Case: Backyard Chickens

Introduction

While issues of housing, transit, or waste collection can all be quite controversial, the debate on raising hens and growing food in urban spaces can really ruffle some feathers. Debates such as these are part of the public policy ecosystem. Public policy is, to use Thomas Dye’s definition from 1972, “anything a government chooses to do or not do.”^[1] While personal policy (the rules we use to guide our actions) and organizational policy (the rules and guiding principles of a company or group of people) also intersect with our everyday lives, the focus of this chapter will be the role of municipal governments in public policy.^[2]

Public policy across scales—municipal, regional, provincial, national, or international—can come in many forms and is often situated within a specific community or context as part of the larger structures of governments.

It is important to acknowledge that municipal policy is a form of settler-colonial governance, as it is made for and by settler communities across the United States and Canada. This chapter highlights several projects that support the revitalization of foodways and knowledges in food systems.

Municipal policy in food systems

Local sites of governance, such as municipal governments, are becoming increasingly important for food systems policy transformation. Municipal and regional governance offer one of the most intimate and grounded spaces for policy implementation—narrowing the gap between the structures that govern and the people who are affected.

The following cases explore the role of municipal policy in food systems. To provide a more grounded view on the policy development process, I focus specifically on two areas: backyard chickens and land for growing. It is important to note that municipal food policy is much broader than just these two areas, encompassing issues from the number of food retail outlets in a community to the creation of pollinator habitats. While both cases presented are based in Ontario, Canada, links to other examples in the United States and Canada have been included to explore what is happening in other communities.

Backyard Chickens

Before beginning this section, take a few minutes to read and view this article and archived video clip from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

In Toronto, Ontario, Canada, the UrbanHensTO pilot project was launched in 2018, but debate on the subject is far from new^[3]. The case of Toronto shows how policy evolves, rather than being a binary decision made at a discreet point in time. Advocacy coalitions, policy champions, and policy brokers may all play a role in the outcome of the policy development process. The 1980s saw a rise in concern from both community members and policy makers (i.e., City Councillors) about the negative impact chickens could have on the health and well-being of residents. Noting odour, noise, and nuisance, the Toronto City Council supported the adoption of a bylaw banning the ownership of poultry.

This decision shifted poultry-owning policy from a more laissez-faire approach towards an active restriction on ownership. While there were active participants on both sides of the debate, the blunt use of a restrictive policy instrument meant that chicken farmers who chose to keep their flock would be in violation of city rules. In the decades since, advocates have lobbied, researched, and educated communities about the benefits of chickens in an urban setting, as well as researched how to mitigate the earlier risks or nuisance concerns. Using communication tools, such as sample letters, education materials, social media and online forums, and petitions, advocates have continued to fight for re-evaluation of the previous policy decisions.

In 2018, these long-fought efforts were partially recognized with the introduction of a time-limited pilot program that would run in specific wards of the city. Coverage of the decision also notes the importance of policy makers as advocates from within the governance structure^[4]. For UrbanHensTO, a set of city councillors were supportive and championed the efforts of advocates at the municipal level. In addition, a broader coalition of individuals and organized networks created a system of information sharing and advocacy. Urban chickens—and urban farming more generally—are both a way to grow food in city settings and are activities that highlight the role of municipal governance in food sovereignty. In addition to the municipal-level, policy at all scales can create enabling frameworks that allow for community-led and community-informed decisions.

Table 1: The phases and processes in the evolution of policy

City Lands, Bylaws, and Urban Growing

Before beginning this section, take a few minutes to read this 2019 CBC News article or watch the City of Hamilton’s 2016 video about the McQuestern Urban Farm.

Urban food growing can occur on both private and public property, given the right conditions and rules are in place at the municipal level. In Hamilton, Ontario, policy makers and advocates have been working to create an enabling environment for growing food in communities across the city. In this case, a key report was submitted to the City of Hamilton by the Urban Agriculture Working Group (“the Group”) that became the basis for change. The Group brought together members of housing, health, public works, and other departments to study how local food systems could be enabled across the municipality. By providing a wide range of recommendations, the Group was able to tackle the role of different policy tools across the municipal government. The Group used their report to outline the benefits of urban growing as well as the different changes necessary to create an enabling policy environment. These recommendations included using policy planning tools (e.g., official plans and zoning) as well as other policy levers (e.g., food strategies, land inventory, and supportive policies and programs).

One of the largest success stories in the city has been McQuesten Urban Farm. Building on the lands behind a former school, this Urban Farm grew from the efforts of community advocates, city officials, and local community members. In addition to land identification, the location of this project was tied to more systemic challenges of food insecurity, including limited access to fresh fruits and vegetables in the community. Key to McQuesten Urban Farm’s success is both access to land and support (financial, community, and knowledge). By identifying a parcel of public land that was ideal for the community’s vision, advocates worked with policy makers and policy brokers to identify the needs of communities and the requirements to realize the project.

While this project is symbolic of a shift towards an enabling framework for urban growing, the ideal conditions are influenced by much more than this single project. Hamilton is now seen as an example of how to create urban growing environments that work for and are developed by communities. In 2016^[5], Hamilton City Council endorsed the Hamilton Food Strategy that outlines goals, recommendations, and actions that help support local food systems^[6]. Other examples of community advocacy and local action include those in Athens, Georgia, Denver, Colorado, Guelph, Ontario, and Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Conclusion

In both cases above, nuance and advocacy were key in pushing for the consideration, expansion, or reconsideration of a desired policy. By acknowledging the past criticisms and looking towards municipalities that have adopted different policy approaches, advocates were able to work with city staff to table pilot projects or programs that were thoughtful of incorporating nuance. Cross-jurisdictional learning allowed for the cities of Toronto and Hamilton to look at other North American municipalities for policy options and how communities have responded to change. For municipal food policy, these different forms of learning can be important for policy processes and advocacy within movements. The role of communication, policy champions and advocates, and knowledge sharing sites played a key part in the development of the different policy components and helped source solutions. In addition, food policy councils^[7]—or more broadly, food policy groups—help translate and facilitate change by working with and within municipal governments. The councils provide a dedicated space where knowledge of food and policy systems merge.

Local food policy is much older and deeper than governance of or by a municipality. Looking beyond these settler forms of local governance (such as the municipal, state, or federal systems), it is important to recognize the intimate relationship between community and sustainable foodways. Indigenous communities have been active in decolonizing food systems and empowering Indigenous knowledge through ways of growing/eating/being. See the resources below for more on how food sovereignty is growing within and across communities.

References

CBC Archives. 2019. “The Battle over Backyard Chickens That Hatched in 1980s Toronto.” CBC. May 2, 2019.

Howlett, M. and Cashore, B. (2014). Comparative Policy Studies: Conceptualizing Public Policy.

Moon, J. (2018). “Influencing Policy Change: Finding a Champion.” Berkley Public Policy Journal.

International Centre for Policy Advocacy. 5.2.1 Identify policy brokers or champions.

Langford, S. (2020). “What happens to the backyard hens after Toronto’s pilot program ends?” Toronto Star.

Rankin, C. (2019). Kids are the leaders and heart of McQuesten Urban Farm. CBC Hamilton.