Regardless of where you live and work, urban or rural, suburban or somewhere in between, agricultural communities and the agri-food sector are integral to our individual and collective wellbeing. Perhaps we have begun to appreciate this in our personal lives, as the last year called the home chefs, novice bakers, and backyard gardeners among us. But in our professional lives, what is the relationship between our work as planners, policy influencers, or decision-makers and the success of this critical industry? This question underscored our research project this past year, looking at municipal capacity (staffing available, resources, expertise, and budget) to make timely and relevant decisions for agriculture and the agri-food sector. This phase of the project focused on 66 municipalities in the Greenbelt of Ontario, and involved collecting survey and interview data from elected officials and planners in each of those communities.
The Greenbelt phase of this project has now concluded, and the project is being expanded to capture municipal capacity from across the province.
If you would like to receive updates on the next phase of this project or be the point of contact for your municipality, we would appreciate the opportunity to hear from you and invite you to contact us at the email addresses provided below. To learn more about the research, here is a snapshot of what we have found so far:
| Table 1 - Municipalities with the fewest and most full-time planners (Survey results and Statistics Canada, 2016) |
| Tier |
Municipality |
Full-time planners |
Population (2016) |
Land Area (km^2) |
| LT |
Uxbridge |
0 |
21,176 |
421 |
| LT |
Adjala-Tosorontio |
0 |
10,975 |
372 |
| UT |
Northumberland |
1 |
85,598 |
1,905 |
| UT |
Dufferin |
2 |
61,735 |
1,486 |
| UT |
Grey |
5 |
93,830 |
4,514 |
| The other 56 municipalities fall somewhere in the middle in terms of planning staff capacity. |
| UT |
Durham |
29 |
645,862 |
2,524 |
| UT |
York |
32 |
1,109,909 |
1,762 |
| ST |
Hamilton (City) |
44 |
536,917 |
1,117 |
| LT |
Richmond Hill |
50 |
195,022 |
101 |
| UT |
Halton |
56 |
548,435 |
964 |
Through this research, we have found that varying capacity at the municipal level may impact whether municipalities
proactively or
reactively plan for the agricultural sector. Municipalities who have the capacity and can proactively plan for agriculture often go above and beyond what is mandated by the provincial government, contributing to the overall viability and resilience of the agricultural sector. For example, the municipality of
Grey County has an impressive range of programs and resources available to support the agricultural community such as
Grey Ag Services,
Ag 4.0 conferences (to connect the agri-food and tech sector), and the
Made in Grey economic development initiative. Other municipalities have developed similar proactive approaches and actively build relationships between the municipality and the local agricultural community. Examples include Dufferin County’s Ag Roundtables,
Agriculture In Dufferin resources,
Durham Region’s farm tour for municipal staff,
Peterborough County’s Agricultural Wall of Fame, and
Northumberland County’s leadership in the Ontario Agri-food Venture Center. Likewise,
Halton Region has developed an
agricultural strategy and
York Region is creating a
climate change action plan. Each of these initiatives is set to include specific provisions for supporting agricultural communities and guiding municipal actions in that regard.
Other municipalities have gone beyond the minimum provincially legislated responsibilities to establish a framework for planning, prioritizing and enhancing agricultural protection and support. This initiative is exemplified with
Halton Region’s Official Plan, whereby additional agricultural policies have been included (e.g., provisions for on-farm diversified uses and opportunities for agricultural commercial uses). Other municipalities support water quality initiatives (e.g.,
Wellington County) and other ecosystem enhancements (e.g.,
Clarington’s Trees for Rural Roads and
Wellington County’s Green Legacy Program).
The above activities are not mandated by upper levels of government and result from staff and elected official knowledge, will, leadership, values, and capacity. These proactive and forward-looking approaches to planning for the agricultural sector ultimately raise questions about why some municipalities may or may not be embracing agriculture to this extent.
Research that explores the challenges facing rural municipalities when dealing with complex and multifaceted issues, such as climate change impacts is limited, particularly research with a rural lens and an agricultural focus. Past research also does not focus on the ever-evolving issues impacting agriculture today (e.g., land use regulations for cannabis production were not a planning issue thirty years ago). A current and comprehensive assessment of municipal capacity to support agricultural priorities and issues is needed and would be of value to stakeholders across the province, such as:
- Agricultural communities
- The planning profession
- The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food, and Rural Affairs
- The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing
- Elected officials and municipal planners
- The general public
Readers can access the full report from the first phase of this research, focusing on the Greenbelt, on
Wayne Caldwell’s website. We would like to thank the Greenbelt Foundation for sponsoring this project and all of the planners and elected officials who offered their insights in our initial study. If you are interested in participating in the next phase of this project exploring municipal capacity and agriculture across Ontario, please contact:
Regan Zink, B.E.S, RPP Candidate
zinkr@uoguelph.ca
Wayne Caldwell, PhD, RPP, FCIP
wcaldwel@uoguelph.ca