Urban and Peri-Urban in North America:

Opportunities for the Dutch Agricultural Sector

Internship Research Assignment Rosanne Wielemaker Dec. 2014 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Internship Research Assignment: Agriculture Department

This internship report was submitted in partial fulfillment of a Master’s degree in Urban Environmental Management at Wageningen University and Research Center

Title

Urban and Peri- in North America: Opportunities for the Dutch Agricultural Sector

Supervisors

Ton Akkerman, Agricultural Counselor, the Netherlands Embassy, Washington D.C.

Caroline Feitel, Agricultural Trade Officer, the Netherlands Embassy, Washington D.C.

Dr. Katerzyna Kujawa Roeleveld, Sub-department of Environmental Technology, Wageningen University

2 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Executive Summary

This paper delves into the development of and trends in urban agriculture in the United States and Canada. In the last couple decades, urban agriculture has gained momentum across cities, and it is no longer just a grassroots endeavor led by activists. Various stakeholders are interested in implementing urban agriculture in North American cities.

The popularity of urban agriculture is attributed to several factors, including health and nutrition, food security and transparency, education, urban sustainability, and the growing demand for local food. The beauty of urban agriculture is that it has benefits across social, environmental and economic realms; meaning that it can contribute to community empowerment, urban greening and job creation, for example, simultaneously. There is no doubt that growing food in and around the city is gaining popularity at the ground level, on rooftops, in greenhouses and inside buildings at varying degrees of capital, technology, community involvement, and organizational structure.

However, this vast inclusion of the definition of urban agriculture is also a barrier, making it difficult to quantify its impact and define its business model. In addition, barriers of political support, zoning laws, start-up costs, security of land tenure, and appropriate distribution systems also pose challenging for urban agriculture to thrive in the city and compete with other land uses. Nonetheless, governments, entrepreneurs, non-profits, venture capitalists, researchers, etc. are working on dissolving these barriers to make way for local food production.

As urban agriculture continues to sprout in North America, there exists a market for agricultural systems. The goal of this research is to determine what the market demand from urban agriculture is and what technologies and expertise the Netherlands can offer to satisfy this demand. This paper concludes that the Netherlands can best play a role in the high-tech urban agriculture realm supplying controlled environment growing systems and/or systems that facilitate urban sustainability in combination with urban agriculture.

3 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Thank you

Department of Agriculture: Ton Akkerman Caroline Feitel Maureen Sondag

Philadelphia: Adrian Galbrath-Paul, Heritage Farm Alex Jones, Fair Food Aviva Asher, Mill Creek Farm Mary Seton Corboy, Greensgrow Farms Susan Wu, Major’s Office of Sustainability Ty Holmberg, Bartram’s Gardens

New York: Anna Ellis, Battery Urban Farm Carolyn Dimitri, NYU Urban Farm Lab Josie Connell, Battery Urban Farm Manuela Zamora, New York Sun Works Mara Gittelman, Farming Concrete Marcel van Ooyen, Grow NYC Robyn Lee Smith, Brooklyn Grange Zach Pickens, Riverpark Farm

Boston: Caleb Harper, MIT Media Lab Courtney Hennessey, Higher Ground Farm Daan Archer, MIT Media Lab Elias Kolsun, Bloombrick Urban Agriculture Beth Jameson, The Food Project

Toronto: Angela Murphy, Ryerson University Fiona Yuedall, Ryerson University Joe Nasr, Ryerson University Justin Nadeau, FoodShare & Arlene Throness, Rye’s HomeGrown Pablo Alvarez, Aqua Greens Craig Petten, Aqua Greens

Other: Gus van der Felts, Philips Blake Lange, Philips Jeff Warshauwer, Nexus Debra Perry, Institute for Sustainable Communities Pieter Van Velden, Agro AdviesBuro

4 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Table of Contents

I Introduction...... 9 II Objectives...... 10 III Research Questions ...... 10 IV Research Methodology ...... 11 V Deliverables ...... 11 VI Local Food Movement ...... 12 Definition...... 12 What is local?...... 12 Related Terms...... 13 Driving forces ...... 14 Sustainability and Stewardship...... 14 Food Safety, Health and Nutrition...... 14 Food Security...... 15 Community Empowerment/Community Involvement...... 15 Protect Local Farms and Biodiversity...... 15 Support Local Economies ...... 15 Climate adaptation ...... 15 Economic instability and decline ...... 15 Local Food: Fact or Fad? ...... 15 VII Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture ...... 16 Definition...... 16 Types of Urban Agriculture...... 17 Ground-based vs. rooftop vs. controlled environment agriculture (CEA) vs. indoor ...... 17 High tech vs. low tech...... 19 Non-profit (social) vs. for profit (commercial)...... 19 Financial Model ...... 19 Urban Agriculture and Transition Theory ...... 20 Well-known Urban Agriculture Initiatives Worldwide...... 21 VIIIAgriculture in the Netherlands ...... 22 Top Sector Agri & Food Facts and Figures...... 22 IX Urban Agriculture the Netherlands ...... 22 Municipalities that have joined the Stedennetwerk ...... 23 Education and Research...... 23 Initiatives ...... 24 Den Bosch ...... 24

5 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Amsterdam ...... 24 Dordrecht ...... 25 Den Haag ...... 25 Rotterdam ...... 25 Relevant Businesses (Involved) in Urban Agriculture...... 27 X Urban Agriculture in North America...... 28 Structure and size ...... 29 National Policies and Regulations...... 29 Grown and Animals Raised ...... 30 Current developments ...... 30 Case Studies:...... 32 Philadelphia ...... 32 New York City ...... 35 Boston...... 39 Toronto ...... 41 Driving Forces and Trends...... 45 Food security ...... 45 Interest in community and environmental health ...... 45 Interest from local governments...... 45 Shifts in local food business ownership...... 45 Innovations across the local food sector...... 46 Commercial urban agriculture...... 46 Measuring and quantifying the benefits of UA ...... 46 Closed cycle design and urban sustainability...... 46 Risk, Barriers and Challenges...... 46 Not a “one size fits all” model...... 46 Little research on UA ...... 47 Securing Land Tenure...... 47 Lack of technical skills ...... 47 health and access to good soil...... 48 Start-up and operating costs...... 48 Insufficient income generation...... 48 Utilities and Structures and Zoning ...... 48 Policy support ...... 48 Transportation and distribution systems...... 49 XI Comparison of Urban Agriculture in the Netherlands and North America ...... 49 XII Opportunities for the Dutch Agriculture Sector in North America ...... 50

6 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Technologies Currently Used ...... 50 Dutch Technologies in North American UA...... 50 Opportunities from Dutch Agricultural Sector...... 51 Agricultural Sustainability...... 51 Urban Sustainability ...... 52 Distribution Logistics ...... 53 Control and Management ...... 53 Information and data collection ...... 53 Loans ...... 53 XIIIEvents in Urban Agriculture and Relevant Organizations...... 54 Events ...... 54 Organizations...... 54 XIV Discussion ...... 55 Hype vs. no hype?...... 55 Urban Agriculture for the Production of Food ...... 55 Conclusions ...... 56 Status Quo ...... 56 Successes...... 57 Barriers ...... 57 Opportunities...... 57 XV References...... 59

7 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

List of abbreviations

UA Urban Agriculture

NFT Film Technique

RAS Recirculating Aquaculture System

AWE Aquaculture-Wetland Ecosystem

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

CSA Community Supported Agriculture

FAO The Food and Agriculture Organization

CEA Controlled Environment Agriculture

8 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

I. Introduction More than half of the world’s population currently resides in cities, with an expected 70% living in cities by 2050 (WHO, 2014; United Nations, 2013). As cities grow, they expand their dependency on regional and global hinterlands for the supply of resources and disposal of wastes, contributing to a host of environmental issues. Water and resource scarcity, declining biodiversity, deforestation, extreme weather events and the accumulation of pollution in air, water and land are a few of these issues (Brunner, 2007; Girardet 2004; Grimm 2008). Food security and agricultural sustainability are being challenged by increasing global population and a continued shift in demographics to urban areas, as well as the conventional agricultural system that focuses on mass production and efficiency. With the majority of environmental problems stemming from cities, cities are rapidly becoming the “battleground for sustainability” (Bai, 2007; Clark 2003).

One of the hippest and hottest battles currently taking place in cities is the local food movement, which has Urban Agriculture risen in response to the conventional food system and its - “…an industry located within (intra- associated social, environmental and economic concerns. urban) or on the fringe (peri-urban) The local food movement engages consumers and of a town, an urban centre, a city or producers that are dedicated to minimizing the distance metropolis,…” between production and consumption, thereby increasing - “…which grows or raises, processes food quality and freshness, supporting a local economy, and distributes a diversity of food and increasing transparency in the food chain. Urban and non-food products…” agriculture (UA), the local production of food within “intra-urban” and “peri-urban areas”, plays a key role in - “…reusing mainly human and the local food movement and contributes to urban vitality material resources, products and and development. In addition UA fosters education, services found in and around that employment, place-making, community building and/or urban area…” closing organic resource cycles (Mougeot, 2000; Smit et al., 2001). UA assimilates a wide variety of activities, - “…and in turn supplying human locations, scales, purposes and engagement (e.g. and material resources, products community gardens, roof-top farming, commercial and services largely to that urban farming and animal husbandry) which is why it has been area (Mougeot 1999)." adopted by many in an array of high tech and low tech configurations.

UA, “an activity that never disappeared in the hungry cities of the global south and one which is re- appearing in the more sustainable cities of the global north”, has sparked the interest of companies and municipalities to jump on the local food movement bandwagon and invest in the urban production of food (Morgan 2014; Mougeot 2006). Cities in North America exemplify precisely this trend – “the American experiment in urban agriculture” – as urban and peri-urban farms and markets are implemented in cities across the United States and Canada by both small and large stakeholders. However, reintegrating UA into existing cities of the global north brings new challenges as well as new opportunities, perhaps opportunities for the Dutch agriculture and food sector to jump in.

The Dutch agriculture and food sector is one of the strongest of its kind in the world. Its expertise and technology in greenhouse growing and technology, energy efficiency, water use optimization, biological control and sustainable food production, compliments the developments in urban agriculture in North America. The question is, however, what are the most opportune entries for the Dutch agricultural sector into the North American local food movement and UA market?

The following report aims to answer this question by first providing an overview of the local food movement and urban agriculture in North America including the trends, driving forces and challenges

9 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department behind the movements; and second by shedding light on the opportunities and barriers for the Netherlands to step in. This report aims to offer Dutch companies with a reference point when looking to invest in this sector.

II. Objectives 1. Analyze and understand the development of UA in North America, broadly, while focus on specific initiatives and developments in larger American cities, as well as initiatives around those cities. 2. Evaluate the opportunities to introduce knowledge, technology and products relevant for sustainable UA production into the American market, and vice versa.

III. Research Questions 1. How has the local food movement developed over the past few years? What are the driving forces behind this movement?

2. How are UA practices defined in North America and in the Netherlands? a. What is the definition of UA in North America? b. How does this compare to the definition and concept of UA and urban-oriented agriculture in the Figure 1 Heirloom tomatoes at the Dupont Circle Netherlands? Farmer’s Market, Washington D.C.

3. What is the structure and size of UA in the North America and which developments are currently being undertaken in this sector? Which large cities are representative of, and profile themselves by, the UA developments in their city? In what way? a. What is the national policy on UA? How is it organized? b. Which cities and regions of North America are at the leaders in UA and the local food movement? What are the differences and similarities? What and who are the driving forces behind these developments? c. Which crops are grown or husbandry is practiced in and around cities and what is the scale of production?

4. What is the potential of introducing Dutch knowledge, technologies and products relevant to UA in North America; North American knowledge, technologies and products to UA in the Netherlands? a. Which Dutch products are already used and which Dutch companies are already involved in UA initiatives in North America? b. Which sectors within the UA industry are interesting for the Dutch supply sector? Which Dutch technologies would thrive on the American market? Why? c. What is necessary to introduce these technologies?

10 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

5. Are there organizations, events, conferences or other useful contacts and networking opportunities that would be useful to Dutch companies to promote their product to the North American UA market?

IV.Research Methodology 1. Literature review: Desk research to understand the UA movement/industry in North America 2. Interviews: Telephone and in person 3. Site visits: Visit relevant UA initiatives and companies that offer insight in the demand from UA for Dutch technology and expertise. 4. Business Model Canvas: Generate an overview of each visited initiative using the Business Model Canvas, a strategic management tool to describe businesses. Refer to Appendix A for an example and explanation.

Literature Review

RQ1 RQ2 RQ3 RQ4 RQ4 Local Food Urban UA in North Dutch Tech. Networking Movement Agriculture America and Expertise Opportunities

Identify Identify Identify cities Identify tech Identify driving forces typologies active in UA and expertise events and and trends organizations

Identify market opportunities

Conclusions, Recommendations

Research question

Methodology

Figure 2 Flow chart of methodology including research questions

V. Deliverables 1. Full report answering questions above 2. Presentation to the Economic Affairs Department at the Embassy of the Netherlands

11 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

VI.Local Food Movement

Definition The local food movement concerns itself with adopting a local food system, a method of food production, distribution and consumption that is geographically localized. The local food movement has risen in resistance to the conventional globalizing food system which usually relies on and includes extensive distribution networks, adding to the number of food miles1. This results in an urban population that is physically, but also psychologically removed from food, one of the most essential resources for human existence; “virtually no connection exists between the average person and their food” (Martucci, 2013). The local food movement is a counter-pressure to this system, advocating a need for reform because the high social, environmental, public health, animal welfare and gastronomic costs of the current system are too high. By bringing the production and consumption of food in closer proximity, the local food movement, or rather the “locavores2”, hope to tackle issues of food security, and social, economic and ecological sustainability (GRACE Communications Foundation, 2014). However, “local Figure 3 WWI advice from the U.S. Food Administration (Cooper, F.G., food” and “sustainable food” do not necessarily mean the same 1917) thing.

What is local? “Local food” does not currently have a universally agreed-upon definition, except that it means that the food was produced relatively close to where it is sold. However, the geographic distance of what “local” means is arbitrary and is left up to the marketers and consumers to decide. In the United States, to some it means “made or produced within a 100 mile radius” to some, while to others it means “made or produced in the state” (GRACE Communications Foundation, 2014). In 2008, congress passed a bill with two definitions: local produce was either produced within the state where it is consumed, or transported no more than 400 miles from producer to consumer (Martucci, 2014). In the Netherlands, this definition varies as well. With the country stretching 194 mi N-S and 164 mi E- W, the 100 mile radius is easily achieved and could as well include all food products “made or produced in the country”.

Since the term is not regulated and does not need to adhere to any standards, local does not provide any certain indication of the food quality (e.g. freshness, nutritional value, production practices). Local could include factory-farmed chicken or mass-produced corn. In addition, taking advantage of the ambiguity of the term’s definitions and in order to capitalize on the increased demand for local food, some producers use the term local to “greenwash” their products, while supermarkets ride on the local bandwagon as well (GRACE Communications Foundation, 2014).

1 Food miles are the miles that food products travel between producer and consumer. To cover the distance, fossil fuel is most commonly used, which results in CO2 emissions. These emissions contribute to the greenhouse gas (GHG) effect. On average food currently travels between 1500-3000 miles from producer to consumer, and requires additional refrigeration and packaging. (GRACE Communications Foundation, 2014). 2 Locavore refers to someone who advocates a local food system (by eating local food).

12 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

To offset the ambiguity and advocate a pure definition of local, there are now followers of the hyper- local movement. Hyper-local is about growing your own food. This means chefs and restaurants are growing and raising their own ingredients and families are growing food in backyards or at community gardens. The local and hyper-local food movements are about regaining security and confidence in our food (Frohne, 2012).

Related Terms

Direct-to-consumer The direct sale of farm products from farmer to the consumer, for example, via farmer’s markets.

Food hub “A business or organization that actively manages the aggregation, distribution, and marketing of source- identified food products primarily from local and regional producers to strengthen their ability to satisfy wholesale, retail, and institutional demand” (Barham, J., 2012)

Food system “The chain of activities including food production, processing, distribution, consumption, and waste management, as well as the associated regulatory institutions and activities” (Pothukuchi, 2000)

Foodshed “The geographical area between where food is produced and where that food is consumed” (similar to that of a watershed – flowing from origin to destination) (Hahn, K., 2013)

Hyper-Local Growing your own food to advocate a food to table supply chain.

Localism Ideology for supporting local endeavors and keeping money within the local economy.

Locavore A person who consumes (only) local food and dedicatedly supports the local food movement

Metropolitan food clusters High-tech agriculture in the peri-urban areas surrounding the city in combination with small and medium sized businesses in the processing, packaging and resource management sectors (Didde, R., 2012)

Short food supply chains Short food supply chains involve few intermediaries from production to consumption (European Commission, 2014).

13 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Slow food movement The slow food movement is a global movement that strives to secure good, clean and fair food for everyone. Those that follow the movement believe that through food choices, the cultivation, production and distribution of food can be improved (Slow Food, 2014).

Sustainable food system A sustainable food system promotes environmental, social and economic health; it is health promoting, resilient, transparent, fair, economically balanced, and diverse (APA, 2014).

Terroir Usually attributed to wine, terroir is the “taste of place”. It is the taste of the complete natural environment, such as soil, climate, and typography that the food embodies.

Urban agriculture “refer[s] to growing and raising food crops and animals in an urban setting for the purpose

of feeding local populations” (Goldstein, M., et al)

Urban food system A food system oriented towards or acting primarily within the urban environment

Driving forces The local food movement is driven by various forces as described below. The overarching force behind the local food movement is increasing trust amongst consumers in the food system through increasing transparency on and improving the ecological, social and economic aspects behind food production and supply chains.

Sustainability and Stewardship The local food movement attempts to ameliorate the negative impacts of the industrial food system by implementing sustainable farming practices, The critique lie upon the industrial system’s contribution to air, water and land pollution, dependence on and use of fossil fuels, impact on biodiversity and use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, among others. In addition, the industrial food system also affects the health and livelihood of the farm workers, especially considering the (often) low wages. The local food system aims towards sustainable practices of integrated control, minimized use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and minimized transport (GRACE Communications Foundation, 2014). Individuals involved with the local food movement often aim to increase their ecological and social stewardship through alternative, sustainable food practices.

Food Safety, Health and Nutrition The expansive and extensive conventional food system also increases the risk of foodborne illness, and makes these harder to trace back. While food safety measures are necessary at all production scales, even in a localized food system, the local food system hopes to increase food safety by removing excessive nodes in the production chains and making these more transparent (GRACE Communications Foundation, 2014). Health and nutrition have also played a large role in the local food movement as individuals are turning to increased quality and freshness in their food. In addition,

14 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department the consumption of and vegetables will also increase as disposable income rises (Kruchkin, 2014).

Food Security Food security is defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations as “Food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life” (FAO, 2008). Local food systems increase local food security by providing local, fresh food and food products to a population that otherwise has limited access to these products (GRACE Communications Foundation, 2014).

Community Empowerment/Community Involvement “People want to be part of something bigger than themselves, it’s like an intrinsic human need to like be working with other people and be meeting other people and be in community with other people and be outside and be touching the earth… that’s what this space that we’ve created is able to do” (Hereth, 2011).

Protect Local Farms and Biodiversity The industrial food system has also led to the consolidation of farm land and their conversion to monoculture (single ) farms. These products are sold on a global market for low whole sale prices, with which small-farm owners cannot compete. However, a local food system provides small-farm owners with a viable outlet through which to sell their farm products (GRACE Communications Foundation, 2014).

In addition, smaller farms more commonly grow a variety of crops (polyculture), preserving the biodiversity on the farm and surrounding the farm (different attract different insects and animals). These farms are also known for cultivating “forgotten varieties” that are no longer grown in the conventional food system, such as Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus). Conserving small farms keeps green areas within communities as well, even within urban areas.

Support Local Economies Supporting local food systems supports local economies; supporting local farmers, food producers and farmer’s markets keeps money within the local economy. Not only does this maintain the viability of the small farms and businesses, but it also increases local job opportunities (GRACE Communications Foundation, 2014).

Climate adaptation With climate change issues gaining attention on national and international agendas, agricultural practices are also subject to scrutiny in their contribution to climate change (i.e. greenhouse gas emissions, long supply chains and transport). In addition, climate change can have drastic impacts on the current agricultural system as well. Local food systems, urban agriculture initiatives and alternative agricultural practices are regarded as strategies to mitigate climate change.

Economic instability and decline Economic instability and decline has led to unemployment and food insecurity, as well as increased vacant land waiting for the economy to recovery and development to resume. Growing food in back yards and in vacant lots is often a more affordable way of food provisioning. Local farms and short supply food chains can increase local economic activity and provide jobs.

Local Food: Fact or Fad? The interest in local food has risen tremendously in the last decade, but the question remains, is the demand for local food and the interest in locally-source products here to stay or is it hype, a fad, that

15 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department will blow over when the next best thing arises. While the majority of the population in North America does not source its food locally, many are convinced that the demand for sustainably-grown food is here to stay and will continue to increase. Currently, local food is equated with social, environmental and economic responsibility and sustainability, and therefore is popular amongst the health and environmentally conscious citizens. Mary Seton Corboy from Greensgrow Farms in Philadelphia comments, local food is “here to stay, not the current overly elevated American food fad, but there will continue to be a demand for locally-sourced fresh food” (Seton-Corboy, 2014).

VII. Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture

Definition UA is an industry that includes the production, processing and marketing of food on private or public land throughout “intra-urban” and “peri-urban” areas in response to the daily demand of consumers within the built environment (Smit et al., 2001). UA is not a new phenomenon, urban dwellers have been farming in and around cities since their existence. In fact, as Carolyn Steel describes in her Book, Hungry City: How Food Shaped Our Lives, cities were planned around the growing, raising and trading of food; Bakkerstraat and Kalverstraat in Amsterdam were not named “baker street” and “calf street” for nothing (Steel, 2010). However, UA has been revived in the last decade to assimilate a wide variety of activities, locations, scales, purposes and engagement. Exemplary of this variety, UA can include: community gardens, green roofs, vegetable gardens, window farming, , , and animal husbandry, among others.

The practice usually involves intensive gardening methods that yield a diverse selection of flora and fauna, however what is most significant, is that UA is integrated in the local urban economic, social and ecological systems (Mougeot, 2000). Providing urban green and local fresh food, jobs, and educational and recreational activities, the industry has been proposed as a solution to land use change, unemployment, food insecurity, as well as individual and community health, transparency and food authenticity, among others (Smit et al., 2001). UA has also been identified as an auspicious element in closing biological resource cycles within the built environment, for example, by using

Potential economic, social and environmental benefits of urban agriculture

Economic Social Environmental -Local economic stimulation -Empowerment & mobilization -Biodiversity & urban green -Short supply chains -Development & education -Climate change mitigation -Reduced transport costs -Stewardship -Climate change adaptation -Employment -Food security -CO2 reduction -Food affordability -Community development -Food waste reduction &recycling -Ethnic entrepreneurship -Access to fresh, healthy food -Water, waste & energy cycles -Real estate property values -Physical activity & recreation -Storm water retention & green roofs -Develop technologies (adapted from van der Schans and Wiskerke, 2012)

rainwater for irrigation or biodegradable kitchen waste as compost (Bakker et al., 2000; Deelstra and Girardet, 2000; Drechsel and Kunze, 2001; Smit and Nasr, 1992; Green Deal Stadsgerichte Landbouw, 2013).

16 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

UA is gaining momentum across the globe. Currently 456 “Zo is er in ontwikkelde landen een million hectares – an area the size of the European Union – is trend naar kleinschaligheid en een under cultivation in and around urban centers worldwide. Most menselijke maat van stadslandbouw of these are peri-urban, although 67 million hectares are als tegenhanger van de vergaande located in urban centers (Arsenault, 2014). In the global south rationalisering en schaalgrootte van UA is practiced to increase food security and nutrition, and to de gangbare landbouw” (Green Deal provide additional income to an increasing urban poor. In the Stadsgerichte Landbouw, 2013). global north, however, the motivation behind UA stems from the general dissatisfaction with the conventional food system, and therefore is focused on community development, reconnecting producers and consumers, urban management, food safety and security, and establishing local economies (Green Deal Stadsgerichte Landbouw, 2013). Along with the increasing dissatisfaction and distrust in the conventional food system, urban agriculture has also become central to fostering metropolitan sustainability and creating “sustainable cities”. Here urban agriculture gains governmental support as part of a broader strategy.

For detailed definitions of terms related to urban agriculture refer to Appendix B.

Types of Urban Agriculture UA is diverse in practice, engaging a range of low-tech to high tech, social to commercial, production systems. The Resource Centre on UA & Food Security Foundation (RUAF) defines eight UA production systems (RUAF Foundation, 2008):

1. Micro-farming in and around the house 2. Community gardening 3. Institutional urban agriculture 4. Small-scale commercial 5. Small-scale commercial livestock and aquatic farming 6. Specialized urban agriculture and forestry production 7. Large-scale agro-enterprises 8. Multifunctional farms

Furthermore, there are a few dichotomies and categories that can further help define urban agriculture typologies:

Ground-based vs. rooftop vs. controlled environment agriculture (CEA) vs. indoor

Ground-based agriculture: Ground based agriculture involves growing edible plants at ground level in soil. This typology requires the use of healthy, uncontaminated soil for the cultivation of plants suitable for human consumption. Many production systems can engage in ground-based agriculture.

Rooftop Agriculture: Rooftop UA involves cultivating crops on the rooftops of urban buildings, usually flat roofs that are most suited in terms of infrastructure to carry additional weight. This typology can cultivate plants in soil or in a soil-like substrate. The benefit of this typology is similar to that of green roofs: building insulation, urban cooling effect, water retention, etc. Rooftops appropriate for urban farming depend on the height, structure and capacity to sustain weight. High rooftops are susceptible to strong winds and may be limited in the kinds of crop varieties.

Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA): Controlled environment UA includes the cultivation of crops via hydroponics systems or aquaponics systems (including fish) within greenhouses that require

17 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Raised Beds Ground-based School Gardens

Animal Husbandry Bee-keeping Mushroom farming

Rooftop-substrate Rooftop-Greenhouse CEA Indoor CEA

Vertical growing systems Vertical walls Vertical Farms

Figure 4 Types of urban agriculture (From left to right; top to bottom): Rooftop Grown, Toronto (Wielemaker, 2014); (Wielemaker, 2014); Farmyard LLC, Phoenix, AZ (Wielemaker, 2014); Philadelphia (Schwartz, 2014); Battery park, New York (Wielemaker, 2014); Green Recycled Organics, the Netherlands (GRO); Rye’s Homegrown, Toronto (Wielemaker, 2014); Gotham Greens, New York City (Wielemaker, 2014); Caliber Biotherapeutics, TX (Doucleff, 2013); (Pyramid Garden, 2014); (Web Ecoist, 2014); (Kaushik, 2013)

18 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department specific parameters for growing: heat, water, ventilation, sunlight, humidity, etc. Agriculture of this typology is independent of seasons and can theoretically be productive all year round.

Indoor Agriculture: Indoor agriculture is the cultivation of plants inside of buildings or containers without the use of sunlight but instead under LED lighting systems. These indoor farms also include controlled environment technologies to measure and adjust temperature, humidity, water and .

High tech vs. low tech

High tech: High tech agriculture is capital- that include advanced technological systems (i.e. LED lighting, temperature control, nutrient dosage).

Low tech: Low-tech agriculture is labor-intensive farming that relies on simpler farming systems.

Non-profit (social) vs. for profit (commercial)

Non-profit: Non-profit organizations in urban agriculture usually have a strong social purpose (i.e. education, youth empowerment) that use farming of crops as a vehicle to achieve their goals. Non- profit organizations usually receive more external funding and grants, however the administation and management is usually more complex.

For-profit: For profit urban agriculture, or commercial ventures, focus on the production of food primarily and the generation of revenue, however, even these ventures have social and environmental undertones in their mission statements.

Financial Model Unfortunately, despite the persistence of UA across decades and cities, there is “little research on the quantifiable economic benefits of UA in food sector terms, due in part of the informal nature of the work, and due to competing priorities” (Pansing et al., 2013). In addition, the lack of research may be due to the lack of capacity or inclination of those involved in UA initiatives; “they may not have the skills or capacity to fully identify and measure the financial or economic benefits of their work” (Pansing et al., 2013). Commercial urban farms that are perhaps measuring these benefits are relatively young and hesitant to share information during the experimental and challenging initial phases.

While UA is not a “one size fits all” model, making it difficult to determine what dictates its economic success, the various sizes and shapes that UA embodies is also a success factor. UA initiatives need to be creative and strategize how to increase revenues or cut costs. Van der Schans, urban agriculture guru in the Netherlands, defines three types of urban agriculture strategies to make them more attractive and financially successful: differentiation, diversification and cost reduction.

Differentiation: Urban farms set themselves apart from other farms (i.e. organic food, local, recycled wastes, community empowerment, and youth training). The initiative needs to promote a story.

Diversification: The urban farm is multi-functional and is not solely a farm but also a restaurant, hotel, or education center, etc.

Cost Reduction: To reduce costs, the urban farms work with volunteers, or establish fruitful partnerships to exchange goods. Farms can also accept organic waste for a fee, or generate heat for residential heating.

19 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

While urban agriculture initiatives usually generate revenue via multiple and diverse streams, grants and loans remain one of the main and/or most significant revenue streams for many. Non-profits are usually more reliant on grants and externals funds to support their underlying social and environmental goals, than for-profit initiatives, which more often receive funding via agricultural or urban sustainability plans or venture capitalist investors. Many farms also receive private donations from individuals and/or larger companies or foundations.

Many argue that investing in urban agriculture is more cost effective in the long run because it inherently addresses multiple urban health and environmental challenges simultaneously. It would be more benefitial if cities and planners were to regard urban agriculture as a systematic approach to these challenges, instead of focusing on the most cost effective solution to isolated problems, such as stormwater mitigation or neighborhood nutrition (Ackerman, 2011). Although perhaps more costly initially, it would provide more integrated solutions.

Urban Agriculture and Transition Theory Transitions and system changes in the sociotechnical regime (status quo) have been described using the multi-level perspective (MLP). This perspective can be used to understand the developments in urban agriculture. In MLP three levels are defined: niche innovations, sociotechnical regimes and sociotechnical landscape.

The niche innovations describe a micro-level where radical novelties emerge. These innovations are initially unstable and of low performance, carried out by dedicated actors. UA exists as a niche innovation. The sociotechnical regime, the “shared cognitive routines in an engineering community,” can be described as our current conventional food system. And the sociotechnical landscape is the exogenous environment that is beyond the scope of niche and regime actors. The landscape includes macroeconomics, cultural patterns, etc.. Changes occur in the regime when the 1) niche innovations build up internal momentum, 2) the regime is unstable and creates windows of opportunity, and 3) changes in the landscape creates pressure on the regime. “The alignment of these processes enables the breakthrough of novelties in mainstream markets” (Geels and Schot, 2007)

Urban agriculture still remains a niche innovation that in unison with landscape pressures at a macro scale can lead to changes within the regime. The question is, to what extent will niche innovations in urban agriculture become part of the mainstream food system, where local food is no longer for the few but part of the larger picture?

If urban agriculture takes the same path that organic food has, it will likely follow a transformation pathway. The transformative path includes moderate landscape pressure while niche innovations are not fully developed resulting in modifications in the direction of development and activities by the regime actors. As UA is pioneered by dedicated activists in niches, regime actors (especially supermarkets) are translating and picking up practices from UA and the local food movement, and thereby slowly changing the regime through cumulative adjustments and regime actors survive. Such symbiotic niche-innovations add to the regime and do not disrupt the basic architecture” (Geels and Schot, 2007).

While UA and local food may currently be taking the transformative pathway, where the basic regime rules remain unchanged, it can follow into the reconfiguration pathway where “the adopted novelties may lead to further adjustments as regime actors explore new combinations between old and new elements and learn more about the novelties” (Geels and Schot, 2007). Over time these small adjustments can add up to major reconfigurations in the basic architecture of the regime (different from transformation pathway). This pathway is especially relevant for systems such as agriculture, which function through the interplay of multiple technologies. Here the transition is not dependent on one technology but on the accumulation of innovations.

20 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Local food is slowly influencing the regime but the extent to which the regime will transition to include urban agriculture and a local food system is still uncertain. The two pathways described above seem the most likely in comparison to the more radical pathways (not described above). However, increased landscape pressures and regime instability could lead to more drastic transitions.

Well-known Urban Agriculture Initiatives Worldwide While there are thousands of urban farms worldwide, 456 million hectares to be exact, some farms are better known than others and have received a lot of media recognition (Arsenault, 2014).

Table 1 Well-known Urban Agriculture Initiatives Worldwide

Type and name Location Tags

Sky Greens Singapore Indoor farming

Prinzessinnengarten Berlin, DE Mobile milk-crate raised beds

Uit Je Eigen Stad Rotterdam, NL Aquaponics, ground-based, chickens,

DakAkker Rotterdam, NL Substrate, rooftop

Brooklyn Grange New York, NY, For profit, rooftop substrate, beekeeping, USA chickens, CSA

Lufa Farms Montreal, QC, For profit, rooftop, greenhouse, controlled USA environment, integrated pest control, , (NFT), CSA

Gotham Greens New York, NY, For profit, rooftop, greenhouse, controlled USA environment, nutrient film technique

City Farm Tokyo, JP rooftop

Toshiba Hydroponic Yokosuka, JP Indoor, high-tech, leafy greens, LED lighting Systems

Growing Power Milwaukee, IL, Non-profit, ground-based, empowerment, USA aquaponics, compost, youth, integrated agriculture systems, husbandry

Villa Augustus Dordrecht, NL Hotel, Restaurant, ground-based urban farm

Alamar Havana, Cuba Ground-based, organoponico, compost, onsite market, nursery

21 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

VIII. Agriculture in the Netherlands The Netherlands has a strong agriculture and Top Sector Agri & Food Facts and food sector, in fact, the Agri & Food sector is one 3 Figures of the nine Dutch top sectors . The Agri & Food sector includes primary production, the supply Agri & Food is the third largest top sector in terms industry and food manufacturing industry, as of production, totaling to 73 billion euro well as, auctions, trade, retail and out of home sector and national and international consumers. Agri & Food is responsible for 7% of the total Agri & Food sector is the third largest top sector innovation-generation in the Netherlands in terms of production and accounts for nearly The Agri & Food top sector employs 91,000 10% of the national income and employment in individuals the Netherlands (Topsectoren.nl, 2014). The export value (2011) from the Agri & Food top The horticulture sector therein contributes sector is 89.2 billion dollars (double the value in significantly to the Dutch economy as the export 2004) value of horticultural products currently totals to about 16 billion euros (Wageningen University et The global market share of the Agri & Food top al., 2014). The Dutch greenhouse horticultural sector amounted to 6.4% in 2011 sector, in particular, is a global leader in its field. (topsector.nl, 2014) This sector contributes to innovations in highly- controlled production. It is expected that the demand for such cultivation systems will increase globally to forego unexpected weather changes (Wageningen University et al., 2014).

IX.Urban Agriculture the Netherlands In the Netherlands, UA is hardly an instrument to merely provide fresh food to urban dwellers. The country’s strong agricultural sector, interspersed throughout the Dutch metropolitan landscape, already distributes fresh horticultural produce efficiently (van der Schans, 2010). “In the Randstad”, as UA guru, Jan Willem van der Schans, describes, “food security is not an issue. Even if trade lines stopped and the global food system reached a hiatus, people in the Netherlands would not fall dead, in fact, we’d drown in tomatoes” (van der Schans, 2012). So why, does a focused Figure 5 Commercial farm, Uit Je Eigen Stad, by the interest in UA prevail among many in the Marconistrip, Rotterdam (Wielemaker, 2012) Netherlands?

UA has gained popularity in the Netherlands due to a reorientation in the public perception of the role of farming as not only an activity beneficial for rural development, but also as an activity beneficial to urban development and health (van der Schans, 2010). UA fosters an attractive green urban landscape, sustainable urban development, educational and recreational areas for urban dwellers and

3 Top Sectors are defined as: knowledge-intensive, export-oriented and are an important asset to solving socio- economic issues worldwide.

22 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department the management of resources (AgriHolland B.V., 2013). In addition, there is a spiked interest among urban dwellers to reconnect with the production and origin of their food, as they have become estranged to it over the past century; transparency in the food chain has become increasingly important (AgriHolland, 2013).

Significant is the national interest to professionalize UA in the Netherlands and give it a secure place on the Municipalities that have joined urban agenda. A city network of committed the Stedennetwerk municipalities, Stedennetwerk Stadslandbouw, is also gaining ground as 24 municipalities have currently Alkmaar, Almere, Alphen aan den Rijn, Apeldorn, Arnhem, Breda, Capelle aan den signed up to the urban agriculture agenda. This network IJssel, Den Haag, Dordrecht, Ede, of municipalities aims to tackle barriers together, inspire Eindhoven, Geleen-Sittard, Groningen, one another and to guide policy-making concerning Haarlemmermeer, Leeuwarden, Maastricht, urban agriculture (Stedennetwerk Stadslandbouw, Nijmegen, Rotterdam, Steenwijkerland, 2013). The urban agriculture agenda outlines the Utrecht, Vlaardingen, Zeist, Zutphen, network’s 4 goals for implementing urban agriculture in Zwolle Dutch cities, and the actions that local municipalities can/will take to contribute to these goals. Municipalities are also identifying the possible locations where UA could be implemented; Utrecht, for example, as a map that indicates all existing UA initiatives as well as all the “possible locations” where UA can be implemented (temporarily).

A recent Green Deal Report titled: Stadsboeren in Nederland: Professionalisering van de stadsgerichte landbouw (2013) (translated to: Urban Farmers in the Netherlands: The Professionalization of City- Oriented Agriculture) discusses the increase in UA initiatives in the country and identifies three central themes that need to be addressed in order to advance the professionalization of UA: 1) spatial quality, 2) income and investment opportunities, and 3) closing resource cycles and sustainability. The report investigates these themes across 12 existing or blueprint UA initiatives (Green Deal Stadsgerichte Landbouw, 2013).

In addition, urban agriculture expertise and experience are exchanged at the Dag van de Stadslandbouw (Urban Agriculture Day), which is held yearly in a different city each year; in 2012 it was held in Almere, 2013 in Rotterdam and 2014 in Utrecht. The event is attended by a diverse group of professionals, ranging from politicians to community gardeners to academics and to rooftop farm engineers.

Some regard urban agriculture as a playground for innovations in the greater food system. Large companies such as Unilever, for example, can look towards UA for ideas and to identify trends among consumption patterns and preference (van der Schans, 2012). UA also leads to innovative urban development, especially as cities are de-industrializing and vacant land and stagnating construction plans leave rooms for urban farms (AgriHolland B.V., 2013).

Education and Research

Wageningen UR Wageningen University en Research Centre (WUR) is also conducting research on urban agriculture across faculties; Land Use Planning, Rural Sociology, Environmental Technology, Environmental Policy and Sciences are all working on urban agriculture to research field-specific matters. Some of the most well-known researchers in this field at Wageningen include:

-dr. Jan Willem van der Schans, Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI)

-prof.dr.ir. Han Wiskerke, Rural Sociology

23 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

-prof.dr. Arnold van der Valk, Land Use Planning

-ir. Jan Eelco Jansma, Arable Farming, Multifunctional Agriculture and Field Production of Vegetables

Resource Centres on Urban Agriculture & Food Security (RUAF) RUAF is a global network and leading center of expertise in Urban Agriculture and City Region Food Strategies. RUAF is a non-for-profit organization that works with member organizations in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, Latin America and Europe. The organization has its legal status in the Netherlands however works at a global scale in the development of sustainable cities and resilient and equitable urban food systems through awareness raising, education and dissemination, skill training, policy design and action planning (RUAF).

Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Studies (AMS) AMS is an Amsterdam-based, public- private institute made up of a consortium of partners. AMS is dedicated to finding solutions to metropolitan challenges through education and research in water, energy, waste, food, data and mobility, as well as establishing partnerships between organizations and companies in these fields. Amsterdam will serve as a living lab to test innovations and research (Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions, 2014).

Warmonderhof Warmonderhof is a center for bio-dynamic agriculture education for students who seek vocational training in this field. The students work, learn and live at the site receiving theoretical and practical training.

Youth Food Movement The Youth Food Movement (YFM) is a global network that convenes consumers, chefs, farmers, producers, students and policy makers to work towards a sustainable (good, clean and fair) food system. The YFM in the Netherlands is very active.

Initiatives The urban agriculture initiatives up in the Netherlands range from volunteer community gardens to commercial farming. In the 24 municipalities that have joined the Stedennetwerk, urban agriculture has already received recognition; however, other municipalities in the Netherlands are also harvesting the fruits of their labor, such as Amsterdam. In addition to the UA initiatives, there are also myriad platforms and communities established that support the development and implementation of UA through the country, such as Eetbaar Rotterdam and Stichting Lekker Utregs. Currently, Rotterdam is hailed as the forerunner in urban agriculture.

Den Bosch PlantLab Plant Lab is based in Den Bosch and specializes in the development of “Radical New Plant Logic,” or recipes for the ideal inputs and outputs for optimal plant growth. They have come up with crop growing formulas for nutrient, temperature, light and water dosages and without the use of pesticides and use of excess fertilizers and water. They are a research center focused on developing the most ideal indoor farming models (PlantLab)

Amsterdam Restaurant De Kas De Kas is a restaurant inside of a greenhouse. Surrounding the greenhouse are vegetable and herb gardens from which much of the kitchen sources its greens for the dishes. The idea is to provide transparency and support the farm-to-fork ideal

24 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

(De Kas).

GrownDownTown GrownDownTown is a concept intended to be realized in Amsterdam that offers a local solution to global food demand by integrating conventional agriculture techniques, closed-cycle designs and high-tech innovations in the field of horticulture (e.g. LED lights, hydroponics). In addition the concept hopes to foster social cohesion, increase urban green space, and stimulate a local economy. This concept imagines a professional, commercial urban agriculture initiative established through a partnership between various stakeholders (e.g. greenhouse technology, lighting, etc). Currently, GrownDownTown has worked on smaller projects promoting urban agriculture and sustainable food production (GrownDownTown).

Mini-Rondeel Rondeel, or Roundel, is a housing system for laying hens that takes into account animal welfare and the environment. The design lets the chickens “indulge in their natural behavior” and includes laying nests, dust bathing areas, etc. (Rondeel B.V.). The design includes Night Quarters, Day Quarters, Wooded Area (outdoor foraging areas) and the Central Core where the farmer works and the visitors can visit the farm. In Amsterdam they have placed a mini Rondeel system on the Amsterdamse Zuidas where urban dwellers can collect their eggs, visit the farm and collect sustainable energy from.

Dordrecht Villa Augustus Villa Augustus is a hotel, restaurant and urban farm located along the river in Dordrecht. One of its main lures is its beautiful gardens – its well organized and maintained rows of leeks, trellised green beans, and leafy – which not only attract the eye but also supply nutritious food to the restaurant on site (as much as possible). Given some citizens’ hesitation towards urban agriculture because of assumed nuances associated with bringing agriculture into the city, Villa Augustus provides a pleasant experience that could turn heads and even sway opinions. The business, however, is not sustained on the urban farm, but rather makes its profit via restaurant visitors and hotel overnighters.

Den Haag Stadslandbouw Den Haag The municipality of The Hague has invited entrepreneurs to realize urban agriculture businesses in the De Schilde building, a vacant office building used by Philips for production and manufacturing. Two floors of 1,500 m2 are available to entrepreneurs as well as a space on the ground floor with a terrace for a commercial venture. The municipality has defined the framework conditions for the building but leaves the rest up to the businesses. The municipality has offered to support, along with the support from research institutions, for the entrepreneurs of Stadslandbouw Den Haag (Stadslandbouw Den Haag, 2014).

Rotterdam Uit Je Eigen Stad, Marconistraat 39, Rotterdam Uit Je Eigen Stad (UJES) is located by the Marconistrip between a dike and a harbor of the Rotterdam port. The goal of the initiative is to professionally cultivate produce in and for the city and after three years of preparation and gathering investments, the urban farm opened in 2012 to do exactly that. UJES manages a produce garden both ground based (1.2 hectares), shown in Figure 5, and in hoop

25 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department houses (1500 m2), indoor production including leafy greens, herbs and edible mushrooms (600m2), small and berry cultivation (3000m2), and the yearly production of 4500 chickens and 6 tons of fish (Green Deal Stadsgerichte Landbouw, 2013). UJES sells its produce to the local community through the on-site store, the restaurant, and small catering and restaurant locations across the city. In addition, the farm organizes events for the community, such as harvest parties, hosts company conferences and workshops, and caters for on-site activities. This initiative offers an agrarian experience intertwined with a range of other experiences (Green Deal Stadsgerichte Landbouw, 2013).

The farm engages in closing on site cycles as a sustainability strategy. Their fish are cultivated in an aquaponics system which circulates the fish water with feces (nutrient-rich) to feed hydroponically- grown plants. Next the water is treated with the help of bacteria and the treated water returns to the fish tank. The manure from the egg-laying hens is used as a fertilizer for the ground-based produce, while the manure from the broiler chickens enters the compost heap. The diversity of produce and activities at UJES presents various opportunities for the reuse of waste which the initiative hopes to implement, especially if laws and regulations are changed in their favor (Green Deal Stadsgerichte Landbouw, 2013).

De Dakakker, Schiekade 189, Rotterdam

The Dakakker is a rooftop garden (700m2) located on the roof of the office building Het Schieblock in Rotterdam Center. The initiative was designed by architecture firm ZUS and executed by Binder Groenprojecten (substrate and drainage system not surpassing weight capacity of 180kg/m2) in cooperation with the Rotterdams Milieucentrum (Rotterdam Environmental Center) and the ‘I Make Rotterdam’ project. The Rotterdams Milieucentrum currently manages the initiative, used for the cultivation of produce and for the Figure 6 DakAkker, Rotterdam production of honey, for dining and meeting in the pavilion, and for educational activities for children.

RotterZwam, Maasboulevard 100, Rotterdam “RotterZwam: the edible mushroom from Rotterdam” produces edible oyster and shitake mushrooms on spent coffee grounds in the vacant Tropicana indoor swimming pool dome. RotterZwam collects spent coffee grounds, the residue left after brewing coffee for consumption, from local coffee shops in Rotterdam. This business model preserves the valuable components still present in spent coffee grounds, such as protein, fat, cellulose and fiber; and uses them as a growing substrate, mixed with straw, chalk and mycelium spores, for mushrooms. The mushrooms are then harvested and distributed to local restaurants and bakeries by bicycle, an emission-free transport method (RotterZwam, 2013).

Max de Corte, Mark Slegers and Seimen Cox cooperate in the business of producing these locally grown, protein-rich Figure 7 Pink Oyster mushrooms 4 mushrooms. Their mission is to engage in a blue economy and (RotterZwam, 2013) establishing circular resource cycles in which resources are

4 The Blue Economy, initiated by Gunter Pauli, is a concept that aims to stimulate high standards of sustainability in which the best for health and the environment is cheap and to stimulate competitive entrepreneurship. The concept is based on living in harmony with nature’s evolutionary path (Pauli, 2010).

26 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department cascaded between activities for reuse (RotterZwam, 2013).

Relevant Businesses (Involved) in Urban Agriculture While urban agriculture is emerging in the Netherlands, the most valuable asset that the Netherlands offers (can offer) to the UA sector worldwide is its knowledge and expertise in agriculture and horticulture. These top-sectors develop efficient technologies that increase crop yields including LED lighting, control systems, greenhouses, and seeds. It is these areas where entry into the North American UA scene is most opportune. Companies and organizations currently working in urban agriculture already include:

Priva- Sustainable solutions for horticultural and building automation to increase energy and water efficiency within indoor environments. They are also part of the Dutch stichting Stad+Kas which provides solutions for urban horticultural ventures.

Rijk Zwaan: is an independent family business that develops vegetable varieties and sells the seeds.

HortiMax Growing Solutions: efficient and innovative solutions in climate and energy, water and nutrition, labor and productivity, and operation and analysis (HortiMax B.V., 2014).

Visser Horti Systems: horticulture mechanized systems, multi-layer controlled horticultural system for vegetables and young plants, green roof, home farming systems

NewLux Modern HPS and LED lighting: Lighting solutions for horticultural growers

Plant Lab: Plant recipes for controlled environment horticulture

Agro Advies Buro: consulting expertise in horticulture, more specifically in technology and permits, energy and CO2 emissions, management and real estate (Agro AdviesBuro B.V.).

Philips: GreenPower LED lighting solution and light recipe development for horticultural systems.

CODEMA Systems Group: customized solutions in “innovative logistic systems, management and control software, and (customized) products and solutions for the horticulture industry” (i.e. multi- level indoor growing systems) (CODEMA Systems Group, 2014)

Wageningen Research Institues: expertise in various scientific fields of food and food production, the living environment and health, lifestyle and livelihood.

27 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

X. Urban Agriculture in North America Historically, times of duress and need have led people to urban agriculture as a livelihood and self-sufficiency measure. Both WWI and WWII brought the rise of victory gardens (a.k.a. war gardens or food gardens for defense) to overcome food shortages, as was campaigned by the government (campaign posters shown in Figure 8). Victory gardens were planted on available private or public land, including backyards and public parks. In 1943, these victory gardens grew 43% of the produce in the United States and 115 million pounds in Canada (Pansing et al., 2013; Toronto Food Policy Council, 2012). However, during the post WWII era, the rise of industrialized, conventional agriculture, in addition to urban planning and regulatory practices, severed the ties between urban dwellers and the origin of the production of their food.

In the past couple decades, UA has regained interest in North America, partly in response to the industrialized food system and its associated environmental and social implications (i.e. agriculture uses 70% of the world’s available freshwater and 20% of all fossil fuel consumed in the USA) (Pansing et al., 2013). UA is seen as a tool to address urban adaptability and resilience in the face of “a food sector that is increasingly brittle, failing to deliver essential environmental, economic, public health and nutritional benefits to urban communities” Pansing et al., 2013). Urban agriculture plays a significant role as cities reinvent themselves in the post-Great Recession era (Barth, 2014).

At the beginning of the local food movement and rise in UA in North America, initiatives were mainly bottom-up and/or non- profits (Perry, 2014). The driving forces behind these initiatives are mainly social and environmental (people, planet), including: food security, community resilience, social change, environmental responsibility, health, etc. City dwellers are showing tremendous interest in reconnecting with the source of their food and urban farms supply the transparency they are looking for. In fact, it is urban farms’ visibility and accessibility to the community that makes then a direct part of the community’s physical and cultural fabric (Barth, 2014). Figure 8 (top) National War Garden Commission WWI (Flagg, J.M., 1918), In the last few years urban agriculture has turned heads (bottom) “Dig for Victory” campaign beyond community farmers. Policymakers and city poster (Bon, L., 1944) governments, supermarkets and large food companies, information technologists, system engineers, greenhouse growers, among others are interested in becoming stakeholders in facilitating the movement (Morgan, 2014; Pansing et al., 2013; Perry, 2014). However, urban agriculture is still in its relative infancy; it’s one large urban agriculture experiment (Barth, 2014). Depending on its success, urban agriculture might be granted a more permanent place within the urban landscape.

28 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Structure and size The structure and size of urban agriculture in North America varies from initiative to initiatives. The same dichotomies of high-tech and low-tech, non-profit and for-profit (described in the previous section) are observed in the North America, including the spectrum range in between.

Most urban farms are low tech and under an acre in size. These include the more community oriented farms and non-profits. On the other end of the spectrum, North America also houses some of the largest and most innovative high tech, commercial urban farms, such as Gotham Greens, Bright Farms, Green Sense Farms, Farmed Here and Green Spirit Farms (Seedstock, Figure 9 School garden installed by 2015)5. These include both rooftop greenhouse farms and Farmyard LLC in Phoenix, AZ (Wielemaker, 2014) indoor farms under LED lights. The largest greenhouse rooftop farm in the United States is planned to go up in Chicago in 2015, led by Gotham Greens. It will measure 75,000 square feet, which can cost about 4 million dollars to build (Pasquarelli, 2014).

Table 2 Average size of urban agriculture types in North America

Type Average size Scale of Production Citation (yield/yr)

Ground based 1-2 acres (~0.5 ha) – 50 acres 20-80 tons/hectare (Battery Urban (peri-urban) Farm)

Rooftop 1 acre (0.4 ha) min. to be 20-25 tons/hectare (Smith, 2014) financially viable (Brooklyn Grange)

Controlled 20,000-75,000 square feet (0.2-0.8 600-800 tons/hectare (Gotham Environment ha) (Gotham Greens) Greens) (Greenhouse)

Controlled 150,000 square feet (1.4 ha), 730 tons/hectare (PlantLab) Environment vertical growing space (Farmed (Indoor) Here)

National Policies and Regulations The success of an urban farm is correlated to the local state/city laws and regulations. Zoning laws, composting permits, building permits and property tax cuts all help or hinder the expansion of UA in cities. There currently is no national law on urban agriculture.

Zoning and Permitting Zoning ordinances (residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, etc.) and design standards (structures, drainage, fencing, parking, etc.) often dictate urban land use in cities. In suburban areas, agricultural and residential land use mixes fairly easily, but in urban centers a zoning variance is usually necessary “to do unconventional things in cities, like farming, but this can be an arduous process” and can be slow and costly (Barth, 2014). Almost everything a farmer does, from composting, to owning chickens to storing tools in a shed is subject to permitting. Depending on the city, these processes are either made easy or tedious. In cities such as Philadelphia, some permitting

5 Read more on these high-tech farms here

29 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department is almost impossible, such as keeping chickens is not permitted unless they are for educational purposes.

Tax cuts and property credits Some cities are providing tax cuts and property credits for urban farms. In New York City a property credit program for green roofs called the NYC Green Roof Property Tax Abatement Program. Under this program urban farms could receive a one year tax credit up to $100,000 ($4.50 per square foot) for green roofs that cover at least 50% of the roof space (Plant Connection, Inc., 2014). In San Francisco a tax cut has been implemented in July 2014 called the Urban Agriculture Incentive Zone Ordinance. This ordinance provides tax cuts for property owners who dedicate their vacant lots to urban agriculture for a minimum of five years. The tax cut cannot exceed a maximum of $25,000 per year or $125,000 for the length of the five year contract (Blackmore, 2014).

Food Policy Councils Food Policy councils bring together citizens and government officials to examine the state or local food system and provide recommendations for food and agriculture policy. They can work at state level or at municipal/county level depending on the array of food system stakeholders involved and the issues they prioritize. Issues include “increasing availability of local healthy foods, eliminating hunger, promoting sustainable food economies and food security, and building relationships with stakeholders within their local food systems” (Paterson, 2014). Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future completed a survey of food policy councils across North America and found that the numbers have been increasing significantly in the last decade (9 fold). In summary, they found that there are a total of 263 Food Policy Councils in North America: 200 in the United States, 57 in Canada and 6 in tribal nations. The organizational structure of these councils differs from one another, 60% are independent grassroots coalitions, 21% are independent non-profit organizations and 19% are government- appointed advisory bodies (Johns Hopkins University, 2014).

Crops Grown and Animals Raised Urban agriculture mostly engages in the growing of vegetables. For commercial Boutique-y veggies encountered at the farms ventures, high yielding, top-dollar -Fairy tale eggplant (Solanum melongena) horticulture crops such as leafy greens (i.e. -Brooklyn Grange NYC , mizuna, baby kale, baby spinach), -Ground Cherry (Physalis) herbs and microgreens, as well as boutique -Brooklyn Grange, Bartram’s Garden and exotic varieties (heirloom tomatoes, -Coriander Berries (Coriandrum sativum) fairytale eggplant, ground cherries) of -Higher Ground, BOS vegetables are most promising for these -Bronze Sweet Fennel (Foeniculum Vulgare) farms. Farms whose mission is not primarily -River park NY to grow food usually grow a range of -Round of Hungary (Capsicum annuum) -Heritage Farm (seasonal) vegetables. -Jujube tree (Ziziphus jujube) Animal husbandry is a little more difficult in -bartram’s gardens cities. While some cities allow chickens, -Cucamelon or Gherkin (Melothria scabra) -Fair Food Bartram’s Garden, and Foodshare other do not. Goats, pigs and other animals -Papalo (Porophyllum ruderale) are even rarer within city limits. Bee -River park NY keeping has become increasingly popular.

Current developments Urban Agriculture is taking root, blooming and sprouting across cities in North America, in some more prevalently than in others. Cities on the East Coast and in the Midwest of North America are home to some of the most well-known urban farms; Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Toronto, Detroit and Chicago tower well above other cities with best practices in urban agriculture. However, nowadays,

30 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department almost every major city has at least a few urban farms and/or vibrant urban agriculture movement (Barth, 2014). Some of the most well-known urban farms in this region are found in Table 3.

The next section digs deeper into the development of urban agriculture in four cities: Philadelphia, New York City, Boston and Toronto. For each city a summary is provided that reflects both literature review and site visits. Unfortunately there was not enough time to do the same in Chicago and Detroit, two very important cities in the realm of urban agriculture.

Table 3 List of well-known initiatives

Type and name Location Tags

Commercial-Indoor

Green Sense Farms Chicago, IL Vertical farming, controlled environment, Philips LED lighting, hydroponics

The Plant Chicago, IL Vertical farming, integrated farming, closing loops, indoor farming, aquaponics

Farmer Here Chicago IL Vertical farming, controlled environment, aquaponics, integrated agricultural systems, circular economy

Back to the Roots Oakland, CA Mushrooms, spent coffee grounds, closing cycles

Commercial Rooftop

Brooklyn Grange New York, NY Substrate, beekeeping, chickens, CSA

Lufa Farms Montreal, QC Greenhouse, controlled environment, integrated pest control, intercropping, nutrient film technique (NFT), CSA

Gotham Greens New York, NY Greenhouse, controlled environment, nutrient film technique

Eagle Street Rooftop Farm New York, NY Substrate

Non-profit Ground-based

Growing Power Milwaukee, IL empowerment, aquaponics, compost, youth, integrated agriculture systems, husbandry

Greensgrow Farms Philadelphia, PA Multi-functional, CSA, food hub, “idea farm”

The Food Project Boston, MA Empowerment, vacant land, neighborhood land trusts

Battery Urban Farm New York, NY Education, public, soil-based

P-Patch Community Garden Seattle, WA Public gardens, volunteers and staff run,

31 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Case Studies Site visits were conducted to Philadelphia, New York, Boston and Toronto to gain a better understanding of the urban agriculture scene on the east coast of North America. Each city exercises its own policies and presents different challenges and opportunities for urban agriculture.A general overview for each city is summarized below, however, more detailed descriptions of each initiative visited can be found in the Appendix C-F.

Philadelphia Urban agriculture in Philadelphia (affectionately called Philly) is primarily directed towards increasing food access and ameliorating food insecurity, as well as providing jobs, skill training and community empowerment (Wachter, 2010). In Philadelphia, the 5th most populous city of the 6th largest metropolitan area in the United States, 400,000 people are food insecure (Lisa Mosca, 2014). Providing healthy, affordable and accessible food is the shared goal of many stakeholders including non-profit urban farms (i.e. Mill Creek Farm and Greensgrow Farms) food access advocates (i.e. Fair Food Philly, Food Trust, Farm to City) and the local municipal government (i.e. Mayor’s Office of Sustainability6). Philadelphia In Short The population flux in Philadelphia from circa 2 million to -400,000 people are food insecure 1.5 million inhabitants after 1950s has resulted in the abandonment of several parcels of land and buildings in -32,000 vacant lots in the city and around the city. Currently, 32,000 vacant lots reside -Food is on the urban agenda within Philly, of which 1/4th are owned by the city (Wu, 2014). While this vacant land is opportune for -Focus on providing access to healthy, implementing urban agriculture, the cost-benefit tradeoffs affordable food and on skill training, of doing so need to be understood. The environmental, community building and empowerment social and economic benefits of granting these parcels to -Urban farming is mostly bottom-up, urban agriculture need to outweigh the benefits of low-tech and ground-based. developing the land; they need to outweigh the opportunity cost of not allowing other uses (i.e. tax -2012 zoning code recognizes urban revenues) (Wachter, 2010). The Mayor’s Office of agriculture as a land use. Sustainability of the City of Philadelphia is working with -Chickens and other animals only the land bank to increase transparency in the availability allowed if educational of the city-owned lots to increase farmers’ access to land in and around the city (Wu, 2014). -Storm water runoff mitigation is exercised by many urban farms and However, Mary Seton-Corboy from Greensgrow Farms receives public support. comments that cities do not really yet understand the -The City Harvest Program is an multifaceted beneficial impacts of urban agriculture within invaluable asset to the urban farming the built environment. While they say they do, they don’t community really when it comes to dollar signs and tax revenues -Abundant “food hubs” for CSA (Seton-Corboy, 2014). programs sourcing local food from the 100-mile foodshed While Philly has strong urban agriculture roots7, farming within the city has only recently become re-recognized as

6 The Mayor’s Office of Sustainability has developed an approach, Greenworks Philadelphia, to increase sustainability across City departments via 15 target goals. Target 10 aims to “provide walkable access to affordable, healthy food for all Philadelphians” by increasing the number of local markets, gardens and farms in the city (increase from 230 to 316 markets, gardens, and farms by 2015). However, the other target goals of the approach can be linked to a local food system as well (i.e. diverting solid waste, managing storm water, providing recreation resources, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, etc.).

32 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department a land use by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, after the newly reformed zoning code was passed in August of 2012. Without such a code “[it was] expensive and hard to convince the zoning board that what you do is legal if no category exists in which to fit the operation” (Fried-Cassorla, 2012). Now long practicing urban farms are recognized as a land-use category within residential and commercial areas (Fried-Cassorla, 2012). Although the new zoning code makes some things easier, it also creates more paperwork (i.e. the code requires users to register their parcels for a fee of $125/parcel/year) (Fried-Cassorla, 2012). However, the keeping of chickens within city limits is not yet legal. Active groups in Philadelphia, such as Philadelphia Backyard Chickens, are working hard on this issue. Currently, “the only way a Philadelphian can legally have backyard chickens is to either own three acres of land, or run a nonprofit, educational institution, zoo or shelter” (Schwartz, 2014). Therefore, farms such as Weaver’s Way and Greensgrow Farms can only keep chickens with this intention.

Currently, Philadelphia is home to 350 community gardens and urban farms of various scales and with varying objectives (Fried-Cassorla, 2012). There is an abundance of non-profit organizations that work in advocating local food and in urban farming to supply a range of benefits including community empowerment, storm-water mitigation, access to fresh food, education and skill training, etc (Wachter, 2010; Fried-Cassorla, 2012). The number of commercial farms remains limited still; however, there is a handful. Almost all farms, non-profit and commercial, do generate revenues through the sale of produce at farmer’s markets, through CSA shares and via direct wholesale to restaurants and Figure 10 South Street Community Garden institutions. It is noticeable that these sales donot (Wielemaker, 2014) sustain the entire operation and therefore grants and donations are collected via the non-profit umbrella.

Seton-Corboy foresees that urban farms that are not able to sustain themselves will eventually disappear as funding sources run out or move on to the next trend in sustainability. She comments that it is difficult for these initiatives to continue to direct so much high-intensity time and energy into urban farming for a sustained period and most likely individuals “finding themselves” through urban farming will move on as well. Urban agriculture models that will stay are those that can establish themselves as a food-oriented business first and foremost and not as a social experiment; urban agriculture is not a solution for unemployed former inmates and for disabled individuals. Local food, however, is “here to stay”, says Seton-Corboy, “not the current overly elevated American food fad, but there will continue to be a demand for locally-sourced fresh food” (Seton-Corboy, 2014).

Greensgrow Farms in Kensington is one of the most recognized farms. It is a non-profit, “food hub” that engages in the production, processing, and distribution of food within the urban community and linking urban and rural communities (Steton-Corboy, 2014). Mill Creek Farm is a community-based farm in food-desert West Philly that is focused on the social and environmental benefits of farming, especially direct neighborhood engagement and storm water run-off mitigation (Asher, 2014).

7 Philadelphia is also home to the nation’s largest agricultural high school, W.B. Saul High School of Agricultural Sciences.

33 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Weaver’s Way Co-op and W.B. Saul High School of Agricultural Sciences are the larger multi-acre farms in Philadelphia. Weaver’s Way is a member-owned grocery store and farm aimed to provide fresh, quality food at fair prices, and support local food producers and the co-op community (Weaver’s Way Co-op, 2014). Saul High School is the nation’s largest Agricultural High School that manages and cultivates 150 acres via their educational programs (Laskawy, 2010). Other institutions, such as the Methodist Home for Children also see great value in hosting a farm on-site and producing fresh vegetables for the Home and for sale (Glabrath-Paul, 2014).

The Philadelphia Horticultural Society (PHS) is a large asset to the urban agriculture scene in Philadelphia, supporting both farms and resource centers within the city. The Community Farm and Food Resource Center at Bartram’s Farm in West Philadelphia works closely with PHS to establish educational programs and increase access to food. The City Harvest Program is one of the most remarkable programs of PHS, working towards creating an infrastructure of agricultural supply and education centers for urban farms (The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society, 2014). Not only do they provide information for urban farmers but they also provide seedlings, ornamental plants, dwarf fruit trees and farming tools and materials (Mosca, 2014). The program works with 140 urban farms in Philadelphia that receive resources from them. The tradeoff is that the farms need to donate a small percentage of their food per year and each initiative needs to volunteer for 10 hours/yr in the greenhouses for . City Harvest is funded by grants totaling to $500,000, of which $300,000 is used for materials and the remaining budget is used to pay staff (Mosca, 2014).

The demand for local food in Philadelphia is increasing (Wachter, 2010). Farmer’s markets, unique dining experiences and CSA shares are popular among Philadelphians. As one article states, “Philadelphia clearly sees farming as an integral part of its future and shows no indication that urban agriculture is a foodie fad. In this town, growing food is a growing business” (Laskawy, 2010). However, Philadelphia is also located between two prolific agricultural areas: Lancaster in Pennsylvania and Southern New Jersey. Farmers in both areas supply agricultural products to Philadelphia for sale at farmer’s markets or food markets (i.e. Fair Food Philly at Reading Terminal Market) and via several CSA shares (Steton-Corboy, 2014; Wu, 2014). For instance, Greensgrow Farms manages a food hub as they source fresh produce from the surrounding 100-mile foodshed and redistributes the produce to 900 CSA members. The proximity of Philadelphia to these prolific agricultural rural areas is fortunate for the local food movement but may slow the urgency/interest for creating commercial high-tech urban farms in the city.

Figure 11 University Square Farmer’s Market displaying local produce in Sept. (Wielemaker, 2014)

34 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

While season extension is highly valuable to urban farms in Philadelphia, high-tech urban farms are probably ill-located in and around this city, comment Seton-Corboy. High-tech farms need to produce year-round to remain profitable, meaning that the demand for this produce at such premium prices also needs to be constant. Philadelphians are cheap and during the warmer months, they are not likely to pay for the expensive, high-tech-grown head of lettuce, as opposed to the cheaper heads of lettuce grown within the 100-mile foodshed (Seton-Corboy, 2014). Philadelphia is fond of cheap food, access to food and lots of it and only a small percentage is willing to pay premium prices for food.

Listed are the farms and organizations that were interviewed in Philadelphia for this study (shown in order of site-visit). Refer to Appendix C for detailed summary of farms visited, a Business Canvas Model completed for each one.

 Fair Food Philly  Mayor’s Office of Sustainability  Mill Creek Urban Farm  Greensgrow Farms  Weaver’s Way Farm at Awbury Arboretum  Community Farm & Food Resource Center at Bartram’s Farm  Heritage Farm

New York City Urban agriculture in New York City is unique, perhaps because of the juxtaposition of urban farms to the towering buildings or because of the seemingly hostile environment of high property values and high population density or because of the relatively permissible zoning codes on urban agriculture8. However, the economic and cultural robustness of the city also fosters a population that is more aware and ready to support (and perhaps have more access to investment capital as well) initiatives that promote a sustainable food system (Ackerman, 2011). The city’s diversity, density and vibrancy offer urban farms the engaged community and customer base they rely on for their business. In addition, New York City is famous for its Central Park however notorious for having little other green space in the city. By default, this also means that the majority of the food is produced outside of the city’s five boroughs, resulting in high food prices and complex distribution systems. As food is produced and processed hundreds or thousands of miles away, urban agriculture provides citizens with a tangible, accessible opportunity to reconnect with the food system (Ackerman, 2011). At the convergence of various interests, urban farming in New York is vast and is growing quickly, however, no two farms are alike.

Urban agriculture in the city ranges between small-scale, low-tech homegrown incentives and community gardens, such as Added Value, to large-scale, high-tech, capital-intensive, commercial greenhouses and vertical farms, such as Gotham Greens. While some prefer to leave urban agriculture defined within this spectrum, others are keener to categorize urban farms. According to Five Borough Farms: Seeding the Future of Urban Agriculture in New York City Report9, NCY boasts 4 types of urban farms, including, community gardens, community farms, institutional farms and gardens and

8 The NYC zoning codes stipulate that farms or gardens can grow food in residential or commercial zones provided that they do not create offensive odor or dust” (Ackerman, 2011). Chickens, rabbits and bees are allowed on farms, while roosters, cattle, pigs, sheep and goats are not. Only produce grown at the farm may be sold via a “farm stand” on site, although manufacturing zones do not have these restrictions (Ackerman, 2011).

9 A report issued by the Design Trust for Public Space and Added Value to reveal a comprehensive study on urban agriculture in the City. Their aim is to uncover the metrics of the sector in detail by tracking the production of food, values, jobs and participation, as well as the impact on dietary change, food literacy, and social cohesion. This research is still being conducted in partnership with Farming Concrete (Zigas, 2014).

35 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department commercial farms (Design Trust for Public Space, 2014). Others make even a more stark distinction between community gardens and urban farms10. While the former represents clustered, vacant lots where a group of community members (usually black, low income residents) grow food to address food insecurity; the latter are funded projects run by young, white entrepreneurs that target the affluent foodie consumer in the city (Gittleman, 2014). Ironic is that the persistence of community gardeners in protecting their gardens has led to a wider acceptance of the role of food production within the urban environment (Ackerman, 2011).

Nevertheless, the city has more farms and gardens than any other city in the country and is also home to a number of organizations that promote local and regional food, such as GrowNYC, as well as visionaries imagining the role of food in future urban landscapes, such as Dickson Despommier, full-time professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences and director of the Vertical Farm Project (Design Trust for Public Space, 2014). Most remarkably, New York City hosts some of the most famous urban farms in the world yet, such as Battery Urban Farm (ground-based), Brooklyn Grange (rooftop), and Gotham Greens (controlled environment).

Most of the farms in NYC are ground-based, especially the community farms, although ground-based farming remains limited in the dense city of New York. Fortunately, the vacant lots that could potentially be used for farming are located in low-income areas, areas that would greatly benefit from the services that urban agriculture provides. There are 4,985 acres of vacant land in the five boroughs of NYC, of which 1,663 acres is public land (municipal, state or federal), the rest is private property (Ackerman, 2014). Added Value in Red Hook is a great example of ground-based agriculture on city-owned land (Department of Parks and Recreation). While the most Figure 12 (top) Eagle Street Rooftop Farm low-tech farming method, ground-based (Wielemaker); (bottom) Bird’s Eye view of the Battery farming faces challenges of unsuitable Urban Farm (The Battery Conservancy, 2014) for farming due to previous land use and restricted sunlight from towering buildings. Building raised beds filled with a compost mixture is a common solution to avoid farming in polluted soils. Riverpark Farm has implemented an innovative raised bed farm in milk-crates, which not only avoids the soil but makes for a mobile farm.

10 Expressed by Mara Gittleman, Project Director at Farming Concrete, a citizen science project to measure the impact of community gardens in New York

36 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

To battle the lack of vacant land and the shade from neighboring buildings, NYC farms are finding new heights on top of buildings. NYC industrial and manufacturing areas are suitable for rooftop agriculture because of their size and engineered strength (carrying capacity of 50 lbs/square foot when soil is saturated), as well as their location within distribution networks (Ackerman, 2011). New York city has Eagle Street Rooftop Farm was one of the first to start a for-profit venture at these heights with Brooklyn Grange soon to follow on an even larger area of one acre, at which they claim to be economically viable. Brooklyn Grange is now an icon for urban farming in NYC. While rooftop farming has several advantages over ground-based farming in terms of pest and , it is still subject to the impact of weather patterns.

Figure 13 Brooklyn Grange Navy Yard Rooftop Farm (Wielemaker, 2014)

To remove all external factors of weather, controlled environment agriculture (CEA) has been the latest addition to the urban agriculture scene in NYC. CEA allows for season extension and the supply of fresh produce to the rising demand year-round in hydroponic growing systems with regulated dosages of nutrients, water, light11 and heat. These ventures are capital-intensive (approximately 2 million dollars/acre) and therefore tend to be focused on producing high-yield, boutique-y greens or tomatoes sold at a premium. Gotham Greens has three locations in New York City that praises CEA greenhouses on rooftops, and will now continue to export this business model to Chicago. BrightFarms, NYC-based, also has plans to unfold CEA projects in and around multiple cities using a “Produce Purchase Agreement” model to secure their customer base even before the construction of the greenhouses (BrightFarms Inc.). While CEA urban agriculture is hip in New York City and “there is growing investment interest in food and agriculture, investment is still slow in the urban agriculture space” (Gould, 2014).

The wide range of urban farms in NYC makes it clear that there is not one business model for urban agriculture. While the non-profit ventures rely heavily on external funding in light of their social and environmental impact, the handful of for-profit ventures also rely on favorable rent rates and volunteer work force. Therefore urban

11 Especially when using grow lights or LED lights.

37

Figure 14 Food scraps ready to be composted at Brooklyn Grange Flagship Farm (Wielemaker, 2014) Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department agriculture is extremely difficult to compare to traditional business and conventional agriculture, and to assess its economic viability. However, there is no doubt that urban farms have a knack for adopting creative and unconventional means of generating revenue which is not solely from the production of food, but rather from educational programs (Battery Urban Farm) and events (Brooklyn Grange), for example (Ackerman, 2011). Diversification, differentiation, and added value are evident across the initiatives to draw in financial resources.

Urban agriculture has the potential to provide many New York City In Short benefits to NYC and help mitigate the city’s higher than -More gardens and farms than any average rates of obesity and diabetes (i.e. GrowNYC’s other US city (>1000 community gardens and farms) Fresh Box Program), reduce storm water runoff into the combined sewer overflow into main bodies of water (i.e. -54 Greenmarket farmer’s markets property tax credit for green roofs12) , and offset the and 11 Youth Markets urban heat island effect by implementing more green space. In addition, Urban agriculture has the potential to -Zoning codes are more permissive than other US cities mitigate environmental and economic costs of city’s waste stream by managing organic wastes (i.e. NYC Compost -4,984 acres of vacant land; 1,663 Project and GrowNYC compost drop-off). Whether acres is public land (municipal, state or policymakers will take advantage of these potential federal) (Ackerman, 2014) benefits depends on the continued support of urban -Rising demand for fresh local produce agriculture by the public, states Ackerman author of the Potential of Urban Agriculture in New York City (2011). -Focus on providing access to healthy, The key is to recognize urban agriculture as an integrated affordable food and on skill training, approach to cost-effectively addressing interrelated community building and empowerment in low income areas problems, in the long run (Ackerman, 2011).

-Focus providing local, fresh food to As highly motivated, community-minded individuals environmentally conscious consumers continues to invest time and energy into urban agriculture in high-income areas. and the demand for alternative, sustainable sources of -Storm water runoff mitigation is food increases, the movement will continue to grow. exercised by many urban farms and However, the two most pressing challenges facing these receives public support (i.e. property individuals remain access to land, both physically and tax cut). bureaucratically, and access to healthy, high-quality soil and compost (both in terms of testing soil and -2012 Zone Green Text Amendment: Greenhouses to be exempt from floor transporting quality soil). These challenges were area and height limits mentioned across initiatives and are highlighted by the Five Borough Farms Report as the two most recurring challenges urban farmers face. And of course, financial resources are a continuous challenge for all those involved in urban farming.

The demand for local and regional food is increasing in NYC, which is noticeable by the number of urban farms sprouting up and gaining support and by the number of weekly farmer’s markets have been set up around the city, 54 Greenmarket farmer’s markets to be precise. In addition, policy documents released over the last few years are concerned with the state of the food system and the development of urban agriculture. As popularity for urban agriculture continues to grow, it can be expected that policy measures and incentives will be created to support the ventures. While urban agriculture will not be the end-all solution to the woes of the food system in the city that never sleeps,

12 NYC Green Roof Property Tax Abatement Program (2009-2013): you can receive a one year tax credit up to $100,000 ($4.50 per square foot) for green roofs that cover at least 50% of the roof space (Plant Connection, Inc., 2014)

38 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department urban agriculture and the local food movement is most definitely a catalyst to spur systemic change in the food system and culture of consumption. Urban agriculture’s greater strength is in “promoting shifts in consciousness and behavior that could greatly amplify their otherwise modest impacts” (Ackerman, 2014).

Listed are the farms and organizations that were interviewed in New York City for this study (shown in order of site-visit). Refer to Appendix D for detailed summary of farms visited, a Business Canvas Model completed for each one.

 Brooklyn Grange Flagship Farm  Gotham Greens Gowanus  Added Value  Eagle Street Rooftop Farm  GrowNYC  NYU Urban Farm Lab  Riverpark Farm  Battery Urban Farm  Brooklyn Grange Navy Yard Farm

Boston New England only produces 12% of the food it consumes and sources the rest of its food through the global food Boston In Short -New England produces less than system, while farmers still can’t pay the bills through 12% of what it consumes. farming alone. Recognizing the poor effects of the current system on both public health and social and environmental -Goal is to produce 50% of demand sustainability, Food Solutions New England in collaboration in New England. with the University of New Hampshire issued the 50 x 60: A -Zoning ordinance Article 89, allows New England Food Vision in 2009. The Vision aims to for commercial urban agriculture in “transform the New England food system into a resilient Boston driver of healthy food, sustainable farming and fishing, and thriving communities” and produce 50% of its own food -CityFARM: high-tech urban agriculture research at MIT through (Belanger, 2014). The proposed aim would require a the MIT MediaLab. paradigm shift across production and consumption patterns addressing issues of land management, consumption habits, -800 acres of city-owned, vacant and policy support for an equitable and resilient food system land (Belanger, 2014). Although the Vision imagines the future -800 acres could supply 10% of the possibilities for the region, it is up to the citizens and food demand in the city during a 6- institutions to participate in its deployment. month retail season

Boston (affectionately called Beantown) is rising up in support for its urban farmers in the last few years, creating a network of support through providing information, adapting zoning laws and recognizing the efforts of various initiatives. In December 2013, the City of Boston passed a city-wide zoning ordinance, Article-89, which allows for commercial urban agriculture in Boston. The article was developed by the Boston Redevelopment Authority in collaboration with the Mayor’s Office of Food Initiatives, the Mayor’s Urban Agriculture Working Group, and individuals attending the open public meetings. The City of Boston also provides a list of resources and links that can be useful to those in the urban agriculture sector. In 2014, the Mayor of the City of Boston claimed July 11, 2014 as Urban Agriculture Day in Boston. This article is part of the Mayor’s “Greenovate Boston” Initiative which seeks to facilitate climate-related actions, such as farming and waste recycling (City of Boston, 2014).

Boston is also home to some remarkable universities and research institutions like Harvard and MIT, which also play a role in the future of food in Boston. The Harvard Food Law & Policy Clinic, together

39 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department with the City of Boston, has drafted a Guide to Ground-Level Farms, including all the permit requirements, for those interested in starting a urban farm in the city. A guide for rooftop agriculture is also in the making, while hydroponics, aquaponics and freight farms (in shipping containers) are recognized by the city and supported as possible. MIT is also busy with urban farming, especially at their Media Lab where researcher scientist Caleb Harper has founded the research project MIT CityFARM. The MIT City Farm explores the design of a scalable indoor farming system that optimizes resource use and can produce high quality produce at affordable prices. His research aims to create a modular system that is accessible to a large audience that will share information and data to accelerate the development of indoor farming systems. While the data would be open source, CityFARM is looking toward knowledge institutions and companies such as Philips and Google for collaboration and sponsorship. Dutch companies are also very welcome, states Harper (Harper, 2014).

Figure 15 (left) MIT CityFARM photo shoot for Wired UK (Luessen, 2014); (right) LED light at the MIT CityFARM lights up the building at the MIT Media Lab (Luessen, 2014)

Boston is also home to several non-profit and a few for-profit urban agriculture initiatives, as well as 200 community gardens covering 50 acres and 100 school gardens. Most of the initiatives remain low- tech, ground-based initiatives, such as The Food Project in the Dudley Neighborhood. The Food Project was founded in 1991 and works to empower urban and rural youth through . The project has 40 acres in the Greater Boston Metro Area, of which 2.5 acres in urban Boston. While this initiative produces 250,000 lbs of produce a year, it is largely reliant on external funding to support its community programs and training programs (The Food Project).

However, Boston is also home to non-soil-based initiatives that are towering on local rooftops of farming indoors. Freight Farms transforms shipping containers into micro farms, Bloombrick Urban Agriculture is farming microgreens indoors for sale to high-end restaurants, and Higher Ground Farm which sits upon the rooftop of the Boston Design Center. Higher Ground Farm uses upcycled milk crates (based on the Riverpark model in New York City) filled with healthy soil as growing containers. While there current system works well, the goal is to expand the farm across the available rooftop area as Brooklyn Grange Navy Yard farm in New York (Hennessey, 2014).

Local food is becoming increasingly popular and the urban agriculture movement is taking root in Boston. With the new zoning ordinance and prepared guides for starting an urban farm in the city, farming within the city is surely to gain even more momentum. One study, conducted by the Conservation Law Foundation issued a report, Growing Green: Measuring Benefits, Overcoming Barriers, and Nurturing Opportunities for Urban Agriculture in Boston, looked into the feasibility of establishing a ground-based, commercial urban farm venture on a total of 50 acres (spread out across the city). The study found that such a venture could employ between 2-5 people per acre, crate

40 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

additional jobs in the agricultural service sector, sequester 114 tons of CO2, avoid 4,700 tons of CO2 emissions through composting 35% of organic waste, and produce 1.5 million pounds of fresh produce annually ((Conservation Law Foundation and CLF Ventures LLC., 2012; Zigas, 2014). Boston has 800 acres of City-owned, vacant land, which if cultivated commercially, could supply 10% of the food Figure 16 Higher Ground Farm, Rooftop Farm (Wielemaker, 2014) needs of the city during the 6- month retail season (Conservation Law Foundation and CLF Ventures LLC., 2012).

Listed are the farms and organizations that were interviewed in Boston for this study (shown in order of site-visit). Refer to Appendix E for detailed summary of farms visited, a Business Canvas Model completed for each one.

 Higher Ground Farm  The Food Project  Bloombrick Urban Agriculture  MIT CityFARM

Toronto Food production in Toronto, historically and currently, is primarily an informal provisioning and recreational activity; however, Toronto, like many other cities, is experiencing an increased interest in “moving forward” and “scaling up” urban agriculture (Nasr, et al., 2010; Toronto Food Policy Council, 2012). Various stakeholders are committed in strengthening the informal sector as well as establishing a profit-oriented food production sector. Scaling up urban agriculture in the city would address multiple food system problems as well as promote healthy and sustainable city development.

In fact, the urban agriculture movement was jump-started in 2009 as a result of a series of events that culminated together in that year. First, the City’s Parks and Environment Committee organized an “Expert Panel on Urban Food Production” to initiate plans to develop a municipal urban agriculture policy. Second, the Toronto Urban Growers (TUG) network was founded as a result of a series of meetings led and attended by the informal leaders of the urban agriculture movement. TUG has since then become central to the activity concerning urban agriculture in Toronto as they seek to build the policy and knowledge infrastructure required to scale up urban agriculture. Third, Rod MacRae of York University led a research project to understand the potential in Toronto to match available growing space with consumption requirements to answer the question of how much of Toronto’s fresh vegetable requirements it could supply from within the city. Fourth, the Metcalf Foundation also issued a research project, “Scaling Up Urban Agriculture in Toronto: Building the Infrastructure,” to understand what infrastructures would be needed, in terms of production space, (physical, financial, political) resources, services, knowledge, governance and coordination, to scale up urban agriculture in Toronto. This report was co-authored by Joe Nasr, Rod MacRae and James Kuhns, leading experts in urban agriculture. Last, Ryerson University’s Department of Architectural Science organized an exhibit called “Carrot City: Designing for Urban Agriculture”. The exhibit traveled to 20 cities and inspired stakeholders to push urban agriculture in Toronto even further.

41 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Together, these events led to the GrowTO initiative and the GrowTO Urban Agriculture Action Plan. The initiative included an informal group of individuals interested in concretizing the solutions proposed by the Metcalf Foundation report. After a series of meetings, the Toronto Food Policy Council and the GrowTO initiative, along with a slew of other stakeholders (i.e. the Environment and Energy offices), developed the GrowTO Urban Agriculture Action Plan which included 68 recommendations across 6 areas: Figure 17 Ryerson University’s rooftop farm, Rye’s HomeGrown (Wielemaker, 2014) 1. Link growers to land and space 2. Strengthen education and training 3. Increase visibility and promotion 4. Add value to urban gardens 5. Cultivate relationships 6. Development of supportive policies

Since 2009, Toronto has come a long way. The city council has adopted a Toronto Agricultural Program that includes a steering committee, a working group and a focused work plan, bringing together several departments of the city. What has proven to be key is to connect urban agriculture to wider city priorities, such as economic development and environmental sustainability, to gain support for urban agriculture amongst the city leadership. Toronto In Short -Implementation of urban agriculture not TUG continues to support Urban Agriculture in several straight forward because of land use and ways, partnering with neighborhood-based respective bylaws organizations to develop urban agriculture projects. For -Urban agriculture almost always example, TUG is working with the municipal electricity temporary permits distribution company, Toronto Hydro, to establish agreements concerning vacant lots around the city that -Green Roof bylaw: all new residential, they occupy with High Voltage electricity lines. These commercial and institutional buildings must have a percentage of green roof “hydro plots” could be used for urban farming. TUG is coverage working on lease agreements and risk and benefit analyses to examine the potential of using these plots -Chicken raising is banned for (commercial) farming within existing bylaws (Nasr, -GrowTO Urban Agriculture Action Plan 2014). delineates steps towards increasing urban agriculture in Toronto Policies, bylaws and zoning make the implementation of urban agriculture in Toronto less than straight forward -Toronto Urban Growers network- policy because of the set categories of land-use designations and knowledge infrastructure and their respective bylaws. Agriculture is not identified

42 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department as a category. Only two bylaws support food-related activities under the industrial category (“Agricultural Uses” and “Market Garden”). While small-scale, low-tech farming is permitted, large- scale collective and commercial ventures are harder to establish because the zoning bylaws do not cover the land categories where larger parcels of land are vacant (i.e. industrial, parks). Other land categories, such as commercial, institutional and residential can permit urban agriculture through temporary permits and interim control bylaws (max. 3 years) but this does not guarantee any long- term security for stakeholders and risk investment. To scale up urban agriculture in Toronto, the Metcalf report identifies the need to include and “Urban Agriculture and Garden” designation (Nasr, et al., 2010).

As of January 2010, Toronto passed a new Green Roof Bylaw that required13 all new residential, commercial and institutional buildings to have a certain percentage of green roof coverage. This provision provides an advantage to the development of rooftop agricultural; however, food production is not required by the bylaw. The bylaw was developed to mitigate the urban heat island effect and to

Figure 18 FoodShare’s School Grown Rooftop farm at Eastdale Collegiate Institute (Wielemaker, 2014) improve storm water management. The Metcalf report lists additional changes that should be made to the bylaw in order to support urban agriculture on rooftops, such as encouraging existing buildings to retrofit roofs as well, providing incentives for building owners to install a green roof for food production (requires deeper soil and safety measures for farmers) as opposed to just shrubs (Nasr, et al., 2010).

Animal husbandry also poses a challenge in Toronto. Since 1987, the rearing of chickens in the city has been banned by a Toronto bylaw. Many Torontonians secretly keep chicken in their backyards anyway, hoping the bylaw will be overturned. However, in 2012, the Toronto Licensing and Standards Committee voted 5 to 1 against overturning the ban (Hood, 2013). Keeping other animals are also prohibited.

13 For smaller buildings a minimum of 20% is required and for buildings with a gross floor area of 20,000 m2 and over 60% is required. Industrial buildings are required to have a minimum 10% coverage as of 2011.

43 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Urban agriculture in Toronto is moving forward, however, commercial farms, high-tech farms and for- profit farms have not yet taken root at large. One commercial farm, and the largest in Canada, is located at Downsview Park cultivating on 6 acres of land and in a greenhouse. Otherwise, the focus, also highlighted in the GrowTO Action Plan, remains on community farming initiatives, training and education, policy changes and relationship building; there is no objective to necessarily convert Toronto into a food producing center through large greenhouse infrastructures. However, Toronto does boast innovative and city-wide initiatives in non-profit and small-scale urban food production including community and allotment gardens, SPIN gardening in residential front- and backyards, school gardens and institutional farms, CSA programs, urban gleaning projects and rooftop farms.

For this research, three urban agriculture initiatives were visited including FoodShare’s Eastdale Collegiate Institute’s School Grown Rooftop, Ryerson University’s Rye’s HomeGrown (RHG), and aquaponics farm, Aqua Greens. FoodShare is a non-profit organization that works with communities and schools to implement healthy food programs and related activities. FoodShare reaches a wide audience through growing, distributing, and cooking food as well as educating community members and diverting organic waste (FoodShare, 2013). Rye’s HomeGrown operates 8 edible gardens of which that largest is a Figure 19 Visiting the Aqua Greens indoor farm during the rooftop farm that sits on top of the construction phase (Wielemaker, 2014) Engineering building. The rooftop farm (1/4 acre) was converted from the existing green roof (2004) into an edible roof (2011) with the help of students, faculty and staff (Rye’s HomeGrown CG). This rooftop farm is an example as to what is possible while adhering to the Green Roof Bylaw. Aqua Greens (under construction) is an indoor aquaponics farm located just outside of Toronto due to legislation permitting. The farm will produce leafy greens, herbs and fish to supply local restaurants.

The future of urban agriculture in Toronto is unknown, shares Nasr, “urban agriculture is a young industry so it still remains to be seen what will happen and what challenges will arise” (Nasr, 2014). There is interest to expand the industry and venture capitalists are interested in funding commercial projects in the city. Joe Nasr also comments on the inherent definition of urban agriculture as a process of rediscovering and reinventing agriculture in order to rebrand and add value, a story, to our food. However, urban agriculture also has inherent limits, “that’s the beauty of it,” states Nasr; urban agriculture cannot grow too big because it is limited by the available space shared with other activities in the city and is not suitable for all types of crops. Nasr comments that perhaps this is how urban agriculture retains its appeal.

Listed are the farms and organizations that were interviewed in Toronto for this study (shown in order of site-visit). Refer to Appendix F for detailed summary of farms visited, a Business Canvas Model completed for each one.

 Rye’s HomeGrown  FoodShare, School Grown Rooftop

44 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

 Aqua Greens

Driving Forces and Trends Notable trends in and driving forces behind urban agriculture across North America include:

Increased demand for locally grown food In the United states, national sales for organic foods have reached $25 billion and local food sales were forecasted to grow from $5 billion to $7 billion by 2011. Direct-to-consumer sales grew from $551 million to $1.2 billion between 1991 and 2007, with the majority of the marketplace situated in cities; 85% of direct-to-consumer sales are situated in cities and 80% of small farms are found in or near cities. In addition, farmers markets have increased by 70% and CSA programs top 12,000 (Pansing et al., 2013). Policies mandating that institutions source local or regional products also shift the market in favor of a local food system.

Food security Urban food security across North America is a pressing issue, especially in low income neighborhoods. Food deserts are also common in North American cities where access to fresh food, or any food, is significantly low. In Philadelphia, for example, 400,000 urban dwellers are food insecure. Many non- profit urban farms are located in these areas to increase food access in these areas as well as provide jobs. Weather events also influence urban food security; droughts in California impact food supply across North America. Fuel prices also influence food affordability and security.

Interest in community and environmental health Growing food has also become a vehicle for to achieve environmental and social goals. Non-profit organizations combine their passion for stewarding the earth with growing food; while for-profits grow food however include environmental and social goals in their mission statements. “The urban environment tends to magnify this side of farming – the part that’s not about producing a crop – bringing it to the forefront of the farmer’s work” (Barth, 2014). This reason why the environmental and social goals are of utmost primacy is because the initiatives that engage with the community and are involved with allied organizations are more successful (Barth, 2014).

Interest from local governments City governments are becoming increasingly interested in strengthening local, regional and sustainable food systems as they recognize that the food sector serves as a linchpin of social, environmental, economic and community well-being (Pansing et al., 2013). Cities’ comprehensive plans14 include “creating sustainable food systems,” either after receiving continuous citizen pressure or out of their own incentive (Pansing et al., 2013). However, questions concerning where and how to invest remain. Cities are looking at each other to gain expertise and knowledge from best practices in urban agriculture, food processing and, especially, policy making. The formation of Food Policy Councils across North American cities to aid the local food movement has increased tremendously in the last couple of years (Perry, 2014).

Shifts in local food business ownership Larger national and multinational food companies plan to increase spending on acquisitions of smaller businesses that focus on local food, as opposed to transforming their own business model. Venture capital investors are also backing local and sustainable food ventures. The acquisitions by large food companies and the investments from venture capital investors leads to a decline in the number of established locally owned businesses but an increase in the availability to local food.

14

45 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Innovations across the local food sector The interest in the local and sustainable food system has led to numerous innovations beyond the small plot gardens and farm. Urban agriculture is featuring technological system innovations (e.g. aquaponics, LED grow lights, rooftop greenhouses), architectural innovations (e.g. building integrated agriculture (BIA), green walls), IT innovations (e.g. controlled environment monitoring systems, technical assistance), and regulatory innovations (e.g. tax cuts, permits for keeping chickens). The innovations range from low-tech to high-tech.

Commercial urban agriculture Many urban farms are still primarily some combination of non-profit, volunteer-based community gardens. These grassroots initiatives will continue to grow for the recognized social and environmental benefits. However, commercial businesses in urban agriculture are also sprouting within and near cities. These are looking to establish efficient profitable business models that supply fresh food products to the city.

Measuring and quantifying the benefits of UA Urban agriculture practices are poorly documented. In recent years, however, there has been increasing interest to document and quantify the impact of UA including benchmarks, financial progress, sales volumes, revenues, and jobs created, as well as the more intangible impacts such as livability, environmental health, community health, etc (i.e. Farming Concrete and Five Borough Farms in New York City).

Closed cycle design and urban sustainability Although most urban agriculture initiatives have their own, more localized agendas, some are more concerned with urban environmental management and finding integrated solutions to urban resource challenges, facilitating a circular economy. These initiatives are not only growing food but also engaging in reusing waste streams on site (cradle-to-cradle), harvesting resources such as energy (heat) and rainwater15, or integrating several functions in the supply chain to increase efficiency and generate more revenue streams. For example, The Plant in Chicago is a prime example. The 87-year old meat packing factory has been refurbished into a 8640 m2 urban farm containing a kombucha tea brewery, a hydroponic vegetable farm, a tilapia fish farm and a beer brewery, a commercial kitchen and an anaerobic digester. These individual components are integrated into one system so that outputs from one can be used as the inputs for another (Vinnitskaya, 2012).

Risk, Barriers and Challenges

Not a “one size fits all” model Urban agriculture differs from city to city and between initiatives. The costs, the revenue streams, the key partners, the customer segments, etc. is different for each initiative. While this is often its strength (diversification and differentiation) it is also a challenge to gain a clean cut understanding of the benefits of urban agriculture and the challenges it faces. Urban agriculture is still in its experimental stage and best practices are still being created.

Because of this spectrum in urban agriculture, farmers also need to figure out what works best for them. The size of the land, the type of soil, the start-up costs, the available labor, the access to a customer base will all influence the success of the farm.

15 Many of the visited initiatives engaged in rainwater harvesting as a stormwater mitigation measure. Various municipalities support these measures through grants, for example, the property tax credits for green roofs in New York City.

46 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Little research on UA There remains “little research on the quantifiable economic benefits of urban agriculture in food sector terms, due in part to the informal nature of the work, and due to competing priorities” (Pansing et al., 2013). Another reason may be that those involved in urban agriculture may lack the capacity or inclination to identify and measure the financial and economic benefits.

Studies that measure the environmental and social benefits of urban agriculture are growing in number. In New York City Farming Concrete and Five Burough Farms, together with the Design Trust for Public Space are looking at health, social, economic and ecological indicators to measure the success of urban agriculture in the city.

Moreover, the compiled information that does exist is not necessarily what farmers are looking for. Urban farmers need access to practical information on farming practices (yileds to expect, best perst control systems, water and nutrient dosages, etc). These farmers do not have time to work their way through extensive reports that are not relevant to solidifying their business case. Given the still experimental stages of urban farming, very little information is open source; are initiatives go through repeated trial and error phass, they might not be ready to give away their secret once they have a recipe for success.

Securing Land Tenure Urban farms compete with other land use and development agendas, especially those of higher value (higher property value= higher tax revenue for cities). Therefore, most urban agriculture ventures often come with an expiration date; granted on a temporary basis until the land can be developed into something that meets the “highest and best use of land” criteria (Barth, 2014). Moreover, the rent or the costs of these urban parcels are usually exponential and beyond affordable by start-up ventures, especially in the prime real estate parcels in great locations. Some farmers create community land trusts to collectively own land along with community institutions, such as The Food Project in Boston, while others make their farms “mobile” (i.e. milk crates) so that they can pick up and leave when real estate development picks up again, like Riverpark Farm in New York City. Others look for underutilized rooftops to avoid the hassle all together.

Using vacant land for urban farming comes with a host of challenges. Not only is there a competition for land use, but it is often unclear who owns the land and what the plans and zoning codes are for that land. In addition, the history of the land is often also unknown, meaning that contamination of the soil could be an issue for growing crops.

Luckily, there are a few pioneers in the development industry that see the benefit of urban agriculture in avoiding urban blight and even recognize it as a meaningful way to build community, and thus value, that can have a positive impact for future development plans. Some cities, such as Philadelphia and Baltimore, are creating a land bank to increase transparency, and create uniformity in legal permitting and leasing, for land owned by the city (Wu, 2014).

Lack of technical skills Urban farming requires both agricultural production skills and business skills, and perhaps even more skills depending on its multi-functional purposes (i.e. teaching skills, marketing skills). Often those involved in urban agriculture lack one of the two (or more) skillsets. Fortunately there are more and more training programs and certificate programs offered that aim to fill this gap (Pansing et al., 2013).

Many people who are involved in urban agriculture are not farmers to begin with and do not have an agricultural background. Many involved in urban agriculture are seeking to fulfill other goals, such as community empowerment, increasing access to food, urban greening, etc.

47 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Soil health and access to good soil Soil is one of the most important aspects of agriculture, at least for most outdoor farming systems, especially because urban farms aim to achieve high yields in a limited space. However, soil health in cities is often jeopardized by the history of the land use, such as brownfield sites that were previously used for industrial or commercial purposes and can be contaminated by (low) concentrations of hazardous waste or pollution. While these sites can be cleaned, the costs of doing so are high. Farmers need to be aware of the soil health before starting an urban farm. Depending on soil tests the soil can be amended appropriately, cleaned and/or alternative farming techniques can be practiced.

Most farms visited during this research mentioned soil health and access to good soil (nutrient rich without harmful toxins) and compost as a major challenge and cost. Most ground-based and rooftop farms bring in soil sourced from large potting soil companies while also engaging in composting to further amend the soil. Creating good compost is time and labor intensive which trucking in soil is costly.

Start-up and operating costs Investment costs and operating costs can be quite costly, especially for the high-tech farms. Start-up costs for infrastructure, land, soil, and materials, as well as operating costs and labor costs, are high. Many non-profit organizations use grants to cover operational costs (Pansing et al., 2013). High tech farms often receive funds via external investments from organizations or businesses.

Insufficient income generation Urban farms, especially the smaller ones, are usually labor intensive, however, do not generate enough income to support all staff members (Pansing et al., 2013). Often, added value products, workshops and events help increase revenue streams to help subsidize the farming activities. Therefore size and scope are crucial for commercial urban farms to make a profit from farming alone.

Utilities, Structures and Zoning Access to water and electricity is not always available to urban farms. Gaining access to water can be costly, difficult and time consuming. Building structures on site can also be tedious. Even the smallest shed can require permitting, let alone a greenhouse structure. This is especially true when the structures are used by multiple people and community members. Some cities also have design standards for the physical components of the site such as fencing, drainage and parking.

Zoning that does not have a land use category for agriculture in the city can make it difficult to do anything farm related within the built environment. Zoning variances can be requested to work around current zoning ordinances; however, this can be an arduous process (Barth, 2014). “Wading through the bureaucratic soup” of permiting and filing paperwork often include filing fees and takes time, both of which are costly to farmers (Barth, 2014).

Policy support “Policy remains the largest barrier to entry for urban farming, and can dictate its size, scope, and future success” (Pansing et al., 2013). For most cities, urban agriculture is not a classified business type or land use category, which means that many farms operate without the support from incentives, subsidies and financing which is available for other food enterprises (Pansing et al., 2013). Support from city governments is crucial to the success of urban agriculture, making it more promising to invest in such ventures. Cities that currently do have thriving urban agriculture scenes also have a strong Food Policy Council which brings stakeholders from across the food system together to create appropriate policy. Other successful tools include setting up land banks, such as Philadelphia is doing, to identify available public land in the city that could be available for farming (Pansing et al., 2013; Wu, 2014).

48 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Policy also fails to recognize the integrated benefits of urban agriculture when solving urban issues. Instead of focusing on the most cost-effective solutions to isolated problems, policy makers and planners should focus on urban agriculture as a systematic approach to a range of challenges within the urban environment (Ackerman, 2011).

Transportation and distribution systems Food system transportation and distribution systems are oriented towards larger, high-volume product flows as opposed to smaller growers. For these smaller producers the logistics of getting produce to market can be challenging.

XI.Comparison of Urban Agriculture in the Netherlands and North America Urban agriculture in the Netherlands vs the United States shares similarities in that in both countries urban agriculture is used to solve local urban issues while addressing the ills of the food system at large; however, a few of the critical driving forces behind the rise of UA in each country do differ.

Table 4 Driving forces in the Netherlands vs North America

Netherlands North America

Sustainability X X

Education X X

HealthandNutrition X X

Community X X

Urban Development/Health X

UrbanGreen/recreation X

Food Chain Transparency X X

Empowerment X

Environment(FoodMiles) X X

Food (in)security X

UA in the Netherlands is driven by urban social and environmental health and urban development. Planning, financial models, governance and implementation are central to the discussions on urban agriculture in the Netherlands, and interest in UA stems also from other platforms (i.e. nutrient management, water harvesting, composting). Urban agriculture initiatives in the Netherlands are for the most part implemented in dialogue with municipalities, seeking their support financially and politically.

The Netherlands could perhaps be considered as one big area of urban agriculture as the country is so small and the divide between city and farmland is not as apparent, meaning that the proximity (physically and mentally) of people to food is smaller. Food security is also not an issue in the Netherlands as it is in North America.

In North America, urban agriculture is primarily driven by food insecurity and community empowerment, as well as sustainability and reducing food miles. Food deserts and limited food access

49 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department in low income communities are a reality and because of the prevalence of obesity, fast food and food insecurity, there is a stronger and larger anti-movement, towards local food. Moreover, the American dream motto that underlies American culture is also evident in the mission statements of urban agriculture initiatives. Entrepreneurs in North America are more willing to dream big and take risks in UA than in the Netherlands, especially using private funds.

XII. Opportunities for the Dutch Agriculture Sector in North America

Technologies Currently Used Currently UA ranges from high-tech to low-tech, with respective technologies. Currently a variety of technologies are used from different suppliers. These include:

1. Composting systems: low tech manual, tumbling composters, aerated composting rows 2. Artificial lighting systems: Grow lights and LED lights 3. Environment control systems: automated temperature, nutrient dosage, water filtering, and/or lighting 4. Greenhouses/hoop houses/high tunnels: Glass greenhouses (on rooftops), plastic or fabric covered hoop houses and high tunnels 5. Rainwater harvesting: Collection bins 6. Aquaponics: recirculating water systems, pumps, filters, aeration systems, 7. (Hydroponic) Growing systems: Aeroponic system, Nutrient Film Technique (NFT), multi-layer infrastructures, soil and media substrates

Dutch Technologies in North American UA ‘The Netherlands is always involved in agriculture to some extent,’ mentioned various people across the urban agriculture sector in North America. From greenhouses to seeds to tomato clips, the Netherlands has a lot to offer. Some urban agriculture initiatives are already working with Dutch Technologies.

Philips at Green Sense Farms Philips GreenPower LED modules and light recipes are used by Green Sense Farms in Chicago for efficient artificial lighting.

KUBO and Koppert at Lufa Farms KUBO is a Dutch greenhouse designer that designed and installed Lufa Farms’ 43,000 square-foot rooftop greenhouse, a carbon neutral, positive-pressure greenhouse using KUBO’s Ultra Clima technology. Koppert specializes in biological pest control. Lufa farms works with Koppert for the supply of beneficial insects for inside the greenhouse.

HortiMax at Gotham Greens HortiMax develops horticultural systems for climate and energy, water and nutrition, labor and productivity and operation and analysis. Gotham Greens in New York uses their environment control systems in come of their greenhouses (Gotham Greens also uses Argus), however the greenhouse planned for Chicago will use HortiMax.

Except Integrated Sustainability at Detroit Urban Regen Except is a Dutch cooperative that works on developing cutting-edge concepts and strategies for increased sustainability in businesses, industries, cities and buildings. They are applying their Symbiosis in Development methodology in the Detroit Urban Regen Project to enable urban regeneration. Except created a consortium of partners called the Dutch RecoveryPark NL team that includes Posad, Rebel Group, Priva, and the Dutch Consulate of Chicago.

50 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

American/ Canadian competitors

1. Nexus (Greenhouses) 2. Illumitex (Lighting) 3. Argus (Control systems) 4. LumiGrow (Lighting) 5. Freight Farms 6. Greentech Agro

Opportunities from Dutch Agricultural Sector The demand for local food in North America is increasing; urban farms, farmer’s markets and CSA memberships continue to multiply across cities in both the United States and in Canada. The question remains, what is the potential of introducing Dutch knowledge, technologies and products in the Netherlands? While each urban farm differs from the next, meaning that the demand from each farm differs as well, the visible trends in North America also serve as an indicator for where the opportunities for the Dutch (urban) agricultural sector may lie. These are as follows:

Agricultural Sustainability While urban agriculture will continue to grow within cities, it “Zoals aangegeven kan en wil ik jou is not realistic to think that everyone will start farming on ondersteunen door middel van het their balconies and in their back yards. Rather, urban and bijwonen van sessies of indien er leads peri-urban agriculture will be woven into the urban fabric as komen uit het buitenland, deze commercial businesses that produce high-yielding, gegadigden bij te staan in hun high-quality crops efficiently. For these systems zoektocht naar antwoorden. Wij efficiency and sustainability are going to be critical; they kunnen inmiddels turnkey deze need to use the least amount of water, energy and space meerlagen cellen aanbieden en kunnen possible to yield the best, most nutritious crop. There are ook desgewenst een case study loslaten op dergelijke projecten.” several companies in the Netherlands that could supply products and technologies to facilitate such growing Gideon de Jager systems, and Wageningen University and Research Centre is Codema Systems Group an excellent source for information. The Netherlands could best contribute to greenhouse and indoor controlled environment farming in the following areas:

 Greenhouses o KUBO, Nobutec  Climate control (temperature, light, nutrient and water dosage, water parameters) o Priva, HortiMax  Water treatment and management  Hydroponic, Aeroponic and Aquaponic growing systems  Multi-layer growing systems o Codema  LED-lighting o Philips, Visser, NewLux  Consulting o Agro Advies Buro

In addition, soil, seeds and pest control are also critical for urban farming systems. The demand for healthy soil was repeatedly mentioned by urban farms interviewed through this study. Urban grounds are often polluted or lack the appropriate nutrients for productive farming. Seeds most suitable for urban conditions (i.e. wind on rooftops, high yield per square meter, short sunlight hours) would also be welcomed by urban farms, however, most initiatives look for non-GMO, organic and/or heirloom varieties. As most farms practice organic growing methods, organic pest management is also

51 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department practiced. The Netherlands could supply knowledge and products in seeds, soil and biological control of pests.

 Soil (substrate and/or compost) o Orgaworld  Seeds o Rijk Zwaan  Biological control of pests o Koppert

While the largest opportunities are in indoor and greenhouse farming systems, many of the smaller UA initiatives are also looking to LED lighting systems, hydroponic systems, seeds, etc. For example, Aqua Greens in Toronto is small but is installing LED lighting and aquaponic farming systems. Therefore, another opportunity may lie in scalable systems that could be adjusted to different growing spaces.

Urban Sustainability Urban agriculture contributes to urban health across the “…there is growing investment interest in people, planet, profit tripod. In order to harness this food and agriculture, [however] investment spectrum of benefits, cities need to recognize that is still slow in the urban agriculture space. implementing urban agriculture can be costly initially It has therefore been advantageous for but can address multiple urban challenges BrightFarms to position itself at the simultaneously. Urban Agriculture could especially intersection of three areas of interest: play a critical role in urban resource management increasing consumer demand for local, by closing resource cycles, reusing waste streams sustainable food, cleantech (greenhouse and harvesting resources (i.e. heat, rainwater); technology) and business model innovation.” urban agriculture could foster a circular economy. Rainwater harvesting to divert storm water runoff was - Neal Prikh, BrightFarms VP in Gould, 2014 highlighted repeatedly in the cities visited for this study as a major reason to support urban agriculture, especially on rooftops. However, more promising combinations between urban agriculture and urban resource management can be made in which the Netherlands conducts a lot of research; at Wageningen University the Urban Environmental Management and the Environmental Technology departments look at the recovery of resources from waste streams, the integration of resource management and coupling of supply and demand of resources. Other Universities such as TU Delft and the University of Leiden are also involved in these fields.

Implementing urban agriculture through a system-based approach to facilitate urban sustainability would “kill many birds with one stone,” especially as cities are facing more stress from population influxes. Some examples of how UA can foster urban sustainability include: urban greenhouses could harvest excess heat for nearby residential houses, rainwater can be used for irrigation and residential grey water streams or organic waste from homes can be converted into biogas or compost to deliver nutrients. Gotham Greens in NYC already works with NYSERDA, the local energy company to measure the impact of a rooftop greenhouse on the building’s energy consumption. Partnerships between energy providers and urban agriculture can be financially beneficial for both parties. The Netherlands can most certainly contribute to this systems-thinking approach.

 Greenhouse water treatment and reuse o Wageningen University, Plant Science International, Applied Plant Research (PPO)  Anaerobic digestion o Wageningen University, LeAF  Mass flow analysis and industrial symbiosis

52 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

o LeAF, Royal HaskoningDHV, Circular Economy (Agri & Food Sector report), Metabolic  recovery from wastewater for reuse as fertilizer o Grondstoffenfabriek, Waternet (Fos Vaatje)

Distribution Logistics Local food systems do not fit in with the current transportation and distribution systems are oriented towards larger, high-volume product flows. For smaller producers getting to markets and distributing produces and products throughout cities can be challenging, especially for their low volumes. The Netherlands holds great expertise in logistics and distributions systems and could offer this expertise in North America by working with food hubs and larger urban farms in establishing such systems.

Control and Management As the demand for local food becomes part of the regime, local food systems will become subject to stricter rules and regulations for food safety and land use management. On one hand food safety regulations could hinder small and medium sized farms that do not have the capital to invest in safety measures, and perhaps small and medium farms are less worrisome in terms of food safety because of the personal relationship these farmers have with their customers; “they have vested business and personal interests in ensuring that their products are safe and healthy for their immediate and extended communities” (Huff, 2013). On the other hand, small and medium farms, especially urban farms, may be more relaxed about their food handling and farm management. Issues of soil health and pollution, compost management to ensure that all pathogens are killed, farm animal proximity to the produce, and the ill supervision of multiple volunteers can all impact the true food safety of produce from urban farms. A possible trend could be that urban farms will receive their own set of regulations to comply by. The Netherlands can assist on this front by:

 Soil testing  Consulting

Information and data collection UA would benefit from increased access to practical information on farming systems and methods, while governing bodies would benefit from data collection and analysis on the impact of UA across social, environmental, economic and financial realms. The former would make it easier for farmers to start an urban farm without having to undergo the same trial and error procedure that farms before have gone through. The latter would increase credibility in UA and raise support in favor if the industry. The MIT CityFARM is looking at making its data on indoor farming open source for precisely this reason.

In addition, since UA is still in its experimental phase, it is still unsure which technologies work best and at which scale. Technologies for UA could be compared and the best ones further marketed towards UA with specific guidelines. Dutch research institutions could contribute to data collection, technology testing and information sharing. A few research institutions in the Netherlands include:

 RUAF  Wageningen Research Institutes o Applied Plant Research, Plant Research International, Alterra, LEI

Loans Urban farmers have a hard time receiving loans from banks for their business. In fact, urban farms repeatedly mentioned that access to investment capital is one of their largest barriers. Perhaps there are Dutch banks can play a role in the financing of urban farms.

53 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

XIII. Events in Urban Agriculture and Relevant Organizations

Events International Congress on Controlled Environment Agriculture

Urban Agriculture Summit

Global Urban Agriculture Summit

National Urban Extension Conference

Urban and Small Farms Conference

Organizations International Network for Urban Agriculture

City Farmer

EPA- Urban Agriculture & Improving Local, Sustainable Food Systems

USDA-Urban Agriculture

54 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

XIV. Discussion Urban agriculture is hip and happening in North America with differing models sprouting up across most cities. The question remains whether UA is a hype or whether it is here to stay; to what extent will UA and the local food movement change the regime?

Hype vs. no hype? While urban agriculture, in its simplest form, means How do you make a statement about “agriculture in the city,” urban agriculture often does not [urban] farming when it is so vast? primarily grow food. Yes, it produces food, but in North –Carolyn Dimitri, Professor of food America it often times has an alternate intention: to produce studies at New York University community empowerment, sustainability, food security, education. Urban agriculture is used to fix urban social and environmental problems.

Carolyn Dimitri, applied economist and professor of food studies in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies and Public Health at New York University, therefore believes that urban agriculture is a hype; that urban agriculture as the end all solution to urban ills is a hype boosted as such by the media. Of course we like urban agriculture, she explains, it allows humans to connect with land and food which is intrinsic. Dimitri argues that it’s “greatness” is a hype and that in time the next “great” solution will leave urban agriculture behind. The world will continue without urban agriculture, so Dimitri raises the question, is urban agriculture the best use of our resources? Is it the best use of our college graduates turning to urban agriculture; it is the best use of our land and materials; is it the best use of our money?

Besides, urban agriculture attracts the affluent white person who has time and resources to volunteer and the financial capacity to afford the prime-priced produce. These white affluent people then develop programs to help the urban poor, which is what Ty Holmberg from Bartram’s Garden in Philadelphia refers to as “food evangelism.” If urban agriculture is only accessible to a small percentage of individuals, how can it ever reach the entire population?

On the other hand, urban agriculture and the local food movement as a means to change the way food is produced and consumed is gaining momentum and interest from public and private stakeholders. Growing food in cities is considered a critical element for future cities. Urban agriculture for the production of food may not be a hype, but an emerging sector.

Urban Agriculture for the Production of Food Currently UA is in its experimental phase. While farming within city limits has existed since the beginning of cities, the current trends in UA remain at the micro-level of niche innovations where new technologies are tested, policies are challenged and new connections between people and their food are established. At the niche innovation level, radical novelties are emerging, however they are relatively unstable sociotechnical configurations. Acting as “incubation rooms,” these niches are protected from the mainstream market and carried out by small networks of dedicated actors.

The current niche innovations are not developed enough; they are small and unstable as opposed to the regime which is still large and relatively stable. Therefore the changes currently happening to the regime follow the transformation pathway, where the local food movement is being translated into the regime by regime actors. For example, supermarkets are including local food in their produce sections, or even a greenhouse on their roof (Gotham Greens atop Whole Foods in Brooklyn, NYC) and large agricultural producers are emulating the “getting to know your farmer” motto through social media. These examples show that niche firms, entrepreneurs and activists are demonstrating viable

55 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department alternatives to the food system and with those alternatives changing the perceptions of regime insiders. Regime insiders are then more inclined to adapt the regime to incorporate these innovations. These changes usually address local issues but do not change the basic architecture of the regime.

However, the innovations in UA seem more promising than just leading to small transformations at the local level. There “The costs are still relatively high but as worries grow about the risk of the is significant interest in UA and in local food from various sustainability of the food-supply chain stakeholders within and outside of urban centers. There it will become more of a trend,” seems to be a dialogue beginning between the niche actors and the regime actors, where new combinations of old and -Aaron Quesnel, Sky Harvest Inc. in new elements are leading to further adjustments in the Immen, 2013 regime. Because agriculture includes multiple technologies, various innovations occur along the different system components, increasing competition between actors. This is the reconfiguration pathway, where a new regime grows out of the old one; this is where the Dutch sector can introduce its technological innovations, innovations that facilitate an easy reconfiguration of current routines to new ones.

To what extent this will happen in the local food movement is still unsure. Urban agriculture may not supply entire diets, but it can change the regime from production to consumption of leafy greens and boutique vegetables. But even such a change will lead to changes in the entire food system (i.e. rural land use, harvesting patterns, and middlemen relationships).

The extent to which the regime will change depends on various factors. The current conventional food system is heavily criticized and may be challenged by landscape changes. Landscape pressures such as global climate change (i.e. drought, water scarcity, and cold fronts), labor inequality, and food insecurity can create significant instability in the regime. The combination of instability in the regime, overarching landscape pressures and emerging niche innovations increases the possibility that innovations in urban agriculture and the local food movement will more easily bring change to the current regime.

Conclusions Urban agriculture in North America is growing; both low- tech and high-tech initiatives are plotting down in cities from west to east coast. This study focused on the urban agriculture and local food movement as it has developed on the east coast of the United States and Canada, more specifically focusing on Philadelphia, New York, Boston and Toronto.

Status Quo The demand for local food is increasing and the measures to meet that demand via (peri-)urban agriculture are on the up-rise. The individuals interviewed for this study expect the trend for urban agriculture and local food to continue to increase, and those working in high tech are positive that the future of high-tech indoor and greenhouse agriculture is promising. However, regardless of how commercial the ventures in urban agriculture are, the story behind the Figure 20 Dutch clogs ready for use at production of food in the city is the most important; urban Greensgrow Farm in Philadelphia agriculture is not about selling food but about selling a (Wielemaker, 2014) story.

56 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

The initiatives in urban agriculture vary immensely from city to city and from project to project. There is no “one-size-fits-all” model for urban farming, which is its competitive advantage (financial strategies: differentiation, diversification, added value) but also its challenge (little quantification of impact; hard to learn from one another). The differences stem from political and demographic variables between cities, but also because urban agriculture is inclusive of many disciplines, meaning that those involved can use it as a means to achieve varying goals.

Most initiatives in North America are non-profit ventures. The existing rooftop farms in the city However, commercial urban farms are increasing in cities, [New York] are acting as a critical evident in cities such as New York City and Chicago. “proof of concept” that will pave the However, UA is still young and the developments are still way for wider acceptance on the part relatively experimental. “Urban agriculture is still in its of property owners and are relative infancy, meaning every farm that opens its doors establishing important precedents for in the next decade will help make or break the foundation the streamlining of the permitting process at the Department of Buildings of the movement in the long run” (Barth, 2014). (DOB). Entrepreneurs are all finding their way to success in UA (Ackerman, 2011) meaning that often times a lot is kept secretive, especially among commercial growers.

Successes The success of urban agriculture in North America is in the dedication of entrepreneurs who set their minds to “fight” for the implementation of urban agriculture. The American Dream ideal does show through in the perseverance of those engaged in UA.

Urban agriculture’s success in general is due to its diverse and wide application to various urban issues. UA does not need to produce food primarily but the production of food can be used to achieve various social and environmental goals. This diversity also means that UA can tap into more funding sources. Some policies and subsidies have also made it easier for urban farms to take root, such as the New York City property tax cut for green roofs in the name of storm water mitigation and in Toronto the green roof bylaw for all new buildings.

Barriers The largest barriers to urban agriculture in North America are access to financial capital, policy and access to land. All initiatives struggle to find funding, grants, investors and/or subsidies to finance their venture, both in low-tech and in high-tech urban agriculture. The advantage that non-profits have is that they do not pay taxes and they can receive funds and grants for their social and environmental impact/work in the city. Commercial high-tech farms, however, are more likely to cost more up front but are also more likely to provide a constant supply to the market and therefore make secure a return on investment.

Policy regulations and bylaws also dampen the development of urban agriculture throughout cities. Zoning regulations make it difficult to implement agricultural businesses in residential and commercial areas. The paperwork for requesting zoning variances can be arduous and time consuming. Echoing the barriers of costs and zoning policy is access to vacant land within cities. High property values make vacant land unaffordable to urban farmers. As cities and developers wait for the economy to pick up again to continue with development plans of the highest value, vacant land sits idle. It also takes a lot of research before urban farmers know who owns which parcel, whether it’s available and whether it is suitable for farming (i.e. pollution).

Opportunities The opportunities for the Netherlands are most prominent in supplying the sector with high-tech solutions for agricultural production, logistics and urban environmental management. As cities and

57 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department stakeholders are recognizing that urban agriculture can provide an integrated solution to various urban ills, the Netherlands can offer technology and knowledge in efficient agricultural systems that simultaneously reduce water use, reduce energy consumption, harvest resources (i.e. solar, rainwater), increase yield and control growing environments.

58 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

XV. References

Abdul Nazar, A. K., R. Jayakumar and G. Tamilmani (2013). Recirculating aquaculture systems, Mandapam Regional Centre of CMFRI.

Ackerman, K. (2011). The Potential for Urban Agriculture in New York City: Growing Capacity, Food Security, & Green Infrastructure, Urban Design Lab, The Earth Institute, Columbia University: 112.

Acton, L. (2013). "Allotment History: The First Allotments." Allotment & Gardens Retrieved August 14, 2014, 2014, from http://www.allotment-garden.org/allotment/allotment-history-first- allotment.php.

Added Value. (2013). "Added Value." Retrieved October 10, 2014, 2014, from http://added- value.org/.

Aero Farms Systems LLC. (2010). "Smarter Technology." Why Aeroponics? Retrieved August 13, 2014, 2014, from http://aerofarms.com/why/technology/.

AgriHolland. (2013). "Dossier Stadslandbouw." Retrieved August 20, 2014, 2014, from http://www.agriholland.nl/dossiers/stadslandbouw/.

AgriHolland B.V. (2013). Dossier Stadslandbouw. GroeneRuimte.

Agro AdviesBuro B.V. "Welcome to Agro AdviesBuro." Retrieved December 9, 2014, 2014, from http://www.agroadviesburo.nl/en/.

Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions. (2014). "Amsterdam Institute for Advanced Metropolitan Solutions." Retrieved December 4, 2014, 2014, from http://www.ams- amsterdam.com/.

APA. (2014). "Principles of a Healthy, Sustainable Food System." Retrieved November 25, 2014, 2014.

Arsenault, C. (2014) "Urban agriculture covers an area the size of Europe, more growth needed - study." Reuters.

Asher, A. (2014). Mill Creek Farm. R. Wielemaker.

B.V., P. (2009). Eindrapport Project EcoFutura: Vistellt in de Glastuinbouw, Priva B.V., Aqua-Terra Nova B.V., GreenQ Group B.V., Groen Agro Control.

Bai, X. (2007). "Industrial ecology and the global impacts of cities." Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(2): 1-6.

Barham, J., D. Tropp, K. Enterline, J. Farbman, J. Fisk and S. Kiraly (2012). Regional Food Hub Resource Guide: Food hub impacts on regional food systems, and the resources available to support their growth and development. Washington, DC., United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service.

Barth, B. (2014). Farming in the City: Urban Growers Face Unique Challenges. Acres U.S.A. October.

59 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Belanger, L. (2014) "50 X 60: A New England Food Vision." edibleBoston.

Berg, J. (2014). NYU Urban Farm Lab. R. Wielemaker.

Black, J. (2013) "BrightFarms'idea: Greenhouses that cut short the path from plant to grocery shelf." The Washington Post.

Blackmore, W. (2014) "This New Law Could Make Landowners and Urban Farmers Best Friends."

Bon, L. (1944). Dig for Plenty. The National Archives.

BrightFarms Inc. "Our History." Retrieved August 26, 2014, 2014, from http://brightfarms.com/s/#!/about_us/our_history.

Brooklyn Grange. (2014). "Naval Yard Farm." Retrieved August 18, 2014, 2014, from http://brooklyngrangefarm.com/navy-yard-farm/.

Brunner, P. H. (2007). "Reshaping urban metabolism." Journal of Industrial Ecology 11(2): 11-13.

Center, R. F. a. A. "Riverpark Farm NYC." Retrieved October 15, 2014, 2014, from http://www.riverparkfarm.com/Riverparkfarm/farm.htm.

City of Boston. (2014). "Urban Agriculture." Retrieved November 5, 2014, 2014, from http://www.cityofboston.gov/food/urbanag/.

Clark, W. C. (2003). "Urban Environments: Battleground for Global Sustainability." Environment 45(7).

CODEMA Systems Group. (2014). "CODEMA Systems Group." Retrieved December 10, 2014, 2014, from http://www.codemasystemsgroup.com/site/.

Connell, J. and A. S. Ellis (2014). Battery Urban Farm. R. Wielemaker.

Conservation Law Foundation and CLF Ventures Inc. (2012). Growing Green: Measuring Benefits, Overcoming Barriers, and Nurturing Opportunities for Urban Agriculture in Boston, CLF and CLF Ventures: 61.

Cooper, F. G. (1917). Food, don't waste it, U.S. Food Administration.

Cornell University. (2012). "Controlled Environment Agriculture." Retrieved August 15, 2014, 2014, from http://www.cornellcea.com/about/index.html.

Costa-Pierce, B., A. Desbonnet, P. Edwards and D. Baker (2005). Urban aquaculture, CABI Publishing.

Creators, T. P. U. (2014). "About Us." Retrieved September 2, 2014, 2014, from http://phillyurbancreators.org/our-projects/life-do-grow-fairhill-north-philadelphia/.

Despommier, D. (2010). The vertical farm: feeding the world in the 21st century, Macmillan.

Didde, R. (2012). De stad heeft honger. Wageningen World. Rotterdam, Mediacenter Rotterdam.

60 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Diver, S. (2010). Aquaponics-Integration of hydroponics with aquaculture, Attra- National Sustainable Agriculture Information Service.

Doucleff, M. (2013) "Vertical 'Pinkhouse:' The Future of Urban Farming?" npr.

Eagle Street Rooftop Farm (2012). 2012 Rooftop Farm Fact Sheet. E. S. R. Farm.

European Commission. (2014). "Short Food Supply Chains- European Commission." Agriculture and Rural Development- , from http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/consumer- trust/certification-and-confidence/short-supply-chain/index_en.htm.

FAO (2008). An Introduction to the Basic Concepts of Food Security. Food Security Information for Action: Practical Guides, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

Farm, H. G. "Higher Ground Farm." Retrieved November 14, 2014, 2014, from http://www.highergroundrooftopfarm.com/.

Farm, M. C. "Welcome to Mill Creek Farm." Retrieved September 2, 2014, 2014, from http://millcreekurbanfarm.org/.

FarmRoof. (2011). "What is Rooftop Farming?", from http://farmroof.com/rooftop-farming/.

Farms, L. (2013). "Lufa Farms Photostream." Retrieved August 12, 2014, 2014, from http://www.flickr.com/photos/lufafarms/with/9576071355.

Fisheries, N. "What is Aquaculture?" Retrieved August 13, 2014, 2014, from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/aquaculture/what_is_aquaculture.html.

Flagg, J. M. (1918). World War I era US poster. National Archives. N. W. G. Commission.

Food, S. (2014). "Our Philosophy." About Us Retrieved November 25, 2014, 2014, from http://www.slowfood.com/international/2/our-philosophy?- session=query_session:394D15A41b7822F63AsYE5754295.

FPAC "Philadelphia Food Policy Advisory Council." WordPress http://phillyfpac.org/ 2014.

Fried-Cassorla, E. (2012) "A New Zoning Code, and a New Era for Urban Agriculture in Philly." Next City.

Frohne, B. (2012) "The Hyper-Local Food Movement." 2014.

Garden, B. s. (2012). "Bartram's Garden- 18th Century Home of John Bartram Naturalist & Botanist & Explorer." Retrieved October 17, 2014, 2014, from http://www.bartramsgarden.org/.

Geels, F. and J. Schot (2007). "Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways." Research Policy 36: 399-417.

Girardet, H. (2004). "Cities people planet: Livable cities for a sustainable world." Gr Britain: Wiley- Academy.

Gittleman, M. (2014). Farming Concrete. R. Wielemaker.

Glabrath-Paul, A. (2014). Heritage Farm. R. Wielemaker.

61 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Goldstein, M. (2011) "Urban Agriculture: A Sixteen City Survey of Urban Agriculture Practices Across the Country."

Gould, D. (2014) "BrightFarms raised $4.9M to build Greenhouses on Urban Supermarkets." Forbes.

GRACE Communications Foundation. (2014). "Local and Regional Food Systems." Retrieved August 17, 2014, 2014, from http://www.sustainabletable.org/254/local-regional-food-systems.

Green Deal Stadsgerichte Landbouw (2013). Stadsboeren in Nederland. Professionalisering van de stadsgerichte landbouw, Ministerie Economische Zaken en Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Millieu.

Green, J. (2010) "Despommier: "Vertical Farms Are Key to Eco-Urbanization"." The Dirt: Uniting the Built and Natural Environments.

Greens, G. (2014). "Gotham Greens Local Produce." Retrieved Sept 26, 2014, 2014, from http://gothamgreens.com/.

Greyson, L. (2014). NYU Urban Farm Lab. R. Wielemaker.

Grimm, N. B., S. H. Faeth, N. E. Golubiewski, C. L. Redman, J. Wu, X. Bai and J. M. Briggs (2008). "Global change and the ecology of cities." science 319(5864): 756-760.

GrownDownTown. "Missie." Retrieved August 25, 2014, 2014, from http://www.growndowntown.coop/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3&Itemid=118& lang=nl.

GrowNYC. (2014). "GrowNYC." Retrieved Oct 16, 2014, 2014, from http://www.grownyc.org/.

Hahn, K. (2013). "What is a food shed?" Retrieved August 22, 2014, 2014, from http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/what_is_a_food_shed.

Harper, C. (2014). MIT CityFARM. R. Wielemaker.

Hasler-Brooks, N. (2014). Greensgrow Farms. R. Wielemaker.

Hennessey, C. (2014). Higher Ground Farm. R. Wielemaker.

Hereth, C. (2011). West Philly Grown - Full Documentary, VIMEO.

Holmberg, T. (2014). Community Farm & Food Resource Center at Bartram's Garden. R. Wielemaker.

Hood, S. B. (2013) "Toronto's Backyard Bylaw isn't Eggs-actly Effective, and Urban Poulty Lovers are Crying Fowl." Yonge Street.

HortiMax B.V. (2014). "HortiMax Growing Solutions." Retrieved December 5, 2014, 2014, from http://www.hortimax.com/.

Huff, P. (2013). "The local food "safety" burden." Think Forward Blog http://www.iatp.org/blog/201311/the-local-food-%E2%80%9Csafety%E2%80%9D-burden.

Hunt, N. (2012) "The Rise of Urban Beekeeping in Washington." Washingtonian.

62 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Immen, W. (2013) "Rooftop Farming gains high ground in Montreal." The Globe and Mail.

Initiative, A. U. N. (2014). "Agatson Urban Nutrition Initiative: About Us." Retrieved October 17, 2014, 2014, from http://www.urbannutrition.org/about-us/.

Jansen, E. (2014) "(Aal-)moestuin."

Jones, A. (2014). Fair Food Philly. R. Wielemaker.

Jones Jr., J. B. (2012). Hydroponics: A practical guide for the soilless grower, CRC press.

Kas, D. "Restaurant en Kwekerij de Kas." Retrieved August 25, 2014, 2014, from http://www.restaurantdekas.nl/.

Kaushik (2013) "Singapore's Vertical Farms." Amusing Planet.

Kruchkin, A. (2013). IBISWorld Industry Report OD4012 Hydrponic Crop Farming in the US. Weatherproof: Rising food prices and extreme weather conditions will cultivate industry growth, IBISWorld: 33.

Laskawy, T. (2010) "Philadelphia's urban-farming roots go deep - and are spreading wide." Grist.

LLC, S. F. (2014). "SPIN- A New Way to Learn to Farm." Retrieved August 25, 2014, 2014, from http://spinfarming.com/whatsSpin/.

Luessen, R. (2014). "Wired UK: MIT CityFARM." Cris Crisman Photography http://blog.crismanphoto.com/wired-uk-mit-cityfarm/ 2014.

Martucci, B. (2014) "Urban Farm to Urban Table: Growing and Sourcing Hyper-Local Food in the Twin Cities." The Line.

MIT CityFARM. "MIT CityFARM." Retrieved October 20, 2014, 2014, from http://mitcityfarm.media.mit.edu/.

Morgan, K. (2009). "Feeding the city: The challenge of urban food planning."

Morgan, L. (1999). "Nutrient Film Technique (NFT) Production of Lettuce." Retrieved August 12, 2014, 2014, from http://www.cropking.com/nft_lettuce1.shtml.

Mosca, L. (2014). City Harvest Program. R. Wielemaker.

Mosca, L. (2014). City Harvest Program. R. Wielemaker.

Mougeot, L. J. (2000). "Urban agriculture: definition, presence, potentials and risks." Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda: 1-42.

Mougeot, L. J. (2006). Growing better cities: Urban agriculture for sustainable development, IDRC.

network, D. s. F. t. F. (2014). "Welcome to DC's Field to Fork Network." Retrieved August 25, 2014, 2014, from http://fieldtoforknetwork.org/.

63 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

our.Windowfarms. "Windowfarmers R&D-I-Y: An Open Source Community Developing Hydroponic Edible Gardens For Urban Windows." Retrieved Aug 12, 2014, 2014, from http://our.windowfarms.org/.

Pansing, C., J. Fisk, A. Wasserman, M. Muldoon, S. Kiraly and T. Benjamin (2013). North American Food Sector, Part One: Program Scan & Literature Review. Arlington, VA, Wallace Center at Winrock International.

Pasquarelli, A. (2014) "Brooklyn's Gotham Greens to Sprout Big Chicago Farm." Crain's New York Business.

Paterson, C. (2012). "Food Policy Councils." Retrieved November 29, 2014, 2014, from http://www.communitycommons.org/2012/08/the-growing-impact-of-food-policy-councils/.

Perry, D. (2014). Interview Sustainable Food Systems in North America. Institute for Sustainable Communities. R. Wielemaker.

Philadelphia, C. o. (2014). "Mayor's Office of Sustainability." Retrieved September 10, 2014, 2014, from http://www.phila.gov/green//index.html.

Pickens, Z. (2014). Riverpark Farm NYC. R. Wielemaker.

Plant Connection Inc. (2014). "Green Roof Legislation, Policies and Tax Incentives." Retrieved November 4, 2014, 2014, from http://myplantconnection.com/green-roofs-legislation.php.

PlantLab. "PlantLab." Retrieved December 4, 2014, 2014, from http://www.plantlab.nl/.

Pothukuchi, K. and J. L. Kaufman (2000). "The food system: A stranger to the planning field." Journal of the American Planning Association 66(2): 113-124.

Project, G. P. (2014). "Greensgrow Farms: Growers of Food, Flowers and Neighborhoods." Retrieved September 14, 2014, 2014, from http://www.greensgrow.org/.

Puri, V. (2011). Gotham greens, LLC Sustainable Urban CEA. Albany, NY, NYSERDA: 52.

Pyramid Garden. (2014). "Pyramid Garden." Retrieved November 26, 2014, 2014, from http://www.pyramidgarden.com/.

Rakocy, J. E., M. P. Masser and T. M. Losordo (2006). "Recirculating aquaculture tank production systems: Aquaponics—Integrating fish and plant culture." SRAC publication 454: 1-16.

Rondeel B.V. "Welcome to the World of Rondeel." Retrieved December 4, 2014, 2014, from http://www.rondeel.org/.

Rootdown. (2012). "2012 CSA Harvest Box Program is Open!".

RUAF. Topics, from http://www.ruaf.org/topics/urban-horticulture.

Rye's HomeGrown CG. (2014). "Annual Report 2013." Retrieved November 20, 2014, 2014, from http://www.foodshare.net/files/www/AboutUs/2013-FoodShare-AnnualReport-FINAL.pdf.

Schwartz, S. (2014). Pecking Order: Backyard chickens have been illegal in Philadelphia since 2004. It's time for that to change. Grid. Philadelphia, Red Flag Media.

64 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

Seedstock (2014) "5 Farms Pushing the Boundaries of Indoor Farming." Seedstock.

Smit, J., J. Nasr and A. Ratta (2001). Urban agriculture: Food, jobs and sustainability, New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.

Smith, R. L. (2014). Brooklyn Grange. R. Wielemaker.

Stadslandbouw Den Haag. (2014). "Wat is Stadslandbouw?" Retrieved December 5, 2014, 2014, from http://stadslandbouwdenhaag.nl/.

Stedennetwerk Stadslandbouw. (2013). "Over Ons." Retrieved August 18, 2014, 2014, from http://www.stedennetwerkstadslandbouw.nl/over-ons2/.

The Bettery Conservancy. (2014). "Battery Urban Farm." Retrieved October 27, 2014, 2014, from http://www.thebattery.org/projects/battery-urban-farm/.

The Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. (2014). "PHS." Retrieved October 14, 2014, 2014, from http://www.thepennsylvaniahorticulturalsociety.org.

topsector.nl. (2014). "Feiten en Cijfers." Retrieved December 6, 2014, 2014, from http://topsectoren.nl/agri-food/feiten-cijfers.

Topsectoren.nl. (2014). "Topsector Agri & Food." Retrieved December 8, 2014, 2014, from http://topsectoren.nl/agri-food.

Toronto Food Policy Council (2012). GrowTO: An Urban Agriculture Action Plan for Toronto. Toronto, Toronto Food Policy Council.

University, J. H. (2014). "Food Policy Council (FPC) Directory." Retrieved November 26, 2014, 2014, from http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable- future/projects/FPN/directory/index.html.

UrbanAgLaw. (2014). "Animals and Livestock." UrbanAg Topics Retrieved August 14, 2014, 2014, from http://www.urbanaglaw.org/animals-and-livestock/.

USDA. (2014). "Community Supported Agriculture." Publications Retrieved August 14, 2014, 2014, from http://www.nal.usda.gov/afsic/pubs/csa/csa.shtml.

USDA. (2014). "Organic Hydroponic Crop Production." National Organic Program Retrieved August 12, 2014, 2014, from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/NOPOrganicHydroponicCropProduction.

USDA. (2014). "What is a Farmers' Market?" Retrieved August 15, 2014, 2014, from http://www.fns.usda.gov/ebt/what-farmers-market.

Utrecht, G. (2014). "Mogelijke Locaties Stadslandbouw Gemeente Utrecht." Retrieved August 25, 2014, 2014, from http://objectdesk.gemgids.nl/Publication/Site/272.

van der Berg, L. and R. van Veenhuizen (2005). Multiple Functions of Urban Agriculture. Urban Agriculture Magazine, RUAF. 15.

van der Schans, J.-W. (2012). Eetbaar Rotterdam. R. Wielemaker.

65 Rosanne Wielemaker Embassy of the Netherlands, Agriculture Department

van der Schans, J. W. and J. S. C. Wiskerke Urban agriculture in developed economies. Sustainable food planning: evolving theory and practice. A. Viljoen and J. S. C. Wiskerke. Wageningen, Wageningen Academic Publishers.

van Ooyen, M. (2014). Grow NYC. R. Wielemaker.

Vinnitskaya, I. (2012) "The Plant: An Old Chicago Factory is Converted into a No-Waste Food Factory." Arch Daily.

Wachter, S., G. Scruggs, R. Voith and L. Huang (2010). Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia: Land use and Policy Study, Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia.

Wageningen University, Wageningen UR Greenhouse Horticulture and Horticulture & Product Physiology Group (2014). "LED-lighting can significantly reduce greenhouse horticulture energy consumption."

Weaver's Way Co-op. (2014). "Weaver's Way Co-op." Retrieved September 14, 2014, 2014, from http://www.weaversway.coop/.

Web Ecoist. (2014). "Reviplant Edible Green Wall." Retrieved November 26, 2014, 2014, from http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2010/01/06/meet-the-wallflowers/6-reviplant-edible-green-wall-3/.

WHO. (2014). "Urban Population Growth." from http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_text/en/.

Winne, M. (2011) "Texas College Converts Football Field into Organic Farm." Civil Eats.

Works, N. Y. S. (2011). "New York Sun Works." Retrieved Oct 29, 2014, 2014, from http://nysunworks.org/.

Works, N. Y. S. (2014). NY Sun Works Greenhouse Project: 2014 Information Guide, New York Sun Works, Inc.

Wu, S. (2014). Mayor's Office of Sustainability. R. Wielemaker.

Zamora, M. (2014). New York Sun Works. R. Wielemaker.

Zigas, E. (2014) "North American Cities Produce Bumper Crop of Urban Agriculture Studies." SPUR.

66