Accepted Manuscript Urban agriculture in Mexico City; Balancing between ecological, economic, social and symbolic value Dr. Hans Dieleman, Professor in the College of Sciences and Humanities PII:
S0959-6526(16)00131-1
DOI:
10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.01.082
Reference:
JCLP 6670
To appear in:
Journal of Cleaner Production
Received Date: 11 March 2015 Revised Date:
17 December 2015
Accepted Date: 27 January 2016
Please cite this article as: Dieleman H, Urban agriculture in Mexico City; Balancing between ecological, economic, social and symbolic value, Journal of Cleaner Production (2016), doi: 10.1016/ j.jclepro.2016.01.082. This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Urban agriculture in Mexico City; Balancing between ecological, economic, social and symbolic value article for the special issue on urban ecological infrastructure for healthier cities: governance, management and engineering, Journal of Cleaner Production 83 (2014) 1-4 Type of article proposed: case study
SC
RI PT
Dr. Hans Dieleman Professor in the College of Sciences and Humanities, Center for Urban Studies Autonomous University of Mexico City Email:
[email protected],
[email protected]
Abstract
M AN U
The article presents urban agriculture as a practice that is gaining attention in many cities worldwide, and focuses in particular on the experiences in Mexico City. It first gives a general description of urban agriculture, introduces some conceptual dimensions and presents a policy framework to stimulate agriculture in cities worldwide. It then discusses current practices in the periurban, suburban and interurban parts of Mexico City, and analyses them in terms of their economic, ecological, social and symbolic dimension. The article shows that Mexico City produces some 20% of its own food, but that its importance in economic terms
seen as employment and income generation
EP
TE D
- is still limited. Its contribution to the ecological infrastructure of the city equally is limited but has potential, as recent policies firmly integrate urban agriculture in environmental policies of the city. An important challenge is to expand urban agriculture to the 22.000 m2 of green roof gardens recently created in the city. In terms of the social dimension, it is observed that Mexico City clearly follows international policy recommendations, invests in capacity building and has policies to help vulnerable groups and women. Finally it addresses the symbolic dimension and observes that this is very important in Mexico City, as urban agriculture is seen as a way to restore some of the preHispanic practices of the Aztecs especially the Floating gardens or Chinampas that have largely been lost due to colonization. Its final conclusion is that a policy to balance the economic, ecological, social and symbolic dimensions of urban agriculture is missing, and that such a policy is important, especially for the periurban zone of the city, where most of the food is produced.
AC C
Key words:
Urban agriculture, Mexico City, food security, ecological urban infrastructure, resilience, symbolic and cultural meaning of urban agriculture
1.
Introduction
Reviewing the rapidly growing amount of literature on urban agriculture, one is bound to arrive at the same conclusion as Michael Ableman did, some years ago: A quiet revolution is stirring in our food system. It is not happening so much on the distant farms that still provide us with the majority of our food; it is happening in cities, neighborhoods, and
1
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT small towns (cited in: Gittleman M., 2009:9). This article explores some aspects of this quiet revolution and more in particular focuses on the developments in urban agriculture in Mexico City. It first gives a general description of urban agriculture, introduces some conceptual aspects and presents a policy framework to stimulate agriculture in cities. It then presents urban agriculture in Mexico City, in the periurban, suburban and incontribution urban agriculture has for the city.
RI PT
terurban parts of the city, followed by and analysis of theses practice in the context of the
The article is mainly based on literature research, complemented with 3 interviews with
SC
policy representatives, 3 site visits and an as yet unpublished student research into the demands of the urban farmers in the periurban part of the city. The literature research
M AN U
provided most of the quantitative information (areas of urban agriculture, quantities and types of food produced as well as the general content of the city`s policy programs). The interviews provided information on the experiences and state of the art of current practices, especially in the interurban zone of the city. The student research, carried out by students of the Autonomous University of Mexico City, focused on the needs of the urban
TE D
farmers in the periurban zone, and especially on their needs for knowledge.
2. Urban agriculture, its application and conceptual dimensions In the year 2000, Armar-Klemesu estimated that 200 million urban residents produce food for the urban market, thus providing 15 to 20 percent of the world s food supply
EP
(Armar-Klemesu, 2000). Surely, this amount has grown considerably since then, as urban agriculture is increasing in cities in developed as well as in developing countries (van
AC C
Veenhuizen van, 2006; Corbould, 2013). Today it is practiced in almost all parts of the world. In Hanoi, Vietnam, 80 per cent of fresh vegetables and 40 per cent of eggs are produced by urban and periurban agriculture. In Ghana s capital Accra, around 90 per cent of all the fresh vegetables consumed is coming from production within the city (Corbould, 2013). To assess the state of urban and periurban agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) conducted a survey in 2013 in 23 countries in that region, concluding that urban agriculture is widespread. It is practiced, for example, by 40 percent of households in Cuba, and by 20 percent of the households in Guatemala while in 16 of the 23 countries surveyed, people earned some income from this activity (FAO, 2014:2).
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT In the North, urban agriculture initially developed as a response to poverty created by economic depression and war. During the economic depression of the late 19th century, the mayor of Detroit stimulated the unemployed to use vacant lots to grow their own vegetables and potatoes. The city invested $3,000 in program and realized already in the first year a harvest worth of $12,000. Over several years, thousands of families participated in the urban gardening program in both Detroit and Buffalo, and the initiative set the stage
RI PT
for urban agriculture in difficult times ever since, such as during World Wars I and II (Duran et al., 2005). During World War I, the US Department of Agriculture formed a committee to help plant a million new backyard and vacant lot gardens, so-called victory gardens as they were supposed to contribute to winning the war (Tucker 1993: 124). The nine-
SC
teen-sixties of the previous century saw the birth of community gardens that consist of small lots for family use on pieces of land that were either public property or privately owned and managed in collective ways. Many community gardens exist until today and
M AN U
provide people with both food and a means of recreation.
The more recent development is that of rooftop gardening and the creation of vertical gardens in highly urbanized areas with high density of buildings and limited amount of open space. These recent developments are, especially in the Western world, a response to the need to invest in ecological infrastructure to meet demands of sustainability and resili-
TE D
ence. Roof and vertical gardens contribute to the greening of cities in various ways, they curb air pollution, increase humidity, lower urban temperatures and reduce energy consumption as well as extreme temperature fluctuations within buildings (Kisner, 2008;
EP
Quesnel, Foss and Danielsson, 2011).
Even though rooftop and vertical gardening is the most recent development, the concepts
AC C
go right back to the most ancient forms of urban agriculture found in Mesopotamia between 4000 and 600 BC. The large temple complexes (Ziggurats) of the Sumerians, Babylonians and Assyrians included roof gardens and the planting of trees and shrubs on aboveground terraces. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon are considered to be one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, even though there exists controversy if they really existed or were merely poetic creations (Dalley, 2013). The Roman city of Pompeii however did have elevated terraces where plants were growing, while the medieval Egyptian city of Fustat had a number of high-rise buildings (up to 14 floors) with roof gardens on the top complete with water wheels for their irrigation (Osmundson, 1999).
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT A typical characteristic of urban agriculture is that it is realized through many small and dispersed units that together create a decentralized supply system that is in close proximity of the consumption system. In part it involves production for self-consumption and in part it is production for third persons in the form of sales, barter or gifts. (Mougeot, 2000: 5). A general feature is that urban agriculture produces high-valued products are produced, such as vegetables, aromatic and medicinal herbs and fruit crops (US-EPA, 2011). It
RI PT
is not restricted to growing crops however as it engages in both food as well as animal products, while we can find livestock of all shapes and sizes such as cows, pigs, rabbits, birds, etc. (Mougeot, 2000: 5). Intra or interurban agriculture takes place within the inner city, in vacant and under-utilized areas, backyards, roofs and walls of houses as well as
SC
(commercial) buildings (Stewart et al., 2013). Periurban agriculture takes places in the close neighborhood of cities in areas that are primarily rural but depend on the city in
M AN U
various economic and social ways (Mougeot, 2000: 6).
Mougeot concluded that the most important distinguishing feature of urban agriculture is its integration in the urban economic, social and ecological system. Such a degree of integration depends on the use of urban resources such as land, labor, urban organic wastes and water on the one hand and on the extent that it produces for the urban citizens and
TE D
impacts the city in terms of food security, ecology, economy, social cohesion, health, poverty reduction and cultural meaning on the other hand. It is this systemic view that this article takes as a framework for analyzing urban agriculture in Mexico City, combined with the policy framework presented in the next paragraph, a framework that is now quite
3.
EP
commonly used in urban agriculture, worldwide.
The urban agriculture policy framework
AC C
The experiences gained in cities over the last decades have been systematized and used to formulate policy proposals and guidelines for urban agriculture. Various UN programs and organizations play important roles in the development of such guidelines and policies, such as the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), The Urban Management Program (UMP) of UN-HABITAT and the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). In 1991, the UNDP established the Urban Agriculture Advisory Committee (UAAC) and in 1992 it formed a Support Group on Urban Agriculture (SGUA) (Van Veenhuizen, 2007). The UN-HABITAT has been working with many municipalities in Latin America which has resulted in the Quito Declaration of 2000, while the African Network of Urban Management Institutions (ANUMI) created a comparable Harare Declaration in 2004 (Dubbeling
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT and De Zeeuw, 2006). The policy framework thus developed clearly reflects the three dimensions of sustainability and has three broad dimensions: social, economic and ecological. The framework presented here builds upon the work previously mentioned and equally distinguishes three dimensions, even though it is slightly more elaborated in the ecological and infrastructural dimension.
•
SC
•
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL POLICY DIMENSION o Capacity building o Participatory planning and governance o Equity in gender and for disadvantaged groups o Food sovereignty ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL POLICY DIMENSION o Microcredit o Marketing and safeguarding the sector INFRASTRUCTURAL AND ECOLOGICAL POLICY DIMENSION o Management and planning of urban spaces for agriculture o Recycling organic wastes o Treatment and use of wastewater
M AN U
•
RI PT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Figure 1: Policy framework for urban agriculture, developed for this publication with as a primary source: RUAF, 2003
TE D
The social and cultural dimension refers to citizen involvement with capacity building, participatory management and multilevel government as its key entrances. Capacity building is needed to provide citizens knowledge and skills in a number of areas related to urban agriculture. Hygiene in food processing and the proper use of organic wastes and
EP
wastewaters is essential from a health point of view. Teaching families the basics of administration and market economics is equally important from an economic point of view
AC C
(RUAF, 2003). Citizen involvement equally deals with participatory management schemes that include diagnosis, problem identification and resolution. It is widely acknowledged that such schemes should be created from the very design of urban agriculture policy programs, up to their implementation. Such policies should furthermore include the civil society and public private partnership in well-balanced governance schemes (Dubbeling et al, 2009). Equity in gender and for disadvantaged groups is a second important policy dimension. It means designing interventions to explicitly address the needs of particular disadvantaged groups and more in particular the recognition of equal rights of women to civic services and resources, as well as to participation in the design, planning and implementation of policy programs.
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The cultural dimension refers to food sovereignty, meaning that citizens should be able to meet their nutritional needs within their own cultural and culinary tradition. As such, urban agriculture has the potential to contribute to the safeguarding of cultural diversity and to assure that people in various parts of the world continue to eat the food that is part of their tradition. From an ecological perspective this is important as well, as these traditions
RI PT
usually developed in close proximity of the environmental characteristics of their regions. Stimulating and safeguarding food sovereignty may require specific interventions like price control, the creation of new trading opportunities and ways of linking producers with consumers (RUAF, 2003). Microcredits are often mentioned in this context as ways to
SC
enable families - and especially the poorer ones - to enter in the emerging market of urban agriculture, and as ways to the social organization of communities that eventually result in the expansion of urban agriculture and the creation of new economic and job opportuni-
M AN U
ties. It calls for the establishment of specific financial policies, combined with actions aimed at, capacity building, technical assistance and training (Meyer, 2010). The infrastructural and ecological policy dimension refers to a shift in seeing a city not as an open loop system with one-way flows of resources (in) and wastes (out), but as a primarily closed loop systems where the waste is reused and reenters the system as re-
TE D
sources (Smit, 1992). On average, between 30% and 60% of the total urban waste is organic and can be used for agriculture, while a substantial amount of wastewater and rainwater can be used to irrigate urban crops (Deelstra and Girardet, 2000). This however requires in almost all cities policies to reduce obstacles and facilitate a change towards a
EP
more circular urban metabolism based on ecological infrastructures. Urban agriculture requires space that is usually scarce in cities and therefore, management and physical
AC C
planning of urban spaces is required. It equally requires ecological infrastructure that enables cities to capture rainwater, filter and clean wastewater and separate the waste to reuse the organic fraction as high quality compost. Infrastructure that enables these processes is indispensible, on a central or decentralized level, and policies should be installed to realize such infrastructures.
4.
Urban food production in Mexico City
In analyzing urban agriculture in Mexico City, the policy framework just presented is taken into consideration, as well as the system approach developed by Mougeot. This is operationalized in terms of 5 dimensions of urban agriculture that will each be analyzed:
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1. The dimension of food production, with aspects such as quantity and type of food produced, areas where it is produced and trends in its production, 2. The economic dimension with aspects such as availability and types of markets, new markets being created, poverty reduced and economic value generated, 3. The ecological dimension and the contribution to the ecological infrastructure of the city; usage of wastes, water and impacts on the city`s ecology,
RI PT
4. The social dimension with aspects such as citizen participation, gender equity and governance,
5. The symbolic dimension with aspects as the cultural meaning of urban agriculture for
SC
individuals and society as a whole.
Urban agriculture in Mexico City is however not a homogeneous activity but is rather different in the 4 zones that need to be distinguished: 1) the periurban zone (mainly in the
M AN U
south of the city in the green part in picture 2) , 2) the suburban zone where agriculture is realized in so-called Chinampas (in the south, on the boarder of the red and green in picture 2), 3) the suburban zone created in the second half of the previous century (in the red part in picture 2), and 4) the interurban zone, the downtown (mainly) colonial part of the city (the two inner circles of figure 2). The zones are rather different in almost all the di-
AC C
EP
TE D
mensions previously outlined.
Figure 2: Mexico City and its areas of urban agriculture
4.1
The food dimension: the urban food production characteristics
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT According to the FAO, Mexico City produces some 20% of its own food, almost all realized in two zones in the south of the city. The first is the periurban zone of the city, where small traditional communities exist such as Milpa Alta, San Mateo Xalpa, San Salvador Cuauhtenco, Tláhuac, Magdalena Contreras or Cuajimalpa. The second in the neighborhoods of Xochimilco and Tláhuac, equally in the south, communities that used to be periurban but
RI PT
have been locked in by the ongoing urban sprawl and are now part of the suburban zone of the city. Urban agriculture in the interurban and remaining suburban zone of the city is only in its infancy and its contribution to the overall food production is very limited.
SC
The periurban zone has a total of 300 sq. km of farmland or 19.9% of the city area (FAO, 2014), which is divided in small plots that range in size from 1 to 3 ha (Torres-Lima and
M AN U
Rodríguez-Sánchez, 2008). Crops cultivated include nopal, oats, potatoes, broccoli, carrots, lettuce, maize, tuna (fruit) and amaranth. The 2012 harvest was valued at more than US$100 million and included 336000 tons of nopal, 147000 tons of forage oats, 12500 tons of potatoes and 15000 tons of broccoli, carrots, lettuce, maize, tuna (fruit) and amaranth. Farms also raise livestock such as sheep, rabbits, pigs, horses and poultry. The animal population is estimated at some 6.650 head of cattle, 30.000 pigs, 10.000 sheep and
TE D
220.000 chickens (FAO, 2014). Spaces inside the villages are used for milk and meat production in stables and to keep animals for work and transport (mules, donkeys and horses). The backyards are used for hens, turkeys, ducks, rabbits, pigs and birds of prey while the family orchard is used for the production of vegetables, fruit trees, and medicinal, ritu-
EP
al as well as ornamental plants. The space immediately around the village is dedicated to the intensive production of nopal while the neighboring zone to the nopal is designated for
AC C
the growing of maize, chile and beans (Losada H. et al., 2011). Closer to the city center, in the suburban zone, agriculture continues to exist in lowland areas, especially in the neighborhoods of Xochimilco and Tláhuac. These two together have an area of 220 Km2, which corresponds to 14.6% of the total Federal District, of which 64.6% is considered to be rural localities (Torres, 2010). These communities, as their names indicate, are pre-Hispanic and used to be periurban but have been locked in by the ongoing urban sprawl. Yet they maintain much of their traditional ways of working and living. The dominant production here is horticulture and floriculture, with some maize, using treated water for irrigation. On a yearly base 17,600 tons of flowers and 3,635,000 potted plants (Torres, 2010). Sheep, rabbits, birds, horses and pigs are still
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT raised, in backyards and in some small (dairy) farms (Losada H. et al., 2011). The areas used here usually are 1 ha or less while we find, especially in Xochimilco, cultivation in socalled Chinampas or floating gardens. These gardens date back to the time of the Aztecs and have a surface of about 170 km2 (Torres-Lima and Rodríguez-Sánchez, 2008).
RI PT
The rest of the suburban zone, created in between 1960 and 1980, has very distinct characteristics. It is a vast suburban area full of self-constructed little houses without much logical planning other than the logic of necessity. It resulted in densely build areas mixed with fairly large open areas without apparent function, used for various kinds of activities including the disposal of wastes. The soil usually is of very poor quality but all houses have
SC
flat roofs that are used to hang clothes to dry and to grow plants. The migrant population in these areas holds strong emotional ties with the rural areas they came from and their
M AN U
interest in agriculture is still very much alive. Sometimes they managed to retain some of their original culture and live and work together as group (Losada et al. 1996). Exact data on the production of agricultural products and their market value are not available, as urban agriculture in this part of the city is rather informal, produced in private gardens and rooftops mainly for private consumption or to sell in the informal economy. Torres Lima et al. (2000) report that the suburban agriculture involves growing vegetables and and passion fruit.
TE D
fruits as well as tomatoes, lettuce, chilies and scallions, and a variety of fruits like guava
Finally, the downtown interurban area or the inner circle of the city (see figure 2) has
EP
again rather distinct characteristics. It is densely populated with a rather archetypical urban infrastructure comprised of a structure of main avenues, smaller roads and streets and parks with an organic mix of domestic, commercial and institutional functions within
AC C
the neighborhoods. The city delegations of this part of the city, and notably the most central delegation Cuauhtémoc , created various public urban gardens that are used for the production of plants and flowers for private consumption, and that are used to give workshops on small-scale sustainable urban agriculture. For this part of the city as well, data on the production of agricultural products is missing. As the FAO observes, urban agricultural in this part of the city really is in its infancy with some governmental and some private initiatives marking not more than a first beginning.
4.2
The economic dimension: creating urban markets for locally produced organic food
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT In food production terms, urban agriculture in Mexico City is considerable, and in terms of food distribution the city is well developed. Mexico City has one huge central market (the so-called Central de Abasto ) that extends 328 hectares where 30.000 tons of merchandise is sold every day, making it the largest market of this kind in the world. Most of the urban growers bring their crops to this market, and from thereon, it is distributed towards
RI PT
no less than 312 smaller markets, either fixed or ambulant, the latter being the typical Mexican tianguis that have their roots in pre-Hispanic times (Soriano Robles, 2005).
In terms of employment and income generation however, urban agriculture is far less important for Mexico City, with obviously differences for the various zones of the city previ-
SC
ously outlined. According to INEGI (2005), 30.366 inhabitants of the city are involved in urban agriculture, in a total of 450 rural localities, primarily located in Xochimilco and
M AN U
Tlahuac in the suburban zone (17.006 inhabitants), as well as in the various communities of the periurban zone (13.360 inhabitants). This corresponds with not more than 0.3% of the city s population.
For the communities and farmers in the periurban zone that have been working in agriculture for centuries, it is not easy to maintain to generate sufficient income. Only 49% of the
TE D
farmers in Milpa Alta and 25% of the farmers in Tlalpan can make a fulltime living from their agriculture (Torres-Lima and Rodríguez-Sánchez, 2008). The others commute to the city center to find additional means of income, often in the informal economy. For most of
EP
them, it is increasingly difficult to maintain a stable income and food production for a number of reasons. The urban sprawl continues to take agricultural land to change it into build environment and governmental policies to stop this are not very effective. A part of
AC C
their traditional land has been converted in an area of nature conservation that equally limits their capacities to grow food and generate income. The overexploitation of aquifers as a result of the increasing water demand of the city, has led to a serious decline in water supply and quality, and to ground subsidence. On top of that, farmers experience problems in creating good harvests of especially nopal, the most important crop in terms of tons produced. They struggle with an increasing amount of plagues while the use of agrochemicals to fight the plagues is legally prohibited, even though the enforcement of this law is very weak (FAO, 2014). Nevertheless, they look for ways to maintain the same level of production, keep the prices low and use as little chemicals as possible, but they struggle to realize this objective.
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT The city government looks at ways to help them maximize food production, in terms of promoting the traditional food produced in the periurban part of the city through organizing trade fairs and exhibitions in the city, and by means of creating a new certification for organic food in the periurban zone, the so-called Green Seal . Such a standard potentially helps to create niche markets of organic food that can benefit the farmers of the urban
RI PT
zone. These attempts to increase food production however create conflicts with the traditional ways of working and living in the zone, and manifest a difference between two fundamentally different worldviews. The periurban zone is still inhabited by various indigenous people that have been able to maintain their original worldview, language and way of organizing life. The traditional ownership scheme is that of communal land with commu-
SC
nity elders taking the main decisions. Land is not seen as commodity and this view is hard to combine with a modern way of profit maximization that is realized in units that are es-
M AN U
sentially seen as economic units. Creating a Green Seal is a far too limited response to this challenge.
The city signed an agreement with the UN Food and Agriculture Association (FAO) to stimulate small-scale sustainable agriculture, and signed an agreement with the Ministry of Agriculture of Cuba to establish a Program Technology Transfer of Small Scale Sustain-
TE D
able Agriculture in the Federal District. Equally, the city signed agreements with local institutions of higher education and research, with the aim of looking at various specific aspects of urban agriculture such as improving the quality of compost and improving efficient irrigation systems using rainwater (Gaceta Oficial Del Distrito Federal, 2012). What
EP
is needed however, is a comprehensive and multidimensional research program for the organic cultivation of nopal and other essential crops in suburban Mexico City, which in-
AC C
cludes and respects the cultural and historical dimension of urban agriculture. The FAO acknowledges this and observes that Mexico City, despite of its efforts, is not really investing enough in research and capacity training for especially the periurban zones of the city, where most of the urban agriculture takes place (FAO, 2014: 25). It is a one of the major challenge of the city and as yet not fully recognized. Going into the sub and interurban zones of the city, the situation is different. Urban agriculture here is in its infancy and rather informally organized, with rather recent attempts of private groups and local government to stimulate its development. In 2007, the city created a new secretary to stimulate small-scale urban agriculture, with a strong emphasize on capacity building and training. Each city delegation has its department responsible
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT for capacity building and helps with the creation of small-scale sustainable gardens. Since 2007, the urban agricultural program realized 140 projects in 16 of the city s delegations of the city, creating gardens in vacant lots, backyards and roofs of private and public buildings such as schools, governmental buildings, cultural centers and metro stations. Some 3000 families, many coming from these suburban zones, received support from the Gov-
RI PT
ernment of Mexico City to create gardens on their rooftops, some with simple greenhouses to protect their crops from nightly mountain chill and occasional hail (Gaceta Oficial Del Distrito Federal, 2012). The Cuauhtémoc delegation, the most central and downtown delegation trained 500 citizens since 2009, and certified them as small-scale sustainable ur-
4.3
SC
ban farmers. It shows that urban agriculture here is still very limited in scope.
The ecological dimension: urban agriculture and ecological infrastructure
M AN U
In Mexico City, due to the typical heat island effect, the average temperature increased by 2 3% in the past 100 years and as a result, the city has much more heavy winds and higher temperature fluctuations with periods of extreme heat as well as extreme rain. It equally has increased vulnerability and risk of flooding, hailstorms, ice, wind, temperature fluctuations and forest fires (Secretaria del Medio Ambiente del Distrito Federal, 2008). Since
TE D
2010, the city realized the creation of 22.000 m2 of green roofs/gardens on public schools, hospitals, governmental buildings and some metro stations (Gaceta Oficial Del Distrito Federal, 2012), while the budget of 2015 for initiatives in this field has been increased. There is as yet however hardly any integration of green roofs and urban agriculture.
EP
Moreover, in the periurban parts of the city there is even a certain tension between urban agriculture and ecological infrastructure, as will explained below.
AC C
In the inter and suburban zones of the city, the number of 140 projects of urban agriculture previously mentioned is still limited, but is well integrated in a larger plan of creating an ecological infrastructure. This first of all manifests itself through its relationship with composting and urban soil improvement programs. Over the past years, the city created a citywide program for the separate collection of waste, and constructed an incinerator for urban wastes, to replace the old open-air dumpsite. The old dumpsite is now used as a composting site, composting 70.000 tons of compost of an acceptable quality (type b compost) every year. This compost is used in green public spaces like gardens, parks and roofs, including the 20 urban gardens for agricultural activities created in the various city delegations. Additionally, part of the compost is distributed within the Small Scale Sustainable Urban Agriculture Program. Equally, this program has a very explicit training
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT module on how to compost organic wastes and to realize good quality compost, avoiding unpleasant odor or unwanted animals. As such, feedback and feed forward loops are created among separate collection of waste, composting, soil improvement and urban agriculture, integrating small-scale and large-scale composting and use of compost. Comparable feedback and feed forward loops are created with respect to the availability
RI PT
and quality of water in the city, which is an increasingly serious issue. 60% to 70% of all the water consumed in the city is coming from various natural areas and aquifers around the city (Dieleman, 2013). These water-reserves however are under threat due to the ongoing expansion of the city, previously mentioned. A decentralized way of collecting rain-
SC
water is one of the responses, and is stimulated through the training programs for urban agriculture where ecologically sound ways of capturing, storage and usage of rainwater is
M AN U
taught, as well as the efficient irrigation of the plants and crops grown within the city. The contribution of urban agriculture to the ecological infrastructure of the city (soil, water, separate collection of waste, purification of air and lowering of average temperature) still is very modest, as the program is new and in its infancy. Nevertheless the systemic approach developed (stimulating the feedback and feed forward loops) ensures a much bigger contribution once the program will grow and mature. The program has a potential
TE D
of little by little creating a patchwork of urban gardens in all delegations, and in this way can really help reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and the accumulation of heat in the interurban and suburban zones. What is missing however, is the integration of the green roofs and walls-program with that of urban agricultural. When using (a considera-
EP
ble part of) the 22.000 m2 of green roof gardens now available for agriculture, the urban agriculture program could easily be multiplied. This involves and integration of policy
AC C
objectives beyond the environmental domain, integrating objectives of food and plant production on the one hand with environmental objectives on the other hand. In the periurban zone, the situation is very different. It is close to, and partly integrated in, the so-called zone of natural protection that comprises almost 60% of the total area of the city (the green area in image 2). This area is now seen as the major ecological infrastructure for realizing CO2 reduction objectives, and is as such well protected. Various forestation and reforestation programs are developed and as a consequence, almost no agricultural activities are allowed in this area anymore. This however creates tensions between the traditional way of doing agriculture, used for centuries in this zone, and the modern ones proposed by the government and international organizations. For hundreds of years,
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT urban agriculture existed in this area, and was ecologically well integrated. The farmers worked in traditional and indigenous ways that responded well to natural cycles and ecological conditions of the zone. By applying modern schemes of planning however, the area now is divided in an area of nature conservation on the one hand, and areas for agriculture on the other hand, with a strict division in terms of purposes and human activities allowed. The current problems with plagues, especially in nopal production, have a lot to do
RI PT
with the intensified production in limited areas. The real challenge is to find ways to maintain the traditional and indigenous ways of working that are essentially very sustainable, and to combine them in some way with modern ways of working. This requires research
4.4
SC
that, as mentioned before, is missing.
The social dimension: self-reliance, resilience, governance and gender equity
Citizen involvement, intercultural communication, participatory planning and governance
M AN U
are usually seen as important features of urban agriculture. As these are equally a key aspect of urban resilience (Tidball and Krasney, 2007), there is a clear potential to integrate urban agriculture with urban resilience, through stimulating communal self-reliance, intercultural communication, human connectedness and economic inclusiveness. Here, the ecological and social dimensions clearly meet. The way urban agriculture is developing in Mexico City, especially in the inter- and suburban zones, has this potential of mutual intether different.
TE D
gration and nourishment. For the periurban zone however, the situation once again is ra-
In the inter- and suburban zones, a distinction needs to be made between private, com-
EP
munal and governmental initiatives. Private gardens were initiated by the well-educated elites in the city in the early years of this century, while the Mexico City Program for Small
AC C
Scale Sustainable Agriculture was established slightly later in 2007. Communal initiatives of broader sections of the population are largely missing. This reflects the still existing post-colonial features of the city, resulting in a lack of initiative and capacity by many to develop planned and organized communal projects (Dieleman, 2013). Initiatives of mixed groups equally are missing and consequently, intercultural communication is as yet not really stimulated by urban agriculture in Mexico City. The private and governmental initiatives act in rather top-down ways. They organize workshops for capacity building and knowledge transfer on environmental, ecological and agricultural issues. Composting, the efficient use of rainwater and cultivating native plants and crops are found in all training programs. The governmental program however has an explicit additional focus of teaching market orientation and some basic administration. The objective is to train participants
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT coming from poorer and less educated social-economic levels, to create small businesses where they sell what is cultivated in their gardens. Even though this objective has an economic orientation, the urban farmers trained in this way are capable of creating and maintaining network of clients and suppliers that go beyond mere economic relationships. It stimulates self-reliance, human connectedness and economic inclusiveness1.
RI PT
No formal evaluations are as yet available on the socio-cultural effect of urban agriculture. Two delegations (Miguel Hidalgo y Coyoacán) however report to have initiated 11 projects for migrant families and single mothers, integrating in these project the concept of microcredit in the form of small grants (1000 to 3000 Mexican pesos or 65 to 200 US dollar)
SC
that enable them to invest in equipment to grow vegetables, to compost and to capture and use rainwater (Gaceta Oficial Del Distrito Federal, 2012). Again it must be observed
M AN U
that the program is really still in its infancy but certainly has potential in the long run. For the periurban zone the situation is again rather different. The communities of farmers in this zone traditionally have been integrating economic, social and cultural spheres of life in very particular ways. Economic success is not seen by them as (only) the result of good planning and hard work, but is equally dependent on the respect one pays to the spirits that have power over the fertility of the land, as well as to the community as a
TE D
whole. On a yearly basis, the community of Milpa Alta, the largest in the periurban zone, has 43 religious celebrations and 16 pilgrimages in which the relationship between the land, the community, fertility, water and mother earth are celebrated (Losada T., 2005). Modern ways of agriculture risk loosing these traditions, and as Torres-Lima and
EP
Rodríguez-Sánchez (2008) rightfully observe, equally risks loosing the social cohesion in the communities, as they advocate individual entrepreneurship and forms of individual-
AC C
ism that profoundly conflict with their original culture. The challenge, once more, is to find ways to maintain the traditional culture and stimulate urban agriculture at the same time, instead of (implicitly) stimulating modern schemes of working and living as part of stimulating urban agriculture.
4.5
The symbolic dimension: the cultural meaning of urban agriculture
Until now, the symbolic or cultural meaning of urban agriculture is somewhat underexposed in the literature. Its value is above all seen in terms of food security, economics, urban ecology and social cohesion, but it often has other meaning for people or groups 1
Interview with the environmental managers of the Delegation of Cuauhtémoc, March 4, 2015
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT involved as well. Alon-Mozes and Amdur gave an interesting example of this in their analysis of the changing meaning of urban agriculture in Israel, from a national Zionist project into a personal project for people involved, stressing the importance of empowerment through their physical work with the soil (Alon-Mozes and Amdur, 2010). Based on this analysis they talk about the value of urban agriculture beyond the obvious categories menportant, and manifests itself in various ways.
RI PT
tioned above. For Mexico City, this symbolic or cultural dimension equally is very im-
First and foremost, urban agriculture is perceived as a way of restoring parts of that what is lost during colonization and modernization. And this makes sense, as the original set-
SC
tlements on which Mexico City is build, developed forms of urban agriculture, in particular the so-called Chinampas or floating gardens, that are famous until today. There is a no-
M AN U
ticeable movement in Mexico (as in the whole of Latin America) to revalue and (partly) restore pre-colonial ways of living, as a way to escape from modernity and more in particular neo-liberal economics that is seen as having rather detrimental social, cultural and environmental effects. A short journey into the history of Mexico City may highlight the relevance of the symbolic dimension.
TE D
Around the year 1350, the Aztecs created the city of Tenochtitlán on one of the islands of what was at that time a big lake. The city grew steadily and became the biggest urban settlement in pre-Hispanic Latin America, with at its peak a population of 250.000 inhabitants (Aguilar-Moreno, 2007). To feed the ever-increasing population and to overcome
EP
land shortage, the Aztecs created their so-called Chinampas or floating gardens. The Chinampas increased the land area available for cultivation and were a model for numerous
AC C
other cities in Mexico at that time (Aguilar-Moreno, 2007). The Chinampas were constructed by staking out rectangular enclosures, ranging in size from 100-850 square meters, filled with mud and decaying vegetation and used for cultivation of mainly vegetables and aromatic flowers, while on average 10-15 persons worked on one Chinampa. Cultivation was accomplished by the effective use of seedbeds, thus allowing for continuous planting and harvesting of crops (Evans, 2013). Soon after the Spanish conquistadores took control of the Aztec land however, in 1514, they started drying out the lake, creating dry land that served as the foundation for contemporary Mexico City. Only in the suburban community of Xochimilco, the system of canals remained and still exists, declared World
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Heritage Site by UNESCO in 1987, in an attempt to save it from ongoing deterioration (Torres-Lima and Rodríguez-Sánchez, 2008).
Urban agriculture has a positive connotation for most Mexicans today as they almost intuitively link it with their Mesoamerican roots that are largely lost, and this facilitates the
RI PT
introduction of the concept of urban agriculture. On top of that, many inhabitants of especially the suburban parts of the city look at urban agriculture as a way of reestablishing links with their rural past. Many of them are first, second or third generation migrants with still very strong emotional ties with agriculture. Their involvement with urban agriculture exceeds the mere economic or social meaning. Finally, the more affluent popula-
SC
tion in the interurban zone of the city looks at urban agriculture as part of a lifestyle that reestablishes links with nature and contributes to the sustainability of the city. Here as
M AN U
well, the symbolic dimension of urban agriculture complements or even dominates other dimensions such as actual food production or generating income.
5.
Conclusion
Urban agriculture provides Mexico City with 20% of its food but should not be seen as the result of a new and quiet revolution that is currently taking place. The 20% is mainly real-
TE D
ized in the periurban and parts of the suburban zones of the city, and is a practice that goes back to the Mesoamerican times of the Aztecs and other indigenous people of Mexico. What is new however is interurban and parts of suburban agriculture realized by citizens in the backyards and on the roofs or walls of their houses, and by institutions in public
EP
gardens, on roofs of schools, governmental buildings and some metro stations. The contribution of these new activities in terms of food production is still rather limited. Exact fig-
AC C
ures in this respect are not available. In terms of employment and income generation, the contribution of urban agriculture to Mexico City is rather limited. The periurban zone traditionally depends on agriculture but farmers struggle to make a living out of it, while attempts to increase production meet cultural opposition. In the suburban zone, it is a source of income realized in the informal economy while figures on the economic value created are missing. In the interurban zone, and especially for the more affluent and higher educated inhabitants there, urban agriculture is not really an economic activity but rather a cultural one. Many of them see urban gardening as a nice way to spend free time and to contribute at the same time to the sustainability of the city. In terms of food sovereignty, especially the periurban zone is im-
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT portant, as it is an area that provides the city with an important input of local crops such as nopal, maize, tuna (fruit) and amaranth. In the inter- and suburban zones, the city government is issuing some microcredits, especially for migrant families and single mothers. Training programs exist to educate inhabitants in some aspects of marketing and administration, with the aim of safeguarding the sector.
RI PT
In terms of ecological infrastructure, the periurban situations are very different from the suburban and interurban one. Periurban agriculture is realized closely to the zones of natural protection that are seen as an important ecological infrastructure for the city. Where agriculture used to be integrated in natural areas, it is now separated and no agricultural
SC
activities are allowed in natural areas anymore. The real challenge is to re-integrate agriculture in the ecological infrastructure of this part of the city, which can be realized by means of finding ways to maintain the traditional and indigenous ways of working that are
M AN U
essentially sustainable. This however challenges modern planning schemes and requires research that does not only address the agricultural and economic aspects of urban agriculture, but equally its cultural and historic dimensions. In the inter- and suburban zones, the contribution of urban agriculture to the ecological infrastructure of the city still is very modest, yet thanks to the systemic way in which it is developed; it has potential to contribute considerably to the ecological infrastructure of the city. What is missing however,
TE D
is the integration of the green roofs and walls-program with that of urban agricultural. When using (a considerable part of) the 22.000 m2 of green roof gardens now available for agriculture, the urban agriculture program could contribute to the ecological infra-
EP
structure of the city in substantial ways.
In terms of the social dimension, the city policy for the interurban and parts of the subur-
AC C
ban zone clearly reflects the policy framework presented in the first part of this article. Capacity building is a central part of the programs to stimulate urban agriculture and aims at heightening the capacity of self-reliance and network generation. As mentioned, the program equally has an orientation towards gender equity and helping disadvantaged groups, more in particular migrant families. For the periurban zone however, the increased attention to urban agriculture realized there, and the attempts to increase production, run the risk of damaging or even destroying the traditional forms of social cohesion in the communities, as they advocate individual entrepreneurship and forms of individualism that profoundly conflict with their original culture. The challenge here is to find ways to integrate culture traditions and modern ways of conducting urban agriculture as this, in the end, strengthen both its social as well as the food production dimensions.
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Finally, the article asked attention to the symbolic dimension of urban agriculture, and observes that something interesting is going on in this respect in Mexico City. Given the history of Mexico City, urban agriculture has a positive connotation for most Mexicans that intuitively link it with their Mesoamerican roots that are largely lost. This certainly facilitates the introduction of the concept of urban agriculture in the interurban zone, as well as
RI PT
in parts of the suburban zone. Yet, again, the situation in the periurban zone is rather different. As policies aim almost exclusively at increasing production and distribution (the economic dimension), the historical and cultural dimensions are at risk. Even though urban agriculture is being stimulated, its symbolic (and social) value is neglected leading
SC
towards an unbalanced form of urban rural development. An explicit systemic and multidimensional policy is needed in this zone of the city, to integrate the economic, ecological,
M AN U
social and symbolic dimensions of urban agriculture.
References
• Aguilar-Moreno Manuel (2007), Handbook to Life in the Aztec World, Oxford University Press
• Alon-Mozes, T. and L. Amdur, 2010, "Urban Agriculture in Israel: Between Civic Agriculture and Personal Empowerment", in: Proceedings of the 2nd International conferBologna 2010.
TE D
ence of Landscape and Urban Horticulture, Eds. G. Prosdocimi Gianquinto and F. Orsini, • Armar-Klemesu M. (2000), Urban agriculture and food security, nutrition and health. In Growing cities, growing food: Urban agriculture on the policy agenda. A reader on urban
EP
agriculture. Eds. N. Bakker, M. Dubbeling, S. Gundel, U. Sabel-Koschella and H. de Zeeuw. GTZ/DSE, Germany. 2000
AC C
• Ávila-Sánchez Héctor (2011), Socio-territorial changes in periurban food production spaces in Central Mexico, in: Norois no. 221 • AƵ vila Sá nchez, Hé ctor (2005), Lo urbano-rural, ¿nuevas expresiones territoriales?, Centro Regional
de
Investigaciones
Multidisciplinarias/UNAM/CRIM,
online:
http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/Mexico/crimunam/20100503120801/Lo_urbano_rural .pdf • Bakker N., Dubbeling M., Guendel S., Sabel Koschella U. & de Zeeuw H., eds. (2000), Growing Cities, Growing food, Urban agriculture on the policy agenda, DSE, Feldafing • Corbould C. (2013), Feeding the Cities: Is Urban Agriculture the Future of Food Security? Future
Directions
International
19
Pty
Ltd.
Available
online:
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT http://www.futuredirections.org.au/files/sap/Urban_Agriculture_Feeding_the_Cities_1Nov.pdf • Dalley, Stephanie (2013), The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon: an elusive World Wonder traced, Oxford University Press • Dieleman Hans (2013), Mexico City's Sustainability and Culture, a plea for hybrid sustainabilities for a baroque and labyrinthine, in: City, Culture and Society, Elsevier Pub-
RI PT
lishers, vol. 4, no. 3, september 2013, pp. 163-172
• Dieleman Hans (2012), Organizational learning for resilient cities, through realizing ecocultural innovations, Journal of Cleaner Production, no. 50, 2013, pp. 171180.Dubbeling M., L. Bracalenti and L. Lagorio (2009), Participatory design of public
SC
spaces for urban agriculture, Rosario, Argentina, in: Open House International, Vol. 34, No.2, 36–49
• Dubbeling, M . & de Zeeuw, H. 2006. Interactive policy formulation for sustainable urban
M AN U
agriculture development. Urban Agriculture Magazine, no. 16. Leusden, RUAF. • Duran L., Batac, J.H. & Drechsel, Lawson, Laura (2005), City Bountiful: A Century of Community Gardening in America. University of California Press. • Evans, S. T. (2013), Ancient Mexico and Central America: Archaeology and Culture History. 3rd ed. London: Thames and Hudson
• FAO (2014), Growing Greener Cities in Latin America and the Caribbean. Food and Agri-
TE D
cultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome 2014 • Gaceta Oficial Del Distrito Federal (2012), PROGRAMA DE AGRICULTURA SUSTENTABLE A PEQUENǂ A ESCALA DE LA CIUDAD DE MEƵ XICO, available online, http://www.sederec.df.gob.mx/sites/default/files/prog_agricultura_0.pdf
ability,
a
EP
• Gittleman Mara (200), The role of urban agriculture in environmental and social sustaincase
study
of
Boston
Massachusetts,
E-Book,
Tufts
University:
AC C
http://dl.tufts.edu/bookreader/tufts:UA005.008.048.00001#page/1/mode/2up • Kisner C. (2008), Green Roofs for Urban Food Security and Environmental Sustainability. In : International Actions. Climate Institute • Legorreta Jorge (2009), Ríos, lagos y manantiales del Valle de México, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Mexico • Losada H., J. Rivera, J. Cortes and J. Vieyra (2011), Urban agriculture in the metropolitan area of Mexico City in: The Journal of Fiels Actions, Vol. 5 | 2011 • Losada, H., H. Martínez, J. Vieyra, R. Pealing, R. Zavala and J. Cortés (1996), Urban agriculture in the metropolitan zone of Mexico City: changes over time in urban, suburban and periurban areas. Environment and Urbanization. 10(2):37-54
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT • Losada Teresa (2005), La vigencia de la tradición cultural mesoamericana en Milpa Alta, pueblo antiguo de la ciudad de México, in: Revista Mexicana de Ciencias Polı́ticas y Sociales, vol. XLVII, nú m. 195, septiembre-diciembre, 2005 • Meyer R. (2010), Innovative Microfinance Potential for serving rural markets sustaina-
Food Towards New Agricultural and Rural Finance, Berlin.
RI PT
bly. Presented at the KfW Financial Sector Development Symposium 2010 Finance for
• Mougeot Luc, Urban Agriculture: Definition, Presence, Potentials and Risks, in Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban Agriculture on the Policy Agenda,ed. Nico Bakker et al.
SC
(Feldafing, Germany: German Foundation for International Development [DSE], 2000) • Mougeot L. (1999), For self-reliant cities: urban food production in a globalizing South. In: Koc M, MacRae R, Mougeot LJA & Welsh J (eds), For hunger-proof cities: sustainable
M AN U
urban food systems (Ottawa: IDRC), pp 11-25
• Newman, Peter, Timothy, Beatley, Heather, Boyer (2008), Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change. Island Press.
• Osmundson T. (1999), Roof gardens: history, design, and construction, W. W. Norton & Company
• Secretaria del Medio Ambiente del Distrito Federal (2008), Programa de acción
TE D
climática de la Ciudad de México 2006–2012, Secretaría del Medio Ambiente del Distrito Federal
• Soriano Robles Ramón (2005), Agricultura Urbana en la Ciudad de México y su Área Conurbada: Situación y Perspectivas. Revista Agraria -Nueva Epoca- Añ o II · Vol. 1 · No
EP
1 · Enero - Abril 2005
• Stewart R., M. Korth, L. Langer, S. Rafferty, N. Rebelo Da Silva and C. van Rooyen (2013),
AC C
What are the impacts of urban agriculture programs on food security in low and middleincome
countries?
Environmental
Evidence
2013,
2:7.
Available
online:
http://www.environmentalevidencejournal.org/content/2/1/7 • Tidball K. and M. Krasny (2007), From risk to resilience: what role for community greening and civic ecology in cities? In: Wals, Arjen (Ed.), Social Learning Towards a More Sustainable World. Wageningen Academic Press, pp. 149e164. • Torres-Lima Pablo and Luis Rodríguez-Sánchez (2008), Farming dynamics and social capital: A case study in the urban fringe of Mexico City, in: Environment, Development and Sustainability, 10:193–208, Springer Science + Business Media • Torres-Lima Pablo, Luis Manuel Rodríguez Sánchez and Brenda I. García (2000), Mexico City: the integration of urban agriculture to contain urban sprawl in: Bakker N.,
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Dubbeling M., Guendel S., Sabel Koschella U. & de Zeeuw H., eds. (2000), Growing Cities, Growing food, Urban agriculture on the policy agenda, DSE, Feldafing • Tucker, David M. (1993), Kitchen Gardening in America: A History. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1993. • Quesnel A., Foss J., Danielsson N. (2011) Solutions from Above: Using Rooftop Agricul-
RI PT
ture to Move Cities Towards Sustainability. School of Engineering Blekinge Institute of Technology, Karlskrona, Sweden.
• Osmundson T (1999), Roof gardens through history", in: Roof gardens: history, design, and construction, W. W. Norton & Company
SC
• RUAF (2003), Urban Agriculture: A Tool for Sustainable Municipal Development. Guidelines for Municipal Policymaking on Urban Agriculture, No. 1, RUAF, Available online: http://www.ruaf.org/publications/guidelines-municipal-policymaking-urban-
M AN U
agriculture-urban-management-programme-lac
• Smit Jac et al. (1996), Urban agriculture: food, jobs and sustainable cities. U.N. Development Program
• UN-Habitat (2014), Cities and Climate Change Initiatives Newsletter, June 2014, online: http://www.inuag.org/sites/default/files/CCCI%20e-Newsletter%20June%202014new.pdf Handbook
TE D
• US-EPA (2011), Partnership for Sustainable Communities - Urban Farm Business Plan September
US
EPA
Region
5,
Chicago,
Available
online:
www.epa.gov/brownfields/urbanag
• Veenhuizen, R. van (2006), Cities Farming for the Future. Introduction. In R. van Veen-
EP
huizen, 2006. Cities farming for the future: urban agriculture for green and productive
AC C
cities. Leusden, RUAF / IDRC/IIRR.
22
