An Ag Economist in the Okanagan John Janmaat

  • Slides: 29
Download presentation
An Ag Economist in the Okanagan John Janmaat IK Barber School of Arts and

An Ag Economist in the Okanagan John Janmaat IK Barber School of Arts and Sciences UBC

Background • • • Chilliwack farm boy. B. Sc. (Agr. ) and M. Sc.

Background • • • Chilliwack farm boy. B. Sc. (Agr. ) and M. Sc. (Agr) from UBC. MBA from SFU. Ph. D. in economics from Queen’s Acadia University (Nova Scotia), 2000 – 2007. UBC in Kelowna, 2007 – present.

Yvonne’s Orders • “I would suggest a brief outline of the projects you are

Yvonne’s Orders • “I would suggest a brief outline of the projects you are involved with to start and then something more specific. ” • Best to do as Yvonne says!

Projects with Agriculture Aspect • B. Sc. – analysis of the GRIP program. •

Projects with Agriculture Aspect • B. Sc. – analysis of the GRIP program. • M. Sc. – study cooperatives and supply mgt. • Ph. D. – economics of soil degradation in an irrigation project in India. • Potential for water trading in the Okanagan. • Forecasting land use change in Deep Creek. • Valuing of Ecological goods and services. • Understanding a Group EFP.

Other Projects • • MBA – critique of asset pricing models. Incomplete property rights

Other Projects • • MBA – critique of asset pricing models. Incomplete property rights in a fishery. Fisheries with complex ecosystem dynamics. Water rights and instream flow protection. Household water conservation decisions. Value of village level water storage in Nepal. Challenges of small water systems.

Future Projects • The value of good quality water. • Dry year option contracts

Future Projects • The value of good quality water. • Dry year option contracts for drought risk management. • Lessons for water law from indigenous and settler experiences. • Managing forest for total watershed benefits. • Valuing agricultural landscapes.

And More Specific … • Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission • Agriculture mentioned as

And More Specific … • Central Okanagan Economic Development Commission • Agriculture mentioned as a key industry, but …

Kelowna CMA

Kelowna CMA

Employment

Employment

Employment

Employment

Employers

Employers

Employers

Employers

Agriculture in the Kelowna CMA • Agriculture Employment – ~2% of all employees –

Agriculture in the Kelowna CMA • Agriculture Employment – ~2% of all employees – No obvious trend • Agriculture Employers – <3. 5% of all employers. ~half no employees – No obvious trend. • Ag (and tourism) not big part of economy. • Industries related to immigration biggest!!!

Global Food Supply http: //www. choicesmagazine. org/choices-magazine/submittedarticles/productivity-growth-in-global-agriculture-shifting-todeveloping-countries

Global Food Supply http: //www. choicesmagazine. org/choices-magazine/submittedarticles/productivity-growth-in-global-agriculture-shifting-todeveloping-countries

Global Food Supply http: //www. choicesmagazine. org/choices-magazine/submittedarticles/productivity-growth-in-global-agriculture-shifting-todeveloping-countries

Global Food Supply http: //www. choicesmagazine. org/choices-magazine/submittedarticles/productivity-growth-in-global-agriculture-shifting-todeveloping-countries

Global Food Supply http: //www. choicesmagazine. org/choices-magazine/submittedarticles/productivity-growth-in-global-agriculture-shifting-todeveloping-countries

Global Food Supply http: //www. choicesmagazine. org/choices-magazine/submittedarticles/productivity-growth-in-global-agriculture-shifting-todeveloping-countries

Global Food Supply • Human ability to produce food continues to grow faster than

Global Food Supply • Human ability to produce food continues to grow faster than population. – Recently, not more land, chemicals, or irrigation. – Take that Malthus!!!

Food Demand

Food Demand

Food Demand

Food Demand

Food Demand 160. 00 Constant dollars, 2010 = 100 140. 00 120. 00 100.

Food Demand 160. 00 Constant dollars, 2010 = 100 140. 00 120. 00 100. 00 80. 00 60. 00 40. 00 Energy Non-Energy Agriculture 20. 00 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Food Demand

Food Demand

Food Demand

Food Demand

Food Demand • Income growing faster than food demand. – Food demand inelastic! •

Food Demand • Income growing faster than food demand. – Food demand inelastic! • Increasing share of food expenditures is value added. – Can only eat so many beans, but will pay for different ways they can be prepared. – Higher income -> greater demand for services in food (convenience, partially prepared, processed).

Multi-functionality of Agriculture • Agriculture produces much more than food! – Visual landscape –

Multi-functionality of Agriculture • Agriculture produces much more than food! – Visual landscape – Open space / green space / rural landscapes – Habitats / environment (esp. if managed for it) – Living culture and history – Enable urbanites to ‘farm vicariously’, connecting with local landscape. – Connect local residents to natural seasons – Location for recreational activities

Multi-functionality of Agriculture

Multi-functionality of Agriculture

Multi-functionality of Agriculture • Some functions can be ‘captured’. – Value of rural properties

Multi-functionality of Agriculture • Some functions can be ‘captured’. – Value of rural properties – Wine tourism / agri-tourism • Some can’t – Visual landscape, habitats, cultural heritage, etc. – Farm’s provide, but are not directly paid. – Support programs for agriculture (partly) justified by these ‘positive externalities’.

Multi-functionality of Agriculture • Farmers – May not recognize non-food services. – May resent/resist

Multi-functionality of Agriculture • Farmers – May not recognize non-food services. – May resent/resist being ‘forced’ to provide them. • Non-farmers – Recognize and value non-food services, often more than local food production. – Demanding farmers provide non-food services, through regulations, etc.

Multi-functionality of Agriculture • Rural-urban divide – Farmers protecting right to use land their

Multi-functionality of Agriculture • Rural-urban divide – Farmers protecting right to use land their way. • Protection from demands for non-food services. – Non-farmers frustrated by inability to influence farmers to provide more non-food services. • Politics – Farmers historically politically powerful. – ~2% of population. Will power last? – Time to become partners? Especially in RDCO?

Conclusion • For food, the Central Okanagan does not need local agriculture. • Local

Conclusion • For food, the Central Okanagan does not need local agriculture. • Local agriculture needs the continued support of the Central Okanagan. • Telling local people that they need agriculture – “farmers feed you” is a big stretch that may eventually backfire. • Emphasize value to community beyond food.