Activating Policy Change for Community Food Security ... · Activating Policy Change for Community Food Security. Gathering 2010. Windhorse Farm. New Germany, Nova Scotia August 17-19

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.


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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?


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

Documents

Activating Policy Change for Community Food Security ... · Activating Policy Change for Community Food Security. Gathering 2010. Windhorse Farm. New Germany, Nova Scotia August 17-19