Best versus beneficial MP discourses: The significance of a change in discourse managing agricultural water quality in Canada

Abstract

Best Management Practices and Beneficial Management Practices (“MP”) are two ideational elements, that have emerged in water quality literature. This research explores the questions of where has the lesser utilized term ‘Beneficial’ emerged and why? To answer these questions, articles obtained from the Web of Science by searching keywords “Best MP”/“Beneficial MP” and “Water” are analyzed using bibliometric techniques through VOS Viewer including time trend of publications, and indicators including keywords, disciplines, institutions, geographies, influential authors and journals, and key funders of these two terms. This paper also employs document analysis and semi-structured interviews with key policy stakeholders.Beneficial Management Practices emerged in Canada (although the term was used in a few instances elsewhere) in Canadian government policy documents starting in 2003. The term ‘Beneficial’ refers to a lesser standard than “Best” and is exclusive to agricultural practices in risk and environmental farm policy; “Best Management Practices” refer to a wider set of practices (in other sectors like mining) utilized by a more substantive and diverse set of institutions (predominately American and significantly populated by universities). Explanations for the emergence of the term include that it is more ‘honest,’ it allows for more choices and trade-offs, it reflects the strong economic driver of agriculture, and several interviewees referred to it better reflecting the uncertainty of science. While the strength of the agricultural sector in influencing the ‘Beneficial’ discourse is not surprising, the failure to measure the improvement to the water quality of Beneficial Management Programs and measure policy's effectiveness is noteworthy.