Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from the field
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Agriculture and Human Values 19: 99–106, 2002.
© 2002 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS
Creating space for sustainable food systems: Lessons from the field
Gail Feenstra
UC Sustainable Agriculture Research & Education Program, University of California, Davis, California, USA
Accepted in revised form November 4, 2001
Abstract. In response to growing trends in the current food system toward global integration, economic con-
solidation, and environmental degradation, communities have initiated alternative, more sustainable food and
agricultural systems. Lessons may now be learned about the development and maintenance of local, sustain-
able food systems projects – those that attempt to integrate the environmental, economic, and social health of
their food systems in particular places. Four kinds of space need to be created and protected – social space,
political space, intellectual space, and economic space. Three important themes emerge from these community
spaces: public participation, new partnerships, and a commitment to social, economic, and environmental justice
principles.
Key words: Community food security, Democratic participation, Food policy, Local food systems, Public
scholarship, Sustainable agriculture, Sustainable food systems
Gail Feenstra is the food systems analyst at the University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and
Education Program (SAREP). She coordinates SAREP’s Community Development and Public Policy grants
program and does outreach and education to academic and community-based groups to build their capacity and
leadership skills in building sustainable community food systems.
Introduction ences of food systems practitioners we have worked
with for the past decade.
Over the last several decades, researchers, and prac- Second, sustainable food systems research and
titioners associated with the Agriculture, Food, and practice has already benefited from the many con-
Human Values Society and others have articulated the tributions and theoretical analyses from the fields of
complex nature of the food system – its local and nutrition, sociology, philosophy, community devel-
global dimensions, the opportunities and challenges opment, education, economics, and the agricultural
of democratic participation, the economic and com- sciences. My hope is that we will continue to find ways
munity development possibilities, the policy dimen- of integrating the theoretical work with the applied and
sions, the nutrition and community food security the pragmatic. This article will suggest some addi-
aspects, and, of course, the enjoyment that comes tional possibilities for integration that have surfaced
from sharing locally grown, sustainably produced, from some of our recent work at SAREP.
and lovingly and tastefully prepared food. This art- And finally, in order to talk about these first two
icle will integrate these dimensions into a practical – insights and integration – a third thing is needed –
understanding of what it takes to create and sustain common language. It is essential that food systems
successful, sustainable food systems. This perspective researchers and practioners attempt to use a common,
comes from observing demonstrations of community understandable language in which to talk about food
food systems supported by the UC Sustainable Agri- systems work – between academics of different disci-
culture Research and Education Program (SAREP) plines and between researchers, practitioners, and
throughout California and from working with com- community residents. In this article, I will attempt to
munity members to try to understand how these sys- use simple, jargon-free language in sharing the ideas
tems function. It includes working with practitioners and lessons from our compatriots in the field.
on the applied solutions to food system problems, Now, I will explore the applied side of sustainable
the opportunities for change, and the implementation community food systems. It is the gritty, unpredict-
strategies communities are experimenting with. So, able, in some ways frustrating, but ultimately, exciting
first, this article will share insights from the experi- and entirely satisfying dimension of our work. The100 G AIL F EENSTRA
article will not provide a thorough analysis of the cur- one might wonder whether we can really depend on
rent food system as a rationale for these food systems them. Are they really making a difference? The answer
projects. Suffice it to say that the dominant food and from my perspective is . . . yes, although perhaps not in
agricultural system in which we all live, work, and eat, the ways we might have expected.
produces the bulk of our food and fiber in an incredibly I will begin at the point at which alternative, sus-
efficient manner by at least one criterion of efficiency. tainable food system activities are already in existence.
It is highly energy and capital-intensive, globally inte- Specifically, I will discuss what we are learning about
grated, and increasingly economically consolidated. the development and maintenance of local, sustainable
Unfortunately, it has also resulted in environmental food systems projects – those that attempt to integrate
degradation and economic disaster for scores of small the environmental, economic, and social health of their
family farmers, community processors, and other local food systems in particular places. What have these
businesses tied to food and fiber production, and initiatives actually been able to accomplish? What
community residents who do not have access to an elements account for their successes or lack thereof?
adequate, healthful food supply. And, it has led to Why do some flourish and others wither? What allows
the disintegration of the social and spiritual fabric – some to build their capacities over time and others to
critical connections – that are part of a community’s stagnate? How do these initiatives catalyze active citi-
food system. People have become disconnected from zenship and sustain it over time? What are, or could be,
the sources of their sustenance – the land, the people the roles of researchers, practitioners, and community
who grow and harvest their food and fiber, and from organizers in this ebb and flow of food system activity?
the taste and quality of the food itself. They have How might we better integrate researchers’ and practi-
become passive recipients in a rather homogenous tioners’ needs and activities? Although I do not have
system of nutrient distribution in which real food is all the answers to these questions, I do have some
almost considered a luxury – for upper and middle- insights about what it takes for sustainable community
class eaters. For these and other reasons, the long- food systems to sustain themselves and the challenges
term sustainability of the current food system is in and opportunities facing those of us in universities who
question. seek to work with them.
I will start then with the assumption that many
of these characteristics have registered as concerns
and have motivated communities throughout North Defining a sustainable community food system
America and other parts of the globe, to consider alter-
For the last decade or so, we at SAREP, have funded,
native, more sustainable food and fiber systems. These
supported and provided guidance to sustainable com-
alternative systems may be characterized as more
munity food systems projects throughout California
environmentally sound, more economically viable for
with a competitive grants program, and elsewhere
a larger percentage of community members, and more
through staff research, technical assistance, and out-
socially, culturally, and spiritually healthful. They tend
reach (see www.sarep.ucdavis.edu). These are the con-
to be more decentralized, and invite the democratic
crete projects that are attempting to respond to changes
participation of community residents in their food
in the global economy and food system in unconven-
systems. They encourage more direct and authentic
tional ways, for the most part. SAREP’s request for
connections between all parties in the food system,
proposals defines a community food system as: “A
particularly between farmers and those who enjoy
collaborative effort to build more locally based, self-
the fruits of their labor – consumers or eaters. They
reliant food economies – one in which sustainable food
attempt to recognize, respect, and more adequately
production, processing, distribution and consumption
compensate the laborers we often take for granted –
is integrated to enhance the economic, environmental
farmworkers, food service workers, and laborers in
and social health of a particular place.” Its goals
food processing facilities, for example. And they tend
include:
to be place-based, drawing on the unique attributes of
a particular bioregion and its population to define and • improved access by all community members to
support themselves. an adequate, nutritious diet;
These sustainable community food systems are also • a stable base of family farms that use more
few in number, unevenly distributed, often small – gen- sustainable production practices;
erally involving less than the majority of a community; • marketing and processing practices that create
they are precarious and many fail to sustain themselves more direct links between farmers and con-
over time. If we are looking to these community food sumers;
systems initiatives as solutions to the current unsus- • food and agriculture-related businesses that
tainable state of affairs in the dominant food system, create jobs and recirculate financial capital;C REATING SPACE FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS : L ESSONS FROM THE FIELD 101
• improved working and living conditions for farm experience and reason collectively.” We decided to use
and other food system labor, and this invitation from Scott as an opportunity to explore
• food and agriculture policies that promote local the whole suite of community food systems projects
food production, processing, and consumption. SAREP had funded and worked with over the last
decade. Focusing on these community food systems
In the shorter term, our work at SAREP continues
initiatives allows us to see broader themes or patterns
to revolve around creating more choices or alternatives
and develop insights based on a number of projects.
for communities to engage in these issues. We believe
At the same time, because these initiatives have been
that part of the solution involves citizens in particular
carried out under a single program rubric that has been
places putting their creative energies together to come
fairly stable over the last decade, we had rich lon-
up with their own solutions.
gitudinal data to ground our reflections and insights.
And what kinds of solutions have they been? They
Our focus for the California case study was to identify
are, as Tom Lyson (1999) says, “civic agriculture”
the manner and extent to which public scholarship has
at its best – cooperative agricultural marketing pro-
been integrated in the design, development and trans-
grams that educate consumers about eating regionally
formation of these food systems initiatives and the
and seasonally while building the supply of locally
ways they have impacted public scholars both within
produced and processed foods; school districts that
and outside of the university.
purchase foods from local farms using sustainable
To gather information for our case study, we
farming practices and teach children about eating
reviewed SAREP’s program documents over the last
fresh, local foods, composting, and recycling through
10 years. In the fall of 2000, we conducted 22 open-
school meals and gardening; entrepreneurial com-
ended interviews (7 in person, 15 by phone) with food
munity gardens or CSAs (community supported agri-
system practitioners who received SAREP grants, with
culture projects) that teach youth about growing and
SAREP staff, and with SAREP’s program and tech-
marketing foods to low-income communities; a CSA
nical advisory committee members. And finally, we
community farm run by community members and sus-
held a community food systems forum in November
tainable ag students at a local university; and local food
2000, which gathered a small group of some of our
policy councils that link community food security with
best food systems project leaders to reflect on out-
local, sustainable farming systems.
comes, learnings, the nature of university–community
partnerships and the role of community food sys-
An opportunity to reflect: community food systems tems as a vehicle for engaging “public scholarship.”2
and public scholarship The entire case study lays out a bigger picture from
the perspective of the land grant university than will
For the first five to seven years or so at SAREP, we hap- be discussed in this article. I will be focusing more
pily funded projects and promoted their benefits and specifically on the community food systems projects
successes, small as they sometimes were. We launched themselves – voices from the field – so to speak, and
many and let them go, keeping in touch loosely; in a how we are making sense of their stories.
few cases, more regularly. But we never had an oppor-
tunity to really reflect on or document what impacts
Creating and protecting space
they were having (or not) until about a year ago. At
that time, SAREP was invited, along with my col- While all of these projects were experimental in nature
league David Campbell,1 community studies extension and most are still in their formative stages, one key
specialist and director of the California Communities theme we heard again and again was that community
Program at UC Davis, to be part of a national team leaders had to “create space” for the germination of
of researchers led by Scott Peters at Cornell Univer- these admittedly risky projects in their communities,
sity, to look at the role of “public scholarship” at and protect space for their continuation. What kind of
land grant institutions, specifically in the arena of food space are they speaking about? Let me briefly describe
systems research and practice. We were asked, along four kinds of space, how it was created and protected,
with seven other groups, to prepare a case study of and then give you examples of what I mean.
a university–community partnership that demonstrated
public scholarship at work. The entire group is still in Social space
the process of defining “public scholarship” and all
its implications, but for now I’ll use one definition From their inception, the successful food systems pro-
that came out of our meeting last summer: “Public jects encouraged communities to create new social
scholarship is intellectual activity that organizes and/or spaces. This might have included actual physical
supports groups of active citizens as they reflect on places, like new farmers’ markets or community gar-102 G AIL F EENSTRA dens, where rich social interactions took place. More Alliance, that is developing a shared vision of how to often, it meant the multiple opportunities these projects sustain agriculture in the county. created for diverse people in communities to come Social spaces are also for celebrating, for enjoying together to talk, listen to each other’s concerns and each other’s company, for learning how to support views, plan together, problem-solve, question, argue one another. These gatherings include harvest fairs and come to agreement, compromise, learn another’s (the Garlic, Mandarin, or Eggplant festivals), CSA- language and how to speak so someone else can hear community celebrations on farms, farmers’ markets, you, and to get to know and trust one another in the school garden day celebrations, and local food ban- context of a common purpose or vision. This is where quets like the ones regularly held in Iowa. I think “social capital”3 is created. Here is also where demo- of the social spaces as filling the interstices – the cratic theory and practice come together, as Harry Boyt nooks and crannies of a community food system. They and Nancy Kari have described in Building America: are the glue that allows the new community food The Democratic Promise of Public Work (1996). It is system to hang together or not. The stronger the glue, where regular citizens and residents have the oppor- the more solidly rooted the community food system. tunity to participate in their food systems in new ways. Celebrations help to grow roots. This happens in the context of food policy coun- Lesson #1 on creating and sustaining social cils such as the Marin Food Policy Council, or the spaces: Take it seriously. Create multiple opportu- Berkeley Food Policy Council; in grassroots organiza- nities for residents to come together and talk about tions devoted to improving community food security food system concerns, visions, and activities. Learn to such as the San Francisco League of Urban Gardeners speak a common language. Do not forget to celebrate. or the Pomona Inland Valley Council of Churches; in Allow time to grow roots. Slow Food Movement convivia; in farmer-community breakfast meetings in the heart of California’s Central Political space Valley; in farm-to-school committees in Davis, Win- ters, and Santa Monica, California, in Ithaca, New Closely related to social space is political space. Every York, in Madison, Wisconsin, and in Hartford, Con- community food systems project we talked with spoke necticut. However, building relationships of trust in of their involvement in policymaking at some level – a participatory food system is not always easy; in from the school district or local institution of higher fact, sometimes it can be frustrating. I am beginning education, to city, county, or state government. This to learn to expect some friction in the development kind of space almost needs to be carved. Each project of the social spaces. If there is not any, I am sus- leader managed to carve out his or her own polit- picious. It seems to be necessary for solid social ical spaces to do things like craft a local school food relationships to be established in community food policy, add a local food component to the city’s or systems projects. On the other hand, when a group county’s General Plan, or put ballot measures on a learns to know itself, a lot of possibilities emerge. local ballot to preserve open space and farmland. One For example, one of the first projects SAREP funded project we funded in northern California did an ana- in this area was the Ventura County Food Safety lysis of land use patterns, focusing on vineyards, and Group. This diverse group of community leaders came got very involved in the policy process, helping resi- together with the help of a UC Cooperative Exten- dents evaluate current land use policy and vineyard sion specialist and county director in the aftermath of development and understand how they might want to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s report about change policies to preserve oak woodland habitats. apple growers’ use of Alar, a growth regulator that Carving political spaces often involves community the EPA had declared carcinogenic. There was a lot of organizing. All of the project leaders we spoke tension among the agricultural community, consumer with were involved in organizing local residents advocates, and regulators. Passions ran high. It was for the purpose of improving their food system in not hard to draw the group together, but it did take, some way. The Rural Development Center educated according to one participant, at least five or six meet- and organized farmworkers to grow organic produce ings before people could stop yelling and begin to and sell it to low-income neighborhoods in Salinas; listen to one another. Then, they began to take “field the Pomona Inland Valley Council of Churches trips” to each others’ place of work so each partici- organized farmers to set up a farmers’ market in pant could describe their perspective more thoroughly. Pomona; the Berkeley Youth Alternatives Garden By the end of the process, the group had established Patch Project organized community volunteers to start a constructive dialogue. It was this experience that a community garden and later a CSA, employing later led some of the leaders to seed a new group local youth (see www.berkeleyyouthalternatives.org; representing diverse interests, called the Ag Futures www.pedalexpress.com/BYA); the Park Village CSA
C REATING SPACE FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS : L ESSONS FROM THE FIELD 103
Project organized low-income residents of a Cam- Lesson #2 on political spaces: Think about carving
bodian housing development to farm local land and sell out political spaces from the outset. Community organ-
their produce through a CSA and farmstand. Eventu- izing is a critical component of this work if you
ally, some of these projects were able to leverage these believe in democratic participation in the food system.
organized groups to push for policy changes at local or Work toward institutionalizing sustainable food sys-
regional levels. tems efforts through local policies. Learn the language
One important element of creating political spaces of policymakers. Tell good stories. Measure impacts.
and policies is that it can help food system pilot pro-
jects or models institutionalize their efforts within a Intellectual space
community. This stabilizes the activities and allows
them to mature in place. Probably the best example Intellectual space includes several related elements:
of this for me is the Berkeley Food System Project – a articulating the vision of a sustainable food system
project to introduce fresh, locally grown, organic foods and then conceptualizing a community food system
into the school meals program, to integrate a garden initiative within the local context. It also involves
in every school with food systems-oriented curricula, reflecting on progress and future plans with local resi-
and to start a citywide food policy council to address dents. Successful projects all included at least one
community food security (see www.berkeleyfood.org). person who had a clear vision and could share the “big
Within the last three years, this project has accom- picture” with the rest. It helped ground the project
plished many of its goals, due in no small part when the inevitable personnel, economic, policy, or
to insightful project leaders. From the outset, they other changes occurred.
began thinking about how to institutionalize their In SAREP’s case, our staff helped create the intel-
work through policies. They have created an MOU lectual space that allowed community food system
(memorandum of understanding) with the city’s Health partnerships to find a voice to describe their activities.
Department to help staff the new food policy council; We helped conceptualize the elements of a community
written a districtwide school food policy and a city- food system and worked with these projects as they
wide food policy, and passed a ballot measure in the sought to build concrete expressions of these ideas. We
last general election allocating money to purchase new also linked them to published work and to a larger net-
equipment for many of the school district’s kitchens. It work of other projects across the state, and in fact, the
helps that one of the project leaders is a former state country, which involved similar activities. In 1996, we
representative. In any event, much of the work of this hosted a community food systems conference to show-
project will continue with or without these particular case the efforts of some of our projects, to strengthen
people or the level of funding they currently enjoy the network, and to build the intellectual rationale for
because of the policies that have institutionalized their food systems work. All of this was important to these
efforts. initiatives and allowed us and them to expand our
So what is it that convinces policymakers? We efforts.
learned from our project leaders and policymakers Although this might all sound great, it was not
we interviewed that they like stories. Data are nice; easy – for us or for the community food systems pro-
stories are better. The importance of a compelling nar- jects we worked with. Creating intellectual space is
rative cannot be underestimated. It is what convinced risky. Within a land grant institution that is focused
the County Board of Supervisors in Placer County on the technological solutions to food and agricultural
to award a small group of citizens close to $100,000 issues – particularly for the largest players – trying to
for their novel local agricultural marketing program support small-scale initiatives that include a decidedly
(PlacerGROWN). It is what convinced Rodney Taylor, social component, frankly was not well understood
head of Santa Monica/Malibu school food service to by SAREP’s Program and Technical Advisory Com-
try a farmer’s market salad bar in his lunch program. It mittees. The projects we wanted to fund were not
is what convinced the Arcata City Council to preserve traditional research projects with which committee
the Arcata Community Farm as a working urban farm members were familiar. They represented blends of
on city property. social science, community organizing, and prag-
Having said that, I also want to make a case for matic change. A lot of education and justification
collecting solid data that show the impacts of a new was and continues to be necessary to show the
initiative. Decision-makers also need to know how and connections between the biological and social sci-
when these models can become economically viable ences, between food production and food consump-
and how they contribute to community health. So, in tion, and between research projects and community
the end, both qualitative and quantitative information demonstrations. Because of increasing specialization
is needed. in disciplines, these connections have been seriously104 G AIL F EENSTRA
weakened. Community food systems projects, how- Angeles Security and Hunger Partnership (an advisory
ever, can provide an occasion, an opportunity to body to the city on food policy); or the USDA, which
revitalize and strengthen these interdisciplinary con- provided start-up funds for Berkeley’s Food System
nections. Project. Funds can come from national, state, county,
The other part of intellectual space has to do with city, or private foundation sources, but without them,
reflection and evaluation. We have tried to ensure it is hard to get going. Once a project has started
in each of SAREP’s community food systems pro- and been in existence for awhile, the next challenge
jects that each project includes a reflective or analytic is keeping it going – the maintenance phase. There
component so that community action and community- seems to be a vulnerable time between start-up and
based inquiry are integrated. Unfortunately, this does stability, between initiation and institutionalization,
not always work out as well as it is supposed to. We in which the project needs particular nurturing. Con-
are learning about different kinds of evaluation in dif- tinued funding is very helpful at this stage of pro-
ferent circumstances. For example, initially, we tried ject development; it buys time for new paradigms to
to encourage an evaluation of the newly established solidify. However, successful projects must also have
PlacerGROWN using quantitative outputs (member- project managers who know how to manage funds well
ship numbers, annual funding levels). These indicators – who are fiscally responsible and creative.
did not look particularly strong after three years. Later, Lesson #4 about economic space. Recirculating
however, we learned about the important impact that local financial capital is a key element in successful
the leadership in PlacerGROWN had in the formation community food system projects. However, projects
of a countywide agriculture and open space initiative should also be proactive in seeking additional eco-
called Placer Legacy. A narrow focus on particular nomic resources, which will probably be needed for
evaluative criteria would have kept us from seeing the some time. Successful projects learned how to leverage
longer-term impacts. Evaluation is definitely an area local resources and managed funds creatively, yet
that needs more attention and resources. responsibly.
Lesson #3 on intellectual spaces: Despite the dif-
ficulties and riskiness, persevere in bringing multiple
disciplines and community perspectives together in What have these community food systems
creating intellectual space – the rationale, the vision initiatives accomplished?
for community food systems. Be flexible and creative
in finding opportunities for reflection and evaluation. Despite these projects, a very small percentage of
growers or consumers are interested in marketing or
Economic space buying or growing local or organic produce. The
sales volume at farmers’ markets is a tiny fraction of
Most of the projects we worked with included some food sales through huge retail chains like Safeway,
connection with the local economy – they attempted to Albertson’s, or WalMart. Acres set aside for farmland
find ways to recirculate local financial capital within protection in conservation easements or trusts are few
the region. We saw three or four kinds of CSAs by comparison to those being sold for development.
from “market baskets” in low-income neighborhoods However, I prefer to use analogies from nature – like
of L.A., to neighborhood flower CSAs in Berkeley icebergs and butterflies – when I think of these com-
and Sacramento, to community-wide CSAs in rural munity food systems initiatives. From one perspective,
Arcata, California. We also had projects that examined you just see a little bit of the whole, or only the quiet
year-round and extended employment for agricultural chrysalis stage of development, and it might appear
workers who could then eventually afford to live in the that not much is happening. The reality is, however,
community. And we had a project looking at how com- that there is a lot of largely invisible development
munity members could share the costs of land tenure going on – the formation of new local economic or
and stewardship. social relationships, the understandings of new ways
All of the project leaders we spoke with said that of seeing the food system, the background politicking
some outside funding was absolutely necessary to required for the formation of new policies, the training
really allow them to get off the ground. Extra start- or mentoring of new civic entrepreneurs, the creation
up or seed funding was critical. SAREP provided of new food system infrastructures, and the growing
many seed grants for these projects. Other sources body of research analyzing and evaluating new alterna-
were county boards of supervisors that provided start- tives. I think of all of these activities as constituting
up funds to PlacerGROWN, the local ag marketing an invisible web that underlies the development of
program in Placer County; city governments like the alternative, sustainable food systems. It takes time
one in Los Angeles that provided funds to the Los to develop this web – two to three years minimumC REATING SPACE FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS : L ESSONS FROM THE FIELD 105
– and unless it is supported it grows weaker. As a • Access to resources: economic resources, tech-
grantor, I was originally intent upon seeing tangible, nical resources and organizational skills. In the
visible results within a year, if not sooner. In time, best projects, university personnel acted more as
I listened and learned about this invisible web from facilitators and less as project leaders. Yet, they
project participants. And I saw, over time, that they offered valuable support (e.g., access to grants,
were right. technical skills, facilitation skills) on a consistent
Lesson #5: Be patient (especially if you are a basis, to nurture projects along. It is the pragmatic
funder); think of accomplishments or outcomes in dif- skills community members need most.
ferent ways and support the invisible dimensions to the • Capacity to help projects evaluate progress
extent that you can. and reflect on their past and future directions.
Although we at SAREP have done this to a lim-
ited extent, we can see how creating more spaces
What overriding themes emerge from these for reflection and sharing would be extremely
community voices and spaces? valuable. There is no template out there, so every
bit of time spent thinking, reflecting, readjusting,
Three themes seem to underlie all these spaces. They re-evaluating, is useful.
are the three “Ps” – public participation, partnerships, • Framing. University faculty and extension per-
and principles. sonnel can use their background in social or
agricultural or nutrition sciences to help locate
Public participation projects within a broader framework. This is
most useful to community partners (and univer-
Public participation is key to all of these community
sity partners) when they are part of the discussion
food systems projects. The public must have genuine
process and can comment on initial ideas and
decision-making power. This is even more signifi-
drafts. This larger framing can help community
cant when we realize that project participants fre-
participants see themselves and their work as part
quently represent marginal or disenfranchised groups.
of something much larger.
They have included farmworkers, small-scale organic
producers, low-income community residents, and lim-
ited resource/ethnic farmers. Community food sys- Principles or values
tems projects offer them real opportunities to develop
leadership from among their ranks. We have seen that, We found that the motivation for community residents,
in particular, with some of the youth-oriented projects. project leaders, and SAREP staff to be involved in
Young people are learning to grow, harvest, and pro- many of these projects over a long period of time
cess food for their communities at the same time as came from a deep commitment to social, economic,
they learn business and marketing skills, community and environmental justice and health, to democratic
outreach, and nutrition/health education skills, and participation, to the importance of local wisdom, local
they learn about the strength inherent in their own dreams, community spirit, and often to their own spir-
and their community’s unique assets. The fundamental itual traditions. We saw that by remembering these
resource in all of these projects is the people. They are values and by allowing the community to help nur-
the best storytellers. They are the local heroes. It is ture them, the motivation could be sustained over
they who have found their own unique ways to create time, even when things looked bleak. Susan Ornelas,
the social, economic, intellectual, and political spaces one of our project leaders, for instance, was turned
for these projects to thrive. down on several grant proposals and had lost support
temporarily from the institution of higher education
Partnerships with which she was affiliated. But did that discourage
her? NO. She spent the summer making and selling
Community food systems projects provide a vehicle homemade burritos from a little cart to raise resources
for diverse groups to come together for the purpose of for the project. Eventually, circumstances did change
making their food system and their communities more and the project was once again on stable ground. I
sustainable. As part of the university, we of course, really admire that brand of persistence and determina-
encouraged campus faculty and Cooperative Exten- tion, typical of many of these project leaders. I believe
sion to be partners in these projects. They have access it comes from a sense of hope. Hope in the face of
to particular skills and capacities that could support difficult circumstances. Hope that is seeded and nur-
the development of these struggling projects. Project tured in companionship. Hope that all of our efforts
leaders identified some areas where such partnerships together will result in a more sustainable, life-giving
are most valuable. food system for all.106 G AIL F EENSTRA
In closing, I would like to share the words of References
Peter Gillingham, who in the afterword to E. F. Schu-
macher’s book, Good Work, explains the theme and Boyt, H. and N. Kari (1996). Building America: The Demo-
title of Schumacher’s book, and in so doing, provides cratic Promise of Public Work. Philadelphia: Temple Univer-
inspiration for our work. “[Good work] is the belief sity Press.
that our only salvation individually and collectively Campbell, D. (2001). “Conviction seeking efficacy: sustainable
agriculture and the politics of co-optation.” Agriculture and
lies in taking back the responsibility for finding and
Human Values 18(4): 353–363.
creating our own good work, the place where the spir- Gillingham, P. (1979). “The making of good work.” In E. F.
itual and the temporal, the theoretical and the concrete, Schumacher (ed.), Good Work. New York: Harper & Row
mankind and nature, all converge; and for increasing Publishers.
our capacities so that we can and will do so.” Lyson, T. A. (1999). “From production to development: moving
toward a civic agriculture in the United States.” Paper
presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological
Notes Society, August 4–8, 1999, Chicago, Illinois.
Pence, R. A. and J. L. Grieshop (2001). “Mapping the road
1. See Dr. Campbell’s recent paper, “Conviction seeking for voluntary change: Partnerships in agricultural extension.”
efficacy: Sustainable agriculture and the politics of co- Agriculture and Human Values 18(2): 209–217.
optation,” Agriculture and Human Values 18(4): 353–363, Putnam, R. D. (1993). “The prosperous community. Social
2001. capital and public life.” The American Prospect (13): 35–42.
2. Many thanks to Dr. Robert Pence, who spent many hours
interviewing project leaders, helped facilitate the forum, Address for correspondence: Gail Feenstra, Food Systems Ana-
and suggested helpful ways of thinking about and organ- lyst, UC Sustainable Agriculture Research & Ed. Program, One
izing responses. For his account of BIOS and BIFS, two Shields Ave., University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
California-based programs that define an applied Agri- Phone: +1-530-752-8408; Fax: +1-530-754-8550;
culture Partnership model of extensions, see Pence and E-mail: gwfeenstra@ucdavis.edu
Grieshop, 2001.
3. According to Robert Putnam (1993), social capital refers to
“features of social organization, such as networks, norms,
and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for
mutual benefit.”You can also read
