A. FAQ Support Materials and Activities [Top]
| Question/Comment/Suggestion | Response | |
|---|---|---|
| A1 | Some sections of the EFP Guidebook need expansion (e.g. SAR content) or are out of date (e.g. information related to the deleterious substances /Fisheries Act). What is the refresh/update plan? | The BC Ministry of Agriculture (AGRI) is waiting for completion of the Agricultural Waste Control Regulations Review, before making any significant efforts to update the Reference Guide and Workbook. Some supplemental information could potentially be sent out if it would be valuable. |
| A2 | Need tools to reengage past participants and attract new involvement producers (having difficulty representing tangible benefits outside of BMP funding). | Creating linkages to the marketplace can help in promoting the EFP Program, but this will time. ARDCorp and AGRI are willing to support the creation of marketing tools. Please provide your suggestions to the Program Manager. |
| A3 | Provide all EFP and BMP documents in a fillable PDF format | Work is underway to convert most of program resources to digital formats. This will not likely include the Planning Workbooks at this time because each workbook has a number that corresponds to a specific producer. This should / may be tracked. Additional investigation is required to explore the implications. |
| A4 | More effort needed in building relationships with producer associations. | Both ARDCorp and AGRI support the building of stronger relationships with producer associations. Support in this area is in progress; for example, targeted ads have been placed in Equine BC, O&V, Beef in BC, COABC and dairy publications. |
| A5 | Streamline the EFP process- digitize the planning workbook, action plan and application forms. An editable PDF would be a good start. | A transition to accepting BMP applications online is being done this fiscal year (2015-16) should move us toward this goal. See question #A3 regarding digitizing the Planning Workbook. |
B. FAQ BMP Policies [Top]
| Question/Comment/Suggestion | Response | |
|---|---|---|
| B1 | Changes to policy are needed that would enable those regions with a shorter window of opportunity (i.e. where longer winter period of frozen ground) to take advantage of project funding before it is all allocated. | A planned shift to merit-based BMP approval system may address this. There is nothing stopping producers in northern areas from applying for projects in April, even if they can’t complete the work until later in the year. |
| B2 | Need an opportunity for multi-year BMP projects | There are no provisions to allow for this in the Provincial legislation which governs the BMP Program delivery contract with ARDCorp.
Funding for partial projects will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and are eligible only when the partial projects, on their own, achieve significant environmental risk reduction. Requests for consideration must include justification or evidence of regulatory agency documentation which may have delayed project completion. |
| B3 | Assess the value to producers, versus the cost to the program of mandatory, prerequisite Management Plans (MP). Given the level of demand for project funding, accessing project categories where a MP is required, can be a 2 year process. | This is not possible. Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC) and AGRI need to have confidence in the need for certain BMP’s and that they have been appropriately planned out. The Planning BMPs serve this role. |
| B4 | Want enhanced / revisited BMP opportunities for horticultural crops in the Okanagan. | Send in requests to ARDCorp for review. PAs have had the annual opportunity to put forward BMP suggestions from the inception of the Program. As we move toward merit based system, we will be prioritizing BMPs. |
| B5 | Allow submission and approval of BMP project applications in January to March for funding available in the upcoming EFP fiscal year. | This is an ideal, however it has proven challenging to implement due to workload demands and having to wrap up one contract year while initiating another. |
| B6 | Accept BMP applications for approval in tandem with pre-requisite management plan. | This was attempted on a trial basis this year (2015-16) with a few producers. Project applications weren’t approved, but money was set aside until the MP was completed. Per question B3 above, prerequisite MPs should be providing value that leads to the rationalization for the capital infrastructure BMP applications. Holding funds in reserve creates budgeting challenges for the program. |
| B7 | Base the BMP program on the calendar year. | ARDCorp delivers the BMP Program for AGRI and, as such, is tied to the government's fiscal year. |
| B8 | All management plans should be paid directly from the program, not through the clients for reimbursement. | This cannot be done because of the tax implications. The BMP Program has to pay the beneficiary, not the delivery agent. MPs should be providing enough value to the client that they are considered the beneficiary. That is why the costs of the Riparian Health Assessment are separated from the Riparian Management Plan. |
| B9 | Need to delink (the opportunity to obtain funding for) BMPs and (the reason for completing) EFPs. | This is in progress, but will be a multi-year process. Establishing market linkages for the EFP should help. In the next three years, the emphasis of the Program will shift to promote the importance of risk assessment and to delink the connection between risk assessment and incentive-based funding. |
| B10 | Would like clarification on the category caps for 08 Sprayers and 16 Mulching Mowers. The Program only wants to fund the incremental cost of the component of the sprayer that actually reduces pesticide application but I don't know enough about sprayers to begin to calculate this, nor do suppliers have a way of breaking down the component costs either. | The intent of these BMP categories is “improved efficiency related to reductions in environmental risk” or “reductions in pesticide use”.
If the PA isn’t familiar with sprayer design or the supplier isn’t willing to break it down for them, AGRI can complete a technical review on a case-by-case basis and provide ARDCorp with the eligible amount.
AGRI is supportive of this type of funding formula to provide greater flexibility to producers who may be eligible for more incentive funding, rather than the base amount that was historically set in the program. If this type of funding formula proves too difficult to administer, ARDCorp may choose to go back to a flat base rate in the future. |
| B11 | Increase the eligibility for the number of Irrigation MP per farm for larger operations. | As much as Management Planning is needed to show program due diligence in demonstrating the need/value of the capital infrastructure BMPs, it is also there to educate producers on the value of planning. We only fund two Riparian Management Plans, we only fund one NMP with a 1 year follow-up.
Many irrigation companies will complete the Irrigation Management Plan for free if they are going to be installing the new irrigation system. |
| B12 | Need increased compensation for MP in the Interior - greater commuting distance, larger number of property parcels/farm, seasonal limitations on when you can complete some assessments require return visits (cannot be completed during EFP session). | Reimbursement rates are reviewed periodically, but there hasn't been significant concern expressed over the MP rates recently. Except for RHAs, MPs are NOT budgeted for completion at time of EFP, as an application has to be approved. A return trip is therefore usually necessary. |
| B13 | Why is producer in-kind contribution capped to 15% of project costs? | In-kind rules were reviewed in 2014 and compared against all other provinces. It was felt that a 15% cap is a fair value and generous when compared to some other provinces. |
| B14 | Identify environmental priorities from regional and commodity perspectives. Ensuring that meaningful BMP opportunities exist and are practically available in a timely manner to address the priorities. | Merit-based system should help to address this. Current environmental priorities are those listed in the BMP list. |
| B15 | Opportunities for PAs to provide feedback to proposed BMP list before it is presented as finalized for the season. | PAs and any other interested party can make BMP request submissions at any time. |
C. FAQ Workflow, Communications and Reporting [Top]
| Question/Comment/Suggestion | Response | |
|---|---|---|
| C1 | Issue a list of producers (with existing EFPs) due for renewals in the upcoming year by January 5, allowing PAs to better plan their workload. | This has been done in the past, however it creates issues in areas with overlapping old EFPs from past PAs. PAs should be keeping a list of past clients and when their EFPs are due, as standard business practice. Producer confidentiality may also be an issue, as some who originally completed EFPs did not explicitly give ARDCorp consent to distribute their contact information. |
| C2 | Fast track approvals of the required management plans so they can be completed and sent in as soon as possible to support the project applications that the farmers have ready to send in. | This is generally done and could become one of the elements for a merit-based BMP system. |
| C3 | Annual budget should be transparent. | ARDCorp is accountable in its budget reporting to its funding partners, not PAs; PAs are sub-contractors. The total EFP/BMP budget from the Province is public knowledge and can be obtained. |
| C4 | Regarding first come, first serve policy for BMP applications: Why are some applications that are sent in later than others, approved first? | Applications are date stamped and initial processing is done on a first-come/first-served basis. If information is missing or a required MP is not completed then communication to the producer is made and application is set aside until the application package is complete. This can sometimes take a surprisingly long time. Towards the end of funding availability, there can also some juggling of projects to fit the available funds remaining. A merit-based system will impact this process in the future. |
| C5 | BMP list and application forms need to be ready prior to the intake date to allow time for PAs and producers to prepare documents. | This is the goal, but has not always been achieved because of heavy workloads in the spring. |
| C6 | Greater reporting to PAs related to BMP approvals is desired: category number, region, commodity, and amount awarded for all projects. Where is the money is going in the province and for which environmental issues? | Each PA gets a listing of their client's approved BMPs monthly. Abridged summary tables of quarterly reports for the program can also be forwarded however, ARDCorp will not be reporting to PAs regarding date received/date approved as an accountability issue. This creates an additional level of administrative work, not supported by ARDCorp's responsibilities to AGRI. |
| C7 | Create an official role for a PA representative to have a seat at the policy development and program direction table. | It is possible for a PA to sit on the Industry Advisory Committee. PAs are sub-contractors, but their input is of value in assessing program direction. |
| C8 | Reduce the paper work on straight-forward BMPs. | The program is interested in finding efficiencies, but a certain level of information collected in the BMP applications and funding claims is needed to project justification and verification for audit purposes. |