Once upon a time in the province of British Columbia Canada where agricultural land is in short supply a premier and his cabinet listened to the concerns of farmers and passed Order-in-Council (OIC) 4483 under the Environment and Land Use Act, imposing a land ‘freeze’ that prohibited the subdivision or the use of agricultural land for anything but the cultivation of agricultural crops. A second OIC defined the ‘freeze’ as affecting all parcels of two acres or more.In 1973 the Land Commission Act and regulations were passed and an arms-length, independent Land Commission (LC) was appointed to administer the provincial zone called the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR). While there have been minor changes to the Agricultural Land Reserve Act over four decades it has served residents of B.C. well and it has remained unique in the world.Fast forward to 2013-2014 and a unique piece of legislation was part of the government’s core review and changes were made.Under the new legislation, the ALR has been divided into two zones. Zone One includes south Vancouver Island, the lower Fraser Valley, and the Okanagan. Zone Two includes the Kootenays, central B.C. and the north. Different regulations will apply in each zone. Six regional panels, three in zone one and three in zone two, will make routine decisions about the use of agricultural land. The panels will be comprised of people who live within the panel’s region.In Zone Two, “value added” operations such as food processing will be considered.    Would the rodeo facility with indoor arenas, a campsite, chuckwagon track, restaurant and offices proposed in 2012 by a farmer near Fort St. John qualify as value added? The commission refused the application, saying there was no evidence that the agricultural land was the only area where the project could be built.The government claims, “Improvements to the ALC that will protect farmland in British Columbia and maintain the ALC’s independence.” Wasn’t the protection of farm land always the objective? In 1973 the mandate was to “preserve agricultural land for farm use”; and to encourage the establishment and maintenance of family farms.Approximately 3.3 per cent of the landmass in British Columbia is suitable for raising crops so the preservation and protection of every acre is critical if food security is a consideration.Why did the government decide to make the changes to the ALR?Could it have been influenced by a report published in 2009 by the Fraser Institute called “The B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve: A Critical Analysis”? The author, Diane Katz, is a research fellow with the institute.The idea of food security is disputed by Katz and it is clear in her report that she has a bias towardindustrial agriculture and the existing system for growing food anywhere in the world and moving it huge distances to consumers. Katz’s comments about the ALR are indeed worrisome. She states, “The very premise of the ALR is anachronistic. Advances in agronomy and biotechnology have dramatically increased yields, thereby easing demand for farmland. For example, reflecting land substitution, B.C. greenhouse area grew 305 per cent between 1986 and 2006.”Local food production has no place in Katz’s world. “The existence of the land reserve is largely based on the notion that locally grown agricultural products are inherently healthier, safer, and more environmentally friendly, and that they are a necessary component of a reliable and secure food supply. This belief is known as ‘localism’. But a simple adherence to ‘food miles’ does not account for the variety of ‘inputs’, such as energy, irrigation and fertilizer, that are necessary to grow food.”Given the passage of Bill 24, can we look forward to 40 more years of agricultural land protection?  Wendell Berry, a Kentucky farmer stated, “We must, I think, be prepared to see, and to stand by, the truth: that the land should not be destroyed for any reason.” Given the current government’s approach, one can only wonder whether the ALR will survive.

Grand Forks Gazette