|
Food production within urban areas can occur in various guises and it is necessary to visit some of the practices and philosophies encountered within urban community gardens, to help reflect on the nature of these spaces. The contribution of the city to food production in the form of ‘urban agriculture’ has been documented by several authors 1. While urban community gardens in Sydney do not consciously identify themselves as sites for urban agriculture, tending to identify themselves, rather, with practices such as organic gardening and permaculture, literature concerning urban agriculture is highly relevant regarding the many roles these spaces can fulfil and their social, ecological and economic benefits. This literature is also relevant as it may represent a path towards the ‘normalisation’ of food production within cities, in contrast to the current interpretation of such activities as part of the city’s ‘other’.
Perhaps the core philosophy and practice underlying all forms of urban community gardening is organic gardening. This is not a specified set of practices, so much as a guiding principle 2. The Organic Federation of Australia defines organic food as that "…grown without using chemical fertilisers, herbicides or pesticides, and without using genetically engineered seeds or ingredients." 3 Substances are employed which fulfil these functions, but they are derived from sources such as compost, mulch and plant-based sprays. Seed stock is organically produced, self seeding, non-hybridised and/or belonging to traditional varieties, and can be obtained from commercial suppliers, non-profit organisations dedicated to the collection and exchange of seed, and from the garden itself. Philosophically, organic gardening seeks to maintain or improve soil fertility, ensure the long-term productivity of a site and various food species, and reduce the presence of chemical residues in the environment and in the food chain. The methods and structures through which ‘organic gardening’ is embarked upon vary widely according to the beliefs, knowledge, aesthetics and preferences of its practitioners. Permaculture is a more comprehensive system of knowledge, originating in the work of Bill Mollison and David Holmgren during the 1970s. Mollison defines permaculture as
Permaculture seeks to generate resilient human settlements: permaculture theory extends to include social, cultural, economic and spiritual frameworks 5. It does incorporate the principles espoused by organic gardening; however, these form part of a wider philosophy which consciously seeks to redress many of the problems perceived in our ecological, social and cultural realms through a sophisticated design system. Physically, permaculture gardens manifest as polycultures, utilising techniques and structures which aim to replicate the functions performed in any diverse ecosystem, such as nutrient provision and recycling, shade provision, water retention or drainage and pest deterrence. Permaculture displays the diversity, reciprocity and flexibility seen in many traditional farming knowledges 6. Complete elaboration of permaculture theory is beyond the scope of this study; the purpose here is rather to tease out some main theoretical concerns seen to be relevant to this study. Drawing on ecological theory, permaculture theory utilises the role of ‘edges’, within both physical design and social organisation. An ‘edge’ is the interface or overlap between two ecosystems; ecologically, such spaces are seen to be more productive than either of the two other ecosystems, as in estuaries or mangroves 7. In permaculture, edge space is consciously maximised, so gardens will often contain beds shaped as keyholes, spirals or mandalas. Socially, such a philosophy recognises the role of enhancing the area of communication between various social bodies. 8 This is particularly relevant to this study’s focus on accessibility to information, people and spaces as a core component of ‘sustainability’, as the greater the area of exchange within and between community gardens and the wider community, the greater the points of access to this information. This can be further expanded to conceptualise the spaces between individuals as the areas of greatest productivity and interaction; such a conceptualisation is seen in the work of several authors who see the spaces between us as the site for learning, engagement and political activity 9. Hence, this focus on ‘edges’ serves as a useful interpretive tool for assessing the interactions between various bodies as an aspect of ‘sustainable democracy’. Such a tool, however, is not intended as a criterion for awarding the status of ‘sustainable’ or otherwise to a method of interaction; rather, it is intended as a ‘lens’ with which to view these interactions. Permaculture also focuses on replication, in that it is seen as desirable to have each required function fulfilled by numerous components and each component performing multiple functions. Replication and variety of functional components ensures resilience in an ecosystem, enabling functional continuity when one component fails to perform a given role, and maximising the productivity of a given number of functional units 10. This is a relevant framework for interpreting the various roles that the individuals involved in community gardens and their affiliated bodies play, whereby the same individual may be performing many roles and any role may be played by many individuals. Again, this is relevant to the study’s interpretation of ‘sustainability’ as dependent upon human interactions, and provides a useful tool for the consideration of the individuals, structures and organisations which contextualise these interactions. Community gardens are spaces within which aspects of the food production techniques and philosophies discussed above can be embodied. According to Eliott, these are widespread in urban areas of the United Kingdom, Western Europe and the United States of America 11. Within these countries, the gardens are rarely economically viable, but a few achieve self-sufficiency for their members 12. The roles of community gardens in the United Kingdom were seen as the provision of leisure space, breathing space and food supplementation. The strength of community gardens in that country is boosted by the creation of the National Federation of City Farms, which is funded by the Department of the Environment and which provides advice, support in securing land and assistance in starting a programme 13. The United Kingdom also contains city farms: more substantial areas of land which "…incorporate a range of farm and craft based activities, garden allotments, meeting rooms, workshops, children’s play areas, urban forests and the like." 14 Whereas allotments rely on bodies such as local councils for initial outlay, with ongoing costs met by membership fees, the larger size of city farms usually requires paid staff, whose salaries are provided by government bodies. Much work is emerging concerning similar spaces within Australia 15. Within Sydney, the land is generally let from a controlling authority, with or without formal documentation or rental obligations. Physically, the gardens manifest as communal or allotment systems. Communal systems are gardened by the whole group, with varying degrees of communal decision making, share of costs and harvests. Allotments are smaller patches of land run on an individual basis within the garden, usually with the one rule of abiding by organic principles. Plate 2.1 illustrates these two systems. In either type of system, there are varying arrangements regarding rent, membership, settlement of disputes, communal events, tools, water and so forth. Most spaces are community gardens of less than one hectare, although there are city farm initiatives in Melbourne, including the Centre for Education and Research in Environmental Strategies (CERES). This 3.3 hectare site houses a worm farm, permaculture plots, a wastewater filtration wetland, a wind generator, bush foods and a café 16.
Plate 2.1. Communal and allotment arrangements at Randwick Community Organic Garden. The closest beds are allotments, the large circular bed is the communal area with the door to the poultry enclosure behind it. Such spaces are often promoted as educational sites, an example of technologies and practices such as organic food production, composting, permaculture and appropriate technology. Much emphasis is also placed in these spaces on the potential for community development, especially developing methods for conflict resolution and establishing decision making processes. This represents the development of the spaces between us and extends to include the edges between community gardens and regulatory or landholding bodies, which are also a realm for learning and development. However, the perception of the gardens as ‘community’ spaces may be problematic, as it reinforces their exclusion as valid or legitimate enterprises within a city, other than in a recreational, leisure or hobby capacity. This stands in contrast to the perceptions and literature concerning urban agriculture. ‘Urban agriculture’ is a more generic term referring to a set of practices discussed in literature which has Jac Smit of The Urban Agriculture Network as one of its main authors 17. This work focuses on the role of commercial urban agricultural enterprises throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America. Urban agriculture literature focuses on the reuse of urban wastes, not only in the forms of solid and liquid wastes, but also idle land.
Potential sites for this production include areas unsuitable for building, idle public land, lands that can have an interim use and household areas such as rooftops and patios 19. As documented, urban agriculture in these countries is a vital source of income, employment and nutrition. Further, it utilises urban waste in many forms and reduces the reliance on distant agricultural production which can involve widespread chemical practices, land degradation, fossil fuel consumption, excessive packaging, plus the allocation of resources to transportation and refrigeration 20. Within the countries which authors such as Smit and Sawio document 21, urban agriculture is a vital part of the economy; much produce is both consumed by the families responsible for the production and sold at local markets 22. Individuals involved in urban agriculture – mainly women – display higher incomes and have healthier children than their neighbours, employed or otherwise 23. Developments in Havana, Cuba, see half the island’s food production occurring in cities, with governmental support in the form of seed networks, pesticide and fertiliser legislation and technical advice. 24 The reality and potential of urban agriculture is discussed by Sawio:
In this light, the lack of such recognition of the potential of urban food production in Australian cities, as reflected in its absence from the Greenprint for Sydney conference as discussed in Chapter 1, is perplexing. It has been documented that 30 per cent of urban Americans are already producing some food: this represents some 10 million urban agriculturalists 26. Comparative data for Australia is unavailable; however, a recent study by the Southern Sydney Waste Board (SSWB) on household composting and worm farming revealed that close to 40 per cent of households under the administration of SSWB already compost, with some 20 per cent likely to start within the next 12 months 27. As figures 2.1 to 2.4 indicate, high density areas such as those under South Sydney and Waverley councils display considerable participation and interest in these practices, which would imply that this is not only a suburban phenomenon. Whether this interest would spread to food production given the opportunity, remains to be investigated.
However, the situation remains that community gardens often face considerable difficulty in gaining access to and retaining control over land, while ‘urban agriculture’ is a term rarely used in describing such endeavours. Sawio documents the widespread perception of urban agriculture (UA):
This is an interesting passage, with evident allusions to some of the perceptions of cities and leisure spaces as discussed in Chapter 1, according to which cities are not where food production occurs. In addition, the desire to not be seen farming is reminiscent of the desire of the landed gentry to display no reliance upon the land, also discussed in Chapter 1. Such othering of urban food production may be reinforced by descriptions of community gardens as ‘community’ spaces, as this deliberate naming marks them as something different to the norm. This may be due to the lack of community documented as felt by many urban residents; advertising or nomenclature referring to ‘community’ may therefore be interpreted by its recipients as pertaining to someone else. These phenomena lead to the troublesome situation whereby, while such nomenclature may be required for awareness raising and a sense of local empowerment, this same nomenclature can obscure the function of the garden and further reinforce the perception that it is something unusual, ‘alternative’ and strange. This acts to erase the potential of these spaces for urban economic self determination and self reliance, as their activity is marginalised or at best, relegated to the ‘informal’ sector. The location of urban food production in the ‘informal’ sector may be reinforced by an association of this production with ‘private’ spaces, defined in opposition to ‘public’, as allocation to the ‘private’ realm effectively removes an activity from dominant perceptions of a city’s composition. The implication here is that something other than the community dominates the urban realm under ‘normal’ circumstances. As discussed in Chapter 1, some attribute this domination to capitalist, corporatist economies, which rely on the removal of emotion in to function effectively 29. Further, such economies rely on the increasingly fine differentiation of the individual: such minute differences can then be manipulated into marketable identity niches 30. According to Saul, Western society is dominated by reason or rationality, which assumes order is possible, necessary and desirable, and through which people seek to impose control. This has generated vast structures and systems comprised of groups; such structures have become more to do with self-replication and self-service and less to do with democracy, society or the individual. Concomitantly, our society has become increasingly dominated by corporatism, which Saul discusses thus:
In this light, the delineation of ‘community’ spaces as specific spaces implies that the community is but one ‘interest group’ amongst a myriad of others, which thus has to enter into a struggle for legitimacy and access to resources and/or power. This default status of the population outside of the infrastructure of its own existence (the city landscape) is troubling indeed, and infers that this ‘group’ would not be catered for if it did not organise, lobby and negotiate ensure its consideration. Further, the requirement for the individual to display group membership in order to secure legitimacy, leads to the simplistic representation or interpretation of individuals to the extent of that membership, as subjects possessing only one interest, and infers some kind of internal group homogeneity 33. This can then lead to problems regarding exclusion and inaccessibility, or the emergence or perception of dogma. This brief introduction to issues surrounding community gardening highlights the relevance of these spaces as sites for consideration of issues such as the urban realm, action, and ‘sustainability’, constructed in Chapter 1 in terms of access. This highlights theoretical foci such as the permaculture concepts of edges, replication and function as possible lenses through which to investigate such issues. Further, a brief investigation of the concepts of ‘community’ and ‘urban agriculture’ highlights issues concerning the ‘normalisation’ of urban food production, through which this activity may be shifted from its allocation to marginal or ‘private’ spaces, to a legitimate position within our society and economy. As such, this study draws upon a selection of urban community gardens within Sydney for the interrogation of issues concerning ‘sustainability’ as based on human aspiration and interaction, with its implied reliance on access. |
||||||||||
<< email:lcrabtre@*SPAMBINGLER*els.mq.edu.au >> NOTE: Remember to delete the expression *SPAMBINGLER* from the address before sending the email. << honours index >> << phd index >> << home >> << to top of page >> |
|||||||||||
