By Julian Gasson
Image: Gröna Linjen besöker Takodlarna Sergel ©Ulrika Flodin Furås
Where is this grassroots initiative implemented?
The initiative was implemented in Stockholm, Sweden and involved several green spaces and food garden sites which coincidentally happened to be located along the “Green” metroline (hence the name of the initiative). The sites ranged from a suburban brownfield to a periurban collectively managed social space to a concrete roof top in the centre of the central business district. Ownership of the different sites ranged from private to collective and organisational (kollektiv and föreningen in Swedish) to public (both officially and unofficially). The sites were located in several different neighbourhoods (mostly Swedish middle class with pockets of middle- and working-class immigrants) in the southern region of the city up towards the centre.
Who are the promoters
Ulrika Flodin Furås – a journalist, writer, and certified tour guide and who was interviewed for the writing of this text – was one of about 4 core organiser-promoters. The other organisers were from diverse backgrounds including journalism, research, design, history, architecture and the arts. Additionally, various other people -such as academic researchers or agricultural specialists – dropped in at different times to lend their expertise to the initiative. The core organisers were responsible for identifying, connecting and facilitating public engagement with the green spaces and food gardens which were themselves operated by people other than the core organisers.
Who are the beneficiaries?
The target audience of the initiative were members of the general public who had a desire to learn more about gardening (with growing their own food in urban environments being of particular concern). These people were taken to the different sites on bicycle tours (cykelsafari) where they would be informed about the operations going on there (including being served lunch at one of the food gardens with food made from vegetables grown there). Another group of beneficiaries were the urban growers and gardeners being visited as they were given publicity and could possibly attract volunteers or project funds as a result of the bicycle tours. The initiative also facilitated meetings and workshops for the growers and gardeners to connect them with, for example, urban planners, landscape architects, soil scientist, etc. Worth mentioning is that the core group of organisers themselves also benefited from the initiative as it allowed them to create a transdisciplinary network for themselves. Although the actual network doesn’t exist formally, several of the original organisers still collaborate on projects from time to time.
How does this initiative engage with climate? Does it tackle mitigation, adaptation, both or other dimensions of climate change?
At the time of the project (over ten years ago), climate change was not as present at the local level as it is today. However, Flodin Furås is certain that the project would be much more centred on climate change awareness, mitigation and adaptation, community building and resilient food systems if it were to be run again.
What are the main objectives? What are the main values?
The aim of the core group of organisers was to create a transdisciplinary network for themselves populated with actors and stakeholders interested in activating liminal or un-used green spaces and making them desirable for the public to be in or take care of. Flodin Furås summed it up eloquently as facilitating “anarchist urban gardening to activate people” to become more community oriented. There was also a keen interest in the idea of gardening-as-therapy – to use gardening as a tool to help people cope with the stresses of urban life.
What is the timeline? Are there already visible effects?
Starting in 2014, the project only ran for about a year before the core group of organisers became overly occupied in their main focus areas. As described by Flodin Furås, the project allowed them to identify their driving passions and interests such as soil creation, agroforestry, and – in the case of Flodin Furås – to become a certified tour guide to carry out ‘propaganda in disguise’ about urban gardening and the importance of both domesticated and wild plants within the urban context. Although most of the original network-actors still meet occasionally and sometimes even collaborate on different projects together, an actual “Gröna Linjen network” was never formally materialised. Some of the green sites themselves no longer exist although others have sprung up since then. However, given that little information is publicly available about the initiative (the website it was previously featured on no longer exists) it is unclear how much of an impact this specific initiative continues to have on the Stockholm community.
Which limits does it encounter?
Although the core organisers were deeply invested in the project, any time they spent on the Gröna Linjen was at their own expense and had to be carried out adjacent to their full-time employment commitments. External funding would have gone a huge way towards increasing the project longevity. As the aim of the project was to create a network of mostly already existing actors (the urban growers and gardeners), little to no additional physical infrastructure was required.
Are any shortcomings or critical points visible? What other problematic issues can arise from its implementation?
There is a very short growing season in Stockholm relative to, for example, cities in southern Europe. Therefore ways would need to be explored to keep the spaces that the project activated still active in the colder months to maintain both momentum and public engagement. Another option would have been to include indoor interventions such as hydroponic growing operations which exist and are collectively managed in some apartment building collectives in Stockholm. Integration and cross-community engagement would be something to pay more attention to if the project were to recur (especially to avoid things like class-safari or fly-by-night development). Language would play a vital role in facilitating this last point as everything to do with the project was in Swedish and which would have prevented non-Swedish speakers from partaking in the tours or possibly even joining the network of growing sites.
How would it be potentially replicable in other settings?
It would absolutely be replicable, especially in cities and towns where urban planning has occurred more or less haphazardly and has led to the creation of many in-between spaces perfect for ‘greening’ and activation by the public. However, it would be important to encourage a cross-pollination of methods and tactics instead directly importing these – i.e. the realities and requirements of the local context should always have top priority when community building projects like this are carried out.
Is this initiative conducive to broader changes (law, institutional arrangements, long-term sustainability or community preparedness, etc.)? If yes, which?
There is huge potential for another iteration of Gröna Linjen to affect change in most if not all of these areas as different actors from different backgrounds would be brought together through creating an organised network of allotment gardens, urban food production, anarchist spatial takeovers, vertical farms, etc. Worth noting from the 2014 iteration was that urban gardeners were connected with scientists, urban planners, and the like, which would not usually happen as these professions typically don’t cross paths. In the context of the need for climate change mitigation and resilience building, this kind of transdisciplinary network building, knowledge sharing and sense-making could have huge impacts on not only local governance and legislation but also community building and diversification.
References:
Flodin Furås, U. (2023, May 25). Personal communication [telephonic interview].