Auditor's Report

The issue

4.2.1   Livestock operations in Ontario and Quebec generate enough manure to equal the sewage from over 100 million people. And the problem of how to manage it safely is getting worse. While the number of cattle is slowly decreasing, hog and poultry numbers are growing, particularly the number of animals on each farm (Exhibit 4.1).

4.2.2   Manure and commercial fertilizer spread on agricultural land provide valuable plant nutrients, especially nitrogen and phosphorus. If they are stored or used in the wrong way, however, or if more is applied than the plants and land can absorb, nutrient levels build up in the soil and can contaminate groundwater or surface water. Inorganic nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacteria are the primary pollutants from manure. Between 1988 and 1998, a total of 274 manure spills were reported in Ontario. Fifty-three of these spills resulted in fish kills, primarily due to the ammonia in liquid manure. Bacteria in manure are believed to be the source of the water contamination in Walkerton, Ontario that caused seven deaths and made 2,000 people sick. (See photograph)

4.2.3   At the mouth of the Yamaska River in Quebec, concentrations of phosphorus and inorganic nitrogen are higher than in any other tributary of the St. Lawrence River. The main cause is the growth in livestock production in the watershed--30 percent over the last 20 years. And the Yamaska River is not an isolated case. Many of the basin's rivers in southwestern Ontario and Quebec have concentrations of phosphorus higher than amounts set as provincial objectives for water quality. Seven of the eight watersheds in Canada with the highest counts of coliform and fecal coliform bacteria are in the basin.

The federal role

4.2.4   Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has focussed on conducting research on nutrient management and promoting good farming practices in the basin. Environment Canada has funded projects in several watersheds to reduce water pollution from manure and fertilizer. Under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with the U.S., Canada has committed to reducing phosphorus levels in the Great Lakes.

4.2.5   Both Ontario and Quebec have guidelines and, in some cases, legislation and regulations to control the storage and use of manure and fertilizer. Ontario has not regulated these activities, but recently proposed legislation on nutrient management. Municipalities control building permits, zoning provisions, and distances between buildings. Some municipalities have gone further and require farmers to prepare nutrient management plans or attend mandatory public meetings.

Our audit question

4.2.6   How well has the federal government contributed to managing the problems of soil and water contamination caused by spreading manure and fertilizer?

The story

A growing problem for human health and the environment

4.2.7   In the 1970s, scientists recognized the problem of soil and water contamination by agricultural operations around the Great Lakes. They documented the causes and the problem areas, pointing to the need to control nutrient runoff from farms in order to achieve the objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.

4.2.8   The increasing use of mineral fertilizer in the past to boost crop production has contributed to the contamination. Crop production in Canada has doubled in the last 50 years, on roughly the same amount of cropland. Fertilizer sales in Ontario and Quebec grew from 1.01 million tonnes in 1968 to a peak of 1.66 million in 1985, dropping to 1.26 million tonnes in 1998.

4.2.9   A more recent cause has been the increasing concentration of livestock production. Much of the manure these animals generate is spread on agricultural land. Manure can have a greater impact on downstream water than fertilizer because manure is applied in a higher concentration to a smaller area.

4.2.10   The result is that inorganic nitrogen is accumulating on farmland in the basin. Roughly 70 percent of Ontario and Quebec farmland had much higher nitrogen levels in 1996 than in 1981--and much of it above levels that cause groundwater and surface water contamination (Exhibit 4.2). Runoff from the soil has also increased nitrogen levels in the water on up to 77 percent of the basin's farmland, and downstream.

4.2.11   A survey of Ontario wells in 1992 found that the water in 14 percent of them had nitrate levels above the drinking water standard. High nitrogen levels in drinking water can cause "blue baby" syndrome, or methemoglobinemia, in bottle-fed infants and in young animals. Over many years, adults who drink nitrate-contaminated water can develop kidney or spleen problems.

4.2.12   Also of concern, 34 percent of the surveyed wells had coliform bacterial counts above the acceptable level. Surveys of rural wells in Quebec told a similar story. The growing rural population off farms compounds the potential health impacts of this contamination.

4.2.13   The misuse of manure and fertilizer on farmland has damaged the ecosystem in the basin. Long-term exposure to high levels of inorganic nitrogen has contributed to the decline of amphibians in southern Ontario. And manure is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions.

The government has assessed ecosystem limits and identified objectives

4.2.14   Responding to a 1995 report of the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, a working group of people from federal science departments began a detailed scientific assessment of the impact of nutrients on the Canadian environment. It described the impacts of agricultural sources of nutrients. The assessment and related work provide a base for understanding how an increase in nutrient releases affects the basin's ecosystem.

4.2.15   Clear and measurable objectives are essential to managing performance. In its report on agri-environmental indicators in 2000, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada presents performance objectives for nitrogen control. They include preventing a net increase in nitrogen on Canadian farmland over time, and ensuring that there is little or no risk of water contamination by nitrogen on any Canadian farmland. These objectives are not being met.

4.2.16   In its sustainable development strategy released in 2001, the Department has included a similar objective for phosphorus control. This objective has not been linked to the phosphorus control objectives of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. The Department has not said who is responsible for meeting the objectives for nitrogen and phosphorus control. Nor has it published a performance objective or target for controlling bacterial contaminants from manure.

Many farmers are not using best practices

4.2.17   To reduce soil and water contamination, many farmers will have to improve the way they manage manure and fertilizer. The federal government has tried to influence farmers' behaviour by offering financial incentives and promoting good farming practices. It has also made limited use of regulations.

4.2.18   Legislation and regulation. No federal legislation or regulations explicitly prohibit pollution by agricultural nutrients. To a limited extent, the government has enforced general federal regulations under the Fisheries Act in response to impacts of manure disposal in Ontario. Ontario farmers can be held liable and fined under two provincial laws--the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Environmental Protection Act . Quebec uses its own legislation and regulations.

4.2.19   The Canadian Environmental Protection Act specifically regulates phosphorus only in laundry detergents. Yet agriculture fertilizers account for 80 to 85 percent of all phosphorus used.

4.2.20   The scientific assessment of nutrients was not completed in time for Parliament to use it in considering new restrictions on nutrients when it reviewed the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. At the conclusion of our audit, the assessment had not yet been released. It may provide a basis for the government to control nutrients.

4.2.21   Financial incentives. The federal and provincial governments have offered farmers a series of incentives to improve the way they use fertilizer and manure. From 1990 to 1994, for example, qualified farmers were eligible to be paid the cost of building manure holding facilities. One project funded under the National Soil and Water Conservation Program paid Ontario farmers in the Grand River watershed to adopt practices that would reduce phosphorus levels in the water--at the time, higher than the provincial water quality objective almost everywhere in the watershed. In 1999, program managers approved 83 projects whose costs totalled roughly $900,000. (The total federal contribution through this program from 1997 to 1999 was $2.5 million.)

4.2.22   The ecosystem programs in the basin have paid relatively little attention to manure problems. Over the last decade, Environment Canada provided $4.6 million for a variety of farm projects around the Great Lakes to reduce water pollution, mainly due to phosphorus. In Quebec, the federal agriculture component of St. Lawrence Vision 2000 does not explicitly consider manure; however, a few small watershed management projects were funded under the program's community interaction component.

4.2.23   Promoting best management practices. In the early 1990s, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, provincial agriculture ministries, and farm organizations worked together on guides to best management practices. Environment Canada has also funded pamphlets telling farmers how, for example, to minimize the impact of manure on fish habitat. Other efforts have included demonstration projects, farm tours, and recognition programs.

4.2.24   Has this combination of financial incentives and promotion of best management practices worked? In individual programs, it is hard to say. Environment Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada have kept information on their program activities such as numbers of people attending workshops and numbers of pamphlets distributed. But they have not evaluated the programs' impacts on the environment. Surveys have shown that some farmers are unaware of how their activities affect water quality. A 1995 survey by Statistics Canada and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada found that many farmers were still not using best practices (Exhibit 4.3). Some were not even complying with legal requirements to manage the inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus sources on their farms.

Steps toward a strategic approach to research on manure

4.2.25   Scientists at Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada research centres in the basin have contributed to more than 40 publications on nutrient management. The publications cover animal nutrition; manure storage; manure and fertilizer spreading; and nutrient impacts on soil, water, and air. In the last decade, the research gradually shifted from measuring and reporting concentrations of nutrients on farms to estimating the potential impacts of nitrogen and phosphorus on other parts of the ecosystem. That research provides a scientific foundation for new farm management practices and can help farmers learn about new technologies (see Exhibit 4.4).

4.2.26   In 1997, the hog industry asked the Department to review its manure management activities to ensure that they complemented regulation with research, technology transfer, community education, and technical services. A joint review by the Department and the national hog industry recommended a long-term strategic approach to setting priorities in these areas.

4.2.27   A strategic approach is now even more important: over the last five years, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has used other organizations to decide who gets federal funds for research on manure and nutrients. Three separate industry-led committees are allocating federal funds to research and awareness projects in the basin. Universities are also using federal money for research on managing manure and its environmental impacts.

4.2.28   Recognizing that the pork industry was facing significant obstacles to growth because of its impact on the environment, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada began the Hog Environmental Management Strategy in 1998. This was intended to support better co-ordination of research and technology development and to find effective, affordable solutions.

4.2.29   A successor program, the Livestock Environmental Initiative, was announced at the end of 1999. It provides $1 million for research and development of technologies and environmentally sound practices that are technically ready to use. This one-year program was supposed to be matched by industry funding. Priorities included waste and manure management and control of greenhouse gases.

4.2.30   It is too early to say what impact these initiatives have had. We observed that there are ways for provincial adaptation councils, industry committees, and federal research centres to work together. It is not clear yet whether this mix of initiatives will produce t he strategic, well-co-ordinated research effort that is needed.

Reports to Parliament not comprehensive or balanced

4.2.31   Federal departments are supposed to provide enough of the right kind of information for members of Parliament to assess whether departmental programs are getting the expected results. We reviewed the last five annual reports to Parliament by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada, looking for references to managing nutrients and manure. We found little mention of it. The few references we did find reported positive results in managing manure and fertilizer, and did not discuss their growing impact on the environment.

4.2.32   Other recent documents--the report on agri-environmental indicators, The Health of Our Soils, and The Health of Our Water-- described the results of current research, but they were not intended to assess the specific results of federal programs for manure and fertilizer management.

Conclusion

4.2.33   Despite the efforts of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Environment Canada, the provinces, and agricultural organizations over the last decade, nutrients are accumulating in the soil on farms in the basin. Their environmental impacts are increasing. On more than 30 percent of farmland the levels of residual nitrogen pose a risk of water contamination.

4.2.34   Many producers need to improve their farming practices. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada have offered financial incentives and promoted good practices to encourage good management of manure. The federal government has not determined what effect these measures have had on the quality of the environment. It is time for it to rethink its approach, recognizing that this is a long-term problem.

4.2.35   There are now two good sources of information that support stronger policy measures: a science assessment of the impact of nutrients on the environment, and a report on agri-environmental indicators. There are federal objectives for controlling nitrogen and phosphorus but not bacteria. There is no plan that clearly shows responsibilities for achieving the objectives.

4.2.36   Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada has supported several initiatives for research and technology transfer, including the Hog Environmental Management Strategy. It is not clear yet whether this mix of initiatives will produce the strategic, well-co-ordinated research effort that is needed.

4.2.37   In their annual reports to Parliament, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Environment Canada have not provided comprehensive or balanced information on this growing problem.

Our audit objectives and main findings