My Articles

https://www.linkedin.com/in/facilitations110484/recent-activity/articles/

Who is Buying Up Farmland in Canada?

 December 31, 2024

In Canada, farmland ownership is undergoing significant changes, with increasing involvement from investment firms, pension funds, and wealthy individuals. This trend is particularly evident in the Prairie provinces, where large-scale acquisitions reshape the agricultural landscape.

One prominent figure is Robert Andjelic, an investor from Alberta who has become Canada's largest farmland owner, holding over 225,000 acres in Saskatchewan. His company leases this land to numerous farmers and often undertakes "land improvements," such as clearing natural habitats to maximize arable land.

Another significant player is Bonnefield, Canada's first and largest farmland investment corporation. Based in Toronto, Bonnefield manages over $1.4 billion in assets across seven provinces, encompassing approximately 140,000 acres. The company purchases farmland and leases it back to farmers, a model that has become increasingly common as land prices soar, making ownership challenging for individual farmers.

This shift towards investor ownership has raised concerns among farmers and rural communities. Many worry that the influx of investment capital drives up land prices, making it difficult for new and smaller-scale farmers to acquire land. Additionally, there are apprehensions about the environmental impact of large-scale farming practices often associated with investor-owned lands, such as the removal of natural habitats to increase cultivation areas.

While foreign ownership of Canadian farmland is a topic of discussion, domestic investors currently play a more substantial role in the market. The increasing financialization of farmland mirrors trends observed in urban real estate, where investment entities have significantly influenced market dynamics.

Overall, the growing involvement of investment firms and individuals in Canadian farmland is reshaping the agricultural sector, prompting debates about the future of farming, land accessibility, and the sustainability of rural communities.

The ownership of farmland in Canada is undergoing a seismic shift. Once dominated by families and small-scale farmers, this essential resource is increasingly concentrated in the hands of wealthy individuals and investment firms. This trend raises significant questions about the future of agriculture, rural communities, and food security in the country.

The Major Players

1. Robert Andjelic Known as Canada’s largest private farmland owner, Robert Andjelic has acquired over 225,000 acres of farmland, predominantly in Saskatchewan. Starting his acquisitions in 2011, Andjelic has employed a strategy of buying high-quality farmland and leasing it back to farmers under long-term agreements. While this provides farmers with access to land without ownership burdens, it also means that control over the land shifts to one individual.
2. Bonnefield Financial Bonnefield, Canada’s largest farmland investment firm, manages over 140,000 acres across seven provinces. Their model involves purchasing farmland and leasing it back to farmers, promoting “land stewardship” while prioritizing returns for their investors. With more than $1.4 billion in assets, Bonnefield’s influence extends far beyond individual farmers, shaping market dynamics across the country.
3. Other Investment Firms and Pension Funds Entities such as pension funds and private equity firms have also entered the farmland market, driven by its stable returns and potential as a hedge against inflation. This trend mirrors the financialization of urban real estate, where investment capital has significantly impacted accessibility and affordability.

The Impact on Rural Communities and Farmers

1. Rising Land Prices The influx of wealthy investors and institutions has driven up the cost of farmland, making it increasingly unattainable for small and new farmers. With the average price per acre in Canada increasing by 8.8% annually (according to Farm Credit Canada’s 2023 report), young farmers often face insurmountable barriers to entry.
2. Shift in Land Stewardship Investor ownership prioritizes profit over traditional farming values, such as sustainable land use and community ties. In some cases, natural habitats are cleared to maximize cultivation, impacting biodiversity and the environment.
3. Erosion of Local Control When farmland is owned by absentee landlords or corporations, decision-making moves away from the communities that depend on it. This can lead to reduced investment in local infrastructure and a decline in the sense of rural self-sufficiency.

Food Security Concerns

As control of farmland becomes concentrated, concerns about food sovereignty arise. Will decisions about what is grown and how it’s grown prioritize the needs of Canadians, or will they cater to global markets and investor interests? This shift has potential implications for the affordability and availability of domestically produced food.

Comparing Canada to the United States

The trend of farmland consolidation is not unique to Canada. In the United States, individuals like Bill Gates have become the largest farmland owners, raising similar concerns. Gates owns over 270,000 acres across multiple states. While Robert Andjelic’s holdings are smaller, they’re highly concentrated in Saskatchewan, amplifying his influence in one of Canada’s most agriculturally significant regions.

What Can Be Done?

1. Regulating Farmland Ownership Several Canadian provinces, including Saskatchewan, have restrictions on foreign ownership of farmland. However, these regulations often fail to address domestic investors and corporations. Policymakers must explore broader measures to ensure farmland remains accessible to Canadian farmers.
2. Support for Young Farmers Governments can provide subsidies, low-interest loans, or grants to help young farmers purchase land. Without intervention, the next generation of farmers may be locked out of the industry entirely.
3. Environmental Protections To counter the environmental impact of large-scale farming practices, stricter regulations on land use and habitat preservation should be enforced.
4. Transparency in Land Transactions Implementing a public registry of farmland transactions could help monitor ownership patterns and identify potential risks to food security and rural communities.

Conclusion

The increasing concentration of farmland ownership in Canada represents a profound shift with wide-ranging implications. While investors argue that their involvement brings efficiency and capital to the agricultural sector, the costs to rural communities, the environment, and food security cannot be ignored. Policymakers, farmers, and citizens must engage in this discussion and ensure that the future of Canadian farmland aligns with the nation’s broader interests rather than the portfolios of a select few.

Lessons from Rome, Britain, and the USSR for America's Future

 November 26, 2024

The U.S. is at a critical crossroads. The collapses of Rome, Britain, and the Soviet Union offer valuable lessons: no empire is immune to decline, and internal cohesion is as vital as external power. While the U.S. faces unique challenges, learning from history and addressing structural weaknesses could delay or even avert its decline.

While the U.S. retains considerable strengths—its vast resources, innovative capacity, and military might—its trajectory is increasingly precarious. Many of the same patterns that led to the decline of Rome, Britain, and the Soviet Union are evident in the U.S. today:

• Economic and military overreach.
• Political dysfunction and social fragmentation.
• Declining global influence and rising external competitors.

The key question is whether the U.S. can reverse these trends. Historically, empires that adapted to challenges and embraced reform survived longer (e.g., Britain transformed into a major soft-power nation). Without significant adjustments, the U.S. risks following the path of its predecessors into decline.

The U.S. can reverse its decline by addressing core weaknesses with proactive, visionary leadership. These proposals aim to:

1. Strengthen governance by overcoming dysfunction and rebuilding trust.
2. Reinforce the economy through fiscal discipline and innovation.
3. Restore global influence by adapting to changing geopolitical realities.
4. Renew social cohesion by addressing inequality and polarization.
5. Embrace technological and environmental challenges as opportunities for growth.

By acting boldly and decisively, the U.S. can not only stabilize itself but also inspire a new era of global leadership and innovation.

Roman Empire

Key Causes of Collapse:

1. Economic Instability: Heavy taxation to fund military campaigns and imperial bureaucracy. Devaluation of currency (e.g., reducing silver content in coins) led to hyperinflation. Wealth inequality exacerbated social unrest.
2. Political Dysfunction: Corruption and frequent power struggles (e.g., barracks emperors’ era) weakened governance. Erosion of civic loyalty, with elites prioritizing self-interest over the empire's well-being.
3. Military Overreach: Overextension across Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa strained resources. Reliance on mercenaries who lacked loyalty to Rome.
4. External Pressures: Barbarian invasions (e.g., Visigoths sacking Rome in 410 AD) exploited weakened borders. Competition from rising powers like the Sassanid Empire.

Comparisons to the U.S.:

• Economic Similarities: The U.S. faces a similar risk of unsustainable debt, inflationary pressures, and widening inequality.
• Political Similarities: Polarization in the U.S. mirrors Rome's fragmented leadership and declining civic trust.
• Military Overstretch: The U.S. maintains a global military presence, akin to Rome's far-flung legions, creating resource burdens.
• External Pressures: Challenges from China, cyber warfare, and transnational threats like terrorism resemble Rome's pressures from barbarians.

British Empire

Key Causes of Decline:

1. Economic Costs of War: World Wars I and II depleted Britain's resources and left it heavily indebted. Post-war rebuilding efforts prioritized domestic recovery over imperial ambitions.
2. Deindustrialization: Loss of industrial competitiveness to rising powers like the U.S. and Germany. Overreliance on colonies for resources and markets created vulnerabilities.
3. Colonial Independence Movements: Anti-colonial sentiment surged, with key territories (e.g., India in 1947) seeking independence. Britain's inability to suppress or accommodate these movements hastened its decline.
4. Geopolitical Realignment: The rise of the U.S. and Soviet Union as superpowers marginalized British influence. Shifts in global trade routes and alliances further weakened its position.

Comparisons to the U.S.:

• Economic Similarities: Like Britain, the U.S. risks being outpaced by emerging economies (e.g., China).
• Geopolitical Similarities: The rise of a multipolar world mirrors the decline of British dominance post-World War II.
• Overextension: Britain's imperial overreach finds a modern parallel in the U.S.'s global commitments, from military bases to trade agreements.
• Social Movements: Just as colonial independence movements eroded Britain’s control, internal divisions and rising populist sentiments could challenge U.S. unity.

Soviet Union

Key Causes of Collapse:

1. Economic Stagnation: Centralized economic planning led to inefficiencies, shortages, and stagnation. Overinvestment in the military and space race drained resources from civilian needs.
2. Political Rigidity: Inflexible governance resisted reforms, making the system unable to adapt to changing conditions. The lack of political freedoms eroded public support and trust.
3. Social and Ideological Decay: The Communist Party lost its ideological legitimacy as corruption and privilege spread. Rising nationalism within Soviet republics (e.g., Baltic states, Ukraine) fueled fragmentation.
4. Geopolitical Pressures: The arms race with the U.S. strained the economy. The loss of Eastern European satellite states weakened its sphere of influence.

Comparisons to the U.S.:

• Economic Similarities: While the U.S. is a capitalist state, its debt-driven economy faces risks of stagnation, similar to the Soviet Union’s inefficiencies.
• Political Similarities: Political polarization in the U.S. reflects the Soviet leadership's inability to unify its system during crises.
• Social Decay: Loss of faith in institutions and rising nationalism (or regionalism) echo the Soviet Union's fragmentation.
• Geopolitical Strain: The U.S.'s role as a global policeman, akin to the Soviet Union’s overreach in Eastern Europe, could prove unsustainable.

Key Similarities Across All Empires

1. Economic Stress: Rome's inflation, Britain's debt, and the Soviet Union's inefficiencies find echoes in the U.S. debt crisis and inflation concerns.
2. Overreach: All three empires suffered from maintaining vast, costly dominions. The U.S. spends over $800 billion annually on defence, similar in burden to these historical examples.
3. Internal Divisions: Social unrest, political corruption, or regional fragmentation weakened all three. The U.S. faces polarization, inequality, and growing regional disparities.
4. External Competition: The Visigoths, rival European powers, and the U.S. (against the Soviets) parallel the U.S.'s current rivalry with China and other emerging powers.