UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Agricultural planning in the GVRD : identification of sustainable agriculture principles in local community… Anderson, Elaine Susan 2003

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_2003-0671.pdf [ 5.31MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0091407.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0091407-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0091407-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0091407-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0091407-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0091407-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0091407-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0091407-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0091407.ris

Full Text

A G R I C U L T U R A L PLANNING IN THE G V R D : IDENTIFICATION OF SUSTAINABLE A G R I C U L T U R E PRINCIPLES IN L O C A L C O M M U N I T Y PLANS by ELAINE SUSAN ANDERSON B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1986 B.Sc. (Agr), The University of British Columbia, 2000 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF M A S T E R OF SCIENCE (PLANNING) in THE F A C U L T Y OF G R A D U A T E STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thesis as c4n|triiiiiiig to-th,e required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH C O L U M B I A August 2003 © Elaine Susan Anderson, 2003 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 of Grc\dLu&^- S-rucIieK (ScM/inf n £ Co »' ^ rZ<jp'o***J ft*** The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada DE-6 (2/88) 11 ABSTRACT Planners play an important role in shaping communities. Unfortunately, community plans often focus on urban development, overlooking the importance of agricultural sustainability to the community. Little research has been done to link sustainable agriculture principles to community planning, leaving planners with few tools to create sustainable agriculture plans. The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether the agricultural plans of Surrey, Pitt Meadows, and Langley (all communities within the Greater Vancouver Regional District, British Columbia) reflect academic principles of sustainable agriculture, and whether the academic literature addresses the sustainable agriculture planning issues discussed in these plans. This research is important because sustainable agriculture is less likely to succeed at the community level if principles of sustainable agriculture are not clearly articulated and addressed in local agricultural plans. It is also important to understand whether there are gaps between sustainable agriculture theory and implementation of sustainable agriculture principles at the community planning level. A literature review was conducted to find research related to sustainable agriculture and planning. While there is extensive research on both sustainable agriculture and planning, there is very little research linking sustainable agriculture to community planning. The literature was scanned for a model that could be used to evaluate the community plans, but no appropriate model was found. Consequently, characteristics of sustainable agriculture were extracted from the literature in order to develop criteria to evaluate the plans. An evaluation framework and matrix were then developed from these criteria. The plans were examined to determine whether they made reference to sustainable agriculture principles. The evaluation found that all the plans lack some sustainable agriculture principles, and they tend to be reactive, rather than proactive, focusing on short-term issues rather than long-term goals. The evaluation matrix developed for this research was an effective tool in evaluating the plans. It revealed that there is a gap between the principles of sustainable agriculture and the practice of community planning. More effort is needed to link sustainable agriculture to community planning. The Greater Vancouver Regional District could play an important role in coordinating sustainable agriculture planning in the region. iii T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S ABSTRACT ii T A B L E OF CONTENTS i i i LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF FIGURES v CHAPTER I Introduction and Context 1 1.1 Introduction 1 1.2 Context 2 1.2.1 Rise of Sustainable Agriculture 2 1.2.2 Local Legislation 5 1.2.3 Agriculture in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) 6 1.2.4 Municipal Context 7 1.3 Summary 9 CHAPTER II Evaluation Framework 10 2.1 Introduction 10 2.2 Literature Review 10 2.3 Definitions and Descriptions 11 2.4 Goals 14 2.4.1 Protect Biodiversity 17 2.4.2 Protect Soil 17 2.4.3 Protect Water 17 2.4.4 Encourage Community Support 18 2.4.5 Manage Pests 19 2.4.6 Manage Nutrients 19 2.4.7 Promote Local Economy 20 2.4.8 Conserve Energy 20 2.4.9 Protect Systems 21 2.5 Application of the Evaluation Framework (overview) 21 2.6 Summary 22 CHAPTER III Evaluation Method 24 3.1 Introduction 24 3.2 Method 24 CHAPTER IV Plan Evaluation 26 4.1 Introduction 26 4.2 Evaluation 26 4.3 Township of Langley: Rural Plan 27 4.3.1 Overview 27 iv 4.3.2 Purpose : 27 4.3.3 Elements 27 4.3.4 Goals 28 4.3.5 Protect Biodiversity 28 4.3.6 Protect Soi l 28 4.3.7 Protect Water 29 4.3.8 Encourage Community Support 29 4.3.9 Manage Pests 29 4.3.10 Manage Nutrients 29 4.3.11 Promote Local Economy 30 4.3.12 Conserve Energy 30 4.3.13 Protect Systems 30 4.3.14 Optimize Agricultural Land Use 31 4.3.15 Resolve Transportation and Servicing Issues 31 4.3.16 Manage Recreational Use 31 4.3.17 Summary 32 4.4 District of Pitt Meadows: The Future of Agriculture Plan 32 4.4.1 Overview 32 4.4.2 Purpose 33 4.4.3 Elements 33 4.4.4 Goals 33 4.4.5 Protect Biodiversity 33 4.4.6 Protect Soi l 33 4.4.7 Protect Water 34 4.4.8 Encourage Community Support 34 4.4.9 Manage Pests 34 4.4.10 Manage Nutrients 35 4.4.11 Promote Local Economy 35 4.4.12 Conserve Energy 36 4.4.13 Protect Systems 36 4.4.14 Optimize Agricultural Land Use 36 4.4.15 Resolve Transportation and Servicing Issues 36 4.4.16 Manage Recreational Use 37 4.4.17 Manage Excess Water 37 4.4.18 Summary 37 4.5 City of Surrey: Agricultural Plan 3 8 4.5.1 Overview 38 4.5.2 Purpose 38 4.5.3 Elements 39 4.5.4 Goals 39 4.5.5 Protect Biodiversity 39 4.5.6 Protect Soi l 40 4.5.7 Protect Water 40 4.5.8 Encourage Community Support 40 V 4.5.9 Manage Pests 41 4.5.10 Manage Nutrients 41 4.5.11 Promote Local Economy 41 4.5.12 Conserve Energy 42 4.5.13 Protect Systems 42 4.5.14 Optimize Agricultural Land Use 42 4.5.15 Resolve Transportation and Servicing Issues 43 4.5.16 Manage Recreational Use 43 4.5.17 Manage Excess Water 44 4.5.18 Summary 44 CHAPTER V Discussion 45 5.1 Introduction 45 5.2 Part 1 - Explicit References to Sustainable Agriculture 45 5.2.1 Purpose 45 5.2.2 Elements 46 5.2.3 Goals 47 5.3 Part 2 - Implicit References to Sustainable Agriculture 47 5.3.1 Protect Biodiversity 47 5.3.2 Protect Soil : 47 5.3.3 Protect Water 48 5.3.4 Encourage Community Support 48 5.3.5 Manage Pests 49 5.3.6 Manage Nutrients 50 5.3.7 Promote Local Economy 51 5.3.8 Conserve Energy 52 5.3.9 Protect Systems 52 5.4 Local Issues 52 5.4.1 Optimize Agricultural Land Use 53 5.4.2 Resolve Transportation and Servicing Issues 53 5.4.3 Manage Recreational Use 54 5.4.4 Manage Excess Water 55 5.5 Other Observations 56 5.6 Summary 57 CHAPTER VI Recommendations 59 6.1 Introduction 59 6.2 Need for Professional Planners with Sustainable Agriculture Expertise 59 6.3 Application of Sustainable Agriculture Principles to Community Plans 60 6.3.1 Optimize Agricultural Land Use 60 6.3.2 Resolve Transportation and Servicing Issues 60 6.3.3 Manage Recreational Use 61 6.3.4 Manage Excess Water 61 6.3.5 Legislation 61 6.4 Link Theory of Sustainable Agriculture to Community Planning 61 vi 6.5 Summary : 63 CHAPTER VII Conclusion 64 BIBLIOGRAPHY 68 Appendix I Summary of Sustainable Agriculture Definitions and Descriptions 73 Appendix II Summary of Sustainable Agriculture Characteristics 76 Appendix III Evaluation Matrix Template 84 Appendix IV Evaluation Matrix - Township of Langley Rural Plan 86 Appendix V Evaluation Matrix - District of Pitt Meadows 'The Future Of Agriculture' Plan 93 Appendix IV Evaluation Matrix - City Of Surrey Agricultural Plan - Phase 2 99 Vll LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Agricultural Statistics for the G V R D 7 Table 2 Municipal Statistics (2003) 8 Table 3 Sustainable Agriculture Evaluation Framework (Level 4) 16 Vlll LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Sustainable agriculture evaluation framework (levels 1-3). 15 1 CHAPTER I Introduction and Context 1.1 Introduction The term 'sustainability' is being used with increased frequency throughout the world due to a growing awareness of the negative environmental and social impacts of population growth and economic development. More and more people are beginning to realize that without better management of our resources, the planet will be unable to sustain humanity's present living standards. Sustainable agriculture is one very important component of overall sustainability because humans rely on food for basic survival. The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether the agricultural plans of Surrey, Pitt Meadows, and Langley (all communities in the Greater Vancouver Regional District of British Columbia, Canada) reflect academic principles of sustainable agriculture, and whether the academic literature addresses the sustainable agriculture planning issues discussed in these plans. This research is important because sustainable agriculture is unlikely to be successful at the community level if the principles are not clearly articulated in agricultural plans. It is also important to understand whether there are gaps between sustainable agriculture theory and implementation of sustainable agriculture at the community planning level. The importance of this research also extends beyond the community, because the inputs and outputs of agriculture often originate and disperse beyond municipal boundaries. For example, Langley, Surrey, and Pitt Meadows are part of the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD). The G V R D is currently undergoing a revision of its Livable Region Strategic Plan (LRSP) as part of the Sustainable Region Initiative (SRI). A n important component of the LRSP is the concept of sustaining agriculture in the region. However, without an understanding of whether local plans support sound principles of sustainable agriculture, the G V R D is less likely to succeed at supporting sustainable agriculture in the region. This is also true at the provincial, federal, and global level. The results of this research will provide important insight for planners who 2 are trying to put the theory of sustainable agriculture into practice through community planning. 1.2 Context This section discusses the mounting interest in sustainable agriculture that came about as a response to the environmental and social damage caused by industrialization of agriculture. This discussion is followed by a description of the most significant pieces of legislation that affect municipal sustainable agriculture planning. A brief profile of the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Langley, Surrey, and Pitt Meadows is then provided. 1.2.1 Rise of Sustainable Agriculture Over the last sixty years, a series of events has occurred that has helped to propel the concept of sustainable agriculture from a grassroots ideology to a mainstream initiative. Interest in sustainable agriculture has risen in response to various environmental crises, rural socio-economic decay, and food safety concerns (Schaller, 1993). This chapter provides a general framework for understanding the evolution of sustainable agriculture, as well as an overview of the local planning context in Langley, Surrey, and Pitt Meadows. While the terms 'organic agriculture' and 'sustainable agriculture' are not necessarily synonymous (Rigby and Caceres, 2001), I have included historical references to organic agriculture where they appear to embrace the concept of early sustainable agriculture. Gates (1988) traced the evolution of organic/sustainable agriculture back to 1580 to a book by Thomas Tusser called Five Hundred Points of Good Husbandry. The book includes advice on crop rotation and observations of human behaviour in farming. Many books related to various aspects of agricultural productivity and resource conservation were written through the following centuries, but it was an essay written by economist Thomas Malthus in 1798 that propelled the concept of sustainability to new heights. This landmark work predicted that the planet would be unable to support an ever-increasing human population (Flew, 1970). This prediction may have both hindered and helped the concept of sustainable 3 agriculture. It helped the cause by identifying the finite ability of the planet's resources to sustain life, but it may have also hindered the path to sustainability by providing a rationale for increasing agricultural productivity at any cost. MacRae explains that Lord Northbourn (1940) introduced the idea of 'organic' farming, which was closely related to sustainable agriculture, as a method of agriculture that "focused on the farm as a dynamic, living, balanced, organic whole, or an organism" (MacRae, 2002, p. 1). In 1948 Rodale further popularized the term 'organic' in his book The Organic Front, but failed to convince many scientists of the merits of organic agriculture because of "...what were perceived to be outrageous unscientific claims of organic farming's benefits" (MacRae, 2002, p.l). Rodale focused on the negative impact of chemicals on soil fertility and the corresponding threat to human health. He promoted the use of compost to enrich the soil, arguing that chemical fertilizers destroy important microorganisms in the soil. Scientists may have overlooked his ideas at the time due to a belief within the scientific community that human-inspired technology would eventually supersede natural processes. Agriculture changed dramatically after World War II. The production of food and fiber surged due to increased specialization and technology. The 'Green Revolution' responded to Malthus' predictions by dramatically increasing crop yields. The Green Revolution began in the 1940s when University of Minnesota researcher Norman Borlaug developed a high-yielding wheat plant at a plant-breeding station in Mexico. Wheat production increased significantly as a result of the new wheat variety combined with controlled irrigation and addition of petrochemical fertilizers (Rosset et al., 2000). This sudden boost in productivity appeared to hold promise of feeding the world, and farmers were encouraged to switch from labour-intensive, knowledge-based farming to chemical-intensive mechanized industry (Lyson, 2002; Rosset et a l , 2000; Feenstra et al., 1997; Pretty, 1997; Grove and Edwards, 1993; Ikerd, 1993). Although the increase in production was impressive, there were an alarming number of negative impacts associated with the industrialization of agriculture. In 4 i i 1962, Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring sounded an alarm about the environmental hazards of chemicals, particularly DDT. While early environmental movements initially focused on wilderness preservation and pollution control, it became apparent that agricultural activity was having a significant environmental impact on both land and water, and attention expanded to include the agriculture industry (Buttel, 1993; Schaller, 1993). Industrial farming practices led to a number of serious environmental problems including ground and surface water contamination, declining water tables, soil erosion and salinization, and pesticide contamination of food, soil, water, and wildlife: The intensive technology that characterizes the Green Revolution has resulted in considerable environmental degradation. Its cropping practices cause excessive erosion, the pesticides and fertilizers used contaminate underground aquifers and surface waters and pests are consuming an increasing proportion of production as they develop resistance to pesticides (Grove and Edwards, 1993, p. 138) Farm industrialization also led to an increase in corporate-owned farms, a corresponding decrease in family farming, and deterioration of the social fabric of rural communities (Feenstra et al., 2002; Gliessman, 2000). In the 1970s, many sustainable agriculture organizations were created in response to budding concern over these issues (MacRae, 2002). ; Concern about the sustainability of agriculture heightened in the mid-1980s as a series of crises hit the agricultural sector. These crises included heavy debt loads, high interest rates, over-production of grain, and collapse of the North American export market (Buttel, 1993; Schaller, 1993). Farmers felt the noose of failure tightening around their necks, as family farms fell into bankruptcy across North America. The promise of the Green Revolution appeared to be faltering. Crop yields began to fall off, and it became apparent that the industrialization of agriculture threatened to compromise future productivity. The development of high-yield crops increased dependency on energy-intensive fertilizers and pesticides, and resulted in 5 rapid degradation of soil (Gliessman, 2000). Mainstream farmers and agricultural researchers began to look more seriously at alternatives to conventional agriculture. Sustainable agriculture appeared to hold promise for a better way to grow crops and a better way of life (Buttel, 1993; Grove and Edwards, 1993; Ikerd, 1993). Another milestone for sustainable agriculture was reached in 1987 when the Brundtland Commission investigated the concept of sustainable development, defining it as: "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED), 1987). Three fundamental components of sustainable development were identified: environmental protection, economic growth, and social equity (WCED, 1987). These three components have come to be the cornerstones on which many definitions of sustainable agriculture are built. This will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. 1.2.2 Local Legislation The three most significant pieces of legislation related to local planning and sustainable agriculture are: The Local Government Act (enabling legislation which provides local government with the ability to adopt official community plans and implement bylaws); The Agricultural Land Commission Act (which provides for the identification and preservation of agricultural land in the A L R ) ; and the Farm Practices Protection (Right to Farm) Act (which supports the right for farmers to use normal farm practices and provides a mechanism for complaint resolution). The combination of these pieces of legislation, along with provincial farm tax relief, make up the "basic ingredients for farmland preservation and agriculturally supportive land use policy" (Smith, 1998, p. 4-20), by providing for, among other things, exclusive agricultural districts, urban growth boundaries, and right to farm provisions. While these ingredients appear to provide a good foundation for sustainable agriculture, they do not provide specific principles or goals of sustainable agriculture. 6 The creation of the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) in 1973 was meant to protect farmland and curtail speculation on prime agricultural land. It was a significant step toward sustainable agriculture in BC. Unfortunately, setting land aside for agriculture has not been enough to ensure the sustainability of agriculture in BC. A number of influences continue to exert negative pressure on local farmlands: The economic context in which farmers are operating in is changing. In the Basin increasing land and labour costs, pressure to convert farmland to non-farm uses and increased competition from world markets are all influencing the economic viability of farming. While these factors affect farmers directly, there are implications for non-agricultural communities related to food supply and economic and community stability (Fraser Basin Management Program, 1997, p. 2). Although the A L R has been in place for nearly 25 years, agricultural land is still seen by many as land waiting for development (Smith, 1998). With each change in provincial government comes renewed hope (or despair) that the A L R will be dismantled, and agricultural land will finally be available for development. This creates an atmosphere of land speculation, diminishing the agricultural planning horizon for farmers, and resulting in reduced investment in farm infrastructure (Smith, 1998; Runka, 1992). Government policy can assist the quest for sustainable agriculture, but it has limitations. 1.2.3 Agriculture in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) The G V R D has a population of over two million and a land area of 282,066 ha divided among twenty-one member municipalities and one electoral area (GVRD, 2003). The G V R D has defined an area of 205,520 ha as the 'Green Zone' to "protect Greater Vancouver's natural assets, including major parks, watersheds, ecologically important areas, and farmland" (GVRD, 1996, p. 2). One of the Green Zone policies is to protect "the viability of agriculture through enhanced planning for agriculture as part of the region's economic base, improved communication of the importance 7 of agriculture for the region's livability and other actions" (GVRD, 1996, p. 4). This statement clearly indicates the importance of both agriculture and agricultural planning in the region. There are seven municipalities in the G V R D with agricultural land. Only three of these municipalities have adopted agricultural plans. They are: Pitt Meadows (2000), Surrey (1999), and Langley Township (1993). Table 1 (below) shows that these three municipalities make a significant contribution to agriculture in the GVRD. They make up 75% of the total number of farms in the G V R D , 61% of the total G V R D farm area, 62% of total G V R D farm receipts, and 61% of total G V R D farm expenses. Table 1 Agricultural Statistics for the G V R D Municipality Total number of farms % of G V R D farms Total area of farms (ha) % of total G V R D farm area Total farm receipts ($) % of total G V R D farm receipts ($) Langley 1,417 50% 35,056 36% 203,399,307 29% Pitt Meadows 132 5% 7,350 7% 50,592,345 7% Surrey 557 20% 17,505 18% 181,371,891 26% Burnaby 51 2% 722 1% 14,949,181 2% Delta 196 7% 19372 20% 160,841,471 23% Maple Ridge 237 8% 3990 4% 39,180,041 6% Richmond 182 6% 8315 8% 37,646,150 5% Other GVRD 82 3% 5877 6% 10,073,081 1% GVRD 2,854 100% 98,187 100% 698,053,467 100% Source: G V R D , 2003 1.2.4 Municipal Context The agriculture economy is affected by a number of powerful forces, including supply and demand management, free trade, and globalization. Inexpensive imported food products are readily available in the G V R D . This creates problems for local farmers who must compete with these products, and immense challenges for sustainable agriculture. In addition, municipalities are very limited in the 8 legislative tools available to them. Municipalities can only enact legislation or policies within their own boundaries, yet farm producers and consumers are affected by regional, provincial, federal, and global policies. While these hurdles may seem insurmountable, they must be overcome. It is my belief that sustainable agriculture cannot be successful at any of these broader levels if it is not sustainable at the local level. Community activism is rooted in the belief that individuals can make a difference. This is the basis upon which community based sustainable agriculture plans should be built. Municipalities have limited jurisdiction in implementing sustainable agriculture. Nevertheless, individuals can be a powerful force in making change at the local level, i f they are provided with the information and tools to make that change. A sustainable agriculture plan should provide community members with clear goals, objectives, strategies, and indicators, so that every person clearly understands how they can support sustainable agriculture in the community. This may not solve global issues related to sustainability, but it will certainly build community understanding of sustainable agriculture, and may help to build the foundation upon which global change can take place. The municipal level provides perhaps the best place to develop a sustainable agriculture plan, because enabling legislation already exists within the Local Government Act (LGA) to create Agricultural Area Plans (AAP). Although the provincial government has jurisdiction over the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and Right to Farm legislation, the L G A enables municipalities to create an A A P which is described as a "sub-area plan applied to a farm area(s) that will be predominantly, but not necessarily exclusively, in agricultural use" (Smith, 1998, p. 7-3). A n A A P is intended to achieve enhanced understanding of agriculture, provide greater focus on agricultural issues, integrate local, provincial, and federal policies, and encourage an inclusive planning process "where members of the agricultural community are full partners in the plan's development" (Smith, 1998, p. 7-3). Langley, Surrey, and Pitt Meadows have all created agricultural plans that reflect the intent of the A A P . The remainder of this paper will examine whether these plans 9 also reflect the intent of sustainable agriculture. As can be seen in Table 2 (below), agriculture is a prominent part of the landscape of each of these three communities. Table 2 Municipal Statistics (2003) Municipality Population Total area (ha) % A L R Langley 86,896 30,305 75 Pitt Meadows 14,670 8,561 86 Surrey 347,825 30,176 32 Source: Township of Langley, 2003; District of Pitt Meadows, 2003; City of Surrey, 2003 1.3 Summary The purpose of this thesis is to determine whether the agricultural plans of Surrey, Pitt Meadows, and Langley reflect academic principles of sustainable agriculture, and whether the academic literature addresses the sustainable agriculture planning issues discussed in these plans. Increased interest in sustainable agriculture has come about as a response to the industrialization of agriculture, and its impact on the environment and rural communities. It is important that community plans reflect the principles of sustainable agriculture because sustainable agriculture is unlikely to be successful without local community support. In the next chapter I describe the principles of sustainable agriculture. I then outline the method used to develop the evaluation framework, and provide an explanation of the evaluation method. This is followed by an evaluation of each municipal agricultural plan and a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each plan with respect to sustainable agriculture principles. I then assess the evaluation framework in relation to the content of the plans to determine whether it has successfully captured local sustainable agriculture planning issues. Finally, recommendations are made regarding suggested revisions to the plans and the framework. 10 C H A P T E R II Evaluation Framework 2.1 Introduction This chapter reviews academic interpretations of sustainable agriculture in order to determine whether any sustainable agriculture definitions or descriptions are sufficiently detailed to evaluate the municipal agricultural plans. The chapter then examines whether any models exist to evaluate the agricultural plans, and describes the value of sustainable agriculture definitions and other sustainable agriculture characteristics in developing an evaluation framework. 2.2 Literature Review I initially scanned the literature for definitions and descriptions of sustainable agriculture (Appendix I). These definitions and descriptions did not provide specific evaluation criteria, but they did identify a common purpose and some common elements of sustainable agriculture. I discuss these in greater detail in Section 2.3. I then reviewed the literature to determine whether there were any models of sustainable agriculture with criteria that could be used to evaluate the plans. While some authors provided models of sustainable agriculture, these models were deemed to be inappropriate for evaluating the agricultural plans because the models did not reflect a municipal planning perspective, and none described criteria for sustainable agriculture in the context of agricultural planning. However, the characteristics of sustainable agriculture that were cited in the various models were captured and used in the development of the evaluation framework described in Section 2.3. Next, I scanned the literature for models that specifically linked community planning and sustainable agriculture. Only five of the articles reviewed mentioned sustainable agriculture in the context of community planning (Bellamy and Johnson, 2000; Grove and Edwards, 1993; Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 2000; Safley, 1998; Smith, 1998). The authors identified the need to integrate sustainable agriculture into community planning, and discussed some general principles of sustainable agriculture 11 (which I included in development of the evaluation framework), but they did not provide a model, framework, or any details about the specific characteristics (e.g. objectives, strategies, indicators) of sustainable agriculture that should be included in a plan. The literature review reveals a gap between academic interpretation of sustainable agriculture and application of this knowledge to community planning. There is a lack of information on how to move from the theory of sustainable agriculture to the practice of community planning. This is consistent with previous research done locally, which shows that most planners have little knowledge about agriculture (Artemis, 2002; Smith, 1998; Runka, 1992). This finding is also consistent with recent research done in the US where planners in 22 US cities were surveyed to determine their involvement in the food system. It was discovered that most planning agencies are not involved in planning food systems, and where they are it is, "...reactive rather than proactive and piecemeal rather than comprehensive" (Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 2000, p. 115). The authors of the study concluded that: The food system...is notable by its absence from the writing of planning scholars, from the plans prepared by planning practitioners, and from the classrooms in which planning students are taught (Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 2000, p. 113) The lack of academic research linking sustainable agriculture theory to community planning, combined with the lack of planners with agricultural expertise, indicates the need for a model that can be used to create or evaluate community based sustainable agriculture plans. Since no such model appears to exist, a framework will be created here to assess the agricultural plans of Langley, Surrey, and Pitt Meadows. The development of this comprehensive framework is discussed below. 2.3 Definitions and Descriptions As noted above, I reviewed the literature for definitions or descriptions of sustainable agriculture. Only those definitions (or descriptions) that explicitly refer to sustainable 12 agriculture are included here and in Appendix I. The literature review indicated that there is no single widely accepted definition of sustainable agriculture, and most authors provide rather vague and general descriptions about sustainable agriculture. Some authors did not provide any definition whatsoever. The strongest similarity in the definitions and descriptions reviewed is the tendency to define sustainable agriculture as a composite of economic, environmental, and social elements. Edwards et al. (1993) confirm this observation, noting that while there are hundreds of definitions of sustainable agriculture, virtually all promote environmental, ecological, economic, and social stability. Some of these definitions are shown below: • "...social, cultural, economic, and environmental issues are all essential components of achieving sustainable agriculture" (Bellamy and Johnson, 2000, p. 26) • sustainable agriculture must "...(1) be capable of providing the world's food needs at an economically realistic price, (2) meet the social needs of rural communities, (3) conserve the environment for future generations" (Aldwell, 1997, p. 98) • "The goal of sustainable agriculture is based upon values of ecological soundness, environmental protection, economic rationality, equity, and humaneness toward people and animals" (Allen and VanDusen, 1988, p. 6) • "A sustainable agriculture is ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just and humane" (Gips, 2002, www.mtn.org) • "...for agriculture to be sustainable it must be biophysically possible, socio-politically acceptable, and technically and economically feasible" (Yunlong and Smit, 1994, p. 302) The Brundtland Commission's definition of sustainable development introduced in chapter 1 also figures prominently in definitions of sustainable agriculture: • "Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals - environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity...sustainability rests on 13 the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (Feenstra et al., 2002, www.sarep.ucdavis.edu) • "A sustainable agriculture must be economically viable, ecologically sound, and socially responsible. These are equal measures...sustainable agriculture rests squarely on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to successfully meet their needs" (Safley, 1998, p. 331) • "...sustainable agriculture consists of agricultural practices which do not undermine our future capacity to engage in agriculture" (Lehman et al., 1993, p. 142) • "A sustainable agriculture is one that recognizes whole-systems nature of food, feed, and fiber production in equitably balancing the concerns of environmental soundness, social equity, and economic viability among all sectors of the public, including international and intergenerational peoples" (Gliessman, 2000, p. 319) These definitions provide a good foundation for understanding the basic principles of sustainable agriculture, but do not provide any distinct criteria to evaluate the agricultural plans. In order to be useful at the community planning level, specific goals and properties of sustainable agriculture are needed. Since I found no appropriate pre-existing evaluation model, or framework, that linked sustainable agriculture to community planning, I developed my own evaluation framework. The intent of the framework (Fig. 1 and Table 3) is to outline the sustainable agriculture principles found in the literature in a hierarchical manner, so that the plans can be evaluated systematically from the overall purpose of sustainable agriculture to the elements, goals, and the specific actions needed to support sustainable agriculture. The definitions in Appendix I provide a good basis for understanding the purpose (to meet the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs) and elements (economic, environmental, social) of sustainable agriculture. The purpose and elements are represented in Levels 1 and 2, 14 respectively, of the evaluation framework. However, these two levels do not provide details about the specific goals or properties of sustainable agriculture to enable a comprehensive evaluation of the agricultural plans. Consequently, the literature must be examined more closely to define these goals. 2.4 Goals Over 300 characteristics of sustainable agriculture were identified in the literature (Appendix II). Many of the characteristics identified by the authors had similar themes. Comparable characteristics were grouped according to theme (e.g. soil, water, biodiversity). These themes were then modified into specific goals (Fig. 1, Level 3). The goals provide greater specificity than either the purpose or elements, and reflect the key themes identified in the literature. They are general enough to encompass the variety of characteristics identified, and explicit enough to provide specific direction in evaluating the plans. Some of the characteristics of sustainable agriculture are difficult to place in a single category, and are open for individual interpretation. However, the intent of the framework is not to isolate characteristics into mutually exclusive categories, but rather to consolidate the many characteristics into manageable groups, and to 'activate' the groups into tangible goals. Each of the goals has corresponding properties (objective, strategy, indicator) associated with them in Level 4 (Table 3). Level 4 addresses specific issues in sustainable agriculture by linking community objectives with particular strategies and indicators. The properties listed in Level 4 are derived from the sustainable agriculture literature for the purposes of illustration about potential objectives, strategies, and indicators. This is by no means an exhaustive list. These examples are merely a representation of some of the characteristics of sustainable agriculture found in the literature, and may be useful in evaluating the plans. The goals, which are described below, include an explanation of why they are important for sustainable agriculture, as well as an overview of the type of objectives, strategies, and indicators that might be included in the category. 15 L E V E L 1 Purpose To meet the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs L E V E L 2 Elements ECONOMIC E N V I R O N M E N T A L 1 L E V E L 3 Goals Protect Biodiversity Protect Soil Protect Water Encourage Community Support Manage Pests Manage Nutrients Promote Local Economy Conserve Energy Protect Systems Figure 1. Sustainable agriculture evaluation framework (levels 1-3). 16 Table 3 Sustainable Agriculture Evaluation Framework (level 4) Goals Sample Objectives Sample Strategies Sample Indicators Protect Biodiversity Maintain or enhance wildlife habitat (within and between farms) Retain uncultivated margins; preserve wetlands Presence of wildlife habitat on farmland Promote genetic diversity in crops and livestock (within and between farms) Use an assortment of crop and livestock species and genetic lines Genetic variation within livestock and crops Protect Soil Prevent soil erosion Cover crops Rate of soil loss Maintain or enhance soil productivity; prevent soil contamination Crop rotation Soil fertility Protect Water Protect ground and surface water quality Fence off watercourses and wells Nitrate contamination Protect ground and surface water quantity Use low volume irrigation Ground and surface water levels Encourage Community Support Cooperation between farmers, processors, retailers, consumers, researchers, and government Sustainable agriculture coalitions; education Level of community awareness and demonstrated support of sustainable agriculture Maintain positive sensory experiences Protect historical, cultural, and natural features in agricultural areas Quality of life for farmers and non farmers Manage Pests Reduce use of synthetic pesticides Use integrated pest management (IPM) Reduction in amount of synthetic pesticides used Reduce impact of pesticides on wildlife Use least toxic pesticides Level of toxic contaminants in wildlife Manage Nutrients Reduce nutrient emissions Recycle nutrients on farm (e.g. balance livestock with arable area available for manure application) Stocking rates; nitrate levels Promote Local Economy Farm self sufficiency; resilient farm economy (local food security) Use local resources; decrease input costs; diversify enterprises Farm profitability; rate of farm bankruptcy Stability (reduce production risk) Match production to demand Product value Promote sustainable agriculture businesses in the community Tax incentives Rate of increase in local sustainable agriculture business Conserve Energy Reduce consumption of fossil fuels Use renewable forms of energy Air quality; amount of fossil fuel used Protect Systems System stability Select plants and animals adapted to the environment Plant and animal health Continually improve farming practices Create farm plans; use Best Management Practices (BMPs); reduce inputs Number of farmers with farm plans and/or using BMPs (sources shown in Appendix II) 17 2.4.1 Protect Biodiversity In the context of this framework, biodiversity includes genetic diversity within and between wild and domestic species. Industrialization of agriculture has resulted in reduced genetic diversity of both wild and domesticated plants and animals. Decreased genetic diversity results in increased vulnerability to disease resulting in a greater need for antibiotics in animals, and pesticides in crops. Eliminating native plants and animals from farmland either intentionally or unintentionally through clearing or through the use of toxic substances negatively impacts natural ecosystems. Sample objectives for this category include: protect wildlife habitat, conserve biological diversity, and encourage farm biodiversity (within and between farms). Sample strategies include preserving wetlands, using integrated crop management, and retaining uncultivated margins. Sample indicators include presence of wildlife habitat on farmland, genetic diversity of livestock/crops, and diversity of land uses per farm. 2.4.2 Protect Soil Soil is a fundamental component of sustainable agriculture. Soil must be managed properly to ensure that this resource is preserved for future generations. Soil erosion can severely impact the productivity of a farm and can also negatively impact fish bearing streams. This category focuses on preserving soil quality and quantity. Sample objectives include soil conservation and maintaining soil productivity. Sample strategies include cover crops and crop rotation. Sample indicators include rate of soil loss and soil fertility. 2.4.3 Protect Water Clean water is essential for growing and processing livestock and crops. Both surface and ground water can be negatively affected by agriculture. Once groundwater is polluted it is extremely costly, and perhaps impossible, to remediate. 18 Pollution of surface water can make it unsafe for irrigation, decimate aquatic habitat, and threaten human safety. This category focuses on water quality and quantity. Sample objectives include protection of ground and surface water quality and quantity. Sample strategies include fencing off watercourses and wells, and low volume irrigation. Sample indicators include nitrogen and phosphorous levels in ground and surface water, water table decline, and availability of potable water. 2.4.4 Encourage Community Support Community support is an important component of sustainable agriculture because farmers need the support of other farmers as well as non-farmers in order to succeed locally, particularly with increased urbanization of rural areas: Agricultural and non-agricultural communities depend on and support one another in many ways. As such, effective and mutually respectful working relationships among agricultural interests as well as between agricultural and non-agricultural communities are essential to addressing sustainability issues in the Fraser Basin (Fraser Basin Management Program, 1997, p. 3) This category includes objectives related to educating farmers, non-farmers, and government employees (e.g. planners) about sustainable agriculture, as well as community involvement in sustainable agriculture. Sample objectives include co-operation between stakeholders (e.g. farmers, processors, retailers, consumers, researchers, government), supportive public policy, the ability for all community members to participate in decision making, and maintaining positive sensory experiences. Sample strategies include knowledge sharing, sustainable agriculture coalitions, tax incentives, and protection of historical, cultural, and natural features in agricultural areas. Sample indicators include level of awareness and support of sustainable agriculture, membership in community sustainable agriculture organizations, supportive farm tax rates, and good quality of life for farmers. 19 2.4.5 Manage Pests For the purposes of this research a 'pest' includes any non-human living organism that compromises agricultural productivity. Resolving pest management problems is an important component of sustainable agriculture. Increased industrialization of agriculture has resulted in increased use of pesticides. This has occurred for a number of reasons, including the cultivation of vast monocultures where pests are able to take hold and spread rapidly causing considerable damage to a crop. Pesticides, which became readily available after the Green Revolution, offered a quick fix to crop destruction. However, the pesticides resulted in increased environmental degradation and risk to human health. Managing pests without pesticides, or reduced pesticides, is therefore an important component of sustainable agriculture. This category includes objectives such as reducing use of synthetic pesticides, reducing impacts of pesticides on wildlife, and reducing levels of toxicity and/or persistence of chemicals used. Sample strategies include integrated pest management (IPM), use of least toxic pesticides, and reducing spray drift. Sample indicators include amount of synthetic pesticides used, level of toxic contaminants in wildlife, and increased pest resistance to pesticides. 2.4.6 Manage Nutrients Traditionally, farmers integrated livestock and crops. Manure was used as a valuable, and relatively scarce, resource in crop production. However, intensification of livestock operations has resulted in increased levels of stockpiled manure. Nutrients must be managed carefully in order to protect the environment. If manure is improperly stored or applied, nutrients from the manure can leach into ground and surface water, resulting in pollution of local water supplies. This goal includes objectives such as reduction of nutrient emissions, and management of organic wastes so they don't pollute. Sample techniques include grazing management and nutrient recycling. Sample indicators include stocking rates and nitrate levels in local water bodies. 20 2.4.7 Promote Local Economy This category relates to the local agricultural economy within the defined community, with respect to agricultural production, processing, and consumption. In order to promote a vibrant local economy, farmers should be encouraged to use local resources (e.g. labour, services), and consumers should be encouraged to purchase locally produced agricultural products. A robust local economy is an essential component of sustainable agriculture because farmers must maintain positive net returns over the long term in order to survive. Farmers and consumers need to make use of local resources in order to promote the local agricultural economy. The category includes objectives such as farm self-sufficiency, stability, resilience of the farm economy (local food security), selling agricultural products locally, and encouraging businesses that support sustainable agriculture. Sample strategies include making the best use of local resources, farmer's markets, reducing input costs, diversification of enterprises, matching crop production to demand, and tax incentives. Sample indicators include farm profitability, number of local farmer's markets, rate of farm bankruptcies, product value, and number of businesses that support sustainable agriculture. 2.4.8 Conserve Energy Industrialization of agriculture has resulted in an increased dependency on fossil fuels and excessive resource consumption. This is considered unsustainable because excessive consumption of fossil fuels and other resources can result in increased economic, social, and environmental costs. In many areas, resources are being depleted more quickly than they can be replaced. In addition, some resources, such as fossil fuel, are finite and non-renewable. Fossil fuels are typically used as a source of energy for machinery and as a key ingredient in synthetic fertilizers. The pollution caused by burning fossil fuels contributes to climate change, which is likely to have a number of negative effects on agriculture, including flooding of low lying areas and impeding plant growth. 21 This goal includes objectives such as minimizing fossil fuel use and using sustainable energy sources. Sample strategies include balancing energy in and out, as well as on and off site, and increased capture/storage of solar energy (e.g. through cover crops, managing soil organic matter). Air quality and amount of fossil fuel used (to grow and transport the agricultural product) are potential indicators. 2.4.9 Protect Systems Sustainable agriculture is fundamentally a systems approach to agriculture, where all components of the system are considered to be interdependent. The sustainable agriculture system can be viewed at a number of levels. For example the field level would include the interaction of soil, microorganisms, crops, insects, water, and solar energy. At the community level the system would include farmers, retailers, producers, and consumers. Farm plans at the farm and community level are included here because they provide the overall systems 'blueprint' for sustainable agriculture. A systems approach considers all variables that may contribute to, or detract from, agricultural sustainability. Sample objectives include system stability, continual improvement of farming practices, and farm plans for every farm and farming community. Sample strategies include selecting plants and animals adapted to the environment, best management practices (BMPs), and monitoring/adapting farm plans as needed. Sample indicators might include plant and animal health and productivity, number of farmers using BMPs, and number of current farm plans. 2.5 Application of the Evaluation Framework (overview) I will evaluate the plans hierarchically beginning at Level 1 of the framework first to determine whether they express the purpose of sustainable agriculture. I will then determine whether they explicitly or implicitly identify the key elements of sustainable agriculture (i.e. economic, environmental, social). Evaluating the plans in the context of Level 1 and 2 will establish whether the plan is framed in general terms of sustainability. The plans will then be examined to determine whether they provide any specific goals for sustainable agriculture. A sustainable agriculture plan should, at the 22 very least, meet the requirements of the first two levels, and in order to be meaningful at the community level, goals should also be identified. Ideally these goals should be explicitly stated, and actions associated with the goals should be described. The evaluation of the plans will take into consideration the possibility that not all sustainable agriculture goals have been identified in the framework, and that the objectives, strategies, and indicators identified in the framework may not be applicable to the community in question. In other words, the framework will be used as a general guide to evaluate the plans, but specific goals, objectives, strategies, and indicators identified in the plan will be acknowledged whether they are in the framework or not. Suggestions on how both the framework and the agricultural plans might be improved will be discussed after the plans have been reviewed. 2.6 Summary The literature review found no established model or criteria for evaluating whether agricultural plans reflect sustainable agriculture principles. Consequently, I developed an evaluation framework for this purpose. In the initial literature review I sought definitions and descriptions of sustainable agriculture, and found that most authors defined sustainable agriculture as a composite of environmental, economic, and social elements and/or in terms of providing for current and future generations. These components provide a common purpose and key elements of sustainable agriculture, but are not specific enough to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of agricultural plans. I therefore examined the literature more closely to determine whether authors provided characteristics of sustainable agriculture that might be useful in defining specific goals of sustainable agriculture. Characteristics were extracted from the literature, and categorized according to theme. I then developed these categories into goals. The goals were further broken down into objectives, strategies, and indicators. The evaluation framework will be used to assess whether the municipal agricultural plans of Langley, Surrey, and Pitt Meadows reflect academic principles of sustainable agriculture. The framework will also be evaluated to determine whether it 23 sufficiently captures the sustainable agriculture planning issues identified in the plans. The evaluation method is discussed in detail in the next chapter. 24 C H A P T E R III Evaluation Method 3.1 Introduction The previous chapter introduced the framework I needed to evaluate the agricultural plans of Langley, Surrey, and Pitt Meadows. This chapter discusses how the framework was used to evaluate the plans, and introduces the evaluation matrix that was created to record the data. 3.2 Method An evaluation matrix (Appendix III) was created based on the evaluation framework described in chapter 2. The evaluation matrix outlines the four levels of sustainable agriculture principles shown in Figure 1 and Table 3. The matrix is divided into three parts. Part 1 captures explicit references to the purpose, elements, and goals of sustainable agriculture. Part 2 captures both implicit and explicit references to objectives, strategies, and indicators of sustainable agriculture related to the goals in Part 1. Part 3 captures objectives, strategies, and indicators found in the plans that are related to goals not explicitly identified elsewhere in the matrix. The evaluation matrix provides a simple method of recording the findings from each of the three plans. Each plan was evaluated individually, and a separate evaluation matrix was completed for each plan (Appendices IV, V , VI). The plans were assessed hierarchically beginning with Part 1 of the matrix. First, the plans were examined to determine whether they expressed the explicit purpose of sustainable agriculture (as defined in Chapter 2). Then they were examined to determine whether the key elements (i.e. economic, environmental, social) and goals of sustainable agriculture were explicitly identified. Only those principles that were identical to the principles in the matrix were acknowledged. Any principles identified in the plans that did not fall under the principles identified in the matrix, were placed in the 'other' category at the bottom of each group of stated principles. For example, i f a 25 plan defined a purpose, but it did not relate to the purpose identified in the matrix, it was placed in the 'other purpose' category. Part 2 and 3 of the evaluation matrix allowed more flexibility in interpretation of sustainable agriculture principles. The characteristics shown in Part 2 of the evaluation include objectives, strategies, and indicators of sustainable agriculture based on my interpretation of the plans and my understanding of sustainable agriculture principles. Additional goals identified in Part 3 are based on local issues that were commonly addressed in the plans, but rarely addressed in the literature. I read the plans a minimum of four times. The first read-through was done to get a general feel for the plan. The second read-through looked for explicit references to sustainable agriculture according to the evaluation matrix, and the third read-through looked for implicit references to sustainable agriculture. I recorded a description of each sustainable agriculture principle found in the plan, and its corresponding page number, in the matrix. A fourth read was conducted after all of the plans had been evaluated to ensure that the plans were evaluated consistently. Additional reads were conducted as necessary to clarify any areas of uncertainty. I present the results of each plan evaluation in Chapter 4. The findings from the three plans are compared and the gaps between academic theory and the application of sustainable agriculture principles at the community planning level are discussed in Chapter 5. 26 CHAPTER IV Plan Evaluation 4.1 Introduction This chapter provides an overview of the results of the plan evaluations. The completed evaluation matrix for each plan is shown in Appendices IV,V, and VI. These matrices provide specific details about the sustainable agriculture characteristics found in the plans. I summarize the findings from the plan evaluations in this chapter, and discuss the similarities, differences, strengths and weaknesses between the plans in the next chapter. 4.2 Evaluation As discussed in chapter 3, I read each plan a minimum of four times. The plans were evaluated in stages, and the matrices reflect both explicit and implicit references to sustainable agriculture principles. In some cases it was difficult to determine whether a statement in the plan should be considered an objective or a strategy. Generally a statement was considered a strategy i f it involved a specific action associated with a stated objective. For example, "Appoint a staff person to act as a liaison between the agricultural community and the City" (City of Surrey, 1999, p. 48) was considered to be a strategy because it provides a specific method (appoint a staff person) to achieve the corresponding objective "Establish a liaison between agricultural interests and the City" (City of Surrey, 1999, p. 48). While the objective is more specific than the goal ('Encourage Community Support'), it is not as specific as the corresponding strategy because it does not indicate a particular procedure to achieve the objective. In other words, a strategy provides a method of achieving an objective using a stated technique, while an objective simply states a desired outcome. However, the distinction between objective and strategy was sometimes difficult to make, in which case a 'best guess' was made. An attempt was also made to assign ambiguous objectives and/or strategies similarly throughout all plans. 27 The plan evaluation uncovered a number of common issues that did not fit into any of the goals defined in the evaluation matrix. These issues related to transportation and servicing problems in the rural area, conflict with recreational users, excess water management, and desire to maximize the use of (or 'optimize') existing agricultural land. These issues were common to all the plans except for the water management issue, which was not addressed in Langley's Rural Plan. Since these issues did not fit into the existing matrix under any existing headings, but were common to all three plans, they were added to the evaluation matrix in Part 3 under 'Other References'. 4.3 Township of Langley: Rural Plan 4.3.1 Overview The Rural Plan was adopted by Council in 1993. This plan does not focus entirely on agriculture, but instead looks at the mix of land uses in the rural area, including rural and estate development, commercial and industrial enterprises, institutional uses, recreational uses, natural areas, and agricultural operations. While the Rural Plan does not focus solely on agriculture, the main goal of the rural plan is to "enhance agricultural viability" (p. 9). It has been described as a plan for sustainable agriculture (Smith, 1998), but neither the term 'sustainable' nor the term 'sustainable agriculture' actually appears at any point in this plan. However, close examination of the plan using the evaluation matrix illustrates that the plan does have a number of principles of sustainable agriculture. The evaluation of the plan is shown in Appendix IV and also described below. 4.3.2 Purpose There is no purpose identified in the plan. 4.3.3 Elements Although there are no specific references to sustainability, environmental and economic elements are described in the plan. The plan discusses the environmental significance of the rural area describing its value to fish and wildlife, groundwater recharge, open space, and aesthetics. The plan also describes the economic 28 significance of the rural area, and the contribution of agriculture to the rural economy. While there is no explicit reference to a 'social' component, the plan does address social considerations under 'Lifestyles and Values', 'Recreational Opportunities', and 'Landscape, Scenic and Heritage Resources'. These sections outline the social importance of the rural area explaining that although residents place a high value on the rural nature of the Township, there can be conflicts between non-farmers and farmers in the rural area. These sections also acknowledge the recreational, aesthetic, and heritage value of the rural area. 4.3.4 Goals None of the sustainable agriculture goals identified in the evaluation matrix are explicitly referred to in this plan, although a number of other goals are explicitly identified. They are: enhance agricultural viability; preserve large lot sizes; retain and/or enhance the countryside character of Rural Residential/Agricultural areas; create policies that reinforce A L R designation; and, encourage agriculture industry in Langley. These goals reflect the general intent of sustainable agriculture, but are too vague to provide clear direction toward sustainable agriculture. 4.3.5 Protect Biodiversity There are no objectives related to the protection of biodiversity (either wild or domestic) in this plan. However, the plan does encourage the protection of trees during development. Since this would benefit biodiversity, it is included in the matrix as a strategy to achieve biodiversity. There are no indicators suggested in the plan to monitor biodiversity. 4.3.6 Protect Soil The plan includes objectives to conserve, preserve, maintain, and enhance soil. There are also a number of strategies indicated to protect soil. These include endorsement of the BC Soil Conservation Program, support for a soil conservation demonstration centre in Langley, and a requirement for environmental studies prior 29 to soil removal or rural development. There are no indicators of soil conservation quantity or quality identified. 4.3.7 Protect Water The plan does not identify any water protection objectives. The strategies identified for water protection include retaining watercourses and the banks of the Fraser River in their natural state, encouraging physical barriers to restrict access by farm animals to watercourses, environmental impact assessments prior to development in the rural area, and designation of a development permit area around watercourses. No indicators are suggested in the plan. 4.3.8 Encourage Community Support The only objective related to community support identified in this plan concerns the preservation of heritage buildings, landscapes, roads, and sites. There are a number of strategies suggested in the plan related to community support. These include increasing public awareness about agriculture, encouraging local agricultural education and extension, creating a strategy to protect historical farmsteads, roads, landscapes, and view corridors, and encouraging participation of rural residents in rural area plans. There are no community support indicators identified. 4.3.9 Manage Pests The only objective related to pest management concerns the need to review weed control. There is no strategy specifically related to this objective, but the plan does recommend pesticide management plans in rural areas prior to development. There are no indicators provided for pest management. 4.3.10 Manage Nutrients There are no objectives related to nutrient management. The nutrient management strategies indicated in the plan include educating the public on waste management practices, minimizing impacts from farm operations on adjacent properties, supporting the creation of a facility to demonstrate agricultural waste management, encouraging the return of biomass to the soil rather than burning it, and the possible 30 need for fertilizer plans prior to development in rural areas. There are no nutrient management indicators. 4.3.11 Promote Local Economy There are a number of objectives related to the local economy. These include providing economic development that is compatible with the agricultural community in the rural area, strengthening the rural economy in a manner that preserves the rural character, supporting the continued development of the agriculture industry, and encouraging the development of businesses that are good for the environment and the economy. Many of the strategies to support the local economy involve Langley's Economic Development Commission (EDC). Strategies to promote the local economy include advising Council of future development in the agriculture industry, encouraging development of the agriculture industry, and supporting policies that allow posting of directional signs in the rural area identifying farm gate sales, agri-tourism, and equestrian operations. There are no indicators provided to monitor the local economy. 4.3.12 Conserve Energy There are no objectives, strategies, or indicators related to conservation of energy. 4.3.13 Protect Systems Protection of the environment in rural areas is the only objective that relates to protection of systems. However, there are a number of strategies indicated in the plan that support system protection, such as the preparation of rural neighbourhood plans, creation of an environmental strategy to protect existing environmental features, requirement for environmental studies prior to development in rural areas, and encouraging agricultural practices that minimize impacts on adjacent properties and the environment. There are no systems indicators. 31 4.3.14 Optimize Agricultural Land Use This goal relates primarily to land use zoning conflicts and under-utilization of agricultural land. Although this goal was never explicitly identified as a goal in any of the plans, it was addressed implicitly in all plans through a combination of objectives and strategies. In this plan, the objectives include supporting the agricultural use of land in the rural area, providing a land use pattern that supports the rural economy, and minimizing development along the rural/urban interface. Strategies suggested in the plan include preservation of larger lot sizes, policies that reinforce A L R designation, setting minimum lot sizes to support agriculture, use of buffers between agricultural and non-agricultural uses, encouraging commercial, industrial, university development and other uses in locations that do not negatively affect agriculture, and directing rural farm markets to the urban edge where their impact on agricultural land can be minimized. No indicators are suggested in the plan. 4.3.15 Resolve Transportation and Servicing Issues The objectives in the plan that are related to this goal include providing an adequate level of transportation and services to the rural area, and consideration of the impact on agriculture as a result of changes to the current road network. Strategies include encouraging the development of an agro-service centre and rural commercial centres, reviewing the need for signs advising motorists of slow moving farm vehicles, and ensuring that potable water and sewage disposal systems are present on developed sites in the rural area. No indicators are provided. 4.3.16 Manage Recreational Use The plan identifies the need to offer recreational opportunities in the rural area, and the need to consider potential conflicts among users and with adjacent farms when planning trails. The strategies include allowing golf courses and tourism related developments in some areas and the posting of signs to advise recreationalists to respect farm property. No indicators are provided. 32 4.3.17 Summary This plan reflects some of the principles of sustainable agriculture, but is deficient in a number of areas. Weaknesses lie in the complete lack of any purpose or indicators, and the absence of any goals that explicitly relate to sustainable agriculture. The plan also lacks any objectives related to biodiversity, water protection, nutrient management, and energy conservation. Strengths lie in the environmental, economic, and social context provided in the beginning of the plan, and the appreciation given to the balance of interests in the rural area. The plan also presents a good number of objectives and strategies related to the local economy and community support. .4 District of Pitt Meadows: The Future of Agriculture Plan 4.4.1 Overview This plan was adopted by Council in 2000. The title of the plan indicates a desire to create a long term vision for agriculture in Pitt Meadows. This vision includes an explicit reference to sustainable agriculture: The District will be proactive in fostering a strong and progressive agriculture industry by supporting farmers in cooperation with the Farm Practices Protection Act (Right To Farm) Legislation, by seeking provincial regulatory reform to ensure fair and equitable taxation, and by establishing policies that encourage farmers to maintain a healthy, prosperous, and sustainable agriculture industry (p. 17) The plan focuses primarily on agriculture, but does address some non-agricultural uses, such as recreation, in terms of the impact on the agricultural area. The plan provides some background information on Pitt Meadows including a brief history of agriculture in the area, a description of the planning area, and relevant legislation. The evaluation of the plan is shown in Appendix V and also described below. 33 4.4.2 Purpose There is no purpose that reflects the intent of the purpose described in the evaluation matrix, although there is an alternative purpose stated in the plan. The purpose of the plan is to review and address agriculture development issues through consultation with members of the local agricultural community and the general public. 4.4.3 Elements Although there is a specific reference to sustainable agriculture in the vision statement, there is no identification of, nor discussion about, the elements of sustainability. Three 'other' elements are discussed in the plan: history of the community, description of the planning area, and legislative context for the plan. While these are not specifically identified as components of sustainable agriculture, they do provide important context for sustainable agriculture. This will be discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. 4.4.4 Goals None of the sustainable agriculture goals identified in the evaluation matrix were explicitly referred to in the plan, nor were any other goals explicitly identified. 4.4.5 Protect Biodiversity No objectives directly related to the protection of biodiversity are present in this plan. The plan does support the protection of a wildlife management area, which is a strategy that could serve to protect biodiversity. However, no biodiversity indicators are suggested in the plan. 4.4.6 Protect Soil There are no objectives related to protecting soil. Although protection of soil is not mentioned in the plan, concern over fill sites is addressed in the plan, with a recommendation to enforce the Soil Conservation Act and Bylaw 1400 (property maintenance standards). Since this enforcement would help protect soil, it is 34 included as a strategy in the matrix. There are no soil protection indicators in the plan. 4.4.7 Protect Water The plan expresses concern over nutrients and chemicals entering water, but there are no specific objectives or strategies identified in the plan to address these concerns. However, the plan does promote the storage of inputs in an appropriate manner. While water protection is not explicitly mentioned in the objective, the strategy for storing inputs does explicitly refer to watercourses. The strategy indicates that inputs should be stored at least 15 metres from natural watercourses, ditches, or streams. There are no water protection indicators identified in the plan. 4.4.8 Encourage Community Support There are many objectives associated with community support in this plan including the integration of farming with community goals, providing an effective link with the agricultural community, raising the level of agricultural awareness in the community, and the need for municipal staff to keep abreast of agricultural issues. A number of strategies to encourage community support are also provided in this plan, including the establishment of a Standing Agricultural Advisory Committee of Council (SAAC), development of an agricultural awareness strategy and an agri-tourism strategy, appointment of a staff person to act as a liaison to the agricultural community, co-operation with Maple Ridge (an adjacent municipality) to increase awareness and develop policies to address agricultural issues of mutual concern, and to encourage the maintenance of an attractive farm area through appropriate bylaw enforcement. Despite the multitude of objectives and strategies to encourage community support, there are no indicators identified to measure progress toward the objectives. 4.4.9 Manage Pests There are two objectives related to pest management. Interestingly, they both relate to the need for better technology or management practices to discourage wildlife 35 pests, rather than, for example, insect or weed management which are more frequently cited in the literature. The strategies identified to manage pests include research and review of alternative bird management practices that are less intrusive than bird cannons, and humane wildlife management using alternative methods such as netting, repellents, and habitat modification. While the plan does not provide a specific indicator, it does recommend monitoring the effect of new technologies on wildlife management. Since the monitoring would provide information on the efficacy of the management strategies, it is included in the evaluation matrix as an indicator. 4.4.10 Manage Nutrients There is one objective in the plan related to nutrient management. It suggests minimizing the risk of run-off and maximizing nutrient utilization. The plan encourages use of the BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Fisheries (BCMAFF) Environmental Guidelines for manure storage and spreading as the strategy to achieve this objective. There are no nutrient management indicators provided in the plan. 4.4.11 Promote Local Economy There are a number of objectives related to promotion of the local economy, including exploring options for expanding the range of agriculture industries, increasing agricultural productivity and decreasing conflicts, enhancing the viability of farming, as well as promoting investment and diversification of the agriculture industry in Pitt Meadows. The strategies identified to achieve these objectives include having the S A A C examine new agricultural opportunities, using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to plan for and promote agriculture, designation of a farm enterprise zone to allow on-farm value-added farming enterprises, and creation of an agricultural industrial park to house off-farm value-added farming enterprises. There are no indicators provided. 36 4.4.12 Conserve Energy There are no objectives, strategies, or indicators related to conserving energy. 4.4.13 Protect Systems The plan encourages environmentally friendly farming. This is the only objective that relates to protection of systems. The vision statement provides the only strategy related to system protection. It encourages farmers to maintain a healthy, prosperous, and sustainable agriculture industry. There are no systems indicators provided. 4.4.14 Optimize Agricultural Land Use This goal was addressed in this plan through objectives and strategies. The objectives include reducing land speculation, maximizing the amount of land available for future agricultural use, regulating non-resident ownership of agricultural lands, encouraging farmers to use normal farm practices, buffering the rural/urban interface, and ensuring that future development of the airport considers agricultural interests. Strategies include supporting A L R policies, requiring realtors to be trained about the A L R and Farm Practices Protection Act (FPPA), containing farm buildings within a contiguous envelope, requesting that the Province review non-resident ownership, encouraging farmers to follow the B C M A F F agricultural production guidelines, following the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) and the local subdivision guides to ensure proper buffering in future development adjacent to the A L R , and ensuring that agricultural interests are considered through regular consultation with the S A A C . There are no indicators provided in the plan to monitor agricultural land use. 4.4.15 Resolve Transportation and Servicing Issues There are a number of objectives in this plan related to transportation and servicing. They include determining a suitable site for an agricultural industrial park, protecting agricultural land from the negative impacts of roads, planning for 37 transportation improvements in the context of protecting agricultural land, and implementing short-term solutions for traffic issues in the rural area. The key strategy to achieve the long-term transportation objectives involves creation of an agricultural transportation plan. The strategies to achieve the short-term transportation objectives include installation of warning and stop signs to slow traffic in the rural area, double solid lines to prevent passing, and extension of lanes where possible for bicycles. There are no indicators included to monitor the effect of these changes. 4.4.16 Manage Recreational Use The two objectives related to recreational use are to prohibit additional golf courses or driving ranges in the A L R , and to address issues related to recreational use in the agricultural area. The only relevant strategy identified in the plan concerns the development of a plan for recreation use in the agricultural area. No indicators are provided. 4.4.17 Manage Excess Water Both Surrey and Pitt Meadows identify objectives and strategies related to excess water management. This plan identifies the need to resolve concerns over excess water. The strategy identified to address this need involves development of a water management strategy. No indicators are provided. 4.4.18 Summary This plan explicitly refers to sustainable agriculture in the vision statement. It is clear from this statement that the intent of the plan is to sustain agriculture into the future. However, the purpose stated in the plan does not refer to sustainable agriculture. It makes reference to the need to review and address major farming and agriculture development issues, but does not make any reference to accomplishing this in the context of long-term sustainability. The historical, physical, and legislative elements described in the plan provide useful context for the plan, but there is no discussion about the economic, environmental, and social components of sustainability. The absence of these 38 elements leaves the plan lacking the necessary links between the vision and recommendations in the plan. The plan also lacks explicit goals, and does not provide any objectives related to biodiversity, soil protection, or energy conservation. The plan's main strengths lie in encouraging community support and promoting the local economy. .5 City of Surrey: Agricultural Plan 4.5.1 Overview This plan was adopted by Council in 1999. It is the longest of the three plans reviewed comprising a total of 194 pages (Langley's plan is 36 pages long and Pitt Meadows' is 39 pages). The plan is composed of two sections: Phase 1 and Phase 2. Phase 1, which is entitled 'Economic and planning issues facing agriculture in the City of Surrey', provides background agricultural information such as local climate, soil, and commodities produced. This section also outlines some of the key planning and economic issues related to agriculture. Phase 2, which is entitled 'Key issues and recommended actions for enhancing Surrey agriculture', addresses the planning issues identified in Phase 1. Since Phase 2 provides the 'action plan', and repeats much of the salient information from Phase 1, only Phase 2 was analysed using the evaluation matrix. The plan does use the term 'sustainable' to describe the future vision for farmers in Surrey: "Provide public and private incentives to encourage farmers in the rural-urban interface to make changes in their farming operations that are practical and sustainable" (Phase 2, p. 3). The evaluation of the plan is shown in Appendix VI and also described below. 4.5.2 Purpose The purpose does not reflect the intent of the purpose described in the evaluation matrix. The plan's stated purpose is to achieve the plan's goals. These goals are identified below. 39 4.5.3 Elements The plan provides a brief overview of each of the three elements of sustainability, although the plan does not identify these elements as components of sustainability. The plan provides well-researched and extensively documented economic information, but provides little information on social and environmental aspects of sustainability. There is a clear bias toward the economic benefits of agriculture. For example, "...the economic contribution of agriculture is clearly substantial and should be expected to outweigh the overall social benefits associated with managing the lowlands for other dedicated uses with lower revenue generating potential" (City of Surrey, 1999, p. 6). 4.5.4 Goals None of the sustainable agriculture goals identified in the evaluation matrix were explicitly referred to in the plan. However, there were three other explicit goals identified in this plan: review and address agricultural development issues; provide options for resolving conflicts between agricultural use of the land base and other uses; and, ensure the long-term viability of agriculture in the City of Surrey. These goals are consistent with the overall intent of sustainable agriculture, but do not provide enough detail about the specific requirements of sustainable agriculture to provide a clear vision for the community. 4.5.5 Protect Biodiversity There are no objectives, strategies, or indicators that specifically identify the importance of protecting biodiversity. However, there are two objectives that would benefit biodiversity. These objectives encourage wildlife management and fish and wildlife habitat protection in a manner that minimizes the impact on agricultural lands. There are two strategies suggested that would help to protect biodiversity (although biodiversity is not identified as the outcome). The strategies suggest purchasing easements on agricultural land for wildlife use and investigating whether there would be any federal assistance in installing conservation buffers. There are no biodiversity indicators identified in the plan. 40 4.5.6 Protect Soil There are no objectives, strategies, or indicators related to protecting soil quality and/or quantity, although there is an extensive discussion about soil types in Phase 1. 4.5.7 Protect Water The plan identifies that "a lack of water has constrained growth in agriculture" (City of Surrey, 1999, p. 42), and encourages water conservation through improved irrigation technology. Strategies suggested to promote water conservation include providing incentives to increase water efficiency, improved irrigation technology, and access to stormwater ponds for irrigation. There are no water protection indicators provided. The plan discusses managing excess water to a greater extent than it discusses protecting water quantity or quality. References to excess water management are discussed in Section 4.5.17. 4.5.8 Encourage Community Support The plan recognizes the importance of community support through a number of objectives, including increasing public awareness of farming practices and the importance of agriculture, promoting rural-urban compatibility, educating consumers about local produce, facilitating farm succession, examining opportunities to attract agricultural research facilities, establishing a liaison between the City of Surrey and farmers, and creating an effective forum for discussing agricultural issues in Surrey. Strategies suggested to achieve these objectives include encouraging urban friendly production, requiring purchaser disclosure statements and restrictive covenants on suburban properties to advise of agricultural activities, encouraging links with farmers and consumers through subscription marketing and community gardening, developing heritage information to promote agricultural history, advertising that urban residents have an active role in supporting the A L R , encouraging agricultural apprenticeship for new farmers, educating the public about farm vehicle movement and hazards, appointing a staff person as farm/city liaison, 41 and creating an agricultural advisory committee. There are no indicators provided in the plan to monitor community support. 4.5.9 Manage Pests The pest management objectives identified in the plan include reducing crop damage and loss and managing chemical use on farmland. A number of strategies are suggested, including providing financial assistance to farmers to provide specialized raptor habitat to help control unwanted birds, forming a farm-wildlife group to resolve wildlife issues on farmland, providing financial assistance to farmers to reduce chemical use and use IPM, encouraging pesticide free production in sensitive areas, requiring vegetative buffers to mitigate potential effects of pesticide use, encouraging the posting of notices when pesticide spraying occurs, and continuing implementation of environmental guidelines for specific agricultural commodities. The plan does identify one potential indicator, suggesting that the federal and provincial governments should monitor the impacts of pesticide use. 4.5.10 Manage Nutrients The plan encourages farmers to continue to make on-farm improvements in nutrient management by adopting the Code of Agricultural Practice for Waste Management under the BC Waste Management Act. No nutrient management indicators are suggested in the plan. 4.5.11 Promote Local Economy Promotion of the local economy is well represented in this plan. Objectives include supporting on-farm sales, increasing new agricultural development and investment, encouraging production that responds to consumer demands for safe food and environmental sustainability, and increasing local demand for agricultural products. A number of strategies are suggested to achieve these objectives, including having the Agricultural Advisory Committee provide advice to the City on agricultural economic issues, encouraging non-soil bound agricultural operations on less productive soil to optimize yields, working with other municipalities to develop regional value added solutions, assisting farmers to develop on-farm and 42 subscription marketing, providing permanent farmer's markets, evaluating business proposals in the context of the local economy, and developing and promoting local markets for organic produce. There are no indicators suggested. 4.5.12 Conserve Energy There are no energy conservation objectives, strategies, or indicators in this plan. 4.5.13 Protect Systems The plan identifies some general objectives related to system protection. These include promoting the development of environmentally friendly and urban friendly production systems, and supporting the growth of food production systems that respond to public concerns about environmental sustainability, food safety, and resource conservation. There are no strategies or indicators provided. 4.5.14 Optimize Agricultural Land Use There are a number of objectives related to optimizing agricultural land use in Surrey, including encouraging compatible uses and effective buffers along agriculturally designated land, maintaining the integrity of the A L R , promoting measures to decrease conflict in the rural-urban fringe, ensuring A L R land held by non-farmers is available for farming, minimizing the impact of new residences in the A L R on farming, and maintaining farming outside the A L R to provide a transition between urban and agricultural development. The plan also provides a variety of strategies to achieve these objectives including, requiring landscaping and noise baffling in new urban developments to decrease noise and sight impacts, encouraging non-farmers to make land available for agriculture, considering highly differential taxes for un-farmed land in A L R , lobbying the A L C to amend the Act to address rural residential impacts, considering a zoning bylaw to limit residential size and use in the A L R , and assisting in the creation and retention of small lot agriculture. There are no indicators suggested. 43 4.5.15 Resolve Transportation and Servicing Issues The objectives related to servicing and transportation include encouraging essential agricultural support services to locate in Surrey, promoting a regional solution to agricultural servicing needs, providing for safe farm vehicle movement, and providing unrestricted access for farm vehicles on local roads. Strategies indicated to support these objectives include designating agricultural parks for value added businesses, analysing current and anticipated servicing requirements, designating an area for new support services, building wider shoulders, pull off areas, farm traffic tunnels and/or overpasses for farm vehicles, enforcing parking and speed regulations on local farm roads, installing farm vehicle signs where necessary, and requiring farm vehicles to have visible flashing lights when on roads. There are no indicators provided to monitor transportation and servicing issues. 4.5.16 Manage Recreational Use The following objectives related to recreational use were identified: limit recreational use on agricultural land, encourage and enhance agricultural activities so they can coexist with conservation and recreation interests, avoid or mitigate disruption of farming activities and property damage due to recreational access and activities, and avoid locating recreational amenities on agricultural land. A number of strategies are provided to address these objectives including increasing public awareness and education about the potential impact of recreation on farming, involving farmers in decision making, developing a code of good tourist conduct, working with the G V R D to protect farming from recreation, considering agricultural impact assessments where recreational uses may impact agricultural land, using increased surveillance to protect agricultural land in trespass prone areas, and developing a compensation system for farmers negatively affected by recreational activity. No indicators are provided. 44 4.5.17 Manage Excess Water The objectives related to excess water management include managing stormwater runoff from upland development, improving regional drainage to reduce flooding, and evaluating potential floodspill easements for their impact on agricultural production. The strategies suggested to support these objectives include encouraging the creation and implementation of an overall watershed management plan for the Serpentine-Nicomekl River watershed, addressing localized flooding through implementation of appropriate drainage measures and reduction of unauthorized or inappropriate fill placement, implementing Master Drainage Plans in upland areas, and implementing integrated stormwater management strategies. There are no indicators suggested to monitor excess water management. 4.5.18 Summary As discussed in the introduction to this section, this plan provides a huge amount of information. Unfortunately, the emphasis is on the agricultural economy, so it is more of an economic plan for agriculture, rather than a sustainable agriculture plan. The goals identified in the plan are vaguely related to sustainable agriculture, but do not identify specific sustainable agriculture components. Although the plan discusses economic, environmental, and social aspects of agriculture, it does not identify these as elements of sustainability nor does it provide a balanced discussion regarding the importance of social and environmental elements in sustainable agriculture. The plan does not provide any objectives, strategies, or indicators related to soil protection or energy conservation. The plan's main strengths lie in encouraging community support, promoting alternative forms of pest management, and promoting the local economy. 45 CHAPTERV Discussion 5.1 Introduction This chapter will discuss the gaps between academic theory and application of sustainable agriculture principles at the community planning level, by comparing the findings from the evaluation of the three plans with the principles of sustainable agriculture defined in the evaluation framework. 5.2 Part 1 - Explicit References to Sustainable Agriculture 5.2.1 Purpose The literature review (discussed in chapter 2) revealed that the most common definitions and descriptions of sustainable agriculture reflected the Brundtland Commission's definition of sustainable development. This definition was paraphrased in the evaluation matrix to describe the overall purpose of sustainable agriculture: "To meet the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs". In the evaluation of the plans, it was discovered that none of the plans explicitly stated a purpose similar to the Brundtland Commission definition. Surrey's purpose referred to its goals. Pitt Meadows' purpose related to resolving issues associated with agriculture, and Langley lacked a purpose altogether. The lack of a purpose related to long term agricultural sustainability illustrates the lack of an overall sustainable agriculture framework, and this in turn compromises the ability of the plans to address the principles of sustainable agriculture. The purpose of the plan should provide the context in which the plan is developed. The plan is likely to founder without an explicitly stated sustainable agriculture context. 46 5.2.2 Elements The literature revealed that sustainable agriculture is most often described as a balance of environmental, economic, and social elements. Consequently, each of the plans was evaluated to determine whether they explicitly referred to these three elements, and furthermore whether the plans associated these elements with sustainable agriculture. Both Surrey and Pitt Meadows use the term 'sustainable' in their plans, but only Surrey discusses all three elements. Unfortunately, Surrey focuses on the economic component at the expense of the social and environmental components, and does not explicitly tie the three elements to sustainable agriculture. Langley on the other hand, while not mentioning sustainability explicitly, provides a fairly good sustainable agriculture context by giving a balanced description of the inter-related economic, environmental, and social components of the rural area. Unfortunately, Langley does not describe these elements as components of sustainability or sustainable agriculture. While Pitt Meadows does not explicitly talk about any of the three elements, it does discuss the history of agriculture in the community. This could be considered part of the social component, although it was categorized as 'other' in the matrix, because it did not explicitly use the term 'social'. It also provides a physical description of the planning area (but does not include environmental considerations), and a description of the legislative context. The legislative context, while not a prominent part of the sustainable agriculture literature, is extremely important at the municipal level, particularly in agriculture. Surrey also provides an overview of agricultural policies and initiatives, and a review of the legislative context of agriculture in Surrey. By failing to identify, and/or link, the three elements to sustainability, the plans miss the opportunity to create a balanced framework in which to evaluate current and future issues in agriculture. The tendency to focus on economic viability is contrary to sustainable agriculture theory which stresses the importance of integrating all three elements. 47 5.2.3 Goals Through extensive review of the literature, nine goals for sustainable agriculture were developed (see Chapter 2). These goals reflect the most common characteristics of sustainable agriculture found in the literature. Evaluation of the three plans found that all of the plans lack these explicit sustainable agriculture goals. Pitt Meadows does not provide any explicit goals whatsoever, while Surrey and Langley do provide some explicit goals related to enhancing agricultural viability and resolving land use conflict. The lack of clearly defined goals related to sustainable agriculture further erodes the ability of these plans to address sustainable agriculture. Identification of goals would simplify the development of the plans. 5.3 Part 2 - Implicit References to Sustainable Agriculture This section of the evaluation matrix allows greater flexibility in interpretation of goals. Many of the characteristics of sustainable agriculture found in the literature were implicit in recommendations and policies in the plans, although not explicitly tied to sustainable agriculture goals. For example, while none of the plans identified promotion of the local economy as an explicit goal, all three plans included numerous recommendations that would serve to enhance the local agricultural economy. 5.3.1 Protect Biodiversity None of the plans mentioned protection of either wild or domestic (i.e. crops and livestock) biodiversity as a goal, but there were some objectives and strategies related to wildlife habitat protection that would serve to protect wildlife biodiversity. Protection of biodiversity figured prominently in the sustainable agriculture literature. The lack of clearly stated biodiversity objectives, strategies, and indicators suggests that the role of biodiversity in sustainable agriculture has not been successfully transferred to the community. 5.3.2 Protect Soil Soil is one of the key elements of farming, yet only Langley identified any objectives related to soil protection. Surrey had no objectives, strategies, or indicators related to soil protection, and Pitt Meadows had only a single mention of 48 enforcement of soil conservation laws. Langley had the most innovative strategy suggesting an agricultural demonstration centre to illustrate appropriate agricultural practices including soil conservation. Protection of soil quantity and/or quality was frequently mentioned in the sustainable agriculture literature. The lack of objectives, strategies, and indicators related to conservation of soil quality and quantity illustrates another gap between academic interpretation of sustainable agriculture and application at the community planning level. 5.3.3 Protect Water Surrey provides an objective and multiple strategies related to protection of water quantity but not water quality. Pitt Meadows provides a single objective and strategy related to water quality. Langley identifies a number of strategies to protect water quality, but does not provide any objectives related to water conservation. Surrey's plan provides the most useful objectives related to water conservation by encouraging irrigation efficiency. Langley and Pitt Meadows provide useful water quality protection objectives by encouraging the protection of watercourses. The plans reflect some of the characteristics found in the literature regarding water quality and quantity protection, but they do not adequately address the importance of water in sustainable agriculture. 5.3.4 Encourage Community Support A l l of the plans included one or more objectives and strategies to encourage community support. Recognition of the importance of community support may be due to the proximity of these farm areas to urban development. Conflict between farmers and non-farmers is well recognized in the local agricultural community, and the response to this conflict appears to be to improve community awareness of agriculture. A l l three plans identify the need to communicate with the public about agricultural practices and products. This type of interaction between farmers and non-farmers is identified in the literature as a key characteristic of sustainable agriculture. Consequently, all three plans do reflect academic interpretation of sustainable agriculture for this particular characteristic. 49 Interestingly, the need for community support appears to be issue-driven, resulting from the immediate threat that urban conflict has on agricultural operations. In other words, each of these communities has addressed this issue because it threatens current agricultural viability. There appears to be a trend in these plans to address short-term issues, but ignore long term goals (such as protection of soil, water, and biodiversity). This will be discussed in greater detail at the end of this chapter. Surrey succeeds in addressing many components of community support including, facilitating farm succession, encouraging research facilities in Surrey, creating a forum for effective dialogue, and promoting agricultural heritage in the community. Langley and Pitt Meadows also identify a number of community support objectives and strategies, although not as comprehensively as Surrey. Both Surrey and Pitt Meadows identify the need for a municipal liaison to bridge the gap between farmers, community members, and municipal employees. This is a novel and potentially beneficial addition to sustainable agriculture. It is likely to be particularly useful for local communities because of the lack of planners with agricultural expertise. 5.3.5 Manage Pests Surrey and Pitt Meadows provide a number of pest management objectives, while Langley offers only one weak objective related to weed control. The issue of bird cannons figures prominently in the Pitt Meadows plan, with the focus being on controlling nuisance wildlife, and more specifically on finding new technologies to replace bird cannons. This is another example of how the objectives in these plans tend to address short-term issues, not long term goals. Had the goal been to manage pests, vertebrate and invertebrate, the objectives could have addressed the need to control all pests in a manner that would reduce the impact on the environment and community. By ostensibly addressing only bird cannons, the plan does not look beyond the resolution of this issue to the next issue. It lacks a long-term vision for the future of sustainable pest management in the community. 50 Surrey's plan provides the most comprehensive approach to pest management, although it too lacks any clear objectives. It identifies the need to "manage and reduce the real or perceived threat to suburban residents from chemical use on farmland" (p. 44), but ignores the potential negative effects to water, wildlife, and the farmers themselves. In other words, the objective downplays the importance of reducing pesticide use by ascribing the 'real or perceived' issue to a suburban population intolerant of these farming practices. This indicates an unwillingness on Surrey's part to acknowledge the potential long-term effects of pesticide use. These negative effects could include increased pest tolerance to chemicals, ongoing input costs associated with purchasing pesticides, cumulative effect on environment, and contamination of ground and surface water. Surrey does recommend a number of strategies that are identified in the literature, including encouraging pesticide free production in sensitive areas, retaining vegetative buffers to mitigate spray drift, and using alternative control methods such as IPM. Both Pitt Meadows and Surrey provide indicators for this goal. Surrey recommends that the federal and provincial governments monitor the impacts of pesticide use, and Pitt Meadows recommends monitoring the impact of new technologies and practices on wildlife pest management. A l l of the plans would benefit from additional pest management objectives, strategies, and indicators consistent with sustainable agriculture principles. 5.3.6 Manage Nutrients The plans reflect some of the general principles of nutrient management found in the literature, but would benefit from more detailed objectives, strategies, and indicators. The objectives identified by Surrey and Pitt Meadows defer to provincial authority. For example, Surrey identifies the need to encourage farmers to make on farm improvements in nutrient management, and promotes the use of waste management according to the BC Waste Management Act. Pitt Meadows suggests minimizing the risk of nutrient runoff and maximizing the use of nutrients, by following the B C M A F F Environmental Guidelines for manure management. 51 Langley provides a number of useful strategies including waste management education, encouraging farmers to minimize impacts on the environment, and promoting the recycling of agricultural wastes. Although the provincial guidelines referred to in the plans do provide recommendations that would benefit sustainable agriculture, further identification of desired nutrient management outcomes in the form of goals, objectives, strategies, and indicators would strengthen these plans. 5.3.7 Promote Local Economy A l l of the plans identify numerous objectives and strategies to promote the local economy, with Surrey leading the way in number and breadth. Pitt Meadows tends to be quite general, identifying the need to promote agricultural investment and diversification. Langley and Surrey provide many objectives and strategies consistent with sustainable agriculture principles, such as strengthening the rural economy in a manner that preserves the rural character, promoting processing, production, distribution and sale of locally grown products, and encouraging businesses that promote environmentally safe practices. Langley and Surrey also identify a number of strategies to support local agriculture including promotion of small-scale agriculture, supporting development of facilities and events that support the agriculture industry, and promoting local farmer's markets. None of the plans provide indicators for the local economy. There are more objectives and strategies under this goal than any of the other goals of sustainable agriculture. This may be due to the fact that economic issues pose immediate threats to local agriculture, because a farm that is not economically sustainable will quickly go bankrupt. Some of the other goals of sustainable agriculture may not be quite so apparent in the short-term, but will become more obvious in the long-term. While the local economy is an essential aspect of sustainable agriculture, its importance should not outweigh the other goals in the plan. Ideally each of the sustainable agriculture goals should have as many comprehensive objectives and strategies as the local economy goal. This goal is 52 similar to the other goals in that there is not a single indicator provided in these plans to monitor the local economy. 5.3.8 Conserve Energy None of the plans have any goals, objectives, strategies, or indicators related to energy conservation. This may be due to the fact that the plans are not framed within the context of long-term agricultural sustainability. The plans tend to focus on immediate threats to agricultural viability rather than addressing the impact that current practices will have on future generations. The complete lack of any objectives, strategies, or indicators related to energy conservation illustrates another gap between academic interpretation of sustainable agriculture and application at the community planning level. 5.3.9 Protect Systems A l l of the plans have one or more general objectives or strategies related to system protection. However, the plans did not identify many of the more detailed system characteristics found in the literature such as integrating livestock and crops, creating farm plans, and reducing inputs. This illustrates another gap in application of theoretical knowledge of sustainable agriculture to community plans. 5.4 Local Issues This section discusses four additional local issues that were not extensively discussed in the literature, but were addressed at some length in the three plans. These issues were also identified in local research (Artemis, 2002; Smith 1998; Runka, 1992), but not in the context of sustainable agriculture. Part of the intent of this thesis is to identify issues in the plans that have not been extensively studied in the context of sustainable agriculture. This section examines these issues, how the communities have dealt with the issues in the plans, and the relevance of these issues to sustainable agriculture. Recommendations regarding these issues are discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. 53 5.4.1 Optimize Agricultural Land Use Optimization of the agricultural land base is identified in all three plans. In the context of these plans, optimization relates to land use zoning conflicts, and under-utilization of agricultural land. Optimization is based on the assumption that agriculture is the highest and best use of agriculturally designated land. The main concern revolves around non-farm (e.g. residential) use of agricultural land and conflict along rural-urban boundaries. The A L R has been successful at setting aside agricultural land, but not very successful at limiting A L R land ownership to bona fide farmers. This results in higher land prices, fragmentation of farming areas, and conflict between farmers and non-farmers. This has both short and long-term effects on the sustainability of local agriculture. Consequently, the resolution, or mitigation, of this issue is extremely important for local farmers and sustainable agriculture. Surrey addresses this issue at length providing many objectives and strategies (but no indicators). Langley and Pitt Meadows also address the issue, but not to the same extent as Surrey. There is clearly a need for more research into the impact on sustainable agriculture due to sub-optimization of agricultural land. This recommendation is addressed in the next chapter. 5.4.2 Resolve Transportation and Servicing Issues Transportation and servicing issues were mentioned in all three plans. The key servicing issues involve the need for agricultural support services (e.g. processing facilities), dedicated agro-industrial areas to serve non-soil based agricultural industry, and improved infrastructure such as water, roads, and sewer. Transportation issues include improved access for farm machinery and delivery vehicles, as well as improved road safety. The agricultural servicing issues are complex in terms of sustainable agriculture. On the one hand, agro-industrial parks may help conserve soil and preserve the environment by locating in areas of poor soil quality and low environmental sensitivity, instead of A L R land where soil quality tends to be very high. On the other hand, are agro-industrial developments sustainable? If agro-industrial developments were analysed using an evaluation framework, such as the one 54 developed here, to determine whether the development would meet sustainable agriculture principles, then perhaps an agro-industrial park would be found to benefit sustainable agriculture. However, in the absence of criteria to evaluate agro-industrial developments, there is no reason to believe that an agro-industrial park would promote sustainable agriculture. Additional research into the sustainability of agro-industrial developments is needed. This recommendation is discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. The proximity of agricultural support services such as processing plants and retailing facilities would benefit sustainable agriculture, because processing provides the opportunity to add value to farm products, and local retail outlets provide the opportunity for community members to support local agriculture by purchasing local products. Improving infrastructure such as water, sewer, and roads may or may not promote sustainable agriculture. As with the agro-industrial park, the impact of infrastructure must be evaluated according to sustainable agriculture principles in order to determine whether or not additional infrastructure will provide a net benefit to sustainable agriculture. While access to unlimited supplies of water may improve agricultural productivity over the short-term, the long-term effect of excessive water use may result in water shortages in the future and ultimate failure of the agriculture industry. Similarly, provision of sewer services may assist farms to produce more in the short term, but the long-term effects of excessive amounts of agricultural sewage on the environment may result in ecological degradation. Improving road access may simply serve to increase the use of fossil fuels through increased truck transport. Once again, sustainable agriculture criteria are needed to evaluate the impact of additional infrastructure. 5.4.3 Manage Recreational Use Recreational use in and around agricultural land was identified as an issue in each of the three plans. The key concern revolves around the negative impact that recreation can have on the viability of agricultural operations. Langley is the most supportive 55 of recreational use, identifying the need to "offer recreational opportunities in the rural area" (p. 9). Surrey, on the other hand, wants to "limit recreational uses on agricultural lands" (p. 8). Pitt Meadows is somewhere in the middle of these two perspectives, suggesting that they investigate "issues with respect to recreational use of agricultural land" (p. 36). The differences in attitude toward recreational use in agricultural areas reflects the difficulty communities have in finding the appropriate balance between public and private access to agricultural land. Increased access to agricultural areas has the potential to improve non-farmer appreciation of agriculture but, as indicated above, there are also potential problems with increased access. Surrey has developed many excellent objectives and strategies to improve compatibility between recreation and farming, but unfortunately they did not identify any indicators. Future research should examine whether these objectives and strategies are successful in improving appreciation of agriculture, and reducing negative impacts of recreation. As long as recreational use has a negative impact on agriculture, it is a threat to sustainable agriculture. However, i f recreation turns out to have a positive impact on agriculture, then it could be considered supportive of sustainable agriculture. The next chapter discusses the need for further research into the effect of recreational use on sustainable agriculture. 5.4.4 Manage Excess Water While protection of water quality and quantity was frequently mentioned in the literature, problems regarding excess water were not commonly identified in the literature. Both Surrey and Pitt Meadows identified excess water as an impediment to agricultural viability. Excess water on agricultural land tends to be a problem for these communities because the farmland is situated in low-lying areas adjacent to streams. Upland development has contributed to excessive runoff, with agricultural land being the recipient of high floodwaters from the streams as well as from upland urban developments. This is clearly an impediment to sustainable agriculture, and should be included in the evaluation framework under the goal 'protect water'. 56 Mitigation of excess water needs to be evaluated to ensure that the strategies are sustainable. More research is needed to explore excess water management. 5.5 Other Observations A number of additional observations were made during the plan evaluation. For example, all of the plans include an implementation section. This is an important component, and should be included in sustainable agriculture plans. The implementation section should address both short and long-term goals. A l l of the plans involved a public process that included both farmers and non-farmers. This is an important part of creating a sustainable agriculture plan, because it allows different interests to be heard. A l l of the municipalities also support increased communication between farmers, non-farmers, and the municipality. The number of community support objectives and strategies found in the plans illustrates that these communities do recognize the importance of community involvement in agricultural planning. A sustainable agriculture plan should include ongoing public consultation. Surrey links the agricultural plan to its other community plans, and explains that the other community plans do not always consider agricultural interests (e.g. Phase I, p. 80; p. 92). This insight is very useful, because it illustrates that there are discrepancies between plans that could undermine the goals of the agricultural plan. Linkages to other community plans should be identified and resolved (if possible) in sustainable agriculture plans. The history of the agricultural area is included in both the Langley and Pitt Meadows plans. This is a nice addition to the plans because it provides a cultural link to the land and community, provides some understanding of historical agriculture practices, and ultimately sets the context for a sustainable agriculture plan. A l l sustainable agriculture plans would benefit from a section devoted to historical context. The broad legislative context for agriculture is discussed in both the Surrey and Pitt Meadows plans. This context is important to a sustainable agriculture plan, because municipalities are currently quite limited in their powers to create and enforce regulations related to agriculture, and this section describes the authorities responsible 57 for various aspects of regulation. However, plans should not use existing legislation as an excuse for short-sighted planning. While a plan may be constrained in legal terms, it should never be constrained in visionary terms. Plans should provide a community with the opportunity to express their vision of the future. Sustainable agriculture should not be entirely dependent on existing laws, but rather on the will of the people to support local agriculture. Sustainable agriculture is based on the importance of understanding and respecting interdependencies in nature, society, and economy. As such, legal doctrines should not take precedence over other methods of advocacy in sustainable agriculture plans. 5.6 Summary The three plans are similar in several ways. A l l of the plans lack a comprehensive sustainable agriculture framework. Surrey and Pitt Meadows identify sustainability as a desired outcome, yet neither provides any definition or description of sustainability. Langley does not mention sustainability, but does give a balanced description of the economic, environmental, and social components of the rural area. The plans do not adequately reflect the principles of sustainable agriculture in the areas of biodiversity, soil, water, energy, and systems. The plans address pest management and nutrient management sparsely. A l l of the plans address local economy and community support very well. It is evident that the issues that are addressed most comprehensively are those that pose immediate threats to agricultural viability. Long-term issues are addressed weakly, or not at all. On the other hand, it is important to note that farmers must deal with immediate threats to their livelihood. Farmers may see agricultural sustainability as tied most directly to economic viability. If the farm goes bankrupt this year, then the fact that they have protected the soil, water, and biodiversity will not help them next year i f they can no longer afford to farm. Sustainable agriculture plans, therefore, must address short-term threats within the context of long-term goals. While these plans do recognize the importance of agriculture to their communities, the lack of clearly defined sustainable agriculture principles diminishes 58 the ability of the communities to progress toward sustainable agriculture. The lack of indicators also illustrates an inability to measure progress toward (or away from) sustainable agriculture. The lack of discussion in the plans regarding the purpose, elements, goals, and indicators of sustainable agriculture reveals a dearth of understanding and/or commitment to the complexities of sustainable agriculture. Perhaps worst of all, the absence of these basic principles reveals a broken, or non-existent, path toward sustainable agriculture. 59 CHAPTER VI Recommendations 6.1 Introduction It is clear from this research that the agricultural plans of Surrey, Langley, and Pitt Meadows do not adequately reflect the sustainable agriculture principles found in the literature. This appears to be due to a lack of research on the application of sustainable agriculture principles to community plans, and a lack of a clear and simple framework to link the theory of sustainable agriculture to community planning. There also appears to be a need for municipal planners with agricultural expertise. In all likelihood, these deficiencies contributed to the inability of these communities to explicitly define or describe sustainable agriculture principles. Instead the communities focused on addressing current issues, leading to the creation of short-sighted agricultural plans. The fact that all of the plans lacked explicit goals directly related to sustainable agriculture suggests that the principles of sustainable agriculture are not being adequately disseminated to community planners. Recommendations resulting from this thesis are discussed below. 6.2 Need for Professional Planners with Sustainable Agriculture Expertise The literature review revealed that planners generally do not receive training in agricultural planning. In order to address this issue, each municipality should ensure that its planners receive training in sustainable agriculture principles. While it would also be desirable for each agricultural municipality in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) to have a dedicated agricultural planner, it is unlikely that each municipality in the region will be willing, or able, to hire a dedicated sustainable agriculture planner in the near future due to the cost involved. Consequently, there is an opportunity for the G V R D to play a key role in coordinating sustainable agriculture planning. It is clear from the plans that there are many similar issues facing these communities. The G V R D should take the lead in explaining and promoting sustainable agriculture planning to local municipalities. 6 0 6.3 Application of Sustainable Agriculture Principles to Community Plans Municipalities need to be able to identify the broad sustainable agriculture context and articulate specific sustainable agriculture principles in their plans. The lack of literature linking sustainable agriculture to community planning indicates the need for additional research into bridging this gap. This research should be multidisciplinary, and include agencies such as the G V R D , University of BC (Faculty of Agricultural Sciences and School of Community and Regional Planning), B C M A F F , local government, and Land Reserve Commission (LRC), in order to draw out the linkages between sustainable agriculture, community planning, and different levels of government. The evaluation of the plans also found a number of issues common to each municipality. Additional research is needed in these areas in order to address local sustainable agriculture concerns. These are outlined below. 6.3.1 Optimize Agricultural Land Use The main concern relates to residential use of agricultural land. When non-farmers move into the A L R , conflict with farmers can occur due to the unexpected (and sometimes unpleasant) smells, sights, and sounds of farming. Additional research is needed to determine the degree to which sub-optimal use of agricultural land negatively affects sustainable agriculture, and what sort of actions can be taken to reduce non-farm use of agricultural land. 6.3.2 Resolve Transportation and Servicing Issues A l l three plans identified the need for agro-industrial parks. This comes as a result of intensive agricultural operations locating in areas where they don't have access to infrastructure (such as water, sewer, and roads), and/or because the use conflicts with neighbouring properties. Research is needed to determine the affect that agro-industrial developments and increased infrastructure would have on sustainable agriculture, and whether there are certain kinds of agro-industrial development that would be compatible with sustainable agriculture (e.g. industrial ecology), or certain instances when infrastructure would provide a net benefit to sustainable agriculture. 61 It may be possible to use the evaluation framework developed here to assess the impact of these changes on sustainable agriculture. 6.3.3 Manage Recreational Use The G V R D identifies agricultural land as part of the 'Green Zone' (GVRD, 1996), implying that these lands are open to the public. It is important that the G V R D work with individual municipalities to assess the impact of recreation on sustainable agriculture. Surrey makes a number of suggestions regarding recreational use on agricultural land, although no indicators are provided to monitor their success. It would be valuable to examine whether the suggestions are working, and what sort of indicators might be useful in measuring progress over the long term. 6.3.4 Manage Excess Water Protection of water quality and quantity was often mentioned in the literature, but excess water management was not typically discussed. However, excess water is an important issue for local farmers who lose productivity due to flooded fields. Sustainable management of excess water needs to be examined in the context of the GVRD, since watersheds often cross municipal boundaries. Although excess water is a serious concern for local farmers, water will always be a scarce and valuable resource and needs to be managed with this in mind. 6.3.5 Legislation The provincial government has authority over agricultural land in the A L R , leaving municipalities few legislative tools to promote sustainable agriculture. There is a need to analyze the impact that current legislation has on sustainable agriculture to determine whether changes should be made to facilitate adoption of the principles of sustainable agriculture. 6.4 Link Theory of Sustainable Agriculture to Community Planning The framework created for this research proved useful in evaluating the three agricultural plans. The hierarchical structure of the framework allowed for evaluation of 62 sustainable agriculture principles at different levels of specificity. This approach was successful at identifying the lack of explicit goals and purpose related to sustainable agriculture, while acknowledging (in Part 2 of the matrix) the presence of other sustainable agriculture characteristics. However, this framework would benefit from further testing. For example, it would be valuable to test this framework in other planning scenarios, such as at the regional, provincial, or farm level. It would also be interesting to see i f this framework could be used to create sustainable agriculture plans. The literature review revealed that there is a lack of information linking sustainable agriculture to community planning. The best source of information discovered during the literature review was Planning for Agriculture (Smith, 1998). This comprehensive manual provides an excellent reference for local agricultural planning. It explains legislation affecting agriculture, and provides a template for creating an Agricultural Area Plan (AAP). Unfortunately, the manual does not provide information in the context of sustainable agriculture principles, so it cannot be used as a standalone guide to create a sustainable agriculture plan. Consequently, more research is needed to link the information from Planning for Agriculture with the principles of sustainable agriculture. The plan evaluations also revealed that there is a tendency in the plans to focus on the activities occurring on or around the farm, yet sustainable agriculture includes the entire food network, both on and off the farm. For example, consumers play a key role in supporting sustainable agriculture, yet the plans emphasize mitigating the impact non-farmers have on agriculture. While it is clear that non-farmers can have a negative effect on farming, it is also clear that farmers need consumers to purchase their products. Therefore, there is an opportunity for farmers and non-farmers to work together to develop plans that serve both needs within the context of clearly defined sustainable agriculture principles. A community based sustainable agriculture plan should provide community members with a clear framework for sustainable agriculture, and provide the opportunity for community members to work together to define objectives, strategies, and indicators. While all of the plans reviewed here involved a public process that included farmers and non-farmers, additional research is needed to 63 explore the process required to effectively link farmers and non-farmers in ongoing development and maintenance of sustainable agriculture plans. 6.5 Summary A l l three plans lack principles of sustainable agriculture and focus on short-term issues rather than long-term goals. While the sustainable agriculture framework developed for this research served as a useful tool in plan evaluation, further research is needed to test and refine the framework in different scenarios. More sustainable agriculture planners are needed to assist in plan development, but it may be unreasonable to expect every municipality to hire a sustainable agriculture planner. Consequently, the G V R D should hire a sustainable agriculture planner to coordinate sustainable agriculture in the region since local municipalities share many of the same concerns. Additional research is needed on the application of sustainable agriculture principles to community plans, and into local issues such as excess water management, optimization of agricultural land, management of recreational use, and the impact of transportation and servicing on sustainable agriculture. These observations are discussed in greater detail in the next chapter. 64 C H A P T E R VII Conclusion This study set out to determine whether the agricultural plans of Langley, Surrey, and Pitt Meadows reflected academic principles of sustainable agriculture, and whether the literature addressed local issues identified in the plans. The literature was reviewed to determine whether there were any appropriate existing models that could be used to evaluate the plans. Finding none, an evaluation framework was developed using the characteristics of sustainable agriculture found in the literature. The Brundtland Commission's definition of sustainable development was identified as the most common purpose of sustainable agriculture described in the literature. The most common elements of sustainable agriculture found in the literature were social, economic, and environmental. The goals of sustainable agriculture were determined by categorizing common characteristics found in the literature into nine groups, which were then developed into specific goals. The following goals were identified through this process: • Protect biodiversity • Protect soil • Protect water • Encourage community support • Manage pests • Manage nutrients • Promote local economy • Conserve energy • Protect systems An evaluation matrix was developed to capture both explicit (Part 1) and implicit references (Part 2 and Part 3) to sustainable agriculture. The second part of the matrix divided the goals into objectives, strategies, and indicators. Part 2 also allowed more flexibility in interpreting sustainable agriculture characteristics. Part 3 captured local issues in the plans that were not identified as goals through the literature review. 65 The evaluation matrix proved to be very useful in evaluating the plans. It was determined that none of the plans identified a purpose or goals similar to the purpose and goals identified in the literature. The elements were discussed by Surrey and Langley, but not in the context of sustainable agriculture. Despite the absence of any explicit reference to sustainable agriculture goals, all of the plans revealed some characteristics of sustainable agriculture in Part 2 of the evaluation matrix. There were no indicators found in Langley's plan, and a single indicator was found in the plans of Surrey and Pitt Meadows. While the agricultural plans of Surrey, Pitt Meadows, and Langley do lack some important sustainable agriculture principles, I am impressed that the municipalities have created agricultural plans, and that the plans do identify many objectives and strategies of sustainable agriculture. However, I believe the plans should be reviewed to explicitly identify sustainable agriculture principles in the context of long-term sustainability, as discussed below. Langley was well ahead of its time by being the first municipality in the G V R D to create a plan devoted to the rural area (in 1993). While the plan lacks any reference to sustainable agriculture or sustainability in general, the plan subtly addresses many principles of sustainable agriculture. The plan provides good context for a sustainable agriculture plan by describing the economic, environmental, and social considerations in the rural area. It would benefit from the addition of a purpose and goals directly related to sustainable agriculture. In the future this plan should be reviewed with the community to determine specific objectives, strategies, and indicators that reflect community values and are consistent with the overall principles of sustainable agriculture. The Surrey plan, which was adopted in 1999, illustrates a clear commitment to agriculture. Unfortunately, like Langley, it fails to identify the broad sustainable agriculture context. This plan would also benefit from the addition of a clear purpose and goals directly linked to sustainable agriculture. There are currently many sustainable agriculture objectives and strategies in the plan, but they tend to focus on short-term issues. Future revisions of this plan should engage the community to help 66 identify objectives, strategies, and indicators that satisfy both short-term and long-term sustainable agriculture principles. The Pitt Meadows plan, which was completed in 2000, would also benefit from addition of sustainable agriculture principles. The plan tends to focus on current issues, and lacks the broader sustainable agriculture context needed to achieve long-term goals. Future revision of this plan should first establish the broad sustainable agriculture context by identifying the sustainable agriculture purpose and goals, and then work with the community to identify appropriate sustainable agriculture objectives, strategies, and indicators. While these plans do not explicitly identify the principles of sustainable agriculture as defined in the literature, they do have potential to become sustainable agriculture plans with some retrofitting as described above. If the plans are revised as recommended, then the G V R D will be one step closer to a sustainable region that includes sustainable agriculture. The results from the literature review and plan evaluations lead to the following conclusions: 1. There is a lack of literature linking sustainable agriculture and community planning 2. Sustainable agriculture principles are not being adequately transferred to municipal agricultural plans 3. There is a lack of academic discussion about how to solve local planning issues in the context of sustainable agriculture 4. The sustainable agriculture evaluation framework developed for this research appears to be effective at identifying areas of weakness in the plans 5. The plans tend to focus on short-term issues rather than long-term goals 6. The G V R D could play an important leadership role in sustainable agriculture planning This research confirms some of the findings discussed in Chapter 2. Pothukuchi and Kaufman (2000) found that most planning agencies in the US are not involved in planning food systems, and where they are it is, "...reactive rather than proactive and piecemeal rather than comprehensive" (p. 115). They also noted that there is little 67 scholarly research into food system planning, few plans that address food systems, and little food system training for planners. Pothukuchi and Kaufman (2000) argue that all communities should have food system plans, regardless of whether they have any agricultural land, since we are all affected by food systems. The authors define a food system as the "chain of activities connecting food production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste management, as well as all the associated regulatory institutions and activities" (p. 113). Food system planning appears to be consistent with the principles of sustainable agriculture, although it appears to emphasize off-farm activities rather than on-farm activities. The G V R D should work with B C M A F F to ensure that all municipalities in the GVRD create sustainable agriculture/food system plans. The G V R D should also consider creating a comprehensive sustainable agriculture/food system plan for the entire region. This thesis has shown that the principles of sustainable agriculture are not being fully transferred to local agricultural plans. Additional research is needed to bridge the gap between academic understanding of sustainable agriculture, and integration into community plans. The G V R D could play an important leadership role in coordinating sustainable agriculture planning in the region. Ultimately, however, local communities must take responsibility for creating long-term sustainable agriculture plans. Farmers and non-farmers must work together to ensure that local agriculture is sustainable far into the future. The path to sustainability may be long and arduous, but the alternate path is short and unforgiving. 68 B I B L I O G R A P H Y Fraser Basin Management Program (1997). Agriculture and Sustainability in the Fraser Basin Draft #2. Aldwell, C R . (1997). Hydrogeology and sustainable agriculture. Environmental Geology 32 (2) (93-99). Aldy, J.E., Hrubovcak, J., & Vasavada, U . (1998). The role of technology in sustaining agriculture and the environment. Ecological Economics 26 (81-96). Allen, P., & Van Dusen, D. (1998). Sustainable agriculture: Choosing the future. In P. Allen & D. Van Dusen (Ed.), Global perspectives on agroecology and sustainable agriculture systems (p. 6-12). Santa Cruz, CA: Regents of University of California. Altieri, M . A . (1995). Agroecology. The Science of Sustainable Agriculture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Artemis Agri-Strategy Group (2002). The economic strategy for agriculture in the Lower Mainland. Burnaby, BC. Bakri, D.A. (2001). Towards developing a geoscientific approach to sustainable agricultural and rural development. Environmental Geology 40 (4-5). Bellamy, J.A., & Johnson, A . K . L . (2000). Integrated resource management: moving from rhetoric to practice in Australian agriculture. Environmental Management 25 (3) (265-280). Bird, E., Bultena, G., & Gardner, J. (1995). Planting the Future. Iowa: Iowa State University Press. Buttel, F.H. (1993). The sociology of agricultural sustainability: some observations on the future of sustainable agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 46 (175-186). Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Boston, CT: Houghton Mifflin. City of Surrey (2003). February 12 <www.city.surrey.be.ca>. City of Surrey (1999). Surrey Agricultural Plan. City of Surrey: Zbeetnoff Agro-Environmental Consulting and Quadra Planning Consultants Ltd. 69 Cornelissen, A . M . G . , van den Berg, J., Koops, W.J., Grossman, M . , & Udo, H.M.J. (2001). Assessment of the contribution of sustainability indicators to sustainable development: a novel approach using fuzzy set theory. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 86 (173-185). de Wit, J., Oldenbroeck, J.K., van Keulen, H. , & Zwart, D. (1995). Criteria for sustainable livestock production: a proposal for implementation. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 53 (219-229). District of Pitt Meadows (2003). February 12 <www.pittmeadows.bc.ca>. District of Pitt Meadows (2000). The Future of Agriculture. District of Pitt Meadows: Agricultural Plan Steering Committee and Jack Reams Agri-Business Consulting. Douglass, G. (1984). The meaning of agricultural sustainability. In G. Douglass (Ed.), Agricultural Sustainability in a Changing World Order (p. 3-29). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Dumanski, J. (2002). Sustainable Land Management Defined. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, October 5 <http://res2.agr.gc.ca/ecorc/program3/pub/status/slmdef.htm>. Edwards, C.A., Grove, T.L., Harwood, R.R., Pierce Colfer, C.J. (1993). The role of agroecology and integrated farming systems in agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 46 (99-121). Feenstra, G., Ingels, C , Campbell, D., Chaney, D., George, M.R., & Bradford, E. (2002). What is sustainable agriculture? University of California, Davis, March 23 <www.sarep.ucdavis.edu/concept.htm>. Flew, A. (Ed.) (1970). Malthus: An essay on the principle of population. Middlesex: Penguin Books Ltd.. Fraser Basin Council (2000). Sustainability indicators for the Fraser Basin Workbook. October 6 <www.fraserbasin.bc.ca>. Gates, J.P. (1988). Tracing the evolution of organic/sustainable agriculture. Bibliographies and Literature of Agriculture (BLA) no. 72, November 11 <www.nal.usda.gov>. Gips, T. (2002). Sustainable Agriculture Defined. The Alliance for Sustainability, September 23 <www.mtn.org>. 70 Gliessman, S.R. (2000). Agroecology: Ecological Processes in Sustainable Agriculture. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers. Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) (2003). February 12 <www.gvrd.be.ca>. Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) (1996). Livable Region Strategic Plan. G V R D : Strategic Planning Department. Grove, T.L., & Edwards, C A . (1993). Do we need a new developmental paradigm? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 46 (135-145). Hall, B., Kuepper, G. (2002). Making the transition to sustainable farming. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, October 15 <www.attra.ncat.org>. Hurni, H. (2000). Assessing sustainable land management (SLM). Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 81 (83-92). Ikerd, J.E. (1993). The need for a systems approach to sustainable agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment, 46 (147-160). Kuiper, J. (2000). A checklist approach to evaluate the contribution of organic farms to landscape quality. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 77 (143-156). Lehman, H. , Clark, E.A., & Weise, S.F. (1993). Clarifying the definition of sustainable agriculture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 6 (2) (127-143). Lyson, T.A. (2002). Advanced agricultural biotechnologies and sustainable agriculture. Trends in Biotechnology 20(5) (193-196). MacRae, R. (2002). A history of sustainable agriculture. McGi l l University, September 20 <www.eap.mcgill.ca>. Marsh, J.S. (1997). The policy approach to sustainable farming in the E U . Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 64 (103-114). McRae, T., Smith, C.A.S., & Gregorich, L.J. (Ed.) (2000). Environmental sustainability of Canadian agriculture: Report of the Agri-Environmental Indicator Project. Ottawa: Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Pothukuchi, K. , & Kaufman, J.L. (2000). The food system: a stranger to the planning field. A P A Journal 66(2) (113-124). 71 Pretty, J.N. (1997). The sustainable intensification of agriculture. Natural Resources Forum 21 (4) (247-256). Rigby, D., & Caceres, D. (2001). Organic farming and the sustainability of agricultural systems. Agricultural Systems, 68 (21-40). Rodale, J.I. (1949). The Organic Front. Pennsylvania: Rodale Press. Rosset, P., Collins, J., Moore Lappe, F. (2000). Lessons from the Green Revolution. July 8, 2002 <www.foodfirst.org>. Runka, G. (1992). Agricultural issues in Greater Vancouver. In Creating our future: the livable region strategy. GVRD: Development Services Department. Safley, M . (1998). How traditional agriculture is approaching sustainability. Biomass and Bioenergy 14 (4) (329-332). Schaller, N . (1993). The concept of agricultural sustainability. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 46 (89-97). Smith, B.E. (1998). Planning for Agriculture - Resource Materials. Burnaby, BC: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. Tait, J., & Morris, D. (2000). Sustainable development of agricultural systems: competing objectives and critical limits. Futures 32 (247-260). The Food Alliance (2002). Frequently Asked Questions. October 6 <www.thefoodalliance.org>. The Kerr Center for Sustainable agriculture (2002). Essential steps to a sustainable agriculture. September 18 <www.kerrcenter.com>. Township of Langley (2003). Statistical Profile. February 12 <www.tol.bc.ca>. Township of Langley (1993). Rural Langley Community Plan. Langley, BC: Township of Langley. Unilever (2002). Agriculture Indicators. October 16 <www.unilever.com>. Urech, P. (2000). Sustainable agriculture and chemical control: opponents or components of the same strategy? Crop Protection 19 (831-836). 72 van Mansvelt, J.D., Stobbelaar, D.J., & Hendriks, K . (1998). Comparison of landscape features in organic and conventional farming systems. Landscape and Urban Planning 41 (209-227). Webster, J.P.G. (1997). Assessing the economic consequences of sustainability in agriculture. Agriculture, Ecosystems, and Environment 64 (95-102). World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) (1987). Our Common Future: The Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford, U K : Oxford University Press. Werner, R. (1993). Ecologically and economically efficient and sustainable use of agricultural landscapes. Landscape and urban planning 27 (237-248). Yunlong, C , & Smit, B. (1994). Sustainability in agriculture: a general review. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 49 (299-307). 73 Appendix I Summary of Sustainable Agriculture Definitions and Descriptions Aldwell, 1997 Sustainable agriculture must: "...(1) be capable of providing the world's food needs at an economically realistic price, (2) meet the social needs of rural communities, (3) conserve the environment for future generations" (p. 98) Aldyetal., 1997 Sustainable agriculture is an: "...integrated system of plant and animal production practices having a site specific application that will, over the long term: (a) satisfy human food and fiber needs; (b) enhance environmental quality; (c) make efficient use of non-renewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate appropriate natural biological cycles and controls; (d) sustain the economic viability of farm operations; and (e) enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole" (P- 83) Allen and VanDusen, 1988 "The goal of sustainable agriculture is based upon values of ecological soundness, environmental protection, economic rationality, equity, and humaneness toward people and animals" (p. 6) Altieri, 1995 "The central issue in sustainable agriculture is not achieving maximum yield, it is long-term stabilization. The development of self-sufficient, diversified, economically viable, small-scale agroecosystems comes from novel designs of cropping and/or livestock systems managed with technologies adapted to the local environment that are within the farmers' resources. Energy and resource conservation, environmental quality, public health, and equitable socioeconomic development should be considered in making decisions on crop species, rotations, row spacing, fertilizing, pest control, and harvesting" (p. 371) Bakri, 2001 ".. .geology plays a crucial role in determining sustainability and productivity of land, is a prime factor influencing the viability of rural socio-economic development, and determines the nature and intensity of land use sustainable on a given area of land, controls the level of degradation, inputs and management practices required in maintaining land use and indeed influences economic value of land" (p. 552) Bellamy and Johnson, 2000 "...social, cultural, economic, and environmental issues are all essential components of achieving sustainable agriculture" (p. 26) Bird etal, 1995 "...sustainable agriculture is diversified, flexible, environmentally sound family farming that replaces chemical-intensive practices with on-farm resources, renewable energy, conservation, and skillful management of natural resources" (p. 10) "The challenge of sustainable agriculture thus is social, economic, and environmental. In short, it is the challenge of sustainable development" (p. 13) Buttel, 1993 "Sustainable agriculture has come to be largely synonymous with low chemical-input practices" (p. 178) de Wit etal, 1995 "Although the term sustainable agriculture is singular in form, it comprises a multidimensional concept, referring to such diverse motivations as saving rare breeds, preventing soil degradation by impoverished nomads and reducing effluent production in intensive pig or poultry units. Originally emphasizing the importance of ecological constraints, it now includes economic, social and cultural dimensions" (p. 220) Edwards et al., 1993 "Within the literature, hundreds of definitions of sustainable agriculture have been offered ... but virtually all have the following characteristics: adequate economic returns to farmers; indefinite maintenance of natural resources and productivity; minimal adverse environmental impacts; optimal production with minimal external inputs; satisfaction of human needs for food and income; provision for the social needs of farm families. In other words, they promote environmental, ecological, economic, and social stability and sustainability. They provide a framework and 74 agenda for the indefinite evolution of agriculture to meet new needs in changing environments" (p. 100) Feenstra et al.,., 2002 "Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals - environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity....Sustainability rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Therefore, stewardship of both natural and human resources is of prime importance" (www.sarep.ucdavis.edu) Food Alliance, 2002 "Sustainable agriculture is a system that emphasizes protecting and enhancing natural resources, using alternatives to pesticides, and caring for the health and well being of farm workers and rural communities" (www.thefoodalliance.org) Fraser Basin Council, 2000 "Sustainability can mean a variety of things to different people and after years of wrestling with the concept in nations around the globe, it is still difficult to assign the word a definition supported by everyone. However, most definitions of sustainability relate to the extent to which society can strike a balance, in our decisions and actions, between social, economic, and environmental values. The Fraser Basin Council defines sustainability as "social well being supported by a vibrant economy and sustained by a healthy environment"" (www.fraserbasin.bc.ca) Gliessman, 2000 "A sustainable agriculture is one that recognizes whole-systems nature of food, feed, and fiber production in equitably balancing the concerns of environmental soundness, social equity, and economic viability among all sectors of the public, including international and intergenerational peoples" (p. 319) Gips, 2002 "A sustainable agriculture is ecologically sound, economically viable, socially just and humane" (www.mtn.org) Hall and Kuepper, 1997 "Sustainable farming is a management-intensive method of growing crops at a profit while concurrently minimizing negative impact on the environment, improving soil health, increasing biological diversity, and controlling pests. Sustainable agriculture is dependent on a whole-system approach having at its focus the long-term health of the land." (p.l) Ikerd, 1993 "A sustainable agriculture must be capable of maintaining its productivity and usefulness to society indefinitely. Such an agriculture must use farming systems that conserve resources, protect the environment, produce efficiently, compete commercially, and enhance the quality of life for farmers and society overall" (p. 151) Kerr Center, 2002 "A sustainable agriculture is a system of agriculture that will last. It is an agriculture that maintains its productivity over the long run" (www.kerrcenter.com) Lehman et al., 1993 "...sustainable agriculture consists of agricultural practices which do not undermine our future capacity to engage in agriculture" (p. 142) Marsh, 1997 "Farming systems are the meeting point of natural, economic, and social systems, each of which has its own dynamics. For farming systems to survive, they have to be simultaneously sustainable in each of these dimensions" (p. 104) McRae et al., 2000 "Agriculture today must balance a wide array of demands and environmental challenges that are continually evolving in their nature and complexity. A major challenge is achieving long term environmental sustainability of production. At the same time, agriculture is increasingly valued by Canadians for its environmental benefits, including its provision of some wildlife habitat; the visual beauty of farmland; and environmental services, such as nutrient cycling and the storage and filtering of water" (p. 1) Pretty, 1997 Sustainability "...ought to mean more than just agricultural activities that are environmentally neutral or positive. It ought to imply the capacity for activities to spread beyond the project in both space and time. A 'successful' project that leads to improvements that neither persist nor spread beyond the project's boundary should not be considered sustainable" (p. 251) 75 Safley, 1998 "A sustainable agriculture must be economically viable, ecologically sound and socially responsible. These are equal measures...sustainable agriculture rests squarely on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to successfully meet their needs" (p. 331) Schaller, 1993 "To most people, it seems to mean an agriculture that will continue to conserve natural resources and protect the environment indefinitely, enhance the health and safety of the public, and produce adequate quantities of food at a profit for farmers. Others extend the concept to include goals such as social justice and the safeguarding of animal welfare" (p. 89) Tait and Morris, 2000 "For agriculture, 'sustainability' relates to a human perspective on a system that is being managed for some purpose. The perceived degree of sustainability and the perceived effectiveness of any management actions then depend on the perspective of the observers" (p. 252) Unilever, 2002 "Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs" (www.unilever.com) Urech, 2000 "Modern, sustainable agriculture must be technology-based if it is to produce affordable, high-quality food, feed and fibre for all on existing farmland and using available water resources. Skilled management of finite agricultural land and water supplies will ensure that an increasing global population can be fed without depleting the resources that will be essential for future generations" (p. 832) van Mansvelt et al.,., 1998 "...the elaboration of guiding visions on the agro-communal landscape, its functionality and its aesthetics, is crucial for the future, sustainable development of land-use" (p. 225) Webster, 1997 "Sustainability clearly implies a reduction in external inputs and an increased reliance on the interrelationships between the production systems of a number of commodities" (p. 97) Yunlongand Smit, 1994 "... for agriculture to be sustainable it must be biophysically possible, socio-politically acceptable, and technically and economically feasible" (p. 302) 76 Appendix II Summary of Sustainable Agriculture Characteristics (parenthesis indicate unsustainable characteristics) AUTHOR CHARACTERISTICS T H E M E 1. groundwater quality 1. water 2. farm nutrient plans 2. nutrients 3. grazing plans 3. soil 4. retain wildlife habitat 4. biodiversity 5. maintain scenic appearance 5. community support Aldwell, 1997 6. protect historical/archaelogical features 6. community support 7. no fertilizers or pesticides on fringe vegetation of ponds/streams 7. pests 8. fence off watercourses and wells 8. water 9. maintain uncultivated margins 9. biodiversity 10. learn about environmentally friendly farming 10. community support 11. keep farm records 11. systems 12. surface drip irrigation 12. water 13. reduce agricultural activities near water supply sources 13. water 1. food safety 1. systems 2. precision agriculture 2. systems 3. real commodity prices 3. local economy 4. research and development 4. community support Aldy et al., 1997 5. enhanced nutrient management 6. IPM 5. nutrients 6. pests 7. soil conservation 7. soil 8. soil quality/productivity 8. soil 9. groundwater quality 9. water 10. surface water quality 10. water 11. wetland preservation 11. biodiversity 1. maintain productive capacity of the agroecosystem 1. systems 2. preserve flora and faunal diversity 2. biodiversity 3. avoid environmental degradation 3. systems 4. crop productivity 4. local economy 5. soil productivity 5. soil 6. irrigation water quantity and quality 6. water 7. abundance and diversity of beneficial insects 7. pests Altieri, 1995 8. genetic diversity 8. biodiversity 9. (inadequate credit) 9. local economy 10. technology 10. community support 11. education 11. community support 12. political support 12. community support 13. energy and resource conservation 13. conserve energy 14. public health 14. community support 15. equitable socioeconomic development 15. local economy 16. sustainable society 16. community support Bakri et al., 1. geology 1. soil 2001 2. soil 2. soil 77 Bellamy and Johnson, 2000 1. community involvement 2. voluntary community based initiatives 3. long term viability and resilience of farm economies 4. conservation and enhancement of natural resource base 5. minimization of off-site environmental impacts 6. quality of farm level management skills 7. socioeconomic viability of rural communities 8. biodiversity 9. maintenance of ecological integrity 10. reconciliation of conflicting values, interests, and expectations of different stakeholders 1. community support 2. community support 3. local economy 4. systems 5. systems 6. systems 7. local economy 8. biodiversity 9. systems 10. community support Bird et al., 1995 1. crop diversity 2. crop rotation 3. cover crops 4. soil building crops 5. grazing management 6. mechanical weed control 7. integration of livestock & crops 8. community autonomy in food systems 9. integration of agriculture and nature 10. co-operation between farmers 11. farm self-sufficiency 1. biodiversity 2. soil 3. soil 4. soil 5. soil 6. pests 7. systems 8. community support 9. systems 10. community support 11. local economy Buttel, 1993 1. low input 2. new crop varieties 3. biological control 4. selective plant breeding 5. biotechnology 6. agroecology 7. public policy 8. research 1. systems 2. biodiversity 3. pests 4. biodiversity 5. community support 6. systems 7. community support 8. community support Cornelissen etal, 2001 1. support of rural communities 2. preservation of non-renewable resources 3. reduction of nutrient emissions 4. animal welfare 5. prevention of soil erosion 1. community support 2. systems 3. nutrients 4. systems 5. soil deWit et al., 1995 1. (food shortages) 2. (land scarcity) 3. (soil degradation) 4. (desertification) 5. (inefficient use of energy, nutrients, water) 6. (deforestation) 7. (environmental pollution) 8. (decline in biodiversity) 1. local economy 2. local economy 3. soil 4. soil 5. energy 6. systems 7. systems 8. biodiversity Dumanski, J., 2002 1. maintaining or improving agricultural production and services 2. reducing the level of production risk 3. conserving natural resources 4. preventing soil degradation 5. preventing water degradation 6. economic viability 7. maintaining social acceptance 1. local economy 2. local economy 3. systems 4. soil 5. water 6. local economy 7. community support 78 1. wildlife biodiversity 1. bioiversity 2. IPM 2. pests 3. nutrient cycling 3. nutrients Edwards et 4. socially compatible 4. community support al., 1993 5. integration of livestock/crops 5. systems 6. knowledge sharing 6. community support 7. cultural diversity 7. community support 8. soil quality 8. soil 1. (air pollution) 1. energy 2. education of decision makers 2. community support 3. availability of labour 3. local economy 4. consumer knowledge 4. community support 5. sustainable agriculture coalitions {e.g. consumers, producers, 5. community support retailers, and others} 6. systems 6. farm plans 7. community support 7. government support 8. biodiversity Feenstra et 8. farm diversity {i.e. within and between farms} 9. systems al., 2002 9. efficient use of inputs 10. systems 10. crop/livestock selection suitable to the climate 11. nutrients 11. appropriate stocking rate 12. systems 12. integration of livestock and crops 13. soil 13. (soil erosion) 14. water 14. water conservation and availability of potable water 15. biodiversity 15. conservation of riparian habitats 16. biodiversity 16. promotion of wild plant diversity 17. water 17. use low volume irrigation systems 1. use of natural pest controls 1. pests 2. use of least toxic pesticides 2. pests Food Alliance, 2002 3. improve soil by natural methods 3. soil 4. protect drinking water and fish habitat 4. water 5. provide wildlife habitat 5. biodiversity 6. quality of life for farm workers and their communities 6. community support 7. continually improve farming practices 7. systems 8. preserve riparian buffer zones 8. water 1. food safety 1. systems 2. food security 2. local economy 3. level of awareness about sustainability 3. community support 4. membership in relevant community/voluntary organizations 4. community support Fraser Basin Council, 2000 5. charitable donations to local sustainable organizations 6. economic diversity 5. community support 6. local economy 7. protection of farm land 7. community support 8. IPM 8. pests 9. soil conservation 9. soil 10. water quality 10. water 11. water conservation 11. water 12. (toxic contaminants in wildlife) 12. biodiversity 79 1. minimal negative impacts on environment 1. systems 2. release no toxic or damaging substances into atmosphere 2. systems 3. release no toxic or damaging substances into water 3. water 4. preserve and rebuild soil fertility 4. soil 5. prevent soil erosion 5. soil 6. maintain soil's ecological health 6. soil 7. allows aquifers to recharge 7. water 8. ensure water needs of people and environment are met 8. water 9. rely mainly on resources within agroecosystem 9. systems Gliessman, 2000 10. replace external inputs with nutrient cycling 10. systems 11. value biological diversity (wild and domestic) 11. biodiversity 12. equal access to agricultural knowledge, practices, technology 12. community support 13. local control of agricultural resources 13. community support 14. reduce use of nonrenewable resources such as fossil fuels 14. energy 15. increase use of biological or cultural energy 15. energy 16. use windbreaks 16. energy 17. use crops adapted to environment 17. systems 18. reduce transport 18. energy 19. IPM 19. pests 20. intercropping 20. biodiversity 21. use crops adapted to environment 21. systems 1. self reliant 1. local economy 2. resource conserving 2. systems 3. productive 3. local economy 4. species diversity 4. biodiversity 5. self regulating 5. systems 6. stability 6. local economy 7. (system toxicity) 7. systems 8. decrease input costs 8. local economy 9. positive net return 9. local economy 10. accounting for hidden costs {e.g. loss of wildlife, health care 10. local economy Gips, 2002 costs due to chemical exposure} 11. local economy 11. food security 12. community support 12. beauty 13. community support 13. satisfaction 14. community support 14. basic needs of all are met 15. community support 15. rights are assured 16. community support 16. ability for all to participate in decision making 17. local economy 17. fair wages 18. systems 18. safe work environment 19. systems 19. safe, nutritious food 20. community support 20. cultural roots 21. systems 21. respect for animals 80 Hall and Kuepper, 1997 1. increased capture/storage of solar energy {e.g. through cover crops, managing soil organic matter} 2. use renewable energy sources and minimize fossil fuel use 3. reduce contamination of water 4. prevent soil erosion 5. recycle wastes on-farm {e.g. on farm livestock feeding} 6. crop/livestock biodiversity 7. promote physical, spiritual, cultural, and economic health of farm families and communities 8. appropriate technology 9. descriptive rather than prescriptive 10. ability to evaluate and replan as necessary 1. energy 2. energy 3. water 4. soil 5. nutrients 6. biodiversity 7. community support 8. community support 9. systems 10. systems Hurni, 2000 1. (soil degradation) 2. (water scarcity) 3. (water pollution) 4. (loss of biodiversity) 1. soil 2. water 3. water 4. biodiversity Ikerd, 1993 1. average income compared to other occupations 2. health risks due to pesticides 3. (soil loss) 4. (loss of organic matter) 5. (water table decline) 6. (nitrate leaching) 1. local economy 2. pests 3. soil 4. soil 5. water 6. nutrients Kerr Center, 2002 1. manage organic wastes and farm chemicals so they don't pollute 2. increase profitability and reduce risk 3. conserve energy resources 4. select plants and animals adapted to the environment 5. encourage genetic diversity in crops and livestock 6. manage pests with minimal environmental impact 7. conserve and create healthy soil 8. conserve water and protect its quality 9. encourage biodiversity 10. efficient irrigation 1. nutrients 2. local economy 3. energy 4. systems 5. biodiversity 6. pests 7. soil 8. water 9. biodiversity 10. water Kuiper, 2000 1. abiotic features 2. naturalness 3. positive sensory experiences 4. landscape unity 5. cyclical change {i.e. seasons} 6. landscape management 7. carrying capacity 8. nutrient management 9. cultural heritage 1. systems 2. systems 3. community support 4. systems 5. systems 6. systems 7. nutrients 8. nutrients 9. community support Lehman et al., 1993 1. air quality 2. human health not jeopardized 3. indigenous and academic knowledge 4. (farm bankruptcy) 5. soil fertility 6. water conservation 7. species diversity 1. energy 2. systems 3. community support 4. local economy 5. soil 6. water 7. biodiversity 81 1. fragmentation 1. systems 2. set asides 2. biodiversity 3. tax incentives 3. local economy 4. stable prices 4. local economy 5. research and development 5. community support Marsh, 1997 6. (fossil fuel use) 6. energy 7. livestock/crops genetic diversity 7. biodiversity 8. stocking rates 8. nutrients 9. (pesticides) 9. pests 10. (soil erosion) 10. soil 11. water 11. water 12. biodiversity 12. biodiversity 1. agricultural greenhouse gas budget 1. energy 2. management of pesticide inputs 2. pests 3. energy use 3. energy 4. (residual nitrogen) 4. nutrients 5. management of farm nutrients 5. nutrients McRae et al., 6. (soil erosion) 6. soil 2000 7. soil organic carbon 7. soil 8. (soil compaction) 8. soil 9. (soil salinization) 9. soil 10. (nitrogen contamination of water) 10. water 11. (phosphorus contamination of water) 11. water 12. availability of wildlife habitat on farmland 12. biodiversity 1. IPM 1. pests 2. integrated crop management 2. biodiversity 3. low input 3. systems 4. appropriate technology 4. community support 5. soil quality 5. soil Rigby and 6. water quality 7. nutrient balance 6. water 7. nutrients Caceres, 2001 8. impact on climate/air 8. systems 9. sustainable energy source 9. energy 10. sustainable society 10. systems 11. biodiversity 11. biodiversity 12. low food miles 12. systems 13. productivity 13. local economy 1. diversified enterprises 1. local economy 2. monitor and adapt farm plans as needed 2. systems 3. number of people choosing agriculture as a profession 3. community support Safley, 1998 4. voluntary land stewardship 4. community support 5. cooperation with competition 5. community support 6. minimize external inputs 6. systems 7. soil quality 7. soil 8. water quality 8. water 82 Schaller, 1993 1. water quality 2. (hazards to human and animal health from pesticides) 3. (adverse effects of agricultural chemicals on food quality and safety) 4. (loss of genetic diversity in plants and animals) 5. (destruction of wildlife, including insects, by pesticides) 6. soil productivity (erosion, compaction, loss of organic matter) 7. (increased pest resistance to pesticides) 8. (over reliance on non-renewable resources) 9. (health and safety risks to farm workers from agro-chemicals) 1. water 2. pests 3. systems 4. biodiversity 5. pests 6. soil 7. pests 8. systems 9. systems Tait and Morris, 2000 1. ease of farm management 2. better match crop production to demand 3. reduce requirement for public subsidy 4. diversity between farms 5. profitability 6. better regulation of environmental impacts of farming 7. reduce consumption of natural resources 8. crop yields 9. reduce levels of pesticides on crops 10. reduce spray drift 11. reduction in levels of toxicity and/or persistence of chemicals used 12. increase wildlife habitat 13. improve quality of wildlife habitat 1. systems 2. local economy 3. local economy 4. biodiversity 5. local economy 6. systems 7. systems 8. local economy 9. pests 10. pests 11. pests 12. biodiversity 13. biodiversity Unilever, 2002 1. soil fertility 2. (soil loss) 3. enhance locally produced nutrients and reduce losses 4. reduce synthetic pesticides 5. biodiversity on and off site 6. economic product value 7. balance energy in and out on and off site 8. protect quality and quantity of water 9. community awareness of relevance and benefits of sustainable practices/connectivity to society at large 10. make the best use of local and available resources 1. soil 2. soil 3. nutrients 4. pests 5. biodiversity 6. local economy 7. energy 8. water 9. community support 10. systems Urech, 2000 1. top quality farm management practices and infrastructure 2. BMPs 3. state of the art crop protection technology 4. best practices in crop protection application decision making 5. good communication between regulators, farmers, producers, retailers, consumers, green NGOs 1. systems 2. systems 3. pests 4. pests 5. community support van Mansvelt etal, 1998 1. larger surfaces with shrubs and trees 2. diversity of flora on edges of farm 3. more forms, colours, smells, sounds, spatial experiences 4. community composition {diverse demographics} 5. (soil, water, air degradation) 6. (loss of flora and fauna) 7. (depletion of natural resources) 8. (degradation of landscapes and rural communities) 9. diversity of land uses per farm 10. internal recycling 11. greater diversity of labour to match diversity of land use 1. biodiversity 2. biodiversity 3. systems 4. community support 5. soil/water/air 6. biodiversity 7. systems 8. systems 9. biodiversity 10. systems 11. local economy 83 12. diversity of crop species in rotation 13. diversity of livestock species 12. biodiversity 13. biodiversity Webster, 1997 1. diversity within farm 2. diversity between farms 3. IPM 4. windbreaks 5. wildlife corridors 6. wildlife reservoirs 7. hedges 8. balance livestock with arable area for waste disposal 9. substitute sustainable inputs for unsustainable inputs 1. biodiversity 2. biodiversity 3. pests 4. systems 5. biodiversity 6. biodiversity 7. systems 8. nutrients 9. systems Werner, 1993 1. consumers willingness to pay for sustainable agriculture 2. landscape preservation policies {i.e. economic incentives to preserve environmental components} 1. community support 2. community support Yunlong and Smit, 1994 1. climate change 2. sustainability of purchased inputs 3. (nutrient loss) 4. protection of genetic resources 5. yield of land 6. economic performance 7. (desertification) 8. (soil erosion) 9. (acidic precipitation) 10. preservation of surface and ground water 1. systems 2. systems 3. nutrients 4. biodiversity 5. local economy 6. local economy 7. soil 8. soil 9. systems 10. water 84 Appendix III Evaluation Matrix Template P A R T 1 Explicit References P U R P O S E N O Y E S C I T A T I O N " T o meet the needs o f t o d a y w i t h o u t c o m p r o m i s i n g the ab i l i t y o f fu ture genera t ions to meet the i r needs " O T H E R P U R P O S E E L E M E N T S E c o n o m i c E n v i r o n m e n t a l S o c i a l O T H E R E L E M E N T S G O A L S Pro tec t B i o d i v e r s i t y P ro tec t S o i l P ro tec t W a t e r E n c o u r a g e C o m m u n i t y S u p p o r t M a n a g e Pes ts M a n a g e N u t r i e n t s P r o m o t e L o c a l E c o n o m y C o n s e r v e E n e r g y Pro tec t S y s t e m s O T H E R G O A L S 85 Part 2 Implicit References N O Y E S C I T A T I O N Protect Biodiversity Objective Strategy Indicator Protect Soil Objective Strategy Indicator Protect Water Objective Strategy Indicator Encourage Community Support Objective -Strategy Indicator Manage Pests Objective Strategy Indicator Manage Nutrients Objective Strategy Indicator Promote Local Economy Objective Strategy Indicator Conserve Energy Objective Strategy Indicator Protect Systems Objective Strategy Indicator Part 3 Other References 86 Appendix IV Evaluation Matrix - Township of Langley Rural Plan P A R T 1 Explicit References PURPOSE NO YES CITATION To meet the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs V OTHER PURPOSE s ELEMENTS Economic Section 1.2.3 "Economy" (p. 4 - 5); Part 4 "Economic Development in the Rural Area" (p. 13) Environmental Section 1.2.2 "Environment" (p. 2 - 3); Part 3 "Environmental Considerations" (p. 11) Social OTHER ELEMENTS Section 1.2.4 -1.2.6 "Lifestyles and Values", "Recreational Opportunities", "Landscape, Scenic, and Heritage Resources" (p. 6-8) GOALS Protect Biodiversity Protect Soil Protect Water Encourage Community Support s Manage Pests V Manage Nutrients V Promote Local Economy Conserve Energy Protect Systems OTHER GOALS Enhance agricultural viability p. 9 Preserve larger lot sizes P. 9 Retain and/or enhance the countryside character of Rural Residential/Agricultural areas p. 9 Create policies that reinforce A L R designation p. 9 Encourage agriculture industry in Langley P-9 87 Part 2 Implicit References GOALS NO YES CITATION Protect Biodiversity Objective y Strategy y Section 3.3.6 "The Township...shall encourage retention of significant tree cover and planting of new trees in reviewing development applications." (p. 12) Indicator y Protect Soil Objective y Section 3.3.4 "The Township encourages soil conservation practices..." (p. 11); Section 3.3.8 "... shall regulate placement and removal of fill.. .preserve, maintain, and enhance, where possible, soil for agricultural purposes." (p. 12) Strategy y Section 3.3.4 "The Township endorses the Canada - British Columbia Soil Conservation Program for the Matsqui/Langley uplands area..." (p. 11) See Section 3.3.5 below (re: "Systems") Section 4.3.5 The Township shall "... investigate the feasibility of an agricultural demonstration centre to present appropriate agricultural practices and opportunities, including soil conservation..." (P-14); Section 3.3.9 "The Township shall require appropriate environmental studies prior to soil removal from designated soil removal areas." (p. 12) Indicator Protect Water Objective y Strategy y Section 3.3.1 "Watercourses, the banks of the Fraser River, ravines and steeply sloping bluff areas shall be retained in a natural state." (p. 11); Section 3.3.3 "The Township encourages physical barriers, including fencing and appropriate vegetation, to restrict access by farm animals to watercourses." (p. 11); See Section 3.3.5 below (re: "Systems") Section 9.2 "Development Permit Area 'A' -watercourses" - to control development around watercourses (p. 29) Indicator y 88 Encourage Community Support Objective Section 2.2.6 "To preserve buildings of heritage value and landscapes, roads, and sites of scenic or historic significance." (p. 9) Strategy Section 4.3.3 "The Municipality and the Economic Development Commission shall support the development of the agricultural industry by increasing public awareness..." (P-13); Section 4.5.2 "The Township shall support the location or relocation of an agricultural faculty in the Township..." (p. 16); Section 4.5.3 "The Township shall encourage the development of agricultural courses through Langley School District, Kwantlen College or other institutions, to educate people interested in starting a farm operation or learning more about agriculture." (p. 16) Section 4.5.4 "The Township shall encourage agricultural extension and education programs that promote better farm management practices..." (p. 16); Section 7.2 "Heritage and Landscape Protection" encourages development of a heritage strategy and protection of original farmsteads, roads of historic significance, landscapes, and view corridors that characterize rural Langley (p. 27); Section 10.1.3 "The Township shall provide for and encourage the participation of rural residents in the preparation of rural area plans." (p. 35) Indicator Manage Pests Objective Section 3.3.7 "The Township shall review the need for weed control." (p. 12) Strategy See Section 3.3.5 below (re: "Systems") Indicator Manage Nutrients Objective V Strategy See Section 3.3.5 below (re: "Systems") Section 3.4.1 "The Township shall assist in educating the public on waste management practices..." (p. 12); Section 3.4.2 "The Township encourages all farming operations to use agricultural practices that will minimize impacts on adjacent properties and the environment." (p. 12) Section 3.4.3 "The Township shall support 89 recycling of agricultural wastes and development of demonstration facilities for new agricultural waste management technology." (p. 12); Section 3.4.4 "The Township will promote waste management technology which reduces or eliminates burning and returns the biomass to the soil rather than the air." (p. 12) Indicator Promote Local Economy Objective Section 2.2.3 "To provide direction to economic development in the rural area that is compatible with the agricultural community." (p. 9); Section 4.2.1 "The Municipality shall work to maintain and strengthen the rural economy in a manner that preserves the rural character." (p. 13); Section 4.3.1 "The Council of the Township of Langley recognizes agriculture... and shall support the continued development of this industry..." (p. 13); Section 4.3.9 "The Township shall encourage development of businesses which promote environmentally safe practices, provide products and services which benefit protection of the environment and consider both economic and environmental circumstances together." (p. 15) Strategy Section 2.1 Encourage agriculture industry in Langley (p. 9); Section 4.3.2 "The Economic Development Commission of the Township shall monitor trends in the agricultural industry and shall advise Council on future development of this industry in the Township." (p. 13); Section 4.3.4 "The Economic Development Commission shall encourage development of the agricultural industry in Langley by: a) promoting small scale agriculture with high value products; b) marketing the horticultural industry in the Township; c) promoting a land lease program.. .to better utilize the land base; d) development of appropriate promotional material; e) maintaining reference material on new market opportunities." (p. 14); Section 4.3.5 "The Township and the Economic Development Commission shall encourage the development of facilities and events that support the agricultural 90 industry..." (p. 14); Section 4.3.8 "Policies and regulations shall be developed to permit posting of directional signs in the rural area for farm gate sales, equestrian operations, and tourism attractions and accommodations." (p. 15) Indicator Conserve Energy Objective Strategy S Indicator S Protect Systems Objective •/ Section 2.2.1 "To protect the quality of the environment in rural areas." (p. 9); Section 3.1 "Protect the natural environment of the rural area..." (p. 11) Strategy Section 10.1.2 "The Municipality may refine this plan through the preparation of rural neighbourhood plans where appropriate to provide more detailed guidelines for smaller areas of the Township." (p. 35); Section 3.2 "Prepare an environmental strategy aimed at retaining existing environmental features..." (p. 11); Section 3.3.5 "The Township shall require environmental studies and monitoring to the satisfaction of appropriate agencies prior to permitting major developments in the rural area. These may include hydrogeological reports, stormwater management plans and fertilizer and pesticide management plans as well as studies of environmental impacts on water, soil, wildlife, and fisheries." (p. 12); Section 3.4.2 "The Township encourages all farming operations to use agricultural practices that will minimize impacts on adjacent properties and the environment." (p. 12); Indicator 91 P A R T 3 Other References GOALS NO YES CITATION Optimize agricultural land use Objective Section 2.2.2 "Support the agricultural use of land and the agricultural industry in the rural area." (p. 9); Section 2.2.4 "Provide a land use pattern that supports the rural economy, preserves a land base for agricultural production and is compatible with the agricultural industry." (p. 9); Section 5.11.1 "Development along the urban/rural interface shall be designed to minimize potential conflicts between incompatible uses." (p. 21) Strategy Section 2.1 Preserve larger lot sizes (p. 9); Section 2.1 Create policies that reinforce A L R designation (p. 9); Section 5.5.3 "The minimum lot size in the Agriculture/Countryside shall be 8.0 ha (19.8 acres), subject to the approval of the Agricultural Land Commission." (p. 18) Section 5.5.2 "Non-agricultural uses that comply with other provisions of this plan shall provide buffers adjacent to agricultural land and the siting of buildings and access shall minimize negative impacts on agricultural uses." (p. 18) Section 5.11 "Urban/Rural Interface Policies" -to minimize potential conflicts using natural and man-made buffers (p. 21); Section 5.14 "Commercial and Industrial Development" - to encourage commercial and industrial development in locations that do not negatively impact agriculture (p. 23); Section 5.15 "Institutional Uses" - to encourage location of institutional uses in locations that do not negatively impact agriculture (p. 23); Section 5.16 "University Development" - to support a university in the rural area provided it does not negatively affect agriculture or the environment (p. 24); Section 5.17 "Other Uses" - to address other uses that may negatively impact agriculture (p. 24); Section 5.18 "Rural Farm Markets" - to direct rural farm markets to the urban edge where their impact can be minimized (p. 24) Indicator V 92 Resolve transportation and servicing issues Objective V Section 2.2.7 "To provide an adequate level of transportation and services to the rural area." (P- 9); Section 8.2 To consider the impact on agriculture that may result from changes to the current road network (p. 28); Strategy Section 4.3.7 "The Township shall encourage the development of an agro-service centre at 248 Street and the Fraser Highway..." (p. 14); Section 5.9 "Rural Commercial Centres" to provide for retail and service commercial uses (P- 21); Section 5.10 "Agro-Service Centre" - to provide for agro-industrial uses (p. 21); Section 8.2.5 Review need for "...signs advising motorists of the possibility of slow moving farm vehicles." (p. 28) Section 8.3 Ensure that potable water and sewage disposal systems are present on any developed sites in the rural area (p. 28) Indicator Manage recreational use Objective Section 2.2.5 "To offer recreational opportunities in the rural area." (p. 9); Section 5.5.5 "Recreational uses such as trails and parks shall be encouraged, but designed to minimize any negative impact on adjacent farm properties." (p. 20); Section 6.2 "The Township will consider potential conflicts among users in planning trails." (p. 26) Strategy Section 5.12 Allow golf courses in some areas (p. 22); Section 5.13 Allow some tourism related developments (p. 23); Section 6.2.4 "The Township shall post signs...advising recreationalists to respect farm property..." (p. 26) Indicator 93 Appendix V Evaluation Matrix - District of Pitt Meadows 'The Future of Agriculture' Plan PART 1 Explicit References PURPOSE NO YES CITATION To meet the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs •/ OTHER PURPOSE "The purpose of the Agricultural Plan is to review and address major farming and agriculture development issues incorporating input from members of the Pitt Meadows agricultural community and the general public" (p. 11) ELEMENTS Economic Environmental •/ Social OTHER ELEMENTS s History of the community Section 6.1 (brief overview of historical settlement) (p. 11) Description of the Planning Area Section 6.2 (brief overview of physical setting, agriculture in the area, issues and concerns) (p. 12) Context and Legislative Backdrop for the Plan Section 6.3 (brief overview of relevant federal, provincial, regional, and municipal legislation) (P- 14) GOALS Protect Biodiversity Protect Soil •/ Protect Water Encourage Community Support Manage Pests Manage Nutrients Promote Local Economy Conserve Energy Protect Systems OTHER GOALS 94 Part 2 Implicit References GOALS NO YES CITATION Protect Biodiversity Objective Strategy Section 7.8.3 "Continue to support the Pitt Addington Wildlife Management Area." (p. 37) Indicator Protect Soil Objective </ Strategy Section 7.5.1 "Focus more resources on enforcement of Pitt Meadows Bylaw No. 1400 and the Soil Conservation Act..." (p. 32) Indicator Protect Water Objective Section 7.6.1 Store farm inputs in an appropriate manner (p. 33) Strategy Section 7.6.1 Ensure farm inputs are "...stored at least 15 metres from natural watercourses, ditches, or streams..." (p. 33) Indicator Encourage Community Support Objective Section 7.1 Integrate farming with community goals (p. 17); Section 7.2.1 "...provide an effective link with the agricultural community." (p. 18); Section 7.2.1 "...because some of modern agriculture's production practices may offend some non-farm residents, there is a need for initiatives to raise the level of agricultural awareness and understanding in the community." (p. 18); Section 7.2.4 Municipal staff need to keep "...current on agricultural issues..." (p. 20); Section 7.2.6 "Agri-tourism...represents an opportunity to increase agricultural awareness and promote local agricultural products." (p. 21); Section 7.2.7 Attempt to attain "...consensus through consultation...to ensure the long-term success of this and other planning projects." (p. 21); Section 7.3.6 Prohibit "...unsightly premises..." (p. 28); Section 7.6.2 Improve "...communication and awareness among both the non-farming and farming communities about farm practices and the FPPA." (p. 33) 95 Strategy Section 7.2.1 "Establish a Standing Agricultural Advisory Committee of Council." (p. 18); Section 7.2.1 "Develop an agricultural awareness strategy..." (p. 19); Section 7.2.4 "Appoint a staff person from the District as Chief Agricultural Liaison." (p. 20); Section 7.2.6 "...develop a strategy for agri-tourism options consistent with already existing agricultural enterprises." (p. 21); Section 7.2.7 "Cooperate with the District of Maple Ridge to gather information, increase awareness, and develop policy on agricultural issues of mutual concern." (p. 21); Section 7.3.6 "Continue to encourage an attractive farm area through constant enforcement of Pitt Meadows Bylaw No. 1400." (p. 28) Indicator Manage Pests Objective V Section 7.6.2 ".. .need for better technology or management practices" to discourage bird pests CP- 33); Section 7.6.5 Manage wildlife pests (p. 34) Strategy Section 7.6.2 "...encourage research into, review of, and adoption of, alternative bird management practices that are less intrusive than bird cannons." (p. 33); Section 7.6.5 "...encourage humane and acceptable wildlife management practices that may involve selected netting, fencing, scare tactics, repellents, and cultural management and habitat modification." (p. 34) Indicator Section 7.6.5 "...monitor, review, and encourage the use of new technologies and practices which may limit the effects of wildlife on the agriculture industry." (p. 34) Manage Nutrients Objective Section 7.5.2 ".. .to minimize the risk of run-off and to maximize the utilization of nutrients." (p. 32) Strategy Section 7.5.2 Encourage the use of "The BC Ministry of Agriculture and Food... environmental guidelines for manure storage and spreading for livestock, greenhouse, and crop commodities." (p. 32) Indicator 96 Promote Local Economy Objective Section 7.2.5 "...continuously explore options for expanding the range of agriculture industries." (p. 20); Section 7.2.8 Increase agricultural productivity and decrease conflicts (p. 22); Section 7.3.5 "...to enhance the economic viability of farming and to promote investment and diversification of the agriculture industry in Pitt Meadows." (p. 26); Strategy s Section 7.2.5 "Have the Standing Agricultural Advisory Committee review the subject of expanding opportunities for new agricultural ventures in Pitt Meadows..." (p. 21); Section 7.2.8 Geographic Information System (GIS) to plan for and promote agriculture (p. 22); Section 7.3.5 Designation of the Agricultural and Farm Enterprise (AFE) Zone (p. 27); Section 7.3.5 "Develop criteria for allowing value-added farm enterprise activities to be permitted on a farm site under the A F E zoning designation..." (p. 27); Section 7.3.5 "Investigate a suitable site for an Agricultural Industrial Park, to house value-added agricultural enterprise activities that do not meet the criteria as developed for value added agricultural enterprises on a farm site." (P.27) Indicator Conserve Energy Objective Strategy Indicator Protect Systems Objective Section 7.1 Encourage environmentally friendly farming (p. 17) Strategy Section 7.1 Establish polices that encourage farmers to maintain a healthy, prosperous, and sustainable agriculture industry (p. 17) Indicator V 97 Part 3 Other References GOALS NO YES CITATION Optimize agricultural land use Objective Section 7.2 Optimize the use of agricultural land (p. 17); Section 7.2.3 Reduce land speculation (p. 19); Section 7.3.2 "...maximize the amount of land available for any future agricultural use." (p. 24); Section 7.3.4 Regulate non-resident ownership of agricultural land (p. 26); Section 7.6 Encourage farmers to use normal farm practices (p. 32); Section 7.9 Buffer the rural/urban interface (p. 37); Section 7.10 "...ensure that any future development plans involving the Airport consider agricultural interests." (p. 37) Strategy </ Section 7.1 Support A L R policies (p. 17); Section 7.2.3 "...to require realtors be adequately trained about the A L R and the Farm Practices Protection Act in order to properly inform potential purchasers..." (p. 20); Section 7.3.2 "Contain all future residential and farm-help dwellings within a contiguous envelope..." (p. 25); Section 7.3.4 "...request the Province to review policies on non-resident ownership..." (p. 26); Section 7.6 Follow B C Ministry of Agriculture agricultural production guidelines (p. 32); Section 7.9 "Follow A L C Buffering Guidelines and those in the Approving Officer's Subdivision Guide to ensure proper buffering in future development areas abutting the ALR." (p. 37); Section 7.10 "Ensure agricultural interests are considered.. .through regular consultation with the Standing Agricultural Advisory Committee." (p. 37) Indicator 98 Resolve transportation and servicing issues Objective Section 7.3.5 "Investigate a suitable site for an Agricultural Industrial Park..." (p. 27) Section 7.7.1 Protect agricultural land from negative impacts of roads (p. 35); Section 7.7.1 Plan for transportation improvements in the context of the long term protection of the foodlands in Pitt Meadows (p. 35); Section 7.7.2 Implement short term solutions to traffic issues in the rural area (p. 35) Strategy V Section 7.7.1 "Undertake a focused Agricultural Transportation Plan for Pitt Meadows..." (p. 35); Section 7.7.2 Install warning signs and stop signs to slow traffic in rural area, double solid lines to prevent passing on Dewdney Trunk Road, extend lanes where possible for bicycles (p. 35) Indicator •/ Manage recreational use Objective Section 7.8.1 "Do not allow any more golf courses or driving ranges on any A L R land in Pitt Meadows." (p. 36); Section 7.8.2 Investigate issues related to recreational use in agricultural area (p. 36) Strategy Section 7.8.2 "Develop a Plan for Recreation Use in Agricultural Areas..." (p. 36) Indicator Manage excess water Objective S Section 7.4.5 Resolve concerns about excess water (p. 30) Strategy Section 7.4.5 "Develop a water management strategy..." (in conjunction with appropriate agencies, departments, and the agriculture committee) which should include (but not be limited to) the following items: drainage ditch maintenance, appropriate riparian setbacks, urban run off mitigation, maintenance of the dyke system, and monitoring of the floodplain (P- 30) Indicator V 99 Appendix VI Evaluation Matrix - City of Surrey Agricultural Plan - Phase 2 PART 1 Explicit References PURPOSE NO YES CITATION To meet the needs of today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs OTHER PURPOSE "Purpose of Agriculture Plan - The Agriculture plan is intended to provide a strategy to attain the following stated goals of the City with respect to agriculture, namely: to review and address agricultural development issues; to provide options for resolving conflicts between agricultural use of the land base and other uses; and to ensure the long-term viability of agriculture in the City of Surrey." (p. 1-2) ELEMENTS Economic Section 2.1.2 (overview of economic contribution of Surrey agriculture) (p. 5) Environmental Section 2.1.3 (brief overview of environmental benefits of agricultural land) (p. 6) Social Section 2.1.3 (brief overview of social benefits of agricultural land) (p. 6) OTHER ELEMENTS Section 2.2 (overview of Surrey agricultural policies and initiatives) (p. 7); Section 2.3 (overview of legislative context) (p. ID GOALS Protect Biodiversity •/ Protect Soil V Protect Water Encourage Community Support s Manage Pests Manage Nutrients Promote Local Economy Conserve Energy Protect Systems OTHER GOALS </ Review and address agricultural development issues p. 2 Provide options for resolving conflicts between agricultural use of the land base and other uses p. 2 Ensure the long-term viability of agriculture in 1 the City of Surrey •/ p. 2 100 Part 2 Implicit References GOALS NO YES CITATION Protect Biodiversity Objective Section 2.2.1 "Encourage wildlife management and habitat protection practices to minimize impact on agricultural lands without jeopardizing habitat and wildlife resources." (p. 10); Section 3.3.5 "Reduce impacts from agricultural operations on fish habitat." (p. 45) Strategy Section 3.3.2 "Purchase easements on agricultural land for wildlife use." (p. 40); Section 3.3.5 Investigate possibility of federal assistance in installing conservation buffers (p. 45) Indicator Protect Soil Objective Strategy Indicator Protect Water Objective V Section 3.3.3 "Encourage water conservation measures..." (p. 42) Strategy Section 3.1.1 "Provide incentives to existing agricultural developments to increase efficiency in use of support resources, such as water, where appropriate." (p. 16); Section 3.3.3 "Encourage water conservation measures through improved irrigation technology." (p. 42); Section 3.3.3 "Provide for agricultural access to stormwater detention ponds for irrigation supply." (p. 43) Indicator Encourage Community Support Objective V Section 2.2.1 "Increase public awareness of farming practices and the importance of agriculture." (p. 10); Section 3.1.2 "Promote rural-urban compatibility." (p. 17); Section 3.1.2 "Minimize unfounded nuisance complaints about farming operations." (p. 17); Section 3.1.4 "Educate local consumers about the quality characteristics of locally produced agricultural products." (p. 21); Section 3.1.6 Facilitate farm succession (p. 25); 101 Section 3.1.1 "Investigate opportunities to attract agricultural research facilities with projects applicable to Surrey agriculture." (P-15); Section 4.2.1 Establish a liaison between agricultural interests and the City (p. 48); Section 4.2.2 Create an effective forum for discussing agricultural issues within the City (p. 49) Strategy Section 3.1.2 Encourage urban friendly production, require purchaser disclosure statements in developments adjacent to agriculture, require a restrictive covenant on suburban property titles to advise of agricultural activities (p. 18); Section 3.1.4 "Encourage and promote links among farmers, farm marketing associations and consumers, by assisting in the growth of subscription marketing and community gardening." (p. 21); Section 3.1.4 Develop "...heritage information and materials to promote local agricultural history and assist in attracting consumers to on-farm stands." (p. 22) Section 3.1.4 "Advertise that urban residents have an active role in supporting the Agricultural Land Reserve." (p. 22) Section 3.1.6 Encourage agricultural apprenticeship for new farmers (p. 25); Section 3.3.6 "Educate the public about farm vehicle movement and hazards." (p. 47); Section 4.2.1 Appoint a staff person to act as a liaison between the agricultural community and the City (p. 48); Section 4.2.2 Create an Agricultural Advisory Committee (p. 49); Indicator •/ Manage Pests Objective Section 3.3.2 "Reduce crop damage and loss." (p. 40) Section 3.3.4 "Manage and reduce the real or perceived threat to suburban residents from chemical use on farmland." (p. 44) Strategy Section 3.3.2 "Provide financial assistance to farmers that provide specialized habitats to encourage raptor use as a means of controlling unwanted birds." (p. 41); Section 3.3.2 Form a farm-wildlife group to resolve wildlife issues on farmland (p. 40); Section 3.3.4 "Provide financial assistance to farmers that reduce chemical use and move toward IPM." (p. 44); 102 Section 3.3.4 "Encourage pesticide free production practices in sensitive areas." (p. 44); Section 3.3.4 "Require vegetative buffers to mitigate potential effects of pesticide use." (p. 44); Section 3.3.4 "Encourage notices where pesticide spraying is to occur." (p. 44); Section 3.3.4 "Continue to implement environmental guidelines for specific agricultural commodities." (p. 44) Indicator S Section 3.34 "The federal and provincial governments to monitor impacts of pesticide use." (p. 44) Manage Nutrients Objective Section 3.3.5 Encourage farmers to continue to make on-farm improvements in nutrient management (p. 45) Strategy Section 3.1.2 "Promote adoption by farmers of the Code of Agricultural Practice for Waste Management under the B C Waste Management Act." (p. 18); Indicator S Promote Local Economy -Objective Section 2.2.1 "Support and encourage agricultural, livestock, and horticultural uses in the City and the processing, production, distribution and sale of locally grown products." (p. 8); Section 2.2.1 "Support the Agricultural Land Commission policy for farm retail operations in the A L R to encourage a moderate level of retail activity associated with farms for the direct sales of farm products." (p. 8); Section 2.2.1 "Support and encourage agricultural practices (e.g. on-farm processing) developed as a result of the changing agricultural economy." (p. 8); Section 3.1.1 "Increase new agricultural investment and development." (p. 15); Section 3.1.1 "Increase efficiency in land use, servicing, and investment costs." (p. 15); Section 3.1.1 "Increase agricultural resource use and productivity along the rural-urban fringe." (p. 15); Section 3.1.1 "Encourage and promote agricultural practices and production environment that respond to consumer demands for safe food and environmental sustainability." (p. 16); 103 Section 3.1.3 "Increase local demand for local agricultural products." (p. 19); Section 3.1.3 "Attract business to the City and Lower Mainland that would use local agricultural products as raw materials in value-added processing." (p. 19); Section 3.1.3 "Encourage agricultural growth to provide agricultural products with strong demand characteristics and economic advantages, e.g. freshness, safeness, quality, competitiveness." (p. 20) Strategy Section 3.1.1 The Agricultural Advisory Committee should "provide advice to the City on agricultural requirements, opportunities, costs of adoption of new farming strategies/equipment, and feasibility of possible solutions." (p. 15); Section 3.1.1 "Encourage non-soil bound agricultural operations on less productive soils." (p. 15); Section 3.1.3 "Encourage and promote the use of local products by governmental agencies situated in Surrey..." (p. 19); Section 3.1.3 "Co-ordinate with other municipalities to develop regional value-added solutions." (p. 20); Section 3.1.4 "Assist farmers in developing attractive on-farm direct marketing facilities" and subscription marketing (p. 21); Section 3.1.4 "Provide permanent locations for farmers' markets at venues that attract customers." (p. 21); Section 3.1.5 "Evaluate specific business proposals in relation to regional opportunity and local advantages." (p. 23); Section 3.3.4 "Develop and promote local markets for organic farm produce." (p. 44) Indicator Conserve Energy Objective Strategy Indicator •/ 104 Protect Systems Objective Section 3.3.2 "Promote the development of viable environmentally friendly production systems." (p. 40) Section 3.3.4 "Encourage environment or urban-friendly production systems." (p. 44); Section 3.1.3 "Support growth of food production systems which respond to public concerns about environmental sustainability, food safety, and resource conservation." (p. 20) Strategy S Indicator 105 Part 3 Other References GOALS NO YES CITATION Optimize agricultural land use Objective Section 2.2.1 "Encourage the development of effective buffers along the boundary of agriculturally designated land." (p. 8); Section 2.2.1 "Encourage adjacent land uses to be compatible with existing farm use and ensure that the impacts (e.g. water runoff from upland areas) on agricultural lands will be minimized." (p. 8); Section 2.2.1 "Discourage, whenever possible, linear developments (e.g. hydro corridors, highways, pipelines, parks) through the ALR." (p- 8); Section 2.2.1 "Limit subdivision of agricultural land and encourage the amalgamation of lots in agricultural areas." (p. 8); Section 2.2.1 "Maintain the integrity of the A L R and its existing boundaries." (p. 8) Section 3.1.2 "Promote and encourage practical measures which would help decrease land use conflict in the rural-urban fringe..." (p. 18); Section 3.2.2 "Ensure that A L R land held by non-farmers is made available for farming." (p. 30); Section 3.2.3 "Minimize the impact of new residences in the A L R on farming potential." (p- 32); Section 3.2.4 "Maintain farming outside the A L R boundary to provide an effective transition between agricultural and urban/suburban development." (p. 34) Strategy Section 3.1.2 "Require landscaping and noise baffling measures in new urban development or redevelopments to decrease noise and sight impacts." (p. 18); Section 3.1.2 "Require increased buffers between residential areas and farming areas." (p. 18); Section 3.2.1 "Encourage non-farm owners to make land available for agriculture..." (p. 28); Section 3.2.2 "Encourage non-farming purchasers of A L R lands held for unspecified purposes to prepare farm plans for the continuance of farming." (p. 30); Section 3.2.2 "Consider an agricultural performance bond to accompany application for A L R land purchase." (p. 30) Section 3.2.2 "Consider higher differential tax rates on A L R land which is not farmed." (p. 106 31); Section 3.2.3 "Lobby the A L C to make amendments to the A L C Act to address rural residential impacts." (p. 32); Section 3.2.3 Consider a zoning bylaw to limit residential size and use in the A L R (p. 32) Section 3.2.3 Consider lot siting guidelines and maximum residential footprint to minimize the impact of residential development on the farmable portion, (p. 33); Section 3.2.4 "Consider retaining land uses in the A L R fringe which complement farming operations." (p. 34); Section 3.2.4 "Require developers to plan for and dedicate land for more effective buffering of farming operations outside the A L R from residential development." (p. 34); Section 3.2.4 "Assist in the creation and retention of small-lot agriculture, including community gardens, in areas where existing parcel configuration, human and wildlife population densities preclude traditional agricultural operations." (p. 35) Indicator Resolve transportation and servicing issues Objective Section 3.1.5 Encourage essential agricultural support services to locate and/or stay in Surrey (p. 23); Section 3.1.5 "Promote a regional solution to agricultural servicing needs." (p. 23); Section 3.3.6 "Provide for safe farm vehicle movement." (p. 47); Section 3.3.6 "Provide for unrestricted farm vehicle access on local roads." (p. 47) Strategy Section 3.1.1 "Provide centralized servicing incentives, possibly coordinated regionally, to preferred development areas." (p. 15); Section 3.1.3 "Designate agricultural parks for value-added business opportunities..." (p. 19); Section 3.3.6 "Ensure that safe farm vehicle movement is adequately addressed in the current City wide transportation planning." (p. 47); Section 3.1.5 "Undertake an inventory analysis of the City's current and anticipated servicing requirements and obtain indication of how they are likely to be supplied." (p. 23); Section 3.1.5 "Consider incentives to keep existing agricultural support services within Surrey." (p. 23); Section 3.1.5 "Designate an area for new 107 support services." (p. 23); Section 3.1.5 "Promote linkages between Surrey agricultural production and servicing requirements." (p. 23); Section 3.3.6 "Install wider shoulders and pull off areas for farm vehicles." (p. 47); Section 3.3.6 "Install farm traffic tunnels and/or overpasses on local roads..." (p. 47); Section 3.3.6 "Enforce parking and speed regulations on local farm roads." (p. 47); Section 3.3.6 "Where lacking, install farm vehicle signs." (p. 47); Section 3.3.6 "Require farm vehicles to have more visible flashing lights when they are using roads." (p. 47) Indicator Manage recreational use Objective S Section 2.2.1 "Limit recreational uses on agricultural lands." (p. 8); Section 3.1.1 "Encourage and enhance agricultural activities so that they can coexist with demands from conservation and recreation interests." (p. 16); Section 3.3.1 "Avoid or mitigate the disruption of farming activities and property damage from recreational access and activities." (p. 37); Section 3.3.1 Avoid locating recreational amenities on agricultural land "...or creating situations where there is a potential for conflict between recreation and agricultural activities." (P. 37) Strategy Section 3.3.1 "Increase public awareness and education about the potential impact of recreation on farming." (p. 37); Section 3.3.1 Involve farmers in decision making about recreational land near farms (p. 38); Section 3.3.1 Develop a 'code of good tourist practice' to minimize impact of recreation on farming (p. 38); Section 3.3.1 "Prepare educational materials for agri-tourism operators (e.g. bed and breakfast) to assist in avoiding or mitigating potential conflicts such as roaming of their clients on adjacent farm fields, leaving gates open, block local roads with parked cars, etc." (p39); Section 3.3.1 '"Work with G V R D to identify practical and feasible programs to protect farming operations from the impacts of recreational access." (p. 39) Section 3.3.1 "Form a subcommittee...to 108 review agricultural-recreation issues, and establish a protocol for reviewing and managing such issues." (p. 37); Section 3.3.1 "Explore opportunities for user-pay and guided passive recreational uses on agricultural land (e.g. hiking, bird watching, etc.)..." (p. 37); Section 3.3.1 Consider agricultural impact assessment where recreational uses may impact agricultural land (p. 38); Section 3.3.1 Use increased surveillance to protect agricultural land in trespass prone areas (e.g. dykes) (p. 38); Section 3.3.1 Develop a compensation system for farmers negatively affected by recreational activity (p. 38) Indicator •/ Manage excess water Objective Section 2.2.1 "Manage stormwater runoff from upland development..." (p. 10); Section 3.3.3 "Continue to improve regional drainage and reduce flooding." (p. 42); Section 3.3.3 "Evaluate potential floodspill easements for their impact on agricultural production." (p. 42) Strategy Section 2.2.1 "Encourage the creation and implementation of an overall watershed management plan for the Serpentine-Nicomekl River watershed." (p. 10); Section 3.3.3 "Remedy localized flooding and drainage problems through implementation of appropriate drainage measures and reduction of unauthorized or inappropriate fill placement." (p. 42); Section 3.3.3 "Implement Master Drainage Plans in upland areas." (p. 42) Section 3.3.3 "Continue to implement integrated stormwater management strategies that incorporate best management practices for minimizing disruption of natural hydrological regimes (e.g. reduction of impervious surfaces, water retention, maintaining groundwater recharge and discharge rates)." (p. 42) Indicator 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

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"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0091407/manifest

Comment

Related Items