promoted by the Alberta Weekly Newspaper Association.

The department also promotes our industry through its weekly mail out of Agri-News to all daily and weekly newspapers as well as to most TV and radio stations in Alberta. Add this to all the extension work the department does and you have a treasure chest of information available.

The problem is not a shortage of information but a lack of desire to cover agriculture issues, or in the case of AUMA, taking the time to research issues before commenting.

If those two groups want to set up a meeting or a group to deal with these concerns we would be willing to work with them.

Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties. The AAMD&C recognizes the importance of improved communications between urban and rural Albertans, and has been striving to address this issue through enhanced communication and cooperation between our own organization and the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association. For some time now, the Executives of our two organizations have met on a twice-yearly basis to discuss issues of mutual concern, and to build partnerships wherever feasible. In addition, senior staff of the two Associations have worked cooperatively on many projects wherever common goals and approaches could be identified.

We are now actively considering the possibility of developing a joint quarterly newsletter which would be circulated to the members of both Associations. We believe that this joint newsletter concept, should it proceed, could be an important tool in enhancing urban awareness of rural issues, and vice versa.

Of course, we remain open to working with provincial departments and other stakeholders to undertake any other reasonable initiatives which might help to bridge this information gap

Resolution #5

Assessment of agricultural land
Be it resolved - That the Minister of Municipal Affairs protect the viability of agricultural operations while considering changes to farm property assessment.

Response- Municipal Affairs. The current assessment system for farm land is based on productive value. It was developed in the early 1980s based upon the economics of farming in the 1970s. The system was intended to reflect a consistent relationship (40-45 percent) between a property's productive value and its agricultural market value regardless of its location in the province. This relationship was consistent for many years. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, however, changes in marketing and cropping practices, increases in costs of production, changes in transportation policies, and the growth in value-added agricultural processing have resulted in farm land being assessed and taxed at varying levels (20-80 percent) of agricultural market value depending on where it is located. It has therefore become apparent that the province needs to decide whether to continue to apply a farm land tax policy:
  • within the assessment process by updating the current productive value system (to reflect a consistent relationship to agricultural market value);
  • by adopting 100 per cent agricultural market value as the basis for assessment and applying a compensating tax exemption policy

With the introduction of the uniform education tax rate policy in 1995, concern was expressed that the current farm residence exemption policy was unfair in that owners of urban residences pay full education taxes while owners of rural residences receive an exemption from education tax based on the value of farm land they own.

In recent years, concern has also been expressed that there is an inequity in property tax between land-intensive farms and building-intensive farms. The concern is that building intensive farms are not paying their fair share because the majority of their investment in farm real estate (buildings) is exempt from assessment while land-intensive farms are taxed on the majority of their investment (land).

With the introduction of the Municipal Government Act in 1995, the province adopted market value as the standard for the assessment of all property other than farm land, and some industrial property such as machinery and equipment, railway, and linear property. The valuation standard for the assessment of these properties remained regulated in a similar fashion to the previous legislation; however, the regulated rates are outdated and require amendment.

The new legislation also provides for annual reassessments of all property in the province starting in 1999. This is a significant change from the eight-year cycle that had existed in the old legislation. The former system often resulted in significant shifts in taxes each time property was reassessed.

With the above changes in the property assessment and taxation system, it is important that all regulated assessment values be as current as possible. This will ensure that taxes will be distributed fairly between all properties that share in the total tax burden. Where necessary periodic review and changes are required to ensure that taxes are distributed fairly between properties within a municipality and between properties in one area of the province versus another.

In 1995, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honorable Tom Thurber, introduced the Regulated Assessment Review to address the above issues in addition to some other issues relating to farm assessment and taxation. These issues included the assessment of condominium grain elevators, the assessment of woodlots, and business tax on farming operations. The Farm Property Assessment Steering Committee submitted its report to the Minister in September of 1996. The report did not contain recommendations, but did include options for the Minister to consider.

In June 1997, the current Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honorable Iris Evans, appointed an MLA Committee to review the options supplied by the Steering Committee and make recommendations on the issues surrounding the assessment and taxation of farm property. The committee is continuing to review these complex assessment and taxation issues.

It should be noted that as part of any review of the system, it is the government's position that a full and open consultation must take place with all affected stakeholders before any changes can be made.

Resolution #6

Weather modification - hail suppression
Be it resolved - The Federal and Provincial Governments closely monitor and limit the use of Weather Modification until conclusive evidence is found that the above modifications do not in any way affect or alter weather patterns and precipitation levels in non target areas.

Response - Environment Canada. The federal government does not regulate weather modification activities in this country nor does it hold any such authority. Canada has the Weather Modification Information Act and Weather Modification Information Regulations. The Weather Modification Information Act of 1971 requires that individuals proposing to engage in weather modification activities give notice of their intention, keep fully documented records and submit a report to the Administrator of the Act on a monthly basis. Hence, although it is commendable that the Board has seen fit to recognize the issues surrounding hail suppression, we cannot control such activities.

It should also be noted that the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) keeps an updated Statement on the Status of Weather Modification for use by its member countries. This statement is written by a WMO Committee of Experts (with membership from Canada) and approved by the Executive Committee of the WMO. The Statement clearly indicates that, although many countries around the world are involved in operational projects, there is no strong scientific evidence that hail can be suppressed. The Department supports this statement.

Alberta Environmental Protection. Alberta Environmental Protection has no involvement in weather modification or hail suppression programs.

Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The federal government monitors weather modification activities, therefore Alberta does not duplicate the effort.

The Federal Weather Modification Act, administered by Environment Canada, requires reporting of any weather modification activities.

The Alberta government's position is to not support weather modification activities because of the absence of evidence of the effectiveness of the technology for the purposes claimed.

Resolution #7

Illegal drainage projects
Be it resolved - That Alberta Environmental Protection make a commitment to protect the citizens of the Province from damage caused by illegal drainage projects and to revise their policies and processes regarding enforcement of the drainage provisions under the Water Resources Act.

Response - Alberta Environmental Protection. Alberta Environmental Protection is committed to ensuring compliance with all legislation the department has responsibility for administering.

Through our commitment to community level service, the department has, over the past year, shifted responsibility for administering and enforcing the Water Resources Act to our regional offices. Appropriate regional staff have been delegated the necessary authority to initiate and undertake enforcement actions provided for in the legislation. Further, our processes and procedures relating to enforcement are being reviewed to ensure that there is firm and fair responses to alleged contraventions. With the coming into effect of the new Water Act later this year, additional enforcement provisions will enhance our response to enforcement issues.

Resolution #8

Environmental protection - weed control
Be it resolved - That Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development allocate more manpower, research and funding to combat leafy spurge and other noxious weeds.

Response - Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, in co-operation with the municipalities, has provided research and technical support for the control of leafy spurge and other noxious weeds for a number of years. More recently the emphasis has been with biological control of leafy spurge, using insects, sheep and combinations of these. There have been over 150,000 black dot spurge beetles (Aphthona nigriscutis) released at over 400 sites in the province, with approximately 64% of the release sites having successful establishment. In conjunction with Alberta Research Council and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, a new biological control agent complex, Aphthona czwalinae/lacertosa, that has proven to be very successful in North Dakota, was released on 95 leafy spurge infestations in Alberta in 1997. The objective of the leafy spurge biocontrol program in Alberta and co-operating provinces and states is to have biocontrol agents that will attack leafy spurge in all the different habitats where it is a problem.

The United States Department of Agriculture is an additional source of information on the control of leafy spurge and other noxious weeds. The research effort with herbicides, sheep and biological control is on-going and the information is available to assist in addressing leafy spurge and other weed problems in Alberta.

Despite the fact that the research commitment has been large, leafy spurge continues to be a difficult weed to control. More effective herbicides are more expensive and less value is usually attributed to the pasture and rangeland where leafy spurge tends to be a problem. An integrated approach may be more cost effective over the long term.

Research is also being conducted in Alberta on the integrated control of yellow toadflax, common tansy, wild caraway, Canada thistle, dandelion and ox-eye daisy in pastures and hay land. In a joint effort, Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development, Alberta Research Council, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and various municipalities are testing the suitability of biological control agents for the control of yellow toadflax, dalmatian toadflax, scentless chamomile, Canada thistle, field bindweed, false cleavers and hound's-tongue. Continued co- operation with the municipalities and additional funding from the private sector that can be matched by Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development programs will enhance research efforts in the control of these weeds. Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development will continue to provide technical input and support for the control of leafy spurge and other noxious weeds.

Resolution #9

Environmental protection - weed control
Be it resolved - That Alberta Environmental Protection immediately implement a long-term well organized and adequately funded weed control program on ALL lands under its jurisdiction with the goal of fulfilling its mandate to Albertans.

Response- Alberta Environmental Protection. Alberta Environmental Protection is committed to controlling noxious weeds and compelled by the Weed Control Act to eliminate controlled weeds. Plans are presently being developed to identify, inventory and control noxious and controlled weeds on all lands under Environmental Protection's jurisdiction. As well, the department is finalizing a new weed management policy and funding will be provided from the 1998/99 budget to meet the projected needs of the proposed weed control program.

Resolution #10

Noxious weed control along railway right-of-ways
Be it resolved - That railways cooperate with municipalities to ensure weed control takes place by encouraging access onto railroad right-of-ways for inspection; and that railroads will apply registered herbicides where necessary to the entire right-of-way.

Response- RailLink. It has been the practice since 1986 for the railway company (CWR) to work in close contact with County weed control officers and have made easy access to right of way practicable for both them and us.

We have found that the spread of weeds is often a two-way problem with adjacent landowners, that dictates that both care and diplomacy must be exercised when control measures are implemented. To minimize difficulties, we have asked the County inspectors to join, from time to time, our maintenance of way patrols to identify problem areas and develop acceptable control measures. We have generally asked the inspectors to perform this service for us on a fee basis, as they are specialists in this area and we are not, and they have appropriate equipment. This practice has worked well for us for over ten years.

We have been very careful in our control measures as we are concerned with the environmental aspects of the "creep" of control chemicals into both waterways and adjacent lands. This hazard has dictated a much more conservative approach to weed spraying than has been previously used by the railways and has, I believe, led to the present concerns that the railways are either not doing their job or are not allocating funds to control weeds. Environmental rules have changed and policy forces this "minimalist" approach; accordingly, the suggestion in the resolution that the railways apply herbicides to entire rights of way becomes difficult, if not impossible. Given this public policy, the farming community must accept that there will be a certain amount of weed growth. To balance these conflicting desires, we have found that designed "spot" programs are a more appropriate response to difficulties, and leads to a more responsible and efficient use of both monies and weed control chemicals.

We anticipate continuing these practices on any railways operated by us in the Province.

Canadian Pacific Railway. Canadian Pacific Railway has an active vegetation management program to control noxious weeds on our right-of-ways. Our goal is to manage vegetation based on ecological and scientific principles in a safe and cost-effective manner and in full cooperation with provincial weed inspectors.
Despite a good program and our best efforts, the reality is that noxious weeds are persistent and do present an ongoing challenge.

CPR has responded to all noxious weed notices promptly, courteously and in a cooperative manner. We have never limited access to weed inspectors and do not intend to do so in the future. On the contrary, we value the continuation of a good relationship with provincial authorities. It may be worthwhile to note that we arranged a seminar in November 1997 on toad flax and Canada thistle. This seminar was attended by weed inspectors, CPR personnel and weed scientists from Lethbridge and Vegreville, Alberta. The sharing of information and new technologies will ultimately lead to improvements in vegetation management.

We have also participated in provincial and municipal herbicide application programs when coordinated with our Vegetation Management Specialist, Mr. Angelo Dalcin.

It was with thus some surprise and disappointment that we read your resolution. We suspect that the problem may not be with railways in general nor with CPR in particular. (Please note that CPR does not run within 450 km of Grande Prairie). If that is the case, we do not support that all railways be subjected to the same criticism.

Canadian National. Canadian National acknowledges that access to CN property by weed inspectors of Alberta municipalities is necessary for the management and control of restricted and noxious weeds. Canadian National has worked, and will continue to work, cooperatively with all municipalities when access to CN property for the purpose of inspections is requested.

Access to the property must be done in accordance with Canadian National's policy - "Access to CN Workplace". Railway facilities and operations can be dangerous places for non company personnel. As such, it is important that measures be taken to ensure that access to CN property is controlled and safety is assured. For access by persons other than employees to the CN workplace including yards, shops, equipment, vehicles and all other premises, individuals must receive proper authorization, must sign a release of liability if left alone on the property, be given a safety briefing and while on the premises comply with all CN rules, policies and procedures. All CN employees are obligated to abide by these guidelines in response to requests for access to CN premises by non company personnel.

Canadian National has an integrated vegetation management approach which employs a variety of vegetation control methods. This includes mechanical cutting equipment, manual brushing and mowing, controlled burning and the application of registered herbicides.

Herbicides are used extensively as a cost effective method to control weeds and brush in the track ballast section within the railway right-of-way. All herbicides are applied by authorized and licensed applicators in accordance with federal and provincial regulations utilizing label recommendations. The herbicides are chosen carefully to provide efficient chemical control. Herbicides are applied every year along portions of right-of-way throughout the province.

A management program employs professional applicators utilizing special rail adapted spraying trucks and equipment. In addition, this program is supplemented by herbicide spraying on CN property throughout the growing season in response to requests or Weed Notices issued by local authorities. This work is completed employing licensed service contractors or through cooperative efforts with local authorities. Canadian National acknowledges the responsibility to control restricted and noxious weed infestations in accordance with the provincial Weed Control Act.

Resolution #11

Weed control on federal lands
Be it resolved - For the Federal lands which do not have an established, effective weed control program that the local Municipality be granted jurisdiction to perform the weed control on a cost recovery plus basis from Federal government funding.

Response - Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Let me begin by mentioning that since this issue has potential impact on other federal departments, such as the departments of the Environment and of Health, I trust you will raise this matter with the relevant federal Ministers that may be affected by this resolution. I agree that this is a serious matter that must be dealt with, and I would strongly encourage the municipalities within the Province of Alberta to raise this issue with First Nations, as well as with this department's regional office.

N.B. This resolution was forwarded to the Regional Office, but a response has not yet been received.

Resolution #12

Alberta farm income disaster program
Be it resolved - That the Policy Steering Committee for the Farm Income Disaster Program review the current program with the intent to simplify the application form and reduce the penalization of farm managers.

Response - Agriculture Financial Services Corporation. Issue One: Many agricultural producers who suffered low farm revenue in 1996 do not quality for FIDP assistance.
  • FIDP processed 3,400 applications, paying out more than $53 million for the 1996 tax year. Nearly $13 million of that amount was paid to producers in the Peace Region.
  • This program was designed to comply with World Trade Organization rules. Reference margins (the base on which FIDP "coverage" is assessed) is a key feature in international trade agreements. Only two options are possible; a three year average or a five year average dropping both the highest and lowest years from the series. Program designers chose the three year average for the pilot phase to simplify the information required from producers applying to the program.

Issue Two: Some portions of the FIDP calculation formula are biased to geographical location or poor farm management techniques.
  • Only one formula is used to calculate farm margins. It is used uniformly across the province and no variation for geographic location is included. FIDP is a "whole farm" program. We use the preceding three years farm income to calculate an average margin. No allowance is made for management techniques.
    Issue Three: The complexity of the application forms make it impossible for producers to accurately complete the forms without the assistance of an accountant.
  • In 1997, approximately 900 producers attended "how to" workshops to learn how to file a FIDP application. We received an equal number of applications which were properly completed, by the producer, with no help from an accountant. We have found that once producers have attended our workshops, they find the application forms much easier to deal with. These workshops are currently being conducted throughout the province for the 1997 tax year. Producers should contact 1-800-851-5070 to learn the time and location of the meeting nearest them.

FIDP is currently in the last year of a three-year pilot phase. At the end of the current (1998) tax year it is scheduled for a complete review. At that point concerns such as yours will be taken into consideration. In making changes to FIDP, or any safety net program, we must be careful to avoid ad hoc responses, as this will jeopardize our ability to comply with our international trading obligations.

Resolution #13

Provincial agriculture service boards conference
Be it resolved - That the Provincial Agricultural Service Board Conference Resolutions Rules of Procedure be amended so that the five Regional Representatives elect the Chairman of the Provincial Agricultural Service Board Resolutions Committee from themselves at their meeting dealing with Resolutions for the upcoming conference.

Response - Association of Alberta Agricultural Fieldmen. The Executive for the Association of Alberta Agricultural Fieldmen (A.A.A.F.) recommends that the Regional Representatives who are chosen to sit on the Provincial Agricultural Service Board Resolutions Committee for Agricultural Service Boards, elect a Chairman from their members at the first organized meeting dealing with Resolutions for the Provincial Conference.

Furthermore - The A.A.A.F. recommends that the Director or Executive Member of the Alberta Association of Municipal Districts and Counties (A.A.M.D. & C.), which has normally been the Vice President of the A.A.M.D. & C., continues to sit on this Committee as a member of the Provincial Resolutions Committee.

The Alberta Association of Agricultural Fieldmen feel it is of vital importance to continue having the continuity and link between ASBs and the A.A.M.D. & C.

Resolution #14

Additional agricultural service board grant funding
Be it resolved - That Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development provide additional grant funding for all Agricultural Service Boards, with the goal of assisting them in continuing their excellent track record of protecting and enhancing the productivity of Alberta's agricultural lands so that they may reach the high levels of production projected within the Ministry's business plan.

Response - Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. Alberta Agriculture greatly values our partnership with municipalities and recognizes the contribution of Agricultural Service Boards in Alberta over the past 53 years. We are committed to supporting the ASB with $4.3 million each budget year. The issue of funding has been debated many times over the past few years. Until such time as departmental budgets are increased, which is not expected in the near future, the only funding options available are the status quo, or a re- distribution of the current budget. Once again this year, a resolution attempting to redistribute the current budget according to a fair and equitable formula, which was developed by ASB municipal council representatives, was defeated. The only option left is to live with the current funding allocations.

Resolution #15

Alberta environmentally sustainable agriculture funding and agriculture service boards grant applications
Be it resolved - That Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture Funding and reporting be combined with the current calendar year Agriculture Service Board Grant application and reporting process (Schedules A & C).

Response - Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (AESA) Program recognizes the contribution Agricultural Service Boards (ASB) have made to preserving and improving agricultural production at the local level. ASBs have been integral to the effective delivery of past programs such as the Canada-Alberta Soil Conservation Initiative (CASCI), and the Canada- Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (CAESA) agreement, and are recognized as a key partner in AESA.

Funding of past programs has been based on the fiscal year April 1 - March 31 due to the federal- provincial nature of the programs. With the withdrawal of the federal government from joint programming, the possibility of changing to a calendar year format can be investigated. The application and reporting deadlines may be coordinated to improve efficiency.

The AESA Farm Based Component provides grant funding for technology transfer programs which facilitate the adoption of environmentally sustainable agriculture practices to a variety of stakeholders. ASBs, producer groups, irrigation districts, environmental groups, commodity groups, Indian bands, and other organizations are all eligible to apply. Program plan review and recommendations for funding is done by industry based committees at the regional and provincial levels. Funding is therefore allocated on a competitive basis to the best programs, not to specific categories of applicants. Funding levels are not specified for ASBs or groups and may fluctuate annually based on the applications. Due to the competitive nature of the program and the review process, it is not practical to combine the application for funding for AESA with the Agriculture Service Board Grants application.

Resolution #16

Alberta environmentally sustainable agriculture
Be it resolved - The Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture (AESA) Program continue to support local and regional program planning, approval, delivery and coordination and that total Alberta Environmentally Sustainable Agriculture funding for Agricultural Service Boards and local producer groups be maintained at current levels.

Response - Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development. The AESA Program recognizes the contribution Agricultural Service Boards (ASB) and local producer groups have made to the promotion of environmentally sustainable agriculture programming in Alberta. Local technology transfer efforts have been integral to the effective delivery of past programs such as the CASCI, and the CAESA agreement and will continue to be key to the success of AESA.

It is recognized that local program planning, delivery, coordination and approval is most effective and successful in affecting practice change. The regional committee process for approval has been maintained to ensure the coordinated delivery of effective local programs. It is the intent of the AESA Council that coordination and cooperation between local groups, ASBs and provincial organizations be strengthened to provide broad based programming at all levels.

Funding levels may be evaluated and adjusted according to industry consultations, program priorities and needs.

Emergent Resolution #17

National identification system for beef cattle
Be it resolved - That the Canadian Cattlemen's Association reconsider in their business plan that the costs and inconvenience be a shared responsibility of the industry and that the proposal also mandate the industry to send carcass and quality information back to the herd of origin to allow the cow/calf producer some cost effective benefits.

Response - Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Response not received

This information is provided by:
Pam Retzloff, Program Assistant
Agricultural Service Board Program
Room 201, 7000 - 113 Street
Edmonton, Alberta
T6H 5T6
Phone: 780-427-4213 Fax: 780-422-7755

Other Documents in the Series

  2010 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
2009 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
2008 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
2007 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
2006 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
2005 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
2004 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
2003 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
2002 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
2001 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
2000 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
1999 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions
1998 Agricultural Service Board Resolutions - Current Document
Share via AddThis.com
For more information about the content of this document, contact Pam Retzloff.
This information published to the web on March 11, 2005.
Last Reviewed/Revised on February 27, 2007.