The ALR

Farmland protection regimes are not exclusive to BC, but the Agricultural Land Reserve (also known as the ALR) is considered by many to be an excellent example of a scheme that works. At its inception in the early 1970's, the ALR has set aside approximately 4.7 million hectares, or 5.0% of the province's land area, for agricultural purposes. Over the ensuing years, this figure has remained essentially the same although the boundaries have changed as land has been included or excluded.

The word "excluded" has become fairly important over the last couple months in BC. But before we can get into that, a little background is required.

The ALR's inception started with the Land Commission Act in 1973, and from 1974 to 1976 the ALR was established through cooperative efforts with regional districts and member municipalities. Local input on an ALR plan was gained through a public hearing process.

Exlcusions from the ALR have always been the responsibility of the Agricultural Land Commissions (ALC). In order for the ALC to consider an application for exclusion the municipality or local authority within which the property, or properties, in question fall, must support the exclusion.

The problem with this process is that, despite claims to the contrarty, it is has often been a political one. Successive provincial governments have put their respective stamp, or at the very least a guiding hand, on ALC decisions, and not always in the typical fashion one would expect - i.e. left wing governments protecting ALR land and adding to and right wing goverments depleting ALR land at the request of developers and business. Of course, to hear any government speak on the issue, they're all dedicated to ALR protection and the preservation of our food lands.

The current government of BC did institute a notable change to the ALC about four years ago. They removed the ALC from the Ministry of Agriculture and created six regional panels made up of three commissioners. They also permitted municpalities and regional governments more decision making authority, or at the very least more input into the exclusion application process.

The general tone of the media has been one of alarm. There is much concern that ALR exlcusion applications have increased in number and that the overall percentage of permitted exclusions is quite high, somewhere in the range of 70% to 85%.

The current Minister of Agriculture recently maintained on CKNW's Bill Good Show that this figure is unchanged from the previous government, and is in fact, at an all time low.

This answer was one of those techincally true statements that actually obsfucates a more important point.

Did you catch it?

It's all good and fine that the percentage of exclusion applications has remained the same, and maybe has even fallen. However what if the total number of exclusion applications had risen, such that instead of 1,000 received there were 5,000 received?

Well wouldn't an unchanged 70% of those applications mean that the total number of applications accepted increased? My calculator says yes - 700 applications versus 3,500. Still 70% percenent - unchanged, perhaps even less.

So for political reasons, the government can say it has not increased exclusions, while in fact doing just that.

Which is not to say that the previous NDP (left) government wasn't rife with hypocrisy on the issue. They, in fact, merrily excluded land from the ALR while constantly proclaiming a vast increase in provincial park land area. At least the current government has shown political instincts in removing ALC decisions from government so they can claim, as a last resort, that they are not responsible for making exclusion decisions.

A recent successful exclusion application was made by the City of Abbotsford for approximately 900 acres of farmland to be exlcuded, some quite good farmland (other land was not so good). The reason was to protect jobs in the City by having more industrial land.

A current controversial exclusion application is on Barnston Island in the Fraser River, where approximately 1,100 acres has been proposed for exclusion for the purpose of building a business park (the developer's words) or industrial park (critics' words).

I guess that one point that doesn't often get noted is the asthetic appeal of rural land and the desire of people to have these quiet, "jewel" areas close by - perfect for an afternoon drive, horse-back riding, or a stop at a roadside fruit or vegetable stand. It seems strange that after many municipalities finally seem to be adopting so-called "smart-growth" policies (where reasonable density is used, like apartments above stores, smaller single-family lots, and higher densities at transit nodes) they are at the same time, increasingly supporting exlcusion applications in what has historically been rural land.

I hope that cooler heads prevail in all of this and a way is found to accomdate all interests that does not involve to continuous eating away at some of the most productive food land in Canada.