SYNTHESIS

DESIGNING A FOOD PLANNING TOOL

Finding space for productive cities

6th international AESOP Sustainable Food Planning Conference

Special Session, November 7th 2014, Leeuwarden (The Netherlands)

A Special Session
On Designing a Food Planning Tool

IUFNs special session on Designing a Food Planning Tool was a workshop held during the 6th international AESOP
Sustainable Food Planning Conference Finding space for productive cities on November 7th 2014, hosted in Leeuwarden (The
Netherlands) by VHL University. The conference gathered more than 100 participants (researchers, urban designers, urban
planners, policy makers and NGOs representatives from all over the world) around the issue of urban agriculture and urban
planning in favour of sustainable food systems.
Even though food planning becomes an increasingly popular subject in research and individual cities throughout the last
years, food tends to be underappreciated and not perceived as relevant planning issue by the mainstream. City
administrations typically argue that the free market should be responsible for food production and distribution, not the public
hand. If municipalities talk about it, it is often framed as the competition between two mutually exclusive land uses: the
conservation of agricultural land vs. (housing) development. Thirdly, pioneering local authorities that do prioritise food on
their agenda as a political statement (be it to increase the number of urban agriculture projects or public provisioning
programmes) appear be able to addressing the issue only qualitatively instead of making it the result of a deliberative decision
making process that quantitatively analyses food and non-food benefits.
Thus, the conferences umbrella topic finding space for productive cities did not only invite participants to ask where food
should be produced in the physical space, but also what place it should have in institutions and planning processes.
Set as a participatory two-hour workshop, the special session was an opportunity to have a quick dive into the world of
planning tools with food in mind. After the inspiring introductory words of Arnold Van de Valk, researcher at Wageningen
UR/AESOP, the participants were invited to think outside the box and identify the underlying questions and challenges when
thinking about a food planning tool - is there an actual need for new food planning tool? how should such tools be designed
and work? what challenges would need to be considered and what could be possible ways forward? This document
summarises the special sessions key findings.
Enjoy your reading!
IUFN Team

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

As Prof. Arnold van der Valk, an expert in land use planning, outlined in the workshops introduction, current spatial planning
and decision making processes hardly perceive the food sector as a relevant field to engage in. He summarises the problems
connected to food and regional planning as a threefold divide. Firstly, the division between urban spatial planning on the one
side, and the sectorial management of agriculture on the other side. Secondly, the tensions between the competing land uses of
(urban) development and the conservation of farmland. Thirdly, the division of urban and rural as opposing categories. In his
eyes, it is necessary to overcome these classifications and instead create a new understanding of the space we inhabit and its
interactions. Here, the notion of a metropolitan landscape may help to overcome the current conceptual limitations.
In this regard, van der Valk challenges the workshop participants to rethink planning as a whole. Considering the three
problems highlighted before, there is no point in inventing the ultimate food planning tool or to expand the arsenal of the
existing planning toolbox. Rather, it is necessary to reconceptualise planning and decision making processes that use food as a
leaver to achieve multiple planning objectives. Planning today is much too simplistic (van der Valk) in terms of (single)
cause-effect relationships in evidence-based style planning. Simple premises la one problem one cause one solution does
not work. Instead, there is a need for more strategic planning that better fits to societys needs, assumes complexity and
accepts uncertainty. That this is not impossible, could be demonstrated for example with approaches from transition theory,
which could serve as a source for inspiration when looking at planning as a whole. While a revised conceptual base is without a
doubt indispensable, these considerations also need to make a difference on the ground with a new community of practice
that approaches regional planning from the perspective of food.

Scale-Scope-Principles Key questions to start with

by Marketa Braine-Supkova, IUFN

Designing a food planning tool is an open process, generating perhaps more questions than immediate responses. Some of
these can help us in our discussion to follow. These points of vigilance, are intended to foster to an open minded approach and
an out-of-the-box thinking.
When talking about a food planning tool, one of the key questions is the scale it should address: Should it encompass the whole
food value chain from production to organic waste management, or just specific parts of it? To what extent a food planning tool
could/shall build upon existing tools and planning processes? Similarly, what spatial scale would be the most relevant the
one of a city, with or without peri-urban zones, or a city region? Should it apply to classical administrative boundaries or
should it refer to a functional region, accounting for resource flows? Furthermore, what time scale should be targeted short
or long-term perspective? The duration of a political mandate?
A second key question is about the scope of such a tool with regards to contents and stakeholders involvement. To what detail
should and could a food system be planned? What stakeholders should be involved in the designing and implementation
process? Who should be responsible for its assessment?
The third key question is on what overall principles a food planning tool should focus on. In other words: what should be its
ultimate purpose? One proposition that in the end fuels the idea behind this workshop is that a food planning tool or set of
tools shall enable a given territory to efficiently contribute to food and nutritional security of its population. This shall be done
in a way that respects the needs and desires of local communities, with regard to available natural resources and the health of
local ecosystems. Lastly such a tool shall also contribute to establishing economically viable local solutions.

SYNTHESIS
Inspired by Arnold Van de Valk introductory words, the participants of the Designing a food planning tool Special session
highlighted the fact from the global point of view, many planning tools already exist, but are either not used or do not perform
as intended. In fact, those planning tools face a number of problems in regards mainly to their design and application. Due to
the complexity of the food system issue, planning tools are a simplification that shall help the decision making process. In this
regard, the challenge is to strike the right balance between the complexity of a tool and its applicability. This is very much true
for food systems issue that are not only highly complex but are at the same time fragmented. Complexity comes from the many
elements and actors present in the system that generate a myriad of resources and value flows on regional to global scale.
Fragmentation stems from the fact that the value chain is very seldom within one company but subdivided among specialised
actors across the globe, each one with its own interests and power.
Another essential aspect underlined is whether the existing tools actually solve the right problem! Especially so called wicked
problems, i.e. diffuse source problems that are hard to measure, are extremely difficult to account for in tool design.
The current planning practices in which a rational or engineering approaches dominate seem to represent another food
planning challenge. Indeed, planning is organised according to sectors, thus creating a competitive environment in which each
actor follows their own interests. In addition to this sectorial thinking, the lack of exchange and communication between
policy makers and the technical spheres is perceived as discriminatory. As a result, food stands in competition to other
planning goals (e.g. real estate market, economy, tax revenue, and infrastructure). Its multi-dimensional benefits even
though small at times for specific sectors are underappreciated. Hence, food appears to be just yet another item on the
wishing list for planners that are forced to weight decisions and choose between the biggest benefit for a limited space.
The workshop participants stated that while there is no lack of new (technocratic) tools, there is definitely a lack of approaches
enabling multi-stakeholder dialogues. There is still a need to develop a process-oriented planning approach that allows to
integrate food systems easier.

From a food planning tool to a food planning process

During the discussions the notion of addressing food planning rather as a process or method emerged early on. Such a process
could be designed in a way that initially poses more questions than results. Doing so may help to overcome existing barriers
and generate answers on the go.
So what should such a process or method consider? One point the discussion emphasised was that food planning should
facilitate and enhance a multi-stakeholder and cross-disciplinary approach. Since policies are statements on how the world
should be, such a dialogue would also allow to formulate a normative basis of what kind of food system people want, eventually
increasing the probability that the stakeholders own and commit to the process in both the short- and long-term. Furthermore,
strategic considerations consist of including the precautionary principle in food planning processes as one important element.
Similarly, some workshop participants also pointed out the necessity to integrate uncertainty as a part of a design process in a
dynamic world.
What shall such a process or method look like? Depending on scale and subject of investigation, the systems complexity
mentioned above invites to integrate or combine different, already existing tools in process oriented planning. A benchmark of
existing tools seems to be a relevant first step.
Here, a food system-specific methodological framework or guiding umbrella would help to put these tools and steps of analysis in a
new context and relation. These could include: Analysis of each necessary element (e.g. space, stakeholders and resources)
along the value chain, Goal formulation, Formulation and assessment of strategies, Planning, Implementation, Monitoring and
Evaluation. Such a framework would not follow linear steps from analysis to implementation, but rather work cyclically or
iteratively, jumping back and forth between the steps. So for example, it would be possible to start out with a normative goal in
mind, then identify what would be necessary to achieve this goal, then analyse what is there and what is required to achieve
this goal. In this perspective, the definition of the relevant factors is a crucial first step.
Additional inspiration in designing a tool can also come from other sectors, as for example decision tools on food risks from
insurance industry) or from experimental and interactive methodologies such as multi-stakeholder consultations, data mining
from crowdsourcing, and a number of exercises (e.g. 30-30 exercise, backtracking, prototyping), or foresight. The essential
element seems to be the capacity of enabling creativity.

Challenges and the way forward

From these reflections it became evident that designing a food planning tool, method, or process is a challenge in itself. The
most flagrant seems to be the question of how to reduce the complexity of food systems to a useful, yet applicable process. It is
important to identify what actually needs to be measured, how much that will cost and to what degree we can find out what we
are looking for in terms of data especially. In other words: Will the tool in the end provide policy makers with tangible
information? How much do we need to know to make a decision?
Another important challenge is to define the appropriate target audience: Who should be involved? How can individual
interests be balanced? Here, the difficulty is to bring very different stakeholders with individual agendas and interests to the
table, conflicts included. Nevertheless, re-shaping a food system requires stakeholders to commit to the process in the longterm. While in the beginning they might be euphoric for such an endeavour, the challenge is to make them hold on to a
common vision or project even if individual interest cannot be satisfied or if no short-term results are visible. After all, if key
stakeholders back out, to which degree is it possible to succeed overall?
Furthermore is it not only crucial to consider the appropriate spatial and temporal scale, but also to include relevant elements
of the food value chain (from production, processing, distribution, and consumption to waste management) which again adds
complexity. Some workshop participants further pointed out the necessity to include indicators going beyond food-related
information. The idea behind this is that indicators relevant for other sectors (e.g. jobs created, air filtration performance,
cooling performance, noise dampening, obesity rate (long-term), crime rate, resource flows / cyclic flows) can help to visualise
and quantify the multi-benefits of food system and ease the decision making process.
This also might help to tackle the challenge of connecting food to other planning sectors. In this regard advocating food as one
of the cross-cutting mean to achieve sustainability goals in many sectors will challenge existing paradigms of practice and
potential emerging institutional competition. The small-at-times yet in their sum relevant benefits of sustainable food systems
can improve resilience. Still, as individual sectors thrive for their sectorial efficiency, thus rather promoting single-benefit bigscale projects, food system benefits may continue to be perceived as non-relevant or insignificant.
Analysing, evaluating, and creating promising plans on paper is one thing. Yet, one of the biggest challenges is to actually make
a difference on the ground.

FOLLOW UP
The workshop has shown a vivid interest for further discussions on the food planning tool issue. With the above challenges in
mind, the workshop participants proposed a certain number of next steps. One of these would be to involve a wider range of
people and to start a multi-stakeholder platform or process that unites local communities, researchers, food professionals,
planners, and decision makers around the topic of food planning. Indeed, a promising concrete step might be to take it to the
ground and launch and experiment with designing a possible food planning tool, method or process on a pilot site or case
study.
Indeed, there is today a vague notion of how a new food planning process or framework might look like but there is still much
to be done in terms of awareness raising and cross-disciplinary thinking. Provoking a real change in current professional
practices, establish food as a relevant issue and a design element in planning theoretic considerations calls for a joint effort.
In this perspective, IUFN would like to continue facilitating this discussion and invites partners to join a dedicated LinkedIn
group Designing a Food Planning Tool (www.linkedin.com/groups/Designing-Food-Planning-Tool-8202333). The aim of this
group is to provide a platform for information sharing on this strategic issue, helping to identify existing relevant initiatives,
data, tools and processes that we could build on. The ultimate goal is to identify possible lines of work and action, build upon
our different expertise and competences, and to draft partnership proposals that will translate into a or several concrete
food planning tool projects.

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

EU Life - Environmental Governance and Information

The EU LIFE Programme for the Environment and Climate Action 1 provides a global budget of 3.4 billion for a number of different
implementation-oriented activities running between 2014 and 2020. Its aim is to support traditional, preparatory, integrated,
technical assistance, or capacity building projects that help implement existing EU regulations, set-up a pilot project, or raise
awareness. The programme is divided into two sub-programmes: The Climate Action programme covers proposals oriented
towards mitigation, adaptation as well as governance and information. The second sub-programme on Environment covers
topics such as resource efficiency, nature and biodiversity as well as environmental governance and information. This last
thematic area appears to be the most suitable for a food planning tool-project as it provides funding for
information, awareness and dissemination projects to promote awareness raising on environmental
matters, including generating public and stakeholder support of Union policy-making in the field of the
environment, and to promote knowledge on sustainable development and new patterns for sustainable
consumption; to support communication, management, and dissemination of information in the field
of the environment, and to facilitate knowledge sharing on successful environmental solutions and
practice, including by developing cooperation platforms among stakeholders and training; and to
promote and contribute to more effective compliance with and enforcement of Union environmental

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

legislation, in particular by promoting the development and dissemination of best practices and policy
approaches 2
A Life fund provides up to 60% of the project costs, the other 40% need to be provided by the applicant. Usually, but not as a
rule, projects run for a duration of 2 to 5 years. As the programme is implementation oriented, research activities are only
permitted to a limited extent if the directly contribute to the projects implementation. Monitoring activities that evaluate the
projects performance are an essential requirement. The application process favours transnational proposals, given that they
provide an additional value. Applicants can be public bodies, NGOs, and private businesses. While the application process
consisting of 5 phases appears relatively complex and requires a lot of lead time 3, national authorities may provide assistance
in revising a draft proposal before handing it in for an official application at EU level. IUFN is already in contact with the
French contact point. According to last years schedule, the applications are possible from March-October 2015 which
translates into an earliest project start in summer 2016.
One important point to consider is that grants are not only approved depending on the quality of the project proposal, but also
according to what has been spent already. In other words, the EU programme has thematic and regional allocation priorities. In
the Environment sub-programme those have firstly a heavy focus on conservation projects with more than half of the subprogrammes budget and secondly the top-three regional budgets for projects in Germany, France, and Poland. 4 The
programmes website provides an overview of projects that have received funding in past years.
In this regard, one possible project design could consist of actually drafting and experimenting a food planning tool or
process in cooperation with selected municipalities across Europe.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life2014/
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/documents/ 2014env_governance_app_guide.pdf
Also, see pp. 9-10 for regulations regarding non-EU project partners
4
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/documents/ 2014_preparatory_app_guide.pdf p. 16f
2
3

EU Horizon 2020
The EU Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation allocates 80 billion budget for knowledge, research, and
innovation-oriented projects running between 2014 and 2020. Its aim is to increase the EUs competitiveness through (mostly
technological) innovation in the private and public sector with a heavy focus on job creation and economic growth. The
framework programme is divided into 8 programme sections. One of these programmes, the Societal Challenges prioritises 7
societal challenges, two of which a food planning tool project appears to fit best: food security 5 and climate action /
environment / resource efficiency 6.
The application process is advertised as relatively easy and takes generally 5 months. Project proposals are reviewed by a panel
of experts. Most of the time, applications require including at least three partners from different EU countries. Applicants are
invited to respond to one specific call for proposals 7 that is part of a multiannual work programmes published by the European
Commission on a regular basis. Each call for proposals has an own budget that will be split up according to pre-defined priority
topics within the call. Funding agreements are made individually for each accepted project application and can go up to 100%.
The challenge for this funding source is to find a suitable call for proposals each having specific Eligibility and funding
conditions. An overwhelming majority of calls prioritize very specific technological topics, even in the food security sector.
Similarly to the Life programme, each call provides links to ask for assistance in the application process in form of national
contact points. Furthermore, it might be useful to contact the advisory groups 8 that formulate the multiannual work
programmes in order to advocate for a specific call on food planning or to ask for assistance.
In regards to the Horizon 2020 framework, one possible project design could consist of a research project that
evaluates possible entry points for a food planning process in the context of three European national planning
systems. It would furthermore be possible to include SMEs in such a project in order to design and evaluate a business
development policy targeted to innovative small-scale urban food production.

http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/food-security-sustainable-agriculture-and-forestrymarine-maritime-and-inland-water
6
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/climate-action-environment-resource-efficiency-and-rawmaterials
7
Database with all available calls:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/index.html
8
http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/experts
5

Appendix 1 Worksheet of group 1

IUFN Special session: Designing a food planning tool - November 7th 2014
AESOP 6th international food planning conference
Finding space for productive cities
Leeuwarden, The Netherlands

GROUP N 1
Group discussion. Write down your conclusions (use bullet-points system for more clarity).
Please determine a group rapporteur who will present your conclusions/ideas during the restitution phase.
During this restitution, you will be invited to only highlight the main ideas.
(Why) is a food planning tool necessary?
Many tools exist but are not being used
Conflict between tools and complexity of
systems in designing planning tools
There is not a lack of tools, but a lack of policy
/ political decisions /processes fostering multistakeholder dialogue
Missing interface between policy and technical
spheres

Problems of existing tools

Tame methods for wicked problems

Many tools exist but do not solve the right
problem
Rational / engineer approach to problems is
dominating
New mental processes need to be used (both
by policy makers and practitioners)
Lack of interface politics-technicians / People
think according to their direct interest
Policy makers conflict between short
term/long term perspective; how to integrate
long term perspective of food system; how to
propose an inclusive presentation if ideas
present rather a process

What challenges are to be considered when

designing such a tool?
Question of relevant scale to take into
consideration is crucial tool on a complex
system (too ambitious) OR tool on
thematic/food chain part
Target audience definition (policy makers,
technicians, civil society, individuals, etc.)
In terms of contents and the tools structure need to go deeper, reach/try to tackle the
structural problems at the basis of the food
systems sustainability
Facilitate multi-stakeholder dialogue / cross
disciplinary approaches
Analyse / integrate macro-challenges
(e.g. climate change mitigation & vulnerability)
What to design?

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

process may bring answers) process, rather than a
tool/ modular tool/ wheel of tools
Make people overcome barriers (tools for complex
systems) no need for an out-of-the-box / new
tool but a better tool
Integrate the precautionary principle for the food
system?

How to design it?

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

How to connect these tools? How to propose a guiding umbrella?
o
Assessment methods to think about uncertainty / foresight
o
3030 exercise / Participatory mapping (represent people graphically)/ Participatory budgeting /
Backtracking use principles of the past to re-invent the future / design methods / design charrette /
design prototyping
o
get inspiration from other sectors (i.e. insurance industry decision tools on food risks)
o
multi-stakeholder consultation (involve engineers)/crowdsourcing to obtain data
Imagine change through involving people
Think about alternatives; Focus on innovation aspects in existing tools
Bring people to creativity
Think about what you desire for your food system
Policy makers will choose in order to existing challenges

Appendix 2 Worksheet of group 2

IUFN Special session: Designing a food planning tool - November 7th 2014
AESOP 6th international food planning conference
Finding space for productive cities
Leeuwarden, The Netherlands

GROUP N 2
Group discussion. Write down your conclusions (use bullet-points system for more clarity).
Please determine a group rapporteur who will present your conclusions/ideas during the restitution phase.
During this restitution, you will be invited to only highlight the main ideas.

(Why) Is a food planning tool necessary?

e.g. Does it actually make sense to design such a tool? Are there
any other planning tools and processes that could help designing
sustainable local food systems?

food is underappreciated / not recognized as mean to

achieve sustainability goals through multi-benefits
food in competition to other planning goals and sectors
o vs. real estate market
o vs. economy (jobs)
o vs. tax revenue
food sector = complex and fragmented
(along value chain)

What challenges are to be considered when designing

such a tool?

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

other issues of spatial development, etc.

complexity vs. applicability

stakeholders owning and committing to process
(short & long term)
connect food to other planning sectors
paradigms of practice
(e.g. institutional competition,
thats how we always did it)

What main features should an ideal food

planning tool have?

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

present? How should its performance be evaluated?

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

rather necessity for a
Methodological Framework
e.g. Geodesign (Carl Steinitz)
System Analysis and Design
iterative, cyclical steps: analysis,
visualisation, strategizing, assessment,
planning, implementation, monitoring
include food value chain:
production, processing, distribution,
consumption, waste management
indicators: not only food related but also
other sectors

What are the next steps when designing such

a tool?
e.g. What steps need to be taken? Who needs to be
involved? On what time scale?

awareness building: food = relevant

planning issue for other sectors
paradigm shift: food system = not only
about food but also provides other benefits
people to involve: citizens, community,
researchers, food chain professionals,
planners, policy makers
multi-stakeholder platform / process
pilot site for experimental tool design
(city region, neighbourhood)

Your topic: Implementation

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

multi-benefits of urban agriculture = positive externalities need for incentive policies & supportive frame
conditions for entrepreneurs (e.g. design new public fund structures)
small is beautiful as a new promotion priority? Instead of few big companies, support many small ones

10

STAY TUNED & JOIN THE DISCUSSION

Join our LinkedIn group Designing a Food Planning Tool to continue the discussion on
www.linkedin.com/groups/Designing-Food-Planning-Tool-8202333

For any query, contact us with the subject Food Planning Tool under
contact@iufn.org - Marketa Braine-Supkova & Robert Gundlach, IUFN

WARM THANKS
IUFN would like to thank our partners - VHL University/AESOP and especially Rob Roggema for hosting the Special
session Designing a Food Planning Tool. Learn more about the 6th international AESOP Sustainable Food Planning
Conference on www.findingspaces.nl

HOW DOES THIS SPECIAL SESSION MAKE SENSE AT IUFN

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

A foresight workshop Future of land in peri-urban areas by 2050

(IUFN, UNESCO, INRA-CIRAD, Futuribles) Final report to be diffused early 2015
An international conference Land for food - Land use and city-region food systems governance organized
at UNESCO HQ in Paris in April 2014 (UNESCO, Green party Senator Jol Labb, Ministry of Environment, Caisse
des dpts, ADEF, CIRAD-INRA, Futuribles) Open forum synthesis available on-line www.iufn.org, co-design
workshops synthesis to be diffused in December 2014.

11

IUFN/ AgroParisTech
16 rue Claude Bernard
75231 Paris cedex 05
www.iufn.org

IUFN the International Urban Food Network

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

12