It comes down to 'sphere of influence' – who's in control
With a trend towards larger farms and a growing interest in farmland as a biofuel-driven investment, rented farmland in Alberta has higher profile today. This has driven a common question among producers attending Environmental Farm Plan (EFP) workshops: who does the EFP, the owner of a farm or the renter?
On one hand, there is the argument – one that is, in cases such as pesticide management, backed up by legislation – that the renter of the property is the one with the most direct responsibility for the stewardship of the land. On the other hand, there is the view that environmental improvements made on a farm ultimately benefit the owner.
The simplest answer to this question comes down to whoever's most in direct control of the farm operation, says Bill Lee, EFP regional team leader for the Northwest Region. "It's a concept we like to call 'sphere of influence,'" says Lee.
"It essentially means whoever is most directly responsible for the land and who will most benefit from on-farm environmental action. When it comes to owner/renter scenarios, that person is often the renter. However, there are other factors, such as clauses in a lease agreement, which may affect this arrangement. Here are some general rules of thumb."
The EFP program has been designed with a focus on the needs of those most directly involved in the farm, says Lee. So, as a rule of thumb, the best practice is for that individual to oversee the development of an EFP.
"The bottom line comes down to who is doing the work on a farm or ranch. From the beginning of the EFP program, the idea has been that the greatest benefit from the effort will come if someone directly involved with the farm management decisions completes the EFP. In a rental situation, that individual is usually the renter."
In some cases, this guideline makes sense from a legal perspective as well. "There are regulations which dictate that the person applying pesticide – be it the owner, renter, custom applicator or whoever – is legally responsible for environmental damages which may come about as a result of that pesticide use."
Type of lease can play a major role in responsibility for input management as well. "In some crop-share scenarios, for instance, the management of a farm may be divided in some way between the owner and the renter, in which case they may share an equal sphere of influence. In the case of most cash-rent circumstances, however, the management onus is going to be on the renter," says Lee.
Perhaps the best way to minimize any overlap is to make sure responsibilities are clearly outlined at the lease negotiation stage. Resources such as the Farmers Advocate Office can walk producers through this process and help them define what they are looking for in a lease agreement.
Sphere of influence may take on a new dimension of complexity when the rental of multiple units is involved. "There are instances, for example, in which farm operators may rent a number of parcels of land from a number of different owners," says Lee.
Situations such as these may require answers that are specific to a producer's own circumstances. "That's where workshop facilitators come in," says Lee. "The EFP team has dealt with questions such as these often enough that they can help people decide an approach that best fits a situation."
For information on workshop dates and locations across the province as well as contact information for workshop facilitators in your area, visit the AEFP Web site at www.AlbertaEFP.com.
This article is reprintable with credit to AEFP as follows "Reprinted courtesy of the Alberta Environmental Farm Plan Company; www.albertaEFP.com".
