City and agriculture, opposites… but compatible!

Reflections on uRban aGRiCultuRe 

City and agriculture, despite what one might tend to believe, are inseparably linked, since agriculture was a prerequisite for the development of cities. Indeed, by improving agricultural techniques, man has been able to generate an increase in food production per unit area which has had two consequences: an increase in population densities, and the creation of an exchangeable surplus. The proportion of farmers was then able to decrease and make room for other trades, which became permanent (crafts, trade, etc…). The city and agriculture have thus evolved in interaction for thousands of years. By definition, the city is not self-sufficient: it is constantly in a situation of food insecurity because it depends on the production of the territories surrounding it. 

In the past, the exchanges between the city and its countryside took place on a relatively small geographical territory: production took place outside the walls for the consumption of those living inside. The agricultural revolutions linked to mechanization, improved transportation and globalization have radically and rapidly upset this balance: it is now commonplace in Brussels to eat tomatoes from Spain or beans from Kenya. The link between the city and its countryside has gradually dissipated, and seems to have almost disappeared in the consciousness. But the globalized outsourcing of agriculture faces certain realities. The depletion of oil resources now makes it obvious that the globalized system in which we are evolving today is not sustainable. However, it is not the future « lack » of oil that makes our development model unsustainable, but its indispensability and the evils it generates (wars, pollution, conflicts, destruction of nature, inequalities, …): should we wait for the last drop of the precious liquid? As a former minister told OPEC⁽¹⁾According to Sheikh Yamani,  » the stone age did not end because of a shortage of stones « , it is imperative to evolve our system before the oil runs out. Imposing a radically new societal system and putting it in place overnight is however hardly possible, the real possibility of change remains the continuous and progressive evolution towards an ideal model. 

Although it may seem paradoxical, the initiatives that will allow this type of evolution will be those that have common points with the current model, and will therefore be able to exist within it by integrating into the current economic codes. This will allow them to reach and convince a larger part of the population. In order for this type of initiative not to remain marginal and only carried by motivated Gallic diehards, it is necessary today to encourage and privilege initiatives that allow for the reconciliation of aspirations and behaviors with the current economic constraints of globalization: developing a local currency in parallel to the global currency, developing Repair Cafés so that people get into the habit of going to repair their broken objects… or as presented in this article, developing professional urban agriculture in parallel to collective vegetable gardens. 

uRBan aGRiCultuRe as a model of suRviE over there… 

The idea of developing food production in the city has recently emerged within many alternative movements such as the « transition towns », urban utopias, degrowth… but has interesting historical antecedents. The idea is not new: where food insecurity is a real problem for a population, this solution has sometimes developed by itself. Thus, in Cuba, agriculture was mainly oriented towards monoculture for export, the use of fertilizers and pesticides, and massive mechanization. But following the collapse of the Soviet bloc and the embargo imposed by the USA, the island suffered a drastic drop in trade and oil supply. Knowing that Cuba has a little more than 11 million inhabitants, of which more than half live in cities⁽²⁾The challenge then was to produce food quickly without external resources. Every available piece of land was converted into productive plots (community gardens), agronomists taught permaculture principles to residents, and intensive urban farms were created. This movement, initially a citizen’s movement, was very quickly strongly supported and developed by the government. Currently, citizen urban agriculture allows the production of 50% of the fresh fruits and vegetables of Havana (2.2 million inhabitants), and almost 80% in the smallest cities⁽³⁾.

As a result, Cuba has become a reference in urban agriculture and now sends specialized agronomists to many South American countries to teach good practices, such as Venezuela, where agriculture is very little developed in the countryside due to the topography and climate. Since 2003, some 20 agricultural cooperatives and more than 4,000 urban vegetable gardens have been established in the city of Caracas. Their goal is to reduce both urban poverty and dependence on food imports. 

Elsewhere, other initiatives are emerging. This is the case in Nairobi, where the slums are becoming increasingly dense, leaving almost no room for undeveloped plots. In 2007, on the initiative of the NGO Solidarités Internationales, gardens « in bags » flourished in four large slums. Since then, they have fed 225,000 people while allowing farming families to limit their dependence on volatile food market prices. Sometimes production even provides additional income for the poorest families⁽⁴⁾.

Thus, when food insecurity is a real problem, urban agriculture spontaneously appears as a viable and sustainable solution at the family or neighborhood level. It is however paradoxical to see these urban areas born on the decay of the peasantry and on the ruins of the agricultural society, looking for solutions…in agriculture. 

… aCtivity aCCEssoRE iCi 

In the West, where access to food is no longer a problem for the majority, we notice that real food production in the city is done for pleasure and privately: collective vegetable gardens, balcony gardeners… in general, the philosophy of an « intramural » culture is taking a greater place in thinking and practices. But the possibility of producing food in the city has also crossed the minds of many scientists and architects, who fantasize about future urban farms in gigantic towers, high-density vertical crops, hydro- or aeroponics⁽⁵⁾The nutrient supply is automatically managed according to the biochemical needs of the cultivated species. It is possible to develop an intermediate solution that would be inspired by scientific utopias, while limiting the costs, but also small projects on a human scale, interesting and consistent with our ecosystems and human beings, but dependent on the will of a population that is not — at present — in a situation of shortage. 

It would certainly be judicious and useful to privilege the development of an agriculture that would recover the unused surfaces of the city, and that would be coupled with an « agricultural urbanism »: the production would be done on the roofs, facades, wastelands, etc. by professionals, in parallel to the development of a more global urban food system, and its inscription in the urban planning processes. The idea is to grow and harvest fresh food in the city, but also to process it (sauces, jams, oils, drinks…), package it (fresh, canned, spices…), distribute it (supermarkets, grocery stores, restaurants, caterers, buying groups…), store it, sell it, and manage the waste produced (composting to be used as a fertilizer afterwards). The upstream links of the agri-food industry, such as the manufacture of equipment and inputs (organic fertilizers, potting soil, growing trays, etc.), and the production of seeds, could also be included in these discussions. 

There are projects in the world that are in line with this approach: the Lufa Farm is installed under a greenhouse on a roof in Montreal and sells its production via the equivalent of our GASAPs; a 2,000 m² greenhouse has been installed on the roof of a fresh produce store, the « Vinegar Factory », which has become a real institution in Manhattan; The Tenth Acre Farm in Brooklyn reclaimed old basketball courts that had fallen into disuse (400 m²) and produces 7 tons of fresh vegetables per year; the Brooklyn Grange is the largest suspended urban farm in the world (3700 m²) and sells its produce to restaurants, caterers and grocers in the area. 

In Brussels, the hypothesis of cultivating in the city seems realistic from a quantitative point of view: the simple cultivation of urban wastelands ( ̃1200 ha) would already allow the production of 30% of the vegetable needs of the Brussels inhabitants⁽⁶⁾. To this surface are added the horizontal surfaces in height, and the vertical surfaces. Punctual projects are gradually emerging, such as Klorofil’s geodesic domes on the former Bellevue brewery, OKNO’s collective rooftop vegetable garden, and the geotextile bag agricultural production project led by the « Bean Start » (Potage-toit) on the roof of the KBR. 

advantages and disadvantages of cultivating unused bathing surfaces 

No city has yet decided to really promote this type of project, or to encourage architecture that generates surfaces that can accommodate them. However, it would be in their interest to do so, because in addition to the local production of fresh vegetables, urban agriculture, whether on the ground or on the roof, has many advantages. Some are not quantifiable, such as landscape quality, the living environment, the perception of the natural cyclical rhythm, the aesthetics of buildings and public spaces, the diversification of urban odors, the change in mentalities (eating locally, in season, managing organic waste…), the link between city dwellers and the work of farmers, the educational aspect… Others, however, are « scientifically proven »: the reduction of CO2 levels, the stabilization of dust, the thermal and acoustic insulation of buildings, the balancing of temperature and humidity, the retention of rainwater, the preservation of biodiversity and the development of an ecological network, the profitability of useless spaces, the increase in food security, etc. 

The disadvantages of this kind of system are mainly the competition with renewable energies (mainly solar panels), the probable increase of the number of insects in the city, and the pollution. In this regard, it is true that the pollution of the urban environment can harm crops, but we must not forget that the land and water in the countryside are also polluted and do not necessarily guarantee healthier food than in the city. On the other hand, access to previously unused areas may be an inconvenience to local residents, through the opening up of views into private spaces: farmers working on the roofs will have a view of all the surrounding windows, block interiors, etc. that are currently not visible to anyone. 

On the other hand, if it continues to develop, urban agriculture will come up against a number of obstacles, mainly related to technology, legislation, and economics: access and management of surfaces, water and electricity supply, storage of production and material, bearing capacity of buildings, necessary equipment, permits for implantation, economic profitability, competitiveness compared to standard products… 

There is still a lot of thinking to be done at different levels, but urban agriculture is making its way around the world. It is important to remember that urban agriculture and the recovery of unused surfaces is not THE solution, but one of the initiatives that prepares our society for a soft transition. Many movements will have to coexist to best meet urban needs. In the West, voluntary urban agriculture promotes social contacts and citizen participation and, in developing countries, family self-sufficiency and new sources of income. Also, the productions are very different according to the environment (urban-rural) and the heights (ground-roof), since the breeding, the market garden products and the cereal crop do not have the same constraints… 

Finally, not all types of agriculture must be held to the same sustainability objectives, nutritional properties or taste. However, it is important that they have the same opportunities for disclosure, access to research, shelf space, innovation and space. Rebalancing agriculture implies working on the image and on the institutional framework: only consumers who are transparently informed about the conditions of production are able to make coherent choices. And only political leaders who are aware of the diversity of existing and possible agrarian systems will be open enough to favor a plurality of agricultures while respecting sustainability and environmental criteria. 

Melanie Vesters