•
•
-
-
-
•
-
-
II

It is with a great deal of pleasure that we introduce this Business Plan of the Community
Pasture Program (CPP) for 2006-2011. The CPP Business Plan 2006-2011 sets significant challenges for the way CPP works and delivers its key strategic thrusts. We want to ensure that as an organisation we are prepared to meet these challenges. This Business Plan sets out what must be done over the next five years to achieve this. Authorities outlined in this document are required to efficaciously manage the CPP in a businesslike manner, and these should be affirmed by our Department.
Over the past 70 years, CPP has developed enviable expertise on the sustainable use of land and water by developing and communicating the best practices in agriculture in Canada. We believe that this program’s international scope should continue to provide access to stakeholders around the world that seek knowledge on sustainable development in agriculture.
A commitment by AAFC and our Program’s Management and staff will afford the many opportunities being proposed in this document. The value for money this program contributes serves as a model for agriculture and the government’s commitment to the environment.
We trust that the Department will find this Business Plan useful in improving the costeffectiveness and shaping priorities of our program.
Harley Olsen
A/Director General
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration

This report outlines a business plan for the Community Pasture Program (CPP).
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA) personnel engaged in strategic planning processes and commissioned external studies to formulate a plan for objectives, activities and financial management for the next five years and beyond.
1.
Mission
The CPP’s mission is to manage a productive, bio-diverse rangeland and to promote environmentally responsible land use and practices. The program does this by utilizing the valuable land resource to complement livestock production. In addition, this program provides stakeholders with expertise and services for the sustainable use of land and water by developing and communicating the best practices in agriculture.
2.
Background
Part of the federal government’s response to the sustained drought of the 1930s was the passage of the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act in 1935, which led to the formation of the PFRA. The Act provides for the adoption of methods to secure the rehabilitation of lands affected by drought and the subsequent soil drifting. The Act and its subsequent amendments call for the development and promotion of systems of sustainable farming practices, tree culture and water supply, which afford greater economic security, and conservation of the ecology. One of the early steps taken by
PFRA to address the severe soil erosion problem was the creation of the Community
Pasture Program. This was done with the cooperation of the Governments of
Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
The Act was amended in 1937, its scope expanded to include new activities by providing for systems of land use and resettlement of farmers from stricken areas. The
Minister was given authority to enter into agreements with provinces, municipalities, groups and individuals. Today the CPP encompasses 85 pastures comprising 930,000 hectares.
The primary intent of the agreements–and hence mandate for the CPP– is to conserve the land resource, protect it from future deterioration due to drought while utilizing the land primarily for the breeding and grazing of livestock. Livestock grazing is seen as a natural approximation of function served by millions of bison that roamed this region prior to 1900. Conservation of the land resource can be interpreted to apply not only to the pasturelands but to all lands within the scope of the Act through the promotion of stewardship and best management practices. Through wording in the
Federal/Provincial agreements, utilizing the resource primarily for grazing is
IV

interpreted to show preference for smaller operators and enhance their economic stability.
Since 1979 the Treasury Board (TB) approved objectives of the CPP have been:
Objective I : To make possible the removal of lands from unsuitable or unacceptable land uses and to facilitate improved land use through their rehabilitation, conservation and management (Costs borne by Canadian government);
Objective II : To utilize the resource primarily for summer grazing of cattle while assisting in stabilizing small farms and providing breeding bulls to encourage high quality long-term cattle production (Costs borne by client fees).
The Federal Government is directly involved in the national management of land in order to meet larger public benefits or public policy objectives. In most cases this is related to the conservation of landscapes or unique features. These include parks, wildlife areas, crown leases, and community pastures. The CPP has acted as a steward of the land; livestock is an essential tool employed in the management of grassland ecosystems. A recent study by Kulshreshtha and Pearson (2006) estimated the total benefit (public and private) of the CPP is $58.3 million per year. While a portion of these benefits is realized directly to fee-paying clients, the citizens of Canada (and the world) indirectly receive benefits worth at least $37 million from this ecological enterprise. The Program is in the advantageous position of being able to make an economic use of the lands (grazing), which is required for the health of these landscapes.
The CPP has accommodated nearly 230,000 cattle per year. Approximately half of the total is accepted for grazing and breeding with approximately an equal number of calves on the pasture during the season. In the 1950s, 7,000 patron farmers provided these numbers of livestock. Today, approximately 3,100 patrons provide the same number. This decline is reflective of the structural changes that have occurred in the industry. Appendix 3.1 shows the number of clients served since 1995.
The strategic thrusts form the basis of the strategy for the five-year planning period and will guide improvements to current operations and also explore new ways of doing business. These are the areas where efforts and resources will be directed to advance the program to improve both impact and efficacy. The strategic thrusts include:
• Environmental Responsibility;
• Advancing Conservation Activities;
• Collective Commitment to Sustainable Agriculture.
V

Level of Cost Recovery :
The Treasury Board has mandated that the Program fully recover all the costs associated with the grazing and breeding objective and continue with cost recovery by means of annual adjustments to the fee schedule (TB#763547 - 1979).
The costs associated with the conservation objective are, by TB authority (1979), to be absorbed by the Federal Government. The cost of the conservation objective was estimated at $2.3 million in 1978. This directive cited that 58% of the net program costs should be recovered from patron user fees and 42% of the costs attributed to the federal budget.
OAG audits suggested that the CPP should determine the costs of meeting the
Program’s objectives. Consequently the CPP engaged in a research study, “Estimation of Cost Recovery Levels on Federal Community Pastures under Joint Private and
Public Benefits” in 2002. The report estimated the benefits derived from the CPP as well as separating the costs among various users. The study concluded that private user’s costs are estimated to be 54% of the total while costs for public goods and nonrevenue represent 46%.
As part of this strategic business plan, a more comprehensive study building on the
2002 study was undertaken by Kulshreshtha and Pearson (2006) for the
“Determination of a Cost Recovery Framework and Fee Schedule Formula for the
PFRA Community Pasture Program.” The 2006 study found similar results to the earlier study with costs associated with private uses at 52%, and costs for public goods were estimated at 48%.
Since the original estimations (1979) and the two studies within the past four years
(2002, 2006) demonstrate consistent analysis of the cost to the private/public users, there appears to be no need to create an elaborate costing system to determine on an annual basis what the recoverable costs are. Therefore, PFRA believes the program should set cost recovery levels within the current TB guidelines, and establish fees on this basis with consideration given to market, operational needs and other pertinent factors. The cost allocations between public and private users will be monitored on a
10-year basis as a check for program accountability.
A major change since 1979 was the passing of the Municipalities Grant Act. The Act requires the Government of Canada to pay municipalities a grant (PILT) each year equal to the property tax they would normally receive if privately owned. The Business
Plan has considered PILT as part of Canada’s contribution to the CPP. The following illustrates 3 methodologies considered to determine Canada’s contribution to the CPP
(Table 1).
VI

Table 1
Methodologies Considered to Determine Canada’s Contribution to the CPP
Business Plan
Proposal
2006-2011
Prior to Business
Plan
2001-2006
Treasury Board
Guidelines
1979
Recovering Costs
According to
Economic Benefits
% of Total CPP Costs
Recovered
% of Total Costs
Contributed by Canada
Canada’s Contribution
($ Million)
70% 70% 58% 52%
30% 30% 42% 48%
$40.8 $32.9 $52.5 $54.0
3.
Analysis
The commitment to strategic thrusts established through this planning process will be realized by optimizing performance in the delivery of the CPP. The CPP will benefit from the ability to make decisions regarding program efficiencies at the Regina headquarters. Operational and budgetary decisions are often required to respond to specific and local conditions. Through a PFRA strategic planning process, the following measures were determined desirable in order to optimize program delivery and performance.
• Ability to support the environmental objectives of the program related to the use of marginal lands;
• Ability to provide equitable access for producers to the community pasture lands;
• Ability to ensure continued provision of breeding bulls to encourage high quality, long term cattle production;
• Ability to provide value to taxpayers related to the conservation of these landscapes;
• Ability to provide financial performance and sustainability in line with the intent to achieving value for money for taxpayers with relationship to any commercial activities;
• Ability to utilize an accounting system that readily monitors and displays the financial status of the program;
• Flexibility to change product and pricing strategy in a competitive market environment in order to set rates and fees at levels that better cover both
O&M expenditures as well as life cycle replacement of the capital equipment and structures, while recognizing government policy towards utilization of community pastures;
VII

• Ability to access capital, both for on-going maintenance as well as revenue enhancing and for ongoing liabilities;
• Ability to expand capacity through entering into partnering arrangements with other federal and provincial agencies or NGO’s to allow for efficient use of assets and improve impact on the sector.
Operational Recommendations
Through the planning process, PFRA personnel arrived at updated wording for the
Program’s objectives and are seeking consent for these more inclusive statements as guiding objectives for the future:
Objective I : Manage a productive, bio-diverse rangeland and promote environmentally responsible land use practices;
Objective II : Utilize the resource to complement livestock production.
The result of the planning process led the management team of PFRA to determine that the following authorities would enable the Program to operate in an efficient and businesslike manner. The following should be affirmed by the Department:
• Use Departmental cash management flexibility to balance revenues between good production years, and years when revenues are down due to environmental or economic factors;
• Implementation of the environmental actions on land managed by CPP coordinated by Program staff;
• Fee setting authority re-affirmed with Director General, PFRA.
Collective Commitment to Sustainable Agriculture
There are a number of potential areas the program could be used to further contribute to
AAFC policy objectives. These include:
• Living Laboratory (Applied Research and Technology Transfer Initiatives);
• Contributing to AAFC’s Renewal Objectives;
• Livestock Grazing Privilege;
• Expanded Contribution to Livestock Sector;
• Adding Land to the CPP;
• Working with First Nations;
• International Development.
VIII

4.
Conclusion
The purpose of this document is to formulate a strategic business plan for the CPP for
2006-2011. PFRA personnel reviewed and examined elements of the CPP and have articulated the requirements necessary to continue delivering valuable services for the future. The study process has scientifically documented the benefits to individual clients as well as to Canada and globally. The benefits received are at an extremely cost effective level. CPP management feels that greater efficiencies could be achieved by following the operational recommendations proposed in this plan.
For the CPP to move forward departmental approval is required for:
• Confirmation of Canada’s commitment to the conservation objective; and
• Implementation of CPP Business Plan.
IX

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
1. Mission
2. About the Community Pasture Program
3. Trend Analysis
4. Dynamism of the Plan
5.
6. Significance of the CPP
7. Industry Leadership, Alliances
8. Program Development
Strategic Thrusts
Environmental Responsibility
Advancing Conservation Activities
Collective Commitment to Sustainable Agriculture
9.
Re-establish Delegated Authorities within AAFC
Level of Cost Recovery
10.
11.
Implications of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
12. Communication
13. Summary
Conclusion
II
11
36
36
38
18
18
19
20
21
27
28
29
1
7
IV
1
9
X

Appendices
Appendix 1 – Multiple Uses of PFRA Community Pastures
Appendix 2 – Linkages and Multiple Use Activities on PFRA CP
39
40
Appendix 3.1 – Number of Clients Over Time
Appendix 3.2 – Total Number of Cattle on Community Pastures
Appendix 4 – Range Condition of PFRA Community Pastures
Appendix 5 – Value Creation/Performance
46
47
Measures
48
49
Appendix
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1 – Canada’s Contribution to the CPP
Table 2 – Canada Land Inventory (CLI) Soil
Figure 1 – Estimated Value of Costs and Benefits
Figure 2 – CPP’S Strategic Environmental Analysis vii
3
Table 3 – Planned Operating Budget Summary
Table 4 – Sources of Funds Required
5 Schedule
Table 6 – Planned Uses for Incremental Capital and Investments
32
33
33
35
5
10
XI

The CPP’s mission is to manage productive, bio-diverse rangeland and to promote environmentally responsible land use and practices. The program does this by utilizing the valuable land resource to complement livestock production. In addition, this program provides stakeholders with expertise and services for the sustainable use of land and water by developing and communicating the best practices in agriculture.
Historical Context
Prior to 1930, rangeland in western Canada under the responsibility of the federal government was granted for homesteads. During this period, a significant amount of marginal land (CLI Class 4, 5, 6, and 7) was homesteaded and planted to annual crops.
During the prolonged drought of the 1930s, the prairies experienced serious soil erosion problems, especially on fragile lands that had been cultivated.
Part of the federal government’s response was the passage of the Prairie Farm
Rehabilitation Act in 1935, which led to the formation of the PFRA. One of the early steps taken by PFRA to address the severe soil erosion problem was the creation of the
Community Pasture Program. This was done with the cooperation of the
Governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. There are also pastures on DND land in Alberta and Saskatchewan.
The CPP has been governed by a series of Federal-Provincial agreements. These agreements define the terms and conditions of the program, establishing the legal authority for the program, as well as describing the responsibility of the federal government. Under these agreements, the Provinces acquire and place marginal land under federal control. Canada is responsible for the development, operation, and maintenance of community pastures on the lands so provided .
Initially the program started with 14 pastures (1939-40), added another 41 between
1949 and 1963. In 1965 the CPP entered into a 10-year agreement with DIAND to develop 10 community pastures. As these pastures were developed and made operational, staff was trained, and turned back to the bands to operate. The CPP now encompasses 85 pastures comprising 930,000 hectares – nearly twice the size of Prince
Edward Island.
1

Scope of Program
The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act (enacted 1935) provides for methods to secure the rehabilitation of lands nationwide affected by drought and the subsequent soil drifting.
The Act and its subsequent amendments call for the development and promotion of systems of sustainable farming practices, tree culture and water supply that afford greater national economic security and conservation of the ecology. The amended Act was extended indefinitely in 1937 and its scope was expanded to include new activities by providing for systems of land use and resettlement of farmers from stricken areas.
The financial limitations were removed and the Minister was given authority to enter into agreements with provinces, municipalities, groups and individuals.
The Minister entered into indefinite-term Community Pasture agreements with the
Provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba in 1939, to provide for the permanent removal of sub-marginal lands from cultivation and the establishment of pastures.
PFRA has administered these lands in accordance with the terms and conditions of these agreements with the provinces ever since.
The agreements and their amendments describe the responsibilities of each party and specify the basis for which grazing fees are charged to participating farmers. The agreements with each province have similar operational terms and conditions. Land tenure is either by lease or transfer to the federal crown depending on the agreement with the province at time of designation.
The responsibilities of Canada and the Provinces under the Agreements are well defined. The onus is on the provinces to obtain and place under Canada’s administration and control the lands to be protected, while Canada is responsible for the development of the pastures. Canada, through PFRA, is also responsible for pasture operations and maintenance, the costs of which are to be met through revenue collected from users of the land resource and Government of Canada funding.
The primary intent of the agreements–and hence mandate for the CPP is to conserve the land resource, protect it from future deterioration due to drought while utilizing the land primarily for the breeding and grazing of livestock. Livestock grazing is seen as a natural approximation of the function served by millions of bison that roamed this region prior to 1900. Conservation of the land resource can be interpreted to apply not only to the pasturelands but to all lands within the scope of the Act through the promotion of environmental stewardship and best management practices. Through wording in the Agreements, utilizing the resource primarily for grazing is interpreted to show preference for smaller operators and enhance their economic stability.
2

Current Status
The PFRA’s CPP manages nearly 10,000 sq. kms. in 85 pasture units on the prairies of western Canada. The pastures represent some of the largest contiguous blocks of grasslands in Canada and are examples of functional prairie ecosystems. The pastures contribute to Canada’s commitment to a number of international agreements covering bio-diversity, climate change and protected areas.
Over 90% of the land is considered marginal and not suitable for cultivation (Canada
Land Inventory Classes 4, 5, 6, 7). The program operates on Federal and Provincial crown land scattered throughout Manitoba, Saskatchewan and DND Bases at Suffield,
Alberta and Dundurn, Saskatchewan. These soils are very marginal for annual cropping and often are made up of sand deposits, steep slopes, rough terrain, heavy brush, salinity, rocks, sloughs, or some combination of these features (Table 2).
Table 2
Canada Land Inventory (CLI) Soil
Classification Distribution on PFRA
Community Pastures
CLI Class Hectares* % of Total Area
3 36,600 4
4 82,350 9
5 585,597 64
6 164,699 18
7 + organic soils + water 45,750 5
Total 914,996 100%
* - Excludes Road Allowances
The Program’s intent is to remain economically viable while managing the health of the rangeland. Historically, these lands were grazed by huge herds of bison, and impacted by periodic wild fires. Today the wild bison are gone from the landscape and rural development and urban sprawl do not allow the natural forces (fires) to control aspen and brush from encroaching the natural grasslands. The program uses cattle grazing as the primary management tool, supported by the latest range management science. The aim is to maintain a healthy, diverse landscape, which is representative of the natural ecosystems of the prairies.
PFRA’s Range and Biodiversity Division assessed and has established long-term grazing plans and carrying capacity on all of the pastures.
3

Annual stocking rates are established after considering many factors:
1.
The most recent growing season;
2.
Levels of subsoil moisture;
3.
Water supplies;
4.
Forage carryover;
5. Range health and vigour.
CPP maintains the responsibility for allotting annual breeding and grazing privileges for approximately 230,000 head of livestock. Approximately 3,100 patrons use the program and are charged for all services provided on the pastures. The grazing service and the associated breeding service are run on a cost recovery basis. Canada assumes the responsibility for the societal benefits of the program.
On-site custodial management of the individual pastures lies with full time pasture managers and seasonal riders. Program management is headquartered in Regina and in nine district offices throughout Saskatchewan and Manitoba, acting in a supervisory capacity. The program employs a total FTE of 200.
Strategic Intent: Multiple Objectives
CPP is a cost recovered program pursuant to the principles of the Treasury Board
(1979) two primary objectives of the CPP were recognized by TB at that time:
Objective I : To make possible the removal of lands from unsuitable or unacceptable land uses and to facilitate improved land use through their rehabilitation, conservation and management (Costs borne by Canada);
Objective II : To utilize the resource primarily for summer grazing of cattle while assisting in stabilizing small farms and providing breeding bulls to encourage high quality long-term cattle production (Costs borne by client fees).
With the assistance of provincial governments, patrons, and partners, the CPP has been successful over its 67-year history rehabilitating lands that had been improperly used.
Through long-term management, the program has turned unproductive prairie into a large blocks of healthy productive grasslands. Over 85% of the lands are presently rated as being in at least “good” range condition; this equates to sustainable high livestock production and the highest grassland biodiversity. Rehabilitation and stabilization are not complete though, as management of some of the lands can still be further improved. The latest scientific knowledge will allow the program to adapt and further improve the range quality. There are other factors that require on-going vigilant management of these lands. The program developed due to drought. Droughts are cyclical and will recur. Thus drought proofing and contingencies are included in
4

the long-term plan. The agriculture industry, commodity prices, and public conservation objectives will change and the program will have to adapt to these changes. Managing the health of rangeland is a very long-term commitment. Results of rehabilitation activities are measured in terms of multiples of years. Five years is considered “short term” for land rehabilitation. There is much more to learn about the diverse ecosystems encompassed in the program and how human and other impacts affect these lands. The program must be adaptive to meet its conservation and livestock production commitments. The success of the program yields evidence that conservation of our natural landscapes and economic livestock production cannot only co-exist but are interdependent.
Public Benefits
The Federal Government is directly involved in the national management of land in order to meet larger public benefits and public policy objectives. In most cases this is related to the conservation of landscapes or unique features. These include parks, wildlife areas, crown leases, and community pastures. The Program acts as a steward of the land, and it employs livestock as a tool to help manage the resource. The total benefit of the CPP is estimated at $58.3 million per year (Pearson et. al., 2006). While a portion of these benefits is realized directly to fee-paying clients, the citizens of Canada
(and the world) indirectly receive benefits worth at least $37 million (Figure 1). The
CPP is in an advantageous situation in that it is able to make an economic use (grazing) of the lands, which is required for the health of these landscapes.
The long-term viability and prosperity of agriculture are anticipated outcomes of AAFC policy through world-class leadership in environmentally responsible production practices. Specific AAFC goals include improvements in the quality of water, soil and air, and in bio-diversity. Compatibility between bio-diversity and agriculture pose a
5

particular challenge since the agricultural sector is the primary user of vast portions of the settled landscapes of Canada. The CPP contributes directly to these objectives on the nearly one million hectares of community pasture land by:
1.
Conserving soil and building organic matter thus sinking greenhouse gases through prudent management of perennial vegetation;
2.
Improving water quality by maintaining the perennial vegetation on these lands which act as filters for runoff from surrounding agricultural land;
3.
Maintaining high rangeland health, which equates to high biodiversity, and consequently a variety of habitat for wildlife. It has been found that these lands are refuge for species at risk as well.
The patrons and the Program have a truly positive relationship that is mutually beneficial. The patrons are able to access cost-effective grazing, which is important to the livestock industry, while the Program is able to access livestock for grazing which is critical to maintaining the health of the rangelands. The patrons also pay fees, which cover a large proportion of the Program’s costs. Access to this grazing resource is important to the patrons in order to access adequate grazing resources and as a service to support their farm operation. Allocation of grazing privileges is used as a tool to support agricultural policy. Current allocation policies favour small farm operators entering the industry or trying to expand. It is possible to adjust these policies to affect other industry and government objectives.
In addition to meeting the grazing needs of livestock producers and in the conservation of the resource, these lands are used for a plethora of other public and private uses. A number of the more common examples are listed in Appendix 1.
Key priorities implicated in multiple uses are: wildlife habitat, species at risk, research and maintenance of representative landscapes. The pastures are some of the few remaining large contiguous blocks of natural prairie remaining in Canada. Community
Pastures under the categorization of the World Commission on Protected Areas are classified as Category VI - Managed Resource Protected Areas - protected areas managed mainly for sustainable use of natural ecosystems. See Appendix 2 for a list of partnership projects.
Cost Recovery Mandate/Treasury Board Guidelines
The Treasury Board (TB) has mandated that the Program fully recover all the costs associated with the grazing objective (private benefits to patrons) and continue with cost recovery by means of annual adjustments to the fee schedule. The authority for cost recovery for the CPP remains TB # 763547, approved April 11, 1979. The same directive specified the costs associated with the conservation objective (public benefits) are to be absorbed by the Federal Government. The cost of the conservation
6

objective in 1978 was $2.3 million. The 1979 TB allocation that was approved used a cost recovery report dated October 1978 as a base for determining this amount. This analysis cited that 58% of the net program costs should be cost recovered from private users and 42% contributed by the Federal Government.
Over the years, changes to departmental financial processes made costing difficult.
There was no requirement to attempt to separate cost elements into recoverable and non-recoverable categories. Simplifying the costing process was achieved through vote-netting authority provided to the program in 1994. The cost of the CPP, net of pasture revenue, was considered Canada’s contribution to the conservation objective.
An OAG audit suggested that the CPP should review the costs of the objectives.
Consequently, the CPP commissioned a research study, “Estimation of Cost Recovery
Levels on Federal Community Pastures Under Joint Private and Public Benefits,” in
2002. In 2006 the report was updated and estimated the benefits derived from the CPP as well as separating the costs among various users. The study concluded that private users’ costs are estimated to be 52% of the total, while costs for public goods and nonrevenue represent 48%.
The department and this program are in complete accordance with the Treasury
Board’s guideline for cost recovery of private benefits (patron grazing usage). It maintains that the costs for the environmental (public good) benefits that ensue from this program should be borne by the federal government and not recovered through patron user fees.
Socio and Cultural Trends
Census data from the past 30 years show that the prairie population is becoming increasingly urban; indeed a number of small rural communities have become ghost towns and some analysts consider the traditional notion of the family farm to be on the endangered species list. Of families with an agricultural heritage, fewer members of the upcoming generation are choosing to remain in the enterprise. This is causing the average age of farmers to increase.
Despite the foregoing demographic trends, and the trend toward globalization of food production, a strong desire is expressed by the clientele of the CPP to maintain the uniqueness of the established communities and the importance of local
“connectedness” to the land that produces agri-food.
7

Environmental Trends
Recent studies have documented the impacts of climatic warming and its effects on arable land (Environment Canada, 2002). The primary objective of the PFRA, and the
CPP in particular, is to develop conservation practices that counter these effects by conserving the land resource. Since the CPP concentrates on the most marginal land
(CLI Classes 4-7), arguably the greatest public benefit is achieved, as this land might otherwise be used inappropriately by private producers and remain an ecological threat.
Primary agriculture is responsible for approximately 10% of Canada's greenhouse gases
(irrespective of transportation, input costs and agri-food processing). In response to the
Kyoto Protocol, Canada's First Ministers asked their Environment and Energy
Ministers to develop a comprehensive national strategy to reduce Canadian greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and effects.
Canadians are more aware than ever of the threats to the environment and the need to reverse harmful impacts. Public media and specific educational campaigns have heightened awareness impending ecological concerns. Sustainability has become an integral part of strategic planning for all organizations. In response to concerns about ecological and environmental sustainability, the Federal Government has recently initiated strategies for achieving sustainable development. But for sustainability to occur, all governments and industries, as well as individual citizens, need to reduce the ecological impact of human activities. This means integrating ecological thinking into social and economic policies. The CPP is a mature sustainable model that integrates well with modern ecological and environmental concerns.
Economic Impacts
A number of factors either directly related to the economy or to the agricultural industry have had significant impacts on farmers in recent years. The BSE crisis still has lingering impacts on the Canadian Beef Industry, disease, food safety and trade irritants all have potential to impact the industry in the future. The increased value of the Canadian dollar has also had an effect on the trade of beef internationally. Drought affected the yield of grain and hay resulting in higher prices for feed over several years.
New regulations require increased monitoring of food traceability involving new and more costly technology and testing. Fuel costs have increased dramatically in the past five years, while market prices of commodities have remained relatively stable.
Technological Trends
Farmers have realized the necessity to keep abreast of technological advances that affect their industry. AAFC has provided leadership in cattle production and
8

has been able to transfer this knowledge through the patrons of the Program and the public in general. Modern leading practices suggest that organizations develop best practices to make most efficient use of all resources. This includes rehabilitated land, advanced genetics and improved logistical management allowing for advanced systematic inventory control for more efficient food tracing and tracking.
Other Land Management Services
There are a number of other options available for clients requiring grazing services.
Private individuals will lease grazing land or even offer full service grazing for livestock.
A number of First Nations are actively involved in leasing grazing lands or running operations similar to community pastures. The Prairie Provinces all have public land agencies which lease grazing land or offer cooperative grazing opportunities. The
Saskatchewan Pasture Program operates a community pasture operation similar to
CPP, but with less emphasis on conservation of the landscape.
There are also a number of other organizations which manage prairie landscapes for conservation purposes. There are a number of National, and Provincial Parks and
Wildlife Areas on prairie landscapes that are dedicated to conserving blocks of grasslands. Ducks Unlimited and the Nature Conservancy of Canada, also have grassland landscapes they control and manage for their protection. None of these programs have the extent of grassland that CPP does, nor do they offer very much livestock grazing, if it is allowed at all.
No other organization has the unique combination of landscape conservation and economic agricultural production, such that the CPP has.
The Business Plan 2006-2011 has been developed through research, analysis and consultation with stakeholders to ensure it reflects the vision of the CPP and that the
Program will continue to meet the objectives. While establishing a baseline today, and a projection into the future, the Business Plan will be a dynamic guideline, evolving to meet the challenges of the variability of agriculture.
Assessment of Community Pasture Program Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats
PFRA has a history of direct delivery of programs to farmers and rural residents. This direct contact with clients and dealing with their issues has resulted in a core adjusting programs to fit changing
9

circumstances. The CPP has evolved with the agricultural industry, the public’s concern with environmental issues, and Canada’s commitment to bio-diversity, wildlife, and conservation as well as the increasing demands of non-agricultural users of the public land under management.
For the Program to be effective, it must accomplish its mandate and meet the needs of multiple clients in a cost recovery model. The following table provides an analysis of
Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. The elements from this analysis contribute to focusing the CPP to achieve more effective delivery (Figure 2).
Figure 2
CPP’s Strategic Analysis
Strengths Weaknesses
Direct client contact
Long successful history
Large infrastructure
Operating on a variety of landscapes
Strong presence in rural areas
Sustainable agricultural use of biodiverse natural rangeland
Experienced, committed employees
Science based management approach
Consultative approach with local patron committee
-
-
Demanding departmental reengineering
Increased bureaucracy of setting fees, purchasing inputs
Slow to react due to departmental systems
Very large agricultural operation
Volatile agriculture sector
-
-
-
Opportunities Threats
Provide information to landowners
Changing land from crop to permanent cover
Apply new concepts and technologies to improve riparian and
Reviews and challenges of program relevance is diverting attention away from new opportunities and reducing morale of employees range management
Alternative allocation policies could target a variety of clients
Partner with clients for group marketing opportunities
Financial management flexibility
Developing agriculture for First
Nations
Accessing new land
Some land tenure issues associated with lapsing of long term agreements with provinces
Negative returns to annual cropping
Volatility of livestock industry
Uncertainty in budgeting process
Cost of Federal Government
Environmental initiatives
10

PFRA’s mission is to provide expertise and services to producers and stakeholders for the sustainable use of land and water for agriculture. The CPP is integral to meeting
PFRA’s mission. The CPP provides services and expertise directly related to multiple use of native rangeland by pasture patrons, other fee paying users, as well as to producers, conservation and wildlife partners and third party user groups.
Vision
The program objectives are linked to the Departmental vision and mission. More specifically, the program contributes to the environmental outcomes of the Agricultural
Policy Framework. The overall vision of the CPP is:
To make Canada a world leader in using environmental resources in a manner that ensures the quality and availability of these resources for present and future generations.
The Program’s priority is to achieve environmental sustainability of the sector and to excel in the areas of soil, water, air and biodiversity.
Long term CPP management strategy is to:
• Support the agricultural industry through summer breeding and grazing;
• As part of AAFC ensure the program links to agricultural policy; other government;
• Collaborate with partners (provincial governments, RM, NGO, OGD, FN; departments, and First Nations);
• Support rural communities;
• Develop living laboratories to generate new knowledge;
• Transfer knowledge gained on CPP to the agriculture sector and the public in general;
• Manage the landscape in an environmentally responsible and sustainable manner.
The major outcome from the multi-objective approach is to support Canadian government conservation objectives and international commitments, while contributing to the economy of the agricultural sector.
CPP Employees
Most employees of CPP have a long history with the Program and are highly
11

dedicated to its objectives. They have an extensive background and first-hand experience in the grazing and livestock industries. This broad and in-depth knowledge serves the Program well as the business aspect of the sector evolves (advances in range and livestock science, consolidation of the packing industry, vertical integration of larger farms).
CPP employees have leading edge skills in livestock and range management developed through an on-going training program. These skills, in turn, are shared with clients and the local community. The employees of the program are continually testing new strategies and techniques. Personnel have access to Departmental and partner resources to consult on new methods. The scale and resources of the CPP provide support for innovations that an individual producer may not have the resources to undertake or be able to accept the risk. The program has been excellent for supporting innovation.
Most of the employees live in the rural communities, and know firsthand what the local issues are. They interact directly with their clients on a daily basis. In fact, many employees operate their own agriculture enterprises, and consequently are intimately familiar with the industry. This allows the program to stay current. The CPP also purchases many of the supplies required on the pasture locally. Due to the scale of operation of any community pasture, this is an important economic contribution to the community.
Client Relations
Each pasture has a Patron Advisory Committee (PAC) comprised of 6 patrons elected from those farmers with livestock on the pasture; the Pasture Manager (PFRA employee) is a non-voting member of the PAC and serves as the recording secretary.
PAC responsibilities include making recommendations concerning such matters as: client eligibility, acceptance of first year applicants, allotment of grazing privileges, range improvements and selection of rented bulls. The PAC is essential to client relations. It allows input from the major users of pasture operations, while keeping the program relevant to the industry’s needs.
Land Management Division has a long history of consulting and collaborating with
NGO’s and other federal and provincial departments in regard to projects and studies on the various landscapes.
CPP will use its resources to leverage research in livestock, range management and biodiversity fields. This will be combined with increased technology transfer through the use of a knowledgeable staff complement, and a large suite of established BMP’s on the landscape. CPP has partnered with CFIA and CCIA to monitor and research herd health.
12

A major client of the CPP are oil and gas companies who have surface leases on the land CPP manages. These companies pay surface leases for the use of the land.
Increasingly more time is required to manage these leases, and ensure impact on other users and the landscape is minimized.
As this is public land with a multiple use mandate, there are hundreds of other clients who make use of community pastureland annually. Most of the other users of the land are listed in the Appendix 1 and are recognized as clients of the program. Since the program is required to recover costs, the fee-paying livestock grazers are the primary clients and their needs are met first. But their needs are not exclusive of other users’ requirements, and attempts are made to balance the needs of all clients.
Livestock and Client Database
The CPP has accommodated over 230,000 cattle per year. Approximately half those totals accepted for grazing and breeding are cows with nearly the same number of calves. (Appendix 3.2). In the 1950s, 7,000 patron farmers provided these numbers of livestock. Today, approximately 3,100 farmers provide the same number. Appendix
3.1 shows the number of patrons served since 1995.
Bull Inventory Database
CPP keeps an inventory of 3,000 bulls to serve for breeding purposes. A bull has a useful breeding ability for an average of 3.9 years of service. This requires the purchase of approximately 700 bulls each year to maintain full breeding capacity. In order to monitor and maintain a quality breeding program, detailed information on each bull must be updated and tracked.
Grazing Records
Community pasture managers keep detailed records of livestock numbers and dates that they graze each field in a community pasture. This information is recorded in a database annually. This is a very powerful tool that shows the productivity and history of each field. When combined with the range condition database, it is used as the basis for rotation planning and changes in management.
Range Condition Database
The range condition database is a detailed inventory of all biophysical information on the community pasture. Every community pasture field in the system has had a biophysical inventory completed. This involves transects taken by range biologists who record species composition, litter, bare soil, and other relevant information. The data are used to calculate range condition. With the goal of each pasture being
13

inventoried every ten years, the trend in range condition is monitored (Appendix 4).
Species at Risk Database
AAFC is responsible for the protection of species at risk on land either owned or controlled by the Department. This includes research stations, irrigation centres, the shelterbelt centre, dam projects and community pastures. Data necessary to undertake
Land Management’s obligations as outlined in the Species at Risk Act (SARA) is being collected and stored in a system compatible with the Department’s business requirements, and is made available to Environment Canada. This information will contribute to such tasks as environmental assessments and habitat modelling designed for risk mitigation. Furthermore, it assists in the definition of critical habitat and contributes to national recovery strategies.
Web Based Mapping for Asset Data Management
Internet Mapping Service (IMS) is a web-based interface with built-in tools. IMS is based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) science and uses the philosophy of
GIS to display layers of information in a user-friendly manner. IMS is also described as a web-based platform to spatially represent data and tools (e.g. area calculator, etc.) that will assist in the decision-making capacity with a consolidation of information in a spatial format.
The IMS application has data within the tools. When these data are linked with other databases with unique identifiers that have spatial components, such as the provincial water well database, soil data, species at risk (SAR), or range condition, users are able to superimpose and display Land Management controlled facilities. It also allows users to access spatially located aerial or satellite imagery.
Such applications complement the databases currently used by the CPP with the added ability to spatially represent information that is gathered. The advantage of this Web
Based Mapping System is that it enhances AAFC’s ability to consolidate information into a complete property profile. The Swift Current-Webb Pasture is one of two pilot projects on AAFC properties used in developing this management tool. Users can also access tools such as a fence line calculator to overlay a proposed fence line to estimate cost, assess potential concerns such as SAR, or identify water bodies and utilities.
Technology Transfer
Over the past number of years the CPP has made a significant number of technological advances in range and livestock management. The Program has developed knowledgeable staff with the ability to share information and to advance best practices.
14

The Program has significantly increased its emphasis on technology transfer. The Land
Management Division has appointed a Technology Transfer Coordinator focussing solely on developing information products and programs based on the knowledge gained in the community pastures. Researchers are being encouraged to partner with the program and use the pastures as living laboratories. PFRA Range and Biodiversity staff and partners are conducting field days and training sessions using the community pastures and their staff.
CPP recently acquired the Nokomis Community Pasture from the Saskatchewan
Pasture Program. This pasture links with the PFRA Wreford Community Pasture, and also the Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife Area for which PFRA provides grazing management. These three landscapes are presently being developed into a Centre for grazing, livestock and biodiversity research and technology transfer. It has a unique combination of upland native rangeland, riparian interface and tame grasslands in a large contiguous block. This will allow for a variety of production and conservation research in one location. The added benefit is the proximity to the University of
Saskatchewan, Western Beef Development Center and Regina.
Internal Communications
Due to the remoteness of the community pastures, communications on a timely basis has been a challenge. Much of the information transferred from headquarters and district offices is still done by mail and fax. While every community pasture has a computer and at least dial-up Internet access, line speed is still an issue for many of the pastures, and makes the use of the Internet challenging. However, Internet and email access in these remote areas will improve with advancements in technology. In order to be ready for this, procedures are being automated and all pasture managers are being trained in the use of computers.
Key technical materials are either accessed or produced in-house and delivered to the pasture managers so they can remain current in their field. Land Management and
Range and Biodiversity Division also develop the twice-yearly publication entitled
“Browsings.” This publication contains a variety of technical articles related to the range and livestock industry and targeted to the Canadian Prairies. This publication is distributed to all community pasture staff, throughout PFRA, and to clients on a mailing list as well as being posted on the Internet.
The CPP Contributes to AAFC Environment Priorities
The CPP currently contributes to and impacts a number of areas which are AAFC priorities:
15

1.
Soil – The protection of erodible soils is the foundation of the program. The stated internal objective is to maintain “good” range condition, which will enable the build up of organic matter in the soil, achieve a high level of production, and enhance biodiversity.
2.
Water – The CPP has significant expertise in water delivery systems.
Hundreds of wind, solar, gas and electric water systems have been installed.
Most of these have been developed to ensure the continuous supply of quality water. The CPP developed large-scale use of shallow buried pipelines. The community pastures also conduct formal riparian assessments and management plans, as part of the on-going range management plan development process.
3.
Air – The community pastures are significant sinks for Greenhouse Gases, as they exist now. The maintenance of permanent cover is vital to long term
GHG sequestration. Continued improvement of the ecological condition has been studied for its GHG sequestration opportunities.
4.
Biodiversity – The pastures have a tremendous impact on biodiversity and habitat conservation. This is where the pasture program is unique compared to privately held lands. The lands are in large blocks under one organization’s control with a mandate to manage for healthy ecosystems.
This is a unique and powerful land management tool. The higher level of conservation is recognized by the Government of Saskatchewan which has listed the community pastures as part of their Representative Area’s
Network. This is only possible if the land is under the control of one land manager, and there is confidence it is at a high level of protection. PFRA takes this objective seriously by dedicating approximately half the time of three wildlife biologists and seven range management biologists to the planning and conserving of these landscapes. The goal of the program is to maintain at least a “good” range condition, which is directly correlated to high plant diversity. The large blocks are crucial to meet the habitat needs of many species. A number of collections have been conducted by plant breeders to source genetics and to develop new varieties or eco-vars . Several conservation organizations have agreements with PFRA to manage their lands with livestock to maintain the health of the eco-systems. PFRA manages livestock on two National Wildlife Areas, and also on the sand hills of Dundurn DND base. There are collaborative working agreements with
Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Nature Conservancy of Canada to manage land to meet multiple objectives.
5. Renewal - The program contributes to renewal by focusing on assisting in the stability of farmers by providing effective grazing to producers.
16

The program further contributes to renewal by eliminating the need for support payments on the 930,000 hectares managed by CPP.
6. Contribution to Federal Government Initiatives – There are many government initiatives to which the program and its staff contribute. Some examples include: a.
Climate change – Increased GHG sequestration on grazing lands. b.
Biodiversity convention – Lands contribute directly, plus knowledge of staff can be shared. c.
Protected areas – Canada has committed to increasing the size of protected areas. The Community Pastures contribute as protected areas. d.
Species at Risk – Staff participate on 10 recovery teams. CPP land is habitat for many species. Species and habitat research studies are being completed by a number of organizations. (Appendix 2) e.
International development – Many developing countries have significant overgrazing or land tenure challenges. The experience of CPP staff in managing these issues is used by CIDA and other development agencies. f.
Science and Innovation - The CPP lands are living laboratories and a significant amount of research has been conducted. (Appendix 2) g.
Applied agricultural knowledge - CPP expertise is often sought to solve a variety of problems for producers and other departments.
The CPP as part of AAFC maintains a leadership role in the field of land management and livestock production. The Program is able to achieve these broad and challenging objectives partly through a wide range of alliances and partnerships with various organizations.
Alliances and Partnerships
The multiple use mandate of the Program, plus the large, diverse natural landscapes under its responsibility has enabled the program to explore a wide variety of alliances and partnerships to further government objectives and support the agriculture sector.
There is legislative support for the objectives and activities of CPP (e.g. Prairie Farm
Rehabilitation Act, Species At Risk Act, Farm Income Protection Act), as well as international protocols to which Canada is a signatory, indicating that the federal government is interested in playing a role in areas related to the environment (e.g. soil
17

conservation, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, preservation of natural spaces) and farm income (e.g. adaptation, stabilization, sustainable management practices). Furthermore, recent Budget Speeches and Throne Speeches confirm these broad issues as government priorities. However, the specifics concerning what role the federal government should play in these areas are left to the program level.
A list of the types of activities or projects that occur on PFRA rangelands or in association with the CPP appears in Appendix 2. Attached to each activity/project is a list of the participating partners. The linkages created by these activities are formalized by MOU’s and written agreements in some situations, but also take place with informal arrangements that may or may not be documented. The list includes some 45 research and data collection agreements.
Strategic Thrusts
Strategic thrusts are the overall concerns the program directs its focus on for the planning period.
These are the areas where efforts and resources will be directed to advance the program to improve both impact and efficacy. The strategic thrusts form the basis of the strategy for the five-year planning period, and will guide improvements to current operations and also explore new ways of doing business (Figure 3).
The strategic thrusts include:
• Environmental Responsibility;
• Advancing Conservation Activities;
• Collective Commitment to Sustainable Agriculture.
18

Strategic Thrust 1: Environmental Responsibility
Environmental stewardship is the basis of the mandate of the Community Pasture
Program. Some agricultural practices in past years were not sensitive to environmental impacts. CPP is striving to be a leader in environmental stewardship of the properties it manages. It has undertaken the process of “cleaning up its own barnyard” and will share lessons learned with others. This continues to be done through an Environmental
Farm Plan (EFP) process. The steps of this process include scanning, assessing where action is required and taking action to remediate. The environmental farm scans have been completed for each pasture in 2003. Information collected aids in assessing environmental issues on CPP and is intended to identify both negative and positive contributions. Due to the vast scale of the community pastures, this information is used to prioritize actions strategically. Currently the program is in the second phase of the EFP process. It is assessing areas where action could be taken to reduce the liabilities and improve environmental health of the CPP.
19

Ongoing actions taken to date:
• Water supply testing;
• Adding or improving water treatment equipment;
• Nutrient management;
• Installation of contaminant storage for hazardous products;
• Drought-proofing/remote watering systems for livestock.
Each of the pastures has completed a formal Environmental Farm Plan in 2006. This is the same process in which all agricultural operations in Canada have been encouraged to participate. The environmental actions outlined in the EFP’s are being identified and analysed for the full program. A prioritization of actions will be established, as there is neither time nor resources to complete all actions in a year. The actions that have been identified and prioritized through this process will be addressed and incorporated into the CPP Capital Works Plan.
CPP uses practical approaches to address the environmental risks, so that the Program can be used as a model for other producers to follow best practices on their farms.
Due to the scope of the program, there is the ability to test and adapt environmental practices, and be able to share with other producers, what works and what does not.
Public Works & Government Services Canada has commissioned Phase I and a limited
Phase II environmental site assessments for each of the pasture headquarter sites on behalf of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. These assessments will identify potential environmental risks, analyze soil and water samples and suggest corrective measures where necessary. This process will provide additional information to CPP, and relevant recommendations will be incorporated into the CPP EFP process.
Strategic Thrust 2: Advancing Conservation Activities
Ninety percent of the land managed by CPP is Canada Land Inventory Classes 4,5,or 6.
The lands in Saskatchewan and Manitoba constitute approximately 5% of the CLI class
4, 5 and 6 lands in those provinces. Native rangeland comprises 85% of the CPP land base and 15% is seeded to tame species. This area represents some of the last ecologically significant contiguous blocks of natural rangeland remaining in the prairie landscape. The native range is viewed as a valuable source of genetic plant material and habitat for native species. It also provides a major contribution towards international commitments for maintenance of unbroken pristine areas .
CPP takes an ecosystem approach to managing the lands for which it is responsible. It aims to maintain the ecological health of the rangeland, such that these lands are representative of the historical native prairie landscapes. Therefore these lands are
20

managed with all uses in mind, but at the same time the impacts must not negatively affect ecosystem health. No one species or activity is managed in exclusion of the impact on others. Thus management plans developed for community pastures consider: range health, livestock production, riparian health, species at risk, and other impacts specific to each pasture.
All of the 85 individual pastures have undergone at least one intensive range condition assessment. Over 85% of rangeland in these pastures is in “good” to “excellent” condition. (Appendix 4) “Good to excellent” range condition equates to high ecological health and biodiversity, while also optimizing forage production for livestock. The
Range and Biodiversity Division is instrumental in providing a program of ongoing monitoring of condition status and ecosystem mapping. From these range condition assessments, long term grazing plans and carrying capacities have been established.
There is still a need to set annual stocking rates considering the most recent growing season, levels of subsoil moisture, water supplies, forage carryover, rangeland health and vigour. A number of pastures will be re-assessed each year, with the goal of each pasture being assessed every 10 years, thus monitoring range condition trends.
The pasture system provides year-round critical habitat for wildlife, including species at risk such as the Ferruginous Hawk, Burrowing Owl and Swift Fox and plant species like Western Spider Wort and Hairy Prairie Clover among others. The community pastures provide habitat for 20 listed species and are found in greater density on PFRA pastures than on surrounding land due to the healthy rangeland and large contiguous blocks. Land Management and Range and Biodiversity staff are directly involved on 10 species recovery teams to share their knowledge in developing recovery plans, and supporting the CPP contribution to SAR conservation.
The CPP has employed a pro-active approach in the demonstration of grazing as a management tool to maintain the optimum health of native rangelands over many different landscapes on the prairies. Many wildlife and environmental groups endorse this concept. PFRA assists the Canadian Wildlife Service on a direct contractual basis for the use of cattle grazing to “condition” major grassland areas included in the
International Migratory Bird Sanctuary on Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife Area.
Livestock are also grazed as a management tool on the DND Suffield Base lands, which are also part of a National Wildlife Area. Parks Canada has now re-introduced
Bison into Grasslands National Park (and is contemplating adding cattle in more remote areas of the Park), as the prairie was never naturally an ungrazed climax plant community . PFRA staff are advising Parks Canada on the reintroduction of grazing.
Strategic Thrust 3: Collective Commitment to Sustainable Agriculture
While the reason the CPP exists is to conserve these fragile landscapes, being part of
AAFC requires that the program contribute to the economic well-being and
21

improvement of the livestock sector. There are a number of specific areas where the
CPP could be levered to further contribute to AAFC policy objectives. These areas include, but are not limited to:
• Living Laboratory (Applied Research and Technology Transfer Initiatives);
• Contributing to AAFC’s Renewal Objectives;
• Livestock Grazing Privileges;
• Expanded Contribution to Livestock Sector;
• Adding Land to the CPP;
• Working with First Nations;
• International Development.
Living Laboratory (Applied Research and Technology Transfer Initiatives)
Two primary principles will guide this initiative:
1.
To be a Centre for Applied Research that takes proven research theories and develops them into technologies directly applicable to an agricultural operation, and transferring this information to the sector;
2.
Enable and encourage research in the fields of range management, forage production, range beef cattle production, and ecosystem conservation.
This is not meant to be solely a CPP initiative. CPP will provide the land base and manage the operation. It is intended to be a collaboration where not only CPP, and other PFRA staff can conduct research and technology transfer activities, but also be available to other partners such as provincial agriculture departments, NGO’s, university and other researchers and technology transfer partners (Appendix 2). The
“living laboratory” concept will be a centre where resources are shared and activities focus on livestock and rangeland management for profit and conservation objectives.
This is a recent increase in focus in Land Management Division, as there is a great opportunity to share innovations developed on the pasture and also to use the unique landscapes, diverse livestock herd, and staff knowledge to develop new innovations .
Land Management Division has already initiated activities in this area. A full time technology transfer coordinator has been in place for the past two years, and many publications, presentations, field days and demonstrations have been produced. While the pastures were used for this to some extent in the past, they were not used to their full potential. A new focus with designated staff will enable this.
A Pilot “Demonstration Pasture” is envisioned that will be a focal point, but not exclusive area, for CPP based research and technology transfer. CPP recently acquired
22

Community Pasture, and also the Last Mountain Lake National Wildlife Area for which
PFRA provides grazing management. These three landscapes are now being developed into a Centre for grazing, livestock and biodiversity research. This site has a unique combination of upland native rangeland, riparian interface and tame grasslands in a large contiguous block. This will allow for a variety of production and conservation research in one location. The added benefit is the proximity to the University of
Saskatchewan, Western Beef Development Center and Regina. The purpose of such a demonstration pasture is to have a focal point, which will build momentum and recognition for applied research and technology transfer on community pastures.
Innovations which meet the dual objectives of conservation and economics for the producer will be encouraged. Practices that enhance the health of the environment, while improving the producers’ profitability will be actively sought. This location will offer an opportunity for producers to view first hand, new developments in order to aid them in their decision making process.
Contributing to AAFC’s Renewal Objectives
The CPP will provide increased support to the AAFC renewal mandate by making changes to current allocation policy which will allow support for producers participating in AAFC programming. There are a number of areas listed below that could be used to achieve this goal.
There is an opportunity to provide short term (1 to 4 years) grazing privileges to producers converting cultivated land to perennial forage. Increasing cattle numbers across the prairies will require additional grazing and forage acres.
Short term grazing (2 to 5 years) could be made available to producers who are making a management change on their land. Some examples of the kind of change that could be considered included:
• Implementation of grazing system to improve range health;
• Implementing EFP projects;
• Producers whose grazing lands have been adversely impacted by drought;
• Temporary solution for producers involved in debt mediation.
Linking the allocation policy to AAFC programming in the future will leverage the
CPP’s ability to have a greater impact on land outside of the current pasture program.
This linkage would also provide land owners access to technical information and assistance on BMP’s that would assist them in making the land use transition.
23

Livestock Grazing Privileges
CPP grazes 5% of the beef cattle in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which is a significant contribution to the livestock industry. The program strives to maintain these carrying capacities as both individual clients and the sector rely on the pastures for their wellbeing. The program also aims to have long term stocking rates set such that in years of reduced production (i.e. drought) there is reserve left, such that in the short term producers do not have reductions in allocations. This is a very important risk management tool, and one that the clients and industry recognize. In the consecutive drought years in the early 2000s, much of the prairies were very dry and livestock were being sold off or provided with emergency feed. The CPP was able to graze at 90% of long-term capacity. In fact, numbers of grazing livestock were not reduced, even though the season was somewhat shortened. Due to the vast scope of the program, it was possible to accommodate some livestock from producers in severely droughtaffected areas. This is a valuable risk management tool for the prairies and for the industry.
The current allocation system encourages clients to participate on a long-term basis allowing them to build up to their maximum allocation. This allows for stability in the program, so that there are efficiencies for the producer, and they have a known allotment for planning purposes. The allocation system for new clients favours bonafide farmers with smaller land bases and livestock herds. The rationale is the CPP can be used as a tool for smaller producers to get started or build their cattle herd with fewer risks and lower levels of investment. The system is almost exclusively targeted toward the cow-calf sector.
This allocation system has remained relatively unchanged in philosophy since the inception of the program. The whole agriculture industry, including the beef sector has changed significantly in the past decade. Farms have grown larger, average farmer age is older, there are more corporate farms and vertical integration, and the economics are quite variable. This suggests that the program should review allocation policies and determine whether they are still relevant and having the desired impact on the livestock sector. The program has initiated a review of the allocation system and will develop recommendations on revisions to the system such that it is optimizing the contribution to the agricultural economy. The review will examine ways to improve impact on the grazing livestock industry; where allocations should be targeted to; how allocation decisions are made; and recommendations on a system to use. These decisions will be of particular interest to the current clients of CPP as well as the rest of the livestock sector. Proposed changes will be discussed with clients and affected or interested parties.
24

Expanded Contribution to Livestock Sector
Livestock on the prairies are estimated to grow to levels not previously seen. The large land base spreads across a vast area of the prairies. This offers some unique opportunities to positively impact the livestock sector.
The CPP continues to work with CFIA on disease surveillance on the 3000 herd bulls exposed to 200,000 head of livestock every year to ensure export markets expectations on herd health meet the high standards the Canadian livestock industry have for cattle available for export.
New possibilities exist in the area of isolating intensive livestock operations on
Community Pastures. The remoteness of these pastures would address some of the concerns with respect to proximity to rural and urban residences and the potential effect of these operations. The application of liquid manure is a major consideration for these operations. There are potential benefits to the intensive livestock operation by being able to apply manure on areas of CP land, while seeded grasslands would benefit from the added nutrients through productivity gains.
Adding Land to the CPP
There are a significant number of acres of marginal crop land bordering community pastures. Changing environmental regulations on agricultural land usage in the future regarding chemical and fertilizer application in relationship to watersheds could result in these lands having to be converted to an alternative use other than the annual crop production. The opportunity to manage these lands could be achieved through outright purchase or lease arrangements with the landowners. The range of lease agreements could be designed to meet a number of long term objectives including returning the land once converted to perennial forage.
Demand for grazing on CPs is in excess of space available. An expanding livestock herd will add additional demands on the current level of space available. The investment costs to increase and develop new acres for CP’s is costly however government policy advocates private land owners to move in that same direction. The
CPP has extensive experience, resources and the economies to scale that could be realized by adding additional lands to the CPP.
There may be opportunities to add land to CPP where producers no longer find it economical to continue using their current practices or land that has been acquired by financial institutions.
25

Working with First Nations
During the 1970s, CPP developed some community pastures on several Indian
Reserves in Saskatchewan and Alberta. This was done through agreements with the
Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. The pastures were developed over a period of 10 years, after which time the management of these pastures was transferred to the First Nations involved. This project could provide a model for improving the quality of other marginal land and creating agri-business opportunities for agricultural lands First Nations have acquired. However, to be successful, such arrangements would require land and livestock management training to ensure range condition is maintained, as well as regular monitoring. Financial support and agreements would also be a necessary arrangement as such undertakings are costly in terms of both staff and operational budget. First Nations have an extensive land base which continues to grow as a result of treaty land entitlements. They have an ever increasing need in the areas of cultivated land conversion to perennial forage and livestock management.
International Development
In the past few years CPP has hosted or presented information to foreign delegations in Canada studying land management. Examples of countries that have visited the community pastures are: China, Ukraine, Mongolia, Russia, South Africa and Australia, among many others. The primary reason these delegations visit the CPP is to learn about reclaiming marginal land, and about public land management alternatives. Other subjects explored include: range management, livestock management, pasture infrastructure, conservation and riparian management. CPP staff members have also contributed to the development of pilot community pastures in China and Ukraine.
The program will continue to support such information sharing opportunities. There is a further opportunity for the CPP to be used as a training base for public land managers from other countries, or foreign farmers, ranchers, or professionals who have a desire or need to improve their hands on range and livestock management skills.
The commitment to strategic thrusts established through this planning process will be realized by optimizing performance in the delivery of the Community Pastures
Program. The CPP will benefit from the ability to make decisions at the Regina headquarters regarding program strategies. Operational and budgetary decisions are often required to respond quickly to specific and local conditions. Through a PFRA strategic planning process, the following measures were determined desirable in order to optimize program delivery and performance.
• Ability to support the environmental objectives of the program related to the use of marginal lands;
26

• Ability to provide equitable access for producers to the community pasture lands;
• Ability to ensure continued provision of breeding bulls to encourage high quality, long term cattle production;
• Ability to provide value to taxpayers related to the conservation of these landscapes;
• Ability to provide financial performance and sustainability in line with the intent to achieving value for money for taxpayers with relationship to any commercial activities;
• Ability to utilize an accounting system that readily monitors and displays the financial status of the program;
• Flexibility to change product and pricing strategy in a competitive market environment in order to set rates and fees at levels that better cover both
O&M expenditures as well as life cycle replacement of the capital equipment and structures, while recognizing government policy towards utilization of community pastures;
• Ability to access capital, both for on-going maintenance as well as revenue enhancing and for ongoing liabilities;
• Ability to expand capacity through entering into partnering arrangements with other federal and provincial agencies or NGO’s to allow for efficient use of assets and improve impact on the sector.
Re-establish Delegated Authorities within AAFC:
The result of this planning process led the management team of PFRA to determine that the following authorities are required to efficaciously manage the CPP in a businesslike manner:
1.
Use Departmental cash management flexibility to balance revenues between good production years, and years where revenues are down due to environmental or economic factors.
These authorities had been delegated to the Program level but are presently exercised at the Departmental level. The CPP is vulnerable to the natural environment and production levels, and consequently revenues and expenditures are variable. Cash managing surpluses from the good years, to offset low production years, is sound business management.
2.
Re-establish the Oct. 2, 1987 delegation of the fee setting decision making to the
Director General of PFRA. Setting of fees has traditionally been delegated to the Director General of PFRA. Since 2001, the Deputy Minister has required that fee decisions be authorized through that office, whereas in the past the DM and Minister were informed of fee changes. This business
27

plan sets a five-year basis for setting fees and spending revenues. The basis for fees will be within the framework of the 1979 TB approval with consideration given to the cost of operating the program, current market conditions and other relevant factors, which affect fees. Thus it would seem prudent and efficient to affirm delegation for setting fees with the Director
General of PFRA, within the confines of the business plan.
Level of Cost Recovery :
The Treasury Board has mandated that the Program fully recover all the costs associated with the grazing objective and continue with cost recovery by means of annual adjustments to the fee schedule (TB#763547 - 1979).
The costs associated with the conservation objective are, by TB authority (1979), to be absorbed by the Federal Government. The cost of the conservation objective was estimated at $2.3 million in 1978. This directive cited that 58% of the net program costs should be recovered from patron user fees and 42% of the costs attributed to the federal budget. Refer to Table 1 which illustrates the contributions by Canada over the next 5 years based on the following 3 options:
1. Business Plan Proposal
2. Treasury Board Requirement
3. Consultant formula based on private and public benefits.
Over the years changes to administrative and financial processes has made costing difficult. The cost of the CPP, net of all revenue sources, was Canada’s contribution to the conservation objective. With fees established at the appropriate level considering market and other pertinent factors, there was no requirement to attempt to separate cost elements into recoverable and non-recoverable categories. Simplifying the costing process was achieved through vote-netting authority.
An OAG audit suggested that the CPP should review the costs of meeting the
Program’s objectives. Consequently the CPP engaged in a research study, “Estimation of Cost Recovery Levels on Federal Community Pastures under Joint Private and
Public Benefits” in 2002. As part of this strategic business plan, a more comprehensive study building on the 2002 study was undertaken by Kulshreshtha and Pearson (2006) for the “Determination of a Cost Recovery Framework and Fee Schedule Formula for the PFRA Community Pasture Program.” The 2006 updated report estimated the benefits derived from the CPP as well as separating the costs among various users. The study concluded that private user’s costs are estimated to be 52% of the total while costs for public goods and non-revenue represent 48%.
28

Since the 1979 analysis, 2002 and 2006 studies demonstrate very consistent results in the cost to the private/public user, there appears to be no need to create an elaborate costing system to determine on an annual basis what the separable costs are. Thus the program will set cost recovery levels within the current TB framework, and fees will be established on this basis with consideration given to market, operational needs and other pertinent factors. These cost allocations between public and private users will be monitored on a 10-year basis as a check for the program.
A number of studies of the CPP have been completed over the last six years examining the program. The results of these studies were reviewed and contributed to the content of the report. These studies are available on request.
Implications of Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)
Payment in lieu of taxes (PILT) is a major change that has affected Canada’s contribution to the CPP. In 1979 property taxes were paid to Municipalities based on
Federal/Provincial agreements that stated the Government of Canada should pay $.02 per adult head per day x the number of days grazed on annual basis. The
Municipalities Grant Act was passed in the 1980’s. This required the Government of
Canada to pay a grant (PILT) equal to full taxation to all municipalities on land under
Federal control. A further change occurred in the 1990’s when Public Works transferred the budget for PILT on an annual basis to AAFC based on payments being made at that time. The land under CPP control was costing approximately $2.1 million per year for PILT. The original agreements provided the municipalities with approximately $350,000 annually and the current policy requiring PILT payments now cost approximately $2.7 annually and is increasing. This change has increased the total cost of the CPP. Over the next 5 years AAFC will pay approximately $14.1 million on
PILT payments compared to the $1.75 million which would have been paid historically.
The additional contribution made by Canada reduces the actual amount that is available for conservation activities.
In practice, and using Treasury Board cost recovery principals, revenue plus Canada’s contribution should equal expenditures on a yearly basis. In establishing yearly spending budgets, revenue from all sources is forecast, including Canada’s contribution, to achieve a balanced budget annually (Table 4).
Management is required to reduce planned expenditures when revenue forecasts are under target, usually at the expense of infrastructure upkeep. Surplus revenue is usually realized too late to initiate any capital improvements (e.g. winter construction constraints) or equipment replacements (e.g. length of tendering process) and there
29

are no authorities to “bank” the surplus for use in the future. Because the program is at the mercy of environmental conditions, revenues can be quite variable. As a sound business management principle it is prudent to cash manage to ensure prudent fiscal management and to run the program in a business like fashion. (Table 3).
Setting of fees has traditionally been delegated to the Director General of PFRA. Since
2001, the Deputy Minister has required that fee decisions be authorized through that office, whereas in the past the DM and Minister were informed of fee changes made at the Program level. This business plan proposes a five-year basis for setting fees (Table
5). The basis for fees will be within the cost recovery framework of the 1979 TB approval with consideration given to the cost of operating the program, current market conditions and other relevant factors (Tables 3). Thus it would be prudent and efficient to affirm delegation for setting fees with the Director General of PFRA, within the confines of the business plan and TB authorities.
In order to enable the program to operate in an efficient and business like manner the following authorities should be affirmed within the Community Pasture Program:
• Use Departmental cash management flexibility to balance revenues between good production years, and years when revenues are down due to environmental or economic factors;
• Implementation of the environmental actions on land managed by CPP coordinated by Program staff;
• Fee setting authority re-affirmed with Director General, PFRA.
Revenue Management
The Community Pasture Program is faced with variable and unpredictable revenues, predominantly related to the unpredictability of the environment. Drought conditions result in a reduction in total grazing days, which in turn reduces revenue. The challenge is further compounded as drought conditions and the potential effects on revenue are usually not known until well into the fiscal year, thus it is difficult to plan in advance.
During the development of the Business Plan options were explored to manage this variability in a business like fashion, and to reduce risk to the program and in turn the
Department. Three options were examined.
1.) Contingency Plan
The use of a contingency fund was explored. This fund would be built up over a 5 year period to maximum of $1 Million, using revenue from the program in good production years.
This contingency fund would then be drawn down in years of drought or other times
30

where revenues were down. It was advised by Departmental officials that there was no legal or financial tool available to the Department to invoke such a fund.
2.) Departmental Roll-Over Authorities
The Department, including the CPP, have the authority to roll-over 5% of its budget every year. It was proposed that the program use the Departmental roll-over authorities, to a maximum of $1 Million, to roll over revenue in good years and access these rolled over funds in years of reduced revenue. Departmental officials advised program managers that this would not be an option, as it would be seen as providing CPP with special status, when no other branch or program has such roll-over provisions.
3.) Manage as a Departmental Pressure
The final option available, and suggested and endorsed by Corporate Services Branch is to set fees as outlined in the Business Plan. In years of reduced revenue, the Department would be responsible for revenue shortfalls and would be addressed as a Departmental Pressure, thus the program would remain operational. Further the setting of fees would be delegated to the
DG of PFRA in order to allow flexibility in setting fees, due to the variable nature of the environment the program operates in.
It should be noted that this option is possible within all current authorities provided to the
Department and Program, and does not go outside current convention in the Department. It should be further noted that it will increase risk to the Department, and cost of the program to the Department. CPP Managers will continue to work with Corporate Management officials to find innovative and workable methods to manage revenue and reduce risk to the
Department.
31

Salary
Operating
Investments
EBP
PILT
1.8
TOTAL
2.7
23.8
Sources:
NVR Authority 15.0
Table 3
Planned Operating Budget Summary
2005-06
($ Millions)
2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10
Planned Planned Planned
Actual
8.9 9.0
Planned
9.2 9.4 9.6
2010-11
Planned
10.4 10.6 11.05
.95
11.5
1.7
11.75
2.65
9.8
12.15
3.75
1.8
2.7
24.1
17.0
1.8
2.8
25.8
17.9
1.8
2.8
27.2
19.1
1.9
2.9
28.8
20.4
2.0
2.9
30.6
21.8
Total
2006-11
47.0
57.05
9.05
9.3
14.1
136.5
Canada
’ s
Contribution:
Operating
Capital
EBP
PILT
Total
2.3
2.0
1.8
2.7
8.8
.6
2.0
1.8
2.7
7.1
1.3
2.0
1.8
2.8
7.9
1.5
2.0
1.8
2.8
8.1
1.6
2.0
1.9
2.9
8.4
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.9
8.8
96.2
6.9
10.0
9.3
14.1
40.3
32

Table 4
Sources of Funds Required
Millions 2005-06
$
Fees
Non-Fee
Revenue
Total
Revenue
Canada = s
Contribution
Actual
$
millions
11.7
3.3
15.0
8.8
2006-07
Planned
$
millions
12.0
5.0
2007-08
Planned
$
millions
13.2
4.7
2008-09
Planned
$
millions
14.3
4.8
2009-10
Planned
$
millions
15.5
4.9
2010-11
Planned
$
millions
16.8
5.0
2006-11
Planned
Total
$ millions
71.8
24.4
17.0
7.1
17.9
7.9
19.1
8.1
20.4
8.4
21.8
8.8
96.2
40.3
Table 5
Fee Schedule
Breeding per Cow
2005-06
Base
$34.00
2006-07
$34.00
2007-08
$39.00
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
$40.00 $42.00 $45.00
Grazing per Day
Calves per Season
$0.36
$20.00
$0.36
$20.00
$0.40
$22.00
0.45 $0.50
$25.00 $27.00
$0.55
$30.00
Revenue Generated
($ millions)
$11.7 $12.0 $13.2 $14.3 $15.5 $16.8
Multi-Year Plan to Financial Management
Table 3 outlines a summary of the projected five-year operating budget, which includes expenditures and expected revenues that comply with the 1979 Treasury Board directive.
Fees were set taking into account spending needs based on the business plan and within market constraints. The operating budget proposes an increase from $24.1 million in 2006-
07 to $30.6 million in 2010-11 (Table 3). It proposes the Federal Government contribution will increase annually from $7.1 million to $8.8 million during that period (Table 4); which is
33

comprised of salary increases provided by TB and increases in PILT and related employee benefits..
Kulshreshtha and Pearson (2006) estimated the total annual benefit of the program to be
58.3 million. The report determined that 52% of the costs of the program were associated with private uses while 48% of the costs were associated with public uses. Conversely the report found that 36% of benefits accrued to private interests while the public gained 64% of the benefits. Thus this report confirms that the program is within range of TB cost recovery guidelines, while receiving substantial benefit.
The Business Plan and associated fee schedule recommends adjusting rates which at the end of the 5 year period will have private interests paying 70% of program costs, which will be within TB requirement for cost recovery, while still maintaining all the public benefits.
There are a number of considerations taken into account in developing the multi-year budget. A critical consideration is the reality fees have not increased since 2001-02 because of drought, BSE and a departmental expenditure review process. This has had a significant impact on the current condition of program assets and managements ability to under take new investments to advance the program.
are projected to grow due to contract increases of 2.5 % per year. This percentage has been the normal increase for last few years. The FTE count of 200 is anticipated to remain constant throughout the planning period. The $2.5M increase required over the next 5 years will come from TB to AAFC.
include all operating costs. These costs include the day-to-day expenditures like utilities, repairs and maintenance of equipment and buildings. The base year expenditures include what it costs to operate in a “normal” year and meet the minimal requirements of the Program mandate. Over the last number of years, increases to grazing rates were held back which negatively impacted the amount available to spend on upkeep of the assets. The planning years’ operating expenditures have been increased to allow for remediation of deferred maintenance; and an overall 2% increase in inflation.
include specific capital purchases. The budget is held by
Departmental (AAFC) headquarters. The CPP has in the last number of years received a budget allocation as the Departmental contribution to the program (Table 3). There are other capital expenditures required to address rust out, health and safety, environment and productivity issues. These are included in the comprehensive investment plan outlined in
Table 6.
: CPP has recognized that it must continually make investments to
“maintain the plant” and advance the program. A work plan is prepared annually. Many of the planned projects for the last several years have been delayed due to the inability to
34

increase revenue that would enable increased spending. Fee increases have been sought for the last several years; however AAFC senior management chose to not go forward with CPP fee increases. In addition, the loss in revenue from culled bulls due to the BSE crisis has compounded CPP’s revenue position. The proposed fee increases would generate $9.05 million over the 5 years to be used for investment as outlined below (Table 6).
TABLE 6
Planned Uses for Investment $
($ Millions)
2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 Total
HEALTH & SAFETY :
Water Supply & Quality
Housing
Handling Facilities
Boundary Fences
Equipment
PRODUCTIVITY INCREASES :
Brush Control
Land Development
.10
.20
.10
.20
.15
.20
.20
.10
.20
.30
.30
.20
.30
.10
.30
.10
.50
.40
.20
.30
.10
.40
.30
.75
.90
.70
1.00
.40
.90
.40
1.75
1.75
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIATIVES :
Biological Inventories
EFP Implementation .20
.10
.30
.20
.55
.25
.55
.55
1.60
TOTAL $0.95 $1.70 $2.65 $3.75 $9.05
Performance targets have been set against the overarching objectives in the Community
Pasture Program. One of the key aims of the strategic directions within this plan is to challenge both industry and government in taking the CPP forward. In rising to the challenge, specific performance targets have been set. The Business Plan 2006-2011 will provide the framework to grow, though it is up to both government and industry to meet this challenge (Appendix 5).
These performance indicators will be monitored and updated by the CPP on an annual basis. Any changes in strategic directions and performance targets will be based on the
CPP's performance, ongoing market analysis, resources available and the impact of shifts in regional needs and national environment dynamism.
35

A communication effort will be undertaken to ensure that staff, patrons/producers, partners, Industry Organizations and Federal, Provincial and Municipal Departments continue to be kept fully informed of the direction this document provides for them and the Community Pasture Program, PFRA and AAFC. Many of the above have been actively involved through various forums to provide input which has had definite influence on the content and direction outlined in the Business Plan .
A communication plan is being developed which will include a number of key actions.
Firstly, CPP staff will be fully educated on the content of the plan so they can hold informed discussions with clients when required. Secondly, opportunities will be provided to the Chairs of the Patron Advisory Committees at each pasture to meet with program managers to learn about and discuss the Business Plan. Finally, an information package highlighting the implications of the Business Plan will be provided to all clients, when applications are sent out in September 2006.
Through the planning process, PFRA personnel have modernized the Program’s objectives:
Objective I : Manage a productive, bio-diverse rangeland and promote environmentally responsible land use practices.
Objective II : Utilize the resource to complement livestock production.
PFRA managers have conducted an analysis of priority projects, which require investment and will address deteriorating infrastructure. Furthermore, these priorities address opportunities for productivity gains allowing additional grazing availability for prairie livestock producers. The analysis included projects in the following areas:
• Infrastructure and facilities for the combined Wreford/Nokomis “Pilot
Model Community Pasture.”;
• Pasture and hayfield rejuvenation of some tame forage stands on better soils;
• Brush control to deal with the encroachment of trees onto the open areas in the parkland pastures. Former AAFC scientist Dr. Garry Bowes estimated that left unchecked, brush encroachment on community pastures would affect 14,000 acres of grasslands annually. Ideally the ultimate goal
36

is to control the trees to historic levels. At the least, the Program must prevent further loss of grassland;
• Water Development – improve quality and quantity for both domestic and livestock consumption. Off-site watering stations have been demonstrated to prolong the useful life of dugouts and dams as well as improving the quality of riparian areas. Additional watering sites also improve range management options and utilization of the forage resource;
• Fencing and infrastructure replacement. Fences and facilities deteriorate every year and generally speaking 5% of the capital value of these assets should be a planned expenditure to cover depreciation;
• Prioritize and initiate environmental work projects identified in the 2006
EFPs.
is required by the program to cover the potential liability from any reduction of net revenues and or unexpected expenditures. CPP revenues are highly dependant upon environmental occurrences that can negatively impact operations. The most significant recurring example is drought. The program was founded from this occurrence and history has shown it is cyclical. Providing the
Program with cash management capability would shelter Departmental (AAFC) budgets from such emergencies.
have been calculated over the five-year planning period. Due to drought and the BSE situation, fees have have not been adjusted for the preceding 5 years. The proposed fee increases will place CPP rates in the same range as provincial pasture rates. A recent study completed in 2005 by the Province of Saskatchewan shows that the provincial average for grazing is $0.59 cents per day for cows. Thus the proposed CPP fee increases would better equate to current market rates.
is the funding that is directly provided to the CPP from parliamentary appropriations (AAFC budgets). Pearson et al (2006) demonstrates a significant benefit to Canadians from the lands managed by the CPP. The report estimates the total benefit of the CPP to be $58.3 million in 2005. Canada’s contribution to the costs incurred was $8.8 million. The Treasury Board recognizes that it is Canada’s responsibility to pay for the public good benefits. It appears that
Canada’s contribution creates at least a sevenfold return in total benefits.
The result of the planning process led the management team of PFRA to determine that the following authorities will enable the Program to operate in an efficient and businesslike manner and should be affirmed by the Department:
37

• Use Departmental cash management flexibility to balance revenues between good production years, and years when revenues are down due to environmental or economic factors;
• Implementation of the environmental actions on land managed by CPP coordinated by Program staff;
• Fee setting authority re-affirmed with Director General, PFRA.
Conclusion
The purpose of this document is to formulate a strategic business plan for the CPP for the 2006-2011 period. As such, PFRA personnel reviewed and examined elements of the
CPP and have articulated the requirements necessary to continue delivering valuable services for the future. The study process has scientifically documented the benefits to individual clients as well as to Canada and the planet. The benefits received are at an extremely cost effective level. CPP management feels that greater productivity will be achieved by following the operational recommendations proposed in this plan.
For the CPP to move forward departmental approval is required for:
• Confirmation of Canada’s commitment to the conservation objective; and
• Implementation of CPP Business Plan.
38

Multiple Uses of PFRA Community Pastures
• Wildlife Management Areas
• Species at Risk (Plant & Animal
• Research
• Carbon
•
Sequestration
Mineral
• Oil & Gas Exploration
• Archaeological
• Logging
• Collection
• Camping
• Hunting
• Hiking
• Fishing
• Snowmobile
• Trailing
• Berry Picking
• Bird Dog Training
• Wild Crafting
• Bird Watching
• Photography
• Wagon/Trail Rides
39

Linkages and Multiple Use Activities on PFRA Community Pastures
The following is a random list of the types of activities or projects that occur on PFRA rangelands or in association with the pasture program. Under each activity/project is a list of the participants. The linkages created by these activities are formalized by MOU’s and written agreements in some situations, but also take place with informal arrangements that may or may not be documented.
1.
Biodiversity and Rare Plant Inventory
- World Wildlife Fund (WWF)
- Manitoba Conservation
- Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS)
- Environment Canada (EC)
- Saskatchewan Conservation Data Centre
- Manitoba Conservation Data Centre
2.
Landscape Classification
- University of Saskatchewan (U of S)
- Sask Research Council (SRC)
3.
Grassland Songbird Studies
- Saskatchewan Wetland Conservation Corporation (SWCC)
- Canadian Wildlife Service
- University of Missouri
- University of Regina
4.
Hog Manure Application Rate Study
- Manitoba Agriculture
- Triple S Corporation
5.
Water Quality and Weight Gain Study
- Western Beef Development Centre (WBDC)
6.
Breeding Programs Using PFRA Bulls
- Western Beef Development Centre
- Melfort Research Centre
40

7.
Trichomoniasis Testing
- Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
- Health of Animals Lab Saskatoon (HAL)
- Veterinarian Infectious Diseases Organization (VIDO)
8.
Leafy Spurge Control
- Sask Ag and Food (SAF)
- Saskatchewan Sheep Development Board (SSDB)
- Leafy Spurge Stakeholders Group
9.
Native Rangeland Bench Mark Site Monitoring
- Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food
- Grazing and Pasture Technology Program (GAPT)
10.
Riparian Management Projects
- Saskatchewan Watershed Authority
- University of Montana
- National Soil and Water Conservation Program (NSWCP)
- Cows and Fish
11.
Endangered Species Recovery Plans and Species at Risk
- Environment Canada
- Burrowing Owl Recovery Team
- Swift Fox Recovery Team
- Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Recovery Team
- Sage Grouse recovery Team
- Loggerhead Shrike Recovery Team
- Piping Plover Recovery Team
12.
Wiper Herbicide Applicator Development
- Saskatchewan Research Council
13.
Planned Grazing Survey
- Manitoba Habitat and Heritage Corporation
- Saskatchewan Research Council
- Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC)
- Canadian Cattleman Association (CCA)
- Alberta Agriculture
14.
Animal Behavioural Studies
- University of Saskatchewan
41

15.
Brush Control Projects
- Saskatchewan Research Council
- Dupont
- Monsanto
- Sharptails Plus
16.
Tall Grass Prairie Management
- Nature Conservancy Canada
- Manitoba Conservation
Native Prairie Conservation
- Prairie Conservation Action Program (PCAP)
- Alberta Prairie Conservation Forum (APCF)
17.
Waterfowl Habitat management
- North American Waterfowl Management Program (NAWMP)
- Ducks Unlimited Canada (DUC)
- Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS)
19. Foreign Diseases Monitoring
- Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)
- Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA)
20.
Species Heterogeneity Studies
- Grasslands National Park (GNP)
- Department of National Defence - CFB Suffield
- Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS)
21.
Amphibian Virus Study
- University of Saskatchewan
22.
Garter Snake Habitat Protection
- Manitoba Conservation
23.
Wildlife Management Sites
- Manitoba Conservation (WMA = s)
- Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management
(Wildlife Management Units)
Canadian Wildlife Service (National Wildlife Area)
24.
Grazing Trials (forage varieties and livestock weight gains)
- Manitoba Agriculture
- Manitoba Grasslands Society (MGS)
42

25.
Logging
- Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (SERM)
- Louisiana Pacific
- Manitoba Crown Lands
26.
Rangeland Forage Production Studies
- Saskatchewan crop Insurance
- Alberta Crop Insurance
27.
Black-Tailed Prairie Dog Colony Studies
- Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (SERM)
- Grasslands National Park
- University of Brandon
28.
Native Plant Seed Collection
- Swift Current Research Centre
- Saskatchewan Native Plant Society
- private individuals
29.
Manitoba Protected Areas Initiative
- Manitoba Parks
- Manitoba Crown Lands
30.
Bovine Virus Diarrhea Monitoring
- Beohringer Ingleheim Canada Ltd.
31.
Carbon Sequestration and Greenhouse Gas Studies
- Saskatchewan Power
- Brandon Research Centre
32.
Herbicide Resistant Plant Study
- Saskatoon Research Centre
33.
Weather Collection
- Saskatchewan Crop Insurance
34.
Exotic (INVASIVE) Plant Monitoring
- Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (SERM)
43

35.
Environmental Significance and Conservation Value of PFRA Pastures
- Nature Conservancy of Canada
36.
Mineral Exploration and Extraction (oil and gas, gravel, bentonite, etc.)
- oil and gas companies
- Rural Municipalities
- private contractors
37.
Interdepartmental Recovery Fund Projects
- Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS)
- various species recovery teams
38.
National Livestock Identification Program
- Canadian Cattlemen’s Association (CCA)
- Canadian Cattle Identification Agency (CCIA)
39.
Quality Starts Here Program
- pharmaceutical companys
- Saskatchewan Livestock Association (SLA)
- Saskatchewan Agriculture and Food (SAF)
- Saskatchewan Pasture Program (SPP)
40.
Animal Welfare Activities
- Farm Animal Council of Saskatchewan (FACS)
- various organizations within FACS
41.
Recreational Activities
- Saskatchewan Environment and Resource Management (SERM -hunting)
- hunters
- provincial and local snowmobile groups
- trail rides, wagon treks, cattle drives
- berry pickers, photographers, bird watchers, hikers, etc.
42.
Bovine Reproductive Diseases Prevention and Conception Improvement Projects
- University of Saskatchewan
- Veterinarian Infectious Diseases Organization (VIDO)
44

43.
Safety Training, Stockperson = s School, Animal Disease, Animal Nutrition, Parasite
Control
- Saskatchewan Pasture Program (SPP)
- Farm Animal Council of Saskatchewan (FACS)
- University of Saskatchewan
- local veterinarians and provincial veterinarian labs
- feed companies
- pharmaceutical companies
- Veterinarian Infectious Diseases Organization (VIDO)
44.
Reproductive Efficiencies in Bulls
- Lethbridge Research Centre
- University of Saskatchewan
- Windy Ridge Ultrasound
45

District
Rosetown
North Battleford
Swift Current
Maple Creek
Watrous
Foam Lake
Weyburn
Brandon
Dauphin
Total
1995
335
493
404
295
423
327
499
551
380
3,707
1996
341
488
401
305
420
314
496
530
349
3,644
Appendix 3.1
1997
331
484
385
309
427
299
493
549
345
3,622
Number of Clients Over Time
1998
336
472
380
304
408
289
471
491
356
3,507
1999
329
460
373
313
406
284
480
475
332
3,452
2000
324
443
371
311
406
276
481
447
275
3,334
2001
320
452
370
306
410
281
473
423
298
3,333
2002
302
428
362
293
390
272
467
437
298
3,249
2003
305
421
366
301
391
273
458
432
296
3,243
2004
297
417
372
295
382
261
450
425
297
3,196
2005
296
404
366
291
393
251
430
412
292
3,135
% decrease
'95 to '05
11.6%
18.1%
9.4%
1.4%
7.1%
23.2%
13.8%
25.2%
23.2%
15.4%
3,800
3,600
3,400
3,200
3,000
2,800
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
46

Appendix 3.2
300,000
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
-
1930 1940 1950 1960 1970
Year
1980 1990 2000 2010
47

70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Percent
Appendix 4
Excellent
13%
Good
62%
Fair
23%
Range Condition
Poor
2%
48

Appendix 5
Value
INPUTS OUTPUTS
Investments
• Operational
CPP Staff
• Functional
PFRA Staff
• Financial - users fees
• Financial - appropriations
• 2.1 M acres rangeland
• Infrastructure/
Assets
• Partners/Stakeh olders
• Researchers
• Living
Laboratory
•
•
Activities Audience
(Short Term)
Maintain and improve range condition
Operate a grazing program to manage landscapes
• Provide cost effective grazing & breeding
• Monitor rangeland health
• Monitor herd health
• Research
• Demonstrations
• Share knowledge
• Species at risk recovery projects
• Landscape conservation
• Reclamation
• Identify cost recovery levels associated with private and public benefits.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Patrons
Area Ranchers
/Farmers
Livestock
Industry
Provincial
Agriculture
Departments
Universities
Conservation organizations
AAFC
Resource companies
Rural residents
Canadians
1.
Appropriate stocking rates
2.
Ability to maintain herd size
3.
Affordable grazing
4.
Healthy livestock
5.
Cost and benefit
6.
7.
8.
information of
Federally managed resource.
Knowledgeable staff
Knowledge products
Research information products
Action/Implementation
(Medium Term)
1.
Leader in
Environmental
Stewardship
2.
Strengthen
Conservation Activities
3.
Sustain Commitment to Agriculture
4.
Optimize Program
Performance
49

Performance Measures
Outcome Performance
Indicator
Short Term
Appropriate stocking rates
Ability to maintain herd size
• Community pastures are stocked at industry recommended rates based on current condition.
• Cattle numbers are within 15 year average adjusted for
• CPP
• Patrons
•
•
CPP
Patrons
Affordable grazing
Healthy livestock
Cost and benefit information weather conditions
• Grazing fees are within industry norms as outlined in business plan.
• Livestock health is monitored, sick livestock treated or sent home.
• Cost recovery levels are within
TB 58/42 guideline.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
CPP
Patrons
CPP
Patrons
Industry
CPP
Patrons
Knowledgeable staff
Knowledge products
• Maintain or improve number of training days for riders, pasture and land managers
• Number of field days, workshops, publications and research projects.
• CPP
• Patrons
• Agriculture industry
Medium Term
• PFRA
• Patrons
• Agriculture industry
• Universities
• NGOs
• Stocking rate data base.
• Industry stocking rate publications.
• Delivery records.
• Yearly climate records.
• Provincial lease survey.
• Land Manager information.
• Range and
•
•
•
Biodiversity
CPP
CPP
SAF info.
• Pasture Manager records
• CPP
• CPP expenditure records.
• 5 year benefit review.
• Peoplesoft
Personnel Data
System
• CPP
• Consultants
• CPP
•
•
Record of extension events and publications.
Record of research projects.
• CPP
• PFRA
50

Lead in
Environmental
Stewardship
Strengthen
Conservation
Activities
Sustain
• Improved
Public awareness and knowledge that sustainable agriculture and natural landscape conservation are compatible.
• Improved awareness of impacts of farm practices on the environment.
• Improved knowledge on environmental remediation of agriculture practices on the environment.
• Improve public awareness that maintaining healthy biodiverse landscapes leads to a productive and healthy environment for future generations.
• Range health is at least in the
“good” range condition on more than 85% of CPP lands.
• Increased number of research and demonstration projects related to rangeland production and conservation.
• New
• Canadians
• Farmers –
Ranchers
• CPP
• Patrons
• Canadians
• Livestock,
• Surveys conducted by
Federal or
Provincial governments and NGO’s
• Environment
Farm Plans
• Access surveys and studies conducted on the subject.
• CPP
• Range Condition
Database
Range and
Biodiversity
• Listing of new • CPP
51

Commitment to
Agriculture
Optimize Program
Performance
Long Term knowledge products which benefit rangeland and livestock industries.
• Accessible grazing services.
• Reliable grazing allocations
• grazing and breeding fees are within industry norms as outlined in business plan.
• Economic benefits for rural communities by maintaining local purchasing of supplies that are available and cost effective
• Fully implemented
Business Plan rangeland and conservation sectors.
• CPP
• Patrons
• Local Rural business.
• CPP
• AAFC
• Patrons
Manage a productive, biodiverse rangeland and promote environmentally sustainable land use practices
• Program is recognized as a leader in land management for conservation and economic purposes.
• Livestock, rangeland and conservation sectors
• Canadians
Utilize the resource to complement livestock production
• Patrons of the community pasture remain viable.
•
•
•
CPP
Patrons
Livestock
Sector
• practices or innovations shared with the public.
• Provincial lease survey.
• Land Manager information.
Individual pasture expenditure records.
• CPP records
•
•
•
SAF info.
Cost information from other published sources.
CPP
• Testimonials.
• Articles in publications.
• Number of partnerships.
• Number of extension events and publications.
• Range condition database.
• Economic surveys or census of livestock producers.
• CPP
• Range and
Biodiversity
• Partner information.
•
•
•
Statistics
Canada
AAFC
SAF / MAF
52

Appendix 6
Glossary of Acronyms
AAFC
AUM -
BMP -
- Agriculture
BSE -
CIDA -
Animal Unit Month
CLI -
CPP -
CCIA -
CFIA -
Beneficial Management Practice
Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
Canadian International Development Agency
Canada Land Inventory
Community Pasture Program
Canadian Cattle Identification Agency
Canadian Food Inspection Agency
DIAND - Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
EBP -
DND -
EFP -
FN -
Employee Benefit Plans
Department of National Defence
Environmental Farm Plan
First Nations
FTE-
GHG -
Full Time Equivalent (Personnel)
Green House Gas
IMS - Internet Mapping Service
NAFTA - North America Free Trade Agreement
NGO -
NPO -
NVR-
OAG -
OGD -
PAC -
PFRA -
PILT -
Non-Governmental Organization
Non-Paying Operating (expenditures)
Net Vote Revenue
Office of the Auditor General
Other Government Departments
Patron Advisory Committee
Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration
Payment in lieu of taxes
RCALF - Ranchers-Cattlemen Action Legal Fund
RM -
SAR(A) - Species at Risk (Act)
TB -
Rural Municipality
Treasury Board
VIDO - Vaccine and Infectious Disease Organization
53