Practices and Networks

This category looks at agroecological practices in the context of land access, land use and soil health and their spatial dynamics in the context of the city.

• Are they preserving, or bringing back into use, land with a history of food growing?

• Are they affected by or seeking to influence the dynamics of urban development?

• Does their position have any significance to their ability to manage the food-water-energy nexus of the urban area? 

In London, land use and development, especially in the peri urban areas, are strongly influenced by restrictions placed on the development of  the Green Belt.

• How do practices differ horizontally from the urban to the peri urban and how does this spatial dynamic impact on the possibility of an agroecological urbanism?

Many of the larger food growing sites identified in this study are bringing back into use municipal plant nurseries that had fallen into disuse as local authorities facing austerity cuts or outsourced their parks services. So whilst many of the sites have a recent history of horticulture this was more often in relation to the cultivation of ornamental plants rather than food crops. Wolves Lane, Organiclea, Edible Landscapes London, and Dagenham Farm (Growing Communities) have all been established on disused local authority owned nursery sites located in the less densely developed outer Boroughs. In some cases, such as Wolves Lane, these have been protected from development by being designated as public open spaces - or in the case of Edible Landscapes London registered as an ‘asset of community value’, a legal protection which gives local communities the opportunity to purchase a building or piece of land if it is due to be sold.

Another case where horticultural land has been reclaimed or regenerated is Pasteur Gardens, a 7 acre site owned by the London Borough of Haringey. The site was once used as allotments then as playing fields, but was abandoned for around 20 years after a fire destroyed the changing facilities. It was recently leased from the local authority by London Grown, a new food growing social enterprise.

In denser inner London Boroughs the land available for food growing is often smaller in scale. In addition to their farm site in Dagenham, Growing Communities also manage a ‘Patchwork Farm’, which consists of nine sites that were set up on previous underused spaces in estates, private gardens and church land across the borough of Hackney.

In all of the cases outlined above the food growing organisation does not own the land they farm. The land is owned by the municipality - or in some cases the church, a social housing provider, or a private individual - and the growing organisation has a lease or licence to occupy the land. Leases are, at best 20-25 years, and more commonly are much shorter, or on a very short term ‘meanwhile’ basis, where food growing is permitted only for a limited period whilst the land awaits development.  

A rare example of an organisation with the freehold ownership of their land is Rosamund Community Garden which is named after Rosamund Arvson, who wanted to protect some chalk download from development, so bought 19 acres of land and turned it into a community garden. The site had a history of growing wheat and was more recently cut for hay, providing an example of the protection and retention of land with an uninterrupted farming history. 

The dependence of food growing organisations and individual growers on small plots and short term leases adds to insecurity and the difficulties of developing a sustainable income. The scale of this issue is illustrated by the fact that 2,700 hectares of land – the equivalent of the London Borough of Lambeth – has planning permission but where construction has yet to start ¹. Whilst much of this will be brownfield or previously developed land, it represents in scale a full quarter of the area of farmland in London (and a much greater area than that currently being farmed agro ecologically).

Further below are some more in depth cases:

The economic reality of London presents food growers and farmers with a difficult situation. Currently, the low price of produce, high cost of land and housing, low wages and lack of capital to invest make food growing and distribution difficult ventures to establish and thrive in. As a result, sufficient money is rarely made from food growing alone, and urban food growers usually depend on social and educational work to supplement their income. Small farms are not eligible for farm subsidies in the UK and whilst the wider social and environmental benefit of the work may be recognised there are currently no mechanisms for receiving payment for ecosystem services or building natural capital. This section looks at how these agroecological practices, often working to transform the wider dominant social and economic system as well as the food system, manage to operate sustainably within them.

• Have they adopted any type of heterodox practices, or economic arrangements?

• What kind of governance structure do they operate with, is it hierarchical or are they experimenting with collective or commoning arrangements?

In the London case, we recognise an affinity for community-led type of arrangements and cooperative organisational structures.

• How does governance structure or social values affect the interaction these agroecological practices have with the food-water-energy nexus?

The food-growing projects identified here are each seeking to develop and demonstrate a viable alternative to the dominant food system. By providing local people with accessible, organic, fair-value food, through markets and veg box schemes and by selling direct to members and to restaurants, they are cutting out the intermediaries and creating shorter supply chains. This ensures that the people that are growing food have their livelihoods met, and customers and beneficiaries are able to access food which does not result in the social and environmental damage caused by industrial agriculture. Many of the organisations operate on a not-for-profit basis, and usually this means that any surpluses are reinvested into the project which provides a benefit to the community or members, retaining both economic and social value within the local area.

Many of the food growing projects in London have a clear focus on community, demonstrated in the way they operate both structurally and financially. For example Sutton Community Farm was started in 2010 as a community benefit society in response to a local need for good food. Now a community-owned farm, they take inspiration from the three ethics of permaculture; earth care, people care and fair share. Their legal structure, which gives members a say in how they are run, means that they are accountable to their community. They aim to demonstrate a replicable, viable model of a farm that is representative of the type of food system they want to see operate more widely. Farnham Community Farm also gives their members some responsibility for how the cooperative is run. They operate using a CSA model, a partnership between producer and consumer where the risks and rewards of farming are shared. Members commit to buying a share of the harvest, which in turn means the grower can commit to growing the crops. Other ways in which food growers provide value to their local community include providing growing spaces and open access to the public. Keats Community Organics as one of their principal aims, strives to provide allotment spaces and a community garden for use by local people who live on the estate opposite the farm. 

Organisational structure has an important role in how the values and ethics of a group are realised. In the case of Organiclea, they have opted to work as a cooperative to achieve their aims of providing food to their local community. Legally, they are a company limited by guarantee but they operate as a cooperative, so growers are paid a wage and any profits are retained by the organisation to further their mission. All workers are involved in decision making. Being a workers cooperative is a strong part of their identity, based on their values and a commitment to wider cooperative and collaborative system change.

Another example of an agroecological practice with a heterodox structure is Wolves Lane. As outlined above the space is run by a consortium of site users, each with their own methods of addressing the needs of their local community. This structure resembles a commoning type of arrangement, as they exist as separate groups with similar values, operating a shared space and navigating ways they can ensure they achieve not just their individual aims, but also their collective aims at the Wolves Lane site. 

Social and environmental ethics are intrinsically tied to the actions of many of the agroecological practices in London. Most offer some form of volunteering, training and education as a means of equipping the local community with skills to grow their own food and combat food insecurity, and many also offer health and wellbeing services. Examples include Sutton Community Farm who have created the Growing Apprentice position which provides a fairly paid opportunity for beginner growers to build on their skills on a slightly larger scale, whilst Forest Farm Peace Garden offer eco therapy for mild and moderate mental health patients that are referred to them by local health and wellbeing services.

Below are some more in depth cases:

The development of an agroecological urbanism is inherently political and it challenges our existing social, economic and organisational relationships and the ways in which we appreciate, assess and exchange value. This section  therefore examines the extent to which food growing organisations in London are engaged in political lobbying, organising and activism.  Food growing projects and other organisations have to engage with not only the wider public, but also policy makers in order to change the food system and to reshape the metabolic process of the city. In this category we are looking at:

• Which organisations are involved in political lobbying, organising or networking.

• What strategies are being used to effectively shape the food-water-energy nexus

Networks that support and promote a more sustainable approach to food and farming are critical to achieving an agroecological urbanism. Various organisations and networks such as Community Food Growers Network (CFGN), Land Justice Network (LJN), Landworkers Alliance (LWA) and Sustain all play a crucial role in lobbying local authorities, the Greater London Authority and national government to consider food higher on their agenda and put in place policies that would support the work they undertake. These networks create a space for agroecological food growers within the city and also nationally, to gather and discuss the issues they face. As members, they have input into the policies and positions these organisations lobby for and the political decisions they try to influence. An important role these organisations also provide a voice for the food growers who are unable to participate in political lobbying activities because of time constraints they face.

Some growing organisations address this by incorporating political lobbying into their main activities. Organiclea have a specific ‘system change’ role to give them the capacity to engage in local, regional and national lobbying and system change work. Alongside this they have developed a close relationship with their local council with whom they act more as a partner rather than as a lobbyer. This relationship has enabled them to inform the council’s food strategy as well as securing land and resources. They also engage in national lobbying as part of the LWA and act as the host organisation for CFGN. Another organisation that includes national and local lobbying into their activities is Growing Communities. Their director is a member of the London Food Board that advises the mayor and the Greater London Authority (GLA) on food matters.

At a more local and informal level, lobbying takes place in the form of outreach and advocacy. Some food growing projects use their training and education as a way of promoting agroecology to the general public. An example of this is The John Evelyn Community Garden, which is run and operated by volunteers. They are part of a large non-profit local organisation called the Pepys Community Forum who offer training for gardening and green projects.

Agroecology as a political movement seeks to achieve change not only in the food system, but also the wider socio-economic system. Many agroecological practices aim for their activities to address wider social, economic and environmental justice issues. In London, there is a strong emphasis on social justice, in the work of organisations such as Wolves Lane, Organiclea, and other food growing projects in London. Ubele initiative, an organisation based at the Wolves Lane seeks to contribute to the sustainability of the African Diaspora by supporting social enterprise development. An agroecological urbanism considers not only the issues of food, but also the issues of people - in London this particularly includes marginalised groups and socially vulnerable people.