…by 2050… <strong>food</strong> production will have to double on possibly about half the arablel<strong>and</strong> available…will the unfounded reluctance to embrace the geneticmodification of <strong>food</strong> crops retard the necessary research that is required to yieldproductive crops in a changing <strong>climate</strong> environment?’ (Australian Academy ofScience, 2010:16).The Australian Government’s scientific body, the Commonwealth Scientific <strong>and</strong>Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is also concerned with global <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>,making the following statement on their website: ‘The global challenge will be toincrease <strong>food</strong> production through raising agricultural productivity efficiently, whilstdecreasing our environmental footprint’ (CSIRO, 2010). The CSIRO has been a majorproponent of GM <strong>food</strong>, partnering with industry to invest in research <strong>and</strong> developmentof GM crops. Whilst environmental sustainability is clearly a component of governmentpolicy responses to <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>, the social dimensions, such as global powerrelations, poverty, inequality <strong>and</strong> the negative aspects of the corporatisation of theglobal <strong>food</strong> system are glaringly absent (Schanbacher, 2010).The policy dominance of this technological framing at the Federal policy level leaveslittle opportunity to critique the broader causes of <strong>food</strong> inequality at the scale where thiswould be most appropriate. Somewhat ironically, the detrimental effects of thechemical-based techno-fixes from the post war era onwards are now being used topromote genetically modified <strong>food</strong> crops – based on claims that genetically modifiedplants can be engineered to resist pests, hence reducing the volume of chemical inputsneeded to grow <strong>food</strong>. Importantly, <strong>and</strong> in the context of <strong>climate</strong> <strong>change</strong>, a number ofagri-chemical <strong>and</strong> seed companies, including Monsanto, are in the midst ofcommercialising a number of ‘Climate Ready’ crop varieties, which will, according totheir promoters, be designed to better withst<strong>and</strong> the vagaries of <strong>climate</strong> <strong>change</strong>,including increased salinity <strong>and</strong> drought. Whilst such innovations have been largelyviewed by the scientific community as offering a silver-bullet to the problem of <strong>food</strong>production, it has the potential to replace chemical pollution with biological pollution inthe form of genetically modified organisms, something that has alarmed many due toits irreversibility <strong>and</strong> potential effects on wider ecosystems. The urgency with which thisargument is mounted also relegates concerns of environmental <strong>and</strong> health impacts ofthe GM approach to <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong> behind somewhat dubious claim that GM can ‘feedthe world’. However, this approach further concentrates the control of the <strong>food</strong> systeminto the h<strong>and</strong>s of fewer <strong>and</strong> fewer corporations, which in itself has been cited as amajor cause of <strong>food</strong> in<strong>security</strong>. Framing the issue as a problem for science to solvemarginalises attempts to question the problem of wealth <strong>and</strong> <strong>food</strong> distribution globally.It may well be that science holds some of the answers to a <strong>food</strong> secure future,however, these should be augmented with a world view that underst<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong>incorporates ‘the social’ into a critical <strong>and</strong> holistic view of <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>.This critical <strong>and</strong> holistic approach argues for a reconceptualisation of <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong> into<strong>food</strong> sovereignty, as outlined above. The <strong>food</strong> sovereignty approach addresses notonly the availability of <strong>and</strong> access to <strong>food</strong>, but also raises questions about theownership <strong>and</strong> control of <strong>food</strong> systems, criticising the increasingly concentratedcorporate ownership of <strong>food</strong> production, distribution <strong>and</strong> retail as well as of biologicalmaterial such as seeds. The <strong>food</strong> sovereignty approach also advocates placing greatercontrol of <strong>food</strong> production among a wider range of institutions including communitybased<strong>and</strong> not-for-profit organisations.Development agencies including those of the United Nations, have long-observed thatthe increased production of <strong>food</strong> using chemical fertilisers <strong>and</strong> pesticides <strong>and</strong> GMseeds, does not necessarily result in a reduction in hunger worldwide, or to universal<strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>. Recently, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to <strong>food</strong>, Olivier DeSchutter, proffered a <strong>food</strong> sovereignty approach to <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong> by identifying peasant-<strong>Urban</strong> <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>, <strong>urban</strong> <strong>resilience</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>climate</strong> <strong>change</strong> 79
driven agro-ecology (rather than corporate-driven agribusiness) as the mostappropriate mode of production to secure the right to <strong>food</strong> for vulnerable groups,especially in developing countries (United Nations, 2010). In addition, agro-ecologywas also identified by De Schutter as a mode of production that accrues benefits inrelation to increased productivity at the field level, the reduction of rural poverty,improved nutrition, <strong>climate</strong> <strong>change</strong> adaption <strong>and</strong> the better dissemination of agricultural‘best practices’.Food <strong>security</strong> in <strong>urban</strong> settingsAs mentioned in the introduction, more than half of the world’s population now lives incities. This <strong>urban</strong> population has, arguably, not only become increasingly disconnectedfrom the origins of <strong>food</strong>, but is also reliant on an increasingly globalised economy ofmonetary ex<strong>change</strong> to access <strong>food</strong>. Vulnerabilities are exacerbated when economicresources are low, <strong>and</strong> when <strong>food</strong> grown outside of the city is compromised due toclimatic variability <strong>and</strong> extreme weather events. Feeding growing city populationsrequires transporting <strong>food</strong> from outside of its perimeters, sometimes from agriculturalregions outside of the city, but increasingly from distant l<strong>and</strong>s beyond the referentialframe of the recipient. Dixon (2011) refers to this disconnection between people <strong>and</strong>the origins of their <strong>food</strong> as a metabolic rift, a disconnection <strong>and</strong> vulnerability that wasalso highlighted during this project’s fieldwork in Melbourne <strong>and</strong> the Gold Coast.<strong>Urban</strong> agriculture can also be seen as part of a <strong>food</strong> sovereignty movement, wherepeople take control of some of their calorific needs by producing <strong>food</strong> in their backyards<strong>and</strong> community gardens <strong>and</strong> develop informal <strong>food</strong> distribution systems such as <strong>food</strong>swaps, or gleaning. In this respect they are not only reacting to concerns about theavailability of <strong>food</strong>, but also to its inputs. There is evidence that <strong>urban</strong> citizens areincreasingly concerned about the health <strong>and</strong> environmental implications of an industrial<strong>food</strong> system, its reliance on chemical inputs <strong>and</strong> the recent push toward GM <strong>food</strong>.In response to growing awareness of <strong>food</strong> vulnerability many <strong>urban</strong> citizens havebegun develop new approaches to local <strong>food</strong> production <strong>and</strong> distribution, exploringinnovative methods of <strong>urban</strong> agriculture <strong>and</strong> re-applying methods <strong>and</strong> practices thatwere once commonplace in cities. In some local jurisdictions this has been augmentedby local <strong>and</strong> regional state support which has resulted in new partnerships with localcommunity groups. In towns <strong>and</strong> cities appropriate planning policies can help re-insert<strong>food</strong> growing into city life by extending the opportunities for groups in civil society toengage in <strong>food</strong> growing (Burke, 2009).There is great potential for <strong>urban</strong> agriculture to play a bigger part in dealing with <strong>food</strong>in<strong>security</strong>. Kortright <strong>and</strong> Wakefield (2011) report that globally, around 600 millionpeople are engaged informally in <strong>urban</strong> agriculture. With Havana seen as a model for<strong>urban</strong> <strong>food</strong> production with an estimated 90% of the fresh fruit <strong>and</strong> vegetablesconsumed in the city being grown in <strong>and</strong> around the city <strong>and</strong> despite differences in thesocial, political <strong>and</strong> economic context, this Cuban experience offers valuable lessonsfor <strong>urban</strong> <strong>food</strong> production in Australian cities<strong>Urban</strong> <strong>food</strong> <strong>security</strong>, <strong>urban</strong> <strong>resilience</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>climate</strong> <strong>change</strong> 80
- Page 1 and 2:
Synthesis and Integrative ResearchF
- Page 3 and 4:
Published by the National Climate C
- Page 5 and 6:
ABSTRACTFood security is increasing
- Page 7 and 8:
1. a review of the literature: on n
- Page 9 and 10:
its Food for All project. This help
- Page 13 and 14:
In response to the existential thre
- Page 15 and 16:
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCHFood i
- Page 17 and 18:
debates and to the more systematic
- Page 19 and 20:
organisation in the past few years.
- Page 21 and 22:
4. RESULTSIn this section we presen
- Page 23 and 24:
increasing productivity. Thus, whil
- Page 25 and 26:
people and the origins of their foo
- Page 27 and 28:
urban food supply chains. Thus, whi
- Page 29 and 30:
This logistics system is dominated
- Page 31 and 32:
Like Hodgson et al., as per definit
- Page 33 and 34:
esilient, powerful by being locally
- Page 35 and 36:
volume or even its contribution to
- Page 37: community food growing can have on
- Page 40 and 41: generations this history has been f
- Page 42 and 43: a stronger focus on addressing the
- Page 44 and 45: The third key aspect is fairness -
- Page 46 and 47: climate (which we live and work in
- Page 48 and 49: agriculture. Eight percent is in ur
- Page 50 and 51: This concept of the ‘spaces in be
- Page 52 and 53: esearch scientist and chair of the
- Page 54 and 55: As discussed above, protection of t
- Page 56: 4.2.5 What is the extent and the im
- Page 60 and 61: no place under the panoply of pract
- Page 62 and 63: increased, the market dominance of
- Page 64 and 65: … the residents of S Park called
- Page 66 and 67: 5. CONCLUSIONSThere is growing conc
- Page 68 and 69: urban resilience. This inevitably c
- Page 70 and 71: In many respects these contrasting
- Page 72 and 73: Many interviewees of both standpoin
- Page 74 and 75: a given area. The rationale for thi
- Page 76 and 77: mapping the location of sources of
- Page 78 and 79: Australian food policy debates refl
- Page 80 and 81: APPENDIX 1: URBAN FOOD SECURITY, UR
- Page 82 and 83: IntroductionGlobally, and in Austra
- Page 84 and 85: Review methodsThis stage of the res
- Page 86 and 87: despite many of the causes of food
- Page 90 and 91: 2. How is food security (in general
- Page 92 and 93: the food security of cities, but no
- Page 94 and 95: While some see the density of devel
- Page 96 and 97: when suppliers, distributors, and c
- Page 98 and 99: a more prominent role in enhancing
- Page 100 and 101: community gardens webpage on the Co
- Page 102 and 103: comprehensive description of the ca
- Page 104 and 105: In both the developed and developin
- Page 106 and 107: Their review notes a significant in
- Page 108 and 109: lines of supply from often rural pl
- Page 110 and 111: 1 IntroductionCities have always be
- Page 112 and 113: Despite some attempts to curb urban
- Page 114 and 115: the Gold Coast remains a city that
- Page 116 and 117: ackyard/community gardenernot affil
- Page 118 and 119: level in local government. VicHealt
- Page 120: Figure 2: Impacts on Municipal Food
- Page 125 and 126: security I recognise that the cost
- Page 127 and 128: United States, he offered the follo
- Page 129 and 130: This vision highlights the multi-fu
- Page 131 and 132: An environmental education centre.
- Page 133 and 134: Melbourne Food ForestA Melbourne ga
- Page 135 and 136: stakeholder consultations, the repo
- Page 137 and 138: can. We sense the changes. The earl
- Page 139 and 140:
half-desert environments. We’re g
- Page 141 and 142:
etain its basic function and struct
- Page 143 and 144:
government; and that trying to get
- Page 145 and 146:
the north and the west, where it wo
- Page 147 and 148:
Why do people buy so much food that
- Page 149 and 150:
urban agriculture (however broadly
- Page 151 and 152:
enefits and risks. Before we can co
- Page 153 and 154:
Another important and tangible role
- Page 155 and 156:
coast without any problems whatsoev
- Page 157 and 158:
BIBLIOGRAPHYAECOM (2011) Scoping St
- Page 159 and 160:
Burns, C. I., A. (2007). Measuring
- Page 161 and 162:
Edwards, F., & Mercer, D. (2010). M
- Page 163 and 164:
James, S. O’Neill, P. and Dimeski
- Page 165 and 166:
Millar, R., 2012, ‘Government shi
- Page 167 and 168:
Saltmarsh, N. M., J; Longhurst, N.
- Page 169 and 170:
Walker B., 2008, Resilience Thinkin