The 21st century
will likely be, amongst other things, the century of the city. And the nature
of cities, so to speak, is changing.
Enter stage right: catchphrases like
green products (building materials, clothing, lunch boxes and other
manufactured goods), green lifestyle philosophy (living by a ‘green’ ethic),
eco-friendly, natural, organic, sustainable, etc. The cultural, political and
lifestyle agendas surrounding environmentally ethical decisions is a hopeful
step and gives ever increasing credence to the central tenet of this movement:
we’d better take care of our environment before it takes care of us.
Perhaps one of the greatest threats to both human health and
global security is the issue of food security.
Intensively increasing our focus on Urban Agriculture is a critical step
in the right direction towards addressing this crisis, for a variety of inter-connected
and complex reasons. As it currently stands, though, there is no cohesive plan in
place on the part of the Federal Government to domestically address the issue
of basic food security for its citizens. The closest the government came to addressing
this issue was the
Community Food Security Act of 1995.
It was sponsored by Sen. Patrick
Leahy [VT], Sen. Tom Harkin [IA] and Sen. Edward Kennedy [MA] and read as
follows:
To authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make temporary assistance
available to support community food security projects designed to meet the food
needs of low-income people, increase the self-reliance of communities in
providing for their own food needs, and promote comprehensive, inclusive, and
future-oriented solutions to local food, farm, and nutrition problems.
Unfortunately, the last major
action taken on the bill was a referral from the Senate to the Committee on
Agriculture where it was never heard from again. What the bill aimed to secure seems sensible
enough: basic nutrition and food security for low-income communities and
self-reliance for all communities.
Sadly, obtaining adequate nutrition has become increasingly difficult
for the nearly half of the world’s population.
Even for those of us who can afford to feed ourselves sensibly with a
balanced diet of healthy foods, nutritional choices have become the focus of
increasing scrutiny. Genetically
modified organisms (GMOs), pesticides and herbicides, growing conditions of plants
and animals, the feed and slaughter of the latter, farmed vs. wild caught,
organic vs. conventional, local vs. shipped and so on are all choices that we
may consider when purchasing food. These choices seem trivial to many
consumers, who are providing for large families with limited resources, and
indeed they must be. What many might
call a ‘first-world problem.’ These
choices can seem cultural and political, and indeed they are. But they are also
critically important: there is a lot at
stake in the games of food and security.
I recently met with an old high
school friend of mine over dinner and drinks in Denver. His name is Arthur Ortegon and he, along with
a woman named Kendra Sandoval, run a small but important office for Denver
Mayor Michael Hancock. The office sprung from an initiative in Mayor Hancock’s
winning campaign and is called Denver Seeds. The work that Denver Seeds does is
laudable and the scope of its vision is rare. I hoped to pick Arthur’s brain
specifically about Urban Agriculture in Denver, and proceeded to do so for two
hours. On the way home, I was so
overwhelmed by the range of our discussion, by the sheer enormity and
complexity and morass surrounding our culture and environment that I lost track
of specifically what it is that Arthur and Kendra and Denver Seeds actually do.
The issues and complexities
surrounding Urban Agriculture, I realized, are much, much larger in scope than
I wanted to believe. On a basic level, Urban and Peri-Urban Agriculture (UPA)
is agriculture in and around an urban environment. This means not only the
raising of fruit, vegetables, animals and bees, but also the processing of raw
materials and production of goods in situ.
Sounds easy enough so far, but not so.
It is actually a very complex system to put into practice in many
contemporary cities because it aims to address a wide variety of issues on a
local, regional, national and global scale.
This isn’t the agriculture that
the Persians pioneered over 10 thousand years ago or even the agriculture that
our parents and grandparents practiced 60 years ago. It is a result of
mechanization, standardization, transportation, urbanization,
industrialization, legislation, zoning, and a whole variety of other
developments in food production. UPA in the 21st century must
address not only food security, but also neighborhood development,
unemployment, infrastructure, education and community outreach, environmental
sustainability and its associated land use policies and so on. The Community Food Security Act of 1995 aimed
to address some of these issues. For
this bill to have been shelved without even looking at the whole picture makes
one wonder - what would it take to get these increasingly relevant issues to be
addressed?
As is often the case, many of the
issues involved boil down to one common factor:
money. If increasingly large and
complex economies of scale got us into this mess, then maybe economies of
smaller scales can get us out. Arthur
told me that the question of consistent funding and of the health of the
economy in general is the big sticking point on this issue. As of yet, many cities, including Denver,
lack consistent sources of funding to initiate and support UPA programs. Surplus money is most often used on issues of
seemingly greater concern, like education or infrastructure. So in essence, UPA
needs startup capital. The question for
investors of any kind then is what’s the return? It could potentially be huge, but it’s very
hard to tell. Arthur told me, for
example, that in 2008, the Denver area spent roughly $6 billion on food. Out of that, only 10% was spent on the local
food economy. The other $5.4 billion was
spent on products produced elsewhere, likely on corporate chain-restaurant
food, agri-business products and processed foods. He pointed out the local multiplier effect
as well. This is the theory, supported
by a number of studies, that money spent on locally produced goods and at local
businesses is likely to stay circulating locally. This means that the $4.00 you spent last fall
on butternut squash at the farmers’ market will hypothetically make it back
into your pocket eventually. Not once or
twice, but three and a half times on average.
It can seem somewhat abstract, but this means that the $600 million
spent on food in Denver in 2008 actually had the economic impact of more like
$2.1 billion for the local economy. Even
though that is a handsome figure, what happened to the other $5.4 billion,
which actually translates to a possible $16.2 billion of local economic activity? It mostly walked away and won’t be back for a
while.
It’s safe to say that Denver will
not transform into a 100% local food economy any time soon, if ever. Many would argue that such a scope of
localization is not only impossible, but even undesirable. After all, there are many food products we
consume that cannot realistically be produced locally. Coffee, chocolate, salmon filets, mangoes and
Chianti are all good examples. Even
though that’s somewhat of a simplification, the point is that many things we
now take for granted would be unavailable under a system of full
localization. More than that, such
drastically reduced imports would be economically and culturally harmful in
their own ways. But that is as much a
question of natural resources and climate as it is of processing, packaging and
distribution hubs.
Therein lay the middle ground
that Denver Seeds seeks to promote: keep
more money in the local economy at a +/-350% rate of return, but not all of
it. In the meantime, jobs, goods and
services are created and communities are strengthened by self-sufficiency,
individuals are strengthened by fresh and vital produce, and ecosystems are
created in which soil, air and water is renewed. It seems too good a future not to pursue it
with all available resources. But it’s
not easy.
Nevertheless, to date, Denver
Seeds has completed a variety of projects, which at very least will serve as
important prototypes for future improvement and, ideally, will become critical
and proven forerunners in a much more integrated and official Denver food
system. Arthur described the approach to
economic integration as the “Sustainable Triple Bottom Line”. The triad
indicated is the economic, environmental and social sector connection, in which
improvement of one indicates improvement in all. In the economic sector, job
creation and local economic drivers are created. In the environmental sector,
the improvements to natural resource management, the built environment, and
water and air quality are considered. In the social sector, communities are built
and/or strengthened, with healthier and better performing students and
residents, and in which community ideals of food safety and health are promoted
along with better eating habits. Community Investment is the banner under which
Denver Seeds promotes its goals. The aim is the growth of existing
organizations, markets, jobs, and food, and is accomplished through outreach
and education. The goal is to engender behavioral and cultural changes through
education from childhood onwards, thereby enabling healthier and more localized
communities.
A more practical rubric is
designated as an on-the-ground, viable economy “Fostering Jobs From Plant To Plate”, as another
catchphrase of Denver Seeds reads. This is a five-tiered cycle that effectively
deals with both the Sustainable Tripe Bottom Line and Community Investment. The
first tier is production. By bringing nodes of production for locally produced
goods, economic growth is created as well as food safety and traceability. The
second tier is distribution. A specific local network a group of local networks
may be utilized and/or created to deal with dependable local food distribution,
again increasing food safety and additionally decreasing carbon footprint. The
third tier is processing. Processing and packaging locally creates growth in
the job sector, also potentially decreasing carbon footprint in the event that
packaging material is also produced locally. The fourth tier is food access.
This is a marketing component of the local cycle and it is also a practical
reality for many. The areas that are most food insecure (some call these food
deserts) also generally have limited means of transportation and higher levels
of poverty, obesity and diabetes. Assuming these nodes could be developed under
this plan would have a positive health impact on the population, environment
and economies of these neighborhoods.
The final tier is
post-consumption. Considering this cycle as a cradle-to-cradle endeavor would
ensure availability of high quality compost, with its beneficial effect on soil
health. This would likely produce jobs as well and decrease the overall waste
byproduct of the system by using outputs as inputs wherever possible.
The best example of Denver Seeds
that will be completed in 2013 is, arguably, The Veterans to Farmers Greenhouse
located at 27th and Arapahoe within “Sustainability Park”. This
12,000 sqft greenhouse facility, which is a collaboration with Circle Fresh
Farms, aims to have an attached market, which will also serve as a vocational
training center. Also, at the Denver County Jail, an aquaponics and greenhouse
system will be installed to feed inmates and eventually sell produce. The Blue Bear Farm at the Denver Convention
Center supplies produce for the facility’s kitchen and educational opportunities for
children. On the drawing board is the DIA Agro Park, which would serve a
similar role for the airport and could be, ostensibly, much larger in scale and
impact. These examples may not seem that forward thinking to those who deal
with land use issues and concepts of urbanism, but the fact that it is being
initiated at a local government level is the exception rather than the rule. If
Denver Seeds succeeds in its visions, Mayor Hancock might be remembered, like
Mayor Speer, as an effective green thumb, and like Mayor Pena as a champion of
new urban development.
There is much that needs to be
done if the type of change that Denver Seeds is envisioning is to become a
reality. But the effects of the changes would be transformative for Denver in
its image and in its industry. Denver was once a much more powerful
agricultural hub than it is today, and could reclaim that identity in an
updated fashion. It would engage offices, organizations and the community in
dialogues surrounding land use, social and cultural quality of life, skill
sharing and education, vocational training and community outreach, health, autonomy
and economy. It will bring to light conflicts of land use, disposition and
tenure, and environmental issues surrounding contaminants in the water and soil
and general toxic environmental load within the city. Green projects, including
but not limited to, UPA in the urban environment have proven ameliorative
effects on public health and safety and environmental health and biodiversity.
With the urban population load of
the 21st century that we can expect, cities will need to
continuously re-engage issues of land use and health and the safety of its
citizens. The dynamic and dramatic nature of this change is uncertain, but to
prepare for the best increases the quality of life for residents now and in the
future. Denver Seeds is a step in the right direction, and with luck and good
works, hopefully it can evolve into a stride.
