Thank you, and thanks for the invitation to come and present to your committee.
As mentioned, my name is Ron Bonnett. In addition to being president of the CFA, I'm an active farmer near Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.
CFA has been long involved with a number of environmental initiatives, whether it be species at risk or the national conservation plan that's been announced. We have been supportive of the whole concept of developing a national conservation plan. That plan has to be based on the whole concept of sustainability that looks at economic, social, and environmental components in order that it be effective.
Canadian agriculture, in perspective, is a strong economic driver in the Canadian economy. We participate with 8% of the GDP, and we're the third-largest contributor to GDP after the finance sector and non-food manufacturing. One in eight Canadian jobs depends on agriculture, and our trade export has gone up to $40.3 billion in 2011, up 271%. Farmers now produce two times the output with only half the resources that we had in 1961. With respect to value added, it's 34% higher than it was in the previous five-year average.
I'm going to switch this around and put some of our recommendations right up front. The first is to ease the real and perceived regulatory burden that the species at risk and migratory bird acts place on private landowners. Second, focus on the management of critical habitat—“protected” is a result, not a state. Third, take steps to allow innovative and effective conservation and stewardship programs to thrive in the Species At Risk Act. Fourth, the national conservation plan should enhance the value placed on habitat by promoting innovative incentive programs for ecological goods and services. Finally, we need to complete the development of compensation regulations to really drive results.
Where does agriculture fit into this? Habitat in agriculture is part of a multi-faceted agricultural landscape. We're a major component of Canada's working landscape. We have 64.8 million hectares—7% of the farm land. I think when it comes to habitat protection, we bat above our weight, because a lot of those critters, we like to call them, love that interaction between the farm and the forest. They use agricultural land as part of the landscape they work on.
Agriculture provides this important habitat—550 species of terrestrial vertebrates utilize agricultural land. If you look at species at risk, over 220 species of terrestrial vertebrates on agricultural land are assessed as high risk nationally. What we need to look at with any national conservation plan is how to lever up this private land to get results for habitat protection.
That raises the question of how habitat is protected in agriculture now.
There are a number of federal and provincial agriculture department programs. Thirty-five percent of farms have developed an environmental farm plan; 74,000 farms—or 50% of the agricultural land—are covered by these plans. These plans go into looking at habitat protection and where your species are, trying to come up with solutions for those. Ninety-four percent of the farms with an environmental farm plan have implemented the beneficial management practices. There are a number of different programs in place. Alternative land use services programs in P.E.I and Manitoba are taking a look at how we can drive incentives in different regions.
We have the Environment Canada habitat stewardship program, which is in place to help drive stewardship initiatives.
With regard to conservation groups and programs, there are a number of partnerships that have been developed. I mentioned ALUS—alternate land use services. We have Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited Canada, Wildlife Habitat Canada, Nature Conservancy of Canada, Cows and Fish—a number of different programs where farmers and other groups are finding common ground to meet some of the objectives of habitat protection. Some municipalities as well have local incentives to try to encourage different types of habitat protection.
The state of habitat, though, on agricultural land has declined in the last number of years. Part of that is driven by factors outside of agriculture, perhaps some land that was in pasture land before has gone into crop land, mainly because of economics. I think one of the things we have to look at when we're looking at putting programs in place is how we can make sure the incentive is there to encourage habitat protection.
One of the big challenges in conserving habitat on agricultural land is that most productive agricultural land coincides with areas of high biodiversity. The value for this land in production means that natural and semi-natural land moves to agricultural production, leading to loss of landscape. So we need to take a look at the economic aspect of it.
How can the national conservation plan improve habitat conservation efforts on private land? I think one of the quick ways is to ease the real and perceived regulatory burden that environmental legislation places on private land owners. Prohibitions on crucial habitat on private land for federal species should not be automatic, but should only occur after a consultation with landowners. The real focus behind that is to see if there are management practices that can be used to address the need, as opposed to an outright ban. It's fair to say, too, as a farmer, that if you come in with a regulation, there is immediately a pushback, but if you come in with a partnership, with an incentive, there's a willingness to try to cooperate.
Focus on the management of Canadian critical habitat. I made the statement to you before that “protected” is a result, not a state. I think all too often we start looking at specific items within habitat protection as to what the perceived result is that we want and how we get there.
We need to take steps to allow innovative and effective conservation and stewardship programs to thrive in the Species At Risk Act. Currently the terms “protection” and “effective protection” of critical habitat are not clearly defined. There's a lack of a definition for these terms, which impedes farmers, conservation groups, and governments from developing compliant stewardship programs. Once defined, existing programs—for example, environmental farm plans—could become species-at-risk compliant. We could build that in to the whole process. In the United States, they have the ability to develop conservation agreements with assurances to bring regulatory certainty to farmers, so that they know what they're facing.
The national conservation plan should promote innovative incentive programs for ecological goods and services to enhance the conservation value of habitat. By enhancing effective government programs like habitat stewardship programs, you will drive success and stimulate public-private and private-private partnerships between conservation groups and landowners. Modest amounts of government funding can incent tremendous conservation outcomes from conservation groups.
The final point would be to complete the development of compensation regulations. That focus should not necessarily be on compensating for lost land, but it should develop an appropriate compensation framework for incentives that guide landscape-based conservation programs. By guiding those programs, we get the outcomes we want without having to set aside all of the land.
That brings me to the conclusion of my comments. Again, going back to the first statement, there are five key points: ease the real and perceived regulatory burden; focus on management of critical habitat; take steps to allow innovative and effective conservation and stewardship programs; enhance value placed on habitat by promoting innovative incentive programs; and complete the development of compensation regulations.
Thank you.