Achieving Farmland Conservation and Food Equity

Achieving Farmland Conservation & Food Equity Through Community-Supported Agriculture This report provides an analysis of state assistance programs currently available to farm operators in Massachusetts and highlights areas of opportunity, specifically for smaller-scale community farms. Case studies of existing farms and land trusts are used to highlight policy successes and challenges. Suggested program changes and legislative goals are included for the consideration of policymakers. Introduction Every minute in the United States, 3 acres of agricultural land are developed and rendered unfarmable.1 While there is a real need for increased housing and public facilities, we must balance it with the importance of farms and their contributions to the local community, food economy, and larger environment. The protection of agricultural land against irreversible damage is key to addressing the effects of climate change, most visibly through preventing soil degradation and promoting carbon sequestration.2 The state of Massachusetts has shown enormous potential in preserving agricultural land, providing communities with local sources of affordable and healthy food, and sustaining resilient American Farmland Trust. (2018, May 9). Farms Under Threat: The State of America’s Farmland. Retrieved from https://www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/AFT_Farms_Under_Threat_May2018%20 maps%20B_0.pdf 2 U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance Ecosystem Services Science Advisory Council. (2019). The Power of Resiliency in Agriculture’s Ecosystem Services. (12). Retrieved from https://usfarmersandranchers.org/wpcontent/themes/usfra-microsite/assets/downloads/USFRA-2019-Report.pdf 1 1 ecosystems. Through the Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) Program alone, more than 73,000 acres of land and 930 farms have been protected from development. Because of the initiative taken by policymakers, in particular at the Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR), the APR and programs like it are able to assist farmers in keeping their farms competitive in a rapidly changing environment. Now the challenge is in extending this assistance towards the newly emerging movement of community-supported farms. Community-supported agriculture (CSA) presents a unique opportunity for increasing local food production while maximizing the positive externalities for surrounding residents. Whereas commercial farms mainly export their produce for sales elsewhere, community farms focus on serving the local residents with non-sales revenue. Along with decreasing local food insecurity and environmental degradation, CSAs provide communities with valuable social services such as experiential education and outdoor recreation. As subsequent case studies will demonstrate, affordable, nutritious food is just one of the benefits that a CSA structure has to offer. This report will focus on what Massachusetts is currently doing to preserve farmland, and how the state can adapt its conservation goals to further support alternative farm structures like community-supported agriculture. Analysis of Current Programs & Legislation The Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) Program In 1977, the Commonwealth legislature created the Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) Program to address concerns about declining levels of local food production and agricultural land. As the first of its kind in the nation, the APR Program protects agricultural land “in perpetuity” by paying farmers the difference between the “fair market value” and the “agricultural value” of their farm. The result is a permanent deed restriction which prevents any usage that negatively impacts the agricultural potential of the land. Since the APR’s enactment, 2 over 73,000 acres of land have been preserved and 909 APR contracts were signed in 13 of 14 Massachusetts counties. 3 APR Case Study: Caretaker Farm (Williamstown, MA) Originally owned by Sam and Elizabeth Smith, the Caretaker Farm is a success story of organizational ingenuity and initiative from the Smiths. The farm provided valuable social services for the surrounding communities, such as locally grown produce and job opportunities for apprentice farmers. As the Smiths neared retirement, they wanted to somehow preserve the farm while making it affordable for future farmers and profitable for their own retirement fund. The result was an ownership structure that separated the agricultural land and farmstead buildings between the Smiths, the new farm owners, a non-profit, and MDAR. The agricultural land was purchased by the Williamstown Rural Lands Foundation and placed under an Agricultural Preservation Restriction (APR) by MDAR, while the Smiths retained ownership of one house on the farm and sold the agricultural operations to the new owners at the discounted APR value. Thanks to the APR, the Smiths were able to sell their farmland below the fair market value and protect its agricultural value in perpetuity, all without incurring a financial loss. The farm and its surrounding land are currently held under a 99-year lease that limits land use to sustainable farming methods. The farm lease preamble provides an inspiring promise for future generations of farmers and community members, stating that “Caretaker Farm will always provide a common meeting ground and source of local nourishment, both material and spiritual, for all who yearn for abiding community.” 4 For landowners considering future steps regarding their agricultural land, the Caretaker Farm stands as an example of preservation that benefits the community and farmers like. APR Case Study: Kestrel Land Trust (Amherst, MA) & Barstow Longview Farm (Hadley, MA) Mass.Gov. Auditor Bump Calls for Greater Oversight, Predictability, and Transparency in Farmland Preservation. (August, 22, 2018) Retrieved from https://www.mass.gov/news/auditor-bump-calls-for-greater-oversightpredictability-and-transparency-in-farmland 4 Caretaker Farm. “Our History”. Retrieved from https://www.caretakerfarm.org/our-history 3 3 Based in the Pioneer Valley of Western Massachusetts, the Kestrel Land Trust has conserved over 25,000 acres of land since its creation in 1970. In addition to preserving farmlands, the Kestrel Land Trust creates public conservation areas and hosts outdoor educational programs across the Massachusetts section of the larger Connecticut River Valley. In 2009, Kestrel spearheaded the Forever Farmland Initiative to accelerate farmland conservation efforts in the Valley and heighten public awareness about the urgency of preservation. As an organization, Kestrel has successfully harnessed public engagement in tandem with government support (i.e. MDAR). The Barstow’s Longview Farm in Hadley, MA, is one of several farms in Western Massachusetts that the Kestrel Land Trust has been able to preserve through MDAR’s APR Program. The Longview Farm began its operations in 1806 and has spanned seven generations of Barstows. Influenced by the fluctuating dairy market and ever-present threat of development, the Barstows decided to participate in the APR Program with the help of Kestrel Conservation Specialists. By using the funds from the Agricultural Preservation Restriction purchase, the Barstows were able to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in new technology for their dairy farm operations and permanently protect their farmland from development. Recommendations for the APR Program As the APR Program passes its 40-year mark, changes in program criteria and enforcement should be made so the Program can reach its full potential. In the most recent program audit released in August 2018, state auditor Suzanne M. Bump concluded that the APR Program was lacking in operational transparency and monitoring of preserved farmland. After visiting 60 farms and reviewing program procedures, Auditor Bump found that program participants “did not understand its requirements, were not sufficiently monitored for compliance with those requirements, and were unsure of the criteria used by the program’s leadership when making decisions regarding the sale and approved uses of APR land”5 To verify Auditor Bump’s findings, an independent review of publicly available APR material was conducted. Based on Massachusetts General Law, an agricultural preservation restriction forbids “(a) construction or placing of buildings except for those used for agricultural purposes or for dwellings used for family living by the land owner, his immediate family or employees; (b) excavation, dredging or 5 Ibid. 4 removal of loam, peat, gravel, soil, rock or other mineral substance in such a manner as to adversely affect the land's overall future agricultural potential; and (c) other acts or uses detrimental to such retention of the land for agricultural use.” 6 Given the broad definitions used, specifically in subsection (c), and that the information was not easily accessible, it is reasonable to arrive at Auditor Bump’s conclusion that a more transparent, streamlined enforcement process will benefit those within the APR Program. Another area of opportunity is the criteria for APR Program applicants, which currently require farms to be: at least 5 acres in size, devoted to agriculture for the 2 immediately preceding tax years, and have produced at least $500 in gross sales per year for the first five acres plus $5 for each additional acre or 50 cents per each additional acre of woodland and wetland. Altogether, the APR Program requirements are loosely structured to serve larger, sales-oriented farms. This places CSA farms at a disadvantage, given their smaller scale of operations and revenue from sales. If the APR Program criteria can be changed to take into account various farm structures, a more diverse range of agriculturally viable land can be preserved in perpetuity. The recommendations in the most recent APR program audit support this proposed policy change, summarizing that “While on the whole, participants are satisfied with the APR program, it is clear that the Department of Agricultural Resources must do more to ensure it adapts to meet the needs of modern farmers, including accommodating agritourism and other revenue producing opportunities.” 7 Article 89 of Boston Zoning Code In December 2013, the Boston Zoning Code was amended to permit commercial urban agriculture and establish new rules governing the practice. 8 As a result, the restrictions The 191st General Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. MGL c. 184, §§ 31 through 33. Retrieved from https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartII/TitleI/Chapter184/Section31 7 Mass.Gov. (August, 22, 2018). Auditor Bump Calls for Greater Oversight, Predictability, and Transparency in Farmland Preservation. Retrieved from https://www.mass.gov/news/auditor-bump-calls-for-greater-oversightpredictability-and-transparency-in-farmland 8 Boston Planning & Development Agency. (June, 2014). Urban Agriculture Rezoning Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.bostonplans.org/planning/planning-initiatives/urban-agriculture-rezoning 6 5 surrounding the urban cultivation of plants, hens, and bees were significantly loosened. Previously under the law, residents could not sell any produce grown from operations in the city. Now, city gardens and farms are empowered to supply residents and restaurants with food grown on the ground-level, rooftops, and freight containers. Article 89 specifically promotes small-scale urban agriculture by allowing projects smaller than 1 acre and under a technological threshold (i.e. greenhouse, rooftops) to proceed without a Comprehensive Farm Review (CFR). Conducted by the Boston Planning Agency, a CFR can take up to 6 months to complete and takes into account residential and commercial impacts of farm operations. While public hearings and zoning penalties are no longer a concern for most urban agricultural projects, special permits may still be required from other Boston city departments (i.e. the Fire Department, Parks and Recreation, Public Health Commission, etc.). There are also limits to what Article 89 permits, such as cultivation of marine and land animals in closed environments. Those activities require advanced levels of technology and funding, making them less relevant to urban agricultural operations. Combined with the Massachusetts Urban Agriculture Grant Program outlined below, the City of Boston is making strides towards more equitable local food systems. Case Study: Massachusetts Urban Agriculture Grant Program In a step towards widening the range of MDAR program participants, the Urban Agriculture Program was established to “increase access to affordable, fresh food for urban residents, address the challenges of small-scale farming in densely populated centers, and create direct markets in low-moderate income neighborhoods.” 9 The Program is able to offer reimbursements of $1,000 $15,000 for community garden projects, $5,000 to $50,000 for commercial urban agriculture projects, and up to $100,000 for land acquisition. The eligible project areas within the Program cover a wide-range of agricultural operations, including soil management, land acquisition, equipment, infrastructure, organic certification support, growing technology, marketing, distribution, and transportation. An example of a previous grantee is the Dudley and Lynn-based Food Project, which seasonally hires 120 teenagers to cultivate land, participate in workshops, Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources. (October, 2019). Massachusetts Urban Agriculture Grant Program Fiscal Year 2020. Retrieved from https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/10/16/FY20%20RFR%20AGR-UrbanAG-FY20-3%20docx.pdf 9 6 and volunteer at hunger relief organizations. In FY2018, the Food Project received $53,620 for new greenhouse infrastructure and a mobile market trailer. 10 Given the importance these projects have for low-moderate income communities, the Urban Agriculture Program should continue to receive state funding and conduct outreach to communities that are in the most need. The evaluation criteria are largely centered around project feasibility, economic output, and community impact. To avoid the widening of wealth gaps along racial and neighborhood lines, more could be outlined for prioritizing communities that have historically been denied funding, such as Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan. The importance of urban agriculture-specific grants is illustrated by the following case study of Urban Farming Institute, based in Roxbury. Case Study: Urban Farming Institute (Roxbury, MA) Founded in 2011, the Urban Farming Institute (UFI) works towards a vision of more equitable food systems and positive community relations in the neighborhoods of Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan. Resources and training opportunities are made available to budding urban farmers through the leadership of local residents and partnerships with MDAR, the City of Boston, and various private organizations and land trusts. In FY2018, UFI received $12,504 from the MA Agricultural Grant Program for farming tools, planter systems, and pick-up trucks. Since the UFIs inception, it has trained around 150 community members on sustainable farming practices in urban environments, 80% of which now work in businesses related to farm and food services. 11 Each year, UFI farms produce more than 15,000lbs of food for local restaurants and markets as well as hosting more than 600 visitors. 12 It is evident that organizations like UFI are empowering urban communities to reconnect with the food system and strengthen community ties. The passing of Article 89 in Boston Zoning Code has made it even easier for UFI to establish urban farming operations, such as their recently acquired the designated historic site Fowler Clark Epstein Farm in Mattapan. The purchase of the farm was largely funded by private charitable foundations, with government funding coming from tax credits and loans related to the land’s historic status. However, not all urban agricultural sites will be free from the possibility of Morning Ag Clips. (November, 2018) Grants to support urban agriculture. Retrieved from https://www.morningagclips.com/grants-to-support-urban-agriculture/ 11 Urban Farming Institute. “About Us”. Retrieved from https://urbanfarminginstitute.org/about-us 12 Ibid. 10 7 unwanted development. Even though the APR Program does not apply to urban farms because of its land criteria (i.e. quality of underlying soil or water), there is still potential for MDAR to assist in preservation. Grant programs like the one outlined above is just one example. Conclusion The effects of urbanization and soil degradation are often non-reversible, which means that extra care must be taken when deciding future land use. Historically, commercial farms have received the most attention from MDAR and its assistance programs. Today, agricultural operations are evolving alongside our communities to meet new demands and MDAR policies should adapt as well. Community-supported agriculture has emerged as a socially and environmentally responsible structure of food production that result in healthier food systems and ecosystems. There are numerous examples of non-commercial farms across Massachusetts that have demonstrated their significant value to surrounding communities and ecosystems. With the leadership of local residents and help from MDAR grants, organizations like the Urban Farming Institute have revitalized the urban food system and community engagement. The current criteria of assistance programs such as the APR can be further expanded to support farms that deviate from traditional commercial structures. While Massachusetts policymakers have made great strides in preserving agricultural land for future generations, there is always room for improvement. To ensure that operators of non-commercial farms are able to access state funding and prevent unwanted development, there must be equal parts accommodation and education to reach the full potential of state-assisted preservation. 8