|
return to Farmers
Independent Weekly
August
14, 2003
by
Ed Tyrchniewicz, Adjunct Professor, Department of Agribusiness
and Agricultural Economics |
Legislation
and Regulations Regarding Phosphorus Management in Other Jurisdictions:
Implications for Manitoba
Concerns
about phosphorus loadings in Lake Winnipeg have intensified
political pressures to introduce phosphorus-based nutrient
management regulations in Manitoba. The amount of phosphorus
discharged into the environment from agriculture appears to
be increasing, but it is difficult to separate out agricultural
discharges from other sources because of lack of adequate
data and monitoring. In response to these concerns, we have
recently completed a review of legislation and regulations
regarding agricultural phosphorus management in other jurisdictions
with the intent to draw some conclusions as to appropriate
phosphorus management strategies for Manitoba. This review
was part of a larger project undertaken for the Manitoba Livestock
Manure Management Initiative which can be obtained from their
website.
Public
agencies can use three main types of policy instruments to
minimize the risk of phosphorus (P) transfer from agricultural
land to water: regulatory (either regulating the agricultural
practices themselves in a preventative way or regulating according
to management performance, after the fact); economic (through
taxes and/or subsidies); and extension/education (through
voluntary, participatory activities). The criteria for selecting
and implementing any of these instruments include: the availability
of scientific rationale as a basis; equity among farmers,
between farmers and non-farmers and between polluters and
non-polluters; efficiency of implementing and enforcing the
policy; political acceptability; environmental benefits; and
effects on economic competitiveness.
In the
US, federal rules define large "concentrated animal feeding
operations" (CAFOs) as point sources of pollution. The
USDA and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established
the Unified National Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations
which sets forth a framework of actions that USDA and EPA
can take under existing and legal regulatory authority to
reduce water quality and public health impacts from improperly
managed animal wastes. Regulations controlling non-point source
pollution control are largely left up to individual states.
Regulations
were reviewed for four US states that have implemented some
form of phosphorus-based regulations - North Carolina, Iowa,
Minnesota, and Maryland. North Carolina was reviewed as it
is viewed in some circles as the “classic” situation
for inadequate environmental regulations. No scientific analysis
was found as to the effectiveness of its regulations. Minnesota,
Iowa and Maryland regulations are more recent, and all have
an emphasis on phosphorus-based regulations.
In Europe,
largely driven by the EU Nitrate Directive of 1991, legislation
has been introduced in a number of countries to control application
of animal manure. In some of them, e.g. Denmark and England,
the primary aim seems to be to control nitrogen losses. In
others, e.g. the Netherlands and Ireland, regulations have
been broadened to include phosphorus application. There appear
to be some questions as to the effectiveness of phosphorus
regulations in that farmers are sometimes prepared to pay
penalties rather than incur the costs of compliance. In other
cases, some farmers simply stopped raising livestock.
Unlike
the US and Europe, there are no national level regulations
relating to intensive livestock operations, or water quality
for that matter, in Canada. The only federal jurisdiction
relating to the impact of agricultural activities on water
quality is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans regulation
of water for fish habitat. Only Quebec and Ontario have moved
toward phosphorus-based regulations. Quebec has moved aggressively
towards regulating manure application based on phosphorus
in regions where the phosphorus buildup has been deemed to
be excessive. Ontario is in the process of introducing legislation
to do the same. At this point, it is too soon to be able to
judge the effectiveness of the Quebec and Ontario approaches.
The methods
of regulating phosphorus include: monitoring the P concentration
in any water leaving a field; balancing rates of P application
to crop removal; and soil monitoring. In the case of soil
monitoring, some jurisdictions use a single critical value
of P in the soil while others use a “P index” to
integrate the soil test information with other site-specific
information such as soil type, topography, climate, and management
practices.
A number
of jurisdictions base their regulations on the P index. These
include Ontario, Iowa, and Maryland. However, researchers
in Iowa, Maryland and Minnesota have expressed reservations
about the applicability of such an index for developing individual
farm nutrient management plans or as an evaluation scale for
determining whether land users are complying with water quality
or nutrient management standards established by local, state
or federal agencies.
The link
between technical phosphorus risk assessment tools and regulations
based on these assessment tools is critical. Choosing an inappropriate
risk assessment tool to regulate phosphorus transfer from
soil to water will not only add to producers’ production
costs but also may unnecessarily constrain agricultural activities
or even be ineffective in ameliorating environmental concerns.
Before
reaching a final conclusion on the applicability of regulating
manure management based on phosphorus loadings in Manitoba,
it is necessary to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness
of several science based options for regulating phosphorus
management in Manitoba. The development of an effective P
Index for Manitoba will require further research in some key
areas before one could be comfortable that it would be an
effective regulatory tool. Perhaps even more importantly,
there is a need to develop a comprehensive approach to nutrient
management in Manitoba, with manure and phosphorus as components,
rather than focusing only on manure or phosphorus alone.
|
