top of page
"Community, cooperation, and trust are key ingredients in building new food systems." -Blay-Palmer (2008)

The Premise

The Case Studies

About the Research

​To look at what kinds of initiatives are happening and how they are being made possible, I will be comparing the efforts of four municipalities in the EU and Canada adopting sustainable food-minded agendas.

 

Why the EU and Canada? Don't they operate on very different scales and under very different modes of jurisdiction? Sure they do. However, beyond the reasoning that I study in Canada and am thus constantly surrounded by its food politics or that my background is in European agriculture,the Canadian and European municipalities selected are displaying both unique and similar dynamics that could be very useful in learning how to develop sustainable food systems.

 

In a Canadian context, Blay-Palmer (2010) notes that if SFSs are successfully adopted at the local level, they have a greater possibility of generating progressive reform at higher levels of government and replacing current conventional policies. Similarly, in the EU, research has found that municipal level SFSs may be the key to achieving the EU's stated goals of rural development based on multifunctional agriculture (Clarke, 2006). Both ensure a thriving agricultural sector, mindful of its socio-cultural, economic, and environmental repurcussions.

 

Obviously, strategies to create SFSs have not been universal, and have not occurred in the same way nor at the same speed everywhere; however, my case studies will allow me to determine general themes and trends in SFS development, and highlight processes used in each case that are more similar than not. The hope is ultimately to draw out a basic template based on empirical criteria (e.g. who needs to be involved, what economic processes need to be set in place, what is the general discourse involved) to develop workable municipal SFSs no matter their location.

 

I am currently in the process of collecting data, namely through interviews with both members of formal institutions, including members from relevant levels of government, and more informal participants in SFS, such as farmers, civil society organisations, consumers, and business owners, among others As Alison Blay-Palmer states, “in the case of food systems, participants—[such as] citizens, practitioners, activists, farmers, ‘stakeholders’ if you will—can have important roles in problem definition, knowledge generation and integration” (Blay-Palmer, 2010, 28).

 

The four case studies were selected based in part on the following major criteria:

  • stronger state-society relations

  • a desire for the repoliticisation of food

  • more localised networks of operation (embedded in larger ones)

  • the use of municipal institutions as a necessary governing body, while also operating within multi-level governance structures

​

Additional criteria useful to my understanding of SFSs and case study selection were also derived from those laid out by Connelly et al (2011, 320):

  • SFSs seek structural change by establishing community infrastructure that facilitates both sustainable and socially just food options

  • They are structured with the intention to generate their own revenue

  • They offer some alternative to the traditional food system and its social and environmental impacts

  • They are dependent on a behavioural shift from consumers

  • They seek some decentralisation from the food system to foster increased local self-reliance

 

My case studies are the following (click the towns for more info!):

Why it's important

​

Food is a basic human necessity. Our food system, in other words, the system we use to grow, process, and distribute our food, has changed greatly over time, from the early cultivation of crops and the domestication of animals to our current industrialized food system. The dominant food system we have now is shaped as much by international and national policy as it is by an increasingly profit-driven global food industry.

 

Perpetuated by neoliberal policies, this current conventional food system is characterized by operations based on high levels of specialization, mechanization, standardization and global free trade (Center for a Livable Future, 2012). It has also come to heavily rely on off-farm manufactured resources such as fossil fuels, synthetic fertilizers and chemical pesticides, supposedly allowing for more predictable, repetitive and reliable production (Ikerd, 2008). The priorities for neo-liberal governance are identified as promoting competitiveness, subordinating social to economic policy and favouring the private sector in decision-making (Jessop, 2000). Desmarais (2007) notes that neoliberalism and its agents—states, corporations, even some NGOS—perpetuate the structures of oppression limiting the possibility for the creation of sustainable food systems and the emancipation of smaller actors in the system.

 

North Saanich, BC
Wolfville, NS
Correns, FR
Todmorden, UK

The Justification

 

  • Todmorden, UK: Located in the West Yorkshire county of England, and with a population of almost 15,000, Todmorden has been buzzing with food activism that grew from the ground up. In 2008, a small civil society group, Incredible Edible Todmorden (IET), sought to develop an urban gardening project to teach the townsfolk about local food and reducing reliance on large food corporations and consumer society. IET highlights its success in reframing much of the town’s mindset by adopting “common sense” about food (France 2, 2012). Though more specific governance mechanisms are yet to be determined, IET seems to have become the mediators for SFS activity in Todmorden, actively strengthening ties with local government to gain access to land for community gardens and orchards, local business networks, the local school board, and other social groups to continue building stronger community ties and opportunities. Still primarily funded through grants, awards, and donations, IET is seeking to increase their activities to create opportunities for local micro-financing and investments and education and training. Reaching out the broader sustainable food movement, IET has also now expanded into the “Incredible Edible” movement in thirty other towns around the UK, and more municipalities within the EU and beyond.

 

  • Correns, France: With a population just shy of 1,000, Correns, located in the Provence-Alpes-Cote d’Azur region of France, serves as an interesting hybrid of both bottom-up and top-down governance approaches to the municipal SFS. Under the leadership of mayor Michaël Latz, Correns approached the SFS concept in the early 1990s as a niche market opportunity, hoping to revitalize the town’s dwindling economy by creating a specific reputation for its food products. Unlike Todmorden, their SFS strategy relied on third party certification to become France’s first certified organic town in 1995, with 100% of its agriculture dedicated to organic principles; in other words, to continue being economically viable, Correns depends on the market structures of the current food system. Most importantly, Correns has sought to develop the UN 's“Agenda 21”, a pilot project self-entitled as seeking new and original forms of participatory democratic governance; by identifying 21 actionables for Correns to further develop as an SFS, the mayoral council has given governance responsibility to a citizen appointment Agenda 21 Committee, working in close relation to the municipal government. Namely because of its small population, much of Correns’ municipal government, including its mayor, double as both local politicians and farmers and vitners. In terms of governance, Correns benefits from a strong de facto relationship between its municipal government and the local agriculture community; and despite the town’s entrenchment in the economy of the dominant food system, Latz has insisted that while politicians at higher levels of government may seem supportive of sustainable environmental and agricultural practices, rarely do they do anything concrete to change existing practices (Todd, 2008). Taking matter into its own hands through Agenda 21, Correns’ SFS governance is seeking to more participatory, involving producers, retailers, and civil society in its decision-making processes than traditional municipalities. By engaging with a variety of actors, Correns’ SFS projects are now also seeking to expand to sustainable food programs in school, educational programs, and on sustainable municipal building projects.

 

  • North Saanich, BC: The District of North Saanich, British Columbia, with a population of approximately 11,800, serves as a top-down but highly participatory model of SFS. Accounting for environmental changes and the recent economic downturn, North Saanich developed a Whole Community Agriculture Strategy (WCAS) to transition towards a SFS in February 2011. Since 2010, North Saanich has sought to develop a hybrid system blending traditional and non-traditional agriculture supported by municipal and provincial policies to become “a complete community” (District of North Saanich, 2011).  North Saanich is seeking to develop as an SFS based on the idea that “local communities must be seen as a food-shed supported by an integrated diverse local food system” (District of North Saanich, 2011). It further recognizes that “municipal government plays a key role that can support or hinder the potential of community agriculture” (District of North Saanich, 2011). Participatory governance models have proven extremely important to North Saanich’s SFS strategy. Through open consultations between municipal government members, local businesses, and civil society organizations, North Saanich was presented with 89 suggested actions for their WCAS strategy. 44 of these have been incorporate into their long-term strategy, with eleven actions calling for direct municipal bylaw support of local agriculture. More so than examples in Europe, the North Saanich municipal government has also more proactively partnered with regional and provincial government for both financial and policy support and to expand their efforts. However, due to a recent election and change in a less pro-SFS Council, North Saanich also serves to show how active municipal engagement serves as key ingredients in allowing SFSs to develop.

 

  • Wolfville, NS: Located in the Annapolis Valley, Nova Scotia's agricultural heartland, Wolfville is a community of just under 4,500 citizens, active in developing rural sustainability in its town and County. The town has spearheaded a number of the Province's more sustainable initiatives, including the first bylaw to ban chemical pesticides on municipal property as well as one of the most stringent anti-smoking bylaw in the province. Food is only one part of the environmentally-friendly mindset that residents of Wolfville claim comes naturally to them. Wolfville, both within and outside of town hall, appears to embody the concept of "culture of sustainability": It hosts one of the largest and most vibrant Farmers Markest in Nova Scotia outside of the capital. A university town, Wolfville also benefits from a well-educated and wealthier population, which supports a rich food and wine culture based around local food. In the spring of 2004, working alongside the Centre for Rural Sustainability and The Natural Step, the town created the Wolfville Sustainability Initiative (WSI), mandated to help the town of Wolfville, its businesses, community and municipal government to minimize the town's ecological impacts and enhance Wolfville’s social and cultural uniqueness (The Natural Step, 2009). Wolfville also became the first Fair Trade town in Canaa in 2007 and is now seeking CittaSlow status by Slow Food International. Wolfville is also characterized by one of the stronger relationship between municipal council and its governments anchors most of the sustainble food inititatives, potentially explaining the ease with which sustainable initiatives seem to succeed in the area.

Why study small rural towns or municipalities at all when there is a whole global food system that needs to be changed? One argument posits that "although actions at the regional and national levels are important, it is at the municipal level that innovative policies can be implemented to guarantee the production and the equitable distribution of food in a way that meets local needs. Municipal policy concerning food sovereignty can also foster activities and initiatives that promote social equity and inclusion." (Dubbeling and Santandreu, 2003) More obviously, 51% of EU population lives in rural areas which makes up 90% of EU territory. In Canada, 95% of the land is considered rural, populated by around 20% of the Canadian population. If anything, that's a lot of people needing to make and support their own livelihoods, and most of those people are the ones feeding us! 

 

When doing my own thinking about the role of government and the creation of any type of alternative system (which most people tend to think are mutually exclusive), I believe that looking at municipalities, which are legitimate state-sanctioned socio-political units, can show or at least explore the potential that alternative systems can exist within or at least in conjunction with the state. Also assuming that institutional politics still plays a significant role in determining agricultural (and many other) outcomes, how could the state possibly be left out of any discussion to create systemic change?

 

In addition, more localized politics can often respond better to more innovative change given the lesser "risk" of implementing change in a smaller jurisdiction. Municipal politics can often also encourage greater levels of civic engagement, especially in more rural areas, and can also provide more immediate and better-tailored solutions to specific enviroments, peoples, and local cultures.

Theoretical Framework

Two main fields of academic research will be informing my research. First, my work will draw on governance literature to consider scales and modes of governance. From governance literature in particular, Polanyi’s notion of "embedded markets" serves as particularly useful. Indeed, distributions of power in SFSs have generally been more collaborative than traditional structures; they depend heavily on democratic engagement, public conversation and contestation, and political will (DuPuis, 2006; Lyson, 2004; Hinrichs & Lyson, 2007). They can also combine the use of traditional institutional actors with civil society organizations, third-party certifiers, business and citizen lobby groups, and consumer groups (Humphrey and Schmitz, 2000). Governance within SFSs appear to be based more on “socially-interactive rule-making around markets” (DuPuis, 2006, 2) than in the dominant system.

 

Second, a Neo-Gramscian framework will inform how SFS governance innovations are occurring and how they are affecting power relations within existing systems. Neo-Gramscianism helps us understand how SFSs can perpetuate and be sustained in a socio-political and economic environment rife with competing actors and priorities. By considering Robert Cox's three realms of relational forces - the material, institutional, and discursive, the Neo-Gramscian lens will help identify the processes by which alternative systems develop and how power plays out. Questions include who is moving SFS agendas forward and who is resisting them? Who holds power within these systems, and is power concentrated or diffuse? Why are existing conditions allowing certain mechanisms to gain more traction than others?

 

Still lacking in much academic writing on SFSs is an in depth consideration of power relations within these new systems. Power relations are defined as the series of interactions between subjects to determine who decides which ideas, processes, and groups dominate. Neo-Gramscianism provides a number of useful insights to the study of SFS by recognizing the complexities and dynamism by which new governance structures come about. It allows for a more sophisticated understanding of power dynamics within SFSs in its consideration of how “the balance of forces within [SFSs can] determine the nature and the extent of reform or transformation possible” (Giménez and Shattuck, 2011, 113) from the dominant food regime.

 

In response, we are seeing a shift happening both in public discourse and action from a conventional neoliberal model of food and agriculture to initiatives aimed at building sustainable food systems (SFSs). But what does a sustainable food system look like? How are people thinking through these systems? How are municipalities reshaping current systems to accomodate new ways of thinking of about food? What is the relationship like between different members of these municipalities for this kind of thinking to be happening in the first place?

 

The main goal of my doctoral research is to understand the governance initiatives currently being developed between civil society and the state to support the transition to sustainable food systems. In this context, governance refers to the any formal and informal institutions, structures of authority and relationships (whether collaborative or not) that coordinate or control activity regarding the food system.

bottom of page