Beyond cultivating our own garden : an analysis of the hegemonic discourse and responsibility in urban agriculture movements

(1)

Beyond Cultivating Our Own Garden

An Analysis of the Hegemonic Discourse and Responsibility in Urban Agriculture Movements.

Bachelor thesis by: Maddie Lou Barink. (m.l.barink@gmail.com) Student number: 6063594.

For: University Of Amsterdam.

Program: Culturele Antropologie en Ontwikkelingssociologie. Overseeing Professor: Karen Witsenburg.

Second Reader: Flip Lindo Final draft.

Date: 14-08-2013. Wordcount: 12011

(2)

For all of my life, I have lived in the small city of Amsterdam and I shudder at the idea of living any other way. I love the convenience, busyness and diversity of city-life but, I have also enjoyed nature and have always been an environmentally aware person. Because I consider myself environmentally engaged, I am particularly interested in approaches to environmentalism that could make my preferred way of living more ecologically sustainable.

Currently the world population is estimated to be about 7.069 billion and is expected to rise to 10.5 billion by 2050. Within the current population an estimated 1.30 billion lives below the poverty line with 925 million being classified as hungry (FAO 2010). There is an increased pressure to find ways to produce and distribute enough food to feed this many people without further

ecological damage. Besides overwhelming population growth there is also a clear trend when it comes to how this population will be living. It is estimated that 70% of the world population, like me, will be living in cities by 2050 (FAO 2009: 2).

Increased urbanization presents interesting challenges when it comes to producing and distributing food. In cities, land is scarce and the competition for land needed for housing, industry and infrastructure limit the amount of land available for agricultural production. This means most of the distributed within cities comes from lands outside of the city limits (Argenti 2000). But the distribution of food to cities contribute to air-pollution within cities and also stress the existing distribution-systems which are already environmentally unfriendly(ibid).

Over the years, there has been an increase in awareness of the ecological constraints to food production. There are a few ways through which people seen able to 'green' their food consumption, either organic vegetables or only buying food that is locally produced and meat that is locally fed1_.

But many of these options are unavailable to large segments of the population – greener food is more expensive and can be more time consuming to look for. Nevertheless, the amount of people who engage in some form of ethical-shopping or engage in some kind of 'green' practice, one of these practices is urban agriculture(Mougeot: 13).

Urban agriculture (UA) is defined as:

Urban agriculture is an industry located within (intra-urban) or on the fringe (peri-urban) of a town, a city or a metropolis, which grows and raises, processes and 1 http://www.passievoorfood.nl/detail/article/europa-eet-meer-biologisch/

(4)

distributes a diversity of food and non-food products, (re-)using largely human and material resources, products and services found in and around that urban area, and in turn supplying human and material resources, products and services largely to that urban area. (Mougeot, 2000: 10).

From backyard produce to public communal gardens, roof-top farms or vertical farms there are many forms which UA can take. In developing countries, poorer urban dwellers started practising UA to improve their own food-supply. Especially during the food-price crisis in 2008 and 2009 the production of food within cities informally by individuals rose significantly (Zezza and Tascioti 2010: 265 ).

In developed countries the reasons for engaging in urban agriculture are often much different(de Lange 2011: 49). In the rich part of the 'the global north', the west or the developed world, there is little to no food insecurity. Generally, people have access to enough foods to sustain themselves. There are however a myriad of other reasons to practise UA in the developed world. There are the ideological reasons: contributing to a more sustainable world, striving to be self-sufficient, making sure the food you consume is non-GMO or not produced by slaves. Next to ideological reasons, there are also affective reasons: it can be pleasurable to work with food, eating you produced can be a special feeling and the food may even taste better (Riley 201).

In this thesis, I would like to examine urban agriculture projects in the developed world. These projects are either free market projects or part of 'civil society'. I want to examine how these projects aim to contribute to a more environmentally friendly food industry and analyse both the strength's and weaknesses. To do so adequately, I need to situate them within the political, economic and cultural context in which the projects arise. In this case meaning I need to understand there role in contemporary global capitalism and political ecology discourses.

One of the most important questions is if UA as such has the merits to contribute to a more sustainable food industry. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and many scientific analysis seems to suggest UA could improve food security in a sustainable

(ecologically sound) way. Although most of these perspectives seem to go in to the context of developing countries, it is interesting to look at what UA could contribute to food production in developed countries. Even though UA has its drawbacks, there are clear advantages to cities

producing food. If cities could produce part of the vegetables and fruits its inhabitants use, there can be a dramatic reduction of carbon emissions due to transport costs(Deelstra & Girardet 2000:53-54).

There are, however, many hurdles when it comes to 'agriculturalizing' already existing, planned out and built cities. The projects I analyse aim to transverse these problems and bring

(5)

agriculture in to developed cities. For example Windowfarm is one mass collaboration platform which aims to “personal scale innovation for environmental stewardship +[sic] quality of life into the existing infrastructure of cities”2_{. Through an open source strategy, they have been able to}

develop a hydroponic windowfarm system, which does not need soil and can produce food in urban homes. On a larger scale, people like Roman Gaus(2011) and Charley Price(2011) aim to use aquaponic closed-loop ecosystems to not only provide crops, but also fresh fish within the city.

Sustainability, going-green, ecologically sound have all become buzz-words and competing in various places in society, from public policy to business strategy (Hawthorn 2012: x-xii, Adams 2009: 7). I want to discuss the merits of the aforementioned urban agriculture(UA) projects because it incorporates two mayor environmental challenges: the need for sustainable food and increased urbanization both in the face of an ever-growing world population. It is also an open market, by which I mean it is not already dominated by large-scale farming companies who dominate the 'traditional' industry. Despite these aspects, there are also reasons to be sceptical of the counter-hegemonic potential of the approach of the existing projects.

I would like to discuss UA and how these project are situated within political and

development thought. In many ways, these projects are part of the so-called politics of the 'third way', which aims to be a workable synthesis between the traditional 'left' and 'right'. Theorists of the politics of the third way see left and right distinctions as obsolete(Mouzelis 2001: 436-437). The third way approach stresses civil-society, personal involvement and market viability in development and governance(Giddens 2000). Although there are advantages to the third way approach, there are reasons to be wary of optimism concerning these types of approaches(Gledhill 2001).

I would like illuminate in what ways global governance policy and third way paradigm interact in context development and specifically of urban agriculture. Thus in what follows, I will discuss how 'third way' came about and what this says about responsibility for sustainability. I hope to gain insight into how these projects aim to change the food industry and whether their approach it strong enough to do so.

I will start with an exploration the third way, how it relates to other political paradigms and constructs. Than I turn to criticisms of the third way and how they relate to the Gramscian concept of hegemony. Next I turn to the way third way politics have seeped into mainstream

environmentalist theory. I analyse how the UA projects are embedded within power structures, how they relate to the politics of the third way and whether their approach provides a viable alternative to the current food system.

(6)

2. Development, Third Way and Hegemony.

2.1 Development Paradigms

The term development has been assigned many different definitions and can refer to many different perspectives. Generally development refers the “[H]istorical processes of commodification,

industrialization, modernization, or globalization.”(Edelman and Haugerud 2005: 1). It also refers to attempts to improve well being in the formerly colonized nations, where it seems to be

structurally lacking. In recent years the desirability of development has been under attack from various perspectives, one of the most pertinent is by scholars influenced by Michel Foucault who claim development entraps its subjects in a process where they are constantly condemned to passivity and misery (ibid: 2).

The term 'development' seems to imply a starting point with a fixed outcome. From this perspective, the intricacies and specifics of political and cultural interactions are of little importance because they are swept up in the powerful current of modernization(ibid). Although the lack of specificity within modernization perspectives is a major flaw, a completely actor-orientated perspective may provide a far to a-historical and sterilized view. I feel such an approach fails to recognize power dynamics and interconnectivity.

I wish to navigate the sea between these two perspectives, one that deals with the specific contexts enough to not oversimplify, but at the same time relating the specific to broader

implications. In this piece I attempt to break with conventions concerning where 'development' is taking place. Where most development studies concern the global 'south' and enduring poverty, I am concentrating on environmental development in the global 'west'.

To understand the changes in development discourse, it is important to understand that globalization has influenced development. The definition of globalization very slippery. For many 'globalization' and 'westernisation' or 'Mc-donaldization' may seen completely synonymous, this does not paint the entire picture of what is actually taken place. Many anthropologists define it as the increased transport and communication systems and increased multi-directional flows, I think this only highlights one part of the story because it obscures power relations that shape those flows(Edelman and Haugerud 2004: 3). I hope this will become increasingly clear as I describe the pendulum swings of development thought.

(7)

phases in development theory. The first phase was trying to understand the rise of capitalism and lead to large, universalistic theories. Development was seen as “a way of narrating history world history, but not necessarily a rationale for acting upon that history.” (Cooper and Packard: 1997:7 in Edelman and Haugerud 2011:6). It could also be referred to as the classical economic thought and included theorist such as Hegel and Marx(Edelman and Haugerud 2011: 6).

In the second phase, thoughts on development were heavily influenced by James Maynard Keynes. Public spending was thought to be the main driver of economic development. The Bretton Woods financial institutions were established and with them: fixed exchange rates, controls and limits on capital movements across borders and nationalized economic planning to stimulate growth. Supra-national organizations were there to assist state projects(ibid).

After the 1980's and the debt crisis, the character of the Bretton Woods institutions changed dramatically and became more market-orientated or (neo)liberal(ibid: 6-7). This noted the rise of the third phase in development thought, the market was seen as the most effective way to improve conditions in what was called the 'Third world”. The system of controls the Bretton Woods system previously provided broke down because of neoliberal politics in the 'west' and influences the power of many nation states and the global economy(ibid).

The change of the Bretton Woods institutions really represented a watershed moment in global politics, economy and development. The power of nation states to use public funding to fund large projects was diminished. Because of this shift the role of civil society became increasingly important as a force for development and as a way to hold global governance accountable.

The political perspective from the second phase in development fits in to a 'statist strategy' and part of the political left, whereas the vision in the third phase is best classified as '(neo)liberal' and part of the political 'right'. Anthony Giddens is a well known sociologist and one of the most prominent 'third way' theorist. He describes how in this day and age, people have seemed to have lost trust in governments ability to do anything (Giddens 2008: 856-857). This loss of trust is not completely unfounded; especially when it comes to large issues such environmental constraints, democratic nation-states have proved rather inept (Mouzelis 2001: 437).

This ineptitude is partly because the role of global governance is increasing. Global

governance refers to a “framework of rules needed to tackle global problems, and the diverse set of institutions (including both international organisations and national governments) needed to

guarantee this framework of rules”(Giddens 2008: 858). I now turn to a more detailed description of the third way and its relationship to governance and development.

(8)

2.2 The Third Way, Global Governance and Civil Society.

Many prominent faces that represent the third way – such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair – would seem to fall in to the category of leftist politician. The politics of the third way was seen as a pragmatic left answer to neoliberalism, which is pro-egalitarianism without promoting wealth redistribution. Instead, third way politicians try to optimize equality of opportunity and aim to achieve this goal through a civil society strategy(Giddens 2000). Giddens describes third way as: “[A] framework of thinking and policy-making that seeks to adapt social democracy to a world which has changed fundamentally over the past two or three decades. It is a third way in the sense that it attempts to transcend both old-style social democracy and neoliberalism ” (ibid: 26)

The changes Giddens refers to are described in broad strokes above, but I will also explain in further detail. He argues that the fall of the soviet union and communism and failings of social democracies (which he fails to describe)socialism as an economic strategy was dead and social democracy needed a different basis (ibid: 4-8). Giddens claims third way is a form of social democracy that accepts capitalism and is pragmatic about it so governments can continue to function. He thinks that government, the market and civil society should be in balance, if either is too strong third way does not work(ibid). He alas fails to define what he means by too strong.

The changes also refer to the increased globalization and role of global governance in our lives. Most of global governance organizations such as the United Nations, are only indirectly democratic if they can be considered democratic at all. Most of their practices are transparent but incomprehensible to most people. They play an important role in development and governance through treaties and projects flowing from their various organizations, including the FAO. Because the way supra-national organizations are set up it can be hard, if not impossible, for individuals or smallholder groups to lobby or hold the organization accountable. This is despite the fact that the UN is seem as one of the most important overseers of democracy (ibid: 858-859).

According to Scholte(2004), civil society emerges as a way to hold these large organisations accountable. Civil society is a rather broad term that refers to “the realm of activity which lies between the state and the market, including the family, schools, community organisations and non-economic institutions”(Giddens 2008: 1009). For the purpose of this thesis, it mainly refers to more formal institutions of non-economic nature such as: non-governmental organisations (NGOs), charities and (new) social movements. Giddens argues that pat of what he calls the crisis of

democracy (of which the increased role of global governance is part and parcel) is due to people no longer being engaged enough, he sees civil society as a way to re-engage them (Giddens 1998:69-75).

(9)

Scholte argues that “[c]ivil society groups bring citizens together non-coercively in

deliberate attempts to mould the formal laws and informal norms that regulate social interaction.” (Scholte 2004: 214). Unlike Giddens, Scholte acknowledges civil society groups rarely operate completely independent from global governance, finance or public institution. Nevertheless Scholte explicates four ways civil society groups help keep global governance organizations

accountable(ibid: 216-217).

First, civil society has contributed to more transparent global governance by pressing organizations for more public disclosure (ibid: 217-219). Second by monitoring policy and reviewing its effect, civil society is able to professionally asses to what extent policy is in the best interest of the subjects(ibid 219-220). Third civil society organizations are powerful party when seeking 'redress for harms'. Citizens can appeal to civil society groups to demand that rules be changed, officials be replaced etcetera(ibid: 220-221). The fourth and final way civil society contributes to more accountable global governance is by promoting formal accountability mechanisms. By urging local, regional and national elected groups and by campaigning for the establishment of independent institutions for policy assessment of global governance agencies civil society has proved to be effective in this way(ibid: 221-222).

Scholte also explains that there are also a number of limitations to civil society's influence and how accountable they are to citizens. The first limitation Scholte discusses is resources, not only the resource to promote accountability, but also resources to know how people are effected by policy or to research what people need. In many ways the internet has made communication with far ends of the world a lot easier, but the most vulnerable often still lack access. This can often make these people even more vulnerable, because increased communications makes it seem like there is enough access. Another part of the problem with resources is: they often come with strings attached and can confuse loyalties(ibid: 222-224).

The second problem civil society organizations may face in trying to hold global governance organizations more accountable is the need for an extensive network. Civil society organizations both benefit from having a large network to achieve their goals and can be limited by it at the same time. The negotiations can lead to a rearrangement of priorities and strategies which might

compromise the organization in effectively reaching its goals (ibid: 224-225).

Networks also intersects with a third limitation which is how officials are predisposed towards the organization. On the one hand: they need access and can benefit from the help and openness, on the other hand: the amount of access may be determined by how much the organization is willing to do for the official organization (ibid: 225).

(10)

The forth limitation Scholte describes is the role of mass media. Access to mass media and the successful exploitation of mass media is crucial for civil society groups. The problem is they are also widely dependent on how those groups report on the issues civil society may be trying to address. If the public is uninformed about global governance and its role in their daily lives, they may not be receptive to the message of the civil society group. Scholte also explains: “much of contemporary mass media are themselves powerful global actors with the vested interests in the status-quo” (ibid: 228). Especially in lieu of access to more critical forms of media, mass media tends to be a severe limitation of the effectiveness of civil society(ibid: 227-228).

The fifth limitation Scholte explains is political culture in a particular context. Countries with long standing tradition of popular action and democratic practices may be more receptive than people in regions that do not share this type of culture.

` A sixth limitation is the accountability of civil society organizations themselves. To have the credibility to hold others accountable civil society organizations need to be very transparent. Sadly civil society rarely goes beyond the bare bureaucratic transparency requirement and thus does not genuinely engage their constituents(ibid: 228-232).

The limitations above concern the limits of civil society as a control agent for global governance. I would like to turn to what I see as more structural limitations with third way approach to political and development concerns(of which civil-society is an important part) and global governance when it comes to changing the status-quo. These problems relate to hegemony and larger concerns explicated by John Gledhill.

2.3 Hegemony and Civil Society

Antonio Gramsci was a Neo-Marxian thinker, his concept of hegemony has become very influential in social sciences. In the Prison Notebooks Gramsci explains the way he sees hegemony and its relation to states and trying to bring about change. Gramsci wrote in the context of fascist Italy, thus many argue that a lot of the specificities of Gramsci do not apply to our current epoch, but some of the basic processes Gramsci highlights are still very relevant today.

Hegemony was Gramsci's complex answer to Marx's false consciousness, in many ways it functions the same way, but it is a lot more attentive to human agency. Gramsci does adopt the Marxian lexicon of structure and super-structure. He claims that there are reciprocal interactions between these two and the outcome of these interactions form a 'historical bloc' (Forgacs 2000: 189 -193, 424). Hegemony within this historical bloc is a form of power that is not enforced through

(11)

dominations but is rather embedded in cultural, ideological and moral praxis in a given society. Hegemony is exercised through consensus which strengthens bonds within a society (ibid: 422-424).

Gramsci makes a few distinctions within hegemony, he sees civil society as a place where dominant social groups can negotiate the consensus through which hegemony is achieved. Thus Gramsci sees room to negotiate power – the construction of power is not as mechanical as Marx's historical materialism. Although there is a group that ends up being dominated, hegemony achieves this through active engagement with the dominated group's interests(ibid: 211, 422-424).

Yet the negotiations of power and the arising hegemony can also be a pacifying force that does not always benefit the governed. Because hegemony creates a consensus it is a powerful tool for formal power institution. They can use hegemonic values and embed their own positions within them. If they succeed, policies and political choices become interlaced with the cultural, ideological and moral fabric of society. Civil society, part of the dominant force become seen by people as self-evident facts that can not and should not be changed(ibid).

John Gledhill has exactly this criticism of Giddens' politics of the third way. Gledhill states that the politics of the third way fails to deliver a true alternative to the hegemony of neoliberal discourse (Gledhill 2001: 129). Basically Giddens argues that the political ineptness of the former 'left' and its statist policies have left open the door for free-market neoliberalism (Giddens 2000). According to Giddens the world changed; whether it be because of increased globalization or the failing of state-led development. Giddens feels the traditional left has failed to respond to the change and so third way emerged as an alternative.

He also argues most of the problems poorer countries face are more due to the given

societies internal political and social problems and does not see enduring poverty as an outcome of global capitalism (Giddens 2000: 129). Giddens seems to suggest people in poor countries

themselves need to take responsibility and get involved in politics to change these internal problems (which, again, Giddens fails to define). This excuses any outside influences, be it exploitation by large corporations or influences from other nation states, from any responsibility which seems a naïve (Gledhill 2001: 126, 136-138). On top of this, it also seems to deny the structural inequalities created by global capitalism and the vested interest and various ties poverty in the 'South' has with 'Northern political dominance' (ibid). It is also inconsistent, because Giddens generally is very aware of increased globalization and the limits it put on nation states.

(12)

exclusion and to 'solve' the problems of enduring poverty we need to help people take available opportunities (Giddens 2008: 357, Gledhill 2001: 137). Giddens' third way seeks to see inequality as a form of exclusion. He states neoliberalism is in trouble because it is not inclusive, the

traditional two-parent family with one breadwinner is no longer the norm and a decrease in

available jobs because of the increased role of technology people are finding other activities to fulfil themselves(Giddens 2000: 14-16,107-108). Giddens argues that as lifestyles are now increasingly diverse, this has changed the balance of the workforce and because of this we need to normalize these 'anomalies'(Gledhill 2001: 138). He argues we need to incorporate the new ways people find fulfilment (anomalies) in to the market.

Giddens calls upon the force of civic responsibility to make this possible, in other words calling upon the well-to-do in society to provide enough opportunities(Giddens: 128). This not significantly different from the trickle-down economics argument, especially because he does not explain how or why people would suddenly start incorporating these alternative fulfilments into the market. This seems to suggest two things, the first is if people would just conform to a more

'normal' lifestyle there would be less problems. Because Giddens assumes that there will somehow always be enough opportunities in the market, the second thing Giddens would seem to suggest is that people who still lack monetary compensation do so by choice(Gledhill 2001: 137-138).

To sum up the most nagging problem with the dominance of 'third way-ism' is that it is an essentially reformist discourse. Reformers operate within the status-quo and indeed seek to

'improve' the way it works, Giddens sees civil society as a way to mediate both the harshest effects of the unfettered market and as a way to streamline large, bureaucratic process. Giddens feels within these avenues people, who have been excluded are presented with enough opportunities to include themselves. He point to the fact many so 'spontaneously' relieve themselves from poverty as prove of this, thus he seems to blame those who do not experience this spontaneous relief(ibid).

Because third way claims to provide a full-fledged alternative to neoliberalism and has been widely popular among powerful seemingly left figures such as Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, it also de-legitimises other forms of political thought that may question the markets ability to solve things or point to its limits as 'non-constructive' or 'unrealistic'. Through the normalization of the market discourse, and providing 'proper' limits and policing forces (civil society) to it, third way embeds the market within the cultural, moral and ideological fabric of a society, it suggests capitalism is a self-evident truth.

(13)

2.4 Sustainable Development

The term sustainable development has often been sneered at by its critics for being an oxymoron. After all to sustain means to keep the same and to develop suggests change, so what would sustainable development look like? It all comes down to how sustainability is defined. Like many other terms, it is subject to many interpretations and is (often intentionally) used in many different ways(Adams 2009: 5).

Because of the diversity of meaning that can be assigned to the word 'sustainability' it is important to look at the definition within the context. Common definitions of sustainable

development are often vague for example “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Brundtland 1987: 47 in Adams 2009: 5). Sustainability is less a professional technical term and more like a set of ethical concepts, expressing desirable outcomes from economic and social decisions (Adams 2006: 4).

A model of analysing energy use by biologist and politician Barry Commoner provide an interesting framework to explain the relationship between natural resources, economics, political and social decisions(Olpadwala and Goldsmith 1992: 628). At the core of Commoners model is nature, the physical and biological environment. Surrounding this core is agricultural and industrial technologies, tools through which nature is transformed into useful objects. If these technologies work perfectly, nature is sustained, the closer to this ideal the better(ibid).

The next layers influences how well the technologies work, the first is the economy. The economy determines in what way the technologies develop. Ideally, the right incentives and penalties are applied and a technology that is as close to perfect as possible is developed. But this economic system is influences by the next layer which is social and political system.

In other words sustainability within this system could be defined as the state wherein the process works properly where: “...society would organize the economy to design a production system that would sustain the environment” (ibid: 629). The praxis is however often completely reversed “We degrade and destroy the ecosystem because we design and use inappropriate

technology for production, in pursuit of the wrong economic goals. The make-up of society and its political systems lead us in these wrong directions. (ibid)”

Taking this system into account I would like to look at ways people try to achieve sustainability. In Green Development Adams explains that despite the great diversity within environmental development, the mainstream is generally reformist(Adams 2009: 116).Adams states:

(14)

Behind the strategies for economic change lies the rich ideological web of the modern industrial world: 'a common corporate industrial culture based on the values of competitive individualism, rationality, growth, efficiency,

specialization, centralization and big scale' (Friberg and Hettne 1985, p. 231). [Mainstream Sustainable Development] does not challenge the dominant capitalist industrializing model. Instead it opens debate about its methods and outcomes (ibid: 117).

Mainstream Sustainable Development (MSD) aims to change the outcomes of industrial production systems by adjusting the way it is carried out. It argues the market is the most important innovative force, because the market is more responsive, flexible and efficient than the state (Adams 2009: 117-118) . Essentially the Giddens makes the same arguments about the market in a more general context (Gledhill 2001: 138).

Within the discourse of MSD, the market will logically need to become more sustainable, as (natural) resources become increasingly scarce, the market will adapt and create highly innovative and efficient ways of renewing themselves. This leads to a believe in 'market environmentalism'. In this view, government regulation – and subsequent bureaucracy – would only hinder the market's agility in this regard (Adams 2009: 118-119). Within this discourse the reduction of poverty is linked to sustained economic growth, this growth must be achieved 'responsibly' but as long as there is enough growth opportunities, this should not pose a problem (ibid).

More pessimistic views point out: not only is sustained economic growth highly contested, but economic growth seems to have both positive and negative effects on the environment (ibid: 118-119). Especially if “markets fail to capture environmental values and deal with externalities such as pollution” or regulations are inadequate or inadequately met(ibid: 120).

Much like the the strategy of third way to eliminate poverty, market environmentalism discourse,advocates business and civil society alliances to help achieve international environmental goals. Thus helping businesses achieve greater environmental stewardship without the need for government regulations. But there are legitimate concerns of 'green-wash', companies pursuing specific – often populist – 'sustainable' goals publicly, to help cover up a terrible overall performance on issues concerning the environment(ibid: 124-125).

Complementary to the market approach is what Adams refers to as a ecological

modernization approach. Within this discourse the imperfections of the market are recognized and the solutions to these imperfections is the need for technical innovation, solving the problems with

(15)

industrialisation with an evolved version of itself: an industrialisation where environmental

problems are made calculable and rationality guides choices made (ibid: 126). This would seem to look like Commoners system described above but is less attentive to social and political sphere and the changes these need to achieve the stated goals.

Again here the discourse adheres to the hegemonic market discourse, in fact it provides a way for governments and corporations to 'manage' ecological dissent(ibid: 127-128). I recognize many of the characteristics of both third way and mainstream sustainable development discourses in urban agriculture project and in discourses related to urban agricultural practises. I hope to

(16)

3. Sustainable Urban Agriculture and Possibilities for Cities.

In the following section I will explain how urban agriculture has been defined and some nuances on this definition. I will discuss estimations concerning the practise: how many people engage in UA, and why do they do so? Next I discuss how the urban agriculture contributes to sustainable food security. Most of the studies of this subject are focussed on developing countries as mentioned before. I will illustrate the weakness of this type of approach, I hope to link my own critiques with the critical analyses of civil society explored above.

3.1 What is Urban Agriculture and What does it already contribute to Food Production

It is hard to get one sound number on how many people engage in Urban Agriculture globally, the numbers differ severely from study to study, sometimes even within publications by the same organisation (Zezza & Tasciotti 2010: 266). These disparities can be attributed to the fact that the definition of urban agriculture may seem simple, but it is not as straight-forward as it sounds. The main problem is that defining what is 'urban' or 'peri-urban' is rather complicated and culturally specific (ibid: 267). Zezza and Tasciotti aimed to achieve vigorous quantification of the amounts of people engaging and UA and its significance.

They looked at case studies concerning UA which mainly used the definition of urban defined by the state (ibid: 267). Although the state definition may not necessarily reflect the image of the inhabitants, I think this is the best way to look at it when trying to achieve broad

quantification. A problem with only taking 'urban' definitions is that, I can also imagine it leaving out suburban and 'town' agricultural practices, which are also geared towards producing food for consumption within the local economy (Veenhuizen 2006: 1-2). I think it might be more useful to define urban agriculture as agricultural practices that take place cities, suburbs, towns and any place that does not accommodate high acreage farms and produces food to be used in the local economy either by self consumption or local markets. This definition also excludes non-food producing agriculture.

According to Zezza and Tasciotti, UA is mainly practised by poor household who do not have access to land. They make no distinction between UA practices which are aimed at self-consumption and practises that are (also) aimed at market income generation. In relation to food security they state that there seems to be evidence UA contributes to food security in numerous ways. Firstly, by providing the households itself with crops, secondly because it can provide an income and the third is because it can provide people with highly nutritious and varied diets (Zezza & Tasciotti: 266). They note that despite these implications, mainly derived from case studies in

(17)

developing countries, there has been very little quantitative analysis on the subject. They were able to find one study (besides their own) that aimed to do so, I will now briefly discuss what both studies found.

The first was done by Daniel Maxwell, Carol Levin and Joanne Csete and studies whether UA practises in Kampala were linked to higher child nutritional status. They took child nutritional status as a dependant variable and the practice of UA as an independent. In Kampala most (95%)of the respondents engaged in UA for their own consumption (Maxwell et al. 1998: 415). They indeed found a significant positive correlation between child nutritional status in Kampala and the practise of UA. In families who practices UA there was barely any difference between socio economic class and nutritional status.

Though the research does indeed indicate that UA can contribute to food security (of which child nutritional status is one of many indicators), their research was not sufficient to prove in what way they correlate. They suggest two pathways in which UA could contribute, the first (and perhaps most obvious) is that UA increases the quantity and quality of food consumed. The seconds

suggests that there UA may be associated with more time for child care, which, in turn, negatively correlates with instances of illness and so on (Maxwell et al. 1998: 422).

Another interesting finding in this study was that in Kampala mainly woman participate in UA, but are otherwise the practice is rather class neutral. The proportion of upper and middle class families with members engaging in some form of UA was not really different from the amount of lower class families. This is interesting because the assumption that it is a practice purely based on destitution seems to have taken hold rather strongly in policy proposals by such organizations as the FAO or the United Nations Development Program.

The second study by Zezza and Tasciotti compared UA participation in Ghana, Madagascar, Malawi, Nigeria, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nepal, Pakistan, Vietnam, Albania, Bulgaria, Ecuador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Panama, they note that their analyses may no longer be very representative for the current situation, but in lieu of other data it is more representative than nothing (Zezza & Tasciotti 2010: 267). First, they looked at participation in UA, what emerges is a very varied picture with participation rates as low as 11% in Indonesia and as high as 70% in Vietnam.

Secondly they looked at income shares generated from UA, which was a lot lower. They did not look at UA as percentage of the GDP because it is a largely informal economy that does not generate income as such (ibid: ). The countries with the largest percentages of income generated by UA are all African. Because these numbers are averages across the entire urban population and when only households that participate in UA are taken into account, the generation of income is still rather substantial(ibid: 267-268). They were able to prove that the contributions by UA in

(18)

subsistence are far from negligible. They were also able to show that on the whole, UA is an activity mainly practised by poor households, there was a steeply negative correlation between higher welfare levels and participation in UA.

Third they looked at UA as a percentage of the total agriculture production. For most of the countries within the sample this percentage fell within 5% to 15% range. There were a few peaks above 20% in Madagascar and Nicaragua (ibid: 269). They were able to deduce that, in most countries, UA practices seem to be for consumption within the participating household. Only in four countries from the sample (namely: Bangladesh, Madagascar, Nepal and Nicaragua) was more that a third of the produce sold on the market(ibid).

When it comes to UA contributing to food security they were able to support much of what the qualitative data also seems to suggest: UA provides participating households with direct access to foods. Not only does this make them less dependant on markets and fluctuating food prices, it also improves the diversity of their diets and fresher crops are more nutritious than food which has travelled for a long time. They also showed that UA participation also lead to a higher calorie intake(ibid: 269-271).

Despite these promising numbers they claim that it is: “hard to see UA playing a significant role in poverty alleviation outside of Africa” (ibid: 268), because the share of income represented by UA are significantly lower in countries outside of Africa in this data set. Even though this is a logical conclusion derived from the data in this study, I think this shows what is and not what could be given proper incentives and infrastructure. I will now turn to studies and projects which look at the opportunities presented by UA and what they could imply.

3.2 How Urban Agriculture Could Contribute to Food Production

Cities are essentially spaces with a very high concentration of human activity and settlement. Cities throughout history have been organized around how food would reach various parts of the city. It is interesting to see that many of these streets may still bear the names which signify this function although they no longer fulfil it. She argues it is important for sustainability to plan cities in a way which accommodates easy and efficient food distribution. When it comes to UA it is not much different, a city needs to be able to accommodate UA just like it needs to be able to accommodate distribution. In this section I will explore some of the problems UA face from a practical level.

There are potential risks to UA as Mougeot explains, there are certain risks to UA: “Environmental health issues include visual untidiness, soil erosion, destruction of

vegetation, siltation, depletion of water bodies and pollution of resources (soil, air,

(19)

contribute to more green and well kept cities. Above all, the increased rate of urbanization means there has to be a new way of dealing with sustaining a city. Desolate and empty urban spaces used for UA could transform these dreary spaces in to productive spaces that provide food and possibly even jobs for the city(Deelstra & Girardet 2000: 48; ). Similarly, parks could become easier and more useful to maintain while also providing vital recreational space. Next to these appearance contributions, UA could also contribute to general sustainability because it can lead to a more integrated waste disposal system. Household kitchen waste could serve as compost which could be used to provide nutrient for new crops etcetera(Deelstra & Girardet 2000: 50).

Although the thought of 'greener' cities, that also help provide fresh food may seem appealing it is important to look at practical concerns, one of them is that land which has already been built upon is not easy to re-purpose. It is also important to recognize the potential of other idle spaces such as large bodies of water within the city, rooftops and the sides of buildings could all be potential places for UA practices. When planning a city, it can easily be imagined how these places would become used for UA, but already existing cities pose a problem because most rooftops and building sides are private property and can not be repossessed to for the purpose of creating communal plots where UA can take place. Non the less, with proper incentives and education it might be possible to stimulate owners to use the spaces in these ways. It is here, and of course in planning new cities or areas, where the role of city planning is particularly important.

One of the problem new UA planning faces is the assumption that UA practices may seem 'messy' to urban planners and policy makers (Veenhuizen 2006: 12-16), but there are several way UA could actually contribute to an improved living experience in cities. Not only could plants help improve air quality, they could improve smell, help break winds and dust (Deelstra & Girardet 2000: 48). Plants not only filter CO2 to a certain extent, soil also provides insulation that could help manage climate control within buildings with a rooftop garden. More of the benefits of different UA practices will be explored later in this section.

Despite soil degradation being a concern when employing UA the use of waste and compost to produce crops could actually improve soil in cities. Highly fertile ground in cities could again feed off of waste which is produced within cities naturally, this limits, if not eliminates the need for artificial and chemical fertilizers, which could be a problem when used in high quantities in highly populated areas (Veenhuizen 2006: 281).

Of course, the main way UA can contribute to sustainability is because it limits the need for food to be imported to cities from far away places. This reduces carbon emissions because there is less need to transport food, it limits food waste because perishable produce does not need to travel as far and it is also more nutritious. I have already shown how poor cities, where access to food is

(20)

scarce, can benefit from direct access. The benefits could however be even more advantages in developed countries that have an urban population that is virtually oblivious to the inputs needed to produce foods. For most urbanites food production is an issue that is literally far from home. Bringing agriculture to cities may help improve awareness when it comes to how food is produced, but also more educated citizens demanding better and more sustainable practices.

Next to this, it is important to realize food insecurity and abundance in developed countries are linked. Take for instance the Netherlands, although technically The Netherlands produces more food than the country consumes, the picture becomes a lot more complex when food groups are analysed separately and inputs are considered. For instance 80% of fruit consumed by Dutch consumers is imported (Van der Knijf 2011: 12). These imports are mainly tropical fruits and using aquaponic greenhouses the Netherlands could start cultivating some of the crops they import themselves there would be more opportunity for export nations (mainly from the global 'South') to use their own lands to cultivate foods for themselves instead of cheap food for far away lands.

It is, of course, not this simple. Here the role of multi-national farming corporations starts to play a major role. Large scale farms in developing countries are exploitable because of sales to developed countries, they can not make as much money selling to markets where people have less to spend. But this does not mean that there is not an opportunity to change the way things work, it is rather an uphill battle because the current system benefits some who might not benefit as much when other ways of producing food are implemented.

3.3 Analysis of The Food and Agricultural Organizations approach to Urban Agriculture

The FAO do have a rather elaborate array of policy documents (FAO 2007, 2010 are but a few examples) for the implementation of sound UA practices. They also have a large reserve of information on the contribution of UA towards food security insofar as it has been researched and researchable. But there are a number of problems with the documents. First they focus rather heavily on the city planning and the implementation of these strategies for future cities or sites (FAO 2007: 19, 23). Implementation strategies within existing cities could bring agriculture and its products to people already in urban environments. As stated earlier, within any given city there are idle spaces which hold potential for forms of UA.

Second it is geared more towards developing countries and poor urban environments. In none of the policy brief, papers, studies or statements by the FAO on Urban Agriculture or Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture (UPA) do they mention UPA within developed countries in any

meaningful way. This seems to ignore that food insecurity in poorer underdeveloped nations is not just a matter of production within these countries, but also the export of crops to more developed

(21)

nations. If developed nations could be more self-sufficient in terms of producing food, developing countries could use more of there own soil for local food production. Of course it is not quite this simple, private industry makes too much money selling cheap food from poor countries to the rich industrialized nations. Non the less UA does have the potential to undermine this industry's power. But it is hard to do so without enough support from civil-society and global governance

organizations (and when a major organisation ignores this option, it does not make it any easier). Third the policy briefs, research documents and proposals overstate the risks. They allege that there are risks attached to using chemical pesticides and fertilizers in an urban context because of the constant close proximity to large amounts of people (FAO 2007: 26; FAO 2010: 13-14). Yet they so not explain how these risks can be compared to large-scale industrial agriculture, which shows a slight pro-industry bias. They also stress the problems of waste disposal and contamination of soil and water within cities.

Not only are the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers within UA largely overstated, there are plenty of techniques in which this can be avoided. Within certain techniques, waste is minimal especially when compared to the waste transported food produces and most of the best researched methods are indoor and do not require access fertile soil within the city (Riley 2011; Price 2011; Gaus 2011).

Forth, and in my opinion one of the biggest problems, the FAO mainly sees UA as a means for people to acquire a degree of self-sustenance as a supplement to their diet. This only recognizes UA's potential within the narrow context of poverty alleviation while it is possible to also apply it in places where poverty is not an issue. Although this may be the pragmatic truth because discourse surrounding agriculture tend to state that agriculture does not 'belong' in cities and private industry might form various stumbling blocks. I think it shows an traditional industry bias on the part of the FAO because it is not honest about the potential for UA in places where traditional agriculture is dominant.

Most of the FAO's projects, whether urban or more traditional agriculture are geared towards 'bringing food security' to 'underdeveloped' countries. When it comes to sustainability, there is often a tendency to place the blame on 'poorly regulated' third world countries. Not only does this hold many parallels with conveniently leaving out that the companies that are causing environmental degradation often come from the 'North' and are trying to produce commodities for the market at best price for themselves, not necessarily the country they operate in, or at minimal cost to the environment.

The FAO seems to neglect the possibility of projects geared towards improving agricultural practises in places such as EU or the USA so that these regions may become are less dependent on

(22)

import to feed livestock or to provide tropical fruits. In other words food production could become more localized or self-sustained, which reduces many of the ecological costs of food

production(Argenti: 1-2). It is hard to predict what the effects would be for underdeveloped countries with a 'big agriculture' presence and export dependency, but with proper restructuring it could present great opportunities to also improve food security. But considering an approach where global trade relations change and regions become more self-sustained is a radical step away from the status-quo and thus goes beyond the limited imaginations of most proponents of third way politics.

Non the less, civil society could urge global organizations such as the FAO to take a more holistic view of the food industry and thus promote solutions that actually address where the problem starts. But this kind of approach almost certainly threatens the business models of large agriculture conglomerates, and without the resources these can provide civil society or global governance institutions it is hard to see how civil society will be able to affectively lobby for this kind of solution, let alone achieve it.

If civil society organizations would like to pursue this goal they would need to raise funds outside global governance and large conglomerates. Most individuals are not only not informed enough to be enticed to provide the resources needed. Most of those who would be interested simply lack the funds or feel they already contribute enough to sustainable agriculture by buying pricey organic or fair trade produce (Hawthorn 2012).National government contributions or action could be extremely helpful, but because neoliberalistic policies, (hegemonized by third way-ism) have chipped away at governmental legitimacy, the government faces not only its own bureaucratic demons, but also mistrust and a lack of revenue.

(23)

4. Urban Agriculture and Hegemony

In this section I want to discuss examples of UA projects that aim to integrate UA in existing highly urbanized settings. In this section I will mainly be highlighting the possibilities of these projects and how they could contribute to sustainable food security. I will also discuss the ways these projects relate to the hegemonic discourse and the problems these projects face.

4.1 Examples of Urban Agriculture in Urbanized Settings

In 2009 the founder of Windowfarms, Britta Riley built her own improvised windowfarm with friends in her fifth floor Brooklyn apartment. Her original design was a crude collection of vertical columns of plants in pots with clay pellets fed with nutrient-rich water which trickled down the columns which was hung in front of a window. It produced about a salad a week and was highly inefficient, it used more water that needed and costed a fair amount of energy (Riley 2009). Through open source development, she was able to create a more effective system incorporating ideas from other window farmers and combined them to see what worked best. Now there are window farmers that cultivate strawberries plants within the comforts of their own home that fruit for nine months out of the year.

Currently the windowfarm community shop offers a pre-made, energy efficient windowfarm system. A neat column of plants with a reservoir of highly nutrient water on the bottom, an air pump is used to pump the water to the top of the column at specific intervals that must be placed in a window. The plants roots absorb what they need and the rest of the water trickles down the column. The water that is not absorbed by the plants routes go back to the reservoir.

Open source developments refers to a production process where the means to the production are openly available. In software design open source development leads to huge improvement because of feedback from the community and contributions to the sources. Windowfarm now has online community of about 40.000 people. The community has provided numerous contributions such as designs for better pumps, to designs for (extra) lighting systems for darker places and heating systems. The air pump they developed is patent pending. The patent will belong to the community. This keeps the design from falling in to the hands of businesses wanting to patent the design and thus limiting the right to produce the pump (Riley 2011).

What is interesting about 'open source' or 'crowd sourced development' is the constant feedback loop it generates. As explained before it can help improve the overall system but it can also deal with particularities of certain contexts and help people deal with area specific demands while still being part of and contributing to a larger context. The larger the active community the

(24)

better for open source. Although the windowfarm is interesting, what is demotivating when it comes to it contributing to a more sustainable food production system, is the size of the community;40.000 people is not that many people within the context of urban or suburban population.

Of course, there are more ways to engage in UA than just window-farming, and this number may not include window-farmers that do not affiliate with this group. According to DiFranzo and Graves (2011) the future of the online community is highly dependent on providing incentives for its members. Whether this is a sense of community, personal fulfilment or possible economic re-enforcements (DiFranzo and Graves 2011: 5-6).At the time of their research 2000 people would visit the sit within a given month, and about 10 people were responsible for about 80% of new content on their website(ibid: 2). The community might be able to unlock much more innovative potential by actively stimulating innovative participation in the open source development community.

Next to helping individuals grow food, there are also initiatives that are geared towards businesses and changing how the supply chain works. Urban Farmers is a company that sells farm systems. They market to real-estate owner, supermarkets and restaurants, they aim to sell you a farm system based on aquaponics so that it can produce food for the business and can be sold

immediately. This system not only produces vegetables, it also produces fish. It is a larger scale approach to UA which incorporates idle spaces such as roof tops (Gaus 2011). Restaurants or small supermarkets could use any idle space they have to incorporate an suitable aquaponic system and use the produce it provides to make a profit along with contributing to a more sustainable food industry.

Aquaponics combines aquaculture and hydroponics; because no soil is required the farms and are thus suitable for urban environments. These systems are also closed-loop; fish excrement provides organic fertilizer for the plants and the plants filter the water and provide nutrients for the fish. It used 90 % less water than traditional agriculture and it produces a minimal amount waste. Charlie Price (2011) and Roman Gaus (2011) both refer to these closed-loop systems as an ecosystem approach to agriculture. Essentially producing food in the place where it is consumed and reincorporating most of the waste back in to the system.

These projects work largely within the context of the private sector and there is very little that needs to and can be regulated. The windowfarm community describes themselves as 'A Social Enterprise' 3_{. UrbanFarmers describe themselves in similar terms}4_{, they are both private companies}

that have incorporated 'green ideology' into their business model. Thus they show that market 3 http://www.windowfarms.com/about-the-company/

(25)

environmentalist are not completely wrong to think this may be a major industry and place for change but there are also reasons to not be too optimistic about these kinds of projects.

4.2 Individualism Responsibility and Urban Agriculture

Part of the window farm's appeal is that is is located within the comforts of your own home, there is no way to get more local than this. All the food produced is pesticide free and can be produced with completely organic nutrients. The Windowfarm site stresses that is also brings people more in to contact with their food. They want to connect eaters with their food. It is an interesting question: are people who rely on others to grow their food for them inherently disconnected from their food? Is the intimate action of bodily consumption not enough for people to be engaged? Yet it is something I see appearing in most of these movements which stress the need for people to start growing their own food in whatever way possible.

Louise Fresco(2009) states that it is a sign of our modern time and our modern luxury that we now have so many people who can live independent of agriculture. She states we should not romanticise the time when most people had to work the land and perform daunting and physically exhausting work to gain their sustenance. Is UA a way in which we romanticise the past? Although I do think there are elements of this within these movements, I think it mainly pertains to the contact with food and seeing something grow before it is consumed.

I think the real driving force behind these developments lies in something a lot more modern which is the notion of individualism and self-sufficiency. When speaking at TED (Riley 2011), Britta Riley stated in the beginning of her talk how much she could feel her reliance on others as a urbanite. Mass-urbanization is the product of increased mechanization and reliance on fewer man hours to produce the same amount of food. But we have slowly become at once divorced from the environmental cost of our food as well as hyper aware of dependency, especially in times of economic downturn.

These projects give back some semblance of this control. These projects are a part of a platform where culture, ideology and morality are discussed in other words a place where

hegemony is negotiated. In some ways these projects counter the status-quo, they challenge the idea that agriculture must be large in scale and rurally located. However, the projects are also very embedded in the hegemonic discourse of individuality and personal responsibility. Individuals must make the choice to participate and put in significant amounts of time and energy, these are resources not everybody has. The message of these organizations (and others that are similar) is that people

(26)

need to – individually – get behind the cause and do it for themselves. Riley states that in order to: '...see the kind of wide consumer behaviour change that we're all talking about as environmentalists and food people, maybe we just need to ditch the term "consumer" and get behind the people who are doing stuff' (Riley 2011). This all sound very inspiring, but what does 'getting behind' mean? How do we take a widely dispersed community of scarcely 40.000 people and change a food system? It is in the scale of these projects that we find the poison in the wine.

The windowfarm promotes the idea of the individual being able to take action against the constraints of the normal agricultural market and make an environmental choice that is also beneficial. In essence there is not much of a difference between the rhetoric perpetuated by

neoliberals stating that there is no need for environmental regulation rules because the market will regulate itself. People will be self-preserving and what is good for the planet is good for people and thus the market will punish companies with bad practices and the. Yet, even though projects like the windowfarm and urban agriculture in general present very interesting options, they are not nearly large enough to bring about meaningful change to the agriculture industry that could lead to increased sustainability.

UrbanFarmers is different in that it is not geared towards individuals as much as it is towards businesses. It is much more engaged in the market and thus much more explicitly with the dominant discourse than projects such as the windowfarm. Yet it also presents an alternative which challenges the large agriculture, opening up a new, potentially profitable, market. But here the problem is that without the help resources, networks, mass media and political favour these kinds of project remain hard to achieve. Especially because despite the uprising of green shopping, people are constrained by their own wallets. Urban farmers can not compete in price with highly subsidized agriculture or imported agriculture, due to land prices and work wages in their locations. Without stimulative policy. The advocacy for such policy is where civil society comes in.

Here again we see why it is so important for civil society and global governance to look honestly at the conflicts of interests that often times seem to engulf civil society. Take advocating for action on the possibilities of urban agriculture, one way could be to urge governments to provide incentives for people or businesses to engage their available space to UA practices through

subsidies, tax-breaks or by wholesale financing of public/ communal UA project. Seems simple enough, but there are a few stumbling blocks.

First the six limitations of civil society as explained by Scholte would seem to apply, all of these things factor in to how successful the lobbying attempts by civil society or other actors may be. Second government would also require substantial political backing to do such things, backing which might be hard to get as market solutions are hegemonic. Third, political will and industry

(27)

entanglements may surmount any reformist activity.

Industry may also see the hypothetical incentives or the not so hypothetical ones of breaking into a new market/ expanding territory as a reason to buy up these small companies and either keeping their business models along side their own, successfully undermining their potential for challenging them or changing the business model and thus, most likely, compromising their environmental integrity.

Companies such as Windowfarms and UrbanFarmers are clearly ideologically motivated, they might not be motivated to sell their respective companies. But the problem is,to survive or grow (which is needed to really achieve their goals) they need to engage with other actors with more resources and their most powerful partners may very well be the big agricultural companies. Changing the hegemonic discourse requires actively recognizing its power and trying to change it, but the perhaps sad truth is, David does not always beat Goliath and the small players require larger support than their market-value can muster.

Civil Society may prove to be a powerful game changer in sustainability discourse, but to do so it needs to distance itself from market hegemony by shifting its focus towards holding industry accountable instead of global governance. This is not to say holding global governance accountable is not incredibly important, on the contrary, but I think holding industry accountable is more in line with the current paradigm. Free enterprise are the big players with the resources and hegemonic power. Individual citizens and even small collectives turning their back on one company or another is not enough to encourage a change; organized, substantive watchdog groups illuminating the production processes, differences between rhetoric and praxis of businesses might be.

The problem of resources presents a major challenge in this shift, after all as I stated before, individuals do not have the money businesses do. It seems to be a viscous circle of displacement of responsibility and accountability: if nation states are no longer able to deal with large problems due to increased globalization and a shift to global governance, it is important to hold global governance accountable to the people they represent. But if global governance is essentially impotent without industry connections and nation state bureaucrats, these would seem to be the things to police, but policing industry and state government may lead to a decrease of available resources to conduct such substantive research.

Maybe civil society should not have to be the ones to hold industry and global governance accountable. Third way politics is supposed to be a pragmatic solution for nation states to push policy that transcends the ideological divide between left and right. But perhaps it is time to accept is has not delivered on this promise. I think any new ideology needs to recognize the problems with unfettered capitalism and needs to urge people to demand government start 'doing stuff' again.

(28)

Unemployment has been low for years and despite market optimism, the global recession does not seem to be going anywhere. It seems like the time for governmental action, if the market can adapt and 'green' themselves, who is to say government can not streamline their own process?

The claim government intervention never works is rather simplistic. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Cuba lost its main trade partner and with it 50% of the nations oil, a large part of its food supply and a 85% loss in their trade economy. Out of necessity people started using whatever space was available to produce food, including within cities such as Havana. Although it started as

individuals using what they had at their disposal, policy makers eventually saw the potential of these methods and jumped in.

Havana now produces about 30% of its total food supply from UA within the city limits, that are also largely organic and independent from fossil fuels (Mougeot 2005: 1-2). This is enough to provide each person living in Havana with 280 grams of vegetables and fruits. On the whole, Cuba has a problem with producing enough carbohydrates, but only import about 16% of their overall food supply.

Urban agricultural efforts in Cuba were greatly facilitated by government support (Premat: 2005: 154). But it was originally desperate and hungry people who just started growing their own food. Havana could provide a good framework for implementing UA practises in other cities, especially ones with a similar climate, but it is a type of climate of a completely different nature that is making it hard for other cities to follow in Havana's footsteps: the political climate. Cuba is, and certainly was at that time, a communist state. Not only does this make extreme government

intervention easier, it also means that there are no big agricultural companies standing in the way of the practice; their market was closed off and protected from subsidized American products (ibid: 155-157)

It is time for government, whether local, regional, national or international to say the buck stops here, take responsibility and work on solutions to the current impasses in environmentalism. This may seem to require more political will then there is available, but government may also stands to gain greater political legitimacy by actually doing their jobs. The lesson that can be learned from Cuba is that its possible, it may be up to democratic governments to prove it can be possible without totalitarianism.

Beyond cultivating our own garden : an analysis of the hegemonic discourse and responsibility in urban agriculture movements

Beyond Cultivating Our Own Garden

Table of Contents