Supporting Local Food Networks from a local ...

Daniel Murray and Jennifer Lynes, Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo (2010) Unpublished white paper

Supporting Local Food Networks from a local planning perspective

Summary This article provides an overview of the benefits of supporting local food networks and argues that, to capitalize on these benefits, municipalities need to modify existing practice and develop planning policies that encourage and provide greater support for local food networks. The Planning Case for Local Food Networks Local food networks include food co-operatives (buying clubs), community supported agriculture1 (CSA), farmer’s markets and community gardens. These initiatives represent an alternative to the conventional corporate agrifood systems. Sonnino & Marsden, (2006) identify that the principal distinction between these two systems is the spatial dimension. Under corporate argifood systems, consumers are separated from producers in terms of both distance (food can travel vast distances to places of consumption) and degrees of separation (producers and consumers may be separated by a chain of processors, shippers and retailers). Conversely, local food networks focus on establishing a direct relationship between producers and consumers. Community interest in and prevalence of local food networks is growing, as evidenced by the increasing number of initiatives promoting and supporting local food. For example, the Waterloo region now supports five permanent farmer’s markets (and additional seasonal temporary markets). The Ontario CSA Directory2 identifies nine CSA initiatives operating in Waterloo region. Additionally, The Ontario Natural Food-Coop has a number of active buying clubs in the Region and local food entrepreneurs have developed their own buying club that exclusively sources local food3. Increasing interest in planning for food systems has also been reflected in the planning literature (see Born & Purcell, 2006, Kaufman, 2009). Pothukuchi & Kaufman (2000) identify several reasons why planners are becoming more focused on food systems, and local food networks in particular, including the loss of farmland on the urban fringe, water pollution problems related to agricultural land use, the importance of food-distribution centers to the urban economy, health, and access to food retailing for urban residents. Before developing policies for local food networks, it is important to critically review the potential benefits to determine what opportunities they present, and to inform decisions about when and how best to support them. The literature identifies that consumers and producers perceive a number of benefits from local food networks, summarized in Table 1. Support of local food networks occurs when benefits (whether perceived of real) resonate with the value system of an individual to such a degree so as to detach consumers from conventional food networks and attach them to alternative (local) food networks (Brunori, 2007).

1

In Canada, the acronym CSA is sometimes referred to as community shared agriculture. See http://csafarms.ca/index.html 3 See http://baileyslocalfoods.ca/ and http://onfc.ca 2

1


Table 1: Perceived benefits from local food networks Consumer Benefits More accessible – brings farm produce to your neighbourhood Direct purchasing from producers can lower produce cost Encourages increased consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables More sustainable (reduced food miles) Increased diversity of fruit and vegetable choice as opposed to more standardized options in traditional supermarkets Can help to build sense of community by building relationships between local farmers and consumers

Producer Benefits Direct marketing opportunities – avoid wholesalers, thereby increasing profit margins by marketing products directly to consumers Create new markets by accessing new consumers More control over pricing and direct market allows for increase share of sale price for producer Change the balance of power in the food chain to benefit producers, rather then wholesalers Change production and consumption patterns to increase support for local food networks

The abovementioned benefits can enhance small farm viability, providing an alternative to large scale farms and enabling young people an opportunity to pursue farming. Source: Compiled from following sources: Brunori (2007); Brown & Millar (2008); Stephenson & Lev (2004). While the above noted benefits seem impressive, Born & Purcell (2006: 195) caution about what they refer to as the “local trap”, that is the tendency to assume that the local scale is preferred to larger scales for its perceived ability to deliver desired values such as ecological sustainability, social justice, democracy, better nutrition, and food security, freshness, and quality. Born & Purcell (2006: 196) argue that no matter what its scale, the outcomes produced by a food system are contextual: they depend on the actors and agendas that are empowered by the particular social relations in a given food system, uncritical support of local food networks won’t deliver broad benefits per se: …the local trap conflates the scale of a food system with desired outcome. In common planning language, it confuses ends with means, or goals with strategies. It treats localization as an end in itself rather than as a means to an end, such as justice, sustainability, and so on.

Using caution in interpreting the potential benefits of local food networks is a good idea, but it seems to be mainly applicable when evaluating the tangible benefits (e.g. carbon emissions in producing and distributing produce). In examining consumer motivations for shopping at farmers markets, Feagan & Morris (2009) identified buying fresh, healthy produce, supporting local farms, buying local, and (more weakly) broader community support, were all elements in the mix of values sought by patrons. Spatial aspects are clearly a central element in purchasing motivations, though these perceived benefits may not necessarily have a measurable benefit that can be attributed to local food in every case. However, Feagan & Morris (2009) also found that social factors played an important role in motivating purchasing decisions. These included the consistent appeal

2


of the market as a site of social interaction, the importance of knowing the vendors, the general ambience of the market, and the notion of ‘tradition’ tied to the farmers’ market experience. Clearly the reasons prompting consumers to support local food networks are complex, falling into multiple categories including environmental, economic, social and political motivations. While there may be some debate as to whether local food networks can deliver economic or environmental benefits in comparison to the larger globalised agrifood system, they certainly offer a different food retail experience that promotes interaction, relationship and place building. These more intangible perceived benefits may serve to be more significant for the planning profession given recent developments in Ontario’s planning policy framework that encourage focus not simply on City building, but community building. In 2005 the Places to Grow Act was introduced help the Government of Ontario plan for growth in a coordinated and strategic way. As part of the Act’s implementation the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe was released to take effect on June 16, 2006. This 25-year plan aims to: • • • • •

Revitalize downtowns to become vibrant and convenient centres. Create complete communities that offer more options for living, working, learning, shopping and playing. Provide housing options to meet the needs of people at any age. Curb sprawl and protect farmland and green spaces. Reduce traffic gridlock by improving access to a greater range of transportation options.

Evidence form the literature suggests that local food networks, particularly those with a social interaction dimension, can assist in building community relationships (see Feagan & Morris 2009) and may represent a tool to encourage vibrancy in urban areas. In addition, one aspect of the dialogue on local food with respect to planning that has not been roundly discussed to date is the issue of influence. While local food networks may not necessarily deliver on perceived benefits in each context, they do present an opportunity for a community (community and municipal government) to influence and shape food production either through policy development or consumer-driven purchasing power, an opportunity not afforded to communities through the globalised food system. For the planning profession this may be a significant idea, as local food networks can, as the discussion above indicates, provide further planning opportunities to shape both the social relationships and urban form to achieve broader policy objectives. Supporting Local Food Networks The Regional Municipality of Waterloo (Region of Waterloo) is one example of a community that is looking to encourage local food networks. In 2009 the Region of Waterloo released its new Regional Official Plan. This new plan includes polices that for accessibility, health, environmental, and economic reasons seek to strengthen and diversify local food networks. The plan very much reflects a regional approach to supporting local food networks, by promoting mixed-use, transit-oriented development and further protecting farmland from urban encroachment and development. Specific local food network policies provide broad support for agriculture, farmer’s markets (including temporary markets) and food system planning in general, but shy away from being too prescriptive. 3


While such policy measures can be successful in shaping future urban form, they provide limited short-term opportunities to influence the social relationships required to develop an engaged and vibrant community. Providing support for local food networks may help to activate the ‘bottom-up’ interaction necessary to re-shape community relationships. It will be the role of Area Municipalities to develop more detailed policies to implement this vision. In doing so, Area Municipalities will need to re-examine existing policies and planning practice that present barriers to local food networks. Planning Barriers While it is increasingly being recognized that municipal planning processes present barriers to the development of local food networks (see Kaufman, 2009; Lynes & Murray, 2009; Wegener, 2009) there has been limited consideration of how planning processes should be modified to accommodate this emerging trend (see Oswald, 2009 as one example). To contribute to this developing dialogue, this article examines how CSA’s and buying clubs within the Region of Waterloo are not adequately supported by municipal zoning by-laws and offers one potential solution to support these examples of local food networks. Typically, CSA members are required to pick up their share between set hours (e.g. 3:30 p.m. – 6:30 p.m.) on one set day per week over the course of the summer growing season (approx. 15 – 20 weeks per year). Similarly, under a buying club model orders to (often multiple) farms are brought to a central location for pick-up, along similar lines to the CSA approach. These models do not require full-time stores, and to reduce overhead costs pick-up locations are generally the front or rear yard of member’s homes within a centrally located residential neighbourhood. Food is generally distributed by the farmers or farm workers/volunteers themselves, and the condensed pick-up hours encourage interaction with other community members of the local food network. In the authors’ experience, pick-up locations often become an opportunity to catch-up with neighbours, for kids to play, to keep informed about neighbourhood happenings, and even new recipes. In short, a focal point for social interaction and an opportunity for community engagement. However, CSA and buying club models (specifically the pick-up arrangements) do not comply with planning by-laws, particularly when eggs, honey, maple syrup or other processed items are offered for sale in addition to raw produce. Furthermore, the pickup operation technically does not comply with residential zoning (which would require retail or commercial zoning), but enforcement typically only takes place after a complaint is lodged. Nichol (2003) identifies one reason as to why planning policies may not support local food networks in identifying that new entrants to farming such as box schemes, farmers' markets and farm gate sales present particular difficulties for planners and planning committees, because they challenge the conventional conception of what farmers and farm businesses are like. While local food networks may currently represent the ‘fringe’ in the western food economy in terms of market share, there is evidence that the trend towards alternative food systems is growing, and scale alone is not a good enough reason to reject its legitimacy in terms of a viable alternative to conventional agrifood systems. Yet planning policies may indeed be doing just this, providing barriers to its

4


acceptance as a legitimate alternative not through outright rejection, but through failing to recognize and incorporate it into planning policy by revisiting zoning by-laws. Opportunities to Support Local Food Networks The authors’ experience and involvement in both the planning and consumer side of local food networks has led to the identification of three options to formalize CSA and buying club pick-up locations. Firstly, they can rezone their house to a compliant zoning category (an expensive and uncertain route). Secondly, they can operate out of a building with commercial zoning (increasing overhead costs to a point that in many cases makes the business no longer financially viable). A third option is to lobby for an amendment to municipal by-laws to accommodate the use. The first two options present barriers, as the onus is on the community to find opportunities to ‘get around’ planning policy and by-laws. The third option actually encourages local food initiatives by changing by-laws that currently act as barriers to their establishment. Opportunities do exist to encourage local food networks and need to be identified as Area Municipalities within the Region of Waterloo are currently revising their Official Plans and, in accordance with the Regional policies and will need to establish policies to encourage local food networks. One opportunity to recognize and legitimize CSA and buying club pick-ups is to introduce changes to home based business by-laws. Typically, any home can have a home based business, provided it complies with certain regulations and conforms to the permitted uses, though at present for urban Area Municipalities in the Region of Waterloo Local food initiatives are not currently permitted as a home based business. Changes to home based business by-laws represent only an illustrative example of how the current planning system can evolve to accommodate local food networks, and the authors caution against the uncritical support of this approach. Potential barriers to the acceptance of CSA and buying club pick-ups as home based businesses may include traffic and parking concerns, public health issues regarding the storage and distribution of certain foods, and a lack of understanding of how these businesses seek to achieve and operate. These are legitimate concerns, and while they can be addressed through good planning processes such operations may not be considered appropriate in all neighbourhood locations. If planning practice is to support local food networks they will need to critically engage with both the nature of these networks and the be open to modifying existing planning policies and processes. To encourage the acceptance of neighbourhood local food initiatives, planners should consider: • Working with the community to identify neighbourhoods that are willing to support local food initiatives. • Developing guidelines for local food operations. Guidelines may address public health concerns and specify proper storage procedures for perishable foods, or limit what can be sold. They may also address hours of operation, providing certainty about timing and duration of neighbourhood traffic impacts. • Supporting opportunities to minimize increases in traffic and on-street parking by encouraging walking and cycling.

5


Conclusion Local food networks are growing in popularity, as is reflected by the increasing number of initiatives. Consumers identify a number of perceived benefits encouraging their support including environmental, economic, social and political perceived benefits. While the actual benefits delivered by local food networks are context-dependent, they provide clear opportunities for communities and municipal governments to engage and influence the agriculture and food retail sector within their community. The planning literature also identifies the potential for local food networks to encourage transformative change in communities by engaging consumers with agriculture and providing support for small-scale and new types of farming that might not otherwise survive. At present, the nature of local food networks as an emerging trend in farming has brought it into conflict with planning practice, which is yet to evolve in response. As a result, there are barriers to supporting local food networks within the municipal planning system, particularly concerning CSA and buying clubs operating in residential neighbourhoods. This article presents one option to remove such barriers through the amendment of home-based business by-laws, though the authors caution that no single approach will work to resolve the issue as CSAs and buying clubs do present some changes for existing neighbourhoods, potentially both positive and negative. To proactively address the growing trend toward local food networks, and to capitalize on their benefits, Area Municipalities should initiate the debate with their communities to determine demand by both consumers and producers for stronger local food networks and to identify opportunities to support access to local food. Solutions to supporting local food networks exist within the planners toolbox. Implementation will require commitment and direction from municipal government. Reference List Brunori, G. Local food and alternative food networks: a communication perspective, Anthropology of food [Online], March 2007, Online since 19 April 2007, Connection on 18 August 2009. URL : http://aof.revues.org/index430.html Born, B. & Purcell, M. 2006. ‘Avoiding the Local Trap: Scale and Food Systems in Planning Research’, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26: 195 – 207 Brown, C & Miller, S. 2008. ‘The Impacts of Local Markets: A review of research on farmers markets and community supported agriculture (CSA)’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 90 (5): 1296–1302 Feagan, R. & Morris, D. 2009. ‘Consumer quest for embeddedness: a case study of the Brantford Farmers’ Market’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33: 235-243. Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2006 Approved by the Lieutenant Governor Order-in-Council No. 1221/2006. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe was prepared and approved under the Places to Grow Act, 2005 to take effect on June 16, 2006. Hinrichs, C., 2003, ‘The practice and politics of food system localization’. Journal of Rural Studies 19:33–45.

6


Kaufman, J. 2009. ‘Food System Planning: Moving Up the Planner’s Ladder’, Plan Canada, 49(2): 12-16. Lynes, J. & Murray, D., 2009, ‘Zoned Out: New ideas needed to encourage the (re)development of vibrant, mixed-use neighbourhoods’. Alternatives Journal 35(4): 12. Nichol, L. 2003. ‘Local food production: some implications for planning’, Planning Theory & Practice, 4, pp. 409-427. Oswald, J. 2009. ‘Planning for Urban Agriculture’, Plan Canada, 42(2): 35-38. Pothukuchi, K and Kaufman, J. 2000. 'The Food System', Journal of the American Planning Association, 66: 2, pp.113-124. Sonnino, R. & Marsden, T. (2006) Beyond the Divide: rethinking relationships between alternative and conventional food networks in Europe. Economic Journal of Geography, 6(2): 181-199 Stephenson, G. and Lev, L. 2004. ‘Common support for local agriculture in two contrasting Oregon communities’, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 19(4); 210–217 Wegener, J. 2009. ‘”Alternative” Food Outlets and Their Relevance to Policy and Planning Decisions’, Plan Canada, 49(2): 46-48.

7