pilot application adaptive design & assessment policy … · pilot application adaptive design...

Pilot Application

Adaptive Design & Assessment Policy Tool

(ADAPTool)

Government of British Columbia Agriculture Programs

Prepared by:B.C. Ministry of Agriculture Climate Action TeamInternational Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentAdaptive Resource Management Ltd

Prepared for:B.C. Ministry of Agriculture B.C. Ministry of Environment(Climate Action Secretariat)

December 2013

© 2014 The International Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentPublished by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

International Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentThe International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) contributes to sustainable development by advancing policy recommendations on international trade and investment, economic policy, climate change and energy, and management of natural and social capital, as well as the enabling role of communication technologies in these areas. We report on international negotiations and disseminate knowledge gained through collaborative projects, resulting in more rigorous research, capacity building in developing countries, better networks spanning the North and the South, and better global connections among researchers, practitioners, citizens and policy-makers.

IISD’s vision is better living for all—sustainably; its mission is to champion innovation, enabling societies to live sustainably. IISD is registered as a charitable organization in Canada and has 501(c)(3) status in the United States. IISD receives core operating support from the Government of Canada, provided through the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and from the Province of Manitoba. The Institute receives project funding from numerous governments inside and outside Canada, United Nations agencies, foundations and the private sector.

Head Office161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 0Y4 Tel: +1 (204) 958-7700 | Fax: +1 (204) 958-7710 | Website: www.iisd.org

2013 ADAPTool PILOT APPLICATION Adaptive Design & Assessment Policy Tool (ADAPTool): Government of British Columbia agriculture programs

With support from Natural Resources Canada through the Adaptation Platform

2013 ADAPTool APPLICATIONGovernment of British Columbia Agriculture Programs

ii

For more information on climate change impacts and adaptation in Canada, please visit: Adaptation.NRCan.gc.ca

www.iisd.org


iii

Project Delivery Team

Ian McLachlan (Ministry of Agriculture Climate Action Team Lead) led the B.C. ADAPTool pilot and was lead author of this report.

Samantha Charlton (Ministry of Agriculture & Boulevard Transportation Group) co-led the pilot in the Ministry of Agriculture and co-authored this report.

Stephen Tyler (IISD/Adaptive Resource Management) provided project coordination, technical expertise and training on adaptive policy-making and the ADAPTool, contributed to analysis and co-authored this report.

Kari Hansen Tyler (Adaptive Resource Management) provided training, analysis and contributed to reporting.

Darren Swanson (IISD) led project development and design.

Dimple Roy (IISD) led and managed the overall, multi-province project.

Emily MacNair (B.C. Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative) provided expertise and advice related to climate change, adaptation and B.C. agriculture.

Willow Minaker and Jennifer Pouliotte (Ministry of Environment) coordinated the B.C. component and the co-funding contributions to this Natural Resources Canada project, and provided feedback and adaptation policy guidance. Willow organized the Victoria training workshop.

Acknowledgements

We thank the following program leads and staff for their engagement with this pilot: Pat DeBoer, Grant Halm, Leslie Macdonald, Chris Zabek, Orlando Schmidt, George Geldart, Bert van Dalfsen, Alison Fox, Hannah Cavendish-Palmer, Francis Njenga, Dave Trotter, Lisa Zabek, Tracy Huepplesheuser, Gayle Jesperson, Geoff Hughes-Games, Brent Barclay, Ted van der Gulik, David Coney, Terri Giacomazzi, Chris Kay, Fiona Cubitt, Dave Woodske, Tom Droppo, Don Low, Bill Cox, Mark Sweeney, Jennifer Turner, Randy Cairns, Perry Grilz, Doug Fraser and Val Miller. Leslie MacDonald and Ted van der Gulik also provided essential project leadership. Sean Darling provided an external review from a strategic perspective.

We appreciate the guidance and advice received from Matthew Wiens, who led the Manitoba ADAPTool pilot in 2012.

We acknowledge the B.C. Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative, whose B.C. Agriculture Climate Change Risk and Opportunity Assessment series provided foundational material for this ADAPTool pilot.


iv

Executive Summary

1. Introduction

This pilot of the Adaptive Design and Assessment Policy Tool (ADAPTool) for British Columbia (B.C.) agriculture has been undertaken through a partnership involving funding from Natural Resources Canada, adaptive policy expertise from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), funding and staff support from the B.C. Climate Action Secretariat (CAS), and in-kind staff contributions from the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture (AGRI); the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations; and the Ministry of Environment. The project builds on work by the B.C. Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative (CAI), which provided advice and expertise.

The objective of the pilot was to test the application of the ADAPTool in the B.C. context, to provide the ministry with a systematic assessment and understanding of the potential for its policies and programs to support climate change adaptation in the agriculture sector, and to raise awareness and “mainstream” consideration of adaptation across the ministry. The pilot aligns with the B.C. government’s climate change adaptation strategy and the Ministry of Agriculture’s 2013–18 focus on adaptation through the B.C. Agrifoods Innovation Strategy and Growing Forward 2 programming. The pilot also aligns with B.C. Agrifoods: A Strategy for Growth—climate change presents significant risks to and opportunities for the industry, and successful adaptation will be required for the sectoral growth envisioned in the strategy.

2. Adaptive Program Assessment

Policies and programs that are adaptable to changing external conditions can better avoid unexpected failures and unintended consequences, and take advantage of new opportunities. The ADAPTool helps analysts assess whether policies and programs support adaptation to a particular stressor. The tool also provides an assessment of the policies or programs themselves, to show in what ways they are inherently adaptable. While the tool can be applied for any stressor, and in relation to any public policy domain, this application focuses on climate change and B.C. government agricultural programs.

3. B.C. Agriculture Commodity Sectors and Vulnerabilities

Commodity sector vulnerabilities were determined through referring to the CAI risk and opportunity assessments (2012), which discussed impacts and vulnerabilities in regions across B.C. These are shown in Table ES2: Agriculture Commodity Sectors and Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Stressors, at the end of this executive summary. The vulnerability assessment also identified 158 adaptation actions that producers could be expected to take in response to these vulnerabilities, across all the identified subsectors (please refer to Appendix A of the full report). The climate stressors considered were excess moisture, drought, heat, flooding and sea level rise.

4. Programs Assessed

Fourteen programs were selected for assessment, based on their importance to the agriculture sector, their interface with climate adaptation, whether program changes were being considered (which the assessment might help inform) and whether there were “champions” in the program who were interested in participating. The programs assessed were: AgriStability, Production Insurance, the Regional Agrologist Network, Strengthening Farming, Agroforestry,


v

Range Management, Invasive Alien Plant Program, Pest Management/Plant Health, the Environmental Farm Plan program, the Beneficial Management Practices program, Agricultural Emergency Management, Agriculture Water Management program, Water Act modernization and the Agri-Food Business Development program.

The Ministry of Agriculture’s Marine Fisheries and Seafood program was also assessed. However, because the stressors and associated vulnerabilities for fisheries and seafood are very different than those for land-based agriculture, the assessment for the program was done independently and written up in a separate report.

5. Key Findings

The overall program assessment summary is shown in Table ES3 below. These programs were not developed with a specific intent to support adaptation to climate change. In that respect, this assessment is not an evaluation of the current programs, as it does not consider their objectives and intent. The assessment does reveal that, for a variety of reasons, some of the programs support adaptation directly, others less so, and some offer only limited connection to climate adaptation measures. The assessment results are not meant to suggest deficiencies or failures in the programs, but rather to flag measures that could make them more adaptable, if climate change is to be a significant policy driver for future agricultural programming. Recommendations for each program are presented in Section 7 and Section 9 of the report. This executive summary draws attention to the most important conclusions and recommendations.

Five of the 14 programs are rated as highly adaptive in relation to climate change (Range Management, Environmental Farm Plan, Beneficial Management Practices, Water Act modernization and Agri-Food Business Development). This means that, even without explicit ministry policy priorities for climate adaptation, these programs provide good support for producers to adapt to anticipated climate changes. In addition, these programs can be expected to adapt well to unexpected external stressors at multiple scales, whether in climate or other areas, due to their inherent design and structure. It should be noted that two of these five highly rated program areas are managed outside the Ministry of Agriculture (Range Management and Water Act modernization).

In general, the program suite (all 14 programs taken together) provided broad indirect support to farm operators who will be facing more frequent climate change-related decisions. The suite of programs was strong on information for producers, with some limited financial backstopping for risk management. These strengths are consistent with a programming approach that provides information and risk management to enable producers to make informed decisions in their own context. There is concern, however, that some of these programs will face challenges as the impacts of climate change become more pronounced.

Few of the programs scored highly in responding directly to the potential adaptation needs of producers. This is not surprising: because the scope of the analysis is province-wide, and the agriculture sector and regional climate impacts are so diverse, one would expect to find few programs that support many specific climate adaptation measures. In applying the ADAPTool, broad and flexible programs tend to score better than narrow, targeted ones because they can provide indirect support across a range of activities. However, the adaptation analysis worksheet showed that 54 out of the 158 adaptation measures identified have no direct program support. These include:

• Development and testing of new crop varieties and cultivars

• Diversification of feed sources, feed management, nutritional monitoring and new varieties of feed across sectors


vi

• Better information on emerging pest and disease threats, and information and practices on pest and disease management across sectors

• Adaptation actions related to improving drainage and being prepared for flooding

The first two areas relate to innovation by producers to respond to changing conditions and take advantage of new opportunities. The last two areas have broader implications that involve multiple government agencies, mandates and priorities. Agricultural producers are, by nature, responsive and adaptive, but they are constrained by access to information (e.g., about new technologies, production systems, pests or climate risks) and challenges in coordinating these priorities with various government agencies and mandates. In particular, the Regional Agrologist Network has the potential to be a conduit for locally appropriate information in a changing climate, but the program is currently limited in the scale and scope of the services it is able to provide. Agricultural producers are also constrained by access to financing, and as climate variability increases, they will face increased risk in both traditional and new production approaches. Current programs support risk management (especially AgriStability and Production Insurance) within the bounds of conventional practices. These risk management programs may need to be updated in light of emerging adaptation pressures, changing risk profiles and new production systems.

Despite the generally satisfactory adaptability of this suite of programs, there are four areas of concern in the context of climate change adaptation:

1. Across the entire suite of programs, there are few examples of support for building adaptive capacity, beyond access to information and financing. Support for technical innovation, infrastructure, new institutions and networks is limited. This suite of programs also does not address the increasing pressure on producer margins imposed by growing climate risks in future. This changing profile of climate risk and vulnerability will not be equitably distributed and will increase pressure on some producers to exit the sector.

2. Risk management programs may be stressed by the increasing impacts of climate change. As the risk profile of production practices changes in response to climate variability, it is likely that gaps in risk management and financial support will become more evident. This will not only affect actuarial risks (production insurance), but also fiscal risks for disaster response and other production risks.

3. The support available for producer-level disaster risk reduction through adaptation planning and preparedness will need greater focus as climate risks increase. The ministry’s emergency management program is well established and effective in planning for disaster response, but there is an emerging need to support producers taking proactive on-farm risk reduction and avoidance measures. This is in addition to the need for regional and local infrastructure that reduces risk—infrastructure that has significant fiscal implications beyond the Ministry of Agriculture.

4. There is a significant gap in research and information to help the agriculture sector respond to the impacts of climate change. This includes: development and testing of new crop varieties and cultivars; information on emerging pest and disease threats; information on and practices for pest and disease management across sectors; and nutritional monitoring and new varieties of feed across sectors.


vii

6. Key Recommendations

Detailed recommendations are provided for each program in Sections 7 and 9 and are summarized in Table ES1 below. The highest priority recommendations are for AgriStability, Production Insurance, Agricultural Emergency Management, Invasive Alien Plant Program and Pest Management/Plant Health.

AgriStability

• Changes in climate may affect producer margins in successive years, as well as producers’ ability to meet program criteria. Monitoring the program to assess whether increasing climate variability and extremes are affecting the AgriStability program’s ability to meet its policy objectives is recommended, as a means of preparing for future program design discussions.

• Employ greater use of multistakeholder deliberation in implementation and decentralize decision making to aid in responding to regional diversity and increasing climate variability.

Production Insurance

• Regular actuarial certifications should consider whether the effects of climate change are affecting recent loss experience to an extent that shifts in coverage and/or premium rates are required. The certifications should also consider if self-sustainability mechanisms remain adequate.

• Production insurance should be evaluated to determine if the program and the premium structure adequately support the introduction of new and potentially better-adapted crops and cultivars and encourage other innovative adaptation measures that farmers adopt due to climate change.

• Evaluate production insurance governance models in other jurisdictions to determine options for increased decentralization of decision making.

Agricultural Emergency Management

• Conduct a review of provincial agricultural vulnerabilities to extreme events, including identification of significant gaps in preparedness and risk mitigation at the broad scale (e.g., infrastructure issues).

• Collaborate with the B.C. Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative on projects to pilot risk reduction measures with producers.

• Expand engagement with local authorities and agriculture sectors to increase their emergency preparedness and recovery for events that affect agriculture, and continue to conduct after-action event reviews.

Invasive Alien Plant Program and Pest Management/Plant Health (for both programs)

• Conduct further study of program needs and available resourcing within the next 12 months to ensure that emerging priorities are addressed.

• Consider whether current monitoring of invasive plants and emerging pests is sufficient to ensure that highest priorities and risks are being tackled as new threats emerge.

• Identify priority areas for research.


viii

Recommendations for the Regional Agrologist Network, Strengthening Farming, Range Management, Environmental Farm Plan Program, Beneficial Management Practices Program, Agroforestry, Agriculture Water Management, Water Act modernization and Agri-Food Business Development are summarized in Table ES1 below and detailed in Sections 7 and 9 of the report.

Additional priority recommendations for the Ministry of Agriculture are:

• Create a climate adaptation contact group with a designated representative from each program area, coordinated by the ministry’s climate action team, to support the government’s strategic direction to mainstream adaptation across ministry programs.

• Repeat this assessment using the latest version of ADAPTool by 2016, timing the next assessment to inform negotiations for Growing Forward 3.

• Include the Agricultural Land Commission in the next ADAPTool assessment, because of the potential changes in the value and use of agricultural land implied by climate change and related adaptation measures. (Provincial programs related to the planning and management of agricultural land are important for effective producer adaptation.)

• Working with industry, producers and experts, further develop the list of adaptive actions in the vulnerability assessment to ensure identified vulnerabilities and adaptation actions reflect on-the-ground experience and priorities.

TABLE ES1: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS (HIGHEST PRIORITIES ARE SHADED)

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

AgriStability

• Changes in climate may affect producer margins in successive years, as well as producer ability to meet program criteria. Monitoring the program to assess whether increasing climate variability and extremes are affecting the AgriStability program’s ability to meet its policy objectives is recommended, as a means of preparing for future program design discussions.

• Employ greater use of multi-stakeholder deliberation in implementation, and more decentralization of decision making, to aid the program in responding to regional diversity and increasing climate variability.




• Evaluate alternative governance models to determine options for increased decentralized decision making.

Agricultural Emergency

Management

• Conduct a review of provincial agricultural vulnerabilities to extreme events, including identification of significant gaps in preparedness and risk mitigation on the broad scale (e.g., infrastructure issues).

• Collaborate with the B.C. Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative to pilot producer risk-reduction measures.


Invasive Alien Plants & Pest

Management and Plant Health

• Within the next 12 months, study needs, gaps and resourcing, to ensure emerging priorities are addressed.




ix

Regional Agrologist Network

• Consider the business case for improving extension support as farm management complexity increases due to climate change.

• Build feedback loops into ministry programs that enable regional agrologists to report back on key issues and opportunities “on the ground.”

Strengthening Farming

• As climate change becomes a greater concern for farmers and local governments, it would be beneficial for the program to extend its engagement on climate issues that relate to its planning and coordination mandate. This would include anticipating and being prepared to respond to the emerging issues.

• Promote inclusion of climate change and disaster risk reduction as elements of planning for agriculture at the local government level.

Agroforestry

• Investigate and monitor demand and adjust services to incorporate emerging priorities related to climate.

• Expand regional demonstrations and development of extension materials linked to climate adaptation.

• Support greater integration of agroforestry with land-use objectives at provincial, regional and local levels.

Range Management

• Conduct regular reviews of program needs and available resourcing to ensure that emerging stresses from climate change can be effectively managed.

• Continue to conduct monitoring and forage analysis to inform decisions about range use and allocation.

Environmental Farm Plan

• Current program design is well suited to support assessment of changing environmental conditions and the farming practices that will enable producers to manage these. Producer adaptation would be assisted if the program continues to develop its information materials and expertise in this area.

Beneficial Management

Practices Program

• Producer adaptation would be assisted if the program continues to develop its information materials and expertise related to climate change adaptation, especially in light of emerging insights into resilient and integrated farming systems.

Agriculture Water Management

• Continue to expand coverage to key regions of B.C. to broaden the adaptation influence of this program.

Water Act Modernization

• Support the implementation of proposed changes to the Water Act, which would generate a highly adaptive new policy framework for water management.

AgriFood Business Development

• Develop expertise related to the business implications of climate change adaptation and related building of farm commercial resilience.

MINISTRY-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Adaptation Contact Group


ADAPTool Assessment 2016

• Undertake another ADAPTool assessment by 2016, to update conclusions from this study and to inform negotiations for Growing Forward 3.

Agricultural Land Commission

• Include the Agricultural Land Commission in the next ADAPTool assessment, as provincial programs related to the planning and management of agricultural land are important for effective producer adaptation.

ADAPTOOL AND PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS

Producer Adaptive Actions

• Work with industry, producers and experts to further develop the list of adaptive actions in the vulnerability assessment to ensure identified vulnerabilities and adaptation actions reflect on-the-ground experience and priorities.


ix

TABLE ES2: AGRICULTURE COMMODITY SECTORS AND VULNERABILITIES TO CLIMATE CHANGE STRESSORS

SECTOR VULNERABILITY

Grains and oilseeds Precipitation variability, yield, quality, pests and disease, soil erosion (drought or extreme precipitation events), soil moisture limitations, multi-year crop loss

PoultryWater availability; feed supply disruptions/cost due to impacts elsewhere, disease management, heat and humidity stress and cooling requirements: increased energy use, flooding and increased precipitation

Dairy producers

Water availability; feed quality, supply, cost; disease management; barns could flood (risk to animals and equipment; mostly in the Fraser Valley and Lower Mainland); slowed animal growth/production: increased energy costs to cool barns; water shortages (mostly outside the Fraser Valley)

Cattle and other livestock

Grazing season length may increase, leading to pasture stress; water availability; feed quality or price (drought); health (access to water and heat stress); excess moisture—depending on ground conditions, potential for foot rot; water quality (decreased quality with decreased quantity); natural shelter diminished—in the long run, the loss of tree cover (drought); barn heating

Swine Feed costs increase, drought and changing hydrology will reduce water availability, slowed animal growth/production: increased energy costs to cool barns, increased flood risk and extreme storms

Forage

Feed quality, access to the field for harvest and grazing; length of the grazing season; loss of stands and legumes due to drowning out (in Lower Mainland and south coast); decreased yields; decreased soil quality; heat stress, early dormancy, drought; increased variability; shortage of water (mostly pertains to areas outside Lower Mainland and south coast)

Vegetables, field crops, nursery crops, turf and sod

Soil erosion, runoff management issues; excessive soil moisture; longer horticulture season and productivity; late-season water supply pressures, drought (mostly outside Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island); localized flood risks (mostly Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Tree fruits and wine grapes

Sun scald, fruit tree stress; disease and pest management; increase in water demand; extreme precipitation events, high winds, hailstorms; runoff management, soil erosion; increased variability affects pollination, spring bud break and frost risk; changing production conditions/variability; potentially wetter conditions at time of harvest

Berries

Increased risk from precipitation variability, pest and disease management, declining productivity in heat, salinity, earlier and unpredictable frost dates, variability, flooding (mostly in Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island), loss of crop due to drowning out (mostly in Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island), water shortages (mostly outside of Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Greenhouses Increased overcast weather (=reduced sunshine), higher temperatures, reduced access to water, increased heavy snowfall events, new pests

All sectorsIncreased variability and complexity; lack of water supply—impacts to regional infrastructure; flooding—impacts to regional infrastructure


x

TABLE ES3: PROGRAM ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Key: AgriStability (AS); Production Insurance (PI); Regional Agrologist Network (RAN); Strengthening Farming SF); Agroforestry (AF); Range Management (RM); Invasive Alien Plant Program (IP); Pest Management (PM); Agricultural Emergency Management (AEM); Agriculture Water Management (AWM); Environmental Farm Plan (EFP); Beneficial Management Practices (BMP); Water Act modernization (WAM); Agri-FoodBusiness Development (ABD).

Note: Scores range from 0 to 2. High scores are flagged green and indicate the program is contributing to adaptation needs. Low scores are flagged red, indicating that the program is not contributing to planned and autonomous adaptability. Scores in-between are flagged yellow, signifying partial contribution to adaptability.


xi

Table of Contents1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 B.C. Climate Adaptation Strategy ....................................................................................................................................................2

1.2 Ministry of Agriculture – Climate Change Adaptation ..........................................................................................................2

1.3 British Columbia Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative ...........................................................................................3

1.4 International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) ..................................................................................................3

1.5 B.C. ADAPTool Pilot – Project Process ......................................................................................................................................... 4

1.6 Purpose and Objectives .................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2.0 What is Adaptive Policy/Programming? .............................................................................................................................................5

2.1 Integrated and Forward-looking Analysis ...................................................................................................................................5

2.2 Multistakeholder Deliberation .......................................................................................................................................................5

2.3 Automatic Policy Adjustment ...................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Enabling Self-Organization and Social Networking ............................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Decentralizing Decision Making ................................................................................................................................................... 6

2.6 Promoting Variation ..........................................................................................................................................................................7

2.7 Formal Policy Review and Continuous Learning ......................................................................................................................7

3.0 The Adaptive Design and Policy Assessment Tool (ADAPTool) ............................................................................................... 8

4.0 Climate Change Stressors and Impacts .............................................................................................................................................10

4.1 Excess Moisture..................................................................................................................................................................................10

4.2 Drought .................................................................................................................................................................................................11

4.3 Heat ........................................................................................................................................................................................................11

4.4 Flooding .................................................................................................................................................................................................11

4.5 Variability ..............................................................................................................................................................................................11

4.6 Sea-Level Rise .....................................................................................................................................................................................11

5.0 Agriculture Commodity Sectors and Vulnerabilities .....................................................................................................................12

5.1 Methodology for Determining Vulnerabilities ..........................................................................................................................12

6.0 Results of Adaptability Assessment – Overall Suite of Programs .............................................................................................14

6.1 Overall ADAPTool Results ...............................................................................................................................................................14

6.2 Commodity Sector Results ............................................................................................................................................................19


xii

7.0 Program-by-Program Findings and Recommendations ...............................................................................................................23

7.1 AgriStability .........................................................................................................................................................................................23

7.2 Production Insurance .......................................................................................................................................................................24

7.3 Regional Agrologist Network ........................................................................................................................................................26

7.4 Strengthening Farming ....................................................................................................................................................................27

7.5 Agroforestry ........................................................................................................................................................................................29

7.6 Range Management ........................................................................................................................................................................30

7.7 Invasive Alien Plant Program .........................................................................................................................................................31

7.8 Pest Management/Plant Health .................................................................................................................................................32

7.9 Environmental Farm Plan Program .............................................................................................................................................33

7.10 Beneficial Management Practices Program ...........................................................................................................................34

7.11 Agricultural Emergency Management ......................................................................................................................................35

7.12 Agriculture Water Management Program .............................................................................................................................36

7.13 Water Act Modernization ............................................................................................................................................................37

7.14 Agri-Food Business Development Program ...........................................................................................................................38

8.0 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 40

8.1 Conclusions from the Program Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 40

8.2 Lessons Learned in the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture ADAPTool Pilot ............................................................................42

9.0 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................................. 44

9.1 Key Programs .................................................................................................................................................................................... 44

9.2 Ministry-Level Recommendations .............................................................................................................................................45

9.3 Tool and Process Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................46

References ............................................................................................................................................................................................................48

Appendix A: Vulnerability Analysis and Producer Adaptive Actions ..............................................................................................49

Appendix B: Program-Specific Scoring and Detailed Assessment ...................................................................................................54

Appendix C: Interviewee List .........................................................................................................................................................................68


1

1.0 Introduction

This pilot of the Adaptive Design and Assessment Policy Tool (ADAPTool) for British Columbia (B.C.) agriculture has been undertaken through a partnership involving funding from Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), adaptive policy expertise from the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), funding and staff support from the B.C. Climate Action Secretariat (CAS) and in-kind staff contributions from the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture (AGRI); the Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations; and the Ministry of Environment. The project builds on work by the B.C. Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative, which provided advice and expertise.

The pilot was intended to broaden the application of IISD’s ADAPTool, an experimental analytical tool that had never been applied in a policy context as complex and diverse as B.C.’s agriculture sector. The ADAPTool pilot also was intended to provide the ministry with a detailed and rigorous assessment of the potential for multiple policies/programs to support climate change adaptation in the agriculture sector, and to generate related discussion, networking and understanding among key staff, program leads and colleagues in other ministries.

The pilot aligns with the B.C. government’s climate adaptation action strategy and the Ministry of Agriculture’s 2013–18 focus on climate change adaptation. The pilot also aligns with B.C. Agrifoods: A Strategy for Growth—climate change presents significant risks to and opportunities for the industry, and successful adaptation will be required for the sectoral growth envisioned in the strategy (Ministry of Agriculture, 2012).

BOX 1. CONTEXT: B.C. AGRICULTURE, POLICY AND CLIMATE CHANGE In May 2013 the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions released its policy white paper called Strengthening BC’s Agriculture Sector in the Face of Climate Change (Crawford & Beveridge, 2013).1 Key points and recommendations pertain to the adaptation imperative facing the sector and the need for adaptive policy-making.

• The science to date is unequivocal: the climate is changing and getting warmer, and it is occurring faster than most climate models and projections have indicated.

• The agriculture sector in B.C. is characterized by an unusually limited land base, the prevalence of small family-owned farms and an aging producer population. These characteristics lead to a high degree of vulnerability to potential climate change impacts.

• B.C.’s farmers and agricultural organizations are now faced with increasing risk, costs and responsibility, with fewer resources at their disposal.

• The scope, scale and pace of climate change are expected to exceed anything previously experienced. To the farmer on the land, this means that the past is no longer a sufficient guide to the future.

• Governance structures are not designed to respond well to the levels of complexity, interconnectedness and speed of changes now being faced.

• Governance and decision making can develop into more adaptive forms.

• The following recommendations for government policy-makers and decision-makers aim to ensure the resilience of the agriculture sector in a changing climate:

1. Review existing governance, management and policy-making structures to increase adaptability

2. Conduct collaborative, applied research (e.g., variety trials, risk assessments)

3. Enhance training and support for climate change innovation by farm businesses

1 The report builds on the risk and opportunity assessments discussed in Section 1.3 (B.C. Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative, 2012).


2

4. Build the long-term capacity of the agriculture industry by enabling new entrants

5. Improve income stability for farmers in the short and long terms

6. Invest in climate-smart water infrastructure improvements

7. Integrate adaptation and agricultural impacts into land-use planning and management

8. Continue to protect farmland through the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and bolster the Agricultural Land Commission’s (ALC) resources to support viable agricultural production in a changing climate

9. Lay the groundwork for large-scale transitions

1.1 B.C. Climate Adaptation Strategy

In 2010 the B.C. government released its climate change adaptation strategy (Ministry of Environment, 2010). The strategy has three key goals for provincial government agencies:

1. Building a strong foundation of knowledge by:

• Engaging with research institutions to ensure they produce the scientific information needed by decision-makers

• Developing adaptation planning tools for decision-makers

• Continuing knowledge transfer and outreach activities

2. Making adaptation part of government’s business by:

• Incorporating adaptation in service plans and business planning

• Integrating adaptation into government policies, legislation and regulations

• Strengthening cross-government coordination and work with partners outside government

3. Assessing risks and implementing priority adaptation actions in sectors sensitive to climate change, such as agriculture.

1.2 Ministry of Agriculture – Climate Change Adaptation

In April 2013 the federal and B.C. governments commenced a new five-year agriculture sector funding arrangement called Growing Forward 2. With a focus on innovation, competitiveness and market development, Growing Forward 2 is intended to help the agriculture industry respond to future opportunities and realize its economic potential. In B.C., the innovation component includes climate change adaptation as a priority area. The ministry is in the process of developing its climate adaptation programming for 2013–18.2

In July 2013 the Ministry of Agriculture released the B.C. Agrifoods Innovation Strategy. Climate change adaptation is one of five focus areas in the strategy.

2 For more information about Growing Forward 2, see http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/apf/GF2/GF2.html

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/apf/GF2/GF2.html


3

1.3 British Columbia Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative

The B.C. Agriculture Council (BCAC) represents over 14,000 B.C. farmers and ranchers and close to 30 farm sector associations from all regions of the province. In 2008 BCAC initiated the B.C. Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative (CAI) to identify and analyze the impacts of climate change and climate action policy on the agriculture and food processing sectors.

In 2010 the CAI released the B.C. Agriculture Climate Change Action Plan. The action plan provides strategic direction related to climate change mitigation (reducing greenhouse gas emissions) and climate change adaptation. Priority areas related to adaptation included goals to:

• Integrate climate change adaptation into both industry and government decision making

• Improve knowledge regarding risks and opportunities associated with climate change

In 2012 the CAI released a series of risk and opportunity assessment reports.3 These reports highlight how changes in the climate may affect agricultural production in B.C. regions and the risks and opportunities associated with these impacts. The reports have several “key actions” for government and industry to “integrate consideration of agricultural resilience and climate change adaptation into decision-making frameworks concerning agriculture” (MacNair & Crawford, 2012, p. 15). The risk and opportunity assessments, and the expertise of the CAI coordinator, were foundational in identifying commodity sectors, vulnerabilities and adaptation actions for this ADAPTool pilot.

1.4 International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD)

The IISD, based in Winnipeg, is an international public policy research institute for sustainable development. IISD contributes to sustainable development by undertaking leading-edge policy research on international trade and investment, climate change and energy, and management of natural and social capital, as well as the role of communication technologies in these areas.

IISD developed ADAPTool and piloted it in Manitoba in 2012. Participants in that pilot concluded that the tool enhanced the Manitoba government’s capacity to analyze how policies and programs support climate adaptation, and identified areas to improve performance under climate change conditions. Programs assessed in Manitoba included AgriRecovery, Community Pastures, Go Teams (extension and knowledge transfer), Ag-Weather Program, Environmental Farm Action Program, Agricultural Sustainability Initiative and the Provincial Planning Regulation.4

3 These reports can be found at http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/about/document-library. 4 The report on the Manitoba application of ADAPTool can be viewed at: http://www.parc.ca/rac/fileManagement/upload/MB_DEM_Adaptive_Policy_AnalysisSummary_Report_June_2012.pdf

http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/about/document-library

http://www.parc.ca/rac/fileManagement/upload/MB_DEM_Adaptive_Policy_AnalysisSummary_Report_June_2012.pdf

http://www.parc.ca/rac/fileManagement/upload/MB_DEM_Adaptive_Policy_AnalysisSummary_Report_June_2012.pdf


4

1.5 B.C. ADAPTool Pilot – Project Process

The B.C. agriculture ADAPTool pilot is part of a national project funded in part by NRCan’s Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Division. The national project includes similar pilots in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, with support from the Province of Manitoba. In B.C., the project delivery team, consisting of staff from AGRI, IISD and CAS, worked together to plan and implement the project. This process involved several steps, as described in more detail in subsequent sections of this report: initial project scoping and selection of agriculture sector policies to be assessed, staff training in the use of the ADAPTool, adaptability assessment of selected policies and reporting. The scoping process involved determining which climate change stressors to focus on; which agricultural commodity sectors would be part of the assessment and their vulnerabilities to climate change; and anticipated adaptation actions that could be adopted by producers in response to these vulnerabilities. This scoping is described in detail in Sections 4 and 5. The delivery team also determined which AGRI programs and policies would be assessed in the pilot, a process described in Section 6. The scoping of vulnerabilities, adaptation actions and programs/policies to assess was an iterative process that occurred through phone and in-person meetings with program managers, as well as with the CAI.

Two ADAPTool training workshops, each a full day in duration, were held for AGRI participants and interested individuals from across the B.C. government. The first workshop was held on February 27, 2013, at the Ministry of Agriculture office in Victoria. The second was held on March 7, 2013, at the Ministry of Agriculture regional office in Abbotsford. Thirty-two participants from eight provincial ministries attended the Victoria training. The workshop was a broad introduction to adaptive policies and programming. The Abbotsford training session was focused on Ministry of Agriculture programming, with 14 in-person participants and seven people participating online through LiveMeeting. The Abbotsford session was also attended by the CAI coordinator, who provided expertise related to the risk and opportunity assessments and the questions and concerns that this more technical group brought forward.

Program assessments were conducted by both project team members and program leads who had attended a training session. In some cases, interviews involved one interviewer and one interviewee, and in other cases the interviews included multiple interviewers and multiple interviewees. Once the interviews were completed, program scoring and details were validated and elaborated through follow-up phone conversations by the project team.

The ADAPTool assessments for each program were then consolidated into a master workbook that synthesized the results. This synthesis was analyzed by IISD experts and initial findings were checked and summarized in a conference call with program leads and the project team. During and following the conference call, some revisions and corrections were made to program/policy scoring and descriptions, leading to the final results presented in this report.

1.6 Purpose and Objectives

For the B.C. government, the purpose of the ADAPTool pilot was to help mainstream climate change adaptation into existing and proposed policies, programs and regulations in the agriculture sector. There were two main objectives:

1. To identify existing programs that are particularly well suited to supporting adaptation efforts, to show potential gaps and to identify ways to address gaps or further strengthen programs.

2. To understand the adaptability of existing programs—their ability to adjust as the anticipated and unanticipated impacts of climate change unfold.


5

2.0 What is Adaptive Policy/Programming?

Over the past several decades, there has been recognition that public policies5 and programs intended to achieve stated objectives can, even if well-designed, lead to unintended consequences as conditions change. Public policy operates in a dynamic and complex environment. Actors in the policy domain interact with new external factors, changing economic and market conditions, new information, changing technology and evolving networks of exchange. With increased global interconnection, dynamic economic conditions, shifting climate and rapid changes in technologies, the resulting complexity and pace of change make outcomes difficult to predict. As conditions change, policies and programs may become less effective or even counterproductive. Adaptive policies and programs increase adaptability and help avoid these kinds of failures.

In a four-year research project, IISD collaborated with The Energy Research Institute (TERI) to explore policy case studies in the agriculture and natural resource management sectors in Canada and India and identified characteristics of adaptive policies based on evidence of their actual performance (Swanson & Bhadwal, 2009).

This research identified seven characteristics of policies that were adaptable to changing conditions. Some of these characteristics were designed to build in adaptability to anticipated change and projected future conditions, while others are useful in helping policies adapt to unanticipated conditions. The ADAPTool version used in this pilot project is structured around these seven characteristics. Different questions in the tool are used to assess and score policies in relation to these factors.

The characteristics of adaptive policies are: 1) integrated and forward-looking analysis, 2) multistakeholder deliberation, 3) automatic policy adjustment, 4) self-organization and social networking, 5) decentralization of decision making, 6) promoting variation and 7) formal policy review and continuous learning.

These characteristics of adaptive policies are summarized below, and described in more detail, with case studies, in the guide (adapted from Swanson & Bhadwal, 2009).

2.1 Integrated and Forward-looking Analysis

Integrated and forward-looking analysis can identify key factors that affect policy/program performance and scenarios for how these factors might evolve in the future, so that policies and programs can be made robust to a range of anticipated conditions. These tools can also be used to develop indicators that will trigger adjustments when needed. Modelling tools of varying sophistication can be used to support this kind of analysis, which is often integrated through scenario planning.

2.2 Multistakeholder Deliberation

Multistakeholder deliberation is a collective and collaborative public effort to examine an issue from different points of view as part of a decision-making process. Deliberative processes strengthen policy and program design by building recognition of common values, shared commitments and emerging issues, and by providing a comprehensive understanding of causal relationships. The key aspects of this process are that it involves participants in sharing multiple perspectives in an attempt to reach consensus on a relevant decision. This goes beyond stakeholder consultation.

5 In the context of this report, the term “policies” may refer to programs, legislation and other policy instruments.


6

2.3 Automatic Policy Adjustment

Automatic adjustment mechanisms can speed up the process of response to conditions that are more or less anticipated. They can be used in complicated policy environments by separating the various issues into units in which the understanding of the system is high, allowing for fine-tuning the system and making adjustments that help reduce risks and maintain performance. Automatic adjustment can be both fully and semi-automatic.

2.4 Enabling Self-Organization and Social Networking

The intent of this characteristic is to ensure that policies do not undermine existing social capital, but instead create forums that enable social networking, facilitate the sharing of good practices and remove barriers to local self-organization. Local responses, self-organization and shared learning all strengthen the ability of stakeholders to respond to unanticipated events through innovation.

These practices take advantage of the capacity of complex adaptive systems to generate solutions without external input or formally organized interventions. The ability of individuals and groups to self-organize in response to stresses, crises or unexpected problems is well documented in social and ecological literature, and a key aspect of healthy adaptation. For policy-makers and program managers, the idea is to foster self-organized responses to unexpected conditions by enabling and supporting interaction, learning and networking, without trying to control or dictate outcomes. This includes facilitating sharing and copying of best practices, providing resources to reduce barriers to self-organization and creating spaces for adaptive collaboration.

2.5 Decentralizing Decision Making

In governance terms, the principle of “subsidiarity” means decentralizing decision making to the lowest effective and accountable unit of governance. This has adaptive advantages because there are better opportunities for feedback and information sharing to ensure that decision-makers are aware of unexpected problems and the effects of proposed interventions, as well as the nature of different interests. For policies directly concerning natural resources and ecosystems, field staff typically notice significant change earlier, and can mobilize affected local interests to address these changes more simply. Because local conditions vary widely, decentralization provides a way to implement policies and programs more flexibly, to ensure effectiveness and adaptation to change. The potential for decentralization in any particular policy or program area will depend on the scale of intervention needed, the extent of local knowledge and capacity, and the structure of governance mechanisms for accountability and coordination.


7

2.6 Promoting Variation

Given the complexity of most policy settings, implementing a variety of policies to address the same issue increases the likelihood of achieving desired outcomes. Diversity of responses also forms a common risk-management approach, facilitating the ability to perform efficiently in the face of unanticipated conditions. Variation may be actively designed, as when a range of alternative options is provided to meet the diverse needs of different stakeholders. This can be facilitated by:

• Using a mix of policy instruments

• Exploring synergies with other policies

• Providing opportunities for risk-spreading

Another approach is to use policy tools to facilitate variation by removing barriers to alternative solutions and providing information to support exploration of options.

2.7 Formal Policy Review and Continuous Learning

Regular review, even when the policy or program is performing well, and the use of well-designed pilots throughout the life of the policy to test assumptions related to performance, can help address emerging issues and trigger value-added policy adjustments. Formal review is different than automatic adjustment, where triggers and responses may be determined in advance. Formal review is a mechanism for identifying and responding to unanticipated circumstances and emerging issues. This assessment process can be very useful in detecting emerging issues that can affect the policy’s performance. A formal review mechanism includes triggers for the review, definition of the nature of the review and a learning process—that is to say, who needs to be involved in the review, who will take action on the results and what kinds of actions are to be considered.

Together, these seven characteristics of adaptive policies are relevant in the planning and design of policies and programs, as well as in their implementation and evaluation. The ADAPTool is intended to encourage assessment and discussion of these characteristics in various phases of the policy cycle.


8

3.0 The Adaptive Design and Policy Assessment Tool (ADAPTool)

ADAPTool is an Excel spreadsheet developed by IISD to guide users through a structured assessment process that compares the selected policies and programs to the characteristics of adaptive policies set out in Section 2 above (it is based on Swanson and Bhadwal, 2009). The tool follows the logic model shown below. It does two things:

1. It shows whether policies and programs support adaptation to a particular stressor (in this case, climate change).

2. It shows whether the policies or programs themselves are inherently adaptable, due to the features of their design and implementation.

FIGURE 1. ADAPTOOL LOGIC MODEL

The spreadsheet serves as the basis for scoring each of the programs in response to the assessment questions identified in Box 2. The questions cover both planned adaptability (i.e., how well the policy or program anticipates the likely impacts of the stressor) and autonomous adaptability (or adaptability to unanticipated impacts of the stressor).


9

BOX 2: ADAPTOOL QUESTIONS AND WORKSHEET STRUCTUREScope of Evaluation Worksheet:

1. What is the geographic scope of the analysis (e.g., watershed, municipality, region, province)?

2. What is the stressor of concern (e.g., climate change impacts such as drought and excess moisture)?

3. What are the policies/programs to be assessed?

Vulnerability & Adaptation Analysis Worksheets (for planned adaptability):

4. What are the main commodity sectors relevant to this set of policies/programs?

5. In what ways are the commodity sectors vulnerable to the stressor?

6. What adaptation actions might be adopted by producers to address these vulnerabilities?

7. Are these adaptation actions supported by the policies/programs being assessed?

Adaptive Capacity Analysis Worksheet (for both planned and autonomous adaptability):

8. Is the policy or program itself vulnerable to the stressor identified?

9. Does the policy enhance the capacity of actors in each sector to adapt (access to finances, technology, infrastructure, information and skills, institutions and networks and equitable access)?6

10. Was multistakeholder deliberation used in the scoping and design of the policy/program?

11. Is multistakeholder deliberation used in the implementation of the policy/program?

12. Does the policy/program enable self-organization among affected stakeholders?

13. Is the policy/program sufficiently decentralized to the lowest and most accountable unit of governance with appropriate resources and capacity?

14. Does the suite of policies/programs utilize a variety of policy instrument types (e.g., economic, regulatory, expenditure, institutional)?

15. Does the policy have a regular formal review process in place that can detect emerging issues?

Synthesis Worksheet

An aggregate ranking of planned adaptability and autonomous adaptability is provided for the overall suite of policies/programs, as well as for each individual policy/program.

The ADAPTool is meant to stimulate discussion and to expose knowledge that organizations such as the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture already hold. The tool provides a new way to understand how policies or programs work, using the lens of adaptability. The tool is intended to draw out the interactions between policies and major stressors likely to have systemic effects that are difficult to predict. The scoring and analysis used in the ADAPTool is intended to be indicative, rather than precise or highly quantitative. Therefore, scoring is mostly on a simple ordinal scale (0, 1, 2). The spreadsheet is designed with conditional formatting that automatically assigns a red/yellow/green colour to the scoring cell depending on the entry value. This allows the analyst an at-a-glance visual overview of dozens of scores in a complex sheet.

6 Based on Smit & Pilifosova (2001).


10

4.0 Climate Change Stressors and Impacts

The climate varies greatly across British Columbia, and climate change will affect different locations and ecosystems quite differently. For example, climate change is projected to lead to longer periods of drought in some places and to excess moisture and flooding in other places. Based on analysis by the Pacific Climate Impacts Consortium (PCIC), the key climate change themes identified in the CAI risk and opportunity assessments were as follows:

• Increased variability: Agricultural producers will face a greater range of potential conditions and extremes, which must be factored into their planning and decision making.

• Changes to both averages and extremes: Changes will require adjustments and could drive significant transitions in agricultural production systems.

• Increased complexity: Climate change increases the complexity of management and decision making for producers and the sector as a whole.

• Cumulative impacts: A succession of smaller climate change impacts can build to have a large effect.

In addition to these impacts, however, it is likely that climate change could bring significant opportunities for agricultural producers in B.C. Longer growing seasons, particularly in the north and at higher elevations, will enable producers to explore non-traditional agricultural opportunities. These will also require adaptation by producers, along with suitable information, technical and financial resources.

For the ADAPTool pilot, the following six specific climate change stressors were selected: excess moisture, drought, heat, flooding, variability and sea-level rise. The following subsections briefly summarize each of these stressors.7,8,9

4.1 Excess Moisture

An overall increase in moisture from 0% to +7 per cent by the 2020s is expected. On average, there will be an increase in precipitation in fall, winter and spring and a decrease in summer. There will be a significant decrease in winter and spring snowfall in most regions. There will also be increased variability, intensity and magnitude of precipitation events. Snow-dominated and hybrid river basins are likely to see increases in spring soil moisture. (There is little data available on soil moisture in B.C.)

7 It is important to note that these are highly simplified summaries of the climate change stressors, based on climate model predictions. To understand more about how climate models work please see: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html. To see model predictions for different locations and regions in B.C., please see: http://pacificclimate.org/tools-and-data and http://pacificclimate.org/tools-and-data/regional-analysis-tool8 To read more about climate stressors for agriculture and their potential impacts please see: http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/about/document-library/8 Climate stressors pertaining to agriculture are also discussed in the reports of the Simon Fraser University Adaptation To Climate Change Team (O’Riordan, Karlsen, Sandford, and Newman, 2013)

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/future.html

http://pacificclimate.org/tools-and-data and http://pacificclimate.org/tools-and-data/regional-analysis-tool

http://pacificclimate.org/tools-and-data and http://pacificclimate.org/tools-and-data/regional-analysis-tool

http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/about/document-library/

http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/about/document-library/


11

4.2 Drought

There is projected to be, on average, increased frequency and duration of drought. A reduced proportion of precipitation falling as snow will lead to earlier seasonal peak stream flows and lower flows later in the summer. Peak flows will also decline and periods of low flows and dry conditions in the summer will be longer. Thus, there will be reduced runoff and soil moisture in late summer. Another factor leading to potential drought will be decreased summer precipitation combined with increased evapotranspiration rates and crop water demand.

4.3 Heat

On average, temperature is expected to increase. The trend will be greater warming in the north than in the south, in inland locations more than coastal locations, and in winter more than in summer. There will be an increase in frost-free days and growing-degree days and an increase in extreme heat.

4.4 Flooding

On average, there will be increased frequency and severity of flooding across B.C. This is due to a number of interrelated factors. The intensity and magnitude of precipitation events is projected to increase. Increased spring rainfall, partially due to changing hydrology, is also expected. Previously snowmelt-dominated or hybrid basins will be in transition to hybrid and rain-dominated regimes, which experience more unpredictable peak flows and increased risk of flash flooding in the winter.

4.5 Variability

Climate variability makes planning farm operations increasingly difficult. There will be increased frequency of extreme heat events, increased storminess, and increased frequency and intensity of extreme rainfall events. Average conditions will shift, and there will be a changed climatic regime overall, with increases in extremes of most climate aspects. An accelerated rate of change is also expected, necessitating rapid adaptation and the ability to respond quickly to changing conditions.

4.6 Sea-Level Rise

Formal projections for 2100 are for a rise of 80 to 120 centimetres in the Fraser River Delta and 50 to 80 centimetres in Nanaimo. Recent evidence from glacier and ice melt, particularly in Greenland and Antarctica, suggest that these projections may be conservative. Sea-level change is influenced by both global and local effects. Global sea level is affected by melting glaciers and ice caps, and a warming (thermal expansion) of the upper ocean. Locally, sea-level rise is also affected by the vertical movement of land (tectonic movements, post-glacial rebound and subsidence).


12

5.0 Agriculture Commodity Sectors and Vulnerabilities

5.1 Methodology for Determining Vulnerabilities

Commodity sector vulnerabilities were determined by reference to the CAI risk and opportunity assessments, which discussed impacts and vulnerabilities in regions across B.C. Because different regions focus on specific commodities, it is possible to attribute vulnerabilities to commodity groups.10 The correspondence is not perfect, however, and in the vulnerabilities column below, it is noted that some vulnerabilities apply to the commodity sector only in certain locations. It is a challenge in undertaking a province-wide assessment of this type to also account for the high level of geographical specificity in terms of both climate impacts and agriculture sector vulnerabilities. The high degree of geographical diversity in B.C. means that the generalized vulnerabilities described in the remainder of the document should always be qualified with a reminder that they may vary in specific locations.

After the initial sector and vulnerability table was drafted by the project team, it was distributed to program leads and Ministry of Agriculture industry specialists for peer review and feedback. The table was further refined after additional discussion with program leads and experts, in particular with the CAI coordinator and Ted van der Gulik (senior engineer, Sustainable Agriculture Management Branch). The final version is shown in Table 1. 11

The vulnerability assessment also identified a list of 158 anticipated adaptation actions for each of the vulnerabilities listed above, and these are provided in Appendix A. The list of adaptation actions is not meant to be definitive, but to provide examples of the types of actions that would be constructive in response to the climate impacts identified here.

It should be noted that while the CAI risk and opportunity assessment provided valuable input to this study, assessment of climate impacts under future uncertainty is not an exact science, and the specific list of adaptation actions can be expected to change as better climate information becomes available and producers gain more experience with variable conditions and technologies. The CAI methodology involved extensive consultation with producers, regional scientific and technical experts, and with climate scientists. However, knowledge in this field is evolving rapidly and a repeat of this exercise in several years’ time would probably reveal some changes to the vulnerabilities identified here.

10 Grains, oilseeds and forage seeds in the Peace Region; cattle in southern and central interior, the Peace Region and the Kootenays; tree fruit and grape production in the Okanagan; mixed farm types, including berry, vegetable and livestock in the Fraser Valley, Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Island; dairy and poultry in the Fraser Valley; and greenhouse, nursery and mushroom operations in the Lower Mainland.11 While the focus is on vulnerabilities to climate change impacts, there will also be benefits to agriculture in a changing climate—for example, loss of tree cover may mean expanded grassland, providing more forage for cattle.


13

TABLE 1: AGRICULTURE COMMODITY SECTORS AND VULNERABILITIES TO CLIMATE CHANGE STRESSORS

SECTOR VULNERABILITY

Grains and oilseeds Precipitation variability, yield, quality, pests and disease, soil erosion (drought or extreme precipitation events), soil moisture limitations, multi-year crop loss

PoultryWater availability, feed supply disruptions/cost due to impacts elsewhere, disease management, heat and humidity stress and cooling requirements: increased energy use, flooding and increased precipitation

Dairy producersWater availability; feed quality, supply, cost; disease management; barns could flood (risk to animals and equipment; mostly in the Fraser Valley and Lower Mainland); slowed animal growth/production: increased energy costs to cool barns; water shortages (mostly outside the Fraser Valley)

Cattle and other livestock

Grazing season may lengthen, leading to pasture stress; water availability; feed quality or price (drought); health (access to water and heat stress); excess moisture—depending on ground conditions, potential for foot rot; water quality (decreased quality with decreased quantity); natural shelter diminished—in the long run, the loss of tree cover (drought); barn heating

Swine Feed costs increase, drought and changing hydrology will reduce water availability, slowed animal growth/production: increased energy costs to cool barns, increased flood risk and extreme storms

Forage

Feed quality, access to the field for harvest and grazing; length of the grazing season; loss of stands and legumes due to drowning out (in Lower Mainland and South Coast); decreased yields; decreased soil quality; heat stress, early dormancy, drought; increased variability; shortage of water (mostly pertains to areas outside Lower Mainland and South Coast)

Vegetables, field crops, nursery crops, turf and sod

Soil erosion, runoff management issues; excessive soil moisture; longer horticulture season and productivity; late-season water supply pressures, drought (mostly outside Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island); localized flood risks (mostly Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Tree fruits and wine grapes

Sun scald, fruit tree stress; disease and pest management; increase in water demand; extreme precipitation events, high winds, hailstorms; runoff management, soil erosion; increased variability affects pollination, spring bud break and frost risk; changing production conditions/variability; potentially wetter conditions at time of harvest

Berries

Increased risk from precipitation variability, pest and disease management, declining productivity in heat, salinity, earlier and unpredictable frost dates, variability, flooding (mostly in Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island), loss of crop due to drowning out (mostly in Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island), water shortages (mostly outside of Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Greenhouses Increased overcast weather (=reduced sunshine), higher temperatures, reduced access to water, increased heavy snowfall events, new pests

All sectors Increased variability and complexity; lack of water supply—impacts to regional infrastructure; flooding—impacts to regional infrastructure


14

6.0 Results of Adaptability Assessment – Overall Suite of Programs

All programs in the Ministry of Agriculture were considered for inclusion in this assessment, as were programs in other ministries with strong connections to the agriculture sector (programs at Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, and Ministry of Environment). The programs were ranked as high, medium or low priority for inclusion, based on their importance to the agriculture sector, their interface with climate adaptation, whether program changes were being considered (which the assessment could help inform) and whether there were “champions” in the program who were interested in participating.

The following suite of 14 programs were selected for assessment: AgriStability, Production Insurance, the Regional Agrologist Network, Strengthening Farming, Agroforestry, Range Management, Invasive Alien Plant Program, Pest Management/Plant Health, the Environmental Farm Plan Program, the Beneficial Management Practices Program, Agricultural Emergency Management, Agriculture Water Management Program, Water Act modernization and the Agri-Food Business Development Program.12

The Ministry of Agriculture’s Marine Fisheries and Seafood program was also assessed. Although the program is not related to land-based agriculture, it is an important focus for the ministry and has significant interface with climate change stressors. Because the stressors and associated vulnerabilities for fisheries and seafood are very different in character than those for land-based agriculture, the assessment for the program was done independently and written up in a separate report.

6.1 Overall ADAPTool Results

The ADAPTool is designed to assess how adaptable a set of policies/programs is to a particular stressor, in this case climate change. An adaptable policy should be able to accomplish its program objectives in changing conditions, while a less adaptable policy may become ineffective or counter-productive as conditions change.

Table 2 provides a summary of program scores from the ADAPTool assessment. The table is organized by Adaptive Policy Questions (in the first column) and then by program (all the other columns). Note that lines 1, 6 and 12 of the table are summary lines showing total scores grouped by anticipated adaptability (line 1), unanticipated adaptability (line 6) and total. Anticipated adaptability means how well the program responds, in particular to the anticipated needs of this particular stressor (i.e., climate change), while unanticipated adaptability is a measure of how the structure and design of the program fosters adaptability to unanticipated adaptation requirements due to climate or other stressors.

The table shows that, taken together as a group, the 14 programs in this pilot are fairly adaptable to changing climate conditions. This result is partly because, as a group, these programs emphasize providing flexible and responsive information, risk management and institutional support to farm producers across multiple commodity sectors. Some commodity sectors also receive additional direct support for adaptation actions (e.g., water use and planning—both highly relevant to climate adaptation). Scoring of individual programs is discussed in greater detail in Section 7. To reiterate, however, low scores for any particular program or characteristic do not reflect negatively on that program. All the programs have been designed for other purposes than climate adaptation. The scores merely reflect an assessment of how they would respond to characteristics relevant to climate adaptation.

12 All programs ranked as a high priority were included in the assessment, with the exception of the Agricultural Land Commission, which was excluded due to its current capacity limitations and current staff priorities related to the recent provincial audit and budget direction. Other programs not included in this pilot were: the Farm Industry Review Board, meat regulation, international marketing and youth development.


15

Despite the relatively good adaptability scoring of the suite of programs, there are also some warning flags regarding their support for future climate adaptation needs.

• Few of the programs support farm-level innovation, which will become increasingly important with climate change pressures.

• As the risk profile of different production practices changes in response to climate variability, it is also likely that gaps in risk management and financial support will become more evident.

• The support available for disaster risk reduction through better planning and preparedness is currently limited and may need to be strengthened.

Few of the programs scored highly in responding directly to the potential adaptation needs of producers. This is not surprising: because the scope of the analysis is province-wide, and the agriculture sector and regional climate impacts are so diverse, one would expect to find few programs that directly support many specific climate adaptation measures. Broad and flexible programs tend to score better than narrow, targeted ones because they can provide indirect support across a range of activities. This reflects their greater adaptability to emerging conditions. On the other hand, because of this breadth and responsiveness, it may be more difficult to determine their effectiveness relative to program targets. Province-wide programs will necessarily be more flexible and responsive to diverse conditions and stakeholders, and hence more adaptable to changing producer needs as conditions change.

There are relatively few regulatory types of programs in the suite. It is difficult to prepare regulations in a way that accommodates unexpected changes—indeed, the whole purpose of many regulations is specifically to prevent undesirable change. The analysis here shows how policy analysts have already, to some extent, accommodated adaptability and variability in existing and newly proposed regulatory approaches. For example, new water management legislation (the Water Act modernization) is likely to have stronger regulatory provisions that will be implemented in a decentralized way, to allow for local variability and responsiveness within a stronger general provincial regulatory framework controlling access and use of water. Some other programs also have implemented rules or criteria constraining eligibility, but within a range of flexibility. These ranges, which are intended to allow local adaptive responses to variable conditions now, may need to be revised as the climate changes and producer adaptation measures exceed the prescribed ranges. One example could be production insurance criteria tied to dates for seeding if the cropping calendar is pushed back by wetter springs and warmer autumn weather in some areas.


16

TABLE 2: PROGRAM ASSESSMENT SUMMARY

Key: AgriStability (AS); Production Insurance (PI); Regional Agrologist Network (RAN); Strengthening Farming SF); Agroforestry (AF); Range Management (RM); Invasive Alien Plant Program (IP); Pest Management (PM); Agricultural Emergency Management (AEM); Environmental Farm Plan (EFP); Beneficial Management Practices (BMP); Agriculture Water Management (AWM); Water Act modernization (WAM); Agri-FoodBusiness Development (ABD).

Note: Scores range from 0 to 2. High scores are flagged green and indicate the program is contributing to adaptation needs. Low scores are flagged red, indicating that the program is not contributing to planned and autonomous adaptability. Scores in-between are flagged yellow, signifying partial contribution to adaptability.


17

In reviewing the vulnerability of programs to climate change (Question 8, “Is the policy/program itself vulnerable to the stressors identified?”), many programs may actually be sensitive to changing climate precisely because they are highly relevant to climate adaptation. Because these programs are responsive to local priorities, as climate change and variability become greater concerns to producers, increased demand for relevant program services may prove a threat to their viability under conditions of fiscal constraint. This is particularly true for services related to pest management and invasive species where climate change is expected to create new and unexpected demands while surveillance and response capacity has been reduced.

In terms of Question 9, “Does the policy/program enhance the capacity of actors within each sector to adapt?” it is worth noting that there is a lot of support for information, skills and networking, but little support for access to infrastructure, technology and financial support.13 Few programs outside of AgriStability and Production Insurance provide financing or inputs support, but this type of support may become more important to ensure that producers have sufficient financial capacity to invest in more rapid adaptation as the climate shifts.

Table 3 below summarizes overall scoring for the aggregated suite of 14 programs (first column in Table 2) together with commentary and general recommendations. The next section of the report provides summary results of the adaptability assessment for each of the agricultural commodity sectors.

13 The 2012 ADAPTool pilot for Manitoba agriculture programs also found that they provided little support for access to relevant technology and relevant infrastructure.


18

TABLE 3: COMBINED RESULTS: SUITE OF ALL 14 PROGRAMS

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE FULL SUITE OF 14 PROGRAMS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Ability to Support Anticipated Adaptation Needs 7 Planned Adaptability, score out of 10

Are anticipated adaptation actions supported by the programs? 1

103 of 158 actions are directly supported by at least one policy in the suite. The BMP program supported the most actions directly (39), followed by Agriculture Emergency Management (27) and Water Act modernization (28). Most other programs have more limited focus and support 6–10 actions directly. However, 54 of the adaptive actions are not directly supported by any of 14 programs. Because some of these measures require significant capital investment, assumption of increased risk by producers or coordination with other users and local governments, the ministry may see increasing demand for services in these areas in future.

Are the policies/programs themselves vulnerable to climate change? 1

Almost all of the programs will experience greater service demands, and demand for updated information as the climate changes. Programs’ abilities to deliver will be dependent on government resourcing and on evolving program design. It is recommended that mechanisms be put in place to match service levels to evolving producer need, while considering government fiscal capacity.

Do the programs enhance the capacity of producers to undertake the anticipated adaptation actions?

1

The program suite directly and indirectly increases producer adaptive capacity through access to financial resources, technology, information, skills, networks, infrastructure and institutions. However, the growing need for such capacity as climate shifts may exceed the limited direct support of current programming.

Was multistakeholder deliberation used in the design of the programs? 2 Most of the programs in the suite have been well informed by multiple

stakeholders during their design phase.

Ability to Enable Sector Responses to Unanticipated Events 8 Autonomous Adaptability, score out of 10

Is multistakeholder deliberation used in program implementation? 1 Most programs in the suite consult with stakeholders in implementation, but

not to the extent of a full multistakeholder deliberation.

Do the policies/programs enable self-organization and social networking? 2 There is widespread support for producer self-organization and social

networking by most programs in the suite.

Is decision making for program implementation adequately decentralized?

1The Range Management, Environmental Farm Plan and Agri-Food Business Development programs exhibit strongly decentralized decision making. Remaining programs are partially decentralized in terms of decision making.

Is there adequate variety in the suite of policies and programs directed at the policy issue?

2The program suite uses many types of policy instruments, indicating that the suite has diverse approaches.

Do the programs have a regular formal review? 2

Formal review mechanisms overall could be strengthened for most programs with respect to the public accessibility of review results and formal triggers for review.

Overall Adaptive Policy 1

The suite of policies provides general and indirect support to producer adaptive action and is itself fairly adaptive. Because most of the programs will experience significant increases in service demand as climate changes, formal reviews should be conducted periodically. Greater use of multistakeholder deliberation in both program design and implementation would strengthen their adaptability to unforeseen future impacts.


19

6.2 Commodity Sector Results

Another way to look at the assessment results is to consider how the suite of programs responds to the 158 specific adaptation actions identified across the 10 different commodity sectors identified in the scoping portion of the analysis (see Table 1, section 5.1 above). Eighteen of the 158 adaptation actions have a very high degree of program support. The adaptation actions most directly supported by existing programs mainly involve water use or risk reduction measures (production insurance). This is consistent with the importance of water use to the agriculture sector in B.C., which is likely to increase as precipitation during the growing season becomes more variable. The table below shows that the “cattle and other livestock” sector and the “tree fruit and wine grapes” sector have more adaptation actions directly supported than the other eight sectors. While adaptive actions by the poultry and greenhouse sectors do not receive direct support, they do receive indirect support for many actions.

TABLE 4: HIGHLY SUPPORTED ADAPTATION ACTIONS

SECTOR AND VULNERABILITY ADAPTATION ACTIONGrains and oilseeds: Precipitation variability Risk management

Grains and oilseeds: Pests & disease Actions depend on the scale

Dairy producers: Water shortages (mostly outside the Fraser Valley)

Irrigation efficiency

Cattle and other livestock: Grazing season length may increase, leading to pasture stress

Promoting rotational grazing and maintaining ground cover

Cattle and other livestock: Water availability Increased storage

Alternative watering sources

Cattle and other livestock: Water quality (decreased quality with decreased quantity)

Alternative sources

Better management of dugouts and surface water sources

Conflict management with other users or pollution sources

Swine: Drought and changing hydrology will reduce water availability

Water management practices on farm: conservation, storage, irrigation and protection from contamination

Forage: Shortage of water (mostly pertains to areas outside Lower Mainland and south coast)


Vegetables, field crops, nursery crops, turf and sod: Late season water supply pressures, drought (outside Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Efficient irrigation systems

Tree fruits and wine grapes: Water demand increase Investment in more efficient irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation)

Tree fruits and wine grapes: Changing production conditions/variability

Increased investment risk: risk management practices

Tree fruits and wine grapes: Potential wetter conditions at time of harvest

Quality losses during harvest

Berries: Water management, irrigation Water management, irrigation

All sectors: Increased variability and complexity Integrate agricultural land-use inventories and geographic information systems (GIS) into regional and local planning processes to better represent agriculture-related systems

All sectors: Lack of water supply—impacts to regional infrastructure

Apply regional and local planning tools and processes to promote regional and on-farm water supply, storage and irrigation capacity


20

The adaptation analysis worksheet showed that 54 out of the 158 adaptation measures have no direct program support. These are shown in Table 5 below and relate to:

1. Development and testing of new crop varieties and cultivars.

2. Information on emerging disease threats and on practices for disease management across sectors.

3. Diversification of feed sources, feed management, nutritional monitoring and new varieties of feed across sectors.

4. Adaptation actions related to improving drainage and flood risk reduction.

These areas relate to innovation by producers to respond to changing conditions and take advantage of new opportunities. Agricultural producers are by nature responsive and adaptive, but they are constrained by access to information (about new technologies, production systems, pests or climate risks). They are also constrained by access to financing, and as climate variability increases, they will face increased risk for both traditional and new production approaches. Current programs provide some support for risk management (especially AgriStability and Production Insurance), but only within the bounds of conventional practices. For example, production insurance is only applicable if crops are sown within a prescribed production window, and is not available for novel or unconventional crops. As variability and producer experimentation increase, these constraints may pose barriers. At the same time, the requirements of production insurance reinforce conventional practices and thereby reduce incentives for adaptation when changing climate conditions might suggest it is needed. Because AgriStability eligibility is premised on prior years’ margins, variable production as a result of climate variability and extremes may limit eligibility. These risk management programs may need to be updated in light of emerging adaptation pressures.

In some cases, there are multiple adaptation actions that could be taken by producers in response to the same vulnerability. Producers are likely to be most vulnerable where many of those possible actions are unsupported.

TABLE 5: ADAPTATION ACTIONS NOT DIRECTLY SUPPORTED BY ANY PROGRAM

SECTOR AND VULNERABILITY ADAPTATION ACTIONGrains and oilseeds: Quality Diversify crops, including specialty crops and increasing

rotations

Grains and oilseeds: Soil erosion (drought or extreme precipitation events)

Field topography modification

Poultry: Disease management Better information on emerging threats

Innovative disease management practices

Poultry: Heat and humidity stress and cooling requirements lead to increased energy use

Different style of ventilation (tunnel ventilation with evaporation pads) or other new technologies

Dairy: Feed quality, supply, cost Increase storage capacity

Dairy: Disease management Improved surveillance for emerging threats

Improved information on new or emerging disease issues

Dairy: Slowed animal growth/production lead to increased energy costs to cool barns

Explore biomass options including electrical generation

Backup systems and temperature management


21

Cattle and other livestock: Feed quality or price (drought) New varieties of feed

Feed management plan

Feed testing

Nutritional monitoring & supplements

Cattle and other livestock: Health (access to water & heat stress) excess moisture—depending on ground conditions, potential for foot rot

Transition to different livestock types (e.g., different breeds of cattle)

Health (foot rot): prevention

Extending pastures to ensure access to well-drained soils

Swine: Feed costs increase Alternative feeding methods

Alternative feed sources and supplies

Swine: Slowed animal growth/production lead to increased energy costs to cool barns

Implement energy efficient heating/cooling options


Agroforestry—with shade benefits

Swine: Increased flood risk and extreme storm events Investment in dikes, flood protection

Agroforestry—which can decrease impacts of flooding

Insurance

Forage: Feed quality Feed variety testing and forage blends

Drainage (excess moisture)

Forage: Access to the field for harvest and grazing Equipment modification (e.g., reducing ground pressure by using oversized wheels on balers)

Forage: length of the grazing season Managing carrying capacity

Forage: Loss of stands and legumes due to drowning out (Lower Mainland and south coast)

Improved drainage

Forage: Decreased yields Agroforestry that enhances nutrient cycling and weed control

Forage blend

Forage: Decreased soil quality Maintaining ground cover/rotational grazing

Improving rotations, use of legumes in rotations

Forage: Heat stress, early dormancy, drought Maintaining ground cover/rotational grazing

Vegetables, field crops, nursery crops, turf and sod: Soil erosion, runoff management issues

Soil management, cover crops

Vegetables, field crops, nursery crops, turf and sod: Excessive soil moisture

Invest in drainage, retention ponds

Vegetables, field crops, nursery crops, turf and sod: Late season water supply pressures, drought (mostly outside Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Crop tunnels

Tree fruits and wine grapes: Sun scald, fruit tree stress Variety selection

Tree fruits and wine grapes: Extreme precipitation events, high winds, hailstorms

Fruit drying (e.g., helicopters)—especially cherries

Tree fruits and wine grapes: Runoff management, soil erosion Cover crops

Tree fruits and wine grapes: Increased variability affects pollination, spring bud break and frost risk

Wind machines

Berries: Increased risk from precipitation variability Drainage (in-field drainage and regional drainage upgrading)


22

Berries: Pest and disease management Input costs (equipment, labour, chemicals)

Berries: Declining productivity in heat New varieties

Berries: Salinity Drainage tiles

Berries: Earlier and unpredictable frost dates Frost protection measures

Berries: Variability Development and evaluation of new varieties (genetics)

Berries: Flooding (mostly Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Agroforestry that reduces impacts of flooding

Berries: Loss of crop due to drowning out (mostly Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Improved drainage

Sector and Vulnerability Adaptation Action

Greenhouses: Increased overcast weather (=reduced sunshine) Adjust greenhouse growing practices to account for the changes in temperature/sunshine

Greenhouses: Higher temperatures Research on the use of shade curtains or other methods to limit greenhouse crop damage

More heat resistant varieties

Greenhouses: Reduced access to water Research on more appropriate crop cultivars that are better adapted to the climate


23

7.0 Program-by-Program Findings and Recommendations

This section of the report presents program-by-program descriptions, a discussion of the ADAPTool assessment results and recommendations.

The analysis recognizes that these programs were not developed with the intent of supporting climate change adaptation. The point of the analysis is to assess existing programs with climate change in mind, pointing out where adaptation strengths and gaps may exist. This is not an evaluation of the programs, but only an adaptability assessment.

The recommendations contained in this report focus only on responding to potential program risks from climate change, and do not address other important program and policy criteria. While responding to these recommendations would increase the adaptability of ministry programs to climate change, it is recognized that other policy and programming criteria would need to be considered in any potential revisions. Detailed tables and scores for each program are shown in Appendix B.

7.1 AgriStability

Overview: AgriStability is part of the Business Risk Management programming under the Growing Forward agreements. The ministry’s Business Risk Management Branch took over administration and delivery of AgriStability in January 2010. Administration was previously provided for B.C. by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in Winnipeg. AgriStability is a margin-based income-stabilization program that protects producers from large declines in their farming income caused by production loss, increased costs or market conditions. Income and expense data provided by each farmer through the Canada Revenue Agency is verified and used to calculate program support levels and benefits. Administration costs and producer benefits are cost shared: 60 percent by Canada and 40 percent by B.C. Approximately 3,500 farmers are enrolled annually in the AgriStability program. For the 2007 to 2010 program years, $155.6 million14 in benefits was paid to Canadian farmers; British Columbia’s share was $62.2 million. Annual payments to B.C. farmers averaged $38.9 million. Payments are forecast to be $24.1 million for the 2011 program year and $29.9 million for 2012.

Resourcing: Approximately 45 staff administer AgriStability from the head office in Kelowna and regional offices in Abbotsford, Oliver and Fort St John.

Rationale for Inclusion: Programs to support farmers during crop failure due to weather events are expected to experience greater demand with climate change, because damaging weather events are projected to become both more frequent and severe.

Sources and Further Information:

• AgriStability program: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/agristability/

• AgriStability program handbooks (Growing Forward and Growing Forward 2): http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/agristability/BC_Handbook_Guidelines.html]

• Personal communication, Pat DeBoer, May 6 and 8, 201314 All dollar figures are expressed in Canadian currency unless otherwise specified.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/agristability

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/agristability/BC_Handbook_Guidelines.html

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/agristability/BC_Handbook_Guidelines.html


24

Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, AgriStability scores only 1 out of 1, despite being a key risk management and adaptation resource. In relation specifically to climate adaptation (anticipated adaptation needs), the program scores a respectable 7 out of 10. The program’s strengths are its regular reviews and scheduled updates, and the broad consultations that have gone into its design. The importance of the program across multiple sectors, crops, regions and climate stressors also contributes to its positive adaptability features. Its weaknesses are the limitations of its support as climate variability increases and the narrow focus of its support on financial capacity. “Best practices” used as program criteria are likely to shift as climate changes, making it more challenging for producers to meet restrictive program requirements. The program may not provide adequate support under conditions of increasing climate variability and more diverse field conditions if these lead to consistently declining margins for several years in a row for a particular set of producers.

The adaptability of the program itself (regardless of stressor) would increase with greater use of multistakeholder deliberation in implementation and more decentralization of decision making. These characteristics would aid the program in responding to increasing regional diversity and variability.

Recommendations:

• Changes in climate may affect producer margins in successive years, as well as producers’ abilities to meet program criteria. Monitoring the program to assess whether increasing climate variability and extremes are affecting the AgriStability program’s ability to meet its policy objectives is recommended, as a means of preparing for future program design discussions.

• Employ greater use of multistakeholder deliberation in implementation and more decentralization of decision making to aid the program in responding to regional diversity and increasing climate variability.

7.2 Production Insurance

Overview: Production insurance is part of Business Risk Management programming. Production insurance helps producers manage risk of crop losses caused by hail, spring frost, excessive rain, flood, fire and drought. The program provides coverage against crop production losses due to specific weather and other natural events. A level of production is guaranteed in exchange for a premium. Production insurance provides a predictable, timely and budgeted mechanism for government to respond to crop loss. The program operates like commercial insurance with premiums adjusted in response to overall claims over time. Coverage and premium costs are set at the individual level, so lower-producing farms receive less protection than more productive farms. Premiums are cost-shared between producers, Canada and B.C., while administration costs are covered by government. Production insurance has been offered in B.C. since 1967.

In the 2012 crop year, the program insured $475 million of crop production and perennial trees, vines and plants. A total risk premium of $26 million was contributed to the insurance fund to cover expected losses. Due to a favourable growing year, the program paid out only $13 million in crop losses in 2012. Approximately $5 million was spent to administer the program and manage the risk through prudent underwriting and loss adjustment.

Resourcing: The Production Insurance unit is functionally organized under the general manager and consists of customer service, underwriting, claims and analytics. Head office is located in Kelowna and the program is delivered through seven regional offices located in Abbotsford, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Kamloops, Kelowna, Oliver and Williams Lake. Staffing for the program comprises of 49 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions.


25

Rationale for Inclusion: Programs to support farmers during crop failure due to weather events are expected to experience increasing demand with climate change, since weather events that cause damage events are expected to become both more frequent and more severe.


• Production Insurance: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/production_insurance/

• Brochure: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/production_insurance/plans/general/general_bro.pdf

• Personal communication, Grant Halm, Production Insurance Program, June 21, 2013

Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, Production Insurance scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately well (7 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, and even better (8 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events. Program adaptability is strengthened by its breadth across many sectors and adaptation domains, its extensive consultations with producers and its predictable program review schedule.

Production insurance is a key support for producer financial resilience. It will become more important with greater variability and extremes in weather as the climate changes. The program’s adaptability could increase with greater use of multistakeholder deliberation in implementation and more decentralization of decision making—for example, in relation to best practices and eligibility. (The corporate structure for production insurance delivery in other provinces tends to be more decentralized and conducive to adaptability compared to B.C.)

As new and potentially better-adapted crops become available, their production risks will need to be evaluated and incorporated into the program. But with limited experience, their premiums will be high to reflect the actuarial uncertainty associated with the lack of local production history. This feature creates a potential adaptation barrier for producers that does not show up in the overall scoring in this ADAPTool assessment. Another uncertainty is the trend towards self-insurance, which may reduce the base for loss sharing and increase actuarial risks for the program. Producers who are better able to adapt might disproportionately opt out of buying insurance. On the other hand, program coverage may act as a disincentive to adaptation by shielding producers from climate shifts. The interaction between premium rates, risk management and adaptation practices may therefore increase actuarial risk for the program.

Recommendations:




http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/production_insurance

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/production_insurance/plans/general/general_bro.pdf


26

7.3 Regional Agrologist Network

Overview: The Regional Agrologist Network (RAN) is often the first point of producer contact with the Ministry of Agriculture. The Regional Agrologist Network encompasses all of British Columbia, and delivers through two diverse regions, the Interior and the Coast. The agrologists gather and provide local insights and intelligence to characterize regional agricultural opportunities and issues. They work with other program areas, local industry and producers, local governments and communities to encourage innovation, adaptation and agricultural growth in balance with social and environmental interests. Through strategic extension efforts and long-term relationships in the local community, RAN supports other ministry programs such as Strengthening Farming, emergency management/coordination, First Nations agriculture and environmental/water management. RAN also influences ministry management to reduce risk for the sector and ministry. RAN is responsible for:

• Providing specialized knowledge and expertise in agrology to foster resource development and environmental sustainability.

• Engaging in the management and resolution of conflicts between agriculture and other interests in land, air and water.

• Providing advice and leadership in issues of management, policy development and planning.

• Fostering agri-food economic development opportunities, including those of First Nations.

• Leading the regional delivery of environmental programs for the agri-food sector.

• Enhancing understanding of agri-food interests within the provincial government.

• Encouraging and enabling the agri-food industry to be self-reliant in accessing and developing programs, information and services.

Resourcing: RAN comprises two managers and 17 regional agrologists serving the Coast and the Interior.

Rationale for Inclusion: RAN is comparable to Manitoba’s Go Teams (assessed with ADAPTool in 2012), but with less focus on extension. Go Teams were found to be one of the highest performing programs in terms of both supporting producer adaptation actions and the program’s own self-adaptive capacity.


• RAN: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/regional/

• Personal communication, Orlando Schmidt, June 24, 2013

• Personal communication, Leslie MacDonald, June 24, 2013

Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, RAN scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks a relatively low 4 out of 10 points in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, and moderately (5 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events. The strengths of the program are its broad indirect support across a wide range of adaptation measures and its responsiveness to local farm production issues. However, its direct support was limited to only seven adaptation measures, all associated with local planning and conflict management.

RAN is the “face of the ministry on the ground,” and, as such, is a key component of the ministry’s support of producer adaptation. With current resourcing, the program is focused on direct support related to planning and land-use conflicts. But these activities are somewhat removed from the producer adaptation practices identified in the scoping

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/regional


27

stage of this assessment, and so the program scores poorly with respect to direct support for farmer adaptation. Greater emphasis on extension services to address the growing need for producer adaptation to climate change would increase adaptability to climate change. Because adaptation extension needs are greater in some sectors and regions than others, this support could be strategically focused based on recommendations from CAI studies. The program’s general adaptability would increase with greater use of full multistakeholder deliberation, more decentralization of decision making and regular formal reviews with public reporting.

Recommendations:

• Consider the business case for improving extension supports as farm management complexity increases due to climate change.


7.4 Strengthening Farming

Overview: Strengthening Farming is an initiative that is jointly implemented by the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). It promotes strong working relationships between local and provincial governments and the farming community. The program supports resolution of land-use conflicts and effective community planning for a sustainable agriculture industry in B.C., which are reflected in the two main components of the program: Farm Practices Protection and Planning for Agriculture. The Strengthening Farming program maintains contacts with the agricultural industry and local governments through a variety of channels to identify emerging issues. These include supporting the Agricultural Advisory Committees of local governments, providing ongoing workshops for local government planners, reviewing local government plans and bylaws, responding to farm practice complaints and coordinating our work with other provincial government agencies through the Strengthening Farming Directors Committee.

Planning for Agriculture areas of focus include:

• Developing tools and a methodology for land-use inventories and the use of GIS to increase the understanding of farm systems and land-use relationships, and working with local governments on land-use inventories.

• Developing minister’s bylaw standards to guide local government bylaw development in farming areas.

• Providing bylaw and application review services to assist local governments in their bylaw development and decision-making processes.

• Working with regulated local governments to develop farm bylaws and land-use bylaws that meet the minister’s bylaw standards.

• Providing support and advice to local governments that want to appoint agricultural advisory committees.

• Providing advice and assistance to local governments that want to develop agricultural area plans (AAPs) in their communities.

• Encouraging local governments to undertake focused planning at the urban/farm interface.

AAPs are developed by local governments, often with advice and support from ALC and ministry staff. AAPs often identify issues, consider “action-oriented” solutions and identify opportunities to strengthen the long-term sustainability


28

of agriculture in the community. An agricultural planning steering committee may guide the process. Land-use inventories, statistics and a background report are often used as information to develop the plan. The Investment Agriculture Foundation of B.C. provides funding in some cases.

Resourcing: The Strengthening Farming program has 11.6 FTEs (including a manager, land-use planners, GIS staff and contributions from regional agrologists).

Rationale for Inclusion:

• The CAI risk and opportunity assessments noted that working with local governments and the Agricultural Land Commission is critical to agriculture sector resilience as the climate changes, and that this is likely to grow in importance.

• Regional agricultural climate change adaptation strategies were under development by the CAI in partnership with producers and local governments in the Cowichan, Delta and Peace areas. Implementation of those strategies started in 2013. Similar regional adaptation strategies are planned for several more areas.15

• AAPs may have a role in integrating agriculture adaptation into land-use planning processes and decision making.


• Strengthening Farming: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/

• Personal communication, Bert van Dalfsen, program lead, August 29, 2013

Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, Strengthening Farming scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately (6 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated climate adaptation needs, but it ranks highly (8 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

Strengthening Farming encourages consideration of agriculture in local government planning and decision making. As climate change becomes a greater concern for both farmers and local governments (e.g., water allocation, land use for flood retention, disaster prevention, multistakeholder water governance), the program’s key strategies of carrying out agricultural land-use inventories, support for Agricultural Advisory Committees and supporting development of Agricultural Area Plans will provide tools to address these issues. While the program is not intended to provide support to individual producers, it seems likely that climate adaptation measures taken by producers, such as irrigation or drainage, will affect local planning decisions. Solutions for some of these issues at the local government level are likely to require substantial investments in infrastructure. The program’s own adaptability would increase with greater use of multistakeholder deliberation in relation to program design, greater decentralization of program decision making and regular formal review with public reporting.

Recommendations:

• As climate change becomes a greater concern for both farmers and local governments, it would be beneficial for the program to extend its engagement on climate issues that relate to its planning and coordination mandate, including planning for disaster risk reduction in the agriculture sector.

• The program can promote inclusion of climate change and disaster risk reduction as elements of planning for agriculture at the local government level.

15 The regional adaptation strategy documents can be found at: http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/adapt/regional-strategies.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf

http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/adapt/regional-strategies


29

7.5 Agroforestry

Overview: Agroforestry is an intensive or extensive land management approach that purposefully integrates the growing of trees with crops or livestock. The integration may entail retaining or adding trees or shrubs into agriculture production systems, or adding or enhancing crops or livestock in forest production systems. The following agroforestry systems can be found in B.C.: silvopasture, alley cropping, forest farming, integrated riparian management and windbreaks/shelterbelts/timberbelts/buffers. The agroforestry program is responsible for the following activities:

• Agroforestry projects: pilots, demonstrations, workshops, communications and technical support to provide industry with up-to-date information on integrated land-use systems for economic, environmental and social benefits; establishing pilot and demonstration projects to support adoption of agroforestry systems in B.C.

• Supporting producer-driven agroforestry initiatives and projects.

• Collaborating with other government agencies and industry in the development of policies that support the integration of agroforestry management as a land-use option.

Resourcing: The Agroforestry program has 1.3 FTE positions.

Rationale for Inclusion:

• Agroforestry systems can help producers to build financial resilience through diversifying income, provide micro-climate modification,and have the potential to help producers adapt to climate change impacts such as increased wildfire risk, flooding, weather variability and soil erosion.

• The agroforestry program scope includes both private and Crown land, which adds a key dimension (most other programs pertain only to private land).

• Shelterbelts and buffers have been identified as key on-farm adaptation practices (Dobb, 2013).


• Agroforestry program: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/agroforestry/

• Agroforestry Industry Strategic Plan 2009–2013: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/agroforestry/publications/BCAgroforestryStrategicPlan_2009-2013.pdf

• B.C. Farm Practices & Climate Change Adaptation: Shelterbelts (Dobb, 2013): http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/wp/wp-content/media/FarmPractices-Shelterbelts.pdf

• personal communication, Leslie MacDonald, June 24, 2013

• personal communication, David Trotter, August 30, 2013

Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, the Agroforestry program scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately (6 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, but it ranks highly (8 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

Agroforestry is a priority practice for producer adaptation to climate change, and will likely become more important and widely used in B.C. The program’s adaptability strengths are its responsive design to stakeholder inputs and its support to relevant adaptive practices for both on-farm and Crown land management purposes. However, the program is small, limiting its reach and impact at a decentralized scale in diverse provincial conditions. The program provides limited, strategically focused support to adaptive capacities and would be challenged to provide expanded services at

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/agroforestry

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/agroforestry/publications/BCAgroforestryStrategicPlan_2009-2013.pdf

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/agroforestry/publications/BCAgroforestryStrategicPlan_2009-2013.pdf

http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/wp/wp-content/media/FarmPractices-Shelterbelts.pdf



30

current resource levels if climate change increases demand. The program has used multistakeholder deliberation in both design and implementation. The program’s own adaptability would increase with greater use of full multistakeholder deliberation and regular formal review with public reporting.

Recommendations:

• Investigate and monitor demand and adjust services so that emerging priorities related to climate can be incorporated.

• Continue expansion of regional demonstrations and development of extension materials with linkages to climate adaptation priorities.

• Support greater integration of agroforestry with land-use objectives at provincial, regional and local government levels.

7.6 Range Management

Overview:

The Range Management program is delivered by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Portions of the program were formerly in the Ministry of Agriculture, and related staff continue to work together closely. Of B.C.’s total land area, 94 per cent is provincial Crown land, 1 per cent is federal land and 5 per cent is private land. Approximately 1,000 producers rely on Crown rangeland to graze livestock from May until the end of October each year. The Range Management Program allocates and administers hay-cutting and grazing agreements and grazing leases on Crown rangeland across B.C. Program activities focus on ensuring healthy and sustainably managed rangelands capable of supporting the interests and activities of clients, stakeholders and partners. Parties with an interest in the management of B.C. rangelands include the ranching industry, guide outfitters, First Nations, government, non-government agencies, wildlife, recreationalists and the general public.

The program’s scope includes rangeland practice, best management practices on rangeland, assistance with development and maintenance of infrastructure on rangeland, fencing and water development, sustainability of use and practices, determining long-term range productivity and monitoring. District staff issue tenures and monitor use, while the provincial branch provides policy advice, evaluations and training. The program also has an extension function.

Resourcing: The Range Management program has 45 staff (including two managers).

Rationale for Inclusion: Climate change will lead to changes on rangeland, such as shifts in plant species, changes in pests and invasive plants, and changing precipitation and hydrology. Rangeland management will need to adapt accordingly to maintain the health and productivity of the range resource. Healthy range ecosystems are more resilient to climate change.


• Range Program: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/

• Personal communication, Doug Fraser, June 26, 2013

• Personal communication, Perry Grilz, June 28, 2013

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra


31

Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, the Range Management program scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately high (7 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, but it ranks highly (9 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

The program’s strengths are its decentralized and responsive support to producers, and its monitoring programs that provide feedback to adjust practices. The design of the program, including extension and monitoring, allows the integration of climate change impacts along with other factors into local practices. The program has a regular review mechanism and is highly decentralized in implementation. These factors contribute to the program’s high adaptability. On the other hand, the program is narrowly focused on a particular sub-sector and will have a limited contribution to adaptive capacity of producers. Climate changes will have large impacts on rangeland, and demands on this program will likely increase.

Recommendations:

• Conduct regular reviews of program needs and available resourcing to ensure that emerging stresses from climate change can be effectively managed.

• Continue to conduct ongoing monitoring and forage analysis to inform decisions about range use and allocation.

7.7 Invasive Alien Plant Program

Overview: The Invasive Alien Plant Program, in the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, is responsible for detection, inventory and control of new and existing invasive plant populations, including noxious weeds on Crown land in B.C., and for the development of new biological control agents.16 Program staff also conducts risk assessments and risk analysis on emerging invasive plant threats, as well as logistics planning and client interactions related to preventing the introduction or spread of invasive plants. The team sets policy, makes recommendations regarding legislation and supports the Inter-Ministry Invasive Species Working Group in setting priorities for the province. Implemented control strategies are consistent with the principles of integrated pest management, and treatment methods include prevention, cultural, manual/mechanical, chemical and biological control. Monitoring is an essential follow-up to treatments, in order to measure efficacy and make adjustments to future treatments. The Invasive Alien Plant Program works in co-operation with local invasive plant/weed committees established across the province, and with local government weed programs. The program team has approximately 27 partner groups in the delivery of invasive plants work, including stakeholders and local governments. The program treats invasive plants on Crown land through staff, contracts or partnership delivery approaches and supports treatment of provincial prohibited invasive plants in any jurisdiction under the B.C. Invasive Species Early Detection and Rapid Response Plan.

Resourcing: There are 10 people in the group, based in Nelson, Prince George, Kamloops, Victoria and Nanaimo.

Rationale for Inclusion: Climate change is expected to increase the risk of establishment and spread of invasive plants. The impacts of invasive plants include disruption of ecosystem processes, alteration of soil chemistry, increased soil erosion, livestock poisoning, increased risk of wildfires and risk to biosecurity. Invasive species management will have to respond to these changes.

16 The program also has a minor focus on certain other invasives (such as mollusks and fire ants) not in the mandate of the Ministry of Agriculture’s Pest Management/Plant Health program.


32


• Invasive Alien Plant Program: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/Plants/index.htm

• Personal communication, Val Miller, July 17, 2013

Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, the Invasive Alien Plant Program scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately low (4 out of 10 points) in its ability to support adaptation needs, but it ranks highly (8 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

Climate change will bring many invasive plant issues to B.C., which will have impacts on agricultural producers. The lower scores in terms of anticipated adaptability suggest that, in its current configuration, the program is not well prepared to deal with producer adaptation needs that can already be predicted with confidence. However, the program’s strong multistakeholder design and implementation is an adaptive feature that could be strengthened through more decentralization and with formal review procedures.

Recommendations:


• Consider whether current monitoring of invasive plants is sufficient to ensure that highest priorities and risks are being tackled as new threats emerge.


7.8 Pest Management/Plant Health

Overview: Pest management services are provided by the Plant Health Unit, which: (1) facilitates the development, implementation, maintenance and evaluation of integrated pest management practices and products to mitigate the impact of plant diseases and insect pests; (2) diagnoses plant health problems; (3) monitors and addresses pest outbreaks, including established, non-native and invasive species; (4) makes policy recommendations on plant health issues; (5) administers the provincial Plant Protection Act; and (6) provides guidance on the management of pesticides.

Resourcing: There are nine positions in the group, seven based in Abbotsford and two based in Kelowna.

Rationale for Inclusion: Climate change is expected to increase the risk of establishment and spread of pests. Pest management will have to respond to these changes.


• Pest Management/Plant Health: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/

• Plant Health Unit, Plant and Animal Health Branch: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/contacts.htm

• Plant Protection Act: http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96365_01

• Other legislation: Weed Control Act, Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, Integrated Pest Management Act, Seed Potato Act

• Personal communication, Tracy Hueppelsheuser, June 21, 2013

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hra/Plants/index.htm

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/cropprot/contacts.htm

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96365_01


33

Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, the Pest Management/Plant Health program scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately (5 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs and also ranks moderately (6 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

As with the Invasive Alien Plant Program, climate change is likely to bring adaptation demands for which the Pest Management program is now only modestly equipped. An adaptive program will be required to deal with these foreseeable challenges and needs. The program’s adaptability to climate change could be increased through increased responsiveness to predictable adaptation needs consistent with available resources, along with greater decentralization and formal review procedures.

Recommendations:


• Consider whether current monitoring of emerging pests is sufficient to ensure that highest priorities and risks are being tackled as new threats emerge.


7.9 Environmental Farm Plan Program

Overview: Environmental farm planning is a no-charge, voluntary, self-directed process available to producers to identify both agri-environmental strengths and potential risks on their farms. As appropriate, it includes a prioritized action plan to reduce the risks. The process is normally completed with the assistance of a trained planning advisor. By conducting a risk assessment, producers establish the current level of environmental health-related risks to various activities on their farm or ranch. This is accomplished using a specifically designed planning workbook, which the planning advisor provides. The results of the assessment identify areas of concern on the farm or ranch that the producer may need to address to reduce environmental risks. The assessment also identifies where adoption of beneficial management practices may help to reduce the environmental risks. Producers who have a completed and current Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) are eligible to apply for cost-shared incentives through the Growing Forward Beneficial Management Practices (BMP) program.

Resourcing: The program is delivered by ARDCorp, a subsidiary of the B.C. Agriculture Council, and has the support of less than one FTE position in the Ministry of Agriculture.

Rationale for Inclusion: The EFP program can effectively support farm adoption of adaptive practices by providing advice to producers as climate risks change. It is possible that further BMPs for adaptation could be developed, based on forthcoming research and reports.


• ARDCorp Environmental Farm Plan program:

• http://www.bcac.bc.ca/ardcorp/program/environmental-farm-plan-program

• EFP Program documents: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/EnviroFarmPlanning/Documents_and_Reports.htm

• Personal communication, Leslie MacDonald, , June 24, 2013

http://www.bcac.bc.ca/ardcorp/program/environmental-farm-plan-program

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/EnviroFarmPlanning/Documents_and_Reports.htm


34

Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, the EFP program scores 2 out of 2, the highest potential score. The program ranks highly (8 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs and also ranks highly (9 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

The EFP program scores highly on planned adaptability because it responds directly to a range of environmental practices that relate to climate adaptation at the farm level. In addition, the program design is based on deliberative interaction with producers and other stakeholders. The program is delivered in a highly decentralized mode, and has a regular formal review process that allows incorporation of lessons and changes in farm-level issues. Program adaptability could be boosted through greater deliberation at the program-delivery level, stronger support to local self-organization and shared learning between farmers. As climate change begins to influence local environmental issues, such as hydrology, biodiversity and drainage, producer adaptation would be assisted if the program continues to develop its materials and expertise related to adaptation.

Recommendations:


7.10 Beneficial Management Practices Program

Overview: The Beneficial Management Practices (BMP) program provides incentive-based funding for on-farm actions that have been identified by an agri-environmental risk assessment. As participants in the EFP program, producers are able to identify their farms’ environmental strengths, prioritize any potential risks to the environment, and take advantage of tools and techniques available to manage those risks. Producers who have completed an EFP are eligible to apply for cost-shared incentives through the “On-Farm Action” BMP program to implement actions identified in their on-farm environmental action plans. Incentives are targeted at a host of environmental concerns across the province. Cost sharing has ranged from 30 per cent to 100 per cent, with caps ranging from $1,000 to $70,000. In 2011 several BMPs related to climate change adaptation were added to the program (e.g., irrigation, shelterbelts/buffers).

Resourcing: The program is delivered by ARDCorp, a subsidiary of the B.C. Agriculture Council, and has the support of less than one FTE position in the Ministry of Agriculture.

Rationale for Inclusion: The BMP program can effectively support farm adoption of adaptive practices. It is possible that further BMPs for climate change adaptation could be developed, based on forthcoming research and reports.

Sources and Further Information

• EFP program: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/EnviroFarmPlanning/Documents_and_Reports.htm


Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, the BMP program scores 2 out of 2, the highest potential score. The program ranks highly (9 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, and it ranks highly (8 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/EnviroFarmPlanning/Documents_and_Reports.htm


35

The BMP program is especially strong in enhancing producer adaptive capacities. The program provides support across a number of adaptive interventions, and has already specifically responded to emerging needs in this area. A weakness is that the program is structured to promote a list of specific practices, while results from CAI’s vulnerability assessments, CAI reports on farm-level adaptation practices, and the growing knowledge about ecosystem adaptability, suggest that adaptation has less to do with adopting specific practices and more to do with understanding and reinforcing resilience in agro-ecosystems and farming systems. These emerging insights might suggest a shift to more nuanced and systems-oriented recommendations in the program over time. The adaptability of the program itself is good, but could be strengthened through program implementation measures that allowed for decentralized stakeholder deliberation and social networking. As climate changes become more evident, it is expected that the program will need to develop its materials and expertise related to adaptation.

Recommendations:

• Producer adaptation would be assisted if the program continues to develop its information materials and expertise related to climate change adaptation, especially in light of emerging insights into resilient agro-ecosystems and farming systems.

7.11 Agricultural Emergency Management

Overview: The Agricultural Emergency Management program assists producers and regional governments to plan for and respond to catastrophic environmental emergencies affecting agriculture. AgriRecovery is a disaster-relief framework in which B.C. and the federal government work together on a case-by-case basis to assess disasters affecting B.C. farmers and respond with specific programming when assistance is needed beyond existing programs (AgriStability, AgriInvest, AgriInsurance). Disaster Financial Assistance is a funding program of Emergency Management B.C. that provides financial assistance to help individuals and communities to recover from catastrophic events resulting in uninsurable property and infrastructure damage.

Resourcing: Planning and coordination is handled by a total of 1.75 FTEs contributed from multiple staff members around the province. More staff are deployed as required in response to emergencies.

Rationale for Inclusion: With climate change, extreme weather events are projected to increase in frequency and intensity. Emergency preparedness for agriculture already deals with drought, floods and fire. Emergency management will need to deal with the increased likelihood and intensity of these events.


• Ministry of Agriculture Emergency Planning: http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/emergency/

• Emergency Management B.C.: http://embc.gov.bc.ca/em/index.html

• AgriRecovery: http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1200689505769&lang=eng


Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, the program scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately low (4 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, and it ranks moderately (6 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/emergency

http://embc.gov.bc.ca/em/index.html

http://www4.agr.gc.ca/AAFC-AAC/display-afficher.do?id=1200689505769&lang=eng


36

The program provides narrowly focused support for adaptation and helps to build producer capacity in several areas. The emergency events being addressed are likely to become more frequent and severe as the climate changes. Prudence suggests a greater focus on preventive adaptation measures to avoid the high costs of emergency response and relief, which could have significant fiscal implications, especially in relation to infrastructure. Although the program was not designed with significant multistakeholder consultation, it regularly engages in multistakeholder after-action event reviews. The program is also required to follow the provincial B.C. Emergency Response System and works closely with Emergency Management B.C. for program-related issues and planning.

The support available for producer-level disaster risk reduction through adaptation planning and preparedness will need greater focus as climate risks increase. The ministry’s emergency management program is well established and effective in planning for disaster response, but there is an emerging need to support producers taking proactive on-farm risk reduction and avoidance measures. This is in addition to the need for regional and local infrastructure that reduces risk—infrastructure that has significant fiscal implications beyond the Ministry of Agriculture.

Because the program objectives and costs are so closely linked to climate risks, a review focused on climate change and its implications for disaster risk reduction measures would be merited.

Recommendations:

• Conduct a review of provincial agricultural vulnerabilities to extreme events, including identification of significant gaps in preparedness and risk mitigation at the broad scale (e.g., infrastructure issues).

• Collaborate with the B.C. Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative on projects to pilot risk-reduction measures with producers.

• Expand engagement with local authorities and agriculture sectors to increase their emergency preparedness and recovery for events that affect agriculture and continue to conduct after-action event reviews.

7.12 Agriculture Water Management Program

Overview:

About 97 per cent of water licensed in British Columbia is for hydroelectric power production and related water storage. The remaining 3 per cent of water licensed is for consumptive uses such as industrial, commercial, drinking water or agriculture. A number of agriculture water management strategies and projects are being undertaken in B.C:

• Agriculture Water Demand Model

• Living Water Smart – B.C. ’s Water Plan

• British Columbia’s Water Act modernization

• Okanagan Sustainable Water Strategy

This program addresses agriculture water-use efficiency and conservation, securing water for current and future needs, and planning for adaptation to climate change through the development of watershed plans. It delivers services through a variety of information channels, including up to 20 public information and training sessions per year with producers and other local stakeholders.


37

Resourcing: There are three Ministry of Agriculture positions directly involved with the water management program—two based in Abbotsford and one located in Kamloops. There are 15 additional staff members located throughout the province who spend part of their time working on issues related to the agriculture water management program. The total FTE allocation is estimated at 3.5.

Rationale for Inclusion: Climate change scenarios predict that winter snow packs will decrease, reducing water storage opportunities. Further, agricultural water demands are expected to increase as climate change creates hotter summers, longer growing seasons and more frequent droughts in some regions. Climate change makes the understanding of water demand and its management increasingly important for climate adaption.


• Agriculture Water Management: www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/water/Ag_Water_Management.html

• Personal Communication, Ted van der Gulik, June 19, 2013

Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, the program scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately (5 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, because of its deliberately narrow focus on the high-priority water sector. It also ranks moderately (5 out of 10) in its ability to respond to unanticipated events.

The program provides focused support for adaptation needs in the key area of water supply and management. As a result, it does not address many other potential adaptation measures. This is ground-breaking technical support, especially important for farmers and local/regional planning, and is expected to see an increase in demand as drought, excess moisture and other climate impacts become more common. The program could best enhance its support for producer adaptation by expanding to eventually cover the entire province. The program’s adaptability would increase with greater use of multistakeholder deliberation and regular formal review with public reporting.

Recommendations:


7.13 Water Act Modernization

Overview: Dating from 1909, B.C.’s Water Act is the province’s primary piece of water management legislation and provides the regulatory framework for the sustainability of B.C.’s water. The act has been under review for several years to address new pressures on water related to growing populations; increased industrial, residential and agricultural water use; and climate changes. This review incorporates new initiatives directly relevant to agriculture, such as promoting efficiency, reserving water for agriculture, groundwater licensing and water-use reporting. The new legislation will place greater emphasis on the value of water and on conservation measures. The 2010 policy paper on a new Water Sustainability Act proposes the enabling of agricultural water reserves, which expands powers to reserve water for irrigation. This addition is intended to improve the long-term security of water supply for Agricultural Land Reserve lands and to support increased agricultural production, food security and water-use efficiency in the agriculture sector.

Resourcing: Not applicable, as the new Water Act has not yet been implemented.

Rationale for Inclusion: Proposed modernization of the Water Act will lead to major changes in the management, diversion and use of provincial water resources. Water access and allocation rights are extremely important for agricultural adaptation to climate change. Living Water Smart: B.C.’s Water Plan (2008) commits to new approaches to

www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/water/Ag_Water_Management.html


38

water management that address the impacts from a changing water cycle, increased drought risk and other impacts on water caused by climate change. While the new legislation has not been formalized or submitted for approval, an assessment of measures that have been publicly proposed and widely circulated in policy papers allowed the project team to engage with this strategically important policy domain and provide feedback to the Ministry of Environment staff responsible for the eventual legislation.


• Water Act modernization: http://livingwatersmart.ca/water-act/

• Water Act: http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96483_01

• Policy proposal on BC’s new Water Sustainability Act: http://www.livingwatersmart.ca/water-act/docs/wam_wsa-policy-proposal.pdf

Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, the core elements of this proposed legislation score highly: 2 out of 2. The proposed provisions of the policy, as outlined in public discussion papers, point to a policy that would rank highly (8 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, and also rank highly (9 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

Water Act modernization ranks as a highly adaptive policy on both planned and unanticipated adaptation because of the breadth of measures it encompasses for the water sector, and the decentralized and responsive mechanisms it proposes to implement these. Water use and management will be increasingly important for farmers and local/regional planning as the climate changes, so these reforms will have effects across all subsectors and regions of the province. The structure of proposed measures will provide farmers direct incentives for adaptation and also build adaptive capacity. The process of policy development and implementation relies heavily on multistakeholder deliberative processes that are decentralized to the watershed scale and below. Regular formal reviews are intended to inform further evolution of water management processes. All of these factors make for a highly adaptive policy.

Recommendations:

• Implementation of proposed changes to the Water Act would generate a new policy framework for water management in B.C. that would be highly adaptive. For the purposes of supporting adaptation in the agriculture sector, this should be encouraged. It will be important to ensure that this adaptability is maintained as these changes are operationalized.

7.14 Agri-Food Business Development Program

Overview: Business Knowledge and Strategic Adaptation is a suite of initiatives based on a collaborative model between the ministry and industry stakeholders and strategic partners. The program goal is to strengthen the management capacity of agri-food sector businesses. The program builds on the foundation of farm business management programming developed during Growing Forward 1. The structure of the program is based on the ministry’s business development initiatives, including the Business Development Extension Unit, Farm Business Advisory Services, First Nations Agriculture Business Development, Farm Management Speaker program, Youth and Community Leadership development and the SMARTFARMBC website and social media network. It is anticipated that the program will continue to evolve to better help the sector manage challenges and opportunities through improved access to information, skills and knowledge resources.

http://livingwatersmart.ca/water-act/

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96483_01

http://www.livingwatersmart.ca/water-act/docs/wam_wsa-policy-proposal.pdf


39

Resourcing: In total, the program is supported by an estimated 7.5 FTE positions in the ministry, but this support is spread over a large number of staff in various parts of the province, most of whom only devote a small fraction of their time to the program.

Rationale for Inclusion: Farm businesses that have financial resources and a risk management approach will have more resilience in dealing with climate change. The CAI risk and opportunity assessments identified actions linked to agri-food business development that would be necessary for climate change adaptation, such as:

• Develop financial tools to support on-farm planning, innovation and infrastructure for adaptation to climate change.

• Identify mechanisms to manage new types of risk for farm businesses associated with climate change impacts.


• Farm business management: http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/busmgmt/

• Personal communication, George Geldart, April 24, 2013

• Personal communication, Leslie MacDonald, November 21, 2013

Discussion of Assessment Results: For overall adaptability, the program scores highly, 2 out of 2. The program ranks moderately highly (7 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs and ranks very highly (9 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

The program scores moderately highly in terms of adaptation support to producers because it provides broad (but mostly indirect) support for climate adaptation measures. However, the program’s real adaptability strengths relate to its design, with multistakeholder deliberations in both design and implementation, a strongly decentralized delivery model and support for local networking and social learning. Producer adaptation action would be assisted if the program were to develop stronger expertise related to the business implications of climate change adaptation and related building of commercial resilience.

Recommendations:

• Producer adaptation action would be assisted if the program were to develop stronger expertise related to the business implications of climate change adaptation and related building of commercial resilience.

http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/busmgmt


40

8.0 Conclusions

8.1 Conclusions from the Program Analysis

The programs selected for analysis were those believed to be most relevant to agricultural adaptation. The analysis confirms their relevance and concludes that they are generally supportive of climate change adaptation in the agriculture sector.

Five of the 14 programs are rated as highly adaptive in relation to climate change (Range Management, Environmental Farm Plan, Beneficial Management Practices, Water Act modernization and Agri-Food Business Development). This means that, even without explicit ministry policy priorities for climate adaptation, these programs provide good support for producers to adapt to anticipated climate changes. In addition, these programs can be expected to adapt well to unexpected external stressors at multiple scales, whether in climate or other areas, due to their inherent design and structure. It should be noted that two of these five highly rated program areas are managed outside the Ministry of Agriculture (Range Management and Water Act modernization).

In general, the program suite (all 14 programs taken together) assessed in this pilot provided broad indirect support to farm operators who will be facing more frequent climate change-related decisions. The suite of programs was strong on information for producers, with some limited financial backstopping for risk management. These strengths are consistent with a programming approach that provides information and risk management to enable producers to make informed decisions in their own context. There is concern, however, that some of these programs will face challenges as the impacts of climate change become more pronounced.

Despite the generally satisfactory adaptability of this suite of programs, there are four areas of concern in the context of climate change:

1. Across the entire suite of programs, there are few examples of support for building adaptive capacity beyond access to information and financing. Support for technical innovation, infrastructure, new institutions and networks is limited. This suite of programs also does not address the increasing pressure on producer margins imposed by growing climate risks in the future. This changing profile of climate risk and vulnerability will not be equitably distributed, and will increase pressure on some producers to exit the sector.

2. Risk management programs may be stressed by increasing impacts of climate change. As the risk profile of production practices changes in response to climate variability, it is likely that gaps in risk management and financial support will become more evident. This will not only affect actuarial risks (production insurance), but also fiscal risks for disaster response and other production risks.

3. The support available for producer-level disaster risk reduction through adaptation planning and preparedness will need greater focus as climate risks increase. The ministry’s emergency management program is well established and effective in planning for disaster response, but there is an emerging need to support producers taking proactive on-farm risk reduction and avoidance measures. This is in addition to the need for regional and local infrastructure that reduces risk—infrastructure that has significant fiscal implications beyond the Ministry of Agriculture.


41

4. There is a significant gap in research and information to help the agriculture sector respond to the impacts of climate change. This includes: development and testing of new crop varieties and cultivars; information on emerging pest and disease threats; information and practices on pest and disease management across sectors; and nutritional monitoring and new varieties of feed across sectors.

Particular adaptive strengths in the suite of programs relate to: provision of information for producers facing adaptation decisions; broad coverage of indirect support to adaptation actions; support for social networking and self-organization of responses; and multistakeholder deliberation in program development.

Adaptability could be strengthened by: more stakeholder deliberation in implementation, more decentralized program decision making and regular formal reviews of program effectiveness as conditions change.

A significant asset that strengthened this analysis at the outset was the ability to draw on the extensive work undertaken by the B.C. Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative’s risk and opportunity assessments, and the provision of expertise by the CAI coordinator at key points.

The ADAPTool vulnerability analysis, which is based largely on work undertaken by the CAI, points to a number of adaptation measures across multiple subsectors for which there is currently no direct support from any of these programs. These include:

• Development and testing of new crop varieties and cultivars.

• Diversification of feed sources, feed management, nutritional monitoring and new varieties of feed across sectors.

• Better information on emerging pest and disease threats, and information and practices on pest and disease management across sectors.

• Adaptation actions related to improving drainage and flood preparation.

The first two areas relate to innovation by producers to respond to changing conditions and take advantage of new opportunities. The last two areas have broader implications that involve multiple government agencies, mandates and priorities. Agricultural producers are by nature responsive and adaptive, but they are constrained by access to information (e.g., about new technologies, production systems, pests or climate risks) and challenges in coordinating these priorities with various government agencies and mandates. In particular, the Regional Agrologist Network has the potential to be a conduit for locally appropriate information in a changing climate, but the program is currently limited in the scale and scope of the services it is able to provide. Agricultural producers are also constrained by access to financing, and as climate variability increases they will face increased risk for both traditional and new production approaches. Current programs support risk management (especially AgriStability and Production Insurance) within the bounds of conventional practices. These risk management programs may need to be updated in light of emerging adaptation pressures, changing risk profiles and new production systems.


42

8.2 Lessons Learned in the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture ADAPTool Pilot

The tool worked well to generate discussion of key climate change impacts on the different sectors, expected adaptation actions and each program’s ability to support or hinder these adaptation actions. The interview exercise allowed the interviewers and interviewees to reflect on the past, current and potential future role of their programs in relation to the list of 158 adaptation actions.

Scores were based primarily on current involvement, but the associated commentary also captured where there was greater potential to support adaptation actions. The process was more difficult for those programs that had weaker and more indirect links to climate adaptation.

Many program participants were reluctant to score zeros or a negative score, as this was perceived as a criticism of their program. It was therefore important throughout the process to be clear that the purpose was not an evaluation to rate programs as “effective” or “ineffective,” but rather an assessment of whether the program supports or does not support climate change adaptation. It took some discussion for the program leads to become comfortable that low scores on certain questions did not necessarily reflect poorly on their program, but rather reflected the mandate and objectives of the program or policy more than its performance.

The conference call with program leads to validate results and discuss the synthesis of the entire suite of programs allowed participants to witness the purpose of the tool. The comparison of autonomous adaptability and planned adaptability across the entire suite of programs enabled a discussion of similarities and differences between programs, strengths and gaps. This step appeared to be the most meaningful and revealing to the participants. The conference call also provided the opportunity for participants to step outside their own program area to look at a climate adaptation across the broader range of ministry programs.

An additional question was added to the workbook following concerns expressed by some program leads that the initial list of adaptive actions did not fully capture all the ways their programs support climate adaption actions. The added question asked program leads to rate the overall level of support offered by the program/policy to farm operators and local/regional governments making adaptation-related decisions and actions, and to explain their responses qualitatively. As it turned out, most leads did not feel the need to complete the additional question, and the responses that were received were consistent with the responses and scoring for the main questions. This is likely because efforts were made to adjust the list of adaptive actions to better reflect areas of program activity to be assessed.

Other observations by the project team:

• It was very beneficial having Matt Wiens from Manitoba and Stephen Tyler from IISD involved in initial training and throughout the process, because of their familiarity with the application of the tool.

• It is important to have a clear objective for doing the work and a clear plan of action for how findings will be used and implemented at the onset. Thus, it is important to have policy-makers and decision-makers involved from the beginning.

• Opening up the initial training to people from across a variety of ministries was valuable; however, there could have been examples used from sectors outside of agriculture in training materials and presentation.

• It is difficult to explain and teach the tool by showing the spreadsheets. If spreadsheets could be simplified or more aesthetic, graphic renditions of spreadsheets created for training purposes, that would be helpful.


43

• It is important to allow time for significant discussion and back and forth with program leads in developing and refining the vulnerability analysis, especially in a province as diverse as B.C.

• It is particularly challenging, when undertaking a province-wide assessment of this type, to also account for the high level of geographical specificity in terms of both climate impacts and agriculture sector vulnerabilities.

• In order to gain buy-in and agreement on the vulnerability analysis and the adaptation actions, there has to be initial consensus on the stressors selected and what they mean. The vulnerability analysis then needs to be a simplified picture of all vulnerabilities, but with enough detail that program leads and participants do not feel that it is inaccurate.

• Adaptation actions should include actions that apply to all of the programs. The initial vulnerability analysis was too limited and did not adequately reflect the work of programs such as Agroforestry and Strengthening Farming, even though they definitely support a range of adaptation actions.

• The most effective interview technique was to have two interviewers and two interviewees on the phone (or in a room) simultaneously. This allowed the two interviewers to take turns facilitating the conversation and taking detailed notes—to do both tasks at once with only one interviewer was more challenging, and there was a risk of detail being lost. Having two interviewees allowed richer discussion to occur around each adaptation action. It also allowed the interviewees to come to a joint conclusion around adaptation actions where they were unsure about how to score the action or just wanted to brainstorm on the spot.

• There were significant challenges related to the large number of programs selected for assessment, the unanticipated amount of time needed for dialogue with team leads to obtain buy-in (their concerns about this being a useful exercise) and the unanticipated loss of the staff person co-leading the project in the Ministry of Agriculture due to a provincial government hiring freeze. These challenges were dealt with through flexibility, creative problem solving, the positive engagement of team leads and considerable effort from the ministry side (the ministry has put in far more staff time than planned in its original project commitment).

• The project has had a significant benefit in raising awareness about climate change adaptation right across the ministry, helping to mainstream adaptation in alignment with the B.C. government’s climate change adaptation strategy.

• A significant benefit at the outset was the ability to draw on the extensive work undertaken by the B.C. Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative’s risk and opportunity assessments and the provision of expertise by the CAI coordinator at key points.

• Having an expert from IISD (Stephen Tyler) to speak authoritatively about adaptive policy-making and programming was very important for obtaining the engagement of team leads.

In conclusion, this ADAPTool pilot achieved its purposes: broadening the application of the ADAPTool; providing a systematic and comprehensive assessment and a baseline understanding of the potential for the ministry’s policies/programs to support climate change adaptation in the agriculture sector; training ministry program managers and staff in adaptive programming; and generating related discussion, networking and understanding among key staff, program leads and colleagues in other ministries.

The project has had a significant benefit in building capacity and raising awareness about climate change adaptation right across the ministry, helping to mainstream adaptation in alignment with the B.C. government’s climate change adaptation strategy. There are now 23 Ministry of Agriculture staff members trained in the principles of adaptive policies (and another 30 staff members in other provincial agencies).


44

9.0 Recommendations

This section provides priority recommendations for Ministry of Agriculture programs that are likely to have a strong impact on producer climate adaptation in the agriculture sector. More detailed program-by-program recommendations are described in Section 7. A summary list of all recommendations is provided in Table 6, below.

9.1 Key Programs

In general, the suite of programs assessed in this study is fairly adaptable to climate change. The assessment suggests potential gaps and weaknesses in relation to climate adaptation in a few key areas of emerging strategic concern related to innovation, risk management and disaster risk reduction. These suggest the need for an additional detailed review of potential climate adaptation implications in four key programs.

AgriStability

• Changes in climate may affect producers’ margins in successive years, as well as producers’ abilities to meet program criteria. Monitoring the program to assess whether increasing climate variability and extremes are affecting the AgriStability program’s ability to meet its policy objectives is recommended, as a means of preparing for future program design discussions.

• Employ greater use of multistakeholder deliberation in implementation and decentralize decision making to help the program respond to regional diversity and increasing climate variability.







• Collaborate with the B.C. Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative on projects to pilot risk reduction measures with producers.



45

Invasive Alien Plant Program and Pest Management/Plant Health (both programs)




Recommendations for the Regional Agrologist Network, Strengthening Farming, Range Management, Environmental Farm Plan Program, Beneficial Management Practices Program, Agroforestry, Agriculture Water Management, Water Act modernization and Agri-Food Business Development are shown in Table 6, below.

9.2 Ministry-Level Recommendations

• The ADAPTool assessment pilot has been a useful exercise for the Ministry of Agriculture in identifying the adaptive features of the most relevant ministry programs. It has engaged program staff in considering the implications of climate change on their operations. The ministry should use the tool to repeat this assessment in 2–3 years in order to update the conclusions from this study. The next ADAPTool assessment should be quicker, easier and more effective, as many of the program leads are now trained in the tool and are familiar with the principles of adaptive program and policy design.

• The next ADAPTool assessment of the ministry’s programming should be timed to inform negotiations for the next five-year federal-provincial agreement. If the assessment were completed in 2016, this would allow integration of the findings in intergovernmental discussions and subsequent program design and resourcing. Timing would be adjusted if there were a significant trigger, such as a significant change in government programmatic and policy direction.

• The next assessment should be updated to reflect changes in the policy or regulatory environment, program definitions, structural changes within the ministry and better information on projected climate impacts, adaptation measures and related technologies.

• An important gap in the current assessment was the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). Due to overriding priorities directed by the B.C. government, the ALC was not able to mobilize staff to engage with the current assessment. Yet the results of this assessment show that provincial programs related to the planning and management of agricultural land will be important for effective producer adaptation to climate change. In addition to the direct adaptation measures identified in the vulnerability assessment for this study, climate change is likely to have indirect effects on food security for B.C. that could increase the strategic and economic value of agricultural land in the province. The ALC should be incorporated into the next assessment to better compare adaptability features and to support commission staff in considering the implications of climate adaptation in relation to ALC policies and procedures.

• A climate adaptation contact group with a designated representative from each program area should be created, for email updates/exchanges and periodic phone calls. The contact group would be coordinated by the ministry’s climate action team. This would build on the outreach and momentum generated through the ADAPTool pilot process and support the government’s corporate objective to mainstream adaptation across ministry programs.


46

9.3 Tool and Process Recommendations

• In order to reapply the ADAPTool, the ministry should consult IISD to obtain the latest version of the tool and review the literature in order to incorporate any useful and evidence-based developments in the field of adaptive policy and programming.

• Update, refine, assess and further develop the list of producer adaptive actions that formed the basis of the vulnerability assessment.

• Working with industry, producers and experts, further develop the list of adaptive actions in the vulnerability assessment to ensure identified vulnerabilities and adaptation actions reflect on-the-ground experience and priorities.

TABLE 6. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS (HIGHEST PRIORITIES SHADED)

PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

AgriStability

• Changes in climate may affect producer margins in successive years, as well as producer ability to meet program criteria. Monitoring the program to assess whether increasing climate variability and extremes are affecting the AgriStability program’s ability to meet its policy objectives is recommended, as a means of preparing for future program design discussions.

• Employ greater use of multi-stakeholder deliberation in implementation, and more decentralization of decision making, to aid the program in responding to regional diversity and increasing climate variability.




• Evaluate alternative governance models to determine options for increased decentralized decision making.



• Collaborate with the B.C. Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative to pilot producer risk-reduction measures.


Invasive Alien Plants & Pest Management and

Plant Health

• Within the next 12 months, study needs, gaps and resourcing, to ensure emerging priorities are addressed.




47

Regional Agrologist Network

• Consider the business case for improving extension support as farm management complexity increases due to climate change.



• As climate change becomes a greater concern for farmers and local governments, it would be beneficial for the program to extend its engagement on climate issues that relate to its planning and coordination mandate. This would include anticipating and being prepared to respond to the emerging issues.

• Promote inclusion of climate change and disaster risk reduction as elements of planning for agriculture at the local government level.

Agroforestry

• Investigate and monitor demand and adjust services to incorporate emerging priorities related to climate.

• Expand regional demonstrations and development of extension materials linked to climate adaptation.

• Support greater integration of agroforestry with land-use objectives at provincial, regional and local levels.

Range Management• Conduct regular reviews of program needs and available resourcing to ensure that emerging stresses

from climate change can be effectively managed.

• Continue to conduct monitoring and forage analysis to inform decisions about range use and allocation.

Environmental Farm Plan


Beneficial Management Practices Program

• Producer adaptation would be assisted if the program continues to develop its information materials and expertise related to climate change adaptation, especially in light of emerging insights into resilient and integrated farming systems.



Water Act Modernization

• Support the implementation of proposed changes to the Water Act, which would generate a highly adaptive new policy framework for water management.

AgriFood Business Development

• Develop expertise related to the business implications of climate change adaptation and related building of farm commercial resilience.

MINISTRY-LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS

Adaptation Contact Group


ADAPTool Assessment 2016

• Undertake another ADAPTool assessment by 2016, to update conclusions from this study and to inform negotiations for Growing Forward 3.

Agricultural Land Commission

• Include the Agricultural Land Commission in the next ADAPTool assessment, as provincial programs related to the planning and management of agricultural land are important for effective producer adaptation.

ADAPTOOL AND PROCESS RECOMMENDATIONS

Producer Adaptive Actions

• Work with industry, producers and experts to further develop the list of adaptive actions in the vulnerability assessment to ensure identified vulnerabilities and adaptation actions reflect on-the-ground experience and priorities.


48

References

B.C. Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative. (2010). B.C. Agriculture climate change action plan. Retrieved from http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/wp/wp-content/media/BC-Agriculture-Climate-Change-Action-Plan.pdf

Crawford, E. & Beveridge, R. (2013, May). Strengthening BC’s agriculture sector in the face of climate change. Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions. Retrieved from http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Strengthening%20BC’s%20Agriculture%20Sector_0.pdf

Dobb, A. (2013, July). B.C. farm practices & climate change adaptation: Shelterbelts. B.C. Agriculture & Food Climate Action Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/wp/wp-content/media/FarmPractices-Shelterbelts.pdf

MacNair, E. & Crawford, E. (2012). B.C. Agriculture Climate Change Adaptation Risk + Opportunity Assessment Series. Provincial Report. B.C. Agriculture and Food Climate Action Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/wp/wp-content/media/AdaptROseries-Provincial.pdf

Ministry of Agriculture. (2012, July). B.C. Agrifoods: A strategy for growth. Retrieved from http://www.gov.bc.ca/agri/down/bc_agrifoods_strategy.pdf

Ministry of Agriculture. (2013, July). BC Agrifoods innovation strategy. Retrieved from http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/apf/GF2/Innovation/BC_AGRI_InnovationStrategy.pdf

Ministry of Environment. (2010, February). Preparing for climate change: British Columbia’s adaptation strategy. Retrieved from http://www.livesmartbc.ca/attachments/Adaptation_Strategy.pdf

O’Riordan, J., Karlsen, E,. Sandford, B., & Newman, L. (2013, July). Climate change adaptation and Canada’s crops & food supply: Briefing paper for decision makers. Retrieved from http://act-adapt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/07-13-CFS-Summary-WEB.pdf

Swanson, D. A. & Bhadwal, S. (Eds). (2009). Creating adaptive policies: A guide for policy-making in an uncertain world. Winnipeg, MB: IISD. Retrieved from http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?id=1180

Smit, B. & Pilifosova, O. (2001). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable development and equity. In J.J. McCarthy and O.F. Canziani (Eds.), Climate change 2001: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability, (pp. 877-912). Contribution of Working Group III to the 3rd Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/wp/wp-content/media/BC-Agriculture-Climate-Change-Action-Plan.pdf

http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Strengthening%20BC’s%20Agriculture%20Sector_0.pdf

http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Strengthening%20BC’s%20Agriculture%20Sector_0.pdf


http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/wp/wp-content/media/AdaptROseries-Provincial.pdf

http://www.bcagclimateaction.ca/wp/wp-content/media/AdaptROseries-Provincial.pdf

http://www.gov.bc.ca/agri/down/bc_agrifoods_strategy.pdf

http://www.gov.bc.ca/agri/down/bc_agrifoods_strategy.pdf

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/apf/GF2/Innovation/BC_AGRI_InnovationStrategy.pdf

http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/apf/GF2/Innovation/BC_AGRI_InnovationStrategy.pdf

http://www.livesmartbc.ca/attachments/Adaptation_Strategy.pdf

http://act-adapt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/07-13-CFS-Summary-WEB.pdf

http://act-adapt.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/07-13-CFS-Summary-WEB.pdf

http://www.iisd.org/publications/pub.aspx?id=1180


49

Appendix A: Vulnerability Analysis and Producer Adaptive Actions

Note: The list of adaptation actions is not meant to be definitive, but to provide examples of the types of actions that would be constructive in response to the climate impacts identified here.

GRAINS AND OILSEEDSVulnerability Producer Adaptive Action

Precipitation variability

Risk management

Insurance

Equipment modification

YieldDiversify crops, including specialty crops and increasing rotations

Flexibility: flexibility in operations and equipment to make decisions based on conditions—possibly involving equipment modification

Quality

Diversify crops, including specialty crops and increasing rotations


Better storage of water on land

Pests and disease

Research

Actions depend on the scale


Information sharing re: cultural control methods—for pest and disease

Soil erosion (drought or extreme precipitation events)

Field topography modification

Cultivation practices

Agroforestry—shelterbelts

Grassy drainage channels

Soil moisture limitationsConservation tillage practices

Residue management

Multi-year crop lossEnhanced insurance, alternative sources of income

Greater use of assistance programs

POULTRYVulnerability Producer Adaptive Action

Water availability Water storage/diversify sources

Feed supply disruptions/cost due to impacts elsewhere Diversify feed sources

Disease managementBetter information on emerging threats

Innovative disease management practices

Heat and humidity stress and cooling requirements: increased energy use

Energy efficient cooling options (sprinklers/fans)

Agroforestry (which also provides shade benefits)

Different style of ventilation (tunnel ventilation with evaporation pads) or other new technologies

Flooding and increased precipitation Relocation of operation or sandbagging


50

DAIRYVulnerability Producer Adaptive Action

Water availability Water storage

Increased attention to manure management

Feed quality, supply, costDiversify feed sources

Increase storage capacity

Disease managementImproved surveillance for emerging threats

Improved information on new or emerging disease issues

Barns could flood (risk to animals and equipment) (mostly Fraser Valley and Lower Mainland)

Raising barns

Agroforestry (which can reduce impacts of flooding)

Farmyard runoff control

Slowed animal growth/production: increased energy costs to cool barns

Implement energy efficient heating/cooling options


Backup systems and temperature management

Water shortages (mostly outside the Fraser Valley)

Water storage


Accessing groundwater

CATTLE AND OTHER LIVESTOCKVulnerability Producer Adaptive Action

Grazing season length may increase, leading to pasture stress

Improving feed efficiency through good quality feed and forages

Promoting rotational grazing and maintaining ground cover

Water availabilityIncreased storage

Alternative watering sources

Feed quality or price (drought)

New varieties of feed

Alternative feed sources (e.g. local supply, grain, pellets)

Grazing management plan

Feed management plan

feed testing

nutritional monitoring & ensuring proper supplementation

Health (access to water & heat stress) excess moisture—depending on ground conditions, potential for foot rot

Shading structures

Transition to different livestock types (e.g., different breeds of cattle)

Health (foot rot): prevention

Extending pastures to ensure access to well-drained soils

Improved feedlot design and drainage

Water quality (decreased quality with decreased quantity)

Alternate sources

Better management of dugouts and surface water sources

Conflict management with other users or pollution sources

Natural shelter diminished—in long run the loss of tree cover (drought)

Shading structures

Agroforestry management for grazing lease improvements

Barn heating Increased ventilation for barns


51

SWINEVulnerability Producer Adaptive Action

Feed costs increase

Alternative feeding methods

Alternative feed sources and supplies

Stockpile feed

Drought and changing hydrology will reduce water availability

Water management practices on farm: conservation, storage, irrigation and protection from contamination

BMPs with respect to manure storage and nutrient management of soils.

Innovative new technologies to better manage manure

Alternative water supplies

Slowed animal growth/production: increased energy costs to cool barns

Implement energy-efficient heating/cooling options


Backup systems & temperature management

Agroforestry—with shade benefits

Increased flood risk and extreme storm events

Investment in dikes, flood protection

Agroforestry—which can decrease impacts of flooding

Insurance

FORAGEVulnerability Producer Adaptive Action

Feed quality

Grazing management plan

Feed variety testing and forage blends

Drainage (excess moisture)

Access to the field for harvest and grazing Equipment modification (e.g., reducing ground pressure by using oversized wheels on balers)

Length of the grazing season

Different forage species on pasture and haylands

Rotational grazing

Managing carrying capacity

Loss of stands and legumes due to drowning out (Lower Mainland and South Coast)


Improved drainage

Decreased/fluctuating/unpredictable yields


Maintaining ground cover/rotational grazing/residue management

Agroforestry that enhances nutrient cycling and weed control

Forage blend

Decreased soil qualityMaintaining ground cover/rotational grazing

Improving rotations, use of legumes in rotations

Heat stress, early dormancy, drought


Irrigation

Maintain ground cover/rotational grazing

Increased variability

Increase diversity of forage species on pasture and haylands

Rotational grazing

Increased costs


52

Shortage of water (mostly pertains to areas outside Lower Mainland and South Coast)

Water storage


VEGETABLES, FIELD CROPS, NURSERY CROPS, TURF AND SODVulnerability Producer Adaptive Action

Soil erosion, runoff management issues Soil management, cover crops

Excessive soil moistureEquipment modification

Invest in drainage, retention ponds

Longer horticulture season and productivity Options for new crops, varieties

Late season water supply pressures, drought (mostly outside Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Efficient irrigation systems

Water recycling

Crop tunnels

Localized flood risks (mostly Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Agroforestry that can reduce impacts of flooding

Crop insurance

TREE FRUITS AND WINE GRAPESVulnerability Producer Adaptive Action

Sun scald, fruit tree stress Variety selection

Disease and pest management (overwintering) Better information on emerging threats, innovative practices

Water demand increaseInvestment in more efficient irrigation systems (e.g., drip irrigation)

Irrigation management practices

Extreme precipitation events, high winds, hailstorms

Fruit drying (e.g., helicopters)—especially cherries

Agroforestry as a shelterbelt

Insurance

Runoff management, soil erosion Cover crops

Increased variability affects pollination, spring bud break and frost risk

Wind machines

Other management measures

Changing production conditions/variability Increased investment risk: risk management practices

Potentially wetter conditions at time of harvest Quality losses during harvest

BERRIESVulnerability Producer Adaptive Action

Increased risk from precipitation variability

Drainage (in-field drainage and regional drainage upgrading)

Water management, irrigation

Crop insurance

Pest and disease management

Better information on pest management

Input costs (equipment, labour, chemicals)

Crop tunnels

Declining productivity in heat New varieties


53

Salinity

Groundwater management

Drainage tiles

Irrigation systems

Earlier and unpredictable frost dates Frost protection measures

Variability Development and evaluation of new varieties (genetics)

Flooding (mostly Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Agroforestry that reduces impacts of flooding

Upgrade dikes

Loss of crop due to drowning out (mostly Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Improved drainage

Water shortages (mostly outside of Lower Mainland and Vancouver Island)

Water storage

Improved water management

GREENHOUSESVulnerability Producer Adaptive Action

Increased overcast weather (=reduced sunshine) Adjust greenhouse growing practices to account for the changes in temperature/sunshine

Higher temperaturesResearch on the use of shade curtains or other methods to limit greenhouse crop damage

More heat-resistant varieties

Reduced access to water Research on more appropriate crop cultivars that are better adapted to the climate

Increased heavy snowfall eventsStronger, reinforced greenhouses or snow removal options

Protect hoophouses from damage

New pests Improved ventilation and pest management

ALL SECTORSVulnerability Producer Adaptive Action

Increased variability and complexity

Integrate agricultural land-use inventories and GIS into regional and local planning processes to better represent agriculture-related systems

More responsive decision making through incorporating adaptation into mechanisms such as: Official Community Plans, infrastructure and asset management plans and Agricultural Land Commission policies

Coordinating adaptation strategies and actions across landowners, jurisdictions, sectors and land uses

Regional and local measures to retain productive land in agricultural use

Using planning tools and legislation (such as designating Development Permit Areas) to protect agricultural land uses

Lack of water supply—impacts to regional infrastructure

Application of regional and local planning tools and processes to promote regional and on-farm water supply, storage and irrigation capacity

Flooding—impacts to regional infrastructure

Regional and on-farm drainage, ditch and dike infrastructure and pumping capacity

Development and enforcement of municipal bylaws as needed to implement adaptation measures


54

Appendix B: Program-Specific Scoring and Detailed Assessment

AgriStability

For overall adaptability, AgriStability scores only one out of two, despite being a key risk management and adaptation resource. In relation specifically to climate adaptation (anticipated adaptation needs), the program scores a respectable 7 out of 10.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE AGRISTABILITY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Are anticipated adaptation actions supported by the program? 1

Provides direct support for six of the 158 adaptation actions, in areas related to production loss, increased costs and investment risk management. Provides indirect support for 65 actions, mostly by providing producers with financial capacity to take the actions.

Is the policy/program itself vulnerable to climate change? 1

Marginally. There is no risk to the program over the short term (five years), but there may be more fiscal risk in the longer term (2020s) due to increased demand if climate becomes more variable.

Does the program enhance the capacity of producers to undertake the anticipated adaptation actions?

1

Partially. The program directly increases producer capacity through access to financial resources. By program design, AgriStability does not enhance producer capacity through access to information, skills, networks, infrastructure and institutions.

Was multistakeholder deliberation used in the design of the program? 2 Yes. There were extensive producer consultations for Growing Forward 1 and

Growing Forward 2.


Is multistakeholder deliberation used in program implementation? 1

Partially. There is a B.C. risk management advisory committee that is consulted on policies and programs. If there are disasters, the program talks to producers groups. They do information and outreach about ways to make the program better.

Does the policy/program enable self-organization and social networking? 1

Partially. The program has helped some industry associations to self-organize in dealing with an issue. There is also a national working group that has the specific purpose of sharing best practices.

Is decision making for program implementation adequately decentralized?

1 There is some decentralization. The head office is in Kelowna, and there are offices in Abbotsford, Fort St. John and Oliver.

Does the program have a regular formal review? 2

Yes. Growing Forward requires a comprehensive review at least every five years, with findings reported to the Ministry of Agriculture, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, and to parliament. Annual operational and financial reports are also required.


The importance of the program across multiple sectors, crops, regions and climate stressors contributes to its positive adaptability features. Its weaknesses are the limitations of its support as climate variability increases, and the narrow focus of its support on financial capacity. The adaptability of the program itself (regardless of stressor) would increase with greater use of multistakeholder deliberation in implementation and more decentralization of decision making. These characteristics would aid the program in responding to increasing regional diversity and variability.


55


For overall adaptability, Production Insurance scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately well (7 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, and even better (8 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events. Program adaptability is strengthened by its breadth across many sectors and adaptation domains, its extensive consultations with producers and its predictable program review schedule.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE PRODUCTION INSURANCE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



Provides direct support for nine of the 158 adaptation actions, in areas related to insurance, risk management and production loss. Provides indirect support for 55 actions, mostly related to cost items covered by the terms of insurance coverage.


Somewhat vulnerable. There is no risk to the program over the short term (five years)—the B.C. program is lower risk than in other parts of Canada. But there may be more risk in the longer term (2020s). If there is an increase in variability and severe weather, and farmers respond by increasing their insurance coverage, there will likely be required increases in premiums and higher government subsidies.


1

Partially. The program directly increases producer capacity through access to financial resources. The program also enhances an equitable distribution of resources by supporting farmers who may have otherwise been put out of business.

Was multistakeholder deliberation used in the design of the programs? 2

Yes. To get federal funding they have to adhere to national requirements, but still have some design flexibility. New Production Insurance products can be designed with producer input. There is an advisory committee structure for each of the crop groups, with representatives from the different associations.


Is multistakeholder deliberation used in program implementation? 2 Yes. Advisory panels and advisory groups provide input.


Somewhat. The program intends to turn over increasing authority for insurance product development to outside groups. (This is built into Growing Forward 2 program plans).

Is decision making for policy/program implementation adequately decentralized?

1The program is moving towards decentralization of some of the insurance underwriting. Also, the program is based in Kelowna, not Victoria, which represents a degree of decentralization.

Does the policy/program have a regular formal review? 2

Performance measures and metrics are re-evaluated every five years (premium rate, probable yield, self-sustaining proportion). Regular internal review occurs, but no public reporting (may in future).


Production insurance is a key support for producer financial resilience. It will become more important with greater variability and extremes in weather as the climate changes. The program’s adaptability could increase with greater use of multistakeholder deliberation in implementation and more decentralization of decision making—for example, in relation to best practices and eligibility.


56

Regional Agrologist Network (RAN)

For overall adaptability, RAN scores one out of two. The program ranks relatively low (4 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, and moderately (5 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events. The strengths of the program are its broad indirect support across a wide range of adaptation measures and its responsiveness to local farm production issues, but its direct support was limited to only seven adaptation measures, all associated with local planning and conflict management.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE REGIONAL AGROLOGIST NETWORK CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



Very broad support, indirectly supporting 147 of 158 adaptive actions and directly supporting seven actions. This shows that the program is a key contributor to climate adaptation.


Marginally. RAN’s services are needed for other reasons. Climate change may increase service demand, but does not threaten the program. However, staff could get reassigned to emergency response (e.g., extreme events) and be kept from their regular work.


1

Partially. RAN increases producer capacity through access to information, skills, networks and institutions. Although RAN does not directly support producer access to technology and infrastructure, RAN helps by informing them where and how to access these resources.

Was multistakeholder deliberation used in the design of the programs? 0 No. it was not used to design the original agrologist program 20 years ago.

However, it is planned for the near future to help guide program development.


Is multistakeholder deliberation used in program implementation? 0 Not currently, but this is planned for the near future.


Yes. RAN strongly enables networking, for example, through agricultural advisory committees serving local governments and work with farmers’ institutes. Regional agrologists can also be catalysts for self-organization, as has happened in dealing with watershed issues.


1 Some degree of decentralization. The agrologists are in regions around B.C. and local presence allows them to help local producers respond to events.

Does the policy/program have a regular formal review? 1 Regular internal review occurs, but the process does not have public reporting

(may in the future).


The program is focused on direct support related to planning and land-use conflicts. But these activities are somewhat removed from the producer adaptation practices identified in the scoping stage of this assessment, and so it scores poorly with respect to direct support for farmer adaptation. Greater emphasis on extension services to address the growing need for producer adaptation to climate change would increase adaptability. The program’s general adaptability would increase with greater use of full multistakeholder deliberation, more decentralization of decision making and regular formal review with public reporting.


57


For overall adaptability, Strengthening Farming scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately (6 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated climate adaptation needs, but it ranks highly (8 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE STRENGTHENING FARMING CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



Narrow support, limited to indirectly supporting 6 of 158 adaptive actions. Areas of support are related to protection of agricultural land uses through regional and local planning tools, legislation and processes; provision of land-use information; Minister’s Bylaw Standards for on-farm energy production; and regional water management infrastructure.

Is the policy/program itself vulnerable to climate change? 2 No.


0

Partially. The program increases producer capacity through access to infrastructure, in the sense that it ensures that local governments do not unduly restrict agricultural land uses. The program does not enhance adaptive capacity in other categories assessed: access to technology, information and skills, and institutions and networks.

Was multistakeholder deliberation used in the design of the programs? 2 Yes. The program was developed in consultation with industry and local

governments.


Is multistakeholder deliberation used in program implementation? 2 Yes. When they develop new standards they are sent out for broad consultation

with local governments, industry and representatives from producer groups.


Yes. Standards are published and workshopped. The program also supports local agricultural advisory committees. Planner workshops held by Strengthening Farming in different areas of the province provide an opportunity for planners to network and share.


1 Some degree of decentralization. The design of standards is centralized, but the implementation of the standards by local governments is highly decentralized.

Does the policy/program have a regular formal review? 1 Informal review is done regularly.


As climate change becomes a greater concern for both farmers and local governments, the program’s key strategies of agricultural land-use inventories, support for Agricultural Advisory Committees and supporting development of Agricultural Area Plans will provide tools to address these issues. The program’s own adaptability would increase with greater use of multistakeholder deliberation in relation to program design, greater decentralization of program decision making and regular formal review with public reporting.


58

Agroforestry Program

For overall adaptability, the Agroforestry program scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately (6 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, but it ranks highly (8 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE AGROFORESTY PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



Six out of 158 adaptive actions are directly supported by the program, related to shelterbelts, buffers, shade (cooling) and replacing lost tree cover on grazing. Forty-three indirectly support a range of actions related to diversification and management of risk, water, feed and grazing.

Is the policy/program itself vulnerable to climate change? 1 Marginally. The design, species selection, priorities and systems approach

used will adapt and adjust to climate change.


1

The program is a key provider of access to relevant information and skills, as well as to federal programs, institutions, non-governmental organizations, and industry and academic institutions. The program also helps producers to access financial resources, technical experts and relevant technology.

Was multistakeholder deliberation used in the design of the programs? 2 Yes. The Agroforestry Program and its projects are all designed and supported

by multiple stakeholders.


Is multistakeholder deliberation used in the implementation of the policy/program?

2 Yes. The Agroforestry Program and its projects are all implemented by and in discussion with multiple stakeholders


Yes. The multistakeholder approach ensures the sharing of information and practices, and encourages the development of informal linkages and discussion among producers. Program resources are used to fund directly or provide in-kind support for foster networking and relationship building as interests arise with participant groups.


1

Some policy implementation and decisions are decentralized and based on the needs of a certain location or proponent. However, decision making in other areas is not decentralized—for example, with respect to some allowable uses of Crown land.

Does the policy/program have a regular formal review? 1 Several stakeholder forums and working groups provide informal periodic

reviews. These are integral input to annual program business planning.


The program’s adaptability strengths are its responsive design to stakeholder inputs and its support to relevant adaptive practices for both on-farm and Crown land management. However, the program is small, limiting its reach and impact at a decentralized scale in diverse provincial conditions. The program has used multistakeholder deliberation in both design and implementation. The program’s own adaptability would increase with greater use of full multistakeholder deliberation and regular formal review with public reporting.


59

Range Management Program (Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations)

For overall adaptability, the Range Management Program scores 2 out of 2. The program ranks moderately highly (7 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, but it ranks highly (9 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE RANGE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (FLNRO) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



Ten out of 158 adaptive actions are directly supported, related to feed efficiency, extension materials, grazing management, water management, conflict management and forage analysis for local planning. Six actions are indirectly supported, related to feed, nutrition, livestock types and grazing lease improvements.

Is the policy/program itself vulnerable to climate change? 1 Marginally. There will be an increase in demand for the program, with changing

land productivity and challenges related to water shortages and invasive plants.


1The program is a key provider of access to relevant information and skills, and a partial provider of access to institutions, networks, technology and infrastructure.


Yes. There are multiple players on the land—ranching industry, forestry, water purveyors and the public—so policies are always reviewed by multiple stakeholder groups and integrated.



1

Yes, depending on the type of change. There are discussions with local groups, First Nations and other interests on management in the case of changes to legislation; for renewals of leases, tenures or licences, they go through normal consultation.


Yes. Through extension, field days and meetings—bringing ranchers together, discussing science, taking them into field. The program is set up to promote this.


2 Decision making is all local. It is the local district manager who makes decisions and can take or leave the advice of the provincial-based program.


Yes. They evaluate range uses and the efficacy of program business lines, such as high-elevation range, spring range and hay-cutting practices. This is a regular, built-in requirement at the branch level. At the district level, they are also required to look at 10–30 per cent of practices each year. Reports are publicly available.


The program’s strengths are its decentralized and responsive support to producers and its monitoring programs that provide feedback to adjust practices. The design of the program, including extension and monitoring, allows the integration of climate change impacts along with other factors into local practices. The program has a regular review mechanism and is highly decentralized in implementation. These factors contribute to the program’s high adaptability. On the other hand, the program is narrowly focused on a particular subsector and will have limited contribution to the adaptive capacity of producers. Climate changes will have large impacts on rangeland and demands on this program will likely increase.


60

Invasive Alien Plant Program (Ministry of Forests, Lands, and Natural Resource Operations)

For overall adaptability, the Invasive Plant program scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately low (4 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, but it ranks highly (8 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE INVASIVE ALIEN PLANT PROGRAM (FLNRO) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



Sixteen out of 158 adaptive actions are directly supported by the program, related to new crops and forage species, grazing management, water management, feed and research. Nineteen actions in similar areas are indirectly supported.

Is the policy/program itself vulnerable to climate change? 0 Yes. The program will have greatly increased need to address climate change—

the issue is whether government resourcing will increase commensurately.


1The program is a key provider of access to relevant information and skills, and to institutions and networks. The program does not provide access to financial capacity, technology or infrastructure.


The invasive plant program is a long-standing program. It evolved based on concerns from the agriculture sector but was not developed with full multistakeholder deliberation.



2Yes. They work with multiple stakeholder groups—28 groups in all, including invasive plant committees and local governments. Twelve of the groups are multistakeholder committees and cover most of the province.


Yes. The legislation enables local government to adopt and enforce by-laws suitable to local conditions. The legislation allows them to work collaboratively. The program facilitates information sharing and copying of best practices.


1The nature of the program is decentralized—they have staff all over the province. Further decentralization is planned, as all FLNRO compliance and enforcement staff have been now been identified as weed inspectors.


They do continuous improvement, regularly reviewing each component of the program from provincial to site scale. But this is not formally required or reported publicly.


Climate change will bring many invasive plant issues to B.C., which will have impacts on agricultural producers. The lower scores in anticipated adaptability suggest that in its current configuration the program is not well prepared to deal with producer adaptation needs that can already be predicted with confidence. However, the program’s strong multistakeholder design and implementation is an adaptive feature that could be strengthened through more decentralization and with formal review procedures.


61

Pest Manangement (Plant Health) Program

For overall adaptability, the Pest Management program scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately (5 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, and also ranks moderately (6 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE PEST MANAGEMENT (PLANT HEALTH) CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



Eight of 158 adaptive actions are directly supported, all related to providing information, advice, research and treatment support for pest management in commodity sectors. Twenty-six actions are indirectly supported (e.g., related to municipal bylaws, crops, new varieties, drainage, and alternative animal feed sources and methods).


Marginally. Even without climate change, the program will be important. But climate change will bring greatly increased demands for service, and there are already gaps in provision. For example, there is no entomologist or plant pathologist in the Peace Region, so producers there have less support for adaptation related to pests.


1The program is a key provider of access to relevant information and skills, and to institutions and networks. The program does not provide access to financial capacity, technology or infrastructure.

Was multistakeholder deliberation used in the design of the program? 2

Yes. A major consultation on the five-year plant-health strategy was undertaken a few years ago. The program is doing another plant-health strategy now, which will also have extensive consultation.



1 Partly. They do issue specific consultations; for example, they are consulting on changes to industry affected by regulation under the Plant Protection Act.


Yes. The program provides information and advice, and producers are encouraged to share best practices and lessons learned. An example is the study groups that the greenhouse growers and other associations have.


1

Partially. For legally regulated pests, the program/response is highly centralized— Canadian Food Inspection Agency leads and the Ministry of Agriculture supports them, either in Victoria, Abbotsford or regional offices. But for pests that are not legally regulated, and on extension, the program is very decentralized and local staff can develop their own approaches.

Does the policy/program have a regular formal review? 1 They do annual reports and workplans/business planning for the unit, but have

not done a formal review of program effectiveness.


As with the Invasive Alien Plant Program, climate change is likely to bring adaptation demands for which the Pest Management Program is now only modestly equipped. An adaptive program will be required to deal with these foreseeable challenges and needs. The program’s adaptability to climate change could be increased through increased responsiveness to predictable adaptation needs, consistent with available resources, along with greater decentralization and formal review procedures.


62

Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) Program

For overall adaptability, the EFP program scores 2 out of 2, the highest potential score. The program ranks highly (8 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, and also ranks highly (9 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE ENVIRONMENTAL FARM PLAN PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



The EFP Program provides very extensive indirect support, but no direct support. The program indirectly supports 140 of 158 producer adaptive actions. The only areas of action not supported relate to insurance, research and local government/regional planning.


No. The EFP Program is not vulnerable to climate change because it is focused on a broad range of environmental issues. As climate change proceeds, the need for the program will continue.


1

The program provides access to information and skills, and to institutions and networks. But there is no requirement for producers to do anything, and the information related to climate change is a small part of the total. The program does not provide access to financial capacity (see BMP Program), technology or infrastructure.


Yes. Multistakeholder participation has been a cornerstone of the program design and operation since the beginning (going back to the federal-provincial Agricultural Policy Framework 2003–2008).



1

Partly. While program design is done with widespread consultation, implementation is at the level of individual farm, ranch or First Nations agriculture operation, and the consultation is only one-on-one between them and trained EFP advisors.


Yes. The process of answering the questions and completing an EFP provides farmers with a lot of information about beneficial practices. Farmers often get together and talk about the information and the results of their EFPs, and what they have learned.


2Partially. Although the program is designed and administered centrally, the responses are completely up to farmers themselves, so the program is highly decentralized in its implementation.


Yes. The Growing Forward agreement requires review processes. Several reviews have been undertaken, both of the whole EFP Program and parts of the program. The review reports are not formally made public, but are provided to the three public partners—B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, and ARDCorp (B.C. Agriculture Council—BCAC). The program also does annual reports and workplans/business planning for the unit, but has not done a formal review of program effectiveness.


The EFP program scores highly on planned adaptability because it responds directly to a range of environmental practices that relate to climate adaptation at the farm level. The program is delivered in a decentralized mode and has a regular formal review process. Program adaptability could be boosted through greater deliberation at the program-delivery level and stronger support to local self-organization and shared learning between farmers.


63

Beneficial Manangement Practices (BMP) program

For overall adaptability, the BMP program scores 2 out of 2, the highest potential score. The program ranks highly (9 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, and it ranks highly (8 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE BENEFICIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



The BMP program directly supports 39 of 158 producer adaptive actions in the areas of operations and equipment, practices, tillage, residue and waste, agroforesty, energy efficiency, grazing, feed, water and irrigation. The program also indirectly supports 39 adaptive actions in a similar range of actions.

Is the policy/program itself vulnerable to climate change? 2 No. With climate change, the reason for the program would still remain the same.


2The program contributes broadly to this capacity through access to financial capacity, information and skills, technology, and (indirectly) institutions and networks.


Yes. The original design and deliberation for the basis of the funding program (list of eligible BMPs) was developed across Canada and has been annually vetted, with consultation, in B.C. since 2003.



1

Partly. The program is delivered via a third-party delivery agent, ARDCorp (B.C. Agriculture Council), which represents the broad agriculture industry and is supported by several government and non-government agencies. But the deliberation process does not go beyond B.C. Agriculture Council into a full stakeholder and public consultation process. Informal discussions are held with Ministry of Environment, Environment Canada and environmental non-governmental organizations , but there is no multistakeholder deliberation process.


Yes. Agricultural operators and various stakeholders share information, success stories, projects reports and impacts through a range of media. Producers are encouraged to talk about and publicize their success stories.


1

Partially. Currently two agencies (Agriculture and Agrifood Canada and Ministry of Agriculture) and one farm organization (B.C. Agricultural Research and Development Corporation [ARDCorp]) are responsible for decision making and implementation. ARDCorp has 20 contractors (planning advisors) across the province. But one ministry office (Abbotsford) makes decisions on who gets funded and these are based on policy.

Does the policy/program have a regular formal review? 2 Yes. There is an annual review of program design, eligible items and costs. The

reporting out is the creation of the new list of supported practices for the next year.


The BMP program scores highly because it provides support for both planned and unanticipated adaptation needs. It is especially strong in enhancing producer capacity. A weakness is that the program is structured to promote a list of specific practices, while adaptation has less to do with adopting specific practices and more to do with reinforcing resilience in agro-ecosystems and farming systems. The adaptability of the program itself is good, but could be strengthened through program implementation measures that allowed for decentralized stakeholder deliberation and social networking.


64

Agricultural Emergency Management Program

For overall adaptability, the program scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately low (4 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, and it ranks moderately (6 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE AGRICULTURAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



The program directly supports 27 of 158 producer adaptive actions in the areas of regional and local planning, water management, farm buildings, shading structures, conflict management, alternative feed and water sources, and protecting/relocating operations. The program also indirectly supports 11 adaptive actions related to risk management, production insurance, dikes and flood protection.


Yes. The program is about response to environmental emergencies, including drought and flooding and others that are linked directly to the climate change stressors.


1The program directly enhances this capacity by directly providing information and skills, and facilitating access to financial resources, technology, infrastructure, institutions and networks.


The initial design did not engage with multiple stakeholders, although more specific industry-based deliberations are planned. Emergency response in B.C. must follow the B.C. Emergency Management System (BCEMS) approach.



1Partly. After the program responds to emergency events, they debrief with the stakeholders and agencies that were involved. This is not a full multistakeholder deliberation process.


Yes. The role of program is to get producers to self organize. In 2012, when the Fraser River water level was rising, the dairy producers got together to figure out where to stage the animals if they had to evacuate them. The program enables that sort of thing because it focuses preparedness at the individual level. The program provides for planning activities that bring people together.


1

Partially. They use the BCEMS system, which is a command-and-control structure that is very clear about roles and responsibilities. People have to be clear about their roles and accountable for their decisions, but they also have the ability to make decisions on the ground.

Does the policy/program have a regular formal review? 1 No. A review is done is every year to generate a new work plan, but the review

is not reported publicly.


The program provides narrowly focused support for both planned and unanticipated adaptation needs. It is strong in enhancing producer capacity in several areas. The emergency events being addressed are likely to become more frequent and severe as climate changes. Because the program objectives and costs are so closely linked to climate risks, a review focused on climate change and its implications for disaster risk reduction measures would be merited.


65

Agriculture Water Management Program

For overall adaptability, the program scores 1 out of 2. The program ranks moderately (5 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, because of its deliberately narrow focus on the high-priority water sector. It also ranks moderately (5 out of 10) in its ability to respond to unanticipated events.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE AGRICULTURE WATER MANAGEMENT PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



The program directly supports 10 of 158 producer adaptive actions, in the areas of irrigation efficiency, accessing groundwater, on-farm water management, regional and local planning, and water supply/management. The program also indirectly supports 24 adaptive actions related to local planning, drainage/ditches/dikes, Agriculture Land Commission policies, water recycling and storage.

Is the policy/program itself vulnerable to climate change? 2 No. The program will become more important as climate change progresses.


0The program indirectly enhances producer access to technology, information and skills. It does not enhance access to financial resources, infrastructure, institutions and networks.


Partly. The program has been in place for over 10 years, and its evolution has been informed by ongoing consultation with agriculture sector groups, local governments and non-governmental organizations.



1Partly. Watershed planning initiatives under this program have widespread consultations. They also participate in a B.C. Agriculture Council committee with farmers on it.


Partly. Extension efforts have been used for sharing best practices. The program unofficially connects to a lot of people over time and that is how they develop their work plan. They post information on the FarmWest website for farmers to access. They put on workshops for farmers. All of this supports producer self-organization and social networking.


1 Partially. Only parts of the province currently have an organized approach to this program’s services (priority areas are focused on).

Does the policy/program have a regular formal review? 1 No. A review is done is every year for internal work planning, but the review is

not reported publicly.


The program provides focused support for adaptation needs in the key area of water supply and management. As a result, it does not address many other potential adaptation measures. This is ground-breaking technical support, especially important for farmers and local/regional planning, and it expects to see an increase in demand as drought, excess moisture and other climate impacts become more common. The program could best enhance its support for producer adaptation by expanding to eventually cover the entire province. The program’s adaptability would increase with greater use of multistakeholder deliberation and regular formal review with public reporting.


66

Water Act Modernization (Ministry of Environment)

For overall adaptability, the core elements of this proposed legislation score highly, 2 out of 2. The proposed provisions of the policy, as outlined in public discussion papers, point to a policy that would rank highly (8 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs and also rank highly (9 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE WATER ACT MODERNIZATION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



The program directly supports 28 of 158 producer adaptive actions, in the areas of water storage, irrigation, accessing groundwater, on-farm water management, and regional and local planning and decision making. The program also indirectly supports 13 adaptive actions related to municipal bylaws, research, conflict management, flexibility in operations and equipment, and risk management.


No. The water resource is highly variable and the legislative structure and policy accommodate that variability. The current range of variability is much higher than impacts of climate change.


1

The program indirectly enhances producer access to financial resources, information and skills, and infrastructure, and strengthens local and regional institutions for water management. It also ensures a more equitable distribution of water resources (e.g., the proposed agricultural water reserve).

Was multistakeholder deliberation used in the design of the program? 2 Yes. There has been extensive consultation and public debate over several years

throughout the province in many sectors and involving different stakeholders.



2 Yes. The legislation will have to be implemented with engagement from multiple local stakeholders and through multiple forums.

Does the policy/program enable self-organization and social networking? 2 Yes. The process provides a strong support for self-organization and social

networking, in many cases mandated by the legislation.


1 Partly. Implementation is centralized, but regional management and adjustment provides some decentralization.

Does the policy/program have a regular formal review? 2 Yes. There is regular formal review of decisions, licences and implementation.


Water Act modernization ranks as a highly adaptive policy on both planned and unanticipated adaptation because of the breadth of measures it encompasses for the water sector, and the decentralized and responsive mechanisms it proposes to implement these. Water use and management will be increasingly important for farmers and local/regional planning as the climate changes, so these reforms will have effects across all subsectors and regions of the province. The structure of proposed measures will provide direct incentives for adaptation to farmers and also build adaptive capacity. Policy development and implementation rely heavily on multistakeholder deliberative processes that are decentralized to the watershed scale and below. Regular formal reviews are intended to inform further evolution of water management processes.


67

Agri-Food Business Development Program

For overall adaptability, the program scores highly, 2 out of 2. The program ranks moderately highly (7 out of 10 points) in its ability to support anticipated adaptation needs, and ranks very highly (9 out of 10) in its ability to enable sector responses to unanticipated events.

ADAPTIVE POLICY QUESTIONS SCORE AGRI-FOOD BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS



The program provides very extensive indirect support for 127 of 158 producer adaptive actions across all sectors and vulnerabilities. The program directly supports only five actions related to risk management, information sharing for pest control, use of assistance programs for crop loss, conflict management (cattle and water quality issues) and increased investment risk due to variability.


Marginally. The program is not vulnerable to climate change by design, but most staff members are shared with other programs, and in the case of extreme events would be relied upon to offer support.


1

The program provides producers with information and skills development and promotes an equitable distribution of resources through initiatives tailored to youth and First Nations. The program also partially helps to provide access to loans through business planning, and to institutions and networks. The program does not help with access to technology or infrastructure.


Yes. There is ongoing needs assessment, including a national renewal survey that looked at agricultural business management programs across Canada, consultation with B.C. Agricultural Council and a series of industry meetings with round table conversations.



1Partly. After events are held there is a debrief and evaluation of sessions and training. The program is responsive to the needs of stakeholders/participants and also does client impact questionnaires.


Yes. The program has the potential to enable social networking through Twitter and blogging, and a key aspect of the program is the sharing of best practices and lessons learned.


2 Yes. Staff is able to meet needs that farmers bring forward related to nine best practices of business management.


Yes. Annual reports to the federal government are required. There is a performance target at the end of the program. They have ongoing program evaluation and program usage, and engage clients with impact assessment surveys and questionnaires.


The program’s adaptability strengths relate to its structure, with multistakeholder deliberation in both design and implementation, a decentralized delivery model and support for local networking and social learning. Producer adaptation action would be assisted if the program were to develop expertise related to the business implications of climate change adaptation.


68

Appendix C: Interviewee List

NAME TITLE PROGRAMPat DeBoer General Manager AgriStability

Grant Halm Program Specialist Production Insurance

Leslie MacDonald Assistant DirectorSustainable Agriculture Management Branch

Agriculture Emergency Management

Brent Barclay Resource Stewardship Agrologist Agriculture Emergency Management

Chris Zabek Regional AgrologistSustainable Agriculture Management Branch Regional Agrologist Network

Orlando Schmidt Regional Manager, Coast Sustainable Agriculture Management Branch Regional Agrologist Network

Greg Tegart Regional Manager, Interior Sustainable Agriculture Management Branch Regional Agrologist Network

Bert van Dalfsen ManagerSustainable Agriculture Management Branch Strengthening Farming

Alison Fox Land Use AgrologistSustainable Agriculture Management Branch Strengthening Farming

Francis Njenga Manager - Range and AgroforestrySustainable Agriculture Management Branch Agroforestry/Range

Dave Trotter Agroforestry SpecialistSustainable Agriculture Management Branch Agroforestry/Riparian

Lisa Zabek Agroforestry SpecialistSustainable Agriculture Management Branch Agroforestry

Doug Fraser Range Practices Officer Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Range Management

Val Miller Invasive Plants Officer Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations Invasive Alien Plant Program

Tracy Heuppelsheuser EntomologistPlant Health Unit

Pest Management (Plant Health)

Gayle Jesperson Plant Pathologist and Acting Manager, Plant Health Pest Management (Plant Health

Geoff Hughes-Games EFP Team LeadSustainable Agriculture Management Branch Environmental Farm Plan

Geoff Hughes-Games BMP Program LeadSustainable Agriculture Management Branch Beneficial Management Practices

George Geldart ManagerSustainable Agriculture Management Branch Agri-food Business Development

Ted van der Gulik Senior EngineerSustainable Agriculture Management Branch


Jennifer Turner Water Policy AdvisorMinistry of Environment

Water Act modernization

Randy Cairns Water Policy AdvisorMinistry of Environment

Water Act modernization

© 2013 The International Institute for Sustainable Development

Published by the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

International Institute for Sustainable DevelopmentHead Office161 Portage Avenue East, 6th Floor, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R3B 0Y4Tel: +1 (204) 958-7700 | Fax: +1 (204) 958-7710 | Website: www.iisd.org

www.iisd.org