Barriers to Implementing a Successful Urban Food Strategy in Amsterdam

(1)

Bachelor’s Thesis

Barriers to Implementing a

Successful Urban Food Strategy

in Amsterdam

Exploring the nature of Amsterdam’s

approach to food policy and its limits for success

A.E. Kuhlmann 10737247

antonie.elise@gmail.com Urban Studies, Faculty GPOI, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Supervision: B. Pineda Revilla Second Reader: M. Giezen Submission date: 19 June 2017

(2)

2

Abstract

The failings of the current food system that emerge in the form of environmental degradation, health problems, extensive food waste and social injustice increasingly play out on an urban scale. Many urban municipalities in the US and Canada have established (and in Europe are establishing) integrative food policy to achieve a sustainable food system. In Amsterdam the societal support for and interest in such a transition of the food system is high. Regardless of several attempts for an urban food strategy (UFS) over the last decade the municipality does not yet exhibit any form of effective integrative food policy. In order to assess why this is the case this research analyses the process of Amsterdam’s approach to food policy, the content of the various food-related policy documents as well as the role that the players of urban governance have in the implementation of an UFS. This results in the identification of barriers that have restrained the implementation of an UFS. These include the lack of governmental commitment, and thus vision, and leadership, the difficulties of reconfiguring urban governance according to new requirements and the gap between small-scale initiatives of the civil society and globalised and industrialised market players.

(3)

3

Acknowledgement

First and foremost, I would like to thank Beatriz Pineda Revilla for her supervision and support. Her patience and kind advice helped me to find my research focus and her enthusiasm about the topic aided the practical realisation of this thesis. Further I would like to thank all my study participants for making time for me in their busy schedules and their openness and content-related input. I am also grateful for the long brainstorm sessions with my family and friends, outstandingly Remco van Dam, and their practical advice and feedback on my work. A great thanks goes out to my parents; without their support this study in the Netherlands, and thus this thesis, would not have been possible.

Lastly, I would like to express my appreciation for Amsterdam for welcoming me, being ever inspiring and offering such a suitable case study for my research.

(4)

4

4.2 Initiatives in Amsterdam 19 4.3 Barriers 20 4.3.1 Government 20 4.3.1.1 Commitment 20 4.3.1.2 Fragmentation 22 4.3.1.3 Leadership 24 4.3.1.4 Electoral Cycle 25 4.3.1.5 Coordination of Scale 26 4.3.2 Civil Society 27 4.3.2.1 Societal Pressure 27 4.3.2.2 Stakeholder Diversity 28 4.3.2.3 Diverging Interests 28 4.3.3 Market 29 4.3.3.1 Economic Interests 29 5 Discussion 31 6 Conclusion 34

6.1 Amsterdam’s Approach to Food Policy 34

6.2 Barriers to Implementing UFS in Amsterdam 34

7 References 36

(5)

5

1 Introduction

The global population is projected to reach 9.7 billion people by 2050 (United Nations 2015). This growth of the global population necessitates agricultural intensification, which leads to food systems applying increasing pressure on the environment. Environmental problems in relation to the food system are numerous, ranging from soil erosion and extensive water use to the immense loss of biodiversity and habitat fragmentation (Vermeulen et al 2012). The agricultural sector is extremely energy intensive due to activities such as fertilisation and transportation and is thus a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions (ibid). Emissions caused by the food system contribute almost 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions (ibid). Within food production the most energy inefficient and carbon intensive sector is livestock rearing, which not only causes environmental damage, but raises questions of animal welfare as well. Additionally, excessive meat consumption negatively impairs human health (Jennings et al 2015). Simultaneously an increasing number of people are moving towards cities. These people subsequently consume food in an urban setting. Thereby the city’s share of pressure on natural environments rises, such that issues connected to food are becoming increasingly urban (Morgan & Sonnino 2010).

While cities in the Global North might not be faced with imminent hunger crises and seem food secure in comparison to places in the global south where food security is a more pressing topic, problems concerning food persist (Morgan 2014). These include problems related to health, either malnutrition or overconsumption, leading to obesity and diabetes; globally, 44% of diabetes, 23% of ischemic heart disease and 7-41% of certain cancers are caused by overweight and obesity (Moragues et al 2013). About 43 million people are estimated to be at risk of food poverty in Europe, which points to the persisting problems of social justice in relation to food (FAO 2009). This is opposed by the immense amount of food is being thrown out by households; food waste by consumers is 95-115 kg per capita a year in Europe (Gustavsson et al 2011). At the same time food contributes substantially to national economies, necessitating the maintenance of the food system’s economic vitality (Jennings et al 2015). This multitude of issues illustrates that food requires an interdisciplinary approach in theory and an integrated approach in practice (Morgan & Sonnino 2010). Due to food being an increasingly urban issue, this practical approach should take place on an urban scale. In order to solve problems concerning the food system, scientists agree that food needs to be incorporated into urban planning, just as any other vital resource, such as energy and water (Morgan & Sonnino 2010). Many municipal governments of cities have in fact recently approached food; food policy councils and food visions are emerging (Sonnino 2014). Also the municipal government of Amsterdam has the motivation to increase the sustainability of the city in terms of the food system (Gemeente Amsterdam 2014). Moreover, there is, or at least was, a clear intention in the form of an ambitious food vision to act on this motivation (ibid). However, critics argue that the municipal government exhibits a lack of action when it comes to the execution of the Voedselvisie (Food Cabinet 2015, Versprille 2016). It is opaque what restrains the municipal government from successfully implementing an urban food strategy.

(6)

6

Even so, little research exists concerning the analysis of these new urban food strategies in regard to their motivation and intended effects as well as their meaning in a broader transition towards a more sustainable1_{, equitable and healthy food system (Sonnino 2014). Additionally,}

Morgan & Sonnino (2010) emphasise the necessity to clarify the consequences of the implementation of integrative food policy for urban governance. In order to clarify these uncertainties, it is first of all necessary to determine the barriers of implementing a successful urban food strategy. Considering that Amsterdam has not yet successfully implemented an UFS even though societal support is substantial, it appears that it is most suitable to analyse what has and is restraining this process. Drivers for implementation of municipal urban food strategies have been analysed elsewhere (Mansfield & Mendes 2013), as well as barriers that restrain the implementation of more general sustainability policies (Campbell 1996, Bulkeley & Betsill 2005, Mendes 2008). Therefore, this research sets out to somewhat fill this gap, namely the intersection between urban food strategies and the factors that might restrain their successful implementation. Thereby it will explore the case study of Amsterdam’s approach to food policy, and in particular to an urban food strategy. This case study approach is helpful because cities differ greatly in their geographical, cultural and managerial properties, thus making a context-dependent approach necessary to answer this question.

This research lays the basis for achieving a successful urban food strategy that results in meaningful change in terms of sustainability of the food system that considers the local context of Amsterdam. The findings of this research contribute to a wider understanding of the role that urban food strategies have in a highly needed shift of the food system towards sustainability. This research therefore poses the question:

‘What are the barriers to successfully implementing an urban food strategy in Amsterdam?’

In order to answer this question, it firstly presents the Amsterdam’s current approach to food policy and the process towards it. Therefore, the sub question is:

‘What is the development of Amsterdam’s current approach to food policy?’

This research thus aims at determining what restrains Amsterdam’s urban food strategy from being successfully implemented. In order to answer this question, it firstly gives an overview of the existing theoretical analyses of the need for food policy, its effect on urban governance as well as its implications for implementation. Subsequently the used methodology will be presented and discussed. The results section firstly describes the process towards the current situation, with a focus on policy that is concerned with food and the societal interest and support in food. On the basis of this exploration it analyses barriers that restrain the successful implementation of an urban food strategy in Amsterdam. Due to the priory given overview this analysis is in accordance with and can thus be imbedded in the given circumstances. Lastly the results will be discussed critically and a conclusion will be given.

1_{Further references to sustainable food policy or urban food strategies indicate holistic and integrative}

food policy or urban food strategies that are set up to address the entirety of food system failings summarised above. A sustainable food system is thus a food system that addresses and solves these challenges, while providing enough food for societies now and in the future.

(7)

7

2 Theoretical Background

2.1 Food Policy

The traditional view of food policy as a matter of national or even global jurisdiction is changing (Mendes 2008). System failings in the form of environmental degradation, food insecurity and widespread health issues cause societies and their governments to reassess the current approach to the food system (Jennings et al 2015). These failings illustrate the variety of dimensions upon which the food system touches, namely health, economy, society and environment (Mendes 2008). Accordingly, food appears in various policy sectors. In order to understand the interconnected nature of food policy, a systems perspective is instrumental. The food system itself ranges from the production, transport and distribution to the retail, consumption and disposal or ideally reuse/recycling of food (Moragues et al 2013). This food chain trespasses several spatial and jurisdictional scales (Mansfield & Mendes 2013). This versatility and complexity of the food system insinuates to its wide spectrum of stakeholders (ibid).

Recently the focus has shifted towards cities; the system failings increasingly occur an urban scale (Morgan & Sonnino 2010). Sonnino (2014) summarises the food system failings that are connected to the urban scale in the following four categories

v Increasingly unhealthy urban lifestyle that is shared by a growing proportion of people v _{Political problems connected to food (in the form of the financial crisis and food riots)} v Widening social inequalities, which are largest in cities, and impact the access to food v _{Urban pressure on the environment.}

Historically, food is not addressed on an urban scale. Its connections to the agricultural source are almost invisible. This invisibility can be accounted for by the continuously increasing mechanisation of methods of production and distribution (Pothukuchi & Kaufman 1999). Increasing mechanisation (and thus increase in yield) also enable the growth of cities, and thus loss of land for agricultural purposes, without the otherwise direct consequences of a reduction in the availability of foodstuffs (ibid). In addition, food is historically not imbedded in urban policy as much as other urban issues (Sonnino 2009). Due to its inherent connection to its rural sites of production, it was treated as a subject to rural policy, and was thus not considered on the urban policy agenda (ibid).

Pothukuchi & Kaufman (1999) argue that an organisational focus point at urban scale is thus needed to address the interlinking failings of the food system. They thereby suggest three organisational bodies, namely a food department, a city planning agency and a food policy council (FPC) (Pothukuchi & Kaufman 1999). Organised responses to the failings of the food system are appearing on an urban scale. The most viable of the three theoretical responses as presented by Pothukuchi & Kaufman (1999) is the FPC, which is in fact installed in many cities today; especially in the US and Canada, but also European cities are forming such food councils (Sonnino 2014). For example, the FPC of Bristol (UK) (Bristol Good Food), which was Britain’s first FPC, was launched in unison with a connected strategic document in 2011 (Carey 2013). It comes forth from a decennium of increasing interest for food and the rising awareness for the failings of the food system (ibid). According to a statement on the Bristol Good Food

(8)

8

website the motivation for establishing this FPC is to organise and institutionalise a ‘high-level

strategic grouping combining the different elements of the food system with the common objective of achieving a healthier, more sustainable and resilient food system.’ (Bristol Food

Policy Council 2017). Bristol’s FPC is to achieve this through the initiation and facilitation of collaboration between stakeholders and their coordination, influencing and advocating policies related to food on all scales of government and providing information about these developments (ibid).

The FPCs are often formed from informal coalitions and involve many different stakeholders of the food system (Pothukuchi & Kaufman 1999). They thus present an advisory capacity within or outside the government with the goal to achieve a sustainable food system in the city (ibid). Sonnino (2014) argues that such new mechanisms of governance can aid the coordination of the food system and the cooperation between stakeholders to approach the food system across policy sectors and their departmental boundaries. Blay-Palmer (2009) analyses the Toronto Food Policy Council with the focus of social justice in cities. She concludes that the Toronto Food Policy Council, even though it is dealing with a number of complexities, in fact does create social justice in Toronto by allowing for the joint addressing of issues from all dimensions of the food system, while being aware of the capabilities of individuals. This illustrates the potential of FPCs.

FPCs are, even though not as a rule, preceded or accompanied by visionary and occasionally strategic policy documents. However, some municipalities exhibit only such policy documents. Municipalities such as New York City, Toronto, London, Seattle, Bristol and Vancouver are approaching the food system failings by introducing urban food strategies (UFS) (Morgan & Sonnino 2010, Mansfield & Mendes 2013, Reynolds 2009). These are defined by Mansfield & Mendes (2013) as ‘an official plan or road map that helps city governments integrate a full

spectrum of food system issues within a single policy framework that includes food production, food processing, food distribution, food access and food waste management’ (p. 38). Ideally

an UFS considers existing work on addressing the food system, and thereby establishes links between discrete policies that are in place in terms of food. It does so by implementing new ideas, filling gaps and setting up a future vision (Mansfield & Mendes 2013). While combining discrete food-related policies it should itself be embedded in broader objectives, such as food security or sustainability (ibid). It necessitates municipal governments to coordinate and collaborate with stakeholders of the food system (Morgan 2009). The resulting UFS is bound to be unique due to the adaptation to its small spatial scale and jurisdictional and systemic circumstances (ibid). This holistic approach is by nature challenging; nonetheless, the increasing urgency of the food system failings causes municipal governments embracing food in more policy sectors (Moragues et al 2013). Due to this new approach to food policy being generally unprecedented, it reconfigures the traditional roles of government, market and society in urban governance.

2.2 Urban Food Strategy and Governance

The failings of the current food system do not only affect the food system itself, but also its established governance system (Wiskerke 2009, Barling et al 2002). UFS are established and implemented as a reaction to these food system failings. The resulting urban governance is particularly fit to approach the failings of the current food system, exactly because it was

(9)

9

formed by these shortcomings (Morgan 2009). It is argued that urban governance of the food system musters a particularly large group of stakeholders, which might participate in establishing UFS (Wekerle, 2004). The stakeholders benefit from this participation as well as municipal governments, which are thereby enabled to develop policies that match the needs of the stakeholders (Mougeot 2006). In addition, inclusion of stakeholders in the process of establishing an UFS might benefit the effectivity of the resulting UFS by creating

v _{general awareness}

v a vision about the failings of the current food system v commitment to the UFS (Moragues et al 2013).

Mansfield & Mendes (2013) divide this governance shift (and in fact enlargement) into three parts. It is firstly characterised by a shift from government to governance, which is the dilution of the traditional borders between the state, market and the society (Harvey 2007). Secondly, Mansfield & Mendes (2013) argue that the urban scale gains significance, and thereby stakeholders presume roles they formerly did not fulfil. Thirdly, relationships between the state, market and society have an altered composition (ibid). This is supported by Wiskerke (2009) who also points to a change in urban governance to support a transition of the food system. Wiskerke (2009) categorises these new relationships of the renewed urban governance of the food system in three dimensions (see Image 1).

1. The alternative food network stems from the intention to build new and different connections between production and consumption of food in order to change the conventional food system (ibid). Producers and consumers thus enter into spatially bound relationships to achieve the reconnection of food to its social, cultural and environmental background (ibid). It refers both to alternative food networks that focus on the production of alternative (e.g. organic) food stuff, and to alternative food networks that actually reconfigure in composition to become spatially bound (ibid).

2. While alternative food networks address the relationship between the civil society and the market, the second dimension, the re-localisation of public sector food procurement refers to the increased measure to which governments procure food, which was previously left to the market, in an integrative manner to address health and sustainability issues (Wiskerke 2009, Barling et al 2002). Governments have a large untapped potential when it comes to public food procurement, because, even though much is currently left to the market, governments play a major role in the food system, but can also contribute to a transition by leading by example (Barling 2002).

3. The third dimension, UFS, comprises the trend of food becoming a policy concern on an urban scale (Wiskerke 2009). Wiskerke (2009) defines UFS similarly to Mansfield & Mendes (2013). He adds that the creation of links between market and non-market players in an area to establish coherence and thus resilience of the food system.

The urban governance of the food system thus takes place between an increased and altered number of stakeholders and on an urban scale. Thereby the capability and capacity of urban governance changes, and must increase in order to deal with the implementation of UFS (Mansfield & Mendes 2013).

(10)

10

Image 1: Renewed urban governance (own illustration; adapted from Wiskerke (2009))

As illustrated, it is, theoretically, well established why an UFS is needed and how it is configured to fit into urban governance. However, the following step is less clear, namely the implications of the implementation of UFS.

2.3 Implications of Implementing Urban Food Strategies

Rather than presenting the growing and by now extensive literature that is concerned with the necessity of establishing UFS by discussing the lack of an urban perspective of the food system in planning as well as in practice (Pothukuchi & Kaufman 1999, Morgan 2009, Morgan 2013, Wiskerke 2009, Mendes 2008), this section explores literature that analyses the emergence of organised responses to the failings of the food system on an urban scale. Several authors conducted analyses of existing UFS to determine their role in a broader transition towards a sustainable food system. In other words, this section does not consider the literature of why UFS are needed and what form they could theoretically take, but presents studies that analyse existing UFS and the implications of their implementation.

Even though UFS have, as theoretically established, a considerable potential for transforming the food system, some practical challenges remain in order to achieve this. The possibly foremost challenge is the difficulty of integrating UFS durably in the municipal jurisdiction. Sonnino (2009) compares the cases of Rome, New York, Belo Horizonte and Dar es Salaam according to their respective approaches to the public food procurement. She argues that public food procurement showcases the potential power of municipalities to address the failings of the food system. Within the complex regulatory system of several levels of government and the undiminished focus on economic competitiveness, municipal governments are comparatively decentralised, which allows for an experimental approach the public food procurement (Sonnino 2009). From this change in governance of a minor part of the food system she moves on to the wider perspective of the implementation of UFS. Municipal governments are increasingly approaching the failings created by a food system governed by national and international jurisdiction, by establishing UFS that contribute to a new perspective on the various stages of the food chain and the multi-dimensional relationships between its stakeholders (Sonnino 2009). However, Sonnino (2009) identifies that

(11)

11

the electoral cycle can much too easily shift funding and priorities of municipal governments. Even though this holds true for every policy concern, Mansfield & Mendes (2013) reason that it is particularly potent for UFS due to the large number of policy sectors that are required to coordinate and collaborate to achieve the implementation of UFS.

Reynold (2009) analyses the London Food Strategy and presents its historical development and results. Even though he asserts that an UFS alone is incapable of bringing change to the complete food system he presses that it is nonetheless an essential topic that requires the explicit addressing of governments. In that sense, Reynold (2009) confirms the conclusion of Sonnino (2009) that UFS’s have the potential to, in parts, achieve the much needed change towards a holistic perspective of that food system.

UFS require coordination and cooperation within municipal governments, thus across departmental boundaries, in order to connect discrete policies related to food (Mansfield & Mendes 2013). Additionally, the UFS itself is commonly embedded in a broader vision concerning e.g. sustainability (ibid). These municipal policies need to be coordinated with higher scales of government (ibid). To achieve a maximum of effectivity UFS must have the support of all levels of government (ibid). However, coordination must not only take place within and between scales of government, but also with players from the civil society as well as market players (Carey 2013). Sonnino (2014) argues that FPC are partially set up as a reaction to these coordination and collaboration issues. However, an established FPC that could take the lead in food policy questions might also bring with it the risk of either lacking influential power or necessary resources or becoming established to such an extent that it is detached from the quickly changing activities from the field (Carey 2013).

Leadership, preferably of the municipal government, is nonetheless crucial to assure the effectivity and durability of UFS, since the municipal government can provide funding, capacity and policy implementation (Mansfield & Mendes 2013). In addition, governmental leadership can clarify the roles and expectations of stakeholders in participatory processes in terms of UFS (ibid). The extent to which governments assume a leading position in such processes positively influences the capacity of the resulting new networks between stakeholders (ibid). Governance mechanisms that stimulate and coordinate participation processes are crucial in order to involve the relevant stakeholders at the right time (Carey 2013).

By analysing and comparing the UFS of London and New York, and in particular their approach to the school food reforms, Morgan & Sonnino (2010) aim at determining the implications of implementing UFS. They argue that municipal governments are beginning to tap their potential for transitioning the food system. They identify that a major restrain of municipal engagement in UFS is the weak governance system of cities. According to Morgan & Sonnino (2010) the disparity that ‘cities are locally governed and globally networked’ (p. 222) is a crucial unsolved dilemma.

UFS thus have the potential to fulfil a major role in a wider transition towards a sustainable food system. Municipal governments are increasingly taking this role. This research aims at understanding the factors that negatively affect the capability of urban governance to implement integrative food policy.

(12)

12

3 Research Methodology

3.1 Research Strategy & Design: A Case Study Research

This thesis poses an explorative question that is by nature qualitative. Food policy is formed by and for the players of the urban governance of the food system and is thus inevitably subject to the meanings that are given to it by these players (Bryman 2015). As focus of qualitative research these meanings are gathered and analysed and subsequently generalised theoretically, rather than applying existing theory to them. Information that is gathered in the literature review will not be verified, but rather used to structure the results of the analysis and condition for an extensive discussion. Having thus identified the main players of urban governance and their role in food policy in the theoretical literature review, the collected data is structured according to these players. Additionally, the implications of implementation of UFS that were found by the reviewed scholars might reappear in the present analysis. The results can thereby be imbedded in a broader natural setting, thus increasing their validity (Bryman 2015). For one part this inductive approach of procuring theory of data represents

Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss 1967). However, Grounded Theory additionally refers to

the continuous interplay between data gathering and data analysis (ibid). The case study approach gives form to the research, by binding it in space as well as time, which generally happens prior to the field work, but also during the research by maximising its theoretical saturation (Bryman 2015). Giving meaning to a social issue in its entirety is rather unrealistic (Willig, 2008). Therefore, a case study thus enables gaining an understanding of urban food strategies, by binding it in a specific case.

3.2 Collecting Data

3.2.1 Semi-structured Interviews

In qualitative research interviews provide an essential source of information (Bryman 2015). Therefore, interviews were held to generate data for this case. To supply a complete view of Amsterdam’s approach to food policy and the barriers to implementing an UFS, a diverse selection of views and opinions of stakeholders is essential. Interviewees were selected according to their involvement in implementing an UFS in Amsterdam. Whereas some relevant stakeholders could be determined by internet research and subsequently approached by email, others were contacted upon recommendation of interviewees, applying the snowball effect (for an example of an email see Appendix 8.1). Once successfully arranged, semi-structured interviews were held with the willing participants. Semi-semi-structured interviews allow for some flexibility and can offer a broad and possibly renewed perspective of the issue at hand (Bryman 2015). Prior to each interview a topic list with general and specific questions was set up. Such a list can be found in Appendix 8.2. The interviews are aimed at gaining insights to how involved stakeholders and their collaborations form the approach to food policy, as well as the content of the existing programmes and the effect of the legal framework. Therefore, the interviews need not be comparable, but rather maximise the integrity of the findings. In total, 6 interviews were held, each lasting approximately one hour. Most of these interviews were personal, even though two were held by telephone. All interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed. The interviewees represent a diverse selection of stakeholders concerned with the policy arrangement of the food system. A complete list of

(13)

13

the interviewees can be found in Appendix 8.3. The interview codes that are quoted verbatim are translated from Dutch to English by the researcher.

3.2.2 Documents

During the research process a variety of documents were examined and analysed. These documents include policy documents related to food on local, regional and national level, reports of pronounced meetings and gatherings of stakeholders as well as newspaper articles dealing with Amsterdam’s approach to food policy. These documents contribute to the triangulation of the findings of the research and enable a deepening of the understanding of the researched phenomena (Bryman 2015).

3.3 Analysing and Interpreting Data – Coding Qualitative Data

The collected data from the interviews is analysed in terms of content by structuring and organising it into categories using codes. From this analytical process it is possible to construct descriptions and interpretations of what the approach to food policy looks like and what the barriers of UFS are. Coding can increase the replicability of qualitative research by illuminating the analytic approach and thus making it transparent (Bryman 2015). To achieve such transparency a complete list of codes is supplied in Appendix 8.4. The process of inductive coding incorporates two steps (Charmaz 2006). Firstly, going through the text and marking sections that are relevant with a code, in a process called initial coding. Secondly, during

focussed coding, these initial codes are revised and emphasised mainly according to their

commonness and remarkability. This way some of the initial codes may be dropped or fused into new codes. By continuous comparison of these codes and the data connected to them it can be made sure that the code represents the data as well as possible, and thereby increase the measurement validity of the analysis (Bryman 2015). These renewed codes allow for an analysis of their relationships, comparisons or contrasts. It is thus possible to make inferences about their connections within the studied phenomenon. Especially this established connectivity between the identified codes contributes to the analysis being internally valid (Bryman 2015). The results of the analysis are presented and discussed under the heading of their respective codes.

Even though some of the original connectivity of the data is lost by coding, the re-organisation and subsequent comparison with existing contexts make sense of the data on a higher level, and thus make up to some extent the initial loss of ecological validity (Bryman 2015). Considering that every qualitative research is, partially, subject to the researcher’s interpretation of data during the analysis, it is inevitable that the reliability is somewhat diminished (Bryman 2015). However, the researcher strives to remain as objective and scientific as possible, by maximising the structure and transparency of her procedures. Practically this was realised by adding comments containing the initial codes to the seemingly relevant pieces of text. These pieces of text are the interviews that are transcribed in separate Word-documents. These quotes were then colour-coded according to the person they belonged to and thus transferred to an Excel-sheet. All codes belonging to one code were aligned above one another under the heading of their shared initial code. The initial codes were then reorganised in the second step into more specific and relevant categories. Two columns were used for this focussed coding step; one containing the codes referring to the

(14)

14

process and another one that refers to the barriers. An example of such a coded document and a categorisation document can be found in Appendix 8.5 and 8.6. During the analysis quotes belonging to the same code could easily be retrieved with the filter function in Excel. Due to the colour-coding it remained clear throughout the process to whom which quotes belonged.

The coding process and its inherent continuous comparison between the codes and the connected data enabled the researcher to form an idea of the eventual results. These results are presented in the subsequent chapter. They are divided into three main sections.

1. Process towards the current approach to food policy 2. Social initiatives related to food

3. Barriers to implementing UFS

The first two section answer the sub-research question and the last presents the findings of the main research question.

(15)

15

4 Case Study Results:

Amsterdam’s Approach to Food Policy &

Barriers

4.1 Food Policy in Amsterdam

This section presents Amsterdam’s current approach to food policy by analysing the past and existing food policy documents as regards to the process of their development and contents.

4.1.1 Proeftuin Amsterdam

The first interest for food in Amsterdam arose in 2005, when former senior urban planner Pim Vermeulen went to London and was inspired by the London food strategy (Lenhart, 2015). He subsequently took the initiative to establish a similar UFS in Amsterdam (ibid). Formerly food had barely been on the urban agenda, particularly not in connection to the environment (Lauwers & Morren, 2009). After gaining the support of the deputy mayor Marijke Vos of the political party GroenLinks, and afterwards of the board of mayor and aldermen, the set-up phase for a food strategy commenced (ibid).

Several meetings were held with groups of people that already concerned themselves with food related projects (Interviewee 3, personal communication). The general idea was to find successful small-scale projects and extend them to a larger scale (ibid). Mainly this was to be achieved with a relatively small subsidy from the municipality, and subsequent sponsoring by other interested (more market oriented) players (Lauwers & Morren 2009). Further the municipality supported the upcoming projects by establishing them on the political agenda, in cooperation with the city departments (Interviewee A, personal communication).

In 2007 the projects were bundled within a project plan, which was in accordance with the provincial plan to stimulate biological agriculture around cities and also gained support from the national government (Interviewee A, personal communication). It was thus signed by the municipalities of Amsterdam and Zaanstad, the administration of the province of North-Holland and the Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality (Wiskerke 2009). The majority of the projects were focussed on healthy food especially for children and elderly people, the relationship between the city and its rural surroundings, a sustainable and regional food chain and sharing and production of knowledge (Lauwers & Morren 2009). From the themes a list of goals was formulated (ibid). The programme had a steering committee with decisional power as well as a working group of public officers that was concerned with the practical implementation (ibid). The programme Proeftuin Amsterdam is appreciated as a relatively successful UFS (ibid). Nonetheless it ended in 2010 and was not continued, also due to not gaining the support of the new deputy mayor Freek Ossel of the political party SP (Interviewee A, personal communication). Food was thus discarded from the urban agenda. However, societal pressure to address food on an urban scale remained (Interviewee B, personal

(16)

16

communication). Especially urban agriculture projects were emerging rapidly, as a sign of renewed societal interest in the food system (ibid).

4.1.2 Voedselvisie

The societal pressure and support of some political parties eventually led to a proposal by Johnas van Lammeren of the Partij voor de Dieren in March 2011 to arrange a food vision, particularly considering that the Proeftuin Amsterdam strategy had not yet been replaced (Partij voor de Dieren 2011). This proposal was accepted and the municipality thus had to re-engage with the topic of food. The new approach was assigned to deputy mayor Freek Ossel. On the 22 of January in 2014 the municipality of Amsterdam launched the Voedselvisie, a visionary policy document on food (Gemeente Amsterdam 2014). It was the result of an extensive participatory process with a broad range of stakeholders (Interviewee B, personal communication). The most input was derived from two important meetings, the first being the

Netwerkbijeenkomst with people from the private sector and private initiatives, and the

second being the Ambtswoninggesprek, during which most of the governmental body reflected on the question of food with private parties as well non-governmental organisations (Gemeente Amsterdam 2014). Both these meetings took place in May 2013 (ibid). In the end the project group working on the final document consisted of ANMEC, the Amsterdam Economic Board, the programme-team Gezond Gewicht, and the departments Economische

Zaken and Dienst Ruimtelijke Ordening of the municipality of Amsterdam (ibid). Even though

the initial meeting included stakeholders of the food industry, these were no longer directly involved in the programme-team, but were nonetheless represented by the Amsterdam Economic Board (Interviewee B, personal communication). During these series of meetings members of the project team as well as public officers were present (ibid). As opposed to the public officers who took part during their working time, other participants were not financially compensated for their input (ibid).

The Voedselvisie is an integrated and ambitious policy document that addresses the most relevant dimensions of food in the city (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2014). These are health and nutrition, economic vitality, social participation and environmental sustainability (ibid). Furthermore, it illustrates Amsterdam’s essential link to food and thereby to the region and gives a short overview of the current situation (ibid). It also sketches a future vision for the year 2024 in the way of aims (ibid). Next to these idealistic and visionary components it also includes a concrete agenda of actions and a financial plan, which were to be renewed yearly (ibid). The agenda clearly states the priorities of the municipality, which are the establishment of a

Voedsel Informatie Punt, a Voedseloverleg and the stimulation of education related to food

(ibid). In the realisation of these goals the municipality considers itself as a facilitator of forming networks, enabling initiatives and stimulating knowledge production and exchange (ibid). The

Voedsel Informatie Punt was aimed at enabling the information exchange between all

stakeholders and also providing information to all other interested parties (ibid). It is described as crucial for institutionalising food on a permanent basis. The working group also advised to set up a food policy council, and organised an event called Prototyping the Food Council that was supposed to illustrate what a food policy council could mean for the city (Interviewee B, personal communication). Even though the event was experienced as successful and

(17)

17

inspirational, the idea of a food policy council has not yet been approached by the municipality (Interviewee C, personal communication).

4.1.4 Agenda Groen

Shortly after the launch of the Voedselvisie elections took place and a new board of mayor and aldermen was installed. The new deputy mayor Abdeluheb Choho of the political party D66 with the portfolio Nature and Environment chose to make a new agenda concerning the relationship of the city and nature, which includes food to some degree (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015a). Even though it addresses subjects such as public parks, climate and biodiversity, it approaches food under the header of green neighbourhoods. Thereby the main focus lies on urban agriculture and urban gardening (ibid). Additionally, it aims at contributing to the sustainability of the food provisioning in the city by cooperating with regional producers and other stakeholders (ibid). Concrete actions include co-financialising of urban gardens/farms and initiatives to diminish the ecological footprint of the food chain in the region (ibid). Further the facilitation of urban agriculture/gardening is meant to be improved by providing information on the online platform stadslandbouw.nl and creating a

Voedselpoort in cooperation with different kinds of societal organisations (ibid). This was

recently realised by setting up the platform Van Amsterdamse Bodem. Lastly the aim is to diminish the barriers to urban agriculture/gardening that are constituted to by municipal legislation (ibid). The municipality thus facilitates by bringing stakeholders together, financially supporting promising initiatives, especially in connection to urban agriculture, and creating legal space for new developments.

4.1.3 Voedsel Informatie Punt: Van Amsterdamse Bodem

In the policy programme Agenda Groen that can be seen in parts as the succession document of the Voedselvisie, the setting up of a Voedsel Informatie Punt, referred to as Voedselpoort, is one of the proposed points of action. Even though the Voedsel Informatie Punt was given a clear priority in the Voedselvisie, it was only launched in February 2017 by the current deputy mayor Abdeluheb Choho. After the establishment of the Voedselvisie meetings took place to give form to the Voedsel Informatie Punt (Interviewee B, personal communication). However, this process was stopped because the involved parties were unable to come to find common ground (ibid). Due to the continued initiative of some parties the consideration on the realisation of such a food platform were resumed, leading to the formation of the platform Van

Amsterdamse Bodem (Interviewee C, personal communication). The municipality supports the

platform financially and currently also provides the chairman. The municipal financial support covers the first year of the platform, after which it is supposed to be self-supportive by finding other sources of financial support (Interviewee D, personal communication).

4.1.5 Amsterdamse Aanpak Gezond Gewicht

The Amsterdamse Aanpak Gezond Gewicht was initiated in 2013 and has since become an integrated part of the municipalities legislation (Gemeente Amsterdam 2015b). It is very actively pursued by the municipality (Interviewee C, personal communication). The policy approaches the issue of obesity among children in the city (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2015b). The aim is to achieve a healthy weight amongst all Amsterdam’s children by 2033, with stepwise goals of all 0-5-year-olds on a healthy weight by 2018 and all 0-10-year-olds on a

(18)

18

healthy weight by 2023. This is to be reached by making healthy weight a social responsibility and to facilitate healthy choices. Thereby the main strategy is based on the idea that a healthier environment leads to healthier choices, thus improving the children’s environments in relation to health. Concretely the municipality takes three types of actions, namely prevention, curation and facilitation, mainly in the form of education.

4.1.6 Voedselagenda voor Veilig, Gezond en Duurzaam Voedsel

The national food agenda that was set up in 2015 follows the advice of a national advising agency to strengthen food policy in the view of the challenges posed by the failings of the food system. The main focus thereby lies on public health, but it also addresses environmental sustainability, the resilience of the food system and global food security (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2015). It thereby aims at including all stakeholders of the food system in order to further fill in the agenda, support it and, if possible, accelerate the generation of results. It is established that the Netherlands aim at becoming a front runner in terms of a healthy and sustainable food system (Ministerie van Economische Zaken, 2016).

4.1.7 City Deal: Voedsel op de Stedelijke Agenda

The City Deal was signed by four ministries, twelve municipalities, two provinces and several economic partners as well as knowledge institutions in 2015 in the lead of the national

Voedselagenda (Agenda Stad n.d.). Amsterdam was one of the municipalities that signed this

deal. It is aimed at a transition towards an integrated and interactive food policy in order to improve the Dutch food system. This is to be achieved by a. cooperation through a national knowledge exchange programme, b. actively supporting the development of the

Voedselagenda’s focus on an integrated food policy on a local level and c. pioneering at

integrated food policy on an international level and actively contributing to international platforms and networks.

4.1.8 Milan Food Policy Pact

The Milan Food Policy Pact was signed by the mayor of Amsterdam, Eberhard van der Laan, in October 2016. Until today 138 cities have signed this deal. It is based on the concepts of sustainability and social justice and is supposed to address two global issues of the 21st century, namely food security and sustainable development (Milan Food Policy Pact, 2015). This is to be achieved by reassessing food policy on an urban level, but additionally linking the various cities together to create international momentum and coherence. The signed cities are to connect the various sectors of the food system and involve all stakeholders in developing food policy. The resulting food policy should cover all dimensions of food, thus environmental sustainability, health, social justice and economic vitality. All departments at municipal level that are connected to food should cooperate and interact. The urban food policy should be coherent with policies of higher levels of government. Instead of piling a new urban food policy on top of existing legislation and regulations, older policies should be reconsidered and possibly revised.

(19)

19

4.2 Initiatives in Amsterdam

In order to be able to highlight the roles that all players of urban governance have in the implementation of UFS it is essential to gain an understanding of the interest and support that the civil society has for a transition of the food system and thus the establishment and implementation of food policy in Amsterdam. Therefore, this section gives an overview of societal initiatives and projects as well as small-scale, socially oriented businesses that are concerned with food.

In some stages Amsterdam’s food policy, like e.g. during the participatory establishment of the Voedselvisie, the food policy reflected to some extent the wide variety of societal interest in the food system in the form of initiatives and projects that is present in Amsterdam. The Amsterdam’s food scene is by no means quiet (Food Cabinet, 2015). There is an active network of innovative social enterprises, non-governmental organisations and individuals that operate in the food related field (Van Bossum, 2017). Taste before you Waste is a local initiative that is spreading from the Indische Buurt across Amsterdam and has in fact recently gone international (ibid). They organise food markets of food they pick up at stores that is destined to be thrown out, and schedule cooking events and food markets of left-over food, as well as workshops on food preservation (ibid). The project DamnFoodWaste organised a ‘mega-lunch’ on the Museumplein in Amsterdam to create awareness for food waste (Lenhart, 2015).

Farming the City arranges among others walks through Amsterdam to advocate the cities food

environment (ibid). Additionally, they are now launching a refrigerated solar transport bike called ‘Foodlogica’, in order to facilitate the transport of food in the city. The Slow Food Youth

Network (formerly the Youth Food Movement) spurred from the wish to counteract the

increasing presence of fast food, and is by now an international network that covers topics across the food system (Lenhart, 2015). They have a variety of projects in Amsterdam, ranging from series of lections on food, which they organise with Pakhuis de Zwijger to café meetups for networking between young stakeholders of the complete food chain. Together with the

Rode Hoed they organise a yearly series of debate evenings called ‘It’s the food my friend’ of

which they recently also produced a podcast. Food Cabinet is a project office specialised in innovative food related projects. Food festivals are becoming increasingly common; food trucks are trendier than ever (Van Bossum, 2017). Further Amsterdam has a number of farmers’ market, as well as supermarkets and restaurants that are interested in local and organic food and the reduction of food waste (Lenhart, 2015). A recent example is the restaurant Instock, which sells food that is made mostly of food that would have otherwise been disposed. Other Amsterdam-based firms focus on fair food production, such as Tony Chocolonely, which is advocated as ‘slave-free’ chocolate, or fair food chains, such as the coffee retailer Moyee (Food Cabinet, 2015). In addition to these businesses, initiatives and projects there are more than 120 vibrant urban agriculture projects in Amsterdam, most of which are public (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017). Added to this can be school gardens and farms in proximity to the city with educational programmes (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2017).

(20)

20

4.3 Barriers

Having established the current situation of food policy in Amsterdam and the process towards it, this section employs the gathered information to analyse the barriers that restrain the implementation of UFS.

Image 2: Urban governance & the implementation of UFS in Amsterdam (own illustration)

4.3.1 Government

4.3.1.1 Commitment

The initial food strategy of Amsterdam, the Proeftuin Amsterdam, tied several food-related projects together in a programme that financially supported these projects from the beginning in order to reach the goals that were set within the programme. This was done relatively successfully but the programme was not renewed when it reached its end date in 2010, also due to loosing political support as a result of the election, which also took place in 2010. As interviewee A puts it:

‘Food was a taboo, we don’t do that anymore, said the new deputy mayor. A green-left hobby. The food strategy was over. ‘

The second policy approach to food in Amsterdam, the Voedselvisie, did include goals concerning a broad range of topics, however, it was explicitly not called a strategy, but a vision. This meant that the governmental commitment was not as strong as it was in Proeftuin

Amsterdam. The document merely showcased the situation in 2040, and illustrated which areas

had to be addressed, but due to the action plan was not being renewed after one year it remained vague about how this was to be achieved. A list of actions was supposed to be created yearly. Interviewee B argues:

(21)

21

‘It was obvious that they - . It wasn’t allowed to be called strategy, but vision. Not strategy, then there were to many responsibilities for what they had to realise. A vision is more like a spot on the horizon. A bit like, this is where we’re moving, but how we will actually do it isn’t all that clear.’

Whereas this comment is not directly critical of this procedure, another interviewee (C) clearly states:

‘Another vision… I think you should rather have a number of good projects.’

After the new board of mayor and aldermen was installed in 2014, deputy mayor Choho set up the programme Agenda Groen. Some aspects of the Voedselvisie reappeared in this programme, namely the support of urban agriculture, sustainable regional food chains and a food platform. This is evident from the policy document itself, but also confirmed by a number of interviewees. To quote interviewee C:

‘That is the story of food policy under this board of mayor and aldermen. Thus with exception of greening projects and health related projects nothing has been done.’

Additionally, the municipality exhibits a lack of long-term vision on the subject food. Several interviewees agree that

‘if you really think it is important as municipality then you have a vision. And of course it is important that you bring together initiatives, but then you have a vision, and you have a role in that vision to reach is and a financial budget. Then you arrange for it to be a lasting thing.’

The lack of vision might be attributed to the current board of mayor and aldermen making the political choice of not giving priority to food. Interviewee E confirms this.

‘Currently we have a board that has no priority for this topic.’

Due to this decision there is neither budget nor capacity for food-related topics within the municipality (Interviewee C, personal communication). This restrains the establishment of an integrated policy approach for food. The food related topics that are accounted for in Agenda

Groen are left to be filled in as regards to content by the initiatives themselves (Interviewee F,

personal communication).

Recently two larger deals concerning food have been signed, even though the municipality exhibits a lack of vision when it comes to food. The Milan Food Policy Pact was a request directly to the mayor and was signed by him directly. It thus stands loose from any other programme within the municipality and is not connected to an overarching vision (Interviewee E, personal communication). The municipality does not feel the direct need for action as a reaction on signing this deal, because it does not feel addressed by the topics that are dealt with in the deal (Interviewee F, personal communication). Interviewee F explains the attitude of the municipality like this:

(22)

22

‘The Milan Food Policy Pact, that is a global pact, that is about issues that do not concern us here. Food security and safety is not an issue in the Netherlands.’

Moreover, the City Deal was signed, however, the municipality created neither capacity nor budget for the realisation of this deal. Interviewee C claims

‘Officially something happened because they signed the so-called City-Deal. (…) but they reserved neither public capacity nor budget. Thus nothing is happening.’

Further the City Deal does not address the concrete policy approach for food in the city, but is concerned with food on a higher level. Interviewee E argues:

‘It’s more about the really big lines and not concretely about what we do concerning this topic in the city.’

The lack of governmental commitment can impede the implementation of an UFS on two levels. Firstly, the very practical level of budgeting and the reservation of public capacity, as well as the suitability of the legislation, in either programmes or deals. Secondly, the emphasis on a long-term vision that motivates their actions. The lack of either or both of these factors leads to opacity in regards to the governmental commitment.

4.3.1.2 Fragmentation

The establishment of the Voedselvisie was made possible, despite its multi-sectoral character, by mustering four deputy mayors (Interviewee B, personal communication). Nonetheless, tension between these deputy mayors and their portfolios remained. According to interviewee B there

‘(…) was a kind of continuous exchange that one says: ‘We need something about circular economy.’ And the other says: ‘Yes, but I want something about neighbourhood participation, it has to have a social aspect.’ And the next one says: ‘It has to be mainly about health.’ It becomes a kind of trade-off of what can be in there and what can’t.’

This trade-off between the deputy mayors thus resulted in a constant rivalry as to which topics gained priority within the policy document. Not only were there tensions between the deputy mayors, but also between the various people working at the municipality, such as public officers, policy advisors, etc (Interviewee B, personal communication). Nonetheless a compromised policy document was signed. However, the Voedselvisie was neglected by the new board of mayor and aldermen after the elections in 2014. The new board boasted a broad range of political parties, which resulted in strict agreements between the different deputy mayors and their portfolios. Interviewee C explains this situation.

‘The current board works with extremely isolated departments. They isolated it within sectors. Deals are made concerning the division of portfolios. This is due to the fact that the current board is made up of parties that are far apart. Thus they closed

(23)

23

everything off with their deals. And each deputy mayor has the task to watch her own portfolio closely.’

Since food is a multi-sectoral subject, it is complicated to address it from out these strict sectoral boundaries. Food can hardly be placed within just one of these portfolios, thus cannot be imbedded in existing structures. The subject food demands stronger cooperation, which is currently not practiced in the municipality, due to the strict agreements on the portfolios. Interviewee E explains that the municipality is, additionally to being divided in sectors, also is spatially dispersed.

‘(…) but the municipality of Amsterdam is quite large and consists of very many departments that are situated in different buildings and are not aware of what the others are doing.’

Thus due to the sheer size of the municipality and its spatial distribution, gaining an overview about the topic food, which is addressed in a variety of policy programmes, is complex (Interviewee E, personal communication). Adding to this the strong sectoral divisions and the lack of an overarching policy programme that is responsible for food, it is impossible.

Some public officers that were already involved during the establishment of the Voedselvisie represent a continuous support for the topic of food within the municipality (Interviewee B, personal communication). However, as interviewee B explains, they are strongly dependent on the political decisions, and therefore have limited possibilities for action.

‘In a certain way there is quite a continuity within the municipality. Among the public officers (…) are still a few people that were already involved during the process. But they only have limited possibilities. They can bring things forward, try to put things on the table of the deputy mayor and there are specific parties, like the Partij voor de Dieren, that want to follow this up more, that played a role in wanting a food vision. Thus they can put it on the agenda, bring the deputy mayor to concern himself with it.’

This is confirmed by interviewee E:

‘When he (Pim Vermeulen) was concerned with food, there was a more enthusiastic deputy mayor, Marijke Vos, that really had something with the topic. Back then a lot happened, but in that sense you are, as municipality, very dependent on politics.’

In addition to the strong division between the deputy mayors and their portfolios, the mayor signed the Milan Food Policy Pact, without being in line with any general political direction in terms of food, considering that food is currently not a topic of municipal priority. This is clarified by interviewee E:

‘The Milan Pact is a pact of mayors. That was a direct request to the mayor Van der Laan and he signed it. It is thus actually separate of the Agenda Groen and in that sense also of other food things within the municipality.’

(24)

24

It can thus be argued that the municipality is fragmented in several ways. Firstly, it is separated in the different sectors, represented by deputy mayors and their portfolios. Secondly there is a division between the political decision of the board of aldermen and the interest of the public officers. Thirdly, the mayor acts independently from political decisions. This fragmentation within the government undermines the topic of food, which is inherently a multilevel and multisector issue, and thus requires governmental cooperation and coordination to be addressed holistically.

4.3.1.3 Leadership

During the process of creating the Voedselvisie the government did not take a clear role (Interviewee B, personal communication). When the programme Proeftuin Amsterdam ended many of the projects could not be continued due to the stop of municipal subsidies (Interviewee A, personal communication). Therefore, in the new approach to food policy, the municipality was searching for other ways of facilitating during the creation of the Voedselvisie. In the process they were attempting to take a renewed role from leader to facilitator. However, the new role was opaque and led to a lack of clarity in the framing of the process. Interviewee B argues:

‘Traditionally they were a leading government and the could dispense an order, and that’s how it goes. And now it is searching, like, if we take a different position now, what is that position to be? And does that mean that you do not comment on things at all, or is there a mid-way? Thus that meant a lot of orientation.’

Non-governmental participants eventually became frustrated by this (Interviewee B, personal communication). It was unclear what was expected from them as well what they were to expect. The Voedselvisie was created mainly by participatory input of non-governmental parties. Many of the parties involved themselves exceedingly and were thus were enthusiastic about the new policy document and its possibilities. Interviewee C recounts:

‘The document was made very interactively. Like really. Everyone that was interested in food was involved. (…) and that meant that the parties that were involved really got into the matter and had high expectations.’

However, with the new deputy mayor the Voedselvisie was neglected. This meant that the parties that were so involved in the participatory process towards the Voedselvisie were particularly disenthralled when it was not implemented as it was expected (Interviewee C, personal communication). Furthermore, the non-governmental participants were not financially compensated for their input, did, however, believe that their situation as initiative would improve once the Voedselvisie was accepted (Interviewee B, personal communication). When it appeared that the effects of the Voedselvisie were minor, the disappointment was magnified. Interviewee B remembers:

‘That was also frustrating because heaps of time went into the projects, but eventually we didn’t benefit of it.’

(25)

25

During this participatory process that was initiated by the municipality for establishing an UFS the lack of the possession of the facts in terms of expectations restrained the process and thus the result. Under the new board this facilitating role increased in clarity. For the website Van

Amsterdamse Bodem an order was sent out and the various stakeholders were successfully

brought together, as interviewee D confirms.

‘(…) there has to be someone that brings them all together and directs a bit. And that is the role they are taking now. And it’s working well.’

Interviewee C explains:

‘In the board of Van Amsterdamse Bodem the municipality is just another one of the involved parties. Because they currently contribute a bit more money than the others they could provide the chairman, but in the next round they also won’t provide the chairman any longer.’

However, even though the launch was successful, it remains uncertain from out which vision the municipality acted this way. This is reflected in the financial support for the platform Van

Amsterdamse Bodem, which will end after the first year. This decision leads to a lack of clarity

for the involved participants, in regards to the content as well as the financial realisation. As interviewee F puts it:

‘Because he literally says: ‘We opened and the municipality guides this, but it is left to the initiatives to fill it in.’ Also financially, after this year it is over and then the initiatives have to do it by themselves. ‘

This illustrates the disparity between the municipality taking the lead in setting up the platform, but leaving the content as well as the funding to the initiatives. Interviewee D argues that this diminishing role of the municipality might prove to be problematic, because

‘It makes you realise that the government is a connector and stimulator and once they explicitly take a backseat then everyone’s a bit at the end of their wits.’

The role that the government takes in a process for implementing an UFS can greatly influence its results. Whereas an utter top-down decision making process might not accord with the societal sentiment, a process that leaves the developments completely to non-governmental participants leads to unstructured results, in content as well as in form. Ideally the government might take the role of a moderator.

4.3.1.4 Electoral Cycle

The process concerning a food policy approach in Amsterdam can easily be divided in three phases. The first phase starts in 2006 with the first interest for food, and the setup of Proeftuin

Amsterdam and ends in 2010 with the end of the programme. Thereafter the second phase

begins with the motion for an integrated food vision. It ends with the realisation of this vision. The third phase contains the Agenda Groen and extends until today. Coincidentally these three phases conform precisely to the electoral cycle. Elections took place in Amsterdam in

Barriers to Implementing a Successful Urban Food Strategy in Amsterdam

Bachelor’s Thesis