In this blog post, I will explore the possibilities of urban agriculture in Singapore, in particular, Zero-acreage Farming (Z-farming). Z-farming refers to “all possible types of urban agriculture in and on buildings” (Specht et al, 2014), and it is different from other forms of urban agriculture. One of its key aspects is the “recycling of resources, especially those derived from synergies between agriculture and buildings” (Specht et al, 2014). For example, Z-farming collects rainwater for watering plants, or makes use of organic waste for compost. They include soil-based production on small garden rooftops or greenhouses, and also hydroponic systems. While this may seem an enticing idea, especially in countries like Singapore which are heavily urbanised and arable land is scarce, I will argue that Singapore cannot entirely rely on Z-farming for food security, mainly due to the large capital costs involved and a lack of scale. Ultimately, the benefits of Z-farming do not extend to lower-income families. Z-farming is contingent on several factors to work before it can constitute a significant portion of the food supply.
Before diving into why I believe Singapore cannot rely on Z-farming, we must first understand what food security is like in Singapore. Back in 1970, “nearly a quarter of the island’s area was devoted to farming” (Short, 1988). Today, it accounts for only 6%. Rapid urbanisation caused “the demise of … tiny, widely scattered farms which … formed the backbone of local agriculture” (Short, 1988). Today, only 1% of Singapore’s land area has been allocated by its government for agricultural purposes (Wewalaarachchi and Thompson, 2019). Land use is dedicated to other purposes. For example, the Singapore government is reclaiming farmland for military use. 62 farms in Lim Chu Kang were told to move out once their leases expire between 2017 and 2021 (Tan, 2017). Food security, as established at the 1996 World Food Summit, is met when “all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life”. To be food secure today, Singapore relies heavily on imports, with less than 10% of food produced locally (Quek, 2021).
However, it seems that there are other considerations at play. Singapore’s government recognises the importance of being self-sustainable, and I will highlight just a couple of factors. First, food protectionism can occur, especially during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic that disrupted global supply chains. Diversification of food sources, as Singapore does from more than 170 countries and jurisdictions, “may not be enough to ensure a stable supply” (Tan, 2021). Second, climate change can lead to major seasonal changes, resulting in erratic or drastic reductions in crop yield (Simmons, 2020). These potential food supply shocks provided the impetus for initiatives like Singapore’s 30-by-30, aiming to produce 30% of the food supply by 2030, and a hefty $40 million grant by Singapore Food Authority (SFA) to increase output. For example, I.F.F.I has an environmental control system to ensure optimum yield all year round (Tan, 2021). Z-farming is one of the options that Singapore is investing in to reach the targets set.
Having said that, Z-farming still has a long way to go before becoming an economically viable reality. One major difficulty is the huge amount of capital needed for Z-farming construction and operation. Hydroponic systems or rainwater processing, for example, are technologically-advanced procedures that require heavy investment. Moreover, “existing building infrastructures are not necessarily compatible with the implementation of energy loops or other resource-efficient systems” (Thomaier et al, 2015). This is why Z-farming has a wide range of parties involved, including engineers, designers, and city administration, resulting in heavy manpower cost and more time needed for collaboration. These costs are then passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. Only people from higher-income families are able to afford these products, leaving lower-income families stranded.
Moreover, Specht et al also suggests that to offset these high costs, Z-farmers will choose to produce high value goods, such as micro greens or tomatoes. “Commercial CEA farms are likely to focus primarily on recouping their investment by growing high-value crops for wealthy consumers e.g. lettuce and basil rather than nutritional produce priced for low-income residents e.g. spinach and kale” (Goodman and Minner, 2019). Staple food, including grain and potatoes, are not produced because there is no financial incentive. The absence of staple food diminishes the food security of lower-income families. Furthermore, in New York City and Chicago, Z-farming is primarily located in neighbourhoods with median income level instead of low-income (Thomaier et al, 2015). Without physical or economic access to these food, one can hardly say that Z-farms are the panacea to ensuring food security.
Last but not least, Z-farming can hardly produce enough for the population. “The relevance of Z-farming in terms of productivity is very low compared to rural production” (Specht et al, 2014), and it would require large-scale implementation of Z-farming and other forms of urban agriculture for there to be enough produce.
There are studies that assert that urban agriculture can account for “approximately 30,000 tonnes of additional leafy vegetables in a financially viable manner” (Montesclaros et al, 2018) However, Montesclaros et al also recognises that this ideal is contingent on several factors. These include financing choices by firms to offset initial costs, marketing channels to sell locally-produced goods to consumers, and increasing the receptivity of locally-produced goods through the design and promotion of ‘organic’ certifications.
In conclusion, Z-farming (at the present moment) is not economically viable to produce food that can feed the masses. The high costs involved increase prices, limiting Z-farming benefits only for wealthier families. The food produced is unlikely to be staples needed for everyday sustenance. In order for Z-farming to become a legitimate force for food security (besides developing more advanced technology), there is a need to encourage consumption of locally-produced goods. This will take many years of research and development to reduce start-up costs and find more cost-effective maintenance methods, without compromising on the quality and quantity of food. This does not mean that we throw the baby out with the bath water, though. Z-farming can still provide some foods to supplement one’s diet. However, “Z-farming in developed countries is geared to the qualitative improvement of food systems rather than securing basic food supply for low-income residents” (Thomaier et al, 2015). As Singapore slowly transits towards a future where it is more self-sustainable, we should not place all our bets on Z-farming as a foundational food source, yet.
References
Specht, K., Siebert, R., Hartmann, I. et al. Urban agriculture of the future: an overview of sustainability aspects of food production in and on buildings. Agric Hum Values 31, 33–51 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9448-4
Short, D.E. Planning agriculture’s last stand in Singapore. Geography , October 1988, Vol. 73, No. 4 (October 1988), pp. 357-359 Published by: Geographical Association. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40571470
Wewalaarachchi, S., Thompson, E. C. Singapore: Making Space for Farming. Asian Smallholders in Comparative Perspective (2019). Published by: Amsterdam University Press.https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvrxk2k6.11
Tan, Audrey. “Lim Chu Kang Farmers perplexed by 3rd Lease Extension.” The Straits Times, 28 May 2017, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/turning-to-local-production-and-leveraging-technology-to-ensure-food-security
Quek, Eunice. “Grow Local: Greater Urgency to Produce 30% of Singapore’s Nutritional Needs Locally by 2030.” The Straits Times, 23 Feb. 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/lifestyle/food/grow-local
Tan, Audrey. “Turning to Local Production and Leveraging Technology to Ensure Singapore’s food Security.” The Straits Times, 10 Feb. 2021, https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/environment/turning-to-local-production-and-leveraging-technology-to-ensure-food-security
Thomaier, S., Specht, K., Henckel, D. et al. Farming in and on urban buildings. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , February 2015, Vol. 30, No. 1 (February 2015), pp. 43-54. Published by: Cambridge University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26341778
Goodman, W., Minner, J. Will the urban agricultural revolution be vertical and soilless? A case study of controlled environment agriculture in New York City. Land Use Policy 83, 160-173 (2019)
Simmons, D. “A Brief Guide to the Impacts of Climate Change on Food Production.” Yale Climate Connections, 16 Oct. 2020, https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2019/09/a-brief-guide-to-the-impacts-of-climate-change-on-food-production/
Montesclaros, Jose Ma. Luis, et al. “Scaling up Commercial Urban Agriculture to Meet Food Demand in Singapore.” NTS Report 2018, vol. 7, 2018, https://think-asia.org/bitstream/handle/11540/8499/NTS-Report-No.-7-–-Scaling-Up-Commercial-Urban-Agriculture-to-Meet-Food-Demand-in-Singapore_-February-2018-1.pdf?sequence=1
a little pea sprout 