TUM.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES

URBAN NATURES
From Global to Local Food Production
Final Essay
Profesor. Shehab Ismail
Matrikel. 03737683
Date of Submission. 15.09.21

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02
How did we go from local to global? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .02
What are the social implications of global/local food systems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .03
How to systematically support local food systems? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .03
How are local food practices already being integrated? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .04
How can we make local food production practices long lasting? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 04
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 05
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 06
From Global to Local Food Production
Alternative Food Production: Integration of the Urban Agriculture Practices to the
Society

1. Introduction.

Almost every Monday evening, I head out to the closest supermarket on my area to get the
groceries that I need for the week. The experience itself became part of my week routine, just like my
morning tea cup or my weekly plant watering. However, I do not feel as comfortable with the dynamics
of buying food at the supermarket, as how I used to feel in my homeland, Mexico.

I recall how I used to do it before arriving in Munich. On Sunday morning, I would visit my local
market to get all the fresh products offered by the local vendors; vegetables, fruits, dairy products,
grains and spices from different states of the country, among other goods including plants, clothing or
kitchen accessories. The vendors from my favorite stands would greet me like an old friend, asking
how I was doing and offering a basket for me to start picking out what I needed.

The market itself felt like a small community; where I could get a sense of the important
collective thoughts of the city. Those everyday topics were shared among vendors and buyers such
as; how we had no rain in the last four months and therefore the heat was unbearable, or how the
pandemic slowed down the number of clients coming through the market. We also discussed political
and cultural issues; like which candidate for the upcoming election was the less bad of all the bad
choices, or what products were best to buy on the current season and how to cook them. Finally, more
personal topics came up: why I didn’t come last weekend, and how was my grandma doing.

For the purpose of this essay, we will analyze the current global and local practices of food
production. By including a brief look into the beginning of global practices as well as their social and
political background, the social and urban implications of the global food production networks that
have been stablished, and a comparison with local practices in order to understand what alternative
elements, can successfully integrate local practices.

2. How did we go from local to global food production?

We can locate the national perspectives of “feeding the world” that emerged after the
economies of scales from WW2. The ideas of feeding the world and a global perspective, merge with
the competence for the supremacy of a country. The national US perspective and global perspective,
had their political implications in relation to capitalism. Afterwards, a sustainable food production
movement started in the USA. Local food systems or “eco” systems developed on the 60’s, as an
alternative ideology in response to the scale mass production and war ideals. (Kleiman, 2009).

The implications of globalization resulted in massive scales of food mobilization. In order to

become a global exporter of a specific type of product, we require mass production. Massive
producers of limited types of crops consume natural resources, such as land and water or city
resources, such as business networks and supportive political regulations. Which leads to a lack of
support for smaller farming business that grow less profitable types of crops, ending up in loss of
crop diversity. Crop diversity is considered an asset to avoid food scarcity, especially on a global
climate change scenario where food insecurity is currently perceived as a difficulty for low-income
households (Phillips, 2006).

Is important to mention how exponential urban growth is resulting in to main issues. First, the
rapid urbanization and the high levels of food production with an end on high levels of Green House

2
Gases (GHG). The high levels of GHG have direct implications to climate change, that would inevitably
lead to food shortages. The current global food production practices and the division between urban
(cities) and agricultural areas would fail to provide food security in the upcoming 30 years (Caplow,
2009).

3. What are the social implications of global/local food systems?

The current network of relationships developed between the monopolies of transnational

corporations, has stablished rigid marked structures towards the implementation of new food
production systems. The modern perspective of the urban job, became one of the main factors behind
the reduction of local food production systems. Migration from agricultural areas to urban areas
resulted in rapid city growth and therefore, a higher need for urbanization. Local food producers are
moving to the city, where the personal living costs appear to be less, while the ecological costs of
having massive mono-crop cultivation and high levels of CO2 from the logistics and transportation of
goods from the agricultural areas to urbanized areas, raises up. (Pimbert, 2015).

Food is strongly related to our collective understanding of society and our cultural
perceptions; it carries a political background. The power relationships between companies and
agriculture producers, locates citizenship in a secondary role for decision making around food
production systems. Citizens choose to relegate to the network of global food production, their power
of choice and accessibility to a healthy diet. Through the inclusion of Local Food Production practices
to society, citizens can reclaim their power. The possibilities of Local Food Production helps to dilute
social inequalities, by linking local voices to global and international decision making. (Pimbert, 2015).
In relation to the political infrastructure or system that better supports a local food production system,
the idea of working with a non-centralized and flexible system, as well as based on less hierarchical
networks, seems like the alternative and natural choice to follow (Phillips, 2006).

4. How to systematically support local food systems?

Before thinking of developing an alternative political system to the current centralized global
food production, we should address the critique towards a “decentralized” system. A decentralized,
more flexible system might seem like the natural political alternative. However, it’s important to reflect
that by creating an “apolitical” structure behind local food production, we would not be able to redirect
the state and country resources towards local food production systems. Local resources such as land,
agricultural infrastructure, economic incentives or political regulations that support local practices. A
commitment from government agencies is necessary to change from global to local economies, and
develop long term sustainable practices (Kleiman, 2009).

The concept of “Social Sustainability” developed by Shindelar might come in play while
searching for supportive perspectives to shift from global to local. Transitioning from the power
relationships between governments and transnational companies, to a stronger relationship between
food producers and food consumers, we could successfully develop the establishment of local
production, distribution and markets. The involvement of citizens with their food producers and
suppliers assigns local characteristics to their food system (Shindelar, 2015).

On this essay we will not address the environmental imbalance performed by massive food
production, however we can discuss their logistics and transportation since these specific activities
share a strong relation to the management of resources and the social dynamics developed from their
practices. Coming back to the idea of Social Sustainability, the shift from global to local food
production can be measured by tools such as the concept of “Food Miles”. A sustainable use of

3
material and human resources by improving the logistics of transportation with eco-sustainable and
shorter supply chains, while having a decrease of CO2 as a positive side effect (Shindelar, 2015).

5. How are local food practices already being integrated?

Different social groups and communities have already included and represented the benefits
of local food production through their urban agriculture activities. Africa inhouse food production
supplies from 20 to 30 percent from their total household food requirements. Around 800 million
people in the world are sharing similar practices. The benefits of inhouse food production as a tool for
low-income households to reach their daily basic food requirements, makes it an important alternative
for enhancing food security. Low income-neighborhoods are the ones expanding and urbanizing the
fastest in developing cities. Through inhouse food production, they get access to a rich and healthy
diet based on their own cultural preferences, as well as the opportunity to lower their food expenses,
and some of them even generate an alternative income from commercializing with their own produced
crops (Koscica, 2014). There is an opportunity to develop a stronger community of inhouse food
producers, who by exchanging their crops and sharing their knowledge about different inhouse
production methods and techniques, would continue to solidify and stablish a local social system of
food production, less dependent from global food production.

With an inhouse/local food production system in development, there are several needs and
requirements to be addressed by the local authorities. In order to make a long-term and sustainable
inclusion of local food production, policy makers and urbanists would have to create a space inside of
the cities infrastructure for a new type of member of the local social fabric, the “urban agriculturist” in
charge of local food production. By including them in in the dynamics of the city infrastructure, new
activities would emerge such as the use and management of water for urban agriculture, including the
recollection of pluvial water for rooftop gardens or green houses. Rain water from highly populated
areas tends to be polluted by their contact with contaminated soils. Hydroponic systems work with
normal and grey water, making possible the re-use of waste water from the buildings. Within all the
possible types of local food production systems, there is a risk of crop pollution that would have to be
addressed by local authorities in order to provide every urban agriculturist with the right water supply
for continuing their practices (Koscica, 2014).

6. How can we make local food production practices long lasting?

Local food production comes along with the integration of philosophy and collective
understanding of our food consumption practices (Caplow, 2009). It is a fact that the current
production levels of local food alternatives are not able to reach the food requirements of the cities.
By integrating a sustainable philosophy behind food production practices, we can try to understand
how much of this “demand” for consuming food, is really needed to keep a healthy and well-fed
population. Therefore, creating a space for reflection on how much of the current food demand is a
result of a capitalistic political perspective, and how much of the demand is a result of a society that
consumes more resources, than the ones they really need.

There is an interesting suggestion from Caplow to integrate urban agriculture practices and
philosophy through the existing spaces where local food productions systems are already active.
Spaces were groups of people interact on a daily basis; such as laboratories that belong to scientific
institutions, cafeterias inside of hospitals, classrooms and common areas of schools and universities,
restaurants and hotels, public spaces such as parking, parks and gardens, security facilities in jails
and residential buildings with rooftop gardens, just to mention a few (Caplow, 2009).

4
 For research driven purposes on how to expand the social and economic benefits of
environmentally friendly local food production practices, we can find analytical tools that provide
practical support on how to create long-term lasting urban food productions systems (UBFPS) and
practices. A framework based on intra and extra governance characteristics, allows us to understand
on detail the factors involved in the success or failure of the urban food production systems available
now. The analysis and evaluation of these concepts, include the categorization of the characteristics
from the wide variety of UPS such as; their objectives (weather they are educational, experimental or
commercial), the main actors (inside and outside of the organization including their leaders,
volunteers, organizations or customers that benefit from their practices) their timeframe (according to
their years of activity), their sizes (from integrated spaces inside of a residential building to several
acreages of farm lands outside of the city, different zones and types of land), outreach (how the public
is connecting to their public identity), organization structure (hierarchical, collaborative, centralized or
des-centralized according to their internal practices), resources (land, funding and knowledge are the
most essential), partners and stakeholders (which can belong to the public, private and governmental
organizations). These areas provide in-depth analysis of the relationships and processes of
interactions between the urban food production systems (or as the author calls them, urban
agriculture initiatives) and the public sector, civil society and the market. The results an analysis
conducted with the previous framework refines the recognition of the most important areas in need of
support from the government, in order to create a more receptive political climate to local food
production systems (Prové et al., 2018).

Another conceptual tool for categorizing local food production practices that do not depend
on big portions of farming land, while integrating a philosophy to it, comes with the concept of Zero
Acreage Farming (ZFarming). The ZFarming is better understood from an educational perspective,
that facilitates the creation of a collective mindset for the community that is integrating local food
production on a long term perspective (Thomaier et al., 2015). The importance behind considering the
philosophy and education of society through local food production practices is essential. For any
practice to materialize, there have to be social networks stablished for local food production systems
to be systematically supported and gain recognition.

ZFarming spaces, just like Local Food Production Systems do not reach the production
requirement for the city consumption yet. In order to develop the possibility of a city food demand to
rely uniquely on local food production and shift from a global production, local authorities and
regulatory agencies can integrate the concepts to local food production practices. Within the concept
of ZFarming spaces, there is a need for a complex social network supported by technological
knowledge, as well as technical and financial expertise. The combination of multiple fields of
expertise can create a supportive network of knowledge for ZFarming spaces to develop and stablish
as a feasible solution for the future where, due to the previously mentioned global production
damaging practices, food scarcity becomes a problem (Thomaier et al., 2015).

7. Conclusion

On an effort to support further the idea of the shift from a global food production system to
the alternative use of the local food production practices mentioned before, and in order to stop
visualizing agricultural areas as spaces outside of the city context, which comes along with the
requirement of complex logistical networks to transport the city food supplies from the farm to the
city itself. We have to shift from the idea of a division between the country side and the city, and start
integrating both as a whole, with their respective layers of requirements (Lehmann, 2011).

This would require a city lifestyle transformation were sustainable Local Food Production
Practices are integrated as a part of a holistic social sustainability. Even though the environmental
negative impact for global food production practices is present as an urgent topic to address, the real

5
issue lays behind our rapid urbanization and need for larger amounts of food production. Our effort
reaches short term solutions by focusing on reducing the amount of GHG, rather than creating a new
perspective towards our lifestyle. The suggestion of integrating local food system comes along with
sustainable food production practices supported by multidisciplinary organizations (researchers,
sociologists, agriculturists, agronomists, architects, engineers, psychologists, anthropologists, lawyers
and politicians), that could be able to better address from different angles, the level of complexity
created by the current environmental concerns. Our uncontrolled development and bad food
production practices and our current understanding of globalization, are a damaging exercise to
society itself (Lehmann, 2011).

8. References

1. Caplow, T., 2009. Building integrated agriculture: philosophy and practice. Urban Futures
2030. Build. Integr. Agric. Philos. Pract. 48–51.

2. Kleiman, J., 2009. Local Food and the Problem of Public Authority. Technol. Cult. 50, 399–
417.

3. Koscica, M., 2014. AGROPOLIS: THE ROLE OF URBAN AGRICULTURE IN ADDRESSING FOOD
INSECURITY IN DEVELOPING CITIES. J. Int. Aff. 67, 177–186.

4. Lehmann, S., 2011. Transforming the City for Sustainability: The Principles of Green
Urbanism. J. Green Build. 6, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.3992/jgb.6.1.104

5. Phillips, L., 2006. Food and Globalization. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35, 37–57.

6. Pimbert, M., 2015. Food Sovereignty and Autonomous Local Systems. RCC Perspect. 37–44.

7. Prové, C., Kemper, D., Loudiyi, S., 2018. The Modus Operandi of Urban Agriculture Initiatives:
Toward a Conceptual Framework. Nat. Cult. 13, 17–46.

8. Shindelar, R., 2015. The Ecological Sustainability of Local Food Systems. RCC Perspect. 19–
24.

9. Thomaier, S., Specht, K., Henckel, D., Dierich, A., Siebert, R., Freisinger, U.B., Sawicka, M., 2015.
Farming in and on urban buildings: Present practice and specific novelties of Zero-Acreage
Farming (ZFarming). Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 30, 43–54.