ENSURING CONSISTENT AGRITOURISM POLICY IMPLEMENTATION ACROSS BRITISH COLUMBIA TO STRENGTHEN RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (2026)

Issue

Agritourism operators across British Columbia face significant barriers due to inconsistent interpretation and enforcement of provincial agritourism policy by municipalities and regional districts. Although the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) provides a provincial framework intended to support diversified farm income, local governments apply these rules unevenly – with some permitting agritourism activities such as farm stays, RV sites, educational programs, and small-scale events, while others prohibit the same activities under identical provincial policy.

These inconsistencies create substantial economic uncertainty. Operators cannot reliably plan or invest when the same agritourism structure or activity may be permitted in one jurisdiction and prohibited in another. Businesses report sudden changes in interpretation, inconsistent enforcement between jurisdictions, and unclear or contradictory guidance from local authorities. They also report lost revenue, cancelled projects, and sudden enforcement changes that undermine long-term viability. This unpredictability limits rural economic development and discourages the diversification that agritourism is intended to support.

Background

Agritourism is an essential driver of rural economic development in British Columbia, supporting farm viability, tourism activity and diversified local economies. Provincial frameworks established by the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) and the Ministry of Agriculture outline permitted agritourism activities on Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) land, with the intent of providing clarity, consistency and opportunities for farms to supplement income through tourism-related offerings.

However, municipalities and regional districts are responsible for interpreting and implementing these provincial frameworks through local bylaws, permitting systems, and enforcement practices. In practice, this has resulted in significant variation across the province. Some regions apply the ALC framework in a clear, business-friendly manner, while others interpret the same policies far more restrictively, creating uncertainty for operators and limiting rural economic development. 

Across the Okanagan, several jurisdictions have adopted transparent and predictable agritourism policies that align with provincial intent. In Vernon, the city has developed distinct agritourism accommodation guidelines that clearly differentiate between dwellings and seasonal farm-stay structures, providing operators with a reliable pathway for compliance. Kelowna, Lake Country, and Summerland similarly provide clear definitions for agritourism accommodations, accessory buildings, and temporary farm structures, reducing confusion and enabling operators to invest confidently in diversified tourism offerings. On the Naramata Bench and in the Penticton area, wineries and farms routinely operate guest suites, cabins, and tasting-room-based experiences under stable, well-communicated policies.

In contrast, other regions apply the same provincial framework far more restrictively. In the Thompson-Nicola region, for example, a rural agritourism operator consulted with a regional inspector and was advised that small agritourism structures would be permitted as long as they remained under a specified square footage and remained temporary. Construction proceeded in full compliance with this guidance. However, following a third-party complaint, the interpretation shifted abruptly. The unplumbed, seasonal “dry cabins” - intended for temporary farm-stay use – were reclassified as “single-family dwellings,” triggering requirements for full residential services, including septic installation, electrical upgrades, and pressure to rezone the ALR, RL-1-zoned, farm-classified property to a commercial designation. Enforcement escalated rapidly, including warrants to access the property, and a formal demand letter stated that the structures would be subject to removal if used for agritourism-related stays. This occurred despite the structures meeting the ALC criteria as well as previously communicated criteria by the regional authority. This resulted in a complete shutdown and loss of diverse revenue.

In some cases, regional districts have suggested the use of temporary use permits as an alternative pathway for agritourism accommodations. While this approach may offer short‑term relief, it introduces significant uncertainty for operators. Temporary permits are time‑limited, subject to renewal discretion, and vulnerable to shifting political or administrative interpretation. As a result, they provide little incentive for long‑term investment in infrastructure, marketing, or business development. For agritourism operators seeking to build sustainable, multi‑year offerings, reliance on temporary permitting undermines financial viability and discourages responsible capital investment.

Demonstrated pattern of uneven application

Other operators in the Thompson-Nicola region have reported similar challenges. Several farms seeking to offer seasonal agritourism accommodations or small-scale visitor experiences have been informed that they must pursue full commercial zoning – a costly, multi-year process that is inconsistent with the ALC’s intent to support on-farm diversification. In some cases, small unplumbed cabins, yurts, or temporary structures intended for short-term farm stays were classified as permanent dwellings, triggering requirements for full residential servicing and building code compliance designed for year-round occupancy. These requirements significantly increase development costs and, in many cases, make agritourism operations economically unfeasible. The result is a widening gap between regions where agritourism is supported as a diversification strategy and regions where inconsistent interpretation effectively prevents it.

This inconsistency is further highlighted by the experience of neighbouring agritourism operators in the same region. For example, nearby farms are permitted to operate multiple small guest structures as farm-stay accommodations under local interpretation. These structures are similar in scale and purpose to those constructed by operators facing restrictive enforcement yet allowed in one case and prohibited in another.

These inconsistencies create significant business barriers. Operators experience disrupted operations, cancelled bookings, and significant revenue loss when interpretations change without warning. The resulting uncertainty also undermines investor and lender confidence, limiting the ability of rural businesses to plan or expand agritourism offerings.

A consistent and transparent regulatory environment is critical for agricultural sustainability and rural economic growth. Clear provincial implementation guidance – supported by aligned local bylaws and collaboration with business organizations – would provide the predictability operators need to invest confidently and contribute fully to rural economic development. These recommendations are not intended to introduce new administrative steps, but to reduce uncertainty and improve consistency within existing processes for both operators and local governments.

The Chamber Recommends

That the Provincial Government:

1. Develop and publish clear, province‑wide implementation guidelines for agritourism activities on Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) land to reduce   inconsistent interpretation and minimize administrative burden for both operators and local governments
2. Include in province-wide policy or guidelines requirement that local government recommendations and decisions on Agricultural Land Reserve applications explicitly demonstrate how they balanced agricultural land protection with the objectives of supporting economically viable agriculture under the Agricultural Land Commission Act.
3. Require local governments to provide written, publicly accessible rationale for Agricultural Land Reserve-related recommendations, enforcement actions, and interpretation changes, including explanation where similar applications receive materially different treatment.
4. Provide technical assistance, model bylaw templates, and training resources to help local municipalities and regional districts  align their zoning, permitting , and enforcement practices with provincial agritourism policy and ALC intent, reducing duplication of effort and improving clarity for staff and operators