- As you leave the workshop, what question or concern is most pressing for you right now concerning
the use of "Environmental Management Systems" in livestock agriculture?
Issues of producer participation:
- The challenge before us is to answer the producer's question, "Why should I do this?"
- How to sell it / attract producers to participate - fact that there needs to be economic incentives and they must be in place prior to EMS
Issues of what an EMS could accomplish:
- Just another paperwork endeavor with no regulatory or Enviro buy-in.
- Can we develop an EMS that will provide definitive results that we can share with the environmental community?
- I think one concern is the confidentiality of inspection and reports on the self-monitoring of the system. To overcome the public concern on pollution, the record has to be open.
- Still questioning "what is an EMS" and how we specify targets / standards
- What are the standards - What is it exactly that a EMS will accomplish? The project needs to fill in the blanks with some meat (sorry, couldn't resist!).
- The lack of standards. Use as a way to delay / limit scope of regulations. EMS should go beyond regulatory floor.
- That EMS needs to realize that future policies and incentives will dictate changes.
- Will the regulatory & Environmental Regulation Activist groups "buy" into this program?
- What is the scope / scale that is to be recommended to be implemented?
- Many of the farm workers are minority and don't even speak English. How will they be trained to
implement and record EMS's? Need to go beyond water quality to air emissions - particulates, gases.
Purchasing vendors are missing - they will set contract standards.
Issues of how this project is structured:
- What is your timeline - not defined.
- How will our state program fit into our present system?
- How to make it encompass all of the aspects of environmental management and then have it become different, but credible, than other environmental programs, i.e., FAS, ACWF, NRCS
- How to "mesh" it in with ex. programs
- Why re-invent the wheel when ISO 14001 is flexible to provide the guidelines to develop an EMS for agriculture?
- Still implementation / incentives / cost to producer - too many tools sitting on shelf. Also duplication of existing assessments.
- How do we best adapt the existing EMS protocols to the livestock industry?
- What format will the ultimate tool take for my state and ag. sector?
- As a result of the workshop did you reach insights you would like to share?
Insights about Stakeholders:
- EPA & Enviros appear stuck in their same old worldview of the CWA & its applicability to NPS farming. Others (university people, state regulators) are more willing to review & discuss new ideas.
- That there are a lot of misinformed people concerning the environment and how we can work together to accomplish results.
- Many of the interested parties need to understand management systems better.
- Specific ideas incorporated community involvement in EMS development and evaluation
Insights about policy:
- Concern whether it's received and approved by EPA that EMS if implemented can allow for flexibility in regulations.
- State Environmental regulation in N.C., MI, IA, how they differ for many of Georgia's
- I think the program was very good, I feel there are several issues that needs focused on, such as regulatory participation, State and Federal. The EMS should not displace the regulatory system if it is to be effective only as a tool to bring self-compliance.
Insights about Environmental Management Systems:
- Yes, there are good models out there- follow them, don't re-create the wheel
- My most valuable contribution is to share my experiences with EMS / ISO 14001
- We need to create something new that encompasses existing programs.
- EMS can / will play extremely different roles in different areas of U.S.
- See PDF flow chart.
- Need to clarify EMS vs. ISO 14001. Is it more useful to aim for ISO and skip EMS?
- It has a tremendous potential - both for producers, society, govt, etc., but there are major problems in implementation that must be overcome. Resources of each is one issue.
Insights about the Partnerships for Livestock EMS project:
- I'm confused. It appears that this effort is focused on assessments & training, not EMSs. The title of the effort seems misleading.
- Appreciate the work within the grant, but very challenged by need to make institutional change, federally and statewise.
- In your opinion, what is the most essential requirement for development and successful implementation of livestock environmental management systems at the State and local levels?
Business/producers in the lead:
- There are lots of intelligent people in this group, but this program needs to be spearheaded by people
treating this as a business proposition. If this is not business oriented, then producers won't
buy in.
- Incentives
- Grass roots support, efforts & training
- Team, collaborative effort
- Producer-driven
- That the systems be practical and user friendly and benefits to producers be clearly defined and meaningful
Policy and government program support:
- Support and acceptance of EMS by regulatory agencies
- Flexibility in State programs
- Definition of objectives and incentives
- That it helps producers respond to policy incentives. The voluntary approach will only help the least problematic farms!!!
Consultant support:
- Determine goals / outcome / target first and then have PR / staff or organization(s). That can really "lobby" it or "get it out there." Determination! Go beyond what extension does to promote it.
- Partnerships, science basis
System credibility and broad participation:
- Use a recognized set of guidelines such as ISO 14001 so that it can be identified as a credible system that is continuously evaluated.
- Endorsement of Environmental Regulation Activist groups and regulatory groups
- Having or developing a common vision of the future of the agriculture industry
- Good successful demonstrations tied to quantifiable results, changes, and improvements
- Involvement up front of key state and local organizations for their expectations
- Acceptability
- Education of producer, community, and regulators that EMS's will allow producers to effectively implement long term environmental planning that will surely lower environmental compliance costs.
- It must be transparent which means it must be developed in an open collaborative manner and there must be clear, demonstrable results
- Standards
- I think to resolve a lot of problems, all participants must include environmental groups, private sectors as well as industry so that everybody has a part of putting together that satisfies all.
- What do you want to know more about regarding livestock Environmental Management Systems?
Program outcomes:
- How did it work in the pilot states?
- How much will it cost and what's the cost analysis?
- Case studies
- How we can encourage producers to use it for the present and the future.
Scope and definitions:
- What are the side boards?
- Definition of scope / objectives
- What problems will they address/solve?
- I still don't understand what they are and how they would work. The assessments focus on nutrient management and therefore leave out many environmental issues: sediment, pesticides, odors, air, habitat.
- Definition of an EMS - show me an example
- What merits are there for the small producers that have been complying with environmental standards? These are producers that have done this on their own, with no cost to society for doing so.
ISO and regulatory apparatus:
- I need to catch up on the different "levels" of EMS that can be created / utilized - ISO 14000, 14001
- Options, ideas for specific plan developments
- Need to understand EPA standards and relationship to ISO standards.
- Too early to answer perhaps, but will there be a linkage to regulatory schemes?
- Compatibility with ISO Guidelines
Feedback from the evaluation forms about speakers and facilitators was forwarded directly to these individuals.
- Participatory Procedures
| Questions Rating Scale |
Instructions Rating Scale |
| Excellent (1) -- Pointless (5) |
Clear (1) -- Confusing (5) |
- Roles and Uses
| Questions: |
(1) 4 |
(2) 5 |
(3) 5 |
(4) 3 |
(5) 0 |
Average score: 2.4 |
| Instructions: |
(1) 5 |
(2) 7 |
(3) 3 |
(4) 3 |
(5) 0 |
Average score: 2.2 |
Comments:
- Good way to introduce audience and clarify expectations.
- Good way to get at a comprehensive list.
- Opening question was difficult without background
- Necessary and/or Desirable Conditions
| Questions: |
(1) 2 |
(2) 7 |
(3) 6 |
(4) 0 |
(5) 1 |
Average score: 2.4 |
| Instructions: |
(1) 2 |
(2) 7 |
(3) 5 |
(4) 1 |
(5) 0 |
Average score: 2.3 |
Comments:
- Difficult to stay on task - maybe misdirected
- Not focused
- Needed clear understanding of EMS / ISO 14000 to provide good input.
- There was some confusion over terms.
- Focus Questions
| Questions: |
(1) 7 |
(2) 6 |
(3) 4 |
(4) 1 |
(5) 0 |
Average score: 1.9 |
| Instructions: |
(1) 7 |
(2) 7 |
(3) 3 |
(4) 1 |
(5) 0 |
Average score: 1.9 |
Comments:
- #2 good facilitator, notes taken
- Good process
- What is your overall evaluation of the workshop's design and products?
| Excellent (1) -- Poor (5) |
(1) 3 |
(2) 7 |
(3) 7 |
(4) 2 |
(5) 0 |
Average score: 2.4 |
Comments:
- Needed more information on ISO 14000 & 14001. Thought that was going to be covered and it wasn't. You assumed we knew everything about ISO 14000 & 14001, and we don't.
- Pretty good - tough subject
- There needs to be a discussion about the philosophical & theoretical point of departure for the methods and tools we are proposing.
- Have experienced facilitators that know to keep the discussion moving to all participants and recording responses. Need to integrate air quality as well as water quality. Look ahead to HACCP labeling and how to include that process. Good balance of lecture and breakouts.
- Good prep work put into providing materials to orient participants prior to arrival - this will be important for stakeholders who participate in copilot efforts in states. Overall, impressed with the fact that agenda stayed on track and on time.
- Very good - a lot of forward thinking people.
- Needed more coordination between the assessments in progress and the EMS process
Sixteen out of 70 participants volunteered their interest in helping out with the project further.
