Growing the Food System within the Headwaters ...

Growing the Food System within the Headwaters Region

Guy Kirby Letts and Julia Hemphill

Promoting Local Agriculture and Food Security, May 15, 2014

CONTENTS 1. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. 4 2. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................. 5 3. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 7 4. Research Method .................................................................................................................................. 9 4.1 Map: Hills of the Headwaters Region, Ontario ......................................................................... 9 4.2 Chart: Environmental Scan ......................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Chart: Distribution of Category Types Interviewed ............................................................... 12 4.4 Limitations of Study .................................................................................................................... 12 5. Barriers Identified in the Local Food System ............................................................................... 14 5.1 Barriers within the Local Food System ..................................................................................... 14 5.1A Chart: Top 10 Issues by Frequency ................................................................................... 15 5.1B Chart: Type of Barrier by Percentage ................................................................................ 15 5.1C Chart: Percentage of Barriers by Level of Government .................................................. 16 5.2 Barrier: The High Cost of Farming ............................................................................................ 16 5.2A Two Careers, One Income .................................................................................................. 17 5.2B Engagement across the Food System ................................................................................ 17 5.2C Concern for the Future of Farming .................................................................................... 18 5.3 Barrier: Economic Issues ............................................................................................................. 19 5.3A Fluctuations in the Economy .............................................................................................. 19 5.3B Cost of Feed ........................................................................................................................... 20 5.3C Cost of Transportation ........................................................................................................ 20 5.3D Cost of Electricity.................................................................................................................. 21 5.4 Barrier: Labour Issues .................................................................................................................. 21 5.4A Labour Costs ........................................................................................................................ 21 5.4B Shortage of Workers ............................................................................................................ 22 5.4C Migrant Workers .................................................................................................................. 22 5.4D Transportation for Workers ............................................................................................... 23 5.5 Barrier: Finance and Equipment Issues .................................................................................... 23 5.5A Securing Equipment ............................................................................................................ 24 5.5B Funding from Traditional Financial Institutions ............................................................. 24 5.5C Bridge Financing .................................................................................................................. 24 5.5D Concentration and Allocation of Capital ......................................................................... 25 5.6 Barrier: Weather Issues ............................................................................................................... 25 5.6A Crop Insurance ..................................................................................................................... 26 5.6B Agricultural Practices .......................................................................................................... 26 5.7 Barrier: Lack of Support and Resources ................................................................................... 27

1


5.7A Misunderstanding of Small Farm Needs by Municipalities ......................................... 27 5.7B Lack of Government Support and Resources for Small Farms ..................................... 28 5.8 Barrier: Land, Land Use, and Land Use Policies ..................................................................... 28 5.8A Farmland Accessibility ........................................................................................................ 29 5.8B Cost of Farmland .................................................................................................................. 30 5.8C Farm-to-Farm Sales verses Speculation ............................................................................ 30 5.8D Municipal Land Use Policy ................................................................................................ 30 5.8E Municipal Permits ................................................................................................................ 31 5.8F Provincial Planning Act ....................................................................................................... 32 5.8G Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) ................................................. 33 5.8H Conservation Authorities ................................................................................................... 33 5.8I Encroaching Development ................................................................................................... 34 5.9 Barrier: Regulations ..................................................................................................................... 34 5.9A Health Regulations .............................................................................................................. 35 5.9B Government Inspected Kitchen Infeasibility .................................................................... 36 5.9C Nutrient Management Rules .............................................................................................. 36 5.9D Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) ........................................................................ 37 5.10 Barrier: Animal Care and Processing ...................................................................................... 37 5.10A Large Animal Veterinarian Care ..................................................................................... 37 5.10B Abattoir Closures ................................................................................................................ 38 5.11 Barrier: Food Cost and Availability ........................................................................................ 38 5.11A Food Costs too Low ........................................................................................................... 39 5.11B Food Costs too High .......................................................................................................... 39 5.11C Not Enough Locally Produced Food to Meet Demand ................................................ 40 5.11D Not Enough Demand for Product ................................................................................... 40 5.11E Cannot Meet Demands of Consumers and Distributors .............................................. 40 5.12 Barrier: Relationships within the Food System ..................................................................... 40 5.12A Difficulty Working with Small and Local Producers ................................................... 41 5.12B Challenges Working with Local Distributors ................................................................. 42 5.12C Farmer’s Markets Inaccessible and Inconvenient ......................................................... 43 5.12D Marketing Boards and Quotas ......................................................................................... 43 5.12E Large Distributors .............................................................................................................. 44 5.13 Barrier: Cultural Attitudes towards Food .............................................................................. 44 5.13A Undervaluing Local Food ................................................................................................. 45 5.13B Consumer Resistance to Changing Menus ..................................................................... 45 5.13C Labelling Consistency ....................................................................................................... 45 5.13D The Glorification of “Organic” ........................................................................................ 46 5.13E Organic Certification .......................................................................................................... 46 5.13F Education and Food Literacy ............................................................................................ 47 5.14 Barrier: Local Food Security ..................................................................................................... 48

2


5.14A: Household Food Insecurity .................................................................................................. 49 5.14B: Local Food and Food Banks .................................................................................................. 49 5.14C: Barriers Accessing Local Food ............................................................................................. 50 5.14D: Alternative Delivery Models ................................................................................................ 51 5.14E: Food Insecurity and the Limits of Community Initiatives ............................................... 52 6 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................... 53 6.0A Chart: Type of Barriers by Level of Government ................................................................. 53 6.1 Long-Term Vision for Growth ................................................................................................... 54 6.2 Adopting a Cluster Policy ........................................................................................................... 55 6.3 Developing a Local Food Charter .............................................................................................. 55 6.4 Creating Local Food Hubs and Food Centres .......................................................................... 55 6.5 Developing Agritourism and Rural Tourism .......................................................................... 56 6.6 Support of an Authentic and Aesthetically Pleasing Built Environment ............................ 57 6.7 Indoor Farmer’s Markets ............................................................................................................ 57 6.8 Land Use Policy ............................................................................................................................ 57 6.9 Customer Focused Development Approval Process .............................................................. 58 6.10 Promoting Cottage Industries .................................................................................................. 59 6.11 Postsecondary Partnerships ..................................................................................................... 59 6.12 Buy-Local Food Policies ............................................................................................................ 59 6.13 Home Garden Credit ................................................................................................................. 59 6.14 Edible Landscapes ..................................................................................................................... 59 6.15 Ongoing Education and Food Literacy ................................................................................... 60 6.16 Incorporate Local School Programs ........................................................................................ 60 6.17 Local Food Week Activities and Events ................................................................................. 61 6.18 Developing Local, Provincial, and National Networks ....................................................... 61 6.19 Creation of a Resource Site ....................................................................................................... 62 6.20 Regional Marketing Network .................................................................................................. 62 6.21 Peer Mentorship Program ........................................................................................................ 63 6.22 Grant/Incentive Program .......................................................................................................... 63 6.23 Establishment of a Seed Bank ................................................................................................... 64 6.24 Good Food Box Program .......................................................................................................... 64 6.25 Community Gardens ................................................................................................................. 64 6.26 Gleaning Program ...................................................................................................................... 65 6.27 Protecting Farmland from Development ............................................................................... 65 6.28 Staffing Position ......................................................................................................................... 65 7. Appendixes .......................................................................................................................................... 66 7.1 Frequency Chart of Reported Barriers ...................................................................................... 67 7.2 Online Survey Questionnaire ..................................................................................................... 68 8. Works Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 69

3


1. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank the Healthy Communities Fund, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for their generous funding of this project. We would also like to gratefully acknowledge the support from Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health, Dufferin.Biz, The Town of Caledon, and Headwaters Communities in Action, who were instrumental in making this important research possible. We are also thankful to all of those people who took the time to talk to us, educate us, and share their experiences with us throughout the Headwaters Region. Guy Kirby Letts and Julia Hemphill, researchers

Headwaters Food and Farming Alliance, June 25, 2014 Growing the Food System within the Headwaters Region: Promoting Local Agriculture and Food Security Cover art: “Hay Bales on Powerline Road,” 12”x18” Woodcut with Watercolour by Ralph Heather, Ontario, Canada. Website: http://www.ralphheather.yolasite.com _____________________________________________________________________________________ Julia Hemphill is a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology at York University. Guy Kirby Letts is a Lecturer in the Department of Sociology at McMaster University and a PhD candidate in the Department of Sociology at York University. He is also the Executive Director of the Centre for the Study of the Human Condition, Board Member of the Barrie Community Food Security Coalition, and on the Steering Committee of the Food Partners Alliance, Simcoe County. If you wish to contact the authors, you can email them at [email protected]

4


2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Guided by the goal of promoting a local, viable food system, the following report, Growing the Food System within the Headwaters Region: Promoting Local Agriculture and Food Security, was undertaken in order to identifying the current barriers experienced by those within the Headwaters local food system to determine the ‘weak’ or ‘broken’ links within the local food system. The final report is the culmination of the following activities: ● Conduct grey literature review ● Define research question and area of study ● Create environmental scan of agricultural producers in Caledon and Dufferin County ● Design survey questionnaire ● Facilitate public forums ● Identify informants ● Conduct semi-structured interviews ● Code interview responses ● Review relevant literature ● Review relevant policies ● Produce critical analysis of local food system ● Develop recommendations ● Produce written report and summary report ● Present findings to stakeholders Promoting a viable, local food system and community food security that allows local residents to sell and consume local foods will increase the physical, economic, environmental and community well-being throughout the Headwaters Region. The primary research question guiding this report was What are the specific barriers involved in getting locally grown and processed foods to local consumers? The issues identified by respondents represent problems within the local food system that are experienced by producers, processors, distributors and stakeholders, living and working within the Headwaters Region. The study examined the specific barriers, obstacles and challenges encountered by those whose lives are directly affected by the Headwaters food system. The project represents some necessary first steps in identifying which areas within the Headwaters food system need to be addressed, and ultimately mended in order to have a fully functioning, local food system.

5


Virtually all of the participants in the study, across all four categories (producers, processors, distributors and food advocates), expressed concerns, to varying degrees, about the food system within Headwaters Region. Many of the respondents reported concerns regarding the viability of a local, sustainable agricultural sector, and the effectiveness of the existing food system to provide locally produced food to residents in the region. The respondents we interviewed identified a total of 47 barriers. The following represent the 10 most frequently reported barriers: 1) Education and Food Literacy; 2) Labour Costs; 3) Farmer’s Market; 4) Large Distributors; 5) Labour Issues, Organic Glorification, Municipal Misunderstanding; 6) Abattoirs, Dealing with Restaurants, Fear for Young Farmers; 7) Government Inspected Kitchens, High Cost of Farming; 8) Weather; 9) Undervaluing Local Food; 10) Marketing Boards and Quotas, Farming Requires two Careers. With the exception of the weather, many of the barriers identified were formal, codified rules and regulations, while other obstacles were cultural and informal. The research carefully and systematically considered the respondents’ concerns, and reviewed a range of recent and relevant literatures. Based on an analysis of the interviews and supporting research, 28 recommendations were made that address the Headwaters Food and Farming Alliance goals, organization and activities, as well as current municipal planning and zoning bylaws, county and regional initiatives, and stakeholder contributions. Of the 28 recommendations, the overarching recommendation is the necessity to implement a regional cluster policy in order to develop a local, viable agricultural cluster within the Headwaters Region.

6


3. INTRODUCTION Throughout Ontario, there has been a growing interest in locally produced food. Consumers are increasingly well informed about food and are determined to access fresh, nutritious local produce and meats (Miller, 2010). Yet, despite this appetite for local foods, producers continue to struggle to get their products on tables of their respective communities. The issue of “broken food systems” is not unique to the Headwaters Region but rather, is endemic throughout Ontario and represents a broader trend (Scharf & Levkoe, et al, 2010). Developing a local, viable food system within the Headwaters Region will require ongoing efforts in terms of understanding how to identify and mend these broken connections. As we have learned through the course of our research, the interest and determination in strengthening the food system, both in terms of supporting locally grown food and improving food security, is highly valued throughout Caledon and Dufferin County. There is a deep concern about food related issues across the Headwaters Region, which was expressed through our respondents’ willingness to talk with us and share their experiences. This, in addition to community events held in support of local food, such as the annual Headwaters Food Summit and the Orangeville Dinner Series, revealed that residents who live in the Headwaters Region want to eat locally grown food, and support local producers and businesses. In addition to community support, there is further cause for optimism regarding the future health of local food systems in Ontario with the recent passing of Bill 68, Local Food Act, which signals the province’s emerging commitment to support local food systems and issues surrounding food security. “The Local Food Act will benefit people by making the connection between buying local and helping grow an important Ontario industry. If we increase demand to homegrown food, we will create jobs and boost the agri-food sector’s contributions to our economy. It’s an important and historic step forward and I thank everyone who helped support this legislation” ‒Kathleen Wynne (Ministry of Agriculture and Food News Release, 2013). While the Local Food Act has been criticized, particularly in relation to how supportive it might be for small farmers and producers, it nonetheless represents an important step towards recognizing that the consumption of local food is an important aspect of Ontario’s financial, physical and community health. The main goal of the research undertaken in this report was to investigate the particular barriers, obstacles, challenges and struggles that local producers, processors, and distributors encountered within the local food system and the ability to get their products into the homes of local consumers. Food security is intimately related to issues within the local food system. As

7


such, we also interviewed those that dealt directly with household and community food security in our study, and examined relevant issues surrounding both food safety and food security.

8


4. RESEARCH METHOD In order to understand the particular barriers, obstacles, challenges, and struggles that exist within the Headwaters local food system, we administered a survey, held public forums, and conducted interviews with those directly involved in the local food system, key community members, and stakeholders throughout the Headwaters Region. The Headwaters Region spans across three municipalities, The County of Dufferin, Town of Caledon and the Town of Erin (see Map 4.1). The Headwaters Region, as its name suggests, has several major tributaries and river systems within it, including the Credit, Humber, Grand, Saugeen and Nottawasaga rivers that flow both to the north and the south from the Hills of the Headwaters. As such, several conservation authorities operate within the region such as the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority (TRCA), Credit Valley Conservation Authority (CVCA), Grand River Conservation Authority GRCA), and the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority (NVCA). In addition, the Headwaters Region has within its boundaries the Provincial Plan areas of the Niagara Escarpment Plan, the Green Belt Plan and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.

4.1 Map: Hills of the Headwaters Region, Ontario The mandate of the study was to determine the barriers that affect local operations and businesses within the food system with the goal of implementing a local, viable food system, enhancing local food security, and developing local economies within the Headwaters Region. While the Hills of the Headwaters Region includes the Town of Erin, the study was contained to the Town of Caledon and Dufferin County. An environmental scan of agricultural producers within the Town of Caledon and Dufferin County was conducted (see Chart 4.2) to assess the distribution of farming businesses within the study area to aid in the research design. In total, the study area contains 1,159 reported farm businesses involved in

9


4.2 Chart: Environmental Scan of Producers in the Headwaters Region Category

Caledon

Dufferin County

Total

Dairy Cattle / Milk Production

22

38

60

Beef Ranching / Feed Lots

44

165

209

Hog / Pig Farming

0

13

13

Chicken Egg Production

3

4

7

Chicken Broiler / Meat Production

4

6

10

Turkey Production

X

X

X

Sheep Farming

5

32

37

Goat Farming

2

10

12

Apiculture

7

16

23

Horse / Equine Production

63

115

178

Rabbit / Fur Bearing Production

0

2

2

Animal Combination Farming

10

50

60

All Other Misc. Animal Production

2

7

9

Soybean Farming

32

25

57

Oil Seed Farming

0

6

6

Dry Pea / Bean Farming

0

1

1

Wheat Farming

6

18

24

Corn Farming

15

18

33

Other Grain Farming

36

48

84

Potato Farming

2

14

16

Vegetable / Melon Farming

12

7

19

Fruit / Nut Farming

12

6

18

Mushroom Production

0

1

1

Other Food Crops Grown Under Cover

2

0

2

Nursery / Tree Production

21

24

45

Floriculture Production

6

6

12

Tobacco Farming

0

0

0

Hay Farming

35

123

158

Fruit / Vegetable Combination Farming

4

4

8

Maple Syrup Products / Production

5

3

8

All Other Miscellaneous Crop Farming

14

33

47

Total Number of Agricultural Producers

364

795

1,159

Source: Stats Canada, 2011 Census Data & OMAF, 2011 Census of Agriculture

some aspect of agricultural practice and production. The study attempted to interview representatives from every farming industry, as well as those engaged in the processing of local food, the selling of local food, and those who worked in local food security and in the safety of

10


local food. While the parameters of the study were ambitious, representatives from all segments of the food system are represented.

From January to March, 2014 we conducted 40 semi-structured interviews with a combination of producers, processors, distributors and food advocates. Some of the interviews were conducted over the phone, while others were conducted face-to-face. We also held 3 food forums, which were open to the public, in Caledon, Orangeville and Shelburne. The forums drew 12 participants in total, 6 of which were subsequently interviewed to garner more in depth information. In addition, we made an online survey available, which consisted primarily of open-ended questions (see Appendix 9.2). The survey yielded 7 respondents, of which one was discarded for being outside of the defined study area. In total, the study includes the responses and subsequent analysis of 53 individuals.

We chose to use a semi-structured interview approach for its flexibility, which we felt was critical for an exploratory study of the local food system. In our interviews, we focused on the specific barriers that respondents encountered within the food system. As such, we felt that a more rigid, structured approach may not have provided the same opportunity for respondents to address all of the barriers they encountered. The results from the interviews, public forums and survey were then coded into ‘barrier categories’ and translated into a frequency table identifying the types of barriers and the frequency to which those barriers were reported (see Appendix 9.1). The four categories were used to identify respondents’ roles within the local food system, which we defined as follows: 1) Producers: Anyone who is engaged in farming‒including orchards, vineyards, dairies, ranches, feedlots, and apiculture‒and the production of agricultural products, such as grains, oil seed, vegetables, melons, nuts, fruits, berries, dairy, eggs, poultry, livestock, and raw honey. 2) Processors: Anyone who engages in the processing of agricultural products including spirits, beverages, dairy products, preserves, baking, and honey. 3) Distributors: Anyone who sells food products (prepared or raw) directly to consumers. This category includes restaurants, grocery stores, farmers’ markets and vendors, community-shared agriculture (CSA) boxes, road-side vendors, and those who sell from their properties. 4) Food Advocates: This broad category includes people who take an active interest in safe, local and accessible food, including concerned consumers, representatives from public health,

11


registered dieticians, representatives from food banks and community kitchens, and health inspectors. Our definition of ‘distributor’ is not to be conflated with the term ‘distribution’, which is often used in food studies to describe the transportation and wholesaling of food. Moreover, the categories used in our study are not mutually exclusive, as many respondents hold memberships across several categories. For example, some participants might grow fruits and

4.3 Chart: Distribution of Categories Interviewed QTY 8 2 10 1 11 3 0 18

CATEGORY TYPE BY ROLE IN FOOD SYSTEM Producer Processor Distributor Producer/Processor Producer/Distributor Producer/Processor/Distributor Processor/Distributor Food Advocate

vegetables, make their own preserves, and sell from a small shop on their farm. In this instance, the respondent would fall under the following multiple categories: producer, processor, and distributor. In our frequency table, describing the most discussed barriers, respondents who belong to multiple categories experienced different barriers depending on what aspect of the food system they were engaged in. The number of respondents that fell into more than one category is listed in Chart 4.3, Distribution of Categories Interviewed.

4.5 Limitations of Study As with all studies, there are several limitations that must be acknowledged. First, the sample size of the study itself was too large. While the number of interviews conducted is consistent with similar qualitative studies, the study itself attempted to interview too many ‘types’ and ‘categories’, both in terms of types of farm businesses and in terms of categories of multiple actors along the food system. A more focused study examining the barriers experienced by each industry type, i.e. vegetable farmers, and by each category, i.e. distributors, would have produced more accurate and meaningful results. However, in terms of resources, time and funding, such an undertaking was not possible. Future studies, however, could be administered to examine the barriers experienced by these individual groups. In this sense, this study was instrumental in providing a framework for potential future research.

12


Second, as with all qualitative studies of this size, the results of the interviews cannot be generalized or seen to be representative of barriers beyond those who were interviewed. In other words, the results of the study can only be seen to represent the respondents’ views and cannot be generalized to other producers, processors and distributors either within or outside of the Headwaters Region. Such studies only express the subjective experiences and perspectives of those individuals interviewed. In order to make any statements that claim to represent ‘farmers’ concerns’, such statements need to be grounded in additional research. In this sense, interviews enhance existing research, bringing the social element of lived experience into focus. Having said this, the interviews themselves revealed existing barriers that are well established within the broader literature. In addition, two patterns emerged as a result of our interviews which we take to be significant. First, a large number of respondents, over 25 percent, engaged in multiple roles within the food chain, i.e. producer/distributor, and second, regardless of what farm business respondents were from or what category respondents occupied, i.e. distributor, they often cited the same barrier. For example, a dairy farmer and fruit grower both reported Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) assessments as a major obstacle, while both livestock producers and distributors, such as restaurants, cited the closure of local abattoirs as a significant barrier.

13


5. BARRIERS IDENTIFIED IN THE LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM Establishing a local, viable food system within the Headwaters Region first requires identifying the problems within the system. Fundamental to any food system are its producers, processors and distributors. The barriers that affect producers, processors and distributors, then, are fundamental in identifying key aspects within the food system that need to be addressed in order to create a food system that is viable and functions efficiently. The barriers identified by respondents include both systemic and socio-economic issues such as a lack of accessible abattoirs and municipal zoning to food literacy and the weather. Many of the issues raised were persistent across all of the groups consulted, such as the Lack of Support and Resources for small and midsize farmers, and Labour Issues. All of the barriers cited, however, are not isolated from one another. In fact, the barriers, obstacles, constraints and challenges identified by those interviewed are best understood as being deeply entangled with one another. In total, 47 barriers were identified through our interviews (see Appendix 9.1). Some of the barriers overlapped or were redundant, while others are addressed Food Security. The barriers are clustered into the following 13 themes: 1) High Cost of Farming; 2) Economic Issues; 3) Labour Issues; 4) Finance and Equipment Issues; 5) Weather Issues; 6) Lack of Support and Resources; 7) Land, Land Use and Land Use Policies; 8) Regulations; 9) Animal Care and Processing; 10) Food Costs and Availability; 11) Relationships between Producers, Processors and Distributors; 12) Cultural Attitudes towards Food; and 13) Food Security.

5.1 Barriers within the Local Food System While there was a total of 47 barriers identified within our study, the following chart (5.1 A) outlines the top 10 barriers cited by respondents across the food system. The frequency of barriers, however, only represents issues identified by those respondents interviewed. As a result, one would expect to find a shift in the frequency of identified barriers based on the category of the respondents. In other words, if we had interviewed more producers and less food advocates we would expect to see Marketing Boards and Quotas cited more often as a barrier. In addition, several of barriers were reported with the same frequency resulting in multiple barriers being listed in the Top Ten Issues by Frequency Chart. Barriers such as Labour Issues, Organic Glorification, and Municipal Misunderstanding, for instance, all had the same number of total responses. From the 47 barriers identified by our respondents, larger categories were identified and clustered around the following 13 themed characteristics: 1) High Cost of Farming; 2) Economic Issues, 3) Labour Issues; 4) Finance and Equipment Issues; 5) Weather Issues; 6) Lack of Support and Resources; 7) Land, Land Use and Land Use Policies; 8) Regulations; 9) Animal Care and Processing; 10) Food Costs and Availability; 11) Relationships between Producers, Processors

14


5.1 A Chart: Top Ten Issues by Frequency NO.

TYPE OF BARRIER IDENTIFIED

1

Education and Food Literacy

2

Labour Costs

3 4

Farmer’s Market Large Distributors

5 6

Labour Issues, Organic Glorification, Municipal Misunderstanding Abattoirs, Dealing with Restaurants, Fear for Young Farmers

7

High Cost of Farming, Government Inspected Kitchens

8 9 10

Weather Undervaluing Local Food Marketing Boards and Quotas, Farming Requires Two Careers

and Distributors; 12) Cultural Attitudes towards Food; and 13) Food Security. In addition to grouping barriers into larger categories, barriers were also identified in terms of whether they were located at the environmental, cultural, economic, or government levels. Not surprising, the vast majority of barriers that producers, processors and distributors experienced were through various levels of government (see Chart 5.1 B).

5.1 B Chart: Type of Barrier by Percentage BARRIER BY STRUCTURAL TYPE

Environment

Sociocultural Barrier Type by Percentage Socioeconomic

Government

0

10

20

30

40

50

15


In relation to the overall barriers identified, a large number of barriers cited by respondents were either directly related to various levels of government policies and regulations, such as municipal zoning bylaws, or indirectly related to governments, such as fluctuations in the economy. Many of the barriers we identified as existing at a government level also spanned across multiple levels of government. For example, issues around transportation for workers, or public transit, involves both municipalities and, to a varying degree, the provincial government, while the regulation of abattoirs involves both provincial and federal governments. The following chart (5.1 C) represents barriers by level of government. The category of Other represents regulatory bodies such as marketing boards. Not surprising, the provincial government contains the highest percentage of barriers primarily as a result of their role in regulatory functions.

5.1 C Chart: Percentage of Barriers by Level of Government 100% 90% 80% 70% Other

60%

Federal 50%

Provincial

40%

County/Region

30%

Municipal

20% 10% 0% BARRIERS

5.2 BARRIER: The High Cost of Farming Running a small farm is extremely costly. There are many factors that contribute to the high cost of farming, such as equipment, labour, insurance, hydro, taxes, and so forth. The high costs associated with farming and the cost of production in relation to the price of food and low profits generated from farming has forced many small and midsize producers to either procure additional work off the farm, or to further engage in the food system at multiple levels, as both a producer and distributor, in an effort to make a living wage.

16


5.2 A: Two Careers, One Income From our discussions with producers, we know that running a small farming operation requires the labour of several people. However, generating enough income from a small to midsize farm is increasingly becoming more difficult. To offset the income short falls from farming, many producers have to hold down full time or part time jobs to make ‘ends meet.’ One young farmer cited making a living from farming as a major barrier. “The biggest barrier is [struggling] to make a living wage.” Despite this, she told us that she makes sure to “always pay [herself] monthly,” despite how much money she generates. In total, 13 producers told us that two incomes were necessary in order to survive economically on a small farm. One producer told us that despite the work that both she and her partner devote to running their venison farm, they, like others, continue to require an additional income, apart from the money made on the farm, to maintain a comfortable economic existence. “At the end of the day, you need to have an external income… Everybody that has a farm has another job.”

5.2 B: Engagement across the Food System While many farmers have to maintain a full time or part time job to supplement their earnings from farming, many others choose to engage in multiple roles within the food system. Of the producers we interviewed, over half had expanded their operations to included aspects of processing and/or distributing their own products. In other words, producers are actively engaging in processing their own products, or selling their own products directly to consumers in an effort to cut-out ‘the ‘middle man’ and retain more profit for themselves. This shift in farming practices is based on structural barriers that make it hard for producers to make a living off their land. This speaks to the high costs of farming and the low prices for food which has lead to the current financial crisis in farming. As one producer put it “It’s a struggle... if we didn’t have the store we wouldn’t be able to manage.” Fruit and berry producers are another example of producers having to engage in selling their own produce in an effort to generate an income. Many of the fruit and berry producers we spoke with do not sell their products to wholesalers, but instead have ‘pick-your-own’ operations. Pick-your-own business models, however, have their own challenges. One producer said he losses up to 30 percent of his crop due to people picking their own berries. He went on to say that “...the problem we had with picking-your-own was that too many people were eating and not enough were buying... this was enough of a problem that we changed our hours from 7:30 till 2:00, and started to charge a minimum picking fee.”.

17


The pick-your-own model keeps more money in the pocket of the producers by 1) cutting down on labour costs associated with picking, and 2) obtaining a higher price for produce than going through traditional wholesalers. An apple producer told us that if he sold his apples commercially he would only get .50 cents a pound as opposed to the $1.00 per pound that he receives through pick-your-own, which is still cheaper than paying a $1.50 to $1.80 per pound at the grocery store. In order to make a living, farmers have had to become innovative as a means of survival. While this is not a new phenomenon, it appears to be an increasing trend as producers engage in everything from making their own jams and wines, to establishing pick-your-own and roadside markets, to selling at farmer’s markets and setting up CSAs.

5.2 C: Concerns for the Future of Farming Considering the high costs associated with small scale farming, many of the participants in our study expressed concern about the future of farming. A total of 12 producers made explicit comments over the course of our interviews regarding their concerns over the future of farming. The concerns cited were grounded in 2 main issues: 1) a lack of material resources, and 2) a lack of knowledge regarding farming. As one producer explained, “...there is the initial cost of purchasing or leasing farmland... then you need capital to buy equipment to increase efficiency, which increases volume and revenue. Then you need to develop a skill set... and then you have to run the business.” A younger producer shared her gratitude with us regarding the family members who mentored her on the farm, and provided material support in the form of allowing her to work a portion of their land. She feels very fortunate in contrast to other young would-be farmers noting, “They don’t have the money for the land... and without a farming background... it’s too scary.” She does not see farming as a vocation that can be entered into without family support in terms of both land costs and farming knowledge. Another vegetable farmer, who produced rotating crops year round in Dufferin said, “For young farmers, the financial implications of getting started are significant. It would be difficult to support the family starting from scratch. Some try but it is hard. The standard of living is difficult, [and] there are lots of sacrifices.”

18


Affordable farmland is not easily attainable, but what is more is that young Ontarians, according to many of our participants, are not gaining the practical knowledge necessary for farming. This issue, as many of them see it, is related to labour. One veteran potato farmer said that he sees less and less local students working on farms. Another distributor felt that “Young people don’t want the same world… they want weekends off... they want to be paid. And farming doesn’t always pay you back because you are at the mercy of the weather and the market.” Related to the issue of the future of farming and labour is “mentoring.” Mentoring is a necessary and important step towards learning how to farm. But, one producer we spoke with said, “I’m afraid that some farmers are exploiting young people in the name of ‘mentoring’,” insisting that young people should be paid for their work. Whether through educational or mentoring programs, encouraging youth to get involved in farming is an important aspect in the development of a local food system that is sustainable over the long term.

5.3 BARRIER: Economic Issues The economic barriers in farming are complex, resulting from an interdependent system that includes global, national and local factors. Nonetheless, farmers in Ontario are in financial crisis, and have been for many years (Baker & Campsie, et al, 2010). There exists a host of systemic and socio-economic issues, many of which are discussed in this report, that have produced a situation in which farmers are continually struggling. Downturns in the economy, fluctuations in currency, global commodity markets, increasing cost associated with transportation, and the deregulation of hydro have all affected the costs associated with farming.

5.3 A: Fluctuations in the Economy Commodities markets, competition from global markets, downturns in both the global and Canadian economies, and fluctuations in the Canadian dollar can all have a significant impact on farmers, especially small and midsize producers. Fluctuations in the Canadian dollar, for instance, can have a large effect on producers involved in exporting produce outside of Canada. For example, a Headwaters producer who raises cattle told us that in 2008, when the value of the Canadian dollar surpassed the U.S. dollar, he lost about $300 to $400 per steer. The same producer stated that he “never recovered [economically] from mad cow disease,” which struck in 2003. He noted that although other producers did experience a degree of help from government subsidies, he did not. He also expressed that he felt overwhelmed by the ‘intense’ paperwork required to obtain the subsidies, which ultimately dissuaded him from participating.

19


Because costs are so high and profit margins are so low, farmers are forced to adopt an economy of scale whereby profits are based on volume as opposed to margins. For those producers who cannot afford to expand their operations, profitability in the face of ever increasing costs continues to diminish.

5.3 B: Cost of Feed The cost of feed was a major concern for several poultry and livestock producers in the Headwaters Region. For instance, a local biodynamic farmer told us that with 300 organic chickens, he could sell them for $30 each. In fact he would have spent $20 feeding each chicken. This does not even account for the other costs of raising poultry (hydro, taxes, etc.), so the profits to be made are quite low considering the cost of feed. Likewise, a venison producer told us that feed is “the largest barrier” she encounters in her operations. For her, this barrier is particularly difficult to deal with in the winter months, which ultimately causes her to “depend on another cash crop” in order to cover expenses. Another livestock producer who also farms cash crops said, “For the last 4 or 5 years the price for global crops has been good, but that means the animal guys suffer.” According to a new producer, who is also a processor and distributor, that runs a small operation on a family member’s farm, the cost of feed is especially expensive if producers are raising organically fed animals. “The cost of feed is especially pricey when the food is free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).” In terms of the pigs she raises, each individual pig will have consumed $500 worth of feed by the time it goes to market. An additional problem cited by livestock producers was the weather and having adequate storage for feed. Feed, one producer noted, is vulnerable to the weather, “if it gets wet you can’t use it.”

5.3 C: Cost of Transportation The issue of transportation was raised several times throughout our interviews. Everything from the lack of transportation for workers to the transportation costs associated with the shipment of livestock to distant abattoirs was reported by the respondents we interviewed. The rising costs associated with transportation such as increases in fuel prices and insurance add an additional burden on to small and midsize producers, and distributors alike. For small producers having to sell their own produce at various markets, the increasing costs of transportation becomes another barrier in an already constrained environment.

20


5.3 D: Cost of Electricity Several producers, primarily livestock producers, identified the high cost of electricity as an ongoing issue. The increase in electricity costs over the last several years has had a direct impact on farming costs. One livestock producer had a wind turbine on his property as a means of recuperating some of the costs associated with electricity. The initial cost for the turbine was $72,000. He sells the electricity he generates back to the grid, with a return on investment (ROI) of $10,500 per year. From an investment perspective and as a way to offset the high costs of hydro, wind turbines seem to provide a viable solution. However, the initial capital investment required is an expense that many farmers cannot afford.

5.4 BARRIER: Labour Issues As for many small businesses, labour is a serious issue both in terms of costs, and recruitment and training. Throughout the food system, producers, processors and distributors are finding it difficult to find suitable labour. Moreover, the recent announcement of a minimum wage increase was criticized and cited as an obstacle by those respondents who rely on employees and outside labour.

5.4 A: Labour Costs The recent 2014 increase in the minimum wage was cited several times throughout our research. In total, 14 respondents, of which the majority were producers, identified increases in the minimum as being a major problem, which are reflected in the following statements from producers: 1) “The increase in the minimum wage results in farm helpers making more than I do.” 2) “The minimum wage increase is bad for farmers.” 3) “The minimum wage increase will be a challenge.” The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) has addressed the increase in the minimum wage, which is scheduled to go into effect on June 1, 2014. “The OFA shares the government’s goal of alleviating poverty. However, in our submission to the Ministry of Labour’s advisory panel OFA indicated increasing minimum wage to reduce poverty is poor public policy and asking employers to shoulder this burden is an ineffective approach” (OFA, 2013). Considering that Ontario farmers are currently experiencing a “financial crisis,” resistance to the Ontario minimum wage increase is expected. Furthermore, the OFA expressed a fear that

21


minimum wage increases will result in small producers ultimately leaving the farming industry (Wales, 2013).

5.4 B: Shortage of Workers The distributors we interviewed, local restaurants and caterers in particular, identified a lack of skilled labour as being a major barrier in terms of including local foods on their menus. Local foods are less processed and require additional time and skill to prepare the meal. For example, a chef in Orangeville told us that “Because the local food is less processed, I need to cook more, and I require highly skilled cooks in the kitchen.” The shortage of skilled labour is, to some extent, related to the lack of food literacy skills systematically reported by all categories of respondents in our study. Ultimately, preparing locally grown foods requires a certain degree of food literacy that is not necessarily required when preparing processed foods. A similar sentiment was shared with us by a representative from the dairy industry, who told us that aside from the “...good core group of plant workers...” who they have had with them for a long time, “...there is plenty of turnover in the plants.” According to him, their dairy spends a great deal of money on recruiting and training to ensure that all employees are aware of food safety issues. “When there is a high turnover, plenty of money is wasted.”

5.4 C: Migrant Workers The shortage of available and qualified workers has led to an increase in migrant workers in the agricultural sector. Seasonal workers from abroad increasingly represent more and more of the labour force working on farms in Ontario. Every year, approximately 20,000 labourers from Mexico and the Caribbean arrive in Ontario to work in agriculture (Cole, 2012). Between 2000 and 2012, Dufferin County hosted approximately 330 migrant workers (Citizenship and Immigration Canada). Some of the participants in our study defined foreign seasonal labourers as “harder workers” than local youth. “I have two guys come in from Mexico for 6 months every year... by the time I pay them and provide housing it’s not any cheaper for me, but they work faster so it works out cheaper for me than hiring younger workers.”

22


A lack of people willing to work on farms combined with a perception that seasonal migrant workers are more efficient and thus more cost effective has created a vacuum in terms of youth unemployment. As one food advocate stated, “Migrant workers... come in to do the farming in the warmer weather, and middle class white teens are classifying farming as ‘Mexican work’. This promotes racism.” We have heard similar stories from elsewhere in Ontario where seasonal migrant workers are racially abused by local community residents upset over the perception that seasonal workers are ‘taking their jobs away’, but clearly there is a multiplicity of variables that have contributed to the shortage of workers in the agricultural sector. Clearly, this is a complex issue that intersects with variables related to youth, labour, the economy, culture, and globalization, all of which are deserving of future analysis.

5.4 D: Transportation for Workers The issue of transportation has become a labour issue for many producers and distributors. This is a problem for young workers in particular, who do not always have access to vehicles, or a third party to drive them to work. In fact, one producer told us that, during the summertime, “You don’t commute to a farm.” He points to, what he sees as, outdated regulations imposed by the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC) that “...reflects the level of consciousness of [the 1970s],” making it difficult for him to build housing for seasonal workers on his farm. For him, this is a major barrier. He argued that “They don’t understand how many people it takes to farm a small area. Multiple dwellings must exist on a small farm.” Another producer told us that workers on his farm are coming from Orangeville, Brampton and Georgetown. As a result, he cited transportation as a major challenge to expanding his operation and being able to hire more people to work on the farm. “Last year we employed 6 people... for 2014 we want to employ 8 to 9 people and we can accommodate more... are target is to employ 10 to 15 people, but transportation is a major challenge.”

5.5 BARRIER: Finance and Equipment Issues For farmers as well as many small processors and distributors, having access to financing is a major challenge. During our interviews, a vast number of those who responded that financing was an issue, needed capital to purchase farm equipment. Conversely, those who responded that they needed equipment to effectively run their farms told us they did not have available

23


funds to purchase new equipment. The correlation between financing and equipment, then, was stronger for those respondents we spoke with more so than any other relationship to financing.

5.5 A: Securing Equipment Many producers had issues around farm equipment ranging from the cost to fix equipment and the knowledge and resources necessary to repair equipment, to the cost of purchasing equipment or buying additional equipment in order to engage in mixed or diverse farming practices. Having access to financing to purchase and maintain equipment was cited as a major concern. One mixed farmer said she had to pay for farmers to come in with their equipment because they did not have the necessary equipment needed. She commented, “We just don’t have the money for equipment and infrastructure.” In many cases, producers required equipment such as tractors, but were unable to access the necessary capital needed to purchase new equipment. One producer told us that it would cost $40,000 to purchase frost fans, which would mitigate weather conditions that negatively impact his crop. While this would have reduced his losses due to frost damage in 2012, he lacked the necessary funds to invest in the fans. The loss in productivity resulting from a lack of equipment is a serious problem.

5.5 B: Funding from Traditional Financial Institutions Not having access to capital is a major barrier for any business. Getting access to capital for things like equipment, or to offset a bad growing season, is difficult for small and mid-size operators. In many cases the businesses do not generate enough net income or there is little equity because farmland is leased. For traditional financial institutions, small and mid-size farms are seen as a high risk. In addition, the economic down turn in 2008 meant that banks tightened up on their lending practices. For producers, accessing capital is necessary if they want to stay competitive or if they need to expand their operation. One producer had applied for a $70,000 loan to purchase a tractor, but was rejected by the bank. He was confident, however, that he could get a loan elsewhere for the tractor, but generally, traditional financial institutions have similar lending policies.

5.5 C: Bridge Financing An agricultural producer that engages in mixed farming noted that he needed to raise $176,000 to buy equipment. He was aware of the barriers that surround securing conventional financing from banks and other financial institutions. One of the issues is that he does not produce enough income from his farm to qualify for a loan. The other issue was that the farmland is

24


leased so there is no collateral or equity to secure a loan. However, he noted that if he could raise the $176,000 for equipment the farm would be self-sufficient. In other words, he needed a capital injection of $176,000 to produce $250,000 gross income per year. He believed that if the farm was generating $250,000 per year and was self-sufficient, securing future financing from traditional sources would not be an issue. In this instance, the producer strongly felt that if he could access bridge financing he would be able to initiate his business plan and make his operation successful. While not bridge financing per se, an organization called Farm Start provided its Seed Capital Program for new farmers with $1,000 to $5,000 in start-up capital for infrastructure, seed, livestock, small tools, inputs and mentorship. The program, however, has since been discontinued.

5.5 D: Concentration and Allocation of Capital One producer was concerned with the way that capital investment from local communities was disconnected from local economies. He pointed out that of the 13 million dollars invested in RSPs by some 2,500 local residents, and only 1 to 2 percent of that investment makes its way back into the local economy. In other words, despite a large pool of capital being generated within the community, very little of it was invested locally. More to the point, there are no real mechanisms for that money to be reallocated back into local investments, businesses, and economies. Instead, what we see are funds invested in national and global enterprises. There is, however, potential to generate a return on investment (ROI) at par or higher than many traditional investments through funding things like bridge financing.

5.6 BARRIER: Weather Issues The farm business and the farmers’ livelihood are dependent on the weather. The effects of climate change present very real challenges for farmers in Ontario (Canada’s Action on Climate Change). The latest UN report on climate change concluded the following: “Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yield have been more common than positive impacts” (Climate Change 2014). The report also states that “...the smaller number of studies showing positive impacts relate mainly to highlatitude regions, though it is not yet clear whether the balance of impacts has negative or positive in these regions” (Climate Change 2014).

25


Nevertheless, climate change will continue to affect agriculture and agricultural production in Ontario from irregular weather patterns and seasonal weather disruptions, to higher frequencies of droughts and floods, to an increase in invasive pests and crop diseases. Not surprisingly, several producers cited weather as a major factor in their business. In 2012 local berry and fruit producers were heavily affected by the weather, losing up to 85 percent of their crops. An unseasonably warm March followed by a cold April resulted in severe frost damage to fruit buds. Another producer was unable to plant the remaining 90 percent of his primary crop because of early frost in the fall of 2013. As one producer put it “You really have to diversify your crops to offset the weather.” However, the diversification of crops requires additional investment for land and equipment that many producers cannot afford.

5.6 A: Crop Insurance Many agricultural producers are reluctant to purchase crop insurance. This trend was more common among smaller fruit and berry producers as opposed to larger cash crop operations. The contrast between crops and farm size suggests that crop insurance may not be structurally designed for smaller farming operations. A cash crop producer said, “I can’t understand why farmers wouldn’t have crop insurance,” whereas several fruit and berry farmers said they thought crop insurance was too expensive and/or the claim process was too onerous, and did not fairly compensate farmers.

5.6 B: Agricultural Practices Agricultural practices and management play a significant role in dealing with weather events. As mentioned earlier, 2012 was a difficult year for farmers. An unusually warm March followed by colder weather in April resulted in severe crop damage for many producers. One fruit producer lost 80 percent of his crop and another berry producer reported that he had lost 85 percent of his crop. Neither of these producers carried crop insurance to help mitigate their losses. However, another berry producer managed to avoid the high losses incurred by other producers by spraying copper on his crop. The copper spray increases the temperature by 2 degrees which was enough to protect his crop. Barring issues around equipment and affordability, crop success or failure can come down to farming and crop knowledge. Low cost resources such as farming practice sites that are highly visible and accessible or a mentoring program and/or farming network may have been able to offset some of the losses experienced by berry farmers in 2012. Additional resources such as an investment in equipment like frost fans may have been able to reduce some of the fruit crop losses.

26


5.7 BARRIER: Lack of Support and Resources A decrease in the confidence by residents in the Headwaters Region towards government and government agencies was apparent during our interviews. The perception among many Headwaters residents is that government makes it increasingly difficult for small and midsize producers, processors and distributors to make a living, while at the same time cater to larger corporate interests, or promote environmentally unsound businesses as a ‘tax grab’. Overall, this has led to a decline in confidence, and a crisis of legitimacy for government and government agencies at the local, provincial and federal levels. The local resistance to expanding aggregate operations in rural Ontario is one example that illustrates the decline in public confidence surrounding government and government regulations, policies and procedures. A local distributor told us about the frustration he experienced around, what he saw as, the double standards exercised by the Niagara Escarpment Commission. He noted that while the Niagara Escarpment Commission had a barrage of regulations, guidelines and restrictions, ranging from the colour of the shingles on his house to the size of a sign on his property, they allowed gravel pits to operate within the Escarpment with impunity, citing that aggregate operations were a threat to the water table and water ways. “I don’t understand how come they can keep licensing gravel pits... many of them have diesel spills from machinery, and the pits go below the water table... This can have a damaging effect on the water, the same water that we use for drinking and irrigation.” Concerns over local water quality and the environment are in sharp contrast to the regulations exercised on local residents and farmers by municipalities and various authorities, such as the Niagara Escarpment Commission, creating feelings of anger, mistrust and skepticism by community members towards, what are perceived as, hypocritical policies and practices that favour large interests over community health and safety. The Provincial government has recently completed a Review of the Aggregate Resources Act in October 2013, after vocal protest from communities throughout Ontario (Ontario Farmland Trust).

5.7 A: Misunderstanding of Small Farm Needs by Municipalities We heard from all segments of the Headwaters food system that local, county and regional governments do not listen and/or understand the needs of small and midsize producers, processors and distributors. The issues ranged from zoning and permits, to local economic development and bureaucracy. One producer noted that for the most part, “Dealing with the township was pretty good, but the bureaucracy is counter intuitive.”

27


Overall, however, there is a perception within the Headwaters Region that there is a lack of support, especially for agricultural producers. As one producer put it “...regulations [and policies] all seem to work against farmers.”

5.7 B: Lack of Government Support and Resources for Small Farms An agricultural producer that also runs a CSA noted that any local, sustainable food movement must be connected to other movements and resources to be successful. He noted that the local food movement is unsustainable because it’s not connected to other movements such as the environmental movement, etc. Moreover, government resources at all levels are directed towards agribusiness, as opposed to smaller, organic operations and local, sustainable food systems. A similar comment came from a farm owner, who said, “...because there’s not enough food demand, we don’t get the same support from government that other industries get, like the petrochemical companies.” The Ontario Local Food Act is one example that might be cited as providing support and resources for local agricultural producers. Though there was, initially, a lot of optimistic enthusiasm for a local food act, the Act itself did not provide agricultural producers with the necessary support and resources to stave off the current crisis in farming. Another issue that producers cited was around local marketing. We heard from several producers and distributors that there were not enough marketing resources for the area. Many suggested that there needed to be a regional marketing campaign including local branding, links to restaurants for producers, and regional food hubs to help bridge the producer/consumer disconnect. “We need branding services like they have in Prince Edward County and the Niagara Peninsula, and links on how to find restaurants to sell to....”

5.8 BARRIER: Land, Land Use, and Land Use Policies There are multiple concerns, issues and challenges surround farmland ranging from availability and development, to zoning and permits. Farmland cost and availability, then, are of the utmost importance to being able to sustain any kind of agricultural system. As one food advocate put it “...you can’t afford to buy farmland and expect to make a living from it.” David Connell, associate professor of environmental planning at the University of Northern B.C. is heading up a three year research project involving nine researchers from universities

28


across Canada to examine how farmland is managed in Canada and the increased pressures to develop agricultural land. “In spite of efforts over the past 40 years, Canada has experienced a continual loss of prime farmland across the country. Since 1971, urban activities have been responsible for the conversion of 12,000 square kilometers of farmland, roughly twice the size of Prince Edward Island.... The issue is especially acute in Ontario, which contains the country’s largest supply of prime agricultural lands....” (Hume, 2013).

5.8 A: Farmland Accessibility We heard from multiple producers that prices for farmland in the Headwaters Region are too expensive to purchase and/or there was a shortage of leasable agricultural land in the area. Many farmers that wanted to expand their businesses said there was no land available to rent, while other producers had to travel considerable distances between cultivated plots. As one producer told us “It’s really hard to find farmland to rent in the area, especially for cows.” Many of the producers in the Headwaters Region that we interviewed were middle-age when they started farming and had either acquired start-up funds from their previous professions in the city, or had taken over their parents farms. A surprising number of farms were family farms that had been operating across multiple generations. Even new farmers that had acquired their parents’ farms noted that land prices where proportionately lower when their parents had purchased the land. “If I had to buy this land today, I wouldn’t have been able to afford it... and I certainly wouldn’t be farming now.” We spoke with an agricultural producer that runs a CSA within the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority (TRCA). To meet the needs and demands of new and existing agricultural producers the TRCA is looking at ways to open up land for local food systems. Currently, of the 40,000 acres under TRCA control, only 3,000 acres are currently in agricultural production. Opening up further lands in the TRCA for agricultural production has several advantages: 1) the land remains under the control and protection of the TRCA; 2) leased land under the TRCA avoids the costs associated with purchasing farmland; 3) increasing farmable land will help reduce the demand for agricultural farmland; 4) lands dedicated to agricultural production within the TRCA will help meet the rising demands for food as the GTA continues to grow.

29


5.8 B: Cost of Farmland The cost of farmland was cited as a major concern for a large majority of producers that we spoke with. Currently, farmland in the Headwaters Region ranges between $100,000 per acre in the southern parts to $9,000 per acre in the northern parts. One of the problems associated with the high cost of farmland is that, according to one producer “...private property is susceptible to speculative land prices.” The issue of escalating farmland prices is particularly problematic in the Headwaters Region given its close proximity to the GTA. It is not so much that the land is worth X amount of money, but that ‘speculation’ drives the price up based on future predictions. Basing the price of agricultural land on an uncertain future has created a barrier for new farmers, as well as for existing producers looking to expand their operations. As one farmer noted, “...everyone is concerned over land costs.”

5.8 C: Farm-to-Farm Sales verses Speculation One producer said that the high cost of land is based on speculation which, he believed, is overvalued. As he put it “There must be a better way to evaluate farmland in urban fringes.” Speculative prices and resulting farmland prices are higher closer to urban areas such as the GTA. As such, the tax rate for farmland is based on the speculation price as opposed to the potential revenues that could be produced from the land. In addition, producers with higher land values are faced with higher tax rates, which is an additional expense that farmers have to incur. Speculative market values and higher property taxes are a primary barrier to farmers purchasing farmland because the cost of land cannot generate enough corresponding income to pay for itself. The producer we spoke with said that farmland should not be based on speculation and corresponding ‘market value’ but must be based on a farm to farm formula which would allow farmers to purchase land based on ‘farm value’ and avoid the influence place on urban space.

5.8 D: Municipal Land Use Policy Changes associated with the 2014 Provincial Policy Statement that directs land use policy, and the adoption of Official Plans and Official Plan Amendments by municipalities within the Headwaters Region will have an impact on future municipal zoning which will afford more flexibility to the agricultural sector. The degree to which municipalities can direct and exercise

30


land use policy within the guidelines of the Ontario Planning Act, however, is unclear. One assessment describes municipal discretionary powers within the Planning Act as follows: “The municipal government’s role in land use planning is significant.... While overarching provincial laws, policies, and plans set land use planning priorities and provide guidance, a great deal of discretion is left to municipalities to make local land use planning decisions that respond to local conditions and which are appropriate for the future of their communities” (Dunn, 2013). There are several issues related to municipal land use policy that were revealed during our discussions with producers and distributors within Headwaters Region. One farmer told us that, restrictions associated with Minimum Distance Separation (MDS) around how close a farm is to a residential subdivision effects his ability to expand his operations in the future. From his perspective, established farms must give way to ongoing development. Another farmer told us that while the municipality followed the Ontario Planning Act, the municipal official plan would not allow for the severance of a new lot. In the past, 3 lots could be severed off per 100 acres, which has now been reduced to 1 lot per 100 acres. At the time, the 200 acre farm only had one residential unit. Despite this, she said they had to battle with the town to be able to build another dwelling on the property. According to another producer “There is a conflict between rural people and the people living in town... the people moving into town are from the city and want to live in the country side without the urban commute.” She was concerned that as people moved into the Headwaters Region from urban centres to the south and settled into local communities, their concerns were often at odds with those of farmers. Moreover, she believed that municipal councils were increasingly made up of nonfarmers which would impact local municipal by-laws and policies, favouring the concerns of town’s people over rural residents.

5.8 E: Municipal Permits We heard several stories from participants about municipal permits, citing everything from delays in occupancy permits, to duplication of services with other agencies, to the cost of permits. The most troubling story we heard was from a producer who wants to build a market on her farm. She was told by the town that they could only issue a temporary permit for her market. She was troubled by the fact that it was a ‘temporary permit’ because of the uncertainty it invoked, especially given the financial commitment she is about to undertake. She told us that

31


“OPA 179 [Official Plan Amendment 179 from the Town of Caledon] allows farmers to increase their on farm sales, so why do I need a temporary permit.” Moreover, in 2013 she was told that the temporary permit would cost $8,500 and then in January 2014, she was told the permit would cost $14,000. “The planner was ready in January, and the regional and town reps were on site for discussions... the paperwork was all ready... then, at the last minute, they said the permit was $14,000.” To make matters worse, once she applied to put in a commercial market, the Region of Peel appropriated 10 feet of her property along the length of her farm, which is about a half an acre. She told us that the Region of Peel is not compensating them for the land. Given the current financial crisis in farming and the apparent lack of support for small and midsize producers, additional increases in costs for farmers attempting to expand their operations seems counter intuitive, especially given the emphasis on developing community food systems and local economies.

5.8 F: Provincial Planning Act As mentioned, the Ontario Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement direct land use protection, policy and planning across the entire province. The policies provide environmental and farmland protection. However, the Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement give little autonomy to local municipalities attempting to initiate local planning outside of the provincial guidelines. A representative from the Town of Caledon said the Provincial Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement did not give municipalities much lead way in terms of planning and zoning. In many ways, The Planning Act is paternalistic. While provincial policies are necessary in order to direct sustainable land use policies over the long term, the regulations and policies also restrict municipalities from instituting innovative and progressive policies that would benefit local economies, agricultural producers, and sustainable land use practices, a problem that was raised by many producers within the Headwaters Region. Despite the best efforts of the Ontario government, there are still many problems associated with The Planning Act and its effectiveness in protecting farmland. The introduction of the Green Belt 9 years ago and commitment to protect farmland from urban sprawl signals that the province is attempting to redirect its policies to create sustainable land use policies. However, many of the problems and barriers faced by agricultural producers are related to existing policies. Moreover, despite protecting farmland, there is an ever increasing amount of farmland that is being developed. The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) came into effect the end of April 2014, which requires that all other land use policy within Ontario outside of the Provincial

32


Plans must be consistent with the policies as stated within the Provincial Policy. The PPS is reported to have new policies dealing with value added uses on agricultural farmland.

5.8 G: Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) A large number of respondents from numerous agricultural sectors, occupying various segments along the food system, expressed serious concerns over MPAC and MPAC tax assessments of their farms and businesses. The perception by producers and those producers also engaged in processing and/or distribution, is that the MPAC tax assessments of their farms are unfair, citing two main reasons: 1) land prices were assessed based upon market values that were ‘driven up’ by speculation, and 2) they were being charged with a commercial tax even though their farms were not zoned commercial. For local small and midsize producers, the increased tax burden is just another example of unfair policies and a lack of government support. According to one of the producers we spoke with, “MPAC assessments were inflated.” He went on to say that even though they are classified as a farm, they were charged a commercial rate as well. “The commercial tax is based on a percentage of land that is zoned agricultural, but that’s an arbitrary figure... how do they determine how much revenue was generated to tax you on.” His other concern was that even though a portion of his tax rate was ‘commercial’ his land was zoned agricultural as opposed to commercial or mixed zoning, yet he was not able to build a commercial building on his farm. “If they are going to tax me as a commercial business, then I should be able to put up a commercial building.” The contradiction between agricultural/commercial zoning and taxes had several farmers feeling that they were being unfairly treated. Many of them saw this as both a municipal as well as a provincial problem.

5.8 H: Conservation Authorities The Headwaters Region is unique in the sense that there are several conservation authorities operating in the region: the Toronto Regional Conservation Authority, Credit Valley Conservation Authority, Grand River Conservation Authority, and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority. The presence of multiple policies, regulations and authorities becomes a major obstacle for farmers wishing to modify, renovate, build or expand their operations.

33


One producer we spoke with said he had to make 21 copies to apply for a severance permit. Making additional copies was not a direct barrier to his business but rather, he was annoyed at the level of bureaucracy and duplication of services, believing that the waste of resources could have been better spent on providing much needed resources for farmers. The four conservation authorities operating in the region are independent and have their own mandates. As such, there is seemingly a high rate of duplication within a system that performs the same function according to those interviewed.

5.8 I: Encroaching Development The encroachment of development both locally and from communities bordering the Headwaters Region to the south is a mixed blessing to local food producers, processors and distributors. In many ways, the Headwaters Region is in a unique situation to access markets not as easily available to producers further north. Several producers and distributors noted that the increase in population has boosted their sales. Many of them were drawing customers from larger centres such as Brampton. One producer suggested that local farmers were not fully maximizing the market opportunities and potential of the high density and diverse urban populations that lie just south of the Headwaters Region. Rather than going into urban areas, producers and distributors are ‘passively’ waiting for the city to come to them. Another respondent noted that 75 to 80 percent of his customer base has English as a second language. He stated that the majority of his clientele was coming up from the city. He felt that many new Canadians and first generation Canadians were more accustom and comfortable with open markets. While there are benefits to urban growth, both locally and to the south, for local producers, and processor and distributors, not all of the respondents we interviewed saw further urban development as a positive activity. Many respondents believed that the encroachment of urban development was negatively impacting agricultural land and driving the land prices up. According to one producer, developers and speculators, unlike small and midsize farmers, “...have the ability to pay for [expensive] farmland.” Moreover, several respondents suggested that the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) favoured developers over local residents and communities, especially when it came to appeals.

5.9 BARRIER: Regulations There are various regulations that local processors and distributors are subject to. For small local operators, many of these regulations can be demanding in terms of knowledge, logistics, resources, cost, and time. Much of the regulations and policies regarding food seem geared towards large and mid-size companies specializing in food processing, which creates additional challenges for smaller, independent processors. Moreover, increased regulation around food

34


handling and abattoirs, for instance, has made it difficult for many small operators to make a living. Ironically, many of these small operators are producers and have had to move into the processing and distribution side of the business to be able to generate enough income from their farms. In many cases, small scale processors and distributors felt that in some instances many areas within the food system were over regulated, and went beyond simply protecting the public interest and consumers. Another issue that came up was around the inconsistency to which regulations where enforced, especially when it came to health inspections.

5.9 A: Health Regulations In an attempt to address some of the concerns and skepticism around food regulation and food handling we interviewed a public health inspector from a local public health unit. We asked about the regulations themselves, and the degree to which, as the producers and distributors claimed, they were responsible for, as one producer and distributor put it, “[chasing] the red meat industry out of existence.” The health inspector responded by saying, “It’s likely true that they couldn’t keep up with the standards. All meat has to be inspected and approved. The legislation is getting really stiff. [We] used to look past rusty hooks. But, now there are concerns about E. Coli and Listeria... so, everything must be as sanitary as possible.... There’s more issues and legislation... and it costs a lot of money. They would have had to build new walls, etc.... Inspectors would be swabbing all of the nooks and crannies.” Based on the claims made by respondents that inspectors and inspections are inconsistent, the health inspector noted that “Everyone has a different idea... interpretation is key, and every health unit has different ideas.” The inspector lends validity to the frustrations within the food system about “too much regulation,” and inconsistent inspections. However, considering the highly publicized outbreaks of E. Coli in the fall of 2012 (Lewis, Corriveau, et al, 2013) and the Listeria outbreak of 2008, which resulted in the deaths of 20 Canadians (Public Health Agency of Canada, 2008), “stiffening up” legislation and the stricter enforcement of rules are both necessary and to be expected. It should be noted, however, that most outbreaks occur at large processing plants, such as Maple Leaf Foods. Rarely do we hear of outbreaks originating from small, independent processors. Regulations based on the economy of scale are still subject to health risks, and simultaneously squeezes small processors out of the market. That being said, the resulting loss of infrastructure is proving to be increasingly inhibitive for Ontario producers, especially those who deal with livestock.

35


5.9 B: Government Inspected Kitchen Infeasibility Producers throughout the Headwaters Region that would like to expand their operations and include micro processing, like baking or making preserves, told us that “A government kitchen is not feasible,” or that “The hydro bills are too unmanageable to run the necessary fridges and freezers.”

5.9 C: Nutrient Management Rules Nutrient management rules are very strict, in part, due to the potential contamination of water ways and water tables. As a result of the new Provincial Nutrient Management Regulations that took effect September 30, 2003, any Building Permit application for a structure that will house farm animals may be subject to this new regulation. The position of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture on the Nutrient Management Act is that “The majority of Ontario producers are committed to handling their nutrients responsibly. For the majority, the introduction of this Bill will simply require their efforts to be formalized. For others, this will be an excellent chance to be educated about environmental protection practices and, as a result, make modifications in their operation. Since soil and water are the foundation of agriculture, we as an industry cannot be sustainable if producers are not managing nutrients responsibly” (OFA, 2014). However, for small and midsize livestock producers, the regulations have made it difficult for them to adhere to the new regulations in terms of resources, such as cost, time and knowledge. One producer noted, “...nutrient management is well meaning, but difficult to manage.” He went on to say, “I can’t afford an engineer to come in and test it all of the time. The legislation doesn’t support small farms.... It is very prohibitive.” Many smaller producers reported nutrient management rules as a major barrier, from constantly having to test the soil keeping up with the legislation surrounding Nutrient Management Regulations. One producer told us, “I got rid of animals because I didn’t want to worry about nutrient management rules.”

36


5.9 D: Liquor Control Board of Ontario (LCBO) A small producer who also processed wines had several issues with LCBO. Initially, he had problems getting a permit to sell alcohol. He cited this as a problem because there are only two ways he can sell his wines, either through the LCBO or through his own store. Currently, the LCBO does not permit processors to sell their wines online. For him, he preferred to sell from his market store and cut out the wholesaler, the LCBO, who, according to him, takes a significant percentage of the retail price. For small producer/processors and micro processers, wholesale distribution is not cost effective. The restrictions around alcohol and alcohol sales are very prohibitive, making the future for cottage industries that produce spirits, wines, and beers extremely difficult. Another producer/processor that made alcoholic ciders also expressed frustration around the policies and regulations that he saw as major barriers to his business.

5.10 BARRIER: Animal Care and Processing Livestock producers are faced with numerous challenges from the high cost of feed and electricity to nutrient management and animal care. Animal processing and the closing of local abattoirs have had a major impact on local poultry and livestock producers. The problem of abattoir closures, however, has been identified by the provincial government and is well established in the literature. For example, a report of the meat regulatory and inspection review from the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General in 2004 called, Farm to Fork: A Strategy for Meat Safety in Ontario, highlights the need for local abattoirs stating, “In my view, there is no need to sacrifice this sector of the provincial economy in order to secure a safe supply of meat” (Haines, 2004). However, since the publication of the Attorney General’s report in 2004, little has changed to redress the lack of abattoirs throughout rural Ontario.

5.10 A: Large Animal Veterinarian Care We heard from both a producer and a distributor that there was a lack of large animal vets in the region. However, if one producer is having problems accessing veterinarian care this maybe a larger issues that should be further investigated. While this was not a barrier cited by other animal producers, follow up questions asking specially if producers have access to large animal veterinarian care should be undertaken to determine the extent of the problem within the Headwaters Region. In addition, an environmental scan of large animal veterinarian care in the Headwaters Region should also be undertaken in the future to determine the extent to which this is a barrier for livestock producers.

37


5.10 B: Abattoir Closures Virtually all of the producers we spoke to who raise livestock in Dufferin County and Caledon brought up the issue of abattoirs. Due to increased health regulations, and more stringent enforcement of those regulations, slaughterhouses throughout Ontario have been disappearing. Since 1991, there has been a 40 percent decrease in operational abattoirs in Ontario (Barter, 2012). According to one livestock producer in Caledon, 3 abattoirs were closed in the Headwaters Region alone. The loss of this important dimension of farming infrastructure represents a key issue for the meat and poultry producers in the Headwaters Region. Many of the producers interviewed tell us that the travel time and planning involved in preparing their animals for slaughter is a major barrier in meat production, and ultimately drives up the cost for their consumers. One Dufferin producer tells us that he has to “book 6 months in advance” of when he intends to take his animals for slaughter, and then ultimately “drives 80 kilometers.” Another producer told us that she had to travel one hour each way to get her beef slaughtered. The concern over the closure of abattoirs was also noted by distributors, restaurant operators in particular, and consumers, which reveals the degree to which the closures have deeply and systemically impacted the food system in the area. While identifying a lack of abattoirs in the Headwaters Region as a major problem for his production, one cattle farmer also felt that the closures were necessary in some ways as “...they weren’t all that great in the first place.” But, he also points out that “...there was too much government control directed at the slaughterhouses.” This account demonstrates the ambivalence around the closures. On the one hand, producers express a great deal of support for clean, sanity abattoir conditions which are necessary for producing healthy meats, and on the other hand, there exists a great deal of frustration. These frustrations relate to a lack of access to close, convenient and reliable slaughterhouses. Furthermore, some producers and food advocates also tell us that health inspectors are inconsistent with their inspections of abattoirs, and are sceptical of the regulations themselves. One Headwaters food advocate wonders if the regulations should be re-examined and asks, “...are we really at risk?”

5.11 BARRIER: Food Cost and Availability Depending on what part of the food system you occupy determines the perspective you have on food costs. The food industry in general has low margins in relation to many other sectors, industries and products. Moreover, local producers must compete with globally produced foods that take advantage of lower costs, including lower labour costs. For those along the food

38


system, keeping costs to a minimum is necessary in order to be competitive and to maximize already tight margins.

5.11 A: Food Costs too Low As the costs associated with farming continue to increase (fuel, feed, hydro, etc.) the price of food has remained relatively stable. A large number of producers told us that prices for produce were too low and barely covered the cost of production. This was especially true for producers engaged in organic practices. As one producer told us “The prices in the market are too low and don’t represent the cost of production... especially now that incomes from farming have dropped.” During the outbreak of mad cow disease in 2003, livestock producers were forced to sell their cattle well below market price. At the same time, meat packers had an increase in supply, while there was, simultaneously, a decrease in the demand for beef by the Canadian public. As well, exports of beef were curtailed, creating an even larger surplus. Based on the concept of supply and demand, beef prices in local grocery stores should have been low. However, in retail outlets the price for beef remained unchanged. The savings incurred by the packing houses was not translated to the consumer. More importantly, livestock producers experienced severe losses in a market that, under normal circumstances, affords little in the way of profit margins.

5.11 B: Food Costs too High Restaurants were among the strongest voices that said local food prices were too high. It is worth noting, however, that the majority of the restaurants we spoke with understood why local food was more expensive than food supplied by larger manufacturers. For restaurants and caterers, cost and convenience are major factors. The profit margins for full service restaurants are extremely low in relation to other sectors. Controlling cost from labour to food determines the success or failure of a restaurant. It is easier and more cost effective to place a produce order with a single wholesaler then to deal with multiple suppliers that often charge higher prices. The high cost of food affects other producers within the food system as well. As mentioned, food prices are vulnerable to global markets and worldwide supply and demand. When the price for corn or grain increases, livestock producers, in particular, have to pay more for their feed. The increase in feed costs, however, does not always translate into higher prices for beef or poultry. Another area that has been affected by increased food costs, according to one farmer, is the emerging ethanol industry. Seen as an alternative to oil, higher prices for corn and grains have stifled the ethanol industry’s development over the last few years.

39


5.11 C: Not Enough Locally Produced Food to Meet Demand Many of the restaurant owners that we interviewed said there was not enough food in the local food system to meet their demand. Local producers cannot often meet the demands of local distributors and consumers for a variety of reasons, including availability of produce, seasonality, weather, and so on. We heard from several restaurants that while they try to buy local produce, local producers are often unable to supply their demands.

5.11 D: Not Enough Demand for Product One producer who also engages in both processing and distributing said that he needs increased demand for his products. Despite engaging in the food system at several levels, he still finds that he is not selling enough produce in relation to what he is currently producing. Because there is not enough local demand, he rents a cube van and drives to the Toronto Food Terminal twice a week to sell his produce.

5.11 E: Cannot Meet Demands of Customers and Distributors There is a paradox within the local food system where we see different producers saying the opposite things. We spoke to several producers that said there was not enough demand for their products, and yet there were other producers that said they could not keep up with the demand for their products. One vegetable producer, who sold directly to consumers, said he could not meet the demand for his produce. Another producer involved in mixed farming who supplied independent, commercial retail outlets, said he could not keep up with the demand. “My ability to supply enough is ‘the weak link’.”

5.12 BARRIER: Relationships within the Food System There is growing scientific evidence that the decline in bee populations and Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is linked to the use of pesticides and fungicides that either cause death, in the case of neonicotinoids, or, in combination, effect the immune system, reducing its ability to resist infection, disease, and parasites such as Nosema ceranae (Pettis & Lichenberg, et al, 2013; Pilatic, 2012). CCD has been devastating to apiculture producers, farmers who rely on bees to pollinate their crops, and the processors and distributors of honey. A local apiculture producer and processor of honey said that he has been losing 30 percent of his bees per year. The apiculture producer we spoke with felt fortunate, citing that many local producers had suffered losses as high as 60 percent. CDD directly affects local apiculture producers and associated processors and distributors of honey, resulting in a supply shortage and a sharp increase in the price of honey. If this trend continues, honey producers can expect to see a decline in sales. Unfortunately, similar conflicts and tensions exist throughout the food system at both the micro and macro levels.

40


5.12 A: Difficulty Working with Small and Local Producers While some representatives from restaurants in the Headwaters Region told us that they actively attempt to support the local growers by purchasing their produce and meats, many of them also believe that it is inconvenient to do so. Local growers have smaller volumes of products, and cannot provide dozens of specific cuts from a deer, or cow. Those who consistently work with local producers say that it takes a lot of effort. For example, a small restaurant owner said, “In the summer, I make a huge effort, and will actually drive to pick food up from a farmer. This is unique, and bigger restaurants can’t do it. You really have to go out of your way to get local, and be willing to do the legwork.” She also acknowledged that she is able to put in this level of effort because her restaurant is relatively small. For those who have larger, busier establishments, the extra “legwork” is not always a possibility. The head chef at a considerably larger establishment confirmed her concerns. “I don’t have time to visit local farmers… they need to reach out more. My boss doesn’t have time to do my shopping, which is why we tend to use the big suppliers.” Likewise, a representative from a restaurant in Grand Valley told us that some farmers approach them, but less than they would like, “wishing” that more farmers would contact them, letting them know what is available. Another sizeable barrier dividing chefs from local producers is the issuance of payment. The head chef at the large Orangeville restaurant discussed above points out that local, small scale producers typically prefer to be paid in cash, which he finds to be extremely inconvenient, especially if the delivery occurs during times when the restaurant is busy. Cash is not always accessible. That said, another head chef in Orangeville, describes the act of actually “putting the money in the farmer’s hand,” as extremely important to building relationships between chefs and the producers. While many local restaurants expressed frustration associated with the inconveniences of dealing with small producers, many of them continued to actively incorporate local food into their menus. Often, restaurants encounter resistance from consumers in the form of opposition to a malleable menu that changes along with the seasons. In total, 3 distributors we interviewed cited consumer opposition to changing menus as an ongoing issue. Other times, chefs and restaurant owners struggled with consumer resistance to the ‘appearance’ of local vegetables, which are rarely uniform in size and come in unique shapes that may appear strange and

41


unconventional compared to produce from large retailers. One producer, for instance, noted that “...my heirloom tomatoes are ugly, but so delicious.” She went on to say that she “harvests by taste, not appearance.” By contrast, a Caledon producer noted that “[Large distributors] do an excellent job of performing freshness. The veggies look fresh, but they’re not.” Three distributors talked about “relationships” with farmers as being paramount in the business that they do with farmers. The owner of a small Orangeville restaurant said that these relationships are typically ones that exist before the exchange of produce for money. In our interviews within distributors in Caledon and Dufferin County, it is apparent that many of the barriers they experienced stem from a lack of organizational structure or system that supports a working relationship between local restaurants and producers. Smaller operations have a difficult time meeting the demands, in terms of volume, convenience, and consumer expectations for consistent vegetables year round. However, based on the efforts and determination of many restaurants to incorporate local food into their menus strongly suggests that there is a potential market for local producers.

5.12 B: Challenges Working with Local Distributors In stark contrast to the challenges that distributors face when dealing with local producers, many farmers expressed difficulties working with local distributors. The main challenges encountered by producers included increased processing, supplying demand, cost effectiveness, and low prices for their produce. Many restaurants and grocery stores expect produce to be washed and ready to use. In terms of that delivering produce to restaurants as a means of expanding their market was not feasible due to logistics, cost effectiveness and the expectations of restaurants. “There’s a market for my garlic at higher-end restaurants, but it’s not cost effective for me.” Another producer told us that “Supply and supplier relationships are hard to establish because of variability.” We also spoke with two producers who felt that local restaurants misrepresented their use of local food, noting,

42


“...one restaurant still has a sign up, advertising that they got their potatoes from us, but he hasn’t talked to us in several months.” While dealing with restaurants had its own challenges, producers who tried to establish relationships with local grocery stores also found it difficult. One producer said that there was little interest towards local produce by grocery stores in the area. “I don’t supply any grocery stores... and managers aren’t interested too much.” Another producer stopped trying to sell his produce to local grocery stores because managers wouldn’t accommodate local, seasonal production timelines. “They wanted 70 to 80 flats but I could only supply 20. Once I was in full production, then they only wanted 10 to 15 flats.” He went on to say, “I wasn’t able to wholesale enough... they put local produce on special for one week before I came into full production... the week after that, the imported produce from California came in.”

5.12 C: Farmers Markets Inaccessible and Inconvenient Several producers that we spoke with sold their produce at farmer’s markets, while others cited the farmer’s markets as either inaccessible or inconvenient. One aspect of availability is space; a vender cannot simply go to the farmer’s market and set up a table and start selling produce. Several producers noted that farmer’s markets should be inside, like in Guelph and Peterborough, as opposed to outside. When asked, “Do you sell at farmers markets,” a producer replied, “There are too many markets in the area and it isn’t quite worth it.”

5.12 D: Marketing Boards and Quota Several producers brought up the issue of quotas during our interviews. A farmer who raises fewer than 300 chickens a year, for instance, is exempt from quotas, However, the minimum number of chickens that can be raised after 300, is 91,000 (Young & Watkins, 2010). The farmers that we interviewed believe that this gap, 300 to 91, 000, was unreasonable. According to one poultry producer,

43


“You can’t have more than 300 hens, and to buy quota is difficult. The government put people out of business.” Another producer tells us that she used to have hens, but the quota regulations prevented her from keeping them on her farm. As Young and Watkins point out, “The supply management system for foods such as eggs, milk, and poultry was created in the 1960s to correct a system in which processors and purchasers were able to use their purchasing power to keep prices low at the expense of producers” (2010). This is consistent with what many of our respondents consistently point out. The rules to which small producers are held accountable, are outdated, and work against small farmers. They ultimately need to be re-evaluated, reworked, and revised with an appreciation for contemporary farming and small producers.

5.12 E: Large Distributors Large distributors within the food system have the ability to affect prices directly. Moreover, the entire food system is designed for economies of scale wherein small and midsize producers are challenged by monopolies, price fixing, corporate interests, and global competition. As one restaurateur observed, “There is a clog up at the abattoirs... smaller farms are disappearing. Large corporations are in control.” He further commented that “The baseline prices for food are set by large scale distribution,” and that smaller local producers cannot compete with the prices. Large distributors such as grocery stores and wholesalers like SYSCO, and international distributors drive the prices down to the point that local farmers feel they cannot compete. Once the prices are set by large corporations, the lowest price becomes the norm. This point was made several times while conducting our interviews.

5.13 BARRIER: Cultural Attitudes towards Food To be “food literate” is to have an understanding of where food comes from, the effect our food has on individual health, the health of the environment as well as the economy. Food literacy also entails practical skills related to food preparation, and production. Finally, the concept refers to having the knowledge about, and preference for nutritious and safe food (Sustain Ontario, 2013)

44


5.13 A: Undervaluing Local Food Often local produce is undervalued based on its appearance or in terms of the labour that goes into producing it. Low impact farming practices, for instance, require intensive labour. Often, consumers do not see what is required to produce their food. One producer that practices organic and sustainable farming noted that his produce was based on “food artisanal” rather than being “industrial.” “Consumers don’t understand what goes into producing their food.... a lot of work goes into it.” He went on to say that while the food might not always look as pretty as commercially grown produce, it tastes better and is healthier. Educating consumers around organic, low impact and sustainable farming practices as well as food expectations was cited by several respondents as an area that was lacking.

5.13 B: Consumer Resistance to Changing Menus As mentioned, restaurants have a difficult time introducing local foods into their menus as it forces them to continuously change menu items based on seasonal foods. While this is not necessarily a problem in of itself, restaurants often experience back lash from consumers. In order to serve locally produced foods, consumers must be open to eating seasonally, which entails a menu that changes often. One woman, who runs a small eatery said, “Orangeville is a Tim Horton’s Town. Many consumers expect a $5 sandwich, and they expect it to look the same every day.” Another Orangeville chef wishes that he could have a “blackboard menu” that changes weekly depending on what local producers have available. However, he felt that his customers “would not tolerate” such a menu.

5.13 C: Labelling Consistency Inconsistent and unclear labelling has the potential to “trick the consumer” according to one producer. He tells us that when it comes to knowing whether or not a food item is produced in Canada, there exists a great deal of ambiguity. “Ontario #1 doesn’t mean it’s from here... it means it was packaged here.” Labelling is not consistent whether it says organic, Canadian, Ontario or Grown Local. Several respondents said present labelling misleads consumers and that labelling needs to be standardized.

45


5.13 D: The Glorification of “Organic” Along similar lines, many producers and distributors across the region consistently discuss a lack of understanding of the “organic” label. While many stated that consumers did not understand the certification process and the costs of producing organic foods, more of our respondents expressed concerns about how “organic food” has come to mean “good food,” and has done so at the expense of all other farming practices. For example, one producer/distributor expressed her frustration with the lumping together of “good” and “organic” when she told us “Everyone is on the organic bandwagon without having a general knowledge of what organic means.” She also wonders how many potential customers “...refuse [to buy their] food because [they] don’t use the [organic] label… local food is more sustainable than organic.” She was confident that the same consumers who seek out organic foods would find her growing and harvesting practices satisfying along the lines of sustainability, environmental consciousness, and health. A retired distributor, and someone who has been actively involved in Dufferin farming issues throughout her career, reiterates this farmer’s sentiments when she brings up her concern that this increasing preference for organic is creating powerful “stigmas” that are used to dismiss farmers who are not “certified organic,” telling us that “Many people mistakenly believe that farmers who aren’t organic are damaging the land.” This belief, she suggests, is unfair to farmers, whom she is certain overwhelmingly care about their products, the land and overall environment. “It’s all about relationship building and an understanding of the food chain.”

5.13 E: Organic Certification A large number of agricultural producers in the Headwaters Region farm using organic practices and methods. However, many of the producers we interviewed were not ‘certified organic’. This seemingly caused confusion for consumers who were not sure whether they were buying organic food or not.

46


Adding further complication to the issue is that many of the producers themselves that engage in organic processes on the farm do not seek out the certification. Many of the producers we spoke with said the certification process is too arduous, and that certification itself, is not standardized, which, according to many respondents, lacks legitimacy. Other producers refrained from being formally certified, because they “have a good reputation [and]… the trust of the community,” who know their operations, and are assured that their meats and produce are grown in an organic manner.

5.13 F: Education and Food Literacy Several of our respondents, particularly producers, distributors and food advocates told us that a lack of food knowledge represents a major road block within the Headwaters’ food system. For example, when it comes to preparing locally produced seasonal food, many producers are not confident that consumers have the necessary skill set to prepare or cook seasonal and local vegetables. A vegetable producer expressed his frustrations about a number of barriers standing between him and consumers in the Headwaters Region and there is a problem with the greater culture and food. He believes that part of the reason that people are not buying local food, is that they have not learned how to prepare seasonal foods. He thinks that farmers’ markets should feature cooking demonstrations that fill in these educational gaps. “Most people don’t know that massaging kale makes it less bitter. [Learning] this will get people inspired and educated.” He believes that simple tools like this are important for getting people excited and prepared for consuming local foods, especially during the colder months, when there are fewer vegetables available. Similarly, a mushroom producer told us that while they grow a variety of specialty mushrooms, consumers often opt for the traditional mushrooms. “People buy the plain white mushrooms more [because] the speciality mushrooms require explaining.” These producers, among others in our study, identified how a lack of practical skills prevents their products from being sold to local consumers. This issue highlights a linkage in the food system that is in need of repair. It helps us to understand that despite consumers’ growing interests in locally produced foods, which are often unprocessed, local foods may require additional time, effort and food preparation skills that consumers do not always have.

47


Moreover, consumers do not always “make the connection to the food they want” (Baker & Campsie, et al, 2010). In a social context where, as one producer noted, “eating has become all about easiness,” people who are inclined to support local farmers, are working against a culture that values and for many sociological reasons, often demands quick and easy meals. Even if consumers do make these connections, it is rarely the case that local, ethically grown foods are readily available in most grocery stores (Scharf & Levkoe, et al, 2010).

5.14 BARRIER: Local Food Security Food security is a serious issue that spans across local, provincial, federal and global food systems. In addition to being able to have access to safe and nutritious food, being able to obtain locally grown, fresh, seasonal foods is also a component of the food system and food security. Food security exists when, “...all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (World Food Summit, 1996). While food insecurity, on the other hand, is a situation of “...limited or uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways” (Bickel & Nord, et al, 2000). There are a variety of areas and issues surrounding food security. At the local level, food security discussions focus on household food security and community food security. While household food security and insecurity focuses on individuals and families (Nord & Hopwood, 2008), community food security also addresses wider social issues surrounding sustainable food systems and community self-reliance (Breckwich Vasquez & Lanza, 2007; Hamm & Bellows, 2003). “Community food security exists when all community residents obtain a safe, personally acceptable, nutritious diet through a sustainable food system that maximizes healthy choices, community self-reliance and equal access for everyone” (Slater, 2007). For the purposes of the study, both household and community food security were examined through our interviews with various food advocates.

48


5.14 A: Household Food Insecurity Almost 1 in 10 Canadian households experienced food insecurity in 2004. In addition to compromising nutrition, household food insecurity is associated with poorer physical, mental, and social health (Kirkpatrick & Tarasuk, 2009). As Dr. Ralph Martin noted in his talk at the 2013 Headwaters Food Summit, “Does it Make Sense to Build a Local Food System in a Globalizing World?” (2013), food insecurity costs the Canadian healthcare system much more in medical treatment for nutrition related illnesses than it would cost to supply food insecure Canadians with nutritious food. The primary cause of food insecurity is the result of inadequate individual and household incomes (Kirkpatrick & Tarasuk, 2009; Martin, 2013). In Ontario, the average household income after tax was $64,441. Dufferin County fairs slightly better than the provincial average at $65,756. However, within Dufferin County there is a wide range of average after tax household incomes between communities, ranging from $55,331 to $85,346. Shelburne and East Luther Grand Valley had the lowest average household income with Amaranth and East Luther Grand Valley having the highest rate of low income households. Using the Low Income Measure (LIM), 11 percent of households were identified as low income households within Dufferin County (Seskar-Hencic & Campbell, et al). Every year, Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health calculates the cost of basic healthy food consumption based on current nutritional recommendations. The calculation for healthy eating is based on a survey of local grocery stores, and examines the affordability and accessibility of foods in relation to individual and household incomes. In 2012, an average family of four living within the Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph (WDG) region needed to spend $191.20 per week in order to meet both the quantity and minimum nutritional requirements for their household. Using the Nutritional Food Basket (NFB) tool to calculate the cost of food, the cost of food for a family of four increased by 14.4 percent from 2009 to 2102 within the Wellington-DufferinGuelph region (Seskar-Hencic & Campbell, et al). Food security is intimately and inextricably connected with economic security. Without steady employment and fair wages, food security, including access to locally grown foods, is not possible.

5.14 B: Local Food and Food Banks Consistent with Ivanoff’s (2012) analysis of food security in Dufferin County, the representatives we interviewed at a food bank in Orangeville and a community kitchen in Caledon confirmed, among other things, an insufficient supply of fresh, nutritious food and insufficient linkages with primary producers. Headwaters residents that utilize emergency food services are neither receiving fresh, nutritious food nor locally grown food, revealing the disconnection between local producers and local food support organizations. As a result, those who are experiencing food insecurity have limited access to locally grown, fresh produce.

49


There are multiple reasons for the lack of fresh nutritious food and locally grown produce at community emergency food services, some of which were addressed under Food Costs and Availability, and Relationships between Producers, Processors and Distributors. For producers who are already financially strained, donating food to emergency food services can be costly, and often requires transportation and additional time. For emergency food organizations, providing fresh produce is often constrained by budgets and the necessary storage and equipment needed to maintain a supply of fresh produce. In addition, emergency food centres have limited hours of operation due to budgetary and staffing constraints, making receiving fresh food and its subsequent distribution a challenge in relation to packaged and frozen foods or dry goods. One of the issues cited by a volunteer at the food bank was that, until the Local Food Act, producers were not offered tax receipts if they made donations to local food banks. With the passing of this Bill 36, however, tax receipts will be issued to producers if they choose to donate, providing them some financial relief. This represents a step towards making local food more accessible to those who are food insecure. However, the 25 percent tax credit has been criticized for failing to help small producers in particular. Farmers with small operations, often engage in costly and highly skilled “hand harvesting,” say that it simply is not enough, considering that “...it doesn't even cover the cost of production, so, if we're going to give something away, at least it should cover that” (CBC News, 2013).

5.14 C: Barriers Accessing Local Food In 2008, Headwaters Communities in Action facilitated a series of focus groups. Participants raised concerns about the lack of public awareness surrounding issues that affect the most vulnerable groups within the Headwaters community. The main areas of concern were access to basic needs such as affordable fresh, nutritious food and housing, affordable postsecondary education, and access to public transportation and recreation facilities (Seskar-Hencic & Campbell, et al). A representative from public health emphasized the importance of food education and food literacy in combating household food insecurity, both of which were cited as significant barriers by respondents throughout the Headwaters Region. However, she also noted that, in terms of local food consumption, “...education can only take us so far.” Being food literate, while important, has a limited impact on an individual’s consumption patterns if they are financially unable to buy local food. Not only are nutritious local foods out of reach for many people in terms of financial constraints, the public health representative also highlighted the physical obstacles that exist in accessing local foods. For instance, farmers’ markets may limit physical access based on their

50


location or design. If farmers’ markets are not centrally located or are not on public transit routes, many residents with limited resources to transportation are unable to access local food. Moreover, if markets are not designed for those with disabilities, this can also limit access to local food (Coleman-Jensen & Nord, 2013). Another factor in accessing local food, according to our interview with the public health representative, was the idea of “food deserts.” Food deserts are described as geographical spaces where there are virtually no retailers who carry fresh, nutritious food or local produce. Again, this highlights that fact that food literacy, while extremely important, does not solely explain the weak links that connect consumers to locally produced food in the Headwaters Region. Accessing local food and increasing community food security requires making local food more accessible through increased public transit and making sure provincial accessibility laws are enforced. The Accessible Customer Service standard was implemented by Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities (AODA) on January, 2008 (Accessibility Ontario). While non-profits and businesses were required to comply with the Accessibility Customer Service standard by January 1, 2012, in 2013 it is estimated that 70 percent of Ontario businesses with 20 or more employees have not implemented the standards (Monsebraaten, 2013).

5.14 D: Alternative Delivery Models A report from the Metcalf Foundation recommends supporting local community food centres as a means of addressing household and individual food insecurity (Baker & Campsie, et al, 2010). In contrast to the traditional food bank model, the Metcalf Foundation uses The Stop Community Food Centre in Toronto as an example of an alternative community food centre model. Unlike a traditional food bank, The Stop is based on reciprocity, education, community, and social justice wherein food represents one of the pillars of a healthy community. Within community food centres like The Stop, the principle of reciprocity is a fundamental component, which acts to minimize the potential stigma often associated with low income, food insecurity, and food banks. Within the Headwaters Region, there is currently one alternative community food centre, The Exchange in Bolton, which opened in late 2013. While The Exchange differs significantly from The Stop in Toronto, it is a community food centre that also focuses on food education and food literacy, and reciprocity. As well as actively building relationships between local food producers and the community, The Exchange takes food and other donations, has a community kitchen, and offers workshops on food nutrition as well as how to plant, prepare and preserve food. A representative from The Exchange told us that

51


“Headwaters community is very generous on the whole, and if people knew what was needed, they would give. I want the farmers in Caledon to know about this place. They need to be informed.” The Exchange is a space where farmers and food distributors can donate or ‘exchange’ food for other services offered at the community centre. The representative at The Exchange noted that their organization values the relationship with local producers, and looks forward to building a reciprocal relationship with them. At The Exchange, producers, for example, can trade food for an opportunity to use The Exchange’s resources to educate the community about local foods, or promote food literacy. In this sense, the center is an open space where exchanges can take place in a variety of ways. While there are numerous barriers that involve food insecurity and accessing local food, developing more alternative community food centres is one way to promote the relationship between local food producers and the community, increase food education and food literacy, and address issues around household and community food security.

5.14 E: Food Insecurity and the Limits of Community Initiatives While there is a perception that food banks, school and community meal programs, community kitchens and gardens can provided the needed response to food needs and food insecurity, Canadian research has challenged this notion (Seskar-Hencic & Campbell, et al, 2013). HungerCount 2013 reports that while food bank use remains close to record levels, food bank use was down from 2012 by 4.5 percent. Even with the decrease in food bank use between 2012 and 2013, the reliance on food assistance programs are 23 percent higher than before the recession began in 2008 (Food Banks Canada, 2013). While the existing research suggests that problems of household food insecurity are primarily rooted in inadequate incomes, as Kirkpatrick and Tarasuk note, “...few policy directions have been proposed to address factors that constrain food purchasing” (2009). Responses to household and community food insecurity, however, have generally focused on community-based initiatives that deal with food-related behaviours and community programs such as food banks, meal and snack programs for children, and community kitchens and gardens (Kirkpatrick & Tarasuk, 2009). In order to remedy this situation, food advocates like Martin also advocate for a guaranteed income for all Canadians (2013).

52


6. RECOMMENDATIONS While numerous barriers were identified that spanned across multiple levels of government (see Chart 6.0 A), involve numerous stakeholders, such as agricultural boards and large distributors, and include global, economic, and environmental factors, the recommendations, for the purposes of this study, primarily deal with issues that can be implemented by communities within the Headwaters Region. The following recommendations, then, focus on identified barriers at the local and community level that can be addressed by individuals,

6.0 A Chart: Type of Barriers by Level of Government LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT

TYPE OF BARRIER

PROVINCIAL

FEDERAL

Abattoir Closers

MUNICIPAL

COUNTY

X

X

Availability of Farmland

X

Believe Farming Requires Two Careers

X

Cost of Feed

X

Cost of Farmland

X

Cost of Local Food

X

Crop Insurance

X

X

X

Developers and Land Use Issues

X

X

X

Education and Food Literacy

X

X

X

X

Farmers Markets’ Inaccessible

X

Future of Farming

X

X

X

X

Financing

X

X

Fluctuations in the Economy

X

X

Health Regulations

X

X

Hydro Bills

X

Labelling

X

Labour Costs

X

Labour Transportation

X

X

X

Lack of Government Support and Resources

X

X

X

Marketing Boards Misunderstanding of Small Farms by Municipalities

X X X

Nutrient Management Regulations

X

Organic Certification Process

X

Provincial Regulations

X

Regulations

X

Transportation

X

X

X

X

X

Vets for Large Animals Zoning both Municipal and Provincial

X X

X X

Government Inspected Kitchens TOTAL

X

X

MPAC Municipal Permits

X

X X

11

7

28

12

53


community groups, public and not-for-profit organizations, municipalities, and counties within the Headwaters Region. The recommendations are intended to build a dynamic and resilient food system that will encourage local agriculture, enhance community food security, and create a diverse and viable local economy within the Headwaters Region. Headwaters Food and Farming Alliance should take a proactive role advocating, promoting, coordinating and facilitating local food system initiatives, and bringing stakeholders together to form collaborative partnerships as part of their overall mandate and long-term vision. Based on the summary of the Headwaters Food System which emerged out of 2012 Food Summit, we believe HFFA is already engaged in many of the initiatives recommend below. However, an intensification of commitment is necessary in order to achieve the overall goals of HFFA, and in securing a local food system that is viable.

6.1 Long-term Vision for Growth To date, there appears to be no long-term vision shared by all stakeholders within the Headwaters Region. This has resulted in dysfunctional relationships among different stakeholders based on conflicting values, interests, and goals. There needs to be a collectively shared vision among municipalities, counties, agencies, community groups and organizations of how a local, viable model within the Headwaters Region will look in the future. Currently, there are several projects in the Headwaters Region dealing with local food, food security and environmental projects that are operating, to a large extent, independent of one another. To develop a viable local food system and enhance food security will require a high level of coordination on the part of the HFFA. An overall development plan that is in alignment with the goals of HFFA and all of stakeholders within the Headwaters Region is necessary. Given the restrictions on land use in the region (the Greenbelt, the Oak Ridges Moraine, Toronto Region Conservation Authority, Niagara Escarpment Commission, Credit Valley Conservation Authority, Grand River Conservation Authority, and Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority), realigning a long-term vision for the entire Headwaters Region that incorporates the goals of HFFA is the most viable course of action for regional development, and is in the best interests of all stakeholders within the Headwaters Region. What is necessary, then, is an integrative systemic approach.

54


6.2 Adopting a Cluster Policy To meet the goals of 6.1, a cluster policy approach should be implemented as a model by HFFA and the Headwaters community at large. Cluster policies have been initiated throughout Europe with great success. Clusters are defined as groupings of independent undertakings (small, medium, and large as well as innovative start-ups and research organizations) operating in a particular sector and region, designed to stimulate innovative activity by promoting intensive interactions, sharing of facilities, and the exchange of knowledge and expertise through networking and dissemination among the undertakings within the cluster (The Concept of Clusters, 2008). A cluster, then, is a group of actors located in a geographical region in which there is a concentration of one or more sectors that have a reached a large enough scale to develop specialized expertise, services, resources, suppliers, and skills, with an emphasis on cooperation and networking among and between those same actors. Clusters are defined by relationships that are variable rather than by membership within spatial boundaries defined by political boarders (The Concept of Clusters, 2008). As opposed to defining a space based on municipal or county boundaries, the Headwaters Region falls neatly under the definition of a cluster model spatially. Nevertheless, a cluster policy is necessary in order to establish an integrated local agricultural system within the Headwaters Region.

6.3 Developing a Local Food Charter The development of a local food charter will aid in defining the goals of a local food system. A food charter is a statement of values and principles that act to guide a community’s food policy. Individuals representing a broad spectrum of community interests and organizations meet to discuss their concerns and desires about food and agriculture policy in order to develop a set of principles and a common vision. A common vision based on a set of principles then forms the basis of a unique, local, community food charter. Once a food charter is adopted by a local municipal council, it becomes a public document that is used to guide decision-making (Beyond Factory Farming, 2014).

6.4 Creating a Local Food Hub and Food Centres The adoption of 6.1 through 6.3 will facilitate the development of a local food hub and food centres in the Headwaters Region. Many farmers and distributors in our study, as well as elsewhere, are challenged by a lack of processing, distributing and distribution infrastructure within the region that cuts off access to wider retail, institutional and commercial food markets. By offering a combination of production, aggregation, distribution, and marketing services, food hubs allow smaller producers to access new and existing markets that were previously not

55


accessible (Famers Markets and Local Food Marketing, 2014). Moreover, food hubs create a space in which professional food buyers, wholesale producers, distributors, and industry suppliers come together to form a dynamic community. A food hub and local food centres would encourage local restaurants, catering companies, and institutions to buy local food by making it more accessible. The development of food centres is also an excellent opportunity to create a food system centre which can also incorporate a community kitchen, farmer’s market, food bank or food exchange, and other not-for-profit and public agency spaces. Food hubs and food centres have also been integrated into Farm to School programs and as an access point to food policies that market to hospitals, schools and other institutions (Food Hub, 2014). Many municipalities and counties are beginning to look seriously at the concept of food hubs as a means of supporting local agriculture. Currently, food hub and food centre development is a hot topic across Ontario. Other models related to regional food distribution which are consumer, retail, producer and not-for-profit driven should be explored as well. The USDA report, Moving Food Along the Value Chain (2013) examines innovative, regional food distribution models and case studies that are worth further exploration.

6.5 Developing Agritourism and Rural Tourism Currently, the Headwaters Region through the Hills of Headwaters Tourism Association, has been promoting culinary tourism and developing the equestrian sector, while the various conservation authorities have been promoting ecotourism and nature conservatories. A well developed trail system is also in place throughout the region. The Hills of Headwaters Tourism Association site has done an excellent job promoting the region as a four seasons destination, as well as local artisans and heritage architecture. In addition, equestrian events for the upcoming Toronto 2015 Pan American Games will be held at Caledon Equestrian Park and Will O’ WindFarm in Mono (Viva Pan Am Caledon) .These activities are in keeping with a regional vision that promotes sustainable agriculture and should continue to be further developed and supported as one of the primary sources of economic growth in the region. The adoption of 6.1 through 6.4 will facilitate the further development of agritiourism and rural tourism. Drawing on urban populations to the south and maximizing day trips into the region needs to be actively promoted and coordinated with other activities, programs and projects, from farmers markets and edible landscapes, to mixed use zoning and ecovillages. In addition, further development of cross seasonal events and attractions is necessary to sustain high levels of tourism throughout the year. The Headwaters Region needs to be proactively marketed to communities in the south using cost effective social media and smart phone applications to maximize potential opportunities.

56


6.6 Support of an Authentic and Aesthetically Pleasing Built Environment Aesthetic planning and development are necessary components in the overall development of agritourism and rural tourism (see 6.6). Aesthetic development not only benefits local residents culturally, socially and economically, but creates a discourse about the region which flows beyond the boundaries of the Headwaters Region. Despite the natural beauty found in Headwaters, a concerted effort must be directed towards built environments as well. Creating a primary destination throughout the Headwaters Region by applying aesthetic planning principles and strengthening heritage protection within the Headwaters Region will further support agritourism and rural tourism, as well as culinary tourism. While protecting the natural environment is an important aspect of aesthetic development and rural tourism, detailed attention needs to be given to the built environment. Many of the towns and hamlets within the Headwaters Region are quaint, making them desirable destinations. However, there are several communities in the Headwaters Region that are in need of aesthetic planning and beautification initiatives in order to draw tourists into the region and have them repeatedly coming back.

6.7 Indoor Farmer’s Markets The Headwaters Region would benefit from permanent, indoor farmer’s market as elsewhere in the province, and will further facilitate further tourism (see 6.5–6.6). The move to an indoor market would mitigate weather conditions that keep consumers away and encourage local producers, processors and distributors to participate more. The recent move of the Orangeville market to an indoor space in 2013-2014 was a welcomed addition. However, a permanent structure like that in Guelph and Peterborough would benefit local residents and producers alike, while encouraging further agritourism and rural tourism.

6.8 Land Use Policy Addressing land use policy issues is of the utmost priority both in terms of protecting existing farmland and encouraging innovative and alternative farming and land use practices that support a local, viable food system and agricultural cluster zone. Municipalities can play an important role in developing local food systems and encouraging new farming operations in the region by amending their agricultural designations and zoning. One of the problems with current agricultural land use planning policy is that it protects traditional, dominant agricultural production systems. For example, large farms of 100 acres are protected and maintained through severance restrictions, which were reduced from 3 lots to 1

57


per 100 acres. Moreover, land use planning policies that focus on the preservation of rural land for commercial agricultural use were enacted as a means of reducing speculation, conversion pressure and adjacent conflicts in land use. These protections provide farmers the necessary security to make long-term plans and investments in their operations, while encouraging economies of scale. However, the same land use restrictions inhibit smaller scale operations, impeding land use flexibility and allowable forms of agriculture, which hinders innovation and alternative farming practices for those either unable or unwilling to engage in industrial farming (Preserving Agricultural Land for Local Food Production, 2013). Many new producers engaged in sustainable and organic practices are farming on smaller plots of 5 to 10 acres. There is little enticement for non industrial farming practices to be carried out on 100 acres, especially vegetable crops. Nevertheless, new farmers wishing to grow vegetables using sustainable farming methods are faced with having to buy unaffordable farmland. Designating small acreages for agricultural use off sets the financial burden for new farmers and encourages new farming within the region. Currently, smaller acreages are often used for hobby and horse farms. As one landowner put it, “Rich people retreat to the countryside and buy a horse farm.” While smaller acreages in the region are available, the price becomes inflated based on market demand. For example, one would expect land within the Oak Ridges Moraine to be outside of speculation and market demand, but prices are nonetheless extremely high, even for smaller plots of land. Zoning smaller parcels of land for agricultural production exclusively will reduce prices and encourage local farming. Likewise, smaller acreages could be zoned for hobby and horse farms with a certain percentage of that land being dedicated to agricultural production. Second, redefining permitted uses for secondary and mixed uses will encourage non-farm specific and agriculturally related uses and value added operations. Incorporating mixed land use zoning on agricultural lands not only encourages the processing and distribution of local food, but also facilitates an agricultural cluster within the Headwaters Region.

6.9 A Customer Focussed Development Approval Process The municipal permits for building, occupancy, land use and business should be re-evaluated, especially in regard to the agricultural sector. The almost doubling in cost for a temporary permit, cited in the report, is contrary to both the development of a local food system and encouraging local economic development, and perceptions regarding the lack of support by local municipalities. Planning, policies, regulations and costs must be aligned along a vision that works as a system to benefit the overall development of a local food system and local economies.

58


6.10 Promoting Cottage Industries Promoting cottage industries and local arts and crafts aligns with a rural landscape and a local agricultural food system. While local food processing contributes to an agricultural cluster, promoting cottage industries and local arts and crafts supports agritourism and rural tourism (see 6.5-6.6). Developing cottage industries should be supported by municipalities through planning policy, incentives, and promotion.

6.11 Postsecondary Partnerships Humber and Georgian Colleges have campuses in Orangeville. Negotiations between Humber and Georgian Colleges and various stakeholders within the Headwaters Region to develop an agricultural program would promote local agriculture and contribute to the local economy (see 6.2). Continuing education workshops, courses, and certificates, as well as full time programs that cater to new and emerging farmers would be an asset to the community and an essential element in developing a local, viable agricultural cluster.

6.12 Buy-Local Food Policies Establishing food policies that encourage local and healthy food procurement and consumption by public institutions such as recreational facilities, hospitals, retirement homes and schools, would establish new markets, increase food literacy and awareness, and contribute to the local food system (Hospital Meals Get a Local Flavour Boost, 2014).

6.13 Home Garden Credit Developing a credit for residential gardens has the potential to increase basic food literacy around gardening and help reduce household food insecurity. Other grant programs have been initiated around water conservation and household appliances and bath fixtures, which was initiated by several municipalities, counties and regions throughout Ontario (Guelph water/energy rebates, 2014). A similar model for a home garden credit program is designed as an alternative strategy for promoting food literacy, gardening skills, nutrition within the Headwaters Region, with a minimal cost to municipalities.

6.14 Edible Landscapes Incorporating edible landscapes and foodscaping into existing public spaces encourages healthy communities. Landscapes should include everything from edible flowers and spinach to fruit and nut trees and blueberry bushes. An edible landscape policy for all municipal public spaces including city halls and public parks would set the stage for future development and planning

59


policies on landscaping for other public spaces, such as public housing, schools, school boards, hospitals, public agencies, county offices, and provincial and federal buildings within the Headwaters Region (Smart Growth, 2014 & Free Fruit and Vegetables, 2014).

6.15 Ongoing Education and Food Literacy HFFA and the local public health unit already promote food literacy, including nutrition, food facts, food security, food menus, etc. Based on our research, education and food literacy should be an ongoing priority. Having said this, education and food literacy needs to be intensified through expanded efforts. More community outreach and education regarding sustainable practices and the promotion of safe and sustainable agriculture needs to be an ongoing activity and a necessary component of any successful development of a local food system and agricultural cluster. Having representatives and affiliates speaking to students at local schools, church congregations, seniors’ homes, as well as running monthly, public workshops, seminars and documentary viewings would all contribute to the overall awareness and commitment of local residents to a local food system.

6.16 Incorporate Local School Programs Currently there are several local school programs within the Headwaters Region that promote local food, cooking, and gardening as part of the curriculum. As part of their Priorities for Action HFFA has advanced potential actions that would create more school-based food programs including increased food education, buy local policy at schools, co-op programs in the food sector, and building school gardens (Recommendations for Action, 2012). A more comprehensive school program, however, is needed to create adequate food literacy, awareness, and skill sets among children and youth as they move towards a future of increasing food insecurity. Moreover, any school programs must have the backing of all stakeholders involved including school boards, schools, teachers, teachers’ unions, parents, parent councils, local public health, and not-for-profit organizations. To date, the most comprehensive and integrative model is Food Share’s school programs (Food Share, 2014). In addition to the above, a good food box program introduced into schools as well as the participation in a food gleaning program, as part of community participation or for Field to Table program requirements, would not only create synergy between programs but would also economize participation efforts. As part of a comprehensive school program, the incorporation of speakers going into local schools to discuss the importance of local food systems in relation to

60


the environment and global food security, and sustainable agricultural practices would be beneficial.

6.17 Local Food Week Activities and Events The introduction of Bill 36, Local Food Act is an opportunity to promote locally grown food and products, local food systems and agriculture, food security and nutrition, local communities, and the Headwaters Region in general. The provincial, week-long celebration of local food during ‘food week’ should be accompanied by local activities and events throughout the Headwaters Region. Efforts must be coordinated between HFFA, municipalities and counties within the Headwaters Region, and marketed to urban residents in the GTA to maximize its’ social and economic benefits.

6.18 Developing Local, Provincial, and National Networks While the HFFA has done remarkable work establishing networks within the region, the current network requires additional input in order to be more inclusive and effectual. Networks need to be strengthened locally and established within the province and across Canada. Thus, HFFA needs to promote the development and participation in regional, provincial and national food policy councils. Local networks need to be strengthened between HFFA, farmers, local organizations, public and not-for-profit agencies, municipalities, and counties. An asset map and identification of social entrepreneurs within the Headwaters Region will provide additional resources, skills, and knowledge for the HFFA. Currently, there is an overall lack of awareness of the HFFA and its activities. Many respondents interviewed had not heard of the HFFA or were unaware of the local food map. An outreach program designed to build awareness of HFFA and its mandate, as well as further developing relationships with local producers, processors and distributors is paramount. Several municipalities across Ontario are engaged in similar activities as the HFFA. And, while each county is working to strengthen their local food systems, sustainable agriculture and food security, they are all conducting independent research, programs and projects. Each municipality has their own particular issues, concerns and demands. However, issues around developing local food systems and addressing local food security are not particular to any one region. Moreover, many of the barriers and challenges that different jurisdictions face are shared with communities across the province, as well as across Canada. Based on our research, many of the barriers that affect producers as well as processors and distributors are at the provincial level. A single municipality is not likely to in act any meaningful change at the

61


provincial level. However, given that these are not isolated issues, working in concert with other municipalities and counties to effect change at the provincial level would seem prudent. The HFFA can initiate biannual meetings with other municipalities, counties, regions, and stakeholders working on local food systems that could culminate in the drafting of policy recommendations to the province on behalf of municipalities, counties and regions.

6.19 Creation of a Resource Site The creation of a HFFA clearing house for resources and reports is a necessary component of promoting education and food literacy and strengthening networks. A HFFA website dedicated to providing resources, links and reports in one centralized location would benefit students, community residents, groups, organizations, and researchers, as well as other communities looking to institute similar local food system projects. A website that housed resources on issues related to sustainable farming, food security and the environment, provided links to sites on related issues, programs, projects and research, and housed research reports on local, provincial and national agricultural issues related to local food systems, would be an asset to the HFFA, the Headwaters community and the general public.

6.20 Regional Marketing Network A regional marketing network promoting relationships locally and with communities outside of the Headwaters area is needed in the region to support and enhance local farming. Based on our interviews, producers noted the following: they did not have enough demand for their produce, there was no local brand or regional marketing in the area, and that they sold produce and products to consumers that came up to local markets. Moreover, producers that had previous experience in business or sales prior to getting into farming, where at an advantage over those who did not have the same background. Selling produce, however, should not be based solely on the individual merits of a particular farmer but rather, should be a collective effort that supports and promotes regional produce and products. The establishment of a regional marketing network would benefit local producers, processors and distributors immensely, while also promoting local, sustainable agriculture and contributing to the local economy. The development of a marketing network for producers, processors and distributors within the Headwaters Region would increase exposure to local produce and products, link producers with distributors, create and strengthen relationships between producers, processors and distributors, and assist producers, processors and distributors in finding new and existing markets for their products (see Greenbelt Fund at Ontariofresh.ca, 2014).

62


The Headwaters Region’s proximity to the GTA offers a range of opportunities for local farmers and processors. Rather than simply selling to local markets, local producers and processors can take a more active role in developing markets within the GTA (100km Foods Inc., 2014 & Local Food Plus, 2014). Not only is the GTA a large market, but offers other opportunities for local producers to meet demands for specialty crops geared towards the health food sector and ethnic markets. A marketing network would serve the following functions: 1) create and establish a brand for Headwaters agricultural produce and products; 2) promote and advertise Headwaters’ brand locally and to surrounding communities; 3) assist local producers, processors and distributors with information, resources and tips on marketing; 4) provide aid to local producers and processors in marketing their produce and products; 5) help local producers and processors find new and existing markets in surrounding communities; 6) educate local producers and processors on emerging markets based on ethnic and cultural demands within larger urban centres.

6.21 Peer Mentorship Program A farmer-to-farmer peer mentorship program would assist new farmers, providing them with the experience and knowledge of seasoned farmers. During our interviews, a new farmer had lost a large percentage of his crop due to frost damage while in the same region another producer growing the same crop applied copper spray to raise the temperature, and avoided frost damage. Two points were revealed in the interview with the farmer who experienced heavy losses. First, he had not been farming very long, and second he was a first generation Canadian. Both of these subject positions meant that his social network was curtailed as opposed to other producers in the region. Moreover, if he was in contact with other farmers producing similar crops, there would be an opportunity to exchange ideas, ask questions, and seek advice. If the Headwaters Region is to maintain a local, sustainable agricultural economy, then having support for new farmers is an important aspect of promoting, attracting, and recruiting new farmers into the region and ensuring that their operations are successful.

6.22 Grant / Incentive Program Farm Start: Supporting a New Generation of Farmers (2014), established a grant program that provided seed capital for new farmers. The grants ranged from $1,000 to $5,000. The program, however, has since been discontinued. A similar grant program established in the Headwaters Region that assists new farmers, or the expansion of existing farm operations, would help promote start up businesses in agriculture, and establish the Headwaters Region as dynamic space that supports small and midsize local farming. In addition, supporting new farmers

63


promotes the longevity of a local, sustainable agricultural food system over multiple generations and long-term economic stability.

6.23 Establishment of a Seed Bank The ongoing activities of transnational corporations to buy seed companies, create terminator genes, and promote mono-cropping and monoculture is an ongoing concern for long-term food security. The establishment of local seed banks secures the ability to grow local food and preserve diversity within the food system. A seed collection and storage program can easily be initiated among gardening and farming enthusiasts in the community.

6.24 Good Food Box Program A Good Food Box program can be adapted into any community, whether urban or rural, large or small. The Good Food Box program is an alternative food distribution system of fresh produce that generally, though not exclusively, uses sustainably produced fruits and vegetables including, local, regional, unsprayed, transitional, and organic produce (The Good Food Box, 2014). The Good Food Box program addresses both food security and social justice issues by redistributing fresh food at a reduced price. The Good Food Box program essentially wholesales food to consumers, cutting out the costs associated with retailers. Overall costs are approximately 50 percent less than what consumers would pay at the grocery store and the produce is fresher and healthier. Programs that run throughout the year purchase produce outside of local and regional areas from farms that use sustainable practices, such as certified organic, transitional organic, integrated pest management, and fair trade. The other advantage of Good Food Box programs is that they contribute to local food systems and economies, and reduce C02 levels by minimizing distribution networks (The Good Food Box, 2014). While the Good Food Box program was essentially designed for low-income or fixed income persons and families, the Good Food Box model can be adapted and applied to multiple segments within the local community.

6.25 Community Gardens Currently, there are very few community gardens within the Headwaters Region. An increase in community gardens within the Headwaters Region is an important aspect for food literacy, general health, and food security. Community gardens allow residents who lack adequate space, to grow their own food. While community gardens are generally created in common, public spaces, HFFA can take an active role in locating alternative spaces, such as hydro

64


easements, and encourage the implementation of community gardens within charitable and not-for-profit organizations, and for profit organizations, such as retirement homes. Gardening has been touted as an excellent activity for seniors, providing exercise and associated health benefits. Community gardens also have the potential to incorporate affiliate programs with schools (see 8.18) and organizations, such rehabilitation centres.

6.26 Gleaning Program The HFFA is in an ideal position to initiate a gleaning program, drawing on local farms in the Headwaters Region. Gleaning is the act of collecting excess fresh foods from farms, gardens and farmers markets as a means of providing food to those who need it. Food can be distributed through local food banks, pantries, soup kitchens and charities that are able to redistribute food to those in need. Gleaning prevents unnecessary food wastage, provides fresh, nutritious food to low-income populations, provides resources to no-profit agencies, and builds strong relations between community members, farmers, and local gardeners (Let’s Glean, 2014). Gleaning programs, like the Good Food Box program, require a high level of coordination initially and the participation of multiple individuals, groups, and organizations to ensure the program is sustainable. A gleaning program, as with community gardens, can be integrated with associated programs to create a more robust network.

6.27 Protecting Farmland from Development Farmland continues to diminish as is our ability to feed ourselves locally (Sustainability: The Intersection of Land Use Planning, 2010). Protecting existing farmland and creating new farmland is fundamental to developing and maintaining an agricultural cluster within the Headwaters Region. Land use policies, play a significant role in preserving agricultural farmland both at the local and provincial level. To further encourage the protection of farmland, the HFFA and municipalities can encourage farmers and landowners to place covenants on their land to secure future land use, and promote the Ontario Farmland Trust, which protects farmlands that are donated to OFT or works with owners to establish conservation easement agreements on their properties (Ontario Farmland Trust, 2014).

6.28 Staffing Position To aid in the administration of the above recommendations and facilitate ongoing activities and programs, it is recommended that the HFFA hire a regular, part-time coordinator to oversee, organize, coordinate, and initiate Headwaters Food Farming Alliance objectives.

65


7. APPENDIXES The following appendixes include 1) the Frequency Chart of Reported Barriers based on the responses of those participants that were interviewed, and 2) the Online Survey Questionnaire.

66


67

7.1 Appendix: Frequency Chart of Reported Barriers

Concerns Abattoirs Closing Availability of Farmland (rent/purchase) Believes that producing requires 2 careers Cannot meet demands of customers/distributors Consumer resistance to Changing Menus Cost of Feed Cost of Farmland Cost of local food Cost of Local Food to High Cost of Local Food to Low Crop Insurance Cultural Attitudes i.e. undervaluing local food Developers and land issues Difficulty Working with Distribution/Distributors Difficulty/challenge working with Restaurants Distributors - inconvenient/difficult working with local producers Education/Food Literacy Equipment Farmers' markets inaccessible/inconvenient Fear For Young Farmers (the future of farming) Financing Fluctuations in the economy Health Regulations High Cost of Farming Hydro Bills Labelling Labour Costs (including increased minimum wage) Labour Issues (including supply and transportation) Lack of Government Support/Resources for Small Farms Large Distributors set the price/control market Marketing Boards (Quota) Misunderstanding Small farms' needs (municipal legislation) MPAC taxes Municipal Permits Not Enough Demand for Product Not enough Locally Produced food to meet demand Nutrient management rules Organic Certification Process Provincial Regulations Regulations (Other) The "glorification" or misunderstanding of "organic" label Transportation Tries to buy local/use local food Vets For Large Animals Unavailable Weather Zoning (including Municipal, Provincial) Government Kitchen infeasible TOTAL

Producers

Processors

9 3 11 2

11 3 4 2 3 1 3 5 6 2

5 8 1 3 3 4 5 5 12 14 9 7 12 3 5 4 11 3 4 14 9 4 14 9 11 3 4 2 5 6 3 7 10 5

12 2 9 272

Distributors

1 1 1 1

2

3 4 2 1 2 1 1 1

7 2 1 7 5 12 3 2 8 2 2 4 2 2 10 7 3 8 4 8 2 5

Food Advocates

3 1

4 4

6 16

4 6 1 2

2 1

4 2 1

3 25

3 3 8 2 11 3 4 2 5 193

4

2 1 2 59

Totals 20 6 15 4 3 6 11 9 7 5 3 16 12 6 20 5 33 12 25 20 3 7 8 19 5 12 28 22 9 23 15 22 7 10 2 4 7 6 7 10 22 7 11 3 18 5 19


7.2 Appendix: Online Survey Online Survey Questionnaire: Q1. Where do you reside/operate? a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j.

Mono Orangeville Shelburne Amaranth East Garafraxa East Luther-Grand Valley Melancthon Mulmur Caledon Other (please specify)

Q2. Which of the following best describes your role in the local food chain? (click all that apply). a. b. c. d. e.

Local Agricultural Producer/farmer Local Agricultural Processor Distributor of Local Agricultural Products Local Consumer (i.e. you purchase agriculture products/food) Other (please specify)

Q3. As an Agricultural Producer, can you tell us about the challenges and barriers that directly affect your business? Q4. As an Agricultural Processor, can you tell us about the challenges and barriers that directly affect your business?? Q5. As an Agricultural Distributor, can you tell us about the challenges and barriers that directly affect your business? Q6. As a local consumer (someone who purchases food), can you tell us about the challenges and barriers that make it difficult to purchase locally grown food and/or agricultural products? Q7. If there was an increase in the availability of locally grown agricultural products, would you be more or less likely to purchase local products? a. b. c.

more likely less likely no difference

Q8. If there was an increase in the demand for local agricultural products, do you feel you would be able to increase your supply to meet local needs? a. b. c.

yes no not applicable

Q9. In your opinion, what would be the most effective way to get locally produced agricultural products to local markets and consumers? Q10. When shopping for food/groceries, where do you prefer to make your purchases? a. b. c. d.

Large Chain Grocery Stores (i.e. Sobeys, Metro, Loblaws, The Superstore, etc) Smaller Specialty stores Farmers' markets Other (please specify)

68


8. WORKS CITED 100km Foods Inc., online website. Retrieved 10 April 2014. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, online website. Government of Canada. Retrieved 8 April 2014. Accessibility Ontario, online website. Government of Ontario. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Árnadóttir, Ingunn Ósk and Ryan Deska, et al (2012, April 20). “Equine Sector Development in Dufferin County: A Final Assessment Report” (RPD 6280: Advanced Planning Practice). School of Environmental Design and Rural Development, University of Guelph. Retrieved 3 April 2014. Baker, Lauren and Philippa Campsie, et al (2010, June). “Menu 2020: Ten Good Food Ideas for Ontario.” Metcalf Food Solutions for Sustain Ontario. Retrieved 10 March 2014. Barter, Hillary (2012, November 20). “Ontario Meat Basics.” Sustain Ontario. Retrieved 1 March 2014. Beyond Factory Farming: Safe Food, Healthy Communities (2014). “Food Charters.” Retrieved 1 May 2014. Bickel, Gary and Mark Nord, et al (2000). “Guide to Measuring Household Food Security.” USDA Food and Nutrition Service. Retrieved 30 April 2014. Breckwich Vasquez, Victoria & Dana Lanza, et al (2007). “Addressing Food Security Through Public Policy Action in a Community-Based Participatory Research Partnership.” Health Promotion Practice, 8 (4): 342–349. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Canada’s Action on Climate Change (2014). “Information on Climate Change.” Government of Canada. Retrieved 5 April 2014. CBC News (2013, November 13). “Local Food Act tax credit does little for small farms.” Retrieved 1 April 2014. City of Guelph (2014). “Guelph water/energy rebates.” Retrieved 1 May 2014.

69


Citizenship and Immigration Canada. “Permanent Residents Rounded Data Cube, 2003-2012.” Government of Canada. “Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Summary for Policymakers” (2014, March 31). IPCC WGII AR5, Summary for Policymakers. Retrieved 4 April 2014. Cole, Kristen (2012, November 30). “Sustainable Labour in Ontario’s Sustainable Food Movement: Where do migrant farmworkers fit in?” Major Paper, Faculty of Environmental Studies, York University, Toronto, ON. Retrieved 15 March 2014. Coleman-Jensen, Alisha & Mark Nord (2013, May 6). “Disability is an Important Risk Factor for Food Security.” USDA. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Diamond, Adam and James Barham (2012, March). “Moving Food Along the Value Chain: Innovations in Regional Food Distribution.” Marketing Services Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved 8 April 2014. Dufferin.Biz, online website. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Dunn, Burgandy (2013, Februrary 11). “Preserving Agricultural Land for Local Food Production: Policies from other places as a guide to land use planning for Ontario.” Canadian Environmental Law Association, and Sustain Ontario. Retrieved 15 March 2014. Ecovillage Network of Canada: A Canadian Network to Support Sustainable and Intentional Communities, online website. Retrieved 5 April 2014. Farmers Markets and Local Food Marketing. “Food Hubs: Building Stronger Infrastructure for Small and Mid-size Producers.” Agricultural Marketing Services, United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved 6 April 2014. Farm Start: Supporting a New Generation of Farmers, online website. Retrieved 5 April 2014. “Focus Canada 2013: Canadian Public Opinion about Climate Change” (2013, November 18). The Environics Institute and David Suzuki Foundation. Retrieved 5 April 2014. Food Banks Canada (2103) “HungerCount 2013.” Retrieved 1 May 2014. Food Hub. “Knowledge Based: Tools, Resources and Thought Leadership in Regional Food.” Retrieved 8 April 2014.

70


Food Secure Canada, online website. Retrieved 5 April 2014. Food Share: Good Healthy Food for All! “Schools,” online website. Retrieved 5 April 2014. Georgian College, online website. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Global Environmental Governance Project. “Agriculture,” online website. Retrieved 5 April 2014. Guelph Farmer’s Market, online website. Retrieved 1 May 2104. Haines, Ronald J. (2004, July 21). “From Farm to Fork: A Strategy for Meat Safety in Ontario.” Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General. Retrieved 30 March 2014. Hamm, Michael W. and Anne C. Bellows (2003). “Community Food Security and Nutrition Educators.” Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 35 (1): 37–43. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Headwaters Communities in Action, online website. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Headwaters Food and Farming Alliance. “Program Coordinator: Farm to School and Food Club programs.” Retrieved 10 April 2014. Headwaters Food Summit and Local Food Trade Show (2012). “Recommendations for Action.” Retrieved 5 April 2014. Headwaters Food System, (2013, March 26). Retrieved 5 April 2014. Hills of the Headwaters Tourism Association, online website. Retrieved 16 April 2014. “Hospital Meals Get a Local Flavour Boost: Fresh, Healthy, Local Food Coming to Toronto Hospital Thanks to George Brown College” (2014, January 22). Canadian Newswire. Retrieved 10 April 2014. Humber College, online website. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Hume, Mark (2013, November 15). “Developers winning out over farmland preservation, B.C. planner says” The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 4 2014. Ivanoff, Rebecca (2012, March). “Food Security Scan of Dufferin County.” Institute for Community Engage Scholarship, University of Guelph, ON. Retrieved 10 March 2014.

71


Kirkpatrick, Sharon I. and Valerie Tarasuk (2009). “Food Insecurity and Participation in Community Food Programs among Low-income Toronto Families.” Canadian Journal of Public Health 100(2): 135-39. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Legislative Assembly of Ontario (2013). “Bill 68, Fighting Hunger with Local Food Act, 2013.” Retrieved 1 April 2014. Legislative Assembly of Ontario (2013, November 5). “Bill 36, Local Food Act, 2013.” Retrieved 1 April 2014. “Let’s Glean: United We Serve Toolkit,” U.S. Department of Agriculture. Retrieved 5 April 2014. Lewis, Ronald John and André Corriveau, et al (2013, May). “Independent Review of XL Foods Inc. Beef Recall 2012.” Food Safety, Government of Canada. Retrieved 28 March 2014. Local Food Plus: Canada’s Local Sustainable Food System Organization, online website. Retrieved 10 April 2014. Martin, Ralph (2013, November 25). “Does it Make Sense to Build a Local Food System in a Globalizing World?” Keynote Presentation, 2nd Annual Headwaters Food Summit, Caledon, ON. Melby, Pete and Sylvia H. Byrd, et al (2012, June). ”Edible Landscapes Grow Healthy Children, Families and Communities,” (Smart Growth Network Paper). Smart Growth, online. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Miller, Sally (2010, November). “From Land to Plate: The dilemmas and victories of alternative food distribution in Ontario.” Sustain Ontario. Edited by L. Baker and P. Campsie. Retrieved 1 March 2014 Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (2014). “Healthy Communities Fund.” Retrieved 1 May 2014. Monsebraaten, Laurie (2013, November 18). “Ontario businesses ignore provincial accessibility law.” News / Queens Park, The Star, online. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Murphy, Kate (2014, March 11). “Farm-to-Table Living Takes Root.” New York Times, online. Retrieved 8 April 2014. Needham, Lisa (2013, October 2). “Ontario Nutritious Food Basket.” Wellington-DufferinGuelph Public Health. Retrieved 20 February 2014.

72


Nord, Mark & Heather Hopwood (2008, December). “A Comparison of Household Food Security in Canada and the United States” (Economic Research Report n. 67), USDA. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Ontario Farmland Trust. “2012 Annual Report.” Retrieved 5 April 2014. Ontario Farmland Trust. “Land Securement.” Retrieved 5 April 2014. Ontario Fresh.ca. “Greenbelt Fund.” Retrieved 10 April 2014. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food (2011). “2011 Census of Agriculture: Farm Type.” Retrieved 14 April 2014. “Pan Am Games in Dufferin” (2012, May 18). Orangeville Banner. Retrieved 8 April 2014. Paull, John (2014, April 23). “Free Fruit and Vegetables: The Incredible Edible Food Movement in Todmorden.” Landscapes for People, Food and Nature. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Peterborough Farmer’s Market, online website. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Pettis, Jeffery S. and Elinor M. Lichtenberg, et al (2013, July 24). “Crop Pollination Exposes Honey Bees to Pesticides which Alter their Susceptibility to the Gut Pathogen Nosema ceranae.” PLoS ONE 8(7): e70182. Retrieved 4 April 2014. Pilatic, Heather (2012, May). “Pesticides and Honey Bees: State of the Science.” Pesticide Action Network North America. Retrieved 4 April 2014. Public Health Agency of Canada (2008, December). “Lessons Learned: Public Health Agency of Canada's Response to the 2008 Listeriosis Outbreak.” Retrieved 28 March 2014. Scharf, Kathryn and Charles Levkoe, et al (2010, June). “In Every Community a Place for Food: The Role of the Community Food Centre in Building a Local, Sustainable, and Just Food System.” Metcalf Food Solutions The Stop Community Food Centre. Retrieved 20 March 2014. Seskar-Hencic, Daniela and Laura Campbell, et al (2013). “Addressing Social Determinants of Health in Dufferin County: A public health perspective on local health, policy and program needs.” Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health. Retrieved 20 March 2014.

73


Slater, Joyce (2007). “Community Food Security: Position of Dieticians of Canada” (Public Policy Statements), Dieticians of Canada. Retrieved 30 April 2014. Statistics Canada. “2011 Census Data.” Government of Canada. Retrieved 5 December 2013. “Sustainability: The Intersection of Land Use Planning and Food” (2010, October 29). A Harvest of Ideas: Healthy Communities and Planning for Food, Guelph OPPI Symposium. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Government of Ontario. Retrieved 4 April 2014. Sustain Ontario and Ontario Edible Education Network (2010, October). “Backgrounder on Food Literacy, Food Security, and Local Food Procurement in Ontario’s Schools.” Retrieved 1 March 2014. “The Concept of Cluster and Cluster Policies and their Role for Competiveness and Innovation: Main Statistical Results and Lessons Learned” (2008, October 17). Europe INNOVA/PRO INNO Europe paper No 9. Enterprise and Industry, European Commission. Retrieved 6 April, 2014. The Good Food Box, online website. Retrieved 5 April 2015. The Town of Caledon, online website. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Wales, Mark (2013, October 18). “OFA's Submission to the Minimum Wage Advisory Panel.” Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Retrieved 28 March 2014. Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health, online website. Retrieved 1 May 2014. Whole Village Farm, online website. Retrieved 8, April 2014. “Whole Village Moves Ahead.” Ecovillage News, online. Retrieved 8 April 2014. World Food Summit (1996). “Rome Declaration on Food Security and World Food Summit Plan of Action.” Retrieved 30 April 2014. Young, Christie and Melissa Watkins (2010, June). “New Farmers and Alternative Markets within the Supply Managed System.” Metcalf Food Solutions, FarmStart. Retrieved 12 March 2014.

74

Growing the Food System within the Headwaters ...

Growing the Food System within the Headwaters ...

Suggest Documents

Growing Guide - The Food Project

at the headwaters - WordPress.com

at the headwaters - WordPress.com

Freezing resistance varies within the growing

Kids Growing Food - Agriculture in the Classroom

The Food system concepts

Growing food, growing a movement: climate ...

How Food Policy Emerges - Growing Food Connections

Food Cultures: Growing Cooking Eating - Food Plymouth

Food waste opportunities within the food wholesale ... - OPUS at UTS

The Growing Season, but Not the Farming System, Is a Food Safety ...

The Vertical Aeroponic Growing System - Synergy International ...

The Battlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment - Headwaters ...

Growing Opportunities with Local Food

food system (including the food chain)? - Food Climate Research ...

Youth Growing up in Chinese Immigrant Families Within the Canadian ...

The hydrochemistry of the headwaters of the River Severn, Plynlimon

Factories within sustainable industrial areas within fast growing Eco

Internet Banking Integration within the Banking System

Recontextualizing the Behavioral Immune System Within ... - CiteSeerX

2017 - Headwaters Tourism

Annotated Bibliography - Headwaters Economics

The Local Livestock System The Local Food System ...

2017 - Headwaters Tourism