10 JULI 2020

URBAN FOOD POLICIES IN EDE AND LJUBLJANA COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY ANALYSIS ON RURAL-URBAN LINKAGES

ROELEVELD, ROOS 961001700100 Wageningen University Information page

Master thesis Urban Food Policies in Ede and Ljubljana – Comparative case study in times of COVID-19

December 2019 – July 2020

Author: Roos Roeleveld Student number: 961001700100 Mail: [email protected]

Education program: Master Organic Agriculture Specialization: Sustainable Food Systems Chair group: Rural Sociology Thesis code: RSO-80433 Wageningen University & Research Supervisor: Henk Oostindie

Date: 10-07-2020 Place: Beuningen

1

Preface

I want to present you my thesis: ‘Urban Food Policies in Ede and Ljubljana’. It is a comparative case study between the municipality of Ede and the municipality of Ljubljana, carried out in times of COVID-19.

This research stemmed from my interest in food systems and urban-rural relations, and my passion for developing better food policies at a regional level. I am in favor of a holistic approach, and that is where urban food policies are often about. It is a relatively new policy field, which asks for investigation, evaluation and comparison between different places. My curiosity about different cultures attract me to the Balkan. Unfortunately, my stay only could last for two weeks.

The thesis is part of my master program Organic Agriculture (specialization Sustainable Food Systems) at Wageningen University & Research. I also hope that this report can provide the municipality of Ede and Ljubljana some new interesting insights which they can use in the development of their Urban Food Policy.

I want to thank my supervisor Henk Oostindie for the guidance during my research process. I am also grateful to all the people that found the time for an interview with me, although they were very busy and it was not possible in person. Lastly, I want to give a big thanks to Mojca Hrabar from Slovenia. She really helped me a lot by organizing my trip to Ljubljana, providing information and documents if I needed, and made me feel welcome in the city. Although I was only able to stay for two weeks in Slovenia, I got a good impression of the country, and became inspired by the way of living of the Slovenian people; enjoying life, valuing nature, taking time for good food, and the still existing connection between the people and the farmers and the rural areas.

I hope you enjoy reading the thesis.

Roos Roeleveld

Beuningen, 14 july 2020

2 Summary (English) There are many challenges in nowadays food systems related to health, environment, and economy. Because of this multi-dimensionality, there is a need for integration of domains to come up with better solutions. Urban Food Policies (UFP) are emerging to create more sustainable food systems at local level. Rural-urban linkages are important in the development of a region. However, there is much unclear about these rural-urban linkages and how to govern them. There are three perspectives on these relations; absolute, relative, and relational. You need all the three types to be able to really understand the urban-rural relations. This research explores how Urban Food Policies influence rural-urban linkages in different socioeconomic contexts, by carrying out a comparative case-study analysis between Ljubljana (Slovenia) and Ede (the Netherlands). A multi-method approach was used in which first an assessment of the food systems and the rural-urban linkages of both cases were indicated. Secondly, a content analysis of the UFP documents was carried out. Thirdly, in- depth, semi-structured interviews were carried out by different stakeholders to indicate the challenges and opportunities to sustain regional rural-urban relations by the UFP.

The food system in the Netherlands turned out to be more modern and industrialized, with a small rural population, compared to a more traditional and local food chain in Slovenia with a relatively large rural population. The municipality of Ede has the ambition to strengthen its position as an important food and agricultural region with (inter)national connections. In Ljubljana there are still strong regional rural-urban linkages present, and food origin plays a much more prominent role in their food culture compared to the Dutch food culture. In the UFP of Ede they try to integrate multiple policy domains and different actors. In Ljubljana the UFP is formed by the rural development section of the municipality and creating a sustainable SFSC within their region is the most important goal. In Ede the continuity of the UFP on the long term and integrating the different domains and stakeholders in a holistic vision is a main challenge. In Ljubljana increasing the local food supply, improving the efficiency in the chain, and gaining trust in collaboration are main challenges. At many aspects the regions seem opposites, but there are dynamics visible in which they grow towards each other. Also synergistic relations can be found in terms of business, recreation, and eco-systems. The ability to establish mutual positive relations between UFP and other synergy fields will co- determine the overall potential of the Urban Food Policies.

The UFP in both cities help to work on the food challenges that they experience in their specific socioeconomic context. Their visions are partly formed by their history and societal values. The UFP help to actively work on improving the situation and getting domains and stakeholders more interlinked. In Ljubljana, it is because of several reasons easier to sustain the existing food system through their UFP. To know what the influence of the UFP on rural- urban relations is, you have to determine which perspective on rural-urban relations and space you use. In Ede the outcomes on absolute, relative, and relational perspective are different. This makes it difficult to discuss to which extent Ede can contribute to sustaining the urban-rural relations, because it is not complete clear at which linkages they target. In Ljubljana these three perspectives correspond better with each other and their vision is more unambiguous. The use of several methods increased the validity of the research. A limitation is that because of COVID-19, it was not possible to interview stakeholders from a societal/practical perspective in Ljubljana. Therefore, this perspective is not fully covered for Ljubljana in this research.

3 Summary (Dutch) In de huidige voedselsystemen zijn verschillende uitdagingen zichtbaar gerelateerd aan onder andere gezondheid, het milieu, en de economie. Door deze multidimensionaliteit, is integratie van domeinen nodig om tot betere oplossingen te komen. Er is een groei in Stedelijk Voedsel Beleid (SVB) om tot duurzamere voedselsystemen te komen op een lokale schaal. Stad- platteland relaties zijn belangrijk in de ontwikkeling van een regio. Echter is er nog veel onduidelijk over deze stad-plattelandsrelaties en hoe je ze kunt sturen. Er zijn drie perspectieven op deze relaties; absoluut, relatief, en relationeel. Je hebt alle drie de varianten nodig om in staat te zijn om de stad-plattelands relaties daadwerkelijk te begrijpen. In deze thesis is er onderzocht hoe SVB stad-plattelandsrelaties beïnvloed in verschillende sociaaleconomische contexten. Dit is gedaan door het uitvoeren van een comparatieve casus analyse tussen Ljubljana en Ede. Een multi-methode benadering is gebruikt waarin een assessment van de voedsel systemen en de stad-plattelands relaties van beide casussen werd uitgevoerd, een content analyse van SVB documenten is uitgevoerd en interviews zijn gehouden met verschillende belanghebbenden.

Het voedselsysteem in Nederland bleek moderner en meer geïndustrialiseerd te zijn, met een kleine rurale populatie, tegenover een traditionelere voedselketen in Slovenië, met een relatief grote rurale populatie. Gemeente Ede heeft de ambitie om haar positie als belangrijke food en agri regio te versterken met (inter)nationale connecties. In Ljubljana zijn nog steeds sterke stad-plattelandsrelaties aanwezig, en voedselherkomst speelt een belangrijke rol in hun voedselcultuur. In het SVB van Ede proberen ze verschillende beleidsdomeinen en actoren te integreren. In Ljubljana is het SVB gevormd door het gemeentelijke domein voor Rurale Ontwikkeling. Hierbinnen is het creëren van een duurzame korte voedselketen in hun regio het belangrijkste doel. In Ede is de continuïteit van het SVB op de lange termijn en het integreren van verschillende domeinen en actoren de grootste uitdaging. De grootste uitdagingen in Ljubljana zijn het vergroten van de lokale voedselproductie, het verbeteren van de efficiëntie in de keten en het realiseren van vertrouwen in samenwerking. De regio’s lijken op veel aspecten tegenstellend, maar er zijn wel degelijk dynamieken zichtbaar waarin ze naar elkaar toegroeien. Ook zijn er synergie relaties te herkennen op o.a. het gebied van bedrijvigheid, recreatie en ecosystemen. Het vermogen om wederzijdse positieve relaties tussen het SVB en andere synergie thema’s te creëren, zal de potentie van het SVB bepalen.

In het SVB in beide gemeenten werken ze aan voedsel gerelateerde uitdagingen die ze ervaren in hen specifieke sociaaleconomische context. De visies zijn gedeeltelijk gevormd door hun geschiedenis en maatschappelijke waarden. Het SVB helpt om actief te werken aan het verbeteren van de situatie en het linken van verschillende domeinen en actoren. In Ljubljana is het om verschillende redenen makkelijker om bestaande voedselsystemen door te zetten middels het SVB. Om te kunnen weten wat de invloed van het SVB op stad-plattelands relaties is moet er bepaald worden op welk perspectief je doelt voor de stad-plattelandsrelaties. In Ede zijn de uitkomsten bij een absoluut, relatief, en relationeel perspectief anders. Dit maakt het moeilijk om te bediscussiëren in hoeverre Ede kan bijdragen aan het versterken van stad- plattelands relaties, omdat het niet geheel duidelijk is op welke relaties wordt gedoeld. In Ljubljana komen de drie perspectieven beter overeen en is hun visie eenduidiger. Het gebruik van verschillende onderzoeksmethoden heeft de validiteit van het onderzoek vergroot. Door COVID-19 is het niet mogelijk geweest om in Ljubljana actoren uit de praktijk kant te interviewen. Hierdoor is dit perspectief niet volledig gedekt in dit onderzoek.

4 Table of contents

Information page ...... 1

Preface ...... 1

Summary (English) ...... 3

Summary (Dutch) ...... 4

Table of contents ...... 5

1. Introduction ...... 6

2. Theoretical framework ...... 9

3. Methodological approach ...... 15

4. Urban-rural relations and food system dynamics in Ede and Ljubljana ...... 21

5. urban-rural relations in the Urban Food Policies ...... 31

6. Challenges and opportunities to sustain the urban-rural relations ...... 38

7. Conclusion ...... 45

8. Discussion ...... 47

Literature:...... 51

Appendixes: ...... 56

List of abbreviations Table 1: Abbreviations Abbreviation Explaination AFN Alternative Food Networks FS Food System LUR Ljubljana Urban Region MOL Municipality of Ljubljana MUFPP Milan Urban Food Policy Pact SFSC Short Food Supply Chain UFP Urban Food Policy

5 1. Introduction

In the 20th century an industrialized food system was introduced in order to produce enough food for a low price for everyone (Morgan & Sonnino, 2010). This system was for a big part driven by a group of influential private food firms and national and international governance processes (Heffernan, Hendrickson, & Arda, 2008; Moragues-Faus & Morgan, 2015). Now, new challenges, e.g. the increase in health costs, environmental pollution and societal distrust in the current system, are emerging (Wiskerke, 2009). This wide range of challenges shows the multi-dimensionality of the food system (Morgan & Sonnino, 2010; Morgan, 2015, Zasada et al., 2019). The food system is related to social, economic, and ecological domains, and a sustainable system asks constantly for trade-offs between these values (Thompson et al., 2007). The various components need to be integrated to come up with better solutions (Liu et al., 2015). In order to do this, system thinking is required. System thinking is mentioned as an effective approach for challenges with social complexity and time delays between making the decision and perceiving the impact (Zurcher, Jensen, & Mansfield, 2018). Actors at different governance levels see the need for an integrated approach to make a change in the food system and start to challenge the current playfield (Moragues-Faus & Morgan, 2015). One level where this integration of domains is taking place is at city level. The implementation of Urban Food Policies is growing rapidly in the last years (Jablonski et al., 2019; Morgan, 2015; Sibbing, Candel, & Termeer, 2019; Sonnino, 2016). In 2015 over one hundred cities signed the international Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP), in which cities committed to work on local solutions for a sustainable urban food systems to address global issues (Jablonski et al., 2019; Sibbing et al., 2019; Tegoni & Licomati, 2017). In cities, multiple stakeholders are brought together (civil society, private actors and local governments), often organized by city governments together with grassroot initiatives. The engagement of a diverse group of local stakeholders and citizens results in regional adapted solutions. There are several forms used for the governance of food in cities, e.g. food policy councils, food boards, or food partnerships (Moragues-Faus & Morgan, 2015). The overall goal of these food policies is to create a more sustainable urban food system (Calori, Dansero, Pettenati, & Toldo, 2017; Jablonski et al., 2019; Moragues-Faus & Morgan, 2015; Morgan, 2015), by addressing local challenges as public health, food waste (Sibbing et al., 2019), and social justice (Morgan, 2015). To put things in practice, cities developed competencies and received tasks to manage sustainable urban food systems (Calori et al., 2017). Cities become key places for transitions and new food governance. City governments have a high executive force compared to national governments where processes can take long because of contrasting ideologies (Moragues-Faus & Morgan, 2015).

In regional development, the relation between the urban center and the regional surrounding is important and rural-urban linkages are meaningful units of analysis for sustainable food systems (Forster & Getz Escudero, 2014). Therefore it can provide opportunities to involve the rural surrounding by working on solutions for urban problems and in the other way around (Caffyn & Dahlström, 2005). However, there is often a governmental division in the governance of the rural and urban areas. This division is no longer appropriate as there is a coherent urban-rural region envisioned, in which urban and rural areas and their stakeholders are connected and synergies can emerge (Ros-Tonen, Pouw, & Bavinck, 2015; Sonnino, 2016). Rural-urban linkages can be viewed as mutual flows of people, goods, services, money and environmental services (Forster, Santini, Edwards, Flanagan, & Taguchi, 2015). Improved

6 linkages between people producing and consuming the food is a good way to achieve harmony and synergies. Better urban-rural connectivity is indicated as important to reach sustainable urbanization and food systems (Blay-Palmer et al., 2018). Improving a City Region Food System is not a universal process for all countries, the choice of the food strategy is strongly context dependent (Moragues-Faus & Morgan, 2015). Historical developments, the political context, the particular character of urbanization, the type of food and agriculture systems, and the existing ties between rural and urban in the region play an important role (Forster et al., 2015). However, there are still limited insights in how Urban Food Policies can contribute to sustaining the urban-rural relations which are essential for sustainable food systems.

Scientific & societal relevance RosTonen et al. (2015) indicated that not much is known about how to govern the urban-rural relation. There is a need to strengthen governance at regional level and in Europe more policy attention needs to be given to urban-rural linkages (Nilsson et al., 2014; Ros-Tonen et al., 2015). Also, the visions behind the urban food policies and how these policies can re-shape the relation between urban and rural and its corresponding stakeholders is not sufficiently analyzed. There is a need to understand these links (Sonnino, 2016). Appropriate policies are very context dependent, however, there is not much known about the context-specific opportunities and challenges for urban-rural relations and Urban Food Policies. Case studies provide in-depth data that can be used by the local governance to improve their strategy. Data from comparative analysis on urban food policies can be useful to spread promising practices among different cities, so they can learn from each other. Also the potential of cities to create more sustainable social, economic and environmental linkages with the surrounding regions need to be identified (Sonnino, 2009). In the end, improved governance arrangements and synergies can be built that will contribute to sustainable and inclusive growth.

Research objective & question The objective of this research is to explore the role of Urban Food Policies in rural-urban linkages and to identify the opportunities and threats of this in different socioeconomic contexts. This is done by carrying out a comparative case study of two different regions and their Urban Food Policies. Therefore, two cities in different European contexts and going through a different process of developing an Urban Food Strategy are selected for a comparative case study; Ede (the Netherlands) and Ljubljana (Slovenia). Both cities take part in an European project that focus on the relation between urban and rural areas, called ROBUST (ROBUST, n.d.). This paper addresses the question: ‘What is the influence of Urban Food Policies on sustaining urban-rural linkages in different socioeconomic contexts?’. To answer this question, a systematic content analysis of policy documents of Ede and Ljubljana is carried out. Interviews with relevant stakeholders were held to fill the gaps of the content analysis and to indicate the challenges and opportunities of the impact of the Urban Food Strategy on the urban-rural relations.

7 The following sub questions are used to structure the rapport: - What are the characteristics of Ede and Ljubljana in terms of urban-rural relations, with special attention to food system dynamics? - How are regional urban-rural relations represented in the Urban Food Policies in Ede and Ljubljana? - What are the challenges and opportunities to sustain regional urban-rural relations in Ede and Ljubljana through Urban Food Policies?

Research structure The first part of the paper is the theoretical framework in which is zoomed in on the conceptualization of rural-urban linkages, different types of food systems, and on the development of Urban Food Policies. The second part of the paper shows a comparative case study analysis in Ede and Ljubljana. Here context specific characteristics of the regions, and especially the food system are given. After this an analysis of the Urban Food Policies of the municipality of Ede and Ljubljana are given. Followed up by an overview of the challenges and opportunities in sustaining the regional rural-urban linkages in the areas by the use of a UFP is present. Lastly, the conclusions are given, and discussion point are made, with some suggestions for future research.

8 2. Theoretical framework In this chapter the key concepts in this research are defined, relevant theories are explained, and some assumptions based on this theoretical framework are present. The theory is used as a basis for interpreting and understanding the data that is collected in the results chapter.

2.1 Urban-rural relations Within the literature there can be different perspectives found on urban-rural relations. These perspectives make a distinction on how they conceptualize space. This will be explained later on, first a bit of history and definitions. Through the years, the relation between the urban and the rural area has changed. ‘Rural-urban linkages’ came as a new concept that challenged the old-fashioned view that there is a dichotomy between the urban and the rural area. By the more modern view it is promoted to see the integration of the cities and the countryside based on both their interdependencies. In the past, the relation between rural and urban was often seen as a single one-way exchange. Now, it is often seen as a complex and dynamic web of interdependencies (Davoudi & Stead, 2002).

Types of linkages & examples Foster et al. (2015) stated that urban-rural linkages are broadly defined as the reciprocal flows of people, goods, services, money and environmental services with many of these linkages related directly or indirectly to food systems. The two areas are linked by hard and soft infrastructure. Hard infrastructure are roads, processing, storage and agricultural service businesses. Soft infrastructure are knowledge, culture and social support, financial credit and remittances (Forster et al., 2015). Davoudi & Stead (2002) frame this as a visible and invisible flows of people, capital, goods, information and technology between urban and rural areas. The rural area provides important services to the people that live in the cities, like water, energy and landscapes. The rural citizens own relatively a lot of land, which is a scarce resource in many European urban areas. On the other hand, cities provide daily services for the people that live in the rural areas (e.g. hospitals, universities) and they host a high level of human capital and workers. Problems of the rural area and the urban area can also interlink with each other. Sometimes the solutions for the urban problems can be found in the rural areas, and vice versa (Lucatelli & De Matteis, 2011). Many different types of linkages can be identified between the urban and the rural area, such as economic transactions and delivery of services (including environmental services) in both directions. The distance between the rural and the urban area has also a big influence on the type and strength of the rural-urban linkages. The peri-urban areas have a stronger interaction and better synergies can be created (Lucatelli& De Matteis, 2011). Examples of mutual opportunities are rural residents that can work in the city or sell their products, and the urban citizens that have recreational opportunities from the rural area (Jablonski et al., 2019).

Advantages Stronger rural-urban linkages can improve the food and nutritional security, the urban and rural producer livelihoods, and can improve the environmental quality through climate resilient food systems (Blay-Palmer et al., 2018). It is recognized that a stronger relation between the urban and the rural areas helps with achieving sustainable urbanization and development. By linking the people that produce the food and the people that consume the food, harmony and synergies between these people can be improved, and the gaps between

9 urban and rural communities will be reduced. Food systems are seen as a very suitable policy areas to strengthen the urban-rural linkages in an area. In order to let the policies be effective, the policies at local and national level should be aligned (Blay-Palmer et al., 2018; Forster et al., 2015).

Three views on rural-urban linkages The way that we understand ‘space’ is influencing how we look at rural and urban areas and the interactions between them. Jones & Woods (2013) and Brown & Shucksmith (2017) outlined three commonly understood notions of space that are applied in locality research: • Absolute space • Relative space • Relational space The absolute view sees ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ as discrete places, in which a territory is strictly bounded. So, this perspective is more spatial oriented. Rural-urban intersections can be seen as ‘transactions and exchanges between bounded urban and rural areas.’ The governance of urban and rural places is often divided, and there are strict administrative boundaries. They see local as distinct from global. Researchers found out that the old classification of rural and urban as opposites with a clear division was not sufficient anymore, as the boundaries became more blurred. A change from an absolute view with ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ as distinct places into a relative view with a rural- urban continuum took place. In this relative view, they look more at the functional relations. Examples of these functional ties between rural and urban areas are food provisioning, employment opportunities, provisioning of public services, and recreational facilities. So, food system relations are important in these functional relations. These relations are present in a far bigger space, and putting clear boundaries is more difficult in here. The relative view assumes a continuum, ranging from extremely rural to extremely urban as opposing poles. Population density and land use are important indicators in establishing the continuum. In the continuum, renewed attention is paid to places with an intermediate position. For example, to towns that have a dynamic position in service provision and employment between cities and rural communities. This relative space lens is also used in the City Region approach (Woods & Heley, 2017; Jones & Woods, 2013). It was found that the relations between urban and rural areas should not only be seen as territorial proximity, but it can also be between localities that are geographically not that close to each other (Heley & Jones, 2012). A third conceptualization is the relational space. In this view, researchers put rural and urban as hybrid places; Urban in the rural, and rural in the urban. The spatial perspective disappears, and the situation becomes more abstract. There are dots and linkages in a complex and interlinked network. They recognized that the linkages between places were not two- dimensional, and place is seen as fluid and dynamic. The rural and urban places are connected by a big network of flows of people, objects and ideas that move between multiple places. In the relational space lens, relations between urban and rural places that are not geographically connected play an important role. Places are nodes in a complex network of relations in which a lot of global connections are present. A disadvantage of this conceptualization are the methodological challenges and challenges in governance, as there are no boundaries. So, it is not useful for policy makers (Jones & Woods, 2013).

10 Table 2 provides an overview of the spatial lenses. The different lenses can coexist at different perspectives, so they are not always competing and no mutually exclusive definitions.

Table 2: Conceptualization of space Spatial lenses Description

Absolute space Bounded territory Local as distinct from global Strict administrative boundaries

Relative space Rural-urban continuum, no strict boundaries Local connected to global Focus on different types of functional ties

Relational space Fluid & dynamic Places as nodes in complex network Governance challenges

A main message of Woods & Heley (2017) is that you need all the three types of relations to be able to really understand the urban-rural relations. Therefore, within this research it is chosen to use all the three perspectives in order to form a complete picture of the whole situation. In this research stakeholders might refer, implicitly or explicitly, to different spatial lenses on rural urban dynamics. Therefore, it is chosen to take all these perspectives in the picture of the research. The governmental policy domain often thinks from a more absolute spatial perspective, although space became more fluid and dynamic. The relational space would be interesting for this. However, this brings several methodological and governmental related challenges due to complexity, which limited the use. The advantage of the relative space is that it provides an approach that is well applicable for governance and policy challenges. It acknowledges that there is not a fixed dichotomy between the rural and the urban, but that rural-urban synergies must be promoted (Woods & Heley, 2017).

2.2 Food Systems Food Systems are defined as a wide range of activities in producing, processing, packaging, distributing, retailing and consuming of food. All these activities are influenced by a number of environmental, social, political and economic factors (Rotz & Fraser, 2015; Ericksen, 2008; Ingram, 2011). In this research, Food System dynamics were taken as main determinant of the socioeconomic context of the two cases. Trends at different scales (local, national, international) are influencing the food systems. Nowadays, global trends are taking place that result in fundamental changes in the food system. Examples are a strong increase in food processing and packaging, corporate concentration in retail and a growing urban population. To which level these trends are present in a country differ, and there are also countertendencies (Ericksen, 2008). It is often talked about a ‘traditional’ and a ‘modern’ food system. In Table 3, features about both food systems are listed. Ericksen (2008) separates the traditional and the modern food system. These two can be seen as opposites of a continuum, so many countries are located somewhere in between.

11 Table 3: Main characteristics of the ‘traditional’ and the ‘modern’ food system Food system feature Traditional food system Modern food system Population Large rural population Large urban population Employment in food In food production In food processing, retail sector Supply chain Short, local Long, many food miles Food production system Diverse, varied productivity Few crops predominate, intensive, high inputs Type of farms Family-based, small to Industrial, large moderate Food purchase places Small, local shops/markets Large supermarket chain Influential scale Local to national National to global Food consumption Unprocessed food Processed food Source: adapted from Erickson (2008)

The food system is changing, and this is also impacting the rural-urban relations. E.g. there is a decline of traditional markets, diets are globalized and there is an increasing availability of highly processed foods (Forster et al., 2015). The urban and the rural became separate places, in most countries the food policy was formed by national and international government bodies and also largely formed by a self-regulating agriculture and food business sector (Morgan, 2015). Dubbeling, Carey & Hochberg (2016) add a new category to these food systems; Food System 3.0. ‘A Food System 3.0 is a more re-localized food system that seeks to foster a better balance of food supply from global and local sources.’ This Food System uses a more integrative and sustainable approach and is aware of the multiple domains linked to food, like health, the environment, and economic development (Dubbeling et al., 2017). Based on these characteristics of re-localization, Food System 3.0 can be seen as a City Region Food System. In general, two approaches to the development of food systems can be recognized. Two opposing paradigms’; the Agro-Industrial Paradigm and the Integrated Territorial Paradigm, although in practice expressions of both paradigms can be found. The Agro-Industrial paradigm is characterized by modernization and industrialization of supply chains, standardization of food production and processing, and globalization of food markets. This approach sees technological innovations as solution for sustainability, e.g. agro-industrial food parks, upscaling to reduce cost price, and food processing. The Integrated Territorial Paradigm characterizes itself by being embedded in and based upon the regional features and that it is integrated with other (rural) activities (e.g. tourism, education, and landscape conservation). The paradigm indicates food quality by linking it to for example differences in farming system, cultural traditions, and valorization of specific local resources. Also, the distances between producer and consumer is in general lower (Wiskerke, 2009; Renting & Wiskerke, 2010). When you compare these paradigms with the different food systems, you can see some similarities. The Agro-Industrial Paradigm shows overlap with the modern food system, and the Integrated Territorial Paradigm links more to the traditional food system and the City Region Food System.

12 A City Region Food System (CRFS) focusses on the territorial dimension of a food system. This third type of food system includes elements of both the traditional and de modern food system and tries to integrate the best characteristics of both systems. This system is therefore not a universal system, but rather an approach to change and very much context dependent. The CRFS that is described in table 2 has a clear focus on the sustainability of a food system in a holistic way. The CRFS aims for food and nutritional security for the citizens, improved urban- rural linkages, and new governance structures in which all food system stakeholders are involved. This new approach offers opportunities for smaller-scale producers in the City Region, for alternative short supply chain enterprises and new food initiatives that link producers and consumers (Dubbeling et al. 2017). The CRFS is seen as a good approach to support local governments and policy makers in making informed decisions to improve the sustainability of urban-region food systems and territories. It is an efficient approach in addressing broad challenges that impact the urban and rural area. The approach enables the involvement of all local stakeholders, and it secures the collaboration across horizontal and vertical governance levels (Dubbeling et al., 2017). The City Region Food System was defined as ‘a complex network of actors, processes and relationships to do with food production, processing, marketing, and consumption that exist in a given geographical region that includes a more or less concentrated urban center and its surrounding peri- urban and rural hinterland; a regional landscape across which flows of people, goods and ecosystem services are managed (FAO, n.d.-a). The CRFS is used to consider and evolve policies and programs across urban and regional scales, in which it can integrate regional and national governance. Important by this approach is too get insights into flows of resources (e.g. food, waste, people, and knowledge) from rural to urban and vice versa (Blay- Palmer et al., 2018). The concept of City-Region focusses mainly on the urban and the peri- urban area, instead of the extremely rural areas. The interactions are focused on the ‘city zone’ and extending across attached rural areas (Woods, 2009).

2.3 Urban Food Policies Urban Food Policies (UFP) are a new phenomenon in which cities or metropolitan regions set- up their own food strategy, or even set up a food policy council to coordinate and implement the urban food strategy. In these UFP, they attempt to achieve integration of different policy domains and objectives that are linked to food, such as human health, youth education, environmental quality, quality of life, employment and social justice and cohesion (Wiskerke, 2009). It originates as city governments saw negativities in the food system and the failing national and global governance and started to react on this by place-based solutions. Cities became more engaged in the food system and are now more and more recognized as key food-actors. The role of municipal authorities, city councils and urban social movements in the food system grew rapidly (Tegoni, & Licomati, 2017). A good example of this is the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP). In 2015 184 cities from all over the world signed this pact, to show their commitment to work on sustainable food systems in their city region (MUFPP, 2015). They try to create new connections and synergies between different steps and actors in the food chain (Sonnino, 2009). In Europe, the UFP were introduced just recently. Now, cities of different sizes implemented food policies to improve their local food systems (Tegoni, & Licomati, 2017; Wiskerke, 2009). Subjects that they are targeting on in UFP are among others alternative food networks, new spaces of deliberation, and sustainable and healthy foodscapes to reduce diet-related issues

13 (e.g. obesity). However, the specific focus is dependent on the local context of a city region (Maye, 2019). Moragues-Faus, & Morgan (2015) see UFP as new places of debate where civil society, private actors, and the local state come together to promote a transition towards more just and sustainable urban food systems. The involvement of local stakeholders and citizens make a more inclusive and locally adapted strategy possible, which is important to realize a holistic transformation of urban food systems (Moragues-Faus & Morgan, 2015). The UFP have a more integrated conceptualization of food in which it is more than a commodity, but it is seen as a product and a process that links environmental pollution (e.g. food miles), environmental quality (e.g. productive green spaces in cities), social (in)equality (e.g. differences in access to food), public health (e.g. obesity and malnutrition), employment (e.g. food stores, restaurants, urban farmers), education (e.g. food lessons at primary schools, farmer-to-school initiatives), etc. (Sonnino, 2016). In the Urban Food Policy plans they focus on food system related issues, like food procurement, urban food production, economic development, food access, the environment, and food recovery (Jablonski et al., 2019). However, within these policies the approaches they use differ a lot, varying with time and place. So, there is no single approach that fits all the regions (Wiskerke, 2009). Every Urban Food Strategy has its own local nuances, but the common trend is the political desire the socio- ecological problems of nowadays (Morgan, 2015).

14 3. Methodological approach

3.1 Impact COVID-19 In my research proposal I set up a detailed methodological approach to collect data, however in practice this turned out different. During the data collection I had to adapt the biggest part of my method because of the COVID-19 outbreak. I planned to go for two months (March and April) to Ljubljana to carry out several steps of the data collection; a food system analysis, a policy document content analysis, and carrying out interviews with different stakeholders in Ljubljana. However, after two weeks in Ljubljana I was already forced to go back to the Netherlands as Slovenia was preparing a lock-down. I had to adapt my planning and my data collection approach because of this. Back in the Netherlands I set the plan to go back to Ljubljana at the moment it was possible again, but because of the long-lasting impact of the virus, it turned out that this was not possible anymore. Therefore, I took my own responsibility and tried to re-organize my thesis in a way that I was still able to collect the data I needed and to bring my thesis to a good end. I carried out an online food system analysis and an UFP document content analysis. It was difficult to approach people in Ljubljana to discuss about relevant policy papers and food system related documents. This complicated a structured and fast analysis, but in the end I achieved. The most difficult part was to find interviewees from Ljubljana in times of COVID-19. In the end I interviewed three people from Ljubljana via Skype; one with a research background, and two (in a combined interview) from the rural development department of the municipality. These two interviewees were involved with the Urban Food Policy of Ljubljana. My previous plan was to also interview people from society that work on the implementation of the UFP (like Local Action Groups or farmer groups) to form a more complete picture of the situation in Ljubljana. In Ede I collected data from six different stakeholders, therefore this analysis formed a more comprehensive analysis. Unfortunately, I had to deal with this limitation, but I still tried to collect the data in other possible ways.

3.2 A comparative case study: Ede & Ljubljana The design of this research was a comparative case study analysis which made use of a multi- method approach. A case study helps to get a better understanding of the phenomenon of interest through more contextualized data, by which often a combination of methodologies and data sources is used. Case study research is especially suited to study real-life situations that involve multiple participants (Labaree, n.d.). A comparison study helps to identify suitable approaches in different settings, based on the contextual descriptions (Esser & Hanitzsch, 2013). Therefore, this provided insights on the appropriateness of Urban Food Policies in different contexts.

By a comparison case study, the selection of sites is important. Ede and Ljubljana were chosen for this research as both signed the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP) with the aim of ‘developing sustainable food systems that are inclusive, resilient, safe and diverse’ (BCFN & MUFPP, 2018). Their focus of interest within the MUFPP categories differed a lot. Ljubljana focused mainly on food supply & distribution, and Ede focused mainly on governance (FAO, 2018a; FAO, 2018b). The cities differed also strongly in terms of current urban-rural relations. This will be further explained in the results section. The dissimilarities between the sites

15 increased the variance in observations. On the other hand do they both have a big urban area and a big rural area, which makes them comparable and unique in their country. The selection of Ede and Ljubljana as case studies had also practical motives. Ede is located close to Wageningen University, which makes it practically easier to research. My commissioner had contact with someone of the ROBUST project in Ljubljana which made it possible to do a part of my thesis in Ljubljana.

In this research the following methods were used. First an assessment of the Food Systems of both cities was done with a focus on rural-urban relations. Then, a content analysis of the Urban Food Policies was carried out in which policy documents and governance frameworks were analyzed. Complementary to this, in-depth interviews were held with stakeholders that played a role in the Urban Food Policy. These interviews together with the results of the Food System assessments and the content analysis of the UFP were used to indicate the opportunities and challenges for rural-urban relations in the case study areas.

3.3 Food System assessment It is strongly recommended to take into account regional characteristics in developing a spatial development strategy (Davoudi & Stead, 2002). Therefore, an analysis of the regional characteristics in terms of food systems and urban-rural relations took place to investigate the current state of play in the regions of Ede and Ljubljana.

To do a regional analysis, it is the reality that you have to start somewhere with a more absolute demarcation. After weighting different options, the borders of the municipality of Ede and the municipality of Ljubljana were chosen as absolute spaces and starting point for data collection within this research. It was chosen to focus on municipality level, as the municipalities are the initiators of the Urban Food Policies that this research is focusing on, and municipalities are also the ones who signed the Milan Urban Food Policy Pacts. Besides this, the municipality level makes it easy to draw a boundary on. The defined municipal areas correspond with the already existing administrative units and the existing spatial demarcation of municipal policies. However, policy makers are increasingly aware that it is also important to look with a more relative or relational view towards relations. The spatial relations that a city may have with its rural surroundings may reach further than the municipal boundary, so this had to be kept in mind.

In this analysis, food system features according to Erickson (2008) were used to make a description of the country and region characteristics in Ede and Ljubljana. Food system features can be seen in Table 4.

Table 4: Food system features Food system feature description Population rural-urban - Total population - Rural population

Land use - Forest area (% of total land area) - Terrestrial protected area (% of total land area) - Agricultural area (% of total land area)

16 Employment in food - Rural employment (% of total workforce) sector - Employment agriculture (% of total workforce) - Agriculture value added per worker (in USD)

Supply chain - Length of supply chain (number of actors) - Power relations in supply chain

Influential scale - Value of food exports and imports (mill. USD) - Food production value of country (mill. USD)

Type of farms - Total amount of farms - Farm sizes (average amount of ha per farm) - Type of farms - Intensive/extensive farms (Inputs use of farms) - Land area equipped for irrigation - High nature value farming (% of total UAA)

Food purchase places - Food purchase places - Share of supermarkets

Adapted from Erickson (2008)

Besides these features, the historical context of the regions, the current rural-urban relations, and general social and cultural trends in society were indicated, as these have a large influence on the linkages between the urban and the rural area (Wu, Weber, & Partridge, 2016). The CRFS approach was used for this, as this focuses on the different elements and relations within a CRFS (Blay-Palmer et al., 2018, Dubbeling et al., 2017). Literature, rapports, and statistical data about the countries and the regions were used to collect data on these features. This analysis provided a clear description of the CRFS in both cases, and it was used to identify the main challenges in the region. Topics based on the CRFS assessment of RUAF and FAO, which they developed with the aim to create resilient and sustainable CRFS (FAO & RUAF, 2018) were used by the data collection for the Food System analysis of both cases.

• Sustainable production, resilience of production systems o How much food is produced locally in the city region? o What kind of producers are present in the region? • Food processing, supply and distribution system o Who are the main stakeholders, involved in the processing, supply and distribution system? • Consumption, food security and nutrition o What is the composition of the actual food basket of local consumers? o How can the consumer behavior be characterized?

3.4 Content analysis of urban food policies A qualitative content analysis was conducted to characterize the local food policies and to investigate the presence of urban-rural linkages in these policies in the cases of Ede and Ljubljana.

17 Both cities signed the MUFPP, for this they had to consider the questions related to local food system priorities, planned achievements for the coming years, planned actions, and useful indicators (FAO, 2018a; FAO, 2018b). Based on this a first description of the UFP of both municipalities could be made. After finishing this general description, an analysis of the additional Urban Food Policy related documents was carried out. Documents that were used for this analysis were policy papers, (research)rapports, and documents of the municipal board and the different policy domains within the municipality. These documents were retrieved by web-based information systems of the municipalities and regional development agencies, and by directly asking people in the food policy field of Ede and Ljubljana for relevant documents. Information in which they mention something about how the UFP links with rural development were collected.

The documents were analyzed on the following topics: • Origin of the UFP • Goal of UFP • Stakeholders & policy domains involved • Policy domains involved • Implementation strategies

Relevant pieces of the collected data from the UFP documents were coded per topic. The five topics mentioned above were used as starting codes. If there were relevant pieces of text that did not fit in to one of the existing categories, a new code was created. The program www.Atlas.ti was used for this. A codebook was developed to process the information related to the specific topics. In the end, the collected data per topic was united and summarized. Out of this content analysis it became clear how the UFP in both municipalities was organized, which stakeholders are involved by this, what the goals are, which measures are used, and in which way urban-rural linkages were present in the UFP documents.

3.4 Complementary Interviews In-depth, semi-structured interviews were carried out with different stakeholders in the design or implementation of the UFP. These interviews were used to get additional data on the data gaps that still existed after the Food System assessment and the content analysis of the UFP. The interviews had a triangulation function in which the data received by other methods could be compared with the data of the interviews. The interviews also had a strong comparative aspect in which characteristics of the UFP in the other case study were presented to the interviewee and questions were asked about the appropriateness of that strategy in their own case. The interviews were also used to interpret the results for research question 3 in which the challenges and opportunities of the policies and the rural-urban linkages were investigated.

3.4.1 Selection of interviewees The target group for the in-depth interviews were the people that are involved in the design and/or implementation of the UFP and the related rural-urban linkages. This were mainly people from the public sector (the municipal government). But also, stakeholders from society that work on the practical implementation of the UFP were seen as valuable to interview. By

18 the content analysis of UFP documents, information was collected about the governance of the UFP and the stakeholders related to this theme. Based on this information, respondents were approached by sending them a mail with an invitation for an interview about UFP and the rural-urban linkages in their region.

Normally the sampling of new respondents stops at the moment the researcher reached saturation and all the relevant subjects are covered. In qualitative research, the number of participants is not necessarily fixed. Selection of new respondent may continue until no new ideas or concepts emerge; a situation known as saturation. The sampling was based on minimal information. So, the interviewee that was selected must provide at least one new code that was still lacking (new unique piece of information) (Van Rijnsoever, 2017). For the selection of interviewees, representatives of the municipal departments, research institutes, and societal organizations that deal with food and related areas (e.g. health, agriculture, or educational programs) were seen as relevant stakeholders for interviews. The original plan was to have face to face interviews in which I could visit the municipalities and the more rural area with the stakeholders over there. However, as explained earlier, because of COVID-19 this was not possible anymore. I had to leave Slovenia, so I had to organize Skype interviews with the people in Ljubljana, but also skype interviews with the people from Ede. It was very difficult to get this organized and to come in contact with the right persons at a time that everyone works from home and is out of their usual working activities. It was only possible to interview stakeholders from society in Ede, in Ljubljana only people from the municipality and one person from a research background were interviewed. Many mails were sent to several people in Ljubljana related to the UFP and also to several Local Action Groups, but these were unfortunately not replied. In the end, nine stakeholders were interviewed, of which six by a Skype interview, and three via a questionnaire that they filled in. This questionnaire was send out to collect some more input from the stakeholders from society. The three stakeholders that filled in the questionnaire were societal stakeholders from Ede as this was better to organize during COVID-19. Six people from Ede were interviewed, and three people from Ljubljana. The background of the people interviewed is very diverse. In Appendix 1 an overview is given of all the interviewees and their background and relation to the UFP in their municipality. The interviews took place between 16-04-2020 and 06-05-2020. The three questionnaires were answered between 07-05-2020 and 31-05-2020.

3.4.2 Interview guide (topics) In-depth interviews were held to gain more information about the rural-urban linkages in the City Region and to indicate the challenges and opportunities to sustain the urban-rural relations in Ede and Ljubljana through UFP. A semi-structured interview technique was used. The main topics and questions were listed beforehand to make sure that all the relevant topics were covered. An overview of the interview questions that were used as basis can be found in Appendix 2. However, besides the standard questions, the interviews were every time adapted according to the background of the interviewee and on the data that the researcher wants to obtain from a specific interview. The interviews also provided space for following-up questions to dive deeper into the statements of the interviewees, and there was also space for other topics submitted by the interviewees. Before each interview took place, additional questions that were relevant for

19 the specific interviewee were added to the interview guide, as the interviewees were different type of actors and had different functions within the UFP.

The interviews were recorded in agreement with the interviewees. The interviewees were asked if they were okay with recording the interview before starting the tape (Appendix 2). In Appendix 2 you can find the interview guide in which this is also explained, and, in this guide, some standard questions are listed.

3.4.3 Data analysis During the interview a recording was made, so the interview could be transcribed afterwards. The coding was carried out according to the guidelines for qualitative interviews. The data analysis started with an open coding system. In this step, the transcriptions were coded, in which each unique piece of information relevant to the research got a label. Labels were linked to text fragments with a certain theme. The program of www.Atlas.ti was used to code. At the start of the data analysis some general code groups were made, based on the interview topics. But also new themes came up during the coding process, depending on what new information the interviewees brought in. When all the interviews were transcribed and coded, Axial coding was carried out. In this phase, the different codes were compared, and corresponding codes were integrated in an overarching code. One code can belong to multiple overarching codes. Axial coding is a repeating process in which adaptions will continue for a while. In the end, some main categories were developed and used for the theory and conclusion building. Not all codes were used, as some were not that relevant for the research. Selective coding took place, in which a theory was built with the main categories that were found. This was done by assigning relationships and connections between the codes/categories.

3.5 Integration of data This step was used to answer the main research question and to form the conclusion. The data of the FS assessment, the UFP policy document analysis, and the data from the interviews were integrated, and compared with the existing literature. Conclusions were drawn on the influence of UFP on rural-urban linkages in different socio-economic contexts, and how this fit within the existing theories.

20 4. Urban-rural relations and food system dynamics in Ede and Ljubljana

In this chapter, an overview of the situation in Ede (the Netherlands) and Ljubljana (Slovenia) is presented to answer Research Question 1: What are the characteristics of Ede and Ljubljana in terms of urban-rural relations, with special attention to food system dynamics? A map of the location of both counties is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. First a macro view will be used in which some food system characteristics and statistics of the Netherlands and Slovenia are provided that serve as a socioeconomic background. The statistics of both countries are listed in a summarizing table (see Table 5), as this makes a comparison easier. After this, a meso view will be used to describe the characteristics of the City-Region of Ede and Ljubljana in terms of urban-rural relations and the food system. In the end, implementations of these characteristics on the broader rural-urban relations are described.

Figure 1: Map of the Netherlands Figure 2: Map of Slovenia

An absolute conceptualization of space was used as start in order to collect data. Therefore, country borders of the Netherlands and Slovenia were used as a macro view, and the municipality of Ede and Ljubljana as meso view. The data of Ljubljana is complemented with interview data in which the head of the Rural Development Section and the rural development advisor of the municipality (I89), and a consultant and researcher of rural development (I7) gave additional input on the case of Ljubljana.

4.1 Food system dynamics at country level There are big differences in the urban-rural relations between Slovenia and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands only 9% of the inhabitants live in rural areas, compared to 43% in Slovenia (FAO, 2019). In the Netherlands 1% of the total workforce is rural employment, compared to 40% in Slovenia (European Network for Rural Employment, 2015). Although there are a lot of nuances, the general trends and facts for both countries are as follows. The Netherlands is already for centuries an importer of food, and it started with oversees trade in tropical fruits, spices, and coffee since the 17th century. The Netherlands has a history of trade, and nowadays year-round availability of all kinds of food, which is fresh, affordable, and safe is taken for granted (Fresco, 2018). The Netherlands is characterized by long food supply chains, the country is the second largest food exporter of the world and has a high positive trade balance (FAO, 2019; PBL, 2014). In Slovenia until their interdependence in 1991 the import of

21 food products was very limited, and their food culture was mainly based on the food produced in former Yugoslavia (I7). In Slovenia the food supply chains are short and often from begin to end carried out by each farmer individually, the level of trade is low, and the country aims to increase their self-sufficiency in food (FAO, 2019; I7; I8). The Slovenian culture is focused on buying local food via short chains or direct sales (European Commission, 2012; I7). The Dutch buy their food mainly via large supermarket chains, where country of origin plays not a big role (PBL, 2014; European Commission, 2012). Table 5 shows a comparison of some main food system characteristics between the Netherlands and Slovenia in more detail. In Appendix 3 a more extensive illustration of the characteristics of both countries is given.

Table 5: System characteristics of the Netherlands and Slovenia System feature The Netherlands Slovenia Population Total: 17.1 mil, Rural: 1.5 mil Total: 2.1 mil, Rural: 0.9 mil (rural-urban) Land use Forest land area: 11,2% Forest land area: 62,0% (forest, agricultural Terrestrial protected areas: 11,2% Territorial protected areas: 53,6% land) Agricultural land area: 53,2% Agricultural area: 30,5%

Employment Rural employment: 0,6% of total Rural employment: 39,6% of total (in agriculture, in workforce, 2010* workforce, 2010* rural area) Employment in agriculture: 2,3% Employment in agriculture: 5,6% Agric. Value added per worker Agric. Value added per worker (constant USD): 83.534 (constant USD): 17.704

Supply chain Long food supply chains, high power Mainly short food supply chains, of purchase companies and whole chain organized by farmers supermarkets**. themselves (I7; I89) Revenue percentage of supermarkets of total food chain: 51%*** Influential scale Food exports (mill. USD): 67.779 Food exports (mill. USD):1.455 Food imports (mill. USD): 48.604 Food imports (mill. USD): 2.084 Food production value (mill. $): Food production value (mill. $): 702 14.713 Negative trade balance high positive trade balance Slovenia imports and exports most NL 2nd largest exporter, share in from the surrounding countries global export is 7,5% (Italy, Austria and Croatia), and has a national goal to increase their self- sufficiency in food Type of farms Total amount of farms: Total amount of farms: 2000: 97.400 2010:74.600 2018: 53.900 2013: 72.400 Average amount of ha per farm: Average amount of ha per farm: 20 ha (2000), 33 ha (CBS, 2019) 2013: 6,6 ha (*****) In 10 years they went from 4,6 ha to Dutch agriculture is divided into 3 6,1 ha (I7) broad areas (****): 80% of farms is engaged in livestock Crop production production, Average number of Dairy and livestock livestock: 6.9 (*****)

22 Horticulture lands Mainly mixed farms (I89)

Inputs: Inputs: Relatively high inputs ( Relatively low inputs Land area equipped for irrigation: Land area equipped for irrigation: 522.000 ha 6.000 ha

High Nature Value faming (% of total High Nature Value faming (% of total UAA): 15,0% (*) UAA): 75,6% (*) Food purchase 65% to 75% of the products that the Strong traditions of buying food via places Dutch eat comes from the short food chains and direct sales. supermarkets (**). Now sales by supermarkets start to Supermarkets have a revenue of increase. Buying local/national food 30,7 mld. Euro, 2018. is important in the Slovenian culture (I7). Most of the data in the table is retrieved from the World Food and Agriculture statistical pocketbook (FAO, 2019). Different sources are indicated by a star mark; *: (European Network for Rural Development, 2015); **: (PBL, 2014); ***: (Rabobank, 2019); ****: (Nations Encyclopedia, 2010); *****: (Pintar, Bedrac, Brecko, et al., 2016).

The consumer attitudes towards food security, food quality, and the countryside differs strongly between Dutch and Slovenian people. A European research clearly shows these differences. Some outstanding differences are present in Table 6. The importance of where food comes from (the geographical origin) when buying food to consumers in the Netherlands is the lowest of all the European consumers. 81% of the Slovenian consumers think this is important, which is one of the highest percentage in Europe (European Commission, 2012). In Appendix 4 a table with consumer differences can be found. It is outstanding that the Dutch people often had the highest or lowest score of all other European countries.

Table 6: Results consumer attitude survey EU Qustion/statement Netherlands Slovenia To what extent are you concerned that sufficient Concerned: 11% Concerned: 74% food is produced to meet the needs of the (lowest in EU) (one of the population in your own country? highest in EU) Statement: ‘The EU should produce more food in Agree: 56% Agree: 93% (one order to be less dependent on importing food (lowest in EU) of the highest in from other countries’ EU) When buying food, how important is where the Important: 47% Important: 81% food comes from (geographical origin) for you (lowest in EU) (one of the personally? highest in EU) Are you aware of the Fairtrade logo? Yes: 78% (one of Yes: 11% the highest in EU) Statement: ‘Agriculture is beneficial for the Agree: 53% Agree: 85% environment’ (one of the lowest in EU) Statement: ‘Agriculture helps to preserve and 79% (one of the 94% (one of the protect rural areas’ lowest in EU) highest in EU) Data retrieved from European Commission (2012)

23 4.2 Description of municipality of Ede and Ljubljana Ede is a big municipality in which rural and urban both play a big role. The municipality is located in the middle of the country, and with around 32.000 ha surface it is relatively large for the Netherlands (CBS, 2015). The municipality hosts 113.000 inhabitants of which 71.000 live in the city Ede. Ede started as a town and is not that long a city (Gemeent Ede, 2017). After World War II a big urban center was created; Ede city. Besides the city of Ede, the municipality also consist of two bigger towns; Lunteren and Bennekom, and several smaller towns. A unique characteristic of Ede is that more than half of the municipal area is Natura2000 area, as national park the Veluwe is located here. Besides this, there is also a big (rural) agricultural area, this is called the Gelderse Valley. The municipal area of Ede is historically characterized by a lot of agricultural activity. The municipality is located at the point where the Veluwe and the Gelderse Vallei meet each other (I2, policy). Because of urbanization processes in the last decades, the relation with the rural surroundings, which was there in the past, is partly disrupted (Gemeente Ede, 2017). Ede is a municipality with urban food policy, but also has to deal with a lot of rural challenges, as a large part of the municipality is rural area. Rural and urban are here close together (I1, policy). Interviewee 2 also indicated that the municipality had for years a kind of identity crisis in which they struggled with deciding if they are a city or a town, more urban or more rural. But they draw the conclusion that they are both, and you should not chose one of them, but try to integrate them and try to be an example for the rest of the Netherlands (I2, policy).

Ljubljana is the capital of Slovenia, it is located in the middle of the country. Ljubljana is a leading city for business, culture, and education. At the second half of the 20th century the population of Ljubljana growth exponentially, now it is close to 300.000 people in the city, although the growth is not that big anymore (WorldPopulation, 2020; Metropolitan Research Institute, 2015; Municipality of Ljubljana, 2019). The city is governed by the Municipality of Ljubljana (Municipality of Ljubljana, 2019). MOL together with 25 other surrounding municipalities form Ljubljana Urban Region (RRA LUR, 2015), this area hosts around 1/4th of the population. MOL has administrative and economic power and plays with this a key role for the entire LUR area, by connecting the region into an integral whole. Two third of the total surface of the municipality of Ljubljana are so-called rural areas (Foodmetres, 2015). There is an individualistic culture in Slovenia as a result of the socialist times, as they don’t like top- down push, and cooperatives anymore. The interdependence and the change of the system results slowly in changes in society. The city attracts many jobs, and the prices in the city went up quite a lot since the independence (I7). The city was the European Capital in 2016 (Metropolitan Research Institute, 2015). Although Ljubljana is the capital, and big for Slovenia, at an international scale it is still very small, in other countries they could even call it a town. The city and the population are very much linked to the rural surroundings because of the small size of the country and the culture. And that is something that makes it unique; on the one hand you have the capital city and on the other hand it is still small and close to the rural area, and very interlinked with the rural area (I7).

24 4.3 Implication of food system dynamics on broader rural-urban relations The outlined food system dynamics of both countries, and the different municipal features are influencing rural-urban relations different aspects. First some food chain dynamics within the municipalities are given, but to form the bigger picture also other rural-urban dynamics are mentioned. Namely, businesses and labour markets, the recreational domain, and cultural connections. These different domains can have (indirect) influences on each other.

4.3.1 Food chains within the municipality In the municipality of Ede livestock production takes the vast majority; more than 98%. Arable farming and horticulture are nihil. Especially the meat calves’ sector is big in the region (Agricola, & Kuhlman, 2015). The vast majority of these meat products are sold outside of the Netherlands, mainly in central and south Europe, but also increasingly outside Europe (COV, 2017). According to the municipal food councilor of Ede, the production is taking place in a very efficient way. The export orientation is not something that is expected to decrease from one to another moment (I3). In the municipality of Ljubljana there are different kind of farmers within the municipality. Most producing mixed crops, and a bit of cattle and fruit and vegetables (I8,9). In the flatland dairy milk in produced, and beef production takes often place in the hills around the city. The farmers in the municipality also produce several types of fruits (strawberries, blueberries, and apples are typical) and vegetables (e.g. rampion, lettuce, tomatoes, cucumbers, potatoes). There is still a target to increase the self-sufficiency of the city (I7). The small farms in the region are generally oriented to the local market. Most farmers own their whole supply chain, and sell directly to the consumer (Foodmetres, 2015; I7; I8,9). The relatively small farm sizes in the MOL, and the existing orientation to the local market provides opportunities to diversify and combine farming with different other functions. Developments in alternative food systems can be recognized in which short food chains are organized in a more modern way, e.g. by online sales (I7). In Ede, the largest share of the farmers is producing for the world market. These farms do not have a close connection with their own region, but with areas further away, like the German Ruhrgebied. On the more agri- industrial farms, there are less possibilities to combine agricultural activities with other activities. In Ljubljana, there are more functional relations visible within their spatial region linked to their food system. For example, the food provisioning, employment opportunities, recreational functions, and culture.

However, there are also some nuances visible in these rough situation descriptions that is just made. In the agricultural vision of Ede, they show a broader picture on the current developments. Although the share is still small, there is a group of farmers that focuses on short food chains, in which there is a closer distance between producer and consumer. They try to get a viable business model out of this, but it remains a niche market (Gemeente Ede, 2016). The municipality hosts around 800 primair agri food companies, which provide working space for around 1000 people, and they realize an added value of €28 million (CityDeal, 2020). A big trend in Ede, but also in the rest of the Netherlands is farmers that (have to) stop their business. In the municipality of Ede in 2000 there were 1243 farms active, in 2013 there were only 852 left. The expectation is that the number of farms in 2030 will be further decreased to only 200 to 400. The reason for the decrease in farms differs, in 60% of the case there is no business succession, and in a lot of the cases it is financially and practically very difficult. Because of this trend, a lot of empty farming buildings become available. It is a big challenge

25 for the municipality how to deal with these abandoned buildings, and how to keep the rural area vital (Gemeente Ede, 2016; I2). In the municipality of Ljubljana a comparative trend is seen in the decrease of amount of farms. In 1991 in the Municipality of Ljubljana were 1342 farms with an average size of 4 ha, in 2000 there were 924 farms with an average of 6.4 ha, and in 2010 still 826 farms with an average of 6,9 ha (I7). So, the number of farms is decreasing here, and the size of the farms is increasing. There are several challenges for Ljubljana in establishing a good agri and food network in their region. They want to improve the supply of high-quality fruit and vegetables, while ensuring that the production methods remain respectful to the environment and ecosystem (De Cunto et al., 2017). There is a target to increase the self-sufficiency of the city, and a research shown that they had in terms of land the potential to do this. However, there is quite some farmland that is not actively used and currently neglected. Often it is the case that it is heritage, but the heritress does not have an interest in farming (I8,9). Or they have a too romantic perception of farm life, but then they get to know that farming is economically very difficult, at least in the traditional approach (I7). There are some trends of more cooperation and modernization between farmers, but this trend remains low. The country has a communistic history, which you can still recognize. Farmers are individually and prefer to organize the supply chain by themselves. Cooperatives were for a while not that popular, due to the socialistic times they went through. Jugoslav was connected to the Sovjet Union and there was a top-down push to work together in big cooperatives, but the people and the farmers didn’t like this, because they felt they didn’t get enough. When the regime changed, some died, some stayed and reorganized a bit. But the cooperatives on a national level is still a really small percentage (I7). Stakeholders in the food chain pointed out that the local food chains are becoming longer, as producers increasingly have to deal with marketing and production technologies, and not solely with production of food. There is a lack of agricultural extension officers in the field of production technologies, many farmers have a poor agricultural education, and new knowledge is mainly acquired through exchange of experienced or through trial and error practices (Foodmetres, 2015).

In these developments you see that Ede and Ljubljana, which are at first sight opposites from each other, with the current trends develop in some respects towards each other. Although the trends are still small, you see some scale enlargement, cooperation, and longer food chains within Ljubljana. And in Ede you can recognize some more alternative food systems with shorter food chain, and introduction of functional diversity at farms.

4.3.2 Businesses & labour markets The municipality of Ede has a central position, which makes the municipality an important hub between several places. They are located between the Dutch Randstad an the German Ruhrgbied, which is a favourable location between two economic centres (Gemeente Ede, 2017). The councilor of food in Ede indicated that in 2013 the former military defense left Ede, which meant that around 2000 working places disappeared. At the same time a big company in Ede stopped because of bankruptcy, which was also a big employer. These two institutions had a big influence on Ede in the last century. The municipalities decided to develop themselves actively in the direction of food, as this had always be their strength during history, and it fits with the strengths of their region at the moment. Ede as ‘food municipality’ became the vision where they started to work on (I3). The plans for building the World Food Centre

26 (WFC) in Ede characterize this vision. The WFC will be an important meeting place for business, knowledge institutions, governmental institutions, and consumers to talk about food and agriculture, and a place in which they work on global food system challenges. Knowledge sharing, innovation and research are central in the WFC. They want to combine living, working, and recreation in one place and expect 330.000 visitors per year (WFC, n.d.; Gemeente Ede, n.d.-d). The area of business parks grew within the municipality between 2006, and 2015 (CBS, 2015). The municipality is located in the important FoodValley region, close to leading knowledge institutions (e.g. Wageningen University), and important agro-food companies. Several stakeholders in the area of Ede and Wageningen work together on healthy and sustainable food related topics, and there is a special knowledge network ‘KennisAs Ede- Wageningen’ (CityDeal, 2020). Stakeholders in the agri-, and food chain, knowledge institutions, and governance actors in the region FoodValley established a joint action plan ‘Manifest van Salentein’ to make the region FoodValley as the ‘testing ground of the world’ (Gemeente Ede, n.d.(c); Regio Foodvalley, 2019). With their positioning as food region, they want to attract interesting companies related to food and agri to strengthen their position, and they provide space and opportunities for entrepreneurs to grow and develop (Gemeente Ede, 2012). The vacant land, because of the quitted farms, provides space for new development. A part of the buildings will be demolished, and these demolition meters can be used somewhere else for new functions (e.g. housing and non-agricultural functions) or expanding existing agricultural functions (e.g. processing of own agricultural produce). There are minimal 400 non-agricultural companies in the rural area of Ede. These are often there for years, started small, and slowly grew bigger, e.g. construction companies and contractors. There are many innovations taking place in the area due to starting companies in the rural area of Ede. These businesses have an important function in keeping the rural area vital (Gemeente Ede, 2016).

Ljubljana is the capital of the country and has an important economic function. It provides many jobs, it drives innovation, and it results in regional economic growth. There are around 42.000 companies located (MOL, 2018). In 2016 the city was marked as the European Green Capital, and the city went through a big sustainable transformation. The city tries to bring people together and bring inspiration and innovation. There are several institutions in Ljubljana that have a central position in these developments, e.g. University of Ljubljana, Slovenian Innovation Hub, and technology park Ljubljana. The revitalization of Ljubljana contributed to the revival of business activities in the region. The living standard in the area increased a lot. The city is tolerant and open for foreign investors and experts, and it is developing a more cosmopolitan character with a circular economy. The competitiveness of the city has increased, and it gets a more important international position (MOL, n.d.). Also, at the more rural parts of the municipalities trends like these are visible. What is happening now is that there quite a strong migration out of the city to the rural areas and all the surrounding municipalities as real estate is much cheaper over there. So, people just chose to life in the rural areas and commute to work in Ljubljana. Work organization is getting more dynamic, modern technology enables citizen to still carry out their jobs from a distance, e.g. having a marketing business or an accounting service. In terms of rural business, there are also quite a lot of other businesses than farming in the rural areas of Slovenia, think of car mechanics, wood processing plants, and stuff like that. Farmers in the region are often are surviving because of a combination between farming and having a job somewhere else, and by the help of family work input. In a lot of cases they use the money that they earn with

27 another job to invest in the farm, so the farm on itself is not very profitable and there is many unaccounted work (I7).

Although there are large differences between the business and labor market developments in both places, also some similarities can be found. In both cities, they are developing towards a more international position, in which they want to strengthen their positioning. When you use the relational perspective, you see that the businesses and labour markets in both areas become more interlinked in a bigger picture. Collaborations with different institutions are made, and labour markets get more dynamic. At the rural level they both see a strong decrease in number of farms, this results in vacant land and revision in functions and land use for the future.

4.3.3 Recreational domain The area used for recreation, e.g. parks, sport areas, community gardens, and accommodation recreation areas grew within the municipality of Ede (CBS, 2015). The recreational sector is important for Ede. The most important capital of Ede is the attractive landscape; agricultural and nature areas (Gemeente Ede, 2012). The rural area, and especially national park the Veluwe attracts many tourists. There are several camping’s, holiday parks, hotels and group accommodations. Minicampings and group accommodations are mainly located in the rural, agricultural area. Nature is the most important capital of the recreational sector in Ede, but also the number of outdoor activities is important for the tourists. Some entrepreneurs experience strict regulations that limits them to develop their businesses. The interests of the recreational domains, the nature domains, and the agricultural domains in the region are sometimes conflicting with each other (Gemeente Ede, 2016). The tourists that come to the province Gelderland, where Ede is located, are for the largest share Dutch tourist from own country. Around 3 million Dutch tourists come to Gelderland every year, and especially to national park the Veluwe, which makes it a very popular touristic destination. Compared to only half a million international tourists, from which the biggest part is from Germany and Belgium (Bureau Economisch Onderzoek, & Provincie Gelderland, 2017).

Ljubljana is the most popular touristic destination of the country, and the number of tourists is still growing. From 2017 to 2018 the number of tourists in Ljubljana grew with 22%. In 2018 there were 1,29 million touristic arrivals in Ljubljana, of which 1,16 million foreign tourists, and only 130.000 domestic tourists. Germans, Italians, and Austrian cover the largest share of the tourists. But the number of tourists from the Netherlands and from France, and also tourists from outside Europe are increasing. The touristic and recreational sector in Slovenia focus strongly on their green image. They also received an award for the best sustainable destination of Europe in 2018, and an award for European region of gastronomy (Slovenian tourist board, 2019). Ljubljana wants to develop the city as an attractive, green, environmentally friendly destination. In which both the quality of life of the tourists as the local citizens is taken into account. There are several projects in which they focus on green and SFSC. They promote the use of regional food at hotels and restaurants. The accessibility of Ljubljana for tourists improved. Also, the accessibility from the city to the rural surroundings is good, and there are also many touristic activities in the rural areas (Visit Ljubljana, 2020).

28 The two municipalities have a similarity in terms of their green and nature related positioning for tourists. A difference is the origin of the tourists; in Ljubljana the fast majority of the tourists comes from abroad, and Ede attracts mainly tourist from their own country. Although the touristic growth that Ljubljana is going through, they still stick to their existing values; promotion of local food and close connections between the rural and urban area in the municipalities, and they also want to reinforce this in the recreational domain.

4.3.4 Cultural connections There is within the municipality of Ede a big difference in people, their backgrounds and their relation to food. The councilor of the rural area described it as follows; ‘We have the quinoa eating foodie community and the reformed veal farmers and everything that is in between’. Within the municipality they unite a lot of different food cultures, food experiences and food associations (I2). According to the UFP advisor of the municipality, the inhabitants of Ede are having a closer connection with the rural area when you compare it to other cities with an UFP, like Amsterdam or Toronto. This is because there is a large rural area in the municipality and the city is relatively small. So, in this way Ede is a bit comparable to Ljubljana. In Ede rural and urban are quite connected, a lot of people in Ede still have a family at a farm or they had it one or two generations ago (I1). But on the other hand, you hear that food for a large part of the citizens of Ede, is at the moment not that much a hot topic. Citizens of Ede do not always see the utility of developing Ede into an important food municipality (Lengkeek, 2017). Diversity in inhabitants (e.g. culture background and economic position) is characterizing Ede. In the vision for Ede in 2025 it becomes clear that they want to focus on connections within their municipality. They wants to focus on connection and meeting between people; young and old, people from the towns and the city. They want to use meetings in person as a counter development against the individualization, computerization, and internationalization.. They want to create a strong social fundament for the future of Ede, in which the different inhibitants do not live separately (Gemeente Ede, 2012). Their attempts in creating connections between the different stakeholders in Ede is working quite well according to the councilor of the rural are. But this is not something they reached in a few months, they are investing already in this for years, in 2012 they already started to work on making connections (I2).

The people from Ljubljana are very much linked to the rural surroundings because of the small size of the country and the Slovenian culture. There is a strong food culture in the region of Ljubljana in which they especially like the local produced food as they perceive that is the better food (I7). Consumers in the region of Ljubljana are getting more informed about the advantages of locally produced food and are therefore getting more demanding. It is observed that the national promotion of agricultural products helped to increase the sales from small growers. Growers also observed a shift in retailers’ behavior towards more appreciation of locally produced food, so this provides opportunities for the future (Foodmetres, 2015). According to the rural development consultant and researcher in the area of Ljubljana, It is for a lot of people a tradition to go to the market in the weekends and do grocery shopping and meet there with people, to sit down for a coffee, and then go home and cook. A lot of people established preference at which farmer they buy from. They know the supply chain of them and know when they can expect certain products. People go also to the villages and buy from the farmer, or from their relatives. This is already the case for decades in the area of Ljubljana. You could just bike around to a farm and buy there your food. However, now they start to

29 experience that the international chains, like Lidl and Hover, are providing very cheap products. So, families who cannot effort much, shop over there as the farmer market prices are a bit higher (I7). As mentioned, people in the area are quite individualistic. They are not that much interested in making the network, as they prefer to do it by themselves or they have the help of their family members (I8,9).

In Ede you see that the cultural connections and social cohesion between people at local scale are not that strong. This is something that they want to improve and are working on; building stronger connections between the citizens in their municipality. In terms of collaborations between different regional governments, knowledge institutions, and entrepreneurs Ede is having a relative strong network in the region. In Ljubljana, although the farmers can be quite individualistic, there is a strong local food culture and strong urban-rural connections within the region. The municipality wants to sustain these relations and this culture. So, in Ljubljana they focus more on strengthening the existing connections, and in Ede they want to re- establish them.

Summarizing, Ede and Ljubljana are both municipalities in which the urban centre and the rural surroundings have an important role. On the surface the urban-rural relations and the food systems in Ede and Ljubljana seems opposites. In Ede the food system is more agri- industrial, export oriented, with an anonymous producer-consumer connection. Regional rural-urban relations are for the fast majority of the farms irrelevant. In Ljubljana there is a more traditional food system, with short food chains, and a strong local food culture. There are strong regional urban-rural connections, and the rural population and employment is high. But in Ede you see also some attempts for short food supply chains and functional diversity at farms. On the other hand, you see scale enlargement in Slovenia and the development of international supermarkets with cheaper food products. In terms of business, Ede and Ljubljana are both oriented to their own region and towards their international position in which they attract several companies. When you look at cultural connections, these are stronger in Ljubljana. But in Ede they have attempts to improve this and to create more societal connections between their citizen. At recreation domain, both municipalities position themselves as a green area, in which nature has a central position.

30 5. Urban-rural relations in the Urban Food Policies

Both cities, Ljubljana and Ede, designed and implemented an Urban Food Policy. The differences in food system dynamics and the rural-urban relations of the cases Ede and Ljubljana described in Chapter 4, could have an influence on the chosen Urban Food Policies of both cities. There are important differences visible between the UFP in both cities in terms of origin, goals, involved stakeholders and forms of cooperation. The Research Question in this chapter is; How are regional urban-rural relations represented in the Urban Food Strategies in Ede and Ljubljana? For the assessment of the Urban Food Policies, various documents were analyzed. To find additional information on the Urban Food Policies, web pages and interviews with people from the municipality were used. The interviews that are used for this chapter are only the interviews with people from the municipality or advisors for the municipality, so they are at a position that they know where they talk about. In Appendix 5 the complete UFP analysis of Ede and Ljubljana can be found.

5.1 Origin of the UFP According to the municipal councilor of food in Ede, the Urban Food Policy of the municipality was formed after an internal search for the new vision of Ede. They wanted to form a new vision for the municipality, because two important institutions that had a big influence on the development of Ede stopped. The municipality decided to take an active role in the development of their municipality. The new vision had to fit their characteristics, so they set up an extensive process in finding their strengths. This trajectory was led by the mayor, together with entrepreneurs, citizens, students, and the local council. They asked themselves what is the theme that fits to Ede and what kind of companies do you want to attract? In the end, it became clear that food was the central theme during history, and it fits by the characteristics of the region of Ede; close to Wageningen University and a lot of institutions related to food and knowledge. In 2014, the municipality officially introduced their vision ‘Ede chooses for food’, and they also appoint a councilor that relates to this food vision. The vision had to be broad. It had to be about the connection between the local producers and the city, but it also had to link with education, health, and design of public space. So, create it in a way that food company wants to come to the municipality and feels related to it (I3).

In Ljubljana the Urban Food Policy originated from the strategic guidance for rural development in the municipality; The strategy for rural development 2014-2020. This document does not have the same frame as the MUFPP that the city signed, but it is the forerunner of it (FAO, 2018; I89). The Rural Development Strategy is more focused towards the rural development and agricultural development in the city (RRALUR, 2015). The municipality works now on a new Rural Development Strategy for 2021-2027, food self- sufficiency of the area will have a central position in this new strategy. All municipalities in Slovenia set up a general strategy regarding development of primary production. These strategies often function as a basis for subsidies and other projects ruled by the European Union (I89).

A similarity between the municipalities in terms of origin of the UFP, is that they both started by their own local situation, and even their history. They looked at the developments in their region and adapt their strategy to it. However, there are also some main differences. in

31 Ljubljana the origin is initiated in the rural development section, and in Ede it originated more from the urban agenda. A factor that may have influenced this is the fact that in Slovenia almost half of the population lives in rural area, and there is almost 40% rural employment, and they want to be more self-sufficient in their food. Therefore, rural development is of high importance for Slovenia. In the Netherlands most people live in urban areas, (policy) domains are often separated, and connection with food is decreasing, which results in challenges. Therefore, a new more integrated urban food policy is favorable for cities.

5.2 Goals of UFP In Table 7 the UFP goals of the municipalities and the title of the practice according to the signed pact (the MUFPP) is shown. Besides the MUFPP, the municipalities also created other UFP related documents in which their goals were explained into more detail.

Table 7: UFP Goals Ljubljana and Ede LJUBLJANA: PLANNING FOR SHORT FOOD EDE: A PROMISING SHIFT IN FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS GOVERNANCE

‘“Ensure quality agriculture and forestry Goal: achieving a food governance shift. goods from a preserved environment, with the aim of self-sufficiency of the MOL”. ‘Through an integrated food strategy, the By doing so, the Municipality ensures food City of Ede is working to achieve healthy and sovereignty and unburdens the sustainable food for all its citizens by environment with short food supply chains, focusing on improving and strengthening while enhancing the food security of the both the economic and social conditions of urban population.’ Ede.’ Source: (FAO, 2018a; FAO, 2018b)

The goals of the Urban Food Policy of Ljubljana are very much linked to the food chains in their region. They want to make the area more agriculturally self-sufficient, shorten the food chains, and improve the relationships between farms and local businesses. They want to ensure quality food for the citizen, by emphasizing local, fresh and seasonal food (FAO, 2018; European Commission, 2017; European Commission, 2019). The rural development section of the environmental domain of the municipality plays a crucial role in the food policy of the municipality. An important goal is to increase the recognizability of the rural areas and create a comprehensive approach in the marketing of rural goods (Markovcic, 2019). So, the local urban-rural relations have a central role in the UFP of Ljubljana.

In Ede the UFP is quite different. Within the goals of Ede, you don’t see a clear link between the city and the surroundings. Their main goal is to create sustainable and healthy food for all citizen in Ede (Gemeente Ede, 2017; CityDeal, 2020; Gemeente Ede, n.d.(a); FAO, 2018a), but it is not clearly written how they visualize this. The municipality wants to reach a change in food governance, for this they are also linked with places in a bigger space. Ede serves as an example for other cities, and Ede gets inspired by other cities (I3). The municipality wants an integral food policy, which crosses multiple domains (FAO, 2018a; CityDeal, 2020). They want to strengthen the economic power of Ede, by tempting companies, knowledge institutions, students, visitors, and citizens. So many parties are attracted and involved, so the linkages that Ede builds reach much further than only their municipality.

32

When you use an absolute perspective on space for looking at these UFP goals of the municipalities, you can indicate several aspects in municipality of Ljubljana that are about these direct transactions and exchanges between the urban and rural area. The goals are very much spatial oriented, and link to their local rural area. They want to make Ljubljana more agriculturally self-sufficient, shortening of the food chains, and they want to improve the relationship between farms and local businesses and increase the productivity of local farms. When you use this absolute perspective for Ede, you can’t see a clear link between the local urban and rural areas. In Ede, they mention that they want to use an integral/holistic strategy in which they cross multiple domains, and they want to promote meeting and connections between people. When you use a relational perspective to evaluate these goals, you can see that in Ede they focus a lot on creating linkages, there are stakeholders and institutions that can be seen as interlinked dots in a complex network. Different actors and places are interlinked in this view, urban and rural is not strictly divided in this. The spatial perspective is disappearing here.

5.3 Stakeholders & domains involved As already mentioned, the UFP in Ljubljana is largely led by the Rural Development section of the municipality. Therefore, the rural actors and rural dynamics have a central position in this (I89). The MOL takes an active role in their rural strategy and is putting effort in improving quality of life and environmental protection. They shape favorable legislation and connect various stakeholders (De Cunto et al., 2017). They use a personal approach and ‘are present in the field’, so in direct contact with the farmers and the rural actors and knowing them. The higher advisor and the head of the rural development section also indicated that this is very important for the rural development in the area to have on the municipality level a person or a team that is constantly present at the field and in contact with the local actors and helping them develop. The presence should be for a longer time, and money must be structural available, to guarantee continuity and trust. In Ljubljana they see that a steady structure and approach, and money helped to gain trust from the different actors in the region (I89). For the Strategy of rural development, the MOL also works together with the Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Slovenia, the Regional Development Agency, and with a large group of territorial professional associations (fruit growers, gardeners, beekeeping, etc.). The municipal department for Environmental Protection coordinates several initiatives in Ljubljana for shorter, greener and more visible supply chains. When you zoom a bit out, then the MOL is working together with surrounding municipalities and they share their good practices. These municipalities together form Ljubljana Urban Region (LUR) and the Regional Development Agency of LUR (RDA LUR) focus on the development of this area (De Cunto et al., 2017). The local governments also work together towards a more comprehensive approach to food policy. They aim to reach a more holistic national strategy on food, nutrition and physical activity for 2015-2025. They want to enhance the cooperation among different departments, to reach real policy synergies. By some of their strategies MOL brings together different parties, and works together with other actors (e.g. universities, the third sector, international organizations), and also cooperation among the different departments of the municipality (Environmental protection, Real estate, Culture, and Youth) in order to reach food system innovation (De Cunto et al., 2017).

33 In Ede they tried to create a bottom-up food policy for their municipality, for which many different stakeholders from the municipality were consulted. In 2015 the municipality of Ede implemented their official integrated food strategy. The city council adopted it in their policy and allocated a budget to be able to realize the implementation of the strategy. They try to connect food education, public health, food waste, short food chains, sustainable and innovative food production by an integrated governance (FAO, 2018a). Ede works in their food strategy together with the municipal food team, politicians, and societal actors. The societal actors that are involved are citizen groups, organizations for food education, agrarians, Gelderse Vallei, Wageningen University and Research, food companies, urban agriculture, schools, sport canteens, the province of Gelderland, ministries, and the FAO. The municipal food team consist of a food councilor (which is Interviewee 3), a program manager, a strategic advisor food policy (which is Interviewee 1), several project leaders in health, sustainability, food, education, communication advisors and city marketeer. The politicians with a key role of other municipal domains are e.g. councilor of education, rural area, economics, and WFC. The municipality also assigned a Food Council that advises the municipality on their food policy. The council consist out of a combination of ten to fifteen citizens, entrepreneurs, and food experts. They discuss local challenges, they implement measures, and they connect with businesses, schools, and associations that are involved with food and/or health. (CityDeal, 2020). The municipality sees their role in the food policy as a facilitator and connector that provides possibilities. In the end, the entrepreneurs and the society have to react on the opportunities. The municipality wants to share the ownership, as they think this will stimulate initiatives of entrepreneurs and new collaborations (EetbaarEde, n.d.). The municipalities of Ede and Barneveld, LTO Gelderse Vallei, Wageningen University and Research, and Boerenhart works together on short chains and future proof farms, they organize for example masterclasses on how to work on ‘short chains’. The region serves as a trail place for Wageningen University (Gemeente Ede, n.d. (c)). Ede is also connected with other cities through the ‘Dutch City deal’, in which they want to realize to get food on the urban agenda. At regional level they work together with the provincial government of Gelderland, and the urban food strategies coordinate with the policies of the national government (FAO, 2018a).

The governance aspect of the UFP has a central position in Ede. They wanted to involve many different stakeholders and policy domains in order to achieve a holistic UFP, and they want to be an example for other areas. In Ljubljana most of the stakeholders are still rural focused. However, they also work on a more comprehensive and holistic approach towards their food policy, in which they include goals related to food, nutrition, and physical activity. In general, Urban Food Policies attempt to achieve integration of different policy domains in which they often target on different objectives related to health, environment, quality of life, economy and cohesion (Wiskerke, 2009). The involvement of different domains in the UFP results in the creation of many function relations at different scales. You see these functional relations back in both cases; e.g. food system relations, employment, and public services. A main difference between Ede and Ljubljana in terms of stakeholder involvement within a spatial orientation, are the big focus on rural related actors in Ljubljana, and in Ede there is more diversity. In Ede it is not clearly mentioned which rural stakeholders are present in the governance, and what their share is. In Ede they built a strong network in which they also work together and share experiences with cities in other regions. They even look at a global level to international cities

34 from which they can learn and can copy strategies. When you apply a relational perspective here, you see that actors and cities around the world form dots in a complex network of linkages. The diversity in involved stakeholders can also be influenced by the different population composition in both areas. In Slovenia almost half of the population lives in the rural areas, and 40% works in the rural area, therefore it is logical that the rural actors are stronger represented here.

5.4 Implementation measures In Table 8, an overview of the food practices of the municipality of Ljubljana and Ede are given according to what they wrote in their personal MUFPP. These practices are part of their action plan to achieve their UFP goals (FAO, 2018a; FAO, 2018b).

Table 8: Overview of food practices within their UFP of Ljubljana and Ede

Source: (FAO, 2018a; FAO, 2018b)

35 Ljubljana has developed strategies to promote local food and to create links between the farmers and the city. Until now Ljubljana has been successful with several initiatives, e.g. farmers’ markets and regional food festivals, designed to promote local food (FAO, 2018b). Results that Ljubljana books are often very tangible and practical. For example, a vending machine in the city with local products, public gardens that enables citizens to produce their own food, and trademark ‘Ljubljana basket’ for food locally produced and locally sold (De Cunto et al., 2017). The initiatives create clear urban-rural linkages in which producers and consumers at a regional level are brought together and more awareness is created. By their attempts to shorten the food supply chain, they still seek to involve more participants, such as restaurants, shops and hotels (FAO, 2018b). Policy wise, cooperation among different departments provides opportunities to reach policy synergies. Another policy goal that they focus on and which also provides new opportunities are local empowerment, especially for women and youth. Normally youth and women do not consider entrepreneurship as viable option for themselves, the municipality want to make a cultural change in this. The municipality established training program for them in the field, which leads to networking opportunities, cooperation and co-financing (De Cunto et al., 2017).

In Ede the measures are more governance focused and focused on embedding ‘food’ in the city government’s existing structures and policies. They want to create ownership by the different departments and connecting food to other policy areas in the municipality (FAO, 2018a). The municipality of Ede wants to facilitate and stimulate the food initiatives, but they don’t want to cross with entrepreneurial functions, in the end the society has to pick up the opportunities that the municipality creates. More practical examples of practices in Ede are; • FoodFloor: In this initiative citizens can pitch their ideas for healthy or sustainable food, ask questions, and apply for subsidy. They want to reach innovative collaborations between societal groups. • Alliantie Voeding: Collaboration between the hospital in Ede, Wageningen University, and the municipality of Ede. The goal of the collaboration is healthy food in the society. • Korte Ketens: This initiative tries to bring the producers and the consumers together and explore new markets for farmers. • Foodbattle: Citizens are going to battle with each other on reducing food waste. A big challenge for Ede is to make sure that the plans that they have on paper, also keep being an existing part of the organization and are put into practice. The food council was introduced in 2018 to make sure that the ideas from the citizens in Ede also end up in the municipal food policy (CityDeal, 2020). Ede recognizes that getting food issues on the political agenda is a complex journey. The challenge that they work on is to ensure that food become part of the entire community. A risk in the food policy of Ede is that it can slow down easily (FAO, 2018a; I1; I2; I3).

The practices that the municipalities mentioned in the MUFPP in order to reach their goals differ a lot. In Ede the goals are more abstract, clear spatial orientations are not indicated. The UFP practices in Ljubljana are more focused on the local food system and the transactions and exchanges of food products between the more rural area and the more urban area within the municipality.

Summarizing, in the municipality of Ede the UFP is mainly introduced by the urban policy domain and based on the challenges perceived by society. This is among others related to

36 health improvements, food waste reductions, and short food chains. You could look at the UFP of Ede as redesigning of the governance of the food system and current urban-rural relations. In the municipality of Ljubljana, the UFP is mainly formed by the rural development section of the municipality and the rural actors have a strong position. The policy is focused on sustaining existing food relations and keeping the challenges at a distance. In Ljubljana, food is still very strongly rooted in their culture and local produced food is highly valued and preferred. In short, the UFP of Ede is mainly formed based on the urban agenda, and the UFP of Ljubljana is based on a more rural interest. Although they are in many cases opposites from each other, at several points they develop in the same direction.

37 6. Challenges and opportunities to sustain the urban-rural relations

In this chapter, Research Question 3: What are the challenges and opportunities to sustain regional urban-rural relations in Ede and Ljubljana through Urban Food Strategies? will be answered. In order to do this, a comparative analysis of the information is made. In Table 9 and Table 10 an overview of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the municipality of Ede and Ljubljana are given to sustain the regional urban-rural relations through UFP. These results are based on the findings in the previous chapters and complemented with the findings of the interviews. There will be zoomed in on the interviews to give more background to the results in the table.

The interviews provided interesting insights about challenges and opportunities within the UFP of Ede and Ljubljana and the urban-rural relations that are there. In Appendix 6 an overview of all the mentioned challenges and opportunities are given, and in Appendix 7 the complete list of interview transcriptions can be found. Within the interviews it could be found that the actors based their claims on different interpretations of the subject. For example the councilor of the rural areas of Ede mentioned the importance of involvement of the rural actors, the councilor of Food and the regional economy mentioned the importance of attracting new companies, and strengthening their international position within food, and a chairman of a LAG for food awareness and short chains emphasizes the importance of a local food chains.

6.1 Challenges and opportunities in Ede In Table 9 an overview of the strengths, challenges, and opportunities of the municipality of Ede and their UFP are given, based on the previous results and the newly collected results in the interviews.

Table 9: Strengths, Challenges, and Opportunities in Ede Strengths Challenges Opportunities • Strategic location • Conflicting interests • Local involvement & • ‘Food municipality’ • Continuity of UFP collaborations positioning • Anonymous producer- • Information share • Agri- and food consumer relation • New policy measures knowledge centre • Strong decrease in • Youth education • Broad network farms • entrepreneurs

In Ede all the interviewees that are working at the municipality of Ede mentioned the challenge of the long-term continuation of the urban food strategy of Ede (I1; I2; I3; I4). There is a risk of managing it as a project and by the change of governance the theme of food could disappear again. To work on this challenge, it is of importance that the theme of food gets well established at all the different municipal departments and by the inhabitants of Ede. It is important that as many food connections as possible are being made. This can be done by strong involvement of the (local) actors and by establishing cooperation between different parties. A councilor of the municipality and responsible for theme food says the following:

38 ‘‘The challenge is to continue it. Make sure it is not a project that comes and disappears after three years. The challenge is it to hold and continue it, so it will be kept in the mind of the Ede citizens that it belongs to them’ (I3)

The linkages that they want to build in Ede are local/regional as well as (inter)national. The municipality focusses a lot on connecting with knowledge institutions, companies, and other governmental actors. In this you see that the municipality of Ede has a broad network with local, regional, national, and international parties with which they share knowledge and start cooperation with. Attracting food companies is a strategy they use within the municipality of Ede. These companies can provide employment in the region and strengthens the food vision of the municipality. Having food, medicine, and energy related companies in the region would also help to decrease the dependence on external sources, and therefore it makes the area less vulnerable. A councilor working on the rural area says: ‘For vital sources as medicines, food, and energy, you should not only leave it to the markets and businesses. A strong collaboration with your local companies should be build. … Recently we discovered that local and cooperative generation of energy is many times more preferred than for example filling up hectares of land with a big Chinese energy company. So, as governance we become more selective with which companies we work together.’ (I2)

Connections and collaborations between different actors and sharing knowledge in both directions is also mentioned as key. One interviewee that is part of the local municipal council and a farmer in the municipality says the following: ‘In a lot of policy documents, I read that farmers need coaching, and that their knowledge has to be upgraded, especially when they talk about nature inclusive farming, etc. But for good involvement is it essential that you focus on each other’s knowledge and skills. Shortly, rural areas of Ede are more than the testing ground of the university. Especially young farmers are well educated and feature a lot of knowledge on a lot of domains. The older farmers feature often a lot of practical knowledge, acquired in all their years of farming in a specific area or on a specific ground. Already for this, the governance should focus on maximal local involvement.’ (I4).

Information share needs to take place in both directions, so learning from each other. Youth education is also an opportunity in this. Good results are reached by introducing healthy food, food production and waste management at primary schools. The children correct their parents and it can lead to more conscious consumers. The councilor relates to food mentions the following: ‘To strengthen connections between schools, companies, and farmers, appreciations of food is also important, especially for the people in our area. You can notice that children who had to take care of a schoolgarden for a year, appreciate food more. For example, that they don’t directly through away a tomato that is laying there for a while, as they know long it took to grow it.’ (I3)

Within the municipality of Ede they perceive a large spectrum of conflicting interests and opinions about food. According to the councilor of the rural area, you have the ‘international oriented livestock producers’ and the ‘urban quinoa eating foodies’ and everything in between. And there is a lack of connection between these different stakeholders. ‘In our policy we invested in both urban food policy as in rural area, agriculture and agricultural innovation. And in this we had intern quite some struggle for a long time. Let’s say

39 it like this; the quinoa eating foodies look different to food and food experience then the calf- farmers. And this is polarizing quite strongly in the Netherlands.’ (I2) Local urban-rural connections, and producer-consumer contact is very limited. It is the task of the government to build a bridge between these different interests. A chairman of a local action group for creating more awareness and connection about food says the following: ‘We think that the connection between the city and the surroundings in Ede is bad. Only a small percentage of the urban citizen goes to the surroundings to buy products, farm education, or experience farms. … A lot of people think animals are amazing, but these same people go to the supermarket and focus only on the price. Although they know where the meat is coming from, they are not thinking about this when they buy food. The animal and the meat are standing separate from each other, the connection is lost.’ (I5)

An opportunity to find solutions for societal challenges is to talk more often with the different parties. Because, according to the councilor of the rural area, to get a support base for societal challenges (e.g. green energy) you have to involve the local actors. One way of connecting stakeholders in Ede is by putting opposite parties at a table and let them share their thoughts and ideas, this is not that easy. You have to set clear rules for these conversations, so everyone feels safe and has the right of place. In these conversations they try to find common goals, and not only criticizing each other, but finding joint possibilities (I2). Another target is to reach a long term vision, especially for the agricultural and rural actors. The food policy vision of the municipality has to be made practical and steps needs to be set to translate the written vision in practical implementation. A last challenge is the fixed way of doing of both the government and the societal actors. The municipality could implement different policy measures in order to be more effective in achieving their goals. The food policy advisor of the municipality and researcher has the following idea about this: ‘It is an idea to increase the use of different kinds of policy instruments. And then I target mainly on the more compelling, harder policy instruments, like taxes. At this moment, and that is also a bit the Dutch governance culture, mainly soft, more voluntary instruments are used. Although it would be probably cheaper and create more impact when you use the law and regulations as measure. For example, from now on only half of the fastfood restaurants are allowed here. Or if you want subsidy for your sport association, you should have a healthy sport canteen. There are many instruments for this, especially related to a healthy food environment.’ (I1)

40 6.1 Challenges and opportunities in Ljubljana In Table 10 an overview of the strengths, challenges, and opportunities of the municipality of Ljubljana and their UFP are given, based on the previous results and the newly collected results in the interviews.

Table 10: Strengths, Challenges, and Opportunities in Ljubljana Strengths Challenges Opportunities • SFSC • Insufficient food supply • FSC improvements • Strong food culture • Individualistic culture • Newcomers in rural • Big rural population • Decrease in farms areas and employment • Globalization & longer • Empowerment of locals • Stable advisors and chains & LAGs policy • Competition on land • Increase in cooperation • Youth & education

The challenges and opportunities mentioned about the area of Ljubljana were comparable for the three interviewees (two from municipal department of rural development and food policy (I89), and one with a more consultancy/research and societal background(I7)).

The main challenge indicated was having insufficient supply of local food, so the demand is not matching with the supply, and therefore there is a need to increase the production. Only during harvest season there is overproduction, which at that moment brings a new challenge. The number of farms is decreasing in the municipality as it is economically not feasible anymore. However, the farmland stays often as heritage and this resulted in several abandoned farmlands. Now the competition of land around Ljubljana is increasing, e.g. to establish building or factories. The environmental/rural municipal section works on maintaining the land for agriculture in the Ljubljana region. According to the interviewees of the rural development section of Ljubljana, and also the initiators of the UFP; ‘This is the challenge; how to upgrade or make the production bigger than the production that already exists. We have the area, so it would be possible. But it is happening as well that the people are actually neglecting the farmland. So, the farmland is just waiting there for other people to work on it.’ (I89)

The interviewees suggested several supply chain improvements in order to be able to get a more efficient and sustainable local food system. For example, greenhouses to prolong the production season, processing of overproduce during harvest season, work in cooperatives to be more efficient, sales to supermarkets, and online orders and delivery. Collaborations within the larger region could also provide opportunities, as this makes it easier to match the supply and demand, as the number of producers and consumers is bigger (I7; I89). Another often named challenge is the individualistic culture in Slovenia as a result of the socialist times. The interviewee with a background in research about rural and environmental development in Slovenia explains it as follows: ‘You have to know that cooperatives for a while were not very popular. Because just after the world war we became a socialist country, there was a strive to do everything a bit as Sovjet Union. So it was all about nationalization of land and working together in big cooperatives and so an. And this was unfavorable on the ground by the people, because it was

41 a top down directed. And after Yugoslavia broak off the relationship with Sovjet Union in 1948 they kind of slowed down this. But there was still a kind of top-down push of these cooperative and farmers just didn’t like it, because they felt they didn’t get enough.’ (I7) The interviewees working at the municipality confirm this: ‘The challenge is to work with the different farmers, because our main idea is to connect everybody, but it is very difficult to put them together all around the table. Because they are actually strong individualists as I said, and it is very hard for them to work for example with their neighbor and things like that. So, this is a challenge for the municipality.’ (I89). Trust plays a role in this. Trust in the governance is sometimes a bit decreasing because of political changes, which lead in confusing. It is expected that generation change will help to bridge this challenge. Establishing stable advisors and a stable policy is essential in gaining trust and creating a strong food policy. It was indicated that it is important to have on the municipality level a person or a team that is constantly present at the field and in contact with the local actors and developments. In this it is also important that you have your own municipal money and the food policy is not a project, as you want to ensure continuity.

Sometimes it is a challenge for the government to realizing a bottom-up approach. The desire is there, but the skills to take in all the locally received information during conversations and events into the policies remains difficult, although in Ljubljana they are doing relatively good. Sometimes there is frustration of local parties; ‘we keep saying this and this, but you never do something with it’. ‘I would say they lack the skill of consultation planning, because they keep organizing the events, but I think when they did it in a more planned way, a planned consequences or targeted, it would be easier for them to take the comments and the results and to take them in. Because when you have a lot of consultations with very different stakeholders, you get a lot of input and then you just get confused. And I think they lack the skills to filter through this and consume the information from the bottom and to process it.’ (I7)

A new upcoming opportunity are Local Action Groups (LAG). There are some really proactive, involved stakeholders, that keep pushing and consulting the governance actors. They are now seen as players that you need to involve (I7). Another challenge is the misperception of farming and rural life, which leads to some challenges at the rural level. There is a trend of urban people moving to the rural area as it is cheaper, due to (family)connections, or new age urban people that want to life in touch with nature. It happens that their view is over Romanizes, without the smell, noise, and financial difficulties of rural life. This sometimes results in a bit of culture clash with the old rural community and their own habits and traditions. However, the urban newcomers in combination with modernization can also provide new opportunities. The newcomers bring some fresh ideas in the rural communities and help them to develop. Also, more hybrid situations are created, modern technology enables people to work (partly) from home and new businesses are created. A last challenge is the decrease in knowledge and connection on local food. An opportunity in this are the youth and youth education. Knowledge and connection about local food disappeared a bit, e.g. due to year-round supply nowadays. So, (youth) education in this will help (I7). Youth in general are also providing new opportunities in connecting stakeholders and the creation of more cooperatives. As the older generation developed a more

42 individualistic culture due to the socialist time, a generation change is needed to realize more connections (I89).

6.3 Comparative reflection Ede and Ljubljana At some points, Ede and Ljubljana form opposites of each other, in which they grow slowly towards each other’s direction. The power of Ede seems the weakness of Ljubljana, and vice versa. In Table 11 a comparative reflection is given of some important point of difference between Ede and Ljubljana.

Table 11: Comparative reflection Ede Ljubljana Networks and collaborations Individualistic, local oriented Weak food culture Strong food culture Large scale agriculture, some niches for LFS Small scale, some cooperatives and scale enlargement UFP originates from urban agenda UFP originates from rural section Uncertainty in long term continuation Stable advisors & being in the field High import/export Self-sufficiency goal

In Ede there is a high level of knowledge and expertise around food, health, and agriculture concentrated. There is a strong network in which different kinds of actors (governmental institutions, businesses, knowledge institutions, etc.) work together, in which collaboration and knowledge sharing takes place. Ede wants to position themselves, also internationally, as important food region. In Ljubljana this is less the case, they concentrate mostly on the organization of their own local food system. There is also a more individualistic culture in which farmers don’t like to collaborate but want to organize everything by themselves. But also in Ljubljana you see partnerships between several municipalities in the area of Ljubljana, and between actors in the food chain. And in Ede you see some attempts to promote local food chains. For example, they have the initiative ‘Korte Ketens’ in which they try to bring the producer and the consumer closer together, and exploring new markets for farmers.

In Ljubljana you have an existing food culture, with mostly small-scale agriculture and short food chains that are integrated with other urban-rural functions. So, in Ljubljana there is already a very strong local food culture and system, and the UFP can elaborate on this. In Ede this local food system and culture is for a large share not there anymore, so if they want that, they have to recreate it, which is very difficult as it is influenced by a lot of factors. In Ede food culture is low, and the connection with the origin of the food often disappeared. However, they try to reintegrate this, by introducing food education at schools, and promotion of societal cohesion between different groups of citizens. On the other hand, in Ljubljana you see as a result of the globalization and the international supermarkets that the connection with for example seasonality of food is decreasing, especially by the youth.

In Ljubljana you have a lot of small-scale, mixed farms, in which farmers organize the whole supply chain by themselves. However, the chains in Ljubljana are also getting longer. Producers now also must deal with marketing and production technologies and not solely with the production of food (Foodemetres, 2015). In Ede the majority are large scale farmers. But

43 you also start to see more differentiation and some farmers oriented towards the local markets.

In Ede long term continuation of the UFP was named as main challenge by the people from the municipality. The councilor of the rural area of Ede said: ‘Building a bridge is one, but maintaining it is two. And I think that this will stay as a challenge for all the stakeholders. Not only now, but also in the future. … It is important to have a long term vision and carrying this out, especially by the rural area and agriculture. But long term and politics are in general quite difficult to combine’ (I2). And also the other people from the municipality named the same challenge (I1; I2; I3; I4). The initiators of the UFP of Ljubljana gave as final message that establishing stable advisors and a stable policy is essential in gaining trust and creating a strong food policy. In MOL they have a fixed team that is in constant contact with the local actors and the developments. Structural money is needed for this, and it should not be a project, as this has the risk that it will end (I89). So in this way, they face the same challenges, and both work on solutions that fits to their situation.

In Ljubljana they want to increase the self-sufficiency of their region, which is also a goal of Slovenia in general. But in order to become more self-sufficient they have to increase the productivity of the farms in the region, with an attention to the local environment. In Ede and the Netherlands, they are more export and import oriented, which already originates centuries ago, and being self-sufficient is not a goal for the area. However, there are counter trends emerging. One councilor stated that she is against the international dependency of important resources like food, medicines, energy, and she wants to create a more regional focus. ‘It doesn’t have to be necessary local; it can also be at a European level to start with.’ (I2). An interviewee from Ljubljana with a background in rural-urban research made a critical remark on the self-sufficiency policy in their area. The self-sufficiency is not always that efficient, which could lead to very high food prices and dependency on current subsidies. ‘The local farmers can keep the prices up and do not work on the efficiency of farming.’ According to the interviewee, now all regions focus on their own self-sufficiency, but collaborations with other regions might also be valuable to match the supply and demand better (I7).

Summarizing, there is a big diversity in food visions and actors in Ede, and the municipality has to support and include all of them. Therefore, they have to build connections, share information and seek for commonalities between the different interests. In Ljubljana the challenges are more practical and local food system based. In order to be more food self- sufficient they have to increase their supply and work on a more efficient and sustainable food chain. Collaborations between actors have to be improved, as people are individualistic as a result of the socialist times. The new generation will provide opportunities in this. A better collaboration with surrounding regions will help to get supply and demand more balanced. Having a fixed team with a clear vision and strategy in contact with the rural actors is essential in helping them develop in a sustainable way.

44 7. Conclusion

The central question in this research was; ‘What is the influence of Urban Food Policies on sustaining urban-rural linkages in different socioeconomic contexts?’

What are the characteristics of Ede and Ljubljana in terms of urban-rural relations, with special attention for food system dynamics? Both municipalities are unique in the fact that the urban area and the rural surroundings have an important function. Ljubljana is the capital city of the land but is still relatively small and well connected to its rural surroundings. Also because of the predominantly traditional food system, with SFSC, and a strong food culture. The city has grown rapidly, but there is also a trend of urbans moving back to the more rural areas in which hybrid situations emerge that are possible due to modernization. In Ede the food system is more agri-industiral, with anonymous producer-consumer connections. Regional rural-urban relations are for the fast majority of the farms irrelevant as they are export focused. Simultaneously, some differentiation dynamics are going on in which SFSC and functional diversity are developed in Ede. On the other hand, you see scale enlargement and growth of international supermarket chains in Slovenia. The population and employment in the rural area in Slovenia are far bigger than in the Netherlands. In terms of business, Ede and Ljubljana are both growing in their international position, in which they attract several companies. When you look at cultural and societal connections, these are stronger in Ljubljana, but in Ede they work on improving the societal cohesion. At recreation domain, both municipalities position themselves as a green area, in which nature has a central position.

How are regional urban-rural relations represented in the Urban Food Policies in Ede and Ljubljana? Ede is characterized by a strong urban focus in its UFP, whereas Ljubljana’s UFP is originated from the rural development domain of the municipality. Differences in origin, goals and stakeholders between the municipalities, may be explained by the historical developments and the food system dynamics in the areas. In Ljubljana they have a clear vision in their UFP in which they target on self-sufficiency and sustaining their local food culture, therefore the proposed regional urban-rural relations are obvious and more concrete. In Ede they focus int their UFP on the governance aspect and aligning different stakeholders and domains to create a holistic approach. Because of a wide range of interests, a clear vision on sustaining urban- rural relations is more difficult to form.

What are the challenges and opportunities to sustain the regional urban-rural relations in Ede and Ljubljana through Urban Food Policies? For Ede the main challenge is the long-term continuation of an integrated food strategy in which all stakeholders feel included and connected. There is a tension between different spatial perspectives, therefore it is complicated to form a concrete vision for future urban- rural relations. This makes it difficult to discuss to which extent Ede can contribute to sustaining the urban-rural relations, because it is not complete clear for themselves which direction to go. In Ljubljana this is very different. Agriculture and food form important building blocks of their society, the society and the governments put a high value at this local food

45 production, and their vision of increasing self-sufficiency is clear. They want to sustain the short food chains and provide farmers a clear perspective.

Concluding, the Urban Food Policies in both cities help to work on the food challenges that they experience in their specific socioeconomic context. Their visions are formed by their historical characters and societal values. The UFP help to actively work on improving the situation and getting domains and stakeholders more interlinked, but the type of urban-rural linkages that they focus upon differs according to the locally established visions. To know what the influence of the UFP on rural-urban relations is, you have to determine which perspective on rural-urban relations and space you use. In Ede the absolute, relative, and relational perspective are different, therefore tensions can exist. In Ljubljana these three perspectives correspond better with each other. And the actual influence of this strategy on sustaining these rural-urban linkages is dependent on the connection and commitment that the societal and governmental actors feel with this strategy.

46 8. Discussion In this chapter a critical reflection is carried out in which the research validity is discussed, then the research results are interpret and put into perspective. In the end, the theoretical implications and suggestions for further research are given.

8.1 Validity /Limitations A multi-method approach was used in which conclusions were drawn based on scientific literature, statistics, policy documents and interviews. Using different kinds of methods increased the internal validity. By the interviews there was a risk of socially desirable answers of policy makers that want to give political right answers, but these answers could be validated by the comparison with the results of the other data collection methods. Another potential limitation is that the scope of my thesis may be too broad. Within the comparative case study that I carried out; I collected a lot of different types of data at two sides. It was a big task to process and analyze all these data in a systematic way and draw the right conclusions from it. It is expected that the external validity of the case study in Ede is higher compared to the external validity for Ljubljana as less interviews were carried out over there. In Ede I also received input from 3 stakeholders from a more societal side, by which I could check if the statements of the people from the municipality were right according to them. Due to COVID- 19 I could not stay longer in Ljubljana to carry out interviews over there. In Ljubljana I only interviewed people from the rural section of the municipality, the initiator of the UFP, and one person linked to urban-rural linkages research in this area. Because of this, I could not draw conclusions about how the stakeholders in the field, like farmers and local action groups, experience the food policy and the rural-urban linkages within the municipality of Ljubljana. The comparative case study of Ljubljana and Ede provides insights in the influence of different socioeconomic contexts. These insights can be used to explore differences between the UFP in other cities. I am aware that qualitative research, and especially when the scope of the research is broad, is strongly dependent on the skills of the researcher. I tried my best to work in a systematic and objective way in establishing the methodological approach, proceeding the data, and interpreting the results for a valid outcome.

8.2 Integration of results Perspectives on rural-urban linkages: Davoudi & Stead (2002) indicated that the rural-urban relations became a complex web of interdependencies, which makes it also difficult to research. There were different conceptualizations of space indicated in literature; absolute space, relative space, and relational space (Jones & Woods, 2013; Brown & Shucksmith, 2017). In which absolute relations focus on a bounded territory and see local as distinct from global. Within the relative conceptualization the boundaries are more porous and there is a focus on different types of functional ties. The relational pace is very dynamic, in which places are seen as nodes in a complex network of interrelations. All the three perspectives are used to fully understand the rural-urban dynamics (Jones & Woods, 2013). Stakeholders within the UFP of Ede and Ljubljana, implicitly or explicitly, referred to different spatial lenses on rural urban dynamics. This made it rather challenging to assess and compare ongoing UFP practices and ideas. As

47 said in the conclusion, in Ljubljana the three perspectives correspond relatively good with each other which result in clarity, in Ede these perspectives vary more from each other which can result in tensions. The results in this comparative case study supported the idea of Jones & Woods (2013) of multiple spatial lenses linked to rural-urban linkages.

Contextual factors: Contextual factors that may influence the rural-urban relations are among others the distances in food systems, the absolute distance between rural and urban area, and the contact between producer and consumer. Lucatelli& De Matteis (2011) stated that the distance between the rural and the urban area has a big influence on the rural-urban linkages. In both municipalities the cities are relatively small and are closely located to the more rural area. Interviewees in both municipalities indicated that they are still quite interconnected with their rural area compared to other bigger European cities. However, citizens of Ljubljana are much stronger connected to their regional rural area although the absolute distance between the city and the surroundings is comparable to Ede. Therefore, there should be more factors of influence. In literature it was indicated that stronger connections between the people that produce and the people that consume the food creates more harmony and synergies, and the gaps between the urban and the rural communities will be reduced (Blay-Palmer et al., 2018). In Ede there are many conflicting interests between stakeholders, and there is often a lack of connection between the stakeholders, e.g. nature organizations, farmers, and the energy domain. The municipality is now working on this by putting stakeholders, that at first sight seem opposites, together in a conversation, and try to find similarities in their goals and see how they can come to a joint solution. In Ljubljana I also asked if there were much contrasting interests, but this was not the case over there. Farmers, nature organizations and consumers had in general the same view. So, this could possibly be explained by the strong relations within the area.

Besides this, food systems are changing rapidly, and this is also impacting the rural-urban linkages. For example, diets are globalized, there is a decrease in traditional markets and there is an increasing availability of highly processed foods (Foster et al., 2015). Urban and rural places became in general more separate, and in most countries the food policy was formed by national and international government bodies and a large influence of self-regulating agriculture and food business sector (Morgan, 2015). These developments are to a large extent visible in the Netherlands, this is presumably also the reason that the absolute and relative urban-rural linkages in the case of Ede have decreased in the last decades. As Slovenia is less global oriented, and therefore the local rural-urban relations did not change that drastically in the last decades. The mentioned trends are less visible in the country, however they are also slowly increasing. In Ede they focus on both the Agro-Industrial Paradigm (AIP), and the Integrated Territorial Paradigm (ITP). AIP is characterized by modernization and industrialization of supply chains. ITP is characterized by being embedded in and based upon the regional features and the distance between producer and consumer is in general low. This paradigm indicated food quality to farming systems, cultural traditions, and valorization of specific local resources (Wiskerke, 2010; Renting & Wiskerke, 2009). The AIP in Ede comes back in among others, their desire to build a World Food Centre with innovative companies and institutions related to food. But in their UFP they focus also on aspects of the ITP in which they want to create more connection between, and inclusion of the local stakeholders, by a bottom-up food policy. In

48 Ljubljana you see a strong link with the ITP, in which the local supply chains have a central position in their food system. Consumers are well aware about the origin of their food, and local food is highly valorized. A Food System 3.0 is a more re-localized food system that seeks to foster a better balance of food supply from global and local sources. This Food System uses a more integrative and sustainable approach and is aware of the multiple domains linked to food, like health, the environment, and economic development (Dubbeling et al., 2016). In both cities there are countertendencies visible in this direction, but both in their own way. In Ede they work on finding a more integrative approach and try to link the UFP to multiple domains. In Ljubljana keeping the local food supply running and sustaining the rural area are of great importance.

Urban Food Policy Cities were seen as key places for transitions and new food governance, as local governments have a high executive force compared to national governments where processes can take longer because getting agreements with several contrasting ideologies of parties takes time (Moragues-Faus & Morgan, 2015). In Ede you recognize that within the municipality and their inhabitants there is a broad spectrum of ideologies. Therefore, decision making can also be a time-consuming process over there. In order to let food policies be effective, the policies at different governmental layers should be aligned. So, the policies at local and national level should steer in the same direction (Blay-Palmer et al., 2018; Forster et al., 2015). The municipality of Ede is part of many networks of different governmental layers, these should all be aligned, therefore it can take more time to establish the policies. In Ljubljana the national policy also steers on increasing self-sufficiency of the country and rural development, and at municipal level, Ljubljana is also working on this. In the Netherlands the food and agricultural policies are at this moment in a transformation in which it is not completely clear what the national strategy is. Also, during the interviews with the stakeholders in Ede I noticed differences in visions of the policy makers about the food strategy.

Within the Urban Food Policies of Ede and Ljubljana, rural-urban synergistic relations can be found in several ways. In terms of business, it was found that the positioning of Ede as ‘food municipality’ helps them to attract food related companies, which has a positive influence on the labour market in their municipality and an innovative climate. In Ljubljana they position themselves as a sustainable and green city, which also attracts companies interested in these fields. In terms of recreation, they have in Ljubljana a clear vision in their UFP about their strong gastronomy and they want to link restaurants and hotels to local food. In Ede they promote functional diversity at farms, and they have to search for new ways of use for the empty buildings in the rural areas. In this way they can make a link with for example tourism and health care. The UFP also focus a lot on sustainability and sustainable forms of farming, this can have a positive influence on eco-system delivery. The ability to establish mutual positive relations between UFP making and other synergy fields will co-determine the overall potential of the Urban Food Policies.

49 8.3 Theoretical implications Urban Food Policies are new strategies to work on sustainable food systems in city-regions. The influence of the UFP on urban-rural linkages, and the influence of contextual factors on this were not sufficiently analyzed. In this research, the case of Ljubljana and Ede were used to further explore this. In the previous paragraph it is already shown how the results of this research correspond with the existing literature in this field.

This research shows the complexity of rural-urban linkages. It shows that the opportunities to sustain rural-urban relations are strongly dependent of the current dynamics in an area, like the food system development and the historical development. The municipal vision is influenced by the challenges that they perceive in their specific socioeconomic context and the stakeholders that are involved. If the rural-urban linkages within the three perspectives of Jones & Woods (2013) match, it is easier to work on sustaining these relations. If the three perspectives largely differ from each other, and therefore it is not completely clear which common goal is pursued, this would lead to tensions. Aligning the UFP with diverse stakeholders and domains will lead to more synergetic relations on different themes, e.g. recreation, business, and culture. If you want to build stronger absolute rural-urban linkages, you should include local stakeholders and work together on local solutions for the challenges you envision. If you want to reach more relative rural-urban linkages, you should build different kind of relations with your stakeholders. Not only rural stakeholders, but a dynamic group of stakeholders from different domains and also from different spatial scales.

8.4 Suggestions further research It became clear that there is no standalone indicator to declare the relationship between Urban Food Policies and urban-rural linkages. Therefore, the conclusions of this research can’t be generalized to all the other UFP cases of different municipalities. So, when other municipalities want to investigate the influence of their UFP on urban-rural linkages, they should carry out an own research to explore which factors are influencing the relations within their local socio-economic context. In the end, several case-studies can be put together to see if certain patterns in UFP visions, types of rural-urban linkages and the socioeconomic contexts can be recognized in these cases. A good start will be investigating the UFP, rural-urban relations, and the socioeconomic context by the European cities that signed the MUFPP in a more systematic way. So, indicate variables related to the food system in the country, indicate the relative and relational rural-urban linkages, and indicate the main goals of the UFP of the municipality. This research had an exploratory function in which a broad scope was used to include all kinds of different variables that might be of influence. But to build stronger theories about the relations between these variables, further research is needed.

50 Literature: Agricola, H., & Kuhlman, T. (2015). Benchmark Agrofood De positie van regio FoodValley in Nederland. www.wageningenUR.nl/alterra. BCFN, MUFPP (2018) “Food & Cities. The role of cities for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals” www.barillacfn.com Blay-Palmer, A., Santini, G., Dubbeling, M., Renting, H., Taguchi, M., & Giordano, T. (2018). Validating the City Region Food System Approach: Enacting Inclusive, Transformational City Region Food Systems. Sustainability, 10(5), 1680. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10051680 Bureau Economisch Onderzoek, & Provincie Gelderland. (2017). Verkenning internationaal toerisme. Brown, D. L., & Shucksmith, M. (2017). Reconsidering territorial governance to account for enhanced rural-urban interdependence in America. The Annals of the American Academy of political and social science, 672(1), 282-301. Caffyn, A., & Dahlström, M. (2005). Urban-rural interdependencies: Joining up policy in practice. Regional Studies, 39(3), 283– 296. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340050086580 Calori, A., Dansero, E., Pettenati, G., & Toldo, A. (2017). Urban food planning in Italian cities: a comparative analysis of the cases of Milan and Turin. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems, 41(8), 1026–1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2017.1340918 CBS. (2015.). Bodemgebruik per gemeente. 2015. Retrieved June 10, 2020, from https://opendata.cbs.nl/statline/#/CBS/nl/dataset/70262NED/table?fromstatweb CityDeal (2020). Ede kiest voor food | CityDeal | Voedsel op de stedelijke agenda. 2020. Retrieved June 10, 2020, from https://citydealvoedsel.nl/receptenboek/ede-kiest-voor- food/ COV (2017). Sector in cijfers. Retrieved July 1, 2020, from https://www.cov.nl/sector-in- cijfers Davoudi, S. , & S. D. (2002). Urban-rural relationships: an introduction and brief history. 269– 277. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/27378080 De Cunto, A., Tegoni, C., Sonnino, R., Michel, C., Lajili-Djalaï, F., & Dragonetti, W. (2017). Food in cities: study on innovation for a sustainable and healthy production, delivery, and consumption of food in cities. Dubbeling, M., Santini, G., Renting, H., Taguchi, M., Lançon, L., Zuluaga, J., de Paoli, L., Rodriguez, A., & Andino, V. (2017). Assessing and Planning Sustainable City Region Food Systems: Insights from Two Latin American Cities. Sustainability, 9(8), 1455. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9081455 EetbaarEde. (n.d.). Wat Food voor Ede doet. Retrieved June 11, 2020, from https://eetbaarede.nl/wat-food-voor-ede-doet/ Ericksen, P. J. (2008). Conceptualizing food systems for global environmental change research. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 234– 245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.09.002 Esser, F., & Hanitzsch, T. (2013). The Handbook of Comparative Communication Research European Commission. (2012). Europeans’ attitudes towards food security, food quality and the countryside Report http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/index_en.htm European Commision. (2015). Scenarios for Integrated Territorial Investments. European Commission. (2019). European cities leading in urban food systems transformation: connecting Milan & FOOD 2030. https://doi.org/10.2777/268251

51 European Network for Rural Development. (2015). Rural Development Programme: Key facts & figures SLOVENIA 1. General information EAFRD* support: EUR 837 849 803. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-development-2014-2020/country- files/si/factsheet_en.pdf FAO. (n.d.). Food for the cities programme | Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved December 12, 2019, from http://www.fao.org/in-action/food-for- cities-programme/en/ FAO. (2015). Mapping global urban and rural population distributions. http://www.fao.org/3/a0310e/A0310E05.htm FAO. (2018a). Ede: a promising shift in food governance. FAO. (2018b). Ljubljana: Planning for short food supply chains. Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. http://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Brief-5- Liubiana.pdf FAO. (2019). World Food and Agriculture Statistical Pocketbook 2019. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules FAO, & RUAF Foundation. (2018). City Region Food System Toolkit. Assessing and planning sustainable city region food systems. www.fao.org/publications Foodmetres. (2015). knowledge portal - Case study region Ljubljana. 2015. Retrieved June 11, 2020, from http://www.foodmetres-kp.eu/page.1.3.php Forster, T., & Getz Escudero, A. (2014). City Regions as Landscapes for People, Food and Nature. http://landscapes.ecoagriculture.org/global_review/city_regions Forster, T., Santini, G., Edwards, D., Flanagan, K., & Taguchi, M. (2015). Strengthening Urban Rural Linkages Through City Region Food Systems. Fresco, L. (2018). De buik van de stad. (page 7-9). Gemeente Ede. (2012). Visie Ede 2025 Ede kiest voor Food. Gemeente Ede. (n.d.-a). Ede & Food | Gemeente Ede. No Date. Retrieved June 10, 2020, from https://www.ede.nl/in-de-gemeente-ede/food-en-veluwe/ede-food/ Gemeente Ede. (n.d.-b). Inventarisatie Vitaal Buitengebied | Gemeente Ede. Retrieved June 10, 2020, from https://www.ede.nl/in-de-gemeente-ede/ede-in- ontwikkeling/inventarisatie-vitaal-buitengebied/ Gemeente Ede. (n.d.-c). Ondernemers & Food . Retrieved June 11, 2020, from https://www.ede.nl/in-de-gemeente-ede/food-en-veluwe/ondernemers-food Gemeente Ede. (n.d.-d). World Food Center | Gemeente Ede. No Date. Retrieved June 10, 2020, from https://www.ede.nl/in-de-gemeente-ede/food-en-veluwe/world-food- center/ Gemeente Ede. (2015). Visie Food! 2015-2020. Gemeente Ede. (2016). Programma Buitengebied . https://data.maglr.com/568/issues/5417/81295/do wnloads/programma_buitengebied.pdf Gemeente Ede. (2017). STADSVISIE EDE Omgevingsvisie Ede-Stad 2030. Heffernan, W. , Hendrickson, M. , & Arda, M. (2008). The global food system: A research agenda. Heley, J., & Jones, L. (2012). Relational rurals: Some thoughts on relating things and theory in rural studies. Journal of rural studies, 28(3), 208-217. HNVF. (2013). High Nature Value Farming. http://www.highnaturevaluefarming.org.uk/what- is-high-nature-value-farming/

52 Ingram, J. (2011). A food systems approach to researching food security and its interactions with global environmental change. Food Security, 3(4), 417– 431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-011-0149-9 Jablonski, B. B. R., Carolan, M., Hale, J., Thilmany McFadden, D., Love, E., Christensen, L., Covey, T., Bellow, L., Cleary, R., David, O., Jablonski, K. E., Jones, A., Meiman, P., Quinn, J., Ryan, E., Schipanski, M., Summers, H., & Uchanski, M. (2019). Connecting Urban Food Plans to the Countryside: Leveraging Denver’s Food Vision to Explore Meaningful Rural– Urban Linkages. Sustainability, 11(7), 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11072022 Jones, M. and Woods, M. (2013) New localities, Regional Studies, 47: 29-42. Labaree, R. v. (n.d.). Research Guides: Organizing Your Social Sciences Research Paper: Types of Research Designs. Lengkeek, V. (2017, January 27). Wethouder Leon Meijer roert zich op nationale voedseltop | Ede | gelderlander.nl. De Gelderlandder. https://www.gelderlander.nl/ede/wethouder- leon-meijer-roert-zich-op-nationale-voedseltop~aa57b9ef/ Liu, J., Mooney, H., Hull, V., Davis, S. J., Gaskell, J., Hertel, T., Lubchenco, J., Seto, K. C., Gleick, P., Kremen, C., & Li, S. (2015). Systems integration for global sustainability. Science, 347(6225), 1258832. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258832 Lucatelli, S. & De Matteis P. (2011). Rural urban partnership for sustainable development. 88– 97. www.mrr.gov.plwww.funduszeeuropejskie.gov.pl Markovčič, M. (2015). Ljubljana; Bee colonies for urban biodiversity. http://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/06/Ljubljana-case-Climate.pdf Markovčič, M. (2019). EUROCITIES & MUFPP WEBINAR: Food supply and distribution. 71– 86. http://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/Webinar3_Food_Supply_and_Distributi on_Presentation.pdf Maye, D. (2019). 'smart food city’: Conceptual relations between smart city planning, urban food systems and innovation theory. City, Culture and Society, 16, 18– 24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.12.001 Moragues-Faus, A., & Morgan, K. (2015). Reframing the foodscape: the emergent world of urban food policy. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 47(7), 1558– 1573. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15595754 Morgan, K., & Sonnino, R. (2010). The urban foodscape: world cities and the new food equation. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(2), 209– 224. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsq007 Morgan, K. (2015). Nourishing the city: The rise of the urban food question in the Global North. Urban Studies, 52(8), 1379–1394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014534902 MUFPP. (2020). Milan Urban Food Policy Pact. http://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/ Municipality of Ljubljana. (2019). Ljubljana in figures » City of Ljubljana. https://www.ljubljana.si/en/about-ljubljana/ljubljana-in-figures/ Nations Encyclopedia. (2010). The Netherlands Agriculture, Information about Agriculture in The Netherlands. https://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Europe/The- Netherlands-AGRICULTURE.html Nilsson, K., Nielsen, T. S., Aalbers, C., Bell, S., Chery, J. P., Fertner, C., Groschowski, M., Haase, D., & Loibl, W. (2014). Strategies for sustainable urban development and urban-rural linkages. Retrieved December 11, 2019, from www.nordregio.se/EJSD PBL. (2014). Concentrations within the Dutch food chain.

53 Pintar, M., Bedrač, M., Brečko, J., Cunder, T., Kožar, M., Moljk, B., Rednak, M., Travnikar, T., Verbič, J., Volk, T., & Zagorc, B. (2016). Slovenian Agriculture in Numbers. http://www.kis.si/en/ Rabobank. (2019, December). Supermarkten, cijfers en trends – Rabobank. Regio Foodvalley. (2019). Manifest van Salentein . Retrieved July 7, 2020, from https://www.regiofoodvalley.nl/actueel/nieuws/manifest-van-salentein Renting, H., & Wiskerke, H. (2010). New Emerging Roles for Public Institutions and Civil Society in the Promotion of Sustainable Local Agro-Food Systems. ROBUST. (n.d.). About us | Rural Urban. Retrieved December 11, 2019, from https://rural- urban.eu/about Ros-Tonen, M., Pouw, N., & Bavinck, M. (2015). Governing beyond cities: The urban-rural interface. In Geographies of Urban Governance: Advanced Theories, Methods and Practices (pp. 85–105). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 3-319-21272-2_5 Rotz, S., & Fraser, E. D. G. (2015). Resilience and the industrial food system: analyzing the impacts of agricultural industrialization on food system vulnerability. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5(3), 459–473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412- 015-0277-1 RRA LUR. (2015). The Regional Development Programme of the Ljubljana Urban Region 2014- 2020. https://www.rralur.si/sites/default/files/rralur/RRP%20LUR%202014- 2020%20english%20version.pdf Sibbing, L., Candel, J., & Termeer, K. (2019). A comparative assessment of local municipal food policy integration in the Netherlands. International Planning Studies, 1– 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563475.2019.1674642 Slovenian Tourist Board. (2019). Tourism in numbers 2018. https://www.slovenia.info/uploads/dokumenti/tvs/tourism_in_numbers_web.pd f Sonnino, R. (2009). Feeding the city: Towards a new research and planning agenda. International Planning Studies, 14(4), 425– 435. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563471003642795 Sonnino, R. (2016). The new geography of food security: exploring the potential of urban food strategies. The Geographical Journal, 182(2), 190– 200. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12129 Tegoni, C., & Licomati, S. (2017). THE MILAN URBAN FOOD POLICY PACT: THE POTENTIAL OF FOOD AND THE KEY ROLE OF CITIES IN LOCALIZING SDGS. JUNCO| Journal of UNiversities and International Development COoperation, 372–378. The Rough Guide to Sustainable Food Systems. (n.d.). Retrieved January 6, 2020, from http://www.foodlinkscommunity.net/ Thompson, J., Millstone, E., Scoones, I., Ely, A., Marshall, F., Shah, E., & Wilkinson, J. (2007). Agri-food system dynamics : pathways to sustainability in an era of uncertainty. 80. Van Rijnsoever, F. J. (2017). (I Can’t Get No) Saturation: A simulation and guidelines for sample sizes in qualitative research. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0181689 Wiskerke, J. S. C. (2009). On Places Lost and Places Regained: Reflections on the Alternative Food Geography and Sustainable Regional Development. International Planning Studies, 14(4), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563471003642803

54 Woods, M. (2009). Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections. Progress in Human Geography, 33(6), 849–858. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132508105001 Woods, M., & Heley, J. (2017). Conceptualisation of Rural-Urban Relations and Synergies Deliverable 1.1. World Food Centre (n.d.). World Food Center | We Work, Experience and Live Food. Retrieved January 7, 2020, from http://www.worldfoodcenter.net/ WorldPopulation. (2020). Ljubljana Population 2020 . https://worldpopulationreview.com/world-cities/ljubljana- population/ Wu, J., Weber, B. A., & Partridge, M. D. (2016). Rural-Urban Interdependence: A Framework Integrating Regional, Urban, and Environmental Economic Insights. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aaw093 Zasada, I., Schmutz, U., Wascher, D., Kneafsey, M., Corsi, S., Mazzocchi, C., Monaco, F., Boyce, P., Doernberg, A., Sali, G., & Piorr, A. (2019). Food beyond the city – Analysing foodsheds and self-sufficiency for different food system scenarios in European metropolitan regions. City, Culture and Society, 16, 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.06.002 Zurcher, K. A., Jensen, J., & Mansfield, A. (2018). Using a Systems Approach to Achieve Impact and Sustain Results. Health Promotion Practice, 19(1_suppl), 15S- 23S. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839918784299

55 Appendixes: Appendix 1: List of interviewees Table 12: Description of interviewees Interviewee Background Interviewee 1 (I1) Food Policy Advisor of the municipality of Ede & researcher on From policy/research Ede Urban Food Policies. Works on holistic strategies for a healthy, Date: 16-04-20 sustainable and robust foodsystem. Interviewee 2 (I2) Councilor of municipality of Ede. Responsible for among others: From policy Ede Program rural area, agricultural issues, nature, landscape and Date: 23-04-20 biodiversity. She is for the program rural area a lot in contact with inhabitants in the rural area and the developments in the landscape.

Interviewee 3 (I3) Councillor of the municipality of Ede. Responsible for Food. And From policy Ede also linked to the World Food Centre, education, public health, Date: 04-05-20 and Kennisas Ede-Wageningen, and board of region FoodValley.

Interviewee 4 (I4) Part of the local municipal council, and dairy farmer in the From policy/society Ede municipality of Ede, in which they sell a part of their produce Date: 31-05-20 local. Interested and involved with the local politics and frustration about how politics deals with the agricultural sector. Interviewee 5 (I5) Chairman of a foundation of urban pigs around Ede. The goal of From society Ede the foundation is to increase the awareness of healthy and Date: 07-05-20 sustainable food, by raising pigs in a sustainable and open way and showing this to society.

Interviewee 6 (I6) Board member of ‘Herenboeren’, part of the food council in Ede, From society Ede and been involved by projects from the UFP of Ede and in contact Date: 08-05-20 with people from the rural area of Ede.

Interviewee 7 (I7) Consultant for rural and environmental development. Worked in From research/society the past on municipal strategies for agricultural development, Ljubljana evaluation programs for rural development, and worked together Date: 06-05-20 with municipalities in the region. Has a good overview of the situation of Slovenia, the developments and challenges. Interviewee 8 (I89) Both interviewee 8 and 9, work at the rural development section From policy Ljubljana of the municipality of Ljubljana. They set up a rural development Date: 06-05-20 strategy of the municipality of Ljubljana. The UFP of Ljubljana was a result of this strategy.

Interviewee 8: Higher adviser for rural development at the municipality, and the contact person for the MUFPP strategy Interviewee 9 (I89) Interviewee 9: Head of the Rural Development section of From policy Ljubljana Ljubljana. And already for years in direct contact with the people Date: 06-05-20 living and working in the rural area of Ljubljana, and supporting and advising them with developments.

56 Appendix 2: Interview guide This interview guide is a list of questions that was used during the interviews. However, the questions that were asked were always adapted according to the type of stakeholder and the type of data that was searched for.

Intro: Thank you for having the time to participate in this interview. This topic of this interview will be relations between the rural and the urban area and the urban food strategy in this city. The goal of this interview is to indicate the opportunities and the challenges of an urban food strategy in strengthening the connections between the rural and urban area. For this, I carry out interviews with different stakeholders that play a role in the food system in this local area. The length of the interview will be from half an hour up to one hour, dependent on the extensiveness of the answers.

Formalities: By processing the interview results your name will not be mentioned and I will handle the interview content confidentially. The results will only be used for research purposes. You are allowed to stop the interview at any moment if you want so. I will record the interview, so I can transcribe it afterwards. To make use of this recording, I need permission of you.

Interview questions: Can you give a short introduction about your position in UFP and/or rural-urban relations? Current situation: • What are the urban-rural interdependencies in the region? • What are the unique characteristics of the region compared to other cities/regions in Europe? • Is the development of the urban food strategy more bottom-up or top-down driven? • What kind of changes in farming in the region has taken place over the last years? • How is the interaction between different levels of government organized as well as the interaction between the city or regional government, market parties and civil organizations? • How do you evaluate the impact of the urban food policies until now? E.g. impact on public health, on the creation of employment opportunities, on reducing social exclusion, or on greening the city.

Identification of challenges and opportunities • Can you identify ‘key territorial challenges’ related to the food system? Do you have suggestions for a strategy to deal with these challenges? • Are there any urban-rural issues present in the region? • What kind of innovations are going on in the region that can possibly lead to a change in the current system? • What kind of possible urban-rural partnerships are there in the region? • What kind of opportunities are there in which the city and region complement each other and can be partners?

57 • How can the rural-urban challenges be bridged or improved? • What type of priorities and concrete measures do city governments identify to deal with the new geography of food security? • What kind of foodscape in the region do you envision for the future?

Interview questions for governmental representatives • What are the main challenges in Ede/Ljubljana considering the City Region Food System? • Be as specific/concerete as possible • Which challenge(s) do you prioritize the most? • Why? • Is there already a policy or actions taken to tackle this issue? • If yes; Is this working (why/why not?), how can this be fostered? • Is there any additional strategy that could be implemented to tackle this issue? • What could be the impact of the selected strategies on the issue and the food system? • Who should lead the implementation of these strategies and who should be involved? • Is there any existing policy framework or initiative in which the strategy could fit? • How to operationalize the implementation process; I.e. timeframe & budget (costs and sources of budget)

Questions for societal stakeholders: • To which extent do you think that the rural development strategy and food strategy of the municipality of Ljubljana connects well with the people from society? • Are the people from society involved well enough with the rural development process and the food strategy that they established? o Why/ why not? o How could this be improved? • To which extent do you think there is enough connection between the urban center and the rural areas within the municipality? o How could this be improved? • What do you see as limitations of the current food strategy and rural development strategy in the municipality of Ljubljana? • What do you see as possibilities of the current food strategy and rural development strategy in the municipality of Ljubljana?

Completion of the interview: Are there any relevant topics that were not covered in this interview that you still want to discuss? Or do you have something else to add? Then I want to thank you for your time and your participation in this interview. I hope you are content with the interview and the topics that we discussed. If you have any additional questions or information you can always reach me by email.

58 This interview will be transcribed. The content will be compared with the content of other stakeholders. Out of this, conclusions and recommendations will be formed on urban food strategies and rural-urban relations.

Appendix 3: Explanations Food System characteristics 1. Population

Slovenia is a small country of around 2 million ha land area at the left border of the Balkan (FAO, 2016). The country is sparsely populated with only 2,1 million people. Around half of the population is assigned as rural (0,9). The Netherlands has 3,4 million ha land area and is located in west-Europe (FAO, 2016). The country is highly populated with 17,1 million people in 2017 and only 1,5 million of them are assigned as rural. In 1997 the rural population counted still 4 million people. The FAO/UN defines the rural population as the facto population that is not living in urban areas, which they describe in general as places that comprises a city or town proper and also the suburban fringe or thickly settled territory lying outside (FAO, 2019; FAO, 2015).

2. Land use

The land use in the countries differs also strongly. Outstanding is that in Slovenia 62,0%% of the land is covered with forest, and 53,6% of the land is protected area. In the Netherlands this is both respectively 11,2%, the largest share of the country (53,2%) is used as agricultural land area, although this is a bit decreasing (56,7% in 2007). In Slovenia this share is 30,5%, but this is growing as in 2007 it was 24,7%.

3. Employment

The employment in agriculture in Slovenia decreased from 9,9% in 2007 to 5,6% in 2017, in the Netherlands it decreased from 3,0% to 2,3% in this time. The value added per worker in agriculture is a measure of labour productivity in the agricultural sector. In the Netherlands the labour productivity (83.534 USD) is almost five times higher than the labour productivity in Slovenia (17.704). In the Netherlands the value added per worker increased by 50% and in Slovenia it almost doubled between 2007 and 2017. There is a big difference between employment in the rural area in Slovenia and the Netherlands. In Slovenia almost 40% of the total employment is in the rural area, this is also because 43% of the population lives in rural areas. In the Netherlands only 0,6% of the employment is in rural areas, of which 8,8% of the people live in rural areas (European Network for rural development, 2015). In Slovenia they have beside farming, still a lot of other businesses in the rural areas, think of car mechanics, wood processing plants, and stuff like that. You also see increasingly that people in the rural area enable to have jobs in the rural area by using modern technology, e.g. a marketing business or an accounting service. In Slovenia there is a lot of unaccounted work in farming. There is a trend that a lot of farmers are surviving because they combine it with having a job somewhere else and by the help of family work input. In a lot of cases they use the money that they earn with another job to invest in the farm, so the farm on itself is not very profitable (I7).

59 4. Supply chain

In the Netherlands there is a high-power division in the supply chains. The revenue percentage of supermarkets of total food chain is 51% (Rabobank, 2019). In the Netherlands you have around 65.000 farmers and horticulturalists, 6.500 food manufacturers, 1.500 suppliers. Followed by only 5 purchasing companies, 25 supermarket concepts, and lastly 4.400 supermarkets (PBL, 2014). The supply chain in Slovenia is very differently organized in comparison to the Netherlands. In Slovenia there are mainly small farms that want to keep their whole supply chain for themselves. They sell quite a substantial amount of produce directly, through a kind of informal network or by going to the farmer markets. The bigger farmers also sell their products to retailers, like Hover, Lidl, Mercator, which is a Slovenian chain, and Spar. According to Interviewee 7, selling to retailers is encouraged by the retailers, as there is a high demand for Slovenian food. In the supermarkets they have sections for Slovenian produce, as the consumer asks for this. These products are directly bought from the farmer by the retailers. Cooperatives were for a while not that popular by farmers, due to the socialistic times they went through. Jugoslav was connected to the Sovjet Union and there was a top-down push to work together in big cooperatives, but the people and the farmers didn’t like this, because they felt they didn’t get enough. When the regime changed, some died, some stayed and reorganized a bit. But the cooperatives on a national level is still a really small percentage (I7). Also other interviewees confirmed that most farmers own their whole suppl chain, and that there are only a few bigger ones that also enter the big shopping chains. They also mention that the farmers are often suspicious because of history and the top-down approach that was pushed to them. Now they want to do everything by themselves and it takes time to gain more trust by farmers (I89).

5. Influential scale

It is outstanding that the Netherland on almost all food product categories has a positive net trade balance. The food production value accounts 14.713 million USD, and it is with 7,5% share in the global food export the second largest food exporting country in the world. In Slovenia the net trade balance is mostly negative, which means that they import more than they import. The food production value accounts here for 702 million USD. The main trading partners are the neighbor countries Italy, Croatia, and Austria (Pintar, Bedrac, Brecko, et al., 2016). The Netherlands has a high global influential scale in food, Slovenia targets more on become more self-sufficient as a country.

6. Type of farms

The type of farms in the Netherlands differ strongly from the type of farms in Slovenia. In the Netherlands there were 53.900 farms in 2018 with an average size of 33 ha. Between 2000 and 2018 a lot of scale enlargement took place in the Netherlands, in which the number of farms decreased by 45%, the land per farm increased by 62%, comparable to the increase of animals per farm (CLO, 2019). In Slovenia there were 72.400 farms in 2013 with an average size of 6,6 ha, and the livestock farms had an average number of livestock of 6,9. In the Netherlands 522.000 ha are equipped with irrigation infrastructure and equipment to provide water to the crops, compared to 6.000 ha in Slovenia.

60 In Slovenia there is also also a trend of a decrease in number of farms, and an increase in hectares per farm. When investing in the farm is financially not feasible anymore, famers decide to give up farming and they rent out their land and facilities to a larger farmer. So you start to have a smaller number of farms, and those who remain get bigger. Land in Slovenia is often kept as inheritance in families, so they can rent it out, but often don’t sell it (I7). In Slovenia you have mostly small farms that are producing mixed crops and a bit of cattle and fruit and vegetable production (I89). 80% of the farms in the country are engaged in livestock production, with an average number of livestock of 6,9. The Dutch production system operates with relatively high inputs. The use of mineral or chemical Nitrogen fertilizer input is 261 ton in the Netherlands, in Slovenia it is 27 ton Nitrogen. It is interesting to see that the fertilizer use for nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium were all three for both countries decreasing during the last twenty years. The farms in Slovenia are characterized as more extensive, as 75,6% of the total agricultural area is marked as High Nature Value farming, compared to 15,0% in the Netherlands (European Network for Rural Development, 2015). HNV is a low-intensity farming system which are particularly valuable for wildlife and the natural environment (HNVF, 2013).

7. Food purchase places

65% to 75% of the products that the Dutch eat comes from the supermarket (Rabobank, 2019). Supermarkets here had a revenue of 30,7 mild. Euro in 2018, for small retail and online retail this was 8,9 mild Euro, restaurants and cafes had a revenue of 12,7 mild Euro. In urban areas in Slovenia more and more people get their foods from the supermarkets. But it is still very popular to go to the farmer markets, which is part of the Slovenian culture. Now there is a development that the international chains, like Lidl and Hover, offer relatively cheap products. So, families who can’t effort the more expensive local farmer prices go more often to the supermarkets. However, within their culture they would often prefer the local produce from among others the markets. They like places where they can trace the source, at markets they also have often specific vendors where they buy. They know their supply chain and know when they can expect some produce at these vendors. Besides the farmer markets they also go to the villages and buy directly from the farmer or they do this through relatives that live in the villages (I7).

61 Appendix 4: Table consumer attitude research Tabel 13: Consumer attitude towards food security, food quality, and countryside Netherlands Slovenia To what extent are you concerned that sufficient food Concerned: 11% Concerned: 74% is produced to meet the needs of the population in (lowest in EU) (one of the your own country? highest in EU) To what extent are you concerned that sufficient food Concerned: 16% Concerned: 63% is produced to meet the needs of the population in (lowest in EU) (one of the the European Union? highest in EU) To what extent are you concerned that sufficient food Concerned: 75% Concerned: 80% is produced to meet the needs of the population in the world?

Statement: ‘The EU should produce more food in Agree with Agree with order to be less dependent on importing food from statement: 56% statement: 93% other countries’ (lowest in EU) (one of the highest in EU) When buying food, how important is quality for you important: 52% Important: 68% personally? (one of the lowest in EU) When buying food, how important is price for you Important: 72% Important: 91% personally? (lowest in EU)

When buying food, how important is where the food Important: 47% Important: 81% comes from (geographical origin) for you personally? (lowest in EU) (one of the highest in EU) When buying food, how important is the brand for Important: 21% Important: 55% you personally? (lowest in EU)

When buying food, do you ever check to see if it has Yes: 66% Yes: 69% a quality label that ensures the food has specific characteristics? Are you aware of the Fairtrade logo? Yes: 78% (one of Yes: 11% the highest in EU) Are you aware of the Organic farming logo? Yes: 21% Yes: 32%

Are you aware of the Traditional speciality Yes: 5% (lowest Yes: 13% guraranteed logo? in EU) Are you aware of the Protected designation of origin Yes: 6% Yes: 13% logo?

Are you aware of the Protected geographical Yes: 6% (one of Yes: 16% indication logo? the lowest in EU) Statement: ‘Agriculture is beneficial for the Agree: 53% Agree: 85% environment’

62 (one of the lowest in EU) Statement: ‘Agriculture contributes to the beauty of Agree: 82% Agree: 91% the countryside’ Statement: ‘Agriculture helps to preserve and protect 79% (one of the 94% (one of the rural areas’ lowest in EU) highest in EU) Data retrieved from European Commission (2012)

Appendix 5: Analysis UFP documents 1.General description Goal UFP Ljubljana

European Ambitions of Ljubljana city are to: ensure ‘quality food’ commission, Increased accessibility to healthy food as a solution that would lead to 2017 ‘good nutritional habits’ Increase the sustainability of their food system ‘with lower or zero carbon footprint’ In order to preserve or improve the local environment Changes in consumption by emphasizing local and fresh food and ‘seasonally grown food’ MUFPP By increasing the productivity of local farms, city planners hope to make Ljubljana Ljubljana more agriculturally self-sufficient, benefitting producers as well as consumers and shortening food supply chains. MUFPP Food policy category: Food supply & distribution Ljubljana Program goals: Ljubljana aims to increase its agricultural self-sufficiency by improving relationships between farms and local businesses and also plans to promote organic and sustainable agricultural practices in order to preserve the natural environment of the city and its surrounding areas. UFS In its rural development strategy for 2014-2020, the Municipality of transformation Ljubljana set as its first and most fundamental objective the premise to s (European ‘ensure quality agriculture and forestry goods from a preserved Commission, environment, with the aim of self-sufficiency of Ljubljana’. By doing so, 2019) the municipality ensures food sovereignty and unburdens the environment by using short food-supply chains, while enhancing the food security of the urban population. Study European Local empowerment as policy goal: Make the society less vulnerable; Commission, especially women and youth 2017 Study European MOL sets ambitious targets and focus on long-term planning, with good Commission, monitoring 2017 Researchers are ‘in the field’ to test and to support the cities with useful up-to-date information

63 SFSCs in City of Objective: Food self sufficiency of the city Ljubljana How: Short food supply chains (Eurocities, Advantage: Reduction of greenhouse gasses 2019) Food safety SFSCs in City of Strategy of the Rural Development of the City Municipality of Ljubljana Ljubljana in the programming period 2014-2020 (Eurocities, First strategic goal: Increasing recognisability of rural areas and creating 2019) a comprehensive approach in marketing of rural goods and development of food self-sufficiency in the city Study European The strategy has 3 main goals: Commission, 1. Increase MOL self sufficiency in food, promoting organic and 2017 integrated agriculture 2. Empowerment of rural areas; it wants them to be more accessible to outside actors and connected with urban areas; urban-rural linkages ‘an integrated approach to the marketing of rural areas’ goods E.g. more integration of primary sector activities with the other components of the food system, including urban areas. And becoming more visible of primary sectors 3. Development of the social capital and preservation of the municipality’s rural identity, as two-third of their land is classified as agricultural. Therefore more local food can also result in generating employment and improving conditions of the farmers. E.g. opening a farmers food shop in the city creates new jobs and strengthens agricultural holdings

Ede Omgevingsvisi 5 principles: e Ede stad 1. Network city in the heart of food region 2030 (2017) 4. Sustainable and healthy city Omgevingsvisi Anchoring of Food in the DNA of the city e Ede stad 2030 (2017) City Deal Ede is far with a governance change on food, by putting healthy and Voedsel Ede sustainable food on an innovative way on the public agenda By an integral food strategy in which food is not threated as single questions, but as one system Wat Food voor Food in an integrated policy: food crosses agriculture, health, trade, Ede doet energy, environment, development help, etc. Programma Food related to Program rural area Buitengebied, Food targets: Ede By change in function to non-agricultural function, food-related municipality, companies have the dec. 2016

64 preference Horizontal differentiation: produce, process and sales of products on own farm: so more production processes at one farm Stimulate shorter food supply chains Support organic sector where possible Facilitate connection between city and rural area (communication, promotion, sales market for regional products) Broadening of agriculture has to lead to a total package of food in Ede Facilitating new concepts/innovation in the agricultural sector Ede & Food Goal of the municipality: healthy and sustainable food for all the citizens (MOE) in Ede Study Holistic perspective used, with 2 objectives: European Improving the supply of high-quality fruit and vegetables Commission, While ensuring that the production methods remain respectful to the 2017 environment and ecosystems MUFPP Ede The goal is to achieve healthy and sustainable food for all citizens by focusing on improving and strengthening both the economic and social conditions of Ede City Deal The program focuses on: Voedsel; Ede Health: a healthy living environment and access to knowledge about healthy food for all citizens Sustainability: reduce food waste Education: structural food education for all children Economy: short food chains and sustainable and innovative food production in the whole chain Programma The program rural area focus on four themes: Buitengebied, The agricultural sector: scale enlargement versus quitters and previous Ede agricultural buildings municipality, that are coming free, side activities, and changes in functions dec. 2016 Non-agricultural activity: new settlements, enlargements, type of activity Accommodation recreation: future proof, vital holiday parks, development possibilities Environmental quality: among others landscape, environment, sustainability, nature, ecology, and food Goal: a vital rural area where you can live, work, and recreate good, now and in the future. In this the spatial qualities of the area have a crucial role. MUFPP Ede They aimed to get a bottom-up food policy with different stakeholders MUFPP Ede Title of practice: EDE: A PROMISING SHIFT IN FOOD GOVERNANCE Visie Food! Visie Food!; in uitvoering 2015-2020 (Ede) 2015/2020 Ambition 1: strengthening of the economic power of Ede: (Ede) Tempting companies, knowledge institutions, students and visitors (business and tourist)

65

and (future) citizens Ambition 2: strengthen of the social-societal power of Ede: Promoting meetings and connection between people, strengthening the connection between city and region and facilitating and stimulating of awareness about healthy and sustainable food

Territorial area Ljubljana Foodmetres In 1991 in the MOL there were 1,342 farms with average size of 4 ha, in 2000 924 farms with average size of 6.4 ha and in 2010 826 farms with average size of 6.9 ha. Fruits traditionally grown in the MOL are strawberries, blueberries, and apples. Cereal production is constantly declining. Vegetable production in winter is concentrated on rampion, rocket, lettuce and radish and in the summer months on tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, cucumbers, cabbage and lettuce. Dairy milk production is concentrated in the flatland and beef production in the hills around the city. MUFPP links between the region’s 826 farms and the city Ljubljana SFSCs in City of Local market places: Ljubljana 1 Central Market place (Eurocities, 3 smaller market places 2019) 7 occasional selling points in Ljubljana quarters Priority: local production SFSCs in City of Rural areas represent 2/3 of Municipality of Ljubljana Ljubljana Forest= 108km2 (Eurocities, Agricultural land= 107 km2 2019) 828 farms / average 7 ha Up to 30% food self sufficiency Foodmetres Stakeholders pointed out that local food chains are becoming longer from the time perspective because producers must also deal with marketing and production technologies and not solely production. Lack of agricultural extension officers in the field of production technologies is a serious limitation in optimizing production. Many farmers have poor or no agricultural education and new knowledge is mainly acquired only through exchange of experiences or through trial and error practice.

Consumers are very well informed about the advantages of locally produced food, and are therefore getting more demanding, but they are poorly informed about ‘seasonal’ food. Participants observed that the national generic promotion of agricultural products funded by the EU has helped to increase the sales from small growers. Growers also observe a shift in vendors’ and retailers’ behaviour who have started to appreciate locally produced food.

66 Study European Two thirds of the Municipality of Ljubljana’s (MOL) land is agricultural. Commission, For this reason, its “Strategy for Rural Development 2014-2020” 2017 UFS transformation wo thirds of the total surface area of the Municipality of Ljubljana are s (European the socalled rural areas, which include 826 active farms, each covering Commission, approximately 7 hectares. 2019)

Ede Programma Buitengebied, Ede is proud on the rural area, it is the Green Kapital of Ede. It has big Ede economic, recreative, and spatial values. It is crucial to keep the rural municipality, area vital. dec. 2016 Programma Buitengebied, Ede rural area: 11.000ha agriculture, 19.000ha nature (2016?) Ede municipality, dec. 2016 Ondernemers Program regional area of municipality of Ede: The regional are of Ede is & Food (Ede big and beautiful. There are a lot of livestock farms, and a part of the municipality) forest and heather of the Veluwe are in it. Inventarisatie The amount of farms is decreasing. On these available locations vitaal sometimes new activities emerge. Besides this, the municipality wants to buitengebied keep space for existing farms in the region. (Ede municipality) Omgevingsvisi Uniqueness Ede: place where Veluwe and Gelderse Vallei are meeting, it e Ede stad is a transit from high to low. Ede has an excellent location between the 2030 (2017) Randstad and the Ruhrgebied. Because of this (urbanisation and so) is the relation with the rural surroundings, which was there in the past, disrupted.

Organisation UFP Ljubljana SFSCs in City of Agriculture & rural development Ljubljana How does it work in Ljubljana? (Eurocities, Section for Rural Development working on this: 2019) Long term development, Support systems, Municipality money, Constant presence Strategy of the Rural Development of the City Municipality of Ljubljana in the programming period 2014-2020

67 First strategic goal: Increasing recognisability of rural areas and creating a comprehensive approach in marketing of rural goods and development of food self-sufficiency in the city MUFPP As part of the Rural Development Strategy of the City Municipality of Ljubljana Ljubljana 2014-2020, a number of measures have been designed to improve the local agricultural sector MUFPP Evaluation: Ljubljana Several departments from the city of Ljubljana are responsible for evaluating various aspects of the project European In Ljubljana the municipality budget could be complement with commission, European funding sources from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural 2017 Development (EAFRD) In the Netherlands additional budget from the EU is very small. So most of the activities are financed through the city budget European Ljubljana considers its strategy innovative as it has a ‘holistic approach commission, to rural development and food production with long-term goals and 2017 constant presence on the field and personal approach. Programmes are arising out of concrete problems and ideas of food producers.’ Study European MOL works together with Regional Development Agency to provide Commission, food self-sufficiency to LUR and to share good practices with 2017 neighbouring municipalities MUFPP Program/Policy initiatied: 2014 Ljubljana Study European Slovenia national and local government play complementary towards a Commission, more comprehensive approach to food policy 2017 Old Slovenian food and nutrition action plan 2005-2010 based on three pillars; food safety, balanced and protective nutrition and a sustainable food supply 5 years were too short for some things The categories were too much present as silos Now: new all-encompasing national strategy on food, nutrition and physical activity 2015-2025 With special attention to health; ‘access of all citizens to healthy eating’ as mission By reshaping the most common diets, introducing fruits and vegetables and stressing the importance of breakfast Reducing trends in childeren’s obesity and elderly’ s incapability In this they wanted to enhance the cooperation among different departments, to reach real policy synergies UFS The municipality has taken over the role of developer and facilitator in transformation the Bee path project. s (European Commission, 2019)

68 Study European The objectives of the ‘Strategy for rural development 2014-2020’ imply Commission, the active involvement of the MOL from the very beginning: MOL 2017 shapes favorable legislation and they connected various stakeholders ‘The Strategy goes beyond the traditional view that food is not among the competences of a city, mainly because it is produced outside of city limits. On the contrary, the strategy’s holistic approach to rural development asks the MOL to lead the change, always having in mind the improvement of the quality of life and environmental protection.’

The Department for Environmental Protection coordinated several initiatives aimed at constructing shorter, greener and more visible food supply chains. The programmes arise from concrete problems experienced by food producers, and by their attempts to resolve them. The new business models that have emerged set a paradigm for rural development Local empowerment as policy goal: Make the society less vulnerable; especially women and youth

MOL establishes training programs for them in the field; lead to networking opporunties, cooperations and co-financing (also by MOL itselves) Lead to cultural change/opportunity; normally youth and women do not consider entrepreneuship as viable option. MOL emerges as main actor in food system innovation, by benefiting from the cooperation of different departments: Environmental protection, real estate, culture and youth

MOL also has partnerships with other players: The Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Slovenia Regional Development Agency And large group of territorial professional associations (fruit growers, gardeners, beekeeping, etc.) à all together lead to the success of the strategy

MOL also translocally active on food related issues: Group of co-workers form department of environmental protection works on many activities within the MUFPP framework for action Ljubljana very active partner in the MUFPP; 3 of the city’s good practices regarding food were admitted to the opening edicition of the Milan Pact Awards Study European Two thirds of the Municipality of Ljubljana’s (MOL) land is agricultural. Commission, For this reason, its “Strategy for Rural Development 2014-2020”, 2017 although not a food strategy per se, is quite comprehensive. The empowerment of rural areas is also pursued from a socio-cultural perspective, beside the economic and political implications of targeting self-sufficiency in food. To a certain extent, the special attention given

69 by politicians to the environmental issues have delayed the city officials’ focus on food Study European While the city does not have a “food strategy” per se, the Municipality Commission, of Ljubljana (MOL) has approved a “Strategy for Rural Development 2017 2014-2020”.

Ede Municipality organisation & Organiation UFP Ede food Ede food Strategy strategy (Ede Food Council: food stad) Goal: advise the municipality on the food policy. Council consist of 10 to 15 inhabitants, entrepreneurs and food experts They discuss the problems, implement things within the municipality and they make connections with businesses, schools and associations that are involved with food and health Food policy advisor of the municipality: Focus on a more sustainable and healthier food system in Ede together with the inhibitants The advisor is looking at the integrality of the strategy , makes sure that it is developed, kept up to date and monitored City Deal Ede is far with a governance change on food, by putting healthy and Voedsel Ede sustainable food on an innovative way on the public agenda. By an integral food strategy in which food is not threated as single questions, but as one system City Deal In 2015 they implement the food vision, which was designed with input of Voedsel; Ede different parties. The program has an executing team (around 5fte) and an own food councilor (first in the NL). The goal is that the team is in the end not used anymore, but that it is normal that food is interwoven in different policy domains. MUFPP Ede In 2015 they implement their first integrated food strategy

MUFPP Ede In Ede the strategy was officially adopted by the city council, which gave it a very strong status. The city also allocated a large budget for it to get practical implementations. In other municipalities the strategy was often a voluntary tool that only provided guidance.

Ondernemer Municipality of Ede started the initiative in 2018 to start it up, and to look s & Food if there is animo for a network of agro & food entrepreneurs. The (Ede municipality supports the initiative as they want to stimulate collaboration municipality) and linkages between entrepreneurs. But in the end it has to become a network organized by and for the entrepreneurs themselves. Now the event organization is carried out by ProefLab Wageningen & Youngwise. (https://neonfood.nl/) Wat Food The municipality boost the food policy. She facilitates and creates the voor Ede frames, but the municipality has limited resources. Entrepreneurs and the doet society themselves have more resources. So companies, health institutions and schools have to work on the food policy. There are a lot of opportunities for them. Ede wants to share the ownership, this stimulates

70 initiatives of entrepreneurs and collaborations. The food policy works connecting, and provides possibilities. MUFPP Ede They aimed to get a bottom-up food policy with different stakeholders MUFPP Ede - Ede has a food program to operationalize the strategy o Budget to implement the strategy o Municipal food team of five full-time staff o First municipal food councillor in the Netherlands MUFPP Ede - Ede pioneer in new role for local governments in the FS o Active players with responsibility and take action, generating commitment MUFPP Ede Ede close in contact with other cities through ‘Dutch City deal: Food on the Urban Agenda’, the provincial government of Gelderland (regional level), and coordinate with the national government MUFPP Ede First Dutch municipality that achieved a food governance shift towards healthy and sustainable food for all its citizens Programma How? Buitengebied This is dependent on the concrete initiative that come in. The role of the , Ede municipality is facilitating. By the evaluation of initiatives they will search municipality, connection by the ‘program Food’ dec. 2016 Programma Within Ede the Program Rural area works among others together with the Buitengebied programs of Ede, like the program Sustainability, program Food and City , Ede marketing. municipality, With the program of Sustainability they work together on finding dec. 2016 opportunities for green energy in the rural area (sun, wind, biomass, manure processing) Strengthening of touristic routes in the rural area helps to achieve sustainable mobility, tourism and health of the program Sustainability and strengthens also the combination with the program Food (bike and food arrangements in the rural area)

The strengthening of the relation city and rural area is an ambition of the program Rural area Within the program Food they explore the possibilities for education by agricultural companies. From both the perspective of agriculture as touristic perspective, the program Rural area wants to support this Within program Food they have a project ‘short food chains’, the target is to stimulate the sales of regional products To define the touristic identify of Ede and to investigate the economic impact of recreation and tourism sector in Ede, they do research on this. This is also relevant for the program Rural area, by making spatial choices and by the program Citymarketing

Policy domains involved Ljubljana SFSCs in City Agriculture & rural development of Ljubljana How does it work in Ljubljana?

71 (Eurocities, Section for Rural Development working on this: Long term development, 2019) Supporty systems Municipality money, Constant presence Strategy of the Rural Development of the City Municipality of Ljubljana in the programming period 2014-2020 First strategic goal: Increasing recognisability of rural areas and creating a comprehensive approach in marketing of rural goods and development of food self-sufficiency in the city SFSCs in City Building stones of short food supply chains in Ljubljana: of Ljubljana Environment (Eurocities, Healhy and wellbeing 2019) Economic Social MUFPP Evaluation: Several departments from the city of Ljubljana are responsible Ljubljana for evaluating various aspects of the project European Ljubljana has a specific “short” or “green” food chains initiative in place, commission, coordinated by the Department for Environmental Protection 2017 Study MOL emerges as main actor in food system innovation, by benefiting from European the cooperation of different departments: Environmental protection, real Commission estate, culture and youth , 2017 Study MOL works together with Regional Development Agency to provide food European self-sufficiency to LUR and to share good practices with neighbouring Commission municipalities , 2017 Study Slovenia national and local government play complementary towards a European more comprehensive approach to food policy Commission Old Slovenian food and nutrition action plan 2005-2010 based on three , 2017 pillars; food safety, balanced and protective nutrition and a sustainable food supply 5 years were too short for some things The categories were too much present as silos Now: new all-encompasing national strategy on food, nutrition and physical activity 2015-2025 With special attention to health; ‘access of all citizens to healthy eating’ as mission By reshaping the most common diets, introducing fruits and vegetables and stressing the importance of breakfast Reducing trends in childeren’s obesity and elderly’ s incapability In this they wanted to enhance the cooperation among different departments, to reach real policy synergies

Ede MUFPP Ede - Elements of the FS that Ede connects: o Food education, public health, food waste, SFC, sustainable and innovative food production and integrated governance

72 Programma Current regulation in and around the rural area Buitengebied A lot of regulation is influencing the development of the rural area: , Ede European and national regulations: National legislation is the highest one municipality, in the country, also a lot of this is based on the European legislation. dec. 2016 Municipalities have to be in line with this. E.g. environmental regulations or about nature. Province regulations: Province of Gelderland has an environmental vision and the Omgevingsvordering Gelderland and within this they give space to the municipalities to implement this in a right way in their rural area. The province requires somes conditions, and the municipalities are allowed to implement this with their own criteria, dependent on the function and the outlook of the area.

Regional policy of FoodValley: Municipal collaboration between Ede, Wageningen, Barneveld, Nijkerk, Renswoude, Rhenen, Veenendaal en Scherpenzeel. Within the region vision, all the municipalities have developed their own way of policy implementation to be able to react on the specific characteristics of their own rural areas MUFPP Ede Find ambassadors/experts from different policy fields that can help to implement the food strategy in the different policy fields City Deal In 2015 they implement the food vision, which was designed with input of Voedsel; Ede different parties. The program has an executing team (around 5fte) and an own food councilor (first in the NL). The goal is that the team is in the end not used anymore, but that it is normal that food is interwoven in different policy domains. City Deal Politicians with a key role of other municipal domains; E.g. councilor of Voedsel; Ede education, rural area, economics, and WFC Programma The motive of the Program Rural Area Buitengebied The motive are the transformations in the regulations of the central , Ede government and the province, and also especially the changes that are municipality, going on in the rural areas. The changes are big and take place quickly, and dec. 2016 ask for a clear vision. It is influenced by new regulations like the ‘Omgevingswet’ and the new ‘omgevingsverordening’ of the province, and the influence of the economic crisis, the societal and technological development, and a changing role taking of the government and the inhabitants of the area. Programma The program Buitengebied is the first step towards a new policy for a vital Buitengebied rural area. The base of this will be kept and development in the new , Ede Omgevingsvisie. municipality, dec. 2016 Programma Within Ede the Program Rural area works among others together with the Buitengebied programs of Ede, like the program Sustainability, program Food and City , Ede marketing. municipality, With the program of Sustainability they work together on finding dec. 2016 opportunities for green energy in the rural area (sun, wind, biomass, manure processing

73 Strengthening of touristic routes in the rural area helps to achieve sustainable mobility, tourism and health of the program Sustainability and strengthens also the combination with the program Food (bike and food arrangements in the rural area) The strengthening of the relation city and rural area is an ambition of the program Rural area Within the program Food they explore the possibilities for education by agricultural companies. From both the perspective of agriculture as touristic perspective, the program Rural area wants to support this Within program Food they have a project ‘short food chains’, the target is to stimulate the sales of regional products To define the touristic identify of Ede and to investigate the economic impact of recreation and tourism sector in Ede, they do research on this. This is also relevant for the program Rural area, by making spatial choices and by the program Citymarketing

Implementation measures Ljubljana MUFPP As part of the Rural Development Strategy of the City Municipality of Ljubljana Ljubljana 2014-2020, a number of measures have been designed to improve the local agricultural sector MUFPP Ljubljana has developed six key strategies for promoting local food and Ljubljana creating links between the region’s 826 farms and the city: Promotional events – These include special events, such as the “Zeleni” festival, which takes place in October and features food from several local suppliers. There is also Saturday Organic Market, which takes place at the Ljubljana Central Market every weekend.

Doorsteps sales – The city encourages farmers to set up farm stands and sell their produce directly to the consumer in order to increase people’s awareness of where their food comes from.

Market areas – There are already four marketplaces in Ljubljana. However, eight marketplaces are currently being prepared where citizens will be able to buy locally grown fruits and vegetables.

Basket of Ljubljana – The city has designated a set of local organic food products produced by 70 local food suppliers to make up the Basket of Ljubljana. Qualifying products must meet specific principles of organic production.

New forms of sales – The city encourages farmers to develop online sales platforms.

Short food supply chains – The city is working to foster cooperation between local businesses and growers. For example, Ljubljana now hosts

74 “Apple Week,” when local restaurants, shops and hotels serve dishes made with locally grown apples. By focusing on locally grown seasonal ingredients, local businesses can reduce the food miles that go into their products. Study Local empowerment as policy goal: European Make the society less vulnerable; especially women and youth Commission MOL establishes training programs for them in the field; lead to networking , 2017 opportunities, cooperations and co-financing (also by MOL itselves) Lead to cultural change/opportunity; normally youth and women do not consider entrepreneuship as viable option Study MOL shapes favorable legislation and they connected various stakeholders European Commission , 2017 Study Strategies/activities of MOL (sometimes in combination with other actors): European Strategy for rural development Commission MOL established public municipal markets , 2017 MOL engaged in public campaign against food waste (‘raise your voice against food waste’) MOL brought together a range of different actors (third sector, universities, international organisations, etc.) With collaboration from national level and other local actors they manages schemes of fruits and vegetables in schools (to promote sustainable and heatlhy diets)

Ede MUFPP Ede - Ede has a food program to operationalize the strategy o Budget to implement the strategy o Municipal food team of five full-time staff o First municipal food councillor in the Netherlands MUFPP Ede - Topics of commitment in Ede: o Assigning food as specific policy area to one councillor o Develop a food strategy with social actors o Adopt an integrated food strategy o Allocate a budget to put into practice o Raise awareness about food issues o Use a ‘what can food do for work’ initiative o Find ambassadors/experts from different policy fields that can help to implement the food strategy in the different policy fields o Organize lunch lectures/excursion with different departments o Use the energy of citizens initiatives to ensure institutional embeddedness (population connected to the governmental institutions) of food City Deal Challenges for Ede: Voedsel; Ede Make sure that the plans on paper also keep an existing part of the organization and put into practice Voedselraad per 2018 to make sure that the ideas of the citizens in Ede

75 also end up in the municipal food policy Build indicators for healthy and sustainable food system on local level, to monitor progression Ede food Ede food Strategy strategy (Ede Food Council: food stad) Goal: advise the municipality on the food policy. Council consist of 10 to 15 inhabitants, entrepreneurs and food experts They discuss the problems, implement things within the municipality and they make connections with businesses, schools and associations that are involved with food and health Food policy advisor of the municipality: Focus on a more sustainable and healthier food system in Ede together with the inhibitants The advisor is looking at the integrality of the strategy , makes sure that it is developed, kept up to date and monitored City Deal Examples of activities in Ede: Voedsel; Ede FoodFloor: community where citizens can come with questions about food and where initiative takers can present their ideas Alliantie Voeding: collaboration between the hospital, WUR and the municipality for healthy food in the society Korte ketens: By this they try to bring the producer and the consumer closer together, and exploring new markets for farmers (e.g. Herenboeren Ede) Foodbattle: In this citizen from Ede were challenging each other in the war against food waste Ede & Food Holistic food system approach: policy that brings together economy, (MOE) health, and sustainably MUFPP Ede In Ede the strategy was officially adopted by the city council, which gave it a very strong status. The city also allocated a large budget for it to get practical implementations. In other municipalities the strategy was often a voluntary tool that only provided guidance. Inventarisati Inventarisatie vitaal buitengebied (Ede municipality) e vitaal buitengebied (Ede municipality) Inventarisati Inventory ‘Vitaal Buitengebied’ (now running) e vitaal Why? As they strive for an area of good living, working and recreation. The buitengebied amount of farms is decreasing. On these available locations sometimes (Ede new activities emerge. Besides this, the municipality wants to keep space municipality) for existing farms in the region. Therefore the municipality wants to inventory where the plots are used for. They want to know which destination and permits are most suitable for the current and future use of the plots. The municipality is curious about the ideas and wishes of the owners of the plots. This information the municipality uses to make an environmental vision rural area. In this the municipality and the inhabitants vision how the future of the area will look like.

76

The coming years the municipality will work on this environmental vision for the rural area. The visits for the assessment will help to make a vision that better fits to the situation of the (former) agricultural plots and the future plans of the inhabitants. Programma The municipality created four theme meetings in which they discussed Buitengebied with the inhabitants and entrepreneurs out of the municipality and the , Ede region. There was a high interest in the meetings and they talked in a municipality, constructive way about the dilemmas for the rural area, this showed the dec. 2016 commitment of the people. The municipality made a summary out of these meetings and present the discussion points out of this to the council, and they could assign the direction in which they want to go.

Stakeholders involved Ljubljana SFSCs in City of Food ‘stock exchange’: Ljubljana We put together farmers, schools, kindergartens , restaurants and hotels (Eurocities, and they made contracts. 2019) Municipality of Ljubljana (different departments) + Tourism Ljubljana + Regional Development Agency Study MOL also has partnerships with other players: European The Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry of Slovenia Commission, Regional Development Agency 2017 And large group of territorial professional associations (fruit growers, gardeners, beekeeping, etc.) à all together lead to the success of the strategy Study MOL brought together a range of different actors (third sector, European universities, international organisations, etc.) Commission, With collaboration from national level and other local actors they 2017 manages schemes of fruits and vegetables in schools (to promote sustainable and heatlhy diets) Study MOL shapes favorable legislation and they connected various European stakeholders Commission, 2017 UFS The Bee Path was designed and opened in 2015. The path was realised transformation with an interdisciplinary approach, presenting beekeeping from different s (European perspectives. Visitors learn about the importance of bees for human Commission, survival and for food security, and the importance of honey in the daily 2019) diet. The project also provides visitors with a historical perspective, presenting the heritage of beekeeping in the city. The route involves various stakeholders, including educational and cultural institutions, institutions related to health, businesses, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and, of course, beekeepers. Their main task is to ensure that their activities associated with the Bee Path raise awareness and inform city residents about the importance of bees in the city.

77 Ede Omgevingsvisi 1. Network city in the heart of food region e Ede stad 2030 (2017) Ede & Food Alliantie Voeding: collaboration between municipality of Ede with WUR (MOE) and hospital Gelderse Vallei. Try to make citizens more aware of healthy and sustainable food City Deal Alliantie Voeding: collaboration between the hospital, WUR and the Voedsel; Ede municipality for healthy food in the society KennisAs Ede Also about linking governments, companies and institutions to work together on food questions. https://www.ede.nl/in-de-gemeente- ede/food-en-veluwe/kennisas/ Ede & Food Citydeal ‘Food on the urban agenda’: They work together with 12 cities, 3 (MOE) ministeries and 1 province on an integral food policy Ede food Council consist of 10 to 15 inhabitants, entrepreneurs and food experts strategy (Ede They discuss the problems, implement things within the municipality and food stad) they make connections with businesses, schools and associations that are involved with food and health MUFPP Ede Develop a food strategy with social actors Ede & Food Ede has a national and international influence with this food policy. As (MOE) Ede works local, regional, national and international together with governmental organisations, educational institutions, entrepreneurs and citizens to make a healthier and more sustainable food system City Deal Involved parties: Voedsel; Ede Societal actors: E.g. citizen groups, organisations for food education, agrarians, Gelderse Vallei, WUR, food companies, urban agriculture, schools, sport canteens, province Gelderderland, ministries, FAO Municipal food team: Food councilor, program manager, strategic advisor food policy, several project leaders in health, sustainability food education, communication advisors and city marketeer Politicians with a key role of other municipal domains E.g. councilor of education, rural area, economics, and WFC Ondernemers Manifest van Slentein (project of Regio FoodValley): Actionplan to make & Food (Ede region FoodValley as the ‘proeftuin van de wereld te maken’ by partners municipality) from the agri- and foodchain, knowledge institutions and the government. In the Manifest they work on a future perspective for the agricultural sector. Ondernemers The municipalities of Ede and Barneveld, LTO Gelderse Vallei, Wur and & Food (Ede Boerenhart works together on short chains and future proof farms. municipality) Together they organized a masterclass in 2018/2019 about how they can work on these ‘short chains’. Thirteen farmers participated and got help from WUR to create diversification in concepts to create for the local market, and to build a profitable business case. The region serves a trail place for WUR. Short chains provide opportunities for a fair price for the farmer, a strong connection between city and region, transparency in the

78 chain and for sustainability. The masterclass were financed by the Province of Gelderland with money of the European Agricultural fund, and organized by the municipalities, in collaboration with LTO Gelderse Vallei, Cooperation Boerenhart and WUR. Programma The program is made as a result of collaboration between the Buitengebied, municipality and the actors from the rural area, as the inhabitants and Ede the entrepreneurs in this area form this area. They live, work, and municipality, recreate and know what is going on in the area. dec. 2016 MUFPP Ede They aimed to get a bottom-up food policy with different stakeholders WFC They are building a world food centre, which must function as an important food-meeting place for consumers, companies, knowledge institutions and governments. In this place companies and organisations can settle, and will be a breeding ground for innovation, knowledge sharing, collaboration, inspiration and awareness creation. MUFPP Ede Use the energy of citizens initiatives to ensure institutional embeddedness (population connected to the governmental institutions) of food Programma Within Ede the Program Rural area works among others together with Buitengebied, the programs of Ede, like the program Sustainability, program Food and Ede City marketing. municipality, With the program of Sustainability they work together on finding dec. 2016 opportunities for green energy in the rural area (sun, wind, biomass, manure processing) Strengthening of touristic routes in the rural area helps to achieve sustainable mobility, tourism and health of the program Sustainability and strengthens also the combination with the program Food (bike and food arrangements in the rural area)

The strengthening of the relation city and rural area is an ambition of the program Rural area. Within the program Food they explore the possibilities for education by agricultural companies. From both the perspective of agriculture as touristic perspective, the program Rural area wants to support this. Within program Food they have a project ‘short food chains’, the target is to stimulate the sales of regional products. To define the touristic identify of Ede and to investigate the economic impact of recreation and tourism sector in Ede, they do research on this. This is also relevant for the program Rural area, by making spatial choices and by the program Citymarketing

Initiatives Ljubljana SFSCs in City Door-to-door selling points: Buyer can see how the food he buys is of Ljubljana produced (Eurocities, 2019) ‘Pot dobrot’- Path around farms – people from apartment building have the opportunity to meet farmers and to connect

79 Awareness raising and promotion: Festival of Ljubljana countryside (October) Honey day (October) Apple week in Ljubljana (September) Ljubljana basket – set of products from Ljubljana Festival for third life period

Urban gardening: 900 allotment gardens Ecological gardening 3 educational gardens – lectures about gardening, meliferous plants, local vegetable and fruit Schools and kindergartens: Schools and kindergartens can acquire up to 20 percent of the value of food (or up to 80,000 euros) outside the Public Procurement Act, according to which they are obliged to choose the cheapest bidder. In two years we managed (with different activities) to rise the percentage of locally grown diets in kindergartens and schools in Ljubljana from 6 to 12 percent Our Goal is 20% How? Educational programs for kooks and school food organizers Presentation of local suppliers Cooking course – diets, unusual and innovative food for children Food ‘stock exchange’: We put together farmers, schools, kindergartens , restaurants and hotels and they made contracts. Municipality of Ljubljana (different departments) + Tourism Ljubljana + Regional Development Agency European Ljubljana has a specific “short” or “green” food chains initiative in place, commission, coordinated by the Department for Environmental Protection 2017 MUFPP Ljubljana has developed six key strategies for promoting local food and Ljubljana creating links between the region’s 826 farms and the city: Promotional events – These include special events, such as the “Zeleni” festival, which takes place in October and features food from several local suppliers. There is also Saturday Organic Market, which takes place at the Ljubljana Central Market every weekend.

Doorsteps sales – The city encourages farmers to set up farm stands and sell their produce directly to the consumer in order to increase people’s awareness of where their food comes from.

Market areas – There are already four marketplaces in Ljubljana. However, eight marketplaces are currently being prepared where citizens will be able to buy locally grown fruits and vegetables.

80 Basket of Ljubljana – The city has designated a set of local organic food products produced by 70 local food suppliers to make up the Basket of Ljubljana. Qualifying products must meet specific principles of organic production.

New forms of sales – The city encourages farmers to develop online sales platforms. Short food supply chains – The city is working to foster cooperation between local businesses and growers. For example, Ljubljana now hosts “Apple Week,” when local restaurants, shops and hotels serve dishes made with locally grown apples. By focusing on locally grown seasonal ingredients, local businesses can reduce the food miles that go into their products. UFS Ljubljana’s analysed actions: transformatio Title: Raise your voice against food waste (2018) ns (European Food 2030: circularity Commission, 2019 Title: Bee path (2016) Food 2030: Climate

Title: Short food supply chains in the City of Ljubljana (2030 Food 2030: Climate

Title: Attention to rural development and urban gardens (2017) Food 2030: Climate

Title: Strategy for rural development of the Municipality of Ljubljana 2014-2020 (2016) Food 2030: Innovation UFS Practice: Short food-supply chains in the city municipality of Ljubljana transformatio Category: Food Supply and Distribution ns (European Ljubljana as winning city Commission, MPA edition: 2017 2019) MUFPP Progress to date: Ljubljana Ljubljana has already been successful with several initiatives, including farmers’ markets and regional food festivals, designed to promote local food. However, the city still seeks to involve more participants, such as restaurants, shops and hotels, in its efforts to shorten food supply chains. Ljubljana received special recognition for its plan from the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact in 2017. Study Results that Ljubljana books are often very tangible: European E.g. local products’ vending machines, public gardens enabling citizens to Commission, produce their own food, and trademark ‘Ljubljana basket’ for food locally 2017 produced and locally sold

Initiatives Ede

81 MUFPP Ede - Example: Food floor o Citizens can pitch an idea for healthy/sustainable food and apply for subsidy (innovative collaboration between societal groups) Citydeal ‘Food on the urban agenda’: They work together with 12 cities, 3 ministeries and 1 province on an integral food policy

Foodvalley: in this they work together on a regional food vision, which must lead to an international top region for knowledge and innovation on healthy and sustainable food

Alliantie Voeding: collaboration between municipality of Ede with WUR and hospital Gelderse Vallei. Try to make citizens more aware of healthy and sustainable food Ondernemer Entrepreneurial network NEON food s & Food NEON is a network for entrepreneurs in Food (in the broadest way). (Ede Together they are looking for the best ways to produce and sell healthy municipality) and sustainable food. Entrepreneurs of NEON meet each other by events with inspiring speakers, good conversations and good food. NEON food started with entrepreneurs from Ede and Wageningen, but they can grow towards a network for the whole FoodValley region. City Deal Examples of activities in Ede: Voedsel; Ede FoodFloor: community where citizens can come with questions about food and where initiative takers can present their ideas Alliantie Voeding: collaboration between the hospital, WUR and the municipality for healthy food in the society Korte ketens: By this they try to bring the producer and the consumer closer together, and exploring new markets for farmers (e.g. Herenboeren Ede) Foodbattle: In this citizen from Ede were challenging each other in the war against food waste Programma How? Buitengebie This is dependent on the concrete initiative that come in. The role of the d, Ede municipality is facilitating. By the evaluation of initiatives they will search municipality, connection by the ‘program Food’ dec. 2016 Programma inputs of current projects are of great influence. E.g. project of vital Buitengebie holiday parks, pilot of the Menukaart of the region FoodValley, the project d, Ede Veluwe, de Omgevingsvisie and Omgevingsverordening of the Province municipality, Gelderland, the programs of Sustainability and Food of the municipality of dec. 2016 Ede and the development of a vision on the released agricultural buildings (VAB-visie). These projects have an important influence on the design and implementation of the Program rural area. KennisAs Ede MUFPP Ede Use a ‘what can food do for work’ initiative World Food Center (Ede)

Alliantie voeding

82 Ede & Food Alliantie Voeding: collaboration between municipality of Ede with WUR (MOE) and hospital Gelderse Vallei. Try to make citizens more aware of healthy and sustainable food City Deal Alliantie Voeding: collaboration between the hospital, WUR and the Voedsel; Ede municipality for healthy food in the society

Citydeal Ede Ede & Food Citydeal ‘Food on the urban agenda’: They work together with 12 cities, 3 (MOE) ministeries and 1 province on an integral food policy

Foodvalley Ede & Food Foodvalley: in this they work together on a regional food vision, which (MOE) must lead to an international top region for knowledge and innovation on healthy and sustainable food

KennisAs Omgevingsvisie Connect the knowledge infrastructure in the KennisAs Ede stad 2030 (2017)

World Food Center WFC They are building a world food centre, which must function as an important food-meeting place for consumers, companies, knowledge institutions and governments. In this place companies and organisations can settle, and will be a breeding ground for innovation, knowledge sharing, collaboration, inspiration and awareness creation. Omgevingsvisie WFC: to strengthen the regional economy and the innovative knowledge Ede stad 2030 environment around agri and food. The WFC is located in the passage of (2017) the city to the Veluwe, which is contrasting city and nature

2. CATEGORIES RURAL-URBAN LINKAGES:

New business & Labour market Ljubljana Study 3. Development of the social capital and preservation of the municipality’s European rural identity, as two-third of their land is classified as agricultural. Commission Therefore more local food can also result in generating employment and , 2017 improving conditions of the farmers. E.g. opening a farmers food shop in the city creates new jobs and strengthens agricultural holdings MUFPP MOL implemented an action plan to support primary agricultural Ljubljana activities in its rural areas in order to help farmers enter the market and connect with consumers. Study EC, MOL established public municipal markets 2017

83 MUFPP MOL invested in increasing the recognisability of rural areas and created a Ljubljana comprehensive approach in marketing the rural goods. MUFPP New forms of sales – The city encourages farmers to develop online sales Ljubljana platforms. Short food supply chains – The city is working to foster cooperation between local businesses and growers. For example, Ljubljana now hosts “Apple Week,” when local restaurants, shops and hotels serve dishes made with locally grown apples. By focusing on locally grown seasonal ingredients, local businesses can reduce the food miles that go into their products. MUFPP Promotional events – These include special events, such as the “Zeleni” Ljubljana festival, which takes place in October and features food from several local suppliers. There is also Saturday Organic Market, which takes place at the Ljubljana Central Market every weekend. Doorsteps sales – The city encourages farmers to set up farm stands and sell their produce directly to the consumer in order to increase people’s awareness of where their food comes from. Market areas – There are already four marketplaces in Ljubljana. However, eight marketplaces are currently being prepared where citizens will be able to buy locally grown fruits and vegetables. MUFPP Shorter food supply chains support the local economy by promoting Ljubljana economic activity within the community and particularly help protect the livelihoods of small farmers as well as small business owners. According to EU Rural Review: Local Food and Short Supply Chains, locally-oriented food systems produce more jobs and retain more money in the community as money is “recycled” many times over. Moreover, through food festivals and promotional goods like the Basket of Ljubljana, the city is likely to increase its share of revenue from tourism. Study The Department for Environmental Protection coordinated several European initiatives aimed at constructing shorter, greener and more visible food Commission supply chains. , 2017 The programmes arise from concrete problems experienced by food producers, and by their attempts to resolve them. The new business models that have emerged set a paradigm for rural development MUFPP The European Union has recognized short food supply chains as an Ljubljana important component of sustainable economic development, and several member states have undertaken initiatives to achieve that end.

Ede Visie Food! Ambition 1: strengthening of the economic power of Ede: Tempting 2015/2020 companies, knowledge institutions, students and visitors (business and (Ede) tourist) and (future) citizens Ede & Food Economy: creating an interesting environment for entrepreneurs, (MOE) businesses and knowledge institutes Ondernemers Entrepreneurial network NEON food & Food (Ede NEON is a network for entrepreneurs in Food (in the broadest way). municipality) Together they are looking for the best ways to produce and sell healthy

84 and sustainable food. Entrepreneurs of NEON meet each other by events with inspiring speakers, good conversations and good food. NEON food started with entrepreneurs from Ede and Wageningen, but they can grow towards a network for the whole FoodValley region. Ondernemers Entrepreneurs and Food-companies & Food (Ede Accessibility, location, knowledge and a good labour market make Ede an municipality) interesting settle location for entrepreneurs. In the area of Ede – Wageningen government, education and companies work together on innovative solutions for global food challenges. Our knowledge and innovation are here of high importance. It is a place for knowledge development, dialogue, and collaborations Programma Food related to Program rural area Buitengebied, Food targets: Ede By change in function to non-agricultural function, food-related municipality, companies have the preference dec. 2016 Horizontal differentiation: produce, process and sales of products on own farm: so more production processes at one farm Stimulate shorter food supply chains Support organic sector where possible Facilitate connection between city and rural area (communication, promotion, sales market for regional products) Broadening of agriculture has to lead to a total package of food in Ede Facilitating new concepts/innovation in the agricultural sector Ondernemers The program manager is Gerdien Kleier. She says that farmers belong to & Food (Ede the region and have an important role in the food system. For a lot of municipality) farmers there are hard times. Kleijer believes that collaborations can help to attain a better future for farms in the region. Therefore the Manifest van Salentein is introduced. In this the parties assigned four points how the agricultural sector in region Foodvalley can be strengthened: - Entrepreneurship and innovation - Space for entrepreneurial activities - Image and transparence - Coaching and training. Short chains can provide feasible business models for farmers in difficulties or for a new generation farmers City Deal Korte ketens: By this they try to bring the producer and the consumer Voedsel; Ede closer together, and exploring new markets for farmers (e.g. Herenboeren Ede) Ondernemers Manifest exist out of four pillars: & Food (Ede -Entrepreneurship and innovation: promoting innovation by sharing municipality) knowledge, using the strength of region FoodValley for farmers, and searching for a future perspective by a business scan. - Space for entrepreneurial activities: Clearness on development opportunities, volunteer ground exchange, fast decision making and clear rules. - Image and transparence: better relation between farmers and their

85 surroundings, city and region connections around the theme food for more understanding of agriculture. - Coaching and training: A neutral trustworthy person to talk about problems within your farm. Also there will be coaches provided and knowledge growth. Ondernemers Municipality of Ede started the initiative in 2018 to start it up, and to & Food (Ede look if there is animo for a network of agro & food entrepreneurs. The municipality) municipality supports the initiative as they want to stimulate collaboration and linkages between entrepreneurs. But in the end it has to become a network organized by and for the entrepreneurs themselves. Now the event organization is carried out by ProefLab Wageningen & Youngwise. (https://neonfood.nl/) Ondernemers Municipality of Ede works on ‘short chains’ and supports entrepreneurs & Food (Ede from the region municipality) Ondernemers Short chains & Food (Ede In and around Ede are tens of farms that produce delicious food: municipality) vegetables, fruit, grains, eggs, milk, chicken, pork, beef, honey and more. More and more farmers want to sell their products directly to the consumer for a good price. With ‘short chains’ the municipality wants that food from Ede and surrounding will also be consumed by the local people. This will lead to less transport and therefore better for the environment. And the inhabitants will be more aware about where their food is coming from. Programma The agricultural sector: scale enlargement versus quitters and previous Buitengebied, agricultural buildings that are coming free, side activities, and changes in Ede functions municipality, Non-agricultural activity: new settlements, enlargements, type of activity dec. 2016 Accommodation recreation: future proof, vital holiday parks, development possibilities Ondernemers The municipalities of Ede and Barneveld, LTO Gelderse Vallei, Wur and & Food (Ede Boerenhart work together on short chains and future proof farms. municipality) Together they organized a masterclass in 2018/2019 about how they can work on these ‘short chains’. Thirteen farmers participated and got help from WUR to create diversification in concepts to create for the local market, and to build a profitable business case. The region serves a trail place for WUR. Short chains provide opportunities for a fair price for the farmer, a strong connection between city and region, transparency in the chain and for sustainability. The masterclass were financed by the Province of Gelderland with money of the European Agricultural fund, and organized by the municipalities, in collaboration with LTO Gelderse Vallei, Cooperation Boerenhart and WUR. Programma To define the touristic identify of Ede and to investigate the economic Buitengebied, impact of recreation and tourism sector in Ede, they do research on this. Ede This is also relevant for the program Rural area, by making spatial choices municipality, and by the program Citymarketing dec. 2016

86 Omgevingsvisi WFC: to strengthen the regional economy and the innovative knowledge e Ede stad environment around agri and food. The WFC is located in the passage of 2030 (2017) the city to the Veluwe, which is contrasting city and nature Programma Within program Food they have a project ‘short food chains’, the target Buitengebied, is to stimulate the sales of regional products Ede municipality, dec. 2016

Public infrastructure & social service Ljubljana European ensure ‘quality food’: commission, Increased accessibility to healthy food as a solution that would lead to 2017 ‘good nutritional habits’ UFS Ljubljana protects the environment in a way that is friendly to bees, for transformation example by planting honey plants in public spaces and promoting the s (European activities of beekeepers’ associations. Additionally, Ljubljana has Commission, prepared educational programmes for children in primary school and 2019) kindergarten, emphasising the importance of education for youngsters. The content was developed by each of the 30 stakeholders that are included in the path, creating a shared vision on beekeeping for self- sufficiency. Study MOL engaged in public campaign against food waste (‘raise your voice European against food waste’) Commission, 2017 Study MOL established public municipal markets European Commission, 2017 Study The success of GREENSURGE, another FP7 project, on the contrary, European started with the vice-major’s personal commitment and the provision of Commission, a public site for the realisation of green infrastructures 2017 UFS Title: Attention to rural development and urban gardens (2017) transformation Food 2030: Climate s (European Title: Strategy for rural development of the Municipality of Ljubljana Commission, 2014-2020 (2016) 2019 Food 2030: Innovation UFS Title: Raise your voice against food waste (2018) transformation Food 2030: circularity s (European Commission, 2019 Study ‘access of all citizens to healthy eating’ as mission European

87 Commission, 2017

Ede Omgevingsvisi 4. Sustainable and healthy city e Ede stad 2030 (2017) Ede & Food Alliantie Voeding: collaboration between municipality of Ede with WUR (MOE) and hospital Gelderse Vallei. Try to make citizens more aware of healthy and sustainable food City Deal Alliantie Voeding: collaboration between the hospital, WUR and the Voedsel; Ede municipality for healthy food in the society Ede food Food policy advisor of the municipality: strategy (Ede Focus on a more sustainable and healthier food system in Ede together food stad) with the inhibitants City Deal Foodbattle: In this citizen from Ede were challenging each other in the Voedsel; Ede war against food waste City Deal FoodFloor: community where citizens can come with questions about Voedsel; Ede food and where initiative takers can present their ideas Ede & Food Goal of the municipality: healthy and sustainable food for all the citizens (MOE) in Ede City Deal Health: a healthy living environment and access to knowledge about Voedsel; Ede healthy food for all citizens Sustainability: reduce food waste Education: structural food education for all children Ede & Food Health: contributing to a healthy living environment for the citizens (MOE) Programma Strengthening of touristic routes in the rural area helps to achieve Buitengebied, sustainable mobility, tourism and health of the program Sustainability Ede and strengthens also the combination with the program Food (bike and municipality, food arrangements in the rural area) dec. 2016 WFC They are building a world food centre, which must function as an important food-meeting place for consumers, companies, knowledge institutions and governments. In this place companies and organisations can settle, and will be a breeding ground for innovation, knowledge sharing, collaboration, inspiration and awareness creation. Omgevingsvisi They want to have a focus on the interweaving of city and land in the e Ede stad suburbs (buitenplaats kernem-noord). In the form of recreation, urban 2030 (2017) agriculture, (care)housing and nature Programma Within the program Food they explore the possibilities for education by Buitengebied, agricultural companies. From both the perspective of agriculture as Ede touristic perspective, the program Rural area wants to support this municipality, dec. 2016

Sustainable Food Systems

88 Ljubljana European Changes in consumption by emphasizing local and fresh food and commission, ‘seasonally grown food’ 2017 Study Increase MOL self sufficiency in food, promoting organic and integrated European agriculture Commission, 2017 MUFPP Basket of Ljubljana – The city has designated a set of local organic food Ljubljana products produced by 70 local food suppliers to make up the Basket of Ljubljana. Qualifying products must meet specific principles of organic production. MUFPP By increasing the productivity of local farms, city planners hope to make Ljubljana Ljubljana more agriculturally self-sufficient, benefitting producers as well as consumers and shortening food supply chains. MUFPP Network of allotment gardens: the Municipality established five Ljubljana allotment garden areas for urban agriculture. All together, the city counts 705 allotment gardens on an area of 65 292 m2, with an average dimension of each allotment of 60 m2, to be rented for 3 to 5 years MUFPP PLANNING FOR SHORT FOOD SUPPLY CHAINS Ljubljana MUFPP plans to promote organic and sustainable agricultural practices in order Ljubljana to preserve the natural environment of the city and its surrounding areas. UFS Practice: Short food-supply chains in the city municipality of Ljubljana transformation Category: Food Supply and Distribution s (European Ljubljana as winning city Commission, MPA edition: 2017 2019) MUFPP Short food supply chains: the Municipality supports cooperation Ljubljana among caterers, hoteliers, other providers of catering services and local farmers in order to create an efficient network. Special attention has been dedicated to children in kindergartens, where 20 percent of the public procurement has been used to purchase locally-grown products MUFPP Shorter food supply chains support the local economy by promoting Ljubljana economic activity within the community and particularly help protect the livelihoods of small farmers as well as small business owners. According to EU Rural Review: Local Food and Short Supply Chains, locally-oriented food systems produce more jobs and retain more money in the community as money is “recycled” many times over. Moreover, through food festivals and promotional goods like the Basket of Ljubljana, the city is likely to increase its share of revenue from tourism. Study The Department for Environmental Protection coordinated several European initiatives aimed at constructing shorter, greener and more visible food supply chains.

89 Commission, The programmes arise from concrete problems experienced by food 2017 producers, and by their attempts to resolve them. The new business models that have emerged set a paradigm for rural development MUFPP the Municipality ensures food sovereignty and unburdens the Ljubljana environment with short food supply chains, while enhancing the food security of the urban population. UFS Title: Short food supply chains in the City of Ljubljana (Food 2030) transformation Food 2030: Climate s (European Commission, 2019 MUFPP to shorten sales channels so that the citizens of Ljubljana could access Ljubljana locally grown food and consume mainly seasonal products. Study While ensuring that the production methods remain respectful to the European environment and ecosystems Commission, Strategy about methods of production, acknowledging environmental 2017 challenges They address global warming by introduction of more resistant fruit and vegetable varieties and monitoring/eliminating the use of pesticides MUFPP “Basket of Ljubljana”: this initiative provides a standard defining how Ljubljana food must be grown in the City of Ljubljana, according to the principles of organic or integrated production. There are current-ly 70 food suppliers included in the initiative

Ede Omgevingsvisi 4. Sustainable and healthy city e Ede stad 2030 (2017) City Deal Economy: short food chains and sustainable and innovative food Voedsel; Ede production in the whole chain Ede & Food Ede has a national and international influence with this food policy (MOE) As Ede works local, regional, national and international together with governmental organisations, educational institutions, entrepreneurs and citizens to make a healthier and more sustainable food system Programma Environmental quality: among others landscape, environment, Buitengebied, sustainability, nature, ecology, and food Ede municipality, dec. 2016 Ede food Food policy advisor of the municipality: Focus on a more sustainable and strategy (Ede healthier food system in Ede together with the inhibitants food stad) Programma Food related to Program rural area Buitengebied, Food targets: Ede By change in function to non-agricultural function, food-related municipality, companies have the preference dec. 2016 Horizontal differentiation: produce, process and sales of products on

90 own farm: so more production processes at one farm Stimulate shorter food supply chains Support organic sector where possible Facilitate connection between city and rural area (communication, promotion, sales market for regional products) Broadening of agriculture has to lead to a total package of food in Ede Facilitating new concepts/innovation in the agricultural sector City Deal FoodFloor: community where citizens can come with questions about Voedsel; Ede food and where initiative takers can present their ideas Ede & Food Foodvalley: in this they work together on a regional food vision, which (MOE) must lead to an international top region for knowledge and innovation on healthy and sustainable food Ondernemers Municipality of Ede works on ‘short chains’ and supports entrepreneurs & Food (Ede from the region municipality) Ondernemers Short chains & Food (Ede In and around Ede are tens of farms that produce delicious food: municipality) vegetables, fruit, grains, eggs, milk, chicken, pork, beef, honey and more. More and more farmers want to sell their products directly to the consumer for a good price. With ‘short chains’ the municipality wants that food from Ede and surrounding will also be consumed by the local people. This will lead to less transport and therefore better for the environment. And the inhabitants will be more aware about where their food is coming from. MUFPP Ede The goal is to achieve healthy and sustainable food for all citizens by focusing on improving and strengthening both the economic and social conditions of Ede

Omgevingsvisi They want to have a focus on the interweaving of city and land in the e Ede stad suburbs (buitenplaats kernem-noord). In the form of recreation, urban 2030 (2017) agriculture, (care)housing and nature Programma Within program Food they have a project ‘short food chains’, the target Buitengebied, is to stimulate the sales of regional products Ede municipality, dec. 2016

Cultural connections Ljubljana Study 3. Development of the social capital and preservation of the European municipality’s rural identity, as two-third of their land is classified as Commission, agricultural. 2017 Therefore more local food can also result in generating employment and improving conditions of the farmers.E.g. opening a farmers food shop in the city creates new jobs and strengthens agricultural holdings

91 MUFPP Establishing shorter food supply chains can positively impact Ljubljana in Ljubljana a number of ways: by promoting good relationships between consumers and producers based on trust and transparency; by allowing consumers to identify the source of their food, and thereby creating a greater understanding of the food chain as well as building stronger interpersonal relationships and business partnerships. UFS The Bee Path was designed and opened in 2015. The path was realised transformation with an interdisciplinary approach, presenting beekeeping from s (European different perspectives. Visitors learn about the importance of bees for Commission, human survival and for food security, and the importance of honey in 2019) the daily diet. The project also provides visitors with a historical perspective, presenting the heritage of beekeeping in the city. The route involves various stakeholders, including educational and cultural institutions, institutions related to health, businesses, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and, of course, beekeepers. Their main task is to ensure that their activities associated with the Bee Path raise awareness and inform city residents about the importance of bees in the city. Study The empowerment of rural areas is also pursued from a socio-cultural European perspective, beside the economic and political implications of targeting Commission, self-sufficiency in food. 2017 MUFPP “Basket of Ljubljana”: this initiative provides a standard defining Ljubljana how food must be grown in the City of Ljubljana, according to the principles of organic or integrated production. There are current-ly 70 food suppliers included in the initiative

Ede Visie Food! Ambition 2: strengthen of the social-societal power of Ede: 2015/2020 Promoting meetings and connection between people, strengthening the (Ede) connection between city and region and facilitating and stimulating of awareness about healthy and sustainable food

Programma Strengthening of touristic routes in the rural area helps to achieve Buitengebied sustainable mobility, tourism and health of the program Sustainability and , Ede strengthens also the combination with the program Food (bike and food municipality, arrangements in the rural area) dec. 2016 Programma To define the touristic identify of Ede and to investigate the economic Buitengebied impact of recreation and tourism sector in Ede, they do research on this. , Ede This is also relevant for the program Rural area, by making spatial choices municipality, and by the program Citymarketing dec. 2016 Programma Within the program Food they explore the possibilities for education by Buitengebied agricultural companies. From both the perspective of agriculture as , Ede touristic perspective, the program Rural area wants to support this municipality, dec. 2016

92

Ecosystem services Ljubljana MUFPP In addition to providing economic benefits, the above strategies are Ljubljana designed to produce positive environmental outcomes through a focus on sustainable and organic growing methods as well as through shortening supply chains. The European Commission on Agriculture and Rural Development cites several such benefits, including reduced transportation costs, CO2 emissions, wear and tear on rural roads, traffic congestion, and road accidents

UFS In its rural development strategy for 2014-2020, the Municipality of transformation Ljubljana set as its first and most fundamental objective the premise to s (European ‘ensure quality agriculture and forestry goods from a preserved Commission, environment, with the aim of self-sufficiency of Ljubljana’. By doing so, 2019) the municipality ensures food sovereignty and unburdens the environment by using short food-supply chains, while enhancing the food security of the urban population. European Increase the sustainability of their food system ‘with lower or zero commission, carbon footprint’ 2017 In order to preserve or improve the local environment UFS Ljubljana protects the environment in a way that is friendly to bees, for transformation example by planting honey plants in public spaces and promoting the s (European activities of beekeepers’ associations. Additionally, Ljubljana has Commission, prepared educational programmes for children in primary school and 2019) kindergarten, emphasising the importance of education for youngsters. The content was developed by each of the 30 stakeholders that are included in the path, creating a shared vision on beekeeping for self- sufficiency.

MUFPP plans to promote organic and sustainable agricultural practices in order Ljubljana to preserve the natural environment of the city and its surrounding areas. UFS The Bee Path was designed and opened in 2015. The path was realised transformation with an interdisciplinary approach, presenting beekeeping from s (European different perspectives. Visitors learn about the importance of bees for Commission, human survival and for food security, and the importance of honey in 2019) the daily diet. The project also provides visitors with a historical perspective, presenting the heritage of beekeeping in the city. The route involves various stakeholders, including educational and cultural institutions, institutions related to health, businesses, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and, of course, beekeepers. Their main task is to ensure that their activities associated with the Bee Path raise awareness and inform city residents about the importance of bees in the city. Study the strategy’s holistic approach to rural development asks the MOL to European lead the change, always having in mind the improvement of the quality

93 Commission, of life and environmental protection.’ 2017 Study The success of GREENSURGE, another FP7 project, on the contrary, European started with the vice-major’s personal commitment and the provision of Commission, a public site for the realisation of green infrastructures 2017 Study While ensuring that the production methods remain respectful to the European environment and ecosystems Commission, Strategy about methods of production, acknowledging environmental 2017 challenges They address global warming by introduction of more resistant fruit and vegetable varieties and monitoring/eliminating the use of pesticides

Ede Programma Environmental quality: among others landscape, environment, Buitengebied sustainability, nature, ecology, and food , Ede municipality, dec. 2016 Ondernemer The program works among others on the vitality of the agricultural sector s & Food and the recreation sector to keep the area beautiful. (Ede municipality) Programma With the program of Sustainability they work together on finding Buitengebied opportunities for green energy in the rural area (sun, wind, biomass, , Ede manure processing) municipality, dec. 2016

3. Challenges and opportunities Challenges Ljubljana MUFPP However, the city still seeks to involve more participants, such as Ljubljana restaurants, shops and hotels, in its efforts to shorten food supply chains. Study Improving the supply of high-quality fruit and vegetables, while ensuring European that the production methods remain respectful to the environment and Commission ecosystems. , 2017 Strategy about methods of production, acknowledging environmental challenges They address global warming by introduction of more resistant fruit and vegetable varieties and monitoring/eliminating the use of pesticides Foodmetres Stakeholders pointed out that local food chains are becoming longer from the time perspective because producers must also deal with marketing and production technologies and not solely production. Lack of agricultural extension officers in the field of production technologies is a serious limitation in optimizing production. Many farmers have poor or no

94 agricultural education and new knowledge is mainly acquired only through exchange of experiences or through trial and error practice.

Ede City Deal Challenges for Ede: Make sure that the plans on paper also keep an Voedsel; Ede existing part of the organization and put into practice. Voedselraad per 2018 to make sure that the ideas of the citizens in Ede also end up in the municipal food policy. Build indicators for healthy and sustainable food system on local level, to monitor progression MUFPP Ede Getting food issues on the political agenda is complex journey (food team=catalysator) - Challenges/risks: o Ensure that food become part of entire community and societal organizations o Risk of slowing down the processes of sustaining FS City Deal Results and impact: Voedsel; Ede Qua monitoring still a lot needs to be done, together with MUFPP indicators for monitoring are better developed Wat Food The municipality boost the food policy. She facilitates and creates the voor Ede frames, but the municipality has limited resources. doet Programma Vreugdenhil: How do we keep the rural area with the different functions Buitengebied and changes the coming decennia vital, green and clean? Farmers work , Ede hard in the region for the production of food. The economic potential of municipality, the recreation sector is big. And enough innovations due to a lot of dec. 2016 starting companies in the rural area of Ede.

Opportunities Ljubljana Foodmetres Consumers are very well informed about the advantages of locally produced food, and are therefore getting more demanding, but they are poorly informed about ‘seasonal’ food. Participants observed that the national generic promotion of agricultural products funded by the EU has helped to increase the sales from small growers. Growers also observe a shift in vendors’ and retailers’ behaviour who have started to appreciate locally produced food. Study FOODMETRES, an FP7 project, research results – which identify a shorter European food supply chain as a possible solution to the productive deficit of the Commission MOL, and could have potentially provided the city with the “recipe” for , 2017 food independence. Study Improving the supply of high-quality fruit and vegetables European While ensuring that the production methods remain respectful to the Commission environment and ecosystems , 2017 Strategy about methods of production, acknowledging environmental challenges They address global warming by introduction of more resistant fruit and

95 vegetable varieties and monitoring/eliminating the use of pesticides Study In this they wanted to enhance the cooperation among different European departments, to reach real policy synergies Commission , 2017 Study Local empowerment as policy goal: European Make the society less vulnerable; especially women and youth Commission MOL establishes training programs for them in the field; lead to networking , 2017 opporunties, cooperations and co-financing (also by MOL itselves)

Lead to cultural change/opportunity; normally youth and women do not consider entrepreneuship as viable option

Ede Ondernemer Entrepreneurs and Food-companies s & Food Accessibility, location, knowledge and a good labour market make Ede an (Ede interesting settle location for entrepreneurs. In the area of Ede – municipality) Wageningen government, education and companies work together on innovative solutions for global food challenges. Our knowledge and innovation are here of high importance. It is a place for knowledge development, dialogue, and collaborations Wat Food Entrepreneurs and the society themselves have more resources. So voor Ede companies, health institutions and schools have to work on the food doet policy. There are a lot of opportunities for them. Ede wants to share the ownership, this stimulates initiatives of entrepreneurs and collaborations. The food policy works connecting, and provides possibilities. Ondernemer Manifest exist out of four pillars: s & Food -Entrepreneurship and innovation: promoting innovation by sharing (Ede knowledge, using the strength of region FoodValley for farmers, and municipality) searching for a future perspective by a business scan. - Space for entrepreneurial activities: Clearness on development opportunities, volunteer ground exchange, fast decision making and clear rules. - Image and transparence: better relation between farmers and their surroundings, city and region connections around the theme food for more understanding of agriculture. - Coaching and training: A neutral trustworthy person to talk about problems within your farm. Also there will be coaches provided and knowledge growth. Programma Vreugdenhil: How do we keep the rural area with the different functions Buitengebied and changes the coming decennia vital, green and clean? Farmers work , Ede hard in the region for the production of food. The economic potential of municipality, the recreation sector is big. And enough innovations due to a lot of dec. 2016 starting companies in the rural area of Ede.

96 Appendix 6: Codebook RQ3: challenges and opportunities Challenges/Opportunities Ede

Challenge Opportunity Comments Conflicting interests Conversation Put opposite parties at a table and let them share their thoughts and set clear rules for these kind of conversations (I2) Conflicting interest Culture sensitive Use terminologies that fit to communication the target group (I2)

Conflicting interests Match making Government has to search for the similarities between the different parties (I2) Path dependency Local involvement Respect the path dependency & search together with the local parties to what is possible within this (I2) Path dependency Built trust Farmers often lost trust because of being victim of the rules, but by reestablishing trust they are open for changes (I2) No city-region governance Region collaboration The municipality of the city has to collaborate with the surrounding (more rural) municipalities for the food production (I1) Risk-regulation reflex Conversation, Instead of putting extra Local involvement regulations, start a converstation with each other and see what is possible (I2) Fixed way of doing Local involvement Municipality should also work with new and smaller partners, instead of the fixed partners (I5) Where to go Local involvement (food A food council is set up in council) Ede to investigate the future of program food Ede (I6) Long term continuation Public procurement, To realize a SFSC the Conversation, producer needs a stable cooperation demand, this can be created by public procurement of local food (I3)

97

Vitality, Built trust, Set goals with each other Conflicting interests Information share, and based on this determine Conversation (‘moedige what needs to be done to gesprekken’) keep the area vital. Talk with vision each other about possibilities (I2) Governance isn’t Promotion, cooperation As municipality you can entrepreneur stimulate and facilitate by providing platforms where parties can meet each other (I3) Societal challenges New policy instruments, In Ede together with Cooperation different stakeholders they work on a joint solution for challenges as the current nitrogen crisis. Stakeholders have trust in this approach (I2) Identity crisis Vision, culture change, The municipality has to promotion create a clear vision and promote this one, in order to grow in that direction (I3) Lack of knowledge Information share e.g. masterclasses to learn producers about sales and marketing (I1) Top-down Local involvement When you make policy about farmers, you have to include them in the process (W) Integrated policy Let all the policy domains integrate food (I3) Risk-regulation reflex, cooperation Business makes sure that existing interests are kept by risk-regulation reflex (I2) Power imbalance Cooperation Business has more money and power than the government, when you want to deal with this, you have to collaborate with the other actors (I2) Identity crisis Use as strength Use the combination of urban and rural as a strength (I2) globalization New policy instruments, e.g. tax on external products food supply chain that are not produced improvement according to our European standards (I2)

98 cooperation The municipality can bring food related companies together (I5) New policy measures In Ede they changed their valuation system on e.g. agricultural activities. And they only give lease contracts in which farmers are rewarded if they care for the soil. (I2) Dependence on business Entrepreneurs, cooperation Businesses provide central resources as food, energy and medicines, so a good collaboration with the local businesses is important (I2) Local linkages, Ede and FoodValley worked cooperation hard on creating strong linkages, also by an agricultural network ‘Salentein’, this makes them strong (I2) Appreciation of food Youth education, culture People have to appreciate change again where their food comes from, youth education helps with this to change your food behavior (I3) Conflicting interests Local involvement, When there are societal Societal challenges converstion challenges, involve the local (entrepreneurs) and think of how to come to solutions together (I2) Not integrated policy cooperation Health and food are strongly related, so it is smart to better integrate these domains, e.g. in the hospitals (I3) Not integrated policy, Local involvement, food Policy often focused on 1 conflicting interest supply chain improvement type of farmer, in Ede they want to help all of them to sustain. E.g. by masterclasses (I2) Protein transition In Ede there are a lot of industrial livestock producers, this can become a challenge, but this is a sensitive topic (I1)

99 Societal challenges Region-oriented approach To get a support base for societal challenges (e.g. green energy) you have to involve the local actors (I2) Information share To evolve your policy, you can look to UFP examples in other cities and share information (I3) Fixed way of doing New policy instruments, Within policy instruments public procurement there is often more possible then we think. E.g. with public procurement you can set your own rules (I1) Bad local involvement cooperation A local action group doesn’t feel heard by the municipality, as their request is not answered (I5) Conflicting interest Culture sensitive Interests of the local actors is communication (match very different, it is important makers) that the municipality builds a bridge between these. And the way of communication has to be adapted on the targetgroup (I2) Appreciation of food Youth education, culture Stimulation of awareness of change food origin and giving food education helps to increase the appreciation of food (I5) Lack of connection Information share, There is a distance promotion developed between food production and consumption, this has to be decrease by promotion of SFSC initiatives (I5) Fixed way of doing Youth education Practice learns that information share is not always effective, but it has positive effects when you apply food and waste education for youth, as they start to correct their parents (I3) Citizen commute to entrepreneurs Creating job opportunities randstad by attracting companies and institutions especially on food, this also gives economic push (I3)

100 Lack of knowledge Information share Organizing masterclasses to inform farmers about better practices or business cases (I3) Lack of connection promotion Ede introduced ‘the farmer is the doctor of the future’ and ‘nature inclusive farming’ and both also the other way around. With this they connect the urban food policy and the rural surroundings (I2) Long term continuation stable advisors/policy Challenge to get a long term policy and not just a project, there is always change in government, and therefore risk of different strategies (I1) Creating more impact New policy instruments Introducing hard policy measures (taxes, regulations) instead of only soft ones (promotion, subsidy, etc.) in order to create more impact (I1) Long term continuation The program of Food will be probably abolished and replaced by a more structural implementation in the domains, but this is still unclear (I6) Lack of connection / energy Local involvement Wasted time and money to invest in in topics where no energy is present from the citizens (I3) Long term continuation Stable advisors/policy, Important to have a long vision term vision for the rural area, but long term and politics are often difficult to combine (I2) Sustain landscape, keep Regional collaboration Challenge to sustain the vitality, different interests landscape and to keep it vital (not building it full with houses, companies and energy locations), by combining stakeholders and work on this challenge together (I2)

101 Scale of urban food policy Not possible to let every small city have their own food provisioning, especially when they can’t steer on this (I1) Globalization, external European self-sufficiency We became dependent on dependency external sources for fital products (food, medicines, etc), this puts us at a risk. Smart to get it back in Europe. (I2) Path dependency Regional collaboration, long Companies are path- term continuation dependent, you need a long- term vision and strong regional collaborations (I2) Lack of trust, corona As WFC asked a lot of money, ‘Food’ gets a bad name by the citizen. Unclear what the results of corona will be for the food policy (I6) Not integrated policy, Program food will be spread money over different domains. There is a risk that priority and money disappear on this topic (I6) Long term continuation. Cooperation ‘Building a bridge is 1, but Risk-regulation reflex maintaining it is 2’. This is a task for all the stakeholders together. When there are bad times, you also have to come through (e.g. risk- regulation reflex) (I2) Change in consumption Challenge for cities to change consumption or production in their area if they can’t influence this directly. Or they only get the costs, but not the benefits (I1) Lack of connection Only a small percentage of the urban citizens go to the surroundings to buy products or visit these places (I5) Long term continuation Stable advisors/policy, local Challenge to keep it running involvement on the long term, and to get local involvement (I3)

102 Money The money for program food comes now from a temporary source (precario- tax), after 2021 this source stops and they have to pay it from their regular budget (I3) Not integrated policy cooperation Challenge to integrate the food policy and the health policy (I3) Sales, marketing, logistics The sales, marketing and logistics are the biggest challenge for farmers of SFSC (I1) Not integrated policy Policies are often focused on promoting 1 type of farmer, but in Ede they want to help all (I2) Put into practice Local involvement A municipal vision or policy will be only an idea without the involvement of local actors to put it into practice (I3) Governance isn’t The government isn’t an entrepreneur entrepreneur, so it should not take these tasks (I3) Vitality Rural-urban linkages Amount of farmers will decrease, so it is a challenge to keep the rural area vital. In this the urban-rural linkages and food are important (I3) commitment Integrated policy Local connection only possible when the municipality really wants this and put all the required energy and money in this target (I4) Conflicting interests Vision, stable To improve the UFP it must advisors/policy be clear what is the direction to go, as there are a lot of determinant factors that are conflicting (I4) Risk-regulationreflex, not In NL there are a lot of integrated policy regulations what food producers can and can’t do, without flexibility. This is a

103 big obstacle for e.g. LFS or processing residual flows (I4)

Culture change Increased requirements on food producers with extra costs, but consumers often go for the cheapest produce. So who will pay for it? (I4) Corona It seems corona brings some awareness about good food, the price of it and supporting local companies. Unknown if this will stay (I4) Lack of trust, long term Show benefits for the Challenge to retain local continuation practice involvement. Farmers experience that different organization come to collect information and a form of involvement. But after a while it stops, and the farmer did not benefit of it. Farmers make long days and are done with giving input from practice, while the national policy is drifting away from this practice and is harming the sector with new regulations (I4) Put into practice If Ede wants to work on this they have to show the farmers how they can benefit and what they do with their inputs. Maybe practical knowledge has a value (I4) Spatial planning, conflicting Rural area is easily sacrificed interests for other interest; housing, businesses, infra, nature (I4) Long term continuation, Stable advisors/policy, The base of a food city are vitality vision, local involvement the food producers, so it is important to keep this right, now a lot of farmers stop. The agricultural vision has to be implemented in practice otherwise it is valueless. E.g. municipality can steer on

104 supporting nature inclusive farms. (I4)

Long term continuation Money, local involvement Money is essential to make it work, temporary pilots don’t work. The practical knowledge, skills and efforts are worth to start a long term cooperation with, therefore local involvement is essential (I4) Local involvement Information share, vision Start with an overview of farms/food companies in the area, to make it easy to see who you can approach, and make your goals/vision very sharp (I4) Lack of connection Lot of industrial farms in the area, so ask yourself if this connection is possible/valuable (I4)

Challenges & Opportunities Ljubljana

Challenges Opportunities Comments Public procurement, Financial department of New policy instruments MOL helps schools with public tenders for local food. Within schools, kindergartens and municipality they have 20% free for local/sustainable food (I89) Local food, gastronomic Local food in LJ good tourism opportunity as the consumers and tourists prefer this local food (I7) Individualistic Built trust People are individualistic and have to get to know ach other and then it will be okay (I89) Stable advisors/policy, In LJ they have advisory information share service constantly present on the field with one to one conversations helping

105 farmers to develop, get the right crop, etc. (I89) Individualistic, global built trust, long term In the beginning there was linkages continuation, money mistrust in the EU rural development program, but now it is a steady source of income with steady structure and approach, so farmers gained trust (I89) Hybrid situation, People in rural areas stay or modernization go there and establish a job enabled by the modern technology, so they can work from home or part time go to the office (I7) Globalization, corona Food supply chain Good to have the small improvement chains to stay self-sufficient, this is in LJ also stimulated by public procurement. Big markets can be locked (I89) Too little production In corona LJ realized that their production is too little, supply is smaller than demand (I89) Lack of connection, culture People lose a bit the change, demand higher connection with seasonality than supply and get spoiled of wanting all products year round. (I7) corona Corona resulted in an increase of delivery of food products, so it provides new opportunities (I7) Modernization, food supply In Slovenia AFN can be linked chain improvement to different delivery (e.g. ordering online and deliver at home) (I7) Local involvement LAGs, cooperation In the last years Local action groups developed in Slovenia, these are really proactive and involved stakeholders that keep pushing and consulting and are invited to participated. However, there is a big difference between all these (I7).

106 Supply

107 employment, so unaccounted work. Farms not profitable, so in the long term not feasible (I7) Conflicting interest, spatial Reactivate land There is always competition planning on the land in the urban plan, challenge to keep the agricultural area. Farmers are now stimulated to reactive the land that they already have, so it is less likely that they set it for buildings/factories (I89) Supply to little Regional collaboration The role of LUR agency is very important. Market of LJ is too small, so they have to collaborate in the larger area. LUR agency is working on this, and also on pilots on schools and stock exchange (I89) Lack of skills governance, Organization improvement Governance often lacks the not integrated policy skill of consultation planning. The events they organize should be in a more planned way or more targeted. So it would be easier for them to process the comments and take them in. sometimes they lack to filter the information from the bottom and process it (I7) Unused land Reactivate the land Experts said that if all the potenital is used, LJ will be for 50% food self-sufficient. So they want to work on this challenge (I7) corona hybrid situation Work from home, entrepreneurs start offices at more rural places as this is cheaper and possible in this society (I7) Lack of skills governance Local involvement There are a lot of possibilities for farmers and events organized. But the governance sometimes lacks

108 skills to take in all these bottom-up initiatives. So there is a lot of communication and consultation, but in the end there is not very much done with it. Which results in frustration; ‘we keep saying this, but you never do something with it’. There is willingness for bottom-up by the government, but in the end when it has to be done, they take the top-down approach (I7) Individualistic Built trust, cooperation Farmers often want to be independent, probably because of the top-down approach, and maybe because of the low level of education of farmers in Slovenia. Farmers are often suspicious of others. It takes time to gain trust that cooperation can be valuable for all (I7) Conflicting interests, Trend of urban people misperception of moving to rural area, rural/farming, therefore change in spatial planning. Sometimes conflicting interests which results in problems, as the urban people have a different perception of rural/farming. E.g. they don’t like the noisy and smelly part. So it is a challenge to balance the farming community and the new coming urbans (I7) Unsufficient supply Reactivating the land, food Challenge to increase the supply chain improvement production to meet the demand. People are neglecting the farmland, so this has to be reactivated again (I89)

109 Unsufficient supply Regional collaboration Need for collaboration between regions, as it happens that LJ area has a shortage of a specific product and the other region has plenty (I7) Misperception of Young people come to rural rural/farming area due to old connections through relatives, or more new age urban people who want to live in touch with nature and grow their own food. But in reality it is not how they imagined (I7) Lack of trust cooperation Some cooperatives died after change of regime, as they were unsuitable for market rules. Now there is a bit of revival, some reorganized themselves. Now it is useful for some farmers to be part of a cooperative, as they don’t have to work on marketing etc (but on national scale very small percentage) (I7) Conflicting interests connection In general environmental and agricultural department are not a problem. Sometimes problem between hunters and farmers, because a lot of wild animal in the forest. Now also a connection build between beekeepers and food producers. (I89) Individualistic Conversation, cooperation Challenge for the municipality to cooperate and work together with different farmers, as they are strong individualists. And they can sell everything their selves (I89) Insufficient supply, corona Production is too little in the area, and now because of corona this is even strengthened (I89)

110 Globalization, money The produce of the international chains are really cheap, so families who cant effort the local produce shop over there (I7) individualistic Youth, cooperation, culture Individualistic culture after change the collapse of the socialist time. The young population provides opportunities for connecting and more cooperatives, so a generation change (I89) Lack of connection, culture Youth education, Knowledge and connection change information share about local food disappeared a bit, e.g. due to year round supply nowadays. So, education in this will help (I7) Globalization Food supply chain Farmers have to work on improvement their efficiency, as the prices otherwise will go up too much. They now get the money easily and are overequipped due to subsidies (I7) Conflicting interests, lack of Modernization, cooperation Clash between old rural connection community with their habits and traditions (e.g. voluntary fire brigade, some cultural associations), and the urban newcomers that maybe don’t fit in that well. But they also can bring some fresh ideas, and help to develop, e.g. children playgrounds, sport facilities, etc. which is now not so common overthere (I7) Food supply chain Retailers also encourage improvement local farmers to send it to them, as there is a demand for local food in the supermarket. Supermarkets have special sections for local food in their shops (I7) Stale advisors/policy, Important to have on the conversation, municipality level a person

111 or a team that is constantly present and in contact with the local actors and developments. So constant conversations and knowing all the farmers. LJ also realized that it is important to be present for a longer time and have your own municipal money to work with, so not only project money. Because a project has an end, but you want continuity (I89) Individualist Building trust After WW they became a socialist country, all about nationalization and working together in big cooperatives. This was top-down directed and therefore unfavourable. In 1948 Joegoeslavie broke down the relation with Sovjet Union, therefore this slowed down, but it was still top-down pushed, and farmers didn’t like it, as they felled they didn’t get enough (I7) money In Slovenia there is much livestock farming, which is capital intensive. Young people don’t have much capacity to make such big investment and buy or rent a livestock farm (I7)

112 Appendix 7: Interview transcripts Interview transcript interviewee 1 (16-4-20) R: Gaat u akkoord met het opnemen van het interview? Aangezien ik het na de tijd graag wil transcriberen en dan nu kan luisteren. 1: Ja dat is prima.

R: Zou u eerst kort een introductie kunnen geven van uw functie binnen het stedelijk voedsel beleid? 1: Mijn naam is XX en ik probeer de voedselvoorziening in en rondom Ede een beetje gezonder en duurzamer te maken samen met mijn collega’s. Ik doe dat als beleidsadviseur voedsel, dus dat houdt in dat ik mij bezighoudt met beleid dat echt over het hele voedselstysteem gaat van boer tot bord. Dat werk doe ik nu een jaar of 7, daarmee ben ik begonnen als eindstage van mijn master scriptie aan de universiteit van Wageningen. En dat combineer ik nu met het schrijven van mijn proefschrift en daar ben ik nu mee bezig. Mijn proefschrift schrijf ik ook bij de Wageningen universiteit bij de bestuurskunde groep over de ontwikkeling van stedelijk voedselbeleid binnen Nederland. En vanuit mijn werk in Ede ben ik ook betrokken bij het Locus project van de rurale sociologie groep en het sustainable food systems groepje. Dus vanuit mijn rol in Ede ben ik als Breakfast partner erbij aangesloten. Maar ik doe ook onderzoek in dat project.

R: Over het voedselbeleid van Ede. Hiervoor heb ik al een aantal beleidsdocumenten geanalyseerd, maar dit kan ik controleren en aanvullen door middel van de interviews. Dus hier heb ik nog een paar vragen over. Wat ziet u als de belangrijkste doelstelling van het voedselbeleid in Ede? 1: Op dit moment is het hoofddoel, de grootste ambitie die we hebben, is gezond en duurzaam voedsel voor iedereen in Ede. En dat betekent dus dat we het hebben over producenten en consumenten en iedereen daar tussen in. Dat voedselbeleid heeft 6 doelen, die staan ook in een documentje. Het belangrijkste is dat we kijken naar het hele voedselsysteem en dat is soms ook lastig, waar begint dat en waar houdt dat op. Wij kijken dus naar alle aspecten en de verschillende schakels en de economische achtergrond als het milieu. Een van de doelen in ons beleid is ook echt de systeem aanpak. Dat is een klein beetje vreemd, want dat is meer een proces doel, maar dat geeft aan hoe belangrijk wij dat vinden. R: Zou u het voedselbeleid van Ede meer als bottom-up of top-down zien hoe dat georganiseerd is? 1: Het is natuurlijk zo dat bottom-up veel mooier klinkt en dat is wat we willen of waar nu een mooi frame omheen hangt. In Ede zou je het misschien meer als top-down kunnen zien en dat is dan meer negatief frame. Maar de gemeente Ede heeft vanuit de overheid hierin echt een leiderschapsrol gepakt. Dus daarin de lead nemen en verantwoordelijkheid nemen. En dat is echt wel vanuit de gemeente, de wethouders, de ambtenaren, het college, de raad. Maar zeker hebben we daarvoor ook inwoners geraadpleegd, maar het is meer vanuit de overheid gestart.

R: Als je kijkt naar de resultaten tot nu toe, zie je al op bepaalde gebieden impact of wat zijn de resultaten tot nu toe? 1: Als je kijkt naar de uitkomsten van beleid heb je natuurlijk veel verschillende soorten uitkomsten. Je hebt tastbare uitkomsten, politieke uitkomsten, proces uitkomsten, verwacht, onverwacht. Dus het is best lastig om dat al direct te kunnen aangeven. Maar wat je ziet qua

113 proces is dat het best wel goed gelukt is om het onderwerp van voedsel, er is iets mis met ons voedselsysteem, en daar stellen wij de lokale overheid verantwoordelijk voor. Dat dat veel meer geagendeerd is geraakt de afgelopen jaren, dat dat meer tussen de oren zit van de mensen, ohja dat is logisch, dat is iets waar we aan moeten werken. Dat is al een hele grote stap, dat lijkt heel logisch, van ja als gemeente ga je toch over gezondheid, over economie en ook over voedsel, maar dat is dus helemaal niet zo. Dus dat is iets, dat dat zowel bij de voedselraad, de bestuurders en de gemeentelijke organisatie dat dat meer is geland. Maar we zien ook wel meer samenwerking met bijvoorbeeld de universiteit van Wageningen of de Christelijke hogeschool en partners in de gemeente. Maar ook wel degelijk wel tastbaar resultaat, we doen al meerdere jaren het schooltuinen project, met steeds meer scholen, waar nu ruim een derde van de Edese bassischolen een schooltuin heeft. Maar we hebben ook projecten waar boeren aan mee kunnen doen, bijvoorbeeld een masterclasss voor duurzaam bodembeheer en een masterclass over produceren voor de korte keten en de marketing daarvoor. Dus dat zijn wel degelijk tastbare projecten, maar meer op project achtig niveau. En de echte grote veranderingen in bijvoorbeeld regelgeving, of dat bij mensen in Ede het overgewicht afneemt daar is het nog een beetje te vroeg voor.

R: En bij bijvoorbeeld die projecten, hoe wordt dat georganiseerd, ligt dat initiatief bij de gemeente? 1: Je hebt als overheid beleidsinstrumenten, je maakt beleid over wat willen we doen en wat willen we bereiken. Dan is de volgende vraag, hoe wil je dat doen. Dan zijn er vier grote categorieën. Dat is geld, dat is hoe wil je dingen organiseren, mensen met elkaar verbinden en communicatief. Per beleidsdoel ga je na hoe willen we dit bereiken, voor sommige dingen gebruik je meer een communicatie campagne, voor andere dingen gebruik je je wet- en regelgeving en ga je het bestemmingsplan wijzigen zodat er daar bijvoorbeeld geen snackbar kan komen. En wat ik onderzocht heb is dat binnen voedselbeleid in Nederland vooral zachte beleidsinstrumenten, dus de niet dwingende beleidsinstrumenten, worden gebruikt. Dus dat zijn de vrijwillige instrumenten als een convenant, subsidie verstrekken en een communicatiecampagne en dat hebben we ook in Ede gedaan. We hebben budget voor ons voedselbeleid en dan denken we zelf oké we kunnen dit of dat project doen, maar daarvoor gaan we natuurlijk ook in gesprek met mensen uit de samenleving. Als ze een goed initiatief hebben kunnen ze hiermee aan kloppen en dan wordt het samen uitgevoerd. Maar met de schooltuinen is het bijvoorbeeld zo geweest dat de gemeenteraad, toen het voedselbeleid werd vastgesteld dat er ook een motie is gekomen en een opdracht waarin stond dat elk kind in Ede toegang moet hebben tot een schooltuin. Toen zijn we een partij gaan zoeken, het IVN, die doen milieueducatie, en daar hebben we aan gevraagd willen jullie die opdracht doen en daar werken we nu al een aantal jaren mee samen. Maar hoe je opdrachten uitzet dat heeft ook te maken met de hoogte van je budgetten. Soms moet je dat zo doen dat meerdere partijen zich kunnen intekenen. Dus dat zijn een beetje verschillende routes. En we hebben ook iets dat heet de FoodFloor. Daar hebben we een hele mooie samenwerking met een stichting in Ede met vrijwilligers. Dat is meer een platform en daar organiseren ze eens per jaar een avond waarin meerder mensen die een goed idee hebben voor het verbeteren van het voedselsysteem in Ede kunnen hun idee indienen en in contact komen met anderen en kunnen ze wat geld krijgen om met dat idee verder te gaan. En als gemeente financieren wij dit dus. En die stichting heeft ook een onafhankelijke account enzo en die beoordelen dan wie dat geld krijgt. Dus dat is echt zon samenwerking tussen de gemeente en de actieve inwoners.

114 Vergelijking met Ljubljana R: In Ljubljana focussen ze zich heel erg op het realiseren van korte voedselketens en ook het verduurzamen van de productiemethoden en ze willen daar meer zelfvoorzienend worden in de stad. Hoe kijk jij daaraan met betrekking tot de geschiktheid of ongeschiktheid voor Ede? 1: Ede is wat dat betreft een vreemde eend in de bijt als je kijkt naar welke steden er allemaal voedselbeleid maken. Want Ede is een erg grote gemeente als je kijkt naar oppervlakte, en er is dus zowel een stedelijke kern als een heleboel platteland als je kijkt naar wat binnen de gemeente Ede valt. Dus het is dus niet per se een stad die stedelijk voedselbeleid heeft, wij hebben en te maken met rurale problematiek en daar doen we wat voor en dus dat stedelijke. Stad en platteland is hierin heel dicht bij elkaar, dus dat maakt het ook makkelijker, maar ook dat we grote uitdagingen hebben. Onze boeren hebben net als elders in Nederland het moeilijk. Maar wij hebben wel beide, dus stad en platteland, valt binnen onze verantwoordelijkheid. Dus dat is een minder groot issue, wij zijn niet een heel groot stedelijk gebied waar je nergens meer voedsel kan krijgen, dat ligt hier allemaal nog veel dichter bij elkaar. Maar tegelijkertijd speelt dat natuurlijk ook wel dat die boeren hier voor de wereldmarkt produceren. Maar wat dat betreft lijkt Ljubljana misschien wel meer op Ede dan wanneer je het zal vergelijken met Amsterdam en Toronto omdat het natuurlijk wat kleiner is en nog dichter staat bij het platteland. Maar ik denk dat het een goede doelstelling is die op veel plekken logisch zal zijn. R: Ik zag ook dat Ede een project deed met korte ketens, klopt dat? 1: Ja, korte ketens is hier ook een doel. R: In Ljubljana focussen ze zich ook veel op bewustmaking van de lokale bevolking over het belang van lokaal voedsel en seizoenvoedsel en leggen ze ook moestuinen aan in de stad. Hoe kijkt Ede hier allemaal tegen aan? 1: Voedselbeleid is natuurlijk heel context afhankelijk en het gaat er in de kern om dat de mensen gezond en voldoende en duurzaam eten hebben. Maar in heel veel Westerse landen zie je een beetje dezelfde problematiek; de boeren hebben het moeilijk, de kinderen en de mensen in het algemeen weten vaak niet meer waar hun voedsel vandaan komt en de mensen hebben overgewicht. Ik weet niet voldoende van de lokale context van Ljubljana. Ik heb het idee dat ze daar wel iets meer vers eten en gezonder, maar ik denk dat het ook wel veel vergelijkbaar is met Ede. R: Wat misschien wel een groot verschil is is dat je daar ongeveer 800 kleine boerderijen hebt in de gemeente Ljubljana, dus de productie is daar veel kleinschaliger en gevarieerder. Hier hebben ze ook veel lokale boerenmarkten en dat soort dingen. En Ede hebben ze misschien wat meer grotere bedrijven die meer export gericht zijn. 1: Ja zeker, dat is zeker een belangrijk verschil. R: Is er ook veel interesse vanuit bedrijven in het project korte ketens in Ede? 1: Ja wel degelijk. Hier hebben we ook geld voor gekregen vanuit de provincie en hier zijn ook mijn collega’s mee bezig. Maar het bleek dus dat vooral het vermarkten en de afzet en het logistieke dat dat voor boeren de grootste knelpunten zijn om meer voor de korte ketens te produceren. Het produceren lukt de boeren wel, maar ze moeten er dan veel meer bij doen en dat gaat nu vaak via de grote kanalen. En daarom hebben we ook die masterclasses gehad voor wat je erna doet met je primaire product en daar was best wel wat animo voor. Maar het is niet voor elk bedrijf geschikt om daarin te stappen en die markt blijft natuurlijk nog steeds een niche markt. Maar wie weet wat de corona crisis gaat doen. Het zijn natuurlijk hele grote vragen, er zijn best wel wat boeren die dit zouden willen, maar die vast zitten aan grote contracten en leningen bij de bank.

115 R: In Ljubljana heeft de gemeente ook meerdere lokale markten in de stad aangesteld en automaten geplaatst met lokale producten erin en ze hebben netwerkbijeenkomsten waarbij ze lokale boeren, horeca en publieke instellingen samenbrengen zodat ze ook contracten met elkaar kunnen afsluiten. 1: Dat hebben wij in Ede ook gedaan. Wij hebben een netwerk NEON en dat hebben wij als gemeente geholpen om te starten en het idee was wel dat ze hier zelf verder mee zouden gaan. En dat is een netwerk voor allerlei voedselondernemers om met elkaar in contacten te komen. En we hebben ook initiatieven zoals Cooperatie het Boerenhart en Herenboeren die van start willen en daarmee bezig zijn. Het blijft elke keer wel het top-down en bottom-up dilemma; hoeveel doe je zelf als gemeente en hoeveel speel je in op de dingen die uit de maatschappij komen. Je wilt natuurlijk zo veel mogelijk het laatste doen, maar soms komt er niks en dan helpt het om soms zelf wat aan te dragen en bijvoorbeeld zon masterclass te organiseren. Als er bijvoorbeeld initiatieven komen die zeggen wij willen een zelfoogsttuin beginnen, dan zorgen wij dat we daar bijvoorbeeld veel media-aandacht aan geven en helpen we met het vinden van grond en dat soort dingen. R: Zie je ook nog een ontwikkeling dat dit meer en meer aan het komen is en dat er initiatieven komen of dat er meer interesse is voor voedselvraagstukken? 1: Het lijkt wel of dat meer is dat dat meer is dan een aantal jaren geleden, maar dat is lastig te zeggen of dat komt doordat we daar in Ede zoveel mee bezig zijn geweest of doordat er meer aandacht voor is door de maatschappij. Maar het is ook gevaarlijk omdat je er zelf veel mee bezig bent en er een heel team voor hebt dan lijkt het ook zo dat alles daar om draait. Wat ook helpt is het WFC, dat is ook iets heel concreets wat al een tijdje loopt en dat wordt dus een groot voedsel kennis en informatie centrum vlak bij het station. Dat wordt meer dan een gebouw, dat moet een soort campus worden met allerlei bedrijfjes en dingen. En dat is iets dat de afgelopen 7 jaar meerdere innovatieve organistische en bedrijven zich daar hebben gevestigd, die daar ook mee bezig zijn. En daar worden ook evenementen georganiseerd, zoals het voedselpad en dat soort dingen, dat gebeurt wel. Maar dat zie ik soms ook wel een beetje los van de rest van Ede. R: Zie je dat je daar misschien ook op grotere schaal invloed mee hebt, dat er veel mensen van buitenaf daar naartoe komen? 1: Ja dat klopt, de gewone Edenaar die denkt dan al vaak nou ja het zal wel.

R: Ik kijk in mijn onderzoek ook naar de stad-plattelands relaties, dat kun je lokaal zien, maar dat kun je ook breder zien, dat de stad hier bijvoorbeeld samenhangt met andere regio’s die verder weg zijn gelegen, dus ook internationaal gezien met gebieden in andere landen. Hoe kijkt u daarnaar? Ziet u die lokale of regionale of juist internationale verbindingen? 1: Ik werk ook in iets dat heet de CityDeal, meer voedsel op de stedelijke agenda, dat is een soort netwerk. Dus de vraag die ik van meerdere steden steeds krijg, vooral van grotere steden. Dat zij zeggen, hoe kunnen wij er nou voor zorgen dat onze inwoners duurzamer gaan eten en meer eten van dichtbij. En dat wij daar dan kosten voor maken om dat te organiseren, en de baten komen dan ergens anders. De baten liggen dus buiten jouw stad of misschien zelfs buiten ons land. En omdat de steden geen onderland hebben waar de gemeente over gaat, is het heel moeilijk om daar dan iets aan te doen. Ook bijvoorbeeld die korte ketens, een stad als Utrecht die hebben gewoon bijna geen landbouw, dus hoe kunnen zij dan iets doen aan duurzamere landbouw voor hun inwoners als ze daar helemaal niet overgaan. En dat is ook een beetje het idee van Carilin Steel, de autheur van de Hungry city, een best wel bekend boek. Dat gaat over de voedsel ontwikkeling van steden, dat steden altijd hun onderland

116 hebben gehad waarin voedsel wordt geproduceerd zodat dat in de stad kan worden opgegeten. Dus dat is iets waar ik wel iets over nadenk, moeten we die bestuurslaag niet weer zo hebben dat de stad en ook het gebied er om heen, dat dat weer bij elkaar zit, zodat een stad als Nijmegen samenwerkt met alle kleine gemeenten die er omheen liggen voor haar voedselproductie. Dat je daar een soort regio of samenwerking van maakt. Want dat is nu dus een lastig vraagstuk. R: Ede is hierin dus vaak anders omdat het een stad is die een agrarisch gebied eromheen heeft liggen. 1: Klopt, en het is niet eens alleen grote steden, want de gemeente Wageningen bijvoorbeeld. Dit is ook een hele kleine gemeente met alleen de stad en misschien een paar boeren in het binnenveld. Maar hier is bijna geen agrarisch gebied of voedselproductie. En misschien moet je ook niet willen dat ieder klein stadje eigen voedselvoorziening heeft. Maar zeker die grote steden die dan eigenlijk totaal geen contact hebben met en niet kunnen sturen op die voedselproductie, dat is lastig. R: Ik zag ook dat binnen Ede een deel van de gemeente zich bezighield met de rurale gebieden. Hangt dat ook op een bepaalde manier samen met dat stedelijk voedselbeleid? 1: Ja, zeker. En dat is dan altijd ook een beetje zoeken. Want dat is het buitengebied team en het programma buitengebied en die gaan daarover, maar het voedselbeleid is eigenlijk thematisch en dat gaat samen met alles wat te maken heeft met voedsel. En het buitengebied is meer ruimtelijk en geografisch en dat gaat dus over alles dat in het niet stedelijk gebied gebeurt, en dat is zowel voedselproductie, maar ook vakantie parken en toerisme en industrie en carvan opslagplaatsen en dat soort dingen. Dus deels overlapt het voedselbeleid en het buitengebied beleid, maar deels ook niet. Dus dat zijn twee verschillende schalen en dat maakt het soms ingewikkeld. Maar voedselbeleid gaat van boer tot bord, een aantal van onze doelen zijn korte ketens en natuur. En de agri-food sector is natuurlijk ook datgene dat binnen dat buitengebied beleid valt. En nu zijn we ook vooral bezig naar de toekomst toe, nog meer met hoe gaan we dat organiseren. Gaan we misschien tot meer het vraagstuk van duurzaamvoedsel en landbouw als 1 vraagstuk zien, wat dan weer apart staat van de rest van de zaken in het buitengebied. Of weer op een andere manier. Dat is dus nog een beetje een vraag. En dat laat ook zien dat het altijd moeilijk blijft om categorieën aan te brengen. Zeg je we kijken alleen naar die opgave van voedsel en landbouw. Ja voor heel veel onderwerpen is het logisch om meer die ruimtelijke bril te gebruiken en te kijken naar alles wat in het buitengebied gebeurt. Daar is niet 1,2,3 een antwoord op.

R: En wat denk je dat de invloed is van stedelijk voedselbeleid op stad-plattelandsrelaties. Denk je dat dit hier een bepaalde invloed op heeft? 1: Nou ja het doel is natuurlijk dat het daar een positieve invloed op heeft. Dat het zorgt dat inwoners weer meer contact krijgen met hoe hun voedsel wordt geproduceerd en dat inwoners weer meer contact krijgen met boeren. Maar of je kunt zeggen dat beleid heeft daar op dit moment al een invloed op heeft dat is heel lastig. Dat heeft ook te maken met evaluatie, hoe evalueer je je beleid. Dat kunnen kleine dingen zijn, ik denk dat het moeilijk is om dat hard te meten. Dat is mijn laatste artikel van mijn proefschrift, waar ik nu mee bezig ben, ook voor ROBUST. Daar hebben we deze vraag, het is leuk dat je voedselbeleid hebt en dat je daar mee bezig bent, maar hoe evalueer je dan hoe het werkt en wat het oplevert. R: Dat zal inderdaad wel lastig zijn aangezien je op veel verschillende dingen een invloed kan hebben die niet zo tastbaar zijn.

117 1: Ja dat is de ene kant, dat is altijd bij beleid. De andere kant is dat we met het voedselsysteem heel lang gericht zijn op dat er meer moet komen en dat het allemaal goedkoper moet. En nu willen we nu dus eigenlijk andere doelen bereiken. Maar de manier waarop je je succes meet bepaalt ook wat je succes is. En we hebben ons veel gericht op de economie en dat het goedkoop moet en gekeken naar hoeveel iets kost per kilo. En niet hoeveel biodiversiteit blijft er over per kilo of zo. Maar die nieuwe manieren van meten en die nieuwe criteria moeten echt ontwikkeld worden bij die nieuwe doelstellingen en dat is niet zo makkelijk.

R: En dat is dan misschien 1 van de uitdagingen waar je tegenaan loopt met het stedelijk voedselbeleid. Zijn er ook andere uitdagingen waar jullie tegenaan lopen in Ede met het stedelijk voedselbeleid? 1: 1 van de dingen, en dat is niet alleen in Ede, is hoe je het laat blijven, dus dat je zorgt dat het echt onderdeel wordt. Het is niet een project, het moet echt iets voor de lange termijn worden. Dus hoe je dat onderdeel van je organisatie maakt. Moet dat dan een programma worden met een eigen team of moet je het onderbrengen bij gezondheid. Of moet iedereen gewoon voor een klein stukje aan voedsel werken binnen zijn eigen bestaande terrein? En hoe zorg je ervoor dat niet iemand na de verkiezingen zegt, dat voedsel dat is niet echt nodig, dat gaan we niet meer doen. Wij hebben een aantal jaren gewerkt aan deze strategie en het opbouwen ervan. Het begint nu een klein beetje impact te krijgen, maar het is nog steeds altijd een risico dat dat allemaal weer van tafel verdwijnt. Dus dat is belangrijk. Een tweede iets is om verschillende beleidsinstrumenten ook nog meer te gaan gebruiken. En dan heb ik het voornamelijk om de meer dwingende, hardere instrumenten en dan heb ik het bijvoorbeeld over belasting. Want op dit moment, en dat is ook een beetje de Nederlandse bestuurscultuur, wordt er vooral gebruik gemaakt van zachtere instrumenten, dus meer vrijwilliger. Terwijl het waarschijnlijk goedkoper is en dat je meer impact zou kunnen krijgen als je ook bijvoorbeeld die wet en regelgeving gebruikt dat je zegt hier mogen vanaf nu nog maar de helft van de fastfoodketens komen. Of als je subsidie wilt voor je sportvereniging moet je een gezonde sportkantine hebben. R: En zou de gemeente dat soort regels ook mogen invoeren vanuit de overheid? 1: Ja daar zijn dus zeker wel instrumenten voor. En waarschijnlijk ligt er veel op het gebied van gezonde voedsel omgeving. Dat is wel een onderwerp waar wel echt aandacht voor is binnen de gemeentes in Nederland. Maar dat moet ook nog wel verder onderzocht worden hoe dat precies kan. Het is vaak zo dat er al snel gezegd word van dat kan niet, want dat mag niet. Maar vaak is dat zo niet, dan is het het kan niet, want dat doen we gewoon niet, want dat wil de politiek niet. Terwijl het vanuit de wet best zou mogen als je dat zou doen. Ook als je kijkt naar aanbestedingen en zo, bijvoorbeeld eten in je eigen bedrijfs restaurant, nou dat mag je doen. Als je bijvoorbeeld zegt, we doen het vanaf nu vegetarisch. Of we willen alleen nog producten die duurzaam zijn of uit de regio komen. Daar zijn wel regels voor, maar daar is veel meer mogelijk dan nu wordt gedaan. R: En zijn jullie daar nu binnen de gemeente ook veel mee bezig? 1: Euh ja. We zijn nu bezig met de vier grote gemeentes van Nederland zijn we bezig om te onderzoeken wat we voor een gezonde voedselomgeving kunnen doen met wet- en regelgeving. Daar zijn wij mee bezig. Maar er zit ook een verschil tussen wat je als beleidsmakers wilt op het gebied van voedsel en wat de politiek wil en hoe ze dingen willen framen. Dat voelt als een gevoelig onderwerp, dan werkt dat wel en dan is dat op andere plekken al ingevoerd, maar dan willen politici dat in Nederland niet. Bijvoorbeeld de suikertaks dat is een mooi voorbeeld daarvan.

118

R: En stad-plattelands relaties, zien jullie daar nu bepaalde uitdagingen in of nemen jullie daar bepaalde maatregelen voor om dat te verbeteren? 1: Niet specifiek de stad-plattelandsrelatie opzich. Zoal ik al zei staat dat in Ede nog best wel dicht bij elkaar. Veel mensen in Ede die hebben nog familie die een boerderij hebben of dat is nog maar 1 of 2 generaties geleden. R: Op dat gebied lijkt het best wel op Ljubljana. Daar vertelden ze dat Ljubljana best uniek was omdat de stad-plattelandsrelaties daar nog best sterk waren en iedereen daar nog wel familie ergens op het platteland had en nog heel bewust waren over hoe hun voedsel werd geproduceerd en waar hun voedsel vandaan komt. Dus misschien komen Ede en Ljubljana daar wel een beetje op overeen, waarbij Ljubljana het waarschijnlijk iets sterker heeft. 1: Maar er is ook wel verschil. Want in Ede hebben wij best wel wat inwoners met een migranten achtergrond waarvoor dat anders is, hier heb je bijvoorbeeld Marokkaanse mensen, Turkse mensen, Indonesische mensen en die hebben dan vaak niet familie in het buitengebied. Ik weet ook niet precies hoe het daarmee zit, maar ik denk dat ze dan in Ljubljana minder hebben. Dat je echt grote groepen hebt met een migratie achtergrond. Ik denk dat er dan minder aandacht is voor de relatie stad-platteland en meer aandacht voor de problematiek op het platteland. Bijvoorbeeld ook met de stikstof crisis, en dat boeren ook moeite hebben met hun hoofd boven water te houden. Dat is een urgenter probleem dan dat de mensen dan niet meer weten wie die boer precies is. En natuurlijk heeft het wel veel met elkaar te maken.

R: En zijn er ook dingen die jij als mogelijkheid ziet waar de gemeente Ede mee aan het werk kan om die stad-plattelandsrelaties nog beter te maken of om op een andere manier in te vullen? 1: Nou ja wat ik zelf een heel interessant onderwerp vind, maar wat wel heel gevoelig ligt is die eiwit transitie. Dus waar vorig jaar veel om te doen was was de halvering van de veestapel; wel of niet? Dat speelt in Ede natuurlijk ook heel erg. Wij hebben een hele grote en intensieve veehouderij sector met veel varkens en kippen. En dat neemt ook heel veel ruimte in ons buitengebied. Maar dat is politiek heel gevoelig, dus daar hebben wij geen beleid voor ofzo. We gaan niet zeggen wij willen als Ede minder varkens. Want we moeten voor alle boeren goed blijven zorgen. Maar ik denk dat we daar uiteindelijk niet meer echt om heen kunnen, omdat wij wel een van de gebieden zijn waar je dat het meeste hebt, die veehouderij. Dus dat vind ik wel interessant, hoe dat straks verder gaat.

R: De vragen die ik heb opgesteld hebben wij nu allemaal behandeld. Maar zijn er nog dingen waar u het nog graag even over wilt hebben of wat u nog belangrijk vindt binnen dit thema? 1: Ik denk dat dit het wel zo’n beetje was.

119 Interview transcript interviewee 2 (23-4-20)

2: Ik ben wethouder buitengebied van de gemeente Ede, inmiddels de tweede periode. Ik vind het leuk om eerst iets te vertellen over de gemeente Ede. Ede is heel erg groot voor Nederlandse begrippen, als je kijkt naar gemeente oppervlakte. En het is ook al 200 jaar in de huidige omvang gemeente. Het is ook heel lang de tweede grootste gemeente van Nederland geweest. Door gemeentelijke herindelingen zijn we nu naar plaats acht verplaatst. Het is al heel lang een gemeente in Nederland waar, eigenlijk sinds de tweede wereldoorlog een grootstedelijke kern is ontstaan, en dat is de kern Ede. En daar wonen meer dan 80.000 mensen en dan hebben we de dorpen en het buitengebied, waarvan twee groteren; Lunteren en Bennekom, die ook al 15.000 inwoners hebben. En er zijn daarnaast nog diverse kleine kernen. Wat kenmerkend is voor de gemeente Ede anno nu is dat meer dan de helft Natura2000 is, dat komt omdat Nationaal park de Hoge Veluwe op ons grondgebied ligt, zeg maar 90%. En er zit ook nog een Natura2000 kern in het Binnenveld, dat is is Bennekom. Daarnaast hebben we een heel groot agrarisch buitengebied, van oudsher de Gelderse Vallei genoemd. En daar is al sinds eeuwen heel veel agrarische activiteit. En sinds de tweede wereldoorlog en de groei van de kern Ede zijn we Nederland in het klein geworden, want we hebben stad en platteland in 1 gemeente. Ook als we het bijvoorbeeld hebben over stikstof of andere zaken die raken aan diverse functies en ruimte gebruik dan zeg ik wel eens dat Ede het kanarie pietje in de kolenmijn is. Omdat we juist hier altijd al heel erf voorlopen op de rest van Nederland en echt al voelen wat die verschillen doen, gewoonweg omdat ze zich bevinden in 1 gemeente. We hebben ook qua cultuur, de gemeente Ede heeft grote provincieale weg N224, dan zeg ik weleens daar heb je onder en boven. En daar heb je bij, zo zeg ik wel eens van de quinoa etende foodie community totaan de reformatorische kalverboeren in het noorden en alles wat daar tussen in zit. En als het gaat om voedsel en voedselbeleving en cultuur verenigen we ook ongeveer alles in Ede en is dat ook in mijn beleving de reden dat we nu ook als eerste gemeente in Nederland zo voorop lopen in zowel het landelijke verbinden van het buitengebied en de stad als reduceren stikstof en dat is ook omdat we hier een ligging hebben van de gemeente met goede eigenschappen daarvoor.

R: Dank u wel voor deze introductie. Ik wilde u ook al vragen om een introductie op de situatie in Ede te geven en ook de stad-plattelands relatie hierin. Ede is ook uniek doordat ze beschikken over en stad en platteland. Veel andere steden die een voedselbeleid hanteren beschikken niet over veel agrarisch gebied.

2: Er zijn wel gemeenten die dat hebben hoor, die ook wel echt agrarisch gebied hebben, maar die hebben er een soort minder plek voor. Ik ben bijvoorbeeld lid van de G40 en daar zit ik in het bestuur. En ik heb ontdekt dat gemeenten als Almere en het Haarlemmermeer en ook in Brabant diverse gemeenten, dat zij wel degelijk buitengebied hebben, maar dat het zo niet meer in het DNA van de gemeente zit dat het een soort van opnieuw ontdekken is. En het bijzondere van de gemeente Ede in die zin is, en dan ben ik ook even heel eerlijk, de gemeente Ede heeft ook jarenlang een identiteitscrisis gehad; zijn we nou een stad of meer een dorp, stedelijk of het platteland. Dit zie je in heel veel dingen terug komen, ook als je de geschiedenis van Ede bekijkt en eigenlijk ook in de diverse stromen, in het gemeentehuis en ook in de ambtelijke organisaties. We zijn nu tot de conclusie gekomen we zijn het gewoon echt allebei, je moet ook niet proberen ze tegen elkaar uit te spelen, maar proberen te kijken hoe wij in Ede een voorbeeld kunnen zijn voor de rest van Nederland. Waarbij grote steden vaak heel

120 erg naar binnen gericht kunnen zijn en denken het platteland is niet gewenst, even heel oneerbiedig gezegd. Nee je bent onderling van elkaar afhankelijk en dat besef daar hopen wij als Ede een bijdrage aan te leveren.

R: Dus eerst hadden jullie als Ede een soort identiteitscrisis en daarna hebben jullie dus besloten wij hebben beide en dat is misschien ook ons sterke punt. Maar wanneer heeft zich dat zo ongeveer ontwikkeld? Is dat de laatste jaren?

2: Nou dat heeft ook wel een aanleiding, want in de Ede in de gemeenteraad zitten ook alle partijen, we hebben een hele grote SGP, we zijn de enige groep met zon grote SGP. En daarnaast hebben we ook alle andere partijen, van links tot rechts zal ik maar zeggen. Dus heel breed en ook lokale partijen. En eigenlijk sinds 2012 al dat het gemeentebestuur dacht, ja wat kunnen we nou als thema kiezen dat niet polariseert in de gemeente Ede. Waar kunnen zowel SGP’ers als Groenlinksers zich achterschalen, zo maar te zeggen. En uiteindelijk is dat het gene wat we eten, ons voedsel, of we dat nou leuk vinden of niet. En op de achtergrond de ideologie ook die we hebben wat we ook vinden, we zullen allemaal opstaan en een boterham eten of iets anders om in leven te blijven en we hebben allemaal kleding aan wat uiteindelijk ook uit onze schepping komt, wat ook van huiden van dieren afkomt of whatever. Daarin heb je eigenlijk een hele belangrijke verbindende schakel te pakken. Toen hebben we als gemeentebestuur gezegd, dat is al in 2012 geweest, voedsel is het kernthema van Ede. Maar goed dan heb je een mooie eerste stap gezet. Maar ontwikkelingen die daarin ook heel cruciaal geweest zijn is dat twee colleges op rij al ervoor hebben gekozen om deze visie over te nemen, dus niet opeens een andere kant op te gaan. Dus dat is ook van belang bij voornamelijk het buitengebied en de landbouw dat je een lange termijn visie durft te gaan uitvoeren. En lange termijn en politiek zijn doorgaans best moeilijk te combineren. Dus dat is een hele belangrijke ontwikkeling geweest, dat twee colleges, twee raden eigenlijk hebben gezegd; voedsel en landbouw blijven belangrijk voor ons, en dat heeft zich uiteindelijk ook door vertaald in de belangrijkste kernbegrippen van Ede. Dat zijn voedsel en Veluwe. Waarin we eigenlijk ook het punt voedsel hebben omarmd, ook omdat we wonen waar we wonen. En in ons beleid is er ook nadrukkelijk aan beide kanten fors geïnvesteerd in zowel stedelijk voedselbeleid als op buitengebied en landbouw en landbouw vernieuwing. Daar hebben we intern, dat is wel eerlijk om te zeggen, ook best wel lang en veel strijd om gestreden. Om zo te zeggen de quinoa etende foodies anders kijken naar voedsel en voedselbeleving dan bijvoorbeeld de kalverboeren. En dat polariseert natuurlijk best wel sterk in Nederland. En nu ook met die stikstof, dat zit er allemaal natuurlijk wel echt onder en achter. En het blijft nu echt van belang om met elkaar te blijven bekijken wat is nou echt waar we allemaal van afhankelijk zijn en in Ede hebben we gezegd, uiteindelijk is dat biodiversiteit. En heel bewust kiezen we niet het woord natuur, want dat is eigenlijk al een gepolariseerd woord. Als je bij de boer het woord natuur zegt, dan begint die al wel een beetje vlekken te krijgen. En wat we echt geprobeerd hebben is met het programma biodiversiteit echt een eenduidige kernboodschap neer te zetten. Die natuur die kan in de stad zijn, die kan in het buitengebied zijn, in het landelijk gebied zijn en in natuurgebieden zijn, die is namelijk overal, maar daar waar die is, is het belangrijk dat die geen obesitas of anorexia veroorzaakt aan die natuur. En concreet hebben wij In het buitengebied al een aantal jaren twee dingen lopen; 1. Is bodem cursussen, bodemverbetering en we hebben boeren die heel conservatief waren die nu de voorvechters zijn. En het tweede is onze willy wortel stallen. Dat is dat we vanaf 2016 al emissie aan de bron afvangen, dit was al voor de stikstofcrisis. En het derde is dat we in onze

121 ruimtelijke ordening perceelinventarisatie doen. Dat betekent dat we op perceel niveau zijn gaan kijken wat is er aan de hand. En dat betekent dat een heleboel discussies in Ede van wel of niet saneren. Want er zijn twee dingen ontdekt, dat dat in Ede niet noodzakelijk is want er stoppen al zoveel boeren in Ede, dat meer de zorg is hoe houden we de agrarische sector overeind. En het tweede waar we zijn achter gekomen is dat intern salderen, wat dan genoemd wordt bij de stikstof, heel goed mogelijk is. Zelfs of juist door onze nadruk op de biodiversiteit. En dat komt omdat de klimaatneutraliteit en de natuurinclusiviteit in het bouwen is verplicht gesteld. Wij hebben gezegd voor partijen die willen bouwen dit is de norm, hier moet je aan voldoen. Wil jij in Ede een vergunning krijgen dan moet je hier en hieraan voldoen.

R: Dus de gemeente heeft ook best wel veel ruimte daarin om aan die regelgeving bepaalde eisen te stellen? Want volgens mij gaat voor landbouw en buitengebied ook wel veel regelgeving via provinciale wegen. Wat van eisen stellen jullie precies aan bouwen?

2: Natuurinclusiviteit en klimaatneutraliteit, maar ik kan je daar ook informatie over toesturen. Wij hebben een landbouwvisie voor Ede vastgesteld. Die is raad breed aangenomen en daar ben ik ongelofelijk blij mee. Want dat betekent dat van SGP tot Groenlinks zich hebben verenigd achter deze visie en ook hoe we ermee aan de gang willen gaan. En mijn stelling is dat als je teruggaat, even heel eenvoudig gezegd, ik weet niet of je de Pyramide van Maslov kent, met onder aan de basisbehoefte. R: Ja. 2: Voedsel, kleding en bescherming en dan stapje hoger. Maar die basis zijn we naar terug gegaan en dan hebben we opnieuw gekeken. Alle mensenkinderen, van welke planeet of politieke kleur je ook maar bent, hebben en houden behoefte aan voedsel en gezond voedsel. En daarin zijn we afhankelijk van onze aarde en onze schepping. En dan is het heel verstandig dat patronen die we hebben ontwikkeld die obesitas of anorexia aan die schepping veroorzaken, net als met mensenlichaam, als je te veel of te weinig van iets binnenkrijgt, dan word je ziek. Dat is ook zo met de bodem. En in Ede hebben we verschillende soorten, we hebben hele hoge zandgronden waar andere habitatdoeleinden en typen natuur voortkomen dan de natte gronden van Ede veen. We hebben 5 verschillende grondsoorten en landschap typen in 1 gemeente. Maar dat betekent dus dat wat je op die hoge zandgronden doet, niet los kunt zien van datgene wat je in Ede veen moet doen. En wat je landelijk ziet is dat er veel te sectoraal, single issue, wordt gekeken naar een ontwikkeling. En dat is eigenlijk ook een beetje de fatale geschiedenis van de landbouw geweest. Een heel mooi voorbeeld daarvan is Fipronil. We hebben hier in de regio in de vorige periode een fipronil crisis gehad. Als je dat helemaal goed terug analyseert is 1 van de belangrijkste zaken die het mogelijk heeft gemaakt zaken die misgaan is het type stallen, en die stallen zijn weer het gevolg van de regelgeving die is afgekondigd. En dat heeft weer te maken met de mest in die stal. Heel lang geleden waren er buig stallen en dat betekende dat de kippenpoep in die stal bleef. Maar toen kreeg je de ammoniak regeling die dat heeft veranderd. Maar daarmee is de natuurlijke vijand van de bloedluis ook uit de stand verdwenen, de mestkever. En doordat die poep uit de stal ging en daarmee de natuurlijke vijand ook, kreeg je een enorme explosie van bloedluis. Dus dat betekent dat boeren in nieuwe stallen gigantisch veel last kregen van bloedluis. Daarna kwam Chickfriend, dat bedrijf dat kwam met het wondermiddel tegen bloedluis natuurlijk een verschrikkelijk vervolg op geweest. Maar als je dus goed terugkijkt heeft het dus te maken met het uit elkaar trekken van de kringloop. En wat wij in Nederland veel hebben gedaan is het

122 opsplitsen van de natuur in stukjes en dat zie je ook bij stikstof. Want we hebben het nu telkens over stikstof, maar stikstof is maar 1 stofje dat zich niet separaat van het milieu bevindt. Die zit altijd in combinatie met andere stofjes en andere zaken. Dus onze visie is je biodiversiteit is je totaal en die moet je heel goed voor ogen houden als je met elkaar dingen wilt veranderen, en dus niet maar 1 stukje eruit halen.

R: Ik zag ook dat jullie een inventarisatie deden bij de boeren in de gemeente Ede. Loopt dat onderzoek nog? Of zijn daar al resultaten uit voort gekomen? 2: Ja dat loopt nog. Even voor jouw beeld; Wij hebben rond de 1100 agrarische bedrijven in de gemeente Ede en we hebben er nu zo’n 500 bezocht en dat heeft ongeveer al 3 kwartjaar gekost, dus dat kost heel veel moeite. Want je gaat echt letterlijk de boer op, van perceel naar perceel. En wat we eigenlijk ontdekt hebben, is wat we eigenlijk ook al wel wisten, dat is dat het enorm terug loopt.

R: is dat ook hoger dan het landelijk gemiddelde? W: Dat weet ik niet precies, maar het loopt wel hard terug. Want we hebben toen al een keer in kaart gebracht dat we van 800 echt actieve agrarische bedrijven teruglopen naar 200. R: En zijn dat voornamelijk kleine bedrijven die dan stoppen of zie je daar iets in terug wat van soort bedrijven er dan stoppen? 2: Ja in onze landbouwvisie hebben we 4 typen bedrijven geïdentificeerd, eigenlijk 5. De eerste is producent voor de wereldmarkt, dus dat is een bedrijf dat ver afstaat van zijn grondstoffen en zijn consumenten. Dat zijn zeg maar de kalversector en de wat meer geïndustrialiseerd vormen van landbouw. Tweede categorie is de korte keten. Dus dat is de boer die meer lokaal gericht is, B2B, B2C te produceren. Die probeert daar een verdienmodel voor te krijgen, maar dat is vaak nog maar een niche in de markt. We hebben al wel in de gemeente en in de regio Boerenhart, dat is een coöperatie die eigenlijk al die boeren met elkaar verbindt waardoor producten eigenlijk zeg maar verzameld worden en daarmee ook in gezamenlijkheid wordt aangeboden aan restaurants. Waardoor er ook echt een goed verdienmodel onder kan komen. De derde categorie is de nevenactiviteit boer. Dat is de boer die naast zijn boerenbedrijf ook nog een andere soort tak heeft, zoals zorg of een andere activiteit. En de laatste is de stopper, die ermee ophoudt. In het land is heel vaak beleid gevoerd ingegeven door maar een zon type boer. En wat je ziet is dat dat niet helpt om al die boeren te helpen. Dus wat wij hebben gezegd is dat we niet 1 type boer gaan helpen, maar we gaan ze allemaal helpen, daar waar zij staan. Dus ook die grote keten boer gaan wij helpen om stappen te zetten richting Willy wortel stallen, met bijvoorbeeld bodemcussussen, naar het verduurzamen binnen zijn keten. En alles doen wij met haalbaar en betaalbaar als uitgangspunt. We hebben het ook samen met de sector ontworpen. We kunnen niet overeen boer heen gaan, we moeten het met de boer doen. En daar hebben we een heel belangrijk punt aangegeven ‘Pad afhankelijkheid’, het is een beetje een duur woord. Maar het betekent dus dat als jij een investering doet in je woning, je gaat een nieuwe ketel in je woning zetten, dan kost dat 1000 euro en dan weet je dat met de afschrijftermijn, daar moet ik wel 10/15 jaar mee doen ik zeg maar wat. Dat is bij een boer niet anders; als die een investering heeft gedaan kan die niet het jaar ernaar weer een investering doen. Dat is niet te doen, dan gaat die over de kop. Dus daarom hebben wij gezegd, die pad afhankelijkheid respecteren wij, maar binnen die pad afhankelijkheid gaan we kijken wat kan er voor het bedrijf wel. Bijvoorbeeld de bodem beter te beheren of je erfbeplanting te vergroten. En nu zijn we ook bezig met rekenmodellen of boeren met dieren er wellicht minder kunnen gaan houden. Maar dat de compensatie van 2

123 of 3 minder dieren ook kan worden gecompenseerd met een ander soort bijdrage, doordat ze bijvoorbeeld geld krijgen voor biodiversiteit op het perceel. Want dat is ook mijn ervaring in de jaren dat ik hier bezig ben; de boer is vaak in de slachtoffer hoek gekomen en heeft alleen maar regelgeving en regelgeving gekregen. En wat wij zeggen is dat het herstel van vertrouwen hier er enorm aan bij heeft gedragen aan de doelen die we met elkaar willen bereiken. Want mijn ervaring is dat zeker 85/90% van de boeren en vooral jonge boeren ook heel graag mee willen met nieuwe vormen, van bijvoorbeeld bodembeheer of stalbeheer. En dat blijkt ook uit de cijfers want in 2 jaar tijd hebben we 30% reductie op stikstof en fijnstof weten te realiseren met die nieuwe stallen.

R: Ik wil ook graag even de situatie in Ljubljana voorleggen en vertellen wat ze daar aan het doen zijn. Zodat we kunnen kijken of zoiets wel of niet in Ede zou kunnen passen en waarom wel/niet. In Ede focussen ze zich veel op de governance en de organisatie van het voedselbeleid en in Ljubljana op korte ketens en duurzamere manieren van productie en meer zelf-voorzienendheid van het stedelijk gebied. Hoe kijk je daar tegenaan, geschiktheid of niet geschiktheid voor Ede. Daar hebben we het net misschien ook al wel over gehad dat het hier soms breder is dan 1 type boer. 2: Jazeker, dat is absoluut breder. Het is volgens mij allebei van belang. Een van de dingen, zeker nu corona is aangebroken, die ik nog scherper ben gaan zien dat als overheid heb je taken en verantwoordelijkheden. En publieke waarden beschermen, of eigenlijk weer opnieuw gaan beschermen blijft zeker nu ook echt wel belangrijk. Even weer terug naar die Pyramide van Maslov; voedsel en energie en medicijnen, even de belangrijkste 3. Dan zie je dat we van alle 3 deels afhankelijk zijn geworden, door de globalisering en neoliberale handelsstructuren, van landen waar wij nou niet direct een voorbeeld aan willen nemen als het gaat om bijvoorbeeld mensenrechten of natuur. Bijvoorbeeld Brazilië of China of Ukraine. Dat betekent dus dat wij als overheid, en dit is volgens mij een land in Europa wat jij hebt onderzocht. In mijn beleving is het slim als Europa gaat nadenken over het weer terughalen van maakindustrie rondom medicijnen, die hadden we hier eerst, maar dat is nu allemaal weg. Hetzelfde geldt voor energievoorziening en onze voedselvoorziening. Want geopolitiek gezien best wel in gevaarlijk vaarwater komt als je wordt afgesneden van dit soort vitale bronnen, als we dat zelf niet meer kunnen. Even terugkomend op jouw vraag; ik denk dat het allebei nodig is. Om het niet meer alleen maar aan de markt over te laten en de bedrijven zelf, maar juist een stevige samenwerking belangrijk met je lokale bedrijven, welke type bedrijven het ook zijn, wat ik net ook al zei. Want ook bedrijven die wel voor de wereldmarkt produceren, die kun je niet ineens zeggen, joh ga wat anders doen. Want we hebben met elkaar, sinds Mansholt, 40 jaar lang zo opgebouwd, dat ga je niet in een jaartje terugdraaien, dus dat is een lange termijn project zeg maar. Ik denk juist dat de bewustwording bij overheden dat voedsel en landbouwbeleid ook lokaal wel degelijk een belangrijke kerntaak is omdat het om je publieke waarden gaat en de basisbehoeften voor je inwoners. Dat is een hele grote winst en wat hopelijk ook langzaam naar boven komt drijven. En zeker ook die producent mee nemen, wat wij ook in het buitengebied hebben gedaan is die governance wel vanuit een duidelijke rol nemen, maar niet zonder die lokale boeren. Want over ons, zonder ons werkt doorgaans echt niet.

R: Ik zag ook dat u bodem, biodiversiteit en verbinding als kernwoorden stelde. En die verbinding, op welke manier bedoelt u dat dan precies?

124 2: Wat je in Nederland ziet, en dat is ook waar ik volop in zit met die stikstof, wij zijn heel goed in systeemdenken in Nederland. En dan hebben we het ook veel over juridisch, het moet juridisch zijn dichtgetimmerd. Maar ik heb nog nooit een boom iets aan zien trekken van een weg of een bepaalde diersoort. Ik heb ook weleens gelachen, dan heb ik een kaartje gekregen van iemand die zegt; in ons gebied doen de vogels dit. En dan zeg ik; oh heb je ze dat met een aangetekende brief dan laten weten ofzo, dat ze daar moeten blijven. Ik bedoel zo werkt het niet echt. Dus de kunst is om door doelen te stellen, en niet zozeer te kijken wat er wettelijk wel of niet mag, maar meer met elkaar doelen vast te stellen en te kijken wat willen we of moeten we met elkaar bereiken om het überhaupt voor ons allemaal nog leefbaar te houden, is een veel effectievere manier om met elkaar na te denken over de politiek. En mijn ervaring is dat die verbinding dan ook tot stand komt, omdat je een ander type gesprek krijgt. Een voorbeeldje wat ik zou willen noemen wat wij hier in de gemeente Ede hebben is, dat noemen wij de moedige gesprekken. Dat doen we niet in de aanwezigheid van de pers of wie dan ook, maar wat we daar doen is met de meest tegengestelde partijen om tafel gaan zetten. Dan kun je denken aan Greenpeace, wakkerdier, LTO, Natuurmonumenten, GNDF, wethouders, maar ook wetenschappers. En wat we doen is beginnen met een beeldenstorm en wat heel veel gebeurd is, en dat is mijn ervaring ook, ik kreeg als eerste reactie, ik ben van de CDA: ‘Oohh het CDA, wat vreselijk, ja die partij moet je eens kijken wat jullie al jaren hebben gedaan in de landbouw, vreselijk.’ En wat wij toen hebben gezegd is, ja als je zo blijft praten, in dit soort beelden, dan kom je alleen maar in ruzieachtige standpunt uitwisselingen. En wat we bij die moedige gesprekken doen is eigenlijk het CDA van mij afhalen, in dit geval dan en het Greenpease logo van de ander afhalen, enz.. En dan met elkaar kijken naar de bedoeling. En dan zijn we erachter gekomen, en dat is ook een van de belangrijkste bronnen in ons landbouwbeleid en biodiversiteit beleid, dat we allemaal zien dat het herstel van die bodem van belang is. Niet omdat dat een politiek standpunt is, maar omdat het gewoon broodnodig is, zeker nu met die droogte zie je dus dat de bodem in Ede en daar kan ik je ook wel bewijs van laten zien, want dan gaan we er met de drone overheen, bijvoorbeeld de illegale besproeide akkers, want die hebben we ook, boefjes in Ede. Maar degene die aan bodem verbetering hebben gewerkt daar is een zichtbaar beter adoptief vermogen van grote hostbuien en droogte. Maar die weerbaarheid, ik zeg ook altijd maar zo, dat als je als mens gezond bent, en je immuunsysteem goed functioneert en je niet te dik of te dun bent, dan is je weerbaarheid veel groter. Zo is het eigenlijk ook met de bodem en de natuur.

R: Dus je probeert ook in Ede vooral de gezamenlijke waardes op te zoeken zodat je niet tegenover elkaar komt te staan maar zoekt wat hebben we wat overeenstemmend is met elkaar en hoe kunnen we hieraan werken. In Slovenië doen ze ook veel aan netwerkbijeenkomsten met lokale boeren en de lokale overheid en verschillende schakels uit de voedselketen, maar ook met bijvoorbeeld scholen. En dan zetten ze verschillende mensen aan tafel en gaan ze kijken hoe kunnen we nieuwe samenwerkingen opzetten in de regio. Hoe kijkt u daar tegenaan, gebeurt dat in Ede ook dat soort dingen? 2: Ja zeker. We hebben de landbouwtransitie ‘Salentein’ en dat is een netwerk zoals jij beschrijft van publiek-private partners. Maar ook gewoon met mensen uit ons gebied, en die kan ik je ook doorsturen. Daar hebben we sinds een aantal jaren ook zo’n type samenwerking, maar ook bij scholen. We hebben ook veel wat op scholen gericht is, een van onze dingen is binnen ons programma biodiversiteit, dat we begonnen zijn bij de kinderen en de mensen in onze gemeente. Wat we hebben gezegd is de mensen dragen het gebied, we hebben levend landschap al een aantal jaren lopen en dat betekent dat het landschap en de biodiversiteit

125 wordt verstevigd, en daar investeren wij dan als overheid in. Dat we bijvoorbeeld tegen inkoopprijs de beplanting aanbieden en erfaangifte geven. Maar dat wordt gedragen door de dorpen en de gemeente zelf en de binnenstad zelf. En dat betekent dat scholen ook met groene schooltuinen, dat we ook een beloning hebben uitgekeerd, hoe groener je schooltuin, hoe meer punten hoe meer subsidie je kunt krijgen. En dat zijn eigenlijk positieve prikkels in plaats van een technocratische aanpak. Maar ik ben ook eerlijk, bij zo’n grote gemeente als Ede en we hebben hier ook 1000 mensen werken en ook afdelingen, blijft het ook blijvend anticiperen daarin. En het blijven luisteren naar de mensen buiten en samen optrekken is ook een bestuursstijl die niet iedereen even machtig is zeg maar. Dat betekent ook in mijn beleving, en dat is vice versa niet alleen vanuit de overheid, maar ook andersom, dat we elkaar moeten helpen doordat gesprek te voeren. En dat moeten we blijven doen, zeker als dat spannend wordt. We zitten dan ook met de stikstof, wij hebben een eigen Edese aanpak gemaakt. En dat betekent dat we juridisch buiten de lijntjes kleuren eigenlijk al een poosje. Die aanpak hebben we gemaakt met de boeren samen en de natuurorganisaties en bouwend Nederland, omdat al die partners zeggen, zoals Ede het doet hebben wij er vertrouwen in. Omdat wij niet tegen elkaar worden uitgespeeld, maar we zijn samen op weg om dat beter te krijgen. En ik word soms een beetje moe van die landelijke discussie en daar en als Ede zit ik daar ook bij het landelijk overleggen, waar elke keer weer de neiging bestaat om weer juridisch alles dicht te timmeren. R: Hoe bedoelt u dat? 2: Dat betekent eigenlijk, de discussies die ik hoor heel veel gaan over hoe moet het juridisch dichtkomen zodat Vollenbroek enzo er niet tegen in kunnen gaan. Terwijl ik denk, ga nou eens naast die boer staan en naast die natuurorganisaties en naast die bouwer. En wat wij hebben ontdekt door ernaast te gaan staan is dat ze zeggen; Willemien wij worden gek van die regels. En niet alleen die boer, maar ook die bouwer en die natuurorganisaties. En die regelreflex, want dat is het, het vastleggen van bestaande belangen, want dat is wat ik zie, en daar waarschuw ik ook altijd voor, is dat als je het bedrijfsleven met hele diepe zakken z’n gang laat gaan, die hebben diepere zakken dan de overheid hoor, qua geld, daar kunnen wij niet tegen op. Dus we zullen wel met elkaar de handen ineen moeten slaan om onze leefomgeving en leefbaarheid behouden. R: En die ontwikkelingen daarin gaan dus eigenlijk best wel goed, dus het wordt positief opgevat door de verschillende partijen? 2: Ja, in de gemeente Ede zeker. En in de regio FoodValley ook. Maar dat is niet iets wat we even hebben gedaan, daar hebben we jarenlang investeringen voor gedaan. We hebben als sinds 2014, 2013, 2012 al bezig om verbindingen te leggen. En ik heb ook het idee dat dat ons nu ook door de crisis heen gaat helpen als overheden en ook het landbouwnetwerk Salentein, een infrastructuur zeg maar hebben weten te bouwen, die bouw je niet in maanden. Dat is iets echt iets waar je lang mee bezig bent, maar wat ons nu gaat helpen.

R: En als u nu dan kijkt wat eigenlijk de grootste uitdagingen zullen zijn voor de toekomst, ook op het gebied van het buitengebied beleid en ook het voedselbeleid voor Ede, wat ziet u dan als grote uitdagingen? 2: Nou om even terug te gaan naar die pad afhankelijkheden wat wij hebben gedaan, ik kan het je ook doorsturen, wij hebben een kernboodschap afgegeven eigenlijk richting alle beleidsmakers, de oproep, eigenlijk de hartenkreet als we het hebben over extern salderen wat nu speelt, die discussie, laat het alsjeblieft lopen via een gebiedsgerichte benadering. En waarom zeggen wij dat, 1 van de grootste gevaren die ik zie is dat internationale bedrijven en

126 dat zien we ook gebeuren, dat Chinese bedrijven en andere bedrijven gronden opkopen en daarmee als het ware over de lokale eigenheid heenwalsen. Zowel qua opbrengst en het er samen voor staan. En dat vind ik een gevaar. Dus ik ben ook altijd, ondanks mijn landelijke partij standpunt, enorm tegen de Merkel..deal geweest, omdat ik van mening ben dat als je die internationale afhankelijkheden op die manier blijft vorm geven dan ben je straks als het geopolitiek anders loopt dan dat wij hopen en er niet altijd vrede zal zijn, dan ben je afgesneden van je belangrijkste hulpbronnen. En dat vind ik nog steeds een gevaarlijke dreiging, die eigenlijk boven Europa, maar ook Nederland en dus ook de regio Ede hangt. En daar zal ik me dus ook tot aan mijn laatste snik tegen verzetten. R: En wat ziet u dan als maatregelen om daar juist tegen in te gaan en samenwerking en het lokaal of regionaal te houden? 2: Het hoeft niet precies lokaal, het kan ook Europees om daar maareens mee te beginnen. West-Europa is een prima schaal om met elkaar handel te drijven. Maar ook de maat die wij onszelf opleggen in Europa, in Nederland, dat is een belangrijke he, om herstel van biodiversiteit en bodem en natuur te realiseren, dat doet Bonsanaro niet hoor. Dus een van de dingen die kan helpen is om via je belastingen en btw Bonsanaro gehakt anders te beprijzen dan je Europese producten die op een andere manier geproduceerd zijn. Zodat je ook die consument in de supermarkt anders laat kiezen als het gaat om prijs, want heel eerlijk, prijs is gewoon een belangrijke. We weten wel dat de echte idealisten die doen het wel via het voedselpakket, maar de meeste consumenten doen dat niet. En die zal dus ook echt, en ook omdat niet iedereen even rijk is en te veel te besteden heeft, kijken naar prijs. En ik denk dat het enorm gaat helpen om de beprijzen van onze voedselproducten anders te gaan doen en de regels die wij onze eigen boeren opleggen in Europa ook maareens gaan hanteren voor de import uit Brazilië en China en andere landen. R: Ik zag ook iets terugkomen dat Ede de verwaardingssystematiek anders wilde gaan organiseren voor agrarische activiteiten. Dus meer over de bodemvruchtbaarheid en dat ook berekenen in de grondprijs. Klopt dat? 2: Ja dat klopt. En we zijn ook al een stapje verder. We hebben al nieuwe pachtcontracten die we uitgeven aan boeren waarin dit geconditioneerd zit. Dus dat je beloond wordt als je in investeert in de bodem.

R: En dan nog een andere vraag. Want ik las ook dat jullie onderzoek uitvoerden naar de toeristische identiteit van Ede en de economische impact van recreatie en toerisme. Is daar al iets uit naar voren gekomen, wat is de toeristische identiteit van Ede? 2: Dat is wat ik net al zei; Voedsel en Veluwe zijn de kernbegrippen. En wat we daar ook doen is daar ook opnieuw natuur en biodiversiteit en toeristische beleving staan wel op gespannen voet. Normaal als je op natuurterreinen toerisme gaat bedrijven, dan blijft er van die natuur niet meer zo veel over zeg maar. Dus wat we daar proberen te doen, is enerzijds door sanering dat je de beleefbaarheid van een gebied vergroot door zeg maar goede paden aan te leggen, waar je wel mag lopen. Maar ook plekken waar dat dan niet kan. En te investeren in kwalitatieve uitgaven. Even oneerbiedig gezegd, maar je kan een Wibra en een Zara hebben als kleiding winkel. En wij zijn niet alleen opzoek naar de Wibra, die mag ook komen, maar het aanbod wat je aanbiedt is ook Zara zeg maar. En dat betekent dat je daarmee ook een stukje bescherming inbouwt voor je natuur en biodiversiteit. En daarnaast is natuurlijk het landschap ons belangrijkste effect als het gaat om recreatie en toerisme, en dat landschap beschermen tegen zoals ik dat noem schimmel, want als je alles altijd maar volbouwd met rood, huizen en werklocaties of energielocaties, dan is dat niet zo leuk fietsen zegmaar. Dat valt dan vies tegen.

127 Dus de kunst is om het landschap, het levend landschap, daarin ook centraal te stellen. En dus ook niet tegen elkaar uit te spelen, maar meer de opgave bij elkaar te brengen en te kijken, hoe gaan wij samen, lokaal met z’n allen die opgave oplossen. Want ook de lokale gemeenschap heeft wel energie nodig en zal ook om moeten gaan naar lokale energievoorziening. Maar dan heb ik liever een zonneveld dat lokaal wordt gedragen en waarvan de revenu lokaal terugkomt. Dan hebben de mensen ook het gevoel, ik verlies er niet alleen aan, maar ik win er ook aan. En dat daarbij ook gekozen wordt voor goede landschappelijke inpassing en goed behoud en bescherming van landschappen die je wilt.

R: En dat duurzame energie opwekken, valt dat onder het beleidsterrein van duurzaamheid, of heeft het programma buitengebied daar ook veel mee te maken? 2: Ja, maar dat is ook zo’n soort verplichte liefde die ik heb opgelegd. Die houden doorgaans niet zo van elkaar. Dus boer minded of energie minded vinden het lastig om elkaar te vinden. En dan zie je dat dit in de kern ook een explosief mengsel kan worden. En daarbij heb ik ook hard aangedrongen op dat verbinden en juist het gesprek te gaan voeren. En daar zijn we ook recent achter gekomen, van hej het lokaal, coöperatief opwekken van energie is vele malen geprefereerd dan bijvoorbeeld hectares vol te leggen met een grote Chinees bedrijf. Dus we worden selectiever aan de poort als het gaat om wie dat komt doen, en die partij moet het samen dat gaan doen. Waardoor je ook de angst eruit haalt van oh god het gaat over ons.

R: Oke, en dan ook nog een vraag over dat stedelijk voedselbeleid. Hoe hangt dat samen met het programma buitengebied. Hebben jullie daar veel inspraak in of hoe wordt dat georganiseerd? 2: Dat zijn zeg maar afhankelijk aparte trajecten geweest, dus het stedelijk voedselbeleid is heel erg ingezet op prille jongeren tot de oude dag. Maar we hebben ook een brug gebouwd en de programma’s over elkaar heen gelegd. Kijk als je slim met je bodem omgaat, het is ook aangetoond dat voedsel dat van die bodems afkomt, aanzienlijk beter en gezonder is, het bevat gewoon meer mineralen en vitaminen. Vroeger had je bijvoorbeeld de Wasserbommen, tomaten uit Duitsland. Dus hoe gezonder de bodem, hoe gezonder de producten, hoe gezonder de mensen die ze opeten. Wij hebben de slogan geïntroduceerd, de boer is de dokter van de toekomst. Waarmee wij eigenlijk ook ons stedelijk beleid daarmee introduceren en verbinden met het landelijke gebied. En die kun je ook omdraaien. En wat we ook doen is dat we het hebben over natuurinclusief boeren en ook boer inclusief naturen.

R: Even kijken, ik heb nu mijn belangrijkste vragen wel gesteld. Zijn er nog zaken die u graag zou willen delen over buitengebied of stad-plattelandsrelaties? 2: Een brug bouwen is 1, maar een brug onderhouden is twee. En ik denk dat dat een opgave zal blijven voor alle betrokkenen. Niet alleen nu, maar ook in de toekomst. R: Ja, dus dat is ook wel een van de uitdagingen omdat draaiende te houden? 2: Ja juist. Dat is net als bij een huwelijk, daar heb je ook goede en slechte tijden inzitten. Daar moet je dus wel met elkaar doorheen als het moeilijk en zwaar is. En wat ik het spannendste vind in onze tijden is dat er een heleboel risico en regelreflex optreden, dat je denkt van oh stress. En dat ik denk, van ja ga nou maar eens met elkaar op tafel en kijken wat er wel kan, in plaats van elkaar als vijanden te zien. Ook Johan Vollenbroek was erg enthousiast over het beleid in Ede. Hij was niet over alles enthousiast, maar in ieder geval over dit wel. En hij is ook gewoon een mens van vlees en bloed, en wij maken er soms echt beelden van, waarvan ik denk, nou dit helpt echt niet.

128 R: Is de grootste boodschap dan dat je gezamenlijk moet kijken naar wat er wel mogelijk is en niet tegenover elkaar gaan staan, maar juist het gesprek aan te gaan. 2: Precies. En dat dat ook moeilijk is, want ik ben daar zeker niet te rooskleurig over, in al die jaren. En dat is ook wel iets voor de mensen die in de frontlinie staan. En dat zie ik ook weleens in den Haag en ook bij mezelf. Wijs zijn en helder zijn en duidelijke spelregels aan gesprekken stellen, dat is wel van belang. Dus die moedige gesprekken, dat is niet alleen een leuk kroeg praatje, dat is echt een gesprek met spelregels en een voorzitter die zich aan de spelregels houdt. Want alleen dan ontstaat er veiligheid, dat ook iedereen recht van plaats krijgt. Dat vind ik een heel belangrijk aspect; recht van plaats. Of je nou een grote producent bent of een biodiverse boer of een natuurorganisatie met veel of weinig grond, iedereen heeft recht van plaats. Kijk maar naar jezelf, als je niet wordt herkend of erkent en je voelt je daardoor onzeker worden dan gaat het niet goed in het gesprek. Dus recht op plaats, maar ook de natuurlijke ordering, dus de overheid is niet een bedrijf en een bedrijf niet de overheid, dus houd je ook aan de natuurlijke ordening. En balans in geven en nemen, dus zorg dat je ook de balans houdt, en dat is ook een gevaar voor de overheid. Ik zeg ook altijd, ik heb die boeren juist nodig in een wederkerige balans van geven en nemen. Wel vanuit onze rol, maar ik kan het ook niet zonder hen.

R: Jullie hebben dan nu ook die food identiteit voor de gemeente Ede. Zie je dan ook nog dat die verbondenheid daarmee groeit. Dat bijvoorbeeld boeren aangeven dat ze meer verbinding voelen of is daar nog iets in op te merken? 2: Food als zodanig. Er is een groot spectrum als het gaat om de quinoa etende foodie en de kalverboer, daar zit een enorm groot verschil in. En ik kan niet meer dan benadrukken dat het ons aan de politiek zijnde is om daar die brug tussen te helpen bouwen. Want niet elke doelgroep zou aanslaan op het woord ‘food’. Sommige denken ja wat moet ik daarmee. Het is ook cultuursensitief communiceren, ook met woorden en taal. Dat doet er echt toe om dat beter te krijgen. R: Hoe bedoel je dat? 2: Als je het hebt over voedsel is het alweer anders in het buitengebied, die boer in Bennekom slaat meer aan op voedsel, dus dat zijn al hele kleine dingen. En dat blijft ook voor de bril houden en kijken wie heb ik nou voor mij. Kijk als ik met een natuurorganisatie praat dan probeer ik aansluiting te vinden met datgene dat die natuurorganisatie bezighoudt en vanuit daar probeer ik verbinding te leggen met wat die boer ook wil. En dan zeg ik hej jullie hebben hier een match. Dus je bent een soort match maker als de overheid. En juist die match making moet je in zekere zin in staat zijn om met diverse groepen de beleefwereld en de cultuurwereld van die groepen te benaderen. En dat is sensitief communiceren en proberen hierbij aan te sluiten. R: Dat is wel zeker allemaal interessant

Interview transcript interviewee 3 (04-05-20) R: Is het goed als ik het interview ook ga opnemen, zodat ik het later kan uitschrijven en de resultaten ervan kan verwerken? Het wordt alleen voor onderzoeksdoeleinden gebruikt en er zal vertrouwelijk worden omgegaan met de inhoud. 3: Ja prima.

R: Zal u als eerste een korte introductie kunnen geven over uw positie binnen de gemeente en dan voornamelijk uw positie in het stedelijk voedselbeleid?

129 3: Ja dat kan en dan geef ik gelijk een stukje introductie op het stedelijk voedselbeleid van de gemeente Ede. Wat in Ede gebeurde, dat is ongeveer in 2013, er waren een aantal grote ontwikkelingen gaande in Ede. Dat betrof het vertrek van het leger, van de defensie uit Ede, Ede had zeven kazernes en die vertrokken. En dat betekende dat er zo’n tweeduizend arbeidsplaatsen uit de gemeente Ede vertrokken en ongeveer tegelijktijdig ging de NK fabriek, die sloot zn deuren, die ging failliet, dat was van AkzoNobel, die trok zich terug en ook dat was een grote werkgever. Als je kijkt naar de afgelopen 100 jaar naar de gemeente Ede dan werd de ontwikkeling van de gemeente Ede eigenlijk behoorlijk gestuurd door die twee grote instellingen; NK fabriek en de kazernes. Met het vertrek van die twee dan kun je als gemeente denken oke we zien wel wat er op ons afkomt en dan reageren we wel. Dus komt de werkgelegenheid hier, vestigt een bedrijf zich hier, nou leuk, misschien kunnen we wat huizen bouwen voor die mensen, zo ongeveer. En je ziet dat aardig wat gemeentes op die manier werken. Maar hier hebben we gezegd, het liefst willen we onze eigen ontwikkeling sturen en een keuze maken voor daar waar wij goed in zijn. En toen is er een heel traject opgestart onder leiding van de vorige burgemeester, met ondernemers, met inwoners, met studenten, met de gemeenteraad. Wat is nou het thema dat bij Ede past en als je bedrijven naar je toe wilt trekken, wat van soort bedrijven moeten dat dan zijn. En toen kwam er uit die hele zoektocht dat voedsel wel echt een rode draad door de geschiedenis van Ede is. Ik kan je terugnemen naar de vierde eeuw voor Christus, toen waren hier al boertjes. Als je hier over vliegt dan zie je nog steeds de raadakkers, de Caltic fields. En sinds die tijd is hier altijd landbouw geweest. We hebben nog steeds 6/700 boeren in onze gemeente, maar ook in die tussentijd heel veel kennisinstituten voor voedsel. Natuurlijk net over de rand ligt Wageningen Universiteit. Maar ook in de gemeente Ede zitten veel instituten, NISO bijvoorbeeld, op het gebied van voedsel en kennis. Dus toen is gekozen, de visie voor Ede is voedsel, wij willen voedselgemeente zijn. We zijn het al, maar we moeten het ook uitspreken. In 2014 kwam het nieuwe college en toen hebben we gezegd, naja als dit de visie is, ‘Ede kiest voor Food’ als visie titel dan betekend dat er ook een wethouder moet zijn die zich daarop gaat richten. Dus een portefeuille met food, dat ben ik toen geworden, die dat gaat uitwerken. We hebben het uitgewerkt en dan niet zo van we doen wat moestuinen en dan hebben we food te pakken, maar toen is er gekozen het moet breed zijn, het moet zowel te maken hebben met die verbinding van de lokale producent met de stad, maar ook met onderwijs, ook met gezondheid, hoe richt je je openbare ruimte in. Dus we zijn toen op allerlei terreinen gaan kijken van wat kun je daar met voedsel zodat als er iemand van een voedselbedrijf naar Ede komt, ja hier hoor ik echt thuis want deze gemeente ademt echt voedsel. Dus dat is een beetje de start geweest, in 2014 ben ik voedselwethouder geworden, in 2018 opnieuw verkiezingen, toen mocht ik door en ben ik het gebleven.

R: Dus eigenlijk heeft de gemeente dan actief het voortouw genomen om te kijken welke koers we gaan varen en dat is toen Food geworden en in dat proces hebben ze dan ook de samenleving betrokken in hoe gaan we dit ontwikkelen? 3: Ja klopt. Een andere gemeente die heeft gekozen voor een duidelijke visie en koers is Den Haag. De stad Vrede en Veiligheid en daar zie je allerlei instituten op het gebied van vrede en op het gebied van veiligheid en ook het internationaal strafhof zit daar, maar ook alles daarom heen vind je in Den Haag. Dus dat is eigenlijk een beeld dat Ede voor zich had, oke dat wat ze in Den Haag doen met Vrede en Veiligheid, zo kunnen wij dat met voedsel.

130 R: En hoe heeft het voedselbeleid zich in de afgelopen jaren ontwikkeld? Hebben er veel veranderingen plaatsgevonden hierin, is het al steeds meer gaan leven, dat er verbondenheid wordt gevoeld met het thema? 3: Sorry ik kon je even slecht verstaan. R: Dat voedselbeleid is dus in 2014 opgezet en hoe heeft dit zich in de laatste zes jaar ontwikkeld. Zijn er belangrijke punten bereikt? 3: Wat er de afgelopen zes jaar behoorlijk ontwikkeld is, is je kunt dit als gemeente niet alleen, je kunt wel zeggen dit is onze visie en daar gaan we even werk van maken. Maar als je de samenleving en ondernemers niet mee krijgt dan is het leuk op papier, maar dan gebeurd er niks. Wij hebben als gemeente een voedselziekenhuis binnen onze grenzen. Dus een ziekenhuis dat los van de gemeente al gekozen had voor voedsel als een grote factor in je gezondheid. Dus samen met het ziekenhuis hebben we verschillende projecten opgestart om qua gezondheid te kijken naar onze inwoners. Een voorbeeld is dat het ziekenhuis ons vertelde dat flink wat zestig plussers ondervoed het ziekenhuis binnen komen. 70 tot 80% van de 60+ers die het ziekenhuis binnenkomen met een gebroken heup of wat anders zijn ondervoed. Ondervoed in de zin dat ze te weinig eiwitten eten en daardoor duurt het langer voordat ze klaar zijn voor een operatie en duurt het ook langer totdat ze hersteld zijn. Dus samen met het ziekenhuis en een thuiszorg instantie zijn ze gaan kijken hoe kunnen we ouderen nou helpen om gezonder te gaan eten. Dat zijn projecten die we hebben uitgevoerd. Maar ook zijn we begonnen, eerst met 10 basisscholen, om te kijken of we moestuinen konden aanleggen bij die scholen, door van die vierkante meter bakken op het schoolplein. En gekeken hoe kunnen we die scholen daarbij helpen want leerkrachten hebben al genoeg aan hun hoofd, en we hebben ze daarbij volledig ontzorgd en gezorgd voor de moestuinen. En daar zijn we klein mee begonnen bij een paar scholen om zo de kinderen te leren waar komt het voedsel nou eigenlijk vandaan. En inmiddels hebben zo’n 40 scholen, meer dan de helft van de basisscholen in Ede een moestuin en krijgen de kinderen voedselonderwijs. Kijk je leert rekenen en taal op school, maar iets wat je 3 keer per dag doet minimaal, eten, krijg je eigenlijk heel weinig van mee. Dat is op deze scholen nu anders, de kinderen op deze scholen weten dat wanneer je gesport hebt wat je dan beter kunt eten of je dan beter yoghurt of kwark kunt eten kunnen ze je precies vertellen. Waar wij achter kwamen is dat wanneer wij gezinnen willen helpen om hun afval te scheiden, dan kunnen we folders door de bus duwen totdat ze een ons wegen, maar de beste manier om ze te helpen is door op de basisschool de jonger kinderen te leren hoe je afval moet scheiden. Want vervolgens gaan al die gezinnen dat doen want die kinderen tikken hun ouders op de vingers. Hetzelfde kun je met voedsel doen, als je die kinderen leert wat goed voedsel is dan weet je dat je zo langzaam bij die gezinnen binnen kunt komen. Dus dat is met onderwijs. Met openbaar gebied hebben we gekeken, als je nieuwe wijken bouwt dan zet je daar bomen neer en die bomen moeten een beetje passen en in de gemeente is dat een berk en een eik en een beuk. Maar waarom denken we niet aan notenbomen en vruchtenbomen. Dus langzaam maar zeker is de afdeling openbare ruimte ook gaan kijken wat kunnen wij binnen de openbare ruimten met voedsel zodat mensen daar ook meer plezier van hebben. En ook wel die korte keten, je noemde net die verbinding stad- platteland. We zijn ook gaan sturen van, we zien natuurlijk dat de landbouw aan het veranderen is, dus een aantal boeren zullen blijven produceren voor de wereldmarkt of de Europese markt. Maar een aantal gaat dat niet redden of heeft daar geen zin in. En hoe kunnen we die nu helpen aan een ander verdienmodel. We hebben een makelaar ingezet, makelaar korte ketens, en die hebben er onder andere voor gezorgd dat onze drie verzorgingstehuizen hebben een convenants gesloten met de lokale producenten en ze nemen alleen lokaal

131 voedsel af. Dus onze verzorgingstehuizen worden bediend door de boeren uit de lokale omgeving en hun voedsel.

R: Dus met deze korte ketens hangt het voedselbeleid ook best wel samen met de processen in het buitengebied. In hoeverre heeft u het idee dat het voedselbeleid in Ede voor de rest samenhangt met de processen in het buitengebied. Hebben ze daar ook strategieën voor die ook echt op de boeren in het buitengebied van toepassing zijn. 3: Ja die korte ketens is 1 vorm. De boeren staan vaak op een kruispunt dat ze denken wat ga ik doen, ga ik blijven produceren voor de Europese markt. Nou voor die boeren hoeven wij niet zoveel te doen. Maar het is juist de boer die zoekt naar een ander verdienmodel en ook een beetje de kringlooplandbouw, hoe kunnen wij dat stimuleren in ons gebied. Die boer is niet geholpen met die ene particulier die af en toe een flesje melk komt halen, die boer heeft gewoon een gegarandeerde afzet nodig. En dat bereik krijg je bijvoorbeeld door verzorgingstehuizen te helpen deze keuzes te maken. Hetzelfde geldt voor het ziekenhuis, dat is ook een grote afnemer van voedsel en ook daar faciliteren wij gesprekken tussen een coöperatie van boeren uit ons gebied met het ziekenhuis. Zodat deze boeren ook weer een gegarandeerde afzet hebben en het ziekenhuis kan zeggen wij halen de producten uit ons eigen gebied. Het mes snijdt aan twee kanten. Dus dat is 1 verdienmodel. Aan de andere kant hebben we, en dat ligt wat meer op de andere kant van het beleidsterrein van het buitengebied. We hebben een masterclass georganiseerd voor boeren die meer willen produceren voor de lokale markt. Dus hoe doe je dat nou en waar moet je op letten. Er zijn dus boeren opgeleid om daar meer format aan te geven en er is een cursus gezonde bodem om de boeren meer te helpen begrip en kennis te geven over een vruchtbare bodem en wat ze daaraan kunnen verbeteren.

R: Dus jullie richten jullie ook veel op kennis verspreiden onder de lokale partners en de bevolking en dus ook op lokale partners samen te brengen zodat er nieuwe samenwerkingsverbanden kunnen ontstaan op het gebied van voedsel. 3: Ja. Wat ook zo is, je bent overheid, dus je moet niet de taak van een ondernemer gaan overnemen. Dus je zit te zoeken wat je wel kunt als overheid en dat is verbinden en groepen samenbrengen. Wat we bijvoorbeeld ook hebben gedaan is een groep van 100 ondernemers die elkaar elke 2/3 maanden treffen en die daar ideeën over voedsel met elkaar delen. Daar zit een voedseldesigner tussen en er zit ook een bedrijf tussen dat reststromen aan de man brengt. De reststroom is zeg maar het beginproduct van de ander. Dus wat je doet is zeg maar faciliteren, platforms bieden waar ze elkaar kunnen ontmoeten. En soms in ideeën kun je zeggen als je dat een beetje kunt subsidiëren dan zou het dat op weg kunnen helpen. Dus dat faciliteren en stimuleren daar zitten we. En vooral zoeken waar de energie van de samenleving zit. Ik zal je ook een voorbeeld geven van iets wat niet lukte. En dat is ook van wat wij de afgelopen zes jaar hebben geleerd. Voedselverspilling is natuurlijk een issue waar je heel graag mee aan de slag wilt. We hebben gezocht naar hoe kunnen we onze inwoners nou helpen minder voedsel te verspillen. En we hebben een soort voedselbattle gedaan met de ene kant van de straat en een vereniging en dan konden ze een prijs winnen. Opzich is dat goed gegaan er is 1 straat geweest die had gewonnen en het minste voedsel had verspild en die hadden een app waarbij de 1 zei, ik heb nog iets in de koelkast staan en krijg het niet op en dan reageerde een ander wat later, ik heb nog niet gekookt kan ik het gebruiken. Maar daar moesten we als gemeente zo hard aan trekken om mensen te motiveren om het te gaan doen en toen dachten we, weetje hier zit dus niet de energie. Dus dan moet je iets anders gaan

132 verzinnen. Wat we toen hebben bedacht is een project samen met andere gemeentes in FoodValley; Restaurants van Morgen. Toen hebben 40 restaurants in de regio advies gekregen van hoe ze hun keuken duurzamer kunnen maken, dus lokale keuken, kleinere porties, minder vlees. Dat heeft een heel mooi effect gehad, ook omdat je dan als restaurants nog steeds een heel goed verdienmodel hebt en daarmee voorkom je ook voedsel afval, food waste. Dat bleek succesvoller te zijn dan te gaan proberen om aan de inwoners te leuren om ze bewust te maken minder voedsel weg te gooien. Dus daar zijn we nog op aan het peinzen hoe we dat dan het beste kunnen doen. Anders is het echt daar moet je niet mee verder gaan, als je merkt dat daar geen energie is en als je als gemeente alles maar aan het trekken bent dan is dat zonde van je tijd en van je geld.

R: Ja, dus kijken inderdaad waar de potentie zit en waar je je als gemeente dan het beste kunt gaan ontwikkelen en waar de lokale bevolking ook achter staat. 3: Ja, op food waste gebied zijn wij absoluut geen kampioen. Maar dat is dan maar zo.

R: Oke, en dan een andere vraag. Speelt het willen uitdragen van een voorbeeldfunctie voor de rest van het land of zelfs voor de wereld ook een belangrijke rol in het voedselbeleid van Ede? 3: Ja weet je wat er gebeurd is. Omdat je hier ambtenaren op zet, die zijn speciaal vrijgemaakt hiervoor en je ook een portefeuille hebt als wethouder ben je een beetje in de wereld aan het kijken, waar zie ik voorbeelden? Ik heb wel een grappig voorbeeld. Wij kwamen erachter dat ze in Toronto al heel ver zijn met voedselbeleid en een voedselraad. Dus wij hebben een aantal dingen gekopieerd uit Toronta, wij hebben in Ede nu ook een voedselraad, dus dat zijn mensen onafhankelijk van ons die in zo’n raad zitten en ons advies geven. Dus als voorbeeld daar zit de manager van Albert Heijn XL in, er zit iemand van een ander voedselbedrijf in, er zitten inwoners in en die geven mij advies over wat ik behoor te doen op het gebied van voedsel. Nou dat hebben wij afgekeken van Toronto. Maar toen sprak ik de mensen van Toronto en die zeiden, tsjonge in ons ziekenhuis zit een Mc Donalds en een KFC en ik hoor dat jullie ziekenhuis een voedselziekenhuis is waar ze a la carte aan bed eten krijgen. Nu moet je je voorstellen Toronto heeft 2,3 miljoen inwoners. Dus de wethouder van Toronto vroeg aan mij ‘if all my hospitals in Ede were like that?’. Toen heb ik maar niet gezegd dat we er maar 1 hebben, dus toen zei ik ‘Yes all my hospitals are like that’. Dus dat is een beetje dat je erheen stuurt van hej waar zie ik goede voorbeelden en dat betekend dat je ook door anderen gevonden wordt. Dus anderen zien dat wij niet focussen op 1 aspect van het voedselbeleid, maar meer vanuit een breed scala. En zij komen dan hier vragen van hej hoe doen jullie dat, dus op die manier kom je in de picture.

R: Oke, dus ook veel leren van wat er op andere plekken gebeurt en zij gaan dan ook weer van jullie leren. En wat zie je als grote uitdagingen in het stedelijk voedselbeleid van Ede? 3: De uitdaging is om het vast te houden. Het gevaar van dit soort projecten is, gelukkig hebben we het daarover he, het is onderdeel gemaakt van een wethouder, dat het geen project is dat komt en dan na drie jaar weer afgebouwd wordt want dan is het spelletje weer voorbij. Maar om het vast te houden en voort te blijven zetten, zodat het tussen de oren van de Edenaren komt dat dit bij ons hoort. Dus dat is wel een uitdaging die ik zie om het echt goed vast te houden.

R: Is dat ook al wel eens gebeurd dat u het gevoel had dat het begon terug te nemen?

133 3: Nee dat niet. Maar het programma wordt gefinancierd vanuit gelden die we maar tijdelijk kregen. We hebben het gefinancierd vanuit de belasting die we op kabels en leidingen hebben mogen leggen. En dat mogen we niet vanuit de landelijke overheid, mogen we niet vanaf 2021 die belastingen heffen. Dus daarmee moeten we gaan kijken hoe we dit beleid kunnen blijven financieren. R: Sorry, u zei belastingen op? 3: Ja dat heet Precario en dat zijn belastingen, heel veel gemeenten doen dat, op leidingen en kabels in je bodem, dus dat was een extra inkomen voor de gemeenten. En dat hebben we deels aan dit programma besteed. Dus dat betekend voor ons dat vanaf 2021 we het uit onze reguliere begroting moeten gaat betalen. Dus dat wordt even een hobbel. Daar zijn we nu al mee bezig om dat plan door te zetten. En de volgende uitdaging is ook wel om het bijvoorbeeld te verbinden met ons gezondheidsbeleid. R: Dat zijn dus nu nog twee verschillende beleidsterreinen? 3: Ja dat waren twee verschillend beleidsterreinen, maar wel steeds meer overlap. En als je nu kijkt naar Corona en een van de conclusies van de Corona is dat de mensen op de ic-afdeling zijn voor een groot gedeelte mensen met overgewicht of obesitas. Dan zegt dat iets over voedsel en wat voedsel met je gezondheid doet en met je weerbaarheid doet. Dus we hebben wel gezegd, weet je we hebben eigenlijk wel goed in handen om dit programma verder uit te rollen. En dan zonder ‘fatshaming’ te gaan doen, daar gaat het niet om. Wat je wil is dat het voor mensen makkelijker wordt om een gezonde keuze te maken. Ik bedoel je krijgt niet voor je lol overgewicht en zeker niet voor je lol obesitas. Er zijn een heleboel andere elementen aan verbonden, onder andere je inkomen en je baan en noem maar op allemaal. Maar door allemaal wat breder te kijken naar de gezondheid van je inwoners. Ik heb wel eens gezegd, ben ik als wethouder verantwoordelijk voor de gezondheid van mijn inwoners? En dan zeggen de meeste wethouders, nou nee daar ben ik niet zo verantwoordelijk voor. Maar stel je voor dat de helft van mijn stad ziek zou zijn, ben ik dan verantwoordelijk voor de gezondheid van mijn inwoners. Dan zegt iedereen, ja dan heb je wel een rol te spelen. Dan gaan we even terug, als 10% ziek is, heb ik dan nog een verantwoordelijkheid? Je hebt dus eigenlijk altijd wel een verantwoordelijkheid, want je kunt niks met een stad waar de helft ziek is. Een stad gaat economisch vooruit wanneer je inwoners gezond zijn. En dat begint bij voedsel.

R: Dus daar willen jullie dan ook meer op gaan inzetten omdat gezondheidsbeleid te laten samenhangen en daar meer op te focussen? 3: Ja we zijn bezig met een gezondheidsbeleid dat ook veel meer richting dat voedsel geschreven wordt.

R: En omdat voedsel natuurlijk ook veel samenhangt met andere beleidsterreinen, zoals dus gezondheid, maar ook agrarisch gebied en bijvoorbeeld de economie. Is dat ook een uitdaging hoe je dat allemaal het beste kunt combineren? 3: Voor een gemeente als Ede, wij groeien eigenlijk autonoom, wij zijn een beetje overloop van de randstad. Maar wat je niet wil is dat de mensen in Ede eigenlijk alleen maar naar Utrecht een Amsterdam reizen om daar te werken. Je wilt zelf ook werkgelegenheid hebben en het liefst hoogwaardige werkgelegenheid. En op het gebied van voedsel en kennis is die hoogwaardige werkgelegenheid te krijgen. Dus graag trekken wij dat soort bedrijven naar ons toe. Dus dat is economische push om ons verder in te zetten op voedsel. En daarnaast hebben we natuurlijk ook een heel groot buitengebied met 6/700 boeren, dat gaat veranderen, de komende 10/20 jaar. We zullen echt wel minder boeren gaan krijgen. Maar het is ook in ons

134 belang om een vitaal buitengebied te houden. Dus om die relatie stad-platteland en voedsel, is dan een hele belangrijker. Ik moet zo gaan afronden, want ik heb zo een vervolg overleg.

R: Ja, oke. Dan ga ik nog heel even de situatie in Ljubljana kort uit leggen om hier nog iets feedback op te krijgen. Daar richten ze zich veel op korte voedselketens en die stad wil proberen meer zelfvoorzienend te worden. Is dat ook een strategie waar jullie in Ede mee bezig zijn of is dat om bepaalde redenen niet interessant? 3: Wat ik zei, voor een deel van de boeren is het interessant, maar voor een groot deel ook niet, omdat die zich richten op de Europese markt. En die zijn daar goed in en die zijn daar ook heel efficiënt in. Dus tegen die boeren moeten wij niet opeens gaan zeggen, jow je moet voor Ede gaan produceren en laat Italië en België en de rest maar zitten. Die boeren gaan daar gewoon mee door. Waar je naar moet gaan kijken is dat er voor die boeren andere verdienmodellen zijn. Dus ja je kunt kiezen voor die schaalvergroting of die wereldmarkt productie, prima, dan wel in acht neming dierenwelzijn en milieu. Maar er zijn genoeg boeren, ja dat hoeft van mij niet, maar ik zou toch wel graag verder gaan met mijn bedrijf, maar dan wat meer op die lokale markt, die nichemarkt. En daarvoor denk ik dat we de afgelopen jaren best wel veel mooie stappen hebben gezet om ook die boeren een toekomst perspectief te bieden. Dus wat Ljubljana doet is voor ons minder van belang omdat onze agrarische sector eigenlijk behoorlijk internationaal georiënteerd is en dat gaan we niet opeens afnemen ofzo.

R: Ze focussen zich in Ljubljana ook vooral op de verbinding tussen de lokale partijen in de voedselketens, dus de horeca, de scholen. Maar dat is volgens mij ook wel iets waar de gemeente Ede zich mee bezig houdt om die connecties te leggen. 3: Nee dat komt behoorlijk goed overeen.

R: en dan nog een vraag, nu hebben jullie voedsel op gemeentelijk niveau, maar jullie hebben werken volgens mij ook veel samen met andere gemeentes in de regio? 3: Ja. R: En proberen jullie dat dan op elkaar af te stemmen, dat je een soort regionale voedselstrategie creëren en de gemeentes dan afzonderlijk hun eigen invulling daaraan geven? 3: Ja er is een voedselstrategie, voedselbeleid en daarin zie je dat de meeste gemeentes betrokken zijn op voedselbeleid. Maar dan zit die ook wel op gezondheid en op die connectie met de agrariërs. En Ede is natuurlijk wel de grootste gemeente in onze regio en daardoor zijn wij ook heel vaak trekker van dit soort ontwikkelingen. Maar je ziet in Barneveld bijvoorbeeld ook wel een soort zelfde beweging, misschien iets meer op het gebied van voeding en gezondheid, maar zeker wel die relatie met de agrariërs. Dus daarin doen we wel heel veel samen. Maar ik denk dat Ede in dat geheel wel vaak de trekker is van de grote ontwikkelingen. Maar dat is ook gewoon omdat wij wel de capaciteit hebben. Met 117.000 inwoners daarmee de grootste gemeente in de regio.

R: Ik denk dat ik wel veel nieuwe, goede informatie kan halen uit dit interview. Zijn er voor de rest nog onderdelen die u kwijt wil omtrent dit onderwerp? 3: Je zei net nog over verbinding leggen tussen en de scholen en de bedrijven en de agariers. Daar zit een stukje waardering van voedsel bij, en die is, en ook zeker voor de mensen in onze omgeving, van groot belang. Dat mensen weer gaan waarderen waar het voedsel vandaan

135 komt. Je merkt ook dat als kinderen een schooltuintje hebben gehad en daar een jaar lang voor hebben moeten zorgen dat ze bewuster zijn dat je, bijvoorbeeld die tomaat in je koelkast als je die niet meer zo lekker vindt dat je die niet zomaar weggooit, omdat je weet hoe lang die heeft gegroeid. Dus dat die wortels 25 dagen in de grond heeft gezeten voordat jij hem op je bord legt betekend dat je hem niet meer zo makkelijk in de vuilnisbak.

R: Dus daar komen nu al wel positieve resultaten uit naar voren? 3: Ja.

R: Nou heel erg bedankt voor uw tijd en voor dit interview. Ik ga ermee aan de slag en hoop dat er interessante resultaten uit komen, ook voor de gemeente Ede. 3: Ik ben benieuwd, graag. Heel inspirerend en succes met je scriptie

136 Questinonnaire interviewee 4 (31-05-20)

R: In hoeverre vindt u dat het voedselbeleid van de gemeente Ede goed aansluit bij de praktijk? 4: Eerlijk gezegd weet ik dat niet. De geluiden/plannen die ik soms hoor vanuit de gemeente klinken goed en positief. Daarbij hoor ik meer dan de gemiddelde burger omdat ik deel uitmaak van de gemeenteraad van Ede. Maar ik zal deze vragen beantwoorden met mijn pet als melkveehouder op. Er zitten mooie ideeën en initiatieven tussen, maar of het echt van de grond komt...? De vraag is ook welke praktijk je op doelt. De dagelijkse praktijk van de voedselproducent? Of de praktijk van de consument? Een lastig probleem is namelijk dat die twee werelden behoorlijk uit elkaar liggen. Plat gezegd: aan voedselproductie worden allerlei en steeds meer eisen gesteld, maar wie gaat dat betalen? Veel consumenten pakken toch nog steeds het goedkoopste product in de supermarkt, en sommigen kunnen ook niet anders omdat ze het niet zo breed hebben. Er lijkt in deze Coronatijd iets meer bewustzijn te zijn ontstaan dat goed eten belangrijk is, een prijs heeft (!) en dat het goed is om zoveel mogelijk de lokale ondernemers te steunen. Maar is dit een blijvende gedragsverandering? Ik ben ook benieuwd of Ede zelf enige ruimte ervaart in het kunnen vormgeven van haar voedselbeleid, of dat veel belemmerd wordt door landelijke regelgeving. Dus in hoeverre het mogelijk is om echt lokaal beleid te maken, passend bij Ede.

R: Worden de mensen uit de praktijk voldoende betrokken bij het voedselbeleid van Ede? Waarom wel/niet? 4: Bedoel je met 'mensen uit de praktijk' de voedselproducenten, dus vooral de boeren? Ga ik voor nu maar even vanuit. Tsja, of ze voldoende worden betrokken, hangt - denk ik - af van wat de gemeente met die betrokkenheid beoogt. Als je doel daarmee duidelijk is, kun je pas bepalen of de betrokkenheid voldoende is (want dan pas kun je met elkaar bepalen of de betrokkenheid het gewenste effect heeft of heeft gehad en dus wel/niet voldoende is of is geweest). Maar als ik de vraag anders lees, zou mijn antwoord zijn: die betrokkenheid zou veel nauwer kunnen en moeten. Maar dat kan alleen als een gemeente dat écht wil. Dat zal, denk ik, een behoorlijke inspanning vergen, en (dus) ook geld. Je hebt bovendien te maken met twee werelden: de langzame, abstracte wereld van beleid, te midden van allerlei krachtenvelden en belangen, en de snelle, concrete wereld van een enkele bedrijfsvoering. Ik vraag me wel eens af of beleidsmakers een idee hebben van die laatstgenoemde praktijk. In veel beleidsstukken lees ik dat boeren 'coaching' nodig hebben, begeleid moeten worden, hun kennis moeten bijspijkeren, zeker waar het gaat om natuurinclusief boeren/ natuurbeheer, enz. Voor goede betrokkenheid is het echter onontbeerlijk dat je uitgaat van elkaars kennis en kunde. Plat gezegd: het Edese buitengebied - met zijn agrarisch ondernemers - is veel en veel meer dan een 'proeftuin' voor de WUR. Zeker de jonge boeren van nu zijn vaak prima opgeleid en beschikken over heel veel kennis op allerlei gebieden (waarbij de oudere boeren vaak beschikken over heel veel praktijkkennis, opgedaan in al die jaren boeren in een specifiek gebied/op specifieke grond). Alleen al daarom zou een overheid maximaal moeten inzetten op betrokkenheid.

R: Hoe zou dit verbeterd kunnen worden? 4: Je zou mijns inziens moeten beginnen met een overzicht maken van welke voedselproducenten en voedingsgerelateerde bedrijven er binnen je gemeentegrens zijn. Dat is natuurlijk bekend, wie waar met welke business zit. Dan kun je bekijken welk bedrijf

137 interessant zou zijn om te benaderen. Tegelijkertijd moet je haarscherp formuleren wat je doel is met het vergroten van betrokkenheid van deze bedrijven bij de gemeente. En: hoe houd je die betrokkenheid vast, voorkom je dat het niet strandt of verzandt, na een paar ongetwijfeld fijne en inspirerende bijeenkomsten? En het klinkt misschien een beetje zuur, maar even vanuit de boerenpraktijk: continu proberen organisaties allerlei informatie bij je op te halen en een vorm van betrokkenheid op te tuigen. Maar vaak stopt het ineens weer, en: wordt de boer er ook beter van? Veel voedselproducenten maken lange dagen en zijn het beu om altijd maar input te geven vanuit hun praktijk terwijl het - vooral - het landelijke beleid alleen maar verder bij diezelfde dagelijkse praktijk vandaan drijft en de sector kapot reguleert. Het is dan niet zo aantrekkelijk meer om je praktijkkennis te delen met overheden. Dus als Ede dit echt graag wil, maak dan maar duidelijk wat de status is van dat geven van input en hoe de betreffende boer er beter van wordt. Er gaan jaarlijks miljoenen euro's naar de WUR, wat prima is, maar misschien is boeren-/praktijkkennis ook wel iets waard?

R: In hoeverre vindt u dat er genoeg verbinding is tussen de stad en het buitengebied in de gemeente Ede? 4: Moeilijk te zeggen. Bedoel je verbinding in relatie tot voeding? Dus dat de stedelingen moeite doen om in het buitengebied hun boodschappen te halen? Ik heb geen idee. Maar ook hier weer (zonder dat ik het vervelend bedoel!): hoe ziet die verbinding eruit en wat is het achterliggende doel ervan? En als die verbinding er niet is, is er dan überhaupt een probleem? Voor zover het voedsel betreft: we hebben in de gemeente Ede ook best heel wat grote, intensieve bedrijven die produceren voor de wereldmarkt. Het is de vraag of veel Edenaren daarmee een verbinding kunnen en willen aangaan. En of die bedrijven daarop zitten te verwachten. Verbinding is vooral van belang voor de kleinere, extensieve (gezins)bedrijven die lokaler produceren en bijv. iets erbij doen in de recreatieve sfeer of zoiets als eieren- en kaasverkoop, een melktap, enz. Ik vind wel dat het buitengebied snel opgeofferd wordt aan al die andere doelen waarvoor grond nodig is: woningbouw, bedrijventerreinen, infra en natuur. Stel dat het lukt om de stad meer en vaker het buitengebied in te krijgen, dan hoop ik dat er een vorm van verbinding ontstaat die oplevert dat de stedelingen onder de indruk raken van de weidelandschappen met al z'n vogels, van alle mooie boerderijen en boerenerven waar het zoemt en gonst van de insecten, van de goed onderhouden akkers en akkerranden met diverse bloemen, enz. Als dat besef van onderaf gaat groeien - dat de (extensieve) agrarische sector fundamenteel is voor de zo gewilde biodiversiteit - zou ik heel blij zijn. Dus in dat geval: méér verbinding graag :-)!!!

R: Wat ziet u als beperkingen van het huidige voedselbeleid in de gemeente Ede? 4: Ik ben sowieso heel benieuwd wat de uitvoerders van het programma Food zélf als de beperkingen ervaren, waar ze tegenaan lopen. Daarnaast is het een groot en lastig probleem dat wat voedselproducenten wel en (vooral!) niet mogen, in beton gegoten is in Nederland. Een simpel voorbeeld: wij hebben een hoogwaardige melk. We mogen daarmee echter niet naar een markt, naar een zorginstelling, ziekenhuis, enz. De melk mag - onder strenge voorwaarden - alleen bij ons thuis worden verkocht. De regelgeving is vaak begrijpelijk, maar soms ook compleet doorgeschoten en daarmee een belemmering. Ook bij het verwerken van reststromen speelt dit, en zo zijn er nog meer voorbeelden.

R: Wat ziet u als mogelijkheden voor het verbeteren van het huidige voedselbeleid in de gemeente Ede?

138 4: Om deze vraag te kunnen beantwoorden, zou ik moeten weten wat het doel is van het huidige voedselbeleid. Welke richting wil de gemeente op, en op welke termijn? Is er tijd en geld, is er haast en geen geld? Er zijn zoveel van die bepalende factoren. Ik wil wel nogmaals deze waarschuwing afgeven: als je je als foodstad wilt blijven profileren, moet je zorgen dat de basis - je voedselproducerende bedrijven - op orde is en blijft. Er stoppen jaarlijks tientallen boeren, ook in Ede. Het Edese voedselbeleid begint dáár, met het praktisch maken van de landbouwvisie en het vormgeven van je agrarische sector zoals je die graag zou willen zien. Zonder daadwerkelijke voedselproductie is het hele foodverhaal straks gebakken lucht. Dat is een reëel gevaar. Voor extensieve boeren die bezig zijn met natuurinclusieve landbouw en/of bodemverbetering (zoals wij) is het kunnen pachten van grond een keiharde voorwaarde om overeind te blijven. De gemeente kan daarop sturen, kijken wie hoe werkt en wat of wie past bij het beoogde voedselbeleid. Ten slotte: als je echt met de praktijkmensen aan de slag wilt, maak er dan structureel geld voor vrij. Niet weer een pilot die ineens ophoudt, een POP 3 met tien miljoen voorwaarden, enz. En ik wil daarbij pleiten voor de werkers in onze sector: hun kennis, kunde en inzet zijn het waard om een langdurige verbinding mee aan te gaan!

Questinonnaire interviewee 5 (07-05-20)

R: In hoeverre vindt u dat het voedselbeleid van de gemeente Ede goed aansluit bij de praktijk? 5: Voedsel is de basis van ons leven. De keuze om voedsel centraal te zetten is daarom een goede keuze. In de samenleving zien we dat aandacht voor voeding en voedselproductie belangrijker wordt.

R: Worden de mensen uit de praktijk voldoende betrokken bij het voedselbeleid van Ede? 5: Stadsvarkens wordt niet direct betrokken bij het voedselbeleid van de gemeente. Met haar doelstelling sluit Stadsvarkens naadloos aan bij het voedselbeleid en is een mooi voorbeeld van wat de gemeente graag ziet. Er is meer uit te halen door een betere betrokkenheid, waardoor zowel de gemeente als Stadsvarkens er voordeel van hebben. R:Waarom wel/niet? 5: Stadsvarkens wil meedoen aan foodeducatie en wij zouden graag onderzoeken hoe wij een onderdeel hiervoor kunnen aanbieden aan basisscholen in Ede. Tot op heden zijn wij hier niet in geslaagd. R: Hoe zou dit verbeterd kunnen worden? 5: De gemeente zou durf moeten tonen door niet alleen naar de vertrouwde partners te kijken om nieuwe dingen op te zetten, maar ook kleine organisaties en nieuwe organisaties actief erbij te betrekken om nieuwe invalshoeken en samenwerking te onderzoeken.

R: In hoeverre vindt u dat er genoeg verbinding is tussen de stad en het buitengebied in de gemeente Ede? 5: Wij vinden dat dit slecht is. Slechts een klein deel van de stadse bevolking gaat naar het ommeland voor het kopen van producten, boerderijeducatie en zichtstallen. Stadsvarkens wil de verbinding tussen de (stadse) consument met zijn voedsel en voedsel productie herstellen. Daarom halen wij voedselproductie (varkensvlees) uit de anonimiteit, brengen wij het naar de consument (naar de bebouwde kom) en maken wij het aantrekkelijk om te bezoeken (wolvarkens, natuurlijke omgeving en altijd vrij toegankelijk). Omdat wij niet de productie

139 laten zien zoals dat gangbaar gaat willen we een springplank zijn om vanuit Stadsvarkens naar de boer in het buitengebied te gaan. Deze samenwerking is nog niet gerealiseerd. R: Hoe zou dit verbeterd kunnen worden? 5: Stadsvarkens is een organisatie die volledig draait op vrijwilligers. Inkomsten komen met name van de afzet van eigen vlees. De gemeente heeft één hectare in het Veldhuizerbos als groen adoptatie aan Stadsvarkens om niet in bruikleen gegeven. Het varkensvoer wordt door vrijwilligers bij bedrijven in de omgeving opgehaald (groenteboer, bakker, kaasmaker, bierbrouwer). Wij moeten onze ambities geleidelijk opbouwen. Via Foodeducatie en onze voer leveranciers kunnen de eerste stappen gezet worden, waarna dit kan worden uitgebouwd. De gemeente zou dit kunnen ondersteunen door de juiste partijen bij elkaar te brengen.

R: Wat ziet u als beperkingen van het huidige voedselbeleid in de gemeente Ede? 5: Stadsvarkens dankt haar bestaan o.a. aan de gemeente die de grond ter beschikking stelt. Daarna is het meer eenrichting. Voor de gemeente is Stadsvarkens een mooi voorbeeld hoe het gemeentelijk voedselbeleid o.a. vorm kan krijgen. Het bevorderen van voedselbewustzijn is volgens ons iets voor alle mensen. Voedselproductie is onzichtbaar geworden, de afstand tussen primaire producten en voedsel is groot geworden. Hierop kan meer worden ingezet. R: Geef een toelichting 5: Om varkensvlees als voorbeeld te nemen, er zijn geen varkens meer zichtbaar in ons landschap. Boeren schuren zijn hermetisch voor de buitenwereld afgesloten. Veel mensen vinden de dieren geweldig en al helemaal op de manier zoals Stadsvarkens zijn dieren houdt. Diezelfde mensen gaan naar de supermarkt kopen vlees en kijken allen maar naar de prijs. Hoewel zij weten waar het vlees vandaan komt staan ze er niet bij stil als ze eten kopen. Het dier en het vlees staan naast elkaar, de koppeling is weg. Voedselbewustzijn kan groeien door Food-onderwijs in het basis onderwijs. Daarnaast is het stimuleren van voedselbewustzijn voor alle consumenten belangrijk. Dit zien we ook terug bij de bezoekers van Stadsvarkens, jongeren. Jonge gezinnen. Wandelaars, sporters en grootouders (met kleinkinderen).

R: Wat ziet u al mogelijkheden voor het verbeteren van het huidige voedselbeleid in de gemeente Ede? 5: Het zou ons enorm helpen als de gemeente actief organisaties bij elkaar brengt voor Food thema’s.

140 Questinonnaire interviewee 6 (08-05-20) R: In hoeverre sluit het voedselbeleid van de gemeente Ede goed aan bij de praktijk? 6: Het voedselbeleid van de gemeente is breed, van stadslandbouw en het stimuleren van de korte keten tot voedseleducatie aan kinderen en gezonde sportkantines. De gemeente heeft daar een mooie overzichtskaart van. Marit Rietveld van de gemeente heeft daar ooit een presentatie over gehouden bij de voedselraad. Voor het ene aandachtsgebied heeft het voedselbeleid dan ook meer succes dan voor het andere. Persoonlijk vond ik de Food Floor (initiatief Smaakstad Ede) in de eerste jaren een mooie gelegenheid om elkaar te ontmoeten, voor ondernemers een nuttige bron van informatie. Daar kwamen de burgers en boeren/ondernemers elkaar tegen en werd duidelijk wat men voor elkaar kon betekenen. Er zijn in de loop van het programma Food heel veel projecten ingezet en afgerond en het is de vraag wat de impact is geweest en wat er van over blijft. Het knelpunt nu is dat het programma Food wordt opgeheven en dat de verschillende aandachtsgebieden verdeeld worden over afdelingen van de gemeente. Voor voedseleducatie aan kinderen/jongeren betekent dit dat het onderwerp terecht komt bij een afdeling die het niet als prioriteit heeft en er ook geen (?) budget voor krijgt. Gevolg? De voedselraad (een burgeradviesgezelschap onder de paraplu van stichting Smaakstad Ede, ondersteund door de gemeente) gaat het voedselbeleid doorlichten om erachter te komen wat de toekomst wordt voor de aandachtspunten van het programma Food. Helaas zal de coronacrisis er flink in hakken en is het niet duidelijk wat de gevolgen zijn voor het voedselbeleid. Doordat het WFC de burgers van Ede al zoveel geld gekost heeft, krijgt 'Food' nogal een slechte naam. Dat heeft verder niks met het voedselbeleid te maken, maar het kan wel politieke en financiële gevolgen hebben. De mensen uit de praktijk zijn welkom om deel te nemen aan de voedselraad of aan allerlei evenementen die de gemeente op dit gebied organiseert. Nu is de voedselraad nog maar kort in een nieuwe vorm actief. Dus of en hoeveel invloed zo'n raad krijgt, dat is nog niet duidelijk.

R: In hoeverre vindt u dat er genoeg verbinding is tussen de stad en het buitengebied in de gemeente Ede? 6: De relatie tussen de gemeente en de ondernemers in het buitengebied kan een stuk beter, lijkt me. De burgers zijn wel steeds betere klanten van het buitengebied geworden, de aandacht voor de korte keten heeft wat dat betreft vruchten afgeworpen. Dit is ook te danken aan personen en bedrijven die er werk van gemaakt hebben. De gemeente heeft gefaciliteerd en zou dit nog beter kunnen doen door zelf een streekmarkthal oid te organiseren.

R: Wat ziet u als beperkingen van het huidige voedselbeleid in de gemeente Ede? 6: Zie boven: dat het programma Food wordt opgeheven. De projecten van het programma krijgen misschien een structureler gevolg bij de afdelingen, maar dat is niet zeker.

R: Wat ziet u als mogelijkheden voor het verbeteren van het huidige voedselbeleid? 6: Het zou de geloofwaardigheid van het beleid versterken als er enkele onderwerpen structureel en voor de lange termijn werden opgepakt en dat dit de verantwoordelijkheid van de ambtenaren zelf werd. Nu wordt vrijwel alles uitbesteed aan de externe uitvoerders van projecten. Er is weinig samenhang tussen de initiatieven, er is nauwelijks evaluatie van de effecten. Ook de loketfunctie die de gemeente zou kunnen hebben, is er niet.

141

142 Interview transcript interviewee 7 (06-05-20)

R: Can you give a short introduction on your position in rural-urban relations and the urban food strategy? 7: I work for consultancy that is involved in environmental development. But due to our work we also work on rural development, in the past we worked on municipal strategies for agricultural development. We also worked on local environmental action plans that often touch farming in the area, because of the impact on farming, especially on groundwater resources, and so. And later we worked a lot on evaluation programs of rural development. We have quite a good overview of the situation of Slovenia and we also work with the municipalities in the region, and the regional development agencies. So we are a bit familiar with their ideas and problems and so on in this field. R: And then they ask you for example to give consultancy on certain topics or problems? 7: Yes they ask us to do some research or comments, for example we were involved in the preparation of a regional development program for the LJ region, and that is very broad. But rural-urban relationships are always quite a strong component, because you have LJ, the biggest urban center of Slovenia with lots of work, jobs, institutions, commuting, it has a lot of capital and it is the capital city. And then you have these smaller municipalities, of which some quite rural and they have different interests. So we have to balance this when you set the vision and the objective for the coming 5 or 10 years. We have worked a bit with farmers throughout our environmental consultancy jobs. Anything from environmental impact assessment of new large farms, because you need an environmental impact assessment of a new barn or for a new processing plant. Some of my colleagues work on business plans for farms or food processing plants, so these kind of businesses are we in touch with and the environmental aspects.

R: Is the government then paying your organization, Oikos? 7: Well, it is a mixture, it is usually public money. We are paid by municipalities or by regional development agencies. Or for the evaluation of rural development program we were paid by the ministry of agriculture, forestry and food. But for consultancy for farmers it is basically the farmers that pay themselves.

R: And then about the region of LJ, what is unique about it? Because we already talked about that you have the urban center and the big rural area, is that also something typical for LJ and the region? 7: I would say that the most typical thing from LJ is that it is the region of the capital city. So it is the richest region with most jobs, government institutions and so on. And the biggest urban area in Slovenia. But on an international scale it is still small. I think in other countries they will call it a town, because of its size and the population it is very closely linked to its rural surroundings and background. I think this is specific, on the one hand you have the capital city of the state, but it is still small and close to the rural area, and very interlinked with the rural area. And what is happening is that the prices in LJ went up quite a lot since the independence, because it is a capital city and so on and it is attracting so many jobs. There is quite a strong migration out of the city in all the surrounding municipalities and in the rural areas because real estate is cheaper, life is cheaper. So people just chose to life in the rural areas and to commute to work in LJ.

143 R: And when did this start? Is it already for years like that 7: I would say that this trend has strengthened after our independence, so after 1991. But it really took off now in this millennium, when we were approaching the EU and we were experiencing strong economic growth. So that is when this started, when it became strong it was late 90s, early 2000. You have to also be aware that Slovenia overall does not have a lot of urban population. Two generations ago we were all mostly peasants, living in villages, farming, basically living on subsistence farming mostly. This is also very specific, that also most of the urban population have strong linkages with the urban area through their relatives. They have grandparents in the villages, they spend summer there or they visit the relatives that live in the rural area. It is typical that you buy local food by your relatives or through your relatives. You have for example relatives in the villages and go to visit them for the weekend and arrange with them to purchase a yearly stock of potato from their neighbor, something like that. Or in autumn when it is apple or plump season, you go for a visit and also buy in the village rom the local farmers some of the crops. So this is probably very diffferent from the Netherlands. R: Yes I think so too, that here food and rural life is still a very important aspect of the culture 7: Yes for example this trend of people moving back from the urban areas to the countryside because it is cheaper and so on. It has also the important aspect of a bit of culture clash, because you have old rural community with their own ways and habits and well established traditions, like voluntary fire brigade, local quire, maybe some cultural associations that sets up some fiests now and then. And you have these urban newcomers that maybe don’t fit that well in it, but there are interesting trends, that these urban population fits quite well in these rural activities and maybe bring some fresh ideas and bring some emphasize on developing some local infrastructure, e.g. children’s playgrounds, sports, facilities which are not really that typical for villages. R: And are the urban dwellers then going to the towns that are located around LJ mostly or are they going to all the places of Slovenia? 7: I don’t have statistical data, but this is my kind of impression and observation that is quite common in all these urban areas. It is kind of a trend that second or third generation of urban dwellers, so for example you have a young couple who maybe had grandparents in the rural area, and they are struggling with jobs and rent etc, and so they decide to move back to either their family property, the house of their grandparents, maybe their parents inherited. Or at least through close contacts with the village of their grandparents and they have an eye on the real estate in the village and they can buy then a new house from somebody and move there and commute for work in the urban area. So this is one trend that is quite often the case, that young people use these kind of old connections to the country side through relatives to find a suitable home and move there. Other aspects are maybe a bit more new age urban people who want to life in touch with nature and want to grow their own food and so on. They find a place and move to the countryside. But what I have seen that it is not always working well, because life in the country side is not always that romantic as they imagine.

R: But then they make for example the decision to grow their food themselves or do they also make the decision to really become a farmer, or is it most of the time just a side activity to grow their food? 7: Hm good question. I think it is mostly a side activity. Because it is very difficult to buy or rent a farm that is economically viable or to really life of farming. Because the farms here in Slovenia are rally small, the size is increasing but this is meaning that in ten years we went from 4.6 ha to 6.1 ha. So you know, this is still nothing. And it is very difficult to find a farm

144 that is economically viable. Sometimes it happens that young urban people find a farm and buy it or rent it, but they are not aware that farming in Slovenia, the traditional approach, is economically not very viable. So you know, they have this romantic perception of farming and then once they start they realize that it is not that case, it is a lot of hard work, but not very economically rewarding let’s say. To really life of farming you need to have a larger farm, I don’t know a minimum of 10 hectares. You know it can be a smaller farm, but then horticulture. For example, around LJ you have some farms that are below 5 hectares, really focusing on horticulture, so growing fruits and vegetables for LJ area. They can do well. Or these wine producing farms these can be smaller as well, but otherwise it is difficult. R: Okay, so with livestock it is not really economically feasible? 7: You know livestock farming is very capital intensive. And in Slovenia there is not much capacity among younger people for such big investments, to purchase or rent a livestock farm. R: Is there no trend that you see more big farms comping up and more large scale? 7: The trend that is present here is that, you know quite a lot of farms here are surviving because of a combination of family work input and also in combination with employment somewhere else. So you have a farmer that also work somewhere else and farms only part time, but then his wife and kids would be helping. So you have a lot of this unaccounted work. So it started to be like that, that the income of the job was being put into the farm. Instead of profiting from the farm they were more and more investing and in some point, it is not feasible anymore. And in such cases the farmers just give up and they rent out their land and facilities to a larger farmer. So you start to have smaller number of farms, and those who remain get bigger. And they usually gradually buy the land, but most of the time they rent the land of ex- farmers. It is also so that in rural areas the farming land is often in heritage, by children who now life in the cities and they don’t have an interest. They maybe move back to the village, live on the former farm, but they don’t have intention to farm. They maybe keep a patch or two for a garden and a potato field, for their own production of potato or beets, but the rest of the land they rent out.

R: And of the farms that you have there, how is the supply chain organized? Is it often the case that they directly sell it to the consumers or to a shop or do you also have a lot of cooperatives or big companies that first pick up all the fruit and vegetables and milk and process it, do you have an idea about this? 7: It is quite mixed let’s say. I think basically all the farms except from the really big ones sell quite a substantial amount of produce directly. You know through kind of informal networks or by going once a week to these farmers markets. Those ones that are big enough also send to retailers. Like Hover, Lidl, Mercator, which is Slovenian chain, inter Spar. This is mostly for I don’t know fruits, like apples, or some vegetables and so on. And this is also encouraged by the retailers. As they noticed that people like to buy Slovenian food. So for example you enter Hover and you have a section of Slovenian produce, so this was bought directly from Slovenian farmers. But there are some cooperatives, but you have to know that cooperatives for a while were not very popular. Because just after the world war we became a socialist country, there was a strive to do everything a bit as Sovjet Union. So it was all about nationalization of land and working together in big cooperatives and so an. And this was unfavorable on the ground by the people, because it was a top down directed. And after Joegaslovie broak off the relationship with Sovjet Union in 1948 they kind of slowed down this. But there was still a kind of top-down push of these cooperative and farmers just didn’t like it, because they felt they didn’t get enough. Some cooperative died then completely after the change of regime,

145 because they were unsuitable for market rules. Those that survived are successful and now there is a bit of revival of this in my opinion. But I don’t have statistical data. But I think they managed to kind of reorganize themselves. And some farmers now find it very useful to be part of a cooperatives, because they don’t have to care about marketing in the cooperatives. So they sell through the cooperative, but this is on the national level a really small percentage.

R: So most have the independent way of selling their products and want to make their own decisions where to sell it and don’t like to work in cooperatives? 7: Yes exactly. It is also suspicious maybe because of this kind of history, the top-down approach and being pushed and so on. And maybe also because of low level of education of farmers in Slovenia. There are always suspicious of others, they want to do everything by themselves, they have this individualistic approach and it takes time to gain trust from them and to show them that they realized that you can do something together for the improvements of everybody’s income or working conditions or whatever.

R: Is it also changing how the farmers and the people in Slovenia see the government? Is the government changing that the people get more trust in it? 7: Well it comes in waves you know. We have a quite stable government and we had traditions going on in the 90s and early 2000s. and now the last fifteen years there as a lot of change, shifting from left to right. So it was from really kind of socially oriented government to really, you know, liberal, capitalism, free market, everybody for themselves. So this is kind of confusing. I can’t really say that there is a big trust in government. Because there are also often political changes in relevant ministries. It is one thing that government changes, but when there is instability at operational level or administration, then you stop trusting it. But I think with this rural development program, which is basically channeling EU money for rural development. I think there was mistrust in the beginning, but now it is a steady source of income, with steady structure and steady approach and so on. So I think it has gained trust from the farmers.

R: So also the rural development, the government wants to lead that more top-down? Or do they involve a lot of local actors in that? 7: Well it is kind of a mixture, they want to try to have more bottom-up approach, they organize a lot of contestations and they also have a lot of events for farmers. Really, I think, when you are a farmer, you have maybe too much choice. You are bombarded with opportunities to participate in this or that or in events. But ultimately, I think that the government does not have the skills yet to take in all these bottom-up initiatives. So you have a lot of communication and constellation. But in the end when things have to be done, it is like okay we do it like this or that. They prepare something within the government teams and they then put it out in constation. And then again there is quite some frustration, because at the bottom people are saying we keep saying that this and this should be done but you never listen to us. And then the people working in the administration, the government, the ministry of agriculture say, yes you propose this but you are not aware of the context and we have to do this and so on. They know that they have to be more bottom-up oriented, but they don’t really have the skills to do it. I think it is the lack of skills and not the lack of willingness. So in the end when things really have to be done they take the fairly top-down approach. And then try to get somewhere.

146 R: Yes, so that is maybe also a kind of challenge in the urban food strategy and the rural development? 7: Yes! R: And what kind of skill do they lack then, do you have an idea about that? 7: I would say the skill of constation planning, because they keep organizing the events, but I think when they did it in a more planned way, a planned consequences or targeted, it would be easier for them to take the comments and the results and to take them in. because when you have a lot of constations with very different stakeholders, you get a lot of input and then you just get confused. And I think they lack the skills to filter through this and consume the information from the bottom and to process it. R: And when they improve that, do you think that the people also get more trust in the policy and the way of working from the government? 7: Yes, yes. I think one thing that is starting to work quite well is local action groups. We didn’t had experience with LAG before 2007. So you know it is a very new approach and initially a lot of LAG were founded. There are 33 in Slovenia. Some are good and some are bad, but you know in this time it is filtering out. Those LAG that are really proactive and involved stakeholders are keep pushing and are always consulting and always involved, and always invited and so on. And the smaller action groups, that are basically started as 1 or 2 mans, they just kind of die out spontaneously. But LAG are now seen as players that you need to involve. There is also a national rural network, that could be stronger in my opinion, but at least it provides a very good source of information. R: And what kind of network is that? Are farmers part of that? 7: It is funded, and it is obligatory as part of the rural development program implementation, all the countries need to have it. And it is kind of intended for communication for rural development and so on. Basically, anybody can sign up and be a member, but it is mostly farmers and farmer associations and so on. So it is really a kind of information point. And it is good to have some additional source of information. We have this chamber of agriculture and forestry and this used to be very strong. But I think they kind of didn’t catch up with the development and the trends. They perform the agricultural advisory service which is good. They have a lot of educational events and trainings and so on. But I think they are missing a bit a more innovative approach or promotion of new aspects are approaches among the farmers and so on. They stayed a bit behind with more classical farming. R: Okay, so that is also kind of a challenge to improve that? 7: I mean they have very good people working on rural development in the sense of working with LAG or village renewal, support for living in the rural area and so on. But I think that part is understaffed. So they just have a couple of people that are busy working on that and cant cover everything. Because they are a national institution, so they will have a bit a different view. R: Oh yes, that would be interesting.

7: Maybe just in terms of this top-down or bottom-up, for the region of LJ I would say that the municipality of LJ, the administration, especially Gorazd and Maruska are doing a great job. So in the strategy that they are preparing it is a bit top-down, but not in the classical sense. More in the sense that they are organizing everything and that they have the vision that it is good to have a strategy. Because this is an approach that haven’t been seen here in Slovenia. And you have on the other hand some bottom-up initiatives that are disconnected. So the

147 municipality of LJ is gluing them together and integrating them in all of this. So that is a good kind of mixture. R: Okay, so you can have then maybe better a good organized top-down approach then an unrelated bottom-up approach? M: Yes, to have a more innovative approach, because the MOL is quite proactive and their employees are involved in many international projects. So maybe they see more new approaches of this kind of urban-rural perspectives. While these bottom players are always quite rural and focused on the rural aspects. And they see the urban part mostly only as market for their products you know.

R: And how do you see now the urban-rural relations in the region of LJ? Are they changing or do you see challenges over there? 7: Traditionally seen Slovenian are quite linked to the rural area as I said before. So there is this strong bond. And also now in the lock-down the Slovenian are like whaa I want to cycle around to the other municipalities, or I want to go for a hike in the other municipality. Or I need the produce from the farmer of .., which is another municipality. So on the people level there is a strong connection. But this urban-rural migration that is changing the rural landscape a bit I can see the challenge in terms of spatial planning. Because the urban people that move, it happens that there are conflicts in rural municipalities, where they open up the space for all these de-zoned areas for construction, or residential areas, so that people could just come and build their homes, and this draw the migration from LJ. But of course these new urban dwellers are urban in character, and they don’t like the vicinity of the farms, because they smell, and you can hear the rooster at 5 in the morning. And it is noisy because of the tractors and so on. So I think the challenge will be to balance this, the farming community in the rural areas and the new coming urbans that doesn’t like the noisy, dirty part of farming. They like the produce, but without the smell in their backyard. R: Yes, they have a more idealistic view of farming and rural life. 7: Yes exactly. And I think, because people really prefer the locally produced food, I think this is a good opportunity in the region. Because LJ is a big consumer center, especially with the tourism, we have also a sort of gastronomic kind of tourism with local produce and so on. This is also great. Maybe Gorazd and Manuska will tell you more about it, because LJ tourist office has an activity with 15 restaurants in LJ to offer locally produced food. But on the other hand, we are getting spoiled, we always want to have the product that we want. And it is not seasonal enough, so the demand is not taking care of the seasons anymore. Urban people want to have fruits, vegetables and potatoes at any time of the year. So this in relation to yearly fluctuation, climate change and so on, the production will probably get difficulties sometimes to meet the demand. Simply because some years would not be a good year of fruits or potato or I don’t know.

R: Is it right that in Slovenia they also have a bit the vision to become more self-sufficient, also around LJ in food? 7: Yes this is the official policy of the country to increase the self-sufficiency. Which kind of makes sense at one aspect, but is also maybe not that efficient as well. I understand that they want to still give preference to local produced food compared to Italian or Spanish or in the end tomatoes from the Netherlands. But on the other hand, this could also lead to very high food prices. Because the local farmers can keep the prices up and not work on the efficiency of farming. We already have a problem that because of rural development programs, a lot of

148 farmers got really well equipped. And it turns out that they are over-equipped, they have for example several tractors and so on for a very small farm relatively. And that is fine until you still get subsidies, but when you don’t get subsidies you will have the problems of maintaining all these machines and keeping it operational. And then you end up with 3 tractors and using only 1 because you can’t register the other 2 because they are not working well or something like that. But officially there is this national resolution, ‘provisioning the food for tomorrow’, or something like that, I don’t know if you came across it? R: Yes I saw something like that. 7: I don’t know if it is available in English, but this self-sufficiency is the kind of the mantra. So the rural development program is focused on self-sufficiency, and the problem that I see is that now the regions are looking at their own self-sufficiency. But you have seen the size of the region of LJ. I didn’t look at statistics of the demand of LJ, but I think the demand in LJ is higher than the production within the region. And you can have seasonal variations. Maybe you have one year some crop in this region fails because of hail storm or extreme weather or something like that. And the neighboring region has plenty. Then it is still quite local at the European scale, but then you don’t count it as local because it is not from your region. R: but you also said something that the government wants now more free market and is more right, is that not with food the case? 7: I think it is a bit conflicting, I would say also within the government. Because on one hand they want free market, but not necessarily for food products. Because you know, especially some right wing parties see farmers as the corner stone of Slovenian tradition and family values and things like that, so this have to be preserved. Free market for food processing or food delivery, but still keeping the farmers and farming. It is really conflicting, they cannot feasibly solve it.

R: Okay. And do you have an idea where people buy their food? For example you have the supermarkets and also a lot of local markets, do you have an estimation where people usually get their food from? 7: I think in urban areas they stil get most of their foods from the supermarkets. But it is stil very popular to go to the farmer markets, it is a tradition for example to go on Saturday morning, so you shop for the weekend and then the rest of the week. It is a tradition to go, you do your shopping, you meet with friends, you sit down for a coffee, and then go home and cook. The problem that we are experiencing now, especially with the international chains like Lidl and Hover is that there produce is really cheap. So families that cannot effort much shop there, because the farmer market prices are a bit higher. So they don’t shop local, they cannot afford to go to the farmer markets.

R: So maybe they would prefer the farmer markets, but because of the prices they cant? 7: Yes exactly. That is the perception in Slovenia, most of the people think locally produced is better. So by farmers markets you know that it is local. People also established preferences; at which vendor they buy in the farmer markets. They know their supply chain, they know when they can expect something, etc. But also I would say, at least for these kind of crops, like potato, apples, and these things that can be stored. People go in the villages and buy from the farmer. Either through relatives or from relatives that live in the villages. Especially around LJ a lot of farms started to do this. Already 30/40 years ago you could just bike to a farm around LJ and buy 5 kilo of potato’s or sauerkraut for example.

149 R: Okay, and when I look at the Netherlands they talk sometimes about alternative food systems, and with AFS they often mean short food supply chains and going directly to the farmers, or go to the farmer markets. Maybe they are also working on AFS in Slovenia, but it means maybe something else there, because it is here already kind of the normal thing to have SFSCs? 7: I think AFS in Slovenia would be something to do with different delivery, for example the ‘green crate’ that you can order online, and they pull the resources from nearby farmers and they deliver it to you. R: So maybe the old way of having your local food but doing it in a modern way to get it delivered at home or something. 7: Yes, exactly. Because that allows you to be more flexible in terms of what you buy. Cause if you go out and you know a couple of farms and you have to drive to get what you want, while it is much easier to sit in front of your computer at home or use the mobile phone application and just tick the boxes what you want. And this is maybe something that the farmers that you would otherwise visit, don’t have. So these middle man take care for another farm that has these produce. So for example I can cycle from my home to the north of LJ to get for example sauerkraut, pumpkins, eggs, honey and so on. But maybe I cannot get salad or cucumbers, and then I have to go somewhere else for that. So then it is easy when you can just be at home and tick the box and then somebody delivers this because they pull from different farms. But even in this approach people like to know from which farm the produce in this box comes. R: And do you see that they are much developing these initiatives and these AFS? I already saw a list of initiatives that they have, for example the box with the food and also that they have markets at certain flat buildings. 7: Yes, this is something that quite took off in the last 10 years. For example, this delivery of the box and so on. But this was limited to one or two organizations, but then there was this organizing kind of pop-up farmer markets in housing areas, once a month or something like that in the middle of apartment buildings. And you also have farmers that just drive to a certain area on a Saturday to apartment blocks and shout out, oh I have potato’s and fruits and then people come downstairs and buy. They rely that the guy will show up, I don’t know, every Saturday at ten or so. So this has really developed, but I can see now, because of the cornona virus this really took off, there are a lot of companies now dealing with this. And also farmers that organize their own delivery or the delivery of a couple of farms to your home. so instead of going to the farm, you call the farmer and he will get the food to you. Corona has really an influence, I want to keep up, but I had to sit down and do some research. Now I could see in the last month and a half this delivery really took off, really strong. R: Okay that is interesting, what kind of influence this will have. 7: Yes exactly. Because in Slovenia the alternative, as you said people are already buying local, so the alternative is how do you buy it. And this kind of internet and social media are maybe the drivers of innovation in this field. Also, one thing that is happening is that the farmers started to process their products if they have surplus and selling off then the processed versions, like jams or so. R: And that was in the past not really something that they did? 7: No not really.

R: Farmers have an important role in the rural area, but do you also see that new business are coming more in the rural area?

150 7: In Slovenia you have quite a lot of other businesses in the rural area too. Like you have small shops producing plastic parts for something, you know, something like that. You have lots of these things like car mechanics, wood processing plants, stuff like that. So it is rarely that it is just farming. You have some local entrepreneurs that have a family business doing something. But I think you know increasingly see that in rural areas that people that moved to rural areas or that are from rural areas instead of migrating to the city, they established a job which is enabled by the modern technology, now they can work from home for many things. So, you can have an accounting service in the rural area, you don’t need an office in the city for that. Or you can have a marketing business set up in the rural area and so on. I think increasingly there is something like that, or just part time. So, for example I know a lady that works for a PR agency, one of the top PR agencies. And when she and her husband started a family, they decided to purchase land build a house int the rural area. And basically, she works from home 2 to 3 days a week and goes to the office twice or 3 times a week when there are some events or something that is necessary to take care of. So, I think on one hand you have this hybrid, but on the other hand also these kind of small business being established, businesses that are based on modern technology. R: Okay, so that is something that is now developing, it becomes more hybrid. 7: Yes, and I think now after Corona there will be much more of that, because now when people didn’t have the choice they could see how much could be done from home. and I imagine that many entrepreneurs just deciding okay let’s do it from somewhere else, form a cheaper place. I can imagine that even small companies will move from the cities to the villages because you can have much more office space and the commute is not that big. Instead of commuting to the city, you commute to the village, so to the other direction. R: Yes, I also think that it will offer new opportunities, as the people now see that it can also work like this.

R: I think during our talk we already cover a lot of questions. And I think for the comparative questions about what they do in Ede in the policies, I can also ask it to Maruska and Gorazd, if that is also suitable for LJ. As they are really working on the food policies. But the food strategy is in LJ part of the rural development agency? 7: Yes. And it would be good to talk to them, because I am not that familiar with these aspects and what are the planned topics and so on. i have no idea how it will compare with Ede. What I know is that LJ is very involved in the promotion of these public procurement of local food. They will tell you more about it, they also organize this local food marketplace, which is a bit like speed dating between producers and public institutions that have their own kitchens, so they try to make a match. R: Yes, so bringing stakeholders together and see if there are new opportunities for working together and set up connections between producers and restaurants and schools and everything. 7: I can imagine that LJ food strategy has quite a strong part on public procurement. Just to use this for promoting local short food chains and so on. R: Yes that is something that now became clear for me that it is really a big thing that they work on national food and being self-sufficient and that also the consumers are really asking for the local products from their nation. That is already a very big difference from the Netherlands. 7: What is also a big difference with the Netherlands is consumer habits. Until the change of the system and our independence we had very limited import of food. So the variety was very

151 small, you had mostly locally produced food, food produced in former Yugoslavia. I don’t know, when I was a kid there were no bananas for several years. You could get a lemon or an orange, but they were very expensive and maybe a pineapple, but bananas for example was not there, and now this is very common. And it is very common to have more exotic fruits and vegetables, like avocado, asparagus and so on. And in corona crisis we start to realize how much our food habits had change, and now relied more on these imports of food that is otherwise not growing here because it has become more of a diet of us to cook something else than potato. And in corona there were some shortages of this, from for example avocado and these kind of more exotic things. But because of these kind of experiences of previously it is easier for us to go back and cook traditional dishes. You don’t through a fit when you cant cook rice with exotic vegetables and spices. You just make plain rice with some meat or you make potato with sauerkraut or something like that. I think in the NL, you were big traders with big colonies, you were much more used to eating food that does not grow in the Netherlands. R: Yes true, in the Netherland we also don’t have that many traditional dishes. We often make dishes from other countries and not that much a specific own local cuisine. And in Slovenia when I asked someone about what to eat I received a very long list of dishes. 7: Yes that is true. It is just because we were not open for imports for such a long time, and traditionally we were also not a big empire, the Austrian-Hungarian empire was just here in the Balkans. Austria-Hungary and that’s it. We never had more expensive food imports. R: And they now start to introduce it more at primary schools, the food education and the gardens to produce food I think in LJ. 7: Yes, it s quite across the country, the initiatives to have school gardens planted by children and that they learn how to grown stuff. The food that they produced is used in the school kitchen, and I would say that the fact that we have kitchens in schools and kindergartens is a big drive and a useful tool to promote locally produced food. And also the awareness of healthy food. That is a pretty strong issue. R: That is also something that they start now with in NL to introduce it in the primary schools. They said that they received very good results out of that, because it was very difficult to change parents’ habits because they already do it for years in their own way, but now children start to correct their parents, because they learn at school how long it for example takes to grow a tomato and they learn about healthy food. And now they start to talk to their parents, oh its not good what you do. And now the parents are starting to change their habits a bit because of the children. So that is a good strategy to start educating the kids. 7: Oh excellent. They also learn more about the seasonality of food, because this is also a big issue. Because up until my late teenage years food was strictly seasonal, because it was only local. Now we get imports and you can get fresh tomatos from Chili at any time. Or grapes in January. And with availability of food whole year round, you miss this link with local production. Because you want to eat strawberries whole year round, and in LJ strawberries are produced in May/June. So, you know, that is one aspect, I think.

R: I already received a lot of new interesting information that is very valuable for my research. Thank you already for that. Do you have some other things that you want to share on the topics? 7: Not at the moment, we have talked so much. I think that we covered all the points that I thought are important.

152

Interview transcript interviewee 89 (06-05-20)

R: Is it okay if I record the interview, then I can transcribe it afterwards. The data will only be used for research purposes? 89: Yes that is no problem

R: Ljubljana signed the MUFPP? 89: Yes that is true. R: Who did lead the set-up of this urban food policy? Is that also the section of rural development? 89: The fact is that we already have the strategic guidance for rural development in the municipality. It does not have the same frame as the MUFPP, but it is actually more focused towards the rural development and also for the agricultural development in the city. But now we are preparing the new strategy for the program for the period of 2021-2027. We just started with the procedure. And we are planning to actually upgrade the part that takes care of the food self-sufficieny. And this will also be the starting point for the development of this area. And we also planning to have, well we don’t know if we will be successful or not, but we applied for the EU project within the Horizon 2020 food management and everything. And we hope that we through that project, if we get it that it will also be a possibility in five years to create a sort of pilot or guidancy for food policy strategy on the level of municipality.

R: Okay, is LJ in Slovenia also an kind of example for other municipalities or is LJ the only city that has such a food strategy? 89: Well, every municipality have something regarding the rural and agricultural development, something is written about that. It can be in the form of a general strategy for the city or a special strategy as we do it as a kind of a basis for other EU things that we are able then do on the city level. So if we want to give people subsidies or something like that, regarding the development of primary production, then we need to have something, at law-base for that. So this is the thing. Every municipality has something, but it depends on the municipality how width do they take it in and perform it on the field.

R: So in LJ the food strategy is very much linked with the rural development strategy? It is kind of the same. 89: Yes, we have strategic goals in our strategy. And the first one is very deeply connected to the food strategy. So it is the production, it is the distribution, it is the connection between the producers and the consumers and everything. So the first strategy goal is actually the one that could be if we put it in the separate frame the food strategy.

R: And when you set up the food strategy, was it only made by the government, or did you also talked to the stakeholders from society to implement it and to set it up? Was it more top- down or bottom-up? 89: We always do it bottom-up because we started with this 25 years ago, something like that. And everything is always based on the bottom-up approach, and we always included the civil public and also different experts and farmers and non-governmental organizations. And the whole procedure was in that way, we always start at the bottom and then go up. But of course

153 we include everything that the state tells us what to do, so this is the basis and then we go down and build it up.

R: Did you have big challenges throughout the last years to improve the food strategy or problems with the stakeholders, or what are the main challenges? 89: The main challenges, well, I would say. 2 years ago we started with so called green food chains. And we started to connect the producers and the consumers. And at the beginning we thought the problem would be that there are too little consumers that would like to have all the food that is consumed. But now, especially because of the corona virus, we realized that our production is too little actually. So the farmers are using all the possibilities that they have and provide enough food for the demand that there is at the moment on the market. You have to see our picture. We have approximately 826 farms, but they are small farms, like 7 ha in average, there are some bigger and smaller ofcourse as well. But they are producing the mixed crops, a bit of cattle and fruit and vegetables and everything. So they are trying to please their customers, but at the moment we want to meet all the expectations and the needs in the market. The farmers have to increase the production of specific products. So this is the challenge; how to upgrade or make the production bigger then the production that already exists. We have the area, so it would be possible. But it is happening as well that the people are actually neglecting the farmland. So the farmland is just waiting there for other people to work on it, but we are not there yet. But I think in time this will also be a way to reactivate the land that we have.

R: Is the municipality now already working on that? Do they have a strategy? 89: At this time not. But we recognized it as a challenge. But I think in the strategy it will also be something to think about to reactivate all these potentials. Because in some research that we had during our EU project. Experts said that LJ will be, if we used all our potentials, 50% food self-sufficient. So we will see if this is possible, but this is the direction that we are going to at the moment.

R: I also did research in the Netherlands, and there it is a problem that you have different groups of stakeholders around food with different interests. So you have the farmers and they often see the environmental organizations and nature organisations as kind of opposites or enemies. And they sometimes don’t trust the government and think that they are against them. Is that also something that you seen in LJ or in that region? 89: I wouldn’t say that it is the case in LJ because in LJ we try to go into the ecological production and also integrated production, so we are supporting and stimulating farmers to go in that direction. So to aboard the traditional way of farming and to use the environmentally friendly ways. So actually, the crash between the non-governmental organization regarding the environment does not occur and it is not a problem. Sometimes we have a problem because of the wild animals, because we have a lot of forest in our municipality. A problem between the hunters and the farmers, so this is one of the problems that exists. And we also have some sort of, but now we build a strong connection between them as well, between the beekeepers and the food producers. That are things that occur. But not environmental and agricultural department, no that is not an issue. R: Okay, so the farmers are often open to become more nature inclusive? 89: Especially because of subsidies that we give to them are based on the fact that they have to be or have to turn into the ecological or integrated farming. So this is a sort of assimilation.

154 We talk about the state aid. So this is actually a state aid that is given directly by the municipality. But it is directed from the municipality and given there to the farmers. So we are sort of in the middle. We have to do it, it is something that we decided to do. It is also based on the decision of the government.

R: And do you also work on match making and combining farmers and the restaurants and the schools? 89: Yes this is something that we started with 2 years ago and it was called the Green Food Chains. But now we are actually building a few of these chains. One of them is kindergartens and schools and we developed a program for food suppliers and cooks. So this is something that we are trying to teach them and to connect with local producers. We have special workshops, we have the demonstrations, we have the meetings where they are actually getting to know each other. And we also work closely with the touristic organization of LJ that introduces the idea of locally produced food to hotels and restaurants and regarding that one we created a stock exchange or exchange platform where farmers and restaurant owners and schools meet once or twice a year. And there they present their needs and offers and it works like a stock exchange system. It is something that we very strongly working with. And also our financial departments helps schools with the public tenders? Regarding the locally produced food. And also within our municipality we have approximately 20% of the whole amount of the money can be spend on, not within the public tender, but separately be also just for locally produced food. This is something that is now a possibility, so this is the base of short supply chains. R: So really good results are already made? 89: Yes, but we realized that there is still a lot of work, and it always works like that, people have to get to know each other and to build a sort of trust between them. And we start with building this trust. And in 2/3 years the results will be okay. And now, the 20% is allowed and I think we are now at the 12% something like that. So we are moving in the direction of meeting the 20% of the whole food in schools to be locally produced. R: Okay that is interesting.

R: Now you are working as the rural development section. But do you also work together with for example the health organization or the regional economy section? Because in Ede they work a lot on integrating the domains, because they realized more and more that food is related to a lot of domains. And they are struggling sometimes a bit to integrate the different sections. 89: Directly no, but indirectly. Because our kindergartens have a special profile of people that are taking care of the nutrition and everything at the kindergartens. And then we have people at schools that are actually involved in diet production and everything. So this is some sort of, the municipalities partner for education is actually responsible for that. Our way is just to introduce the locally produced food. And the others, the school department are in charge to introduce the health standards and everything to the schools and the kindergartens. So directly we are not linked, we don’t have it in our strategy that deep into the health system. But we are trying to make the base for healthy production, so not the healthy consumption, but the production a lot. R: yes, you are more linked to the farmers.

155 R: And then you also have the LJ Urban Region Agency, do you also collaborate with that organization? 89: Especially in that stock exchange, the food exchange platform that we build. Their role is very important. Because we realized that the market of LJ is too small, so now we are combining everybody. So it is their role at the moment. And they are also the one that created a sort of pilot with ten schools, primary schools in LJ, that are a sort of pattern, their results will show how to build a system that is actually sustainable.

R: In Ede they are sometimes doubting a little bit about what measures to take to make their region and their farmers more sustainable. And they now often used the soft measures, like subsidies and promoting good behavior and giving them information, but they see that this is sometimes not that effective. So sometimes they doubt to introduce more hard measures, like introducing taxes on unsustainable behavior or fines or to change their regulations that you can only build new farming buildings when you are climate neutral or something like that. What kind of measures do you use over there? 89: We have only soft ones. We have ofcourse our urban plan. This is something that is very important. And we try to help the farms to have the space to develop. So this is something that is regulated on the municipality. Then we have also towards the consumer the promotional activities, for example every year the rural festival that gives the opportunity to farmers to present themselves and also for the citizens to see that their food is really locally produced. Then we have one that is really important, a kind of analysis of soil regarding the ingredient of pesticides and also manure. Especially op the water preservation area that we have in Ljubljana. We are trying with the help of the experts and also with different departments to actually help farmers to go in the right direction. And also to give enough information to consumers to respect the farmland, to see that it is important. We had one action a year ago regarding the owners and we are trying to inform them and to make them aware that walking with the dog is okay, but that you have to pick up their poop. Otherwise it may cause diseases. We are mainly into the soft approaches, just trying to see that the people have to do the right things, so the co-existence of farmers and citizens will be able.

R: Is then also the lack of information sometimes a challenge or a lack of education of farmers that they don’t know certain things? 89: No actually we have a very good educational system, well it is an educational service. It is a citizen service for farmers where they can get all the information about the production, and we are working closely with them as well. And every year we prepare a program of education and we finance it and then they execute it on the field. But also on national level they have a lot of education that is available for them for free. So their knowledge and preparation for natural calamities is present, so they know how to deal with it. And what is more important for us is that we have this advisory service that is constantly present on the field and they have one to one conversation and are helping the farmers to develop and to get the right crop and everything.

R: And do you also see that farmers start to create more alternative food systems. Because in the Netherlands start with alternative food systems, like more short food chains, so producer to consumer. But I think in LJ this often already the kind of ‘normal way’. But do they also try different kind of food systems.

156 89: We always stimulate farmers to create places on their own farm where they have small selling points and everything. So that was our idea to bring customers to the farmer. But we also have this network of public markets, established all around the city, and we also established some on the quarters of the municipality. But there are some that are more into the entrepreneurship and they are combining different producers into the network. And they are selling something via internet or something. But this is something that is slowly developing. Because you have to know that in LJ we have the individualists, they are not that much in making the network. They want to do it by themselves, so this is sometimes a problem. And a problem occurs when they have to satisfy more than one customer, so especially the logistic is the problem. But at the moment they manage to do it with family members. So this is something that can be a challenge. But the younger population is the one that is an opportunity in connecting. So I think that in the future also the cooperatives will occur again. We had it in the socialist time, but since the creation of the public of Slovenia in the nineties, they kind of collapsed. But it think that the system way of thinking is bringing them up again. But I think that young people are needed and the generation has to change, and I think it will be possible after that.

R: And is it the case that young people are still interested in becoming a farmer in this area? 89: Yes we are now actually facing the time that generations are changing. So the young generation is coming and we have a good system of also young farmers taking over the farms, they have to be under 40 years or something like that. And then they also have the subsidies of the government, of the state. And there are many taking over the farms of their parents, so the change is happening, right now actually. In most farms we have young people that take it over.

R: And I think the rural-urban linkages in LJ are quite strong, is that the case? Or do you see challenges or changes in that? 89: The challenge is to work with them, because our main idea is to connect everybody, but it is very difficult to put them together all around the table. Because they are actually strong individualists as I said, and it is very hard for them to work for example with their neighbor and things like that. So this is a challenge for the municipality. But otherwise for them, I think those who are more open find their own channels of selling, so it is not a problem, they are selling everything. One example, we have a very interesting pear, and we put a brand on this autonomous pear. But because everybody sells everything, we can’t create a label, because of that. We don’t have enough material to create it. But it is of very high quality, but because they are not connected, we cant do it on a municipality level. They sell it for themselves.

R: So most farmers here own their whole supply chain from growing their food to selling it? 89: Yes, they are mainly doing that. We have some bigger ones, also entering the big shopping chains as well. But it is also good to also have the small chains. And that is why we also are stimulating them also to see the schools and kindergartens chains as an opportunity. Especially in difficult time, as it was this one, when the big market can be locked, you can still maintain the small market, so this is very important.

R: And you also said that the demand for the local food in this area is kind of high, and sometimes the supply is lower than the demand. So in general the farmers don’t have difficulties with selling their production?

157 89: No, but we still have this mentality that in high season, when everything is abundance it is very difficult for them to sell everything. This is actually the moment that they should have other channels for selling their overproduction. So when we have it, we have it in all places, when we don’t have it it is the same. But the thing that we introduced to our farmers, you have it of course, is the greenhouse. We have a lot of production of it longer in the winter. So many of this food is actually produced at the doorstep of LJ also during the winter. And this is something that is … our farmers. We have about 10.000 square meters of greenhouses. But it is enough for our farmers to prolong their season.

R: Okay that is a good new opportunity to increase the whole year-round food supply. And in Ede it is the challenge to get commitment of the entire community to get food on the public agenda, because food is here sometimes not that much an important topic anymore. Do you get difficulties or challenges with that in LJ? 89: I think traditionally food is here important for us in Slovenia in general. Tourist office LJ is introducing the importance of locally produced food especially to tourists. We are food guides, so with this food is introduced to for landers mainly. But I think that because of the system that we have in kindergartens and in schools, the food is always of very high quality. So they are already from an early age actually introduced to the right consumption and right production of food. So it is something that is present in our society. And consuming the good food is not that much of an issue. Of course young people, especially in high school or gymneseum, it is actually the fact that they are , although now they have the organized food system, it is still the challenge to introduce them to the healthy way of nutrition. But we can do much, but not everything.

R: No, I can imagine that. As the section rural development, how do you envision the coming years for LJ? 89: We always see and took our role as connection point. So this is something that we are something that we will continue with, we are connecting both sides. That is our main purpose. It is also our purpose to maintain the number of farms or at least maintain the agricultural area that is now present. So that is our main goal, we see it possible as we mentioned before. And of course food self-sufficiency will be very important for us. We are also very into the, we call it the social capital of the rural area, that is very important for us. So we are going to maintain that as well with all the formal and informal associations and groups. They are very important for us as well, because they are the ones that are helping us to get the knowledge to the people and get the organizational skills and everything. And also maintaining the natural and cultural heritage of the rural area. This is also the 2nd and 3rd strategic goal of the strategy of rural development. So I think we are going to do all those things and ofcourse we introduced the ideas of pollinators and biodiversity, so those things are going to be very closely connected in the future strategic years.

R: And because you said about the agricultural land, is there competition on the land, that they also want to use it for building houses or something else, is that a big challenge? 89: Yes there are always big appetizes? For that one. So at the moment we are actually struggling to maintain them, so in every urbanistic plan that we have, every ten years or something. Yes ten years ago we managed to put a border or something like that around agricultural land. But I think in the new urbanistic plan the appetisment will be stronger, so we are anticipating on this desire for agricultural land because it is flat, it is easy to access and

158 everything. So I think it will be going to happen. But if we stimulate farmers to reactivate the land that we already have, then it is less possible that they will set it for buildings or factories and so on. So this will be our challenge for the next period.

R: Hopefully you will manage! I already went through most of the questions. Are there other relevant topic that we did not cover yet, that you still want to share on this topic? 89: I just wanted to say that we realized very soon that it is very important to have on the municipality level a person or a team that is constantly in contact with the terrain. So we mainly build everything on the conversation with farms. Actually, Gorazd knows every farmer in the city, and the families, and this is very important. Of course, it is possible to be done at the level of LJ, because we are not that big. And it is also very important to be present for a longer time, that is something that we realized. And it is important that you have your own municipality money to work with, so not just the money of the project. Because the project actually ends and then you have to start something new, and then you use the continuity. R: You now mention exactly what they mentioned in Ede as their main challenge. Because over there every four or three years they chose a new board or something, and then you have the chance that the new board choses for a new direction, and then it was just a project. And also that you need the connection with the farmers that live there, because in Ede they also started with visiting all the farmers, and that was something that they never did in the past. And now the farmers really said to them it is the first time that people from the government to talk with us, because they had the feeling that they always make policy about them and set new regulations, but never asked their opinion. And therefore, there was a lot of distrust, and now they start to rebuild this and that is really working. So I think you are over there doing a good job 89: Yes, thank you. As I set, we are a small team with five people all together. But I think in time that will change as well and that we will be able to maintain our strategy.

159