Document(s) 11 of 34

Introduction

In agriculture, as in everything else, associated labour is the only reasonable solution. In such a case they would probably first of all associate for permanently improving the land which is in need of immediate improvement, and would consider it necessary to improve more of it every year, until they had brought it all into perfect condition.  . . . The labour that would be required for such an intensive culture would not be the hard labour of the serf or slave, it would be accessible to everyone, strong or weak, town bred or country born; it would have many other charms besides.  . . . From the technical point of view, there is no obstacle whatever for such an organisation being started tomorrow with full success. The obstacles against it are not in the imperfection of the agricultural art, or in the infertility of the soil, or in climate. They are entirely in our institutions, in our inheritances and survivals from the past — in the “Ghosts” which oppress us.

— Peter Kropotkin (1974 [1899])

In 1899, in his book Fields, Factories and Workshops Tomorrow, Peter Kropotkin estimated that intensive biological horticulture could supply about 40 households from each acre of land under cultivation (Kropotkin 1974 [1899]). Today, in the United Kingdom, many organic producers on small land holdings, operating rural and peri-urban direct food link (DFL) schemes, are achieving these levels of output; providing stable, feasible lifestyles for producers; and creating local training and employment. As John Middleton (in Middleton et al. 1996) remarked, “Sandwell as the garden of England is a bit far fetched, but it is not impossible for Sandwell to increase the food we can supply to ourselves.”

Regenerating Health: A Challenge or a Lottery, the 8th annual report of the director of public health for the Borough of Sandwell (Middleton et al. 1996), recognized that the idea of urban areas growing more of their own food has recently been gathering pace. Allotments of course are not new. But in Sandwell, people are using available allotments, gardens, big and small derelict plots, and other urban land spaces to grow food for consumption by the growers themselves, the local market, and more distant markets (Middleton et al. 1996).

This paper explores the issues raised in a 1996 study of the practical, legislative, and economic feasibility of community agriculture. The study focused on general issues of health and sustainability and economic inequality and how to tackle these at a local level. It asked why Sandwell is the kind of place to try to tackle them and explored the potential role of community agriculture and DFL schemes if they were integrated with existing initiatives in community development. This paper explores problems and the ways forward.

Creating a healthier local economy

Many of the principles of sustainable development policy are also found in the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Health for All by the Year 2000 strategy (WHO 1978), for example, equity, democracy, participation, and multiagency and international cooperation. Underlying these principles is the need to seek local solutions in partnership with local communities and to seek environmental solutions to problems associated with social services, crime prevention, health and safety, and economic development.

The United Kingdom’s public-health tradition has sought to protect its own people (one can argue its wealthier classes, particularly) from physical, chemical, and climatic risks, to meet their essential biological needs, supply food, water, and clean air, and prevent contamination from harmful wastes. However, in the United Kingdom, it is still possible to dispose of waste under water or soil, flush it away, or deposit it in someone else’s back yard. The targets for the European region (developed as part of WHO’s Health for All by the Year 2000 strategy) (WHOEURO 1985), and even the environmental charter (WHOEURO 1989), largely reinforce the view that a public-health policy exists to protect Europeans from the by-products of their way of life. This approach to public health, however, clearly fails to comprehend the interactions among human, animal, and environmental health. Unless these are taken into account, the sustainability of some ecosystems may be compromised through short-sighted pursuit of human health.

The Acheson report, “Public Health in England” (DOH 1988), rediscovered the definition of public health as “the science and art of the prevention of disease, the prolongation of life and the promotion of health through the organised efforts of society.” According to Sandwell’s director of public health, the report brought public health back into the mainstream of health-service planning and development (Middleton 1995b). People working in health-promotional activities in Sandwell see the local economy as currently a powerful force for poor health but as potentially a force for good health (Middleton 1995a).

Why Sandwell?

The Metropolitan Borough of Sandwell was formed in 1974 through the amalgamation of the county boroughs of West Bromwich and Warley in the West Midlands. Birmingham forms its eastern border. Sandwell has a population of about 300 000 and has the seventh-largest housing authority outside London. Sandwell’s history dates back to the Industrial Revolution. In the past and, to a lesser extent, in the present, it has depended on heavy industry — foundries, metal working, chemicals, limestone, and steel. Its landscape is postindustrial, with the remains of its heavy industry and much industrial dereliction. Its local wards are joined (or fragmented) by arterial roads.

Submissions by the Inner Area Programme Team of Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council (SMBC 1987/88–1989/90) revealed a not-very-encouraging economic-health diagnosis. The reports highlight problems such as

• High unemployment, particularly long-term joblessness;
• Low levels of job creation;
• Industrial contraction;
• A narrow economic base, with a lack of diversity in industry;
• A low proportion of people working in the service sector;
• A poor image (from the perspective of industrialists, visitors, and tourists);
• Extensive derelict land and an industrial-land shortage, with much of the land being difficult to reclaim because of chemical contamination and old limestone workings;
• A mismatch of workforce skills, requiring extensive retraining programs;
• Poor educational performance;
• Obsolete transport networks;
• Poor housing in public and private sectors; and
• Limited financial resources to tackle these problems.

The public-health diagnosis, set out in the annual reports of Sandwell Health Authority, described patterns of physical, social, and mental illness in the borough. The borough falls in the top 15% of health districts in the United Kingdom for houses lacking a basic amenity, overcrowded housing, unemployment, and ethnic-minority population. In 1988, more than half of the people in Sandwell were living in low-income households (Middleton 1990). Sandwell’s disease indicators reflect the poor health associated with high levels of poverty and deprivation (Townsend and Davidson 1982; Whitehead 1987). Perinatal and infant death rates are above regional and national levels. Standardized mortality ratios are above the national standards for all ages.

Such reports demonstrate the extent to which the public-health diagnosis reflects the economic-health diagnosis and show how the Public Health Department is attempting to describe the causes of poor health in the methods and relations of production, the goods produced, and people’s environmental and social circumstances. Sandwell and the surrounding Black County present a legacy of more than 200 years of unsustainable development, Middleton wrote (1996), and now face the consequences of industrialization going back to the start of the industrial revolution, compounded by postwar town planning and modernization, which seemed immune to community participation. Economic forces are powerful determinants of health and disease. Sandwell is a clear example of the reality that, at a local level, inequalities in health are an economic problem, not a health-service problem.

In response to the local Agenda 21 (UNCED 1992) and Health of the Nation targets (set out in a Department of Health White Paper [DOH 1992]), the Sandwell Regeneration Partnership (SRP) was formed with central-government single regeneration-budget funding.¹ Its role was to coordinate urban-regeneration strategy for Sandwell. It is clear that the regeneration policy affects health and that health services can improve regeneration. Community agriculture may have an important role to play in this regeneration policy and the SRP’s regeneration strategy.

¹ A number of organizations and agencies arose from central-government regional-planning and regional-assistance policy instruments, beginning with the Urban Programme of the 1960s and continuing through the 1977 Inner Cities White Paper to the emergence (in the late 1970s) of a more explicit policy, one that involved expanded resources, specific (if modest) legislation, and new arrangements intended to bring about collaborative work between central and local governments. However, in the 1980s and early 1990s, funding for inner-city-regeneration programs actually declined. The new organizations came into being in the 1980s as a result of a policy to phase out the “traditional” Urban Programme.

DFL schemes

To transform ideas about community agriculture into achievable goals and practical applications, one needs to learn from examples. Initiatives such as city farms, community allotments, local-exchange and -trading systems, food cooperatives, and DFL schemes are emerging models of community development and economic diversification rooted in a bottom-up approach. These initiatives seek local environmental and social solutions to the health and economic problems of communities.

During the late 1980s, frustrated by the limitations of wholesale- and multiple-marketing routes and encouraged by news about community-supported agriculture from Europe, Japan, and the United States (Pullen 1992), a small number of organic growers in the United Kingdom began to develop what were first known as “box schemes” and what are increasingly coming to be known as DFL schemes (Steele 1995). Fruit and vegetables are produced in intensive organic (or biological) systems; typically, 30–50 crop varieties are grown each season. Produce is distributed to individual households in rural and urban areas in a variety of ways: by door-to-door deliveries or through small food cooperatives.

The producer can supply a known group of customers with seasonal vegetables and fruit in a planned system of production. As DFL schemes are based on local production for local needs, overhead costs — particularly for packaging, transport, and distribution — can be significantly reduced. This gives greater security to the producer and creates new employment and training opportunities for new entrants into this business. Profitability is improved by the simple act of cutting out the middleperson. All sales income goes directly to the producer, which enables the producer to supply fairly priced, safe fruit and vegetables.

DFL schemes develop a relationship of trust and cooperation between producers and consumers and address issues of food production, processing, distribution, consumption, and disposal (through the development of community composting schemes). Some producers are actively developing a critique of the global food system and seek to demonstrate the feasibility of local alternatives. DFL schemes can address issues not only in the forces of production and consumption but also in their relations, which are of critical importance in developing descriptions of, and predictions for, a postindustrial society (Williams 1983).

Clearly, the success of DFL schemes in rural and peri-urban areas and the expertise they help to develop in production, organization, and management can be adapted and transferred to a variety of urban situations to meet a wide range of social, environmental, and health objectives. This knowledge and expertise informed the feasibility study that led Sandwell to develop community agriculture.

The feasibility study: process and outcomes

The aim of the consultancy was to help the SRP establish whether community agriculture would be practically, legislatively, and economically feasible in the Borough of Sandwell and benefit local people. The hope was ultimately to see a patchwork quilt of land parcels cultivated by and for the community.

The process began with a consultation meeting with participants from SMBC, Sandwell Health Authority, and a range of community and voluntary organizations, including special-needs, mental-health, and disability groups, community- and women’s-enterprise groups, conservation organizations, and the Sandwell Food Co-operative. The consultancy team was surprised and encouraged by the response.

The report prepared following the consultations (Booth et al. 1996) proposed a range of projects, some of which were pilots for the areas identified, plus some complementary or supporting activities (three of these are explored below). These projects included

• The Tipton Market Garden, in which the Sandwell Food Co-operative would produce high-value crops for distribution through its existing networks;
• The Woodentops–Sandwell New Horizons Garden Project, a nursery centre with emphasis on quality of life through the provision of care or work-related training, or both, for people with special needs or mental-health problems;
• The Sandwell Grow Your Own scheme, which proposed the creation of a post for a support or extension worker in the borough; and
• The Friends of Sandwell scheme, creating links between Sandwell residents and local farmers and growers in the region to supply staple produce and develop training links.

Two of these projects were under way after the completion of the study. The Tipton Market Garden group negotiated a lease on a derelict allotment site and has been clearing and preparing the site for food production, with the assistance of the British Trust for Conservation Volunteers. The National Schizophrenia Fellowship (NSF) Woodentops project has also been converting an abandoned allotment site into a community garden for people with mental-health problems, which will operate alongside a range of other services. A third project, not included in the study, has been under discussion. Rowley Regis College of Further Education, which has a large area (about 5 ha) for sports and leisure, has been considering proposals for a project with strong educational links through the college curriculum and with a local housing estate via the tenants’ and residents’ association.

As a result of the final meeting during the study, a Community Agriculture Steering Group was formed. The borough’s Food Policy Advisor coordinates it. This group is responsible for realizing the aims of the SRP.

Making progress: problems and the way forward

To coordinate the patchwork of community agriculture projects in Sandwell, the SRP would need a thorough appraisal of Sandwell’s physical and human strengths and weaknesses. Many of these lie in its industrial base (Middleton 1990). The signs from within the local authority, especially the health authority, are encouraging. A process of discussion has developed political support for the idea of community agriculture, and some funding is being made available. The local authority sees its role as an enabling

rather than controlling one. Clearly, further research and reflection on progress and problems would be required to identify the real obstacles to development.

The local authority and the private and voluntary sectors would need to take a coordinated approach to issues of infrastructure, such as patterns of land distribution and ownership in the borough, access to land, planning requirements, and legal constraints. Conflicts will inevitably arise over priorities for land use, and their resolution will determine opportunities for individual projects and their success or failure. Leases must be negotiated, and these will need to be of long enough duration to establish feasible projects, an outcome that may take several years and considerable investments in labour and finance.

Without suitable equipment for undertaking fallowing cultivations, the reclamation of derelict land is difficult, especially that of small land parcels. Infestation of derelict land by annual and perennial weed species is likely to be a significant obstacle, especially if groups adopt organic systems, which exclude the use of herbicides.

A fourth potential project has run into the problem of heavy-metal contamination of land, from its proximity to metal foundries. The report identified the possible health risks associated with growing food on contaminated land. Clearly, no food production can take place until the risks are quantified and understood.

One of the most critical aspects will be the provision of information, training, and support for participants in community agriculture schemes. People in these schemes need to develop and be supported in the skills of production, organization, finance, and management. People in the community already have many of these skills, such as the gardeners, the allotment holders, and the people in various community-enterprise initiatives.

Funding must be found and maintained to cover startup costs for all projects and to cover key staff and operating costs for projects that focus on social-service more than production objectives. In an urban situation, the cultivation of small land parcels will often incur significant startup costs but lacks the potential to achieve economies of scale. In these cases, voluntary labour will be a principal aspect of the successful operation of community agriculture schemes. Site security will be a significant additional startup cost in many cases, as it is can be anticipated that, at least until a site has a role and identity in a community, theft and vandalism will present a major challenge.

In March 1997, the Community Agriculture Steering Group circulated a project proposal among various groups, along with executives within SMBC. The proposal sets out the vision for a community agriculture network, based on the feasibility study and subsequent meetings and initiatives in the local authority, health authority, and voluntary sector. The steering group is considering potential sources of funding to recruit a full-time peripatetic worker and part-time technical officer with expertise in planning, legal, and transfer issues. Their role would be to develop the network in Sandwell and offer expertise and guidance to projects. The steering group also hopes to eventually establish a Sandwell Community Agriculture Support Team (Simpson 1997).

Initially, this team would provide technical support to flagship projects, such as the Tipton Market Garden and NSF Woodentops project and work to bring new projects into the patchwork. The team would also explore prospects for obtaining European funding and develop bids when appropriate opportunities arise to ensure the future of the project. Good progress has been made in raising the initial funds, with a significant contribution from the health authority.

Conclusions

Although it is still far too early to claim that community agriculture is a feasible option for Sandwell, much progress has been made in laying the foundations for achieving the objectives set out by the SRP in its original brief to the consultancy team.

Experience has so far suggested that community agriculture can make an important contribution to understanding that environmental regeneration is the key to improving the local economy and the health of Sandwell’s population (Middleton 1990). But community agriculture is not an alternative to tackling the structural causes of poverty and poor health. Effective intervention in the government, public, and private–public spheres will be essential. Of course, benefit levels must rise. We have tried exhorting people to eat more healthily and found that it’s actually more complicated than that. Poor families are eating high-fat diets as a matter of basic survival. They don’t have enough money, or they don’t have access to good fresh food in large enough quantities. Some redistribution of resources must occur (Middleton 1996).

However, if agriculture by and for the community is integrated with existing initiatives within the local authority and community in Sandwell, it may contribute to an emerging development model for local food production, processing, distribution, consumption, and disposal, as well as delivering a range of health, social, educational, environmental, community-development, and economic benefits in a postindustrial, urban society.

As Peter Kropotkin remarked in 1899, the obstacles to the success of an endeavour such as community agriculture in Sandwell are not the imperfection of the agricultural art, the infertility of the soil, or the poor climate but our institutions, inheritances, and survivals from the past — the ghosts that oppress us. Sandwell’s economic, health, and social problems are firmly rooted in its industrial past, in the forces and relations of production that have shaped its landscape and society. Sandwell’s being the “garden of England” is, indeed, a bit far-fetched, but it is clearly not impossible if Sandwell receives strategic support to increase the food it can supply to itself through community agriculture. Progress on this path can make a positive contribution to sustainable development in cities.

References

Booth, E.; Davis, L.; Michaud, M.; Redman, M. 1996. Community agriculture in Sandwell: a feasibility study. Report to the Sandwell Regeneration Partnership. West Bromwich, UK.

DOH (Department of Health). 1988. Public health in England [Acheson report]. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UK.

———1992. The health of the nation. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UK. Government White Paper. \

Draper, P., ed. 1991. Health through public policy. Merlin, London, UK.

Kropotkin, P. 1974 [1899]. Fields, factories and workshops tomorrow. Allen and Unwin, London, UK.

Middleton, J. 1990. Life and death in Sandwell: where public health and economic health meet. Local Government Policy Making, 16(4).

———1995a. Sandwell’s experiences researching a healthier local economy. Sandwell Health Authority, West Bromwich, UK.

———1995b. Public health and sustainability. Paper presented at the Royal Institute of Public Health and Hygiene Conference on Sustainability and Public Health, 8 Feb 1995, London, UK.

———1996. Bad food trap. The Observer, 21 Jan.

Middleton, J., et al. 1996. Regenerating health: a challenge or a lottery. 8th annual report of the Director of Public Health. Sandwell Health Authority, West Bromwich, UK.

Pullen, M. 1992. Farms of tomorrow: community supported agriculture linking farmers and consumers. Living Earth [the journal of the Soil Association, Bristol, UK], May.

Simpson, S. 1997. Community agriculture Sandwell: project proposal. Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council and Sandwell Health Authority, West Bromwich, UK.

SMBC (Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council). 1987/88–89/90. Inner Area Programme Team reports. SMBC, Sandwell, UK.

Steele, J. 1995. Local food links: new ways of getting organic food from farm to table. Soil Association, Bristol, UK.

Townsend, P.; Davidson, N. 1982. Inequalities in health: the Black report. Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK.

UNCED (United Nations Conference on Environment and Development). 1992. Rio declaration on environment and development and Agenda 21. UNCED, Geneva, Switzerland.

Whitehead, M. 1987. The health divide: inequalities in health in the 1980s. Health Education Council, London, UK.

WHO (World Health Organization). 1978. Health for all by the year 2000. Report of the International Conference on Primary Care (Alma Ata declaration). WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.

WHOEURO (WHO European Regional Office). 1985. Targets in support of health for all by 2000 in the European region. WHOEURO, Copenhagen, Denmark.

———1989. European Charter on Environment and Health. WHOEURO, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Williams, R. 1983. Towards 2000. Chatto and Windus, London, UK.

Document(s) 11 of 34