Study To Look at Farmland Future
Prince George, B.C. – The question is, “Are governments doing what Canadians want with respect to farmland?”
A new three year study led by UNBC will attempt to answer that question .
Headed by UNBC’s Environmental Planning Associate Professor David Connell, the study will look at how the changing role and value of farming in Canada could impact agricultural land use within municipal, provincial, and national jurisdictions.
The study comes at a time when there is more and more pressure to use prime farmland for urban development. “In BC, the area of greatest impact is in the Fraser Valley because that’s where there is the greatest level of urbanization and also the greatest quantity and quality of farmland,” says Dr. Connell. “How important is the preservation of our best farmland to the public in BC and to the citizens of communities across Canada? Are local, provincial, and federal bodies implementing policies that reflect the priorities of citizens? We are going to try to measure that.”
Dr. Connell says before 1972, local governments approved the conversion of about 5,000 hectares of prime agricultural land to urban use each year. He says since then "The quality of farmland in the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) has decreased, with more prime farmland (Class 1, 2, and 3) being excluded than being included. Likewise, most of the additions to the ALR have taken place in Northern BC, which growing conditions and soil quality are not as good. This means that the best farmland in the Lower Mainland is being replaced with less productive land in the North. So while it looks like the total amount of farmland has not changed the quality of the land has deteriorated."
Dr. Connell says the biggest cities in Canada are situated where they are in part because that is where the best farmland is located. Consequently, as cities expand, land identified as being some of the most fertile in Canada is being replaced by developments such as golf courses, condominiums, and shopping malls.
The research findings will be presented to all three levels of government, distributed to agricultural advisory committees, and will culminate in a national forum to discuss the final results, and weigh possible best practices for communities and governing bodies.
Funding for the study comes from a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Insight Grant worth $464,000. The proposal was selected from 1,799 submissions from across Canada.
Comments
Well I hope the study results in a conclusion that Canadians care about where their food comes from, that they prefer to source food grown in their own area, and that they wish the federal government would either subsidize Canadian farmers, like the U.S. does, or place higher tariffs on imports of foreign grown food.
Since that will never happen, and for a variety of reasons, let’s all try to choose locally grown and produced food over a similar item that has been imported.
As far as developing more and more prime farmland into condos, shopping malls and roadways, I hope that the love of money does not continue to trump important issues such as food security within our own country.
metalman.
unfortunately, the masses are so disconnected to where food comes from. All they know is that it comes from a big store.
Just like asking a teenager, where electricity comes from? A plug in, in the wall, where else.
I wonder if they will look at the farmland that is being purchased by large companies so they can plant trees for carbon credits?
I heard this guy speaking on CBC Daybreak North this morning and his comment about Prince George only having 3 days food available if the roads were cut off to the south due to a disaster. Add the complication of winter weather and it gets scary to think about it…
While most people would agree with the stated intention of the ALR to preserve farmland, what we really should’ve concentrated on preserving was the soil itself.
There is some sort of notion afoot that the soil in areas like Delta and Richmond is being renewed, like in ancient times in Egypt through the flooding of the Nile delta. This is certainly not the case nowadays, where those areas have been diked, and the Fraser no longer annually inundates those farms with a fresh layer of soil washed down from upstream.
The soil that is on those lands could be relocated elsewhere, if some other non-agricultural development were to be more desirable on them. And should be. Rather than as was formerly the case, where it was simply ‘paved over’.
What the ALR did do, when it was enacted by the NDP way back in the 1970’s, was drive up the price of all developable lands outside of the ALR. And the government got to tax this increase. It was a sneaky way of filching more revenue, and did very little, if anything, to preserve the farmer or increase the viability of agriculture.
I agree cougars………such a shame to see it every time I drive by it. If companies want to feel good, collect their carbon credits and plant some trees I think we can find some areas destroyed by the pine beetle that have trees too small to be merch. They could rehab those areas and collect their carbon credits. However, the companies would rather buy huge farms, replant the fields into forests and lock everyone out so that their rich CEOs can bring over their clients from Europe and the US and hunt their private land.
Socredible: Keep your obviously biased opinion to yourself. I have never heard such hogwash. I am not an NDP’er but at least I have the integrity to notice the intent of the NDP when they introduced the ALR act in 1972. Just like they brought in the Fast Cats. People like you who oppose them so much they destroy a good thing. The ALR was wonderful up until it got into the hands of the following gov’t who didn’t understand the program and perverted it for a “money grab”. I lived in Richmond then and even old Vander Zalm was pissed at the idea of the ALR. He bought my uncle’s land and had wanted to develop his big “Wonderland Park”. ALR put a damper on that. Regardless they changed the zoning and what used to be black loam became blacktop. I am a firsthand witness. “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot”.
I’m certainly no farmer, but speaking from a common sense point of view, would it not stand to reason that it’s a good thing to ensure that we have enough arable land available in order to grow food for our population?
Studies show that half of the food BC consumes is imported. A majority of our fruits and vegetables are imported from California. Climate change is putting areas like California under increasing agricultural pressure due to droughts, and water shortages for irrigation.
We need to diversify our food sources, the ALR needs to be protected and funding incentives increased for “supply local and buy local” initiatives!
http://www.news1130.com/2011/11/03/is-bcs-food-supply-too-vulnerable/
Please don’t compare ALR with the Fast Cats. It was the NDP themselves who parked the Cats before the election, one did not even see hardly any crossings because when it was delivered the other two were in the process of being mothballed by Joy MacPhail herself in March 2001. 2 months later they lost the election
How does the rest of Canada and the world do without the ALR? One thing that boggles the mind are places like the Gaza Strip with a land base the same size as Prince George city limits with 1.6 million people don’t starve to death. Imagine growing all the food required for 1.6 million people and housing them all within coty boundaries and still having room to grow crops and animals
People#1 there you run off again. The world is actually greening from the rise in natural c02.
Comments for this article are closed.