Canberra’s path to global leadership in urban farming - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Canberra’s population is projected to reach nearly 700,000 by 2050, intensifying pressure on land, housing and food systems. 1 The Canberra Region Local Food Strategy 2024–2029 positions urban and regional agriculture as a core pillar of food security and emissions reduction . 2 More than 100 community gardens already operate across the ACT, providing a base for scaling urban food production. 3 Singapore’s rooftop and high-tech farming policies show how incentives and spatial planning can rapidly expand urban agriculture. 4 Global bodies such as FAO and OECD identify urban agriculture and productivity gains as critical to resilient, low-emissions food systems. 5 In the next five years, integrating urban farming into planning codes, climate strategies and housing policy will be decisive for Canberra’s long-term food resilience. 6

On the northern edge of Canberra, where new suburbs encroach on paddocks and construction cranes redraw the skyline, a quieter experiment in survival is unfolding in raised beds, school plots, and makeshift hydroponic rigs.

As the city prepares for a population approaching 700,000 by 2050, planners and growers are asking whether Australia’s bush capital could become a world leader in feeding itself from within its own urban footprint.⁷

The stakes are high, as rising food prices and pandemic‑era supply shocks have exposed how dependent Canberra remains on long road, rail and air corridors stretching to coastal ports and distant farms.⁸

At the same time, the ACT’s climate strategy commits the territory to net zero emissions by 2045, forcing a reckoning with the carbon cost of everything from refrigerated freight to fertilisers.⁹

The Canberra Region Local Food Strategy 2024–2029 sketches a future where urban farming, community gardens and peri‑urban agriculture help cut emissions, reduce food waste and increase access to fresh food, but it leaves open the question of how bold the city is prepared to be.¹⁰

Globally, agencies such as the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation describe urban and peri‑urban agriculture as a critical tool for making cities more resilient to climate, economic and health shocks.¹¹

From Singapore’s rooftop farms to controlled‑environment vertical farms in Australia’s industrial parks, high‑tech food production is moving closer to consumers and into spaces once reserved for cars and machinery.¹²

Canberra already has more than 100 community gardens, dozens of school kitchen gardens and a growing ecosystem of local producers, yet most of what its residents eat still arrives by truck.¹³

This investigation examines whether the ACT’s policy settings, spatial planning, technological capacity and social fabric are aligned to turn Canberra into a global exemplar of urban farming, rather than a city that watched the opportunity pass by.

Demographics, demand and land pressure

Canberra’s population is projected to rise from about 482,000 people in 2024 to nearly 700,000 by 2050, an increase of 319,000 residents.¹⁴

ACT Treasury data indicate growth of around 8,000 people each year, with higher-density housing and infill development expected across all districts as greenfield sites become scarcer.¹⁵

The ACT’s Guide to Community Gardens notes that as more residents live in apartments or on smaller blocks, demand for shared gardening spaces rises because private yards are no longer sufficient to grow food.¹⁶

This demographic shift reshapes food demand and land use, increasing the volume of fresh produce required while making traditional backyard gardening less feasible for many households.¹⁷

Nationally, an ABARES‑informed discussion of food security shows Australia exports about 70 per cent of its agricultural production, highlighting that the country is a net food exporter even while some urban households struggle to access affordable, healthy food.¹⁸

Within this context, urban farming in Canberra is less about replacing broadacre agriculture and more about reshaping how and where food is produced, distributed and consumed inside the city.

Mapping Canberra’s food system

The Canberra Region Local Food Strategy describes the territory as part of a wider city‑region, drawing much of its fresh produce from surrounding New South Wales farming districts while importing significant volumes of packaged and processed food from interstate and overseas.¹⁹

The strategy aims to strengthen local food systems by fostering urban and regional agriculture, reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with long‑distance freight, and increasing community access to fresh, affordable food.²⁰

According to Agriculture and Food in the ACT, there are over 100 community gardens across the territory, 77 school kitchen gardens and at least nine gardens in public housing complexes, showing that small‑scale local production is already embedded in the city’s fabric.²¹

The ACT Government also recognises community gardens as a form of outdoor recreation facility in its Territory Plan, effectively legitimising food growing as a planned land use in new estates and urban renewals.²²

Yet large supermarket chains continue to dominate food retail and pricing, and an ACCC grocery inquiry submission notes that food price inflation between 2019 and 2023 added almost 19 per cent to Australian grocery costs, exacerbating cost‑of‑living pressures for low and middle income households.²³

Local production currently contributes to food security mainly by improving access to fresh fruit and vegetables in specific communities and by building social connections, rather than by supplying a large share of total calories consumed in the territory.²⁴

Sustainability potential and trade‑offs

A national research project on urban food security and climate change concludes that urban agriculture can strengthen food security and urban resilience by improving access to fresh produce, using waste streams productively and creating opportunities for community engagement.²⁵

The same study finds that urban agriculture is unlikely to make Australian cities fully self‑sufficient, but argues that it can play an important role when integrated into broader planning for resilience and sustainability.²⁶

For Canberra, the environmental opportunities include cutting emissions from food transport, using composted organic waste as fertiliser, and integrating green infrastructure that cools suburbs and manages stormwater alongside food production.²⁷

The ACT’s Urban Forest Strategy 2021–2045 sets a target of 30 per cent tree canopy cover and 30 per cent permeable surfaces in urban areas by 2045, aligning food‑producing landscapes with shade, biodiversity and heat‑island mitigation goals.²⁸

However, trade‑offs are real, as high‑tech indoor farms can be energy intensive and rooftop farms must compete with solar panels, mechanical services and structural constraints on buildings.²⁹

To maximise benefits, Canberra’s planners will need to balance space for food production with renewable energy generation, tree canopy and housing, rather than treating any single use as automatically dominant.³⁰

Policy, governance and gaps

The Canberra Region Local Food Strategy 2024–2029 marks a new approach to valuing local food production in the ACT, setting out actions to diversify the local food economy, reduce and repurpose food waste and strengthen community wellbeing.³¹

The strategy positions Canberra as part of a global community of city‑regions working to foster urban and regional agriculture, signalling that food systems are now a recognised part of climate and sustainability policy rather than an afterthought.³²

The ACT Climate Change Strategy 2019–2025 commits the territory to net zero emissions by 2045 and to a 50–60 per cent emissions cut below 1990 levels by 2025, creating a strong rationale for reducing emissions in food supply chains through local production and circular economy practices.³³

AdaptNSW’s summary of the ACT region highlights heightened risks of drought and bushfires, which will place pressure on water supplies and agriculture, underlining the need for climate‑resilient urban food systems that can operate under variable rainfall and heat extremes.³⁴

At the national level, Feeding Australia, a National Food Security Strategy initiative, notes that Australia’s strong export position coexists with pockets of food insecurity, particularly among disadvantaged groups, pointing to the importance of local initiatives alongside national production.³⁵

Despite these frameworks, researchers have found that complex regulations governing land use, health and small business operations can unintentionally thwart attempts to establish new urban agriculture enterprises, suggesting that regulatory reform is a key enabler for Canberra’s ambitions.³⁶

Technology, innovation and controlled environments

Globally, urban agriculture is shifting from small community gardens to systematised, technologically advanced and policy‑integrated models that use vertical farming, hydroponics and controlled environment agriculture to boost yields and resource efficiency.³⁷

In Australia, an automated vertical farm profiled by industry media claims output equivalent to a 20‑acre farm on a 1,000 square metre footprint, using up to 95 per cent less water than conventional agriculture and delivering produce within kilometres of urban consumers.³⁸

Vertical farms typically rely on LED lighting, hydroponic systems and data‑driven climate controls, and Australian agri‑tech commentary emphasises their potential to strengthen local food systems and complement rather than replace traditional farms.³⁹

For Canberra, integrating such facilities into industrial estates, logistics hubs and even repurposed car parks could allow continuous year‑round production of leafy greens and herbs close to population centres.⁴⁰

Linking these systems to the territory’s high penetration of renewable electricity would help ensure that the additional energy demand of controlled environment agriculture does not undermine the ACT’s emissions targets.⁴¹

Experts also highlight that digital platforms connecting urban producers directly with consumers, including subscription boxes and online marketplaces, can increase the economic viability of small urban farms by shortening supply chains and reducing waste.⁴²

Spatial strategies and reimagined spaces

The Guide to Community Gardens in the ACT confirms that community gardens now operate in schools, public housing and retirement villages, illustrating how non‑traditional spaces can be adapted for food production within existing urban layouts.⁴³

Agriculture and Food in the ACT reports that there are more than 100 such gardens across suburbs, showing a city‑wide patchwork of small plots that could be expanded or linked through planning frameworks and incentives.⁴⁴

Internationally, Singapore’s food agency has tendered the rooftops of public housing car parks and other public buildings for commercial hydroponic farms, repurposing previously under‑used structures to help meet a goal of sourcing 30 per cent of nutritional needs locally by 2030.⁴⁵

Singapore’s planners also sweeten rooftop transformations by offering gross floor area exemptions when mechanical equipment is relocated to make space for urban farms and gardens, reducing the financial barriers for developers and building owners.⁴⁶

Research by Australian universities has proposed turning car parks into horticulture farms and installing controlled‑environment agriculture in under‑utilised urban structures, arguing that such conversions can combine food production with climate adaptation benefits like shading and cooling.⁴⁷

For Canberra, similar policy tools—such as planning bonuses for rooftop farms, design competitions for food‑producing buildings and explicit mapping of suitable industrial roofs—could unlock a network of productive spaces from Civic to Tuggeranong.

Socio‑economic impacts and community identity

Studies of community gardens in Canberra and other cities have found that participants value not only the fresh food produced but also the social connections, mental health benefits and opportunities for learning new skills.⁴⁸

The ACT’s community garden guide notes that gardens attract a diverse range of residents and can help address the lack of private growing space in higher density housing, supporting social inclusion as well as nutrition.⁴⁹

At a broader scale, national analyses of food insecurity highlight that rising grocery prices and housing costs leave many households struggling to afford healthy diets, and that local food initiatives can reduce reliance on food relief services by improving access to low‑cost produce.⁵⁰

Urban agriculture can also create jobs in farming, logistics, processing and education, particularly in high‑tech facilities that require specialised skills in plant science, engineering and data analysis.⁵¹

Embedding food production in schools, TAFEs and universities further reinforces a local identity centred on sustainability and self‑reliance, and prepares a workforce capable of operating advanced urban farming systems.⁵²

In Canberra, this could mean aligning urban agriculture initiatives with existing strengths in research, higher education and public policy, turning the city into both a living laboratory and a teaching hub for urban food systems.

Global trends and lessons from Singapore

FAO’s overview of urban and peri‑urban agriculture argues that improved urban food production can boost yields, diversify crops and enhance sustainability while making fresh, nutritious food more available to urban households.⁵³

A recent thematic review in Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems notes that in high income countries, urban agriculture has evolved into technologically advanced, policy‑integrated systems with vertical farms, aquaponics and rooftop gardens embedded in urban regeneration projects.⁵⁴

The OECD‑FAO Agricultural Outlook projects global food consumption rising by about 1.4 per cent per year over the next decade, driven mainly by population growth, and warns that productivity gains and reduced waste are needed to meet demand while cutting emissions.⁵⁵

Singapore stands out as a city‑state that has responded by leasing public rooftops for urban farms and setting clear local production targets, while supporting hydroponic and building‑integrated farms through planning and incentive schemes.⁵⁶

Analysts describe Singapore’s approach as an “iron triangle” of policy, technology and spatial planning, combining rooftop farms, retrofitted buildings and car park conversions to reduce import dependence and build resilience against external shocks.⁵⁷

Canberra does not share Singapore’s land constraints or import reliance, but its climate risks, emissions goals and rapid population growth mean the underlying logic of integrating urban farming into planning, housing and economic policy is strikingly similar.⁵⁸

Action plan: from pilots to global model

Short‑term actions over the next five years could include embedding explicit urban agriculture targets into the Territory Plan and development codes, such as requiring a proportion of roof or communal open space in major developments to be designed for food production where feasible.⁵⁹

The ACT Government could also establish a dedicated urban farming grants and loans program, building on proposals like the Canberra Region Food Collaborative, to support start‑ups deploying hydroponics, container farms and community‑scale greenhouses in strategic locations.⁶⁰

Medium‑term measures to 2035 could involve integrating urban farming into major urban renewal projects and new precincts, linking them to the Urban Forest Strategy and Living Infrastructure Plan so that food production, tree canopy and permeable surfaces reinforce one another rather than compete.⁶¹

Policy makers could set procurement targets for ACT schools, hospitals and public institutions to source a share of fresh produce from local urban and peri‑urban farms, giving producers secure markets and aligning food policy with health and climate objectives.⁶²

Longer term, by 2045, Canberra could position itself as an international model by combining high‑tech vertical farms, extensive community gardens, integrated waste‑to‑fertiliser systems and research partnerships, underpinned by a robust food security strategy that is regularly reviewed and publicly reported.⁶³

If these steps are taken in concert with national strategies on food security and emissions reduction, the city could demonstrate how a medium‑sized, inland capital can adapt to climate change while improving equity and resilience in its food system.⁶⁴

Conclusion: the next five years

The evidence from Canberra’s own policy documents, Australian research and global urban agriculture initiatives points to a clear conclusion, that urban farming will not feed the city alone but can make it significantly more resilient, equitable and sustainable.

For regional planners and policymakers, the next five years are critical. They must bake food production into planning codes and climate strategies, streamline approvals for urban farms, invest in community and high‑tech projects, and set measurable local procurement and access targets to reduce long‑term risk of food insecurity, climate disruption and social fracture.⁶⁵

References

1. Food for All – ACT Greens policy on local food resilience and urban agriculture (2020)
2. Burton, P. (2013), Urban food security, urban resilience and climate change – NCCARF report
3. Canberra doubles down on alleged supermarket price gouging – Community Directors (2024)
4. Draft Canberra Region Local Food Strategy – YourSay ACT (overview page)
5. Feeding Australia: A National Food Security Strategy – Australian Government (2025)
6. ACT Cost of Living Budget Statement – ACT Treasury
7. Canberra Region Local Food Strategy 2024–2029 – ACT Government
8. Public Health Association of Australia submission on the National Food Security Strategy (2025)
9. ACCC Groceries Inquiry – Coles Group public submission (2024)
10. Developing a new climate change strategy for the ACT – Climate Choices ACT
11. ACT Population Projections: Growth reflected across the City – ACT Government media release (2025)
12. Guide to Community Gardens in the ACT – Policy and Site Selection Criteria
13. Australia’s first fully automated vertical farm completes R&D phase – Green Magazine
14. Nearly 700,000 Canberrans by 2050 – Our Canberra (2025)
15. Turner, B. (2012), A study of the demand for community gardens and their benefits – University of Canberra
16. Innovative Vertical Farming in Australia – CheerBio (2025)
17. Agriculture and Food in the ACT – ACT Government
18. Agriculture and Food in the ACT – community gardens statistics
19. Creating an urban farm‑friendly Australia – UTS case study (2025)
20. ACT population projections show we must build houses, quickly – Canberra Daily
21. Singapore rents public rooftops for urban farming – Agritecture
22. Urban and peri‑urban agriculture – FAO briefing
23. Climate change in the ACT region – AdaptNSW
24. Singapore unveils incentives for urban and rooftop farms – Agritecture
25. Senthamizh, R. (2025), Urban agriculture in a changing world: a thematic review – Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
26. Climate Change – ACT State of the Environment Report
27. OECD‑FAO Agricultural Outlook 2022–2031
28. Rooftop urban farming in Singapore: the iron triangle of food security – FFTC Agricultural Policy Platform

Back to Top

Singapore’s sky farms: how one city is rewriting the future of food - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

Singapore targets producing 30% of its nutritional needs locally by 2030 through intensive urban farming.1 Rooftop, indoor and vertical farms already supply a significant share of eggs, vegetables and seafood in the city-state.2 Vertical farms can deliver many times the yield per square metre and cut water use by over 90% compared with conventional farming.3 Climate change is projected to reduce global yields of major crops such as wheat and maize without strong mitigation and adaptation.4 Australian broadacre crops face earlier flowering, shorter growing seasons and lower yields in many regions by mid-century.5 Urban farming policy must be integrated with land-use planning, water governance, infrastructure and insurance to protect communities.6

On a humid Singapore morning, trays of lettuce, basil and choy sum move slowly along a conveyor under LED lights, stacked in vertical columns above a multi-storey car park rather than a paddock.

In a city where less than one per cent of land is zoned for agriculture, Singapore has turned rooftops, warehouses and even car parks into a distributed network of high-tech farms designed to buffer its 5.9 million residents against increasingly fragile global food supply chains.¹

The city-state now positions urban farming not as a lifestyle trend but as critical infrastructure, backed by a national goal to meet 30 per cent of its nutritional needs locally by 2030, up from single-digit shares a decade ago.¹

Singapore’s hen shell egg farms already supply around one third of domestic egg consumption, while local vegetable and seafood farms contribute a smaller but strategically important share of fresh food, much of it grown in urban settings rather than rural hinterlands.²

As climate change disrupts rainfall, heats up growing seasons and raises irrigation demand for crops like wheat and canola, cities from Paris to Melbourne are testing their own models of rooftop gardens, community plots and commercial vertical farms.³

For Australia, where broadacre crops underpin export earnings yet face projected yield declines in hotter, drier regions by mid-century, Singapore’s experiment offers lessons in how urban land, policy and technology can be redeployed to protect food security.⁵

International climate assessments already project that, without stronger mitigation, global yields of wheat, maize and other staples could fall sharply by the end of the century, pushing food prices higher and amplifying rural distress and migration.⁴

Urban food systems researchers argue that cities need to be treated as active food-producing regions, not just consumers of rural harvests, with planning laws, water rules and infrastructure investment redesigned accordingly.⁷

Seen from Singapore’s rooftops, the story of urban farming is no longer about boutique herbs in recycled milk crates, it is about whether dense cities can shoulder more responsibility for feeding their populations in a harsher climate.

And as regional planners weigh where future wheat, barley, canola, cotton and horticulture production can viably sit, the rise of urban agriculture hints at a more distributed, resilient food system in which skylines, not just soil, do part of the heavy lifting.

Policy framework: Singapore’s “30 by 30” as food security strategy

Singapore’s government anchors its urban farming push in the “30 by 30” target, a commitment to build capacity to produce 30 per cent of the country’s nutritional needs locally by 2030, compared with about 10 per cent in 2019.¹

The Singapore Food Agency’s data show that by 2022 local farms supplied about 29 per cent of hen shell eggs, 8 per cent of seafood and 4 per cent of vegetables, with most of this production occurring in land-efficient urban or peri-urban systems rather than traditional broadacre farms.²

The government has backed these ambitions with an Agri-Food Cluster Transformation Fund of around AU$70 million and a separate AU$35x30 Express grant, designed to fast-track high-tech farms using vertical systems, hydroponics and automation to ramp up output within the city’s tight land envelope.⁸

Since 2020, authorities have tendered the rooftops of at least nine multi-storey public housing car parks for commercial food production, effectively rezoning infrastructure for agriculture and signalling that food security is now a core use of public urban space.¹¹

These policy levers dovetail with broader national strategies on climate resilience and import diversification, recognising that a city importing more than 90 per cent of its food is acutely exposed to trade disruptions, extreme weather and geopolitical shocks.¹

For planners in Australian capitals, the Singapore model underscores the importance of treating urban agriculture as a strategic asset to be enabled through grants, land access and long-term targets, rather than a peripheral green initiative.

Technological innovation: vertical farms, data and resource efficiency

Singapore’s dense urban form has pushed farmers towards vertical farming, where crops are stacked in tiers under controlled lighting, temperature and nutrients, with climate systems managed by sensors and algorithms rather than weather forecasts.⁸

Research on vertical farming indicates that such systems can produce many times the yield per unit of land compared with open-field farming, with some analyses suggesting water use reductions of up to about 90 per cent or more through recirculating hydroponics and closed irrigation loops.³

Scientific reviews of vertical farming report that precise control of light, carbon dioxide and nutrients allows year-round production, higher yields and better quality, while reducing pesticide use and avoiding seasonal shocks, making these systems attractive for climate adaptation in cities.³

In Singapore, firms like Sustenir use fully enclosed indoor farms to grow leafy greens under LED lights, illustrating how agritech companies are emerging as part of the city’s broader innovation and clean-tech ecosystem rather than as marginal primary producers.¹¹

From a climate risk perspective, these systems decouple yield from rainfall variability and heatwaves, but they are energy intensive, which means their long-term sustainability hinges on cheap, low-emissions electricity and careful integration with national decarbonisation plans.³

For Australian cities with rapidly expanding rooftop solar, pairing urban farms with on-site renewables and grid demand management could mitigate energy risks while delivering local food, jobs and new training pathways in controlled-environment agriculture.

Spatial strategy: turning rooftops and tunnels into farms

Singapore’s most distinctive move is its systematic repurposing of underused urban surfaces, from public housing car parks to industrial rooftops, as farming platforms negotiated through central planning rather than one-off pilots.¹¹

The government’s control over most apartment blocks allows it to allocate large contiguous rooftop areas for commercial farms like Comcrop and Citiponics, turning housing estates into mixed-use zones that host both residents and food production systems.¹¹

Paris has taken a different but complementary route with its Parisculteurs program, which aims to cover 100 hectares of rooftops, walls and urban spaces with vegetation, with roughly one third reserved for urban agriculture projects such as rooftop farms and social gardens.⁹

By 2020, Paris had more than 30 hectares of urban agriculture installed, supported by a “100 hectares charter” that binds public and private landowners into a partnership to open up roofs, walls and underground spaces to farming enterprises.¹⁰

Elsewhere, cities like London have converted disused underground tunnels into hydroponic farms, while other European centres are testing facade-grown systems, illustrating how built-form constraints can drive creative uses of basements, viaducts and industrial heritage sites.³

For state and local governments in Australia, integrating such spatial strategies into zoning codes, development approvals and infrastructure design standards is a practical step that can be taken now, rather than waiting for greenfield land to become available on the fringes.

Economic and social impact: prices, jobs and identity

Urban farming in Singapore is still a small share of total food supply by volume, yet it plays an outsized role in buffering price shocks, shortening supply chains and building public confidence that at least some essentials can be sourced domestically in a crisis.²

Local production of eggs, vegetables and seafood, even at modest percentages, can dampen exposure to sudden import restrictions, freight disruptions or extreme weather in supplying countries, which international food security experts warn are likely to intensify under climate change.⁴

Economically, Singapore’s move into high-tech agriculture has created new roles in agronomy, engineering, software and maintenance, recasting “farming” as an urban technology career rather than solely a rural, manual occupation.⁸

Socially, rooftop and community farms have been used as educational spaces, introducing school students and apartment residents to the realities of food production and making food systems more visible in daily city life.⁷

For regional Australia, where climate impacts threaten traditional jobs in rain-fed cropping, controlled-environment agriculture and urban farming could offer alternative employment in regional centres, including roles in managing greenhouses, packaging local produce and maintaining digital infrastructure.

However, the distributional impacts need careful management so that high-tech investment does not bypass smaller growers or low-income communities, which are often most exposed to food price rises and extreme weather.

Comparative context: four other paths to urban food

While Singapore leads on integrating national food security policy with dense, high-tech urban farming, other cities offer contrasting models that highlight different levers for success.

Paris’s Parisculteurs places greater emphasis on integrating agriculture into heritage buildings and public spaces, often through design competitions and partnerships with community groups, which strengthens public engagement and biodiversity outcomes as much as food supply.⁹

In North America, cities such as Vancouver and Detroit have focused on community-led gardens, allotments and social enterprises, using vacant lots to address food deserts and create local employment, though these systems rarely match Singapore’s yields or technological intensity.⁷

Tokyo and Hong Kong, like Singapore, experiment with building-integrated agriculture on rooftops and commercial towers, but face different regulatory and land-ownership structures that make coordinated, city-wide strategies harder to implement.¹⁴

These diverse approaches show that there is no single “right” model, but they also underline the importance of clear policy mandates, long-term land access and investment in skills if urban agriculture is to move beyond symbolic projects.

Worldwide context: climate risk and the case for city farms

Global climate assessments now conclude with high confidence that climate change is already affecting food security through reduced yields, disrupted supply chains and more frequent extreme events, and that risks increase with every increment of warming.⁴

Meta-analyses of crop studies suggest that under a high-emissions scenario similar to SSP5–8.5, global yields could decline by around 14 per cent for wheat and more than 20 per cent for maize by late century compared with 2015, while lower-emissions pathways substantially reduce these losses.¹²

Australian research on broadacre crops indicates that shifts in rainfall and hotter growing seasons will advance flowering dates and shorten growing periods, which can reduce yields for wheat, barley, canola and pulses, particularly in lower-rainfall zones in Western and south-eastern Australia by 2060.⁵

Other studies find that irrigation water requirements for wheat and canola can increase markedly under warmer scenarios, underscoring the risk that traditional irrigation districts may struggle to meet demand if inflows decline and competing water uses grow.¹³

Against this backdrop, urban farming will not replace broadacre agriculture, but it can diversify supply, reduce transport emissions, cut food waste and create local buffers against global price spikes, especially for perishable, high-value horticulture.

In practice, this means cities will need to integrate food system considerations into climate adaptation plans alongside heat mitigation, flood management and housing, rather than treating food supply as something that happens elsewhere.

Climate risk by region and crop: high, medium and lower risk

Climate vulnerability assessments for Australian agriculture suggest that hotter, drier conditions will place the greatest pressure on broadacre cropping regions in Western Australia’s wheatbelt and parts of inland New South Wales and Queensland, where rainfall is already marginal and temperature increases amplify heat stress and evaporation.⁵

These areas are typically classed as high risk because small percentage drops in rainfall can translate to disproportionately large yield losses for rain-fed wheat, barley and canola, and can undermine the reliability of water available for irrigated cotton.

Medium-risk regions include higher-rainfall grain belts in south-eastern Australia and some irrigated valleys, where projected changes include shorter growing seasons and increased irrigation demand but where adaptation options, such as changing sowing dates, varieties and rotations, are more readily available.⁵

Lower-risk zones tend to be cooler, higher-rainfall areas and some southern coastal regions, where moderate warming may even improve potential yields for certain crops if water is sufficient, though this depends heavily on emissions pathways and local water management.⁴

Across all regions, scientists stress substantial uncertainty ranges due to differences between climate models and emissions scenarios, but the direction of change is clear enough to inform planning of new infrastructure, insurance products and support programs now.⁴

Major crops to mid-century: shifting yields and geographies

Modelling for Australian broadacre systems shows that wheat remains relatively resilient compared with more sensitive crops, but still faces median yield declines in drier locations and advancing flowering dates of up to several weeks by 2060, which increase the risk of heat and frost damage.⁵

Barley and canola share similar exposure to rainfall declines and heat stress, though some higher-rainfall regions may maintain or even increase yields if management practices change and new varieties are adopted.

Field pea and some other pulses appear more sensitive in existing studies, with ensemble projections in parts of Western and south-eastern Australia showing yield declines of 12 to 45 per cent depending on location, highlighting the vulnerability of certain rotations.⁵

Cotton, largely irrigated, is directly exposed to water availability, and international work on irrigation demand indicates that warmer conditions can substantially increase crop water requirements, making secure entitlements and efficient delivery systems critical for future viability.¹³

Horticulture, which often involves perennial crops and high-value vegetables, is highly sensitive to heatwaves, changed chill hours and water stress, but can also benefit from protected cropping and urban farming models that bring production closer to consumers.

For planners, this suggests that some production may shift geographically towards cooler or better-watered regions, while urban and peri-urban protected cropping and vertical farms pick up a greater share of fresh produce demand.

Policy gaps: land, water, infrastructure, insurance and transition

Despite growing evidence on climate risks, land-use planning in many jurisdictions still treats food production and urban development as competing, rather than complementary, priorities, with peri-urban farmland often fragmented by housing and industrial expansion.⁷

Singapore’s experience shows that clear policy direction and cross-agency collaboration can reframe rooftops and underused sites as agricultural assets, whereas many Australian cities lack explicit zoning or building codes that enable agriculture on roofs, car parks or facades.¹⁴

On water governance, climate projections of higher irrigation requirements for crops such as wheat and canola sit uneasily alongside existing competition between cities, industry and the environment, yet most urban planning frameworks do not explicitly consider the water needs of emerging urban farms.¹³

Infrastructure planning often overlooks local food logistics, such as cold storage, short-haul freight and market facilities, even though studies on urban food systems emphasise that improved infrastructure can cut losses, support informal and local markets and strengthen resilience for low-income communities.¹

Insurance products for farmers and regional businesses are still catching up with compounding risks from droughts, fires and floods, and there is little tailored coverage for controlled-environment agriculture or rooftop farms despite their different risk profiles.

Transition support for affected communities remains patchy, with some national programs addressing drought resilience and on-farm adaptation, but fewer tools designed to help workers and small businesses move into new roles in protected cropping, urban agriculture or climate services.

Actionable recommendations for governments

First, federal and state governments can embed food system resilience, including urban agriculture, into climate adaptation and disaster risk strategies, drawing on the same evidence base used in national climate assessments for other critical infrastructure.⁴

This means treating selected urban farms, distribution hubs and protected cropping clusters as essential assets, with clear support in planning, funding and emergency management arrangements.

Second, planning systems can be updated to allow and encourage agriculture on rooftops, podiums, car parks and industrial estates, with design standards that address structural loading, safety, access and water reuse, building on examples from Singapore and Paris.⁹

Local governments can identify priority zones near transport and markets where urban agriculture would deliver the greatest benefits for low-income communities, and can use development contributions or incentives to secure long-term access for food production rather than only short-term pop-ups.

Third, water governance reforms can recognise urban and peri-urban agriculture as a legitimate user of recycled water and stormwater, with clear allocation frameworks, quality standards and infrastructure funding that enable farms to use treated wastewater and capture roof runoff safely.¹³

At the same time, regional water planning can incorporate projected increases in crop water requirements and the potential for technology, such as drip irrigation and soil moisture monitoring, to reduce demand and maintain yields for key crops.

Fourth, governments can co-invest in controlled-environment agriculture training, research and demonstration sites in regional centres and city fringes, ensuring that farmers, workers and students can gain the skills needed to manage high-tech greenhouses and vertical farms.³

Targeted transition packages, including retraining and relocation support, will be essential for communities where traditional broadacre cropping becomes less viable due to water scarcity, heat stress or market shifts.

Economic and social implications for regions

Regional economies built around broadacre crops are exposed not only to yield changes but also to knock-on effects for employment in storage, transport, input supply and processing, which can be destabilised by more frequent climate shocks.⁵

As climate impacts accumulate, variability in yields and water availability can drive greater volatility in farm incomes and local spending, with consequences for small towns already grappling with population loss and service decline.

At the same time, new opportunities may emerge in value-added processing, protected cropping and regional logistics for urban and peri-urban food systems, particularly if policy and investment deliberately direct some urban farming and controlled-environment agriculture to regional hubs.¹

Where urban farms supply nearby city markets, there is potential for shorter supply chains to reduce transport emissions and food loss, and to stabilise prices for certain foods, though this will depend on how costs, including energy, are managed and who has access to the resulting produce.³

Community resilience will hinge on ensuring that climate adaptation and urban farming strategies are designed with local input, so that new investments do not bypass the most vulnerable regions or entrench inequalities between city cores and regional areas.

What global cities can learn from early adopters

Singapore’s approach shows that when urban farming is backed by clear national targets, funding, land-access reforms and a strong technology ecosystem, it can contribute meaningfully to food security even in a land-scarce city.¹

Paris, Tokyo and other cities demonstrate how heritage buildings, tunnels and rooftops can be reimagined as productive landscapes when local governments act as conveners between landowners, farmers, designers and communities.⁹

For Australian planners and policymakers, the next five years will be decisive, they must integrate food systems into climate adaptation and urban planning, protect and repurpose land and water for both rural and urban agriculture, invest in skills and infrastructure for controlled-environment and community-based farming, and build transition support for regions so that as climate risks intensify, Australia’s cities and country towns share the responsibility and opportunity of feeding the nation.

References

1. Singapore Food Statistics 2022 – Singapore Food Agency
2. Singapore Food Statistics 2023 – Strengthening Singapore’s Food Resiliency
3. Applications of vertical farming in urban agriculture – European Journal of Horticultural Science
4. IPCC AR6 Working Group II – Food security and climate impacts
5. Climate change impacts on phenology and yields of five broadacre crops in Australia – Anwar et al 2015
6. IPCC AR6 Working Group III – Urban systems and other settlements
7. Tackling the climate–food–migration nexus through urban food systems – IAI
8. Unconventional Business: Farming in Urban Singapore – IGPI report
9. Paris is opening the world’s largest urban rooftop farm – Global Center on Adaptation
10. Parisculteurs case study – ISO/AFNOR 37101
11. Singapore shows what serious urban farming looks like – Reasons to be Cheerful
12. Predicting changes in agricultural yields under climate change scenarios – 2025 meta-analysis
13. Modelling the effects of climate change on irrigation water requirements of wheat and canola – Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems
14. Vertical farming: An assessment of Singapore City – Wong et al 2020

Back to Top

Why the world’s food system is at risk and what a renewable future could look like - Lethal Heating Editor BDA

Key Points

The modern food system is highly efficient yet structurally fragile, with climate shocks, water stress, and market volatility capable of triggering cascading failures.1 Regions already facing water scarcity, heat extremes, and weak governance, including parts of Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, are most exposed to food disruption.2 Climate change acts as a threat multiplier, amplifying risks created by biodiversity loss, fossil fuel dependence, monocultures, and concentrated supply chains.3 Regenerative and renewable food systems, built around healthy soils, diversified production, and lower inputs, can boost resilience and cut emissions.4 Benefits of a global shift include improved public health, rural employment, biodiversity recovery, and more stable climates and food prices.5 The next decade is critical, with planners needing to invest in water‑resilient agriculture, social protection, and governance reforms to avoid systemic food crises.6

The world’s food system feeds more people than at any point in history, yet scientists warn its underlying structures are fragile in a hotter, more unequal century.¹

Climate change, water stress, soil degradation, and dependence on fossil fuels and imported inputs are converging to raise the risk of systemic disruption, rather than isolated harvest failures.³

At the same time, economic shocks, conflicts, and pandemics have shown how quickly global supply chains can seize up, pushing up prices and deepening hunger for millions.⁷

UN agencies estimate that hundreds of millions of people are already food insecure, with climate extremes one of the major drivers of recent acute hunger emergencies.⁸

Regions that rely heavily on food imports, or on a narrow range of climate‑sensitive crops, are particularly exposed to price spikes and trade disruptions.²

For Australia, which exports large volumes of wheat, beef, and dairy, mounting climate and water risks overseas also have implications for trade, regional stability, and humanitarian obligations.⁹

Scientists and policy analysts increasingly argue that a shift towards regenerative and “renewable” food systems, which restore ecosystems rather than deplete them, is essential for long‑term food security.⁴

These models emphasise soil health, diversified cropping, lower fossil fuel inputs, and fairer access to land and markets, while still needing to deliver affordable, nutritious diets.¹⁰

The choices governments, investors, and communities make in the next five to ten years will shape whether the food system bends under pressure or breaks in ways that are difficult to reverse.⁶

For regional planners and policymakers, the question is less whether change is coming, and more how to steer it towards resilience, equity, and climate stability.¹¹

The fragility of the modern food system

Researchers increasingly describe the global food system as a complex, tightly coupled network, where shocks in one part can cascade rapidly through prices, trade, and politics.¹

Industrial agriculture has delivered high yields through synthetic fertilisers, pesticides, irrigation, and long supply chains, but at the cost of degraded soils, biodiversity loss, and high greenhouse gas emissions.³

The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that agriculture, forestry, and other land use contribute about a fifth of global emissions, binding food production tightly to the climate crisis it must now withstand.¹²

At the same time, crop and livestock production rely heavily on fossil fuels for fertilisers, machinery, processing, refrigeration, and transport, making food prices sensitive to energy markets and geopolitical tensions.¹³

Economic analysis of recent crises has shown how export restrictions by major producers, or conflict in key grain regions, can quickly reduce availability on world markets and push millions towards hunger.⁷

This structural dependence on a few staple grains, a handful of global trading companies, and vulnerable fossil fuel‑based inputs underpins concerns about systemic rather than localised food risk.¹⁴

Who is most vulnerable – and why

Vulnerability to food system disruption is shaped by climate exposure, water availability, soil health, trade dependence, inequality, and governance capacity.²

Studies identify parts of sub‑Saharan Africa, the Middle East and North Africa, and South Asia as hotspots where high climate risk intersects with high rates of poverty and food import dependence.²

Agriculture accounts for roughly 70 per cent of global freshwater withdrawals, and regions already facing physical water scarcity, such as North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula, are particularly exposed to crop failure and conflict over water allocation.¹⁵

Water‑resilience research warns that, without improved governance, the gap between water supply and demand is likely to widen significantly in coming decades, especially where population is growing quickly.¹⁶

Small island developing states and low‑lying delta regions face additional risks from sea level rise, saltwater intrusion into farmland, and cyclone‑driven flooding, which can damage both production and infrastructure.¹⁷

For many low‑income countries, limited fiscal space, weak social protection systems, and restricted access to borrowing make it harder to absorb price shocks or invest in adaptation, increasing the risk of humanitarian crises and instability.¹⁸

Climate change as a threat multiplier

Climate change does not act in isolation; it intensifies existing stresses in food, water, and ecological systems, turning what might have been manageable shocks into cascading crises.³

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports high confidence that heat extremes, heavy rainfall, and agricultural droughts have already increased in frequency and intensity in many regions, affecting crop yields and livestock health.³

Maize, wheat, and rice yields have shown region‑specific declines linked to observed warming, particularly in lower‑latitude regions, while marine and inland fisheries are under pressure from warming waters and ocean acidification.¹⁹

Biodiversity loss, including the decline of pollinators and soil organisms, further undermines resilience, reducing the ability of ecosystems to buffer extreme events and recover from disturbance.²⁰

Monoculture farming systems, which rely on a narrow set of high‑yielding varieties, can produce efficiently under stable conditions but are more vulnerable to pests, diseases, and climatic extremes than more diverse landscapes.²¹

Financialisation and concentration in global supply chains, where a small number of firms dominate trade and input provision, can amplify volatility, as disruptions or speculation in these nodes translate quickly into price spikes for consumers.¹⁴

Consequences of systemic food failure

When food systems falter, the effects ripple through human health, ecosystems, and political stability, often in ways that reinforce one another.²²

Modern analyses of famine emphasise that mass hunger is typically driven less by absolute food shortage than by conflict, economic collapse, and state failure that prevent people from accessing available food.²¹

Historical episodes, from the Bengal famine of the 1940s to more recent crises in the Horn of Africa and Yemen, show how war, trade disruption, and policy choices can turn climate shocks into catastrophic mortality.²³

Food price spikes have been linked with social unrest, including during the period before the Arab uprisings, highlighting the political sensitivity of bread, fuel, and basic staples.²⁴

For non‑human animals and ecosystems, food system breakdown can mean habitat conversion as desperate communities clear more land, over‑fish coastal waters, or exploit wildlife to meet immediate needs.²⁵

In extreme cases, combined climate and food stress can trigger migration within and across borders, putting further pressure on urban areas and neighbouring states and complicating humanitarian response.¹⁸

What a regenerative or “renewable” food system looks like

Regenerative and so‑called renewable food systems aim not just to reduce harm but to restore soil, water, and biodiversity while maintaining viable livelihoods and adequate food supply.⁴

The FAO describes regenerative agriculture as a holistic approach that improves water and air quality, enhances ecosystem biodiversity, produces nutrient‑dense food, and stores carbon, while remaining economically viable for farmers.²⁶

Common practices include reduced or no‑till farming, cover cropping, diverse crop rotations, integration of trees and livestock, and reduced reliance on synthetic fertilisers and pesticides.⁴

Evidence from field trials and meta‑analyses suggests that improving soil organic matter can increase water infiltration and retention, buffer crops against drought, and in some cases maintain or improve yields over time.²⁷

Regenerative systems can reduce emissions by sequestering carbon in soils and biomass and by lowering energy‑intensive input use, though sequestration potential depends on local conditions and may saturate over time.²⁷

More broadly, regenerative food systems extend beyond the farm gate, encompassing shorter supply chains, local and regional markets, equitable access to land and finance, and dietary shifts towards less resource‑intensive foods.²³

Technologies, practices, and social innovations

Technologies central to a renewable food transition range from on‑farm practices to digital tools, irrigation technologies, and new forms of governance and finance.¹⁰

Precision agriculture, solar‑powered irrigation, drought‑tolerant crop varieties, and improved water storage can help farmers use inputs more efficiently and adapt to variable rainfall, including in low‑ and middle‑income countries.²⁸

Social innovations such as farmer cooperatives, community‑supported agriculture, public procurement for healthy and sustainable food, and Indigenous land and water management knowledge are also seen as key to resilience.²⁹

Analysts caution that while many regenerative practices are technically scalable, access to finance, secure land tenure, extension services, and data often determine whether smallholders and poorer regions can take them up.³⁰

Corporate interest in regenerative agriculture is growing, partly driven by climate and nature‑related disclosure rules, but raises questions about who captures the benefits of carbon credits and other payments for ecosystem services.⁴

Researchers argue that without safeguards and participation, there is a risk that regenerative branding could entrench existing power imbalances rather than deliver a more equitable food system.²⁹

Broader benefits of a renewable food transition

A transition to regenerative and renewable food systems could deliver wide co‑benefits for health, employment, biodiversity, and climate stability, in addition to nutrition.⁵

Public health research links current diets, dominated in many countries by ultra‑processed foods and cheap fats and sugars, with rising rates of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and some cancers.³¹

Shifting towards diets rich in whole grains, legumes, fruits, and vegetables, produced in agroecological systems, is associated with lower environmental footprints and better long‑term health outcomes at the population level.³¹

Rural economies could gain from more labour‑intensive regenerative practices, value‑added processing, and local food enterprises, although this requires supportive policy to ensure decent work and fair wages.⁵

Conserving and restoring habitats within agricultural landscapes, such as riparian zones, native vegetation, and wetlands, can improve water quality, support pollinators, and store carbon, contributing to national biodiversity and climate goals.²⁰

By reducing exposure to climate shocks, input price volatility, and degraded soils, regenerative food systems may also help stabilise food prices and reduce the risk of social unrest linked to food insecurity.²²

Barriers, pathways, and lessons from history

Despite growing interest, political, cultural, and institutional barriers continue to slow the shift towards more regenerative food systems.¹⁰

These include subsidies that favour input‑intensive monocultures, trade rules that encourage export‑oriented commodity production, corporate concentration, and limited recognition of Indigenous and local knowledge in formal policy.¹⁴

Researchers argue that governance for food system resilience requires stronger water institutions, social protection, early warning systems, and participatory decision‑making from local to global scales.¹⁶

Historical episodes, such as the US Dust Bowl of the 1930s, show that policy can drive both degradation and recovery, with conservation programs, land retirement, and new farming practices helping to restore damaged landscapes over time.³²

However, other crises, including famines in colonial India and conflicts in modern war economies, underline that without accountable institutions and attention to rights and distribution, food system reforms can leave the poorest behind.²¹

Experts emphasise that the risks of delay are substantial, because continued investment in high‑emission, high‑input systems can lock in infrastructure and practices that are difficult to change before climate impacts intensify.⁶

In contrast, early action on climate mitigation, water‑resilient agriculture, and social safety nets can reduce long‑term costs and create space for more orderly transitions when shocks do occur.²⁵

What planners and policymakers must do now

Over the next five years, regional planners and policymakers face a narrow but critical window to reduce long‑term food system risk by aligning climate, water, and agricultural policies with resilience goals.¹⁶

Key priorities identified in the literature include investing in water‑resilient infrastructure and governance, reorienting subsidies and public procurement towards regenerative and diversified production, and strengthening social protection to cushion vulnerable households from shocks.²⁵

Building robust early warning systems that integrate climate, market, and conflict data, and embedding local and Indigenous knowledge in planning, can improve the ability of communities and governments to anticipate, rather than simply react to, emerging food crises.¹⁸

Ultimately, evidence suggests that reducing long‑term risk will require treating food not just as a commodity but as part of a shared ecological and social system, and reshaping institutions accordingly.²²

References

1. Feast and Famine: The Global Food Crisis – Origins, Ohio State University
2. Global Water Governance and Food System Transformation – PRISM
3. IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land
4. What Are Regenerative Food Systems? – The Nature Conservancy
5. FAO, The Future of Food and Agriculture: Trends and Challenges
6. Elevating the role of water resilience in food system transformations – Matthews et al., 2022
7. World Bank, Food Security Update
8. FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP, WHO, The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2023
9. ABARES, Agricultural Commodities and Trade Outlook
10. FAO, Transforming agrifood systems: A synthesis of country pathways
11. UNEP, Food Systems and the Environment – Policy Options
12. 12 IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Mitigation of Climate Change
13. 13 International Energy Agency, Agriculture and Energy
14. UNCTAD, Trade and Environment Review: Wake up before it is too late
15. UN World Water Development Report: Nature‑Based Solutions for Water
16. 16 Water Governance for Climate‑Resilient Food Systems – IWMI and partners
17. IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate
18. IPCC AR6 Working Group II, Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
19. IPCC SRCCL, Chapter 5: Food Security
20. IPBES Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
21. Hunger in global war economies: understanding the decline – de Waal, 2024
22. Stockholm Resilience Centre, Planetary boundaries research on food and stability
23. Friends of the Earth, Food and Climate Justice (global food systems overview)
24. Food Prices and Political Instability – IFPRI
25. Friedlingstein et al., Soil and climate feedbacks in food systems – Nature Sustainability
26. The Benefits of Regenerative Agriculture – SLR (citing FAO definition)
27. Montgomery, Soil health and the sustainability of agriculture – Nature Sustainability
28. CGIAR, Climate‑Smart Agriculture
29. IPES‑Food, Towards a Common Food Policy for the EU
30. World Bank, Scaling up Climate‑Smart Agriculture
31. The Lancet Commission on Obesity, Undernutrition and Climate Change
32. US National Park Service, The Dust Bowl

Back to Top