Local Government Policy Options to Protect Agricultural

Local Government Policy Options to Protect Agricultural Land and Improve the Viability of Farming in Metro Vancouver

Prepared For: Metro Vancouver Prepared By: Deborah Curran Lawyer, Deborah Curran & Company and Dr. Tracy Stobbe Assistant Professor, Trinity Western University April 6, 2010

Item 3.b

Acknowledgements

Deborah Curran is a senior instructor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Victoria and Program Director with the Environmental Law Centre where she teaches a variety of municipal, property, real estate and environmental law courses. She is the principal of Deborah Curran and Company and has a decade of experience providing legal advice to local governments and community organization on smart growth and urban sustainability. Deborah received a B.A. (Hons.) from Trent University, an LL.B. from the University of Victoria, and an LL.M. from the Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. Deborah is a co-founder of Smart Growth BC and served as the president of the board for five years. She is currently a board member of Small Change Fund Canada and founding co-president of the Whistler Centre for Sustainability. Dr. Tracy Stobbe is an Assistant Professor in the School of Business at Trinity Western University where she currently teaches Business Statistics, Quantitative Methods, and History of Economic Thought. She has worked extensively in the area of agricultural economics and implications for farming, and is currently a board member with the Langley Environmental Partners Society. Tracy received a Bachelor of Journalism (Highest Honours) from Carleton University, a Masters in Public Policy from the University of California at Berkeley, and a PhD in Economics from the University of Victoria. This research was made possible with the assistance and expertise of Alison Eagle, PhD, T-AGG Research Director at the Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University and Jennifer Smith, Masters of Laws candidate in the Faculty of Law at the University of Victoria. Particular thanks to Alison for compiling the data for Chapter 2, and to Jennifer for compiling the research on agricultural policies and programs for Chapter 3. Also thanks to Patricia Buhler, BA (Environmental Studies) Trinity Western University, for GIS assistance and map creation. Special thanks to the experts in the field who reviewed this report in a draft form and provided thorough and thoughtful commentary at a workshop held February 5, 2010 at Metro Vancouver:

• Chris DeMarco, Metro Vancouver • Andy Dolberg, B.C. Agriculture Council • Theresa Duynstee, Metro Vancouver • Susan Elbe, City of Delta • Wanda Gorsuch, The Land Conservancy • Diana Hall, District of Maple Ridge • Sonu Kailley, Metro Vancouver • Peter Levelton, Metro Vancouver Agricultural Advisory Committee, East Richmond Nurseries • Leslie MacDonald, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands • James McQueen, Metro Vancouver • Darlene Reigh, Metro Vancouver • Ann Rowan, Metro Vancouver • Ione Smith, Smart Growth B.C. • Michelle Soucie, Agriculture Canada • Harold Steves, City of Richmond • Brian Underhill, Agricultural Land Commission • Heather Wornell, Metro Vancouver Cover photo credit: Luis Curran

Metro Vancouver – Policy Options to Protect Agricultural Land April 6, 2010

Table of Contents Report Summary ............................................................................................................................. ii 1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................1

1.1 Context for Agriculture......................................................................................................... 2 1.2 Agriculture in Metro Vancouver........................................................................................... 5 1.3 Project Scope and Assumptions........................................................................................... 6 1.4 Methodology and Framework for Policy Analysis.............................................................. 7

2. Quantitative Analysis: Status of Agricultural Lands in Metro Vancouver...........................10

2.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Data and Methodology........................................................................................................ 10 2.3 Results................................................................................................................................. 11

2.3.1 Census of Agriculture Aggregate Statistics ................................................................. 11 2.3.2 Agricultural Land Reserve and Land Use Inventory Statistics.................................... 16

2.4. Conclusions................................................................................................................... 18 3. Policy and Program Options .................................................................................................19

3.1 Introduction and Analytical Framework............................................................................. 19 3.2 Regional & Edge Planning.................................................................................................. 34 3.3 Agricultural Enterprise Zones and Revitalization Tax Exemption..................................... 36 3.4 Amenity Bonus ................................................................................................................... 38 3.5 Regional Agricultural Fund ................................................................................................ 40 3.6 Regional Farmland Trust .................................................................................................... 42 3.7 Agricultural Development Office ....................................................................................... 46 3.8 Regional Procurement Policies ........................................................................................... 48 3.9 Agritourism Strategy........................................................................................................... 50 3.10 Ecological Goods and Services......................................................................................... 51

4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................54 Appendix A – BC Assessment Statistics and Split Classification Analysis..................................55 Appendix B – Maps of Agricultural Land in Metro Vancouver....................................................58 Appendix C – Policy Options References .....................................................................................63


ii

Report Summary In a region where over 52 percent of the provincial population resides on a fraction of the landscape that also represents a significant portion of the best farmland in B.C., conflicts between farming and urban land uses occur at a variety of scales. Most stark is the price of agricultural land that attracts urban land market values that are significantly higher than most farm operations in the region can afford. Coupled with other factors, high farmland values result in agricultural land being used for activities that are not maximizing this limited agricultural landscape. The purpose of this report is to evaluate the amount of land used for agriculture in Metro Vancouver and to identify fiscal and other local government policy and program approaches for its protection. To these ends, the report employs two research methodologies. First, a quantitative analysis is used to assess the density and value of farm use of the agricultural landscape in Metro Vancouver. Second, a policy analysis approach is applied to screen and evaluate agricultural land and farm support programs and policies from around the globe. The goal is to recommend mechanisms within the jurisdiction of Metro Vancouver and member municipalities to protect agricultural land, improve the viability of farming, and increase the amount of land farmed. The quantitative analysis of farmland in Metro Vancouver reveals an agricultural landscape that is highly fragmented in places, has a high proportion of non-farm uses on ALR land, and contains a high proportion of hobby farmers. These factors and others (such as high land prices and negative externalities from nearby urban uses) have led to a decline in the farm economy in Metro Vancouver. This data points to a few areas that policymakers on a regional level could address including reducing the rate of farmland fragmentation and non-farm uses of farmland, and helping spur the farm economy. The scan of local government policies and program from around the world identifies over 40 policies and programs that meet at least one of the project goals. Table 7 provides an overview of these policy approaches by providing a brief description, indicating what project goals it meets (protecting agricultural land, improving the viability of farming, and increasing the amount of land farmed), and evaluating its effectiveness in a Metro Vancouver context. The following nine policies or programs that most ably met the project goals and appeared most feasible in the local government realm in B.C. received further evaluation:

1. Regional and edge planning; 2. Agricultural enterprise zones coupled with revitalization tax exemption programs; 3. Amenity bonus; 4. Regional agriculture fund; 5. Regional farmland trust; 6. Agricultural development office; 7. Regional procurement policies; 8. Agritourism strategy; and 9. Ecological goods and services.


1

1. Introduction Metro Vancouver is part of the less than 1.5% of the B.C. land base that generates 28% of the farm gate receipts and also where 52% of the population resides.1 This high correlation between population and agriculture on a small land base point to one of the primary challenges facing the viability of farming the most fertile soils in this province: land use conflicts between agricultural and urban uses. Both because the land market values farmland for its non-farm uses, particularly residential and industrial uses, and because of the prevalence of conflicts that result from different land uses in close proximity to one another, the agricultural importance of the land is undermined. Farmers cannot access land for agriculture because of its cost and there is a shortage of land for leasing due to non-farm uses. Farming in the Metro Vancouver area is also characterized by relatively low gross farm receipts due to these land costs, and the cost of labour. Many farms are small, with 47% on less than 4 hectares and 48% posting gross farm receipts of less than $10,000.2 This scale of production makes it difficult for farms to compete locally in the international commodity markets, particularly when local farmers cannot supply year round. Both of these characteristics – high land prices and low gross farm receipts – discourage capital investment and product innovation, and prevent new farmers from entering the market.3 This places the Metro Vancouver farm industry at multiple disadvantages compared with other regions in the province and North America. Adding to this context are climate change, tri-jurisdictional federal, provincial, and local regulation, and a host of other marketing and demand and supply issues, making the challenge of preserving farmland for agricultural uses and increasing the viability of farming a complex public policy undertaking. Discussions of these existing challenges do not factor in the predicted

1 Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (2008). Metro Vancouver Agricultural Overview www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/agoverviews_2006census/Metro_Vancouver_Ag_Overview.pdf, using Statistics Canada census data from 1996, 2001 and 2006; Metro Vancouver (2009); and Regional Growth Strategy Review Backgrounder #11: Agriculture and the Regional Growth Strategy (Burnaby: Metro Vancouver) www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/agriculture/AgricultureDocs/AgricultureBackgrounderMarch09.pdf. See also Barry Smith, Planning for Agriculture (Resource Materials p. I-5). The author originally used 1996 Statistics Canada data and updated the figures with 2001 Statistics Canada data. http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/publications/planning/pfa_main.htm. 2 See analysis of Statistics Canada data in Chapter 2. This figure is also used in Metro Vancouver (2009). Regional Growth Strategy Review Backgrounder #11: Agriculture and the Regional Growth Strategy (Burnaby: Metro Vancouver) www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/agriculture/AgricultureDocs/AgricultureBackgrounderMarch09.pdf. 3 This is referred to as the impermanence syndrome. See Marin, Mehmet C. (2007). “Impacts of Urban Growth Boundary Versus Exclusive Farm Use Zoning on Agricultural Land Uses” Urban Affairs Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, 199-220.


2

additional 92,000 hectares of irrigated agricultural land needed by 2025 to produce a healthy diet for people in B.C.4 The purpose of this report is to evaluate the amount of land used for agriculture in Metro Vancouver, and to recommend fiscal and other local government policy and program approaches to protect agricultural land, improve the viability of farming, and increase the amount of land farmed. Chapter 1 provides an overview of the context of agriculture in Metro Vancouver, and explains the methodology used. Chapter 2 reports on the amount of land farmed in Metro Vancouver, with Chapter 3 providing an evaluation of innovative policy and program approaches that local governments can use to support agriculture. Finally, Chapter 4 provides recommendations on specific approaches. 1.1 Context for Agriculture While the federal government regulates the quality of farm inputs and the quality of agricultural products, the provincial government is responsible for regulating farm operations (including waste management), marketing, and the agricultural landbase.5 Table 1 provides a general overview of government jurisdiction for agriculture, which is the responsibility of the federal, provincial and local governments. The cornerstone of B.C.’s agricultural land system is the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) that is a provincial land use zone in which land cannot be used for non-farm uses absent provincial permission. The ALR has significantly reduced the rate at which farmland is converted to non-farm or urban uses.6 Local government regulation of land in the ALR is circumscribed by the ALR regulations and right to farm legislation, which together provide significant protection for normal farm activities and the agricultural landbase. The ALR regulations set out what activities and uses local governments may regulate from a land-use perspective on farmland.7 The right to farm legislation provides that a farmer is not liable in nuisance for any noise, odour, dust or other disturbance resulting from normal farm practices.8 It also exempts agricultural operations from local government nuisance bylaws.

4 This amounts to an increase of 49% using 2005 data. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (2006). B.C.’s Food Self-Reliance: Can Farmers Feed Our Growing Population? (Victoria: B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands). 5 For more detail on agricultural jurisdiction, see Curran, Deborah (2009). Capital Regional District Agricultural Legal and Policy Scan (Victoria: Capital Regional District) www.crd.bc.ca/rte/documents/RTEAgriculturaLegalandPolicyAnalysis2009.pdf. 6 Approximately 6000 hectares of Classes 1-3 agricultural land were lost each year prior to the establishment of the ALR. Current farmland loss figure vary each year, for example in 2008 1,461 hectares were excluded from the ALR. In 2007 that figure was 1,442 and 2006 548. Inclusions in those same years amounted to 833, 1,268 and 977 respectively. Agricultural Land Commission (2009). Table 1: Area Included and Excluded from the ALR by Year, In Hectares (Burnaby: Agricultural Land Commission) www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alr/stats/Table1_incl-excl_allyears_d.pdf. 7 Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, B.C. Reg. No. 171/2002. www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/10_171_2002. 8 Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.131.


3

Table 1: General Jurisdiction for Agriculture9 Topic Area Local Government Provincial Federal

Agricultural Land & Planning

Regional & community planning Agricultural area plans Zoning & other land control

Framework Agreement B.C. Agriculture Plan: Growing a Healthy Future for B.C. Families

Framework Agreement Topic-based strategies

Nuisance Farm Bylaws Zoning

Farm practices protection Health Integrated pest management Environmental management (waste & pollution control) Water regulation

Fisheries

Animals Animal bylaw Prevention of cruelty to animals Livestock Trespass

Health of animals Migratory birds Codes of Practice for the Care and Handling of Farm Animals

Buildings Building bylaw B.C. Building Code National Farm Building Code Feeds & Seeds Feed & seed quality,

import/export Canadian Wheat Board

Waste management

Farm Bylaws Zoning

Environmental management Health Farm practices protection

Fisheries

Crop Productivity (fertilization & pest/weed control)

Farm bylaws Watercourse protection Weed control

Environmental management Integrated pest management B.C. Fire Code Weed control Workers compensation

Fertilizer Pesticide control products Plant protection National Farm Building Code Fisheries Migratory birds Transportation of dangerous goods

Water Management

Drainage Zoning & impervious surfaces Water service

Water use & licensing Environmental management

Fisheries Act International aquifers

Farm Businesses Zoning Business licencing Parking & signs Noise control

Agricultural land & uses Environmental management (waste & pollution control) Grading of agricultural produce Agri-food choice and quality Food products standards Meat inspection Marketing of natural products Liquor control and licensing

Agricultural products Consumer packaging & labeling Food & drugs standards Import & export

Farm Labour & Housing

Zoning Workers compensation Employment standards Transportation, including dangerous goods & pesticides Motor vehicles

Migrant Farm Labour Program Transportation of dangerous goods

Property Taxation Property Tax Bylaw Land assessment Classification of farmland

9 Adapted from Curran, D. (2009). Capital Regional District Agricultural Legal & Policy Scan (Victoria: Capital Regional District). This table does not depict the differences between municipal and regional district jurisdiction.


4

Other characteristics of the provincial and regional agricultural context include: • Regulation of supply and marketing – provincial legislation regulates the production and

marketing of eight agricultural commodities (broiler hatching eggs, chickens, cranberries, eggs, hogs, milk, turkeys and vegetables) through marketing boards or commissions;10

• High concentration of wholesale supply through mainstream retailers – the majority of agricultural products are marketed through a few wholesalers tied to retail chains. For example, in Vancouver 70% of horticultural products are marketed through retailer wholesalers;11

• Definition of farm status and assessment for property taxation - the provincial government establishes the criteria by which land is assessed as farm class status for property taxation purposes based on the use and size of a parcel of land and the amount of farm-generated income. Properties with farm classification are assessed at a lower property value, which results in lower gross property taxes for local governments with agricultural properties. This system currently creates a weak incentive to use land suitable for agriculture for farming, and reduces taxes for hobby farms or rural estates;12

• High labour costs – the weekly average wage rate in 2000 for agriculture in B.C. was $443.18 and in 2009 it was $586.78, an increase of 32.4%;13

• Low profit margins – 2006 data indicate that in Metro Vancouver it cost farmers $0.89 for every dollar spent;14

• Seasonal production – except for a few overwintering crops in the Lower Mainland and Southern Vancouver Island, greenhouses and non-soil-based enterprises such as poultry, the majority of agricultural products are produced seasonally in B.C., which necessitates processing and storage facilities for value optimization;

• Low food self-reliance – B.C. farmers produce approximately 48% of the total amount of major food groups consumed in the province.15

This snapshot of the context of agriculture shows that although B.C. is one of the few jurisdictions in North America with an agricultural land protection regime, other characteristics of the climate and food system pose challenges to the competitiveness of agriculture. These

10 Natural Products Marketing (BC) Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.330 www.bclaws.ca/Recon/document/ID/freeside/00_96330_01. 11 Hild, Chris (2009). The Economy of Local Food in Vancouver (Vancouver: Vancouver Economic Development Commission and University of British Columbia Sauder School of Business) www.vancouvereconomic.com/userfiles//file/Local-Food-in-Vancouver-webversion(1).pdf. See also Serecon Management Consulting Inc. and Zbeetnoff Agro-Environmental Consulting Inc. (2009). Food Secure Vancouver Baseline Report (Vancouver: Vancouver Food Policy Council) 12 See Appendix A for more detail. After a review of this classification system for farming the Ministry of Community and Rural Development is considering changes to the policies, procedures and statutory framework applied to farm assessment. 13 BC Statistics: http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/pubs/eet/eetdata.pdf#page=3. 14 Metro Vancouver (2009). Regional Growth Strategy Review Backgrounder #11: Agriculture and the Regional Growth Strategy (Burnaby: Metro Vancouver) www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/agriculture/AgricultureDocs/AgricultureBackgrounderMarch09.pdf. 15 Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (2006). B.C.’s Food Self-Reliance: Can Farmers Feed Our Growing Population? (Victoria: B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands).


5

challenges are heightened in Metro Vancouver where the agricultural landbase is subject to land value inflation for non-farming uses16 and there are conflicts between urban/residential and agricultural activities. 1.2 Agriculture in Metro Vancouver Agricultural production in Metro Vancouver is characterized by a diversity of crops and outputs in an urbanizing landscape. On only 1.5% of the provincial landbase (61,346 hectares), 2,618 farm operators generate 28% of B.C.’s gross farm receipts producing 130 different commodities.17 This same area provides housing for 2.2 million people, a population that will grow to 3.4 million by 2041.18 In this context the regional government of Metro Vancouver has focused on protecting farmland and improving the viability of farming for over a decade. The existing regional growth strategy (RGS) designates and protects agricultural land as part of the Green Zone.19 In 2002, Metro Vancouver partnered to create a high level Economic Strategy for Agriculture,20 and created its Agriculture Committee with one dedicated staff person in 2006. The 2008 Metro Vancouver Sustainability Framework commits to “[i]ncrease actively farmed land by 2012” and to complete a Regional Food System Strategy in 2010.21 The current draft of the Metro Vancouver RGS proposes several strategies that support agriculture:22 • Contain urban development within the urban containment boundary (Strategy 1.1 p.14); • Protect the region’s rural lands from urban development (Strategy 1.3 p.20); 16 For a discussion of the land market value impacts of this possibility of exclusion, see Alison Eagle, Tracy Stobbe, Cornelis van Kooten and Geerte Cotteleer (2008). Agricultural Land Values – Can Productive Agriculture Survive Development Pressures in British Columbia? (Edmonton: Agricultural Policy Research Networks Policy Brief FLP #501). 17 See Chapter 2 and Metro Vancouver (2009); and Regional Growth Strategy Review Backgrounder #11: Agriculture and the Regional Growth Strategy (Burnaby: Metro Vancouver) www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/agriculture/AgricultureDocs/AgricultureBackgrounderMarch09.pdf. 18 Metro Vancouver (2009). Metro Vancouver 2040 Backgrounder: Metro 2040 Residential Growth Projections (Burnaby: Metro Vancouver) www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/strategy/RGSBackgroundersNew/RGSMetro2040ResidentialGrowth.pdf. 19 Greater Vancouver Regional District (1996). Livable Region Strategic Plan (Burnaby: GVRD) www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/LRSP.pdf. 20 Artemis Agri-Strategy Group (2002). An Economic Strategy for Agriculture in the Lower Mainland (Burnaby: Greater Vancouver Regional District, Fraser Valley Regional District, the Land Reserve Commission, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries) www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/agriculture/AgricultureDocs/EconomicStrategyforAgricultureMainReport.pdf. 21 Metro Vancouver (2009). Sustainability Framework (Burnaby: Metro Vancouver) www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/MV-SustainabilityFramework.pdf. 22 Metro Vancouver (Draft November 2009). Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future (Burnaby: Metro Vancouver) www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/LRSPreview/LRSPDocs/DraftRGSNovember2009.pdf.


6

• Protect the region’s supply of agricultural land and promote agricultural viability with an emphasis on food production (Strategy 2.3 p. 27); and

Finally, while there is no regional agriculture plan, Metro Vancouver has committed to creating a Regional Food System Strategy over the next year to provide goals and priorities for supporting agriculture and farmland in the region. These activities show regional government support for agriculture and improving the farm economy; however this support is paralleled by the land use conflicts outlined above that will continue to grow with the population on the finite regional landbase. This reality is underscored by the amount of land still being removed from the ALR in Metro Vancouver,23 and the not all farmland that is not being used for agriculture.24 The ALR alone cannot stimulate the use of farmland in an urbanizing context. Unused farmland can erode the agricultural capability of the land and community infrastructure, making farmland more vulnerable to proposals for conversion to urban or other non-farm uses. The market forces influencing the viability of farming could continue to outcompete agriculture as a public benefit in Metro Vancouver absent additional targeted agricultural sector, non-governmental or governmental programs and policies. 1.3 Project Scope and Assumptions In this provincial and regional regulatory and economic context, the purposes of this project are to: 1. Evaluate the status of agricultural land in Metro Vancouver to quantify the amount of land

that is farmed, including land that is inside and outside the ALR, and identify differences between municipalities;

2. Assist Metro Vancouver staff in identifying and evaluating innovative fiscal, regulatory and

other policy and program mechanisms from other jurisdictions to: A. Protect existing agricultural lands; B. Improve the viability of farming; and C. Increase the amount of actively farmed land within the Metro Vancouver region; and to

3. Provide recommendations about mechanisms that are practical, understandable and that Metro Vancouver can implement in collaboration with other agencies.

Because agriculture is a global industry that relies on local environmental and economic conditions, there are innumerable factors that have an impact on the success or failure of any policy or program that may address the goals of this project. Therefore, it is important to note the following assumptions and limitations in the scope of the analysis in this report. This report

23 In the past five years the Agricultural Land Commission has approved the removal of 71.4 hectares of land in Metro Vancouver, and included 5.8 hectares. Agricultural Land Commission (various years). Tables 3.5-3.9 Areas Included/Excluded from the ALR by Year and Regional District www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alr/stats/Statistics_TOC.htm. 24 See conclusions in Chapter 2.


7

focuses on policy mechanisms that local government can implement within their existing jurisdiction. The analysis aims to complement existing land use regulations and other B.C.-specific regulatory realities such as the ALR, right to farm legislation, and widespread use of zoning. The analysis also acknowledges the importance of farm organizations, their programs and existing extension services, and relies on the willingness of local governments to work with these organizations to develop regional approaches. This report does not address provincial law reform or changes to local government jurisdiction. Thus, the status quo of agricultural regulation, including the commodity marketing systems that have significant implications for the scalability of farm operations, are assumed. This status quo approach precluded a detailed analysis of the local government and private land mechanisms, such as easements (known as covenants in B.C.), that address preservation of agricultural land with a similar effect as the ALR. The analysis in this report does not take into account the availability and price of water, which is as important to the viability of farming as the availability and price of land, and will continue to increase in importance with changing climatic conditions.25 Finally, the broad scope of this research did not allow for any analysis of the food system, sustainability within agriculture, the political feasibility of each policy option, or the direct consideration of other local conditions.26 The application of local factors to the jurisdictional and fiscal analysis supplied in this report is a logical next step when considering the recommendations contained herein. 1.4 Methodology and Framework for Policy Analysis This project used both quantitative and policy analysis approaches. The quantitative evaluation relied on agricultural land data to assess the percentage of land in Metro Vancouver that is farmed, including both land inside and outside of the ALR. These findings are reported in Chapter 2. The policy analysis involved a comprehensive scan of agricultural policies and programs from around the world based on identification of a need for research into six policy and program areas:

25 For discussion in this area see Golder Associates (2008). Agricultural Water Supply in the Metro Vancouver Region (Burnaby: Metro Vancouver) www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/agriculture/AgricultureDocs/AWSSReportMar3-2008.pdf and Whiting, Dave and Clarence Lai (2008). Climate Variable Mapping and Agriculture – Metro Vancouver (Burnaby: Metro Vancouver) www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/agriculture/AgricultureDocs/Climate_Variable_Mapping_report_final.pdf. 26 Assumptions about local food system conditions is addressed in Born, Branden and Mark Purcell (2006). “Avoiding the Local Trap: Scale and Food Systems in Planning Research”, Journal of Planning Education and Research Vol. 26 195-207. The authors identify the “local food trap” and explain it as assumptions about food quality, social equity, environmental quality, and other factors attributed to a local food system that may not be warranted.


8

• Farmland Security – linking the price of farmland to agricultural, not urban, land values; maintaining agricultural uses in farm areas; regulating non-farm uses, transfer of development to non-farm areas;

• Land Tenure - facilitating the acquisition of farmland through farmland trusts or other

mechanisms, providing access to farmland (owners to non-owner farmers through leasing and other arrangements), evaluating land share models;

• Local Markets - stimulating production for local markets, expanding local processing

operations, improving local marketing opportunities, using government-related and non-government marketing organizations;

• Urban Agriculture – promoting agriculture on land within an urban growth boundary or

urbanized areas; linking urban land with urban farmers, removing barriers to urban agriculture;

• Ecological Goods and Services – compensating farmers for the provision of ecological

services, such as wildlife habitat, groundwater recharge, open-space aesthetics and recreation opportunities on their land; and

• Agricultural Practices - improving farming operations, expanding into niche markets,

stimulating the adoption of new technologies or strategies. The results of the scan were screened using the three primary objectives for this research (protect farmland, improve the viability of farming and increase actively farmed land) as well as for jurisdictional fit. The results of the screening are set out in Table 7: Policy Options and Criteria Matrix in Chapter 3. The approximately 40 policy and program approaches reported in Table 7 were then evaluated using the following framework:27 a. Regulatory/Legal Fit - Can Metro Vancouver or member municipalities implement the policy

or program using their existing jurisdiction? b. Administrative Fit – Does the policy or program fit into existing local government

administrative structures? c. Fiscal Impact - Is the policy or program feasible from a local government fiscal (cost)

perspective? d. Fairness - Does the policy or program create unequal impacts on local governments with

different amounts of agricultural land, or does it act to equalize disparate effects?

27 This policy analysis framework is discussed in more detail at the beginning of Chapter 3 and is based on an adaptation of Bardach, Eugene. (2000). A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis (Washington: Chatham House Publishers).


9

e. Efficacy - How closely does the policy or program meet the objectives of Metro Vancouver for this project (protect agricultural lands, improve the viability of farming, increase actively farmed lands)?

The application of this framework yielded 9 policy options that strongly met most or all of the goals of the project, which are individually evaluated in Chapter 3 with general recommendations provided. It should be noted that the recommendations are not based on specific evaluation of the potential impact of the policy and program options discussed in Chapter 3. There are few program evaluations and comparative analyses available. Very few of the fiscal initiatives that are within the jurisdiction of B.C. local governments are actually operated by local governments in other jurisdictions. Most programs involving agricultural land protection and fiscal measures emanate from a state or provincial level. The many non-profit organizations that offer agricultural land protection programs do not typically evaluate their programs, nor do they provide detailed information on their costs and benefits. Some evaluative information is available in the academic literature, but it does not systematically cover each program area included in this project. It also tends to be somewhat dated. Where available, information from program evaluations is included in the analysis. The policy and program analysis is predicated on an understanding of the use of farmland in Metro Vancouver, as quantified in Chapter 2 using data from the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, B.C. Assessment and Statistics Canada.


10

2. Quantitative Analysis: Status of Agricultural Lands in Metro Vancouver

2.1 Introduction Agricultural land and agricultural activities are overseen and regulated by many different layers of government and therefore data on agriculture is scattered. For instance, on the federal level, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada is involved with commodities, trade issues and farm support programs while Statistics Canada conducts the Agricultural Census. On the provincial level in British Columbia, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) promotes and regulates agricultural activities, the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) regulates the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), and BC Assessment appraises farmland values and assigns farm class status to land meeting certain thresholds. Regional and local governments oversee zoning, bylaws and planning. Municipal governments also collect property taxes, and set tax rates for farm class land which varies widely between municipalities. Each level of government keeps data for their own purposes but no central repository exists for parcel-level (spatial) agricultural land values and activities data. The collection and management of several data sets was therefore necessary in order to provide a detailed quantitative picture of what is happening on Metro Vancouver’s farmland. The resulting analysis is useful not only as an aid to understanding the general status of agricultural land and agricultural activities but also to answer specific policy questions that arise. For instance, this compiled data set was instrumental in estimating the effect of BC Assessment’s November 2009 decision to remove split classifications. See the Appendix A for this analysis. 2.2 Data and Methodology Metro Vancouver supplied most of the data used in this analysis. However, several of the data sets were originally produced by the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) as part of their Land Use Inventories (LUIs), conducted on various municipalities between 2000 and 2008. Data also originated at BC Assessment (2009 assessment values), and at the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). Additional data was obtained directly by the authors from Statistics Canada and from some municipalities. A significant advantage of the compiled data set is that it is spatial and contains a high level of detail regarding land values and agricultural activities. The main disadvantage is that the MAL LUIs were conducted over many years (see Table 2) and while they have been completed in the municipalities where agricultural land use is significant, they were not completed for all municipalities within Metro Vancouver. In addition, though they list primary and secondary agricultural activities, the surveys did not delineate specific spatial areas within each property for the various activities observed. Despite these limitations, the LUI data is useful for developing a sense of the agricultural landscape in Metro Vancouver. The Ministry of Agriculture and Lands in partnership with Metro Vancouver and several municipalities are working to complete a LUI


11

in 2011 that should overcome the limitations of the existing data. For future research initiatives, this new dataset will be extremely important. In Appendix B, many maps are supplied to provide a visual understanding of where farmland lies across Metro Vancouver. It is important to realize that because these datasets were collected in different years, they do not constitute a “snap shot” of agricultural land at any particular time and should be used with caution. Table 2: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (MAL) Land Use Inventory data Municipalitya Year of Land

Use InventoryBurnaby 2003 Delta 2002 Langley Township 2007 Maple Ridge 2008 Pitt Meadows 2002 Richmond 2000 Surrey 2004 a – LUIs not conducted for Coquitlam, Electoral Area A, Langley City, Port Coquitlam or Vancouver since there are not significant amounts of agricultural land located there The MAL LUIs provided the main base from which additional data from the ALC and BC Assessment was linked. One of the main limitations of the Statistics Canada Census of Agriculture data is that it is not parcel-level and so instead contributes solely to a more general regional picture of agriculture broken down into the various municipalities. (Ideally, gross farm receipts for each farm would be available, allowing for clearer definitions, for example, of which parcels can be considered hobby farms.) The main programs used for data analysis and linking were ArcGIS 9.3.1 and STATA 11. All maps were created in ArcGIS. 2.3 Results

2.3.1 Census of Agriculture Aggregate Statistics The latest Census of Agriculture (2006) was examined to determine regional characteristics of the local farmland base and economy. The census data is divided into farms with less than $10,000 total gross farm receipts and those with more than $10,000 total gross farm receipts. This is one common definition of a hobby farm used by Statistics Canada.28 In Metro Vancouver, 48% of total census farms generated less than $10,000 in annual gross farm receipts and are therefore classed as hobby farms (Table 3). Hobby farms in Greater Vancouver are more prevalent than in neighbouring Abbotsford (with only 28% hobby farms), but less so than in the

28 There is no universally-used definition of what constitutes a hobby farm. Besides the $10,000 gross farm receipts cut-offs, other defining characteristics may be observed land-use or time spent in off-farm employment by the farm operator. See Boyd, S. (1998). “Hobby Farming – For Pleasure or Profit?” Statistics Canada, Agriculture Division, Working Paper #33, Catalogue no. 21-601-MIE98033, March 1998.


12

Capital Regional District (CRD) (with 67% hobby farms). For the purposes of this report, farms with more than $10,000 annual gross farm income will be labeled as commercial farms. The total number of hobby farms and the amount of land managed by these farms varies significantly between municipalities. While comprising almost half of the total farms (depending on the municipality), hobby farms manage only 17% of the land area and earn only 0.65% of gross farm income in the region (see Table 4). Langley Township has the most hobby-farm land of all MV municipalities, with over 9,000 acres (28.9% of its farmland) owned by 53.8% of farms, but generating only 1.2% of all farm income for the municipality. Therefore, based on gross farm receipts per unit area, hobby-farm land in Langley Township is only 3.3% as productive as that operated by other farms. Table 3: Number of farms by municipality, 2006

Location Category Number of farms

Hobby farms as percentage of total

Greater Vancouver All farms 2,618 Hobby farms 1,259 48.1 % Langley Township All farms 1,292 Hobby farms 695 53.8 % Surrey All farms 487 Hobby farms 226 46.4 % Delta All farms 180 Hobby farms 47 26.1 % Richmond All farms 172 Hobby farms 53 30.8 % Greater Vancouver Aa All farms 82 Hobby farms 45 54.9 % Burnaby and Vancouver All farms 54 Hobby farms 11 20.4 % Pitt Meadows All farms 138 Hobby farms 43 31.2 % Maple Ridge All farms 213 Hobby farms 139 65.3 %

Source: Census of Agriculture 2006; author’s calculations a – GVA refers to a variety of lands around Metro Vancouver including Barnston Island, UBC lands, and lands north of Coquitlam and North Vancouver. Of Metro Vancouver’s 2,618 farms, 1,230 (or 47%) are less than 10 acres in size. But of the hobby farms, we see that 62% are less than 10 acres. However, we do see that 33% of farms earning more than $10,000 per year are less than 10 acres too, so clearly being small does not necessarily mean being a hobby farm or being unproductive. The 2006 data was also compared to the 2001 Census of Agriculture in order to assess key changes over time (Table 5). It shows that there were 2,618 farms in 2006 – this is down from 2,854 in 2001. Of those 236 farms lost in total, 190 of them were hobby farms. When looking at land area, Metro Vancouver lost 9 farms over 70 acres and 158 farms between 10 and 69 acres. Langley Township had the highest farm loss with 125 fewer farms in 2006 than 2001 (104 in the


13

Table 4: Gross receipts for Metro Vancouver farms, 2006, by municipality (all areas in acres) Location Total gross farm

receipts category Total gross

farm receipts ($)

Gross receipts ($)

per farm

Percentage of total for

municipality

Gross receipts ($) per acre

farmlanda

Productivity index of

hobby farmsb

Total areac, (% of total for municipality)

Average size of farm

Greater Vancouver All farms 728,604,105 278,306 9,154 101,400 39 Hobby farms 4,720,273 3,749 0.65 % 435 4.1 % 17,434 (17.2%) 14 Commercial farms 723,883,832 532,659 10,503 83,966 62 Langley Township All farms 228,440,789 176,812 10,002 32,050 25 Hobby farms 2,669,783 3,841 1.17 % 443 3.3 % 9,252 (28.9%) 13 Commercial farms 225,771,006 378,176 13,425 22,798 38 Surrey All farms 153,390,637 314,971 7,972 22,998 47 Hobby farms 839,340 3,714 0.55 % 410 4.6 % 2,789 (12.1%) 12 Commercial farms 152,551,297 584,488 8,890 20,209 77 Delta All farms 190,315,672 1,057,309 11,507 18,582 103 Hobby farms 158,782 3,378 0.08 % 553 4.7 % 400 (2.2%) 9 Commercial farms 190,156,890 1,429,751 11,701 18,182 137 Richmond All farms 40,512,112 235,536 5,186 9,216 54 Hobby farms 214,247 4,042 0.53 % 760 14.2 % 407 (4.4%) 8 Commercial farms 40,297,865 338,638 5,352 8,809 74 Greater Vancouver A All farms 13,593,801 165,778 10,497 2,723 33 Hobby farms 166,940 3,710 1.23 % 419 2.8 % 1,372 (50.4%) 30 Commercial farms 13,426,861 362,888 14,969 1,351 37 Burnaby and Vancouver All farms 9,589,684 177,587 3,853 3,453 64 Hobby farms 45,512 4,137 0.47 % 406 4.5 % 483 (14%) 44 Commercial farms 9,544,172 221,957 9,098 2,970 69 Pitt Meadows All farms 58,214,426 421,844 8,865 7,626 55 Hobby farms 150,052 3,490 0.26 % 336 3.5 % 646 (8.5%) 15 Commercial farms 58,064,374 611,204 9,632 6,980 73 Maple Ridge All farms 34,546,984 162,192 11,807 4,752 22 Hobby farms 475,617 3,422 1.38 % 381 1.9 % 2,085 (43.9%) 15 Commercial farms 34,071,367 460,424 20,317 2,667 36 Source: Census of Agriculture 2006; author’s calculations. a – Farmland here includes cropland, pasture and summerfallow; it does not include residential, forest or other uses. A separate (lower) measure of gross receipts per acre can be calculated which includes all workable and non-workable land. b – This productivity index is defined as the gross receipts per acre of farmland for hobby farms divided by the gross receipts per acre of farmland for commercial farms. It reflects the percentage of revenue that is earned per acre of hobby farms compared to other farms. c – Workable plus non-workable land managed by the farm


14

Table 5: Comparison of farm numbers, 2001 and 2006, by municipality Location Total

number of farms

2001

Total number of farms

2006

Farms under

10 acres 2001

Farms under

10 acres 2006

Farms between 10

and 69 acres 2001

Farms between 10

and 69 acres 2006

Farms larger

than 70 acres 2001

Farms larger

than 70 acres 2006

Greater Vancouver 2854 2618 1299 1230 1230 1072 325 316 Langley Township 1417 1292 649 632 655 551 113 109 Surrey 557 487 265 222 232 207 60 58 Delta 196 180 41 43 84 77 71 60 Richmond 182 172 106 95 48 48 28 29 Greater Vancouver A 82 82 31 46 39 27 12 9 Burnaby and Vancouver

51 54 35 31 13 14 3 9

Pitt Meadows 132 138 41 46 63 64 28 28 Maple Ridge 237 213 131 115 96 84 10 14 Source: Census of Agriculture 2001 and 2006


15

10 to 69 acre size). This trend of farm loss could be due to subdivision or conversion of these lands to other uses which is negative for agriculture as it likely means increased fragmentation. However, some of those farms undoubtedly amalgamated (average farm size for the region increased from 34 to 39 acres per farm) which is positive for agriculture as it likely means increased economies of scale for the farmer and greater economic returns. Total area devoted to agriculture increased in the region by 1,300 acres (3.27%) between 2001 and 2006, but the farmed land declined by 126 acres (0.16%).” Census data is also available for the amount of agricultural land rented or leased. Slightly more than one-third (34%) of the total farm land area in Greater Vancouver is rented, associated with 22% of farms (Table 6). Farmland rental is much more common for commercial farmers than hobby farmers, supporting the premise that hobby farms serve an owner-occupied residential purpose. Since the proportion of area rented tends to be greater than the proportion of farms renting, even for commercial farms, we can conclude that land rental is generally associated with larger farms (see commercial farms columns in Table 6). Exceptions to this rule include Burnaby & Vancouver, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Table 6: Rented farmland in Metro Vancouver, by municipality. Values are from 2001 census, with 2006 values in brackets where availablea

All Farms Hobby Farms Commercial farms Municipality Farms with

rented land Area rented Farms with

rented land Area rented Farms with

rented land Area rented

Metro Vancouver

22%

(21%)

34% (n.a.)

14 (13%)

14% (n.a.)

30%

(28%)

40%

(34%) Burnaby & Vancouver

29% (39%)

14% (n.a.)

30% (9%)

9% (n.a.)

29% (47%)

16% (44%)

Delta 48% (39%) 55% (n.a.) 23% (17%)

16% (n.a.) 56% (47%) 56% (55%)

Greater Vancouver A

27% (11%)

48% (n.a.)

20 (2%)

10% (n.a.)

35% (22%)

55% (36%)

Langley Township

19% (18%) 26% (n.a.) 14 (13%) 14% (n.a.) 26% (23%) 31% (25%)

Maple Ridge 16% (17%) 14% (19%)

11 (11%) 7% (13%) 25% (30%) 23% (25%)

Pitt Meadows 28% (22%) 25% (n.a.) 26 (16%) 17% (n.a.) 29% (24%) 26% (24%) Richmond 26% (25%) 33%

(37%) 18 (19%) 13%

(18%) 31% (28%) 35% (38%)

Surrey 20% (23%) 34% (26%)

11 (15%) 16% (15%)

27% (30%) 39% (27%)

Source: Census of Agricultural 2001 and 2006; author’s calculations a Some of the data for 2006 has been suppressed for reasons of confidentiality, hence the need to include 2001 data.


16

In 2006, 412 farms in Metro Vancouver (15.7%) produced organic products (though not all were certified organic). This is lower than in the CRD with 35% of its farms producing organic products. When considering certified organic, Metro Vancouver has 44 farms (1.7%) where the CRD has 4% of its farms producing certified organic products. Metro Vancouver’s numbers are increasing though – in 2001 it had 26 farms (0.9%) producing certified organic. Municipalities range from 9% to 20% of their farms producing organic and between 0 and 4.4% producing certified organic. Hobby farms produce organic products in much higher frequency than commercial farms. In Metro Vancouver in total, 22% of hobby farms produce organic products compared to 10% of commercial farms. When you consider certified organic products, however, the situation reverses: 0.8% of hobby farms overall (ranging from 0 to 2.3% depending on the municipality) produce certified organic whereas 2.5% of commercial farms (ranging from 0 to 5.3% depending on municipality) produce certified organic. This suggests perhaps that commercial farms are better able to bear the additional costs which go into producing certified organic. It also may suggest that commercial farms are better able to tap into the organic market which carries a price premium for its products.

2.3.2 Agricultural Land Reserve and Land Use Inventory Statistics The main purpose of the Agricultural Land Reserve is to provide a reservoir of the province’s best farmland protected for current and future agricultural use. The land included in the reserve is limited as to what activities can occur on it and by the fact it cannot be subdivided or developed without the ALC’s explicit permission (and any other local or regional zoning approvals). According to standard economic theory, the land should be worth less in a competitive land market due to these limitations on it. And indeed, farmland in the ALR has been shown to sell for less than non-ALR farmland.29 For instance, on the Saanich Peninsula, ALR farmland sells for $86,000 less per hectare on average compared to non-ALR farmland and parcel size has been found to significantly impact the market price of farmland with smaller parcels selling for more per hectare than larger parcels.30 Despite the fact that the ALR has suppressed farmland market values, the price of this land is still very high (some parcels reported to have sold for $100,000/acre) and out of the reach of most farmers.31 The cause of the high land price is likely partly due to demand from the rural estate or hobby farm market (especially for the relatively smaller

29 See Alison J. Eagle, Tracy E. Stobbe, G. Cornelis van Kooten, and Geerte Cotteleer, “Agricultural Land Values – Can Productive Agriculture Survive Development Pressures in British Columbia?”, Agricultural Policy Research Networks (APRN) Farm Level Policy (FLP) brief, University of Alberta, April 2008. 30 For instance, sale prices (five-year average from 2001 to 2006) of vacant land (no buildings) were $505,500 per ha on average for 0.8 ha parcels, $261,000 per ha on average for 2 ha parcels, and $149,000 per ha on average for 4 ha parcels. 31 See Derrick Penner, “Land prices outstrip economics of farming”, The Vancouver Sun, May 24, 2008.


17

parcels) and partly due to speculation on the land that it can be removed from the ALR in the future for development.32 Active agriculture in Metro Vancouver occurs on ALR farmland as well as non-ALR farmland (see maps in Appendix B). A preliminary analysis of existing LUI data by Metro Vancouver staff indicates that there is approximately 35,000 hectares of actively farmed land in Metro Vancouver with just over 1,000 outside of the ALR. Some ALR lands are not currently available for agricultural use because of other uses that predate the creation of the ALR or allowances since then, including parks, wildlife sanctuaries, golf courses, transportation and utility infrastructure, churches, housing, and industry. The use of these lands is not likely to change, especially in the near future. The existing LUI data may underestimate the amount of land being farmed. Farm class status, awarded by BC Assessment based on lands attaining a minimum income threshold from farming activities, is closely linked to active agriculture. However, it is possible that some active agriculture did not meet the income threshold for farm class status. It is also possible that some active agriculture did not apply for farm status (see Appendix A for more on BC Assessment values). One of the biggest obstacles facing agricultural land in Metro Vancouver is its fragmentation. Fragmentation of farmland amidst other land uses (particularly residential and some forms of industrial) increases the number and rate of externalities on the land dramatically.33 Negative externalities flow in both directions – from the farm in the form of the sights, smells and sounds of agricultural as well as slow-moving farm traffic – and onto the farm in the form of vandalism, trespass, nuisance complaints, excess storm water drainage, and increased costs of moving equipment from spatially disconnected fields. From the spatial data studied, one finding is that some areas have many more and larger contiguous blocks of agricultural land left remaining than others (see maps in Appendix B). For instance, Delta, Richmond, Surrey, and Pitt Meadows have fairly large farm areas which are not seriously fragmented by residential or other uses whereas Langley Township and Maple Ridge are more fragmented. Policies which seek to limit the subdivision and conversion of commercial farms into hobby farms would help stem the growth of fragmentation. Agritourism and other farm survival strategies are increasingly being adopted in Metro Vancouver. A recent survey34 of direct-marketing and niche farmers in Langley 32 For more information on how demand from hobby farmers impact on the agricultural land market, see Tracy Stobbe, Geerte Cotteleer, and Cornelis van Kooten, “Hobby Farms and Protection of Farmland in British Columbia”, Canadian Journal of Regional Science, Vol 32 (3): December 2009. 33 See Tracy Stobbe, G. Cornelis van Kooten, and Geerte Cotteleer, “Externalities and Valuation of Farmland in the Urban Fringe”, Agricultural Policy Research Networks (APRN) Farm Level Policy (FLP) brief, University of Alberta, April 2008. Available at http://www.farmlevel.re.ualberta.ca/Publications/PolicyBriefs/FLP_Policy_Brief2007-02.pdf 34 See Tracy Stobbe, Alison J. Eagle, and G. Cornelis van Kooten, “Niche and Direct Marketing in the Rural-Urban Fringe: A Study of the Agricultural Economy in the Shadow of a Large City”, BC Studies (forthcoming). Working paper available at http://web.uvic.ca/~kooten/REPA/WorkingPaper2009-06.pdf


18

Township and Abbotsford found that farmers in Langley Township were significantly more likely to engage in agritourism compared to farmers in Abbotsford. This may reflect the fact that Langley Township has a larger urban population and is closer to other major urban centers in Metro Vancouver from which they can attract visitors. In this study, farms not using agritourism (41% of respondents) spend about $1,509 more per year than those using agritourism on preventing or resolving conflicts with non-farm neighbours, perhaps indicating that agritourism leads to less conflicts in general and could be an effective use of farmland for edge planning. This research did show, however, that agritourism is associated with lower net farm incomes, operators spending more time earning off-farm income, and with older farmers. These results, together with the fact that farms using agritourism in this study were not as profitable as conventional farms, seems to indicate that agritourism operators fit the same mould as hobby farmers. This suggests that lifestyle factors may be more important to farmers pursing agritourism ventures than simply maximizing their agricultural profit. 2.4. Conclusions This examination of available quantitative data on agricultural land and activities in Metro Vancouver reveals an agricultural landscape that is highly fragmented in places, has a high proportion of non-farm uses on ALR land, and contains a high proportion of hobby farmers. These factors and others (such as high land prices and negative externalities from nearby urban uses) have led to a decline in the farm economy in Metro Vancouver. Fewer young or new farmers are entering the market and fewer processing facilities and other farm-related businesses are operating than in the past.35 This points to a few areas that regional-level policymakers could address including reducing the rate of land fragmentation and non-farm uses of farmland and helping spur the farm economy. There are some signs of hope though – more and more farmers are responding to market opportunities to increase their profits through niche or direct-marketing techniques. One important niche market is the organic market and there is a growth in the number of farms producing both organic and certified organic products. The number and spatial distribution of farmers’ markets is also increasing, allowing more city-dwellers to interact with those who grow their food and to purchase local products. The rest of this report will focus on delineating the various policy options available to Metro Vancouver to accomplish its goals of increasing the amount of active agriculture taking place in the region.

35 See Hild, Chris (2009). The Economy of Local Food in Vancouver (Vancouver: Vancouver Economic Development Commission and University of British Columbia Sauder School of Business) www.vancouvereconomic.com/userfiles//file/Local-Food-in-Vancouver-webversion(1).pdf.


19

3. Policy and Program Options 3.1 Introduction and Analytical Framework The purpose of this Chapter is to identify the most relevant and potentially effective policies and programs for consideration by Metro Vancouver and member municipalities. Table 7 provides an overview of the policy and program options selected on the basis that they were either within the jurisdiction of Metro Vancouver or member municipalities, or could have a significant impact on how farmland is used.36 The light green rows in Table 7 describe the policy or program areas, which include farmland security, land tenure, local markets, urban agriculture, ecological goods and services, and agricultural practices. Column 1 lists the title of the policy or program tool, with column 2 setting out a definition of the corresponding tool and a description of how it could work within that policy or program area. Some tools are repeated where they are relevant for more than one policy area, with their description tailored for application within that policy area. Examples are also provided where available. Column 3 lists how the tool meets the project goals, with A referring to protecting agricultural lands, B referring to improving the viability of farming and C referring to increasing actively farmed lands. This nomenclature is repeated in the footer for ease of reference. Column 4 summarizes how the tool performs within the following policy analysis framework: a. Regulatory/Legal Fit Is the policy or program within the existing jurisdiction of Metro Vancouver or member municipalities? Can it be implemented with no or minor legal change? If provincial or federal law reform is required, would the new authority be an extension of local government jurisdiction or would it require a new subject area of authority? How would this jurisdiction fit with existing provincial and federal regulation and programs? b. Administrative Fit Is the policy or program feasible from a local government administrative perspective? Does it fit into existing procedures and processes with minimal additional administrative resources? If significant administrative change is required, can that change benefit other program or service areas? Can administration be consolidated at the regional district or municipal level? 36 The largest number of programs or policies that were not included in this analysis relate to funding for a wide range of agricultural programs, tax incentives or penalties, and private land protection mechanisms, such as easement in the U.S. Funding for agricultural programs and taxation typically require the resources of provincial/state or federal governments. Private land mechanisms are redundant in the B.C. context given the Agricultural Land Reserve and right to farm legislation. The B.C. corollary to easements, called covenants, are included in Table 7 and discussed in section 3.6. Additional acronyms in the table are: ag = agriculture, gov’t = government, and MV = Metro Vancouver (the GVRD).


20

c. Fiscal Impact Is the policy or program feasible from a fiscal point of view? Will it significantly increase local government costs? If a significant increase in cost, is a new revenue stream available as part of the program or policy? Is cost-sharing possible? Will the program or policy pay for itself over time? Does it require a one-time up front investment or an annual budget? d. Fairness37 Does the policy or program have unequal impacts on local governments with different amounts of agricultural land? Or, does it act as a mechanism to equalize disparate effects? If it has unequal impact, are those impacts justified or equalized using other policies or programs? e. Efficacy How closely does the policy or program meet the objectives of Metro Vancouver (protect agricultural lands, improve the viability of farming, increase actively farmed lands)? Does it have a direct impact on the objectives, or does it rely on secondary impacts that will influence the objectives? Will its impact be noticed in the short or long-term? The evaluation in the rest of this Chapter (sections 3.2 to 3.10) is a more in-depth analysis of the nine policies or programs that, based on the analytical framework set out above, could have the most significant effect on the use of agricultural land and viability of farming, and are most closely aligned with local government jurisdiction. These include: i. Regional and edge planning; ii. Agricultural enterprise zones coupled with revitalization tax exemption programs; iii. Amenity bonus; iv. Regional agriculture fund; v. Regional farmland trust; vi. Agricultural development office; vii. Regional procurement policies; viii. Agritourism strategy; and ix. Ecological goods and services.

37 Although studies in the Lower Mainland have demonstrated that land in the ALR provides more revenue to local governments than it requires in services (the net fiscal status of land in the ALR is 0.1 meaning that for every $1 of revenue collected from that land designation only 90 cents was spent by the local government), there is still concern that some policies will have a unequal fiscal impact on municipalities with significant amounts of their land base in the ALR. See Coast Region and Resource Management Branch, BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (2005). Direct Financial Contribution of Farming Areas to Local Governments in British Columbia: A Pilot Project in Pitt Meadows and Abbotsford (Victoria: BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands). http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/publications/Direct_Financial_Contributions.pdf.

A-Protect agricultural lands; B-Improve the viability of farming; C-Increase actively farmed lands Metro Vancouver – Policy Options to Protect Agricultural Land April 6, 2010

21

Table 7: Policy Options and Criteria Matrix

Policy/ Program

Definition Description

Impact 1. Regulatory/Legal Fit 2. Administrative Fit 3. Fiscal Impact 4. Fairness to Local Governments 5. Efficacy (Effect on Objectives)

Program Area – Description

Farmland Security – Protecting agricultural land for farming activities

Regional Growth Strategy Policies

A regional plan for growth management over 20 years Establish regional urban growth boundary based on the ALR or farmed land that would require amendment (regional approval or a major amendment under the Local Gov’t Act) if land is to be removed from ag uses Establish metrics for sustainable food system priority activities Establish policies for farmland protection Create a regional food system strategy that complements An Economic Strategy for Agriculture in the Lower Mainland (2002) Commit to annual public reporting and workshop on how well the policies/metrics are being met Example: Capital Region; Regional District of Central Okanagan; Oregon

A, B, 1- Existing MV jurisdiction 2- RGS already in place; new policy development in process 3- May require additional monitoring resources and procedural changes at the municipal level Will require funding for regional food systems strategy 4- Can be tailored to specific municipal circumstances Can implicate urban municipalities in ag production 5- Potential for significant impact on protecting farmland Good information and data is a necessary pre-requisite Medium- to long-term impacts

Official Community Plan Policies

A local plan (municipal-wide or for a local area of the regional district) establishing the vision for development and services for at least 5 years Establish local growth boundaries based on the regional boundary Create ag policies that discourage subdivision of farmland Establish metrics for a sustainable food system Commit to developing ag area plans Example: Saanich; Spallumcheen; Richmond

A, B, 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- OCPs already in place; new policy development in process 3- May require additional monitoring resources and procedural changes for processing development applications Will require funding for ag plans 4- Municipal-specific so no issue of fairness 5- Potential for significant impact on protecting farmland Data collection could be redundant if RGS also has data monitoring/collection Medium- to long-term impacts

Zoning – General

Land use regulation bylaws that dictate land uses, density and the location of development Maintain agricultural uses in farming areas Establish effective minimum lot sizes Limit the extent of non-farm uses such as residences, accessory

A, B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction Subject to the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation May be subject to section 903(5) and 917 Local Gov’t Act by provincial regulation


22

Policy/ Program



buildings, garages in absolute size, total square metres of structures on the land, impermeability, and location of developed areas Examples: Saanich; Metchosin; Spallumcheen, Pitt Meadows

2- Fits into existing zoning regime and processes 3- No additional ongoing staff or other resources required Potential to forego property taxes if house sizes limited on ag land 4- Municipal-specific so no issue of fairness 5- Potential for significant impact on protecting farmland in effective-sized parcels Medium- to long-term impacts

Ag Enterprise Zones

Comprehensive development mixed-use zoning designating specific sites/areas to enable and stimulate the co-location of agricultural uses and activities as ag industry clusters Designate appropriate areas in multiple municipalities/local areas Create unique zoning for each site/neighbourhood Consider the application of revitalization tax exemption status Example: Hawaii

A, B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Fits into existing zoning scheme 3- May require additional staff training/time to deal with 4- Most appropriate in municipalities with significant farmland; provides commercial/industrial activity and tax base 5- Creating local infrastructure to increase the viability of farming Impact depends on the success of the co-locating enterprises Medium- to long-term impacts

Agritourism Zoning and Business License Requirements

Zoning tailored to agritourism (the use of farmland for tourism purposes that are ancillary to the farm use) Regulate to ensure tourism aspect is ancillary to farm use and does not detract from the ability to undertake, on the subject and adjacent farms, agricultural activities Example: Pitt Meadows; Central Saanich

A, B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction Subject to the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation 2- Fits into existing zoning scheme 3- No additional cost 4- Applies only where agritourism a potential problem 5- No evidence agritourism is a significant issue region-wide Increases the viability of some operations Medium- to long-term impacts

Non-farm Use Zoning

Zoning that specifically addresses approved non farm uses on land in the ALR Regulate non farm uses to avoid negative impacts on farming operations

A, B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction Subject to the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation 2- Fits into existing zoning scheme 3- Some additional cost to determine what non-farm uses warrant regulation 4- Applies uniformly within a municipal jurisdiction, or in specific areas 5- Unclear; many potential approved non-farm uses so high degree of location-specific detail required Medium- to long-term impacts


23

Policy/ Program



Development Permit Areas

Areas designated for the protection of farming through development permit conditions Mandate edge planning Urban-side restrictions with buffer, screening and building setback requirements Covenant registered on title at time of subdivision/permit acknowledging ag uses Examples: Cowichan Valley Regional District (Electoral Area ‘A’); Richmond

A 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Fits into existing DPA processes, where used 3- Minimal additional costs to establish 4- More onerous on municipalities and local areas with development adjacent to ag land 5- Helps establish clear expectations about what will happen on land Reduces urban/rural conflicts in the long-term, thus increasing the viability of farming Medium- to long-term impacts

Revitalization Tax Exemption Zones

Developed areas designated for redevelopment in which new improvements may qualify for a tax exemption if it meets municipal conditions Designate ag enterprise zones as revitalization tax exemption zones Create qualification conditions that require ag processing, marketing, or production (i.e. greenhouses on industrial land) infrastructure as part of the new improvements Examples: Victoria; Maple Ridge

A, B, C 1- Existing municipal jurisdiction 2- New program area Administration may be modeled on other existing permissive municipal tax exemptions 3- Will decrease tax revenue from redeveloped properties in the short term Long term significant increase in property tax from these properties because tax exemption stimulated redevelopment sooner than market forces would have dictated 4- Limited to areas already developed and appropriate for intensification or redevelopment 5- Potential to significantly increase the commercial and industrial infrastructure available for the ag activities Medium- to long-term impacts

Covenants Charges or restrictions registered on the title to land that prohibit subdivision and mandate an agricultural use of the land Obtain or purchase pro-ag covenants from existing farmers/landowners Or, purchase ag land, register covenants, resell land Example: Ducks Unlimited (Delta Property)

A, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Require monitoring & enforcement 3- Costly to purchase Many transaction costs requiring staff resources because terms must be negotiated for each property 4- Dependent on willingness of landowner so could result in unequal application 5- Uncertainty as to ability to use because must be approved by the ALC on land in the ALR and enforcement of positive covenant conditions untested in B.C. Most effective at long-term preservation of agriculture on land Short- to long-term impacts


24

Policy/ Program



Regional Farmland Trust

An organization (non-profit of local gov’t) that acquires and manages land for farming Several models: • Purchase farmland and resell for less than market value with

a covenant on title requiring below-market sale and preventing subdivision

• Purchase farmland and manage it - enter into long term leases with farmers

Can also provide low-interest loans Can hold covenants on land not owned by the Trust May obtain funds from regional ag levy Examples: Northern California Farmland Trust; Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy; National Trust (UK); Capital Regional District (housing authority), Whistler (housing authority)

A, B, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Require new service or program function unless local gov’t already manages a landbase for private uses (e.g. community forestry) 3- Costs high Absent foundation or individual donations, would require public funding Depending on model, potential for adequate cost-recover over the long-term 4- Impact depends on lands becoming available for purchase 5- Effective in areas where proper funding sources exist Removes ag land from the real estate market Medium- to long-term impacts

Best Practices in Farmland Protection

Policy and bylaw guide(s) addressing farmland protection and use Create baseline for municipal policies & bylaws in the region Emphasize more restrictive zoning for non-ag uses in farming areas with the ultimate goals of affecting land values Outreach and workshops with municipal staff & councils Build on local gov’t aspect of Ministry of Agriculture & Lands Strengthening Farming Program Example: GVRD Stormwater management; American Planning Association Policy Guide on Agricultural Land Protection

A, B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Extension of information/education function MV already provides 3- Requires additional staff resources or included in an existing job description 4- Applies equally across the region 5- Uptake uncertain Many groups already advising local gov’t Medium- to long-term impacts

Land Tenure – Facilitating the acquisition or use of farmland for agriculture

Regional Agricultural Fund

Fund generated through targeted property taxation (parcel tax) that funds agricultural programs and the acquisition of farmland Liken to regional conservation/parkland acquisition funds Hold referendum to establish service and parcel tax (at regional district level); establish municipal service Examples: Hunterdon (New Jersey); Capital Region (parkland levy); Regional District of East Kootenay (Columbia Valley conservation fund); Whistler (housing authority)

A, B, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- New service and program administration 3- Self-financing 4- Applies to all parcels in the jurisdiction so has less impact per hectare on farmland than urban land 5- Provides direct means to preserve farmland and increase actively farmed land Parkland acquisition fund in the Capital Region has been very successful at leveraging third party matching and partnership funding Medium- to long-term impacts


25

Policy/ Program



Use of Local Gov’t Land by Leases, Licences, Profits a Prendre

Types of tenures by which a non-owner may obtain access to farmland Create legal rights for non-owners Some may be registered against the title to land Basis through which local gov’t land can be used Example: Saanich

B, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Fits into existing scheme for use of local gov’t land by third parties, if available 3- Some costs as must be negotiated on a proper-by-property basis Guide to land access agreements created by The Land Conservancy 4- Inapplicable 5- May be effective at increasingly actively farmed lands and getting young/new farmers on land Dependant on the amount and quality of local gov’t land available Short- to long-term impacts

Land Sharing Type of land ownership where two or more people own ag land and farm it Local gov’t can facilitate by revising zoning, for example by allowing more than one dwelling on a property on a limited footprint Examples: Cowichan Valley Regional District, Saanich, Chilliwack

B, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Fits into existing zoning scheme 3- No additional ongoing staff or other resources required 4- Owner-dependent 5- Research shows many MV farmers (especially niche and organic) already have multiple operators per farm Short- to long-term impacts

Density Bonus/ Transfer of Development

Award of increased density in an urbanized area by a local gov’t to a landowner in exchange for amenities Can use density bonus to acquire the “amenity” of farmland, community garden plots, or rooftop agriculture Need to clearly identify areas where density is appropriate (growth centres) and formula by which value of amenity to be provided is calculated Can capture the amenity either as farmland purchase/garden plots provided, or by financial contribution to an agriculture fund Example: Snohomish County (Washington); Marin County (California); Howard County & Montgomery County (Maryland); Hadley (Massachusetts); Michigan

A, B, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Requires additional staff resources to negotiate property-specific terms Can fit into existing amenity bonus regime if available 3- Self-financing; acquisition is fully funded by amenity contributions 4- Owner/project dependent 5- Enables permanent protection of purchased lands and the creation of ag potential in urban areas Competes with other priorities for amenities i.e. affordable housing Medium- to long-term impacts

Creating Access to Farmland

Programs that pair unused ag land with farmers needing land Create and staff a database or partner with a non-gov’t organization Identify those properties not achieving farm tax status and target for lease opportunities Examples: Linking Land and Future Farmers (Greater Victoria);

B, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- New program area or task of existing staff 3- Additional staff and database costs 4- Owner/project dependent 5- Can increase actively farmed lands Can be combined with other local gov’t activities in support of farming


26

Policy/ Program



FarmLink (Maine); King County (Washington); Sonoma County (California)

Short- to long-term impacts

Ag Development Office

Dedicated staff who facilitate programs to secure farmland, access to land, and agricultural enterprise Coordinate a land access program Identify Crown and local gov’t land for farm uses Facilitate the creation of ag enterprise zones (zoning) Disseminate land tenure best practices and templates e.g. legal agreements Examples: Regional District Central Okanagan, 100 Mile House, US Department of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service

B, C 1- Existing MV jurisdiction May have to establish a service function 2- New program requiring new administration 3- Cost of staff resources and office infrastructure Potential to be funded through local gov’t, ag industry, education institutions Can bundle ag education/facilitation functions to create an Ag Hub 4- Best assists those municipalities with the most farmland 5- Potential to have an impact on all goals Could be clearing house for many ag. programs and regional/local ag concerns Medium- to long-term impacts

Farmer Training Partnerships

Formal and informal programs to train farmers Provide staff support for linking farm trainees with land or existing farms, e.g. through an Ag Development Office Community colleges certificate programs Apprenticeships Example: Richmond Farm School (Kwantlen College)

C 1- Existing MV jurisdiction 2- Add to existing job description 3- Minimal cost of staff resource to promote 4- Unknown 5- Bundle with other ag services Medium- to long-term impacts

Restrictions on Ownership and Right to Use Farmland

Restrict ownership and the lease of ag land to individuals who can demonstrate a capacity to farm and who commit to living on the land; Restrict non-Canadian ownership to a prescribed number of hectares Examples: Quebec, Alberta, Manitoba, PEI, Eaton and Abbeystead, UK; Denmark; Japan; Norway;

A, B, C 1- Outside of local gov’t jurisdiction except on land that they own 2- Does not fit into existing regulatory processes 3- Relatively low compared to potential benefit 4- Unknown 5- Will drive down farmland prices and limit speculation of farmland for urban uses Medium- to long-term impacts

Local Markets

Zoning Land use regulation that dictates land uses, density and the location of development Enable farm markets

A, B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Fits into administration of existing zoning scheme 3- No additional cost 4- Targets urban municipalities with the market for products 5- Can be effective in helping establish permanent markets Will increase the viability of farming Medium- to long-term impacts


27

Policy/ Program



Ag Enterprise Zones

Comprehensive development mixed-use zoning designating specific sites/areas to enable and stimulate the co-location of agricultural uses and activities as ag industry clusters Designate appropriate areas in multiple municipalities/local areas Create unique zoning for each site/neighbourhood Consider the application of revitalization tax exemption status Marketing focus on appropriate sites/neighbourhoods

A, B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Fits into existing zoning scheme 3- May require additional staff training/time to deal with 4- Provides commercial/industrial activity and tax base For marketing, most appropriate in urbanized municipalities 5- Creating local infrastructure to increase the viability of farming Impact depends on the success of the co-locating enterprises Medium- to long-term impacts


Dedicated staff who facilitate programs to secure farmland, access to land, and agricultural enterprise Connect local markets (distributors/retailers) with farmers Connect farmers to market cooperatively at a local scale Identify processing opportunities Collaborate with BC Food Processors Association Facilitate approvals from local gov’t Examples: Regional District Central Okanagan, 100 Mile House, US Department of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service

B, C 1- Existing MV jurisdiction May have to establish service function 2- New program requiring new administration 3- Cost of staff resources and office infrastructure Potential to be funded through local gov’t, ag industry, education institutions Can recoup some costs through fee-for-service functions 4- No unequal impact 5- In helping establish permanent markets, may be very effective Lowers transaction costs for those wanting more local products in stores/restaurants Medium- to long-term impacts

Regional Procurement Strategy – Sectoral Implementation

Procurement policies that focus on buying local ag products Initial commitment by MV & member municipalities Develop Institutional Strategies with colleges and universities Develop Hospitality Industry Strategy in partnership with Tourism Vancouver & other tourism associations in the region Example: Tourism Whistler; Town of Markham (Ontario); City of Toronto; City of Santa Monica; Sacred Heart Hospital/Producers & Buyers Co-op (Wisconsin); Britain; Kaiser Permanente (U.S. hospitals)

B, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Can add to existing procurement function 3- External strategies require additional staff resources 4- Inapplicable 5- Could be effective in helping grow local markets and thus makes local farms better able to compete with US/Mexico producers Medium- to long-term impacts

Regional Chefs’ Collective

Commitment by local chefs to purchase local ag products Example: Capital Region

B, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Can support through staffing resources 3- Minimal cost; addition to existing job description 4- Benefits ag producers marketing locally equally 5- Effective in growing local markets Can be high profile depending on willingness of chefs to promote Short- to long-term impacts


28

Policy/ Program



Buy Local Campaigns

Public education programs to encourage consumers to purchase local ag products Example: Buy BC, King-Pierce County Farm Bureau

B, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Can be part of existing programs/administration or added as new focus 3- Could be costly depending on medium Does not have to affect direct service delivery if partnering with other organizations 4- No unequal impact 5- Reaches all citizens (potentially) Impact dependent on availability and accessibility of local products (need development of local marketing infrastructure first) Medium- to long-term impacts

Federation of Certified Farmers Markets

Organization that promotes farmers markets after their certification as 100% producer vendors Regional certification either by local gov’t or non-gov’t organization like the BC Association of Farmers’ Markets Promote certified farmers markets Craft zoning to allow certified farmers markets Liaise with other farm organizations & local gov’ts Showcase innovation in direct farm marketing & processing practices Example: California

B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Does not affect direct service delivery; partnering with other organizations Aids in processing of temporary use and rezoning applications 3- Minimal cost; addition to existing job description 4- Benefits ag producers marketing locally equally 5- May increase local marketing opportunities Medium- to long-term impacts

Retail Tax Exemption

Making retailers/landowners that devote a certain percentage of their store to local products eligible for a lower cost business licence or property tax rate Example: UK Policy Commission on the Future of Farming and Food

B 1- Different licence fee may be within MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Adds new screen to already complex business licence regime; minimal additional administration once system in place 3- Decrease revenue for local gov’t 4- Affects local gov’ts with retail establishments 5- Small incentive to market local Incentive may not have to be significant since featuring local products also builds store goodwill, particularly when paired with buy local campaign Medium- to long-term impacts


29

Policy/ Program



Urban Agriculture

Zoning Land use regulations that support urban ag List allowed farm uses in urban zones

A, B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Fits with existing zoning scheme 3- No additional cost 4- Targets urbanized areas for ag activities 5- Relatively small impact as urbanized areas densify Important for integrating food production throughout all neighbourhoods Medium- to long-term impacts

Animal Bylaw Regulations for the keeping of animals to allow chickens and other animals in urban areas Examples: Victoria, Vancouver

B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Fits with existing regulation of animals scheme 3- May stimulate additional enforcement costs in the short term as residents become familiar with the new rules 4- Relevant in urban areas where the right to farm legislation is inapplicable 5- Relatively small number of people would take advantage of this Medium- to long-term impacts

Nuisance Bylaw Providing exemptions for ag activities from regulations that limit nuisances such as noise, air pollution and unsightly premises Limit the application of nuisance regulations to land used for food production in urban areas

B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Fits with existing regulation of nuisance scheme 3- No additional cost; rely on private law nuisance enforcement 4- Apply in urban areas where right to farm legislation is inapplicable 5- Small impact on stimulating agricultural production May enable heightened neighbour disputes if local gov’t not willing to enforce nuisance-type regulations Medium- to long-term impacts

Access to Urban Land

Programs to connect urban farmers with urban land (backyards) on which to grow ag products Host database or screening process, or partner with non-gov’t organization to deliver Identify lands that could be used for community gardens such as utility rights-of-way, institutional land (for example at colleges or universities) that is currently used for lawn Support non-gov’t organization to deliver program Examples: Linking Land & Future Farmers (Capital Region), Farmlink (Maine)

C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- New program area or task of existing staff 3- Additional staff and database costs 4- Owner/project dependent 5- Effective for increasing urban ag. Limited use for commercial production Can be combined with other local gov’t activities in support of farming Short- to long-term impacts


30

Policy/ Program



Differential Servicing Rates

Tailoring water and other service rates to ag uses Provide landowners with lower service rates for the portion of service use dedicated to agriculture Example: Oregon

B, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Fits with existing service provision Requires tailoring process to identify and verify ag uses in urban areas 3- Loss of revenue for local gov’t 4- Inapplicable 5- May encourage urban land owners to allow access to urban land Medium- to long-term impacts

Local Gov’t Procurement

Creating a local procurement policy committing to purchase a percentage of food consumed in local gov’t operations from local production sources Example: Santa Monica; City of Toronto

B, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Part of existing procurement portfolio 3- Additional costs for local food (currently) 4- Applicable to all local gov’ts 5- Helps build local demand and local markets Short- to long-term impacts

Creating Food Gardens

Program to construct garden plots for food and provide assistance to the landowner/resident to grow food Work with non-gov’t organizations to deliver Example: Lifecycles (Greater Victoria)

C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- New program or added to existing job description 3- Additional staffing and extension costs 4- Emphasis on local gov’ts with urban neighbourhoods 5- Not effective for commercial local ag Medium- to long-term impacts

Ecological Goods & Services

Ecological Tax Exemption

Provide a tax exemption for the portion of land left in its natural state as required by a covenant or agreement Example: Natural Areas Protection Tax Exemption Program (Capital Region/Islands Trust); Riparian Tax Exemption (Town of Gibsons)

B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction for riparian tax exemption but not for all types of ecosystems protected Eligibility predicated on registration of a covenant; ALC not favourable to registering conservation covenants on land in the ALR May be more efficient to change tax assessment process (how BC Assessment places value on natural areas) rather than enable tax exemption 2- Additional administration Significant transaction costs for negotiating covenant and administering bylaw(s) 3- Reduced local taxes 4- Owner dependent because voluntary 5- Indirectly makes farming more viable Extent of incentive depends on extent of protection Medium- to long-term impacts


31

Policy/ Program



Rainwater Management Service

Paying farmers for the rainwater management service their land provides Reducing rainwater service charges on farmland or paying farmers for the water retention and infiltration value farmland provides

B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Change to administration of providing drainage service (costing of) 3- Reduced revenue to, additional payment by local gov’t for service 4- More fairly distributes cost to type of landowner and capability of land to manage rainwater 5- Given cost of land, minimally increases the viability of farming Medium- to long-term impacts

Compensation for Ecological Services

Creating a market for ecological preservation by paying farmers for protecting ecologically sensitive areas by not farming them Require baseline environmental performance before farmers are eligible for payment under the program or other infrastructure funding Could be funded through ag trust fund Example: Saskatchewan program; Conservation Security Program (U.S.); Alternative Land Use Services (PEI); Norfolk County (Ontario); Environmental Services (U.K.); Caring for Our Country (Australia); Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust

B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction May require establishing service 2- New program and administration 3- High costs to establish and maintain program Requires revenue stream to farmers 4- Dependent on owner volunteers May provide more benefit for municipalities with greater amounts of farmland 5- Long-term impact on the viability of farming unclear given the predominant ownership of the land base in the Lower Mainland Short- to medium-term impacts

Environmental Farm Plan Plus

Encourage the development and implementation of environmental farm plans with eligibility for additional services or tax exemptions once a farm plan is in place Completion of a provincial/federal environmental farm plan could qualify a farmer for additional local gov’t services or programs Examples: Switzerland

B 1- May be existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Additional administration and monitoring 3- Reduced local taxes/service fees May have additional monitoring and enforcement costs 4- Owner dependent – existing program is voluntary 5- Unclear if small financial incentive enough to encourage use of farm planning program May have impact for marketing because receive farm plan signage Short- to medium-term impacts

Development Permit Areas

Designate DPAs for the protection of the natural environment Establish guidelines for protection of the natural environment in an OCP or zoning bylaw Apply to ecologically sensitive areas on farmland

A 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Fits with existing DPA regimes 3- Little additional cost 4- Greater impact on municipalities with more farmland 5- Effect of permit conditions may be limited where they affect farm practices No impact on assisting with the viability of farming Would often act to restrict farm activities Medium- to long-term impacts


32

Policy/ Program



Regulations for Environmental Quality on Farmland

Requirements for a percentage of the landscape on any farm to be devoted to the natural environment as a condition of eligibility for gov’t programs Example: Switzerland

1- Outside of local gov’t jurisdiction 2- Requires additional administration 3- Significant start-up cost to create program and screening procedure 4- Particularly onerous on municipalities with significant farmland 5- More appropriately a provincial or federal program Medium- to long-term impacts

Agricultural Practices


Staff who facilitate programs to secure farmland, access to land, and agricultural enterprise Identify local market needs Examples: Regional District Central Okanagan, 100 Mile House, US Department of Agriculture Cooperative Extension Service

B, C 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- New program and administration 3- Depending on partnerships created, could be high cost for staffing and infrastructure costs 4- Benefit municipalities with farmland products needing markets 5- Potential to be very effective at accomplishing multiple objectives at once Medium- to long-term impacts

Agritourism Promoting farm products through on-farm activities Work with BC Agritourism Alliance on a Metro Vancouver strategy Examples: Snohomish Country (Washington); Gray (Maine); Lake County (California)

A, B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Add to regional planning administrative function 3- Additional staff cost but may not be significant if contributing to a strategy by Agritourism BC 4- No unequal impact 5- Could be effective at encouraging agri-tourism Focus on defining appropriate high value agri-tourism clusters that would avoid impacts that decrease the viability of farmland Short- to long-term impacts

Niche Markets Specialized but high value markets that target a specific product to an identified consumer demographic Identify niche markets, in partnership with producer organizations and/or through an Ag Development Office function Promote regional “terroir” labelling of products e.g. Metro Blues (blueberries) Examples: Terroir classification (France); Redberry Lake Biosphere Reserve (Saskatchewan)

B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- New administration or program 3- Added staff cost or tag onto existing job description 4- Favours municipalities with more ag land in production 5- Organic is main niche market and fairly well-identified already Can create additive value for buy-local focus and create sub-regional specialties Medium- to long-term impacts


33

Policy/ Program



Farm Equipment Bank/ Cooperative

Service where members can use or rent large farm equipment and its operator (often called CUMA – cooperatives using machinery for agriculture) Ag Development Office staff can support Example: Quebec; Germany

B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- No change required 3- Cost dependent on intensity of local gov’t involvement Could be small staff time resource to partner 4- Depends on owner needs 5- Effective at reducing costs of farming (and thus increasing returns) Short- to long-term impacts

Shared Ag Processing Facilities

Service or co-operatively owned enterprise for processing ag products Encourage in Ag Enterprise Zone Ag Development Office staff can support

B 1- Existing MV/municipal jurisdiction 2- Would need to be part of larger new program 3- Cost dependent on intensity of local gov’t involvement; could be small staff time resource to partner 4- Depends on owner needs 5- Effective at reducing costs of farming (and thus increasing returns) Medium- to long-term impacts


34

3.2 Regional & Edge Planning Metro Vancouver and member municipality land use policies, and how strongly they are adhered to, is the foundation for preserving agricultural land in the region. Given the price of land in Metro Vancouver and the inability to limit the impact of urban real estate values on agricultural land in the short term, the regional growth strategy (RGS), official community plans (OCPs), and development permit areas (DPAs) of Metro Vancouver and member municipalities will be the most effective way to maintain land for farming through their reinforcement of the ALR. From a land use planning perspective this is accomplished through commitments to urban containment and general policies against the subdivision of farmland. When urban containment boundaries are established along the boundary of the ALR at a regional scale, and adopted into OCPs at a municipal scale, conversion of ALR land to urban uses would require an exclusion from the ALR, and potentially a RGS amendment from a non-urban designation that houses ALR land such as Agricultural, Conservation and Recreation, or Rural to Urban. This effectively “hardens” the boundary line of the ALR and may decrease some of the speculative land value attributed to farmland due to the possibility of excluding it from the ALR. The current draft of the Metro Vancouver RGS proposes the following strategies that support agriculture:38 • Contain urban development within the urban containment boundary (Strategy 1.1 p.14); • Protect the region’s rural lands from urban development (Strategy 1.3 p.20); and • Protect the region’s supply of agricultural land and promote agricultural viability with an

emphasis on food production (Strategy 2.3 p. 27). The strategies relating to urban containment and protecting rural land rely on a commitment of Metro Vancouver, member municipalities and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District not to extend sewer infrastructure servicing into rural areas except for public health or environmental reasons or to service agriculture. These proposed strategies and policies strongly support the ALR and farmland. Applications to exclude land from the regional Agricultural designation will require an amendment to the RGS which in turn will require a regional public hearing and a two thirds weighted vote by the Metro Vancouver Board. The November 2009 draft of the Regional Growth Strategy does allow some flexibility to this policy in cases where lands have been deemed to be a Special Study Area, or are proposed to be changed from either Agricultural or Rural to the regional Industrial land use designation. In these cases, the amendment will require a 50% plus one vote at the Metro Vancouver Board. This flexibility weakens the RGS’s protection of agricultural land. Finally, a commitment in each section of the RGS to what metrics and indicators will be reported on and publicized annually is a helpful public engagement approach and to track effectiveness of the policies. 38 Metro Vancouver (Draft November 2009). Metro Vancouver 2040: Shaping Our Future (Burnaby: Metro Vancouver) www.metrovancouver.org/planning/development/LRSPreview/LRSPDocs/DraftRGSNovember2009.pdf.


35

Oregon Like B.C., Oregon’s farmland preservation program dates from the 1970’s when state law recognized the public value of farmland and that preserving a maximum amount of agricultural land in large blocks is fundamental to maintain the agricultural economy and for the provision of nutritious food.39 This include a recognition that the expansion of urban development in rural areas is a public concern because of the conflicts between farm and urban activities, and that provision of incentives to farmland owners are justified in exclusive farm use zones because such zoning substantially limits alternative uses of the land. Oregon’s Statewide Planning Goal 3 requires that all agricultural lands be preserved by local authorities adopting exclusive farm use zones. A county’s jurisdiction for planning and zoning is subject to approval by the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development. The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to review all government land use decisions, including legislative and quasi judicial. Other OCP policies that would assist with preserving farmland include a commitment to maintaining large agricultural parcels and a general policy against the subdivision of land and non-farm use in the ALR.40 Because the RGS contemplates extending sewer service to agricultural parcels, subdivision discouragement policies are necessary to ensure those parcels are not subdivided after their servicing capability is increased. Municipalities can also commit to edge planning, developing agricultural area plans or urban farming strategies, and establishing annual reporting metrics on the state of agriculture and farming within their jurisdiction. Edge planning refers to land use approaches at the urban-agricultural interface that promote the compatibility of farming and urban uses. Development permit areas for the protection of agriculture can establish guidelines directing the siting and buffering of urban-side development at the ALR edge to reduce conflicts and support the ALR.41 Strengthening the RGS and OCPs is within the jurisdiction of Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities. Development of RGS policy is currently underway. Reporting on indicators related to agriculture on an annual basis and the development of agricultural/food system plans or strategies will require additional funding. Keeping the remaining ALR intact and hardening its line will protect farmland and also, over the long term, likely decrease the speculative impact of urban land values on near-urban farmland values.

39 ORS 215.243. See also the Oregon Department of Land Conservation an Development, and the role of its Land Use Board of Appeals: http://www.oregon.gov/LUBA/index.shtml. 40 For additional policy suggestions, see Curran, Deborah (2005). Protecting the Working Landscape of Agriculture: A Smart Growth Direction for Municipalities in British Columbia (Vancouver: West Coast Environmental Law) http://wcel.org/sites/default/files/publications/Protecting%20the%20Working%20Landscape%20of%20Agriculture%20-%20A%20Smart%20Growth%20Direction%20for%20Municipalities%20in%20British%20Columbia.pdf. 41 See, for example, Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (June 2009 Working Copy). Guide to Edge Planning: Promoting Compatibility Along Urban-Agricultural Edges (Abbotsford: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands) www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/publications/823100-2_Guide_to_Edge_Planning.pdf.


36

3.3 Agricultural Enterprise Zones and Revitalization Tax Exemption42 Agricultural enterprise zones refer to designated areas where zoning, tax exemption and other programs stimulate select types of business activity and job creation. The purpose is to facilitate the co-location and land use agglomerations of agricultural services in a certain spatial area to benefit both the farms and the businesses. Located throughout Metro Vancouver in appropriate commercial and industrial areas outside the ALR but adjacent to farms, these zones would provide a dedicated location for agricultural-related businesses and provide incentives for the development of new enterprises such as processing facilities, product storage, and services for farm businesses. The idea of agricultural enterprise zones is based on the benefits of the co-location of a critical mass of firms in a particular industry, as outlined in the field of economic geography. The premise is that creating new regional agricultural clusters will stimulate creative competition and economic knowledge spillovers that result in development of value-added products, processing technologies, intra-firm value chain collaboration, economies of scale, and cooperation in activities like marketing.43 Within existing municipal jurisdiction, the bare features of an agricultural enterprise zone would be a unique comprehensive development zoning category that limits new uses to a range of agriculturally-related activities. The primary way to incentivize the development of those new uses is to overlay a revitalization tax exemption zone in which eligible properties may receive a tax exemption for up to 10 years if the landowners meet the requirement of the establishing bylaw and conditions imposed by the municipality in the “exemption certificate.”44 The wording of the statute gives municipalities broad authority to establish requirements by bylaw, such as the provision of agriculturally-related services or infrastructure, and impose conditions through the exemption certificate.

42 For more information on these topics generally, see Ministry of Community Services (2008). Revitalization Tax Exemptions: A Primer on the Provisions of the Community Charter (Victoria: Ministry of Community Services) www.brownfieldrenewal.gov.bc.ca/docs/community_charter_revital_tax_exemptions.pdf; and District of Maple Ridge (undated). Revitalization Tax Exemption Program: How It Works (Maple Ridge: District of Maple Ridge) www.mapleridge.ca/assets/Default/Finance/pdfs/revitalization_tax_bylaw.pdf. 43 For discussion of the idea of economic clusters see generally Porter, Michael (2000). Location, Competition and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy. Economic Development Quarterly 14:1 15-34; Porter, Michael (1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review Nov-Dec 98609; Audretsch, David and Maryann Feldman (1996). R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production. The American Economic Review 86:3 630-640. 44 Community Charter R.S.B.C. 2002 c.23 s.226.


37

Hawai’i45 The Hawai’i Enterprise Zones program is a partnership between the state and counties to stimulate select business activities using tax and other incentives, and to preserve and create jobs in appropriate areas. Since 2007 the agricultural sector has been a program priority. Counties select areas to include in the program, and eligible businesses must earn at least 50 % of annual income from a list of approved activities which includes agricultural production or processing, manufacturing, and wholesaling/distribution. The tax exemption portion of the program can last for up to seven years. Participating counties also offer eligible businesses benefits such as priority for the processing of permits, zoning, or building permit variances, and property tax abatement. For example, the City and County of Honolulu offers a two-year exemption from any increase in property taxes resulting from new construction and waiver of grading and building permit fees. Creative examples of the use of the revitalization tax exemption power are emerging in B.C., with the most recent one being the City of Victoria’s Revitalization Tax Exemption (Green Power Facilities) Bylaw that encourages the sustainable redevelopment of land in the City by supporting the use of environmentally sustainable building construction methods and environmentally sustainable heating, cooling, or energy systems in connection with the redevelopment of lands. It also encourages reducing GHG emissions produced through the generation of energy for heating, cooling, or the generation of electricity for new developments within the City.46 Although focused on the provision of “green power facilities” that supply energy to multiple buildings that have achieved a LEED certification of silver or better, this type of bylaw could support the development of infrastructure and enterprises related to agriculture.47 Revitalization tax exemptions can provide a financial incentive to landowners to redevelop or make their land more attractive for redevelopment. Although initially it decreases a municipality’s tax revenue on the revitalized property, it should be a temporary condition. The objective of the tax exemption is to stimulate redevelopment; this should increase the value of the property which increases the municipality’s tax revenue sooner than if the tax exemption program had not been in place. In addition, the exemption applies only to capital improvements so there is not a loss in revenues from property taxes from the municipal position. For example, the Tax Incentive Program for heritage properties in the City of Victoria demonstrates the success of a revitalization tax exemption program. Owners of more than 15 buildings in the downtown core have been involved in revitalization that has included, with other benefits, more rental housing.48 The use of agricultural enterprise zoning with the overlay of revitalization tax exemption is within the jurisdiction of Metro Vancouver’s member municipalities. It may be helpful for Metro Vancouver to identify appropriate areas for these zones through the Regional Food System

45 Information for this case study is available at: http://www.hfbf.org/EZ.shtml 46 City of Victoria Bylaw No. 09-040. May 2009. http://www.victoria.ca/common/pdfs/bylaw09-040.pdf. 47 LEED refers to Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, a high performance building rating system developed by the U.S. Green Building Council and Canada Green Building Council. See http://www.usgbc.org/ and http://www.cagbc.org/. 48 For details on this program, including economic studies and the heritage strategic plan, see the City of Victoria Heritage Program web site: http://www.victoria.ca/cityhall/departments_plncmm_hrt.shtml.


38

Strategy, and commit to supporting member municipalities with their implementation. These zones may be the most suitable in municipalities with the most farmland in order to provide better servicing for that farmland by creating local infrastructure to increase the viability of agriculture. The direct impact of the zones depends on the speed with which the areas are redeveloped for agricultural uses and the success of co-locating enterprises. 3.4 Amenity Bonus49 A popular farmland protection mechanism in the U.S. is transferring development rights from a property with agricultural or environmental values to another property that is more suitable for land development. Transfer of development rights (TDR) programs take many forms and are well-established across the U.S.50 In a Canadian context where zoning does not confer development “rights” and where local governments are not required to compensate landowners for any decrease in the value of their property due to changes in land use plans or zoning,51 the appropriate mechanism to achieve the preservation of farmland in exchange for higher density elsewhere is through offering an amenity bonus.52 Amenity or density bonuses allow local governments to give applicants increased density in urban areas in exchange for providing amenities, affordable housing, or special needs housing. While the term “amenity” is not defined in the Local Government Act, broadly defined it is a feature that a local government views as in the best interest of the public.53 Amenities can be provided on the site that is receiving the increased density, or off-site as there is no restriction in the legislation. A cash contribution is also considered an amenity because section 904 allows “conditions relating to” the provision of amenities. Local governments in B.C. have obtained a variety of amenities under section 904 that have included landscaping, ecological restoration, high efficiency or green building design, and land and cash for affordable housing.54

49 For more information on this topic generally, see Buholzer, William (2008). Financing Urban Growth: Amenities and Density Bonuses (Vancouver: Continuing Legal Education Society of BC); and the section on amenity/density bonus in Curran, Deborah (2007). Green Bylaws Toolkit (Victoria: Wetlands Stewardship Partnership) at pages 64-70 www.greenbylaws.ca. 50 The American Farmland Trust’s Farmland Information Centre identified 99 transfer of development rights programs in 2007. American Farmland Trust (2008). Farmland Information Centre Fact Sheet: Transfer of Development Rights (Washington, DC: American Farmland Trust) http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/37001/TDR_04-2008.pdf. 51 This common law approach is codified in section 914 of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 1996 c.323. The exception to this rule is where land is limited to a public use. 52 Local Government Act, s. 904 53 Section 904(2)(a) of the Local Government Act provides for “conditions relating to the conservation or provision of amenities, including the number, kind and extent of amenities” in exchange for increased density. 54 This partial list is derived from a review of case law dealing with s.904, the B.C. Office of Housing and Construction Standards, Density Bonus Provisions of the Municipal Act: A Guide and Model Bylaw (1997), and the Smart Bylaws Guide website, section on Compact Complete Communities: Density Bonus http://www.wcel.org/issues/urban/sbg/Part3/compact/densitybonus/.


39

Snohomish County, Washington55 Snohomish County is implementing a long-term countywide transfer of development rights (TDR) program to conserve its 63,000 acres of commercial farmland. The program is designed to allow landowners in designated “sending areas” to sell the development value of their land to purchasers who will use those development rights in “receiving areas” where intensive land uses are appropriate. Landowners in “sending” areas retain ability to farm and use the land, but may not subdivide or build on it. This TDR model relies on direct purchase between landowners, whereas other models see local governments acting as agents that purchasing development potential from sending areas and sell it for appropriate developments.56 The initial pilot project for the Snohomish County program is in the City of Arlington where designated sending areas are proximate farmland and a receiving area is designated through zoning.57 Any new development in the receiving area must purchase development rights in order to build. In 2008 Snohomish County approved the expansion of the TDR program. Cities designate receiving areas, with the County identifying sending and receiving areas through land use planning processes. Amenity bonuses can be used in four ways to support the protection of farmland and increase the viability of farming. First, urban developments can provide garden plots and rooftop gardens as part of an amenity zoning package. Second, cash contributions can be used to purchase covenants that contain restrictions on the use of farmland (for example prohibiting subdivision – see section 3.6). Third, cash contributions can be used to purchase farmland to be held in a farmland trust and removed from the real estate market while requiring that it be farmed (see section 3.6). Cash contributions can be pooled at a regional or municipal level until adequate funding is available for these activities. Fourth, a regional amenity bonus program can maintain an inventory of land available for purchase in appropriate areas for increased density to facilitate inter-municipal density bonus transactions for the preservation of farmland. The shortcoming of this tool is that amenity bonuses are entirely voluntary on the part of landowners. They can opt in or out of receiving increased density in return for providing amenities. Their success also depends upon on growth in the region. In addition, the original purpose of amenity bonuses was to secure the provision of affordable housing, which points to the competition that protecting farmland using this tool would pose to other valuable regional and municipal priorities. Crafting a successful amenity bonus program is predicated on identifying the maximum density increase to which urban areas will be subject, creating a transparent formula by which the values of the density and amenity can be calculated, and listing priority amenities. Amenity bonuses are within the jurisdiction of Metro Vancouver and member municipalities. It can be added as a feature of an existing amenity bonus approach currently used, but may require additional staff resources since negotiations on a property-by-property basis are needed. A

55 For more information on the Snohomish County TDR program see: http://www1.co.snohomish.wa.us/Departments/PDS/Divisions/LR_Planning/Projects_Programs/Agriculture_Resources/Transfer_of_development_rights.htm 56 A related farmland preservation tool is Purchase of Development Rights (PDR), as seen in Acme Township, Michigan. For more information see: http://www.acmetownship.org/Farmland_Program.htm. 57 This farmland was located in the Stillaguamish River floodplain.


40

regional program would require additional budget allocations. Its use is owner- or developer-dependent, and it competes with other community priorities for the acquisition of amenities. Where feasible, it is a way to pay for farmland preservation and does enable permanent protection of farmland. 3.5 Regional Agricultural Fund58 Local governments are using designated property taxation, such as an annual property tax or levy per parcel, and other local fiscal mechanisms to generate funds to carry out a variety of farmland and ecological conservation activities. This approach is based on a commitment to protecting farmland and stimulating local agriculture as a public benefit or service that warrants individualized attention in a regional context. It is treated as a long term investment in the infrastructure needed to maintain a sustainable region that enjoys a high quality of life. Like environmental protection or affordable housing, where the market fails to provide sufficiently for this type of public benefit, local government action is warranted. These targeted funds exist outside of annual local government budgetary decision-making and operate for the specific purpose for which they were approved by elected officials or electors. Their establishment is for a specific timeframe and often for a specific amount of revenue to be collected which insulates them from changing short-term local government priorities. The fixed nature of an agricultural fund allows for medium-term budgeting and planning for programs and land acquisition. Local funds to protect agriculture and support local agricultural activities exist in North America and Europe, with environmental conservation funds being used in British Columbia.59 Metro Vancouver has an existing Heritage Parkland Fund that secures an annual appropriation of $3.77 million.60 The Capital Regional District has both a housing and parks levy at $6 and $20 per parcel per year respectively (see case study below).

58 For more information on this topic generally, see Carmody, Micah (2009). Regional District Conservation Funds in British Columbia: Three Case Studies (Victoria: Environmental Law Centre) www.elc.uvic.ca/publications/projects/RD-Conservation-Fund-Case-Studies.pdf; and the case study on the Capital Regional District Parkland Acquisition Fund in Curran, Deborah (2007) Green Bylaws Toolkit (Victoria: Wetlands Stewardship Partnership) at pages 48-49 www.greenbylaws.ca. 59 Another example of other regional service-specific funds in B.C. include a housing affordability levy for the Capital Regional District. 60 Greater Vancouver Regional District (2005). Regional Parks and Greenways Plan: Greenspaces Natural Places (Burnaby: Greater Vancouver Regional District) http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/ParksGreenwaysPlan.pdf.


41

Capital Regional District Regional Parks Land Acquisition Fund61 Approved in 2000, the Capital Regional District (CRD) has used its Regional Parks Land Acquisition Fund to acquire 2,958 hectares valued at $30.7 million over the past ten years. The Fund obtained its resources from a property tax levy of approximately $10 per parcel per year, for an annual budget of $1.7 million. Acquisition priorities are set out in the Regional Parks Master Plan, and the CRD has partnered extensively with non-profit conservation organizations to leverage additional funding for land purchases. The fund’s ten year life ends in 2010, and the CRD board recently approved the continuation of the fund with a 100 % increase in the property tax levy to $20 per property per year. Other recent regional district conservation or land acquisition funds in B.C. include the Columbia Valley (Regional District of East Kootenay) and Cowichan Valley Regional District. A regional agricultural fund can be used to:

• Acquire no subdivide and other pro-agriculture covenants registered on the title to land, either by paying an owner to register the covenant or purchasing land outright, registering the covenant and retaining or reselling it;

• Purchasing agricultural land and reselling it at below market value with covenants and other legal restrictions that require it to be sold at less than market value in perpetuity;

• Purchase agricultural land that can be leased out at market or subsidized rates to new farmers;

• Support farming organizations to undertake local activities; • Support local government extension-type activities; • Support local government or non-governmental agricultural programs.

Creating a regional agricultural fund is within the jurisdiction of both Metro Vancouver and member municipalities. A regional district may establish a service that the board considers “necessary or desirable”.62 The two most recent regional district land acquisition or conservation funds have been secured under this power by referendum, consent on behalf of the electors by board members and municipal councils, or alternative approval processes.63 A regional agricultural fund can be structured to apply equally across the region to support the protection of farmland as a public amenity. It is one of the few direct fiscal mechanisms available to local governments for preserving farmland. It can also increase actively farmed land if the fund is used to purchase land that is then leased with a lease requirement that it be farmed. It may be possible to register a positive agricultural covenant on the property requiring that it be farmed (see discussion of covenants under section 3.6). Finally, local governments in B.C. have

61 Capital Regional District “Creating New Parks: Land Acquisition Fund” http://www.crd.bc.ca/parks/preservation/newparks.htm; Carmody, Micah (2009). Regional District Conservation Funds in British Columbia: Three Case Studies (Victoria: Environmental Law Centre) www.elc.uvic.ca/publications/projects/RD-Conservation-Fund-Case-Studies.pdf. 62 Local Government Act, s.796, and more generally Part 24 of the Act. 63 Local Government Act, s.801.


42

been successful in leveraging land acquisition and conservation fund resources with non-governmental partners who provide additional funding for the same activities.64 Hunterdon County, New Jersey Open Space, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund65 Hunterdon County voters have approved three farmland and conservation levies since 1999, with the first two levies authorized for five year periods. The purpose of the levies was to acquire lands for agriculture, recreation, conservation and heritage purposes, as well as their maintenance and development. The most recent levy came into force in January 2010 and continues the Hunterdon County Open Space, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund with annual revenues of approximately $7 million. It also expands the purposes of the fund to include the protection of drinking water sources and water quality. The Hunterdon Open Space Trust Fund Plan, Hunterdon County Comprehensive Farmland Preservation Plan (2008), and a variety of other growth management and land use plans establish priorities for acquisition and management of land parcels. The board distributes 15% of the funds directly through municipalities, 15% through non-profit organizations, and 10% of the funds for historic uses. The remaining 60% goes towards county land preservation uses. The board has enacted a policy manual that outlines the practices and procedures of the board for the municipal and non-profit grants programs, and for assistance with cooperative open space acquisition.66 3.6 Regional Farmland Trust67 Farmland trusts are typically non-governmental organizations that carry out a range of land protection activities, including protecting farmland from development. Non-governmental land trusts play a fundamental role in farmland protection in the U.S. where they raise funds for and purchase farmland and conservation easements – instruments registered on the land’s title that restricts land to conservation or farming uses (known as covenants in B.C.).68 They also carry out

64 For example, the Capital Regional District’s Land Acquisition Fund has contributed 66 % of the value of acquiring $30.7 million in land over the past ten years. The CRD’s partners have contributed 34 % or $10.55 million. Capital Regional District “Creating New Parks: Land Acquisition Fund” http://www.crd.bc.ca/parks/preservation/newparks.htm. 65 For information on the Hunterdon County levies see: http://www.co.hunterdon.nj.us/openspace/OpenSpacePolicy.pdf and http://www.co.hunterdon.nj.us/openspace/Policy2000/MunicipalPrograms.pdf. 66 Hunterdon County (2009). Hunterdon County Open Space, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund Program: Policies and Procedures Manual for the Municipal and Nonprofit Grant Programs; and Cooperative Open Space Acquisition Assistance http://www.co.hunterdon.nj.us/openspace/OpenSpacePolicy.pdf. 67 See generally Lawless, Greg (1994). The Community Land Trust Model Applied to Farmland: A Case Study of the Wisconsin Farmland Conservancy (Thesis: U of Wisconsin-Madison) Chapter 2 http://www.uwcc.wisc.edu/staff/lawless/thesis/thesch2.html Hamilton, Blair (2005). Agricultural Land Trusts: Preserving Small Farm Heritage (Vancouver: Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives) http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/agricultural-land-trusts. The Land Conservancy of BC will be releasing a report on farmland trusts with examples from around the world in February 2010. Gorsuch, Wanda and Ramona Scott (forthcoming 2010) Farmland Trusts: Communities Supporting Farmland, Farming and Farmers (Victoria, BC: The Land Conservancy of British Columbia). 68 Michael D. Bailey and Lawrence W. Libby (2002). Agricultural Conservation Easements: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations. Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, The Ohio


43

monitoring and public education activities, and often rely on partnerships of several agencies and organizations to secure land protection. These organizations enjoy a high degree of public trust,69 but typically there is not enough government and charitable funding to meet the demand from landowners to pay for conservation easements.70 Non-governmental land trusts typically raise private funds that, when added to public funds, increase the amount available for farmland protection. City of Richmond – Commitment to Protecting Farmland71 The City of Richmond’s commitment to preserving agricultural land within its jurisdiction began 20 years ago when the council bought 50 acres of land in the ALR in the aftermath of the exclusion of a significant tract of ALR land known as the Terra Nova lands. Richmond Council continued the new tradition of farmland protection by systematically buying the Terra Nova lands over a 15 year period. Most recently, at its council meeting of March 8 2010 City Council approved the purchase of the Garden City lands that had been the subject of numerous ALR exclusion applications and significant public outcry. The City now owns 286 acres of agricultural land, both inside and outside the ALR. However, arguably the City’s largest achievement on the farmland protection front is the fact that there have been no exclusions of land from the ALR in Richmond in the past 20 years. The City has used a variety of funding sources to secure the farmland. A public referendum approved the use of $29 million to purchase the 110.49 acre Terra Nova lands. The City has also used parkland development cost charges to purchase farmland. Finally, the City has had money in the bank from the gradual sale of an estate property it had bought in 1962, the last parcel of which was sold to construct the Olympic Oval and facilitated the acquisition of the 136 acre Garden City lands at a price of $59 million. At $435,000 per acre, these purchases are on par or less expensive than what the City pays for urban parkland. The City’s farmland is designated as parkland but agriculture is an allowed use in parks. The Richmond Food Security Society is operating a portion of the City’s farmland, on which activities include allotment gardens, a community garden that produces for the food bank, school gardens, and the Richmond fruit tree sharing project. The City is partnering with Kwantlen University to develop the Richmond Farm School to train new farmers, the program for which will operate on the Garden City lands near Kwantlen’s site in Richmond. Finally, the City is integrating ecosystem restoration into its farmland management with areas of its properties set aside for habitat and other ecosystem uses. Examples of this approach in the conservation context are seen across B.C. and North America where land trusts and local governments contribute to the purchase of environmentally sensitive lands for parks, which are often held as local or regional parkland by the local government. Both the Capital Regional District and The Land Conservancy, a province-wide non-governmental land trust, have each contributed many millions of dollars to acquire regional parkland over the State University. Report to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Covenants are enabled by section 219 of the Land Title Act, R.S.B.C. 1997, c.250. 69 Gustanksi, Julie Ann, and Roderick H. Squires (2000). Protecting the Land: Conservation Easements Past, Present, and Future. Island Press, Inc. Washington, D.C. 70 Medvitz, Albert G., Alvin Sokolow, and Cathy Lemp (1999). “California Farmland and Urban Pressures: Statewide and Regional Perspectives.” University of California. 71 Information from this case study was provided by Harold Steves, Councilor, City of Richmond. Personal communication March 9 2010.


44

past decade.72 At a larger scale, the State of Michigan provides funding to the non-governmental Conservation Fund to administer a conservation easement program.73 Drawbacks to private sector organizations taking on this function are a lack of funding and potential lack of permanence. Northern California Regional Land Trust74 The Northern California Regional Land Trust works with landowners to voluntarily protect land and natural resources, including agricultural land. A significant portion of this work includes purchasing properties with high conservation values, negotiating conservation easements and facilitating land exchanges and land acquisitions. Through its Farmland Program and Rangeland Program, the trust’s conservation priorities include irrigated farmland, grasslands, and oak savannah used for ranching. The trust also undertakes fee-for-service work, such as providing professional open space planning, acquisition, and management services to developers and local government. Staff also provides stewardship and monitoring services. In other areas of public policy, such as affordable housing, local governments take on a trust-like role by establishing a corporation or arms-length organization to develop, acquire, hold, and manage property. This approach is most fully developed in B.C. in the area of affordable housing where a number of local governments have established arms-length housing authorities and corporations to provide market, below market, and subsidized housing, often in partnership with non-profit housing providers. Three long-standing examples in this area are the Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation, Capital Regional Housing Corporation and the Whistler Housing Authority.75 The justification for governments entering the private market is market failure, which occurs when the private market is not adequately supplying a resource that is important to the proper functioning of a community. Several local governments have identified this failure in the area of housing in high land-value market. An argument could be made that a similar failure is occurring in Metro Vancouver in the area of farmland. Many models exist for regional farmland trusts, and their activities can include:

• Purchasing farmland and leasing it long term to farmers; • Purchasing farmland and decreasing its market value by registering covenants and other

charges on its title (for example, that it be purchased and sold at 60% of market value); • Registering covenants on farmland; • Holding covenants on properties as a third party, with responsibility for monitoring; • Facilitating acquisition of farmland or covenants through amenity bonus between

municipalities; • Delivering alternative land use service programs that compensate farmers for the

ecological goods and services that their lands provide in the region or paying them to sow

72 Capital Regional District: Land Acquisition Fund http://www.crd.bc.ca/parks/preservation/newparks.htm. 73 Michael D. Bailey and Lawrence W. Libby (2002). Agricultural Conservation Easements: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations. Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, The Ohio State University. Report to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 74 See Northern California Regional Land Trust website at: http://www.landconservation.org 75 For a detailed treatment of the organizations in this area see Curran, Deborah and Tim Wake (2008). Creating Market and Non-Market Housing: A Smart Growth Toolkit for BC Municipalities (Vancouver: Smart Growth BC) http://www.smartgrowth.bc.ca/Portals/0/Downloads/SGBC_Affordable_Housing_Toolkit.pdf.


45

wildlife or waterfowl-enriching crops (as modeled by the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust); and

• Undertaking farmland preservation and public education activities. Saanich – Haliburton Farm76 In 2006 the District of Saanich obtained a parcel of land from the Capital Regional District and rezoned it to a unique rural zoning for a demonstration farm. The Haliburton Organic Farm Society leases the land, which is in turn rented to three farm businesses. A cornerstone of many farmland trusts is the purchase of conservation easements or development rights (as they are known in the U.S.). The purchase of “development rights” compensates a farmer for the loss of development potential that could have been realized by subdividing and developing farmland for non-farm purposes. A 2005 study of 46 conservation easement programs in 15 U.S. states found that the programs had achieved a significant amount of protection in terms of acres, and that protected farms largely remain in farming, even when purchased by non-farmers for residential uses.77 However, the presence of easements was not effective in maintaining local agricultural service industries to serve the farm uses, and many of the programs inadequately addressed monitoring and noncompliance with easement restrictions. In the Canadian context, the terminology of “purchase of development rights” is flawed because zoning does not confer development rights. However, the equivalent to conservation easements in B.C. is statutory covenants registered on title pursuant to section 219 of the Land Title Act. Covenants can be positive or negative in nature, for example restricting subdivision and potentially requiring that land be used for farming. Covenants may be registered in favour of non-governmental organizations or local governments as third parties that oversee maintenance of the covenant conditions on the property. They must monitor the property to ensure the property owner or lessee is adhering to the covenant. Covenants run with the land, meaning they apply to the land and activities on the land irrespective of who owns it. However, they are costly to negotiate and register, and the annual monitoring requires ongoing funding.78 Given the role of the ALR and zoning in restricting non-farm uses in the ALR, the primary benefit of covenants may be their ability to prevent subdivision of farmland, and potentially require farm activities on a parcel. There are no legal precedents for the enforcement of positive covenants in B.C., so little can be said about the scope

76 Gorsuch, Wanda (2009). BC’s Farming and Food Future: Local Government Toolkit for Sustainable Food Production (Victoria: The Land Conservancy). 77 Sokolow, Alvin (2006). A National View of Agricultural Easement Programs: Measuring Success in Protecting Farmland – Report 4 (Davis, California: Agricultural Issues Centre, University of California and American Farmland Trust) http://www.aftresearch.org/research/publications/detail.php?id=b939970b7b60e9da138bcc9164f6ca41. 78 To develop and register covenants as part of the Islands Trust Fund’s Natural Areas Protection Tax Exemption Program cost between $2,500 and 12,000 each. Islands Trust Fund/Islands Trust (2009). An Applicant’s Guide to Calculating Natural Areas Protection Tax Exemption Program (NAPTEP) Costs and Benefits (Victoria: Islands Trust) http://www.islandstrustfund.bc.ca/pdf/itfnaptepcostsguide2009.pdf. This figure does not include annual monitoring costs. See also The Land Trust Alliance (2009). Conservation Covenants: A Guide For Developers and Planning Departments (Salt Spring Island: Land Trust Alliance of British Columbia) http://www.landtrustalliance.bc.ca/docs/covenants_developers_planners_2009.pdf.


46

of positive covenants. Finally, covenants that “prohibit the use of agricultural land for farm purposes” has no effect until approved by the Agricultural Land Commission.79 The Commission is reluctant to approve covenants that might restrict the range of agricultural uses to which the land may be put in the future, for example by limiting farm practices to organic methods.80 In summary, creating a regional farmland trust as an arms-length organization of the local government is within the jurisdiction of both Metro Vancouver and member municipalities. They may also support non-governmental organizations to take on the role. Particularly if the trust will take on a land-acquisition function, costs will be high. It can be financed through a variety of means including general revenue, a farmland levy, foundation and private funding, and eventually some earned revenue through leases and other programs. One of its largest impacts could be in removing land from the real estate market, either by limiting its resale value or how it can be used through the registration of covenants on the title. This would preserve farmland and increase the viability of farming as the entrance cost for farmers with access to price-limited land would be significantly lower than for farming on land that was not price-restricted. 3.7 Agricultural Development Office There is a long history in North America of agricultural extension services provided by universities, colleges and government agricultural departments. Extension staff provide assistance to farmers for activities ranging from business planning to cropping practices. They also undertake research. While this practice has waned in Canada, the US Cooperative Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture continues its network of universities providing services to local communities throughout the country. The Agricultural Sciences and Natural Resources Extension Program at Oregon State University includes 36 county offices including the program areas of crops and plant products, animal and animal products, environmental quality, and food processing and value-added products. 81 A significant focus of the agricultural program is farm business management and marketing and processing of agricultural products. Central Okanagan Regional District82 The Central Okanagan Regional District hired an Agricultural Support Officer in 2006 to assist farmers and agribusiness owners to realize new opportunities in their businesses. In addition to being an agricultural information resource and working with farm organizations, the officer facilitates agricultural advisory committees, implements and monitors agricultural plans, mitigates land use conflicts and provides input into planning for agriculture. The officer is assisting the farm industry to shift to niche markets and on-farm consumer experiences in a regional setting.

79 Agricultural Land Commission Act, R.S.B.C. 2002, c.36 s.22. ). 80 See generally Agricultural Land Commission (2003). Guidelines for Conservation Covenants in the ALR (Burnaby: Agricultural Land Commission) http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/legislation/policies/Guidelines_convenants_Dec03.pdf. 81 See generally the extension program website: http://agsci.oregonstate.edu/extension 82 See BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (2007). Growing Together: Farming in Partnership with Local Government 8:1 http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/publist/800Series/820110-29.pdf.


47

In a regional context, some local governments are funding staff to undertake extension-like activities that fall within local government jurisdiction such as the land use aspects of business development to facilitate economic development in agriculture. Local agricultural development assistance is focused on access to land, the co-location of businesses, and other business development activities to stimulate partnerships and activities within the jurisdiction of local government. This can include coordinating a supportive landbase for farming, assisting with local marketing campaigns, and partnering to develop regional strategies. Examples of the range of local government extension activities include: • Coordinating a program to access farmland;83 • Identifying Crown and local government land for farm uses; • Facilitate agricultural enterprise zones, potentially as part of the Local Food First Hub

concept; • Disseminating land use best practices and templates such as agritourism zoning and legal

agreements for land tenure; • Connecting local markets (distributors/retailers) with farmers in the region; • Developing cooperative networks among farmers to advance collaborative processing and

marketing opportunities; • Collaborating with industry associations, such as the B.C. Food Processors Association, to

deliver land use programs or facilities; • Facilitating approvals on farmland from local government; • Coordinating local and regional procurement policies; • Participating in buy local campaigns; • Facilitating interaction between farmers and wholesalers/retailers/processors; • Facilitating amenity bonuses; • Delivering alternative land-use service programs (see discussion under section 3.9); • Facilitating market access for local producers through unconventional/non-mainstream

regional or local wholesale or cooperative sale.

83 An example of such a program is FarmLink, operated by the Maine Farmland Trust. The purpose is to connect new farmers with retiring farmers and farm owners who want their farmland to remain active. The program offers support for the retiring farmer and the new farmer to ensure that the farm transfers to a family member or new farmer successfully. The program offers information in relation to estate planning, financing, tenure agreements, and business planning. See Maine FarmLink: http://www.mainefarmlink.org/.


48

100 Mile House In 2009, 100 Mile House commissioned a feasibility study to consider the need for and range of services that could be provided by an Agriculture Enterprise Development Centre.84 The study flowed out of the Agricultural Strategy that identifies agriculture as an important economic diversification strategy for the region in the wake of the mountain pine beetle infestation. The survey of producers found that most of them are comfortable with producing agricultural products, but few were competent at business development and marketing. Services evaluated for the centre include shared processing facilities, business training, market development, and agritourism opportunities. It is within Metro Vancouver jurisdiction to create an agricultural development office or provide staff to undertake extension-like activities. It would require a budget as a new program or initiative requires additional staff. There is a potential for it to be funded in partnership with the agricultural industry and educational institutions. If it is scaled to become a clearinghouse for agricultural programs in the region and local food promotion, an agricultural development office could have a significant impact on increasing the viability of farming. Village of Hazelton85 With funding from the Community Health Promotion Fund, the Village of Hazelton partnered to create a food strategy, and hosted an Iron Chef Local Food Challenge during the annual Pioneer Days. 3.8 Regional Procurement Policies86 Procurement refers to the acquisition of goods and services for an organization. Institutions and large organizations develop procurement policies that set out the criteria by which the organization will make purchases. These policies have typically focused on cost and quality. The institutions in Metro Vancouver make a significant market impact through their purchasing decisions. Shifting the purchasing priorities to local agricultural products for food and landscaping products procurement has the potential to stimulate agricultural production and increase the viability of farming.

84 Stonefield Consulting (2009).Agricultural Enterprise Development Centre Feasibility Study South Cariboo and Surrounding Region: A Place for the 100 Mile Diet and Beyond (100 Mile House: District of 100 Mile House) http://www.100milehouse.com/index.php?page=41. 85 Enns, Jan et al (2008). A Seat At the Table: Resource Guide for Local Governments to Promote Food Secure Communities (Vancouver: Provincial Health Services Authority) http://www.crd.bc.ca/rte/documents/rtefoodsecureJune2008.pdf. 86 See generally MacLeod, Marla and Jennifer Scott (2007). Local Food Procurement Policies: A Literature Review (Halifax: Nova Scotia Department of Energy) http://www.organicagcentre.ca/Docs/LocalFoodProcurementPolicies.pdf.


49

Britain87 Britain’s Public Sector Food Procurement Initiative began in 2003 to channel the approximately £1.8 billion spent each year on public sector food and catering services to stimulate the local agricultural industry in England. The purpose of the initiative is “to encourage public sector buyers to work with farmers, growers and suppliers to ensure more sustainable food is consumed in hospitals, schools, prisons and canteens.” The five priority objectives are to: raise production and process standards; increase tenders from small and local producers; increase consumption of healthy and nutritious food; reduce adverse environmental impacts of production and supply; and increase the capacity of small and local suppliers to meet demand. Although European Union free trade regulations have presented a barrier to full implementation of the initiative, the average proportion of British food used by government departments, hospitals, and prisons is at 66 %.88 The initiative is also comprehensive, working throughout the supply chain to show how local procurement works. Toronto89 In October 2008, Toronto’s City Council unanimously adopted a Local Food Procurement Policy for city operations as a component of its Climate Change, Clean Air and Sustainable Energy Action Plan. The target for local food procurement is a 50% local food-purchasing target for city-owned facilities, including daycares, shelters and seniors’ homes, and for city operations. In less than one year the city achieved an increase of 13.4% over its baseline, for a total of 33.4% local food procurement for a cost of an additional $15,000, or a 0.7 per increase. In addition to direct procurement, staff are working with suppliers to source local products and change internal practices such as planning menus that are more sensitive to seasonal product availability. Metro Vancouver and local municipalities can lead the way by adopting local food and landscaping products procurement criteria or policies. Staff, potentially from an Agricultural Development Office, can work with other institutions such as universities, hospitals, and large employers to also adopt local food and landscaping products procurement policies.90 This can be implemented on an individual institution basis, or as sector-wide strategies, such as a hospitality industry strategy in partnership with, for example, Tourism Vancouver.

87 See generally Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2006). Unlocking Opportunities: Lifting the Lid on Public Sector Food Procurement (London: Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) http://www.defra.gov.uk/foodfarm/policy/publicsectorfood/documents/unlocking-opps.pdf. 88 http://lovebritishfood.co.uk/buying-british/if-you-are-in-public-procurement/the-public-sector-food-procurement-initiative-(psfpi)/ 89 For details on the Toronto Local Food Procurement and Implementation Plan see June 8 2009 staff report to the Government Management Committee of the City of Toronto http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-22345.pdf. 90 Other institutional local food procurement policies include the University of Toronto, the US Department of Agriculture’s National Farm to School Programs, Mount Allison University, Kaiser Permanente. In addition, the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has provided funding for a number of local initiatives to work with food service providers, institutional managers, and suppliers of schools, hospitals, daycares, and homes for the aged to increase the %age of local food they use. http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/procurement/sellingpublic.htm.


50

Kelowna – Healthy Food and Beverage Sales Implementation Plan91 In 2008, the City of Kelowna adopted a Health Food and Beverage Sales Implementation Plan92– a five year plan to integrate healthier foods into its public facilities with a focus on building awareness, using packaged foods with the Healthy Choice Checkmark, and developing new policies for food contracts for city-leased facilities. The plan is the culmination of a multi-year process of the Healthy Food and Beverage Choices Task Force of the City, Regional District of Central Okanagan, and Interior Health, with activities including the task force coordinator organizing two workshop for organizations and businesses that provide food for vending machines and concession stands. Funding was provided by the city, health authority, and a grant from the Healthy Food and Beverage Sales in Recreation Facilities and Local Government Buildings Initiative of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and B.C. Parks and Recreation Association. The ability to establish procurement policies is within the jurisdiction of both Metro Vancouver and member municipalities. There are many existing sustainable procurement models, with local food procurement presenting seasonal and cost challenges. Local food and landscaping products procurement policies could stimulate the demand for local products and increase the amount of land farmed. It is important to note that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA, between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico) or the Trade, Investment, Labour Mobility Agreement (TILMA between B.C. and Alberta) may have an impact on the ability of Metro Vancouver or member municipalities to implement local procurement policies. 3.9 Agritourism Strategy Agritourism is defined in the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation as “a tourist activity, service, or facility accessory to land that is classified as a farm under the Assessment Act.”93 Local governments may regulate but not prohibit agri-tourism activities, other than accommodation, if the use is temporary and seasonal, and promotes or markets farm products grown, raised, or processed on the farm.94 Two key aspects to these regulations are that the activity, service, or facility must be for tourists and temporary or seasonal, and they must be accessory or secondary to the agricultural production on the farm. As the “alternative crop of the future,” agricultural tourism provides an opportunity for value-added activities on farm properties.95 Ideally it stimulates diversification in the agricultural sector, product differentiation and increased revenue. Agritourism also promotes local agricultural products and provides a public education function as the sale of local products is connected to recreational or educational opportunities. There is limited evidence that farms in 91 Enns, Jan et al (2008). A Seat At the Table: Resource Guide for Local Governments to Promote Food Secure Communities (Vancouver: Provincial Health Services Authority) www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/PubDocs/bcdocs/441047/PHSA reportaseatatthetable4.pdf.. See the BCRPA initiative at http://www.bcrpa.bc.ca/HealthyFoodandBeverageSales.htm. 92 City of Kelowna, Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Municipal Council. Monday April 21, 2008 http://www.kelowna.ca/citypage/docs/pdfs/council/meetings/council%20meetings%202008/2008-04-21/minutes%20-%20april%2021%20p.m.%20regular%20meeting.pdf. 93 B.C. Reg. 171/2002 s.1. 94 B.C. Reg. 171/2002 s.2(2)(e). 95 This term is used by Manitoba Agritourism on it home page: http://www.manitobaagritourism.ca/.


51

some municipalities in Metro Vancouver that report agritourism activities have lower farm incomes but spend less on resolving conflicts with neighbours (see Chapter 2). The purpose of developing a regional agritourism strategy would be to focus attention on this near-urban sector to intensify cooperation or coordination of some aspects of agritourism on a regional scale as a way to increase the viability of existing farms or new farm ventures. From a regional perspective, signature experiences or “terroir” (geographic specific labeling of products) can create additional value when the development of agritourism is coordinated through a strategy. Examples of this include the wine routes of the Okanagan, Sonoma and Napa Valleys, the Apple Route in Ontario,96 and Irish Farmhouse Holidays. Quebec has developed a number of agritourism circuits and routes.97 Tourism Langley showcases agritourism listings on its website, including listings for farms and animals, food and beverage, and museums,98 and Tourism Abbotsford features a circle farm tour.99 An agritourism strategy, as a stand-alone plan or part of the Regional Food System Strategy, is within Metro Vancouver jurisdiction. It would complement existing regional and food system planning, and specifically targets a growth area in agriculture that can help to diversify farm income and the farm economy. Proximity to the largest market in B.C. makes agritourism in the Metro Vancouver area particularly attractive. In addition to developing policies for stimulating agritourism, the strategy would need to focus on defining appropriate agritourism clusters and regulations to assist local governments in preventing impacts that may compromise the viability of farmland.100 3.10 Ecological Goods and Services There is growing interest in and analysis of programs that compensate agricultural landowners for the public infrastructure services that farmland provides to the wider community, or for the lesser use of infrastructure that farmland demands.101 These services provided include drainage, 96 The Okanagan Valley promotes the Okanagan Cultural Corridor Project, which includes agritourism that stems from the works of an arts development office with the City of Kelowna. See http://cnc.virtuelle.ca/okanagan/index.html. 97 See Agritourism Quebec: http://www.agritourismquebec.com/maps_circuits.html. 98 http://www.tourism-Langley Township.ca/Experience/Agritourism. 99 http://www.tourismabbotsford.ca/?page_id=219. 100 An example of this is the Michigan Agricultural Tourism Advisory Commission (2007). Agricultural Tourism Local Zoning Guidebook and Model Zoning Ordinance Provisions (Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of Agriculture) http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mda/MDA_zoneguide_185763_7.pdf. While these provisions may not be appropriate in the B.C. context given the ALR, it is an example of local government authority in this area. 101 See, for example, Bulte, E.H. and Horan, R.D. (2003). Habitat conservation, wildlife extraction and agricultural expansion. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 45: 109-127; Dobbs, T. and Pretty, J.N. (2004). Agri-Environmental Stewardship Schemes and “Multifunctionality”. Review of Agricultural Economics 26: 220-237; Ellis, G.M. and Fisher, A.C. (1987). Valuing the environment as input. Journal of Environmental Management 25: 149-156; Lankoski, J. and Ollikainen, M. (2003). Agri-environmental externalities: a framework for designing targeted policies. European Review of Agricultural Economics 30: 51-75; Montgomery, C.A., Pollak, R.A., Freemark, K. and White, D. (1999). Pricing Biodiversity. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 38: 1-19; Peterson, J.M., Boisvert, R.N. and de Gorter, H. (2002). Environmental policies for a multifunctional agricultural sector in open economies. European Review of Agricultural Economics 29: 423-443; Weersink, A., Livernois, J.R., Shogren, J. and Shortle, J.S. (1998). Economic Instruments and Environmental Policy in


52

rainwater management, wildlife and fish habitat, protection of biodiversity, and a range of other ecological goods and services. This public value of privately held farmland is also expressed in contingent valuation studies of the public amenity benefits of agricultural land. One study in Abbotsford included a finding that people valued each acre of farmland for $29,490 of public amenity value, with the value of groundwater recharge alone being worth $6,011 per acre.102 These programs are collectively called “alternative land use services” and typically involve payments to farmers for growing certain crops, leaving environmentally sensitive areas fallow, or for the overall ecological services the land provides. One simple example is to pay farmers for the drainage services their land provides in the overall municipal or regional context, a service that landowners pay for hard infrastructure where farmland is not available. Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust103 A long-term example is found in Metro Vancouver in the Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust, some programs of which have been enabled by monetary compensation from the expansion of Vancouver International Airport. The Trust focuses on habitat conservation and enhancement programs on farmland. Voluntary programs in some Canadian provinces (Prince Edward Island and parts of Ontario), Australia, the U.S. and European Union countries create markets for ecological services provided by farmers who change cropping practices to facilitate ecosystem functions. Prince Edward Island104 Farmers who own or lease land on Prince Edward Island are eligible for the alternative land use services program in which they voluntarily agree to leave land fallow or use management practices that protect soil and water quality or improve fish and wildlife habitat. Annual payments range from $100 to $200 per hectare per year, with maintaining livestock fences adjacent to wetlands and watercourses amounting payments of $0.30 per metre per year. Another approach would be to tailor infrastructure servicing costs to agricultural users. One example is in the Capital Region where the water rate for agriculture is lower than for residential uses in some areas such as the Saanich Peninsula. Drainage or stormwater management utility costs could also be decreased for near-urban agricultural properties. Any program that enables Metro Vancouver or member municipalities to decrease servicing costs for farmed lands, or pay farmers to undertake conservation, would have to be carefully crafted to fall within local government jurisdiction. Reductions in fees must be related to actual Agriculture. Canadian Public Policy 24: 309-327. For an explicitly Canadian discussion see Olewiler, N. (2004). The Value of Natural Capital in Settled Areas of Canada (Surrey: Ducks Unlimited Canada and the Nature Conservancy of Canada). 102 Ministry of Agriculture and Lands (2007). Public Amenity Benefits and Ecological Services Provided by Farmland to Local Communities In the Fraser Valley: A Case Study in Abbotsford BC (Strengthening Farming Report File Number 800-100-1) (Victoria: Ministry of Agriculture and Lands) http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/resmgmt/sf/publications/Public_Amenity_Benefits_report.pdf. 103 Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust: http://www.deltafarmland.ca/index2.html. 104 Alternative Land Use Services, Prince Edward Island, “Guidelines, Applicant Information and Application Form http://www.gov.pe.ca/.


53

reductions in the cost of the service. Differentiation of fees may be based on different categories of uses or other factors. Paying farmers to conserve land may increase biodiversity, but it is unclear whether it would protect farmland or increase the viability of farming over the long term given the high cost of land in Metro Vancouver and the annual short-term program cycle that cannot guarantee continued payments in perpetuity. Payments to landowners on the basis of rainwater management services performed by the land may increase the viability of farming, but unfarmed lands would be equally eligible for this payment as the rainwater management service is not tied to farming activities. This cost could be absorbed as part of the overall drainage budget of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District. Paying for alternative land use services may be warranted in a larger context of environmental preservation and farmland viability. However, it could be a significant cost whose long-term viability and impact should be evaluated further. Existing programs tend to be funded at a federal or provincial/state level, therefore their sustainability at a regional scale requires further evaluation.105

105 For example, in the United States the federal Conservation Security Program is delivered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service in the Department of Agriculture.

Metro Vancouver – Policy Options to Protect Agricultural Land March 15, 2010

54

4. Conclusion In the context of an international land market where farmland is valued for its urban uses, which makes the price of land for farming unaffordable for most farm operators, this report suggests policies and programs used in other jurisdictions that could assist Metro Vancouver and member municipalities to protect farmland and promote the viability of farming. The designation of agricultural enterprise zones and their redevelopment through the use of revitalization tax exemption programs have the potential to stimulate the co-location of agricultural industries and provide farm infrastructure, processing, and marketing opportunities. The staff of an agricultural development office could facilitate the land use aspect of farm outreach, connecting producers with regional markets, farmers with land, and facilitating the protection of farmland through amenity bonus approaches. A regional farmland trust dedicated to promoting the protection of farmland could use a regional agriculture fund to secure farmland in a variety of ways. A focus on local procurement for local government and larger institutions could provide significant regional market opportunities. Finally, as local governments become more detailed in the calculation of servicing costs and benefits, it may make sense to develop a regional ecological goods and services program that acknowledges the ecosystem value of farmland. While this report does not provide sufficient detail to make explicit recommendations about the next steps in Metro Vancouver’s farmland program, further fiscal and policy analysis can be integrated into the implementation of a variety of ongoing initiatives. Farmland protection is already part of the Regional Growth Strategy and other regional initiatives. These can continue to place emphasis on protecting farmland and Metro Vancouver can work with member municipalities to integrate these approaches into local policies and programs. Through the upcoming Regional Food System Strategy the potential for the programs identified in this report can be prioritized. Pilot programs for activities that fall squarely within the jurisdiction of Metro Vancouver, such as procurement, are a logical place to start.


55

Appendix A – BC Assessment Statistics and Split Classification Analysis

A property may have part or all the land classified as farm. By provincial law, farm-class (09) land in BC is assessed much below market value, in order to provide property tax relief and thus public support to agriculture. Farm classification (09) only applies to land, and residential classification (01) applies to all buildings – houses and farm outbuildings. In certain cases, some of the land can be classified as non-farm (01 - residential, 02 – utilities, 04 – major industry, 05 – light industry, or 06 – other business, 08 – recreational property or non-profit), with the remainder as farm (09). This is called a split classification. In 2007, split classification of farmland was brought to public attention when BC Assessment re-examined approximately 200 farm-class properties that were outside of the ALR in Saanich, on Vancouver Island. Some of these properties were determined to be only partially used for agriculture, and their 100% farm class (09) status was adjusted to be split between residential and farm.106 This caused public concern about the environmental value of this land that was not actively farmed but could be contributing to farm land protection and other ecological values while in a forest, wetland or other state.107 Land within the ALR was not subject to the same scrutiny, since it could be set-aside as being “held for agricultural purposes”, and by so doing, maintain farm class status. As a result of the public concern, the Farm Assessment Review Panel was established to examine the issue of split classifications. In July 2009, the FARP final report included the recommendation to remove all split classifications from farm class land, even that within the ALR (which are not as common as outside the ALR).108 Because of preferential property taxes for agricultural land, such action would serve to lower the property taxes for the entire land area of a farm parcel, even if only a small portion of it is actually actively farmed. One concern with this recommendation (and subsequent action by the UBCM Secretariat) is that the very low agricultural property taxes, when compared to a similar parcel of land with residential zoning, reduces municipal tax base, and, more importantly, gives tax breaks to hobby farmers or rural estate owners who are not bonafide farmers.109 In the following analysis, we calculate the impact on property taxes in Metro Vancouver with the removal of farmland split classifications. The removal of split classifications and subsequent re-assessment as farm land for the entire property is expected to have the greatest impact on properties outside the ALR, since they no longer have the threat of being split classified when only a portion of a parcel of land is being actively used for agricultural production. Only that land actively used for agriculture qualified for farm class status, and while the rules were freely interpreted and applied at times, there had 106 BC Assessment. 2007. Factsheet: Farm Reassessment Project. BC Assessment, Victoria. 107 ---, 2008. Rural residents fight tax assessments. Times Colonist, Victoria, BC. 20 January 2008. 108 Union of British Columbia Municipalities. 2009. Member Notice re: Farm Assessment – Split Classification Policy. Memo sent from UBCM Secretariat dated 8 December 2009. 109 Simpson, S. 2009. B.C. eases controversial farm-tax rules. Vancouver Sun, Vancouver, BC. 28 November 2009.


56

been requests by some citizens to remove the farm class status (and the tax breaks) from farm class land that was obviously not being farmed. Even if not actively farmed, land within the ALR was always eligible for farm classification if it was certified as being “held for agriculture”. BC Assessment data on property values in 2009 indicates separately the assessed value of farm class (09) land, non-farm class (other) land, and buildings. For the properties in Metro Vancouver that have at least some farm classification, 24% (representing 27% of the total area) are split between farm and at least one other class. Of those with split classification, 88% are split solely between residential (01) and farm (09) classifications, 5% are non-industrial business (06) and farm (09) classifications. The remainder possess various property class combinations of farm with utilities, light industry, recreation-non-profit or multiple split classifications that have three or four property classes associated with one property. See the maps at the end of the chapter for a spatial distribution of Langley Township’s agricultural-residential split properties. In order to determine the property-tax impact of removing split classification, the value of the farm class portion of each property was determined (per unit area). Assuming that all land on the property would be valued in the same manner as current farm-class land, a revised assessed value for the property was then calculated for each individual property. This revised value is substantially lower than the current assessed value of the property. The resulting tax implications for all split properties in a municipality were then determined based on current tax rates (see Table 8). For municipalities where farm tax rates have not been raised to compensate for these low assessments, the tax impact can be significant. For example, Surrey (farm tax rate of $5.6/$1000) experiences much more decline in relative property taxes than does Maple Ridge (farm tax rate of $26.3/$1000). Table 8: 2009 Property Tax Rates ($ per $1000 assessed value) in Metro Vancouver Municipalities, Residential and Farm Class Farma ResidentialBowen Island 4.64 3.94Vancouver 5.52 4.23Port Coquitlam 24.63 5.82Burnaby 13.35 4.76Coquitlam 11.26 2.85New Westminster 7.07 6.14Deltab 19.00 5.68Richmondc 12.13 4.53Surrey 5.64 4.63Langley Township 12.50 5.42Langley City 7.06 6.14Maple Ridge 26.30 6.12Pitt Meadows 28.45 5.87

a Farm tax rate is that charged to farmland within the ALR, with 50% of the listed school tax subtracted (a “benefit” to ALR land). Farms outside the ALR are charged 100% of school tax rate, so total will be rate listed plus 3.95. b Rates for Delta are average of 3 (farm) or 4 (residential) districts within the municipality c Rates for Richmond are from 2008, the latest available


57

Table 9. Split classifications of farmland in Metro Vancouver, number of farms, area, and property tax implications of removing residential/farm split classifications

Tax revenuea, residential split

properties only, ‘000s$

Municipality # of farm

properties

Total area

(acres)

# with split classification

Residential splits only Current

Remove split

class.Differenceb

Bowen Island 20 265 8 5 9.1 0.6 - 8.5Burnaby 58 299 7 7 7.7 1.0 - 6.8City of Vancouver 13 31 4 2 13.5 0.3 - 13.2Coquitlam 18 674 4 4 6.4 1.3 - 5.2Delta 499 18,917 152 121 303.1 205.7 - 97.4Langley Township 2,229 33,363 520 497 531.8 203.8 - 327.9Langley City 2 10 0 0 -- -- --Maple Ridgec 825 17,065 165 161 193.0 103.1 - 89.9New Westminster 4 11 2 1 0.3 0.1 - 0.2Pitt Meadows 477 13,154 114 105 137.1 61.1 - 76.1Port Coquitlam 64 438 17 15 21.7 4.8 - 17.0Richmond 715 7,754 191 148 210.5 51.1 - 159.4Surreyc 1,072 19,597 251 202 318.3 35.9 - 282.5Total, Metro Van. 5,996 111,580 1,435 (24%) - 1,084.0

Source: BC Assessment 2009; author’s calculations a Tax revenue is for land only, since split assessment does not impact buildings b Difference may not appear to be exact, due to rounding of values in each tax revenue column c Surrey and Maple Ridge include respective rural districts, although separated out by BC Assessment


58

Appendix B – Maps of Agricultural Land in Metro Vancouver110

110 The main spatial dataset from which these maps are constructed is the MAL Land Use Inventory (LUI). An ALC spatial dataset is also linked to provide the ALR boundary layer. These datasets were compiled in different years (which are marked on each map) and as such, comparisons across areas should be made with extreme caution. Since the earliest LUI was done in 2000 (see Table 2), land use may have changed over time within the areas as well. A new LUI is planned for 2011 and this dataset will provide a regional perspective on farming activity and land use in Metro Vancouver.


59


60


61


62


63

Appendix C – Policy Options References I. Agricultural Enterprise Zones Examples: Hawai’i, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin Resources:

Colorado: 1. http://outreach.colostate.edu/bighorn/proposals/Agricultural%20Enterprise%20Zone

%20(JSC).pdf 2. http://www.farmlandinfo.org/farmland_search/index.cfm?function=article_view&arti

cleID=30974 3. http://www.milehigh.com/business/business-assistance-center/tax-credits 4. Michigan:

http://www.farmlandinfo.org/farmland_search/index.cfm?function=article_view&articleID=30971

5. New Jersey: http://www.glynwood.org/assets/PDF's/NJPilotAgEnterprise.pdf

6. Virginia: http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/By+Year/HD932005/$file/HD93.pdf

7. Hawai’i: http://www.hfbf.org/EZ.shtml Other:

8. http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/awg/workshops.asp (this site has a number of useful links but not all of them work)

9. Enterprise Zoning for Solano County Agriculture: http://solanocountygeneralplan.net/Agricultural%20Docs/Attachment%20D%20-%20Enterprise%20Zoning.pdf

II. Amenity Bonus (transfer of development rights) Examples: King County, Wash; Boulder County, Colo.; South County, MA; Action, MA, New Jersey Pinelands ; Upper Blue Basin Colorado Resources:

1. http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/awg/workshops.asp (this site has a number of useful links but not all of them work)

2. http://www.farmlandinfo.org/documents/27746/FS_TDR_1-01.pdf (contains a chart of US local gov’ts with TDR programs as of 2000 – listed TDR programs were included in the original Research Report)

3. http://government.cce.cornell.edu/doc/html/Transfer%20of%20Development%20Rights%20Programs.htm

4. http://www.realtor.org/library/library/fg804 (this site has a number of links to documents and TDR program case studies)

5. King County, Wash:


64

http://www.kingcounty.gov/environment/stewardship/sustainable-building/transfer-development-rights.aspx

6. http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/bpoladm/suswshed/pdfs/tdrreprt.pdf (this doc contains case studies, incl. Action, MA, New Jersey Pinelands)

7. Upper Blue Basin Colorado: http://www.sprawlaction.org/halloffame/IBluebasin.html 8. Otero, Colorado:

http://www.scedd.com/otero/Otero%20Enterprise%20Zone.htm 9. Columbia Gorge:

http://www.skamaniacounty.org/bpc/html/_DATA/TITLE22/Chapter_22_16_ZONING_CLASSIFICATIO/index.html

10. Ann Arbor: http://www.aatwp.org/special.htm#fospb 11. http://www.design.asu.edu/apa/proceedings99/PRUETZ/PRUETZ.HTM (this doc is

from 1999, but discusses TDP generally and contains some cases) 12. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/17934/1/ar980034.pdf (this doc discusses

TDR and other tools in Pennsylvania) 13. http://www.citebc.ca/NO94_TDR.HTML (this doc very briefly discusses TDR for

BC) III. Regional Farmland levy NB: Levy and purchase of development rights programs often complimentary Examples: Peninsula Township, Mich.; Granville Township, OH; Resources:

1. Peninsula Township: http://www.peninsulatownship.com/developmentrights/index.php

2. http://www.michiganlanduse.org/resources/councilresources/Counties_Est_PDR_Programs.pdf

3. http://www.goto2040.org/ideazone/forum.aspx?id=742 4. Washington County:

http://www.co.washington.wi.us/uploads/docs/PLN_FOSP_C6.pdf 5. http://www.co.mchenry.il.us/departments/countyboard/MtgDocs/200902/0227env/02

27env5_2a.pdf 6. Farmland Preservation in Georgia: Three Roads to Possible Success:

http://jdorfman.myweb.uga.edu/rep_sum.pdf 7. http://www.morrispreservation.org/FarmlandPreservationFunding.htm 8. New Jersey: http://www.state.nj.us/dca/lgs/lfns/98lfns/98htms/mc98-2.htm 9. http://www.brcland.org/projects/Bayfield%20Farmland%20Preservation%20Program

.pdf 10. Local Funding Options for Ohio Farmland Protection: A Summary of Existing and

Potential Options under Ohio Law for Funding a Local Farmland Protection Program: http://aede.osu.edu/resources/docs/pdf/28GNAOM8-V2BI-08H2-GKN0FWQXMK8WAE3J.pdf


65

IV. Regional Farmland Trust Examples: Grand Traverse, Texas, Teton, Connecticut, Ozarks Resources:

1. Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy: http://www.gtrlc.org/protection/farmland.php

2. Texas: http://www.txaglandtrust.org/ 3. Managing agricultural resources at the urban–rural interface: a case study of the Old

Mission Peninsula: http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V91-4489TT2-2&_user=1007916&_coverDate=11%2F01%2F2001&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%235885%232001%23999429998%23268793%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=5885&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=7&_acct=C000050229&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1007916&md5=aee975d6426aa08a1c928684ec801252#sec2

4. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/MDA_REVMAPFBApplicationProcess_117312_7.pdf

5. Teton Regional Land Trust: http://www.tetonlandtrust.org/ 6. Connecticut Farmland Trust: http://www.ctfarmland.org/index.html 7. PCC Farmland Trust: http://www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/farmtrust/index.html 8. Ozark Regional Land Trust: http://www.orlt.org/

V. Agricultural Development Office (ag extension by local gov't) Examples: Wisconsin; Texas; Tennessee; North Carolina; Virginia; Delaware; Louisiana; Minnesota; Alberta Resources:

1. Wisconsin: http://www.uwex.edu/topics/agriculture/ 2. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/Extension/USA-text.html 3. Texas: http://texasextension.tamu.edu/ 4. Tennessee: http://www.utextension.utk.edu/ 5. North Carolina: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/ 6. Virginia: http://www.ext.vt.edu/ 7. Delaware: http://ag.udel.edu/extension/agnr/index.php 8. Louisiana: http://www.lsuagcenter.com/en/communications/publications/ 9. Minnesota: http://www.extension.umn.edu/Agriculture/ 10. http://www.csrees.usda.gov/qlinks/extension.html 11. Endogenous Local Public Extension Policy:

http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/stable/pdfplus/1241815.pdf 12. Alberta: http://www.areca.ab.ca/ 13. Canada Organic Extension: http://www.organicagcentre.ca/Extension/ext_welcome.asp


66

VI. Regional Procurement Policies Examples: Woodbury County, Iowa; US Nationwide Farm to School (i.e. Vermont); Portland; Dane County; Suffolk County; Portland State University, Yale; Albany County Resources:

1. Local Food Procurement Policies: A Literature Review: http://www.organicagcentre.ca/Docs/LocalFoodProcurementPolicies.pdf

2. Local Food Systems and Public Policy: A Review of the Literature: http://www.bitsandbytes.ca/resources/Local_Food_Systems_and_Public_Policy_-_A_Review_of_the_Literature.pdf

3. Pubic Sector Food Procurement in Scotland: An Overview of Current Evidence http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/06/25102147/7

4. Local Food Procurement Policy and Implementation Plan: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-16137.pdf

5. Woodbury County, Iowa: http://www.woodbury-ia.com/departments/EconomicDevelopment/WC%20LFPP%20v3.pdf

6. : http://www.sustainablefoodpolicy.org/woodburycounty 7. Vermont Farm to School report: http://www.farmtoschool.org/files/publications_234.pdf 8. Portland (Institutional Purchasing: Correctional Institutions):

http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=42294&a=123017 9. Suffolk County:

http://www.suffolk.gov.uk/EducationAndLearning/Schools/SuffolkCountyCatering/OurPurchasingPolicies.htm

10. Portland State University: http://www.sustainablefoodpolicy.org/portlandstateuniversity 11. Kaiser Permanente: http://www.sustainablefoodpolicy.org/kaiserpermanente 12. Yale Sustainable Food Project:

http://www.sustainablefoodpolicy.org/yalesustainablefoodproject 13. http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=technical_assistance&template=/ContentMa

nagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=24784 14. Albany County:

http://www.albanycounty.com/departments/legislature/resolutions/2008/20081208/08-496.pdf

VII. Agritourism Strategy Resources:

1. Regulatory Barriers for Agritourism in BC: http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs/363308/regulatory_challenges.pdf

2. Agritourism Market and Product Development Status Report: http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/pubdocs/bcdocs/363307/agritourism_market.pdf


67

VIII. Rainwater Management Services Resources:

1. Dr.-Ing. T. Schuetze, Schillerstr, Decentralized Rainwater Management – solution for sustainable (re)development and independency, 2006 (London: IWA Publishing).

2. Improved Capacity in Rainwater Management: http://www.worldagroforestry.org/eastafrica/programs/wmu

3. Water Balance Model for British Columbia: http://www.waterbucket.ca/rm/?type=summary&section=publications&sid=11

4. EPA: Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/greeninfrastructure/ginews.cfm

5. Protecting Riparian Areas: Farmland Management Strategies (see appendices for incentive programs for riparian protection): http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/riparian.pdf

6. Hannover Kronsberg - The Rainwater Management Concept: http://www.unil.ch/webdav/site/ouvdd/shared/Colloque%202006/Communications/Eau/Bonnes%20pratiques/K.%20Brandt.pdf

7. Water for Food for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture: http://www.fao.org/nr/water/docs/Summary_SynthesisBook.pdf

Documents

Local Government Policy Options to Protect Agricultural