The potential of bio-intensive market gardening models for a transformative urban agriculture: Adapting SPIN Farming to Brussels

Abstract

This chapter shares insights from a reflexive research process about ideal visions, aspirations,choices and compromises made along the way in the establishment of the Brussels-based Cycle Farm. We show why and how three of the chapter’s authors, together with two urban farmers,
collectively explored these issues, and what can be learned in terms of the potential of bio-intensive market gardening models for a transformative urban agriculture.

Full text

1
THE POTENTIAL OF BIO-INTENSIVE MARKET
GARDENING MODELS FOR A TRANSFORMATIVE
URBAN AGRICULTURE
Adapting SPIN Farming to Brussels
Noémie Maughana, Nathalie Pipartb, c, Barbara Van Dyckd , Marjolein Vissera
corresponding author: nmaughan@ulb.ac.be
1 Introduction++
Like many European cities, Brussels is an important spawning ground for diverse urban
agricultural initiatives, including professional (peri-)urban market gardens. This recent revival is
led by farmers who are often involved in larger social movements that call for the prioritisation of
the fulfilment of social and environmental aspirations rather than maximisation of profit (Morel
and Léger, 2016). In addition to these ambitions, the new generation of farmers also has to deal
with the current and concomitantly changing institutional, political, social and economic
conditions while establishing their professional activities. Accordingly, urban farming practices
reflect ideals and aspirations as well as strategic choices and compromises (Morel and Léger,
2016).
This chapter shares insights from a reflexive research process about ideal visions, aspirations,
choices and compromises made along the way in the establishment of the Brussels-based Cycle
Farm. We show why and how three of the chapter’s authors, together with two urban farmers,
collectively explored these issues, and what can be learned in terms of the potential of bio-intensive
market gardening models for a transformative urban agriculture.
1.1 Expectations for the « sustainable city »
A growing body of literature documents the benefits of urban agriculture (Mougeot, 2000;
Tornaghi, 2014), highlighting its potential contribution to fresh vegetable production, green space,
job creation, storm-water retention, greenhouse gas mitigation, neighbourhood beautification, and
community-building (Lerner, 2012; McClintock et al., 2012; Thibert, 2012). Encouraged by these
promises, many European cities draft policies to foster urban food production
1
: the Brussels
Region launched the Good Food Strategy in 2016.
One of the Good Food Strategy’s major priorities is to increase local food production in an
innovative and ecological way
2
. This is so production reaches 30% of total fruit and vegetable
consumption by 2035. In this strategic document, the Brussels regional government acknowledges
the potential of urban agriculture for the city through its contribution to several environmental,
social and economic objectives. From the government’s perspective, urban agriculture is expected
to contribute to job and income generation, while also performing the important function of

2
providing food, to foster the quality of life of Brussels’ inhabitants, to reduce the city’s
environmental footprint, and to provide ecosystem services. Without specifying any modality, the
Good Food Strategy also defines as a goal that, “in 2020 100% of new professional agricultural
production projects will be efficient on an environmental, economic and social level” (Ronsmans,
2015, p.16). The strategy underlines the need for adapted urban planning and financial support for
the multiplication of urban agriculture projects, and for the development of innovative business-
models. The prescription for financial support highlights the critical importance and sensitivity of
the second and third years of activities, which often require specific support. The document also
recognises that “several years are often needed for a project to really become profitable” (Ibid. p.
34).
To cope with low investment capacities, a broad range of urban agricultural project leaders have
developed a strategy of reliance upon sporadic support from various public funds, including
subsidies for specific investments for start-ups, business incubators, research funds, part-time
salaries, etc. (Verdonck et al., 2012). However, all these funding schemes require proof that the
applicant will be able to reach financial autonomy in a time frame ranging from one to three years.
For instance, in order to compete for modest grants (up to €25.000 to be used in one year)
specifically for professional urban agriculture (and linked to the Good Food Strategy), candidates
are required to provide a three year financial plan and are expected to reach financial independence
when the subsidies end. Other funding schemes, such as business incubators, demand financial
dependence after 18 to 24 months of financial support. Notwithstanding the financial pressure,
these subsidised urban market gardeners are still expected to embrace a longer term, ‘sustainable’
perspective (providing all social and environmental benefits expected from urban agriculture), as
well as to prove that their profession has the potential to create new “green” viable jobs. Under
such pressure, many professional urban agriculture efforts end up prioritising market-based
approaches to develop financially viable initiatives. In this context, where at least part of the
funding is related to pro-growth and market-driven rhetoric on the sustainable city, it becomes
crucial to explore how urban agricultural practices can develop and retain their transformative
potential. We think that transdisciplinarity and participatory action research on broadening
viability can play a part in enabling urban farmers to reflect critically on the compromises they
make in reaction to the political and institutional contexts, constraints and/or pressures.
1.2 Public funding for participatory action research
Three authors of this chapter took part in a research project (SPINCOOP), funded for three years
by the Brussels Regional Institute for Research and Innovation as part of the Co-Create programme
(Action Co-Create)
3
. This programme was launched in 2015, concurrently to but independently
from the Good Food Strategy, which was steered by the Brussels Minister of Environment and the
Brussels’ Environmental Agency.
Action Co-Create gathers research centres, civil associations, cooperatives and others around a
common goal: jointly producing knowledge through a process of successive cycles of questioning,
reflecting on and acting to enhance the resilience of the Brussels region. The research programme
was created in 2015 after identifying the need for supporting novel research approaches to address
societal demands, and work with the challenges raised by current urban environments. It
exclusively funds projects based on Participatory Action Research principles (PAR) and is the first

3
of its kind in Brussels and in Belgium
4
(Van Dyck et al., 2018). The first call for projects focused
exclusively on PAR projects for a sustainable Brussels food system.
At that time, Cycle Farm, a small Brussels-based market gardening cooperative, inspired by the
SPIN farming model, had just started to grow vegetables on very small areas in the south of
Brussels. The founders of Cycle Farm submitted a proposal to Action Co-Create. The coordinator
of the research programme suggested the farmers join forces with our research groups.
The action-research project, SPINCOOP received a three-year grant to (1) study the adaptations
of the bio-intensive model SPIN-Farming (Small Plot Intensive Farming) to the Brussels context;
and (2) explore the development of a collective producers’ organisation: the Cycle Farm
Cooperative. The main questions guiding our joint analysis were the following: How can this
adaptation be viable, both in an economical and agroecological sense, and to what extent can SPIN
farming bring resilience and job creation potential to the Brussels Capital Region? Cycle Farm
was the case study of SPINCOOP, our “living lab”, and its two main farmers and founders were
directly involved in the research project. The research team included two academic researchers in
agronomy and sociology
5
, a consultant, and the two Cycle Farm urban market gardeners.
1.3 A hesitant start
In this context and within a three-year time frame, the action-research project was expected to
demonstrate if and how urban agriculture projects, such as Cycle Farm, could contribute to the
transition towards sustainable urban food systems and reach financial autonomy. As agroecology
researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds, we were both sympathetic to the initiative as
well as doubtful about its transformative potential. We perceived (current) bio-intensive models
(and SPIN-Farming specifically) as being fundamentally in opposition to an agroecological
approach in several aspects, as we extensively develop below. Nevertheless, we decided to embark
on this project for four main reasons:
1) We observed that bio-intensive models are frequently referred to by the neo-farmers with
whom we work. We could therefore assume that those models strongly influence the neo-
farmers’ vision and practices and believed that their study could greatly contribute to better
understand and support urban agriculture, whether or not we favour those models.
2) We decided that we could not miss out on the exceptional opportunity offered by this
programme that enables the development of co-creative research for sustainability (see
Section 2.2.). Earlier experiences made us confident about the potential of transdisciplinary
research to support agroecological transition. Our approach to PAR is informed by critical
theory, in the sense of developing an understanding of “how power in social, political,
cultural and economic contexts informs the ways in which people act” (McIntyre, 2007, p.
3). It is also informed by popular education in the way it seeks to generate knowledge that
starts from situating experience-based knowledge in a systemic perspective, and that is
aimed at developing strategies of emancipatory change (Fals-Borda and Rahman, 1991,
McIntyre, 2007, Kindon et al., 2007). Being deeply emerged in a joint research trajectory,
we hoped and expected to work with Cycle Farm’s neo-farmers on their values, not only
to analyse and better understand their visions and the compromises designing the Cycle
Farm initiative day-by-day, but also to contribute to the construction and broadening of this
vision.

4
3) The nature of the partnership: the market gardeners were the first initiators of this research
and we believe success in PAR depends predominantly on partners’ motivation.
4) The potential of developing new knowledge and know-how on the viability of urban
agriculture in an agroecological sense.
2 Bio-intensive+models+of+urban+market+gardening+
2.1
Neo-farmers’ ideals
Todays’ urban market gardeners in Europe are often ‘neo-farmers’. They are relatively new to
agriculture in the sense that they do not come from farming families and do not have any related
knowledge heritage. As demonstrated by Morel and Léger (2016), based on a study in France, neo-
farmers tend to prioritise the fulfilment of social and environmental aspirations over profit
maximisation. They build complex personal and professional projects that generally embrace
multiple dimensions. Morel and Léger’s (2016) study also shows that the confrontation of the
farmers’ ideals with the potentials, constraints and opportunities of their context, leads to
compromises reflected in the actual farming practices.
In addition, in earlier co-operation with neo-farmers in Belgium, we have observed that they
strongly refer to and find inspiration in diverse external sources, probably because of a lack of
knowledge heritage or a family-model to follow. We identify three different categories of
inspiration feeding their ideals and ambitions:
1. Philosophies and Concepts such as natural farming (Fukuoka, 1992), permaculture
(Mollison and Holmgren, 1981) or agroecology (see Section 3.2.2); these offer principles
and guidelines and foster an holistic approach, rather than promoting concrete practices of
(market) gardening (Morel, 2016).
2. Peasant movements and networks, such as biodynamic agriculture, living soil
6
, or
adapted machinery promoted by l’Atelier paysan
7
; these gather peasant-researchers who
experiment directly on the field and share open access knowledge.
3. Business models, such as bio-intensive models tested by Coleman (1995), Jeavons (2001),
Fortier (2014) or Stone (2015), that are ready-to-use, practice-oriented, and are supported
by precise figures and step-by-step guidelines.
All the neo-farmers we recently worked with (nine co-researchers in Co-Create projects, and
around 25-30 neo-farmers through visits and sporadic collaborations), refer to one or several
sources of inspirations from these three categories. As has been documented for other starting
market gardeners (Morel, 2016), we observed how the Cycle Farm’s gardeners compensate their
lack of inherited knowledge by combining theoretical inputs and inspirations from strategies or
models promoted by other farmers. Interestingly, bio-intensive models seem to be the main
inspiration for most of them. It is therefore worthwhile to look back at their origin, and their
underpinning of economic and socio-ecological values.
2.2 Evolving bio-intensive models
In its early development in the 1970s, bio-intensive agriculture aimed to enable small-scale farms
and farmers who lack the resources (or desire) to implement commercial chemical and fossil-fuel-

5
based forms of agriculture to significantly increase food production and income, predominantly
based on local, renewable resources and decreased capital and energy inputs.
Those early models, inspired by biodynamic agriculture (Steiner, 2013) and 19th century French
intensive gardening methods, focussed on enhancing “ecological” energies and the co-production
of nature-based and human-based dynamics as an alternative to mechanisation, chemical and
fossil-fuel inputs (Gliessman, 2006; Visser, 2013). They were based on a broad range of techniques
with light equipment: double digging, composting, raised beds, mixed cropping, increased planting
densities (Jeavons, 2001), seasonal extension, locally optimised timing of sowing and harvesting,
prevention-not-treatment approach to weed control, new hand tools and machinery for fast, light
and frequent cultivation (Coleman, 1995, 2009).
Although little scientific literature exists on the historical evolution of bio-intensive models,
especially related to the socio-ecological values underpinning them, we have come to believe that
bio-intensive models have reached a turning point during the last 10-15 years of their development,
in terms of how they define themselves and what their purpose is. While earlier models promoted
a highly diversified agriculture, giving prominence to living energies (Visser, 2013) and their
synergies, and allowing only for a strict minimal resort to fossil fuels and chemical inputs, the later
bio-intensive models favour high-value crops and rely increasingly on non-living energies.
2.3 Bio-intensive agriculture and the imperative of financial viability
The business development and industrialisation of the organic food sector has led bio-intensive
model’s representative Eliot Coleman to emphasise the ways in which small, local food producers
need to develop competitive advantages to sustain their businesses. According to Coleman (2009),
if at one time just being organic was enough, he now advocates for business growth through
improved production and marketing to compete. Beyond the question of who is able to compete
on price, Coleman also explores the difference between shallow (substitution) organics and deep
(redesign) organics. Mirroring the debate between weak and strong sustainability (Vivien, 2005),
this discussion plunges deep into questions of economic systems and lifestyles (Coleman, 2009).
In that vein, Jean-Martin Fortier and his market garden have become internationally known for
achieving profitability and productivity using biologically intensive cropping systems. Advocating
a small-scale economically viable sustainable agriculture, Fortier’s low-tech, high-yield methods
of production employed on the micro-farm form the basis of his bestselling book and toolkit
(Fortier, 2014). His publications gather not only information on small-scale equipment, (including
the walk-behind tractor (two-wheel or walking tractor)) but also marketing and market garden
design. Efficiency of time and space is achieved through multiple successions of plantings,
optimising labour and materials, and standardisation of the size of growing spaces (facilitating
crop rotation, production planning, calculation of soil amendments, and use of materials, such as
irrigation piping and plastic covers).
2.4 SPIN-farming as a new-born bio-intensive models
The SPIN Farming philosophy
8
, as one of the new-born bio-intensive models, finds its origins in
the US and intends to turn backyards, front lawns or neighbourhood lots into significant suppliers
of commercial-grade crops, with “new levels of productivity and profitability that go far beyond
traditional [self-sufficiency] home gardening practices” (Satzewich and Christensen, 2008). Under

6
the initial headline of “making agriculture accessible to anyone, anywhere” (Satzewich and
Christensen, 2008), SPIN Farming has become a successful moneymaking farm business for some
of its practitioners. Curtis Stone and his Green Acres Farm (Kelowna)
9
represent a pioneering
example of a profitable SPIN Farming project, highly prolific on social media, selling a manual-
book and a rather expensive online course.
New-born bio-intensive models such as SPIN Farming were designed in North America, in the
middle of an economic slowdown, characterised by dramatic and sudden increases in
unemployment. This context might at least partly explain why the discourses of the promoters of
the models emerging from that period strongly focus on the models’ potential for financial
viability. Fortier et al. (2014), Stone (2015) and Hartman (2015) find a purpose in demonstrating
that small-scale farming can be an attractive career change or option for (young) people.
3 Co-researching+bio-intensive+models++
3.1 Defining agroecological principles in the Spin Farming model
One of the first steps in the SPINCOOP research project was to define the notion of “viability” in
the context of Brussels’ urban agriculture projects such as Cycle Farm. In the context of
SPINCOOP, and after many discussions between the researchers and farmers, we defined the core
of “viability” to be:
• Multidimensional: Viability cannot and should not be reduced to a question of financial
profitability/net profit margins. To adequately evaluate the resilience and solidity of a
market gardening project takes a multitude of other parameters such as revenue, workload,
well-being, etc.;
• Highly contextual and dependent on the vision of the neo-farmers over their project,
influenced by personal values and inspirations (see Section 2.1);
• In constant evolution, together with the project-and neo-farmer’s lives, which calls for a
long(er)-term monitoring.
Given the lack of methodologies to underpin the viability of professional urban farming, the
development of tools and/or indicators (relevant for both the practitioners and researchers), became
an important objective of the research project. While trying to grasp the multiple dimensions of
the farmers’ aspirations in their search for creating a viable farm, we noticed that they could easily
state some of their strategic goals, such as desired monthly income, commercial strategy, work
load, etc. On the other hand, after many interactions, discussions and interviews with several
market gardeners from Cycle Farm and other farms in Brussels and across Belgium
10
, we observed
that most of them had great difficulty in expressing the specifics of their social and ecological
aspirations or goals.
This observation was the starting point of our search for new ways to jointly engage in a deeper
reflection on the socio-ecological dimensions of urban agriculture. We started by creating some
moments explicitly dedicated to reflecting on the visions, values and principles driving Cycle
Farm. What started as one initial workshop slowly became a series of workshops, through which
we intended to build a common understanding of Cycle Farm’s and the two farmers’ ecological
and social aspirations, their “agroecological vision”, and the influence of SPIN Farming on their

7
ideal. In a second stage, we extended the process to develop a common understanding of the gap
between the farmers’ “agroecological vision” and its partial realisation in day-to-day practices
(Section 4). This allowed us to clarify the relationship between the imagined ideal, the
compromises made in practice, and insights in when, how and why these were made.
Figure 1: Time line of the reflexive process on Cycle Farm's ideal, within the SPINCOOP project.
Source: own elaboration

8
3.2 Co-defining an analytical framework: Characterising agroecology in Cycle
Farm
Figure 2: The two first steps of the reflexive process on Cycle Farm's ideal vision (Source: own elaboration)
3.2.1 STEP 1 : Auto-generated principles
A series of workshops was initiated by the researchers, then collectively designed and carried out
by the entire team. To come to a shared understanding, all team members (both farmers and
researchers) were first asked individually to name and describe the existing or future elements that
make Cycle Farm a sustainable or agroecological project.
These elements were grouped and summarised into « themes », which were then organised to
design a participatory evaluation tool or Socratic Wheel (Chevalier and Buckles, 2013). This
simple tool has been chosen because it allows the integration of both quantitative and qualitative
information, while enabling the participants to be involved in assessing and contextualising the
findings as they are created (Schaeffer, 2013).
This first step brought up six auto-generated principles for Cycle Farm. These were described as:
1. Maintain a living soil: Cycle Farm considers the soil as an ecosystem that needs to be “put
back into life” and “maintained alive” with the least amount of mechanical disruption;
11
2. Relocate fertility flows: Cycle Farm aims to get most of its fertility inputs – organic fertilisers,
manure, leaves, etc. – locally and to tend toward circularity insofar as possible;
3. Lower carbon footprint: Cycle Farm focuses on maintaining a low impact on the environment
through lesser reliance on fossil fuels regarding mechanisation, inputs and transport;
4. Boost functional biodiversity: Cycle Farm preserves and integrates the spontaneous
biodiversity on each cultivated site and boosts biological synergies as key to ecological
processes and services;

9
5. Take care of oneself (invest for comfort/well-being in the long run): Cycle Farm realises that
investing in their social and ecological capital in relation with work (in)security, autonomy,
intrinsic benefits of work and work-related (dis)comfort, is key to secure comfort and well-
being in the long run;
6. Find a balance between financial viability and feeding people: Cycle Farm is in search of
its own balance between market-oriented strategies, in order to rapidly achieve financial
viability, and the aspiration of producing a wide variety of all sorts of vegetables for Brussels’
inhabitants at an affordable price.
3.2.2 STEP 2: Confrontation with documented peasant, agroecology and permaculture
principles
In a subsequent step, we confronted the first auto-generated thematic clustering with three selected
sets of existing principles that have been informing either our work as researchers for a number of
years or Cycle Farm’s practices. The work on peasantries by Van der Ploeg (2008) and
agroecology as defined by Stassart et al. (2013) have been crucial in shaping our former research
in rural contexts. Holmgren (2002) on permaculture was added, as this was closer to the
imaginaries of Cycle Farm’s urban market gardeners (see Box 1).
Although the word permaculture originally referred to “permanent agriculture”, it was later
expanded to 12 agricultural and social design principles centred around simulating or directly
utilising the patterns and features observed in natural ecosystems (Holmgren, 2002). Those
principles are short, broad and action-oriented.
Stemming from Van der Ploeg’s work on the peasant condition and the ongoing re-peasantisation
process (Van der Ploeg, 2008), the six peasant principles are associated with the search for greater
autonomy and higher performances of the peasant way of farming compared to those of corporate
agriculture in terms of efficiency of resource use (water, land, labour, capital), of quality of
products, life quality and social inclusion. They rely on strategies to acquire autonomy, such as the
creation, development and strengthening of a self-controlled resource base that embraces both
social and natural resources, co-operation and reciprocity, resource sharing, and high productivity
per unit land area through labour-based intensification.
The list of agroecological principles (Stassart et al., 2013) summarised and enriched by the Belgian
research group GIRAF
12
assembles historical principles developed by Altieri (1995),
methodological principles, and socio-economic principles. They range from more ‘traditional’
agroecological elements, such as soil conditions, agrobiodiversity, and biological synergies, to
participatory research processes, knowledge and collective adaptation, capacity building, etc.
When confronted with these sets of existing principles as selected by the researchers, Cycle Farm’s
market gardeners quickly pinpointed principles that would fit with and complete what they had
already spontaneously identified. This second step therefore enabled us to develop, modify and
sharpen the auto-generated list and extend it with the following six principles:

10
Figure 3: Cycle Farm's completed set of ideal principles, represented on a Socratic Wheel (Chevalier and Buckles, 2013).
Legend: in italic, the auto-generated principles; in bold the principles added during phase 2
Source: own elaboration
7. Make better use of water and solar energy: In order to increase their autonomy and
resilience, Cycle Farm aims to limit the use of tap water by collecting and using rainwater.
Cycle Farm also relies on the combination of solar energy and selected plant varieties in order
to fertilise/capture nutrients in the soil;
8. Adapt to micro-heterogeneity: Cycle Farm observes and interacts with the spatio-temporal
variability of resources, adapts to the different microclimates, soil heterogeneities, spontaneous
vegetation in place, etc.;
9. Feed the local economy: Cycle Farm reflects on distancing from global markets through
reducing the scope of a) sales, producing locally and directed to the city of Brussels and its
hinterland, and b) sources of supply, supporting more local and self-governed providers;
10. Put some cleverness back into agriculture: This rather vast principle could be understood as
to « Learn again to know what, how and why we do what we do ». The idea of ‘cleverness’
refers to re-developing know-how through the knowledge of agroecological processes;
11. Share knowledge and know-how: Cycle Farm’s market gardeners realised that, to nurture
their own model of thought, they were sharing (new) knowledge between themselves and with

11
others, including the SPINCOOP research partners, and that they were also brought to transfer
these knowledge and know-how to others (trainees, etc.);
12. Develop a systemic approach: Cycle Farm adopts an holistic perspective acknowledging that
all elements relate to one another.
Table 1 shows the links between Cycle Farm’s principles (both auto-generated in the first step and
inspirations during the second step) and the three sets of existing principles.

12
Table 1: Cycle Farm’s principles and related inspirations from existing lists of principles
Cycle Farm's principles
Agroecology list’s principles (Stassart et al.,
2013)
Permaculture principles
(Holmgren, 2002).
Van Der Ploeg’s principles (Van
der Ploeg, 2008),
1. Maintain a living soil
Guarantee good soil conditions
2. Relocalise fertility flow
Recycle biomass optimising availability, and
balance the flow of nutrients
Use & value renewable
resources & services
Produce no waste
3. Lower carbon footprint
4. Boost functional biodiversity
Boost diversification (of species & genetic)
Boost biological synergies (key ecological
processes and services)
Use and value diversity
Use edges and value the
marginal
5. Take care of oneself
Co-Production; Labour-based
intensification; Pluri-activity
6. Find a balance between
financial viability and feeding
people
Explore situations far from local optima
already improved
Obtain a yield
7. Make better use of water and
solar energy
Lower the losses of resources
Collect water, cover the soil
Spatio-temporal variability of resources
Catch and store energy
Creatively use and respond
to change
8. Adapt to micro-heterogeneity
Observe and interact
9. Feed the local economy
Favour autonomy from global markets
Distance oneself form the
market (inputs & product
(re)produced on site)
Social richness
10. Put some cleverness back
into agriculture
Participatory Research Processes
Build knowledge & collective adaptation
capacities
Knowledge diversity

13
11. Share knowledge and know-
how
Participatory Research Processes
Build knowledge & collective adaptation
capacities
Knowledge diversity
12. Develop a systemic approach
Legend: Italic: spontaneous list—first step; Bold: principles added during the second step !
Source: own elaboration

14
Following this process, during two subsequent meetings (steps 3 and 4 in Figure 1), the team went
back to the list of principles and clarified the wording and meaning of each new principle. Next,
the team identified a few practices for each principle (i.e., ways of working, strategies and choices
regarding each aspect of the work) that they perceived as representative of the way the farmers
materialise the principles through their everyday work. This intermediate step served as the basis
to prepare a full self-assessment during which the farmers evaluated the materialising of the 12
ideal principles in Cycle Farm practices (phase 2 in Figure 1).
4 Adaptation)of)the)SPIN)Farming)model)by)Cycle)Farm
The main inspiration of Cycle Farm’s project was officially the SPIN Farming business model.
The whole research project was built around its adaptation by Cycle Farm to the Brussels context.
In this perspective, we had identified the four key features of the SPIN Farming model that Cycle
Farm had explicitly adopted and adapted (see Figure 4). Our work in SPINCOOP also focused on
a fifth characteristic that Cycle Farm had added to their project in its early conceptualisation,
although it was not in the SPIN Farming model: the creation of a cooperative for food production.
Although not developed here, the governance of the cooperative by and for the two farmers and
the evolution of the work organisation has been a considerable part of the work of SPINCOOP.
Figure 4 Adopted and adapted key features between SPIN Farming and Cycle Farm
Source: own elaboration
As the reflexive process exposed in the previous section revealed, when looked at closely, the ideal
of Cycle Farm looks like a patchwork rather than being made from one single fabric. It incorporates
inspirations from agroecology, permaculture practices (Mollison and Holmgren, 1981), and even
further according to the two farmers, inspirations from natural farming (Fukuoka, 1992) and living

15
soil
13
practices, among others. Concurrently with formulating Cycle Farm’s principles, the process
allowed us to look deeper into the main features Cycle Farm had taken up from the SPIN Farming
model (Figure 4), why and how. It revealed the fundamentally hybrid nature of urban agricultural
models such as Cycle Farm’s, as will be developed hereunder.
4.1 Access to land through multiple small plots
In their adaptation of the SPIN Farming model, Cycle Farm’s market gardeners chose to access
land through negotiation and one-to-one agreements with private landowners to cultivate portions
of gardens. In the spring of 2019, they therefore managed five plots that, together, make up
approximately 2,400 m2 of cultivated land (= 0.6 Acre).
This small-plot “patchwork” farming strategy (Figure 5), mainstreamed by Curtis Stone, was
successful for Cycle Farm: it allowed them to have access to land from their establishment, while
gradually increasing their surface area of cultivated land. At the beginning of the third season,
Cycle Farm had access to enough land to be able to continue growing activities exclusively on the
larger, best located and most productive plots.
However, the patchwork approach also pushed the market gardeners into compromising on several
aspects. First, as landowners usually live very close to the plots, negotiations with them sometimes
led to the adaptation of techniques or use of materials such as greenhouses or tarps (items that
private landowners preferred not to see in their yard for aesthetic reasons). Second, the agreements
between the gardeners and the landowners, referred to as memorandum of understanding, are based
on precarious contracts. The landowners provide the gardeners with a portion of their land or yard,
for free or in exchange for small services (weekly vegetable baskets, maintenance work, etc.). The
terms of the contract stipulate a preferred time frame for access to the plots (Cycle Farm asks for
at least a four-year period), and landowners agree to some basic requirements in case of termination
of the contract (such as waiting until the end of the growing season). However, the agreements are
not legally binding and can be ended at any time. This absence of long-term secure access to land
represents a considerable obstacle to adopting some basic agroecological practices, such as long-
term crop rotation, and other practices aimed at restoring and maintaining soil quality. Finally,
farming on multiple plots has affected the way in which Cycle Farm’s gardeners had initially
thought to organise their work, changing from sharing the whole productive process, to dividing
plots and types of production between them.
Importantly, Cycle Farm differs from Curtis Stone’s SPIN Farming approach (that applies the
same growing techniques to each plot), and aims to “Adapt to micro-heterogeneity” (Principle 8),
observing and interacting with the spatio-temporal variability of resources, adapting to the
different microclimates, soil heterogeneities, spontaneous vegetation in place, etc. “Maintaining a
living soil” (Principle 1) was indeed one of the first principles the Cycle Farm market gardeners
spontaneously added to their vision. Through the establishment of permanent beds, organic
mulching, and working with green manure, Cycle Farm translates this principle into practice.
As land opportunities multiplied, Cycle Farm tended to let go of the smallest and most remote
plots and choose larger plots with longer-term access (the access to the largest land that Cycle
Farm cultivates is secured through a formal contract, called ‘bail à ferme’, which includes a
binding nine year minimum provision). The constraints to long-term practices decreased and they

16
have welcomed other producers on portions of their lands (edible flowers and local seed
multiplication) creating more diversity.
4.2 Balance between financial viability and feeding people
In SPIN-Farming, production focuses on a few high-value crops. Similarly, Cycle Farm focuses
on (i) quick-growing, high value, high yield popular crops, and (ii) mainly marketed through high-
ranked local restaurants (Figure 4). Cycle Farm production choices, closely linked with this
commercial strategy, carry a tension between the mission to “feed locally”, producing a wide
variety of all sorts of vegetables at an affordable price, and an attraction to high-value production
and high-ranked restaurants in order to improve financial viability. This is reflected, for example,
in the choice of not including the agroecology principle “Valuation of agro-biodiversity as the
entry point for re-conceiving systems that guarantee autonomy for the farmers and food
sovereignty” (Stassart et al., 2013) in the Cycle Farm’s principles.
Nevertheless, if there is an agreement among Cycle Farm’s gardeners not to seek agro-biodiversity
for the sake of it, they maintain a regular and diverse range of vegetables throughout the year. They
grow approximately 40 different species: vegetables, fruits, edible flowers, aromatic herbs.
At the end of the SPINCOOP project, the two Cycle Farm gardeners have expressed diverging
opinions on the choices they would like to make to find this balance between financial viability
and feeding people. As they had already adapted their work organisation before and shared plots
and types of production, they have also multiplied their commercialisation channels: one of them
now sells weekly family vegetable baskets at an affordable price, in addition to the other
distribution channel of the cooperative.
4.3 Local marketing
Principle 9 “Feed the local economy” of Cycle Farm’s vision aims to reduce the scope of both
sales (producing locally and directed to the city of Brussels and its hinterland) and sources of
supply (supporting more local and self-governed providers of seeds, tools, etc.).
Consistent with this principle, local marketing has been predominant in Cycle Farm activities from
the outset (Figure 4). Similar to Stone’s SPIN-farming model, Cycle Farm started their commercial
activity early on by soliciting and building commercial relationships with local (high-ranked)
restaurants. This has gradually expanded to a local market and organic stores in the vicinity.
4.4 On seed autonomy
On the particular issue of seed autonomy, we have observed a shift in Cycle Farm’s positioning
throughout the process. A few cooperatives exist in Belgium and the rest of Europe, such as
Bingenheimer
14
(Germany), the more recent Cycle en Terre
15
(Belgium), or the network Zelf Zaden
Telen
16
(Belgium). These, as well as other options, such as joining other seed networks or
reproducing local seeds on-farm, make relying on productive, diversified and adapted local seeds
varieties possible, although still very challenging given the specific surface areas required, the
technical nature of the process, and the high potential for failure.
However, during the preparation of its first production season (2015), the fact that seed suppliers
were corporate was not a major decision factor for Cycle Farm. They had taken advantage of an

17
overseas equipment order to have all the seed shipped from the United States. They considered the
idea to test traditional/peasant varieties during the first years to be utopian. They attribute this
decision to the lack of time and/or of skills and motivation: they do not know how to and do not
want to become seed producers. Besides, urban market gardeners taking part in this have to reserve
a specific area to multiply the seeds. « I am not sure it is viable, and my first interest is my
viability » (Cycle Farm, July 2017)
In the first phase, when researchers put forward the possibility of gradually abandoning hybrid
varieties and trying more open-pollinated varieties this suggestion remained unanswered by the
farmers. While the Cycle Farm discourse indicated that they were aware of this issue’s important
and central place in the struggle of many producers to regain autonomy, they clearly stated that it
was absolutely not a priority for them at this point.
During the second and third phase of the visioning workshops however, the use of locally produced
seed of open-pollinated varieties reappeared when operationalising the practices and indicators for
Principle 9 “Feed the local economy”. They tailored one of the indicators to measure the localness
of their supply
17
. Cycle Farm has also very recently allowed and welcomed another producer to
come and cultivate seeds on small portions of their land.
5 Concluding)reflections)
Our analysis shows that, although Cycle Farm officially gets its main inspiration from SPIN
Farming (a bio-intensive business model), the ideals guiding the two farmers of this cooperative
are much more complex. Their social and ecological aspirations are diverse; they are not limited
to short-term economic profitability and are much more connected to other sources of inspirations
than the farmers could spontaneously express: agroecology, permaculture, etc.
However, despite this diversity of aspirations, during the full three years that we cooperated with
Cycle Farm, its gardeners have continued to broadly identify their financial viability as the first
hurdle to overcome, before being able to explore other dimensions of resilience (Plateau et al.,
2019). Following the last generation of bio-intensive models, Cycle Farm has given priority to
high-value crops, high-ranked local commercialisation partners, and multiple “disposable” plots.
Until now, most of the discussions and decisions outline this opposition between short-term
financial/economic viability and long-term viability (social, environmental, political). Even
though Cycle farm is conscious that investment in soil fertility, biodiversity, farmers’ well-being,
etc., might bring beneficial consequences in the mid- to long-term, the main conscious decision-
making factor and priority is the direct and short-term impact on financial viability. The mid- to
long-term ecological and social investments that are part of their ideal project are either initiated
if they are synergetic or at least not in competition with improvement of financial viability, e.g.,
practices related to Principles 2 “Relocate fertility flows”, 3 “Lower carbon footprint”, and 7 “Rely
more on water and solar energy”, or they were postponed to a hypothetic later when they would
be feasible. Cycle Farm’s gardeners expressed to have made conscious choices to set aside some
of their agroecological aspirations, focusing on the production objective for the first few years.
Several reasons could contribute to explain these strategic choices. The specific context of the
start-up phase could be one of them: this phase is characterised by high uncertainties regarding the
potential durability of the project, concerns that can last several years before a relative stabilisation.

18
However, this stage also presents a potential for exploration of innovative trajectories and a wide
scope of possibilities (Gasselin et al., 2012). The last argument would seem to be even more
relevant if the new professional activity were to be financially supported during those first years,
enabling them to experiment alternative or ‘avant-gardist’ practices, precisely what is expected
from the Brussels’ farmers at Cycle Farm. However, although Cycle Farm benefitted from several
subsidies in addition to the Co-Create financial support, they did not manage to get rid of the
overriding pressure to reach financial viability as soon as possible. As our research shows, despite
being partly subsidised, the farmers did not feel sufficiently relieved of financial pressure to invest
broadly in the long-term agroecological practices that are part of their ideal project. This
observation leads us to see a paradox in the current political and institutional context.
The Brussels’ regional institutions have launched political strategies and research funding
frameworks to explicitly promote innovative food production initiatives. However, the conditions
of the financial support that is offered, while noteworthy, do not match the degree of ‘innovation’
or ‘alternativity’ that is acknowledged to be needed to considerably move forwards in the transition
of the current food systems. These political instruments are still imbued with short-term economic
profitability imperatives and pro-growth thinking.
McClintock (2014) described this paradox earlier when showing how public policies initially
designed with the intention to support and promote innovative sustainable food systems, in fact
continue to work within the capitalist extractive logic of the current food system (Allen and
Guthman, 2006; Alkon and Mares, 2012) through “promulgation of neoliberal discourses of
personal responsibility and market-based solutions” (McClintock, 2014, p. 149). Current financial
support instruments in the Brussels Region, through short time-frames and requirements to prove
rapid financial independence, accentuate the pressure to prioritise economic profitability over long
term social and ecological aspirations. It bears the risk to push neo-farmers to ‘self-greenwash’
their ideal and/or to resort to market-based economic solutions rather than taking the time to
explore and invest in alternatives.
We experienced this paradox in a very particular and personal way. As researchers and partners in
a PAR project, reflecting and acting on the development of agroecological practices for urban food
production, we became very aware of the expectations from many external actors. We felt caught
in the same paradox that we had unveilled. We see there a second intertwined paradox: while
financial viability and pressing time-constraints related to the Co-Create PAR subsidy probably
limited the potential for exploration of more alternatives, it is also this unique research opportunity
that enabled us, a team of academics, counsellors and neo-farmers, to carry out a three-year
transdisciplinary study to critically reflect and act on the contexts and conditions in which urban
farms emerge.
This brings us to our final reflections: what change for the better did we actually foster by engaging
with Cycle Farm over these three years, for Cycle Farm as well as for the wider community of
practitioners practicing urban market gardening? An even more nagging question is: what change
for the better did we actually impede by engaging with Cycle Farm?
Local initiatives that try to “change the (food) system” are utterly vulnerable, since they
experiment both socially and technically at the margins of the very systems they are trying to
change. How to sufficiently consider these vulnerabilities and the resulting tensions when

19
engaging in joint research-initiatives? (Louah et al, 2015; Van Dam et al, 2017; Van Dam and
Visser, 2018). In some cases, the research “add-on” can actually worsen these tensions, instead of
genuinely servicing the initiative. From our experience, an awareness of the necessary change of
posture that PAR requires, from both researchers and practitioners, is a necessary step in reducing
these tensions. Humility and clarity about roles and decision-making procedures is part and parcel
of this required change.
Since PAR emphasises processes over results, mostly over longer time frames than project finance
allows, it is actually very hard to pin down what precise change PAR fosters or impedes. It is
therefore of utmost importance to negotiate, right from the start, what can reasonably be expected
and actively aimed for as “research outcomes” when funding ends. For a “good” PAR, a “good”
negotiation might then be defined as one that fosters the required change of attitude.
Acknowledgements:
We would like to address our heartfelt thanks to David Errera and Nicolas Vlaminck, the two
founders and farmers of Cycle Farm, who did us the honour of involving us in this exceptional
adventure. Special thanks as well to Jerôme Rassart, from Credal, for embarking on this journey
with us, learning to ‘play the game’ of PAR with an open mind and sharing his grounded
knowledge of neo-farmers’ challenges and successes. Our thanks go to Kevin Maréchal and Lou
Plateau, for launching SPINCOOP project with us, and to Margaux Denys and Manon Bertha for
their contributions to the research project.
The SPINCOOP project was supported by Action Co-Create, Innoviris. The work of the third
author was supported by the EU under the Marie Sklodowska-Curie Action,
HealingFromEnclosure 707807
6 References))
Alaimo, K., Packnett, E., Miles, R.A. and Kruger, D.J. (2008): Fruit and vegetable intake among
urban community gardeners, Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, vol 40, no 2, pp.94-
101.
Allen, P. and Guthman, J. (2006): From “old school” to “farm-to-school”: Neoliberalization from
the ground up, Agriculture and Human Values, vol 23, no 4, pp.401–15.
Alkon, A.H. and Mares, T.M. (2012): Food sovereignty in US food movements: radical visions
and neo-liberal constraints, Agriculture and Human Values, vol 29, no 3, pp.347359.
Altieri, M.A. (1995): Agroecology: The Science of Sustainable Agriculture, 2nd edn. Boulder,
Colorado, Westview Press.
Bellows, A.C., Brown, K., and Smit, J. (2003): Health benefits of urban agriculture, Community
Food Security Coalition. Available at http://foodsecurity.org/health-benefits-urban-
agriculture/ (Accessed 6 March 2020)

20
Chatterton, P., Fuller, D. and Routledge, P. (2007): Relating action to activism. Theoretical and
methodological reflections, in Kindon, S., Pain, R., and Kesby, M. (eds): Participatory action
research approaches and methods: Connecting people, participation and place. Routledge,
London, pp.216-222.
Chevalier, J. and Buckles, D. (2013): Participatory Action Research: Theory and Methods for
Engaged Inquiry, Routledge, London.
Chilvers, J. (2013): Reflexive engagement? Actors, learning, and reflexivity in public dialogue on
science and technology, Science Communication, vol 35, no 3, pp.283-310.
Coleman, E. (1995): The new organic grower: A master’s manual of tools and techniques for the
home and market gardener. 2nd edn, revised and expanded. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea
Green.
Coleman, E. (2009): The Winter Harvest Handbook: Year-Round Vegetable Production Using
Deep-Organic Techniques and Unheated Greenhouses, Photography by Barbara Damrosch,
Vermont, USA: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Dumont, A.M. and Baret, P.V. (2017): Why working conditions are a key issue of sustainability
in agriculture? A comparison between agroecological, organic and conventional vegetable
systems, Journal of rural studies, vol 56, pp.53-64.
Fals-Borda, O. (1987): The application of participatory action-research in Latin America,
International sociology, vol 2, no 4, pp.329-347.
Fals-Borda, O. and Rahman M.A. (eds) (1991): Action and knowledge: breaking the monopoly
with participatory action-research, Apex, New York.
Felt, U. and Wynne, B. (rapporteurs) (2007): Taking European knowledge society seriously.
Brussels: European Commission. (Members of the Expert group: Michel Callon, Maria
Eduarda Gonçalves, Sheila Jasanoff, Maria Jepsen, Pierre-Benoît Joly, Zdenek Konopasek,
Stefan May, Claudia Neubauer, Arie Rip, Karen Siune, Andy Stirling, Mariachiara
Tallacchini.)
Freeman, C., Dickinson, K.J., Porter, S. and van Heezik, Y. (2012): “My garden is an expression
of me”: exploring householders’ relationships with their gardens, Journal of Environmental
Psychology, vol 32, no 2, pp.135-143.
Fortier, J.M. and Bilodeau, M. (2014): The market gardener: A successful grower’s handbook for
small-scale organic farming, ON: New Society, Vancouver.
Fukuoka, M. (1992): One-straw revolution: Introduction to natural farming. Other India Press,
Mapusa, India.
Gasselin, P. Vaillant, M. and Bathfield B. (2012): The Activity System. A Position Paper. In 10th
European IFSA Symposium Producing and Reproducing Farming Systems: New Modes of
Organization for the Sustainable Food Systems of Tomorrow. Aarhus, Denmark.
Gliessman, S.R. (2006): Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems, CRC Press: USA.
Hartman, H. (2015): The LEAN farm. How to Minimize Waste, Increase Efficiency, and Maximize
Value and Profits with Less Work, Chelsea Green Publishing.

21
Holmgren, D. (2002): Permaculture, principles and pathways beyond sustainability, Holmgren
design service, Hepburn, Australia, 287pp.
Jeavons, J.C. (2001): Biointensive sustainable mini-farming: II. Perspective, principles, techniques
and history, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, vol 19, no 2, pp.65-76.
Kindon, S., Pain R., and Kesby M. (eds) (2007): Participatory action research approaches and
methods: Connecting people, participation and place. Routledge, London.
Kremer, P. and DeLiberty, T.L. (2011): Local food practices and growing potential: mapping the
case of Philadelphia, Applied Geography, vol 31, no 4, pp.1252-1261.
Lerner, S. (2012): Seattle food action plan, City of Seattle Office of Sustainability and
Environment, Seattle.
Louah, L., Visser, M., Baltazar, S. and Delobel, V. (2015): Changements de postures du chercheur,
de l’agriculteur et de l’enseignant pour l’innovation agroécologique paysanne, Pour, no 226,
pp.5-10.
McClintock, N., Wooten, H. and Brown, A.H. (2012): Toward a food policy “first step” in
Oakland, California: a food policy council’s efforts to promote urban agriculture zoning,
Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, vol 2, no 4, pp.15-42.
McClintock, N. (2014): Radical, reformist, and garden-variety neoliberal: coming to terms with
urban agriculture's contradictions, Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice
and Sustainability, vol 19, no 2, pp.147-171.
McIntyre, A. (2007): Participatory Action Research (PAR), Qualitative Research Methods Series,
Sage.
Metcalf, S.S. and Widener, M.J. (2011): Growing Buffalo’s capacity for local food: a systems
frame- work for sustainable agriculture, Applied Geography, vol 31, no 4, pp.1242-1251.
Mollison, B. and Holmgren, D. (1981): Permaculture one: A perennial agriculture for human
settlements, International Tree Crops Institute, Davis, CA.
Morel, K. (2016): Viabilité des microfermes maraîchères biologiques. Une étude inductive
combinant méthodes qualitatives et modélisation, PhD Thesis, Université Paris-Saclay.
Morel, K. and Léger, F. (2016): A conceptual framework for alternative farmers’ strategic choices:
the case of French organic market gardening microfarms, Agroecology and Sustainable Food
Systems, vol 40, no 5, pp.466-492.
Mougeot, L.J. (2000): Urban agriculture: Definition, presence, potentials and risks, and policy
challenges, Cities feeding people series; rept. 31
Plateau, L., Maughan, N., Pipart, N., Visser, M., Hermesse, J. and Maréchal, K. (2019): La viabilité
du maraîchage urbain à l’épreuve de l’installation professionnelle, Cahiers Agricultures, vol
28, no 6, p.8.
Robinson-O’Brien, R., Story, M. and Heim, S. (2009): Impact of garden-based youth nutrition
intervention programs: a review, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol 109, no 2,
pp.273-280.
Ronsmans, M. (2015): Good food strategy. Towards a Sustainable Food System in the Brussels-
capital Region, available here:

22
https://document.environnement.brussels/opac_css/elecfile/BRO_GoodFood_Strategy_ENG
L.pdf [Accessed on March 6, 2020]
Satzewich, W. and Christensen, R. (2008). SPIN Farming. Grow food, make money, learn how.
[Online]. Available at: https://spinfarming.com/ [Accessed on 6 March 2020]
Schaeffer, H. (2013). Progress Marker Indicators for Developmental Change. Available here:
https://www.outcomemapping.ca/download/Progress%20Marker%20Presentation%20Outco
me%20Mapping.03.27.13.Final.pdf. [Accessed on 13 August 2019].
Stassart, P.M., Baret, P., Grégoire J.C., Hance, T., Mormont, M., Reheul, D., Stilmant, D.,
Vanloqueren, G. and Visser, M. (2013): L’agroécologie : trajectoire et potentiel. Pour une
transition vers des systèmes alimentaires durables, in Van Dam, D. (2013): Agroécologie: entre
pratiques et sciences sociales, Educagri Editions, pp.25-51.
Stone, C. (2015): The urban farmer: growing food for profit on leased and borrowed land. New
Society Publishers. 288pp.
Steiner, R. (2013): Agriculture Course: The Birth of the Biodynamic Method. Rudolf Steiner Press.
Thibert, J. (2012): Making local planning work for urban agriculture in the North American
context: a view from the ground, Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol 32, no 3,
pp.349-357.
Tornaghi, C. (2014): Critical geography of urban agriculture, Progress in Human Geography, vol
38, no 4, pp.551-567.
Van der Ploeg, J.D. (2008): The New peasantries: struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an
era of Empire and Globalization. London, Sterling, Earthscan, 356pp.
Van Dam, D., Lagneaux, S., Nizet, J. and Streith, M. (2017): Les collectifs en agriculture bio.
Entre idéalisation et réalisation, Educagri Editions.
Van Dam, D. and Visser, M. (2018): Recherche et collectifs agro-alimentaires: Vulnérabilité et
tensions, Pour, nos 234-235, pp.163-170.
Van Dyck, B., Van Keerberghen, A., Massart, E., Maughan, N. and Visser, M. (2018):
Institutionalization of participatory food system research: encouraging reflexivity and
collective relational learning. Agroecologia, vol 13, no 1, pp.21-32.
van Veenhuizen, R. (2006): Cities farming for the future: urban agriculture for green and
productive cities, IDRC/RUAF, Ottawa.
Verdonck, M., Taymans, M., Chapelle, G., Dartevelle, G. and Zaoui, C. (2012): Système
d’alimentation durable. Potentiel d’emplois en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Rapport final de
la recherche réalisée pour le compte de l’Institut Bruxellois pour la Gestion de
l’Environnement. Bruxelles: Centre d’études régionales bruxelloises, Greenloop S.A. et
Observatoire bruxellois de l’emploi.
Visser, M. (2013): Revisiting Ester Boserup: the agroecology of agrarian change under population
pressure. In van Ypersele, J.-P. and Hudon, M. (Eds): 1er Congrès interdisciplinaire du
développement durable, Namur.
Vivien, F.D. (2005): Le développement soutenable, La Découverte, collection Repères, Paris.

23
Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J. and Skinner, A. (2007): Growing urban health:
community gardening in South-East Toronto, Health promotion international, vol 22, no 2,
pp.92-101.
1
See, for example http://www.milanurbanfoodpolicypact.org/signatory-cities.
2
For more information, please see https://www.goodfood.brussels/fr/content/strategie-good-food
3
http://www.cocreate.brussels/-SPINCOOP-?lang=fr ; For more details on the “Co-create” programme, see,
http://www.innoviris.be/fr/co-create-living-labs-pour-des-systemes-dalimentation-durable-en-rbc.
4
For information on the PAR projects and the support structure, see, http://www.cocreate.brussels.
5
The first two authors of this paper. Authors three and four had a supportive role in the research but were not involved
in its daily practice.
6
See http://maraichagesolvivant.org
7
See https://www.latelierpaysan.org/.
8
The founder of this “community” are Roxanne Christensen, President of the Institute for Innovations in Local
Farming (Philadelphia) and owner of the Somerton Tanks Farm (www.somertontanksfarm.org), and Wally Satzewich
and Gail Vandersteen, producers at the Wally’s Urban Market Garden, a “multi-sites” urban farm (Saskatchewan).
9
See http://www.greencityacres.com and http://theurbanfarmer.co.
10
The first two authors of this paper are partners of another Co-create research Ultra-Tree, which involves other other
(urban) market gardeners. See, http://www.cocreate.brussels/-UltraTree-?lang=fr.
11
This principle and the practices are inspired by the network of peasants-researchers Maraichage sur sol vivant:
https://www.facebook.com/maraichagesolvivant/.
12
GIRAF or Groupe Interdisciplinaire belge de Recherche en Agroécologie du FNRS (Belgian Interdisciplinary
Agroecology Research Group funded by FNRS) http://www.agroecologie.be.
13
See maraichage sur sol vivant : http://maraichagesolvivant.org.
14
https://www.bingenheimersaatgut.de/.
15
http://www.cycle-en-terre.be/.
16
http://www.zelfzadentelen.be/.
17
On a scale ranging from 0 to 5 (5 being their goal): 0 = Everything bought from outside of Europe ; 1 = Mix of from
out-and inside Europe; 2 = Mix of from inside Europe and bordering countries; 3 = Bordering countries; 4 = Bordering
countries and from companies working with a collective/cooperative mode of governance; 5 = Production of more
than 20% of seeds on-farm.