URBAN AGRICULTURE Aysegul Sirakaya ∗
ABSTRACT Cities will be hosting 66% of the world’s population by 2050. Expanding urban areas will cause scarcity on natural resources since urban areas are already using 75% of global natural resources. Agriculture on the other hand is one of the main instigators of climate change, deforestation and many other environmental hazards, which result in decrease of ecosystem services. Urban agriculture can be a possible solution of restoring ecosystem services in urban areas. Urban food production can provide regulating services, habitat services for biodiversity and cultural services for urban dwellers. There are several international policies that recognise the importance of urban agriculture and goals that urban agriculture can aid. Key words: urban farming, ecosystem services, SDGs, biodiversity 1. INTRODUCTION After the signing of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in September 2015, a consensus has been reached on the need to develop interconnected, synergetic solutions that could address to multiple SDGs on a global scale.1 With this in mind, this paper aims to suggest a solution to a global problem that is one of the major contributors to climate change and many other planetary boundaries: Current agricultural system. To overcome the drastic challenges, this research suggests the notion of urban agriculture (UA). This paper firstly argues that there are many reasons not to continue the business as usual approach with the global agricultural system and move agriculture towards the cities. Doing so, the paper categorises the benefits of UA in accordance with the ecosystem services (ES). Secondly, the paper looks into international decisions and policy declarations to map the place of UA within the international context. The paper thirdly looks into a local practice to identify a model of implementation at the city level. Lastly, regulatory improvements within the local level and legal actions within the international level are suggested in order to ensure the sustainable practice of UA. The scope of UA within this article only goes as far as vegetable cultivation in cities and excludes livestock production. No distinction between developed or developing countries is made on the scope of application. The challenges brought by the current agricultural system require global attention and a holistic, solutionbased approach. This in no way means that the author suggests a one-size-fits-all solution, but rather a concept that could potentially work and be potentially needed worldwide. 2. WHY DO WE NEED TO MOVE AGRICULTURE INTO THE CITIES? 2.1. Population Growth In 2009, the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) predicted2 that the Earth’s population will increase with 2.3 billion by 2050, reaching at least 9 billion people. A growing population brings a growing global need for food and fibre.3 However, a UNEP research suggests that our current agriculture production and consumption pattern is leading us to reach the limits of the world’s ecological carrying
PhD Researcher, Faculty of Law, Ghent University, Belgium,
[email protected] Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, UN Doc.A/RES/70/1 - paragraph 71. 2 Global Agriculture towards 2050, FAO accessed 28.03.2016. 3 Ibid. ∗
1
capacity.4 The world is already having difficulties catching up with the anthropogenic consumption patterns. In 2011 alone, it took the Earth 511 days to regenerate what humankind consumed in one year.5 This means that the environment and ecosystems do not renew themselves as fast as we need them. More agricultural production inevitably means the need for more arable land. At the same time, the world’s rural population and land are diminishing and urbanisation is dominating our way of living. Since 2008, more than half of the global population is living in cities.6 By 2050, global urban population will reach 6.3 billion7 and cities will be hosting 66% of the world’s population.8 If the current approach and methods are followed, the only way to regain the arable land that has been taken away by urbanisation will be to cut down the last bits of forests. This will inevitably have severe consequences on ecosystems and biodiversity.9 There will be inescapable conflicts between sparing land for nature conservation and agriculture.10 Furthermore, cutting forests to gain agricultural land may not solve the problem of feeding the world. Oliveira and colleagues state that deforestation in Amazon could cause climate effects that would cut yields.11 Due to the need to find a synergistic solution to feed a growing urban population, we will need to combine the urban land with agricultural land in order not to come across hazardous environmental effects. 2.2. Environmental Impacts of Agriculture Agriculture is one of the main instigators of deforestation which leads to anthropogenic climate change. Kissinger and colleagues claim that agriculture today is responsible for 80% of deforestation worldwide.12 Deforestation affects carbon reuptake which is highly likely to result in increased carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration, the dominant greenhouse gas.13 Forests and woodlands are two of the most important elements that ensure the richness of the world’s biodiversity. Species richness is threatened when forests are cut down to be turned into arable land, or more wetlands are turned into farming areas. FAO estimates that agriculture is one of the main causes of biodiversity loss.14 Noonan-Mooney and Gibb further argue that due to human activities including agriculture, 36% of the total number of species is already facing extinction.15 Apart from deforestation, the current food system in general (production, post-production, transport and packaging) is the biggest contributor to global anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Vermeulen and colleagues discovered that due to food systems, around 9,800-16,900 megatons of CO2 equivalent was released only in 2008.16 Additionally, agriculture also contributes to the disruption of the Earth’s nitrogen cycle. When the nitrogen-based fertilisers degrade into the soil, they cause soil acidification. When they enter 4
Pengra, B., ‘One Planet, How Many People?’ UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service June (2012) p. 4. Living Well in a World of 7 Billion, Footprintnetwork.org accessed 22.03.2016 6 The State of the World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth, UNFPA accessed 23.03.2016. 7 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, ‘Cities and Biodiversity Outlook’ (2012), p. 68. 8 United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects, the 2014 Revision (2014), p. 32. 9 Laurance, William F., Jeffrey Sayer, Kenneth G. Cassman, ‘Agricultural Expansion and Its Impacts on Tropical Nature’, 29.2 Trends in Ecology and Evolution (2014) pp.107–116. 10 Ibid. 11 Oliveira, Leydimere J. C. et al., ‘Large-Scale Expansion of Agriculture in Amazonia May Be a No-Win Scenario’, 8.2 Environmental Research Letters (2013). 12 Kissinger, G., M. Herold, V. De Sy, Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD+ Policymakers, Lexeme Consulting 2012.. p. 5. 13 Agriculture and Climate Change, climate.org accessed 23.03.2016. 14 World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030, fao.org accessed 23.03.2016. 15 Noonan-Mooney, Kieran, Christine Gibb, The Major Threats to Biodiversity and the Role of People (2007) p. 14. 16 Vermeulen, Sonja J., Bruce M. Campbell, John S.I. Ingram, ‘Climate Change and Food Systems’, 37.1 Annual Review of Environment and Resources (2012) p.197. 5
into the water supplies they may end up causing aquatic dead zones and increase water toxicity levels. When entering the atmosphere they damage the air quality to a great extent and cause smog in the urban atmosphere.17 The transportation chain of the current global food system has received a good deal of criticism. However, several researchers indicate that even though transportation of agricultural products does contribute to GHG emissions, it is not as extensive as the general perception believes.18 Nevertheless when all the elements are added up together, the current global agricultural system is believed to contribute one-third of the global GHG emissions.19 While agriculture contributes to climate change, it also suffers from it. Agriculture depends on specific climate conditions. Climate change causes severe and unpredictable droughts and floods as well as novel pests. These changes make it more difficult and sometimes impossible to grow crops with the same methods.20 The current approach towards agriculture will certainly not help the world’s problems regarding climate change due to deforestation and other agricultural practices as well as the global biodiversity crisis. It will also not help the food security of the global population, since agricultural productivity already suffers from climate change which it majorly contributes to. All of these challenges will need to be addressed taking specifically into account the global urbanisation prospects and the swift population growth. 2.3. Grey Cities As the cities will become the dominant anthropological habitats of the future, they will be hosting much more lives than they do now. Global urban population will reach 6.3 billion in 2050.21 Cities will therefore need to embrace the responsibility to become resilient and habitable for more urban dwellers to come. They will also need to address the upcoming global challenges mentioned above. Due to climate change and grey infrastructure (such as pavements) in cities, living in urban areas will be much more problematic for human health as cities will be the warmest, most polluted, and most crowded areas. Lack of green spaces and green infrastructure in cities will cause many problems on human physical and psychological health.22 Urban areas are already suffering from the consequences. The European Heatwave of 2003, which was responsible for more than 35,000 deaths across Europe,23 is a solid example of the dangers a grey, concrete environment can cause. As a result of very limited action on greening the cities, another European heatwave had severe consequences in the summer of 2015. Although, in 2012, the European Environmental Agency did warn the EU policymakers of the danger of heatwaves emerging from having not enough vegetated areas in densely populated cities. 24 17
Fowler, D. et al., ‘The Global Nitrogen Cycle in The Twenty-First Century’, 368.1621 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2013). 18 Vermeulen et al. (n.17); Thornton, P., ‘Recalibrating Food Production in the Developing World: Global Warming Will Change More Than Just the Climate’, CCAFS Policy Brief no. 6. (2012). 19 Gilbert, Natasha, ‘One-Third of Our Greenhouse Gas Emissions Come from Agriculture’, Nature (2012). 20 Hertel, Thomas W., Uris Lantz C Baldos, Global Change and The Challenges of Sustainably Feeding a Growing Planet, Springer 2016, p. 22. 21 UN 2014, (n.4). 22 Dover, J.W., Green Infrastructure: Incorporating Plants and Enhancing Biodiversity in Buildings and Urban Environments, Earthscan/ Routledge (2015), p. 352. 23 Impacts of Summer 2003 Heat Wave in Europe, UNEP < http://www.grid.unep.ch/products/3_Reports/ew_heat_wave.en.pdf> accessed 28.03.2016 24 The map of Europe that shows the ratio between population density and vegetated space clearly demonstrates where the high risk areas are. These high risk areas on the map are indeed the cities that were affected during the 2015 heat wave. See: European Environmental Agency ‘Heat wave risk of European Cities’ accessed 28.03.2016
By the time the world becomes more urbanised than rural, nature conservation will be much more challenging than it is now. McDonald and colleagues argue that many habitats that protect the species under the IUCN Red List are already in the verge of urbanisation.25 Incorporating cities with nature instead of ‘stealing from nature’ seems like the most feasible solution for the future. In order to avoid the negative consequences of climate change, improve the living conditions of urban dwellers and strive to halt the global biodiversity crisis there is a need to introduce a solution to increase the vegetation in the cities. 2.4. Food Insecurity and Poverty in Cities Urban poverty is an inescapable truth of today in every country whether developed or not. According to Baker, one third of all urban residents are poor, which represents one quarter of the world’s overall poor population. She also argues that the number of urban poor will continue to rise.26 Poverty and food security in cities go ‘hand in hand’.27 The urban poor either do not have access to food at affordable prices or they can only access food that is poor in nutritional quality. In addition, the urban poor are the first and the most affected of food price volatility. Since cities are mainly consumers rather than producers when it comes to food, the urban poor often do not have a choice but to either sacrifice nutrition for quantity.28 Food insecurity in cities does not only affect the poor. During political or economical crises and especially war times, all city dwellers become highly susceptible to food poverty. Extreme food shortages in European cities during World War I, is a solid lesson to be learned from history regarding the need to combat the lack of food production in cities.29 A more recent example is the residents of Madaya, Syria who are facing starvation due to the lack of food aid and the absence of infrastructure to grow food in the city.30 Urban areas need to work towards self-sufficiency to some extent in order to avoid drastic consequences of food insecurity and also to address to the basic needs of the urban poor. 3. BENEFITS OF URBAN AGRICULTURE IN TERMS OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES This section will explain the environmental benefits of UA for cities by categorising the benefits from ecosystem services (ES) which are defined and classified by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) and the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES).31
25
Mcdonald R, Kareiva P and Forman R, 'The Implications of Current and Future Urbanization for Global Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation', 141 Biological Conservation (2008) p. 2. 26 Baker, Judy L. 2008. Urban poverty : a global view, Urban Papers no. UP-5, Washington, DC: World Bank accessed 28.03.2016. 27 Dubbeling, M., René van Veenhuizen and Henk de Zeeuw, Cities, Poverty and Food, Practical Action Pub 2010, p. 2. 28 Ibid, p. 3. 29 Mok, Hoi-Fei et al., 'Strawberry Fields Forever? Urban Agriculture in Developed Countries: A Review' 34 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2013) p. 27. 30 Shaheen, K., Emma Graham-Harrison and Patrick Wintour, 'Syrian Regime to Allow Aid into Besieged, Starving Town' (the Guardian, 2016) accessed 15.03.2016. 31 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (2005); Ecosystem Services - TEEB accessed 23.03.2016; The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services accessed 23.03.2016.
MEA explains ES as the outcomes of environmental processes which are then utilised by humans.32 MEA, TEEB and CICES put these services into four categories: provisioning services, regulating services, habitat or supporting services and cultural services. Provisioning services relate to the resource output from the ecosystems by means of food, raw material, fresh water and medicinal resources. Regulating services provide a ‘control mechanism’ regarding the air, water and soil quality and climate. Regulating services also provide flood and disease control. Ecosystems moreover provide habitat services for species and help maintain genetic diversity. Cultural services are the services that aid mental and physical health, social cohesion and inclusion as well as aesthetic appreciation.33 Nature and biodiversity in cities provide numerous ES.34 In other words, nature plays a great role in maximising the benefits and minimising the negative effects of urban living. The vegetation agriculture brings to cities could also help provide many of these ES’ benefits. First and most obviously, UA would deliver provisioning ES by providing food within the urban landscape which would result in increasing food security for urban dwellers. This brings a great deal of importance with regards to poor families in urban areas. FAO believes that UA improves the nutrition and livelihoods of poor families, as they can grow for their own households.35 In fact, cities often depend on rural areas for food. Importing food from outside the city bears additional costs such as transport, and packaging, which end up not being affordable for all. Additionally, travelling food usually gets stored for a period before it becomes accessible to the consumer. This affects the nutrition levels of food as the food that reaches to the consumer is often not fresh. During the period of transport and storage, literature argues that many foods become inedible and therefore food is wasted before it could reach from the farmland to the consumer.36 Producing locally on the other hand, would reduce ‘food miles’ and duration of storage. When such additional costs on food are lifted, more urban dwellers could be able to enjoy a nutritional diverse diet.37 When food does not have to be stored for a long time before it reaches the consumer, waste is prevented. FAO mainly maintains that UA would be beneficial for food security in developing countries,38 however, Mok and colleagues demonstrate that developed countries could also benefit from the food security UA brings. 39 ES in urban areas often promote biodiversity.40 By cultivating within cities on private gardens, community gardens, allotments, rooftops, even on unused vegetative patches in neighbourhoods, urban dwellers can bring several types of ES within their urban horizon.41 By creating habitat for biodiversity, UA would bring habitat services in conjunction with regulating services that emerge from the stimulation of urban habitats. Lin and colleagues argue that different UA systems can bring biodiversity into urban areas. For instance, they contend that small garden patches are able to aid biodiversity and carbon storage while allotment gardens can support regulating services such as pollination, seed dispersal, and pest regulation.42 Furthermore, Knihznik argues that rooftop gardens would help reduce storm water runoff and agriculture in vacant urban lots can increase soil quality.43 A World Bank research further adds to this by stating that UA can contribute to 32
Ibid. Ibid. 34 Szlavecz, Katalin, Paige Warren and Steward Pickett, Biodiversity on the Urban Landscape, Ed. R.P. Cincotta and L.J. Gorenflo. Berlin: Springer-Verlag 2011, p1–12. 35 Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Poverty Alleviation and Food Security, FAO (2008) 36 Lipinski, B et al., ‘Reducing Food Loss and Waste’, World Resource Institute (2013) p. 2. 37 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (n.7) p. 36. 38 FAO, (n.36). 39 Mok et al., (n.30) p. 26. 40 TEEB, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB (2010). 41 Knizhnik L.Heather, ‘The Environmental Benefits of Urban Agriculture on Unused, Impermeable and Semi-Permeable Spaces in Major Cities with a Focus on Philadelphia, PA’, Environmental Studies 2012, pp.1–55. 42 Lin, Brenda B., Stacy M. Philpott, and Shalene Jha, ‘The Future of Urban Agriculture and Biodiversity-Ecosystem Services: Challenges and next Steps’, 16.3 Basic and Applied Ecology 2015, p. 195. 43 Mok et al., (n.30). 33
mitigating the effects of climate change in cities by providing cool air and shading.44 Furthermore, the same research demonstrates that UA aids wastewater treatment which can again be used for cultivation.45 There are many cultural ES that can emerge from UA. First and foremost, UA could palpably contribute to human well-being by means of physical health that comes from exercise and fresh air. Urban farming would also be beneficial for human mental health as it is associated with socialisation and mental relaxation.46 Secondly, UA can aid overall community-wellbeing by providing the local dwellers with fresh and nutritious food, green and resilient space, social inclusion and social cohesion.47 Such urban gardens can link generations, different ethnic groups together and help involve underrepresented social or ethnic groups.48 Such green spaces can also provide and aesthetic value to the community.49 Fortunately, several examples of practice demonstrate that all these theories regarding ES provided by UA are physically visible. The URBES project conducted interviews with the residents of Barcelona who practice UA on allotment and community gardens. The residents stated that all of the ES demonstrated above (habitat services, provisioning services, regulating services and cultural services) were visible to them.50A research on Japanese UA also demonstrates the visibility and benefits of all these ES that seems to have encouraged urban dwellers to practice UA.51 3.1. Risks and Disservices UA does indeed come with many benefits by means of ES. It is possible to see the presence of UA benefits in every category of ES. However, this does not mean that UA does not initiate risks. Local food does not necessarily mean sustainable food. Urban food has disservices just like any agricultural system does. As section 2.2 already explained the environmental impacts of agriculture in general, this section will explain disservices that are specific to UA. There are several disservices that come from UA that can have a negative impact on the functioning of urban ES. Although UA is eligible to stimulate biodiversity, not all biodiversity is ‘good’ biodiversity.52 Lin and colleagues explain that there may be a ‘spill over’ from a managed ecosystem (such as agriculture) to the natural urban ecosystem which may harm native ecosystems. This can, for example, result in the alteration of genetic composition of native species.53 UA could also introduce several health issues for urban dwellers. Urban soil is often highly contaminated with toxic chemicals. When agriculture is practiced on such soil, food may also be contaminated. Mok and colleagues argue that, while the contamination risk for urban food is minimal, food grown close to roads, highways and on industrial areas may still pose high risk especially for vulnerable groups such as the elderly and children.54 Just like many industrial or agricultural activities that contain some level of risk, Mok and colleagues argue that there are several ways to reduce the risks of contamination to manageable proportions (e.g. site assessment, monitoring, isolation etc.).55 44
Urban Agriculture: Findings from Four City Case Studies, The World Bank (2013) p. 7. Ibid, p. 8. 46 Bellows, Anne C., Katherine Brown, and Jac. Smit, ‘Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture’, Community Food (2003), p. 6. 47 Ibid. 48 Ambrose-oji, Bianca et al., ‘The Governance of Urban Green Spaces in Selected EU-Cities’ (2015) p. 50. 49 Dover (n. 23), p. 236. 50 URBES, ‘Urban Agriculture: Landscapes Connecting People, Food and Biodiversity’ (2014) 51 Japan’s Urban Agriculture: Cultivating Sustainability and Well-Being - United Nations University, Raquel Moreno-Peñaranda Unu.edu accessed 9.03.2016. 52 Lin et al. (n. 43), p. 196. 53 Ibid. 54 Mok et al., (n.30) p. 27. 55 Ibid. 45
In relation to what has been said in section 2.2, UA production would also need a change of heart regarding chemical substance use for production that is highly likely to intoxicate the soil, water or air and contaminate natural ecosystems. In that sense, UA when applied exactly as the way rural conventional agriculture is applied, could also have potential hazardous consequences. A solution for soil could be to practice UA on elevated soil patches which then would allow easier soil regulation and reduce the risk of contamination and toxicity.56 3.2. Vertical Farming as a Solution for the Disservices Vertical farming is a relatively novel model of growing food above the ground. The scope of the vertical farming concept includes growing food inside buildings, rooftops and green walls. The idea was recently brought to attention by Despommier. Despommier’s model is more or less about creating a contained area for plants inside buildings as well as creating the natural conditions for them to maximise their yield (e.g. provide light by LED bulbs). Despommier argues that if food is grown in urban areas and off the ground (e.g. inside buildings) it would have many environmental benefits. Firstly, he contends that no crops would be lost due to the weather events. Secondly, he claims there would be less need for fossil fuels for harvest, transport or store as food would be grown a doorstep away from urban dwellers. Thirdly, he stipulates that food would neither contaminate the soil nor the soil would contaminate the food. He adds that vertical farming would use much less water than outdoor agriculture.57 In addition, Adenaeuer and Banerje argue, by following several methods, vertical farming can reduce water use up to 90% and fertiliser usage up to 60% compared to conventional farming.58 They further contend that it is possible to recycle the wastewater for further cultivation within the farm.59 There are several examples of vertical farms all around the world and the number keeps increasing.60 For instance, in February 2016, the biggest vertical farm of Europe was opened in Belgium.61 There seems to be a good demand for vertical farming, however the sustainability and environmental friendliness of vertical farming is not very easy to trace. The idea sounds promising, however further research is needed to create a common consensus on the benefits of vertical farming.62 Vertical farming’s benefits may not be concrete yet; however, UA in general has many scientifically demonstrated ES benefits. UA indeed bears possible disservices. Several policymakers and regulators locally or country-wide, seem to believe that UA provides many benefits that can be worth embracing the disservices. These risks should not be embraced blindly. The next section will describe several policies and efforts at the international level that aim to promote UA and minimise disservices at the same time. 56
Bakker, D. M. Et al., 'The Effect of Raised Beds on Soil Structure, Waterlogging, And Productivity On Duplex Soils in Western Australia' 43 Aust. J. Soil Res (2005). 57 Despommier, Dickson, ‘The Vertical Farm: Controlled Environment Agriculture Carried out in Tall Buildings Would Create Greater Food Safety and Security for Large Urban Populations’, 6.2 Journal fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (2011) pp. 233– 236. 58 Banerjee, Chirantan, Lucie Adenaeuer, ‘Up, Up and Away! The Economics of Vertical Farming’, 2.1 Journal of Agricultural Studies (2014) pp. 40-60. 59 Ibid, p. 46. 60 Members - Association for Vertical Farming, Vertical-farming.net accessed 18.03.2016. 61 Urban Crops accessed 18.03.2016. 62 Marris, Emma, ‘Agriculture: Greenhouses in the Sky’, 468 (7322) Nature (2010) p. 374.
4. URBAN AGRICULTURE AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL 4.1. COP Decision IX/28 Decision IX/28 of the 9th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) is one of the first international documents that recognise the environmental challenges rapid urbanisation brings. It also acknowledges the benefits urban ecosystems and sustainability can serve for global biodiversity conservation. The Decision IX/28 encourage parties to recognise the role of cities in their national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and invites parties as well as other governments to integrate biodiversity considerations into urban development and infrastructure.63 Recognising the importance of cities regarding biodiversity conservation within a COP decision is of major importance. Although COP decisions do not have a binding character under international law, decisions may contain terms to turn the actions into mandatory conduct.64 While it may not be possible to take Decision IX/28 as the basis for mandatory conduct to promote UA, the decision can serve as a conduct to recognise the importance of promoting ES in cities in order to be fully able to attain to the objectives of the Convention. Section 3 aimed to show that UA can provide many ES in urban areas. Therefore, promotion of a mechanism that would respond to the request of the Decision IX/28 is likely to fall under the considerations of the decision. 4.2. Rio +20 Outcomes The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) took place in Brazil in 2012. It both resulted as a political outcome document and as the instigator of the process that led to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of 2015.65 The political document contains many key points on green economy, energy, food security and cities. There are several key points that address food security, nutrition problem and sustainable agriculture.66 Although these points do not directly refer to UA as such, we can find clear link between the objective of these points and the motivation for UA (section 2) and restoration of the ES (section 3). For instance, paragraph 111 states: We reaffirm the necessity to promote, enhance and support more sustainable agriculture…while conserving land, water…biodiversity and ecosystems and enhancing resilience to climate change and natural disasters…67 Further on, paragraph 114 mentions the need to promote ‘diverse methods of achieving sustainable agricultural production’, paragraph 115 stresses the need to deal with ‘excessive food price volatility’, and paragraph 205 points out the ‘significance of good land management, including soil, particularly its contribution to economic growth, biodiversity, sustainable agriculture and food security, eradicating poverty, …, addressing climate change and improving water availability’. 68 Section 3 strived to map the benefits of UA by means of ES which included food security in cities, nutrition, possible reduction of food waste which derives from transportation and storage, sustainable use of land and 63
Promoting engagement of cities and local authorities, UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/IX/28. Brunnée, J., ‘COPing with Consent: Law-Making under Multilateral Environmental Agreements’, 15 (1) Leiden Journal of International Law 21 (2002) pp. 1-52. 65 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, Rio+20: Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform, Sustainabledevelopment.un.org accessed 10.03.2016. 66 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 27 July 2012: The Future We Want, A/RES/66/288. 67 COP/DEC/IX/28, (n.64). 68 Ibid. 64
water, enhancement of biodiversity as well as climate change mitigation and regulation for natural disasters in urban areas. On top of all these benefits, when food systems are drawn closer to cities or in cities, the pressure of agriculture in rural areas can potentially be elevated to a certain extent.69 The FAO report regarding Rio +20 comes across rather close to the idea that UA would be in line with the objectives of Rio+20. In fact, the report refers to the need to reduce urban poverty next to rural poverty. The report takes into account UA as a ‘safety net’ for the reduction of urban poverty and facilitating access to food.70 This could be interpreted as a green-light FAO puts for UA in order to attain to the objectives of Rio +20. The Rio +20 report also makes statements regarding the need for urban greenery and sustainable cities. Paragraph 135 of the report states that: We commit to promote an integrated approach to planning and building sustainable cities and urban settlements, including through supporting local authorities, increasing public awareness and enhancing participation of urban residents, including the poor, in decision-making…We underline the importance of considering disaster risk reduction, resilience and climate risks in urban planning…71 Promotion of urban green space restoration, enhancing the urban water and air quality as well as waste management with regards to reusing waste can be done by promoting sustainable UA where gardens, allotments, rooftops etc. can serve as green space; wastewater and storm water can be used for cultivation. UA, i.e. urban green spaces, can improve the air quality of cities and can also mitigate climate change by creating a cooling effect. The resilience UA can potentially bring, when ensured to be practice with sustainable techniques, could help to a great extent to reach the objectives of Rio +20. 4.3. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) SDGs have been adopted by the UN member states on September 25, 2015. Seen as a successor of the Millennium Development Goals, the SDGs bring 17 goals with numerous key targets. Sustainable UA would fit within at least 6 of these goals and would work in line with their targets. To begin with, UA would fit with Goal 1 on reduction of poverty72; Goal 2 on ending hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition and promoting sustainable agriculture73; Goal 3 on ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all at all ages74; Goal 11 on making cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable75; Goal 13 on taking urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts76 and Goal 15 on sustainably managing forests, combating desertification, halting and reversing land degradation, and halting biodiversity loss.77 69
Danckaert S., Cazaux G., Bas L. & Van Gijseghem D. Landbouw in een groen en dynamisch stedengewest, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, afdeling Monitoring en Studie, Brussel (2010). 70 FAO, ‘Towards the Future We Want: End Hunger and Make the Transition to Sustainable Agricultural and Food System’, FAO (2012) p. 5. 71
Ibid.
United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (n.66) 73 Ibid Target 4 of Goal 2. 74 Ibid. 75 Ibid Target 7 of Goal 11. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 72
4.4. Policy Declarations 4.4.1.ICLEI Seoul Declaration ICLEI (Local Governments for Sustainability) is a global network that promotes sustainable, resilient, lowcarbon, biodiverse, resource-efficient and productive cities with over 1,000 members which are towns, cities and metropolises.78 The initiative was founded in 1990, and gained much more support during the 1992 Earth Summit talks for Agenda 21, Chapter 28 on ‘Local Agenda 21’.79 During the World Congress of April 2015, the ICLEI members signed the ‘Seoul Declaration’ for sustainable urban areas. The objective of the declaration is described as follows: ‘To achieve sustainability locally and globally, we will pursue cities that are low-carbon, resilient, productive & resource-efficient, biodiverse, ecomobile, economically sustainable, smart, happy, healthy, and inclusive.80’ The Seoul Declaration lays down a specific action plan for UA. Paragraph 4.3 of the Actions states: We commit to researching, testing, and collaborating on how to transform our urban areas into net resource productive systems. To support these commitments, we will… encourage sustainable urban food production projects and resilient city-region food systems programs… Following the Seoul Declaration, ICLEI adopted the Seoul Plan, which also serve as a guideline for member cities on becoming a ‘productive city’, which means becoming a city that produces its own food.81 4.4.2. Milan Urban Food Policy Pact The Milan Urban Food Policy Pact is the only international policy pact with the broadest outreach which specifically focuses on bringing resilience to urban food problems. This pact is a successor of an initiative that evolved through the Milan EXPO of 2015. The talks for the pact began back in 2014 during the C40 – Climate Leadership Group meeting,82 and emerged from many mayors of cities around the world striving to improve the sustainability of food systems in urban areas, to guarantee healthy nutritious food for all, reducing waste and educating the public about healthy living. It evolved into a Policy Pact signed by more than 100 mayors and has been presented to UN Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon in September 2015.83 The pact and FAO are also planning to join forces in order to boost the implementation. The pact has also been recognised by the EU project, Food Smart Cities for Development.84 One of the motivations of this pact is the acknowledgment of the opportunities UA brings for the protection and integration of biodiversity in urban areas as well as contributing to food security and nutrition, ES and human well-being.85 By signing this pact, a city commits itself to seven goals which include reviewing and amending existing urban policies, plans and regulations so as to encourage sustainable urban food systems.86 The cities also commit to using the annexed Framework for Action which gives specific guidelines on
Who is ICLEI, ICLEI Global accessed 11.03.2016. Agenda 21 Chapter 28, the United Nations, A/CONF.151/26, 1992. 80 Building a World of Local Action’ For A Sustainable Urban Future, ICLEI Seoul Declaration accessed 11.03.2016. 81 ICLEI Strategic Plan 2015 - 2021 (Seoul Plan) (2015) p. 27. 82 C40, C40.org accessed 15.03.2016. 83 Milan Urban Food Policy Pact | Milan's Food Policy, Foodpolicymilano.org 84 FAO to Work with the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact Cities | Milan's Food Policy, Foodpolicymilano.org accessed 15.03.2016. 85 Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, Food Policy Milano, Preamble Paragraph 6. 86 Ibid Commitment 5. 78 79
establishing urban food production. According to these guidelines, the cities are expected to promote UA and designate space for sustainable UA.87 This section aimed to lay down the international goals that indirectly endorse UA and some policy declarations that directly encourage the governments to utilise the environmental benefits and minimise the possible risks. The next section will explore the implementation at the local level by looking into a best practice city that committed itself to every one of the above mentioned goals and policies. 5. AN EMERGING PRACTICE: URBAN AGRICULTURE IN GHENT Ghent is a mid-size city situated in the Flanders region of Belgium. It currently is a home to 250,000 dwellers which include many students and people from many different backgrounds. The city is a part of the Client Alliance and has committed itself to become climate-neutral by 2050.88 Ghent also signed the ICLEI Seoul Declaration as well as the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. Under the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, Ghent’s efforts regarding urban food are considered as examples of ‘best practice’.89 Back in 2013, Ghent launched its first urban food policy Gent en garde which initially originates from the goal of climate-neutrality. The policy consists of five main goals, one of which is on UA. Goal 2 mentions that the City of Ghent is willing to encourage sustainable agriculture in and around the city. The places for agriculture are exemplified as roofs, terraces, streets and temporary public spaces. On top of that, Goal 3 mentions that the City of Ghent recognises the importance of creating added social value with such food initiatives.90 Following the declaration, Ghent established a Food Policy Council. The council is comprised of 25 representatives and stakeholders from the local food system. The council is assigned to discuss the strategic vision and advice on the upcoming as well as ongoing projects.91 Regarding the on-going UA projects in Ghent, the city acts more as an initiator and sometimes funder rather than the coordinator. De Site Project is a good example on how the bottom-up non-governmental initiatives have managed to gain both the moral and the financial support of the City of Ghent. The main objective of De Site project is to create the conditions for a pleasant, safe and sustainable community. It is a meeting place for all inhabitants of all ages and nationalities, where different activities are being organized.92 This multifunctional project is situated in one of the poorest and multicultural neighbourhoods of Ghent. The project was firstly promoted by an NGO (Samenlevingsopbouw Gent), which decided to turn an unused private development site into an opportunity for the neighbourhood. After consulting the residents, the NGO came to the conclusion that most of the residents would appreciate having a garden. After the acceptance and support of the City, the project turned into a temporary garden for UA and other activities for social gatherings and sports. On some parts of the land, the vegetables were not directly cultivated on the ground soil for toxicity reasons, but were put on elevated crates. Residents rent gardens and can also sell or buy the harvest at the local market by using the currency of the project (Toreke). A part of the harvest is also delivered to the local restaurant within the premises (Eetcafe Toreke).93 The project especially turned into a recreational area of many cultural ES benefits. It became a place where the migrant residents can enjoy social cohesion as well as the aesthetics the green space brings to a mainly
Ibid, Framework for Action Paragraphs 20, 22, 23. Ghent Climate Plan 2014-2019, Stad Gent accessed 16.03.2016. 89 Forster, T. et al., ‘Milan Urban Food Policy Pact’, Selected Good Practices from Cities 2015. 90 Gent En Garde, Gentengarde.stad.gent accessed 16.03.2016. 91 Forster et al. (n 90) p. 18. 92 Forster et al. (n 90) p. 159. 93 De Site - Er Beweegt Een En Ander Op De Site, Rabotsite.be accessed 16.03.2016. 87 88
grey area. However, as the development project will soon hit the start and De Site is of temporary nature, it will soon come to an end. After de Site took of very well, the citizens gathered to develop another community garden project called Boerse Poort. They wanted to use a public land that was governed by the City and turn it into allotment gardens for ecological UA. This project was mainly instigated and coordinated by the local stakeholders and was supported by the City of Ghent. The allotment gardens in Boerse Poort were claimed immediately due to the high public demand. Although the project pledges for environmental and health benefits, it does not include as concrete social goals as de Site does. The project is criticised by several scholars for only serving for a specific part of the Ghentian society.94 The last example that is projected to continue (subject to availability of funds), is the project called Groenten uit Gent. The project was started by Sleutel, an NGO specialised in the psychological treatment of people who suffered from substance addiction. It is situated on the private land, Dok, which is a development zone used as a temporary public space. The project created urban gardens on elevated soil for their patients to relax and socialise. Groenten uit Gent is very well perceived by the patients of Sleutel as well as several volunteers and Dok. It is not clear whether or not this project is in anyway supported by the City of Ghent. However, the duration of the project is uncertain due to the limited availability of funds.95 These inspiring projects of Ghent provide more than a few benefits in terms of ES. Except for Boerse Poort, all other projects will soon have to be ended, despite the social, environmental and cultural benefits they generate. Ghent is considered as a good practice, even one of the best practices according to the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. Ghent indeed encourages UA with its local food policy, however the city itself does not instigate projects, but it rather lets them happen. Moreover, the local food policy Gent en garde does not promise land availability and only goes as far to mention temporary projects or asks the citizens to come up with creative solutions. Gent en garde does also not spare funding for such projects or for the land, even though Ghent’s climate plan has a budget of € 300,000 dedicated to the food policy council as well as urban farming projects. The overall climate budget is € 105 million.96 Ghent is not the only city with the problem of land availability. Tokyo is one of the most densely populated cities of the world, but UA manages to feed around 700,000 residents due to the efforts of the local government to provide land.97 6. CONCLUSION This paper firstly argues that there is a clear need for UA when the global population growth is taken into account with the current food insecurity and poverty level of cities. Environmental impacts of the agricultural practice serve as a motivation to consider UA in a sustainable manner. The paper secondly illustrates the ES benefits of UA, and also gives various examples from the practice where all of the ES mentioned, are visible. The paper thirdly strives to map UA at the international level. With regards to indirect targets such as Rio +20 or SDGs, UA does fit within the context of what these goals are aiming to reach. UA has the potential to provide resilient, inclusive, healthy cities that are rich in green spaces and productive in terms of food. The international policies that have direct effect recognise these benefits and strive to encourage more local governments to support and stimulate sustainable practices. 94
Crivits, M. et al., 'Four Perspectives of Sustainability Applied to the Local Food Strategy of Ghent (Belgium): Need for a Cycle of Democratic Participation?' 8 Sustainability (2016) p. 9. 95 Dokmoestuin / Groenten Uit GENT – DOK, Dokgent.be accessed 17.03.2016. 96 Ghent Climate Plan 2014-2019, (n.89) p. 79. 97 Moreno-Peñaranda, (n.52)
UA is becoming a wide-spread mainstream demand of city dwellers. This results in the involvement of more and more cities. In order to protect urban dwellers from possible disservices and to ensure the sustainability of local food production, governments may need to put standard practice requirements. These requirements can for example foresee: testing of soil toxicity prior to cultivation, use of raised beds with clean soil where the soil is unusable for cultivation, use of wastewater that is adequately recycled, and putting standards to discourage overconsumption of water.98 Through a professional assessment and consultation, disservices that require regulatory attention, can be identified. Although the direct policies (ICLEI Seoul Declaration, Milan Urban Food Policy Pact) mention several ‘better ways of practice’, they do not serve as a level of standard. Additionally, despite the fact that they reach out to many local authorities, they are not as effective as a statement directly coming from the United Nations. CBD COP Decision IX/28 stipulates the need for the cities and local authorities to show dedication regarding ES and sustainable use of resources in order to attain to the objectives of biodiversity conservation. However, the decision does not mention any concrete methods to achieve these targets in cities. Nor does it mention any points to be taken into account to minimise the occurrence of ecosystem disservices. UA can aid the sustainable use of resources and promote ES in cities. Due to its wide impact and service as a mandatory conduct, it would be beneficial to consider a COP decision regarding the regulation of local and city-wide ES via UA as well as to minimise the effects of the disservices. This way, a synergetic solution that responds to several SDGs could reach out to a broader audience. As a result, this solution would bring the practice of at least dozens of states, one step closer to achieve sustainable, environmentally friendly agricultural production. Lastly, the paper looks into a so-called best practice. Ghent demonstrates public interest and government aid to some extent, but lacks concrete promises, financial incentives or solutions for land. Ghent however, does recognise the importance of UA at the local policy level and has a Food Policy Council that determines the vision for future projects. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1.Books Dover, J.W., Green Infrastructure: Incorporating Plants and Enhancing Biodiversity in Buildings and Urban Environments, Earthscan/ Routledge (2015) p. 352. Hertel, Thomas W., Uris Lantz C Baldos, Global Change and The Challenges of Sustainably Feeding a Growing Planet, Springer 2016, p. 22.
Kissinger, G., M. Herold, V. De Sy, Drivers of Deforestation and Forest Degradation: A Synthesis Report for REDD+ Policymakers, Lexeme Consulting 2012. Szlavecz, Katalin, Paige Warren and Steward Pickett, Biodiversity on the Urban Landscape, Ed. R.P. Cincotta and L.J. Gorenflo. Berlin: Springer-Verlag 2011, p1–12.
Forster, T. et al., Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, Selected Good Practices from Cities 2015. 2. Articles 98
Mogk, John E., Sarah Kwiatkowski, Mary J. Weindorf, ‘Promoting Urban Agriculture as an Alternative Land Use for Vacant Properties in the City of Detroit: Benefits, Problems and Proposals for a Regulatory Framework for Successful Land Use Integration’, 56(4) The Wayne Law Review (2012).
Ambrose-oji, Bianca et al., ‘The Governance of Urban Green Spaces in Selected EU-Cities’ (2015) pp. 1-97.
Bakker, D. M. Et al., 'The Effect of Raised Beds on Soil Structure, Waterlogging, And Productivity On Duplex Soils in Western Australia' 43 Aust. J. Soil Res (2005).
Banerjee, Chirantan, Lucie Adenaeuer, ‘Up, Up and Away! The Economics of Vertical Farming’, 2.1 Journal of Agricultural Studies (2014) pp. 40-60.
Brunnée, J., ‘COPing with Consent: Law-Making under Multilateral Environmental Agreements’, 15 (1) Leiden Journal of International Law 21 (2002) pp. 1-52.
Bellows, Anne C., Katherine Brown, and Jac. Smit, ‘Health Benefits of Urban Agriculture’, Community Food (2003) pp. 1-27. Crivits, M. et al., 'Four Perspectives of Sustainability Applied to the Local Food Strategy of Ghent (Belgium): Need for a Cycle of Democratic Participation?' 8 Sustainability (2016). Despommier, Dickson, ‘The Vertical Farm: Controlled Environment Agriculture Carried out in Tall Buildings Would Create Greater Food Safety and Security for Large Urban Populations’, 6.2 Journal fur Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (2011) pp. 233–236. Fowler, D. et al., ‘The Global Nitrogen Cycle in the Twenty-First Century’, 368.1621 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences (2013).
Gilbert, Natasha, ‘One-Third of Our Greenhouse Gas Emissions Come from Agriculture’, Nature (2012). Knizhnik L. Heather, ‘The Environmental Benefits of Urban Agriculture on Unused, Impermeable and SemiPermeable Spaces in Major Cities with a Focus on Philadelphia, PA’, Environmental Studies 2012, pp.1–55. Laurance, William F., Jeffrey Sayer, and Kenneth G. Cassman, ‘Agricultural Expansion and Its Impacts on Tropical Nature’, 29.2 Trends in Ecology and Evolution (2014) pp. 107–116. Lin, Brenda B., Stacy M. Philpott, and Shalene Jha, ‘The Future of Urban Agriculture and Biodiversity-Ecosystem Services: Challenges and next Steps’, 16.3 Basic and Applied Ecology 2015, p. 189–201. Lipinski, B et al., ‘Reducing Food Loss and Waste’, World Resource Institute (2013) pp.1–40. Marris, Emma, ‘Agriculture: Greenhouses in the Sky’, 468 (7322) Nature (2010) p. 374. Mcdonald R, Kareiva P and Forman R, 'The Implications of Current and Future Urbanization for Global Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation', 141 Biological Conservation (2008) p. 2.
Mok, Hoi-Fei et al., 'Strawberry Fields Forever? Urban Agriculture in Developed Countries: A Review' 34 Agronomy for Sustainable Development (2013) pp. 1-23.
Oliveira, Leydimere J. C. et al., ‘Large-Scale Expansion of Agriculture in Amazonia May Be a No-Win Scenario’, 8.2 Environmental Research Letters (2013). Vermeulen, Sonja J., Bruce M. Campbell, John S.I. Ingram, ‘Climate Change and Food Systems’, 37.1 Annual Review of Environment and Resources (2012) p.197.
3. Web Sources Association for Vertical Farming, Vertical-farming.net accessed 18.03.2016. C40, C40.org accessed 15.03.2016 Climate.org, Agriculture and Climate Change accessed 23.03.2016. Dokmoestuin/ Groenten Uit GENT – DOK accessed 17.03.2016. European Environmental Agency, ‘Heat wave risk of European Cities’ >http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-andmaps/explore-interactive-maps/heat-wave-risk-of-european-cities-1> accessed 23.03.2016. FAO, Global Agriculture towards 2050, accessed 28.03.2016.
FAO, to Work with the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact Cities | Milan's Food Policy, Foodpolicymilano.org accessed 15.03.2016. FAO, World Agriculture: Towards 2015/2030, accessed 23.03.2016.
Footprintnetwork.org, Living Well in a World of 7 Billion accessed 22.03.2016. Gent En Garde, Gentengarde.stad.gent accessed 16.03.2016. ICLEI Global, Who Is ICLEI, accessed 11.03.2016.
Moreno-Peñaranda, R., Japan’s Urban Agriculture: Cultivating Sustainability and Well-Being - United Nations University accessed 9.03.2016. Rabotsite.be, Site - Er Beweegt Een En Ander Op De Site accessed 16.03.2016
TEEB - Ecosystem Services accessed 23.03.2016. The Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services accessed 23.03.2016. UNEP, Impacts of Summer 2003 Heat Wave in Europe, accessed 28.03.2016 UNFPA, The State of the World Population 2007: Unleashing the Potential of Urban Growth accessed 23.03.2016.
United Nations Conference On Sustainable Development, Rio+20: Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform' (Sustainabledevelopment.un.org, 2016) accessed 10.03.2016. Urban Crops accessed 18.03.2016. 4. Other Sources Baker, Judy L. 2008. Urban poverty : a global view, Urban Papers no. UP-5, Washington, DC: World Bank accessed 28.03.2016 Danckaert S., Cazaux G., Bas L. & Van Gijseghem D., Landbouw in een groen endynamisch stedengewest, Departement Landbouw en Visserij, afdeling Monitoring en Studie, Brussel (2010).
Dubbeling, M., René van Veenhuizen and Henk de Zeeuw, Cities, Poverty and Food, Practical Action Pub 2010, pp. 1-12.
FAO, Urban Agriculture for Sustainable Poverty Alleviation and Food Security (2008) pp. 1-84.
FAO, Towards the Future We Want: End Hunger and Make the Transition to Sustainable Agricultural and Food System, FAO (2012) pp. 1-30. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis (2005)
Noonan-Mooney, Kieran, and Christine Gibb, The Major Threats to Biodiversity and the Role of People (2007) pp. 13-21. Pengra, B., One Planet, How Many People?, UNEP Global Environmental Alert Service June (2012) p. 4. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, ‘Cities and Biodiversity Outlook’ (2012), pp. 1-68. Shaheen, K., Emma Graham-Harrison and Patrick Wintour, 'Syrian Regime to Allow Aid into Besieged, Starving Town' (the Guardian, 2016) accessed 15.03.2016.
TEEB, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB (2010).
Thornton, P., ‘Recalibrating Food Production in the Developing World: Global Warming Will Change More Than Just the Climate’, CCAFS Policy Brief no. 6. (2012).
URBES, ‘Urban Agriculture: Landscapes Connecting People, Food and Biodiversity’ (2014).
United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects, the 2014 Revision (2014) p. 32. The World Bank, Urban Agriculture: Findings from Four City Case Studies (2013) p. 7.
BIOGRAPHY Aysegül Sirakaya studied at Bilkent University and London Metropolitan University. After she obtained her bachelor degree in law, she attended Ghent University where she was awarded her LL.M. degree on International and European Law. She is currently working towards her PhD at Ghent University, Faculty of Law, Department of European Public and International Law. Her PhD topic concerns the legal protection of urban biodiversity. She also works as a consultant on biosafety regulations at the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations.
