Sometimes, public farmland has been rented or managed by a third party for a long period of time. Leases (or other types of agreements) are tacitly renewed and use goes unquestioned. Plots can be scattered and there is no coherent policy on how to use them.

A good place to start is to have a more complete picture of the publicly owned land in your area. This can include land owned by your local authority, but also by other public-interest actors with whom synergies are possible, e.g. national land trusts, local charities, Social Welfare Centers, federal land, and so on. Mapping and investigating current uses, existing contracts with tenants, as well as the land potential (e.g. biodiversity and natural riches it hosts, fertility, etc.) will provide a good basis to establish a strategy.

If surveying land is a lengthy process – depending on the extent of assets and interests of users and owners involved – the diagnosis phase should not be an obstacle to, in parallel, starting a conversation to set objectives for the use of public assets. Local authorities can also begin to act on the plots that are clearly identified (see manage section), to demonstrate willingness and gain credibility in regaining control of public land.

Possible steps to building a strategy for public farmland assets

Identifying the land of your local authority is one thing. Mapping this land and identifying its characteristics can be more complex. You may consider partnering with a university’s geography or land planning programme. Some teachers look for field projects for their students and could help survey your area. Local community groups may already be interested in and doing some mapping work. Support from your land registry or land agency can also be harnessed. In a larger local authority, your planning department may already have GIS technology. Otherwise, consider open-source mapping software (with existing tutorials) to collate information at a low cost.

--> See also: how to get started section for tools on surveying and deciding on the use of public land.

The examples of Ghent and Cornwall illustrate a rising movement of local authorities to regain control of public lands and use them to deliver local benefits. However, the creation of a good strategy is not enough to achieve coherent public action in institutional environments with other competing objectives. Ghent’s work on a vision for public farmland materialised in a context of important public pressure after collectives of farmers and activists denounced the sale of a massive amount of public land (450 ha) by the city’s Social Welfare Center. Until today, the city faces difficulties in balancing the need to protect periurban land and the need for financial bankrolling of Welfare Centers’ action. Thus, while the moratorium on sales has preserved some areas of farmland in the city perimeter, other tracts of public land continue to be sold in the region. For Cornwall, while the process and strategy for county farms were inspiring, its implementation still needs to be assessed. With their limits, these examples shine a light on some important learnings.

1. Effective public land strategies are articulated with other relevant policy frameworks (e.g. on food, climate, urban development, and so on).

2. They should include specific, achievable objectives and a time-bound process to monitor them.

3. They are in line with a budgetary framework that prioritises and enables land stewardship.

National laws should also support the establishment of such local land strategies, with guidelines on objectives and financial rules that enable local land stewardship (see advocate section).

The next sections will bring additional information on making public land strategies work in practice: how to manage public land, investment, and find synergies with other actors to achieve your goals.

Public landowners can influence the management of their land by providing access to specific people or using diverse instruments to encourage sustainable uses of public land. Having decided on people and projects to prioritise, local governments are also in a position to manage the relationship with tenants. This is a rather specialised area of work, and learning responsibilities as a landlord also comes along with experience. This handbook nevertheless proposes a few ideas and first steps to consider (see table 2 below “Being a public landlord, some ideas”).

Providing access to specific people and sustainable projects

Public owners must ensure best value return of public investment in land by prioritising land users and uses that meet specific policy goals. This includes prioritising:

• Agroecological farmers and new entrants. These farmers face specific difficulties (see about section) which public owners can help overcome to renew generations of farmers and promote regenerative agricultural practices.

• Sustainable and social projects. Prioritising projects with social and environmental goals can help enhance services derived from the public land (e.g. projects of re-employment and education through farming, and carbon-storing or biodiversity-enhancing projects). Sometimes pairing up farmers’ projects with non-profit organisations or social enterprises can be an option to help realise these goals.

• Existing farmers with specific needs. Public land can help consolidate the activity of some small and sustainable farms, e.g. access to additional pastures for extensive cattle-raising activities. It can also be used to incentivise a change of agricultural practices by existing farmers. In France, the intercommunal authority Communauté d’agglomération du Douaisis has for instance provided access to “test plots” of public land to conventional farmers wanting to experiment with organic agriculture. This helped several farms convert to organic farming.

To prioritise certain users, local governments can organise calls for tender to allocate public plots. It is important to reflect on criteria and scoring to select projects that comply with public goals (see the example of Leuven below). A mixed selection committee with concerned stakeholders – e.g. farmers, civil society organisations – can support the process with specific expertise. If allocating several plots, you may dialogue with candidates to decide on the repartition of lands.

Relevant examples: tendering out public land

Beyond guidelines for allocation, diverse instruments can be used to promote the sustainable use of public land. Minimum standards, leases including environmental clauses (see box “Zoom in on the French environmental rural lease” below), remuneration for public services, and nature conservation agreements are a few options. Such conditions should be established in cooperation with the farmers to ensure their viability and maintenance over time.

Some laws do not allow choosing tenants or imposing conditions for sustainable agriculture within agricultural leases. In those circumstances, alternative arrangements such as “free” or temporary (but renewable) contracts can be considered as in the case of Leuven above. Another option is to internalise the management of the farmland, like the municipality of Mouans-Sartoux in France which decided to hire and salary a vegetable grower. While this is a way to clearly control the achievement of public goals, it requires an important investment from the local authority (read the full case study for more information).

Local authorities can also reflect on wider “access to public farmland”, by providing ways for the local community to benefit from these open spaces. Some owners encourage open farm projects (which allow for visits by the public, or support educational use) or try to improve accessibility through green pathways or public transport leading to farms. With this, however, comes the responsibility to manage possible conflicts between farming and other beneficiary activities. For instance:

• Make sure the responsibility to handle a farm visit is not incumbent on farmers or benefits their financial models.

• Prevent littering, vandalism, disturbing farm animals by visitors (and their pets), and possible and other risks associated with wider access. This can be done in part by raising awareness of the value of the land people visit.

Being a public landlord

It may be a daunting task to reinvent your role as a public landlord, especially if no staff or official roles exist to manage public assets. This work can be approached more easily through experience sharing with other public or ethical landowners. Above all, day-to-day practice and commitment to work with and for tenants will make being a public landlord gradually easier. This handbook only offers simple ideas to get started.

For decades, publicly owned farmland has been used for housing and infrastructure development or as a buffer asset to sell in times of budgetary constraints. Today less agricultural land remains in the hands of public actors. This limited resource should support key public services including providing food, protecting biodiversity, storing carbon, recycling water, and more. Public farmland is an inheritance that belongs to citizens and should be integrated into a strategy to deliver benefits for them. In particular, public farmland can be used to:

• encourage regenerative agricultural practices

• train or provide land access to a new generation of farmers

• develop local food supply and land-based businesses that create local employment

• maintain cultural heritages and landscapes

• promote communities’ health, education, and access to green spaces

Does your council, county, commune own farmland? Do you wonder how public actors can acquire and/or manage farmland to realise local benefits? Check the infographic for a quick overview of how to act, and read the sections below for more information on strategising, investing, managing, or sharing about public land.

Why this handbook?

Local action is key to a regenerative future. This handbook offers guidance for officials and staff of local governments on how to make a difference in the way agricultural land is used and shared, for the benefit of people and the planet. Packed with ideas, tools, and field-based examples, it hopes to inspire and enable many authorities to take action across Europe to protect farmland and make it work for the public good.

How to navigate this handbook:

Who we are:

A group of civil society organisations working to promote access to land for agroecology. We are working together within . This resource is produced as part of the and with additional contributions from members and supporters of the Access to Land network.

We live in a time of interlocking crises. Wherever we are, we are facing a combination of catastrophic climate change, irreversible loss of species, and increasingly insecure food systems. Citizens are more and more disempowered and worried about the future. While this is a global situation, it can have acute impacts at the local level. From the perspective of local authorities or municipalities - whether you are a small-town mayor in Germany, an estate manager in rural England or a local councillor in Romania - this can feel both urgent and overwhelming.

This handbook makes the case that by addressing how they interact with the land in their area, local authorities are able to both build the power of their citizens and begin to respond to these global crises. We believe that local action is key to a regenerative future, and hope that this handbook will inspire many authorities to take and strengthen action across Europe.

Why is land important?

Land nourishes us. For all of us, it is a key component of the places where we live: as well as growing our food, it is the basis of the ecosystems that enliven our planet. For farmers, it is their living, working and production environment and cultural identity. Land is, like water and air, essential for human survival.

Land is a topic that can transcend politics. It is the fundamental input into our local economies, and offers ways of improving and supporting the health of local people. Land can fuel agroecological farming systems and can contribute to the protection of natural resources, public health, diversity of landscapes, job creation and sustainable rural areas. In cities, it can bring a breath of fresh air to our surroundings, increasing their desirability and reconnecting inhabitants with their roots.

Across Europe, we see similar trends and needs. The expansion of industrial agriculture goes hand in hand with the marginalisation - and potential extinction - of diversified human-scale farms, which create local jobs and sustain local areas. We see a rise in profit-centred approaches to land management, which aim at extracting value from land use even at the expense of soil fertility and food security.

The decisions we make today on land can determine whether we continue to fuel extractive farming systems or whether we ensure that farmland is used for nourishing, fair and sustainable agriculture.

We have also reached a generational turning point. In the European Union, 60% of farmers are over the age of 55. When they retire, over the next two decades, millions of hectares will change hands. What happens to this land when it arrives on the market to be sold or rented will be decisive in all our futures. It could lead to greater land concentration, more intensive agriculture, a disconnect between agriculture and society, and the decline of the countryside. Or, if the right decisions are made, it could enable a new generation of farmers to emerge, and a transition to forms of agriculture which support both local communities and the planet.

As the historical cornerstone of private property, land is too often regarded as a commodity, whose use and stewardship is at the will of its owners. But across Europe, there are also patterns and patchworks of historical “commons”, land that has been managed outside of the logic of the private market, sometimes for centuries. And even within the dominant market-driven system, there are legal frameworks that account for the fact that land is not a commodity like wheat or steel. It is within these frameworks, such as planning and zoning systems, building and development control, and environmental regulation, that local authorities can act in broader interests than those of the landowner.

Land in the city will always be contested - between private interests, commercial development, and communities. Community interests should come first - public land should be for public goods. Land in the urban and peri-urban environment could bring countless co-benefits: good local food, education and training, sustainability and resilience, healthy soils, healthy ecosystems, clean air and water. We need to rethink how we approach the use of land in and around urban spaces." - Abi Mordin, Chair of the Glasgow Community Food Network and Director of Propogate - Rethinking Local Food. Scotland, UK

Why should local authorities act?

By taking a systemic view of the land in their areas, local authorities can begin to rebalance power towards the public interest. Making our land – particularly farmland and woodlands – work in the public interest is an act of reinvention, of stepping into a different worldview. Local authorities are well placed to lead this.

By using their power to act on land they own, regulate the way others act, and to convene and facilitate others, local authorities have huge power to change the prevailing dynamics of the land system. They can create a more regenerative, more prosperous land economy that supports their local communities while addressing global challenges. This handbook shows you how.

Lively markets, typical landscapes, specific food artisanship… The “identity” of an area is often connected, in part, to its agriculture. Raising awareness to defend the local natural and social richness is a legitimate and important area of action for local authorities. To promote access to land, they can in particular target private landowners. They can further encourage agroecology by raising local support from citizens.

Raising awareness of landowners

Whether or not local governments own and act on public land (see section ), working with private landowners is a complementary dimension to making more hectares available for agroecology and new farmers.

Whether or not they still have a direct link with agricultural activity, landowners may be sensitive to questions of long-term land stewardship, local food production, and sustainability, particularly if public actors themselves send clear messages and make strong decisions to protect agricultural spaces.

Campaigning to encourage landowners to rent out their land

Good idea! Target private landowning institutions

In some countries, churches, hospitals, universities and other institutions hold large tracts of land. These private owners can be targeted to lease out land for specific uses and users, which may yield a large impact for minimum engagement. Charitable institutions in particular can be sensitive to using land to provide public goods.

Raising awareness of citizens

Local authorities can create a support base for agroecological farming and increase local food demand through educational campaigns for citizens. They can also generate heightened interest and scrutiny on land use and public support for bold land policies.

Authors: Alice Martin-Prével (Terre de Liens), Nora Maristany Bosch (Xarxa Per a la Conservació de la Natura), Kate Swade (Shared Assets).

With contributions from: Véronique Rioufol and William Loveluck (Terre de Liens); Anastasia Orpea and Attila Szocs (Eco Ruralis); Françoise Ansay (Terre-en-Vue); Petra Tas and Annelies Beyens (De Landgenoten); Kim Graham and Graciela Romero-Vasquez (Shared Assets); Titus Bahner and Hans-Albrecht Wiehler (Kulturland); Willem Korthals Altes (TU Delft), Silvia Sivini and Mauro Conti (UNICAL); Colline Perrin (INRAE).

Contact: info@accesstoland.eu

Graphic design and illustrations:

This publication was created through the project. This is a temporary version pending approval by peer reviewers. The opinions expressed in this document reflect only the authors' views and in no way reflect the European Commission's opinion. The European Commission is not responsible for the use that may be made of the information it contains.

Last updated 03/2023. This is an evolutive online tool book, updates of the content can happen on a regular basis.

The Access to Land Network

The Access to Land Network functions as an open network to advance grassroots solutions and social innovations to secure land for agroecological farmers. The Network organises collaborations between members and like-minded civil society organisations; sharing resources, experience and practical tools; and developing evidence-based analyses of land issues. Our mission is:

• To build a European movement of civil society organisations which directly and indirectly preserve agricultural land, secure land for agroecological farmers and ensure good land stewardship.

• To advocate the significance of access to land for a double transition: the agroecological transition of our food and farming systems and the transition to the next generation of farmers

Our vision: land as commons

• Agricultural land is preserved and valued throughout Europe for its many benefits: providing fresh food, preserving water resources and balanced ecosystems, contributing to job creation and lively rural communities, maintaining open, diverse landscapes, and nurturing our sense of identity.

• Agricultural land is used for healthy, sustainable agroecological farming, which provides these benefits, while ensuring soil life, providing a dignified life and income for farmers, contributing to fair international relations and food sovereignty in third countries and addressing the pressing challenges of the climate and biodiversity crises.

• Agricultural land is accessible to farmers, including to the new generation, under fair and lasting conditions, to enable them to develop their economic, social and cultural activity, and participate in a thriving farming sector with a dense and diversified network of farms and farmers.

• Agricultural land is our shared responsibility: it receives the attention and care of farmers, as well as of local communities and all levels of public governments. New solidarities develop between farmers and committed citizens to preserve and secure farmland.

Key concepts

How the Access to Land network defines some of the key concepts used throughout this handbook.

• Access to land is the process through which farmers gain and maintain access to specific plots of land, under secure, fair and affordable conditions. This process is affected by local and international land policies and markets, as well as social dynamics around land transfers. Access to land is now recognised as the number one obstacle to entering farming. Diverse stakeholders, such as a land trust, local authorities, or a civil society organisation, can support or mediate land access, particularly for new farmers.

• Agroecology embraces a science, a set of practices and a social movement which aims at applying ecological principles to agriculture and ensuring a regenerative use of natural resources and ecosystem services. Agroecology also addresses the need for socially equitable food systems, within which people can exercise choice over what they eat and how and where it is produced. In a nutshell, the main tenets of agroecology can be summed up as follows:

1. as a farmer, working with and respecting nature: making use of ecosystems, recycling nutrients, investing in building soil fertility naturally, stimulating biodiversity, building a resilient agroecosystem

2. organising food production and food consumption locally and regionally

3. as a society, paying fair prices to farmers ensuring their autonomy and independence

4. as a consumer, choosing a sustainable diet with local, seasonal produce produced in a sustainable way

• New entrants describes people seeking to enter farming without a family farm and sometimes without prior experience in farming. Many new entrants turn towards agroecological forms of farming. Our work advocates for access to land for these as well as other agroecological farmers, who face specific challenges related to access to land — e.g. high land prices, lack of information on land transfers, and lower access to financing and subsidies. We recognise also that other starting farmers (e.g. family farm successors) may seek to transform the farms they take over towards locally-oriented and sustainable agricultural models and should be supported in doing so.

Local authorities are first-hand witnesses of changing landscapes and land dynamics. They observe what type of agriculture is practised in their area, land transfers and who they benefit, trends in urban sprawl and land prices, and so on. By gathering and centralising information on this, they can catalyse action towards better local land stewardship. Local governments also have the necessary legitimacy, knowledge of stakeholders, and convening powers to coordinate efforts, organise local dialogue and connect actors on agriculture, food, and land issues. Encouraging more open governance of land can be a powerful lever to:

• fight opacity on land transfers and market dynamics that favour larger farms;

• connect actors that do not know each other, and create more synergies for access to land;

• co-construct decisions that affect land, and therefore create co-responsibility with local owners, farmers, inhabitants to steward the land;

• rebalance power by opening decision processes to people or organisations that do not traditionally take part in institutional processes that affect land;

• increase the awareness and skills of people/organisations that own or manage land;

• support organisations or projects that aim to protect farmland or provide access to it for disadvantaged groups.

Local authorities work every day in concert with other levels of government and local stakeholders. They have convening power due to their status as decision-makers, actors working for the public good, and implementers of collective aspirations and projects. They can use this position to organise concerted planning, dialogue and cooperation on land.

Organise coherent public action

Working on land requires combining different domains of public action. Organising collaboration between the services that deal with questions of habitat, environment, economy, urban planning or agriculture is key to bringing coherence in land policy and unlocking results. This can be achieved through a culture of regular meetings and cooperation, backed by clear and strong policy goals. Transparency of data and mapping is also helpful here to engage teams from across the authority. In addition, inter-services collaboration is better enabled by a creative organisational structure involving mixed teams, agile thematic work groups, external experts, and other ways to increase mutual understanding and establish new work habits.

Our service covers issues related to agriculture, forestry, biodiversity and mountains. So structurally, it has a fairly transversal dimension. Moreover, to reinforce cross-overs, this service is integrated into the land use planning pole, so that every Monday I am in discussion with the habitat and land division of the authority." - Lilian Vargas, Director of the Service for Agriculture, Forest, Biodiversity and Mountain. Grenoble Alpes Métropole, France

Political backing for technical officers working on land is key, and vice-versa as implementation capacity is needed to carry out the political vision. An efficient officials/staff duo often makes a difference in the outcome of a dedicated land policy. You can also appeal to and cultivate a relationship with individuals who have multiple hats (e.g. a local authority staff member who is also involved in a local association, a council member who is also a farmer, etc.) to build a better capacity to understand and translate issues to different circles.

Finally, acting jointly with other nearby local authorities will enable coordinated support to farmers, joint management of land and nature (waterways, wetlands, etc.), and pooling political weight and means to realise your goals. Groupings of municipalities, for instance, can be the right level to hire a food or biodiversity officer with a perimeter of action larger than a single municipality.

We collaborate with municipalities that share the river. It is our goal to promote exchanges between neighbouring municipalities to connect the nature between our territories and create a strategic plan for this collaboration that tackles mutual rural concerns, such as access to land, farming, housing, tourism." - Yolanda Ruiz, Environment and social services councillor. Santa Maria de Miralles Municipality, Spain

--> Learn more about collaborating on public land with other public owners (see "" subsection).

Organise democratic dialogue on land

Opening the dialogue on land use can raise opposition from those who have more control over land markets (e.g. established farmers, corporate players, customary institutions…). This handbook suggests some gradual ways to give more space to the expression of a multiplicity of voices in land governance so as to rebalance power and create a more collective responsibility around the fate of farmland in your area.

It is important to understand the power relations and interactions at place and to address all actor groups and take their specific roles into account. It is important to foster a network of all actor groups for initiating a process towards a local agricultural policy.” - Frieder Thomas, Managing Director at AgrarBündnis e.V., Konstanz, Germany

Some suggestions to catalyse more democratic dialogue on land include:

• Carry out a public survey on priorities. Ask for direct opinions from your constituents through a survey or voting process to decide on land actions. This will have many advantages, in particular: a clear direction, legitimacy, and increased interest and implication from your constituents.

• Create a municipal commission on land or agriculture. Involve farmers, associations, and volunteer citizens in acting as receptors of demands related to agriculture and proposing solutions to elected officials. This commission can also be the contact point for farmers and new entrants and encharged of connecting stakeholders together, which will increase your capacity to both be aware of local needs and to meet them.

• Carry out consultation in the establishment of policies affecting land. Whether you are updating the land zoning, creating a food strategy, or taking decisions to reduce pollution and manage risks, you can choose to diversify opinions consulted (going beyond the bodies traditionally involved in these processes). Through workshops, interviews, impact studies, for instance, you can incorporate feedback from beneficiary groups, land experts, consumers, and other relevant stakeholders.

• Introduce land issues in existing participative/consultation circles. If you have existing committees – e.g. for rural development, for water management, etc. – or meetings – e.g. annual hearings, thematic public meetings –, you can propose to make farmland a more frequent topic on their agenda or pass along information on how the actions of specific committees may affect land dynamics.

• Introduce more transparency about public action. To make citizens feel involved and take part more readily in policy processes about land, it is important to increase trust with local communities. Quality of government including transparency about the use of funds, accountability in following up on decisions, and result or indicator-based public action is sometimes a prerequisite for a more democratic dialogue on land.

Public consultations can be conflictual or seen as a place where constituencies express their dissatisfaction. You can consider different methods for consulting: reaching out to individuals, or groups of peers, or relying on “go-between” actors (who have multiple hats and/or a good knowledge both of the local actors and your local authorities’ goals). Consulting farmers is a priority, but in doing so a local authority must keep in mind the interests of larger, traditional farmers can be more audible and better represented than those of smaller ‘alternative’ farmers. Seeking the voices of “want-to-be'' farmers – future new entrants in agriculture – is also important if your projects are directed at them.

Finding other public owners to consolidate your action on public land, whether by sharing knowledge, drawing inspiration, or pooling means of action, is key. Organisations with goals to promote access to land for agroecology and general renewal also have valuable expertise and support to offer.

Synergies with public owners

To identify other local authorities, public domain holders, or charitable institutions (e.g. churches), consider asking long-standing residents or councillors, searching databases by names of institutions (‘domain of…’) or asking land registry institutions and/or land software providers for support in searching the database. Once plots have been identified you will have a better idea of the possible synergies:

• exchanging parcels to consolidate some farm units;

• deciding to pool the management of land;

• creating an association with public and private owners to create viable farming areas;

• joining forces to create infrastructure or better road access to the lands;

• Etc.

--> Learn about working with private owners in the “Acting as a facilitator” section.

Synergies with land organisations

In your area, there may be active small farmers unions, alternative agriculture organisations or ethical land trusts. You can partner up with these actors to support your action, in particular to:

• identify/map public land, carrying out diagnoses on land features and potential;

• co-reflect on a strategy for public land, and elaborate scenarios of use;

• accompany a tender process (defining criteria, disseminating the call to candidates, evaluating proposals for sustainability and viability);

• provide juridical and practical advice on tenancy contracts (if working with organisations that have experience in leasing out land to agroecological farmers);

• create links with other competent actors, facilitate dialogue with neighbours and third parties…

Some local authorities also prefer to externalise the responsibility of acting as landowners. Community land trusts in some countries can sometimes perform land management duties for third parties. For instance, in the outskirts of Bruxelles (Neerpede neighbourhood), the municipality of Anderlecht has decided to make 2 ha of agricultural land available to the Terre-en-Vue land cooperative for a long period of time on the basis of a 27-year emphyteutic lease. The lease has transferred full enjoyment of the property and all the rights attached to the ownership of the property to the cooperative, except being the owner from a patrimonial point of view. In turn, Terre-en-vue, who has experience in managing farms, leased the land available to two market gardeners who grow a wide variety of vegetables, fruits, mushrooms, and medicinal and aromatic plants.

In France, Terre de Liens has experimented with the following schemes (among others) to acquire or manage land with local authorities:

• The local authority secures a public subsidy to buy an agricultural property and rehabilitate it for a specific farming project. Once the work is done, the authority sells it back to Terre de Liens at the purchase and construction price minus the amount of the subsidy obtained.

• The local authority makes a targeted donation to the Terre de Liens foundation dedicated to investing in a specific farm on its territory.

• The local authority purchases part of the property (e.g. the building) and Terre de Liens purchases the other (generally, the land). Management of the building is then attributed to Terre de Liens for a very long time through an emphyteutic lease to keep the farm as a single unit. The opposite could also be true where Terre de Liens transfers management of the land to the authority through an emphyteutic lease (under specific conditions to ensure it is farmed organically and sustainably).

The main tendency observed in Europe is to disinvest farmland. Local authorities allocate fewer resources to maintain existing estates and, frequently, decide to sell or lease out the land to the highest bidder. For example, in England, the amount of council-owned farmland has halved over the past 40 years from over 170,000 ha in 1977 down to 82,000 ha by 2020 (CPRE 2022). This calls into question larger contextual issues related to the lack of means of local authorities to realise more and more services or the fact that skyrocketing farmland prices make it particularly lucrative to sell public assets. With constrained means, some authorities may also prefer leasing public land to one large farm rather than working on making the land accessible to multiple small farmers.

In this context, investing in farmland is a difficult endeavour. Yet it is essential to fulfilling key policy goals (see manifesto) e.g. facing climate change, creating lively rural economies, providing access to quality food. This handbook provides a few possibilities and ideas to invest in public farmland.

Ideas for targeted investment include:

• Acquire strategic land. For instance, target land that can help consolidate an existing municipal farm, land that is threatened by urban development or by grabbing for corporate interests, land to create a green belt or green fabric, or land where specific farm biodiversity or risk management must be implemented (e.g. acquire land in water catchment areas where intensive farming causes water pollution issues).

• Consider (co-)acquisition. There may be ways to share costs by acquiring land together with other entities, like groupings of municipalities (see the section “synergies with other public owners” below). Sharing costs with the farmers is also an option (with legal advice on some aspects, e.g. how to compensate tenants for investments in the farm when the lease is up). Finally, some community land trusts have implemented co-acquisition strategies with local authorities (see the section “synergies with land organisations” below).

• Temporary acquisition. Acquiring land for a transitory period is another option. In land markets, available plots tend to go to the highest and fastest bidder. Temporary acquisition consists of mobilising public funds to bankroll the purchase of the land for a short period of time while looking for a suitable candidate to transfer back the land (new entrant, organic farmer, social project…).

Targeted investment is facilitated if local authorities have pre-emption rights over other buyers or can partner with land agencies that have market intervention power.

Beyond land acquisition, investments are needed to maintain viable estates and gear public farms towards providing public services. These can be modest and gradual, shared with tenants, or subsidised by the state, EU, as well as private financiers. If sustained in time, however, they will improve public returns, while decaying farm estates can become burdens for public owners.

Some interesting areas of investment in existing estates include:

• Investing in processing units (cheesemaking or canning labs, milling facilities, etc.) to add value to the farm production, help channel the production to short supply chains, and create additional jobs.

• Investing in adapted infrastructure or equipment for organic farming (e.g. composting units, parks for free-ranging animals, planting of insect-friendly flower hedges, etc.) to help meet biodiversity and carbon-storing goals, while also improving the landscape and consumer attractivity.

• Supporting the creation of a Farmstart or other incubator/training farm by providing small plots for new entrants to pilot businesses, alongside training and support. For example, OrganicLea in north London, UK, is a cooperative horticultural business on council land which is also a Farmstart site. Public land is used to run the programme, and local councils (Waltham Forest Council, Enfield Council, Haringey Council) are also involved in helping find plots for the OrganicLeas trainees when they are ready to move onto their own land.

Finally, investing time from staff in knowing and managing public assets can already unlock positive outcomes, by strengthening links and trust with tenant farmers, supporting them in overcoming difficulties, fomenting synergies between farmers and retailers or with consumers, and so on.

Good idea! Valorize your action

Local authorities can consider that the impact of keeping an estate in public hands and supporting sustainable, diversified, locally-oriented production is hardly quantifiable or too invisible in the short term to satisfy their constituents. This may deter them from orienting public budgets towards investment in farmland. Simple communication on impact is key, e.g. putting a sign on public farms to explain the services it renders to the population (“this public farm keeps your air and water clean”, “this public farm creates local jobs”), asking farmers to mention the origin of commercialised products (“grown on local public land”), getting the local press or channel to report on the farm...

Decreasing local governments' budgets are a reality across Europe. Our experience shows that many local authorities succeed in balancing financial pressure and wisely using their farmland to fulfill policy objectives. However, in some cases, there may be little choice but to sell public farmland. If authorities are not able to keep all their assets, they should nonetheless be accountable for how they sell them. Public land belongs to citizens; deciding on its future should entail transparency and giving priority to projects that will benefit the local community, rather than selling to the highest bidder and with no criteria. The price of the land should be set fairly and not contribute to speculative tendencies (see the box “Fixed price land sales in Wallonia”).

Complementarily to direct intervention in land markets, local authorities can leverage financial instruments such as taxation, subsidies, or local budgets to catalyse local agricultural dynamics. Depending on the degree of freedom to set local rules in the matter, these indirect interventions can:

• Incentivise better land use and land stewardship

• Support new generations in accessing land

• Help local agriculture deliver public goods more efficiently

Encouraging better land use and land stewardship through tax and incentives

Curtailing bad land uses through fiscal instruments can entail, among other possibilities:

• taxing land development;

• taxing more heavily land transfers that are above market prices;

• increasing property taxes for abandoned farmland.

While incentivising better uses may be done through:

• Tax rebates for small farms (e.g. in Spain, the municipality and Spanish government can set tax rebates on the Real Estate Tax for farmland for personal and family farming).

• Real estate tax exemptions for owners who agree to lease their land to farmers. For instance, the town of Claira in France led a programme to fight land abandonment. The municipal council voted to exempt owners from paying the communal share of the property tax on farmland made available to growers for 5 years.

• Payments for the delivery of public services. While this is a vast area of action that goes beyond land intervention, payments can be directed to incentivising specific care for the land or applied with surface criteria (increased for small farms).

Supporting generational renewal in agriculture

Supporting land transfer processes to new generations through fiscal and financial tools can entail:

• Exemptions of succession taxes for family farm transfers. For instance, the Catalan government facilitates transfers through succession and donations tax exemptions.

• Subsidising farm partnerships or internships prefigurating succession (paying for internship stipends of new farmers, allocating more investment subsidies to farm partnerships, etc.).

• Financing counselling for retiring farmers and land restructuring related to succession (e.g. diversification of farms, new investments).

While transfers that do not benefit new farmers can be discouraged through:

• taxing operations that lead to land concentration (taxes above a specific area of farmland held);

• applying differentiated support to large farms (e.g. lower investment subsidies).

--> Learn about other ways for local authorities to support farm transfers through intermediation between retiring farmers and new entrants in the “Facilitating local land dynamics” section.

A general lowering or exemption of succession or real estate taxes on farmland can be counter-productive. If applied in an indiscriminate way, these measures can incentivise private purchases by non-farmers, who invest in land as capital to transfer to children. If possible, tax arrangements should be tied to the continuation of the farming activity.

Help local agriculture deliver public goods more efficiently

Providing a favourable environment for agroecological farmers and minimising the withdrawal from farming also entails acting on dimensions that precede access to land, such as farmer training, and that follow farm set-up (e.g. developing local markets, life-long training and other measures to ensure small farms remain viable in the long term).

Prior to farm access, local authorities can for instance:

• finance infrastructure and services to restore the land to viable farming (e.g. creating an access path, providing access to water, draining land, paying a contractor to remove bush and scrubs, etc.);

• subsidise agroecological education and training programmes for farmers;

• fund or provide public land for the setting up of farm incubator;

• facilitate access to housing for new entrants.

To help maintain dynamic, locally-oriented, and sustainable agriculture local authorities may:

1. Fund the development of short supply chains including:

• financing infrastructure for food processing (e.g. collective food labs that farmers can rent punctually, post-harvest season);

• funding the creation of local retailing outlets, backing the development of a local brand and other farm-to-fork projects;

• make strategic use of public procurement (procuring food from local farms).

1. Back farm diversification and other strategies to improve the viability of farms in the long term

• fund agrotourism programmes;

• support the maintenance of ecological infrastructures, healthy soils, etc.

• help farmers receive life-long training in diverse areas (business, diversification, etc.).

As agroecological farming contributes to major environmental objectives, local authorities may support it as part of their environmental schemes. In this way, they can draw from environmental regulations and policy instruments – which are often more developed than those for farmland and agriculture – as well as from environmental budgets, which may have more dedicated resources.

A holistic policy can also associate actions by the local authority to link up priority land users and those who can support them. This is in particular the case with landowners and retiring farmers who control land that could be made available to agroecological farmers.

A huge amount of land is about to change hands in Europe. With a third (32%) of farm managers in the EU aged 65 years or more (Eurostat 2018), and many farms without designated successors, there is an urgent need to ensure that farmland is transferred to sustainable users. Furthermore, non-farming landowners should also be part of the conversation to lease land to specific users. Local authorities can provide skills and mediation to support extra-family land leases or transfers.

Linking up retiring farmers/landowners and potential users

Especially if you are a small municipality and know your constituents well, you can individually check on farmers nearing retirement age. Ask them how they see the future, if they have plans for the farm, and whether they have an identified successor. You can tell them if you know of young people interested in farming in the area. The goal is to counterbalance natural social links between established farmers who already know each other and the likelihood that a farmer without an identified successor will sell the land to a neighbour or existing farm.

Food, farming, and environmental policies have become areas of rising interest for local authorities. This responds to the dual pressure of demands from citizens (for local food, responses to climate change, green landscapes, clean air…) and from central governments who ask local authorities to meet objectives around carbon-storing, densified urbanisation, supply of organic food in schools, etc.

Decentralisation processes that occurred in the past 40 years have also transferred new responsibilities to local authorities to address these issues. In most countries, they hold a key role in land use planning and taxation systems. They can also catalyse policies and orient their budgets towards specific territorial development strategies. Efficient regulation for access to land can combine for instance:

• coherent urban planning documents (with precise zoning to protect land and concrete monitoring);

• strategic subsidies (to improve local farming infrastructure, training options for new farmers, etc.);

• tax incentives policies (e.g. providing exemptions for owners who rent farmland)

• strategic use of public procurement.

Are there regulatory tools to protect farmland locally? How can I create a more enabling policy environment for the development of small-scale agroecological farming? Check the infographic for a quick overview of how to act, and read the sections below for more information on the roles that local authorities can play regarding planning, administering, catalysing and advocating for sounder land policies.

Access to information on land is, in many ways, a form of power. The lack of open data at the European and national levels on land sales, prices and ownership benefits players that have more resources or social connections to access land. It also hampers action by public actors and citizens. Local authorities can both generate and share more data on land and agriculture.

Generating data to catalyse action

As a local authority, you may commission studies and/or generate data yourself. You may also act as a facilitator if other actors are looking for information to support their actions. Gathering information will depend on your objectives, which should be clearly defined to orient more precise surveys.

Examples of objective-based data gathering on land and how local authorities can help

Democratising access to data on land and agriculture

If access to data on land is restricted or difficult, local authorities can work on making more accessible the information they have (sometimes because they play a role in administering land registries or sometimes because they have access to some databases – e.g. for taxation purposes – that regular citizens cannot consult). A few ideas to make land data more readily available are listed below.

• Create land observatories

Monitor the land situation: register plots up for sale or lease and prices. Information can be collated through websites, an online map, or just made available upon request. Other data from specific surveys (on land quality, pollution, etc.), and land zoning information can be made available in such a centralised place to facilitate access. In France, it is regional land agencies (SAFER) that hold such information on land. Several examples exist of local authorities establishing partnerships with SAFER to facilitate the compilation of data.

→ See more on centralising information to match land offers and land demands in Zoom box on “Land banks in Spain” (See intermediate section)

Good idea! Participative land mapping

You can foster multi-stakeholder processes to increase knowledge on existing farms and identify key issues (land available for farm succession, abandoned land, fragmented land, etc.). Some ways to proceed:

• Convene public meetings with stakeholders from one area, put up a map and see whether popular knowledge can help better identify the owners of the parcels and qualify their uses;

• Or wear your boots and survey the area with mixed groups of volunteers. You can identify types of crops, water resources, existing infrastructure, and more. Distribute sheets to the volunteers to gather information (see and example in the “how to get started” section).

→ See more tools on surveying land in the how to get started section

• Create a one-stop-shop for new entrants

Work on a simple strategy to welcome new farmers, and communicate about the fact that you are a new farmer-friendly town. Centralise basic information for new entrants on who to contact in your authority, existing services, resources on accessible land and land rights, and other things to meet their needs (e.g. information on housing, cooperatives for equipment sharing, list of commercial outlets for agricultural products, ways to access subsidies, etc.). Local authorities can in addition link new entrants with retiring farmers to access land and/or with organisations to support them.

→ See more about facilitating these relationships in the “Intermediate” section.

• Make information accessible to citizens

Collectives of citizens or non-profits are mobilising in different countries to protect land threatened by urbanisation, enable agroecology and new farmers, protect landscapes, and carry out other land actions. Local authorities can provide low-investment support to volunteers by sharing the data they have (on farmland that needs protective actions) and providing a platform to meet (e.g. a meeting room, connections to other actors).

Having investigated the three roles of local authorities (acting as a , , ), you are perhaps looking for some practical resources to get started with the land work. This section provides additional tools from a variety of sources, in particular:

• Ideas and summaries to

• Surveying and

New material will be added in this section as the Access to Land network continues to engage with local authorities and to co-develop or adapt practical tools to make farmland work for the public good. Check in later for more resources!

The role that local authorities can play to regulate farmland highly depends on the possibilities that national frameworks afford for action, as well as on the financial resources they may be able to dedicate to specific land and agriculture policies. For instance, in Flanders, a large part of cities’ revenue depends on the number of inhabitants and enterprises – in other words, on how much land has been developed for housing and businesses. Cities need to find alternative financial resources if they are to protect much-needed open space. This handbook makes the case that advocacy is a non-negligible area of work for local authorities to create more possibilities for proactive land action at the local level.

Carrying out experience-based advocacy

• Often, local authorities are first-hand observers of the shortcomings of national legal land frameworks. They can provide feedback to legislators about the hurdles they meet in implementing regulatory tools locally and thus contribute to their improvement. A local view about possible incoherence between national, regional, and local level principles of action should also be integrated when revising existing laws or making new ones.

• Local governments are also the best placed to qualify the type of means – in terms of budget as well as political mandates and responsibilities – they need to make a difference on the ground. They can advocate for the margins of freedom and the level of decentralisation needed to carry out efficient action.

• Finally, by applying high standards and innovating for access to land, local authorities can exemplify possible avenues for change and inspire legislative bodies. They can also document lessons learned from their work and draw conclusions on policy changes needed to support the upscaling and transfer of land innovations.

It is very difficult as a city to stop the change in function of agricultural buildings and the surrounding land, because the Flemish law allows it." - Eva Kerselaers, Policy Officer Agriculture and Horticulture. City of Ghent, Belgium

Using institutional channels and coalitions

• Local governments have access to more direct institutional channels and have a more important political weight to appeal to senators or parliamentary representatives. They can use these platforms to convey claims for enabling access to land for agroecology and new entrants.

• Local authorities can also have seats or representatives in bodies that establish certain policies. They can contribute to gearing policy by actively participating and channelling their constituents’ voices in these instances.

• Using coalition representation – e.g. taking a membership in a mayors association or local authorities network – can be a more effective way to carry out lobbying, including at the EU level (through international local authorities networks such as , , , and so on).

Advocating based on international frameworks

• The United Nations’ , , and overarching sustainability frameworks such as or climate agreements can provide grounds for local authorities to demand more enabling policy frameworks to improve land systems. These soft law instruments are meant to hold signatory countries accountable, any local government or citizen is legitimate in advocating for their application.

• Local authorities can themselves subscribe to standards developed internationally for local governments; e.g. the which was signed by cities from all over the world committed "to develop sustainable food systems that are inclusive, resilient, safe and diverse, that provide healthy and affordable food to all people in a human rights-based framework, that minimize waste and conserve biodiversity while adapting to and mitigating impacts of climate change”.

There are increasing interfaces between urban planning and agriculture. But while it is clear today that small-scale and organic farming adds value to local development – as an asset for food security, climate resilience, and territorial attractivity – there is still work to do to stop considering farmland as a reserve for urban development. In order to better achieve the protection of farmland in land use planning, this handbook advocates for:

1. developing a shared vision for farmland in planning documents;

2. leveraging planning tools to safeguard farmland;

3. making long-term decisions and exemplifying good practices.

Developing a vision and strategy for agriculture, recognising its multiple contributions to local development and territorial balance

To prioritise land stewardship in local land plans, local authorities can back planning processes with the following dimensions:

• Engaged planning. Going beyond the consultation of traditional experts and institutions, local authorities can ensure that land use planning processes engage with communities, non-profits, businesses, and preferred land users (e.g. new entrants, organic farmers). Addressing the topic of farmland in interaction with other key planning topics – housing, infrastructure, community facilities, among others – can provide a deeper and more coherent vision of how farmland should be used, and under what conditions land use changes are possible.

→ Learn more about organising democratic dialogue on land in the “” section.

• Interacting with other frameworks. At state level, some countries (e.g. Germany, France) have started defining long-term objectives to curtail the loss of farmland. Spatial planning documents set for regional or provincial levels also increasingly put forward sustainable development targets. Ensuring good coordination between planning at national, regional and local levels in terms of objectives, priorities and speed of action is an important task, which can be better performed if the cross-participation of different levels of governments in planning processes is well organised.

• Setting specific territorial goals for agriculture. Local authorities can also inform decision-making by creating a better picture of the contributions of agriculture to local development – e.g. measuring benefits in terms of food production, carbon sinking, risk management (see table “agriculture and territorial risk management” below) – and of the amount of land and type of farming needed to meet public goals (see Zoom box on PARCEL, online modelling for promoting local food systems). There is also a need to work into spatial planning considerations on the needs of farms and farmers, e.g. need for ecosystems preservation, need for land coherence beyond the farm unit, etc.

Agriculture and territorial risk management

Earmarking land for agriculture

Local authorities need regulatory tools to implement the protection of farmland in land use plans and to operationalise them. This varies across countries. Depending on your context, you may be able to leverage:

• Area zoning/designation, designating areas for agriculture, nature conservation, and forestry, in addition to areas for development, urban densification, risk management, and so on.

• Protected/strategic agricultural areas, demonstrating the public utility purpose of specific agriculture areas and applying additional land use protection (e.g. legal procedure to change use). See the Zoom box below on Protected agricultural zones and perimeters for the protection of agricultural and natural peri-urban areas in France.

• Proactive greenbelt planning/densification policies to limit sprawl, encourage urban/city centre regeneration and brownfield development and create permanently open (and potentially productive) spaces around cities.

• Proactive designation/labelling of natural sites where biodiversity protection can be associated with sustainable agriculture practices (parks, monuments, Natura 2000 areas, etc.).

• Conservation easements/voluntary agreements between farmers and the local government to maintain land in farming for a set term (in return for contributions by the local governments, for instance, lower land use taxation rates).

• Developer tax/compensation mechanisms, requiring developers to restore areas and natural infrastructures to compensate for the destruction of others or taxing development to provide resources for conservation/public purchase of agricultural land elsewhere.

• Purchase/transfer of development rights, to remove or transfer development rights from agricultural areas to areas designated for development (for denser urban development).

Some planning tools can be leveraged to favour specific land users, e.g. permits for farm housing and buildings (which can be delivered only for specific buildings needed in organic farming for instance), or infrastructure development for access to specific farmlands.

Ensuring the stability of zoning and perspectives for agricultural development

Besides regulatory protection, consistent action and exemplary behaviours from local authorities is an instrument of success to keep land in agriucltural use. In many countries, a vicious circle fuels urban sprawl:

⇒ Urban development has led to frequent land use changes.

⇒ Landowners entertain the idea that their land may become buildable, and thus more valuable. They prefer not to rent the land to farmers or rent it only through short-term contracts that do not allow investing/establishing a farm business on the land (e.g. land is rented for grazing horses).

⇒ As a result of landowners’ resistance, there is less farming and farmers on peri-urban land and thus urban development becomes justified because lands are abandoned or underused.

Access to Land member: (in particular,)

Handbook for local authorities: Terre de liens (2022).

Other resources:

• Banque des territoires. .

• FNAB. .

• Terre de Liens, FNAB, BASIC.

• Terre de Liens, INRAE.

• Ministères Ecologie, Energie, Territoires.

Key principles to consider for local authorities

Before you start, establish your ways of working:

• Allow adequate time for bringing all the relevant parts of the local authority together - be willing to be a champion

• Be willing to share power: with the local community, other local landowners, farmers, civil society organisations

• If you can advocate for money to support this process, then do - the more flexibility and resource you have, the easier this will be

As you begin, streamline objectives:

• Observe and gather information from a variety of sources - try to find shared goals and areas of consensus in the diagnosis of needs and priorities

• Define objectives that are easy to explain - a clear and consistent message will facilitate your work in the long term

Over time, cultivate resilience:

• Give yourself time and the right to experiment - trials and errors are numerous in tackling land issues

• Work with conviction and strong political will: it is best to anticipate difficulties and opposition and plan ahead how you will respond to these

Some low-barrier entry actions

Some first steps to achieve specific goals

a- learn about who takes part in the zoning negotiations and their interests

b- think about who in the local authority needs to be involved in these discussions. Paul’s most important role could be as a internal broker between all of the different interests within the local authority

c- gather prior information on local land (existing studies on the local agriculture, existing objectives regarding curtailing land loss or tackling climate change)

d- gather priori information on legal possibilities to protect land through zoning, and examples of towns who have done it

a- evaluate whether the municipal land is fit for vegetable growing (type of soil and fertility, existence of infrastructure like greenhouses/irrigation/storage buildings)

b- evaluate the costs, infrastructure and practices needed to enable the school canteen to start preparing meals from scratch using fresh vegetables

c- reach out to community and civic society organisations who may be interested in managing the land or being involved with growing

d- reach out to local farmers and skilled growers for advice on business models

a- survey the farmers on their current use of the lands held in common

b- make data publicly accessible on common land available

c- engage the local administration - specifically the local council - to establish specific local measures which support new entrants, the safeguarding of common land and animal husbandry as agricultural activity of the community

d- mediate the relationship between new entrants and the local community who are the stewards of the commons

In this section you can find different resources that can be useful for local authorities when acting within any of the three roles outlined in this handbook. These resources have been gathered from our networks, case studies, and interviews carried out with representatives from local authorities. The resources have been categorised by geographic scope and by the type of resource.

International

Reports:

• Access to Land Network (2017).

• European Committee of the Regions (2020). ​

• Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (2020).

• Shared Assets, Access to land (2018).

• Transnational Institute (2018). ​

• Access to Land Network (2017). ​

• Access to Land Network (2020). ​

Facts and factsheets:

• Access to Land Network (2017). infographics, available in 7 languages (EN, FR, SP, CAT, CZ, DE, RO)

• EIP Agri (2016).

• Transnational Institute (2016), “” infographics

International pacts:

• ​

• ​​

• ​

Networks:

Flanders

Access to Land member:

Handbook for local authorities:

Networks:

• Flemish Society for Cities and Communities.

• Flemish network of organisations promoting agroecology.

Other tools:

• De Landgenoten.

Wallonia & Brussels

Access to Land member:

Handbook for local authorities: Terre en Vue (2022).

Networks and organisations:

Other resources:

• SPW-DAFoR.

• Manger Demain, Terre-en-Vue, SPW-DAFoR.

• FIAN BELGIUM.

Local authorities sometimes play a role in the local implementation and monitoring of national laws regarding land access and land markets. They can also activate tools at the local level to enable better use and distribution of land.

Policy tools to intervene in land markets vary across countries, and so does the role of local authorities in applying them. A few direct intervention options are summarised in the following table. Depending on your context, these may inspire you to become more proactive with tools that exist in your country or to advocate for a reform of national frameworks (see section) if you need more land tools and powers for local authorities.

Intervening in land markets, possible tools and roles of local authorities

Other land redistribution schemes exist, but they are often part of larger land reform processes and are often carried out as part of a national policy rather than decided at local level.

Relevant examples: Applying regulatory schemes to intervene in land markets

Get basic information on a plot

If you are organising a field survey or land watch action with volunteers, you can use the example below to create a basic land questionnaire for your surveyors to fill out.

Summary sheet: realising a basic diagnosis of a plot (source: Terre de Liens Île-de-France)

Select projects to prioritise on public land

Establishing criteria to decide to whom to lease out public land to is a key step. Below is a table for inspiration. The clearer your goals, the easier it will be to adapt criteria and scoring.

Example of selection criteria to award public land (sourced and adapted from: . Concrete agricultural turnaround. How we transform land use locally.)

Maximum number of points achievable: 12-15 points

Decide what to do with public land plots

Deciding on what use to make of the land identified through your surveys can be easier if you have developed clear tools, approved by elected officials and different departments within your local authority.

Below you will find an example of logic diagram developed by the city of Charleroi in Belgium to guide their decision-making processes regarding the use of specific plots. Charleroi’s issue is around the rehabilitation of polluted land (as the city’s economy has long relied on coal and steel industry). Once the plots have been inventoried, the logic diagram serves as a prioritising tool to decide on which parcels to act first.

Access to Land members: Xarxa per a la Conservació de la Natura (XCN), Escola de Pastors/Rurbans

Networks and organisations:

• Red Terrae

• Associació Catalana de Municipis

• Federació de Municipis de Catalunya

Other resources:

• Red Terrae: DILAS training for agroecological facilitators of an area

• Red Terrae: blue print model for the establishment of a local land bank

• Red Terrae: knowledge repository offers reports and advising services that provide key information for local authorities

• Espublico.com : database of legislation and administrative legislation models and templates and administrative processes

Access to Land members and partners: Shared Assets, Biodynamic Land Trust, Soil Association, Real Farming Trust, Ecological Land Coop, Scottish Farm Land Trust

Networks and organisations:

• Food Farming and Countryside Commission (FFCC)

Other resources:

• CPRE, New Economics Foundation, Shared Assets. Reviving county farms.

• CPRE, New Economics Foundation, Shared Assets. Reimagining council farms.

• Food, Farming and Countryside Commission. A Devon Land Use Framework.

• UK Government. Neighbourhood planning processes and policy.

• Land Explorer Mapping Tools (Not yet available in NI or Scotland)

• Community Land Advisory Service (Currently only in Wales)

• ACES Rural. Rural Practice Guidance for Local Authorities

Access to Land members and partners: ALPA, Eco Ruralis

Networks and organisations:

• Eco Ruralis - Right to Land: https://www.ecoruralis.ro/programe/dreptul-la-pamant/

• The Federation of LEADER Groups: https://federatialeader.ro/leadertalks/

• Porolissum Local Action Group: https://napocaporolissum.ro/

• GAL3 Local Action Group: http://leadergal3.ro/

• Ciugud (smart) commune: https://www.primariaciugud.ro/

Other resources:

• Eco Ruralis. Stewarding commons for new generations.

• A2LN. Small Farms, Commons and Land Grabbing in Romania. (2017).

Access to Land members and partners: Kulturland, Die Agronauten, Bioboden Genossenschaft, Netzwerk Flächensicherung.

Handbook for local authorities: FINC (2020). Agrarwende konkret: WIe wir die Landnutzung lokal umgestalten.

Other resources:

• Municipal umbrella organisation. Deutscher Städtetag has a monthly newsletter “Städtetag aktuell”

Authors: Petra Tas and Annelies Beyens, De Landgenoten

1) Objectives and highlights

The city of Leuven shifted from selling its local farm land to allocating it for local food production. A first project call took place in 2019 in which 10 plots of 9 ha in total were offered. In 2022, a second project call was launched offering another 12 plots for organisations or individuals (not necessarily professional farmers) to set up agricultural initiatives that are sustainable, economically feasible and innovative, and add value to the local community.

2) Stakeholders involved

Leading public actors:

• The city of Leuven, which owns land

• The Public Centre for Social Welfare (OCMW) - OCMWs are the historical heirs to – mostly agricultural – estates donated to former charity institutions since the late Middle Ages

In recent years, an integration between municipalities and OCMWs has taken place. In Leuven, the real estate of both entities is centralised within AG Stadsontwikkeling (Autonomous Municipal Company for Urban Development). This actor manages all the land based on policy objectives.

Other actors:

The AG Stadsontwikkeling has led the call and selection of farming candidates along with the Voedsel- en Landbouwadviesraad (VLAR; Food and Agricultural Advisory Board of Leuven). The VLAR brings together experts in agriculture- and food-related topics and representatives of organisations with agricultural expertise, as well as local politicians and civil servants within the field.

3) Context and levers

In 2004, the OCMW of Leuven owned about 1150 ha. From 2004 until 2019, the OCMW sold a lot of land to finance its social missions, representing on average around €980,000 euro per year. By 2020, the OCMW, owned about 373 ha. The land is located in sub-municipalities around Leuven: Wilsele, Wijgmaal, Heverlee, and beyond.

During the time of sale, the biggest farmers union in Flanders (Boerenbond) had lobbied for an arrangement where a maximum of 20% of a farmer's leased land could be sold. For instance, if a farmer was leasing 10 ha of the OCMW, a maximum of 2 ha could be put up for sale. In most cases, the tenants bought the land.

At a certain point, the local agricultural board suggested that a more thoughtful policy was needed for agricultural land within the territory of Leuven. The sale of agricultural land was put on hold. This was also in line with the adoption of a ‘local food strategy for Leuven' in 2017, which led to the statement 'Voeding Verbindt' (Food Connects) covering seven strategic goals among which 'giving space to local sustainable food production'.

4) Actions led

Among its first actions, Leuven inventoried all land along with data on tenancy. Land free of lease was considered eligible to support young and sustainable farmers. In 2017, a proposition to allocate land for local food production was made, but it wasn't approved. After a participatory process which included, amongst other stakeholders, traditional and alternative farmer organisations and the city, the proposition was approved in 2019.

That same year, a call for projects was launched to distribute ten plots of 9 ha each. 15 candidates applied, and ten projects were approved. The projects had to have a score of at least 50% on five aspects (sustainability, economic viability, feasibility, social added value, and innovation) and of at least 70% in total to be selected.

The ten approved projects indicated their preferred parcel. Afterwards, AG Stadsontwikkeling linked the project to the plots. At the start Leuven imagined establishing a lease with the candidates, allowing to give certainty to the user and impose conditions (i.e. the execution of the approved project). It however proved difficult to formulate a leasehold contract and its conditions correctly. Therefore, all projects started off with a precarious contract, free of charge ('bezetting ter bede').

After a seminar for local authorities held by De Landgenoten, Terre-en-Vue and Brussels Environment in March 2022, Leuven got renewed energy and inspiration to look for a solution for more secure leaseholds. During the seminar, the duration of the contracts with farmers was a point of discussion. The administration wanted the same duration for everyone, while that may not be desirable nor necessary, depending on the different ages of the candidates. Having decided that the leaseholds shall be set at 20 years, the city council approved in November 2022 the first 20-year long “erfpacht” (a type of emphyteutic lease in the Flemish law, which provides the tenant with secure conditions but no right to build upon the land).

In 2022, a second call was released for another 12 plots of 22 ha in total. The same five aspects to score candidates were used. This time the call also allowed for agroforestry projects to be submitted. No term or contract was initially specified. Submitters were asked which plot and terms were of interest to them. The allocation process differed from the call in 2019 as the plots were allocated to the highest scoring project for each specific plot. This call thus focused on allocating only plots of preference and allowed for the possibility that not every plot will host a project, to avoid sub-optimal allocation. Of the 12 plots, four have not been allocated because there were no candidates.

5) Limits and perspectives

The case of Leuven illustrates how a local authority can act on public land. They are one of the important pioneers in Flanders on this topic. Besides its role as land owner, the city is collaborating on different projects and topics to support local food production and consumption.

Leuven is currently looking into ways to facilitate specific uses of private farmland within its territory. In 2022-2023, a study by a local college will take place mapping 'improper use' of farmland, as numerous non-agricultural uses inhibit access for farmers in Flanders, especially in the area between Brussels and Leuven.

Leuven also works on a carbon farming project of the Innovatiesteunpunt (Support Center for Innovation). The idea is to set up a local climate fund in which people can compensate their CO2-emissions by investing in local soil.

Finally, Leuven invests in upscaling short supply chains. Kort'om Leuven is an initiative in which they collaborate to help make local products accessible (without further sustainability requirements). The city also participates in GoodFood@School, a project about healthy and sustainable meals for children and is involved in another initiative dedicated to redistributing food surplus.

Leuven also faces some limits to its actions. For instance, it can be challenging for the city to dialogue with existing traditional farmers to nudge them to produce for the local market. They often notice a certain distrust and it seems hard to turn this around. As they move along, Leuven finds that it would be very useful to learn from other local authorities within the region, and from other European cities too. They are already part of the VVSG-network (Flemish Society for Cities and Communities) Food Pioneers. They signed the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact and the Glasgow Food & Climate Declaration.

Author: Mauro Conti, University of Calabria

1) Objectives and highlights

The Cooperativa Coraggio campaigns for a better use of public land while also developing a pilot project on 22 ha belonging to the municipality of Rome. This exemplary project associates social, organic, multifunctional agriculture by young people and capacity development facilities. It aims to showcase the positive effects of opening access to resources and true generational turnover, with economic and administrative support from public actors. Benefits also include rural-urban synergies, by cultivating 'proximity' agriculture next to large urban centres and making green spaces a new resource for a “liveable city, far from the logic of building speculation, a city once again capable of producing the goods necessary for its survival, aiming at self-sufficiency”.

2) Stakeholders involved

Local authorities involved

• Municipality of Rome

• Regional government of Lazio

• Arsial (Regional Agency for Rural Development)

Other stakeholders involved

• The Cooperativa Coraggio

• Citizens’ committee (supporting the Cooperative’s advocacy work)

• NGOs (Terra!, Crocevia) and environmental associations: political support, technical support, funding

3) Context and levers

In Italy, the land market is not differentiated, in terms of regulation, between agricultural land and land for urbanisation. The municipalities can decide freely on the use of land as the law on land consumption has been blocked in the parliament for many years. Moreover, the financial capital of the agro-industry is spreading over the land market. This creates a context of high land prices that make land acquisition a challenge for new farmers. Some challenges regarding renting land also exist. There is a lack of schemes in Italy to incentivise investment in rented farms (lease contracts do not allow recovering the investments made by the farmer to improve the land and farming conditions if the contract ends before the agreed date).

In this situation, public land can present opportunities for access or rent through a mechanism of assignment which considers different factors, including sunk costs by the farmers. In Italy, there are 715,000 ha of utilised agricultural area (UAA) of public land, of which 380,000 ha belong to the State Property Agency alone. The process of assigning public land, by tender and lease, is slowly taking off with the Sibater project (institutional support for the implementation of land banks), led by ANCI (National Association of Italian Municipalities). Rome is one of the largest agricultural municipalities in Europe and the largest in Italy. Following the advocacy work of the members of Cooperativa Coraggio, in 2015, the municipality decided to assign 100 ha of public land in four agricultural areas, while the Lazio Region assigned another 300 ha in seven areas.

4) Actions led

In 2013, after the Cooperativa Coraggio launched the awareness campaign #publiclandtoyoungfarmers with the support of local NGOs and citizens, the Rome municipality published the first open tender to access abandoned public lands. The municipality and Lazio Region availed a total of 400 ha of land, of which 22 ha were awarded to Cooperativa Agricola Coraggio in Borghetto san Carlo. The Borghetto San Carlo land is located in Lazio's fourth largest natural park, the Parco di Veio, which is bordering the city and populous metropolitan neighbourhoods. Since 2015, the cooperative has developed a pilot project on this land, demonstrating the possibilities of multifunctional periurban agriculture on public land.

The cooperative accommodates young members of different socio-economic, professional and educational backgrounds, provides agricultural services to the Borghetto San Carlo community and connects the local youth with a broader network of social farming cooperatives. The cooperative's pilot farm produces organic food and provides social and environmental services for citizens, including: an orchard and vegetable garden of local biodiversity; the cultivation and reproduction of rare or experimental cereals; artisanal product processing; educational farms and training for adults; an open-air agri-restaurant and picnic area; social farming and hospitality; beekeeping; proximity products sales point; a recovered wooden play area. In order to generate additional incomes and more support at the municipal level, the Cooperativa Coraggio is also organising concerts, food events, organic markets and trainings for new entrants in agriculture.

In parallel, Cooperativa Coraggio has continued its advocacy activities, which include work and dialogues with municipal governments, and negotiations for public financial support. It has collected 10,000 signatures to demand compliance with a building compensation agreement passed with a private construction company. This should provide for the restoration of abandoned farmhouses, at a cost of almost 3 million euros, for the benefit of the municipality of Rome. In the last period, Cooperativa Coraggio has assumed a prominent role in the Food Policy discussion for Rome.

5) Limits and perspectives

The practice of Cooperativa Coraggio is mainly originated by acting on public land. The awareness campaign generated a new policy at the regional level for the assignment of public lands (400 ha). The actions described are building a new rural-urban continuum through public policies. This contrasts with the 'environmental discontinuity' that used to take place and contributes to making green spaces a new resource for the city.

The limits of the practice are related to the lack of infrastructure to develop the multifunctional activities, which are limiting the profitability of the pilot project. Indeed, in the local context (but also more generally at regional and national level), there is a lack of rural extension services and food processing facilities such as mills, laboratories for vegetable processing, slaughterhouses, etc. This hampers the maintenance of viable farms and secure access to land in the long term. In addition, the Regional agencies for rural development in Italy have been weakened, dispersing considerable professional competencies, such that training in agriculture is now mostly in the hands of the biggest private farmers organisations (e.g. Coldiretti, Confagricoltura). This results in the lack of public services for agricultural training at Italian level.

New perspectives are generated by the progressive restoration of abandoned farmhouses. The assignment of farmhouses together with the public land is opening an opportunity to integrate restauration and catering services into the farming activities, creating the conditions to add value to agricultural production. This opportunity will strengthen the new rural-urban continuum created through the recent public land policies.

Author: Nora Maristany Bosch, XCN

1) Objectives and highlights

Red Terrae (Network of AgroEcological Reserve Territories) is an inter-municipal network of about 40 local authorities throughout eight regions of Spain. Red Terrae’s main role is to strengthen members’ capacity to respond effectively to nowadays challenges: biodiversity loss, climate change, lack of generational renewal, increasing intensive land use, etc. The network is thus responsible for the implementation of demonstrative and educational activities related to fostering employment in rural areas, waste management, local supply chains, local community currency systems, etc.

One of the most relevant actions carried out by Red Terrae is fostering the set up and proper management of agroecological municipal land banks. Land banks help identify and register available plots, connect land offers and land demands, and enhance the effective relationship between landowners and potential land users. Throughout the years, Red Terrae has established a solid conceptual and methodological framework for the implementation of municipal land banks, with the specific goal of supporting the development of agroecology. Local authorities who are members of the network adapt the framework and strategy to the local reality. This has allowed restoring farming activities on abandoned lands and has unlocked social, landscape, ecological and productive values.

2) Stakeholders involved

The different local authorities composing the Red Terrae network (40 in total) are located across the Spanish territory, with presence in the following eight autonomous communities: Andalucía, Extremadura, Castilla-La manca, Castilla y León, Madrid, Canarias, País Vasco, Comunidad Valenciana. Besides individual local authorities, there are also constituted networks representing the collective, grouping them in different fields.

Red Terrae’s members are only by local authorities, but there are other stakeholders that are involved directly or indirectly in the functioning of the network and its land banks. For instance, the local authorities deal closely with private landowners and actors who are interested in obtaining or working lands and participating in the land banks.

3) Context and levers

Red Terrae was started in 2010, in a context where the lack of rural jobs, shortage of local food supply and deficits in human capabilities in rural areas were the biggest challenges to address. These challenges were present in many areas of rural Spain, which explained why many local authorities in different autonomous communities joined the network.

In this generalised context, a few levers that facilitated the implementation of the Red Terrae project. They were the following:

• Some landowners are more prone to cooperate if the land bank initiative can offer implementation references throughout the country. This has been possible through the network, which produced a land bank model at multi-municipal level.

• Since the land bank is managed and fostered by local authorities, rather than by landless farmers or outsiders, some landowners are usually keener on collaborating.

• The networking and multi-municipal collaboration in the design and implementation process has reinforced the results, which would have probably been less relevant if each municipality had undertaken the setting of a land bank on its own.

• The agroecological perspective, not specifically targeted by other land bank initiatives in Spain, has helped consolidate the narrative and network concept. The fact that Red Terrae land banks are centred in the restoration of environmental values has also been key to reach out to certain stakeholders (e.g. landowners with environmental concerns, municipalities with ecological motivations, etc.).

4) Actions led

One of Red Terrae’s main action to tackle rural and agricultural issues, besides the creation of the network of local authorities, is the creation and management of rural land banks that span across all the network’s members. Land banks linked to Red Terrae usually focus on marginal land of low agronomic value. They aim to foster the recultivation of land which is abandoned or likely to be abandoned. Red Terrae is thus maintaining a landscape that would be lost if land was worked solely for productive goals. The beneficiaries that Red Terrae targets are specifically unemployed people who can get first a training in organic gardening for self consumption. Once they have gotten experience in farming the land, a second stage consists of a longer training to enlarge production and direct it it to local markets and direct sell.

A central element associated to Red Terrae’s model is also the training of the DILAS (local agroecological facilitator). These are usually public advisors or elected officials from the municipality who take care of the land bank design and management process. Firstly, the facilitator elaborates the principles on which the land bank will be based. This document, named Local Agroecological Policy (LAP) exemplifies real local engagement with Red Terrae and serves as a guideline for further steps. Once this is defined, DILAS help integrate plots in the land bank (whether public or private land); interview and monitor potential land users, explore potential interest from restaurants and local food retailers to purchase food from the small food entrepreneurs; raise resources from regional institutions for farmers’ training; etc.

The Red Terrae network, on its end, manages the database with all the information on land demands from farmers requiring land and from landowners offering it. It also offers reports and advisory services to provide key land information to local authorities. For instance, Red Terrae made an inventory of abandoned or degraded public land in the region of Extremadura, assessing its agronomic potential and main actions to undertake in order to foster the development of agroecological farms in the region. If a public landowner and a land user decide to cooperate, a contractual agreement between them is settled, based on the principles recommended by Red Terrae. However, when it comes to private land, Red Terrae is not able to influence the process beyond connecting offer and demand.

5) Limits and perspectives

This case study is a great example for how local authorities can act as regulators (through establishing LAPs), as landowners (through integrating public plots in the land banks), and as facilitators (through connecting land users with owners and retailers). In this regard, the network has designed a blue print model for all its members to be applied in their territories.

Some of the main limits that were identified when implementing this action where the following:

• A continuously unsatisfied demand. There are more food entrepreneurs than land offers. This is one of the main challenges that municipal councils involved in Red Terrae are trying to solve.

• The agroecology perspective is still trivial and overlooked in many public policies.

• There is a lack of human resources to implement the different actions.

• Since local authorities cannot transfer the land management to a productive project on the long run without opening a public call, the result of land bank agreements is usually on a short-term basis. This, together with the type of land that is offered, means that land banks have limitations in supporting long term and professional farming activities.

The advantage of the network is its great potential of experimentation and innovation. Once the agroecological land bank system has been consolidated, the network could move on to create a blue print model for other initiatives, like an inter-municipal systems for farm incubators for instance. In addition, the Red Terrae model has proved it is transferable and adaptable to different contexts, provided that there is public and private land available and political willingness to articulate such a strategy at the local level.

Authors: Petra Tas and Annelies Beyens, De Landgenoten

1) Objectives and highlights

The city of Ghent is currently creating a vision with regard to the local farmland owned by the local Public Centre for Social Welfare (OCMW). The process to build the vision is participative, involving the organisation of workshops with relevant stakeholders. This initiative is embedded in a larger Interreg project, PROSPERA, with the goal to protect and strengthen open space and agriculture in Ghent.

2) Stakeholders involved

Leading public actors:

• The city of Ghent (different departments within the city administration are involved)

• The Public Centre for Social Welfare (OCMW) - OCMWs are the historical heirs to – mostly agricultural – estates donated to former charity institutions since the late Middle Ages

For a few years now the city of Ghent and the OCMW have formed the ‘Groep Gent' (Group Ghent). Therefore, the city is more involved in what should happen with the land in ownership of the OCMW.

Other actors:

Ghent involved other stakeholders in its vision-building work: farmers, citizens, different civil society organisations linked to agriculture, nature conservation and access to land, the province of Eastern Flanders, researchers, etc. To capture the input of the farmers community, the city reaches out not only to farmers within the territory of Ghent, but also farmers with Ghent as their market.

3) Context and levers

Ghent has had a local food strategy for about a decade: 'Gent en Garde'. Important pillars of this strategy are short chain supply, sustainable production and consumption, social added value, avoiding waste and circularity. Up till now, the actions related to this food strategy, however, are mostly consumer-oriented.

Ghent is a populated city, yet about 20% of the territory remains used for agriculture. Some of the farmland is in ownership of the Ghent OCMW, which owns about 1800 ha, of which 150 ha within the city limits. The majority of the remaining 1650 ha is located in a radius of 10 km around Ghent. Other plots are situated in the rest of the province of Eastern Flanders and the neighbouring province Western Flanders.

For the OCMW, it is important to allocate land for social goals, i.e. for the benefit of vulnerable groups. After the OCMW sold 450 ha of farmland in 2016 just across the border in the Netherlands to an enterprise in the hands of Fernand Huts, CEO of a large company, a farmer went to court to contest this sale. A citizens collective arose ('de Hongerige Stad', 'the Hungry City') demanding a change of policy regarding the sale and use of public land, which led to a moratorium on the sale of farmland until the end of 2022.

This was a trigger for the city of Ghent to increase efforts regarding local food and land strategies. Since 2019, it became a partner in PROSPERA, an Interreg project between five European cities that focuses on the protection and enhancement of open space and natural heritage in peri-urban areas. PROSPERA enables interregional exchange of knowledge and good practices, as well as methodology and tools building. Other participating cities are Varberg (Sweden), Debrecen (Hungary), Reggio Emilia (Italia) and Aristotelis (Greece).

4) Actions led

Ghent leads various actions to create an agricultural vision and a vision on how to allocate the land of the OCMW.

First, an experiment happened in 2017 in which the city launched a call for projects for about 10 ha of OCMW farmland to be used for sustainable local food production projects with added social value. A collective of farmers now uses this land in Afsnee, in the outskirts of the city, free of charge for a period of 9 years (with the option of renewing this term twice) under a few conditions.

More largely, since 2020, the land and agriculture vision-building work has begun with a first phase including the following actions:

• Elaborating basic principles of the agricultural vision in relation to the local food strategy. As mentioned, the city reached out not only to farmers within the territory of Ghent, but also to farmers with Ghent as their market to create this vision.

• Elaborating the basic principles for the replacement of nature grounds within a spatial implementation plan (already approved in flanking policy).

• Elaborating basic principles for strategic OCMW land for agricultural policy.

Phase 2, after approval of the vision:

• Refinement of the vision on agriculture and OCMW land.

• Process of realising the agricultural vision (with all farmers, also outside of OCMW grounds).

• Number of concrete realisations linked to the agricultural vision / OCMW grounds.

5) Limits and perspectives

Over the past 20 years, the number of farmers in Ghent has been halved. In order to be able to conduct a specific policy for this small group of people, it is important for Ghent to create a narrative that emphasizes the importance of this group for the city and its residents.

At the same time, Ghent faces social challenges for a significant number of inhabitants. The OCMW is willing to preserve public agricultural land rather than selling it if another source of revenue is found to support its actions for socially-disadvantaged groups (i.e. providing social housing, renovating residential care centers, etc.). This calls into question to the way cities and communities are being financed and the lack of financial means – which fuels the sale of public agricultural estates.

The Flemish farmland lease law creates another limitation. In the frame of this law, the city is not allowed to stipulate conditions for the use of public land (e.g. conditioning leases to ensure tenants practice sustainable agriculture, sell in short food supply chains, or realise other social goals), nor would it be able to freely choose the farmer to whom it allocates the land. Therefore, following the 2017 call for agricultural projects, Ghent opted for long but free contracts with selected farmers. This means tenants cannot benefit from the same security and rights the lease law offers. For the city, it also means no financial income is derived from this land. On the contrary, Ghent pays the OCMW for the use of these plots by sustainable farmers. Replicating this model for the remaining 1800 ha of OCMW land would not be feasible.

Author: Alice Martin-Prével, Terre de Liens

1) Objectives and highlights

The town of Mouans-Sartoux in France has created a municipal farm to grow vegetables for school lunches. The farm covers 85% of the vegetable needs for elementary schools. Beyond sustainable procurement, the municipal food and agriculture policy has grown into a more global program articulated around five pillars: growing, processing, educating, researching, and disseminating. Mouans-Sartoux has also reviewed its zoning plan to protect more farmland (from 40 ha to 112 ha), and voted to help organic new entrants to establish by subsidising up to 20% of their irrigation start-up investments (up to €12000), in order to preserver water resource.

2) Stakeholders involved

Local authorities involved:

• Mouans-Sartoux’s municipal council, in particular the mayor and deputy mayor delegated to education and food

Other stakeholders involved:

• The “House for Education and Sustainable Food” (Maison de l’Education à l’Alimentation Durable [MEAD]) is a municipal service established in 2015 to stir the city’s food and agricultural policy

• Research and education institutions are partners in some projects: Université Nice-Côte d’Azur, INRAE, Skema Business School.

• More partners are involved in exchanging practices and supporting the local policy: local rural and agriculture organisations, as well as national and international networks (a national network of organic school restaurants called “Un Plus Bio”, URBACT networks “BioCanteens”, Milan Urban Food Policy Pact, ...etc.

3) Context and levers

Located on the attractive French Riviera coast, the town of Mouans-Sartoux (10km north of Cannes) faces skyrocketing land prices due to competing demands for urban and touristic development. The rate of disappearance of farmland threatens not only food production, but also landscapes, biodiversity, and the maintenance of a farming tradition in the area.

From early on, Mouans-Sartoux developed a strategy of acquiring “strategic” farmland. In 2005, it pre-empted the sale of an old agricultural estate which was going to be bought by a developer. Located near the town centre, the estate is composed of 6 ha of land and a farmhouse. The acquisition amounted to €1 million. Mouans-Sartoux decided to re-designate this area as farmland so as to ensure it would remain in farming use in the long term.

Later the council voted to convert the estate into a municipal farm growing food for local schools, internalising the farm management within the municipal team. Mouans-Sartoux’ local councillors are dedicated to delivering high-quality public services and had prior experience with direct, in-house management of some services (water, local transport, funerals). Mouans-Sartoux’s actions have generated interest and trust from external funders and partners, which have further supported the development of its land and food actions further in the following years.

4) Actions led

In the 2000s Mouans-Sartoux investigated various ways to provide organic and local food to its schools but struggled due to a lack of local supply of vegetables, among other obstacles. In 2009, the town decided to start converting the agricultural estate it had acquired some years prior into a municipal farm growing vegetables for local schools. It carried out a feasibility study to provide food to the three public school restaurants. In 2010, the town obtained organic certification for the estate.

The municipal Park Departments tested vegetable growing on a few acres for one year, producing one tonne of potatoes and 130 kg of squash. These vegetables were included in the three school restaurants. After the test year, Mouans-Sartoux hired a salaried grower. The position of “agricultural employee” does not exist in public service. The municipal council decided to hire the farmer as an executive so that he would be paid for working days instead of working hours, which was considered more suitable for vegetable growing. In exchange, the municipality took charge of the farmhouse which was made available to the grower in addition to his monthly salary. In parallel, Mouans-Sartoux invested €60,000 in agricultural material (to purchase greenhouses, a tractor, irrigation, a cold room, etc.) to ramp up production. More recently, the town invested in a cold room and a processing lab to freeze or can the vegetable surplus from the farm over the summer when schools are closed.

By 2015, the farm covered around 80% (ca. 22 tons) of the school restaurants’ vegetable needs with local and organic products and, with the purchase of an additional 2 hain 2016, soon reached 85% (ca. 25 tons, or up to 96% except potatoes that are difficult to store in the region). This required important changes in practices in the school restaurants too. Kitchens were outfitted to handle fresh vegetables and ways of serving food were reformed to reduce waste. This, in addition to eliminating intermediaries and transport costs, has allowed not to increase the price of school meals.

The municipal farm is also an opportunity to re-connect with agriculture. Children are directly involved in the farm through educational projects. In 2016, the “House for Education and Sustainable Food” (Maison pour l’Education et l’Alimentation Durable [MEAD]), a non-profit entity, was created to implement Mouans-Sartoux’s food and agriculture policy. The MEAD carries out projects to change food practices at school and beyond. For instance, it accompanies local families to adopt more sustainable dietary practices. It also helps transfer and upscale the Mouans-Sartoux experience. By 2020, over 150 local authorities had been welcomed to visit the municipal farm. Education programmes at higher levels were also developed like the “Sustainable Food Project Officer” degree created in partnership with the Nice University. Finally, Mouans-Sartoux participates in European projects and networks (URBACT, BioCanteens, etc.) to exchange practices on procurement and food growing.

In parallel to this, Mouans-Sartoux is working to curb land speculation and favour the setting up of more farm businesses on local land. In 2012, it reviewed its zoning plan to triple the amount of land protected for agriculture (from 40 to 112 ha). It also voted to help organic new entrants establish on that land by subsidising up to 20% of their irrigation start up investments (up to €12000). Since 2021, the local authority has managed to find subsidies to hire a land coordinator. Among the plots that were protected for agricultural land in the zoning plan, further investigation is being carried out to determine those that could be interesting to set up farms (on different aspects: agronomic, access, need for infrastructures, connections to networks, etc.). This is combined with studying ways to recover fallow or forest public land for agriculture. Less than a year after being hired, the land officer had already had contact with a dozen farmers interested to establish in the area. The municipality is considering organising a call for tender when some public plots are rehabilitated.

5) Limits and perspectives

Mouans-Sartoux’s five-pillar land and food policy (growing, processing, educating, researching, and disseminating) has already borne many results. By 2020, three farmers were working on the municipal estate, two organic ​​new entrants had established locally to produce vegetables and perfume plants (a traditional production of the area). Numerous families and local people were involved in workshops on food and farming. 23 students had followed the “Sustainble Food Project Officer” degree. Between 6 and up to 10 staff are usually employed in the MEAD through public and private funding.

On land aspects, Mouans-Sartoux has taken courageous actions to protect farmland in a highly pressured environment. However, there are strong limits:

• rehabilitation of fallow land is costly and there are some environmental concerns when vegetation has been left to grow for many years (clearing can threaten some flora and fauna species);

• some landowners still feel that the zoning plan may change and are not inclined to lease to farmers. In addition, creating viable plots of land for farmers involves negotiations with several landowners as land is fragmented;

• farmland prices remain very high in Mouans-Sartoux compared to other areas (between €200,000 and €450,000 per hectare) and make it difficult for the local authority to purchase farmland;

• farm housing is an issue with high housing prices locally and the lack of possibility to facilitate access based on criteria linked to economic activity.

Mouans-Sartoux is nevertheless making progress and proceeding with care not to antagonise stakeholders (in particular private landowners). It is considering various areas in which to carry out advocacy to enable better food and farming action locally.

Here you can find a summary table with the case studies used throughout this handbook. By clicking the link, you can find a more detailed description of each case study.

Author: Françoise Ansay, Terre-en-vue

1) Objectives and highlights

The project (in progress) consists of providing food aid to 400 families in the municipality of Florennes from vegetables produced on the land of the public social welfare institution via a cooperative of citizens and farmers.

2) Stakeholders involved

Local authority/ies involved (and their location/specificities);

• Public Social Welfare Centre, Centre Public d’Action Sociale (CPAS) - Director and employees, with the support of the municipal college

Other stakeholders involved (and their specific role in the action, e.g. technical support, mediation, funding, etc.)

• Food aid beneficiaries

• Employees of the cooperative

• Terre-en-vue, a citizens' cooperative and association for access to land that is financed by the regional public authorities to support the project

• Farmers, occupants or potential occupants of CPAS land

3) Context and levers

The Walloon Region (French and German speaking part of Belgium) has about 12,000 farms. More than 50% of farmers will reach retirement age within five years and have no successors. These farmers are also tenants of public land, belonging to public authorities or local governments: municipalities, social action, churches, inter-municipal organisations, regional administrations, etc. This public land represents around 10% of the utilised agricultural area. It is a lever for political action that is often ignored by public owners. Since 2021, Terre-en-vue, in association with CREDAL, a social economy cooperative, has been mandated by the regional authorities to support some 15 public landowners on a pilot basis. However, more than 70 public landowners sought the services of Terre-en-vue and CREDAL to restore their land to build projects and political action. Many more resources are needed to ensure the remobilisation of public land

4) Actions led

One of the tasks of the Florennes Public Social Welfare Centre is to provide food aid to families in difficulty in the municipality. Thus, 400 food baskets are provided each week. These products are mainly primary products, but the CPAS soon added fresh, seasonal products purchased from local independent market gardeners. In addition, the CPAS complements its food aid work by organising cooking and processing workshops for the food aid beneficiaries.

The CPAS then looked at its own agricultural land to see to what extent it could also contribute to food aid. An inventory of the land was made and the tenants were identified. As in the rest of Wallonia, the population of farmers renting land is ageing. The objective of the CPAS is twofold : as the land is freed up by the ageing farmers who have no takers, to encourage - where possible - market gardenning on the one hand, and to help young farmers set up on the other.

Up to now, it is the employees of the CPAS assisted by some beneficiaries, who put together the baskets. This represents a lot of work. Gradually, contacts have been taken with the local citizens' food cooperative, COOPESEM. This cooperative, created in 2017, brings together citizens and farmers from seven municipalities in the Entre et Sambre et Meuse region, in the south of the province of Namur. It aims to gather products from local producers to feed the inhabitants of its territory. Once a week, consumers order their products, which are brought by the farmers to a central point and orders are then redirected to local retail points in the partner municipalities.

The CPAS and COOPESEM have started discussions to act together:

• the cooperative could be a marketing place for farmers who rent CPAS land;

• the CPAS food aid beneficiaries could complement the cooperative's teams of volunteers in putting together the baskets;

• Food aid beneficiaries have access to COOPESEM's offer and baskets at a reduced price, thanks to the intervention of the CPAS.

The CPAS is also thinking about offering food aid beneficiaries, in addition to cooking workshops, the possibility of helping out the producers or even receiving training in agriculture, as part of a socio-professional integration project.

5) Limits and perspectives

The remarkable aspect of this action is the integrated vision of the staff of the Public Social Welfare centre, considering the following principles

• The health of the citizens is at least as important as the quality of the food offered to them; local and seasonal food is essential to good health;

• Feeding oneself locally and cheaply requires the use of unprocessed primary products; it is therefore important that citizens can cook and process these products;

• Social action also consists in supporting the resilience of territories. In this sense, supporting the setting up of new farmers on public land is essential ;

• Social action is holistic. In this case, the project aims to enhance the value of local economic actors (coopesem), to rely on their expertise (supply and logistics) and to integrate beneficiaries (citizens benefiting from the social action, becoming volunteers of the cooperative).

In addition, the success factors of the project are :

• a supportive public authority that believes in integrated social action;

• competent personnel with an integrated vision linking health, training, territorial resilience and partnership;

• significant investment of human resources in the project;

• financial means to support the action;

• a dynamic territory with professional local food producers and actors.

The CPAS is looking for additional funds for its action because the implementation of such an integrated project for its poorest populations is not profitable in the short term. It is however a bet on the future of the mental and physical health and resilience of these populations that the Florennes CPAS is making here. In this respect, its action and that of its employees is remarkable.

To date, the CPAS in association with COOPESEM and Terre-en-vue, has submitted a note of intent for financial aid for "food and poverty" and a plot of land is being allocated for livestock or market gardening. The inventory of plots is underway to identify their potential availability to farmers.

Author: Françoise Ansay, Terre-en-vue

1) Objectives and highlights

The municipality of Ohey has about 90 ha of agricultural land (located in the agricultural zone) in the form of "essarts" (i.e. private domain of the municipality). These are small plots of land of about 0.25 ha which, historically, were intended to be made available to poor, non-farming households to enable them to grow food. Over time, as these families sourced their food from shops, the land was gradually rented out to farmers. In the early 1980s, the municipality revised its communal regulations: it granted the land to farmers according to a series of criteria for a period of 9 years. In 2015, the land had not been reallocated since the adoption of this last regulation. Five farmers were then sharing the lease of these public plots. A new regulation was put in place with the unanimous support of the farmers (represented in a communal commission) and the municipal council. After allocation under the new regulations, more than 30 farmers now benefit from the public plots.

2) Stakeholders involved

Local authorities involved:

• The municipal council of Ohey

Other stakeholders involved:

• The municipal “Farmers' Commission”, which brings together representatives of farmers cultivating on the municipality's territory

• The regional land management administration

• The regional land administration, which controls the legality of the regulatory acts of the municipalities.

3) Context and levers

As a small rural municipality of 5,000 inhabitants, with 90 ha of public agricultural land, the commune of Ohey had a regulation defining the terms and conditions under which farmers could be granted the management of this land. The criteria, which were historical, favoured farmers who lived in the municipality and had the largest number of dependents in their household. These leases were supposed to have a duration of 9 years. However, for nearly 30 years, the distribution of the land had not been reviewed. Due to the retirement of farmers and disappearance of farms, the essarts finally ended up in the hands of less than five farmers.

Thus, in 2015, the municipal council (and its Rural Development alderwoman) decided to revise the regulations in order to both better distribute the land among the farmers with the least land (concern for equity) and also to apply environmental clauses to certain plots (to preserve woodland edges, wetlands, paths and trails, and to ban pesticides for plots located next to housing areas).

4) Actions led

The municipality of Ohey has:

1. Implemented a new regulation to determine the terms and conditions for granting land to farmers. To do this, the regulation included preferential criteria for selecting farmers. The following criteria were used:

• possible loss of public essart land in the context of municipal projects in the past;

• age of the applicant (the youngest being the most favoured);

• current surface area used by the farmers as indicated in the last CAP declaration (the smallest area being favoured);

• ratio of utilised agricultural area per labour unit (UAA/LU) (in order to give priority to the farms with the most labour force);

• number of tax dependants (to give priority to applicants with the most dependants);

• proximity of the farm buildings to the desired land;

• being a farmer as a main professional activity.

A certain number of points were awarded according to these elements. The applicant farmer with the most points was awarded the land lease.

1. Identified the environmental weaknesses or assets of the plots and defined the terms of protection, on a case-by-case basis. For example: presence of a wetland (with the obligation to install a pond), protection of paths and woodland edges (by installing grass strips of at least 3 metres), ban on pesticides when the plots borders houses or schools.

2. Involved farmers and elected officials in the reallocation process in a participatory way. Throughout the process of reviewing the allocation of the essarts, the farmers – gathered within a communal commission – were consulted and their expertise was sought to adjust the regulations to their field realities. This also help make the farmers aware of the importance of greater equity in the distribution of the public land among them. The progress of the process was also regularly presented to the municipal council with all elected representatives of the commune. Finally, the regulation was adopted unanimously by the farmers and the elected municipal officials.

3. Revised the official size of the parcels to better correspond to reality. Indeed, with time and years, the transfers of plots following deaths or retirements, and the concentration of land, the initial small plots of 0.25 ha were regrouped and cultivated in larger plots of 2 to 4 ha. Thus, in the wake of the revision of the allocation regulations, a major task of re-demarcation of these plots has been carried out.

5) Limits and perspectives

This work, has lasted almost five years, could not have been carried out without:

• an important participatory process involving and empowering the farmers gathered in a municipal commission;

• the will of an elected official concerned with greater equity between farmers and the importance of supporting access to public land;

• a motivated and relevant administrative staff to manage the diversity and complexity of such a project.

The result is not only a better distribution but also a better use of the plots, notably with the application of measures to protect their environmental value.

Author: Anastasia Oprea, Eco Ruralis

1) Objectives and highlights

The objective of this case study is to understand contrasting attitudes from local authorities toward facilitating access to land managed in a common stewardship in rural Transylvania. The local authorities in Sâncraiu facilitated access to common land both directly – by providing information on available land to a young farmer – as well as indirectly by implementing a coherent and sustainable social and economic development plan, thus preventing depopulation and the commodification or privatisation of the land. In the Săcuieu commune, however, local authorities delayed infrastructure and social services modernisation, failing to facilitate both the engagement of local peasants and farmers in local decision-making, as well as land access and stewardship.

2) Stakeholders involved

We are presenting the case of a young shepherd living in Rogojel village (com. Săcuieu), Transylvania, who single-handedly runs a farm of 600 sheep, by relying seasonally on access to common land leased to him by the nearby village, Alunișu (com. Sâncraiu). The stakeholders in this case study are the local authorities, the town halls and local councils in the Săcuieu and Sâncraiu communes, respectively, in their different capacities of facilitating, or not, access to common land for the development of this sheep farm.

3) Context and levers

Romania hosts 31.5% of all EU farms. With 98% of farms in Romania using less than 10 ha of land, common agricultural land is a crucial asset for Romanian peasants, conditioning their possibility of keeping livestock and thus ensuring their market competitiveness and livelihoods, as well as continuing their traditional rural lifestyle.

The majority of permanent pasture in the country is under state or community ownership. Common grazing land is owned by local administration, private organisations or individuals, but is characterized by multiple grazing rights. Over half of the 3.4 million ha of permanent pasture in Romania can be considered common land. The vast majority of villages still retain at least one pasture which is used in common by the local inhabitants. The very low rate of intra-family farm succession (under 25%) and the general rural depopulation in the country are legitimising local authorities – often the legal administrators of the common pastures – to concession out large parts of the commons to industrial investors or to privatise the commons for non-farming purposes, such as urban sprawl.

In this analysis, we will use “commons” as common pasture, or grazing land. Most small farmers and peasants in rural communities traditionally send their sheep, goats or cows out to graze all together on these lands. Often the activity of looking over the animals constitutes the livelihood of one specialised small farmer, who is managing – at least seasonally – all the animals of the community, as is the case with our young shepherd. Rather than individuals buying or leasing their own grazing land, communities contribute to the maintenance and financial needs of the commons in exchange for access to the land for their animals, while at the same time paying individual contributions to the shepherd/cowherd, thus creating a local, community-based, circular economy system.

4) Actions led

Since not all land plots are registered in informatic databases in Romania, local authorities are custodians of the knowledge regarding who owns what land. They also play a key role in facilitating community dialogue around access to commons. This can lead to information and communication gaps between the local authorities and the members of the community.

The total surface required for the shepherd’s farm throughout the year is 130 ha, out of which he gradually bought 30 ha in his village, Rogojel, with another 30 hectares being rented in the same village from privately owned land. However, the Săcuieu commune, where the shepherd's family farm is located, did not support his efforts to search for more lands to sustain his own flock as well as for managing sheeps of the rest of the villagers (in exchange for produce and/or money).

On the other hand, the Sâncraiu local authorities chose to support the shepherd's access to land information and facilitate the use of commons. Furthermore, by designing and implementing a long term sustainable development plan for the commune, which consisted in significant investments in infrastructure, public services and social assistance, the local authorities prevented depopulation and promoted the local and sustainable organisation of the food chain. This includes the processing and marketing of agricultural products, animal welfare and risk management in agriculture - one of its top priorities, thus putting access to land for agroecological uses at its center.

The two local authorities in Săcuieu and Sâncraiu acted very differently regarding the access and management of their commons. As such, we will present two sets of actions which complement each other and reflect the contrasting stances with regards to access to common land, affecting particularly young farmers and new entrants to agriculture.

Actions led by the Sâncraiu local administration:

• incentivised traditional food production, reliant on the continuity of peasant and small-scale agriculture and common land stewardship, by attracting EU funds and implementing projects safeguarding local traditional craftsmanship;

• strengthened the economic autonomy and environmental sustainability of the community by supporting the establishment of a local agro-touristic agency which provides them with income, limiting the need for environmentally damaging industrial enterprises, including industrial agriculture;

• preserved the common land by implementing an updated river basin infrastructure and management project, mitigating the effects of climate change (river bank reinforcement, bridges, bed regularization - watershed development).

Desirable actions from the situation in Săcuieu:

• address and eliminate abuses of power by elected local representatives, in particular in relation to private/individually, as well as commonly owned and managed land;

• carry out and disseminate a comprehensive inventory of the commons the village, taking in consideration the different legal and administrative, as well as informal tenure and customary rights and agreements between local farmers;

• facilitate local, formal and collective organising of farmers (particularly young farmers and new entrants) into associations and/or cooperatives in order for them to gain more negotiation power in local democratic decision-making processes.

5) Limits and perspectives

The research for this case study entailed bilateral engagements with the local authorities from the two Transylvanian villages and communes, Rogojel/Săcuieu and Alunișu/Sâncraiu, on the topic of access to and management of the commons. Local authorities highlighted as main bottlenecks the lack of a generational renewal of local farmers, and particularly animal breeders. Additionally, the lack of more formal cooperation of the local farming communities was also mentioned as an important obstacle for better management of the commons. They also stressed the issue of pedo-climatic and biological degradation of the common pastures due to abandonment and poor management by private lessees (in the form of intensified over-grazing, under-grazing, inadequate maintenance and general lack of a long term farming vision over these lands).

Stewardship of the commons represents a unique alternative to the private farmland management system. The moderate degree of legal and administrative formalisation makes it particularly vulnerable due to a lack of transparency when commodified. Local authorities are central stakeholders in the management of the commons, having a strong legal/administrative role. At the same time, they have a disproportionate decision-making power on who has/gains access to the commons. This is due to the low level of democratic participation in the decision-making processes of the local communities. The lack of consultative processes including local farmers, peasants, and rural communities in general in local decision-making, as well as lack of self-organisation of farmers and peasants into local, formal associations or cooperatives are additional limits that explain the communities’ low negotiation power.

Author: Graciela Romer-Vásquez, Shared Assets

1) Objectives and Highlights

Cornwall Council’s cross-sector policy

A salient feature of the Cornwall Council’s policy and management of its farms estate is the combination of land ownership, regulation and facilitation. For instance, management and environmental concerns are interrelated with the policy emphasis on supporting new entrants to land based businesses (1). The policy guidance followed by this local authority is systemic. It includes different development sectors and their association to farming (e.g. health, education, water management, and ecoservices) across different landscapes.

Cornwall Council’s Farms Strategy includes several aspects such as:

• connecting farming with ancillary businesses;

• promoting new entrants’ access to land based businesses;

• the local authority meeting standards such as decent homes and animal health and welfare;

• a public consultation conducted prior to its design.

2) Stakeholders involved

Local Authorities Involved:

• Council of Cornwall County

• Council Farms Service

• Officers from Farm Teams

• Land agents

• Environmental services

Other stakeholders involved:

• External consultants to prepare the Whole Farm Plan

• Overview and Scrutiny Committee (currently Neighbourhoods)

• Partnership with the Isles of Scilly

• National Farmers Union

3) Context

Cornwall county is located in the southwestern tip of England. 78% of its land is used for agriculture, of which the Council manages around 4,500 ha (1.5% of the County’s land). This contributes £15m to its economy and creates farm-related employment for an average of 255 individuals, including part-time and seasonal workers (1). From the original formation of the Council’s estate of 400 let holdings, this number has reduced and the plots have increased in size, with 170 lettings in 1991 to 89 farm lettings in 2019. These are primarily livestock and dairy farms varying from 5.2 to 91 ha. Cornwall Council has historically managed the land and assets acting as landlord and local policymaker as well as implementing national policies on food and farming. From 1947 the Council’s aim was to retain rural workforce, then in 1970 it focused on reorganising and modernising farming.

The current local authority's overarching purpose is to foster productive and community-integrated land businesses that contribute to growth, based on sustainable development. Under this remit the Council has developed a long-term strategy (2019 - 2030) to guide the management of the estate (land, buildings and machinery). Some of the key issues that the Council’s strategy is seeking to address are poor soil management, biodiversity reductions, impacts on water quality and carbon emissions and enhancing new entrants’ access to land based businesses. Key actions are The Whole Farm Plan, to be implemented by farm holders, and the Council’s Estate Business Plan which should address: “profitable businesses, informed investment, good governance, measured management, enhanced environment and accessible acres”(1).

4) Actions led

Local authority key principles and actions:

Farming futures:

• Farming futures envisions opening the path to new entrants into farming, using existing council land and assets.

Sustainable estate:

• A key priority for the local authority is to have good governance and adequate management, for instance of the income generated by rents of council farmland. This relates to landlord - tenants partnership and how this is managed, which are set in the Whole Farm Plan prepared by consultants and implemented with farm tenants.

• A key action by the Council in 2019 was to provide affordable housing to farmers. There is a lack of clarity in the 2019 strategy as to whether this tackles existing farm housing concerns.

Environmental growth:

• The local authority plans to work with tenants on land management techniques and cropping rotations that protect and build soil nutrients, thus reducing the release of carbon dioxide.

• Methane capture, as well as planting woodland. This includes planting trees on about 300 ha of farmland over the next 10 years and the introduction of methane capture over slurry lagoons, reducing the release of greenhouse gases (2).

Vibrant communities

• A local policy planning initiative tabled in 2021 (3) on sustainable development in rural areas included three areas: spatial strategy, natural environment and green infrastructure; health and wellbeing; and shopping and community services.

• There is the aim of implementing CSA (community supported agriculture) and other schemes to promote new forms of production and generate community involvement. This action appears to need more work to be implemented as stated in the strategy and expressed by a councillor.

5) Limitations and enhancing conditions to move forward

Limitations:

• Having no policy to acquire more land and consolidating large farms can lead to highly concentrated land ownership. In this respect, the decision of the Council is to maintain the overall estate. Having said this, it is noted that given financial constraints, part of the revenue to invest in council farms is through selling off some high capital value residential buildings and decreasing the number of holdings available to let. This would mean tougher competition for applicants, explained a councillor in 2020 (2).

• The policy guidance would benefit from detailing paths to create incentives for new generations, for instance linking this to education or land succession paths or collective forms of management of land where share costs can be held.

• The narrow areas of production in public farms (stock and dairy) may limit the level of diversification to achieve a sustainable model of production.

• The combination of organic practices and use of fertilisers and other conventional methods – which can create environmental hazards – as a policy guide can create confusion at the time of implementation and monitoring by local staff and land users.

Opportunities to move forward:

• Given the Council’s aim to connect different sectors to farming, there is scope to move towards a more multifunctional farming sector in a systematic manner. For instance, involving land management with public food procurement and sustainable commercialisation.

• The Council endeavours to cap the land rents to enhance possibilities for tenants. However, this is not enough to meet the outgoings in farming businesses. Therefore there is a need to explore and invest in other land management models. For instance, in land trusts managed by CSA and small- and medium-scale cooperatives linked to wider provision and distribution of food by the Council.

• The recognition of the need for new models of production within a sustainable framework opens the possibility to learn from models that transition from conventional agriculture towards environmentally friendly agriculture such as agroecology (4), permaculture and organic farming.

Author: Graciela Romer-Vásquez, Shared Assets

1) Introduction

Three multisectorial and integrated actions are carried out in this case study, led by policymakers at the Glasgow City Council and local community organisations grouped under an umbrella local network - the Glasgow Community Food Network - GCFN:

• The Glasgow City Council transfers some of its assets (in this case, the public Ruchill Golf Course) through the Community Assets Transfer legal tool.

• A community network accessing public land (the golf course) through the council-led assets transfer initiative will transform it into a community social enterprise to build sustainable food systems.

• A multi-stakeholder approach to develop and implement the 10-year Glasgow Food Plan involving over 80 cross-sector organisations.

2) Stakeholders involved

Local authorities involved

• The Glasgow City Council

• The Glasgow City Region (covering other local authorities surrounding Glasgow city)

Other actors involved

• The Glasgow Food Policy Partnership created to undertake the consultation and the design of the Glasgow Food Plan

• The Glasgow Community Food Network growers - GCFN (coordinator of the partnership)

• City wide anti-poverty structures (including Challenge Child Poverty Partnership and Health and Social Care Partnership groups)

• Glasgow City Health and Social Care Partnership, Health Improvement

• Scottish Government Tackling Food Insecurity Team

• Glasgow Allotments Forum

• Central Scotland Green Network

• Glasgow City Council Corporate Procurement Unit

• Food Businesses and Hospitality

3) Context

Policymaking around access to land linked to building sustainable food systems is gaining traction among local authorities in Scotland in the face of rising food insecurity, poverty and climate change impacts. These policies are embedded in the process of land reform initiated by the Scottish government in 2003 and the requirement in 2016 for each local authority to build a food growing strategy in line with the Community Empowerment Act. This legislation enabled local authorities to facilitate access to land for community groups. As in other parts of the UK, Scotland’s local authorities face challenges to maintain several public facilities such as libraries, community centres and sports facilities such as football pitches and golf courses.

4) Actions led

1. The Glasgow City Council leads a Community Assets Transfer

Having struggled to maintain five public golf courses and following a review in 2020, the Glasgow City Council closed them and included them in a process to explore public interest in taking over these public assets. This included a submission process for community groups to take over land and public buildings, for instance through long term leases via community asset transfer using the People Make Glasgow Communities programme. The Council stipulated that public assets will not be sold to private entities but community groups will be prioritised to work towards community wellbeing.

1. The Glasgow Community Food Network seeks access to public land

Among the Glasgow City Council’s golf courses is the Ruchill course, about 30 ha of land, in Maryhill in the North West area of the city. Here the Glasgow Community Food Network submitted an expression of interest, as did other independent community groups. Consolidation of the network as a registered social enterprise is linked to Glasgow City Council’s requirement to be a registered entity in order to express an interest in a community assets transfer. In the process of deciding to submit their application, the GCFN’s strategy had two paralleled strands developed for about two years (2020-2022). The first was empowering and engaging communities. To this end the network embarked on an action-research initiative with the communities seeking to find who wanted the land and for what purpose, and to build evidence to engage with the local authority. An element of this research was a large community consultation in 2020. Other activities were a ‘Food and Climate Action’ including the ‘Show what you grow’ competition to engage people in a conversation about land for food production and create awareness of the right that people have to access land in Glasgow. This competition was linked to the ‘Demand For Land Campaign’ which resulted in the creation of market gardens toolkits. Other initiatives included the provision of educational programmes on food production and distribution such as the Glasgow Seeds Library and running seasonal events. The second strand was the network’s participation in the co-creation of the Glasgow City Food Plan.

1. The participatory process of co-creating of the Glasgow City Food Plan

Parallel to the Glasgow City Council’s decision to list the golf courses (along with other public buildings and sports facilities) for community asset transfer, was the policy directive to create the Glasgow City Food Plan. This policy holistically connects land access and food production to social and economic development integrating the national policy target of net zero carbon emissions.

The Food Plan is a 10-year multi-stakeholder and multi-sector initiative led by the Glasgow Food Policy Partnership – the body created to lead the plan’s preparation and implementation. The Glasgow City Council is one of the several actors co-creating and implementing the Plan within this Partnership body. The Glasgow Community Food Network, which has now been working together with the Council for some time, was elected as the coordinator of the Partnership. Other actors in the partnership are from the private, public and third sectors (some mentioned in point 2 of this case study) working towards sustainable food systems.

Preparation of the plan included a public consultation which attracted 600 responses from individuals and groups. The Glasgow City Food Plan covers : 1. Food Poverty - Fair Food for All, 2. Community Food, 3. Food Procurement and Catering, 4. Food Economy, 5. Food and the Environment, 6. Children and Young People. It is an ambitious plan that focuses on the food system crisis alongside reaching climate goals (national net zero emissions targets in particular) and enhancing local economies to tackle poverty within and in surrounding areas of Glasgow. As such, it shows the interconnections between urban and peri-urban food systems. In this respect, there are positive steps to incorporate into the strategy the Glasgow City Region, which covers several other local authorities and their peri-urban areas. The role of the Glasgow City Region is still to be defined. One of the actions to engage local groups in the Food Plan is the People Make Glasgow Communities programme (mentioned in section 4a above).

Results so far regarding the GCFN expression of interest for the Ruchill golf course

• Following successful first assessment, the GCFN has reached the second stage with a recommendation to join efforts with five other groups also seeking land for food related purposes. The Network has been engaging with these groups and there are positive steps towards presenting a joint application. This initiative seeks to convert the golf course into a community enterprise (its legal character is still to be defined) integrating food production, processing and commercialisation with the development of an educational centre where people learn about sustainable food production while addressing issues of diversity, equality, health and community development.

• The final decision will be announced before March 2023, with either the land being granted under lease (50 or 100 years) or as ownership community asset transfer.

• The community acknowledged the importance of land for food production despite the fact that sport facilities were desired and have been increasingly reduced.

• Through the consultation all residents participated in deciding how the land would be used. This process brought about outcomes relating to education of communities on governance issues such as local authority procedures and community empowerment – particularly among deprived and vulnerable groups. People gained knowledge and practice on how to use the community assets transfer clause included in the Community Empowerment Act.

Results so far of the design and implementation of the Glasgow City Food Plan

• The Glasgow City Council’s consultation process led to the strengthening of the links between community groups and the local authority.

• The Glasgow City Food Plan in its first year of implementation has succeeded in delivering the majority of its 55 short term actions, for instance the introduction of the Rose Vouchers to increase access to fruit and vegetables for low income families; the development of the Good Food for Glasgow campaign and two of the community-based projects have won external funding.

5) Limits and perspectives

Limiting conditions to moving forward

• The community asset transfer can enable community groups to access land. However, the risk is that these groups take on responsibility for contributing to ecologically based social and economic development without effective government investment and a risk of entering into competition with corporate interests.

• This is evident in the struggles of community organisations to secure funding – including for the lengthy and bureaucratic process involved in preparing the expression of interest for land acquisition.

• The first year (2021-2022) of the implementation of the Glasgow City Food Plan faced challenges due to increased costs, unreliable food supplies, workforce challenges and extreme weather.

• The Plan’s annual report in 2022 states that “Securing adequate resources, in terms of secure, long-term funding, appropriate expertise and partner support, will be vital if the necessary pace and scale of progress is to be achieved. Monitoring data is limited, incomplete or unreliable. Competing priorities are numerous and access to suitable spaces for growing, cooking, and trading locally produced food are limited”.

Perspectives for moving forward

• This case study shows the embedding of community grassroots work in social and economic development supported by local policymaking and national policies around food security, land and environment. It illustrates how community organisations can be key actors for local authorities devising and implementing policies.

• The processes of consultation for both the creation of the City Food Plan and the one carried out by the Glasgow Community Food Network concerning the golf course are educational processes in terms of community engagement and decision-making.

• The decision of the Glasgow City Council to give priority to community groups in the process of transfer of public assets is an enhancing factor to motivate people to pursue land for food-related initiatives.

Author: Nora Maristany Bosch, XCN

1) Objectives and highlights

Lluçanès is a 368,12 km2 area with a population of 7,713 inhabitants and characterised by an agrosilvopastoral mosaic landscape. The area faces recurring destructive wildfires. To reduce wildfire risk and foster rural entrepreneurship, the local authority Consorci del Lluçanès and the association of local forestland owners have set up an initiative called « Boscos de Pastura » (grazing forests).

They have developed a strategy to mediate relationships between private forestland owners and farmers (both established and new entrants) with the goal to foster the grazing in areas more prone to undergo a wildfire. This enables access to forestland for local herders. Different public bodies are supporting the process by managing the forest and investing in infrastructures to facilitate the grazing (water tanks, fences, fountains, etc.). All in all, this practice goes beyond the prevention of wildfires, since it is also contributing to the recuperation of silvopasture in under-used private forestlands, which in turn improves access to land, creates jobs, improves the local food supply and helps to better manage forestal resources.

2) Stakeholders involved

The leading partners of the initiative are Consorci del Lluçanès (supra-municipal authority composed of 13 councils) and Associació de Propietaris Forestals del Lluçanès (Lluçanès Forestland Owners associtation composed of about 80-90 individuals).

Other active partners include regional local authorities, established farmers, new entrants into agriculture, and the environmental organisation ADEFA, who offers advice for the protection of natural values and resources.

3) Context and levers

Mediterranean forests show an increasing vulnerability to wildfires due to climate change, and extinguishing them is getting more and more complex. Preventing wildfires and diminishing their potential magnitude is thus a key strategy. Extensive grazing in forests and wood pastures helps keep the forest undergrowth density at low levels and maintain open areas. However, the most wildfire-vulnerable areas are those characterised by difficult access due to steepness, lack of infrastructure, etc. – in a nutshell, areas with low productivity or yield. Bringing animals to graze in these areas represents an additional effort for farmers and a decrease in the herds’ productivity, which discourages farmers. The “Boscos de Pastura” initiative encourages the use of wood pastures by providing funds and investing it in infrastructures and measures that improve work conditions and make the grazing a more viable and desirable activity.

Some of the levers that have contributed to the success of the practice are the following:

• Forestland owners were already organised in an association, which facilitated the concertation work. Lluçanès Forestland Owners represents 80-90 private owners (owning 28% of the total surface of the Lluçanès forest) and is a proactive body, with a good relationship to Consorci del Lluçanès.

• The project is aligned with strategic plans of other public authorities. Diputació de Barcelona (public authority at NUTS3 level) has developed a Plan for Forest Management Improvement in the area (Lluçanès). The Department of Agriculture (public authority at NUTS2 level) has developed a Plan for the Recovery of Ovine and Caprine Sector.

4) Actions led

Consorci del Lluçanès is leading key actions to manage the forest and wood pastures and to facilitate grazing and to reduce biomass. They implement thinning treatments in pine, oak and holm oak forests, selectively removing the smallest and thinnest trees. Undergrowth clearings, debris removal and pastureland maintenance also take place. The local authority also acts on infrastructures, arranging forest roads and recovering and installing water troughs. They have carried out studies for the creation of new water points in elevated locations.

As for the actions targeted to farmers and landowners, Consorci del Lluçanès fosters the development of « grazing agreements », through which owners offer the farmer the right to use their properties (forest or wood pastures) for grazing, while farmers commit to graze it for at least five years. The agreements also specify the commitment of the Forestland Owners Association and Consorci del Lluçanès. The former provides funds to make some further arrangements to the estate and the latter commits to monitor, coordinate and mediate any conflicts or setbacks that may arise.

The following criteria has been retained for the local authority to support the “grazing agreements”. These agreements must take place on estates 1) where woodland management plans have been implemented during the previous five years, 2) which are owned by members of the forestland owners association, 3) which will support a productive project based on sheep or goats rearing. Both landowners and farmers must fill an application requesting to participate in the project. Decision-making is done by each of the active partners according to their respective roles. Further concertation takes place between the Forestland Owners Association and Consorci del Lluçanès to tackle specific issues. For instance, meetings are organised to discuss action plans, budget, etc.

This is a win-win-win project. Farmers access land on a free of cost basis, which increases viability of their production system. Landowners benefit from the infrastructure investment and the reduced risk of wildfires. The local authority manages the risk of fires while maintaining local agricultural jobs as well as exploitable forests.

In parallel with “Boscos de Pastura”, Consorci del Lluçanès develops action lines related to rural entrepreneurship with local technicians from the authority managing a service of entrepreneurship and a service supporting agrarian and food processing companies. When rural entrepreneurs need more specialised advice, Consorci del Lluçanès appeals to a set of external experts. The authority also promotes local products, including some by farmers that have accessed land through the “Boscos de Pastura” initiative.

5) Limits and perspectives

Since the project is based on shared governance between stakeholders and the involvement of local authorities in the management of private forest land, this practice is a good example of how local authorities can act as facilitators. It is important to note that only 0.3% of the land affected by the “Boscos de Pastura” project is public, with the rest belonging to members of the owners’ association. The initiative is not directly mandated by the local authorities; it is the choice of the private landowners and farmers to participate in the scheme through the grazing agreements. However, it is thanks to the facilitating role and cooperation of the Consorci that this practice is successful. The authority provides tools, information, and data on the development of the forest land, as well as coordinating actions and mediating conflicts.

Some limiting factors that “Boscos de Pastura” has encountered include:

1. The farming sector within the area is heavily focused on cows. Instead, the Consorci del Lluçanés is trying to foster sheep and goats raising, both because these animals achieve better results in terms of wildfire risk reduction and because this way the local economy is more diversified.

2. Difficulties in accessing European funds, because of an apparent lack of recognition of the value of forest grazing.

Author: Alice Martin-Prével, Terre de Liens

1) Objectives and highlights

Following a regional assessment and the creation of an Agricultural Charter, the Departmental Council of Ille-et-Vilaine decided to take steps to encourage young farmers to set up agricultural activities, develop local organic and diversified farming, and keep farms on a human scale. To achieve these objectives, the Council is working on the theme of agricultural land using different levers such as temporary ownership of banked land on which farmers can start up their activity, and mutually agreed exchanges of parcels of land.

2) Stakeholders involved

Local authorities involved:

• The Departmental Council of Ille-et-Vilaine initiated and implements the support schemes for land banking and parcel exchanges.

Other stakeholders involved:

• The SAFER regional rural land agency (limited company with a public interest role) purchases and holds temporary ownership of the banked land.

• The association Terre de Liens (TDL) Brittany plays a role as a local land actor, supporting new entrants to get land through this scheme.

• Other agricultural organisations can be contacted for support in setting up new entrants: CIVAM35 IT, Agrobio35, etc.

• The Chamber of Agriculture facilitates the plots exchange scheme and can provide advice on exchanges and the preparation of subsidy requests.

3) Context and levers

The department of Ille-et-Vilaine, in the Brittany region, observes similar trends to other French territories regarding land concentration (parcels sold for farm expansion), speculation (parcels sold for non-agricultural uses), and the lack of farm transfers to new generations. The Ille-et-Vilaine land banking scheme relies on a partnership with the SAFER rural land agency, which has market intervention power. The SAFER is notified of land offers and can purchase land on a mutually-agreed basis or through its pre-emption power. In recent years, the role of the SAFER has been expanded in the area of land watch and support to new entrants and sustainable projects. Concerning the land exchange procedure, it is included in the French Rural Code. Thus, the French regulatory environment provides favourable tools, but the Ille-et-Vilaine department decided to leverage them and support their use locally.

4) Actions led

Since 2007, the department of Ille-et-Vilaine has passed an agreement with the SAFER Brittany to intervene on the land market in favour of new entrants. When a farm that is of interest to a new entrant with a sustainable project is put up for sale, the new entrant can apply to ask to benefit from the land banking scheme. The Departmental Council processes the application to make sure it meets the criteria to benefit from the council’s support. Criteria include the fact that the farmer is setting up outside of a family farm and has a rural/agricultural project which is sustainable, organic, diversified, or has a high added value. If the Council approves the request for support, it commits to cover the costs incurred by the SAFER for the temporary land banking. This includes covering management and temporary ownership costs (such as utilities and property tax on land) paid by the SAFER, as well as covering the SAFER’s own fees for intervening (8% of the price for mutually-agreed transactions, 13% for pre-emptions). The Department’s financial help is capped at €15,000 per project. Above this limit, the Brittany administrative region can cover part of the extra costs linked to temporary land banking. New entrants’ applications also have to get the approval of the SAFER committee, which will give the final decision on whether or not to allocate land to them.

There are many advantages to this scheme. Firstly, the system makes it possible to react quickly when farms are put up for sale and to bank land for organic, sustainable and diversified agriculture in the region. Secondly, land banking provides precious time (up to two years) for the new entrant to finish preparing their plans for setting up their farming activity, particularly to secure funds and make the necessary arrangements to buy the land temporarily owned by the SAFER. During the temporary ownership period, the SAFER can sign a temporary occupation contract (COPP) with the new farmer, which enables them to begin their activity on the land. The COPP, however, does not allow them to benefit from start-up subsidies, as these can only be obtained once the land has been bought and the farmer becomes “officially” established.

As well as land banking to bring new famers to the area, the Department of Ille-et-Vilaine is involved in another land initiative: exchange of parcels of land in order to maintain, strengthen and improve the viability of existing farms. This type of exchanges, which are provided for in the Rural Code (article L124-3), is aided by the option of submitting a request for the Departmental Council to cover notarial and/or surveying costs linked to the exchange. Private owners (whether farmers or not) and public owners (e.g. regional authorities) are eligible for this assistance, with a ceiling of €1000 per party for legal documentation costs. The Department’s assistance covers 80% of costs for bilateral exchanges and 100% for multilateral exchanges. A visit from a departmental technician is required for the assistance to be granted.

5) Limits and perspectives

By 2017, the Departmental Council had helped new entrants launch their activities on more than 29 farms through the land banking programme (221 ha of banked land). 47 jobs had been created on the 29 farms. ​​

Limits for the land banking scheme include the fact that the cap of €15,000 on costs covered by the Department (equivalent to banking land for two years for a property worth €75,000) may appear not to correspond to the average prices of farms. The remaining costs can be partially covered by the Brittany administrative region, but on different lines of funding, which may not fully cover the SAFER’s fees (remaining costs may then have to be covered by the new entrant).

Regarding the parcel exchange scheme, there is a risk that it could contribute to speculation and the upward trend in farmland prices. This is because the publicly-funded land consolidation makes farms more attractive properties and therefore potentially increases their sale price.

Finally, it is difficult to monitor in the long term the environmental aspects, sustainability and innovativeness of the new farming projects and/or mutually-agreed exchanges promoted by the Council’s schemes.

Despite the fact that Department’s investment in land banking and exchange can be questioned by newly elected officials, it has so far been re-conducted with a budget of about around €80,000 - €100,000 allocated to the two schemes each year. In 2020 the amount allocated to land banking was estimated at around €70,000 and the amount for exchanges between €12,000 and €20,000.

Author: Alice Martin-Prével, Terre de Liens

1) Objectives and highlights

Since 2013, the municipality of Moëlan-sur-Mer in Brittany has been working on reclaiming fallow land along the coastline to encourage the development of environmentally friendly agricultural activities. The municipality used a “rehabilitation of uncultivated land” regulatory instrument from the Rural Code. With the assistance of the Departmental Council, an area of 120 ha of fallow land was identified and declared fit for potential agricultural use. In parallel, a dialogue was facilitated with the owners of the uncultivated parcels with support from Terre de Liens (TDL) Brittany and the Finistère Organic Farmers Group (GAB 29). By 2021, these efforts had allowed one vegetable producer and one social association to rehabilitate fallow plots (5 and 18 ha respectively).

2) Stakeholders involved

Local authorities involved:

• The Moëlan-sur-Mer municipality initiated the project; with active involvement of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor in particular.

• The Departmental Council and the Departmental Directorate of Territories and Sea (DDTM) supported the realisation of the official procedure. The DDTM is the competent authority for surveying and declaring the “uncultivated” status of fallow lands.

Other stakeholders involved:

• Two associations, TDL Brittany (focused on access to land) and GAB 29 (working to promote organic farming), were contracted by the municipality to reach out to landowners and inform them.

• Landowners, future farmers (candidate to recultivate the lands), as well as an environmental association (Bretagne Vivante) were also key players in the process.

3) Context and levers

Until the beginning of the 20th century, small-scale subsistence farming was practised in Moëlan-sur-Mer. After World War II, mechanisation of farming led to reduced interest in small parcels, which were left fallow and divided up further with each generation. In addition to land fragmentation, some owners’ speculative behaviours impeded agricultural use. They hoped that their plots could be turned into buildable land and sold for higher prices, and therefore preferred not to lease to farmers (the coastal location of Moëlan-sur-Mer makes it attractive for tourism and secondary homes).

The use of the “uncultivated land” procedure represented an important lever of action. This procedure aims to redevelop agricultural lands that have been unused for over three years. It can be triggered by individual demands or public initiatives. Through the procedure, owners are contacted and asked to choose between recultivating the land themselves, selling it, or allowing a farming candidate to recultivate them (the last option automatically applies if no response is received). The procedure also allows to recreate functional agricultural plots by combining the land of different owners, as well as to include parcels with no identified owners (around 20% of the total 120 ha identified in Moëlan-sur-Mer).

The strong political will of the municipality was crucial to undertake such a procedure, which raised much opposition from landowners. Furthermore, the support of the departmental authority and local associations (TDL Brittany and the GAB 29) with relevant expertise was key to achieve positive outcomes despite the context of land abandonment, land fragmentation, limited data on ownership, and resistance from landowners.

4) Actions led

Faced with land abandonment, landscape degradation, and dwindling local agricultural activity, the municipal council of Moëlan-sur-Mer called on the departmental authority in 2014 to begin a “rehabilitation of uncultivated land” procedure on its territory. The goal was to favour the development of environmentally friendly and locally oriented farm projects. The Departmental Committee for Land Planning (CDAF) identified an area of 120 ha of fallow land (23 parcels of between 0.8 and 12 ha). Via a Communal Commission for Land Planning (CCAF), the commune drafted a report on the parcels and their potential for agricultural, pastoral or forestry use.

In parallel, TDL Brittany and the GAB 29 collaborated with the municipality to identify and contact the owners. These had to declare themselves to the government services and decide on the future of the parcels (selling or recultivating). Beyond strict legal requirement, TDL Brittany and the GAB 29 ran a series of workshops to inform owners, reflect with them on the options for recultivation, and collaborate in setting up agricultural projects. The environmental group Bretagne Vivante, was also associated to help assess how to conserve the flourishing biodiversity of some of the fallow areas (by leaving some plots uncultivated, while designating other areas for diversified agriculture).

These efforts succeeded in lowering the resistance of some of the owners, who expressed a preference for attributing their parcels to new farming activities (rather than to existing conventional farms) and/or to organic projects with short supply chain, environment, landscape and social purposes. They also wanted to be associated in the recruitment of future farmers. In 2018, the workshops attended by the owners of six parcels (15% of the area identified by the CDAF) gave rise to a joint call for applications. Owners selected a vegetable producer to farm 5 ha and an association for socio-professional integration through agriculture to farm 18 ha. After obtaining an operating licence from the prefecture, the successful candidates set up their project (the association) or consolidated their agricultural activity (the vegetable producer).

The example of Moëlan-sur-Mer is unprecedented due to the scale of the “uncultivated land” procedure which concerns more than 1251 parcels (more than 400 ownership accounts), and the collaborative approach taken alongside private landowners, with support from actors working in the field, which contributes to the commune’s ambitious objectives of bringing back activities and rural jobs and driving a food and ecological transition.

5) Limits and perspectives

In 2021, more workshops were planned with owners to attribute more lands (three to five new candidates were expected to set up). However, a legal action was launched by an owners’ union to call into question the validity of the “uncultivated lands” procedure. The example of Moëlan-sur-Mer attracted a lot of attention and this union was keen to discourage other municipalities from repeating the process elsewhere.

The union’s opposition has delayed the process and discouraged some of the farming candidates. Another difficulty concerns the cost of rehabilitation of fallow lands. Clearing the plots and investing in farming infrastructure (irrigation, water storage, greenhouses) is very expensive. Subsidies for land clearing cannot be used, as these only apply to farmers who are already established and not to new farms. The municipality approached several institutional partners for financial assistance with the project (region, association of communes, public land institutions, etc.), but to no avail. It appears that financing programmes (the LEADER and/or EAFRD programmes for example) are not adapted for this type of project.

The old age of some landowners, the fact that many no longer lived in the area, and the very fragmented nature of the land created other difficulties. Many resources had to be used to first identify owners (or their heirs) and then contact and convince them.

Despite these obstacles, the municipality is satisfied with the fact that more than 10 local jobs were created by the association for socio-professional integration through agriculture (which was allotted 18 ha). The association has already harvested and delivered its products to the five central kitchens catering to nearby school canteens. The council has changed during the last elections, but the new team continues to carry the project despite obstacles, deeming it necessary for an ecological transition.

Author: William Loveluck, Terre de Liens

1) Objectives and highlights

The Grenoble Alpes Métropole (GAM) has for many years pursued the following objectives:

• protect agricultural areas in a landlocked territory, located in the middle of mountains and therefore with a limited usable farmland

• and to encourage the renewal of generations of farmers by intervening on the land market.

This policy has notably resulted in a reinforced relationship between the agriculture and the urban planning department of the Metropolis, the implementation of a space for the protection of agricultural land (PAEN – standing for ‘Protection and improvement perimeter for peri-urban agricultural and natural areas’) and a tripartite agreement (between GAM and land agencies – SAFER, EPFL) aimed at favouring interventions on the land market. GAM has also participated in the setting up of an inter-communal farm.

2) Stakeholders involved

Local authorities involved ;

• Grenoble Alpes Métropole (GAM), gathering around 450,000 inhabitants, located in the middle of three mountain ranges of the Alps;

• All the local authorities (49 of them) which are part of the Metropolis, especially the ones that have farmland on their territory.

Other stakeholders involved

• The SAFER (Société d'aménagement foncier et d'établissement rural – standing for ‘Organism for rural land design and rural settlement’): the regional land agency which monitors farmland sales and intervenes when needed to make the sales best suit national/local objectives. They take action by potentially buying the land, via their pre-emption right, and selling it back to the person they choose.

• The EPFL (Établissement public foncier local – standing for ‘Local public land agency’): a public institution whose mission is to assist local authorities in their land and building acquisitions (rural or urban). By ensuring the initial land banking and management, they free up time and resources so that local authorities may elaborate their development projects.

• Local farmers

3) Context and levers

With nearly 8,200 ha farmed by 225 farmers, 15% of which are organic, the GAM benefits from a dynamic socio-economic landscape reinforced by more than twenty years of regular actions in favour of agriculture. Between 2005 and 2015, agricultural areas in the metropolis decreased by 567 ha. As the GAM territory, in a mountainous context, already has limited arable land, the loss of agricultural land for urban development automatically reduces the potential for local food supply. Urban development and the decrease in available farmland have led to an increase in farmland prices of 22% between 2000 and 2019 (around €7,150/ha in 2019 in the main valleys, while the average price of agricultural land in the region was €4,900/ha). The necessity to “manage land scarcity” (has pointed out by Lilian Vargas, head of the GAM’s Agriculture, Forestry, Biodiversity and Mountain Department) has historically led to incorporating a vision for agriculture in territorial planning – rather than considering agriculture just as an "economic sector". Furthermore, the local agriculture is traditionally based on mixed farming and livestock production, which makes it adapted to supplying diversified products for the urban market. This “double vision” (land and agriculture planning) has led to “cross-cutting approaches” at several levels in GAM. Within the agriculture department itself, which is affiliated to the planning department (where in many authorities it is rather attached to the economic department), and in the internal working habits of the local authority, where the agriculture department is present and able to do "internal lobbying" in any other commissions which could involve urban development (transport, etc.). This ensures that all decisions from these commissions take farmland and farm structures into consideration. GAM is also part of 14 national and European networks, and is very proactive in the ‘Terres en Villes’ (standing for ‘Lands in Cities’) network, which has made it possible to advocate at higher levels of government for regulations to protect farmland. The GAM staff notably participated in proposing new schemes such as the PAENs (protected perimeters for farmland), for which they participated in elaborating the first legal draft.

4) Actions led

According to GAM, the French legal framework already offers many interesting tools concerning land management and land regulation. However, for efficient action it is important to have good political support, to use these tools in an ambitious way, and to combine them in a coherent manner.

Regarding land planning, the GAM has combined:

• an ambitious Territorial Coherence Scheme (SCoT), i.e. a planning document that provides directions for larger “living areas” (several communes). Beyond a shared vision and objectives, the GAM’s SCoT includes indicators and a good framework for its implementation, so that it can play a prescriptive role and legitimise internal negotiations (e.g. maximum number of square meters per dwelling, precise zoning of development areas, strict limitation of potential developments in zones with sensitive issues, etc.). The current SCoT aims to slow down urban development on agricultural land and to protect 90% of the agricultural and natural areas as they existed in 2000.

• an inter-municipal Local Urbanisme Plan (PLUi), which concretely defines the rules for construction and land use at the plot level in the 49 local authorities of the territory. The PLUi has also made it possible to declassify 188 ha of land intended for urbanisation in favour of keeping farmland for agricultural use.

• a Perimeter for the protection of agricultural and natural peri-urban areas (PAEN), which was implemented to protect 610 ha of agricultural and natural land from urban development. In the GAM’s context, the PAEN was simpler to implement as the farmers are mainly leasing their land and not owning it (they are not opposed to a strong legal protection of land, as they cannot potentially get money from the sales). Furthermore, the methods of consultation used by the Metropolis were key for successful implementation. They involved seeing farmers and municipalities one by one, before organising collective meetings. Two other projects of this type are currently being studied on the GAM territory.

Concerning the land intervention policy, in 2010, the GAM supported the acquisition of a farm in partnership with four local authorities, in order to save one of the last farms of a geographical area. The local authorities invested in adapting the farm buildings to meet the legal norms, which allowed a couple of goat breeders to work there organically, in accordance with the specifications of the call for applications for this farm. In 2013, the Metropolis adopted a framework deliberation setting out the principles for its intervention on land. A tripartite agreement to acquire and protect farmland was also negotiated between the GAM, the SAFER and the EPFL. This collaboration enables to react quickly to changes that may affect agricultural land. If necessary, SAFER’s pre-emption right is used, and if a long-term intervention is needed, the EPFL can bank the land for the time necessary to set up an agricultural project. Since 2013, GAM and the EPFL have acquired more than 110 ha of agricultural land, of which 35 ha are used by four farms created entirely on metropolitan properties (seven farmers), 20 ha are land reserves on which calls for projects will be organised, and 55 ha are small plots spread throughout the metropolis that are rented to some twenty local farmers.

5) Limits and perspectives

The GAM case provides a good example of an approach that successfully combines agricultural development and land use planning. The local land policy incorporates many of the regulatory tools available to local authorities in a coherent manner around clear and shared objectives. Regarding farmland protection, however, the GAM’s experience shows that regenerating and densifying urban spaces, which is a corrollary to safeguarding open spaces, is a more complex and more expensive endeavour – as you need to adapt old buildings to new needs – and therefore requires a strong political will.

The Metropolis’ agreement and collaborations with the SAFER and the EPFL are very effective to intervene on land sales (not only because of the agreement itself, but also due to the good partnership and work habits established with these institutions). However, it is not effective to intervene on most farm successions, which involve both lease and ownership transfers, given 80% of the agricultural land is leased in the region.

The GAM’s recent shift from an ‘agricultural policy rationale’ to a ‘food policy rationale’ also involves a much broader approach, in which they need to link land and agricultural issues with health, social issues, cultural heritage, etc. In this new paradigm, local authorities need to think jointly about supply and demand and about "flow" logics. The solid land policies that GAM has built in the previous decades will therefore have to serve this new logic.

Author: Hans Albrecht Wiehler, Kulturland

1) Objectives and highlights

The agricultural programme in essence is a political action plan of the city of Hannover to achieve the following objectives: coordinating spatial planning and development with farming, maintaining economically viable farms, supporting the conversion to organic agriculture, establishing regional marketing of food and fostering nature and landscape conservation.

The programme was drafted in 1994 for the first time and revised in 2001 and 2017. The latest version represents a significant expansion of the scope of the previous agricultural programme: it is no longer just about agriculture and commercial horticulture and their development in Hannover, but currently it is about all forms of food production and land use in the city. It therefore also includes all gardens and non-professional garden uses, from traditional allotment gardens to new initiatives and areas of "urban gardening" or "urban farming". In 2020 it was still the first of its kind in Germany.

2) Stakeholders involved

a. Local authorities involved

The agricultural programme was designed, formulated and is mainly implemented by the Department of Environment of the City of Hannover. It was passed by the Council of the City of Hanover. The initiative for drafting the programme goes back to the strong personal interest and engagement of an individual staff member of the above-mentioned department.

b. Other stakeholders involved and their specific role in the action

The programme was drafted through the involvement of relevant stakeholder groups that are also still part of the implementation. Examples are civil society organisations like Slow Food Movement Hannover, Food Council Hannover, Transition Town Hannover, but also individual farmers (especially successors), public bodies like the Chamber of Agriculture Hannover, universities, retailers and consumers.

3) Context and levers

Being a dynamically growing city, Hannover has and keeps losing farmland and suffers from land fragmentation and ecosystem degradation. The programme therefore is aiming at preserving open spaces for local recreation, promoting environmentally friendly land use for nature conservation and climate protection, and contributing to the food supply for Hanover´s population.

A dedicated staff has ensured that the programme was implemented and developed further ever since its initiation. Especially since 2000 the World's Fair was hosted in Hanover, which gave the development of the programme a renewed push that led to the first review in 2001. Also the fact that the city still owns a considerable amount of arable land gave the Department of Environment the possibility to play an active role.

4) Actions led

The programme combines efforts for nature protection, healthy nutrition, localising economy and supporting farmers. It does so by aiming at:

• Reducing the use of agricultural land for construction and preserving it altogether where there are particularly fertile soils.

• Coordinating all planning instruments, from urban land use planning to landscape and nature conservation planning, in such a way that farms are involved and their interests are taken into account.

• Implementing the principle of "protection through use" in cooperation with farmers.

• Supporting farms in converting to extensive/ecological forms of farming by applying conversion to organic farming as compensation for infrastructure measures and by providing leased land.

• Acting as a role model for the purchase of regional, organic products by municipal institutions.

• Contributing to the development of environmentally friendly distribution and marketing structures for agricultural products in the city and the surrounding area.

• Securing land for gardens.

• Developing perspectives for a stronger use of allotment gardens with regard to self-sufficiency together with their interest groups.

• Promoting initiatives for community gardens, tenants' gardens and self-harvesting gardens.

• Supporting communication between all garden users.

A mix of measures are derived from these objectives. The ones that are listed under priority 1 (out of three priorities in total) are the following:

1. No use of strategic agricultural land for construction or infrastructure projects.

2. Promotion of “Land care through extensive agricultural use”.

3. Publicly owned land is preferentially leased to organic farms.

4. Procurement of regional and organic products for city-run institutions (day-care centres, canteens, recreation centres, etc.) and events.

5. Educational programmes at farms and especially “Open farms” that include DIY elements and direct marketing.

6. Self-harvesting gardens offered by farms as a service.

5) Limits and perspectives

The programme is quite comprehensive in such a way that it touches upon all three types of actions (public ownership, regulation, facilitation) with an emphasis on land stewardship. However, concerning regulation of land use and land stewardship it is still lacking 100% political backing within the municipality. For example, property development is regularly given priority over farming in decision-making regarding land use because of the stronger political agenda and more influential political players. Furthermore, there is insufficient resources and especially staff to implement the programme to full extent.

There is a strong emphasis on the “nutrition” side of the programme: building civil society networks, fostering education and promoting producer-to-consumer direct marketing are central activities. This strategy follows the idea that once nutrition and food supply gain momentum, more critical issues like access to land, land preservation and agroecologial farming will reach the local policy agenda.

It would be very helpful if policies would hold municipalities generally more responsible for agriculture and nutrition and support them in developing such context-based strategies. If “agriculture” and “nutrition” would be part of the mandatory responsibilities of municipalities it would be much easier to get political backing and mobilise resources. This would also help to increase attention for land issues in case of conflict e.g. with building development.