Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

A response to the
Discussion Paper by the
Agricultural Land Review Committee
submitted by Rick Cheeseman
7729 Rte 321, Roslin, B0K 1K0, 447-3683

Ver 1.1, 24-Feb-10

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Statement of Purpose:
The purpose of this presentation is to
provide input to the Discussion Paper
by the Agricultural Land Review
Committee regarding the future of
agricultural land in Nova Scotia, in
order to answer the following questions
posed in that paper:
Is there an agricultural land
issue in Nova Scotia?
Should we do something about it?
What should we do about it?
If this involves public expenditures, are we willing to pay for it?

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

This presentation takes the Nova Scotia Provincial Interest Statement

on Agricultural Land as its baseline:

Reference: http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/muns/plan/provint/intro_ag.asp

The goal of this presentation is to outline the attributes of a sustainable food

resource base for Nova Scotia, to provide a direction for the future use of Nova
Scotias agricultural land.
From the perspective of this presentation, the only viable food resource base is
one that is sustainable, and the only way to protect agricultural land is to farm
it sustainably. That is, all goals of the Provincial Interest on Agricultural Land
are fulfilled by achieving sustainability.
Sustainability is one stop shopping.
3

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

20th Century Agriculture: the paradigm

Today's dominant agricultural paradigm is, by its own definition, an
industrial food production system.
Characteristically, it is:
commodity-based
market-driven
high-input
energy-intensive
export-oriented
Originally, 'high-yield' was also
specified as a characteristic but that is
now sharply contested around the
world (except as it relates to the
profits of the corporations that supply
farm inputs and handle the outputs).

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

20th Century Agriculture: peak oil

"It's no longer the case that we have a
few voices crying in the wilderness. The
battle is over. The peakists have won.
James Schlesinger, 2008

Schlesinger was referring to 'peak oil', the time when the worlds demand for
oil outstrips the worlds ability to supply oil.
Schlesinger is a PhD Economist, was Secretary of Defense under Nixon and
Ford, and was Secretary of Energy under Carter. That is, he is a voice of
authority.
While Secretary of Defense, Schlesinger opposed amnesty for draft dodgers
and pressed for development of more sophisticated nuclear weapons
systems. That is, he is NOT a pinko hippie tree-hugging protester; he is
about as no-nonsense and hard core as you can get.
5

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

20th Century Agriculture: sustainability

In today's industrial food production system, 'sustainability' essentially
means finding ways to sustain the flow of fossil fuel-based inputs into
the system and onto the land.
When discussing sustainability, one can choose to blind oneself to 20th century
agriculture's role in climate change, the environment, soil fertility, the food/
health connection, and on.
The one thing that cannot be denied or ignored is its dependence on fossil fuels.

Peak oil, in and of itself, makes the 20th century agricultural paradigm
unsustainable.
6

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

20th Century Agriculture: the Green Revolution

The 20th Century industrial food production system is euphemistically
referred to as the Green Revolution.
It is important to remember that the term Green Revolution is not and
never was a reference to the ecological benefits of 20th century
agriculture.
Green Revolution was conjured up by a US government marketeer as a more
palatable expression for the 'high-input, high-yield paradigm being championed
at the time. It had the added bonus of being in sharp contrast to the Red
Revolution (that is, the Communist threat).

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

20th Century Agriculture: health

More than any other factor, health determines our happiness.
Today, fifty percent of Canadians are going to
get cancer, obesity is at epidemic proportions,
environmental and food allergies are rampant,
heart disease and strokes are endemic; the list
goes on.
It is well documented that these are the
diseases of modern society.
Every month delivers more research that
relates these modern diseases to our food:
the Western Diet.

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

20th Century Agriculture: the health cost

A 2009 study released by the Canadian Agri-Food Policy Institute
reports that two-thirds of health-care costs can now be attributed to
chronic diseases associated with unhealthy eating.

66.7%!
How happy is that?

At the least, these costs will bankrupt our governments.

At the worst, . . .
9

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

20th Century Agriculture: the environment

Environmental contributions of the industrial food production system:
Accounts for 20% of the entire carbon footprint of industrialized nations
The largest source of two of the three most
dangerous global warming gases: methane and
nitrous oxide
Fertilizer and pesticide use has devastated soil
fertility and toxified land, air, and sea around
the world
By far the largest user of fresh water,
accounting for roughly 70% of all water
withdrawals
(for comparison: industry20%; domestic
10%)
There are a growing number of organizations, including the Sierra Club
and the Council of Canadians, who warn that depleted and contaminated
aquifers are going to fuel a fresh water crisis that will trump the oil crisis
in the next decade, and that the consequences will be far more dire than
any of the climate change predictions for the same period.
10

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

20th Century Agriculture: IAASTD, Part 1

IAASTD:
International Assessment of Agricultural
Knowledge, Science, and Technology for
Development
the first major global assessment of agriculture
initiated by the World Bank and United Nations
Food and Agricultural Organization
final reports delivered in April 2008
won the support of 57 countries; only three dissented (Canada, U.S.,
Australia)
Dissenters accused the assessment of being unbalanced and attacked the
authors independence despite the fact that all dissenters were among the
stakeholders who selected the reports authors in the first place.

The overarching observation of IAASTD is that

BUSINESS AS USUAL IS NOT AN OPTION.

11

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

20th Century Agriculture: IAASTD, Part 2

IAASTD concluded that Canada's dominant form of agriculture highinput, energy-intensive, export-oriented industrial food production is
no longer a viable option as it:
causes soil and water
degradation
increases deforestation
undermines rural livelihoods
is neither socially nor
environmentally sustainable
depletes natural resources
accelerates climate change
if unchecked, will threaten future
world food supplies
The Canadian government has all but buried the IAASTD conclusions,
not even submitting the reports to the standing committee on
agriculture and agri-food.

12

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

20th Century Agriculture: conclusions

20th century agriculture is not sustainable.
20th century agriculture does not meet or even approach the
goals of Nova Scotias Statement of Provincial Interest on
Agricultural Land.

protect agricultural land

viable and sustainable food resource base

Direct, significant support from the federal level for moving

away from 20th century agriculture does not seem likely.

13

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: getting started

Most of Nova Scotias farming operates in
the 20th century paradigm.
There is probably no way to encourage
people to rethink their options until the
price of their particular commodity
collapses and/or escalating input costs
decimate their income.
If the past teaches us anything about the
future, then the former is inevitable. Peak
oil tells us that the latter is unavoidable.
An immediate option is to focus on
abandoned farmland and bring that
into sustainable production.

14

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: X for export

Nova Scotia might be able to achieve long term profitability in a global
marketplace when:
we take all those obese children and put them to work on farms, and pay
them nothing
we take all our environmental laws and trash them
we take all our labour laws and lock them out
we take all our regulations and bury them
the U.S. and Europe end all their farm subsidies
we change corporate law so that corporations are only allowed to make
money when it is not at the expense of the environment, human rights,
public health or safety, the communities in which the corporation
operates, or the dignity of the corporation's employees. (Now THAT
would be worthy of bonuses.)
There is a perception that an inability to be successful exporters is a bad
thing, a failure of our way of doing things.
That perception is wrong.

15

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: local

If we appreciate that achieving long term profitability in the global
market is a crap shoot at best, then it follows that we must become
successful by serving a local market.

The positive response to the Select Nova Scotia

initiative and the burgeoning locavore movement
indicate that many Nova Scotians are seeking healthier
food options from sources that are close to home.

However, though the success of Select Nova Scotia is recognized, the actual % of
market share is still very small and it is not growing rapidly enough to justify
bringing thousands of new acres into production.
Also, local in and of itself does not guarantee sustainability: local 20th century
production is as unsustainable as 20th century production anywhere else on the
planet.
Local alone is not enough.
16

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: organic

As distasteful as the O word seems to be to many Nova Scotian
agriculturalists, organic agriculture is the soup base of sustainability.
The reasons are legion, and go back to our roots.
Humans have farmed for 10,000 years and
farming's success is our legacy: in a speck of time
a steady, reliable supply of food that supported and
enhanced physical and mental health catapulted us
to the top of the food chain.
Up until the latter half of the 19th century, when
chemical inputs began replacing traditional
methods for maintaining soil fertility, all our food
was organic, by default. Today, after 150 years
(about seven generations) of manufacturing
chemicals and manipulating biology to replace
time-proven farming practices, our food is making
us sick and our food production system is
destroying our soils, polluting our air, and sucking
up most of our fresh water.
It is not a great logical leap to conclude that our success
as a race is predicated upon organic agriculture.
17

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: organic yields

The first thing Green Revolution advocates will say is that organic agriculture
just cant produce the same yields.
A 22-year study on corn and soybean production at
Cornell University showed that organic farming
approaches for these crops produced the same
yields but used an average of 30 percent less fossil
energy, conserved more water in the soil, induced
less erosion, maintained soil quality, and
conserved more biological resources.
AND the organic farmers did not introduce a
myriad of pesticides, artificial fertilizers, and GMO
crops into the environment
AND the organic farmers did not have to pay for
these very costly, oil-dependent, corporatelycontrolled inputs
AND the organic farmers could save and replant
their seeds, as farmers have done for millennia

18

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: certified organic

(Aside: It is assumed that viewers of this presentation appreciate the
importance and significance of setting and applying a standard.)

The Canadian Organic Standard (COS) has been released

and ratified for international and interprovincial trade.
Local stakeholders have approached the Government of Nova
Scotia for ratification of the COS for Nova Scotia but as yet no
action has been taken.
No one will argue that the Canadian Organic Standard is perfect.
But it does provide, in an overly-bureaucratized, industry-diluted
way, rules and processes that preserve the original intent of
organic farming: to produce food in a manner that respects and
preserves the links and natural balances among soil, plants,
insects, birds, animals, and humans so that all life is supported
and strengthened.
Ratification of the COS could be a small but significant first
step in the implementation of a sustainable paradigm for
agriculture in Nova Scotia.
19

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: the cost of certified organic

Lower input cost: Organic inputs are less expensive, and will become
increasingly so with every hike in the price of oil. And, given peak oil, the
price of oil is going to hike.
Higher nutrient value: It has been shown, repeatedly, that certified
organic food is never less nutritious, and most often more nutritious, than
industrial produce. It definitely tastes better, and it keeps longer.
Lower health care costs: Better nutrition means healthier, happier people.
Today, certified organic food retails for more than its industrial counterpart. The
reasons are at the political level, not the farm gate. Two major reasons:
Industrial crops are heavily subsidized.
Organic is not.
Industrial costs do not include
externalities, which are immense (health,
environment, etc.). Certified organic
farming doesnt just minimize those costs,
its modalities are defined so as to prevent
those costs from arising in the first place.
Given a level playing field, certified organic agriculture provides
more nutritious, better tasting food at lower cost today.
20

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: fair trade

In the 1950s and 60s, Canadians spent 20% to 30% of their disposable income
on food. Today, it is under 10%.
Canadians pay less for food than anyone else on the planet.
On average, countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) spend 8.3% more of their disposable income on
food. Australians spend 12.7% more, the Japanese spend 35.7% more,
and Mexicans spend over 125% more.

Four thousand farms go out of business every year in Canada.

Cheap food is fueling escalating health care costs.
Fair trade for Nova Scotian farmers would provide a reference point for defining
and developing profitable farming. Fair trade as a marketing strategy could
show consumers why local, certified organic food is going to cost more than
what they are used to. Bottom line: you can afford to eat, but the person
producing the food cant.
And an end-to-end cost/benefit analysis of fair trade, local, certified organic
food compared to industrial food (with externalities in) could be presented in
ways that Nova Scotian consumers would be willing to pay more for their food.
Simply put: live long and prosper, or die young and fat.
21

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: institutional buying

The Government of Nova Scotia has been very proactive in encouraging Nova
Scotians to go out and buy local, even if it costs a bit more.
The Government of Nova Scotia has been somewhat less proactive in taking its
own advice.
The Government of Nova Scotia could require all government
institutions to transition their food source to local, fair trade, certified
organic producers and processors.

Just that one policy change would create and maintain a large,
sophisticated, richly diverse, sustainable agricultural base.
Volume would be sufficient to assuage the box store all stores or no
stores dictate, so ALL Nova Scotians would have ready access to this
high value food.
One small step for government, one giant leap for sustainability.
22

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: tourism, and more

Witness the phenomenal growth of the locavore
movement and the creation of Food Policy Councils
everywhere in the world.
Thousands of people want sustainable food, and are
willing to go out of their way to get it.
With the Government of Nova Scotia actively
supporting the creation of a truly sustainable
agricultural infrastructure and with local, fair
trade, certified organic food available everywhere,
Nova Scotia could well become a tourist
destination for thousands who would never come
here otherwise.
And Nova Scotia would become an example for
the rest of the world, an attractive place to come
to live and work for the brightest and the best.
And Nova Scotias children would be able to find
meaningful, well-paying employment at home.
And these are just a few of many benefits that could
grow from this one seed of sustainable agriculture.
23

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: economic positioning , Part 1

In the 20th century, the economic position for
agriculture was founded upon, and is still
defined by, a commodity-based view:
This frames agricultural production in terms of
manufacturing units run off assembly lines into
an industrialized, market-driven economy.
There are two serious flaws in that view:
Agricultural products are living beings, not
inanimate widgets; there is a measurable loss
of quality in treating living beings as widgets,
and that loss translates into increased health
care costs.
You can substitute or work around not having
a particular widget life goes on; without
food, life ends.

Agriculture as an economic activity has been positioned inappropriately.

24

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: economic positioning, Part 2

Rather than viewing farmers as widget
manufacturers, it is healthier and safer to
position agriculture as an intermediate good.
Intermediate goods:
create indispensable value by what they
energize and facilitate
examples: electricity, roads, postal service,
money
are considered so essential to social wellbeing and security that governments support
and regulate them rather than abandoning
them to market forces

25

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Sustainable Agriculture: economic positioning, Part 3

From the Agricultural Land Review
Committee Discussion Paper:
The ideal situation is for agriculture to be the
most profitable use of the land without need for
government assistance. A less ideal case is when
agriculture must rely on government assistance to
be profitable.
Government assistance is always going to be
needed for agriculture. But that does not mean
handouts and bailouts. Agriculture in Nova Scotia
can be profitable, but that is going to be difficult
until government changes the way it thinks about
agriculture.
Repositioning agriculture as an intermediate
good can provide a powerful conceptual
framework for redirecting government
policies and bureaucracies towards
sustainability.
26

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Summary:
A profitable, sustainable agricultural industry can be created in Nova
Scotia that will provide local, certified organic, fair trade food in
sufficient quantity to drastically reduce or eliminate Nova Scotias
dependence on imported food and generate a large, sophisticated, richly
diverse, healthy, and successful sustainable agricultural infrastructure.
The benefits:
food self-sufficiency, food sovereignty
healthier soils, healthier people
decreases in diet-related disease,
lower health care costs
decreased carbon footprint, positive
contribution to a greener future
revitalization of rural communities, a
return to our roots
reversal of soil and water degradation,
support for reforestation
environmental and social
sustainability
27

Agricultural Land Review Committee

input to the discussion

Conclusion: Answering the ALRC Discussion Paper Questions

Is there an agricultural land issue in Nova Scotia?
Yes, and there are two issues: the amount that is being abandoned
and the way that the rest is being cultivated.
Should we do something about it?
Yes.
What should we do about it?
Develop a sustainable agricultural infrastructure as outlined in this
presentation.
If this involves public expenditures, are we willing to pay for
it?
There is no if. We can pay now at the farm gate or we can pay later
at the emergency room door.

28