J. Su
J. Rothuizen
11299363
University of Amsterdam
BACHELOR THESIS
UNDERSTANDING ALTERNATIVE
VALUE PRACTICES OF FOOD FORESTRY
A CASE STUDY OF FOOD FOREST
KETELBROEK IN GROESBEEK,
THE NETHERLANDS
17-06-2019
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Writing this Bachelor thesis has been challenging, educative, and greatly inspirational and exciting. This thesis is the result of the combination of my bachelor Future Planet Studies and Major Human Geography. In writing this thesis, I hope to have incorporated and put to use both the skills and knowledge provided to me in both these studies. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude and appreciation towards my supervisor, Jaap Rothuizen. He has guided me through the process of writing this Bachelor thesis with great attention, interest, and patience. Providing me with the necessary feedback and motivating comments and even visiting food forest Ketelbroek. Secondly, I want to thank Wouter van Eck and Pieter Jansen for allowing me to visit their food forest on such a frequent basis. They could not have been nicer or more welcoming towards me. Thanks to them, I have gained an astonishing amount of knowledge and information on food forestry. Additionally, my acquaintance with edible and non-edible plants, birds, and insects has had the much-needed expansion owing to the knowledge van Eck and Jansen shared. Lastly, I would like to express my admiration and appreciation for the work done by van Eck and Jansen which is making a profound and necessary change in both the agricultural as the nature preserving sector in the Netherlands. They have managed to put words and ideals into practice and inspire and educate people through their food forest.
ABSTRACT
Permaculture is a practice within the framework of sustainable agriculture based on methods of ecosystem mimicry and optimization of complex systems. Recently, a new form of permaculture has been introduced and implemented in the Netherlands: food forestry. Food forestry is a method of practicing agriculture within a self-sufficient and sustaining forest ecosystem. This ecosystem consists of multiple layers that all contribute to the overall functioning of the system and production of food. Food forests are, as opposed to conventional permaculture initiatives, increasingly oriented on production and retail of food products. In the Netherlands, food forestry is a relatively new practice, and little academic literature is written on the subject. Therefore, this thesis has conducted an in-depth case study and subsequent analysis of the first and most established food forest in the Netherlands: food forest Ketelbroek. Ketelbroek was initiated by Wouter van Eck and Pieter Jansen in 2009 with the main motivation to combine agricultural production and nature restoration and preservation on the same plot of land. Products from the food forest are sold to multiple third parties. This thesis has focussed on the alternative value practices of food forest Ketelbroek as opposed to the hegemonic value practices of the industrial agricultural sector, dominant in the Netherlands. This research aims to demonstrate these alternative value practices concerning the ecological, economic, and social aspects. The data collection, description, and analysis exhibit the many alternative values practiced by van Eck and Jansen through food forest Ketelbroek.
Food forestry is a new practice in the Netherlands with little academic research written on the subject. Therefore, this research has a mainly explorative and descriptive nature. Follow-up research is recommended on the economic potential, large-scale food forestry, and environmental benefits of food forestry.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 8
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 10
POST-WWIIMODERNIZATIONOFTHEDUTCHAGRICULTURALSYSTEM 10 NEGATIVEEFFECTSOFMODERNIZATION 10 SUSTAINABLEAGRICULTUREMOVEMENT 10 ALTERNATIVEVALUEPRACTICES 11 “COMMONIFICATION”&SOCIALRELATIONS 12 FEASIBILITYOFLARGE-SCALEFOODPRODUCTION 12
METHODOLOGY 14
RESEARCHQUESTIONS&OPERATIONALIZATION 14 RESEARCHDESIGN&STRATEGY 15
ETHICS 16
DATACOLLECTION&METHODOFANALYSIS 16
CASE DESCRIPTION OF FOOD FOREST KETELBROEK 18
HISTORYANDMOTIVATIONS 18
GEOGRAPHY 19
DESIGN&PLANNING 21
FLORA&FAUNA 24
CONTACTWITHTHIRDPARTIES 28
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS 34
ECOLOGICALASPECTS 34 ECONOMICASPECTS 36 SOCIALASPECTS 38 CONCLUSION 43 DISCUSSION 45 REFERENCES 48 APPENDIX I 51 APPENDIX II 54
INTRODUCTION
Permaculture is a practice within the framework of sustainable agriculture based on methods of ecosystem mimicry and optimization of complex systems (Krebs & Bach, 2018). It is a way of practicing agriculture within a resilient and sustainable agroecosystem (Krebs & Bach, 2018). Only 62 permaculture farms are productive in the Netherlands (CBS Statline, 2019) and their yields are generally too low to function as a supplier of relevant quantities (van Bemmel, Grimm, van der Maas & Beers, 2017). However, there is a specific form of permaculture increasingly becoming a more common way of practicing permaculture and is even surpassing conventional permaculture practises, often small, idealistic gardens, in size and number. This form is known as food forests (“voedselbossen” in Dutch).
Food forests are plots of lands in which the structure and the positive ecologic relations of natural forests are being used and imitated in order to design and construct a productive system. Although the design principles of food forests are drawn from natural forest systems, in a food forest grow predominantly food producing species suitable for human consumption. The diversity of species is structured and utilised sustainably in order to establish a stable and resilient food producing system (Æ – Food Forestry Development, 2018). Food forests are, as opposed to conventional permaculture initiatives, increasingly oriented on production. The food forest movement is growing in the Netherlands, and there will be a significant supply of their products within the coming eight years (van Bemmel et al., 2017). Although the movement is growing, the initiatives in the Netherlands are still relatively new and unknown. The first food forest founded in the Netherlands is food forest Ketelbroek, initiated in 2009 by Wouter van Eck and Pieter Jansen (van Veluw, 2013). Van Eck and Jansen have been pioneers in the area of food forestry in the Netherlands. Since the start of their food forest, multiple food forest initiatives have been developed and realised in the Netherlands. Currently, there are 102.83 hectares of land used for food forestry, against 1.963.630 hectares of total agricultural land usa in the Netherlands (in 2016) (CBS Statline, 2018). Although this share is less than 1%, it is increasingly argued (van Bemmel et al., 2017; Æ – Food Forestry Development, 2018) that the permaculture practice and thus food forestry too could be a feasible alternative for a more sustainable and local-oriented way of practicing agriculture in the Netherlands. As part of these developments, Ketelbroek and its founders have proven to be an example for many other food forest projects and plans. --has been chosen as the case study for this research, epitomizing a newly established, up and coming way of farming Despite increasing recognition and attention over the past years, academic research on the current role of food forestry in the Netherlands is still minimal. Therefore, this study employs a single case study of food forest Ketelbroek, providing insights into the specific practices of food forestry and the meaning attached to these practices. Since food forestry is a radically different approach to food production when compared to industrial agriculture, it is interesting to apply the concept of value practices as formulated by Centemeri (2018) to the case of food forests in the Netherlands. Value practices exhibit what it is people value in a specific situation and what these people do in order to attain and sustain this. According to Centemeri (2018), hegemonic value practices correspond with the industrial agricultural system currently in place in the Netherlands, while alternative value practices have context-dependent modes of valuation oriented towards human and natural life processes. Using qualitative fieldwork data, the focus of this thesis will be on the alternative value practices of food forest Ketelbroek. Leading to the main research question: “What are the alternative value practices
This thesis consists of a theoretical framework discussing relevant theories and literature regarding food forestry and the alternative value practices of food forestry. Following the theoretical framework is an overview of research methods used in order to answer the main research question. In this section, the sub-questions will be introduced. When the methods have been presented a detailed case study of food forest Ketelbroek is given. This case study examines ecological, economic, and social aspects of the food forest. Following this comprehensive description of food forest Ketelbroek in which the collected data is incorporated, the analysis of the results is given. The analysis will be followed by a conclusion in which the sub-question and main question are answered and reflected upon. The paper is concluded with a discussion in which lessons learnt, points of improvement and possible further research is discussed.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
This section aims to provide a broader perspective and historical context for the agricultural developments in the Netherlands. Additionally, in this section, the main theoretical concepts and theories used for this research are discussed. The concept of alternative value practices and the discussions attached to this concept concerning permaculture and, more specific food forestry, are elaborated upon in further detail.
POST-WW II MODERNIZATION OF THE DUTCH AGRICULTURAL SYSTEM
The agricultural sector in the Netherlands faced severe problems in the post-war period. The sector could not keep up with the competition from other European countries and the United States. In response to this, the Dutch government actively started to promote the modernisation of the agricultural sector (Grin, 2013). Some farmers regarded this as a positive change. However, there was also a group of farmers outright against the reform. This last group of farmers perceived the modernization in combination with industrialization as moving the Dutch agricultural system away from being a rural, family-based and small-scale enterprise to one based on a uniform style of farming operating on a large scale (Grin, 2013). The modernization and intensification of agriculture have led to drastic changes in the agricultural sector. Farmers have become profoundly dependent on synthetic chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and fossil fuels for machinery and energy (Horrigan, Lawrence, & Walker, 2002). The modernization of the agricultural system has been criticized for multiple social and environmental reasons.
NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF MODERNIZATION
The modernised industrialised agricultural system is a significant contributor to environmental degradation and pollution (Horrigan, Lawrence, & Walker, 2002). The practices and methods of industrial agriculture have resulted in declined biodiversity, polluted soils, water and air, and eroding soils. Aside from the environmental threats industrial agriculture poses, it also poses socio-economic risks. Industrial agriculture tends to focus on large mechanised farms. Wealthy farmers were converted into wealthier industrial agricultural entities operating at large scale, while small, less wealthy farmers were increasingly pushed out of the agricultural sector during the modernization period (King, 2008). Farmers were forced to choose between turning to an industrial method of farming with high yields and productivity but low long-term sustainability or maintaining ecological sustainability at the cost of being outcompeted by industrial farmers (King, 2008). This, together with government promotion of modernization, resulted in industrial agriculture becoming the dominant form of agriculture. These developments led in many cases to the corrosion of rural communities and small family farm businesses (Lockeretz, 1988).
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE MOVEMENT
Due to the points of critique mentioned above, many academics and activist have, over the course of time, unified and called for a different approach to the current agricultural system; a sustainable agricultural system centred around small farms with integrated methods of production and higher biodiversity (Horrigan, Lawrence, & Walker, 2002). The so-called sustainable agriculture movement claims the condition of both environments and humans would be improved if more farms were to make the transition to a more durable system of production. The goal of the sustainable agriculture movement is to establish a system of
farming which reduces environmental harms to a minimum. This form of agriculture is part of the broader sustainable development movement which acknowledges the limits of economic growth and expansion, it regards natural resources as finite and supports equity in communities (Horrigan, Lawrence, & Walker, 2002). This sustainable development movement is by no means confined within the borders of the Netherlands. It is a global movement, permaculture being a segment of this movement (Veteto & Lockyer, 2008).
ALTERNATIVE VALUE PRACTICES
As has been stated in the introduction, permaculture is a way of producing food using systems imitating natural ecosystems (Krebs & Bach, 2018). The permaculture production system is based on perennial crops and the optimization of structures found in natural ecosystems. Food forestry is a specific form of permaculture in which the natural ecosystem of a forest in imitated while growing mostly edible species. One of the preconditions for a food forest is that there should be a layer of canopy trees providing food and three additional layers forming together a self-sustaining system (Green Deal Voedselbossen, 2017). The practice of permaculture, and thus also food forestry, is an expression of the alternative values of the sustainable agriculture movement. Permaculture is based on alternative value practices when compared to the current hegemonic industrial, agricultural food system (Centemeri, 2018; Mollison, 1988). The reasons and methods of producing food when applying the permaculture principles are radically different from the production-oriented and economic model of industrial agriculture. Permaculture is based upon three central ethics: earth care, people care and, fair share. These ethics take both the ecological as well as the social environment into account. In addition, the fair share principle implies that limits should be put on consumption, reproduction, and states that surpluses must be redistributed (Morel, Léger & Ferguson, 2019). Food forestry falls within the broader category of permaculture. However, it does not use all the same principles. Food forestry differs from permaculture, especially with regard to economic aspects since food forestry is increasingly focused on production and retail (van Bemmel et al., 2017).
Centemeri (2018) places permaculture within a framework of value practices. Through the usage of value practices, one can determine what is valued by people in a specific situation and the manner in which this situation is attained and sustained. Dominant value practices are generally structured around standardised goal-orientated methods of valuation, which are focussed on economic growth. In contrast, alternative value practices make use of context-dependent modes of valuation. These context-context-dependent modes of valuation are oriented towards maintaining human and natural life processes in sustainable ways (Centemeri, 2018). Most emphasis in the academic literature on permaculture is put on the maintenance of natural life processes and sustainable food production (McManus, 2010; Mollison, 1988). However, the manner in which food forests initiatives are governed and the interaction between people on these sites also deserves further scrutiny, since ecological values and motives do not solely drive food forestry. Following the definition of permaculture by Centemeri (2018), it is claimed that permaculture, and food forestry too, have a social function and value in addition to its ecological one.
In the above section, the concept of value practices, and the idea that permaculture and food forestry utilize alternative value practices have been introduced. In the following sections, the discussions surrounding these alternative value practices for permaculture and specifically for
“COMMONIFICATION” & SOCIAL RELATIONS
Most agricultural farms in the Netherlands still fall within the category of industrial agriculture and are production focussed (De Lauwere, 2005). This form of industrial agriculture regards food as a raw commodity and focusses on production against consumption (Winter, 2003). Bollier (2016) argues that, in contrast to this industrial approach, permaculture is often regarded as a method to “commonise” rather than commodify the production and provision of food. A “commons” does not only consist of a resource but includes a community managing this resource. According to Bollier (2016), “the commons” must be understood as a social system of innovative agents. Generally, “commoners” seek more direct control and sovereignty over spheres of life of importance to them, creating spaces in which their initiatives can be implemented. A profound influence “the commons” have is regenerating the social connection people have with each other and with the natural realm. A “commons” arises when a group of people manages a resource collectively while accentuating fair usage and long-term sustainability. They, the “commons”, present a systematic way in which social, ecological, and ethical values can be reclaimed. It is further argued that “the commons” supply the basic needs of people through a system functioning outside of the capitalist market and depth-driven economy (Bollier, 2016). The paradigm in which “the commons” move is one of social equality, inclusiveness, and solidarity. “Commoners” realize they should work with nature not against it, advocating for ecosystem stewardship (Bollier, 2016).
Taking from the information given in the previous section on the “commons”, it can be stated that permaculture is a method of producing food orientated towards a multiplicity of ecological and societal wealth rather than focussing merely on economic wealth. The movement challenges power dynamics and creates new collective food systems representing sustainable relations between human communities and the nature used to provide for humans. Schlosberga & Colesb (2006) describe how all over the world, new collective food systems form an alternative to dominant practices for food production. People seek ways of producing food differently, paying attention to local development and favouring biodiversity and sustainability over high yields and high productivity. This development can be seen in the Netherlands when looking at the increasing number of food forests initiatives (van Bemmel et al., 2017). However, these alternative structures and ways of producing food emerging on an ecological, economic and, social level have not been subject to scientific research in practice. FEASIBILITY OF LARGE-SCALE FOOD PRODUCTION
As has been mentioned in the introduction, food forest initiatives are, in comparison with conventional permaculture initiatives, increasingly focussed on production. Van Bemmel et al. (2017) have predicted there will be a significant supply of food from food forests throughout the Netherlands in the coming ten years. However, the numbers published by the CBS Statline (2018) indicate permaculture and thus food forestry too, make up a minimal share of Dutch agricultural food production. According to Mark Shepard, this could and should be changed. He pleads for large scale permaculture projects and states that permaculture is not only more sustainable but also economically profitable (Sluiter, 2016). However, it is important to realize it stays a costly initiative to establish large scale food forest farms. Also, van Bemmel et al. (2017) state it remains to be seen if food forest farmers are willing to sell their products through conventional systems. Moreover, van Bemmel et al. (2017) have observed Dutch food forest farmers value their direct contact with consumers
highly (van Bemmel et al., 2017), which does not correspond with the popular retail chain. Changing the production of food on its own is not sufficient. Consumers have to change their habits of consumptions and adopt new practices of valuing the food they purchase. If consumers were to adopt the alternative value practices of food forestry, food is transferred from a simple commodity to a means of participating in a sustainable socio-ecological system (Centemeri, 2018). It is a conscious choice to move away from the current industrial method of food production and towards one valuing sustainability. This choice can offer producers and consumers of food, strategic opportunities to establish a food system generating added values, while being ecologically and economically resilient and additionally supports a sustainable lifestyle (van Bemmel et al., 2017). However, this would all take place at a local and relatively small-scale level. The argument often made against the case of small-scale farming enterprises is the local orientation these farms often have. This raises questions about nation-wide food production, supply, and security. Therefore, this research the feasibility of large-scale food forest farms, and the potential for national food supply is briefly discussed. However, the main focus of this research is to provide an overview of the motives and alternative value practices of food forestry.
METHODOLOGY
In this section, the methods used while conduction this research are discussed, and the sub-questions to the main research question are introduced.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS & OPERATIONALIZATION
The main question of this research is: “What are the alternative value practices of food forest
Ketelbroek in Groesbeek, the Netherlands?”. This research aims to explore these alternative
value practices in a more detailed manner related to the context of food forest Ketelbroek, understand to what extent these alternative values are present and practiced in Ketelbroek and apprehend what motivations lay at the basis of these practices. Drawing from this, three sub-questions have been formulated related to the discussion from existing literature. The theoretical framework demonstrated the discussions about alternative value practices centre around the valuation of nature, around economic aspects related to the production and services and around social aspects (such as the relations between farmers and consumers). In order to answer the main research question, it has been decided to divide the main question into manageable questions, related to the different themes of valuation. These three sub-questions are:
1. “What are the alternative value practices with regard to the ecology of food forest Ketelbroek in the Netherlands?”
2. “What are the alternative value practices with regard to economy of food forest Ketelbroek in the Netherlands?”
3. “What are the alternative value practices with regard to social aspects of food forest Ketelbroek in the Netherlands?”
The operationalization of this research is based on the three sub-questions. The operationalization for this research functions as a starting point of the research. Considering the fact this research uses mainly an inductive approach, meaning the main focus is on data collection in the field and analysis of this data, the operationalization has not been specified in detail before the fieldwork is conducted. This has been done in order to create a certain degree of flexibility concerning the concepts and themes and to leave room for findings made while being in the field. For every sub-question, a short overview is given below on what is being researched and why.
1. “What are the alternative value practices with regard to the ecology of food forest Ketelbroek in the Netherlands?”
The above sub-question deals with the alternative value practices of food forest Ketelbroek concerning ecology. This sub-question investigates the relationship between agriculture and nature and how food forest Ketelbroek combines the two.
2. “What are the alternative value practices with regard to economy of food forest Ketelbroek in the Netherlands?”
This sub-question takes a closer look at the economic system of Ketelbroek. The economic viability of the food forest will be discussed when answering this question. This concerns the
retail of products from food forest Ketelbroek and the contact with third parties. The policies around the establishment of a food forest and the opportunities for farmers will be researched.
3. “What are the alternative value practices with regard to social aspects of food forest Ketelbroek in the Netherlands?”
This third sub-question deals with the social relations food forest Ketelbroek has with third parties. Additionally, it investigates the implications and opportunities a food forest has for farmers aspiring to function outside of the industrial agricultural system. This sub-question aims to research what the main social aspects of food forest Ketelbroek are and additionally if the concept of the “commons” applies to food forest Ketelbroek.
RESEARCH DESIGN & STRATEGY
Considering the subject of food forests in the Netherlands, a qualitative form of conducting research has been employed for this research. When using this method of research, one focusses more on language and words than on quantitative units while collecting and analysing data. In general, qualitative research is mostly inductive, constructionist, and interpretative (Bryman, 2012). An inductivist research strategy implies that theory is generated from research and collected data. This is the case for this research since there is limited academic literature on food forestry in the Netherlands. A constructionist strategy regards social phenomena and the meaning given to them as being effectuated continuously by social actors. Implying social phenomena to be both produced through social interaction and to be subject to constant change. Interpretivism considers the application of the scientific model when studying the social world not fitting. The subject studied when doing social research differs fundamentally with the subjects studied in the natural sciences (this is in line with the constructivist view). When applying an interpretive approach, the researcher is required to comprehend the subjective meaning of social action. The research is focussed on understanding rather than explaining social action and phenomena. This research method is fitting for this thesis considering an in-depth analysis of food forest Ketelbroek has been conducted. This implies a qualitative single case study based on empirical data collection. The empirical data collection was conducted on-site in the field over eight days (see Appendix I). Prior to the fieldwork being conducted, the literature and theories discussed in the theoretical framework were collected and reviewed. However, when conducting the fieldwork, the aim was to collect data without influence from the literature on the case and the people involved. Meaning during data collection, the case and the people involved were left to speak without interference from the researcher (such as the steering of specific topics).
Considering the limited amount of academic literature written on food forests, especially in the Netherlands, an inductive approach was deemed the most suitable for this research. In addition, the limited body of scientific literature on food forests in the Netherlands led to this research being mostly descriptive and semi-explorative. Descriptive research on food forestry, and for this research specifically on food forest Ketelbroek, was necessary in order to establish an overall image of the new phenomenon of food forests. The semi-explorative aspect is mainly of importance with regard to the collection of data and, as has been stated, the limited scientific literature. This calls for flexibility in both the collection of data and the subsequent analysis of this data.
ETHICS
The subject of ethics will shortly be discussed in this section. This research is based on the case study of food forest Ketelbroek. When conducting qualitative research, the aspect of confidentiality is often a point of discussion. Qualitative research aims to provide in-depth data and information, while at the same time, safeguarding confidentiality (Bryman, 2012). This especially applies to studies gaining personal insights and information of the participants while in the field. For this research, the method of participant observations has been employed for the collection of data. Van Eck and Jansen have been made aware, before the initiation of the fieldwork sessions, of the fact that a single case study of their food forest and their work while employing the method of participant observations will involve the specific context and people involved in the case. The participant part of this method entails the presence of the researcher in different contexts, some of them being of a more personal order. However, the data collected throughout of the fieldwork sessions has been handled with confidentially, and solely the relevant information and situations of significance for this specific research have been used and documented.
DATA COLLECTION & METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The data collection for this research has been done over multiple sessions. After contacting Wouter van Eck (by email and phone), a request was made to use the method of participant observations. The process of participant observations enables researchers to learn about activities and situations of the people and the case in a natural setting. This is done by observing and participating in these activities and situations (Kawulich, 2005). The goal when using the method of participant observation is to develop a holistic understanding of the subject of study as objective and accurate as possible. This way of collecting data enables the researcher to gain a better understanding of the context and phenomena in which the research takes place (Kawulich, 2005). The idea of the method of participant observation is that the observer immerses in the case/ group of research for an extended period. Limited time was available for conducting the fieldwork. Therefore, the immersion of the researcher into the case study of Ketelbroek was limited to a certain degree. During the participant observations, the observer is supposed to listen to conversations, observe behavior, ask questions, and take notes (Bryman, 2012). Further data has been gathered through the collection of documents and websites on food forest Ketelbroek.
After the initial meet-up with Wouter van Eck, eight sessions followed in which participant observations and field notes were made (see Appendix I for an overview of the fieldwork sessions). The participant observations included many conversations with van Eck and Janssen, getting acquainted with their project and listening to conversations van Eck had with multiple different actors (such as chef Emile van der Staak). Participating in guided tours given by van Eck, following the masterclass he gave on the new food forest project in Schijndel and attending the Monday morning meetings (which often included the harvesting and tasting of different produce) are the foundations of this research. The carried-out observations, and the activities that have been undertaken when doing field research are recorded in field notes and photographs. In addition to the participant observations, multiple websites and reports were analysed. As has been stated before, food forest Ketelbroek has been the subject of several media outlets, and van Eck appears multiple times in online interviews. These media outlets and online data sources have also been used in collecting
data. However, the primary method in which the largest share of the data was collected has been through the participant observations.
The data collected through participant observations and analysing online information has been recorded and incorporated in the case description of food forest Ketelbroek. The analysis of the found data and results is mainly based on this case description of food forest Ketelbroek. The next chapter will give a detailed overview and description of the case of food forest Ketelbroek. This description starts with a history of the food forest and the main motivations for initiating the food forest. After this, geography, design and planning, flora and fauna and contact with third parties are discussed.
CASE DESCRIPTION OF FOOD FOREST KETELBROEK
HISTORY AND MOTIVATIONS
Food forest Ketelbroek was initiated by Wouter van Eck and Pieter Jansen in 2009. The main motivations for them to establish a food forest was to combine nature with agriculture in a sustainable way, on a more advanced level than common nature inclusive agriculture which as van Eck stated:
“…only consists of a row of sunflowers next to a monocropping field.” (11-04-2019).
Their vision is to produce food for humans in a system functioning like a natural forest ecosystem which provides ecosystem services while being self-sufficient and sustaining. This means nothing has been added to, or taken from, aside from the harvest, the plot of land after planting. There is no input of pesticides, herbicides, water, artificial light or heavy labour (which is often done with heavy machinery). In addition, no pruning and no weeding is done. All of this with the aim to let the food forest function on its own, as a natural forest ecosystem would. A second motivation was happiness; creating a place where people could come together, promote and enjoy the food forest, be educated on nature by nature ,and share this with others and society.
(Figure. 2. Food forest Ketelbroek in 2009. Image retrieved from van Eck)
Food forest Ketelbroek covers a plot of land of 2,42 hectares and used to be a cornfield (see Fig. 2). This means there used to be monocrops (corn) on the land grown according to industrial methods; planting in structured rows and using pesticides and herbicides. Since 2009, the plot of land has changed dramatically (See Fig. 3). Before planting began, van Eck and Jansen decided to dedicate certain parts of the plot to nature development, focussing less on planting edible species in those parts. The first crops were planted in 2009, followed by a
second planting in 2012. This second planting was done after contact with the local water authority (Waterschap Rivierenland) which subsidised initiatives for water retention on farmland, hoping to decrease the stress on water infrastructure caused by peak discharge. This led to the reallocation of the channel (the Middenbeek) originally running straight now, after diversion meandering through the food forest (see Fig. 7). In addition, two small ponds were created, and the bank of the channel situated on the east side of the plot was made less steep, making it a more natural bank which opened up space for water retention and plants. These structural concerning the land and water resulted in a large amount of surplus soil, which was redistributed on the plot. Redistribution of the soil caused one area to become higher compared to the rest of the plot and the surrounding fields. Planting began on this elevated part in 2012. The way in which a food forest is structured and how planting is done (the schedule but also the design) is highly dependent on the plot of land and the surrounding area of the food forest, as well as the climate and weather conditions. Therefore, the location, the surrounding landscape, and the climate of the food forest will be discussed in the next section.
Figure 3. the plot of land in 2005 and in 2018. Images retrieved from Google Earth. GEOGRAPHY
Food forest Ketelbroek is located in the east of the Netherlands near the German border (Germany can be seen from the food forest). The landscape in this area of the Netherlands was primarily formed through the influence of an ice sheet stretching out from Scandinavia in the second-last ice age. The force of the ice sheet pushed surrounding areas upwards while straightening out the land over which it moved. This resulted in the area in which the food forest is located to be surrounded by elevated terrain. In the east lies the German Reichswald, to the south Sint-Jansberg and the Mokerhei can be found, and in the north-west lay the Wolfsberg, Stekkenberg and de Duivelsberg. The difference in relief leads to emerging seepage throughout the year in the lower area where food forest Ketelbroek is located. This seepage, in combination with the precipitation, causes the groundwater level to be high year-round. The proximity (see Fig 4.) of food forest Ketelbroek to the Reichswald and the Bruuk, nature preservation areas, is an important aspect in order to support a high level of biodiversity (especially species in need of a more extensive habitat than the 2,42 hectares of the food forest). This will be further discussed under the sections DESIGN & PLANNING and FLORA & FAUNA.
Figure. 4. Food forest Ketelbroek (1), nature reserve De Bruuk (2) and the Reichswald in Germany (3). Images retrieved from Google Earth Pro.
In 2018, four students from the University of applied sciences Van Hall Larenstein researched the soil characteristics and water balance of food forest Ketelbroek. Their research on soil characteristics found the upper 35 cm of the soil to consist mainly of weak silty sand. The following 15 cm consists of stable silty sand followed by another layer of weak silty sand which continues through the next 25 cm. After these three layers, a layer composed of gravely sand follows until, at a depth of 100 cm, this changes into coarse grey sand (Siepel, Velthuis, Zondergeld & Schimmel, 2018). According to van Eck, the main topsoil found in the area is loess, which corresponds to the geomorphological process that formed the landscape and the layers of silt in the soil profile. The soil profile found in the soil of Ketelbroek can absorb and retain water well. Another aspect of the soil and its quality is the amount of organic matter the soil contains.
Soil organic matter (SOM) worldwide, holds more organic carbon than the amount existent in the atmosphere and the global vegetation cover combined. Also, the organic matter in a soil retains water and nutrients, protects the quality of the water, promotes drainage and aeration and minimizes erosion, thus influencing the productivity and yields on a plot of land (Lehmann & Kleber, 2015; Oldfield, Bradford & Wood, 2019). The research conducted by Siepel, Velthuis, Zondergeld & Schimmel (2018) demonstrates the capacity of the soil of food forest Ketelbroek to retains 6,8 mm of water per 1% of SOM. Since 2009, the year in which the first planting took place on Ketelbroek, the SOM has increased with 1 cm. This might seem like a small amount. However, a 1 cm increase in soil organic matter means the soil can contain and restrain more water (up to 170,000 L / hectare) and has captured and stored atmospheric CO2. All this while producing food for human consumption with zero artificial input. This paragraph has discussed the location, landscape, water, and, soil aspects of the
terrain. In the next section, an overview of the design and planning of the food forest will be given.
DESIGN & PLANNING
Ketelbroek was designed both for food production and for the creation of a natural area (see Fig. 5. for an early sketch of the design). Certain parts have been designed to produce mainly food, other to function as a specific habitat (the small pond for example) and some areas for the natural development of mainly non-edible species (a stroke of land on the northern side of the food forest has been set aside for this). When designing a food forest, it is of importance to take the surrounding landscape, the local climate (temperatures, wind, precipitation) and the terrain into consideration. In paragraph with the heading: GEOGRAPHY, the former aspects have been reviewed in the context of food forest Ketelbroek. In this section, the design and planning of Ketelbroek will be discussed. The two stages in which the food forest was planted have been mentioned earlier, the first stage taking place in 2009 and the second in 2012. The elevation of certain areas of land and the creation of natural water bodies was done using an excavator. All the implanting of the plants and trees has been done by van Eck, Jansen, and helpful friends and family.
Figure 5. Sketch of the design for Ketelbroek. Made by van Eck.
The first and foremost aspect required to start a food forest is a plot of land. This plot of land should be able to sustain a functioning forest ecosystem requiring a minimum of 0.5 hectares of land surrounded by an ecologically diverse and abundant environment, or, a minimum of 20 hectares when the surrounding area has low biodiversity. These minima have been formulated in the Green Deal Food Forests (in Dutch: Green Deal Voedselbossen). The purpose of these minima is to ensure the success of the food forests. The production, resilience, and functioning of a food forest are heavily dependent on a healthy and diverse ecological community. As was stated earlier, Ketelbroek being located near natural areas such
enables the functioning of a food forest of 2,42 hectares. The importance of the surrounding natural areas and their influence on the ecological system will be further discussed in the next section (heading: FLORA & FAUNA).
When designing food forest Ketelbroek, Wouter van Eck and Pieter Jansen constructed a design plan based on temperature zones. Certain species thrive in full sunlight, others do better in semi-shade, and some prefer no direct sunlight at all. Various microclimates have been created in the food forest. Some species such as the apricot and fig were planted in an open area shielded from the wind and where enough sunlight reaches the trees, creating a microclimate in which these species are able to grow well. Others, such as the sweet chestnut were planted in the north-western facing part of the food forest. This area is called the deep, dark forest since this is the area where the canopy trees can be found. The dense leave cover of these high trees creates a cooler microclimate with full shade on the ground level. When walking through the food forest, the difference in temperature between the microclimates is evident. Another aspect of the design of the food forest influences the temperature. This aspect is the created water bodies mentioned earlier. The ponds are small bodies of water located in the open (open meaning reached by more sunlight) areas of the food forest (see Fig 6.). Water bodies have roughly stated, higher temperatures than the surrounding land in winter, and lower temperature than the surrounding land in summer (Xu, Huang, Zhu & Li, 2010). Not only do the ponds retain water and function as a habitat for amphibians and water plants, but they also influence the temperature of the food forest.
Figure 6. The pond located in the Northern part of the food forest that has been set aside for nature development. Photograph made by Su (10-06-2019).
Generally, plants and trees do not grow well in an environment where heavy winds dominate year-round. Wind leads to stress for plants and trees, disrupts the process of photosynthesis and results in higher evaporation rates through the leaves (Grace, 1988). This is why a protective hedge of alder was planted on the south-facing side of the food forest. Aside from this line of trees shielding the food forest from strong winds, which creates a microclimate, the alders are nitrogen-fixing trees. The southern winds blow the leaves into the food forest, providing the soil with natural nitrogen and organic matter (see Fig. 7.).
Although a thorough and well-thought-out design and planning is of considerable significance when starting a food forest, one cannot fully control the way in which a food forest will develop. A key concept in the development of a food forest, one that cannot be controlled and must not be controlled is ecological succession. This concept, together with the different species found in the food forest, will be the main focus of the next section.
Figure 7. Schematic overview of different land uses in Ketelbroek. Aerial view retrieved from Google Earth Pro. Map made by Su (2019).
FLORA & FAUNA
The entire food production system of Ketelbroek is dependent on flora and fauna found in the food forest. At the initial stage of the food forest, 450 different edible and non-edible species of plants and trees were planted by van Eck, Jansen and their friends and family. The plants and trees were bought from 40 different growers and nurseries within Europe, most of them being exotic species within the Netherlands. When van Eck and Jansen are asked about this “exotic” aspect of the food forest they simply reply that potatoes (which are often considered to be very Dutch) and corn are as exotic as their lemon tree from Mongolia (which is frost resistant and bore its first fruit in 2018), the Szechuan pepper or the Sumac tree (see Fig. 8). A first motivation for using mainly exotic species is due to certain species from North America, Northern Asia and even mountainous regions in Latin-America can grow very well in the Dutch climate. Other motivations being the new culinary qualities and opportunities these exotic species offer. Around 15 of the initially 450 species did not adapt well to their new environment and were lost in the first years. Temperatures dropped to minus 20 degrees Celsius in the winter of 2012, which according to van Eck and Jansen was a practical test for species in the food forest. Certain species did not root well in the soil because of the soil pH (around or below 7); others did not grow well enough or did not taste pleasant. From the selection in the first years of the food forest, over 250 edible species and many non-edible species remained and can currently be found in the food forest. Adding to the biodiversity are the so-called “volunteer” species, these species found their way naturally into the food forest. In the following paragraph, the most important natural processes sustaining flora and fauna of Ketelbroek will be discussed.
Figure 8. The Sumac tree in Ketelbroek. Photograph made by Su (08-04-2019).
The ecological community of every ecosystem starts at the lowest scale: soil life. In a forest, as in any well-functioning healthy ecosystem, the soil life is vital. Ketelbroek was established on a plot of land that used to be a cornfield. The quality of the soil was heavily degraded due to the previous monocropping taking place. So-called pioneer species are of significant importance in order to restore the soil and soil life. These pioneers, such as the stinging nettle and the thistle (which both are edible species), should therefore not be removed, even though they tend to proliferate at a fast rate. In the first years, van Eck and Jansen were concerned the thistle would overgrow the red currants. They decided to cut away the thistles, which is an extremely labour intensive and prickly activity, in order to “save” parts of the red currants. This showed to be a useful experiment on whether or not to weed. After a couple of years, the part of the area in which van Eck and Jansen left the thistles to grow was thriving compared to the part in which they cut away the thistles. The thistles provided shade and shelter for the red currents until the red currents outgrew the thistles. They concluded the food forest thrived the most when left to grow without human interference.
The example of the red currant demonstrates the critical role ecological succession plays in the food forest, both underground as above. Ecological succession is the more or less predictable and systematic changing of species in a specific environment over time. A plot of bare soil will first be colonized by lichens and mosses, followed by annual plants such as annual grasses, the thistle and the stinging nettle which die off and decompose every year, adding to the organic matter in the soil. Over time the annual species will be outgrown and overgrown by perennials. The pioneers and annual species are necessary to improve the soil, making it fertile enough for perennials to get established (Shepard, 2013; p. 50). The food forest utilizes this natural process in order to establish perennial food providing species while creating a self-sustaining ecosystem with fertile soil and a high rate of biodiversity.
Ecological succession is, as stated in the above paragraph, crucial for establishing a healthy and functioning ecosystem. However, depending solely on ecological succession for the restoration of the soil and the establishment of species would take a considerable amount of time. Therefore, in Ketelbroek, certain species were planted in strategic locations. Taproot species were planted in order to aerate the soil, improve soil life activity, and increase the water retention capacity of the soil. The common comfrey, which is a taproot species, was planted near the Nasi pear, which has a superficial rooting system. The combination of different rooting systems enhances the overall functioning of the ecosystem. Another aspect of importance to ascertain a fertile soil are the aforementioned nitrogen-fixing plants and trees, such as the row of alders providing the food forest with natural nitrogen.
In 2016 a comparative research on biodiversity between food forest Ketelbroek and the nearby nature reserve De Bruuk was conducted. This research ran from April until July, in this period the number of individuals and amount of different species of breeding birds, macro moths and ground beetles in both areas was registered. The results showed there were 22 different species of breeding birds in Ketelbroek and 23 in the natural reserve De Bruuk. Two thousand three hundred seventy-five individuals of macro moths spread across 167 different species were found in Ketelbroek. In the nature reserve, De Bruuk were 1411 individuals of macro moths found, spread across 168 different species. The number of individuals of ground beetles in Ketelbroek was found to be 497, spread across 35 different species. Only 284 ground beetles were found in the natural reserve De Bruuk, spread across 27 different species
the research showed the contribution of food forest Ketelbroek to the richness, diversity, and recovery of local species. The research concluded that food forests, such as Ketelbroek, to be an agricultural area supporting and promoting local biodiversity. Making Ketelbroek an example of nature inclusive agriculture holding potential for the conservation of Dutch biodiversity (Breidenbach et al., 2017). A statement van Eck made illustrates this:
“We do not stick to the division of either being nature or agriculture.” (08-04-2019)
The amount and diversity of species of macro moths and ground beetles found demonstrates the high number and variety of insects in Ketelbroek. This raises the question of pest control. Conventional farming enterprises would use pesticides in order to get rid of the unwanted insects (in the act of spraying also killing beneficial insects). In Ketelbroek, no insecticides or pesticides are used; the system makes use of natural pest control. Van Eck stated the following:
“You need the plague in order to get the plague control.” (13-05-2019).
The moment a species (e.g., caterpillars, mice or birds) becomes a pest, their natural predators will be attracted to the area and restore balance in the ecosystem. This is one of the main reasons why the nearby nature reserves are of great importance. The natural areas provide habitats for larger predators, such as the fox, that come and prey on the species found in Ketelbroek. If the farmer would actively eradicate the plague through the usage of pesticides or insecticides, the natural predators of the pest would have no reason to be attracted to the area. The farmer would have to invest in pesticides and insecticides, local biodiversity would be killed, and the food grown would contain harmful compounds. This all is not the case in food forest Ketelbroek, simply because van Eck and Jansen let nature do its work. As van Eck stated:
“You have to become a lazy farmer since most farmers intervene too much in the natural system.” (13-05-2019).
A stroke of land on the northern rim of Ketelbroek has been set aside for nature preservation. A remarkable aspect of this stroke of land is the fact that this area is the only part of the food forest in which biomass is actively taken out. This is done to maintain the low nutrient soil, which is a prerequisite for the growth of certain rare plant species. In this area 3 different species of orchids were found this year, counting over 180 individuals. These orchids are not the only rare species found in the food forest. Other red-listed species such as the Red Rattle (in Dutch: Moeraskartelblad) are also found in Ketelbroek.
Figure 9. Red listed species Red Rattle (in Dutch: Moeraskartelblad). Photograph made by Su (10-06-2019).
In the process of restoring the soil and establishing an ecosystem, the role of the pioneers and pests should not be underestimated. Although it might seem counterintuitive to let pests and pioneers proliferate freely, they are a prerequisite to the development of resilience within the food forest. After the initial stage, the food forest started to produce food. The high biodiversity of Ketelbroek enables it to be highly productive. The parties purchasing and using the products from the food forest will be discussed in the next section.
Figure 10. Products from the food forest. 1. Hazelnut 2. Raspberry 3. Gooseberry 4. Bladdernut. Photographs made by Su (10-06-2019).
CONTACT WITH THIRD PARTIES
Consumption and retail are essential aspects concerning food forest Ketelbroek being a farm. In the first five years, the productivity of the food forest was very low. After the ecosystem became well established, the production started to increase. Currently, production increases every year.
Figure 11. Part of the harvest from Food forest Ketelbroek in 2018. Image retrieved from van Eck.
The three main clients of food forest Ketelbroek are restaurant De Nieuwe Winkel, Beer Brewery Nevel and Ekoplaza. These three buyers fulfil a role of great importance. They take products from the food forest an bring them to a broader public. Communicate the story of the food forest and making the products accessible for consumers. A short overview of the three purchasers is given below.
Restaurant De Nieuwe Winkel is the first retail outlet for food forest Ketelbroek. The chef Emile van der Staak was according to van Eck “way too early” with his interest in the products from the food forest. Van Eck told him the food forest was far from ready for large scale consumption. However, van der Staak insisted and eventually was invited to visit the food forest. From that point onwards, van der Staak visited the food forest every week. He is now one of the three people (together with van Eck and Jansen) who knows where which species grow and how to use them for consumption. An interesting aspect of the connection between van der Staak and the food forest are the visits taking place at least once a week, and over time, a friendship has developed. The produce van der Staak uses from the food forest are far from conventional. A central aspect of the kitchen of restaurant De Nieuwe Winkel is experimentation with new flavours and new ingredients. A significant amount of these new flavours and ingredients come from the food forest. The Chinese mahogany, or “onion soup tree”, is one of these species. The term “onion soup tree” was coined by van Eck and can be attributed to the onion soup flavoured broth made from the tree’s branches.
Figure 12. van Eck showing the harvest of hogweed, rugosa rose, elderflower and water mint Photograph made by Su (10-06-2019).
Beer Brewery Nevel uses products from the food forest to incorporate new and exciting flavours into the beer. The brewery has been working together with the food forest since 2017. The Mirabelle plum, the Sea-buckthorn, the bark of willow, Sichuan pepper and Hogweed (see Figure XX6.2.) are examples of products from the food forest that have been incorporated in the beers produced by Brewery Nevel. The retail to the brewery is less consistent than the one to the restaurant De Nieuwe Winkel. During the harvest, a group of people from the brewery visited the food forest to harvest the Mirabelle plums and elderflower together. The beers made by brewery Nevel are sold throughout the Netherlands.
Figure 14. Beer from Brewery Nevel. “Dwaal” contains Sichuan pepper and Hogweed from the food forest. Translation of the description: “Wild white beer with Sichuan pepper and
native hogweed seeds. Soft and creamy with fresh, natural flavors reminiscent of citrus and hay”. Image retrieved from: https://nevel.org/bieren/
Ekoplaza is an ecological supermarket chain with 122 stores in the Netherlands. The stores in Nijmegen (near the food forest) contacted van Eck and Jansen in 2018. At first, van Eck and Jansen stated the food forest was not capable of producing and delivering to a supermarket on a large scale. However, the harvest in the summer and autumn of 2018 turned out to be quite substantial, surpassing the harvest from previous years again. This led to fruits (see Fig. 15) and nuts being supplied to the Ekoplaza stores in Nijmegen where they were sold with the origin label being “food forest Ketelbroek”. Van Eck explained produce such as apples and Nashi pears did well in the Ekoplaza because customers were familiar with these products (people, in general, are familiar with apples, the Nashi pear looked familiar to most people). Less conventional products might be more challenging to sell to a broader public not familiar with the appearance or the usage of these products. Education plays a significant role in communicating unknown fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds to more consumers. Therefore, the Ekoplaza together with van Eck and Jansen are considering organizing guided tours through the food forest for costumes of the Ekoplaza.
Figure 15. Apples and Nashi pears from food forest Ketelbroek in the Ekoplaza. Images retrieved from the Ekoplaza Facebook page.
The tree enterprises purchasing products from the food forest all contacted van Eck and Jansen. As van Eck stated:
“We are in a luxury position. People come to us. It’s almost becoming trendy.”
(13-05-2019).
This quote shows there is a demand for food forest products from both consumers and retailers. When using the products from Ketelbroek, a story is being told. Another example of an enterprise approaching van Eck and Jansen, wanting to use products from the food forest and tell the story of these products is Brasserie 2050. This is a restaurant serving “futuristic” food (futuristic food meaning sustainable) on Lowlands festival in the Netherlands. They are considering producing and selling a beverage made 100% out of Dutch produce and are interested in incorporating products from the food forest. Costumers get information about the beverage; what the ingredients are and their origin.
The contact between food forest Ketelbroek and the three enterprises purchasing products from the food forest has been discussed in the previous section. This contact has both economic as well as social aspects. However, food forest Ketelbroek does not only have contact with these three purchasers. The food forest functions, aside from being an agricultural business, also as an educational centre. Van Eck gives multiple guided tours every week and is frequently giving masterclasses on food forestry. He additionally receives and answers requests from students, journalists, entrepreneurs, and other interested parties. The guided tours are given to a wide range of different interested parties. During the days in the field (see Appendix I for detailed information on this) van Eck gave guided tours to Members of De Groene Koepel, a Dutch organization committed to the sustainable development of residential recreation, and a guided tour for international students from the German Hochschule Rhein-Waal. In addition to these guided tours, meetings with the entrepreneurs from the Dutch company Brandt & Levi, with fellow farmer Jan Overesch and
Schijndel on the subject of the newly established large-scale food forest was given to a broad public including, amongst others, farmers and students. It should be noted that these events took place on the days of the fieldwork session, meaning there have been many other social and educational activities and events given by van Eck not recorded for this research. However, the events and activities that have been recorded exhibit the various manners in which van Eck communicates information and knowledge about Ketelbroek specifically and food forestry in general.
This section has given a case description of food forest Ketelbroek. The history and main motivations, geography, design and planning, flora and fauna and the contact between the food forest and third parties have been discussed. In the next section, the case study and the aspect discussed will be analysed.
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
The aim of the above description of food forest Ketelbroek is to provide information on multiple aspects of the food forest. Ketelbroek is both a farm, an educational centre, an example for other food forests in the Netherland and a business. A large share of the collected data is incorporated in the case description. This is why analysis will be based upon the description of the case of Ketelbroek. The findings of the research formulated in the case description will be analysed within the context of the theoretical framework in this section. The analysis follows the structure of the sub-questions; this means the analysis has been structured in three sections: ecological aspects, economic aspects, and social aspects. The sub-questions are repeated below.
1. “What are the alternative value practices with regard to the ecology of food forest Ketelbroek in the Netherlands?”
2. “What are the alternative value practices with regard to economy of food forest Ketelbroek in the Netherlands?”
3. “What are the alternative value practices with regard to social aspects of food forest Ketelbroek in the Netherlands?”
The results and found data have been analysed and categorised. This analysis and categorisation based upon keywords and subjects found in the collected data materialised in overarching themes. Multiple concepts were identified in the course of conducting this research; these concepts have been organized in so-called “concept trees” (see Appendix II). These “concept trees” follow the structure of the overarching three themes concerning: ecologic aspects, economic aspects, and social aspects. In the following sections, the analysis of the three main themes is given.
ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS
This section analyses the alternative value practices of Ketelbroek with regard to the ecological aspects of the food forest and formulates an answer to the first sub-question. As has been stated in the theoretical framework; conventional agriculture uses the method of growing monocrops in neat rows and applies pesticides and fertilizers to the field. From the case description of the food forest, it has become clear that things are done very differently in Ketelbroek. As stated before, the primary motivation of van Eck and Jansen to begin their food forest was to combine agriculture and nature in a sustainable way. This view on combining agriculture and nature is contradictory to the modernisation of the agricultural system taking place since the post-war period in the Netherlands. The modernisation led to a decline in biodiversity, polluted soils, water and air, and the erosion of the soil. Since the start of Ketelbroek in 2009, many of these adverse effects of industrial agriculture have been reversed on the plot of land the food forest covers. The case description exhibited there has been a great return of biodiversity to the plot of land since the beginning of the food forest. The data collected by Breidenbach et al., 2017 on macro-moths, ground beetles and breeding birds showed the number of different species and the number of individuals found in Ketelbroek to be similar to the number found in natural reserve De Bruuk. Besides, Ketelbroek showed a higher number of species and individuals in some cases. The research by Breidenbach et al., 2017 is an exhibition of the high return and preservation of biodiversity occurring since 2009 on the plot of land. This return and preservation do not only apply to
macro-moths, ground beetles, and breeding birds. There has been an increase in biodiversity of soil life, small mammals, amphibians, insects, birds (not only breeding birds, but other birds from surrounding natural areas also visit Ketelbroek) and of course, plants and trees. This increase in biodiversity is one of the main alternative value practices concerning the ecology identified in the case of food forest Ketelbroek.
As opposed to the industrial way of producing food, food forests value high biodiversity. Industrial farms grow a low diversity of crops, often limited to one crop at the time on the field. The use of pesticides and herbicides ensure the eradication of any insects or other plants. Having few or none insects in the fields means there will be few birds too. The biodiversity on industrial agricultural fields is restrained on purpose as a method to achieve optimal production and to secure high yields. In food forest Ketelbroek, production and yields are also of importance considering Ketelbroek is a food-producing farm. However, the methods used to ensure production and high yields are very different. The very foundation of the production of food in Ketelbroek is the high level of biodiversity. To demonstrate the value attached to biodiversity, three main aspects have been identified: the overall biodiversity of the food forest, the biodiversity in food-producing plant and trees and the biodiversity of non-food producing plant and trees.
The overall biodiversity of food forest Ketelbroek starts in the soil with healthy and thriving soil life, promoting a fertile and nutrient soil that aerates and drains the soil, making it suitable for abundant plant growth. The importance of the biodiversity works its way up from the soil through the different layers of the food forest until the highest layer, the canopy tree layer. The biodiversity found across the different layers of the food forest support the entire ecosystem.
The second aspect of the valuation of biodiversity is the diversity of edible species planted by van Eck and Jansen (or arrived voluntarily). The biodiversity within the food producing plants and trees has two aspects. The first aspect is the diversity of plants and trees, resulting in a high variety of culinary products. This makes the food forest especially attractive for enterprises such as Restaurant De Nieuwe Winkel. This attractiveness is amplified due to the exotic and rare edible species grown in the food forest. The high biodiversity of edible species in the food forest demonstrates the potential many generally underutilised plants and trees have as an alternative to conventional agricultural crops. The second aspect of the biodiversity within the food producing plants and trees is the fluctuation of yields between different species by the year and over the years. Some years have an above average precipitation rate, which results in a lower yield from certain plants and trees. However, other species thrive exceptionally well in wet circumstances, these plants and trees have higher yields than usual. This demonstrates the high yields of Ketelbroek. Even though the food forest is affected by the different weather patterns over the years, high yields are still guaranteed due to the high level of biodiversity. Over the years, the food forest develops (this has also been discussed in the case description concerning ecological succession). Some plants and trees will do well in the first years, but as the forest develops other species will outcompete them. The sweet chestnut is a slow growing tree able to reach an age of 350 years. This is an example of a species producing small amounts at first, but over time starts producing more and more. Throughout the food forest, the biodiversity of plants, insects, birds, and animals ensures a thriving and highly productive system with higher yields every year within a resilient forest ecosystem.
The third and last aspect of the valuation of biodiversity is the biodiversity of non-edible species. This valuation consists of two aspects. The first aspect focusses on the non-edible plants commonly referred to as weeds. Examples of these species are the stinging nettle and the thistle. In industrial agricultural practices, everything is done to eliminate weeds from the fields in fear of the nutrients and light being taken from the food crops. Herbicides are applied, or extensive weeding is done to eliminate these unwanted species. In the food forest, van Eck and Jansen have learnt to appreciate these, as they call them, “volunteers”. As the experiment with the red currants exhibited (see FLORA & FAUNA), the weeds have their role to play in the ecosystem. Although van Eck and Jansen were at first instance alarmed by the number of thistles, time showed the usefulness of this species in the ecosystem. Adding to the usefulness is the additional biomass to the soil provided by these plants. Promotes the accumulation of soil organic matter, which enhances the water retention capacity of the soil. The second aspect of biodiversity amongst non-edible species examines the area to the north of the food forest (see Fig. 7 for an overview of the food forest) set aside for natural development. This area has deliberately not been planted with edible plants or trees (some plants come to grow there over the years are edible). This is the only part of the food forest in which biomass is taken out of the system to maintain the low-nutrient soil. Maintaining the soil low in nutrient enables the development of a specific ecosystem in which many red-listed species grow.
The last-mentioned aspect of the valuation of biodiversity exhibits another alternative value practice belonging to the food forest. This is the valuation of nature. In the Netherlands, there is a clear distinction between agriculture and natural reserves. Farmers are not prone to incorporating a natural area on their land since they receive subsidies per hectare of productive agricultural land. This means setting aside a plot of land for natural development would immediately lead to the farmer losing a part of the subsidies. Food forest Ketelbroek differs significantly from industrial farms on this point. Van Eck and Jansen have not only established a food-producing natural area; they have also set aside certain parts of the plot of land for primarily natural development. A second aspect displaying the valuation of nature is the water retention activities taking place on Ketelbroek. The conversion of the stream running through the food forest and the alteration to the banks of both the stream and the channel on the east side of the food forest enhance the water retention capacities of the plot of land. Increasing the water retention capacities has a positive influence on the ecosystem of the forest but also on the local area which, as has been mentioned in the case description (see GEOGRAPHY), deals with emerging seepage throughout the year. Having a plot of land with a high water-retention capacity mitigates this seepage and additionally mitigates the pressure of heavy rains on the surrounding channels.
Having analysed and discussed the main ecological alternative value practices of food forest Ketelbroek, the economic aspects will be analysed in the next section.
ECONOMIC ASPECTS
The alternative value practices with regard to economic aspects of food forest Ketelbroek are analysed and placed in the context of the theoretical framework in this section. The answer to the second sub-question follows the analysis. The data collected during the fieldwork session has been incorporated in the case description of Ketelbroek. The analysis of the alternative economic value practices will be based upon the collected data demonstrated in the case description and necessary referencing to this description is applied.
