Explore le compte-rendu officiel des Concertations

Group 2: Co-operative, Alternative Food, and Land Access  This group discussed concrete ways of getting around lack of access, such as collective ownership models and land trusts. They gave examples of organizations doing this work like Local Food and Farm Co-op, St. James Town Community Co-op, Liberating Lawns, and the Eco Just Food Network. They also enumerated obstacles farmers face to land access such as bureaucratic red tape and zoning requirements. 

Group 3: Black Food Sovereignty and Cultural Food This group began by talking about everyone’s ancestral background as well as where each of the participants was coming from in their work. They discussed the history of food on this land and how colonization also brought foreign food which did not naturally grow here before. The great diversity on this land, both in food and in the people living here today was of particular significance to this group. Upcoming actions and events around Black food sovereignty were also mentioned as a way for participants to keep the ball rolling.  Group 4: Cl... Lire la suiteimate Change, Urban Agriculture, and Infrastructure This group talked about problems with zoning, red tape, and bureaucracy when dealing with accessing growing space in the city. They also talked about ongoing actions to mitigate the impacts of climate change on our communities, such as St. James Town Community Co-op’s OASIS Food Hub. Another possible solution discussed was to partner with existing institutions who already have access to space, such as schools, businesses, or faith buildings.  Another issue the group outlined is the lack of support from local politicians who too often say all the right things but have not been following through on their promises to our organizations. Ways of applying pressure to politicians such as creating campaigns were also discussed.  Group 5: UN Food Summit and Canadian Policy The group first went over the 5 UN Action Tracks, then built on that with some of their personal experiences working in food policy.  Participants mentioned the belief that our local governments in Ontario are actively getting in the way of helpful initiatives, as opposed to other places in the world which can sometimes be more welcoming and supportive to their citizens. The group talked about the human rights abuses going on in Canada and proposed actionable solutions for holding our own dialogues and getting our story out there.  Group 6: Open Letter/GTA/Ontario This group talked about the open letter which can be found at the end of this report. The letter was written as a result of the previous Emergency Food Forum; consequently, part of the group’s discussion centred around how the letter has been used in the past year, how many individuals and organizations have signed on, and how to work on advancing and actioning the letter’s demands. Despite the government’s perceived eagerness to address our current climate crisis, the group felt that their local representatives were not doing enough to address the real needs of their constituents.  Group 7: Black Food Sovereignty  This group talked about the importance of engaging Black communities, especially Black youth around Toronto and the GTA in Black food sovereignty initiatives. The group stressed the significance in listening to communities who know what the problems are and often also have great plans for how to fix those problems.  During the pandemic, the government showed a lack of strategic planning and the importance of local, grassroots movements was evident. The group also discussed how to organize Black communities, especially in the context of the ongoing pandemic. Lire moins

Session Three The final session was spent organizing what next steps the participants could take to bring action to the previous sessions’ discussions. Participants broke up into three breakout groups: one focusing on direct action, one on local/regional policy, and one on international policy. The group on direct action focused on developing and growing our “Food Corps” team, which provides small-scale farmers with volunteering support and hungry urban communities with access to healthy food. The regional policy group discussed strategies for working with our municipal and provincial go... Lire la suitevernments to address our urgent food crisis, through such means as our open letter (attached). The third group discussed how to involve ourself in the UN Food Systems Summit itself. Lire moins

One are of divergence we as organizers encountered was one between advocacy and action. Some participants felt strongly that action oriented solutions, such as our “Food Corps,” were best suited to tackling the current food crisis. Others in attendance saw political advocacy as the most effective method of change. As organizers we attempted to structure the dialogue so that participants could hear from speakers with expertise in both advocacy and action, and then choose breakout sessions related to which topic they preferred.

Group 2: Ecological Consumption (framed by Action Track 2) First, this group talked about what ecological consumption meant to everyone: consuming and growing foods native to the lands we’re on, ensuring living wages and good working conditions for agricultural workers, transparency in the entire chain of production to consumption. They also provided a breakdown of sustainable consumption in our notes. The group then discussed their struggles to consume sustainably during the pandemic, characterized by an increase in online services and use of plastic. If one is trying to consume in an ecolo... Lire la suitegically friendly way, their choices are often limited. One might have to choose between going plastic-free, local, or organic, but rarely get the option to have all three. Time banking was once again proposed as one way of shifting the frameworks of who/what we value in our economic system. Other forms of alternative markets, such as buy-nothing groups, were also mentioned, and the concept of mutual aid came up time after time. Lire moins

Group 3: Ecological Production (framed by Action Track 3) This group started by defining ecological production, as well as talking about the importance of mother earth and grandmother water. Different forms of economies were also discussed by this group, focusing on sharing economies, but also talking about cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology as decentralized, egalitarian ways of sharing equity. The group then moved to a discussion of land and land use. They talked about seed sharing, genetics of plants and animals being held in a commons, getting more people to farms, getting young peo... Lire la suiteple on farm land, providing resources and access to land, as well as the importance of shifting subsidies away from big agriculture and to supporting local, enriching farming practices. Lire moins

Group 4: Work, Income, and the Food System (framed by Action Track 4) First, this group identified two trends in agriculture today:  1. Regenerative agriculture: low tech, lots of manual labour and 2. Digital/automated agriculture: high tech, data-driven. The group discussed the need to embrace helpful technology while also fostering employment and keeping a sacred connection to the land, this being particularly true for communities in Northern Canada. Farmers talked about how difficult it can be to get started or to even gain a foot-hold in the food system. There is a simultaneous need in ur... Lire la suiteban communities for healthy food and often an abundance of it for farmers at harvest, so what is necessary is to bring these folks together. Time banking, as well as the Food Corps program being offered by the Eco Just Food Network, were discussed. Some of the concerns around time banking were issues around trust, reciprocity, as well as the difficulty of getting folks to move away from values based on our current economic system. Lire moins

Group 5: Food System Resilience (Framed by action Track 5) This group started off by looking at resilience as a historical system built over time, but also shared different views of what resilience can look and feel like. Two important questions came up: 1. Do we need new systems or do we need to work with what we already have today? 2. How can we do both? The group agreed that our current agricultural system has made us less resilient, and that there is a great need for education about all of this, as well as a need to organize together. The group ended with a discussion about the power of st... Lire la suiteories and storytelling and the importance of grounding our work in our material conditions and our lived realities. They emphasized that the food system needs to be a system of relationships and not rooted in elitism and corporate power. Lire moins

The Emergency Food Forum started in 2019, with the realization that our land, soil,  food, and food supply are being threatened by destructive farming practices, delicate global supply chains, exploitative labour practices and rapidly changing climate. The first EFF was convened to build a community of individuals that wanted to take action in creating a healthy, sustainable and resilient food system. In March of 2020, over 100 people and 73 organizations gathered online to discuss the breakdown of our food supply and the growing food and economic insecurity the COVID-19 pandemic was causing.... Lire la suite On April 14, 21 & 28, 2021 we held the 3rd annual Ontario Emergency Food forum to continue the conversation, review the lessons of 2020 and build on our successes for a better, more resilient and just food system. At the EFF this year, we focused on identifying issues and generating actionable solutions while looking through lenses of equity and human rights, the Dish with One Spoon Wampum Covenant, Black and Indigenous food sovereignty, the UN Action tracks, and the Human Right to Food. Lire moins

In order to organize and identify gaps and possibilities we created a spreadsheet of food system solutions. The sheet was first separated into eight different goals or intentions that had been drawn out during our break-out groups, as well as continuing conversations from the Emergency Food Forum of 2020 (ex. Indigenous Access to Local Land Spaces, Policy Demands, and Food Awareness and Literacy etc.). Under each goal we included three columns: role, resource, need, opportunity; person, organization, strategy to offer; and groups or organizations already connected to this work. The first two c... Lire la suiteolumns would be filled by someone offering or looking for something, and the third could be filled by another person who sees how this offer/ask fits in somewhere else. This provides an opportunity for networking and identifying gaps and opportunities. Some key areas of interest for our participants included a) collaborating and supporting existing BIPOC food sovereignty initiatives, b) building the capacity of our “Food Corps,” which helps provides labour for small-scale agro-ecological farmers and healthy food for hungry food insecure communities, c) the creation of a farm training curriculum for our volunteers, d) calling for urgent action from our government regarding the current food crisis in the form of an open letter (see attached). Lire moins

The first session introduced two lenses through which participants could discuss the food system: The Dish with One Spoon Treaty and the Human Right to Food. The first half of the event was spent familiarizing participants with these lenses, as well as with the ongoing work of the Eco Just Food Network.  The participants were then invited to attend one of five breakout rooms based on the five Action Tracks. Each group had at least one facilitator and one note taker and all participants were encouraged to view and add to a virtual white board. After their discussion, the group’s designated n... Lire la suiteote takers and facilitators gave summaries of what their breakout groups had talked about. Lire moins

Group 1: Access to Safe and Nutritious Food (framed by Action Track 1) This group began by discussing the different ways we grow food, whether that be in soil, or using hydroponics or aeroponics, then went on to speak in more detail about the benefits of non-soil based agriculture such as increasing yield and preserving forested land. The group also talked about the limitations of food banks in addressing the food needs of diverse communities. Participants spoke of the experience of using food banks, feeling watched, judged, and not having access to healthy or culturally relevant food choices.... Lire la suite Finally, the group talked about the challenges of living in capitalism and ways to overcome or mitigate those challenges. Some options were discussed like a universal basic income as well as time banks and other alternative economies. Lire moins

This conversation was a very productive time for stakeholders in Northeast Pennsylvania, United States, to get to know each other. In this way, the outcomes represent actions steps that are immediate and applicable to that context. (1) This region is rich in academic institutions that will improve opportunities for educational scholarships for students facing food insecurity and grow emergency food distribution programs in the next six months. This is a critical step of equipping future generations to envision their future with pride and to know that their participation in delivering on zero h... Lire la suiteunger is critical. (2) Continue to build partnerships and efficient supply chains between small businesses, regional farmers, and food emergency systems over the next two years. Advocate and efficiently use funding provided for the Pennsylvania Agricultural Surplus System (PASS), a state-specific initiative that provides money to purchase produce from area farmers for the food insecure. These funds should prioritize fruits and vegetable purchase from regional growers and fair prices, and even more so, aim to support small growers and those from marginalized backgrounds. This produce is then redistributed to Food Bank and food pantries so that clients have fresh, quality, local produce. Restaurants also process this produce to create foods that are more accessible for the unhoused and those with limited cooking equipment. (3) Ensure that the education of healthcare workers and nutrition professions is one where they understand, deeply, the connection between food insecurity and community health. These future workers should know how to screen for food insecurity, reduce the stigma associated with it, and prioritize dignity in how they interact with and care for clients. Lire moins

There was some potential divergence in the PASS purchasing program when considering where funds should be allocated, to support small versus large growers and what is the most beneficial to the regional and state economy, in a sustainable manner, in the long run. Some of the language and terms used in the dialogue, such as “dignity” and “stigma” may mean different things to different people. While there could be areas of disagreement in practice and it may be challenging to measure the effectiveness of promoting “dignity” within a food emergency program, this UNFSS Dialogue session... Lire la suite believes that it is still incredibly important to value this conversation and continue to commit to learning together. In the end, building resilient food systems and delivering on zero hunger is work that happens, first and foremost, in relationships. Therefore, having these conversations together so that we can understand each other, is an important step towards that direction. Researchers and policymakers should remember the importance of these conversations, in prioritizing the lived experiences of those impacted by inequities in our food system, and value input from people on the ground. As a coalition, and specifically as a coalition of workers in Northeast, Pennsylvania, in the United States, we will inevitably come across disagreements, but we must prioritize our work as a coalition and always seek to understand and learn from one another first. Lire moins

The focus of this dialogue was on solving hunger and improving levels of nutrition, enabling all people to maintain nourishing and healthy lives. This group of stakeholders represented a range of community members from Northeast, Pennsylvania. All of these stakeholders were involved in emergency food systems, either directly or indirectly. The opportunity to participate in this dialogue served as a chance to reflect on food systems, solving food and nutrient security, addressing issues surrounding poverty, and reflecting on lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. In this way, the convener ... Lire la suiteand facilitator tried to keep this conversation “close to the ground,” highlighting real experiences of food insecurity and grassroots efforts to address them. Lire moins

Reducing the stigma associated with food insecurity is a primary goal and necessary step in delivering on zero hunger and building healthy food systems. When people associate shame with food insecurity, they are more likely to hesitate to come forward and receive what they need in order to raise healthy children, maintain quality of life, and address the other challenges they face. Individuals working in emergency food systems need to be able to be creative and address the systemic issues that contribute to food insecurity. When serving food insecure people, the structure and programs in place... Lire la suite should prioritize dignity. When individuals visit food pantries or receive food donations, they need to have agency, choice, and be respected first and foremost. This requires communities to understand and dismantle the assumptions we hold about poverty and food insecurity. For instance, childhood food insecurity is an adverse experience that can contribute to trauma, having lifelong effects. Food emergency systems must recognize the importance of how we address and ensure that young people receiving food know that they can look to their future with pride. With this, all community members should be equipped to solve poverty-related hunger within their realm. In order to build a network together, the lived experiences of individuals, particularly those that have faced adversity or experienced food insecurity themselves, needs to be acknowledged, valued, and respected. Finally, all community supports and institutions need to be equipped to screen for and address food insecurity in innovative ways. This includes academic institutions, healthcare settings, local businesses, and employers of all types. Screening for hunger and having a community structure in place to refer people is necessary. Too often organizations work in silos, and collaboration is necessary to deliver on zero hunger. Lire moins

Discussion topic : Reliable data & certification: a national system on accurate, safe and reliable data and certification of agricultural products will inform legal frameworks and resource allocation. Recommendation 1: hold dialogues to inform and map data and stakeholder landscapes - who is capable to provide/collect data by what means/tools, who is interested in using data, is there a platform to match these two) Who: national governments How: bring together the 100 most relevant actors in data/certification space within a country. These consultations can be used as a base for digital st... Lire la suiterategy and data platform(s). During the discussion the actors need to identify which data is needed immediately, and which data is still valid after a year or ten. The actors providing their data should be aware of the benefits of this action. As an example of incentives, it could be - in countries without health benefits - to provide health insurance to all producers involved in data delivery actions. Recommendation 2: develop national digital strategies, policy, and legal framework Who: should be led by a public/private body, with leadership from representatives of the different social/productive organisations How: based on the outcomes of key stakeholder dialogues governments need to develop Digital Strategies (including data architecture: how data is organized and used for policy making), establish independent certification bodies/ expert panels to validate data before sharing (symbiotic relationship between the certification bodies and the National Institute of Statistics helps to reduce the costs of certification), and identify required capacity building/training on the job/coaching (strengthening institutions with the right skills and tools). All data should be shared unless embargoed (needs protection) Recommendation 3: invest in appropriate infrastructure to support digital solutions Who: Ministries of Infrastructure / Communications + private actors (mobile companies) How: national governments need to invest in mobile networks and power access, as well as ensure connectivity to digital data services (foreseeing demand and the need for scale). Lire moins

Discussion topic : Conducive research partnerships: international agricultural research partnerships take into account regional contexts and make their findings available to all. Recommendation 1: research partnerships need to adopt a participatory approach Who: civil society, academia, farmers, consumers How: The participants of the group discussions agreed that local stakeholders (especially farmers and consumers) should have a stronger voice in agricultural research. The decision on the orientation of research should not be left to governments but involve civil society actors to assure that... Lire la suite research is based on real demand. Research itself should be organized as a participatory process with a strong role for local actors. This setup needs mechanisms of participation and enabling spaces; some may already exist (for example farmer field schools), some may have to be developed. A continuous exchange between research and application should lead to innovations that are in the interest of all stakeholders. Recommendation 2: it is critical that research organizations share research results Who: academia, civil society, international organisations How: research results should be made freely available, exchange and cross-learning should be encouraged, transparency is key. This also ensures that existing knowledge is considered. One of the break-out groups stated that research results should be used for advocacy of an agroecological transformation of food systems. Recommendation 3: research partnerships need to rethink the role of donors Who: governments in the North and international institutions How: dependence on funding from the North is problematic for a number of research partnerships. Rather than define research priorities, governments in the North and international institutions should act as facilitators accompanying local processes. Donors should increase support for agricultural research that takes into account the priorities of the Global South. Recommendation 4: research organizations and key stakeholders need to question the research focus Who: academia, civil society, international organizations, consumers How: The discussion participants agreed that research should be demand-led and that it should involve all relevant disciplines. There was not a clear agreement whether agroecology should be the guiding principle. One of the break-out groups mentioned neglected species and livestock farming as important research topics that should not be overlooked. Recommendation 5: research partnerships need to ensure participatory monitoring and evaluation of the findings Who: academia, civil society, international organizations, governments, and consumers How: participatory monitoring and evaluation empowers actors to demand accountability. While it makes sense to use internationally recognized indicators (such as those associated with the SDGs), participants of the dialogues underlined that regional and local indicators and development strategies should also be taken into account. Lire moins

Discussion topic : Agroecological farming and intact natural resources: an agroecological diversification of production and low-impact farming practices will reduce the use of fossil fuels and chemical inputs; switching to locally adapted landscape approaches will allow for (cost-)efficient food production. Recommendation 1: launch a peer-to-peer program focused on application of agroecological concepts for farmers (potentially also for other actors in the food system). Who: local governments, civil society, producers, farmer organizations How: this would require in-person exchange and inclusi... Lire la suiteon of the farmer communities (both small holder farmers, as well as large scale exemplary farmers). Recommendation 2: deliver training and knowledge management resources via a digital platform Who: local governments, academia, civil society, donors willing to fund the development, rollout, and maintenance of the platform. How: the digital platform would enable peer to peer exchange, as well as collect and operationalize agricultural data. Having a peer-to-peer element at its core the platform would enable the actors to not only share, but also co-produce knowledge related to agroecology. Building networks around agroecology and developing a collection of good/ best practices could then also influence relevant policy change towards agroecological principles. It is important that there is a dedicated space on the platform for women/ women’s groups/ female farmers Recommendation 3: at the public policy level it is necessary to generate actions to promote agroecology with governmental support. Who: national governments How: governments can provide technical (including quality) and financial support to producers for the promotion of agroecological product consumption and shorter value chains; improve the accessibility of roads and distribution routes for agroecological products; ensure policies are disseminated to relevant stakeholders and producers using media. Recommendation 4: promote development of green finance to contribute to the development of agroecology. Who: UN, development banks, national governments How: The UN has created a line of financing contributing to sustainable development by mitigating the effects of climate change. Development banks at the national level also manage this financial model, which needs to be made more widely accessible to national level agroecological producers. Recommendation 5: orient nations towards sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity; guide territorial planning considering the potential for land use, generating a balance between conservation of natural resources and development. Who: national governments (National Protected Areas Service, Ministry of Environment and Water and the Ministry of Rural Development and Lands), academia, international organizations and civil society. How: in order to make the landscape approach practical and applicable on the ground, the stakeholders will need to be clearly identified at different levels – local, regional, and global with their roles being identified clearly and linkages between and among them. It is important to consider “hotspots” - priority conservation areas and intact resources, which contain high biodiversity. National governments should consider enhancing these environmental functions and orienting towards a sustainable use of natural resources and biodiversity, such as wild cocoa, açai, jatata, etc. - food systems that enhance the use of forest resources. It is also important to strengthen the interface between academic research and the needs for information and responses to the different problems on the part of local governments. Lire moins

One of the areas of divergence included the role of subsidies in achieving fair prices. The participants had different views on how to ensure that subsidies do not distort markets and how to ensure communities understand the approach behind subsidies for farming systems. The groups discussing fair prices highlighted that the pros and cons of subsidies need to be better understood as some form of “smart subsidies’ may in fact contribute to fair prices. The positive application of subsidies includes: * use of subsidies as incentives over a transition period towards sustainability; * subsidie... Lire la suites to farmers for application of ecosystem services (agroecology) in the communities In the French language dialogues participants brought up the question of how can stakeholders ensure a transparent and constructive dialogue when there is an asymmetry of power between the actors? What support should be given to producer and consumer organisations for quality participation in business dialogues and in dialogues with public authorities to influence food and nutrition policies? It was discussed that potentially the role of removing the power imbalances may rest with the donors. The donors should support the creation of level dialogue by including all relevant stakeholders and having specific objectives for each group (consideration of social, economic, health and ecological aspects). In the Spanish language groups a strong area of concern is linked to rural-urban migration and the increase of the urban population. Some groups had shared that the migration could be the cause of additional environmental problems, more poverty, greater vulnerability, and additional risk scenarios. It was stressed in a number of break-out groups that national governments need to address the issue and build stronger linkages between the rural-urban populations, preventing migration to the cities. The groups also brought up the question of trust in technologies, especially with new technologies such as blockchain tech, and how in the use of digital there remains a focus on top-down solutions. Lire moins