HOME | ABOUT THE PROJECT | CONTACT US | Ag EMS
Return to Table of ContentsThis workshop sought diverse stakeholders' advice concerning the design and implementation of Environmental Management Systems (EMSs) to credibly address livestock agricultural environmental issues such as water quality and air quality. An Environmental Management System entails a systematic assessment of environmental risks, an action plan for continual improvement, and regular monitoring and record-keeping. To be credible, a livestock EMS framework must satisfy possibly divergent interests, such as those of livestock producers and environmental advocates. It also must meet the requirements of both federal and community policy-makers. Moreover, it must be relevant and adaptable to the various different sizes and styles of livestock production systems.
The meeting was hosted by the land-grant university collaborators on a USDA/CSREES/IFAFS grant, "Partnerships for Livestock Environmental Management Systems". Project sponsors include EPA and USDA/NRCS. Project partners include commodity organizations and other private sector for-profit and non-profit groups. The workshop sought to:
The Roundtable drew more than 70 participants in response to targeted outreach. The meeting featured educational presentations about EMS. The diverse attendees provided questions, insights and feedback to Roundtable organizers and facilitators. The participatory process was successful in identifying priority issues that require the attention of the Project Team. Government agents, for example, expressed concern about certification processes and standards. Industry representatives and producers expressed concerns about incentives, confidentiality, and validation processes. Environmental organization participants expressed concerns about the potential effectiveness of EMSs (individually and cumulatively) in meeting environmental goals.
Many types of businesses and organizations have a stake in the development and use of Environmental Management Systems to address environmental issues related to livestock production. The event was open to representatives of each.
"Introduction to Agricultural Environmental Management Systems." - Appendix A
Gary Jackson, co-Principal Investigator for the Partnerships project, and national Farm*A*Syst coordinator
James Horne, EMS Program Manager, Office of Water, U.S. EPA
Stanley Johnson, Vice Provost for Extension, Iowa State University
Additional comments on this topic were provided by: (Appendix D)
Ron Jones, Director, Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research
Speakers Panel: Three Real-World Examples
North Carolina's State Environmental Agency Perspective (Appendix H)
View speaker presentation
Stakeholder Input Elements
"What question or concern is most pressing for you right now concerning the use of Environmental Management Systems to manage environmental issues related to livestock agriculture?"
Stakeholder responses to this question are shown in Table 1. The questions or concerns that participants posed were indicative of the full range of discussion that took place throughout the 2 days of the Roundtable. Government agents expressed concern, for example, about certification processes and standards. Industry representatives and producers expressed concerns about incentives, confidentiality, and validation processes. Environmental organization participants expressed concerns about the potential effectiveness of EMSs (individually and cumulatively) in meeting environmental goals.
From your interest group perspective, what (potentially) could livestock EMSs do that would be valuable? How could they be used? What could they accomplish? Participants first had a quiet opportunity to reflect on and react to what they'd heard to that point. Then one by one around the room participants expressed their answers to these questions, omitting those that had been spoken already by another participant. Specific responses are grouped with the following summary statements in Table 2.
Some stakeholders perceived livestock environmental management systems as having the potential to improve a producer's overall management of his or her enterprise. In particular, they identified EMSs as having potential value for management aspects such as neighbor or community relations, efficient use of resources, and effective enterprise planning, as well as overall profitability.
Others focused on the potential stewardship-enhancing role of livestock environmental management systems. They saw the EMS as a vehicle for raising environmental consciousness, reducing negative impacts on environmental and public health, converting wastes into resources, and demonstrating stewardship practices. Several identified the value of 3rd party verification for ensuring environmentally beneficial practices and increasing public confidence.
Several participants discerned a role for environmental management systems in product differentiation and market access, and in meeting consumer needs. A number of stakeholders saw livestock environmental management systems as a vehicle for producer and public environmental education. Much of this concerned improving agriculture's public relations (which generally accords the public a passive role), but others identified the EMS as a vehicle for public participation in agricultural decision-making.
A number of stakeholders also perceived livestock environmental management systems as having the potential to relieve regulatory pressure. Others emphasized their role in documenting compliance with regulatory requirements. Still others saw a role for livestock EMSs in promoting improved stewardship among enterprises that are not automatically subject to regulation due to their smaller size.
Group #1 identified roles and uses for livestock environmental management systems related to improving overall farm management (profitability, stewardship, neighbor relations etc.). (Facilitator: Elizabeth Bird; Recorder: John Lawrence)
Group #2 reformulated the question on the agenda as: What actions or criteria will be needed or desirable to facilitate the education process for the EMS? Group #2 identified criteria as NECESSARY for an effective livestock environmental management system that generates learning for improved stewardship. (Facilitator: Peter Wright; Recorder: Mark Risse)
Group #3 identified criteria for an effective livestock environmental management system that improves profitability and/or product markets, and also identified the conditions, criteria or requirements for effective communication about and diffusion of (marketing of) livestock environmental management systems. (Facilitator: Gene Surber; Recorder: Amy Van Blarcom)
Group #4 identified some of the conditions, criteria or requirements for livestock environmental management systems to be effective in relation to regulation. (Facilitator: Lance Holloway; Recorder: Rick Koelsch)
Please discuss and evaluate different delivery techniques. Identify three to five delivery models and how they should be evaluated. How should we measure their success?
Focus Group #1 identified two primary avenues for delivery of EMS support, and considered strengths and weaknesses of each. These two avenues were:
The group felt that EMS delivery by Extension would be the more effective. Table 4 lists strengths and weaknesses of each option, and discusses steps in delivery and evaluation.
2a. What is in it for producers? Those who are automatically regulated? Those not immediately subject to permitting? (You might want to consider neighbor relations, green marketing, etc.)
Product: Identify the three most effective incentives that will increase large, medium and small producer willingness to use environmental management systems.
2b. What are the three most important reasons for regulators to support agricultural EMS's? How should we design EMS materials to relate to existing regulations?
2c. What are some incentives that could be relevant to local communities?
Focus Group #2 summarized as its primary conclusion that economic incentives must be there to entice producers to make the EMS happen (not vice-versa). Table 4 reviews incentives for participation by producers, regulators, and communities.
How can we develop a program that is:
3a. Site specific but provides consistency for accountability?
3b. Basic and understandable but technically accurate?
3c. User friendly but credible?
3d. Producer controlled but engages community involvement or 3rd party verification?
3e. Public information yet provides for confidential data management?
Please provide your highest priority recommendation for each subpoint.
Focus Group #3 grappled with substantial challenges for the development and implementation of livestock environmental management systems. The group did not have adequate time to reach recommendations for resolving the challenges but concluded the project should address the following:
Table 4 reviews the group's substantial discussion.
Please list the (three) most important EMS program implementation strengths and roles of:
What are processes for building cooperation in partnerships?
What priority action does each group need to take?
Focus Group #4 concluded in summary that there is a need for EMS implementation, and there are ample reasons that the government ought to support it with flexibility, commodity organizations should participate, and farmers should do it. Table 4 lists strengths, roles, benefits and needs for each category of listed participants.
5a. Please identify five highest priority design characteristics and support needs that are needed for livestock EMSs to be relevant, accepted and used by small and moderate size producers?
5b. What is an entry level starting point for the audiences that are completely unfamiliar with the ISO 14001 and EMS concepts? How can we provide building blocks for next steps?
Due to the small sign-up for this group, question 5a was folded in with Focus Question #3, but Focus Group #3 did not have time to address it. Questions 5b was addressed to some extent by Focus Group #6.
6a. What are the advantages and disadvantages of linking our livestock EMS project to ISO 14001? (Please list the three most significant advantages and disadvantages.)
6b. Which of the 17 ISO elements are relevant?
6c. What can be done to reduce producer anxiety about coordinating EMS design with ISO 14001 criteria?
Focus Group #6 concluded in summary that the project's EMS materials should align with the ISO 14001 model. Table 4 describes a rationale for this conclusion, and summarizes the ISO 14001 criteria that should be given special attention for farm-based implementation of Environmental Management Systems.
The discussion started out with stakeholders firmly conveying that the project's work on agricultural EMS should involve support for a complete management system, and not stop with the assessment process that had been the primary focus in the first year of the grant. Stakeholders asserted that many tools are adequate to support the assessment.
What can we be doing that's unique and needed that's not already being done for livestock and other agricultural EMSs? What can we do that others cannot? What is/are the best role(s) for this project?
Focus Group #7 identified a number of research and education issues specific to EMS tool application that could or should be addressed by this Partnerships for Livestock EMS project. Specifically, the project should measure EMS benefits to livestock producers, identify outcomes that are necessary to meet the needs of the livestock, regulatory, and impacted communities, discover key factors for success in EMS implementation, provide public education about EMS, document case studies of producer application, and develop a sustainable framework for implementing EMS tools using existing resources. Table 4 lists the highest priority topics.
Each Focus Group briefly presented its conclusions to the whole group (the specifics of these presentations are folded in to Table 4).
The Roundtable concluded with a discussion of "What's Next?" by co-Principal Investigators Gary Jackson and Rick Koelsch, and an evaluation of the Roundtable by all participants. Next steps included sharing the proceedings of the National Stakeholders Roundtable with all the participants and with the public via the project web site, finalizing the environmental risk identification tools, an outline and example of which were shared at the meeting (For example, view draft online prototype), carrying out state-level stakeholder meetings that involve many more producers, developing other Ag EMS support materials (introductory booklet, video, and a range of EMS development support materials), and initiating pilot testing of the program with farmers in the nine participating states.
Some of the opening questions regarding the uses and value of environmental management systems seem to have been answered, but other questions about the purpose and prospects for the Partnerships for Livestock EMS project were raised. These were questions such as: How will this project mesh with other existing programs? How will the project move from developing environmental hazard assessment tools to developing full EMS support materials? How will the project succeed in attracting substantial producer interest and involvement? How does the project propose to integrate EMS with governmental policies and programs?
The Roundtable succeeded in facilitating civil and constructive dialogue among people with distinct, and sometimes polarized, perspectives. Many participants indicated that they had acquired some useful learnings regarding agricultural environmental management systems, and had appreciated the dialogue. They also left substantially more aware of the challenges and the opportunities inherent in applying the EMS concept to agriculture. See Table 5 for the Evaluation Results.
The conclusion of the meeting left the Project Team well aware of the challenges facing it. In the Fall of 2001, the Team is establishing a diverse and skilled Advisory Committee, including some of the participants who joined the National Stakeholders Roundtable. In direct response to feedback received at the Roundtable, the Team's concept of its project purposes has been rounded out to include the full requirements of an Environmental Management System using the ISO model. These proceedings will assist the Team with revisiting and addressing some of the more intractable issues we face in developing effective agricultural environmental management systems.
