What will future Canadian agri-environmental policies look like? The answer to this question depends, of course, on who you ask.

There are many models on which future Canadian policy could be based. I’ve encountered a number of them in recent months, through conversations and travels as a Canadian Nuffield Scholar. Some focus on carbon emissions and pricing, others on biodiversity, biofuels, landscape restoration, and such. Based on my observations thus far, it seems many countries, including Canada, are spending too many resources designing deliverables, and not enough on the structures which will enable us to achieve those deliverables, whatever we determine them to be. 

When it comes to agri-environmental policy, I am increasingly convinced genuine environmental improvements will only be achieved if we first make other significant investments – specifically, engaging farmers directly when designing programs, the development of a flexible and streamlined way of participating in all programing, and increasing the administrative and extension capacity of those delivering that programming. 

If we can take a step back, consider the wider problem of environmental remediation – and crucially, why we have not been successful in achieving agri-environmental goals – we might finally make headway, rather than continuing to flail in increasingly dangerous winds.

Many Priorities, Different Metrics

Agri-environmental policy is a subject familiar to Kelvin Heppner, a Manitoba farmer, journalist, and broadcaster with Real Agriculture. It’s also one he says policy makers appear to themselves not always have a clear vision of. This is perhaps typified by a panel discussion, hosted by Heppner in April, 2024, featuring Liberal MP Kody Blois, chair of the House of Commons’ standing committee for agriculture and agri-food, John Barlow, shadow minister for agriculture with the Conservatives, and Alistair MacGregor, agriculture critic for the New Democrat Party. 

Each Member of Parliament articulated related goals during the discussion (ensuring Canada remains a globally-competitive agricultural powerhouse, for example), though opinions predictably differed on how to achieve these goals. The Conservative Party emphasizes cost-competitiveness and not reducing private industry’s ability to reinvest in new technologies and practices. The Liberals stress the need to ensure Canada can meet future cross-border emission requirements (e.g. carbon adjustments), while the New Democrats suggest supporting local (and thus lower emission) food systems. 

This is all a generalization, of course, given the breadth of subjects covered by the three Members of Parliament. But for Heppner, the emphasis of different parties on different approaches reflects the difficulty of identifying what will actually reduce Canadian agriculture’s environmental impact. 

“Emissions do dominate the discussion, but maybe its because the problem is so complex, it’s easier to focus on that…There are so many different angles and metrics and prioritizing. I don’t know how this will play out,” says Heppner. 

Even if carbon and emission reduction is the easier-to-understand element, a more recent report from the auditor general indicates such low-hanging fruit is still out of reach. The general’s report – published shortly after Heppner quarterbacked the aforementioned panel discussion – slammed Agriculture Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) for failing to implement a meaningful strategy for initiating and tracking the effectiveness of its climate-oriented programming. The report mentions many faults: a lack of clear targets, poor data collection, delays in getting programming up and running, poor verification, a lack of transparency for emission reduction capacity estimates, and so on. Put differently, one hand is failing to support the other. 

What, then, could this mean for future policy? Will criticisms such as that provided by the auditor general spur Agriculture Canada to revamp its approach? Perhaps it will, at which point Canadian farmers and agribusinesses could find themselves facing now familiar carbon and emission targets, albeit with better verification methods, and more accessible and adaptable programming. 

Regardless, to my mind, the audit is a clear indication our current approach to agri-environmental policy is woefully inadequate. 

Of Yankees, and Brazilians

What happens in America inevitably has consequences for Canadian agriculture. Indeed, as Heppner describes, our Yankee cousins “set a lot of direction for us.”

There’s been a lot of activity in America, to be sure, notably United States President Joe Biden’s directive issued in early 2021 – Executive Order 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. This whole-of-government approach spurred the creation of a Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry Strategy, covering a vast swath of priorities – from better leveraging existing research and extension networks, and the development of new markets for agricultural products, to more available and practical alternatives to fossil fuels. While the devil is always in the details, this wider effort seems a characteristically American approach, combining significant investment in a grand strategy, and grand methodology. 

Biofuels come up frequently in the American strategy, and have received substantial investment. Other countries have been active here, too. My experience at the 2024 Nuffield International conference in Brazil’s Mato Grosso do Sul state, for example, highlighted an agriculture sector generating enormous quantities of plant material for a very (emphasis on very) large and well-developed biofuel manufacturing industry. The idea, as told by Brazilian officials and agriculture industry representatives, was multifold – to reduce dependence on fossil fuels, to fuel (literally and figuratively) domestic industry, and make better use of their own natural resources. Biofuels, in short, are a central pillar in a joint environmental-economic long-term plan.

While biofuels have long been a part of the Canadian landscape, wider efforts to foster a green economy in this country have not given priority to biofuels. At least, not as the Brazilians have. This is perhaps less surprising when one considers Brazilian farmers can produced an order of magnitude more plant material (sugarcane, corn, straw, and astoundingly fast-grow eucalyptus trees) for biofuel production. For this and other reasons, it’s arguable Canadian agri-environmental policy may continue eschewing a higher prioritization of biofuel manufacturing, and the markets created by that industry. At least domestically. Again, what the influence of the U.S. will be is another factor. 

Either way, though, what the Americans and Brazilians seem to have done is create – and articulate – a genuine, long-term agri-environmental strategy. Biofuels is just one element.

Biodiversity Improvement

Biofuel is only the first of two “B’s” in Brazil. The second, biodiversity, has come to play a critical role in the country’s agri-environmental policy, and global brand. Efforts to improve Brazil’s reputation from an actively deforesting nation led the country to enact nature preservation regulations – anywhere from 20 to 80 per cent of forest cover is mandated, for example, as well as restrictions on land clearing for other landscape features. Focusing on landscape conservation and restoration has become important for market access, too, with the European Union – itself very keen on nature restoration – attempting to ban grain deemed to be directly or indirectly related to the deforestation of important biomes.

Could tighter regulations around the clearing of forests and native grasslands be part of Canada’s agri-environmental policy future? Maybe. But Canada (somewhat undeservedly, I would suggest) does not have an international reputation for catastrophic deforestation, and thus is not plagued by market access difficulties associated with land clearing akin to those faced by Brazil. In the foreseeable future, then, one could argue a lack of international scrutiny on Canadian land-use policy will not drive biodiversity-focused policy in agriculture domestically. 

This is not to say other factors will not bring biodiversity and landscape restoration to the fore. 

The European Union has adopted a law to re-establish 20 per cent of its land and seascapes. From native forests to coastal areas and peat bogs, countries within the EU have set about the task with a range of environmental schemes aimed at farmers. In England, too, there are a slew of programs and mandates designed to preserve or grow native landscapes, including initiatives paying farmers for the re-establishment of hedges and treed fence lines. 

Nature restoration efforts across the pond are not without controversy of course – indeed, they have helped spark enormous farmer protests against perceived environmental policy overreach – but the interest is there on the part of policy makers and the wider public. But again, the structure underlying these efforts matters as much as the policies themselves.

An Example of What Not To Do

Ireland’s Native Woodland Conservation Scheme offers an example where good intentions and significant capital could (or will) have a suboptimal impact, thanks to a lack of attention paid to support structures, and a failure to build relationships. 

Once covering much of the island, Atlantic Rainforest is now almost non-existent in Ireland. The Woodland Scheme supports the restoration, conservation and enhancement of native woodlands by providing grants, as well as annual “ecosystem services” payments for year-to-year maintenance of woodland. Since farmers own the vast majority of land in Ireland, they are the prime targets for such a scheme. 

In February, I visited a County Limerick no-till farmer engaging in the scheme. He was generally optimistic, and was able to find a couple pockets within his family farm where woodland establishment was an ideal opportunity. The scheme clearly will work for some farmers, in some areas — “some” being the key word here. 

As an Irish Nuffield Scholar described to me, one of the prime areas where the Scheme could make a huge difference are on the vast tracks of rugged uplands (hills and mountains) of Western Ireland. Farmers in these now treeless landscapes largely raise mountain sheep – an animal which brings poor returns. Native agroforestry could thus A) support local communities by providing an alternative (and better) income source, and B) restore forests in a landscape where they once flourished. 

The catch is, the current Scheme doesn’t cover sites higher than 120 metres in elevation, with more than a quarter of the proposed area comprised of exposed rock, or any place near the sea. Much of Western Ireland is thus ineligible. 

The problem is the Woodland Scheme, specifically intended to achieve environmental goals, is designed with production capacity at its core. Despite the fact that native woodland would flourish in the western uplands, eligibility is restricted to areas where they would flourish even more – in fields with good soil, much of which is currently being used as cropland or high-value pasture. 

There are additional problems with the scheme, too. During the same overseas expedition, I heard more than one farmer highlight inefficiencies in delivery caused by, among other things, a general lack of administrative and outreach support (not enough ministry staff), paperwork overload (complicated applications and not enough help available to navigate them), and other problems. My Nuffield colleague adds there was almost no consultation with the farm sector, nor ecology experts, in the development of the native woodland Scheme. It appeared nearly whole-cloth from bureaucratic spreadsheets. 

At the time of my visit to Ireland, payments for some pre-existing agri-environmental programs were also many months overdue. This caused (and may still be causing) significant cash-flow issues on some farms. It’s a state of affairs which, to put it mildly, hardly engenders goodwill for, and faith in, forthcoming agri-environmental schemes. 

Across the Irish Sea, a Devon dairy farmer told me a similar story regarding the English hedgerow restoration programing, previously mentioned. Excessive paperwork, a lack of extension capacity, and a failure for policy to reflect the complexities of hedgerow management have all conspired to hinder rather than help. Many have been left with a sour taste in their mouths.

Changing the Narrative

Trickles of nature restoration programs have begun to spread in Canada. The Resilient Agriculture Landscape Program, for example, pays landowners for the creation and maintenance of naturalized areas, such as native grasslands, for a set number of years. Another is the Species at Risk Farm Incentive Program, supporting both landscape naturalization and the establishment of farming practices more supportive of at-risk species. Whether or not Canadian policy makers – and the agriculture sector itself – are interested in developing this area of agri-environmental policy is an open question.  

However things shake out, the need for an overarching, long-term joint agricultural-environmental policy remains. For Tyler McCann, managing director of the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute, this can only happen if the federal government – whether in its current form or a future composition – connect the dots between positive environmental impacts, and what’s good for farmers.  

“We seem to have separated the things that are good for farmers, from the things that we want farmers to do,” says McCann, citing the federal governments requirement that research projects include a significant focus on emissions in order to acquire funding, as an example of the problem. 

“Breeding better disease resistant pulse varieties isn’t seen as an emission-reducing measure. But improving diverse crop rotations with nitrogen-fixing pulse crops would be a great thing to reduce emissions in western Canada…Anything that’s deemed to be an economic benefit is not an environmental good. This isn’t sustainable. We can’t deliver meaningful change if what we really are talking about is not good for farmers.”

McCann goes further, saying he believes actions such as the emission-focus requirement for research funding, the poor performance of AAFC in executing and measuring change, and other pursuits, have antagonized industry. With a non-collaborative, expensive, and seemingly ineffective policy approach leaving a sour taste in farmers’ mouths, pushback was and is inevitable.

“The carbon tax is an example. It’s a big political fight, but it’s important to acknowledge 95 per cent of agriculture emissions are already exempt. We could have acknowledged that. The government could also have not pushed back so hard on the remaining emissions. It has taken up a lot of the oxygen in the room when in the grand scheme of things, there’s a lot of other things that have a lot bigger impact,” says McCann. 

He adds leaning into the Environmental Farm Plan and expanding partnerships with groups like Alternative Land Use Services, offer just two examples of approaches which could be both highly effective and collaborative. Again, in a time when meaningful relationships between farmers and different governmental levels appear wanting, I increasingly agree. 

Asking The Wrong Question

All considered, asking what future agri-environmental policy will look like appears to be the wrong question.

No one knows what future government will or won’t do. How we measure and benchmark the impact of current and past programming is hotly debated. Animosity between industry and government is real, and is not likely to disappear even when new governments form. Programs designed to support nature, lower emissions, and so on, do exist – the money just seems to fall into the cracks, or sit idle on the surface.

Cracks in the foundation can be an overused metaphor, but I think it actually applies in this case. Should we not start by asking “what should policy-supporting structures look like?” rather than what the policies themselves should be?  

Farmer and politician, environmentalist and bureaucrat – each party is at least partially dissatisfied with the current state of affairs in Canadian agri-environmental policy. Whatever the path forward is, it’s clear a hard rethink is required.