UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Private institutions for public interests : the land trust movement comes to British Columbia’s Fraser… Haigh, Caroline Elizabeth 1996

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1997-0013.pdf [ 11.67MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087581.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087581-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087581-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087581-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087581-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087581-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087581-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS FOR PUBLIC INTERESTS: THE LAND TRUST MOVEMENT COMES TO BRITISH COLUMBIA'S FRASER RIVER DELTA by CAROLINE ELIZABETH HAIGH B.A., Duke University, 1992 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Resource Management and Environmental Studies) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1996 © Caroline Elizabeth Haigh, 1996 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department The University of British Columbia Vancouver,, Canada •ate Mn/Ukfi.jjl, DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT This thesis evaluates how the management and protection of private lands in North America with important public values can be improved through the creation of a land trust: a private, non-profit, community-based institution with a mission to protect land. In particular, it draws attention to how private land conservation efforts can most effectively benefit from land trusts and government working in tandem to ensure long-term sustainable management and protection of the land and its vital functions. Preliminary chapters set out the theoretical context for this study. The literature is reviewed to identify the shortcomings of conventional land conservation efforts, specifically the difficulties behind protecting common pool resources and the inadequacies of government land-use management processes to overcome such difficulties. Secondly, literature pertaining to land trusts is surveyed to offer a descriptive overview of these increasingly popular institutions, including an analysis of their strengths and weaknesses. From this review, a set of criteria for conditions under which a land trust is likely to be successful is derived. Next, in case study format, private land conservation in the Fraser River delta of British Columbia is examined and the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust is evaluated against the set of criteria developed from the literature. On the basis of the findings of the case study, it is concluded that this community-driven land trust has the potential to resolve impasses and overcome antagonisms to advance a shared vision of the future that protects Delta's interdependent values. o ii Finally, recommendations are offered for improving the endeavors of the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust and more generally for facilitating the adoption of more effective and viable land trusts across North America. A case is made for enhancing public/private collaboration to integrate the strengths that both land trusts and government bring to land conservation. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ii Table of Contents iv List Of Tables vii List Of Figures viii List of Maps ix List Of Acronyms x Acknowledgments xi Chapter I. Private Institutions For Public Interests 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Purpose: Goal And Objectives 3 1.3 Organization And Methodology 4 1.4 Scope •. 6 1.5 Assumptions 7 1.6 Limitations 8 Chapter II. Conflict Between Public And Private Values/Needs 2.1 Introduction 10 2.2 Current Worldview Origins And Values 11 2.3 CPRs And The Nature Of Natural Resources 16 2.3.1 Defining Properties 16 2.3.2 Implications for Protection of CPRs 18 2.4 Why Worry About Private Land Conservation? 20 2.4.1 The Ecosystem Concept 21 2.4.2 Important CPRs Found On Private Land 24 2.4.3 Protected Public Lands Alone Not Enough 27 2.4.4 Current Land-Use Leading To A "Tragedy " 28 2.5 Implications for Protection of Case Study CPRs 31 2.6 Limitations of CPR Literature 35 2.7 Traditional Land Conservation: Need For Restraint 37 2.7.1 The Government Solution 38 2.7.2 The Market Solution 46 2.8 Summary 48 iv Page Chapter HI. The Emerging Land Trust Movement 3.1 Introduction 50 3.2 An Overview of Land Trusts 51 3.3. Land Trusts: Safeguarding the Public Interests? 62 3.3.1 The Potential Strengths of Land Trusts 63 3.3.2 The Possible Limitations of Land Trusts 72 3.4 Summary 75 Chapter IV. The Analytical Framework: Evaluating Land Trusts 4.1 Introduction 77 4.2 Defining Success 78 4.3 Literature on "Successful" Land Trusts 79 4.4 Two Triads for Instrumental Success 82 4.4.1 The Triad Of Support 82 4.4.2 The Triad Of Institutional Capacity 84 4.5 Measuring For Instrumental Success: The Indicators 86 Chapter V. Land Trust Comes To The Fraser River Delta 5.1 Introduction 88 5.2 The Regional Setting 89 5.3 The Delta's Ecology and Common Pool Resources 93 5.3.1 Wildlife 93 5.3.2 Food Producing Capacity of the Soils: Farmlands 98 5.3.3 Interdependence of the Landscape: CPR Linkages 99 5.4 Emerging Problems In The Delta 101 5.5 Summary 107 Chapter VI. The Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust: A Case Study 6.1 Introduction 108 6.2 Local Context: Delta, British Columbia 109 6.3 Factors Contributing To The Formation Of The DF&WT 122 6.4 The Formation Of The DF&WT 135 6.5 Uniqueness Of The DF&WT 145 6.6 Summary 150 Chapter VTI. Application Of Analytical Framework To DF&WT 7.1 Introduction 152 7.2 Methods for Case Study Data Collection 152 7.2.1 Documentation 153 7.2.2 Interviews 153 7.3 The Triad Of Support: Findings 159 7.4 The Triad of Institutional Capacity: Findings 175 7.5 Summary 189 v Page Chapter V i i i . Conclusions And Recommendations 8.1 Introduction 191 8.2 Conclusions and Recommendations For The DF&WT 192 8.3 General Conclusions And Recommendations 213 8.4. Final Summary 217 References Cited 219 Appendix A Conservation Tools For British Columbia's Land Trusts 234 Appendix B DF&WT Certificate of Incorporation 238 Appendix C DF&WT Constitution 239 Appendix D DF&WT Bylaws 240 Appendix E Letter of Initial Contact 255 Appendix E Interview Consent Form 256 Appendix F Interview Questions 259 vi List of Tables Page 4.1: Supporting Literature 81 5.1: Species at Risk in the Fraser River Delta 104 6.1: Institutional Framework Affecting the DF&WT 118 6.2: DF&WT Founding Committee Members 136 6.3: DF&WT Past and Present Directors 140 6.4: DF&WT Members of Advisory Committees 141 7.1: Interview Subjects 156 7.2: DF&WT On-The-Ground Program Evolution 164 vii List of Figures Page 2.1: Privatized Land with Fixed and Fugitive CPRs 33 2.2: Tragedy of the Commons on Private Land: Part 1 34 2.3: Tragedy of the Commons on Private Land: Part 2 34 4.1: Triad of Support 83 4.2: Triad of Institutional Capacity 85 5.1: Habitat Types Present in the Fraser River Delta in 1880 and 1985 92 7.1: Triad of Support for the DF&WT 159 7.2: Triad of Institutional Capacity for the DF&WT 175 7.3: Increase In DF&WT's Annual Operating Budget 176 7.4: Public Versus Private Funding for the DF&WT 180 viii List of Maps Page 5.1: The Lower Fraser Basin 90 5.2: The Fraser River Delta and The Pacific Flyway 91 6.1: The Delta Municipality 110 ix List of Acronyms AAFC= Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada A L R = Agricultural Land Reserve B B A S = Boundary Bay Area Studies B B C C = Boundary Bay Conservation Committee B C A L C = British Columbia Agricultural Land Commission B C F A = British Columbia Federation of Agriculture CWS = Canadian Wildlife Service CPR = Common Pool Resource DAS = Delta Agriculture Society DFI = Delta Farmers Institute DIAND = Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development DFO = Department of Fisheries and Oceans DF&WT - Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust D S & W C G = Delta Soil & Water Conservation Group EC = Environment Canada F B M P = Fraser Basin Management Program F E A R O = Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office FRAP = Fraser River Action Plan G V R D = Greater Vancouver Regional District M O A F F = Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food M O E L P - Ministry of Environment Lands & Parks N A W M P = North American Waterfowl Management Plan PCJV = Pacific Coast Joint Venture U B C = University of British Columbia W H A C C = Wildlife Habitat Advisory Committee on Compensation X Acknowledgments This wonderful Canadian academic adventure would not have been possible without the financial assistance from Rotary International through their Ambassadorial Scholarship of Goodwill as well as the Tri-council Eco-research Secretariat through the Lower Fraser Basin Eco-research Project at the University of British Columbia. There are also a number of people I would like to acknowledge for the roles they played in the successful completion of my masters. Firstly, I am deeply indebted to my thesis committee, Tony Dorcey, Les Lavkulich, and Kathryn Harrison, for their unwavering commitment and enthusiasm in helping me make this thesis a reality. Secondly, I must thank the staff of the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust, Dr. Wayne Temple, Dr. Mary Taitt, and Susan Smith, for it is largely through their committed work that I have come to understand the complexities of the issues facing Delta. Thirdly, appreciation must be offered to each of the individuals I interviewed in connection with this research, who all took time out of their busy schedules to share their experience with me. I also owe immeasurable thanks to Shannon Shields and Sandra Brown for their assistance with my maps and editing. Finally, on a more personal note, I am beholden to my family and friends for their love and encouragement. To my RMES buddies, your friendship and guidance will not be forgotten; all of you taught me so much. To my family, thank you for having faith in me and helping me keep perspective on what is really important in life. Finally, to my true companion, Kevin, I owe you my deepest gratitude for your constant support, wisdom, and love even from so many miles away; thank you my friend for believing in me! xi 1 C H A P T E R O N E Private Institutions for Public Interests in Land The word land is both ambiguous and value-laden. In its narrowest sense it means simply the solid ground beneath our feet which can be surveyed, cropped or built upon. But, in a more inclusive sense, more consistent with natural reality, the concept of land involves the entire ecosystem, the 'natural order' which embraces landform, soil, water, air and living things. (Rowe 1994, 4) 1.1 INTRODUCTION How we value land relative to other things ultimately determines how we will care or not care for it! Western industrial society's current worldview for treating land, our land ethic if you will, adopts the narrowest interpretation of land as a commodity and is reflected daily in the increasing acreage of land being subdivided and developed. Prime agricultural land that once produced basic sustenance is being replaced by sprawling suburbs. Forest land that once provided habitat to numerous wildlife species is being exchanged for shopping malls. Such exploitation of land, whether for short-term private, political, or economic advantage, is common. It is the result of landowners selling their "property" to developers because it makes good sense to the owner. However, the cumulative impacts of each inappropriate development brings all of society closer to a "tragedy of the commons" (Hardin 1968), a situation where the individual benefits from land sales collectively impoverish society's interests in the landscape; the populace incurs a significant cost in terms of an erosion of common pool resources (CPRs). 1 1 A CPR is a natural resource system whose physical structure makes nearly impossible to exclude individuals from its shared benefits and one person's consumption of it reduces the amount available to anyone else. The 2 The conflicts arising over such land use have created an adversarial environment, pitching landowners and other interest groups into polarized camps. On any day, in any town, people are likely to be arguing about some issue of land use. Most of the issues have one quality in common. They involve a conflict between two valued rights: the right of individual people to acquire and use property and the right of the community to control its common resources for the health, welfare, and enjoyment of all (Rousch 1992, 11). As these disputes play themselves out, often over many years, the outcome typically is described as a victory for one side, a bitter defeat for the other. One of the most difficult land use issues is how to reconcile private landowner rights to land with important public or community needs that might impinge on those individual rights. Traditionally, the responsibility of protecting public interests in the land has been placed in the hands of government. To protect the land and its resources, government has implemented a land-use planning strategy consisting of acquiring, holding, and regulating land. As a result, a significant percentage of land in North America is in public ownership (e.g., in British Columbia government owns and manages 94% of the land (Sandborn 1996, 150)) and numerous regulations have been established to control how private land is managed. Despite government efforts, however, the land use tragedy continues. Large areas of undeveloped, privately owned land are vulnerable to short-term development pressures or unsustainable management practices. Much of this unprotected land possesses some of the most biologically diverse and productive ecosystems, such as wetlands (Sandborn 1996). scope and scale of a CPR ranges from a forest on which a community depends to the Earth's atmosphere, a global commons. 3 In North America, many communities concerned with land degradation have become deeply frustrated by the failure of governmental land-use-management programs to protect precious places from urbanization or excessive resource extraction. As a result, a growing number of communities are establishing private, non-profit conservation organizations known as land trusts to protect land from incompatible forms of development (Wright 1993). As their numbers and influence have increased, land trusts are not only transforming the way in which land is managed and protected but also redefining the government's role in land conservation. 1.2 PURPOSE: G O A L AND OBJECTIVES The primary goal of this thesis is to evaluate the potential for using a land trust to preserve productive private lands and maintain ecological functions (e.g. wildlife habitat).2 The focus is generally on North America with particular attention paid to a case study in the Fraser River Delta, an area in British Columbia, Canada, where adjacent land areas, devoted largely to soil-based agriculture, provide important habitat for many resident and migratory species. However, the Fraser River Delta is located in a region experiencing rapid population growth and urbanization and thus being increasingly impacted by human activity. To meet its goal, the thesis has a number of specific objectives. By conducting a literature review the thesis: • conceptualizes the problem; 2 My personal goal for this study is to contribute to efforts aimed at empowering landowners to become better stewards of their land. 4 • assesses the strengths and shortcomings of conventional approaches to land conservation; • examines how land trusts can overcome the shortcomings of conventional approaches while building on their strengths; and • develops a set of criteria for conditions under which a land trust is more likely to be successful. Next, by undertaking a case study of the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust (DF&WT), the thesis: • describes how the case study fits into the context of the North American land trust movement; • identifies the circumstances that encouraged the DF&WT to emerge and their implications for the DF&WT's construction and operation; • applies the set of evaluative criteria developed from the literature to the DF&WT; • identifies the strengths and weaknesses of the DF&WT based on the criteria; • recommends ways to build on the strengths and remedy the weaknesses; and • identifies lessons from the DF&WT that are transferable to other land trusts in North America. 1.3 ORGANIZATION AND METHODOLOGY Given this purpose, the thesis begins in the next chapter by examining why it is important to address the increasing difficulties in protecting CPRs across landscapes under private ownership in North America. After a reflection on the implications of western 5 society's worldview on our attitudes toward the environment, the characteristics of CPRs in relation to other types of natural resources are discussed. Both of these sections help to explain why the protection of CPRs is so difficult. Next, the reasons why private land conservation is necessary are given. This chapter argues that critically important ecosystems found on private land are decaying under a growing "tragedy of the commons" and reviews the literature on conventional solutions to protect these public resources which largely involved the public sector. In addition, this section presents the argument for relying on the market to protect society's values in order to explain the pros and cons of privatizing land. In Chapter Three the study introduces the land trust, examining them as an alternative approach to land conservation which does not directly involve the public sector. The chapter provides a general characterization of these increasingly popular institutions in terms of their structure, methods, origins, and accomplishments. An overview of the cited advantages and disadvantages of land trusts is also presented and compared with public sector approaches. Chapter Four submits one approach for evaluating land trusts. Based on the previous literature review, a set of criteria for conditions under which a land trust is likely to be successful is derived. More specifically, six evaluative criteria for successful land trusts are presented. Organized into two triads, the "Triad of Support" and the "Triad of Institutional Capacity", these criteria refer to conditions under which a land trust will more likely be effective in achieving its goals and objectives. In case study format, private land conservation in the Fraser River Delta of British Columbia is then examined and the DF&WT is evaluated against the set of criteria developed from the literature. Chapter Five begins by setting the regional context, geographically and 6 historically. This chapter also provides an overview of the important CPRs found in the Fraser River Delta and the threats facing them. Chapter Six sets the specific context in which the DF&WT is operating. After outlining the general setting of the Municipality of Delta, where the DF&WT's efforts are currently focused, the discussion moves to what factors influenced the creation of this land trust institution. Following, the features of the DF&WT are introduced, specifically its structure, mode of operation, and uniqueness relative to other land trusts in North America. In Chapter Seven the findings from applying the criteria for a successful land trust to the DF&WT are presented. These findings are based upon data collected from documents and file material as well as interviews with stakeholders in the region, including government officials, landowners and representatives of community interest groups. The purpose of Chapter Eight is two-fold. First, a general assessment is made of the land trust's ability to meet the criteria, followed by recommendations on how to build on the strengths and remedy any impediments to the DF&WT's success. Second, general conclusions and recommendations are offered concerning the prospects for land trusts and government to cooperatively enhance land conservation throughout North America. 1.4 SCOPE In terms of geographical scope, this study is bounded within the North American context. Though much of the discussion concerning the problems with managing important CPRs on land that is privately controlled or managed is applicable in other areas around the world, the literature almost entirely originates from and is applied to the United States and 7 Canada. Particular attention is directed toward British Columbia, Canada, a province with a unique context because of its high percentage of Crown lands.3 When analyzing land use in this context, there are many varieties of nonprofit conservation and land management institutions that could be discussed. However, this study concentrates solely on land trusts as the organizational format. Moreover, the array of conservation tools dealt with pertain only to those available to land trusts. In terms of CPRs being discussed, this study limits its focus to maintaining ecological processes on land. This is reflected in the choice of the DF&WT as a case study, an institution looking at how to provide wildlife-friendly farming and maintain food security through sustainable agriculture. The management of aquatic environments and species will not be included in this thesis. 1.5 ASSUMPTIONS Within this study there are a number of assumptions being made concerning CPRs, private land ownership, public land management, agriculture and wildlife. These assumptions are as follows: • respect for and protection of ecological systems, inherent in the land, is a necessary condition of sustainability;4 3 In Canada, most government owned lands are legally termed "Crown lands" because title to these lands rests with the Crown, much as government itself operates in the name of the Crown. From this point on, lands that are in government hands are referred to generically in this thesis as "public lands", with government regarded as being the owner. 4 Sustainability, as used in this study, is defined as the economic state where demands by people on the environment can be achieved without diminishing the environment's carrying capacity (Hawken 1993, 140). 8 • private land ownership and the rights that accompany that ownership will be a continuing characteristic of our society; • protecting the ecological integrity of a system requires recognizing that humans and their activities are an integral part of the environment; • while problems persist in private ownership, there is no guarantee that management by public agencies will ameliorate the situation; • even though agriculture can be a major contributor to the decline of land and its vital resources, human survival depends on a healthy agricultural land base; and • agricultural land use and wildlife habitat under the right conditions are compatible. 1.6 L I M I T A T I O N S It is also important to note the limitations associated with this study. The first limitation relates to the interviews conducted for the case study. Being the sole interviewer with a limited amount of available time restricted the number of interviews I could conduct. While the opinions of the primary interests relating to the DF&WT were obtained, the interviews do not represent a definitive response; it was not feasible to secure the thoughts of every individual concerned with or affected by the DF&WT. Those interview candidates contributing to this study were individuals willing to express their views; able to dedicate their time to an interview; and had knowledge of or an experience with the DF&WT. A second limitation concerns the analytical framework. The criteria for a successful land trust derived from the literature assumes that establishing a land trust is the optimal approach for protecting public values across a landscape. Choosing this framework imposes 9 limitations on the scope of my conclusions. I will be able to draw conclusions about what could make the DF&WT, and potentially other land trusts, more successful in meeting their goals and objectives (a vitally important question), but not about whether it will be more or less effective than alternative approaches. 10 C H A P T E R T W O Conflict Between Public And Private Values How land is used by its owner will depend on how society values the land for its different uses, institutions concerned with land use, and the owner's individual preferences. Not everyone owns the land, but the fugitive nature of wildlife and the publicness of its habitat ensures a public interest in the continued presence of wildlife and a varied landscape. Thus the manner in which private land is used influences the quality of the environment and the quantity of wildlife habitat. (Porter 1994, 8) 2.1 INTRODUCTION The above statement illustrates two important facets of North American land management. First, land is managed on the basis of ownership. With a secure claim on land, an individual or institution possesses a set of rights to use the land to meet his or its individual goals (Bromley and Gibbs 1989). Unfortunately, landowners are often driven to achieve short-term, economic return from the land that results in unsustainable land management practices. Western industrial society's paradigm for treating land and its resources as private property gives rise to a second facet of North American land management: the common conflict between short-term private interests and long-term public interests in the land. Society is sustained by environmental goods and services. These goods and services in the long term are dependent on the maintenance of ecological processes, which seldom adhere to the arbitrary boundaries of ownership. Yet, we continue sanctioning the rejection of community driven parameters of restraint for individual monetary incentives that yield considerable short-term profits. One of the most difficult land ethic issues is how to reconcile traditional assumptions 11 regarding private or individual rights to land with important public or community needs that might impinge on those individual rights. The following chapter elaborates on the importance and complexities of combating CPR degradation. Following this introduction, section 2.2 reflects on the western society's worldview and its implications for our values. Section 2.3 describes the characteristics of CPRs in relation to other types of natural resources1 and assesses the value of the CPR model. Section 2.4 addresses the importance of protecting CPRs across privatized landscapes. With that, the final section illustrates our conventional reliance on government and the market to protect CPRs, considering their advantages and disadvantages of the approaches. 2.2 C U R R E N T W O R L D V I E W ORIGINS AND V A L U E S Institutional arrangements for the use, management and protection of CPRs are created and evolve as responses to certain combinations of circumstances. The philosophy from which they are constructed is an important component. A number of historians agree that the current traditions in North America for the use of the Earth's ecosystems are the realization of an epistemology born in the Western World centuries ago, out of the Scientific and Industrial revolutions and the establishment of Neoclassical economics (Jones 1988; Berman 1984; Capra 1983; Biggins 1978; Ehrenfeld 1 Such an understanding is necessary because the particular structure of the natural resource being degraded influences which solutions for its protection are optimal. 12 1978). The result has been an attitude of dominance over, exploitation of and separation from the land (Biggins 1978). Nature Is Inanimate and Controllable: the Scientific and Industrial Revolutions During the Scientific Revolution a conceptualization of Nature2 as controllable and mechanistic was exhibited. Plato's rationalism and Aristotle's empiricism provided the philosophical foundations of modern science (Jones 1988). Bacon's experimentalism and Descartes' means of precise measurement convinced the world that Nature was no longer to be contemplated; it was to be acted upon (Capra 1983). Finally, Newton's atomism formulated the mechanistic philosophy and subsequent reductionist approach to explaining natural phenomenon. Reductionism compelled humans to know Nature by dividing it into measurable Cartesian units in order to manipulate Nature to our advantage. Thus, the goal of the Scientific Revolution came to be control which Biggins (1978) argues is now reflected in our modern science. According to Biggins (1978, 220): The concepts, explanations, causal reasoning, metaphors and analogies used in modern science select those aspects of Nature (simple, mechanical, repetitive, additive phenomenon) and those cognitive processes (counting, measuring, etc.) that are susceptible to manipulation and control. It was the Industrial Revolution that changed the intensity with which land was manipulated (Berman 1984). There was extreme growth and expansion of human settlements as the result of technology decreasing the number of limiting factors (Greenwood and Edwards 1973). The resulting urbanization removed humans, physically and psychologically, from Nature. Most humans are now isolated in an urbanized environment that is largely 2 For this discussion, Nature is defined as relatively unstressed, untrammeled and undisturbed ecosystems. 13 insensitive to natural processes. Furthermore, the arbitrarily drawn political boundaries of these urban centers reinforce the belief that they are independent components of the ecosystem. The Industrial Revolution also brought about society's mesmerization with the wonders of technology (Berman 1984; Capra 1983). With each technological advancement it seems society becomes more convinced that technology is the answer to any problem. This belief often extends to ecological problems as well, as argued by Fritjof Capra (1983, 218): Wasteful energy consumption is countered by nuclear power; lack of political insight is compensated for by building more missiles and bombs; and the poisoning of the natural environment is remedied by developing special technologies that, in turn, affect the environment in still unknown ways. Land Is A Commodity: Neoclassical Economics Like modern science our modern capitalism, which is based on neoclassical economics, emphasizes the exploitation of the land. The scientific goal of achieving dominion over the natural world paralleled the economic goal of using land to produce the material benefits of capitalism. Neoclassical economics creates markets when resources or goods are scarce. Under this system, one such good or resource is land.3 From abundant and free, to scarce and valuable, land and the goods and services it provides, become an economic commodity to be "...bought, owned, sold and used for some form of financial return" (Caldwell 1993, 4). The 3 In economics, the term "land" includes the natural environment such as the oceans, the atmosphere, and any ecological processes (Daly & Cobb 1989). 14 consequence of commoditizing land, according to Daly and Cobb (1989, 99) is "...the 'forces of nature' and therefore nature in general, have disappeared from view". Authors Vatn and Bromley (1993) argue that the monetization of land was the result of the perceived need for "precise" valuation as markets evolved. They go on to argue that to be operational markets require that "...conceptual and definitional boundaries can be drawn around [inputs] and property rights can then be attached or imagined" (Vatn & Bromley 1993, 14). Consequently, references to the value of land are usually based on its location and price in the marketplace, with the price being determined by market values (i.e., its ability to be improved or developed to satisfy human interests) over a certain time period (Daly & Cobb 1989). In this sense, land is simply capital rather than a contributor to the production of goods. For example, agricultural land is defined as material for the manufacture of food products while urban land is deemed to be little more than a substrate on which to pour concrete. Such a perception, according to Paul Christensen (1991), leads directly to believing the economy is not dependent on the land because capital can serve as its substitute. In addition to commoditizing land, neoclassical economics has been fundamental in encouraging the growth mentality. Society has come to operate on the assumption that growth is always possible and that growth brings about an increase in wealth (Daly & Cobb 1989). Our land use plans reflect this assumption, as we try to obtain the largest yield of marketable products from land without limits. In sum, the dominant philosophy toward the natural world, including land, is that it is made up of assets solely for the purpose of satisfying human needs (Grima and Berkes 1989). As an asset, land then becomes something to be owned, managed and manipulated. 15 Ownership And Property Rights An outcome of this western worldview of owning land is the existence of property rights. According to Gibbs and Bromley (1989), ownership comes in a number of forms, with the most common of these being state property, private property and common property. State property refers to government having a secure claim on a property to hold as a public trust (e.g., parks). Private property occurs when an individual or business possesses the ownership rights (e.g., a woodlot or farmland). Finally, common property exists when groups of individuals have the rights to a collective good, which is often described as private property collectively held (e.g., community fishery). Property can also be subject to a combination of institutional arrangements. For example, a forest may be owned by government while a private logging company secures rights to extract some of the products of the property. The property rights accompanying each type of ownership are legally viewed as a combination of several more specific rights. Those most commonly associated with ownership are the right to use the property; the right to use the property exclusively; and the right to transfer the property (Goodwin 1990). However, these bundles of rights, which combined constitute property rights, vary by what rules society has determined to impose. As explained by Gibbs and Bromley (1989, 25): There is nothing inherent in a resource itself to determine absolutely the nature of property rights. Fisheries, wildlife, water and forests are all capable of being nationalized, privatized or managed collectively. The nature of property and the specification of rights to resources are determined by members of a society and the rules and conventions they choose to establish -not by the resource itself. 16 2.3 CPRS AND THE NATURE OF NATURAL RESOURCES From an anthropocentric perspective on natural resources as goods for human use, there exist a number of proposals for classifying natural resources. A number of these classifications are based on the distinction between the public versus private level of access and control over the resource. This forms the basis of the following discussion. 2.3.1 Defining Properties Renewable And Non-Renewable Natural resources have varying regeneration rates (Hunter 1996). Some resources are renewable (e.g., solar energy, water), which means their supplies will last indefinitely if used sustainably.4 Non renewable resources have supplies that are finite and exhaustible, in terms of the rate at which human use requires them (e.g., mineral deposits). However, even the most renewable of resources can be subject to overuse, subsequently becoming a non-renewable resource. According to Elinor Ostrom (1990, 32): ...approaching the limit of resource units not only may produce short-term crowding effects but also may destroy the capability of the resource itself to continue producing resource units. For example, even though salmon has a regeneration rate that makes it a renewable resource, the fish can be driven to extinction if the population is reduced below its critical minimum threshold where there are too few fish to replenish the population (Gibbs & Bromley 1989). 4 It is important to note that resources categorized as renewable are those that can reproduce at a rate within a human-scaled time frame. 17 Excludability And Subtractability Using the terminology put forth by Weimer and Vining (1992), "excludability" is the ability of one person to obtain exclusive control over a resource. Excludability is often used to distinguish between private and public natural resources. This control can take the form of legal control, meaning the "right" to control the use of a resource (e.g., property rights). The other option is physical control where an individual makes it physically impossible for another to use it (Weimer & Vining 1992, 44). The second major attribute is what Ostrom, Gardner and Walker (1994) define as "subtractability". If a resource has the quality of subtractability then one person's consumption of it reduces the amount available to anyone else. Subtractability is a continuous variable; there are degrees to which one individual is capable of decreasing the resource's yield and consequently decreasing everyone else's welfare. For example, if a natural resource has low subtractability, then one person's use of the resource will not subsequently reduce the benefit someone else can derive from it. However, high subtractability beyond a resource's critical minimum threshold results in the resource being depleted. No one benefits with this outcome. According to Ostrom, Gardner and Walker (1994), these two properties—excludability and subtractability—provide a means of distinguishing between the range of natural resources by grouping them into four main types of resources: private, public, toll, and common pool. Private resources have a high degree of excludability (legally and economically) and subtractability (e.g., mineral deposits). In contrast, public resources lack both of these properties (e.g., wind). Toll resources share the high degree of excludability of private 18 resources and the low subtractability of public resources (e.g., zoos). Finally, common pool resources (CPRs) have a low degree of excludability, with a generous degree of subtractability (e.g., wildlife). Fixed And Fugitive A final important characteristic to consider in the management of natural resources is the mobility of the resource. Some natural resources are "fixed" in that they have a permanent locale, such as land or mineral deposits (Gibbs & Bromley 1989; Oakerson 1986). Those resources that physically move through the ecosystem are called "fugitive" resources (Gibbs & Bromley 1989; Ostrom 1990; Oakerson 1986). Fish and wildlife are examples of fugitive resources. The ability of a resource to move across ownership regimes has implications for how it is to be managed. According to authors Gibbs and Bromley (1989), a fixed resource is easily privatized as the resource has relatively clear boundaries. A fugitive resource, on the other hand, is more often left to public or common ownership because its location at any particular place or time is uncertain. 2.3.2 Implications for Protection of CPRs According to the literature, of the spectrum of natural resources, the attributes of CPRs make them particularly vulnerable to intense and often excessive consumption (Ostrom, Gardner & Walker 1994; Weimer & Vining 1992; Hardin 1968). The problems of exclusion 19 leads to CPRs being utilized by numerous individuals and extreme difficulties in enforcing restrictions on their use (Ostrom, Gardner & Walker 1994, 8). Restraining potential beneficiaries of the CPR is often limited due to the physical range of the CPR, monetary costs of exacting compliance, or legal barriers (e.g., wildlife that migrates across international boundaries). The literature also speculates that in this day and age, the subtractability characteristic of CPRs also has severe protection implications (Ostrom, Gardner & Walker 1994; Weimer & Vining 1992; Hardin 1968). When CPRs are abundant, subtractability is low; one individual's extraction of the resource may not noticeably affect the welfare others derive from the resource. Today, however, many CPRs are becoming increasingly subtractable as human numbers multiply along with ever increasing rates of consumption. Consequently, the subtractability of CPRs has become alarmingly noticeable. Returning to the salmon example, while the first salmon caught was unavailable to other fishers, the extraction did not significantly impact them because salmon was abundant. Over time, however, too many fishers have harvested too many salmon. Hence, the salmon stock is in jeopardy of collapsing, a result that would deny salmon to everyone. The most famous characterization of the difficulties in protecting CPRs is Garrett Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" (1968). His theory alleges that whenever a non-excludable and subtractable scarce resource is held in common by a number of individuals, the expected result is resource degradation. Hardin uses the situation of an open pasture on which herders graze cattle to illustrate his theory. Hardin explains that because all herders seek profit maximization, and the individual benefit of adding another cow is greater than the 20 individual cost, each herder will continue to add cattle, leading to grazing beyond the carrying capacity of the pasture. Hardin concludes: Therein lies the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in the commons brings ruin to all (1968, 1244). As explained earlier, most CPRs have either a limited supply or a minimum critical threshold beyond which regeneration is not possible (i.e., non-renewable or renewable). Thus, according to Hardin, the failure of rational individuals to recognize these limits and voluntarily restrain themselves leads to over consumption and ultimately ecological degradation. Hardin's prescription for this problem is a policy of "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon" (Johnston 1989). In other words, Hardin advocates the use of a separate authority to manage and protect common resources, realized either through the institution of privatization or a form of government that enforces restraints. The implications of Hardin's proposal are discussed in section 2.7. 2.4 W H Y W O R R Y A B O U T L A N D C O N S E R V A T I O N ? The next section of this chapter presents the rationale for protecting these fixed and fugitive CPRs found on private land. Ecological processes and concepts are the first reason presented for why conservation on private land is needed. 21 2.4.1 The Ecosystem Concept One reason why private land conservation is important is the ecosystem concept. In sharp contrast to the dominant western worldview described in Section 2.2, the ecosystem concept asserts that Nature is dynamic, constantly changing, and composed of multitudes of interrelationships between living and non-living components (Kay & Schneider 1994). Assuming this is true, then private parcels of land, although legally independent, are biologically (i.e., ecological processes) interdependent within an ecosystem. Consequently, conservation approaches workable for maintaining the ecosystem, require efforts across public and privately owned landscapes.5 What is an Ecosystem? The concept of an ecosystem can be somewhat ambiguous. It is a concept dependent upon perspective of hierarchy, time and scale (Kay & Schneider 1994). Where one draws the boundaries around an ecosystem depends on the scale and extent from which one needs to observe the whole. Consequently, ecosystem definitions are numerous. For the purposes of this thesis, I have adopted Eugene Odum's (1993) depiction of an ecosystem. From this perspective, the remainder of this section describes the essential characteristics of an ecosystem in order to understand the complexity of trying to protect it. An ecosystem is composed of biotic and abiotic components which are integrally connected to each other by specific relationships. The first of two major biotic components is the 5 This point is the basis for the argument about the nonexcludability of the land's life support functions discussed in Section 2.3.2. 22 autotrophs, or self-feeding organisms. Autotrophs, generally green plants, are able to convert inorganic elements to organic forms through photosynthesis, a process known as primary productivity. Heterotrophs, the second major biotic component must obtain their food by consuming other organisms and the primary productivity of autotrophs. Heterotrophs can be further divided into macroconsumers, which feed on plants and animals, and microconsumers, which feed on decaying organic materials. Individual species or communities of species each possess an ecological niche, a specific role within the ecosystem. Moreover, species are constantly adapting their niches as ecosystems are constantly changing. Taken together, these niches have a multitude of interrelationships that form increasingly complex and dynamic webs of life. Thus ecosystems can be defined as systems (within systems) of ecological materials and processes. A typical ecosystem runs on solar energy. The energy flow begins with green plants which harness the sun's energy through photosynthesis. This captured energy is then passed on to each successive consumer organism, with each transfer requiring a portion of the energy to be degraded in order to enable the exchange of necessary nutrients. At the conclusion of this process, when the last portion of energy is finally converted to atmospheric heat, the nutrients remain in the system to be powered through essentially infinite cycles by other inputs of solar energy. Though this basic solar-powered ecosystem is relatively low powered, the organisms have adapted for living on and efficiently using solar energy. Energy-based ecosystems are subject to thermodynamics: the laws that govern the reversible transformation of heat into energy. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that in an open system energy can neither be created nor destroyed. The Second Law of Thermodynamics 23 asserts that energy in a closed system is always moving from higher levels of order to lower levels of order, approaching total disorder or entropy (Kay & Schneider 1994). Ecosystems acknowledge that the ecosphere is a closed system in that energy is exchanged only with the environment. However, through photosynthesis, ecosystems prevent the Earth from ever reaching entropy by increasing the amount of energy that is useable. With this available energy, ecosystems evolve and diversify from a pioneering state to a mature state. Early in the development of an ecosystem, a large part of available energy is used to create new growth. As the ecosystem's structure is erected, more energy is devoted to maintaining it. Mature communities direct energy to increasing the biomass of the existing plant and animal population. Mature communities reach an equilibrium state which encourages the ecosystem to remain largely unchanged; the high level of diversity, stability, and complexity of these communities enables them to be more resilient to distress in the larger ecosphere. According to Odum (1993), this natural succession can be thought of as a "protective" strategy. Human Dependence on Ecosystems In contrast to ecosystems, humans employ a "productive" strategy (Odum 1993). Having built a foundation on an energy intensive substrate called fuel and a market economy which promotes an ever-increasing demand and supply of resources, humans have effectively imitated, with their built environments, the process of a newly formed ecosystem (Hawken 1993). Humans, like pioneer plants, have been assertive and competitive, compelled by the market economy which emphasizes untrammeled growth and ignores efficacy, conservation or diversity (Hawken 1993). 24 However, like the ecosystem, our built environments are subject to Liebig's Law of the Minimum: for any process, the entire system is limited by the single essential factor that is in shortest supply (Odum 1993). Rather than facing the challenges posed by resource limits, market forces are temporarily postponing the limits. However, the nourishment of our built environments (i.e., land, water, air and energy) has a limited supply, except to the extent technology can serve as a substitute. Author Paul Hawken (1993, 24 ) argues: Exceeding carrying capacity does not prove that carrying capacity does not exist, but merely that we know how to evade it temporarily, further damaging the sustainable yield of a given habitat Moreover, Hawken argues that the process of using fossil fuels encourages humans to depend on linear consumption processes at the expense of ecological cycles. He claims market forces have created "...the delusion that business is an open linear system that through resource extraction and technology, growth is always possible given sufficient capital and will" (Hawken 1993, 32). The result is humans ignore the needs and functions of other species sharing the resources as well as the limits to which those resources can be exploited. Our present epistemology does not recognize these constraints. It is therefore necessary to make conscious in society that commensalism with ecosystems is necessary. In other words, humans need to interact with ecosystems in such a way that their activities do not negatively impact ecosystems. Failure to recognize this interrelationship could be detrimental to all of society. 2.4.2 Important CPRs Found on Private Land A second reason why private land conservation in North America is important is because society is maintained by some of the CPRs dependent on lands that are privately 25 owned. As the use of privately owned wildlands and working landscapes (e.g., land under agricultural production) changes, often times the result is CPR degradation. The failure of human societies to prevent a wide range of environmental degradation is often discussed in terms of "common property" resource mismanagement. Indeed, much environmental degradation has been of resources which are either communal...or freely accessible to anyone. However, severe environmental degradation frequently occurs on privately held lands as well (Goodland, Ledec, and Webb 1989, 149). In North America, significant areas of land with important CPR values remain in private ownership. According to Leman (1987), 58 percent of all land in the United States is in private hands. And while only 8 percent of land in Canada is privately owned, Leman argues that this acreage is largely the productive lowland and coastal areas, containing ecosystems not often found on the country's public lands. Many of the ecosystems at greatest risk in North America exist outside of the protected areas on privately owned lands. For example, many rare and valuable types of wetlands are found on private land (Goudie 1994). Wetlands are critical ecosystems for a number of reasons including: coastal fisheries are dependent on wetlands for spawning and nursing; one third of all threatened and endangered plant and animal species identified in the U.S. and Canada utilize wetland habitats for wintering, breeding or as refuge; the hydrology of some watersheds is maintained by wetlands; and wetlands possess vital non-consumptive recreational and educational opportunities (Department of Interior 1996; Environment Canada 1991). For all their worth, wetlands are still being lost. According to Goudie (1994), some estimates figure that since 1900, as much as half of the world's wetlands have been destroyed. 26 In addition, a significant percentage of private land contains modified habitats which can also have high ecological values. Of Canada's 170 million acres of agricultural land in cultivation, nearly all of it is under private ownership (Leman 1987, 30). Similarly, the majority of private property in the U.S. is used for growing crops and raising livestock (Leman 1987, 30) Thus, the food producing soils of North America are almost entirely privately controlled! Furthermore, soil-based farmland is increasingly being recognized as valuable habitat for numerous non-farmed species (Emory 1995; Zekor & Kaminski 1987) For example, Ducks Unlimited, an international non-profit organization working for the protection of wildfowl, asserts that agriculture has a critical role in improving wildfowl populations (Ducks Unlimited 1996). Wildlife is a good example of a CPR that requires private land conservation. Wildlife management is an unusual mix of public and private resource management. Wildlife is a public resource, the protection of which is entrusted to governments, yet wildlife depends on habitat that is not always publicly owned. Moreover, as discussed earlier, wildlife is often a fugitive resource, moving freely between publicly and privately owned lands.6 The difficulties of managing wildlife are summarized in the following statement: Not everyone owns the land, but the fugitive nature of wildlife and the publicness of its habitat ensures a public interest in the continued presence of wildlife and a varied landscape. Thus the manner in which private land is used influences the quality of the environment and the quantity of wildlife habitat (Porter 1994, 8). Wildlife's mobility can make protection efforts difficult and inhibit the public's right to use wildlife for recreational purposes because it may only be found on privately owned lands. 6 However, there are cases where wildlife is not a fugitive resource (e.g., deer, fish, or mink farms). 27 For example, it is estimated that 75% of the wildlife in the United States relies on farmland as habitat. Consequently, public agencies that are responsible for maintaining wildlife-related recreational opportunities must rely to a large degree on privately owned lands to fulfill their agencies' missions (Cook & Cable 1992, 76). 2.4.3 Protected Public Lands Alone Not Enough For the past century, North America has been active in setting aside "islands" of Nature to protect important public values. With the establishment of preserves or parks, it is often believed the protection is complete. And while most experts assert that saving habitat is the single most effective means of conserving ecosystems and biological diversity, the way our society decides which habitat to protect and how to conserve it has commonly resulted in many of our protected areas being inadequate in size and composition to maintain ecological processes, resulting in dysfunctional ecosystems (Ryan 1992). In the State of the World report, author John Ryan (1992) studied the condition of the world's protected areas and came up with a number of conclusions that reinforce the argument that reliance on secured lands alone to maintain ecosystems is inadequate. First, Ryan argues that of the 4.9 percent of the land's surface that is under some form of protection, there is great unevenness in the types of ecosystems represented, with the most common ecosystem found in the Earth's parks being tundra. In Ryan's words: Globally, high-altitude habitats have received a disproportionate share of protective efforts, while others of greater biological significance (such as lowland forests, wetlands, and most aquatic systems) have been neglected (Ryan 1992, 15). 28 Second, the specific boundaries of many parks or reserves are often determined not by ecological considerations, but by anthropocentric considerations. In other words, the parameters of protected lands are seldom based solely on the requirements for maintaining an ecosystem. Instead, lines are drawn that are consistent with human settlements and previously established jurisdictional borders at the expense of ecosystem fragmentation. The problem resulting from such an approach is described by Bill Devall, a deep ecologist, this way: Fragmentation of natural habitats can lead to 'living dead' species—species which remain for some years in human-modified habitats but have no viable population for reproduction to sustain the species or viable interactions in the ecosystem so that evolutionary processes can continue ( Devall 1988, 163). Third, protected areas are threatened by activities outside their borders. Returning to ecological theory, the ecosystems within the parks are directly affected by the activities outside of the parks' arbitrary boundaries. Yet, residential and commercial developments often times abut these protected resources bringing with them the problems of urbanization. Other peripheral pressures include highway construction, dams, gravel mining and pesticides. Fourth, in many protected areas, destructive but economically profitable resource extraction is permitted to continue. In Canada, for example, provincial governments often permit logging in many conservation areas. In other cases, the conservation of a park's ecology is far less of a priority compared to meeting recreational needs. 2.4.4 Current Land Use Leading To A "Tragedy" Another reason to be concerned about private land conservation in the context of CPR degradation is the risk that Hardin's "tragedy of the commons" will become a reality. As 29 continuous growth in population and economic activity expands the demand for land to construct new communities and commercial facilities, it may be the case that the land will be degraded beyond its carrying capacity. In earlier times, expanding onto new land to satisfy increasing needs for space was sustainable because there was considerable land remaining. Today, as the scale and rate of conversion of land to urban uses increases, the biophysical realities of a finite landscape are becoming more evident (Wetzel & Wetzel 1995). Nevertheless, capitalist economics tells us each sale of land to development makes good economic sense. The landowner is able to collect short-term profits from the sale and the land is converted to urban uses, a land use which commands the highest value, in terms of price, under the market system. However, while some land needs to be devoted to urban uses, continuing this conversion of land may become irrational i f it surpasses the point where productivity of the land becomes unsustainable and important CPRs become degraded. There is disagreement over where that point lies. Some individuals (including the researcher) are concerned that the threshold into unsustainability has already been crossed. Assuming this to be the case, the continued urbanization of land represents Hardin's tragedy coming to life. In other words, originally the land, like Hardin's pasture, was communal. However, the land has since been privatized. Thus the theoretical pasture degraded by competing herders' cattle is represented in reality by the North American land base under private ownership degraded by monetarily driven landowners selling their land to development. 30 A specific example, where signs of Hardin's tragedy are looming, is in California's Central Valley, where the conversion of privately owned farmland to non-agricultural uses has become a concern. According to a study conducted by the American Farmland Trust (Wheeler 1996), over 8,000 hectares of California's farmland are lost to urban uses each year. If this rate of loss continues, the Trust predicts that the long-term productive viability of agriculture could be threatened. The problem stems from the fact that with privatization the perception of the landscape's connectivity has been lost. This loss results in a failure to recognize that continually developing the land in different places breaks up the system. The interconnectedness of the landscape to other CPRs in the ecosystem, however, remains evident in such CPRs as wildlife resources because of their fugitive nature. What also fails to be recognized (assuming again that current levels of development may already be unsustainable) is the cumulative impacts to CPRs that each sale of land to development brings. As ecosystems are dynamic and adaptable systems, the first development to take place in an ecosystem might not irreparably damage it. However, the removal of subsequent parcels of land may bring an ecosystem closer to its minimum critical threshold, beyond which the entire system changes or collapses. "Ecosystems cannot always cope with the combined effects of human activities without fundamental functional or structural changes"(Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency 1996, 1). 31 2.5 IMPLICATIONS FOR PROTECTION OF CASE STUDY CPRS The setting of the case study for this thesis is a region where a "tragedy of the commons" looms. One of the concerns is the protection of the region's wildlife, a classic example in the literature of a fugitive CPR. Wildlife depends on the land's ability to provide habitat, which the researcher defines as one of the life support services of the land. This service is being threatened as acreage is increasingly being converted to practices not compatible to wildlife needs. There is another life support service of concern in this case study: the land's food producing capacity (i.e., farming). The case study setting is not only a region with significant wildlife, but also one with rich farming soils, unique to other parts of Canada. This land's food producing capacity is being threatened by unsustainable uses. These life support services upon which humans and other species depend (i.e., food production and wildlife habitat) are generated by the land as part of an ecosystem. (There are also other services that could be assessed, such as the aesthetic amenity provided by a scenic rural landscape.) Due to the critical role these services play in sustaining life, it is argued that they should be recognized as fundamental CPRs. 7 In terms of the subtractability and non-excludability of CPRs, the life support services of the land possess both characteristics. While the land base is not subtractable in the sense that even built upon the soil still remains, the land's capacity to support wildlife and food production can be depleted. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to exclude anyone from benefiting from wildlife and all species are dependent on the land's food producing capacity. 7 This interpretation of the land's life support services is not technology dependent. Even if technology is incorporated, one must still acknowledge the land base because technology is applied to that base. 32 Thus, while the land is not commonly portrayed as a CPR, it is argued that the land's life support functions should be because there is clearly a problem with individuals having incentives to use the land unsustainably whereby some of the life support services may be lost. Our system of private ownership conveys the perception that each property is independent from any other property. Consequently each parcel of private land is managed strictly for the benefit of the owner. However properties are interconnected by fundamental ecological processes that allow goods and services to be provided for the common good.. Together, these parcels of land contribute to ecosystems to sustain life. The failure to adequately recognize these broader societal needs of the land in our system of property ownership results in the land being undervalued and the life support services being further degraded each time a parcel is used unsustainably. It is interesting to note that of the environmental factors that support CPRs namely land, air and water only land is subject to direct ownership in our North American paradigm. Figure 2.1 provides a schematic of CPRs in the case study, the fugitive CPR of wildlife dependent on the life support services of the land, fundamental CPRs. Wildlife is denoted by arrows to represent its fugitive nature. Two of the arrows extend beyond the border to illustrate that some wildlife depend on a variety of habitat or adjacent life support systems. The two arrows encompassed within the box represent fugitive but resident wildlife. In addition, the CPRs' dependence upon a landscape that has been privatized is denoted by the dotted lines and the term "landowner". 33 Figure 2.1 Privatized Land with Fugitive and Fixed CPRs Landowner/"""""^. ^~~~~Laodowner / Landowner Landowner „ Landowner 7 Stationary CPR Property line between landowners (public and private) Fugitive CPRs Using this conceptualization of CPRs on private land, figures 2.2 and 2.3, on the following page, provide a visual interpretation of the looming tragedy of the commons in the case study. In Figure 2.2 one parcel is developed, causing some disturbance to both the fixed and fugitive CPRs (represented by the broken up arrows), although the system remains largely in tact. As time passes, two more parcels are developed, as illustrated in Figure 2.3. With this additional development, the integrity of the system's CPRs has been broken and only two isolated parcels remain. It is the cumulative impacts of such piecemeal development that can threaten the land's ability to provide life support services (e.g., food production and the maintenance of wildlife habitat), bringing all of society closer to a tragedy of the commons. K E Y Figure 2.2: Tragedy of the Commons on Private Land: Part 1 7 Figure 2.3: Tragedy of the Commons on Private Land: Part 2 Key For Figures 2.2 and 2.3 = Stationary CPRs = Property line between landowners (Society and private) = Fugitive CPRs = Urbanized land 35 2.6 LIMITATIONS OF CPR LITERATURE It is important to note, that while the term CPR may be used in this study, the researcher finds limitations with this construct. For one reason, in much of the CPR literature the terminology tends to be mechanistic due to its economic underpinnings. Often times the focus is on outputs, the stock and flow of benefits. For example, Ostrom defines resource systems, of which CPRs are one type, as: ...stock variables that are capable, under favorable conditions, ofproducing a maximum quantity of a flow variable without harming the stock or the resource system itself (Ostrom 1990, 30). Related to the economic influence is the researcher's concern that the CPR literature fails to give adequate attention to classic non-utilitarian or what Norton (1986) calls contributory values. Instead the CPR literature seems to be concentrated on utilitarian values which refer to: ...the value of using an ecosystem's products and amenities to derive both current and future benefits. These benefits include commercial outputs such as timber, outdoor activities and experiences, wildlife and aesthetics (Costanza 1991, 335). In contrast, contributory values are values normally not captured by the market. Contributory values are those values assigned to ...environmental resources not due to their direct value to humans, but according to their indirect role in maintaining and accentuating the ecosystem processes which support these direct benefits. These include the maintenance of atmospheric and aquatic quality, the amelioration and control of climate, flood control, the maintenance of a genetic library, and the supportive role offood webs and nutrient cycling (Costanza 1991, 335). 36 For example, there are CPRs, such as wildlife, which need to be protected not only because they are useful to us but also because they help sustain the Earth's processes through ecological biodiversity; ultimately everyone benefits from their goods and services. These indirect benefits are not normally captured by utilitarian values. Another weakness is the simplicity of the models used in the CPR literature. The model upon which CPR theorists often base their argument is Hardin's pasture. This CPR exists in a single location and is collectively owned. Such a model fails to address situations where the commons occurs in a variety of places and is not collectively owned. Such a situation appears in the case study of this thesis. The survival of the migratory wildlife requires habitat throughout its transcontinental range, much of which is privately owned. A related weakness of the CPR terminology is the lack of attention given to ecological processes. Traditionally, discussions in the CPR literature seem to be linearly focused around the management of one specific resource. It ecological theory is correct, however, then CPRs are part of a larger ecological context of cycles and processes (Odum 1969). For example, saving a wetland without considering the activities around it or the ecological processes that contribute to its function, such as the hydrologic cycle, may still result in the wetland's demise. Thus, protecting CPRs will require broadening their context beyond units of output to include ecosystems. However, in advocating the CPR literature explicitly address ecological processes, the researcher is not suggesting that all processes be considered. Such a suggestion would be unreasonable and work against developing effective protection of CPRs. Instead, the researcher is suggesting that some of the fundamental processes that directly affect CPRs 37 should be considered. This argument is in keeping with ecological theory which argues that some ecosystem relationships are more crucial to the system's functioning than others (Odum 1993). For example, the birds of the Pacific Flyway are directly dependent on the hydrologic cycle that maintains their wetland habitats. Fortunately, the systemic interconnectedness of resources has been recognized by some authors within the CPR literature (Regier, Mason & Berkes 1989; Gibbs & Bromley 1989; and Grima & Berkes 1989). Gibbs and Bromley (1989, 23) suggest that "...there are good ecological reasons to broaden the concept of resources to something beyond the provision of short-term utility". While Grima and Berkes (1989, 36) make an even stronger argument for looking at resources as components of ecosystems: While resources may be defined in terms of human wants, they cannot be treated as mere tradable assets because much of the ecological value of resources is not reflected in the short-term market value...the ecosystem view of resources makes more sense than the more narrowly market-oriented definition of resources. It is important to note that despite these criticisms, the researcher recognizes the contribution the CPR literature has made to conceptualizing the degradation of natural resources, a challenging dilemma. The limitations referred to are only to argue that a conceptual gap in the CPR model may exist. 2.7 TRADITIONAL LAND CONSERVATION: NEED FOR RESTRAINT It was Garrett Hardin's work which became a popular model for explaining degradation of the environment. McCay and Acheson (1987) attribute this popularity to the 38 models' ability to produce both progressive and traditional political solutions. In other words, in advocating the use of coercion to escape what Hardin anticipated as the inevitable destruction of the Earth's natural resources, solutions involving the public sector or the market were necessary. Hence, policy prescriptions to protect natural resources have tended to either expand government controls or increase individual discretion through privatization. 2.7.1 The Government Solution The traditional approach to protecting important lands has been to rely on government to exercise ascendancy over the lands by possessing and managing them or regulating their use in private ownership. The case for government, or at least some independent body that requires to people take certain actions, relies on the assumption that individuals "...need others to impose rules to ensure that they do act in their own best interests, which is also the collective best interest" (Johnston 1989, 112). This assumption leads to recommendations that government should protect society's needs. Government Acquisition and Management Most land in North America is under public ownership, that is, the land is owned by governments (Leman 1987). Canadian governments collectively own 92 percent of the land base; the federal government owns 40, with the provinces owning just over 50 percent (Leman 1987, 28-29). As mentioned earlier, in British Columbia governments own roughly 94% of the land base (Sandborn 1996, 150). In the United States, governments own 40 39 percent of the entire land base, with states owning only 5 percent of the U.S. total. Moreover, most private lands in Canada and the U.S. were at one time government lands (Leman 1987). The methods government uses to acquire additional lands for public purposes vary from coercive approaches to voluntary exchanges (Feldman and Goldberg 1987, 9). At one extreme, government may acquire land through expropriation, which is an involuntary transfer of private property to the public. However, within expropriation law is a sensitivity to the private landowner which requires that costs associated with societal purposes and hence societal gain be spread throughout the community by payment of compensation (Brubaker 1995). At the other extreme, government acquires land deemed to have important public values when it becomes available or by offering an agreeable price. Over the past century, government's role in protecting and managing land resources expanded significantly. The establishment of parks and wildlife refuges firmly set out the conservation principle that certain lands must be held in trust by government and managed for the good of the country as a whole. In the 1880s, fewer than ten national parks existed in Canada and the United States. Today, the U.S. National Park Service manages 369 reserves, protecting more than 79 million acres. Canada's national park system consists of 36 parks, totalling over 44 million acres (Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology 1994, 34).8 Advantages of Government Ownership Assuming Hardin is correct in that coercion is necessary to prevent individuals from over consuming CPRs, then the biggest advantage of government acquisition is that 8 Again, it is important to remember that in Canada most of the land is already under government ownership and thus, parks are created by designating public lands to conservation purposes. 40 government has the legal authority to coerce. In other words, by placing the resources under the public domain, governments can control how they are used by individuals, enforcing rules that insure the CPRs are utilized sustainably. There is also the advantage that public ownership enables the government to more readily respond to its citizens demands for conservation. For example, Wright and Hilts (1993) point out that large amounts of public lands in Canada have allowed government to commit land to conservation when its citizens demand protection of important areas.9 Moreover, locally accountable governments (e.g., cities, counties and municipalities) are in a particularly good position for serving community demands for protection of CPRs. Being locally-based, these governments can facilitate acquisition and management of important ecological resources that meet landowner and community interests. There is also an argument for government ownership related to efficiency. Some people argue that the size and resources of government enable them to more efficiently protect CPRs. The claim is that when government performs the task directly, which in this case is ownership of the CPRs, management is simplified because the problems of negotiations are avoided and costs are reduced due to economies of scale (Howlett & Ramesh 1995). Finally, reliance on government land acquisition can make good sense when protecting CPRs necessitates prohibiting all human use. In some cases, environmentally critical areas are too fragile to sustain any human activity. Government has the authority and ability to protect large natural landscapes from human use. But as Findlay and Hillyer (1994, 3) point out, 9 In the United States, government more often had to expropriate or purchase land to be responsive to the public's concern for the environment; government set aside land to be conserved in its natural state or to be used only as park land (Findlay & Hillyer 1994). 41 "...that is by no means the only way to protect land and many types of human uses will be compatible with protecting some parcels of land". Limitations of Government Ownership One major concern with relying on government to own and manage CPRs is that many governments are experiencing a chronic mismatch between growing citizen demands for conservation and the availability of funds and staff (Myers, 1992, 9). Both Canada and the United States have experienced a decline in government revenues; governments often cannot afford to protect or designate additional lands (Brown 1993). Exacerbating this condition, particularly in the United States where there is more land under private ownership, is the fact that the price of already expensive land is increasing (Hoose 1981). Another weakness relates to the fact that government is sometimes unable to protect land that needs immediate action. Many government rules and regulations, such as those dealing with acquisition, are laced with delays. While these regulations had often been put in place to protect the society's interests, these regulations can also prevent officials from having the speed and flexibility needed to deal effectively in the real estate market (Myers 1992, 8-9). There is also the problem of monetary inefficiencies in government management. Critics of government argue that because government agencies do not compete in the marketplace, productivity is lost and an inefficient allocation of resources occurs. In other words, with the absence of competition comes a lack of innovative drive and incentive to manage at minimum cost. 42 Finally, there are concerns over government's ability to implement sustainable management practices. Phillip Hoose (1981), a former director of The Nature Conservancy, argues that most government lands allow grazing, logging, mining, farming or recreation. Hoose asserts that these lands are rarely administered to protect biological diversity and other contributory values. Instead, the policies governing public lands have often demonstrated weak resource management. For example, the tradition of short-term timber licenses or short-term leases for farming have given loggers and farmers little or no incentive to implement sustainable land use practices. The Power of Regulation If government is not acquiring or designating land to protect society's interests, then it often establishes and enforces regulations, restricting landowners from certain activities on their land that could jeopardize CPRs. 1 0 A regulatory solution to protecting important lands involves: ...a process or activity in which government requires or proscribes certain activities or behavior on the part of individuals and institutions, mostly private but sometimes public, and does so through a continuing administrative process, generally through specially designated regulatory agencies (Reagan 1987, 17). More specifically, a regulatory solution entails either forming an independent agency to construct and enforce the management strategy or delegation of this authority to an existing 1 0 As an interesting note, Howlett and Ramesh (1995, 89) describe public ownership as "...an extreme case of regulation, where the rules have been made particular so as to cover all activities". 43 institution. The government would legislate policies and programs (i.e., taxes, subsidies and regulations) to protect the ecological values, inherent in the CPR, from individual self-interests. In a sense, government has been vested with the authority to deny property rights from private interests if such action serves society's needs (Feldman and Goldberg 1987). The regulatory approach can best be explained using Hardin's metaphor of the herders (Ostrom 1990). The first step would be for the government to determine the pasture's sustainable yield. Using these results, the government would establish parameters for herder use of the pasture, including who can use it, when, and how many cattle can graze it. Once in place, the management strategy for the pasture would be monitored, sanctioning those herders who fail to comply. According to Howlett and Ramesh (1995), the nature of regulations depends on whether they are economic or social. Economic regulations control prices and markets. Social regulations control behavior to protect physical and or moral well-being. Within this framework, the authors claim that protecting the environment "...is a hybrid between economic and social regulation because the problems usually have economic origins but their adverse effects are mostly social" (Howlett & Ramesh 1995, 88). Regulations protecting CPRs control private land use applying a variety of policy tools. Regulations can take such forms as zoning, permits, prohibitions, legal orders and executive orders (Howlett and Ramesh 1995, 87). There are regulations that zone land to specific purposes such as agriculture or flood plains (Feldman 1987, 131). Permits must be obtained to conduct certain activities on private property that might degrade CPRs. In the United States, the federal Endangered Species Act regulates landowners by prohibiting land 44 use activities that could harm any species (or its habitat) that is listed under the Act as "threatened" or "endangered" (Kirlin 1993). Through these and other regulations, landowners are deprived of certain rights to their land in order to safeguard society's interests. Advantages of a Regulatory Approach As with government acquisition, a key advantage of implementing a regulatory approach is government's authority to coerce. With regulations government can introduce some control over the use of CPRs by establishing rules that limit individual actions. A second advantage often cited is government's ability to be independent from specific competing interests while remaining acceptable to the greater society. As a neutral body working for the interests of the public, government is able to address issues of equity, provide opportunities for public participation, and obtain greater support for its policies. However, critics of government regulation argue that, in reality, numerous opportunities exist for special interests to be served by government. Examples include politicians in a representative government catering to geographic constituencies in order to gain power and re-election or voting cycles in a direct democracy allowing those who control the agenda to control the social choice (Weimer and Vining 1992). A third advantage of regulation by government is its ability to set CPR conservation standards that are legally enforceable. If structured effectively, these standards can be strong yet flexible in order to contend with the complex and ever changing circumstances in CPR problems. Moreover, effective government policies can plan comprehensively across all 45 aspects of the CPR, avoiding fragmented solutions that merely unload the problem to another part of the system (Johnston 1992). Limitations of Regulations As with public acquisition, there are limitations to adopting a regulatory approach for protecting societal values on private land. Some regulatory standards have been set that in reality do little to protect private land because they are either too weak or irrelevant in differing circumstances (Howlett and Ramesh 1995, 89). On the other hand, inflexible and over bearing governmental regulations can have tragic consequences (Howlett and Ramesh 1995). Stringent regulation that is unrealistic, costly and difficult to monitor and enforce can result in non-compliance, adversarial relations among interested parties and ultimately degradation of the resource. Moreover, such land use controls are primarily negative, informing landowners what they cannot do with their land or forcing them to perform certain activities (Tarlock 1993, 583). Such an adversarial approach creates little incentive for landowners to work with government to protect important societal values on their private properties. The difficulties and adversarial relations surrounding regulations have led to a growing debate over government's authority to implement regulations. In the United States, there has been a revival in the property rights movement by disgruntled landowners upset over what they claim are overly stringent land use regulations (Harbrecht 1994). These property rights activists are demanding compensation for any government activity that reduces the economic value of an owner's land. According to La Belle (1994, 4): 46 At the heart of the debate is how strictly may government regulate land use-that is, how much can a regulation reduce the value of land without violating the Fifth Amendment prohibition against taking private property without compensation. The property rights debate, however, is more about process than the product. The debate is not about whether or not regulations are effective in accomplishing their goal of protecting CPRs, rather the way they are being implemented. Property rights activists believe that the costs of regulating are distributed unevenly, concentrated unfairly on the landowner. 2.7.2 The Market Solution In contrast to the regulatory approach, privatization rests the protection of the environment in the "invisible hand" of the marketplace (McCay & Acheson 1987). That is, in the pursuit of self-interests, individuals will be drawn to make decisions that are in harmony with society's welfare, such as maintaining CPRs. According to Ostrom (1990), a prescription for privatization of natural resources is a prescription for private property. Under privatization, the present common-property system is abolished and a system of private property rights instated. Most of the policy options involve one of two options. The first option is to give a degree of exclusive rights over the resource. The second option is to develop "property mimicking" ways (e.g., fishing rights) of restricting and allocating access to the resource (Ostrom 1990, 22). The appropriate form of privatization depends on the CPR (Ostrom 1990). For land, privatization means dividing it into separate parcels and assigning rights to hold, use, subdivide and transfer the parcel at the owner's discretion. Using Hardin's pasture metaphor 47 again, the imposition of privatization would divide up the pasture, forcing each herder to worry about the management of his own piece of pasture. In regards to a fugitive resource, ...a diversity of rights may be established giving individual rights to use particular types of equipment, to use the resource system at a particular time and place, or to withdraw a particular quantity of resource units...(Ostrom 1990, 13). Advantages of Privatization Advocates of privatization argue that splitting the rights to access and control of the CPRs will result in a more efficient and therefore more beneficial result. Each owner of these rights will subsequently become accountable for his or her own behavior. In capitalist economic terms, there is an incentive for the owner to extract from the CPR at minimum cost so as to maximize profits. As described by McCay and Acheson (1987, 5): "privatization internalizes costs and benefits, reduces uncertainty and thereby increases individual responsibility for the environment and rational use of its resources". Basically, the belief is that an individual will better care for something that he or she owns. Another advantage of privatization is the presence of long-term conservation incentives. Ownership provides a sense of security, incentiving a landowner to manage his or her property for the long-term. Such incentives do not exist when government merely grants short-term access to public resources. Limitations of Privatization On the other hand, implementing the privatization solution also has social implications. Critics of privatization point out that its sole focus on efficiency denies any considerations of 48 equity. Allocation of the CPR becomes based on a "willingness-to-pay", favoring those with the most money in their pockets. All decisions in a privatized system become benefit-cost decisions where the "best" decision has the greatest net benefits. Consequently, there is no consideration to uneven distribution of benefits or who are the gainers and losers as a result of privatization. Privatizing CPRs can also lead to an undervaluation of them. Some CPR benefits are difficult to assign monetary values (e.g., the maintenance of the atmosphere's configuration or the protection of biological diversity). Other CPR benefits are not immediate and thus are discounted in the market. This undervaluation of the benefits can lead to over consumption of the CPR. Another weakness of privatization is the risk of ecological fragmentation. Dividing up CPRs among individual users leaves the possibility of breaking up the CPR to such a degree that the common property values attempting to be protected through privatization will be lost. The creation of parcels and ownership rights risks damaging the physical structure of most CPRs as part of complex, interdependent ecosystems. Thus, the remedial project-by-project and site-by-site conservation approaches subsequently employed in such a regime are not necessarily reflective of the ecological realities of Nature and cumulative effects. 2.8 S U M M A R Y Within the spectrum of natural resources, the management of CPRs is an issue of increasing concern. Shaped by a philosophy based on exploiting and owning natural 49 resources, individuals often times fail to share CPRs equitably and sustainably and instead secure as much as they can for themselves. Hence, the CPRs become depleted. To arrest this depletion, the choice has traditionally been between privatization or public sector solutions, namely acquisition and regulation. The strengths and weaknesses of these approaches depends on what is trying to be accomplished. In recent years these traditional approaches have been challenged. As the threat to CPRs in North America has not disappeared or diminished and in fact is becoming even more a victim of the incessant population increases and associated problems, it seems that reliance on these traditional approaches, by themselves, has been largely unsuccessful in moving away from a tragedy of the commons. The tendency to restrict solutions to the intervention of an external institution on the one hand and privatization of property rights on the other ignores the existence of and potential for other solutions, such as land trusts. 50 C H A P T E R T H R E E The Emerging Land Trust Movement Land trusts provide a way to overcome [the tragedy of the commons] by redefining institutional structures to conserve common values, while still respecting private property. (Hilts & Mitchell 1993, 16) 3.1 INTRODUCTION If the conventional solutions to land conservation are not the answer, what is? Impatient and distrustful of traditional approaches, a number of organizations, communities, and individuals are increasingly turning to land trusts as a promising alternative in the land use arena. Currently, the land use arena is plagued with polarization. The public and private interests inherent in private land with important CPRs are often in conflict. As these disputes play themselves out, often over many years, the outcome is typically described as a victory for one side, a bitter defeat for the other.1 Many North Americans unsatisfied with this outcome see land trusts as a means to remedy some of these conflicts. Land trusts are private organizations which attempt to protect important public values in the land, using tools seen as "...lying between private and public ownership"(Land Trusts Association 1989, 6). 1 For some, this outcome may not necessarily be perceived as bad. However, the researcher is assuming a solution that all interests can live with is superior to an outcome where one side wins over the other. 51 This chapter examines land trusts as institutions to provide an alternative approach for protecting CPRs on private land in North America. Following this introduction, section 3.2 describes these increasingly popular institutions, their framework, origins, conservation tools, and growing accomplishments. Section 3.3 evaluates the strengths and shortcomings of land trusts as effective conservation institutions, as compared with government approaches. 3.2 A N O V E R V I E W O F L A N D TRUSTS What is a land trust? In the most general sense, land trusts are independent, non-profit organizations with a mission to protect private land with important CPRs through voluntary techniques (Hilts and Mitchell 1994 and 1993; Foti and Jacobs 1989). Land trusts work to protect land that is valuable to the public in terms of its ecological, aesthetic, recreational, agricultural, historic or cultural attributes. These institutions protect such resources as scenic vistas, streams, old forest stands, wetlands, deserts, city parks, farmland, greenways and historic buildings (Anon. 1996b). A land trust is usually created when local residents organize under law as a non-profit corporation (or society in Canada) capable of receiving and managing land (Schiffman 1983). Land trusts follow strict state, provincial or federal guidelines to organize and operate as non-profit, tax-exempt, charitable corporations or societies (Jefferson Land Trust 1996). Land trusts are governed by a Board of Directors, usually consisting of individuals from the local 52 community. Within the parameters of the trust's legal status, the Board determines the conservation and land-use activities to be pursued (Schiffman 1983). With this basic composition, the literature often depicts land trusts as private or non-governmental organizations (Sandborn 1996; Hilts and Mitchell 1996; Mantell, Harper, & Propst 1991). However, this independence from government is questionable. While land trusts may claim to be separate from government, the means by which they operate often times link them directly to government. To become a non-profit, tax-exempt organization requires compliance with legislation and gaining the approval of certain governmental agencies (Land Trust Alliance 1993). A number of land trusts also rely largely or exclusively on government grants to operate and form partnerships with government to accomplish certain projects (Anon. 1996b). In fact, in the United States, land trusts collaborating with public agencies have increased in recent years, with a number of states formalizing this collaboration by establishing land conservation programs that provide direct moneys to non-profits for acquisition or land stewardship activities (Myers 1993). While their basic composition is generally the same, land trusts can vary in their size and scope. The majority of land trusts are locally-based and are operated completely by volunteers (Anon. 1996b). There are only a few that have large staffs, a prominent board of directors, a large membership and healthy annual budgets (Anon. 1996b). It is these large land trusts that are responsible for the protection and management of the majority of land under land trust protection. Most locally-based land trusts only have the means to protect a relatively small area of land. 53 The best example of a large land trust is The Nature Conservancy (TNC). This organization is the biggest and most successful land trust in North America. TNC owns and manages millions of acres through an extensive network of regional offices run by well-paid professionals (Endicott 1993). Tools of the Trade In general, land trusts work to protect land they wish to conserve from inappropriate development or use. How this is accomplished depends on the tools and resources available and appropriate for the particular situation. The trust can decide to be the holder of land outright, the holder of certain property rights, or the deliverer of stewardship programs to encourage landowners to adopt sustainable practices on their land. Moreover, land trusts often form partnerships with each other, with larger conservation organizations and with government to accomplish projects (Anon. 1996b). The following section provides an overview of the primary tools available for these varying protection strategies.2 Acquisition The most basic means by which land trusts protect desired properties is through direct acquisition (Elfring 1989). By purchasing the lands outright, the land trust obtains complete control and responsibility for managing the property. It is estimated that in the United States 63% of the land trusts buy land for conservation (Anon. 1996b). Once acquired by the land 2 For a more detailed example of the types of legal tools available for land trusts in a particular region, see Appendix A for conservation tools available to land trusts in British Columbia. 54 trust, the property can either be held, leased or sold. When selling or leasing the land, a land trust usually places restrictions on the land, limiting its use to that which meets the organization's conservation objectives (California State Coastal Conservancy (CSCC) 1989). Another means by which land trusts often acquire important resources is through various types of land donations (Findlay & Flillyer 1994). Landowners sometimes bequeath their property to a trust that reflects their land-use objectives. Another type of donation is a conditional gift of land, where land is donated with certain conditions set forth by the landowner. However, a protection strategy based on acquisition has its shortcomings. Phillip Hoose, former Director of Preserve Selection and Design for TNC, identifies a number of factors that can limit acquisition as an effective tool for land trusts. Firstly, to state the obvious, important lands in public ownership are unavailable for purchase by land trusts. Secondly, many landowners refuse to sell or donate their property. Thirdly, land is increasingly more expensive to purchase and manage, placing heavy financial burdens on land trusts. The fourth factor is the risk that tax laws could be amended in ways that would eliminate the financial benefits land trusts depend on as non-profit landholders. The fifth factor is negotiating a purchase of land can take longer than the time available to protect the valued resources (Hoose 1981). In addition, Hilts and Mitchell (1993), argue there is not only growing public opposition to further government ownership of lands, but also growing resistance for private groups' efforts to remove land from the market; some groups see land trusts as a new means for government to control private land. Finally, like privatization, 55 acquisition by land trusts can lead to protection that is piecemeal and uncoordinated (Diamond &Noonan 1996). Acquisition Of Rights As a consequence of the limitations of purchasing the land outright, land trusts are increasingly adopting tools that enable them to acquire just those rights that protect the land from development and unsustainable uses. Acquisition of certain rights can avoid the high costs of acquisition and management as well as be a more acceptable approach to the landowners and public. It is estimated that only about one-fifth of the land protected by land trusts in the United States is owned outright (Hilts & Mitchell 1993, 20). The primary means by which land trusts obtain acquisition rights is through conservation easements and covenants. These tools require conservation-oriented land-use practices without changing the ownership. Moreover, an easement or covenant can be tailored to protect specific aspects of a property (Stokes et al. 1989). A conservation easement is a deed restriction that conveys certain land use rights to a designated entity and results in the land being retained in its current agricultural, historical, scenic, or natural use (CSCC 1989). An easement is either sold or donated by a landowner. When a land trust purchases an easement it is responsible for periodically monitoring the condition of the land and undertaking enforcement actions if the landowner violates the easement. The landowner retains title and right to use the land within the parameters of the easement. Successive owners are bound by the restrictions of the easement (CSCC 1989). 56 Conservation covenants are agreements with the landowner that stipulate what activities he or she will do (a positive covenant) or not do (a restrictive covenant) on the land (Findlay and Hillyer 1994). In other words, covenants legally bind the landowners to agree to implement conservation practices or agree not to put the property to uses that would damage the environment. Such agreements may or may not bind successive owners. The United States equivalent of a restrictive covenant is the purchasing of development rights, thereby preventing development on the land (CSCC 1989). Stewardship Programs A third tool, quite different from the acquisition-related tools previously described, is for a land trust to launch a stewardship program. The term "stewardship" refers to the management of land with respect and care for its natural values and systems (Sandborn 1996). The foundation of a stewardship program is for the land trust to build working partnerships with the landowners. However, the success of a private stewardship initiative ultimately rests with the landowners themselves (Sandborn 1996). The essence of such a program is for the land trust to create incentives to encourage landowners to voluntarily implement sustainable land use practices on their properties (Sandborn 1996). Frequently these incentives are financial in nature. As explained by Porter (1994, 55): By compensating producers for activities that benefit others, these programs act to shift a portion of the burden of conservation from sole beneficiaries to those who would otherwise bear the burden of providing the benefit. 57 More specifically, effective stewardship programs, as described by Calvin Sandborn (1996), possess elements of education, recognition, and practical assistance.3 In terms of education, stewardship programs give landowners information about their land, sources of assistance, and the advantages of sustainable land-use practices. To find effective ways of recognizing landowners, stewardship programs involve everything from awards to financial assistance for enhancing habitat. Related to practical assistance, stewardship programs offer technical expertise, provide materials for enhancement projects, and sponsor technical research. The Origins of Land Trusts From where did this seemingly new institution for land conservation emerge? Surprisingly, the land trust idea is not new. In the mid 1800's, a number of "village improvement societies" emerged in New England with the mission of "improving the quality of life and of the environment"(Anon. 1996b, 6). These small nonprofit organizations were the forerunners of today's land trust movement. It was Charles Eliot, a landscape architect from Massachusetts, who pioneered the first "official" land trust (Abbott 1982). Schooled in the traditions of Emerson, Thoreau and Olmstead, Eliot invented the idea of establishing, ...an organization with a board of trustees that would have "power to hold land free of taxes in any part of the Commonwealth for the use and enjoyment of the public" (As quoted in Abbott 1982, 150). 3 "Effective" stewardship refers to programs that teach and implement sustainable land-use practices on properties, convincing the landowners of their importance as stewards. 58 In 1891, Eliot convinced the Massachusetts legislature to incorporate The Trustees of Reservations, "to hold and maintain for the public 'beautiful and historical places and tracts of land" (Spader et al. 1982, 124). Hence, the first land trust was born. According to author Gordon Abbot (1982), the motivations for creating such an institution were founded on concerns about the psychological and physical consequences resulting from urbanization of the American countryside. In the wake of massive population increases individuals like Charles Eliot, felt it was important to maintain scenic landscapes because they nurtured people's mind, body and spirit. In fact, the rationale given as to why The Trustees of Reservations should be established begins: It is everywhere agreed that it is important to the education, health, and happiness of crowded populations that they should not be deprived of opportunities of beholding beautiful natural scenery (As quoted in Abbott 1982, 151). Such concerns were not isolated to Massachusetts alone and it was not long before land trusts were surfacing in other regions. In 1901, New Hampshire citizens established the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests. This organization continues to be one of the leading land trusts in the United States (Sandborn 1996). In 1918, a group of Californians concerned about protecting the giant redwood forests established a land trust to "Save the Redwoods" (Anon. 1996b). Today, 170,000 acres of giant redwoods have been protected by this organization (Sandborn 1996, 22). Great Britain became the first country outside the United States to adopt the land trust concept (Abbott 1982). In 1895, The National Trust was founded in Great Britain to "protect 59 places of historic interest or natural beauty for public enjoyment" (Jenkins 1995, 9). Since that time, the National Trust has become Britain's largest conservation organization and private landowner (Mairson 1995), protecting over 200,000 hectares of land and over 780 km of coastline (Sandborn 1995, 21). Land Trusts Becoming Ubiquitous Institutions Growth Of A Movement Although the land trust has existed as an institution for over a century, it is only in recent decades that land trusts have become widely established at an unprecedented rate (Sandborn 1996; Wright & Hilts 1993). Most of the growth is attributable to smaller land trusts developing in communities throughout North America (Hilts & Mitchell 1996; Hocker 1996). In the United States, land trusts are now the fastest growing part of the conservation movement (Sandborn 1996). It is estimated that land trusts in the U.S. are increasing by 23 percent annually (Anon. 1996b, 5). According to the Land Trust Alliance (LTA) (1994), an umbrella organization for the coordination of land trusts in the United States, there are well over 1,000 land trusts operating in the United States, more than half of which were established less than 15 years ago. To provide some perspective, consider the fact that in 1950 there were 53 land trusts in 26 states. By 1981, there were 431 land trusts. By the end of 1994, the number of land trusts soared to 60 1,095. Currently, land trusts operate in all 50 states protecting land of local, regional and national importance (LTA 1994, 2). Compared with the United States, land trusts in Canada have not developed as rapidly. Until the mid 1980's, land trusts were generally unknown institutions (Hilts & Mitchell 1996). The Island Nature Trust on Prince Edward Island, and the Islands Trust and the Nature Trust, both in British Columbia, were the first groups to use the term "trust" and have been in existence for only six to ten years (Wright and Hilts 1993, 12). To date, there are approximately 60 land trusts across Canada (Hilts & Mitchell 1996, 1). Hilts and Wright (1993) argue that differences in law, land tenure patterns and land use planning are responsible for land trusts not being as common as in the United States. Unlike property owners in the United States, property owners in Canada are not provided freedom of property by the law. In other words, the "takings issue" legally does not exist in Canada. Moreover, large tracts of public land have enabled the Canadian government to meet public conservation demands. Finally, management on existing private lands has traditionally been handled through legally strong land use planning. Thus, Hilts concludes these differences are "...key reasons why the use of voluntary approaches to landscape conservation such as those used in the United States are not widespread" (Hilts & Wright 1993, 12). Significant Acreage Saved Collectively, land trusts in North America claim responsibility for protecting millions of acres. Sources provide varying statistics on the exact acreage protected, but there is 61 agreement that land trusts have contributed to the conservation of a significant portion of the landscape. According to the LTA (1994), U.S. land trusts have protected over four million acres of land. Approximately 15 percent of this land has been purchased outright by the land trusts. Some 15 percent of the land is bound by conservation easements. Another 25 percent has been protected by transferring it to public agencies. The remaining 45 percent was protected by various other methods (LTA 1994). In Canada, most acreage protected has been attributable to a few of the larger national and provincial land trusts. For example, The Nature Trust, British Columbia's most prominent land trust, has protected over 28,452 acres of grasslands, forest, marshes, and mountains (Sandborn 1996, 17). Other examples include the Saskatchewan Habitat Trust's protection of 22,525 acres of wildlife habitat and the Manitoba Trust's protection of 18,968 acres of habitat (Sandborn 1996, 17). However, local land trusts are becoming increasingly responsible for protected acreage (Hilts and Mitchell 1996). It is not possible, however, to verify that the acreage claiming to be protected is in fact being protected and managed well. One cannot assume that because a land trust owns or has an easement on some property that that land is necessarily "protected" (anymore than we can assume that over 90% of land in Canada is protected by government). Purchased land can be mismanaged just as easily by a land trust as it can by a private landowner. Also, an easement does not safeguard the land from being expropriated by government (Andrews & Loukidelis 1996). Finally, for a conservation easement to represent more than a collection of legal documents, the terms of agreement must be enforced by the holder of the easement. 62 This in not to say that land trusts have not made strides with protecting important CPRs across the landscape. It is probably safe to say that much of the acreage under land trust control is more likely to have saved valuable CPRs than if the land went on the open market. However, as explained earlier, CPRs are components of ecosystems. It is important, therefore, to recognize that while an impressive amount of acreage may have been saved by land trusts, it remains in question whether it is the "right" land in terms of protecting ecological processes. Saving land to protect CPRs is an issue both of quantity and quality. 3.3 L A N D TRUSTS: SAFEGUARDING T H E PUBLIC INTERESTS? "As conservation issues become more polarized and contentious, [the land trust] movement offers an alternative. Its strategy is cooperative voluntary action. Its venue is local, but its scope is national. Its message is that responsive private institutions can help build livable communities" (Rousch 1992, 22). There is compelling evidence that land trusts provide an important new structure for spreading the message of stewardship and securing protection of our CPRs through a private, community-based approach (Hilts and Mitchell 1996). At the same time, using these institutions for land conservation may present some disadvantages. This next section explores some of the major strengths and weaknesses of relying on land trusts to protect important lands as compared with traditional approaches. From the onset, it is important to note that underlying the arguments for and against land trusts exists a notion that land trusts provide a non-governmental alternative to land conservation. In some respects this claim of independence from government is valid. 63 However, more often than not, government agencies, through funding and personnel, are involved with land trusts. This association blurs the distinction between voluntary private conservation and government's more coercive land-use planning approaches. In reality there is more likely a continuum of conservation strategies from which to choose rather than distinct alternatives; and in the middle of this continuum, a locally accountable government and a local land trust, established by landowners to collectively manage a resource, are probably more similar than these categories would suggest. 3.3.1 The Potential Strengths of Land Trusts4 Flexible One of the most commonly cited strengths of land trusts is their ability to bring flexibility to the conservation process (Endicott 1993; Sandborn 1996). The term "flexibility" encompasses a wide variety of specific attributes. One of these attributes is speed. As compared to public agencies, land trusts are not constrained by the same level of rules and regulations as government. Land trusts are not hampered by the statutory, fiscal year budgeting, or jurisdictional parameters to which public agencies are subject (Sandborn 1996). Consequently, land trusts can often respond rapidly and effectively to preserve resource lands (agricultural or ecologically sensitive areas) on a more timely basis than government (Rivett 1996). It is not uncommon for lands valuable to a 4Much of the information for sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 was derived from a 1995 draft and 1996 final version of Sandborn's research paper: Green Space and Growth: Conservation Natural Areas in B.C. Communities. 64 community to have unanticipated and fleeting opportunities for purchasing land. Often times government cannot always react quickly enough because of budgetary, administrative and/or political limitations (Sandborn 1996). Creativity is another attribute. Land trusts have a wide variety of tools for private land conservation available to them, enabling them to be innovative and entrepreneurial. Land trusts can engage in creative conservation tools such as exchanging of development rights; purchasing and reselling parcels of the land attaching permanent conservation obligations to it; or devising cooperative endeavors with numerous other organizations. All of these options are unavailable to most government agencies (Sandborn 1996, 20), Access to such tools, according to land trust supporters, allows land trusts to better guarantee the safekeeping the land. Outright acquisition of land secures the property from unsustainable land use practices. Deed restrictions, limiting particular acres of land to open space, wildlife, agriculture or whatever the intended purpose, create legal obstacles that better protect lands in perpetuity. These tools establish a clear and indelible record. (Endicott 1993). However, land trusts are subject to the same government powers as individual landowners. As mentioned earlier, a land trust's control over property, whether by outright ownership or by an acquisition-related tool such as a conservation easement, is vulnerable to expropriation by government. On the other hand, owners of land with a conservation easement may be able to devise a stronger argument as to why government should select other properties for its needs (Andrews & Loukidelis 1996). 65 In addition, it is important to note that the effectiveness of many of these voluntary tools depends on enforcement by the land trust. For example, placing a conservation easement on a property requires that the land trust periodically monitor it to ensure that the conditions of the easement are being met. If the easement is being violated by the landowner, then it is up to the land trust to obtain sanctions through a court. Effective monitoring and enforcement can be time consuming and costly endeavors. The advantages of such tools may be weakened by the cost to ensure they are being used properly. While the size, infrastructure and capital available to implement effective monitoring and enforcement of land management agreements may be prohibitive for most land trusts, these costs may be more feasible for government. Government agencies have an advantage in this case because they are likely to have the resources, skills and information necessary to monitor and evaluate these land management agreements (Howlett & Ramesh 1995). Meet Community Needs Land trusts are heralded by proponents as institutions better able to meet landowner and community needs as compared to government. According to Sandborn (1996), locally-based land trusts that are locally-based can realize the particular needs of the community and the local landscape. Moreover, having a community orientation, these land trusts are often aware of threats to the landscape earlier on, particularly locally significant lands that may not be a priority regionally (Sandborn 1996). 66 More specifically, Michael Mantell, Stephen Harper and Luther Propst (1990), authors of Creating Successful Communities: A Guidebook to Growth Management Strategies, argue a land trust's familiarity with a local area assists in : • advancing local initiative for protection of vital land resources; • identifying and protecting lands of local significance; • working with local governments to complement local planning measures; and • improving local awareness, understanding, and support for land stewardship (142). Advocates also argue that garnering local support is crucial to protecting land and its societal values in the long-term. Bonnie Cohen, former Chief Financial and Administrative Officer for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, states: It is local support that is essential to preservation in perpetuity. It is a simple fact that conservation in a given area cannot succeed without the support and involvement of the local people (Cohen 1993, 12). As the underlying goal of most land trusts is to secure permanent protection of the land and the sensitive resources on it, its ability to engender local approval can go a long way to provide perpetual protection of land. Nonetheless, being locally-based does not ensure that community interests will be met. Protecting land of local importance may not in fact be a community desire or goal. For example, a land trust wanting to protect the remaining farmland of a community may not be meeting community needs if the majority of the community wanted to see the land developed. Just as political parties represent differing segments of the populations, land trusts often represent only a segment of the community rather than the entire community. 67 In addition, a local land trust may not be able to protect the community's values because the protection requires solutions outside of the community. To safeguard many CPRs necessitates regional, national or even international cooperation. For example, maintaining a fugitive resource, such as wildlife, often requires protecting habitat not only within the community, but in other regions as well. Finally, it is important to not overlook the ability of local governments to respond to their citizens. The tendency in arguing that government is unconcerned about community interests is to confuse local governments with national or regional bureaucracies. However, a local government can often be as responsive to community concerns as land trusts. Moreover, local governments often times have the infrastructure, authority and even resources to effectively protect important community values that are absent in many small local land trusts. Create An Avenue To Realize Shared Vision A more conditional advantage achieved by some land trusts is enjoying the benefits of collaboration. As explained earlier, land trusts can take on a variety of forms. Yet it is generally agreed that all land trusts seek to "...solve problems to bring about land uses in the public benefit" (Hocker 1996, 246). In other words, a group of individuals creates a land trust to carry out a shared vision of how a particular landscape should be managed. Sometimes the shared vision is the result of traditionally conflicting interests agreeing to collaborate in order to achieve mutual benefits. Collaboration, as defined by Barbara Gray (1989) is: 68 ...is a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible (Gray 1989, 5). By collaborating, individuals agree to a power sharing arrangement whereby the responsibility of decision-making and subsequent outcomes are taken collectively (Selin & Chavez 1995). Collaborating can take a variety of forms depending on the motivating factors and expected outcomes. Barbara Gray (1989) depicts collaboration as being motivated by the desire either to resolve conflict or to advance a shared vision with the outcomes of each being either an exchange of information or joint agreements. Land trusts structured around collaboration potentially enjoy a number of benefits according to collaboration advocates (Kofinas & Griggs 1996; Selin & Chavez 1995; and Gray 1989). Collaboration establishes communication between competing interests which can facilitate the settling of differences and the construction of a collective vision for the community (Selin & Chavez 1995; Gray 1989). This theory's attention to addressing problems too intricate to be resolved unilaterally can contribute to devising solutions to increasingly complicated ecological dilemmas that necessitate systems-based approaches. More specific collaboration advantages cited in the literature include: enhancing the trust between interest groups; encouraging pro-active decision-making; and summoning the public's sense of duty related to cooperative stewardship. Despite these benefits, however, land trusts can be impeded by collaboration, as explained by Kofinas and Griggs (1996). Firstly, collaborating can require high inputs of labor to be successful. Secondly, collaboration can be slow to develop and implement, (thereby 69 inhibiting a land trust's advantage of flexibility). Thirdly, a successful partnership may be vulnerable if individuals who were key to its establishment leave the process. Work with Landowners Establishing an effective working relationship with landowners is another argued strength of land trusts. Non-profit organizations, such as land trusts, according to Endicott (1993, 4),"...do not have the power to condemn (expropriate) land and are untainted by an history of unsuccessful negotiating with a particular landowner". Consequently, landowners uneasy about government are often more willing to associate with a local land trust. In the words of Calvin Sandborn (1996, 20): "...many people who oppose increased government conservation activities approve of the community-based land trust approach". Having such a local focus and flexibility in delivering land protection schemes, land trusts advocates argue that these organizations are better able to devise protection strategies tailored to specific needs of the landowners (Findlay and Hillyer 1994). With an array of conservation tools to work with, land trusts provide versatility to the landowner attempting to meet both financial needs and conservation objectives. "Trusts can use innovative techniques to acquire or otherwise protect land"(Sandborn 1996, 19). Respecting Property Rights Reduces Conflict with Landowners Related to their ability to work more closely with landowners, land trusts are promoted as an opportunity for conservation while still respecting private property rights. 70 According to Richard Carbin, former Executive Director of the Ottaqueche Land Trust (OLT), Vermont's leading private land trust, successful land conservation requires respecting private property rights. The tradition of private property rights in this country is so strong that even when the argument 'of the public good' is used to affect individual land use decisions, there will always be strong emotional opposition. Any attempt to conserve land as a resource must recognize and respond to this basic American ethic (Schnidman 1990, 132). As opposed to regulations, which often generate conflict between different segments of a community, land trusts can employ a positive and constructive approach through voluntary and incentive-based techniques. By encouraging tools like conservation easements or incentive-based stewardship, land trusts can guarantee conservation objectives are met without disrupting the tradition of private ownership in the community. Also, stewardship programs can encourage landowners to be responsible stewards (Findlay and Hillyer, 1994). This strength of not disrupting land ownership patterns is most often applied to agricultural land trusts. Agricultural conservation often distinguishes itself from other types of land preservation by not only believing in "...the indispensability of protecting wide expanses of land...", but also in, "...keeping it in private hands, and permitting its free use for profit while promoting its responsible use for the health of the environment" (Thompson 1993, 43). Relatively Free from Political Vagaries An often cited, but largely debatable, advantage is that permanent protection of the land and its ecological processes are more likely to occur through land trusts because they are 71 free of the vagaries of political decision-making (Endicott 1993; Sandborn 1995). In other words, land trusts can provide continuous management and responsible long-term stewardship of the land's resources with less political influences. It is argued that changes in political leadership can lead to changes in philosophies on land-use. "Government agencies cannot always keep land from being converted to a different use or condemned by another government agency" (Endicott 1993, 38). Yet, this advantage may be true more on paper than in reality. All land trusts are operating in a political arena, influenced and affected by the political realities of the region in which they are located as well as the political attitudes of the trust's board members and staff. As the composition of a land trust's board changes with new members, a modification of conservation philosophies can occur, although the change would not likely be as dramatic as that experienced by a change in government leadership. Employ Cost-Effective Conservation Finally, land trusts enjoy a number of financial advantages over government agencies. As tax-exempt nonprofit organizations, land trusts can often obtain property at a reduced cost, through tax-deductible charitable contributions and exemption from some taxes, including federal and state income taxes (Adapted from Mantell, Harper and Propst 1990). In fact, in Australia a study was conducted that determined, "...for every dollar granted to land trusts in that country, the trusts generate $3.22 in conservation activity" (Sandborn 1996, 22). 72 Moreover, land trusts can elicit significant amounts of voluntary contributions in the form of money, time and land. In fact, the majority of land trusts operate as a result of volunteers donating their time and energy (Anon. 1996b). Voluntary contributions of money and land also often comprise a significant percentage of a land trust's resources. "Among American land trusts, seventy percent of the funds for land purchases come from members and individual business donors in the community" (Sandborn, 1995, 25). 3.3.2 The Possible Limitations of Land Trusts It is tempting to see land trusts as a magic answer for protecting important lands under private control, but they have potential weaknesses that can limit their effectiveness. Uncertainty of Support Financing, of course, is the sine qua non of a successful conservation project (Thompson 1993). Land trusts cannot always identify secure funding sources. Many of the conservation advantages enjoyed by land trusts cannot be accessed without a secure source of financial support. Just as land trusts can make conservation of private properties more cost effective through voluntary contributions of time, money and land, dependence upon these can limit the effectiveness of the organization. Local land trusts that rely on large amounts of volunteer time and resources are subject to instability; there is no guarantee that the level of voluntary contributions will be significant enough to run the organization or meet conservation 73 objectives. This situation can cause landowners and the community to question the institution's ability to deliver permanent protection of their properties (Endicott 1993). Uncertain financial support can also inhibit finding competent individuals to serve on the board and staff. A study by the CSCC (1989, 2) discovered that successful land trusts require a "...committed and competent board and staff'. Recent experience suggests that trusts that have the financial base to afford at least some full-time staff will be considerably more successful (Hilts and Mitchell 1993). May Not Be Cost Effective Creating and running a land trust costs money. Sometimes establishing another institution is not always cost-effective conservation (Sandborn 1995, 27). This can occur when a land trust does not leverage government grant monies with funds of their own. In such cases, significant government monies can be lost to the transaction costs of operating the land trust (Sandborn 1995, 27). Moreover, rather than complement existing conservation efforts, creating a land trust may serve to increase competition for already limited private conservation funds. Potentially Subject To Same Failings As Government As mentioned earlier, most of the acreage protected by land trusts is due to efforts of a few large central trusts. Like large government bureaucracies, these land trust are vulnerable 74 to inefficient and ineffective management. In other words, so much money and effort is spent running the massive organizations that the work of protecting the land could be jeopardized. Moreover, as the size and scope of the land trusts increase, so do the necessary monitoring and enforcement of protection efforts. Consequently, large land trusts run the risk of being perceived, like government agencies often times are, as distant and unresponsive to local interests. May Protect Inappropriate Lands With respect to community-based land trusts there is the risk that their orientation to the local level will inhibit them from understanding the larger conservation needs of the region, provincially, state-wide or nationally. "There is the risk that a land trust will concentrate on local amenities at the expense of regional strategic conservation acquisitions" (Sandborn 1995, 28). Relying on land trusts to protect important lands, according to Sandborn (1995), runs the risk of locking up land that in all practicality should be developed so as to evade the sprawl of urbanization into more ecologically or culturally sensitive areas. Sandborn claims, however, that there is no evidence to suggest that this is a significant problem, arguing that nearly all lands safeguarded by trusts could be declared valuable either ecologically or culturally. With regards to inappropriate bequests and donations of property, trusts often sell this land in order to purchase lands that match their conservation objectives (Sandborn 1995). 75 Small-Scale Land Trusts Inappropriate for Protecting Fugitive CPRs The fact that most land trusts are small and their ability to protect important lands is limited to the local domain may also prohibit solely relying on them to protect some CPRs. Often times protecting a CPR can require large expanses of land, especially when CPRs are fugitive in nature. Berkes and Feeny (1990, 52) argue that: In some cases, it may be necessary to invoke the management authority of central governments to enforce conservation measures. Governments have an important role to play in...situations where: local level rules are insufficient and ineffective in fully protecting the resources; a number of different user groups are present; or a fugitive common pool resource is involved that is important to user groups in different areas geographically. Critics of land trusts also fear land donations to and purchases of land by a land trust occur in a fragmented and opportunistic fashion. Such an approach is contrary to landscape-oriented conservation that focuses on making strategic acquisitions of critically sensitive lands (Sandborn 1996). 3.4 SUMMARY In this chapter, a picture of land trusts has been painted that details the framework from which these increasingly popular institutions operate as well as the methods they use to protect landscapes. Arguments have been presented that both espouse the use of these institutions and warn of their deficiencies in relation to conventional approaches. Regardless of their potential shortcomings, land trusts appear to be gaining momentum all across North America. 76 In the next chapter, a framework for evaluating a land trust's potential for success will be presented. It is from this framework that a land trust in Delta, British Columbia will be examined. 77 C H A P T E R F O U R The Analytical Framework: Evaluating Land Trusts The state of civilization of a people may be measured by its care and forethought for the welfare of generations to come. Dr. John Merriam Save the Redwoods League, 1931 (As quoted in Sandborn 1996, 8) 4.1 INTRODUCTION Why is it important to evaluate a land trust? Assuming people behave better or worse in different institutional environments, it is then important to analyze the alternative institutions available for a certain pursuit. Although land trusts are not new institutions, their prominence in the land conservation movement is recent, as they are rapidly spreading throughout North America. More importantly, the literature related to land trusts has made the case that land trusts have the potential to serve as an important vehicles for establishing an alternative approach to protecting societal needs on private lands. Advocates of land trusts claim these institutions protect important public resources through the use of voluntary mechanisms as opposed to government's more coercive tools. Thus, evaluating the activities of a land trust will contribute to the overall understanding of the role these popular institutions can play within the continuum of strategies available for land management. Based on the previously reviewed literature, the purpose of this chapter is to present the framework that will be used in analyzing the land trust chosen as the case study, the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust (DF&WT). This framework assumes creating a land trust is the chosen strategy to land conservation. Given this, a set of criteria is presented that provide an 78 indication of the probable success a land trust will have in meeting its objectives. The chosen criteria were regularly identified by authors as necessary conditions for a land trust to be successful. 4.2 D E F I N I N G S U C C E S S Criteria for success can mean different things, depending on the specific objectives in the context. It is important to be clear about how success is being measured. To begin with, there are criteria for success associated with outcomes. By evaluating a land trust in terms of its outcomes, the study would need to estimate the effectiveness of using voluntary conservation tools by using indicators and criteria to measure if the land and its vital resources are protected long-term (e.g., acreage saved , wildlife population estimates). Secondly, there exists instrumental criteria for success that evaluate the approach used to attain a particular outcome. In other words, success is measured by how well the process, in achieving the desired ends, is implemented. For land trusts the described ends are generally insuring long-term protection of important landscapes endangered by unsustainable uses. It is this second type of criteria that is predominantly applied to the case study. At this point, measuring the DF&WT's success in terms of outcomes is premature. The DF&WT is still a land trust still in its infancy, and therefore may be better evaluated by examining the process it is undergoing to complete the puzzle of building an effective land trust. Therefore, the criteria developed in this study focus on how the structure of the land trust and the policy environment in which it operates affect the ability of the DF&WT to meet its goals and 79 objectives. Although, where possible, some conjecture related to the Trust's success by looking at outcomes will be offered. 4.3 LITERATURE ON "SUCCESSFUL" LAND TRUSTS The analytical framework for this study was constructed largely from one source: An Evaluation of Agricultural Land Trusts, written in 1989 by the California State Coastal Conservancy (CSCC).1 Written in pursuant to a government code of the California State Legislature, the CSCC study evaluates and compares three agricultural land trusts, receiving demonstration project funding from the CSCC. The intent of this examination was to determine how well these land trusts and their associated conservation techniques functioned. From the examination, the CSCC study developed a number of conclusions about the role of land trusts. The CSCC found that land trusts can save agricultural land when a perceived threat exists that land may be converted to other uses and land trusts possess: • financial support; • receptive local agricultural leaders2 and landowners; • supportive governmental policies; • a committed and competent land trust board and staff; and • access to information about long-term agricultural protection techniques. 1 The CSCC is a state department created by legislation in 1976. The purpose of this department was "...to take affirmative steps in a non-regulatory manner to resolve resource conflicts on the California coast, and to implement programs for protecting, restoring, and enhancing coastal resources"(CSCC 1989, 7). The CSCC has had more experience working with land trusts and administering agricultural land protection programs than any other department of the State of California (CSCC 1989, 8). 2 The researcher interprets "receptive local agricultural leaders" to the broader meaning of "community support". 80 The basis for these conclusions is from not only looking at how well the three land trusts functioned, but also contrasting these institutions efforts with three projects carried out directly by the CSCC, a government agency that employs different conservation techniques. Criteria related to outcomes were used to implement the evaluation, including: • fulfillment of projects; • cost-effectiveness of methods; • timeliness of methods; • ability to satisfy program goals; • ability to raise additional funding and projects; and • perception of success and impact on region's farming. In addition to An Evaluation of Agricultural Land Trusts, a number of other sources relating to land trusts in general supported the findings of this report. Excerpts from these sources that support the CSCC report's finding are provided in Table 4.1. The basis from which these authors derived their findings was primarily from the experiences of other land trusts. The Standards and Practices Guidebook: An Operating Manual for Land Trusts (LTA 1993), a practical guide intended to help land trusts comprehend standards and practices both required both legally and otherwise, derived its findings from a survey filled out by more than 100 land trusts that provided insights from their individual experiences. Several of the other sources listed in Table 4.1 also obtained their findings largely from the experiences of previously established land trusts. As recorded by individuals, private organizations and government agencies that made the land trusts possible, 81 Table 4.1: Supporting Literature R E F E R E N C E : EV IDENCE TO SUPPORT CRITERIA : Land Trust Alliance (1993) The active involvement of directors in the governance of a land trust and adherence to sound governing procedures are critical to a land trust's success (2-3). Because fundraising is a critical, ongoing activity of every active land trust, it must be done not only with an eye toward how much can be raised this year, but with an understanding of how fundraising practices affect the long-term credibility of the land trust (5-1). A land trust must have help—from volunteers, consultants, and in many cases paid staff—with appropriate skills and in sufficient numbers to carry out its programs (7-1). A land trust must select the best available method for protecting each property (9-1). Good public relations, especially with adjacent landowners and public official who have a special interest in the property, can aid immeasurably in a land trust's stewardship program and benefit the land trust in many other ways (15-23). Hilts & Mitchell (1993) ...land trusts have the potential to make a major contribution to the conservation of common property resources. In order to do this, they must focus on the trust side of their name, building trust both with local landowners and the local community... (23). Murty (1994) To ensure voluntary participation of local people in the management of ...resources, the government need not be coercive...it has only to play a catalytic role (582-583). Endicott (1993) No piece of land in any community can be protected without local support (206). ...to be effective, a local land trust must be reliable and professional...this means that a land trust should hire staff members or team up with a large, staffed organization (214). Cohen (1993) is a simple fact that conservation in a given area cannot succeed without the support and involvement of the local people (12). Mantell, Harper, & Propst (1990) The choice of a board of directors and the effective use of their time and talents are perhaps the most important tasks a new nonprofit corporation must face. This is especially true of land trusts. ..(142) 82 the success and failures of these organizations serve as a model for future land trusts. However, it must be stressed these findings are only guiding principles; the importance of each of these varies with each land trust. 4.4 T W O TRIADS FOR I N S T R U M E N T A L SUCCESS From the arguments and criteria developed in the land trust literature two "triads" of instrumental criteria for a successful land trust were developed to carry out the analysis. It is recognized that the set of criteria is not definitive with regard to evaluating land trusts. However, the list is comprehensive and appropriate for this study. 4.4.1 Triad of Support The first of the two triads is the "triad of support". A land trust can successfully provide long-term protection for land and its vital resources if a land trust operates in an environment where landowners, governments, and community interest groups and leaders are receptive to working with the trust and supportive government policies promote rather than inhibit the land trust's work. In other words, for a land trust to succeed, it must have support from three sources: landowners, government and the community, as depicted in Figure 4.1. In terms of support from landowners, the literature states that a land trust must be able to meet both the financial and conservation needs of the landowners so that they are receptive to working with the land trust to protect important societal values on their private properties. For many landowners, their land is a business investment and contributes to their livelihood. 83 Therefore, efforts to protect CPRs on a landscape must, at the same time, recognize the economic needs of the landowners. Failure to do so will likely result in the landowner being not only unwilling but unable to participate in conservation endeavors. FIGURE 4.1: Triad Of Support LAND TRUST Landowner Government Community Support Support Support A land trust must also function in an environment where government policies, from local to federal, promote rather than inhibit the land trust's work (CSCC 1989). As mentioned in chapter three, in one sense, land trusts are tied to government policies because land trusts require government approval to operate as non-profit, tax-exempt institutions. Moreover, the policies governing a landscape, such as zoning restrictions and legal tools available for trusts to protect land are constructed by governments. A land trust's ability to meet its objectives is therefore affected by whether the government with land management authority approves of such institutions. 84 Finally, a land trust needs to obtain and maintain a level of community consensus (Mantell, Harper and Propst 1990) and enlist the support of the community by demonstrating how land protection can work to meet local needs. Widespread community involvement and a level of community respect for the land trust are crucial. According to LTA (1993), community respect for the land trust is a superior defense against further abuse of the landscape. In addition, maintaining community involvement can facilitate fundraising and encourage local officials to enhance local policies to assist the land trust. These three criteria are particularly true in the case of a land trust trying to protect a viable agricultural district. Thompson (1991) explains that.the need to protect large areas of land, the need to keep it in private ownership; and the need for allowing the land to be used for profit while protecting the environment distinguishes the conservation of agriculture from other types of land protection. In such circumstances, Thompson argues that creating partnerships are absolutely critical. This necessarily means working with those individuals that hold title to the property, farmers (if leasing the land), and any others who have a stake in the future of the area's agriculture. 4.4.2 The Triad of Institutional Capacity The other triad is the "triad of institutional capacity". . By institutional permanence, this study is referring to the land trust's operational mechanisms that establish the land trust's ability to meet its objectives in protecting land. A land trust can successfully provide long-term protection for land and its vital resources if the trust has three things: financial security, a 85 well chosen board and staff, and the ability to implement the necessary conservation tools to ensure long term protection of the land, as illustrated in Figure 4.2. FIGURE 4.3: Triad of Institutional Capacity LAND TRUST Financial Well Chosen Appropriate & Effective Security Board and Staff Conservation Tools To meet the first criterion, that of financial security, a land trust needs a reliable source of funding in order to be able to systematically meet its objectives (CSCC 1989). While many land trusts depend on voluntary contributions from private sources, this form of income can be sporadic and destabilizing as the amounts donated vary from year to year. The literature has found that stable financial support has been key to a land trust's success. Secondly, it is important for a land trust to attract and retain a professional board and staff. Having the "right individuals" (e.g., knowledgeable, respected by the community, and possessing strong interpersonal and leadership skills) running the land trust conveys the impression that the land trust is an established institution that can be expected to remain active and committed to its purposes in the future. 86 Finally, the success of a land trust depends on its choice of instruments in relation to the reasons for land preservation. It is important for a land trust to select conservation tools that are both appropriate and effective. The appropriateness of the conservation strategy depends largely upon the objectives of the land trusts and which of these objectives are viable and most important to the community (Mantell, Harper and Propst 1990). The effectiveness of a tool concerns the actual improvements made to the landscape trying to be saved and the security that these improvements will be maintained long-term. 4.5 M E A S U R I N G F O R I N S T R U M E N T A L SUCCESS: T H E INDICATORS To evaluate the effectiveness of the case study to achieve the "triad of support" for building a successful land trust, indicators of support must be determined. The indicators used to gauge landowner support is farmer participation in the land trust's programs and stakeholders' perceptions of landowner support. Government support is rated by the commitment of staff, technical assistance, direct financial assistance and most importantly, the implementation of land use policies and zoning that furthered the land trust's work. Finally, indicators for community support are measured by the expressed support of community leaders and influential community interest groups. Indicators were also developed'for the "triad of institutional capacity". Extent and longevity of funding sources were used to evaluate whether or not the land trust's had achieved financial security. In other words, are finances limiting the land trust's operational capacity now and are they expected to in the future? The professionalism of the individuals running the institution was measured by their level of experience with issues related to the 87 land trust's particular context, their level of participation in the institution's operation and their ability to gain support for the land trust's programs. Finally, the permanence of the conservation agreements and acceptability of the tools by the landowner were used as indicators of whether or not the land trust is implementing conservation tools that were acceptable and effective. 88 C H A P T E R FIVE Land Trust Comes To The Fraser River Delta Land trusts across Canada are protecting land, working with landowners, forming partnerships with business and government, and acting to conserve our natural, cultural and agricultural resources. (Hilts & Mitchell 1996, 1) 5.1 INTRODUCTION Given the review of the literature and the construction of instrumental criteria for a successful land trust, a land trust in the Fraser River delta (delta) of British Columbia is now evaluated. The Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust (DF&WT) is a newly-formed land trust that has taken on the challenge of developing a sustainable and wildlife-friendly farming system while helping to support the local economy. The DF&WT is therefore an excellent example for judging one type of land trust as a means of protecting public values through nontraditional approaches. The performance of the DF&WT is examined and evaluated against the Triadof Support and the Triad of Institutional Capacity. Before applying the criteria to this case study, it is important to first describe and assess the context in which the DF&WT was conceived for it has significantly influenced its creation and formation. Therefore, this chapter looks at the delta's geographical setting, CPRs and the emerging threats to the ecosystem in order to define the focus for the work of the DF&WT. 89 5.2 THE REGIONAL SETTING The delta lies just south of Vancouver in the lower Fraser Basin, as illustrated in Map 5.1. Covering 681 km2 (DF&WT 1994a), the delta is the largest formation of its kind on Canada's Pacific Coast (Environment Canada (EC) 1991). As shown in Map 5.2, this broad area extends from the Burrard Peninsula southward to the Canada-U.S. border, and from the Surrey uplands in the east to the Straight of Georgia in the west (Butler & Campbell 1987). The delta includes Sea Island, the municipalities of Richmond and Delta (including Westham, Ananacis, and other islands in the South Arm of the Fraser River), Roberts Bank and Boundary Bay. Before European settlement, the delta ecosystem was supported by a different landscape. Much of the delta was subjected to periodic flooding or perpetually covered with shallow water (Leach 1981). Vegetation consisted of a network of saltwater, freshwater and brackish marshes; seasonally flooded meadows; and wet coniferous forests where flooding was minimal (Butler & Campbell 1987). Beginning in the late 1800's, as explained by Butler and Campbell (1987), human activity imposed dramatic alterations on this landscape. The fertile alluvial floodplains of the delta were permanently ditched and diked to improve their arability for agricultural production. At the same time, its shores became sites for industrial activities, such as fish processing plants and lumber mills. The level, open uplands became the location for urban and suburban development. Consequently, much of the delta's original habitat was destroyed. Diking destroyed virtually all seasonally flooded meadows, salt marshes, bogs and about three-quarters of the wooded areas and brackish marshes. Those habitats have been converted primarily to cultivated fields and residential or industrial developments (Butler & Campbell 1987, 18). 90 92 Today, the Fraser Basin, in which the delta is located, is one of the fastest growing regions in Canada (Statistics Canada 1996). Urban and suburban development along with agriculture are the predominant uses of the delta landscape (See Figure 5.1). The existing farmland is primarily used for pasture, vegetable crops or left as fallow fields (Butler et al.1990). Of the two municipalities within the delta, the Municipality of Richmond, in the immediate shadow of Vancouver, has been extensively developed; while the Municipality of Delta still maintains its agricultural tradition. FIGURE 5.1: Habitat Types Present In The Fraser River Delta In 1880 And 1985 (Does not include following habitat types: river, sand/mud flats; or tidal brackish/salt marshes) • 1880 • 1985 60 T 53.9 H 40 + « 50 + Q. 0 42.8 0 26.1 1.4 31.2 9.2 0 Seasonally Flooded Wetlands Bog Tree/Shrub Cover Cultivated Farmland Urban/Industrial & Miscellaneous (Adapted from: North et al. 1979, Butler & Campbell 1987; EC 1991) Outside the diked portions of the landscape, the delta supports an extensive aquatic ecosystem. The Fraser River, the lifeline of the valley, carries water from British Columbia's interior to the ocean, dividing at New Westminster into the North and South arms*. The 93 Fraser River estuary is dominated by brackish marshes. Seaward of the marshes are extensive intertidal mud and sand flats, namely Roberts and Sturgeon banks. Interrelated with the estuarine ecosystem is Boundary Bay, a shallow marine bay, where 1.5 km of mudflats are exposed between the high and low tides. Boundary Bay is recognized as a wetland of international importance (Butler & Campbell 1987). 5.3 THE DELTA'S ECOLOGY AND COMMON POOL RESOURCES While there are a multitude of components and complex relationships to the delta's ecosystem, as briefly explained in Chapter Two, this study concentrates on two specific CPRs and the interdependent relationship between them. The first is the soil's capacity for food production (i.e., farming). The second is the wildlife, dependent on the habitat provided by the land. This section illustrates the importance and significance of wildlife and agriculture in the region, including the additional public benefit derived from farmland that provides habitat for wildlife. Such ecosystem linkages illustrate the interconnectedness of both private and public land, giving strength to the argument that public/private land conservation is essential to protecting CPRs. 5.3.1 Wildlife As discussed earlier, CPRs can be both fugitive or resident; that is, some CPRs move without encumbrance through varying ownership regimes, while others have a permanent location. Wildlife is generally a fugitive CPR that moves freely the landscape. Moreover, 94 rather than privately owned, wildlife in British Columbia, as in the rest of Canada and the United States, is "...held by the government for the people, but owned by government; the landowner does not have the right to take them without the permission of public authorities (Leman 1987, 31).1 Despite the massive alterations to the landscape caused by human settlement, the lower Fraser Basin is still of ecological importance as it is home to more than 300 species of migratory and resident birds; 45 species of mammals; 11 species of amphibians; and 5 species of reptiles (EC 1992). The delta plays a large role in supporting many of these species by offering protected waters and rich terrestrial habitats. The composition of species may have changed due to habitat alterations, but the ecosystem still supports a significant extent and diversity of wildlife, rendering it a habitat of global significance, as determined by the Rasmsar Convention (See Box 5.1) (Butler and Campbell 1987). Bird Species The delta supports the highest density of wintering birds as compared with all other estuaries in Canada (Butler & Campbell 1987). One reason for the delta's rich avian wildlife is its importance as a vital component of North American habitat for birds migrating on the Pacific Flyway (Butler & Cannings 1989; Butler & Campbell 1987). 2 Migratory birds use the delta's extensive mudflats and marshes as feeding and resting areas on their way to southern wintering grounds (Russel & Paish 1968). 1 It is interesting to note that, unlike wildlife, plants found on a piece of land are owned by that property's owner (Brubaker 1996). 2 The Pacific Flyway includes parts of Alberta and those lands lying between the Rockies (U.S. and Canada) and the Pacific, and between the Arctic Ocean and Mexico. 95 BOX 5.1: The Ramsar Convention In the early 1970's wildlife authorities from around the world met at Ramsar, Iran for the "Convention on Wetlands of International Importance Especially as Waterfowl Habitat". At the convention, criteria for identifying wetlands of international importance were developed. A wetland of international importance in terms of waterfowl was one that: *regularly supported 10,000 ducks, geese and swans; or 10,000 coots; or 20,000 waders; or *regularly supports 1% of the individuals in a population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl; or ""regularly supports 1% of the breeding pairs in a population of one species or subspecies of waterfowl. Applying these criteria to the delta, the number of waterfowl that use the delta, exceed the level deemed for a wetland of international significance by 30 fold (Butler and Campbell, 1987). Since the Ramsar Convention, some four dozen countries including Canada, have pledged to preserve more than four hundred wetlands, covering 30 million hectares, as Ramsar sites. To date, the Alaksen Wildlife Refuge has been the only designated Ramsar site in the delta (BBCC 1992). Waterfowl are the most conspicuous of these migratory birds (Savard 1991). It is estimated that approximately 1.5 million waterfowl move through this delta each year (Butler & Cannings 1989). These birds, including trumpeter swans, snow geese, ducks and wigeon, use the delta as a winter range and as a staging area during migration. Ducks Unlimited estimates that duck numbers in this region can exceed 200,000 during migrations, with as many as 100,000 remaining throughout the winter months (Loworn 1995). Snow Geese from Wrangel Island flock to the delta in numbers approaching 10,000 birds (Gartner Lee 1992). In fact, the delta is the site of the largest wintering waterfowl concentration in Canada (Russel & Paish 1968). Aside from waterfowl, the delta supports three other main groups of birds. The first group is the shorebirds. "The largest populations of shorebirds on the British Columbia coast 96 are found on mud flats and upland roosts in the Fraser River delta" (Butler & Campbell 1987). It is estimated that over 500,000 shorebirds (Butler & Cannings 1989), comprised of 50 different species (Price 1990), use the entire delta annually. Dunlins, Black-bellied Plovers and Western Sandpipers, to name a few, feed on the rich mud flats along Boundary Bay during low tides and then move to the uplands during high tides (Butler & Campbell 1987). The second group is birds of prey. The delta boasts the highest density and most diverse concentration of birds of prey in Canada, especially in winter (Smith 1994). These species, such as the Northern Harrier, Bald Eagles and Short-eared Owls, depend largely on old-field habitat to feed on small rodents, like the Townsend's vole. (Sullivan 1992). A diversity of both resident and migrant songbirds represents the third group of birds (Smith 1992). Some of the resdient songbirds of the delta are Song Sparrows, Brewer's Blackbirds, and Black-capped Chickadees. Other songbirds like the Common Yellowthroats, Savannah Sparrows, and Orange-crowned Warblers reside on the delta's land-based habitats during the summer (Smith 1996). These birds depend on riparian and woodland areas as well as farmland habitat, such as hedgerows (Butler 1992; Butler & Campbell 1987). Fish Species So many birds flock to the delta because of its location at the mouth of the Fraser River, a waterway with internationally significant fish resources. This productive river along with the delta's abundant nutrients create rich habitat for 87 fish species (Birtwell et al. 1988). In particular, the Fraser River and its tributaries are renowned for their salmon species (Northcote & Burwash 1991). In terms of sheer numbers, the Fraser River is often described 97 as the largest salmon producer in the world (FRAP 1996b; McPhee and Ward 1992; Northcote & Burwash 1991). The Fraser River system supports six main species of salmon: pink, chum, sockeye, coho, chinook salmon, and steelhead trout (Henderson 1991). The delta provides crucial habitat within the migratory life cycle of these fish. According to Henderson (1991), salmon use the Fraser River wetlands for rearing and as a refuge from predators. In essence, the delta connects the salmon's spawning grounds to open water habitats. Thus, it is clear that human activity in the delta has a direct impact on the salmon's ability to migrate between these two environments. Fish are important to British Columbians both commercially and recreationally. Fraser River salmon are the mainstay of the B.C. fishing industry; upon processing, Fraser River salmon contribute, on average, $230 million a year to the provincial economy (FRAP 1996b). Recreationally, fishing contributes to the economy through jobs in tourism and support industries (Northcote & Burwash 1991). More specifically, fsjport-fishing as a whole generates $180 million a year in direct revenues and indirect value as part of the province's $5 billion-a-year tourism industry - it is estimated that one-third of every tourism dollar spent is directed toward some aspect of recreational fishing (FRAP 1996b). Other Mammals In addition to birds and fish, the delta also supports a number of other wildlife species, although the composition of such species has changed dramatically since human settlement. At the turn of the century, elk, wolf, cougar and black bear were some of the conspicuous members of the delta ecosystem, but have since largely disappeared (Butler & Campbell 98 1987). Today the mammals found in the delta include the red-tailed deer and a number of small rodents, including the Townsend's vole (Butler & Campbell 1987). 5.3.2 Food Producing Capacity of the Soils: Farmlands Apart from its rich wildlife, the delta landscape supports another CPR upon which all species depend: food. In fact, the delta is part of Canada's most productive agricultural landscapes due to its fertile alluvial soils and mild climate (EC 1992).3 Such conditions are favorable to a wide diversity of agricultural practices. The region supports everything from permaculture and vegetable production4 to dairy, sheep and beef production (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MOAFF)1992). According to the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) (1992), agriculture in the province produces 120 different commodities that contribute an estimated $3.8 billion annually to the provincial economy. In terms of value added, agriculture in British Columbia ranks third in importance after forestry and mining. Even more significant is the fact that B.C. farmers produce "...the equivalent of 60 percent of [B.C.'s] food requirements and a greater variety of products over a wider range of geographical and climate conditions that any other area in Canada" (GVRD 1992, 26). Of the province's agricultural land, approximately 1.5 % is found in the GVRD (GVRD 1996b).5 Though small in area, this farmland was found to account for 23 % of the 3 For the sake of simplicity, the study's use of the term "agriculture" denotes the CPR of the capacity of the land to produce food, realizing that agriculture is actually the means by which we obtain the benefits of the land's food producing capacity. 4 The vegetable crops most often grown are potatoes, beans, corn, peas and various cereals (Temple 1992). 5 "The GVRD is a partnership of the 20 municipalities and two electoral areas that make up the metropolitan area of Greater Vancouver" (GVRD 1996a). 99 total dollar value of the province's agricultural production (GVRD 1996b). The reasons this region plays such a significant role in agriculture are as follows: A large accessible urban market readily at hand, excellent diverse growing soils, mild climate, energetic farm community, innovative technology and proximity to expert markets combine to make an industry worth $300 million annually (GVRD 1996b, 1). 5.3.3 Interdependence Of The Landscape: CPR Linkages The delta is a region, like many others, where the human activities on the landscape are inextricably linked to the welfare of the resident and migratory wildlife. While the agricultural lands have replaced much of the original grasslands and wetlands of the delta as well as changed the species composition of the region, it is being increasingly recognized that farmlands can provide important habitat for a plethora of species (BBCC 1992). In other words, the protection of agricultural landscapes does more than just protect the CPR of food security, it also contributes to safekeeping wildlife and ecological processes. In the delta, there is a direct ecological link between the coastal and intertidal zone and the uplands, where agriculture is the dominant land use (Butler & Campbell 1987). The farmlands provide upland habitat for many birds which use the estuarine and maritime habitat of the adjacent intertidal areas (Savard 1991; Butler & Campbell 1987). Intertidal species, such as shorebirds, feed in the estuary at low tide and then move to the farmlands during high tide. The waterfowl that winter in the delta depend not only on the rich estuarine mudflats, but also on food provided by cover crops6 and leftover cash crops such as potatoes (Temple 1992). 6 Cover crops are"...crops which provide overwinter cover to reduce the structural degradation which results from the action of winter rainfall on unprotected soils" (Bomke 1995, 1). 100 The delta's farmlands also provide critical nesting and foraging habitat. "Old fields," which are cleared lands not being put to agricultural use, serve as feeding habitat for birds of prey which rely on species living in the fields as well as nesting and feeding habitat for waterfowl (Gartner Lee 1992b). The neotropical songbirds depend on farmers' hedgerows, field margins and ditches for nesting, food and cover. Interestingly, farm structures support the last remaining populations of the Common Barn Owl in Canada (Butler 1992). Richard Porter, author of Economics of Agriculture and Wildlife (1994) provides an interesting way of understanding the interrelationship of agriculture and wildlife by describing it as "points of contact in land-use". He argues there are three types of points of contact-concurrent land use, adjacent land use and linked land use. Concurrent land use occurs when wildlife and farming utilize the same fields or structures. An example of this is when waterfowl augment their food supply by grazing off field crops. The second type, adjacent land use, occurs when unworked farmlands provide wildlife habitat, such as hedgerows, ditches or fallow lands. Finally, linked land use happens when land is affected by agricultural production some distance away. Porter cites the system of dikes as having a linked land use effect on the habitat conditions throughout the region. The fish species inhabiting the Fraser River are also interconnected with agriculture and wildlife in a number of ways. Firstly, the same wetland habitats that provide feeding and resting areas for wildlife provide shelter and protection to fish from predation and organic matter upon which the fish feed (Gartner Lee 1992b). As argued by Leach (1981, 143) "...most wetlands important to birds and mammals are essential to the maintenance of the Fraser River fisheries". Secondly, as stated earlier, the delta enables salmon to migrate 101 between their open water and spawning habitats. Thirdly, the vegetation located on farmland adjacent to streams can have a direct impact by moderating daily water temperatures through shading and contributing detritus. 5.4 E M E R G I N G P R O B L E M S IN T H E D E L T A The location, climate, beauty and other attributes of the delta have committed the region to a conflict between urban and rural sectors. The most endangered wildlife habitat and the richest agricultural soils increasingly compete and lose to development pressures brought on by the rapid urbanization of the Fraser Basin (Moore 1990). As these pressures increase, the conflict intensifies. The following section elaborates on specific threats to this highly valued landscape. Population Growth One of the most obvious pressures for change in the delta is the region's growing population. Today there are over 3.7 million people living in the province (Statistics Canada 1996), with 1.7 million (46%) of them living in the lower Fraser Basin (FRAP 1996). Moreover, an estimated 45,000 new residents call the Lower Fraser Basin home each year. Within the lower Fraser Basin, according to Statistics Canada (1996), the Vancouver metropolitan area boasts the highest annual growth rates in all of Canada. Between 1987 and 1995, the Vancouver metropolitan area experienced an annual growth rate of 2.6%. In terms of future growth, it has been estimated that during the next twenty-five years, over one million people will migrate to the lower Fraser Basin, bringing the total population to nearly 3 million, an increase of 68% (FRAP 1996a). 102 Sprawl and Development With an increase in people, comes an increase in the need for land, housing and services such as transportation. The geographical growth restrictions caused by the mountain slopes and the border with the United States is forcing urbanization in the lower Fraser Basin to swallow more lowland acreage, putting increased pressure on farmland and forests. These pressures on resource lands are directly affected by urban expansion which has been converting rural lands to urban uses at a rate of over 600 ha annually in recent years (EC 1992, 63). In terms of housing, the GVRD (1995a) projects that a near doubling of the population will result in a near doubling of needed houses and apartments. According to Environment Canada (1992), within Greater Vancouver the number of households has already grown from over 400,000 in 1976 to nearly 550,000 in 1992. Growth projections estimate 836,000 households by the year 2011. Such urbanization "...has clearly resulted in substantial conversion of rural resource lands to urban uses"(EC 1992, 54). Demands for other services have also increased with the burgeoning population. For example, urbanization places heavy demands on transportation systems. Traffic congestion has increased as the number of vehicles in the region grows and the distance between work and home widens (EC 1992). Another consequence of the population growth is an increase in solid wastes and the need to find suitable means for their disposal.7 The demand for recreational opportunities in the lower Fraser Basin has also grown, as evidenced by increase park attendance (EC 1992). 7 Included in the term "solid wastes" are residential, commercial and industrial wastes (EC 1992). 103 Such changes in the lower Fraser Basin have not gone unnoticed by the public. In fact, regional growth projections have concerned current residents of the lower Fraser Basin to such a degree that the GVRD (1995b) has adopted a "Livable Region Strategic Plan" in an attempt to manage this growth. A four year public consultation process revealed to the GVRD that the public did not want to see development sprawl spread throughout the valley to accommodate the projected growth. According to the GVRD (1995b, 2): They rejected it because it would put development pressure on farmland, increase the distance between jobs and housing, cost too much for public services and utilities, and result in worsening of air pollution from increased automobile use. Thus, the Plan targets protecting green space (i.e., recreational parks, farmlands, and any other ecologically important lands); building town centers; concentrating growth in areas close to job centers; and increasing the opportunities for non-automobile travel. Wildlife Populations Threatened With this increase in human presence and activity in the delta, a number of trends are occurring that threaten the future of the region's rich wildlife. Commercial demands, expanding communities and environmental problems all contribute to diminishing the populations of many wildlife species. The most threatening trend facing wildlife is habitat loss (EC 1992; Butler & Campbell 1987). As mentioned earlier, the delta has been considerably altered over the past century. According to Butler and Campbell (1987), the most dramatic losses of habitat have occurred with 104 wet meadows, bog habitats, and riparian areas. Overall, approximately 75% of the original wetland system has been lost to diking, draining and cultivation. Related to the loss of habitat is the lack of land designated specifically for wildlife purposes. According to Butler and Campbell (1987), only 1% of the delta has been formally protected as wildlife habitat, a percentage that they feel is insufficient to support present wildlife populations. With the lack of protected habitat and the continued loss of unprotected natural areas to urban encroachment and development, a number of wildlife species could face extinction. Table 5.1 lists a number of species that are at risk provincially or uncommon in the delta and are ranked according to the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Park (MOELP) as either endangered (red-listed) or threatened (blue-listed). Table 5.1: Species at Risk in the Fraser River Delta SPECIES Eta Blue SPECIES Red Blue Sandhill Crane X Black-crowned Nipht Heron X Western Grebe X Bald EaPle X American Bittern X Common Barn Owl X Green-hacked Heron X Double-crested Cormorant X Great Blue Heron X White Sturgeon X (Source: Conservation Data Centre 1996; Gartner Lee 1992b). As the extent and quality of wildlife habitat declines, those species less vulnerable to the alterations of the landscape are those that can supplement their use of remaining habitats with farmlands. Soil-based agriculture, particularly fields that are seasonally flooded or left fallow, offers important wildlife habitat (Butler & Campbell 1987). Consequently, the loss of farmlands is not only detrimental to the agricultural community, but also a threat to wildlife. 105 Agricultural landscapes remain the most important working landscape where wildlife can co-habitat but growing demands on lands remaining outside and inside the ALB8 for conversion to urban uses threaten wildlife habitat through the alienating effects of Vancouver's urban shadow (Porter 1994, 45). Decreasing Viability of Agriculture Farming in the delta, however, is becoming increasingly difficult as threats continue to destabilize the farming community (Klohn Leonoff 1992). The problems facing agriculture in the delta fall into three categories: competing uses, degradation of agricultural lands and land use policies and management practices inhibiting a viable farming community. Firstly, the productivity of the land to grow food is threatened due to competing uses. As mentioned earlier, increasing populations are placing greater demands on the landscape. Often times these demands are not compatible with the needs of agriculture. Most telling is the fact that "...77% of B.C. farm cash receipts come from 2.7% of B.C.'s land base - the same area where 77% of British Columbians live" (MOAFF 1996, 1). Secondly, there are the problems associated with the ecological functioning of the land itself (Temple 1992). Farmers are struggling with a loss of soil structure due to problems of inadequate sub-surface drainage, deep soil compaction and declining soil organic matter. These problems are attributed to both the climatic conditions of the region and the shift from mixed farming toward more intensive vegetable farming (Temple 1992). The increased use of agricultural lands by waterfowl, causing wildlife depredation of crops, has added another threat to the farmers (Klohn Leonoff 1992). Though most bird species are not a 8 ALR stands for "Agricultural Land Reserve", a provincial land use zoning designation that will be discussed later in the paper. 106 problem to agriculture, a few species, such as the feral Canada goose, American wigeon and European starling, can occur in such large numbers as to cause crop losses (BBCC 1992). Further losses in natural habitat or agricultural land used by wildlife, caused by urbanization, are concentrating existing wildlife populations onto fewer fields and increasing the likelihood of more extensive crop damage (Temple 1992). Efforts to remedy the second set of problems are interconnected with and inhibited by a third set of problems relating to the region's land management trends and land use policies. Firstly, the intensification of agriculture and the subsequent loss of inherent soil capability is attributed to the fact that a significant portion of farmed land is under short-term leases (Klohn Leonoff 1992). Leased land is a growing trend in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia (BBCC 1992). Where land is leased for farming "...there is little incentive to practice good soil conservation (i.e. cover and rest crops) and crop management practices (i.e. proper crop rotations)..."(Temple 1992, 3). Related to land leasing is land speculation, a strong destabilizing force in the farming community (Klohn Leonoff 1992). Non-farmers are acquiring farmlands assuming that one day the region will be able to be developed for more urban style land uses. Speculation increases land rents above the land's economic value to agriculture. "This, in turn, mitigates against good farming practices, robbing both the soil productivity and the public interest in sustainable agricultural production (Klohn Leonoff 1992, iii). 107 5.5 S U M M A R Y The Lower Fraser Basin is a region that has been, and will continue to be, under major transition as the climate, geographic splendor and rich economy attract more people. Accommodating more people in the region creates problems for many of the region's CPRs. The following chapter looks more specifically at the factors affecting the CPRs specifically within the Municipality of Delta and how the DF&WT was created and structured to try and protect them. 108 CHAPTER SLX The Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust: A Case Study The DF&WT...working hard to find cooperative solutions. (DF&WT 1995b, 1) 6.1 INTRODUCTION In February of 1993, the delta became home to a new land trust: the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust (DF&WT). A response to a set of circumstances in the delta, the DF&WT's establishment signaled the dawning of an official partnership between the farmers and wildlife conservationists, a partnership that is trying to remedy long-standing conflicts between the two interest groups as well as protect the significant qualities of the region. Having discussed the regional setting, the purpose of this chapter is threefold. Firstly, Section 6.1 elaborates on the more specific context in which the DF&WT is operating: the Municipality of Delta.1 Attention will be given to the Municipality's geography, regional importance, institutional framework and emerging threats to its future. Section 6.2 describes what factors played a significant role in the creation of the DF&WT. These specific events are important to understand because they contributed to the way this particular land trust institution is supported and structured. Finally Section 6.3 characterizes the DF&WT. 'For the purposes of this thesis, only that portion of the delta within the Municipality of Delta will be discussed in the case study. The reason for this limited scope is not because the author supports the notion that the arbitrary lines that encompass the Municipality represent the only threatened areas of the delta. Instead, this limited scope is due to the fact that the DF&WT is currently only able to deal with those lands within the Municipality. In fact, the DF&WT hopes to expand its work into the remaining areas of the delta (DF&WT 1994a). 109 Specifically, this section outlines the construction and mode of operation as well as points to the institution's uniqueness relative to other land trusts. 6.2 L O C A L C O N T E X T : D E L T A , BRITISH C O L U M B I A Ours to preserve by hand and heart. Delta Municipality motto (As quoted in BBCC 1992) The Geography The Municipality of Delta2 consists of 44, 283 acres of land, bordered in the north by the South Arm of the Fraser River and in the south by Boundary Bay and the 49th parallel (GVRD 1995, 89). The city of Surrey lies to the east of the Municipality while Westham Island, Brunswick Point and Roberts Bank define the western reaches. Delta includes the townships of Ladner, North Delta and Tsawwassen (See Map 6.1). The Municipality's land, although under a combination of uses, is dominated by agriculture, possessing extensive tracts of prime farmland. There are approximately 24,184 acres within the ALR (GVRD 1992), 60% of which is actively farmed (Klohn Leonoff 1992). Delta lands not employed in agriculture include lands associated with wildlife reserves and parks, commercial and industrial centers and residential developments. 2 The Municipality of Delta will be referred to from now on as either "Delta" or "the Municipality" to distinguish it from "die delta", which denotes the Fraser River delta. I l l Importance of The Municipality The Municipality of Delta is regarded by many as a critically important agricultural region in British Columbia in terms of provincial food production (BCALC 1993; EC 1992; Klohn Leonoff 1992). Delta farmlands have high productive capabilities in addition to easy accessibility to markets (Klohn Leonoff 1992). Moreover, the Municipality contributes substantially to the local and provincial economy. In 1991, Delta's gross farm receipts represented 11% of the GVRD's gross farm receipts and 4.6% of total farm receipts for the Lower Mainland (Runka 1994, 38). Delta's agriculture produces a large diversity of crops and products. Klohn Leonoff Ltd. (1992) found that nearly two-thirds of the agricultural land in the Municipality is used to grow crops, including almost two dozen types of vegetables, nine varieties of berries and three types of grain. The remaining one third of the land is devoted to livestock production and associated forage crops. According to Temple (1992), the intense production of vegetables is a relatively recent development; throughout the past thirty years, the farmlands of Delta have been transferred from a largely pastoral landscape to that of cultivated crop production. Located at the mouth of the Fraser River, the Municipality of Delta is also important as an internationally recognized wildlife area (EC 1996; Norecol, Dames, & Moore 1994; BBCC 1992). Key tracts of land, estuary and seashore areas have been dedicated to maintaining wildlife habitat such as: the Alaksen National Wildlife Area, the Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary, Boundary Bay Wildlife Management Area, Boundary Bay Regional Park and Serpetine Fen. These areas coupled with the farmlands represent the heart of the delta ecosystem. Such wildlife attributes in the delta also create important recreational 112 opportunities for residents and non-residents alike, including hunting and wildlife viewing (BBCC 1992). The Municipality's quality of life and strategic location between Vancouver and the U.S. border have also made it an important region of commercial and residential activity (GVRD 1995a). Accessible by an extensive road, water, air and rail transport network, the Municipality has attracted a number of major firms. Even more significant is the fact that companies in industries such as forestry, service, retail, technology and automotive parts are headquartered in Delta (GVRD 1995a, 18-21). In addition, the Municipality is home to the third largest export bulk terminal in the world, the Roberts Bank Superport, from which some 20 million tons of coal is shipped annually (GVRD 1995a, 90). Institutional Setting for Land Use In Delta There are a range of institutional organizations operating in the Municipality charged with safeguarding the region. These groups include public agencies, private lobby groups, conservation trusts and farming cooperatives. The following description is limited to institutions principally involved in issues related to land use, agriculture and wildlife. Provincial and Federal Governments Land Management The provincial government has by far the greatest influence on land management efforts in Delta. Not only is the provincial government a significant landowner in the region 113 (Porter 1994), but it also is responsible for the protection, management and enhancement of the provincial landscape, a mandate specifically under the purview of the Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks (MOELP). Under the B.C. Land Act, the provincial government has authority to set aside or expropriate land for certain uses, restrict land use on private property and provide incentives to encourage certain land use practices (Findlay & Hillyer 1994). The provincial government's authority greatly affected Delta when the government became concerned with the loss of high quality agricultural land in the province. According to Manning & Eddy (1978), in 1972, the provincial government froze high capability agricultural land under The Environment and Land Use Act. Then in 1973, under the Land Commission Act, the B.C. Land Commission was created to designate agricultural land reserves (ALRs) throughout the province. Land within ALRs must be maintained in agriculture unless alternative land uses are approved by, what is today called, the British Columbia Agricultural Land Commission (BCALC). 3 To date, the ALR in the Municipality of Delta has been relatively effective at slowing urban development in lands zoned for agriculture (EC 1992). This legislation has not been as successful, however, in keeping that land in full-time agriculture or in the hands of the agricultural community (Klohn Leonoff. 1992). As concluded by Porter: The ALR, while it protects land from outright urban development, does not prevent the withdrawal of land from high value extensive agriculture, and promotes the fragmentation of land by exacerbating the opportunity costs of holding large land units (Porter 1994, ii). 3 The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MOAFF)is the agency directly responsible for the BCALC. 114 The federal role in land management in British Columbia is minor compared to the provincial government. The federal government manages only federal lands (Fraser Basin Management Program (FBMP) 1994), which in Delta constitutes a relatively small acreage of land used for a migratory bird sanctuary, an airport and a harbor. Management of Agriculture In terms of provincial responsibilities for agriculture in Delta, the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (MOAFF) is the principal agency. The MOAFF, in addition to overseeing the BCALC, assists in maintaining the viability of agriculture through specific support and research programs as well as administers the provincial marketing, regulatory and advisory boards related to agriculture (FBMP 1994, 5). In the Municipality, the MOELP is also involved with agriculture as manager of over 4,742 acres of provincial farmlands, consisting of the ALR.: the Roberts Bank Backup Lands; Farm Program Properties; and Greenbelt Program lands (Klohn Leonoff 1992, 11). Contrary to the provincial government's more specific responsibilities in the Municipality, the federal counterpart, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (AAFC) has involvement only as it relates to national agriculture policies. Administering and financing agricultural research, assistance programs and marketing boards, AAFC contributes to the knowledge base of Delta agriculture and the assistance provided to Delta farmers (FBMP 1994, 5). 115 Wildlife and Fisheries Protection The management of the delta's wildlife and fish resources is a cooperative effort of the provincial and federal governments. On the provincial side, as directed by the Wildlife Act, the MOELP is the caretaker of all wildlife and its habitat within provincial boundaries (Rueggeberg & Dorcey 1991). As such, the MOELP conducts research, regulates hunting, protects provincially endangered species, promotes recreation related to wildlife viewing, protects the public from unsafe wildlife and coordinates wildlife management for integrated planning (FBMP 1994, 5). Federal responsibility for wildlife is limited to migratory birds and mammals that traverse international borders. As explained by Rueggeberg & Dorcey (1991), protecting migratory birds originates from the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds (1916)4 and is embodied in the Migratory Birds Convention Act and the Canada Wildlife Act, both administered by the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) of Environment Canada (EC). These two acts enable CWS to establish migratory bird sanctuaries and protected wildlife areas. To that end in the Municipality, the CWS manages the Alaksen National Wildlife Area, a nationally significant wildlife habitat. This 586 hectares Ramsar site is 70% cultivated farmland, 15% marsh wetlands, 5% woodland or grassland and 5% shore flats (Environment Conservation Branch 1996). The influence of CWS extends into other parts of the Municipality as well. The CWS has other holdings in the region and has contributed to other wildlife habitat purchases 4 At this convention Canada signed an agreement with the U.S. to cooperatively protect North American bird populations. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan, discussed later, is an outcome of this agreement (Rueggeberg & Dorcey 1991). 116 (McKelvey 1996). Other responsibilities of the Service include endangered species and research on wildlife of national importance (CWS 1996). The federal government has a much stronger role in fisheries management. Under the Fisheries Act (1856), legislation which allows considerable federal involvement protecting fisheries, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has jurisdiction over all coastal and inland fisheries (Rueggeberg & Dorcey 1991). More specifically, the federal government "...is responsible for assessing, maintaining and enhancing fish populations and for managing their exploitation" (Northcote and Burwash 1991, 219). In practice, however, DFO is only involved with anadromous species. In British Columbia, the federal government has delegated responsibility for managing certain sport fisheries and fishing related industries to the provincial government (FBMP 1994). The MOELP oversees the health of freshwater fish populations and regulates sport fishing. The MOAFF handles the industry side of fisheries, managing the aquaculture and fish processing industries. However, all provincial efforts related to fisheries management must comply with the Fisheries Act-Local Governments In terms of local governance, the responsibility resides in the hands of the Municipality of Delta and the GVRD. The Municipality provides a variety of local government services to its citizens. As it pertains to land within municipal boundaries, the Municipality has the authority to regulate housing requirements, official community plans and floodplain 117 development and privately owned lands through zoning bylaws (FBMP 1994).5 Moreover the Municipality can designate farmlands and regulate some agricultural practices (FBMP 1994). The GVRD, a regional government, has similar land management authority as the Municipality over unincorporated lands. Since the scope of this case study is restricted to the Municipality of Delta, the GVRD's authority does not readily apply. However the GVRD does maintain two parks in the Municipality: Deas Island and Boundary Bay Regional Parks (Schade 1996). Both these parks provide important wildlife habitat and recreational opportunities in Delta. (Table 6.1 summarizes the institutional framework for the public land management described above, including local, provincial and federal governments.) Aboriginal Government Aboriginal affairs in Canada are primarily handled by the federal government (Rueggeberg & Dorcey 1991), specifically the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND). Under the Indian Act (1874), the DIAND administers programs and services for aboriginal people. Within the Municipality, there are some Indian Reserve lands which are lands held by the Crown and administered by the DIAND for the good of First Nations people (FBMP 1994). Approximately 520 hectares of this land is in the ALR (Klohn Leonoff 1992, 11). While First Nations could have an influence on the agriculture and wildlife issues in Delta, to date they have not been involved with the case study. 5 It is important to note that local government bylaws operating within the ALR must be consistent with this provincial agriculture zoning law Q7BMP 1996, 5). 118 Table 6.1: Institutional Framework Operating in Delta Management Activity Federal Government Proviiicial Government Local Governments Land CWS owns and manages migratory birds sanctuaries and wildlife areas of national importance. Province owns and manages "Crown" lands. MOELP owns and leases out 23% of the Municipality's lands within the ALR. The Municipality regulates floodplain development, building, and private or community-owned lands. GVRD has similar authority in unincorporated areas. Agriculture AAFC maintains national agriculture policies; implements and nuances agricultural research and assistance programs. MOAFF develops programs to support B.C.'s agricultural industry. The BCALC oversees the ALR provincial zoning bylaw. The Municipality regulates some agricultural practices and can zone land for farming. GVRD has same authority in unincorporated areas. Fisheries DFO manages and regulates all coastal and inland fisheries as it relates to the Fisheries Act. MOELP manages specific sports fisheries as well as all fish habitats. MOAFF regulates aquacullure and fish processing industries. The Municipality and GVRD must comply with federal fishing laws and can contribute to protection offish habitat. Wildlife CWS protects and manages migrator) birds and mammals of national importance and handles endangered species issues and concerns. MOELP is responsible for protecting and managing provincial wildlife and habitat. GVRD and Delta have no mandate for wildlife protection but can incor-porate wildlife protection into land-use plans. Private Agents There are also a host of private agents actively working on land use issues in the delta. Two of the main groups relating to the Municipality specifically are the Delta Farmers Institute (DFI) and the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee (BBCC). The DFI is a regional advocacy group, representing more than 90 individual members all associated with farming in the Municipality (Beutel 1995). The B B C C is a voluntary conglomeration of individuals and representatives of over a dozen non-governmental organizations committed to the protection of the Boundary Bay ecosystem. Serving as a conduit to environmental interest 119 groups in the region, the BBCC "...seeks to develop links between agricultural and conservationist goals" (BBCC 1994, 91). Two larger organizations actively working to protect CPRs in the delta are Ducks Unlimited and the Nature Trust of British Columbia. Ducks Unlimited is a nonprofit organization with offices throughout North America, whose mission is: ...to fulfill the annual life cycle needs of North American waterfowl by protecting, enhancing, restoring, and managing important wetlands and associated uplands (DU 1995, 1). In the delta, Ducks Unlimited has acquired land principally for waterfowl conservation purposes and worked with farmers to enhance wetlands habitat on their properties. The Nature Trust is one of the oldest and biggest land trusts in Canada and concentrates on acquiring lands of ecological significance (Hilts and Mitchell 1995, 21). More specifically, the Nature Trust facilitates the transferring the management and administration of ecologically important lands to the provincial government under restrictive covenants. Some of the smaller, but no less important, groups working on specific interests in the delta. Some examples of these groups are Friends of Boundary Bay, B.C. Waterfowl Society, Delta Agricultural Society, and Burns Bog Conservation Society. Public/Private Partnerships The institutional setting in the delta is also affected by some public/private partnerships. Such efforts blur the distinction between public and private land preservation efforts. Probably the most ambitious of such partnerships is the Pacific Coast Joint Venture (PCJV), a subcomponent of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP). 120 The 1986 NAWMP agreement between Canada and the United States sets out to involve governments, industries, conservationists, farmers and individuals in the preservation, enhancement and maintenance of key waterfowl habitats (NAWMP 1996). The ultimate aim of the NAWMP is to restore migratory bird populations to 1970's numbers by the year 2000 (NAWMP 1996). Among areas of concern to both countries is the "Middle-Upper Pacific Coast", a stretch of shoreline from San Francisco Bay to the Skeena River, on British Columbia's North Coast. One of the priorities within this stretch of coast is the delta (Porter 1994). The PCJV is a regional partnership consisting of a number of groups. In British Columbia, the participants consist of the CWS, MOELP, AAFC, Wildlife Habitat Canada, Pacific Estuary Conservation Program, Ducks Unlimited, B.C. Nature Trust and a First Nations representative. Each of these groups is concerned with the protection of wildlife and its habitat, particularly the birds of the Pacific Flyway (Porter 1994). Threats to The Municipality of Delta Like the lower Fraser Basin, the Municipality of Delta is undergoing tremendous changes as human activity increases in the region. Its convenient location between Vancouver and the U.S. border and its extensive transportation network not only bring economic advantages, but also the problem of increasing demands on a limited landscape. Delta has experienced a dramatic increase in population in recent years. During the five years between the 1986 and 1991 census, Delta had a 13% population increase from 79,000 to 89,000 (GVRD 1995, 89). By 1994 the number of residents had risen to over 121 95,000 (GVRD 1995, 43). As stated earlier, an increase in population brings an increase in the need for services and the pressure for more urban land. In addition to the population pressures, farmers are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain a viable agricultural industry in the Municipality. In 1992, the Delta Agricultural Study,6 conducted by Klohn Leonoff Ltd., found that a high degree of absentee ownership, speculation by developers, soil degradation resulting from the intensification of production and wildlife depredation are all problems being experienced by the farming community in Delta. The Study determined that of the approximately 34,517 acres of land actively farmed in the Municipality, 43.1% is owned by government, predominantly by provincial agencies. The remaining 57% of land is in private ownership. Of that, ...a considerable amount of the privately held (leased and/or rented) lands are managed by corporations acting as agents for the land owners (Klohn Leonoff 1992, 16). The Study concluded that such land ownership patterns in Delta result from a combination of expropriation and speculation. In fact, only 33% of the Municipality's actively farmed land is owned by the agricultural community. The remaining 66% is either rented or leased back to farmers, with half of this land under short-term leases not exceeding one year (Klohn Leonoff 1992, 12). 6 One of several studies completed as part of the Boundary Bay Area Study Q3BAS), a cooperative study of land use and ecology of the Boundary Bay area involving the community and government, die Delta Agricultural Study developed a series of recommendations for an integrated strategy to protect farmland and promote a viable agricultural industry in the face of urban encroachment and increased wilderness protection (Klohn Leonoff 1992). 122 Apart from the ownership problems, the Study suggested that Delta farmers endure considerable amounts of wildlife depredation. Wildlife, particularly waterfowl, use the farmlands as important upland habitat for feeding, causing crop loss as well as soil compaction and puddling. From the farmers surveyed, the Study determined that, "...the extent of wildlife damage to crops is estimated to range from 5 to 10%, on average of total plantings (Klohn Leonoff 1992, 46). This threat, among others, makes Delta an ecological and agricultural landscape at risk. 6.3. FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE FORMATION OF THE DF&WT In addition to the regional and local problems threatening the Municipality, there were a number of significant events which encouraged the formation of the DF&WT and shaped it into the institution it is today. The following is an overview of these circumstances. Box 6.1, found at the end of this section, provides a timeline summarizing these events.7 Changing Public Values Institutions are born out of human values. The public and private institutions in existence to manage, protect and enhance land are the result of an awareness by the public of the need to protect the land from a use that was debilitating a publicly valued CPR. The 7 The researcher recognizes that the factors influencing the creation of the DF&WT are many and subject to various interpretations. The following is a presentation of the primary factors perceived by the researcher as a result of her data collection. 123 manner in which these institutions operate reflects an understanding (complete or incomplete) of who benefits from and who bears the burden of CPR protection. How land in the lower Fraser Basin is used has become important to its residents. As described earlier, the GVRD's Livable Region Strategy resulted from a four year public and intergovernmental consultation process that found the public did not want to see urbanization of the region continue as it had in the past (1995). The residents of Delta concur with this sentiment according to Delta's mayor, who stated that "...public opinion is frequently opposed to both increased urban density and increased urban sprawl"(BCALC 1993). By and large, British Columbians also desire a healthy environment and agricultural industry. A survey conducted in July of 1995, by Campbell Goodell Traynor Consultants Ltd., found that a significant majority of residents in the lower Mainland region are concerned about the quality of the environment. Also in this survey, British Columbians overwhelmingly thought that "protecting nature from being spoiled and polluted" was a high or medium priority. In terms of agriculture, consumer research determined that the ALR has the support of British Columbians, with more than 80% believing the ALR is indispensable (BCALC 1993). Support for the protection of agricultural lands was highest within the GVRD and Vancouver Island. People's changing values played an enormous role in the creation of the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. The people living in this region as well as many of those living in the Greater Vancouver area, feel that the protection and promotion of agriculture in British Columbia is important not only to the farmers themselves, but also for those Canadians not wanting to see further urbanization of lands which provide sustenance and green space (GVRD 1993). Even 124 further, some people have come to view agriculture as a means of providing needed wildlife habitat (BBCC 1992). Agriculture is seen as a substitute for the extensive acreage of wetlands already lost in the region, representing important upland habitat for the millions of birds that migrate through the region or reside there year round. Land Use Policy Conflicts/Changes in Political Leadership People's values are not only reflected in the institutions they create, but also in the people they elect. A change in land use policy was instrumental for a change in political leadership that became an important source of support for the DF&WT. In 1988, the provincial government's commitment to agriculture through the ALR was called into question. At the time, the Social Credit government modified the ALR legislation to permit golf-course development as an acceptable use of ALR lands and to allow the provincial government, in addition to the BCALC, to make decisions regarding land use changes within the ALR (Porter 1994; Klohn Leonoff Ltd. 1992). In a short time, there were twelve proposals to build golf courses and disputes over where they should be built (Saenger 1990). One golf course proposal that caused a lot of controversy in the Municipality was Boundary Shores. This 150 acre golf course was to be built on land which environmentalists, led by the BBCC, with additional support from the CWS, argued was prime wintering bird habitat and adjacent to a critical provincial raptor management area. Municipal hearings were held to discuss the proposed golf course and 75 percent of the people who spoke opposed its development (Gram 1990). In August of 1990, the Delta Municipal Council passed several 125 bylaws to permit the construction of Boundary Shores, despite the fact that hundreds of citizens protested the decision. Following, a number of BBCC members took the Council's decisions to the Provincial Supreme Court and in January of 1991, the Court overturned the bylaws, disallowing the golf course's construction (Shortt 1991). Another land use issue that created a lot of discord within the Municipality was an application to build approximately 2,000 homes on a piece of private property in Delta called the Spetifore Lands. Even though most of this property was in the ALR, it received development approval under the new amendments (Konda-Witte 1989). The BCALC had recommended the lands remain in the ALR, yet the property was removed with a cabinet appeal (Konda-Witte 1989).8 Moreover Delta's mayor, Doug Husband, clearly favored rezoning the land for the development. Concerns over the impact of such a massive development in the Municipality led to one of the longest public consultation processes in Canadian history (LeMaistre 1996). At one point, the developer threatened to take the Municipality to court for allegedly blocking his rights to develop the land. Fearing the lawsuit would be lost, the developer agreed to an out-of-court settlement with the Municipality (LeMaistre 1996). Today, the Spetifore Lands remain primarily in agricultural production, while the 218 acres that had been recommended as a park were bought for wildlife habitat by the provincial and federal governments. Such changes in land use policies, represented in the Spetifore Lands and Boundary Shores controversies, generated uncertainty over the future of Delta's agriculture and 8 There were three conditions attached to the approved appeal: 1) no development could take place until the developer demonstrated a need for housing in the Municipality; 2) the 92 hectares of the property not in the ALR had to become a park; and 3) flood proofing had to be done during development (LeMaistre 1996). 126 environment. Consequently, protecting the Municipality's farming industry, rural character and environmental attributes became key issues in the municipal elections, held amidst the controversies in November of 1990. The largely unpopular decisions of the incumbent municipal Council to approve Boundary Shores and to support the Spetifore Lands development contributed to the Council being defeated in the November elections. The party elected to the Council, the Independent Delta Electors Association (IDEA), opposed both development proposals, running on a platform that pledged to protect Delta's agricultural identity and environmental integrity. Electing an agricultural and environmentally friendly municipal council helped pave the way for the Trust. One community interest explained it this way: / think that because they sat down and discussed things, because they had a municipality, the town council of Delta, who was willing to sit and who was very supportive of agriculture in their community, I think because you had all those things put together, they got to the point where they could reserve and come up with a solution that everybody could live with (C6,9 1996). Another source went so far as to write that it was the leadership of the Municipality that "...was instrumental to the Trust's establishment" (Bomke et al. 1993, 18). Cover Cropping Program Brings Government and Farmers Together Another important development that later helped in the establishment of the DF&WT was the cooperative cover crop program ongoing in the Municipality called "Greenfields". 9 C6 is a code the researcher is using to distinguish between the eighteen interviews conducted without revealing the identity of those interviewed. The letters used are "C" for community interest, "F' for farming interest; "G" for government interest, and "S" for staff of the DF&WT. This code is further explained in the next chapter. 127 This project was an investigation into ameliorating wildlife depredation, improving soils, and creating wildlife habitat through the planting of cover crops. Greenfields was the child of researchers at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and the CWS. Drs. Art Bomke and Wayne Temple from the Department of Soils Science, had determined that winter wheat was a suitable cover crop for protecting the soils from heavy winter rains. However, waterfowl grazing pressures made Delta farmers reluctant to plant cover crops. Of particular concern was field damage caused by wigeon grazing on farmland during the winter, especially those fields in close proximity to wildlife areas such as the Alaksen National Wildlife Area. In 1990, UBC researchers and Delta farmers discussed with the CWS approaches to overcoming this obstacle. According to the DF&WT staff (1996), this was the first time those interest groups met to discuss these issues. At this meeting, the group decided to initiate a cover crop program. Consequently, Drs. Bomke and Temple launched Greenfields in the Fall of 1990. The Project began with seed money from the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture (BCFA), followed by direct funding from the Canadian Wildlife Service under the Fraser Basin Action Plan (part of the Green Plan) and in-kind funding from Ducks Unlimited. With some of the funding, Drs. Bomke and Temple hired a coordinator for the winter cover cropping program. Greenfields reimburses the cost of the seed while farmers contribute their own time, money, and land to the project. Central to this strategy's success is encouraging enough landowners to plant cover crops in order to disperse the waterfowl over larger areas, thereby reducing the impact in any one field. Greenfields also initiated monitoring, evaluation and 128 continued research of cover crops as well as a communication program to integrate the interests of agriculture, wildlife agencies and the public. Greenfields provided an important opportunity for wildlife agencies and farmers to work together. This program initiated contact between these two groups, a relationship that previously had not existed. Success in launching Greenfields contributed to illuminating the possibilities for cooperative management through on-the-ground improvements that benefited the interests of both agriculture and wildlife interests. (The Greenfields approach was later taken over by the DF&WT and additional on-the ground stewardship programs became part of the DF&WT's approach.) Fear of Public Acquisition: Vancouver International Airport Expansion Probably the most significant event that directly led to the idea of creating a "trust" occurred in 1992 when Transport Canada authorized the construction of a third runway at the Vancouver International Airport on Sea Island. The project developed roughly 350 hectares of land, 70% of the Airport Reserve lands (Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office 1991). At the time, there was concern over the impact of such a massive development would have on the area's wildlife. One study had found that even with the intrusive airport, a remarkable number of migratory birds and other resident wildlife have been found to utilize the remaining wetland habitat on Sea Island (Schieck & Searing 1993). A federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel was established to study the potential environmental impacts the airport expansion would cause. Even though the review convinced the Panel of the area's significance to wildlife, the Panel concluded that the runway construction should 129 proceed. At the same time, however, the Panel recommended a number of mitigation measures to rninimize the negative impacts (FEARO 1991). One of the recommendations called for a compensation program to deal with wildlife habitat loss on Sea Island. Transport Canada allotted moneys to the compensation program (known as YVR funds), which were administered by Environment Canada for disbursement. Subsequently, Environment Canada formed the Wildlife Habitat Advisory Committee on Compensation (WHACC) to devise a strategy as to how implement the required environmental mitigation. The committee was made up of government wildlife agencies, city officials and a member of the Musqueam Indian Band (WHACC 1993). The underlying goal of the WHACC was to achieve "no net loss" of habitat for wildlife. To attain such a goal, acquisition of important lands was initially considered the primary option. The intent was to secure and then enhance the necessary lands for wildlife at other locations (DF&WT 1994a). However, the possibility of further government acquisition for wildlife purposes raised concerns among some Delta farmers. Farmers were embittered by a history of expropriation (e.g. Roberts Bank Back-up lands in 1968); government acquisition of farmland for wildlife habitat (e.g. Alaksen National Wildlife Area, The Nature Legacy Program10); and wildlife depredation. As described by one Delta resident: One of the reasons the Trust was set up was because there was a great threat of acquisition from the federal government because of the mitigation from the Vancouver Airport's new runway...They announced...that they were going to spend $9 million in acquisitions...so a lot of people were a little afraid of being next door to a wildlife reserve... because of poor management. That was one of the fuels from the agricultural side to go after the money" (C3, 1996). This 1994 program, financed by the provincial and federal governments, GVRD and several municipalities, spent $71.4 million to secure important natural areas and parks in the Lower Mainland (GVRD 1996c). 130 Representing the farming community, the Delta Farmers Institute (DFI) vocalized strong opposition to government agencies buying farms for wildlife purposes. The DFI believed that such purchases would result in loss of agricultural production, thereby jeopardizing the future of agriculture in the Municipality. The DFI argued that protecting a healthy farming community was the most cost-effective and a more stable means of maintaining farmlands for wildlife (DFI 1993). The DFI also believed that such acquisitions were part of a larger strategy by various wildlife agencies to secure farmlands throughout the South Coastal Region of British Columbia (DFI 1993). The fact that WHACC had no representatives from the farming community, even though the major thrust of the mitigation involved farmland stewardship and acquisition, increased such suspicions. Position Paper Calls for a "Trust" In the spring of 1992, fearing that public acquisition of agricultural lands for wildlife habitat would proceed, members of Delta's farming community published and distributed a position paper entitled, Delta Agriculture and the Environment, proposing the formation of a "trust". As stated in the paper, The Delta Soil & Water Conservation Group, under the auspices of the Delta Farmers Institute, propose that a "Farmland Conservation Trust" be established to research and/or develop environmentally integrated agricultural/wildlife conservation schemes in Delta (As reprinted in Temple 1992). 131 In this paper, the problem was characterized as one where schemes for the preservation of farmland and conservation were jointly required and where a new organization was required to handle the job. The authors expressed their desire to see mitigation funds for wildlife habitat loss be directed to such a trust. It was proposed that with these funds, a trust would improve "...the agricultural productivity and sustainability of the farmlands"(Temple 1992). More specifically, this trust would use the annual interest from such capital to promote sustainable agriculture and improvement of wildlife habitat in the delta. The trust's direction would be jointly controlled by the farmers and wildlife interests (Temple 1992). The idea of a trust originally came from the farmers of Delta. These farmers wanted to place funds in a trust in perpetuity in order to have a secure source of assistance. Such a trust fund required an organization to handle and disburse the moneys. The practical model for this idea came from The National Trust in Britain. As stated in the paper: "[t]rusts in Europe (i.e. Britain's 'National Trust') have been successfully established for many years to address the same set of circumstances and concerns which we face with our own farmlands today" (Temple 1992, 49). According to one DF&WT staff member, the publishing and distribution of Delta Agriculture and the Environment made the provincial government realize there were problems with proposing acquisition (SI, 1996). Subsequently, the Ministry of Crown Lands and Parks,11 the administering provincial agency, called a meeting with Delta farmers to discuss the current strategy to use the YVR funds to purchase wildlife habitat. At that meeting the 1 1 "Unalienated Crown lands outside forest lands and parks are administered by the Ministry of Crown Lands and Parks under the Land Act. The responsibility extends to both upland and submerged foreshore areas"(Rueggeberg & Dorcey 1991, 228). 132 Ministry suggested the farmers go to the Municipality of Delta for assistance in setting up a trust. The Municipality, led by Councilor Wendy Jeske, agreed to initiate such a process.12 Wildlife Groups Unknowingly Propose Similar Strategy as Farmers At relatively the same time as the farming community's launch of their trust proposal, environmental interest groups had unknowingly proposed a similar strategy (SI 1996). Like the farming community, wildlife interest groups were interested in finding a solution to agriculture and wildlife conflicts in Delta. In August 1992, the BBCC published Ours to Preserve, a proposal that outlined a series of objectives for how to initiate coordinated and cooperative action to save the Boundary Bay ecosystem. The proposal adopted the biosphere reserve concept, which the authors thought was appropriate since the natural resources are of international significance and the concept incorporates human uses in the form of sustainable industries dependent on ecosystems.13 The proposal envisioned the farmlands as a "buffer" for the biosphere reserve. Like the farming community's position paper, Ours to Preserve called for a new institution to be established to handle farming and wildlife conflicts. The report alleged what was needed was: 1 2 It is important to note that the Delta Agriculture Study, of the ten recommendations arising from the report, Recommendation #8 called for the establishment of "a Steering Committee with appropriate standing to ensure that wildlife habitat enhancement is not detrimental to farming activities"(Klohn Leonoff 1992, 122). The report called for this committee to be chaired by the Municipality or other neutral chair and have equal representation from wildlife and agricultural interests. It was thought that the creation of such a committee would "...develop an integrated cooperative approach to resolve issues associated with the agriculture and waterfowl management interface"(Klohn Leonoff 1992, 122). 1 3 "Biosphere Reserves are 'multiple purpose protected areas established to conserve species and natural communities and to use environments without degrading them"(UNESCO as quoted in BBCC 1992, 31). 133 ...a steering committee of local farmers and wildlife interests who can explore co-operative schemes for conservation easements, covenants, tax incentives, and transfer of development rights to encourage and fund conservation of wildlife habitat (BBCC 1992, 36). Moreover, the BBCC expressed support for the eompensation fund to be utilized to purchase agricultural land threatened to be "alienated from farming uses" (Delta Council Report 1992). Recognizing the wildlife habitat farmlands provide, the BBCC envisioned that: ...land which otherwise would have been developed for a non-agricultural purpose be retained in perpetuity as farmland. The land could be leased, under long-term leases, to local farmers...to allow for use which is compatible with its habitat potential... (Murray 1992, 1). It was significant to have wildlife and agricultural interests independently calling for a similar institution. Moreover, these two groups were both suggesting that agriculture and wildlife interests needed to work together to protect the Municipality's farmland and conserve its habitat. Thus, having seen Ours to Preserve and knowing the BBCC wanted to be involved, the Municipality invited the BBCC to sit on the Founding Committee. 134 BOX 6.1: TIMELINE 1 4 1968 • 5,000 acres of farmland (Roberts Bank Back-up Lands) expropriated to facilitate Superport development. 1972 • New Democratic Party wins provincial election and passes Land Commission Act, creating the ALR. 1975 • Social Credit party wins provincial election. 1988 • Social Credit government amends Land Commission Act to allow golf courses in ALR and cabinet appeal for withdrawals. • Boundary Shores golf course debate. • Spetifore Lands development controversy. 1990 • Delta residents elect an agricultural-friendly municipal slate: the IDEA party. • Greenfields project begins with direct and inkind funding from BCFA, CWS and DU. 1991 • New Democratic Party wins provincial election and repeals ALR amendments. 1992 • Construction of third runway at Vancouver International Airport approved. • WHACC proposes acquisition strategy for airport habitat mitigation (YVR) moneys. • Delta Agriculture and the Environment position paper recommends a trust to administer mitigation moneys through farmland stewardship programs (March). • Crown lands meets with farmers to discuss their problems with YVR funds strategy. • Ours to Preserve recommends committee for farming and wildlife conflicts (August). • The Municipality of Delta establishes Trust's Founding Committee (September). . 1993 • DF&WT incorporates under Society Act (February 28, 1993). 1 4 The events included on this timeline summarize the events specifically discussed in section 6.2. 135 6.4. T H E F O R M A T I O N O F T H E D F & W T Founding Committee In August of 1992, the Municipality of Delta took the lead and began organizing a brain-storming session about the formation of an "Agricultural Land and Habitat Trust" (LeMaistre 1992). According to LeMaistre (1996a), the intent of this session initially was to only elicit ideas and options, not begin a founding committee. The session was held on September 8, 1992 at the Delta Municipal Hall. At that time, the assembled group included members from the farming community, conservationists and federal, provincial and municipal governments. The group brainstormed over what would be the parameters of a land trust in Delta, including its mandate, structure, potential projects and funding sources (Founding Committee 1992b). It seems that the interest and commitment for the creation of a trust put forth at this meeting launched the Founding Committee.15 The Founding Committee consisted of nineteen individuals who met on a regular basis for six months to hammer out the parameters of the institution. Table 6.2 is a list of the nineteen Founding Committee members. The issues they wrestled with pertained to the trust's purpose, structure, method of operation, funding and programs. Throughout this time the Municipality provided legal council and served as chair (Bomke et al. 1993). Out of these meetings, the DF&WT was constructed. From its name to its bylaws, the 1 5 In terms of materials on "trusts" available at this first meeting, one of the attendees distributed different information on the various ways trusts are set up and organized (e.g., the structure of their Board of Directors). Included in this material were some case studies, such as the Nature Trust (Conversation with DF&WT staff 9 Oct. 1996). 136 TABLE 6.2: DF&WT Founding Committee Members DF&WT FOUNDING COMMITTEE Edith Bettison: BBCC member Anne Murray: BBCC member Art Bomke: UBC Hugh Reynolds: farmer/DFI member Tom Burgess: MOELP Noel Roddick: farmer/DFI executive Ron Erickson: NT Robert Savage: farmer/DFI member Wendy Jeske: Delta Councilor Mary Taitt: BBCC chair Peter Jones: BCALC Wayne Temple: UBC Jim LeMaistre: Delta Planning Dept. Greg Vanstone: Thompson & McConnell John Malenstyn: farmer/DFI member Albert Weaver: farmer/DFI member RickMcKelvey: CWS Wayne Wickens: MOAFF Dave Melnychuk: MOAFF (Source: Bomke et al. 1993) DF&WT is the vision of the Founding Committee.16 Moreover, it was the Founding Committee that selected the first Board of Directors for the DF&WT. However, in creating the DF&WT's structure, the Founding Committee wrestled with many issues. One issue was the advantages and disadvantages of different types of boards of directors (Anon. 1992). From the start, the Founding Committee was in agreement that the board needed to be balanced between wildlife and agriculture interests (DF&WT Founding Committee 1992b). However, how the Board of Directors was to be appointed, their terms of office, voting privileges, affiliation, etc., were details that still needed to be negotiated and agreed upon. 1 6 It is interesting to see the transformation of the Trust in the eyes of the Founding Committee by the various names the institution was referred to before settling upon the Delta Farmland & Wildlife. Some of the earlier names were: Farmlands Conservation Trust, Agricultural Land and Habitat Trust, and Delta Wildlife Agriculture Trust. 137 Another major issue is related to the Trust's accountability. As a decision-making body, the DF&WT and its actions needed to be answerable to some authority. The Founding Committee acknowledged that: ...this body must be accountable in some way to either a "higher" authority or a fairly broadly based and stable authority if it is to be entrusted with large sums of money or assets, particularly from government (Anon. 1992). The need for accountability resulted in creating advisory committees to the DF&WT. These committees allowed other interests not serving directly on the Board, especially government, to remain involved and advise the DF&WT on their decisions. At one point in the process, a number of Founding Committee members met and put together a suggested structure in order to resolve some of the issues. Out of this meeting, the committee members reached a number of conclusions that would guide the development of the DF&WT. They were as follows: ...the Trust should not be vulnerable to political interference; should not be controlled by any one organization or vulnerable to the loss of any one organization; should be removed as much as possible from direct interference by involved organizations, and yet be highly responsive to the needs of the persons most affected by the decisions of the trust; should be perceived by the public as broadly supported, stable, and with strong, clearly defined objectives, but structured in such a way that the desires of the public at large cannot swamp the needs of the farming community affected; and should have access to good information, advice, and expertise (Anon. 1992). Incorporation On February 26, 1993, the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust was officially incorporated as a registered non-profit society under the British Columbia's Society Act. (Appendix B is a copy of the DF&WT's Certificate of Incorporation.) As expressed in its Constitution, the 138 DF&WT is a land trust committed to the retention of farmland and environmentally sensitive areas in the region as well as the promotion of sustainable agriculture and enhancing wildlife habitat.17 To this end, the primary objectives of the DF&WT are: • to undertake or assist projects which promote sustainable agriculture and stewardship; • to promote public awareness and appreciation of agriculture and wildlife and the importance of their conservation for the benefit of future generations; and • to cooperate with other organizations and agencies with similar aims by participating in joint activities or assist projects and research (DF&WT 1993).18 The DF&WT was also given charitable status as an institution for community benefit. Under this category the DF&WT has to demonstrate that its activities are of benefit to the community as a whole and not to a restricted group within the community. This status also legally requires the DF&WT's distribution of funds to be as follows: ...80% of [donated] moneys received in a year must go out again in that same year on charitable activities...projects that demonstrably meet the general community benefit criteria (DF&WT 1993c). Composition It was the composition of the Trust that was the Founding Committee's focus as it tried to comply with the legal issues and construct its bylaws (SI 1996). What the Committee developed was an organizational structure centering on two main bodies: the Board of Directors and advisory committees. 1 7 Currently, however, their scope is limited to the Municipality. 1 8 See Appendix C for a copy of the DF&WT's objectives as expressed in its Constitution under the Society Act. 139 The Board of Directors of the DF&WT is comprised of eight members and functions by "consensus resolution".19 Three of the directors are appointed by the DFI and three directors are appointed by the BBCC. These six directors then unanimously appoint two "at large" directors. These two directors are selected from the community and cannot have any formal ties to either the DFI or BBCC. (Appendix D is a copy of the DF&WT's official bylaws.) The BBCC and DFI were chosen as the two bodies to represent wildlife and agricultural interests, respectively for two main reasons. Firstly, these two groups had both proposed the partnership. Secondly, the two organizations "...were seen as the focus of grass roots opinion in Delta" (C6, 1996). The BBCC is an umbrella for a number of environmental organizations active in the region and the DFI represents a significant majority of the roughly 100 farm famillies residing in the Municipality (Klohn Leonoff 1992). The first directors of the DF&WT were chosen by the Founding Committee. Each director serves a two year term. After that time the director must step down, but can return to being a director after a period of absence. Since the Trust is under the B.C. Societies Act. which requires that no board members benefit directly from the Trust's work, it was important to select farmers that would not be serving on the board out of self interest so as to comply with the mandate of the B.C. Societies Act. In terms of staff, the DF&WT currently has three individuals working on a full-time basis: a DF&WT Project Coordinator; a Greenfields Project Coordinator; and a Wildlife 1 9 As defined in the DF&WT bylaws: "Consensus Resolution means a resolution of the members of die directors, as the case may be, passed by unanimous consent of all members or directors, as the case may be, who are present and entitled to vote" (Appendix D, 2). 140 Coordinator. Only the DF&WT Project Coordinator is funded directly by the DF&WT; the other two staff members were hired from specific grant project moneys. Table 6.3 is a list of the founding and current directors and staff. TABLE 6.3: DF&WT Past and Present Directors DF&WT FOUNDING DIRECTORS DF&WT CURRENT DIRECTORS Edith Bettison(BBCC) Secretary Edith Bettison (BBCC) John Hatfield (BBCC) Treasurer John Hatfield (BBCC) Treasurer Hugh Reynolds (DFI) John Malenstyn (DFI) Secretary Noel Roddick (DFI) Noel Roddick (DFI) Brian Rogers President Brian Rogers President Gary Runka Vice-President Ron Kistriz Robert Savage (DFI) Robert Savage (DFI) Mary Taitt (BBCC) Anne Murray (BBCC) Vice-President STAFF STAFF Dr. Wayne Temple: DF&WT Project Coordinator Dr. Wayne Temple: DF&WT Project Coordinator Dr. Mary Taitt: DF&WT Wildlife Coordinator Susan Smith: Greenfields Project Coordinator (Sources: DF&WT 1996 and 1994a) In structuring the DF&WT, the Founding Committee included the creation of advisory committees for its major funding projects. The DF&WT's Board determines the make-up of each advisory committee, which usually consists of various government and non-governmental organizations with mutual interest in farmland preservation, stewardship and wildlife habitat enhancement.20 Invitations to sit on these advisory committees were sent to all agencies 20Many of the Trust's Founding Committee Members are now Directors or members of the Trust's Advisory Committee, both as individuals or through their respective organizations" (DF&WT 1994, 4). 141 represented on the Founding Committee, plus Ducks Unlimited and AAFC (DF&WT 1993b). Table 6.4 is a list of organizations that have served, or are serving, on an advisory committee. TABLE 6.4: DF&WT Members of Advisory Committees ADVISORY GROUPS T O DF&WT Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Municipality of Delta Ducks Unlimited Canada Agricultural Land Commission University of British Columbia Canadian Wildlife Service Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries & Food Nature Trust of British Columbia (Source: DF&WT 1994a) Programs Currently, the DF&WT is operating a number of cooperative farmland stewardship programs. These programs are oriented toward voluntary conservation practices and community outreach. The ideas for these programs were derived from both a British model for land stewardship as well as input received from the farming and environmental communities. Rather than independently determine what programs to offer, the DF&WT looked to the people of Delta, mainly farmers, to learn, listen and gather ideas about what efforts would most likely be acceptable and effective to achieving the Trust's specific mission of promoting sustainable agriculture while improving wildlife habitat. Funding for these programs has come from a variety of public agencies and private organizations. Since the Trust's inception an increase in overall funding has enabled the land trust to not only enhance initial programs but also develop new stewardship initiatives. 142 Details regarding funding sources and amounts are provided in section 7.4.1 on financial security. The following is a general overview of the Trust's programs. On-The-Ground Improvements The essence of the DF&WT's program is to create incentives that encourage landowners to voluntarily implement wildlife-friendly sustainable agricultural practices on their land. The DF&WT's rationale for this approach is as follows: The past mistake of rewarding farmers with incentives based upon maximum food production has had unfortunate consequences for its people, the land and the wildlife it supports. New incentives based upon providing food of high quality while practicing sound soil and wildlife conservation techniques - farm stewardship' - need to be developed and implemented. In doing so, we must recognize the farm as the basic unit for conservation and work with farmers to develop the stewardship programs (DF&WT 1994, 9-10). The DF&WT's technique of agricultural land conservation through on-the-ground improvements is multifaceted. First there are the field programs. Through a cost-sharing strategy, the Trust uses funds to encourage farmers to: • maintain set-asides of grasslands as an aid to improving soil structure and offering important habitat, particularly to birds of prey, by paying the farmer a substantial fee ($300 per acre) for the acreage taken out of production; • plant cover crops to protect the soil's surface and provide wintering waterfowl habitat by paying for the seeds;21 2 1 In April 1995, the DF&WT took over the administration of the Greenfields Project from Ducks Unlimited Canada, a program offering approximately $150,000 for cover crops annually until March 1997. (Duynstee 1994). 143 • implement proper drainage practices to improve soil fertility and reduce impacts of wildlife depredation by covering some of the costs for laser-leveling; and • reduce pesticides use through integrated pest management (DF&WT 1993e) A second component of DF&WT's stewardship strategy is the field margin programs. The DF&WT believes field margins provide valuable wildlife habitat and protection against weeds and crop pests. Specific field margin improvement strategies encourage farmers to: • create boundary ditches for critical drainage and maximize opportunities for improving biodiversity by paying farmers up to 50% of the construction cost to a maximum of $6 per meter of ditch; • plant boundary hedgerows to create songbird habitat and barriers to noise and wind by covering the cost of the hedgerows; and • maintain grass margins to provide habitat and control pests, by partially reimbursing the farmer for lost productive acreage (up to $300 per acre) (DF&WT 1993e). Other conservation programs on the DF&WT's agenda include encouraging the creation of wetlands and wooded areas as well as the enhancement of farm yards and buildings to furnish important nesting sites for barn owls and swallows (DF&WT 1993e).22 It is important to note that all of these programs are implemented on a cost share basis. The intent is that the DF&WT and farmers equally share the cost for these improvements. 144 Public Education and Awareness In addition to on-the-ground improvements, the DF&WT is trying to enhance the public's awareness and understanding of the need to integrate wildlife and agriculture values into the Delta's land management (DF&WT Constitution). Through education and increasing awareness, the Trust hopes to formalize the rural and urban commitment to sustainable agriculture. To that end, the DF&WT has: • developed brochures, signs, a video and display boards for the purpose of public education and awareness of its stewardship programs (DF&WT 1995c); • begun producing Farmland & Wildlife: A newsletter of the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust to publicize the Trust's issues and accomplishments; and • conducted field days and hosted fund-raisers which generated newspaper articles and local community television coverage. Community and Farmer Recognition The DF&WT has also initiated a "Friends of the Trust" to recognize people who want to contribute to the objectives of the Trust. This relatively new program solicits tax-deductible private donations from members of the community. Contributors receive a collectable bird print, designed by a local artist, as a certificate. Each year a new illustration will be offered to encourage annual contributions (Anon. 1996a, 1). Currently, according to one member of DF&WT's staff, there are 40 "friends" of the Trust. The "Friends of the Trust" program permits the DF&WT to have supporters without violating British Columbia's Society Act. Institutions operating under this Act are not allowed to 145 have non-voting members. In other words, all members of the Trust must have voting authority. A voting membership has not been initiated by the DF&WT because of the potential for the Trust to then become dominated by non-farming members as the number of wildlife enthusiasts in the region far exceeds the number of farmers. The Trust feared that a voting membership would disrupt the carefully constructed balance between wildlife and agricultural interests (SI). On another note, the original of the illustration on the certificates will be given to one farmer for his or her stewardship efforts. At the annual fanner's ball, one local farmer will be recognized by the DF&WT for his or her commitment to implementing agricultural and environmental stewardship. The Trust intends to annually select one farmer for recognition. 6.5 UNIQUENESS O F T H E D F & W T The DF&WT, like most other land trusts, is heralded as a community-based institution, designed to meet community needs. Assuming this is true, then each land trust has qualities that are uniquely designed to fit the specific community and landscape being served. Nonetheless, in reviewing some of the literature on land trusts, a number of general similarities between these organizations became apparent in terms of their structure and the land-saving tools they used. For example, most land trusts save land through acquisition-related tools. Yet, some of these tendencies are not exhibited by the DF&WT. Instead, the DF&WT possesses several qualities that are a departure from the general trends of the land trust movement. This argument is supported by Hilts and Mitchell (1996) who assert that the DF&WT is unique in Canada in terms of its collaboration and programs. 146 Partnership Of Traditionally Divergent Interests From the onset, the DF&WT was envisioned as a partnership between agriculture and wildlife interests. In fact, the Founding Committee wanted the cooperative spirit of the institution to be the emphasis; it was to be a trust for agricultural and environmental purposes. Evidence of this is found in the following flip chart notes from the first brainstorming session describing how the participants envisioned the Trust's mandate. The notes are as follows: • both agriculture and habitat to benefit; • keep agricultural land for agriculture and "habitat" functions; • help farmers to deal with wildlife damage; • "improvement" of agriculture; • enhance wildlife projects; • land ownership/land holding by Trust (as a future technique); and • agricultural land productivity together with habitat (DF&WT 1992a). The structure of the Trust supported this cooperative vision. The name of the organization, the composition of the Board of Directors and the objectives of the organization clearly classify DF&WT as a collaborative effort working toward multiple objectives. As an aside, the Municipality believed that it should not be a board member to protect the Trust from political vagaries, such as the Municipal Council becoming development friendly. Compared with land trusts elsewhere, the partnership developed in the DF&WT seems unique. Whereas the DF&WT represents an example of cooperation between two previously adversarial interest groups trying to find mutually beneficial solutions, the majority of land 147 trusts described in the literature are composed of individuals with the same or similar interest in land. For example, of the 60 some Canadian land trusts cited by Hilts and Mitchell (1996) in the Canadian Land Trust Directory and Case Book, most of them have one main purpose, most commonly the protection of natural areas. Moreover, the DF&WT is the only land trust, of the sixteen case studies discussed in this book, that was formed out of a partnership of traditionally divergent interests. Given that the DF&WT is a collaborative institution, collaboration theory suggests having divergent interests working together has its advantages (Gray 1989). By bringing the two interests of agriculture and wildlife under an official partnership there is opportunity for sustained dialogue between these two groups. According to Selin and Chavez (1995), such communication can contribute to these interests resolving their differences and then developing a shared vision of the future. Pursuing a Non-Acquisition Strategy The most common techniques used to develop trusts involve direct acquisition of land or partial rights in land, either through purchases or donations (Hilts & Mitchell 1993, 18-19). Unlike most land trusts, the DF&WT has made a conscious decision not to utilize tools related to land acquisition and instead focus entirely on stewardship. Rather than rely on the traditional land conservation mechanism of purchasing the land outright or the rights to develop it, the DF&WT is concentrating its efforts on implementing programs that do not disrupt the ownership regime. Instead, its stewardship programs are concentrated on increasing the acreage of where sustainable farming is practiced. 148 The DF&WT maintains that a viable farming base in the delta is critical to preserve and enhance populations of many species of wildlife in the ecosystem. The DF&WT argues that the creation of wildlife "hot spots", such as the Reifel Migratory Bird Sanctuary, has resulted in crop damage to adjacent farmlands (DF&WT 1994a). Basically, the Trust believes: ...isolated pockets of land, which are secured for wildlife, are of little use if the surrounding land use practices are not compatible. Therefore, the farming community must be an active participant in developing and implementing farm stewardship programs for the benefit of both agriculture and wildlife (DF&WT 1994a, 3). In its Farm Stewardship Proposal for the YVR funds (1994a), the DF&WT cites three ecological reasons as to why establishing wildlife reserves is not their preferred approach for achieving no-net-loss of wildlife habitat. Firstly, wildlife reserves can lead to high concentrations of wildlife, thereby increasing competition between species or individuals of the same species. Consequently, some species may be out-competed for limited resources. Secondly wildlife reserves with high concentrations of wildlife result in less stable populations. At high population densities, diseases can spread more readily through a population or localized environmental threats have a greater chance of destroying a population. Finally, populations dependent on reserves of habitats may be vulnerable to extinction due to dispersal problems. In other words, if the habitats are so fragmented that individuals of species cannot mix between habitats, problems of parasitism and predation can arise. Regardless of these ecological considerations, the DF&WT also felt that the adoption of an acquisition-based strategy would not receive landowner support. Past government actions (i.e., expropriation of lands, short-term leases and wildlife acquisitions) have soured 149 Delta's farming community to government ownership and management of farmland. Consequently, the Delta's farming community does not want to see any more lands taken out of control of the farming community. According to Delta Councilor Wendy Jeske, "...the one thing that farmers have objected to all along is the purchase of farmland because it takes them out of the picture" (As quoted in Beutel 1994, 1). In addition certain events have made the farming community suspicious of non-governmental organizations purchasing land (Beutel 1994). For example, in 1994, the CWS purchased a Delta farm for conservation purposes through the Nature Trust. A second example is the debate over WHACC's distribution of the airport mitigation funds. The DFI claimed that the WHACC's activities revealed government wildlife agencies' intent of using non-governmental organizations to purchase farmlands for government and to then manage them, "...both at the taxpayers expense and with no public accountability"(DFI 1993). However, it is important to note that the DF&WT realizes that it cannot predict the future. In its bylaws (Appendix D) it purposefully has left itself the option of acquiring lands. According to the November 8, 1993 Board of Directors meeting, the DF&WT decided that its policy related to land acquisition is "...to leave options open" (DF&WT 1993d). Use Of Advisory Committees Another unique aspect of the Trust is with respect to the use of advisory committees. With each major project, the DF&WT approaches the appropriate stakeholders to serve as advisors to setting up the project. Once the project is designed and in the process of being implemented, then the advisory committee dissolves. For example, the DF&WT constructed 150 an advisory committee for the YVR stewardship funds it received. One intent of the advisory committee is to insure the DF&WT spends the awarded funds as specified in its grant proposal. Another example is the hiring of the Trust's Wildlife Coordinator, the selection of which was determined with the help of an advisory committee.23 The committees provide an important means of keeping all interests involved even if all interests do not serve directly on the Board of Directors. The advantage of this structure is that by keeping the agencies involved, the DF&WT brings strength, connections and a sense of accountability to itself. The existence of advisory committees has the potential to increase government agencies' confidence that the money allocated to the DF&WT will be effectively spent. 6.6 S U M M A R Y To summarize, the formation of the DF&WT was the result of a commutation of regional and local trends and events. In general, this land trust was created to deal with the specific concerns of: (1) how to encourage landowners to implement conservation measures on their property; and (2) how to guarantee that economic and ecological considerations are integrated in land use decisions to protect society's interest in private land. Its approach for meeting these objectives, in addition to its collaborative structure and advisory committees, make the DF&WT relatively unique from other land trusts. Having constructed this general 2 3 An advisory committee was assembled because one of the applicants for the position of Wildlife Coordinator was on the Board of Directors. As there was, and still is, no policy regarding the hiring of directors to be staff (and vice versa) it was important to have an advisory committee assist on selecting who would get the job. The DF&WT did not want to be perceived as partial or intent on hiring internally. 151 overview of the DF&WT, the following chapter details the researcher's findings regarding how well the DF&WT is meeting the criteria for a successful land trust. 152 C H A P T E R S E V E N Application Of Analytical Framework To The D F & W T The DF&WT is a community based initiative which can provide a mechanism for building a broad base of support for sustainable agriculture and the wildlife conservation, and overseeing the effective use of funds for achieving these goals. (Bomke 1994, 58) 7.1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this section is to present the findings related to the DF&WT's ability to complete the puzzle of building a successful land trust. The analysis carried out in Chapter Four constructed two triads of instrumental criteria for a successful land trust: the Triad of Support and the Triad of Institutional Capacity. This section applies these two triads to the DF&WT. But first the methodology used to collect the data for evaluating the DF&WT's success in achieving the two triads is presented. 7.2 M E T H O D S F O R C A S E STUDY D A T A C O L L E C T I O N In researching the case study, two methods for collecting data were employed: document analysis and interviewing, both informational and semi-structured interviews. Using more than one method of data collection for qualitative case work is called triangulation (Denzin & Lincoln 1994; Stake 1994). The advantage of triangulation is that it can lessen the chance of misinterpretation (Stake 1994, 241). By analyzing a variety of documents and 153 conducting numerous interviews the researcher was able to gain a more in-depth understanding of the case study. 7.2.1 Documentation The variety of documents used in this study were derived from multiple sources. After conducting a number of informational interviews with the DF&WT staff, the researcher was granted access to the Trust's board meeting minutes, reports, and grant applications. Upon informally meeting with Delta Councilor Wendy Jeske and Deputy Director of Delta Planning, Jim LeMaistre, the researcher was provided files on the meetings that led up to the Trust's formation and on issues that involved or affected the DF&WT. Finally, local and university libraries made available relevant local newspaper articles and a number of agriculture and wildlife-related studies concerning the delta. 7.2.2 Interviews In addition to collecting and analyzing pertinent documentation obtained primarily through informational interviews, "official" interviews were conducted, providing a personal window into local perceptions of the DF&WT.1 Interviews assisted in answering some unresolved issues left by the documentation. Moreover, the interviews served as a cross 1 "Official" interviews are those conducted after receiving approval from the UBC Behavioral Sciences Screening Committee for Research and Other Studies Involving Human Subjects. The informational interviews conducted with individuals central to forming and running the Trust served to gather documentation and contacts. In contrast, official interviews were conducted strictly to gain perspectives to use in analyzing the case study. 154 check to the documents and enhanced the credibility, relevancy and usefulness of this study to both the DF&WT and similar institutions elsewhere. There are several more specific reasons interviews were necessary for this study. Interviews allowed the researcher to either confirm or refute her interpretation (from the documents) as to what were the key factors is forming the DF&WT. Understanding these factors provides an insight into the reasons behind the way the Trust is supported and structured. Interviews also helped in identifying the support that exists for the DF&WT. Determining support for the DF&WT is not only a matter of measuring participation and dollars, it is also a matter of perception. Some perceptions were detectable through documentation. However, the perceptions of a number of stakeholders were inadequately represented in the documents. In addition, interviews improved the researcher's ability to analyze the DF&WT against the Triad of Institutional Capacity. In terms of the well chosen Board and staff criterion, interviews augmented the Board and staffs resumes and meeting attendance records with perceptions of the board and staffs level of experience with Delta issues; extent of participation in the Trust's operations; and ability to garner support for the Trust's programs. Whether or not the DF&WT is implementing effective conservation tools is also document limited due to the infancy of the institution as well as the lack of data available on the physical improvement to the landscape. Given these limitations, this study is gauging the effectiveness of conservation tools by whether the conservation tools have both the potential to provide 155 long-term improvements (indicated by length and security of agreements with farmers) as well as farmer acceptability of the tools being employed, clarified through interviews. The Interview Subjects The researcher chose to evaluate the success of the DF&WT by interviewing those external interests affected by the Trust. As opposed to interviewing the Trust's Board of Directors and staff, this approach allows the researcher to gage perspectives from interests whose opinion of and support for the Trust are extremely important to the institution's success. In other words, interviewing the Trust's Board of Directors and staff would have failed to provide the researcher with the perceptions of those interests that are suppose to benefit from the Trust. Interviewing individuals one-step removed from the DF&WT facilitated gaining an impression of how the Trust is supported; how the Board and staff are received; and if these groups approve of the conservation tools being employed by the Trust. A total of eighteen interviews were conducted, derived from the three main interest groups: government, farmers, and the community, as shown in Table 7.1. (In addition, one formal interview with a DF&WT staff member took place, which will be included in the results.) In order to be consistent, six individuals were chosen from each of the three groups. Obviously, this is not an all inclusive set of interviews of the interests affected by the DF&WT. Rather, the interviews establish a representation of perceptions in order to understand the trends. 156 Table 7.1: Interview Subjects Government Farmers Community Interests MOELP CWS MOAFF AAFC GVRD Delta Municipality participant participant participant non-participant non-participant non-participant B.C. Federation of Agriculture BBCC DFI DU Delta Chamber of Commerce Delta Council/Mayor The government interview subjects were non-elected representatives from the federal and provincial environmental and agriculture agencies with active involvement in matters that directly affect the Trust; a representative from the Greater Vancouver Regional District for a regional perspective; and a Municipality of Delta planner for a local government perspective. In terms of farmers, the key stakeholders of the Trust, the interview candidates included: three farmers taking advantage of the Trust's programs and three who are currently not participating in the Trust's programs. By doing this, an indication of what facets of the Trust are attracting farmers and what is keeping them away could be obtained. The DF&WT provided me with names of both participating and non-participating farmers. Finally, the community representatives interviewed were selected because they represent a significant number of community members from agricultural, environmental, or other stakeholders in the region that have a direct interest in the Trust's work. Of particular interest is the perspectives of the BBCC and the DFI due to their heavy representation on the DF&WT's board. The remaining community groups are chosen based on their connection to agriculture and wildlife issues in Delta and on their ability to represent the residents of Delta. 157 Conducting The Interviews Once the interview strategy had been developed, the next step consisted of contacting the potential interview candidates. Initial contact was made by sending an interview request letter to the candidates, an example of which can be found in Appendix E. This letter introduced the researcher, the study and the parameters of the interview. Next, the researcher contacted all the candidates by phone to determine if they were willing to be interviewed. All but one person agreed.2 Interviews took place at various times and locations, according to what was convenient for the interviewees. All but one of the interviews were conducted at either the interview subject's residence or work.3 The interviews began with the researcher informally explaining her background and the goals and objectives of the study. The parameters of the interview were then outlined, including the anonymity of their responses. Following, all the interview subjects signed a consent form to formally indicate their willingness to have the interview taped and whether they wished to review any thesis draft materials in which they were quoted in order to confirm the quote's accuracy. Appendix F is a reprint of the consent form. Rather than a structured interview, which attempts to gather precise data, the researcher employed an open interview approach to understand the perceptions and behavior of stakeholders without imposing any restrictions on their responses (Fontana & Frey 1994, 366). "The open-ended interview is an exchange initiated and guided by the researcher in 2 One farmer declined to be interviewed because summer harvest and other responsibilities left no time for an interview. This farmer subsequently directed the researcher to another potential candidate. 3 One of the community interest interviews was conducted in a Richmond hotel lobby due to it being the most convenient place to meet. 158 which the subject, one hopes, provides in-depth responses to complex questions" (Harper 1994, 410). Interviews were designed to confirm or reject whether or not the DF&WT is working toward meeting all the criteria to building a successful land trust. Interviews were conducted using a guiding set of questions to guarantee a consistent approach. The questions were open-ended to encourage the interview candidates to freely elaborate on the reasons for their answers. This approach permitted the researcher to listen for key words and responses that directly related to the criteria. The questions were divided loosely into four categories. The interview subject was first asked about his or her background and experience with the DF&WT. Next, a series of questions were posed relating to the support obtained by the DF&WT. These were followed by questions focused on the operational capacity of the Trust. In the last section, the interview subject was asked to speculate on the Trust's future and make any final comments. Appendix G is a copy of the interview questions. The results were coded to conceal the identity of the interview subjects. Like the open-ended questionnaire format, not identifying interview subjects by names facilitated uninhibited responses during the interview. The code is also used to protect the confidentiality of the respondents. Each interview candidate is represented by a letter "F", "G" or "C". The letter "F" stands for the farmers. The letter "G" denotes the government officials. The letter "C" represents interviewees from the community interest groups. Within each group, the six interviews were distinguished from one another by giving each one a number between 1 and 6. For example, the fourth farmer interviewed is "F4". In addition, the code "SI" is used to denote the one DF&WT staff member formally interviewed. 159 It is important to note that a number of people associated with this case study belong to more than one interest group. For example, one person was a farmer and also the president of a community interest group. In recognition of this potential overlap, the researcher provided interview candidates with the opportunity to make comments about the Trust as members of any interest group to which they belong. 7.3. T H E TRIAD O F SUPPORT: FINDINGS As explained earlier, the Triad of Support, in theory, requires assistance from three sources: landowners, government, and the community. In the Delta case, the Triad of Support becomes more complicated, as shown in Figure 7.1. Figure 7.1: The Triad of Support for the DF&WT Landowners Government Community THEORY DFI Landowners "government "•farmers "private companies BBCC Government Community "Municipality *NGOs "AAFC "CWS "MOAFF "MOELP "GVRD CASE "Elected Local Officials 160 Landowner Support Land ownership in Delta is a mixture of private and public ownership. As determined in the Delta Agricultural Study (Klohn Leonoff 1992), landowners fall into three main groups: government, farmers, and private corporations. The government, namely the provincial government, is a significant landowner, controlling over 40% of land actively farmed. Private interests own the remainder. However, only 33% of Delta farmlands are actually owned by the agricultural community. In other words, two thirds of the time the landowners are not the same individuals who farm. Thus, "landowner support" in many cases may require the support of the landowner (the leaser) and the farmer (the leaseholder). With on-the-ground stewardship being the central approach adopted by the DF&WT, landowner support is defined here, at least in the short-term, as the support coming from individuals actively farming in Delta. The farmers are the ones who the DF&WT has to convince that stewardship programs are worthwhile both for farming and for wildlife. Though many farmers work on leased land, improvement to that land while under a lease is dependent on the fanner. According to Edward Thompson (1993, 46), Director of Public Policy for the American Farmland Trust, ...the farmer is the one indispensable partner in any farmland conservation initiative. Land without a farmer cannot be consideredfarmland. Nearly all of the interview subjects, seventeen of the nineteen, felt that the DF&WT has some level of farmer support. Over half of these thought that the majority of farmers supported the Trust while the remainder believed there was only partial farmer support for the Trust. (Representative responses are included in Box 7.1.) A number of people thought that 161 farmer support must exist because the DF&WT had three DFI members on its Board of Directors. Furthermore, a number of people suggested farmers supported the Trust because its stewardship programs offered attractive financial incentives and needed assistance with wildlife depredation to the farmers. A number of respondents claimed that while farmers are receptive to the DF&WT, some still have reservations about the land trust. Some farmers have suspicions that the DF&WT is more of an environmental organization than an organization that represents their interests. There is concern that the organization will become too one-sided towards the interests of wildlife at the expense of farming. Box 7.1: Farmer Support for the DF&WT / think they have a lot of support of the farmers because they are supporting the farmers (F5.) Can't speak for all farmers...many of the farmers I deal with, I believe support the Trust. My feeling is the majority support the Trust (G4). Yes, I believe it has the support of the farmers, but unfortunately, rather cynically, I believe it has their support for financial reasons. The farmers want things to help them farm, not to enhance wildlife habitat (CI). Generally I would say that it has the support of farmers...from the point that it is the producers that have had a say in setting it up, finding solutions and implementing it (C6). Some respondents articulated the DF&WT had only partial support from farmers because the Trust's programs favored certain types of farming, as illustrated in Box 7.2. For example, several individuals cited the DF&WT's hedgerow program as problematic for potato farmers because hedgerows harbor crop damaging insects. Respondents also mentioned the 162 DF&WT's set-aside program was inflexible to dairy farmers because their forage fields are not eligible. It was believed these farmers are unfairly excluded from benefiting from the Trust's programs. Box 7.2 Partial Farmer Support for DF&WT Fifty-fifty...because for my type of farming and what they are working towards, it is not my kind of farming (F2). The DF&WT has the support of only 35-40% of the farmers simply because there are 35-40% that are actively involved in the politics and lobbying government about our situation in Delta (F4). From observation, there are some people in the farm community who don't like the Trust (G5). There are some farmers that sill have a bit of a redneck attitude, that anything the farmers do to get involved with the bird people or the environmentalists is something they 're not interested in. It's like oil and water. So probably some of them have not accepted the fact that we are trying to work together in harmony with environmental people and the wildlife people (F4) The evidence presented as the basis for these conclusions varied. Most interview subjects based their answer on their discussions with farmers and members of the agricultural community. A number of others cited farmer participation in the Trust's stewardship programs. Two interview subjects offered increased DF&WT signs on farms as evidence. Finally, a number of community interests pointed to the private donations to the Trust made by the Delta Agriculture Society (DAS) as evidence of farmer support, shown in Box 7.3. The DAS is a local organization made up of a number of Delta farm families. This group contributes funds to efforts that support agriculture in Delta. The DAS provided the matching funds for one of the Trust's first grants. More recently, the DAS donated a second substantial 163 sum of money to the Trust on a trial basis. According to one interview subject, if the DAS is pleased with the results the group may make an annual donation. Box 7.3: Delta Agriculture Society Donations Show Farmer Support / definitely think that the Trust has the support of farmers. I just recently heard through the grapevine that the Trust received a large private donation from the Delta Agricultural Society on a trial basis and if pleased with the results, the group may make an annual donation (C2). I'd probably say that the vast majority offarmers in Delta support the Trust. There is an organization here called the Delta Agricultural Society. Now this year they have contributed 200,000 dollars toward laser-leveling that is being managed by the Trust... that has helped the Trust (C4). Looking at farmer participation in the DF&WT's programs as an indicator of their support, farmer involvement seems to be increasing. In June of 1996, the DF&WT reported that 2,535 acres of cover crops were planted, the highest number of acres planted since the program started (Rogers 1996). This was an increase of 190 acres from the previous year (DF&WT 1996). The DF&WT staff estimate that between 25-30% of Delta farmers participate in the cover crop programs (DF&WT staff 1996). The DF&WT also reports that farmer demand for on-the-ground stewardship programs has exceeded the resources available to the Trust. Each year since its inception the DF&WT has launched more on-the-ground programs, as shown in Table 7.2. Nonetheless, the DF&WT is searching for additional funding sources to raise money to satisfy farmers' interests in participating in some of the programs. In February, the DF&WT (1996a) wrote: Since the demand for programs has outstripped current funds, the DF&WT has enclosed a request for private donations in this February newsletter to try to meet the extra demand... 164 For example, fifteen farmers have submitted applications for hedgerows, yet the Trust only has funding for six hedgerow projects (DF&WT staff 1996). Table 7.2: DF&WT On-The-Ground Program Evolution PROGRAMS 1993-1994 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 Greenfields Administered by Ducks Unlimited Administered by Ducks Unlimited 31 farmers plant 2,535 acres Unknown at this time Set Asides 40 acres of grassland 16 farmers set-aside 458 acres Unknown at this time Field Boundaries Field margins on two sites 2 grass margins 7 hedgerow projects 2 grass margins 7 hedgerow projects planned Other Conservation Programs 300 trees 2 ponds 5 Owl Boxes Unknown at this time Laser Leveling 18 farmers laser level 659 acres Unknown at this time. Sources: (DF&WT staff 1996; DF&WT 1994b; Rogers 1994) Government Support Government support in Delta is quite complex because of the variety of agencies involved. Government support for the DF&WT concerns federal, provincial and local governments and is indicated by direct monies, staff times, technical assistance, supportive policies and expressed support. The federal and provincial governments' relations with the DF&WT are primarily through the agriculture and environmental agencies. Federally, the DF&WT benefits from Environment Canada, particularly the CWS and AAFC. As the provincial government has by 165 far the greatest influence on land use in the region, the support of the MOELP and the MOAFF (including the BCALC) are of critical importance. Local government support for the DF&WT mainly rests with the Municipality of Delta. This government is steered by seven elected officials: six councilors and the mayor. In terms of local government, the Municipality of Delta appears to be very supportive of the DF&WT. Tangible evidence of this support (e.g., direct monies, staff time, technical assistance and supportive policies) is found in the following actions of the Municipality: • coordinating efforts to establish the Trust, particularly the work of Councilor Wendy Jeske being described by participants as instrumental (Bomke et al. 1993); • chairing efforts to set up the Trust; • coordinating the Founding Committee meetings; • providing legal council to set up the DF&WT under the Society Act; • donating staff time to sit on the Trust's advisory committees; • encouraging donations to the DF&WT by private companies; and • claiming a political commitment to the needs of agriculture and wildlife in Delta. Moreover, according to one interview subject, the Municipality has expressed interest in working more formally with the DF&WT. Currently, the Municipality is revising some of its bylaws. One of the proposed amendments is to require farmers who conduct intensified agriculture on more than 50% of their property to also do some wildlife habitat enhancement on the remaining part of the property through a restrictive covenant. The Municipality wants 166 to require the DF&WT to be party to the covenants. Also, the Municipality is interested in the DF&WT handling the mitigation resulting from a new highway construction in Delta. As a result of such actions by the Municipality, nearly all the interview subjects perceived the Municipality to be highly supportive of the DF&WT; sixteen of the nineteen people interviewed gave a positive response when asked whether they thought the Trust had the support of the Municipality. (The remaining three people said they did not know if the Municipality supported the DF&WT). Moreover, the representative from the Municipality responded to the question by saying: "The Municipality is extremely supportive of the Trust". Box 7.4 provides some of the interview responses. The federal and provincial governments has also provided a level of tangible support. Bureaucrats from the MOELP, MOAFF, AAFC and EC (specifically the CWS) participated in the Founding Committee meetings, subsequent advisory committees and devoted other staff time to the organization. The CWS and MOAFF have provided the Trust with technical assistance. In terms of government policies, the provincial government's continued support of the ALR (including the repeal of the golf course amendments), passing of the new Farm Practices Protection Act and the creation of the Boundary Bay Wildlife Management Area (BBWMA) are all examples of the provincial government's interest in protecting both agriculture and wildlife interests in Delta.4 4 It should be recognized that the DF&WT's two interest groups probably disagree about whether these policies illustrate provincial support. While the farmers are probably pleased with the Right to Farm legislation, they were probably not as happy about the creation of another wildlife area, something the wildlife enthusiasts supported wholeheartedly. According to the DF&WT staff (1996), the Trust maintains no official stance on such issues to protect its balance between the two interest groups. 167 Box 7.4: Confidence In Municipal Support For DF&WT / think the Trust has their support...Municipality has a good agriculture person in Jeske (F2). The Municipality has done a good job, with the most recent council, of trying to show farmers that they are really concerned about what we are doing and ourfuture... (F4). Certainly, they have put a lot of weight behind it... there is no question they support it (G5). In terms of the Municipality of Delta...clearly they are supportive and want to see the Trust work. Councilor Jeske is very committed to the Trust (G2). From the Municipality the Trust has had full support. Delta was there from day one (C2). Local government definitely supports [the Trust]...because of [the Council's] involvement and their ability and willingness to sit down and work out a solution, that would be why I would think so (C6). The federal and provincial governments have also given the Trust direct financial support through a number of grants (Rozenberg & Kositsky 1996; Rozenberg & Kositsky 1995; DF&WT staff 1996). The first source of public funds for the Trust was a $30,000 grant from the CWS. Also, a significant amount of the DF&WT's initial work was financed by the Green Plan for Agriculture.5 Through this fund, the MOAFF provided two grants that, over the last three years, have disbursed more than $140,000 to the Trust. Moreover, the transfer of Greenfields to the DF&WT, an initiative funded by the CWS, not only provides money but also demonstrates the CWS' commitment to the DF&WT as a key institution for encouraging 5 This Initiative is a $170 million federal program, administered by the provinces, to promote positive changes in agricultural and land practices. B.C.'s allotment is $6.3 million porter 1994, 35). 168 cooperative programs between agriculture and wildlife. Environment Canada also supported the Trust by awarding them a $90,000 grant, through their Action 21 Program, to be administered over three fiscal years. Finally, and most significantly, the Trust was awarded $2.25 million in stewardship funds from the federal YVR monies. (Section 7.4.1 elaborates on the Trust's finances in further detail.) Related to the interviews, the four federal and provincial representatives each expressed their agency's support for the Trust. They all agreed the concept of the Trust was worthwhile and potentially helpful to resolving agricultural and wildlife conflicts. According to one government bureaucrat: "If we can maintain those wildlife values and the farming values utilizing the Trust's efforts, that's the way to go" (G2). Moreover, they expressed a general willingness to work with the organization to help the Trust meet its objectives. However, the farmers and community interest representatives interviewed were generally not as emphatic about the federal and provincial governments' support for the Trust as they were regarding the Municipality's support. Regardless of the tangible support, a number of interview subjects were cautious about the federal and provincial governments' endorsement of the DF&WT. Some of the skepticism is evidenced in the quotes in Box 7.5. More specifically, some disparaging comments were made about specific agencies, namely the CWS. One farmer described the CWS this way: "At times they talk the talk but quite frankly think their own agenda. Wildlife takes the forefront" (F6). The CWS was also criticized for its handling of the YVR monies, even after the DF&WT received the grant; the DFI claimed the agency was working against the DF&WT's objectives (DFI 1993). 169 Box 7.5: Skepticism About Federal & Provincial Governments' Support / have little faith in either of those governments for the long term well-being of the environment. The DF&WT probably has the support from them...because they [government] feel it takes off some of the heat from them...that is the only reason (CI). How long federal government support will last is something I would not want to speculate on (C4). In general, for any government to be concerned about a small bit of acreage in Delta as compared to being concerned about the importance of getting railway cars to the Superport, traffic to the ferry terminal...it makes me so mad... they claim that agriculture is very important to the politicians and yet every time you turn around in the last 30 years they have run railway tracks right through the middle of our farmland or hung hydro towers that we have to try and farm around or highways... so I don't think we are a big issue with the politicians (F4). On the other hand, a two government officials expressed frustration over the DF&WT's continual criticism of their agencies. They felt that even after supporting the Trust financially, they still are criticized by the DF&WT. One government official explained his role is to deliver the agency's mandate with the allocated funds; he does not have control over decisions made by elected officials. Consequently, he would like to see the Trust reserve its criticisms of government to the politicians and instead, try to develop a more constructive relationship with the agency's personnel. In another government official's words: There were some folk they had on there [the DF&WT's Board of Directors] that had a negative attitude toward government organizations and a lot of them came from agencies that are use to acting as a pressure group and the way to get government attention to...complaining loudly and beat up the government folks. Andfrom a perspective of trying to get cooperation going with government it wasn't a very smart way of starting off. Federal folks in particular...even though they provided much of the initial funding...they were feeling particularly abused... (G2). 170 Community Support For this study, "community" is limited to the residents of Delta and represented in interviews by non-governmental organizations and elected community leaders. Relative to its mission, support for the DF&WT depends considerably on the farming and environmental communities, currently represented through the BBCC and DFI (as portrayed in Figure 7.1). However, community support from local leadership and assistance from more established community organizations are no less important. Reactions to the question of whether or not the DF&WT had the support of the community were mixed. Firstly, all six of the community interests interviewed expressed their organization's support for the DF&WT as shown in Box 7.6. Secondly, a number of Box 7.6: Community Interests Support for the DF&WT / support [the DF&WT] wholeheartedly... (CA). So far what they have been doing, because we have some input into it, we think it's good (C2). The reason we are part of it is because we want to keep agriculture viable here and if we have to do some stewardship, we were basically doing it before, we were hoping to attract money and increase the focus on agriculture (C3). [This organization] understands how important [the DF&WT] is and...is generally supportive of the Trust (C4). [We are] extremely supportive...the fight between the environmentalists and farmers has been a problem...I am very pleased that [we have] been a partner...in getting past the conflict. Maybe getting past isn 't the right term but moving on from it and coming up with solutions... (C5). We consider it a success story and one of the examples that we promote to government as the way to do things for problem wildlife issues (C6). 171 respondents thought there must be community support because of such factors as: • the community leaders were behind it (C5, G3); • high attendance at the DF&WT's fund raisers (G4, F4); and • positive articles about the land trust in the local papers (G4). Two individuals thought the support for the DF&WT is due largely to enthusiasm from interest groups specifically related to either agriculture or wildlife protection (C6, SI). However, the majority of respondents, eleven of the nineteen, felt that the average resident of Delta is generally unaware of the DF&WT. The infancy of the land trust was most often given as the reason for its lack of community presence. A couple of people also believed that the Trust's public awareness campaign could be improved to increase community recognition of the organization. One farmer even suggested hiring a media person. Box 7.7 provides representative responses relating to lack of community understanding of the DF&WT. Box 7.7: DF&WT Perceived To Be Unknown By The Community My sense is that it is not very well known yet...but if more people knew about it, they would support it (G6). / don't think the Farmland and Wildlife Trust is really something that is known by a lot of people in the Fraser Valley...I don't think it's been promoted that much (F4). / would venture to guess that there is probably very little awareness of the DF&WT outside of the specific groups that are directly affected by it, such as the DFI (C5). / think the special interest groups (i.e., the environmental groups) are quite aware of it. I think that in the average population...they are probably not aware of it at all other than the name (F6). 172 A number of government subjects conjectured that garnering support from a broader spectrum of people within the community is important for the Trust's success. According to one government official: "The more people know about it, the more people are going to support it" (G2). Another individual feared that if the Trust does not develop a membership to obtain wider community support, the Trust will not understand the needs of the community. Box 7.8 contains some of these articulated concerns. Box 7.8: Government Interviewees Advocate Private Support For The DF&WT If you have a big membership that belong to the organization then you have strong organization, particularly if most of your members are in the community. Once you are a member of an organization you buy into it. When you are not a member, you are prone to do more criticizing... (G4). / would think private subscriptions ultimately are going to be the major source of dollars for this thing. For long term survival of wildlife resources and soil-based farming you have to have very broad support. It can't just be 100 farmers...it can't be the few agencies that are trying to maintain it because we can only go so far with agriculture (G5). / think the main thing would be getting more publicity out about what they are doing, to build that public support...my guess is that if that was done well, that they would even get financial pledges from local residents who value the agricultural land and the wildlife and that could be sustaining for them (G6). Barriers To Maintaining or Garnering Further Support When asked what barriers existed for the DF&WT to maintain and garner more support from farmers, government and community interests, interview subjects articulated a number of concerns. The barriers cited are summarized below in order of frequency of response: • Loss of Balance. All the community, government and farming interview subjects expressed, in some manner, the importance of maintaining a balance between agriculture and wildlife interests. (Box 7.9 provides examples of the concern expressed.) There is a great Box 7.9: Concern Over the DF&WT Maintaining A Balanced Mission / think they have to continue to walk a fine line between protecting and preserving farmland so that agricultural business can take place on that farmland and providing habitat for wildlife. If they step too far on one side or the other of that line, they will lose support of the opposing group that is knitted together by this Trust. And I believe that although there is widespread support among the farming and environmental communities, I believe that the two sides are two sides that are watching every move that is made and are ready to pull out if they believe that it is favoring one or the other (C5). Barriers will go up if the farmers do not feel they are being compensated properly...naturalists may erect barriers if they feel farmers are not doing the right thing to protect the environment. So both sides can very quickly get pretty upset about what's going on (CI). / think the critical point for them is to maintain the balance. What I mean by balance is...that the Trust must be perceived as being not aligned strongly with either the environmental movement or the agricultural movement. As soon as they are perceived to being aligned one way they will start to lose the other constituents. So their challenge is to maintain that balance and to have programs that really do meet the needs of farmers and...the wildlife...I think that is the biggest challenge they have now is to maintain that balance...(G4). They have got to be crystal clean...that they are not being biased, that they are serving both needs (G2). It would have to be a very even balance between input from the farming community and from the wildlife community. If the wildlife community begins to get too much say or too much pull or start railroading some of their ideas past the farmers, they are going to received a lot of backlash from the farming community (F4). A threat would be if the Trust became too one-sided; they've got to think of both the wildlife side and the farming side (F5). 174 deal of concern about the Trust favoring farming at the expense of wildlife and vice versa, in terms of its Board members and staff, program orientation, funding sources, etc. It is largely believed that failure to maintain this balance would jeopardize the Trust because it would risk losing support from the side less favored as well as from other interest groups that endorse a balanced vision. • Differing Views Over Funding. A number of respondents expressed potential barriers that related to the use of funds. These concerns included: farmers being improperly compensated (CI); farmers receiving subsidies disguised as compensation (C2, G5); too much money spent on research rather than on-the-ground improvements (C3); funding dependence on public sources (F4); spending biased to either agriculture or wildlife interests (Gl, G2, SI); loss of government funding (G4); and money spent to pacify farmers rather than to really improve wildlife habitat (F6). Box 7.10 contains some of the funding barriers cited. Box 7.10: Examples of Respondents Concerns Over Funding A threat would be if their approach to stewardship goes to straight subsidy, if they increase payments over a 50-50 arrangement (G5). Also with the money issue, it is important to balance between environmental and agricultural issues. My main concern is that if the farmers start to see that a lot of our money goes to environmental things that they don't think are a real benefit to them or a balance to them, they '11 withdrawal their support and then where are we? We are in trouble (SI). ...what would jade my opinion of [the DF&WT] would be that if it appeared as though the money was being spent to pacify farmers rather than improve wildlife habitat. There could be a perception that the money was being spent actually to keep the agricultural community quiet instead of taking on projects that truly were of value in terms of improving wildlife habitat (F6). 175 • Intensification of Agriculture. Two interview subjects expressed their concern over the potential shift of agricultural practices away from soil-based farming to practices such as greenhouses. One government official felt the Trust's wildlife habitat enhancement objectives were only compatible with soil-based farming. This respondent added that the DF&WT's affiliation with the environmental community will end with the intensification of agriculture. Conversely, a community interest representative expressed concerned over the Trust being inflexible to farmers' needs to intensify their agricultural practices to compete in the market. 7.4 T H E TRIAD OF INSTITUTIONAL C A P A C I T Y : FINDINGS Like the Triad of Support, the Triad of Institutional Capacity is more complicated in the case study than in theory. Financial security, a well chosen board and staff and necessary conservation tools become more complex when applied to the case study. Figure 7.2: Triad of Institutional Capacity for the DF&WT DF&WT Secure Well Chosen Appropriate & Finances Board/Staff Effective Conservation Tools THEORY DF&WT *Public Grants *Ag/Wildlife ^Stewardship *Private Funds Specialists incentives *Locals *'Acquisition * Farmers Tools? CASE 176 Financial Security For the purposes of this case study, financial security is limited to the source of support and extent of fiinds for the land trust's operations and programs. In this case study the source of support is divided between government and private sources. Due to the decline public conservation dollars, the short life span of most public grants and the restrictions often placed on these monies, a land trust is assumed to be more financially secure as it broadens its financial support by seeking a variety of potential donors, both private and public (LTA 1993). In terms of total funds, the study looked at the amount of funds available relative to what is required to meet the land trust's objectives. "The availability of funding...is crucial in helping land trusts complete projects and establish a track record" (CSCC 1989, 55). With respect to the DF&WT, its attempt to achieve financial security has been relatively successful in the short period of time it has existed. Since incorporation, the DF&WT has enjoyed a dramatic increase in overall funding, as shown in Figure 7.3. Figure 7.3: Increase in DF&WT's Annual Operating Budget 700-rl Funding 400-M ($,000) 300-K 200-K 600 500 100-K 0 Fiscal Year (Sources: Rozenberg & Kositsky 1996 &1995; DF&WT staff 1996). 177 The first source of funding for the DF&WT was a $25,000 donation from the DAS to assist the Trust in competing for Green Plan monies. The Trust also received $30,000 from the CWS as start-up funds. In subsequent years, the DF&WT applied for and received various government grants to fund specific stewardship-oriented projects. These monies included $150,000 annually from the CWS (under the Fraser Basin Action Plan) for Greenfields until March 1997; $140,000 over three years from two separate grants awarded by the MOAFF (under the Green Plan for Agriculture); and approximately $90,000 from Environment Canada's Action 21 Program. In March of 1995, the DF&WT received its largest of these public grants when it was awarded $2.25 million for its "Partners in Stewardship" proposal. This money is the stewardship portion of the YVR monies (Transport Canada's compensation funds from constructing a third runway at Vancouver International Airport).6 The DF&WT chose to give the $2.25 million as a "Deed of Gift" to the Vancouver Foundation,7 to establish an endowment fund which would be administered in trust by the Vancouver Foundation and used for specific purposes (i.e., stewardship programs). As a sound and highly respected financial institution, the Vancouver Foundation will generate a yearly return on the monies in perpetuity for stewardship regardless of the DF&WT's future. Financing programs off the interest, the DF&WT will have an estimated $130,000 annually to deliver stewardship programs (DF&WT staff 1996). 6 The disbursement of what remained from the $9 million compensation fund went as follows: $6 million to acquisition and the remaining $750,000 to enhancement projects. 7 The Vancouver Foundation has a long history in managing trust funds, with monies received from both government and private sources. With $400 million in assets, the Vancouver Foundation is the largest foundation in Canada (DF&WT 1995c). 178 A couple of the interview subjects felt that the receipt of this funding was a significant achievement for the DF&WT. Box 7.11 contains quotes from these respondents. Box 7.11: Approval for DF&WT's Receipt of YVR Monies The stewardship monies put them over the top. They now had some money to fall back on. They had credibility. They had ongoing programs. They could hire staff the whole nine yards, just working off the interest of that money. Prior to that they just hand to mouth stuff. They would give small bits of money here and there (G5). The one thing that they have got going for them is that WHACC stewardship money which they very cleverly managed to organize into a trust program so that it will last in perpetuity and slowly grow over time. So, ten years, twenty years from now they are going to have more money coming in from that than they have got right now (G2). However, even with the $2.25 million, some individuals felt that the DF&WT's funding sources are not completely secure. The job specific grants have not provided much flexibility or money for administration and overhead costs. As articulated by the DF&WT President, Brian Rogers in 1995: Money continues to plague us...Money is going to continue to be an issue, without outside funding, this Trust is not going to go anywhere. Government dollars are either drying up or what funds we do obtain from government won't leave us enough surplus to turn on the lights! We have to be looking outside of government and this community for funds (Rogers 1995). Fortunately, the extent of private sources of funding for the Trust have improved over the four years. The DF&WT has received a number of large private donations as well as a growing number of smaller contributions. Particularly notable has been the two donations made by the DAS. Other organizations and companies have also contributed various sums to 179 the Trust, including the DU, Wildlife Habitat Canada, Pattison Group and Dover Construction (Rogers 1995). Finally, a number of unrestricted private donations have been helpful to the DF&WT by creating a contingency fund for as-needed expenditures. Figure 7.4 illustrates the evolution of public versus private funding sources for the DF&WT over the four years since its inception. Using data from the DF&WT's staff and chartered accountants, the graph shows an increase receipts from both private and government sources. From this graph, it is apparent the critical contribution public agencies have made in providing the DF&WT with the necessary monies. What is most significant, however, according to the land trust literature, is the increase in the percentage of the DF&WT's annual budget that is derived from private sources. In other words, funding from private sources has not only increased overall, but went up from 41% of receipts in 1994-95, to 46% of receipts in 1995-96, to an estimated 59% for 1996-97. The significant growth in private sources for 1996-97 is largely due to the $240,000 contribution made by the DAS for the DF&WT to implement laser-leveling, grassland set-asides and cover crop programs. It is important to note that the $2.25 million granted to the DF&WT from the YVR monies is represented in the graph only by the annual interest (approximately $130,000) the DF&WT receives from the capital through the Vancouver Foundation. With the Vancouver Foundation being a private foundation and the grant being dispensed as a Deed of Gift, the interest earned is legally considered a private source of revenue. "The capital belongs to the Vancouver Foundation and the income is due the DF&WT for its Stewardship Program" (Vancouver Foundation 1996, 1). 180 Figure 7.4: Public vs. Private Funding Sources For The DF&WT 400 350 300 Funding 250 ($ ,000) 200 150 II 100 50 0 • Public 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 13 Private Fiscal Year (Sources: Rozenberg & Kositsky 1996 &1995; DF&WT staff 1996). The information on the exact amount of private donations given from year to year was not available. However, the DF&WT staff estimated that these donations constitute approximately 5% of annual budget. In the accountants' statements donations are included in fiscal year 1995-96 and totaled $34,434, a significant amount considering the DF&WT had only just launched its "Friends of the Trust" program. Well Chosen Board and Staff A Board of Directors and staff are well chosen when they are perceived positively by the land trust's audience (i.e., agricultural community, wildlife enthusiasts, and Delta residents); committed the necessary time and effort to reach the land trust's objectives. Finally, these leaders possess the necessary background and training suitable to the land trust's mission. In other words, the board and staff must be knowledgeable about the agricultural 181 and environmental issues and have an in-depth understanding of the Delta community. In terms of why a well chosen board and staff are important, the CSCC (1989, 55) argues: The composition of the board of directors and competence of the staff of the land trust plays a major role in obtaining respect and credibility in the local... community. Beginning with background and training, the DF&WT's Board of eight directors and three staff are not newcomers to the issues in Delta. Rather, they are individuals either from the community or who have been directly involved with Delta, either through work experience or academic training. At the same time, with the appointment of the Directors in the hands of two very different interest groups, the individuals running the DF&WT also have a diversity of expertise and perspective. As examples, one director is a businessman in Vancouver with a long association with agriculture; another is a fourth generation farmer in Delta; and still another is a retired wildlife biologist who served with the CWS for over thirty years (DF&WT 1994a). In fact, the DF&WT points to its own resumes as indicators of the institution capabilities, as evidenced by this quote: The Delta Farmland and Wildlife Trust is more than a collection of lay citizens and special interest groups. The DF&WT directors are among the most knowledgeable and respected professionals in their fields in British Columbia. The DF&WT is proud of the breadth and diversity of this experience and expertise and brings the many key perspectives of its directors to program development and conservation issues (DF&WT 1994a). The DF&WT's staff is also educated and experienced with Delta's issues. The Coordinator of the DF&WT has a Ph.D. in soil sciences; has worked professionally in Delta since 1981; has served on a number of soil conservation groups in the region; and was an initiator of Greenfields in 1990. Both the Wildlife and Greenfields coordinators have 182 advanced degrees, in the fields of biology and agriculture respectively, in addition to years of experience in Delta. In terms of practical evidence, there is high attendance of the Directors at the regular Board meetings. The meeting minutes indicate that at most Board meetings all the Directors are in attendance, with only an occasional absence of one or two. In terms of perceptions collected from interviews, the DF&WT's Board of Directors and staff were generally viewed positively. The majority of respondents, eleven of the nineteen, believed the Board members to be hard working, highly qualified and well respected in the community. Box 7.12 provides representative comments. Box 7.12: Representative Comments About the DF&WT's Board of Directors There are some real good people involved in it and I think they've got the country's best interest at heart so what more can you ask for (Fl) Either way, if you went too far one way or too far the other, one side or the other, would not be supportive and you would never get that unanimous vote that is required to have a program undertaken. So, they obviously have to have gotten along pretty good (C4). The people they have selected I think are fine people. They believe in what they are doing. They are qualified, very qualified in their field (G4). The staff has been very knowledgeable and to some degree has by carrying on the day-to-day functions and certainly the work in the fields and the contact with the farmers, has been the key element to the Trust's success (G6). Moreover, a couple of individuals articulated that the Board must work hard because they are making decisions based on consensus, a difficult task on a diversified Board. One individual remarked how in a consensus-making arena, rather than just lobby to gain a 183 majority vote on an issue, decision-makers have to work much harder to develop a solution with which everyone can live. Another individual remarked that: ...nothing can happen without a unanimous vote so there is obviously a lot of thought and consideration given before an issue is brought to the Trust (C4). The staff member interviewed was convinced of the Board members' commitment to their position with the DF&WT. He explained that these individuals take their job seriously because they care about the issues and the future of Delta. When asked if the right people were chosen to represent the DF&WT, the staff member remarked: That's what's great about this organization, those people have put in 100%. They don 7 come to these meetings out of boredom. They are there 100%. They are always there and they are always giving input. These people have all been really committed. In that sense, no one has really dragged their feet (SI). There was also a lot of positive comments in both the documentation and interviews about the structure of the Trust being community-based and oriented toward solutions that are compatible with farming and wildlife needs. In one report the following was written: Perhaps the Trust's most valuable asset is that resident farmers, landowners, and conservationists are Directors and members of the Trust's Advisory Committee, both as individuals and through their community organizations. This creates confidence through recognition that they are key stakeholders in developing and carrying out various conservation programs supported by the Trust (Bomke et al. 1993, 21). The BBCC and DFI were generally believed to be the right organizations to represent the interest groups. Box 7.13 shows representative comments concerning the Board's structure. 184 Box 7.13: Representative Comments Regarding The Board's Structure ...the Trust is clearly an organization, because it is community based, that has-agriculture as well as wildlife on their agenda (F6). It was probably a real good idea to form this Trust where people can sit down and talk sensibly across the table about how we can work together to try and sort problems between farmers and wildlife people rather than just have an ongoing fight (F4). By having the community base on the Board then it has a lot more acceptance amongst the farmers and is avoiding potentially getting tied up with the bureaucracies (G6). ... the beauty of it is that it's community driven, not government driven (G4). The Delta Farmers Institute was the appropriate institution to represent the farmers in the area (Gl). When they put it together and came up with the two groups, [BBCC and DFI], I think it was probably a good decision because they are the ones that are impacted on. The farmers lose something. The conservation groups saying they are spokespersons for wildlife, they lose or feel they lose something (C6). In spite of all these compliments, the Board and staff did receive some criticisms. One respondent expressed his concern that the interests represented on the Board were too narrow. He thinks organizations like Ducks Unlimited should have a larger decision-making role in the Trust. This person also felt consensus-based decision-making inhibited the Trust from accomplishing its work. One government official was critical of the Board's approach to dealing with public agencies, claiming: Their approach is the "Farmland-Trust-Me ". Give us the money and trust us that we will do all good things for wildlife. And we know full well that the farm community is not willing to do that because they see the soil as a place to do business (G5). 185 However, even with their criticisms, these individuals felt that the Board and staff have made encouraging strides in overcoming the dilemmas that have plagued agriculture and wildlife in Delta. Appropriate and Effective Conservation Tools As described earlier, the DF&WT adopted a stewardship strategy whereby the Trust delivers programs to encourage landowners to adopt wildlife-friendly practices on their land. These stewardship programs influence farmers to change their management practices through education and compensation. For the DF&WT's stewardship approach to be "appropriate" requires it to be suitable for the delta context. In other words, the approach is acceptable to those people for whom it is designed. The "effectiveness" of the stewardship efforts relates to the actual improvements made to the threatened landscape (e.g., the extent the soil structure and waterfowl populations have improved since cover-cropping was introduced). However, such tests are beyond the means of this study and the DF&WT's stewardship programs are too new to gauge on-the-ground improvements with any certainty. Therefore, for this study, effectiveness is assessed on the basis of current commitment to the programs. Generally, there are positive feelings about the Trust's stewardship approach. Of those interviewed, eighteen of the nineteen interviewees had were approving of the programs. Most people felt that with sufficient financial incentives farmers are willing to modify their 186 management practices to accommodate wildlife and the greater needs of the surrounding community. Box 7.14 gives some of the interview subjects' perceptions. In terms of tangible evidence, during its first four years of operation, the DF&WT has developed nearly 100 contracts with farmers interested in everything from planting cover crops to improving field margins. This high level of participation might suggest that the programs are working well. Moreover, the Trust has witnessed an increase in interest and demand for programs, as was discussed in the section on farmer support. Box 7.14: Support for DF&WT's Stewardship Approach Now in Delta, stewardship is the best approach to building up trust. Stewardship encourages a personal commitment that is far superior to a piece of paper expressing ownership. Through stewardship the Trust can reach a lot more land because the money goes farther and can also begin to get attitudinal changes; the farmers and environmentalists begin to understand their interdependence....a cooperative approach as opposed to acquisition has a more far reaching effect; you can only buy so much land (C5). / think stewardship is important for demonstrating that the joint approach is possible (G6). / think cooperative programs are effective in keeping the two groups working together. Whether or not the programs will achieve the technical objectives may be questionable...but I think the positive aspect is there is a continuing reason for the agricultural interests and the wildlife interests to work together. They both have a vested interest in it (Gl). / think there is quite a bit to be gained by [cooperative stewardship programs] myself. I am learning from it. If [the DF&WT] thinks [the cooperative stewardship programs] are worthwhile, which they seem to by doing these experiments...then well, who is to say? I mean it isn't the way I am use to doing things, I'll admit, but I will also say that there have to be some changes made. So, I think [the DF&WT] is going in the right direction (Fl). For the time being, cooperative stewardship is the way to go (F5). 187 Returning to the interview results, there seems to be disagreement over the financial compensation involved with the Trust's stewardship programs. The farmers interviewed thought the incentive based stewardship programs were a good idea and would like to see these programs expanded further, both financially and in terms of the types of programs offered. Other respondents expressed concern that the Trust's stewardship programs are starting to look like subsidies. These interests are concerned the federal government will withdraw its support if it appears farmers are profiting from projects like cover-cropping; stewardship costs must be shared equally between the Trust and the farmer. Several individuals also expressed the view that a combination of stewardship with some other approaches would be an improvement. In the short-term, most of the people felt that the Trust's concentration on delivering on-the-ground improvements to the soil base was the appropriate strategy. Others believed that unless the DF&WT adopts a strategy that incorporates acquisition was the only way to insure long-term protection. One government official felt acquisition by the Trust was the best means of protecting the land from unsustainable practices: From a wildlife management point of view and seeing the pressure on farmland here by the speculators and developers causing the price to go up, the only way we can maintain a place to manage wildlife and incidentally to grow food on a sustainable basis is if the farmland goes out of private hands and into the Trust. We know government is not going to do it because government can get rid of it as quickly as they got a hold of it and they cannot mismanage it...But this group because of their background and the fact that all these bad things have happened to [farmers] in the past, have definitely steered [the DF&WT] away from thought of acquiring land. That's a major flaw of the Trust, although it's in their bylaws, we know that they don't want to use it (G5). 188 Acquisition by the Trust was acceptable to some degree by eleven of the nineteen individuals interviewed. However, their approval required the Trust meet two conditions: l)the purchasing of land did not come at expense of the stewardship programs; and 2) the acquisitions were used to keep land in local farming hands. In other words, if stewardship programs were not curtailed and acquisition was employed only to prevent land from slipping out of farming hands then it would be acceptable for the Trust to exercise its ability to acquire lands. Box 7.15 provides some representative comments concerning acquisitions by the Trust. Box 7.15: Conditional Support for DF&WT Acquiring Land / suppose there wouldn't be any problem with the Trust acquiring land provided that the ground rules were all laid out clearly... but I think the cost of the land would be the major limitation right now (G2). / think acquisition isn't all that bad of an idea as far as the Trust goes. I would just as soon see the farm get purchased by some group that is going to protect its farming future and also have it for the use of wildlife...I would rather see it go to the Wildlife Trust or the Nature Trust... than to a foreign buyer (F4). There were also a number of individuals entirely against to the Trust acquiring lands. Box 7.16 contains some of the interviewees comments. The reasons given for opposing acquisitions by the DF&WT included: • farmers owning the land leads to better stewardship (F5, C5, G4); • acquisition should be left to other organizations (F2, F6, C2,); • acquisition is expensive and the management of that land time-consuming(G3, CI); and • acquisition would jeopardize the DF&WT's community-drive approach (G2, G4, C3). 189 Box 7.16: Criticisms Regarding the DF&WT Acquiring Land Acquisition is a bad idea. Farmers need to own the land Renting doesn't encourage good stewardship. I wouldn't want to farm under the B.C. Nature Trust.... (F5). Well, personally there is another area that they would definitely lose support, if they were going to be involved in acquisition. There are enough organizations that are already into that (i.e., The Nature Trust) (F6). / think they would be better off, in terms of the seasons of use that we have wildlife, to stay with stewardship. It fits very well with the times that the land would lay fallow...acquiring land is expensive (G3). Assuming the ALR is in place, I think the best stewards of the land are farmers, who live and own the land. They are the best stewards for this complex relationship of agriculture and habitat. If the objective was purely wildlife, then a different mechanism might be appropriate...but in a situation where we have agreed that agriculture and wildlife are very important and how do we maintain both, I think we need an approach that is innovative for that community...we have to develop a system that is unique andfits the needs of the community. What the DF&WT does I think is try to develop that unique community-driven approach...if you have an acquisition program, it inevitably is driven by government or driven by organizations outside of the community because they are the ones with the financial resources...generally the control slips to the outside (G4). / think the money would be better spent just putting it straight into stewardship. Once they own a piece of land, or any organization like that owns a piece, both sides are at opposite ends of the pole with what they want to do...(C3). 7.5 SUMMARY This chapter began with a description of the study's approach to data collection for the case study. To obtain a richer data set, both documents and interviews were used as sources. 190 The main objective of this chapter, however, was to present the case study findings from the data collection. Firstly, the results from applying the Triad of Support criteria to the DF&WT were described. The support of farmers, government and community interests was measured by various means, including participation, direct monies, staff times, technical assistance, supportive policies and expressed support. Secondly, the findings from applying the Triad of Institutional Capacity criteria were presented. Specifically, the Trust's financial security, leadership, and programs were assessed. From these two sets of findings a number of conclusions and recommendations were developed, the focus of Chapter Eight. 191 CHAPTER EIGHT Conclusions And Recommendations Clearly, some institutional changes will be necessary to reflect the need to manage and support farms as more than simply suppliers of food products, and to recognize that an ecosystem approach to managing natural resources demands a geographical rather than the usual sectoral approach to private and public institutions. (Girt&Neave 1991, 115) 8.1 INTRODUCTION From the information gathered to date, is it fair to say that the DF&WT is on its way to becoming a successful land trust? Does the Trust have the mandate, community support, professional commitment and guidance necessary to deliver a program that will maintain a viable agricultural industry while improving the habitat available to the wide diversity of species that inhabit this fertile region? Are there means by which the DF&WT could improve its prospects for success now and in the future? What can be learned from the experience of the DF&WT that can be applied to other land trusts in North America? Answering these questions is the focus of this final chapter. Chapter Eight consists of two main parts: conclusions and recommendations specifically for the DF&WT followed by general conclusions and recommendations related to land conservation in North America. The first part begins by describing how the DF&WT fits into the theories relating to the degradation of CPRs. Next, conclusions and recommendations are presented with regard to how well the DF&WT achieved the Triad of Support, followed by conclusions and recommendations related to the Triad of Institutional 192 Capacity. The second part of the chapter offers some general conclusions related to land conservation and the protection of CPRs through land trusts in North America. The case is made for enhancing the partnership between land trusts and government in order to integrate the strengths that both land trusts and government bring to conservation. 8.2 CONCLUSIONS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S F O R T H E D F & W T How The DF&WT Fits Into The Theory of Managing CPRs When injecting the Delta case study into the theories for protecting important CPRs found on private land, discussed in Chapter Two, the complexity of the case study becomes apparent. Such an exercise clarifies the relationship between the theory and the practical aspect of this study. Defining The Case In The Theoretical Context The case in Delta is a classic example of the conflict between private and public interests. Farmers wanting to make a living from farming are driven to unsustainable practices by economic pressures. Concurrently, wildlife enthusiasts wanting to see the ecological integrity of the region be maintained are demanding increased attention to wildlife protection. While seemingly specific to Delta, this conflict is a classic one in the area of rural land conversion. 193 Rural land conversion is an example of conflict between short-term economic interests of individuals—in this case, farmers—and society's general need to preserve farmland for future generations (Rickson, McDonald and Neumann 1990, 489). In terms of the CPR literature, the case study illustrates interdependent CPRs, both fixed and fugitive. The fixed CPR is the life support functions provided by the land. The specific functions looked at in the case study were farming and the maintenance of wildlife habitat. In order to maintain the land's capability to continue providing secondary resources (i.e., food and wildlife populations), fundamental ecological processes (e.g., photosynthesis, mineral nutrition of plants and a functioning hydrological cycle) must be maintained either by natural driving forces or by human induced management. Moreover, the fugitive resource, wildlife, often crosses geographical areas of fixed resources and thus political boundaries. By crossing political boundaries without concern, they make the work of securing habitat, necessary to sustain them, considerably more complicated. Moreover, wildlife can impact the food producing capacity of the soils differently by causing depredation on some fields more heavily than others. The case study also represents a context where both the traditional and alternative approaches to CPR protection are being implemented. Firstly, in terms of government acquisition, a number of key properties have been acquired in Delta specifically for protecting wildlife (e.g., Alaksen National Wildlife Area). Secondly, the wildlife is managed by government for the benefit of the public. Thirdly, Delta is a region where privatization of the land has been implemented, although some farmland is publicly owned. Also, the provincial government introduced an agricultural zoning law, the ALR, which inhibits the conversion of 194 agriculture to urban uses, and is one example of a regulatory approach to arresting the decline of the food producing capacity of the soils. Finally, the DF&WT is attempting to invoice another type of protective scheme by introducing voluntary, cooperative stewardship. CPRs Useful But Limited Construct As indicated earlier, the concept of CPRs is a useful construct, but with some limiting factors. A CPR is an economically based model, which focuses on a product. Economic theory discusses issues strictly in terms of inputs and outputs. Thus, we are inclined to view the use of CPRs in isolation. However, the researcher believes, as do others, that effective CPR conservation requires drawing attention to the fact that CPRs are part of ecosystems. That is, the use of CPRs "...set in motion cascades of ecological responses, many of which will condition and constrain future uses...of CPRs" (Adapted from Christensen 1996, 273). The goods and services humans derive from the Earth cannot exist without cycles and processes (i.e., life support services); their protection requires maintenance of ecosystems (Odum 1969). Thus, the problem is that CPRs only implicitly include ecological processes but this has to be made much more explicit because in order to achieve utilitarian goals the ecological processes must be maintained. To be more explicit, the researcher suggests that these life support services might be called "common pool necessities" (CPNs) as they are necessary to supporting other CPRs. In other words, CPNs are fundamental CPRs. Creating this distinction and hierarchy within the 195 CPR framework more explicitly incorporates the necessary condition of maintaining vital ecological processes when proposing strategies for protecting other CPRs. Using the case in Delta as an example, privatization of the land base has created landowners who have access to the land's common pool necessities in a particular location. However, whether or not the land base is privatized, the fugitive CPR of wildlife is still dependent on the common pool necessities of the land for habitat. The problem is that wildlife is managed by government for society's benefit, while the wildlife habitat provided by the farmland is subject to the rules of property rather than to the rules of protecting the public trust. While the landowners may be legally independent, our current system of property fails to recognize that these landowners are also ecologically interdependent in that their individual parcels of land contribute to a larger ecosystem. Trying to Avoid The "Tragedy" Through Non-Traditional Means The Delta case study also leads us to question Hardin's theory that outside institutions are required to stop the degradation of a CPR. Although the situation is a much more complex commons than the herders' pasture in Hardin's parable, the assumption that self-interested individuals or heterogeneous communities are unlikely to muster the collective will to deal with such dilemmas is questionable. In the case study, there is evidence of community driven solutions. In Delta, a group of community members did not want to see the values of farming come at the expense of enhancing wildlife habitat or vice versa. Instead, these individuals proposed an alternative, to 196 create a community driven trust to assist farmers in enhancing not only wildlife habitat but also in implementing sustainable agricultural practices. Conclusions On The Triad of Support and The DF&WT From the results of the case study in Delta, as it relates to the Triad of Support, a number of conclusions can be drawn. Overall, the data suggests that the Trust has obtained a significant level of farmer support, substantial tangible support from government and while the community interests interviewed support the DF&WT, to date, the Trust is believed to be largely unknown outside the agriculture and environmental communities. Multiple Objectives: A Strength and Weakness The DF&WT has filled a unique and important niche in the community of Delta by • establishing itself as an independent institution attempting to make the protection of the environment and a viable agricultural industry mutually compatible and beneficial endeavors. The fact that the DF&WT is a community-driven organization that has outlined, and is now trying to achieve, multiple objectives that combine sustainable agriculture and healthy wildlife populations is what gives this land trust its support and strength as an important institution in Delta. Unfortunately, it is this same dual focus that is also the Trust's potential weakness. If the Trust is perceived to favor wildlife or farming at the expense of the other, the Trust could jeopardize its support base. The Trust's approach of protecting agriculture and wildlife 197 habitat through stewardship programs affects who participates and supports it. The delivery of programs that favor one interest can lead to a loss of support from the "neglected" interests. This bias could be perceived both through the funding sources, programs offered, or the specific individual chosen to represent the Trust as Board members or staff. Some individuals may not be prepared to support or work with the DF&WT if they perceive that the land trust is not upholding the values expressed in its Constitution. Thus, the DF&WT's chosen approach of promoting mutually beneficial solutions for both farming and wildlife is both a major strength as well as a potential obstacle to the success of the Trust. Approach and Structure Engenders Support From Farming and Environmental Communities The Trust's approach and structure are large determinants of the farming and environmental communities' support. The Trust has instituted programs that provide attractive incentives for farmers to improve both the farming and wildlife habitat values of Delta's rich landscape. The success of these programs to date is in large part due to the fact that the ideas for these programs originated in the farming and environmental communities. Gathering such input enabled the DF&WT to identify what efforts would most likely be acceptable and effective in achieving the Trust's specific missions of promoting sustainable agriculture while improving wildlife habitat. In terms of structure, the framework of the Board has been important for garnering support. The fact that the DFI represents the large majority of farmers in Delta and sends three Board members to the Trust has contributed to enlisting farmer participation and support. Likewise, the BBCC's appointment of three of its members to the DF&WT's board 198 has enhanced the environmental community's support. Also, the Board's implementation of consensus-based decision making seems to generate some confidence from the farming and environmental communities that decisions made are in the best interest of both groups. Current Support Limited Largely To The Farming and Environmental Communities While it seems that the DF&WT maintains a significant level of support from the farming and environmental communities, the findings also suggest the Trust has yet to significantly reach the general public. This may be problematic for the Trust if the literature on land trusts is correct in arguing that the success of these organizations is dependent on generating a broad base of community support. For example, Delta residents' commitment and interest in the Trust could be an important source of funds in the future. However, this lack of community support may be more of an indication of the DF&WT's youth rather than its inability. Support takes time to develop. The focus of the Trust has been to adopt, what one staff member called, a "soft approach". After incorporating, the DF&WT focused on learning the issues and listening to their constituency. Since then, the Trust has concentrated almost entirely on delivering programs. Recently, however, it seems that the Trust is investing more time into developing a pool of community supporters through the "Friends of the Trust" initiative. 199 Government Support Has Been Important Yet Inconsistent There is no doubt that governments played an important role in facilitating the establishment DF&WT. The Municipality's efforts have been critical to the DF&WT, particularly during the institution's initial stages. Through federal and provincial government grants, the DF&WT was able to obtain necessary start-up funds as well as set up an endowment with the Vancouver Foundation to generate a secure stream of stewardship monies in perpetuity. Considerable government staff time was also directed toward serving on the Trust's Founding Committee, advisory committees and other related efforts. However, the way the provincial government manages its own land tends to inhibit rather than support the Trust's efforts. As demonstrated by the Delta Agriculture Study, short-term leases on provincial farmlands have forced farmers, to implement intensive agricultural practices rather than sustainable ones. In another instance, the ALR designation, while important for retention of agricultural lands, fails to distinguish between types of agriculture. Yet, the compatibility of the Trust's objectives is largely dependent on the type of agriculture (i.e., soil-based farming) employed in Delta. Conflict Brewing Between Economic Needs and Ecological Values of Farming A shift from soil-based to intensified agriculture could threaten the support and operation of the DF&WT. Environmental interests say they will lend their support to the Trust as long as it stays in soil-based agriculture. The support of the farming community, on the other hand, relies on the Trust's ability to be flexible to the farmer's need to run his or her farm like a business. According to farmers, markets may force farmers to move to more 200 intensified agricultural practices such as greenhouses in order to stay competitive. Yet, the environmental community interprets greenhouses to be nothing more than mere blacktop. Thus, the type of farming that survives in Delta will have a large affect on the Trust's future. Stewardship or Subsidy: Farmer Compensation Raises Concerns The Trust may already be jeopardizing support from wildlife interests with increasing compensation amounts. Wildlife interests do not want to see the Trust become just a means of providing subsidies to farmers. Some wildlife interests feel that the payments farmers are receiving for planting cover crops are approaching a violation of a program where responsibility is supposed to be shared equally. If it is perceived that the farmers are being subsidized or profiting from the Trust's programs, the DF&WT runs the risk of losing some of its support base. Need Mechanism for Maintaining Momentum Support for the DF&WT is maintained through the involvement of as many people as possible. The more landowners that sign on with the DF&WT the more stabilized the institution. Basically, the situation facing the Trust is now that it has been successful in getting all the main stakeholders involved either through serving directly on the Board or on advisory committees, how does the Trust keep the stakeholders involved, maintaining or improving their enthusiasm and support for the organization's efforts. 201 The DF&WT's Vulnerability Due In Part To Its Infancy Underlying any of these conclusions is the fact that the DF&WT is an organization still in its infancy. As a new institution the DF&WT is still trying to convince its audience of its value. While the Trust has not made any serious mistakes to date, it remains more vulnerable to the difficult issues it addresses, than a more well established land trust. However, as time passes and the Trust can prove that it can serve an important function in Delta, then the strength of the organization will increase. Recommendations For Protecting and Improving Support for DF&WT The immediate tasks before the DF&WT for protecting their current support base as well as broadening and strengthening the support are as follows: Maintain Independence The success of the DF&WT hinges on its ability to maintain its independence from previously established organizations, specifically the BBCC and DFI. The responsibility of the DF&WT is to uphold the agricultural and environmental objectives espoused in its Constitution. Failure to do so could not only result in the Trust losing its supporters, but also its status as a charitable organization. Consequently, underlying every decision the DF&WT makes must be the consideration of whether or not it upholds the Trust's mission. The Trust needs to insure that the Board of Directors and staff, sources of funding, programs offered, 202 materials and public outreach efforts and advisory committees all portray a genuine commitment to protecting Delta's agriculture and wildlife. Education Of Agricultural and Environmental Interests Needed The agriculture and wildlife communities in Delta are working together under a cloud of distrust due to controversies from years prior. With relation to the DF&WT, there is fear in both the environmental and agricultural communities that one interest will take control of the DF&WT, creating difficulties for the Trust to fulfill its objectives. A lack of understanding of the Trust's independence and accountability to the B.C. Societies Act, rather than the DFI and the BBCC, is partially responsible for the suspicion. As a charitable organization, the DF&WT must uphold the Constitution, not the individual agendas of the DFI or the BBCC. Consequently, the Trust needs to educate members of the farming and environmental communities about the implications of its independent status as a charitable society. Organize and Sponsor Community Events To Gain Recognition and Support The DF&WT could enhance its support base by organizing or contributing to other community events. By involving itself in such events the DF&WT could gain more exposure with the Delta residents and ameliorate some of the suspicion that exists in terms of the Trust's agenda. One example would be for the DF&WT to sponsor a forum to discuss the prospects of sustainable agriculture and healthy wildlife populations in Delta. Another 203 example would be for the DF&WT to contribute funds to programs like "Agriculture in the Classroom", an education program in schools that teaches students about farming. In addition to circulating information materials in the community, the DF&WT could enhance their visibility through other means such as lending financial support to existing community initiatives and facilitating communication within and among them. Long-Term Leases Could Increase Farmer Support Farmer support for the Trust and community's confidence in government's commitment to agriculture could be greatly enhanced with the implementation of long-term leases on government owned farmlands. This would probably result in a significant increase in the rate and extent of farmer support for the Trust's programs because the provincial government owns 23% (Klohn Leonoff 1992) of ALR lands in Delta and the transition to longer term leases increases the attractiveness of implementing long-term stewardship practices on those properties. Landowners Should Be Approached to Establish Long-Term Protection In order to truly meet the criteria of gaining landowner support, the DF&WT needs to enlist support not only from the farmers, but also from the absentee landowners from whom farmers lease. The DF&WT would do well to approach the absentee landowners regarding voluntary approaches (e.g., conservation easements and restrictive covenants) to protecting the ecological and agricultural values of the landscape. To start with, the DF&WT should 204 approach the provincial government, the largest absentee landowner in Delta. If the provincial government placed a restrictive covenant on their land, other absentee landowners might be convinced that the government is committed to insuring soil-based farming continues in Delta and will maintain the ALR zoning. This agreement could serve as a catalyst for other absentee landowners to place more protective measures on their properties and potentially reduce the speculation pressures. Maintain Active Advisory Committees A vehicle for better insuring support from stakeholders not represented directly on the Board is the active use of advisory committees. Even though creating and running these committees is time consuming, it is time worth the investment. The more often members of the Trust's Triad of Support are consulted about the DF&WT's programs and policy issues, the more likely the Trust's activities will be supported. Also, such consultation will reduce the level of criticism and strengthen lines of communication and cooperation. Finally, by keeping the interests informed and seeking their advice, the DF&WT increases their confidence that resources donated to the DF&WT will be used well. Develop Protocol for Municipal Government Support There is currently a political commitment in Delta to continued agricultural land use and protection of wildlife habitat. Delta's municipal leadership has recognized the desirability of protecting agriculture in the long term for ecological, economic and cultural reasons. 205 However, this political will may change. Consequently, the DF&WT needs to broaden and strengthen support for the long-term protection of the delta's natural resources. There needs to be guarantees that even when individual bureaucrats change, the involvement and commitment of the Municipality will not waiver. Continue Efforts Aimed At Expanding the DF&WT's Circle of "Friends" The Trust needs to improve public awareness, particularly if it is looking for private financial support down the road, reducing their reliance on public funding sources. One means by which the DF&WT is building a broader range of awareness, support and potentially more money is through their "Friends of the Trust" program. Creating a pool of supporters creates an avenue for community members to become more involved in the DF&WT's work. As "friends", these individuals may be less critical because they have contributed to the organization. Support for the Trust could be generated beyond the boundaries of Delta into other communities in the Greater Vancouver region. Consequently, the DF&WT should place greater emphasis on expanding its circle of "friends". Develop Incentives To Maintain Soil Based Agriculture Intensive agriculture is a threat to the Trust. Agriculture and wildlife are compatible pursuits in the delta as long as farming is soil-based. Movement toward practices such as greenhouse production could threaten the ability of the Trust to pursue its objectives. Incentives for farming in the region to remain soil-based are very important. 206 One such incentive could come from the provincial government placing a restrictive covenant on its farmlands that stipulates soil-based farming must be maintained. In order to enable the farmers to make a reasonable living off this land, the rent money generated by these land holdings, most of which currently goes to the public treasury, could instead be reinvested into soil-based agriculture. In addition, such financial benefits could be extended to other landholders to encourage them to place a restrictive covenant that requires soil-based farming to be practiced. The DF&WT could be party to these covenants. Conclusions On Triad of Institutional Capacity And The DF&WT From the results of the case study in Delta, as it relates to the Triad of Institutional Capacity, a number of conclusions can be drawn. In general, the findings suggest the Trust is on its way to financial security; has chosen a Board and staff that is largely respected; and implements conservation tools with both strengths and weaknesses. Securing Funds Reduced the DF&WT's Vulnerability Over the four years it has operated, the DF&WT's increase in total receipts and percentage of funds derived from private sources bode well for the organization. While public dollars were instrumental in launching the Trust and continue to represent a significant percentage of its budget, increased private sources of funding are enabling the Trust to move to financial independence. Toward this end, one of the most significant events was the 207 awarding of the YVR stewardship monies and their transfer to a trust fund creating a reliable source of funding for stewardship in perpetuity. Personalities Have Been And Will Be Determinant In Trust's Success Delta is a relatively small community with an even smaller subset involved directly with agriculture and wildlife issues. As a result, there is a central core of individuals who are strongly tied with the Trust and deal with it on many fronts, particularly the Board and staff. The personalities of those individuals have played a large role in the shaping of the Trust and will have significant effects on whether the Trust succeeds or fails. Orientation Toward Collaboration Enhances Potential To Be A Successful Land Trust The Trust's institutional orientation toward working together to put forth a shared community vision for wildlife and agriculture in Delta is one of its key strengths. Balancing the Board with representatives from the wildlife and farming communities improved people's perception of the Trust's commitment to achieving multiple objectives, opened lines of communication between these interest groups, and created an opportunity for settling some of the historic differences between them. Requiring all Board decisions to be determined on the basis of consensus further contributes to the Trust's efforts because it enhances stakeholders' confidence that the Trust's strategy is compatible with both agriculture and wildlife related objectives. 208 Current Tools Appropriate And Potentially Effective Only In Short Term Stewardship programs seem to be the most appropriate and effective in the short-term. On-the-ground incentive improvements, education and awareness campaigns and recognition programs may be the only real options in a land use arena dominated by a fear of acquisition for wildlife habitat and a high degree of farmland under lease arrangements with owners who reside outside the community. Stewardship enables the Trust to work with the farmer (landowner or not) to make immediate improvements to the landscape that benefit the farmland and wildlife interests. Stewardship Programs Alone May Not Secure Long-Term Protection While stewardship programs may be the "best" conservation tools for the DF&WT to employ in Delta at the present time, whether or not they provide long-term conservation of the CPRs the Trust seeks to protect is still to be seen. Stewardship contracts drawn up with landowners are currently non-binding 1-5 year agreements. While these stewardship programs may instill in landowners values of conservation by implementing such practices on their own land, the work done on the property may be lost if the property changes ownership. Considering that two-thirds of the farmed land in Delta is leased, encouraging farmers to be stewards on land they do not own may be a futile exercise in the long-term. The high rate of absentee ownership in Delta does not guarantee the work accomplished with the farmer will be carried out if and when the leases expire. The farmland in Delta may have a more certain future if efforts were concentrated on gaining control of the land's development. 209 Acquisition May Be A Future Option With Conditions Though acquisition is not an option for the Trust at the moment, due to the high costs of managing property and the negative perceptions in the community with regards to leased farmland, there may be possibilities for it in the future. A number of people were agreeable to the Trust involving itself in acquisition related tools in the future if certain conditions were met. Firstly, the DF&WT's purchasing of land was not done at the expense of the stewardship programs. Secondly, the acquisitions were used to keep land in local hands and in farming. Thus, it seems that the Trust could perform a valuable service if it exercised its acquisition authority, in terms of acquiring land in order to keep it in community hands. The Trust's ownership of the land could insure that the land stays in agricultural production by leasing it back to the farming community or selling it back with a covenant on the property. Also, in exercising its acquisition authority, the DF&WT can serve as a place for farmers to donate or bequeath their land that they want to see maintained as farmland in perpetuity. Trust Was Needed To Fill Particular Niche In general, the DF&WT's collaborative model fills a particular niche in Delta. Previously, there was no institution (i.e., DFI, BBCC, Ducks Unlimited, or The Nature Trust) that could have become the vehicle for promoting this shared vision for Delta. From the interviews, the perception was given that the DF&WT is a much needed institution, whose goals and objectives could not as satisfactorily been performed by any existing entity. 210 Recommendations For A Well Run Land Trust The immediate tasks before the DF&WT in order to insure that it operates successfully are as follows: Learn From Other Land Trusts In Similar Circumstances The DF&WT would be wise to keep itself informed of what other agricultural and environmentally oriented land trusts are doing throughout North America, as opposed to solely relying on British examples. People are more convinced that a certain approach is worthwhile if they see other people in similar circumstances also using it and being satisfied with the results. The farmers in Delta might be more amenable to ideas of the Trust if they felt that the Trust's source of data was from other Canadian land trusts or at least from trusts within North America. Changes In Board and Staff Require Mechanisms For Smooth Transition It seems that the success of the DF&WT, to date, has depended largely on the work of a central core of individuals. As these individuals move on there is a loss of not only an important point of support but also critical institutional memory. It is important for the DF&WT to establish a mechanism that not only captures that memory but also allows a smooth and effective transition of leadership within the institution. One possibility would be to give past Board members emeritus status, enabling them to serve as a non-voting consultant to the Trust. The same status could be extended to former staff. 211 On another note, it is important for the DF&WT to make sure that new Board members and staff understand the legal parameters to which the DF&WT is accountable under the B.C. Societies Act. Specifically, it must be clear that the Board and staff are not in a conflict of interest with the Trust's mission. Under the B.C. Societies Act, the DF&WT must insure that no individual serving on the Board or staff can benefit directly from the institution's actions. Failure to respect this rule could result in the loss of the DF&WT's charitable status. Thus, a type of "conflict of interest oath" should be created to which all Board members and staff must commit that states they will not engage in any activities that could be considered a conflict of responsibility. More generally, the Board and staff should make a point of annually reviewing the requirements for maintaining compliance under the B.C. Societies Act-Discretionary Funding Source Needed The DF&WT's current funds have posed limitations on the institution. With the heavy reliance on project specific funds, the DF&WT's has less discretion over the programs it offers. Funding sources with little or no discretionary spending inhibit the DF&WT from taking advantage of the most commonly cited strength of land trusts, that is, their ability to bring flexibility to the conservation process. Thus, for the DF&WT to be able to successfully provide long-term protection for agricultural land and wildlife habitat in Delta a stable source of discretionary funding is necessary. 212 Diversified Farming Community Necessitates A Diversified Stewardship Program Delta farms provide a number of different products which all require slightly different agricultural practices. To date, the DF&WT's programs have been largely oriented toward vegetable producers. To enhance farmer support the Trust should establish programs that assist farmers in other sectors of the farming industry. Restrictive Covenants Should Be Considered A recent change in the B.C. Land Title Act may significantly improve the DF&WT's ability to protect the delta landscape. Until recently, the B.C. Land Title Act did not permit a landowner to grant a restrictive conservation covenant to a private conservation organization. Such covenants, known as Section 215 covenants, were a tool only available to government. In July of 1994, however, the Act was modified to permit land and conservation trusts, and other agents approved by the MOELP, to hold restrictive covenants without necessarily owning adjacent real property (Porter 1994, 53). Hence, it may be in the best interest of the DF&WT to employ conservation covenants in the coming years. The contracts put forth by the DF&WT today may facilitate the transitioning into covenants. Landowners may become familiar with the idea of a covenant by the non-binding contracts and then be more willing to sign a long-term covenant later. 213 8.3 G E N E R A L CONCLUSIONS AND R E C O M M E N D A T I O N S When looking beyond the DF&WT case study, it seems likely that land trusts will continue to emerge as important vehicles for protecting public interests on private land. With the explosion in numbers and growing sophistication of land trusts, these institutions are becoming an integral component of the current and future framework of land protection and preservation. However, the rise of these private conservation institutions should not signal an end to public sector land-use management. Land trusts are not a replacement for government land acquisition and regulatory controls. Instead, land trusts need to be complementary to government action. A successful future for land conservation requires a balance between (ideally community-based) management through land trusts and management by government. Thus, it will be important for land trusts and government to work in partnership. The blend of public and private can benefit both institutions. Governments Need Land Trusts Land trusts can be an invaluable conservation partner to government. In the wake of declining fiscal resources, a negative public image, and a public outcry (at least in the United States) for reduced government intrusion on private property, government can benefit by working with land trusts in protecting North America's heritage. Land trusts can serve as crucial vehicles for advancing the public agenda. Land trusts can build effective coalitions and mobilize constituencies to support public conservation programs. Usually, land trusts are closer to the people and thus better able to drum up public support to obtain government funds for land protection in the first place (Endicott 1993). 214 Land trusts, unfettered by red tape, can also play an important role in helping government secure those lands that need immediate protection. With their ability to be more agile, creative, and quick-acting than a government agency, land trusts can help government negotiate with landowners, completing projects that otherwise would not happen (Endicott 1993; Myers 1992). For example, a number of states in the U.S. have laws dealing with acquisition that are full of delays, prohibiting government agencies from acquiring important land which suddenly comes on the market. Land trusts often times have the flexibility to acquire such land and then sell it to back to government agencies (Myers 1992). Land trusts can also assist government by leveraging limited public resources. By working with government, land trusts can provide the staff needed to spend public acquisition dollars to "effectively and expeditiously" take care of the land (Endicott 1993). In addition, land trusts can often provide matching funds or contributions of land or easements (Myers 1992). There is already compelling evidence that governments are, in fact, recognizing the important contributions of creating partnerships with land trusts in order to meet the public's conservation agenda. In the U.S., a growing number of states have created a formal role for land trusts in implementing statewide or regional conservation programs. Phyllis Myers (1992), President of the State Resources Strategies in Washington D.C., identified fourteen such formalized programs in at least thirteen states. While several types of these formalized partnerships are being tried, the most common are programs that issue direct grants of public dollars to land trusts for land acquisition, planning and/or stewardship programs. Ten of the fourteen programs provide such direct grants to land trusts. 215 Land Trusts Need Government In the most general sense, land trusts need government because the conservation challenge is far too large for land trusts to tackle alone. Ironically, most land trusts were originally formed precisely to provide an alternative to public land ownership. Yet both large, nationally-focused land trusts and small, locally-based land trusts are adding work with government to their more traditional role of soliciting private donations of land or money to buy land. In the words of Endicott (1993, 7): cooperation with government is no longer an occasional diversion from [the land trust 'sj usual agenda; it is a necessity if the most important tasks are to be done. A very simple reason land trusts need government is that land is too expensive (Hoose 1981). The cost of acquiring land, monitoring and enforcing conservation agreements, and sustainably managing the land's CPRs, is significant and ever increasing. Private, charitable donations are often insufficient to cover the high costs involved. By matching private donations with public funds and providing overhead, government can enable land trusts to afford the desired land protection measures. Not only do land trusts need public funds to help achieve their conservation objectives, but land trusts also need government's knowledge, experience and resources to manage the land and its CPRs in the long run. Large areas of land are inherently expensive, time-consuming, and complicated to protect. Long-term ownership is often too burdensome for even the best-funded land trusts (Endicott, 1993, 6). Finally, land trusts need government to establish laws and regulations that facilitate their activities. Just as government can make it more difficult for a land trust to meet its 216 objective by establishing restrictive and cumbersome regulations and statutes, government can aid land trusts by providing the legal tools necessary to protect the desired landscape. A good example is British Columbia's recent approval of restrictive covenants being held by non-governmental organizations, which enables land trusts to protect land more cost-effectively as opposed to outright purchase (Findlay & Hillyer 1994). A New Era of Land Conservation: Cooperation Between Public and Private Institutions In the new era of private land conservation, government's role as a catalyst will be critical. By removing or amending rules and regulations that create an impediment for land trusts to work to meet their objectives, government can play an "enabling" role (Murty 1994, 584). Government can operate in such a way as to assist land trusts in fulfilling their goals of protecting important landscapes for the public. In another sense, it will be important for government to insure that an overall, non-negotiable level of environmental protection is set and achieved. Government standards can complement land trusts' work with community and landowners by ensuring that decisions made at the local level does not compromise the needs of the larger public. The trend toward landscape-scale, ecosystem-based preservation will also continue to require government to play an important role in land conservation. As stated earlier, government is the largest landholder in North America. Consequently, most attempts to protect land at the landscape scale will involve public lands and require organizations large enough to carry out the conservation. This is not to say that there should be an abandoning of efforts to preserve small but significant remnants of land. Instead, what is being suggested 217 is that land trusts could enhance many of their smaller-scale land saving efforts by consciously linking them with existing public lands, thereby increasing the chance of preserving the life support functions of the land. "The sheer scale of such efforts, combined with the fact that they often span multiple political jurisdictions, makes close cooperation with government essential" (Endicott 1993, 6). Thus, the past failures of government to protect important private lands do not justify the conclusion that government should not play a role in solving land degradation. It is not the elimination of government that is needed; rather, government's role needs to be re-written. Government must become a fully active member in working with this movement toward private institutions for the public's interest. 8.4 FINAL CONCLUSION The challenge of protecting privately owned lands with important CPRs from the tragedy of the commons has never been greater. And while the conventional coercive schemes to land conservation is pervasive in North America, with notable exceptions, this approach has not yet produced long-term sustainable management of these lands. It is in this setting that land trusts have emerged as private sector, public-interest advocates for protecting critical land resources important to communities. Delta, British Columbia is one community where this alternative dimension for land conservation is being explored. Landowners and community interests have banded together to create a land trust that attempts to resolve impasses and overcome antagonisms to advance a shared vision of the future that protects their interdependent values. 218 The effectiveness of such land trusts, however, is diminished when working in isolation from government. While land trusts can help in a myriad of ways by enhancing communities' awareness of their own land resources, supportive governments are required to put into place the planning, regulatory, and other mechanisms needed to protect those resources. With government and land trusts working cooperatively, more effective land conservation methods are achievable. Thus, it is not a matter of whether we should use land trusts or government to protect society's values on private lands. Instead, the focus should be on how we can most effectively benefit from land trusts and government working in tandem and collaborating to ensure long-term sustainable management and protection of the land and its vital resources. 219 References Cited Abbott, G. 1982. Historic Origins. In B. Rushmore (ed.), Private Options: Tools and Concepts for Land Conservation Covelo, CA: Island Press, p. 150-152. Andrews, W. andD. Loukidelis. 1996. Leaving a Living Legacy: Using Conservation Covenants in BC. West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundations. http://freenet.vancouv...elpub/10362/10362.htm. (4 Sept. 1996). Anonymous. 1996a. Farm Trust Awards Prints to "Friends". Delta Optimist. 14(36): 1. Anonymous. 1996b. Land Trust: Help Conserve Our Land and Natural Resources. http://www.possibility. com/LandTrust/#whatis (2 Feb. 1996). Anonymous. 1992. Agriculture - Wildlife Trust. Memorandum to Founding Committee Meeting. (23 Nov. 1992). Berkes, F. and D. Feeny. 1990. Paradigms Lost: Changing Views on the Use of Common Property Resources. Alternatives. 17(2): 48-55. Berman, M. 1984. The Reenchantment of the World. Toronto, ON: Bantam Books. Beutel, T. 1995. Greenfields Produce Gold: Delta Farms will put $5 5M into B.C. 's Economy. The Delta Optimist. (22 July 1995). Biggins, D. R. 1978. The Social Context Of Ecology. The Ecologist Quarterly. (3): 218-226. Birtwell, I.K., C D . Levings, J.S. Macdonald and I.H. Rogers. 1988. A Review of Fish Habitat Issues in the Fraser River System. Water Pollution Research Journal of Canada. 23(l):l-30. Bomke, A. 1995. Cover Crops Improve Soil Structure. In Farmland & Wildlife: The Newsletter of the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. 1(2): 1. Bomke A. 1994. How Can We Save the Ecosystem? In Forum For Boundary Bay: Proceedings of the Conference Seeking Community Solutions for Protecting Boundary Bay. (29, Oct. 1994). Delta, B.C.: Boundary Bay Conservation Committee, pp. 57-59. Bomke A., L.E. Lowe, M.D. Novak, and W.D. Temple. 1993. Conservation Farming Systems in the Western Fraser Valley: Annual Report of the UBC Soil and Water Conservation Group and Delta Farmer's Soil Conservation Group. Submitted to Agriculture Canada and B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. 220 Boundary Bay Conservation Committee. 1992. Ours to Preserve: Boundary Bay Biosphere Reserve, British Columbia, Canada, Washington, U.S.A. Delta, B.C.: Boundary Bay Conservation Society. Bromley, D.W. 1986. Closing Comments at the Conference on Common Property Resource Management. In National Research Council (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resources. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, pp. 593-598. Brown, W. 1993. Public/Private Land Conservation Partnerships in and Around National Parks. In E. Endicott (ed.), Land Conservation Through Public/Private Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 104-128. Brubaker, E. 1995. Property Rights in the Defense of Nature. Toronto, ON: Earthscan Canada. Butler, R.W. (ed.) 1992. Abundance, Distribution, and Conservation of Birds in the Vicinity of Boundary Bay, British Columbia. Technical Report Series no. 155. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, B.C. Butler, R.W., A. Breault, T. Sullivan, and D. Dunbar. 1990. Populations Estimates and Seasonal Distribution of Birds Around Boundary Bay, British Columbia—Progress Made to 30 April 1990. Delta, B.C.: Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. Butler R. W. and R.J. Cannings. 1989. Distribution Of Birds In The Intertidal Portion Of The Fraser River Delta, British Columbia. Technical Report No. 93. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, B.C. Butler, R.W. and R. W. Campbell. 1987. The Birds of the Fraser River Delta: Populations, Ecology and International Significance. Occasional Paper Number 65. Delta, B.C.: Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment Canada. California State Coastal Conservancy. 1989. Evaluation of Agricultural Land Trusts. Report submitted by to the California State Legislature. (1 Dec. 1989). Caldwell, L. K. 1993. Policy for Land: Law and Ethics. Baltimore, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Campbell Goodell Traynor Consultants Ltd. 1996. Eco Research Survey Public Opinion Results. Vancouver, B.C.: Campbell Goodell Traynor Consultants Ltd. Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency. 1996. The Concept of Cumulative Environmental Effects, http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/. (13 Aug. 1996). Canadian Wildlife Service. 1996. The Canadian Wildlife Service. http://www.doe.ca/tandi/cws_e/html. (1 Sept. 1996). 221 Capra, F. 1983. The Turning Point. Toronto, ON Bantam Books. Christensen, N. L. 1996. Science and the Sustainable Use of Land. In H. Diamond and P. Noonan (eds.), Land Use in America. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, pp. 273-293. Christensen, P. 1991. Driving Forces, Increasing Returns and Ecological Sustainability. In Costanza, R. (ed.), Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Clarke, M.G. 1992. Community Land Stewardship: A Future Direction for Land Trusts. Exchange. 11(2): 3-9. Cohen, B. 1993. Land Trusts: The Government's Critical Conservation Partners. Exchange. 12(4): 12-13. Cook, P. and T. Cable. 1992. Developing Policy for Public Access to Private Land: A Case Study. In W. Mangun (ed.), American Fish and Wildlife Policy: The Human Dimension. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 76-93. Daly, H. and J. Cobb. 1989. For the Common Good. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Delta Farmers Institute. 1993. The Use Of Vancouver International Airport Environmental Mitigation Monies To Buy Farmlands As Waterfowl/Wildlife Habitat. Letter to government officials. (9 July 1993). Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. 1996a. Farmland & Wildlife: A Newsletter of the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. 2(1). Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. 1996b. Farmland & Wildlife: A Newsletter of the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. 2(2). Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust staff. 1996. Personal Communication. Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. 1995a. Farmland & Wildlife: A Newsletter of the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. 1(2). Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. 1995b. Farmland & Wildlife: A Newsletter of the Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. 1(1). Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. 1995c. Partners in Stewardship: A Stewardship Program for the Parallel Runway Wildlife Habitat Compensation Strategy. Delta, B.C. January 1995. 222 Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. 1994a. Farm Stewardship Proposal for Parallel Runway Habitat Conservation Strategy. Submitted to Wildlife Habitat Advisory Committee on Compensation Delta, B.C. Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. 1994b. First Year Progress Report to Founding Committee, Advisory Committee, and Supporters of the DF&WT. (8 March 1994). Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust 1993 a. Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust Constitution Society Act, Schedule A, Form 1. Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust 1993b. Minutes of the DF&WT Board Meeting. (18 Feb. 1993). Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust 1993c. Minutes of the DF&WT Board Meeting. (10 May 1993). Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust 1993d. Minutes of the DF&WT Board Meeting.(8 Nov. 1993). Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust 1993e. Partners In Stewardship (Pamphlet). Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust Founding Committee. 1992a. Minutes of Meeting. (15 Oct. 1992). Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust Founding Committee. 1992b. Minutes of Meeting. (8 Sept. 1992). Department of Interior. 1996. Wetland Activities, http://www.gov/fa... tlands activities.html. (13 Aug. 1996) Devall, B. and G. Sessions. 1985. Deep Ecology: Living as if Nature Mattered. Salt Lake City, UT: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc. Denzin N. and Y. Lincoln. 1994. Introduction; Entering the Field of Qualitative Research. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. pp. 1-18. DePhelps, C. 1996. Partnerships for Preserving and Enhancing Padilla Bay Agriculture/ Estuarine Ecosystem. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 51(4): 274-279. Ducks Unlimited. 8/13/1996. Duck's Unlimited Continental Conservation Plan. (http://www.ducks.ca/CCP/). 223 Dunn, M. 1994. A Multi-Partner Approach To The Conservation Of Wetlands In The Coastal Zone: A Case Study Of The Wetlands Of The Fraser Lowland, British Columbia. In Coastal Zone Canada '94 Conference Proceedings. Vol. 3. Halifax, N.S.: Coastal Zone Canada Association, pp. 1041-1050. Duynstee, T. 1992. An Investigation into Field Grazing by Wigeon in Delta, British Columbia. A pilot study conducted by the Greenfields Project. Delta, B.C. Ehhrenfeld, D. 1978. The Arrogance of Humanism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Elfring, C. 1989. Preserving Land Through Local Land Trusts. Bioscience. 39:(2): 71-74. Emory, J. 1995. Cattle Rice and Biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy of California, Winter 1995-96 Newsletter. San Francisco, CA: The Nature Conservancy. Endicott, E. 1993. Preserving Natural Areas: The Nature Conservancy and Its Partners. In E. Endicott (ed.), Land Conservation through Public/Private Partnerships. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, p. 17-42. Environment Canada. 1991. The State of Canada's Environment. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of Environment. Environment Canada. 1992. The State of Canada's Environment. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of Environment. Environmental Conservation Branch, Environment Canada. 1996. Alaksen, British Columbia: Information Sheet on Ramsar Wetlands, http://www.wetlands.ca.../cdnsites/alaksen.html. (1 Sept. 1996). Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office. 1991. Vancouver International Airport: Parallel Runway Project. August 1991. Feldman, E. 1987. On the Fringe: Controlling Urban Sprawl in Canada and the United States. In E. Feldman and F. Goldberg (eds.), Land Rites and Wrongs: The Management, Regulation and Use of Land in Canada and the United States. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, p. 125-146. Feldman, E. and M. Goldberg. 1987. Introduction. In E. Feldman and M. Goldberg (eds.), Land Rites and Wrongs: The Management, Regulation and Use of Land in Canada and the United States. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, p. 1-19. Findlay B. and A. Hillyer. 1994. Here Today, Here Tomorrow. Vancouver, B.C.: West Coast Environmental Law Research Foundation. 224 Fraser Basin Management Program 1994. Who Does What in the Fraser Basin? An Overview of the Responsibilities of the Four Orders of Government in the Fraser River Basin. Profile 3. Vancouver, B.C.: Fraser Basin Management Program. Fraser River Estuary Management Program. 1994. A Living Working River. New Westminster, B.C.: Fraser River Estuary Management Program. Fraser River Action Plan. 1996a. Population: A Growing Problem for the Fraser Basin. http://yvrwwwl.pwc.bc.doe.ca/ec/frap/fr-fsl.html. (28 Aug. 1996). Fraser River Action Plan. 1996b. The Fraser Fishery: A Valuable Resource. http://yvrwwwl.pwc.bc.doe.ca/ec/frap/fr-fs3.html. (28 Aug. 1996). Fontana, A. and J. Frey. 1994. Interviewing: The Art of Science. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. pp.361-376. Foti, P. and H. Jacobs. 1989. Private Public-Interest Land Use Planning: Land Trusts In The Upper Midwest. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation July-August, 1989. p.317-319. Gartner Lee Ltd. 1992. Greater Vancouver's Ecology Volume 1: Summary Report. Burnaby, B.C.: Development Services, Greater Vancouver Regional District. Gartner Lee Ltd. 1992b. Greater Vancouver's Ecology Volume 2: Technical Report. Burnaby, B.C.: Development Services, Greater Vancouver Regional District. Gibbs C. and D. W. Bromley. 1989. Institutional Arrangements for Management of Rural Resources. In F. Berkes (ed.), Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. London, England: Belhaven Press, pp. 22-32. Girt, J. 1990. Common Ground: Recommendations for Policy Reform to Integrate Wildlife Habitat, Environmental an Agricultural Objectives on the Farm. Commissioned by Wildlife Habitat Canada, Environment Canada, and Agriculture Canada. Girt J. and D. Neave. 1991, Wildlife Stewardship on Farm Land. In Growing Demands on a Shrinking Heritage: Managing Resource-Use Conflicts. Calgary, AB: Canadian Institute of Resources Law. p. 100-116. Goodwin, R. E. 1990. Property Rights and Preservationist Duties. In Inquiry. 33(4): 401-414, 417-420, and 422-427. Gram, K. 1990. Petition Will Ask Court To Stop Bay Golf Course. Vancouver Sun. (14 Sept. 1990). 225 Gray, B. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Greater Vancouver Regional District 1996a. Departments and Committees; Our Mandates and Services. http://www/gvrd.bc.ca/go/dept/depts.html. (2 Sept. 1996). Greater Vancouver Regional District 1996b. Greater Vancouver Economic Development Opportunities, http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/planning/bro/sp_agrti.html. (26 Aug. 1996) Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1996c. The Nature Legacy and Regional Parks. http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/go/todo/legacy.html. (2 Sept. 1996). Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1995a. Greater Vancouver Key Facts: A Statistical Profile of Greater Vancouver, Canada. Burnaby, B.C.: Strategic Planning Department & Parks Department. Greater Vancouver Regional District. Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1995b. Livable Regional Strategic Plan. Burnaby, B.C.: Strategic Planning Department & Parks Department. Greater Vancouver Regional District. Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1993. Creating Greater Vancouver's Green Zone. The Livable Region Strategic Plan. Burnaby, B.C.: Strategic Planning Department & Parks Department. Greater Vancouver Regional District. Greater Vancouver Regional District. 1992. Proceedings: Greater Vancouver Agriculture Conference. (2 Nov. 1991). Burnaby, B.C.: Development Services, Greater Vancouver Regional District. Greenwood, N.H. and J.M.B. Edwards. 1973. Human Environments and Natural Systems. Cambridge, MA: Duxbury Press. Grima, A.P.L. and F. Berkes. 1989. Natural Resources: Access, Rights-to-Use and Management. In F. Berkes (ed.), Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. London: Belhaven Press, pp.33-54. Goodland, R., G. Ledec, and M. Webb. 1989. Meeting Environmental Concerns Caused by Common-Property Mismanagement in Economic Development Projects. In F. Berkes (ed.), Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. London: Belhaven Press, pp 148-163. Goudie, A. 1994. The Human Impact on the Natural Environment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Haberkorn, M. S. 1995. The Role of Public Conservancies, Joint Powers Authorities, and Nonprofit Land Trusts. Land Use & Environment Forum. 4(1): 32-41. 226 Harbrecht, D. 1994. A Question of Property Rights and Wrongs. National Wildlife. 32(6): pp.4-11. Hardin, G. 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science. 162(3858): 1243-48. Hardin, R. 1982. Collective Action. Baltimore, MD: Resources for the Future. Hawken, P. 1993. The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York, NY: Harper Business. Henderson, M. J. 1991. Sustainable Development of the Pacific Salmon Resources in the Fraser River Basin. In A.H.J. Dorcey (ed.), Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin. Vancouver, B.C.: Westwater Research Center, University of British Columbia, pp. 133-154. Hilts, S.G. 1994. The Natural Heritage Stewardship Program. In Environmental Stewardship: History, Theory, and Practice Workshop Proceedings, (11-12 March 1994). Occasional Paper 32. Winnipeg, MB : The Institute of Urban Studies, pp. 109-117. Hilts S.G. and P. Mitchell. 1996. Canadian Land Trust Directory and Casebook. Guelph, On: Center for Land and Water Stewardship, University of Guelph. Hilts S. and P. Mitchell. 1993. Bucking the Free Market Economy: Using Land Trusts for Conservation and Community-Building. Alternatives. 19(3): 16-23. Hunter, M. L. 1996. Fundamentals of Conservation Biology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Science. Hoose, P. 1981. Building an Ark: Tools for the Preservation of Natural Diversity Through Land Protection. Covelo, CA: Island Press. Hocker, J. W. 1996. Patience, Problem Solving, and Private Initiative: Land Groups Chart a New Course for Land Conservation. In H. L. Diamond and P. F. Noonan (eds.), Land Use in America, Washington D.C.: Island Press, pp.245-261. Howlett, M. and M. Ramesh. 1995. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press, pp.80-102. Jacobs, M. 1993. The Green Economy: Environment, Sustainable Development and the Politics of the Future. Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia Press. Jefferson Land Trust. What is a Land Trust?. http://www.olympus.net...ty/saveland/whatis.htm. (29 Feb. 1996). Jenkins, J. 1995. The Roots of the National Trust. History Today. 45(1): 3-9. 227 Johnston, R.J. 1989. Environmental Problems: Nature, Economy and State. London: Belhaven Press. Jones, A. 1988. From Fragmentation To Wholeness: A Green Approach To Science And Society. (Parts 1 and2) The Ecologist. 17(6):236-240 and 18(l):30-34. Kay, J. and E. Schnieder. 1994. Embracing Complexity: The Challenge of the Ecosystem Approach. Alternatives. 20(3):32-39. Kirlin, J. J. 1993. Conservation and Cooperation: Strategies For Making Endangered Species Laws Work. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game. Klohn Leonoff Ltd., W.R. Holm and Associates, and G. G. Runka Land Sense Ltd. 1992. Delta Agricultural Study. Canada/B.C. Agri-Food Regional Development Subsidiary Agreement. Konda-Witte, J. 1989. TDL Owns "Prime Farmland" Says Expert. Today. (May). Kofinas, G. P. and J. R. Griggs. 1996. Collaboration and the B.C. Round Table on the Environment and the Economy: An Analysis of a "Better Way" of Deciding. Environments: A Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies. 23(2): 1-24. LaBelle, J. M. 1994. The Legal Underpinnings of the Property Rights Movement. Exchange. 13(1): 4-6. Land Trust Alliance. 1994. Special Report: The 1994 National Land Trust Survey. Exchange. 13(4):2. Land Trust Alliance. 1993. The Standards and Practices Guidebook. An Operating Manual for Land Trusts. Washington, D.C.: Land Trust Alliance. Land Trusts Association 1989. Charitable Land Trusts: Their History, Nature and Uses. M. Boddington, C. Miles and R. Surtees (eds.). Reading, England: The Land Trusts Association LeMaistre, J. 1992. Memorandum to Chief Administration Officer from Deputy Director of Planning regarding Agricultural Land and Habitat Conservation Trust. (28 Aug. 1992). Delta B.C.: Corporation of Delta. Leach, B. 1981. Waterfowl Habitats of the Lower Fraser Valley Wetlands. In J. C. Day and R. Stace-Smith (eds.), British Columbia Land for Wildlife Past, Present, Future, Symposium proceedings. Victoria:, B.C.: Ministry of Environment, Fish and Wildlife Branch, pp. 136-150. 228 Leach, B. 1974. Introductory Address to the Second Wildlife For Tomorrow Conference. In B. Leach (ed.), Wildlife for Tomorrow, Number Two, Wetlands and River Management in the Fraser Valley. New Westminster, B.C.: Institute of Environmental Studies, Douglas College, pp. 5-8. Leman, C. 1987. The Concepts of Public and Private and Their Applicability to North American Lands. In Land Rites and Wrongs: The Management, Regulation and Use of Land in Canada and the United States. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. pp.23-38. McCay, B. and J. Acheson. 1987. Human Ecology of the Commons. In The Question of the Commons. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press, pp. 1-36. McPhee, M. and P. Ward. 1994. Wetlands of the Fraser Lowland: Ownership, Management and Protection Status, 1992. Technical Report Series No. 200. Canadian Wildlife Service, Pacific and Yukon Region, British Columbia. Mairson, A. 1995. Saving Britain's Shore. National Geographic. 188(4):44-58. Manning E. and S. Eddy. 1978. The Agricultural Land Reserves of British Columbia: An Impact Analysis. Ottawa, On: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada. Mantell, M.., S. Harper and L. Propst. 1990. Creating Successful Communities: A Guidebook to Growth Management Strategies. Washington D C : Island Press. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food. 1996. Good Neighbor Farming. B.C. 's New Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm ) Act. (pamphlet). Victoria, B.C. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food. 1992. Annual Report 1992-1993. Victoria, B.C. Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology. 1994. Canada Yearbook. Ottawa, ON: Ministry of Industry, Science and Technology. Moore, K. 1990. Urbanization in the Lower Fraser Valley, 1980-1987. Technical Report Series No. 120. Pacific and Yukon Region: Canadian Wildlife Service. Murray, A. 1992. Correspondence to the Corporation of Delta's Environmental Advisory Committee on behalf of the Boundary Bay Conservation Committee. (18 Feb. 1992). Murty, M. 1994. Management of Common Property Resources : Limits to Voluntary Collective Action. Environmental and Resource Economics. 4(6): 581-594. Myers, P. 1992. Lessons from the States: Strengthening Land Conservation Programs through Grants to Nonprofit Land Trusts. Washington, D.C.: Land Trust Alliance. 229 Norecol, Dames & Moore, Inc. 1994. Delta Rural Land Use Study. Delta B.C.: Corporation of Delta. North American Waterfowl Management Plan: 1996. We Gotta Have a Plan! http://www.fws.gov/~r9nawwo. (2 Sept. 1996). North, M.E.A. et al. 1979. Vegetation Of The Southwestern Fraser Lowland 1850-1880. Vancouver, B.C.: Lands Directorate, Environment Canada. Northcote, T.G. and M. Burwash. 1991. Fish and Fish Habitats of the Fraser River Basin. In A.H.J. Dorcey and J.R. Griggs (eds.), Water in Sustainable Development: Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin. Vancouver, B.C.: Westwater Research Center, University of British Columbia, pp. 117-141. Norton, B.G. 1986. On the Inherent Danger of Undervaluing Species. In B. G. Norton (ed.), The Preservation of Species. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Oakerson, R. J. 1986. A Model for the Analysis of Common Property Problems. In National Research Council (ed.), Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resources. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press, pp. 13-28. Odum, E. P. 1993. Ecology and Our Endangered Life-Support Systems. Boston, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Odum,E. 1969. The Strategy of Ecosystem Development. Science. 164: 262-270. Ostrom, E. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E., R. Gardner, and J. Walker. 1994. Rules Games and CPR's. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Palmini, D.J. 1993. The Conservation Economics Of Aldo Leopold. Wisconsin Academy Review. 39(3): 37-44. Peacock, A. 1994 Sustainability and the Local Community. In Forum For Boundary Bay: Proceedings of the Conference Seeking Community Solutions for Protecting Boundary Bay. (29 Oct. 1994). Delta, B.C.: Boundary Bay Conservation Committee, pp.45-54. Porter, R. 1994. Economics of Agriculture and Wildlife: A Background Report on the Potential for Use of Economic Instruments for the Conservation and Preservation of Wildlife Habitat in the Lower Fraser River Estuary and Associated Floodplains. Paper prepared for Environment Canada under the Fraser River Action Plan. 230 Price, M. 1990. Shorebirds of Boundary Bay: An Annotated Checklist. Discovery. 19(4): 125-135. Reagan, M. 1987. Regulation: The Politics of Policy. Boston, MA: Little Brown. Regier H. A., Mason, R.V., and F. Berkes. 1989. Reforming the Use of Natural Resources. In F. Berkes (ed.), Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-Based Sustainable Development. London: Belhaven Press, pp.110-126. Reynolds, H. and R. Savage. 1992. Letter To Government Officials On Behalf Of Delta Farmers Institute And Delta Soil A& Water Conservation Group Regarding Public Acquisition Of Delta Farmlands For Wildlife Habitat. (12 April 1992). Rickson R., G. T. McDonald and R. Neumann. 1990. Farmers Ambivalence To Rural Land Conversion In Australia And America: Regulatory Implications. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 45(4): 489-493. Rivett, J. Land Stewardship in the Information Age: The Community Land Trust Model. http://www-irps.ucsd.edu/jrivett/land-trust.html. (2 Feb. 1996). Rogers, B. 1996. DF&WT President's Annual Address. Delta, B.C.: Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. Rogers, B. 1994. Report of the President. Delta, B.C.: Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. Rozenberg & Kositsky (Chartered Accountants). 1996. Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust Financial Statements As At March 31, 1996. Rozenberg & Kositsky (Chartered Accountants). 1995. Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust Financial Statements As At March 31, 1995. Roucsh, J. 1992. Land Trusts and Property Rights. Exchange. 11(4): 11, 22. Rowe, S. 1994. At Home in the World. (Keynote Address.) In Stewardship '94: Revisiting the Land Ethic: Caring For the Land Proceedings. Vancouver, B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands, and Parks, pp. 1-6. Rueggeberg H. and A.H.J. Dorcey. 1991. Governance of Aquatic Resources in the Fraser River Basin. In A.H.J. Dorcey and J.R. Griggs (eds.), Water in Sustainable Development: Exploring Our Common Future in the Fraser River Basin. Vancouver, B.B.: Westwater Research Center, University of British Columbia, pp. 201-240. Runka, G. 1995. Farming the Flyway. In Forum For Boundary Bay: Proceedings of the Conference Seeking Community Solutions for Protecting Boundary Bay. (29 Oct. 1994). Delta, B.C.: Boundary Bay Conservation Committee, pp. 37-43. 231 Russell, R. andH. Paish. 1968. Waterfowl Populations and Outdoor Recreational Opportunity on the Fraser Delta Foreshores. A Report Prepared for the B.C. Wildlife Federation Ryan, J. 1992. Conserving Biological Diversity. In L.R. Brown (ed.), State of the World. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, pp. 9-26. Saenger, E. 1990. Birds Versus Birdies. B.C. Report. (30 July 1990). Samson, F. andF. Knopf 1996. Putting "Ecosystem" Into Natural Resource Management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 51(4): 288-291. Sandborn, C. 1996. Green Space and Growth: Conserving Natural Areas in B.C. Communities. Prepared for the Commission on Resources and Environment, Wildlife Habitat Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. March 1996. Sandborn, C. 1995. (Unpublished Draft). Mobilizing the Private Sector to Save Land: The Land Trust Movement. Report on Private Land Conservation in British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.: Wildlife Habitat Canada, pp. 16-44. Savard, J. P. 1991. Birds of the Fraser Basin in Sustainable Development. In . A.H.J. Dorcey (ed.), Perspectives on Sustainable Development in Water Management: Towards Agreement in the Fraser River Basin. Vancouver, B.C.: Westwater Research Center, University of British Columbia, pp. 189-215. Selin, S. and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management. Environmental Management 19(2): 189-195. Schiek, J. and G. F. Searing. 1993. Wintering raptors and great blue herons on the Airport Reserve lands, Sea Island, British Columbia. Unpublished report prepared for the Vancouver International Airport Authority by LGL Limited Sidney, B.C. ScWffman, I. 1983. Alternative Techniques for Controlling Land Use: A Guide to Small Cities and Rural Areas in California. Davis, CA: University of California at Davis: Institute of Governmental Affairs. Schnidman, F. et al. 1990. Retention of Landfor Agriculture: Policy, Practice and Potential in New England. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Sharp, B. and V. Edwards. 1989. Institutional Arrangements for Conservation on Private Land in New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management. 31: 313-326. Short, T. 1991. Boundary Shores: Supreme Court Quashes Bylaw. The Delta Optimist. (23 Jan. 1991). 232 Smith, Jamie. 1994. Wings Over Boundary Bay: Seasonal Migration Patterns and Critical Habitat Needs. In Forum For Boundary Bay: Proceedings of the Conference Seeking Community Solutions for Protecting Boundary Bay. (29 Oct. 1994). Delta, B.C.: Boundary Bay Conservation Committee, pp.27-33. Spader, A. D. et al. 1982. National Consultation on Local Land Conservation: A Review. In B. Rushmore (ed.), Private Options: Tools and Concepts for Land Conservation. Covelo, CA: Island Press, pp. 124-132. Stake, R. 1994. Case Studies. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. pp. 236-247. Statistics Canada 1996. Population And Average Annual Growth Rates, Canada, The Provinces And Territories. http://www.StatCan.CA. (28 Aug. 1996). Stokes, S., A. Watson, G. Keller, and J. Keller. 1989. Saving America's Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press. Taitt, M. 1996. The Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. Presentation to Agricultural Sciences Class, University of British Columbia. (2 Feb. 1996). Taitt, M. 1995. The Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust. Marshnotes. Summer 1995. Tarlock, D. A. 1993. Local Government Protection of Biodiversity: What is Its Niche? The University of Chicago Law Review. 60(2): 555-613. Temple, W.D. 1992. Delta Farmers Soil Conservation Group: 1992 Annual Report. Delta, B.C.: Delta Farmers Institute. Thompson, E. 1995. The 1995 Farm Bill: Opportunities for Land Trusts. Exchange. 13(4): 10-11. Thompson, E. 1993. Preserving Farmland: The American Farmland Trust and Its Partners. In E. Endicott (ed.), Land Conservation through Public/Private Partnerships. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, pp. 43-60 Vancouver Foundation. 1996. Letter to Wayne Temple regarding YVR Wildlife Stewardship Fund. (11 June 1996). Vatn A. and D.W. Bromley. 1993. Choices Without Prices Without Apologies. Journal of Environmental Economics. 26: 129-148. Weimer, D. and A. Vining. 1992. Policy Analysis: Concepts and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall. pp. 30-77; 112-143. 233 Wetzel K. and J. Wetzel. 1995. Sizing The Earth: Recognition of Economic Carrying Capacity. Ecological Economics 12(1995): 13-21. Wheeler, D. P. 1996. Op-Ed Article for the San Francisco Chronicle. (April 1996). Wildlife Habitat Advisory Committee on Compensation. 1993. Minutes of WHACCMeeting #4. (14 May 1993). Wright, J. B. 1993. Cultural Geography and Land Trust in Colorado and Utah. The Geographical Review. 83(3): 269-279. Wright, J.B. and S.G. Hilts. 1993. An Overview of Voluntary Approaches to Landscape Conservation in the United States and Canada. The Operational Geographer. Montreal, PQ: The Canadian Association of Geographers, pp. 10-14. Zekor, D. and R. Kaminski. 1987. Attitudes of Mississippi Delta Farmers Toward Private-Land Waterfowl Management. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 15:346-354. 234 Appendix A: Conservation Tools For British Columbia's Land Trusts TYPES OF TOOLS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES LANDOWNER LAND TRUST LANDOWNER LAND TRUST Transferring Title: 1 .Bequests/Donations (Land gift made in will or while giver alive) Land stewarded by group with the skills and commitment to conservation Has control over whether land is properly protected Use and control of land is lost; gives up all rights to land Land may not fit within conservation strategy No government involvement Land's value may increase, becoming a tradable asset for purchasing other lands in more urgent need of protection Subdivision laws may prevent donating just the ecologically sensitive portion of a larger parcel Subdivision laws may prevent donating just the ecologically sensitive portion of a larger parcel Land obtained for free Land trust may sell the land, defeating wishes of the owner Has responsibility and cost of maintaining land 2.Conditional Gifts (Land donated on certain terms) Can maintain some control over how land is protected by setting appropriate conditions Has control over whether land is properly protected, except for limitations imposed on gift Loses use of the land Any condition may reduce flexibility how land can be used Can sell, give, or will rights to land back to another party (e.g. a second trust) Requirements for maintaining ownership of the land is clear May be fewer oppor-tunities for income tax benefits Has responsibility and cost of maintaining land Land obtained for free 3.Purchase of Land Gets paid for the land Having all rights to land ensures land is protected Use and control of land is lost Purchasing land may be expensive Does not have to worry about liability Land's value may increase, becoming a tradable asset for purchasing other lands in more urgent need of protection May not have resources available to buy and maintain land Can work in partnership with government to have land maintained May have to purchase large tract of land to save small ecologically sensitive portion 235 T Y P E S O F T O O L S A D V A N T A G E S D I S A D V A N T A G E S L A N D O W N E R L A N D TRUST L A N D O W N E R L A N D TRUST 4.0ptions to Purchase (Buying right to purchase the land) Does not restrict use of land, just ability to dispose For relatively small amount of money, assured land will not be disposed without having the opportunity to buy it Flexibility in dealing with the land reduced Only valuable if fairly certain of wanting to purchase land in the future Gets paid for the option Specifies purchase price, thereby insulating conservation organi-zation from increases in price Requires gambling that market price for land will not go up substantially because option specifies purchase price Requires gambling that market price for land will not go down substantially because option specifies purchase price Buys time to raise capital funds necessary for. purchasing property Failure to enact the option results in money being lost Gives no control over how land is managed before being sold 5.Rights of First Refusal (Buying right to be the first offered to buy the land) Gets paid for the right of first refusal For relatively small amount of money, assured land will not be disposed without having the opportunity to buy it Flexibility in dealing with the land reduced Gives no control over how land is managed or even purchased unless owner decides to sell Buys time to raise capital funds necessary for purchasing property Costs money which is lost if owner never decides to sell 6.Co-Ownership (Two or more interests own property together) Retains all rights except right to exclusive possession Costs less than outright purchase Dependent on coordi-nation and cooperation from organization May be too costly to purchase partial interest When selling, or donating land, new owner still subject to undivided interest with organization Retains undivided right over entire property no matter what percentage of property owned Reduces control over land as compared with being sole owner Potential for landowner to sell to new co-owner who may be problematic Reduces control over land as compared with being sole owner 7.Life Estate (Transfer of property to an entity after owner's death) With life estate to family and remainder to trust, can reconcile desire to ensure land's long term protection and accommodate family needs Enables trust to secure land with owners who are interested in their land's long-term protection while accommodating the needs of their family to use the land As life tenants, landowner's family will not be able to sell or bequeath land to children Life tenant may not be interested in protecting the conservation values on the land 236 TYPES OF TOOLS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES LANDOWNER LAND TRUST LANDOWNER LAND TRUST 8.Trust (Transfer of property with certain provisions; trustee manages land for beneficiary) Can define how land is managed and for whom or what purpose it is to be managed Can be named beneficiary of the land without having all the legal responsibilities No longer has the beneficial interest in the land As trustee, can be limited by trust as how to deal with the land Complex took As beneficiary, may not be able to make land management decisions Dividing Responsibility: 9.Covenant (Agreements to do or not to do something on the land, with the latter promise tied to the land—called restrictive covenants) Retains rights to use, bequeath, or sell land Restrictive covenants can be designed to maintain consistency with conservation purposes Land may decrease in value, with purchasers not wanting to be burdened by a restrictive covenant Does not by itself, permit the trust to monitor landowner's compliance Able to precisely determine extent and type of conservation Costs less than outright purchase Covenant can be canceled if court finds it is obsolete Limits kind of conservation interests that can be protected Granted with an easement, covenant can enable trust to monitor landowner's compliance Requires that it benefit dominant tenement, necessitating that the trust own an anchor parcel Requires that it benefit dominant tenement, necessitating that the trust own an anchor parcel May contain controls on how owner manages the land in relation to conservation Covenant can be canceled if court finds it is obsolete lO.Section 215 Covenant (Promise by landowner in favor of government to do or not to do certain things to their land) Flexible provisions can balance the conservation and economic interests of the land Can be facilitated without taking on the expense and responsibility of monitoring, maintaining, or enforcing Cannot be created in favor of a trust Cannot be held by trusts themselves Exempt from the property transfer tax with Cabinet approval Not restricted by tenement requirements under regular covenants Government may not be willing to monitor compliance, allowing violations to go unen-forced or unnoticed Government may not be willing to monitor compliance, allowing violations to go unen-forced or unnoticed Can be tailored to protect land by most effective means Governments may amend or discharge covenant Governments may amend or discharge covenant 237 TYPES OF TOOLS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES LANDOWNER LAND TRUST LANDOWNER LAND TRUST 11. Conservation Easement (Right to use land in particular way) Retains ownership and uses consistent with the easement Attached to the land rather than the landowner, protecting land in perpetuity With easement being new tool', uncertain if it would be upheld by court With easement being new tool, uncertain if it would be upheld by court Property value not significantly affected Able to design provisions to meet conservation objectives Land may decrease in value, with purchasers not wanting burden of an easement Usefulness limited by a number of technical requirements Assured subsequent owners must abide by easement provisions Landowners more willing to donate an easement then sell 12.Profit a Prendre (Right to enter property and take something off the land) Retains ownership and uses consistent with profit a prendre No requirement for trust be in same location or near to land with profit a prendre Land may decrease in value, with purchasers not wanting burden of profit a prendre Only applicable if interest being protected involves the removal of something from the land Property value not significantly affected Costs less than outright purchase Uncertain if it would be upheld by court Uncertain if it would be upheld by court Assured subsequent owners must abide by profit a prendre terms Able to design to allow monitoring and mainten-ance by trust Potential for future conflicts with sharing property with landowner Separating Management: 13.Leases (Divides control over land between owner and tenant for period of time) Can lease to trust for maintenance services and rent while maintaining the right to sell at a later date As tenet, cheaper to lease land than to buy it and yet maintains complete control over land's management Cannot use land for any purposes outside the terms of the lease Land protected only as long as the lease exists Can create lease provisions which ensure desired land management practices As owner, leases enable having someone else maintain it 14.Management Agreements (Contract between owner and another entity that will manage land) Benefits from the expertise of the trust going to manage the land Can educate landowners about values of conser-vation by implementing conservation practices on their own land Work done on land may be lost if owner sells property because agreement does not run with the land Work done on land may be lost if owner sells property because agreement does not run with the land Retains use while land being protected Avoids the expense of acquisition May be constricted by terms of the lease Land unencumbered for future as contract not tied to the land Management agree-ments tailored to specific needs of the land, landowner, and resources of the trust Can work with land-owners, specifying desired conservation Management agreements tailored to specific needs of the land, landowner, and resources of the trust (Adapted from: Findlay & Hillyerl994). 239 APPENDIX C T r u s t SOCIETY ACT CONSTITUTION The name of the S o c i e t y i s D e l t a Farmland and W i l d l i f e 2. The purposes of the S o c i e t y are: ( i ) t o promote the r e t e n t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r a l l a n d and e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y s e n s i t i v e areas of the lower F r a s e r R i v e r v a l l e y and d e l t a and othejr r e l a t e d areas f o r a g r i c u l t u r e and w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t and undertake p r o j e c t s which are aimed at a c h i e v i n g t h i s purpose; ( i i ) t o promote s u s t a i n a b l e a g r i c u l t u r e and stewardship p r a c t i c e s which conserve and enhance w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t ; ( i i i ) t o undertake or a s s i s t p r o j e c t s and r e s e a r c h which h e l p farmers d e a l w i t h the e f f e c t s of w i l d l i f e on a g r i c u l t u r a l p r o d u c t i v i t y ; ( i v ) t o undertake p r o j e c t s and r e s e a r c h which promote s u s t a i n a b l e a g r i c u l t u r e and stewardship p r a c t i c e s which conserve and enhance w i l d l i f e h a b i t a t ; (v) t o promote p u b l i c awareness and a p p r e c i a t i o n of a g r i c u l t u r e and w i l d l i f e and the importance of t h e i r c o n s e r v a t i o n f o r the b e n e f i t of f u t u r e g e n e r a t i o n s ; ( v i ) t o c o - o p erate w i t h the o t h e r a gencies and o r g a n i z a t i o n s which have aims and o b j e c t i v e s s i m i l a r to the S o c i e t y by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n j o i n t a c t i v i t i e s or a s s i s t i n g p r o j e c t s and r e s e a r c h which f o l l o w the purposes of the S o c i e t y ; ( v i i ) t o f u n c t i o n a t a l l times as a n o n - p r o f i t , n o n - p o l i t i c a l , c h a r i t a b l e body which i s independent from governments and o t h e r o r g a n i z a t i o n s ; ( v i i i ) t o a c q u i r e , h o l d , l e a s e , manage, r e n t , mortgage or s e l l r e a l p r o p e r t y or i n t e r e s t s t h e r e i n f o r the purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g areas to f u r t h e r the purposes of the S o c i e t y ; ( i x ) t o o p e r a t e as a c h a r i t a b l e o r g a n i z a t i o n and t o r e c e i v e , a c q u i r e and h o l d g i f t s , d o n a t i o n s , d e v i s e s and b e q u e s t s o t e v e r y n a t u r e and k i n d t o w a r d t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e S o c i e t y ; (x) to do a l l such ot h e r t h i n g s as are i n c i d e n t a l to the a t t a i n m e n t of the above purposes of the S o c i e t y . H:mem\n'oY\041..doc (v5) 240 APPENDIX D PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA INDEX TO BYLAWS OF DELTA FARMLAND AND WILDLIFE TRUST PART 1 : PART 2 : PART 3 : PART 4 : PART 5: PART 6: PART 7: PART 8 : PART 9: PART 10 : PART .11 : PART 12 : PART 13: I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Membership Meetings of Members Proceedings a t General Meetings D i r e c t o r s and O f f i c e r s P r o c e e d i n g s o f D i r e c t o r s A d v i s o r y Committee D u t i e s o f O f f i c e r s S e a l -Borrowing A u d i t o r N o t i c e s t o Members Bylaws PAGE 1 2 3 3 6 8 9 , 10 11 11 11 12 12 241 B Y L A W S O F D E L T A F A R M L A N D A N D W I L D L I F E T R U S T PART 1: INTERPRETATION 1. (1) In these Bylaws , u n l e s s the c o n t e x t o t h e r w i s e r e q u i r e s , (a) "At Large d i r e c t o r s " means those d i r e c t o r s e l e c t e d by , o r deemed to be e l e c t e d by , the members; (b) Boundary Bay C o n s e r v a t i o n Committee means Boundary Bay C o n s e r v a t i o n Committee as i n c o r p o r a t e d p u r s u a n t to the S o c i e t y A c t ; (c) Consensus R e s o l u t i o n means a r e s o l u t i o n o f the members or the d i r e c t o r s , as the case may be , passed by unanimous consent o f a l l members or d i r e c t o r s , as the case may be , who are p r e s e n t and e n t i t l e d to v o t e ; (d) D e l t a Farmers I n s t i t u t e means D e l t a Farmers I n s t i t u t e as i n c o r p o r a t e d pursuant t o the S o c i e t y A c t ; (e) " d i r e c t o r s " means the d i r e c t o r s o f the S o c i e t y f o r the t ime b e i n g , and i n c l u d e s , . e x c e p t where s p e c i f i c a l l y e x c l u d e d o r where the c o n t e x t so r e q u i r e s , the f i r s t d i r e c t o r s and the A t Large d i r e c t o r s ; ( f ) " f i r s t d i r e c t o r s " means, the d i r e c t o r s whose names appear as d i r e c t o r ' s on the L i s t o f F i r s t , D i r e c t o r s o f the S o c i e t y ; (g) (h) "member" means a, member i n good s t a n d i n g o f the S o c i e t y ; ' "Soc i e ty" means D e l t a Farmland and W i l d l i f e T r u s t ; ( i ) " S o c i e t y A c t " means the S o c i e t y A c t o f the P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a from t ime to. t ime i n f o r c e and all- .amendments t o i t ; ( j ) " r e g i s t e r e d address" o f a member means h i s address as r e c o r d e d i n the r e g i s t e r o f members. (2) The d e f i n i t i o n s i n the . S o c i e t y A c t on .'the d a t e these Bylaws become e f f e c t i v e a p p l y t o these By laws . - 2 - 242 2. Words i m p o r t i n g the s i n g u l a r i n c l u d e the p l u r a l and v i c e v e r s a and words i m p o r t i n g a male person i n c l u d e a female person and a c o r p o r a t i o n . PART 2: MEMBERSHIP The members o f the S o c i e t y a r e the a p p l i c a n t s f o r i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f the S o c i e t y , and a l l persons a p p o i n t e d as d i r e c t o r s o f the S o c i e t y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h P a r t 5 o f these Bylaws who, i n e i t h e r , c a s e , have not ceased to be members i n good s t a n d i n g . E v e r y member s h a l l upho ld the c o n s t i t u t i o n and comply w i t h t h e s e Bylaws. A p e r s o n s h a l l cease to be .a ,member o f the S o c i e t y : (a) by d e l i v e r i n g h i s r e s i g n a t i o n i n w r i t i n g to t h e s e c r e t a r y o f the S o c i e t y or by . m a i l i n g i t by r e g i s t e r e d m a i l o r d e l i v e r i n g i t t o the address o f the S o c i e t y , immedia t e ly upon r e c e i p t o f the r e s i g n a t i o n by the s e c r e t a r y o f the S o c i e t y . No r e s i g n a t i o n o f a member s h a l l be e f f e c t i v e u n l e s s i t i s accompanied by t h a t p e r s o n ' s w r i t t e n r e s i g n a t i o n as a d i r e c t o r ; (b) i m m e d i a t e l y on h i s d e a t h ; (c) i m m e d i a t e l y on b e i n g e x p e l l e d ; (d) upon mot ion by the . d i r e c t o r s i f the member has been member not in . . 'good[s tanding f o r 12 c o n s e c u t i v e months; (e) i m m e d i a t e l y on c e a s i n g , ' f o r whatever, r e a s o n , to be a d i r e c t o r . (1) A member may be e x p e l l e d by a Consensus R e s o l u t i o n o f the members p a s s e d a t a g e n e r a l m e e t i n g , . p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e r e i s a quorum a t the m e e t i n g . A member who i s p r e s e n t and a b s t a i n s from v o t i n g , o n a mot ion to e x p e l s h a l l be deemed t o have v o t e d i n f a v o r o f the m o t i o n . . (2) The n o t i c e o f the Consensus R e s o l u t i o n f o r e x p u l s i o n s h a l l be accompanied by a b r i e f s ta tement o f the r e a s o n o r reasons f o r the p r o p o s e d e x p u l s i o n . (3) The person who i s the s u b j e c t o f the p r o p o s e d Consensus R e s o l u t i o n f o r e x p u l s i o n s h a l l be g i v e n an o p p o r t u n i t y t o be heard a t the g e n e r a l meet ing b e f o r e the Consensus R e s o l u t i o n i s put to a v o t e . . (4) The person who i s the s u b j e c t o f the p r o p o s e d Consensus R e s o l u t i o n f o r e x p u l s i o n , s h a l l not be e n t i t l e d to vote on the motion t o e x p e l . a o r - 3 - 243 7. A l l members are i n good standing and, s u b j e c t t o Bylaw 6(1) h e r e i n , e n t i t l e d to one vote, except a member who has f a i l e d t o pay any s u b s c r i p t i o n or debt due and owing by him to the S o c i e t y and he i s not i n good st a n d i n g so long as the debt remains unpaid. 8. Persons making c o n t r i b u t i o n s to the S o c i e t y s h a l l be c a l l e d " F r i e n d s o f the D e l t a Farmland and W i l d l i f e T r u s t " and s h a l l be e n t i t l e d to such r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s , except membership i n the S o c i e t y , as are per m i t t e d by the S o c i e t y A c t and approved by the d i r e c t o r s . PART 3: MEETINGS OF MEMBERS 9. General meetings of the S o c i e t y s h a l l be h e l d a t such time and p l a c e , i n accordance wi t h the S o c i e t y A c t , t h a t the d i r e c t o r s d e c i d e . 10. Every g e n e r a l meeting, other than an annual g e n e r a l meeting, i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y g e n e r a l meeting. 11. The d i r e c t o r s may, when they t h i n k f i t , convene an e x t r a o r d i n a r y g e n e r a l meeting. 12. (1) N o t i c e of a g e n e r a l meeting s h a l l s p e c i f y the p l a c e , day and hour of meeting, and, i n case of s p e c i a l b u s i n e s s , the g e n e r a l nature of t h a t b u s i n e s s . (2) The a c c i d e n t a l omission t o gi v e n o t i c e of a meeting t o , or the n o n ^ r e c e i p t of a n o t i c e by, any of the members e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e n o t i c e does not i n v a l i d a t e proceedings a t t h a t meeting. 13. The f i r s t annual g e n e r a l meeting of the S o c i e t y s h a l l be h e l d not more than 15 months a f t e r the date of i n c o r p o r a t i o n and a f t e r t h a t an annual g e n e r a l meeting s h a l l be h e l d a t l e a s t once i n every c a l e n d a r year and not more than 15 months a f t e r the h o l d i n g of the l a s t p r e ceding annual g e n e r a l meeting. PART 4: PROCEEDINGS AT GENERAL MEETINGS 14. S p e c i a l b u s i n e s s i s : (a) a l l b u s i n e s s a t an e x t r a o r d i n a r y g e n e r a l meeting except the a d o p t i o n o f r u l e s of order; (b) a l l busi n e s s t r a n s a c t e d a t an annual g e n e r a l meeting, except: ( i ) the adopti o n of r u l e s of order; ( i i ) the c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the f i n a n c i a l statements; ( i i i ) the r e p o r t of the d i r e c t o r s ; - 4 - 244 ( i v ) the r e p o r t of the a u d i t o r , i f any; (v) the e l e c t i o n o f d i r e c t o r s ; ( v i ) the appointment of the a u d i t o r , i f r e q u i r e d ; and ( v i i ) the oth e r business t h a t , under these By-laws, ought to be t r a n s a c t e d at an annual general meeting, or bu s i n e s s which i s brought under c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the r e p o r t of the* d i r e c t o r s i s s u e d with the n o t i c e convening the meeting. (1) No b u s i n e s s , o t h e r than the e l e c t i o n of a c h a i r and the adjournment or t e r m i n a t i o n of the meeting, s h a l l be conducted a t a gen e r a l meeting a t a time when a quorum i s not p r e s e n t . (2) I f a t any time d u r i n g a g e n e r a l meeting there ceases t o be a quorum p r e s e n t , business then i n progress s h a l l be suspended u n t i l there i s a quorum present or u n t i l the meeting i s adjourned or terminated. (3) A quorum n e c e s s a r y f o r the members to t r a n s a c t business i s a m a j o r i t y of the members then i n good standing p l u s one. I f w i t h i n 30 minutes from the time appointed f o r a g e n e r a l meeting a quorum i s not present, the meeting, i f convened on the r e q u i s i t i o n of members, s h a l l be terminated; but i n any o t h e r case, i t s h a l l stand adjourned t o the same day i n the next week, a t the same time and p l a c e , and i f , a t the adjourned meeting, a quorum i s not presen t w i t h i n 30 minutes from the time a p p o i n t e d f o r the meeting, the members pr e s e n t c o n s t i t u t e a quorum. S u b j e c t t o Bylaw 18, the p r e s i d e n t of the S o c i e t y , the v i c e -p r e s i d e n t , or i n the absence of both, one of the o t h e r d i r e c t o r s p r e s e n t s h a l l p r e s i d e as the c h a i r of a g e n e r a l meeting. I f a t a g e n e r a l meeting: (a) t h e r e i s no p r e s i d e n t , v i c e - p r e s i d e n t , or other d i r e c t o r p r e s e n t w i t h i n 15 minutes a f t e r the time appointed f o r h o l d i n g the meeting; or (b) the p r e s i d e n t and a l l the other d i r e c t o r s present are u n w i l l i n g t o a c t as the c h a i r , the members p r e s e n t s h a l l choose one of t h e i r number 'to be the c h a i r . - 5 - 245 A g e n e r a l meeting may be adjourned from time to time and from p l a c e to p l a c e , but no b u s i n e s s s h a l l be t r a n s a c t e d at an adjourned meeting o t h e r than the business l e f t u n f i n i s h e d at the meeting from which the adjournment took p l a c e . When a meeting i s adjourned f o r 10 days or more, n o t i c e of the adjourned meeting s h a l l be g i v e n as i n the case of the o r i g i n a l meeting. Except as p r o v i d e d i n t h i s Bylaw, i t i s not necessary to give n o t i c e of an adjournment or of the b u s i n e s s to be t r a n s a c t e d at an adjourned g e n e r a l meeting. No r e s o l u t i o n proposed a t a meeting need be seconded and the chair: of a meeting may move or propose a r e s o l u t i o n . S u b j e c t to Bylaw 59 h e r e i n , a l l q u e s t i o n s a r i s i n g at a meeting of the members, i n c l u d i n g a g e n e r a l meeting, an e x t r a o r d i n a r y g e n e r a l meeting and an annual general meeting, s h a l l be d e c i d e d by a Consensus R e s o l u t i o n , p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e r e i s a quorum at the meeting. A member who i s present and a b s t a i n s from v o t i n g s h a l l be deemed to have voted i n f a v o r of the motion. A member i n good s t a n d i n g p r e s e n t a t a meeting of members i s , s u b j e c t to Bylaw 6(1) h e r e i n , e n t i t l e d t o one vote. V o t i n g i s by show of hands. Every member e n t i t l e d to vote a t a meeting of members may, by means of a proxy, a p p o i n t a person, who must be a member i n good s t a n d i n g , as h i s nominee to a t t e n d and a c t on h i s b e h a l f at the meeting or any adjournment t h e r e o f on any matter. The instrument a p p o i n t i n g a proxy s h a l l be i n w r i t i n g executed by the member or by h i s a t t o r n e y a u t h o r i z e d i n w r i t i n g and such instrument and the a u t h o r i t y , ( i f any) by which i t i s signed, s h a l l be d e p o s i t e d w i t h t h e , s e c r e t a r y of the S o c i e t y no l a t e r than seventy two (72) hours before the time s p e c i f i e d f o r the meeting a t which the person named i n the instrument proposes to vote and i n d e f a u l t the instrument of proxy s h a l l not be t r e a t e d as v a l i d . A proxy may be revoked by i n s t r u m e n t i n w r i t i n g executed by the member or by h i s a t t o r n e y a u t h o r i z e d i n w r i t i n g and d e p o s i t e d w i t h the S e c r e t a r y of the S o c i e t y a t any time up to and i n c l u d i n g the commencement df the meeting at which the proxy i s to be used. Upon such d e p o s i t the proxy i s revoked. A vote . g i v e n by a proxy s h a l l be e f f e c t i v e n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g the r e v o c a t i o n , by death or otherwise, of the instrument, p r o v i d i n g the S o c i e t y has - 6 - 246 not r e c e i v e d n o t i c e of the r e v o c a t i o n w i t h i n the time and i n the manner h e r e i n s p e c i f i e d . (6) The onl y instruments of proxy t h a t s h a l l be r e c o g n i z e d a t any meeting of members are those approved by the d i r e c t o r s ; provided however t h a t i f the form of proxy c o n t a i n s a d e s i g n a t i o n of a named person as nominee, means s h a l l be pro v i d e d i n the form of proxy whereby a member may designate some other person as nominee. PART 5: DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS 22. (1) The d i r e c t o r s may e x e r c i s e a l l the powers and do a l l the a c t s and t h i n g s t h a t the S o c i e t y may e x e r c i s e and do, and which are not by these Bylaws or by s t a t u t e or otherwise l a w f u l l y d i r e c t e d or r e q u i r e d to be exer c i s e d , or done by the S o c i e t y i n general meeting, but s u b j e c t , n e v e r t h e l e s s , t o : (a) a l l laws a f f e c t i n g the S o c i e t y ; (b) these Bylaws; and (c) r u l e s , not being i n c o n s i s t e n t with these Bylaws, which are made from time to time by the S o c i e t y i n gen e r a l meeting. (2) No r u l e , made by the S o c i e t y i n g e n e r a l meeting, i n v a l i d a t e s a p r i o r a c t of the d i r e c t o r s t h a t would have been v a l i d i f t h a t r u l e had not been made. 23. (1) The p r e s i d e n t , v i c e - p r e s i d e n t , s e c r e t a r y and t r e a s u r e r s h a l l be d i r e c t o r s o f the S o c i e t y . (2) S u b j e c t to Bylaw 24(7) h e r e i n , the number of d i r e c t o r s s h a l l be 8 or a g r e a t e r number determined from time t o time a t a gen e r a l meeting. 24. (1) The term of the f i r s t d i r e c t o r s s h a l l be the term as s e t out o p p o s i t e t h e i r name on the L i s t of F i r s t D i r e c t o r s of the S o c i e t y . (2) Except as p r o v i d e d i n Bylaws 25(1) to (3) i n c l u s i v e h e r e i n the term of each d i r e c t o r , e x c l u d i n g the f i r s t d i r e c t o r s , s h a l l be two years. (3) .Three d i r e c t o r s s h a l l be appointed by D e l t a Farmers I n s t i t u t e and three d i r e c t o r s s h a l l be app o i n t e d by Boundary Bay Co n s e r v a t i o n Committee. (4) D i r e c t o r s whose term has e x p i r e d s h a l l r e t i r e from o f f i c e at the . commencement of the annual g e n e r a l meeting a t which t h e i r term e x p i r e s . - 7 - 247 (5) The s u c c e s s o r f o r each r e t i r i n g d i r e c t o r , o t h e r than an At Large d i r e c t o r s h a l l , at the same annual g e n e r a l meeting at which the r e t i r i n g d i r e c t o r ' s term e x p i r e s , be appointed by the body which appointed t h a t r e t i r i n g d i r e c t o r . Such appointment s h a l l be e f f e c t i v e immediately f o l l o w i n g the r e t i r e m e n t of the d i r e c t o r whose term has e x p i r e d . (6) The f i r s t d i r e c t o r s s h a l l be deemed to have been appointed by the body d e s i g n a t e d as having appointed them on the L i s t of F i r s t D i r e c t o r s of the S o c i e t y . The f i r s t d i r e c t o r s d e s i g n a t e d as At Large s h a l l be deemed to have been e l e c t e d by the members. (7) In any year i n which the term of the At Large d i r e c t o r s e x p i r e s , the members prese n t at the annual g e n e r a l meeting s h a l l , immediately f o l l o w i n g the appointment of the new d i r e c t o r s appointed by D e l t a Farmers I n s t i t u t e and Boundary Bay C o n s e r v a t i o n Committee, e l e c t two At Large d i r e c t o r s . The e l e c t i o n of the two At Large d i r e c t o r s s h a l l be by unanimous vote of the members pr e s e n t , p r o v i d e d t h a t there i s a quorum at the meeting. (8) Separate e l e c t i o n s s h a l l be h e l d f o r each o f f i c e to be f i l l e d . (9) No d i r e c t o r s h a l l be e l e c t e d , appointed or acclaimed f o r more than t h r e e c o n s e c u t i v e terms. (10) In the event t h a t D e l t a Farmers I n s t i t u t e or Boundary Bay C o n s e r v a t i o n Committee s h a l l d i s s o l v e , wind up or otherwise cease to f u n c t i o n the d i r e c t o r s s h a l l choose another body having s i m i l a r purposes to e x e r c i s e the power of appointment of d i r e c t o r s e x e r c i s a b l e by D e l t a Farmers I n s t i t u t e or Boundary Bay C o n s e r v a t i o n Committee as the case may be. 25. (1) The d i r e c t o r s may a t any time and from time to time a p p o i n t a person as a d i r e c t o r to f i l l a vacancy i n the d i r e c t o r s caused by the death, r e t i r e m e n t , removal or t e r m i n a t i o n of an At Large d i r e c t o r . (2) D e l t a Farmers I n s t i t u t e or Boundary Bay C o n s e r v a t i o n Committee, as the case may be, may a t any time and from time to time a p p o i n t a person as a d i r e c t o r to f i l l a vacancy i n the d i r e c t o r s caused by the death, r e t i r e m e n t , removal or t e r m i n a t i o n of a d i r e c t o r appointed by them. (3) A d i r e c t o r so. appointed holds o f f i c e f o r the balance of the u n e x p i r e d term of the d i r e c t o r whose p o s i t i o n he has been a p p o i n t e d to f i l l . Such a d i r e c t o r i s e l i g i b l e f o r re-appointment a t the e x p i r a t i o n of h i s term. - 8 - 248 (4) No a c t o r p r o c e e d i n g o f the d i r e c t o r s i s i n v a l i d o n l y by r e a s o n o f t h e r e b e i n g l e s s than th e p r e s c r i b e d number o f d i r e c t o r s i n o f f i c e . The members may by Consensus R e s o l u t i o n remove a d i r e c t o r b e f o r e the e x p i r a t i o n o f h i s term of o f f i c e . The p r o v i s i o n s o f Bylaws 6(1) t o (4) i n c l u s i v e s h a l l , w i t h t h e n e c e s s a r y changes, a p p l y t o p r o c e d u r e f o r removing a d i r e c t o r . No d i r e c t o r s h a l l be remunerated f o r b e i n g o r a c t i n g as a d i r e c t o r b u t a d i r e c t o r s h a l l be r e i m b u r s e d f o r a l l expenses n e c e s s a r i l y and r e a s o n a b l y i n c u r r e d by him w h i l e engaged i n the a f f a i r s o f t h e S o c i e t y . 6: P R O C E E D I N G S O F D I R E C T O R S (1) The d i r e c t o r s may meet t o g e t h e r a t t h e p l a c e s , t h e y t h i n k f i t t o d i s p a t c h b u s i n e s s , a d j o u r n and o t h e r w i s e r e g u l a t e t h e i r meetings and p r o c e e d i n g s , as t h e y see f i t . (2) The quorum n e c e s s a r y f o r the d i r e c t o r s t o t r a n s a c t b u s i n e s s s h a l l be a m a j o r i t y o f t h e d i r e c t o r s t h e n i n o f f i c e p l u s one. (3) The p r e s i d e n t s h a l l be the c h a i r o f a l l m e e t ings o f t h e d i r e c t o r s , but i f a t a m e e t i n g the p r e s i d e n t i s not p r e s e n t w i t h i n 30 m i n u t e s a f t e r t h e t ime a p p o i n t e d f o r h o l d i n g t h e m e e t i n g , t h e v i c e - p r e s i d e n t s h a l l a c t as t h e c h a i r ; but i f n e i t h e r i s p r e s e n t t h e d i r e c t o r s p r e s e n t may choose one of t h e i r number t o be t h e c h a i r a t t h a t m e e t i n g . , (4) A d i r e c t o r may a t any t i m e , and t h e s e c r e t a r y , on t h e r e q u e s t o f a d i r e c t o r , s h a l l convene a m e e t i n g o f t h e d i r e c t o r s . (1) • The d i r e c t o r s may d e l e g a t e any, b u t not a l l , o f t h e i r powers t o committees c o n s i s t i n g o f the d i r e c t o r o r d i r e c t o r s as t h e y t h i n k f i t . (2) A committee so formed i n t h e e x e r c i s e o f the powers so d e l e g a t e d s h a l l conform t o any r u l e s imposed on i t by the' d i r e c t o r s , and s h a l l r e p o r t e v e r y a c t . o r t h i n g done i n e x e r c i s e o f t h o s e powers t o the e a r l i e s t m e e t i n g o f t h e d i r e c t o r s t o be h e l d n e x t a f t e r i t has been done. A committee s h a l l e l e c t a c h a i r o f i t s m e e t i n g s ; b u t i f no c h a i r i s e l e c t e d , o r i f a t a m e e t i n g the c h a i r i s n o t p r e s e n t w i t h i n 30 m i n u t e s a f t e r t h e t ime a p p o i n t e d f o r h o l d i n g t h e m e e t i n g , the d i r e c t o r s p r e s e n t who a r e members o f t h e committee s h a l l choose one o f t h e i r number t o be t h e c h a i r o f the m eeting. - .9 - 249 31. The members of a committee may meet and adjourn as they t h i n k proper. 32. For a f i r s t meeting of d i r e c t o r s h e l d immediately f o l l o w i n g the appointment or e l e c t i o n of a d i r e c t o r or d i r e c t o r s a t an annual or other general meeting of members, or f o r a meeting of the d i r e c t o r s at which a d i r e c t o r i s appointed to f i l l a vacancy i n the d i r e c t o r s , i t i s not necessary to g i v e n o t i c e of the meeting to the newly e l e c t e d or appointed d i r e c t o r or d i r e c t o r s f o r the meeting to be c o n s t i t u t e d , i f a quorum o f the d i r e c t o r s i s present. 33. A d i r e c t o r who may be absent t e m p o r a r i l y from B r i t i s h Columbia may send or d e l i v e r to the address of the S o c i e t y a waiver of n o t i c e , which may be by l e t t e r , telegram, t e l e x or c a b l e , o f and meeting of the d i r e c t o r s and may, a t any time withdraw the waiver, and u n t i l the waiver i s withdrawn: (a) no n o t i c e of meeting of d i r e c t o r s s h a l l be sent t o t h a t d i r e c t o r , and (b) any and a l l meetings of the d i r e c t o r s of the S o c i e t y , n o t i c e of which has not been given to t h a t d i r e c t o r s h a l l , i f a quorum of the d i r e c t o r s i s p r e s e n t , be v a l i d and e f f e c t i v e . 34. Questions a r i s i n g at a meeting of the d i r e c t o r s and committee of d i r e c t o r s s h a l l be d e c i d e d by Consensus R e s o l u t i o n , p r o v i d e d t h a t there i s a quorum at the meeting. A d i r e c t o r o r committee member who i s p r e s e n t and a b s t a i n s from v o t i n g s h a l l be deemed to have voted i n f a v o r of the motion. -35. No r e s o l u t i o n proposed at a meeting of d i r e c t o r s or committee of d i r e c t o r s need be seconded and the c h a i r of a meeting may move or propose a r e s o l u t i o n . 36. A r e s o l u t i o n i n w r i t i n g signed by a l l the d i r e c t o r s and.placed w i t h the minutes of the d i r e c t o r s i s as v a l i d and e f f e c t i v e as i f r e g u l a r l y passed at a meeting of d i r e c t o r s . PART 7: ADVISORY COMMITTEE 37. (1) The d i r e c t o r s may, from time to time, a p p o i n t an A d v i s o r y Committee or Committees which s h a l l serve f o r a term determined by the d i r e c t o r s . (2) Every A d v i s o r y Committee s h a l l c o n t a i n a t l e a s t one d i r e c t o r as an e x - o f f i c i o non-voting member. The e x - o f f i c i o member s h a l l be chosen by the d i r e c t o r s . (3) The A d v i s o r y Committee s h a l l meet with the d i r e c t o r s time to time a t the r e q u e s t of the d i r e c t o r s . from - 10 - 250 (4) The d i r e c t o r s s h a l l appoint a c h a i r o f the A d v i s o r y Committee f r o m amongst the members of the A d v i s o r y Committee. (5) The ..Advisory Committee s h a l l p r o v i d e the d i r e c t o r s w i t h i t s s u g g e s t i o n s and comments on the s p e c i f i c t o p i c s r e f e r r e d t o the A d v i s o r y Committee. (6) No member of the A d v i s o r y Committee s h a l l be remunerated f o r b e i n g o r a c t i n g as a member of the A d v i s o r y Committee but a member of the A d v i s o r y Committee s h a l l be reimbursed f o r a l l expenses n e c e s s a r i l y and r e a s o n a b l y i n c u r r e d by him while engaged i n the a f f a i r s o f the S o c i e t y . (6) The members of the A d v i s o r y Committee may meet, adjourn and e s t a b l i s h r u l e s of procedure as they t h i n k proper. (7) The term of o f f i c e of a member of the A d v i s o r y Committee s h a l l cease upon: (a) d e l i v e r y t o the S e c r e t a r y of the S o c i e t y of a w r i t t e n n o t i c e of r e s i g n a t i o n signed by the r e s i g n i n g A d v i s o r y Committee m e m b e r ; or (b) unanimous r e s o l u t i o n of the d i r e c t o r s removing the A d v i s o r y Committee member. PART 8: DUTIES OF OFFICERS 38. (1) The p r e s i d e n t s h a l l p r e s i d e a t a l l meetings of the S o c i e t y and of the d i r e c t o r s . (2) "The p r e s i d e n t i s t h e . c h i e f e x e c u t i v e o f f i c e r of the S o c i e t y and s h a l l s u p e r v i s e the oth e r o f f i c e r s • i n the e x e c u t i o n o f t h e i r d u t i e s . 39. The v i c e - p r e s i d e n t s h a l l c a r r y out the d u t i e s of the p r e s i d e n t d u r i n g h i s absence. 40. The s e c r e t a r y s h a l l : (a) conduct the correspondence of the. S o c i e t y ; (b) i s s u e n o t i c e s of meetings of the S o c i e t y and d i r e c t o r s ; (c) keep minutes of a l l • meetings of the S o c i e t y and d i r e c t o r s ; (d) have- custody o f a l l r e c o r d s and documents of the S o c i e t y except those r e q u i r e d t o be' kept by the t r e a s u r e r ; (e) have custody o f the common s e a l of the S o c i e t y ; and - 11 - 251 ( f ) m a i n t ain the r e g i s t e r of members. 41. The t r e a s u r e r s h a l l : (a) keep the f i n a n c i a l r e c o r d s , i n c l u d i n g books of account, necessary to comply with the S o c i e t y Act; and (b) render f i n a n c i a l statements to the d i r e c t o r s , members and others when r e q u i r e d . 42. The o f f i c e s of s e c r e t a r y and t r e a s u r e r may be h e l d by one person, who s h a l l be known as the s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r . 43. In the absence of the s e c r e t a r y from a meeting, the d i r e c t o r s s h a l l appoint another person t o a c t as s e c r e t a r y a t the meeting. PART 9: SEAL 44. The d i r e c t o r s may provide a common s e a l f o r the S o c i e t y and may d e s t r o y a s e a l and s u b s t i t u t e a new s e a l i n i t s p l a c e . 45. The common s e a l s h a l l be a f f i x e d o n l y when a u t h o r i z e d by a r e s o l u t i o n of the d i r e c t o r s and then o n l y i n the presence o f the persons p r e s c r i b e d i n the r e s o l u t i o n o r i f no persons are p r e s c r i b e d i n the presence of the p r e s i d e n t and s e c r e t a r y or p r e s i d e n t and s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r . PART 10: BORROWING 46. In order to c a r r y out the purposes of the S o c i e t y , the d i r e c t o r s may, on b e h a l f of and i n the name of the S o c i e t y , r a i s e or secure the payment or repayment of money i n ' the manner they decide and i n p a r t i c u l a r but without l i m i t i n g the f o r e g o i n g , . by the i s s u e of debentures. 47. The members may by Consensus R e s o l u t i o n r e s t r i c t the borrowing powers of the d i r e c t o r s but a r e s t r i c t i o n imposed e x p i r e s a t the next annual ge n e r a l meeting. PART 11: AUDITOR 48. T h i s P a r t a p p l i e s o n l y where the S o c i e t y i s r e q u i r e d or has r e s o l v e d t o have an a u d i t o r . 49. The f i r s t a u d i t o r s h a l l be appointed by the d i r e c t o r s , who s h a l l a l s o f i l l a l l vacancies o c c u r r i n g i n the o f f i c e o f a u d i t o r . 50. At each annual g e n e r a l meeting the S o c i e t y s h a l l a p p o i n t an a u d i t o r to h o l d o f f i c e u n t i l he i s r e - e l e c t e d or h i s s u c c e s s o r i s e l e c t e d a t the next annual g e n e r a l meeting. 51. An a u d i t o r may be removed by o r d i n a r y r e s o l u t i o n . 255 APPENDIX E Letter of Initial Contact June, day, 1996 (Interview Candidate's Address) Dear (Interview Candidate): As a graduate student in the Resource Management and Environmental Studies Program at the University of British Columbia (UBC), I am writing to ask you for an interview as part of my research. My thesis, Private Institutions for Public Interests: The Land Trust Movement Comes to British Columbia's Fraser River Delta, evaluates how the management and protection of important public resources (i.e., wildlife habitat) on private land can be improved through the creation of a land trust: a private non-profit, community-based institution with a mission to protect land. The Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust (DF&WT), in Delta, British Columbia, has been chosen as a case study. I am working under the supervision of Professor Anthony H. J. Dorcey at UBC, jointly appointed under the Institute for Resources and the Environment (IRE) and the School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP). My research is being funded from both independent sources and the UBC Eco-Research Project , a National Tri-Council Secretariat (Medical Research Council, Natural Science and Engineering Research Council and Social Science and Humanities Research Council) funded program. As you are one of a number of key people involved with and affected by the activities of the DF&WT, I am interested in your opinions, and the opinions of the group you represent. Thus, I would like to take up approximately an hour of your time for an interview. Your participation in this research is entirely voluntary. You may refuse to participate or withdraw from the study at any time. In a couple of weeks I will be calling you to arrange a convenient time for an interview. All of the information collected will be treated as strictly confidential, and, pursuant to your request, your name will not be identified in the thesis or related publications. (interview candidate's name ), I would greatly appreciate your assistance in this study, as a variety of opinions is needed to obtain valid results. I thank you in advance for considering my request and look forward to your response when I speak with you by telephone. Yours truly, Caroline Haigh, M.Sc. Candidate APPENDIX F 256 Interview Consent Form Project Title: Private Institutions for Public Interests: The Land Trust Movement Comes to British Columbia's Fraser River Delta This research is being undertaken by Caroline Haigh as a master thesis in the Institute of Resources and the Environment, University of British Columbia. The purpose of my thesis is to evaluate how the management and protection of important public resources (i.e., wildlife habitat) on private land can be improved through the creation of a land trust: a private non-profit, community-based institution with a mission to protect land. The Delta Farmland & Wildlife Trust (DF&WT) in Delta, British Columbia, has been chosen as a case study. This research is being conducted under the supervision of Professor Anthony H. J. Dorcey at UBC, jointly appointed under the Institute for Resources and the Environment (IRE) and the School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP). My research is being funded by both independent sources and the UBC Eco-Research Project, a National Tri-Council Secretariat (Medical Research Council, Natural Science and Engineering Research Council and Social Science and Humanities Research Council) funded program. 257 As you are one of a number of key people involved with and affected by the activities of the DF&WT, I am interested in your opinions, and the opinions of the group you represent. Thus, approximately an hour of your time is requested for an interview. Some quotations from this interview may be included in this thesis and other related publications. However, pursuant to your request, your name will not be attached to my quotations in my thesis or related publications, nor wil} it be given out to anyone in conjunction with your comments. For example, a quote might be stated as follows: "...a landowner stated that...". You may change your mind about participating in this study at any time. With your consent, I would like to tape record the interview to guarantee that my quotations are as accurate as possible. The tapes are for my use only. At any time during the interview, the tape recorder may be turned off. If you wish, you may review a copy of any of my writings in which you are quoted, prior to their publication. I consent to participate in this study and to allow Caroline Haigh to use my responses from this interview in her thesis or any other related published documents: SIGNATURE: DATE. NAME (print): 259 APPENDIX G The Interview Questions Interview Candidate's Background: To start off with, can you tell me something about your involvement with agriculture and wildlife issues in the Delta? To date, what has been your level of interaction and involvement with the Trust and its programs? Triad of Support Criteria Questions: Do you think the Trust has the support of farmers? Upon what evidence do you make your conclusion? Do you think the DF&WT has the support of the federal and provincial governments? What about the Municipality of Delta? Could you provide me with some evidence to confirm your conclusion? Is there local support for the Trust? If so, can you give me some examples? Overall, what do you see as barriers, if any, for the Trust to receive support from these groups? What do you think is needed to overcome these barriers? In what way are you and/or the organization you represent supporting the DF&WT (e.g. staff, technical assistance, direct monies, supportive policies)? Are their differences of views about the Trust within your organization? 260 Triad Of Institutional Capacity Criteria Questions: In your opinion, what has been the contribution of the DF&WT's Board of Directors and staff? Are there areas in which they could have done more? Do you think the right people have been chosen to try and meet the DF&WT's goals and objectives? What changes would be necessary to gain greater confidence in the Trust's leadership? Do you think the Trust's cooperative stewardship programs for protecting wildlife and agriculture in the Fraser River Delta are effective? Are there other approaches that should be used? What, if anything, would you change about the way the DF&WT is run and organized? Are there alternatives to the DF&WT that would better meet your objectives? Final Comments: What do you see as the future threats for the Trust? What are future opportunities for the DF&WT? Are there any other comments you would like to add? Are there any questions you would like to ask me? 


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items