The ALR: Tear Down That Wall

As most every executive has discovered, instigating change can be a challenge. Beneficiaries of the status quo do not readily relinquish their privileges. When it comes to reforming government, however, the resistance can turn irrational, as if more effective policy were something to fear rather than embrace.


A recent example of reform panic erupted following publication on Oct. 19 of The B.C. Agricultural Land Reserve: A Critical Assessment. While some advocates regard the ALR as sacrosanct, my research found that it has not achieved its most fundamental objectives. Contrary to the intent of its architects, the land reserve has not halted the decline in the number of B.C. farms or the loss of “family farms.” Nor has it nurtured a new generation of farmers.


In fact, the number of farms in B.C. has declined nine per cent in the past decade. The proportion of owner-operators is also falling: between 1986 and 2006, the amount of B.C. farmland rented or leased grew nearly 35 per cent.


Based on these and other findings, the report recommends dismantling the program. The costs of maintaining the failed regime – including forgone investment and soaring home prices – simply don’t justify its continuation. But terminating the ALR need not mean the end of farmland preservation.


As the report notes, there’s a network of accomplished land conservancies throughout B.C. and Canada. With adjustments to the federal and provincial tax codes, this network could engage in significant farmland preservation.


The reaction to the findings and recommendations was both swift and senseless. For example, in his Oct. 30 column for the Chilliwack Times, Paul Henderson ignored the data and instead obsessed on the fact that the report was not written by a B.C. resident. But Henderson can rest assured that there are plenty of ALR critics in the province – as evidenced by the congratulatory calls to me from many distressed farmers.


Phil Warren Le Good, also in the Chilliwack Times, was hell-bent on exposing to all that I’ve also published papers on technology policy – apparently disqualifying me from other topics. Unfortunately, he ignored important findings in the report, including the fact that ALR officials have allowed government entities to remove twice as much property from the reserve as land owners, reflecting the arbitrary – and politicized – nature of B.C.’s land-use controls. 


Joe Millican, reporting for the Black Press string of newspapers, quoted Abbotsford councillor Patricia Ross about my supposed failure to address the contribution of agriculture to the local economy. Both Millican and Ross apparently overlooked the reported fact that agriculture alone does not pay enough to cover most farm families’ bills. That is, 54.9 per cent of B.C. farm operators supplement their income with an off-farm job. The report also found that 31 per cent of the content in crop and animal products exported from B.C. includes components that have been imported into the province – proof that international trade, not “localism,” generates greater economic benefits.


Beyond the mischaracterizations and insults, the reaction to the ALR report exposes a troubling phenomenon: the unwillingness to evaluate hard evidence of policy failures and to consider alternatives. But it is entirely reasonable – indeed essential – for citizens to question the legitimacy of a policy that has imposed significant costs on the public in order to indulge special interest groups.


Good intentions alone do not constitute sound policy, and history is crowded with examples of governments mismanaging natural resources. To do away with the ALR does not mean paving all farmland. It does not mean abandoning local food supplies. It does mean holding government accountable for ineffective policy and crafting better solutions.