Podcast Episode: Agricultural Land and Development with Brent Swallow
How to grow and protect agricultural land in Alberta. Hosted by ALI Communications Coordinator Evan Menzies with Dr. Brent Swallow from the University of Alberta. Dr. Swallow was a co-PI on a recently released report through the Alberta Land Institute, which estimated the economic impact of agricultural land fragmentation and conversion in Alberta.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CHECK OUT THESE RESOURCES:
Thank you, Evan Menzies and Brent Swallow, for making this episode possible.
-------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
Evan: Welcome to the Land Use Podcast, brought to you by the Alberta Land Institute. This is episode 2, how to grow and protect agricultural land in Alberta. Your hosts this week are me, Evan Menzies, and our guest, Dr. Brent Swallow. Brent is a professor at the University of Alberta as a member of the Faculty of Agricultural Life and Environmental Sciences. He also was a co-PI on a recently released report through the Alberta Land Institute, which investigated the economic impact of agricultural land fragmentation and conversion across Alberta. Welcome to the podcast, Brent.
Brent: I'm happy to be here, Evan.
Evan: I'm wondering if we could start with you giving us a little bit of a background about what first got you interested in this topic, and the economics of land use, and how Albertans, in general, manage agricultural land here in Alberta?
Brent: I'm originally from a farm in Saskatchewan, so I'm interested in agriculture, and studied agriculture economics. And before coming here in 2009 to Alberta, I was in Kenya, and we were working on the challenges of the water quality and quantity available to the residents of the city of Nairobi, and how directly that was related to land use and agriculture in the headwaters area. So I'm very interested in those links between what farmers do and who is affected by those decisions. And I came here in 2009. It was a, you know, an interesting time because the Alberta government had just passed the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA), so kind of launching planning processes at the regional level. So I became very interested in, you know, research that could be, you know, use some of my skills, but also resonate with people here in Alberta.
Evan: On that topic, I'm wondering if you could give a quick summary of the Alberta Land Stewardship Act and the type of impacts that piece of legislation has when it comes to land use planning, and how it might touch on agricultural land.
Brent: Yeah. So the Land Stewardship Act focuses on the possibility for planning of land use at regional levels as defined by major watersheds of the provinces. It identified a very quick process for coming up with regional land use plans. The process has been much slower, but perhaps, more care given to the way it's developed. So, so far, we have passed plans for the South Saskatchewan River basin and the Athabasca. The challenge is that, while it clarifies plans for what ought to be done at the regional level, we don't have a regional form of government here, so we really have devolved a lot of responsibilities to municipalities. So that's the next challenge, then, is how municipalities can respond to sort of overall plans which are set out at the watershed level.
Evan: Okay, so ALSA was passed in 2009. This project started, I think, around 2014. That's right? So what – from the time ALSA was passed, can you talk a little bit about the development of this project and a little bit more about how it got started and how it got underway?
Brent: Yeah. So I think that, you know, that that same process that led to ALSA also, you know, reflects greater concern from a broader public and even the formation of the Alberta Land Institute. And so, we at the Alberta Land Institute identified the economics of conversion and fragmentation of agricultural land to be one of their priorities. And we – there was a competitive process in the university, and a team of us from Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology and Earth and Atmospheric Sciences came together, then, to work with professors and graduate students on a kind of suite of related projects that would look at, you know, what's going on with land use, what are the patterns, what's the history, what has had, what have been the drivers of land use change, and then what are some of the consequences of that?
Evan: So on that note too, then, can you give us a bit of an idea of how we define agricultural land here in Alberta, what the state of it is and how it looks across the province as far as regions goes? Sort of, what are the types of different agriculture that the different regions of the province, I guess, specialize in?
Brent: Sort of a rough and ready way of thinking about land in Alberta is between the green zone, which is primarily publicly crown land, which is publicly managed by the province, and, you know, often forest is one of the land uses there; and the white zone, which is the agricultural zone, which is where most of the land is privately owned, with that white zone stretching from the Peace area in northwest part of the province down to the southern parts of the province.
In much of the southern part of the province, as you know, agriculture is somewhat limited by rainfall, so irrigation plays a big role in those areas. And in the center part of the province we have, you know, more plentiful rainfall and also better quality soil. So you have, while we have, you know, large production out of the irrigated areas, those are limited in extent and, you know, the main agricultural area, other than irrigation area, kind of stretches from up northward from there to Edmonton, and then the patch in the Peace area. We distinguish land by its land use suitability and, sort of, the number of constraints on agriculture that the land imposes and the weather imposes. And two of the best qualities of land, then, tend to be located in the areas between Edmonton and Calgary in the corridor area, and then around Edmonton.
Evan: So on that note too then, a lot of what the report talks about is that conversion, fragmentation of land in that QE 2 corridor and around Edmonton. I'm wondering if you could, kind of, sort of, break down the numbers of what that's looking like as far as agricultural land either being lost or converted by development.
Brent: Yeah. So we took a look at land use change at the province level in the corridor areas, as you said, from Edmonton to Calgary, along the Queen Elizabeth 2 highway, and then in the Capital Region in more detail around Edmonton. And we find that that is the same area that we have the highest density of population in Alberta, we have the greatest land use change in Alberta and we have the greatest percentages of the highest quality agricultural area. So we've got a coincidence of factors in that corridor area. We note pretty high change. So between 2000 and 2012, our numbers are suggesting that there was a net change of about 625 square kilometers of land from agricultural uses into what we call developed uses, which are either residential or industrial, and that about half of that or so was on the best quality land, and half or so was on somewhat lower quality of land.
Evan: So one of the things, when it comes to this discussion, that I think is interesting is there are obviously a lot of people in and around Alberta who are very invested in the state of agricultural land, but I'm wondering if you could kind of break down for, say, the the average person living in the city who hasn't spent much time dwelling on where the food comes from, dwelling on the importance of agricultural land, about why we should be concerned about the fragmentation and conversion of this high quality soil around Alberta. I mean, for a lot of folks, they just see the food pop up in the grocery store and that takes care of their needs. So I'm wondering if you could, sort of, breakdown about the economic impact and, sort of – maybe cultural impact’s not the right word, but the types of – the impact of losing that that agricultural land, that rural aesthetic, maybe, too, and some of that history of how that land is traditionally operated.
Brent: Yeah, there's, you know, it's – the effects seem to ripple out, and the kind of more we look at them, the more we see this kind of rippling of effects. So when land changes use from agriculture to developed or industrial, it changes forever. And so we've got a, basically, an irreversible type of change. So whenever we're contemplating those changes, and it's important to keep in mind that those are forever type changes, so that's one thing, that irreversibility of those decisions. What we see, and you mentioned, for the first time, fragmentation – and so there's these two processes that we studied. One is, you know, change of land use from agriculture to developed uses,and that's, primarily, kind of a push from the cities and a greater footprint of the cities into the countryside.
The other thing happening, also in the countryside, is the development of rural residential or acreages as preferred places to live. So people who want to live out in the countryside and who are allowed to do that by the municipal governments, who allow re-designation of land into residential, are part of sort of an overall fragmentation of our landscape. Our landscape is fragmented for other reasons including, you know, utility corridors and other things, but it's certainly fragmenting in these desirable areas, especially that area in the corridor due to sort of this mushrooming of rural residential. And one of the things we found is rural residential and that fragmentation, not only is it a concern in its own right, but it's also a concern because it seems to be a precursor for conversion of land into developed uses.
So these two processes, the ever expanding footprint of the cities, and then the fragmentation due to development of rural residential, cause a sort of a distinct change in the property markets. And so we get land markets which are driven more and more by the prospect of changing land use either around the cities, that conversion, or in the countryside, the fragmentation. And so less and less of land value is actually made up by its agriculture potential. So that causes, you know, a few changes and one of them is we run the risk of ever increasing distinction between who owns the land and what they own it for, and who's actually farming the land. And that's, I think, it's something that we're concerned about. We know that people were also concerned about both the production of, around the cities, that land, some of that land is used for things like market gardens and vegetable irrigated vegetables and vegetable productions into the farmers markets and, in the wider context, the overall health of the agricultural sector. We also – that's the economic story.
We also know that people desire a landscape which has open space. And so when we have conversion fragmentation, we lose some of that open space, and we also lose some of the environmental services that open space provides. And we certainly are, I think, many people are aware of the importance of rolling lands that has undulation and changes in topography to be important for things like water quantity and water quality. So we're seeing people express concern about those environmental services which are also lost as a result of conversion.
Evan: So that kind of gives us a good groundwork here to jump into public policy and the type of options that different levels of government might have as far as addressing the problems of fragmentation and conversion and everything, and the problems that come with that. So I'm wondering if you could, kind of, give us a bit of – we've talked about it also – but, maybe, give us a bit of a framework of where we're at as far as the legislative tools that both municipal governments and the provincial government have to address this issue.
Brent: Yeah. The Alberta Land Stewardship Act also identified a couple tools which are, a few which are sort of about zoning for environmental purposes and environmental easements, which are more market based instruments to help municipalities that would so designate certain areas. Those have not been very popular or widely used. They are expensive to put into place, relatively expensive to maintain, they would require some type of compensation for land owners, and to figure out the base for compensation is a big challenge. So, and that's sort of where, as far as the ALSA tools go, we think that, really, the tools which are currently available outside of ALSA, which are just part of the policy choices and the policy levers that municipal governments have, that those are really, actually, more important.
And so the biggest decision that a municipality can make, I think, to conserving farmland is to not allow its conversion, not allow its conversion or not allow the hiving off of small plots for rural residential. So that's a decision that's, clearly, already available to rural municipalities. And one of the key tools available to urban municipalities is, actually, the density requirements that they impose on developers. So we think that the development process has sort of let developers off the hook a bit, both in terms of the cost that they've been bearing as well as allowing kind of the low density housing approach to proceed. So I think that municipalities are starting to recognize that and we're seeing some, you know, some promising signs.
Evan: Now one of the things – at least I've heard about and, maybe you can correct me if I'm wrong – is that for some of those, for some rural municipalities and counties, one of the challenges that arises from a public policy perspective is that if one municipality or county basically says no, we're not going to pursue this land for development, a competing municipality close by will say, okay, great. We will try – we're going to, essentially, compete for the same land area and we'll let developers come. And so they're basically competing, I guess in one sense, for development dollars and the revenues that would come with it.
So I'm wondering – and obviously that's kind of a hindrance to cooperation when it comes to the big picture. I'm wondering if you can just, maybe, touch on that and, maybe, comment if there are any legislative tools or other initiatives that can be used to sort of limit that from happening.
Brent: Yeah. Good point. So we've been, for the last two years or so, been interviewing policy folks involved in policy processes, both the planners and councillors, and reeves and mayors about, you know, the challenges that they face. And [there] seems to be lots of anecdotal evidence of, you know, particular cases where municipalities are, essentially, sitting next to – that within the municipality, there are tensions between the development and conservation, and then between neighboring municipalities.
And so if there is a debate of whether you should, you know, municipalities should, put in place kind of more rigorous controls on land use, and you say, well, why should we when the neighbors are likely to do the opposite, the neighbors more likely to be pro development, the neighbors are more likely to get that tax revenue, and we're going to have to bear the costs? You know, then you've got a recipe for a kind of a race to the bottom, right? For each municipality to kind of lower its standards relative to each other. Avoiding a race to the bottom is – and, our research shows that anecdotal evidence, actually, we can actually see evidence of it.
So we certainly see that, from our analysis of land use changes, that what happens in one municipality in terms of the pace of land use change spills over to its neighbors. There's a clear spillover effect of land use change. So the answer, you know, both from the research and from the discussions is to have greater regional collaboration in plans and the policies that you need to put in place and the regulations you would need to put in place to kind of implement your policies. And the Municipal Government Act of 2016 that the, some of the changes that required, they required, requires municipalities to do land use plans, which take, which conserve prime farmland, and it requires them to collaborate between with their neighboring municipalities. So those two things together are two of the right instruments, we feel, for avoiding some of that kind of race for the tax dollar that you're indicating.
Evan: Now one other question I had related to public policy is Alberta is, obviously, not the only jurisdiction who sort of struggles with how to handle how we designate agricultural land, and how we handle that tension between development and growth and preserving land. Are there any examples from other jurisdictions that you think might be interesting or worth considering that you've come by?
Brent: Yeah. That's a good point. So we've been, you know, looking at the experiences of different U.S. states and different U.S. cities as well as what's going on in Canada. You know, the the big experiments in farmland conservation, the big tests of that are in the lower mainland in British Columbia and the island, as well as around the horseshoe around Toronto. So those are provincial level policy initiatives where, really, they were put in place quite quickly, quite clearly and, you know, really the consequence – so who bore the cost of that conservation is really existing landowners, right? So existing landowners may have had a sense of what their land is worth when it's developed. And then you make a change, say essentially stop development. Existing land owners are sort of left holding the bag.
So that that teaches us, in a way. And then, if you look at conservation easements as a widely used tool in the United States, you know, so whoever buys the conservation easement is bearing the cost. We've got other things where, like transferable development credits, which are designed so that the new developers would bear the cost. So I guess that's what we see, the big difference between these instruments is who bears the cost. And you know we, you know probably aren't, probably need some type of hybrid model here, because I don't think that we're ready for, politically ready, for a movement that would be seen as clearly anti rural, to have anti property rights, to have current landowners bear all the cost.
So for me, I think the biggest opportunity in Alberta is to, kind of, take the heat out of the land market. You can take the heat out by reducing the prospect of a sprawling and fragmented approach to development and, kind of, more vertical development and more dense development to take the heat off, to take some of the speculation value out. I think that would be one big step forward for Alberta.
Evan: Now one of the other parts of the report that you guys did was you did a survey of residents in the Edmonton and Edmonton surrounding area regarding their perception and values of agricultural land, and if they would make a contribution to preserving agricultural land. I'm wondering if you can, sort of, give us a rundown of those survey results and what you think they mean as far as Albertans' attitudes towards agricultural land and possible development of further public policy on it.
Brent: Yeah that was one of the first things that we wanted to do with this study when we started back in 2014, was to really assess sort of for residents, right? For people who are paying taxes, people who live in particular communities, how do they feel about conversion and fragmentation of ag land and how big a concern is it? Because it existed and ALSA wasn’t really a thing, in a sense, for a broader group of people. We interviewed 320 people who reside in the capital regions, so that's Edmonton plus the surrounding urban and rural municipalities, and asked them about whether they thought the pace of conversion, of development was too high or too low, what they thought agricultural land did for them, what were the services that they thought agricultural land provided, would they be willing to pay for, kind of, scenarios where money would be used to to help conserve land?
And we found that people were most concerned about land that were used for vegetable production, producing food for the local market primarily, and then the air pollution and water pollution mitigation values of land, and less so the use of land for producing food for the global market, so the for, say, wheat and canola production. They were most interested in conserving land that was rolling grassland, which is now used primarily for cattle grazing, and somewhat, and vegetable production land, and then somewhat less concerned about saving land that was primarily used for crop production and hay land.
We found that 80 per cent of people were willing to pay something, so we started at $20 as kind of our bottom as a one time increase in their taxes and then about 30 per cent of people are willing to pay $300 as a one time contribution. So we do see, you know, the average person, you know, somewhat concerned. And when we had focus groups with the public, we found that they're quite educated and knowledgeable and quite observant of the changes and for the sprawl of the city. And we found, you know, 20 per cent of people who are sort of hardcore developers and say that's a good sign, right? Development is almost by definition good because it means more jobs and more tax revenue and more services as a result of that. The majority of people are, that 80 per cent, saying it's a problem, it's a challenge we need to take account of. And then maybe another 20 per cent of or 30 per cent of people who are pretty hardcore, you know, need to develop, need to conserve part of the population.
Evan: Great. So from those results, what surprised you the most? Or were there any of those findings that surprised you the most? Or did they kind of confirm what your perceptions were beforehand about what the general public thought on the issues.
Brent: Yeah, I think – I have a farm background. So I, like many of the farmers I've chatted to, have this kind of affinity to wide open fields, right? And so, and those large areas of wheat and canola land on the prime agricultural land. That was somewhat less of a concern, a sort of, priority for conservation for these urban residents than, you know, vegetable land and the rolling grassland. And I think it matches with their responses to the questions about why do you want to conserve land? Because producing foods for the local market, and because of its environment services. And if you think about what kind of land does that best, then you get, you know, the areas of northeast Edmonton that are kind of special, have special value for market gardens and sweet potato production, and you get the kind of rolling grassland which is, you know, located primarily to the southeast of the city. So that, I guess that was a surprise that it was – that the people were as knowledgeable as they were. I think that also surprised us.
Evan: Yeah. Yeah. Well, I guess people spend a lot more time thinking about their food and where it comes from than they might have used to. One last question for this podcast, you mentioned earlier, you know, signs of improvement or signs of encouragement when it comes to the public policy discussions and evolution of how we're approaching agricultural land in the province. I'm wondering if you could just maybe touch on a couple of examples that you're encouraged by or that come front to mind.
Brent: Yeah. So we're right now it seems that that Capital Region, which really has had the worst small problems in the past, right starting from the 1980s up until at least 2013 or so, certainly had the worst problems. And maybe that's why we see this Capital Region, now, also showing the most signs of actually moving forward with conserving land, getting that into the agenda and doing things in some type of coordinated way. So that's promising. I see municipalities that I've talked to who are, you know, really, really concerned about losing agricultural land. So Wheatland County to the east of Calgary is one of those. We also see communities where they're still at loggerheads. So all of those things exist, I think, hopefully, the requirement for joint planning, even if people start into those processes with less with more in transient views, perhaps just the need for joint planning, you know, spark some change in position.
Evan: Well, thank you so much Brent, for joining us today and thank you, everyone, for listening in. If you haven't already, make sure you subscribe to our podcast and you can also find us on Sound Cloud. And if you can make sure to give us a rating. It helps us out quite a bit. And if you're not already, make sure that you follow us on social media. It's @ABLandInstitute on Twitter and Instagram, and you can also find us on Alberta Land Institute over at Facebook. Thank you so much for listening in, and we look forward to talking with you again soon.