Post on 18-Jul-2020
transcript
Activating Policy Change forCommunity Food SecurityG a t h e r i n g 2 0 1 0
Windhorse FarmNew Germany, Nova Scotia
August 17-19table of contentsIntroduction 2The Yurt 2Location 2The Gathering 3The Purpose 3The Outcomes 3Day One “Preparing the Soil” 4Principles of Working Together 4Tensions of Working Together 5Check In 5Policy Framework 6Visual Identity 6Two Loops 7Day Two “Planting the Seeds” 7CURA Café 8Evaluation 9Theory U 9Open Space - Part One 10Day Three - “Nurturing the Seedlings” 12Open Space Reflection Gallery Walk 12Solo Walk 12Open Space - Part Two 13Decision Making 14Check Out 15Who Came? 16Thanks 17Appendix A / Appendix B
2 CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
In February 2010, a team of community, university, and gov-ernment partners who have been working for many years
to understand and address the root causes of food insecurity in Nova Scotia were successful in securing funding for a five-year project to build on their previous work together. Fund-ed by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC), the Community University Research Alliance (CURA): Activating Policy Change for Community Food Security is a par-ticipatory, mixed-methods research project aimed at further understanding the components of Community Food Security (CFS) and strengthening capacity for policy change to achieve it. The project involves those communities that directly feel the effects of food insecurity, related to both social justice and unsustainable food systems, at the heart of the research and action to create positive change.
This work is timely and important, as Nova Scotians con-tinue to report rates of income-related food insecurity that are well above the national average, and food systems in Nova Sco-tia face challenges of competing food imports, and decreasing wages and net incomes for local farmers.
Leadership for the project comes from Nova Scotia’s Food Security Network (NSFSN), the NS Department of Health Pro-motion and Protection (NSDHPP), the NS Nutrition Council (NSNC) and researchers from Mount Saint Vincent University and Saint Francis Xavier Universities, along with 50 key com-munity, government and university partners from across Nova Scotia and Canada. This project will explore food systems and their impact on food access in Nova Scotia and examine the policy environments which impact CFS in Nova Scotia. Sup-ported by knowledge mobilization and outcome evaluation processes grounded in a commitment to participatory leader-ship, this project will also provide opportunities for student and community research, training, mutual learning, and capac-ity-building.
Team members came to Windhorse Farm to start our jour-ney together. The setting was a great background for the group to form new relationships, rekindle old ones, hold meaningful conversations, and explore the project’s unique role in fulfill-ing our vision of food security.
Introduction
Windhorse Farm is part organic farm, part sustainable for-estry practice, as well as a beautiful meeting and medi-
tation centre located in New Germany, along Nova Scotia’s picturesque south shore (http://www.windhorsefarm.org). While the owners, Jim & Margaret Drescher, were away, the new Programs and Host Co-ordinator, Steve Murray, and the front office staff greeted and looked after our needs.
Windhorse was chosen as the meeting space for our gath-ering, as it reflects many of the values and principles that we agreed upon in this project, including a deep connection to sustainable food.
Food was an important part of our gathering. We ate well! Anke and Roberto of Conscious Catering created amazing meals that nourished our bodies and souls. Ninety percent of our food was local and organic, some coming from the Wind-horse Farm itself.
Location
“…there is something about everything, the setup here- including the yurt, that is encouraging us to be incommunity with each other.”
-Tim Merry (Host)
In order to have such a large group meet in one space, a larger outdoor shelter was needed. A yurt seemed like the ideal
solution.Yurts are the traditional nomadic home for many peoples
of Central Asia. The yurt is a collapsible framework of wooden poles covered with felt or canvas. The design of these ancient shelters has been unchanged for over 1,000 years – a testa-ment to its practicality and effectiveness. Not only could the yurt accommodate the large group, but more importantly, it allowed us to meet in a circle together, with no support struc-tures blocking our conversations. In Buddhist and Shamanic traditions, the yurt in its construction represents the universe. Our yurt came from Little Foot Yurts (www.lfy.ca).
The Yurt
3CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
We have embraced participatory leadership and participa-tory action research as key approaches for working to-
gether. Participatory Leadership is based on respect and engage-
ment. It is a systems thinking approach to leadership, where the entire group works together to set an agenda. Communication is driven by asking questions and working as a group to find answers, actions and solutions. Everyone involved in the dis-cussion brings their own knowledge and expertise to the group to ask the questions. By using Participatory Leadership and by capturing or harvesting the important information, everyone’s voices are heard and there is shared ownership (adapted from: http://chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot/?p=2282).
Participatory Leadership recognizes that our traditional ways of working together have contributed to the current situ-ation of food insecurity and are not effective at creating the change we want to see. The emphasis is not only on what we want to change, but offers us the chance to transform how we work together, improving our results.
Participatory Action Research (PAR) engages those most affected by community food insecurity in a shared process of building understanding and new knowledge. PAR also sup-ports people in taking action, based on the new knowledge, to create positive change.
The Gathering
“When you think about the level of change in society that is required, it requires change within ourselves regarding the way we work, thinking of ourselves as learners.”
-Patty Williams
The PurposeThe purpose of this gathering was to:
• Develop a shared vision;• Clarify how we work together;• Celebrate and start the project;• Build capacity and an orientation to participatory ap-
proaches;• Build a shared ownership; and• Network and build relationships.
Possible outcomes of the gathering included:
• Developing shared vision and ownership;• An experience of participatory approaches;• A foundation for a partnership agreement;• Understanding collective and individual commitments;• Developing processes and options for staying connected;• Development of our visual identity (logo and look), and;• Elements of a communications plan.
This document and an 8-minute video serves as the har-vest of the event – first, as a collective memory of the
conversations and time we spent together and as a way to create shared meaning from our discussions, which will nourish our work as we move forward. To view the docu-ments, video and photos from the gathering, please visit: http://www.curagathering.org
“We want to walk away from this gathering and know how we are going to work together over the next five years.”
-Patty Williams
The Outcomes
Groups engaged in meaningful conversations go through three key phases: divergence, groan zone, and convergence.
In the divergence zone, groups explore ideas and become aware of diversity. In the groan zone, new ideas emerge and options become more visible; these are sometimes uncomfort-able and stretch people beyond their comfort zones. In the convergence zone, clarity builds and decisions become clear.
A small group (the Hosting Team) planned the gathering within the anticipated flow of conversation (divergence, groan zone, and convergence). The role of the Hosting Team is to cre-ate the conditions for the group to have the conversations they need to have, in effect hosting the conversations that are im-portant for the group to move forward.
4 CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
Patty Williams, Co-lead from Mount
Saint Vincent Univer-sity, welcomed everyone to the gathering and to working together in a participatory way. She gave some background on the work that helped us arrive to this point. The work to improve Community Food Secu-rity has been going strong for over ten years, with many of those involved gathered together here. Throughout, there has always been a commitment to participatory approaches and working in different ways to create change together.
Patty asked us to reflect on the central aim of the project from the proposal: “To engage a broad range of stakeholders,
including those most vulner-able to food insecurity and the organizations that serves them, in a strategic research alliance to better understand the determinants of Commu-nity Food Security and build capacity for improved food se-curity policy.”
In other words, we not only want to understand the components of Community Food Security and the many different levels of policy that influence it, but more impor-tantly, we want to build our capacity to change policy to achieve Community Food Se-curity. Patty talked about the importance of laying a solid foundation to do this work, “it is a big issue… and the CURA is only one piece of the bigger puzzle.”
We all took a few min-utes to reflect on why we are grateful and then we shared our thoughts with a neigh-bour. Patty also reviewed what our goals and expected
outcomes were for the gathering (see above).Christine Johnson, Co-lead from the Nova Scotia Food Se-
curity Network (NSFSN), reviewed our principles of working together, which were developed collectively during the pro-posal-writing process. Christine described the three pillars of the project: (1) research, (2) education and training and (3) knowledge mobilization and linked them to participatory ac-tion research: (1) research relates to systematic inquiry, (2) education and training relates to mutual learning and (3) knowledge mobilization relates to action. These three pillars also relate to the different Ways of Knowing, which shape our project: fact gathering (empirical or technical knowing); talk-ing (mutual learning); and action (critical and self-reflective knowing), with evaluation touching all of these areas. She also outlined the evolving roles and responsibilities of team mem-bers and the different groups within the project.
Day One “Preparing the Soil”
“This is a pretty special group of people that we’ve convened here [in this special place]…”
- Patty Williams
“Together, we have a strong foundation of work and we want to build on that…. This is a time to build a solid foundation for our work together over the next five years, so that what we create together can have a real and lasting impact.” - Patty Williams
Principles of Working Together
• Form meaningful relationships• Share power• Build capacity• Use participatory methods and
leadership approaches• Be inclusive• Be strategic responsive and
accountable• Respect, value and support
the unique contributions and perspectives of all partners and participants
• Engage in activities that are rooted in real community needs
5CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
Kim Barro, one of our apprentice Hosts, reviewed some of the tensions in the way we work together. (In working
towards building the capacity of the CURA team, members of the project were invited to act as “apprentice hosts,” learning participatory ways of facilitation and Art of Hosting techniques - www.artofhosting.org.) It is important to acknowledge these tensions, so we can work with them openly.
Expert/Learner: We are all experts in our own lived expe-rience. We need to bring the spirit of learning-from-others to this project. If we cling to our expertise, then the room will be very fragmented. Instead, we need to bring everyone together.
Academic/Community perspectives: Tensions between academic perspectives and community perspectives can limit us, if we let it. We need to have a balance between the two per-spectives, since each is unique. Working with these tensions presents both challenges, but also opportunities. It is through this tension that learning can take place.
Relationships/Results: We don’t need to give one up for the other. Instead, we need a mixture of both, and we need to value that diversity.
Reflection/Action: This is sometimes framed as process vs. results. But, if you don’t take the time to reflect, then you might lose something in the process. We also can’t sit and just reflect; we need action. There has to be time and space for both.
Participation/Traditional Systems: We acknowledge that we are straddling two worlds. Participation is not about building consensus, but valuing the diversity that it brings. It is having many unique perspectives and bringing them to-gether to get a bigger and better understanding of the issues. It’s about learning. It is important to bring a critical mind. You need to create a condition where you can learn and participate.
Responsibility/Passion: Not just about talking about something. If you are passionate about something, then you need to take responsibility for that passion and your actions.
Class Tensions: In discussing these tensions, we were re-minded that food insecurity is very much driven by class struc-tures, which reflect different levels of power within society.
Tensions of Working Together
Check In
Team members were asked to break into small groups and develop a “headline” (a personal description) answering
the question: “What inspired you to join the CURA?”
“No more prizes for predicting the rain, just prizes for building the arks.” - Tim Merry
6 CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
Peter Andrée, from Carleton University, gave an overview of policy and what it means in relation to this project and
Community Food Security. This piece was important to under-stand how we may influence policy and in creating a common understanding for moving forward with this work.
Peter described three mod-els for understanding policy: one model is often used in high school civics classes, one model reflects typical ideas of how policy is cre-ated through public administration, and one is based on understanding power [who has it]. This last model looks at the intersection of ideas, different political institutions, and existing resources to see opportuni-ties for change.
Policy can be loosely defined as “what governments do and don’t do,” but it is important to consider market forces [the private sector and its role in shaping policy].
Peter discussed the need to look at who makes formal pol-icy – from the municipal/band council level to the provincial, federal, and international levels. We also need to pay careful attention to civil society (where individuals form groups to support policy change) and the way that the markets (supply and demand) reinforce informal policies, such as by determin-ing through prices who is able to eat certain food and who can-not. Trevor Hancock added that we also need to consider how the policies of corporations (e.g. how supermarkets source
“...a lot of the answer is that we are all here today.”
Policy Framework their foods) influence the choices available to consumers and govern-ments alike.
When analyzing policy, Peter stressed that it is important to not just look at who makes formal poli-cy and how it’s made, but also to un-derstand what can influence policy in an informal way. These informal influences include the relationships between private interests (pres-sure groups, corporate lobbies) and politicians and government staff, because the relationships shape which policy options are avail-able and should be mapped out.
Besides mapping out who is involved in policy-making and their interests, it is also important to map out the power of important ideas (current beliefs), institutional processes (the formal ways through which policies are decided), and material capabilities (e.g. supermarket chains, food processing compa-nies, oil companies, organic industry, and small-scale farmers and fishers). By mapping all of these different influences and their relative impact, it can help us understand why certain types of policies are chosen and this can help us in choosing where to put our energy and efforts, in order to find the best opportunities for change.
Peter concluded by emphasizing the power of new ideas and the fact that new policy options are only chosen when many different groups support them: society, government, aca-demic, and industry. This is why the CURA model is so power-ful. It starts the process of building these allies.
Throughout the Gathering, all participants were invited to view some initial logo concepts for the project developed
by graphic designer Derek Sarty. Everyone could vote by plac-
Visual Identity
ing one sticky dot on the graphic image they liked best and pro-vide feedback for the next round of editing. There was also an option to come up with entirely new ideas for the logo.
7CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
After the break, we met in the Meditation Room. Tim Mer-ry outlined a way to think about system change and how
these paradigms can shift, based on his experience with groups and organizations, as well as those of his colleagues around the world. “The way we do things changes with time, as a result of different beliefs and systems of influence”.
Using two long pieces of rope, Tim laid out two overlap-ping loops. Right now, we are at a period where the old ways and new ways co-exist – where the two loops overlap. The first loop represents the “old” or existing system and the second loop represents the “new” or emerging ways of thinking. Not everyone will agree where they think the system is in its stage of life; some will see it as declining and others may feel it is still growing. Resistance to change will become stronger as the first loop declines. Each place along the loops represents different roles that we can play, some examples of these roles are:
Pioneers/innovators: leading the change. They provide the link between the old and the new systems by testing new ideas. They tend to be well-connected, as relationships are part of the ability to change. These people can see many points of view, but need to share core principles for the change to be effective.
Hospicing: supporting old structures in ending to nourish the new ways of doing. They are the unsung heroes of change.
Illuminating and bridging: making people aware that there are other ways; bridging one world with another.
Stewards: creating the conditions for pioneers to do their work. They are advocates, protectors, and sometimes handle “toxic” material (i.e. ways of working from the old system which prevent the new ways from emerging).
A key consideration to understanding change processes is recognizing that if we don’t fail, then we won’t learn. This is essential, if we want to innovate. We are building the path as we walk it.
Tim also explained the different kinds of relationships we can have:
Networking: people are connected, but their own inter-
Two Loops
ests are reflected in the relationship.Communities of Practice: people are interested in ad-
vancing the broader interest and can survive disagreements. System of Influence: several Communities of Practice are
interconnected. This provides a higher level of change neces-sary to sustain us in the new work along second loop.
After the explanation of the loop, Tim asked everyone how this might relate to our project and to pick the role they are playing by standing at the spot that best represents this. The “Two Loops” concept and group exercise was offered as a way to think about the role of the CURA, our individual roles as CURA team members, and our roles within the broader work of changing our food systems. Several people indicated why they chose their position, and related it to their work.
Working Groups
After a group clap to end the formal part of the day, Working Groups 1 (Participatory Community Food
Security Assessments), 2 (Policy Mapping and Analysis) & 5 (Evaluation and Participatory Methods) met; after supper Jeff Harper led an informal optional workshop on some technological ways that we can share information and stay connected.
Day Two “Planting the Seeds”
Tim opened with an overview for the day, indicating it was “time for stretching and discomfort”. There was also time
for community and CURA news, before we got started.To experience a new way of working together, Tim asked
each of us to move around inside the yurt and always step forward to fill any empty spaces as we walked. In complete silence, with no instruction, we worked together to start and stop walking at the same time. We repeated this until we were all stopping and starting roughly at the same time.
The last part of the activity involved each person thinking of two people who were also in the yurt. Moving around the space, we each had to find a spot that was equal distance from the two people we mentally chose. Easier said than done!
This activity helped everyone think about working togeth-er for a common purpose by watching and listening carefully to everyone.
Wheatley, Margaret and Frieze, Deborah. “Taking Social Innovation to Scale” in Participatory Leadership: Models from Art of Hosting
8 CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
CURA Café
Shelley Moran, an apprentice host, led us through three rounds of CURA Café, a modified world café discussion.
World café allows people to talk in smaller groups, as if they were in a café. Participants switch groups after a certain time period, allowing the collective discussion of the group to be captured. The intention is for each new café group to build on the conversations from the previous group.
In the first round, we got to know each other a little better by discussing the question: “Based on your lived ex-perience, what’s happening in food in Nova Scotia and be-yond?”
Round Two focused the discussion further, tackling the question: “Based on Round One, what is our vision for food in Nova Scotia?”
Each group wrote 3-4 sticky notes from their discussion. These were gathered by the Harvest Team and clustered into five themes: food access, building food systems, values, and relationships, social justice around food systems, food policy, and producing food sustainably. The group then re-flected on these themes and commented on them.
Essentially, for the CURA team, a vision of food in Nova Scotia included access to food for everyone (“food for all”, “ev-eryone eats healthy amounts of healthy foods”), sustainable and environmentally mindful food production (“ecologically sound”, “reclaiming our food system”), education (“teaching our children the value of food”, “teach our children to cook/prepare food”) and social justice for everyone (“comprehensive Nova Scotia food policy that values and supports local food systems”, “food has been de-commodified”, “Monsanto goes broke!”, “re-claiming our food system,” “no poverty”), all addressed in a sys-tematic and long-term way (“we don’t address food security by using a charity model, but using a systematic model,” “compre-hensive Nova Scotia food policy that values and supports local food systems”).
Round Three focused very much on the vision of the CURA
asking: “What is CURA’s unique role towards fulfilling this vision?”
The themes that came from all the statements supported: communities, relationships, participatory processes, em-powering people, nourishing partnerships and connec-tions, and achieving outcomes and community mobiliza-tion. The elements of a vision for the CURA include:
• Looking towards solutions that are practical and beneficial to communities.
• CURA works with local communities to further identify, understand, and take action on barriers to Community Food Security.
• Amplify and broaden the conversation around food and strengthen community capacity and re-sponses using participatory approaches.
• CURA creates the conditions for communities to be innovative and take risks, knowing they are supported by the larger (provincial and national) community.
• To nourish relationships that show Community Food Security in action and to understand and share the success stories with others to build momentum towards Community Food Security across Nova Scotia.
• Share and articulate a vision of a community (just, sustainable) food system.
• Build a web of relationships between communi-ties, (marginalized) food providers, consumers.
• Develop a strategy on this base to realize the vi-sion.
• Work collaboratively with others in Nova Scotia and beyond.
• To build support and strengthen relationships, to hold meaningful conversations, to model the change we want to see all to build understanding.
• Get more people engaged to nourish and main-tain momentum; make the issue come alive with people’s stories.
Tim stressed that clarity around purpose will help us tre-mendously, as purpose is the invisible leader. We need to be realistic and strategic, and then, we need to amplify and ac-celerate the process.
Tim Merry summarized World Café discussions in a rant. To view Tim’s summary visit: http://www.curagathering.org.
9CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
After a break, we returned to the yurt where Colleen Gog-gin, with the Public Health Agency of Canada, spoke briefly
to the whole group regarding evaluation, which is a necessary part of a large research project such as ours to allow for ac-countability, learning, sharing and improving.
The group offered the following elements of a good evalu-ation:
• Narrative, meaningful stories.• Built into the project, part of the process.• Start at the beginning.• Answer real questions.• Everyone is connected to it.• Related to purpose and vision.• Purpose is to learn and share broadly.• Need to be respectful of the time people will be put-
ting into evaluation.• Actively feeds the process.• Helps us do our job/work better as we go.• Needs to be honest.• Learning from our mistakes and not being afraid of
that.Currently, the evaluation Working Group (Working Group
5) is favoring the process of outcome mapping. It is an interna-tional model that fits well with our Ways of Knowing approach and with participatory action research in general. There are three stages to outcome mapping, which cover twelve steps in total: (1) Intentional design; (2) Outcome & performance mon-itoring, and (3) Evaluation planning.
Outcome mapping connects the changes we want to see to the bigger picture; but it also looks at the journey. Outcome mapping makes it easy to navigate different people’s ways of thinking and contributing in a way that is different from what many of us are used to. For example, tools, like writing in jour-nals, can help us collect rich information. Journals need to be put in place early on, so we can capture everything (see http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-26586-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html for more in-formation on outcome mapping).
We need to start thinking about evaluation from the start, but it also needs to be a work in progress, allowing us to define what we think are acceptable and achievable outcomes, being mindful of our participatory approaches when working with each other and communities.
Evaluation The group broke for lunch. Many took the opportu-nity for a tour of the gardens and grounds at Wind-horse Farm.
Theory U
Tim opened the afternoon with a short presentation on Theory U. Rather than make the short trip from problem
to solution, we need to take a detour along the “U” to achieve wise action. The three main steps are: Sensing (watching and observing others and ourselves, plus letting go of old ideas and ways); Presencing (stopping to reflect and make space for in-sights) and then Realizing (naming where we want to be and actions to let us get there). As we move through the “U”, our journey starts with the mind, then includes the heart, and then demands our will or commitment. We must understand the situation really well, before we move to solutions.
Senge, P, Scharmer, O. C., Jaworski, J., and Flowers, B.S. Presence: Human Purpose and the Field of the Future. Society for Organizational Learning, 2004.
10 CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
The group then moved into a session, hosted by Kim Barro, called Open Space. Open Space is a way for participants
who are interested or passionate about a topic to “call” for con-versation on that topic. That person acts as the host and has the responsibility of making sure the discussion is recorded. Other participants follow their own passion and go to which-ever topic interests them. Participants can stay with one topic the whole time, or move between conversations, “cross-pol-linating” the discussions by sharing what they’ve heard. The Open Space allowed team members to talk about any ques-tions they had.
Open Space is based on a few principles, including: who-ever comes are the right people, whatever happens is all that could have, whenever it starts is the right time, and when it ends, it ends. The Law of Two Feet also applies: “If at any time you find yourself in any situation where you are neither learning nor contributing: use your two feet and go someplace else.”
The Open Space question for the afternoon was: “What conversations do we need to have now to ensure a solid foundation for a successful CURA and to meet our vision?”
Below is a summary of the discussions held in the first round of Open Space (full notes can be found in Appendix A, with abbreviations in Appendix B):
1) Partnerships & CollaborationHow can the People’s Food Policy Project (PFPP) and the CURA intersect?
Key Theme: The People’s Food Policy Project has already done a lot of foundational work from which the CURA could draw Moving Forward: As a way to sustain momentum, the CURA should use previously developed information and documents of the PFPP as a starting point for outreach and discussion.
Who are the key 4-5 partners that CURA interacts with and hopes to affect (step 3 of outcome mapping – Identification of boundary partners)?
Key Theme: These boundary partners have to reflect the vi-sion and mission of the CURA and should include representa-tion from the following four sectors: public, private, NGO’s and public citizens. Moving Forward: We want to build strong core partnerships,
Open Space focusing on a few primary groups from each sector, to avoid becoming overwhelmed. (Work of the PCC and WG5).
How are students going to/want to be involved in the CURA?
Key Theme: The term ‘student’ is boundless. Want to involve all ‘students’ in a way that is meaningful to them, promoting passion, raising awareness and creating opportunities for growth and learning. Moving Forward: There are a number of ways to engage stu-dents in the CURA, including, creating a research database of potential CURA-related thesis topics, developing internship placements, integrating food security related topics into cur-riculums, etc.
2) Community InvolvementResearch Structure
How do we define community?
Key Themes: Case Community and Community within the context of the CURA should be defined separately. Case Com-munities will be geographically bound for research purposes, whereas broader community engagement (NS, Canada, and be-yond), will be a more flexible and diverse process. The term community will ultimately be defined by the experiences of in-dividuals engaged in this research. Moving Forward: We will need to consider this information when deciding on criteria for case community selection (fur-ther discussed during second Open Space).
Criteria for selecting case communities.
Key Themes: There has been a preliminary process in cre-ating case community selection criteria, and there are some community reps. hoping to be one of these cases.Moving Forward: This is a critical decision that will need to be made soon. Discussions from this Open Space were carried over and presented to the larger group. We need to build upon what works and identify what is missing.
Community Representation
Engagement of food producers and nurturing /developing rela-tionships between people who produce food and consumers.
Key Themes: Food system workers need to be involved in the research process, as they are important members of the com-munity as a whole and are essential in achieving Community Food Security.
11CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
Moving Forward: Using connections already fostered, the CURA needs to start approaching the food system sector, get-ting on the agenda of important meetings and inviting repre-sentatives to sit on CURA’s governing committees. At this stage, it is important to have identified this sector as a significant part of the CURA.
Why should we include an Aboriginal/First Nations (A/FN) community as a case com-munity?
Key Themes: The CURA is an opportu-nity to learn, take risks and enhance our understanding of Community Food Secu-rity. There is so much to learn about food from an A/FN community and not includ-ing this group would leave a gap in our knowledge of food systems in Nova Scotia. Moving Forward: Using PFPP as an ad-vising body and engaging key informants, this team needs to seek further external funding and community expertise in this area.
Who is missing and how do we engage them?Key Themes: There is awareness among the CURA team that community engagement in the project must resemble the di-versity of Nova Scotia as a whole, including, but not limited to: private food sectors (wholesale & retail), institutions, youth, public sectors, producers, diverse ethno-racial groups, tour-ism, regional development authorities and the medical com-munity.
Moving Forward: Using existing capacity and connections within the CURA team, we need to begin developing strategies to approach community liaisons of these groups.
3) Engagement & CommunicationKnowledge Mobilization
How can we use Knowledge Mobilization (KM) to engage com-munities?
Key Themes: There are many possibilities and no one right path in this process, we may want to look to other CURA’s to see what they have learned from their own work. KM will ulti-mately be determined with communities. Moving Forward: We need to find out if/when and how the CURA can access information from Spryfield and Antigonish, and start linking with non-profit groups to leverage their con-nections. We must continue and start discussions on Ways of Knowing, and clearly define Knowledge Mobilization for this project.
What communication & engagement do community (networks / leaders) want from CURA?
Key Themes: The broadening of community engagement can stem from the case communities themselves. Pilot studies have been completed in Spryfield and Antigonish (the MSVU/St. FX Planting the Seeds project) so we need to look at how we keep these communities connected. We have to build relationships
between people living in poverty & producers, understand how poverty dictates food choices and health status, and be gentle in building connections. Moving Forward: We need to start developing simple tools to enable sharing between community groups and start sharing
information (i.e. websites, stories, fund-ing, etc.).
How can we share our story?
Key Themes: This CURA needs to link to other food-related CURAs. We can use the Advisory Committee as a means to share information within regions (Canada and internationally) and we could continue to attend important meetings and confer-ences.Moving Forward: We need to develop a media plan and start creating contacts, keeping in mind that different commu-nities will require different communica-tions.
Communication Plans and CURA Struc-ture
How can we connect the CURA Working Groups?
Key Themes: Connection of the Working Groups and case community representatives should be built into the structure of the CURA (keeping this structure light, and having it reflect the participatory nature of this project). This may mean chang-ing up the number and types of Working Groups, if needed. Moving Forward: The PCC should include Working Group and community reps and the Management Team.
How do we want to stay connected?
Key Themes: We should look at other successful CURA’s to see what strategies they have used (being aware that not everyone has access to email and/or web). We need to remain open to changes that may emerge from the community level, and in all processes, we need to consider language and accessibility for everyone. Moving Forward: Mustafa will share communications plans from other CURAs for consideration.
The day ended with the Open Space harvest sheets being posted on the wall in the Meditation Room.
The complete detailed notes from the flipcharts are in Appendix A.
Kim indicated we were in the middle of the Groan Zone. Tomorrow, we will seek clarity by reaching the bottom and turn in the “U”. We should all spend some time tonight reflecting on what we are fearful of and what we need to let go of, in order to reach clarity.
Working Groups 2 (Policy Mapping and Analysis), 4 (Education and Training), and the Advisory Commit-tee met. After dark, several people went on a silent 45 minute walk through the forest and fields, led by Steve Murray.
12 CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
Day Three “Nurturing the Seedlings”
Tim outlined the program for the last day, indicating that there are times when you need to let go of the things you
are holding onto.
Blind Walking Activity
To start the day, Tim Merry led us through a team building exercise in the Meditation Room. The group formed a si-
lent circle and Tim selected a person to step into the circle with their eyes closed and arms crossed in front of them. This per-son needed to walk across the circle, trusting those in the circle to guide them (e.g. by catching them as they reached the circle, turning them around, and sending them back into the circle). Tim then selected more and more people to enter the circle in this way. The only instruction to the outer circle was to make sure no one gets hurt.
Eventually, two people collided in the centre. Tim stopped the group and asked “Why did nobody on the outside help them?” The group seemed to feel there was a rule that we couldn’t move or intervene, but Tim pointed out the he had not named that rule – the group had made an assumption about the rules. People on the outside of the circle now stepped into the circle to prevent people from colliding or guiding them the entire way.
Participants reflected on the assumed rules (and real rules) of the activity, non-verbal communication, everyone’s
“Games don’t lie”. - Tim Merry
roles in this activity, but also the roles within the CURA, includ-ing:
• Allowing mistakes to happen is okay (if not too dangerous);
• Knowing when and how to support each other;• The support given and support needed may
vary;• Need to be able to manage complexity in some
way;• Can’t always control the pace (of the activity);• Complexity increases risk;• People use different styles and will adapt over
time; and• We use other senses.
Shelley Moran, one of our Hosts, invited the hosts of each Open Space topic from the previous day to briefly present
to the larger group a summary of the discussion, including who came and the key insights.
The Advisory Committee also reported on their meeting:• Will get an annual report from the Management
Team;• Be available as needed for advice; and• Be ambassadors of this project in other settings.
Everyone had the chance to read the flipcharts and har-vests and to post comments or questions (see Appendix A).
After our time reflecting on the work of the past two days, we were invited to explore the natural beauty of Wind-
horse Farm, to allow our minds some space and stillness and to reflect on the previous two days of intense discussion.
Tim Merry reminded us that some of the best “Aha” or “Eu-reka!” moments have come while we are in the shower, running or otherwise not directly thinking about the problem at hand. This forty-five minutes of reflection time was silent – individu-als were encouraged to spend time with their own thoughts. This activity acknowledges the need to create moments of (self) reflection for personal discovery, as well as insights into any issues. This was not considered free time, but a vital part of our ability to work together. The group was encouraged to view the forest as our teacher and walk in the woods.
“You need to get an eagle-eyed perspective and notice where your gut is and the quality of your commitment; not seeing it as a burden.”
- Tim Merry
Solo Walk
Open Space Reflection Gallery Walk
13CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
Open Space - Part Two
After the reflection offered through the solo time, the group moved into two rounds of Open Space. The following is-
sues were brought back to the larger group – some as Action Items and some for larger decisions. It was emphasized that potential decision points needed to be framed as decisions, so the group would not still be brainstorming the issues. Three items were presented as Action Items and two were presented for decisions by the larger group.
Action Items
Topic: InclusivityNo matter where we all work or come from, we use jargon, which may not be accessible for everyone. Our guiding princi-ples include a commitment to using plain language. The group discussed the potential of having a workshop on power and privilege. Recognizing that inclusion is not only about power and privilege, we need to continue this discussion.ACTION: Debbie Reimer will speak with Larry Baxter, Cath-leen Kneen, and Donna Malone about creating a Power and Privilege workshop.
Topic: Prioritizing the Boundary Partners (Key Audienc-es) CURA wants to AffectThere are two levels to the evaluation: the first is within the project (levels of outcome), and the second is the impact of the whole project (what change will result because of our work?). The group decided that they could not prioritize this, but that each community will make this decision based on their priori-ties and decide what is missing in their individual projects. The selection of the communities will be very helpful here.ACTION: Working Group 5 (Evaluation) will connect with the Program Coordination Committee (PCC) in relation to the community selection tool and to discuss this further.
Topic: How can the Nova Scotia Nutrition Council (NSNC), Nova Scotia Food Security Network (NSFSN), and Food Se-
cure Canada (FSC) support the CURA project?The Nutrition Council has previously decided to focus on ad-vocacy to the broader nutrition community (students, profes-sionals, etc) around food security by raising awareness of the CURA.
The Nova Scotia Food Security Network shared their ideas about hosting a series of smaller provincial gatherings (instead of the annual, pan-provincial gathering) and the possibility of hosting a World Café-type event across the province, in small-er, regional groups (which could allow community members working with CURA to participate).
ACTIONS: • Lindsay Corbin will take information of how the
CURA can link to the Nutrition Council through advocacy work and outreach to the broader nu-trition community to members of this Council.
• Barb Anderson and Patty Williams will also con-nect with Linda Best or Ralph Martin on the Food Policy Council. This could aid with strategic planning, in relation to the case communities.
• Marla MacLeod will bring the idea of the World Café (smaller, regional gatherings) to the NSFSN facilitate this. Tim Merry will check-in with the global stewards of the World Café around sug-gestions for how to do this work. Jeff Harper of-fered support with connecting people through technology.
• Marla MacLeod and Cathleen Kneen will connect around the Kitchen Table Talks that were used in the People’s Food Policy Project.
• Jeff offered technical support (for potential World Café conversations).
• Debbie Reimer will also support connecting with communities.
• Food Secure Canada will share resources nation-ally.
14 CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
Two items were brought forth for decisions: one relating to the governance of the CURA and one relating to the com-
munity selection process.
Topic Governance Structure: Evolving from discussions about how the working groups could collaborate, without duplicating work and while com-municating easily, was a discussion about how this project will be governed. We talked about the current CURA structure as reflected in the proposal and how our thinking about this has evolved to recognizing that the structure needs to better reflect and support participatory leadership, our principles of working together, ensuring representation from different groups, and consideration of how to make it all work.
Decision Point:The idea is that the structure benefits the whole project, the province and beyond and reflects the principles of working together (i.e. Participatory Leadership). The PCC should be a central coordinating group that it is consultative, bringing in members when needed, and sharing responsibility among the whole group. It is to be a workable and evolving structure, based on what and who is needed to make the work happen.
PCC representation will evolve to include representation from communities, reps of working groups, and the manage-ment team. We recognize the need for flexibility, shared re-sponsibility and the need to allocate resources according to the needs of the overall project.
The PCC will make key decisions in the overall direction of the CURA, using a process to involve the larger CURA team in key directional decisions. We still need to work out some of these details.
Topic Case Communities:Several Open Space discussions were held around how we define community, the potential sites of case communities to be actively engaged in the research, knowledge mobilization, and education and training components of the CURA, what a case community is, and how to go about making that deci-sion. We drew on historical information (e.g. material from the proposal and the proposal development), a synthesis of literature around indicators of Community Food Security, pre-liminary discussions of the Program Coordination Committee and Working Group 1 (Participatory Community Food Security Assessments) and knowledge of the community partners and relationships that are currently in this project.
Decision MakingDiscussions & QuestionsThe Open Space discussions offered a proposal to approve two mentor communities that have some experience with Partici-patory Community Food Security Assessments (Antigonish and Spryfield) and then to work with four other short-listed communities, which meet the initial set of criteria. There was a lot of discussion around this first proposal, and additional proposals were put forward during the discussion:
• Approach the community champions first, and the hope would be that the communities “go vi-ral” or expand through interest.
• Choose 6 communities, with 2 communities as mentors, and the rest as case communities based on the long-standing partnerships / rela-tionships.
• Invite 6 proposed community partner organi-zations that have a history with this project to participate as case communities (2 might still be mentor communities).
• Engage multiple communities (who might oth-erwise be excluded) and find out what is hap-pening there, with the potential that communi-ties could collaborate with others in their area to work on this, then come back and make a de-cision.
Some of the questions and ideas from the discussion include:
• What is the role of communities beyond the case communities?
• Could the research reach many communities (e.g. through education and training and knowl-edge mobilization)?
• What is the research agenda? (need to involve communities in this)
• What does it mean to be a “case community”? What are the activities related to that?
• If the diversity we hope for is not within these communities, then where does this come in?
• The case communities are important, but it’s more important to focus on the province as a whole.
• We need to be flexible from the beginning. • The Program Coordinating Committee needs to
take leadership on this. • We need to leverage the supports needed to do
15CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
this work in a meaningful way and build the ca-pacity in the community and group.
• Are there other people that need to be on this list?
• What does being a mentor community mean?• Can we make this decision today? Do we have
enough information and the necessary people here? Is this a decision for the whole team? Is there enough community voice here to make these decisions?
• Recognize that the communities could change over time.
• Issue of trust & the need to have a process that hears everyone’s voices in this decision.
• Want to honor lasting relationships.• Want to create a process where any existing
CURA team members, if not selected as a case community, understand why and still support the process and the project.
• We need to trust the ability of the Program Co-ordination Committee to make this decision. We are not ready as a collective to decide.
Decision-Point:The point of agreement was that community organizations, which are currently in partnership with the project should be invited to be involved in deciding which communities are in-volved as case communities. It was agreed that the Program Coordination Committee, working with the existing communi-ty organizational partners, define the initial research agenda, the criteria for case communities, and the process of identify-ing the initial research communities over the next 4-6 months, with the PCC making the final decision. The commitment to be an initial research community would not necessarily be a 5-year commitment, but an initial commitment to a certain piece of work (vis-à-vis funding).
Check Out
“What do you need to leave here?”“What are you celebrating?”
• Celebrating old and new friendships• Happy that there is some urgency to the project• Letting go of frustrated times• Taking home nice relationships• Inspiration from everyone’s stories• Taking sense of shared vision for the project • Leaving with excitement• Leaving behind any doubt that this wasn’t a team
that could make things happen• Leaving with a renewed faith and trust in the par-
ticipatory process• Celebrating gratefulness for meeting new people
and long standing relationships; also celebrating your courage.
• Taking away profound admiration and affection for the group
16 CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
Barb Anderson, Acadia University Peter Andrée, Carleton University Kim Barro, Nova Scotia (NS) Dept. of Health Promotion and Protection Larry Baxter, NS Advisory Commission on AIDSHope Beanlands, National Collaborating Center of Determinants of Health Valerie Blair, Capital District Health AuthorityColleen Cameron, St. Francis Xavier University & Antigonish VoicesLindsay Corbin, NS Nutrition Council & Pictou Co. Health AuthorityColleen Goggin, Public Health Agency of Canada Anne-Marie Hamelin, McGill UniversityTrevor Hancock, Ministry of Healthy Living and Sport (British Columbia)Jeff Harper, Multimedia Project Manager and Technical Trainer, Participatory Action Research and Training Centre on Food Security (PARTC-FS)Kristie Jameson, Food Security Network of Newfoundland & LabradorChristine Johnson, NSFSN Coordinating Committee; St. Francis Xavier UniversityMyrene Keating-Owen, LEA Place Women’s Resource CentreCathleen Kneen, Food Secure CanadaMustafa Koc, Ryerson UniversitySarah Lake, Dietetic Intern, Mount Saint Vincent UniversityLynn Langille, NS Dept. of Health Promotion and ProtectionKaren LeBlanc, Maggie’s Place Family Resource CentreDarren Leyte, Health Canada & NSFSN Coordinating CommitteeKristen Lowitt, Community University Research for Recovery AllianceAnna MacLeod, Dalhousie University
Marla MacLeod, NSFSN Coordinating Committee & Ecology Action CentreDonna Malone, Public Health Agency of CanadaEllen McCurry, Dietetic Student, Mount Saint Vincent UniversityJames McGrath, First Nations and Inuit Health, Health CanadaTim Merry, Facilitator – Art of HostingShelley Moran, Apprentice Host, South Shore District Health AuthorityCatherine Morley, CMore MediaSatya Ramen, CURA Project Coordinator & JUDESTrudy Reid, NSFSN Coordinating Committee; Cumberland Health AuthorityDebbie Reimer, Kids Action Program & NSFSN Coordinating CommitteeSusan Roberts, Growing Food Security in AlbertaKatrina Ross, CURA Gathering CoordinatorDebbie Rudolph, Cape Breton’s Family Place Resource CentreAv Singh, AgraPoint & NSFSN Coordinating CommitteeDebbie Smith, South Shore Family Resource AssociationValerie Tarasuk, University of TorontoDavid Upton, NS Assoc. of Community Business Development CorporationsCynthia Watt, NS Participatory Food Costing ProjectAnn Wheatley, PEI Food Security NetworkBeatrice (Tiny) White, NS Participatory Food Costing ProjectBronwyn Whyte, Dept. of AgriculturePatty Williams, PARTC-FS, Mount Saint Vincent University Shelley Wilson, South West Nova District Health Authority & Tri-County Local Food NetworkLisa Woodrow, Dietetic Intern, Mount Saint Vincent University
Who Came?
17CURA - Gathering 2010 - Harvest Report
This gathering involved a tremendous amount of time, passion, and energy from everyone. Thanks go to all team members – including those who could not attend – for their vision and commitment to the work and special thanks to Colleen and Peter
for their informative presentations on evaluation and policy. We would also like to thank the Hosting Team for their efforts in creating a safe and welcoming space for us to talk about these important issues – Tim Merry, Kim Barro, Shelley Moran, Valerie Blair, Debbie Reimer, Av Singh, Christine Johnson, and Patty Williams. The Harvesting Team did an amazing job of taking photos, video, and creating this shared memory – Jeff Harper, Catherine Morley, Lisa Woodrow, Sarah Lake, Larry Baxter, and Bronwyn Whyte. Special thanks go to Katrina Ross, Stephanie Hughes, Satya Ramen, Ellen McCurry, Cynthia Watt, Jeff Harper and the folks at Windhorse Farm, Conscious Catering, and Little Foot Yurts for making the event happen.
This event would not be possible without the financial support from the many organizations that supported individuals for their time and travel, enabling them to attend, including all the partner organizations and the five Working Groups.
We are also grateful for the financial support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council for this research.
Thanks!
Looking forward to continuing our journey together! - Patty and Christine
Participatory Action Research andTraining Centre on Food SecurityMount Saint Vincent University2 Melody Drive, Halifax, NS B3M 2J6www.foodsecurityresearchcentre.ca
Published Date:October 25, 2010
Appe
ndix A, CUR
A Ga
thering Op
en Spa
ce Day
2 Flip
chart D
etails
Appen
dix A
CURA Gather
ing: Augu
st 2010
Day
Two Open
Spac
e (F
lipch
art Not
es)
Top
ic
Who Ca
me?
Key
Insigh
ts
Action Points
Commen
ts fr
om the Gallery
W
alk
How
can the
Peop
le’s Fo
od Policy
Project (PF
PP) a
nd
the CU
RA in
tersect?
Cathleen
, Marla, Larry,
Ann
• PF
PP has m
aterials (d
iscu
ssion pa
pers, policy
pape
rs afte
r Jan
201
1, discu
ssion gu
ide) th
at
CURA
could use for o
utreach.
• A way
to not re
inve
nt th
e whe
el
• Need to be clear r
e: fo
od so
vereignty vs. foo
d secu
rity
• PF
PP w
ill end
, CUR
A continue
s •
Aboriginal protocol is a
key
process /resource
• WG 2 use PF
PP policy work
• CU
RA process, use PFP
P do
cs as d
iscu
ssion starters,
esp re fa
rmers /
fishers
outreach
• How
to use fo
od so
vereignty /
food
secu
rity lang
uage?
• Need to bridg
e food
sove
reignty & fo
od se
curity.
• Gr
eat &
impo
rtan
t way
to build
on in
teresting work &
mom
entum – an exam
ple of
“sustainab
ility”
How
can we conn
ect
the CU
RA W
orking
Gr
oups
?
Peter, Ba
rb,
Patty, Trudy
, Ch
ristine,
Kristie
, An
ne-‐M
arie,
Cathleen
, Su
san,
Darren
• Co
mmun
ities m
ust b
e represen
ted at Program
Co
ordina
tion Co
mmittee leve
l at a
ll tim
es.
• PC
C shou
ld in
clud
e 5 WG reps
, Man
agem
ent
Team
, + co
mmun
ity
Go to
the De
cision
-‐mak
ing
discussion
•
If the roles o
f som
e committees
overlap a lot, or needs lo
ts of
conn
ectio
ns, the
n cons
ider
fewer w
orking
group
s. •
Case co
mmun
ity re
ps sh
ould
also be on
working
group
s. •
We ne
ed to
keep this a “light”
structure – ab
solutely in
volve
WG in PCC
& co
mmun
ities.
Refle
cts p
artic
ipatory
principles of C
URA.
How
are st
uden
ts
going to/w
ant to be
invo
lved
in th
e CU
RA?
Ellen, Cathy
, Myren
e,
Kristen,
Katrina,
Peter, Marla,
Dave
, Trevo
r
• Th
ings fo
r marks vs. things not fo
r marks
• Ed
ucation pa
rents v
ia ch
ildren
• Ge
nder in
food
secu
rity
• Be
ing invo
lved
at the
commun
ity leve
l (gaining
meaning
ful exp
erienc
es)
• Re
al life exp
erienc
e: promoting stud
ent p
assion
(visua
l rep
resentation of fo
od se
curity, exp
erienc
e in fo
od ban
k, pho
tovo
ice, link
to clinical practice)
• Ge
tting info out to
stud
ents in
a m
eaning
ful w
ay
• Wha
t stude
nts t
o includ
e?
• Co
nnectin
g CU
RA’s / ne
tworking
•
Get inv
olve
d in sc
hool sy
stem
(you
ng ch
ildren &
participatory ap
proa
ch w
ith te
ache
rs, P
D da
ys
with
teache
rs). Stude
nts t
o teach othe
r stude
nts
• Yo
uth vo
ice could be
incorporated
into th
e research
• Da
taba
se of p
rojects (
for
stud
ents)
• NSP
IRG
• Invo
lve Dietitian
s of C
anad
a in cu
rriculum
(Partnership
for D
ietetic
Edu
catio
n &
Practic
e)
• Op
portun
ity fo
r stude
nts t
o be
invo
lved
in kno
wledg
e mob
ilizatio
n •
Is th
ere an
opp
ortunity to
en
gage volun
teers> Ask
stud
ents to
volun
teer
• Mak
e stud
ents aware
• Stud
ents to
reach othe
r stud
ents
Appe
ndix A, CUR
A Ga
thering Op
en Spa
ce Day
2 Flip
chart D
etails
Top
ic
Who Ca
me?
Key
Insigh
ts
Action Points
Commen
ts fr
om the Gallery
W
alk
• En
gage group
s like Ec
olog
y Ac
tion Ce
ntre
• Hom
e scho
oling grou
p •
Stud
ents in
volved
in sp
orts / arts
• Yo
uTub
e, Auto Tu
nes, compu
ter a
pplic
ations
•
Stud
ents re
aching
out & m
aking conn
ectio
ns w
ith
larger group
s •
Iden
tifying
que
stions
that st
uden
ts ca
n work on
(dev
elop
on CU
RA w
ebsite)
• Fa
culty
think ab
out inc
orpo
ratin
g into te
aching
s •
Cook
ing in st
uden
t curricu
lum
• Plan
ting the seed
early
• Prep
are Profession
al
Deve
lopm
ent too
ls / day
s.
How
do we de
fine
commun
ity?
Debb
ie R,
Cynthia,
Bron
wyn
, Kr
isten,
Susan, Lisa,
Sarah, Ja
mes,
Christine
• Ca
se co
mmun
ities and
commun
ity are 2 differen
t de
finition
s •
Need geog
raph
ic bou
nds for ca
se co
mmun
ities,
then
commun
ities w
ill define their e
xperienc
e of
commun
ity (w
hat it m
eans
to th
em?)
• Op
portun
ities to
eng
age broa
der (
NS, Can
, be
yond
?) co
mmun
ities in
other asp
ects of C
URA
(e.g. kno
wledg
e mob
ilizatio
n)
• Ta
ke th
is fo
rward to
discussion
on crite
ria for
decision
abo
ut ca
se
commun
ities
• Who
with
in th
e selected
“case”
commun
ities agrees t
o pa
rticipate?
• Like
this – fe
els b
etter.
• Co
mmun
ities based
on ne
eds,
not location – farm
ers, yo
uth,
rural, etc.
• Ca
se co
mmun
ities need to be
more than
just project-‐based
Who
are th
e ke
y 4-‐5
partne
rs th
at CUR
A interacts w
ith and
ho
pes t
o affect (s
tep
3 of outcome
map
ping
– ID
of
boun
dary partners)?
Colle
en G,
Colle
en
Cameron
, Tr
evor, D
ave
• Must reflect m
ission
& vision of CUR
A •
4 bo
unda
ry partners:
Public se
ctor
– all leve
ls of g
ov’ts
, ins
titutions
(univ, sc
hools, ho
sp, com
mun
ity health
bo
ards
) -‐> po
licy & practices (e
.g. purch
asing,
land
clearing
, research?)
Priva
te Sec
tor – prod
ucers (
fishe
rs /
farm
ers), m
anufacturers, w
holesale /retail /
restau
rants (
distribu
tion), tou
rism
-‐> policy &
practic
e (business p
ractice, co
rporate social
resp
onsibility)
NGO – allied
mov
emen
ts, H
eart & st
roke
/
Canc
er so
ciety, fa
ith orgs, family
resource
centres, wom
en’s centres, do
ctors N
S, -‐ >
practic
e, kno
wledg
e, attitu
des, skills
(collabo
ratio
n, lead
ership, influen
cing
roles)
• To
WG 5 an
d PC
C –
indicators to
cons
ider.
• Le
veraged resources
(com
mun
ity)
• Th
ese sectors a
lso interact.
Could actor-‐ne
twork theo
ry be
useful?
• Ca
nnot be all thing
s to all
peop
le – build co
re st
reng
th
and pa
rtne
rships
. •
Whe
re is pov
erty in
this?
• So
as n
ot to
be ov
erwhe
lmed
, pick or focus on a few primary
ones, the
n the othe
rs ca
n be
second
ary or gravy
. •
+ va
lues & m
eaning
s of foo
d /
eatin
g & fa
mily
, not so
simple
as kno
wledg
e-‐attitud
es-‐
beha
viou
rs.
Appe
ndix A, CUR
A Ga
thering Op
en Spa
ce Day
2 Flip
chart D
etails
Top
ic
Who Ca
me?
Key
Insigh
ts
Action Points
Commen
ts fr
om the Gallery
W
alk
Citize
ns – public – fir
st nations
, Acadian
s, ne
w im
migrants, Black Nov
a Scotians
, You
th,
At risk w
omen
/ fa
milies -‐ > kn
owledg
e,
attitud
es, skills, beh
aviours (
food
choices,
ability to
influ
ence & ta
ke co
ntrol, lead
ership
skills, colla
boratio
n skills, en
vironm
ental
choices &
kno
wledg
e, su
staina
bility).
Crite
ria for s
electin
g case co
mmun
ities
James, Sarah
, Sh
elley,
Lind
say,
Christine,
Kristen,
Kristie
, Br
onwyn
, Mustafa,
Cynthia,
Hop
e,
Darren
, Tiny,
Debb
ie,
Marla, Susan
• Th
ere ha
s been a process w
ith cr
iteria & th
ere are
some commun
ity re
ps th
at are hop
ing to be on
e of
the case co
mmun
ities
• Ta
ke th
e info of w
hat h
as
happ
ened
/ process to
do –
wha
t is m
issing
?
• Le
arn from
others a
bout how
to
deve
lop crite
ria that builds o
n wha
t works and
doe
s not
margina
lized
, and
illuminates
inno
vatio
n.
• Th
is is a cr
itical d
ecision. Need
to do this soo
n, but th
e process
is cr
itical to bu
ild trust &
true
en
gagemen
t of case & other
commun
ities in
NS
• Th
e soon
er decided
the be
tter
• Co
re issue is pov
erty –
commun
ities are th
ose who
are
living / working
on this.
• Ra
tiona
le of the
se areas – need
more info.
• Bu
ild on wha
t is w
orking
(diverse examples), no
t wha
t we create.
Why
shou
ld w
e includ
e an
Ab
original / First
Nations
commun
ity
as a ca
se
commun
ity?
Av, A
nn,
Peter
• Not in
clud
ing AF
N w
ould leav
e a gap in our
know
ledg
e •
Enha
nce ou
r und
erstan
ding
of the
limits
/
challeng
es of C
FS assessm
ent
• CU
RA is an op
portun
ity fo
r all to learn / willing to
take
risk
• Ca
n’t c
ontin
ue to
avo
id becau
se w
e fear doing
an
inad
equa
te jo
b •
PFPP
has m
ade efforts t
o includ
e AF
N
• Po
tential implications
for future research
•
So m
uch to learn ab
out foo
d from
AFN
• Seek
externa
l fun
ding
to
carry ou
t project
• Seek
commun
ity / re
search
expe
rtise
• Ve
ry im
portan
t, ne
ed great ca
re
with
relatio
nships
–
• FN
IH in
volvem
ent –
why
do we
need
externa
l fun
ding
? •
How
we shou
ld eng
age – use
PFPP
protocol, as adv
isor
• Lo
ss of cultural / trad
ition
al
practic
es re
: foo
d, poo
r health
& highe
st pov
erty ra
tes
• Man
y AF
N peo
ple are pa
rt of N
S commun
ities – m
aybe
don
’t ne
ed sing
le AFN
commun
ity
Appe
ndix A, CUR
A Ga
thering Op
en Spa
ce Day
2 Flip
chart D
etails
Top
ic
Who Ca
me?
Key
Insigh
ts
Action Points
Commen
ts fr
om the Gallery
W
alk
•
Tony
Dav
is (M
SVU)
works w
ith
AFN re
: ecological k
nowledg
e •
Cons
ider PhD
thesis
• Co
ntinue
conv
ersatio
ns w
ith
Jane
McM
illan
(ST FX
) & M
artha
Steigm
an
• Fe
ar is not th
e righ
t word he
re
– ab
originals a
re fe
d up
with
research
ers w
ho are using
them
to be po
litically co
rrect.
• Co
nsultin
g them
first a
nd th
en
prov
ide ad
equa
te co
ndition
s to
carry ou
t a m
eaning
ful research
with
them
. Who
is m
issing
and
ho
w to
we en
gage
them
?
Shelley.
Mustafa,
Trev
or,
Myren
e,
Colle
en C.,
Larry, Dav
id,
Debb
ie,
James
• Private food
sector, pub
lic se
ctor / purch
asers
(institu
tions
, you
th) the
pub
lic from
related bu
t no
n-‐food
areas, m
unicipal se
ctors (
politicians
, civil serva
nts, econ
omists), inve
stors, fis
hers /
othe
r produ
cers, First Nations
, First Voices,
dive
rse ethn
o-‐racial group
s / im
migrants,
restau
rants, tourism associatio
ns, com
mun
ity
health boa
rd, regiona
l dev
elop
men
t autho
ritie
s, Ac
adian commun
ity, phy
sician
s •
Diffe
rent group
s need diffe
rent eng
agem
ent
strategies
• Private food
sector (r
etail, restau
rant, &
who
lesale): As
sociations
– th
ose read
y to ch
ange
(e.g. C
o-‐op
Atla
ntic has lo
cal foo
d as m
arke
ting
strategy
). Get th
em to
exp
lain w
hy ch
ange is
difficu
lt.
• Prod
ucers: associatio
ns – th
ose read
y to ch
ange,
those who
retail
• Institu
tiona
l purch
asers: Presume at least o
ne of
these shou
ld be a crite
ria for s
electin
g a
commun
ity. B
uild on existin
g them
es (s
ustainab
le
campu
s, he
alth-‐promoting ho
spita
l). E
ngage
university st
uden
ts (v
ia st
uden
t union
). Nursing
ho
mes (p
ublic
& priva
te)
• Yo
uth: Access v
ia sc
hools –
find
the righ
t teach
ers
and use existin
g access (D
avid U). You
th-‐in
itiated
• En
gage th
e NS Fo
od Policy
Coun
cil (ad
visory /
partne
r). K
nows a
bout th
e lin
ks between local
prod
ucers a
nd lo
cal
retaile
rs.
• De
velop a yo
uth-‐
engagemen
t strategy. Link
to you
th env
iro grou
ps.
• Need an
econo
mist o
n the
CURA
•
Approa
ch First Nations
(umbrella organ
izations
) (3
of th
em) to presen
t to them
an
d to offe
r the
m
engagemen
t – need to be on
the CU
RA.
• Ap
proa
ch NS As
sociation of
Mun
icipalities
• Ap
proa
ch Im
migrant
Settlemen
t and
Integration
Service (ISIS), A
frican
-‐NS
Associations
, Acadian
commun
ities
•
Appe
ndix A, CUR
A Ga
thering Op
en Spa
ce Day
2 Flip
chart D
etails
Top
ic
Who Ca
me?
Key
Insigh
ts
Action Points
Commen
ts fr
om the Gallery
W
alk
projects and
existing yo
uth prog
rams (
via
environm
ent m
ovem
ent), and
you
th health
centres.
• Allie
d mov
emen
ts: E
nviron
men
t, ch
ronic d
isease,
faith
orgs, commun
ity health
boa
rds, ba
by-‐
friend
ly
• First N
ations
: Treaty righ
ts, traditio
nal foo
ds,
harvestin
g an
d selling
, som
e ha
ve enterprise
corporations
•
Mun
icipal se
ctor: link to in
tegrated
sustaina
bility
plan
s, land
use, trans
portation, etc.
• Multic
ultural: ISIS, A
cadian
commun
ity, A
frican
-‐NS commun
ity (b
lack bus
iness, black ed
ucators,
and black cu
lture)
• Ph
ysicians
: poten
tially
pow
erful p
artners (
NS
Med
ical Associatio
n, Fam
ily Doctors,
Pediatrician
s, etc.)
How
do we wan
t to
stay
conn
ected?
Shelley,
Marla,
Cathleen
, Ka
trina,
Mustafa,
Satya,
Darren
• Not eve
ryon
e on
email / w
eb
• Co
nsider a re
gular n
ewsletter
• Need to keep meetin
g in person
• Le
arn from
other su
ccessful CUR
As
• big gatherings vs. sm
all g
athe
ring
s •
explore no
n-‐trad
ition
al w
ays (
photo / vide
o)
• Will ch
ange w
ith co
mmun
ities (y
outh, etc.)
• do
n’t s
uppo
rt eve
ry possible metho
d (not alw
ays
possible)
• lang
uage & accessible
• Mustafa to
share
commun
ications
plan from
othe
r CUR
As
•
How
can we share
our s
tory?
Shelley,
Satya,
Cathleen
, Ka
trina,
Mustafa,
Marla,
Darren
• Need to link
to other fo
od-‐related
CUR
As
• Us
e ad
visory co
mmittee to
share b/
w re
gion
s (Can
ada / int’l)
• Diffe
rent co
mmun
ications
with
differen
t group
s &
commun
ities
• Create m
edia plan an
d contacts – w
atch
timing
(“whe
n” fo
r a new
s story)
• Ar
t exh
ibit
• E-‐conferen
ce
• no
poster p
resentations
• Send
lots of p
eople to th
e FS
C assembly
Engagemen
t of foo
d prod
ucers a
nd
nurturing
Cathleen
An
n Ka
trina
Av
• “C
ase stud
ies” sh
ould in
clud
e farm
ers t
o pa
rticipate in project & processors
• Do
es co
mmun
ity in
clud
e prod
ucers?
• Go
od re
latio
nships
b/w
farm
ers a
nd produ
cers is
• De
pt of A
griculture in
volved
in co
mmittee
• Ge
t on agen
da of m
eetin
gs
of Fed
eration of Agriculture,
• Th
is is so
mething
that re
ally
can’t b
e de
term
ined
at this lev
el
yet n
eeds to
be pa
ssed
on an
d led by
the commun
ities th
at are
Appe
ndix A, CUR
A Ga
thering Op
en Spa
ce Day
2 Flip
chart D
etails
Top
ic
Who Ca
me?
Key
Insigh
ts
Action Points
Commen
ts fr
om the Gallery
W
alk
/dev
elop
ing
relatio
nships
be
tween pe
ople w
ho
prod
uce food
and
cons
umers
essential to food
secu
rity
• Fa
rmers /
fishers a
re m
embe
rs of com
mun
ity –
need
to be invo
lved
in policy ch
ange
•
Includ
e fis
hers at d
ifferen
t lev
els
• Co
nnectio
ns w
ith NS Fo
od Policy Co
uncil, NS Fo
od
Secu
rity Network, and
PFP
P
Nationa
l Farmers U
nion
, etc
• Invite fa
rmers t
o share
stories (
may
be as p
art o
f commun
ity projects)
•
hosting the PC
FSAs
. At this
stage, it is im
portan
t to iden
tify
prod
ucers a
s an im
portan
t part
of th
e CU
RA.
• Co
nsider an ad
visory ro
le fo
r ke
y cons
titue
ncies (
who
are
often too ov
erload
ed to
pa
rticipate in m
ultip
le
meetin
gs – abo
rigina
l, farm
ers,
fishe
rs, etc
• term
– produ
cers or p
rovide
rs?
Wha
t commun
ication &
engagemen
t do
commun
ity
(networks / lead
ers)
wan
t from CUR
A?
Lind
say,
Kristie
, Sh
elley,
Trud
y
• Is th
ere a role fo
r CUR
A commun
ities outside
of
the case co
mmun
ities? If so, w
hat w
orking
group
an
d ho
w is th
is re
sourced?
• Pilots (S
pryfield & Antigon
ish) – are th
ese projects
that hav
e be
en sh
ared
across N
S? H
ow now
conn
ected to CUR
A?
• Wha
t abo
ut co
mmun
ities th
at hav
e no
t yet been
engaged?
• Simple tools t
o en
able
sharing be
tween commun
ity
grou
ps
• Link
commun
ities – sh
aring
of learning
and
projects
• Web
site
• Th
is is how
you
can be
invo
lved
– go to to
ols,
web
site, resou
rces, sou
rces,
stories, fund
ing.
• Th
is broad
ening can come from
the case co
mmun
ities
them
selves – a re
spon
sibility
• Help create empa
thy
relatio
nships
amon
g pe
ople
living in pov
erty & produ
cers.
Need to und
erstan
d ho
w
pove
rty dictates fo
od “c
hoices”
and he
alth st
atus. B
e gentle
with
relatio
nships
. Kn
owledg
e Mob
ilizatio
n to
engage co
mmun
ities
Val B
, Elle
n,
Val T
, Hop
e,
Cathy, Lisa,
Lind
say, and
Sh
elley
• can cu
rren
t/ past w
ork inform
the process –
learning
s? H
ow?
• Man
y po
ssibilitie
s – no on
e righ
t path
• recogn
ize op
portun
ities
• Pa
ralle
ls w
ith te
xtile
s – co
nnect w
ith th
ose grou
ps
• relatio
nships
aroun
d cook
ing, peo
ple, and
food
•
sharing the old way
s •
KM determined
with
commun
ities – determining
with
commun
ity w
hat the
y alread
y kn
ow
• Find
out if / w
hen / ho
w w
e can access in
fo from
An
tigon
ish & Spryfield
• Wha
t do we alread
y kn
ow
that is useful o
r cou
ld be
• Discussion
on Way
s of
Know
ing
• Link
into non
-‐profit group
s and
leve
rage th
eir c
onne
ctions
• La
ngua
ge – needs to
be
targeted
to sp
ecific g
roup
s •
learn from
other CUR
As
• Need to clarify
term
KM or e
lse
come up
with
a better term.
Wha
t is t
he sc
ope?
Appendix B: Abbreviations and Acronyms
AC Advisory Committee
AFN Aboriginal & First Nations Peoples
AI Appreciate Inquiry
CFS Community Food Security
CURA Community University Research Alliance
DD Deliberative Dialogue
DHPP Department of Health Promotion and Protection
E&PM Evaluation and Participatory Methods
E&T Education and Training
EAC Ecology Action Centre
FNIH First Nations & Inuit Health
FSC Food Secure Canada
GIS Geographical Information Systems
IKT Integrated Knowledge Translation
KM Knowledge Mobilization
MSVU Mount Saint Vincent University
MT Management Team (formerly “Executive Committee”)
NGO Non-‐governmental organizations
NSFPC Nova Scotia Food Policy Council
NSFSN Nova Scotia Food Security Network
NSNC Nova Scotia Nutrition Council
NSPIRG Nova Scotia Public Interest Research Group
Orgs Organizations
PAR Participatory Action Research
PARTC-‐FS Participatory Action Research and Training Center on Food Security
PCC Program Coordination Committee (formerly “Program Committee”)
PCFSA Participatory Community Food Security Assessments
PFPP People's Food Policy Council
PL Participatory Leadership
PM&A Policy Mapping and Analysis
SSHRC Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
StFX St Francis Xavier University
Uni Universities
UOIT University of Ontario Institute of Technology
WG Working Group
WORKING GROUP BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS
#1 - Participatory Community Food Security Assessment (PCFSA): To assess food systems and their impact on food access in selected Nova Scotia communities to enhance our understanding of the evolving concept of community food security
#2 - Policy Mapping & Analysis: To examine the policy environment which impacts Community Food Security in Nova Scotia
#3 - Knowledge Mobilization: To strengthen Community Food Security through policy change by mobilizing knowledge gained within case study communities and beyond
# 4- Education and Training: To Increase knowledge and skills of students and CURA partners in Participatory Action Research, Community Food Security and development of strategies for policy change through innovative and diverse educational and training opportunities
# 5 - Evaluation and Participatory Methods: To collect and report research outcomes of importance to Community Food Security and capacity building for policy change that will be of value in Canada and elsewhere