!1

Prepared for: Dr Timothy McDaniels, Assistant Deputy Minister, Ministry of Agriculture (BC) Prepared by: George P.R. Benson, POLIS - Climate Change Resilience Consultants, Ltd. March 15, 2015

Climate Change Threats to British Columbia’s Imported Food - Proposed California Case Study

Deladier Almeida, 2007

!2

PROPOSAL Project Justification Food production systems and supply chains will be impacted by climate change - production may shift spatially, technological changes may occur within the production system, and productivity rates may be altered (for better or for worse). Because British Columbia imports close to half its food, it is imperative that the government understand the impacts that climate change will have on food systems, both imported and local, and take action to secure sources of food for its citizens in the likely event of supply chain disruptions. Because of the difficulty of conducting an analysis of all British Columbian food sources and because there is seemingly greater instability promised to out-of-province food sources, rather than internal ones, the proposal here is that a study be conducted to understand what risks are posed to external food sources because of climate change and what range of options the province has to respond to this.

The overarching goal of such a study is to provide fulsome, complete analysis of risks posed by climate change to British Columbian imported food supply in order to spur policy discussions about provincial and local adaptations to protect the provincial food supply.

Californian Case Study In order to perform a feasible, fine-grain analysis, the proposal here suggests a case-study approach. As one of the largest sources of British Columbia’s imported food, California would make for a data-rich example of how climate change will drive land-use changes, food supply pattern disruptions, and, ultimately, how human-driven climate change threatens the province’s food supply.

Guiding Question of Analysis How can British Columbia maintain provincial food security with predicted disruptions to food supplied by California due to climate change and other environmental stressors?

Project Outline This project attends to perform a full risk analysis of the threat posed by climate change in California to food supplied to British Columbia. This entails a two-part analysis, firstly understanding the broad threats to California’s current food production system due to climate change, and secondly, understanding the range of options that British Columbia has to respond to this. Overall, this project aims to embrace as wide a variety of options as possible to ensure the continuing health and security of the citizens of British Columbia. In undertaking this analysis, and following in the structured-decision making tradition of Robert T Clemen and Terence Reilly (2004), this proposal aims to spell out both the scope and direction of any study, fill out what stakeholders would be relevant to the discussion, what preliminary goals may be discussed, and offer up a series of alternatives that my be considered for action.

!3

In sequence,

• The first aim of the project will be to define the problem fully. As proposed here, the problem should be stated as: climate change disruptions to agriculture will mean British Columbia’s imported food supply, particularly the parts of which come from climate-unstable regions, will be threatened.

• Next would be to lay out the scope of the project, then, which is recommended to be: devising alternatives and options around Californian-supplied food for the province to continue to meet the holistic food needs of the province.

• Next would be considering the relevant stakeholders for the project, including government agencies, local governments, consumer advocates, food security groups, and relevant actors in California.

• Drawing from the stakeholders and from internal ministry priorities, overarching values (general preferences, often process-related) and objectives (specific goals to be achieved) would be agreed upon, with specific indicators for each of these goals.

• From consultations with stakeholders, consideration of the overall problem definition, and with reference to defined objectives, a series of alternatives would be developed. They would aim to include the largest possible number of actions that are both relevant and actionable.

• With the alternatives defined, consequences of these actions would be discussed, aiming to understand with reasonable confidence what could be expected from each potential alternative raised. Because of the of the on-going, dynamic nature of climate change, this aspect of the analysis will contain significant uncertainty.

• Finally, a clear picture of the relative trade-offs of each of these alternatives would be defined, paving the way for decision-makers to take a course of action, either on specific action with regards to California, or on a larger basis, depending on what the outcomes of the alternatives were.

METHODOLOGY Context and Background Climate change is going to impact global food production. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s 2014 report stressed the dynamic, interlocking pressures that will reduce biodiversity on land and in the water. In particular, staple wheat, maize, and rice crops in many tropical and temperate regions will be threatened in many regions. While British Columbia will likely face little net loss of growing productivity (though there will be many 1

other challenges), key sources of imported food, including California, will face compounding challenges not only due to shifts in climate, but also because of other resource pressures, particularly those around water.

International Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report, Summary for Policy Makers. (Cambridge University Press, 1

Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA, 2014), 14

!4

Broadly speaking, California faces two compounding challenges that will harm the state and its food productivity: decreasing ground-water supply and increased climactic disruption, including more sudden extreme events (e.g., flooding). Put simply: California will have less water at any given moment, will have much 2

higher average temperatures than this past century, and will face more one-time disruptive events.

In 2014, California faced a devastating drought, and while there has been significant precipitation in early 2015, it will not be enough to meet the very significant water needs of the state in 2015. There is already significant discussion around how the state will adapt with water-saving measures, but a clear policy direction aside from current water conservation measures is not yet clear. Industry groups, such as the Irrigation Association, have understandably stressed a policy direction that makes use of greater efficiencies and which replaces and increases key infrastructure. Environmental groups, such as the National Resources Defence Council, have argued in favour of greater conservation and an overall decrease of use in ground-water resources. Even if they are successful in 3

preserving water resources (perhaps through desalination), high temperatures and disruptive events will continue to harm both seasonal and perennial crops (which could face >40% losses in some climate scenarios). As a result of this, California’s food productivity will very likely decline in the coming decades. 4

British Columbia, in turn, will feel these impacts further down-stream. Since 45% of the province’s food supply comes from imported sources, California’s agriculture productivity is of crucial concern to the citizens and government of the province. In particular, the province imports some 75% of its vegetables and 95% of its fruits and vegetables, and the vast majority of these come from California. A major part of future action will be to 5

understand these sources with greater accuracy. In order to protect the food security of its citizens and businesses, British Columbia will have to either see improvement’s in California’s long-term agricultural outlook, or look to other alternatives.

Mastrandrea, Michael D., Claudia Tebaldi, Carolyn W. Snyder, and Stephen H. Schneider. "Current and future impacts of extreme events in 2

California." Climatic Change 109, no. 1 (2011)

Irrigation Association. “California Water Crisis,” in Public Policy Issues, Irrigation Association website. Accessed from < http://3

www.irrigation.org/Policy/California_Water_Crisis.aspx>

Coplin, K. & Poole, K. Tackling Water Scarcity: Five Southern California Water Agencies Lead the Way to a More Sustainable Tomorrow. National Resource Defence Council issue brief. (2013)

Lobell, D. B., Field, C. B., Cahill, K. N., & Bonfils, C. (2006). Impacts of future climate change on California perennial crop yields: Model 4

projections with climate and crop uncertainties. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 141(2-4)

Ostry, A. Food for Thought: The Issues and Challenges of Food Security. Policy brief from the Provincial Health Services Authority (2010).5

!5

Relevant Stakeholders Relevant stakeholders include not only government and the public in British Columbia, but key industry actors in California and the United States, who are working to combat the impacts of climate change there. They may well be successful in either mitigating, or adapting to, climate change food disruptions, but a careful exploration of their actions and the likelihood of their success must be conducted. On the Canadian side, consultations with the relevant actors work on multiple levels (federal, provincial, local) and with multiple logics: DFAIT will likely have less to say on the exact dangers of climate change and food disruption, but they and Agriculture and Agri-food Canada can provide advice on the legality of actions under NAFTA and other agreements to shape food policy in BC.

The list below represents a close scan of major actors who would have relevant, meaningful information to add to this conversation, but it is not exhaustive. A high-level consultation approach would be desirable for these conversations, with some actors providing early information on technical aspects (i.e., legal or scientific) and others weighing in on specific policy objectives. British Columbian non-governmental stakeholders in particular represent a swath of actors concerned with food supply in its technical dimensions, along with those of a justice and equity focus.

Values, Objectives, and Measures Through the stakeholder consultations and internal discussions within the Ministry of Agriculture, as host to this research, it will be crucial to develop a series of overarching values and accompanying objectives and measures. This is a crucial process and must be undergone with the utmost of seriousness and thoughtfulness. The key concern here is to make sure that means and ends are not confused. In order to develop a fulsome analysis that will one-day lead to a positive decision-making process, there must be guiding values that speak to procedural goals during the decision-making process (i.e., openness and accountability to the public), but these must be mixed with more specific, measurable markers that will help define success.

• California Department of Food and Agriculture • Agriculture and Agri-food Canada

• California Farm Bureau Federation • BC Food Security Network

• California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • BC Food Processors Association

• California Natural Resources Agency • BC Agriculture Council

• BC Ministry of Agriculture • BC Poverty Reduction Coalition

• BC Ministry of Environment • Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC)

• BC Ministry of Health • Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM)

• Canada Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and Development (DFAIT)

!6

With all of this said, below are some suggested objectives for the outcome of any decision-making process which might be informed by the California case-study proposed here:

Develop Alternatives From consultations with stakeholders, consideration of the overall problem definition, and with reference to defined objectives, a series of alternatives would be developed. They would aim to include the largest possible number of actions that are both relevant and actionable. In this particular case, alternatives refers to choices British Columbians have around how or if the province chooses to purchase food from California. There are many possible avenues of responses to this problem, which range from large-scale responses, such as looking to grow food currently imported from California here in the province, to piece-meal approaches, such as performing short-term market analysis to look out for fluctuations and protect consumers. Key of course is to ensure that these alternatives match the values and objectives laid out in the earlier phase.

Possible alternatives could include:

• Maintain and increase the number of people in British Columbia that are ‘food secure’ under the UN Food and Agriculture Organization Definition

• Increase the overall resiliency of the British Columbia food supply chain

• Increase the degree to which food in British Columbia is drawn from ecologically sustainable sources

• Support existing British Columbian food producers

• Let the market decide; if California is unable to adapt to changing water and climate patterns, the cost of its food will rise, encouraging British Columbians to buy from elsewhere

• Subsidize BC farmers to produce agricultural products that are most threatened in California

• Form informational partnerships with Californian stakeholders to identify weaknesses in the supply-chain and assess long-term variability in food supply due to climate change-caused disruption

• Dramatically increase subsidies to BC farmers and food producers to ensure that all Californian imports can be replaced in-province

• Encourage British Columbians through education to focus on buying local products, decreasing exposure to Californian and other possible supply disruptions

• Engage other provinces and federal government to develop national food security strategy which aims to replace imports with domestically-grown food

• Focus institutional purchases on local, sustainable products, especially in municipal agencies, schools, and hospitals (MASH), which are not subject to certain international trade stipulations

• Develop provincial policy to ensure 100% of all consumed food is grown within the province

!7

Expected Consequences of Alternatives The consequences of many of these actions will remain uncertain in the future, because some of these are related to the complexities of Californian hydrological and climatological cycles, but also because of the interlocking influences of certain actions - such as encouraging a buy local programme in BC. There are a number of important bases upon which consequences could exist as a result of this programme. As with the problem and the possible alternatives, possible consequences will have variously ecological, economic, political, and social implications.

If a market-led perspective is taken, Californians will adapt as they see fit, and British Columbians will likely purchase food from other sources if prices increase (which they likely will). While this may seem an easy option, food security advocates and certain economic sectors (such as the restaurant industry) will undoubtedly raise alarm since these disruptions inevitably hit low-income groups hardest. Food grown in BC may increase, along with associated ecological burdens, but only within current levels of government oversight.

Moving towards more intervention from the provincial government, a programme to research alternative food suppliers besides California may raise concern within NAFTA or the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) about preferential access or trade barriers. This will be especially true if a decision is made to move food production to BC, either from select sectors, or in its totality (this goes for Canada-wide actions, as well). As of 2014 there is little international case law on the intersection of sustainability, food security, and international trade agreements, so BC (and Canada, which would be forced to pay any imposed fines) would be standing in tenuous legal territory if it did decide to undertake such programmes. McRae (2014) has argued that 6

using climate change as a justification for invoking health and safety regulations may yet pose possibilities to encourage local, sustainable production, though is is unclear - ultimately, any major action to limit imported food will undoubtedly start major international legal battles. 7

Show Tradeoffs The trade-offs of each alternative are greatly varied. There are several spectrums upon which they can be judged, including consumer freedom, affordability, ecological sustainability, and supply chain resilience. Market-focused alternatives will preserve the edifice of consumer choice, but will highly uncertain and potentially unstable and will not contribute to food security. Government-led solutions, from using education to promote local food suppliers, right up to provincially mandated provincial food production, each contain degrees of potential international and domestic push-back and could significantly increase the cost burden on BC’s taxpayers, at the same time as uncertainty would be significantly decreased and food security fully or nearly guaranteed.

Macrae, Rod. 2014. “Do Trade Agreements Substantially Limit Development of Local / Sustainable Food Systems in Canada?” Canadian 6

Food Studies 1 (1): 105

Ibid.1137

!8

CONCLUSION Making the Hard Decision To make British Columbia food secure in the face of climate change will take a herculean task. The above exploration of how a full structured-decision analysis would be undertaken shows some, though not nearly all, of the many nuances required to understand what the province might do to help protect its citizens from the worst ravages of food insecurity caused by climate change. The take-away should be clear: there are no easy choices here. The complex, contingent nature of global agricultural production and of the international trade systems that support it, mean that the provincial government will be met with a number of meaningful trade-offs in any action they pursue to increase the province’s food security. The first step to achieve this will be to understand the province’s sources of imported food more closely, particularly sectoral breakdowns of where food originates and how threatened that source may be by climate change. After that, however, then a fulsome, rich debate will have to be had about the relative merits of letting consumers choose independently, or allowing the province to take different levels of power to ensure local production.

!9

RESOURCES CONSULTED

Calvert, John, and Marc Lee. Climate Justice Project. 2012

International Panel on Climate Change. Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers. 2014.

Feed, Farmers, and Our Growing. 2006. “B . C .’ S Food Self-Reliance.” BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, 1–20.

Lobell, David B., Christopher B. Field, Kimberly Nicholas Cahill, and Celine Bonfils. 2006a. “Impacts of Future Climate Change on California Perennial Crop Yields: Model Projections with Climate and Crop Uncertainties.” Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 141 (2-4): 208–18.

Macrae, Rod. 2014. “Do Trade Agreements Substantially Limit Development of Local / Sustainable Food Systems in Canada?” Canadian Food Studies 1 (1): 105-123

Mullinix, Kent. 2009. “Beyond Food Security : Urban Agriculture as a Form of Resilience in Vancouver , Canada,” no. 22.

Ostry, Aleck S., Christiana Miewald, and Rachelle Beveridge. 2011. Climate Change and Food Security in British Columbia. November.

Streeting, Jessica, Janet Smith, Mandy Allison, and Julie Clarke. 2010. “Food for Thought.” Nursing Standard (Royal College of Nursing (Great Britain) : 1987) 24 (48): 26–27.

Unfao. 2006. “Food Security” 2013 (2).

Warren, Fiona J, James P Bruce, Beth Lavender, Terry D Prowse, Ian J Walker, Cindy Dickson, Scot Nickels, and Elaine Wheaton. 2007. From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate. Report for the Ministry of Natural Resources.