Grainswest - Spring 2026

Spring 2026 grainswest.com 41 payments to establish and maintain conservation projects over time. “We have to remember that farmers are living their lives and this is all extra,” said Sinclair. “If it’s too difficult, they’re just going to walk away.” MEASUREMENT, DATA AND TRUST The reports recommend a move toward outcome-based conservation efforts—paying for results rather than prescribing specific practices. Many farmers support the approach in principle. Outcome-based programs allow farmers to rely on their own knowledge, equipment and systems to meet the program’s goals. But in practice, it raises tough questions about how to make programs less rigid yet aligned with the needs of funders. Soil health, biodiversity and water quality don’t lend themselves to simple metrics, yet governments and funders require clear reporting to justify their expenditures. “There’s a real trade-off,” said Sinclair. “The more flexible a program is in the field, the harder it becomes to standardize reporting.” While ALUS is a principle-based program rather than a prescriptive one, she points out that funders nevertheless want to see clear evidence outcomes are being met. A related hitch is the sensitivity of data sharing. Trust is central to farmer participation in environmental programming. “Farmers aren’t against measurement; they do that for a living,” said Kolk. “They’re against uncertainty in how that data will be used, and if it will be used against them.” CAPI describes the current roadblock in environmental programming as a “trust crisis” and calls for establishment of farmer-governed data co-operatives as one potential way forward. Such an initiative would allow farmers to retain control of their information and combat fear of regulatory action or corporate misuse. McCann stressed that finding a solution is key as environmental programming continues to grow. “The earlier we can fix this and get systems that farmers believe in, the better.” The solution begins with transparency, said Sinclair. “Be clear about what data you want to collect and why,” she said. “Then it’s up to the farmer to decide.” FIND THE MONEY To locate adequate funds for even the best program is a big hurdle. One-off, short-term incentives may convince a farmer to try a new practice but does not guarantee lasting change. Concrete results often require significant time. “If we really want to make change on the land, we should be thinking in multiple years,” said Sinclair, who pointed to the limits of short- term funding. “An incentive alone doesn’t necessarily lead to change. You need sustained presence over time to move the needle.” The CAPI reports point to the need for funding models that are more stable, co-ordinated and a blend of public, private and non-profit investment. With clearer priorities and less overlap, dollars can go farther. Kolk is skeptical that governments are taking this long-term approach. He argued they focus on buying environmental outcomes at the lowest possible cost. “If that’s the driver, don’t expect a lot coming your way,” he said. The funding question cuts to the core of credibility. Conservation programs are more likely to earn trust and participation if they recognize environmental stewardship as an ongoing service rather than a one-time project. CAPI acknowledges funding can’t be unlimited but argues it can be better targeted. “We need to focus on high impact areas and practices that work for farmers,” said McCann. “Ultimately, any practice is only going to work if it works for farmers.” MAKE IT WORK Whatever forms it takes, farm conservation programming is here to stay. Climate and sustainability are part of the soil of agricultural policy. The question is whether programs can work better for Canadian farmers and ranchers. While CAPI’s dual conservation reports inform the next round of S-CAP policy negotiations, they stress meaningful change requires continued farmer involvement. “Better approaches are possible,” said McCann. “But having producers more engaged and having more discussions is ultimately what gets better outcomes.” Kolk agreed. “There needs to be a bit more dirt underneath the fingernails of the people setting the targets.” “An incentive alone doesn’t necessarily lead to change. You need sustained presence over time to move the needle.” —Jordan Sinclair