Transcript An Analysis of Environmental Management Approaches with Six

An Analysis of Environmental Management
Approaches with Six Midwestern Dairy Farms:
Informing Progress Toward a Sustainable Agriculture
Mrill Ingram & Karl Hakanson, UW-Madison
Driving through Wisconsin and Minnesota
you pass similar looking dairy farms that are
managed in very different ways, each with
different emphasis and approaches to
environmental and business management.
Is this an organic farm?
Is it a Biodynamic Farm?
A large permitted dairy?
Or is it a “conventional” farm?
Is this a “sustainable” farm?
Is it an “unsustainable” farm?
Is it more or less sustainable than the neighbors?
This research project studied six dairy farms managed
under six different environmental programs.
The main objective was to learn from
successful farmers what the necessary
conditions for bringing about a more
sustainable agriculture might be.
Project Goals
• How do different programs and policies focus on
the environment? Gaps? Overlap?
• What do successful farmers engaged in these
different programs have in common?
• How might an environmental management
system (EMS) improve/inform these programs?
Methods
1. “On-paper” comparison of the six program’s
rules, regulations, standards.
2. Case studies of six exemplary farms.
3. Development of EMS on each farm to explore
sustainability.
PART I: How might agricultural-environmental
programs and policies be directing farmers to act
toward the environment?
Agricultural environmental management programs
Six Ag-Environmental Programs
-- USDA Certified Organic (NOP)
-- Food Alliance Certified (FA)
-- Holistic Management (HM)
-- Demeter Certified Biodynamic (BD)
-- WPDES Permitted (CAFO)
-- Soil & Water Conservation programs (S&W)
How are these different programs
informing agricultural sustainability?
Biological / Physical Environment
Dimensions of AgEnvironmental
Programs
Farmer Responsibility /
Program Oversight
Community
Scrutiny / Support
Ag-environmental programs require attention to certain
biological and physical environmental aspects and rely
on various elements of community involvement and
individual farmer performance.
Program dimension:
Biophysical Environment
•
•
•
•
•
•
Soil Quality
Water Quality
Air Quality
Resource Conservation
Wildlife & Biodiversity
Crops and Livestock
Program dimension:
Farmer Responsibility /
Program Oversight
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Records, Reporting, Inspection
Plan requirements
Certification
Application costs; time
Goal setting
Flexibility
Continuing education
Continual improvement
Consequences of noncompliance
Program dimension:
Community Scrutiny & Support
•
Employee health and safety
•
Employee participation
•
Neighbor relations
•
Farmer networking
•
Product quality
•
Wider community input
•
Governmental oversight
Findings: Program Emphasis
 Biological & Physical Dimensions
o
o
o
o
Soil erosion & water quality (state/fed programs)
Soil organic matter (“alternative” programs)
Wildlife/biodiversity (Food Alliance, organic)
Animal welfare (biodynamic, organic, Food Alliance)
 Farmer Responsibility & Program Oversight
o
o
o
Record keeping (all)
Continual improvement (HM, Food Alliance)
Goal setting (HM)
 Community Dimensions
o
o
o
o
o
Worker health and welfare (Food Alliance)
Wider community input (Food Alliance, CAFO)
Consumer health (organic but especially BD)
Wildlife/biodiversity (Food Alliance, organic)
Animal welfare (biodynamic, organic, Food Alliance)
Findings: Program Gaps
Important biophysical dimensions of
sustainability currently receiving little
attention from the six programs:
 Energy conservation
 Air quality
 Water conservation
 Resource conservation
Agricultural sustainability is being
pursued in positive dimensions:
•
•
•
•
•
Increasing the ability of farmers to
be better decision-makers
Providing a stronger philosophy of
serving one’s community
Recognizing the value of specific
measures to manage soil, water,
biodiversity
Human health & safety
Livestock welfare
Conclusion from Content Analysis:
Distinctions between “sustainable” and
“unsustainable” programs hard to draw
PART II: Case Studies of Six Farms
What are common traits of successful
environmental management?
Three “C’s” of Sustainable Agriculture
Commitment
environmental stewardship
is business excellence
Community
no farm is an island
Continual Improvement
Requirements are the starting point
Certified Organic Farm
Food Alliance Certified Farm
Holistic Management Farm
Certified Biodynamic Farm
Permitted (WPDES) Farm
Soil & Water Conservation Farm
PART III: Develop environmental management
systems on each farm to further explore
sustainability
Plan

Do

Check

Act
EMS: A self-directed process of continual improvement,
environmental stewardship & business efficiency.
The EMS Process for this study
Conduct “Environmental Aspects Inventory”

Prioritize two aspects to work on

Assess current status of aspects

Develop objectives and plan for improvement

Implement plan, document actions

Monitor and document results
Identification and Prioritization of
Environmental Aspects
Farm
Energy Priority
Other Priority
Food Alliance
Energy use: milk house
Runoff: winter-spring
pastures
WPDES
Operation efficiency/SOPs
Worker safety
Soil & Water
Energy Use: dairy barn
Soil Conservation &
Nutrient Mgmt plans
Organic
Fuel Use: row crops
Upland & riparian bird
habitat
Holistic Mgmt.
Feasibility of wind power
Runoff: milk house
Biodynamic
Fuel use: straw handling
Compost management
Benefits of EMS
• Development of standard operating procedures
• Framework to systematically consider various aspects
of environmental management
• Considering new ideas and approaches
• Taking care of known issues that need attention
• Taking the time to plan
• Consideration of energy conservation and efficiency
• Attention to family and employee communications
• Working with new people, advisors, specialists
• Working with a “coach” to move process along
Barriers to EMS Implementation
• Time constraints; additional administrative and
record-keeping requirements; takes away from
time-sensitive tasks
• Incentives/results/proof of benefits lacking
• Coach/consultant/personnel necessary to keep
process/projects on track not available
• “Paperwork”, meetings, planning not valued
– It’s not farmwork; getting something done
• ISO/certified EMS not scale-neutral
• Perception that “an EMS” is yet another
program or set of practices to adopt
Recommendations on EMS
• Emphasize key parts of the process --assess, prioritize,
plan, monitor, communicate-- not “EMS” per se
• Introduce processes into management approaches
already in use
• Create documents, instructions that emphasize action
• Create simple record keeping, monitoring protocols
• Identify ways for existing personnel, consultants,
service providers to serve as process coaches
• Focus on “what’s in it for me?” --Benefits must be real
• Engage all “stakeholders” in improving environmental
management, especially specialists, staff
• Stress need for effective communications at all levels
Policy Implications
• Voluntary EMS has limitations as a stand-alone
program. It should be coupled with
complementary incentive or regulation programs.
• Supply chain pressure and civil society pressure
can also play a role in providing incentives for
environmental management.
• EMS as a process tool can be “married” with
existing programs.
• Farms/communities can assess highest
environmental priorities and utilize parts of the
EMS to move farmers toward greater
sustainability.
Grateful thanks to the funding provided by the North Central
Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education Program (SARE), the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and
the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)!
www.sare.org/ncrsare
www.usda.gov
www.csrees.usda.gov
Investigators:
Mrill Ingram
[email protected]
Karl Hakanson
[email protected]
Contact:
Sharon Lezberg
608-265-3473
[email protected]
Environmental Resources Center
University of Wisconsin–Madison
445 Henry Mall, Room 202A
Madison, WI 53706
http://www.uwex.edu/farmandhome/