Open Collections

UBC Graduate Research

Planning for post-carbon food systems: opportunities for british columbia Marshall-Smith, Paris 2010-08-31

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


SCARP_2010_gradproject_Marshall-Smith.pdf [ 2.4MB ]
JSON: 1.0102526.json
JSON-LD: 1.0102526+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0102526.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0102526+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0102526+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0102526+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0102526 +original-record.json
Full Text

Full Text

School of Community & Regional Planning Final Project - Summer 2010Paris Marshall SmithAdvisor Dr. Leonora Angelesplanning for post-carbon food systems opportunities for British ColumbiaThis is not a traditional report. Rather it is not a report at all, but an INVITATION FOR YOU TO AN EVENT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE. The date is still unknown, but the occasion is clear, it is a chance to come together for a post-carbon meal.  The potential of what could be is both ex-citing and unknown. Many others have written and are writing about our current state of food – Sharon Astyk, Lisa Hamil-ton, Wendell Berry, Cathleen Kneen, Va-dana Shiva, Michael Pollan are among some of the names I look to and which I recommend you too as well. Much of this document contains the names of projects and people who are leading the edge of innovation regarding the re-localization of food. Following on their bright leader-ship, I put forward my own assertions ex-pressed as opportunities and invitations.  It is my hope that the ideas included will provoke conversations, between ei-ther you and me (wouldn’t that be great!) or you and another. I see this as another invitation for us to come to the table and share in the collective potential of what we can create by opening up the possibilities with questions and dialogue and allowing new and unimagined futures to emerge.planning for post-carbon food systemsSUMMARY : Our world is undergoing a great change that is expected to proceed at an increasingly rapid pace for the next 40-50 years. The realities of peak oil are chal-lenging us as individuals and as com-munities to rethink how our future may unfold and what we would like it to look like. I would like us to re-approach food and the systems that support it, produc-tion, distribution and consumption with the everyday actions of our hands and our hearts so that we can further cultivate the spaces between people, place and food. I am interested in transforming our food systems by remembering to listen and in-tentionally look at how we sustain and are sustained. For me, it is about the relation-ships we form, the process that takes us forward and the transformation it inspires. 1“Receive with simplicity everything that comes to you”  - Rashi“The two toughest challenges facing humankind at the start of this 21st century are Climate Change and Peak Oil. The former is well documented and very visible in the media. Peak Oil, however, remains under the ra-dar for most people. Yet Peak Oil, heralding the era of ever-declining fossil fuel availability, may well challenge the economic and social stability that is essential if we are to mitigate the threats posed by Climate Change.“  - Rob Hopkins - Transition TownsChange is inevitable,planning is needed, lets begin now.2TABLE OF CONTENTS   INTRODUCTION•	 problem statement•	 statement of purpose and objectives•	 methods•	 project context: peak oil, food sovereignty, climate change, energy, waste and water•	 methods 1. WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? (VALUES & LEARNING)•	 what stories are we telling ourselves?•	 changing the relationship•	 connecting to the larger picture2. WHO WILL WE INVITE AND HOW? (GOVERNANCE)•	 local/municipal•	 regional•	 provincial3. PLANNING THE MEAL - WHAT WILL WE EAT? (HEALTH & NUTRITION)•	 fruits & vegetables•	 carbohydrates•	 protein4. FROM FIELD TO TABLE – WHERE DOES OUR FOOD COME FROM? (LAND USE, FORM & SHELTER)•	 inside the city•	 around the city•	 regional integration5. HOW IS FOOD PROCESSED, DISTRIBUTED AND STORED?•	 inside the city•	 outside the city•	 regional connections6. HOW DO WE MAKE MOST USE OF OUR RESOURCES?•	 institutional requirements•	 community•	 structural requirements7. HOW DO WE SHARE THE WORK? (JOBS & SERVICES)•	 work day•	 re-skilling•	 services8. HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD? (CONCLUSION)page  4page  10page  16page  22page  28page  38page  44page  52page  58planning for post-carbon food systemsI N T R O D U C T I O N  “Out of all human activi-ties, agriculture has arguably been the source of greatest human impact on the environ-ment.” (Heinberg 2009:2) As omnivores, humans are highly adaptive, and able to accu-mulate knowledge increasing our ability to manipulate and change the natural landscape. Today in 2010, we are not only the world’s top carnivores, but if we consider the demands of ‘industrial metabolism’ “we are also the dominant herbivore in grasslands and forests all over the planet.”(Rees 2003a)  Three characteristics currently	 define	 modern	 agri-culture:  domestication of crops and animals, modern crop improvement (genetic modi-fication	 and	 monoculture	 pro-duction) and mechanization of agriculture (through use of machines, fertilizers and pesti-cides). (source) Agriculture or the production of food has be-come an industrialized process of mechanization, commoditi-sation and consolidation. In ad-dition to the increased central-ization of farming in the last 50 years, Richard Heinburg points out how, “Fuel-fed machines now plow, plant, harvest, sort, process, and deliver foods. The near-elimination of human and animal muscle-power from the food system has reduced pro-duction costs and increased la- “One of the most salient characteristics of the global food system is the econom-ic and social distancing it creates and the wide variety of problems associated with it.  Perhaps the most obvi-ous problem is the amount of energy required to move agricultural and food prod-ucts	 from	 field	 to	 table.	But the extensive environ-mental costs associated with the recovery and com-bustion of fossil fuels are regarded largely as exter-nalities in conventional ac-counting.  Mistaking the planning for post-carbon food systemsbor productivity—which means that there is need for fewer farmers as a proportion of the population.”(Heinberg 2009:2) Having embraced a “doctrine of limitless” i.e. increased our competitive	 efficiency	 through	the canon of get big or get out, the average farmer in North America, 60 years or older, now manages 2000+ acres using machines that cost an average of $300,000 a piece and producing food that is transported around the world. (Hamilton 2008) Given the im-portance of food in our daily existence, it is unfortunate that it is managed at such an arm’s length by people and machines who most often have very little physical contact with the plants and animals they are grow-ing. As noted by the Nation-al Research Council (1989):price of energy for its true cost effectively subsidizes the concentration of pro-duction in monocultures and	 confinement	 systems	irrespective of their dis-tance from consumers.  Cheap energy further facili-tates such concentration by lowering the cost of the fuel, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, machinery, irrigation, pack-aging, and refrigeration so essential to industrial farm-ing and food manufacture.  Ubiquitous and over-inten-sive use of these inputs and technologies has resulted in widespread degradation of soil and water resources and in erosion of the health and vitality of our own and our fellow species.”4P R O J E C T P R O B L E M S T A T E M E N T Our modern food struc-tures are built on the easy availability of cheap energy - fossil fuels. The emergent en-ergy scarcity combined with global climate change offer an unprecedented opportunity to reinvent how we approach food system planning. As a critical yet undervalued component of the human realm, industrial food production has contribut-ed to making urban human set-tlements, “the most vulnerable social structure ever conceived by man.” (Oppenheimer, 1969) Dependent on a single source of energy, system of exploita-tion, each of us is equivalent to 100 – 200 pre-industrial human beings (Rees, 2002). Our ener-gy consumption is grossly out of balance with the servicing abil-ity of the ecosphere, the moral grounding of equity and the simplicity of self-determination.  Humans (particularly those in North America and Europe) embracing rhetoric of entitlement have built empires through the appropriation of re-sources across the globe. “The enormous purchasing power of the world’s richest nations enables	 them	 to	 finance	 their	ecological	 deficits	 by	 extend-ing their ecological footprints deeply into exporting nations How can we as community planners, teachers, activists, citizens, anticipating the changes to come, work towards transforming our current linear food structure (fast food drive thru) into a resilient integrated food system (slow food sit down meal)? Where do we begin to plan for a post-carbon meal? planning for post-carbon food systemsand throughout the open eco-sphere” (Rees, 2002b). An eq-uitable distribution of the world’s resources allocates 0.8 ha of productive ecosystem per capi-ta for the entire planet. “Citizens of	deficit	countries	[those	who	consume more than their share of resources] live, in part, on life support services imported from other countries and by imposing a disproportionate load on the global commons” (Rees, 2006). And whereas the ecosphere is a non-growing entity, by and large, the economy is a grow-ing entity that has commodi-fied	not	only	natural	resources	through global commerce but also those who serve the sys-tem – farmers. In the increasing disparity of economic, social and ecological access and dis-tribution, “crisis is a misnomer” for it is not a transient phenom-enon, but has “developed over a very long time as a result of relentlessly increasing demand pushing against a shrinking natural resource base.” (Fed-eroff 2010) If we are to take responsibility for our consump-tion as global citizens, we will need to reduce our energy us-age by 80% reduction and de-crease our ecological footprint to 2 gha/person. (Rees 2010)Hence, this project aims to ex-amine the linkages between people, food systems and a post-carbon future. It will ad-dress the primary question:5STATEMENT OF PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES We are all consumers and therefore, we must all be-gin to account for where and how our resources are sourced, taking active involvement in the decision making and planning. Local	self-sufficiency	is	not	the	goal, (though global is), we will still need to exchange and en-gage with our neighbours. But the reality of current geo-polit-ical uncertainty demonstrates that high-dependence on trade is not wise (for example, Van-couver is said to have only 3 days of food supply if trade were to discontinue). Nor is this a call to trade in our cars for carts, bunker down and re-turn to pre-industrial standards of living. Rather it is an invita-tion to recall simpler practices of living that use our innovation of today in combination with the wisdom of a conserver cul-ture. And perhaps making best use of local resources is be-comes not only a moral but also an intelligent move forward.  Given our current reli-ance for food on fossil fuels for all stages of production, processing, distribution, stor-age and marketing, it is critical that we take steps to strategize our way out of dependence. With a decline in oil availability and the subsequent increase in prices, the transport of food and the necessary industrial inputs will be unreliable and we must develop alternatives.  The purpose of this project is to identify a selec-tion of alternative strategies that can be used to help guide and shape post-carbon food system planning. Human com-munities, like any biological community depend on a diver-sity of skills and abilities, not just a singular ability to man-age or theorize. Therefore, it is not the intent of this project to encourage standardization, but rather local customization to circumstances that encour-age creativity and innovation. Using the questions identified	 above,	 the	 project	will outline current key issues and constraints and then re-spond with a discussion of the opportunities within each area: values and learning; gover-nance; health and nutrition; jobs and services; land use; re-source management; process-ing, distribution and storage; land use; jobs and services.  Additionally, the project has the following more	 specific	 objectives:1. Articulate the current im-pact of the externalities and	 inefficiencies	 of	 the	 in-dustrial food structure 2. Identify the above 7 work-ing areas to help guide and shape planning for post-carbon food systems.3. Articulate opportunities and strategies for building a more reliable food system that is vi-able in a post carbon world. planning for post-carbon food systemsM E T H O D S  I collected some of the data for this project through a review of relevant litera-ture on peak oil and climate change adaptation. These sources were augmented us-ing	multi-media	i.e.	films,	blog	posts and web-based articles. Finally	I	refined	the	focus	and	enhanced	any	findings	through	informal discussions, inter-views and public presentations.6CONTEXT: PEAK OIL, FOOD SOVEREIGNTY , CLIMATE CHANGE, ENERGY, WASTE & WATER	 This	 study	 reflects	 a	BC perspective. The ideas are	intended	to	be	sufficiently	broad to be used as guide-lines and points of references applicable to communities of all sizes. That said, it is the larger urban areas (i.e., Van-couver, Surrey, Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Richmond, Saan-ich, Kelowna, Prince George) that consume the largest share of the provinces resources, de-manding the greatest amount of energy and consideration.  For much of the world, human scale (less than 50 acres), direct market agricul-ture is in decline. And yet in BC, while there are farmers among the same demographic, we are fortunate to still have a culture (albeit relatively small) of small-scale family owned farms, with a large portion of our food con-sumed locally (as opposed to being exported and then im-porting our food supplies). (Min-istry of Agriculture) BC farmers produce 48% of all foods con-sumed in BC and 56% of foods consumed that can be econom-ically grown in BC. (Ministry of Agriculture 2008) In addition, BC leads the Canadian market for growth of the organic foods sector and has a burgeon-ing demand for farmer’s mar-kets. (Statistics Canada 2009) “Consumers are now prepared economically and politically to support an agri-food system that is environmentally sound, promotes a sustainable and se-cure regional food system and contributes to building econom-ically vital and socially coherent communities.” (Condon 2009) There is an exciting opportunity growing across the province of BC to en-gage local communities in building the foundation for a strong, sovereign and resil-ient post-carbon food system.  A post-carbon world will be	 defined	 by	 the	 availability	or lack of high quality water, food and shelter. In today’s world, inundated by a conver-gence of “peak” phenomena, namely peak oil, peak water, peak phosphorus, peak grain and	 peak	 fish,	 it	 is	 becoming	increasingly	difficult	to	maintain	or establish adequate food se-curity. The concept of Peak Oil was originally raised in 1956 by M. King Hubbert who predicted that the curve of oil produc-tion (or extraction) would be shaped like a bell, rising until it peaked and then descend-ing over a period of years. For oil, there is current speculation about when the global peak will be reached; for some the spike in oil prices in July 2008 was a sign that reserves had peaked. Others, those more optimistic suggest that peak oil will not happen until 2020, allowing enough time for technical alter-natives to be created. Whether or not peak oil arrives with a boom or a whimper, there is an opportunity being offered for forward thinking and planning.  Two years ago, our world became a predominantly urban place with over half the popula-tion (approximately 3.3 billion) now living in urban centres. Globally, while we continue to transition from rural to urban, we have	 failed	 to	 sufficiently	 cre-ate the systems and protect the resources needed to support these burgeoning entities. John Michael Greer, author of the Long Descent (2008) explains that our cities’ current ‘addic-tion’ (complete dependence) on fossil fuels requires a constant and increasing supply of oil and will result, if not mitigated soon, in a short, steep descent that is punctuated by economic seizures resulting from the in-crease in oil prices. Greer goes on to emphasize that the speed of descent can be reduced by a decrease in consumption and the transition towards a non-fossil fuel-consuming lifestyle. This is particularly relevant to the current industrial agricul-planning for post-carbon food systems7ture production systems which are highly dependent on the availability of cheap and abun-dant fossil fuel and whose out-put will be greatly impacted by a decrease in oil supply. But it is not simple about losing our cheap energy source, it is also about recognizing that we have moved so far from our basic cycles of sustenance that ‘food security’ is as important to the individual who does not know how to grow vegetables as it is to nations that are scram-bling up land across the globe for fear of an uncertain future. There	 is	 a	 significant	 discon-nect between those that con-sume (urban dwellers) to those that produce (rural dwellers), from	 nutrient	 flows	 to	 indi-vidual awareness of how food is grown. “The ultimate con-sumer of the food is thus sev-eral steps removed from the producer, and food systems in most nations or regions have become dominated by a few giant multinational seed com-panies, agricultural chemicals corporations, and farm ma-chinery manufacturers, as well as food wholesalers, distribu-tors, and supermarket chains.” (Heinberg 2009) Any disrup-tion in this fragile linear system may generate a uniquely urban food crisis in a relatively short time. It is imperative that soci-ety begin post-carbon food sys-tem planning now, and to pre-pare for the changes to come. planning for post-carbon food systemsENERGY CONSIDERATIONS As humans, we are “en-gaged in a competitive struggle for energy” within and between species. We ‘appropriating’ the bio-energy that would otherwise be used  by: 1. Displacement 2. Elimination 3. Appropriation. (Rees 2002) Richard Heinberg states (2009:4), our current lev-el of industrialization presents an interesting paradox reversal, “Before the Industrial Revolu-tion, farming and forestry were society’ primary net produc-ers of energy. Today the food system is a net user of energy in virtually every nation; this is especially so in industrial countries, where each calorie of food energy produced and brought to the table represents an average investment of about 7.3 calories of energy inputs.” Industrial agriculture has become a grossly over-consumptive sink of energy as a result of cheap and abundant source of fossil fuels, fueling not only the machines but also being the source of inputs – fertilizers and pesticides. The current energy consumption of industrial agricultural practices has created an unprecedent-ed imbalance of pollution and disorder that takes the form of ecological contamination (including the products them-selves), greater complexity of functions and social disregard. As Professor William Rees sug-gests, if we continue to “convert non-human biomass and other resources into human biomass and the material infrastructure of our industrial economy at a great increase in global entropy (e.g., pollution and disorder)”, we are building a food struc-ture that has over-extended it-self and will be unable to sup-port itself as the limitations of the system increase. (Rees 2002) Thinking ahead, what do we need to change to in-sure	that	there	is	sufficient	en-ergy to move our food from our sources	(fields,	oceans,	lakes)	to our sinks (consumers)?WASTE & POST-CARBON FOOD One of the grounding assumptions of a linear waste management system is that at either end of the line (the source and the sink), there is an un-limited supply of either the raw material needed for production or the space to hold the dis-carded products. The model of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), separating organic and non-organic industrial & residential by-product deemed no lon-ger useful, can be divided into 5 waste streams: municipal, commercial, industrial, agricul-tural, and hazardous. ( (for further discussion on Integrated Resource Man-agement please see section 6)8planning for post-carbon food systemsFigure 1: Map of BC’s Bio RegionsV I S I O NMy vision for BC’s food sys-tem	 is	 a	 locally	 defined	 re-sponsive, sovereign system that is resilient, redundant and creative in its integration of resources (human and non).What does this mean?… please	 read	 on	 and	 find	 out.WATER FOR POST-CAR-BON AGRICULTURE Agriculture is the largest user of water in most areas of the world. Whether through the inputs required to grow feed or produce fertilizers or process and transport, the virtual water or amount of the water needed to	 grow	 the	 finished	 food	 re-quires a high level of energy in-tensity. In the BC, the agricultur-al sector accounts for up to 70% of the surface and groundwater consumed. (Living Water Smart 2008). Most water sources are managed by irrigation licences, there are approximately 44,000 active water licences in British Columbia, which are attached to	specific	parcels	of	land	and	grant access to surface water.Water resource management, also an integral part of food system planning, includes sup-ply of potable water and the management of wastewater and storm water. Assuring a re-liable source of potable water and irrigation water will be one of the fundamental needs of a healthy post-carbon food sys-tem. Additionally where there are examples of high-intensity production of food (urban ar-eas, kitchen gardens) irriga-tion can be supplied from the re-use of grey and black water.  The average BC resi-dent consumes about 358 litres of potable water on an average day (l/cap/day).  Currently, the majority of this water leaves the system as wastewater through toilets and drains.  Extensive infrastructure is required to store and deliver potable wa-ter for consumption, to remove and treat the resulting waste and to effectively dispose of the treated wastewater into our natural water systems.  Design for post-carbon food systems will require ef-ficiency	and	integration	of	our	water distribution, waste-water and storm water management systems.  Harvesting and treat-ing rainwater for use as a source of potable wa-ter is one example of an integrated system that is responding to energy scarcity.  This would re-duce the demand on the municipal water supply, lower the risk of dam-age to the surrounding ecological systems and urban infrastructure, con-trol the water quality of dis-charge off the site and create a source for agriculture pro-duction. Black water (raw sew-age) and grey water (non-black water component of sewage) both could both be captured to serve food production needs. Estimates of water need-ed to produce one kilo-gram of food product are:2,300 litres – rice100-200 litres – many vegetables (cabbage, eggplants, onions)2,000-4,000 litres – le-gumes (peas, beans)At least 4,000 li-tres – chicken meatAt least 10,000 li-tres – boneless porkAt least 15,000 and as much as 30,000 litres  - boneless beef  (for	 all	 meat	 figures	 include	water needed to produce feed, and provide drinking and sani-tation)   (Gallon Letter 2009)91.  WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? (VALUES & LEARNING)and it is time for us to reorganise our lives and the way we live. William Rees of UBC’s School of Community and Re-gional Planning is empathic that we as a human society must use our skills and talents not to further relationships of self-interest and competition but to shift our values and ethics towards cooperation, communalism and deep integration with nature. (Rees 2002) We have a choice about how we can move forward. We can continue to force our individual in-terests and demand our perceived rights or we can choose a new way to engage. “Calling the Earth “sacred” is another way of expressing humility in the face of forces we do not fully comprehend. When something is sacred, it demands that we proceed with caution. Even awe.”  Gulf oil spill: A hole in the worldNaomi Klein, June 19, 2010 The GuardianP R O B L E M A T I Q U E We seek happiness in our society. We search for it in power, the accumu-lation of wealth, the perfection of form and the perpetuation of youth.  And yet, evidence shows us that happiness does not correlate to per capita income or eco-nomic growth and in fact there is much research to show that happiness actu-ally declines as income levels rise (Rees 2002). In North America and Europe and increasingly throughout the rest of the globe, we live not within rational, moral or ethical bounds but rather on a doctrine of economic growth and corporate ex-pansion. This is problematic, as our eco-logical and social systems can no longer sustain the limitless consumption fuelled by such thinking. There is no balance between those that have not and those that have. We that have, are consum-ing a gross proportion of our resources planning for post-carbon food systemsO B J E C T I V E : To re-connect to a story bigger than the individual. Moving towards a culture of “Enlightened rationality” – compassion for life and compassion for other humans and non-human nature. with the systems that sustain us – what is the alternative?  There are numerous studies (Feenstra (2009), Fea-gan (2007), Bregendahl (2006)) publications (100 Mile Diet, Long Descent) and movements (Slow food Movement, Local Food Movement) that can at-test to the emergent value and quality of life that is achieved through more localized living – small integrated communities or neighbourhoods that move more slowly, capturing the beau-ty of the mundane. Patrick Con-don of the UBC School of Land-scape Architecture has worked with communities in the Lower Mainland attempting to reinte-grate agriculture into the urban realm	 and	 speaks	 specifically	to the value of localized agri-cultural communities. He says:   “The nature of a commu-nity’s agriculture sector pro-foundly	influences	its	social	and economic character. Communities dominated by smaller, family owned farms and agriculturally related business, compared to one dominated by consolidat-ed, trans-national agribusi-ness, have been found to have overall higher stan-dards of living, lower crime and poverty rates, more retail trade and indepen-dent businesses and more parks, school, churches, newspapers and citizen in-volvement in democratic processes.” (Condon 2009) To build such systems, we need transparent access to information (what seeds are most viable in this climate?) and experience (how do we save seeds?) if we want to re-define	the	“very	underpinnings	of our culture”, and build new narratives.” (Rees 2002) What could this new model include? •	 A	 revolutionized	 edu-cation system with a focus on creativity (as equivalent to literacy) (Robinson 2010)•	 Integration	 of	 local	and traditional knowledge with formal dissemination •	 Greater	 empowerment	and advocacy of women to claim a loud voice in the discussion of care and nurturing the land•	 Champions	 to	 promote	and network innovation and ideas   The wide-ranging pre-dictions of a post-carbon food system suggest that we will need to be ready for anything, that	flexible	and	adaptable	skill	sets will be most useful as we prepare for the unknown. Here again the garden and growing food offers a holistic opportu-nity for integration and training.  The garden of the post-carbon city will require continuous revi-sions and preparedness for all planning for post-carbon food systemsO P P O R T U N I T I E S :a. WHAT STORIES ARE WE TELLING OURSELVES?  We have as humans a remarkable ability to write our own narratives, stories that guide and shape our lives. Our capacity for myth making can unify and divide, lift us up and pull us down. We live in a time, where we need to, in the words of William Rees (2002: 95), “frankly acknowledge the weaknesses in the expansion-ist global development model with	its	emphasis	on	efficiency,	competition and survival of the few and replace it with a new myth that fosters equity, coop-eration and mutual sustainabil-ity.” The emerging constraints of energy scarcity offer an ex-citing opportunity to reconsider the impacts of this model from all angles. Lets ask ourselves – what stories drive this machine of success and growth? What are we, as autonomous free-thinking beings promoting with our choices for consumption of food, material, belief & media? And are these actions and sto-ries the ones that will support and sustain us as we move into a time of change and unknown – or is there something else that we can imagine? From the perspective of food – the in-dustrial model sets us up for a distant, distracted relationship 12types of weather and conditions. Building intense adaptive productive systems that in-clude practices such as: •	 Quick	 crop	 rotation,	•	 Continuous	 production,	•	 Seasonal	 extensions,	•	 Full	cycling	of	nutrients,	•	 Research	 (observation	and seed selection) of crops viable in a diversity of climates and conditions (heavy rain, drought, cold, intense heat) •	 Increase	 transpar-ency and accountabil-ity by sharing and discuss-ing	 techniques	 and	 findings	•	 Provide	 seed	 saving	support to small growers par-ticular those who specialize in heritage and non-gmo, open pollinated varieties •	 M a n d a -tory food label-ing mandatory W h e r e ? Schools and uni-versities could be redesigned to re-sponsively serve the needs of com-munity. Farmers must be part of the scientific	 process	and research, and also between urban and ru-ral dwellers both should have an interest and involvement in the other. Plant seeds liter-ally	 and	 figuratively	 that	 are	value based not policy or mar-ket based. Patent and intel-lectual property rights must be reversed allowing communities to reclaim all aspects of food preservation and production.b. CHANGING THE RELATIONSHIP: In her book, Deeply Rooted (2009) reporter Lisa Hamilton shares the stories of three farmers who are work-ing against the conventional industrial agricultural tide to retain their livelihoods as small producers deeply connected to their work and land. One of her stories is of the Podolls in North Dakota. David Podoll is a grain grower who is passionate about integrating the experiential ele-ment of farming into his work. While much of their farming is done with machines, he laments the disconnection that results when he in unable to be in di-rect contact with the plants and soil. Synthesizing his thoughts on the difference between farm-ing and gardening, Podoll says, “We made a bad turn in agriculture when we took food production away from women and gave it to men, when we went from the hoe to the diesel engine. Ever since we have been on a power trip, and I think it’s been really bad for the land – it’s been bad for a lot of things.” (Hamilton 2009:227)  Strengthening local food systems requires a concerted effort to enrich our relationship as consumers to food. This is the opportunity to slow down and bring a new consciousness planning for post-carbon food systemsTable 1 Localized Food System vs. Industrial Agriculture Viable Agricultural Economy Productionist Paradigm Community involvement with focus on localized relationships Corporate & capital concentration with focus on estranged profit generation Direct, independent distribution Mass, centralized distribution Coordinated systems driven Industrialized commodity driven chains Spatial and temporal independence Standardized dependence Sense of knowing & trust Sense of alienation  Embedded in place Transient and disconnected 
13into how we engage with our food, our bodies and our com-munities. It is about building intricate relationships through time and attention. Ron Plow-right, former coordinator of the Urban Aboriginal Community Kitchen, says that we need to, “Put good energy into food, make decisions that are cultur-ally and community appropriate, include wisdom and knowledge of elders, and teach from the heart.” (2008) It is not enough to fix	all	the	leaks	and	build	all	the	boxes, we need to be building a new paradigm and giving focus and priority to food can do that. Table 1 summarizes different attributes of two agriculture paradigms – Localized Food systems that support viable agricultural economies built on community involvement, direct distribution, small-scale operations and far-reaching diversified	 movements.	 Com-paratively, industrial agriculture is built on distance, corporate concentration of management and technological interven-tions, large-scale operations and served by far-reaching di-versified	 operations.	The	 later	has taken us away from food, to the point that children to-day do not associate food in a grocery with its origin wheth-er it is a chicken (meat), cow (milk) or the earth (carrots).  In the United States, there is a campaign to “Know your farmer, know your food” with the goal of building con-nections, knowledge and com-passion for the work of growing food. Rees (2003b) tells us that; “Modern humans – particularly city dwellers – are so psycho-logically alienated from nature that they rarely think of them-selves as animals let alone as dependent components of the world’s ecosystems.” Recog-nizing our current predicament of energy dependency and en-vironmental exhaustion is re-lated to our social-ecological and economic distancing, how do we build the opportunities for people to reconnect? The local food movement in the form of “Buy local campaigns”, “One Hundred Mile Diet”, Slow Food Movement” is one way in. “Many of those in the local food movement encourage consum-ers to become more familiar with where their food comes, to build connections with the food producers, and to make better choices overall for per-sonal, social, economic and environmental	 benefits.”	 (Gal-lon Letter 2009) Is this enough to rebuild our cultural narrative and reconnect an ecologically alienated population? Hope-fully, because we need to go further and integrate healthy food in all aspects of our lives.   As a necessity of life, food should be considered along with healthcare. Ben-efit	 packages	 could	 incorpo-rate garden plots, good food boxes, farm membership or even training opportunities in agriculture. As seen in Cuba during the ‘Special Period’ that marked the country’s radi-cal readjustment off oil, those who have skills and agricul-tural land have become more valued in post petroleum world as they have become a neces-sity to the survival of society. (Power of Community 2006)c. CONNECTING TO A LARGER PICTURE: How do we connect to a story that is larger than our-selves, I believe it is largely through relationship to our self, each other and the systems that sustain us. “People cooperat-ing and caring for each other are main factors we need to en-courage, not the technology. It is the human relationships, that will recreate the culture and so-cial fabric.” (Power of Commu-nity 2006) The invitation to the post-carbon meal is intended to strengthen such relationships and contribute to the nurturing and support needed to build the social fabric of our commu-nities. It is an invitation to call upon yourself, and your neigh-bour and listens to the ideas and possibilities that come forward.   Returning to Hamilton’s collection of narratives (2009), she tells the story Harry Lewis an independent dairy farmer planning for post-carbon food systems14planning for post-carbon food systemsfrom Texas. Lewis lives and breaths his ethics which for him can be summarized in the prin-ciple of pasture, which is not simply grass, but the integrat-ed, continuous cycle of food and nourishment. For Lewis, pasture equates to a moral un-derstanding and placement in the natural order of the world, it reminds us of who we are and how we are sustained. “Every person, I believe possesses in their soul an inherent moral code. We know deep down what’s right and what’s wrong, but to judge between the two we must stop and think about it. Instead most peo-ple just accept things. Well, I don’t just accept things. I’ve got stop and think about them. And when I do, real-ize how much in our society in just based entirely on a money economy, with no thought for a moral or ethi-cal response to what we are doing.” (Hamilton 2009: 52)152. WHO WILL WE INVITE & HOW? (GOVERNANCE)Given the uncertainty - why not plan with a margin of error that allows for the un-expected, why not leave an empty seat at the table for the unexpected guest. In the face of such insecurity, all levels of government must champion food secu-rity and sovereignty to government and private sector partners, creating an inte-grated and cooperative network of sup-port that stimulates radical democratic intervention and full citizen participation. We must all come to the table to discuss and strategize. Using the tools we have (taxation, regulation and trade policy) we can effectively implement and main-tain secure food systems. Incentives, grants and development cost charges can support current and future food pro-ducers. And it is important to recognize structures such the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), which while they have provided a buffer against development pressures need to be augmented and strengthened to provide a foundation for increased food system resilience. planning for post-carbon food systemsP R O B L E M A T I Q U E :In responding the question of who gets invit-ed to the table (meaning who decides what we will eat and also potentially who will eat) it is important to recognize that currently in BC	we	are	at	a	significant	global	advantage	and live in resource abundance – we have land, water and energy (hydro). In the next 20 years, BC is projected to grow by 30% to a population of 5 739 500 people. To main-tain current levels of self-reliance BC farm-ers must increase production by 30% of 2001 levels. According to provincial reports, this will require a 23% increase in access to secure land, water and the necessary infrastructure (cite source in a footnote). This report by the Ministry of Agriculture assumes business as usual, and does not consider the increasing likelihood that glob-al eco-political uncertainty will precipitate an	in-migration	of	people	fleeing	starvation,	disaster and unrest. It is likely that current population trends will increase at minimum two-fold, but times are uncertain and it is of course	difficult	to	predict	with	any	certainty.	O B J E C T I V E : Design regionally based systems – supporting and coordinating local-ized governance that prioritize food and agricultural policies and programmes. AGRICULTURAL LAND R E S E R V E :  About 4.7 million hect-ares of agricultural land in BC are currently protected through the provincial legislation of the ALR. The establishment of the ALR in 1976 created an impor-tant growth buffer against the encroachment of municipalities. As urban areas continue to ex-pand, the competition for ALR land increases, making gov-ernment mediation ever more critical. Legislative revisions are needed to ensure that ALR land is kept affordable (prohibit speculative purchasing), for food production (not for church-es, wineries or tree farms – all currently permitted within the allowable “non-food use” and available (limit the building foot-print constructed on ALR land). The Provincial govern-ment’s current strategy on ag-riculture and food security, i.e., The BC Agriculture Plan, is de-signed to provide a vision and direction for the agricultural policy in BC. (Ministry of Agri-culture 2008) It is unfortunately insufficient	regarding	such	key	topics as the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Plan makes clear that progressive forward thinking agricultural policy is not the current government’s mandate, by dedicating one strategy (of 23) to the pres-ervation of agricultural land. The 21st strategy of the Plan states the proposal of “preserv-ing agricultural land for future generations of farm and ranch families”. The two paragraphs written in the Plan regarding this	strategy	do	not	sufficiently	articulate the necessity of in-creasing the protected agricul-tural land, particularly given the expected growth in population, and the basic number of the hectares that are required to meet our regional food needs. O P P O R T U N I T I E S :a. LOCAL/MUNICIPAL: •	 Fostering	a	strong	local	Food Culture: Municipal gov-ernments can foster a culture and ethic that inspires the sup-port for local food producers and programs through practic-es	that	celebrate	and	redefine	purchasing and consumption priorities (eg. food procurement policies, buy local campaigns, farmers markets). With sup-port (distribution and market-ing structures) and integration (farm tours, farm gate sales) smallholder operations offering a diversity of products and ser-vices can easily respond and adapt to the changing needs of community and environment.  For such a system to be successful, local governments must advocate for both the con-sumer and the producer, using its position to facilitate relation-ships and sharing of information. •	 Reinforce	 with	 a	 Plan	– what’s the menu du jour? Clarity of direction and method is critical. Local governments working with a broad base of stakeholders can develop the vision and objectives to identify the steps forward. Citizenship participation can be gathered through a variety of channels from neighbourhood potlucks, to the green streets program, to food policy councils, to public meetings and open houses, to interactive websites that gather responses and surveys. A plan can take a variety of forms in-cluding Food Charter (see Kaslo, Manitoba, Vancouver),Gail Southall, columnist for the Creston Valley recent-ly	 	 defined	 the	 importance	 of	food charters in her article, “Thought for Food: the Poli-tics of Food” (July 12, 2010)“The charter is used as an information tool when gov-ernments are developing binding policy on food, land use, the environment, and economic development, as these policies relate to food access and security.”  Additional advocacy initia-tives can take the form of Ac-tion Plans for Creating a Just and Sustainable Food Sys-tem (Toronto), Green Streets and Country Lanes Programs (Vancouver), Urban Agriculture planning for post-carbon food systems18Policy (Seattle), Street Tree By-law, Agricultural Land Reserve legislation. Diverse openings for input, with accessible av-enues for information offer im-portant opportunities for deci-sion-making and accountability.•	 Using	the	tools:	The	fol-lowing tools are available to lo-cal municipalities to further sup-port food system integration.ZONING REGULATIONS  There will be an in-creased necessity to accom-modate greater diversity of operations within areas, as the boundaries between private and public become blurred by the necessity to increase the functional use of spaces. Com-mercial (produce sales), light industry (canneries) will sit next door to increasingly dense resi-dential neighbourhoods. Col-lective space will need to be allocated for shared resource management (storage) and food production (processing and preserving). Single use of space will be ineffectively redundant (see Section 3 for further discussion). Zoning (by lot or by block – see Section 4) could be determined by the spatial requirements of grow-ing food and collecting water. This adjustment may indirectly increase density, as homes become more compact, poten-tially clustered and designed to maximise solar exposure. Municipalities can also rene-gotiate	the	calculation	of	floor	space ratio (FSR) creating an incentive for developers. See-ing food production as a lo-cal amenity, municipalities can encourage developers to build/allocate growing spaces into their designs without los-ing	 liveable/profitable	 density.	DENSITY BONUSING Use density bonus (of-fering increased density in ex-change for public amenities) to support the protection of ALR land, see it as an important common good akin to commu-nity centre and playgrounds. Such a model is proposed by Patrick Condon and Kent Mul-linex within a peri-urban zone that yields “10 to 15 dwelling units per double gross acre” sufficient	 to	 support	 transit	and local commercial activi-ties, as well as protecting sub-stantial tracts of land for agri-cultural use. (Condon 2009)  BYLAWS (“stick”) Establish bylaws that prohibit the use of pesticides, regulate water consumption, and promote edible landscap-ing, native vegetation, in-creased forest canopy and habitat preservation (for bees and birds). As well, communi-ties could be allocated a cer-tain ‘waste’ quota, much like current individual dwelling system, but that would ideally generate a sense of collective responsibility, encourage lo-calized management of waste (compost, grey water recycling, sharing of building materials) F U R T H E R INCENTIVES (“carrot”) Incentive programs (neighbourhood grants, exten-sion support – see Section 5) to convert yards & boulevards into edible areas could be cre-ated (like Vancouver’s green street program). Promotion can include city run workshops on growing food and water conser-vation. Food producing homes could receive a property tax rebate, while products such as grass seed and lawn care sup-plies can be charged a levy. b.  REGIONAL: •	 Advocacy	 &	 Political	Leadership Regional authorities have a unique opportunity to oversee a coordinated promo-tion of local food system. As po-tential advocates for local pro-ducers, agricultural lands and consumer awareness, regional districts can design and imple-ment initiatives that highlight the importance of farmers and give value to the work they do. Following on the precedent of Belo Horizonte in Brasil, farm-ers could be recognized as civil servants for providing a pub-planning for post-carbon food systems19lic good, food. (Rocha 2008) They would thus be incorpo-rated into municipal structures and	 giving	 not	 only	 financial	support, but also further po-litical access and agency.•	 The	 art	 of	 hosting	 -	building networks & community  By working with multi-sectoral agencies and organi-sations, regional districts are in the position to use their perspec-tive build linkages that connect communities. One current ex-ample comes from Metro Van-couver’s Sustainability Break-fasts which have been meeting monthly since 2006. This net-work could further facilitate the sharing of resources (storage and processing facilities), in-creased coordination with lo-cal distributors, and support mechanisms such as farmers’ cooperatives, business associ-ations. Historically and increas-ingly today, cooperatives offer an important opportunity in the work of food production. (Ham-ilton	2009)	The	benefits	that	re-sult from collaboration (sharing the burden and expense of the rules and regulations, maintain-ing high industry standards and self-monitoring), and sharing of knowledge and resources (dis-semination of new research) are	 significant	 to	 small-scale	farmers. (Gallon Letter 2009)•	 Promoting	 a	 new	model for governance There is a need to re-en-vision our rural-urban relation-ship (see Section 2 for further discussion) as one no longer maintained by highway corri-dors and municipal boundaries, but as one that prioritizes the ecological needs of a region, and thereby planning within its limits. Bio-regions are a model of governance and resource management that can build the foundation needed for a coop-erative future. Giving recogni-tion to the function and scale of ecosystems, bio-regional frameworks are being adopted because they are are seen as more effective for conservation and planning, because resi-dents are asked to live within the ecological bounds and shape their lives accordingly (Feagan 2007). BC is roughly divided into 6 bio-regions: In-terior, Island, Kootenay, North, Okanagan and South Coast and while they have no politi-cal authority, there are growing grassroots efforts on Vancou-ver Island and in the Okana-gan and Kootenays to have consumers and growers sup-porting their local ‘food shed”. Locals are being asked to in-habit and allign with their re-gion through a conscious act of consumption. Networks for the exchange of product and infor-mation are being established, regional meetings and most re-cently the West Kootenay Re-gional District is funding the cre-ation of a local agricultural area plan that will focus on regional integration. (RDCK, 2010)c. PROVINCIAL:Education and leadership – cre-ating policies and building the structures, providing information •	 Trade	 &	 Marketing The provincial govern-ment needs to engage with the movement for local food and post-carbon planning. Econom-ically, there is a need for lead-ership towards redistribution and increasing equity. Equi-table trade reform with federal and	provincial	flexibility	is	nec-essary. The Provincial govern-ment must reduce inappropri-ate subsidies that keep prices of	 oil	 at	 artificially	 low	 levels,	unfairly supporting the indus-trial agriculture model. Food and its services must fairly priced: Real food at real prices. The economy can be used ef-fectively as a tool to encourage and promote conserver (as op-posed to consumer) behaviour. •	 E d u c a t i o n	 As mentioned in Section 1, awareness is critical in post-carbon planning. Engaged and active citizenship requires an in-formed population able to make choices based on accessible and accountable information. As supply chains are shortened, the concentration of capital,  planning for post-carbon food systems20•	 Identify	 strate-gies: How do we get there? The Provincial gov-ernment in collaboration with Federal, Regional and Munici-pal governments has the op-portunity to support a strategic effort that is cooperative and unified,	but	sufficiently	flexible	to	specifically	meet	the	needs	of the local context; local ini-tiatives working within a com-mon framework – most likely through such mechanisms as the Local Government Act. Pro-vincial strategies may include promoting alternative models for land ownership, establish-ing tax incentives (MSP for food purchasing), regulatory streamlining	 and	 efficiency,	policies and investment to sup-port women in farming. Local initiatives may include promot-ing enterprise zones, permit expediting, recruit and incubate new food businesses, building shared facilities for – butcher-ing, freezing, canning, milling. Encourage policies that support diversity of production and dis-tribution. Examples of problems include Whole Food Markets and Wal-Mart contracts with lo-cal producers, which although seemingly in favour of small producers, have contracts stip-ulating that farmers produce specific	products	in	specific	(i.e.	large)	 quantities,	 significantly	threatening farmer autonomy and diversity. Conversely farm-ers markets not only allow for the sovereign production and distribution of food (for both producer and consumer), but also encourage it. Consum-ers seem to be willing to pay a premium for a wide range of variability. The infrastructure of farmers markets and farm gate sale requires a continued sup-ply necessitating the disman-tling of entry barriers for young farmers (price of land, price of quotas, lack of knowledge and experience) (Pawlick, 2006) Where does the money come from?  Strategic use of re-zon-ing applications from agricultur-al (ALR) to urban use to create a economic shift that generates revenue that could then be cap-tured by local governments on condition that the funds are re-invested into an agricultural en-dowment. Local governments can capture value by reinvest-ing the revenue into an en-dowment or Community Trust Farming or another mechanism supporting local food security, such as farmers markets, incu-bator kitchens and extension research and education sup-port services. (Condon 2009)Although untested as of yet, Patrick Condon goes on to pro-pose a model of innovation on how Development Cost Charg-es (DCC) could used to sup-port local agricultural initiatives. Similar to how DCC are used in Vancouver currently to fund amenity spaces, they could also	 finance	 the	 infrastructure	and services requirements as-sociated with municipal growth and support, “the creation and stewardship of municipally fo-cused agri-food components”. (2009) In addition, new varia-tions to Development Permit Areas have allowed local gov-ernments to zone areas for greenhouse gas reduction. A DPA could blanket the entire city, or certain areas (peri-urban agricultural zone) where an ap-plication would have to be put forward to the planning depart-ment showing that the require-ments for edible areas are met. planning for post-carbon food systems213. WHAT WILL WE EAT?    (HEALTH & NUTRITION) and sugar. This diet is making us sick. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services, obesity threatens to reduce the life expectancy of children born today to less than their par-ents as a result of diet related diseases such as heart disease, stroke, type 2 dia-betes and cancer. (Heinberg 2009) While this striking statement is more a result of North Americans’ increased consump-tion of ‘fast foods’ (sugar, fat and salt), there have also been studies indicat-ing that the increased use of fertilizers, namely nitrogen, has increased the ni-trate content in vegetables and produce. (Chimada 2004)  A direct relationship ex-ists between healthy food consumption levels and poverty. In North America, chronic obesity targets those who have limited access to fresh fruit and vegeta-bles or those that consume a diet of pre-dominantly junk food. (Food Inc 2008)Processed foods made from subsidized ingredients such as soy and corn products planning for post-carbon food systemsP R O B L E M A T I Q U E :  Consumers are offered an unprec-edented quantity and availability of foods byindustrial agriculture. The success of this model has virtually eliminated famine in many parts of the world. (Heinberg 2009) And yet while the hunger crisis has been significantly	 reduced,	 the	 industrial	 food	structure has failed to offer access to high quality (nutrient dense, low fat, low sugar, low salt) food products. In the Post Carbon Institute’s report - Food and Farming Tran-sition, Richard Heinberg (2009:5) states, “Hundreds of millions of poor, middle class and even wealthy individuals in industrial-ized nations suffer from malnutrition, often hidden and sometimes paradoxically ac-companied by obesity resulting from the consumption of highly processed foods low in essential nutrients.” It is often said that we in the North are at risk of being over-fed, but not necessarily by nutrient rich foods that support our functioning but by caloric rich foods that are high in sodium O B J E C T I V E : Access (grow or import) high quality, nu-trient dense foods with minimal levels of mechanization (movement of ma-terials, artificial inputs and storage).are often more readily available with-out alternative options or the information as to the health impacts. (Kenner 2008) Families	 with	 the	 financial	 resources	 to	escape poverty rarely suffer from chronic hunger, while poor families not only suf-fer the most from chronic hunger and mal-nutrition, but are also the demographic most at risk during food shortages and famines. In addition, cultural ‘norming’, limited access to health coverage and low wages create a cycle of cheque-to-cheque existence (and subsequent malnutrition and disease) that prevents people from making long-term health con-scious lifestyle changes. (Food Inc 2009) As has been mentioned elsewhere, one	of	the	most	significant	characteristics	of the industrial food system is the eco-nomic and social “distancing” it creates and the wide variety of problems associ-ated with it. ( These include isolation and disconnec-tion, no knowledge or awareness of how food is grown, what good food tastes like and even the basic awareness of how to feed one’s own body. In other words, it is not only the food product, but also how is being processed, marketed and distribut-ed. Thus, in addition to improving the ba-sic nutritional composition of food (using better growing practices), care and atten-tion must also be given to our relationship to food and to the resources that produce it (i.e. people, water, seeds and land).planning for post-carbon food systemsplanning for post-carbon food systemsFigure 2: Recommended Post-Carbon Plate: 1/2 vegetables, 1/4 protein, 1/4 carbohydratesO P P O R T U N I T I E S : a. NUTRITION: At this post-carbon meal, what should we eat that sustains the health of the land, the air, the farmers and our bodies? Michael Pollan, author of the Omnivores Dilemma (2006) and In Defense of Food (2008), answers this question with the following guidelines:•	 Don’t	eat	anything	your	great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food•	 Avoid	 food	 products	containing ingredients that are (a) unfamiliar, (b) unpro-nounceable,	(c)	more	than	five	in number, or (d) that include high-fructose corn syrup•	 Shop	the	peripheries	of	the supermarket and stay out of the middle•	 Get	out	of	the	supermar-ket whenever possible•	 Eat	mostly	plants,	espe-cially leaves•	 You	 are	 what	 you	 eat	eats too•	 If	 you	 have	 the	 space,	buy a freezer•	 Eat	like	an	omnivore•	 Eat	 well-grown	 food	from healthy soils•	 Pay	more,	eat	less•	 Cook	 and,	 if	 you	 can,	plant a garden	 Looking	 more	 specifi-cally at the individual compo-nents of the post-carbon meal, the next section considers the three primary food groups – fruits & vegetables, protein and carbohydrates. Emphasis is placed on fruits and veg-etables, because in BC, like most industrialized places, we over consume our share of ani-mal protein and carbohydrates (105% of recommended pro-tein (meat based) and 115% of recommended carbohydrates) and under consume the recom-mended daily intake of fruits and vegetables (25% and 78% respectively). The impact of over consumption can be seen not only on the average body but also on the increased envi-ronmental degradation caused by industrial production of meat. The production phase of meat and grain (mostly used as animal feed) represents 83% of Green House Gas (GHG) emis-sions, i.e. not only is this phase a major contributor of pollu-tion but it also requires vast levels of energy to sustain it.  In fact if we are to con-sider the words of Dr. Ra-jendra Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:“The UN Food and Agricul-ture Organization (FAO) has estimated that direct emis-sions from meat production account for about 18% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. So I want to highlight the fact that among options for mitigating cli-mate change, changing di-ets is something one should consider.” (FAO 2010)   Animal agriculture is re-sponsible for 4.5% more of the world’s GHG emissions than all the world’s transportation put together, including cars, buses, trucks, planes, ships and trains. In addition, raising animals for food produces 65 % of the ni-trous oxide and 37 % of the methane related to human ac-tivity (respectively, these have 296 and 21 times the global warming potential of CO2).  The post-carbon meal builds on the recommendations of BC’s Best Chance program – a healthy diet consists of ½ vegetables /fruit, ¼ carbohy-drates and ¼ protein (see Fig-ure 2): and includes the recom-mendation a 30% decrease in meat consumption and then goes further to strongly encour-age the consumption of plant based protein sources.  As per Figure 2, fruits and veg-etables therefore represent the 50% of the post carbon plate. ( Fruits & Vegetables The discussion on Land Use (Section 4) presents the physical designs for how a pre-dominantly vegetable based diet could be substantially ac-planning for post-carbon food systems26commodated within the urban boundaries of our cities and towns. Following the sugges-tions of Section 4, most vegeta-bles and fruits and some dairy and small protein needs can be within a 5-block radius of our homes. The proposed meal would involve an intensive pro-duction of nutrient rich crops such as nightshades (e.g. toma-toes, peppers, potatoes, egg-plant), root crops (e.g. carrots, beets, parsnips, turnips), bra-sicas (e.g. cabbage, broccoli, kohlrabi, kale, brussel sprouts), squash, legumes (beans, peas, garbanzos), onions, salad greens and some starches (e.g. quinoa and amaranth) and pro-tein from chickens (meat and eggs), rabbits (meat), goats (milk and meat), and insects. 2. Carbohydrates Canadians are great grain growers. But much of our grain and grain producing land and water is devoted to the production of feed for animals. According to Amy Sapp of the Harvard School of Public Health and Shannon MacDonald of Harvard Medical School (2001), meat production poses serious implication for the global en-vironment and human health. About 5-10 times as much wa-ter is consumed to produce a kilo of meat as is required to produce a kilo of grain, animals raised for food in the U.S. con-sume 90 % of the soy crop, 80 % of the corn crop, and 70 % of its total grain. (Sapp 2001, Federoff 2010) And in terms of water usage: a kilo of wheat re-quires between 500 and 2000 L of water (mostly lost through transpiration) – mostly fed to animals. Growing the crops necessary to feed farmed ani-mals depletes nearly half of the United States’ water supply and 80 % of its agricultural land. (Sapp 2001, Federoff 2010)  As producers, we are able	 to	 grow	 sufficient	 grain,	but through the industrial food chain, we have misallocated our resources and created a very	inefficient	system	from	the	mass consumption and con-tamination of resources. Sapp and MacDonald explain that the vegetarian diet is more ef-ficient	 because	 it	 like	 a	 local-ized food system reduces the supply chain – the sun-to-food conversion of energy is more efficient	in	plants	than	animals.	3. Protein.  The average Canadian consumes 56 kilograms of (car-bon-intensive) red meat per year, a much higher level than that recommended by health authorities. (White 2010) New studies show that it is increas-ingly important to make dietary changes away from red meat, (at times more than changing our mode of transport) in the interest of reducing demand and dependency on fossil fuels. (White 2010) Building on the discussion in carbohydrates, red meat production has 150% GHG-intensity compared to fish	 or	 chicken,	 meaning	 that	it is 150% more fossil fuel de-pendent	 than	 fish	 of	 chicken.	(Gallon Letter 2009) And it is further explained by Sapp and MacDonald that a, “A vegetarian diet, by vir-tue	 of	 its	 inherent	 efficien-cy, can alleviate hunger by acting upon food supply and poverty. If widespread vegetarian practices were adopted, the energy, land, grain and other resources currently used to feed food animals could be channeled into direct human use. It is estimated that world food production could sustain-ably support a population of 8 billion vegetarians (Sobal 1999).”  As consumers, we must change of consumption pat-terns to less meat so that we are able to distribute our nec-essary carbohydrate needs more evenly and balance our ecological demand more fairly. The post carbon diet will not be able to sustain current levels of meat production. It will be nec-essary to not only choose alter-native forms of production (i.e. free range versus feedlot) but also decrease the demand for meat, particularly red meat. planning for post-carbon food systems274.  FROM FIELD TO TABLE – WHERE WILL OUR FOOD COME FROM? (LAND USE, FORM & SHELTER)planning for post-carbon food systemscropland to meet its own food needs, with the average Vancouverite using 1.53 global hectares (gha) /person (Fig-ure 3). ( And yet, within the global biocapacity of crop-land, each person has  only 0.53 gha/person available or ¼ hectare of actual cropland. (  Vancouver, like all cities, having grossly exceeded its own carrying capac-ity is now living off the resources near and far (mangoes in December). There is an ecological (and social) imperative to re-evaluate and reduce our over-consump-tive patterns. In addition, the decreased mobility and availability of resources, namely energy, will not be able to sup-port the importation of foods from South America, China or Australia, meaning our dietary components (carbohydrates, pro-tein, fruit and vegetables) will need to be sourced closer to our homes and com-munities (A discussion of the proposed P R O B L E M A T I Q U E : “the city as human feedlot”  “Urban dwellers don’t “live” in their cities; urbanization simply separates us from the productive ecosystems that sus-tain us but lie far beyond the urban bound-ary”. (Rees 2002) From a food perspective, this urban appropriation means that glob-ally there is an inequitable distribution of resources to meet the food needs of cities. There is proportionally, greater demand for land, water and energy and greater produc-tion of waste, than any city is currently able to produce and process in its own limits. “Great cities are planned and grow without any regard for the fact that they are para-sites on the countryside which must some-how supply food, water, air, and degrade huge quantities of wastes”. (Odum 1971) Vancouver, for example, uses three times the  per capita global biocapacity (i.e. the available supply of natural resources) of O B J E C T I V E : Determine an appropriate form that places urban and rural in direct rela-tionship, re-prioritizing land use based on ecological food system servicing. planning for post-carbon food systemspost-carbon diet can be found in Section 3). Such a model could shift its focus re-gionally, requiring a gradient of more lo-calized production: urban, peri-urban and rural, working within the energy limits of a post-carbon food system. “Bioregional-ism and permaculture provide pre-formed philosophical and conceptual models for reintegrating heartland and hinterland.” (Rees 2009) As form follows functions, the shape and size of our communities will shift to accommodate the necessary resources  (land and water) and services (storage, composting, movement) needed to supply our food and handle our waste. The BC Ministry for Agriculture and Land states that, “given the production technol-ogy available today, over half a hectare of [BC]	farmland	(0.524	ha)	is	needed	to	pro-duce the food for one person for one year”. (Ministry of Agriculture 2008) Fortunately, this number corresponds with the global allocation of cropland, offering BC the op-portunity to be relatively autonomous in its food supply. Of the total 2.15 million hect-ares required for food production in BC - 10 % needs to be irrigated. Unfortunately, this prediction is based on the assumption of the easy availability of cheap energy. And so, to meet the projected population growth in the next 30 years, this will need to increase by 30%. Therefore an addi-tional 218,000 hectares of irrigated land are needed to produce vegetable, fruit and dairy needs (approximately 0.053 or 5,700 square feet hectares/person). And what if there is no fuel to power the pumps? From a regional post car-bon perspective, there are 3 ma-jor places for food production:inside the city, around the city and in the rural heartland. About 0.54 ha of farmland is need-ed to produce a healthy diet = 16 city lots for one person/year With current population of 578,041 Van-couver will need approximately 307,400 hectares or 3074 sq km to support its continuous food needs. Of those 307,400 hectares, 10% (30,740 hectares) needs to be irrigated for fruit, dairy and vegetable production. (Ministry of Agriculture 2008) Thinking about resource management, can the spatial requirements of the vari-ous components be met within the differ-ent areas of our region given differing intensity of land use, resource use and ac-cess? This is unlikely since the food-print alone is 27 times larger than the city of Vancouver itself (114 square kilometers).•	 INSIDE	THE	CITY:	Fruit, Vegetable and Dairy - the vegetable, fruit (0.033 ha/p – roughly 1 city lot) and dairy (approximately 0.02 ha/p) - (0.053 ha or 5,700 square feet/person or 1.5 city lots) be accommodated within urban areas through re-use of grey and black water as irrigation? (Further discussion about resource management in Section 6)•	 AROUND	THE	CITY:	Meat and protein – 0.394 hectares/person or 42,409 square feet (approxi-mately 11.5 city lots) – If we decrease meat intact by 30% what does this look like? 0.2758 hectares or 29,000 square feet (approximately 8 city lots)•	 RURAL	 HEARTLAND:	 Grain	 -	0.077 hectares/person or 8300 square feet = 2.3 city lots Figure 3: Global Cropland Consumption31O P P O R T U N I T I E S :a. INSIDE THE CITY: veg-etable, fruit and small scale protein (e.g. chicken, goats, rabbits,	 fish	 and	 insects)This section will consider the spatial needs required to support the re-integration of food system servicing within the city limits.1. Neighborhood production  Using a combination of locally sourced inputs, such as coffee grounds, compost, soy mash, human and animal manure, with intensive plant-ing, active rotation and living green mulches, many vegeta-bles (nightshades, roots crops, brasicas, squash, legumes) and some staple starches (qui-noa, potatoes, amaranth) can be grown within our immedi-ate	 vicinity.	 The	 diet	 fills	 out	more completely with a source of protein from chickens (meat and eggs), rabbits (meat), goats (milk and meat), insects. There is a growing movement of SPIN (small plot intensive) farmers who are producing re-markable amounts of food on small areas of land. ( According to sev-eral local producers – an av-erage city block (120’ x 30’) of 3,600 square feet will produce 15 family size (2-3 people) box-es per week per season (Figure 4).  Boxes include a variety of 10-12 different types of high nutrient vegetables including toma-toes, root crops, brasicas (kale, broccoli, chard), onions, salad greens, squash and legumes (beans & peas). (Hamir 2010)2. Food commons Beyond the boundaries of individual lots, many munici-palities have areas that can be easily converted into common growing plots. In addition to community gardens, there are several examples internation-ally of alternative land shar-ing models. Following Cuba’s model of neighbourhood plots, each block could have land that is allocated for local grow-ing, water collection and treat-ment and composting. (Power of Community 2006) Larger plots of land (e.g. 5-10 acres) could work from the traditional Mexican model of land shar-ing called ejidos, the notion of the commons that includes bal-ance of autonomy (individual plots) and accountability (gov-erned by regional authority). (Hamilton 2009) In municipali-ties with larger tracts of avail-able land (e.g. 10+ acres par-cels) consideration could be given to leasing land for small scale food producers, serving as a critical avenue for incor-porating and educating young farmers with limited skills and land access. (Condon 2009)  Last spring, Kwantlen College in Metro Vancouver planning for post-carbon food systemsFigure 4: Post CarbonResidential block – 16 lots with 3.6 lots for agriculture needs of residents.(0.033 ha or 3,600 square feet = 1 city lot)32launched	 the	 first	 university	based urban agriculture school in North America. Designed to “encourage enhanced human-scale agriculture on land within municipalities and in particular on the urban-rural fringe”, par-ticipants in the Farm School will have subsidized access to incubator plots (e.g. 1-5 acres) in the City of Richmond follow-ing completion of the 2-year program. (Condon 2009)  In addition to land, cre-ative adjustments can be made to vertical and horizontal built surfaces to accommodate ad-ditional growing space. Roof-tops serve as excellent ven-ues	for	bee,	bird	and	butterfly	habitat creation, important to agriculture. In addition, there are an increasing number of innovative models of low in-put technologies that have been developed for lightweight food growing on rooftops and walls. (   Schools and parks can share portions of their land for food production, also serving as a critical component of train-ing and education for youth. UBC Farm ( located at the point campus of the Univer-sity of British Columbia, is a unique opportunity to build the relationship between academia and community through food as Vancouver’s last working farm. The 24-hectare teach-ing, research and community farm is exceptionally diverse in its offerings as it includes culti-vated	fields,	teaching	gardens,	forest stands, hedgerows, and orchard plantings. The poten-tial of the Farm in such a time of transition has been continu-ously threatened by a limited vision of the academy’s ad-ministration, seeing greater opportunity for housing de-velopment than food security.  While UBC Farm is unique, there are throughout examples of elementary and high schools partnering with community organizations such as elder centers, day care centres or simply groups of neighbors who will manage the school garden during the sum-mer months, building relation-ships not only with their local school but also with the local community (e.g. Sooke Com-munity School, Hornby Island Community School and Craw-ford Bay School) Finally, public-planning for post-carbon food systemsFigure 5: Garden City Lands Proposal for Urban Agriculture ( owned boulevards and right of ways can be used for edible or ornamental gardens. Hang-ing	 baskets	 filled	 with	 straw-berries or tomatoes, plant-ers	 filled	 with	 kale	 and	 peas	also promote the conserva-tion and celebration of wildlife. 3. Food hubs With all the food activity in and around each community, there will be a strong need for a place to gather, share, trade, exchange and meet. Food hubs can either be formal structures where retail, processing and storage take place or informal structures that emerge every weekend	to	fill	parking	lots	or	vacant	fields,	New	City	Market	in Vancouver is one such ex-ample, as is the proposed Gar-den City Lands (Figure 5) urban agriculture model that would incorporate training and small lots for start up farming ( There are also the numerous farmers markets that are successfully supporting local food systems across the province ( A very successful model that has integrated education, community and food is The Stop– a community food cen-tre in th heart of downtown To-ronto ( The B.C. Association of Farmer’s Markets states that farmer’s markets strengthen the “bond between farmers and their cus-tomers” and this relationship can be further supported through increased urban agriculture and the creation of neighbour-hood kiosks that are set up on every block selling the produce from the local community. (The Power of Community 2006)b. OUTSIDE THE CITY (peri-urban) – larger scale protein (cattle and dairy) and small scale carbohydrates (potatoes)  A localized diet (within 300 kilometres) is possible in Metro Vancouver and would most likely contribute to an in-creased standard of living not only from the healthier (less processed, more diverse) nu-tritional bio-availability of what will be grown but also from the increased social and hu-man capital (see Section 6 for further discussion). The edge or peri-urban area surround-ing cities represents the great-est opportunity for the diversity and intensity of activity needed to support cities. For such pro-duction to happen, a buffer will need to be established, such as an urban growth boundary (requires increased support for the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR))	 with	 modifications	 (A	more detailed description of the ALR can be found in Section 2).1. The Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR):  The original intent of the ALR was, “to promote vi-able farming, not function as an urban growth boundary”. (Condon 2009) And while it has been both a tool for urban containment and food security, there is criticism that it meets neither of those goals success-fully. If regional food security (as basis for a resilient post-carbon food system) is to hap-pen, there is the need to sup-port and enhance the ALR, so that it can continue to remain, “a tool for smarter land-use planning as urban develop-ment is guided away from rural agricultural lands and towards existing urban areas.” (Ione Smith, Smart Growth BC 2009)2. Edge planning: Inquiring into what a more porous urban/rural rela-tionship could look like - Kent Mullinix (Kwantlen College) and Patrick Condon (UBC) pose the question, “Can we not incorporate and utilize good land use and urban de-sign principles and practices that integrate food production and food security into the ALR, particularly at the urban-ALR interface, to enhance agricul-ture at the metropolitan edge and more effectively address this challenge?”(Condon 2009) The project goes on to sug-gest	 a	 variety	 zoning	 modifi-cations to ameliorate the cur-rent urban-ALR relationship including establishing a buffer planning for post-carbon food systems34zone (500 metres) that would incorporate both urban (resi-dential, commercial and light industry) and agricultural (high value, organic, small-scale, lo-cally destined production) ac-tivities. Tenure would come through a municipally governed covenant entitled, “Commu-nity Trust Farming” (see Sec-tion 2 for more information).3. Communities built around farms:  Building on the strength and potential of peri-urban ag-riculture to meet the needs of both urban and rural communi-ties, there is an opportunity to refocus the planning the typical surburban community towards the role of negotiating the ru-ral-urban divide. One example comes from the city of Dama-cus in Oregon State which, has recently	 redefined	 its	 growth	boundary to include a 145-acre working farm. Farmer Larry Thompson says that, “What’s needed is for fertile farm areas perched on the edge of urban centers to start providing the nutrition -- the food security,” and  “for residents living inside those centers.  Food-producing farms, far from being excluded from urbanized areas, would be integral to them.” ( The Thompson’s agricultural endeavours will be viewed, under Oregon land-use laws, as an urban eco-nomic use akin to commercial or industrial activity allowing on site commercial activity – res-taurants, sales, processing etc. ( Issues of smell and noise often chal-lende to the urban/agricultural relationship, “The pattern of de-velopment	could	be	configured	such that the acreages close to home would be farmed in the most unobtrusive ways (i.e. labour intensive and reduced chemical/noise) to reduce po-tential	conflicts”.	(Condon	2009)c. REGIONAL INTEGRATION (rural):1. Food shed:  “Bioregionalists have championed the utility of the concept of the watershed as an organizing framework for thought and action directed to understanding and implement-ing appropriate and respectful human interaction with particu-lar pieces of land. In a creative analogue to the watershed, permaculturist Arthur Getz has recently introduced the term “foodshed” to facilitate critical thought about where our food is coming from and how it is get-ting to us.” (Kloppenburg 2005) In his 1991 Urban Foodsheds article in Permaculture Activist, Arthur Getz uses the analogy of a watershed to describe ‘the area	that	is	defined	by	a	struc-ture of supply’. As a concept, foodsheds can serve both a practical and theoretical func-tion, providing both “a frame for action as well as thought”. Further discussion contin-ued in a more recent article:“While corporations that are the	principal	beneficiaries	of	a global food system now dominate the production, processing, distribution, and consumption of food, alter-natives are emerging that to-gether could form the basis for foodshed development.” (Permaculture Activist 2009) While many are out-lined here as the possible building blocks for a post car-bon food system, it is critical that within the regional land use discussion, such alterna-tives are integrated and pro-moted building a network of social and political capital that reinforces the structural read-justments of bio-regionalism. “Recognition of one’s resi-dence within a foodshed can confer a sense of con-nection and responsibility to a particular locality. The foodshed can provide a place for us to ground our-selves in the biological and social realities of living on the land and from the land in a place that we can call home, a place to which we are or can become native.”(Kloppenburg 2005:34)planning for post-carbon food systems352. Additional mechanisms:   In addition to working within a regional framework that brings together municipal and regional governments and communities, tools such smart growth planning, redesigning zoning	 systems,	 using	 Official	Community Plan’s (OCP’s) and protecting and preserving our fertile land base for genera-tions to come will facilitate an increasingly integrated and re-silient food system. (Newsom 2009) Looking to the south, the United States has recently taken on a strong mandate to support local producers and strengthen rural urban link-ages. Under the “Know your farmer, Know your food” cam-paign, initiatives to strengthen rural communities include: building linkages between gov-ernment, industry and labour, creating educational partner-ships with the academy and growers, offering micro loans and grants for small construc-tion projects, seed & equipment investments and business skill development opportunities. ( Such support is crucial for Canadian farm-ers who are expected to be not only productive growers, but also small business owners, marketers and distributors and current of the latest technology and research. In a recent town hall meeting in Creston, 49 lo-cal farmers were vocally ada-mant that they needed support in the form of regional infra-structure and networks to facili-tate marketing and distribution of their goods. “We are farm-ers”, they said, “not marketers or distributors.” (Mungall 2010)planning for post-carbon food systems365. HOW WILL WE PROCESS, DISTRIBUTE & STORE OUR FOOD? * planning for post-carbon food systemscant contributor to GHG production, but more importantly with reference to this report, the production of emissions is the result of the high use and subsequent de-pendency on fossil fuels, increasing the vulnerability and fragility of the system. The reality that our global food system is highly dependent on cheap fossil fu-els primarily for transport and distribution presents the frightening scenario that “if high fuel prices, or a cut-off in supplies due to a sudden geopolitical event were to keep trucks from delivering food to supermarkets”. Cities such as Vancou-ver have no more than 3 days of food storage. (Heinberg 2009:10) Increas-ing energy costs will result in a change of availability, but as Richard Heinberg (2009:10) warns, “protracted absolute scarcity would be a nightmare almost beyond contemplation”. And yet such a scenario need not happen, if the re-sources currently used are re-allocated more	efficiently.	Another	means	of	mea-P R O B L E M A T I Q U E : The industrial agricultural model has resulted in increased specialization and de-centralization of our food system: “Food is transported long distances averaging 1640 km directly and 6760 km indirectly for the life-cycle supply chain. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions generally for this trans-port represent about 11% of the total GHG impact	of	food.	The	final	delivery	from	pro-ducers to retail is only about 4% of the total GHG.” (Gallon Letter 2009) While, trans-portation represents only 15% of total GHG emissions for food production, most emis-sions come from storage areas for feed, ma-nure, and wastewater, animal housing; and the production or processing of the animals - cropland where manure is applied, the use of machinery on site and the emissions from decomposing manure. (Gallon Letter 2009)There	are	2	critical	issues,	first	that	the	in-dustrial food production model of transpor-tation,	storage	and	processing	is	a	signifi-O B J E C T I V E : Increase accessibility and autonomy of the post-carbon food system by us-ing storage, processing and distribution systems less dependent on fossil fuels. planning for post-carbon food systemssurement in terms of caloric consump-tion is illustrated in Figure 6. There is a gross over-expenditure of energy, 7.3:1 calories, to produce, process, transport, store, package and distribute our food.   While still consuming more energy than it delivers, farming (production) only accounts for less than 20% of the energy expenditure. The transportation, storage and processing of food that consume s80% of the necessary energy. (Heinberg 2009) There is a critical imperative for the post-carbon	food	system	to	redefine	its	modes	of transportation, storage and processing in the interest of increased resilience. The question therefore is what high quality, high nutrient dense foods can be grown with minimal mechanization (movement of	 materials,	 artificial	 inputs,	 products)?* Food processing is the set of methods and techniques used to transform raw ingredi-ents into food such as canning, dehydrat-ing, refridgeration freezing, drying, salting, pickling. Food storage includes root cellars, refrigerators, freezers and dry storage.Figure 6. Energy ex-pended in producing and delivering one food calorie. Approximately 7.3 calories are used by the U.S. food sys-tem to deliver each calorie of food energy. ( Consumption of Industrial Agriculture Model2.31.611. storageand preparartionFarmingTransportProcessingPackagingFood RetailCommercial foodserviceO P P O R T U N I T I E S : Building on the model outlined in Section 4, 3 areas of intervention are	identified	–	inside	the	city,	outside the city and the region.a. INSIDE THE CITY: fresh produce - bicycles & feet 1. Neighbourhood nodes: fruit, vegetables and small dairy & protein  In the post-carbon diet outlined in Section 3, it is rec-ommended that vegetables and fruit make up 50% of daily consumption. The production requirements (namely irriga-tion) of fruits, vegetables and dairy, can effectively be met through high-intensity urban agriculture (see Section 4 for further discussion). Therefore, the neighbourhood (backyards and community plots) can pro-duce	a	significant	share	of	the	required fruits, vegetables and diary/small scale protein needs. From a transportation & stor-age perspective this require-ment also makes sense. These products are quite perishable and require cold storage for transport (milk), are delicate (lettuce, tomatoes, peaches) and are often heavy (squash, apples). Therefore the closer the place of production to the place of consumption the better.  As energy becomes in-creasingly scarce, the physi-cal and spatial requirements of transporting, storing and man-aging food and waste will face greater challenges and require more creative and localized al-ternatives. Post carbon food will not be shipped thousands of kilometres to reach custom-ers. There will be less need for preservatives and packaging, but more need for localized ca-pacity to process and store. In addition to a shifting of cultur-al norms from single purpose neighbourhoods (i.e. residen-tial without commercial), the zoning regulations will also need to change to accommo-date an increasing diversity of uses (see Section 2 for further discussion). For most commu-nities in BC, the introduction of small-scale manufacturing and resource recovery re-introduc-es a market that is currently un-der represented. Street foods 2. Urban Hubs The necessity for pro-cessing facilities such as can-neries and slaughterhouses will arise, and the small scale manufacturing of products will be needed. In many places these needs can be brought together under one roof, layer-ing uses over time and space. With creativity, there will be op-portunities to merge seemingly incongruent operations that can use different hours of the day (daytime = cannery, night time = storage of transportation equipment (bicycles & carts) used during the day) and differ-ent forms of the space (the loft of a warehouse is used for seed saving,	while	the	floor	is	used	as	a training center). In the book, The Long Descent (2008), au-thor John Michael Greer lists a variety of skills necessary for a smooth post carbon transition. With increased locaized pro-cessing, Greer states that this resurgence will require skills (see Section 5 for further dis-cussion) and accommodations of the necessary transport and spatial	 needs	 -	 retrofitting	 of	buildings into suitable places for processing centres (e.g. mo-bile abattoirs and kitchen coop-eratives) and storage facilities.  As described in Sec-tion 4, local food hubs offer the opportunity to support the di-versified	 needs	 of	 small-scale	producers using collective re-sources for transport, storage and processing. Such needs might include incubator spaces that can be rented for small-scale food activities – e.g. someone experimenting with a new recipe for commercial dis-tribution, community kitchens, demonstration spaces for re-skilling (canning, pickling, bak-ing). Another example is the storage of communally owned and operated equipment such as dehydrators, grain mills, canners, and meat processors. In Portland, Oregon, one ex-ample of such a collective op-planning for post-carbon food systems41eration is the North Portland Tool Library, “a community resource dedicated to build-ing community and foster-ing sustainability by providing residents with tools and the power to use them.” ( Finally, local food hubs (whether as neighbour-hood kiosks or farmer’s markets) provide a centralized point for distribution. Such that Community Supported Agricul-ture (CSA) or buying club mem-bers have one spot for pick up, eliminating many individual trips to farm or many individual delivery stops. This is an im-portant point in the reduction of fossil fuel consumption, as the ‘local food movement’ is often criticized for encouraging an increase in car trips as eager consumers drive out to purchase from the farm-er. (Gallon Letter 2009)3. Bicycles and Feet Within the city, transpor-tation of food could easily be done with some creative en-gineering of bicycles to equip them with carts to carry and trailers to haul. This means redesigning bikes to be ‘work bikes’. There are many ideas that exist on the various ways of retrofitting	bikes.	Some	include	the quadricycle is one robust model with four wheels making it able to carry more weight and the Danish Christiania model with a large bucket on the front designed for transporting goods or children. One group that has taken this idea into action is Pedal Power Produce in Cali-fornia which delivers food from a local CSA on bikes. ( There is also Fast Food Couriers located in Vancouver, that offer delivery of prepared food from restaurants. ( OUTSIDE THE CITY (peri-ur-ban): meat & dairy - bus & train Following the gradient of spatial requirements for grow-ing needs, how perishable or dense (heavy) a product is, and how long it can be stored – the peri-urban edge is seen as a excellent place for larger meat and dairy production. While chickens and goats can work well in dense urban ar-eas, cows, horses and sheep require more space. In addition the feed needed for and ma-nure produced from these ani-mals can be more easily used and managed with larger tracks of land (10-20 acres). While this peri-urban edge serves an important buffer function the urban/rural divide, (see Sec-planning for post-carbon food systemsFigure 7: Using the blue circle as reference for concen-trated points of consumption and production (i.e. neighbor-hood hubs) - the movement of goods will be determined by water content of products - length of time vegetables can remain fresh without refrigeration. Greater water con-tent, greater rate of perishing therefore produced closer to home. Food degradation limits length of transport.GRADIENT OF TRANSPORT DETERMINED BY PERISHABILITY OF CROPS12-24 HOURS 1 + DAYS0-12 HOURS42tion 2 for further discussion), it is also critically addresses the anticipated	difficulties	and	cost	of transportation. Rapid transit in the form of buses and train can quickly move meat and dairy products to consumers with minimal need for storage and packaging. Avalon Dair-ies in Vancouver is one exam-ple of a supplier that imports its raw product from the peri-urban fringe, to be processed and sold within the urban lim-its. In addition, not having to make long trips, products can be brought in to neighbour-hoods for delivery with smaller trucks that could be operated electrically or on bio-diesel. c. REGIONAL CONNEC-TIONS (rural):  grains, le-gumes and pulses - train & boat Grains, legumes and pulses require vast tracks of land to be grown economically. In addition, they can be dried, stored for long periods of time and transported without refrig-eration.	This	makes	them	first,	ideally suited for rural produc-tion and second, a crop that could be imported (high ratio of nutritional value to weight) and traded, particularly during times of transition. Currently in the Creston Valley there is a grain CSA model that grows quinoa, wheat, spelt, polish wheat and oats. ( Given the location of Cres-ton at the southern end of Koo-tenay Lake and the location of communities along the Lake, growers have experimented with distributing the grain by boat, greatly reducing any need for fossil fuel. This model also exists in Washington, where a local CSA delivers all its produce by sailboat. (Steinman, 2010) As mentioned above, Vancouver and the surround-ing region have the capacity to produce	 and	 store	 significant	amounts of food. But if it is not accessible when it is needed, then it will do little to serve the vulnerable urban populations. In response to such possibili-ties, it is critical that BC begin to re-instate alternative trans-port routes  (train and boat) strengthening and building con-nections to the rural hinterland.planning for post-carbon food systemsArea
Size & population
Time travel budget
Production possibility
Travel Mode
Local neighbourhood nodes 
7x7 block radius (7,000 people) 
15 minutes
Fresh vegetable
Foot, Bicycles, Skytrain & Bus
Urban hubs
5-8 km radius (20,000 people)
30 minutes
 Meat & Dairy
Bicycle, Skytrain & Bus
Regional Connections
30km radius (175,000 people)
60 minutes
Grain and staples
Rail & Boats
Figure I: Multi-modal transportation distribution 
Table 2: Multi-modal transportation distribution436.  WHAT IS THE CYCLE? (INTEGRATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT)planning for post-carbon food systemsas sinks - holding and rebalancing the pollution that we produce through our process of extraction and purging.  As illustrated in the Figure 8, our re-source use currently follows a linear structure that limits by its very nature un-derstanding and awareness of any rela-tionship to the larger ecological systems. There is no feedback. And without it, all populations follow a pattern of growing (by extracting, exploiting, polluting, de-grading) exponentionally to a point that a critical resource (top soil, water ways, animal population) is destroyed and then the population collapses. (Rees 2002) Evan Fraser, Co-Author, “Empires of Food: Feast, Famine and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations argues that we have made three mistakes in how we have built	our	food	systems	–	first,	we	have	become dependent on a top soil to pro-duce our food, and it is a delicate and fragile resource. Second, we have be-P R O B L E M A T I Q U E : “US food waste represents 80% of the average daily food supply in Bangladesh” (Gallon Letter 2009)Ecologically thinking food is part of a larger system, as we as humans are also part of a larger system. Ecologically speaking, the natural world provides services to our food system that are not accounted for economi-cally or ecologically. Consideration and ap-propriate measures must be given to how resources, particularly land, air and water provide these free services, such as sinks for unwanted bi-products of our system. (Rees 2006) Issues include the contami-nation of food or water by pathogens as a	result	of	insufficient	sinks	(crop	land)	to	metabolize waste in the form of manure, volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), ni-trates and phosphorus leaching. (Gallon Letter 2009) We have maximised the ca-pacity of our ecological systems to serve O B J E C T I V E : Reducing waste and inefficiency through integrated resource man-agement & full-lifecycle analysis.  planning for post-carbon food systemscome dependent on food that grows in nice climates. And third, we have through the increased industrialization of food, pressured farmers into specializing in one or two crops. And as Fraser say, “while this makes wonderful economic sense, it’s ter-rible ecology.”  We have lost touch with how our systems operate, because we have been looking at them linearly. Rees (2002) affirms	this	argument	by	stating	that	it	is		it	is absolutely necessary to have a resource system that incorporates (negative) feed-back so that we are able to live within the natural limitations of the system at hand. We must create a system that is respon-sive and circular, feeding back into itself.   Agriculture, like all systems, must increase its ability to serve multiple pur-poses; it must be viewed as multi-func-tional. (Gallon Letter 2009) Following on perma-culture principles, agriculture must be viewed within a dynamic system that incorporates not only the production of food but also greater ecological services (habitat, water & energy conservation, bio-diversity). The bi-products of the food sys-tem – bio-solids (manure and food scraps), grey and black water are mostly treated as waste to be collected and discarded. A re-consideration of these products as important sources of nutrients allows us to redesign the system to capture our ‘waste’ and re-integrate it into the cycle.At an institutional level, the need is to pro-vide adequate policy and legal frameworks, sufficient	 planning,	 training	 and	 support	staff, room for public participation and ed-ucation, and mechanisms to capture cost recovery initiatives.  At a structural level, waste management facilities must be up-graded and developed to offer sophisticat-ed and de-centralized source separation, collection, transportation and resourcing and recovery. But most importantly the underlying goal of an Integrated Resource Management System (IRMS) is to pro-mote an overarching systemic change that localizes resource management and re-connects the community (i.e. consumers) with the cyclical nature of consumption.   Circular resource management sys-tems place ‘natural capital’ as an integral component of consumption and recogniz-ing the natural boundaries of ecological systems. In addition these systems chal-lenge consumers to reorient themselves within the cycle and become increasingly aware of their own behaviour and the im-plications of maintaining a disposable lifestyle. Zero-waste is a set of guiding principles that many communities have embraced in the interest of moving towards greater ‘eco-intelligence’, designing prod-ucts	that	are	efficient	and	naturally	smart.	Figure 9: A circular or ‘cycleput’ diagram of resource managementFigure 8: A linear or ‘throughput’ diagram of resource manage-ment47planning for post-carbon food systemsO P P O R T U N I T I E S : a. INSTITUTIONAL1. Zero Waste Communities: Effective development, imple-mentation and management of an Integrated Resource Management System (IRMS) requires a multi-layered, multi-stakeholder approach that links, “communities, business-es and industries so that one’s waste becomes another’s feed-stock.” (Recycling Council of BC)	IRMSs	significantly	reduce	consumption by working with sophisticated design that uses our ecological intelligence har-monize our actions and prod-ucts with the world around us. (Goleman 2009)  Achieving a zero waste community re-quires designing products and industrial processes so that their components can be dis-mantled, repaired and/or re-cycled. (Recycling Council of BC) This means moving con-sumers away from the dispos-able lifestyle that permits 80% of what is purchased to be used only once. (Hawken 2000)•	 Cradle	to	Grave	Produc-tion Examples: Avalon Dairy - With the average life span of 40 - 50 uses, each glass milk bottle is able to greatly reduce the need for alternative cardboard or plastic packaging, presenting a solution at its source rather than finding	methods	of	dealing	with	it at the end. (Hawken 2000)•	 Policy	 &	 Governance	Stricter regulatory guidelines, more precise terminology and staffing	support	to	develop	ac-tive programming, leadership that would stimulate and sup-port behavioural changes. Cre-ate	policy	specific	to	the	needs	of the users designed by the users. Provide ample oppor-tunity for public participation. •	 Create	Economic	Incen-tives - Cost recovery based on “Polluter Pays Principle” Use taxes and subsidies as inter-vention tools to create pressure points	that	will	support	efficient	resource use. Rather than us-ing the tax base to build new landfills	 or	 sewage	 systems,	invest in integrated manage-ment systems that recover and reuse. Subsidize products and companies that prioritize lifecycle packaging. Invest in re-usable plates and cut-lery for school cafeterias etc. •	 “True	 Cost”	 Accounting	– Bringing ‘natural capital’ into the economic equation, so that current externalities of ecologi-cal servicing (environmental degradation & public health bur-dens) are calculated fairly. Im-plement at both an institutional and individual level. Each resi-dence should receive an item-ized account of the contents of their waste or the weight of their waste and the cost of the disposal, similar to a phone bill.b. COMMUNITYCollection, storage, transporta-tion and safe disposal of waste are among some of the issues that must negotiated when plan-ning post-carbon food systems. As communities decrease en-ergy consumption, such chal-lenges must be re-imagined within alternative solutions that frame waste not as a problem to overcome but as an oppor-tunity. As mentioned above, waste	can	be	redefined	as	re-source and the inputs and out-puts of our conventional linear model reworked as ‘cycleputs’ or components of a circular re-generative system. This next section proposes that through similar examples of creative thinking, the complete integra-tion of needs, effective interven-tions and development of re-sponsive support mechanisms opportunities can be created. 1. Water and Liquid Re-source Cycling Many municipalities have the potential to have a water supply and liquid nutrient management system that man-ages	 water	 flows,	 minimizes	use of potable water, recycles runoff and wastewater (as ap-propriate and permitted), and minimizes the amount of liq-planning for post-carbon food systems48uid nutrients produced. An al-ternative system builds on the re-allocation of resources and the smart design of products and systems that get maxi-mum	 resource	 efficiency.	This	system recognizes that water is an intricate and essential element to a healthy commu-nity and advocates for respon-sible use. (Kaslo Food Charter)2. Technological vs. biological nutrients By building circular sys-tems for different types of in-puts that differentiate between technical and biological ‘nutri-ents’, “eco-effectiveness leads to human industry that is regen-erative rather than depletive”. William McDonough (1998) proposed that it is an oppor-tunity for creative design. For example, “Products composed of materials that do not biode-grade should be designed as technical nutrients that continu-ally circulate within closed-loop industrial cycles -- the techni-cal metabolism.” Emphasis is placed on the importance of tak-ing care to maintain separation and avoid contamination; the biological system must be pro-tected against threats such as “mutagens, carcinogens, heavy metals, endocrine disrupters, persistent toxic substances, or bio-accumulative substanc-es.” (McDonough 1998:6) The design of such a closed-loop circular system transcends the current prac-tice of waste management at two critical junctures. First, it stretches the conventional understanding of recycling to avoid ‘downcycling’ inputs into inferior grade products and in-stead preserves the embod-ied energy by re-sourcing the product or nutrient. Second, it renegotiates the current re-lationship that exists between supplier and consumer, plac-ing the responsibility of man-agement on the manufacturer not the consumer. Customers purchasing a product would in fact be leasing products and purchasing the service, creat-ing a relationship with the man-ufacturer to guarantee the life of the nutrient, not the product. •	 Designing	 for	 life	 with	Eco-Intelligence - Placing responsibility on the manu-facturer to prioritize durabil-ity, reusability and recyclability. Building a circular lifecycle into the design of the product and integrating “extended producer responsibility”. There is also a need for increased emphasis on agro-ecological approaches and use of appropriate tech-nologies. (Gallon Letter 2009)•	 Reduction	 at	 the	 Point	Source – Eliminate disposal packaging from all commer-cial food centres, including grocery, restaurants and retail outlets: plastic bags, paper/plastic food storage contain-ers, vending machines, waste free lunches & cafeterias. In addition, to provide high qual-ity, uncontaminated nutrient sources, there must be a ban on use of synthetic pesticides, fertilizers and pharmaceuticals. •	 Alternative	 practices	for food production (organic, biodynamic, permaculture, no-till) should also be encour-aged that increase biodiver-sity, and reduce carbon and nitrogen release. No-till sys-tems have lowest global warm-ing potential (14 tons of CO2/year), organic (41), low input (63) and conventional (114). Organic systems also contrib-ute to reduce nitrate leaching by converting it to N2, which is benign. (Gallon Letter 2009)•	 	Support	and	implement	the separation of organic mate-rials from the waste system to be recycled and be made avail-able to nurture soil fertility while reducing compost and food-stuffs garbage that have other unwanted results e.g. attract bears. (Gallon Letter 2009)planning for post-carbon food systems49c. STRUCTURAL REQUIRE-MENTS for processing and uti-lizing organic “resources” close to their source:1. In-Vessel composting system:  A closed system that can accept 5 tones of organic input / day and through tem-perature control and aeration, speed up the aerobic compost-ing process.  After an initial 14-day period in the proces-sor and 3-month maturing pro-cess, B-grade compost safe for landscaping use is produced. In-vessel composting is used in Squamish, UBC (currently running at capacity), New York, Colorado, and other regions across North America. (UBC Waste Management, 2009)2. Methane Biodigester:  A methane biodigester can be used to process biosolids through an anaerobic process that generates methane.  This methane can be collected and used as an energy source to generate electricity. A lo-cal model could include the creation of District energy sites that exhaust CO2 into neighbourhood greenhouses planning for post-carbon food systemsFigure 10: In-Vessel Composting System Figure 11: Methane Bio-Digester503. Living Machine:  The living machine system developed by Worrell Wa-ter Technologies (2008) sup-ports the decomposition of biosolids (sewage) through a similar, though more intense process, as the in-vessel com-poster.  This system mimics a wetland environment and re-moves hazardous microorgan-isms,	 filters	 sediments,	 and	reduces the macronutrient content that cause eutrophica-tion in lakes and rivers. (Wor-rell Water Technologies 2008)Figure 12: Living Machine at Findhorn.orgFigure 13: LIving Machine System ( for post-carbon food systems517.  HOW DO WE SHARE THE WORK? (JOBS &SERVICES)“…regarding the world economy and the consumptive patterns within it,	as	long	as	the	laws	of	physics	apply,	infinite	growth	within	a	finite	system (such as planet earth) simply isn't possible.” (Hopkins 2008)“It took cheap, abundant fossil fuel energy to make transportation so cheap that centralized production and distribution of commodities could take the place of local production for local use.” (Greer 2008)O B J E C T I V E : Create a responsive localized food system that enables individuals/communities to pro-duce their own food while still maintaining an equitable standard of living. Reorganize and redefine nature and structure of employment. while much will still be service provided (there is no need for everyone to learn to mill their own grain), there will be an opportunity for individual households to spend greater amounts of time prepar-ing, producing and consuming food, as well as managing water and compost. In addition to making time for the mundane, there will be increased opportunities and demand for re-skilling – the practice of re-training and re-learning the skills required to grow food. These changes will require not only the structural framework of re-adjustment  (discussed here) but also shifts of behaviour and consciousness (see Section 1 for further discussion).  One major shift regarding the cur-rent practices of agriculture will be mov-ing away from managing food structures to stewarding food systems – nurturing the skills of observation, care and pa-tience. (Hamilton 2009) The changes, while potentially daunting, have the ability to create unexpected employment within and around city limits as new opportuni-ties arise in food producing, processing and packaging industries increase as petroleum based products and services are no longer economically viable. The following section outlines 3 areas of con-sideration for post-carbon food system – the workday, re-skilling and services.P R O B L E M A T I Q U E : The post-carbon food system will necessitate a transformation of our indus-trial economic model of perpetual growth and within it our role as consumers and producers. Our current employment sec-tor is driven by an exponential growth cul-ture. (Power of Community 2006, Greer 2008) The unrestrained economic growth of the last 150 years is no longer feasible. As has been discussed elsewhere in this document, we are increasingly recogniz-ing the natural constraints of the current economic mode of over-exploitation and extraction, and with such awareness our consumer based lifestyle and the activities associated must change. Such a change will involve a re-orientation of how time is allocated as activities are re-evaluated according to their functional necessity (ie.	food	production).	Redefined	by	prin-ciples of redistribution, increased equity and access, the post-carbon food system could facilitate the emergence of new era of jobs and services that are grounded in the local, tangible and socially equitable. Most likely the average 9-5 workday will shift as employment becomes increas-ingly diverse and contextually-driven – the prescriptive approach will not work as peo-ple increasingly take control of their daily means. In the context of growing food, planning for post-carbon food systemsO P P O R T U N I T I E S :a. WORK DAY  In order to provide food for ourselves, i.e. produce suf-ficient	food	as	a	society	with-in the constraints of energy scarcity, the framework and concept of a “days work” will most likely change. The “9 – 5” workday is constructed around our industrial economic sys-tem that supports the genera-tion of monetary capital. If the source of capital value began to change, then the structure of the work would also change. If food, clothes, shelter, relation-ships become the focus of our attention and investment, then so too will our time. As such the ‘work’, an activity distinct from leisure that is externalised and begins and ends each day may become more of a col-lection of activities that range from personal expression, functional existence and com-munity servicing. (Greer 2008)  With a shift in access to cheap energy and a rationing of oil, all fuel dependent activi-ties will be re-prioritized. Taking the example of Cuba’s ‘special period’ (i.3. the socio-economic and political transition period in the early 90’s) – 2 sectors radi-cally affected by the loss of oil where transportation (see Sec-tion 5 for further discussion) and agriculture. Both Sectors were heavily dependent on im-ported oil from the former So-viet Union. Going from an an-nual consumption of 10 barrels/person for food (compared to 9 barrels/cap for cars and 7 bar-rels/cap for homes) Cuba re-oriented its large scale mecha-nized production model to a more localized small-scale la-bour intensive model for food.   During the ‘special pe-riod’, Cubans spent more time on growing, processing and transporting food and less time at their daily jobs, as food became more important and more relevant than money. As we have used petroleum to increase yields and decrease manual labour, the decline of petroleum will do the exact op-posite.  Machine labour will decrease and manual labour will need to increase in or-der to maintain current yields.  With fewer people be-ing able to work what are now  considered full time hours, incomes may be subsidized by working on small-scale ag-ricultural plots. At the turn of peak-oil smaller scale of em-ployments will rise throughout the developed world. As in de-veloping countries, citizens will have to subsidize the amount of food they can purchase with the food they can grow.  A new (informal) economy of trading and selling products to neigh-bours from homes will create a new mode of business at the neighbourhood level. From a more localized scale of produc-tion and consumption, there is the opportunity for many other agriculture related ser-vices to exist as re-found forms of small-scale employment. b. RE-SKILLING  “It’s not enough to line your shelves with books about organic farming; you need to start buying tools, digging garden beds, and growing your own crops, and you need to do this as soon as possible, because master-ing the craft of organic farm-ing takes time” (Greer 2008) In the US, there are ap-proximately 2,000,000 farmers, less than 1% of the popula-tion. Without mechanization, it is estimated that we will need 50,000, 000 farmers. (Mullinex 2009) In addition to those that grow the food, people will be needed to distribute, market, process, transport and manage the waste. As we build a new cul-ture, new skills will be needed in all aspects of the food system. Training centres such as School of Artisan Food in the United Kingdom will be im-portant components of the re-skilling process. ( The following excerpt is taken from a blog post on by Rob Hopkins after lis-tening to an interview with one planning for post-carbon food systems54of the graduates of the school on BBC4, April 26th, 2010. “The part that really struck me was the guy interviewed who had set up a cheese businesses, who said that when he got started, he could	find	loads	of	courses	on how to double your herd size, how to scale up, how to reimagine your business for the export market, how to grow your business, but none on how to set up a small business designed to stay small and to gener-ate a good living for a few people.  This programme offers a taste of the more localised, better skilled, more resilient future that will inevitably alter how we conceive training and the setting up of new busi-nesses.” (Hopkins 2010)  Small-scale innovative operations that respond to lo-cal	demand	will	be	a	significant	component of the new work-ing culture. In many cases, people	 will	 find	 themselves	doing numerous pieces of the whole, as the informal sector takes on greater importance.Informal	configurations	and	lo-cally developed models such as ‘Free Schools’ found in Vancou-ver offer an opportunity to learn skills and build community, “in a non-hierarchical, anti-oppres-sive and holistic education envi-ronment where not only the ac-ademic is addressed, but also the social, political, creative and personal”.  Skill learning sessions may include anything from goat herding to discus-sions on sexuality to voluntary simplicity.( Concurrently, organiza-tions and institutions like O.U.R eco-village on Vancouver Is-land, Linneae Farm on Cortes, the Terra Nova Schoolyard proj-ect in Richmond and the Koote-nay Permaculture Institute will become increasingly relevant institutions for reviving, learn-ing and innovating practices.  Finally, it is important to remember the skills and knowl-edge that exist nearby. Our par-ents, grandparents, neighbours and community are excellent resources for fostering the skills needed for a conserver culture. First Nations through-out the Province could share traditional practices and culture with non-native communities seeking more balanced, less exploitative lifestyles. There is much to learn across cultures. Many immigrants to Canada come from environments that are less technology dependent and more closely integrated with natural systems and cy-cles. Some come from cultures that have already crossed the urban/agriculture divide (think of urban Italian or Chinese gardens). Integration and cel-ebration of this wealth of ex-perience and intelligence as asset is important for not only those starting from scratch but also as a way of bridging and embracing cultural diversity. In Cuba, recognizing the knowl-edge held by elders of using animal traction held, created an opening for inter-genera-tional exchange and learning. c. SERVICES “The approach to food se-curity has a number of blind spots and biases. The big-gest blind spot is neglect-ing food production and food producers as a core element of food security, from the household to the national level. You can-not provide food to people if	 you	 do	 not	 first	 ensure	that food is produced in ad-equate quantities. And to ensure food production, the livelihood of food producers must be ensured. The right of food producers to pro-duce food is the foundation of food security. This right has internationally evolved through the concept of “food sovereignty.” (Shiva 2009) As the food is increas-ingly more fairly valued for the time and resources it requires, the land and people which sup-port the agricultural sector will also be given greater value. Whereas today, it is the farmer that typically subsidize their work and contributions through planning for post-carbon food systems55low mark-ups and off-farm in-come that underwrite the invis-ible ecological, social and eco-nomic services provided by their livelihoods. There is an incred-ible opportunity in post-carbon food systems to not only give value to the work done by those that maintain the food system, but also to recognize the servic-es	they	provide	as	beneficial	to	society. We can begin as a so-ciety to  offer value to our food and sustenance through  sup-port for farmers and their work. The following are the types of services provided by small-scale non-industrial farmers:Observation & research:•	 Of	 new	 varieties	 of	crops that are highly adapt-able and withstand the diverse climate changes we now ex-perience – “alternative forms of agriculture based on plants not now used in agriculture, but capable of growing at higher temperatures in dryer condi-tions or monsoon conditions, using brackish water or salt for irrigation” (Federoff 2010)Agency:•	 Farmers	could	be	hired	or	 given	 benefits	 that	 recog-nize that they are producing a common good. If food were to be seen as a public good, farmers could be employed and	benefited	as	civil	servants.	Further, if their farming activi-ties support ecological servic-ing, farmers should receive payment for their contribution. (see Section 2 for further dis-cussion). (Kaslo Food Charter)•	 Mechanisms	 such	 as	cooperatives that offer shared benefits,	consistent	and	stable	pricing and payment could be recognized and supported, in-dependence and freedom. In-terviewing small scale farmers across the United States, Lisa Hamilton (2009) writes about the role of cooperatives in their lives:	“[the	farmers]	had	a	com-mon thread, these people were dead-set on saving their farms, and knew that in order to do so they had to escape the con-ventional market. They simply could not compete in a sys-tem that calculated value only in numbers. They were drawn to the cooperative because its core goal was to create just such an alternative market in which farmers and their careful work were valued and reward-ed.”	In	addition	to	the	financial	stability of cooperatives - farm-er organisations, business as-sociations,	 scientific	 organisa-tions also provide important support for the needs of small-scale farmers to decrease the commodifcation of farmers and food. (Gallon Letter 2009) •	 Allow	 residents	 the	 ac-cess and opportunity to make healthy choices and reduce en-vironmental causes of diet re-lated illnesses. (Newsom 2009) Environmental Servicing•	 In	 France,	 Luxemburg	and Costa Rica, farmers are hired for their protection of environmental services. The post-carbon food system could include transfer payments to farmers for their environmental servicing – protection of water systems, carbon sequestration, sustainable land practices and biodiversity. (Newsom 2009) Education & training•	 Recognize	 farmers	and food growers as those who can help foster poli-cies that encourage and as-sist communities to produce their own food in their gardens •	 Create	 opportunities	to build strong linkages and curriculum integration with elementary, secondary and post-secondary institutions•	 Provide	 and	 Increase	investments in R&D and ex-tension services – farmer par-ticipation, integrated pest and nutrient management (perma-culture, biodynamic crop rota-tion, inter-planting), improved water management (grey water catchment, drip irriga-tion), plant and animal breed-ing e.g. City Farmer (Hamilton 2009, & Distribution:planning for post-carbon food systems56 The post-carbon food system with a focus on localized trade will require a more equi-table approach with guidelines ensuring	national	flexibility	and	limiting international depen-dence. (Gallon Letter 2009) We will	need	to	find	mechanisms	in	the form of infrastructure, net-works and alternative econom-ic models that will re-develop local economies. One example is CSA, a relatively new socio-economic model of food pro-duction, sales, and distribution aimed at both increasing the quality of food and the quality of care given the land, plants and animals, while substantially re-ducing potential food losses and financial	 risks	 for	 the	 produc-ers. ( Further support for localized distribution and processing can follow the lead of farmers markets and farm gate sales, increasing marketing opportu-nities for locally grown through buy local campaigns and sup-port events that highlight the region’s diverse food shed.Additional interven-tions could include:•	 Partnering	with	local	pro-ducers, community, coopera-tives, business and government organizations to increase the availability of healthy local foods •	 Creating	 guidelines	 for	local food procurement strat-egies for all public facilities•	 Reducing	regulations	for	processing of meat and veg-etable allowing small produc-ers to sell from home and also hold potlucks – churches etc…  As not all professionals and employed people can be expected to stop working in or-der to do manual labour in food production, there will need to be other avenues created for people to build connections with local farmers (much like one would build a relationship with a local doctor). Employers can provide support for such re-lationship by investing in local farms or buying shares in CSA’s as	 part	 of	 benefit	 packages.	There has already been a small movement towards this model.  Some employers across North America are partner-ing with farming cooperatives as a way to provide informa-tion and educational sessions to employees on healthy food choices. As part of corporate social responsibility (CSR) campaigns, companies are partnering with local farms, en-couraging their employees to use company time to engage with local food projects. In Rich-mond BC, Telus, Fairmont Hotel and Greymont Mining employ-ees annually join volunteers with the Richmond Fruit Tree Sharing Project to grow food for the food bank. ( Such initiatives could be further sup-ported with vacation time mor-phing into summer harvest time.   planning for post-carbon food systems57“If we plan and act early enough, and use our creativity and cooperation to un-leash the genius within our local com-munities, then we can build a future that could be far more.” (Rob Hopkins 2008)8. CONCLUSION - WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?I believe we are past the point of simplis-tic efforts; the time has come for radical adjustments that create integrated and efficient	results.		Adjustments	in	the	form	of actions and inquiry that encourage us to seek balance with the unknown and unexpected. The conversation must in-volve all levels of society, calling for reform and support from government, cooperation and creativity from the pri-vate sector and leadership and imagi-nation from citizens. Most importantly the transformation has to happen today. Considering how to embrace the change, the concept of resiliency (the ability to bounce back and thrive) is at the forefront of many discussions. In-creasingly practitioners, activists, aca-planning for post-carbon food systems I write from my desk at Yasodhara Ashram, a yoga retreat and education cen-tre on the east shore of Kootenay Lake in South Eastern BC. From this small corner of the world that I call home, I am working to transform how I relate to myself and to others by building integrated, resilient and intentional relationships with food. This summer in addition to working on this proj-ect	 I	 have	 been	 managing	 our	 food	 flow	(orchard, kitchen, summer kitchen and gar-den) and also working with the local MLA to respond to the regional food movement by identifying the infrastructure and net-works needed to move it to the next stage. It has been a perfect setting to imagine al-ternative approaches to our food systems.  “To pay attention, this is our endless and proper work”      Mary Oliver New and Selected Poems (1992)demics are discussing what re-silient communities could look like, and are talking about not only the practical tools that are needed but also acknowledg-ing the social and spiritual void that plagues much of the ur-ban experience. Two questions summarize my own process:				•				What	are	the	powerful	and	practical tools that we need?				•				What	systems	do	we	need	to be strengthening?g With resilience in mind, I think of the words of Quaker activist Parker Palmer when he asks how can we better re-spond to “the heart’s longing to be connected with the large-ness	of	life”.	Looking	specifical-ly at food, I am curious about how to re-imagine a system that can bring forward the con-nection and community that my heart so desires. My imagination lands at the base of a row of parsnips in the garden I have been tend-ing this summer. Tiny and deli-cate, these seemingly robust tubers, require hours of care-ful attention to gently pull away the	 fierce	 competitors	 and	give the seedlings the room to gather the energy they need to grow. Volunteers who work with me here gather in, heads bent and hands busy to free these precious leaves of green. We work together to re-veal the gifts, building on each other’s contribution until the job is done. Through our care-ful attention, these parsnips will increasingly strengthen until come next February, af-ter bravely surviving a win-ter in the ground, they will be pulled up and celebrated as winter’s fresh produce. In my own life, I also rec-ognize this generosity of space and care as it is given to me so that I too can cultivate my en-ergy, shed away the competing desires and listen with precision to what my heart truly wants. I come back to the two questions, and again think about how I want to focus my energy at a personal and communal level. The skills required to grow, process and preserve food are of course essential to daily existence. But the act of growing, processing and pre-serving food offers us much more than nourishment on the table. It offers us the time to engage in relationship not only with each other, but also with ourselves and the en-vironment that supports us. Food provides a medi-um for building community and rediscovering a place of magic and wonder – a place that I think presents a powerful point from which to bounce back and thrive. As Swami Radhananda (president of Yasodhara Ash-planning for post-carbon food systemsram) has said, “The way things grow in the garden shows us the potential of the seeds of light within us all. The determi-nation of plants is an example for us to carry forward into our own lives and into the world.” In working with produc-ers around the world, I have, in each setting, experienced how food links culture and identity. Through its embedded sense of comfort and security, food also provides an immedi-ate orientation to the local cul-ture by its invitation to engage with the land and its people. In each case, it is people coming together, connecting with one another and moving away from nourishment that is impersonal, processed, or un-consciously driven, to an ex-perience that engages ritual and relationship. The physical, mental, emotional and spiritual spaces created through food production, processing and dis-tribution are vital to healthy and vibrant communities, as are the relationships that guide them. I am often reminded here at the ashram, that it is the quality and consideration that I bring to my actions that unravels the mechanical and inspires the intentional, creat-ing a place for the divine to enter in. In the garden, that opportunity is offered daily.60 In the last years, the in-formation and interest in food has exploded across North America. Today there is an in-credible, plethora of efforts and innovation to reconnect people with food, who grows it and where it comes from. And while I have attempted to showcase some of the examples rele-vant to this topic, I have by no means exhausted the list. And so this document is a contribu-tion to the discussion, a piece that may encourage you to pause today, think forward 20-30 years and imagine where planning for post-carbon food systemsand how you would like to be. As Vandana Shiva reminds us, through her work with her organ-isation -  Navdanya, it is from the simple act of planting a seed, to layering a compost pile, to har-vesting the abundance that we are quietly revolutionizing how we engage locally and globally. Radical acts of change through beauty, quality and community. 61References and Resources:Arthur Morgan Institute for Community Solu-tions (2006) The Power of Community – How Cuba Survived Peak Oil viewed June 10,, Z.G. et al. (2008) Global assessment of land degradation	 and	 improvement	 1:identification	by remote sensing. Report 2008/01, FAO/ISRIC - Rome/Wageningen. Viewed on December 5, 2008 from "Land degradation on the rise" BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. (Year un-known) BC Food Self Reliance. BC Provincial Government, Canada.BC Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. (2005) Brit-ish Columbia Agriculture Plan: Growing a Healthy Future for B.C. Families. BC Provincial Govern-ment, Canada. Viewed online April 12, 2010 on, C. (2006) The Role of Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Lessons from Iowa. Ames, IA: Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture.Canadian Institute for Business and the Environ-ment  (2009) The Gallon Environmental Letter Vol. 14, No. 10, Honoured Reader EditionCarpenter, S.R et al (1998) "Nonpoint Pollution of Surface Waters with Phosphorus and Nitrogen" Ecological Applications 8:559-568Creston Valley Food Action Coalition viewed June 18th, 2010 (2010) www.cityfarmer.infoFast Food Couriers viewed June 18, 2010,comFeagan, R. (2007) The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems Progress in Hu-man Geography Vol 31 No 1 pp. 23–42 Federoff, N. (2010) The past, present and future of	crop	genetic	modification	New	Biotechnology	Vol 00 No 0 Feenstra, G. (1997) Local food systems and sus-tainable communities  Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2006) Livestock a major threat to environment". Novem-ber 29, 2006. and Agriculture Organisation (2010) Green-house Gas Emissions from the Dairy Sector: A Life Cycle Assessment Knowledge Exchange, Research and Extension, FAO, Viale delle Terme di Caracalla FAO 2010 viewed April 7, 2010 Matters Manitoba (2007) Manitoba Food Charter viewed June 2, 2010 Secure Vancouver, Baseline Report. Viewed online February 7, 2010 on, E. (2010) Empires of Food: Famine and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations interview on Na-tional Public Radio August 7, 2010Garden City Lands (2008) viewed June 22, 2010 www.gardencitylands.caGreer, J. M. (2008)The Long Descent New Soci-ety Publishers Gabriola Island, BCGillard, Spring (2009) Food Hubs viewed June10, 2010 for post-carbon food systems62Global Footprint Network. (2006) Ecological Foot-print and Biocapacity. Viewed online March 7, 2010 on www.footprintnetwork.orgGoleman, Daniel. (2009) Ecological Intelligence Random House, Inc., New York. Hamilton, L. (2009) Deeply Rooted: Unconven-tional Farmers in the Age of Agribusiness. Coun-terpoint LLCHawken, P. (2000) Natural Capitalism  Back Bay Books: San FranciscoHeiberg, R & Michael Bomford (2009) The Food and Farming Transition Post Carbon Institute Se-bastopol, CAHopkins, R. (2008) Transition Town Network viewed June14, 2010 www.transitionnetwork.orgKenner, Robert Food Inc. (Film) 2008Kloppenburg, Jack et al. (1996) Coming in to the Foodshed Agriculture and Human Values: Vol 13 No 3: 33-42Living Machines (2008) Worrell Water Technolo-gies viewed July28, 2010 www.livingmachines.comLowe, Matt. (2009)The Local Grain Revolution XI (Sailing Grain Year 2) Deconstructing Dinner aired October 22, 2009, Jan (2008) You. Will. Not. Be. Able. To. Get. Food. – report on trends Culture Change Letter #189 viewed June 27, 2010, W. & Michael Braungart (1998) The NEXT Industrial Revolution October 1998 The At-lantic / Miedema, J. & Katherine Pigott. (2007) A Healthy Food System Community Plan for Waterloo Re-gion of Waterloo Public HealthMullinex, K. (2008) speaker Richmond Food For All Dialogue  - Richmond BC February 28 – March 1, 2008Mungall, M. (2010) Creston Town Hall Meeting, personal notes: March 14th  Newsom, G. 2009 Healthy and Sustainable Food for San Francisco – Executive Directive 09-03 Of-fice	of	the	Mayor,	City	and	County	of	San	Fran-cisco, July 9th, 2009North Kootenay Lake Community Services Soci-ety (2006) Kaslo Food Charter viewed May 10, 2010 Portland Tool Library (2010) viewed July 25, 2010 www.northportlandtoollibrary.orgOppenheimer, M (1969) The Urban Guerilla. Chapter 7.People’s Food Commission. (1980) The Land of Milk & Honey Between the Lines.Plowright, R. (2008) speaker Richmond Food For All Dialogue  - Richmond BC February 28 – March 1, 2008Pothukuchi, K. & Jerome Kaufman. (1999) The Food System – A Stranger to the Planning Field American Planning Association Spring 2000 Vol 66 No 2Rees, W. E. (1995) “Achieving sustainability: Re-form or transformation.” Journal of Planning Lit-erature 9: 343-361.Rees, W. E. (2002) “Globalization and Sustain-ability:	Conflict	or	Convergence.”	Bulletin	of	Sci-ence, Technology and Society 22: 249-268.Rees, W. E. (1996) “Revisiting Carrying Capacity: Area-Based Indicators of Sustainability.” Popula-planning for post-carbon food systems63tion and Environment 17:195-215.Rees, W. E. (2002) “Is Humanity Fatally Success-ful” JBAPA, Vol. 30-31, 2002-03Richardson, J. et al. (2009) UBC South Campus Waste Resource ManagementRichmond Fruit Tree Sharing Project (2010) www.richmondfruittree.comRoberts, W & Rocha, C. The Beautiful Horizon of Community Food Sovereignty Alternatives Inter-national Journal, 2008 Vol 1 No 3Robinson, K. 2010 “Ken Robinson say schools kill creativity” viewed July 22, 2010, I (2007). "Global food crisis looms as cli-mate change and population growth strip fertile land", The Guardian (London): August 7thPermaculture Activist (2009) viewed May 2, 2010 Sen, Amartya. (1981) “Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation” Oxford: Clarendon Press, Serecon Management Consult-ing, Inc and Zbeetnoff Agro-Environmental Con-sulting, Inc. 2009. Shiva, V. (2009) Proposed Food Security Act : Blindspots and Biases ZSpace viewed July 5, 2010, H et al. (2006) Food and Agriculture Organization. Rome. "Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental issues and options.". viewed De-cember 5, 2008The Land Conservancy (TLC) of BC (2009) BC’s Farming and Food Future – Local Government Toolkit for Sustainable Food Production 2009The Stop Community Food Centre viewed August 3, 2010 www.thestop.orgTilman D, Cassman KG, Matson PA, Naylor R, Polasky S (August 2002). "Agricultural sustain-ability and intensive production practices". Nature 418 (6898): 671–7.Tims, D. 2010 A Damascus farmer's ideas on sustainable urban agriculture are breaking new ground viewed May 22, 2010 Farm (2010) viewed May 15, 2010 UBC Waste Management, 2009 viewed April, 2010 www.recycle.ubc.caUnited States Department of Agriculture (2010) Know Your Food, Know Your Farmer viewed July 15, 2010 Food Policy Council, http://www.van-couverfoodpolicycouncil.caWatts, Jonathan (2007). "Riots and hunger feared as demand for grain sends food costs soaring", The Guardian (London): December 4Wilson, J & Mark Anieslki (2005) Ecological Foot-prints of Canadian Municipalities and Regions The Canadian Federation of Canadian Municipal-ities Anieslki ManagementWorld Health Organisation (WHO). (1992) Our planet, our health: Report of the WHO commis-sion on health and environment. Geneva: World Health Organization.planning for post-carbon food systems64planning for post-carbon food systemsAppreciations- This project was made possible through the generous support of Yasodhara Asharm who held the space, the light and leads with courage to stand on the edge - thank you. I would also like to thank my colleagues Laura Castrejon-Violante and Heather Fehr who collaborated on an early discussion of post-cabon food systems. Deep gratitude for my parents exceptional ever ready support. Great appreciation to my advisor - Dr. Leonora Angeles and second reader Dr. William Rees	-	thank	you	for	keeping	me	on	the	edge.	And	finally	to	the	wonderfully	gifted	and talented people I was fortunate enough to share the last 2 years with at SCARP - thank you, it has been a gift to be on this journey with you. Namaste.Acknowledgements - There are many holes but the most glaring ommission is the voice of the First Nations and indigenous peoples of BC. Given the nature of this project, I did not know how to give adequate respectful space and place to a discussion that is large,exciting and worthy of more that a few lines. And so I would like to acknowledge the powerful and important work that is happening through such initiaves as The Ingenous Food System Network, and leaders such Dawn Morrision and Nancy Turner. In writing their names, it is also important to recognize that 80% of the worlds local food systems are maintained by women. Thank you for your work.65


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 27 0
Germany 15 8
China 9 24
Canada 6 0
France 4 0
Bulgaria 3 0
Russia 2 0
Belgium 1 0
City Views Downloads
Unknown 23 19
Ashburn 9 0
Redmond 4 0
Beijing 4 0
Washington 4 0
Shenzhen 4 24
Vancouver 3 0
Nanaimo 3 0
Sunnyvale 2 0
Henderson 2 0
Buffalo 2 0
Gulf Breeze 2 0
Wilmington 1 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items