REFEREED ARTICLE DOI: 10.5836/Ijam/2017-06-111 Does the Pangea Model Empower Family Farms? a Case on Farmland Stewardship

REFEREED ARTICLE DOI: 10.5836/ijam/2017-06-111 Does the Pangea model empower family farms? A case on farmland stewardship

SYLVAIN CHARLEBOIS1 and RENE VAN ACKER2

ABSTRACT Land is often considered as a metaphor for power, wealth and status. This is as true in agriculture as the control and ownership of farmland are often intertwined with the notion of food security. As a result, in recent years farmland has attracted investors outside farming which often leads to speculative behaviours. With a new approach in mind, Pangea was founded in 2012 by farm owner-operator Serge Fortin and well-known Saguenay entrepreneur Charles Sirois. Their arrival on the Quebec agricultural scene garnered signiﬁcant criticism from farming communities across the province. As Pangea is beginning to venture into the province of Ontario, some wonder if the model is both scalable and transferable to other economies. This case study presents the Pangea model by virtue of several interviews conducted at Pangea’s head ofﬁce in Montreal in early 2016. Using a political economy framework, the model’s performance is evaluated and commented on. Some limitations and future research paths are also suggested.

KEYWORDS: farm management; family farms; scalability; limited partnerships

1. Introduction is, by law, the only organization allowed to represent the interest of farmers in the province and has historically Agriculture is likely one of the most subsidised and pro- been perceived as one of the most powerful lobby groups tected industries in the world, so it not surprising that in the province. farmland ownership has become a point of contention The aim of this case study is to determine how Pangea within modern society. Farmland ownership has been the has affected the whole notion of farmland ownership. subject of many headlines all over the world, including This case will also attempt to show how different Pangea’s Canada. With market vitality, and given that farmland is model is from the established farming model. The case inflation protected and can generate good returns over will be considered within a political economy framework time, many investors have shown an acute interest in and will look at partnerships affected by power or depen- food production and farming (Lepage, 2014). dence, as well as the conflicting and cooperative relation- Many funds and investors have organized themselves ships for Pangea. While farmland management and to acquire farmland to better their returns. Many models stewardship is discussed a great deal, it is rarely theorised. have emerged over the years. Montreal-based Pangea This article will begin by presenting a theoretical frame- claims that it has developed a new way to invest in farm- work applied to the political economy of farmland land by partnering with farming families, by offering protection and regulation in advanced capitalist econo- capital access and increasing farmland values. But since mies. It will also integrate the analysis of preventive Pangea started operations in 2012, it has attracted tremen- policies across the social, environmental and economic dous criticism from farmers, farmer’s unions and politi- domains. cians. Tensions erupted when Pangea purchased land in several regions across the Province of Quebec which prompted public outcry. As a result of this outcry, a 2. Context parliamentary commission was held in 2015 for two days in Quebec. Many questioned Pangea’s intentions and Ever since the 2008 dramatic surge in agricultural com- accused the company of land grabbing. Some farmers, modity prices, many have speculated that countries and supported by the very politically influential Union des investors are competing for land, more specifically arable Producteurs Agricole (UPA), claimed that farmland farmland (Arezki, Deininger and Selod, 2012). There has should only be owned by farmer-operators, and that all been a significant increase of farmland transactions over transactions should be monitored and approved by the the last few years. From 2000 to 2011, the International union representing farmers. Pangea has disputed these Land Coalition reported over 2000 transactions which criticisms numerous times since its inception. The UPA involved more than 200 million hectares of land, a region

Original submitted May 2016; revision received February 2017; accepted October 2017. 1 Corresponding author: Sylvain Charlebois, Faculty of Management, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. [email protected]. 2 Ontario Agricultural College, University of Guelph, Canada.

International Journal of Agricultural Management, Volume 6 Issue 3/4 ISSN 2047-3710 & 2017 International Farm Management Association and Institute of Agricultural Management 111 The Pangea model Sylvain Charlebois and Rene Van Acker larger than the province of Quebec (MAPAQ, 2015). studies that describe the frequently speculative nature More than 67% of the areas involved in transactions are of business transactions where the buyer intends to located in Africa (AGÉCO, 2012). develop the land for other economic purposes. Buyers In Canada, the situation is somewhat different, but with a special motivation often pay more than the some trends can be identified. There is an increasing market price to obtain access to agricultural land (Drozd amount of farmland being exploited by non-traditional and Johnson, 2004). Bidding wars can lead to farmland owners. In Québec 84% of farmland is owned by owner- prices that are not affordable to farmers with little or no operators, compared to 70.7% in Ontario. A study from access to capital. the University of Guelph published in 2010 showed that Ferguson, Hartley and Carlberg (2006) have argued most of the farmland is either rented by retired farmers that the effects of regulation with respect to farmland or rented by local owners (Bryan, Deaton, Weersink and purchase are negative overall, which signifies that the Meilke, 2011). Nonetheless, it has been challenging to more stringent the regulation is to protect farmland the monitor the extent of farmland transaction activity, parti- more likely land values will be lower. Farmland returns cularly transactions involving investors coming from have been relatively strong over the last few years and outside traditional farming communities (Bryan, Deaton, many are now monitoring price progress in the sector. Weersink and Meilke, 2011). Its display of low systematic risk, high inflation hedg- The common underlying intent in farmland acquisi- ing potential, and good diversification benefits make tion would be to secure supplies of grains by acquiring farmland an interesting investment option and as a large quantities of arable land in other countries. As such, result, there is significant interest in farmland from non- farmland protection and management has been a topical operator investors who have not been in agriculture and/ issue in both western and developing countries. Urban or farming before (Henley, 1998). In fact, some studies and suburban growth in Canada has had a significant suggest that farmland has been a reasonably good invest- impact upon land use, real estate speculation, property ment over the past few decades, particularly in Canada taxation and the agricultural sector of the country. As a (Painter, 2010). result, farmland has been a subject of many political According to Sherrick, Mallory and Hopper (2013) debates in recent years (Richetto, 1983). Farmland pro- agricultural real estate investments have outperformed tection and management are relatively broad concepts. other types of investment opportunities. They have It generally involves both quantitative and qualitative recognized greater interest in farmland investing, yet protection of farmland by legal, administrative, economic the collection of data remains a challenge. No real and technical means and measures. comprehensive global database exists to monitor these Many have argued that governments should play a activities. Still, farmland investment has attracted a more active role in farmland protection. Governments lot of attention these past few years, particularly since in developed countries that manage urbanizing areas 2008. are increasingly utilizing mechanisms to preserve farm- Economic cycles and interest rates have significant land and protect local farm economies. The underlying impact on farmland prices. In recent years, real farmland determinant for these policies is to exercise control over values have surpassed the record highs set a few decades increasing prices of farmland (Nickerson and Lynch, ago when interest rates were historically high (Zakrzewicz, 2001). Brorsen and Briggeman, 2012). Similar to equity markets, Most of these concerns are related to developing farmland is exposed to boom and bust cycles. Predicting countries. In recent years though, developed countries and knowing what factors affect farmland prices is key for have also expressed similar concerns (Nickerson and many stakeholders in agriculture. Hellerstein, 2006). More specifically, urban-rural edges Canada is certainly not in the same situation as other have been of interest over the past few years (Oberholtzer, emerging markets. China, for example, with its very Clancy and Esseks, 2010; Sokolow, 2010). large population and with little land, feeds 22% of the world’s population with only 7 % of the world’s farmland et al 3. Farmland protection and values (Luo ., 2013). Resource scarcity is clearly a challenge in China. But in developed economies, the significance of In the developed world, the impact of farmland protection farmland availability, and related operational costs have programs has been mixed. Some suggest that the criteria generated concerns over issues related to the risk expo- used for designating protected farmland is not effective sure facing grain farmers. Risks have gone up at times, (Hart, 1991; Klein and Reganold, 1997; Oberholtzer, depending on financial agreements included in rental Clancy and Esseks, 2010). Beyond urban sprawl, economic, contracts (Paulson and Schnitkey, 2013). political, and social forces greatly influence farm opera- Access to proper capital to buy farmland has also been tions and operators in deciding whether to continue in assessed in past studies. Credit quality does not appear to the sector or sell out. be affected by the increase of farmland prices (Cocheo, The values of farmland and fluctuations have been 2013). Pangea co-founder Charles Sirois believes that studied for decades (Lence, 2001; Sherrick, Mallory and one of the most significant challenges for small scale Hopper, 2013). In the Western world, farmland value is farmers is access to capital in order to become more often recognized as an effective measure and the financial productive via scale. During our interview with him, strength of the agricultural sector (Zakrzewicz, Brorsen Mr. Sirois stated, ‘‘To avoid the industrialization of and Briggeman, 2012). Farmland price fluctuation, whether agriculture, the family has to make decisions. Farms higher or lower, represents a source of concern for should be managed by families, but it has to be sustain- farmers and policymakers alike (Briggeman, Gunderson able. To be sustainable, it has to be profitable. So, the and Gloy, 2009). The value of non-agricultural char- optimal size of a family farm should be set at 3,000 acres, acteristics of farmland has been noted in many previous we figured’’ (personal communication).

ISSN 2047-3710 International Journal of Agricultural Management, Volume 6 Issue 3/4 112 & 2017 International Farm Management Association and Institute of Agricultural Management Sylvain Charlebois and Rene Van Acker The Pangea model 4. The family farm buy gold? You can’t do anything with it. You can’t eat it. Farmland is a good investment for the future and to The whole notion of the ‘‘family farm’’, no matter how fi hedge against uncertainty’’ (personal communication). it is de ned, has also been at the core of discussions on Pangea provides a long-term rate instrument that will farmland stewardship. Many believe that the changes we satisfy the need of achieving a good return—the rate of see in agriculture are severely threatening farms which fl et al in ation plus 4%. Reducing the variance is key. Farm- have been owned by families for decades (Huang ., land is inflation protected, but Pangea believes it is fairly 2006). These factors have been given little, if any, con- easy to achieve 4% if the family unit operates the farm sideration when designating and designing strategies to properly. Pangea is using capital to assist farm operators, protect important agricultural lands in mature econo- and specifically, farming families. mies. Little attention has also been given to how to scale With a new approach in mind, Pangea was founded up family-owned operations in agriculture. Resources, fi in 2012 by farm owner-operator Serge Fortin and well- human capital and knowledge to support a pro table known Saguenay entrepreneur Charles Sirois. Both men agricultural enterprise are arguably as imperative as were involved in highly successful telecommunication having access to high quality soils (Klein and Reganold, ventures. Mr. Fortin is also a multi-generation farmer. 1997). The company owns and seeks to acquire high-quality The historical role of families as farm operators also primary row crop farmland located in agricultural needs to be underscored. As such, succession planning markets throughout Eastern Canada. The main impetus remains an issue in agriculture. Farmland is often aban- of Pangea is ‘‘to develop sustainable and profitable agri- doned or not properly utilized by communities. This cultural enterprises, to use regional players for supplies, often leads to discounted acquisitions, although in some services and expert agricultural resources, to demon- countries actions have been taken that have allowed strate flexibility in the actions to be promoted to reflect price premiums for farmland to be achieved (Hüttel, the preferences of our agricultural partners, to purchase Jetzinger and Odening, 2014). land whose agricultural yield justifies its price, to take Farmland ownership transfers occur for many reasons. regional differences in land into account in order to Over the last few years, the industrialized world has achieve its full potential, and to support agricultural witnessed an accelerated pace in primary production partners through training, agricultural coaching and consolidation, smaller operations being acquired by business mentoring’’. larger ones as families let go of assets. As a result, fewer Under the Pangea model, farmers remain owners farms are managed by families as they exit the industry. of the land while entering into a limited partnership In contrast, another phenomenon has also occurred. with Pangea. The majority owner (51%) is the farmer. Many investors living in urban centres have opted to This co-enterprise rents land from both Pangea and the invest in regions to begin hobby farms, but not for farmer. Under such an agreement, farmers are compen- commercial purposes. sated accordingly by the co-enterprise to maintain the land rented by the co-enterprise. This is a new ownership 5. Pangea and partnership model in farming (Lepage, 2014). The fundamental objective of Pangea is to establish business Over the years, Canada has seen different farmland partnerships with farmers to make underused agricul- purchase models. Meloche and Debailleul (2013) have tural land more productive and allow farmers to earn argued that there are three distinctive models of farm- more money. Pangea’s model postulates that small-scale land investment mechanisms. The first model is a fund farming, which dominated farming in Canada, has run focused on buying and renting farmland. The sole pur- its course and may not be optimal for the future. But pose of these domestic funds is to increase returns for the Pangea model does not support the industrialization investors. Some examples are Agriterra in Quebec and of farming either, as claimed by the co-founders. ‘‘Land Assiniboine in Saskatchewan. Another model is focused grabbing in Africa is awful. That’s when I became on concessions of farmland to local farmers. In this interested in food production. Most were stating that model, a domestic fund buys land for farmers and rents it the industrialization of agriculture is the only solution. to local farmers at a discounted price. The third model is On the other hand, many are saying artisanal production based on a vertically integrated approach where many is more sustainable, but that’s not profitable. Both were enterprise elements and intents are combined (Charlebois undesirable. Something was wrong’’ (Charles Sirois, and Camp, 2007). In this model in order to increase their Co-Founder of Pangea, personal communication). It is capacity farmers are supported by a financial partner. intended to empower family farms to become more pro- This model is particularly popular in hog production. fitable and thus, more sustainable. Pangea’s creation in 2012 would not fit any of the three Pangea does not consider itself an investment fund, models described above as the fundamental principle of but it is divided into three separate divisions. The first Pangea is to create partnerships with farmers without one, Pangea Terres Agricoles, acquires land for the com- taking away majority shares from the operator-farmer. pany in diverse geographic regions to mitigate risks, such The following comment by Mr. Sirois captures the finan- as the risk of weather by spreading farmland acquisitions cial philosophy behind the company: ‘‘Most financial geographically. This is set up as an investment trust models work with the premise of making inflation, plus which allows for others to invest in farmland. Main 4%. Life insurance companies, pension plans, all will shareholders have an agreement not to sell purchased face gigantic problems. It’s tough to get 4% in today’s farmland for at least 50 years (Fuchs, Meyer-Eppler and world, bonds, and stocks, impossible. So bankers look Hamenstädt, 2013). for alternatives, like hedge funds, real estate, and many Pangea Operations, the company’s second division, other investments. We should invest in real assets. Why plays a key role in bringing together farmers and Pangea.

International Journal of Agricultural Management, Volume 6 Issue 3/4 ISSN 2047-3710 & 2017 International Farm Management Association and Institute of Agricultural Management 113 The Pangea model Sylvain Charlebois and Rene Van Acker What Pangea proposes under Pangea Operations is a Farmers can continue to make decisions with Pangea partnership with farmers by virtue of a co-enterprise. on how the land will be used. In the process, they have When asked about his farming partnership with Pangea, access to lower interest rates and better lending condi- Patrice Garneau responded, ‘‘Pangea will provide me tions. Pangea and AOP’s are currently managing more with some advice, but they don’t intervene in how I than 15,000 acres of farmland, of which 8,956 acres are run my business’’ (farmer and Pangea partner, personal owned by Pangea. The company claims to have invested communication). Co-enterprises are called Agricultural over $22m in farmland, equipment, inputs and services in Operating Partnership (AOP), which provides dividends several regions in Quebec and Ontario to-date. Most to both the farmer and Pangea. Pangea commits to be AOP’s are located in the province of Quebec (6 of 7). very transparent and flexible to the farmer-operator’s Pangea currently has only one partnership (AOP) in needs. Ontario and has plans to expand in this province. The goal with AOP’s is to increase operational effi- Since its foundation, Pangea has been targeted as a ciencies and apply more budgetary rigour to farming. company which mainly intends to speculate on farmland Pangea currently has seven AOPs. These types of farm- prices, an affront to family farms (Nicolas, 2014). Some ing partnerships have been studied on a few occasions have suggested that the sole purpose of the company is to (Calomiris et al., 1986; Collins and Bourn, 1986; Fiske land grab farmland from domestic and/or local owners. et al., 1986) and have had mixed results (Cheriet and It all began when Pangea purchased 2,400 acres from the Dikmen-Gorini 2014). For the time being Pangea has National Bank in 2012 after the financial institution only considered large cereal crop production. The agri- faced considerable criticism in the region. As Katy cultural partner is the decision-maker and principal Dupéré noted ‘‘Many believe the UPA forcefully defends holder of the net profit of the joint venture. The goal in small farms so their revenues as a union are not affected. creating a co-enterprise is to address the issue of capital [This] makes sense’’ (in-house lawyer, personal commu- access. Charles Sirois stated: ‘‘The mainstream belief is nication). During our interview with Patrice Garneau that the family farm should have 250, 300 acres. The stated, ‘‘Why UPA doesn’t support Pangea? I have UPA stated this as it believed that family farms were no idea. I suspect that the UPA feels that money and only able to handle such a scale, from a capital point of greed motivate Pangea. They never asked why we got view. Since agriculture is a closed system, it was likely involved with Pangea, which is disappointing’’ (farmer true. So capital is the problem’’ (Co-founder of Pangea, and Pangea partner, personal communication). Charles personal communication). Sirois, Co-Founder of Pangea, similarly does not under- As mentioned before, the majority shareholder of the stand why UPA will not support Pangea: ‘‘The whole co-enterprise is the farmer at 51%, which is key to the idea of the union is to have agriculture live on welfare. model. Pangea owns 49% of the AOP. The farmer and With Pangea, they don’t need the union anymore. I don’t Pangea each own their own land but share equipment, get why people want to subsidize poor farmers’’ (personal infrastructure and managerial know-how. communication). Pangea Com, a third division, is dedicated to develop- A commission on the matter was held in 2015 to allow ing international markets for the company and its Members of the Quebec National Assembly (MNA) to partners. This division has yet to be developed. evaluate whether land grabbing was actually occurring Finding the right partner has been the most significant in the province. The commission was arguably motivated challenge for Pangea. It first needs to find the proper by the UPA’s very public affront towards Pangea’smodel. region before selecting a producer who can fit and work Testimonies occurred in March 2015 and lasted two full in the context of a co-enterprise. Robin Godin Gauthier, days. The UPA made a formal request to be allowed to Pangea’s Agrologist, notes that, ‘‘Finding the right oversee all farmland transaction in the province, and to partner is difficult. Finding land is not difficult, there’s be granted authority to approve them. As a result of the too much of it in fact. We’re getting better at finding the commission, several MNAs, except those of the Parti right partner, but it’s difficult. Most who approach us Québécois, are in agreement that Pangea is unique and want to do business with us for the wrong reasons’’ may be beneficial to the province’s agricultural economy. (personal communication). The region itself has to exude Quebec’s Ministry of Agriculture shared the view. When agrological potential and social accessibility. Criteria asked about the commission, Charles Sirois stated: ‘‘The used to find the right partners are; entrepreneurial values government loves the model. Regions can only grow and evidence of any motivation to manage a scalable through sectors: tourism, natural recourses and agricul- operation. ture. With our model, agriculture can grow in regions’’ The profile used by Pangea also suggests that it is (Co-Founder of Pangea, personal communication). Patrice actively looking for educated individuals with a good Garneau’s response about the commission hearing was, reputation in the community. Pangea also looks for ‘‘At the Commission, you could feel that most were individuals with strong leadership skills who can handle against Pangea, without knowing what it did. But the highly stressful situations. Quality-focused is also another Commission was a waste of time since Quebec is not personal attribute Pangea looks for: ‘‘We need partners experiencing any land grabbing’’ (farmer and Pangea who are committed which is why we give them majority partner, personal communication). ownership and a lot of leverage’’ (Robin Godin Gauthier, At the time, the commission garnered significant media Pangea’s Agrologist, personal communication). Once the attention. Since then, the hype around Pangea has drop- right producer has been found, land is selected based ped significantly. The number of mentions related to on the following criteria: Proximity from the farmer- Pangea and land grabbing in the media has dropped by operator (maximum 30-minute tractor journey), a mini- 34% in 2015 from 2014 (Pangea, 2016). Pangea also mum of 100 acres per lot, possibility of upgrade and has specific expectations when it comes to profitability. good return potential. Jean-Paul Tardif, Chief Operating Officer at Pangea,

ISSN 2047-3710 International Journal of Agricultural Management, Volume 6 Issue 3/4 114 & 2017 International Farm Management Association and Institute of Agricultural Management Sylvain Charlebois and Rene Van Acker The Pangea model

Figure 1: Political Economies of Farmland Ownership in Mature Economies spoke about Pangea’s expectations, ‘‘We expect most To examine how agencies interact with each other in operations to take 3 years before they are profitable’’ agriculture, a political economy framework is the most (personal communication). appropriate for proper evaluation. Political economies The day-to-day relationship with farmers is key for allow for a better understanding of how institutions, the Pangea as they visit farmers on a regular basis. They political environment, and an economic system influence encourage farmers to get in touch with them: ‘‘We one another. Political economies consider the spatial encourage farmers to call us and to seek some advice. aspects of economic activities in agriculture, and it is Typically, during the first year though, they like to show appropriate that they examine the location, distribution, they know things. But after, they get more comfortable, and spatial organization of agro-economic activities. more vulnerable with Pangea’’ (Jean-Paul Tardif, Chief Urban centres and economies of agglomeration, as well Operating Officer, Pangea, personal communication). as the effects of distances and transportation are also in Patrice Garneau noted that, ‘‘Robin and Serge come the scope of such a conceptual approach (Charlebois, often for a visit’’ (farmer and Pangea partner, personal 2005; Boyer and Charlebois, 2007). communication). Land is often considered as a metaphor for power, The Pangea model is unique but has been scrutinized wealth and status. In developed economies, the most by many groups over the last few years. Pangea’s vision common reason to impose restrictions on farmland is to allow families to stay in regions and increase ownership is domestic food security. For speculators, the the scale of their operations through a unique business combination of power and fast returns can be attractive. partnership. Allowing partners to immerse themselves Research has shown that urban citizens are willing to in their farming business is not easy to accept. Often, acquire farmland in certain areas as long as they can farmers are uncomfortable allowing external stake- expect the value of farmland to increase (Liu, 2015). This holders to look into their affairs. Pangea also works is likely why farmland is often considered an attractive to create camaraderie amongst the AOP’sbyhosting investment for speculators. knowledge sharing events which include all family From a policy perspective, it has been argued that members of the AOP’s. poor legislation allows foreign investors to take advan- tage of low priced farmland in the western world. These claims have often no foundation since most farm prices 6. Political economies of farmland are based on levels of productivity, or what the potential ownership and management of productivity may be (Dadak, 2004). One of the primary reasons for low productivity in agriculture is the To conceptually review Pangea’s purpose, we looked at inability for many small farming operations to reach the company as a part of a political economy. It has been reasonable economies of scale. A good system of private argued that the homogeneity of farmland and irrigation property rights for farmlands is an essential ingredient of systems increased the transparency of farming, thereby good economic development (Krasnozhon, 2013). This is increasing appropriability (Brezis and Verdier, 2014). often perceived as a founding premise to sound rural Therein lies a deep connection between geography, economic development. topography and economics. Farmland stewardship is The attempt to portray the institutional landscape for connected to all three intrinsic aspects of political eco- farmland management and ownership is represented in nomies. Water, essential to agriculture, has also had an Figure 1. As shown in the diagram, exogenous variables impact on farmland management over the years. Irriga- affect the structure of an action arena, generating inter- tion led to differences in the power of the state, state actions that produce outcomes. Outcomes can lead to institutions and political systems for centuries. This can cooperative or conflicting relationships within a political still be true today. economy (Walker, 2006). Evaluative criteria are used to

International Journal of Agricultural Management, Volume 6 Issue 3/4 ISSN 2047-3710 & 2017 International Farm Management Association and Institute of Agricultural Management 115 The Pangea model Sylvain Charlebois and Rene Van Acker judge the performance of the system by examining the and represented key informants in a variety of functional patterns of interactions and outcomes. The focal point areas, including co-founders. These individuals possessed of the framework is called Action Arena in which parti- sufficient experience and understanding of the organiza- cipants and an action situation interact as they are tion’s culture and strategic intents to be able to comment affected by exogenous variables. These interactions can with authority on the young history of Pangea and its produce outcomes that in turn affect the participants role in the economy. A total of seven (7) people form and the action situation. Action arenas exist in local, the company; each was interviewed, along with one regional, national, and international councils, in firms farmerwhoisinvolvedinanAOP.Theinterview and markets, and in the interactions among all of these questions were largely designed to be open-ended in arenas with others. The farmland public discourse order to provide flexibility in interview discussions. The potentially includes all levels of society, in many interviews provided information on the perceptions, different ways. application and experience of strategy in food security An action situation can be considered as using several and biotechnology. The collected data was arranged, clusters of variables: participants (who may be either analysed and put into the subsequent application single individuals or corporate actors), positions, poten- phase. A draft version of the paper was submitted tial outcomes, action-outcome linkages and cooperation for review to the organization for internal validity amongst actors, the control or power that participants (Yin, 1994). This case study will aim to uncover best exercise, types of information generated, and the costs practices in land investment, management and stew- and benefits assigned to actions and outcomes. An action ardship in agriculture. situation refers to the social space where participants with diverse preferences interact, exchange goods and 8. Findings services, collaborate and solve issues, dominate one another, or conflict with one another. The value of farmland is determined by many agro- Outcomes feed back onto the participants and the nomic, economic, demographic and geographic factors. situation and may transform both over time. Over time, These factors have affected how farmer-operators per- outcomes may also slowly affect some of the exogenous ceive their future and how they wish to mitigate their variables. In undertaking an analysis, however, one treats financial risks. Controlling values can also be done in the exogenous variables as fixed; at least for the purpose many ways but threats can emerge instantly. The arrival of the analysis. When the interactions yielding outcomes of Pangea in Canadian agriculture made many stake- are productive for those involved, the participants may holders react. While some opposed its model, others increase their commitment to maintaining the structure supported it. Pangea’s arrival challenged the values of the situation as it is in order to continue to receive embedded in policies aimed at protecting family farms positive outcomes. In the case of political economies, and the capacity for one nation to preserve food sove- when participants view interactions as unfair or other- reignty. Pangea was perceived as an external to agri- wise inappropriate, they may change their strategies even culture so political linkages were critical. Robin Godin when they are receiving positive outcomes from the Gauthier stated that, ‘‘We deal with a lot of politicians, situation. When outcomes are perceived by those involved their support is very important to us because our partners (or others) as less valued than other outcomes that might are affected by these relationships’’ (Pangea’s Agrologist, be obtained, some will raise questions about trying personal communication). to change the structure of the situations by moving to All agricultural policy challenges are becoming a different level and changing the exogenous variables international ones. External menaces are influencing themselves. Or, if the procedures were viewed as unfair, domestically-based issues and can be resolved only in a motivation to change the structure may exist. network of relationships with other nations and transna- tional interests. Farmland ownership is often recognized 7. Methodology as a metric for how open and vulnerable an agricultural economy is becoming. The more non-farm operators or We chose an exploratory case study design to guide external investors own land, the more vulnerable an our investigation based on Yin’s (1994) argument that agricultural economy will be perceived to be (Briggeman, case studies are the preferred strategy when ‘how’ or Gunderson and Gloy, 2009). Provincial and federal insti- ‘why’ questions are being posed and when the focus is tutions play a role in policies and policy making related on a modern phenomenon within a real-life context. to farmland management and stewardship, but the When using the political economy framework, such an validity and the effectiveness of many state-sponsored approach is particularly appropriate for understanding organizations are declining. This may be the reason why the details and complexity of a phenomenon and design. trade groups and others react to insurgences. Pangea’s In our study research data was collected through multiple Director of Communications, Marie-Christine Éthier approaches. A semi-structured questionnaire was designed stated, ‘‘The UPA’s voice is very strong, so it’s been a and adopted to collect primary data. The objective of challenge. Farmers are very afraid to talk’’ (personal the empirical segment is not to test the applicability of communication). the existing approaches, but rather to study conceptual Farmland is often intertwined with the notion of nuances related to the presented model grounded on the power and influence in rural communities and beyond. political economy framework. The capacity to control and support the food security A survey study focused on formal onsite interviews at agenda for any developed economies has been influen- Pangea’s headquarters in Montreal, Canada in January cing pundits in agriculture. Table 1 presents several 2016. Comments were recorded comprehensively for sup- factors that affected the action arena amongst agents in porting analysis. Respondents were interviewed separately, the political economy.

ISSN 2047-3710 International Journal of Agricultural Management, Volume 6 Issue 3/4 116 & 2017 International Farm Management Association and Institute of Agricultural Management Sylvain Charlebois and Rene Van Acker The Pangea model Table 1: Exogenous variables affecting the political economy of farmland governance Exogenous variables Observations References affecting Pangea Strategy Geographic conditions Acquisitions in rural communities to leverage wealth Klein and Reganold, 1997; creation Henley, 1998; Oberholtzer, Pangea looks for farmland in poor agrological conditions Clancy and Esseks, 2010; Pangea actively looking for agrological potential Brezis and Verdier, 2014; Pangea mitigates risks by acquiring farmland in many Bausch, 2015. different regions, reduce variance

Economic conditions Misunderstanding of model related to how it ﬁnancially Dadak, 2004; Drozd and operates Johnson, 2004; Huang et al., Changing the inability for many small farming operations to 2006; Painter, 2010; reach reasonable economies of scale; Oberholtzer, Clancy and Increase cash ﬂow of small operations (family farms) Esseks, 2010; Arezki, Making capital intensive operations viable Deininger and Selod, 2012; Both spouses can work on the farm on a full-time basis Deinenger, 2013; Krasnozhon, Pangea provides knowledge and capital to co-enterprise 2013; Weber and Key, 2015. Pangea model spreads variance and limits risk exposure Pangea does not bid against another farmers to acquire farmland Enterprise not supportive of speculative behaviour related to farmland Pangea’s model not easily expandable

Political conditions Pangea seen as an economic intruder Richetto, 1983; Hart, 1991; Confusion about Pangea model led to political conﬂict Walker, 2006; Krasnozhon, Segregation of Pangea partners from farmer union 2013; Eagle et al., 2015; Liu, Pangea perceived as external agent to agriculture 2015. No state intervention required Transparency key to Pangea approach

Attributes of Communities Limited business knowledge and professionalism in rural Ferguson, Hartley and communities Carlberg, 2006; Engelen et al., Farmers know farming, challenging for outsider to train and 2010; Magnan, 2012; provide enhanced knowledge McMichael, 2012; Fuchs, Growth may not be a value embraced by all Meyer-Eppler and Push against ‘‘ﬁnancialization’’ of food Hamensta¨ dt, 2013. Legacy of farmland critical to farmers for next generation Pangea often seen as a bankruptcy avoiding mechanism Limited partnership concept difﬁcult to understand by farmers Pangea’s promise hard to believe by rural communities Farmer-partners guilty by association

Rules Pangea not seen as member of community, no social Cavailhes, Hilal and Wavresky, license 2012; Eagle et al., 2015; Liu, Pangea’s core values differ from traditional, artisanal 2015. farming The UPA is the sole protector of farmers Pangea depends on relationship based on trust and engage with reliable partners Proximity of support is key

Geographic factors are critical to any transactions. Economic factors also ought to be considered. At first, Pangea was and is very selective in terms of where to some did not understand Pangea’s model. For instance, purchase land. As Katy Dupéré, Pangea’s in-house Patrice Garneau stated, ‘‘At the beginning, we weren’t lawyer, told us ‘‘We will not buy land if it is located sure about Pangea. But after a while, we realized that within 30 minutes of tractor-time of one of our current they were serious’’ (farmer and Pangea partner, personal partners’’ (personal communication). It mitigates its risks communication). It came as a surprise and was deemed so it does not comprise its chance to maintain a profit- almost too good to be true. Katy Dupéré informed us able portfolio: ‘‘There is a fundamental principle in that, ‘‘My practice with Pangea is 5% related to law, mathematics. When you centralize the decision-making but most of it is about education, counselling and support process, you will increase the variance, and variance for young farmers. We’re giving them a dream almost.’’ is risk. By having many partnerships, the variance is She also stated that, ‘‘The biggest challenge for farmers is significantly decreased’’ (Charles Sirois, Co-Founder of to accept to be involved at 51%. At first, they are not Pangea, personal communication). always convinced they can deliver. But most importantly, The essence of Pangea’s model is to reduce the vari- they are not accustomed to dealing with an external ance, and risks by spreading its footprint into many regions. partner’’ (in-house lawyer, personal communication).

International Journal of Agricultural Management, Volume 6 Issue 3/4 ISSN 2047-3710 & 2017 International Farm Management Association and Institute of Agricultural Management 117 The Pangea model Sylvain Charlebois and Rene Van Acker One clear incentive for farmers is to improve cash flow Agriculture is a capital-intensive industry, as capital and the financial viability of their operations. For instance, cost affects the viability of agricultural investments. Patrice Garneau explained that he contacted Pangea to Co-enterprises created by Pangea lowers the cost of partner with them: ‘‘We were very interested in dealing capital, and helps mitigate financial risks for the farmer with Pangea since it is more challenging to invest in cash operator (Deinenger, 2013). crops without having our own parents involved. Getting It is also difficult to see how current partners would Pangea involved increased our cash flow’’ (personal want more co-enterprises as part of the network. Incen- communication). By creating a co-enterprise, farmers are tives to find new farmers for current partnerships remain able to rely on an enhanced access to capital to support ambiguous. Finally, political factors were considerably their operations. Robin Godin Gauthiert noted that, influential in Pangea’s case. One can also venture to state ‘‘Producers often underestimate the learning process, that Pangea underestimated political forces. Segregation and Pangea helps partners to acquire business-oriented or even marginalisation became evident while assessing knowledge like cash flow management. But Pangea also the point of view of a farmer. The UPA distanced itself learns from partners as well’’ (Pangea’s Agrologist, from farmers opting for a partnership with Pangea. The personal communication). farmer interviewed was surprised to realize after a while According to Garneau, the cash flow is healthy that his own union made him an outcaste: ‘‘The UPA enough that it allows the farmer and partner of Pangea never approached me about Pangea, at any time. The and his family to work on the farm on a full-time basis. UPA always supported us, but not since Pangea has been This is a significant incentive for families who want to involved. It surprised us’’ (Patrice Garneau, farmer and spend some time together. One aspect of Pangea’s model, Pangea partner, personal communication). which remained misunderstood, or even disbelieved, was In its inception, Pangea made a case to the provincial the claim that they would not outbid another farmer government and ask it not to intervene in any way. when purchasing farmland. What is interesting is that, Pangea stated in meetings that its intent was to create despite claiming how transparent it is, Pangea does not wealth for regions, beyond agro tourism and natural disclose which deals they have walked away from. This resources. Pangea made a conscious effort to meet with may have fuelled speculations about Pangea’s ulterior officials beyond farming. Marie-Christine Éthier, Direc- motives. During the commission, many members of the tor of Communications, stated that, ‘‘Being accepted by committee disputed Pangea’s claim since it is difficult communities was a priority from the start. With what to demonstrate. However, Patrice Garneau supported happened between the region of Lac St-Jean and the Pangea’s claim. During an interview he stated: ‘‘Pangea National Bank’’ (personal communication). will buy land based on its market value. If a farmer Transparency also became key for Pangea as it bat- comes in with a highest bid, Pangea will not compete, tled disapproval. They met different key political and and I’ve seen it happen.’’ (farmer and Pangea partner, economic figures and posted key information on their personal communication). website on a regular basis. Robin Godin Gauthier, Scalability for many farmers is also a challenge. Pangea Pangea’s Agrologist, explained that, ‘‘Pangea is very brings knowledge and expertise into the co-enterprise transparent. As soon as we bought land and created which was acknowledged by the Patrice Garneau: ‘‘Cash a partnership, we posted everything on our website, crops were considered as bad business, for years. Pangea so a registry won’t make much of a difference to us’’ is allowing us to understand how we can make money (personal communication). with a different commodity’’ (farmer and Pangea partner, Attributes of communities mirror the political and personal communication). economic reality of the system. These are elements that From a model perspective, it is challenging to appre- are not easy to change. These elements can be socio- ciate how it can expand beyond a dozen partnerships in economic, technological or even judicial. The concept of Eastern Canada, if Pangea remains compliant with its limited partnerships appeared difficult for farmers to current approach. It has seven partnerships already that understand. Some did not believe what Pangea was have taken almost two years to start. Every co-enterprise promising. Staff at Pangea have spent a great deal of is extremely time consuming since proximity is critical time explaining the concept due to the fact that most to the success of each enterprise. Patrice Garneau even farmers are inherently not accustomed to partnerships. believes that Pangea has its limitations: ‘‘The model has Marie-Christine Éthier, Director of Communications, limitations. I’m not sure Pangea can expand beyond stated that, ‘‘The UPA was willing to meet with us at the 10 or 15 partnerships’’ (farmer and Pangea partner, beginning, but afterwards, they refuse to meet with us. personal communication). They felt that the model was too good to be true’’ Another respondent, Robin Godin Gauthier, had a (personal communication). different perspective on Pangea’sstrategyandhow Pride of land ownership also came up as an attribute. scalable it is: ‘‘We do believe that the model is scalable. In Pangea’s case, while farmers are mostly proud of their We are committed to processing but we need good part- farmland as they see it as their legacy, some have made ners. We want to build a crushing plant for Patrice so he the observation that most farmers lack the skills to can develop the regional market’’ (Pangea’s Agrologist, operate a farm on a much larger scale. Even further, personal communication). This statement is based on how Sirois suggested that farmers do not have the same level the model can support vertical integration, something a of professionalism one can find in other sectors. How- small-scale farm is not able to do under normal circum- ever, some farmers do approach Pangea with an objec- stances. Vertical integration is something that Pangea tive that is not compatible with Pangea model. As Robin is very interested in for its AOP’s because they see it as Godin Gauthier stated, ‘‘We need partners who are another way of reducing the risk of AOP’s not be able to entrepreneurs and are willing to learn’’, and he continued, meet rents (Charlebois and Summan, 2014). ‘‘Many come to us with extreme financial difficulties,

ISSN 2047-3710 International Journal of Agricultural Management, Volume 6 Issue 3/4 118 & 2017 International Farm Management Association and Institute of Agricultural Management Sylvain Charlebois and Rene Van Acker The Pangea model or they just have the wrong personality’’ (Pangea’s defend and that’s what they do. But what is clear though Agrologist, personal communication). Similarly, Charles is that we are not land grabbers. Pangea’s model is Sirois stated, ‘‘It’s amazing how many farmers don’t largely misunderstood’’ (in-house Lawyer, Pangea, per- know how to farm on a larger scale. Training is key. sonal communication). They rarely know what their returns actually are’’.He A great deal of time was spent addressing issues and went on further to say, ‘‘What does business mean in managing political agendas within the establishment of agriculture? It’s different than in other sectors. It’sa farmland governance. According to Pangea’s Co-Founder, much more sensitive business than other sector I have Serge Fortin: ‘‘Our communication strategy is based been involved with. There is also lack of professionalism on transparency, availability, and honesty. I have spent in agriculture. Most don’t seem to have a preoccupation more time explaining, even justifying the model than around productivity. They are protected all the time. actually working with partners, but things have calmed The fact that mistakes in operational farming should be down’’ (personal communication). compensated by society is a strange belief’’ (Co-founder Mr. Fortin, a farmer, became the spokesperson for of Pangea, personal communication). Pangea, but gave other partners the opportunity to speak Most rural communities have embedded rules that for themselves. At the commission, both Mr. Fortin and affect the discourse between agents in a political eco- Mr. Garneau testified providing Pangea farmers with nomy. Trust seems to be a very important factor which a voice. Even though it was clear that the UPA was pur- rides on the whole notion that partners in rural com- posefully attacking Pangea, the communication strategy munities are trustworthy. Robin Godin Gauthier com- never acknowledged the farmer’s union in its commu- mented on the issue of trust: ‘‘Pangea basically gives nication strategy. ‘‘We never mention the UPA in our partners keys to the house, so trust is very, very important’’ communication strategy. We conducted many face-to-face (Pangea’s Agrologist, personal communication). meetings. They seem to be more productive’’ (Marie- Trust is likely the most significant vulnerability of Christine Éthier, Director of Communications, personal Pangea’s model. Both Pangea and rural communities communication). Pangea mentioned it has no regrets appear to be at odds when evaluating rules which influence with its communications strategy and would adopt the their behaviour. Pangea had to earn its social license same approach again. Charles Sirois stated, ‘‘We meet throughout the process as it was not seen as a member of every year to build a family, the Pangea family. We are community. Also, Pangea’s core values differ from tradi- creating our own UPA, really’’ (Co-Founder of Pangea, tional, artisanal farming. It does not seem to appreciate personal communication). why society should support operational mistakes made Pangea’s aspirations is to create a knowledge network by farmers, which in turn nurtures a culture of neglect to support families and farms, which is an area served and misuse of resources. What became clear is that Pangea mainly by the UPA in the province. Pangea is likely had to manage an environment in which most entrepre- perceived as a threat. It seems that members have raised neurs felt they operated under the protection of the UPA. concerns about other issues, beyond farmland manage- Pangea underestimated how difficult and unpredictable ment. The UPA has been much less active after the the UPA would be. commission. Trade agreements are a great source of concern for farmers in Quebec and have become more important issues for the UPA. Pangea is now looking at Action Arena Ontario as a potent market for its model, the largest Looking at farmland management as a political econ- province in the country. As Robin Godin Gautheir omy, some groups appear to have fared better than noted, ‘‘Ontario is a different market. They seem to not others. The UPA, for example, was very vocal for a while have that regional, protectionist mentality. This is why but one respondent mentioned that the group may have we want to expand in Ontario in the future’’ (Pangea’s neglected much larger issues in the process. Despite Agrologist, personal communication). Pangea’s good intentions in reaching out to the commu- The arrival of Pangea also jumpstarted a cognitive nity, opinions and perceptions shifted. Director of Com- process which has made many young farmers realize that munications, Marie-Christine Éthier explained, ‘‘We met capacity is a challenge. In order to grow and to run a with regional chapters and people at head office. At first, sustainable operation, it is critical to own more land. the message was well received. But later we realized that More young farmers are having that debate right now. the UPA was not pleased with what Pangea was doing’’ But growth for Pangea will likely remain a challenge. (personal communication). It became clear during interviews that the proximity Pangea was not able to explain why these shifts in to offer support was key for co-enterprises. Jean-Paul perception were occurring. Pangea felt it was important Tardif, Director of Operations at Pangea, stated, ‘‘We to protect its partners, but were not sure why it was encourage farmers to call us and to seek some advice. doing it, or if it was needed. From a communications Typically, during the first year though, they like to show perspective, the will is to make farmers the face of they know things. But after, they get more comfort- Pangea. Robin Godin Gauthier believes that, ‘‘The UPA able, more vulnerable with Pangea.’’ He went on to say, demonised Pangea, but they have much bigger problems ‘‘We hope to get 20 partners in Quebec, perhaps more in to deal with in the near future. They will likely stop Ontario. The important thing is proximity. We need to talking about Pangea. While they were dealing with us, provide the proper support on site for the model to they did not see other issues emerging like TPP (Trans- work’’ (personal communication). pacific Partnership) or CETA (Comprehensive European Expectations of farmer-operators that affect Pangea’s Trade Agreement)’’ (Agrologist, Pangea, personal com- ability to manage a greater number of limited partner- munication). Katy Dupéré also stated that, ‘‘The UPA ships is high. The support provided is time consuming is not really a threat. They have a political position to and costly. Keeping a lawyer in-house, for example,

International Journal of Agricultural Management, Volume 6 Issue 3/4 ISSN 2047-3710 & 2017 International Farm Management Association and Institute of Agricultural Management 119 The Pangea model Sylvain Charlebois and Rene Van Acker is unusual for a firm of this size. At the beginning, Pangea While Mr. Fortin is a multi-generation farmer in insisted in having a lawyer in-house to deal with farmers Quebec, Mr. Sirois is a mathematician and banker and and partnerships when the company could have sought has never worked on a farm. But Mr. Sirois is arguably council externally and transacted through any well-known one of the most well-known business persons in the legal firms in Montreal. Katy Dupéré explained ‘‘Pangea province and in the country. This may have contributed wanted me to be in-house, to be close to Serge, and to the negative perception of Pangea by the UPA, seeing farmers. At first, it would have been more difficult for the company as a speculator and a land grabber. Mr. him if I would have been external’’ (in-house lawyer, per- Sorois’ influence is well recognized but the association sonal communication). Dupéré has now left Pangea and between himself and Mr. Fortin seems complimentary. has her own practice. However, she remains committed One comment was made which captures how Pangea to serve Pangea in the future. Most of Pangea’s limited dealt with Mr. Sirois notoriety: ‘‘Charles Sirois may not partnerships are not profitable. However, the company be a farmer, but he knows how to start businesses. That expects most to be profitable by year 3. Pangea is is what he does well. We weren’t trying to either hide or confident that this objective will be met. to promote Charles just because it was not really relevant for our strategy’’ (Marie-Christine Éthier, Director of 9. Discussion Communications, personal communication). Farmland values are certainly a bellwether of the Evaluation criteria that impacts interactions and out- financial health of agriculture in Canada. As a result, comes for Pangea’s model in the context of a political producers, lenders, policymakers, and media are search- economy are difficult to define and assess (see Figure 1). ing for signals and methods to provide sound steward- Pangea’s approach is certainly in sharp contrast with ship in the future. The importance of public education other existing farmland investment schemes. Irrespective on matters related to farmland management, economic of whether a rural region in Quebec or elsewhere aims development and resource utilization cannot be over to attract investors, increased land values necessitate emphasized. Local communities could embrace new institutional innovation to improve land governance. models to support small-scale farms as long as they are Pangea’s arrival in the political economy of farmland aware and well informed of implications and of the need management allowed most to recognize that some gaps of their responsibility in nurturing wealth creation and are perceived to exist in the legal framework, whether ensuring sustainable resource utilization. gaps do exist or not. We could also argue that western What may have added to the anxiety was the fact that societies may need to reflect more on what is and what local communities in many areas in the province of is not acceptable in terms of farmland ownership and Quebec may lack the ability to assess the technical governance for their country. and economic viability of investments, to identify key Looking at Pangea and agriculture, it is relatively easy challenges associated with them, to effectively negotiate to conceive of the relationships between financiers and intricate contracts, or to enforce compliance with such agriculture as an unnatural coupling. This reflects two agreements even if judicial infrastructure were available. key assumptions that underlie much of the research on This, of course, was fuelled by the highly organized and the ‘‘financialization’’ of food. The first is that finance well-resourced UPA which capitalized on specific attri- and agriculture represent two distinct sectors that have butes of rural communities to generate more conflict. been brought together and thus linked as a result of the Pangea’s Co-Founder Mr. Sirois stated, ‘‘I never expected business enhanced hype in agriculture-based investments. so much opposition by the union. They state they don’t While this opposition is based on the fact that agriculture want speculators, but I don’t either. They just don’t is meant to create wealth by way of physical effort, believe us’’ (personal communication). the finance sector is, in some ways, often credited for The Pangea model revealed an underlying funda- generating wealth in a virtual fashion. Pangea makes this mental problem of lack of faithfulness and/or trust- fundamental dissimilarity more obvious between the two worthiness on the part of some of the parties involved in worlds. The financial sector represents an unnatural the conflict. The UPA and the Parti Québécois strongly or artificial influence on agriculture, undermining the opposed the model, even two years after the first limited normal course of ‘‘price taking’’. Finance is about con- partnership was established. For instance, the projected trol, hedging and most importantly, it is about distorting gains in the community, direct and indirect were found the ordinary functions of agrifood markets. Pangea’s to be grossly unbelievable during visitations in different opponents have galvanized the distrust expressed towards regions. In addition, Pangea was perceived as an urban the ‘‘financialization’’ of food (McMichael, 2012). What is agent, attempting to control agriculture in regions. Inter- often missing from these exchanges within a political actions led to disbelief. Many misunderstood or did not economy is an understanding of what ‘‘financialization’’ understand the model and assumed farmers became looks like in practice. These misunderstandings could Pangea employees. Patrice Garneau spoke against this lead to confusion, fear and prejudgement, as it did with misunderstanding, saying, ‘‘Most people misunderstand Pangea. No mediation mechanism to accommodate the Pangea model. Most thought we became employees discrepancies is in place, which only can make the of the firm and worked for Pangea, which obviously is situation worse. not the case’’ (farmer and Pangea partner, personal Beyond the model, the most interesting aspect of communication). Pangea is how dissimilar both Mr. Fortin and Mr. Sirois Strong political will and commitment to a healthy are. The common denominator is that both are highly environment on the part of Pangea, and truthfulness and successful business people in telecommunications. It is fairness on the part of investors was, and continues to be, difficult to believe the two would create Pangea on the essential in the implementation of the plan as fears of basis of greed as both are arguably financially independent. Pangea have dissipated over the last year.

ISSN 2047-3710 International Journal of Agricultural Management, Volume 6 Issue 3/4 120 & 2017 International Farm Management Association and Institute of Agricultural Management Sylvain Charlebois and Rene Van Acker The Pangea model This case study underscores the importance of public transferable the model is remains to be seen. Many awareness on matters related to sustainable financial industrialized countries with large amounts of arable models in farming, and on matters of development and land that investors might want to bring under usage have resource utilization which are vital, if local communities a limited appreciation of the resources at their disposal. are to participate effectively in maintaining a vibrant The most appropriate ways to add value to these, while agrifood economy. Protecting the interest of local entre- using human capital already available, should be further preneurs is also critical. The persistent opposition from developed. Pangea’s model represents one method to the communities and other more well-organized parties contribute to growth and equity on a broader scale for opposed to Pangea increased attention on this new model farming and agriculture. Mr. Sirois has expressed that and the issue of farmland ownership and eventually Pangea has ambitions beyond Canada, ‘‘My goal is to resulted in a parliamentary commission. Pangea demon- convince the World Bank to invest in Farmland, but they strated resolve throughout the process and opposition ask me to prove it, so we did’’ (Co-Founder of Pangea, against the model has almost disappeared. Pangea’s personal communication). initial intent was based on geo-economics, but the com- It is the complexity and messiness of the financial pany was committed early on to addressing the political sector’s involvement in agriculture that stands as a key aspects of farmland ownership. It broadened its action lesson of the Pangea case and that offers the most fertile arena as it went along. Such a strong political will and ground for future research. After almost two years the commitment to a healthy environment on the part of model appears to be delivering, but a more longitudinal Pangea only discloses that truthfulness and fairness on evaluation is warranted. It should expand on a much the part of external investors in agriculture are essential. larger scale to see how Pangea’s approach can support Some limitations ought to be considered when read- developing countries. From this case study, it would ing the case. Firstly, this case study relies only on the appear that Canada is a test for other projects which co-authors’ specific knowledge in the sector to accurately would likely be more influential in addressing the issue depict the agents involved in the sector. It also relies on of the lack of access to capital by farmers and its relation the types of relationships and how they interact since an to global food insecurity. But this case suggests that the in-depth analysis was only achieved by involving the support system for co-enterprises needs to be refined in targeted unit involved in the case. Since this is a singular order to support growth of the model. case, findings in this case may not be necessarily appli- cable for other cases. Nevertheless, it does provide a About the authors sense of how one model may be considered for future endeavours. Furthermore, the chosen methodology only Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in the Faculty of provides the scientific community with a ground for an Agriculture at Dalhousie University. His current research effective consolidation on farmland management con- interest lies in the broad area of food distribution and cepts, as it offers practical knowledge and contributes to safety, and has published many articles in several top the scientific development of farmland governance. academic journals food science and management. Dr. Rene Van Acker is a Professor in the department of 10. Conclusion plant science in the Ontario Agricultural College at the University of Guelph. His research interests include weed The latest increases in farmland prices, and returns biology and ecology, robust cropping systems, multi- driven by rising commodity prices have led to significant functional agriculture and the coexistence of GM and increases in both the value of and rental rates associated non-GM crops. with farmland exploitation (Paulson and Schnitkey, 2013). At the same time, ongoing research is needed to examine changes to agriculture policies to protect farmland in Acknowledgement urbanizing counties over time. Investing and farming The authors would like to thank Pangea for being so are increasingly becoming interchangeable. The Pangea open to our queries. We also woulod like to thank the case speaks to how both worlds are colliding and how Editor and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful conflicts could emerge in political economies. Financial and constructive comments from which the present paper markets are increasingly virtual and abstract, separated greatly improved. from the physical form of agricultural commodities. The Pangea approach may be the most effective and it REFERENCES certainly offers one avenue of attracting major capital to farming and of allowing farming families to access AGE´ CO (2012). Valeur et Proprie´ te´ des Terres Agricoles: Enjeux this capital (or its usefulness) to grow and sustain family et Perspective, Report Prepared for the Coop Fe´ de´ re´ e, Que´ bec, October 2012, 102 pages. farming enterprises. Arezki, R., Deininger, K. and Selod, H. (2012). Competition for Certainly, over the last few years it has been noticed Land: Theory and Empirical Determinants of Cross-Border that economic cycles have an impact on urban develop- Acquisitions of Farmland. Economie and Statistique. ment and pressures from both the residential and busi- Bausch, J., Eakin, H., Smith-Heisters, S., York, A., White, D., ness sectors. This factor should be considered in future Rubin˜ os, C. and Aggarwal, R. (2015). Development Path- research. Furthermore, studies that examine locations ways at the Agriculture–Urban Interface: The Case of Central over time will help understand farmers’ methods of Arizona. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(4), 743–759. Boyer, Marcel and Sylvain Charlebois. ‘‘Supply management of coping with different economic circumstances. Farm products: A costly System for Consumers.’’ Economic Future research should look at how scalable the Note (2007). Pangea model is and how it can be adapted for regions Brezis, E.S. and Verdier, T. (2014). Geography, Economics and where food insecurity is very real. Properly assessing how Political Systems: A Bird’sEyeView.DICE Report, 12(1), 29–36.

International Journal of Agricultural Management, Volume 6 Issue 3/4 ISSN 2047-3710 & 2017 International Farm Management Association and Institute of Agricultural Management 121 The Pangea model Sylvain Charlebois and Rene Van Acker Briggeman, B.C., Gunderson, M. and Gloy, B. (2009). The Huang, H., Miller, G.Y., Sherrick, B.J. and Go´ mez, M.I. (2006). Financial Health of Agricultural Lenders. American Journal Factors Influencing Illinois Farmland Values. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91(5), 1406–13. of Agricultural Economics, 88(2), 458–470. Bryan, James, B., Deaton, A., Weersink, K. and Meilke (2011). Hu¨ ttel, S., Jetzinger, S. and Odening, M. (2014). Forced Sales An Empirical Examination of Landowner Characteristics., and Farmland Prices. Land Economics, 90(3), 395. Social Capital and Farmland Rental in Southern Ontario, Klein, L.R. and Reganold, J.P. (1997). Agricultural Changes and University of Guelph. Farmland Protection in Western Washington. Journal of Soil Calomiris, C., Hubbard, G., Stock, J. and Friedman, B. (1986). and Water Conservation, 52(1), 6–12. The Farm Debt Crisis and Public Policy. Brooking Papers on Krasnozhon, L.A. (2013). Political Economy of Agricultural Economic Activity, 2, 441–485. Market Reform in Ukraine: ‘‘Good Bye Lenin.’’. Journal of Cavailhes, J., Hilal, M. and Wavresky, P. (2012). Urban Influence Private Enterprise, 29(1), 119–140. on Farmland Prices and its Impact on Agriculture. Economie Lepage, F. (2014). Analyze of Strategic Alliance Between Agri- and Statistique. cultural and Financial Enterprises: Pangea Case Study in Charlebois, Sylvain. ‘‘The impacts of environmental uncertainty Quebec, Submission to Socie´ te´ s et Economies, 22 pages. on socio-political structures and processes of a marketing Lence, S.H. (2001). Farmland Prices in the Presence of Trans- channel: The case of the Canadian mad cow crisis.’’ (2005): action Costs: A Cautionary Note. American Journal of Agri- 1820–1820. cultural Economics, 83(4), 985–992. Charlebois, Sylvain, Ronald, D. and Camp. ‘‘Environmental Liu, J. (2015). There is Soil, There is Wealth – Factors to Influ- uncertainty and vertical integration in a small business net- ence Urban Citizens to Purchase Farmland and Farmhouse work: The case of Natural Valley Farms Inc.’’ Journal of in Taiwan. International Journal of Trade, Economics and Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Finance, 6(1), 37–40. Economy 1.3 (2007): 252–267. Luo, L., Zhang, G., Zheng, Y. and Ning, X. (2013). Evaluation Charlebois, Sylvain and Amit Summan. ‘‘Abattoirs, meat pro- and Overview of Progress in Farmland Protection Resear- cessing and managerial challenges: A survey for lagging ches. Asian Agricultural Research, 5(8), 35–40. rural regions and food entrepreneurs in Ontario, Canada.’’ Meloche, Jean-Philippe and Debailleul, G (2013). Acquisition International Journal of Rural Management 10.1 (2014): des Terres Agricoles par des Non-Agriculteurs au Que´ bec: 1–20. Ampleur, Causes et Porte´ eduPre´ nome` ne. CIRANO, Cheriet, F. and Dikmen-Gorini, L. (2014). Contrat ou Confiance? Montre´ al, 64 pages. Effets de la Gouvernance sur les Performances des Alliances Magnan, A. (2012). New Avenues of Farm Corporatization in Strate´ giques Asyme´ triques. Revue des Sciences de Gestion, the Prairie Grains Sector: Farm Family Entrepreneurs and 266, March-April, 43–51. the Case of One Earth Farms. Agriculture and Human Values, Cocheo, S. (2013). Will Farmland Prices Hold up? American 29(2), 161–175. Bankers Association. ABA Banking Journal,105(11), McMichael, P. (2012). The land grab and corporate food regime 15–17. restructuring. Journal of Peasant Studies, 39(3–4), 681–701. Collins, R.J. and Bourn, J. (1986). Market Requirements and Ministe` re de l’Agriculture, des Peˆ cheries et de l’Alimentation Pricing for External Equity Shares in Farm Businesses. du Que´ bec (MAPAQ) (2015). Analyse du Pheńome`ne American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 68(5), 1330– d’Accaparement des Terres Agricoles, Mandat d’Initiative, 1336. Document de Consultation, March 2015, 25. Dadak, C. (2004). The Case for Foreign Ownership of Farmland Nickerson, C.J. and Lynch, L. (2001). The Effect of Farmland in Poland. Cato Journal, 24(3), 277–294. Preservation Programs on Farmland Prices. American Deininger, K. (2013). Global Land Investments in the Bio- Journal of Agricultural Economics, 83(2), 341–351. Economy: Evidence and Policy Implications. Agricultural Nickerson, C.J. and Hellerstein, D. (2006). Rural Amenities: Economics, 44, 115–127. A Key Reason for Farmland Protection. Amber Waves,4,3. Drozd, D.J. and Johnson, B.B. (2004). Dynamics of a Rural Land Nicolas, Van, P. (2014, May 12). ‘‘Big Shift for Farmers; Market Experiencing Farmland Conversion to Acreages: Quebec’s Pangea Says Bigger is Better.’’ National Post. The Case of Saunders County, Nebraska. Land Economics, Oberholtzer, L., Clancy, K. and Esseks, J.D. (2010). The Future 80(2), 294–311. of Farming on the Urban Edge: Insights From Fifteen U.S. Eagle, A., Eagle, D., Stobbe, T. and Van Kooten, G. (2015). Counties About Farmland Protection and Farm Viability. Farmland Protection and Agricultural Land Values at the Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Urban-Rural Fringe: British Columbia’s Agricultural Land Development, 1(2), 59–75. Reserve. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 97(1), Painter, M.J. (2010). The Portfolio Diversification Impact of a 282. Farmland Real Estate Investment Trust. The International Engelen, E., Ertu¨ rk, I., Froud, J., Leaver, A. and Williams, Business and Economics Research Journal, 9(5), 115–123. K. (2010). Reconceptualising Financial Innovation: Frame, Paulson, N.D. and Schnitkey, G.D. (2013). Farmland Rental Conjuncture, and Bricolage. Economy and Society, 39(1), Markets: Trends in Contract Type, Rates, and Risk. Agri- 33–63. cultural Finance Review, 73(1), 32–44. Ferguson, Shon, Hartley Furtan, and Jared Carlberg (2006). Richetto, J. (1983). The Breakdown in Rural Communities—Can The Political Economy of Farmland Ownership Regulations We Stop it? Long Range Planning, 16(1), 97–105. and Land Prices. Agricultural Economics: the Journal of the International Association of Agricultural Economists. 35(1), Sherrick, B.J., Mallory, M.L. and Hopper, T. (2013). What’s the 59–65. Ticker Symbol for Farmland? Agricultural Finance Review, 73(1), 6–31. Fiske, J., Batte, M.W. and Lee, W. (1986). Nonfarm Equity in Agriculture: Past, Present and Future. American Journal of Sokolow, A.D. (2010). Budget Cuts Threaten the Williamson Agricultural Economics, 68(5), 1319–1323. Act, California’s Longstanding Farmland Protection Program. California Agriculture, 64(3), 118–120. Fuchs, D., Meyer-Eppler, K. and Hamensta¨ dt, U. (2013). Food for Thought: The Politics of Financialization in the Agrifood Walker, P. (2006). Political ecology: Where is the policy? Pro- System. Competition and Change, 17(3), 219–33. gress in Human Geography, 30(3), 382–395. Hart, J.F. (1991). Part-Ownership and Farm Enlargement in Weber, J.G. and Key, N. (2015). Leveraging Wealth from the Midwest. Annals of the Association of American Geo- Farmland Appreciation: Borrowing, Land Ownership, and graphers, 81(1), 66–79. Farm Expansion. Land Economics, 91(2), 344–361. Henley, A. (1998). Residential Mobility, Housing Equity and Zakrzewicz, C., Wade Brorsen, B. and Briggeman, B.C. (2012). the Labour Market. The Economic Journal, 108(447), Comparison of Alternative Sources of Farmland Values. 414–427. Agricultural Finance Review, 72(1), 68–86.

ISSN 2047-3710 International Journal of Agricultural Management, Volume 6 Issue 3/4 122 & 2017 International Farm Management Association and Institute of Agricultural Management