Prepping the Land for Development: The Destruction of Natural Heritage Masquerades as a “Normal Farm Practice”
Ontario’s planning system recognizes that woodlands and wetlands are important natural heritage features that merit protection. The Provincial Policy Statement, 2005 (PPS) establishes their protection as a provincial interest by not permitting development or site alteration to occur in woodlands and wetlands that are determined to be provincially significant. Additionally, municipalities are empowered to pass tree-cutting by-laws, and conservation authorities can regulate proposed development in and around wetlands.
Agricultural activities are protected through many public policy privileges granted by the Ontario Legislature. For example, municipal tree-cutting by-laws are not allowed to restrict a normal farm practice carried on as part of an agricultural operation, nor do the natural heritage protections of the PPS limit the ability of existing agricultural uses to continue. However, it is the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) to ensure that such privileges are not abused.
Despite this oversight, woodlands and wetlands are quietly being lost because of legal loopholes. For example, natural heritage features are being destroyed as farmlands are prepped for subdivisions and aggregate operations under the guise of “normal farm practice.” Farmers have frequently been the diligent stewards of these natural heritage features for generations, only to have them lost after the family farm is sold to a third party. The extent to which this practice is occurring is impossible to quantify – any given case may unfold over years and there is limited monitoring of woodlands and wetlands – but the concern has been brought to the attention of the ECO.
The Farming and Food Production Protection Act, 1998 defines a normal farm practice as a practice that is “conducted in a manner consistent with proper and acceptable customs and standards as established and followed by similar agricultural operations under similar circumstances, or makes use of innovative technology in a manner consistent with proper advanced farm management practices.”
By eliminating natural features first as part of agricultural operations, farmland becomes a blank slate with fewer restrictions that is easier to switch to another land use. It is done with the aim of anticipating and circumventing subsequent approvals processes, such as those under the Planning Act or the Aggregate Resources Act, which may have otherwise afforded some protections to these ecological features.
This practice of destroying natural heritage features can occur years before a farm is sold for development or after it is sold, but prior to the proposed re-zoning of the land and submission of a proposed site plan. As such, at face value, it may appear that a farmer or tenant farmer is simply expanding the size of their fields by cutting down trees, for example, which they are entitled to do as a “normal farm practice.” In reality, the land is being deliberately prepped for development by denuding it of ecological features.
The few municipalities that have uncovered this practice have largely been unsuccessful in resolving this perceived abuse of the planning system. For example, municipalities are rightfully hesitant to apply for a hearing before the Normal Farm Practices Protection Board in an attempt to enforce a tree-cutting by-law or woodlot conservation by-law. The perception exists that a public ruling by the board supporting tree removal as a normal farm practice may have significant local repercussions that would encourage other landowners to destroy natural heritage features. In a limited number of cases, the municipality opts for mediation, instead of a hearing, in which a private agreement is reached to settle the matter and the details are not made public. It is unreasonable to allow the destruction of natural heritage features to occur under the myth that prepping the land for development is a normal farm practice. The ECO encourages OMAFRA to consult the public on new guidelines that clarify the relationship between normal farm practices and the conservation of natural heritages features.
For ministry comments, please see Appendix C.
| Previous section: An Incentive for Private Land Conservation |
| Next section: Rules for Source Protection Plans Now in Place |
| This is an article from the 2010/11 Annual Report to the Legislature from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. |
Citing This Article:
Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. 2011. "Prepping the Land for Development: The Destruction of Natural Heritage Masquerades as a “Normal Farm Practice”." Engaging Solutions, ECO Annual Report, 2010/11. Toronto: The Queen's Printer for Ontario. 162.
