Elsevier

Land Use Policy

Volume 95, June 2020, 104629
Land Use Policy

“Community developed and farmer delivered.” An analysis of the spatial and relational proximities of the Alternative Land Use Services program in Ontario

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104629Get rights and content

Highlights

  • In Canada, the ALUS program supports conservation projects by financially compensating farmers for ecosystem services.

  • Features of ALUS include a bottom-up approach: “farmer-to-farmer” method and community approach to conservation.

  • A common set of values encourages member participation, fosters stakeholder confidence and facilitates coordination.

  • ALUS shows its ability to well mobilize farmers and put their environmental values into action in a cost-effective manner.

  • From a territorial perspective, ALUS has limited reach because it fails to fully activate geographic proximity.

Abstract

In Canada, the Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) program aims to support conservation projects by financially compensating farmers for ecosystem services. The program advocates a bottom-up approach that allows farmers to decide which projects to implement. In this respect, ALUS distinguishes itself from more traditional agri-environment schemes, which are often managed in a top-down fashion. Other unique features of the program include a governance structure based on stakeholder confidence; the provision of annual compensation to members for supplying ecosystem services; and a private, community-based approach to conservation. Using the proximity analysis framework, our research explores whether this model can reshape the values of farmers and encourage them to adopt and maintain environmentally friendly practices. Our results reveal a close proximity among ALUS members in terms of their values, both environmental and economic. However, the ALUS program fails to take full advantage of the geographic and organized proximity of its participants. Specifically, individual projects are not integrated into a spatially coordinated, collective strategy that could have a greater environmental impact. While ALUS has been successful in encouraging farmers to adopt new practices, it mostly attracts participants who already agree with the values it promotes. In this regard, the program is not very different from standard agri-environment schemes.

Introduction

Promoting the use of agricultural practices that are less damaging to the environment has become a major policy issue (Stoate et al., 2009; Tanentzap et al., 2015). To address this challenge, the governments of most industrialized countries have introduced various agri-environment schemes (AESs) (Balmford et al., 2008; Buller et al., 2017). These programs, which are generally voluntary based, financially compensate farmers for adopting beneficial management practices that go beyond the environmental norms in place. However, ensuring that a high enough percentage of farmers implement such practices remains a challenge (Uthes and Matzdorf, 2013; Mills et al., 2017). Furthermore, the new practices are often not maintained once the financial compensation offered to farmers through AESs ceases (Pretty, 2003; Mills et al., 2017). Consequently, the impact of these schemes often falls short of expectations (Lawrence et al., 2004; Sparling and Brethour, 2007).

According to many researchers, AESs have been unable to influence the long-term environmental behaviors of farmers (Burton et al., 2008; De Snoo et al., 2013). In addition, the programs in place only appear to be effective at convincing farmers who already have pro-environmental values and behaviors. Consequently, they fail to reach a large percentage of farmers. In order for new practices to be sustainably implemented, certain authors have suggested that the values of farmers need to evolve in such a way that environmentally friendly practices become an integral part of “good” conventional farming (Burton and Paragahawewa, 2011).

One of the reasons given for the shortcomings of AESs is that they offer ready-made solutions to farmers without seeking their involvement. As a result, the programs do not encourage farmers to do more than the minimum necessary to qualify for aid (Deuffic and Candau, 2006; Burton and Paragahawewa, 2011). Furthermore, the practices funded are often similar, regardless of the agro-ecosystem under consideration or the types of producers involved (Pinto-Correia et al., 2006). Consequently, farmers frequently disagree with the environmental assessment that is given and can be reluctant to implement recommendations (Lawrence et al., 2004). The practices prescribed also discourage farmers from finding solutions that are adapted to their farm situation and agro-ecosystem. Moreover, studies have suggested that, when farmers pursue their own solutions, they are more likely to develop pro-environmental values (Burton and Paragahawewa, 2011; De Snoo et al., 2013).

In order to better reflect the local realities of farmers and promote spatially coordinated and effective environmental efforts, different bottom-up approaches have been proposed that mobilize farmers in a participatory manner (Emery and Franks, 2012; Prager et al., 2012; Westerink et al., 2017). Research has shown that such initiatives can change the attitudes and long-term environmental behaviors of participating farmers, (Shaw et al., 2011; Wilson, 2004), and spearhead conservation actions that are spatially coordinated (Campbell et al., 2011; Westerink et al., 2017).

Bottom-up agri-environment schemes have been developed in numerous countries. Example include the Landcare movement in Australia (Wilson, 2004), agri-environmental cooperatives in the Netherlands (Termeer et al., 2013), and voluntary initiatives to rehabilitate watersheds and local partnerships for sustainability in the United States (Campbell et al., 2011; Shaw et al., 2011). These approaches, which have been characterized as grassroots initiatives; community initiatives; or self-governing, self-organized, or self-regulatory arrangements, have been studied by various researchers (Runhaar et al., 2017; Termeer et al., 2013; Westerink et al., 2015; Wilson, 2004; Wiskerke et al., 2003).

The results of these studies indicate that a variety of interconnected factors contribute to the promotion of environmental values among farmers and to the long-term success of these initiatives. Among other factors, the success of such schemes depends on a series of baseline social conditions and the existence of trusting relationships among participants (Church and Prokopy, 2017; Prokopy et al., 2014); the training potential of local agricultural leaders; the promotion of shared leadership between all participating organizations (Lubell, 2004; Termeer et al., 2013); the involvement of an intermediary or mediating organization (Franks and McGloin, 2007; Lubell, 2004; Prager, 2015; Wilson, 2004); and government support, especially financial and technical assistance (Termeer et al., 2013; Wilson, 2004).

Nevertheless, these initiatives have been criticized for their inability to attract farmers who are less convinced of the need for environmental protection (Termeer et al., 2013; Wilson, 2004). Consequently, the issue of low farmer participation persists. As studies have suggested, farmers are not always able or willing to participate in such schemes, for various technical, economic, or cultural reasons (Blackstock et al., 2010; Manta Conroy, 2011).

In Canada, the Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) program proposes a bottom-up approach that gives farmers a great deal of room to decide which projects to implement. ALUS presents itself as an independent, non-governmental initiative that supports conservation projects. In practice, the program recognizes the monetary value of ecosystem services and financially compensates farmers for supplying them.1 Initially started in 2006 in Manitoba, the initiative has since spread to various communities (19 in total as of 2016) across six Canadian provinces. ALUS communities are organized locally around a county or watershed and offer annual payments to farmers who build ecosystem-protecting infrastructure on a portion of their farmland. The program currently involves more than 700 farmers who have implemented more than 15,500 projects2 across Canada on almost 18,000 acres of land (ALUS, 2019). The program’s originality lies in its governance structure. Specifically, ALUS communities strongly defend the bottom-up nature of their approach, which they call the “farmer-to-farmer” method. Moreover, the communities independently decide how much compensation participants will receive, and members are free to choose which practices to implement.

The ALUS program has garnered increasing attention from environmental policymakers since it proposes a paradigm change that recognizes, compensates, and values farmers for the role they play in protecting the environment (ALUS, 2019). In addition, ALUS promotes a decentralized, voluntary approach to conservation that can be adapted to the needs of local communities. Nevertheless, there has been little research done on the program, even though its unique features are recognized as factors that contribute to the success of bottom-up initiatives, namely the presence of an intermediary organization; the provision of annual financial compensation to farmers; and the use of a local, associative management structure that involves farm leaders. At the same time, ALUS is different from other programs because it claims to be a private initiative, uses a “farmer-to-farmer” approach, and allows decisions on compensation rules for ecosystem services to be determined locally.

Can the ALUS program’s unique features help reshape the values of farmers and encourage them to sustainably maintain environmentally friendly practices? In this article, we explore this question within the context of Ontario, which is currently the province with the most ALUS communities. By utilizing a theoretical framework that analyzes proximity, we highlight the importance of examining coordination from both a spatial and relational standpoint. After presenting the ALUS program and examining the studies that have been conducted on it (Section 2), we outline our theoretical framework (Section 3), the methodology applied (Section 4), and the results obtained (Section 5). This is followed by a general discussion (Section 6) on how relational and geographic proximity within ALUS communities is central to the program’s success. In this section, we also explore how the ALUS program, like other types of AESs, struggles to promote spatially coordinated environmental efforts and greater farmer participation.

Section snippets

The growth of ALUS communities in Ontario

In Canada, water and soil management is mostly the responsibility of the provincial governments. In the case of Ontario, however, the province has progressively withdrawn from its role in managing natural resources (O’Connor, 2002). Up until 2013, successive administrations pursued a policy of deregulation, liberalization, privatization, and replacing regulatory oversight with voluntary programs (Cooper, 1998; Winfield, 2012). Overall, natural resource governance in Ontario is fragmented due to

Theoretical framework: the French school of proximity

The proximity analysis framework was developed at the beginning of the 1990s by a group of French researchers to study economic activities from a territorial perspective (Torre and Gilly, 1999; Carrincazeaux et al., 2008). According to this approach, proximity can be understood as both a relational and spatial concept. The framework focuses on geography and the economy and seeks to identify which factors separate or bring together stakeholders attempting to address an economic problem. In this

Methods

To evaluate the ALUS program’s unique features, we pursued a qualitative research approach involving multiple case studies (Miles and Huberman, 2003; Yin, 2003; Roy, 2009). In total, 45 semi-structured interviews were conducted with different stakeholders in four of the five ALUS communities in Ontario: Norfolk, Lambton, Ontario East, and Elgin. Table 1 provides some background information on each of the communities visited.

We interviewed ALUS farmer participants, including both members (17)

Geographic proximity that is poorly activated as a resource

Three of the ALUS communities visited are county-based (Norfolk, Lambton, and Elgin), and one is organized around a watershed (Ontario East). Interviewees did not feel a sense of attachment to the community area as delineated by ALUS. While participants did express a sentimental connection to the lake or river in their locale (South Nation River, Raisin River, Lake Erie, Saint Lawrence River), most respondents identified with their municipality. Participants certainly pursued environmental

Discussion

Table 3 summarizes the effects that different forms of proximity have on the organization of ALUS communities and on levels of farmer commitment to the program. We organized the proximity typologies examined in the previous sections into columns, while the important dimensions are listed by row. We then chose to qualitatively measure the degree to which the various categories of proximity are activated for each dimension based on the conclusions we arrived at in each sub-section of Section 5.

Conclusion

The purpose of our study was to determine, using the proximity analysis framework, whether ALUS’s unique approach could succeed where traditional AES initiatives have failed. In specific terms, we sought to examine whether ALUS could reshape the values of farmers and convince them to implement and maintain environmentally friendly practices. The results of our analysis were mixed. Firstly, we note that ALUS has been successful because it responds to a pressing need in Ontario where the

CRediT authorship contribution statement

F. Ouellet: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Investigation, Resources, Writing - review & editing. P. Mundler: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, , Writing - original draft. J. Dupras: Supervision, Writing - review & editing. J. Ruiz: Funding acquisition, Project administration, Supervision, Writing - review & editing.

Acknowledgement

This research project was financially supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada.

References (71)

  • J. Westerink et al.

    Collaborative governance arrangements to deliver spatially coordinated agri-environmental management

    Land Use Policy

    (2017)
  • G.A. Wilson

    The Australian Landcare movement: towards ‘post-productivist’rural governance?

    J. Rural Stud.

    (2004)
  • J.S.C. Wiskerke et al.

    Environmental co-operatives as a new mode of rural governance

    NJAS-Wageningen J. Life Sci.

    (2003)
  • S. Wunder

    Revisiting the concept of payment for environmental services

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2015)
  • Alternative Land Use Services (ALUS) Canada (2019). Accessible online at:...
  • V. Angeon et al.

    Quel rôle joue la proximité dans l’émergence et la pérennité de modes de gestion durable des ressources naturelles?

    Natures sciences sociétés

    (2009)
  • A. Avilés Benitez et al.

    Proximité et aménités environnementales produites par l’agriculture

  • A. Balmford et al.

    Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: a comparison

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2008)
  • R. Boschma

    Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment

    Reg. Stud.

    (2005)
  • O. Bouba-Olga et al.
    (2008)
  • E. Brubaker
    (2009)
  • H. Buller et al.

    Agri-environmental Policy in the European

    (2017)
  • R.J. Burton et al.

    Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri‐environmental schemes

    Sociol. Ruralis

    (2008)
  • J.B. Campbell

    A Case-study Analysis of the Alternative Land Use Services Program (ALUS). Master’s Thesis

    (2014)
  • J.T. Campbell et al.

    Does collaboration promote grass-roots behavior change? Farmer adoption of best management practices in two watersheds

    Soc. Nat. Resour.

    (2011)
  • C. Carrincazeaux et al.

    The scientific trajectory of the French school of proximity: interaction-and institution-based approaches to regional innovation systems

    Eur. Plan. Stud.

    (2008)
  • J.S. Coleman

    Social capital in the creation of human capital

    Am. J. Sociol.

    (1988)
  • C.L. Cook

    Putting the Pieces Together: Tracing Fragmentation in Ontario Water Governance (Doctoral Dissertation)

    (2011)
  • K. Cooper

    Trashing environmental protection – Ontario’s four-part strategy

    Confronting the Cuts: A Sourcebook for Women in Ontario

    (1998)
  • M.G. Dalecki et al.

    Agrarianism in American society

    Rural Sociol.

    (1992)
  • G.R. De Snoo et al.

    Toward effective nature conservation on farmland: making farmers matter

    Conserv. Lett.

    (2013)
  • P. Deuffic et al.

    Farming and landscape management: how French farmers are coping with the ecologization of their activities

    J. Agric. Environ. Ethics

    (2006)
  • R.L. France et al.

    Payment for agro-ecosystem services: developmental case-history descriptions of Canada’s Grassroots ‘ALUS’ Programs

    Res. J. Agric. Environ. Manage.

    (2015)
  • J.P. Gilly et al.

    Hub firms and the dynamics of territorial innovation: case studies of Thales and Liebherr in Toulouse

    Eur. Plan. Stud.

    (2011)
  • P. Guerra

    Investment in the Provision of Ecological Goods and Services on Private Rural Land in Ontario: A Framework for Policy Development. Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Graduate Studies of the University of Guelph, Master of Science

    (2010)
  • Cited by (8)

    • Location matters. Are science and policy arenas facing the Inner Peripheries challenges in EU?

      2021, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      In detail, indicators could be useful to e.g. assess the diversification of farms’ activities to increase the farmers’ incomes (Dorocki et al., 2013), analyse the potential of agricultural areas to host bioenergy crops, or examine the state of road accessibility in agricultural and forest areas for productive purposes (e.g. Hrůza et al., 2018). Moreover, within the framework of sustainable agriculture and forest management implementation, farmers could be financially compensated for ecosystem services provision (e.g. pollination, carbon storage and sequestration) (Ouellet et al., 2020) or benefitting from ecotourism through the preservation of cultural heritage and environmental conservation (Saviano et al., 2018). The rural-urban digital divide, due to the remoteness and lack of critical mass conditions which generally affect Inner Peripheries, still represent an important constraint for economic and services development (Rosina and Hurbánek, 2013).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text