Sustainable Food and Food Security Session 4

Sustainable Food and Food Security Session 4 – Cities as spaces of food citizenship: Bristol, Bamberg, Ghent, Riga Dr Daniel Keech Countryside and Community Research Institute University of Gloucestershire, UK dkeech@glos. ac. uk @CCRI_UK Masaryk University, Brno, 30 th March 2017

Urban food? • Urban food is increasingly a point of interest for scholarship, policy and activism • More than half of the world population lives in cities (UN, World Urbanisation Prospects 2014) • Land use contrasts – 80% of England’s rural land is agriculture; 20% of Greater London is peri-urban agriculture. • We’ve discussed the disconnection between food production and food consumption. Is that apparent in cities? • Some estimates predict a global population of 9 bn by 2050 – how will they be fed? (But: see Tomlinson 2013)

Functions of urban agriculture • Food production and distribution via short supply chains (access to markets) • CO 2 sequestration/pollution alleviation • Flood alleviation/soil retention • Tackling poverty (e. g. freeing up household income and trading surplus) • Land reclamation/restoration • Leisure and health (e. g. allotment gardening, landscape) • Waste management • Nature conservation

Dominant (security) narratives In the global north: • Hi-tech horticulture (solar-power, vertical hot-houses, aquaponics etc. ) • Peri-urban commercial vs. urban community In the global south: • Poverty alleviation/self-sufficiency • Often linked to ‘mega-cities’ (+10 m residents) For example see: De. Zeeuw and Drechsel (2015) or Opitz et al (2015)

Today we will: • Consider urban food in four European cities: Bristol, Bamberg, Riga and Ghent (not mega-cities) • Consider some alternative narratives – urban food as citizenship and identity

Themes to look out for: 1. The Community Farm, Bristol (peri-urban, multifunctionality) 2. De Site, Ghent (urban, alternative economy) 3. Gärtnerstadt, Bamberg (urban commerce, local identity) 4. Riga (urban regeneration, culture and cohesion) Pic: The Community Farm

• Community-owned farm business (CBS structure) on 22(5) acres of private land. • Financed by 500 investors £ 180 k (£ 50 - £ 20 k). • Dispersed community of democratic ownership. • Whole farm owned by one of the directors; CF is tenant. • Connecting consumers and producers to the land.

The Community Farm (2) • 4 staff f/t, 15 p/t – operations, sales, distribution, volunteer leader. • Most farm labour supplied by volunteers – (i) regular weekly, (ii) Saturday seasonal. • Apprenticeship through Bristol Drugs Project. http: //www. thecommunityfarm. co. uk/about-us/ • Has found it hard going: veg doesn’t have a big margin and have had to consolidate markets – concentrate on boxes, FMs. Ditched wholesale. 5 years to break even.

CF as multi-functional (urban) alternative? • Increasing access to local/org veg in city-region (FPC) • Providing formal environmental education for schools and linked to public procurement (seasonal probs) • Supporting social services via drug rehab training • Enhancing wildlife conservation • Grant-dependent for social functions • BUT un-subsided farm business

De Site, Ghent NB – as with CF, growing is also a part of the retail structure. At CF connection with the food is important. At de Site it’s about social integration.

De Site (2) – Parallel economy? • Temporary urban brownfield site of 3, 000 m 2 – moving production concept (consequences? ). • Led by community development organisation to stimulate integration in Rabot, a neighbourhood with 60 nationalities and poverty/homlessness challenges. • Locals and homeless provide labour, rewarded with their own parcel of land. • Allotment surplus can be sold by parcel holders and payment in alternative local currency. • This can be spent in the project’s subsidised restaurant and shop on household goods and other food. • Project sells its produce for profit to the catering trade.

De Site (3) – Some contexts • Long-standing Social Democrat-Green-Liberal city coalition. Prioritisation of social integration and sustainability. Food policy, non-meat public food days. • De Site complemented by Wijveld CSA, urban food production SMEs, city foods (mushrooms, veg, honey) stocked in Delhaize supermarket – but difficult. • Soil degradation and compaction in intensive agricultural areas outside the city. Opportunities for closing waste cycles in the city-region? • In both Bristol and Ghent the alternative food production and retail systems are a form of active citizenship. Read more at www. supurbfood. eu

Food identity, sustainability and governance in Bath and Bamberg

Bath – Bamberg Research • Arose after CCRI’s work on a 3 -year EU project on urban agriculture called SUPURBfood www. supurbfood. eu • Prof Marc Redepenning - Expand some of the technical aspects of SUPURBfood to consider sociocultural and political aspects of urban food eg: – How does urban food production and consumption influence local identity and heritage? – How is urban horticulture spatially arranged? – How is food quality assessed? – What are the perceived benefits of local food? – How are different levels of government involved in moves towards more sustainable urban food systems? • Small travel fund from Bavarian research alliance

Bamberg horticulture • 12 commercial nurseries within the city • Part of WH status • Family-owned • Strong links to city structures – council, church and horticultural associations. • Sales at shops, restaurants, breweries and local street markets. • Some locally distinctive varieties, also liquorice.

Gardens shape the structure of the city • As well as the green space in the city, the persistence of the gardening cultures has shaped the layout and the architecture of the neighbourhood. • This contribution to the fabric of the city is recognised within UNESCO WH status.

Challenges… • Abandonment and high demand for development land • Non-co-operation, deep-rooted rivalries and suspicions • Not very entrepreneurial growers • Competition from familiar, lower-cost supermarkets. …and responses • Urbaner Gartenbau Projekt (use, marketing, distribution, local varieties) • Bamberger Gärtner IG • Co-dependence between city heritage status and commercial horticulture • Gardeners elected to city council

Riga: looking back, looking ahead • SE established to buy and renovate a delipidated historic neighbourhood – Kalnciema Quarter • Started a range of food-based cultural events designed to: • Showcase local food and provide a market for producers • Celebrate traditional and modern Latvian culture • Acknowledge and include the continuing influence of (some!) ethnic Russians on city life Pics: www. latvia. travel; www. bohemiantravel. com

Country in the town? Contrast between grassroots networks energised by cultural and values associations with food, and the neo-liberal economic agenda of policy makers. KQ creating space for rural food markets and crafts production. Baltu Drava – Baltic Apiary – of 30 beehives opens in public park. ‘Riga’s inhabitants have strong connections to Latvia’s rural territories. These ties materialize in various ways: some of inhabitants have members of their extended families or friends living in a country side, others own second home somewhere outside the city. These ties form networks that are used to distribute country side goods (home grown vegetables, etc. ). History during last century has just strengthened meaning of these networks (low food security, low income, etc. ). ’ Mikelis Grivens, BSC.

What have we learnt? • Cities are increasingly important as places of food production (usually a rural function) and security • Urban food can ‘repair’ some of the disconnections associated with an industrialised society, including between town and countryside. • City food economies continue to shape the fabric of cities and offer multiple social functions • Food culture and identity are complex and need to be renegotiated, ideally with local government assistance. • Provincial cities, not just global mega-cities, will need to engage, as the vast majority of urban citizens is in these smaller cities.

Classroom exercise • Think of some of the issues we have discussed. • Can you develop plan for an (qualitative? ) evaluation of an urban food project? – What kind of project? – What are you evaluating? – What research method do you think could work well and why? Please work up a 3 -4 min evaluation plan presentation for the class to hear.

Questions? Next session: Assessment in U 53 at 8. 00.