Today I sat in on my first master's thesis defense. A student in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems at UBC in the Integrated Studies and Land and Food Systems program. The research project, titled "Growing Vegetables in Vancouver: An Urban Farming Cenus", was a two year study that look at the economic viability of Vancouver's urban farms. I will discuss some of the points that were interesting here.
First, what is urban agriculture? The term was identified as the act of growing and processing food within an urban region. Generally important aspects to consider were said to be 1) farm location 2) farm purpose and activities - jobs, education 3) farm scale - size and complexity of organization structure - and 4) farm market orientation - how much is for sale. In Vancouver it was said we see mainly three categories of urban agriculture: 1) urban homesteading 2) community gardens and 3) urban farms.
It was described that urban farmers tend to be growing on land that has been marginalized by communities such as abandoned train tracks or sites that are destined for development in the future. Further, that urban agriculture a response to failing food systems where you will find people talking about problems of food security, a term generally associated with people being able to access and afford nutritionally and culturally appropriate foods, as well as food system sustainability at local, regional, national and even global levels.
It was shared that the average age of farmers in North America is currently 53; it has long been discussed that the aging farmer demographic and lack of interest shown by young people to enter the agricultural sector, especially in production, is a challenge to the sustainability of the current food system. Additionally, though the fear of agricultural knowledge being lossed is often discussed, the idea of the potential for this knowledge to be gained and practiced is not often critically analyzed. In the presentation, it was stated that the number of seasons a farmer has to perfect their art, the art of growing food, which is generally around 40 seasons, is significanltly less time than other professionals have to perfect their art due to the nature of the diverging professions. Essentially, a farmer has 40 chances at learning and improving his growing methods, without taking varying environmental and climatic conditions into consideration.
We then looked at urban farms in Vancouver. In the city urban farms are on average 0.34 acres - very small. Vancouver's urban farmers are mainly men and women (in equal proportion) in 30s and most often without farming experience before joining the urban food production scene. None of the farmers own their own land though some tax cuts are available to the landowners where food is being produced. Some land is leased from the government or other organizations, but such leases often require a non-profit connection by the leasing organization in order for proper tax deductions to be secured.
One of the key aspects of urban agriculture in the financing. It is very difficult to establish a business framework where small-scale producers can actually make a profit - further, there is an interesting dynamic in cities where citizens tend to expect food growers to contribute more heavily to the social fabric of the city and give not only their time but also their products for free for the betterment of society as a whole. The lack of profit being generated by city farmers is evident when you look at the source of farming revenue from 2011 in Vancouver: 170,000 farm revenue; 218,000 grant revenue and 10,000 other revenue. This means that 55%, the majority, of the revenue to allow farms to operate in the city - this number really surprised me as I thought that the proximity of urban farmers to their consumers would facilitate improved farm revenue. Looking at the overall implications of this funding structure, we have to ask ourselves what kind of liability having so much of the revenue for local farmers tied up in grant money has for our local food system?
One of the most interesting comments that was generated at this defense was actually during the question period. One of the reviewers asked the student about a section he had included in his written thesis which focused on the student's empathy toward the research he was conducting. The reviewer then asked, given that the student obviously wanted the farmers and farming organizations to succeed, how critical could he really be in his evaluation and analysis of the data that had been collected? Additionally, how could he defend his work in front of a panel that didn't share his same biases?
The student's response was that the fact that his research showed both successful and failing farmers in the city, that he felt his work was evidently an unbiased account of what is actually happening on the ground; if he showed only successes, promoting his work might be more of challenge.
Regardless of the answer for this student, the question about how do you deal with one's personally biases and interests in a profession that is supposed to be objective. Clearly I am studying agriculture because I am passionate about the subject. I believe that our food choices are the best preventative methods to long and healty lives and consequently promote food production, funtioning food systems and whole food choices wherever possible. Then, however, when I am conducting my research, how will these biases about preferences for rural landscapes, farming landscapes, farming culture, agricultural solutions for long term health of the environment and society affect the objectivity of my work? This is something I still need to decipher in these intial phases of setting up my research, but I am glad that these ideas have been brought to my attention before I was too involved in the work that I could no longer separate myself from the work I am conducting.
