Urban Agroecology · the role of urban agroecology in food system research. In their proposal for an agroecological urbanism, Deh-Tor (p.8) suggests that building alternative food

ww

w.r

uaf

.org

UA33

NOVEMBER 2017

URBAN AGRICULTUREMAGAZINE

Urban Agroecology

33

www.ruaf.org

In this issue

Urban Agriculturemagazine

Editorial 03

WhyWeNeedUrbanAgroecology 05

UrbanAgricultureorUrbanAgroecology? 07

FromAgricultureintheCitytoanAgroecological 08Urbanism

ExploringUrbanAgroecologyasaFrameworkforTransitions 11toSustainableandEquitableRegionalFoodSystems

UrbanAgroecology:Forthecity,inthecityandfrom 13thecity!

TowardsaTransformativeUrbanAgroecology 15

UrbanAgroecology:Principlesandpotential 18

RedefiningValueUsingUrbanAgroecologyonPublic 21LandinCanada

ReductioninSaleofAgriculturalLandinGorakhpur 24

AgroecologyasaDriverforaNewSustainableUrban 27SettlementinTaiwan

NewFormsofUrbanPermacultureinSeville 29

UrbanAgroecologyinRome 31

FoodForestsintheNetherlands 34

RomanticisingthePast:Acasestudyofatidemill 37inSuffolk

PioneeringUrbanAgroecologicalResearchwithCitizen 38Science

UrbanAgricultureinCuba:30yearsofpolicyand 41practice

SystemsofControlforAgroecologicalFoodProduction 45andCommercialisationinQuito

Nairobi’s21stCenturyFoodPolicy 48

UsingAgroecologicalandSocialInclusionPrinciples 51inRosario

PromotingAgroecologicalFoodProductioninRosario 52

‘CitiesforAgroecology’NetworksinEuropeandSpain 55

InstitutionalisingAgroecology?Reflectionsonmunicipal 58pastoralisminSpain

MonitoringAgroecologyValuesinPeri-urban 61LandscapesinBeijing

PracticesofUrbanAgroecologyinSãoPaulo 65

UrbanAgroecologyMovementChangestheBrazilian 68Metropolis

AnAgroecologicalApproachtoWasteinFoodProduction 70andConsumptioninSpain

PoliticisingUrbanAgricultureforFoodSovereignty 72

StrugglesofRooftopFarminginPortoAlegre 75

TheCentreforAgroecology,WaterandResilienceat 76CoventryUniversity

CoverSão Paulo. Photo by Pops Lopes

05-17

18-40

Conceptualising Urban Agroecology Photo by Madrid Agroecologico

Practices and City InitiativesPhoto by GEAG

Urban Policies Supporting AgroecologyPhoto by AGRUPAR

Citizen Activism and Social MovementsPhoto by Rohan Ayinde

65-75

41-64

333

Urban Agriculture magazine • number 33 • November 2017 www.ruaf.org

3

This issue of the UA Magazine is a joint effort of the RUAF Foundation and the Centre for Agroecology Water and Resilience (CAWR). It aims to articulate and document the emerging field of urban agroecology. The Magazine will be launched at the occasion of the 8th AESOP conference on Sustainable Food Planning, titled “Re-imagining sustainable food planning, building resourcefulness: food movements, insurgent planning and heterodox economics” (14-15 November 2017), hosted at CAWR in Coventry, UK.

TheUAMagazinetriestoprovideinsightintothequestions:“Whatis‘urbanagroecology’,exactly?Isitatypeofecologicalororganicagricultureinthecityorifnot,whatelseorwhatmore?”. As we will see from the contributions in thisMagazine,definitionsdifferandtendtoreflectthevariousways the term agroecology is understood in differentcountries, by different organisations, or according todifferentpoliticaleconomicpreferences.Oftenagroecologyisperceivedasmorethanaproductiontechniqueorsystem:itisamovement,ascience,apoliticalvisionandapractice

whichalongsideagriculturalknowledge,endorsesspecificvaluesandethics,suchassocialrelationsofmutualityandrespect, a commitment to bring forward more equitablechangeandlandstewardship.

Underthisperspective‘urbanagroecology’,isapracticewhich– while it could be similar to many ‘urban agricultural’initiativesbornoutofthedesiretore-buildcommunitytiesandsustainablefoodsystems,hasgoneastepfurther:ithasclearlypositioneditselfinecological,socialandpoliticalterms.

Inecologicalterms,itisbasedonrespectingallformsoflife,itsteersawayfrompurelyhuman-centredapproaches,andiscommittedtoprotectthelandfromdegradation,pollutionandenclosure.Insocial terms,itstrivesfor(andthrivesupon)mutualsupport,learningandrespectofculturaldifferences.Inpoliticalterms,itisembeddedinanetworkofmovementsfor food sovereignty and justice, and equitable access toresourcesandbenefitsandineconomictermsitrangesfromsocial enterprises to commons. It also develops its ownstrategising, re-skilling and strengthening tools (see theemerging literature on urban political agroecology). Ingeographical terms, urban agroecology reflects morespecificallyonhowtheurbanconditionconstrains(andthedrivers of urbanisation), shapes and attributes particular

Chiara TornaghiFemke HoekstraEditorial

Urban Agroecology in Sao Paulo. Photo by Pops Lopes

4


meanings to the urban cultivation of food, and it bringsforwardjustandfairmodelsofurbanisation.

However, urban agroecology is still an emerging concept,anditsecological,social,political,economicandgeographicalmeaningsarefarfromhavingasharedunderstandingandnarrative.This thematic issue of the UA Magazine seeks to offer anopportunitytoshareideasamongadiversecommunityofpractitioners, scholars and activists, on what urbanagroecology means to them, what affinity they see withrelated concepts (such as with the organic movement orurbanagriculture,etc.)andhowwecantogetheradvanceinfurtherdevelopmentoftheconcept.

As usual, the Magazine shares a diversity of perspectivesfrom an extraordinarily wide number of geographicalcontexts, and we are aware that some of them pull indifferent or opposite directions. Narratives of reformingversus re-founding the food system, independent versusinstitutionally framed experiences, quantifying versusqualifyingthebenefitsofurbanagroecology,andcity-basedversus urbanism-oriented changes are some of the areaswhere we see diverging or contentious views. A deeperengagement with the meaning of the ‘urban’, too ofteninterpretedasopposedtothecountryside–inaworldwhereboth cities and rural places are shaped by the resourceextractionandfooddemandsofplanetaryurbanisation–isalsostilltobefulfilled.Yet,webelievethatfromthediversematerialsinthisissueoftheUAMagazinewehavemadeastart on pinning down the emerging field of urbanagroecology,andreflectingonitschallenges.

TheMagazineisorganisedinfourblocks.Inthefirstsection,we explore alternative ways of conceptualising urbanagroecology,especiallyinrelationtourbanagriculture.Arethey different? Why are they different and how do thesedifferences count and impact on our work and moregenerally? Here, we also discuss whether it is enough toconsiderurbanagricultureandurbanagroecologyasformsoffoodgrowingthathavemovedfromthecountrysidetothecity.Doesthe‘urban’-thelocationinthecity-makeanydifference? Does it change the social meaning, potentialimpact and day-to-day practices of agriculture andagroecologypractitioners,andifso,howtotakethemintoaccounttobuildamoresustainableworld?OnthismatterC.M.Deh-Tor(p.8)suggestthatcollectivelywecouldconsider,build and empower a ‘resourceful reproductive andagroecologicalurbanism’.

The second group of articles explore practices and city initiatives related to urban agroecology. These articlescontribute to the documentation and analysis of localexperiences and initiatives with urban agroecology indifferentlocationsworldwide.Theyillustratethespecificityof applying agroecological approaches in (peri-) urbancontexts,andbegin tofleshout itspotentials,bottlenecksandsuccessfactors.Theyalsoincludeintra-urbanagricultureandperi-urbanformsofagroecologicalproductionandthestrengthening of rural-urban linkages and biodiversity in

urbanareas.ArticlestouchonissuesasdiverseasthedesignofbiodiverseandproductiveurbanfarmsinNorthAmerica;agroecological production as a peri-urban land usemanagementstrategyinIndia;agroecologyasadriverforthedevelopmentofanewsustainableurbansettlementinTaiwan; new forms of urban permaculture in Seville; andfoodforestsintheNetherlands.

Thethirdgroupofarticlesfocusonurban policies supporting agroecology.Herewefocusongovernment-ledinitiativesandthe role of urban policies supporting agroecology, and theways and legal tools through which such policies ban orconstrain the use of chemicals and encourage naturalagriculture.Cubahasbeenagloballeaderinthepolicy,scienceandpracticeofagroecologyingeneralandofurbanagriculturebasedonagroecologicalprinciples inparticular.Butalso inQuito and Rosario, production practices stimulated by themunicipalityarebasedonagroecologyprincipleswhichleadto greater autonomy by reducing dependence on energy,knowledge,inputsandintermediaries.Agroecologyprovidesabroadapproachtosustainableurbanfoodpolicies,goingfarbeyondorganicfarmingtowardsaperspectiveoffoodjusticeandecosystemservicesprovidedbyfoodsystems.Thereareagrowingnumberofcitynetworksthatrecognisethisandareorientedtowardssustainablefoodsystems.

Thefinalsectionconcludeswithcontributionsfocussedoncitizen and social movement-led initiatives.Themovementsforagroecologyarediverse–occurring indifferentplaces,amongst diverse peoples, different knowledge sets andworldviewsandatdifferentscales.Yet,whatholdstheseincommonaretheircommitmenttosocialtransformation.Forexample,theMovimento Urbano de Agroecologia, MUDA-SP (Urban Movement of Agroecology), is a collective ofsignificant political presence in matters relating to urbanagriculture and agroecology in São Paulo. Madrid Agrocomposta is creating new partnerships between foodproducers and consumers, rural and urban dwellers, andpolicymakersinandaroundMadridbasedontheprinciplesofagroecologyandcirculareconomy.

Inaddition,CAWRsharesitstoolstoexplore,research,andlearn about urban agroecology in the context of broaderfoodandecologicalchallengesandthespecificchallengesposedbytheurbansetting.

We hope this issue of the UA Magazine will contribute toscalingupandscalingoutofurbanagroecologyincitiesandcityregionsbyprovidinginspiringpractices,guidance,andunderstandingofitsspecificneedsandtoolsfornetworkingandpoliticalaction.

Chiara TornaghiCentreforAgroecology,WaterandResilience,CoventryUniversity,[email protected]

Femke [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]\

Urban Agriculture magazine • number 33 • November 2017

5

www.ruaf.org

Since early 2016, the Brussels Agency for Research and Innovation finances 7 participatory action research projects for sustainable food systems. These projects bring together scientists and practitioners that closely cooperate to promote access to healthy food for all; to develop a logistical platform for alternative food systems; to explore and overcome barriers to urban farming; and to support transdisciplinary food system knowledge production in Brussels (see www.cocreate.brussels). We are part of an action research project that aims to enrich urban agriculture with agroecology and of a cross-cutting project that seeks to encourage reflexivity and foster mutual learning among all project participants. From that position, we explore the role of urban agroecology in food system research.

In their proposal for an agroecological urbanism, Deh-Tor(p.8) suggests that building alternative food systemsincludes dealing with challenges as vast as urbanisationprocesses,landmanagement,liferhythms,financialdriversandcollectivearrangementsforfoodprovision,educationorausterity politics. We believe that urban (political)agroecologyproposescluestomakesuchconnectionsandsee food systems as part of a bigger picture. Moreover, acomplexandcontextualisedunderstanding,mayhelptosetresearchprioritiesinademocraticandsociallymeaningfulwayandtoadoptresearchmethodsthatopenupspaceformultiple voices and perspectives. Especially for those thatoftengounheardorgetmarginalised.

Food system research is in fact far from univocal in thedefinitionofthechallengestoaddress,thesocio-technicaltrajectoriestopromoteorthenatureoftherelationswithindustry,politicians,activists,farmersandfoodpractitionersto cultivate. Research approaches not only depend ondisciplinary backgrounds, but are equally inspired bydifferent, often conflicting, narratives of progress. Foodsystemresearchersshouldthuspositionthemselves.Whatare various accounts and pathways of food system

Fostering reflexivity for food system action research participants, Brussels, June 2017. Photo by Marie Maloux

Barbara Van DyckNoémie Maughan

Audrey VankeerberghenMarjolein Visser

Why We Need Urban Agroecology

http://www.cocreate.brussels


6

www.ruaf.org

ReferencesHeynen Nik, Kaika Maria, and Swyngedouw Erik (2006). In the Nature of Cities: Urban Political Ecology and the Politics of Urban Metabolism (Taylor and Francis, Abingdon, Oxon).Leach Melissa, Scoones Ian and Stirling Andrew (2007). Pathways to Sustainability: an overview of the STEPS Centre approach, STEPS Approach Paper, Brighton: STEPS Centre. Louah Line, Visser Marjolein, Baltazar Sofia, and Delobel Vincent (2015). Changements de postures du chercheur, de l’agriculteur et de l’enseignant pour l’innovation agroécologique paysanne. Pour 2015/2 (N° 226), p. 5-10. DOI 10.3917/pour.226.0005Martínez-Torres, Maria Elena and Rosset Peter (2014). Diálogo de saberes in La Vía Campesina. Journal of Peasant Studies 41(6): 979-997.McClintock, Nathan (2010). “Why farm the city? Theorizing urban agriculture through a lens of metabolic rift.” Cambridge Journal of regions, economy and society 3(2): 191-207.Moragues-Faus Ana, and Kevin Morgan (2015). “Reframing the foodscape: the emergent world of urban food policy.” Environment and Planning A 47(7): 1558-1573.Stengers Isabelle. “Autonomy and the Intrusion of Gaia.” South Atlantic Quarterly 116.2 (2017): 381-400.Walker, Peter (2005). Political ecology: where is the ecology? Progress in Human Geography 29(1): 73-82.

innovation? How do they diagnose problems to favourspecific pathways? And, what narratives of progress doestheirresearchcontributeto?

Urban political ecology in food system researchWith our research, we seek to contribute to food systemsthat are led by principles of social justice and autonomyfromcorporatecapture.Suchgoalsrequireunravellingthepolitical conditions and consequences of knowledgeproduction and use. For example, how do we reinforce orcounterunevenspatialdevelopments throughknowledgeproduction? Or, in what ways does food system researchreproducesocialandenvironmentalinjustices?

Hence,webelievefoodsystemknowledgeproductionneedsto be situated in its context, and needs to incorporatequestionsof‘whobenefits’tothecoreofitsanalysis.Criticalgeographers can help here; urban political ecologists inparticular. Urban political ecology provides a frameworkthat links political debate with the science of ecology tourban settings. In addition, it offers an understanding ofcities that challenges traditional distinctions betweenurban/ruralandsociety/nature.

Adoptinganurbanpoliticalecologylenskeepsfoodsystemresearchawayfromthetemptationoftranslatingcomplexissues intoseeminglystraightforwardtechnicalquestions,devoid of socio-political meaning. Instead it makes visiblehow social geometries of power shape access to food, itsproduction and consumption. At the same time, urbanpoliticalecologyhasthepotentialtoexplorealternativestourban development, food provisioning and feeding, as itinvitesustoquestionwhatorganisationalformsneedtobedevelopedandtoidentifythespacesofstruggle.

Agroecology for food sovereignty However, with the strong focus on environmental justiceand on the intertwined-ness of nature and society, urbanpoliticalecologyriskslosingtrackoftherealitiesofecologyitself.The broad fieldofpolitical ecology, in fact,hasbeencriticised for reducing the study of agriculture andenvironmenttoquestionsofpower.Thechallengeistobringquestionssuchasfoodasnourishingbodies,soilsaslivingorganisms,urbangardensaslife-sustaininginfrastructureinto food system research, while taking issues as money,location, skin colour, gender and social status seriously. Inother words, food issues cannot be treated as purelysocio-political,neitherasmereecologicaloragronomicbutare always inherently socio-technical. They areco-constructionsofwater,people(includingtheirformsofknowledge,theirlabour),investmentflows,soilorganisms,andmore.

Agroecologycapturesthisco-construction.LaViaCampesina,the world’s largest peasant organisation, understandsagroecologyasawayoffarmingthatishighlypoliticalandpromotesfoodsovereignty;i.e.developingfarmingsystemsthatchallengepowerstructuresbyseekingtoputthecontrolofseeds,biodiversity,landandterritories,water,knowledge,cultureandthecommonsinthehandsofthepeoplewho

feed the world. Hence, the political nature of knowledgeproductionisagivenforthesocialmovement.Knowledgedialogue or the “collective construction of emergentmeaningbasedondialoguebetweenpeoplewithdifferenthistorically specific experiences, knowledges, and ways ofknowing”isabasicprincipleofagroecology.

Urban (political) agroecologyDrawingonthediscussionsin‘urbanpoliticalecology’and‘agroecology for food sovereignty’, urban (political)agroecologycouldbecomeaconceptualpillar to facilitateconversations between different knowledges, to build acommon ground between disciplines and practices. Thisentailstomoveawayfromexpertpositionstoresearchforawhere scientists become practitioners practicing science.Consequently,andthinkingwithIsabelleStengers,wedonotneed “neutral” scientists, instead we need scientificpractitionersthatdeveloptheabilitytoaddtheir“divergencetootherdivergingvoices”andareawareoftheneedto“enterintoallianceagainstthosewhowillrefertotheirknowledgeinordertoconclude”.Inthatregard,LineLouahetal.proposethat agronomists put their scientific knowledge andmethodologies at the service of the practitioner throughcollaborativeresearch.

We propose urban agroecology as a stepping stone tocollectively think and act upon food system knowledgeproduction, access to healthy and culturally appropriatefood, decent living conditions for food producers and thecultivationoflivingsoilsandbiodiversity,allatonce.Urbanagroecologyisnotagoal,yetanentrypointinto,andpartof,muchwiderdiscussionsofdesirablepresentsandfutures.

Barbara Van Dyck, Noémie Maughan, Audrey Vankeerberghen and Marjolein VisserUniversité[email protected]

http://www.ulb.ac.be/

mailto:[email protected]

777


7

Urban Agriculture (UA) sounds similar to Urban Agroecology (UA+), but they may have little in common. Urbanagricultureislikeagricultureingeneral.Itisabroadtermincludingsubsistenceagriculture,organicagriculture,industrialagricultureandfactoryfarming.Urbanagriculturecan also include subsistence farming in a city, urbanallotmentsandurbanorganichorticulture.Butitcanalsoinclude high-intensity vertical farming and metropolitanfoodclustersor‘agroparks’.Thesecouldbetermed‘factoryfarminginacity’.

Theterm‘factoryfarming’isnotmeantinaderogatoryway,but rather as a realistic description of how plants andanimalsareproducedinafactoryfollowingthesamelogicascarsorplasticbottle.Inthisformofurbanagriculturefeedforanimals(inverticalpigoffishfarms)orliquidnutrientmedia (hydroponics in vertical salad farms or aquaponicswith fish in plastic cages) are made in another factoryoutsidethecityfromingredients‘efficiently’sourcedaroundtheworld.Thisformofagricultureisoftenself-declaredassustainable.Butthesustainabilitylogiccanbequestioned.Sometimesonlyafewcarefullyselectedindicatorsareusedto claim sustainability. For example, this type of urbanagriculturemay justusea little lessofaspecific resourcethenaless-sustainableformofindustrialagriculture.

Organic urban agriculture (oUA) sits in between UA and UA+, depending how organic is understood There are different understandings of “organic”. LegaldefinitionsintheEU,USAandotherplacesprotectthewordsorganic, ecological, agroecological and biological whencommercially marketing produce. Products within these‘safetynets’requirelegalcertificationtousethem,andthisalso stops them from being misused to sell something,whichfallsbelowthelegalstandard.

Thehistoric,pre-legislativeunderstandingoforganicisverydifferent. The International Federation of OrganicAgricultural Movements (IFOAM) was driven by diversemovements in different countries – just as in today’sagroecologymovement(hencethepluralofmovement,astherearemorethenone).

However, IFOAM’srecentnew title ‘Organics - International’sounds very much like a corporate mission statement. Iforganic is only defined as a corporate brand it has lost itsoriginalmeaningandpowerasmovementsforsocialchange.

Whentheorganicmovementsstartednearly100yearagotheywereholisticandencompassednotonlyproductionbut

Urban Agriculture or Urban Agroecology? Ulrich Schmutz

alsoconsumption,lifestyle,educationandspirituality.Earlyon,organic-biologicalmovementslikeBiolandfocussedonempowering farmers, changing agricultural policies anddirectmarketing.Thisisnotmeantasaromanticnotionofthe‘goodolddays’oforganic.ItisnotnecessarilyabadthingwhenthoseoncesellingorganicmueslifromthebackofaVW camper are now running medium-size companiesemploying hundreds of people. But some of these peoplemay,duringthissuccessstory,nothavenoticedthatmaybetheyhaveconformedmorethanwasnecessary.

UA+ at its best can perhaps infuse a bit of its energy andmeaning back into the naturally aging organic movement.Urbanpoliticalagroecology,takinginurbangovernanceasatransformative process, contains such meaning. It looks notonlyathowfood,waterandenergyareproducedandconsumedinacitybutalsoquestionshowtheserecoursesaresharedandequallydistributedinajustwayforpeopleandplants.

UA+canalsohelpthetermorganictoburstoutofthetightlimitationsofthelegalorganicstandardsandstartthinkingoutside the box and in ‘open-access mode’ again. Annualcertification versus participatory guarantee schemes,self-certificationandevenusinghumanmanureandurineare examples where UA+ and a rejuvenated organicmovementbasedonitsrootshaveabrightfuture.

In conclusion:UAandUA+havenearlynothingincommon.ButoUAandUA+shouldhavenearlyeverythingincommonifoUAcandropitsrecent‘intensificationandtechno-fixingadventure’andre-focusonitsroots.

Ulrich SchmutzCentreforAgroecology,Water&Resilience,CoventryUniversityandGardenOrganicresearchassociateulrich.schmutz@coventry.ac.uk



8

www.ruaf.org

In this article we capture three things at once: the reason for this special issue, the thinking behind the 8th Annual Conference of the AESOP Sustainable Food Planning (SFP) group (Coventry, 2017) and the core mission of the International Forum for an Agroecological Urbanism. The Forum and the Magazine will be launched at the AESOP SFP conference whose theme this year is “Reimagining food planning, building resource-fulness: Food movements, insurgent planning and heterodox economics”.

BackgroundIn the past three years we have merged our research andactivistsinterestforecologicallyandsociallyjustagriculturalpractices,appreciationsfortheemancipatoryvalueofcities,andthesearchformodesofurbanisationwhichareledbyprinciplesoflandstewardship,equityandsolidarity.

The problem with food within western urbanisation Asurbanscholarsworkingonthepoliticsofurbanlandandprocesses of urban development, we have been too wellaware that the possibility to control and localise foodprovisionhasnotbeenconsideredthroughoutthehistoryofwesternurbanisation.ThinkforexampleofthemodernistmanifestooftheAthensCharter(CIAM/LeCorbusier),whichin classifying different spatial urban functions in the cityplan, did not include agriculture or food production.Modernism has driven zoning and urban planning for

decades and has been extremely influential since thebeginningofthe20thCentury.Butwesternurbanisationhasalso been dominated by organic, piecemeal, processes ofdensificationofthecity,suchasthebuildingupofkitchengardensandvegetableplots,duringperiodsofpopulationgrowth.Apartfromsomeremaininggardensandallotmentsites, the once common food growing spaces have largelydisappearedfromthemap.Wearealsoawarethatthescaleatwhichurbanismoperatesconstrainsthepossibilitiestomakeanyrealradicalchangeofthe‘foodregime’possible.Forexample,landvalueandlandmanagement,fundamentalcomponentsintheattempttore-developproductiveurbanlandscape,arelargelydrivenbymarketmechanismswhichvalue high profit activities (real estate) and de-valueagricultural and agroecological and solidarity-basedcommunityledfoodgrowingpractices.

Theomnipresenceofcheapfoodprovidedbythemainstreamretailsectors–whosepricedoesnottakeintoaccounttheecological impact of transport, resource depletion andstoringofunseasonalproducts–makeitalsoverydifficultforalternativelocalproducerstocompeteandthrive,whilepayingtheirworkersfairly.

Moneysavingausteritypoliticsarealso impingingon thefood allocation choices of both private individuals andorganisations, who find themselves struggling to enactmoreresponsibleandjustpurchasingchoices.

Urbanlandscapesandeducationalapproachesalsotendtoreducethepossibilitiestonurtureandreproduceinthenewgenerations those skills fundamental for making healthyandenvironmentallysoundfoodchoicesorengaginginfoodpracticesmoresubstantially.

C.M. Deh-Tor

From Agriculture in the City to an Agroecological Urbanism: The transformative pathway of urban (political) agroecology

Photo by Maria Caterina Feole ©


9

www.ruaf.org

Seentogether,thepointslistedabovemakeclearthatcitiesandurbanisationprocesses,withtheirliferhythms,financialdriversandcollectivearrangementsforfoodprovision,aretheonesthatneedtobetackledforanyprogressivechangetobemade.Buildingalternativefoodsystemshasthereforetodealwiththeseongoingchallenges.Whatweimagineisnothinglessthanthere-urbanisationoffood.

Urban challenge and new value systemsOfcourse,thereisawholerangeofexperiences–manyofwhichextensivelypresentedinthepreviousissuesoftheUAMagazine – that strive to build alternative realities andchallengethefoodsystem,fromsmallcommunityprojectstobroadercity-widefoodpolicies.Theyremainimportant.However,ouraimhereistopointoutthefullrangeofwaysin which neoliberal urbanism shape and constraintsopportunities for change, which are often overseen. Toomanyfoodinitiativestendtothinkofcitiesasacontainer,aplacewheretomakechange,disregardingbroaderecologicaland social interconnections (issues of global justice, forexample), as well as the valuing mechanism that shapedecisionmakingonaday-to-daybasis.Forexample, if themainrationaleforpeople’sbehaviouristimeefficiencyandfinancialconvenience,thenitwillbeverydifficulttorollouta full range of coherent, equitable and environmentallysoundchoices,becauseanumberofthemwillhavefinancialimplications(i.e.substitutechemicalinputswithincreasedhumanlabour,reallocatelandownershiprightsonthebasisoflandstewardship,etc.).

Wecontendthatthe“urban”–thehighdependencefromcollective arrangements (i.e. housing, food, transport) andtheimpossibilityofself-provision,andthewaycapitalism/finance work as its engine- poses specific challenges andconditions which are deeply structural and that to bringforward change we need to go beyond a‘food in the city’approach.AsmirroredinthecallforpapersfortheAESOPSFP2017conference,wearetryingtoenlargeaconversationthatenablesknowledgeexchangebetweeninnovativepractices,political strategies, alternative economic models, differentformsoflandmanagement,andanewvaluingsystemwhichtogethermakeupanalternativeurbanism.Inotherwords,analternativewaytoorganiseourmutualinterdependencies.Weneedto imagine logicsofurbanisationthatno longersystematicallydevaluefood,displacefarmers,destroysoils,turnnutrient,waterandenergyflowsintowastestreams,etc.,andarebasedonalongworkingweekwithnotimeforfood growing and cooking, but rather begin to imagineurbanismsthatenablestoincorporatefoodproductionandconsumptioninallitsdimensions.

Our take is that urban food policies alone, or the foodsovereigntyoffarmers,willnotsufficeinbringingforwardawayofurban livingwhich isenvironmentallyandsociallyjust,andthatamoreholisticviewandspheresofchangeareneeded.

The thought behind the theme of the conference was torecognise people’s right to control the conditions of theknowledge,resourcesandwaysinwhichfoodisprepared,

eaten and metabolised by humans, without underminingtheecosystemorendinginself-sufficiencydiscourses.Atthecore of this convergence we see a pivotal role for urbanagroecology.

Urban agroecologyAgroecology-inourview-isnotjustanagriculturalmethod:itisa‘package’ofvalue-basedpracticeswhichareexplicitlyaddressingsocialandenvironmentaljustice,areculturallysensitive,non-extractive,resourceconserving,androotedinnon-hierarchicalandinclusivepedagogicalandeducationalmodelsthatshapethewayfoodisproducedandsocialisedacross communities and generations. Agroecosystems,whilespecifictoeachgeographicalcontext,shareanumberof ecological and social features including “socio-culturalinstitutionsregulatedbystrongvaluesandcollectiveformsofsocialorganisationforresourceaccess,benefitssharing,valuesystems”.Theprinciplesandpracticeofagroecology,centred around multi-species solidarities, biodiversity andenvironmentalstewardship,havebeenextensivelynotedfortheir ability to conceive of and deliver alternative ways of producing food.

Agroecology is also being strongly mobilised as a political tool.Itsstronglinkswiththeinternationalfoodsovereigntymovement, and its inclination to action-oriented,transdisciplinary and participatory processes has led todefiningitsimultaneouslyasascience,amovementandapractice. Political agroecology and urban politicalagroecology are taking shape at the crossroads betweenscholar activism and urban movements, although its fullpolitical potential is yet to be metabolised. The work ofBarbaraVanDyckinthisissue(seepage5)isverytellingandanimportantstepinthisjourney.

Striving for resource sovereignty in profit-driven urbanenvironments,anumberofpolitically-activefoodgrowinginitiativesareeffectivelybuildingthegroundforanascenturban political agroecology (see Just Space in London, forexample,andanumberofcontributionshere).So,whileLaVia Campesina and other coalitions striving for foodsovereigntyareframedpredominantlywithinrural,agrarianand peasant imaginaries and communities, an urbanpolitical agroecology, which focusses on how the ‘urban’differently questions and provides opportunities of foodprovision,isslowlytakingshape.

Webelievethatagroecologyasapraxis,andurbanpoliticalagroecology as a politically aware way of enactingagroecological dynamics of food production andconsumption in the city, can provide the social glue (thevaluesystem)andthepoliticaltwist,uponwhichtobuildanewmodeofurbanisation.

International forum for an agroecological urbanismWhatifsolidarity,mutuallearning,interspecies(morethanhuman) exchanges, environmental stewardship, foodsovereigntyandpeople’sresourcefulnessweretheprinciplesof a new paradigm for urbanisation? How would urban


10

www.ruaf.org

design,propertyregimes,foodprovision,collectiveservices,and the whole ensemble of planning and socio-technicalarrangements change, if they were informed by urbanagroecology?Howcanwebegintoradicallytransformthefood disabling urban landscapes that have systematicallydisplaced food production, recovering both historical foodgrowingpracticesandimaginingnewurbanarrangements?

We contend that agroecology contains the political, socialandecologicalfoundationsforaradicallyalternativemodelofurbanisation–whatwecallaresourceful,reproductiveandagroecologicalurbanism.

Wecallforbuildingasharedjourneywithsocialmovements,food activists and scholars and to multiply the spheres ofurbanlifeinwhichthevaluesandlogicsofagroecologyarearticulatedandengendered.Wewishforacollectivejourney,a generative encounter of practices and ways of knowinganddoingthroughwhichitcanbepossibletosubstantiatewhatanagroecologicalurbanismmightlooklike.

Asavehicleforsuchacollectiveendeavourwecommittonurture an International Forum for an AgroecologicalUrbanism (IFAU). The Forum is a statement against theisolationofdisciplinaryspecialisation.Awaytoacknowledgetheneedtoseethebigpicture.Tothinkoftransport,housing,food, the environment, private property rights, inequalityandinjusticeallatonce.Fromtheoryandpractice.Aspacewheresocialreproduction,agroecology,andresourcefulnessarepillarsofanewurbanism.

Building an agroecological urbanism.TheForumisawaytobringinconversationtheknowledgethatalreadyexistsintoa coordinating and strategising platform where newplanningpracticesandpoliticaltrajectoriescanbeimagined.There are thousands of individuals with solid knowledgerelevantforthisproject,whichwewouldliketoreachoutto.We mean individuals with practical knowledge (i.e., inagroforestry,organic indoor or rooftop horticulture,wastemanagement, renewable energy, social economy,neighbourhoodkitchensschemes,etc.).Butalsoindividualsworking around conceptual models (transport systems,waterways, alternative land management), willing to

engageinthechallengeofrethinkingthepedagogiesandparadigmsofurbanplanning.Wealsomeantoreachouttoindividualsororganisationsandmovements/communitieswithdirectexperienceinpoliciesandactivism,tosharehowtheyhavedeveloped,deployed,tested,andlearnfromtheirmain obstacles and successes in building new collectivearrangements(i.e.communitykitchens)and/ormobilisingheterodox agroecological practices and ethics. In sum, weaimtogather,shareandgivevisibility toknowledgesandexperiences that together will help visualising, imaginingandconceptualisinganagroecologicalurbanism.

Empowering an agroecological urbanism. TheForumisalsoaspacefordialoguewheretoreflectonthepolitical,socialandecological processes that are needed for building anagroecological urbanism. A place where to build aninternational movement, where to imagine politicaltrajectoriesofempowermentwithunusualcombinationsofactors (i.e. agrarian and urban movements), to build newsolidarities,toshareactivisttactics.Tomapoutwhatspheresof life need alternative arrangements (i.e. waste andmetaboliccycles,landstewardship,privatepropertyrights,globaljusticeofnaturalresourcedistribution)andbuildapost-capitalisturbanism.

C.M. Deh-TorC.M.Deh-TorisacollectivepennameforcriticalurbanscholarsChiaraTornaghi(CoventryUniversity,UK)andMichielDehaene(GhentUniversity,Belgium)[email protected]

ReferencesAltieri M. A. & Toledo V.M. (2011): The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38:3, 587-612.Rosset P. M., Machín Sosa B., et.al. (2011): The Campesino-to-Cam-pesino agroecology movement of ANAP in Cuba: social process methodology in the construction of sustainable peasant agriculture and food sovereignty, The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38:1, 161-191.

Photo by Félix Zucco / Image granted by Zero Hora


111111


11

Social and political context in which urban agroecology emerges. Urban agroecology has in the last year appeared as a topic in debates on the future of sustainable agriculture and food systems. Two parallel developments create the background to this newly emerging area. Firstly, there is growing attention on the urban dimensions of food system challenges and on the potential role of cities in promoting a transition towards more sustainable and equitable food systems. This is illustrated by over 150 cities joining the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact to both publically state and claim their role in strengthening urban and regional food systems. The New Urban Agenda, adopted at the Habitat3 conference in Quito, puts ample attention on urban food security challenges and the need to reinforce urban-rural linkages; and most of all, through bottom-up development of urban food strategies by local city governments and citizens across the globe.

Secondly,inthelast5-10yearswehavewitnessedagrowingrecognition for agroecology as a promising approach forguiding a transition towards sustainable agriculture andfood systems. Agroecology is still strongly based ongrass-rootsmovementsofsmallfarmersandpeasants,buthasgainedattentionininternationaldebatesbyinstitutionssuch as the UNCTAD and the FAO, who started a regionalconsultation process around the topic. The agroecologyframeworkisespeciallypromising,asitfullyrecognisesthenegativeecologicaleffectsofconventionalfoodproductionsystems but also gives central attention to theco-managementofecologicalresourcesinfutureagri-fooddevelopmentoptions.Inadditionitincreasinglyrecognisesthe role that reinforced urban-rural linkages play in suchmodelsofco-management.

Key elements of the current food system crisisUrban agroecology therefore appears as a promisingapproachfordebatesaboutthefutureurbanfoodsystem.Itisimportanttorecognisethatthecurrentfoodsystemcrisisischaracterisedas:

Exploring Urban Agroecology as a Framework for Transitions to Sustainable and Equitable Regional Food Systems Henk Renting

• Amultidimensionalandsystemiccrisis,whichdevelopedin the last 3 to 4 decades and simultaneously affects arangeofeconomic,ecological,social,healthandculturalaspects.

• A confrontation between two different and opposingagri-food development models or paradigms, withdifferentvaluesandframesforlookingatfoodsystems.

• Acrisisoffoodgovernancemechanisms, i.e. theways inwhich we make decisions about food-related issues.Currentdecisionmakingprocessesarenowoutdated;thenow40+yearoldviewthatfoodproductionisallaboutefficiencyandthatfoodandfarmingcanbeinstitutionalisedasaseparatesector,isnolongerfitforpurpose.Thesearchfor new food governance mechanisms, sometimes byengaged policy makers but more often driven by civilsocietygroups,isverymuchthebasisforthenewdynamicweseeoccurring.

Why does food appear on the urban agenda?Agroecology provides an interesting framework to betterunderstandanddesignsustainableurbanandregionalfoodsystems, but at the same time it needs to be furtherdeveloped. Much of the current work strongly focuses onruralcontextswithsmallscaleandpeasantfarmersaskeyactors in the management of agroecosystems. Suchapproachescontinuetoberelevantbuttheyinsufficientlyaddress the specific nature of food systems in urban andperi-urbancontexts.Thestrong,sometimesone-sided,focusonruraldimensionsoffoodsystemsdoesnotonlyapplytoagroecology.Thereisageneralneedtobetterunderstandwhyfoodhasemergedsostronglyonurbanagendasinrecentyears.Twodecadesagoagriculturalandfoodpolicywerealmostsynonymoustorural policy. Nowadays, we see that issues such as foodconsumption practices, organic production in urban andperi-urbansettings,reductionoffoodwaste,andlocalandproximate food economies are key elements for an urbanagroecologicalframework.

The (re-) appearance of food on urban agendas can beunderstoodinthelightofCarolynSteel’sground-breakingworkonthehistoryofcitiesinrelationtofood.Inherbook“HungryCities”sheconvincinglyshowsthatwhenlookingaturbanhistory throughafood lens, it isclear thatatsomepointwelosttheawarenessoftheintrinsicrelationbetweenfood and cities. “We live in a world shaped by food. It determines our survival, our politics and economics. How, then, have we come to consider food as just another

12


commodity? Our profound disconnection with food is the curious legacy of industrialisation. It is also the symptom of a way of life we can no longer afford. Food is not only a powerful shaper of our lives, but one that we can harness as a tool.”

Food as a powerful transformative toolFromthisperspectiveitisclearthatfoodcontinuestobeanimportant and powerful tool for social and economictransformationincities.Thisisessentialforunderstandingthemanythingsthatarehappeninginurbanagroecologyandwhyit ispromisingforfutureurbanagendas.Foodisappearing on different political agendas, ranging fromeconomic development and employment generation toenvironment, climate change, health, social inclusion andwastemanagement,andprovidesastartingpointtoaddresssuchissuesinanintegratedway.Relocalisingfoodsystemsin and around cities for all these agendas, at leasthypothetically, emerges as an important factor in seekingsolutionstothemultiplecrisesthatcurrentsocietyfaces.

It is especially by building interconnections and synergiesbetween agendas that such solutions are shaped. Healthand wellbeing on the one hand are important drivers forfoodsystemchange,butatthesametimeprovideastartingpoint for developing markets and demand for local andorganic foods. Similarly, food production in urban andperi-urbanareasprovidesopportunitiestocreatesynergieswithurbanwasteandwatermanagementfromaperspectiveofurbanmetabolism.Also,issuesaroundsocialcoherenceandlocalidentityareconnectedtofoodproducingactivitiesandprovideanimportantentrypointforrebuildingtrustinlocal governance. In Spain, agroecology and food policyemergestronglyonlocalmunicipalistagendas,asanetworkofalmost20citieshaveorganised themselvesaround thetopic of agroecology.This is a way to regain and reinforcelocal and democratic control over food systems, which inmanyrespectsistheessenceofurbanagroecology.

Learning from the diversity of urban agroecological practices A key element to further develop urban agroecology is tobuildonthemanyexperiencesandupcomingpracticesincities. Many cases of urban and peri-urban agriculturearoundtheworldapplynon-chemicalproductionmethodsand in some cases explicitly identify themselves asagroecological.ExamplesincludeQuito,Rosario,CapeTown,Havana,and theWesternProvinceofSri Lanka.Theseandother cases show that there is a strong basis for urbanagroecology,butalsothatwhatisspecifictoagroecologyinan urban context needs to be better defined. Experiencesshowthatcommonapproachesinruralagroecologydonotnecessarilyworkinurbansettings–forexamplerestoringsoilprocessesisnotalwayspossibleinurbancontextswheresoilsareoftencontaminatedandecosystemprocessesaredisturbed. However the urban context provides specificknowledge,resourcesandcapacitieswhicharesometimeslackinginruralsettings.Thisisforexamplethecasewiththedevelopment of short marketing channels and directproducer-consumer relations, participatory approaches inlabourmobilisationandcertification,andinitiativesintheareaofsolidarityeconomy.

Theseexperiencesindicateastrongcaseforfurtherdialogueand collaboration between urban agriculture, city regionfoodpoliciesandagroecology.Thedifferentcontributionstothis issueprovidearichsourceofpracticalexperiencestofeed this dialogue and indicate how, in different social,culturalandpolicycontexts,agroecologyisbecomingakeyfactorinurbanfoodpolicies.

Henk [email protected]

Photo by Madrid Agroecologico



13

www.ruaf.org

Over the last 20 years, several organisations and individuals researching and working with urban agriculture and agroecology in Brazil have accumulated experiences in different local territories. Several national networks and forums, such as the Brazilian Association of Agroecology - ABA (aba-agroecologia.org.br/wordpress), the National Articulation of Agroecology - ANA (www.agroecologia.org.br), and the National Urban Agriculture Collective (www.facebook.com/cnagricurbana), have supported and articulated experiences of agroecology and urban agriculture. Agroecology is conceptualised simultaneously as a science, a political movement and a social practice. The central concept is the reproduction of life and common interest, distancing these networks from the logic of commodification and industrialisation imposed by the agribusiness sector and the contemporary food system.

Concepts of agroecologyTheagroecologicalapproachallowsustoobservesituationsin which some of the“agricultures” present in cities andmetropolitan areas differ from the pure market-orientedandindustriallogicofproduction.Insteadtheyconnectthesocialfunctionandthevalueofland,soastoconfigurenew

metropolitan territories, and to reinvigorate livelihoodscentredonsocio-environmentalreproduction.However,someconceptualapproachesreinforceurban-ruralor urban-nature dichotomies, by associating “the urban”withthebuiltenvironment,orwiththelegaldemarcationoftheurbanperimeter.Ontheotherhand,otherapproachesidealise the countryside as a space of tradition, nature,agriculturalpracticesandtheproductionoffoodandrawmaterials.Thisisinoppositiontothenotionofthecityasaspace of consumption, services, production of knowledge,innovationandcreativity.

Different experiences, different approachesThreeapproachesidentifiedintheBrazilian“agroecologicalfield” articulate, in different ways, agroecology and urbanagriculture, as well as different concepts of the city andurban versus rural areas. Two approaches, identified asagroecologyfor thecityandagroecologyin thecity,somehowreinforcetheusualapproachtotheurbanandtheruralasseparate(thoughcomplementary)spaces.Theyattributeanessentiallyruralcharacter tocertainagriculturalpracticeseveniflocatedinurbanspacesoridentifytherural“within”theurban.Theagriculturecarriedoutinthecityisassociatedwith rural memories, ancestral practices and peasantidentitiestransformedbytheurbanwayoflife.

‘Agroecology for the city’ seems to affirm rural areas asterritories in which market-oriented and urban supplyagriculturemustbelocated.Spacessuchas“greenbelts”orperi-urbanareasareusuallyconsideredas“non-cities”.Theinterferenceofthe“urban”ishoweverrecognised,togetherwiththebenefitsofproximitytourbaninfrastructuresuchasculturalfacilities,transportnetworks,andotherservices.Therearealsocorrespondingformsofincomegeneration.

Daniela Adil Oliveira de AlmeidaAndré Ruoppolo Biazoti

Urban Agroecology: For the city, in the city and from the city!

Urban citizens of São Paulo sowing for the creation of the Cultural Center Community Garden. Photo by Pops Lopes

http://aba-agroecologia.org.br/wordpress/

http://www.agroecologia.org.br/

https://www.facebook.com/cnagricurbana/

https://www.facebook.com/cnagricurbana/


14

www.ruaf.org

Victory’s Flavour Urban Farm located in the São Mateus neighbourhood in São Paulo. Photo by André Biazoti

Urbanspacesarethoughtofintermsofconsumptionandaccesstomarkets,notasterritorieswhereagriculturecanandisbeingdeveloped.Inthislogic,theemphasisisontheimportance of farmers’ interaction with cities (especiallythroughparticipationinfarmers’markets),withaviewtoincrease awareness of the urban population on theimportanceandbenefitsoffamilyfarmingandpreservationofruralproductionareasforcities.Initiativesofpeoplewhooptedforjobopportunitiesand“acountry”lifestylearealsocommonlyincorporatedintothistypeofnarrative.

“Agroecology in the city” sees the “islands” of rurality inurbanareas,asartificialandbuilt-upspaces.Theyarevaluedintheperspectiveofseekingsustainabilityincities.Urbanagriculturalspacesareseenasgreenareasthatareidyllicruralareaswithintheurbanfabric.Inthisperspective,theproducers’ruralknowledgeisvaluedandurbanagricultureisseenastheexpressionofthisknowledge.Fromthepointof view of agroecology, the prevailing perception is thatknowledgemigratesalongwithpeople,fromruralterritoriestourbanspaces,bringingwiththemthepracticesandwaysofunderstandingtheworldbasedonworkinthecountryside.Such spaces are generally“invisible” due to their reducedparticipation in theurbancapitalisteconomy.Or theyareinterpretedasremnantsofaruralheritagethathavenotyetbeentransformedbymodernityandurbanexpansion.

“Agroecologyfrom thecity”ontheotherhandleadstoashiftinfocusfromrural-urbancontradictionstothecontradictionsbetween industrialisation and commodification processesversusthereproductionoflife.Twotypesofspacecorrespondtothisdistinction,whichisfoundinLefevrian’stheoreticalperspectivesontheproductionofurbanspaceandtherightto the city. This approach also examines hybrid andtransitional territories, where economic activities andlifestyles associated with so-called antagonistic universescoexist,suchasurbanandrural,orurbanandnature.

Lastbutnotleast,theagroecologythattypicallyemergesinmore urbanised contexts involves a great diversity ofsubjectsandactors,anddialogueswiththespecificitiesofthesecontexts.Theconceptbringstheunderstandingthatnatureisormustbecloselyintegratedwithbuilt-upspaces.Naturecomposesandconsolidatestheproductionofurbanspace in these territories. According to the concept of therighttothecity,itisseenasacollectivework,whichcanandshouldbetransformedbythepracticesofthosewholiveinit.Inthissense,urbanagroecologyinvolvesthecreationandappropriationofthecitybypeoplewhodonotnecessarilyhavearuralpastorruralties,butwhocomefromdiverseprofessional occupations. From this confluence otherknowledges emerge and influence practices Traditionalknowledge aligns with technologies and knowledgesspecific to the urban, generating social innovation anddevelopingotherconsumption-productionarrangements.

Towards urban agroecology!Thegrowingstrengthoftheurbanagriculturemovementhasprovidedrecognitionofdifferentagriculturalhistoriesand practices in urban territories, and extended the

possibilities of relating the urban population with natureand agriculture. Urban agriculture and agroecology mayhelpcreatetheprinciplesanddimensionsofanagroecologicalapproachtoproductivesystems,socialsubjectsandurbanterritories.Wecantermit“urbanagroecology”.

However,notallexperiencesofurbanagricultureincorporateagroecological principles. This new field must alsounderstand cities as territories of dispute between socialmovements engaged in the promotion of life, and thecapitalist industrial food system. It is necessary to moveforwardbylayingasidethefalsedichotomybetweenurbanandrural,andtoidentifythatthereisacommoninterestinvaluinglandthroughtheproductiveuseofspacesessentialtothereproductionoflife.

Daniela Adil Oliveira de AlmeidaPhD,Post-doctoralFapemigResearcher,UrbanAgricultureStudyGroup–AUÊ!(IGC/UFMG)[email protected]

André Ruoppolo BiazotiMScMasterStudentinAppliedEcologyProgramme(USP);UrbanAgricultureStudyGroup-GEAU(IEA/USP)[email protected]

ReferencesAlmeida, D.A.O. de. Isto e aquilo: agriculturas e produção do espaço na Região Metropolitana de Belo Horizonte (RMBH). Belo Horizonte: 2016. 438p. Tese (Doutorado) - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), 2016.Lefebvre, H. The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell,1974.McClintock, Nathan. Radical, reformist, and garden-variety neoliberal: coming to terms with urban agriculture’s contradictions. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, v. 19, p. 2, p. 147-171, 2014.




15

www.ruaf.org

From its initial emphasis on ecology for the design of sustainable agriculture, agroecology now emphasises the study of the ecology of food systems, including all the elements (environment, people, inputs, processes, infrastructures, institutions) and activities that relate to the production, processing, distribution, preparation and consumption of food, and the outputs of these activities, including socio-economic and environmental outcomes. Agroecology’s focus on whole food systems thus invites urban producers to think beyond their garden plots and consider broader issues such as citizens’ access to food within urban municipalities and the governance of food systems.

Urban agroecology is increasingly informed by a vision offood sovereignty which aims to regenerate a diversity ofautonomous food systems in both rural and urban areas.Food sovereignty seeks to guarantee and protect people’sspace, ability and right to define their own models ofproduction, food distribution and consumption. Threedimensions of urban agroecological transformation arehighlighted here: ecological (re-organising the materialbasis of food production in the image of nature); political (expanding citizen participation and democracy in theco-productionofknowledge,policiesandurbanspaces);andeconomic (inventing forms of economic organisation thatre-territorialisefoodandwealthproductionwhilstcreating

freetimeforcitizenstoshapeandre-governurbanspaces).

Urban agroecology practices for food sovereigntyA transformative urban agroecology for food sovereigntyseeks to reduce dependence on corporate suppliers ofexternal inputs and distant global commodity markets.Agroecologicalapproachesinurbanareasthustendtobebasedon:

• Re-embedding gardening and agriculture in nature, relying on functional biodiversity and internal resources for production of food, fibre and other benefits. Resilientagroecologicalsystemsmimicthestructureandfunctionofnaturalecosystems:biodiversity-richfruitorchardsandagroforestry systems, intercropping, genetic mixtures,mixedfarming,agro-sylvo–fishproductionsystems;

• Reducing dependence on commodity markets for inputs (hybridseeds,fertilisers,pesticidesetc.)enhancingurbanfarmers’ autonomy and control over the means ofproduction;

• Diversifying outputs and market outlets, often with the help of citizens. Agreaterrelianceonalternativefoodnetworksthat reduce the distance between producers andconsumerswhilstensuringthatmorewealthandjobsarecreatedandretainedwithinlocaleconomies:CommunitySupported Agriculture, short food chains and local foodwebs, local procurement schemes that link peri-urbanorganicproducerswithcityschoolsandhospitals;

• Rediscovering forgotten resources: organicmanureandthesoil’scapacitytoimprovetheyieldsandnutritionalqualityoffoods;renewableenergies(solar,wind,biogas)andtheirdecentralisedanddistributedmicro-generationintownsandcities;

Michel Pimbert

Towards a Transformative Urban Agroecology



16

www.ruaf.org

• Trade rules protecting local economies and ecologies: thespreadofagroecologicalpracticesinurbanareasdependson:(a)replacingproprietarytechnologiesandpatentsonbiodiversity with locally adapted legal frameworks thatrecognisefarmers’rightsandguaranteeequitableaccesstourbanseedsandlivestockbreeds;(b)replacingglobal,uniform standards for food and safety by a diversity oflocally developed food standards that satisfy food andsafetyrequirements;(c)introducinglocalfood,energy,andwaterprocurementschemes.

From linear to circular food systems Urbanagroecologyinthecontextoffoodsovereigntygoesmuchfurtherthanafocusonagricultural production alone:itquestionsthestructureoftheentirefoodsystem.Indeed,much of conventional urban agriculture is dependent onexternal inputs (e.g. hybrid seeds, pesticides) and mirrorsaspectsofindustrialfoodsystemswhicharefundamentallyunsustainable, along with their supporting energy, waterand waste management systems. Their linear, andincreasingly globalised, structure assumes that the Earthhasanendlesssupplyofnaturalresourcesatoneend,andalimitlesscapacitytoabsorbwasteandpollutionattheother.Analternativeistoshiftfromlinearsystemstocircularonesthatmimicnaturalcycles.Thiscanbedonebyadoptingacircular metabolism that reflects the natural world.Therearetwoecologicaldesignprinciplesherewhicharesharedbyagroecology and related approaches such as bio-mimicry,eco-design, and permaculture. The first is that nature isbasedonnestedandinteractingcycles–forexample,carbon,nitrogen,phosphorus,andwater.Thesecondisthat‘waste’isconvertedintoausefulformbynaturalprocessesandcycles,ensuring that waste from one species becomes food forotherspeciesintheecosystem.In circular urban and peri-urban production systems,specialisedandcentralisedsupplychainsarereplacedwithresilientanddecentralisedwebsoffoodandenergysystemsthat are integrated with sustainable water and wastemanagementsystems.Circularsystemsthatmimicnaturalecosystems can be developed at different scales, fromindividualgardenplotstoentirecities,byusingfunctionalbiodiversity, ecological clustering of industries, recycling,and re-localised production and consumption within aterritorial based approach to sustainable living. Thesecircularsystemsareoftencharacterisedby:agroecologicaldesign; a focus on ‘doing more with less’; widespreadrecycling and reuse; the re-localisation of production andconsumption; and a new agrarian-industrial mutualismbetween towns and countryside. Circular systems thatcombinefoodandenergyproductionwithwaterandwastemanagementaimtoreducecarbonandecologicalfootprintswhilstmaintainingagoodqualityoflifethroughacontrolledprocessofde-growthinconsumptionandproductionbasedon the ‘8 Rs’: Re-evaluate, Re-conceptualise, Restructure,Redistribute,Re-localise,Reduce,ReuseandRecycle.

Village Homes in the suburbs of Davis in California (USA)pioneeredthiscirculareconomyapproachinthelate1970s(www.villagehomesdavis.org). A 70-acre subdivision wasdesignedtopromotesustainableliving,integratingwithin

the landscape solar-powered homes and low energybuildings, pest management, ecological land use, runoffmanagementandconsumptionoflocallygrownfood.Today,localresidentsobtainasignificantshareoffresh,seasonalfood from the Village’s 23 acres of greenbelts, orchards,vineyards and vegetable gardens based on urbanagroecologicalprinciples.

OnalargerscaleinSpain,urbanfarmersandothercitizensinvolvedintheCatalan Integral Cooperative(CIC)inthecityofBarcelonaandnearbymunicipalitiesareweavingtogetheradecentralisedanddistributednetworkofcircularsystemsunder democratic control and popular self-management.For example, CIC has successfully developed a functionallogisticsnetworkforthetransportanddeliveryoforganicfood of small producers in peri-urban and rural areas ofCatalonia.CIC’sNetwork of Science, Technique and Technology hasdeveloped technologiesandmachinesadapted to theparticularneeds of smallproducersandurban gardeners.Peri-urbanagroecologicalfarmsthatfeedlocalschoolsworkwith cooperatives for the digital manufacturing of farmtools and they are also part of a territorial network ofpeer-to-peerproduction,smallscaleindustrialecologies,aswellaslocalexchangenetworksandsocialcurrencies.Thesesocio-technicalinnovationsnotonlyfosteranewagrarian-industrialmutualismbetweentownandcountryside;theyalsohelprestoreasenseofselfhood,competencyandactivecitizenship(https://cooperativa.cat/en/).

Deepening democracyOne of theclearestdemands of theagroecology andfoodsovereignty movement is for citizens to exercise theirfundamental human right to decide their own food andfarmingpolicies.Democratisingthegovernanceofmunicipalfoodsystemsmeansenablingurbanfarmers,gardenersandothercitizens,-bothmenandwomen-,todirectlyparticipateinthechoiceanddesignofpoliciesandinstitutions,decideonstrategicresearchprioritiesandinvestments,andassesstherisksofnewtechnologies.Thiscanbebestdonethroughan expansion of direct democracy in decision making tocomplement,orreplace,modelsofrepresentativedemocracy.Institutional innovations such as popular assemblies andmethodsforinclusivedeliberativeprocessessuchascitizens’jurieshelpcreatesafespacesfordecisionmakingbyandforcitizens.

Deepening democracy assumes that every citizen iscompetent and reasonable enough to participate indemocraticpolitics.However,thisrequiresthedevelopmentofadifferentkindofcharacterfromthatofpassivetaxpayersand voters. Second, active citizenship and participation indecision-making are rights that are claimed through theagency and actions of people themselves – they are notgrantedbythestateorthemarket.Third,empoweringurbanfarmers and other citizens in food system governancerequiressocialinnovationsthati)createinclusiveandsafespacesfordeliberationandaction;ii)buildlocalorganisationsandtheirfederationstoenhancepeoples’capacityforvoiceandagency;iii)strengthencivilsocietyandgenderequity;iv)expandinformationdemocracyandcitizencontrolledmedia

http://www.villagehomesdavis.org

https://cooperativa.cat/en/


17

www.ruaf.org

(communityradioandvideofilmmaking,amongothers);v)promoteself-managementstructuresattheworkplaceanddemocracyinhouseholds;vi)learnfromthehistoryofdirectdemocracy;and,vii)nurtureactivecitizenship.Fourth,onlywith some material security and time can urban farmersandothercitizensbe‘empowered’tothinkaboutwhattypeofpoliciesandinstitutionstheywouldliketoseeandhowthey can develop them. This requires radical reforms ineconomicrelationssimilartothoselistedinBox1.

Last,newpoliticalstructuresareneededtocombinelocalismwithinterdependenceforcoordinatedactionacrosstowns,cities,peri-urbanlandscapesandlargerareas.Oneoptionis‘democratic confederalism’, which involves a network ofcitizen-based(asopposedtogovernment)bodiesorcouncilswithmembersordelegateselectedfrompopularface-to-facedemocraticassemblies.Theseconfederalbodiesorcouncilsenable the interlinking of a region-wide web of cityneighbourhoods, villages, and municipalities into aconfederationthroughwhichcitizenscangovernthemselves.

Conclusion: toward a new modernity?Agrowingnumberofyouthinsocialmovementsclaimthatagroecology and food sovereignty can help invent a newmodernity by regenerating autonomous food systems inrural and urban spaces.This vision of modernity looks tootherdefinitionsof‘thegoodlife’-includingBuenVivirorSumakKausai inLatinAmerica,De-growthinEurope,andEcologicalSwarajinIndia.Byencouragingashiftfromlinearto circular systems, agroecological pathways to urbangardeningandfarmingnotonlyhelpreducethecarbonandecologicalfootprintsofcitiesandproducenutritiousfood.Atransformativeurbanagroecologyforfoodsovereigntycanalso contribute toawideremancipatory process inwhichcitizensaffirmtheircollectiverighttodemocraticallycontroltheproductionanduseofurbanspaceandurbanprocesses.This‘righttothecity’involvesclaiming‘some kind of shaping power over the processes of urbanisation. Over the ways in which our cities are made and remade, and to do so in a fundamental and radical way’.

Michel PimbertProfessorofAgroecologyandFoodPoliticsandDirectoroftheCentreforAgroecology,WaterandResilienceatCoventryUniversity,[email protected]

ReferencesBookchin, M. (1995) From Urbanization to Cities: Toward a New Politics of Citizenship. Cassell, London. Dafermos, G. (2017) The Catalan Integral Cooperative: an organizati-onal study of a post capitalist cooperative. P2P Foundation and Robin Hood Coop. Harvey, D. (2012) Rebel Cities. From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution, Verso, London. Jones, A, M. P. Pimbert and J. Jiggins (2012) Virtuous Circles: Values, Systems, Sustainability. IIED and IUCN CEESP, London. Latouche, S. (2011) Vers une société d’abondance frugale : Contresens et controverses sur la décroissance, Paris, Fayard - Mille et une nuits.Nyéléni (2007) Declaration of Nyéléni. Forum for Food Sovereignty. http://nyeleni.org/spip.php?article290. Accessed online 23 December 2015.Pimbert, M.P. (2008) Towards Food Sovereignty: Reclaiming Autonomous Food Systems. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.

A transformative urban agroecology calls for alternative economic practices •There-localisationofpluraleconomiesthatcombineboth

marketorientedactivitieswithnon-monetaryformsofeconomic exchange based on barter, reciprocity, giftrelations,andsolidarity;

•Aguaranteedandunconditionalminimumincomeforall;

•Asignificantdropintimespentinwage-workandafairersharingofjobsandfreetimebetweenmenandwomen;

•Ataxonfinancialspeculations,tofundtheregenerationoflocaleconomiesandecologies;

•Cooperative,communal,andcollectivetenureoverland,water,seeds,knowledgeandothermeansoflivelihood;

•Economic indicators that reflect and reinforce newdefinitionsofwell-beingsuchasconvivialityandfrugalabundance.

Photo by Maria Caterina Feole ©


http://nyeleni.org/spip.php?article290

18


In light of climate change, failures in industrial agriculture, increased energy costs and demographic pressure, and as multinational corporations increase their control of the food system, a significant rise in food prices, if not food shortages can be expected. This situation is compounded by the fact that by 2030, 60% of the world’s urban population will live in cities, including 56% of the world’s poor and 20% of the undernourished. Today, for a city with 10 million people or more, over 6,000 tonnes of food has to be imported every day, traveling an average of 1,000 miles. Given these scenarios, urban agriculture (UA) is becoming a major sustainable alternative for food security on an urbanised planet. Urban production of fresh fruits, vegetables, and some animal products, near consumers, improves local food security, especially in underserved communities. By improving access to fresh, nutritious food, UA can help in combating childhood obesity, diabetes, and poor nutrition that are prevalent in many urban communities. This article looks at this world-wide issue, providing findings from crop research and illustrations taken mainly from North America.

Inresponsetofoodinsecurity,UAhasspreadrapidly.From1950-2005 UA increased in developing countries by 3.6%annually.IntheUnitedStates,UAhasexpandedby>30%inthepast30years.OnereasonforthisisthefactthatUAcanbeveryproductive,providinganestimated15–20%ofglobalfood.However,animportantquestionremains,whatlevelof

foodself-sufficiencycancitiesobtainthroughUA?Asurveywith the goal of providing 300g /day per capita of freshvegetables,foundthat51countrieshaveinsufficienturbanarea to meet the recommended nutritional target. Inaddition,UAwouldrequire30%ofthetotalurbanareatomeet the global demand for vegetables. More optimisticestimateshavecalculatedthat,forexample,Cleveland,Ohio,with itspopulationof 400,000,has thepotential tomeet100%ofurbandwellersfreshvegetableneeds,50%ofpoultryand eggs, and 100% of consumed honey.These estimatessuggestthatself-sufficiencycouldbeachieved,dependingonhowUAisdesignedandmanaged(i.e.croparrangements,productionpracticesused,sizeofplots).Urbanfarmersdonotalwaysoptimisecropplantingdensityordiversity,thusmodifications of cultural practices to enhance yields arenecessary. Agroecology can help realise the productivepotentialofUAbyprovidingkeyprinciplesforthedesignofdiversified,productive,andresilienturbanfarms.

Agroecological principlesAgroecologyuseswell-establishedecologicalprinciplesforthe design and management of diversified urban farmswhere external inputs are replaced by natural processessuch as increasing soil fertility and enhancing biologicalpestcontrol.Agroecologicalprinciples(Table1)areappliedbywayofvariouspractices.Theseleadtooptimalrecyclingofnutrientsandorganicmatterturnover,closedenergyflows,water and soil conservation and balanced populations ofpests to their natural enemies, all key processes inmaintainingUAproductivity.

Theintegrityofanurbanfarmreliesonsynergiesbetweenplantdiversityandasoilrichinorganicmatterandsoilbiota.Soils with high organic matter and active soil biologicalactivityexhibitgoodsoilfertilityandbeneficialorganismsthat prevent pathogen infection and pest incidence.Integrationofsoil,water,andpestmanagementpracticesconstitutearobustpathwayforoptimisingsoilquality,planthealth,andcropproduction.

Miguel A AltieriClara I. Nicholls

Paul RogéJoshua Arnold

Urban Agroecology: Principles and potential

A large scale experiment assessing the productivity of various intercrops in Berkeley. Photo by Miguel Altieri

191919


19

Crop diversificationAkeyagroecologicalprincipleisthediversificationofurbanfarms, which combines crops in temporal (rotations) andspatial arrangements (intercropping); at times combinedwithfruittreesandsmallanimals.

IntercroppingIntercroppinginvolvesmixturesofannualcropsinthesameplot of land at the same time, resulting in increased cropdiversity which improves soil organic matter (SOM), soilcover,waterretentioncapacityandmicroclimaticconditionsfavouringproduction.Cropdiversityalsoenhancesresilienceto climatic variability and favours arthropods andmicroorganismsinvolvedinimprovednutrientcycling,soilfertility,andpestregulation.Synergisticcropcombinationsincludetallandshortplants,plants that use resources at different times, shallow- anddeep-rootedplantsthatexploitdifferentsoilhorizonssuchaslegumeswithcereals,tomatoesandbasilorbeans,lettuceormesclunsbetweenrowsofleekorgarlic,arugulaunderkale. Good crop mixtures lead to increased productivitypartly due to the process of facilitation, when one cropmodifiestheenvironmentinawaythatbenefitsasecondcrop,forexample,byloweringthepopulationofapest,orbyreleasingnutrientsthatcanbetakenupbythesecondcrop.Acombinationof twocontrastingspecies leadstogreateroverallproductivitybecausethemixturecanuseresources(nutrients, water, sunlight) more efficiently than separatemonocultures.The overyielding of intercrops is measuredusingtheLandEquivalentRatio.Whenthevalueishigherthan1,polyculturesoveryield(i.e.aLERof1.5itmeansthatamonoculture requires 50% more land to obtain the sameyieldofthepolyculture).InourexperimentsatBerkeley,wehaveobtainedLERvalues>1.3incombinationsoflettuceandmizuna,tomatoesandbeans,broccoliandfavabeans,andkaleandarugula.

Crop rotationsCrop rotation is the practice of growing a sequence ofdifferentgroupsofcropspecies(legumes,rootcrops,fruitcrops,andleafcrops)inthesameareaformanyseasons.Bydividingthegardenin4plots(eachplantedtoeachgroupofcrops),everysuccessiveyeareachgroupmovestothenextplot clockwise. Basic rules include alternating betweenlegumesandnon-legumes,neverplantingcropsofthesamefamily consecutively, and alternating crops of deep andshallow roots. Legumes increase available nitrogen in thesoil,evenaftertheyareharvested,forfuturecrops.Includinglegumes in crop rotations reduces the need for externalnitrogeninputs.Rotatingplantfamiliesreducessoil-bornediseaseslikeverticilliumwiltandsoil-dwellinginsects.

Agroecological soil managementAgroecology promotes a series of soil-health-improvingmanagement practices such as complex crop rotations,intercropping,minimumtillage,covercroppinganduseofavarietyoforganicamendments.Thesemanagementpractices,increaseinputsofSOM,decreaselossesofcarbon,maintainsoil coverage, decrease soil disturbance and encouragebeneficialorganisms.Improvedsoilpropertiesresultingfromsuch practices have added benefits such as more availablewater, less compaction, enhanced nutrient availability, andthe production of growth-promoting substances, whichpromotegrowthofhealthyandproductiveplants.

Mostcropsgrownoncompost-amendedsoilshavepositiveyieldresponse.Inourstudies,wehavefoundthataverageyield (weight/plant) of tomatoes amended with oneapplicationof12t/ha(4.8tonnes/acre)compostwas23and38% greater than plots amended with 6 t/ha (2.5 tonnes/acre) and un-amended controls. Moreover, organic soilsexhibithighpopulationsofantagoniststhatsuppressmanysoil-bornediseases.

A main challenge for urban farmers is to access animalmanureasasourceofNitrogenasshortageofavailableNmay greatly reduce crop yields. Many cities do not allowanimal-raising, which further limits N availability. As analternative,manyfarmersgrowgreenmanuressuchasfavabeans,vetchandpeas,oramixture(attimesadding20%ryeorbarley)infallandwinter.Thisconstitutesanimportantstrategy to increase N supply for crops. In California avigorous green manure growing for four to six monthsbeforeincorporationtypicallyaddsbetween112and224kgN/ha(100and200lb/acre)Ntothesoilforthesucceedingcrop.YieldsofmostvegetablecropsincreasewithincreasingratesofN.CarbontoNratioofincorporatedmaterialsshouldbe equal to or less than 20:1 to assure net short-termmineralisationandavoidN“hunger”.

Manyurbansoilshavebeenimpactedbyusesthatmayleavealegacyofcontamination.SurveysinUScitieshavefoundsoil lead concentrations above 400 mg/kg in many urbangardens. On-farm generated organic amendments likeanimal manure, compost and green manures have someutility for low-level remediation due to dilution andstabilisationofpotentialcontaminants.

Table 1. Agroecological principles for the design of biodiverse and productive urban farms

1. Enhancetherecyclingofbiomass,optimisingorganicmatterdecompositionandnutrientcycling

2. Enhance functional biodiversity – natural enemies,antagonists, soil biota, etc., by creating appropriatehabitats.

3. Provide themost favourablesoilconditions forplantgrowth,bymanagingorganicmatterandbyenhancingsoilbiologicalactivity

4.Minimiselossesofenergy,water,nutrientsandgeneticresourcesviaconservationofsoilandwaterresourcesandagrobiodiversity

5. Diversifyspeciesandgeneticresourcesatthefieldandlandscapelevel

6.Enhance beneficial biological interactions amongagrobiodiversitycomponentspromotingkeyecologicalprocesses

20


Biological pest regulationTherearenaturalenemiesofpestsonurbanfarmsandtheyconstituteaformofbiocontrolbyregulatingpestpopulations.Theseenemiesincludepredators,parasitoids,andpathogens.Their effectiveness is typically constrained by low floralresourceavailabilityinandaroundurbanfarms,duetothehigher percentage of impervious surfaces in the urbanlandscape.Ourresearchshowsthatithelpstosowbordersorstrips of buckwheat, sweet alyssum, coriander, wild carrot,phacelia and fennel early in the season.The abundance ofsyrphidflies,ladybugsandmanyparasiticwaspsincreasesasthestripsprovidethemwithpollenandnectar.

Theliteraturesuggeststhatdiversificationinurbanfarmsachieves positive outcomes, including natural enemyenhancement,reductionofpestabundance,andreductionof crop damage. Many studies conducted on cabbage,broccoli and brussel sprouts have reported three results:aphidsandfleabeetlesaremorelikelytolocateandremainonhostplantsoccurringinmonoculturesthanincolecropsassociated with other plant species; pests immigrate intopolyculture systems at significantly lower rates than intomonoculturesystems;and,pestsemigratefrompolyculturesat significantly higher rates than from monocultures.Moreover, generalist natural enemies tend to be moreabundantbecausetheycanutiliseagreatervarietyofhostsavailableindiversegardensystems,andtheiractionusuallyresultsinlowerherbivorepopulationdensities.

Mixedcropsystemscanalsodecreasepathogenincidencebyslowing down the rate of disease development and bymodifying environmental conditions so that they are lessfavourable to the spread of certain pathogens. Moreover,manyintercropsareoftensuperiortomonocropsinweedsuppression, as intercrop combinations can exploit moreresources than sole crops. This suppresses the growth ofweedsmoreeffectivelythroughgreaterpre-emptiveuseofresources.

Water conservation and use efficiencyFarmers need water to irrigate their crops and providedrinkingwatertotheiranimalsorfish.Intheeventofwatershortages or decreasing quality of the available watersources, urban producers can access sources such aswastewater, greywater, or harvested rainwater, and applysuch water via irrigation more efficiently than can ruralproducers.Inareasofwaterscarcity,productivityshouldbemeasuredperunitofwater(weightorvolume),withthegoalofirrigationsystemsreachingefficiencyvalues>60%.In rainfed regions improvements of rainwater capture,selection of drought tolerant varieties, alternative tillagesystems,andmulchingarecriticaltosecuregoodharvests.AdditionoforganicamendmentstothesoilisvitalasmanystudiesshowthatSOMenhanceswaterretention.Dependingonthesoiltype,itisestimatedthatforevery1%increaseinSOM,thesoilstores1.5lofwaterpersquaremeter.Organicallyrich soils usually contain arbuscular mycorrhizal (VAM)fungi,whichareofparticularsignificanceunderwaterstressconditions, as VAM colonisation increases water useefficiency.

ConclusionsExamples from productive urban farms around the worldsuggest that self-sufficiency in terms of vegetables couldpotentiallybeachievedatthelevelofacommunityorcity.Well-designed urban farms can be up to 15 times moreproductivethanruralholdings.InCuba,anareaofjustonesquaremetercanprovide20kgoffoodayear(200tomatoes(30kg)peryear,36headsoflettuceevery60days,10cabbagesevery 90 days and 100 onions every 120 days). But thisrequires the application of agroecological principles toguidetheintensivecultivationofadiversityofvegetables,rootsandtubers,andherbsinrelativelysmallspaces.Italsorequiresthatcitizenshaveaccesstosourcesofgreenbiomass and/or manure as nutrient sources. Some citiesprovide weekly residential collection for plant debris andfoodscraps.In2010,thecityofBerkeley,Californiacollected13,650tonnesofresidentialfoodandgreenwasteand6,500tonnes of food scraps from commercial customers. Thismaterial is processed by a private composting company,whichattheendofeachmonthfromFebruarytoOctobermakes freely available 80-120 cubic yards of compost toresidents.Agroecologicaldesignsfeaturewell-plannedcropdiversity,complementedbyorganicsoilmanagement.Togetherthesecomprise an effective agroecological strategy to improvenutrientcyclingandsoilfertility.Theyalsolimitnutrientandwater losses, reduce impacts of pests, diseases and weedsand enhance overall productivity and resilience of thecroppingsystem.Butdiversifyingurbanfarmsper sedoesnot necessarily mean that they are being managedagroecologically, unless the collection of crops choseninteract biologically. Many urban farms are diversified inresponsetofoodsecurityormarketdemands.Suchfarmsdonotreachfullpotentialasthecropsdonotinteractwitheachothersynergistically,necessitatingexternalconventionalororganic inputs of fertilisers or pesticides. The key is forresearchersandpractitionerstofindtherightcombinationsofcropsthatcomplementeachothertoachieveoveryielding.

Miguel A Altieri, Clara I. Nicholls, Paul Rogé and Joshua ArnoldUniversityofCalifornia,[email protected]

ReferencesAltieri M.A. 1995 Agroecology: the science of sustainable agriculture. Westview Press, Boulder.Altieri, M.A. and Nicholls C.I. 2004 Biodiversity and pest manage-ment in agroecosystems. The Harworth Press, Binghamton, New YorkMagdoff, F. and Weil, R.R. 2004 (editors.) Soil organic matter in sustainable agriculture. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.Martellozzo, F et al. 2014 Urban Agriculture: A Global Analysis of the Space Constraint to Meet Urban Vegetable Demand.” Environmental Research Letters 9 : 64025. Philpott, S. M. and Bichier, P. 2017. “Local and Landscape Drivers of Predation Services in Urban Gardens.” Ecological Applications 27: 966-976.



21

www.ruaf.org

Public land is one of the primary battlegrounds on which ideology will contest power in the 21st century. As city regions face continued pressures to expand, control and disposition of public land will increasingly become a focal point of governance. At the crossroads of financialisation, privatisation, and devolution, the stewardship of public land will pit the preservation of landscape, ecologically sensitive zones, and agricultural land, against the forces of urban expansion, development, and speculation.

Incommunitieswithsignificantpopulationsoflow-incomeandmarginalisedfamilies,theabilitytoaccesspubliclandfor food production can not only provide a much-neededsupplemental source of household food, it could alsoincubatenewskillsinknowledgesharingandcollaborativedecision making.This is an opportunity for a new, urban,agroecologytoinitiateadialoguebetweendifferenttypesofknowledge, including traditional knowledge, indigenousknowledge, farmers’ knowledge, migrant knowledge, andscientificknowledge.Morethanthis,agroecologyembracesacommitmenttopoliticalandsocialchange,toaddresstheneedsofthecommunity.

Forurbanagroecologists,theseneedscentreoncommunityfoodsecurity,theenhancementofecologicaldiversity,andthe scarcity of land for food production. Proximity todistinctivelyurbanissuesandscarcitieselevatesthesocialdimensionandresponsibilitiesofagroecology.Proximitytomarginalised urban communities affords unique

opportunities to address these issues and scarcitiescollectively through dialogue and actions rooted in foodjusticeandfoodsovereigntyshapedbyurbanexperiencesand realities. The employment of urban agroecologicalprinciplesonpubliclandwillthereforebeanimportanttoolforsystems transformation.Thisarticle looksat this issuefrom Canada, where low income and new migrantpopulationsseekfoodresources.

The ContextTheJustFoodFarmissituatedon150acresintheheartofOttawa, and borders Green’s Creek natural area, anecologically-sensitivecorridorprovidinghabitatforwildlifeandvaluablegreenspacefornearbyresidents.JustFoodisinthe thirdyearofa25-year leasewith theNationalCapitalCommission(NCC),acrowncorporationthatmanagesover200km2ofland–muchofitfarmland–expropriatedover50yearsagotocreateaGreenbeltaroundthecity.Thefarmwasusedforover30yearsastheNCC’snursery,andinthepasttwodecadeshasdevelopedalegacyofuntendedtreecoveracrosshalfofthesite.

In2017theJustFoodFarmishosting12newfarmertrainees,10experienced farmers, and education and demonstrationprojectsofferingapiary,permaculture,foragingandfoodforestworkshops,aswellasenvironmentalprogramsforyouth.Thefarm is a long-term host of the agrarian Karen refugeecommunity farm, and Operation Come Home’s FarmWorksproject,withcommunity-supportedagriculturebasketsfor30households.ThisyeartheJustFoodFarmhasopenedaSyrianRefugeegarden.Theplant-a-row,donate-a-rowprogramhasallproducegoingtoalocalfoodcupboard.Autumnwillalsobringanewsugar-maplegrove,aswellas thousandsof treesandplantsinthenewCommunityFoodForest.

Phil Mount

Just Food Farm: Redefining value using urban agroecology on public land

All images courtesy of Just Food


22

www.ruaf.org


23

www.ruaf.org

While the Start-up Farm program focuses on small-scaleurbanagricultureproductionoforganicvegetables,thereisspacefornewprojectswhichprioritisetheharmonisationofagriculturewithintheexistinglandscape,usingthoughtful,low-input,conservation-agriculturalproductionsystemsthatdemonstrate scale-appropriate agroecological vegetableproduction practices. These include rainwater irrigationsystems,livingmulch,passivesolargreenhouses,mixed-stockcompost production, composite cross-population breeding,andmuchmore.

Atthesametime,inordertotrulyfosterurbanagroecology,these projects aim to integrate food justice for thecommunity. Participation in and co-development ofcommunityfarmprojectsisinvited,andspacesareprovidedforthecommunitytolearn,growandflourish.Thisinvolvesre-imaginingthecommonsforthe21stcentury,inamajorurbancentre.Canadaisasocietythatbothinculcatesandminimisesthegulfbetweenprosperityandhardship.Herethe proper use of the commons must focus on thestewardshipofcollectiveresourcesforthebenefitofthosemarginalisedanddisadvantagedbyourcollectivepursuits.

By demanding of the farmers and practitionersscale-appropriate practices that enhance the soil andbiodiversity of the site, while integrating food productionseamlesslyintoexistingnaturalspaces,urbanagroecologychallengesconventionalagroeconomicrationales.Acceptedagronomicpracticesstriptheregionofbush-lots,tree-linesandhedgerows.Newsocialspacesonpublicland–createdspecifically to prioritise sharing and caring – challengeacceptedwisdomthatincreasinglydemandstheprimacyofeconomicvalueinpublicprojectsandspaces.

Themarketexchangerateofthefoodandservicesproduceddoesnotbegin tocapture thevalueproducedon the JustFoodFarm.Therearemanymorebenefitsthatarehardtoquantify arising from a community demonstration andeducation farm on ecologically sensitive public landbordered by strip malls and a residential area with thehighest concentration of Syrian refugees in the country.Social enterprise models challenge the prioritisation ofmarket return or profit in food justice programming.However, the discourse of social enterprise does little tode-commodify public spaces and conversations. Urbanagroecologycanstepintothisbreach,demanding‘common’public spaces that value nourishment of body, spirit andmindforall,equally,acrossthecommunity.

Phil [email protected]


24

www.ruaf.org

Protection and preservation of agricultural land around cities, in their peri-urban areas and rural hinterlands, becomes more and more important in an era of rapid urban growth and increasing climate change impacts. A large percentage of agricultural production can be found in peri-urban and rural areas within reach of cities, with a recent study indicating that approximately 60% of all irrigated crop land and 35% of all rain-fed cropland is within 20 kilometres of city boundaries.

Rapidurbanisationextendsintoperi-urbanandruralareaswhere food production has to compete with building orother land uses.This challenges traditional approaches tofood and nutrition security. It also challenges thinking onhowcitiesarefed.Urbanexpansiongoeshand-in-handwithanincreaseinthedemandfornaturalresources,includingland and water that provide vital food and ecosystemservices to cities. There are also increased challenges intermsofeconomicefficiency,landuseandlandrights.Largescale conversions of agriculture land to non-agriculturaluses may cause problems in cities and rural areas withregardstodrainagesystemsandfloodretention.Theycancausetemperatureincreases,environmentalpollutionandincreased vulnerability to disruptions in imported foodsupply,especiallyinareasaffectedbyclimatechange.

These reasons led the Gorakhpur Environmental ActionGroup (GEAG), as part of the Asian Cities Climate ChangeResilience Network (ACCCRN) and with financial support

fromtheRockefellerFoundation,toembarkin2012ontheproject“EnhancingclimateresilienceofGorakhpurcitybybuffering floods through climate resilient peri-urbanagriculture’.Theprojectaimedto:• Developmodelsofclimate-resilientintegratedagriculture-

horticulture-aquaculture-livestock systems in small,marginal landholdings in the peri-urban context,employingadiversityofwatersystems

• Enhance the income and food security of the poor andvulnerablepopulations

• Ensurethesustainabilityofperi-urbanagriculturallandsthroughdifferentregulatoryandincentivemechanisms

• Enhance the flood-buffering capacity of the city as itexpands,throughtheinstitutionalisationandreplicationofsustainablemanagementofagriculturalecosystems.

Ensuring farming livelihoods Itwasunderstoodthattheseaimscouldonlyberealisedbyensuring that agriculture remains the preferred land useoptionbybothfarmersanddecision-makers.Thehypothesiswasthatfarmerswouldcontinuefarmingandnotselltheirlandiftheycouldmakeagoodlivingoutofagriculture.

Project interventions supporting improvement ofagricultural production in peri-urban areas aroundGorakhpurcityconsistedoffourmajorcomponents:1. The project introduced a number of low-external-input,

sustainable agriculture (LEISA) and climate-resilientproduction practices through farm models, with theunderlying idea of “seeing is believing”. 30 farmers (12women) were involved. The practices build onagroecological principles in terms of sustainableproduction, decreasing dependence on external inputs,reducing vulnerability and promoting food security and

Shiraz WajihMarianne Meijboom

Marielle Dubbeling

Promoting Agroecology in Gorakhpur: Reduction in sale of agricultural land

Dissemination of climate information to farmers. Photo by GEAG


25

www.ruaf.org

Practices included:•compost:introducingseveraldifferentcompostingforms•trichoderma: introducing this fungi strain which

enhancesplantandrootgrowth•bio-pesticides: mostly made from locally-available

resourcestodeterpests•oilcakes:mostlyusinglocally-availablemustardoiland

neemasadditionalfertilisers•plantation:establishingtreeplantationsofteak,butalso

otherspeciessuchasguava•mixedfarming:growingmorecrops(mostlyavarietyof

vegetables) on the same piece of land during a singlegrowingseason

•seed production: producing seeds on-farm or buyingthem

•IPM:promotingthelowest-possibleuseofpesticidesandonly using chemical pesticides if bio-pesticides did nothavesufficienteffect

•kitchengardening:gardeningforhomeconsumption•loftfarming:farmingonaloftorroof•bagorthermocolfarming:plantingseedsinthermocolor

jutebags,andhangingthemonpolesabovewaterloggedorinundatedland

•low tunnel polyhouse: raising early nurseries andvegetablesintunnelgreenhouses

•permanentraisedbeds:raisingbeds,sothattheyremainabovewaterloggedsoilduringthemonsoonseason

•relaycropping:startingasecondcropamidthefirstcropbeforeithasbeenharvested.

Theprojecthashadatangibleanddemonstratedimpactondirect beneficiaries and “outreach” farmers. The averageagriculturalincomeoffarmershasmorethandoubledduetouptakeofagroecologicalpractices,reducedinputcosts,cropdiversification,cropintensification,expansionofagriculturallandundercultivation,andreducedcroplossduetonaturalhazards such as floods. Income also increased because ofbettermarketlinkagesandbetterpricesforproducts.

Evaluation data available estimate that 50-80% of thefarmersintheinterventionvillagesadoptedoneormoreoftheabovepractices,whiletheadoptionrateinneighbouringvillageswasestimatedat10-30%.

Theproject’sactivitieshavealsoresultedingreaterresilienceoffarmersbasedon:• increasedresourcefulness(duetobetteraccesstoneeded

equipment through the agro-service centres), resources(suchascapacitybuildingandfinances),andservices(suchasgovernmentprogrammes)

• increased access to information due to its provision,discussion, and dissemination through farmer clubs,farmerfieldschools,andLSKMs,andGEAG’sprovisionofweatherandagro-servicesdatatohelpthemmakemoreinformeddecisions

• increasedresponsiveness,duetotheirincreasedabilitiestorespondandadapttotheirsituations.

Bydemonstratingimprovedpracticesandincreasedincome,theprojecthasrenewedpeople’sinterestinfarmingintheperi-urbanareas.Asaresult,accordingtoaprojectsamplestudy,thesaleofagriculturallanddecreasedsubstantiallyintheeightprojectinterventionvillagesAccordingtothestudy,1.83acresoflandweresoldinthenorthernclusterofthecityin2010,whilethiswasreducedto0.66acresoflandin2015.Inthesouthernclusterthedecreasewasevenmoreapparent:from 6.9 acres in 2010 to 0.2 acres in 2015 (according to asampleof166farmersinthenorthernclusterand108farmersinthesouthernclusterinthe8projectvillages).Thisisdespitemanybuildersstillcomingtoinquireifthereislandforsaleandlandpriceshavinggoneupby10timesoverthelastyears.

Reducing flood risksThe project’s contribution to its overall goal of bufferingfloods in Gorakhpur has not been clearly established.Theprojectimplementationwasonlyineightvillagesofthe170intheperi-urbanagriculturalarea–ascaletoosmalltohavea tangible impact on buffering floods. Moreover, theproduction interventions and typology promoted by theproject were oriented toward reducing climate changeimpactsonagriculturalproductionandincome.Theywerenot oriented toward reducing climate change impacts onthecitythroughpreservationandimprovedmanagementofagriculturallandareas.

The project recognised that implementing peri-urbanagriculturetobufferfloodsisonlypartofthesolution.Otherparts of the solution, such as attention to the city’s poordrainageandintroductionofholisticplanning,wouldcallforcontrollingcityexpansionanddevelopment,establishing

incomeforbothmenandwomenfarmers.2.FormationoflocalinstitutionssuchastheFarmers’Clubs,

Agro-ServiceCentres,FarmerFieldSchooland theLaghuSeemantKrishakMorcha(LSKM)thatcanbeconsideredasfarmerunionsandfallundertheumbrellaofthenationalLSKM

3.Provision of the weather forecasts and agro-servicesprovidedbySMS

4.Establishment of direct linkages from farmers togovernment line departments and GEAG agronomicexperts.

Complementary project interventions such as research,documentation and advocacy furthermore enhanced theunderstanding of policy- and decision-makers about theimportanceofpreservingperi-urbanagriculturallands.

Incaseoffloods,practicessuchasbagandloftfarminghelpfarmerstogrowsaplingsduringthefloodseason.Thesecanbeplantedintothefieldsoncethewaterrecedes.Incaseofwater shortage, farmers are now able to rent the neededequipment from the agro-service centres to irrigate theirfieldswhenneeded.


26

www.ruaf.org

proper drainage systems, and ensuring conservation andproper management of open spaces, water bodies, andagriculturallandsinperi-urbanareasandbeyond.

Monitoring sale or preservation of agricultural landHabitatIIIandtheNewUrbanAgenda(NUA)recognisethaturbanisation has increasingly linked cities with theirperi-urban and rural hinterland, spatially as well asfunctionally.Giventhelargescaleofurbanisationandthetransformationofruralspace,itisarguedthatsustainableurbanisation must promote integrated territorialdevelopment.Balancedurban-rurallinkagesareneededaspartofacommonsystemforthebenefitoftheurbanandruralpopulationalike.

Such balanced urban-rural linkages have to build onprotection and preservation of agricultural lands in cityregions.SuchprotectionisalsokeytothebuildingofmoreresilientCityRegionFoodSystems.IntermsoftheSustainableDevelopmentgoals,theprojectaddressesthefollowingthree:• SDG2-Endhunger,achievefoodsecurityandimproved

nutritionandpromotesustainableagriculture)• SDG11-Makecitiesandhumansettlementsinclusive,safe,

resilientandsustainable–• SDG12-Ensuresustainableconsumptionandproduction

patterns

Specifically,theprojectaddressestarget11a:Supportpositiveeconomic, social and environmental links between urban,peri-urbanandruralareasbystrengtheningnationalandregionaldevelopmentplanning.UnderSDG12itaddressesTarget 12.2:By2030,achieve thesustainablemanagementandefficientuseofnaturalresources; target12.3:By2030,halvepercapitaglobalfoodwasteattheretailandconsumerlevelsandreducefoodlossesalongproductionandsupplychains, including post-harvest losses; target 12.7: Promotepublic procurement practices that are sustainable, inaccordancewithnationalpoliciesandpriorities.

Sustainable planning and management of peri-urbanagricultureareas isalsokeyto theimplementationof theNUA in three key ways. First –and as illustrated by theGorakhpur project- its benefits are multiple and stretchbeyondthefoodsystemtokeypolicyareasofconcern.Theseincludelocaleconomicdevelopment,spatialandeconomicplanning, and ecosystem protection. Second, thedevelopment of sustainable city-region food systems cangenerate positive political support for wider urban-rurallinkages through coalition building centred on food. Andthirdly, protection of peri-urban agriculture productionmerits attention in its own right given the importance ofaddressing more sustainable urban food systems andclimate-resilienturbangrowth.

Thepromotionofagroecologyinconnectiontoothersupportinterventionshasproventobethekeytoincreaseeconomicviability of peri-urban farming systems in Gorakhpur.Beyond the more traditional monitoring of impacts onfarmer livelihoods (food and nutrition security, income),

there are others. Monitoring the sale, or conversely,preservation,ofagriculturalland,isanimportantindicatortomonitornotjusteffectivenessoffarmingpractices,butalsoofmoresustainableurbangrowth.

Replication potentialThereisahugescopeforreplicationoftheprojectinothervillagesintheperi-urbanareasofGorakhpur.Thisproject’sscopeforreplication,atcityanddistrict levelandbeyond,would require continued advocacy work to promoteagroecological production as a peri-urban land usemanagementstrategy.Inclusionofsuchlanduseindisasterrisk reduction and management plans would also beparamount.

Shiraz WajihGorakhpurEnvironmentalActionGroup(GEAG),UttarPradesh,[email protected]

Marianne [email protected]

Marielle [email protected]

Bag farming. Photo by GEAG





27

www.ruaf.org

This article reports an on-going research initiative involving Sa’owac village, an urban indigenous community in Taiwan. It concerns the Amis traditional agricultural practices on a peri-urban riverbank settlement as well as addressing political issues such as citizen participation, right to the city, food justice and food sovereignty. Our work adopts a collaborative, participatory and inclusive research approach involving universities, community colleges, NGOs and grassroots social movement organisations in Taiwan.

Sa’owac Village in Taiwan 50yearsago,duetorapidurbanisationandlossoflandandlivelihoods,groupsoftheAmispeople,thebiggestindigenoustribeinnumberinTaiwan,lefttheirruraleastcoasthomelandandmovedtocities,eithervoluntarilyorundercoercion,fortemporaryandlow-paidjobs.Gradually,theyrealisedthatcitylifewastoodifficultbuttherewasnolandtoreturnto.AsmallgroupfollowedtheDahanriverupstream,totheedgeofthemetropolitanTaoyuanCounty(changedtoTaoyuanCitysince2014).HereinnorthTaiwantheyestablishedtheirsettlementontheriverbank.Theybuiltcottagesandfarmhousesusingtraditionaltechniquesandrecycledmaterialscollectedfromthe urban construction sites. They explored the localenvironmenttogatherwildfoods,andtransformedunusedland into vegetable gardens. They also established ricefarming,fishingandraisedlivestocktofeedtheirfamilies.

However, these newly built ‘homes’ were not safe. In late2008,inresponsetolandpoliticsanddevelopmentinterests,the Taoyuan metropolitan government notified the Amisindigenousresidentsthat,asillegalresidents,theirshelterswouldbedismantledandtheirfieldspavedtocreateanewriversidebicycleroutetoboosteco-tourism.TheAmis,whohadsettledtherewithmassivehardshipandformedadeepattachment to the territory, launched a series of protests.Ratherthanrejectingtheplanofthisnewbicycleroutewithitsownsocialandeconomicmerits,theydemandedajustcompromiseaccommodatingmiddleclasseco-tourismandthelivelihoodofmarginalisedpeoples.

The violent demolition of their homes by the localgovernment during the protests strengthened their

Agroecology as a Driver for the Development of a New Sustainable Urban Settlement in Taiwan Marina Chang

determinationtofightfortheirbasichumanrightstostayandlive.TheypubliclyannouncedtheirtribalnameinAmislanguage, Sa’owac Niyaro’ meaning ‘Riverbank Village’.Throughintensivenetworkingandstrategicallianceswithmany organisations and individuals, including academics,grassroots activists, NGOs, media reporters, other Amisgroups and other indigenous tribes located elsewhere,Sa’owacvillagerseventuallyachievedvictory.Theyreclaimedtheirland,housing,andfarmingrights.

Learning from Sa’owac Village While indigenous foodandfarmingknowledgehasmadegreat contributions to rural agroecology, the Sa’owac casestudy demonstrates its relevance in an urban/peri-urbansettinginthreeways.

1. Sa’owacvillagersretainrichindigenousknowledgeofwildfoodmapping,harvesting,preparation,cookingandotherformsofprocessing.Whilemanyoftheseplantsarewidelyregarded as weeds in non-indigenous eyes, they arecommontreasuresfromnaturetoindigenouspeople.ThisknowledgenotonlymeetsalargepartofSa’owacvillagers’daily nutritional needs, but also plays a central role inmaintainingculturalidentity.Italsosupportsexplorationofthelocalenvironmentaroundthesettlementandactsas a guide to constructing of an agroecological farmingsystem.

2.Despiteitsintimatescale,Sa’owacvillagepresentsavividexample of sustainable urban metabolism – an organiccircular economy: where indigenous practices attunednatural cycles; and ‘waste’ is converted into usefulresources.Thisprocessservestobothhealalienationandclose the waste-energy-water-food loops. Such amicrocosm of traditional agriculture offers a promisingmodel for other areas, promoting biodiversity andsustainableyear-roundyields.

3.Sa’owacvillagedemonstratesthepotentialofindigenousknowledgetotransformtheperi-urbanzone,providingaframework for restoring the livelihood of small-scaleurban farmers using socially oriented schemes such ascommunal and solidarity economies. It also mediates ade-urbanisation phenomenon where people migrate tothe countryside and experiment with new forms ofsmallholderfarmingpractice.

Through long-term exploration and cultivation of theenvironment, Sa’owac villagers transformed the natural


28

www.ruaf.org

Marina ChangAgroecology,WaterandResilience,[email protected]

ReferencesLu J.M. (盧建銘) 2015. Eco-enhancing Livelihood Practices in Sa’owac NIyaro’ (採集與微型生態菜園的沃土生計).台灣社會研究季刊 98(3): 259-287.McClintock N. 2010. Why Farm the City? Theorizing Urban Agriculture through a Lens of Metabolic Rift. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society 3(2): 191-207.Simon D. 2008. Urban Environments: Issues on the Peri-Urban Fringe. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 33: 167-185. Tornaghi C. (2017) “Urban Agriculture in the food-disabling city: (Re) defining urban food justice, reimagining a politics of empowerment” in Antipode, 49 (3), pp. 781-801, originally published online 8th November 2016.Turner et al. 2011. Edible and Tended Wild Plants, Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Agroecology. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 30:198-225.

During the protest period, boards with newspaper clips, “Where is justice? Why demolish the Amis tribe only for a new bicycle route?” were erected just outside their settlement. They are shown being demolished by the local government.

A farmhouse was built by using traditional techniques and recycled materials collected from the nearby urban construction sites.

In the foreground, diverse vegetables and fruits, including banana, papaya, cassava, cabbage, aubergine, Chinese spinach, asparagus, and water bamboo shoots are grown in this small vegetable garden. In the middle, there are trellises growing legume plants such as beans, peas and corn, which can help nitrogen fixation. Applying an intercropping farming technique can largely reduce the damage of pests, which does not require any pesticide and chemical fertiliser. In the far distance at the back, one can see modern urban buildings, which are a one-hour drive from this farm site.

A group of community college students on a field visit to Sa’owac village. In the lower area of the farmland ditches were dug to introduce streams of the river. Water spinach grows around these ditches, both in and by the water. The source of water also forms a natural fishing pond. One villager explained to students this integrated fish-plant symbiotic model. While initially most students thought these ditches were covered by weeds, they soon realised that they were edible plants.

riverbankintoathrivingecosystem,whichprovidesfavourableecological conditions for highly productive, diverse andsustainableagroecosystems.Notmerelyorientedtocritiquingdominantsocietytrends,theyareredefiningthebasisofanalternative. Since the protests, the elderly Sa’owac villagershavestronglyadvocateddevelopmentofalong-lastingvisionfor self-reliance and self-determination that can beappreciatednotonlywithintheAmiscommunity,especiallybytheyoungerurbangeneration,butalsobywidersociety.

ConclusionWhile agroecology has made great contributions to ruraldevelopment, this paper considers its urban relevance.Weargue that the village’s identity is grounded, throughagroecologyasdriver,invillagedevelopmentandresponsetosocio-political adversity, utilising and perpetuatingindigenous food and farming knowledge and establishinglandrights.Wehopethispaperwillstimulatenewdebateandfuture research. In particular research is needed on thetransformative potential of agroecology and urbanindigenouscommunities, tohelpusrethink thewisdomofthepastindesigningfuturesolutionsforurbandevelopment.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anti.12291/full

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anti.12291/full

292929


29

La Boldina is a group dedicated to urban permaculture in Seville, Spain. Whilst the group’s practice is rooted in classical permaculture principles – promoting biodiversity, sustainable resource management and self-maintaining green spaces – they are also experimenting with new ways of learning and engaging with the city through agroecology.

LaBoldinaemergedfromHuertodelReyMoro,anoccupiedcommunitygardeninMacarena;oneofthefewgreenpublicspacesinSeville’sCasco Antiguo(OldTown).Thereexistsomedifferences of opinion regarding the management anddevelopment of the site. Some local residents emphasiseorganicfoodproductionandgardening.Othersaredrivenbyamoreholisticvisionformanagingthelandthatdrawsonbothpermacultureand,implicitly,agroecologicalprinciples.

In response, at the start of 2017, a group of permaculturegardenersbegantolookfornewgrowingspaces.LaBoldinanowcultivatessitesacrossthecityincludingschoolgardens,occupiedspaces,allotmentsmanagedbytheCityHall,andasmallfarminHinojos,40kmoutsideofSeville.

Workingwithratherthanagainstnatureleadsinevitablytothedevelopmentofdiverseanddistinctivegrowingspaces.These spaces are characterised by companion planting,waterrecycling,andtheprotectionofthelong-termvitalityofthesoil.LaBoldinafocusesoncultivatingspacesinawaythatmaximisestheirlong-termresilience.Foodgrowingisasecondary activity. In addition to urban agriculture, their

activities include performance art and storytelling, publiclectures,andpublicpermaculturetrainingworkshops.

LaBoldina’scommitmenttopermacultureisreflectedbothin the spaces they cultivate and in the group itself. Thisincludeshowitoperatesandhowitengageswiththewidercity.Thegroupisconsciouslydiverseandnon-hierarchical.Itcomprises gardeners, architects, teachers and performingartists,amongstothers.Knowledgeofpermaculturevariessignificantly,fromthosethatareentirelynewtothepractice,tothosethathaveaccumulatedavastknowledgeovermanyyears.However,bycreatingaspaceforknowledgesharing,discussionandexperimentation,LaBoldinahasbecomeacreativeandadaptiveorganisation.Fromit,diverseprojectsemergeandtakeshapeorganically.

Christopher YapXavier Castroviejo

Learning from Nature: New forms of urban permaculture in Seville

Boldo, from which La Boldina takes its name, is central to the group’s permaculture practice. Photo by Christopher Yap

La Boldina’s perma-formance in barrio Macarena, Seville; using public performance to share their permaculture philosophy. Photo by Christopher Yap

30


For this group, permaculture is a philosophy that extendsbeyondmanaginggardens.LaBoldinausespermacultureasa lens for engaging with other urban processes. Apermaculture-inspiredcommunity,forexample,shouldbediverse, adaptive and self-managing. At the same timeagroecological ideas,suchasrecognisinginterconnectivityand cycles, are being repurposed as social and politicalprinciples for engaging with broader urban issues. Theseincludethespeculativehousingmarketandgentrificationofworking-classneighbourhoods.Asonememberexplains,permaculture principles are increasingly“reflected in theprivatelivesofthegroup”.Thisthinkingisreflexivewithintheir small community of 30-40 individuals, but it alsoshapestheirwiderengagementwithgroupsofresidentsinthe neighbourhood, and other self-organised networksacrossthecity.

To date, La Boldina has transformed several new growingspacesandgivennewlifetoexistingsites.Howeveranumberofchallengesremain.Thegroup,thoughgrowing,isstillasmallexceptioninacityofalmost700,000people.Inordertocultivatewiderchange,LaBoldinawillneednewalliestosharetheirvisionforagreener,community-managedurbanenvironment. Moreover, La Boldina’s commitment toparticipatoryprocessesandtheorganicemergenceofnewinitiatives has led to a conscious lack of clear strategicdirectionandcleargroupidentity.

Yetthesechallengesarenotnecessarilycritical.Whilstthegroup’sidentityisstillemerging,thereisastrong,collectivesenseofidentificationwiththegroup.Ratherthantryingtoinfluence institutional political processes, La Boldina iscollectivelydevelopinganurbanpermaculturephilosophythatprofoundlyaffectshowtheyandothercitizensmightunderstandandtransformthecity,materiallyandsocially.Onememberofthegroupdescribedtheprocessas“throwingseeds”,theaimbeingnottogrowasoneorganisation,buttoproliferate,multiplyandconnect.

In La Boldina, we can see an emergent form of urbanpermaculture; one that reconciles classical permacultureprinciples with the local social, cultural and ecologicalcontexts.Inlearningfromnature,thegroupisseekingnewways make their urban environment more sustainable,moreinterconnected,andmorecollective.Itispreciselythisformoforganisationalinnovationthatwillbetterenableusto articulate and share the multidimensional benefits ofurban agriculture, and better integrate permaculture andagroecologicalprinciplesintoEuropeancities.

Christopher YapXavier [email protected]

Huerto del Rey Moro, Seville. Photo by Christopher Yap



31

www.ruaf.org

What would be the distinctive features of urban agroecology that make it different from urban agriculture? What does agroecology look like in an urban environment? Taking urban gardens in the city of Rome, Italy as an example, this article describes some of the key aspects of the combination between agroecology and urbanity. The rationale for urban agroecology goes well beyond the need for more green spaces and fresh food; this article highlights the important social and political aspects that differentiate urban agroecology from other types of urban agriculture.

The concept of“agroecology” does not have a single andwidely accepted definition. It is nevertheless historicallyrootedinsocialmovementsdefendingsmall-scalefarmer’srights to produce food following ecological processes andbasedonfarmer’sknowledgeandinnovations.ThisiswhatisclaimedintheDeclarationoftheInternationalForumforAgroecology (or Nyéléni Declaration).The Declaration wasmade by the International Planning Committee for FoodSovereignty,whichrepresentsmorethan6000small-scalefood producer organisations worldwide. Control over thefoodsystemisattheheartoftheissue.Thismeanscontrolover all aspects, ranging from land, water and seeds toend-products, production techniques and knowledge.Thisarticleillustrateshowagroecologyanditsinherentchallengeofpeople’scontroloverfoodandlandcanalsobeappliedinanurbancontext.

Gardening in RomeRomehasanunusuallylargeshareofgreenareas(67%oftheMunicipality)ofwhichagreatpartisunderprotection(67%oftheoverallunbuiltland).Italsohasamountofwastelands.The city of Rome and its surroundings are hosts to anincreasingnumberofurbanfarmsandvegetablegardens.Livinguptotheirreputation,Romansarelookingforfreshand quality products and are setting up diverse ways tobypass conventional food systems. Grassroots initiativessuchasgardensandfarms,aswellasdirectsaleson-farm,farmers’ markets and purchasing groups are thus rapidlyspreading.

Caroline Ledant Urban Agroecology in RomeAn horticulturist is resting and recovering from the bright sun. Photo by Maria Caterina Feole ©

Urban gardens Tre FontaneThe “Orti urbani Tre Fontane” gardens have beenlaunched by a group of residents setting up a formalorganisation. They submitted their project to themunicipality,whichrentedthemanabandonedplotforone year, renewable. For its members, the collectivedynamicandthecreationofaself-managedspaceareasimportantasfoodproductionitself.

Theareaisdividedintoindividualplotsandacollectivespacewithfruittrees,achildren’splayground,tablesandchairs and an apiary. The collaboration with a schoolmakes the educational garden very lively. In 2015 acampaign called “adopt a tree” was launched andpromotedoldvarietiesoftreesorthosethreatenedwithextinction.


32

www.ruaf.org

Arecenttrend,askedforbysocialorganisations,hasledthecityofRometotakearoleandsetrulesforurbangardening.In2013,severalorganisationslaunchedapetitionaskingforpublicrecognitionof“social and shared gardens”.InJuly2015,CityHallapprovedanewregulationonurbangardens,statingthatthepublicspacescanberentedforfree,onarenewablebasis,byorganisationshavinglegalpersonality.TheregulationalsoprovidedforthedevelopmentandmaintenanceofurbangardensinRome.Itstatesthatthegardensshouldbe100%organicandexclusivelygrownforself-consumption.Inotherwords,theproductscannotbesold,whiletherecreationalandeducationdimensionsarefostered.Thissupportiveprovisionofpubliclandisonekeystep.Nevertheless,todateitisstilltheonlyincentiveorsupportcomingfromeithertheMunicipalityofRomeortheLazioRegiontopromoteurbanorperi-urbanecologicalfarmsandgardens.

Despite weak public-sector involvement, many informalgroups and organisations restore and manage thesenumerous abandoned public spaces, creating collectivedynamicsandretakingcontroloftheirlivingenvironment.Growingone’sownfoodseemsinmanycasestobecloselylinkedtothedesiretocreatenewandself-managedspaces.Thisalsofostersnewformsofdemocracythroughcollectivecontrol over public spaces and food production. Although

involved gardeners usually do not claim to practiceagroecology, several initiatives show strong links withagroecologyasdescribedintheNyéléniDeclaration.Thiswillbediscussedinthelastsection.

Agroecology and urbanityTakingcontrolofspaceandfoodthroughgardeninginanurbancontextgivesaveryspecificshapetoagriculture.Theproximity to thecity and itshighconcentration ofpeopleprovides a wide range of potentialities for agroecologicalgardens. This section will highlight the features that canemerge from the combination between agroecology andurbanareas,basedonobservationsofdifferentexperiencesinRome.

Taking control of both food and space: The collectiveownershipofabandonedpublicspacesisfrequentinRome.Citizensorganisethemselvestomanageapieceoflandintheirenvironmentthatallowsthem,tosomeextent,torelylessonthemoreconventionalfoodsystems.Thecreationofaself-managedareaisasimportantasproducingfood.Thiswas explained by one of the founders of“Orti urbaniTreFontane”,accordingtowhomsuchinitiativesaredrivenbystrong desires both to avoid a more conventional way oflivingindividuallyandtoavoideating“foodfromnowhere”.

“New agriculture” farmTheperi-urbanfarmofAgricolturaNuovawascreatedin1977byagroupofyoungpeopleoccupyinglandthreatenedbyaconstructionproject.Savinganaturalareawas therationaleforthecommunitytodeveloptheproject,andtobuildanorganicandmultifunctionalfarm.Today the agroecological initiative has a pizzeria, anequestrian centre, a picnic area, an impressive vegetablegardenandadirectsalescounter.Thiseducationalfarm,withitsapiary,cattleandpoultrymanagedinsynergywiththevegetablegarden,enhancesbiodiversity(seealsoarticleinUrbanAgricultureMagazine29www.ruaf.org/short-food-chains-rome-context-experiences-policy-implications).

Nyéléni Declaration Roman experiences (based on observations)Agroecologygoeshandinhandwiththeeffortsforbuildinglocalfoodsystems

Thefoodproducedisconsumedbythecommunity(cannotbesold)

Agroecologyisamatterofautonomyforfarmersandconsumers

Citizensshareknowledge,seedsandexperiencesthatreducetheirdependencyontheconventionalfoodsystem

Biodiversity,ecologicalpractices,oldvarieties Useofoldvarieties,apiary,integratingcrops,trees,compost,flowersandfavourableconditionsforinsectsandpollinatorsareamongtheactivitiesthatenhancebiodiversity

Farmer’sknowledgesharing Educationalgardensandactivities.Partnershipwithschools.Buildingandsharingoflocalknowledge

AccesstotheCommons Collectiveownershipoflandtriggerssocialinteractions,andcollective management of resources such as water, energyandseeds.

Urban farmers celebrate the “Archaic wheat festival” Photo by Maria Caterina Feole ©

http://www.ruaf.org/short-food-chains-rome-context-experiences-policy-implications


33

www.ruaf.org

The social role of green spaces: The need for green spaceswhere neighbours can meet and children can play is welljustifiedinahighlyurbanisedandpopulatedenvironment.Flowers,insectsandtreesundoubtedlyimprovethequalityof life in urban areas, while the garden promotes socialinteractions. An increasing number of studies aredemonstrating the positive effects on health of a dailycontactwithnature,andthisisespeciallytrueinareaswithhighbiodiversity.

Biodiversity: Agroecologicalurbangardenspromotehigherspeciesrichnessandurbanbiodiversityamongstresidentialblocksandroads.Insomecases,beesandotherpollinatorsmayevenfindmorefavourableconditionsincities,comparedto some countryside areas with monocultures andchemically-treatedfields.Moreover,thesocialcomparedtothe productive role of urban gardens makes them quitesuitable for experimenting with non-conventional cropssuchaslow-productionorancientvarieties.

Education: Manyagroecologicalurbangardensincitiesplayan important educational role. The proximity of schoolsfacilitates children’s participation to gardening activities.Whilebenefittingfromthemanypositiveeffectsofnature,italsobringsthemanopportunitytolearnaboutplantandanimal species, composting, plants interactions, insects,natural pest control, water management, traditionalknowledge and so on. Being almost always directed tochildren,theseeducationalactivitiesalsohavethepotentialtobeexpandedtobroaderaudiences.

What can we learn from the Roman experiences?TheRomanexperiencesshowthaturbanareasarealreadyaplaceforagroecologyasdescribedintheNyéléniDeclaration.Distinctive features that characterise agroecology asunderstoodbysmall-scalefarmer’sorganisationsworldwideare effectively present in Rome. These common featuresdescribedbelowcanbeconsideredasguidelinestopromoteandenhanceagroecologyeffortsincities.

Caroline Ledant Free-lanceanalystonfoodsystemsandagroecologyCaroline.ledant@gmail.com

ReferencesInternational Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty, “Declaration of the International forum for Agroecology,” no. February, 2007.N. Cartiaux, “Urban agriculture as productive green infrastructure for regenerating urban landscape : youth innovation in Rome Supervisors :,” 2017.C. Lucentini, “Subject : Sustainable Developmen t Urban Agriculture in Europe : State of Play and Future Perspectives,” LUISS, 2014.A. Cavallo, B. Di, and D. Marino, “Mapping and assessing urban agriculture in Rome,” vol. 8, pp. 774–783, 2016.Personal communication from Marcello Cornaccia, one of the founders of Orti Urbani 3 Fontane. 22 June 2017

The horticulturists and neighbourhood residents have formed a musical band. Photo by Maria Caterina Feole ©



34

www.ruaf.org

Food forests are a relatively new phenomenon in the Netherlands, but there is increased interest. As there is yet limited knowledge of Dutch food forests, we conducted an exploratory study using a literature study, interviews with three initiators of food forests, and an online questionnaire amongst people interested in consuming from food forests. The last was distributed via Facebook and had 41 respondents. In this paper we share our most important results.

What are food forests? Food forests imitate natural ecosystems by combiningtrees,cropsand(sometimes)livestock.Whereamonocultureusesonlyonelayerforfoodproduction,afoodforestisapolyculturewithmanylayers(seefigure1).Thetoplayeristhecanopyortalltreelayerwithtreesaroundninemetershigh, mostly nut and fruit trees or nitrogen-fixing trees.Thesecondlayeristhelowtreelayer,withtreesbetweenthree and five meters in height, mostly fruit trees. Layerthreecontainsshrubs,betweenthesmalltrees.Thesearemainlyberries,fruit,nutandcurrantshrubs,butcanalsobemedicinalandfloweringshrubs.Intheherbaceouslayerunderneath, one finds perennial plants without woodystems,suchasmedicinalherbsandbee-forageplants.Thefifthlayer is therhizosphere,consistingofrootcropslikepotatoes or carrots. The soil surface, which fills theremaining space on the ground, protects the soil andprevents weeds from growing. The final layer is vertical,consisting of vines and plants that climb trees, such asgrapes,berriesorbeans.Itispossibletoaddlayers,suchasawetlandlayerorfungallayer.

Foodforestsareaformofagroforestry,theumbrellatermforland-usesystemsinvolvingtrees,cropsand/oranimalsonthesameunitofland.Therearethreemaintypesofagroforestry:1)agrisilviculture(crops+trees);2)silvopastoral(grassland/animals+trees),and3)agrosilvopastoral(crops+grassland/animals+trees).Anagroforestrysystemcancontaintwoorthree plants, or more than forty different types. The moredifferentspecies,themorethesystemisfollowinganaturalpattern.Foodforestrytakesthisprinciplethefurthest.

Permaculture,closelyrelatedtofoodforestsandagroforestry,isadesignphilosophythatapproachesagriculturefromtheviewpoint of self-sufficiency. It is an agricultural principlethat uses the patterns and features observed in naturalecosystems and works with nature rather than against it.Permaculturelooksatallthefunctionsofplantsandanimals,nottreatinganyasasingleproduct.Ithasethicalprinciplesliketakingcareoftheearthandsharingtheoutputoftheland.Agroforestryisoneofitsmanyforms.

Similarly,foodforestscanalsobeseenasaformofagroecology,whichconcerns theapplicationofecologicalprocessesandprinciplestoagriculture.Itmimicsstructuralandfunctionalrelationships of natural ecosystems, and beneficialinteractionsthatpreserveandrestoreecosystemservices.

Food forests in the Netherlands AmapcreatedbyVanAkkernaarBos(‘fromFieldtoForest’:akkernaarbos.nl/voedselbossenkaart/) shows there arecurrently 54 food forests in the Netherlands, nearly 103hectares,withanother13planned.However,thisnumberislikelyoverestimatedsinceVanAkkernaarBosusesanunclearconcept and includes initiatives that others would notconsiderfoodforests.Initiatorscanaddtheirownprojectssoit is not always clear whether these are established orplanned. Despite this shortcoming, figure 2 shows clearlythattheinterestinfoodforestisgrowingrapidly.

Eva de GrootEsther VeenFood Forests: An upcoming

phenomenon in the Netherlands

Figure 1: The seven layers of a forest garden (Eliades, 2011) Figure 2. Growth of the number of food forests in the Netherlands

http://akkernaarbos.nl/voedselbossenkaart/


35

www.ruaf.org

Motivations to start food forests Weaskedthreefoodforestinitiatorsfortheirmotives:XavierSan Giorgi from Food Forestry Development - one of theirestablishedprojectsisfoodforestMakeblijde-,JanDegenaarandMaartenSchrama-whoareinthestart-upphasewiththeirVoedselbos Lekkerlandgoed - andHansvanderVeldefromStichting BuitenZinnig,whosefoodforestis intheplanningphase.Interestingly,noneofthemhasafarmingbackground.

Food Forest Eemvallei offers good economic perspectivesMarcBuiter,StichtingVoedselbosbouwNederland

On5July2017sixpartieswerecontractedfortherealisationofEemvalleiZuid,apublicnatureareaof50hectares inOosterwold,asuburbofAlmereintheprovinceofFlevoland.Theoccasionwasalsothekick-offofthebiggestfoodforestinEuropethusfar(30hectares)thatwillbeanintegralpartof the area. Stichting Voedselbosbouw Nederland isresponsibleforitsdesign,development,managementandeconomicoperation.Thefestivesigningofthecontractwastheculminationofacomplex and prolonged process of consultation andnegotiations between the province of Flevoland, themunicipality of Almere and the initiators: Staatsbosbeer,Stichting Speelwildernis, Stadsboerderij Almere andStichting Voedselbosbouw Nederland. Staatsbosbeheer isthe former state forestry service. Now economicallyindependent,itistheleadingownerandmanagerofforestlandandnaturalareasintheNetherlands.Inthecomingmonths, the provisional design will be elaborated into adetailed, definitive design for the whole natural area ofEemvallei Zuid. The planting of edible and otherwisefunctionaltreesandshrubswillstartin2018.TheFoodForestEemvalleiwillbearecreationalfoodforestopentothepublic.Anexploratoryanalysisofcostsandbenefitsindicates economic profitability starting 2026. A limitedbudget for planting and landscape management will beprovidedbytheprovinceofFlevoland,justenoughforthebasicmanagementandharvestingforthefirsteightyears.Nevertheless, there is reason to be optimistic about theeconomicpotentialofFoodForestEemvalleiasitprovidesopportunitiesforadditionalsourcesofincome.Besidestheselling of fresh forest produce like nuts, fruits, herbs andvegetables,incomecanbederivedfromthemanufacturingand sale of other processed forest products. Ciders,marmalades, smoothies and chutneys can complementrecreationalserviceslikeforesttoursandleisureactivities.Trainingandeducationinfoodforestryandforestecologycan complement ecosystem services like carbonsequestrationandenhancedbiodiversity.

Rather, they were inspired by the food forest concept andwantedtobringitintopractice.However,theyhavedifferentaims, such as research, production, or enhancing socialcontacts.Foodforesteducationmovedallthreeinterviewees.

Motivations to consume from food forestsIt usually takes five to ten years for a forest to be fullyproductive.MostfoodforestsintheNetherlandsarebeingplannedorjustbeginning.Therearehardlyany‘consumers’yettobuyorpickfoodfromthem.Themaininterestofourrespondents,prospectiveconsumers,wastheconceptitselfand its perceived environmental benefits. Seventy-onepercentmentionedamorediverseecosystem,and23%nouseofchemicalsorfertilisers.Whilemostpeoplemaynotwanttovisitfoodforestsonlytobuyproducts,63%ofourrespondentswouldvisitfoodforestsforrecreationpurposeslike forest hikes or picnics. Clearly, food forests can servemultiplefunctions.

A future for food forests in the Netherlands? Wewondered ifpeople’sdietscouldconsistof foodforestsproductsaloneandwhetherproducerscouldmakealivingfromtheforests’output.Mostfoodforestsproducenuts,fruit,vegetables,herbsandsometimesmeat.Agooddesignwouldenablemuchtobegrownorraisedinafoodforest.Butlivingcompletely off the harvest of food forests would requirechangingtoadietwithlittletonograins,meatandfish.

Thefoodforestinitiatorswespoketoclaimitispossibletomakealivingfromfoodforests.Theyarguethatforestscangenerate a large output per hectare due to the differentlayers.Moreover,foodforestsoftencultivatespecialspeciesthat can be sold as niche products for higher prices. Inpractice,therearecurrentlyhardlyanyfoodforestswithaviable business model. Perhaps this can be promotedthroughcareoreducationalactivities.

Future stepsManagingafoodforestishard;itrequiresalotofknowledgeandtakesalongtimetogenerateoutputs.Mostfoodforestfarmerswillneedfinancialsupportforthefirstfewyears.Somearetransitioningtofoodforestsgradually.Farmersarecurrentlyparticipating in various projects and research; a study iscurrently investigating integration of food forests in themetropolitanregionofRotterdamandTheHague(seebox).

Photo by Voedselbos Vlaardingen


36

www.ruaf.org

Food Forestry Netherlands used to function as a nationalumbrellaorganisation,thisroleisnowtakenupbyStichting Voedselbosbouw Nederland.However,untilnowmostfoodforest initiatives remain unconnected. Some of the mainplayersdoexchangeknowledgeandexperiences,butothersarefollowingtheirowncourseandformtheirownnetworks.More collaboration could improve awareness, knowledgeand communication about food forests. Hence, bettercooperationbetweenfoodforestproducersmaybethestartofaviableagroforestrycommunity.

Eva de GrootEsther [email protected]

Food forestry in the delta landscape: strategies for research and realisationPauldeGraaf,RotterdamForestGardenNetwork

Forestgardeningorfoodforestryisseenasapromisingformofagroecology.ButitisnotreadyforapplicationinWestEuropeanagriculturebecauseofalackofpracticallocalisedexperience.Themainfunctionofthefirstgenerationoffoodforestsfromtheviewpoint of sustainable agriculture is learning, gainingexperienceandgatheringreliabledataoninvestmentsintime,labourandcapital.However, food forests serve many other functions of moreimmediatevalue,suchasrecreationorincreasedbiodiversity.Becauseofthisdiversityofpolicygoals,manyfoodforestsgetpublicfinancialsupportorprivateinvestmentsofmoneyandtime.Achallengeatthisstageisfindingpermanentlocationsforfoodforests,especiallynearthecity.Rotterdam Forest Garden Network (RFGN) aims to realise adiversityoffoodforests,tolearnfromandinspire,inandaroundRotterdam.Foreachlocationauniquemodelisdevelopedthatbalancesavailablesocial,spatialandfinancialresources.Sofar,theyhaveestablishedaninner-citypark,aformereducationalgardenandacollectivegardenofaschoolandaretirementhome.StichtingVoedselbosVlaardingenwasrealisedin2015inarecreationalareaattheedgeofthecityofVlaardingen.Onthisonehectare,RFGNwill testtheconceptinthelow-lyingpeatlandscapecommoninthewestoftheNetherlands.Theywanttoincreasebiodiversity,enhancerecreationalvalueandexperimentwithfoodforestbusinessmodels.Thesiteispartoftheregionalrecreationalareaadministeredbythe Recreatieschap (which represents municipalities and theProvince)andmanagedbyStaatsbosbeheer.StichtingVoedselbosVlaardingen(SVV)rentsthelandfreeofchargefor20years,withthe possibility of extension. Once the food forest becomes

profitable,SVVwillstartpayingrent.Thefoodforestisexpectedto become productive after four or five years reaching fullproductionafter15to20years,withsometreesonlyreachingfullproductionafter50years.Thistimeframeandtherelianceonvolunteers and social entrepreneurs is a challenge.The foodforestwillconsistofapublicly-accessiblepartandasemi-publicpartwhereproductsareharvestedbySVV.ThecostsforrealisationwerecoveredbyfundingfromtheProvince,theInnovationfundfromtheRecreatieschapandalocalprivatefund.Runningcostswillmostlybethetimeandlabouroffourtoeighthoursaweekfor a coordinator and a group of five to ten volunteers.Theintentionisgraduallytocovertheprofessionalhours;currentlythecoordinator,amemberoftheRFGN,worksforfree.Apaidpart-time job will help make the food forest less reliant onpersonalmotivation.Thesiteistoosmallforafull-timefoodforest farmer, but the knowledge gained will hopefully helpfuture initiatives tosetupprofessional foodforests.Fornow,educationalandrecreationalactivitiesaswellastheprocessingandsalesofthefirstfoodforestproductsprovidesomeincome.RFGNconsidersitselfpartofanationalgroupoffrontrunners(includingStichtingVoedselbosbouwNL,RichForestsandCircleEcology) that collaborate, exchange knowledge and initiateresearch on food forests. The research “Food forestry in theDeltalandscape”aimstoidentifyandmapphysical,conceptual,legal,socialandfinancialspaceforrealisationoffoodforestryexperimentsintheRotterdamregion.ItisaninitiativeofRFGNand Voord&Wij, supported by a grant from the CreativeIndustries Fund. It combines stakeholder dialogue withcomprehensive mapping to identify real possibilities forinterestedfarmersandothers.Itwilldevelopaframeworkthatembedsfoodforestryinpublicpolicyandprivateinterestintheregion.Theintentionistostartpilotsthatinvolvenewcoalitionsof landowners, farmers, investors and citizens/consumersandtakeanextsteptowardsaviablefoodforestry.

ReferencesGonçalves A. (2013). Perspectives on agroforestry as a model for sustainable intensification of agriculture. Interview April 2013. www.fcrn.org.uk/interviews/perspectives-agroforestry-model-sustainable-intensification-agriculture Eliades, A. (2011). Why food forests? permaculturenews.org/2011/10/21/why-food-forests/ Kitsteiner, J. (2013). Nine layers of the edible forest garden (food forest). tcpermaculture.com/site/2013/05/27/nine-layers-of-the-edible-forest-garden/ Mann, S., S. Jose and M. Gold (n.d.). Urban Agroforestry: Connecting Agroecology, Permaculture, Urban Forestry and Urban Agriculture into Urban Food Forests. www.extension.iastate.edu/forestry/tri_sta-te/2015%20agro/Talks/Mann_Urban%20Forestry.pdf Mollison B. (1991). Introduction to permaculture. Tasmania, Australia: Tagari. Nair, P.K.R. (1991). State-of-the-art of agroforestry systems. Forest Ecology and Management 45: 5-29.

http://www.fcrn.org.uk/interviews/perspectives-agroforestry-model-sustainable-intensification-agriculture

http://www.fcrn.org.uk/interviews/perspectives-agroforestry-model-sustainable-intensification-agriculture

http://tcpermaculture.com/site/2013/05/27/nine-layers-of-the-edible-forest-garden/

http://tcpermaculture.com/site/2013/05/27/nine-layers-of-the-edible-forest-garden/

373737


37Bee Farrell

Romanticising the Past: A case study of a tide mill

ReferencesD. Lowenthal (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney, p234.W. Kansteiner (2002) “Finding Meaning in Memory: A Methodological Critique of Memory Studies”, History and Theory 41, 188

“Twice a day the mill takes a gulp of the incoming tide”, is a popular lyrical description of the ancient technology of the Woodbridge Tide Mill in Suffolk as it harnesses the physics of the natural world. The human exploitation of the rhythm of the tide cycle demonstrates to an energy-challenged modern world a sustainable method to power a food-processing machine. It encapsulates the fundamental dependence of humankind upon natural physics and demonstrates an example of how to decouple ourselves from contemporary dependence on fossil fuels and globalised food systems. It helps reduce our ecological footprint.

Themillerutilisesthetidetimetableasitebbsandflowswiththegravitationalpullfromthemoon.Themilleralsohasanintimateknowledgeofthetidalriverandtheworkingsofmillmachinerypoweredbycentrifugalandgravitationalforces.Twiceadaythemillpondfillswithhightidewaterthroughanon-returnpipe.Thiswateristhensaveduntillowtide.Atlowtide,sluicegatesholdingbackthemillpondwateropen.Theforceoftheescapingwaterissufficienttoturnafive-metrediameteroakwheelatupto five revolutions per minute. This force then powers themillstonesviaasystemofcogstoproducearegulatedfivetonnesperannumoflocallygrownhighproteinflour.

Thethirtythousandyearstoryofmillinggrain–thatincludeshumanandanimalpower,water,windandelectricity–isanimpressive catalogue of resourcefulness, invention and thesearchforefficientandconvenientenergytotransformahardindigestiblegrainintofood.Millingcultivatedgrainbeganwithfemaleenergygrindingthegrainbyhandusingstonequerns,a practice that continues in rural African, Asian and SouthAmerican communities today, and perhaps represents themostauthenticcommunitymill.

Thecontrastofsmallscale,localisedandpredominatelyfemalemilling communities with the 800-year long history of theWoodbridge Tide Mill made me consider the social andeconomic implications of such a case study for a moresustainable food future. As a machine once sited within azero-carbon farming and transportation system – one thatusedhorsesandsailingbargestofarmanddelivergrainandflour– ithasmuchtocommunicateaboutsustainablefoodinfrastructure. Yet as a model for a more holistic view ofsustainability it is perhaps questionable. While communityresilienceasvital,theaspectsofsocialinclusion,genderequality

andequitableurbanfoodprovisionarealsoimportant.Themillmachineryisapowerfulexampleofhumankindworkingwithnature,butthemillliststhechurch,monarchyandbusinessmenaspastowners;theserancommercialmodelsofproduction.

TheWoodbridgeTideMillistheonlyworkingtidemillremainingofthe200Britishtidemillsthatwerebuiltinthestone,woodorclaybrickoftheirlocality.In2011adonationofnearlyonemillion pounds sterling was awarded from the UK HeritageLottery Fund to repair and reinvigorate the mill as a‘LivingMuseum’. The practice of milling wheat grain using powerderivedfromthetidewasrevivedatthemillin2012totopupvisitors’admissionentranceincome.Theseprovidedthemeanstofinancetherepairsandmaintenanceofthevolunteer-runmill.Manyofthe2000annualmillvisitorsdeclarethemill‘socleverandyetsosimple’.

Undoubtedly,itisaveryclevermachinethatworksinharmonywithnature,yetasacasestudyormodelofsustainablefoodprocessingitalsorevealsmoreaboutpeoplewhoconstructandmanagefoodchains.Ifweareonly“domesticatingofthepast…forpresentcauses”withoutquestioningthehistoricalBritishmillingmodelweforsaketheprinciplesofequalityandsocialinvolvementwhicharejustasnecessaryforsustainableandequitableurbanfoodThecharmingappealoftheoldmillgentlydrinkingtoprovidetheenergytogrindgrainisanexampleofhowtheconstructionof‘popularconsciousness’that“fit[s]inthe framework of contemporary interests” can mythologiseheritagefoodstories.

Themilloffersmanyvaluableenergy-efficientandsustainablesolutionstomilling,yetwithamoreholisticanalysis,itcouldalsorevealsomevaluableinsightintopatternsofeconomicandsocialmarkersthatregardfoodastradeandnotdevelopment.Wholesome and natural versions of British milling must beseeninrelationtotheirfeudalhistory,tocapitalismandgenderinequality. Otherwise we overlook the potential of learningabout how control and power challenge food security.Awareness-raising of such aspects could perhaps be key togreaterunderstandingofthebehaviouralcomplexitiesoffoodproduction.

Bee [email protected]



38

www.ruaf.org

The Henry Doubleday Research Association (HDRA), now known as Garden Organic, was established as a UK charity in 1958 by Lawrence Hills. From the outset the aim was to conduct scientific research that could ‘improve and encourage horticulture and agriculture generally’ (stated as object 1 of Henry Doubleday Research Association). With very limited funds, the idea was that simple experiments would be conducted by the members in their own gardens and the results sent back to be collated and published in the quarterly Newsletter of the association.

Theorganisationwasverymuchconceivedasanassociationofindividualsthatwouldexplore,trialandshareknowledgeabout ‘alternative’ farming or gardening techniques.LawrenceHillswasstronglymotivatedtochallengewhatheperceived as ‘orthodoxy’ or ‘authority’ by usingexperimentationtochallengethetypeofindustrialisedfoodproductionthatwasbeingdevelopedafterWorldWarII.HewasakeypioneeroftheorganicmovementalongsideLadyEveBalfourandSirAlbertHoward.

In the early years, when there were only a few hundredmembers,therewereregularparticipantsworkinginoneormore‘teams’ that each tackled a particular issue: Russian Comfrey (differencesinvarieties,productivityandvalueasastock feed, as a soil improver or in medicine), Pest Control Without Poisons(thebenefitsofvariousplants,particularlyTagetes, on pests and diseases), Composting and Green Manures(techniquesofcomposting,effectsofapplicationsandtheuseofdifferentgreenmanurespecies),Freak Plants (lookingforpossiblyusefulabnormalplantsthatmayhaveresultedfromnucleartestingthenbeingcarriedout).Overtheyearsthesethemesbecamelessclearlydefinedastherangeofresearchundertakenincreasedbutinbroadtermstheyhavebeencontinueduntilthepresentday(Figure1).

Since the beginning, between three and ten members’experiments have been conducted each year (sometimesrepeatedinsuccessiveyears)–morethan500experimentsin all. Some ran in collaboration with other organisations(suchasuniversitiesorcommercialcompanies)andsomehavebeenusedasthefoundationformoreformalscientificstudies.Experimentstoinvestigatevariousaspectsofpestcontrolhavebeenthemostcommon,particularlysointheearlyyears.Inthelastfifteenyearstherehasbeenanincrease

Garden Organic todayAfter 60 years, Garden Organic is still supportingindividuals and communities today across the UK indeveloping important horticultural skills based on theprinciplesoforganicgrowing.GardenOrganicishometothe Heritage Seed Library, a unique living collection ofover 800 endangered vegetable varieties, safeguardedfrom extinction and shared with growers nationwide.They also work to preserve exotic crops through theSowing New Seeds project, bringing communitiestogetherthroughsharingandgrowingcrops,whichtheyhavebroughttotheUKfromaroundtheworld.TheMasterComposterandMasterGardenerprogrammesengageexpertvolunteerstomentorandsupportnovicegrowersandhelpthemtocomposteffectively.TheFoodGrowingSchools:Londonprojectisadiverseprojectthatengages children practically across the spectrum fromfoodgrowingtocookingandturningtheproduceintohighervalueitems.Theprojectstartcoincidedwiththechanges to the Government school food policy, and itbecameanimportant tool toenact thecooking in thecurriculum requirements of the new policy. GardenOrganichasalsodevelopedanumberofprojectwithinvulnerable and food insecure communities (inWarwickshire and Southwark), where gardening andmentoring schemes have helped to identify foodinsecurity thatgoesbelow theradar,or tackledhealthandwellbeingthroughhorticulturaltherapy.

Francis RaynsMargi Lennartsson

Gareth Davies

Pioneering Urban Agroecological Research with Citizen Science

inthenumberofexperimentsconcernedwithnovelcrops,wildlifesurveysandsocio-economicaspects(e.g.surveysofgardenproductivityandvegetablebuyinghabits).Atpresentthereareusuallybetween100and300participantsineachexperiment – mainly private individuals but also schoolsand community groups. Clearly defined instructions areprovided(togetherwithseedsorotherspecialistmaterials)andthereareeitherpaperoron-lineformstocompletetorecordtheresults.

The results have always been published, primarily for thebenefit of the members, in the organisation’s Newsletters(now known as The Organic Way magazine). Initiallyindividual accounts were reported verbatim, with littlestatistical analysis or objective evaluation. This approach


39

www.ruaf.org

Figure 1. Examples of Member’s Experiments in each of the key themes carried out at different times in the organisation’s history.

was harder to maintain as the numbers of members andparticipants increased. Later, with the employment ofdedicatedresearchstaff,theresultswerebettersummarisedandtheconclusionsmoreclearlyidentified.Oneoftheaimsof the work was to establish firm foundations for adviceconcerning organic gardening techniques and to dispelunfounded‘myths’.Manyofthefindingswereincorporatedin popular books written by Lawrence Hills and thensubsequentlybyotherauthorsworkingfortheassociation(e.g.SticklandandPears).WithLawrenceHillsbackgroundinjournalism (gardening correspondent of The Observer1958-66andofPunch1966-70),thefindingswerealsoverysuccessfully disseminated to audiences outside theorganisation,viaregularcolumnsingardeningmagazinesand broadsheet papers and also via Britain’s first organicgardeningtelevisionseriesAll Muck and MagicbroadcastbyChannel 4 in the late 1980s and through practicaldemonstration in the organisation’ gardens open to thepublic. As a result, the experiments really underpin manyorganicgardeningandgrowingtechniquescommonlyusedtoday. The information provided an important source ofguidance,notonlyfororganicgardeners,butnotablyalsoformanyofthefirstcommercialgrowerswhostartedtogroworganicvegetablesonafieldscale.

The participatory approach of the research has clearlybenefittedandinfluencedorganicgardeninginpracticeovertheyears,offeringanactiveapproachtoknowledgetransferandoftenaveryimmediateuptakeofresearchfindings.Ina

recentquestionnaire,manyoftheexperimentersparticipatingintheschemereportedthattheirinvolvementhadoftenhada direct impact on what they grow and how they managetheirgardens.Examplequotesfromtherespondentsincluded:

‘Yes, the experiments influence the way I garden- the use of comfrey fertiliser, mulches, composting techniques and pest resistant varieties are some examples’.

‘This year my leeks had leek moth. Having done the experiment, I knew to cut the leeks down. They have re-grown’.

‘I now look more closely at bees, bumble bees and butterflies’.

‘One year there was a slug count. I became more aware of the different kind of slugs and their habits and I now don’t feel it is necessary to destroy every single slug in sight’.

‘Taking part in the experiments have made me realise to what extent all gardening is in fact a series of in vivo experiments… I am now more likely to compare two things and see what works best’.

From the 1990s onwards, increased external funding forresearch allowed the organisation to also conduct more‘formal’scientificresearch,oftentodevelopagroecologicalideas and techniques originally explored as Member’sExperiments, forexample, toexamine theeffectofwintergreen manures on soil nutrient dynamics. Whenever


40

www.ruaf.org

possible the research still employed participatoryapproaches,butworkingprimarilywithcommercialorganicproducersgrowingfruitandvegetablesonafieldscale.Thisresulted in close links with a number of universities andresearch institutes, particularly with Coventry UniversitywhichwentontoestablishtheCentreforAgroecology,WaterandResiliencein2014.

Asawell-establishedcitizenscienceprogramme,theMembersExperiments has provided a structure for investigation byindividuals and groups, particularly schools. In addition togenerating new knowledge, this pioneering researchprogramme has continued to have an important role forGardenOrganicintermsofenablingactiveengagementwithmembersandtopromoteinteractivelearning.The combined results and achievements of the citizenscientistshaveprovidedafirmbasefororganicgardeningpracticeasweseeittoday,andasasocialmovementwithitsvaluesfirmlyembeddedinthewiderprinciplesoforganicagriculture- theprinciplesofhealth,ecology,fairnessandcare- it is likely to continue to be important for urbanagroecologypracticealsointhefuture.

Francis Rayns, Margi Lennartsson and Gareth DaviesCentreforAgroecology,WaterandResilience,[email protected]

Examples of some recent experiments Shark’s fin melon as a novel crop (2012).Cucurbitaficifoliagets itsnamebecause thefleshof the largefruitscanbemadeintoabrothresemblingthetextureofshark’sfinsoup.SeedswereobtainedaspartoftheSowingNewSeedsproject(whichwassetuptoencouragethegrowingofexoticcropsintheUK).TheexperimentwasruntofindouthowwelltheplantsgrewindifferentareasoftheUKandhowworthwhilethe melons were as a cooked vegetable. Almost all theexperimentersfoundittobeaveryvigorousandproductiveplant,althoughmanyfoundittobeunpalatable.

Ecological footprinting of gardening (2007 and 2008). ThisexperimenttooktheformofasurveytoevaluatehowmuchCO2wasgeneratedbythemembers’eatinghabitsand their gardening activities, considering both theresourcesusedandhowmuchfoodwasproduced.Growingathomecouldreducethecarbonfootprintassociatedwithfruitandvegetableconsumptionby13%althoughfrozenstoragecouldhaveasignificantimpact.

Bumblebee survey (2013). Oneoftheaimsofthisprojectwastoraiseawarenessoftheimportanceofbumblebeesin urban areas and to find out which food plants wereimportanttothem.Evenplantsthatappearpopularwithalargenumberofbumblebeespeciesmaybeavoidedinpreferenceforotherplantspecieswhentheseareavailable–emphasisingthevalueofdiverseplantingschemes.ThisworkledtothedevelopmentoftheBloomsforBeesproject:www.bloomsforbees.co.uk

Blight resistant tomatoes (2011 and 2012). Phytopthorainfestanscauses‘lateblight’inbothpotatoesandtomatoes.ThisexperimentwasrunincollaborationwiththeSavariResearch Trust and ProVeg seeds to evaluate theperformance of newly bred bush varieties of tomatoes.Participantswerealsoencouragedtosendinsamplesofdiseased leaves for genetic analysis to help map theincidenceofdifferentblightstrainsacrosstheUK.

Biochar as an amendment to enhance soil fertility (2014). The addition of biochar (charcoal) to soil can havebeneficialeffectsonfertilityandhasbeenadvocatedasaway to mitigate climate change. However, its use iscontroversial and this experiment, run in collaborationwith Oxford Biochar, was designed to evaluate itsapplicability inagardeningsituation.Participantsweresuppliedwithbiocharandseedsofsuitabletestcrops.

Compostable packaging (2015). Inrecentyearstherehasbeenanincreaseinpackaginglabelledas‘compostable’;the aim of this experiment was to find out how well arangeofproductsdecomposedintypicaldomesticcompostheaps.Platesmadeformbagassecompostedwellbutforksmadeformplantbasedmaterialsdidnotandtherewereveryvariableresultswithcaddybags.Theofficial‘homecompostable’ label was not found not give an obviousindicationofhowwellmaterialsactuallybrokedowninpractice.

ReferencesConford P (2011) The development of the organic network. Linking people and themes, 1945-95. Floris Books, Edinburgh UKGear A and J Gear (2009) Organic Gardening; The Whole Story. Watkins Publishing, London, UKHills LD (1967). Grow your own fruit and vegetables. Faber and Faber, UKHills LD (1977) Organic Gardening. Penguin Books Ltd UK Hills LD (1989). Fighting like the flowers. Green Books, Bideford, UKPears P (2001) HDRA Encyclopedia of Organic Gardening Dorrling Kindersley Ltd London UK Stickland S (1987) The Organic Garden The Hamlyn Publishing Group Ltd, Twickenham UK


41

www.ruaf.org

It is estimated that by 2050, 80% of the global population will live in urban areas, a reality that is changing priorities for urban planning and policy. For many years, Cuba has already reflected what that future global reality will be, with close to 80% of its population living in cities across the island. This dynamic, along with a combination of conviction and necessity, is one of a handful of reasons the urban agriculture movement in Cuba took hold in the early 1990s.

Formorethantwodecades,Cubahasbeenagloballeaderinthepolicy,scienceandpracticeofagroecologyingeneralandofurbanagriculturebasedonagroecologicalprinciples inparticular. While the term ‘urban agroecology’ is notcommonly used in Cuba, instead ‘urban agriculture’ or‘urban agriculture based on agroecology’, agroecologicalprinciplesarefundamentaltothemovement.

Inthe1990s,CubawasplungedintoaneraofseverefoodandfuelshortagesasaresultofthefalloftheSocialistBloc,thesourceofmorethan80%oftheirimportsatthetime.Thisforced a transition from a centrally-planned, large-scale,highexternalinput,capitalintensivemonoculturalsystemtoadecentralised,small-scale,lowexternalinput,diversified,knowledge-intensive system. The transition required arestructuring and decentralisation of land tenure andmanagement, food distribution, technical assistance andknowledgeexchange.

Urbanagriculturewasoneofthemostimportantstrategiesrespondingtothefoodcrisisinitiallyandhasovertheyearsestablished a stable role in national food and agriculturepolicy and practice. Bringing the producer closer to theconsumerwasessentialinacountrythatfacesfuelshortagesandwhosepopulationis80%urban.Thisarticledescribesthe evolution of the multi-actor, multi-scale institutionalandmanagementstructuresthatengagewithandserviceurban agriculture. It outlines the policy environment thathasenabledurbanagricultureinCubatobesuccessful,andsummarises key social, economic and ecological benefitsachievedtodate.

Multi-scale, multi-sector, multi-actor management structure and programmesTheurbanagriculturemovement,basedonagroecologicalprinciples,hasbeenandcontinuestobesuccessfulbecauseofthediversityofactorsdeeplyengagedacrosssectorsandscales.Evenin1987,beforethecrisis,RaulCastro,asheadoftheArmedForces,initiatedtheproductionofcafeteriafoodthrough intensive production in raised beds calledorganopónicos.Whenthefoodcrisishit,theorganopónicos becameapopularformofproductionthatspreadthroughoutcities in Cuba. Ministries, institutions and schools wereencouraged to tear up their lawns and produce food forself-provisioning. Urban gardens sprouted up all over thecity,mostlyashomegardens,atcommunitycentres,andinvacantlots.Recognisingitspowertosolvethefoodandfuelcrisis,in1994,theMinistryofAgriculture(MINAG)establishedaDepartmentofUrbanAgriculture,oneofthefirstofitskindin the world. Today, it has evolved into the Urban andPeriurban Integrated Agriculture Program (PIAUS by itsacronym in Spanish), and remains one of the seven mostimportantprogrammesofMINAGtothisday.

Margarita Fernandez

Urban Agriculture in Cuba: 30 Years of policy and practice

Mutistructured intercropping at Organoponico Alamar. Photo by Margarita Fernandez


42

www.ruaf.org

PIAUS is managed by a diverse set of government andnon-governmentactors,allowingfordistinctneedsfromthenationaltothelocalleveltobemet(seeFigure1).Thecentralaxisoftheprogramme,theNationalUrbanandSuburbanAgricultureGroup(GNAUS)ishousedunderoneofMINAG’skey research institutes, the National Institute of TropicalAgriculture (INIFAT). This group has members from sixMinistries and 16 institutions including the Ministries ofEducation, Public Health, Science, Technology andEnvironment, as well as the National Association of SmallFarmers(ANAP),theCubanAssociationofAgronomistsandForesters (ACTAF), the Cuban Association of AnimalProduction (ACPA) and the Fundación Antonio NúñezJimenez (FANJ). GNAUS directs the strategic plan of themovement and the methodologies for implementingactivitiesofthe31subprogrammes.

The subprogrammes represent areas of work promotingagroecological principles, including land use, soil fertilityandorganicfertiliser,seeds,pestmanagement,wateruse,animal health, marketing, capacity building and training,apiculture, and more. PIAUS has a group in each provincewithrepresentationfromtheVicePresidentoftheProvincialGovernmentsaswellasaProvincialRepresentativefortheprogramme.Thereare168MunicipalGroups,oneforeachmunicipality in the country, Municipal State AgriculturalEnterprises,168UrbanFarmsand1452PopularCouncils.Theproductivebaseismadeupofallthefarmersinvolved.Thisstructurehasallowedforsystematic,efficientanddiverse

supporttobeprovidedtothemovement.WithinINIFAT,theprogrammehasalsoestablishedthefirsturbanagricultureMaster’sPrograminthecountry.

Enabling policy environmentTheorganisationalstructureservesasalegalguideline,(inSpanishlineamientos),providingasetofrulesandprinciplesprescribedbythegovernmenttoimplementthePIAUS.Butthereareotherpoliciesthatsupporturbanagricultureandagroecologyatthenationalandmunicipallevels.Thehighestform of policy in Cuba is released every five years at theconclusionoftheCommunistPartyCongressintheformofadocumententitledGuidelines for the Social and Economic Policy of the Party and the Revolution. The 2011 and 2016Guidelinestherearetwo(#205and#206)specifictourbanagriculture:

205: Effectively develop the municipal food self-sufficiency programme, relying on urban and suburban agriculture

206: Implement the suburban agriculture programme

efficiently using the land that surrounds cities and towns, with the le ast possible expenditure of fuel and imported inputs by utilising local resources and use of animal power

While the term agroecology is not explicitly used in theguidelines, there are several that outline principlesassociated with agroecology. Guideline #185 discusses the

Figure 1. Organisational Structure of Urban Agriculture Program (GNAUS, 2015).


43

www.ruaf.org

importanceofimportsubstitutionbyprioritisingaterritorialviewofagriculture,incentivisinglocalproductionforlocalconsumptionthroughtheurbanandsuburbanprogramme.Guideline #187 discusses the importance of usingagroecology practices to increase yields throughdiversification, crop rotation and polycultures and to“develop a sustainable agriculture in harmony with theenvironment, that provides the efficient use of phyto andzoo genetic material, including seeds, technology, and theuseoforganicfertilisers,biofertilisersandbiopesticides”.

Anotherimportantpolicythatsupportsurbanagroecologyis MINAG’s Policy for the Municipal Food Self-ProvisioningProgramfrom2015.ThisstatesthatfoodsovereigntyisatoppriorityoftheStateandtheCubangovernmentandthatthekey strategy for achieving this is by decentralising theagricultural sector by increasing communities andmunicipalities’capacitytofeedthemselves.Thepolicystatesthat a municipality’s capacity to guarantee food for thepopulationshouldincludethe“participationofallactorsinthe territory (individual producers, cooperative members,state enterprises, municipal agriculture delegations) inorder to succeed in developing a solid economy at themunicipallevel,basedonagroecologicalprinciples,followinglocal climatic and demographic contexts, integrating allfacets of municipal livelihoods, including traditionalagrariancultureandfoodofthepopulation”.

Finally,akeylanddistributionlaw,oneofthemostprogressivein the Americas, has contributed to the increase in landunder urban and suburban production. Decree-Laws 259and300,passedin2008and2012respectively,allowlandlesscitizens to gain usufruct rights to up to 13.42 hectares (1caballería) of land, and allow existing farmers to gainusufruct rights that extend their farm sizes up to 67.1hectares.Thispolicyhasgrantedlandaccessofmorethan1.7

million hectares of mostly idle rural and urban/suburbanagriculturallandstomorethan200,000farmers,manyofwhomarenewtofarming.

Key social, economic and ecological benefitsOne of the main contributions of the urban agriculturemovementhasbeenCuban’sincreasedaccesstoadiversityof fresh fruits, vegetables, small livestock and medicinalplants. This has served to increase dietary diversity andimprovenutrition.Acrossthecountry’scities,morethan50%ofthefreshproduceconsumedisproducedbyurbanfarmers,surpassingonemilliontonsin2014.Theurbanagriculturemovement has generated more than 300,000 jobs andtrained tens of thousands of farmers, technicians, andgovernmentofficialsinagroecologicaltechniquesthroughadiversity of formal and informal trainings and exchangesincludingstronginfluencefromtheANAP’sFarmertoFarmerMovement.Urbanfarmsruneducationalprogrammeswithelementary schools and supply highly-subsidised foods toschools, hospitals, retirement homes and other socialinstitutions.

The31subprogrammesofPIAUSthatprovideservicesandtraining in different aspects of the food system, prioritiselocal sovereignty through production of diverseagroecological inputs such as seeds, organic fertilisers,biologicalcontrols,innovativeirrigationtechniques,animaltraction,andwindandsolarenergy.Theuseoftheselocally-produced items has avoided 50 million dollars-worth ofimportedinputsannually.

Finally, the management and tenure structures in urbanagriculture, as in the rural sector, are dominated bycooperatives, although there are some private farmers aswell.Therearethreetypesofcooperatives–theCreditandService Cooperative (CCS) formed in the 1960s, the

Farm participating in the Farmer to Farmer Movement lists the agroecological practices they implement. Photo by Margarita Fernandez


44

www.ruaf.org

Shade cover netting to control solar intensity at Organoponico in Matanzas. Photo by Margarita Fernandez

Agricultural Production Cooperative (CPA) formed in the1970s and Basic Unit of Cooperative Production (UBPC)formedinthe1990s.TheCCSfarmersownorleasetheirlandunderusufructrights,butsharecredit,infrastructure,andmarkets.TheCPAfarmersshareandworkthesamepieceofland.TheUBPCsarestate-ownedfarmsthatwerebrokenupinto smaller cooperatives during the food and economiccrisis to decentralise management and productionCooperatives are an important economic expression ofagroecological principles of equity, participation, diversity,multifunctionality,andresilience.Intermsofmarket,urbanfarms,whetherinacooperativeorprivate,tendtosellmostoftheirharvestdirectlytothecommunityfromanon-sitefarm-stand.Manyurbanfarmsalsoselldirectlyatfarmersmarkets,andtorestaurantsandinstitutions.

ConclusionSincethebeginningoftheurbanagriculturemovementinCuba,itwascleartomovementleadersthat,becauseurbanfoodproductionisbothintensiveandinsuchcloseproximityto dense human populations, toxic agricultural inputsshouldnotbeused.Anagriculturalapproachthatfollowsprinciplesofdiversity,resourcerecycling,localproductionofinputs,etc.wasthoughtmostappropriate.Morethantwodecades later, due to strategic alliances between farmers,scientists,and thegovernment,Cubahasoneof themostadvancedurbanagriculturesystemsbasedonagroecologicalprinciples in the world, with strong policies in place thatsupport it. There are national, provincial and municipalpolicies that guide production, distribution, consumption,education,andservicesprovidedbythediversityofactorsinvolved in the food system. The PIAUS engenders keyprinciples of agroecology and food sovereignty that havenourishedanurbanagriculturesystemthatissociallyjust,economically viable, and ecologically resilient. Robustparticipation from key ministries and institutions has

ReferencesAltieri, M. and F. Funes Monzote. 2012. The Paradox of Cuban Agriculture. Monthly Review.Companioni, N.; Rodríguez-Nodals, R. and Sardiñas, J. 2016. Agricultura urbana, suburbana y familiar. In Funes Aguiar, F and Vázquez Moreno, L.V. (ed.) Avances de la Agroecología en Cuba (Matanzas: Estación Experimental de Pastos y Forrajes Indio Hatuey), pp. 233-246.Companioni, Nelso. 2016. Personal communication with author. Havana, Cuba.MINAG. 2015. Propuesta de Política para el Programa de Autoabas-tecimiento Alimentario Municipal.GNAUS. 2015. Lineamientos de la Agricultura Urbana, Suburbana y Familiar 2016. Instituto Nacional de Investigación Fundamental el Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT). MINAG.Nova, Armando. Forthcoming. Transformations in Cuban Agriculture 2007-2014: Sustainability, Economic and Environmental Develop-ment. Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene.Lineamientos. 2011. Lineamientos de la Política Económica y Social del Partido y la Revolución. VI Congreso del Partido Comunista de Cuba.

solidifiedurbanagriculture’sroleinCuba’sagrifoodsystemas not just a strategy to confront crises but as the bestapproach to sustainably feed the island’s population in anutritious,equitable,environmentallysoundsandresilientway.TheDirectorofPIAUS,NelsoCompanioni,recentlystated“Urbanagricultureisnolongeranagricultureonlyforcrisissituationsbutisanagricultureforaresilientandsustainabletodayandtomorrow”.

Margarita FernandezCoordinatoroftheCuba-USAgroecologyNetwork(CUSAN)[email protected]



45

www.ruaf.org

Agriculture is a key element of Quito’s history. Food production for self-provisioning was practised throughout the consolidation of the city by different groups historically inhabiting the territory. The Quitu people were the first inhabitants of the territory (500 CE), then with the conquest of the Caras (980 CE) the Quitu–Cara culture began. They developed important engineering works such as agricultural terraces on mountain slopes and irrigation channels on desiccated lagoon beds. The development of these agricultural systems sustained the population growth of that era.

The Quitu-Cara culture, together with its knowledge andtraditions,lostgroundafterthearrivaloftheIncas(1487CE).The Incas possessed key agricultural expertise, whichallowedthemtoincreasetheproductivityoftheland.Theywereabletobringintoproductionlandthatwasuntilthenconsidered ill-suited for agricultural use, as well as toovercome the inclement climate. The Incas developedinnovativetools,fertilisingandsoilconservationtechniquesandwateroptimisationsystems.Inaddition,theywereabletodomesticateabroadrangeofplantspeciesanddevelopaharvestcalendar.ItisestimatedthattheIncascultivatedupto 70 plant species. Food was at the centre of rituals andspirituallife.Forexample:“IntiRaymi”isthefestivalofthesunandtheharvestofthesolsticeofJune.Thissymbolisesthe gratitude of the Andean peoples, who offer thanks toPacchaMama(MotherEarth),forallowingagoodproduction

and harvest of traditional products. This gratitude iscelebratedwithmusicanddance.

Ancestral knowledge and alternative technologies are thebasis under which the ‘chacra,’ a small-cultivated plot, ismanaged. This approach – currently validated technicallyand scientifically – is part of the Andean worldview andconsideredtohaveastrongagroecologicalbase.

ThroughSpanishcolonisation,newcropssuchasfruittrees,vegetables, cereals and farm animals were introduced.Additionally,practicesoffoodproductioninhouseholdyardsandreligiouscommunitiesbecamegeneralised.

Acrosstime,expressionsofurbanagricultureinQuitohavebeenbasedontraditionalandancestralpracticesinheritedfrom the pre-Columbian era.This mostly refers to potato,corn,fieldbean,black-seedsquash,pumpkin,broadbeans,quinoa,mashuaandoca.However,thesepracticeshavenotfullyescapedtheinfluenceofthegreenrevolution–whichtriggeredindiscriminateagrochemicaluse,biodiversityloss,unreasonable resource use as well as the loss of culturalvalueslikecommunityworkandconnectionwithnature.

The most common element across urban agriculturedefinitions is localisation – mostly discussed in terms ofproximity to cities (e.g., intra or peri-urban agriculture).However,urbanagricultureisnotsolelydistinguishedfromitsruralcounterpartbasedongeographicallocationbutbyits integration and interaction to, and with, the urbanecosystem.Therefore,urbanagriculturemustbebasedonagroecologicalprinciplestoachievesustainableproductionandsupporthumanhealth.Achievingadiverseandstableagricultural production in urban areas hinges on the

Alexandra Rodríguez Dueñas

Systems of Control for Agroecological Food Production and Commercialisation in Quito, Ecuador

Photo by CONQUITO


46

www.ruaf.org

developmentofproductionsystemsthatarewell-adaptedto the urban ecosystem, respond to the effects of climatechangeandmitigateit.

Meeting future demand for food under sustainableproductionschemesandthroughreasonableprocesseshasbecomeofvitalimportanceforthefutureofhumanity.ThemunicipalityofthemetropolitandistrictofQuitohas–since2002–addressedthischallengethroughtheimplementationof the Agricultura Urbana Participativa project (AGRUPAR,Participative Urban Agriculture). Through this projectself-production of food on previously unproductive orunderutilised spaces is encouraged. This strategy aims toreducefoodinsecuritybyimprovingtheavailability,accessandqualityoffood,aswellastogenerateasourceofincomeand savings for the producers engaged in the scheme.Moreover, the strategy is framed as a vehicle for urbansustainability and resilience since its implementation cancontribute to improving microclimates, nutrient cycling,watermanagementandbiodiversitypreservation.

AGRUPARasaninterventionisbasedonagroecological and organic practices;itsupportsthedirectmarketingofsurplusproduction,theeconomicandsocialinclusionofvulnerablesectors, and the promotion of responsible consumption –withanemphasisonlocal,fresh,diversifiedandnutritiousdiets.

Many urban families in vulnerable situations are activelyinvolved in self-production of food and related activities.Eighty-fourpercentofprojectparticipantsarefemaleheadsofhouseholds.Thispracticenotonlyimprovesaccesstosafefood, but it also generates savings and even increaseshousehold income, becoming a means of livelihood. TheaveragemonthlyincomerecordedisUSD$175.ThroughtheAGRUPARproject,themunicipalitycurrentlysupports1300productiveunitsonmorethan30hectaresinQuito,carryingout horticulture, farm animal husbandry and foodprocessing.Themunicipalityprovidestrainingandtechnicalsupport on topics such as cultivation, handling of small

animals and food processing. The project has 17 farmers’markets(locallyknownasbioferias),whichallowthedirectsaleofsurplusproduction.Morethan105typesoffoodcanbefoundatthesemarkets.

In2007,aninternalcontrolsystem(SIC,sistemainternodecontrol) was developed as part of the AGRUPAR project toensure transparency and traceability of activities. Thiscontrol system has since supported food producers in thedocumentationofallrelevantproductiveactivities(i.e.,soilpreparation, fertiliser use, sowing, plant transplants,phytosanitarycontrol,croprotationplan,inputs,acquisitionsand sales, production records and annual improvementplansamongstothers).Akeycomponentofthissystemistheanalysis of pesticide residuesinsoil,plantsandunharvestedproducts,whichequipsfarmerswithanadditionalpointofcontrol.

Aspartoftheinternalcontrolsystem(SIC)severalresourcesand processes have been put in place to ensure itseffectiveness. These include: a quality control manual, apoint person for quality issues, an approval committee aswellas internal inspectors (project technicians).The lattercarryoutannualauditsontheproductiveunits,basedontheEcuadorian organic-ecological-biological productionstandard.Further,anexternalagency–nationallyaccreditedand whose work is overseen by the national authority forsustainable food production (AGROCALIDAD) – audits andcertifies productive units wishing to obtain a nationally-recognised organic certification. This can enable foodproducerstoaccessdifferentiatedfoodmarkets.Finally,atfarmersmarkets,producersconductadditionalinspectionsand interact with consumers as a form of communityoversight.

The SIC provides an effective mechanism through whichAGRUPARcanguaranteethattheproductionfromtheunits,whether officially certified or not, complies with nationalregulations. Production practices in AGRUPAR units go beyond organic production principles as these only

Photo by CONQUITO


47

www.ruaf.org

substituteinputs,failtoincreasediversityandconsiderfoodasacommoditytobetradedatthehighestpossiblepriceasopposedtobeingabasichumanneed.

Organic production based on agroecology principles, leadstogreater autonomy by reducing dependence on energy,knowledge, inputs and intermediaries. Additionally, itstimulatestheuseoflocalinputs,therecoveryofancestralpractices, the recognition of flexibility and resilience offamilylabouraswellasthereductionofdependenceonasingleproductormarketthroughthegenerationofhighly-productiveanddiversifiedsystems.Withintheagroecologicalapproach there is greater recognition of agriculturalecosystems, the health of both farmer and consumer, thesustainability of livelihoods, as well as the nutritional,therapeuticandsafetyvaluesoffood.

InQuito,otherinitiativesrelatedtohealthyfoodhavebeendeveloped by civil society organisations. For example,agroecologicalmarketfairs.Thesefairsallowlocalfarmersand those from nearby provinces to sell their products.Productsfoundonthesemarketsareguaranteedthroughthe Participative Guaranty Systems (SPG, SistemasParticipativosdeGarantía).SPGsystemsoperatebasedontheparticipationofseveralactorsthatendorsetheproductandtheagroecosystemthroughwhichitwasproduced.SPGsystemswillsoonberegulatedbythenationalframeworkforagroecologicalproduction.

In2016,theMunicipalityofQuitoopenedthefirstorganicandagroecologicalmarket–LaFloresta–with theaim toimproveaccesstohealthyandlocalfood.Bothorganicandagroecological food producers participate in the market.They share the space and complement each other’s foodofferings.However,thelackofaframeworkinwhichselectioncriteria for vendors as well as the equivalence of diversecontrolandcertificationschemesareclarified,emergedasthe main operational challenge for the market. ControlsystemsrangefromtheAGRUPARendorsement, toformal

organic certification, to certification validated through aparticipative guaranty system. Given the diversity ofprocesses,degreesoftraceabilityaswellasthedocumentationvalidating each of these schemes, there is a need foradditionalcontrols.Suchcontrolswouldentailverificationvisitstoproducers,harmonisationofsupervisionformatsaswellasoftechnicalexpertiseacrossteams,thecreationofanassessment committee and the possibility of carrying outpesticideanalysisonresidues.

Whiletherearedifferencesbetweentheagroecology-basedorganicproductionintheurbansettinganditsmorepurelyrural equivalent, it is their commonalities, which havebrought both sets of producers to work together. Actorsrecognisebothsystemsassustainableandwithfoodastheirunifying theme they jointly lead the movement towardsfoodsovereigntyinQuito.Theireffortsfocusondevelopingregulation for the use of municipal markets; in fact, bothbranchesofthemovementwereinvitedtocollaborateinthedevelopmentofaregulationforthelawofseeds,biodiversityandpromotionofsustainableagricultureinEcuador–alawthatwasrecentlyapprovedbytheNationalAssembly.

Alexandra Rodríguez DueñasCONQUITOEconomicPromotionAgencyoftheMunicipalityofQuitoarodriguez@conquito.org.ec

English translation by G. Villarreal Herrera.

ReferencesSantillana (2006), Historia y Geografía del Ecuador, 1era Edición, Quito Ecuador,Muxica Editores (2001). Culturas Prehispánicas. Muxica EditoresRostworowski, María (2004). Enciclopedia Temática: Incas. Orbis VenturesHistoria Natural del Reino de Quito. Padre Juan de Velasco (1788)

Photo by CONQUITO

48


Agroecology has been a characteristic of Nairobi urban farming historically, through the practices of small farmers. The new Nairobi City County government passed a progressive law on urban agriculture in 2015. It now promotes urban agriculture for food security, and will allocate land and water resources especially for vulnerable groups such as slum dwellers. Nairobi will be a good example to look at in coming years to observe how these innovative policies and administrative changes impact on people’s lives. Incorporating agroecological processes is likely to be an institutional challenge as the new policy and governance arrangements are implemented.

Nairobi,Kenya’scapital,isonly118yearsoldandwasaracially-dividedcolonialcityformuchofitshistory.Urbanagriculturepracticesinthecityarewell-documented,includingnutrientre-useonsmallfarmsandnutrientflowsacrossthecity.Afterbeingignoredthroughoutthe20thcentury,urbanagricultureand the management of the urban food system have seensubstantialpolicychangessinceKenya’snewconstitutionin2010entrenchedtherighttofood.Newlawsnationallyandlocally aim at food and nutrition security, especially forlow-incomeurbanresidents.Civilsocietyandurbanfarmersmay now be able to influence urban governance affectingfoodsecurity.Thearticlesetsoutthehistoryandthepositivepolicy achievements, as well as some of the hurdles to be

clearedinattaininganecologically-balancedandequitableoutcomeforcityresidentsinthe21stcentury.

Development of Nairobi’s food systemWhenNairobiwasfoundedasarailwaycampbyBritishcolonistsin1899,thelocalpeoplewerealreadyfeedingthemselves–fromagricultureinthehillsabovethecityandpastoralismonthedryplainstotheSouthEast.Therewastradingalongwell-establishedroutes.Moreagri-foodbusinessessprangupwiththecomingoftheBritishsettlers.Today’sfoodsystemreflectshistory,despitepoliticalandsocialchanges.Nairobi’searly20thcenturyagri-foodsystemwasallaboutcolonisation.Therewerebiasedrulesandregulations and settlers dominated business and public life.Railway workers brought in from Asia were prevented fromproducingfoodandhadtoeatwhatwasprovided,manygrowingsickandevendyingasaresult,whilebakingandsellingbreadforexamplewasreservedforaEuropean-ownedbakery.Generally,onlyAfricanmen,notwomen,wereemployedintownandtheyhad to carry identity cards. Women were tolerated as theybroughtinfoodbutwerenotacceptedasurbanresidents.Upuntil independence in 1963, people of different races wererestrictedtospecifiedareasandonlyEuropeansownedurbanland.

Therewerefoodbusinessesandurbandemandstimulatedvegetablefarminginandaroundthecity.Somevegetablescamefromsmall farmsalong theNairobiRiver in thecitycentre,asiteusedforagricultureupuntil2010,whenariverclean-upgotridofurbanagriculture.Africanwomentraderswould also come into town by day to sell, hawking theirvegetablesdoor-to-doororbytheroadside.Thiscomponentof Nairobi’s agri-food system has lasted until today, withitinerant women hawkers carrying heavy loads and stillbeingharassedbytheauthorities.

Diana Lee-SmithDavinder Lamba

Nairobi’s 21st Century Food Policy

Kikuyu women conversing (Bazaar Street 1900). Photo History of Nairobi

494949


49

Manythingschangedwithindependencein1963,butmanydid not. Widespread throughout Nairobi’s history, urbanagriculture was not documented until 20% of Nairobihouseholds were found growing crops in the city in the1980sinasurveybyMazingiraInstitute.In2017,thiswouldrepresentwellover200,000households.Likewise,7%werekeeping livestock. The 2009 census counted 55 thousandcattleinNairobi,47thousandgoatsand35thousandsheep.Urbanfarmsaremoreproductivethanruralfarms,perhapsbecauseoftheavailabilityof(mostlywaste)waterandotherformsoforganicwastewhichprovideusefulinputstocropproduction and maintain backyard soil productivity. The1980ssurveyfound35%ofcropgrowerswereusingcompostand 29% were using manure, 91 and 44% respectivelyproducing these inputs on their own farms. This meansagroecologywas,andprobablystillis,prevalentonthecity’ssmallhouseholdfarms.

Nutrients and livestock in Nairobi’s food systemThebackyard(“nexttothehouse”)isthemostcommonformof household urban agriculture found throughout Africa,although high densities in low-income areas make suchgardeningdifficult.Mostpeoplewithbackyardsaremiddleor high income. Studies by Urban Harvest, part of theConsultativeGrouponInternationalAgriculturalResearch(CGIAR),showedthesefarmsareeffectiveincyclingnutrients.Urban farmers in Nakuru, a town 150 km from Nairobi,recycledalmostalltheirdomesticorganicwaste,mostlyaslivestockfodder.Justunderhalfthemanureproducedinsidethe town was re-used as fertiliser. But households withbackyard crop-livestock farms re-used 88%, while poorfarmers with less space only re-used 17%, resulting indumping. Some intensive vegetable producers were,however,makinggooduseofthismanureonunder-utilisedland,andin2009thepracticewasexpandedwithmunicipalsupport, with plans to use dumped manure forco-composting,packagingandsaleasbio-fertiliser.

UrbanHarvestalsofoundthat70%ofNairobi’ssolidwasteisorganicandbiodegradable,typicalofmanyAfricancities.Mappingitsflowsrevealedthatverylittleofthiswasusedasfertiliser, and then in an uncoordinated way. LivestockmanurewasusedtotheextentthatMaasaiherdersoutsideNairobi were linked to urban and rural crop productionthrough an organised market in the city, but this wasdisconnected from manure production within the city,wheretherewasanalmosttotallackofmarketinformationonnutrients.Domesticsolidwastewasusedaslivestockfeedinbackyardfarms.Althoughlessthan1%ofNairobi’ssolidwastewasprocessed,non-marketsystemsworkedbetter.Anestimated 54,500 Nairobi farm households used compostthey made themselves in the early 2000s, and 37,700households used livestock manure to fertilise their crops,abouthalfgettingitfromtheirownanimals.

Because everyone thought urban dwellers were better offthan rural people, it came as a shock in 2000 when theAfrican Population and Health Research Council (APHRC)foundthatNairobislumresidentshadtheworsthealthandnutritionalstatusofanygroupinKenya.Thiswasattributedto the lack of basic services in these areas, which areovercrowdedandlackwaterandsanitation.

Hungerisalsowidespreadintheseareas,manypeopleonlyeatingonceadayorsometimesless.AndKenyaisnotaloneinthis.AsurveyinSouthernAfricafound77%oflowincomeurban dwellers were food insecure.While most urbaniteswhofarmdosotofeedtheirownfamilies,theyarenotthepoorest people. Urban farmers are better off thannon-farmers.Slumdwellerscannoteasilyfindspacetofarmwhereasbetter-offurbaniteshavebackyardswheretheycanproduce food. On the other hand, Urban Harvest showedthatchildrenwhoeatanimal-sourcefoods(milk,meat,eggs)are healthier, meaning urban livestock-keeping promoteschildhealth.And,urbanagriculturewaslinkedstatisticallyto better household food security.Thus, urban agriculturecanalleviatemalnutritionamongurbandwellersifpoliciesaretargetedforslumdwellers,asNairobinowplanstodo.Woman vegetable seller. Photo by Diana Lee-Smith

50


21st Century policiesKenyaasacountryisnowimplementingaFoodandNutritionSecurityPolicy,withFoodSecurityCommitteesatthelevelofcounties – the new units of devolved government. Thelong-awaited Urban and Peri-urban Agriculture andLivestockPolicy(UPAL)willbeintegratedintothisinstitutionalframework. A country-wide Urban and Peri-urbanAgriculture,LivestockandFisheriesStrategy(UPALF)isinfactalreadyinplace.

Because of devolution of political power to countygovernments,Nairobihasitsownexecutiveandhastakenoverseveraladministrativefunctions,includingagriculture.The City County of Nairobi’s Assembly passed the UrbanAgriculturePromotionandRegulationActin2015.ThefirstobjectiveofthisActisto“contributetofoodsecuritythroughthedevelopmentofagricultureinthecountybyempoweringpeople and institutions through allowing and facilitatingagricultural activities for subsistence and commercialpurposes”.Thefourthobjectiveisto“Regulateaccesstolandand water for use in urban agriculture within the county,giving priority to residents of high density and informalsettlements”,whilethesixthobjectiveisto“institutionaliseadministrative procedures for access to agriculturalresourcesincludingorganicwaste”.Thecityalsohasitsownpolicyinplaceandin2016providedInter-SectoralTrainingonUrbanFoodSystemsandAgricultureforitsstaff.Infact,thiswasseenasapilotandNairobihopestorolloutmoresuchtraining.The2015Actmakesnoexplicitprovisionforstakeholderinvolvement,althoughthereisaconstitutionalrequirement for public consultation, and FAO is assistingNairobiindevelopingamulti-stakeholderplatform.

CivilsocietywasinfactaheadofgovernmentinaddressingNairobi’s food system. A bottom-up process called theNairobiandEnvironsFoodSecurity,AgricultureandLivestock

Forum (NEFSALF) was convened by the NGO, MazingiraInstitute, in the early 2000s. Stakeholders came from thepublicsector,theprivatesectorandthecommunitysector(farmers).TherewasgoodattendancefromthepublicsectorintheformofextensionrepresentativesfromtheMinistriesof Agriculture and Livestock, although the City Councilseldomattended.Thefarmersbegantheirownnetworkin2004,alsocalledNEFSALF,whichrequestedgovernmenttoprovidethemwithtraining.TheresponsewaspositiveandcoursesatMazingirahavecontinueduntil today.Nairobi’sfarmers frequently out-perform others in the country innationalcompetitions.

What happens next?The policy environment of urban agriculture has totallytransformed in the 21st century, and the intentions ofgovernment are to support urban farmers, and promoteurban agriculture by slum dwellers through making landandwateravailable.Thereisapolicyintentiontoimprovetheagroecologyofthecitybybetternutrientcycling,throughre-usingorganicwastesinurbanandruralagriculture.Thismaybeeasiersaidthandone,asagricultureandenvironment(responsibleforwasteinNairobi)areseparatesectorsandsofar,therehasbeennodirectcollaborationonthis.

Butneitherhavespecificlandandwaterarrangementsyetbeen made to enable slum dwellers to farm. There arehoweveractiveplansandefforts to institute this throughprojectdevelopmentbythecity.InthelongertermthesewillneedtobemonitoredandevaluatedinrelationtolevelsofmalnutritionandfoodsecurityinNairobi’sslums.ButkeytothefuturegovernanceoffoodsecurityinthecitywillbetheinstitutionalrelationshipbetweenNairobi’sfarmersandthecitygovernment.NEFSALFhasbeenavoiceforthefarmerspriortopolicychange,butwillit,orothersimilarbodiesofurbanfarmerscontinuetoinfluencegovernanceofurbanagriculture? In the 20th century, urban farmers could notrelatetothecitygovernmentbutonlycentralgovernment,through extension services they provided. Now thoseextension services are provided by Nairobi City Countygovernment.Butwillitbeatop-downrelationship,orwillthere be a political voice for the farmers and a say ingovernance?

Diana Lee-Smith and Davinder LambaMazingiraInstitute,[email protected]

ReferencesAPHRC (2000) Population and Health Dynamics in Nairobi’s Informal Sector. Report of Nairobi cross-sectional slums survey. African Population and Health Research Council. Nairobi. Lee-Smith, D. (2013) ‘Which way for UPA in Africa?’ CITY, vol 17, pp. 69-84Prain, G., Karanja, N. K. and Lee-Smith, D. (eds) (2010) African Urban Harvest: Agriculture in the Cities of Cameroon, Kenya and Uganda, Springer, New York and IDRC, Ottawa

Kibera slum in Nairobi. Photo by Diana Lee-Smith



51

www.ruaf.org

The Urban Agriculture Programme (PAU, Programa de Agricultura Urbana) in Rosario, Argentina is built on agroecological production principles, which support plant diversity, the improvement of soils and reduces dependence on external inputs. The programme also promotes social inclusion and public participation in all its activities.

Agroecological productionTheprogrammetrainsfarmerstoproduceorganicfertilisersandplant-basedphyto-stimulantstosupportplantgrowth.Itcollaborateswithothermunicipaldepartmentsaswellasprivatecompaniestorecyclecoffeeandgreenwastefromawaste bank.Waste and cow dung from a slaughterhouse,barley remnants from a company that makes craft beer,wood chips and green park waste are other items in thewastebank.Allorganicresiduesareusedfortheproductionofanorganicfertiliser,throughcompostingorvermiculturepractices.

Promoting equitable access to green spacesTheprogrammebuildsoncollectiveeffortstoclaimcitizen’srighttogreenspacesandspacesforfoodproduction.Diversenewproductivepublicspaceshavebeenintegratedintotheurbanfabricandlow-incomeandslumsettlements.Thesespacesinclude:• GardenParks(throughanagreementwithNationalRoads)• GreenCorridorsalongsiderailroads(throughagreement

withtheNCARailroadCompany)• Gardenswitharomaticandedibleplantsinpublicsquares,

hospitalsandschools

• OrganicSeedProductionCentres• Demonstration centres for the production of organic

vegetables,applyingintensiveproductiontechniques• Agroecological Innovation Centre with a rainwater and

greywaterrecyclingsystem• AgroecologicalnurseryofRosarioengagingunemployed

youth.

Community and youth involvementLocal communities are engaged in the design andmanagement of the various productive spaces. Throughpublicworkshopsandgardenevents,thewidercommunityisexposedtoinformationandtrainingontheagroecologicalcultivationofvegetablesandmedicinalplantsandspicesinsmallspaces.EventsareorganisedbothinthecentraldistrictofRosarioaswellasthedifferentlow-incomeneighbourhoodsinthecitywherethousandsoffamiliesparticipate.Duringtheworkshops,seeds–providedbythenationalPro-HuertaINTA programme – and aromatic plant seedlings aredistributed.

Theprogrammespecificallyaimstoreachyoungpeople.The‘YouthwithMoreandBetterWork’programme–which ismanagedbytheMinistryofLabour,EmploymentandSocialSecurity–engaged140youngparticipants(agedbetween18and 24) in the PAU programme. They were assigned anindividualplotandtrainedtofarmitbasedonagroecologicalpractices.Currently,youthbetweentheagesof16and35arebeingtrainedinagroecologicalproductioninthecityaspartof the ‘New Opportunity’ programme supported by theProvince of Santa Fé. In addition, young urban gardenershavebeguntoprovidetheirowntrainingandinformationservicestoothersasastrategytodiversifytheirincome.Theyprovideguidedvisitstothegardenparks,anddevelopand

Antonio Lattuca

Using Agroecological and Social Inclusion Principles in the Urban Agriculture Programme in Rosario, Argentina

Photo by Antonio Lattuca


52

www.ruaf.org

coordinate workshops and training in cooperation withdifferentinstitutesliketheCulturalCenterParqueEspaña,the Rosario Medical Association and the Association ofMunicipalWorkersofRosario.Inaddition,theygivecoursesinschoolsandinstitutesofsecondaryeducationinorderforyoungpeopletolearnabouttheadvantagesofagroecologicalproduction.

Food security and resilienceThe Urban Agriculture programme contributes directly topromotingmorefood-secureandresilientneighbourhoods,withafocusonthemostvulnerablegroupsinthepopulation.Programme design based on agroecological principlesstimulates environmentally-friendly food production aswellasthefulfilmentofsocial,environmentalandeconomicgoalswithintheframeworkofasocialandsolidarity-basedeconomy. The following principles and priorities wereestablished:• Addressfoodinsecurityofurbanfamilieslivinginpoverty

bybringing intoproductionvacant land throughsecurelandtenureagreements

• Establish a food production system of fast-growingproduce(i.e.fruitsandvegetables)

• Improve the neighbourhood scenery by transformingabandonedvacantlotsintoproductivespaces

• Producehealthyfoodsofhighnutritionalvalueinordertomeetthedietaryrequirementsoffamilieslivinginpoverty

• Establish a direct marketing system through theimplementation of market fairs in strategically locatedpublicspacesinthecity.

Theprogramme’slong-termplanincludestheconsolidationofurbanagricultureasapermanentactivity;itisonethatsupportssecurespacesforproductionandcommercialisation.Rosario’smunicipalpublicpolicysupportsurbanagriculture,whiletheproductiveuseofpublicspaceshasbeenincludedin urban planning. The programme collaborates withPro-Huerta INTA.This isanorganisationwhichcarriesoutfood education and promotion activities related to familyorchards,schoolandcommunitygardensandtheproductionoffruit,eggs,poultrymeatandrabbits.

Urban agriculture as a space of learning and innovation for peri-urban productionExperiencesachievedinthePAUarecurrentlybeingsharedwith the peri-urban agriculture programme developed byRosarioandSantaFeProvincewhereitislocated.Long-timegardeners from the parks support training of conventionalperi-urban producers in agroecological productiontechniques. Markets established for the urban agriculturefarmers now also serve as an outlet for the peri-urbanagroecologicalfarmers.Withoutover15yearsofexperienceinthePAU,theGreenBeltProjectRosario(seenextarticle)couldnothavebeensetupasanadditionalstepintheconsolidationofagroecologyasapublicpolicytoolforthecity.

Antonio LattucaDirectoroftheUrbanAgricultureProgramme,SecretariatforSocialEconomy,[email protected]

English translation by: G. Villarreal Herrera

Andrea Battiston, Graciela Porzio, Natalia Budai,

Nahuel Martínez, Yanina Pérez Casella, Raúl Terrile,

Mariano Costa, Agustin Mariatti, Nicolás Paz

Green Belt Project: Promoting agroecological food production in peri-urban Rosario

The city of Rosario is located in the Santa Fe province ofArgentina. The city covers an area of 179km2 and has anestimated population of almost 985,000 inhabitants.Togetherwithother24localitiesitcomprisestheMetropolitanAreaofRosario(AMR,ÁreaMetropolitanadeRosario).

Inthepast,horticultureproductionfromRosario’sgreenbeltusedtosupplymostofthefruitsandvegetablestothecity,includingpotatoes,tomatoes,lettuce,onions,carrots,squashor pumpkin, and different varieties of fruit. However, thelocal agricultural production area and capacity havediminishedoverthepastyears.Thisisduetourbanisationofagricultural land as well as shifts from horticultureproductiontosoyproductionforexport.

Soybeanproducersaswellasremaininghorticulturefarmerscurrently produce their crops by applying high levels of

The Green Belt Project Rosario (PCVR, Proyecto Cinturón Verde Rosario) seeks the conversion of productive peri-urban areas in Rosario to agroecological systems. The general aim is to achieve production of healthy food (meaning without contaminants) and improvement of the socio-economic conditions of producers, their families and farm workers. It also aims to contribute to the health of consumers and the environment, as well as revitalise short food supply chains that target differentiated markets.


53

www.ruaf.org

chemicals with corresponding risks for environmentalcontaminationandhumansafety.Overall,thecityhasseenareductioninitslocalproductioncapacitytofeeditspopulation,becomingmoredependentonlonger-distancefoodimports,whilehorticulturefarmershavelosttheirlivelihoods.Humanhealthconcernsforfoodsafetyhavealsoincreased.

Aproductionsurveyshowedthatcurrentlocalproductionismainlyprovidedbysmall-scalefamilyfarmerswhocultivatesmall areas of land and generally apply large amounts ofagrochemicals.Mostdonotbenefitfromtechnicalassistanceandareadvisedonlybyvendorsofagrochemicals.Researchandlaboratoryanalysisshowedhighlevelsofbacterialandchemicalcontaminationofproduceandlackofprotectionforagriculturalworkers,especiallywhenapplyingpesticides.Producers also indicate increasing competition fromimported products from other regions and low-qualityproduction.Atthesametime,theRosariopopulationshowsincreasingconsumerconsciousnessanddemandforqualityandhealthyfoodproducts.

TheRosarioGreenBeltProject(PCVR)promotesnewformsofsustainable and agroecological food production. This isunderstood as the stable production of goods and servicesthatmeetthenutritional,socio-economicandculturalneedsofthepopulationwithoutcompromisingthehealthofpeople,natural resources, or the environment. The PCVR bringstogethergovernmentactors,technicalinstitutionsandcivilsociety.ItbuildsonworkdonethroughtheUrbanAgricultureProgramme(asdescribedinthepreviousarticle)andseekstoconsolidatethecity’sagroecologicalpublicpolicy.

The Rosario Green Belt (PCVR) project ThePCVRisimplementedintheperi-urbanareaofRosario.Itseekstopromoteconversiontoagroecologicalproductionsystemsintheentireproductiveperi-urbanregion.

ThePCVRisbasedonlanduseordinanceno.9144/13,whichestablishestheprotectionof800haofproductiveperi-urbanland to be used for fruit and vegetable production andsafeguardedfromurbanexpansion.Theurbanplanincludesaproposal for thisarea tobeanagroecologicalproductionarea.Itisalsobuiltonordinanceno.8871/11whichsetsanareaof100mfromtheurbanboundaryasanagrochemical-freezone where no application of agrochemical pesticides is

allowed.The800hagreenbeltisalsorecognisedinthe2018StrategicPlanforthemetropolitanAreaofRosario.

Theprojectaddressesgrowingconcernsaboutfoodsafetyandquality.Italsoseekstostrengthenthelinkagesbetweenthe city and its hinterland, local food production andconsumption,foodqualityandresponsibleconsumption,aswellasstimulatingthelocalandregionaleconomy.Moreover,the project seeks to advance and reward horticulturalactivitiesbasedonethicalproductionprinciplesasmuchastheproducers’identityintheirrelationshiptohealthyfood.

The project strategy is based on participatory technicalsupport at individual and group levels. The project offersincentives for agroecological conversion processes, qualitymonitoring, and marketing under a provincial collectivebrand–whichrecognisestheproductasagroecological.Theprojectfallsunder theresponsibilityof theMunicipalSecretaries of: Production and Local Development,EnvironmentandPublicSpace,HealthandSocialEconomy.Itis implemented in conjunction with neighbouringmunicipalities,theProHuertaprogrammeandtheMinistryofNationalFamilyAgriculture.

Project implementationThe project started with the development of eightdemonstrationproductionunits intheRosarioperi-urbanareaandsixadditionalones in theneighbouring townofSoldini.Thisaccountsforatotalof40habeingconvertedtoagroecologicalproduction.Atthistrialstage,producersareconverting either their entire farm, or a smaller area ofminimumonehectare.

Theprojecthasthreemainworkstreams:productive,socialandcommercial.Intermsofproduction,technicalsupportisprovidedthroughparticipatorymethodologiesatgroupandindividuallevels.Theaimistoachieveanattitudechange.Supportalsocomesintheformofprovisionofinfrastructureandincentivestoadvancetheagroecologicaltransition.Atthesociallevel,theprojectaimstostrengthentherelationshipbetweenproducersandtoimprovetheirqualityoflife,forexample housing, health and road infrastructure. At thecommercial level, the aim is to increase the sale ofdifferentiatedproductsofhigherquality.Intheinitialprojectstagethisisachievedthroughdirectsalesbasedoncustomerorders,participationinfourweeklymarketfairsorganisedbythemunicipality,saleofbulkfoodpackagesanddeliveriestostoresthatstockorganicproduce.Theprojectalsoplanstoreachanagreementwithgrocerystoressothattheproduceispresentedonspecialproducedisplays.ProducerswillalsobeabletoselltheirproduceinthenewPatioMarketthatwillbringlocalandregionalproducerstogetherinaretailspacedesignedforfoodproductsofdifferentiatedquality.

Productsaresoldundera‘ProductofMyArea’(ProductodeMiTierra)logo,aqualitylabelprovidedbytheGovernmentoftheProvinceofSantaFe.Thelogoaimstocharacterisetheproducts by their location of production, tradition andexcellence,tosupporttheirdistinctiveplaceinthemarketandtheirrecognitionandtrustbyconsumers.

Loss of horticulture area (in hectares) in the Rosario greenbelt from 2001 (3663 ha) to 2012 (2485 ha)


54

www.ruaf.org

Atthemunicipallevel,across-departmental,technicalandpolitical team has been formed to be in charge of projectimplementation.TheteamismadeupbymembersoftheSecretariatofProductionandLocalDevelopment,Secretariatof Environment and Public Space, Secretariat of SocialEconomyandtheFoodInstitute.ItisalsoconnectedtotheSustainability Cabinet through which all municipal areascollaborateinthedesigningofpublicpolicies.

Attheprovinciallevel,theprojectenjoysthetechnicalandfinancial assistance of the Ministry of Production of theProvinceofSantaFe,whichisprovidedthroughtheProvincialPeri-urban and Sustainable Food Production Programme.The project collaborates with several educational andtechnologicalinstitutions,NGOsandtheprivatesector(thelatter to promote productive use of organic waste). Itcollaborates with the Chamber of Commerce to monitorproductqualityandlevelsofagro-chemicalresidues.

Lessons learned• Itisimportanttohaveagroecologicalpublicpoliciesthat

provide security to producers.When conditions such assecure land tenure and support at the productive andcommercial levels – that ensure a stable income – exist,producers are quick to participate and allocate land toagroecologicalconversion.

• It is important to work with producers in coordinationwith civil society, educational and technologicalinstitutionstopromotethebehaviouralchangerequiredforatransitiontowardssustainablesystems.Throughthisproject,agroecologicalproductionatlargescaleisbeingdemonstrated. This builds up confidence for more

producers to join and increases consumers’ access tohealthyfoods.

• Support for (improved) localised or regional productionsystems needs to combine production and marketingsupport with consumer education and awareness. Oncecitizensaremadeawareofwheretheirfoodcomesfromandthequalityofthefoodtheyconsume,moreresponsibleconsumption habits will increase demand for morehealthyandlocalproducts.

Andrea Battiston and Graciela PorzioSecretariatofEnvironmentandPublicSpace,OfficeforEnvironmentalAffairs,MunicipalityofRosario

Natalia Budai, Nahuel Martínez, Yanina Pérez Casella and Raúl TerrileSecretariatofProductionandLocalDevelopment,FoodProgramme,MunicipalityofRosario

Mariano CostaSecretariatofSocialEconomy,MunicipalityofRosario

Agustin MariattiProvincialPeri-urbanandSustainableFoodProductionProgramme,GovernmentofSantaFe

Nicolás PazSecretariatofHealth,FoodInstitute,[email protected]

English translation by: G. Villarreal Herrera

Green area: Protected area for the horticulture greenbelt. 800 ha of land that cannot be built upon. Municipality of Rosario

In larger cities, opportunities for formal and informalemploymentcreationarebecomingscarce.Urbangrowthmay also impact food security. In response, our city hasdevelopedanUrbanAgricultureProgrammeforthepastyears.Amongstothers,theprogrammesupportsfruitandhorticultureproducersinperi-urbanandsemi-ruralareas.Theseareareasoftencharacterisedbyfamilyproductionunits and applying traditional production techniques tosustainandimprovetheirenterprises.Giventhefactthatthese producers have the capacity to provide consumerswithsafeandnutritiousfood,theywillbesupportedintheadoption of good production practices that guaranteesustainability in production, social inclusion, hygiene and safety and environmental management www.rosario.gov.ar/web/sites/default/files/perm.pdf).


https://www.rosario.gov.ar/web/sites/default/files/perm.pdf

555555


55

In December 2016, the Zaragoza City Council organised an international seminar on Cities for Agroecology. This event marked the start of two parallel processes of city networking, at European and national level. The Milan Urban Food Policy Pact World Mayor’s meeting in Valencia (October 2017) represents an important milestone in the consolidation of agroecological approaches in sustainable urban food policies as both networks are advancing fast.

Introduction and backgroundZaragoza City Council, in cooperation with local civicorganisations,hasbeeninvolvedinrestoringandprotectingitstraditional“huerta”:thousandsofhectaresofhistoricaland highly fertile orchards within the municipality. From2013to2016thecityusedaLIFEprogramgrantfortheproject“Environmental recovery of peri-urban areas throughintervention in the ecosystem and organic farming”. Theproject adopted an agroecological approach, in whichadvancing towards a localised, sustainable food systemwouldbethecornerstoneformaximisingecosystemservicesdeliveredbyperi-urbanagriculturalareas.

TheLIFEprojectbuiltuponmunicipalorganiccommunitygardensstartedinthe80sandtheweeklyorganicfarmers’market,withsomekeyadditions.Projectfundingwasusedfor the following activities: a school for new peri-urbanfarmers;apublic-privatepartnershiplandbank;anorganicfarmerscooperative;theprovisionofpublicinfrastructureforlocalfoodlogistics;sustainablepublicfoodprocurement;promotion of organic food in municipal markets, 17 smallretailersand15restaurants;and,publicawarenesscampaign

on local and organic food. After three years, the RedAgroecológicadeZaragozawascreated,linking17agriculturalholdingson57haoforganicfarmingwith22newfarmers.Consequently,ZaragozahasbecomealeaderinnationalandEuropeanagroecology-orientedfoodpolicy.

The 2016 international seminar on‘Cities for Agroecology’heldinZaragozawaspartoftheLIFEproject.Itwasorganisedin cooperation with Fundación Entretantos – an NGOspecialised in participatory processes and networkingaround territory and sustainability. More than 150 peopleattendedthemeeting,includingrepresentativesfrommorethan20Europeancities.AspecialworkshopwasorganisedforcityrepresentativestodiscussthecreationofaEuropeannetwork of cities. The high interest and attendance fromSpanishcities,eachwith their localspecificities,drove theorganisation to launch an additional process at nationalscalethateventuallyledtotheSpanishNetworkof‘CitiesforAgroecology’.

What does ‘Cities for Agroecology’ mean?ThediscussiononagroecologicalfoodpoliciesatZaragoza’sseminaraddressedsomeofthefollowingkeytopicsintermsofnetworkactions:• Promoting local production, processing and consumption

of organic food,eitherofficiallycertifiedorincludedwithinParticipatoryGuaranteeSystems

• Addressing ecological features related to local food systems,especiallyonupstreamprocessessuchasinputprovision, and regulating ecosystem services such aswater quality, soil fertility, organic matter cycling, cropbiodiversity

• Supporting professional agriculture within local food system frameworks,aiming todevelopCity-RegionFoodSystems(CRFS)

• Activation and protection of urban and peri-urban agricultural landsandlandscapes,whilegrantingaccess

Daniel López, Nuria Alonso, Pedro M. Herrera, Julia Mérida,

Josep M. Pérez

‘Cities for Agroecology’ Networks in Europe and Spain


56


to land for new entrants and professionals into organicfarming

• Strengthening the local food supply and logistic networks forlocalstakeholdersbyproviding:publicinfrastructure,logisticscoordination,publicprocurement,andsupportingCommunitySupportedAgriculture(CSA)schemes

• Promoting access of consumers to local, organic food by raising awareness and engaging with communities onhowtheyaccessappropriatelocal,high-qualityfood

• Focusing on the practical implementation of policies throughparticipatory,goodfoodgovernancemechanismswithlocalcivilsocietyandprivateactors,whileavoidinggetting lost in organisational and bureaucratic barriersthatmayharmoperationalcapacity.

Internationally,thereisagrowingnumberofcitynetworksoriented to sustainable food systems, especially after theMilanUrbanFoodPolicyPact(MUFPP).Emergingfromthis,we anticipate future strong engagement with organicfarming, local production and beyond. The agroecologicalapproach entails a deep commitment to sustainability aswellasamajorcommitmenttosocialjusticeregardingfoodsystems. This approach therefore includes the concept offoodsovereigntyandenvironmentalandfoodjustice.Itisanambitiousandtransformativeagendaforurbanfoodpolicy.

Two nested networks with one common processIn2017, the cities involved in theAgroEcoCities EuropeanNetwork had several online meetings following upZaragoza’sseminar.TheseweresupportedeconomicallybyZaragoza City Council and technically by FundaciónEntretantos. A Steering Committee was set up, includingcity officers from Brugge, Ghent, Freiburg, Zaragoza andValència and city representative organisations likeLiverpoolFoodPeopleandtheBristolFoodCouncil.InMayweheldtwothematicgroupwebinarsonfoodwasteandlocalfoodgovernance.Theseincorporatedothercitiesandcivic organisations to exchange and discuss practicalexperiences. The continuity of the network needs to besustainedbyasharedinterestinrunningactivities;therewill not be any formalised structure. The next physicalmeeting will be held in autumn, and probably linked toValència’sMUFPPsummit.

In early 2017, Zaragoza and València City Councils, in aconsortium with Fundación Entretantos, received 12monthsco-fundingfromDaniel&NinaCarassoFoundationfor developing a Spanish network of “Ciudades por laAgroecología”. Six cities formed the Steering Committee:Zaragoza, València, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Madrid,LleidaandPamplona-Iruña.InearlyMay,thenetworkheldafirstphysicalmeetinginZaragoza,withtheattendanceoften cities and meetings around three thematic workgroups:1)participatoryprocessesandfoodgovernance,2)promotionofagroecologicalentrepreneurshipandaccessto land,and3)promotionof local fooddeliverynetworksand infrastructures. The second physical meeting of thenationalNetworkwasheldinSeptember2017inthecityofValència,ataseminaronCivilSociety,FoodandSustainableCities, which brought together delegations of 18 cities,including city officers and policymakers, but also privateactors, civic organisations and scholars already workingwith member cities. The foundation document of the‘CiudadesporlaAgroecología’Spanishnetworkwassignedafewweekslater.

What do Cities for Agroecology need?Fromthetwonetworksithasbecomeclearthatcities,andespeciallycityofficersinvolvedinsustainablefoodpolicies,need space for peer-to-peer exchange of knowledge andexperience.Asurbanfoodpoliciesarearelativelynewissueforcitygovernments,thereisalackofpracticaltools,suchasrules,publicsupportmechanismsorpracticalactionstobeimplemented.Asmanycitiesdonothaveadepartmentforfood policy, there is also a strong need to address how tointroducefoodaffairsincurrentadministrativestructures.Finally,participantshaverecognisedaneedtolearnfromthepioneer experiences of others, and to develop innovativeknowledgeandlinesofactionincooperationwithlocally-involvedscholarsandcivicorganisations.

Themostvaluedtopicsforknowledgeexchangehavebeenthefollowing:• Creatingandcoordinatingfoodlogistics,supplynetworks

and public infrastructure to improve local food systemssustainability,includingsustainablepublicprocurement

Some declarations from representatives of Spanish cities•ForTeresaArtigas,EnvironmentalcounsellorofZaragoza

and promoter of both networks, joining means “animportantstepforwardsintheeffortsthecityisalreadyundertaking towards sustainable agri-food andterritorialmodels”

•In a recent press release, the City Council of Manresa(Catalonia)statedthat“Wehavebeenworkingforyearsonsupportingpublicandprivateinitiativestopromotelocalandsustainableagriculture,anditwouldbeverypositive to consolidate a model based on agroecologyprinciples among producers, intermediaries andconsumers.TheaimoftheNetworksistosharestrategies,informationandactionproposals”

•TheCityCouncilofPalmadeMallorcahasdevelopedaparticipatoryassessmentoftheagri-foodsectorinthecity,and implemented actions on city organic markets,consumerandschoolawareness,andisnowworkingonanaccess-to-landtoolfororganicfarmers.FortheEcologyCounsellor,NeusTruyol,“strengtheninganagroecologicalmodelofproductionandstoppingthedecreaseinfarmingactivitywithinPalmaisafundamentalaimwithatriplebenefit:environmental,agriculturalandsocial,regardingnewjobpossibilities.JoiningtheSpanishnetworkwillhelpustoworkinthisdirection”.

http://www.ciudadesagroecologicas.eu/

http://www.ciudadesagroecologicas.eu/

575757


57

• Improvinglandplanningandprotectingagriculturallanduse

• Implementingparticipatory,strategicfoodplans• Developinglocalfoodcouncilsandenhancingrelationships

between local governments and economic and civicorganisations

• Reducingfoodwasteandpromotingthecirculareconomy

PoliticalmomentsatthelocaladministrationlevelinSpainhave opened new opportunities for innovative andsustainable policies on many topics, including food. TheSpanishnetworkhastakenadvantageofthismomentumtoformalise a resilient structure, capable of overcomingpossible political changes in advance.Therefore, cities aremaking a strong effort to create a formal Association ofCities before the end of 2018. Fourteen city governmentshavealreadysupportedthisstep,anditisexpectedtobeupto20bytheendof2017.Besidestheneedforpracticaltoolsandknowledgeexchangethereareotherreasonstobuildastrong network. The need for a political window forsustainable food policies, supported by local, civic andprivateactorsisprobablythemosturgentofthem.

Eachcityinvolvedinthenetworksiscurrentlydevelopingitsownagenda,boostedbylocalactionbasedontheirspecificbackground.CitiesasBristol,Liverpool,Barcelona,ValladolidandVitoria-GasteizhavebeenworkingontheparticipatoryconstructionofLocalFoodStrategies.Alternatively,Bristol,BruggeorValènciahavecreatedLocalFoodCouncils,whilstother cities such as Madrid and Córdoba have formalisedcivic engagement through MUFPP follow-up committees.Ghent, Zaragoza, Barcelona and València are involved inperi-urban farming social processes of revitalisation,focusing on organic farming. Some cities are trying toprotecttheiragriculturallandsthroughparticipatorylandplanning (Ghent, Barcelona). Some (Ghent, Zaragoza,València, Grenoble and Freiburg) are providing publicinfrastructure for local logistics and delivery. Finally, someothers (Liverpool, Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Madrid,BarcelonaandGrenoble)aretacklingfoodaccessinequalitythrough public procurement coordinated with localagroecologicalfooddeliverychains.

Challenges for agroecology-oriented urban food policies Thebigpictureshowsaveryactivenetwork,butthereisstillalottodo.Werelyonvastongoingexpertisefromdifferentcities but we also need to spread and disseminate thisknowledgeacrossEurope.Nevertheless,theEuropeancitiesalso share some common challenges that need to beaddressedinthenearfuture:• Lack of specific departments (and therefore budget) for

foodpolicieswithincitygovernments;thereisalsoalackofcompetencesonagriculture

• Austerity and externalisation policies within localadministrations; this allows flexible alliances with civicorganisations through consultation, but makes foodpoliciespoliticallyweakandunstable

• Lack of agricultural land and decrease of agriculturalholdingswithinurbanareas

• Increasing food poverty, food deserts and disaffection,especiallyamonglowincomesocialgroups.

• Lack of metropolitan authorities in many urban areas,constrainingtheneedforashiftfrommetropolitan-scaletoCity-RegionFoodSystems.Bothfoodsupplychainsandadministrativecoordinationneedtobeadaptedtobetterscaling

• Specialvulnerabilitytoglobalchangeinurbanareas• Lackofawarenessofcities’dependenceonphysicalflows,

both among policymakers and general citizenship; thisaffectsfoodpolicydevelopment

• Theneedforadeepculturalandvaluechange thatcansupportbetterfoodpoliciesinmoresustainable,equitableandfairurbansocieties.

ConclusionsAgroecologyprovidesabroadapproachtosustainableurbanfoodpolicies,goingfarbeyondorganicfarmingtowardsaperspectiveoffoodjusticeandecosystemservicesprovidedbyfoodsystems.ItpointstoCityRegionFoodSystemasitsoptimal scale. Moreover, the political perspective ofagroecologyfocusesonparticipatory,bottom-upgovernanceprocesses which give a star role in the leadership of suchpoliciestolocalcivicandeconomicorganisations,togetherwithlocalauthorities.SuchanapproachistakenbyanumberofEuropeancitiesasaframeworkfordevelopingambitiousandtransformativeagendas,withtheaimtostabilisethosepolicieswithinacontextofpoliticalinstability,austerityandglobalchange.

Despite the great number of common challenges to beaddressed, an increasing number of innovative urbanpoliciesandstrategictoolsareemerging.Theyadoptboththe concept and the aims of transformative agroecology.Cities stress the need to come together to share theirexperiences. This gathering should provide the basis forcreating,storinganddisseminatingnewusefulknowledge,leadingthewayforunderstandingandimprovinglocalisedfoodsystems.Furthermore, theyneed togathermoreandmorecities,inordertostabilisethosenetworksanddevelopstrongertoolsforprovidingmutualsupportamongthem.

Theagroecologicalapproachneedstofinditsplaceamongthe growing number of networking processes on urban,sustainablefoodpoliciesaroundtheworld.Thesenetworkspresent themselves as a complement for other, previousinitiatives,especiallythoseorientedtolobbying.ArticulatingthedifferentcitynetworksrelatedtoMUFPP,signatorycities,at different territorial scales, can also be a useful tool tostrengthensuchmovement.

Daniel López, Nuria Alonso and Pedro M. Herrera Fundació[email protected]

Julia MéridaZaragozaCityCouncil

Josep M. PérezValènciaCityCouncil



58

www.ruaf.org

The municipality of El Boalo, 60 km north of Spain’s largest city, Madrid, is developing policies and projects that aim to support environmental sustainability and attract young people to work with the land. Using the concept of agroecology, one such project is El Boalo’s municipal goatherd, which is being promoted by the local government as a means to revitalise pastoralist traditions, offer environmental education, promote tourism and foster entrepreneurship. The goal is to boost the local food system and turn the municipality into an example of innovation in environmental sustainability. The initiative is part of the municipality’s local development strategy and new waste management plan. This type of municipal initiative provides valuable insight into the role municipal policy and projects can have in shaping local food systems. But the implementation of this project by a public institution raises several questions, such as: Who is actively involved? Whose interests and needs is the project responding to? And what are the opportunities and challenges of institutionalising agroecology? Through this article, we evaluate this case of institution-led agroecology.

The municipal goatherd project started in October 2016,turningthe7.200inhabitantsofElBoalointoofficialownersof75“public”goats.Theherdwaspresentedtothecommunityonthemainsquareofthetown,withtheceremonybecomingespecially memorable when one of the goats gave birthunexpectedly.Thiseventmarkedthestartofanewroleforthemunicipality.Itispromotinginnovativenaturalresourcemanagement through initiatives especially attractive topeoplemovingoutofMadridlookingtobemoreengagedwiththeirnaturalenvironmentandlocalfoodsystem.

The changing role of municipal politicsTherootsofElBoalo’sgoatherdprojectcanbe linked toabroader global trend, occurring over the past decade, ofmunicipalitiesbecomingaspacefornewformsofsocialandpoliticalchange.Conceptuallydefinedasmunicipalism, thismovementidentifiesdecentralisationofpoliticalpoweranddirect democracy as two core elements. Increasingly,municipally-led initiatives aimed at developing moresustainable food systems are also seen as part of thisemerging political current. This is evidenced byinter-municipal commitments at different levels. At theglobal level, there is the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. AtnationallevelexamplesfromSpainaretheReddeCiudadesporlaAgroecologiaandRedTerrae.Atlocal levelthereareinitiativestointegratefoodandagricultureintomunicipalagendasoflargecitiesasBarcelona,Zaragoza,Valencia,andMadrid,aswellassmallerSpanishmunicipalitiessuchasElBoalo (see also previous article). In emphasising theimportance of food and agriculture on the municipalagenda,theseinitiativesofferimportantperspectivesonthefutureofagroecologyinurbanandperi-urbanareas.

Flora SonkinJordan Treakle

Institutionalising Agroecology? Reflections on municipal pastoralism in Spain

Municipal goats’ barn. Photo by Flora Sonkin


59

www.ruaf.org

InthecaseofSpain,municipalistpracticesgainedstrengthandpoliticalsupportduringtheindignadosmovement(alsoknownasthe15-Mmovementor#spanishrevolution),whichgained widespread recognition in 2011. In attempting toresistausteritymeasurestakenbythenationalgovernment,Spanish social movements proposed new governancearrangements.Thesefocusedinitiallyonthelocallevel,andrancounter toSpain’s twoestablishmentpoliticalparties.The success of the 15-M and related social movementscontributed to citizen-led platforms being elected andformingmunicipalgovernmentsin2015.Thisbroughtissuesofparticipatorygovernanceandsustainablefoodsystemstothe forefront of political agendas in municipalities acrossthecountry.Now,twoyearslater,itispossibletoseesomeofthefirstsignsofmunicipalpolicychange,atleastonpaper.ThemunicipalcoalitiongoverningElBoalowasalsoformedby similar citizen-led platforms, and has recently startedintegratingagroecologyintosomeofitsmunicipalprojects,suchasthegoatherd.

Linking to agroecology Agroecology is increasingly being recognised at high-levelpolicyforums,inacademia,andbyfarmermovements,asatransformativeprocessforimprovingthesustainabilityandresilience of agricultural systems. Gaining strength in the1980sasaholisticframework,todayagroecologyiscommonlyreferredtoasascience,asetofpractices,andamovement.Itpromotes low-input and small-scale agriculture thatresembles natural ecological systems. More recently,internationalpeasantmovementslikeLaViaCampesina,aswell as global policy makers like the former SpecialRapporteurfortheRighttoFood,haveemphasisedthelinksbetween the more technical practices of agroecology andthesocio-politicalenvironmentinwhichthisfoodproductionoccurs.That is to say there is now widespread agreementthat the sustainability of the field cannot be dissociatedfromthelivelihoodof thefarmer,bothinruralandurbancontexts.Agroecologicalpracticeshavebeenbroadlydefinedaroundfivekeyprinciples:• Conservationofagrobiodiversity• Nutrientcycling• Energyefficiency• Waterefficiency• Conservation of local and traditionally-used genetic

resources

Inadditiontotheseecologically-basedprinciples,anumberof socio-political goals related to the context in whichagroecology is practiced are identified as critical fortransforming agriculture systems in a socially just way.Thesegoalsthereforeemphasisethatagroecologyshouldbepractisedsupporting:• Equitablelandaccess• Territorially-basedfoodsystems• Peasantandindigenousknowledge• Foodsovereignty

These were some of these principles and concepts thatinspiredtheElBoalomunicipalgoatherdproject.

ThegoatsfirstemergedinElBoalo’smunicipalityaspartofthetown’smunicipalwastemanagementplan,whichaimstorepurposetheorganicwastefromtree-andshrub-pruningin public green spaces. Previously-discarded bio-wastetherefore became fibrous feed for the goats. They receiveweekly prunings as part of their diet, and the rest of thewood is chopped and used as mulch for the community’schickencompostandcommunitygardens.

TheseprojectsinElBoalodonotstandalone,butarepartofabroadertrendofusingmunicipallevelpoliticsasplatformsforspreadingpracticesofsustainablefoodproductionandconsumption,whileusingtheconceptsofagroecologyand/orfoodsovereignty.OneofthekeyfacilitatorsofthistrendinSpain is Red Terrae (Network of Agroecological ReserveTerritories).Itisanetworkofmunicipalitiesworkingtowardsanagroecologicaltransitionthroughruralmunicipalism,ofwhichElBoaloisamember.

Institutionalising agroecologyFor the municipalities in the Red Terrae network,institutionalising agroecology through public policies ispart of a process of re-municipalisation, aimed towardincreasinglocalautonomyofpublicservices.InthecaseofElBoalo, after finishing a contract with a private wastemanagement company, the municipal council decided totakebackprovidingtheserviceitself.BenefitingfrompartialfundingfromtheEuropeanUnion,themunicipalgoatherdisoneofseveralcomponentsofthenewmunicipalzero-wasteplan. The plan also includes a community compostingsystemwithdoor-to-doororganicwastecollectionanduseofchickencompostatlocalschools.Duetotheseefforts,ElBoalowasrecentlynamedthe‘firstzerowastemunicipality’intheMadridregionbyZeroWasteEuropeinrecognitionofthetown’sinnovativewastestrategy.

ElBoalo’smunicipalactivismofferssomeimportantinsightsintotheadvantagesofaninstitutionalapproachtosupportingagroecology.Public institutionscanbepillarsofstability incommunities,andinsomecasesinstitutionshavethecapacity(and also sometimes the mandate) to extend services andopportunities to marginalised populations that mayotherwisebeignored.Forthemunicipalgoatherdcase,twoinstitutionaladvantagesare clear. First, the project is formulated as part of aninstitutional service. None of the activities related to thegoatherdarethereforeprofit-oriented,unlikemostfarmingactivities in the region. Through this socio-environmentalproject, the municipality is able to promote agroecologypracticesthatotherwisemaynotbeeconomicallyfeasibleforfarmers,andinturnbuildnewlocalmarkets,socialnetworks,andeducationopportunities.Forexample,localschoolshavebeeneagertointegratetheprojectintoanumberofcurricula,allowing school children to go on herding excursions forphysical education class and learning about nutrition bytestinggoatmilkinchemistryclass.Secondly,themunicipalitywasabletoaccessnon-localresourcesandpoliticalplatforms,suchasEuropeanfunds,thatotherwisewouldbeout-of-reachforindividualfarmersandtraditionalproducerorganisations.

http://www.tierrasagroecologicas.es/terrae-network/

http://www.adesgam.org/boalo-cerceda-mataelpino-municipio-residuo-cero/


60

www.ruaf.org

In this way the institution’s administrative capacity andpolitical status enabled the promotion of agroecologypracticesininnovativeways.

Despitethemunicipality’spoliticalenthusiasmforleadingthisproject,itsinstitutionalnaturealsoraiseschallengesfortheitslong-termsustainabilityandfortheintegrityoftheagroecologyprinciplesitstrivestofollow.Forexample,sofar,the project has been implemented in a fairly top-downmanner.Themayorandhisstafftakeonmanyoftheanimalhusbandry responsibilities such as feeding, herding andbirthing,aswellaspromotionalinitiativesinthemediaandregionalevents.Thishasmeantthatlocalfarmershavehadlittleinvolvementintheproject,bothintermsoftheproject’sformulationandthecareoftheanimalsthemselves.Farmer-to-farmer exchange of local and indigenous agriculturalknowledgeisakeycomponentofanagroecologicalapproach,but given the institutional management of the goatherd,thiscomponentoffarmer-to-farmerengagementislacking.Furthermore this limited local farmer participation hasnegativelyimpactedtheirfeelingsofcommunity‘ownership’oftheinitiative.Aseconddrawbacktoinstitutionalisingagroecologyisthattheseinitiativesbecomedependentonthepoliticalagendaofelectedpoliticians.Asmentioned,thegoatherdiscurrentlymainlymanagedbylocalcouncillors,anditisnotclearhow,orif,theprojectwillbecontinuedbeyondthenextmunicipalelections. Furthermore, there is the concern that bypoliticisingtheconceptofagroecologyitsprincipleswillbeappropriatedanddilutedforpoliticalgain,andinturnlosetheirlegitimacy.

Food for thoughtAsnewurbanandperi-urbanspacesbecomefertilegroundfor emerging agroecological food systems, it is clear thatpublic institutions - from local municipalities to nationalministries - can play an important role in facilitatinginnovative projects to foster ecological sustainability andsocialjustice.Buttheseopeningsalsobringtolightstrugglesoverhowagroecologyisusedandpractised,adheringtoallofitssocial,ecological,andpoliticaldimensions.Agroecology

as a concept and set of agricultural practices is now a“territoryindispute”betweenpublicinstitutionsandsocialmovements.

Whileitisimportantforresearchandadvocacytohighlightinnovativeinitiativesandpublicpoliciesthatpushforwardagroecology as a concrete pathway for more sustainablefoodsystemsandresilientcommunities, it isnecessary tomaintainacriticalperspective.Theco-optionoftheconceptfor political and economic interests is a risk. Thereforeagroecology as a movement must actively engage inreclaimingparticipatoryspacesinpublicadministrationsasameansforupholdingitsprinciplesandco-producingrealfoodsystemchange.

Flora [email protected]

Jordan [email protected]

ReferencesLa Via Campesina (2017). Toolkit: Peasant Agroecology Schools and the Peasant-to Peasant Method of Horizontal Learning. Omar Felipe Giraldo & Peter M. Rosset (2017): Agroecology as a territory in dispute: between institutionality and social movements, The Journal of Peasant Studies, DOI: 10.1080/03066150.2017.1353496United Nations General Assembly (2016). Report submitted by the Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter. Human Rights Council, Sixteenth session. Wezel, A., Bellon, S., Doré, T., Francis, C., Vallod, D., & David, C. (2009). Agroecology as a science, a movement and a practice. A review. Agronomy for sustainable development, 29(4), 503-515.For more information on the 15M movement, see Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope – social movements in the Internet age. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 298 pp., ISBN 978-0-7456-62855.For more examples on institutionalising agroecology in Spain, see: www.ecologistasenaccion.org/tienda/editorial/1809-libro-arraigar-las-instituciones.htmlFor more information on Spanish municipalism, see: www.tni.org/en/publication/the-open-source-city-as-the-transnational-demo-cratic-future

Municipal goatherd being presented in the town square. Photo by Ayuntamiento de El Boalo-Cerceda-Mataelpino



https://viacampesina.org/en/publications-mainmenu-30/2318-tool-kit-peasant-agroecology-schools-and-the-peasant-to-peasant-method-of-horizontal-learning

https://viacampesina.org/en/publications-mainmenu-30/2318-tool-kit-peasant-agroecology-schools-and-the-peasant-to-peasant-method-of-horizontal-learning

http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf

http://www.srfood.org/images/stories/pdf/officialreports/20110308_a-hrc-16-49_agroecology_en.pdf

https://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/tienda/editorial/1809-libro-arraigar-las-instituciones.html

https://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/tienda/editorial/1809-libro-arraigar-las-instituciones.html


61

www.ruaf.org

China’s many initiatives promoting urban-rural development, such as “The new countryside construction” and “New urbanisation” programme, are grounded in five development concepts: innovation, coordination, green development, opening up and sharing, and eco-civilisation. The concept of eco-civilisation refers to a comprehensive and harmonious system which builds on multi-stakeholder participation in the creation of a high-amenity environment and landscape with natural biodiversity and cultural richness. In other words, the question for Beijing is how its peri-urban landscapes can be maintained, while providing natural ecosystem services and cultural context.

Thisevokesthequestionofhowtomeasureecologicalvaluesor ecosystem services in a quantitative way to help raisepublic awareness and support. Beijing municipalgovernment,jointlywithacademia,hasbeenexploringnewmethodologies to quantify the value of agroecology inperi-urban landscapes in Beijing during the past decade.Thisarticlepresentssomeachievementstodateandposessomecriticalquestionstobeconsideredinfutureuse.

Assessment of agroecology values, Version 1.0 (2006-2009)Given the complexity of the ecosystem, there is noready-to-usemethodologytoassessthevalueofagroecology.

However, this value can be roughly divided into threeparts: the direct agro-output value, the indirectagroecologyeconomicvalue,andtheagroecologyservicevalue.Thefirstreferstothetraditionalproductionvalueof agriculture, including farming, forestry, animalhusbandry, secondary production and fisheries. Thesecondreferstotheextraeconomicbenefitsgeneratedbyutilisingtheagro-resources.Thethird,agroecologyservicevalue,referstotheinvisibleecologicalbenefitsbroughtbythe natural agroecological system, including farmland,forest,andgrassland.

Followingthislogic,anassessmentandmonitoringindexsystem for evaluating the value of agroecology wasinitiallyestablishedjointlybyBeijingBureauofStatistics,BeijingMunicipalBureauofLandscapeandForestry,andNationalBureauofStatisticsin2007(SeeTable1below).

Assessment of agroecology values, Version 2.0 (2010-2015)Based on application ofVersion 1.0 of the index, a specialresearchprojectonfurtherimprovementsofthemonitoringsystem was conducted jointly by Beijing municipalgovernment departments and various research institutessuchastheChineseAcademyofSciences,ChineseAcademyof Forestry, Beijing Normal University and others. A newconsensusontheconceptofagroecologyvaluewasreached,inwhichthemultiplefunctionsof(peri)urbanagriculturewith their respective values were clearly identified. Thedirectagro-outputvaluewasmainlyrelatedtoitsproductionfunction, the indirect agroecology economic value wasmainly related to its social service function, while theagroecologyservicevaluewaslinkedtoall,butmainlytheeco-environmentalfunctions.

Jing LinJianming Cai

Yan Han

Monitoring Agroecology Values in Peri-urban Landscapes in Beijing

Apple Agro-Park Park in Changping District, North Beijing


62

www.ruaf.org

The improved monitoring system further stressed theimportanceofagroecologyvaluesinlandscapeimprovement,climate adjustment, water conservation and disastermitigation, as well as agro-cultural service functions. Inaddition,anewsub-systemofwetlandwasincludedinthesystem,alongwithadditionalindicatorsfortheotherthreesub-systemsasshowninTable3.

Based on this index, the economic value of agroecology inBeijingwascalculatedasvalueincurrentyear(VCY)andpresentdiscountedvalue(PDV).Specifically,VCYreferstotheeconomicvaluepercategoryinthemeasuredyear,whilePDVreferstothevalueofaccumulatedvalue-addedproducts,minusanannualdiscountedvalueof5%assumedlost.Table2presentsthePDVofagroecologyusingthenewindexsysteminBeijingfrom2010to2016.ItshouldbenotedthatthetotalPDVofagroecologyin2009wasmuchhigherthanoriginallycalculatedbasedontheinitialindexsystem.Themaindifferenceswereinducedbytheindirect agroecology economic value (9.5 vs 93.5) and theagroecologyservicevalue(608.6vs732.7).

Table 1. The improved index system for evaluating the value of agroecology in Beijing (2010). Additions are indicated in bold. The other categories correspond to the original 2007 index.

Index IndicatorsThedirectagro-outputvalue Farming Value-addedproductsfromtraditionalagricultureproduction

ForestryAnimalhusbandryFisherySecondaryproductionWater supply Value-added conservation of water resources

Theindirectagroecologyeconomicvalue

Sightseeingandleisure TourismrevenueSightseeingparksrevenueRevenuefromeco-parks,resorts,nursinghomes,educationandtrain-ingcentres/bases,etc.Revenuefromforestpark,naturalreserve,etc.

Craftsandsouvenirs Revenuefromvariouskindsofself-processedcraftsandsouvenirsbylocalmaterials

Cultural tourism service Revenue from agro-cultural tourismHydroelectric storage Potential value from enhancing capacity of hydro-powerLandscape improvement Revenue from improvement of land use, transportation, and green

environmentTheagroecologyservicevalue Climate adjustment Oxygen/CO2 balance, mitigate greenhouse effect, wind prevention,

humidity, temperature improvementsWaterconservation Rain-waterharvesting

WaterpurificationFloodprevention

Soilconservation ReductionoflandlossPreventionofdecreaseinsoilfertilityMitigationofsedimentaccumulation

Environmentcleaningandpurification

AbsorptionofSO2

AbsorptionoffluorideAbsorptionofoxynitrideDustfallpreventionNoisereductionRecyclingofsolidwasteAbsorptionofCH4

Carbonsinkandoxygensupply CO2fixationOxygensupply

Bio-diversity DiversityofanimalsandplantsDisaster mitigation Flood water storage

Farmland protectionWind break and sand fixation

Source: Beijing Bureau of Statistics

ItcanbeseenfromTable2thatthetotalPDVofagroecologyexperienced a rapid increase during this period with anannualgrowthrateof3.5%,comparedtothatof2.7%duringtheperiod2007to2009.Ofallthecategories,theindirectagroecology economic value gained the highest annualgrowthrateof5.2%,resultingfromthefastdevelopmentofurbanagricultureinitssocialservicefunction,includingtheboomofagrotourism,ruralheritageandculturalexperiences.Thevalueincreaseinagro-ecologicvaluecamefromfarmers’preferences for trees and agroecology practices andmunicipalgovernmentsupport.

Assessment of agroecology values, Version 3.0 (2016-present)Basedonfiveyears’applicationoftheupdatedindexsystem,again some minor adjustments were applied in 2016.Theadjustmentsmainlyfocusedonchangesofsomeparametersand monitoring methodologies in calculating the indexvalues, particularly the landscape improvement,environmental cleaning and purification. Following the


63

www.ruaf.org

Table 2. The PDV of agroecology by categories in Beijing (2010-2015)

Categories 2009 original

2009 new

index

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Directagro-outputvalue 31.5 33.5 34.9 38.9 41.9 44.3 46.1 38.5

Indirectagroecologyeconomicvalue 9.5 93.5 100.3 107.3 114.9 119.7 123.8 129.1

Agroecologyservicevalue 608.6 732.7 740.2 750.6 761.4 779.1 815.1 873.9

Totalvalueofagroecology 649.6 859.7 875.4 896.8 918.2 943.1 985.0 1041.4

Unit: billion yuan. Source: www.bjstb.gov.cn/taiban/_719/_727/stgb/index.html

Table 3. The value of agroecology by categories in Beijing (2016)

Categories Value in current year (VCY) Present discounted value (PDV)

Directagro-outputvalue 39.6 39.6

Indirectagroecologyeconomicvalue 115.0 115.0

Agroecologyservicevalue 198.5 901.9

Totalvalueofagroecology 353.1 1056.5

Unit: billion yuan. Source: www.bjstb.gov.cn/taiban/_719/_727/stgb/index.html

overanextendedperiod.

DiscussionApplicationofthemethodologyshowsthattheindexsystemcouldserveasapowerfultoolinconvincingpolicy-makerstoallocatemoreresourcestoagroecologicalservicesthroughimprovingperi-urbanagriculture.Basedonthisnewwayofpresentingdataonagriculturevalue,Beijinghasenlargeditsbudgetformanagementofitsperi-urbanmountainous

adjustment,thevalueofagroecologybycategoriesinBeijingin2016wascalculatedasshowninTable3.

ThecomparisonofVCYandPDVinTable3indicatesthattheyearly agroecology service value is huge, while the PDV isevenmoresignificant.Theagro-economicvalueresultsfromaccumulated yearly inputs and performance, while theagroecology service function mainly depends on awell-maintainedplantstock.Thus,maintenanceisneeded

Chestnut Agro-Park in Huairou District, North Beijing


64

www.ruaf.org

areastoenhancetheiragroecologicalservicefunctioninsoilandwaterconservationaswellasactingasacarbonsink.In2016alargenewprogrammewaslaunchedtoincreasethecity’sforestrylandareapercentagetoonethirdofitsregionby2020.

Editors notesIn China, agroecology is understood as sustainableand multifunctional land use and (agro)ecosystemservices. This concept of ecosystem services iscriticisedbyseveralgroupsforbeinganthropocentric(promoting an exploitative human-naturerelationship).However,othersarguethattheconceptmayalsobeusedtoreconnectsocietytoecosystems,emphasising and reconceptualising humanity’srelationship with nature. In the latter case, natureand ecosystems are appreciated because of theirsimple existence, and looked upon with awe andrespect.Economicevaluationofagroecologicalvaluesisalsocritiquedforbeingtoonarrowlyeconomisticinwhichvalueismostlyunderstoodasgains/economicprofit, whereas agroecological values also includevalues such as land stewardship, equality, justice,mutual learning,etc.Counterargumentsclaimthatvaluation of ecosystem services leads to moreinformed decision-making where “monetaryvaluation thus provides additional arguments fordecision-making processes and does not replaceethical,ecological,orothernonmonetaryarguments”.Other forms of non-monetary evaluation, such asstakeholder perceptions, biophysical and humanwelfare assessment are complementary methodsthatcanbeused(Takenfrom:SchroterM,etal.2014,Ecosystem Services as a Contested Concept: ASynthesis of Critique and Counter-Arguments.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12091/full

However,thecurrentindexsystemproposedbyBeijingmaynotbereadilyappliedbyothercitiesduetothehighcostofinvestigation, identification of detailed agriculturaltypologies, maintenance of databases, and costs of theparticipationoflocalagencies.Thereisaneedtoadaptandapplythemethodforwiderpracticaluse.

Thesystemhelpsconvincethelargersocietytorecognisetheimportanceofagroecologyinenhancingthequalityoflifeand city welfare as the whole. However, the extensiveindicators are hard to communicate clearly to Chineseconsumers.Theymaybemoremotivatedbyseekingzeroriskto food safety, than showing concern for environmentalprotectionorfarmerlivelihoods.Onceconsumertrustinthefoodsystemisimproved,thismaychangeovertime.

Finally,theindexsystemisbasedonquantitative–economicmeasurement.Itneedstobecomplementedwithrecognitionof non-monetary values. Such social values would includeeducationofchildren,enjoyingtraditionalfoodflavoursorlivinginharmonywiththeplanetforexample.Careshouldalsobe taken that the indexdoesnotcreateagroundforjustifyingtheeconomicexploitationofnature.

These challenges are relevant in discussing agroecologyworldwide.Thisarticleservesthereforeasastartingpointtokickoffthisdebate.

Jing Lin, Jianming Cai and Yan HanInstituteofGeographicSciencesandNaturalResourcesResearch,ChineseAcademyofSciences,BeijingKeyLaboratoryofRegionalSustainableDevelopmentModelling,ChineseAcademyofSciences,Beijing SchoolofResourcesandEnvironment,UniversityofChineseAcademyofSciences,[email protected]

Mulberry Agro-Park in Daxing District, South Beijing Eco-landscape in Peri-urban North part of Beijing

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/conl.12091/full


656565


65

This article considers two practices of urban agriculture related to agroecology in São Paulo: the first is related to income generation and the second derives from community activism. The first practice is present in the far southern region of the municipality of São Paulo, which is made up of the districts of Parelheiros and Marsilac, where many family farmers live. While income-generating urban agriculture is not new to the paulistano urban space as such, its productive and political dimensions are. The second practice, the community garden, is to be found in different areas of the municipality. ‘Hortelões Urbanos’ (Urban Gardeners) is the founding network and voice of the activist movement in public spaces in Sao Paulo.

The Producers from ParelheirosThe family-based agricultural production to be found inParelheiros characterises the green belt of the metropolis,supplying its fruit, vegetable andpoultry supply. It hasundergone transformations, adapting itself to organicproductionandagroecology.Mostofthefamilyfarmersinthisregionarestillproducinginaconventionalway.However,duetopoliciesthathavebegunespeciallyinthelastdecade,thereisanincreasingnumberoffamilyfarmersstartingtoproduce agroecologically. Furthermore, these producershavebeencallingformunicipalpublicpoliciestorecognisethemtoagreaterextent.TheSãoPauloMasterplan,which

wasapprovedinJune2014,recognisedtheregionasaruralzone.Withthisrecognition,agriculturalpracticesdevelopedtherebecomevisibleandareempoweredtoaimforprojectswhichwouldhavepreviouslybeenunreachableduetotheirlackofrecognition.

TherearemanyruralproducersinthedistrictofParalheirosduetohowthisregionwasestablished.In1829,agroupofimmigrantsmadeupof94Germanfamiliessettledintheregion to establish a colony. Then, in 1940, Japaneseimmigrantsbegantoarriveandfocusedonagriculture.Theproducers’ properties range from 5 to 20 hectares andinclude both conventional and organic producers. Theseproducers are based in the most preserved areas of themunicipalityofSãoPaulowithatlanticrainforestandmanynatural springs. There are two environmentally-protectedareasintheregion:Capivari-MonosandBororé-Colônia.

The authors followed a group of organic producers livingand producing on family farms of two to eight hectares.Despite the small area, their produce is diverse. Rootvegetablesarethemainproduceduringthehottermonthsandleafyvegetablesduringthecoldermonths.Theymostlysell their produce at organic markets around São Paulo,normallyinhigher-incomeneighbourhoodsinthewesternandsouthernpartsofthecity,wherecustomershavegreaterpurchasingpower.Oneoftheseproducersclaimedthathisearningsfromsalespermarketcouldgoupto3000reais(theequivalentof791USDollarsinNovember2015).Demandfororganicvegetableshasonlygoneupinrecentyearsandalackofproduceisthereforetheirmainproblem.Productioncapacityislimitedbythesmallareaonwhichtheyplantandbyfamilybeingthemainworkforce.Nowadays,itishardforproducerstogettemporaryhelpers,‘noonewantstowork

Gustavo Nagib Angélica Campos Nakamura

Practices of Urban Agroecology in the Municipality of São Paulo: Income generation and community activism

Photo by Pops Lopes

66


the landanymore’as it ishardworkandusuallydoesnotofferfixedworkinghours.Oneoftheproducerscomplainedatameetingofthedifficultyincontractingsomeonetoworkon a tractor; she had been in contact with someone whodemandedanhourlypayof100reais(theequivalentof26USDollarsinNovember2015).

Theproducersalso faceotherproblems.Beinga longwayfrom the central zones where trade and services areconcentrated,Parelheirosisoftenoverlookedbythepublicauthorities.Dirt tracks inpoorconditions,poorcell-phonesignal,lackofpublictransportandelectricityarejustsomeofthedifficultiesthatfarmersfaceintheirday-to-daylife.Despite this, the producers of the region receive supportfrom the technicians of the Casa de Agricultura Ecológica Umberto Macedo Siqueira, better known as the Casa de Agricultura de Parelheiros, CAE (House of EcologicalAgriculture),foundedin2006.Theykeeptrackofproducersin the southern region of São Paulo, carry out farminspections, and give advice.Technical support is directedtowardstheagroecologicalmodelofproduction,duetotheenvironmentalcharacteristicsoftheregion.Therefore,theiraimistopersuadeconventionalfamilyfarmerstobecomeagroecologicalones.

Todefendtheirinterests,theproducersactascouncillorsinthe managing councils of the environmentally- protectedareas,andtheConselho Municipal de Segurança Alimentar e Nutricional de São Paulo, Comusan(MunicipalCouncilonFoodand Nutrition Safety). Futhermore, they frequently cometogether toparticipateinevents inwhichorganicfarming,familyfarming,sustainabilityandotherfieldsofinterestarediscussed;anexampletosupplytoaschoolfeedingprogammeinSãoPaulocity.Theysearchformodesoforganisationandcoordination to strengthen their production, organiccertification and marketing, through participating in theCooperativa Agroecológica dos Produtores Rurais e de ÁguaLimpa, Cooperapas (Agroecology Cooperative of RuralProducersandCleanWater)andtheOrganização de Controle Social, OCS (SocialControlOrganisation)ofSãoPaulo.

Cooperapas wasfoundedon9June2011with30members.Today, it has about 25 cooperatives and is looking tostrengthenintegrationsothattheycansellinmorelocations(organic markets, grocery stores, supermarkets andrestaurants) inthemunicipalityofSãoPaulo.TheOCS isagroupcreatedbysomeproducerswhoarepartofCooperapas to create a certification that recognises their products asorganic.Thisenablesthemtogetaccesstoorganicmarketsin the city. Every month, producers, consumers and CAE techniciansvisitoneofthefarmsandcarryoutaninspection.Togethertheyassessthesituationandshareideasofwhatcanbedonetoimprove.ThistypeofsurveyiscalledsocialcertificationandisrecognisedbytheMinistryofAgricultureofBrazil.

In thisway,producersare looking forways tocontinue tofarmanddefendtheirinterests,despitethedifficultiestheyface. This farming continuity is of utmost importance toavoidtheoccupationofthefarmsbyinformalsettlements,asthishasveryseriousconsequencesfortheenvironment,endangering water sources and atlantic rainforestvegetation.

Urban agriculture as an expression of activismInSãoPaulo,urbanagricultureisnotnew. Inthemid-20th

century, the working class population, who in search ofcheaper land had already occupied the most peripheralareas of the city, would build their houses on unoccupiedland surrounded by a vegetable patch or garden. Thehorticulture ‘backyard’ tradition persisted following thearrivaloflargenumbersofpeoplefromthe1950sonwardsduetotheruralexodus.Thisresidentialagriculturalmodelservedtocomplementthebasicfamilydiet,tosaveincomeandtomaintainatietotheirruralbackground.

It is only from the start of the 21st century that urbanagriculturealsospreadasaformofactivism.Theemergenceofanetworkcalled ‘Hortelões Urbanos’ in2011wasakeystepin bringing together a group of urban agriculture

Learning from Sao Paulo•Thecityisbolsteringagricultureonitsurbanfringesin

hopes of stopping the outward sprawl of developmentandraisingthelivingstandardsofruralpeople

•AMasterPlanchangedthedesignationofmorethanaquarterofthecity’slandfrom‘urban’to‘rural’,whichforfarmers opened access to low-interest loans to buymachineryandseeds

•The city is also boosting demand for local organicagriculture–forexample,byincreasingpurchasesforuseinschoolmeals.

Readtheblog:HowSãoPauloistacklingpovertyandurbansprawlbybolsteringfarmingbyIgnacioAmigo,Citiscope.Citiscopeisanonprofitnewsoutletthatcoversinnovationsincitiesaroundtheworld.Moreatcitiscope.org.

Cooperative members meet to discuss and learn about the standardisation packaging. Photo by the author

http://citiscope.org/story/2017/how-sao-paulo-tackling-poverty-and-urban-sprawl-bolstering-farming?utm_source=Citiscope&utm_campaign=b5ab7dd0ff-Mailchimp_2017_02_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ce992dbfef-b5ab7dd0ff-118070941


http://citiscope.org/

676767


67

enthusiasts. Their initial interest was to discuss foodproductioninthecity,buttheywerealsocommitedtotakingpracticalinitiativesinpublicspaces.Hortelões Urbanos wasdeveloped by two journalists, Claudia Visoni and TatianaAchcar.TheycreatedapublicgrouponFacebookin2011toshare experiences and information related to urbanagricultureathouseholdorcommunitylevel.Immediately,some of its members organised themselves on-line andsuggested having face-to-face meetings to discusspossibilities and strategies for the occupation of publicspacetocreateacommunitygarden.In2012,afterafewsuchmeetings,whichusuallytookplaceinrestaurantsintheVilaMadalenaneighborhoodinthewesternregionofSãoPaulo,someHortelõesmembersdecidedtotakeaction.Thisformofgreen guerrilla-inspired activism came to life in PlazaDoloresIbarruriintheneighborhoodofVilaBeatriz(closetoVila Madalena), in the western region of expandeddowntownSãoPaulo.BetterknownasPraça das Corujasinreference to the stream of the same name on its easternlimit, the community garden established there becameknown as the ‘Corujas Community Garden’. Currently,Hortelões Urbanos has more than 70,000 members on itsFacebookpage.

The Movimento Urbano de Agroecologia, MUDA-SP (UrbanMovementofAgroecology,seearticlepage63),isacollectiveofsignificantpoliticalpresenceinmattersrelatingtourbanagricultureandagroecology inSãoPaulo.Asanactor inanumberofbranchesofactivismandpracticalsupport,ithasproduced a basic map with the location of communitygardens in São Paulo. On this map, Corujas CommunityGarden isrecognisedas thefirstgardenof itskind inSãoPaulo and has been authorised informally by publicauthorities.TheCyclistCommunityGarden,inthemiddleofPaulistaAvenue,wassetupsoonafter(alsoin2012)withoutpriorauthorisationofthepublicauthorities,confirmingthepracticeofgreenguerrillaactivisminspiredbythepioneeringprojectofCorujasCommunityGarden.

CorujasCommunityGardenpresentsitselfasaspacewhichquestionsthecontemporaryurbanorder.Itdoesnotpromotethefoodself-sufficiencyofitsvolunteersnordoesitintendtodoso.Itdoes,however,aimtoincreasecollectivereflection

regardingthepossibilityofurbanspacealsobeingagenuinespaceofpermanentfoodproduction,throughcooperationandsocialintegration.

ConclusionUrbanagriculturerelatedtoagroecologyisaverysignificantactivityinthesocial,political,economicandspatialrelationsof themetropolisofSãoPaulo. Itsdynamicsandfunction,though sometimes converging and sometimes conflictingwithpressuresofthepublicauthorities,arenotisolated.

Even while tending to be historically characterised as astructuralpartof theurban landscapecrucial to thefoodsupplyofSãoPaulo’spopulation,agriculturalproductioninSãoPaulostandsoutasarevitalisingagentofmetropolitanspaceandevenasacreatorofnewpatternsofculturalandconsumerconsumption.

Urbanagricultureforgeneratingincome,likethatdevelopedinParelheiros,hasreceivedgovernmentincentivestomovetowards agroecological principles and techniques,show-casingitselfasanalternativewithgreatpotentialtoexpandalongsidethediverseconsumermarketofSãoPaulo.TheagroecologicalagriculturetheydevelophelpstopreserveareasofgreatimportanceinSãoPaulo,whicharehometospringsandtheremainsofatlanticrainforest.

At the same time, urban agriculture originating fromactivism is an important mechanism for questioning andmodifyingthemodelofacitythatprioritisesindividualismand socio-spatial segregation. The community gardenstherefore support the transformation and upgrading ofpublicspacetopromotesolidarityandsocialintegration.

AcknowledgementThe authors thank the study group Grupo de Estudos em Agricultura Urbana, GEAU (Study Group on UrbanAgriculture), Corujas Community Garden, AgroecologyCooperativeofRuralProducersandCleanWater,UmbertoMacedoSiqueiraHouseofEcologicalAgriculture.

Gustavo Nagib Angélica Campos [email protected]

ReferencesPrefeitura de São Paulo: www.capital.sp.gov.br/portal.L. J. A. Mougeot, Ed., Agropolis. London: Earthscan, 2005.G. Arosemena, Agricultura Urbana: Espacios de Cultivo para una Ciudad Sostenible. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili, 2012.M. Pollan, O Dilema do Onívoro. Rio de Janeiro: Intrínseca, 2007, pp. 156-158.R. Reynolds, On Guerrilla Gardening: A Handbook for Gardening Without Boundaries. London: Bloomsbury, 2008, pp. 75-77.C. Prado Jr., A Cidade de São Paulo: Geografia e História. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 1998, pp. 74.D. Harvey, Cidades Rebeldes: Do Direito à Cidade à Revolução Urbana. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2014, pp. 49.

Cyclist Community Garden on Paulista Avenue; one of the busiest central tourist spots. Photo by the author

https://www.facebook.com/groups/horteloes/



68

www.ruaf.org

MUDA means change / plant seedlings. It is the Portuguese acronym for Urban Agroecology Movement, a network promoting agroecology in Sao Paulo. With 21 million people, Sao Paulo is the largest city of the global South and the most crowded metropolitan region of the Western hemisphere. MUDA supports many local projects and brings together farmers, volunteers and communities.

Throughout the world, for centuries, we have seen anincreasing flow of migration from agricultural areas tocities.Asaresult,wecannowseeagradualdistancingofurbandwellersfromtheruralspaceanditscyclesgovernedbynature.InBrazil,acountryofimmensebiodiversity,thisdistancing has social and environmental consequences,unbalancingtherelationshipbetweenpeopleandnaturalresources,threateningthepreservationofourbiomesandbringing the lossofpeoples’ culture. It isaccompaniedbyincreasingeconomicinequality.

FourfifthsofBrazil’spopulationhascongregatedinitscities,mostly following the logic of capital. This logic focuses ontechnologies that disregard human relationships, andweakens the power of its inhabitants to meet their basicneedswithouttheomnipresentandmandatoryuseofmoney.

Citiesaresubjectedtotheinterestsoftherealestatemarket,which,withitsstrongrelationswithpublicpowerthroughthe financing political campaigns, influences government

policiesandreproducesthelogicofthesegregationofsocialclasses.Evenwithmanyvacantbuildingsandlotsincentralareas,poorerdwellersarepushedtotheperiphery,findingclandestineoccupationsandmakingtheirhomesinslumswithoutadequateinfrastructure.Areaswithnaturalwaterspringsandpreservedvegetation,importantfortheregionalenvironmentalbalance,endupbeinginvadedanddegradedintheprocess.

InSãoPaulo,thisscenariogeneratessocialandenvironmentalconflicts thathinderconvivialityamongits inhabitantsastheysearchforareasonablequalityoflife.Thepopulation,largelyestrangedfromitsagriculturalbackground,reliesona food industry that provides low nutritional items.Traditionalhealingpracticeshavebeenreplacedbythelogicof large pharmaceutical companies. The same logic ofeconomic dependence applies to housing, clothing, andcleaningproducts. Urban agriculture or urban agroecology?Producing food in urban and peri-urban spaces offerspossibilities tobreakwith thisdependence,exclusionandlack of social interaction. Using vacant or under-occupiedcityspacesforcultivationallowsforreconnectingtherural,naturaluniversewiththetypicallifeofurbanenvironments.Urbanagriculture inSãoPaulogeneratessurvivaloptionsforthepoorestpopulation.Butitalsomeetsthedesireofagrowingnumberofpeopleinsearchofmoresolidarityandahealthier,sustainablelifestyle.

Therearemanyformsofcultivationinthecitywithmultiplepurposes.Aprivategarden,tendedbysalariedlabourisverydifferentfromasmallpublicspacecultivatedbyagroup.Theformer commercialises its crop and mostly cultivates

Susana Prizendt

Urban Agroecology Movement (MUDA) Changes the Brazilian Metropolis

Photo by Pops Lopes


69

www.ruaf.org

Agroecology in São Paulo•ThemunicipalityofSãoPaulohasanetworkofabout400

farms(seeinteractivemap)dedicatedtotheproductionoflocalfood.Notallofthemcultivateagroecologically,butanincreasing number is in the process of conversion and anetworkoforganisations(MUDA-SPpartners)assistsinthisprocess. Many of these farms are located in APAs(Environmental Protection Areas) and help to preservewater springs and forests. COOPERAPAS is a cooperativelocatedinAPAsBORORÉ-COLONIAandCAPIVARI-MONOS,atthesouthernendofthemunicipality.Thiscooperativeisorganically certified through a Participatory GuaranteeSystem.Itthereforeincorporatestwomoreagroecologicalpractices:trustbetweenfarmersandconsumers;andtheautonomy of producers in relation to the commercialmarket where certification is acquired through acertificationcompany.

•TheSisterAlbertasettlementisanexampleofagroecologicalfarming in the northern part of the municipality of SãoPaulo. It resulted from the struggle of rural workers foraccesstolandandrevealsthatagrarianreformisfeasibleeven in regions close to large cities. The settlement

commercialises agroecologically-produced food by directsalestosolidarityconsumptiongroups.

•IndigenousvillagesstillexistwithintheperimeterofSãoPaulo,producingagroecologically,mainlyforsubsistence,but also as a way of recovering and maintaining theirculture.

•Asetof“activist”gardensaremaintainedbygroupswithmore pedagogical and militant goals for socialtransformations than for large scale cultivation of food.Theycultivatepublicplaces,somequitesymbolic,suchastheHortadoCiclista,inAv.Paulista,thecity’smainavenue,attractingattentiontotheagrifoodcauseandsensitisingPaulistanostoreflectontheirfoodandwayoflife.Itistheseedofagroecologybeingcultivatedinpeople’sheartsatthecentreofthemegalopolis.

MUDA-SP’s mission is to support these initiatives andpromote links between them and the population,strengthening the existence of agroecology in themunicipality.Onewaytodosoisontheinternet,wherethenetwork maintains a website that offers a map showingwheretheagroecologicalgardensare.

Referencesmuda.org.brmuda.org.br/mapa-muda.htmlcontraosagrotoxicos.org/category/noticias/editorial/ www.cidadescomestiveis.org/ citiscope.org/story/2017/how-sao-paulo-tackling-poverty-and-urban-sprawl-bolstering-farming?utm_source=Citiscope&utm_campaign=b5ab7dd0ff-Mailchimp_2017_02_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ce992dbfef-b5ab7dd0ff-118070941 (in English)

non-nativespecieswhilethelattermayberescuingancestralknowledge,recoveringnativespecieslongneglectedbythemarket, and fostering relationships with each other. Thelatteralsofostersarelationshipwithnature,transcendingtheproductivelogicbasedonthefinancialsector.

The percentage of Paulistanos involved in agriculturalcultivationisstillverylimitedbuturbanagroecologyemergesas a radical proposal of social transformation. It distancesitselffromthesimplepracticesofcultivationinurbanspacesthat define urban agriculture, and moves towards thedevelopment of deeper relations with the earth and morehuman solidarity. The cultivation of food in urban spacesbecomesatoolforabroaderideal:toawakenthepopulationofcitiesinrelationtowhattheyeatandhowtheylive.

Susana PrizendtMUDASãoPaulo [email protected]

Photo by Pops Lopes

http://muda.org.br/mapa-muda.html

http://muda.org.br

http://muda.org.br/mapa-muda.html

http://contraosagrotoxicos.org/category/noticias/editorial/

http://www.cidadescomestiveis.org/







70

www.ruaf.org

Waste management and agricultural production are not often dealt with under the same policy umbrella, yet recent social innovations implemented by actors from the agroecology movement in Madrid have shown it is possible to make this connection. Madrid Agrocomposta is the name of the pilot project repurposing organic waste and creating new partnerships between food producers and consumers, rural and urban dwellers, and policy makers in and around the city. Bringing together principles of agroecology and circular economy, the concept is already seeing success in municipalities beyond the Spanish capital.

TheprojectemergedasaninitiativeofthecitizenplatformMadrid Agroecológico, and the pilot programme wasincludedintheGeneralPlanofUrbanWasteManagement2016 of the City of Madrid. In a few words, MadridAgrocompostaconsistsoftherepurposingoforganicwastegenerated in the city of Madrid, by donating it toagroecological farmers in the area for composting andutilisationason-farmfertiliser.

Reworking the socio-ecological metabolismA system of organic waste collection, short-distancetransport, composting in local agriculture (replacingsyntheticfertilisers)andsaleoflocalfood,characterisesthecyclical and agroecological approach of the project. Theorganic waste is collected by urban consumers, especially

school canteens, who donate their waste to peri-urbanfarmers, these farmers then transform the waste intovaluablecomposttobeusedasfertiliserontheirfarms.InthecaseofMadrid,thecollection,sortingandtransportingofwasteisperformedbyanassociationworkingtowardsthesocio-economic inclusion of young people, El Olivar.Meanwhile, the food producers sell their products inagroecologicalmarketsinMadridcitycentre,wherepeoplewho donated their organic matter can buy and taste theresultsoftheircollaboration.Thisfullcirclehelpsstrengthenthe connections between the urban consumers andperi-urbanproducersinmanyways:throughrevaluingandgivingadifferentmeaningtoorganicwaste,andthroughfood,knowledgeandeconomicexchanges.

ThefirstcyclewasimplementedfromMarchtoJuly2016infour peri-urban farms in Madrid. At the end of that year,almost40tonnesofbio-wastehadbeenprocessedbytheparticipatingfarmers,andinseveralschoolsthatcompostedonsite.Theorganicmatterwasdonatedbymorethan200families, seven schools and two municipal markets. Thesimplicityofthemodelanditsenvironmentaladvantages,pairedwithdrivefromthecommunity, ledtohigh-qualitycompost,inadditiontothelearninggeneratedbetweentheparticipatingactors.Moreso,ithasproventobeasmallbutvery effective alternative to large waste disposal facilities.Sendingwastetolandfillsorincineratorsismoreexpensivetothemunicipalgovernmentineconomicterms,butmoreimportantly,itgeneratessignificantnegativeenvironmentalimpactsthatarehardtoquantify.Meanwhile,researchhasshownthaton-farmcompostingandutilisationoforganicfertilisercancontributetocarbonsequestration,andinthecaseofMadrid Agrocomposta,itisalsobeneficialtothecity’sbudget.

Flora Sonkin

Revaluing the Marginal: An agroecological approach to waste in food production and consumption in Spain

Photo by Flora Sonkin


71

www.ruaf.org

Agroecology & citizenship The initiative was designed by the Bioresiduos (bio-waste)commissionofMadridAgroecológico(asocialmovementandadvocacyplatform),togetherwiththefoodproducersoftheAUPA (Association of United Agroecological Producers).Theprojectaimedtochangehoworganicwasteismanagedinthecitywhilesupportinglocalfarmersbothincashandinkind.

The idea was put into practice with the support of theMadridCityCouncil,whoprovidedanewsourceofincometo the peri-urban food producers involved. That is, themunicipality paid farmers per ton of waste composted in situ,whiletheyaccessedhigh-qualityandlow-costorganicfertiliser. Promoting both agroecological practices andinnovativewastemanagement, theprojectwasfuelledbycitizenengagementwhichenhancedthesupportfor localsmall-scalefoodproducers.Thenextstepistoimplementanalternativecurrency.CalledMOLA(materia organica liberada, in English, liberated organic matter), it would be given inexchange per kg of organic waste donated. The currencycouldthenbeusedtopurchasetheagroecologicalproductssoldatweeklyfarmers’marketsorganisedbyAUPAinseveralsquares around Madrid. The campaign started under thebanner“TuaVerduraValeBasura”,translating,“YourFoodisWorth Waste”. Franco Llobera, active member of MadridAgroecologicoandco-founderofRedTerrae(Inter-municipalNetworkforAgroecologicalTerritories), isoneofthemanypeoplebehindthisidea.Duringaninterview,heexplainedtheconceptof theproject;herecogniseshowhardit is tomake such a currency work, since it depends on a largelyconsciouscitizenrytogetitofftheground.

Public policies for agroecologyThisinitiativecanbeseenaspartofaglobalturntowardsthinkingaboutfoodpolicyatthemunicipallevel.TheMilanUrban Food Policy Pact and the AgroEco Cities EuropeanNetworkaresupranationalexamplesofthesenewspacesofcommitmentandcollaboration. InSpain, initiativeswhichreclaim autonomy through more sustainable naturalresourcemanagementandoftenincludelocalsupportforagroecologicalpracticesatthemunicipallevelareapartofarapidlyexpandingmovement(e.g.MadridAgroecológico,RedTerrae, Red de Ciudades por la Agroecologia, LlaurantBarcelona).

Madrid Agroecológico evolved from the Iniciativa por laSoberaníaAlimentariadeMadrid(ISAm),asagroupofsocialmovements and associations working toward foodsovereignty. The platform consists of six differentcommissions: Agrocomposting and OrganicWaste, SchoolFeeding,FoodProducers,Training,MilanUrbanFoodPolicyPactandSocialMobilisation.In2015,thecitizenorganisationpresentedfoodpolicyrecommendationsformunicipalandregionalgovernmentstoinformanagroecologicaltransition.Since then it has become an advisory group to Madrid’smunicipalcouncilonparticipatoryprocessesforthecreationofaLocalandSustainableFoodStrategyforthecity.

TheexperienceofMadridAgrocompostarepresentsalightofhopeandencouragementtocontinueworkingalongthis

path. Following the first year of operation, the MadridAgrocomposta model was extended, and differentagro-composting experiences have been implemented inother municipalities of the region. One example is theHenares Agrocomposta or Alcalá Agrocomposta project -whichEcologistasenAcciónisdevelopingincollaborationwith the Alcalá City Council. Another is the collaborationbetweenZarzalejocitycouncil,Zarzalejo inTransitionandthe Germinando Collective, to provide agro-compostingcoursesandimplementanotherpilotprojectinthecity.

ThecaseofMadridAgrocompostaoffersagroundedexampleofhowagroecologicalprinciples,suchasenhancingrecyclingof biomass and closing nutrient cycles, can be practisedwhile bridging the rural-urban and producer-consumerdivides. This is done by bringing together diverse actors,including: food producers, waste managers, fertiliser andagriculturalinputenterprises,localfoodmarkets,consumers,and thoseconcernedwithhealthandnutritionaswellasclimate change. This project also highlights how workingtogetherwithlocalgovernmentscanbeanopportunitytopushforwardideasandstrategiesfromsocialmovementsandlocalcommunities.Inconclusion,agro-compostingcanbe seen here as an innovative strategy for constructing aholistic local food policy - one that integrates urban andperi-urbanspaces,differentsectorsandtheirdiverseactors.

AcknowledgementsThisarticlecountedwithvaluableinsightsandcontributionfrom Franco Llobera, co-founder of Red Terrae and activemember of Madrid Agroecologico; as well as revision andcommentsfromTimGoodson.

Flora SonkinMScInternationalDevelopmentStudies,RuralSociologyChairGroup–[email protected]

ReferencesFavoino, E., & Hogg, D. (2008). Compost Can Turn Agricultural Soils into a Carbon Sink, Thus Protecting Against Climate Change, ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 31, 2017 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080225072624.htm; Freibauer, A., Rounsevell, M. D., Smith, P., & Verhagen, J. (2004). Carbon sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe. Geoder-ma, 122(1), 1-23.

http://www.isamadrid.org/

http://www.zarzalejo.es/2017/03/22/manana-jueves-da-comienzo-el-curso-de-iniciacion-a-la-maestria-compostadora-en-la-escuela-de-canteria/

http://zarzalejoentransicion.blogspot.it/

http://germinando.es/

http://sierraoesteagroecologica.org/piloto-de-agrocompostaje/


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080225072624.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080225072624.htm

72


Urban agroecology goes beyond urban agriculture, which is often primarily technical or social in focus and has no fundamental political character per se. Agroecology is explicitly political and rooted in radical political thought and action. The case studies presented in this article can contribute to the development of political urban agroecology. They demonstrate mechanisms and platforms that social movements are co-creating as they argue for a transformative vision of agroecology.

Agroecologyisbeingdefinedandre-definedbydifferentactors,including food producers, policy-makers, social movementsand researchers. Some mainstream institutions such as theFAOandtheFrenchgovernmentarenowalsoengagingwithagroecology.Whileinsomewaystheadoptionofagroecologyin the mainstream is welcome, it is also problematic.Theseinstitutions often treat agroecology as a technical fix to theexistingsystemandignorethecallsfortransformativepoliticalandeconomicchange.Thisputsagroecologyatriskofbeingco-opted,likehasbeenwitnessedwithsustainableagricultureandorganicagriculture.Somesocialmovements,includingLaViaCampesina,contesttheco-optionofagroecologyinordertoclaimaradicalpoliticalagroecology.

Themovementsforagroecologyarediverse–occurringindifferentplaces,amongstdiversepeoples,knowledgesandworldviewsandatdifferentscales.Yet,whatholdstheseincommon are their commitment to social transformation,through the combination of material practices that build

alternativefoodsystemsanddiscursiveprocessesthatarguefor political agroecology. The political work of socialmovementsoftenoccurs in themargins,fromthebottomup.Itisthusdecentralised,heterogeneous,place-basedandemergent.Yetinthecontextofaglobalisedstruggleforfoodsovereignty,itisnecessarytoengageinprocessesthatbringdispersed actors together to make and re-make meaningtogether and advance a common political project acrossplacesandatdifferentscales,fromthelocal,nationaltotheinternational.

Inthisarticle,Iwillsharetwosuchrecentprocesses,oneatnational and another at an international level and I willdiscusstheirrelevanceforurbanagroecology,andforsocialtransformationmoregenerally.

A case study from EnglandAPeople’sFoodPolicy(PFP)isbothadocumentandaprocessundertaken in England and created with the intention toadvance the food sovereignty movement in the UK. Theintention was to build networks, increase capacity and togenerate a document that could provide the basis forstrategiccampaignsandactionsinthecomingyears.

Theprocess involved18monthsofnation-widediscussionamongst grassroots organisations, NGOs, trade unions,communityprojects,smallbusinessesandindividuals.Theresultingdocument,A People’s Food Policy,waslaunchedinJune2017–amanifestooutliningapeople’svisionoffoodandfarminginEnglandthatissupportedbyover90foodand farming organisations. It includes a set of policyproposalsandavisionforchangethatisrootedinthelivedexperiences and needs of people most affected by thefailuresinthecurrentfoodsystem.

Colin Anderson

Policy from Below: Politicising urban agriculture for food sovereignty

Youth delegation meets at International Forum on Agroecology. Photo by Colin Anderson

737373


73

IntheUK, thepublicationisanimportantcontributiontothedebatesonpost-Brexit foodandfarming.SinceBrexit,there has been almost twenty other reports markingrecommendationsforagriculturalandfoodpolicychangeinavolatilepoliticalmoment.However,manyofthesereportsfocusonanarrowselectionofissuesandnonelinktotheframeworks of rights, food sovereignty or agroecology.A People’s Food Policy emphasises the interconnectednessbetween problems such as labour rights, environmentaldestructionandhealth,andtheneedforholisticintegratedapproaches toachievefoodsovereignty. Itarticulateshowthese problems arise from a neoliberal and narrowmarket-ledparadigmanditemphasisesashifttoaparadigmwherethewell-beingofpeople,communityandthenaturalworld,hereandafar,areatthecentreofgovernance.

Now that A People’s Food Policy has been published, thesteering group is bringing people together from differentgrassrootsorganisationsintheUKtostrategiseonfurthermobilisationaroundit. In theend thedocument isonlyapart, albeit an important one, of a longer-term process ofbuildingfoodsovereigntyintheUK.

In the global arena The International Forum on Agroecology, held in February2015, was the largest international gathering of socialmovementsonagroecology.Itwasorganisedbyanallianceofsmall-scalefoodproducersandconsumersandheldattheNyeleniCentre,inSelingue,Mali.Theforumservedtocreateaspacefordialogueandtocollectivelyinterpretthemeaningofagroecologyfromtheperspectiveofmultiplegrassrootsconstituencies(e.g.fisherfolk,peasants,indigenouspeoples,pastoralists,etc.).Agroecologywastreatedasanemergentand evolving idea, with different meanings for differentpeople coming from different contexts. There is muchrichness and diversity in the movements working onagroecologyandthisexchangeinthespaceoftheforumwasa pivotal step forward to develop a common platform. Itadvancedtheprocessoflinkingupanddevelopingcommonprinciples of what agroecology means, for example, to apeasantinIndonesiaortofisherfolkfromSouthAfrica.

Social movements are very aware of the dangers ofmainstreaming agroecology. A key rationale for organisingtheinternationalmeetingwastobuildcollectiveconsciousnessandcapacitytoresistco-option:“They have tried to redefine it as a narrow set of technologies, to offer some tools that appear to ease the sustainability crisis of industrial food production, while the existing structures of power remain unchallenged. This co-option of agroecology to fine-tune the industrial food system, while paying lip service to the environmental discourse, has various names, including “climate smart agriculture”, “sustainable-” or “ecological intensification” - Declaration from the International Forum on Agroecology

Thus,attheheartofthedeclaration,wasthedemandthatagroecology must be linked to a process of socialtransformation.IbrahimaCoulibalyfromCNOPinMali,thehost organisation of the international forum, explained(watchvideo:youtu.be/-Km9Kv5UylU).

“There is no food sovereignty without agroecology. And certainly, agroecology will not last without a food sovereignty policy that backs it up.”

Making the links: urban agroecology and food sovereigntyThecallforurbanagroecologymustalsobeademandforsocial transformation and requires engagement in workthat is simultaneously practical and political. Agroecologydemandsnotonlychangesinspecificpoliciesandpractices,but more fundamentally, the transformation of the verystructures, languages and cultures that underpin theinjusticesofthedominantparadigm.Thisiswhyintentionalprocesses and statements that directly link the practicalwiththepoliticalinabroadvisionofsocietaltransformation,likethetwoexampleshere,arecriticallyimportant.Thelinksbetweenurbanagricultureandthewideragroecology-foodsovereigntymovementappearnascent,andthereisworktodotoconnectanddevelopthepoliticaldimensionsinurbanagriculture.

Whiletherearemanylocal-levelinitiativesthatareengagedinurbanagriculture,includingforexampleallotmentandcommunity gardens, the connection to transformativepoliticalthinkingandexplicitpoliticalactionisoftenweak.Without an explicit political narrative, the transformativepotential of urban agriculture is marginal. While I havefocused here on food sovereignty and agroecology asimportantpoliticalframeworks,itisalsoimportanttonotethat this connection to radical political thinking may notnecessarily be under the auspices of food sovereignty oragroecology.Radicalpoliticsinurbanfoodgrowingspacesdrawforexamplefromanarchistthinking,therighttothecity, food justice, amongst others. Yet still, many of thesespaces are devoid of any of these emancipatory ways oflocatingurbanagriculture.

Mypointisnottowriteoffthediverseinitiativesthatdonothaveanexplicitlypoliticaldimensionbutrathertosaytheseare the frontiers of social transformation. We need toimaginehowtocultivateradicalpoliticalcommitmentsincontext-appropriate ways with people who are drawn tothese spaces, many of who come to achieve personalsatisfactionandreconnectwithnature.Theattainmentofpersonal benefit is of course critically important. Thesatisfactionofgrowingone’sownfood,thejoyofworkingtogether and interacting with people and nature and ofcourse the enjoyment of eating food that you have had ahandingrowingyourselfareallcoretotheurbanagroecologyproject.Yetthesesitescanbemuchmore,andinsomecases,are,astheyareintentionallyconstructedasspacestocultureresistance,politicaldialoguesandactions.Myargumentisthattheprocessesandmethodologiesofpoliticisationneedmoreattention.

Inthisregard,thedeclarationsproducedthroughgrassrootsprocesses, such as the UK A People’s Food Policy and theDeclaration of the International Forum on Agroecology, areexamplesofprocessesandtoolsthatarehelpfulinlocatingthepracticalworkinacriticalpoliticalcontextandproviding

UK Food Sovereignty Gathering at Organiclea in London. Photo by Joanna Bojczewska

74


ideasforhowtotakeforwardactionsforchange.Evenmoreimportantareopportunitiestobringpeopleinandacrosscommunities into dialogue to build critical consciousnessaroundthepoliticalandculturalproblemsthatunderminesocialjusticeandecologicalregeneration.Thetwoexamplesherefacilitatedsomeofthesedialogues,andtheproductsofthese dialogues will be used to provoke debate goingforward. There are many methodologies in the vein ofpopulareducationthatcanbeusedinanycontexttomakethe links between the practical and the political in urbanagriculture.Thekeyistostartwherepeopleare,withwhatisimportantintheirlivesandtogethertodeepenourpoliticalanalysisasthebasisforcollectiveaction.

Urban agroecology and food sovereignty are not onlymaterialbutalsoarepoliticalandculturalprojects– theywill require a shift in how we think. This requires us toconsidercarefullyprocessesoflearningandpedagogyandtoavoidimposingapre-definedvisionofagroecologyontoprojects and places but rather to engage in processes ofdialogues amongst food producers and citizens to createcritical understanding, mutual learning and collectiveconsciousness.Thetraditionofpopulareducation,rootedinthe work and thinking of Paulo Freire, bell hooks, OrlandoFalsBordaamongstothers,canprovidedirection,toolsandexemplify the commitments required to grow and evolvesocialmovements.

Theexamplessharedinthisarticleunfoldedatanationaland an international scale respectively. Thus, neither wasfocused directly on the urban scale. There is a range ofprocessessuchasfoodpolicycouncilsthatdofocusonanurbanscale,yetinmanycases,thesearenot(yet)explicitlyconnected to food sovereignty. Regardless, what is clear isthat there are important connections to be made acrossscales.To what extent are urban initiatives drawing from,connecting with and contributing to the wider foodsovereigntymovement?Conversely,is“theurban”andurbanpeople being given enough consideration in a movementthatisoftenlargelyruralinnature?Thesewillbeimportantquestionstoaskasweworktobuildmovementsacrosstherural-urban,andother,boundaries.

In closing, I want to reiterate that an urban agroecologymust affirm the conviction articulated in the food

sovereignty, and other related, movements that socialtransformation,particularlyinthefoodsystem,willnotbereachedthroughtechnicalinnovationalone(e.g.innovationsin production practices). We must organise for shifts inpowerrelationsthroughcultural,institutionalandpolitical-economicchange.Thisisalonggame–onethatdoesnotofteninvolvequickwins.Yet,momentumisbuildingasthecontradictionsofindustrial-corporatefoodrevealthemselvesand as the ingenuity of people is amplified through theircomingtogetherinsocialmovements.

Colin AndersonCentreforAgroecology,WaterandResilience,CoventryUniversity.People’sKnowledge:[email protected]

ReferencesColin is a member of the steering committee for A People’s Food Policy, works on agroecology and food sovereignty in Europe and participated in the International Forum on Agroecology in Mali.

A People’s Food Policy (2017). Available at: www.peoplesfoodpolicy.org/ Kneen, C. (2010). Mobilisation and convergence in a wealthy northern country. Journal of Peasant Studies 37.1. 229-235.Maughan, C., Anderson, C.R., Kneafsey, M. (forthcoming). Social justice, Brexit and food and farming policy debates: For whom, by whom and for what? Updates available at: www.peoplesknowledge.org/projects/peoples-food-policy-processes/Nyeleni (2015). Declaration of the International Forum for Agroecology. ag-transition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/NYELENI-2015-ENGLISH-FINAL-WEB.pdf Rahmanian, M. and T. Kesteloot (2017). The role of trust in building alliances of social movements: Organising the International Forum on Agroecology. In People’s Knowledge Editorial Collective (Eds). Our Food, Our Knowledge. Reclaiming Citizenship and Diversity Series. Coventry: Coventry University. Available at: www.coventry.ac.uk/knowledge_food_justiceAnderson, C.R., Pimbert, M.P. and Kiss, C. (2015). Building, Defending and Strengthening Agroecology: Global Struggles for Food Sovereignty. Farming Matters. Available online at: www.agroecologynow.com/publications/ Working with the European Coordination of Via Campesina, we are currently developing resources on popular education methodologies for agroecology available at www.eurovia.org


https://www.peoplesfoodpolicy.org/

http://ag-transition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/NYELENI-2015-ENGLISH-FINAL-WEB.pdf

http://ag-transition.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/NYELENI-2015-ENGLISH-FINAL-WEB.pdf

http://www.coventry.ac.uk/knowledge_food_justice

http://www.agroecologynow.com/publications/

http://www.eurovia.org


75

www.ruaf.org

On a 60m2 terrace on the ninth floor of a building in Borges de Medeiros Avenue, one of the landmarks of Porto Alegre, members of the “Solidarity Mixed Cooperative of Utopia and Luta Movement” grow over a thousand lettuces and arugula heads per month. Cultivation is done hydroponically. Seedlings are grown in greenhouses to protect the plants from urban pests and dirt. Produce goes to building residents and is sold by “word of mouth”. Recently, the production is being marketed to two restaurants.

Utopia e Luta (UtopiaandStruggle)claims tooperate theonlyrooftopfarminPortoAlegre.ThemovementwasbornduringtheWorldSocialForumin2005whenattentionwasdrawn to the issue of homelessness and the many emptybuildingsinthecentreofPortoAlegre.Onebuilding,whichhadbeenemptyfor17years,hadreceivedmanycomplaintsfrom neighbouring residents. It was occupied during thismanifestation. Soon after, a cooperative was created, theUtopiaandStruggleCooperative(CoopSul),soastohavealegalentitysupportingtheplantingactivities.Plantingwasalreadyongoingontherooftop,withseedlingsdonatedbyother movements. Second-hand bathtubs filled with soilwereusedforproduction.

In 2009, the cooperative received public funding fromPetrobras, and this allowed them to set up separatecooperative economic activities in the building. Theseincludedabakery,ahydroponicvegetablegarden,alaundry,a T-shirt printing activity and more recently a sewingworkshop. The funding was also used for adapting thebuildingfortheseactivitiesandinstallinganelevator.Thecooperativehasnotbeenverysuccessfulingeneratingotherrevenuehowever,andstillstruggles.

In2016,aGermanNGOsupportedthecooperativetoengagein training and learning. Each economic activity had adesignatedpersonwhoreceivedaBrazilianminimumwagefor a year and a half. This allowed the coop members todedicate themselves to getting organised. Thanks to thissupport, Utopia was able to raise its rooftop productionlevels and partner with two major restaurants. Thiscollaborationallowsthemtomaintaintherooftopfarmingbusiness even though no revenue comes from it yet. Also,severalworkshopswereheldforpeoplewhohavelongbeenunemployed. They want to learn to make a living frommaking bread or vegetable gardening and come to thecooperativeinsearchofknowledge.

Envisionedtobeafreepoliticalenvironmentforitsresidents,Utopiawassupposedtohaveselectedmemberswithnoorminimal financial means who could live in the smallapartments and work for the cooperative. The buildingwouldbeacommunityspaceopentothepublic,soeveryonecoulduseitandlearn,withnorequiredmembership.Unfortunately,thisturnedouttobechallengingforseveralreasons.Outofthe103residents,onlysixparticipateintheactivities and another nine sporadically come and go.Thesmallnumberofparticipantsisrelatedtointernaldisputesregarding individual versus collective needs. And eventhoughthemovementwassetupasacooperative,thereisnoorganisationalstructure.Eachactivityhasadesignatedpersonwhoisresponsibleforcheckingsuppliesandrunningessential errands, but it is merely a designated personinsteadofacoordinator.Inaddition,Utopia,politicallyneutral,wasco-optedbydifferentpoliticalpartiespriortotheelectionsof2014,causingarupturebetweensomeoftheresidentswhothendecidedtoleavethebuilding. As a result, many apartments ended up vacant. Itprovedhardtoattractnewresidentswithacooperativespiritandknowledgeofitsproceduresandactivities.Moreover,onceresidentsdecidetheynolongerneedtostayinthebuilding,theysometimesgivethekeystoacquaintanceswhohavenoideaofUtopia’shistoryorprocedures.Asaresult,outof theinitialeconomicactivities,onlytwoarestillrunning,thebakeryandthevegetablegarden.Thehydroponicvegetablegardenproducesarugula,lettuce,cherrytomatoesandherbslikebasil,marjoram,andoregano.Thisyeartherewasabigharvestofkale,parsleyandchives.Duringthespring-summerseason,itproducesupto1,400headsofarugulapermonthinthe60m2greenhouse.Inthewinter,becauseofthemanycloudydays,productionisonlyhalf that amount. The hydroponic means of productionattractedtherestaurantowners.Arugulaissoldthemost,beingresponsiblealoneforthemaintenanceofthegarden.Robson Reinoso, the designated person for the vegetablegarden,was trainedbyHydroponicConsultancyandsince2016 has been responsible for training and assistance toothermembersofthecooperative.

Thestrengthofthecooperativeisbeingaspacewherethepotentialtogenerateandexchangeknowledge,income,andforms of food production come together. The cooperativeuses urban public spaces to promote itself. It does thisthrough the participation in organic and neighbourhoodfairs, associations and events. The challenge remains tostructure the economic activities and get people toparticipateandmakeUtopiaapointofreferenceagainforothersocialmovements.

Jessica Moreira Maia [email protected]

Jessica Moreira Maia Souto

Struggles of Rooftop Farming in Porto Alegre, Brazil


Urban Agriculturemagazine


33URBAN AGROECOLOGYISSN 1571-6244No. 33, November 2017

UA MagazineUrbanAgricultureMagazine(UAMagazine) is produced by the RUAF Foundation (a global partnership on sustainable Urban Agriculture and Food Systems), in close collaboration with strategic partners on particular topics addressed in each magazine.

UAMagazine is published twice a year on the RUAF website (www.ruaf.org).

UAMagazine facilitates the sharing of information on the impacts of urban agriculture, promotes analysis and debate on critical issues for development of the sector, and publishes “good practices” in urban agriculture.

UAMagazinewelcomes contributions on new initiatives at individual, neighbourhood, city and national levels. Attention is given to technical, socioeconomic, institutional and policy aspects of sustainable urban food production, marketing, processing and distribution systems. Although articles on any related issue are welcome and considered for publication, each UA Magazine focuses on a selected theme (for previous issues, visit: www.ruaf.org).

Editors,No.33This issue was compiled by Femke Hoekstra from RUAF together with Chiara Tornaghi from the Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, UK.

LanguageEditorDiana Lee-Smith

FundingThis Magazine has been produced with funding from the Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience, Coventry University, UK.

DesignandLayoutInterface Communicatie B.V., Ede

[email protected]

AddressUrban Agriculture MagazinePostbus 357, 3830 AK Leusden The NetherlandsTel: +31.33.4343003 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.ruaf.org

The RUAF Foundation Global Partnership members:• International Water Management Institute (IWMI) (Colombo, Sri

Lanka)• The Institute of Geographical Sciences and Natural Resources

Research of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (IGSNRR/CAS) (Beijing, China)

• The Centre for Sustainable Food Systems, Wilfrid Laurier University (Canada)

• Toronto Food Policy Council (Canada)• The City of Ghent (Belgium) • CONQUITO Economic Promotion Agency of the Municipality of

Quito (Ecuador)• Economia e Sostenibilita (ESTA) (Milan, Italy)• Mazingira Institute (Nairobi, Kenya)

The partnership is managed by the RUAF Foundation based in Amersfoort, The Netherlands.

The RUAF Foundation uses the Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported Creative Commons Licence. For details please see www.creativecommons.org.

Michel Pimbert

The Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR)CAWRwascreatedin2014withtheaimtocontributetothenewknowledgeandpoliciesneededtodevelopfoodandwatersystemsthatareresilientandsociallyjust.The90peoplecurrentlyworkingatthecentreareadiverseinternationalcommunity,amixofnatural and social scientists making extensive use of co-inquiry and blurring ofboundaries between scientific, professional, citizen, and indigenous knowledgesystems.CAWR’sresearchfocussesonfiveinterlinkedresearchthemes:

1. Community self-organisation for resilience. Inthisstrandourresearchseekstoidentifyprocessesthatenhancecommunitystrengthsandbuildequityandresiliencethroughpeople’sagencyandself-organisation in thefaceofadversity,naturalandhumaninduceddisasters,instabilityandchange.Withinthisoverallframework,ourresearchprojects focus on the social, cultural, economic and political dimensions of therelationship between people and the production and consumption of food andwater. Particular emphasis is put on the linked nature of social, ecological andenvironmentalsystemsandtheroleofcommunitiesinmediatingresiliencetochangeandtransformationsforsocialjusticeandsustainableliving.

2. Resilient food and water systems in practice.TheCentreaimstounderstandandenhancetheresilienceofthetechnologiesandsystemswedependonforourfoodandwatersecurity.Forexample,newknowledgeallowsustodevelopsystemsthatcombinefoodandenergyproductionwithwaterandwastemanagementtocreatecirculareconomiesthat have low carbon and ecological footprints in rural and urban contexts. Ourtransdisciplinaryresearchonagroecologicalmodelsofproductioninruralandurbanareas also focuses on how to reintroduce biodiversity in farming (intercropping,agroforestry, polycultures…) to reduce farmers’ vulnerability to market volatility andclimatechangeaswellasre-localisefoodandwatersystemsinruralandurbanterritories.

3. Understanding fundamental underlying processes that confer resilience or lack of it. Thisresearchanalyseskeyenvironmentaldriversofchange,suchasclimatechangeanditsimpactonthefrequencyofdroughtsandfloodsincontrastingsituations.Bydoingfundamentalresearchinanappliedway,CAWRhopestousethisnewknowledgeonresiliencedynamicstohelpenhancethecapacitiesofcommunities,societies,andenvironmentstoanticipateanddealwithsuddenshocks,stresses,uncertainty,andunpredictablechangesatdifferentscales.

4. Enabling policies and institutions for resilient food and water systems. Our researchidentifiesthepoliciesandinstitutionsneededtoscaleupandmainstreamequitableandresilientsystemsforfoodandwatersecurity.CAWR’sworkfocusesinparticularonexploring thepoliciesand institutional frameworksneeded toenhancecommunityself-organisation for social justice and socio-ecological resilience at different scales.Powerandthepoliticsofknowledgearecentraltoourthinking,andourresearchaimsto better understand how, - and under what conditions -, can citizens to be morecentrally involved in policy-making and the governance of resilient food and watersystemsinruralandurbansettings.

5. People’s knowledge and transdisciplinarity. Underpinning this cross cutting researchtheme is the belief that everyone is able to contribute to the production of newknowledge. Some people have formal training as experts. Some people’s expertisecomes through their life experience. CAWR’s work on people’s knowledge andtransdisciplinaritybreaksdownthebarriersthatexistbetweenthesetwogroupsusingparticipatory,transdisciplinaryandtransformativeapproacheswiththeaimtochangesocietyandcreateamorejustworld.

As part of its vision of influencing policy and practice, CAWR is committed to bringingtogetherthescience,transformativepractices,andsocialmovementsworkingforagroecology,foodsovereignty,waterjustice,andenvironmentalsustainabilityinruralandurbancontexts.

http://www.ruaf.org

http://www.ruaf.org

http://www.coventry.ac.uk/research/areas-of-research/agroecology-water-resilience/







http://www.ruaf.org

Documents

Urban Agroecology · the role of urban agroecology in food system research. In their proposal for an agroecological urbanism, Deh-Tor (p.8) suggests that building alternative food