Sharmada Nagarajan. Exploring governance innovation through the lens of the development of food by MaHS-MaULP

EXPLORING GOVERNANCE INNOVATION THROUGH THE LENS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF FOOD SYSTEM STRATEGIES AND TRANSFORMATIONS IN LEUVEN

Planning Project Thesis By Sharmada Nagarajan Master (of Science) of Urbanism, Landscape & Planning (MaULP), 2021 Promoted by Prof. dr. ir. Pieter Van den Broeck

Exploring governance innovation through the lens of the development of food system strategies and transformations in Leuven Master Thesis 2021 Written by: Sharmada Nagarajan Promoted by: Prof. dr. ir. Pieter Van den Broeck Assisting supervision: Clara Medina García (PhD Researcher) All the drawings are by the author unless otherwise credited. Master (of Science) of Human Settlements Master (of Science) of Urbanism, Landscape & Planning (MaULP) Department of Architecture Faculty of Engineering Science © Copyright KU Leuven Without written permission of the thesis supervisor and the authors it is forbidden to reproduce or adapt in any form or by any means any parts of this publication. Requests for obtaining the right to reproduce or utilize parts of this publication should be addressed to: Faculteit Ingenieurswetenschappen, Kasteelpark Arenberg 1 bus 2200, B-3001 Heverlee, +32-16-321350. A written permission of the thesis supervisor is also required to use the methods, products, schematics and programs described in this work for industrial or commercial use, and for submitting this publication in scientific contest.

“Great things are not done by impulse, but by a series of small things brought together.” - Vincent Van Gogh

Acknowledgements I am extremely grateful to my supervisor, Professor Pieter Van den Broeck, for his constant encouragement and guidance in shaping this thesis. His constructive feedback and perspectives have been integral in shaping my work and broadening my understanding of Planning. I will carry these values and knowledge with me throughout my professional journey. I am greatly indebted to Clara, without whom I couldn’t have imagined this thesis and the wonderful work we managed to achieve together. Her valuable insights, enthusiasm and friendship kept me motivated even during tough times. I am very thankful for the support from Erik Beatse, Sarah Martens and Julie Marin, whose valuable inputs and feedback were extremely crucial in developing the thesis. I am also grateful to my professors from the MaULP programme who have imparted a great amount of knowledge and memorable experiences that I will always cherish. To my parents and brother for their unconditional love and support during these two years of my programme. To Ameya, Rishab and Vishnu for always being there when I needed them. To Khalda, Laura, and my friends in Leuven who made working during lockdowns and isolation a whole lot easier. To the Leuven Gymkhana for teaching me the potential of collective effort in creating meaningful impact.

Abstract This thesis aimed to gain insight and develop proposals on the status of power and representation (im)balance among urban actors within the development of Leuven’s Food policy and its implementation, leading to a broader understanding of the governance innovation in the context of Leuven 2030 and innovative multiactor collaborations. The theoretical framework was built on a body of knowledge focusing on governance and democratic innovation, alternative food networks, theories of social innovation, leadership, and collaborative processes. It was collectively built and expanded along with Clara Medina García’s PhD research project, ‘The Role of Local Administrations in Hybrid Governance Networks in/as Social Innovation: The Case of Multi-Actor Collaborations (MAC) in Madrid, Gent and Leuven’. This thesis adopted action research as an epistemological approach and started from the assumption that Leuven 2030 and the process of development of a Food Strategy for Leuven are examples of governance innovation. It engaged in a collaboration process with actors and stakeholders involved in Leuven 2030, the food strategy and alternative food practices in Leuven. The initial questions I aimed to address were: 1) To what extent and how is Leuven 2030 and the food strategy a case of governance innovation in Leuven? 2) How to improve the public-civil relationship and improve access of civil society to governance and participation in the public sector? The IASP and IMSDP exercises in which I was involved, ran parallel to this research, simultaneously challenging and enriching the thesis research process and insights. The IASP collective work attempted to use this focus to examine whether governance innovation is indeed taking place in Leuven and developed the hybrid Leuven Gymkhana and closure webinar as intermediate action research interventions. It pointed out how actors linked to larger institutions have a stronger presence in Leuven 2030 and emphasized on the Food Connects strategy’s limitations in addressing the diversity of the city’s population in terms of diet, food habits and socio-economic backgrounds. It also revealed that current Flemish policies support heavily processed and packaged food products with longer distribution chains, negatively impacting the people and planet. The Leuven Gymkhana closure webinar that substituted the IASP exam, revealed specific aspects of governance and participation with respect to Leuven 2030 and the food strategy. The discussions opened the following questions: 1) How to integrate social justice at the structural level of the food program 2) How to open the strategy back to citizens and alternative practices? 3) How to address conflicting and ‘uncomfortable’ topics pertaining to food and agriculture, re-open broad debates to discuss and improve upon these aspects? Who should moderate these debates and how should they be conducted? The IMSDP action research exercise further attempted to address these questions and find ways to empower actors that have been excluded from the implementation of the Food Strategy, i.e., emerging alternative food networks and citizens. The action research was further fed through building a narrative of the ongoing process of governance innovation and innovative multi-actor collaborations (IMAC) in Leuven, which is integral to the thesis. This narrative was represented in the form of a timeline of key moments and insights, leading to an understanding of the governance innovation process in Leuven. It also includes the collective action research and interventions, along with the IASP and IMSDP outcomes, to express how this thesis enables governance innovation. This timeline is both an outcome and a debate artifact for the planning intervention as it was also shared with stakeholders as part of the Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 event. The intervention aimed to reimagine civic engagement and create an alternative means of public debate that could double up as a trust-building process among actors. Key words: Governance innovation; Action Research; Participation; Food strategy; Leuven 2030

Table of contents 01 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 02 Methodology & Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Epistemological approach ................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Methods ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Body of knowledge and theoretical framework ........................................................................................................ 2 03 Collective definition of research questions ........................................................................................................ 3 04 Building a narrative on the development of Leuven 2030 and the food strategy .................. 4 4.1 The precedents of multi-actor collaborations in Leuven ....................................................................................... 4 4.2 How Leuven’s food strategy came to be ....................................................................................................................... 5 05 Insights: Complexities and contradictions ........................................................................................................... 6 5.1 Limitations to governance innovation and power imbalance within Leuven 2030 ..................................... 6 5.2 Prominent food system strategies and restrictive supra-local policy framework ....................................... 7 5.3 Limitations in the process of institutionalization of the food strategy ............................................................. 7 5.4 From IMAC to “Big MAC” and vice-versa ..................................................................................................................... 8 06 The planning process ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 6.1 Building an analysis and action as research ................................................................................................................ 9 6.2 Testing the analysis and connecting to stakeholders ............................................................................................. 11 6.3 Building an embryonic coalition ....................................................................................................................................... 11 6.4 Redefinition of research questions ................................................................................................................................. 12 6.5 Co-Production of Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 .................................................................................................................... 12 6.6 Reimagining civic engagement in COVID times ........................................................................................................ 14 6.7 Post-processing and following up on the action research .................................................................................... 14 07 Impact & positionality ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 7.1 Reflection on experience of the planning process .................................................................................................... 15 7.2 My role as a collaborative leader in the process ........................................................................................................ 15 7.3 Lessons from the collaborative action research exercise in COVID times ..................................................... 16

Table of contents 08 Final outcomes ......................................................................................................................................................................... 16 8.1 Interview with stakeholders .............................................................................................................................................. 16 8.2 Thesis week: Outline of thesis research framework ................................................................................................ 17 8.3 IASP-IMSDP brief .................................................................................................................................................................. 18 8.4 IASP brainstorming via MIRO ........................................................................................................................................... 23 8.5 Framework of collective research developed with IASP editorial board ....................................................... 24 8.6 Atlas of Leuven Gymkhana 1.0 ......................................................................................................................................... 25 8.7 Export of Leuven Gymkhana 1.0 website ..................................................................................................................... 34 8.8 Leuven Gymkhana 1.0 closure webinar report ......................................................................................................... 38 8.9 Intermediate analysis of governance innovation in Leuven ................................................................................. 40 8.10 IMSDP collaboration agreement .................................................................................................................................. 41 8.11 Revaluation of IASP and Leuven Gymkhana 1.0 goals and impact .................................................................. 44 8.12 Brainstorming for interventions with IMSDP via MIRO ..................................................................................... 45 8.13 Collective presentation during the UGaDI seminar .............................................................................................. 48 8.14 Building a narrative and analysis of governance innovation in Leuven ......................................................... 52 8.15 Action research planning process ................................................................................................................................. 54 8.16 Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 leaflet ......................................................................................................................................... 58 8.17 Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 posters ....................................................................................................................................... 59 8.18 Export of Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 website .................................................................................................................. 61 8.19 Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 tour scripts ............................................................................................................................... 68 09 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................................................... 89

Fig. 1 Overview of action research planning process ©Sharmada Nagarajan

Introduction

Several cities have begun experimenting and exploring collaborative governance mechanisms as tools to tackle issues pertaining to sustainability transitions and the threats of climate change. Leuven, among several other European cities, continues to gain traction in this regard, and was awarded the European i-Capital award in 2020 for its innovative governance model established through the Leuven 2030 initiative. Leuven 2030 is a nonprofit organization that began as a collaborative project by the local government and KU Leuven to aid the city in achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. It eventually expanded and was rebranded as a non-profit governance platform with a system of distributed leadership, working towards climate neutrality through 13 key programs. An initial investigation through interviews with Leuven City, Rikolto and Leuven 2030 by Clara Medina-García led to an assumption that it is a form of governance innovation, and this formed the starting point for the thesis research. The information gathered through these interviews and relevant official documents of Leuven 2030 revealed that Leuven 2030 is a non-profit governance agency gathering and coordinating efforts and resources of different types of urban actors in Leuven. This thesis investigated the ongoing implementation of the Food Connects strategy embedded within Programme 8 of the Leuven 2030 Roadmap. The research attempted to understand the parallel trajectories of Leuven 2030 and the Food Strategy, the relation, and exchanges between the two, and their influence on local policy and governance. It aimed to explore governance innovation in Leuven, using the food strategy as a case study. Apart from the collaboration and mutual enrichment with the ongoing research by Clara Medina García and Lariza

Castillo Vysokolan, this thesis also aligned with the collective action research of the Institutional Aspects of Spatial Planning (IASP) and International Module in Spatial Development Planning (IMSDP), two courses organised at the Department of Architecture at KU Leuven, as a means to facilitate multi-layered collaborations and knowledge exchange and further engage with urban actors involved in the processes studied. The thesis was a simulation of a real planning process, with parallel lines of action research that supported, challenged, and enriched one another at several moments. It was a multi-layered collaboration that evolved and adapted continuously to overcome challenges and arrive at a tangible outcome. The research questions and interventions were collectively developed and shaped with stakeholders, keeping in mind the insights acquired through fieldwork and other action research methods employed to conduct the action research. These insights and analysis were translated into visual schemes that built a narrative of the case study and research. Continuous reflection and evaluation of the action research steps, interventions and impacts were integral to the planning process of the thesis. These reflections were both collective and individual, as explained in Section 7 of the thesis. The structure of the planning process was visualised as a matrix of seven interconnected dimensions of the action research that evolved through different stages. Fig. 1 presents a simplified overview of this structure.

Methodology & Theoretical Framework

This section elaborates on the methodology and body of knowledge adopted to develop the thesis. It throws light on what the primary goal of the thesis was and how these goals were achieved. It also explains the different methods employed to conduct action research and the supporting theoretical framework.

A key reading suggested during my thesis review (Kenis and Lievens 2017) helped understand and outline questions pertaining to the limitations of Leuven 2030’s approach and its impact on food and agriculture in the city. Additional documents and reports on Leuven 2030 and the Flemish food system identified through the process of the collective action research were useful in understanding the influence of regional, national, and international policies on the local food system. Adopting a flexible body of knowledge that expanded through the process of the thesis helped restructure the research questions and insights better, thereby impacting the interventions developed. It helped ask the right questions, improve, and adapt based on new information acquired and simultaneously evolved with the narrative that was collectively built. The thesis built on Healey’s justification of the significance of “grounding political practices and policy making processes in daily life concerns and the world of practical action”, encouraging research focus in planning on “the micro-practices of democracy-in-action.” and the different qualities of building a “people-centred governance cultures/polities” (Healey 2012). It focused on the temporal and socio-political aspects of the innovative multiactor collaboration or IMAC (Medina-García, de la Fuente, and Van den Broeck 2021), identifying and challenging power imbalances, as a means to trigger governance innovation through the process of the action research. The concept of IMAC was vital in analysing the case of Leuven 2030 and the food strategy and understanding institutional and political dynamics that influence their evolution. The reflection of my role in the process and as a planner was supported by the lens of collaborative leadership (Ansell and Gash 2012) and how this adapted and evolved through the multi-layered collaborations in the planning process. It was also supported by literature on collaborative governance (Huxham et al. 2000), hybrid governance (Paidakaki et al. 2020) (Moulaert 2010) and transdisciplinary action research (Knickel et al. 2019).

2.1 Epistemological approach Action research was used as an epistemological approach in this Planning thesis to gain insight and develop proposals on the current status of power and representation (im)balance among urban actors within the development of Leuven’s Food policy and its implementation, leading to an understanding of the governance innovation in the context of Leuven 2030 and innovative multi-actor collaborations (Medina-García, de la Fuente, and Van den Broeck 2021). The primary goal of the action research approach was to study and understand the ongoing process in the field by being a part of it, raising questions and triggering meaningful impact and contributing to the process. It intended to function as a simulation of a real planning process in the form of a multi-layered collaboration with actors, stakeholders, other students & researchers. The development of this thesis also included reflecting on my role as a planner and my role in the process and the actions that come along with it as ‘reflective responses’: (1) assessing power relations, structures and dynamics through mapping the actor-institutional ensembles at play (Van den Broeck 2011) (Van den Broeck et al. 2019), (2) navigating strategic alliances as a constitutive element for action and plan-making, (3) combining collective problematization and strategic action to develop scenarios for intervention and (4) building a reflexive positionality through tracing its ethical, organizational and socio-political consequences (De Blust et al. 2021).

2.2 Methods The thesis adopts a case study approach using the Food strategy of Leuven as a case to study governance innovation. This is supported by multiple methods: • Interviews and meetings followed by preparation of transcripts for further understanding and processing of information (see section 8.1) • Literature reviews and documental research • Co-production of a ‘gymkhana’ and co-organisation of a webinar on the debates and discussions pertaining to the food strategy’s development and implementation. (see sections 8.6-8.8) • Participation in the UGaDI Seminar, presenting and discussing the thesis work and process, and contributing to collective writings on governance innovation research. (see section 8.13) • Co-production of 3 guided tours in the city of Leuven, co-organisation of a workshop at BoerEnCompagnie (see sections 8.16-8.17) • Adapting and translating the insights of the collective research into comprehensible scripts for the guided gymkhana tours (see section 8.19) • Documentation and reporting on all these interventions and continuous reflections (individual and collective); developing content and writing the texts for the Leuven Gymkhana website and social media platforms (see section 8.18)

2.3 Body of knowledge and theoretical framework The body of knowledge (quote from Instagram) was collectively built and expanded within the framework of Clara Medina García’s PhD. While the readings on Social Innovation, Governance and Democratic innovation (Van den Broeck et al. 2019) (Kazepov, Colombo, and Saruis 2019)(Healey 2012)(Moulaert 2010)(Medina-García, de la Fuente, and Van den Broeck 2021) (De Blust, Moulaert, and Van den Broeck 2020), provided clarity on the broader topics, specific readings on alternative food networks and hybrid governance (Cerrada-Serra et al. 2018) (Acuña et al. 2020)(Vanderhoven 2018) (Manganelli 2020) helped me understand the intricacies of food systems in different contexts and how food and agriculture present an interesting opportunity to experiment with new forms of governance in cities. 2

Collective definition of research questions

Fig. 2 Online interview with a stakeholder to collectively develop the research question ©Sharmada Nagarajan

This section elaborates on the research questions of the action research and the stakeholders’ inputs in framing these questions. The research questions were collectively framed with stakeholders, adhering to the principles of the epistemological approach of the thesis. The questions evolved and adapted through the different stages of the thesis and were closely linked to the collective position taken by me along with the IASP and IMSDP teams. (see section 8.15) The thesis began with basic questions that aimed to gather an understanding of the case study and ongoing process of governance innovation in Leuven. Some of these questions I aimed to address were: 1) To what extent and how is Leuven 2030 and the food strategy a case of governance innovation in Leuven? 2) How to improve the publiccivil relationship and improve access of civil society to governance and participation in the public sector? As the research progressed, the questions evolved towards specific limitations that were identified in the implementation of the food strategy in Leuven. These questions were linked to the position we chose as a team to address issues of food justice and food sovereignty. During the initial stages of the collective research with Clara Medina García, we contacted Caroline Huyghe, Leuven 2030’s Food Programme Coordinator. Through our interaction with her, we were referred to Erik Beatse, who has been involved with Leuven 2030 as a process facilitator since its inception, particularly focusing on the development of the food strategy and the theme of social justice, both in the strategy and the organization. Apart from being an initiator of the Food Strategy and a Yard coordinator within Programme 8 of the roadmap, he is also the President of the Board of members of the BoerEnCompagnie.

The BoerEnCompagnie is a small group of farmers working on the principles of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in Leuven. Initiated by Tom Troonbeeckx in 2007, the BoerEnCompagnie eventually expanded to function as a cooperation between three farmers at Park Abbey in Heverlee. One of the main goals of this initiative is to engage more people in experiencing food, agriculture, land quality, food strategies, etc. With these objectives in mind, they absorbed Boer&Buiten vzw an educational non-profit that is working to allow youngsters to visit, learn about and contribute to the farming activities and ecosystem. Some questions the BoerEnCompagnie is struggling with include but are not limited to: How to connect to a broader community? How to extend the amount of land? How to ensure that the perspectives of civil society groups are retained throughout the process of implementation of the food strategy? How to improve the farmers’ participation in governance in the city and specifically in food systems transformations? How to ensure a fair and stable income and social provisions for farmers? Using these questions as the main focus, the collective research continued to investigate and build an analysis of the case study, and brainstorm for possible action as research to improve public-civil relationships. (see section 8.3)

Fig. 3 Building a narrative of key moments

©Leuven Gymkhana

Building a narrative on the development of Leuven 2030 and the food strategy

The following section elaborates on the reconstructed timeline of key moments through the history of Leuven on governance and multi-actor collaborations pertaining to sustainability transitions and the local food system. This is represented as a timeline (Fig. 3) with five parallel dimensions that come into play: 1. International agenda and European policy that affect local governace on sustainability and food 2. Local and regional policy, governance and politics, depicting the various governance and political dynamics that influence or are impacted by local action. 3. Leuven 2030 and the history of its development 4. Food system and strategy focusing particulalry on the developments related to food and agriculture in Leuven 5. Action research planning process positioning the thesis along with its other collaborations in the collective action research as key actions and moments influencing governance innovation processes in Leuven Developing this timeline through collective action research and investigations was one of the key methods of that used planning as a mode of critical inquiry (De Blust et al. 2021). This analysis is both an outcome and a debate artifact for the planning intervention as it was also shared with stakeholders as part of the Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 event.

However, due to its limited reach among businesses as well as citizens, the initiative was rebranded in 2015. A professional story-telling agency, Shaved Monkey, was hired to reinvent the outlook, tone of voice, baseline, and strategy of the newly established NGO. It was identified that using “climate neutrality” as the main focus restricted their outreach. Therefore, it was renamed as Leuven 2030, retaining climate neutrality as the baseline, focusing more on building the future vision for the city irrespective of climate disruption and carbon emissions. In 2016, a communication strategy was set up for the NGO and in 2017 the focus was on implementing projects such as Hal5 and Stel-Plaats (Interview 3 with Leuven 2030 vzw 2020) leading to two important recognitions at the European level, namely the winner of European Green Leaf and Runner-up of European i-Capital awards in 2018. Meanwhile, since carbon emissions were not being reduced at the intended pace, the vision to achieve carbon neutrality was set to 2050 with an intermediate milestone of reducing 70% of the emissions by 2030. This led to the development of a Roadmap (Paep, Verachtert, and Van Reeth 2019) built with 6 clusters and 13 programmes. It was published in 2019 with each programme being led by a Programme Facilitator who is an expert already working along that specific line of work. These Facilitators are from different sectors and organizations, working part-time for Leuven 2030. In addition to this, the Facilitators were meant to reach out to ‘Yard Coordinators’, experts from the relevant field volunteering to oversee the implementation of each ‘yard’ or goal of the programme. Ongoing research by Lariza Castillo Vysokolan as a part of her Master Thesis (Vysokolan 2021) provided insight on the multi-actor collaborations preceding Leuven 2030 and further knowledge on the evolution of the internal governance of Leuven 2030. One of these initial collaborations began when the City took up sustainability in its agenda. Platform Lokale Agenda 21 Leuven was founded on the impulse of the UN’s Agenda 21, leading to the establishment of the network of Sustainable Leuven. When the City signed the Covenant of Mayors in 2011, it committed to the implementation of a local climate policy that would cut carbon emissions up to 20% by 2020. The Leuven Over Morgen campaign ran in parallel to these developments, focusing on themes of mobility, housing, and food. The existence of such platforms and networks in Leuven exhibit different moments of innovative multi actor collaborations or IMAC (Medina-García, de la Fuente, and Van den Broeck 2021) explained further in section 5.4 of this thesis.

4.1 The precedents of multi-actor collaborations in Leuven Leuven 2030, originally called ‘Leuven Klimaatneutraal 2030’ (LKN 2030) began as a joint collaboration between two prominent institutions in Leuven- the local government and the University. The conversation was initiated in 2010 by Peter Tom Jones, a researcher at KU Leuven, and gained recognition when it was supported by key figures like Emeritus Prof. Jeff Roos, Prof. Koenraad Debackere and Mohamed Ridouani, who was the Alderman of Environment at that point. The Alderman signed a declaration of intent in 2011 “to make Leuven climate neutral by 2030”(Ridouani et al. 2011). In the same year, Leuven City also signed the EU Covenant of Mayors. In the following year, the project proposal for LKN 2030 was completed and a scientific report (Han Vandevyvere, Jones, and Aerts 2013) was published in 2013, providing insight on the logic for calculating emissions and a list of feasible strategies and interventions to transition towards climate neutrality by 2030. It was developed to rely on a multi-actor collaboration among the public institutions, private sector and businesses, civil society, and academic institutions. The report also provided suggestions for a governance structure for LKN 2030 to be established as a non-profit organization. The funding for the organization was from different private sector sources and the City’s contribution would be less than 50% so as to avoid any obligation of political representations (Interview 02: Leuven 2030_01 2020- see section 8.1). 4

4.2 How Leuven’s food strategy came to be Food was an issue purposely left aside during the preparation of the original LKN 2030 report and strategy due to the difficulty in measuring carbon emissions related to food production and consumption (Kenis and Lievens 2017). The Food Connects strategy’s initiation and development were quite different from the other programmes of Leuven 2030. In 2016, three individuals came together to voice their interest in promoting and establishing more community supported agriculture initiatives in Leuven and collectively develop a broader framework for collaboration of different urban actors concerned about the transformation of the food system in Leuven. In parallel to this, there was an increasing awareness among citizens and civil society actors in the food and agriculture sector to work towards developing a food policy for the city. By then, other cities across Europe had already begun developing food strategies, including for example the city of Ghent in Flanders, working since 2013 with actors like Rikolto to establish a food council and the Gent-en-garde food strategy (Rikolto 2019). The 2015 Milan Pact, signed by Brussels, Ghent and Bruges also reinforced the support for the growing momentum of food system transformations at the local level. At the end of 2017, the official process for establishing a food strategy for Leuven began with a collaboration among several actors and stakeholders, facilitated by participation experts from Leuven 2030 and Levuur. The team of over a hundred participants continued to gather and discuss the various aspects and goals of the strategy through a series of meetings. By joining hands with the Leuven 2030 network, these stakeholders came together to support and build the strategy document in solidarity. The Food Connects strategy document was written and published in June 2018 and presented to key actors like Erik Vanderheiden (Alderman for trade and agriculture), Mohamed Ridouani (Alderman for the environment), Griet Leynaert (Carrefour Belgium), Nele Lauwers (Boerenbond) and Daniel Lips (Alma) (Rikolto 2018). The development of this food strategy had three key impact areas: the City, Leuven 2030 and alternative practices. 1) Following the elections in 2019, when former Alderman for environment, Mohamed Ridouani, was named Mayor and David Dessers from the green party was allocated the new Alderman for mobility, climate and sustainability, agriculture and consumption, the City took a political decision to view food and agriculture from a sustainability perspective rather than just an economic one as it had previously been. This led to the approval and establishment of the Food and Agriculture Board (VLAR), that had been proposed in the original food strategy, as a successor to the informal agriculture council of the City (Groen Leuven 2020). This Board was set to meet at least four times each year and has sixteen members including a Chairwoman, Tessa Avermaete, a researcher at KU Leuven, and an expert in sustainable food economy who was also involved in developing the Food Connects strategy document. Since then, the VLAR functions as an advisory board for the City on decisions pertaining to food and agriculture, also supporting Leuven 2030’s Food programme in the implementation of the food strategy. The City also approved the Climate Action Plan 2020-25 (“Klimaatactieplan Stad Leuven” 2020) which adopted the goals of the food strategy as specific measures and actions for achieving sustainable and healthy food in Leuven. 2) In Leuven 2030, food and agriculture, a topic that had been previously excluded from their agenda, was now brought back into the discussion. As a result, in 2019, the Leuven 2030 Roadmap adapted the strategic objectives of this food strategy to frame the yards for the Sustainable and Healthy Eating programme. Since then, the implementation of the Food Strategy’s goals has been managed by the Leuven 2030 network involved in food and agriculture. In the last months, Leuven 2030 has focused on finding synergies among the Roadmap’s programmes with a project-based approach. This change of approach has affected the Programme on Sustainable and Healthy Eating (Programme 8) too, which has recently started working with Circular Leuven (Programme 9) to develop a ‘Resource Hub’ for Leuven focusing on reusing food waste. The project is a partnership with De Clique, a Netherlands-based company providing expertise in circular waste distribution and organic waste reuse (Mulder 2021). 3) Alternative practices gained recognition for their contribution to the implementation of the strategy and continued to evolve by supporting and working with one another. Small alternative food initiatives emerged within the City, with larger actors like Rikolto establishing the Kort ’Om Leuven, a business-to-business selling platform to enable and support short-chain supply. Smaller actors like Bar Stan, a local restaurant, continued to innovate in their own capacity, collaborating with BoerEnCompagnie to provide seasonal menus, trying to influence consumer behaviour and prevent food wastes. Along with similar other alternative practices, an alternative food system continues to grow within the city, that challenges the mainstream food system.

Fig. 4 Building a narrative and analysis of governance innovation in Leuven

©Leuven Gymkhana

Insights: Complexities and contradictions

The collective action research revealed certain complexities and nuances that are tied together with and impact the process of Leuven 2030 and the food strategy’s development. This section delves into these insights acquired through the analysis of the collective action research process. The ‘Insights & Analysis’ section of Fig. 4 provides an analytical reading of the timeline explained in section 4 of the thesis. This is done by focusing on three primary trajectories in Leuven: • Sustainability transition focusing on the developments relating to the governance, actions, and collaborations among actors in Leuven to foster sustainable development and climate neutrality. • Food and agriculture as the case study that is used to analyse governance innovation in Leuven. • The analysis parallelly depicts the characteristics of the prominent food system in the local and supra-local levels and its impact on the governance of local food systems in Leuven.

Leuven 2030 began with a scientific focus on reducing carbon emissions as the main goal to achieve climate neutrality, indicating that governance innovation is a collateral gain in the process. However, establishing a model of network governance that facilitated multi-actor collaborations helped Leuven gain recognition at the European level as an innovation Capital (European Commission 2020) and procure funding. Moreover, the initial goals of Leuven 2030 excluded Scope 3 emissions (produced by activities taking place outside Leuven) from the baseline calculations, implying that food production and agriculture would take a backseat while considering climate neutrality (Kenis and Lievens 2017). As explained in section 4.2, the issue of food and agriculture was brought into discussion by bottom-up initiatives, indicating that the push to include this within Leuven 2030’s vision came from outside the organization. While Leuven 2030 along with some alternative practices function at the local level, regulations and transformations of the food system happen or are affected by the supra-local levels. Section 5.2 further elaborates on the prominent food system and the impact of supra-local policies on local action and initiatives that challenge the mainstream food system.

5.1 Limitations to governance innovation and power imbalance within Leuven 2030 The research revealed specific limitations to governance innovation and power imbalances among actors withing Leuven 2030. On one hand, Leuven 2030 is partly funded by the local government and private actors in the city and seeks funding from European and Regional sources, while on the other, smaller actors and citizens lack the time and resources to engage actively in decision (and policy) making processes. This creates a power imbalance among the actors, leading to larger institutions having a more prominent role within Leuven 2030’s governance, which also impacts the evolution of the organization and the implementation of its goals in general and of the Food Strategy in particular. 6

5.3 Limitations in the process of institutionalization of the food strategy The collective research identified three particular stages of institutionalization of the food strategy. Apart from the limitations within Leuven 2030 and impact of supra-local policies that favour the mainstream food system, certain limitations also exist in this process of institutionalization of the strategy. The actors within the food system, who are also signatories of the Food Connects strategy, have different interests and definitions of ‘healthy and sustainable food’. While Boerenbond, the prominent farmers’ union in Flanders, acknowledges the value of short-chain food production, it also states that this isn’t the perfect solution to establish a sustainable food system. Similarly, it does not encourage a “one-sided focus on reduced meat consumption.” (Nick François 2019) since most of the farmers it represents are conventional meat producers that depend on public subsidies. Contrastingly, initiatives like BoerEnCompagnie (Leuven 2030 n.d.) and Kort’Om Leuven (Leuven 2030 n.d.) encourage shortchain food production as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and push to reinvent food systems as a means to rethink economy and the society. Therefore, to develop a broad consensus for the food strategy, certain conflicting topics were left out to retain the support of all the actors. As a result, the strategy did not stress on topics like meat and dairy alternatives in diets, sustainable meat production, organic and regenerative agriculture, CSA, etc. as essential criteria to achieve sustainable and healthy food in the city. While the strategy mentions ongoing alternative practices and initiatives in the city as successful examples that contribute to its goals, it does not emphasise on the need for binding policy changes that could alter or challenge the conventional food system strategies and refrains from addressing the diversity of the city’s population in terms of diet, food habits and socioeconomic backgrounds. This presents a first stage of institutionalization of the food strategy. A second stage of institutionalization took place when the food strategy’s goals were taken up by the Leuven 2030 Roadmap under Programme 8 (Fig. 5). The richness of the original goals was lost in this translation- for example, instead of preventing food waste, the goals look to reduce food waste. Similarly, commitment to short chains and food justice disappeared from the goals of the Programme. When Leuven 2030 established the Food Programme, the network of stakeholders who participated to develop the strategy continued to volunteer as the ‘cockpit’ or steering committee to support the programme facilitator. However, as the focus of Leuven 2030 evolved and shifted to find synergies and enable collaborations to work towards collective goals, this cockpit is no longer active in defining the approach for implementation of the goals of the strategy but are not integrated with its implementation. In contrast to this, alternative practices attempt to challenge the food system and simultaneously educate consumers to alter their choices for healthier options while also facing difficulties to reach the resources mobilised by the Leuven 2030 network. In 2020, the City approved the Climate Action Plan 2020-25 (“Klimaatactieplan Stad Leuven” 2020) which includes specific measures and actions pertaining to food and agriculture, adopted from the goals of the Food Connects strategy. The City’s decision of adopting these goals into the Climate Action Plan along with the parallel projectoriented approach of Leuven 2030 and its food programme present a third stage of institutionalization of the food strategy.

Fig. 5 Second stage of institutionalization of the food strategy: Translation of the food strategy’s goals into Leuven 2030’s Roadmap ©Leuven 2030

5.2 Prominent food system strategies and restrictive supra-local policy framework The prominent food system in Flanders is dependent on high-intensive, large-scale farming practices and agribusinesses (“Belgium- Agriculture,” n.d.) (Deparment of Agriculture & Fisheries 2018). Heavily processed and packaged food is readily available while sustainable, organic alternatives are relatively expensive (“BelgiumAgriculture,” n.d.) . This affects the access to healthy and sustainable alternatives in terms of cost and availability. Policy frameworks and legislation ruling/affecting the food system are issues at the Flemish and European level, and these are clearly designed to support the mainstream food system strategies, which restricts alternative practices in establishing effective solutions for sustainable food production and consumption. For example, green waste in Flanders cannot be used as soil improver directly without composting at a licensed facility. (OVAM n.d.) This means that green waste from public parks and forest areas cannot be used by local farms to aid soil improvement, which could potentially reduce the carbon footprint by cutting down on transportation and additional composting mechanisms that could very well be achieved through natural ecosystem processes enabled by regenerative and sustainable agricultural practices. This prevents local farms from establishing a cyclic mechanism of composting local green waste produced by the city’s green areas. This also creates a need for additional infrastructure and resources to transport the waste and compost to and from recycling centres. The prominent tax policies also affect the affordability of particular diet alternatives of citizens. Dairy products are considered to be staple food in Europe and come under the reduced VAT, meaning that part of the taxes is waived off by the authorities. However, plant-based alternatives are taxed much higher and fall under the category of luxury goods. In 2017, the EU banned using the term ‘milk’, ‘cheese’, etc. for plant-based alternatives so as to protect consumers. However, surveys exhibited that “consumers are not confused by terms like “soy milk” or “plant cheese”, especially since their purely plant-based ingredients are usually marketed in a transparent way.” (Schulz 2021) An article published in The Guardian in 2020 revealed that the EU spent about 60 million euros in promoting meat through 21 meat marketing campaigns in three years. (Boffey 2020) This reveals how the system and framework at a larger scale favour conventional practices that are unsustainable and unhealthy for consumers. 7

5.4 From IMAC to “Big MAC” and vice-versa The history of Leuven exhibits several moments of IMAC (Medina-García, de la Fuente, and Van den Broeck 2021), beginning in the late 1990s when the City took up sustainability within its agenda. This eventually gained momentum, in parallel to international agreements signed by the City that supported sustainability transitions. The initiation of Leuven 2030 is another significant moment of the development of an IMAC in the city. The process of the food strategy’s development and eventual integration with Leuven 2030’s Roadmap also exhibit characteristics of an IMAC, leading to an understanding that both Leuven 2030 and the food strategy are indeed cases of governance innovation in Leuven. The food strategy went through multiple stages of institutionalization through the process of its development and implementation. The current focus of Leuven 2030 in building synergies within its programmes has altered priorities with respect to implementation of the food strategy’s original goals. The limitations of the food programme manifest as the absence of alternative practices’ perspectives in decision making regarding the food strategy’s implementation. This can be attributed to the resources and capacity of the different actors when it comes to participation- while larger actors have more resources and time to participate in formal decision-making processes, smaller actors lack the means to do so. As a result, Leuven 2030 working in parallel to the City and its Climate Action Plan, is evolving from an IMAC to a “Big MAC”, attempting to retain the support of larger actors who can aid the implementation of the Roadmap with a strategic, long-term vision to achieve climate neutrality. This approach leaves out the agenda of alternative practices and citizens, attempting to look for new problems to tackle instead of addressing the needs of the existing actors that require the support of Leuven 2030’s network and resources or integrating their practical knowledge in further development and implementation of the strategy. Meanwhile, the alternative food networks continue to expand and evolve into an alternative food system within Leuven, with an inclusive approach that views citizens as actors pivotal to change. The alternative food networks in Leuven are built on solidarity and trust. Though these actors are primarily businesses, they also ensure a strong connect with the community of citizens and other actors who work with them. This enables them to function as successful social enterprises. The difference in approach of the City, Leuven 2030 and the alternative practices continues to widen the gap among these actors who are as such working towards a collective goal. The challenge of reducing this gap and reversing the trend of IMAC to “Big MAC” presents an opportunity to combine the potential of both approaches for a wider impact. This thesis, along with the IASP and IMSDP collective exercises attempted to challenge the current power imbalance and improve the relationship between civil society and public sector organizations. It tried to empower the voice of alternative practices, raise questions on the dilution of the food strategy and on how to open the strategy back to alternative practices and citizens. This was done through a series of hybrid interventions (see sections 6.2, 6.3 and 6.6) that reimagine civic engagement in an era of “physical” distancing (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6 Leuven Gymkhana 2.0: Reimagining civic engagement in COVID times ©Leuven Gymkhana

The Planning Process

The thesis was a simulation of a real planning process (see Section 8.15), with parallel lines of action research that supported, challenged, and enriched one another at several moments. It was a multi-layered collaboration that evolved and adapted continuously to overcome challenges and arrive at a tangible outcome. The research questions and interventions were collectively developed and shaped with stakeholders, keeping in mind the insights acquired through fieldwork and other action research methods employed to conduct the action research. These insights and analysis were translated into visual schemes that built a narrative of the case study and research. Continuous reflection and evaluation of the action research steps, interventions and impacts were integral to the planning process of the thesis. These reflections were both collective and individual, as explained in Section 7 of the thesis. Following the initial investigation and interaction with stakeholders, the focus of the collective action research for the Institutional Aspects of Spatial Planning (IASP) and International Module in Spatial Development Planning (IMSDP) were defined. The preparation of a brief document (see section 8.3) for these workshops delineated the questions collectively defined with the stakeholders and summarized the case study and context of the action research.

6.1 Building an analysis and action as research With Prof. Dr. Pieter Van den Broeck and PhD researcher Clara Medina García as the tutors, the Institutional Aspects of Spatial Planning (IASP) team of 14 Advanced Masters students of KU Leuven, including myself, collectively investigated governance innovation through the lens of the development of transformations in the food system and the development of the food strategy in Leuven. The experience shared by Erik and BoerEnCompagnie (Fig. 7), triggered our understanding that certain limitations existed in terms of access to governance and participation for civil society in decision-making processes, mainly due to the lack of resources and time to engage in additional efforts to improve the current food system. Therefore, together with Erik, the primary focus of our action research was collectively framed as a starting point for the IASP exercise to develop ideas on changing the public–civil relationships in Leuven and proposals that can improve the access of civil society and participation in the public sector. Through collective brainstorming sessions (Fig. 8) (see section 8.4), documental research, and regular meetings the IASP team continued to develop an analysis and narrative of the case study. Simultaneous reflections with an editorial board comprising of Prof. Dr. Pieter Van den Broeck, Clara Medina García and myself, and occasional interaction with the selected stakeholders for feedback on our analysis and ideas for the intervention helped build a learning community of students and their subgroups, the editorial board, and stakeholders. Through the research, we identified areas that needed further research in order to fully grasp what was going on around Leuven’s governance and Food Strategy. Divided in different teams, we attempted to understand the current food system and its impact, local policy and the history and process of development of Leuven 2030 and the Food Connects strategy. This was done by positioning and researching further along five main trajectories- local policy, Leuven 2030, food policy, food system and spatial mapping (Fig. 9) to support the gathered information. (see section 8.5)

Fig. 7 Introductory session with the IASP team and Erik Beatse ©Leuven Gymkhana

Fig. 8 Collective brainstorming with IASP team via MIRO ©Leuven Gymkhana

This allowed us to realize the complexity of layers, actors and institutional relationships that collided in the understanding of the development of Leuven 2030 and the Food Strategy. It provided clarity on creating a framework for the analysis of the research questions and resulting narrative together. As a step further, the following objectives were identified to synthesise the complex findings of this research and develop a collective tangible action research intervention: 1. Reconstruct the narrative and understand the process of development of the food strategy as a case of governance innovation and its limitations. 2. Synthesise the complex research and raise questions on the mismatches or contradictions in the narrative of Leuven 2030 and the food strategy. 3. Engage the public in the broader debate on the food strategy, enrich our research with the citizens’ perspective. 4. Visualise and empower local alternative practices working towards the goals of the strategy. 5. Develop an interactive intervention to suit the current COVID restrictions. 6. Connect to alternative practices and actors in the Food strategy. 7. Validate our research assumptions with the actors involved and find answers to the missing links and unanswered questions. 8. Build on the perspective of alternative practices and get it across to key decision-making actors. These objectives helped design and develop two interventions: the Leuven Gymkhana 1.0 (see section 6.2) and Closure Webinar (see section 6.3) of the Gymkhana. The editorial board which I was a part of, retained continuous dialogue with stakeholders who helped fine tune the content produced to support these interventions.

Fig. 9 Different trajectories and research questions within the IASP collective research

Fig. 10 Task planning for the intermediate interventions ©Leuven Gymkhana

©Sharmada Nagarajan

6.2 Testing the analysis and connecting to stakeholders The Leuven Gymkhana event was planned as a COVID-proof treasure hunt consisting of several posters (see section 8.6) displayed at strategic locations in Leuven that represent and visualise some of the relevant local actors and issues related to the food system and food strategy. Each poster consisted of a specific statement and question, supported by relevant graphics in the form of timelines, actor-maps, food system maps, etc. Through active collaboration, the posters were displayed at the establishments of the willing actors, aiming to catch the attention of the public and trigger a discussion on our findings. (Fig. 11, 12) While the posters functioned as the offline medium displaying the main content, the actors and their relevance to the food strategy, social media platforms like Facebook, Instagram and WordPress (see section 8.7) functioned as the platforms to continue advertising the event and enable discussions online. Together, these mediums helped establish a hybrid event that could work online and offline. This intervention aimed to address objectives 1 to 6 mentioned in section 6.1, focusing mainly on connecting with alternative practices and actors in Leuven, visualizing them and engaging the public in the broader debate on the food strategy. It was designed to gain access to new stakeholders, further develop the narrative and test it by gathering comments from the public.

6.3 Building an embryonic coalition As a follow-up of the gymkhana, with the excuse of the IASP exam, we organised a webinar (Fig. 13) in which we invited some of the relevant actors we had identified during the research to learn about their perspectives and experiences and to start a conversation among them with the specific focus on governance. The closing webinar managed indeed to initiate a conversation among actors and stakeholders of different backgrounds (political, administrative, food system, alternative food practices, food policy, etc.) leading to a discussion and debate on the findings of the collective research process. It intended to capture the attention and perspective of bigger actors and decision-makers involved in the food strategy’s development and implementation. The event was open to the public, but with limited reach depending on their accessibility to online and digital tools. The webinar attempted to specifically address objectives 7 and 8 mentioned in section 6.1, to feed our narrative and insights to key decision-making actors and provide a platform for stakeholders like Erik Beatse to voice their perspectives through a broader forum. This closure webinar raised and revealed specific aspects of governance and participation with respect to Leuven 2030 and the food strategy. The speakers elaborated on the multi-actor collaborations that led to the creation of Leuven 2030, its Roadmap, and the parallel development of the Food strategy. The City’s choice to adopt and view agriculture as a matter of sustainability rather than just an economic aspect was pointed out as a key step that reinforced the food strategy’s goals and subsequent implementation. The participants also discussed how Leuven 2030 and the food strategy have evolved through time, from being citizen-led initiatives to a current institutionalised framework supported by the City and larger organisations and identifying the beginning of a new stage in which to open the strategy back to citizens, realign and restructure their goals and functioning to be more inclusive of the perspectives of alternative practices as well as diversity of consumers. Stakeholders also agreed on the need to address conflicting and ‘uncomfortable’ topics pertaining to food and agriculture that had been left out in the process of building consensus in a fair and inclusive manner. Lastly, questions were raised as to how to re-open broad debates to discuss and improve upon these aspects and on who should moderate these debates, how should they be conducted and so on. It also helped confirm the initial assumptions on Leuven 2030 and the food strategy being a case of governance innovation, revealed the different actors involved in its development and shed light on the process of its institutionalization. The editorial board worked on a full report of the event (see section 8.8), which was shared publicly online in the Leuven Gymkhana website (https://leuvengymkhana.files.wordpress.com/2021/02/20210203_iasp-leuvengymkhana-closure-event-report.pdf). It was shared with all the participants as a part of the action research to foster and expand the learning community and test our interpretations and insights gathered through the action research.

Fig. 11, 12 Leuven Gymkhana posters displayed at specific locations around the city ©Leuven Gymkhana

Fig. 13 Closure webinar of Leuven Gymkhana 1.0 ©Leuven Gymkhana

6.4 Redefinition of research questions

6.5 Co-Production of Leuven Gymkhana 2.0

Preparing a detailed report of the learnings and discussions that took place during the closure webinar helped us arrive at specific questions about the implementation of the food strategy in Leuven: 1) How to reopen the strategy back to citizens and alternative food practices? 2) How to reopen tough issues and debate on conflicting topics? 3) How to integrate social justice at a structural level of the food strategy? These questions provided the necessary focus and starting point for the IMSDP workshop. A follow-up reflection of the editorial board with stakeholders (Fig. 14) bolstered this focus and provided the necessary transition to the IMSDP workshop.

As a follow up of the IASP collective action-research exercise, the IMSDP 2021, comprising of 19 students along with the editorial board (Prof. Pieter Van den Broeck, Clara Medina García and myself), began by playing the Leuven Gymkhana 1.0, visiting the different locations of the Gymkhana, and interacting with some of the actors on the field (Fig. 15, 16). The organization of this kick-off day was strategic, as it helped reach out to actors who couldn’t be reached during the IASP workshop. These actors became the main stakeholders in the co-production of Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 as they continued to be a part of the process since the beginning of the IMSDP workshop. This day was an experiment on how to transfer the knowledge and findings of the IASP to the IMSDP team and help them understand the objectives of the Gymkhana as an intervention. Following this, the team also watched the Gymkhana’s closure webinar. The second session of the workshop consisted of a series of presentations by the editorial board, with the objective of providing additional insight on the history of Leuven 2030 and the food strategy, the theoretical framework behind our work and other nuances that affect the food system in Leuven. These presentations were the starting point for a collective brainstorming with the team to develop a new collective action research intervention. The collective presentation by the Editorial Board was in itself dynamic, as they built on each other, with the help of the questions raised by IMSDP students and helped rethink and build towards the final scheme for our analysis. Using the insights and experiences from the first two sessions, we got to evaluate the objectives and impact of the IASP collective research and interventions (see section 8.11) with the IMSDP team in the third session and restructured the objectives for the IMSDP’s intervention. The slightly relaxed COVID regulations allowed for practical work on campus, enabling the team to work hybrid and brainstorm on the objectives and focus of the interventions (Fig.17). While the hybrid opened up new opportunities for physical interaction of those attending on campus, and flexibility for all members to participate regardless of their location or personal situation, it casted an extra challenge in terms of technological set up but also management of group dynamics and work. From session 3, we began experimenting with work across different teams and combining individual and collective reflections. For instance, in session 3, the collective evaluation of IASP allowed some individual reflection that was shared in the MIRO board we were using as “digital board” and was further discussed all together, while the second part of the session started with an initial set of discussions in smaller groups and followed by a plenary session with the whole team to discuss the progress of the smaller groups. This structure was repeated in subsequent IMSDP sessions. This enabled deeper conversations in small groups but presented the challenge of losing specific messages and ideas when communicated during the plenary sessions. To overcome this challenge and the time limitations, using Miro as the common white board was useful to keep track and understand different perspectives of each group. It also provided the opportunity to reflect and reshuffle the information to arrive at a better understanding of the schemes developed collectively during these sessions, as well as to go back to previous work when the group felt somewhat lost in defining further steps. The planning process was supported by inputs from experts on participatory action research (Seppe de Blust, Michael Kaethler, Barbara Van Dyck and Alessandra Manganelli) who joined in specific IMSPD sessions to arrive at an intervention that triggers or expresses innovation in governance through the action itself (Fig. 18). While the IMSDP sessions focused more on planning an intervention, I continued further research and analysis along with Clara Medina García and Lariza Castillo Vysokolan (Fig. 19, 20) (see section 8.9) to develop a final analytical scheme to depict key moments in the history of development of Leuven 2030 (see section 4) and the food strategy, and the respective insights (see section 5) we derived from them. These insights were parallelly exchanged with the IMSDP during the hybrid sessions and the UGaDI seminar (see section 8.13).

Fig. 14 Redefining research questions with stakeholders ©Sharmada Nagarajan

Fig. 15, 16 IMSDP kick-off session playing the Leuven Gymkhana 1.0 ©Leuven Gymkhana

Fig. 17 Experimenting with hybrid working on campus ©Leuven Gymkhana

Fig. 19,20 Further research with Clara Medina García and Lariza Castillo Vysokolan ©Sharmada Nagarajan & Clara Medina García

Fig. 18 Planning for an intervention with the IMSDP team

©Leuven Gymkhana

6.6 Reimagining civic engagement in COVID times The intervention developed with the IMSDP intended to overcome the limitations identified in the previous version of the Leuven Gymkhana and move forward in the facilitation of a critical debate about the food strategy with all actors involved and those that were being excluded in the process. The Leuven Gymkhana was retained as a brand and identity for the outcome of the collective research. However, this time the gymkhana concept applied in the co-creation of Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 shifted towards a series of interactive guided tours (Fig. 22, 23) and collective dialogue on the various aspects of Leuven’s food strategy. This intervention was designed to be more interactive so as to overcome the limited reach of the previous version during which we were unable to actively engage with the participants. The need for an improved communication strategy and simplified analysis was identified and integrated as some of the key objectives for Leuven Gymkhana 2.0. (see section 8.12) The week between 17th and 22nd May 2021 (Fig. 21) was dedicated to an intensive ‘trial and adapt’ exercise of simultaneously conducting the tours, adapting the scripts, and preparing for a final event that would be a moment of collective debate among actors at BoerEnCompagnie, the base camp of the Leuven Gymkhana 2.0. This intervention aimed to reimagine civic engagement and create an alternative means of public debate that could double up as a trust-building process among actors. Three Gymkhanas (see section 8.16, 8.19) were designed with 3 specific themes and target audience. Gymkhana 1 titled “From farm to fork, what does it really mean?” focused on sustainable and healthy diets, food accessibility and food (in)justice. It was designed to shed light on the current food system trends, availability of sustainable food, nuances in debates around sustainable food and to gather and discuss the challenges that citizens face in accessing sustainable and healthy food. This tour aimed to attract the youth and was designed to be more playful. Gymkhana 2 “The Journey of our food” aimed to highlight the significance of local alternative food practices and the challenges they face with the objective to trigger conversations on potential synergies among smaller actors. The content of these two Gymkhanas was structured to inspire mainstream food practices and citizens to transition towards a sustainable food system by discussing fair pricing for producers, transparency in the food chain, prevention of food wastes and the institutional and infrastructural support required for such change. The debates and discussions of these two Gymkhanas were integrated with the content for Gymkhana 3 “Food justice for all”. This gymkhana only took place on a Saturday and intended to engage decision makers and actors involved in the implementation of the food strategy in Leuven. Gymkhana 3 summarized the learnings and debates that arose during the week from the other Gymkhanas and outlined the different aspects of food and agricultural policies across multiple scales of governance and was specifically designed to serve as a comprehensive tour and trust-building platform. It highlighted the policy mismatches and limitations faced by local actors including Leuven 2030 and the City with regard to food system governance. Learning from the previous experience of the IASP interventions, the final day was designed as a family event for those participating and scheduled on a Saturday. It concluded with a collective meal and party at BoerEnCompagnie, allowing participants to take part in a collective dialogue on how to move forward in the implementation of the food strategy. The timeline of key moments and insights was displayed as a 3-meter-long banner (Fig. 6) at the event to serve as a ‘walk in history’ and bring back the initial richness and goals of the IMAC that emerged when the food strategy dialogue was initiated.

Fig. 21 Event calendar planning for Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 ©Leuven Gymkhana

Fig. 22,23 Photographs from the guided tours of Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 ©Leuven Gymkhana

6.7 Post-processing and following up on the action research The collective action research will continue beyond the submission of this thesis. To begin with, a meeting has been arranged with actors from the City who were unable to attend the Gymkhana to discuss our insights and suggestions for the future of the implementation of the food strategy in Leuven. Two publications currently being developed with Prof. Pieter Van den Broeck, Clara Medina García and Lariza Castillo Vysokolan include my contribution on conducting participatory action research in COVID times and the governance of food systems. Both publications focus on the case of Leuven’s food strategy and food system, aligning with the insights of this collective action research process. In addition, the collective writing of the INSIST Cahier 5 (https://insist.earth/) on Governance will further elaborate and adapt this case study and action research.

managed to remain convinced about the final intervention. The analysis and visualization of our research through graphic schemes, though diverse due to the interpretation of the particular group that prepared them, helped simplify and compile most of the findings into readable formats. They provided the opportunity to understand the actors and institutions, governance and political mechanisms that impact the food system in Leuven. These graphic schemes doubled up as reflective tools to build a narrative of the key moments in the history of IMAC in Leuven and gather questions that could impact or trigger governance innovation. By adding the process of this collective action research to the timeline and analysis, we could identify and visualise the point(s) of intervention of the Leuven Gymkhana as an outcome. This helped communicate our analysis and findings in a clearer and engaging manner to stakeholders and participants of the Gymkhana. While this impact was missing in Leuven Gymkhana 1.0 due to the lack of active engagement and interaction with the public, Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 executed with the IMSDP team managed to grab the attention of key actors involved in the governance and implementation of the food strategy. While planning the final intervention and webinar during Leuven Gymkhana 1.0, the research took a backseat while the whole team focused on action by executing the event. During Leuven Gymkhana 2.0, both research and action ran simultaneously, continuously improving, and co-producing insights and content as the event progressed. This was facilitated by the interactive elements of Gymkhana 2.0, though small-scale and modest in its ambition, making it more impactful than the previous version. The conscious decision to simplify our analysis and language while interacting with stakeholders and citizens helped reach out to them better and convey our message and questions clearly. As someone from an academic background who relies on graphics to communicate my research, it was quite challenging to adapt and find the right way to narrate the full story. The consecutive thesis reviews within the MaULP programme challenged and pushed me to rethink the presentation of this elaborate planning process and finding a way to get the whole narrative across within limited time. It was quite challenging to keep up with and navigate through the regulations of ethics in research that were integral to Clara Medina García’s PhD research. I took the role of constantly checking and reminding myself as well as the whole team to ensure that these rules weren’t broken in any manner. This was especially difficult while presenting at intermediate thesis reviews when I had to respond and discuss the findings of the research without compromising on ethical regulations of the overall research framework.

Impact & Positionality

7.1 Reflection on experience of the planning process As explained in the previous section, this thesis was a simulation of a real-life planning process that employed multiple methods as a part of the action research, and was comprised of different components that influence, impact, and enrich one another. It is essential to note that each step in the process was a strategic action linked to other components of the action research. To better visualize the complexity, interactions and links within the whole process, these components were grouped into interconnected dimensions that evolved through different stages. (see section 8.15) Through the process of this research, we consciously sided with the perspective of smaller alternative food practices in Leuven, aligning our questions to address the challenges they face while trying to fit into a food system that is predominantly unsustainable and large-scale. Due to limited time and resources, an initial question about the history of participation and activism in Leuven was only partially answered through the research. The question on how Cities can change or alter higher levels of governance and policy remains open, as does the one on how to integrate social justice at the structural level of the food programme. However, the action research manged to address key questions on how to improve access to governance for smaller actors in the city and reopen the debate on conflicting topics. The interaction with stakeholders varied depending on time and resources. Due to the COVID restrictions, initial interactions were entirely online. Through the course of the research, their involvement increased or decreased depending on the questions and perspectives we chose to address. The pattern of involvement of stakeholders in collective problematization and organization of the Gymkhanas revealed particular dynamics of the institutions they belonged to. It also triggered debates on ownership of the questions we tried to address through the interventions, hinting at the evolution of a “Big MAC” that continues to fit within mainstream governance mechanisms. While I believe we collaborated with the right stakeholders to co-create the research questions and subsequent interventions, it was disappointing that we couldn’t engage key actors who have a larger influence on decision making processes. Another limiting factor was the lack of engagement of citizens outside the academic fraternity or the alternative and mainstream food networks during the Gymkhanas. This also links to the question that remains open on how to engage citizens in decision-making processes and not view them merely as consumers. Apart from these aspects, we also ensured compliance with ethical regulations as required by the University as this research falls under the framework of Clara Medina García’s PhD. This presented challenges while communicating our findings to relevant stakeholders. We provided concrete evidence to support each statement instead of relying on interviews and verbal information acquired during our interaction with stakeholders. The whole process resulted from cycles of gradually developing and interacting research and design, supported by simultaneous reflection and evaluation to realign and improve the focus and outcome. This planning project thesis is in itself a continuous process that evolved across multiple stages. These cycles were frustrating at times due to the open-ended nature of the possible outcomes of the action research. The planning project did not have a pre-determined agenda or framework to develop. Instead, it was actively improved and built with the feedback and inputs of stakeholders as we progressed. However, this open-endedness proved to be quite significant in shaping the results of the action research by providing the necessary flexibility in designing an intervention with real impact. Adapting the task planning within groups, revisiting initial objectives, and altering them based on new insights, etc. were some of such strategic decisions that had a strong impact on the results. The heaviness of such a back-and-forth process was at its highest when the editorial board and the team working online on research had to convey the insight and reasoning to the offline team during the IMSDP workshop. This was crucial to ensure active contribution and interest of the offline team working to execute the Gymkhana on the field. This resonates with my previous experiences in project planning processes where outcomes that seem initially uncertain come together through repeated improvisation. Interestingly, the collective action research and planning of the Leuven Gymkhana exhibited challenges described by stakeholders who are a part of Leuven 2030 and implementation of the food strategy, leading to an understanding that this action research is indeed a simulation of a real-life planning process. This also means that much like any other collaboration, some decisions had to be taken top-down by the editorial board and some ideas had to be left out keeping in mind the limited time and resources. This affected the enthusiasm of individuals at some points, and only those who participated in the decision-making moments

7.2 My role as a collaborative leader in the process

Through the process of my thesis, I took multiple positions and roles that impacted the nature of my contribution at each stage of the process. My initial research and knowledge gathered on Leuven 2030 and the food strategy led me to assume that Leuven 2030 is a case of governance innovation. I took a relatively optimistic view and positioned myself as an observer during the first few meetings with stakeholders. This helped me take note of specific details and anecdotes that were put forth by the stakeholders. Following the meetings, I worked on transcripts or revisited our collective notes and recordings to process the information further and extract insights that helped our analysis. As we stepped into the cycles of action and research with the IASP and IMSDP workshops, I identified myself as a ‘collaborative leader’ (Ansell and Gash 2012) in my contribution to the collective action research process taking different roles and positions to best impact the outcome. During the IASP collective research, I had the dual role of an enrolled student for the course as well as a member of the Editorial Board in co-managing and co-editing the exercise and outcome. During the course of the exercise, I positioned myself in a way that my focus remained on governance and politics than food systems and hence, my choice of topic to research while building the narrative and analysis with the IASP team. It was difficult to make this distinction between governance and food system since the two were closely linked. It was even more challenging to bring the focus back to governance while engaging with a new group of students or stakeholders during the course of the action research. I consciously took up the task of the webinar planning when we distributed work for planning the intervention. We had positioned ourselves in a middle ground by researching and bringing forward multiple perspectives. This enabled us to create an inclusive platform to discuss conflicting views- something that I anticipated to be enriching for the process in the longer run. The speakers and actors who participated in the discussion could be important contacts for the research with the IMSDP and this could help me stay in the loop and updated. This also aligned with Tessa Avermaete’s view (Avermaete 2020) on speaking a common language while discussing the food strategy- something that I believe is essential to be able to make a meaningful impact in the process. My role here along with the IASP team was that of a steward (Ansell and Gash 2012), enabling

stakeholders (understood in its broader sense, including researchers and students of the AR process) to convene and collaborate towards collective problematization. My role in the IMSDP was more focused on being a part of the editorial board, working collectively to research further on the governance and policy influences on Leuven 2030 and the food strategy. This time, I took up the roles of both a steward and a catalyst (Ansell and Gash 2012), helping transfer the insights, knowledge and experiences from the IASP and the collective research to the IMSDP students that worked to develop the final intervention. While my role within this team was more as a steward or catalyst, aiding the teams to develop the content and structure of the Gymkhana tours and script, I worked as a mediator along with the other co-organizers of the Leuven Gymkhana 2.0, attempting to manage debates and conflicting views through the intervention that was built as a platform for this very purpose. These roles of collaborative leadership (Ansell and Gash 2012) extended to the entire collective action research process and the Leuven Gymkhana, as they functioned as actors in fostering governance innovation with respect to the implementation of the food strategy in Leuven.

Final Outcomes

The following section is a compilation of the final outcomes of the collective action research process. Each intermediate action and intervention of the planning process was supported by or led to the production of several action research artifacts of diverse formats. These outcomes are linked to one or more sections of this thesis. The following is an overview of the outcomes and the sections they link to: 8.1- 8.2 : Initial research and fieldwork (Sections 1-3) 8.3: Collectively defining research questions with stakeholders (Section 3) 8.4- 8.5: Building a narrative and analysis as action research (Section 6.1) 8.6-8.7: Connecting to stakeholders, testing our analysis and building an embryonic coalition (Section 6.2- 6.3) 8.8: Redfinition of research questions (Section 6.4) 8.9-8.13: Co-production of Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 (Section 6.5) 8.14: Building a narrative and final analysis (Sections 4-5) 8.15: Planning process (Sections 1-7) 8.16-8.19: Reimagining civic engagement in COVID times (Section 6.6)

7.3 Lessons from the collaborative action research exercise in COVID times The recent pandemic pushed several organizations and institutions of diverse scales to rethink their functioning and outreach. While social media platforms have continued to serve and support such practices in the digital landscape, the question of social interaction and civic engagement remain open. My experience with the Leuven Gymkhana provided the opportunity to re-imagine a ‘public event’ in a time of physical (not necessarily social) distancing, and how such an event could transform into a prototype for alternative modes of civic engagement. The Leuven Gymkhana did not aim to reinvent the wheel but rather focused on co-creating a flexible framework that could be adapted as platform for public debate and simultaneous trust-building. The following are some of the key lessons I gathered from this collaborative exercise: 1. May the best idea win…. or not: Co-creation is not about who wins or loses. It is about developing and building towards an outcome collectively, allowing individual ideas and inputs to challenge and enrich one another. 2. Inspiration, not ownership: Most ideas are born out of a blend of inspirations and experiences. Therefore, the ‘output’ needn’t necessarily be brand new. The idea is to create something that induces innovation through the process of co-creation and participation or its impact. By shifting the focus from ownership to inspiration and collective learning, the intervention stands a better chance at creating meaningful impact. 3. Embrace conflict to build trust and vice-versa: Any collaboration is bound to induce tension and conflict when multiple perspectives attempt to arrive at a common output. It is essential to view these challenges as opportunities instead of avoiding them. One can build trust by engaging in debates and discussions, expressing a sincere attempt to understand others while evaluating your own standpoint. 4. Simplify the language: It is crucial to simplify the language used to communicate ideas- avoid using complex terms and jargon that cannot be comprehended by the community. Language is an essential aspect of the trustbuilding process and can have a strong impact on the quality and richness of the outcome. For example, terms like institutionalization, IMAC, alternative food networks, gymkhana, etc. can be intimidating and confusing for stakeholders who are new to the dialogue. Using simpler words to describe these terms could help break the communication barrier and any unintended “academic superiority complexes”. 5. Acknowledge and accept uncertainty to adapt: Dealing with uncertainty is an essential component of planning processes. Only by adapting and improvising can we arrive at pragmatic interventions, and this is only possible by learning to deal with uncertainty and surprising challenges that would arise along the way. By doing so, challenges can be converted into significant opportunities.

8.1 Interviews with stakeholders Due to the ethical regulations of Clara Medina García’s PhD research, the names of some of the interviewees is not revealed. They are identified by the names of the organizations they represented during the interviews. The following are the list of formal interviews conducted with stakeholders that were relevant to the collective action research: 1. Interview 01: Rikolto (Vredeseilanden) 2. Interview 02: Leuven 2030_01 3. Interview 03: Leuven City_01 4. Interview 04: Leuven 2030_02 (Caroline Huyghe) 5. Interview 05: Erik Beatse 6. Interview 06: Generation Food (Thibault Geerardyn) 7. Interview 07: Sarah Martens (Leuven 2030)- This was a collective meeting with IASP/IMSDP editorial board and Erik Beatse • Erik Beatse and Sarah Martens continued to collaborate with us to reflect and fine tune the planning interventions. • We managed to establish informal conversations which doubled up as interviews with actors like BoerEnCompagnie, Bar Stan and the Food Hub through the gymkhanas.

8.2 Thesis week: Outline of thesis research framework

Research quadrants for thesis framework

Initial actor-map based on documental research and fieldwork

8.3 IASP-IMSDP brief

8.4 IASP brainstorming via MIRO

8.5 Framework of collective research developed with IASP editorial board

8.6 Atlas of Leuven Gymkhana 1.0

8.7 Export of Leuven Gymkhana 1.0 website

8.8 Leuven Gymkhana 1.0 closure webinar report

8.9 Intermediate analysis of governance innovation in Leuven

8.10 IMSDP collaboration agreement

8.11 Revaluation of IASP and Leuven Gymkhana 1.0 goals and impact

8.12 Brainstorming for interventions with IMSDP via MIRO

Detailing Gymkhana 1: From farm to fork, what does this really mean?

8.12 Brainstorming for interventions with IMSDP via MIRO

Detailing Gymkhana 2: The journey of our food

8.12 Brainstorming for interventions with IMSDP via MIRO

Detailing Gymkhana 3: Food justice for all

8.13 Collective presentation during UGaDI seminar

8.14 Building a narrative and analysis of governance innovation in Leuven

8.15 Action research planning process

8.16 Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 leaflet

8.17 Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 posters

8.18 Export of Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 website

8.19 Leuven Gymkhana 2.0 tour scripts

Bibliography

Acuña, Marylaura, Marie Azzimonti, Lariza Castillo, and Paulien Denis. 2020. “Analysis of the Leuven Food Hub as an Alternative Agri-Food Network,” no. May. Ansell, Chris, and Alison Gash. 2012. “Stewards, Mediators, and Catalysts: Toward a Model of Collaborative Leadership.” Innovation Journal 17 (1): 2–22. Avermaete, Tessa. 2020. “Towards a Meaningful Debate on the (Local) Farmer.” KU Leuven Blog Server. 2020. https://blog.associatie.kuleuven.be/tessaavermaete/. “Belgium- Agriculture.” n.d. In Encyclopedia of the Nations. Encyclopedia of the Nations. https://www. nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Europe/Belgium-AGRICULTURE.html#:~:text=Agriculture in Belgium is mainly,barley are the main staples. Blust, Seppe De, Pieter Van den Broeck, Tim Devos, and Frank Moulaert. 2021. “Planning as a Collective Critical Inquiry. Socio-Environmental Justice, Critical Moments and Reflective Responses in Six Years of Studio Teaching.” Blust, Seppe De, Frank Moulaert, and Pieter Van den Broeck. 2020. “From Strategic Spatial Planning to Spatial Development Planning.” Planning Theory and Practice. Boffey, Daniel. 2020. “EU Spending Tens of Millions of Euros a Year to Promote Meat Eating.” The Guardian, February 14, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/feb/14/eu-spending-tens-of-millions-ofeuros-a-year-to-promote-meat-eating. Broeck, Pieter Van den. 2011. “Limits to Social Innovation. Shifts in Flemish Strategic Projects towards Market Oriented Approaches.” Belgeo, no. 1–2: 75–87. https://doi.org/10.4000/belgeo.6386. Broeck, Pieter Van den, Abid Mehmood, Angeliki Paidakaki, Constanza Parra, Seppe De Blust, and Pieter Van den Broeck. 2019. “From Social Innovation To Spatial Development Analysis and Planning.” Social Innovation as Political Transformation, 100–105. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788974288.00032. Cerrada-Serra, Pedro, Ana Moragues-Faus, Tjitske Anna Zwart, Barbora Adlerova, Dionisio Ortiz-Miranda, and Tessa Avermaete. 2018. “Exploring the Contribution of Alternative Food Networks to Food Security. A Comparative Analysis.” Food Security 10 (6): 1371–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-018-0860-x. Deparment of Agriculture & Fisheries. 2018. “Challenges for Flemish Agriculture and Horticulture.” http://www. globachem.com/en/about-globachem/value-of-agrochemicals. European Commission. 2020. “European Capital of Innovation 2020 – Leuven.” 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/ info/research-and-innovation/funding/funding-opportunities/prizes/icapital/icapital-2020_en. Groen Leuven. 2020. “Food and Agriculture Advisory Council.” 2020. https://www.groenleuven.be/vlar. Han Vandevyvere, Peter Tom Jones, and Jan Aerts. 2013. “The Transition to Leuven Climate Neutral 2030: Scientific Final Report.” Leuven. https://assets.leuven2030.be/attachments/LKN_Wetenschappelijk Eindrapport_1302. pdf. Healey, Patsy. 2012. “Re-Enchanting Democracy as a Mode of Governance.” Critical Policy Studies 6 (1): 19–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2012.659880. Huxham, Chris, S. Vangen, C. Huxham, and C. Eden. 2000. “The Challenge of Collaborative Governance.” Public Management: An International Journal of Research and Theory 2 (3): 337–58. https://doi. org/10.1080/14719030000000021. Kazepov, Yuri, Fabio Colombo, and Tatiana Saruis. 2019. “The Multi-Scalar Puzzle of Social Innovation.” Local Social Innovation to Combat Poverty and Exclusion, no. May: 91–112. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvs32tpj.10. Kenis, Anneleen, and Matthias Lievens. 2017. “Imagining the Carbon Neutral City: The (Post)Politics of Time and Space.” Environment and Planning A 49 (8): 1762–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16680617. “Klimaatactieplan Stad Leuven.” 2020. Leuven. https://www.leuven.be/sites/leuven.be/files/documents/2020-08/ Klimaatactieplan_GR_augustus_2020.pdf. Knickel, Marina, Karlheinz Knickel, Francesca Galli, Damian Maye, and Johannes S.C. Wiskerke. 2019. “Towards a Reflexive Framework for Fostering Co-Learning and Improvement of Transdisciplinary Collaboration.” Sustainability (Switzerland) 11 (23): 6–8. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236602. Leuven 2030. n.d. “LOCAL DISTRIBUTION PLATFORM KORT’OM LEUVEN CONNECTS LEUVEN FARMERS AND CONSUMERS.” Accessed April 15, 2021a. https://www.leuven2030.be/verhalen/lokaaldistributieplatform-kortom-leuven-verbindt-leuvense-boeren-en-consumenten. ———. n.d. “The Story of Tom Troonbeeckx.” Accessed April 15, 2021b. https://www.leuven2030.be/verhalen/

leuvense-helden-tom-troonbeeckx. Manganelli, Alessandra. 2020. “Realising Local Food Policies: A Comparison between Toronto and the BrusselsCapital Region’s Stories through the Lenses of Reflexivity and Co-Learning.” Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning 22 (3): 366–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1523908X.2020.1740657. Medina-García, Clara, Rosa de la Fuente, and Pieter Van den Broeck. 2021. “Exploring the Emergence of Innovative Multi-Actor Collaborations toward a Progressive Urban Regime in Madrid (2015–2019).” Sustainability (Switzerland) 13 (1): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010415. Moulaert, Frank. 2010. Social Innovation and Community Development: Concepts, Theories and Challenges. Can Neighbourhoods Save the City? Community Development and Social Innovation. Vol. 9780203849. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203849132. Mulder, Crissy. 2021. “This Circular Start-up Collects Separate Biostreams for Processing into New Products: ‘Corona Crisis Was Just That Little Boost That We Could Use.’” Bloovi. 2021. https://www.bloovi.be/artikels/ ondernemen/2021/deze-circulaire-start-up-verwerkt-lokale-biostromen-tot-nieuwe-producten-onze-ultiemedroom-de-stad-als-productiemachine. Nick François. 2019. “Roadmap Leuven Climate Neutral.” Boerenbond. 2019. https://www.boerenbond.be/ actualiteit/roadmap-leuven-klimaatneutraal. OVAM. n.d. “FAQ on Green Waste.” Accessed April 5, 2021. https://www.ovam.be/veelgestelde-vragen-over-gr oenafval#groenvoorzieningeigencompost. Paep, M, K Verachtert, and J Van Reeth. 2019. Roadmap 2025-2035-2050. Edited by BUUR cvba, Miechel De Paep, Kristine Verachtert, and Johan Van Reeth. Leuven: vzw Leuven 2030. https://roadmap.leuven2030.be/pdf/ L2030_Roadmap.pdf. Paidakaki, Angeliki, Frank Moulaert, Hans Leinfelder, and Pieter Van den Broeck. 2020. “Can Pro-Equity Hybrid Governance Shape an Egalitarian City? Lessons from Post-Katrina New Orleans.” Territory, Politics, Governance 0 (0): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2020.1773919. Ridouani, Mohamed, Peter Tom Jones, Han Vandevyvere, Jan Aerts, Jim Baeten, Kristine Verachtert, Geert Vanhorebeek, and Yanti Ehrentraut. 2011. “Leuven Klimaatneutraal 2030: Resultaten van de Nulmeting.” Leuven Klimaatneutraal 2030. Leuven. Rikolto. 2018. “Rikolto Puts Leuven on Track with an Urban Food Strategy.” 2018. https://www.rikolto.be/nl/ nieuws/rikolto-zet-leuven-op-weg-met-stedelijke-voedselstrategie. ———. 2019. “Local Food Strategies.” 2019. https://www.rikolto.be/nl/onze-diensten/lokale-voedselstrategieen. Schulz, Angelika. 2021. “Should Milk Alternatives Be Taxed Differently?” Food Unfolded. 2021. Vanderhoven, Jorrit. 2018. “Strategizing for the Access to Land . A Multi-Level Governance Reading of Urban Agriculture Initiatives in the Case of Ghent.” Vysokolan, Lariza Castillo. 2021. “Leuven 2030 as a Collaborative Platform (Forthcoming).” KU Leuven.