British Columbia's agricultural land reserve: Economic, legal and political issues

Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 365–372

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

British Columbia’s agricultural land reserve: Economic, legal and political issues Robert A. Androkovich ∗ Department of Economics, Thompson Rivers University, 900 McGill Road, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, V2 C 0C8

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 6 June 2010 Received in revised form 26 March 2012 Accepted 31 March 2012 Keywords: Land preservation Land use planning Smart growth Land evaluation Site assessment

a b s t r a c t High quality agricultural land is extremely scarce in the province of British Columbia, Canada. As a consequence of this scarcity and development pressure, the provincial government established a province-wide land preservation scheme – the agricultural land reserve – in 1973. The principal focus of the paper is an examination of the consequences of recent changes to the reserve’s enabling legislation. One of the changes is of particular importance: the Commission which manages the reserve is now explicitly required to consider community needs within the over-arching objective of land preservation. An important question immediately presents itself: how will the Commission balance the two conflicting objectives? An outline for a land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) framework is presented which – if adopted – would ensure that the Commission’s land use decisions reflected a range of concerns; including, the agricultural value of the parcels of land being considered for removal from the reserve, the likely impact of the removal of a parcel on the agricultural value of nearby parcels, the impact that development of a parcel removed from the reserve would have on environmental, recreational and open space amenities, the social, cultural and heritage effects stemming from the removal of a parcel, and community needs. The paper also addresses the likelihood of government support for the implementation of a LESA framework. © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction The preservation of agricultural land results in multiple benefits to society. While the maintenance of food production capacity is – perhaps – the most obvious, other benefits include open space, protecting various environmental amenities, the likelihood of more orderly development, and the economic impacts of the agricultural sector.1 Land preservation has been an issue of ongoing concern to the people of British Columbia (Canada) for over 30 years. This is to be expected for two reasons. First of all, high-quality agricultural land is extremely scarce in the province: only 1.1% of the province’s land is of good (or higher) quality (van Kooten, 1993, pp. 273; Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 2007, pp. 8). Secondly, the recognition that development was almost certain to occur on some of the province’s best agricultural land. In 1973, the

∗ Tel.: +1 250 371 5591; fax: +1 250 828 5051. E-mail address: [email protected] 1 The reasons/factors which underlie public support for land preservation were examined by Variyam et al. (1990), Kline and Wichelns (1996), Rosenberger (1998), Duke and Aull-Hyde (2002), and Androkovich et al. (2008). While a wide range of factors underlie support for land preservation and those given in the text are of particular importance, the nature of the farming operations can also be of consequence. For instance, while residents of an area are likely to support the preservation of land which is currently used to grow alfalfa, it would not be surprising to see this support disappear if the land was, instead, used for a hog operation. 0264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.026

government of the day – with the passage of the Land Commission Act – moved to preserve high-quality agricultural land by establishing the province’s agricultural land reserve.2 This paper addresses three major issues. The first relates to recent changes in the legislation which governs the reserve. Particular emphasis is given to examining a change in the mandate of the Commission which is appointed by the Cabinet to manage the reserve. The second major issue stems from the first: the change in mandate requires that the Commission consider community needs within the over-arching objective of land preservation. An outline for a land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) framework is presented which would allow the Commission to apply transparent procedures in addressing land preservation and community needs in an internally consistent manner, thereby fulfilling the current mandate. The third major issue of concern stems from the second: would the provincial government likely support the implementation of a LESA framework? Publically available government information is drawn upon to address this question. The paper therefore has important public policy implications in that detailed information on an existing land preservation program along with suggested improvements is provided. This information

2 See Hanna and Noble (2010, pp. 294) for a discussion of additional legislation with an agricultural support focus that was introduced by the same government.

366

R.A. Androkovich / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 365–372

would prove useful in the development of new land preservation programs and the improvement of existing programs. In the second section of the paper, three critical issues which arose with the decision to create the reserve are briefly discussed. The third section of the paper is concerned with the issue of the consequences of recent changes in legislation, while in the fourth the LESA framework is presented, and in the fifth section the likelihood of provincial government support for the implementation of a LESA framework is discussed. The key issues of the paper are then summarized in the final section, and conclusions are presented. Establishment of the ALR – 1992 Provincial legislation established British Columbia’s (BC’s) Agricultural Land Commission (the Commission) in 1973 (Land Commission Act, 1973). As mandated under the legislation, the Commission had two primary objectives; “to (a) preserve agricultural land for farm use [and] (b) encourage the establishment and maintenance of family farms and land in an agricultural land reserve, for a use compatible with the preservation of family farms and farm use of the land.”3 While the province encompasses approximately 89.3 million hectares, annual crop production is feasible on only 9.3 million hectares (10.4% of the province), and – importantly – for only 21,057 ha (0.02%) is the soil of the highest quality (van Kooten, 1993, p. 273; Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 2007, p. 8). The establishment of an agricultural land reserve (the ALR) was a direct consequence of the scarcity of high-quality agricultural land in the province, and the likelihood of development occurring on that land.4 While the decision to establish the ALR was, of course, pivotal, three critical issues had to be dealt with at the outset. First of all, what land was initially to be included in the reserve? Secondly, what procedure was to be used in adding land to and removing land from the reserve over time? And finally, for landowners whose property values were adversely affected by the inclusion of their property in the reserve, what compensation would they receive? Regarding the first critical issue, the agricultural capability of BC’s land had previously been determined as part of the Canada land inventory (CLI) survey, and data from the survey was utilized to establish the initial boundaries of the ALR.5 By the end of 1974 the ALR had been established, encompassing 4.72 million hectares or approximately 5.3% of the province (Agricultural Land Commission, 2009).

3 Land Commission Act (1973), section 7. Secondary objectives included: (1) to “preserve green belt land in and around urban areas;” (2) to “preserve land bank land having desirable qualities for urban or industrial development and restrict subdivision or use of the land for other purposes;” and (3) to “preserve park land for recreational use” (Land Commission Act, 1973, section 7). “The preservation of rural landscapes, amenity value, and urban growth control are not explicit objectives of the legislation as it is written, but the land reserve serves these ends” (Hanna, 1997, pp. 168). 4 See Daniels (1999), Holtz Kay (1997) and Howe et al. (1997) for a discussion of issues arising from community growth. In particular, see Daniels, Chapters 8–10, and Howe et al., Chapter 4. 5 See Hanna (1997) for a more detailed discussion of the establishment of the ALR. According to the CLI classification scheme, the characteristics of the soil determine the agricultural capability of a parcel of farmland; where “soils are grouped into 7 classes and 13 subclasses according to the potential of each soil for the production of field crops.” Class 1 soil has “no significant limitations in use for crops,” the limitations for classes 2 and 3 are moderate and moderately severe, respectively, while those for classes 4 and 5 soil are severe and very severe. Finally, the soils in class 6 are “capable only of producing perennial forage crops” while those in class 7 “have no capability for arable culture or permanent pasture” (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 1999). The subclasses indicate the nature of the limitation; for instance, salinity. “The reserve was to include all Canada Land Inventory (CLI) class 1–4 agricultural lands not already developed, or land that has been designated as agricultural for tax purposes” (Hanna, 1997, pp. 167, referencing Ward (1976)).

The process to be followed in adding land to and removing land from the reserve over time was explicitly addressed in the legislation. Not surprisingly, the Commission was given the authority to make these decisions (Land Commission Act, 1973, section 9). However, if a proposal to either remove land from the reserve, or permit a non-farm use or subdivision development, was turned down by the Commission, the proponent could appeal the Commission’s decision directly to the government; technically to the Environment and Land Use Committee of the Cabinet (Land Commission Act, 1973, section 9). An average of [5207/3973] hectares have been [added to/removed from] the reserve each year since its establishment (Agricultural Land Commission, 2009).6 The issue of compensation was also explicitly addressed in the legislation: “land shall be deemed not to be taken or injuriously affected by reason of the designation by the Commission of that land as an agricultural land reserve” (Land Commission Act, 1973, section 16). Thus, landowners would not receive compensation even if it was clear that the value of their property had been adversely affected by its inclusion in the reserve.7 It should be noted, however, that the property tax imposed on a parcel of agricultural land is reduced if the parcel is in the ALR (School Act, 1996, section 130). Recent developments: 1993–2012 Before land currently in the ALR can be developed, the particular parcel must first either be removed from the reserve, or a non-farm use or subdivision development must be permitted where the parcel remains in the reserve.8 As noted above, this could be accomplished in two ways, either the Commission could give its permission, or the Cabinet could override the Commission.9 With the legislature’s passage of the Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act in 1993, however, the ability of the Environment and Land Use Committee to override the Commission was terminated (Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, 1993). Instead, if the Commission turns down a proposal to either remove a parcel of land from the ALR, or allow a non-farm use or subdivision development, but the Cabinet regards a broadly based consideration of the proposal “to be in the provincial interest” (Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, 1993, section 28(2)), the Cabinet will then establish a Board which will conduct “a public hearing of the probable environmental, economic, social,

6 “Commonly the quality of the land added (since establishment of the ALR) has not been as high as the land excluded. There are also regional variations to exclusions and inclusions, which mirror development pressures – the bulk of the land added has been in BC’s north, but most exclusions have been in the south” (Hanna and Noble, 2010, pp. 295). 7 As is noted in Hanna (1997, pp. 169), “a lack of compensation for the taking of income and opportunity significantly weakens the equity or fairness of the program.” 8 “The Commission reviews non-farm use and subdivision applications on a caseby-case basis and considers the merits of each application. (...) Depending on the circumstances, the Commission may give different weights to considerations such as the compatibility of the proposed use with agriculture, soil capability of the land, location and whether the proposed use would meet a pressing community need” (Agriculture Land Commission, 2005b, pp. 10 and 11). It follows that decisions of the Commission are influenced by both the existing use of the land, and the nature of the proposed development. For instance, if a market garden currently operates on a 65 ha parcel with CLI class 1 soil, it is more likely that a golf course will be approved by the Commission, as compared to an industrial park. 9 Regulations established by the Cabinet permit certain land uses without requiring the permission of the Commission. This represents an additional way in which a non-farm use of land in the ALR may be permitted. Approved non-farm uses under the regulations include: (1) “horse riding, training and boarding, including a facility for horse riding, training and boarding, if the stables do not have more than 40 permanent stalls”; (2) “breeding pets or operating a kennel or boarding facility”; and (3) operating an “unpaved airstrip or helipad for use of aircraft flying non-scheduled flights” (Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision And Procedure Regulation, 2002, sections 2(h), 3(h) and 3(o)).

R.A. Androkovich / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 365–372 Table 1 Provincial interest guidelines. “Any proposal to be considered under section 40 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act must meet the following conditions 1. Agricultural capability a. The specific site has unique non-agricultural values that could not be replaced or relocated to a non-agricultural site; or b. The project proposed for this site could be implemented so as to result in no net loss to the agricultural capabilities in the area, through alternate land that is in close geographic proximity being brought into the ALR that is: i. Of equal or greater area, or ii. Of equal or better quality, accounting for such factors such as soil capability, climate, land improvements and proximity to market infrastructure, and iii. Capable of growing the same or a wider range of crops; and c. Agriculture in the area could be enhanced through consolidation of smaller parcels into large, more viable farm units 2. The alternative environmental, economic, social, cultural, or heritage values could be of major benefit, defined as either: a. Significant to the province as a whole (for instance, a major transportation facility); or b. Significant to a region of the province providing the proposal has shown overwhelming public support 3. The proposal could result in multiple benefits, to agriculture, and to environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage values” (Perry, 1998, information materials).

cultural and heritage effects, and without limitation the agricultural effects” (Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, 1993, section 28(5)) of the project documented in the proposal. Once the Board has completed and submitted its report to the Cabinet, the Cabinet will then decide to approve or reject the proposal. It is important to recognize that the mandate of the Commission and that of a Board differed fundamentally. The Commission’s mandate was very narrow – preserving agricultural land for farm use – whereas a Board was to examine not only the likely agricultural effects of the project, but also the economic, environmental, social, cultural and heritage effects. Explicit guidelines to be used by the Cabinet in determining whether it was in the provincial interest to have a Board consider the full range of effects of a proposed project were adopted in 1998. The guidelines are reproduced in Table 1. They were adopted by the Cabinet because the phrase “in the provincial interest” was not explicitly defined in the legislation. It should be noted that there is no binding requirement that future Cabinets follow the guidelines, i.e., they do not have formal legal status. Cabinet first exercised its discretion to declare the consideration of a proposal by a Board to be in the public interest in 1998. In July of the previous year the Commission had turned down a request by Pagebrook, Inc. to remove approximately 136 ha from the ALR. This decision effectively prevented Pagebrook’s plans for a destination resort and residential development near Kamloops in the interior of the province from being carried forward. After the Cabinet deemed the broader consideration of the proposal to be in the public interest, a Board – the Perry Commission – was established to consider all of the impacts of the proposed project. After public hearings were held in both Kamloops and Vancouver, Perry prepared a report for the Cabinet (Perry, 1998). In the report, Perry considered the full range of effects likely to result from Pagebrook’s proposed development. Regarding the economic and environmental effects, Perry concluded that the development would result in significant short-term and long-term job creation, while some positive environmental effects were likely and any negative environmental effects were not likely to be significant. As regards the social, cultural and heritage effects, the possible “loss of the rural way of life for surrounding areas” (Perry, 1998, section 4.2.3) was noted, while the development “would encourage greater

367

exposure to the history and culture of the Kamloops ranching tradition, including participation in cattle drives, [and] ranching exhibits as a permanent part of the theme village” (Perry, 1998, section 4.2.4). Finally, and most importantly, Perry commented on the agricultural effects of the proposed development. It was acknowledged that high quality land would be lost to agricultural production. However, it was also noted that “the most productive fields (. . .) would remain in the ALR” (Perry, 1998, section 4.2.5), while the transfer of water rights would enhance agricultural productivity on a nearby ranch (Perry, 1998, section 4.2.5). After considering the full range of effects of the proposed development, Perry concluded that the broadly defined benefits outweighed the consequences stemming from the loss of land to agricultural production, and recommended to the Cabinet that the proposed development be allowed to proceed. The Cabinet then accepted Perry’s recommendation. Opposition to both the development and the process which was followed was sufficiently strong to lead the government to have a report prepared which was to provide recommendations for a more precise definition of ‘provincial interest’, and how various values – agricultural, environmental, economic, etc. – should be weighed against one another. The report – Quayle (1998) – recommended that “‘Provincial interest’ means the public interest of all British Columbians, related to the preservation of agricultural lands, and includes the following characteristics: (1) province-wide context; (2) long-term consequences; (3) open and accountable decisionmaking; and, (3) the preservation and management of scarce and important provincial assets” (Quayle, 1998, Appendix B–IV). In essence, Quayle argued that in deciding whether to appoint a Board which might recommend the removal of land from the reserve, the Cabinet should consider the province-wide scarcity of agricultural land, and the long-term consequences of failing to preserve land for agricultural purposes (Quayle, 1998, pp. 6 and 7). With only minor changes, the aforementioned recommendations were adopted in the 1999 amendments to the reserve’s enabling legislation (Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1999, section 40(3)). Regarding how the various values should be weighed against one-another, Quayle’s recommendations and the current law are compared in Table 2. It is apparent that according to Quayle, the preservation of land for agricultural purposes should overwhelm all other considerations. When considering a proposed development, it is recommended that both the Board and the Cabinet regard environmental and heritage factors as being of secondary importance, while economic, social and cultural factors should be of tertiary importance. As regards the current law, agricultural values are given the highest priority, but that priority does not overwhelm the other values as agricultural values do in Quayle. Quayle also recommended that the Board hold public hearings in all regions of the province “to ensure province-wide input” (Quayle, 1998, p. 12). This recommendation was adopted in subsequent legislation, with the Board now being required to hold public hearings in six regions of the province (Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1999, section 43(5)).10

10 The Agricultural Land Commission Act of 2002 authorized the establishment of regional panels of the Agricultural Land Commission, where “a panel has all the powers, duties and functions of the commission in respect of an application or other matter before the commission, and a decision of a panel is for all purposes a decision of the commission” (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, section 11(5)). There are a number of potential problems with the regional panel structure: (1) a lack of consistency in the decisions of the regional panels, (2) “the regional panels as being more susceptible to pressure from local development interests”, and (3) “weakening the ‘provincial commitment’ to the ALR” (Hanna and Noble, 2010, pp. 296, referencing Smart Growth (2005)).

368

R.A. Androkovich / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 365–372

Table 2 A comparison of Quayle’s recommendations and the current law. Recommendations in Quayle (1998)

Current law (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002)

“The following principles must apply to all aspects of each provincial interest reference hereunder: (a) The preservation of agricultural land is in the provincial interest of the highest order, and the use of such lands for agricultural purposes is the highest and best use of such lands (b) Environmental and heritage purposes for a site on agricultural lands may be deemed in the Provincial Interest if the site has significant value for environmental or heritage purposes, and such purposes (iii) [sic] could not be replaced or relocated to a non-agricultural site; and (iv) [sic] would be implemented to result in a “no net-loss” to the agricultural capabilities in the area, and (c) Economic, social and cultural factors contribute to the assessment of agriculture as the highest and best use of agricultural lands over the long term and due to the priority of agricultural uses of the limited resource of agricultural lands, further consideration of external economic, social and cultural factors to override such a priority should be critically considered for long-term consequences and given tertiary weight or relevance in a Provincial Interest Reference” (Quayle, 1998, Appendix B–IV).

In making recommendations, “the board must give weight to the following values in descending order of priority: (a) Agricultural values, including the preservation of agricultural land and the promotion of agricultural purposes; (b) Environmental and heritage values, but only if (i) Those values cannot be replaced or relocated to land other than agricultural land, or (ii) Giving weight to those values results in no net loss to the agricultural capabilities of the area; (c) Economic, cultural and social values” (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, section 44(3)). These priorities also apply to the decision of the Cabinet (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, section 45(2)).

Table 3 Recent changes to the mandate of the Agricultural Land Commission. Commission’s mandate as of 1996

Commission’s mandate as of 2002

“It is the object of the commission to (a) Preserve agricultural land, (b) encourage the establishment and maintenance of farms, and the use of land in an agricultural land reserve compatible with agricultural purposes, (c) assist municipalities and regional districts in the preparation of land reserve plans required under this Act, and (d) Encourage municipalities, regional districts, first nations and ministers, ministries and agents of the governments of British Columbia and Canada to support and accommodate farm use of agricultural land in their bylaws, plans and policies” (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 1996, section 10).

“The following are the purposes of the commission: (a) To preserve agricultural land; (b) To encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest; (c) To encourage local governments, first nations, the government and its agents to enable and accommodate farm use of agricultural land and uses compatible with agriculture in their plans, bylaws and policies” (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, section 6).

While Quayle’s recommendations were not adopted in their entirety, that which was adopted – at least in part – by the government has made it less likely that decisions of the Commission will be overturned in the future. Importantly, additional changes have been made to the reserve’s enabling legislation since the submission of Quayle’s report and the 1999 amendments. One of the changes is of potential consequence in that the Commission’s mandate has been altered. See Table 3 for a comparison of the most recent mandate of the Commission (2002), with the mandate as of 1996. It is not self-evident what is meant by the phrase “to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest” in the recent legislation. Fortunately, a recent report of the Commission has clarified the meaning of the phrase: “lands that are otherwise suitable for agriculture and merit retention may be considered for exclusion to satisfy a pressing community need that cannot be reasonably addressed any other way” (Agricultural Land Commission, 2005a, pp. 12). It was also acknowledged that community needs “are accommodated to the extent that they do not unduly compromise the goal of preserving agricultural land” (Agricultural Land Commission, 2005a, pp. 17). While the consequences of the change in the Commission’s mandate will only become clear with the passage of time, the Commission has, in fact, attempted to manage the effects of the change in mandate by adopting a “target maximum of two per cent of approvals” for the “percentage of decisions for non-farm use and subdivision approved on the basis of community need” (Agricultural

Land Commission, 2006, pp. 11 and 13).11 It should be noted that the issue of concern regarding the change in mandate is not whether permission was refused in the past to remove land from the reserve, for instance, while it will now automatically be granted. Rather, has the change in mandate altered the balance between land preservation and development in the decisions of the Commission? Regarding the issue of community needs, three obvious questions present themselves: (1) when is a community need pressing? (2) when is an alternative way to address a community need not reasonable? and (3) when is the Commission’s principal purpose being compromised unduly? It is essential that the Cabinet give the Commission very clear guidance as to how these three questions are to be dealt with. “The Commission is an agent of the government” (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, section 7), and therefore it is the Cabinet that must deal with the aforementioned questions; not the Commission. The development pressure in

11 “The percentage of applications approved on the basis of community need in 2005/06 was 2.9%” (Agricultural Land Commission, 2006, pp. 13), while it fell to 1.8% in 2006/07 (Agricultural Land Commission, 2007, pp. 13). Of course, the higher the percentage the more likely “that the overall suitability of land for agriculture is being compromised” (Agricultural Land Commission, 2005b, pp. 11). It has been suggested “that potential consideration of ‘community needs’ (. . .) discourages local governments from seeking alternative and innovative options for growth and urban land use expansion” (Hanna and Noble, 2010, pp. 296, referencing Smart Growth (2005)).

R.A. Androkovich / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 365–372

certain regions of the province is very strong, and in those regions community needs can only become more pressing over time. Recommended changes to the operating procedures of the Agricultural Land Commission Under the current enabling legislation, the primary purposes of the Commission are “to preserve agricultural land [and] to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest” (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, section 6). It is noteworthy that the protection of the province’s food production capability is not explicitly included as a purpose of the Commission.12 Also and importantly, the procedures to be consistently applied in accommodating community needs within the over-arching objective of land preservation are not clear from either the statement of purposes, or the regulations approved by the Cabinet (Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, 2002). The legislation which enables land preservation in many US states is typically much more specific. For instance, food security is explicitly cited in the legislation of 30 states, protecting employment in the resource sector is cited in 24, while orderly development, the environmental benefits stemming from land preservation, and rural amenities are cited in the legislation of 18, 29 and 36 states, respectively (Nickerson and Hellerstein, 2003, Table 1). Would the residents of BC likely support the adoption of land preservation legislation which refers to specific objectives? A recent study – Androkovich et al. (2008) – addressed a related question. Specifically, residents of BC were asked about the level of importance they assigned to five reasons for preventing development on the province’s scarce high quality agricultural land: (1) “the economic importance of BC’s agricultural sector,” (2) “to ensure that local food production is maintained,” (3) “to ensure orderly development,” (4) “to protect the environment,” and (5) “to provide recreational opportunities and protect open space” (Androkovich et al., 2008, p. 1005). Each of the aforementioned reasons was regarded as being either important or very important by a substantial proportion of the respondents to a mail survey. While the survey did not explicitly raise the issue of legislative changes, the responses were consistent with support for legislation which is specific rather than general. Actually changing the legislation would be relatively straightforward since the current government has a substantial majority in the provincial legislature. It is important to acknowledge, however, that the change in legislation would be fundamental in nature. Rather than protecting land for farm use, the Commission would be concerned with protecting the broadly defined ‘countryside.’ A change in the nature of the legislation would also entail changing the operating procedures of the Commission to ensure that decisions reflected a number of objectives; including the careful accommodation of community needs. Fortunately, if the provincial government actually decided to make the change, the Commission would be able to take advantage of lessons learned in the US since 1981. The land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) framework was first introduced by the USDA Soil Conservation Service in 1981 (Steiner, 1994, p. 13). The framework was adopted to ensure that “the adverse effects of federal programs on farmland protection [were identified and accounted for], and to ensure that federal

12 Hanna and Noble (2010, pp. 303) note that “the ALR serves as a landscape preservation tool, and it has been successful in this regard. But it does not provide substantive structural support for BC agriculture. It is not so much an agricultural policy as it is growth control by proxy.”

369

programs, to the extent practical, are compatible with state, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmlands” (Steiner, 1994, pp. 13 and 14). Over time, the LESA framework has also been adapted for use by state and county governments throughout the US. In particular, jurisdictions near BC have significant experience in first developing then applying various versions of the LESA framework (Huddleston et al., 1987; Stamm et al., 1987; Tyler et al., 1987). The land evaluation (LE) component of LESA entails rating the quality of the soil on a parcel of agricultural land. This can be accomplished using one of more of: “land capability classifications, important farmlands classifications, soil productivity ratings, and soil potential ratings” (Steiner, 1994, pp. 14). While the details are available elsewhere (Pease and Coughlin, 1996, Chapter 4), a point system is developed which provides a quantitative measure of soil quality. For instance, the highest quality soil within a county is assigned 100 points, while the number of points assigned decreases as soil quality diminishes. It is noteworthy that land capability classification data was used in deciding which parcels of land were originally placed in the province’s agricultural land reserve (Hanna, 1997). The site assessment (SA) component typically entails greater complexity; a wide range of factors have been utilized in various jurisdictions. Information on the “the extent to which the conversion of the proposed site causes the conversion of other farmland to non-farm uses, [and] the extent to which the proposed land use is compatible with agricultural uses in the area” (Wright, 1994, pp. 38) would complement the LE measure directly because the agricultural value of a parcel of farmland is being accounted for, but from a broader perspective. A point system is once again used to provide a quantitative measure, where the higher the score the greater the adverse impact that development of a particular parcel would have on agricultural values. Consider two hypothetical 10 ha parcels of farmland. The first parcel is surrounded on three sides by a residential development, and on the fourth by a protected, old growth, forest. The second parcel, on the other hand, is surrounded by productive farmland. In these scenarios, the first parcel would be assigned a SA factor score of 0 because the agricultural value of secondary parcels is not being adversely affected by development. Regarding the second hypothetical parcel, assume that development of the parcel would eventually be expected to result in five additional hectares being lost of agricultural production because farmers will have great difficulty accessing their fields. The SA factor score for the second parcel would be positive, and would increase with the number of additional hectares lost to farming. While the aforementioned SA factors relate to the agricultural value of a parcel, this does not follow for all of the SA factors which have been utilized in various jurisdictions. For instance, “open space strategic value of site (e.g., urban greenbelt), site of significant artifacts or relics, [and] wetlands and riparian areas” (Pease and Coughlin, 1996, pp. 64) are associated with reasons for preserving agricultural land from development which are independent of agricultural value. On the other hand, “percent of surrounding land in urban or rural development use, distance to public sewer, [and] distance to urban centre or urban growth boundary” (Pease and Coughlin, 1996, pp. 64) relate to the development potential of a parcel.13 A LESA framework could prove very useful to the BC Agricultural Land Commission. Recall that the primary purposes of the Commission are “to preserve agricultural land [and] to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other

13 Given that SA factors relate to a wide variety of underlying issues, it is not advisable to utilize all of them in generating an overall SA measure (Huddleston, 1994, pp. 80).

370

R.A. Androkovich / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 365–372

communities of interest” (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, section 6). Given this statement of purposes and the scarcity of high quality land in the province, the information which would be provided by a LE measure is of self-evident importance to the Commission. The relevance of a SA component (SA-a) which would provide a quantitative measure of the impact of non-soil factors on the agricultural value of a parcel is equally self-evident. In addition, a second site assessment component (SA-b) would provide a measure of the development potential of the parcel. For instance, the distance from the parcel to municipal water lines would be accounted for in SA-b. Given that land is removed from the reserve in order to meet pressing community needs, the importance of the information which would be provided by SA-b is, once again, obvious. A third SA component (SA-c) would provide a quantitative measure of the impact development of a particular parcel would have on environmental, recreational and open space amenities in the region. While a fourth SA component (SA-d) would provide analogous information on the social, cultural and heritage effects stemming from the removal of a parcel of land from the reserve. Given that a wide range of factors underlie public support for land preservation, the information contained in the SA-c and SA-d measures would also likely be of use to the Commission.14 Once the land evaluation and four site assessment measures were available, the Commission could then base decisions upon uniformly consistent information which is very detailed: the type of information required to give full consideration to pressing community needs. Major benefits of this procedure would be its transparency, and a lessening of the reliance “on the experience and judgement of the Commission” (Agricultural Land Commission, 2005b, pp. 10). The information contained in LE and SA measures would also be directly applicable to appeals of Commission decisions. A LESA framework could ensure that “the probable environmental, economic, social, cultural and heritage effects, and without limitation the agricultural effects” (Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, 1993, section 28(5)) of potential developments on agricultural land were accounted for. It is noteworthy that in a recent report, the Chair of the Commission has acknowledged that ALR boundary “reviews must be based on sound scientific and technical information. It is imperative that such reviews be conducted in an open and transparent manner by engaging local governments, agricultural organizations, other stakeholder groups and the general public” (Bullock, 2010, pp. 60). A LESA framework would fulfill all of these requirements. It is important to acknowledge, however, that the adoption of a LESA framework by the Commission would not ensure that farming and ranching would continue on agricultural land. Consider the following hypothetical example: a 1 ha parcel of agricultural land which is in the ALR borders a residential area. A LESA analysis confirms that: (1) the soil is of high quality, (2) development of the parcel would adversely affect agricultural activity on nearby parcels, and (3) there is excellent wildlife habitat on the parcel. As a consequence, the Commission refuses permission to either exclude that parcel from the reserve, or allow a non-farm use or subdivision development. However, the landowner who also owns a much larger parcel of agricultural land two kilometres away ceases to use the parcel of concern for growing wheat, and instead uses it as pasture because people living in the residential area have

14 The effort involved in actually generating the LE and SA measures should not be underestimated. It would first be necessary to select factors which reflected the various concerns, while avoiding the problem of redundancy, i.e., it is inappropriate to use “two or more factors which reflect the same basic concern” (Pease and Coughlin, 1996, pp. 64 and 65). Then, it would be necessary to scale and assign weights to the individual factors. This exercise is not straightforward (Pease and Coughlin, 1996, Chapters 4 and 5).

damaged his/her farm equipment on a number of occasions. Growing an annual crop on the parcel has, quite literally, become more trouble for the landowner than it is worth. The implementation of a LESA framework by the Commission would have no impact on the landowner’s decision. Even a ‘hard’ ALR boundary would not influence that decision. The adoption of a LESA program would also not ensure that farmers and ranchers can make a decent living from their operations. In BC, farmers and ranchers do have the option to participate in the AgriStability program, but this program does not guarantee a reasonable rate of return on the investments of farmers and ranchers. Consider an additional hypothetical example: a farmer’s ‘average’ net income for the past five years is $100,000. This year, however, his/her net income is $35,000. According to the AgriStability program, the farmer will receive a payment of $38,500 from government (Ministry of Agriculture, n.d., pp. 11 and 12). It is clear that if a farmer or rancher’s net income has been dropping continuously, this program will only delay bankruptcy, not prevent it. It should be noted, however, that the Commission does have a longstanding policy in place to assist retiring landowners who “owned and occupied their land prior to the introduction of the ALR program (Bullock, 2010, pp. 81–83, 112 and 113). According to the Homesite Severance Policy, the landowner is allowed to retain a home site when the rest of the parcel is sold. It is highly unlikely that the Commission would be willing to broaden this policy given that the Commission’s primary objective is “to preserve agricultural land” (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, section 6).

The likelihood of provincial government support for a LESA framework In a recent report of the Agricultural Land Commission by the Auditor General of BC – Auditor General of British Columbia, 2010 – it is noted that the Commission has faced significant budget constraints for an extended period. “In 2002/2003 the Agricultural Land Commission’s budget was $2,930,000. Since that time, the budget has decreased (. . .) [, and by] 2010/211 the Commission’s budget was further reduced to $2,088,000” (Auditor General of British Columbia, 2010, pp. 8). As a consequence, the Commission has been unable to devote adequate resources to: (1) the identification of land that should be included in the ALR, (2) pro-active long term planning with local governments across the province, (3) the development of a needed database, and (4) ensuring that the policies and decisions of the Commission are being followed (Auditor General of British Columbia, 2010, pp. 10–17). In 2008/2009, the Commission “was operating at approximately 20% ($530,000) below its minimal requirements to maintain its core business” (Auditor General of British Columbia, 2010, pp. 8). The government has acknowledged that “the preservation of agricultural land through the Agricultural Land Reserve serves a compelling public interest” (Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, n.d., pp. 7). Yet the same government has reduced the Commission’s budget to the point where the Commission cannot “maintain its core business” (Auditor General of British Columbia, 2010, pp. 8). And in 2002 that same government altered the mandate of the Commission to include the following purpose: “to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest” (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, section 6). As is noted in Section 3 of this paper, the Commission has acknowledged a concern with the potential implications of the change in mandate. Together, the change in the Commission’s mandate and the reduction in the Commission’s budget have altered the balance in the decisions of the ALC between land preservation and development toward the latter.

R.A. Androkovich / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 365–372

Regarding more recent developments, in the aforementioned report by the Chair of the Commission the following concern is raised: “for the most part the [regional] panels are functioning as six independent regional commissions with little evidence that the panels maintain the provincial focus of the agricultural land preservation program” (Bullock, 2010, pp. 19). This concern was explicitly addressed in the amendments to the Agricultural Land Commission Act which were passed in November 2011 by the legislature. The Chair of the Commission may now order a review of a decision of a regional panel “if the Chair considers that the decision may not fulfill the purposes of the Commission” (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, section 33(1). To avoid confusion, it should be noted that even though the Act has a date of 2002, the 2011 amendments have been incorporated within it). This change is important because it will increase the likelihood that when making land use decisions, Commissioners will “maintain a provincial perspective in their region” (Bullock, 2010, pp. 18). In his report, the Chair of Commission also suggests the following changes be made to the operating procedures of the Commission: “in order to reduce the number of applications received [by the Commission] a landowner may not submit an application [to exclude land from the ALR] for 5 years after purchase of the property (. . .) [, and] if an application is refused another application may not be submitted for 10 years” (Bullock, 2010, pp. 42). While the suggestion of the Chair of the Commission regarding new landowners was not addressed in the 2011 amendments, his suggestion regarding reapplications was addressed, albeit in a weakened fashion. Specifically, the Commission’s chief executive officer – acting on behalf of the Commission – may now refuse to consider an application to either remove land from the reserve, or allow a non-farm use or subdivision development if a previous application regarding the parcel had been submitted to the Commission in the last 5 years (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, section 30(1)). On balance, the amendments have the potential to mitigate the alteration in the balance between land preservation and development toward development in the Commission’s decisions. Of course, the strength of the mitigation would have been enhanced if the amendments were fully consistent with the comments – concern and suggestions – of the Chair of the Commission. Importantly, the amendments discussed above did not address the most important concerns which were raised in the report of Chair of the Commission. In particular, that Commission processes “often fail to adequately consider agricultural land, encourage speculation and erode agricultural infrastructure, (. . .) are reactive on matters of preserving agricultural land and passive on matters encouraging agriculture, (. . .) while decisions [are] based on incomplete information and evaluation methods are not consistently applied” (Bullock, 2010, pp. 13). Given the comments in his report, the Chair of the Commission would likely support the adoption of a LESA framework if the Commission’s financial constraints were to disappear. Fully informed land use decisions by the Commission would be a direct consequence of the information provided by a LESA analysis. The information would also be of great value to local governments in their planning exercises. Would the current provincial government support the adoption of a LESA framework if the province had a budgetary surplus? Given that: (1) the actions of the current government have – in their totality – resulted in a shift in the balance in the Commission’s decisions toward development and away from land preservation, and (2) the current government has a conservative (small ‘c’) political philosophy, and a LESA framework could easily be regarded as including tools which would provide incremental support for government control over privately owned land; it is unlikely that the current government would support the adoption of a LESA framework even if the province’s fiscal situation were to improve markedly.

371

Discussion and conclusions As a consequence of the scarcity of high-quality agricultural land in British Columbia and the likelihood of development occurring on that land, the provincial government established the agricultural land reserve (the ALR) in 1973 to ensure that agricultural land was preserved for agricultural purposes. According to the legislation which established the ALR, it is the responsibility of the Cabinet to appoint a Commission (the Agricultural Land Commission) to actually manage the reserve. Two significant changes to the legislation which governs the Commission have been made in recent years. First of all, whenever a Board is appointed by the Cabinet to consider an appeal of a decision of the Commission, the Board must now give agricultural values the highest priority when making recommendations to the Cabinet. The final decision of the Cabinet must also reflect the priority of agricultural values. As a consequence, it is less likely that decisions of the Commission will be overturned by the Cabinet in the future. The second change is more important because it relates directly to the mandate of the Commission. As of 2002, the Commission’s principal purposes are “to preserve agricultural land [and] to encourage farming on agricultural land in collaboration with other communities of interest” (Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002, section 6). This has been interpreted to mean that “lands that are otherwise suitable for agriculture and merit retention may be considered for exclusion to satisfy a pressing community need that cannot be reasonably addressed any other way” (Agricultural Land Commission, 2005a, pp. 12). That the Commission has imposed a limit on the “percentage of decisions for non-farm use and subdivision approved on the basis of community need” (Agricultural Land Commission, 2006, pp. 11 and 13) is noteworthy. The adoption of the limit would appear to reflect a concern that the change in mandate could otherwise have resulted in a significant increase in the amount of development occurring on the province’s best agricultural land. Given the interpretation to the change in mandate, the Commission must utilize operating procedures which accommodate community needs within the over-arching objective of land preservation. The land evaluation and site assessment (LESA) framework was introduced in the US in 1981 to ensure that “the adverse effects of federal government programs on farmland protection” (Steiner, 1994, pp. 13 and 14) were identified and accounted for. The framework is highly adaptable, and would be very effective at providing the Commission with quantitative information on a wide range of factors. This information would enable the Commission to make decisions in an internally consistent and transparent manner, would be useful to the Commission in dealing with development pressure that is expected to escalate over time, and would be directly applicable to appeals of Commission decisions. The adoption of a LESA framework would be an important step in ensuring that the Commission’s “policies and programs foster long-term sustainability by considering a range of economic, social and environmental values” (Agricultural Land Commission, 2005a, pp. 8). Of course, it is critical that the provincial government provide sufficient financial support for the Commission to be able to implement a LESA framework. It is unlikely that the current provincial government would be willing to provide that support.

Acknowledgements Helpful comments provided by I. Desjardins, G. McKay, H. Rahman, P. Tsigaris, and the anonymous reviewers are greatly appreciated. Those of the anonymous reviewers, in particular, have led to a significant improvement in the paper. Of course, errors remain the sole responsibility of the author.

372

R.A. Androkovich / Land Use Policy 30 (2013) 365–372

References Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 1999. Overview of Classification Methodology for Determining Land Capability for Agriculture. Government of Canada, Ottawa. http://sis.agr.gc.ca/cansis/nsdb/cli/classdesc.html (accessed 8.05.2010). Agricultural Land Commission, 2005. Annual Service Plan Report – 2004/05. Government of British Columbia, Victoria. http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca /Annual Reports/2004 2005/alc/alc.pdf (accessed 8.05.2010). Agricultural Land Commission, 2005. Service Plan Update – 2005/06–2007/08. Government of British Columbia, Victoria. http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/ 2005 Sept Update/sp/alc/alc.pdf (accessed 8.05.2010). Agricultural Land Commission, 2006. Annual Service Plan Report – 2005/06. Government of British Columbia, Victoria. http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca /Annual Reports/2005 2006/alc/alc.pdf (accessed 8.05.2010). Agricultural Land Commission, 2007. Annual Service Plan Report – 2006/07. Government of British Columbia, Victoria. http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/ Annual Reports/2006 2007/alc/alc.pdf (accessed 8.05.2010). Agricultural Land Commission, 2009. Annual Report – 2008/09. Government of British Columbia, Victoria. http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/publications/ Annual Report 2009/5.html (accessed 8.05.2010). Agricultural Land Commission Act, 1996, c. 10. Revised Statutes of British Columbia. Victoria, Government of British Columbia. Agricultural Land Commission Act, 2002. Statutes of British Columbia. Chapter 36. Government of British Columbia, Victoria. http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/ bclaws new/document/ID/freeside/00 02036 01 (accessed 20.01.2012). Agricultural Land Commission Amendment Act, 1999, c. 5. Statutes of British Columbia. Victoria, Government of British Columbia. Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation, 2002. BC Reg. 171/2002. Government of British Columbia, Victoria. http://www.bclaws.ca/ EPLibraries/bclaws new/document/ID/freeside/10 171 2002 (accessed 8.05.2010). Androkovich, R., Desjardins, I., Tarzwell, G., Tsigaris, P., 2008. Land preservation in British Columbia: an empirical analysis of the factors underlying public support and willingness to pay. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 40, 999–1013. Auditor General of British Columbia, 2010. 2010 Report 5: Audit of the Agricultural Land Commission. Office of the Auditor General of British Columbia, Government of British Columbia, Victoria. http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2010/report5/audit-agricultural-landcommission (accessed 15.01. 2012). Bullock R., 2010. Review of the Agricultural Land Commission. Moving Forward: A Strategic Vision of the Agricultural Land Commission for Future Generations. Agricultural Land Commission, Government of British Columbia, Victoria. (accessed http://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/publications/Final%20Report-Nov26.pdf 15.01.2012). Cabinet Appeals Abolition Act, 1993, c. 73. Statutes of British Columbia. Victoria, Government of British Columbia. Daniels, T., 1999. When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe. Island Press, Washington, DC. Duke, J.M., Aull-Hyde, R., 2002. Identifying public preferences for land preservation using the analytic hierarchy process. Ecological Economics 42, 131–145. Hanna, K.S., 1997. Regulation and land-use conservation: a case study of the British Columbia Agricultural Land Reserve. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 52, 166–170. Hanna, K., Noble, D., 2010. Planning for agriculture in rapid growth settings: British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Reserve. In: Beesley, K.B. (Ed.), The Rural–Urban Fringe in Canada: Conflict and Controversy. Rural Development Institute, Brandon University, Brandon, pp. 292–304. Holtz Kay, J., 1997. Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took Over America and How We Can Take It Back. Crown Publishers, New York. Howe, J., McMahon, E., Propst, L., 1997. Balancing Nature and Commerce in Gateway Communities. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Huddleston, J.H., 1994. Importance of the LESA objective in selecting LE methods and setting thresholds for decision making. In: Steiner, F.R., Pease, J.R., Coughlin, R.E. (Eds.), A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, pp. 78–93. Huddleston, J.H., Pease, J.R., Forrest, W.G., Hickerson, H.J., Langridge, R.W., 1987. Use of agricultural land evaluation and site assessment in Linn County, Oregon, USA. Environmental Management 11, 389–405. Kline, J., Wichelns, D., 1996. Public preferences regarding the goals of farmland preservation programs. Land Economics 72, 538–549. Land Commission Act, 1973, c. 46. Statutes of British Columbia. Victoria, Government of British Columbia. Ministry of Agriculture, n.d. AgriStability Program Handbook. Government of British Columbia, Victoria. http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/agristability/documents /BC%20AgriStability%20Handbook.pdf (accessed 15.01.2012). Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 2007. Fast Stats. Agriculture, Aquaculture and Food, 2007. Government of British Columbia, Victoria. (accessed http://www.cattlemen.bc.ca/docs/bc%20ag%20faststats 2007.pdf 8.05.2010). Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, n.d. The British Columbia Agriculture Plan. Growing a Healthy Future for B.C. Families. Government of British Columbia, Victoria. http://www.al.gov.bc.ca/Agriculture Plan/on (accessed 15.01.2012). Nickerson, C.J., Hellerstein, D., 2003. Protecting rural amenities through farmland preservation programs. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32, 129–144. Pease, J.R., Coughlin, R.E., 1996. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricultural Land, second edition. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/lesa/LESA%20Guidebook.pdf (accessed 8.05.2010). Perry, D.G., 1998. Perry Commission Report. Government of British Columbia, Victoria. Quayle, M., 1998. Stakes in the Ground: Provincial Interest in the Agricultural Land Commission Act. Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Government of British Columbia, Victoria. http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/polleg/quayle/index.htm (accessed 8.05.2010). Rosenberger, R.S., 1998. Public preferences regarding the goals of farmland preservation programs: comment. Land Economics 74, 557–565. School Act, 1996, c. 412. Revised Statutes of British Columbia. Victoria, Government of British Columbia. Stamm, T., Gill, R., Page, K., 1987. Agricultural land evaluation and site assessment in Latah County, Idaho, USA. Environmental Management 11, 379–388. Smart Growth BC, 2005. Smart Growth BC’s Position on the Provincial Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), Revised August 2005. Smart Growth BC, Vancouver. http://66.51.172.116/Portals/0/Downloads/SGBCALRposition.PDF (accessed 24.03.2012). Steiner, F.R., 1994. Introduction. In: Steiner, F.R., Pease, J.R., Coughlin, R.E. (Eds.), A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, pp. 12–19. Tyler, M., Hunter, L., Steiner, F., 1987. Use of agricultural land evaluation and site assessment in Whitman County, Washington, USA. Environmental Management 11, 407–412. van Kooten, G.C., 1993. Land Resource Economics and Sustainable Development: Economic Policies and the Common Good. UBC Press, Vancouver. Variyam, J.N., Jordan, J.L., Epperson, J.E., 1990. Preferences of citizens for agricultural policies: evidence from a national survey. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 257–267. Ward, N., 1976. Land Use Programs in Canada, British Columbia. Lands Directorate, Environment Canada, Government of Canada, Ottawa. Wright, L.E., 1994. The development and status of LESA. In: Steiner, F.R., Pease, J.R., Coughlin, R.E. (Eds.), A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, pp. 30–41.