I’m having some trouble deciding what my role is here. I’ve always been on the policy advocacy side of things. Now I’m supposed to be a facilitator, a stakeholder engager, a bridge, a person who is supposedly more neutral. Now some of you would probably roll your eyes by now, since I’m rarely neutral on any issue, especially something as important to me as food/agriculture.
But that’s what I’m supposed to be. I’m supposed to be helping bridge the gap between the farmers and the governmental bureaucrats. I’m not supposed to be advocating for legitimization of urban agriculture. I’m supposed to advocating for what the farmers want.
You see the difference? I used always be advocating what I think is correct or what I want. But now I’m supposed to be the middle person.
So in many ways, I am helping to make the compromises. And if it’s one thing I don’t like when doing political advocacy is compromising. It’s not that I don’t think it’s necessary, it’s just that it’s so unnatural to be actually advocating for a compromise!
What I mean is this – we’re trying to get secure land tenure for urban farmers. Yet, many government planners won’t budge because of a combination of really having no land in urban areas and the outdated (but very entrenched) notion that agriculture only belongs in rural areas. So it’s pretty much impossible for all of the farmers groups that we work with to get their specific areas to be designated as urban agriculture land. If we really do advocate for all the areas, it would probably take forever and we won’t get anything done. But it’s a fine line between that and just giving in without a fight. After all, we are the only ones representing the farmers’ voices.
The problem comes in when my supervisor and I have different ideas about how much we should compromise, at least without a fight.
I, of course, being the “radical” wants to at least try to advocate for the really urban areas to be incorporated, not just the peri-urban areas. Isn’t that our duty as an NGO that is trying to help marginalized populations?
My supervisor, being the ever pragmatic town planner, wants to just make this as non-controversial as possible so that the process can move faster (and of course so we can report that we’ve made progress to our funders).
So, what to do, what to do?
2 replies on “Advocacy vs. Neutrality”
It depends on how long you’re there, and how long the negotiations will last, yes? I mean, suppose you were to advocate for the semi-urban land to be designated as farmland, and then (once the first deal is concluded) do the same for the urban areas. Would the urban areas be at any disadvantage other than having to wait longer? (I mean, I can imagine a few, but I don’t know how significant they are.)
Alternatively, is it possible to advocate for a test site, just to show that urban agriculture is entirely feasible?
As you can tell, I’m somewhat on the side of the pragmatists :)
Well it’s very important to have everything set right now. The Master Plan will be done soon (soon, doesn’t mean soon in a North American context) and once that is set, it’s very hard to change. After all, that is the document that will be guiding town planning for the next I-don’t-know-how-many-years (the last fully official one was done in 1979, with a small update from 2000 (? I forgot the exact year)). Hence if the urban areas don’t get incorporated now, they pretty much have no chance until 20 or 30 years down the road.
Also, urban areas would be at a very large disadvantage. The city is growing so fast that I’ve been told it seems like the urban ag land has halved in the last two or three years. Corruption and unplanned settlements are a large part of the cause. The longer we wait, the more impossible it would be to set aside land. Even now, the municipalities with the highest densities are very reluctant.
That’s why even if we really have to resort to “demonstration plots” in the really urban areas (which is an idea we are pursuing to appease planners – at least that’s what we say), I’m still trying to advocate for a clause where land that is suitable can be added in without waiting for the next Master Plan.
It’s such a delicate game. It feels pretty insane that we’re pretty much the only advocates (well lots of people support the concept, we’re just the ones actually pushing for it) in Dar. And technically, I’m supposed to be the one responsible (in reality, all the important negotiations also involve my supervisor).
But I’m on cloud 9 right now because the recent negotiations have been going really well!