ICS, Instituto de CIências Sociais

Food has always been an urban issue. The role of cities in building more sustainable food systems is already recognized and related to other urban domains, such as transport, health, land use planning for agriculture and multifunctional areas, community development, employment generation and waste management. The implications of these on urban planning and practice are however less evident. A proper spatialization of the food system and of its metabolic flows is missing, inhibiting their necessary readings for urban design. This paper addresses this gap. After introducing the concept of food system and discussing its spatial components-production, transformation, distribution, commercialization/consumption and waste management-we expose how a set of food-related activities and initiatives are shaping the Lisbon Metropolitan Area. The socio-ecological metabolic flows established by these operations on the ground and their sustainability impacts are established, based on the analysis of five municipalities: Lisbon, Oeiras, Alcochete, Palmela and Montijo. The results reveal how food is already an opportunity for the creation of jobs, healthy food markets and the promotion of land productivity, in particular on a micro scale. The paper recognizes the importance of localized food systems and their particular metabolic flows, capable of boosting opportunities to overcome physical and social obstacles and to increase the possibilities for urban planning to target the urban food system on a wider scale. Finally, it concludes that the overall food system of a metropolitan area is more than the sum of the several food systems operating in that same region.

Squatting practices have been mostly excluded by urban development discourses, defined as illegal situations of social deviance, a problem to solve through a repressive or ‘normalising’ approach, fostering pacification of radical urban conflicts (Colin 2010; Debelle 2015; Dee 2016; Rossini 2016). Meanwhile, spaces for negotiation have multiplied, since ‘particularly during periods of systemic capitalist crisis, a period of institutional searching and regulatory experimentation ensues in which diverse actors, organisations, and alliances promote competing hegemonic visions, restructuring strategies, and developmental models’ (Brenner and Theodore 2002). We ground our analysis of institutionalisation/co-optation in previous debates among activists and academics studying social movements in general (Castells 1983; Piven and Cloward 1979) and squatting in particular (Domı´nguez et al. 2010; Martı´nez 2014; Pruijt 2003; Uitermark 2004). We argue that these inclusionary strategies are selective and, thus, always accompanied by their counterpart: repression of the excluded—by choice or necessity. Since the early 2000s, two main trends are relevant to understanding the different repertoires of action that both radical urban movements and the state develop. These trends have to do with the boundary between the biopolitical parameters of inclusion and exclusion of each political system, within the broader context of internationalised market economies. We argue that, while these practices are still stigmatized, repressed or normalized through local policies, in the last decades, the understanding of such reclaiming processes by institutions and public opinion seems to have undergone a general shift to three new interpretative frameworks, mostly based on dominant neoliberal urbanism models (Brenner & Theodore, 2002; Peck, Tickell, 2002): criminalization of urban poor and neoconservative security policies; neoliberal state disinvestment and public burdens’ privatization strategies and governmentalization; urban growth and competitiveness oriented policies such as creative cities and urban marketing discourses and strategies.
Following today’s umpteenth crisis and its drastic effects, new urban social movements are reclaiming squatting as a legitimate tactic of protest and civil disobedience. Different forms of ‘insurgent urbanism’ embody the exercise of the ‘right to the city’ and have developed different repertoires of action, ranging from more radical to more institutionally oriented ones. In this chapter we first compare three Northern and Central European cities (Berlin, Copenhagen and Paris) and then analyse three Southern European cities (Madrid, Barcelona and Rome). We have selected the six cities that have a long history of institutionalisation and legalisation of squats as well as the squatters’ resistance and other policies developed by the authorities. We identify the main differences and similarities, in the normative tools and strategies developed to repress or institutionalise squatting during the past few decades, which became circulating techniques among different European countries. What emerges is a clear tendency to make squatting, in its subversive dimension, increasingly difficult and therefore less likely to happen while co-opting its vibrant dimension.

In Berlin, Rome and Barcelona, three cities that have been affected on different levels by the most recent wave of neoliberalisation of the 2000s and the global crisis, a rekindled interest in the strategies for the (re)appropriation of urban space has emerged among urban activists, as a way of resisting and challenging competitive oriented policies and austerity urbanism. The following three cases are hereby analysed in detail: the Flughafen (airport) Tempelhof in Berlin; the former Snia factory and the ‘Park of the Lake’ in Rome; the Can Batlló, an old industrial complex in Barcelona. The practices of resistance that have played out over these contended vacant public spaces have emphasised the limits of the current urban ideology in proposing alternative ways of doing things. Embodying the growing mistrust towards policy-makers and the intentions of institutional actors, these contentious urban practices have aimed to (re)politicise urban policies, planning and theoretical debates but face complex issues of institutionalisation that can co-opt contents, thereby neutralising radical claims.

Este estudo sobre imigrantes sem-abrigo a viver em Portugal identificou 680 pessoas, a maioria das quais em Lisboa, sobretudo homens oriundos dos Países Africanos de Língua Oficial Portuguesa (PALOP).  Os dados pertencem ao estudo "Imigrantes sem-abrigo em Portugal", coordenado por Teresa Líbano Monteiro do Centro de Estudos de Serviço Social e Sociologia (CESSS, FCH-UCP), financiado pelo Instituto de Segurança Social e editado pelo Observatório da Imigração.

O presente artigo pretende reflectir sobre a temática da discriminação das mulheres, tal como é construída pela imprensa e pela televisão portuguesas. Para tal, usa como ponto de partida alguns dados compilados pelo Observatório Experimental da Discriminação Étnica e Sexual, durante o ano 2000, relativos a notícias em que as mulheres surgem como protagonistas. Nas notícias monitorizadas, a discriminação das mulheres é frequentemente apresentada como um “item socio cultural” ou “informação geral e estatística” (tendo um tratamento que podemos chamar de “politicamente correcto”). Desta forma, os media contribuem para a construção social da discriminação das mulheres, apresentando o tema como um “problema socio-cultural”, já em vias de ser resolvido pelas diversas instituições ao dispor dos cidadãos, quer do Estado, quer da Sociedade Civil. Os valores-notícia associados a este tema, assim como a forma como as diferentes agendas (pública, mediática e política) se articulam, podem constituir uma possível explicação para essa imagem.

Where are the animals, when “sustainable development” is considered? As it is an attempt to address the problems of how life is becoming more and more threatened by human action, one might expect that the United Nations Strategy for Sustainable Development (un n. d.) would consider the place of animals in this major project of reimagining a liveable future for the planet. However, animals are remarkably absent from the 17  sustainable Development Goals (sdgs) of the 2030 Agenda. None of the 17 sdgs explicitly refer to animals, and when they are indirectly mentioned as “fishes”, in sdg 14, or endangered “species” in sdg 15, they are perceived as resources. Animals are, therefore, absent, as agents that co-inhabit the same planet with humans, sharing a common vital condition and a history of co-evolution. Rather, they are indirectly suggested as means to an end: making a better life and future for humans, in (and not with) the planet.