| Forward Thinking Blog
Move FORWARD: explore the issues. Learn about the latest in innovation, design, and philosophy here. From high-tech possibilities, to no-tech solutions, to exciting new ways of living… we’ve the bases covered. Got a topic you would like to see explored? Get in touch with us and send the details. And of course, feel free to leave us your thoughts.
Forward Thinking content has been featured on many highly regarded websites, including: ... and more.  |
|
|
|

With food security a pressing issue globally and especially in the Asia-Pacific Region, finding ways to solve food challenges is moving up the political agenda. But how can an island city-state like Singapore take major action with its urban population and land limitations? On the sidelines of the International Conference on Asian Food Security 2011, our latest Forward Thought Leadership Series interview explores steps to solving the crisis with Prof. Paul Teng. Prof. Teng is Dean for Graduate Programmes and Research, National Institute of Education (NIE), and Senior Fellow and Advisor to the Food Security Programme in the Centre for Non-Traditional Security (NTS) Studies at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) at Nanyang Technological University (NTU), Singapore. Forward Thinking: Prof. Teng, perhaps to start off you could give us a quick snapshot of where the Asia-Pacific Region is at grappling with food security. Prof. Paul Teng: Well, with over 60 per cent of the global population, half the world’s urban population, and more than 60 per cent of all undernourished, Asia’s food security challenges are formidable to say the least. It’s a challenge that will require a very holistic approach. FT: Could you shed some light on the complexity of the challenge and how people are affected by food insecurity?
PPT: There are four basic dimensions: availability, physical access, economic access, and utilisation. For availability, it’s all about the supply--is there enough to go around? This is determined by production, stock levels, food aid, and net trade. Productivity is a big issue, but it’s not sufficient to ensure household food security. Physical access to food is also another key consideration—households must have access to healthy, nutritious food. Conflicts, poor infrastructure, logistics issues, and market imperfections can all become barriers. Economic access is likewise critical, and purchasing prices must be in line with real income so people can actually afford to buy food. And of course, while a household may have the capacity to purchase all the food it needs, it may not have the ability to utilize that capacity to use it to the fullest. This relates more to the nutritional status of an individual— think in terms of feeding practices, food preparation, storage, etc. People living in slums may have living conditions affect nutritional status in the form of malnutrition and poor health. In the bigger picture, is also related the issue of investment. Are governments especially investing enough into agriculture and reserves, the mechanisms to alleviate potential for food security crisis? FT: And governments of course take some pretty steep risks if they don’t adequately address risks posed by food security. We’ve seen this recently with riots in response to food price hikes in many countries around the world. PPT: Indeed. As Kenyan MP Ruth Oniang’o recently put it “A hungry person with low blood sugar is a very angry person—virtually ungovernable.” Egypt recently showed us that surging food prices were one of many causes for the fall of President Mubarak. FT: Turning to the local context, how do you think the issue of food security factors among the priorities of the local political establishment here in Singapore? PPT: I think it ranks quite high. The National Security Council is funding a lot of think tank activity, the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) recently released another $5 million fund in addition to a previous $10 million fund to improve domestic farm productivity. National Research Foundation also has $50 million for centres of excellence to create new technology to help tackle food security issues. PPT: There could be lots more done to support regional and international action. Currently there are no Asian funders at the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and other similar bodies. Our government could take a leadership role there. Singapore could also be encouraging entrepreneurs to go overseas to produce more food and perfect new technologies. HLH Pte. Ltd. is currently one such company going into Cambodia to explore improving corn production. And of course Singapore could lead the way when it comes to finance, funding, and mobilising resources as investment is a key issue in agriculture and food security. FT: So in this context there would be a lot of opportunity for business. PPT: Absolutely. Beyond overseas opportunities, Singapore can be used as a knowledge hub to do a lot of the upstream work like breeding new varieties of seeds. There are world-class R&D facilities and support for this kind of work. FT: Could you give some examples? PPT: There has been some great work done through an AVA partnership with Skygreens to create new vertical farming infrastructure. The prototype is quite promising and will soon be tested in an urban context. Likewise, Aerogreen Technology has been perfecting technology to grow vegetables locally using air as well. FT: Beyond the technology, at the conference you raised interesting points about the urban context of Singapore and finding techniques and technologies that are practical here. Given the geographic constraints of the country, what are some key considerations when it comes to land use? PPT: There are surprisingly a lot of excess land zoned for agro-parks across six areas, some 700 hectares in total. This could be producing a lot more. Likewise, rooftops, HDB estates, aerobridge greenhouses integrated into buildings—there are many applications to be explored for agriculture in the urban context. But so far the political will is just not there yet. FT: So what do you think needs to be in place to help support development of urban and peri-urban landscape to improve food security? PPT: More cohesive campaigns and incentives by government. We could build off existing social infrastructure like Communities in Bloom and the People’s Association to go after food security like we’ve worked on water conservation. There also needs to be the availability of technical advisory and support services—a lot of this expertise isn’t currently on the ground here. And of course we need hands-on experienced professionals, improved community gardens—like we see in many overseas cities globally—and better supplies and pricing for small inputs of things like fertiliser. FT: So Singapore could learn a lot from countries like Cuba that have had to tackle their food security issues head-on in innovative ways, including with community focused agriculture. PPT: Sure, and there are many other examples of how urban and peri-urban agriculture (UPA) are used to increase food security, reduce poverty, and enhance urban environmental management—there have been success stories in Hanoi, Shanghai, Beijing, Mexico City, and many other places. Likewise some great community garden projects in the US, UK, and the Netherlands. FT: How might Singapore engage more immediate neighbours like Malaysia, Thailand, or Indonesia? PPT: Through ASEAN and also community to community deals between the different countries. FT: To conclude Prof. Teng, with the complexity of food security in Singapore taking so many dimensions that we’ve discussed today, do you think it’s time for Singapore to have its own Agriculture Ministry to champion the cause? PPT: To date the AVA has been doing a great job, but if anything, perhaps a coordinating government agency could be created at the higher level to take a bird’s-eye view of the issue and work across the many players that need to be involved to tackle food security. Australia has recently proposed this, and I think to really get at a holistic solution, this is a great way to go for the future. There really is no silver bullet to this complex issue and its going to need a broad-focused response.  In January of this year, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization reported an all-time high in its Food Price Index. In early February, the index rose even higher, causing food related riots and global uneasiness that more dramatic surges were coming. It was an ironic backdrop when Lunar New Year celebrations in many Asian countries focused on family gatherings, platefuls of food, and themes like abundance and prosperity. Could the Year of the Rabbit bring an increase in hunger and insecurity? According to Earth Policy Institute’s Lester Brown, our world is now heading into unchartered territory. As countries like Algeria have experienced recently, political instability has a close link with prices of basic commodities that people use on a daily basis. Singapore’s approach While the poorest countries will bear the brunt of rising food prices, no country is immune. At Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies based at NTU, numerous studies are underway to better understand food security in the ASEAN context, and how they can be better managed in countries, especially high-risk ones like Singapore. As a small island nation-state, the country imports some 97% of its food. With minimal hinterlands, farming currently takes place at roughly 275 sites around the island, taking up a total land area of about .75m hectares.  According to Dr. Wong Hon Mun, Director of Agri Establishment Regulation at Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA), Singapore’s key strategy to food resilience is diversification of the sources of supply. “Diversification enables us to hedge our risks and to import quality and safe food from as many sources as possible, at competitive prices,” he says. “Farmers can also apply to the Food Fund to enable R&D in agro-technology and for upgrading of their farms.” The government created this $10 million Food Fund to improving productivity on existing farms administered by AVA. Several local farms have successfully participated in this programme. The Kranji Countryside Association (KCA), which represents some 20 larger farm businesses in the northwest of Singapore, supports the government’s actions to date but would like to see attention focused beyond the productivity issue. They feel planning hurdles and policy issues need urgent action, cultural shifts in motion, and also promising technology on the horizon. Farmers urge more, broader support KCA member Chelsea Wan’s family owns business Jurong Frog Farm in Kranji. She summarizes many of the obstacles facing local farmers currently operating around the country, and anyone who would want to follow into agriculture. “Our biggest problems and also its solution is working with the government,” she says. “All our farmland is given out in 20 year leases, which makes it difficult for investment in expensive technology, improvements and training. Some regional farms now have their leases extended with three year options, so there’s the mentality to just wait it out and see if there's another extension, rather than improve farm productivity.” Not surprisingly in this context, many of these businesses specialize in high value ornamental flowers and fish for export when they could be serving a valuable role as a long term hedge against food price spikes. It’s a classic trader mentality: get in under tight conditions, make big bucks, and move on. Ms. Wan doesn’t believe the pace of development in suburban Singapore has been echoed in the infrastructure in place for the countryside. “There needs to be more representation for agriculture in the government, and better understanding of the issues.” The marketplace also offers challenges. “It’s not an Asian characteristic to go for quality over cost. We can't compete with the prices from China and Malaysia, and presently it is cheaper for us to import livestock from overseas than raise ourselves,” Ms. Wan says. “The ideas popular in western counties like 'Food Miles', eating organic, and eating local haven't taken off here yet. We need to be able to produce more livestock and pass on savings to consumers. Consumers need awareness on how the food gets to their supermarkets and benefits of buying local. Then the issue of food security will start to be addressed.” Local quail farmer William Ho agrees. “Locals need to be educated on the importance of food security
and also to appreciate the role local farmers can play,” he says. “Singaporeans are very lucky as we can enjoy every type of food the world can offer, but it’s very sad many children don't even know the difference between a cow and a goat, or where their eggs come from.” Feedback reflects the existence of a robust agriculture industry in Singapore would depend on tackling underlying issues like these. But beyond policy and market conditions, is the culture starting to shift? Could a new era of urban agriculture be sprouting, and could it mean new business opportunities? Local sentiment seems to be shifting, and with the right combination of players, it’s possible a whole new industry could grow out of what would seem like a major threat. Rethink the urban landscape  With food security as a key issue facing Singapore and other ASEAN countries, a lot of attention goes to productivity and conventional agriculture. Ivy Singh, owner of Bollywood Veggies and KCA President thinks that beyond traditional notions of farming, food production could be integrated into housing estates in the form of community gardens and small-scale agriculture.
“If every housing board estate is converted into a kampong garden, people can actually add quite a bit more food production,” Ms. Singh says, referencing the community gardens that used to be commonplace in Singapore. “We need to get rid of the prim and proper landscaping, move away from concrete and bougainvillea which do nothing for us, and replace with an edible landscape.” “The AVA acknowledges our role in engaging the farmers to raise productivity. We also actively promote local produce to improve business for the farmers, which in the long run will lead to sustainable agricultural practices,” she says. “Because of the presence of KCA, there is a movement in the country to start community gardens, and there is also a greater movement of ground-up initiatives by various groups who consult us,” she says. She also notes lifestyle shifts starting to emerge, with an interest in sustainability and increased appreciation for food. “Because we are tied in with LOHAS [Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability], we have garnered a lot of interest in the countryside, and this will stimulate a strong ‘locavore’ [eating food raised locally] movement in Singaporeans who have not been previously exposed to such an idea.” Public sector interest on the rise
But Singaporeans might be closer to this reality than many believe. A recent article on community gardening indicated that some 390 projects had grown around the island in the last five years, and that interest is on the increase. National Parks even has a Community in Bloom programme to connect people. Indeed, anecdotal observation on the ground in many housing estates and neighbourhoods would reveal a vibrant “backyard” culture still remains where plots and pots exist-- if only to grow a few kitchen seasonings. It’s not inconceivable this groundswell of interest could be harnessed in a bigger, collective push towards national food security. To help reach out to this growing sector of the population, the KCA is planning a Go Local Campaign later in 2011, focusing on local production and champion food security. New technologies, economic opportunities While community involvement is promising, NUS student and researcher Heather Chi thinks the implications are deeper. With case studies ranging from London to Japan, Ms. Chi has looked into a wide range of urban applications addressing food security. Her outlook goes beyond agriculture and community initiatives, to how food security can even catalyze new industries and economic opportunities. From composting and recycling of food and water wastes, to better utilizing small parcels of land, to having food production serve as a rehabilitative option for older age groups, or as a career choice for less conventionally-minded individuals—there are numerous ways that food security might be tackled in the urban context, while at the same time addressing other local issues and creating jobs. In a land-strapped country like Singapore, this would mean a major rethink on how urban space is utilized as part of developing a value proposition for any business or emergent industry. One obvious application though, is to move up, not out with food production.  Championed overseas, vertical farming technology is being explored to make use of high rise space and maximize what land area is available. According to Dr. Wong Hon Mun at the AVA, it’s an avenue already undergoing research and development. “AVA collaborates with private companies in R&D to develop technology,” he says. “Our collaboration resulted in the development of an innovative vertical farm system prototype. This prototype is suitable for intensive farming in the tropics, especially in land-scarce Singapore. It is expected to yield at least five times more leafy vegetables than that of a conventional soil-based farm.” It’s a promising new development in a country known for its engineering prowess. In recent years, Singapore has begun to tackle other challenges like water security by developing advanced technology and infrastructure. Could food be the NEWater? With agriculture industry urging action, the local population increasingly engaged, evolving concepts of land use in the works, and new opportunities coming to the surface, it wouldn’t take much to transform food security into another world-changing industry, and a major victory for the little Red Dot. (this article previously appeared in two part series on Ecopoint) It’s probably happened to you. Someone in the company gets a bright idea that the company needs more bright ideas-- a new product or service; some new angle to catch the public’s interest; a marketing gimmick or brand extension that will “revolutionise the industry.” Blah blah blah. You’re dragged to an offsite “brainstorming” session and a day full of sitting on beanbags and drinking abusive amounts of coffee ensures. Plenty of talk takes place. White boards get decorated. Perhaps some creative juices flow. A barrage of new initiatives get slated for further development… but how many of these are actually goodies?  From SME’s, to big corporates, to community organisations, and the big ole’ city council— all of us at some point or another have to innovate what we are doing in an attempt to grow capital of one kind or another. Problems arise when creativity overtakes practicality and we lose sight our operating context. According to extensive research by Doblin Group based in the U.S., a 2007 survey of over 3000 projects in 400 businesses across 4 continents over 10 years revealed some startling conclusions: over 95.5% of all innovation fails. Painful but true. That’s a lot of wasted days on a beanbag chair. So what are professionals in the sustainability space to do? We’re trying to solve some big issues, from climate change to the viability and social cohesion of our communities. We also don’t have the luxury of time and cannot afford to let our actions be outstripped by the issues we face. How do we deliver value from the ideas we generate to solve these problems? We need to battle test them, critically examine their design, and make sure they hold up. Going back to Doblin Group, they note that 95% of change should focus on improving the everyday. It’s about being quick and incremental. Think battery powered lawn mower. Another 5% of the change needs to be more disruptive, radical, and outside the box. Think iTunes.  Keeping that balance is essential as often there are big gains to be made in improving on something already exists, rather than trying to be too revolutionary and producing a solution the world isn’t ready for yet. Peter Salmon of Moxie believes that problems need to first address the human condition. “After all, it’s like my dad used to say: everyone’s an environmentalist until the lights go out. If we aren’t looking after people’s basic needs, how can they care about bigger worldly issues?” he says. Moxie’s been around a while, and under Peter’s leadership, recently developed a programme they call Next Plays. After years of presenting thought provoking research and hearing "So what's next?" from clients, they sought to help companies answer the question. It goes like this: use carefully developed strategies to design a positive future. Everyone from Air New Zealand to the World Bank and governments in charge of Hanoi are getting in on the action. So, how’s this thing work? Up front, there’s consideration taken for the big picture issues. What will be affecting the industry or city? A critical examination takes place of the key factors that will be shaping the future, from shrinking capital markets, aging populations, climate change, peak energy production, and collapse of ecosystem services and so on. “There are no ideal answers,” Peter says. “It’s about creating a general and realistic scenario of the future rather than trying to be overly predictive.”  From there, Next Plays moves into the ideas necessary to start tackling these problems. Knowing what we know from the scenarios developed, what needs to be developed? Is it rejigging the business model? Developing a new product or service? How the widget gets made? Changing the way theorganisation operates to influence its stakeholders? In this stage of the process, all ideas are on the table, no matter how left field. “Most people innovate around their core competence,” Peter says. “There are often other opportunities out there around finance and delivery— and those are likely to be the revolutionary ones. Sometimes it’s as simple as recruiting a new industry partner or pairing up two promising, disparate ideas. There’s a lot that can be learned from biomimicry that translates into how we can successfully do business. We need to move away from linear thinking.” With some promising ideas on the table, the scrutiny begins. Alongside the Next Plays guide that features case studies from around the world, ideas are critiqued across numerous categories (or “Plays”) including: - Improving communications transparency (authenticate)
- Creating broader value nets—not chains (engagement)
- Considering longer term impacts in decision making (go long)
- Closing loops on material inputs and outputs-- waste is a resource (loops)
- Mixing and broadening boundaries together to increase chances for rapid evolution (mix)
- Filling unmet needs and gaps in the system (needs based- what do people want?)
- Finding a niche and simplify a way of doing things (simplify)
 The possibilities are then examined across the business or organisation structure, from the business model, to the larger operating environment, to the processes of the company, to the individual products and services, to larger communications and engagement strategies. Inevitably, some of the ideas fall out at this point. This is not a bad thing as it’s likely they didn’t have the sticking power first anticipated. Others ideas combine into larger initiatives, or broader themes for action. An overall response to the problem starts to emerge. Everything that’s left is vetted across three major results criteria: are these refined, new, or shifted ideas? The purpose of this stage is to help examine whether there’s enough of a balance in the response to the problem. If it all start’s looking like reinventing the wheel, then it’s time to start over. If it looks like there are substantial social and environmental wins, and that the organisation is at least starting to shift how it operates, it’s a sign of progress. What about the financial bottom line? It’s implied the whole way along that any ideas produced are of financial value in some way, or they wouldn’t be included.  Finally, the remaining ideas are weighed up against time and the scenarios that were discussed at the onset. What takes priority is determined by the organisation’s unique situation. Discrete initiatives might be polished off in a matter of weeks. Strategic business changes might roll out over a 5-10 year stretch. In either case, implementation should begin as soon as possible. “Future enterprise value will be measured by the benefit to society and the environment,” Peter stresses. “We need to do less, do it better, rigorously test ideas and designs, and get them more viable, rather than try 50 things that fail.” With these guiding principles gaining traction, let’s hope the solutions we develop going forward are intelligent, considered, and ultimately solving the problems we face. Time is not on our side. Last night at LATE at the Museum, we witnessed a spirited discussion from some very intelligent minds. In a discussion focused on environmental and economic impacts of migration in a global age, eminent speakers Rod Oram (left) and Dr. John Merson (right) gave a worthwhile summary of how New Zealand is likely to stack up in the era ahead marked by climate change.
Moderated by Finlay Macdonald (centre), the talk explored far more than the title suggested and delved into the complex economic, social, environmental, and political relationships that are pivotal to understand when addressing climate change. In front of a standing room only crowd, Dr. Merson took a strong position that much of the challenge ahead lies in challenging our social norms and changing our everyday habits and views. He noted that economics and the markets they spawn are directly responsible for the environmental consequences of what business does-- in many cases, the pollution/distruction of our environment. Mr. Oram made the case that from a government point of view, market drivers play a big part in making change happen, which is why there has been contentious debate around the proposed Emissions Trading Scheme (or ETS). While an ETS is only one part of the equation, Mr. Oram raised the point that we only pay attention to what we value, and if carbon has a measured value, it can be managed throughout business models. He gave a rather interesting snapshot of how this would be likely to effect New Zealand's prominant dairy industry: each year, according to Fonterra, for every litre of milk, 1 kg of greenhouse gasses (GHGs) are generated. This amounts to a whopping 15 million tonnes of GHGs annually. While attributing some cost to these GHGs has the farming industry up in arms squealing apocalypse, Mr. Oram seems to think they're missing the point. Each kg of GHGs equates to wasted nutrients. If farmers could farm more efficently, close the loop on many of their farming practices, they could actually save an incredible amount of money in the longer term and manage their land better. He noted that in New Zealand we have huge potential to be world leaders in redefining how ruminants are farmed, but our research budgets in this area to date have been really small. We could be developing some leading technology and proprietary know-how, but so far have missed the bus.
Dr. Merson, while optimistic to a point on technology helping save us, he noted that technology and ETS are just tools in a larger toolbox. Markets are crtically important, but not the only tool, and unfortunately the main focus to date has been on mitigation of climate change effects. Due to a 30 year lag time on emissions and the reality they present for us, time is not no our side. The way we live is not sustainable and with each day that passes we are affecting the hroizon of what will face our children and grandchildren. More than a reliance on mitigation is needed. With it, the conversation turned more towards adaptation and some serious questions were raised. He noted that in the years ahead, a likely 1.5 metre rise in sea levels would take place, affecting many crowded population centres worldwide from New York to Bangkok. What happens to all these people living coastally? What are our moral implications in New Zealand? Are we to take them in? What is the scale of confrontation that we are facing? He emphasised that we do not have the luxury of disconnecting ourselves globally from what is happening around us, and especially not from our neighbours on Pacific atolls. Unfortunately, planning for this likely monumental shift in humanity in the coming years and the migratory challenges it suggests has barely surfaced on the radar of policy makers. Mr. Oram confirmed that climate meetings later this year in Copenhagen are unlikely to yield a full blown climate treaty, but should hopefully help get countries worldwide on a better trajectory, especially if the U.S. is involved to any serious level. Painfully absent at the Kyoto negotiations, U.S. involvement is critical to the adoption of any worldwide agreement as it amounts to a credible shift in values. Quick to make sure that the emphasis was not left on governments to do all the work, Dr. Merson shifted footing to personal responsibility, and also noted that the time has come to move beyond functioning as independent nation states for issues that cross all international borders. With or without governments, people around the world need to embrace the ideals of equity, mutuality, and interconnectedness. As time is running out and we are already behind the 8-ball, it is of vital interest to take personal action, to lobby government, and to send signals to the market that a shift is needed.
He cited several recent corporate incidents with GE and GM that have been in response to consumer behaviour and investor lobbying, as well as the Montreal Protocol on CFCs as success stories in how people have come together worldwide to make big shifts happen. Confirming the position, Mr. Oram noted that governments follow people, and that we each must help drive the change forward. We are going to need to get comfortable and excited about changing, understanding economic and social pressures, and get a better appreciation of the interdependence of the global scene. Success in combating climate change will come with a significant movement of human ingenuity and creativity to tackle the problems we face. It was a really positive point to end with, and a really great segue to the rest of the evening's programming, which included musical appearances from New Zealand's Ladi6 (right) and King Kapisi. It was some good food for thought with a positive soundtrack to help it all sink in. For more on upcoming events at Auckland Museum, check out www.lateatthemuseum.com  Our friend Peter Salmon of Moxie Design is involved both here in New Zealand and internationally in shaping “green” and “sustainable” brands. Recently, while attending the Sustainable Brands ’09 conference in Monterrey California, he became acquainted with Duke Stump of The NorthStar Manifesto. Thanks to Peter and Duke, a crowd of Auckland professionals interested in brand identity got to hear an interesting discourse on the future of companies and the products they offer. According to Duke Stump, who had worked previously with Nike and Seventh Generation in the U.S. before setting out on his own, green is (surprise) getting overused to the point of greenwash. The word sustainable has likewise lost much if any meaning it might have had previously. So how is a company interested in “doing the right thing” to market themselves? (continues) "... you always seem to hear from successful people that "one thing led to another". Perhaps that's not just a truism but actually the killer app! Encourage one thing to lead to another and beneficial mutations are more likely to occur. Streamline the process of change and change will be more likely to happen." - Jill Caldwell Finally! Some images from an earth building workshop I attended a short while ago, facilitated by the renowned New Zealand architect, Graeme North. Check out the process here in images as we built an experimental structure using cob, mud brick, bamboo, and lightweight concrete.
It was a fantastic workshop and really inspiring to get hands-on with readily available, natural, local materials. The building project (complete to the final picture you see at the end) took two teams working over 16 days. I was involved in the first group that got the foundation layers put in, as well as a good portion of the walls and roof. The second group took over with the structure and improved on the rest. Not bad for a bunch of novices.
The final structure will likely be used as a storage shed on the property, and be monitored over time to see how the combinations of materials have weathered the NZ elements. We encountered a few difficulties due to rain and wind, but it was amazing to see what a beating the materials took, and how well they cured in spite of the conditions. In better weather and with a bit of practice, it would seem likely that a larger structure could go up much faster than what we experienced. Thanks Graeme for your expertise and showing us which end was up!
I had the pleasure of having drinks with Jill Caldwell on a recent summery afternoon in Auckland. For those not familiar with her work, Jill is a researcher par excellence who started Windshift Communications, and has also written a fascinating book called 8 Tribes. She is one of those people with an amazing brain that can connect statistics with anthropology with socioeconomics and any issues of the day with profound clarity. In fact, she almost makes it look too easy!
We got to chatting about a variety of behaviour issues in society, and how the “green” movement has largely been talking to itself so far and is reaching a critical point where it must branch out and engage other people. After all, if any progress is to be made on global issues such as climate change, it needs to be a mass effort. (continues) If asked to envision a thriving environment, many people might think of a stunning rainforest, a teeming ocean, or African plains. As for my city dwelling self, well, I'd settle for a walk in a park on most days. I don't view this as a bad thing; a stimulating social life ranks pretty high on the list of priorities. I do wish that there were more natural spaces integrated into the city and less concrete. Lucky for me, I get the introduction to a 1.5 hectare (3.7 acres) site tucked away in a corner of a university campus in central Auckland. As I learn, the space not also harbors plants, but also solutions to climate change and many ills of society. The Unitec Hortecology Sanctuary (UHS) encompasses many different functions. At once, it is a learning facility, a testing ground, a food forest, a certified organic garden, and an exemplar of permaculture design. It contains a rotated 6 section garden bed, 3 trails, student project spaces, compost stalls, and a vertical compost unit (VCU) that was a world first.
The UHS was founded in 1999 by lecturer Brendan Hoare and colleague Richard Main. It evolved from an empty field with lawns and rubble into a facility frequented by horticulture enthusiasts from as far away as the UK and Japan.
Brendan and Richard set out with the principles of opportunity, inclusion, and abundance when they created the Sanctuary. With a carefully defined strategy and 3 years of hard work with students, the space took shape, and has since evolved into a lush landscape. Nearly every corner of the property is filled with plants-some natives, some exotic, and even weeds (yes, weeds!). The weeds are carefully controlled and viewed opportunistically: when composted, they make a great biomass that gets redistributed to the other food bearing plants. While exploring the space with Brendan, he nips off several broad beans from tall stalks, and passes one to me. "The Sanctuary isn't just about plants," he tells me while multitasking. He peels the broad bean, eats, and then whips the casing back at the garden floor amongst the greenery, nutrient recycling at its finest. "This place is about possibilities and a new way forward. We want to challenge how a city landscape is viewed, challenge what people think of as biodiversity."
He delves into hortecology: it is one part horticulture, one part ecology, cleverly mixed together in a philosophy that is accommodating of diversity. It's a place where all plants can be... well, plants, and people can come to experience a terrain less ordinary. Thousands have done just that over the years. Around 300 students have managed the property under Brendan and Richard's guidance, and community groups, local school children, government delegations, permaculture classes, and a myriad of others have filed through the Sanctuary's corridors. Of the visitors coming through, Brendan says that for many, spending quiet time with nature has been a first. "In the busy world with all its distractions, not many people have taken the time to just sit quietly in an ecosystem and contemplate, just be in the space and understand how nature works," he says. In the glaring New Zealand sunshine, we walk from the garden space leaving the broad beans behind and move to the quiet canopy of the adjacent food forest. It is tranquil, and the rest of the landscape quickly melts from view. It's not surprising to learn that a campus ministry group has recently appropriated the forest as a spiritual retreat space.
Brandon explains that the forest was built in layers of succession over time, with pioneer species breaking ground and adding fertility. Now everything from avocados to pawpaws, and yes even some weeds, thrive. I ask Brendan about the weeds and get more than I bargained for. "Everything has their place here; everything is welcome. Some people view weeds as problems, but they have their uses," he says. "From weeds to climate change to our energy sources, we need to stop thinking of the planet as a problem. It is people and their approach to the planet that are the problem. Out here it's not about the silly economic notion of scarcity; it's not about taking. Nature is abundance, and we as humans need to get our heads around that. We need to be opportunistic and start behaving in a natural way, working with the systems the planet made."
Given my editorial focus, my ears perk up and I probe Brendan on the subject of climate change. Does he see the Sanctuary as one part of the solution? A way to raise food locally, better understand ecology, and have a smaller footprint? "Climate change is part of a much, much larger issue. There have been many realisations in recent years-- about the climate, about agriculture, about energy, etc. Climate change is the latest realisation, but basically all these issues are signaling the end of the industrial era," Brendan says. "It's this new era that we are struggling to grasp. We have been locked into our industrial mindset, our way of solving problems, and we are only just starting to shake out of it." Brendan views behaviour change as key, and places like the Sanctuary as enablers of behaviour change. "There are any number of capacities that can thrive in this environment," he says. "Accounting, engineering, biology, and so on-they can all be applied here and find inspiration. The learning starts here and moves outward, to society, our world, and how we approach it." He continues as we head back towards the garden. "We live in an age where people are too much in their heads," he says. "We need to be outside ourselves, in practice, taking action, making change. This Sanctuary is about restoring our environment on one level, but it is also about building resilience in the community, about making connections, and developing ourselves." Getting experience in a place like the Sanctuary has opened my eyes to a number of new approaches and I'm struck by how many good things can come out of one place. Opportunities abound, and anyone interacting with this kind of place has the chance to grow and eat food, build relationships, develop their own talents, and learn about nature all in one go. It is a way to tackle climate change and concurrently change the underlying behaviour responsible for it and so many other problems. Nearing the end of our walk through, Brendan wraps up. "The Sanctuary is an expression of this land and this place. We need to replicate this elsewhere in New Zealand and the rest of the world," he says. "This is a model that works and that needs to be replicated." I ask him if he has any other parting thoughts, and Brendan issues me this challenge as I head out: "Encourage people to get out of their heads. We analyse far too much. Get out there and do it." With those words in my mind, I'm inspired to continue my work. I also know that I'll be back to be involved with the Sanctuary, so watch this space. For more information, contact Brendan Hoare:
Mobile: +64 27 2888 618
Email: bhoare@organic-systems.org Eric Dorfman has written a fantastic summary of the implications of climate change for New Zealand. It is probably the most rubust resource we've found to date on the subject, and thankfully written in laymans tems. An easy read without clubbing one upside the head with science. It's captivating to have a cohesive picture of the possibilities that await the country in the years ahead, and useful for personal action and planning. Covering both changes in nature and their knock on effects in the economy and social spheres, the book is concise and well rounded. Best part of it is-- not all of is scary. Afterall, knowledge is power. A must read.
Some great online resources from the book are worth sharing here. If you're keen to know how far under water your area might be with rising sea levels, have a play with this simulator. To stay keep informed of changes in the climate over time, visit the NIWA National Climate Change Centre website or Climate Science.

We would like to give a hats off to the talented organic horticulture expert, Brendan Hoare. Involved with Organics for over 25 years, he is Executive Director of Econation2020, team leader for the Journal of Organic Systems, and until recently a lecturer at Unitec in Auckland. Unfortunately, Unitec recently scrapped its horticulture programme, but thankfully the Horticulture Sanctuary that has thrived since 1999 under the watchful eye of Brendan will remain on site. Whie no firm decisions have yet been made, the sanctuary will likely be used by other organisations as a training site. (continues) 
Sustainability starlett Adelia Hallet just launched a new newsletter entitled GentleWorld. It is free and covers local food, health issues, low-carbon living, and has a great listing of farmers markets across New Zealand. We caught up with Adelia who had this to say: (continues) Peter Goldsbury of Strategic Expertise provided me with some really fascinating insight in his 2 day seminar dealing with Living Systems Thinking and project management... (continues)
  | |