Designing a Food Planning Tool IUFNs Special Session AESOP6 November 2014 Synthesis

8/10/2019 Designing a Food Planning Tool IUFNs Special Session AESOP6 November 2014 Synthesis

1/12

SYNTHESISDESIGNING A FOODPLANNING TOOL

Finding space for productive cities6thinternational AESOP Sustainable Food Planning ConferenceSpecial Session, November 7th2014, Leeuwarden (The Netherlands)


2/12

2

A Special SessionOn Designing a Food Planning Tool

IUFNs special session on Designing a Food Planning Tool was a workshop held during the 6th international AESOPSustainable Food Planning Conference Finding space for productive cities on November 7th 2014, hosted in Leeuwarden (TheNetherlands) by VHL University. The conference gathered more than 100 participants (researchers, urban designers, urbanplanners, policy makers and NGOs representatives from all over the world) around the issue of urban agriculture and urbanplanning in favour of sustainable food systems.

Even though food planning becomes an increasingly popular subject in research and individual cities throughout the lastyears, food tends to be underappreciated and not perceived as relevant planning issue by the mainstream. Cityadministrations typically argue that the free market should be responsible for food production and distribution, not the publichand. If municipalities talk about it, it is often framed as the competition between two mutually exclusive land uses: theconservation of agricultural land vs. (housing) development. Thirdly, pioneering local authorities that do prioritise food ontheir agenda as a political statement (be it to increase the number of urban agriculture projects or public provisioningprogrammes) appear be able to addressing the issue only qualitatively instead of making it the result of a deliberative decisionmaking process that quantitatively analyses food and non-food benefits.

Thus, the conferences umbrella topic finding space for productive cities did not only invite participants to ask where foodshould be produced in the physical space, but also what place it should have in institutions and planning processes.

Set as a participatory two-hour workshop, the special session was an opportunity to have a quick dive into the world ofplanning tools with food in mind. After the inspiring introductory words of Arnold Van de Valk, researcher at WageningenUR/AESOP, the participants were invited to think outside the box and identify the underlying questions and challenges whenthinking about a food planning tool - is there an actual need for new food planning tool? how should such tools be designedand work? what challenges would need to be considered and what could be possible ways forward? This documentsummarises the special sessions key findings.

Enjoy your reading!

IUFN Team


3/12

3

INTRODUCTIONFood Planning Tools - What do we have?by Arnold Van der Valk, Wageningen University

As Prof. Arnold van der Valk, an expert in land use planning, outlined in the workshops introduction, current spatial planningand decision making processes hardly perceive the food sector as a relevant field to engage in. He summarises the problemsconnected to food and regional planning as a threefold divide. Firstly, the division between urban spatial planning on the oneside, and the sectorial management of agriculture on the other side. Secondly, the tensions between the competing land uses of(urban) development and the conservation of farmland. Thirdly, the division of urban and rural as opposing categories. In his

eyes, it is necessary to overcome these classifications and instead create a new understanding of the space we inhabit and itsinteractions. Here, the notion of a metropolitan landscape may help to overcome the current conceptual limitations.

In this regard, van der Valk challenges the workshop participants to rethink planning as a whole. Considering the threeproblems highlighted before, there is no point in inventing the ultimate food planning tool or to expand the arsenal of theexisting planning toolbox. Rather, it is necessary to reconceptualise planning and decision making processes that use food as aleaver to achieve multiple planning objectives. Planning today is much too simplistic (van der Valk) in terms of (single)cause-effect relationships in evidence-based style planning. Simple premises laone problem one cause one solution doesnot work. Instead, there is a need for more strategic planning that better fits to societys needs, assumes complexity andaccepts uncertainty. That this is not impossible, could be demonstrated for example with approaches from transition theory,which could serve as a source for inspiration when looking at planning as a whole. While a revised conceptual base is without adoubt indispensable, these considerations also need to make a difference on the ground with a new community of practicethat approaches regional planning from the perspective of food.

Scale-Scope-Principles Key questions to start withby Marketa Braine-Supkova, IUFN

Designing a food planning tool is an open process, generating perhaps more questions than immediate responses. Some ofthese can help us in our discussion to follow. These points of vigilance, are intended to foster to an open minded approach andan out-of-the-box thinking.

When talking about a food planning tool, one of the key questions is the scale it should address: Should it encompass the wholefood value chain from production to organic waste management, or just specific parts of it? To what extent a food planning toolcould/shall build upon existing tools and planning processes? Similarly, what spatial scale would be the most relevant theone of a city, with or without peri-urban zones, or a city region? Should it apply to classical administrative boundaries orshould it refer to a functional region, accounting for resource flows? Furthermore, what time scale should be targeted short

or long-term perspective? The duration of a political mandate?

A second key question is about the scope of such a tool with regards to contents and stakeholders involvement. To what detailshould and could a food system be planned? What stakeholders should be involved in the designing and implementationprocess? Who should be responsible for its assessment?

The third key question is on what overall principles a food planning tool should focus on. In other words: what should be itsultimate purpose? One proposition that in the end fuels the idea behind this workshop is that a food planning tool or set oftools shall enable a given territory to efficiently contribute to food and nutritional security of its population. This shall be donein a way that respects the needs and desires of local communities, with regard to available natural resources and the health oflocal ecosystems. Lastly such a tool shall also contribute to establishing economically viable local solutions.


4/12

4

SYNTHESIS

Inspired by Arnold Van de Valk introductory words, the participants of the Designing a food planning tool Special sessionhighlighted the fact from the global point of view, many planning tools already exist, but are either not used or do not performas intended. In fact, those planning tools face a number of problems in regards mainly to their design and application. Due tothe complexity of the food system issue, planning tools are a simplification that shall help the decision making process. In thisregard, the challenge is to strike the right balance between the complexity of a tool and its applicability. This is very much truefor food systems issue that are not only highly complex but are at the same time fragmented. Complexity comes from the manyelements and actors present in the system that generate a myriad of resources and value flows on regional to global scale.

Fragmentation stems from the fact that the value chain is very seldom within one company but subdivided among specialisedactors across the globe, each one with its own interests and power.

Another essential aspect underlined is whether the existing tools actually solve the right problem! Especially so called wickedproblems, i.e. diffuse source problems that are hard to measure, are extremely difficult to account for in tool design.

The current planning practices in which a rational or engineering approaches dominate seem to represent another foodplanning challenge. Indeed, planning is organised according to sectors, thus creating a competitive environment in which eachactor follows their own interests. In addition to this sectorial thinking, the lack of exchange and communication betweenpolicy makers and the technical spheres is perceived as discriminatory. As a result, food stands in competition to otherplanning goals (e.g. real estate market, economy, tax revenue, and infrastructure). Its multi-dimensional benefits eventhough small at times for specific sectors are underappreciated. Hence, food appears to be just yet another item on thewishing list for planners that are forced to weight decisions and choose between the biggest benefit for a limited space.

The workshop participants stated that while there is no lack of new (technocratic) tools, there is definitely a lack of approachesenabling multi-stakeholder dialogues. There is still a need to develop a process-oriented planning approach that allows tointegrate food systems easier.


5/12

5

From a food planning tool to a food planning process

During the discussions the notion of addressing food planning rather as a process or methodemerged early on. Such a processcould be designed in a way that initially poses more questions than results. Doing so may help to overcome existing barriersand generate answers on the go.

So what should such a process or method consider? One point the discussion emphasised was that food planning should

facilitate and enhance a multi-stakeholder and cross-disciplinary approach. Since policies are statements on how the worldshould be, such a dialogue would also allow to formulate a normative basis of what kind of food system people want, eventuallyincreasing the probability that the stakeholders own and commit to the process in both the short- and long-term. Furthermore,strategic considerations consist of including the precautionary principle in food planning processes as one important element.Similarly, some workshop participants also pointed out the necessity to integrate uncertainty as a part of a design process in adynamic world.

What shall such a process or method look like? Depending on scale and subject of investigation, the systems complexitymentioned above invites to integrate or combine different, already existing tools in process oriented planning. A benchmark ofexisting tools seems to be a relevant first step.

Here, a food system-specific methodological frameworkor guiding umbrella would help to put these tools and steps of analysis in anew context and relation. These could include: Analysis of each necessary element (e.g. space, stakeholders and resources)

along the value chain, Goal formulation, Formulation and assessment of strategies, Planning, Implementation, Monitoring andEvaluation. Such a framework would not follow linear steps from analysis to implementation, but rather work cyclically oriteratively, jumping back and forth between the steps. So for example, it would be possible to start out with a normative goal inmind, then identify what would be necessary to achieve this goal, then analyse what is there and what is required to achievethis goal. In this perspective, the definition of the relevant factorsis a crucial first step.

Additional inspiration in designing a tool can also come from other sectors, as for example decision tools on food risks frominsurance industry) or from experimental and interactive methodologies such as multi-stakeholder consultations, data miningfrom crowdsourcing, and a number of exercises (e.g. 30-30 exercise, backtracking, prototyping), or foresight. The essentialelement seems to be the capacity of enabling creativity.

Challenges and the way forwardFrom these reflections it became evident that designing a food planning tool, method, or process is a challenge in itself. Themost flagrant seems to be the question of how to reduce the complexity of food systems to a useful, yet applicable process. It isimportant to identify what actually needs to be measured, how much that will cost and to what degree we can find out what weare looking for in terms of data especially. In other words: Will the tool in the end provide policy makers with tangibleinformation? How much do we need to know to make a decision?

Another important challenge is to define the appropriate target audience: Who should be involved? How can individualinterests be balanced? Here, the difficulty is to bring very different stakeholders with individual agendas and interests to thetable, conflicts included. Nevertheless, re-shaping a food system requires stakeholders to commit to the process in the long-term. While in the beginning they might be euphoric for such an endeavour, the challenge is to make them hold on to acommon vision or project even if individual interest cannot be satisfied or if no short-term results are visible. After all, if key

stakeholders back out, to which degree is it possible to succeed overall?

Furthermore is it not only crucial to consider the appropriate spatial and temporal scale, but also to include relevant elementsof the food value chain (from production, processing, distribution, and consumption to waste management) which again addscomplexity. Some workshop participants further pointed out the necessity to include indicators going beyond food-relatedinformation. The idea behind this is that indicators relevant for other sectors (e.g. jobs created, air filtration performance,cooling performance, noise dampening, obesity rate (long-term), crime rate, resource flows / cyclic flows) can help to visualiseand quantify the multi-benefits of food system and ease the decision making process.

This also might help to tackle the challenge of connecting food to other planning sectors. In this regard advocating food as oneof the cross-cutting mean to achieve sustainability goals in many sectors will challenge existing paradigms of practice andpotential emerging institutional competition. The small-at-times yet in their sum relevant benefits of sustainable food systemscan improve resilience. Still, as individual sectors thrive for their sectorial efficiency, thus rather promoting single-benefit big-

scale projects, food system benefits may continue to be perceived as non-relevant or insignificant.

Analysing, evaluating, and creating promising plans on paper is one thing. Yet, one of the biggest challenges is to actually makea difference on the ground.


6/12

6

FOLLOW UPThe workshop has shown a vivid interest for further discussions on the food planning tool issue. With the above challenges inmind, the workshop participants proposed a certain number of next steps. One of these would be to involve a wider range ofpeople and to start a multi-stakeholder platform or process that unites local communities, researchers, food professionals,planners, and decision makers around the topic of food planning. Indeed, a promising concrete step might be to take it to theground and launch and experiment with designing a possible food planning tool, method or process on a pilot site or casestudy.

Indeed, there is today a vague notion of how a new food planning process or framework might look like but there is still muchto be done in terms of awareness raising and cross-disciplinary thinking. Provoking a real change in current professionalpractices, establish food as a relevant issue and a design element in planning theoretic considerations calls for a joint effort.

In this perspective, IUFN would like to continue facilitating this discussion and invites partners to join a dedicated LinkedIngroup Designing a Food Planning Tool(www.linkedin.com/groups/Designing-Food-Planning-Tool-8202333). The aim of thisgroup is to provide a platform for information sharing on this strategic issue, helping to identify existing relevant initiatives,data, tools and processes that we could build on. The ultimate goal is to identify possible lines of work and action, build uponour different expertise and competences, and to draft partnership proposals that will translate into a or several concretefood planning tool projects.

Funding Opportunities

So far, IUFN identified two funding opportunities that would allow submitting such a project in the European context (undercertain conditions open even for partners from outside the EU): The EU Life Programme oriented towards implementationprojects and the research-oriented EU Horizon 2020 Programme.Both programmes are quite different in their objectivesand application process. Nevertheless their complementarity in terms of general approach and their target public is worthexploring.

EU Life - Environmental Governance and Information

The EU LIFE Programme for the Environment and Climate Action 1provides a global budget of 3.4 billion for a number of differentimplementation-oriented activities running between 2014 and 2020. Its aim is to support traditional, preparatory, integrated,technical assistance, or capacity building projects that help implement existing EU regulations, set-up a pilot project, or raise

awareness. The programme is divided into two sub-programmes: The Climate Action programme covers proposals orientedtowards mitigation, adaptation as well as governance and information. The second sub-programme on Environment coverstopics such as resource efficiency, nature and biodiversity as well as environmental governance and information. This lastthematic area appears to be the most suitable for afood planning tool-project as it provides funding for

information, awareness and dissemination projects to promote awareness raising on environmentalmatters, including generating public and stakeholder support of Union policy-making in the field of theenvironment, and to promote knowledge on sustainable development and new patterns for sustainableconsumption; to support communication, management, and dissemination of information in the fieldof the environment, and to facilitate knowledge sharing on successful environmental solutions andpractice, including by developing cooperation platforms among stakeholders and training; and topromote and contribute to more effective compliance with and enforcement of Union environmental

1http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/lifehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/lifehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/lifehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life


7/12

7

legislation, in particular by promoting the development and dissemination of best practices and policyapproaches2

A Life fund provides up to 60% of the project costs, the other 40% need to be provided by the applicant. Usually, but not as arule, projects run for a duration of 2 to 5 years. As the programme is implementation oriented, research activities are onlypermitted to a limited extent if the directly contribute to the projects implementation. Monitoring activities that evaluate theprojects performance are an essential requirement. The application process favours transnational proposals, given that theyprovide an additional value. Applicants can be public bodies, NGOs, and private businesses. While the application processconsisting of 5 phases appears relatively complex and requires a lot of lead time 3, national authorities may provide assistance

in revising a draft proposal before handing it in for an official application at EU level. IUFN is already in contact with theFrench contact point. According to last years schedule, the applications are possible from March-October 2015 whichtranslates into an earliest project start in summer 2016.

One important point to consider is that grants are not only approved depending on the quality of the project proposal, but alsoaccording to what has been spent already. In other words, the EU programme has thematic and regional allocation priorities. Inthe Environment sub-programme those have firstly a heavy focus on conservation projects with more than half of the sub-programmes budget and secondly the top-three regional budgets for projects in Germany, France, and Poland. 4Theprogrammes website provides an overview of projects that have received funding in past years.

In this regard, one possible project design could consist of actually drafting and experimenting a food planning tool orprocess in cooperation with selected municipalities across Europe.

2http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life2014/3http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/documents/ 2014env_governance_app_guide.pdfAlso, see pp. 9-10 for regulations regarding non-EU project partners4http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/documents/ 2014_preparatory_app_guide.pdfp. 16f
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life2014/http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life2014/http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life2014/http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/documents/%202014env_governance_app_guide.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/documents/%202014env_governance_app_guide.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/documents/%202014env_governance_app_guide.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/documents/%202014_preparatory_app_guide.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/documents/%202014_preparatory_app_guide.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/documents/%202014_preparatory_app_guide.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/documents/%202014_preparatory_app_guide.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/documents/%202014env_governance_app_guide.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life2014/


8/12

8

EU Horizon 2020

The EU Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovationallocates 80 billion budget for knowledge, research, andinnovation-oriented projects running between 2014 and 2020. Its aim is to increase the EUs competitiveness through (mostlytechnological) innovation in the private and public sector with a heavy focus on job creation and economic growth. Theframework programme is divided into 8 programme sections. One of these programmes, the Societal Challenges prioritises 7societal challenges, two of which a food planning tool project appears to fit best: food security 5 and climate action /

environment / resource efficiency6.

The application process is advertised as relatively easy and takes generally 5 months. Project proposals are reviewed by a panelof experts. Most of the time, applications require including at least three partners from different EU countries. Applicants areinvited to respond to one specific call for proposals7that is part of a multiannual work programmes published by the EuropeanCommission on a regular basis. Each call for proposals has an own budget that will be split up according to pre-defined prioritytopics within the call. Funding agreements are made individually for each accepted project application and can go up to 100%.

The challenge for this funding source is to find a suitable call for proposals each having specific Eligibility and fundingconditions. An overwhelming majority of calls prioritize very specific technological topics, even in the food security sector.Similarly to the Life programme, each call provides links to ask for assistance in the application process in form of nationalcontact points. Furthermore, it might be useful to contact the advisory groups 8that formulate the multiannual workprogrammes in order to advocate for a specific call on food planning or to ask for assistance.

In regards to the Horizon 2020 framework, one possible project design could consist of a research project thatevaluates possible entry points for a food planning process in the context of three European national planningsystems. It would furthermore be possible to include SMEs in such a project in order to design and evaluate a businessdevelopment policy targeted to innovative small-scale urban food production.

5http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/food-security-sustainable-agriculture-and-forestry-marine-maritime-and-inland-water6

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/climate-action-environment-resource-efficiency-and-raw-materials7Database with all available calls:http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/index.html8http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/experts
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/food-security-sustainable-agriculture-and-forestry-marine-maritime-and-inland-waterhttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/food-security-sustainable-agriculture-and-forestry-marine-maritime-and-inland-waterhttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/food-security-sustainable-agriculture-and-forestry-marine-maritime-and-inland-waterhttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/food-security-sustainable-agriculture-and-forestry-marine-maritime-and-inland-waterhttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/climate-action-environment-resource-efficiency-and-raw-materialshttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/climate-action-environment-resource-efficiency-and-raw-materialshttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/climate-action-environment-resource-efficiency-and-raw-materialshttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/climate-action-environment-resource-efficiency-and-raw-materialshttp://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/index.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/index.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/expertshttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/expertshttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/expertshttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/expertshttp://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/index.htmlhttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/climate-action-environment-resource-efficiency-and-raw-materialshttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/climate-action-environment-resource-efficiency-and-raw-materialshttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/food-security-sustainable-agriculture-and-forestry-marine-maritime-and-inland-waterhttp://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/food-security-sustainable-agriculture-and-forestry-marine-maritime-and-inland-water


9/12

9

IUFN Special session: Designing a food planning tool - November 7th2014AESOP 6th international food planning conference

Finding space for productive cities

Leeuwarden, The Netherlands

GROUP N 1

Group discussion. Write down your conclusions (use bullet-points system for more clarity).

Please determine a group rapporteur who will present your conclusions/ideas during the restitution phase.

During this restitution, you will be invited to only highlight the main ideas.

(Why) is a food planning tool necessary?

Many tools exist but are not being used

Conflict between tools and complexity of

systems in designing planning tools

There is not a lack of tools, but a lack of policy

/ political decisions/processes fostering multi-

stakeholder dialogue

Missing interfacebetween policy and technicalspheres

What challenges are to be considered when

designing such a tool?

Question of relevant scaleto take into

consideration is crucial tool on a complex

system (too ambitious) OR tool on

thematic/food chain part

Target audiencedefinition (policy makers,

technicians, civil society, individuals, etc.)

In terms of contents and the tools structure -

need to go deeper, reach/try to tackle the

structural problems at the basis of the food

systems sustainability

Facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogue / cross

disciplinary approaches

Analyse / integrate macro-challenges

(e.g. climate change mitigation & vulnerability)

Problems of existing tools

Tame methods for wicked problems

Many tools exist but do not solve the right

problem

Rational / engineer approachto problems is

dominating

New mental processesneed to be used (bothby policy makers and practitioners)

Lack of interface politics-technicians/ People

think according to their direct interest

Policy makers conflict between short

term/long term perspective; how to integrate

long term perspectiveof food system; how to

propose an inclusive presentation if ideas

present rather a process

What to design?

Think of a tool as a process (the way you do the

process may bring answers) process, rather than a

tool/ modular tool/ wheel of tools

Make people overcome barriers(tools for complex

systems)no need for an out-of-the-box / new

tool but a bettertool

Integrate theprecautionary principlefor the food

system?

How to design it?

Benchmark / evaluation of existing tools(cost-benefits evaluation)

How to connect these tools?How to propose a guiding umbrella?

o Assessment methods to think about uncertainty / foresight

o 3030 exercise / Participatory mapping (represent people graphically)/ Participatory budgeting /

Backtracking use principles of the past to re-invent the future / design methods / design charrette /

design prototyping

o get inspiration from other sectors (i.e. insurance industry decision tools on food risks)

o multi-stakeholder consultation (involve engineers)/crowdsourcing to obtain data

Imagine change through involving people

Think about alternatives; Focus on innovation aspectsin existing tools

Bring people to creativity Think about what you desire for your food system

Policy makers will choose in order to existing challenges

Appendix 1 Worksheet of group 1


10/12

IUFN Special session: Designing a food planning tool - November 7th2014AESOP 6th international food planning conference

Finding space for productive cities

Leeuwarden, The Netherlands

GROUP N 2

Group discussion. Write down your conclusions (use bullet-points system for more clarity).Please determine a group rapporteur who will present your conclusions/ideas during the restitution phase.

During this restitution, you will be invited to only highlight the main ideas.

(Why) Is a food planning tool necessary?

e.g. Does it actually make sense to design such a tool? Are there

any other planning tools and processes that could help designing

sustainable local food systems?

food is underappreciated/ not recognized as mean to

achieve sustainability goals through multi-benefitsfood in competition to other planning goals and sectors

o vs. real estate market

o vs. economy (jobs)

o vs. tax revenue

food sector = complex and fragmented

(along value chain)

Appendix 2 Worksheet of group 2

What main features should an ideal food

planning tool have?

e.g. What kind of information/indicators should it

present? How should its performance be evaluated?

not a (new) single tool or set of tools, but

rather necessity for aMethodological Framework

e.g. Geodesign (Carl Steinitz)

System Analysis and Design

iterative, cyclical steps: analysis,

visualisation, strategizing, assessment,

planning, implementation, monitoring

include food value chain:

production, processing, distribution,

consumption, waste management

indicators: not only food related but also

other sectors

What challenges are to be considered when designing

such a tool?

e.g. Methodological limitations, underlying constraints, links to

other issues of spatial development, etc.

complexity vs. applicability

stakeholders owning and committingto process

(short & long term)

connectfood to other planning sectors paradigms of practice

(e.g. institutional competition,

thats how we always did it)

What are the next steps when designing such

a tool?

e.g. What steps need to be taken? Who needs to be

involved? On what time scale?

awareness building:food = relevant

planning issuefor other sectors

paradigm shift: food system = not only

about food butalso provides other benefits

people to involve: citizens, community,researchers, food chain professionals,

planners, policy makers

multi-stakeholder platform / process

pilot site for experimental tool design

(city region, neighbourhood)

Your topic: Implementation

Is there another topic this idea of a food planning tool inspires you? Use this space to share your thoughts with other groups.

multi-benefits of urban agriculture = positive externalitiesneed for incentive policies & supportive frameconditionsfor entrepreneurs (e.g. design new public fund structures)

small is beautifulas a new promotion priority? Instead of few big companies, support many small ones

10


11/12

11

STAY TUNED & JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Join our LinkedIn group Designing a Food Planning Toolto continue the discussion onwww.linkedin.com/groups/Designing-Food-Planning-Tool-8202333

For any query, contact us with the subject Food Planning Tool [email protected] - Marketa Braine-Supkova & Robert Gundlach, IUFN

WARM THANKS

IUFN would like to thank our partners - VHL University/AESOP and especially Rob Roggema for hosting the Specialsession Designing a Food Planning Tool. Learn more about the 6th international AESOP Sustainable Food PlanningConference onwww.findingspaces.nl

HOW DOES THIS SPECIAL SESSION MAKE SENSE AT IUFN

For IUFN, the Special Session is a part of IUFNsLAND FOR FOOD PLANNING PROGRAM focusing on spatial implicationsof our land system and its potential alternatives. The sessions topic was identified as one of the outcomes of thefollowing initiatives proposed by IUFN on this issue in 2014:

A foresight workshop Future of land in peri-urban areas by 2050(IUFN, UNESCO, INRA-CIRAD, Futuribles) Final report to be diffused early 2015

An international conference Land for food - Land use and city-region food systems governance organizedat UNESCO HQ in Paris in April 2014 (UNESCO, Green party Senator Jol Labb, Ministry of Environment, Caissedes dpts, ADEF, CIRAD-INRA, Futuribles) Open forum synthesis available on-line www.iufn.org, co-designworkshops synthesis to be diffused in December 2014.
http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Designing-Food-Planning-Tool-8202333mailto:[email protected]://www.findingspaces.nl/http://www.findingspaces.nl/mailto:[email protected]://www.linkedin.com/groups/Designing-Food-Planning-Tool-8202333


12/12

12

IUFN the International Urban Food Network

Is an international research and cooperation network that focuses onsustainable food systems for city regions in industrialized countries andthe BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China).

IUFN/ AgroParisTech

16 rue Claude Bernard75231 Paris cedex 05www.iufn.org

Designing a Food Planning Tool IUFNs Special Session AESOP6 November 2014 Synthesis

Documents

Transcript of Designing a Food Planning Tool IUFNs Special Session AESOP6 November 2014 Synthesis