farmers’ advocacy office evaluation presentation to: peace...

1/17/2019

1

Farmers’ Advocacy Office Evaluation

Presentation to:Peace River Regional District

January 31th, 2019

Agenda

Recommendations

Key Findings

Engagement

Objective and Scope

2

D-3

January 31, 2019

1/17/2019

2

OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE

3

Scope and Limitations

4

• Performance related to MOU• Refinements to services• Future funding• Community self sufficiency• Jurisdictional responsibility

Scope

• Ability to access reliable data from the FAO

Limitations

D-3

January 31, 2019

1/17/2019

3

ENGAGEMENT

5

Stakeholders

Farmer’s Advocacy Office - Staff

Farmer’s Advocacy Office Management

Committee

Peace River Regional District Directors and

Staff

6

Provincial Government Agencies

Industry Land Agents

LandownersInterviews & Survey

D-3

January 31, 2019

1/17/2019

4

KEY FINDINGS

7

Findings

8

• Need to broaden the understanding of services provided by FAO

Awareness of the FAO

• FAO does not track details on client interactions in a meaningful way

Data Storing and Analytics

• Most MOU requirements are being met• FAO may have stepped out of scope of MOU by provided legal

advice• FAO does not provide constructive recommendations

MOU Requirements

D-3

January 31, 2019

1/17/2019

5

Findings

9

• Majority of stakeholders believed FAO services should be widened to include different types of land use.

• Some also desired more technical or legal advice.

Widening the Scope

• Some costs could be charged to clients• Many stakeholders believe industry could be charged

a fee through the province that could cover the FAO

Cost Recovery

Findings

10

• Provincial funding is seen as appropriate• Added option of pursuing Federal government funding

through National Energy Board

Government Funding

• General view that the FAO should exist as a stand alone office

• Stronger collaboration with BC Oil and Gas Commission and the Surface Rights Board would improve information sharing.

Jurisdiction

D-3

January 31, 2019

1/17/2019

6

Findings

• Lack of trust and increased need for transparency

Misinformation and Mistrust

• Need to be reaffirmed• Landowners rights vs individual profits

Advocacy Role

• High reliance on contracted personnel• Knowledge and Information Management

Risks to Sustainment of Services

11

RECOMMENDATIONS

12

D-3

January 31, 2019

1/17/2019

7

Recommendations: Vision for the Short-Term

13

Renewing agreement and funding to FAO for a transitory period of one to two years.

Clarification of Advocacy Role

Requirement for the FAO to put in place unique client

identifiers coupled with a

case management approach to interactions

Explicit reporting

requirements including

performance metrics

Requirements for contractors

to include reference to the sources of their

funding

Recommendations: Vision for the Short-Term (con’t)

Rebuilding of Relationships

• Information sharing meetings

• Facilitated discussions

• Increase transparency

Proactive Approach to

Communication

• Joint information sessions

• Provide basic information

• Clarify the role and scope of the FAO

Monitoring of Reports

• Need for proactive monitoring

• Increase capacity

• Responsive action

D-3

January 31, 2019

1/17/2019

8

Recommendations: Vision for the Medium to Long Term

15

Alternative Service Delivery Models

• Administrative services through PRRD, value-added through contract

• Industry pay model

Additional Cost-Recovery Arrangements

• Fee for accompaniment to hearings or negotiations

Exploring a Provincial Model

• Scope of services beyond oil and gas

• Geographic scope beyond Peace Region

16

D-3

January 31, 2019

Prepared by:

Peace River Regional District Farmers’ Advocacy Office Evaluation Final Report

D-3

January 31, 2019

Farmers’ Advocacy Office Evaluation P a g e | 2

CONTENTS

Report Limitations .......................................................................................................................................3

Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................4

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................6

Background 6

Farmers’ Advocacy Office Role 6

Scope of the Review 7

Approach to the Review 7

Findings Dashboard ....................................................................................................................................9

Logic Model 10

Detailed Findings of the Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 11

Awareness, Use and Satisfaction with Services 11

Scope of Services 13

Service Delivery Model 15

Jurisdictional Responsibility and Capacity 17

Additional Findings 18

General Conclusion and Recommendations ......................................................................................... 19

Recommendations 19

Appendices ............................................................................................................................................... 21

Appendix A – Data Sources 21

Appendix B – Primary Data Collection Tools 22

Appendix C – Sample Reporting Template 37

D-3

January 31, 2019


REPORT LIMITATIONS

This report is provided for information purposes and is intended for general guidance only. Further, we have relied upon the completeness, accuracy and fair presentation of all information and data obtained from stakeholders and public sources. The accuracy and reliability of the findings and opinions expressed in the presentation are conditional upon the completeness, accuracy and fair presentation of the information underlying them.

The Farmers’ Advocacy Office (FAO) would not provide MNP with a complete list of clients or allow for MNP to observe client meetings (with client consent) out of claims of confidentiality. MNP was also unable to obtain data for the purposes of quantifying the number of clients the FAO has worked with, determining the duration of time spent with clients, or assessing the type as well as quality of services as provided by the FAO.

D-3

January 31, 2019


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In B.C. most landowners only have the rights to the exterior, or the surface of their land. The rights to the subsurface, and any natural resources contained within the subsurface are primarily owned by the Crown. As a result, the government has the authority to issue rights to companies for the exploration and development of subsurface resources on private property, including privately owned agricultural land. The resource company, for the purpose of this report being oil and gas companies, must compensate the landowner for losses or damages caused by accessing and using their land to extract oil and gas1.

For landowners, the steps required to negotiate with oil and gas land agents or legal representatives is complex. There are various forms that must be submitted, negotiations to navigate, and if an agreement on compensation isn’t met, a mediation and arbitration process through the Surface Rights Board to attend.

In September of 2010 the Farmers’ Advocacy Office (FAO) opened in Dawson Creek with a mandate to:

“ensure rural landowners throughout northeast B.C. are provided access to relevant information to manage their land and agricultural assets in order to mitigate business risk and maximize future economic opportunity as it relates to interaction with the oil and gas industry.”

The Peace River Regional District, or PRRD, engaged MNPLLP (“MNP”), to carry out a review of the FAO with a focus on its services and operations:

Guiding Questions

Services of the FAO

1. What is the level of awareness, usage of, and satisfaction with FAO services by their clients and potential clients?

2. How should the scope of services be adjusted, expanded or improved to better achieve expectations?

FAO Operations

3. What models exist for funding as well as providing these services to landowners?

4. Where does the jurisdictional responsibility and capacity to offer these services live, given matters of mandate, expertise and independence?

MNP studied background documentation and interviewed landowners, FAO staff, PRRD Directors, the FAO Management Committee, industry land agents, and provincial government agencies. We also conducted a survey that was completed by over 130 landowners in the region.

We found that the surveyed landowners are generally aware (83%) of the FAO, and that most (69%) are satisfied with the services they have received. More could be done though, to broaden the understanding of the services that the FAO is contracted to provide, so as to avoid any false expectations and to ensure that landowners who would benefit from such supports are taking advantage of what the office offers.

Most landowners have accessed the FAO for walk-in or phone information, assistance with surface lease values and support during negotiations. Any additional analytics such as how many landowners have used a service, how frequently and for how long is constrained by the FAO either not tracking and/or not sharing data on client interactions in a way that assists with this understanding. More could be done to ensure that funders of the FAO, and the community, understand which services are used most often and the time commitment for specific engagements with landowners dealing with particular projects. An added challenge was the finding that the FAO has been inconsistent in its dealings with the Management Committee, particularly as it pertains to offering constructive recommendations on ways to strengthen relationships between industry and communities.

1 Surface Rights Board Annual Report, April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018

D-3

January 31, 2019


Most of the consulted stakeholders believed that landowners could benefit from these types of services for a broader range of land use and land access issues, for example as they pertain to BC Hydro, wind energy, forestry and matters related to water use. As the oil and gas industry expands, it is reasonable to expect that landowners may need more access to legal representation or technical expertise to navigate the larger, complex developments that are beginning to occur. Currently, the MOU restricts the FAO from offering legal advice, acting as a legal representative, or serving as a formal mediator. There are indications that the FAO is going beyond the scope of services as permitted under the MOU along with expressed concerns that the office is providing landowners with subjective information on compensation.

Cost-recovery, in a limited form, is already in place with the FAO (i.e., for title searches and document printing). Most of the consulted stakeholders were of the view that some costs of the FAO could be charged to clients, such as staff attendance at hearings, although the overarching intent of the office to be an accessible resource should be maintained. There was also general agreement that an industry-pay model could be created through a levy on applications filed by the oil and gas companies. From the perspective of industry, such a model should be accompanied by participation on the Management Committee or an equivalent opportunity to be involved in decision-making, which is a concern to landowners who value the independence of the office.

The provision of Provincial funding is seen among those consulted to be appropriate, though it is believed that the mandate of the FAO is aligned primarily with that of the Ministry of Agriculture, and secondly with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. The option was also raised among those consulted of pursuing Federal government funding, primarily from the National Energy Board.

It was apparent that over the shorter term, there is a heavy reliance on the current contractor for the FAO. This is complicated by the seeming lack of knowledge management at the FAO which would allow a new person to gain understanding through ready access to information on clientele, services including utilization, cases, and outcomes. Although service alternatives may exist over the mid to longer term, this needs to be considered from the point of view of capabilities, capacity, recognized independence, and trust in the provision of the services.

Based on these findings, we have recommended a transitionary period whereby FAO services will continue to be provided to landowners, relationships will be strengthened, roles along with expectations will be clarified, and improvements put in place with data analytics as well as knowledge management to inform future steps. This will include:

• Renewing the contract for a transitionary phase between the PRRD and the FAO contractor with clarification on roles, expectations and core functions;

• Improving the tracking, analysis and reporting of information along with practices of knowledge management within the FAO.

• Re-building relationships between the FAO contractor and the Management Committee representatives along with other organizations;

• Taking a more strategic, proactive approach to communications which includes hosting joint information sessions for landowners; and

• In combination with the adoption of a communications plan, assessing individual services for alternative delivery as well as value-added services that are best suited for a provincial model.

D-3

January 31, 2019


INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

Approximately 40% of British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) is located in Northeastern British Columbia, with 27% of the ALR being within the Peace River Regional District (PRRD) itself2. At the same time, much of the region has active oil and gas industry exploration and development, which requires access to land to acquire the oil and gas resources.

In B.C. most landowners only own the rights to the exterior, or the surface of their land. The rights to the subsurface, and any natural resources contained within the subsurface are primarily owned by the Crown. The government has the power to issue rights to companies for the exploration and development of subsurface resources on private property, including privately owned agricultural land. The resource company, for the purpose of this report being oil and gas companies, must compensate the landowner for losses or damages caused by accessing and using their land to extract oil and gas3.

For landowners, the steps required to negotiate with oil and gas land agents or legal representatives is complex. There are various forms that must be submitted, negotiations to navigate, and if an agreement on compensation isn’t met, a mediation and arbitration process through the Surface Rights Board to attend.

In 2009, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture and the PRRD started a project with the intent of providing landowners with information to help them understand surface leases and right of way access with the oil and gas industry. In September of 2010 the Farmers’ Advocacy Office (FAO) opened in Dawson Creek as a pilot project. A review of the office, and its services was completed in 2012 with the decision being to continue funding the FAO.

FARMERS’ ADVOCACY OFFICE ROLE

The FAO reports to the Farmers’ Advocate Management Committee which has representation from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the Ministry of Agriculture, PRRD and a landowner representative. The role of the FAO is determined by a Memorandum of Understanding which outlines that:

“The Farmers’ Advocacy Office (FAO) works to ensure rural landowners throughout northeast B.C. are provided access to relevant information to manage their land and agricultural assets in order to mitigate business risk and maximize future economic opportunity as it relates to interaction with the oil and gas industry.”

With respect to the portfolio of services and functions, the FAO is responsible for:

• The collection, dissemination and interpretation of up-to-date and accurate information, which includes maintaining a website, to farmers, ranchers and rural residents with a focus on oil and gas related rights, roles and responsibilities, information on surface lease agreements, and the regulatory environment the industry works within;

• Providing support to farmers, ranchers or rural residents in their interactions with the oil and gas industry and their agents including reporting out routinely on all interactions – both successful (e.g., conflict resolved) and unsuccessful (conflict escalated);

• Participating in public meetings on oil and gas landowners’ compensation and other matters within the mandate;

• Taking part in appropriate committees and training activities;

• Providing quarterly reports to the Management Committee summarizing the activities of the FAO and recommending any policy or program changes that will improve the relationship between landowners and the oil and gas sector.

2 Regional Agricultural Plan Background Report, Peace River Regional District, 2014 3 Surface Rights Board Annual Report, April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2018

D-3

January 31, 2019


SCOPE OF THE REVIEW

The PRRD engaged MNPLLP (“MNP”), to conduct an evaluation with the following scope:

1. Determine whether the FAO is functioning and performing as expected based on the Purpose and Accountabilities as well as the Deliverables in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).

2. Assess whether or not refinements to the FAO and its services are needed.

3. Assess the future course of the FAO as it relates to funding.

4. Examine potential strategies for building on community capacity to take on, and/or for the self-sufficiency of services currently offered by, the FAO.

5. Determine the appropriate jurisdictional responsibility for the services offered by the FAO.

With this scope in mind, MNP used the following broad questions to guide the evaluative research and conduct of consultations:

Guiding Questions

Services of the FAO

1. What is the level of awareness, usage of, and satisfaction with FAO services by their clients and potential clients?

2. How should the scope of services be adjusted, expanded or improved to better achieve expectations?

FAO Operations

3. What models exist for funding as well as providing these services to landowners?

4. Where does the jurisdictional responsibility and capacity to offer these services live, given matters of mandate, expertise and independence?

APPROACH TO THE REVIEW

In conducting the evaluation of the FAO, MNP undertook the following approach:

Studying Background Documentation

MNP studied available background documents as provided by the PRRD and as accessible online including reports and publications from the FAO website.

Secondary Research Methods

Study of relevant documentation

Consulting with Internal and External Stakeholders

MNP carried out interviews and group meetings with the following stakeholders to gather insight and to develop an understanding of opinions as they relate to the FAO and landowners’ needs:

• Landowners

• FAO Staff

• PRRD Directors

• PRRD Staff

• FAO Management Committee

• Industry Land Agents

• Provincial Government Agencies

D-3

January 31, 2019


These consultations helped provide a clear understanding of the services offered by the FAO, the needs of landowners and the relationships that exist between industry, landowners, the FAO and various levels of government. To further ensure a broad perspective from landowners was considered, MNP administered a survey to landowners in the region and received 134 responses. The survey link was shared by the PRRD, the FAO and was sent for distribution to various agricultural and landowner associations in the Peace Region.

Primary Research Methods

Individual and group interviews

Survey of landowners

Analyzing and Interpreting Findings

MNP analyzed the available documentation and results of the stakeholder consultations, extrapolating themes and consolidating the findings.

Reporting and Developing Recommendations

Following the analysis and interpretation of the findings, MNP reported on the main observations, general conclusions, and key recommendations.

D-3

January 31, 2019

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjb39PjztTTAhXFzlQKHb79DwAQjRwIBw&url=https://www.iconfinder.com/icons/105532/cogwheel_icon&psig=AFQjCNH2zNZz9qlFXn5T9hFk9hfthnXpgw&ust=1493931527352051


FINDINGS DASHBOARD

Across the findings as detailed in the following section of the report, a dashboard summary is provided below of highlights and their relevance to the evaluation.

Overview of Findings

Awareness, Use and Satisfaction with Farmers’ Advocacy Office (FAO) Services

• The majority of landowners who were surveyed are aware of the FAO (83%) and satisfied (69%) with the services they have received from the FAO. More could be done though, to broaden the understanding of the services that the FAO is contracted to provide, to ensure that landowners who would benefit from such supports (i.e., those who were not aware of the FAO yet have interactions with oil and gas representatives as well as those who are aware and feel they can manage the issues on their own) are taking advantage of what the office offers. This would also help mitigate any false expectations, based on the points of dissatisfaction as raised by the surveyed landowners.

• Access to current and objective information is a core service of the FAO.

• There is an unmet need for data and related analytics on how many landowners have used these same services, and the profile of this utilization, as the FAO either does not track and/or provide detail on client interactions in a meaningful way.

• Although stipulated in the MOU, the FAO does not consistently provide the Management Committee with constructive recommendations on ways to strengthen relationships between industry and communities. In addition, more information could be provided on approaches taken to resolution along with factors that contribute to the escalation of issues.

Scope of Services

• Landowners appear to be accessing a range of supports as offered by the FAO, primarily by phone or in-person (with the exception of on-site computer access which does not seem to be frequently used). As noted above, more could be done to track which services are used most often and the time commitment for specific engagements with landowners dealing with particular projects.

• The majority of consulted stakeholders believed landowners could benefit from these types of services for a broader range of land use and land access issues, for example as they pertain to BC Hydro, wind energy, forestry and matters related to water use.

• It was found that landowners may need more access to legal representation or technical expertise to navigate the larger, complex developments that are beginning to occur. Currently, the MOU restricts the FAO from offering legal advice, acting as a legal representative, or serving as a formal mediator. There are indications the FAO is going beyond the scope of services as permitted under the MOU along with expressed concerns that the office is providing landowners with subjective information on compensation.

Service Delivery Model

• Cost-recovery, in a limited form, is already in place with the FAO (i.e., for title searches and document printing). Most of the consulted stakeholders were of the view that some costs of the FAO could be charged to clients, such as staff attendance at hearings, although the overarching intent of the office to be an accessible resource should be maintained.

• An industry-pay model could be created through a levy on applications filed by the oil and gas companies. From the perspective of industry, such a model should be accompanied by participation on the Management Committee or an equivalent opportunity to be involved in decision-making, which is a concern to landowners who value the independence of the office.

• The provision of Provincial funding is seen among those consulted to be appropriate, though it is believed that the mandate of the FAO is aligned primarily with that of the Ministry of Agriculture, and secondly with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Added to this is the option raised among those consulted of pursuing Federal government funding, primarily from the National Energy Board.

D-3

January 31, 2019


Jurisdictional Responsibility and Capacity

• There is a general view that the FAO should exist as a standalone office and that no other known entities can readily provide the same services in a manner that fulfills needs today. While there may be service alternatives in the mid to longer term, they would need to be pursued with the understanding not only of capabilities and capacity but also of independence which was considered by those consulted as a core principle.

• Stronger collaboration with the BC Oil and Gas Commission and the Surface Rights Board among others would add to the currency and value of information that is provided to the landowners through the FAO.

Additional Findings

• There appears to be a broader context of mistrust and misinformation as it pertains to the conduct of this evaluation as well as between the FAO and its funders.

• The advocacy role of the office needs to be reaffirmed. The mutual understanding amongst consulted landowners is that the FAO is an advocate for the individual. The MOU contains ambiguous wording; however, the Management Committee and funding partners see the advocacy role as pertaining to landowners’ rights, not the specific individual.

• There is a risk to the sustainment of FAO services in the near term, given a high reliance on the contracted personnel and apparent shortcomings in knowledge and information management in the Farmers’ Advocacy Office.

LOGIC MODEL

A review of the documentation and consultations resulted in the following understanding of the general resources, activities and services, and the desired intermediate to ultimate outcomes for the FAO.

This logic model should be used as a foundation for refining the performance metrics of the FAO as it relates to the utilization of available supports and services as well as the realization of results.

ULTIMATE OUTCOMES

Business risk is mitigated and future economic opportunity as it related to the interaction with the oil and gas industry is maximized.

INTERMEDIATE OUTCOMES

Rural landowners throughout northeast B.C. are provided access to relevant information to manage their land and agricultural assets

IMMEDIATE OUTCOMES

Increased landowner knowledge Increased landowner capacity

Administrative Value Add

ACTIVITES AND SERVICES

Room Booking Internet Access Surface Lease

Lookup Assistance with Rent

Reviews Preparation of Packages to

Bring to Meetings

Printing & Photocopying

Assistance with Forms

Presentation at Events

Recommendations to Government

Attendance (and Representation) at

Negotiations and Hearings

INPUTS Office Space Equipment Website Staff

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE

• Peace River Regional District

• Landowners

• Ministry of Agriculture • Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

D-3

January 31, 2019


DETAILED FINDINGS OF THE EVALUATION

This section details the findings from our consultations with PRRD directors and staff, Farmers’ Advocacy Office (FAO) Management Committee members, FAO staff, landowners and industry representatives as well from our survey of landowners and review of existing materials.

AWARENESS, USE AND SATISFACTION WITH SERVICES

The following findings relate to the activities and services being provided by the FAO along with linkages to the expected scope of the office as described in the MOU.

Landowner and Farmer Findings

• The majority (83%) of surveyed landowners are aware of the FAO.

o Of those who are not aware of the FAO, 64% did have interactions with oil and gas representatives on their land.

o Of those who are aware of the FAO, only 60% are actual clients, with the majority of those who haven’t used the services explaining that they are able to navigate their interactions with oil and gas representatives on their own.

• Landowners learn about the FAO primarily through their neighbours, word of mouth, and from news articles.

• Most landowners have accessed the FAO for walk-in or phone information, assistance with surface lease values and support during negotiations, with two-thirds (69%) of the landowners surveyed being satisfied with the services they received.

o Those who expressed dissatisfaction explained that they would have preferred more assistance and direct involvement in their case, that they did not feel the FAO acted in their interest, or that the FAO tried to provide legal advice that they are not qualified to give.

FAO Management Committee Findings

• From the perspective of the Management Committee, landowners are aware of the FAO but may not know about all of the services and/or be clear about the scope of the supports being made available.

• The Committee sees value in the supports being provided to landowners and are under the impression that landowners are generally satisfied with the services of the FAO.

• The Management Committee expressed a desire for more detailed reporting on the types of issues dealt with, number of clients, and length of time spent working on particular issues or with a certain client.

Peace River Regional District Findings

• From the perspective of the PRRD, landowners may be aware of, and accessing services provided by, the FAO yet may not understand the breadth of these services or how to use them.

• The PRRD is under the impression that landowners are satisfied with the services they have received and has received little in the way of formal critiques other than that more services could be provided.

Oil and Gas Representatives Findings

• Land agents representing oil and gas companies estimated that upwards of 20 percent of landowners that they’ve interacted with have used the services of the FAO, but also indicated that unless the FAO hosts a meeting, or attends a hearing, they cannot be certain about this level of usage.

D-3

January 31, 2019


FAO Staff Findings

• Staff participated in various public meetings such as presentations to the Peace Regions Women’s Institute Group and sessions with concerned landowners.

• Staff have created informative diagrams to explain in a simplified manner the process landowners must navigate.

• Much of the value that the FAO provides to a broad variety of clients is access to information, especially for those who are less computer literate, or who have a hard time with the complex forms and paperwork required.

• One of the services that the FAO staff spoke to of having notable value is their ability to access surfaces leases through the Surface Rights Board and provide that information to clients, whether in person or through the online map. The FAO also works with the National Energy Board (NEB) with relation to federally regulated oil and gas activity.

• Staff will attend meetings with landowners, and in some cases speak on behalf of the landowner if they are not comfortable in a negotiation or in a hearing.

Provincial Government Findings

• Government representatives believe the majority of services provided to landowners are of benefit, but that the FAO may provide unfounded information around compensation amounts that lead to further confrontation between the landowner and industry.

• There is an impression that when the FAO represents landowners in proceedings, FAO staff can at times act in a role that is beyond their capacity and scope.

BC FAO Quarterly Reports

A review of the FAO quarterly reports demonstrate that clients are tracked as either “new” or “returning” and therefore it is likely that a single client can be counted more than once. The actual number of clients working with the FAO at any time is uncertain based on this reporting.

The FAO quarterly reports also include a “Section F Recommendations for Improvements to the Program” which outlines complaints of landowners in a summarized format. This section begins with the language, “Section F is a separate document provided to the Management Committee at the Option of the Service Provider and is not required as part of the Quarterly Report”. In fact, the contract signed between the PRRD and the contractor outlines that quarterly reports will include recommendations on any policy or program changes that will improve the relationship between communities and the oil and gas sector. It does not seem as though this component of the formal role is being fully met with the material provided in the quarterly reports.

FAO Performance as Related to the MOU

MOU Wording Findings

The collection, dissemination and interpretation of up-to-date and accurate information related to oil and gas related rights, roles and responsibilities, information on surface lease agreements, and the regulatory environment the industry works within to farmers, ranchers and rural residents; includes maintaining and up-to-date website.

• The FAO is generally meeting this requirement from the MOU.

Providing support to farmers, ranchers or rural residents in their interactions with the oil and gas industry and their agents including reporting out routinely on all interactions – both successful (e.g., conflict resolved) and unsuccessful (conflict escalated).

• The FAO does support farmers, ranchers and rural residents with their interactions with the oil and gas industry.

• While the FAO does report on resolved and unresolved issues, little detail is offered on solutions that led to an issue being resolved or matters that led to escalation.

D-3

January 31, 2019


Participating in public meetings on oil and gas landowners’ compensation and other matters within the position mandate, sit on appropriate committees, and participate in appropriate training activities;

• The FAO participates in public meetings and is represented on committees.

Providing quarterly reports to the Management Committee summarizing the activities of the FAO and recommending any policy or program changes that will improve the relationship between landowners and the oil and gas sector.

• The FAO provides quarterly reports but not at a level of detail that allows for full understanding of the number of clients and types of issues dealt with for each.

• The FAO does not regularly provide recommendations in their quarterly report that would help improve the relationship between landowners and the oil and gas sector.

The MOU for the FAO also states that it will not:

• Provide legal advice or act as a legal representative;

• Act as a formal mediator;

• Provide advice on mining, alternative energy, forestry, commercial tourism or agri-business or any other non-oil and gas related sectors’

• Provide advice outside northeast B.C.; or

• Engage with or act as an intermediary with First Nations governments.

It appears from the research carried out for this evaluation that at times, the FAO has gone against this clause by providing advice on industries outside of the oil and gas industry. In addition, they have provided advice to those outside of northeast B.C. The FAO is also perceived to have been providing legal advice to clients, though the details of what information or advice is shared is unknown.

SCOPE OF SERVICES

This section outlines our findings related to the need to refine or change services to better suit the needs of clients as well as what was found in regard to:

• Services not being used by landowners

• Gaps in service offerings

• Future needs of clients

• Services outside of oil and gas related inquiries


• Landowners are using a range of services as offered by the FAO. An exception according to the survey is that few landowners are taking advantage of computer access at the FAO office, though those surveyed are likely some of the more computer literate of the FAO clients.

• Landowners have an expressed desire for the FAO to offer a broader variety of services which includes:

o Assistance with issues outside of oil and gas such as interactions with BC Hydro, wind energy, and water rights.

o Legal representation of landowners in their interactions with industry.

• Those landowners that were interviewed, identified multi-well pads as a recent trend impacting their ability to negotiate with oil and gas companies. This new type of extraction complicates the negotiation and can make things more difficult for landowners. Another referenced trend from both the survey and interviews was that oil and gas companies are engaging lawyers early in a negotiation, which can intimidate landowners and make for adversarial initial conversations.

D-3

January 31, 2019



• The Management Committee expressed concerns about the FAO going beyond the scope of it’s MOU by providing services related to industries outside of oil and gas. At the same time, the value of these services for landowners is acknowledged.

• Current and future trends identified by the Management Committee include more complicated, multi-pad well sites and an upsurge in younger farmers accessing information online instead of in person.


• The PRRD views the services of the FAO as having evolved over time to outside of the original scope, necessitating that the role and scope of these same services be reaffirmed.

• The PRRD offered support in principle for the expansion of services to include industries that impact landowners’ property outside of oil and gas. This would include BC Hydro and understanding tenures on Crown land.


• Land agents noted that the FAO may not be basing their guidance to landowners around compensation amounts on evidence-based rates. By providing landowners with more objective information on how compensation rates are determined, it was suggested that the FAO could strengthen the relationship between industry and landowners as well as facilitate fewer mediations and arbitrations.

• Land agents recognized that the length of time over which industry is using land is increasing, and that sites have become bigger. The related suggestion was that the FAO have more technical expertise to help landowners understand what will occur on their land.

• Land agents also noted that landowners could benefit from a service that advises on other industry use of the land, and the region has many competing priorities such as water, hydro, forestry and wind energy. The implication of such a broad scope, from the perspective of land agents, is a provincial model of service provision.

FAO Staff Findings

• FAO staff have reportedly provided landowners with assistance on oil and gas issues as per the MOU and have also offered information to landowners on BC Hydro.

• The FAO has a member of staff who has become a commissioner of oaths so that clients can sign affidavits at the office.

• FAO staff described the issues being faced as more complex over the years (e.g., proposed developments that are not temporary, or short term, and multi-well pads which are becoming more common).

• FAO staff indicated that they refer clients to lawyers when issues require it and stated that they do not take on unnecessary legal risks.

• FAO staff reported incidents of supporting clients during times other than typical working hours (e.g., 9:00 am to 5:00 pm), outside of the region, and in a few scenarios, outside of the province. At the same time, FAO staff were unable to quantify how long they work with each client.


• Provincial government representatives believe landowners need access to legal advice beyond what the current FAO can provide.

• A concern was expressed over the ‘advocacy’ role of the office being confused with an advocate for an individual.

D-3

January 31, 2019


SERVICE DELIVERY MODEL

This section describes the findings related to potential options beyond the existing model which shares funding between the PRRD and the Government of British Columbia. This includes findings related to how landowners use the services (i.e., online, via-telephone, and in-person), current performance of the FAO under the existing funding model, and opportunities for recuperating costs through some form of user-pay.

This section further describes the findings from a variety of stakeholders regarding the future provision of FAO services. Added to this is an illustrative description of how similar services are being provided in Alberta.


• Landowners appeared unaware that the FAO has historically been funded by both the PRRD and the Provincial government. While landowners were not directly asked who funds the FAO, they indicated that the PRRD doesn’t support farmers, or when asked about alternative avenues of funding they suggested the province could help with some costs.

• The majority (95%) of landowners were supportive of funding being sourced from the oil and gas industry but expressed concern with oil and gas companies directing how the FAO is operated. They were also concerned that funding from the BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources gives the impression of a biased service in favour of industry.

• Most landowners who were interviewed (95%) expressed that they might be willing to pay for some services, such as legal representation at Surface Rights Board hearings or support during more difficult negotiations.

• Landowners primarily access the services of the FAO in person or over the phone.


• The Management Committee acknowledged that there is an option to charge landowners for an additional level of service, although it was further noted that the intent is to make these services accessible to landowners without barriers, implying the majority of services need to remain free.


• The PRRD is supportive of the existing brick and mortar service delivery model and indicated that FAO representation in the North Peace might be welcomed by landowners.

• From the perspective of the PRRD, there are no apparent services currently offered that landowners would readily accept as user-pay, with the exception of legal opinions which could be provided for a fee. More broadly, any user-pay model was only considered to be feasible if it was subsidized.

• Another potential funder was considered to be the federal government, which benefits from oil and gas royalties.


• Land agents were generally of the view that government should fund FAO services, with the added commentary:

o If industry were to pay for FAO services, this could potentially occur through a levy similar in concept to the Orphan Well Fund.

o Direct funding from industry should be accompanied by representation on the Management Committee or some other allowance to allow for a voice in related dialogues, recognizing at the same time that this creates the potential for perceived bias.

• Industry could help to educate landowners and increase their own capacity through information sessions delivered in partnership with the BC Oil and Gas Commission and Surface Rights Board.

D-3

January 31, 2019


FAO Staff Findings

• The FAO website reportedly received an average of 13 visits per day in 2018 with 67% leaving after viewing the first page.

• FAO staff expressed the general principle that landowners should not pay for support, although there already exists a form of cost recovery on title searches and printing that is performed for clients.

• The provision of funding from the BC Ministry of Agriculture was described as having more positive optics, in that the BC Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is apparently perceived as working for the interests of industry.

• FAO staff suggested that the National Energy Board could be a source of funding, as the FAO helps clients regarding NEB pipelines and the NEB has expressed support in the past for the office.


• Provincial government representatives raised that some landowners could pay for legal services from the FAO if there was a form of accompanying subsidy, and that a system such as the Orphan Well Fund could serve as another mechanism by which the FAO could be funded.

Alberta Farmers’ Advocate Office

As a component of this evaluation, online research was carried out to understand the services provided by the Farmers’ Advocate Office of Alberta. The Farmers’ Advocate Office of Alberta resides within the Alberta Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and was established in 1973. The Alberta FAO provides services related to:4

As such, while there are similarities between the BC FAO model and the Farmers’ Advocate Office of Alberta, the scope of issues that the Alberta office handles is broader, and access to these services is provided to landowners across the Province.

4 http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/ofa2621

Energy, Utilities and Surface Rights

⚫Provide information and advice on legislation and policy, landowner rights and responsibilities

⚫Assist with mediation and dispute resolution services

⚫Well Water Restoration or Replacement Program

Rural Disputes

⚫Dispute resolution for conflicts between farmers and individuals, government or agri-business including nuisance complaints and as it relates to agri-insurance

⚫Does not intervene if legal counsel is involved

Farm Implement Act

⚫ Help to settle warranty complaints or situations where machinery does not perform

Advocacy

⚫Brings the concerns of rural landowners to decision makers

⚫ Advocates for legislative and policy change on behalf of rural communities

Farmers’ Advocate Office of Alberta

D-3

January 31, 2019

http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/ofa2621


JURISDICTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND CAPACITY

This section describes the findings related to the jurisdictional responsibility to provide the services currently offered by the FAO. This includes findings of various organizational mandates, expertise, capacity and perceived independence.


• All landowners expressed a belief that the FAO should exist as a standalone office and that no other known entities can readily provide the same services in a manner that fulfills needs today. Taking a longer-term perspective, the BC Oil and Gas Commission and the Surface Rights Board are two organizations that some landowners (21%) mentioned had the information or capacity to potentially provide these services. The caveats, from the perspective of consulted landowners, were that information from these organizations can be difficult to find and access, and that the BC Oil and Gas Commission may not be viewed as an independent organization.

• A few (3) landowners did inquire about how the related services were provided in Alberta and indicated that there may be learnings to be gained from the Alberta FAO, as oil and gas development is so widespread in the province.


• The Management Committee noted that the information the FAO provides comes from a combination of the contractor’s interpretation of various government acts and regulations as well as being produced in collaboration with the Surface Rights Board and the BC Oil and Gas Commission. They expressed that the FAO staff hold much of the information themselves, and not all information is available without speaking to them directly.

• The Management Committee could not readily identify any other organization that could take on such functions in the shorter term and be perceived as independent.


• The PRRD was similarly challenged to identify another organization that could readily begin to provide FAO related services and be perceived as independent. The BC Oil and Gas Commission was raised though, as an organization that had a mandate and expertise that might align to the purpose of the FAO.


• Land agents noted that there are no apparent agencies capable of providing the FAO services in the shorter term, as marked by the lack of proposals submitted to the PRRD under the most recent procurement for the FAO.

• It was raised that the Surface Rights Board provides unbiased information along with decisions and could potentially offer some of the services currently provided by the FAO, subject to the proper resourcing.


• Provincial government representatives faced the same challenges in identifying an apparent alternative to what currently exists with the FAO. It was raised that further collaboration between the BC Oil and Gas Commission, ministries and the Surface Rights Board would result in current along with helpful information that the FAO could provide to landowners.

D-3

January 31, 2019


ADDITIONAL FINDINGS

This section bridges what was learned from the various consultations by providing general observations that are not directly related to one of the four areas of focus for the evaluation.

• During the conduct of this evaluation, it became apparent that there is an impression among some landowners and the FAO staff that the purpose of the review was to find a way to shut down the office. This seeming lack of trust extends to the relationships that are in place to fund and manage an organization such as the FAO, as marked by the potential withholding of information and limited transparency of results.

• The Management Committee indicated that the “advocacy” role of the office needs to be much more clearly specified. The early rationale for the office was founded on providing information to landowners and preparing reports to the Management Committee that advocated for changes to the system for the betterment of landowners. The FAO is perceived as having now taken the stance that advocacy means representing clients at official hearings and meetings.

• There is a risk to the sustainment of FAO services in the near term, given a high reliance on the contracted personnel and apparent shortcomings in knowledge along with information management at the Farmers’ Advocacy Office.

• One of the services that the FAO offers is providing lease values on similar or nearby properties. The related data is sourced through the Surface Rights Board database. It was raised among those consulted that oil and gas companies may not be filing their lease agreements regularly. This makes it difficult, in turn, for landowners to research fair compensation rates for their area.

D-3

January 31, 2019


GENERAL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Farmers’ Advocacy Office (FAO) provides landowners in the northeast of B.C. with a valued portfolio of supports and for the majority of those being served, the satisfaction with these services is high although more could be done to inform expectations. Specifics in terms of the landowners accessing these services though, or what depth or breadth of support they are receiving, is unclear. Other complicating factors are that the FAO may be going beyond the scope of services as permitted under its funding arrangements and providing landowners with guidance on compensation that is subjective and not necessarily evidence-based.

While additional costs of the FAO could potentially be paid for by landowners, the overarching intention is to ensure accessibility. The introduction of an industry-pay model through a levy on applications filed by the oil and gas companies is an option. The pursuit of such an option would also need to factor in the expressed desire among industry stakeholders for participation on the Management Committee or its equivalent, which is a concern for landowners who value the office’s independence. The ongoing provision of Provincial funding is considered appropriate, and this could be expanded with the pursuit of Federal funding, primarily from the National Energy Board.

No other organization could be identified that has a mandate, expertise and capacity to assume the provision of services currently offered by the FAO over the shorter term. An accompanying risk is that knowledge and information management at the office seems limited, with there being a heavy reliance on the experience of a few individuals. Combined with the findings that relationships need to be re-built, and trust re-established between stakeholders, as well as action taken to avoid misinterpretation on roles and functions, a staged strategy is needed to provide for long term sustainability of an FAO in British Columbia.

RECOMMENDATIONS

MNP recommends a transitionary period whereby FAO services will continue to be provided to landowners, relationships will be strengthened, roles along with expectations will be clarified, and improvements put in place with data analytics as well as knowledge management to inform future steps.

Short Term

In the short term, MNP recommends that the PRRD and the Province continue to fund the FAO for a period of one to two years under a renewed agreement. This amendment should also set out:

• Clarification on the “advocacy” role of the FAO. Advocacy in this sense refers to the provision of recommendations to improvements to government policy, regulation and/or processes.

• Requirements for the FAO to put in place unique client identifiers (that maintain individual confidentiality for reporting purposes) coupled with a case management approach to staff interactions with clientele. Each client file should include, at a minimum:

o Date and time of meetings

o Duration of meetings

o Type of services provided.

Tracking should also include the ability to quantify the number of inquiries related to industries outside of oil and gas.

• Explicit reporting requirements including performance metrics on the number of clients assisted during the period, type of assistance provided, time commitment with individual clients, and the realization of outcomes as described in the earlier logic model. A sample of such reporting is provided in Appendix C. Added to this would be quarterly reporting on methods that resulted in successful issue resolution, the types of issues being escalated along with related implications, and recommendations for changes to legislation, policy and services that would improve the system for landowners or improve the relationship between communities and industry.

• Requirements for the contractor to include reference to the sources of their funding in all FAO communications materials, events and on their website.

D-3

January 31, 2019


This will ensure that the needed and valued supports remain accessible while progress is made on the other aspects warranting attention, notably:

1. Rebuilding of relationships between the FAO contractor and the Management Committee through information sharing meetings and facilitated discussions on the roles along with interests of each organization related to the services provided by the office. Without trust in these relationships, fracturing and misinformation will be evident, including the absence of transparency on whether or not landowners are getting the services they require.

2. A proactive approach to communications, beginning with joint information sessions for landowners which would:

a. Include representation from the PRRD, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, BC Oil and Gas Commission, Surface Rights Board, the FAO and industry.

b. Provide basic information that a landowner needs to know when oil and gas representatives approach them, their rights, administrative requirements and the roles combined with responsibilities of each of the representative groups.

c. Clarify for landowners the role and scope of the FAO, and how it is funded.

It should also be noted that the existing agreement between the PRRD and the FAO contractor includes requirements for reporting that are not currently being met. The PRRD, and in turn the Management Committee, will need to remain proactive in monitoring the quality of the reports received from the FAO contractor. This implies that capacity, be it staff or contracted, will be in place for the quality assurance function to be maintained, and that if the reporting from the FAO does not include what is required by the contract, responsive action is taken (e.g., such as withholding the quarterly installment until the reporting requirements are met).

Medium to Long Term

During the transitionary period, the PRRD and the Management Committee as a whole should have a more robust set of data to create a fulsome profile of the FAO’s services, utilization, and associated results. In addition, there should be a more wide-spread understanding of the contributions of the PRRD and other members of the Management Committee toward making these supports available. With this foundation in place, the opportunity exists to position in the medium to longer term for:

• Pursuing alternative service delivery models to ensure sustained support is provided to landowners. These models could include:

o Provision of administrative services through the PRRD and value-added services through contract.

o Implementing some form of industry pay model whereby a portion of industry application fees is used to fund the activities of the FAO. This model would require the allocation of a portion of industry fees and related consultations with the provincial government as well as industry to implement properly.

• Putting in place additional cost-recovery arrangements for value added services such as charging clients for accompaniment at Surface Rights Board hearings or in negotiations. It would need to be clearly understood by clients though, that this does not constitute legal representation.

• Determining the imperatives and resourcing of a provincial model that has a broader scope than the current FAO, such as that used in Alberta. With the improved reporting from the FAO, the Management Committee should be able to determine if the need for services extends beyond the Peace River Region, and outside of the oil and gas industry. If services are to be provided beyond the region (such as for provincial pipelines) or include other industries (such as forestry or alternative energy) a provincial Farmers’ Advocate Office may be more appropriate.

D-3

January 31, 2019


APPENDICES

APPENDIX A – DATA SOURCES

Document Review

• FAO Quarterly Reports

• FAO Annual Reports

• BC Oil and Gas Commission Annual Reports

• Surface Rights Board Annual Reports

• News articles related to the FAO

• 2012 FAO Service Review Report

• FAO and PRRD Agreement

• FAO Memorandum of Understanding

Website Review

• Peace River Regional District website

• FAO Website and associated links

• Surface Rights Board website

• BC Oil and Gas Commission website

• Alberta Farmers’ Advocate Office website and associated links

Interviews

• Landowners

• Farmers’ Advocacy Office Staff

• PRRD Directors

• PRRD Staff

• FAO Management Committee

• Industry Land Agents

• Provincial Government Agencies

D-3

January 31, 2019


APPENDIX B – PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION TOOLS

Interview Guide: Farmers’ Advocacy Office Staff

Introductory/Background

0. Please describe each of your roles here at the Farmer’s Advisory Office.

1. A review of the FAO was completed in 2012. How was this review received?

1.a. What changes were made as a result of this review?

Awareness, Usage and Satisfaction

2. What services do you offer at the FAO?

3. How aware are landowners of the FAO and its services?

4. Are any landowners are not accessing the FAO services due to lack of awareness or understanding? Please explain.

5. How have the services offered by the FAO evolved over time?

6. Do you think there are any gaps in the current services the FAO provides to landowners?

7. How satisfied are landowners with the services provided by the FAO?

7.a. How are you able to measure or track this?

8. How much time would you estimate you spend with each client?

D-3

January 31, 2019


9. How much time would you estimate goes to each type of issue or service offering?

Scope of Services

10. What trends or changes do you see occurring that may impact the types of services required by landowners?

11. What trends or changes do you see occurring that may impact the methods with which landowners access services?

12. Should the FAO provide services outside of oil and gas related projects? If so, what services? For which industries?

Delivery Model

13. What proportion of your work happens here in the office? On the phone? At another location?

14. What services, if any, could the FAO charge clients for?

15. Beyond the existing funders (Province and Regional District) where else might funding for the FAO

come from?

Governance Model

16. Where does the information that you provide to landowners originate? i.e. interpretation of regulations and legislation.

17. Where else do landowners go to get this sort of information?

Other/Wrap Up 18. Do you have any other information you’d like to share with us?

D-3

January 31, 2019


Interview Guide: Landowners

1. Tell me about yourself and about your farm/land in the region.

2. Have you ever had dealings with Oil and Gas representatives with regards to access to your land?

3. Are you aware of the Farmer’s Advocacy Office?

3.a. How were you made aware?

4. What services are you aware of that the FAO provides?

5. What FAO services have you used?

6. Were you satisfied with the services that were provided to you? Please explain.

7. What services does the FAO not currently offer that you’d like to see offered?

8. Are any landowners are not accessing the FAO services due to lack of awareness or understanding?


10. What trends or changes do you see occurring that may impact the types of services that you require, or the way you access services?


D-3

January 31, 2019


12. Have you accessed FAO services online?

13. Have you accessed FAO services in-person?

14. Are there any types of value-added services that you, or other land owners, may be willing to pay

for? Ex: information is free, representation has a fee

15. How do you see industry’s role in terms of paying for this service?

16. Where else do you get the types of information you can get from the FAO? Ex: info in surface rights

board, lease payments etc.

17. What organizations or agencies do you see as independent of this topic who could fund or provide

these services?

18. Who else should we be contacting with regards to this? Specifically, landowners?

19. Do you have any other information you’d like to share with us?

D-3

January 31, 2019


Interview Guide: Industry Land Agents

1. Please describe your role as it relates to the Farmer’s Advocate Office

Awareness and Use of Services

2. To your knowledge, what percentage of landowners that you interact with have accessed the FAO services in their dealings with industry?

3. What reasoning would you give for landowners who do not access FAO services? Ex: high capacity, lack of awareness

Scope of Services

4. How have you seen the services offered by the FAO evolved over time?


6. What trends or changes do you see occurring that may impact the types of services required by landowners or methods with which they access services?


Financial Models

8. What services could the FAO charge clients for?

9. In what way could industry cover some of the costs for the services offered by the FAO?

Governance Models

10. Where does the information provided by the FAO originate?

D-3

January 31, 2019


11. What organizations or agencies are perceived by landowners and industry as independent?

General Questions

12. Who else should we be contacting with regards to this?


D-3

January 31, 2019


Interview Guide: Management Committee

1. Please describe your role as it relates to the Farmer’s Advisory Office

2. A review of the FAO was completed in 2012. How was this review received?

2.a. What changes were made as a result of this review?






8. What trends or changes do you see occurring that may impact the types of services required by landowners or methods with which they access services?


10. How should the FAO balance an online presence with a brick and mortar location?

D-3

January 31, 2019


11. What financial elements of the FAO are reported to the Management Committee?

12. How is the FAO performing financially under the existing model?


13.a. What might this user-pay model look like?


come from?


16. What organizations or agencies have a mandate that aligns to the objectives of the FAO?




D-3

January 31, 2019


Interview Guide: Regional Directors

1. Please describe your role as it relates to the Farmer’s Advisory Office






7. What trends or changes do you see occurring that may impact the types of services required by landowners or methods by which they access services?


9. How should the FAO balance an online presence with a brick and mortar location?

10. How is the FAO performing financially under the existing model?


11.a. What might this user-pay model look like?

D-3

January 31, 2019



come from?


14. What organizations or agencies have a mandate that aligns to the objectives of the FAO?




D-3

January 31, 2019


Interview Guide: Provincial Government Agencies

1. Tell me about your role as it relates to Oil and Gas development in the Peace region.

Services

2. What services are you aware of that the FAO provides?

3. Have you experienced staff of the FAO speaking on behalf of landowners in dealings with your organization?

4. What services does the FAO not currently offer that you think they should offer?

5. Are any landowners are not accessing the FAO services that could benefit from the services?

Scope

6. What trends or changes do you see occurring that may impact the types of services landowners require?


Funding

8. Are there any types of value-added services that you think landowners may be willing to pay for? Ex: information is free, representation has a fee

9. Do you see a role for industry to play in terms of paying for this service?

10. Do you see any other organizations/government agencies or Ministries that could fund the FAO?

D-3

January 31, 2019


11. What type of interaction occurs between the FAO and your organization to ensure the FAO is

presenting accurate information?


D-3

January 31, 2019


Landowner Survey

1. Are you aware of the Farmer’s Advocacy Office?

Yes

No

2. Have you had interactions with oil and gas companies on your land?

Yes

No

Page 2

3. Where did you get information to help you in your interactions with oil and gas company representatives? If yes to Q2 and no to Q1

4. Where type of assistance could you have benefited from in your interactions? If yes to Q2 and no to Q1

Page 3

5. Have you used any Farmer’s Advocacy Office services?

Yes

No

6. Why have you not used the services offered by the FAO? If no to Q5

I have not had interactions with oil and gas representatives on my land

I am able to navigate interactions with oil and gas representatives on my own

Other

Page 4

7. How were you made aware of the Farmer’s Advocacy Office? If yes to Q1

Neighbour

Industry Association

Industry

Other

8. What services are you aware of that the FAO provides? Select all that apply If yes to Q1

D-3

January 31, 2019


Walk- in information

Phone- in information

Computer use

Room use

Surface lease values

Working with land agents

Other

9. What FAO services have you used? Select all that apply If yes to Q2

Walk- in information

Phone- in information

Computer use

Room use

Surface lease values

Working with land agents

Other

10. How satisfied are you with the services that were provided to you? If yes to Q2

1 – not satisfied 2 3 neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

4 5 – very satisfied

Please explain.

11. How have you accessed FAO services? Select all that apply If yes to Q2

In-Person

Over the Phone

Online

12. What services does the FAO not currently offer that you’d like to see offered? If yes to Q1

13. Are any landowners are not accessing the FAO services due to lack of awareness or understanding? If yes to Q1

D-3

January 31, 2019


Yes

No

14. What trends or changes do you see occurring that may impact the types of services that you require, or the way you access services? If yes to Q2

15. Should the FAO provide services outside of oil and gas related projects? If yes to Q1

Yes

No

If so, what services? For which industries?

16. Please provide any additional comments that you have relating to the Farmer’s Advocacy Office:

D-3

January 31, 2019


APPENDIX C – SAMPLE REPORTING TEMPLATE

Full List of Services Provided in Quarter

Client ID

Date of Service

Service Duration

Issue Discussed

Service Provided

Resolution Notes

123456 November 14, 2018

1 hour Compensation Surface Lease Lookup

Not Resolved Client believes land value is higher than that in nearby examples.

November 16, 2018

1 hour Compensation Negotiation held at FAO Office

Resolved Client and industry representative arrived at compensation rate. Rate was 10% higher than original industry offer based on client’s explanation of value.

123457 November 15, 2018

0.5 hour Administrative Assistance with forms

Resolved Client forms completed.

Summary of Services Provided in Quarter

Total Clients in Quarter

This number should only count each client once (i.e., unique ID’s)

Average Hours Spent Per Client

Service Provided Number of Clients Utilizing Service

Total Hours of Service Provision

Surface Lease Lookup

Negotiation

Assistance with Forms

Rent Review

Explanation of Rights

D-3

January 31, 2019

farmers’ advocacy office evaluation presentation to: peace...

Documents