Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

Walking the Path Towards a Just, Sustainable and Food Secure UBC Food System: 2005 UBC Food System Project.. 2010

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
Walking the Path Towards a Just Sustainable & Food System - 2005 UBC Food System Project (UBCFSP) Report.pdf
Walking the Path Towards a Just Sustainable & Food System - 2005 UBC Food System Project (UBCFSP) Report.pdf [ 2.9MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0108118.json
JSON-LD: 1.0108118+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0108118.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0108118+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0108118+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0108118+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0108118.ris

Full Text

  Walking the Path Towards a Just, Sustainable and Food Secure UBC Food System: 2005 UBC Food System Project (UBCFSP) Report                                                                                 Liska Richer       Campus Sustainability Office                 September 15, 2005          The UBC Food Systems Project is a collaborative Community Based Action Research Project initiated jointly between the Faculty of Land and Food Systems and Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) program of the UBC Campus Sustainability Office (CSO). Key project partners include: Faculty of Land and Food Systems (students and teaching team of AGSC 450 class), UBC Food Services, UBC Alma Mater Society Food and Beverage Department, UBC Waste Management, UBC Sage Bistro, UBC Farm, SEEDS and the CSO, and project collaborators include UBC Campus and Community Planning and the Sauder School of Business.   0 TABLE OF CONTENTS  Acknowledgements…………………………….……………………………………...…………....3  Executive Summary……………………………………………………………..……………………..…..4  Introduction…........................................................................................................................................18  Purpose of this Paper………………………………………………........................................................23  Project Methodology and Design..........................................................................................................23  Overview of General Problem Definition…………….……………………………..………………..….26  Summary of Group Reflections on the Vision Statement for a Sustainable UBC Food System (7 Guiding Principles) ………………..………………………………..………..…………………...….…..26  Summary of Group Comments on the Definition of “Local”……………………..……….…...………31  Overview of 2005 Spring Scenario #1: Desirability of Re-localization………………….…………...…33 Summary of Specific Problem Definition…..........................................................................................33 Summary of Methodology………………………………………………………………….……………..33 Summary of Central Findings……………………………………..…………………………….………..35 Summary of Proposed Methodology……………………………………………………………………..40 Summary of Recommendations…………………………………….…………………………………....42  Overview of 2005 Spring Scenario #2: Feasibility of Re-localization Scenario 2a): Feasibility of Re-localization on Campus……………………..………………………….42 Summary of Specific Problem Definition…………………………………………...…………………...42 Summary of Methodology……………………………………………...……………………...………....43 Summary of Central Findings…………………………………………………………………………….43 Summary of Recommendations………………………………………….………………………………48  Scenario 2b): Feasibility of Increasing Farm Provision of Specialty Items to UBC Sage Bistro……..49 Summary of Specific Problem Definition…………………………………………...………...………....49 Summary of Methodology……………………………………………………………….………………..49 Summary of Central Findings………………………………….…………………..……………………..49 Summary of Recommendations…………………………………………………........………………….56  Scenario 2c): Feasibility of Supplying a Food Conference with Local Foods from UBC Farm………57 Summary of Specific Problem Definition…………………………………………….………...………..57 Summary of Methodology…………………………………………………….…………………………..58 Summary of Central Findings……………………………………………………………...…………..…58 Summary of Recommendations………………………………………………………...………………..71  Overview of 2005 Spring Scenario #3: Education, Awareness and Re-localization……..………….…73 Summary of Specific Problem Definition……………………………………...…….…………...……...73 Summary of Methodology…………………………………………………….…………………………..73 Summary of Central Findings……………………………………...………………..……………………74 Summary of Recommendations……………………………………………………………….………....93    1 Overview of 2005 Spring Scenario #4: Exploring Existing Opportunities that Enhance and/or Barriers that Impinge on the Sustainability of the UBC Food System within Current Campus Community Plans…………………………………………………………………….…………………...95 Summary of Specific Problem Definition……………………………...……………………...………....95 Summary of Methodology……………………………………………………..……………………...….95 Summary of Central Findings………………………………………………...……...….........................95 Analysis of Official Community Plan (OCP)…………………………………….………………………95 Analysis of Comprehensive Community Plan (CCP)………………………….………………………..96 Analysis of the South Campus Neighbourhood Plan (SCNP)………………………………………...104 Analysis of Main Campus Plan (MCP)……………………………………………………………….…112 Summary of Recommendations……………………………………..…………………………………..123  Overview of 2005 Spring Scenario #5: UBC Farm: Exploring Alternative Routes to Enhanced Viability……………………………………….………………………………………...………………...124 Summary of Specific Problem Definition……...…………………………………….…………...…….124 Summary of Methodology…………………………...…………………...……….…………………..…125 Summary of Central Findings…………………………..……………………………..……..………….125 Summary of Recommendations…………………………….……………...…………...………………137  Strengths and Weaknesses of 2005 Spring UBCFSP….……………………...……….………………..139 Final Reflections…………………………….………………...…………………..……………………..140  References…………………...……………………………………………….………………..…………141  Appendix A UBC Food System Collaborative Project IV, AGSC 450:  Winter 2005 (Alejandro Rojas, Liska Richer and Julia Wagner)………………………………………………....………………………142 Appendix B  Instruments of Data Collection: Questionnaires…….………………………...………..154 Appendix C  Product Analysis (origin and availability)…...………………………………………...…161 Appendix D Local Food Conference Materials…………………………………………………….......169 Appendix E Marketing and Educational Tools and Pieces……………………….……..………...….191 Appendix F: Campus Community Planning Documents: Tools and Amendments Materials…...…212                  2 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  The Faculty of Land and Food Systems (formerly Faculty of Agricultural Sciences) AGSC 450 (Land, Food & Community III) Teaching Team: • Dr. Alejandro Rojas, Course Instructor, Agroecology and Principal Investigator of the UBCFSP • Liska Richer, PhD Candidate,  Integrated Studies in Land and Food Systems in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems • Julia Wagner, M.Sc. Graduate, Soil Science in the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences • Catherine Jacobson, M.Sc. Candidate, School of Community and Regional Planning • Lorenzo Magzul, PhD Candidate, Integrated Studies in Land and Food Systems in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems  Former AGSC 450 Teaching Team who summarized findings over the summer and worked with stakeholders, putting much dedication in forwarding the UBCFSP: • Tony Brunetti, Ph.D. Candidate, Individual Interdisciplinary Studies Graduate • Kristina Bouris, M.Sc. Graduate, School of Community and Regional Planning  UBC Food System Project Partners: • Brenda Sawada, Manager, UBC Social, Economic, Ecological and Development Studies (SEEDS) • Freda Pagani, Director, UBC Campus Sustainability Office (CSO) • Andrew Parr, Director of UBC Food Services (UBCFS) • Dorothy Yip, Manager, Purchasing and Project Coordination, UBC Food Services (UBCFS) • John Metras, Associate Director, Municipal and Business Services, UBC Waste Management • Nancy Toogood, AMS Food and Beverage Department Manager (AMSFBD) • Mark Bomford, UBC Farm Program Coordinator, • Greg Rekken, UBC Farm Production Coordinator • John Flipse, General Manager University Centre/ Sage Food Services • Dr. Art Bomke, Agroecology Program, UBC Farm  UBC Food System Project Collaborators: • Karly Henney, Planner, UBC Campus and Community Planning (CCP) • Sauder School of Business Class  AGSC 450 Students: • 2005 AGSC 450 students (16 teams, 109 students) whose patience, hard work and dedication are what made this project possible. • 2002, 2003 and 2004 (spring and summer) AGSC 450 students and SCB student group who made their work available for future 450 classes to build upon.  The author of this report, Liska Richer, is a PhD. student in the Faculty of Land and Food Systems and a veteran Teaching Assistant in AGSC 450. She was hired by the Campus Sustainability Office to work with the above UBCFSP members, namely to (1) Synthesize the findings of 2005 AGSC 450 students, (2) Organize a workshop with UBCFSP members and other key partners to share findings from student’s projects and to gather reflections and suggestions for the next iteration of AGSC 450 in 2006, and (3) Work with UBCFSP members to plan and ideally implement food system related initiatives.      3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  General Overview  The UBC Food System Project (UBCFSP) is a collaborative, community-based action research project involving multiple partners and collaborators: UBC Food Services (UBCFS), AMS Food and Beverage Department (AMSFBD), UBC Waste Management (UBCWM), UBC Farm, UBC Sage Bistro, UBC Campus and Community Planning (CCP), Sauder School of Business class, UBC Campus Sustainability Office (CSO), Social, Economic, Ecological Development Studies (SEEDS), and the Faculty of Land and Food Systems (formerly named Faculty of Agricultural Sciences) students and teaching team. It has a minimum five year plan.  The UBCFSP is part of an Agricultural Science 450 Land, Food and Community III course, a mandatory capstone course required for all 4th year Faculty of Land and Food System students. The Project commenced four years ago and has involved five generations of AGSC 450 students, 572 (77 AGSC 450 groups and 3 Sauder School of Business groups) in total.  The main goals of the UBCFSP are the following:  1. To conduct a UBC food system assessment. 2. Identify barriers that encroach on the ability to make transitions towards UBC food system sustainability. 3. Create a shared vision among partners and collaborators. 4. Create a shared model among partners and collaborators. 5. Develop opportunities and recommendations to UBCFSP partners and collaborators. 6. Implement measures to make transitions towards UBC food system sustainability.  So far, key accomplishments of the project have included:  „ Building a collaborative process. „ Improving our understanding of specific aspects of UBC food system sustainability. „ Demonstration of students’ ability to propose and undertake food sustainability related initiatives or activities. „ Demonstration of students’ ability to propose and/or design recommendations to integrate food system sustainability initiatives into curriculums in diverse UBC course offerings. „ Efforts to determine the desirability of UBC population’s willingness to support local food, including willingness to pay more for local foods. „ Analysis of current food procurement practices of UBC food providers and potential (opportunities and challenges) for increasing procurement of local foods. „ Consensus building on the nature of the problem. „ Consensus building on the vision of where we want to go. „ Consensus building on the model of transition to sustainability of how we should get there. „ Consensus building on specific strategies to address obstacles. „ Consensus building on specific strategies to facilitate transitions towards a sustainable food system.  This Year at a Glance  2005 marked the fourth year of the UBCFSP. Based upon the findings of Years one, two, and three, students in the spring 2005 term were expected to work on one of five scenarios (including 2 sub-scenarios). Based upon their assigned scenario, students were asked to: (1) Provide reflections on our Vision Statement which outlines principles that should guide our transition towards a sustainable UBC food system; (2) Provide reflections and expand if necessary the problem statement assigned to them in the description of their   4 scenario; (3) Further develop and refine proposed research designs, campaigns, and action plans from 2004; (4) To either engage in actual data collection and/or develop detailed action plans for implementation in 2006, and (5) To provide recommendations for the next steps to appropriate partners and collaborators.  This paper is a summary of the work of 111 students, working in 16 groups, on one of five scenarios (including 2 sub-scenarios). The purpose of this paper is to integrate and summarize their findings and recommendations, prepare the groundwork for Year five, and facilitate initiatives among the UBCFSP partners and collaborators.  Key Findings  Vision Statement:  Overall, the majority of groups felt that the “2002-2004 Partner Consensus Version” of the Vision statement resonated well with their own vision of a sustainable UBC food system. However, a number of suggestions were made to improve the vision statement. The majority of group reflections consisted of suggestions to improve the clarity of specific guiding principles, such as by condensing or combining principles. A number of groups had experienced difficulty distinguishing between general principles from the detailed plans needed for its implementation, evident in group reflections that the vision statement is too “lofty”, “idealistic” or “utopian”. Specific suggestions that groups indicated about the content of the vision statement consisted of such issues as: defining “local” within the vision statement (Group 11); emphasizing the need for educational tools to foster awareness and understanding of the food system throughout the campus community (Group 12); defining how local, organic and fair trade food products should be prioritized, and emphasizing that “while there is a need to foster strong local food systems, these must be embedded within a global food system to fully meet humanity’s needs” (Group 11).  Definition of “Local” Foods:  9 out of 16 groups were asked to define what “local” food means to them in their group reports in an effort to establish clarity, and eventually consensus over the meaning of the term for the Project. Out of these 9 groups, 8 groups defined local as foods produced in BC (Groups 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 15, and 16). 2 of these groups also added that if foods could not be obtained in BC, then foods should be obtained from the next closest Canadian region, dubbing this either as semi-local (Group 15) or as local (Groups 1, 11). 1 group felt that too many factors are involved to come up with a single definition of local, and alternatively proposed that “foods relative locality be determined on a case by case basis, using indicators of sustainability” which “is inclusive of social, environmental and economic factors…such as food miles and methods of production, and not only encompass political borders” (Group 13).  Specific Findings: 2005 Spring Groups:  Scenario #1: Desirability of Re-localization (Group 8)  o One group conducted a pilot study to test a draft questionnaire to determine whether or not and to what extent UBC’s population is willing to buy local food, and whether or not UBC’s population is willing to pay more for local food, if deemed needed by food providers on a small sample of the perspective target population. The purpose of conducting the pilot study was to gather pilot’s feedback on the content of the questionnaire, the effectiveness of questionnaire design, and process of administration, which will inform preparation for developing an advanced methodology to launch a tested effective questionnaire with a representative sample in 2006. o A draft questionnaire was developed by Group 8 based upon discussions within their own group and on previous year’s proposed questionnaires by the Sauder School of Business fall 2004 Group, and former   5 AGSC 450 groups. Before launching their questionnaire to their sample, Group 8 distributed their draft questionnaire to the entire AGSC 450 class, consisting of 111 students for suggestions. Upon questionnaire return, the feedback was then analyzed and incorporated into a final questionnaire consisting of twelve questions to be distributed to their sample. See Appendix B for Group 8’s questionnaire o Two methods of administration were used in the pilot: 1. An electronic questionnaire was posted by Group 8 on the AGSC 450 course WebCT site for AGSC 450 students to respond. 2. Paper questionnaires were distributed face-to-face in the field to potential customers around the following campus food outlets: 99 Chairs, The Barn, Totem Park Cafeteria, the SUB, the UBC Hospital Cafeteria, , The University Village and outside the Buchanan complex. Questionnaires were administered by group members using quota sampling techniques, describe in their “Sampling Methods” section. o Response Rate: In the field survey a total of 49 individuals responded at food outlets across the campus. In the class survey, a total of 60 AGSC 450 students responded through WebCT. Thus, a total of 109 respondents participated.  Summary of Central Findings Category Results from both field and class questionnaires Results from field questionnaires (if available and/or notable) Demographics o Out of the 109 respondents, 89 were undergraduate students, 70 were female and 91 were between the ages of 19 to 30. 9 lived on campus with residences that provided food outlet services. N/A Food purchasing on campus o Out of the 109 participants, the majority (59) indicated that they purchase food on campus between 1 to 3 times per week. N/A Definition of local foods o Out of 109 participants, 46 believed that locally produced foods should be defined as “food produced in BC”. The majority of the class respondents indicated this to be the case, and no one left the question blank. o 18 out of 49 left the question blank or provided unrelated answers and 15 defined local as “food produced in BC”. Perceived benefits of local foods o “Indicated that the most commonly stated benefits of eating locally produced food included growing fresher and cheaper food and supporting local economic growth”. o 13 out of 49 respondents left this question blank. Perceived drawbacks of local foods o The most frequently cited drawbacks in eating locally produced food are that it is more expensive than imported food (28) and that there is less food choice because of the seasonal limitations of eating local (18). o 13 out of 49 respondents left this question blank. Perceived importance of geographic of political boundaries of food origin o 67 out of 109 found that the “country in which the food is produced” is more important that the “distance that food has traveled” and 41 found the opposite to be true.  o More than 2/3rds of the class respondents indicated that the “distance that food has traveled” is more important, and about 1/2 of the field respondents indicated the same. Purchasing behavior for foods that are labeled local versus labeled o 86 out of 109 felt that knowing that a food item was produced locally would encourage them to purchase it if it was the same price as an identical item outside of the province. o 14 out of 49 participants responded “neutral”.   6 non-local items Desire to see BC foods offered in UBC food outlets o 88 out of 109 respondents indicated that they would like to “see seasonal BC food items at UBC food outlets”.  o 18 out of 49 participants responded “neutral”. Willingness to pay more for local foods o Out of 109 responses, 43 participants would be willing to pay between 1-5% more for locally produced foods if necessary.  o 20 respondents out of 49 indicated that they would not be willing to pay more, and 29 indicated they would be able and/or are willing to pay more for locally produced foods if necessary. Top factors influencing  food purchasing choices o Out of 109 responses 89 chose “price”, 78 chose “quality”, and 59 chose “convenience” as criteria which influences their food purchasing choices the most. N/A Willingness to consume local foods at the cost of eating less imported foods o 44 out of 109 participants indicated that they would be willing to eat more locally produced foods at the cost of eating fewer imported foods. 36 out of 49 participants responded “neutral”.  o In the field questionnaire, 18 out of 49 participants indicated that they would be willing to eat more locally produced foods at the cost of eating fewer imported foods, and 17 out of 49 responded as “neutral” (Group 8).  Summary of Proposed Methodology for 2006 Target Population - Should include “all UBC food outlet customers, with the focus on the three major food providers that are involved in the UBCFSP, AMS Food and Beverage Department, UBC Food Service controlled food outlets, as well as those in the University Village” (Group 8). Sampling Method - A stratified random sampling method should be used that is proportional to the different market segments should be used since it allows for analysis of specific trends within each stratum. Sample Size - Should be approximately 400 respondents. Instruments of Data Collection - The questionnaire used in the pilot study in Appendix B should serve as the main instrument of data collection, with suggested revisions made prior to distribution. Methods of administration:  3 methods of administration were proposed to either be used separately or in conjunction with one another: (1) The questionnaire could be used as an interview guide for oral interviewing in 15- person focus groups. Focus groups could consist of random members of the target population and be facilitated by one interviewer. “Assuming a sample size of around 400, 27 of these focus groups would need to be held”, facilitated by at least 27 AGSC 450 students. (2) The questionnaire could be distributed by UBC food outlet staff to randomly selected customers. (3) The questionnaire could be distributed electronically via the web, such as through student services. Incentives:  - To encourage participants to participate in any of the above noted methods of administration, incentives could be provided to participants such as: gift certificates to the bookstore or food outlets. Follow Up - Since the pilot study’s results indicated that awareness about sustainability and local foods   7 among respondents was low,  upon questionnaire completion an information pamphlet about local food and sustainability should be distributed to participants “to increase their knowledge about local foods, sustainability and the importance of eating locally” (Group 8).  Scenario #2: Feasibility of Re-localization  Scenario 2a): Feasibility of Re-localization on Campus (Group 6)  o 100% of egg products purchased by UBCFS are locally produced in BC. o AMSFBD purchases 100% of shelled eggs from a BC source. o AMSFBD purchases 100% of liquid egg products from a Quebec based company. o UBCFS purchases approximately 100% of poultry products from BC sources. o AMSFBD purchases 100% of poultry products from BC and Canadian sources (Quebec, Ontario and Alberta). o Both AMSFBD and UBCFS purchase bread from 100% local BC bakeries. o 100% of chicken and egg products UBC food providers’ purchases are conventionally raised. o “For $0.62 more per Kg of whole chicken, UBCFS would be able to purchase free run whole chicken from Kidd Bros”. o UBCFS distributor purchases “90% of beef products…from Alberta, and the rest is from New Zealand and Uruguay”. o AMSFBD distributor “mainly purchases beef products from Alberta-based meat processors (XL Foods Ltd and Cargill Foods)” (Group 6).  Scenario 2b): Feasibility of Increasing Farm Provision of Specialty Items to UBC (Group 4)  o Coordinated the development of a list of items that Sage is interested in purchasing from the UBC Farm, and the feasibility of the UBC Farm to supply these items to Sage (see Appendix C) with representatives from Sage Bistro and the UBC Farm (Group 4). o Upon communication with representatives from Sage Bistro, found that they would like the Farm to develop their production in the form of a niche market of specialty items for Sage and restaurants alike in the area, guided by principles of “sell before you sow” (Group 4). o Also it was found that they would “like to see the farm diversify its production by growing herbs and perhaps edible flowers” (Group 4).  Scenario 2c): Feasibility of Supplying a Food Conference with Local Foods from UBC Farm (Groups 11, 15, 16)  o Working with Nancy Toogood (AMSFBD), UBC Farm staff and local food brokers and suppliers, 3 groups determined the catering requirements for 600-800 people in the eventuality that a conference is held at UBC requesting local foods. Each group designed menus, estimate food quantity requirements, established growing plans if necessary, and developed associated budgets.  Group 11: o Designed menus, and catering requirements for a Friday night reception, and for a Saturday: breakfast, snack, lunch, and dinner. The following distributors were selected to serve as the main food providers for the conference: UBC Farm, Discovery Organics and the Lower Mainland Vegetable Distributors. o The following conference theme: “Land, Food, and Community – Eat BC”, and menu theme: “Healthy Farm, Healthy Students with some Local West Coast Flare” was proposed. o The majority of recipes were selected from the Food Network Canada website. Recipes were selected based upon the following criteria: contained local and healthy items, gourmet-type recipes, farm specific   8 recipes, ability to “enhance the freshness and flavour of local foods”, and had a choice of vegetarian options. o The following UBC Farm products were selected as recipe ingredients: salad mix, beets, carrots, ground cherries and squash. Associated growing plans and quantity requirements were determined (Group 11).  Group 15: o Designed menus and catering requirements for a Saturday breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks. The following distributors were selected to serve as the main food providers for the conference: Discovery Organics, Hills Food, Sysco Vancouver, and the UBC Farm. o The following conference theme: “Fresh is Best” was proposed. o Recipes were selected for “functionality in regards to its locally supplied ingredients, the preparation time, cost, and the nutritional quality”. o The following UBC Farm products were selected to serve as recipe ingredients: carrots, garlic and onions. Associated growing plans and quantity requirements were determined (Group 15).  Group 16: o Designed menus and catering requirements for a Saturday breakfast, snack, lunch and dinner. The following distributors were selected to serve as the main food providers for the conference: UBC Farm, Discovery Organics, Lower Mainland Vegetable Distributors, Sysco Vancouver and a large miscellaneous national supplier1 . o The following menu theme: “summer lifestyle of the west coast” was proposed. o Recipes were selected using the following criteria: contained locally grown food, reflected the “summer lifestyle of the west coast”, and contained alternatives to red meat, such as Native west coast salmon. o The following UBC Farm products were selected to serve as recipe ingredients: squash, carrots, beets, ground cherry and salad greens. While associated quantity requirements were determined, no growing plans were provided. However, a contract was provided to “be secured by AMS Catering with the UBC Farm before the growing season begins to assure a set amount of food for the conference, including items, quantities, growing plans and staffing requirements” (Group 16).  Scenario #3: Education, Awareness and Re-localization (Groups 1, 7, 9, 13)  o 4 groups developed educational campaigns, including a set of educational pieces that would enhance the feasibility of re-localizing UBC’s food system by increasing awareness about the benefits of local foods. Each group provided the detailed steps required for its implementation, such as where, when, with whom, how, and associated costs for the campaign.  Group 1’s Proposed Educational Campaign Target Population • Includes “all individuals who purchase foods on campus including students, faculty and staff, with a special focus on first year students …[since] they will be at UBC for the longest period of time” Campaign Goals • To “generate awareness of the importance of locally produced foods and ensure the sustainability of the UBC food system”. What • A banquet was developed called the UBC “Sustainability Banquet”, which was designed to raise awareness about the benefits of local foods through providing “consumers with taste exposure to meals made with local foods” in the UBC SUB Ballroom. •  Tools to promote awareness of local foods sold on campus were developed to be distributed during the first of classes in September through the AMS Welcome Back BBQ, the Firstweek initiative sponsored by the UBC Alma Mater Society (AMS), and in Imagine UBC. • Promotional tools include: posters, slogan (“Eat Thoughtfully, Think Locally”), magnets,  1 Please note that this group neglected to indicate the actual name of this supplier.   9 stickers, banners and T-shirts, and a proposed UBCFSP website (See Appendix E). By/With Whom • The campaign will require future AGSC 450 students work with “AGSC 100 students as volunteers”, and “with the Alma Mater Society, UBC Food Services, and AMS Food and Beverage Department”. • The “Sustainability Banquet” can be promoted via UBC’s radio station CITR. When September 20062 (first week of classes): Campaign materials can be distributed through: (1) The AMS Welcome Back BBQ; (2) IMAGINE UBC, a student orientation program, and (3) a Firstweek initiative sponsored by the UBC AMS. September 22 and 24, 2006: Sustainability banquet3 will take place during Group 7’s “Food Week” festivities (described in Group 7’s “Proposed educational Campaign”).  Group 7’s Proposed Educational Campaign Target Population • Includes “all consumers of food and beverages at UBC”. Campaign Goal • To send clear, concise, and positive messages that emphasize the benefits of local food”, incorporating “the benefits of purchasing and consuming local foods in terms of social, economical and ecological aspects”. These messages will be delivered using “aesthetically pleasing visuals relevant to our target audience with a general slogan “Buy Fresh, Buy Local”. What • An awareness-building event was developed called “Food Week”, which will include food related events to be held in the Student Union Building (SUB) concourse. Events include raffle draws, a “Cooking with John Bishop” event, and special appearances by “representatives of the UBC Farm, Sage Bistro, and Sprouts”. • Promotional tools were developed to be distributed during “Food Week”, IMAGINE UBC and the Firstweek initiative sponsored by the UBC AMS. • Promotional tools include: posters, logo and slogan (“UBC Grown”), pamphlets, sticker labels and banners (See Appendix E). By/With Whom • Preparations for “Food Week” should be made by the 2006 AGSC 450 class. • “Food Week” could be promoted on the Beat radio station (94.5FM). • Pamphlets can be distributed throughout “Food Week”, “inside the Tupperware containers from the UBC residents association to UBC campus residence students”; incorporated into Frosh Kits by IMAGINE UBC student leaders, and be presented to the AGSC 100 class of September 2006. • Sticker labels (see Appendix E) can be placed on UBC Farm products sold at the Farm, and on products and menus at campus food provider outlets. When September 2006 (first week of classes): Campaign materials can be distributed through: (1) IMAGINE UBC and (2) the AMS sponsored Firstweek initiative. September 22 and 24, 2006: “Food Week” festivities will take place.  Group 9’s Proposed Educational Campaign Target Population • Includes “all workers employed by UBCFS, including management and purchasing personnel, supervisors, kitchen staff, and front-line workers”. Campaign Goal • To enhance awareness among UBC food workers on the benefits of buying and producing local foods on campus, selling local foods on campus menus, and how re-localization can  2 Note: Group 1 indicated in their paper that the campaign should occur during September 2005, based upon the assumption that a 2005 summer AGSC 450 class will be held. Since, no summer class was held this year; I have adjusted the timeline and planning for activities to September 2006. 3 Note: This group left out significant details in their paper required to plan and implement the “sustainability banquet”, such as who the participants will constitute, what and where food items will come from, etc.   10 enhance the economic, ecological and social sustainability of the food system. What • A local awareness building event was developed called the “UBC Local Food Cook-off” Competition, where participating UBCFS food worker teams design a locally made featured menu item that will be in competition with one another over the course of one week. Throughout the competition, appointed judges will make their way around to the various venues and sample each team’s local dish. “UBCFS workers will each be given five “50% off local meal coupons” for each of the five competing venues… to allow them to sample some of the local food creations for a reduced price”. Judges will evaluate the menu items based upon the following criteria: “sustainability, nutrition, taste, price and consumer responses” and the advertising used to promote the local menu item. Prizes will be awarded for first and second place. • Promotional tools were also developed to raise awareness about the benefits of local food and to promote the event including the following: posters, logos, pamphlets, buttons and aprons (See Appendix E). By/With Whom • UBC Local Food Cook-off “will be conducted concurrently at the five main cooking facilities operated by UBCFS—Place Vanier Residence, Totem Park Residence, Sage Bistro, 99 Chairs and Pacific Spirit Place in the Student Union Building”. One cooking team for each venue should be formed consisting of 4 people. • Proposed judges include: AGSC 450 Course Instructor, Vancouver Sun Food Critic, UBCFS Personal Wellness Program Dietician, Food Economics Professor, and UBCFS Director. • An information booth should be set up to make educational tools available. Booths “will rotate daily between the five food outlets, throughout the week-long competition.  This booth will have a volunteer representative of the AGSC 450 class who will be able to provide information about the local food system as well as the UBC Local Food Cook-off.  In addition, a worker from the UBC farm will assist in managing the booth and represent local food growers”. • Among the participating UBCFS outlets, each worker should receive a pamphlet which will “serve as useful references to supply the workers with an information base which can be readily conveyed to the customer during the local food competition, as well as in the future”. When March – April 2006 (5 weeks duration)  Group 13’s Proposed Educational Campaign Target Population • Includes all “staff members of the AMS Food and Beverage Department”. • The indirect target for the campaign “is the UBC community members who purchase food in the Student Union Building (SUB)”. Campaign Goal • To “increase interest in the sustainable food movement; especially among food workers in the hope of encouraging them to participate and take a personal stand to spread awareness”. What • A variety of promotional tools were developed to raise awareness about local food and sustainable food systems, which included the following: campaign logo and slogan (“Think Sustainable, Buy Local”), pamphlet, and resource binder. By/With Whom • Pamphlets should “be distributed out to all AMSFBD employees, although the pamphlets will be available to the customers as well and will be displayed at the cash register”. • Resource binders should “be placed at a convenient location at each AMSFBD outlet, and the sustainability ambassador will guide staff as to how to use the binder”. • The “AGSC 450 2006 students will be responsible for preparing, assembling, and delivering the resource binders based on our group’s sample prototype”. • “Each AMSFBD establishment is encouraged to add their own special features” to the binder. When February to April 2006 (7 weeks)   11 Scenario #4: Exploring Existing Opportunities that Enhance and/or Barriers that Impinge on the Sustainability of the UBC Food System within Current Campus Community Plans (Groups 3, 5, 12, 14)  o 4 groups explored whether or not the current form of urban development being implemented and/or proposed in campus plans (Comprehensive Community Plan (CCP), Official Community Plan (OCP), South Campus Neighbourhood Plan (SCNP), and/or Main Campus Plan (MCP)) is enhancing or hindering the transition towards the sustainability of the UBC food system.  Analysis of Official Community Plan (OCP) o The OCP “fails to adequately define ecological sustainability”, “does not address the importance of ecological functions”, and “neglects to address food security, a key component of a sustainable community” (Group 12). o The planning process could be enhanced by clear definitions of “food security”, “greenways”, “complete communities”, and a sustainable food system (OCP) (see Appendix F for proposed amendments to the OCP sections)(Group 12).  Analysis of Comprehensive Community Plan (CCP) o The “eight Principles for Physical Planning, which are the standards against which to measure development on campus, do not make sufficient mention of either sustainability or food security on campus” (Group 12). o Within the “Livable Region Strategic Plan” “there is no mention of incorporating a sustainable food system” (Group 5). o It is “imperative that the type of commercial food outlet be well defined in the appropriate section to ensure locally owned, environmentally and socially responsible food outlets (see Appendix F for proposed amendments to the CCP sections) (Group 12). o While “several initiatives for reducing UBC’s dependence on the GVRD for water supply were mentioned, this plan addresses the quantity but not the quality of water outflow.  The water flowing out of the University Endowment Lands is not only contaminated with the hydrocarbons associated with heavy car traffic, but also the many chemical pesticides used on property landscaping, that contaminate the water outflow.  A plan for reducing chemical landscaping should be considered” (Group 12). o Proposed an “Urban Agricultural Strategy” to be incorporated in the CCP. The vision in creating an urban agriculture strategy at UBC is one which “emphasizes edible landscaping, [in turn] enticing community members to become involved in their immediate environment and how it connects to the food system.  Students and faculty, can take this stronger connection into their own education and research. Benefits, challenges and strategies for implementation of the strategy are outlined (Group 12). o Strategic actions were proposed to create an “Edible UBC Campus” to be enacted in conjunction with the UBC Farm. These actions include the following: demonstration garden, designated garden areas, greenways and open space, food production on buildings, waste management and agriculture and landscaping management considerations” (Group 12).  Analysis of the South Campus Neighbourhood Plan (SCNP) o Significant opportunities were discovered in the South Campus Neighbourhood Plan to propose “specific and practical projects that contribute to the sustainability of food production, distribution, consumption and waste management” such as: project opportunities for rooftop gardens, community gardens, school gardens, the South Campus Neighbourhood “Village Grocery Store”, and composting in the SCNP. Benefits, challenges and implementation strategies were proposed for each (Group 5).  Analysis of Main Campus Plan (MCP) o The “sustainability concept in current academic discourse [social, economic and ecological components] is not present in any form in the mission statement” in the MCP (Group 3).   12 o The MCP is typical for campus planning for the time, and “exemplifies how traditional urban planning is primarily concerned with the land use relationships between built forms and the physical environment. The MCP focuses on planning for institutional infrastructure and not the food system” (Group 14). o Three key areas have been identified for planning successful urban agriculture into the MCP and the UBC main campus: (1) Micro-gardens; (2) Education and Community Involvement; and (3) Waste Management (Group 3). o A “Supplementary Food System Plan” was proposed where specific principles and strategies for its implementation are outlined. The following principles are proposed: (1) Increase the physical capacity of the UBC campus to support the growing of food; (2) Increase the amount of food consumed at UBC that is produced both organically and locally; (3) Encourage practices that manage waste flows in a more sustainable manner; (4) Encourage the celebration of food and the local food system at UBC; (5) Encourage food consumed at UBC that is produced in other regions or countries to be produced under ethical and environmentally sustainable practices; (6) Increase the capacity of UBC to provide or support basic food security initiatives for the local community, and (7) Ensure that there is adequate distribution of food facilities on campus along with corresponding actions. This plan, along with the addendums to the MCP “can help to guide the campus into developing a sustainable food system”. The MCP will act as an umbrella to enable the supplementary plan, and suggestions discussed there within, to be implemented” (Group 14).  Scenario #5: UBC Farm: Exploring Alternative Routes to Enhanced Viability (Groups 2, 10)  o Two groups explored ways that the UBC Farm can become a financially viable operation either through Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), forming contractual agreements with campus and off-campus food providers, and/or adopting alternative production plans, while at the same time serving as a place for learning, action and a site of sustainable agriculture.  Increasing Existing Collaboration with Campus Food Providers and Creating New Business Collaborations with Off-Campus Food Providers o It was found that Sage is committed to buying “as much produce as [the Farm] can grow” (Group 2). o An introductory survey of fine-cuisine restaurants in the Point Grey community was developed [see Appendix B] to assess what special produce from the UBC Farm might be desired by chefs at 3 restaurants. After talking to the Food Import Manager of Provence Mediterranean Grill, it was “found that he would be interested in purchasing specialty food items and regular produce from the UBC Farm”. It was also found that the Naam “is interested in buying organic crops from the Farm.  However, they are not interested in the purchase of specialty items, which are too exotic for their cuisine. Instead, they would like to purchase items such as potatoes and onions” (Group 2).  Proposed Agroforestry Opportunities for the UBC Farm: o Responses from the Survey indicated that “there is a potential local market for non-timber forest products”. These responses as well as secondary research conducted suggested that edible native plant production (elderberry, soapberry, wild onion, wild ginger, etc.), mushroom production, and landscape tree/herb/shrub production could profitably satisfy a local niche market and could create exciting research opportunities (Small Woodlands Program of BC, 2001 in Group 2).  Proposed Alternative and Enhanced Production Plans for the UBC Farm  Animal Production: o It was found that “currently in BC, the demand for specialty eggs (particularly organic, free range) exceeds the supply (BC Egg Producers Association, 2005)” (Group 2).   13 o If the UBC Farm wished to increase its flock to increase its market share, they would have to increase labour and infrastructure investments, since the “current hen house cannot accommodate more than 85 birds and higher egg volume would require more handling” (Group 2).  Expand current Production for Specialty Item Production: o Given the “constraint of limited cultivatable lands on the UBC Farm, planting specialty crops that yield higher profit appears to be one of the most efficient ways to improve the profitability of the UBC Farm” (Group 2). Below is list of potential ways to increase production and Farm revenue:  Using 3 hectares of the currently uncultivated land: o Increase production of specialty items by guaranteeing an expanded local market for these items. A marketing team could be hired to “contact potential major customers and advertise for the UBC Farm in the local neighborhood… as well as to establish better communications on the types and availability of produce at the UBC Farm” to facilitate increased market collaboration (Justin Faubert, Provence Mediterranean Bar and Grill, personal communication, March 22, 2005 in Group 2). o “Investments should be made on research of suitable production methods for some of the high-margin, high-demand crops such as shiitake mushrooms and oyster mushrooms, which were either produced unsuccessfully in the past or have not yet been attempted” (Group 2).  Using the remaining 2 hectares of uncultivated land: o The remaining 2 hectares of uncultivated land should be used to produce strawberries for the following reasons: o “There is a great demand for strawberries in Canada. Presently, Canada consumes far more strawberries than it produces, thus importing the majority of purchasable strawberries from California, Florida, Poland and Mexico. o Strawberries have the fastest positive return in three years with the lowest initial cost during the first two years. Under the current circumstances, this is exactly what the UBC Farm needs, fast returns with low investment. o Strawberry farm-sale prices have increased by 42% over the last four years” (BCMAFF in Group 2).  Proposed Ideas for Integrating the CSA Program into UBC curriculum: Immediate Opportunities: o Using this data generated from the UBC Farm’s current pilot CSA project, a number of case studies were proposed that can be integrated into UBC classes. A few examples of case studies are the following: (1) Food, Nutritional and Health students could be given data generated from the pilot project to create menus for the following CSA iteration, since “a common complaint of people who receive food boxes is that they are not sure what to do with all of the vegetables that they receive in their boxes, and therefore it would be useful to include recipes in the boxes each week. (2) Food, Resource and Economic (FRE) students can research a case dealing with the economic success of a CSA program as compared to years without the program in place, or include the program in a small business management plan for the UBC Farm” (Group 10). Longer-term Opportunities: o The UBC Farm should implement “a field course for Agroecology students that would span the entire growing season, similar to the eight month apprenticeship offered at the University of California in Santa Cruz (CASFS)” that has been already discussed at recent meetings of the Farm Advisory Council (Group 10). The “CSA program creates a great framework for the easy integration of this season-long course   14 (CASFS), and the course can track the progress of the CSA”. Suggested components for the course are proposed (Group 10).  Key Recommendations  UBC Campus Sustainability Office (CSO): • Should “continue to support the Farm through social marketing and educational campaigns in the UBC community as we are a leader in campus sustainability initiatives in Canada (CSO, 2005) and the Farm is a significant component of a sustainable vision at UBC” (Group 16).  UBC Food Services (UBCFS): • Should “consider purchasing free-run whole chicken from Kidd Bros” for $0.62 more per Kg of whole chicken (Group 6). • Should “consider making this educational campaign an annual event when planning the UBCFS budget” (see Scenario 3, Group 9). • Should “promote UBC Grown foods at Sage Bistro as well as at other campus food outlets. They can do this by using the “UBC Grown” logo beside menu items featuring UBC Farm products” (Group 7). • Should “continue to increase the percentage of local food usage in all UBCFS outlets” (Group 9). • Should upgrade their website to “reflect their involvement with the re-localization project” (Group 13) and also offer a section on the website that describes their current sustainability initiatives (author).  AMS Food and Beverage Department (AMSFBD): • Should upgrade the AMS website to “reflect their involvement with the re-localization project” (Group 13) and also offer a section on the website that describes their current sustainability initiatives (author). • Should consider purchasing chicken thighs, breaded chicken filets, and cooked diced chicken from local BC producers (Group 6). • Should consider purchasing liquid eggs from a local BC producer (Group 6). • AMS Catering should “continue to work with AGSC 450 students and Farm staff in developing a model that can be used to market future conferences” supplied with UBC Farm products (Group 15).  AMSFBD and UBCFS: • Should consider purchasing free-range eggs from Kidd Bros., and raising retail prices slightly to offset increased egg costs (author). • Should “promote local foods at all catering events and to use items grown on the UBC Farm when possible” (Group 16). • Should review and consider implementing proposed educational campaigns, or at least consider implementing components of them (See Scenario 3, Groups 1, 9, 7, and 13 for detailed proposed educational tools and campaigns).  UBC Waste Management: • Should work with Campus and Community Planning to implement a waste management strategy on the Main Campus of UBC, where the institutional area in the “Main Campus could include  a comprehensive composting program, much like the program proposed for the future Southeast False Creek site and currently in use on the SFU campus” (Group 3). • “Multi-purpose containers with three different compartments for garbage, compost and recycling should be scattered across the campus” (Group 3).  UBC Farm:   15 • Should “be involved with “Food Week” through the donation of produce to the cooking competition. They can also help to raise awareness about local food by handing out pamphlets and educating the public at weekly markets. The UBC Farm can also use the “UBC Grown” logo on all their food that they sell at the Saturday markets” (Group 7). • Should resume research on high profit and demand items that have proven unsuccessful in the past, such as exotic mushrooms (Group 2). ƒ Should establish a marketing team to further promote specialty items and enhance relations with current and potential restaurant buyers both on and off campus (Group 2). ƒ Should expand the production of their free-range organically produced eggs (Group 2). ƒ Should create a summer youth camp to increase farm revenue, agricultural learning’s and fun (Group 2). • Should further explore the potential for strawberry and greenhouse production (Group 2).  UBC Farm and Sage Bistro: ƒ Should consider advertising and/or increase advertising about their products, services and events though: UBC newspapers and publications, flyers and posters, and generating emails through faculties and student services (Group 4). ƒ Should compose and agree upon a written contract that outlines a mutually symbiotic business arrangement between the 2 stakeholders, which includes: (1) a list of desirable products that can be grown on the UBC Farm that Sage would like to purchase; (2) a set of common product prices; (3) a method of delivery transport that is cost-effective, efficient and sustainable, and (4) a list of risk-sharing potentials (Group 4). ƒ Should explore the potential to create a culinary school, where the facilities at Sage are used and UBC Farm products are purchased and used (Group 2).  Sprouts: • Should use the “UBC Grown” logo to showcase produce from the UBC Farm (Group 7). • Should develop an intensive marketing strategy to increase awareness of its services, which could potentially lead them to purchase more specialty items from the UBC Farm (Group 2).  UBC Campus and Community Planning (CCP): ƒ Should consider incorporating our proposed addendums to the MCP, and adopting the “Supplementary Food Plan” as well as incorporate other sustainability initiatives as deemed fit (Group 14). ƒ Should consider formulating and implementing a “food and agricultural” strategy which “includes specific guidelines for actions address the following five components: Community gardens, school gardens, rooftop gardens, local food procurement, and waste management” (Group 5). ƒ Should consider implementing our strategic actions in our proposed “Urban Agriculture Strategy”, and other proposed amendments to the CCP and the OCP to include food, “water, air, transportation, and waste management” components to plans (See Appendix F) (Group 12).  Faculty of Land and Food Systems: ƒ The Faculty should further engage themselves and advertise to UBC students that they can earn academic credits for work done on the Farm (Group 2). ƒ Should “use the data generated from the CSA pilot project to incorporate more case studies of the UBC Farm into Agroecology, FRE and FNH classes” (Group 10).  AGSC 450 2006 Colleagues: • Based upon Group 8’s three proposed methods of administration, determine the best administration method for the questionnaire.   16 • Develop information pamphlets about local food and sustainability and distribute to respondents upon questionnaire completion (Group 8). • Launch “a strong marketing campaign to inform the public about issues to increase their desire, willingness and capacity to purchase local foods” (Group 8). • Investigate potential local beef producers, processors and suppliers who would be interested in meeting the large beef product demands of UBC (author). • Investigate further potential animal product suppliers that can supply UBC food providers with affordable sustainably produced foods (for medium, large and liquid ideally Free-Range eggs; for whole Free-range whole chicken, and for ideally Free-Range (if not then Free-Run) chicken parts (author). • Further build upon Group 4’s list of food items that Sage is interested in purchasing that can be grown on the UBC Farm (see Appendix C)(Group 4). • Investigate ways that the UBC Farm can expand its market to other campus food outlets, such as those in the Student Union Building, The Barn, etc. (Group 4). • “Further investigate local distributors to increase [menu] options” (Group 11). • Based upon the items already investigated, further investigate potential items that the UBC Farm can provide for future local food conferences. Re-assess current menu item choices, planning and prices accordingly (Group 11). • In “order to ensure subsequent funding in years to come, it is recommended to assess the effectiveness of the educational campaign. Future groups should consider conducting an evaluation of awareness of local food issues in the UBC population previous to and following the campaign with pre- and post-test surveys”(Group 7). • Should gather feedback from AMSFB staff regarding how they feel about the campaign, whether it can be improved, and whether the resource guide has been useful or not.  Feedback can be gathered through the distribution of a simple survey or through interviews. Feedback collected can be used to update the pamphlet and resource binder to enhance the effectiveness of these tools (Group 13). • Should consider expanding the scope of the “Local Food Cook-off” competition to involve AMS Food and Beverage Department” (Group 9). • Should be provided with “the opportunity to work more closely with UBC Properties Trust and Campus and Community Planning so that a realistic and mutually beneficial plan may be created”, such as our proposed “Urban Agriculture Strategy”, or other proposed amendments to include food, “water, air, transportation, and waste management” components to plans (Group 12). • Work together with “other faculties, such as Engineering and the School of Community and Regional Planning, to increase the food sustainability on campus” (Group 14). • Should “summarize the data collected from the summer 2005 pilot CSA project and make recommendations on box size(s), box prices, produce selection, land needs, and more efficient organization practices for the 2006 CSA program” (Group 10).  Key Strengths and Weaknesses  The main strengths in the UBCFSP this year included a high level of student enthusiasm for the project, and the overall quality of creative ideas and findings that emerged from group’s work on their scenarios. The main weaknesses in the UBCFSP this year included a lack of understanding among many groups regarding the difference between a vision statement and the detailed plans needed for its implementation; a lack of clarity about which file formats to use in submitting papers, and the strong need felt among many groups for more time to be allocated to work on their scenarios earlier, due to many time lapses experienced in waiting for participant responses which were necessary for groups to move comfortably forward in other related tasks.      17 INTRODUCTION  A UBC Food System Project (UBCFSP) was created in 2001 in an effort to improve the sustainability of UBC’s food system. While, many sustainable initiatives were unfolding on campus, none dealt directly with the food system, hence the development of the UBCFSP emerged. The UBCFSP is a Community Based Action Research Project initiated jointly between the Faculty of Land and Food Systems (formerly Faculty of Agricultural Sciences) and Social Ecological Economic Development Studies Program (SEEDS). The Project is radially organized involving a multiple partners and collaborators: UBC Food Services, UBC Waste Management, UBC Farm, UBC Sage Bistro, UBC Campus and Community Planning, UBC Campus Sustainability Office (CSO), SEEDS, Faculty of Land and Food Systems (AGSC 450 students and teaching team), and the Alma Mater Society Food and Beverage Department (AMSFBD). This year the UBCFSP expanded to include Campus and Community Planning and the Sauder School of Business as collaborators, and Sage Bistro as a project partner.  The goals of the UBCFSP are:  1. To conduct a UBC food system sustainability (social, ecological and economic) assessment. 2. To identify barriers that impinges on the ability of UBC food system partners and collaborators to make desired transitions towards sustainability. 3. To create a shared vision, among UBCFSP actors, of a sustainable UBC food system and  express it in the form of consensus-based guiding principles 4. To develop a shared model, among UBCFSP actors, of our transition towards a sustainable UBC food system, including specific goals, steps and benchmarks to assess progress in the transition toward sustainability. 5. To develop opportunities and articulate recommendations for UBCFSP actors to enhance the sustainability of the UBC food system. 6. To implement measures collectively deemed necessary to facilitate transitions towards UBC food system sustainability (Richer, 2004).  The project officially commenced in 2002, and has a minimum 5 year plan. The UBCFSP is part of an AGSC 450 Land, Food and Community III course, one of three interdisciplinary series courses that share a focus on sustainability and food system issues, and is required for all Faculty of Land and Food Systems undergraduate students. Students are assigned specific case scenarios in which they must work collaboratively in groups to develop plans for sustainability transitions in our food system. Each year students must build off the work of previous years of the project, in turn creating an immense collective memory that grows each year. Students work is summarized each summer by the UBCFSP Coordinator, who integrates the findings in a paper, and presents key aspects from the report in a summer workshop where all UBCFSP partners and collaborators are invited. Comments are elicited from partners and collaborators at this workshop, and the Coordinator integrates them and proposes recommendations to the Project Investigators, partners and collaborators as well as the Teaching Team to produce the scenarios for the next iteration of the project.  Below is a summary of the primary objectives, tasks, and deliverables for each year of the UBCFSP to date. Links to each year’s summary of findings are also provided below.  Year 1: Spring 2002    18 Primary Objectives:  1. Begin conceptualization of what is required to assess the sustainability of the food system. 2. Conduct a very preliminary assessment of UBC’s food system.  Tasks:  • Using an exploratory approach, 150 AGSC 450 students (17 teams) and the AGSC 450 teaching team began the ambitious task of conducting the first stage of a UBC food system assessment. Working from one of seventeen scenarios (see the UBCFSP website: http://www.agsci.ubc.ca/courses/agsc/450/project for a full description), students were assigned the following tasks: 1. Conduct a preliminary assessment of 1 aspect of the sustainability of the UBC food system. 2. Propose research methods, indicators and make recommendations to relevant partners and collaborators.  Deliverables:  • Results were presented in both written and oral format. Findings were presented in a 25 minute oral presentation, where students had to present both their findings, using a corresponding website they designed to the class and invited UBCFSP guests.  Summary of Findings:  • In the summer, student findings were integrated by the Project Coordinator into a report, and presented in meetings with Project partners and collaborators. •  A summary of findings for Year 1 can be found in Brunetti, A. 2002. Biting into Sustainability: The 2002 UBC Food System Collaborative Project Report. Online at: http://www.agsci.ubc.ca/courses/agsc/450/project  Year 2: Spring 2003  Primary Objectives:  1. Begin to come up with a vision of what a sustainable UBC food system should look like. 2. Begin to develop models which outline the steps necessary required to make transitions to the vision.  Tasks:  • Based upon the findings of Year One, 151 AGSC 450 students (20 teams) and the AGSC 450 teaching team began the task of developing a research methodology and design of what they thought would act as a tool in assessing the sustainability of the UBC food system. Working from one case (see the UBCFSP website: http://www.agsci.ubc.ca/courses/agsc/450/project for a full description), students were assigned the following tasks:   19 1. Begin to come up with a vision regarding what a sustainable UBC food system should look like. 2. Begin to develop a model (steps necessary to make transitions towards the vision). 3. Working off 1 case, identify principles, procedures, indicators, system maps for future work.  Deliverables:  • Results were presented in both written and oral format. Findings were presented in a 25 minute oral presentation, where students had to present both their findings, using a corresponding website they designed to the class and invited UBCFSP guests.  Summary of Findings:  • In the summer, student findings were integrated by the Project Coordinator into a report, and presented in meetings with Project partners and collaborators. • A summary of findings for Year 2 can be found in Bouris, K. 2003. 2003 UBC Food System Collaborative Project: Summary of Findings. Online at: http://www.agsci.ubc.ca/courses/agsc/450/project  Year 3: Spring, Summer & Fall 2004  A regular 4 month spring term AGSC 450 course was held, as well as the first time offering of a 3 week intensive summer term AGSC 450 course. In the fall, 1 group from the Sauder School of Business took part in a UBCFSP scenario.  Year 3: Spring 2004  Primary Objectives:  1. To achieve consensus on a vision of a sustainable food system. 2. To achieve consensus on a model of a sustainable food system. 3. To develop research methodologies to set the stage for assessment.  Tasks:  • Based upon the findings of Year 1 and 2, a total of 143 students were divided into 20 working groups, and along with the teaching team, began to explore UBC food system sustainability in greater depth. • Working from one of eight scenarios (see the UBCFSP website: http://www.agsci.ubc.ca/courses/agsc/450/project for a full description), students were assigned the following tasks: 1. Begin an attempt to reach a shared consensus in regards to what a sustainable UBC food system should look like (vision). 2. Begin an attempt to reach consensus in regards to how we should make transitions to the vision (model).   20 3. To test applicability of groups preferred models, principles, indicators, research designs on 1 of 8 assigned scenarios that reflected “very real problems needing investigation to better identify the actions needed to move the UBC food system towards sustainability” (Rojas, Wagner & Richer, Summer 2004).  Deliverables:  • Results were presented in both written and oral format. The written report was supposed to constitute a 15 page paper plus appendices, table of contents, tables, abstract and bibliographies. Findings were presented in a 25 minute oral presentation, where students had to present both their findings and their website to the class and invited UBCFSP guests. • On the second last day of classes, all groups presented their papers and websites to the entire class and teaching team. On the last day of class, all groups submitted their reports and 4 of the best presenting groups that were selected by the teaching team with input from the class, presented their findings and website to the class, as well as UBCFSP partners who could attend.  Summary of Findings:  • In the summer, student findings were integrated by the Project Coordinator into a report, and presented in a workshop with Project partners and collaborators. • A summary of findings for Year 3 can be found in Richer, Liska. 2004: Making paths towards a just, sustainable and food secure UBC food system: 2004 UBC Food System Project (UBCFSP) report. Available online: http://www.agsci.ubc.ca/courses/agsc/450/project  Year 3: Summer 2004  Primary Objectives:  1. To refine the vision of a sustainable UBC food system. 2. To refine the chosen best model of a sustainable UBC food system. 3. To refine proposed research designs from the spring term to set the stage for data collection.  Tasks:  • Based upon the findings of Year 1, 2, and 3, a total of 12 students were divided into 4 working groups, and along with the teaching team began to explore UBC food system sustainability in greater depth. • Working from one of two scenarios (and 2 sub-scenarios) (see the UBCFSP website: http://www.agsci.ubc.ca/courses/agsc/450/project for a full description), students were assigned the following tasks:  1. Further develop and refine proposed research designs since 2002 to enable 2005 class to engage in actual data collection. 2. Develop an advanced methodology for 2 scenarios. 3. Make recommendations on how to better refine the chosen best model and vision.  Deliverables:   21 • Results were presented in both written and oral format. The written report consisted of a 25 page report including appendices, abstract, table of contents and bibliographies. Findings were presented in a 25 minute oral presentation, where students presented their findings using a PowerPoint presentation to the class and teaching team. Presentations took place on the last day of classes, and reports were submitted shortly thereafter.  Summary of Findings:  • In the summer, student findings were integrated by the Project Coordinator into a report, and presented in a workshop with Project partners and collaborators. • A summary of findings for Year 3 can be found in Richer, Liska. 2004: Making paths towards a just, sustainable and food secure UBC food system: 2004 UBC Food System Project (UBCFSP) report. Available online: http://www.agsci.ubc.ca/courses/agsc/450/project  Year 3: Fall 2004  • 5 UBC Sauder School of Business students (1 group) were given the task to design a marketing campaign to promote local foods with UBC Food Services. Project report can be found online at: www.sustain.ubc.ca  Year 4: Spring 2005  Primary Objectives:  1. To prepare detailed action plans to be implemented in 2006 and/or actual engage in actual data collection. 2. To refine and propose research designs. 3. To define what constitutes local foods.  Tasks:  • Based upon the findings of Year 1, 2, 3, and 4 a total of 111 students were divided into 16 working groups, and along with the teaching team began to explore UBC food system sustainability in greater depth. • Working from one of five scenarios (including 2 sub-scenarios) listed in Table 1 below, (see Appendix A for a full description), students were assigned the following tasks:  1. Provide reflections on our Vision Statement which outlines principles that should guide our transition towards a sustainable UBC food system should look like. 2. Provide reflections and expand if necessary the problem statement assigned to them in the description of their scenario. 3. Further develop and refine proposed research designs, campaigns, and action plans from 2004. 4. To either engage in actual data collection and/or develop detailed action plans for implementation in 2006.   22 5. To provide recommendations for the next steps to appropriate partners and collaborators.  Table 1: 2005 Scenario Assignments SCENARIO TITLE GROUPS ASSIGNED Scenario #1: Desirability of Re-localization  (Group 8) Scenario #2:  Scenario 2a) Scenario 2b)  Scenario 2c) Feasibility of Re-localization  Feasibility of Re-localization on Campus Feasibility of Increasing Farm Provision of Specialty Items to UBC Feasibility of Supplying a Food Conference with Local Foods from UBC Farm (Group 4, 6, 11, 15, 16) (Group 6) (Group 4)  (Group 11, 15, 16) Scenario #3: Education, Awareness and Re-localization  (Group 1, 7, 9, 13) Scenario #4: Exploring Existing Opportunities that Enhance and/or Barriers that Impinge on the Sustainability of the UBC Food System within Current Campus Community Plans (Group 3, 5, 12, 14) Scenario #5: UBC Farm: Exploring Alternative Routes to Enhanced Viability (Group 2, 10)  Deliverables:  • The final group projects were presented in both written and oral format. The written report consisted of approximately 25 pages. Findings were presented in a 25 minute oral presentation, where groups were asked to present their project using a PowerPoint presentation to the class and teaching team. Presentations took place on the last day of classes, and reports were submitted shortly thereafter.  Purpose of this paper:  In total 16 group papers were prepared by AGSC 450 in spring 2005. This amounted to approximately 49 pages of findings, proposed methodologies, action plans, and recommendations, based upon 5 scenarios (including 2 sub-scenarios).  The purpose of this paper is threefold:  (1) To integrate and summarize key findings and recommendations developed by AGSC 450 students involved in the UBCFSP in 2005. (2) To aid in preparing the groundwork required for Year 5 (AGSC 450, spring 2006) of the project. (3) To aid in initiating, strengthening and coordinating communications and initiatives among UBCFSP partners and collaborators.  Project Methodology and Design  Methodological Perspective:   23  Community Based Action Research (CBAR) serves as the overarching methodological perspective in the UBCFSP. CBAR can be defined as an “inquiry or investigation that provides people with the means to take systematic action to resolve specific problems”; it enables “people (a) to investigate systematically their problems and issues, (b) to formulate powerful and sophisticated accounts of their situations, and (c) to devise plans to deal with the problems at hand” (Stringer, 1999). The tasks of CBAR are to capture participants’ pluralistic voices and to situate their experiences within larger contexts. The goals of CBAR are to produce knowledge through open discourse; produce action and change, and to give research back to the community in which it originated. The process of CBAR is an iterative one, whereby research is conducted through a “look, think, act” routine, which involves a “constant process of observation, reflection and action” (Stringer, 1999).  Methods of Data Collection:  Methods of data collection that have been used by AGSC 450 students throughout the project consist of the following:  Secondary sources: Students review an array of secondary sources ranging from: required and recommended course readings, materials from the AGSC 450 course WebCT site, and electronic and written material from UBCFSP partners and collaborators. The AGSC 450 WebCT site contained archives of all previous AGSC 450 students’ papers and presentations involved in the UBCFSP, relevant reports, articles and links to websites helpful to their scenarios, general tasks posted by the teaching team, and summaries of UBCFSP findings from previous years (Richer, 2004).  Presentations: Students are provided with the opportunity to obtain information from invited course guest speakers, who typically give a brief presentation to the class and then open the floor for questions and discussion. Guest speakers throughout the term have included representative’s form UBC Food Services, Alma Mater Society Food and Beverage Department, UBC Campus Sustainability Office (CSO), UBC Social Economic Ecological Environmental and Development Studies (SEEDS), Faculty of Land and Food Systems, UBC Farm, UBC Campus and Community Planning (CCP), Masters in Landscape Architecture Program, local food distributors (Discovery Island Organics, Small Potatoes Urban Delivery (SPUD)), Dieticians of Canada, and the City of Vancouver Social Planning and City of Vancouver Food Policy Council (Richer, 2004).  Informal and formal interviews: Students have conducted informal and formal email, telephone and face-to-face interviews with informants including UBCFSP partners, collaborators, other UBC stakeholders, and product distributors, retailers and organizations (Richer, 2004).  Questionnaires: Students have developed and distributed questionnaires to UBCFSP partners, collaborators and to UBC students (addressing the desirability and willingness to pay for local foods and feasibility of local foods, food eating habits).  Project Design:   24 In the UBCFSP, AGSC 450 students (assigned in groups between 3-8 people depending upon size of the class) are primarily responsible for designing, conducting research and planning initiatives. Other UBCFSP partners are involved namely in designing and planning initiatives, and i persons. The AGSC 450 teaching team primarily acts as resource persons, planning the entire project based upon student work and discussions with Diagram 1 below for a visual depiction of our radially organized team of partners  Diagram 1: The Radial Model* Applied to the UBC Food System Project     * D Overview of General Proble iagram based on Stevenson et al. (1994) “Radially organized teams” mo m Definition Satell ite  Satell ite Satell ite  Satell ite  Satell ite Satell ite   Hub  Axle Spoke What: Means of comm Activities: To use ema meetings and annual wo communicate inquires p concerns, plan upcomin Axle Who: ƒ Principal and Co-Investigators: Faculty of Land and Food Systems (AGSC 450 teaching team and students), Campus Sustainability Office, Social, Ecological, Economic Development Studies. ƒ UBCFSP Coordinator Role: Administrative Center Activities: To facilitate, administer and coordinate research projects, write reports and facilitate funding Who: UBCFSP partner Department, UBC Food Management, UBC Cam Ecological, Economic D Land and Food Systems collaborators: Campus a Sauder School of Busin What: Steering and Su Role: To help develop suggestions and contin satellite activities with th Satellite Who: AGSC 450 students and teaching team and Sauder School of Business students. What: Individual and group researchers Role  : To work on research projects by conducting literature reviews, collecting data, designing and implementing initiatives, and developing recommendations to Axle and Hub for future projects, etc.  satellite research compo day-to-day management   n acting as resource facilitators, and in  stakeholders. See  and collaborators: s unication il, telephone, rkshops, to rogress, g initiatives, etc. del Hub s: AMS Food and Beverage Services, UBC Farm, UBC W pus Sustainability Office, Soc evelopment Studies, Faculty , and UBC Sage Bistro and nd Community Planning an ess class aste ial,  of d pport Committee project vision, to provide u e axle, provide support to the ous feedback on proposed new nents, and to help the axle with . 25   UBCFSP was initiated in 2001 because of the lack of integration ofTh UBC’s campus sustainability policy, and has continued because of growing realities that transitions e  food and related issues in  need to be made in many areas in UBC’s food system, which can be viewed as a microcosm of the   All flections on the UBCFSP Vision Statement. of a sus am look like?”  Specifically, groups were asked to “briefly indicate whether they agree or disagree with e principles and identify anything that should be added to or taken away from the principles” rsions of the ision Statement that have been developed: (1) “2002-2004 Partner Consensus Version” and (2) ese responses, ranked the most frequently ited, and extracted commonalities between them, and then worked with the Principal Investigator to tement. As a result, a vision statement was formed, e attributes that should guide us towards our vision. er UBCFSP Stakeholder r vision of a sustainable his version, a “Plain Language” Vision pus Sustainability Office (CSO). Input ent groups will be discussed at the 2005 summer UBCFSP Stakeholder orkshop to determine whether adjustments in the vision statement are needed. global food system to increase its sustainability. Summary of Group Reflections on the Vision Statement for a Sustainable UBC Food System (7 Guiding Principles)  groups this term were assigned the task to provide re We have defined a vision statement as a synthesis of ideas that describes the attributes tainable food system. It tells us “Where do we want to go?” and “What does our common dre th (Rojas, Richer and Wagner, 2005). Groups were asked to provide comment on two ve V “Plain Language” version. The vision statement is based upon student responses elicited from years 2002-2004. In 2004 the UBCFSP Coordinator listed th c articulate these responses into a formal vision sta consisting of 7 guiding principles, which are thos This vision statement provided below was presented in 2004 at the summ Workshop to determine whether consensus could be reached about what ou UBC food system looks like – and we did. Based upon t Statement was developed by a representative from the Cam elicited from this year’s stud W  Vision Statement for a Sustainable UBC Food System: 2002-2004 Partner Consensus Version 7 Guiding Principles: 1. Must protect and must preserve enh  the res ance the diversity and the integrity of the natural ecosystem that supports it. It ources needed that can make it function indefinitely 2. Relies on local inputs whe the system in which it n possible, where inputs and waste are recycled and/or composted back into  originated 3. Is a secure system tha nutritionally appropriate, s t provides food that is affordable, available, accessible, culturally, ethically and ocially just, safe and resilient 4. Provides for healthy diets the present or in the futur  that do not compromise the ability of people to feed themselves or others in e 5. Entices pleasures, and nurtures feelings of commensality around the food table 6. Enhances feelings of com component, from the poin munity belonging which requires a heightened awareness of every t of production to end disposal 7. Is based on long-term fina possible; uses foods that prices for their products ncial viability; contains a balance of imported and local foods whenever come from socially and ecologically conscious producers who receive fair    26 Vision Statement for a Su  The overarching goal of d quality of the ecosystem and to imp  1. Food is locally grown 2. Waste must be recycle 3. Food is ethnically and eth 4. Providers educate con 5. Food brings people to 6. Is produced by socially, e 7. Providers pay fair prices.   2005 Summary of Group stainable UBC Food System: Plain Language Version  a sustainable food system is to protect and enhance the diversity an rove social equity, whereby:  and produced. d or composted locally. ically diverse, affordable and nutritious. sumers about cultivation, procession and nutrition. gether and enhances community. cologically conscious producers.  Reflections on the Vision Statement: (Note: Group 3 ceased to provide a ement) ny reflections on the vision stat   Group Reflections General Vision Statement ƒ  find ƒ foods provided to UBC are safe and nutritious, UBC must help the systems around it, such  meaningful change” (Group 5). ƒ While one Overall, the vision statement as a whole resonated well with group’s own vision of a sustainable UBC food system (Group 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9,10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16) ƒ One group felt that in order to address all 7 principles, compromises would have to be made at times about which principles should take precedent. Thus, the group felt that continuous efforts be made to appropriate balances among principles “at different planning and implementation stages as the project progresses” (Group 8). One group felt the need to add an 8th GP to “address the issue of looking at the UBC food system in a global context and being aware of the reciprocal impacts the UBC food system and those [other] systems have on one another” (Group 8). The group deemed this necessary because they believed that “in order to ensure that the as local farmers and food distribution channels, to build their own sustainable systems that can continuously supply good quality products to UBC” (Group 8). ƒ One group felt that the vision statement sounds too “lofty and idealistic” because it “lacks realistic guidance on how to achieve these goals” 4 (Group 10). ƒ One group felt that the vision statement was “too theoretical and without direction”5  and would benefit from having “leverage points to initiate momentum…in creating group agreed “that having principles and/or a policy will  4 Unfortunately, these groups did not comprehend how to distinguish between general principles from the detailed plans needed for its implementation (i.e. guiding principles are by definition theoretical and are intended to be idealistic since they are those attributes that are supposed to guide us towards our ideal world).  5 Same as above   27 enhance an organization’s commitment to achieving its mission” they believed that “these principles should have clear and measurable objectives that are specific, attainable, realistic, and time orientated”6 (Group 1). ƒ Some groups felt that the vision statement was overall too wordy and could be condensed and re-worded (Group 7, 13). ƒ One group, while agreeing with the vision statement, felt that the principles “difficult to integrate and implement in institutional planning” on campus, and in turn created a congruent set of objectives (see specific principles) with the principles for campus planning (Group 14). Specific Guiding It ust preserve the resources needed that can make it function indefinitely ƒ ndensed to the following: ƒ ƒ red for Principles GP #1. Must protect and enhance the diversity and the integrity of the natural ecosystem that supports it. m  One group felt that this principle could be co “Must protect and enhance the diversity and the integrity of the natural ecosystem and resources that supports it” (Group 7). One group, while they agreed with this principle, contained some members who suggested it can be “divided into to form two different principles, one pertaining to biodiversity, and the other to resource sustainability” (Group 9). One group created a congruent objective with this principle tailo UBC campus planning: “Increase the physical capacity of the UBC campus to support the growing of food” (Group 14). GP #2. Relies on local inputs when possible, where inputs and waste are recycled and/or composted back into the system in which it originated ƒ felt that this principle could be condensed to the following: ƒ suggested that this principle should indicate exactly what is One group “Relies on local inputs when possible, where inputs and waste are recycled and/or composted locally” (Group 7). ƒ One group created a congruent objective with this principle tailored for UBC campus planning: “Increase the amount of food consumed at UBC that is produced both organically and locally” (Group 14). One group defined as “local” (Group 11). GP #3. Is a secure system that provides lable,  ppropriate, socially just, safe and resilient  ƒ d that is affordable, available, ƒ uld be condensed by integrating it ƒ  food should be affordable, they thought ƒ rage Practices for managing waste flows food that is affordable, avai accessible, culturally, ethically and nutritionally a One group felt that this principle could be condensed to the following: “Is a secure system that provides foo accessible, culturally, ethically and nutritionally appropriate, and safe and can adapt to change” (Group 7). One group felt that this principle co with GP’s #4 and 7 (Group 13). While, the group agreed that that it also essential that food not be undervalued in its price (Group 2). One group created a congruent objective with this principle tailored for UBC campus planning: “Encou in a more sustainable manner” (Group 14). GP #4. Provides for healthy diets that do not compromise the ability of people to ƒ mise the food security of future generations” (Group 7). One group felt that this principle could be condensed to the following: “Nourishes the present generation to provide for healthy diets that do not compro ƒ This principle should be expanded to address how the ability of people to  6 See footnote #4   28 feed themselves or others in the present or in the future  lude at the end of the for food producers” (Group 6). ƒ ƒ redundant and suggested combining it with the ƒ od and the local feed themselves can be enhanced. It could inc phrase the following: “through sustainable farming practices, fair prices for consumers and fair return ƒ One group felt that while they agreed with this principle they felt that “the current trend of cheap comfort foods and unhealthy food choices serves as an obstacle for the food service operators on campus” and thus implied that it should not be included in the vision statement (Group 1). One group felt that this principle should include the following at the end: “minimizes the risk of chronic disease” (Group 16). One group contained some members who found this principle difficult to understand and/or latter half of GP #1. While other members agreed with this principle (Group 9). One group created a congruent objective with this principle tailored for UBC campus planning: “Encourage the celebration of fo food system at UBC” (Group 14). GP #5. Ent pleasures, and nurtures feelings o commensality around the food table  ices f ƒ ƒ  component of ƒ ctions be sought between ƒ ision ƒ ƒ such a system   be .  others disagreed with this principle entirely because they felt that ƒ congruent objective with this principle tailored for One group felt that this principle could be condensed to the following: “Nurtures feelings of community and promotes enjoyment of food around the food table” (Group 7). ƒ Some groups felt that this principle could be condensed by integrating it with GP #6 (Group 1, 13). While it was agreed for the need to articulate the social food security, it was felt that this is firstly a social responsibility and should be worded as such (Group 4). A sustainable food system entails that conne consumers and producers “as a way to better understand the origin of our food and how we, as individuals are involved in the food system” (Group 4). Group member’s reflections varied regarding whether “commensality” should be included in this principle. “Some of the group’s members believed “commensality” was not a critical component of this v while others considered it essential” (Group 4). One group felt that this principle is not an important component of the vision statement (Group 16). One group contained members who agreed with this principle yet at the same time felt that it could be “reworded to say that entices pleasure and commensality when applicable, depending upon the food system operation in question (a casual dining restaurant will better equipped to provide this than a fast food outlet, for instance)” While it was not a critical component of sustainability nor applicable to all campus vendors, and thus suggested its removal from the vision statement (Group 9). One group created a UBC campus planning: “Encourage food consumed at UBC that is produced in other regions or countries to be produced through ethical   29 and environmentally sustainable practices” (Group 14). GP #6. Enhances feelings of community belo which requires a heightened awa  nging reness of every component, from the point of production to end disposal ƒ tened awareness of every component from ƒ ƒ ƒ ved that it is too utopian to strive to increase awareness among  ystem” (Group 15). 14). One group felt that this principle could be condensed to the following: “Enhances feelings of personal responsibility within the community, influenced by a heigh production to disposal” (Group 7). Group members believed that “more emphasis could be placed on educational tools to foster awareness and understanding of the food system throughout the campus community” (Group 12). Group members suggested that it is important to include within this principle the necessity for developing research schemes related to food systems sustainability on campus (Group 12). Group members were divided regarding how integral of a component this principle is within the overall vision statement. Some members belie consumers about their food system; while others believed that without attempting to strive to increase this awareness many consumers would “retain an unrealistic perspective of their food s ƒ One group contained members who agreed with this principle; others who felt that it should include a component indicating a commitment to food worker education; while others felt that it is not a critical component in creating a sustainable campus food system, and thought it should be removed from the vision statement (Group 9). ƒ One group created a congruent objective with this principle tailored for UBC campus planning: “Increase the capacity of UBC to provide or support basic food security initiatives for the local community” (Group GP #7. Is based on ƒ One group felt that this principle cou long-term financial ld be condensed to the following: “Contains a mixture of imported and local foods that come from socially “contain a balance of imported and local foods, with emphasis on a shift towards more local foods”. Members also thought that “there needed to rovider plied by having this y ic b ture whos viability; contains a mixture of imported and local foods whenever possible; on foods that come from socially and ecologically conscious producers who receive fair prices for their products and ecologically conscious producers to ensure long-term financial viability” (Group 7). ƒ One group believed that “universities as community leaders and centers of knowledge should not be profitable” (Group 2). ƒ One group felt that the components in this principle addressing socially and ecologically conscious producers are “too idealistic and should be a long-term goal rather than a principle of a sustainable food system at the university” (Group 16). ƒ One group agreed with the first two parts of this principle, but felt the need to reword “contains a mixture of imported and local foods” to be more emphasis on the food p s than is im criterion at the end of the list”. Finall “conscious producers” was problemat regulate due to the highly subjective na the meaning greatly varies according to 9). ƒ One , some members felt the term ecause it is impossible to  of the term conscious (i.e. e values or criteria) (Group group created a congruent objective with this principle tailored for   30 UBC campus planning: “Ensure that the food service faci re is an adequate distribution of lities on campus” (Group 14). at this princip organic and fair trade will be prioritized”, b all three at once, then which parameters important? The groups strongly “felt that o distances should not take priority over locally ƒ One group, while they agreed with this princ a need to foster strong local food systems ƒ One group suggested th le should indicate “how local, ecause if one can not attain  will be considered more rganic food traveling great  grown food” (Group 11). iple, felt that “while there is , these must be embedded within a global food system to fully meet humanity’s needs” (Group 11).  Summary of Group Comments on the Definition of “Local”  In previous years, much ambiguity existed in group reports regardi constitutes “local” food. Specifically, some groups defined local according to geographical s, rding to political ones and/or nationally. As a result, this year the teaching team requested that food means to them in their group reports in an effort to establish clarit over the meaning of the term for the Project. We asked 9 out of 16 g because these groups were assigned a scenario that directly required a developed to complete their tasks. Below is a summary of what groups re th summ sus pr in fall of 2005.  Groups Reflections on Definition of “Local” Foods Rat ng the definition of what boundarie where as others defined it acco , either regionally, provincially students define what “local” y, and eventually consensus roups to complete this task definition of local foods be ported local foods meant to them and of the UBCFSP partners to gather input and fu e rational of why they reached this decision. This rther the consen ary will be presented to the rest ocess, in the summer workshop ionale Group 1 “Will be food produced within the physical boundaries of British Columbia. For food commodities not produced in sufficient amounts, or not within British Columbia, the next physically closest region within Canadian physical boundaries will be considered local. For products produced outside of Canada, preference will be given to foods produced from regions closest to British Columbia. We are placing importance on the “proximity” of the food system as criteria for being local”. ƒ The use of this definition will allow for “reducing the dependence on other regions, but all the same, not rejecting external trade associations” (in Friedmann, 1993). Group 6 Those foods that are “BC grown or raised”. ƒ help ”; “food products will travel the least amount of kilometers”, and can help prevent BC agriculture from declining. The use of this definition can to “ensure that the BC economy will benefit [by] putting the money back where it came from Group 7 ade within ƒ “We wish to create a program that ƒ “As being any food produced, processed, or m the province of British Columbia”. is economically as well as ecologically viable”. “Any local products purchased will benefit the provincial economy”.   31 Group 8  grown”. ƒ uate land area without becoming too large. Those foods that are “BC “We felt this provided a variety of food options and adeq In addition, using the provincial boundaries would make it simple for respondents to visualize the area being considered as local”. Group 9 “As foods originating from within British Columbia”. ƒ e local economy and the local foodshed (in Pretty, 2001)”. “Despite ecological similarities and close proximity, we chose not to include Washington in our definition of local in order to strengthen th benefit B.C. farmers.  Increasing procurement of foods grown in B.C. will have many benefits, such as enhancing the local economy, reducing negative environmental effects, reducing hidden food costs, and enhancing both a sense of community as well as a connection with Group 11 multiple layers of an onion...as food that is grown and   from as nearby as possible”. C or the Canadian economy”.  “Our process of thinking about our definition of local food can be envisioned as a layered process, much like the ƒ “Supporting “local” is to support the local economy, be it the B produced within British Columbia’s (BC) borders. Moreover, it is desirable for food to come “In the end we decided that food should come from Canada even if it could not be obtained in BC”. Group 13 Alternatively, we propose that a foods relative locality be determined on a case by case basis, using indicators of • “There are basically too ma factors involved to conclude on sustainability which “is inclusive of social, environmental and economic factors…such as “food miles and methods nly encompass political borders ny  a specific definition of local food…therefore the choice of indicators must be used on a case by case basis when determining a of production, and not o (economic incentives)”. food’s relative locality”.  Group 15 “Only food items grown and purchased within British Columbia are dubbed “local,” while those products made ƒ Need to support or lo economies, an in BC with ingredients produced from outside of the i-local.”” cal d by doing so can give increase profits for our farmers which enhances their “affordability to decrease the use ful ts, d province are called “sem of environmentally harm practices, protect wildlife habita and improve the quality of foo produced”. Group 16 “Constitutes foods coming from within the boundaries of British Columbia”. ƒ “In the end, it was felt that setting the geograph by ical boundaries of BC to define locally produced foods, it allows people   32 to easily picture what our definition entails and it supports in to creating a socially supportive system”. B.C. farmers and the economy addition  Overview of 2004 Spring Scenario #1: Desirability of Re-localization  Summary of Specific Problem Definition  If UBC food providers decide to increase their local food procurement practices, before they enhance s commitment they need to know if and what level of demand there is among UBC community ods. Not only are we unsure whether or not demand exists for local food, we o not know how much and what proportion of the UBC community is willing to pay for local  pilot study to test a draft questionnaire on a small sample of the perspective mple in 2006. it is not developed enough to effectively gauge the market through polling, and (2) it also reduces ethods involved in this kind of market research”.  The University illage was included in the group’s boundary because they felt that “most people think of University thi members for local fo d products.  General Research Question:  To develop a detailed research methodology to determine whether or not and to what extent UBC’s population is willing to buy local food (i.e. level of demand and interest), and whether or not UBC’s population is willing to pay more for local food, if deemed needed by food providers.  ummary of Methodology S  roup 8 conducted aG target population. The purpose of conducting the pilot study was to gather pilot’s feedback on the content of the questionnaire, the effectiveness of questionnaire design, and process of administration. By conducting the pilot test this year, it is hoped that it will inform preparation for developing an advanced methodology including a tested effective questionnaire based on the pilot’s sponses, to launch with a representative sare  Research Boundaries  The group drew their research boundary for the survey, around AMS Food and Beverage Department, UBC Food Services, and University Village food provider’s outlets.  Rationale for Choice of Boundaries  The boundaries were chosen to exclude the south campus community because the group felt that: (1) “ the complexity of the sampling m V Village as food on campus” (Group 8).  Target Population    33 All UBC food outlet customers were chosen as the target population.  Rationale for choice of target population sen to constitute all UBC food outlet customers because it was felt at since the objective of the questionnaire is to address respondents’ demand and willingness to s at these outlets,   “then a target population f all customers would allow for an accurate depiction of total demand for more locally produced foo  Sam i  A conv the 200 The Barn, Totem Park cafeteria, the SUB, the UBC Hospital Cafeteria, 99 chairs, the University illage and outside the Buchanan complex. he group chose quota sampling to serve as their sampling technique in administering their er walks by) or judgment” (StatPac Inc., 2005 in Group 8).  Even though is technique does not allow one to calculate the standard error, and thus determine the accuracy of  of collecting responses in a limited time frame and still gives aluable feedback on question design (i.e. can depict trends regarding which questions elicited , if  poorly worded, etc.  n   draft questionnaire was d  Group 8 n discussion n their own group and ropose uestionnaires by  Sauder School of Business fall 2004 group, and ups. Before nching their ques nnaire to their sample, Group 8 distributed their consisting of 111 students for suggestions. Upon aire return, the fee ack was then anal ed and then incorporated into a final questionnaire twelve questi s to be distribute to their sample. See  The target population was cho th pay more (if deemed required) for locally produced food o ds on the UBC campus” (Group 8). pl ng Methods: enience sample was chosen as the sampling method. The convenience sample consisted of 5 AGSC 450 class and potential customers around the following UBC campus food outlets: V  T questionnaires to their convenience sample. Quota sampling involves dividing the target population into strata. The strata are chosen by the questionnaire administrators who choose participants “either by convenience (i.e. whoev th the data collected, it simplifies the task v adequate responses and which ones did not)(Group 8). This can help determine which questions any are Instrument of Data Collectio A eveloped by  based upo s withi on previous year’s p d q the AGSC 450 gro draft questionnaire to the entire AGSC 450 class, lau tio questionn db yz consisting of on d  Appendix B for Group 8’s nnaire.  of administra n were used in the ilot: oup 8 on the AGSC 450 course WebCT site er questionnaire ere distributed fa -to-face in the field to potential customers around owing campu food outlets: 99 C irs, The Barn, Totem Park Cafeteria, the SUB, the teria, The University Village and outside the Buchanan complex. administered by oup members using quota sampling techniques, describe above in “Sampling Methods”. questio  Methods of Administration  Two methods tio  p  3. An electronic questionnaire was posted by Gr for AGSC 450 students to respond. 4. Pap s w ce the foll s ha UBC Hospital Cafe Questionnaires were gr   34  Response Rate:  In the field survey a total of 49 individuals responded at food outlets across the campus. In the class l of 109 respondents participated.  Summary of Central Findings  Below are the tabulated results as well as brief discussion of findings that emerged from the pilot s uestion 1 and 2: Demographics Field Survey Class Survey Survey survey, a total of 60 AGSC 450 students responded through WebCT. Thus, a tota tudy: Q  Both Field and Class UBC Undergraduates 30 59 Faculty member 2 0 UBC Staff 7 0 UBC Graduates 6 1 Others 4 0 Male  27 10 Female 20 50 Didn't Answer 2 0 Under 18 yr old 3 0 19-30 yr old 35 56 31-55 yr old 8 4 Above 55 yr old 3 0 Live on Campus with residence that provides food outlet services 9  Out of the 109 respondents, 89 were undergraduate students, 70 were female and 91 were between e ages of 19 to 30. Only 9 respond  campus with residences that provided food outlet es a week d se foo  (Including in the Village)” Field S Class th ents lived on services.  Question 3: “How many tim o you purcha d on campus?  urvey  Survey 0 4 9 1 to 3 19 40 4 to 6 16 9 7 to 9 3 1 >10 7 1  Out of the 109 participants, the majority (59) indicated that they purchase food on campus between  to 3 times per week. 1   35  Question 4: “How would you define locally produced foods?”  Field Survey Class Survey Food produced in BC 15 31 Distance that food Traveled 3 13 Food produced in Canada 3 2 Food produced in Lower Mainland 7 6 food grown in Neighborhood 3 2 Others 2 6 Blank/or Unrelated Answers 18 0  Out of 109 participants, 46 believ cally produced foods should be defined as “food C”. The majority of th ponden d this to be the case, and no one left estion blank. Conversely, for respon left the question blank or provided ed answers and 15 defined loc  prod ”. ed that lo produced in B e class res ts indicate the qu  the field dents, 18 unrelat al as “food uced in BC  Question 5: “What are the benefits of eating locally produced food?”*  Field Survey Class Survey Fresher and/or Cheaper 18/49 votes 32/116 votes Increase local GDP growth 16/49 votes 33/116 votes                   Convenient 5/49 votes 0 votes Less environmental impact 9/49 votes  votes 18/116 C 0 votes 21/116 votes ommunity Sustainability L  votes 18/116 votes ess transport costs 1/49 O 3/49 votes 4/116 votes thers Blanks 13/49 votes 0 votes *Note: since this was an open-ended question, many respondents had more then one answer, explaining why the number of votes exceeded the number of respondents (Group 8).  The results of both respondents from the field and class “indicated that the most commonly stated benefits of eating locally produced food included growing fresher and cheaper food and supporting cal economic growth”. From the field questionnaire, 13 out of 49 respondents left this question uestion 6: “What are the drawbacks of eating locally produced food?” Field S lo blank (Group 8).  Q  urvey Class Survey Lack of variety 14/52 votes  25/72 votes More expensive than imported food  14/52 votes 14/72 votes Seasonality limits 2/52 votes 16/72 votes Less quantity (supply) 0 votes 6/72 votes Less convenient 1/52 votes 2/72 votes Inferior quality 6/52 votes 2/72 votes   36 Others 2/52 votes 4/72 votes Blanks 13/52 votes 3/72 votes  The results of b  respondents from th lass and field indicate that the most frequently cited backs in eati  locally produced food e that it is more expensive than imported food (28) and l limitations of eating local (18). From the field nnaire, 13  of 49 respondents le his question blank (Group 8). oth e c draw ng  ar that there is less food choice because of the seasona uestioq  out ft t  Question 7: “Which do you feel is more important?”  Field Survey Class Survey Distance that food has traveled 22 19 The country in which the food is produced 26 41 Blank  1 0  T e results of both re rom the cl  field indicated that 67 found that the “ ountry in which the fo ced” is mor that the “distance that food has traveled” and 41 found the opposite to be true. More than 2/3rds of the class respondents indicated that the “ ce that food ha aveled” is more im rtant, and about 1/2 of the field respondents indicated the same.  Question 8: “Would knowing a food item was produced locally encourage you to purchase it if it was the same n identical item p duced outside the prov e?”  h c spondents f od is produ ass and the e important distan s tr po price as a ro inc  Field Survey Class Survey Yes  29 57 No 6 2 Neutral  14 1  The results of both respondents from the class and the field indicated that 86 out of 109 felt that d encourage them to purchase it if it was the ame price as an id  outside of t . From the field questionnaire, 14 out of 49 ipants respon (Group 8). “Would you like to see seasonal BC Field Survey Class Survey knowing that a food item was produced locally woul s entical item he province partic ded “neutral”  Question 9: food items at UBC food outlets?”  Yes 31 57 No 0 0 Neutral 18 3   The results of both respondents from the class and the field indicated that 88 out of 109 respondents would like to “see seasonal BC food items at UBC food outlets”. From the field questionnaire, 18 out of 49 participants responded “neutral” (Group 8).     37 Question 10: “If it were to cost more to offer locally produced foods at UBC food outlets, how much more  Class Survey would you be willing to pay?”  Field survey 0% 20 4 1-5% 18 25 6-10% 5 23 11-15% 1 5 16-20% 1 1 price doesn't matter 4 1  The results from both the field and class questionnaires revealed that out of 109 responses, 43 participants would be willing to pay between 1-5% more for locally produced foods if necessary. From the field questionnaire, 20 respondents would not be willing to pay more and 29 out of 49  foods if necessary. op three factors that influence your food purchasing choices? em in order)”* would be able and/or are willing to pay more for locally produced  Question 11: “What are the t                 (Please rank th  Field Survey Class Survey Price 39 / 131 votes 50 / 166 votes Quality 35 / 131 votes 43 / 166 votes Convenience 24 / 131 votes 35 / 166 votes BC Grown 5 / 131 votes 14 / 166 votes Organic 12 / 131 votes 9 / 166 votes Fair Trade 4 / 131 votes 2 / 166 votes In Season 6 / 131 votes 5 / 166 votes Others 6 / 131 votes 8 / 166 votes *Note: 62 out of 109 respondents neglected to rank theses factors in order of preference, and instead merely checked them off.  The results from both the field and class questionnaires revealed that out of 109 responses 89 chose “price”, 78 chose “quality”,  and 59 chose “convenience” as criteria that influences their food purchasing choices the most (Group 8).  Question 12: “At the cost of eating fewer imported foods (like bananas), would you be willing to eat more locally produced food (like apples)?”  Field Survey Class Survey Yes  18 26 No 14 13 Neutral  17 19   The results from both the field and class questionnaires revealed that 44 out of 109 participants ould be willing to eat more locally produced foods at the cost of eating fewer imported foods. 36 w out of 49 participants responded “neutral”. In the field questionnaire, 18 out of 49 participants indicated that they would be willing to eat more locally produced foods at the cost of eating fewer imported foods, and 17 out of 49 responded as “neutral” (Group 8).   38 Discussing Issues with Questionnaire Design and Process:  Questionnaire Design:  In Question 4 respondents were asked an open-ended question: “How would you define locally produced foods?” From the field questionnaire, a total of 18 out of 49 respondents left this question blank, or provided “totally unrelated answers to this question”. There are number of possible reasons for this poor response rate: (1) Participants had insufficient English language skills to comprehend or answer the question sufficiently; (2) participants actually did not know the answer, thus lacked sufficient knowledge about the food system; or (3) participants that left the question blank, were the same ones that voiced disdain about open-ended questions to the administrators when they were given the questionnaire (Group 8). Thus, the response rate may be improved by providing a close ended question, or providing an informative questionnaire that defines local foods for the respondents. Also, e use of focus groups may increase the response rate, since facilitators will have the opportunity to th answer any participant’s inquiries about the meaning of the question.  In Question 5 respondents were asked an open ended question: “What are the benefits of eating locally produced food?” In Question 6 respondents were also asked an open ended question: “What are the drawbacks of eating locally produced food?” From the field questionnaire, 13 out of 49 respondents left this blank for both questions. Thus, similar to Question 4, the low response rate elicited from these uestions among field participants may indicate that participants had insufficient knowledge about y are fresher and cheaper, conversely, in Question 6 q our food system, insufficient English skills or disdain for open-ended questions (Group 8). Interestingly, from both the results of the field and class questionnaire results are seemingly contradictory between participant responses in indicating the benefits and drawbacks in consuming local foods. For example, in question 5, 50 of the respondents indicated that the main benefits of eating local foods are that the   28 of the nd dicated that the main drawbacks of eating local foods is that they are “more expensive mine the level of contradiction between these responses, ince Group 8 tabulated one of the open-ended responses for Question 5 respo ents in than imported food”. It is difficult to deter  together as “fresher and/or s cheaper”. Thus, a closer look at the raw data is required to draw any conclusions with confidence.  In Question 7 respondents were asked a closed-ended question: “Which do you feel is more important: The untry in which the food is produced or the distance that food has traveled?” Significant differences were found bout ½ of the field respondents indicated at the “country in which the food is produced” is more important than the “distance that food has  the class where over 2/3rds indicated the same (Group 8). co between the results of the field and class questionnaire. A th traveled” compared to  In Question 8 respondents were asked a closed-ended question: “Would knowing a food item was produced locally encourage you to purchase it if it was the same price as an identical item produced outside the province?” In Question 9 respondents were also asked a closed-ended question: “Would you like to see seasonal BC food ems at UBC food outlets?” Significant differences were found between the results of the field and class it questionnaire for bo ndicated that they w th of these questions. Specifically, from the field questionnaire 29 out of 49 ould be encouraged to purchase a local product if it was the same price as an i identical item produced outside of the province, where as from the class questionnaire 57 out of 60 participants felt the same. From the field questionnaire 31 out of 49 participants indicated that they would “like to see seasonal BC food items at UBC food outlets”, where as 57 out of 60 participants from the class questionnaire indicated the same.    39 In Question 10 respondents were asked a closed-ended question: “If it were to cost more to offer locally produced foods at UBC food outlets, how much more would you be willing to pay?” Although both the class 6/60) and field (29/49) respondents indicated that they were willing to pay more for locally , only 5 out of 109 of the respondents in both questionnaires thought price does not atter. Thus, based upon this result, it can be concluded “that price is still a very important (5 produced food m determinant in people’s choices of food” (Group 8).  In Question 11 r in d p espondents were asked a closed-ended question: “What are the top three factors that fluence your foo urchasing choices? (Please rank them in order)”. However, out of the 109 respondents, 62 did not rank them and instead merely checked three boxes. This problem may have occurred because in the question the word “rank” was not place in bold or italicized, possibly resulting in participants misunderstanding the question.  Questionnaire Administration Process:  Since the questionnaire only indicated that 9 respondents lived on campus with residences that provided food outlet services, a large segment of the UBC Food Services market was not well represented in the responses (Group 8).  Summary of Proposed Methodology for 2006 l as those in the University Village” (Group 8).  stratified random sampling method that is proportional to the different market segments should be used since it allows for analysis of specific trends within each stratum.  This type of “sampling divides the target population into strata that are sampled in proportion to their actual numbers in the whole population” (Addison, Lee & Purewal, 2004 in Group 8).  For example, students purchasing food in residence cafeterias would constitute strata for the UBC Food Services customer market, and should be reflected in a similar proportion when sampling.  ample Size: an ideal sample size of  Target Population:  The target population should be “defined as all UBC food outlet customers, with the focus on the three major food providers that are involved in the UBCFSP, AMS Food and Beverage Department, UBC Food Service controlled food outlets, as wel Sampling Method:  A S  Group 1 from the summer 2004 AGSC 450 class demonstrated pproximately 400 respondents based on the statistical formula: a  n = N 1+ N(e)2 Where n is the sample size, N is the total population and e is the maximum error desired.  This assumes a total population of approximately 46,000 and 5 percent error as well as maximum ariability and a confidence level of 95 percent (Addison, Lee & Purewal, 2004).   v    40 In order to establish a sample size for the 2006 AGSC 450 class to use, the size of the target population needs to be determined by UBCFSP partners and collaborators. Thus, UBCFSP partners nd collaborators need to be consulted to reach consensus on how large the target population is, and he questionnaire used in the pilot study in Appendix B a the above statistical calculation should be used to determine the ideal sample size.  Instruments of Data Collection:  T  should serve as the main instrument of m”. roup 8 suggests that question 11 be re-worded to the following revised version which uses “bold  Organic data collection. However, before administering Group 8’s questionnaire, question 11 should be re- worded since response rates to the question were low due to poor wording within the question. Specifically, “many respondents only checked their top three preferences instead of ranking the G text to emphasize the need to rank preferences”: Place in order of importance to you the following features of a food item (Indicate by numbering from 1-3 in order where 1 is the most important)   Price  Convenience  BC Grown  Fair Trade  Quality  In Season   his questionnaire can also serve as an interview guide for focus groups. T  Methods of administration:  Group 8 proposed 3 methods of administration to either be used separately or in conjunction with ne another: o  (1) The questionnaire could be used as an interview guide for oral interviewing in 15-person focus s gro om members of the target population and be facilitated nterviewer. “A m ould need to itated by at l groups. Focu ups could consist of rand by one i ssu ing a sample size of around 400, 27 of these focus groups w east 27 AGSC 450 students. be held”, facil  Benefits: Or elicit more ac method a al interviewin  can often curate and m ponses than in other methods of administration. Also, this llows the fac at  process of s. (2) The questionnaire could be distributed by UBC food outlet staff to randomly selected customers. Limitation g in focus groups is a personal form of communication that eaningful res ilit or to gather feedback about participant’s experience about the the focus group  : “Having t  r ty to the research process because all the staff will need to be educated on how to administer the survey”.  he of complexiestaurant staff administer the survey adds a great deal   41 (3) The questionnaire could be distributed electronically via the web, such as through student services. Benefits: Web-based surveys are easy to tabulate and randomize. Limitation: Web-based questionnaires can receive poor response rates.  Incentives:  To encourage participants to participate in any of the above noted methods of administration, gift certificates to the bookstore or food outlets. ince the pilot study’s results indicated that awareness about sustainability and local foods mong respondents was low,  upon questionnaire completion, an information pamphlet about local tributed to participants “to increase their knowledge about local ods, sustainability and the importance of eating locally” (Group 8).  S udience Recommendations incentives could be provided to participants such as:  Dissolving Findings and Follow Up:  Methods of sharing findings with respondents needs to be established and should be indicated in a pamphlet to be distributed to participants upon questionnaire completion.  Likewise, s a food and sustainability should be dis fo  ummary of Recommendations a 2006  • Based up AGSC 450 Class, Teaching • Incorporate the proposed revised version of question 11(see above “Instruments of Data Collection”) in the new questionnaire prior to distribution.* Team an Partn on Group 8’s three proposed methods of administration, determine the best administration method for the questionnaire. • Develop information pamphlets and distribute to respondents upon foods” (Group 8). d Project ers questionnaire completion to inform respondents where the results of the questionnaire can be found. • Develop information pamphlets about local food and sustainability and distribute to respondents upon questionnaire completion. • Launch “a strong marketing campaign to inform the public about these issues to increase their desire, willingness and capacity to purchase local *I would also recommend that question 11 include a response of “fat and calorie content” or “health” as a response choice. I think this would alleviate some of the unspecified “other” responses.  Overview of 2005 Spring Scenario #2: Feasibility of Re-localization  Scenario 2a): Feasibility of Re-localization on Campus  Summary of Specific Problem Definition  UBC food providers do not possess enough information to confidently shift their current food procurement practices towards including more local and ideally sustainably produced foods.   42 Specifically, they do not know whether it is ecologically feasible (seasonal, quantity and food product availability) and/or economically feasible (affordability and quality of food products) to make this shift. They do not know what kind of benefits and drawbacks will occur if they decided to increase this shift.  General Research Question:  Analyze current food procurement practices of UBC food providers, to determine whether or not a  more local stainable produced food procure ces is feasible. Summary of Metho  up 17 oposed methodology, and Group 2’s summer 2004 , Group 6 expanded on their work and conducted a quantitative feasibility analysis ng the feasibil  (1) “Re-localizing fre  si by UBCFS and AMSFBS can be obtained from a local source”. (2) Between the peri du e or purchasing, and thus these are key s heir local produce purchasing. (3) Some local commodities that are currently purchased by UBC food providers from Central Food Co and Allied Food Services can be found at lower  Based upon these findings, Group 6 expanded their analysis to include researching on poultry, eggs, beef and bread produc S, and also attempted to expand the analysis to local and ide expanded the list of alternative providers previously analyze  Their feasibility analysis ibutor product lists, UBCFS and AMSFBD purchase sheets, ccording to availability (quantity, seasonality, local and non-local products, sustainably produced products) and accessibility (distributor price . Specifical ltural lists to lability of BC eggs, poultry an ned AMS and/or ordering sheets to determine prices and quantity of local and non-local products purchased. lternative food supplier order lists were examined from: United Poultry, Hallmark Poultry  Food Ltd., Golden Valley, Painted River Farm, and Pitt Meadows hey con nd availability comparison of both local and non-local products ed e Food Service Distributors. Also, email communication and informal face-to-face and telephone interviews were ith repr  and UBCFS. entra ings   1 roduc Findings AMSFBD UBCFS shift towards  and ideally su ment practi  dology Based upon Gro feasibility analysis ’s spring 2004’s pr investigati ity of re-localizing UBC’s food system. Group 2 (Summer 2004) found that: nce 8sh produce ay UBC is very ecologically feasible 3% of the produce ordered available fod of July-October, BC has the most local pro  months where UBC Food providers could increa c e t prices at Van-Whole Produce Ltd. (Group 2). ts purchased by AMSFBD and UBCF ally sustainably produced foods. They also d.  involved analyzing secondary sources (distr and BC Agricultural lists) a comparisons) ly, Group 6 examined BC Agricu  determine seasonal avai d beef products. They also exami FBD and UBCFS purchasing A Processors Ltd., Kidd Bros., Hills Meats Ltd. T ducted a price a currently purchas  by UBCFS from Neptun s, and AMSFBD Sysco Food Service conducted w  Summary of C esentatives from AMSFBD l Find a. Chicken P ts Kg purchased/yea sts/yr 960kg chicken boneless breasts/yr r 1640kg chicken thighs/yr 40kg chicken boneless brea 1860kg chicken thighs/yr   43 200kg whole chickens/yr Type/Farming Practices Used Conventionally raised Conventionally raised ources (1) Sunrise Poultry Processors (chicken wings ƒ Sells locally raised chicken products icken ƒ Ontario based company ƒ Imports and exports diverse food products (mainl rig (3) Reuven International (cook  % C  ow rpora cated aris, o el L.P. (breaded chicken filets) adia d an rated, ies in Quebec, Ontario and Alberta (1) J & K Poultry Ltd. (whole chickens, boneless skinless chicken urnaby based poultry provider  S and breasts) ƒ BC owned and operated company, located in Surrey breasts and thighs) ƒ Local B (2) Export Packers (boneless skinless ch thighs) y animal o ins) ed diced chicken) ƒ 100 in P anadian ned co tion lo  Ontari (4) Olym ƒ Can n owne d ope  facilit  Distributor Sysco Food Service Distributors ƒ Canadian company, BC branch in Neptune Food Service ƒ Originated in BC, owne Coquitlam d by US corporation   1b.Alter Su native Poultry Suppliers pplier Description Analysis United Poultry ƒ Located in Vancouver  Can supply desired chicken quantities to UBC Ha Pou y Proces llmark ltr sors Ltd. ƒ Located in Vancouver ƒ Purchases chicken from the Fraser Valley ƒ Offers 100% vegetable fed chicken Can supply desired chicken quantities to UBC Kidd Bros. ƒ ƒ Located in Vancouver Offers Free Run* poultry Can supply desired chicken quantities to UBC Hills Food Ltd. ƒ e Lower Mainland ƒ Can supply desired chicken quantities to Located in th Offers Free-Run* poultry UBC *(Note: “Free Run” means that the chickens were not kept in a cages and were permitted to run inside of a barn, where as “Free Range” means that the chickens were not kept in a cages and were permitted to roam outdoors; and “Organic” means that chickens are fed a certified organic diet and must also be “Free Range ). easibility Analysis for Chicken Products  of chicken i e purchased by both  l  1d. Economic Feasibility Analysis for Chicken Products Poultry Price ($  1c. Ecological F • 100% tems (whole chickens, boneless skinless chick  UBC food providers can be obtained from a n breasts and thighs) currently ocal source.  /Kg)   44  UBCFS AMS United Poult Hallmark Hills Kidd ry Poultry Foods Bros. Whole Chicken 4.22* N/A 3.29 3.50 7.25** 4.84** Bonele B ss Skinless Chicken reast 8.36* 8.43  8.89 8.95 21.95** 14.30** Bonele T 6.99 5.95 10.75** 9.90** ss Skinless Chicken high 4.94* 4.59 * Price with appro Based upon the price comparisons provided in the table above, the following can be concluded:  UBCFS could purchase whole chickens from United Poultry and Hallmark Poultry at a lower price than their current supplier, at $ 0.93 and $ 0.72 less per kg respectively. n, UBCFS would be able to purchase free run whole . It is not economically feasible for both AMSFBD and UBCFS to purchase free run chicken sing their retail prices, because the price differences are substantial between those of their current supplier and Hills Foods and Kidd Bros.   2a. Egg Prod Fin AM D S ximate 10% deduction included ** free run 1. 2. “For $0.62 more per Kg of whole chicke chicken from Kidd Bros”. 3. AMSFBD could purchase locally raised chicken at United Poultry and Hallmark Poultry for $0.46 and $0.52 more per kg respectively. 4 breasts and chicken thighs, without increa  ucts dings SFB  UBCF Cas 163 cases (2445 dozens) of medium eggs/yr ases (7335 dozens)of medium yr 85 cases (1275 dozen) of large eggs/yr 489 eggs/ ces purchased/yr Type/Farming Conventionally raised and produced Conventionally raised and Practices Used produced Sources (1) Golden Valley Foods (shelled eggs) ƒ Located in the Lower Mainland, BC owned and operated (2) Trilogy Egg Products Vanderpol’s Eggs - Located in the Lower Mainland (liquid eggs) ec based company ƒ Queb Distributor Sysco Food Service Distributors Canadian company, BC branch in Coquitlam ood Service y US Neptune F Originated in BC, owned b corporation   2b.Alternative Egg Suppliers r Descript o s Supplie ion Ecol gical Feasibility Analysi Golden Valley ƒ Located in the Lower Mainland. BC owned and operated ƒ Offers BC conventional, Free Range, and Free Run eggs (note that “they can only provide about 60% of their eggs locally due Can supply d UBC esired egg quantities to   45 to the avian flu although they plan to be at 100% local by November”). Kidd Bros. ƒ Located in Vancouver ƒ Offers Free Range eggs Can supply d UBC esired egg quantities to  2c. Ecological Feasibility Analysis for Eggs egg produc tly purchas iders can be obtained fro al in Organic, Free Run and Free Range forms. i alysis for Eggs Prices ($/dozen) • 100% of ts (shelled and liquid eggs) curren ed by both UBC food prov m a local source. These egg products can so be obtained  2d. Econom c Feasibility An Eggs UBCFS AMS Kidd Bros.       Regular Free Run Free Range Medium 1.  N/A 75* 1.96 N/A N/A Large 3.88 1.94* N/A 2.32 3.10 * Price with Based upon t  app h  follo • UBCFS ca $1.16 m  their large conventi em at $1.18 more per dozen than their medium   3 indings AMSFBD UBCFS roxi  mate 10% deduction included e price comparisons provided in the table above, the wing can be concluded: ore per dozen thann purchase large Free Run eggs from Kidd Bros at onally raised eggs, and AMSFBD can purchase th conventionally raised eggs. a. Beef and Other Products F Kg purchased/year N/A 3588kg beef tenderloin/yr Typ Pra e/Farming ctices Used N/A N/A Sources ƒ Sysco mainly purchases beef products sors (XL Foods Ltd and Cargill Foods). ƒ “90% of beef products provided by Centennial are from Alberta, and the rest is ƒ Frozen veal products purchased by Centennial are ; frozen lamb products ustralia fresh frozen pork from BC and Alberta. from Alberta-based meat proces from New Zealand and Uruguay”. obtained from Ontario and Quebec are obtained from A and New Zealand, turkeys from Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, and Distributor Sysco Food Se Canadian company, BC branch in Coquitlam rvice Distributors  Centennial Food Services Richmond, BC    46  3b.Alternati Supplier/ Producer ve Beef Product Suppliers Description  Analysis Painted Riv F  and as custom orders. er arm and hormone free) and grass-fed cattle. ƒ Sells beef at the farm gate ƒ Located in the Lower Mainland. ƒ Raises SPCA Certified Cattle (humane practices N/A Pit Meado Me Beef is sold mostly in unprocessed form. quantities and lamb products in t ws ƒ Located in Pitt Meadows, BC. ƒ Purchases cattle from BC auctions which have all been ƒ Can supply desired beef, lamb and veal ats Ltd. born and raised in BC. ƒ Sells beef to small butchers in the Lower Mainland. ƒ to UBC. ƒ Can only supply beef, veal ƒ Typically purchases veal and lamb from  BC sources, with the exception of some lambs when local supply shortages are experienced during the year. unprocessed forms.  3c. Eco   100% of veal, lamb and beef products currently purchased by both UBC food providers can be rce. However, it is unknown whether these products can be obtained in the des  3d. Econo  • Group Meadows Meats Ltd.  4a. Bread Findings UBCFS logical Feasibility Analysis for Beef and Other Products ƒ obtained from a local sou ired quantity of processed forms that UBC food providers desire. mic Feasibility Analysis for Beef Products 6 was unable to obtain price information from Painted River Farm or Pitt Products AMSFBD Distributo  City Bakeries ut have branches or productions in varieties of bread products. r (1) Canada Bread (2) PBF, and (3)Island Monte Cristo Bakery ƒ All distributors originated from outside of BC b ƒ Vancouver based. ƒ Supplies UBCFS with 50 BC.   Factors that inhibit re-localization alization ha acities: fact ith beef ucts “is e lies that in order to provide UBC with different farmers wou h d transport the processed pr 2. “Quantity is a major co ot being able to meet the large de 3. “It is financially m  ns which may provide a fixed cost when they buy large quantities from them (Yip in Group 6)”.  1. Glob s removed many local cap or t  o One prod hat hinders the possibility for local cattle farms to supply UBC w th  unavailability of large BC meat processing plants, which imp types (various cuts, ground beef, etc.) BC ld ave to transport their cattle to Alberta for processing an oducts back to sell to UBC”. ncern for both companies since often local suppliers are n mands”. ore viable for UBC to purchase from larger corporatio   47 4. “It commodities from one place as opposed to bu is more conven t necessary ying specialized products from different overnment law D from sing local meat d by the government e many outbr s   Therefore, the law prohibits the far  for public consumption and companies can not purchase directly from farmers (Yip).  As a result, farmers must sell their  In sum Group 6 found that: 1. UBCFS purchases 100% locally BC produced egg products.  eggs from a BC source.  UBCFS would be able to purchase free n from Kidd Bros”. by both UBCFS and AMSFBD distributors  Summary of Recommendations au ien  for AMSFBD and UBC Food Services to purchase the places”. 5. “Many g purcha s and policies prohibit UBC Food Services and AMSFB commodities.  Meat sales are closely regulate becaus eak  and fetal complications can result due to poor handling. mers from selling their products directly meats to larger corporations so that the meat can be thoroughly inspected” (Group 6). 2. AMSFBD purchases 100% of shelled 3. UBCFS purchase approximately 100% of poultry products from BC sources. 4. AMSFBD purchases 100% of poultry products from Canadian sources. 5. Both AMSFBD and UBCFS purchase bread from 100% local BC bakeries. 6. 100% of chicken and egg products UBC food providers’ purchases are conventionally raised. 7. “For $0.62 more per Kg of whole chicken, run whole chicke 8. The majority of beef products purchased are from Alberta producers. 9. All frozen veal products that UBCFS purchases are from Canadian sources (Ontario and Quebec). 10. All fresh turkeys that UBCFS purchases are from Canadian sources (Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario), and frozen pork from BC and Alberta.  dience Recommendations 2006 A Class rs and suppliers would ching Team). ate local beef suppliers that can supply UBC food providers with processed, locally raised beef products. GSC 405 • Explore whether or not local beef produce be interested in meeting the large beef product demands of UBC (Tea • Investigate further potential animal product suppliers that can supply UBC food providers with affordable sustainably produced foods (for medium, large and liquid ideally Free-Range or Free – Run eggs and chicken) (author). • Investig UBCFS • Should “consider purchasing free-run whole chicken from Kidd Bros”. UBCFS and AMSFBD • Could consider offering Free-Run or ideally Free-Range chicken and g in th c  eg  products at higher retail prices, from the suppliers noted e e onomic feasibility section above (author). AMSFBD • Cou  c dire ld onsider purchasing local liquid eggs from Neptune or ctly from Vanderpol’s Eggs (Group 6).    48 Scenario 2b): Feasibilit o  Provision of Specialty Ite s Summary of Specific Problem D  ed in r whether the UBC Farm can dependently ecialty food product items that it ms the r benefits associated with expanding thes  General Research Question: h the General Manager of Sage Bistro, John Flipse, and the UBC Farm Program  Mark Bomford, expl  asing business collaboration between prises. Also, explore way xpanding its growing seaso  i  Summary of Methodology  • Conducted a literature revi UBC Farm documents, and gen  face-to face interviews i Bistro Manager (Group 4). • Communicated via email and/o  UBC Farm Program Coordinator, UBC age Bistro Manager, and ot r  Summary of Central Findings ’s Rol n  SAGE BISTRO y f Increasing Farm m  to UBC Sage Bistro   efinition UBC Sage Bistro is interest inc easing its UBC Farm product purchases. We do not know  provide Sage with the sp highly values, nor which ite Fa m is actually able to cultivate. Nor do we know the risks and e market relations.  Working wit r,Coordinato r ore the potential for incre their ente through e s in which the UBC Farm can more effectively serve Sage Bistro n, ncreasing delivery frequencies and product availability. ew of secondary sources, including former AGSC 450 papers, eral outside sources (Group 4). • Held  w th UBC Farm Program Coordinator, and with the UBC Sage r telephone with the S he representatives from UBC Food Services (Group 4).  Sage Bistro and UBC Farm  e i  the Food System Location • Located in the University Centre on Crescent road. Days/Hours of Operation • a full • • rsday Offers “breakfast everyday from seven fifteen till nine and has seating of one hundred and fifty people for lunch”. “Open for dinner in the evenings during the summer season”. In “the fall and winter seasons, dinner seating is limited to Thu and Friday nights”. Services • • Offers catering services. Semi-formal fine dining restaurant offering gourmet food. Main Product Supplier •  items from • Neptune “Purchases three to five hundred dollars a day” of food Neptune. Food Sales Contributions • tely seven percent of total UBC Sage Bistro contributes approxima Food Services food sales.   49 Sustainability Initiatives • y •  to purchasing UBC Farm produce” (Group 4). Participates in the UBC Biodiesel project for nearly four years, b donating their used vegetable oil. In return, they do not have to pay for their used oil disposal, which they have to do normally. “Committed  UBC Farm Location • South of 16th avenue. • ndscape since the university’s ast 5 0”. Has been a “part of the UBC laHistory inauguration in 1915”. • “Agricultural research dates back to the 1950-80’s at which time agricultural research facilities moved to its current location”. • Currently, it is a “student-run farm has been operating for the l years with a part-time staff being employed since 200 Land Base • “Of the 40 hectares of land within the borders of UBC Farm, only 8 hectares are cultivatable and of this only 3 are currently in use” (UBC Farm in Group 6). Vision • The “vision of the UBC Farm can be divided into four components: research, innovation, education and community outreach; all of ”. which have had success and setbacks on the path toward sustainability Total Budget • Total annual budget: $100,000 Financ d  Coordinator’s Disbursement Fund and Human Resources a (UBC Farm). Other support includes ide ring (UBC Farm and UBC Food Co-op, 3). ial Support Sources • “Habitual financial support comes from the Faculty of Land an Food Systems, the Global Resources Program, the Sustainability Development Canad donations by the Agricultural Sciences Undergraduate Society (AGUS), Dean’s Research Funding and small grants from outs sources; for example, Vancity is a major contributor to the “Sha the Harvest” project” Sustain g to ). ill  and g ion of 5 years of continuous educational or research activity has been  the ability Initiatives • Common practices on the Farm “include the use of compostin maintain soil fertility, manual or mechanical cultivation of weeds and the balance of insects in lieu of pesticide use” (UBC Farm FAQ • Farm “operations are based on the standards outlined by the Certified Organic Association of British Columbia”. • Future plans include installing a “micro-irrigation system that w significantly reduce water usage”. • “Sharing the Harvest” which is a joint project between the Farm the UBC Food Co-op, aims “to revitalize the land by introducin polycultures, to set aside habitat areas and create buffer zones. Success of this project has already been observed in the migrat birds back to the Farm” (UBC Farm and UBC Food Co-op in Group 6). • Over conducted pertaining to the Farm that has involved students in Land Food and Community series provided by the Faculty of Land   50 and Food Systems (Group 4).  Visions of  • “In conversing with both John Flipse and Mark Bomford the outlook is generally optimistic abo  Sage B  Based upon interviews with the representatives from Sage Bistro, potential avenues of increasing busines  • “Bring the Far  Partnership between Sage Bistro and the UBC Farm: ut the Farm being able to provide the specialty items requested by Sage” (Group 4). o’s Perspective on Increased Partnerships with the Farm: istr s collaboration with the UBC Farm were discussed as described below: it to our door and we will pay you cash” (Flipse). Increasing local food procurement from m is desirable for the following reasons: The Farm offers unique, flavourful and premium quality produce. “Accoo rding to John Flipse, the Spring Mix that Sage Bistro obtains from the UBC Farm during the summer months last much longer than other salad mixes procured form their traditional supplier”. The close proximity of the Farm is convenient. o o The Sage Bistro’s bi-monthly rotating menu (See Appendix C for a sample of Sage Bistro Lunch Menu) “includes items as “aromatic”, “mixed” or “julienne” vegetables as well as “ratouille” and “haricots verts” [which] provides a flexible and creative opportunity to incorporate UBC farm produce”. and fresh organic ible to acquire them at all (Flipse).  While economies of scale are an advantage in upholding a contract with a large food supplier, it can at times avoid tage in procuring specialty items from a large supplier.  If the cost  inability of the Farm to supply Sage with a sufficient and consistent amount of produce throughout the year”. Thus, “Flipse proposes that the Farm rm of a niche market of  items in o Sage “chefs are a large driving force behind the need for specialty items produce”. o Procurement of local foods from Sage Bistro’s current supplier, Neptune, can be problematic. “First, specialty produce may travel a significant distance from the producer to the restaurant, affecting the quality considerably. Second, it can often be challenging to obtain certain specialty items in a reasonable time needed for the menu, and in some cases it may be imposs specialty items, which tend to be more costly regardless of the supplier.  Therefore, there is no true advan remains slightly higher for these premium products regardless of the supplier, superior quality then becomes the priority.  It would be more advantageous for Sage to obtain the specialty items from the UBC Farm. The added expense would be worth the increase in quality” (Group 4). • Proposed visions to expand partnership: o “The main problem that remains is the  develop their production in the fo specialty items for Sage and restaurants alike in the area.  There are an abundance of gourmet restaurants like Bishops, Feeney’s and Lumiere, as well as numerous other threstaurants on 10  avenue and the UBC Point Grey area that utilize specialty their cuisine”.   51 o “Guided by principles of “sell before you d then gro ed items on a list of specialty produce  “like to see the wers”.  products could rea.  Th  used for wea this cust ey purch et the Farm t an expan s such as  the Farm pus into lipse feels there is a th for S e and the Farm and an increased partnership Analys of Sa ’  Based upon consultations with both representatives from coordinated the development of list of items that Sage is They submitted this list to the Farm, who in turn determin to Sage sow”, Flipse proposes that the Farm find out w them.  Already the chefs at Sage have they would like to have”.  farm diversify its production by growing  also be appealing to certain customers off e organic customer profile is varied and lthy older people interested in their health omer profile is likely to be interested in asers in this niche market”.  to the public - to make it a destination ded farmers market including a variety of  honey, cheeses or plants.  The idea is that  instead of Granville Island”.  a University Village, F what their key purchasers want an highlight o Flipse indicated that he would herbs and even perhaps edible flo o Flipse suggested that “specialty campus, mainly in the Point Grey a includes ‘Affluent Healers’, a term (Cunningham, 5).   In his opinion, specialty items and could possibly be k o  Flipse suggested “the need to mark and attraction.  The farm could hos local vendors selling other foods item people who live locally would come to o Finally, “with the expansion of the cam lot of potential business grow between the two”(Group 4).  is of UBC Farm’s Cultivation Potential . See Appendix C ag ge s Food Item Requests the UBC Farm and Sage Bistro, Group 4  interested in purchasing from the Farm. ed the feasibility of supplying these items  for Group 4’s analysis s interested in purchasing.  for Sustainable Business C  of the a Bistro i Model ollaboration BC Farm: BC Sage B solu n business explored below. This model is also intended to aid in est UBC Farm and food providers, with those at UBC as we Grey area, as a means of re-localization” (Group 4).  Attaining Economic Sustainability INDICATORS AND/OR CRITERION ASSE THE UBC FARM AND SAGE BISTRO, THE TWO ECONOMIC INDICATORS AND/OR CRITERION OF THE TEACHING TEAM MODEL WERE TAKEN INT 1. THE PROFITABILITY OF UBC FOOD SYSTEM PR 2. THE LONG TERM FINANCIAL STABILITY OF U vailability for UBC Farm items that Sage  between Sage Bistro and the U Challenges and Solutions  Based upon research and discussions with U tio s for attaining a model of sustainable istro and the UBC Farm, challenges and  collaboration between them have been ablishing future partnerships between the ll as with those in the surrounding Point SSED: WHEN ASSESSING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF O ACCOUNT (IN RICHER, 2004): OVIDERS AND PRODUCERS. BC FARM Challenges  Solution A. Both Sage Bistro and the UBC Farm are not financially sustainable in the long term. “UBC Farm lacks long-term financial stability and ofitability: • Currently the UBC Farm is re pr ceiving financial support from the University of Sa A.1 Ado • benefit from bumper crops, a risk-sharing marketing ted (Bomford). This would involve ption of Risk-Sharing Marketing “In order to reduce the risks to the Farm (i.e. failing crops), as well as increase the chance for Sage to plan can be adop ge placing orders for produce before the crops have   52 British Columbia (Bomford).  This is essential in the short term to ensure that the been planted.  Payment for these crops will be guaranteed to the Farm regardless Farm stay operational, but ultimately the Farm will need to be independently failure of the crop.  This will allow for advanced profitable in order to be financially secure in the risk of not selling what is produced, or loss of the future.  Part of the reason it is not self-  a d has    le used y not is a “gas guzzler”, which increases daily operating expenses and decreases the Farm’s ability to make the numerous deliveries necessary to satisfy customers such as Sage Bistro” (Bomford in Group 4).  “Sage Bistro, while profitable has not been operating to its full potential: • The Bistro itself currently demonstrates a profit; however, there is significant room for  of the success or planning of which crops need to be cultivated without ney due to crop failure (Bomford).  Risk-Sharing ovides the chance for them to gain more when a  A.2 Enlist MBA student to devise business plan for the UB a ty  A.3 See • elp  he profits made and the Farm would benefit in   A.4 Tap expand •  a ts at Sage Bistro” (Group 4). sustaining is due to the fact that they lack solid business plan.  Mark Bomfor stated that he and the others managing farm production are still somewhat inexperienced at running a large scale operation (Bomford). While the group agrees that the main purpose of the UBC Farm be educating students, we also believe that in order for it to stay in operation, it needs to be profitable. Profitability has also been hindered by transportation inefficiencies; the vehic for delivery of produce has certainl been economically viable. In Mark’s words, it expansion.  At present their profitability is largely dependent on the catering division - the restaurant itself only breaks even” (Parr in Group 4).  mo Marketing is also beneficial to Sage Bistro in that it pr crop is only particularly successful - the additional harvest will go to Sage without any extra charge (Bomford)” (Group 4). C f rm • “Working to improve the long term financial stabili of UBC Farm, a concrete business plan needs to be developed to ensure the UBC Farm continues to be in operation.  We suggest this initiative be conducted by an MBA student.  It would be ideal if the selected student has knowledge and experience in both agriculture and business to assure a thorough and applicable business plan”. k out investors for UBC farm “The Farm should bring investors on board to h finance improvements and expansion to the Farm including, but not limited to a new transport van and the development of crop land.  These investors could add precious dollars to the small operating budget in a lso gain sustainable fashion.  The investors would a from t the form of resources supplied by the investors - a mutually beneficial relationship”.  into growing customer base brought on by the ing campus “As the UBC campus expands to even more of “University Town”, the new housing developments will increase the number of people that live within campus boundaries.  Through the use of marketing and advertising strategies [see section A.2] these potential consumers can be accessed and therefore serve to boost the profi  Attaining Ec INDICATORS AND/OR CRITERION AS THE UBC FARM AND SAGE BISTRO, THE ological Sustainability SESSED: WHEN ASSESSING THE SUSTAINABILITY OF  TWO ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS AND/OR CRITERION OF HE TEACHING TEAM MODEL WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT (IN RICHER, 2004): 1. THE DISTANCE THAT FOOD TRAVELS BETWEEN WHERE IT IS PRODUCED AND WHERE IT T IS CONSUMED AND ENDS UP 2. LEVEL OF CAMPUS BIODIVERSITY, THE EFFICIENCY OF LAND, WATER AND ENERGY USE   53 Challenge Solution A. Lim local food items from current supplier • foo occasionally other suppliers are needed for certain food items.  Procuring food from a large supplier may not be sustainable as the food may travel great distances from remote production areas.  Packaging and transporting of these to UBC further involves the use of non-renewable resources”.   of produce ms bought and sold by UBC food providers [such as from the UBC Farm] would decrease reliance on various forms of transport and thus increase the sustainability of the UBC food system”. • “The UBC Farm on campus occasionally provides ingredients to Sage Bistro, such as the spring salad mix and surplus vegetables not previously sold by the Farm. Sage Bistro has expressed interest in purchasing more produce from a local supplier as it is generally of higher quality and has a longer shelf-life. Unfortunately, the current delivery system of the UBC Farm involves the use of an outdated vehicle that is extremely fuel inefficient and therefore limits the ability of the Farm to transport goods to other areas on campus. There is a great need for a new economically and ecologically sound method of transport that could accommodate large volumes of produce.  By having an updated transportation system, the Farm would decrease ecological footprints and increase sustainability of the UBC Food System”. ited ability of Sage Bistro to purchase A.1 Economically and ecologically sustainable delivery “At this time Neptune provides most of the d ingredients that the restaurant uses and • “An increase in the percent of locally produced ite B. Inability of UBC Farm to respond to produce demand There are many barriers that the UBC Farm faces to meet increases in demand for their products. (1) “Limited area of cultivatable land available to increase farm yields.  Out of the eight available hectares of arable land, the Farm uses three, leaving five hectares available for expansion”. (2) “The suitability of potential new crops in the agricultural environment. Problems arise with regard to pests, such as wireworms that would create difficulties with crop expansions initially.  Wireworm populations decline with continued cultivation; however, some crops may take years to become viable (Bomford).  Some specialty crops may also be more susceptible to weeds than traditional crops in the area and are often more labour intensive”. B.1. Cultivation of specialty items and organic greenhouses • “Incorporating the use of organic greenhouses in order to expand production and grow specialty items or herbs would create more space and would be an environmentally suitable for some plants not naturally cultivated in the UBC Farm area. Any positive changes to soil health, groundwater quality or efficiency of water and energy use would increase the sustainability of the UBC food system”. • “UBC Farm should have a thorough plan and account for possible loss crops due to pests in the first two to three years”(Group 4).   Attaining Social Sustainability Indicators and/or Criterion Assessed: When assessing the sustainability of the UBC Farm and Sage Bistro, the two social indicators and/or criterion of the teaching team model were taken into account (in Richer, 2004): 1. The perceived availability (quantity, hours of operation) and acceptability (culturally, nutritionally, and ethically) of foods 2. Level of UBC community participation in the UBC food system (community employment, volunteer activity, purchasing and general involvement)   54 Challenge Solution   55 A. Lack of knowledge and support of the UBC arm and Sage Bistro UBC Farm lacks the community participation and wareness: • The level of UBC involvement in the Farm is inadequate, but promising.  With a long list of volunteers and employment interest, collaboration with over 30 UBC courses, and many festive efforts, such as FarmAid to increase support, the level of awareness of the Farm seems sufficient (Bomford). However, in the context of the entire UBC campus and sustained involvement, the Farm lacks consistent extensive support.  Many of the courses that involve the Farm were one- time visits or projects that lasted only the term (Bomford).  In addition, due to staffing constraints, the Farm is not in operation during the fall season until April (Bomford). Furthermore, the involvement of the UBC community in purchasing and selling farm products is low.  The Farm often has difficulty generating interest and traffic to the market, and only a few UBC vendors, such as Sage Bistro and Sprouts make purchases. On the other hand, although the number of farm staff is low, community employment is high.  The Farm believes in providing employment for UBC students at fair wages, which creates a social-economic context” (Bomford in Group 4). Lack of awareness of Sage Bistro among the off- campus population: • “The level of UBC participation in Sage Bistro is quite high with sufficient campus awareness.  Sage, a part of UBC food services, is well supported by the campus. John Flipse has expressed a desire in improving the profile of Sage’s catering department to attract off campus business, which can add to word-of-mouth advertising for the restaurant” (Flipse in Group 4).     A.1- Int • m action. Also, business should be integrated into the courses Sciences (AGSC), ideally those  a a o ven A.2 laboratively, both the UBC Farm   loyalty.  Moreover, research or graduate work can be promoted to the UBC community, and not just AGSC to increase the educational component of the Farm. r, ts n incentive to eat at the bistro by offering F “ a egration of UBC Courses, the Farm, and Business “There needs to be an increased awareness and knowledge of the UBC Farm in order for the UBC community to provide more support.  Academic courses are a great way to not only reach a large number of students, but also to familiarize them with the Farm and provide hands-on experience. Although the Farm has been integrated into over 30 courses, most do not provide hands-on practical experience that can develop into long-ter within Agricultural that deal with the Farm directly in developing a business plan.  Collaboration between the Farm and commerce class is currently in progress, which is promising first step.  A more extensive approach t incorporate the Farm into AGSC courses would be to have a group of students work on the farm throughout the term or school year, which will help solve some of the Farm’s staffing issues.  For example, students in an AGSC course can be gi the option to work on the Farm throughout the year in lieu of writing the final exam”.  - Marketing and Advertisement • “Individually and col and Sage Bistro can enhance their marketing and advertising.  Collaboratively, Sage and the Farm can have a mutual advertisement agreement where Sage will advertise the use of farm produce, while the Farm advertises that their produce can be found at Sage. This can be advertised through flyers, emails, websites, and Sage’s menu. • The Farm’s current method of promotion is through email, a website, print media, and working with courses on campus (Bomford).  To increase awareness of produce from the Farm sold on campus they could display stickers that say “UBC Grown” or “UBC Organic”.  This way the UBC community will realize that produce grown on the farm is being sold on campus, and perhaps create a sense of pride and      • If Sage Bistro was looking to increase business, perhaps to expand their seating at breakfast or dinne advertisement efforts should be targeted at studen and the general public.  Sage could advertise and provide a coupons in the UBC Agenda or the Ubyssey.  In attracting off campus business Sage could work with   56                  ing off campus business, Sage could work with the Chan Centre to coordinate event days and provide Perhaps a combination of a dinner and a show can be  can advertise Sage  ce from the UBC Farm.  Furthermore, if Sage cal newspapers such as the Georgia Strait”. t the Saturday local grocers and producers, and have a Community r arket  to cheese, and from wine to breads.  The UBC community, e majority of their groceries at one of the Farm, generate traffic and revenue, and create a sense of local, community cohesion”.  celebration of food event held at the UBC Farm could increase the awareness of the Farm and help advertise local restaurants, while bringing the community together.  Sage Bistro and local restaurants can present ng .  As sample m the e Farm could charge local restaurants a small fee for participating and using the locale.  As a result, awareness of the Farm and Sage would heighten, revenue from sales and fees will be generated for the Farm, and a sense of p 4). attract discounted meals with each purchased event ticket. developed between Sage and the Chan Centre.  With this collaboration, the Chan Centre as a good “after-show” place to eat that serves fresh produ wishes to reach a wider public, it can advertise in lo  A.3- Community Market • “To increase awareness and business a markets, the Farm could expand the market to include Market.  Local grocers and producers would sell thei products on the Farm to provide a more extensive m that offers a variety of foods ranging from produce local residents, and the wider public can visit the Farm and purchase th location.  This would decrease the traveling distance for groceries of UBC and local residents, increase awareness       A.4- Fresh from the Farm • “A community demonstrations of dishes or delicacies produced usi fresh local organic food and produce from the Farm each restaurant displays their creativity, people can wine, taste the food, and purchase fresh produce fro Farm.  To generate revenue on top of ticket sales, th community involvement will be established” (Grou  ummary of Recommendations audience Recommendations  S UBC Farm & UBC Sage Bistro Business: ƒ A written contract proposal should be composed that outlines a business arrangement that is mutually symbiotic between the 2 stakeholders, it should include: o A list of desirable products that can be grown on the UBC Farm that Sage would like to purchase o A set of common product prices o A method of delivery transport that is cost-effective, efficient and sustainable   57 o A list of risk-sharing potentials Marketing and Advertising: prises. ters, and generating emails through faculties and student services ork ƒ An effort should be made to increase marketing and advertisement for both enter This can include: o Advertising in UBC newspapers and publications, creating flyers and pos o Advertisements could also be targeted towards citizens who reside and w outside of campus (Group 4). 2006 A Stu Farm e awareness and support for both Sage and the UBC  se  est Point Grey and Kitsilano ing t can GSC 450 ƒ Investigate strategies to increas dents & UBC Farm Expansion and Financial Stability: ƒ Investigate ways that the UBC Farm can expand its market to other campus food outlets, such as those in the Student Union Building, The Barn, etc. ƒ Assess the degree to which other campus food outlets would be willing to purcha products from the Farm ƒ Assess the degree to which food outlets off-campus would be willing to purchase products from the Farm, particularly those in the W communities who serve specialty items, and may be willing to purchase crops in advance. ƒ Investigate ways the Farm can increase economic support, such as through explor potential donors and investors for the Farm ƒ Further build upon our list of food items that Sage is interested in purchasing tha be grown on the UBC Farm (see Appendix C)(Group 4).  Scen C Farm  Summ  The Co Depart ods7. But, the General Manager of AMSFBD, Nancy Toogood, does not know what exactly is such as catering requirements, cost, seasonal availability of ario 2c): Feasibility of Supplying a Food Conference with Local Foods from UB ary of Specific Problem Definition mmunity Food Security Coalition (CFSC) has approached the AMS Food and Beverage ment (AMSFBD) to cater a conference which they wish to hold at UBC with locally produced fo required to host such an endeavor, desired local foods, etc.  General Research Question:  Working with Nancy Toogood (AMSFBD), UBC Farm staff and local food brokers, determine the catering requirements for 600-800 people in the eventuality that a conference is held at UBC requesting local foods. You will need to design menus, estimate required food quantities, establish growing plans, and indicate the financial feasibility (from both the grower’s and purchaser’s perspective).  7 About two weeks into the case, the AMSFBD was informed that the CFSC would not be holding their conference at UBC due to a lack of space availability in September. Yet, Nancy Toogood decided that the groups working on the scenario should still continue their work in planning for a local foods conference, but o tailor it towards holding future conferent c ces. Thus, if AMSFBD is approached by any other interested lients for a catering event supplied with local foods, they would be ready to fulfill these requirements.   58 Summary of Methodology iew of secondary sources including former AGSC 450 student work (work pertaining to the feasibility of using local distributors to supply campus food •  Farm Production Manager, Greg Rekken (Group 11).  member met with Mark Bomford, the UBC Farm Program Coordinator, on mine which of the 2 options for holding better from the Farm’s perspective (Group l groups to plan the conference for, ield r acre • Telephone and email communicatio ist rs: Discovery Organics, Pro Organics, Hills Foods Ltd., s, Lower Mainland Vegetable Distributors, Fraser Valley Growers ontained at least three of the four food groups” (Group 11). Recipes were selected through conducting an internet search and the Fo  Can website was primarily used to select recipes sired recipes were not available at this site other we sites were researched (Group 1 The following local distributors were contacted: “Pro-Org egeta istributors, H  Ltd., Sysco Vancouver, Atlas Wine Merchants, Island Farms, Olympic Dairy, and Anita’s Organic Grain and Flour.  Due to time constraints, replies were ec h  a r , Low Ma eget ibut o Va and A ganic and Flo (Group 16).  ummary of Central Findings  total of 3 groups worked on this scenario. While groups did share some information, they each  to summarize each groups proposed food conference materials separately below. I found that each of the group’s materials were quite different in content, budgets, menus, and food sources, and in how they reported their findings. I also found discrepancies between the groups in their reported budget allowance, a the number of significantly m t my mmarizing and integrating of Group 15 and 16’s work as clear as possible, but I could only do so ial details in their work. These issues led me to conclude that each group’s report needed to be reported separately to enhance the reader’s ability to osal holistically.   • Conducted a literature rev providers) (Group 11). Face-to-face, telephone and email communication was held with the AMSFBD Manager, Nancy Toogood, UBC Farm Program Coordinator, Mark Bomford and the UBC • One Group behalf of all groups assigned to the scenario to deter the conference (August or Oct wouldober)  be 11). August ended up being chos  asen  the month for al because Mark indicated that in August there is a greater variety of products, and prices are generally lower becau pese y  is six to eight times higher than in October”, and he thought this would apply to other distributors as well (Group 11). n was conducted with the representatives from the ributofollowing brokers, producers and d Sysco Vancouver, Atlas Wine Merchant Association, and the UBC Farm (Group 11). • Canada’s Food Guide to Healthy Eating was used to ensure that each proposed conference meal “c • od Network ada  and if de 1). • D anics, Lower Mainland V ble ills Food r eived from o inlan nly four of t able D e distributors ors, S originally cont ncouv cted: Discove nita’s Or y Organics  Grain er ur” d V istr ysc er, S  A produced different, or competing if you wish, materials for the food conference. I decided wh t expenses they included in their total expected budget, number of meals planned and  days the conference would be held. Please note that I found Group 11’s to be ore detailed, clear and organized than the other groups. So, I tried to presen su much considering there were many missing cruc comprehend each prop   59 Group 11: Findings  onference Budget AllowanceC : lot “$50.00 per person per day, and that food expenses could be estimated at 30-35% of the $50.00” (Group 11).  • AMSFBD Manager, Nancy Toogood was contacted to determine the conference budget (Group 11). According to Nancy Toogood, AMSFBD would al  Budget Proposal: tal expected number of clients  To :   750 Total estimated conference food budget:  $22, 500 Daily Total Conference Food Budget:   $11,250, per day d Expenses Per personFoo :    30% at $15.oo per person per day Number of meals included:  Friday night reception: wine and cheese; and 1 Saturday: breakfast, snack, lunch, and dinner (Group 11). Detailed Breakdown of Food costs by rsonItem, meal and pe :    See Appendix D See Table 1 below Dinner Beverages Total Cost Saving Breakdown of costs per meal and person:  Table 1 Day Breakfast Snacks Lunch (including t) desser Friday _ Total cost of _ _ Night eption cheese: $8,209.50 Total cost of wine: $14.91/per person $0.07/per pers Rec $2,786.04 $8,209.50/total on   food cost Saturday $798.69/total meal $307.47/total snacks $1537.34/total meal $2,791.52/total meal $3,345.38/total beverages $11.77 person $1.60/per $0.41/per $2.05/per $3.72/per $4.46/per   $8,829.00/total .23/per person  /per $3 person  person person  person person food cost  Choice of Distributors:  The following distributors were selected to serve as the main food providers for the conference: 1. UBC Farm  hoice of Menu Themes and Main Products 2. Discovery Organics 3. Lower Mainland Vegetable Distributors: • Through the Fraser Valley Growers Association, the Lower Mainland Vegetable Distributors were chosen because it was felt that this amalgamated distributor would be easier to deal with than with many selective smaller distributors (Group 11). C : onference Theme: C   60 • “Land, Food, and Community – Eat BC”, was proposed to serve as the overarching conference theme “to demonstrate the feasibility of producing, supplying, and eating locally” (Group 11). emes:  Menu Th • “Healthy Farm, Healthy Students with some Local West Coast Flare” was proposed to serve as the uniting recipe theme for the food conference menu (Group 11).  Rationale: • e food products from the Farm are high quality and fresh (Group 11). l West Coast Flare” was chosen as the other main menu theme, because local foods, such  Rec • “Healthy Students” ended up becoming a main theme for the menus because of influences by a number of the group members whose studies focus on nutrition. Canada’s Food Guide to Healthy Eating was used as guide to ensure that at least three of the four food groups were used in each meal. “Healthy Farm” was chose as a main theme because th • “Loca as from the UBC farm play a “unique role to play in making UBC a dynamic and innovative venue for a local food conference” (Group 11). ipe Selection: ipe selection was accomplished by conducting an internet search. If no suitable recipes were nd from the Food Network Canada website, other websites were searched (Group 11).  following criteria were used to select recipes: Rec fou he red available local foods • • h meal  11). ere chosen as the main features for the conference recipes. For a complete list of cipes and meals please see Appendix D T • Recipes that were healthy and featu • Recipes that could be considered as “gourmet-type” Recipes that could be used for creating ‘farm-specific’ recipes that would enable chefs to use only featured produce from the farm An appropriate number of recipes that would ensure at least one vegetarian option at eac • Recipes that would “enhance the freshness and flavour of local foods” (Group  The items below w . re  Friday night reception:  Sna sck  and Beverages: Wine and cheese  • loca teurized Cheese.  The domestic par Ok and  Saturd “Cheeses chosen for the Friday night’s reception were either locally or domestically made.  The lly made cheeses include Gort's aged Gouda and Moonstruck Pas cheeses chosen include tomato basil Havarti, milk provolone, and Barri Mozza. Conference ticipants will have a chance to sample different types and flavours of cheeses. Two different anagan, BC wines were chosen for the reception to allow for diversity, both including a white  red option” (Group 11). ay: ast:  Breakf   61 • Bot opt  Snacks h hot and a cold breakfast options were selected: “waffles with blueberry sauce as the hot ion and fruit with granola and yogurt as the cold option” (Group 11). : o types of muffins were selected: “apple cinnamon and carrot zucchini to accentuate the ilability of local apples, carrots, and zucchini in August” (Group 11). • Tw ava unch  L :  selected:  “The vegetarian option is grilled eggplant with lemon aioli resh carrots and boiled beets from the • Two types of wraps were wrap and the non-vegetarian option is the turkey roll-up with grated carrots and green onions. Potato salad will be available.  Two soups featuring local delicacies are Salmon chowder and Squash soup, featuring squash from the UBC Farm.  F UBC Farm will be available at each table” (Group 11).  Dinner: • Dinner was planned to serve “as the highlight of the day as we will be able to feature the largest selection of tasty local foods.  Ginger tofu with seasonal vegetables served on rice is the vegetarian option.  Grilled Salmon with a lemon Dijon sauce and herbed grilled chicken are the non-vegetarian options.  Side options include beet risotto, garlic mashed potatoes, grilled tomatoes, and salad greens from the UBC Farm garnished with ground cherries with either oil and vinegar or tangy orange dressing.  Peach and apple crisp will be available for dessert.  Juice, milk, tea, and coffee will be available as beverages at snack-time and at all meals” (Group 11).  Recipe Item Quantity Predictions:  Recipes were modified adequately to feed 750 people. A survey was conducted with the 7 group • members to determine their expected food quantities that the “group was a sample of seven diverse people” and thus would provide representative for the food conference events. It was felt  determine required quantities and associated costs (Group 11). See Appendix D desired food amounts to •  for specific quantity predictions for each recipe (Group 11). Recipe Costing:    The costs to produce each of the recipes were determined in the following ways indicated below. See Appendix D for detailed cost breakdown for each recipe ingredient.  ased upon communication with the Farm Team. . Local BC foods that were deemed the most affordable from other distributors were priced. were not available from distributors, “we supported good agricultural practices by pricing organic products from a local distributor”.  required contract. Wine prices were obtained from a BC Liquor Store, and cheese 1. Foods from the Farm were priced first b 2 3. If desired BC products 4. “If prices were not available for certain products (in particular protein products, such as meats and tofu) from local distributors (e.g. the needed distributor did not get back to us with appropriate information), we used Sysco prices as this company is one of AMSFBD’s primary suppliers.  For the remainder of food prices, we went to Save-On Foods.  We assume for the purpose of reaching a conclusion of [economic] feasibility, that these products (from Sysco and Save-on Foods) would be provided by the local distributors we identified (E.g. Hills Foods).  The only missing information is confirmation with these businesses to see if they can supply the   62 prices were obtained from Les Amies du Fromage and Ugo & Joe’s Italian Supermarket.  We flect wholesale prices”. tabase that would give weights for all ingredients used in our recipes p subtracted 30% from the retail prices as Nancy Toogood told our group that this would re 5. The United States Department of Agriculture National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference was used to serve as a da because “we needed to know the poundage (in kilograms) of various ingredients” (Grou 11).  Choice of Farm Products:  A selection of UBC Farm products including: salad mix, beets, carrots, ground cherries and squash were chosen for conference items for the following reasons:  1. Upon consultation with Nancy Toogood, she requested Farm’s role should be highlig  that in our menu planning that  the “UBC hted by planning dishes that featured Farm products, without re selected were “arrived at on the basis of the following nfident it can produce reliably at high quality, seasonal limitations, and vailable for production)” (Group 11). Production Plans for Required UBC Farm Products augmentation by other sources”, a selection of  UBC Farm salad mix, beets, carrots, ground cherries and squash were chosen. It was felt that choosing these particular items would help “showcase the quality of the UBC Farm’s produce, such as a baby greens salad garnished with ground cherries and a feature summer squash soup” (Group 11). 2. Upon consultation with Mark Bomford, he “felt it would be wise to focus on those that they can produce consistently and reliably…[because] many UBC Farm crops are still problematic, and the staff is still learning about production challenges associated with small-scale organic production” Group 11). Thus, the Farm items that we( factors: produce the farm is co rowing plan limitations (area ag  :  Qu t The following quantities of Farm items are required for the conference: 3) Assorted summer squash (150lbs) 4) Beets (20lbs) 5) Ground cherries (24 pints) (Group 11).  Growing Plan Calculations:  Using data from the USDA Nutrient Database and Eliot Coleman’s book The New Organic Farmer, calculations for growing plans were established. Reliable data was found to perform calculations for each item except for ground cherries, thus the group’s estimations need to be confirmed for this item. See Appendix D an ity Requirements: 1) Cool salad mix of baby greens (60lbs) 2) Table carrots (66lbs)  for full details on calculation methods and results. Coleman’s growing plan methods were used because it was felt that the author’s “use of growing plans based on plant and row spacing reflects the Farm’s position as a small, mixed production, organic enterprise” (Group 11).  Below are the calculation results for the total land required to produce the food quantities described above.   63  Total area required ( 8 excluding ground cherries): approximately 6098 square feet (30 standard eds) . cherries: As a high estimate, we added 1362 (7 standard beds)  for all items: approximately 7460 square feet (37 standard beds) (Group 11). ese calculations are subject to variation depending on climate, the resources of b Total area required for ground quare feet for ground cherries s Total area required lease note that “thP the Farm, and many other variables” (Group 11).  Conclusion: It is expected that this product o  will be “feasible fi n plan or the Farm to produce the ey duction [3 hectares].  lected areas” (Group 11). amount required by the contract in the land th currently have under pro However, if the Farm also wishes to continue to provide for other customers during the time they plan to supply the conference, they may need to expand production in se  Additional Funding Sources: In an eff offset anyort to  additional costs of hosting the local food event, Nancy Toogood suggested ods o g additional sponsorship be explored. Below is a list of potential sponsors MSFB oods conference, as well as a Sponsorship Letter that could be used to gain rom l anies and organizations can be found in Appendix D that meth f attainin for the A D local f rsuppo t f ocal comp  (Group 11). Potential ponsors were chosen from selection of enterprises that attended the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences 05, in which it was felt that interest in supporting the food conference ould likely be demonstrated (Group 11). • Nature's Path Foods ociation • • BC • BC • Cer s career fair in February 20 w  List of Potential Sponsors:  • BC Dairy Foundation • BC Food Protection Ass BC Fruit Growers' Association  Greenhouse Growers' Association  Salmon Farmers Association tified Organic Association of BC (Group 11).  8 UBC Farm uses a standard bed size of 4 feet by 50 feet (200 square feet)(Rekken, April 4, 2005)   64  Group 15: Findings  Conference Budget Allowance:  Budget Proposal:  Total expected number of clients:    750 Total proposed conference food budget:   $13,312.50 CAN Food and Preparation Expenses Per person:  $17.75 CAN per person umber of meals includedN :    Saturday: Breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks stsDetailed Food co :      See Appendix D  Total Budget per Person per Day:  $ 17.75  Snacks     $   1.50 Breakfast    $   3.00 Lun  $   4.25 ch Dinner     $   9.00 Total     $ 17.75  Choice of Distributors:  distributors based upon the following criteria: ability to provide large od product quantities, provide a wide array of local BC products, and a showed a focus on food serve as the main supplier of required food products. Discovery Organics was also chosen because it “has a good reputation; a wide variety of products… and ninety-three minute (Moss, Annie, March 21st, 2005 in Group 15). • Offers “organic and specialty meat products”, and is thus an ideal supplier to fulfill these ncouver • Sysco was chosen to act as a distributor for those items that the group was unable to find Since AMSFBD already holds a contract with Sysco, all they need to do is expand their current purchases (Group 15).  An effort was made to select fo sustainability (Group 15). The following distributors were selected to serve as the main food providers for the conference:  1. Discovery Organics • Nancy Toogood suggested the use of Discovery Organics, and in turn, it was chosen to food trucks traveling across the border every 2. Hills Food item requirements for the conference (Group 15). 3. Sysco Va from Discovery Organics, Hills Food or the UBC Farm. 4. UBC Farm  Choice of Menu Themes:  Conference Theme: A conference theme that was decided upon by the group was “Fresh is Best”. t was felt that this theme would represent “the quality, taste and ease of use that can be met through the local food system” (Group 15). “Each meal will be presented as a buffet to better serve the large I   65 number of guests attending, and to provide an attractive display of locally grown and prepared foods” (Group 15).  Recipe Selection:  Recipes were selected for “functionality in regards to its locally supplied ingredients, the preparation me, cost, and finally, the nutritional quality”. The level of nutritional quality for recipes was determined using the general nutritional guidelines set forth by Health Canada, who also takes into account Canada’s Food Guide to Healthy Eating. Recipes were also chosen for cooking and preparation that w ieved to be m l (Gr meals please see  D ti as bel inima oup 15). For a complete list of menu recipes and Appendix .  Recipe Costing:  The costs to produce each of the recipes were determined in the following ways indicated below. See Appendix D for a cost breakdown for each recipe ingredient. 1. Distributor product price lists were used to obtain prices for 64 out of 86 required recipe ingredients. 2. For products or prices which were not available from the above four selected distributors, retail prices for 22 out of 86 required recipe ingredients were surveyed from Superstore, a Vancouver retail grocery store. Most of these products constituted dairy products or food seasonings (Group 15).  Choice of Farm Products: ased on how many are needed”. . Producing these 3 items will “best utilize the farm space and minimize production costs” (Group 15).  Production Plans for Required UBC Farm Products  A selection of 3 UBC Farm products including: carrots, garlic and onions were chosen for conference items for the following reasons: 1. “Growing carrots and onions together as described by Coleman (1989) can increase productivity and labor. Garlic can be grown in the same space as the carrots b 2 :  Growing Plan Calculations and Quantity Requirements:  See Appendix D for proposed production plan design, specific quantities, and associated cost and space estimates.  Menu Analysis for Percentage of Local and Semi-Local Foods: e grown and purchased within British Columbia; 2) Semi-Local: food products processed in BC with ingredients produced outside of British  “Local” was divided into the following categories: (1) Local: those food products that ar ( Columbia; (3) Non-Local: food products that are globally produced (Group 15).    66 Food groups that were represented in the proposed conference menu were analyzed to determine the extent to which they are local, semi-local or non-local. In the table below, the “percentages of “local” success from our chosen food menu ingredients by calculating the number of items obtained locally, semi-locally, and non-locally” are described (Group 15). Overall, “43 of the 86 ingredients ere locally grown and produced” ( roup 15).   w G Vegetables   Semi-Local ----- Local  90.5%  Non-Local 70% Semi-Local -----  Grain Products Non-Local 9.5%  Local 16.7% Fruit   Semi-Local 50% Local 100%  Non-Local 33.3% Semi-Local ----- Other  Non-Local -----  Local 21.4% Meat & Meat Alternatives   Semi-Local 28.6% Local 87.5%  Non-Local 50% Semi-Local  -----  Total Products Non-Local 12.5%  Local 50.6% Milk Products   Semi-Local 16.5% Local 30%  Non-Local 32.9%  In the diagram below, “the percentages of local, semi-local, and non-local food items” for the conference menu are represented (Group 15). Overall, “50.6% of the menu items are locally produced, 16.5% are semi-locally produced, and 32.9% are globally produced”. If the local and semi- cal products are combined, it gives us a value of 67% (Group 15).  lo  (Group 15) ey that menu items would recycle back into the local, semi-  stimated percentage of monE local, and global food economies:  In the table below, a Cash Flow analysis is depicted “to examine the “local” success from our chosen food menu ingredients is shown by calculating the Cost of items obtained locally, semi-locally, and non-locally. The percentages of money coming from the local, non-local, and semi-local sectors in each category are shown next to the dollar value”.  Overall, it was “determined that $6897.90 would   67 be directly recycled into the local BC food system using our menus and distributors, as well as a large portion of the $1165.31 from the semi-locally produced food items”. Please note that the “onions, garlic, and carrots from the UBC Farm were omitted in this analysis, as well as the two items [raspberries and ricotta cheese] for which we could not obtain any price estimation” (Group 15).  Vegetables   Semi-Local   ----- Local $1759.6 (95.5%)  Non-Local $492.14 (61%) Semi-Local -----  Grain Products Non-Local $82.84 (4.5%)  Local $4.80 (0.4%) Fruit   Semi-Local $849.14 (77.2%) Local $1837.80 (100%)  Non-Local $246.11 (22.4%) Semi-Local ----- Other  Non-Local -----  Local $999.56 (42.3%) Meat & Meat Alternatives   Semi-Local $316.17 (13.4%) Local $1981.37 (98%)  Non-Local $1046.32 (44.3%) Semi-Local -----  Total Products Non-Local $33.75 (1.7%)  Local $6897.90 (69.2%) Milk Products   Semi-Local $1165.31 (11.7%) Local $314.75 (39%)  Non-Local $1901.16 (19.1%)   In the foods p f the t mi-locally supplied, and another 19% is non-locally supplied” (Group 15).           (Group 15) diagram below, “the total amount and percentage in the menu budget that is being spent on roduced locally, semi-locally, and non-locally” is described (Group 15). “Approximately 69% otal money spent for items in our proposed menu are locally produced foods. 11.7% of the o total menu cost is se                                                     (Group 15)  Additional Funding Sources:  Bel potential sponsors for the AMSFBD local foods conference, as well as a Sponsorship Letter that could be used to gain support from local companies and organizations can be found in Appendix D ow is a list of  (Group 15).  Also see Appendix D for individual tent cards that the group developed to be placed on each conference table, in conjunction with advertisement banners and brochures (Group 15). The potential sponsors that were selected consisted of enterprises that the   68 group felt might be interested in supporting a local food conference event. The group felt that “not only will the use of sponsors decrease conference costs for AMSFBD; it will also provide an opportunity for local food companies or farming corporations to advertise to an agriculturally- infl  Potential S  ƒ B ƒ BC food protection Association ciation ƒ BC greenhouse growers' association ouse ƒ Happy Planet th foods ƒ The Certified organic association of BC (Group 15). Gro uential crowd” (Group 15). ponsors: C Dairy Foundation ƒ BC fruit growers' asso ƒ BC Hot H ƒ BC salmon farmers association ƒ Capers ƒ Nature’s Pa  up 16: Findings  Co rnfe ence Budget Allowance: Based upon communication with Nancy Toogood, “an approximate budget of $15 U.S. per person was allocated to food purchasing (personal communica • tion, Nancy Toogood, March 7, 2005).  With the current exchange rate of approximately 1.20 and an estimated 750  CAD” (Group 16). attendees, the total budget of the conference is $13,554.22  Budget Proposal:  tal expected number of clientsTo :   750 tal estimated conference food budgetTo :  $8,343.319 Number of meals included:   Saturday: breakfast, snack, lunch and dinner otal SurplusT :     $5,210.91 Detailed Food Costs:    See Appendix D Ch  oice of Distributors:  effort was made to select distributors based upon the following criteria: provided food that  An is oth locally and organically grown, demonstrated a strong awareness of sustainability issues, and  at affordable prices, ability to provide sufficient product quantities, and ability to eet the frequent delivery requirements of the AMSFBD (Group 16). The following distributors 1. UBC Farm b provided products m were selected to serve as the main food providers for the conference:   9 According to the group, “the labour costs associated with preparing and serving this meal are greater than the cost of the food itself” (Group 16). Thus, it does not appear that the group included labour costs within their total budget.   69 2. Discovery Organics 3. Lower Mainland Vegetable Distributors 4. Sysco Vancouver 5. Large national supplier10 (Miscellaneous) • “Smaller items and hidden ingredients such as salad dressings and condiments were not [first 4] distributors but were still required.  It is these smaller items that Ch offered by the were often not feasible to obtain locally and had to be purchased from large national suppliers” (Group 16).  oice of Menu Themes: nu Themes  Me : The theme for the menu is intended to be one that captures the “summer lifestyle of the west coast” and local BC foods (Group 16). ipe Selection: •  Rec  The following criteria were used to select recipes: • Recipes that contain locally grown food products For a complete list of recipes and meals please see Appendix D • Recipes that reflected the “summer lifestyle of the west coast” • Recipes that contained alternatives to red meat, such as Native west coast salmon “in an effort to both promote the B.C. salmon fishing industry and to cater to the growing number of individuals omitting red meat from their diets” (Group 16).  .  Limitations of Menu Recipe Selection: • “Wine was not budgeted into the cost of the conference because it was initially believed to not be financially feasible despite the feelings of the group that it was essential.  However, with the surplus budget, wine could be supplied free with dinner and future students would not have a problem contacting and purchasing wine from a local vineyard” (Group 16).  Recipe Ite Qm uantity Predictions: • Ingredi  enu recipes “calculated through simple scaling methods. Unit conversions were done by multiplying the original unit by the weight to volume ratio for that specific ingredient obtained from the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference” (Group 16).  See Appendix D ent quantities required for m  for menu items and ingredient quantity predictions.  Recipe Co nsti g:  The costs to produce each of the recipes were determined in the following ways indicated below. See ppendix A D for cost breakdown for each recipe ingredient.  • Examining price lists of desired food product distributors (Group 16).   10 Please note that this group neglected to indicate the actual name of this supplier.   70 • and Discovery Organics) for the menu, items were found and prices were calculated from a miscellaneous food supplier”,  and a 30% discount was applied “to estimate SFBD” off its retail price” (Group 16).  Role o For items which could not be obtained from the selected distributors (Sysco, Lower Mainland Vegetable Distributors, “ the wholesale cost as suggested by the AM f the UBC Farm: • Ideally the conference menu should “showcase fresh, locally grown produce from the UBC cou ground cherry and salad greens (personal communication, Mark Bomford, March 17, 2005 in gro UB including items, quantities, growing plans and staffing requirements” (Group 16). This proposal is based upon a proposed contract between campus food providers and Agora that was endix D farm….[but] after communicating with the Farm, it was learned that a limited number of items ld be provided to us in the quantities required for this dining occasion: squash, carrots, beets, Group 16). While the group included these items in their menu, they did not propose required wing plans. However, they did propose that a contract “be secured by AMS Catering with the C Farm before the growing season begins to assure a set amount of food for the conference, developed by Group 15 in spring 2004 (See App ).  Additional Funding Sources:  Bel Spo o be foun ow is a list of potential sponsors for the AMSFBD local foods conference, as well as a ns rship Letter that could be used to gain support from local companies and organizations can d in Appendix D (Group 16). Potential sponsors were chosen from selection of “small local bus s 16) ion  Salm re's Pa F • Meinhardt Fine • Capers Commun • Farm Folk/Cit • Happy Plan • Hills Foods Ltd • Natural Fa s • Organika • SISU • Yves Veggie Cui Benefits for the ine ses to large companies and organizations with their roots in the Lower Mainland” (Group . • BC Dairy Foundation • BC Food Protection Associat  BC Fru• • it Growers' Association  BC Greenhouse Growers' Association • BC • Certified Organic Association of BC • Natu on r Fa mers Association th oods Foods Inc ity Market y Folk et . ctor sine (Group 16).  Anticipated  AMSFBD: m hosting a local foods conference because by buying local fo  hidden costs associated with buying non-local foods, with “more packaging, not to mention refrigeration • AMSFBD will benefit fro ods they will avoid paying for the  such as those hidden costs associated and a greater   71 consumption of fuel by th waste and pollution” (Group 15).  Anticipated Benefits for the e trucks that transport them, resulting in a large amount of  UBC Farm: • If a contractual agreement is formed between the UBC Farm and AMSFBD, it can serve the Farm both as “a model for Community Supported Agriculture and institutional support of local food providers” o • If a contractual agreemen SFBD, it can serve to increase the economi  a case for its continued existence (Grou nce w p re and to itional suppor form the ttendees of its missio  of the niqueness of the Farm Anticipated Benefits for Co (Gr up 11). t is signed between the UBC Farm and AM c sustainability of the Farm which will help in making p 16). • The confere gain add a u ill rovide the Farm with the opportunity to enhance its exposu t. It could do this by using the conference to “educate and in n and its significance at the university, as many will be unaware ” (Group 16). nference Delegates  : • Conference d sharing, and t elega s arning and feel as f ment of he UBC Farm” (Grou • The UBC “Farm’s i  conference delegates to be a par at UBC” (Group 11). • The experience of delegates would be further enhanced by a “visit to the UBC Farm during the conference, as l   Summary of Recomm d audience Recom te “could link the food they are eating to the ideas they are le  i they are directly supporting a worthy cause such as the develop p 11). nvolvement can offer a highly visible opportunity for t of the process of the re-localization of the food system  we l as the inclusion of speakers from the Farm” (Group 11). en ations mendations AMSFBD or AGSC 450 Class or Team  Remain • al distributors to increase [menu] options” • s l for predicting cost and • • we feel  involvement may not have been ambitious e ssessment of item ). ing Tasks, Future Needs: “Further investigate loc (Group 11). “Acquire missing information about local food distributors, specifically for protein products such as salmon, chicken, etc.  Thi information will fill vital gaps in the mode logistical feasibility.  The question of “how local can the menu be?” can then be fully answered” (Group 11). “Refine the growing plans with the UBC Farm to maximize the benefit of the contract” (Group 11). “Upon examination of our findings regarding growing plans, that our goal for Farm enough.  There is potential to increase the value and amount of th contract with the Farm.  This would require a re-a choices, and a review of menu planning and pricing” (Group 11 AMSFBD • mation from distributors: (1) often distributors “did not take us A number of challenges emerged when trying to contact and get infor seriously because we are students and because this is a hypothetical conference”, and (2) “many distributors chose to keep their information confidential” (Group 11). We feel that if similar   72 scenarios are offered in the future, or if AMSFBD decides to hire someone to work on this scenario the following suggestions would help address these challenges: 1. AMSFBD “could provide a letter that could be sent to distributors.  This would allow the distributors to see that there  is a chance that the event could be held in the future”; 2. AMSFBD could create and make available information on distributors, such as in a database, where distributors’ products, prices, contact information, etc., are provided. 3. AMSFBD could provide a sample menu for prospective suppliers (Group 11). AMSFBD and UBC Farm Team r en possible.  The Farm managers would then plan the field area and • In order for the UBC Farm to provide desired food quantities fo the conference, “A contract would have to be negotiated betwe the AMSFBS and the UBC Farm before April 2006.  Mark Bomford has indicated he would prefer this date to be as early as February if  draw up a growing plan.  They would also make a financial and hiring plan based on the contract” (Group 11). 2006 AGSC 450 • Should “conduct an analysis of the Farm that includes but is not limited to the most economically efficient crops that can be grown, y purchasers, the effectiveness of awareness campaigns and the labor problems associated with a  addressing their specific tasks, they should mpleted” (Group 11). Class the most-desired crops b student-driven agriculture operation.  Such an analysis may not be needed after the completion of other projects this year, so consult with other findings before conducting further research” (Group 16). • Before groups begin “create a timeline to outline when they will have certain tasks co • Before groups begin addressing their specific tasks, they should “go through a three-step process, where a model is created, evaluated and then reworked” to enhance the efficiency in tackling complex scenarios (Group 11). • If this scenario or a similar one is offered again, groups should first try to get distributor information to plan the menus, which will enable one to then “develop growing plans and to determine the feasibility of re-localization” (Group 11). AGSC 450 • Should limit the number of people assigned to the same scenario to avoid communication problems that emerged in the case of this scenario with 21 people working on identical tasks (Group 11, 16). • Should continue to provide access for groups to WebCT as a tool vide information on how to develop growing plans to ped food sustainability model within the applied projects” (Group 15). Teaching eam T for communication between all people working on the same scenario (Group 11). • Should pro ease the complexity of this scenario (Group 11). • Should assign group scenarios earlier in the semester, to allow adequate time to obtain responses from distributors, etc. (Group 16). • Should assign groups in the final remaining terms of the project “to assess the value of the previously develo   73 Campus stainability • Should “continue to support the Farm through social marketing and education campaigns iSu n the UBC community as we are a leader in Office campus sustainability initiatives in Canada (CSO, 2005) and the farm is a significant component of a sustainable vision at UBC” (Group 16). UB ibutors like the AMSFBD would encourage the growth and development of the UBC Farm as a powerful al resource” (Group 15). • Should explore “further development of the pilot internship veloped by Stephanie Fung which may increase the regulation of the farm business and provide a more consistent labour base” (Group 15). C Farm • Should seek “capital investment into Farm wages which would help increase the sustainability of the UBC Farm. Greater business trade between UBC food distr education program de  Overview of 2005 Spring Scenario #3: Education, Awareness and Re- localization  ummary of Specific Problem Definition to s ver, it is believed by some that most of UBC n  Ge  De feas foo wit No S  Increasing the feasibility of re-localizing UBC’s food system requires that UBC consumers be willing how interest and to purchase local foods. Howe community members have a low level of knowledge about local foods, and awareness about the be efits of eating, supporting and buying local. neral Research Question: velop an educational campaign, including a set of educational pieces that would enhance the ibility of re-localizing UBC’s food system by increasing awareness about the benefits of local ds. We need to know the detailed steps required for its implementation, such as where, when, h whom, how, and how much? te: Out of the four groups who worked on this scenario, two were assigned the task to design a  were assigned the task to design a campaign campaign directed towards UBC food workers, and two  towards all UBC food consumers. m • resentative of the Buy BC program was conducted (Group 7). directed  Su mary of Methodology  • Conducted a literature review of secondary sources including former AGSC 450 student work (AGSC 450 2004 spring Group 1, 2004 summer Group 3) and Fall 2004 Sauder School of Business group paper (Group 1, 7). Review of the BC Agricultural Council website (Group 1, 7, 9, 13) as well as the annual report from the Ministry of Agriculture and Food was conducted (Group 7), email communication with an anonymous rep • Survey results from AGSC 450 2004 Group 17 and the Sauder School of Business fall 2004 were analyzed to help develop the educational campaign (Group 7).   74 • Email and telephone communication was conducted with potential suppliers and/or participants for the educational campaign (Group 1, 7, 9). Conducted an analysis of websites for potential promotional tool suppliers for the educational campaign (Group 1, 7, 9). Met with Nancy Toogood, the Manager of the AMS Food and Beverage D • • epartment, to discuss our campaign ideas, which resulted in close collaboration in developing the group’s vision and the educational campaign (Group 13). Summary of Central Findings Rev tools for   iew of the “Buy BC” Campaign:  jectivesOb : To increase consumer awareness of locally (BC) produced and processed food products (Group 1, 13). •  His • To generate support for local BC food production and processing, ensure the long term economic viability of the agricultural industry by increasing consumer awareness of local food (Group 7, 9). tory: Buy BC program was established in 1993, and was led by both the provinc• ial government and e agri-food industry (BCAC, 2005 in Group 7). Recent cuts were ern and support for th • A few years ago the provincial government pulled funding and the program has been taken over by the BC Agricultural Council.  (Group 1, 7 and 9). Prior to funding cuts, the provincial government provided multi-million dollar program funding (BCAC, 2004). made to the program by the BC Liberal government, and “Buy BC is now sustained through user fees to offset the costs of operating the program which indicate growing conc educational campaigns in this area” (Buy BC in Group 1, 13). Since then, the council has been struggling to maintain the program (AGF, 2002). A new user-pay program, requiring producers to pay an annual fee depending on their company size for the participation in the Buy BC program, was administered in 2003 to sustain the program (Birley, 2003). The program is now maintained under a sublicensing agreement with the provincial government (Group 7).  What: “Food producers and processors who qualify and pay to participate in the program are licensed to use the Buy BC logo or the Buy BC marks” (Group 7). “Participating companies can also take advantages of special promotions organized by retailers in the Buy BC program to promote their local products (BCAC, 2005). With an additional cost, Buy BC Road Signs are available to provide customers with clear directions toward a participating company’s farm or local food m • • arket (BCAC, 2005). The program is planning to offer website promotion and product research for its participants in the future” (Group 7).  Promotional Tools: Created a Buy BC Logo, • road signs, posters and stickers which are displayed around food • dvertisements (Group 1). markets (Group 1). Also displayed the Buy BC logo via television a   75 • The Buy BC marks are classified into three main categories: BC Grown, a BC Product and BC Made. BC Grown products are 100% grown or raised in BC (BCAC, 2005). A BC Product 005). Although BC Made products are also processed in BC, their raw  Suc indicates food with over 51% of its production originating in BC and is mainly grown within the province as well (BCAC, 2 materials are from other provinces or countries (BCAC, 2005 in Group 7). cesses: • Consumer recognition of the Buy BC logo has been measured at 75% (BCAC, 2004 and Buy BC, 2005 in Group 1, 13). The program has made people consider bu• ying locally. Since many people recognize the Buy BC • • logos (Buy BC, BC Product, BC Grown, and BC Made), the program logo, it will be useful to include it as a part of our educational campaign (Group 7). “According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food annual report from 1998 to 2000, the number of companies that use the Buy BC logo has increased by about 20% (Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries [AGF], 1999, 2000). Over 1200 companies and 5000 products are involved in the application of the Buy BC logo (BCAC, 2005 in Group 7). Through the use of various has increased consumer awareness of food grown or produced in BC, and aids in consumer identification of such items in grocery stores.  Many of these products—over 5000—are available throughout the province, and in an increasing number of stores (over 200 at present).  At this time, consumer recognition of the logo is purported to be over 75%, and the logo has benefited in over $10 million in media exposure (BC Agriculture Council in Group 9).  Challenges: The council has been struggling to maintain the Buy BC program since the government funding • • ll companies to up to $3000/year for large • Fro disc wit log • Lik pro [“Jane Doe”] is making progress in discussions with provincial government on how the Buy BC beneficial to BC. His/Her efforts include linking the program with current s well as promoting BC agri-food industries in the lead-up to 2010 Winter Olympics (Anonymous, Buy ogram, 2005 in Group 7). s cuts were made and replaced with user-pay program (AGF, 2002 in Group 7). User fees now “range from $250/year for sma companies” making it less accessible to many smaller companies (Group  9). m an email interview with an anonymous representative from the Buy BC program, “it was losed that there are difficulties in maintaining the program. As the program was initially free h the government funding in the past, a limited number of firms and associations are willing to pay for the licensing fee that is now required. There are only forty firms with current licenses and the program budget is about $25,000 each year. The budget is not sufficient to support the os and other materials” (Group 7). ewise, “another challenge that the program faces is the development of individual local food grams by the retailers. This has caused many retailers to withdraw from the Buy BC program. program can be initiatives on “healthy food for healthy British Columbians” and the Act Now Program a BC Pr  Le sons: The effectiveness of the Buy BC logo can be attributed in part to its design as clear, simple, and highly visible (Group 1, 9). •  The Buy BC logos (Buy BC, BC Product, BC Grown, and BC Made), are also effective because whole campaign (Group 1). • they permeate the   76 • The use of a logo can “enhance product identification, and to practice new purchasing behavior” among consumers (Group 9). The use of a logo aids in raising awareness among consumers to think about where their food is coming from (Group 13). The “use of a logo provides an opportunity for program evaluation— • • consumer acceptance and program impact can be tracked relatively simply, for instance through tallying the number of local products purchased” (Group 9). • “In targeting consumers at shelf level, where most purchasing decisions are made (BC Agriculture Council), the campaign simplifies consumer decision-making, and increases the havior change” (Group 9). •  establishing criteria that in order to participate in the program “UBCFS members sell a minimum percentage ducts”. This would allow “UBCFS to sell a mix of non-local and local • mbia (or in Canada). lly Made: Processed food, fish, beverages or agricultural products that are made with a majority ); and are ucing the  processing and packaging) originating in British Related Initiatives likelihood of be • The “Buy BC campaign offers clear incentives for members, such as participation in exclusive promotions; incentives will be critical in ensuring participation by UBCFS members” (Group 9). The “Buy BC Campaign rewards desirable behavior (i.e., selling local foods) rather than penalizing undesirable behavior (i.e., selling imported products).  This ensures that the members can still make a profit on non-local foods, while encouraging members to increase their stock of local products” (Group 9). • In “order for members to use the various Buy BC logos, products must satisfy certain eligibility requirements, such as being 100% grown in BC, or having more than 51% of processing costs originating in BC”. A similar requirement could be created for the UBCFSP, through of locally grown pro products, while encouraging an increase in the latter” (Group 9). The Buy BC definitions of local foods can help inform the definitions for the UBCFSP campaign (Group 1). Below is a list of the specific definitions that are used in the Buy BC program: o Locally Grown: Food, fish, beverages or agricultural products which are 100% grown, caught, or raised in British Columbia (or in Canada). o Locally Produced: Processed food, fish, beverages or agricultural products that are made with a majority of raw materials (by composition) which are grown, caught or raised in BC (or Canada); and are processed and packaged in the province with 51% or more of the direct cost of producing the product in its final form (direct labour, raw materials, processing and packaging) originating in British Colu o Loca of raw materials (by composition) which are not grown, caught or raised in BC (or Canada processed and packaged in the province with 51% or more of the direct cost of prod product in its final form (direct labour, raw materials, Columbia (or Canada) (BCAC, 2004 in Group 1).  : istory • The Real Canadian Superstore’s “President’s Choice Blue Menu” promotion (Group 1).  H : • This initiative was developed “in appreciation of the increasing trend of weight and health conscious consumers in our society” (Blue Menu, 2005).  Representatives from Superstore “recruited a team of dietitians, nutritionists, and researchers who are working in conjunction with Dietitians of Canada and the Heart and Stroke Foundation” (Blue Menu, 2005 in Group 1).  Promotional Tools:   77 • The “Blue Menu promotion utilizes a bold yet simple logo to identify the foods that are lower in rcials and a website all provide information   fat, lower in calories, and higher in fiber, but at a fraction of the price of other commercial food items.  They have banners, posters, grocery bags and staff that wear t-shirts promoting the new campaign throughout the store.  Television comme for the consumers about the relevance of the Blue Menu” (Group 1).   By/With Whom: The target population for this campaign “includes all individuals who purchase foods on campus including students, faculty • and staff, with a special focus on first year students …[since] they will •  future AGSC 450 students work with “AGSC 100 students as volunteers”, and “with the Alma Mater Society, UBC Food Services, and AMS Food and  1). oals be at UBC for the longest period of time” (Group 1). The campaign will require Beverage Department” (Group G : nerate awareness of the importance of locally produced foods and ensure the sustainability of the UBC food system” (Group 1). • The goals of the educational campaign “are to ge  Campaign Approach: The campaign is based upon the premise that in order for a campaign to be successful it needs a simple, effective logo which needs to be made highly visible. Specifically, it was felt that “by displaying • the logo all over campus in different locations and communication channels,  them”. to occur in individual behavior” (Group 1). Tim individuals will begin to recognize it and will hopefully begin to identify the connection between the logo and the healthier, more sustainable food choices available to • The campaign is based upon the idea that the campaign logo needs to permeate the campus “in order to develop consumer recognition over a relatively short time-period.  Once recognition is achieved, changes are likely  eline:  September 200611 (first week of classes): Campaign materials can be distributed through: S Welcome Back BBQ; 3. Sep stivities (described in Group 7 “Proposed educational Campaign”) (Group 1).  1. The AM 2. IMAGINE UBC, a student orientation program; Firstweek initiative sponsored by the UBC Alma Mater Society (AMS).  tember 22 and 24, 2006: Sustainability banquet12 will take place during Group 7’s “Food Week” fe   11 Note: Group 1 indicated in their paper that the campaign should occur during September 2005, based e assumption that a 2005 summer AGSC 450 class will be held. Sinceupon th , no summer class was held this year; I have adjusted the timeline and planning for activities to September 2006. 12 Note: Unfortunately, this group left out significant details in their paper required to plan and implement the “sustainability banquet”, such as who the participants will constitute, what and where food items will come from, etc. Group 1: Proposed Educational Campaign   78 What: A banquet was developed called the UBC “Sustainability Banquet”, which was designed to raise awareness about the benefits of local foods through providing “consumers with taste exposure to meals made with loca • l foods” in the SUB Ballroom.   Tools to promote awareness of local foods sold on campus were developed to be distributed lasses in September through the AMS Welcome Back BBQ, the Firstweek  ocation and Planning Requirements for the UBC “Sustainability Banquet” • during the first of c initiative sponsored by the UBC Alma Mater Society (AMS), and in Imagine UBC (Group 1). L : B Ballroom was selected to serve as the location for the “Sustainability Banquet”. It was • Pro • The SU selected because “it has access to catering facilities, which have been offered for use free of charge for our purposes”. The “Sustainability Banquet” “should be open to any of those who wish to participate and tickets will be at cost” (Group 1).  motional Tools and Pieces:  ndix ESee Appe  for “Promotion Material Contacts”. Pos  ters: • Posters were developed (see Appendix E), incorporating the 2004 spring Group 17’s proposed  “Eat Thoughtfully, Think Locally”. In order to develop an effective poster, it was felt that  The “objectives of the poster are to influence consumers to purchase foods that have our logo ognize these foods as a thoughtful, local, and better choice”.  volunteers will be responsible for distribution and posting of these advertisements”.  can access more information We slogan it should be based upon the following characteristics: “Simplicity, visibility, and quantity of signage”. • and rec • 5000 posters should be printed and posted “throughout the campus and placed at the entrance to all food service outlets”. “AGSC 100 • The poster includes a link to a UBCFSP website “so that the reader regarding the educational campaign and the food system re-localization project behind it” (Group 1).  bsite: • A proposal to create a UBCFSP website was developed (see Appendix E for “Website outline”) to serve as an additional tool that can be “used to educate our target population and clarify information regarding such topics as the definition, availability and benefits of buying locally produced foods” (Group 1).  Radio: • The “Sustainability Banquet” can be promoted via UBC’s radio station CITR, who was chosen because they offered free advertising, and it is considered a “great medium for publicity, since many UBC students are listeners” (Group 1).  gnetsMa :   79 • 5000 magnets displaying the campaign logo (see Appendix E) can be distributed in “first year frosh kits, which are distributed during Imagine, a first year orientation program. The Frosh kits contain a wide assortment of promotional items from different campus businesses, clubs, and events” (Group 1).  AMS Insider Agenda: • The logo can be displayed in the “AMS Insider Agenda” which is a widely publication distributed among all UBC students (Group 1).  Stickers: Based upon the “marketing strategy that The Real Canadian Superstore has implemented to generate publicity for their Blue Menu program” a sticker label was developed (s • ee Appendix E), for campus food service outlets to place on “menu and/or food items that contain greater  50% of locally produced foods”. Ban than • The sticker was designed to be “convenient, bold, and simple and will allow consumers to identify which food items are locally grown and make better choices for themselves in a fast and efficient manner” (Group 1). ner: A UBCFSP banner with the campaig• n logo and slogan should be developed and displayed at the event (Group 1).  Tickets: The campaign “logo should be on the backside of the ticket that is sold to the students” for the AMS Welcome Back BBQ (Group 1). hirts •  T-s : T-shirts designs depicting the campaign logo and slogan were developed for 250 UBC food workers to wear (see Appendix E) • .  ation of Administration of educational pieces and campaignLoc : The AMS Welcome Back BBQ and the FirstWeek events were selected as the first venues to kick off the campaign. The “foods provided at the Welcome Back BBQ have always been from local producers”, and it was thus considered a perfect forum to take advantage of by promoting our logo to support local foods to the target population. The rest of the campaign will be ongoing and occur through the above mentioned advertisements, such as posters, stickers, and magnets” which will ideally “enhance and maintain the change our team is trying to promote” (Group 1). dget • •  Bu : Upon consultation with Nancy Toogood from AMS Food and Beverage Department and •  Yip from UBC Food Services, “both indicated that there is no established budget for support our ideas, Nancy Toogood stated that udget was Dorothy the campaign.  However, in the event that they the AMS would be willing to provide $5000 in funding”.  As a result, the campaign b we approximately $3529. See Appendix Ehave planned accordingly with a budget grand total of for agenda, with the exce i nce no price lists the campaign budget.  All associated campaign costs are included in this pt on of costs for printing advertisements in the “AMS Insider Agenda”, si   80 wer not  it was recommended that “the banquet ticket price be equal to the cost of the food…[and] Ideally labor will be provided on a volunteer basis”    e available. Also, the cost of food and labor required for the “Sustainability Banquet” were  estimated, but in order to cover these costs (Group 1). G  7: Proposed Educational Campaignroup  By/With Whom: The target population for the educational campaign is all consumers of food and beverages at UBC. UBC consumers are composed of students (64,410 enrolled in the 2004/2005 s • chool year), most of which are undergraduates, faculty (~8000), staff, and residents (Group 7). oals  G : • The goal of the educational campaign is “to send clear, concise, and positive messages that emphasize the benefits of local food”, incorporating “the benefits of purchasing and consuming  Cam  local foods in terms of social, economical and ecological aspects”. These messages will be delivered using “aesthetically pleasing visuals relevant to our target audience with a general slogan “Buy Fresh, Buy Local” (Group 7). paign Approach: The approach chosen for the campaign is based upon the premise that “promoting the health benefits of • local foods will be more effective than focusing on the negative environment h the campaign using the slogan • was deemed to consist of addressing UBC consumers using multiple strategies. One of strategies developed was based upon a “diffusion of l which was felt could “help explain how new ideas, products, and practices are ot an urvey results from AGSC 450 2004 Group 17, and the Sauder School of Business s is an increase in price and lack of variety; therefore it is important that im implications of non-local foods as most people are anthropocentric and consider their own health before that of the environment”. Specifically, throug “Buy Fresh, Buy Local” and other information on posters and pamphlets that “promote local foods as a healthy alternative to well-traveled food because they have a higher nutritional value and contain are grown with fewer chemicals” (UCS, 2002 in Group 7). A successful re-localization campaign at UBC innovations” mode adopted in various segments of the population at UBC. Although local food is technically n “innovation,” it is a new idea in the respect that most of the UBC population is accustomed to purchasing globally produced or grown foods and may not be conscientious of choosing locally”. Based upon s Fall 2004 Group, it was found that in order to enhance the level of UBC community acceptance of the innovation of local foods, “it must be perceived to have greater benefits than costs while the risks of changing are not prohibitively high. The main ‘risk’ the UBC population may perceive to local food food prices remain competitive and eating seasonally is emphasized in our campaign” (Group 7).  elineT :   Campaign materials can be distributed through: September 2006 (first week of classes): 1. IMAGINE UBC, a student orientation program; 2. Firstweek initiative sponsored by the UBC Alma Mater Society (AMS).   81 Rationale: “Through these programs, we can reach new students to UBC to deliver our message of support for a local food system”.  eptember 22 and 24, 2006: “Food Week” festivities will take place (Group 7). S  What: An awareness-building event was developed called “Food Week”, which will include fun food related events to be held in the Student Union Building (SUB) concourse. •  Foo • Promotional tools were developed to be distributed during “Food Week” and also during the first of classes in September through IMAGINE UBC and the Firstweek initiative sponsored by the UBC Alma Mater Society (AMS), targeting new UBC undergraduates (Group 7). d Week Festivities: “Cooking with John Bishop” Event John Bishop, “is a local  1.  • fine dining restaurateur who promotes a sustainable food system at his he Vancouver Food Policy Task Force, which seeks local food •  was contacted “to see if he would be interested in participating in our awareness •  to provide recipes using local foods” (Group 7). For John Bishop’s contact info, see Appendix E business by purchasing local and organic foods as part of his restaurant’s food purchasing policy. He is also an active member in t security and sustainability”. He was chosen to participate in this campaign, not only because his position is quite relevant to the campaign, but also because it was believed that due to his local food celebrity and high profile status, he might help attract attention to the educational campaign. Mr. Bishop campaign, and he was enthusiastic at the prospect (Group 7). To “take advantage of his high profile, he could be the ‘celebrity judge’ of a cooking contest of students using local foods donated by SPUD or the UBC Farm. Alternatively, he may be willing to do a cooking demonstration or be on hand . . Raffle Draws the festivities in “food week”. d incentive to • to local restaurants Sage Bistro and  3. S • pearances by “representatives of the UBC Farm, Sage Bistro, and Sprouts” could take  Oth  2 • Several raffle draws should be held throughout the course of • “To be eligible for the raffle, students will be asked to answer questions such as what they believe local food is.  A winner will be announced daily to maintain student interest an participate”. Raffle draws could include “prizes such as gift certificates Bishop’s, as well as cookbooks that feature local food ingredients” (Group 7). pecial Appearances Special ap place during “Food Week”. er Potential Food Week Activities: • Activities that can be planned and held in future iterations of Food Week “can include cooking up contests using local ingredients, and a Battle of the Bands concert featuring local talent” (Gro 7).   82 • Food week “can grow to be an annual Food Festival on the UBC Farm, offering tours of the BC students and contests, while providing local food and local bands as entertainment”  Promotional Tools and Pieces farm to U (Group 7). : • Three posters were developed (see Appendix E) that consist of a clear slogan “Buy Fresh, Buy Local” and concise positive messages. The posters are designed to “appeal to people who are • information seekers, which is a common characteristic of the UBC population” (Group 7). A logo, depicting a slogan “UBC Grown” was developed (see Appendix E) based upon AGSC 450 2004 summer Group 3’s logo.  As described in summer 2004 Group 3’s paper, “the two people on the label symbolize the importance of people in establishing a foundation for the future while the heart motif represents the central idea of social sustainability and the nurturing and caring nature needed in developing connection with each other and the environment.  Finally • the plant, as described by the group, helps us incorporate the idea of how important it is to have food grown at the UBC campus itself as a prime example of locally grown food”.  While, the logo still retains the depiction of food and community, this idea is further reiterated by a new slogan, “UBC Grown”. The logo and slogan were developed into stickers (see Appendix E) which can be placed on UBC Farm produce (Group 7).  a double-sided pamphlet was developed (see Appendix E• Also ) which “includes information arn more about local foods, as well as a brief summary about the Buy BC program” • ese banner boxes are located at the top exterior of the SUB on both the north and south ntrances and they provide a big visual impact at a centralized location.  Banners are to be imately 7.5 feet by 3 feet” (Group 7). Loc  Booking Space in the Student Union Building Concourse about why people should purchase and consume local foods in terms of economical, nutritional and ecological aspects, current resources and contact information, such as Sprouts and the UBC Farm, to le (Group 7). Banners should also be created for “Food Week” for the banner boxes situated outside the SUB. “Th e approx  ation and Planning Requirements for “Food Week”: : • roposals for space in the SUB must be “submitted to the Student Administrative Commission wo weeks prior to the event start date for discussion and final approval”. ers we intend on working with”.  If the group making the proposal “is able to collaborate with AMS Food and Beverage (AMSFB) oogood, we may be given permission to use the SUB concourse free of charge or at ). Promoting “Food Week” and Administration of Educational Pieces that Raise Awareness bout Local foods: P at least t • Proposals must include the “required space and dates requested and other groups, organizations, companies, and UBC partn • and Nancy T partial rates. Further inquiries in regards to final rental rate estimates could be made to Kari Hewett”. • If the group decides to “work independently and not in conjunction with AMSFB, questions with regard to SUB concourse rental rates could be directed to Jane Kim and concerns with specific room rental space within the SUB can be made to Sunshine Hanan” (Group 7  a   83  Pamphlets: • Local food pamphlets should be distributed both before and during “Food Week” to promote pamphlets are designed to both promote “Food Week” and raise awareness • st”. • For IMAGINE UBC, pamphlets should be incorporated into the Frosh Kits by student leaders who are interested in participating. Frosh K ts are distributed to each new UBC student (approximately 5000 first year students) on the first day of classes, prepared by the IMAGINE UBC orientation program. The kit includes information about upcoming events within the month. For contact information to include the pamphlet in Frosh Kits, see the event. These about local foods. The pamphlets can “first be distributed inside the Tupperware containers from the UBC residents association to UBC campus residence students during the final weeks of Augu i course of the Appendix E. • Pamphlets “can also be presented to the AGSC 100 class of September 2006, in order to recruit volunteers for Food Week as a component of their class requirements. We felt that targeting these first year students will be effective in increasing awareness of local foods in those students potentially purchasing food from campus over the next four years, as well as an early promotion of the UBC Farm and vendors of local foods on campus” (Group 7).  Radio: • “Food Week” could be promoted on the Beat radio station (94.5FM) who can benefit the campaign both through providing wide media exposure and through their use of marketing expertise. The Beat radio station (94.5FM) was selected because they are “known to be involved in community events on and off UBC campus and would be willing to promote our event” (Group 7). • an  B ners: Banners can be displayed outside of the SUB to promote “Food Week”. They “can be produced individually or by a graphic designer provided by the AMS MarPro department at a cost of $13 per hour at a maximum of 1.5 hours” (Group 7). For contact information to create banners, see Appendix E • .  Websites: e “promoted on the UBC Farm website and UBC Student Services website  Stic • “Food Week” can b under events” (Group 7). ker labels: The sticker labels “can be provided to the UBC Farm to•  be used on all food produced there such • •  as squash, tomatoes and salad mixes”. These labels can also be placed on food items and menus at “various food vendors on campus that sell products from the farm, such as Sprouts or Sage Bistro”, to build awareness of locally grown food options and to allow campus consumers the choice to buy locally grown. Those groups who worked on scenario 2c can also place the logo on their local foods menu to promote UBC grown food (Group 7).   84 Posters: Three posters were designed that can place throughout the SUB and around UBC (Group 7). paign Budget •  Cam : In the event that AMS Food and Beverage Department support th• e campaign proposals, they “have indicated that they are willing to spend $2500-$5000 towards an educational campaign” (Toogood, 2005 in Group 7). See Appendix E for the “campaign budget” (Group 7).    With Whom  By/ : Group 9: Proposed Educational Campaign • The target population of the campaign includes “480 full-time and part-time food services workers employed by UBCFS, including management and purchasing personnel, supervisors, kitchen staff, and front-line workers”. In order to narrow the scope of our campaign, please note that only participants employed through UBC Food Services were selected to serve as the target population. The 480 food services workers consist of 320 full-time workers, and 160 part-time workers, who are students. “All of these food service workers are unionized under CUPE local 116” (Group 9). Goal:  The goal of the campaign is to enhance awaren• ess among UBC food workers on the benefits of enus, and how re-  buying and producing local foods on campus, selling local foods on campus m localization can enhance the economic, ecological and social sustainability of the food system. This goal will ideally be achieved through the use of two methods: (1) through the distribution of pamphlets (see Appendix E) to local food workers, and (2) through the launching of a “UBC Local Food Cook-off” competition (Group 9). • The campaign “goal is not restricted to providing education on what local food products are, but also the benefits of buying and selling locally produced foods. It is our ambition that this campaign will advertise the feasibility and benefits of providing local food and result in more   Cam  local food being purchased and sold at retail outlets throughout the UBC campus”. Through “being proactive in this manner, UBC can—in its small way—blunt the impact of the global food system, and work toward the larger goal of an ecologically, socially, and economically sustainable food system”(Group 9). paign Approach: The campaig• fundamental influence on consumers’ food choices, and since “workers themselves are consumers as well equips them with a fair n is based upon the premises that workers who interact with customers can have a  amount of purchasing power in terms of food • sentatives or “front-line” workers play an important role in influencing consumer choices. These workers have a direct effect on the  of customers through their verbal interactions and opinions.  Front-line food workers act  message to consumers. For instance, a hungry UBC student commodities while they spend time working at UBC”. Specifically, it is believed “that customer service repre choices as ambassadors of local foods and can help create an impression of the importance behind choosing local food by delivering the may approach a worker at Trekkers Express and consult the cashier asking, “What is fresh today?” The food worker may courteously reply with recommendations for locally produced   85 fresh green salad, or a specialty drink made with BC grown fruits. As food workers become food consumers when they purchase food for themselves, they are also part of the consumer population. In this way, food workers have the opportunity to provide an example, allowing  orkers about the importance of supporting the local food system”. • ent and ersonnel of UBCFS to fully support the cause; enabling them to play a major and le d pro lines ity.  On s is y w ca en staff in selecting and using more local foods workers, who have direct contact with the mers, w  with th efits of a sustainable food system and the local foods vario ey will also be responsible for educating customers in making stainable food purchase choices” (Group 9). Wh others to see what food choices they make. This fact amplifies the significance of educating food w It was felt that the “key to launching a successful campaign is to rally the managem purchasing p pivotal ro done, the while planning menus. Finally, the front line in developing foo curement guide  to support sustainabil ce thi ill work towards edu ting the kitch custo used in ill be oriented us menu items.  Th e ben su at:  loc• al awa  event was developed called the “UBC Local Food Co -off” petition r the am  from th ary n  “Iron Chef” competition”. • onal  develop ss  local fo to e the event. ocal Food Cook-off” Competition: c A reness building ok Com competitive . Inspiration fo ess of the design of the c paign was “drawn e culin Promoti promot  tools were also ed to raise awarene  about the benefits of od and  “UBC L  Lo ation and Planning Requirements for the UBC “Local Food Cook-off”: UBC Local Food Cook-off “will be conducted concurrently at the five main cooking facilities • • consisting of 4 people. mulate a special menu entrée based on several criteria.  The main principle being that all ingredients used in the dish must originate locally, as defined earlier  no exceptions to this local food rule, besides the use of seasoning • Advertising of the special menu item will also be the responsibility of the UBCFS venue”,  will be included in the judging criteria.  Jud operated by UBCFS—Place Vanier Residence, Totem Park Residence, Sage Bistro, 99 Chairs and Pacific Spirit Place in the Student Union Building” (Group 9). A total of 5 teams representing each of the above mentioned food services will be set up • Each team will “compete against each other based on their skills and creativity in the kitchen”. • Team members will be asked “to for in this proposal.  There are ingredients such as salt and pepper, which will be permitted.  Therefore, these decadent dishes can boast to be the product of BC’s local food system and be advertised as such to the consumer”.  “The featured menu items will be in competition with each other over the course of one week”. “ which • Each team member (20 in total) will receive UBC Local Food Cook-off aprons for participating in the event (See Appendix E for “Apron Design”). ging: • Throughout the competition, appointed judges will make their way around to the various venues . • The criteria that judges will need to assess the local team’s menu item dishes to be reviewed and compared should be based upon the following: “sustainability, nutrition, taste, price and and sample each team’s local dish   86 consumer responses” and the advertising used to promote the local menu item. The team which judges allocate the most points will be awarded first place in the competition, and the team with the second highest points will be awarded second place. • A list of suggested judges for the competition and judging criteria is provided below in Table 1:  Table 1: Suggested judges of local food menu items, as well as the criteria measured by each judge. Judge Area of Expertise Specific Criteria Example Score Alejandro Rojas Course Instructor, AGSC 450. Land, Food and Community Sustainability  - The locality of the menu ingredients  Out of 40 Mia Stainsby  Vancouver Sun Newspaper Food Critic Taste - Personal judgment on sensory value of meal Out of 20 Jackie Ehlert UBCFS Personal W Nutrition - Nutritional value of the meal Out of  Dietician ellness Program 20 Jim Vercammen Food Economics Professor Price/Affordability - Price of menu item - Cost of menu item Out of 10  Andrew UBCFS Director Customer Response / - Number of meals sold Out of Parr Marketing Campaign - Revenue from meals 10  Prizes: ive an impressive “UBC Local Food Champion” trophy to proudly display in their venue as well as a $400 cash prize to split among the team members.  The team laces second will receive a $200 cash prize”. off no one loses because the goal is to increase awareness about the importance and  Raise Awareness about Local foods: Cla • The “winning team will rece that p • Upon announcing winners, it should be noted that “as a participant in the UBC Local Food Cook- feasibility of using local foods, which is a reward for everyone involved” (Group 9). Promoting the “UBC Local Food Cook-off” and Administration of Educational Pieces that  ssroom Announcements: • AGSC 450 students should seek permission of instructors in large UBC classes to make announcements to advertise the campaign. Announcements should take place at the beginning of classes, and a poster (see Appendix E) should be used to “as an overhead image to assist in this Pos short presentation informing students about the UBC Local Food Cook-off”.  ters: • AGSC 450 students should place posters strategically placed around campus and at UBCFS venues. Specifically, each participating food outlet should be supplied with 2 large posters and 8 small posters. 15 large posters should be posted in 15 of UBC’s most dense buildings, and 60 small posters should be posted throughout campus.  Pamphlets, Buttons and Aprons:   87 • A double-sided pamphlet was developed (see Appendix E) which describes the “UBC Local Food Cook-off”, “the importance of local food, and what season certain foods are available from BC”. • Among the participating UBCFS outlets, each worker should receive a pamphlet which will  as useful references to supply the workers with an information base which can be readily • also be set up, “which will rotate daily between the five food n about the local food system as “serve conveyed to the customer during the local food competition, as well as in the future”. An information booth should outlets, throughout the week-long competition.  This booth will have a volunteer representative of the AGSC 450 class who will be able to provide informatio well as the UBC Local Food Cook-off.  In addition, a worker from the UBC farm will assist in managing the booth and represent local food growers”. Booths will be equipped 150 pamphlets, 200 buttons (see Appendix E under “Logo”) for distribution, and 100 aprons to be sold for $10.00 “adorned with the “UBC Local Food Cook-off” logo for sale”. See Appendix E for the apron design. Each of the 480•  UBCFS workers should receive a button to wear to promote the event.  “UBCFS workers will each be given five “50% off local meal coupons” for each of the five ting venues.  This will allow them to sample some of the local food creations for a  • compe reduced price” (Group 9). Timeline:  March – April 2006 (5 weeks)  Week 1: See Appendix E for a list of required contact information needed for the first week campaign • GSC 450 students “should get in contact with Andrew Parr from UBCFS to arrange for g of the campaign”. k-off competition to ts  should contact a staff member from the UBC farm, such as Mark Bomford • of the campaign logo, poster and pamphlets see Appendix planning. • “AGSC 450 students should contact local food companies and related governmental agencies to secure possible sponsorship and funding for the campaign”. A fundin • AGSC 450 students should contact the judges for the UBC Local Food Coo determine their willingness to judge the competition. • AGSC 450 studen (Program Coordinator for UBC Farm), to determine availability to aid in providing information about locally produced and answering questions at the information  booth. • AGSC 450 students should contact the five largest UBCFS cooking facilities that have been selected to participate in the Cook-off competition to inform them about the competition and the rules. AGSC 450 students should organize to “print posters, pamphlets, overheads, and 50 % off local meal coupons and order the buttons and aprons.  Juliana Campbell can be contacted concerning printing, as she currently fills this role for UBC Food Services”. For information on sources and quantity requirements for buttons, aprons and trophies, see “Unit price and Assumptions for Each Revenue and Expense”, designs E. “During and after the ordering/purchasing of supplies, the budget should be reviewed to ensure that there are sufficient funds available for this campaign”. •   88 • structor, to advertise the UBC Local Food Cook-off competition”.  Week 2 “After the overheads are printed, students should make announcements at the beginning of large classes, with permission of the in : • AGSC 450 students should set up “a meeting ould be set up with the judges to discuss the re and criteria” • sh judging procedu • AGSC 450 students should distribute the “50% off meal coupons, buttons, aprons and educational pamphlets” to all of the 480 UBCFS food workers. The posters should the “be distributed to the UBCFS venues and also placed strategically around campus (i.e. Student Union Building, main entrances to the various faculty buildings, UBC bus loop)”. See Appendix E for the campaign poster. An AGSCI 450 stude• nt and the selected UBC farm worker should meet to arrange “plans and set up for the information booth that will run throughout the third week, during the  Week 3 competition”. : • UBC mpetition should take rrently at the 5 selected venues and the competition will run for the entire week”. • Throughout the week, “the information booth should rotate daily between the venues.  The judges will have to go around to each venue and award points based on the criteria they are judgin We Local Cook-off co place “concu g” • At the end of the week judges should “combine their points and decide on a winner”. ek 4: On Monday the “winning team should be announced and the first and second place teams can be awarded their prizes.  If the campaign generated a profit, a Local Food Cook-off Fund should be created at this time” (See Appendix E •  under Budget sections).  Week 5: AGSC 450 students should finalize their repo•  rt and presentation (Group 9). Campaign Budget: • See Appendix E for the “campaign budget sheet”, “Unit Price and Assumptions for Each Revenue and Expense”, and a “breakdown of expenses” (Group 9). Total “Local Food Cook-off” expenses are calcu• lated to be $1530.70, total revenues generated re estimated at $1000.00, leaving a net cost of $530.70”. • ed food supplies.  The expense of the food purchases, and the through apron sales a • To cover this net cost, it is recommended that “further contact with the local food companies and related governmental agencies to secure possible sponsorship and funding.  If the sponsorship and funding exceeds the amount needed to cover the required funding, we recommend to setting up a “Local Food Cook-off Fund”, which will function as a savings account to allow this event to be repeated in the future; this event could thus potentially operate indefinitely in a sustainable manner”. Note that it is assumed that each “Local Food Cook-off” “team is responsible for the selection and purchase of their requir   89 revenue through the sales of Local Food Cook-off meals are considered to be part of the regular   business of the UBCFS” (Group 9).   Group 13: Proposed Educational Campaign By/With Whom: • The Bev  primary targets of the educational campaign are “the staff members of the AMS Food and Tab erage Department”. Staff members range from “professional managers to students to carry out the day-to-day workings of their food outlets, cafes and restaurants” (AMS Your Student Society Online in Group 13). The AMSFBD “employs over 400 students and their food outlets include 12 restaurants and cafes in the SUB” (see Table 1 below) (AMS Your Student Society Online in Group 13). le 1: AMS Food and Beverage Department Establishments AMS Catering    The Honour Roll Bernoulli's Bagels The Moon AMS Outdoor BBQ The Pendulum AMS Outdoor BBQ Pie R Squared Blue Chip Cookies The Pit Pub The Pit Burger Bar Snack Attack The Gallery Lounge Sprouts (AMS Sponsored Club)  • he “SUB building gets 8,000 visitors per day and the majority of these users see the SUB as a “hang out”, eat, get snacks, and check out market vendors (Homegrown Report, Team , a • Go T place to 22).  Many non-resident students regard the building as their home base while on campus and many of the university staff and faculty also use the SUB for buying food.  In addition significant number of commuters walk past the SUB every day en route for the bus loop” (Homegrown Report, Team 22 in Group 13). The indirect target for the campaign “is the UBC community members who purchase food in the Student Union Building (SUB)” (Group 13).  al: • The ultimate goal of the campaign “is to increase interest in the sustainable food movement; especially among food workers in the hope of encouraging them to participate and take a personal stand to spread awareness” (Group 13). paign ApproachCam : The approach of the campaign is based on the premise that “rather than feeling helpless over the problems w • l resource use and social conditions elsewhere (Kloppenburg 95).  This knowledge has been designed into an educational campaign in hopes of petus for consumers and food workers to become more sustainable eaters and food providers” (Group 13).  ith our food, this educational campaign has been created to celebrate the possibilities and realities of the growing consumer movement towards re-localization.  Illuminating the ways in which local food consumption is linked to global structures can help elucidate how consumption choices in one place affect natura providing the im   90 What: A variety of promotional tools were developed to raise awareness about local food and sustainable food systems, by • providing “the necessary information so that consumer’s better  to make the right Pro understand the concept of a sustainable food system and be empowered choices on their own” (Group 13).  motional Tools and Pieces:  Logo: • A campaign logo was created (see Appendix E) that “attempts to put the concept of buying product t al rep • It “con produce n us, the con  Slogan s hat have been produced locally within British Columbia, into a simple visu resentation”. ssist  of a recycled paper grocery bag formed into the shape of British Columbia with local  i side the bag.  Those who see the logo can envision BC as our large supermarket and sumers, purchasing fresh food from our province” (Group 13). : • The follow simple but sustainability movement by simply buying local prod word “ t everyon to to remember” (Group 13).  Pamphlet ing campaign slogan was developed: “Think Sustainable, Buy Local” because it is a powerful way for staff and consumers to easily recognize and become involved in the ucts”. Likewise, it was also felt that “the sus ainable” is important because it is the main theme behind our campaign to educate e  think and act sustainably.  Moreover, this slogan is short and simple so it will be easy  : e Appendix E) jointly by the AMS Food and Beverage • A pamphlet was developed (se Departm ne t and AGSC 450 Group 13 and has been forwarded to the AMSFBD for review. in bjective of the pamphlet “is to raise awareness of sustainability and locality through ledge of the initiatives that is currently going on in the AMS and UBC campus”. Also that the pamphlet will encourage the audience "to buy foods with low food mileage if ation is available and the benefits are acknowledged”. let “is targeted mainly to the staff in the AMS Food and Beverage vendors in the ion Building in UBC”. let is comprised of the following information: logo, slogan and campaign design, on statement, benefits of buying locally, current sustainability initiatives of the AMS • The ma  o better know it is hoped this inform • The pamph Student Un • The pamph AMS missi , food mileage, percent of local food and production methods, “contact information of the SEEDS r UBCFSP w projects”. • Please note that the “pamphlet is a working copy with a lot of text and in order for it to be effective, it will be edited to include more graphics and fewer words in the final copy produced by Nancy Toogood and her team” (Group 13).  Resource Binder  p oject, the UBC sustainability office, the UBC Farm, Sprouts, and the AGSC 450 ill be provided if people wish to learn more or get involved with any of these :   91 • An “AMS Food and Beverage Sustainability Resource Guide13” was developed to serve as a “tool for the distribution of information on sustainability, local food, and current initiatives within the AMS and UBC community”.  The “resource binder is targeted to all 12 AMS food vendors plus Sprouts”. ngage with these topics and to take an active role in educating consumers.  It is our belief that people are more receptive to • ambassador.  The role of the sustainability ambassador is to ensure all staff read the son will also challenge the staff to participate by encouraging them to bring in pamphlets, newsletters, emails and other sustainability related materials that are important to them.  The ambassador will also assist the store manager to communicate with staff and maintain the spirit of this campaign over • Information is provided regarding books, movies and courses related to sustainability, • In this section, tools are offered to encourage the sustainability ambassador and ation on the origin and purchasing of menu items”.  The e staff and consumers to learn about the origin “Food for Thought” cards which are “simple ileage and sustainability in terms of distance lour code distinguish which ingredients unding areas.  The AMS Food to do a pilot run of the “Food for Thought” cards this year for two entrees in the Pendulum restaurant in the SUB”. mmunication: within lity initiatives” (Group 13).  • • The main purpose of the binder “is to empower staff members to e being encouraged to participate rather than being told what to think”. The binder is divided into the following sections: (1) Introduction to AMS Sustainability Resource Guide: • This section provides “useful information on AMS and UBC initiatives, local food, and ways for staff to get involved with initiatives on campus”. (2) Get Involved: • In this section it is encouraged for each food outlet to “designate a store sustainability AMS Sustainability Mission and to promote awareness of the resource guide among coworkers.  This per time”. as well as fact sheets on the UBCFSP, SEEDS Projects, and other food related topics. (3) What’s New? • Information is provided to raise awareness of local growers and businesses.             (4) Our Store’s Menu Items: manager “to add inform purpose of this section is to encourag of their food. This section includes visual representations of food m and region”. “On each card, a map and a co originate in different parts of the province and surro and Beverage Department has kindly agreed (5) Co • This section provides “a space for staff to communicate about sustainability their store and where the manager can record new sustainabi   ote: Group 13 submitted a hard copy of their resource binder, along with a lengthy set of electronic e binder or electronic components please 13 Please n versions of the binder components. If you wish to view the resourc contact the Project Coordinator: Liska Richer: Liska@telus.net    92 The sections were created to facilitate effective “assimilation of information, promotion of staff info  Loc participation and easy maintenance by staff in years to come”. It contains “30 pages of color-printed rmation sheets” (Group 13). ation and Administration of educational pieces and campaign:   Pamphlets should “be distributed out to all AMSFBD employees, although the pamphlets will be d will be displayed at the cash register”.  binders sh venient location at each AMSFBD outlet, and the bas  2006 s ering the urce binders based on o • “Each AMSFBD establishm  features” to the binder. • A “follow-up of the resour heir popularity, use and current status” (Gro  Timeline • available to the customers as well an • Resource sustainab ould “be placed at a con sador will guide staff as toility am • The “AGSC 450 reso  how to use the binder”. tudents will be responsible for preparing, assembling, and deliv ur group’s sample prototype”. ent is also encouraged to add their own special ce binders should be done afterwards to assess t up 13). :  February to April 2006 (7 wee  Week 1 & 2 ks) : 1. Conduct literature review n 2. Review pamphlet to see if additions or revisions should be made for a second edition 3. Look through files and paper copy of binder to think about dividing up tasks for the group 4. Contact Nancy Toogood an  Week 3  o  previous work done for this scenario d assign a communication representative : 1. Assign tasks to all group me • 3 people for Section • 3 people for Section • 2 people for Section • Leave Section 4 5 2. Complete rough copies o  a  Week 4 & 5: mbers  1: The Introduction  2: Get Involved!  3: Our Store’s Menu Items &  to be completed by individual stores f ll tasks by the end of the week  1. Meet with Nancy Toogood to ensure group is on the right track of fulfilling requirements 2. Edit and refine each other’s  Week 6  work to accomplish high quality end product : 1. Copy and produce resource 2. Distribute binders to eac o  Week 7  binders h f the AMS Food and Beverage outlets : 1. Assess the popularity an f 2. Present final version of reso  d e fectiveness of the pamphlet urce binder and pamphlet to the class (Group 13).   93 Budget: • The UBC “AMSFBD h o udgets are proposed for the produ white pamphlets, or (2) $1040.00 ciated labour costs. The budget 33.00 (Group 13).  See Appendix as ffered to cover all costs of the pamphlet production”. Two b ction pamphlets: (1) $140.00 for the production of black and for the production of color copied pamphlets including asso for the production of resource binders was estimated at $5  E for the proposed budget.  Summary of Recommenda audience Recom tions mendations 2006 AGSC 450 Class • •  • p ance the effectiveness of • aign. “The website could contain information that is ned in the paper campaign” (Group 13). • l tool (Group 7). B concourse space must be submitted to the a Should follow the suggested education campaign timeline, “start the project as early as possible, and actively source for sponsorships (e.g. local food suppliers) to help minimize the cost of implementing the educational campaign” (Group 9). Should “work closely with UBCFS in planning, organizing and implementing the educational campaign” (Group 9). • Should “choose and develop a marketing strategy that ensures a good fit between the goals of the educational campaign and the resources and needs of the UBCFS and their workers” (Group 9). • Should “monitor and evaluate whether the educational campaign has accomplished its goals and resulted in any changes in attitudes, knowledge and practices of the UBCFS workers” (Group 9). • Should “consider expanding the scope of the competition to involve AMS Food and Beverage Department” (Group 9). Should update the pamphlet and resource binder with the most current information and make any needed improvements (Grou 13). • Should gather feedback from AMSFB staff regarding how they feel about the campaign, whether it can be improved, and whether the resource guide has been useful or not.  Feedback can be gathered through the distribution of a simple survey or through interviews. Feedback collected can be used to update the pamphlet and resource binder to enh these tools (Group 13). Should consider developing a website to compliment the paper- based camp on the pamphlet, but with more detail about each part, such as a more in-depth explanation of local food and the benefits from buying it.  It would also provide links to the resources that have been mentio • Students should organize the events for “Food Week” to start September 2006, including printing of our group pamphlets (Group 7). For future groups intending on implementing “Food Week” the Beat radio station should be contacted to appear at UBC during “Food Week” as a promotiona • For future groups intending on implementing “Food Week”, a proposal for use of SU ppropriate people mentioned above no later than 2 weeks   94 prior to the event (Group 7). • In “order to ensure subsequent funding in years to come, it is recommended to assess the effectiveness of the educational campaign. Future groups should consider conducting an evaluation of awareness of local food issues in the UBC population previous to and following the campaign with pre- and post-test surveys”(Group 7). o distribute the posters and the pamphlets during “Food Week” and during the IMAGINE UBC and the • Groups should plan t Firstweek initiative in September 2006. They should make plans to recruit “AGSC 100 volunteers to run the event with the help of AMS Food and Beverage Department and the AGSC 450 teaching team” (Group 7). AMS Food and • A mission statement should be created as a “first step to creating a unified vision for any group of food workers”. The statement Beverage should be created in time for the 2006 AGSC 450 group to add it to the “AMS Sustainability Resource Binder” (Group 13). • Should upgrade the AMS website to “reflect their involvement romote local foods” (Group 7). Department with the re-localization project” (Group 13). • Should “take part in “Food Week” since it will take place outside the SUB where the majority of their businesses reside”, as well as “play a major role by distributing pamphlets, displaying posters and the “UBC Grown” logo to p BC Food • Should “make a commitment to educate and increase awareness the benefits of local foods to employees and consumers by orporating the education program into employee orientation and on-going training sessions” (Group 9). ge of local food usage in pliers to participate via sponsorship (i.e. apron donations or gift certificates petition prizes)” (Group 9). “allocate any profits generated from the educational • Should “promote UBC Grown foods at Sage Bistro as well as other campus food outlets. They can do this by using the “UBC U Services of inc • Should “consider making this educational campaign an annual event when planning UBCFS budget” (Group 9). • Should “continue to increase the percenta all UBCFS food outlets” (Group 9). • Should “explore opportunities for existing partners/sup for com • Should campaign towards promoting local food products in the future” (Group 9). Grown” logo beside menu items featuring UBC Farm products” (Group 7). UBC Farm • Should “be involved with “Food Week” through the donation of produce to the cooking competition. They can also help to raise awareness about local food by handing out pamphlets and educating public at weekly markets. The UBC Farm can also use the “UBC Grown” logo on all their food that they sell at the Saturday markets” (Group 7). Sprouts • Should use the “UBC Grown” logo to showcase produce from UBC Farm (Group 7).    95 Overview of 2005 Spring Scenario #4: Exploring Existing Opportunities that Enhance and/or Barriers that Impinge on the Sustainability of the UBC Food System within Current Campus Community Plans  ummary of Specific Problem Definition of Community Plan (CCP), Official Community Plan (OCP), South Campus Neighbourhood Plan aim  Ge  velopment being implemented and/or (OC planning for UBC’s academic core (Main Campus Plan (MCP)) is enhancing or hindering the  Su the Official Community Plan (Groups 5, 12), Campus Community Plan s An  Ge S  While there is an array of sustainability initiatives being carried out on the UBC campus, a high level uncertainty and ensuing debate exists regarding whether current campus plans (Comprehensive (SCNP) and the Main Campus Plan (MCP)) will enhance or hinder current and proposed initiatives ed at enhancing the sustainability of the UBC food system. neral Research Question:  determine whether or not the current form of urban deTo proposed in campus plans (i.e. Comprehensive Community Plan (CCP), Official Community Plan P), South Campus Neighbourhood Plan (SCP)), and whether or not the current form of transition towards the sustainability of the UBC food system. mmary of Methodology  • Conducted a review of (Groups 5, 12), Main Campus Plan (Groups 3, 14) and the South Campus Neighbourhood Plan (Group 5), and related planning documents (Groups 3, 5, 12, 14). • Conducted electronic communication with a Planner from Campus and Community Planning, Karly Henney, to gather pertinent planning information (Groups 3, 5, 12, 14).  Summary of Central Finding  alysis of Official Community Plan (OCP) neral Description: • The OCP was developed by the “Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), UBC, interest groups both campus and non-campus related, and the general public” (GVRD, 1997 in Group 5). • The OCP “addresses types of buildings, their location and size, along with services, such as tation” (Group 12).  The OCP sets objectives for “market housing, non-market housing other than student housing, lities geared towards non-university users” (Group 5). sewer, water, electricity, fire and police protection and transpor • and commercial faci • The OCP “involves the creation of a comprehensive and interactive university community that strives to balance ecological health, economic sustainability, and community relationships” (GVRD, 1997 in Group 5).   96 • rough achieving common objectives of •  transportation choice (OCP, 2003 in Group 12).  The OCP is intended to guide “future decisions towards creating a unique UBC community and sustaining its role as a leading educational institution th the GVRD and UBC” (GVRD, 1997 in Group 5). The OCP “outlines the future direction of the University Community through goals and visions: protecting the green zone, building complete communities, achieving a compact metropolitan area, and increasing Opportunities: • The GVRD has “designated “green spaces” protected for recreation and conservation to help maintain the health of the ecosystem while minimizing adverse impacts on neighbouring areas” (GVRD, 1997 in Group 5). The “OCP document focuses on a compact and integrated university community through the development of an elementary school, com • munity and village centre. The village centre will have • • y” (OCP 2003: 4, in Group 12). s of the community and reduce its ecological footprint” (Group 12). Ch commercial facilities geared towards the residents’ and will include food establishments such as a bakery, delicatessen, and restaurant” (GVRD, 1997 in Group 5). The OCP promote “an auto-restrained community and having greenways that encourage cycling and walking to potential local food sources” (Group 12). The vision of the OCP is "to provide more public open space, preserve green areas, and heritage landscapes can all aid in building stronger ecological and social sustainabilit • The strongest opportunity found in the OCP “is the mention that long-term infrastructure and servicing on campus must have a minimal impact on the environment both on and off campus (OCP 2003: 21).  LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certified buildings will lower the energy need  allenges and Barriers: • The OCP “neglects to address food security, a key component of a sustainable community” ne ecological sustainability”, and it “does not address the  Pro (Group 12). • The OCP “fails to adequately defi importance of ecological functions” (Group 12). posed Amendments to OCP: Should include a section where “food is an essential service for t• he present and future generations at UBC” (see Appendix F for proposed amendments to the OCP sections).  “Food S will thus have guidance in creating and following their sustainability • ndix F services such as the AM mandates” (Physical Principles for Planning, 2005) (Group 12). The planning process could be enhanced by clear definitions of “food security”, “greenways”, “complete communities”, and a sustainable food system (OCP) (see Appe  for proposed amendments to the OCP sections) (Group 12).  Ge  Analysis of Comprehensive Community Plan (CCP) neral Description: • The CCP was “prepared in November 2000 and adopted by the UBC Board of Governors for the purpose of providing the overall parameters for development allocation within 8 local areas [North of Marine, Theological Neighbourhood, Gage South, University Boulevard, Thunderbird,   97 East Campus, Mid-Campus and South Campus], as well as preparing servicing and other related strategies” (CCP, 2000; UBC SCNP, 2005 in Group 5). The “difference between the OCP and the CCP lies in the fact that the CCP describes in more detail how the OCP’s objectives and targets will be met and outlines how the development capacity established by the OCP will be distributed within the eight local areas” (UBC • up 5). Existing Plans, Policies and Vision  SCNP, 2005 in Gro Section 1: Introduction and Section 2: campus by the OCP. The documents guiding the CCP process are the OCP, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),  for Physical Planning at UBC, Strategic Transportation Plan (STP), and • on Strategic Plan (CCP, 2000 in Group 5).  The objective of this plan is to accommodate a target population of 18000 people including 9500 existing campus residents by  mind, a vibrant and integrated  Pro • The “CCP is responsible for establishing the principles for detailed neighbourhood planning in the eight local areas designated for development on the UBC TREK 2000, Principles the 1992 Main Campus Plan” (Group 12). One of the “goals of the OCP and the CCP is to develop a plan that is consistent with the Livable Regi 2021(CCP, 2000 in Group 5). With this neighbourhood vision in community which focuses on a place for people to live, work, study and recreate on the University Campus will thrive” (CCP, 2000; UBC SCNP, 2005 in Group 5). posed Amendments The “eight Principles for Physica• l Planning, which are the standards against which to measure • Sec development on campus, do not make sufficient mention of either sustainability or food security on campus” (Group 12). Within the “Livable Region Strategic Plan” “there is no mention of incorporating a sustainable food system” (Group 5). tion 3: Principles for the Comprehensive Community Plan inciples for Circulation” section“Pr : • Includes “plans to provide primarily underground parking will leave much aboveground area for greening”. They “provide for the possibility of neighbourhood convenience commercial in each l area plans or the implementation strategies (CCP, 2000: 8, in Group 12). residential area, in order to reduce travel” however this was not addressed or evident in the loca  Proposed Amendments: It is “imperative that the type of commercial food outlet be well defined in the appropriate section to ensure locally owned, environmentally and socially responsible food outlets (see Appe • ndix F for proposed amendments to the CCP sections) (Group 12). “Pr  inciples for Public Open Space” section: • Includes plans “for greenways and landscaping along all routes, public spaces and parks, and management and drainage systems, all of which indirectly contribute to a  Pro innovative storm water sustainable food system” (CCP, 2000: 12, in Group 12). posed Amendments:   98 • However, this section “lacks a direct definition of the ecological functions of green space (see Appendix F for proposed amendments to the CCP sections). These functions include at, conserving biodiversity, providing buffers to natural habitats and connecting fragmented ecosystems (Rhode Island Division of Planning 3-5 in “Pr protecting the physical and biological integrity of the ecosystem, maintaining the natural drainage and hydrology, providing food and habit Group 12).  inciples for Urban Form” section: Provides ample “discussion of community needs and services, ranging from crime management to sustainable •  technologies for minimizing energy use” (Group 12). Proposed Amendments: • However, there is no indication in the section of “food-related community needs such as easily accessible food outlets or the potential for urban agriculture to reduce our ecological footprint” (Group 12). tion 4.0 and 5.0: The Local Area and Strategies for the CCPSec Section 4.0 “addresses the development plans of•  eight local areas consisting of North of Marine, sity Boulevard, Thunderbird, East Campus,  of the local areas, the CCP states different ind • In Section 4.0, under the plans for the “South Campus area lists out a number of planning care the ong “with the urban wh • Als com • Sec  “Strategy for Tree Management” section 5.1 Theological Neighbourhood, Gage South, Univer Mid-Campus and South Campus. Under each planning objectives, local area principles and density plans to meet the special needs of each ividual location” (Group 12). objectives including developing the area as an urban village in the woods which will include a variety of housing, a village commercial centre, a community centre, elementary school, and day  (CCP, 2000: 41 in Group 5).  The woods will include greenways, buffers, open spaces and  surrounding Pacific Spirit Regional Park” (CCP, 2000: 41 in Group 5). Al village, there will be commercial areas including food services, personal services and retail outlets ich are needed by residents of the neighbourhood” (CCP, 2000: 42 in Group 5). o “stated although not proposed at this time is the possibility of including a working farm and munity gardens integrated with an urban edge” (CCP, 2000: 42 in Group 5). tion 5.0 “addresses the strategies employed in the design of UBC communities” (Group 12). : In icates “that the removal of trees is inevitable for the development of South Campus. wever, the need for development must be balanced with the desire to ensure the “legacy of a lthy forest” (CCP, 2000: 54) and create a “green urban landscape” (CCP, 2000: 54 in Group  • d Ho hea • ities in order to  12). Includes mention for “the planting of trees within the newly-built commun balance the number of trees removed with new trees” (Group 12).  Proposed Amendments: While “the goal to retain the total number of trees is laudable, it is clear that development plans in South Campus take priority over ecological issues, for example ground-based housing (CCP, 2000: 54).  If housing is more dense and multi-storied, fewer trees will have to be removed to accommodate development.  The ecological value of the existing forest on those lands is •   99 significant, and housing plans need to accommodate the tremendous contribution of those trees to the local ecosystem” (Group 12). ude the conditions for tree retention, such as ecological values such as age  • “It is important to incl diversity” (CCP, 2000: 54 in Group 12). “Strategy for Servicing” section 5.2: In this section, it is anticipated that “the future challenges of increased water demands and outflow [may occur], o • nce development is in place.  The proposed biofiltration channel will slow e erosion in this area (Group 12). down the flow of water and remove toxic substances, and help to combat th  Proposed Amendments  While “several initiatives for reducing UBC’s dependence on the GVRD for water supply were • but also the many chemical pesticides used on er outflow.  A plan for reducing chemical mentioned, this plan addresses the quantity but not the quality of water outflow.  The water flowing out of the University Endowment Lands is not only contaminated with the hydrocarbons associated with heavy car traffic, property landscaping, that contaminate the wat landscaping should be considered” (Group 12).  “Strategy for Community Services” section 5.3: • This section “outlines important services for UBC neighbourhoods.  The focus is put on recreational, academic and cultural facilities” (Group12).  posed AmendmentsPro • Among the services deemed important in this section, “facilities for buying, preparing and Another “area of concern is the emphasis placed on the relocation of existing agricultural and in South Campus (CCP 63).  These operations should be recognized for their potential to be an integral part of the South Campus community and their potential to enjoying food are not mentioned (CCP, 62). The majority of the neighbourhood plans do not include food outlets or grocery stores” (CCP, 2000: 17-47 in Group 12). • “Accessibility of food in campus is crucial and it is suggested that basic shops and services should be within walking distance.  This failure to address a community’s food needs contradicts one of the main visions outlined in the OCP and CCP that the campus development will reduce single occupancy vehicle (SOV) traffic to and from the UBC campus (CCP 4).  Although more housing is being provided to reduce commuters, a lack of grocery outlets on campus will force people to drive off campus to acquire food” (Group 12). • animal care facilities provide social and ecological benefits to community members” (Group 12). • See Appendix F for other proposed amendments to the CCP sections 5.3. gie  “Strate s for Sustainability” section 5.4: • In thi se developme translates i and black and plann dramatical s ction sustainability principles are based upon “intensive use of land, efficient nt patterns, reduction of commuting and alternative travel modes on campus. This nto more sustainable building standards and materials, recycling and treatment of gray water, and community planning for reduced SOV use (CCP, 2000: 66).  These building ing strategies are innovative and have the potential to reduce energy use and waste ly” (Group 12).   100 • The density plans indicated for each local area are comprehensive (Group 12). Proposed Am  endments egies would be more inclusive of all aspects of sustainability if it were expanded to  food system and affordability of housing” (Group 12). • The “strat e e a r create a su account (G • See Appen includ • The “  th ffo dability of housing” should be considered and included in this section since in order to stainable campus, the needs of low-income families and students need to be taken into roup 12). dix F for other proposed amendments to the CCP sections 5.4. Discussion/G  eneral Conclusions: • Both the “OCP and the CCP are lacking elements that ensure food security on campus, and in   h • “One vehi urban agric Vis doing so, ave not addressed the needs of a complete community” (Group 12). cle by which the food system can be incorporated in community planning is through ulture” described below (Group 12).  Proposed “Urban Agricultural Strategy” for CCP  ion: • Our vision in creating an urban agriculture strategy at UBC is one which “emphasizes edible landscaping, [in turn] enticing community members to become involved in their immediate nme t and how it connects to t  food system.  Students and faculty, in particular, can st eneral Desc enviro n he ronger connection into their owtake this  n education and research (Group 12). ionG ript : • “Edible lan enjoy.  Thi c Urban Agricul and ecological .  Being able to physically touch and consume nature as part of everyday routines promotes a stronger connection e • “Community g community ac to work with the soil themselves, but also cultivates a culture around the celebration of food” (Group 12). Implementation ds aping is the use of vegetation whose products are edible in public spaces for all to s an be fruiting varieties of apple, cherry, and plum trees and berry shrubs (SEFC ture Strategy, 2002). Edible landscaping adds another dimension to the aesthetic  function of green space (SEFC Urban Agriculture Strategy, 2002) c  b tween people and the land in the urban environment” (Group 12). ardens take food production out of the private realm and give all members of the cess to a small piece of land.  Growing food not only allows people Process:  The following Strategy” to be uc  Steps Sug s  fi e key steps need to be taken in order for the proposed “Urban Agricultural  s cessful: v ge tions for the Implementation of the “Urban Agriculture Strategy” Step #1 • “Identify all stakeholders and institutions involved, determine how to reflect everyone’s ntributing rt s, community representatives, UBC, UBC Properties Trust, nd Landscape Architecture, UBC Farm, food interests and needs in the plan, and come to a formal agreement between all co pa ies.  The stakeholders who could be involved are elementary and secondary school UBC Campus and Community Planning, UBC Utilities, UBC Architecture a service providers, grocery stores, UBC Plant Operations and UBC students” (Henney, pers.   101 comm., 2005). Step #2 • “Inc e plan nd stak In terms of food security, it may be necessary to at types of businesses are allowed into the area”. orporate environmental concerns, food security and natural resource use into th ning framework, which may involve education and discussion with planners a eholder groups (Drescher, 2000). delineate wh Step #3 • iden ent needed for small-scale agriculture, creating partnerships between individuals, community chools, and developing school and community gardens” (Drescher, “Involves providing education and opportunities for urban agriculture.  This can include tifying and protecting zones for agriculture, encouraging infrastructure developm groups, companies and s 2000). Step #4 • Req ste disp  achieved through binations” (Deelstra et al., n.d.). uires “encouraging multifunctional land use.  Agriculture, forestry, education, wa osal, water treatment, recreation and use of open space can all be numerous com Step #5 • sust inate conflict between citizens, agriculture ies” (Drescher, 2000).                                             (Group 12) Involves addressing conflict resolution.  “To accomplish the goal of enhancing urban ainability, the community must minimize or elim and other resource-based activit  Benefits and Costs of the “Urban Agricultural Strategy”:  and 2 below, is a list of the main benefits, costs and challenges associated with • In the tables 1  Table 1: Benefit Analysis to implement an “Urban Agriculture Strategy implementing an “Urban Agriculture Strategy” at UBC:  ” Benefits Ecological Benefits:  i i • Prod syste Resourc • Edib  It wou e close e gardens is the simplest possible way Ene • It w f d  Biodiver • a s, birds and amphibians and thereby increase the biodiversity within the city environment i Air qual • Gree art, 1986  d • Prov soil. Ava lab lity of local products: uction of food on campus would be a move towards re-localizing the UBC food m. e use: le landscaping would maximize the use of natural material resources on campus. ld initiate more efficient use of energy, better waste management and establish a mor d nutrient cycle in the area. Composting organic waste and using it as fertilizer in th of achieving this (Smit et al., 1996). rgy and fuel: ould decrease both the need for community members to go off campus to purchase , as well as the fuel used in transporoo ting food onto campus. Local production would also decrease the wasteful protective packaging on food (Smit et al., 1996). sity: Urb n gardens can serve as refuge for wildlife such as soil organisms, wild plants, insect (Sm t et al., 1996). ity: n plants improve air quality through the absorption of green house gases (Stew ). Soil an  water quality: ides permeable land to maintain natural hydrology patterns and retain top Economic Benefits:  Emp y • Incr ent on campus and allows for the establishment of small local food-based businesses.  Circulates currency within the local  lo ment and opportunity: eases opportunities for student employm area (Smit et al., 1996). Social Community awareness and participation:   102 Benefits:  • Enhances awareness of food issues among community members, and creates a stronger and healthier community by increasing opportunities for participation and interaction. A sense of community between people can facilitate further collective action on issues of Nutrition: connection to nature by instilling a sense of stewardship in farming (Garnett, 1996). This sense of ownership and care for the land gives the farmers a better appreciation of the land's natural processes. Aesthetics: • There is potential to improve the aesthetics on campus by greening the area and creating visually appealing gardens for food production. Food and Income Security: • Increases proximity to fresh produce, reduces the amount of food that needs to be purchased from outside, and provides opportunities for the sale of produce within the community (Smit et al., 1996).                                                                          (Group 12) local importance (Smit et al., 1996.). • Locally produced and harvested food would reduce nutrient loss and decreased freshness that results from the time lag of harvesting, packaging and transportation of produce (Smit et al., 1996). Sense of stewardship: • Food production restores the city dwellers’   Table 2: Costs Analysis to implement an “Urban Agriculture Strategy” Costs and Challenges  Financial Cost: • Creating usable land in an urban setting is an expensive task, as the land available is often not suitable for food production. Start-up costs include labour, the purchase of tools, equipment, seeds and the development of necessary infrastructure such as storage facilities.  There are also the costs associated with the long-term maintenance of gardens, which would require financial stability of those responsible for the project. It is also important to recognize the opportunity costs of business profits that would have been gained from real estate development in the areas set aside for urban agriculture. Labour: • Agriculture is highly knowledge-intensive. Staff would have to be employed to provide continuity and stability. Student volunteers would pose a challenge given the seasonal nature of the school year. Climate and Location: • Implicit in the urban context of the agriculture strategy is the threat of vandalism to plants, gardens or infrastructure. Aesthetics: • By-products of urban agriculture such as weeds, dust and odors may not appeal to some community members at UBC. Safety: • Liability issues surrounding the improper handling and storage of food are a major barrier that needs to be overcome prior to implementing urban agriculture at UBC. There is also the risk of falling fruit and slippery, rotten fruit on walkways (SEFC Urban Agriculture Strategy, 2002). Contamination: • Crops and soils may be contaminated by agrochemicals and heavy metals from non- point sources. This would have to be examined for food safety reasons. Competition from larger farms: • The competition from large-scale rural farming may reduce the survival chance of a small-scaled urban agriculture project. Stability and security: • Urban agriculture practices need strong land protection acts, in order to ensure land ownership and long term agricultural schemes for the farmers. Otherwise urban   103 agriculture becomes a short term and insecure activity (Smit et al., 1996). (Group 12)  Proposed Strategic Actions to r C eate an Edible UBC Campus:  T ‘ he strategic actions listed belo , edible campus’: demonstration ar production on buildings, waste considerations” (Group 12).  w if acted in conjunction with UBC Farm, “propose to create an  g den, designated garden areas, greenways and open space, food management and agriculture and landscaping management   104  emes: Proposed Strategic Actions: Th Demonstration garden  • Establish an urban agriculture demonstration garden that will provide educational opportunities to community groups interested in food production. • Provide demonstrations for various urban agricultural techniques, such as rooftop production, crop rotation systems, greenhouse production, worm composting, grey water treatment, aquaponics systems and hydroponic production. • Demonstrate landscaping with native and other edible plants. • Demonstrate and encourage artistic incorporation of food into the urban landscape to increase acceptance of urban agricultural endeavors. Designated Garden as • Encourage community organizations, such as UBC food services, AMS food services and campus residences, to establish agricultural gardAr ens. • Work with school administrators to encourage the development of school gardens to be integrated into the education system. e Greenways and Open ce functions by planting native species. • Promote ‘edible landscaping’ by selecting permanent food crops. • Designate sections o Spa al ecological f the greenways for community garden use.  • Designate greenways and open space to perform natur  alysis of the South Campus Neighbourhood Plan (SCNP) An  Description: Food Production in ngs  tion systems inside buildings and on rooftops, balconies and window boxes of residences, commons blocks, parkades and apartment buildings by means of gardens, hydroponics or • Develop food produc and on Buildi aquaculture. Wa • Encourage complete nutrient cycling by providing compost services to uildings in UBC communities. ste Management • Develop a larger-scale grey water recovery system and guidelines for recovered grey water use in landscaping on campus.  all food outlets and b Ag Lan Ma Co dscaping ricultural and dscaping nagement nsiderations • Establish a regulating body for the UBC food system. This body will be known as the UBC Food System Authority will have the power to enforce regulations pertaining to urban agriculture health, safety and aesthetic quality. • Delegate maintenance of permanent crops and non-edible lan  on greenways and open spaces to Plant Operations. • Ensure that community groups with urban gardens maintain them to standards developed by the UBC Food System Authorities. • Encourage commercial and campus food facilities to purchase food from community food production operations and develop marketing strategies for local producers (Group 12).   105 • The neighbourhood plan is the most detailed land use document to guide overall development of the South Campus Northeast Sub-Area (SCNP, 2005: 6 in Group 5).  Opportunities: • Being the “first approved neighbourhood UBC is working on, this is an opportunity to create guidelines or procedures for future development plans” (Group 5). • The SCNP has also included sustainability objectives, which are “based on a global concept of providing a good quality of life for all people today while ensuring future generations can also advisory bodies, consultation events, and fo ga er promotion o g store, and links to the existing UBC Farm to the west” (SCNP, 2005: 11 in Group 5). Where “app r  residents desired it” (SCNP, 2 5 • The SCNP “has included a solid waste management system which manages neighbourhood wastes as r u composting for • Significant oppo projects that con waste manageme ion have an equally good quality of life” (SCNP, 2005: 13 in Group 5). • In “consultation with the community through public tools r th ing feedback, a number of community planning objectives supported the f reener buildings, community gardens, small-sized shops, community grocery • rop iate, community garden areas can be included in the plan if the 00 : 11 in Group 5). eso rces, recycles, pursues by-product synergies, and most of all, encourages re-use in gardens and the landscape” (SCNP, 2005: 28 in Group 5). rtunities were discovered in the SCNP to propose “specific and practical tribute to the sustainability of food production, distribution, consumption and nt” (Group 5) as outlined below:  1. Opportunities for Rooftop Gardens in the SCNP  Descript : • “Agricultural g igned tion and are differ HBPG, 2 containers add ds o roof surface in ction” (HBPG, 2002  Analysis of South Campus Neighbourhood Plan reen roofs are rooftop gardens that are des ent from non-agricultural green roofs ( ed after a building has been completed, to be stalled at the time of constru  exclusively for food produc 002). “They range from simple f soil covering almost the entire in Group 5). : • A “variety of residential buildings such as apartments, townhouses, and detached homes are  th spe or these structure e Drainage”, 2005: e facts, “implementing a rooftop garden project specifically related to agriculture could be an essential key to obtain food security in the South Campus Neighb • According to “UBC Environmental Assessment Program (EAP), green roof projects, including rooftop gardens, are ideally possible for most of the large comm l buildings planned for South Campus Town (UBC “Sustainable Drainage”, 2005: 26 in Group 5). ge”, 2005: 26 in Group 5).  Town will enhance the quality of life at UBC by providing places for the University  to live, work, study and play. The neighborhoods will add vitality to campus and •  planned for e South Campus Town, however, there are no s as of yet (UBC cific design themes intended f 34-35 in Group 5). Given thes orhood” (Group 5). ercial or multi-family residentia  “Sustainabl Flat roofs are usually more suited for green roof projects, however, pitched roofs can also be used for the same purpose” (UBC “Sustainable Draina • “University community strengthen the University’s identity” (CCP, 2000: 9 in Group 5). Implementing a “clear provision for rooftop gardening will help fulfill this mandate” (Group 5).   106 Pro spo ed Strategies:  1. “ o a viable . In “combination with community garden programs, programs should be created in order to raise  food production;”  is  Ro ftop gardening should be implemented on all residential and commercial buildings that offer  opportunity;” 2 awareness and knowledge of the benefits of community 3. “Plots for rooftop gardening should be allocated to each resident in a building—if they opt out of th  opportunity, their plot will be given to other willing residents for use (Group 5). Potential Benefits Associated with Rooftop Gardens: B efits  en 1 • Can increase “community access to outdoor green space at home or at work within the urban surroundings”. 2 • Can contribute to enhancing levels of urban food production. 3 • Can encourage and create opportunities for “individual, community, and cultural diversity”. 4 rtunities in the field of design, research, construction, landscaping or gardening, and food production” (Hobbs, 2002 in Group 5). • Can “improve air quality and reduce CO2 emissions, delay storm water runoffs, provide a suitable habitat for birds, insulate buildings, increase the value of buildings for both owners and tenants alike, and generate better job oppo   P eot ntial Challenges and Solutions Associated with Rooftop Gardens: Challenges Solutions De than three or four stories”. to the roof deck. Such measures simply require a plan designed with applicable engineering and horticultural criteria in mind” sign - “Access to the rooftop garden area is one of the main issues when it comes to designing buildings that will be viable for rooftop gardening, especially if the building is higher - This “challenge can be overcome by extending the elevator shaft and the stairways (HBPG, 2002). Maintenance  constant care and a - “It is ideal to have a - Rooftop gardens require proper management system. management group involving the residents and superintendents to discuss the barriers of the project from early in the planning” (HBPG, 2002).  2. Opportunities  for Community Gardens in the SCP Description: • Comm it managed b  un y gardens are “usually located on public lands (HBPG, 2002), and are most often y non-profit associations (HBPG, 2002 in Group 5).   107 • Communit soft fruits, • Currently uver, ranging in size from 0.1 acre to a  alysis of So h y gardens can consist of “any kind of vegetation, such as vegetables, hard fruits,  herbs and flowers” (HBPG, 2002 in Group 5). “there are 21 operating community gardens in Vanco  3 cres” (HBPG, 2002 in Group 5). An ut  Campus Neighbourhood Plan: • “Provisions for community gardens are presently incorporated into the SCNP and will be implemented as the community is developed” (Henney, personal communication 2005 in Group ing on the preferences of the res community gardens will either be p tion • ghbo he use of open rki NA liaison for the use of UBC d recre r gathering all the residents' concerns, and raise them in the UBC  sha  5). • “Depend idents, the established in the Useable Neighbourhood residential sites” (Henney,  personal communica An “association, known as the University Nei established in order to regulate t O en Space (UNOS) areas or on individual  2005  in Group 5). urhoods Association (UNA, 2004), has been  space. It is responsible for “the ongoing ng and learning in a creative, healthy and  also acts as a development of a community for living, wo interactive environment” (UNA, 2004). The U facilities, which include community programs an The UNA is responsible fo ational facilities on campus (UNA, 2004). community meetings (UNA, 2004). This could help gardens” (Group 5). pe the future development of community Proposed Strategies: In order to increase the possibility for commun crucial to help the residents realize all the neighbourho ways to increase residents’ awareness of commu • ity gardens to become a reality in the SCNP, “it is benefits of having community gardens in their od. Arranging monthly gatherings or organizing community festivals are some great nity issues”, which in turn can enhance the ability  P e for residents “to raise their concerns and contribute in decision-making and the allocation of the community facilities, such as community gardens” (Group 5).  ot ntial Benefits Associated with Community Gardens: efits  Ben 1 • Can serve as “a great community building tool: it increases the total stock of social capital in a community”. 2 • It can “create opportunities for neighbours to work together (HBPG, 2002), and G, 2005). This not only provides chances for enhance their sense of identity (WC intergenerational connections, but also cross-cultural connections (WCG, 2005).  I 3 • Can “provide safe and outdoor educational purposes for both children, and even adults” (HBPG, 2002). 4 k” (HBPG 53), where they can share heritage variety • In the “South East False Creek Final Report, some community gardeners actually set up a “heritage seed ban crops that are very likely to be lost and help to reverse the decline in biodiversity” (HBPG, 2002). 5 • Can aid in “beautifying and enriching the neighbourhood” (WCG, 2005). 6 Can “also improve food security in the community (HBPG, 2002).  It can help the residents obtain a cheaper, fresher and more nutritious diet” (HBPG, 2002). • 7 • Can “contribute to reducing energy and resources used, and cut down the   108 pollution caused by transportation. Having more greens in the community can also decrease urban heat from streets and parking lots (WCG, 2005) and make the neighbourhood a better place to live in as a whole”. 8 nsive than • The “development and maintenance of the green space will be less expe development and maintenance of a park.” (Herbach, 1998). 9 • “Theft and vandalism do not largely affect community gardens in Vancouver” (HBPG, 2002 in Group 5).  otential Challenges and Solutions Associated with Community GardensP : ions Challenges Solut • “Seeking ut and distributing resources such as soil e could be a c experien in • “Having a quality of knowled problem” (H “Inexper c discoura interest” in t • “Rodents o concern B illnesses very rapidly in the neighbourhood” (Group 5 • “Professional advice could be sought from f the Garden ram: seeds and equipments s  o am ndments, seeds and equipment hallenge for those who have no some organizations, such as UBC Botanical Garden and UBC Friends o ce  farming” (Group 5). low yield and an inconsistent products due to the lack of Society”, who may be able to “provide detailed information on the following aspects of the prog ge and training can be another BPG, 2002). o Effective farming, such as the use of • ien ed farmers might be o Soil amendments, such a ged and begin to lose community he garden (WCG, 2005). r other pests can also be a composting o Arrangement of affordable water, such was irrigation Pest control” (Group(H PG, 2002) as they could spread o  5). ).  3. Opportunities for School Gardens in the SCP  Description: • A school yard “typically contains large plots of barren and unproductive landscape allocated to through organic gardens” (Group 5). An s recreational sports and parking purposes” (Group 5).  These barren plots can “provide enhanced learning opportunities for children and to improve • nutrition  aly is of South Campus Neighbourhood Plan:  planning objectives in the SCNP “have incorporated  school will be built in the first phase of constructio 5: 18).  In accordance with the OCP, the school site uding land for playing fields, and located on the sou nue” (SCNP, 2005: 18 in Group 5).  “Vancouver School Board in conjunction with the Prov whether an elementary school or a community • The  school y. The n of the P, 200  will be area, incl theast c Ave • The incial and the UBC Faculty of Education has yet to resolve school for kindergarten to grade 12 students will be developed on the site” (SCNP, 2005: 18 in Group 5).  Proposed Strategies construction as a top priorit  neighbourhood plan (SCN  at least 3.0 hectares in orner of East Mall and 16th Ministry of Education :   109 • “Opportunities for learning in conjunction with the sc permitted and encouraged (SCNP, 2005: 18 in Group 5 the goal to incorporate a sustainable food system in t to instill ecologically diverse organic school gardens in t Gardens can be built at entrances to school grounds a athletic fields, pathways, and hard surface areas (Skelly, construction used, the rooftops of the school may also in Group 5). hool and ). Estab d he South pus Plan, it is worthwhile  scho • nd e  200 thod of  be u HBPG, 2002  Potent Benefi  other public realm spaces are lished upon this mandate, an  Cam he ol site” (Group 5).  different buildings; and alongsid 5).  Depending on the me sed for the gardens ( ial Benefits Associated with School Gardens: ts 1 quire will remain helpful throughout their lives and foster their self-efficacy in sustainable practices” (Group 5). • Organic gardening “skills that students ac 2 • Can offer “invaluable experience of caring for the natural world and creating a difference in the community will improve students' self-esteem and encourage a sense of belonging” (HBPG, 2002 in Group 5). 3 • Can serve as “a healthy outdoor activity that encourages a physically active lifestyle” (HBPG, 2002 in Group 5). 4 • Can “provide a source of nutritious foods to students” (Skelly, 2005 in Group 5). 5 • By “including groves of trees and other forms of sun screening on school grounds, students will be provided with effective and easily accessible shelter from harmful UV rays from all areas of the school” (HBPG, 2002 in Group 5). 6 • School gardens “can also be leased out to the public as demonstration gardens (HBPG, 2002 in Group 5). 7 students to integrate knowledge and practical • Can aid in “empowering students to make a personal contribution toward improving their community, allowing skills, nurturing the wholeness and interconnectedness of learning” (Group 5). 8 • Can “provide both active and passive recreational areas and add value to the entire community” (Group 5).  Potential Challenges and Solutions Associated with School Gardens:  Challenges Solutions • “At the time of its construction, if government funding for the school is not available, UBC will be • A clear agreement should be made “with the V responsible to build the facility and then lease the school to the Vancouver School Board to operate School Board and/or UBC the facility (SCNP, 2005: 18 in Group 5). Therefore, the incorporation of school gardens may have to be negotiated w comprehensive plan that outlines the specific details of ith UBC.  The costs of running school gardens are comparable to running public ancouver and development of a the gardens, including procedures to ensure community gardens” (Group 5) adequate staff and volunteers   110 • Key “ob c school gard safety of the union c t teachers an students c oversee the 2002 in Gro sta les that exist to hinder the approval of ens include: concerns regarding the  school gardens, conflicts with teacher- on racts, aesthetics and availability of d other volunteers to superintend ’ a tivities at the gardens, as well as to maintenance of the gardens” (HBPG, up 5). • There “is also the issue of tending the gardens s highest and the requirement for irrigation the highest” (HBPG, 2002 in Group 5). fety res will often donate tools, seeds, and 02 in Group 5). to supervise the gardens and students’ activities” (Group 5). • Security measures should be prepared “to ascertain the sa of students accessing the gardens” (Group 5). • “Local gardening sto throughout the summer months when plant and weed growth is at it other supplies” (HBPG, 20  4. O ag  Descri pportunities for a South Campus Neighbourhood “Vill ption e Grocery Store” in the SCNP :  SCNP “calls for the creation of a “village” feel in the a community grocery store. Currently, up to about ighbourhood-oriented grocery (approximately 3,000 • The comme of half of the permitted ground floor commercial area may be occupied by a ne ) • Thr oriented grocery based on a Capers or Urban Fare model with a facade that doesn’t read as a ‘big store’ was seen as most desirable” • e  controlled through leases with the Un  Analys rcial centre with the placement m2 ” (SCNP, 2005: 17 in Group 5). ough the “Working Group process, a neighbourhood- (Group 5). Th  “tenancy in the village commercial centre will be iversity” (Group 5). is of South Campus Neighbourhood Plan: • “Attention has yet to be given to the criteria upon which this selection process, especially for s problem in terms of ensuring that residents have sufficient access to a nutritious supply of local foods” (Group 5). Pro s the grocery store, will be based, which i  po ed Strategies:  1. “In the solicitation process, recommendations for tenancy should be made” (Group 5). 2. e eco m 3. The factor w . The socially and couver: 1. Choices Markets [and] 2. Capers ot rh od “V llage Grocery Store” Th  selection grocery retailers “should be made upon triple-bottom line criteria, given the no ic, social and environmental benefits of local and/or organic foods” (Group 5). “grocery store should be required to dedicate ‘shelf space’ to local produce, as this is a key hich allows for responsible consumption” (Group 5).  “following retailers be considered for tenancy, as they are the leading 4 environmentally progressive food companies in Van Market” (Group 5).  ential Benefits Associated with a South Campus Neighbou o iP : Benefits 1 • Can “contribute to strong links between South Campus and adjacent campus areas, including Hampton Place. Many residents would come to the village commercial centre as their primary place to shop” (Group 5).   111 2 • “Given its convenient location and proximity to people’s residences, it would allow opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle travel to the grocery, while encouraging recreation and reduced fossil fuel consumption” (Group 5). 3 • If the grocery stores provide seasonal local foods the “consumers can eat in season while supporting the local economy and its producers” (Group 5). 4 • By contributing to reductions in fossil fuel emissions, this would contribute “to the OCP’s goal of reducing traffic by 20 percent as less people drive off-campus to buy their food” at other grocery stores such as Safeway (Group 5).  Potential Challenges and Solutions Associated with a South Campus Neighbourhood “Village Grocery Store”:  Challenges Solutions • “Without the right financial and educational incentives, community members may prefer to shop at Safeway or other large retail chains, believing that a community grocery store may have higher prices and may not supply a wide selection of products including • Should provide food products at competitive prices to those found in nearby off-campus retailers (Group 5).  specialty items” (Group 5). • Currently, it may not be within the power of “SCNP N/A to dictate the kind of grocery store that is to operate in the commercial centre” (Group 5). • The “build-out of this neighbourhood will occur over a long time span (5 to 10 years following plan approval), thus there may not be enough residents initially living in t N/A he South Campus neighbourhood for a financially viable grocery store” (Group 5).  5. Opportun ties for Composting in the SCP Description i  : • Accordin South C managem • Curr l wastes a nt strat e facilities available for households and businesses” (SCNP, 2005: 13 in Group 5). g to the SCNP “for the Northeast Sub-Area of University of British Columbia, ampus community will strive to attain a high level of operation with regards to waste ent” (SCNP, 2005: 13 in Group 5). ent y, the SCNP “states that it will have a waste management system that manages s resources and will attempt to recycle as much as possible. It promises to impleme egi s to encourage composting for use in gardens and the landscape through optional  Analysis of South Campus Neighbourhood Plan: • In order to reach these waste management goals, the “South Campus community needs a more a i  specific plan” (Group 5) as proposed in the str teg es below: Proposed Strategies:    112 1. An “effective strategy for encouraging composting would be to place a ban on the level of organic fills or incineration. For example, in 1998 Nova cotia banned all organics from landfills and incinerators, which stimulated composting programs of jobs and reuse of resources” (Good, 2005 in Group 5). a two faci T new tes that take con in the building in-v use in G 4. In addition, a program encouraging the adaptation of worm composting for individual homes that worms are capable of consuming a four-liter ice cream bucket of food scraps a week, and provide a 9  Potential B matter allowed to leave the community for land S resulting in the creation  2. “Composting could be integrated into a comprehensive recycling program, where recycled m terials are picked up weekly and organics biweekly by the South Campus in-vessel composting facility. A system of three different colored 32-gallon bins could be introduced to sort organics, commingled recyclables and trash. To aid the program, each house and townhouse would receive a -gallon pail for organic matter (Good, 2005). The finished product from the in-vessel composting lity would be redistributed in South Campus’s community gardens and green space” (Group 5).  3. he SCNP “states that recycling and garbage must be provided within the building envelope of  residential buildings (2005: 40). To accommodate this, four designated chu recyclables and bags of organic matter to the basement of an apartment building would allow venient separation of recyclables and organic matter while remaining with envelope boundaries. The organic material would be picked up twice a week for the South Campus essel composting facility, while the recyclables would be picked up weekly.  This system has been d successfully in the Audubon House organized by the National Audubon Society” (Good, 2005 roup 5).  desire to do their own composting would ease the burden on the community system. Red wriggler clean, effective method of composting in houses, apartment buildings, and on balconies (Henderson, 19 9). Currently WasteFree UBC offers worm composting workshops on a regular basis (WasteFree UBC, 2005 in Group 5).  enefits Associated with Composting in the SCNP: Benefits 1 • The “system of bi-weekly compost pick up and the use of the composted material returned to the ground in the community would decrease or eliminate the need for transportation of organic material to landfills and incinerators as well as the need for outside fertilizers and soil to be brought into the community. This would decrease emissions from unnecessary traffic” (Group 5). 2 •  free fertilizer and soil for community gardens, rooftop It can “provide cheap or gardens and landscaping” (UBC Waste Management Program, 2005 in Group 5). 3 n “provide an excellent educational and research opportunities” (Bourdon, 2004 • It ca in Group 5).  Potential Challenges and Solutions Associated with Composting in the SCNP: Challenges Solutions • “Contamination possibilities” (Good, 2005 in Group 5). • “Facility odors” (Good, 2005 in Group 5). • “Fr 200 ion are uit fly and maggot infestation” (Good, 5 in Group 5). usually the result of a learning curve of the new composting system and can be kept to a minimum if appropriate procedures are followed” (Group 5). • “Problems like odors and infestat   113  Analy  sis of Main Campus Plan (MCP) General Description:  • The syn • It i dev  • The and • In cam • The intent of the MCP “is to define an end, but not the means. That is to say, it ascribes mid- fe • e con • The par • per • The “mixing land uses (institutional, residential, retail commercial, etc.) and e o along University Boulevard) as • The “1 exa Com the wh  UBC Main Campus Plan (MCP) “is the product of a cumulative process of analysis and thesis that began in 1989, and ended in its creation in June 1992 (Group 3). s comprised of a set of forty planning strategies for managing the university’s growth, elopment and management of institutional infrastructure on the UBC Main Campus (Group 3, 14). These strategies are divided into “four sections: general, systems, land-use and implementation” (Group 3).  “MCP sets out the principles and strategies necessary for translating the academic, financial  community goals of the University into physical form” (MCP, 1992 in Group 3). this strategy framework, the university mission is contextualized through a discussion of the pus’ physical image, its past, present and future” (UBC, 1992, in Group 14). and long-term university planning goals (ten and twenty year horizons, respectively) without of ring specificity on how to achieve these goals (UBC, 1992). This means that the plan aims to avoid constraint by maximizing planning options” (Group 14). Th  MCP “stresses flexibility and comprehensiveness, and addresses functional, aesthetic and textual issues” (UBC, 1992, in Group 14).  overarching theme of the MCP “is that the whole campus is greater than the sum of its ts” (UBC, 1992, in Group 3, 14). The MCP “prioritizes environmental responsibility and leadership and the need to create a more manent sense of community” (UBC, 1992, in Group 14).  MCP includes plans: o To “limit campus sprawl and to enhance the spirit of the place” (UBC, 1992 in Group 14). o For encouraging alternative modes of transportation like cycling and public transit” (UBC, 1992, in Group 14). o For “strategies like creating a sense of place, improving building signage, promoting campus culture and enhancing pedestrian circulation collectively aim to increas synergetic interactions between campus users and add vitality to the built landscape” (UBC, 1992 in Group 14). o For “constructing green buildings and reducing reliance upon automobiles” (Group 14). o For “mixed land uses, increased building density, and improved separation of transportation modes (like walking, cycling, bussing, and driving)” (UBC, 1992 in Group14). For “a university “Town Centre” (a commercial zone a means of facilitating a place for community” (UBC, 1992, p. in Group 14). 992 MCP was scheduled for revision in 2004/2005. However, at this moment, the ct date of its revision still has not been set. The Community & Land Use Planning mittee currently believes that the MCP is to be reviewed during 2006. At this later date, ole document will be reviewed in detail and certain strategies will be modified or   114 enlarge compre  Evaluation f d to develop a new plan that will encompass revisions to the OCP and the hensive Community Plans as well” (Group 3).  the MCP: o • “Co “su i cam s specific conside UBC ca • In “Strategy 3 and later on page 27 where the MCP states: “ongoing needs of the university d campus plans through • • Vancouver, British Columbia and the wider community” and thereby adamantly argues that nd increasing • 3. It “stresses the importance of valuing and facilitating community, through considering open pedestrian circulation patterns and public spaces that would foster interactions, as well as  ntradictory to the statement made on page 4 that says that the plan will remain ffic ently current and relevant…to accommodate genuine evolution” (MCP, 1992) the pu  plan has not been revised since its creation 13 years ago. With no revisions and a  revision date yet to be determined, it is imperative that the university seriously r updating the plan to correlate current development with the changing goals of the mpus” (Group 3). community must be met.” The demographic changes that parallel the move towards this vision of a university “city” with mixed-use housing and a larger permanent on campus population will necessarily result in a changing definition of campus community and likewise, UBC’s ‘needs’. This metamorphosis must be reflected in the revise broad changes that guide the creation of the updated Official Community Plan (OCP)” (Group 3). The “sustainability concept in current academic discourse [social, economic and ecological components] is not present in any form in the mission statement” in the MCP (Group 3). The “MCP reaffirms that UBC is “an educational servant and intellectual leader to development must “demonstrate high respect for the environment” in two primary ways: creating and following through on environmentally sound development plans a the awareness of its community” (MCP, 1992 in Group 3). • At the time the creation of the MCP in 1992, “no university planning literature even regarded the concept of a food system, or sustainability for that matter”. The MCP is typical for campus planning for the time, and “exemplifies how traditional urban planning is primarily concerned with the land use relationships between built forms and the physical environment. The MCP focuses on planning for institutional infrastructure and not the food system” (Group 14). The “vast majority of the MCP fails to a• ddress the food system by not contributing comprehensive strategies for system sustainability. While we realize this failure is a consequence of the plan’s flexible, yet limited context, there remains a critical vacuum in university planning in which the UBC food system ought to be incorporated” (Group 14). However, as listed below the MCP makes five subtle acknowledgements regarding the food system: 1. It “references the university’s agricultural roots, which could once again be revived through more proactive campus integration with UBC Farm” (UBC, 1992). 2. It “charges the university to be an environmental role model for the city, province and nation, which lays foundations for current sustainability initiatives and perhaps future ones that promote the transition to a sustainable campus food system” (UBC, 1992). This “pledge offers hope for incorporating sustainability into planning”. places for celebrating the local food system” (UBC, 1992). 4. It “recognizes relationships between planning components – academic, financial, physical and community – that are surely relevant to food system planning in a university setting since enhancing the comprehensiveness of the food system at UBC would involve: (1) reserving   115 physical spaces for cultivation, distribution and consumption; (2) establishing community partnerships to sustainably meet labour requirements; (3) budgeting for the food system’s accessibility as a food security indicator” (UBC, 1992, in Group 14). m UBC’s agricultural roots. It is here that the MCP  • cape (MCP, 1992). But, the MCP confines  changes to the living landscape” (MCP, 1992, in Group 3). Rationale for Including Food Systems in the Campus Planning and in the MCP: shift to more sustainable protocols, and (4) integrating interdisciplinary curricula that espouse a sustainable food system ethos” (UBC, 1992). 5. It refers to “the need for even distribution of and access to food services on campus, which in fact reflects 6. Under “Strategy 10, the Campus Landscape, highlights the tradition of development at UBC as an academic resource stemming fro advocates the creation of a Comprehensive Landscape Master Plan. Thus, changes to the design of UBC’s living environment have been anticipated and could be easily incorporated into a revised MCP” (Group 3). Under Strategy 7 it emphasizes that “buildings with a greater number of overlapping values” make more efficient use of the UBC lands landscape to “aesthetic value”, thus reducing the possibility for enhancing the quality of UBC through • The “integrity of the diverse nature of campus uses represents the fifth theme. Strategy 13 describes how the MCP seeks to move away from focusing solely on the academic core and advocates “close proximity between different and related uses” (MCP, 1992). However, including holistic terminology in a guiding document such as the MCP does not necessarily correspond with holistic development on the ground” (Group 3).   eneral Planning:  G ears in improving our shelter and re recently ou  air and water, most plans still lack a consideration for food. Planners need  the n (Pothukuchi and K community. Each m consumption of foo • In “many comm i sector. These jobs in  workers, as well as wholesalers,  m Therefore, planners a community if they do not plan for a food system. Ten to r Kaufman, 2000); th recognized by plann sehold waste comes from food products; plans need to ac u many household T be included in food into planning becaus  MCP • While, planners have been involved for “thousands of y mo r to realize co nection between the food system and other community systems aufman, 2000) [since] the food system plays a central role in any ember of a community participates in the food system through the d products” (Group 14). un ties a large percent of residents work directly or indirectly in the food clude restaurant, supermarket and tavern packagers and far ers. The income of these residents depends on the food system.  neglect large portions of  fo ty percent of household income is spent on food (Pothukuchi and e need for food is recognized by households and should also be ers. A large portion of hou co nt for the assimilation of waste products in order to meet the need of s. he proximity of food outlets to individuals of a community should also system planning. There is a need for the food system to be incorporated e the food system affects everybody in the community” (Group 14). : ay n it h need of a sustainable • Since “food pl which “deals w s a  integral part in everybody’s life, it should also play a part in the MCP”, h t e highest level of institutional development and without it mandating the  food system on campus, further plans will not follow suit” (Group 14).   116 • As “a leader o n communities by including food in a high-level plan such as the MCP” (Group 14). • UBC is more than the buildings and the greenways that exist on campus; it also consists of an entire community that works, lives and plays in and around the institutional core of the  Ass f e vironmental sustainability, UBC can also be a model to many other campus (Group 14). • It should be recognized in the MCP “holistically and that every part – even food – has its place within the broad plan” (Group 14). • By “planning for a sustainable food system, many issues dealing with the production and delivery of food and assimilation of the waste it generates can be addressed. By planning for a sustainable food system in the MCP, UBC can also improve the biological and structural diversity of the campus environment” (Group 14). essment of the Benefits of Urban Agriculture: scription  De : According to the United Nations, urban agriculture refers to: “An industry that p• roduces, processes and markets food and fuel, largely in response to the daily demand of consumers roughout the urban and peri- urban area, applying intensive production methods, using and reusing natural resources and u • I 1 3). • In T within a town, city, or metropolis, on land and water dispersed th rban wastes, to yield a diversity of crops and livestock” (Barrs, 2002, in Group 3). n “ 993, urban food contributed to 15% of world food production” (Addison, 2002 in Group able 1 below, a list of the main benefits associated with Urban Agriculture are noted:  Potential Associated Benefits of Urban Agriculture   Table 1: eBen fits Social Benefits • Can foster connections between people, and also between people and rban the land since, through urban agriculture, “members of a community are brought together to produce for themselves and the surrounding community” (Group 3). • Can help people “to fight poverty and hunger within their u context” (Addison, 2005 in Group 3). Ecologi ialized e waste from the , cal Benefits • Can help “relieve land pressures from resource draining industr agriculture” (in Group 3). • “Community gardens can use water and sewag surrounding community contributing to making a closed food system” (HBPG, 2002 in Group 3). • As “urban agriculture decreases the distance that food travels between producer and consumer, fuel consumption and, in turn, harmful carbon emissions that have been linked with global warming decrease” (HBPG, 2002 & Barrs, 2002 in Group 3). • Can increase urban biodiversity by providing new “habitats for birds insects and other animals” (HBPG, 2002 in Group 3). Econ mo ic Benefits • The “convenience of local farmers markets decreases the amount of time food and people travel and related expenses” (HBPG, 2002 in Group 3).   117 • “Urban agriculture provides people with job opportunities and encourages local economic development” (Group 3).   Proposed Vision and Guiding Principles for the MCP: d upon both the vision statement for the UBCFSP (consisting of 7 guiding principles) put her by the Project Coordinator based upon findings from previous AGSC 450 colleagues, • Base toget and input from the teaching team and the other partners in the Project (UBCFS, AMSFBD, UBC for the food system outlined in the “Southeast B , it w plann below aid incorporating the food system sufficiently “into the MCP and other aspects of campus p n   Table 1: D Farm, UBC Waste Management, SEEDS, and the Campus Sustainability Office) and objectives  False Creek Urban Agriculture Plan” (Holland arrs Planning Group, 2002) a vision statement was developed for campus planning. Overall as felt that the UBCFSP Vision Statement was difficult to integrate and implement in campus ing. In turn, the group created a congruent set of guiding principles, described in Table 1 ; that they believed would prove more suitable for this context. This vision was adapted to lan ing so that future development at UBC can operate more sustainably” (Group 14). escription of Proposed Guiding Principles for the MCP  Proposed Guiding Principles for the MCP #1 • e  r in closing the food cycle,...analyze the different opportunities in the creation of new areas that can be devoted f already existing spaces, such as the UBC Farm on South Campus”. Increase the physical capacity of the UBC campus to support the growing of food To help reduce UBC’s reliance on transportation for food products and associated larg ecological footprint, the University Board of Governors and other stakeholders should determine “what steps the UBC campus is to take in order to be a leade to the growing of food, as well as the improvement and expansion o #2 Increase the amount of food consumed at UBC that is produced both organically and locally • Campus planning should help find ways to increase the availability of locally and organically produced food for UBC consumers. #3 Encourage Practices for managing waste flows in a more sustainable manner • While, “UBC Waste Management has had success with composting, recycling and litter t continues at an accelerated rate, the expansion of these initiatives is necessary”, such as by integrating waste management practices o reduction initiatives…as campus developmen  int  campus planning. #4 Encourage the • “Considering the importance of food in our daily lives and the cultural, social, and nutritious m UBC community”, bers of the campus commun  o the growing cam celebration of food and the local food system at UBC  i plications it has, the food system remains largely invisible to the  and thus should be made “more visible to existing mem ity, and expansion of programs and initiatives are needed to respond t pus population” by incorporating this into campus planning. #5 Encourage food consumed at UBC that is produced in other regions or countries to be produced th u • While, the “UBC food system has made steps toward social sustainability, with the recent creation of th USA have im ro gh ethical and environmentally sustainable practices e AMS Ethical Purchasing Policy. Other universities across Canada and the plemented similar policies for their food systems. The University of Alberta’s   118 Student’s Un  with suppliers tha nduct (The Studen is policy mandates mally packaged foo hould consider imp  from suppliers tha siness practices” in ion has a campus-wide policy in place to promote business relationships t engage in environmentally conscious, socially equitable and ethical co t’s Union of the University of Alberta, 2003). More specifically, th  for the purchase of fairly traded, recycled, organically produced and mini d products whenever the option is available”. UBC policy makers s lementing and advocating “for the procurement of international products t promote both environmentally sound and socially sustainable bu a campus-wide policy. #6 Increase the capacity of UBC to provide or support basic food security initiatives for the local comm it The following components of food security should be addressed through campus planning: • “Low income and socio-economic status are common causes of food insecurity; while most of the ca u sets of the UBC c ties in acquiring foo • In terms of  few convenience nute bus ride from UBC. For those unable to travel, food security may become an issue”. un y mp s population would not be considered below the poverty line, there are sub ommunity – particularly students – that may experience financial difficul d. availability and accessibility, there is currently one produce market and type stores; the nearest grocery outlet is a Safeway store, which is a five-mi #7 Ensure that • Being food t  th re is an adequate distribution of food service facilities on campus  campus, “UBC needs to ensure that all areas of the campus have access t onsistent with the pop e  a large o hat is c ulation in any given area. In providing sufficient food, UBC will encourage economic development and increased revenue, as well as decrease the need to travel off-campus in order to access these goods” (Group 14).  Proposed Urban Agricultural Strategies” for UBC Main Campus and MCP: been identified for planning successful urban agriculture into the MCP a ) Micro-gardens; (2) Education and Community Involvement; and (3) W f these areas aim to “provide realistic strategies that should be consi d future planning and development of a sustainable UBC communit  in Table 1  Three key areas have nd the UBC main campus: (1 aste Management. Each o dered during the current an y” in (Group 3) as described  below”   Table 1:  Proposed Ur Area Spe ban Agricultural Strategies: cific Strategies Micro- gardens:  • • • dens, these areas could • “Small plots of land are in abundance across the UBC Main Campus, which could easily be used to grow edible plants, such as vegetables and herbs” (Group 3). Examples of micro-gardens could include: “small plots around buildings, greenhouses and rooftop gardens” (Group 3). “Following the development of community gar be placed in a “Land Trust” in order to secure their future existence” (Group 3). The “implementation of balcony gardens could be encouraged in both existing buildings such as Macmillan, the current location of the Faculty of Land and Food Systems, and in future building development plans. Existing buildings with flat roofs make excellent candidates for rooftop gardens. An excellent example is the building   119 housing the “99 Chairs” restaurant located on Main Mall. Not only could food be produced from its rooftop garden, but food could also be processed and sold for consumption in the restaurant” (Group 3). These buildings would need to “undergo structural upgrading that could include improvements in order to support the extra weight of rooftop gardens as well as to ensure reliable waterproofing (Roseland, 1999). Future building roofs should be designed to carry plant life as well as be positioned for maximum sun exposure” (Sheltair Group, 1998 in Group 3). The “maintenance of micro-gardens across campus could be the responsibility of • • volunteer students such as students from the LFC • l as the pollution produced from series, or as part of course requirements” (Group 3). Benefits from these micro-gardens may include: air quality improvements with a decrease in CO2 emissions, increased effeminacy in building insulation, increased economic value of buildings (Roseland, 1999), a reduction in “energy and resources used in transporting food, as wel transportation” (Group 3). Education and Community Involvement:  • • , 2002). Small food processors or e Dietetics food lab in the Family and Nutritional Sciences building on campus anded for this exact purpose. Those involved in food production at the UBC farm could then process their crops into higher not have to ship their crops to far-away processors and transportation-related environmental impacts would be minimized stingly, research has shown that two people f wages as a retail store clerk (Integrity rch, the processing facility could provide an income unity” (Group 3). ich is wers, processors, retailers, students e m. The The following strategy comprised of 2 components “is a comprehensive approach that links education to food processing on campus” (Group 3). The “first component of this processing strategy is a “commercial food processing facility” (HBPG, 2002, p. 98). This would consist of a large shared kitchen equipped with basic ware such as exhaust fans, sinks, grease traps and tables (HBPG caterers could rent out this space as needed. The facility might have to be subsidized in the beginning until enough tenants use the resource to cover costs of running it. To minimize costs, however, th could be exp value products. In this way farmers would save money because they would (HBPG, 2002). Intere working for three days making apple-sauce from 36 cases of apples can earn the equivalent of 45 days o Systems Coop Co., 1997). Thus, in addition to being a center for education and resea to people in the UBC comm • The second component of this strategy is a “Food Incubator”, wh “a training facility where food gro and residents of UBC could gain the skills needed to practice urban agriculture on campus and enter their food system (HBPG, 2002). People can learn how to can food, where to get local food, how to compost, earn food safe certification, take cooking classes and becom the UBC faraware of resources offered at previously proposed   120 commercial kitchen could be used as this training facility for the educational purposes listed above. And, the afore-mentioned micro- space and educational opportunity to em to order more of the same item to verall community involvement (Group gardens could provide the showcase lessons in composting, water conservation, or gardening techniques (HBPG, 2002). Lastly, the food incubator is a site where food outlet owners and managers could join together to form marketing cooperatives that would enable th save money (HBPG, 2002). By sharing the cost of supplies, equipment and food items and with the pressure of an educated UBC community, food outlets could afford to buy local and organic produce, meats, and dairy (Group 3). • Benefits for these strategies may include: increases in campus learning about food processing skills, increases in knowledge about the UBC food system, and increases in o 3). Finally, taking garden land plots off the market will help “protect and maintain their purpose on campus both now and in the future” (Roseland, 1999 in Group 3). Waste Management: • ifferent compartments for garbage, compost and r disposal” (Roseland, 1999 in Group 3). The “institutional area of UBC’s Main Campus should include a comprehensive composting program”, whereby “multi-purpose containers with 3 d recycling could be scattered across the campus in collaboration with the existing system of waste • These “compost boxes could divert organic material from garbage cans and return the soil material into the previously mentioned micro- gardens on campus” (Group 3). • Benefits of this strategy include: decreasing the amount of solid waste produced on campus, improving plant growth, contributing to the investment in the production of food at UBC (Group 3).  Proposed Amendments to MCP able 1  n TI  below is list of proposed addendums to be made to the MCP to help facilitate the Tab inclusion of the food system:  le 1: Proposed Amendments to MCP egory Proposed Addendums to MCP (1992) Cat ACADEMIC Quality of Life Opinions (p. 28-29): cilities ud od ENDEAVORS • Include the importance of maintaining access and availability of quality food to the campus community. Fa  and Services (p. 31): • Incl e fo  as a necessary component of both facilities and services. GE ST nmental de  h ial no econo  I ental leader u subheading Signage and O NERAL RATEGIES Enviro • Un soc  Responsibility (p. 34): r this eading, add a value of supporting local products (e.g. food) to minimize , eco mic and ecological costs of transportation (i.e. support the local my). f certain local products are unavailable, take initiative as an environm  thro gh purchasing Fair Trade products. (E.g. make Food System a of Environmental Responsibility.) rientation (p. 64):   121 • Includ od interior facil Respect for Lan • Include the importance of increasing building density on campus. Also, spaces in ldi n ity of d can be f community on campus. ste a key component essed in the MCP. For example, the MCP could lay the foundation for composting all organic wastes on camp e fo  facilities as an example of improving signage for buildings and “their ities.” d Value (p. 70): bui foo Food Wa • Wa ngs a d on land should be reserved for food so that access and availabil  maintained. These ties in with the value o ste Management (new):  (org nic and other) must be dealt with in a sustainable fashion. Waste is a of a food system and must, therefore, be addr us. LAND USE STRATEGIES  • Inc from Loc Locations fo lud le  f  s ation G • Includ e er than open space (e.g. a sports field), green space can also include urban forms of agriculture, areas b be bui th campus (Gr r F e a mention of maintaining choice/variety of food available. Food availab ood Services (p. 105): ood ervices should be of adequate nutritional quality. s for reen Space (new): e a d scription of the multifunctional role of green space on campus. Oth such as rooftop gardens/greenhouses and community gardens. These should of ur an agriculture should be increased and improved, while buildings lt wi  the infrastructure to enable the incorporation of such green spaces on oup 14).  Proposed “Supplemental Food System Plan”  • While, the group concluded that the aforementioned addendums should be incorporated to the MCP, it was felt that t food system into the MCP. Co supplementary to the MCP, in discussed below in Table 1 hese changes would not be sufficient to adequately integrate the nsequently, the group proposed the formulation of a plan  which specific objectives and strategies for its implementation are . Each strategic action corresponds with the group’s propos r the MCP. This plan, along with the addendums to the MCP ed vision and guiding principles fo “can help mpus into ve work  sus ab d p 14).  While a supplementary document is proposed, “the MCP still plays a pertinent role in the inclusion of food system  e the supplementary plan, and suggestions discussed there within, to be implemented” (Group 14).    Table 1: Proposed “Supplem ta to guide the ca for the inclusion of communities” (Grou   de loping a sustainable food system”, as well as “provide a frame tain ility initiatives in the planning of other university campuses an • s in campus planning. The MCP will act as an umbrella to enabl en ry Food System Plan”: Strategic Actions and Principles: Guiding Principle  Proposed Strategic Actions 1. Increase the physical capacity of the UBC campus to support the growing of food 1.1 ricultural spaces into future campus development. Some 1.2  Incorporate ag examples are community gardens (around buildings, walkways and areas such as daycares and schools) and roof top gardens. Improve existing infrastructure at UBC Farm to produce more food for consumption on campus. 1.3 Reserve land for urban agriculture projects that involve the public through educational programming (in settings such as greenhouses, aquaculture and bioponics).   122 1.4 n that the UBC community has with the land ough Improve the connectio through creating outings and activities around the Farm and thr encouraging the sales and preparation of in-season foods on campus (Yale, 2005). 2. of food consumed at  2.1 f the UBC Farm in campus food system planning. 2.3 tion and awareness of sustainable ways of 2.4 ds. ers. Increase the amount UBC that is produced both organically and locally Increase involvement o 2.2 Seek partnerships with local producers. Support consumer educa shopping and purchasing food. Promote local, organic and in-season foo 2.5 Seek partnerships with local producers such as dairy producers (Tonachel & Seeley, 2000) and vegetable farm 3. Encourage practices that manage waste flows in a more sustainable manner as  and water in the food establishments g. 3.4  groups on campus about the importance of a   BC Waste Management is not lack of resources but lack of campus-wide 3.5 composting as well as their recycling initiatives. 3.1     Educate students about waste management and incorporate it into school curriculum. 3.2 Encourage and expand re-usable container and utensil use in cafeteri and food outlets. 3.3 Encourage UBC to make a commitment that reflects the values of ECOtrek by reducing energy (reducing their ecological footprint) as well as by expanding compostin Educate different sustainable food system and how waste management is a part of that. It is hoped that this will promote participation so that UBC Waste Management (who is actively looking for better ways to improve) can expand their services on campus. (Currently what is holding back U participation).      Through education, develop further partnerships with UBC Waste Management; currently they have partnerships with UBC Farm, UBC Campus Sustainability Office, Faculty of Bio-Resource Engineering and Health, Safety and the Environment. 3.6     Expand UBC Waste Management’s small scale and large scale 4. Encourage the bration of food and 4.1 Increase awareness and food system literacy – educate the campus community about the value of local food systems, including the origicele B  ns e to the new building signs on campus. This will improve the ss concerning which buildings on campus contain food facilities. the local food system at U C of food and its disposal methods. 4.2 Promote the UBC sustainability pledge as a way of educating the campus community. 4.3 Incorporate food system research into all educational programs on campus, and not just Agricultural Sciences. 4.4 Products and services that cause least harm to the environment should be the least expensive. 4.5 Showcase foods from UBC and other local producers at a “farmer’s market” on campus, such as in the Student Union Building (SUB). 4.6 Organize activities and events to increase the awareness of food system sustainability 4.7 Introduce signs that indicate “food here” (similar to highway signs) and add thes awarene 5. Encourage food C  in r re consumed at UB that is produced othe gions or partnerships with ethical business partners. s 5.1 Maintain current 5.2 Seek and develop more business relationships with ethical busines partners. 5.3 Expand the AMS Ethical Purchasing Policy to include the entire UBC   123 countries to be produced under ethical and environmentally sustainable practices  rade food products sold at UBC. es and for campus food system. 5.4 Increase the variety of Fair T 5.5     Increase awareness of the UBC population about ethical food issu environmental sustainability, in order to create consumer demand sustainable products. 6. Increase the capacity of UBC to provide or support basic food security initiatives for the local community   with stem’s ethnic diversity. future y  6.3 Use on-line survey data to evaluate the feasibility and demand for culturally appropriate food products at UBC. 6.4 Explore the feasibility of incorporating a local grocery outlet into 6.1    Analyze the demographics of the UBC population to determine reasonable food prices. 6.2 Develop an on-line survey to assess the current level of satisfaction the UBC food sy campus development. 6.5    Explore the feasibility and demand for a large-scale, on-line grocer delivery service, such as SPUDS, at UBC. 7. Ensure that there is adequate distribution of food facilities on s of ine od pus.  campus  7.1     Analyze current development plans to ensure that adequate number food facilities are included. 7.2 Analyze current distribution of food facilities of campus to determ areas of growth. 7.3 Implement planning policy guidelines, stipulating “x” number of fo service facilities required within a certain land area on the UBC cam 7.4 Develop primary research on food demands on campus in order to ensure all forms of sustainability, including economic (Group 14).  Proposed “Supplementary Food Plan” Consultation Process: • Currently, “the develop visory design panel review and Town, 2005b). Then amendm  of Governors for final approval” (Group 14). • The “Supplementary F  non- institutional consultation processes to ensure that all stakeholders are involved” (Group 14). e “food sys longer process. F visory e and an a is olved in the process multi  t etings are held and the plan is n. The neighbourhood planning ns are heard through the APC and public meetings. Although this process takes much longer, it ensures that a plan with as big of an impact as the food system will have input from all parties. Since the approval process is lengthy, it is important to devise a w ible so that the food system may be given adequate consideration in campus planning as soon as possible” (Group 14). Summ audience ment approval process for institutional land only requires an ad  a technical review along with a public meeting (UBC University ents are made before it is sent to the Board ood Plan” consultation process should “take elements from the • Since th consultation committe tem at UBC encompasses the whole university, it should receive a or the neighbourhood planning process, both a technical ad dv ory planning committee (APC) – made up of stakeholders – is inv ple imes (UBC University Town, 2005c). As well, numerous public me  revisited many times before reaching a draft for final consultatio  pr ic opinioocess ensures that publ orking draft as soon as poss  ary of Recommendations Recommendations 006 AGSC 450 • Analyze “our objectives and strategies for the Supplementary Food reas that may need to be improved or more 2 Class System Plan and look for a detailed. For example, the economic feasibility of implementing our   124 objectives has not been extensively assessed and could benefit from the y and Regional Planning, to increase the food a realistic and mutually beneficial plan may be created”, such as our further examination” (Group 14). • Work with “key sustainability leaders and stakeholders on campus, in drafting the Supplementary Food System Plan. This includes the UBC Campus Sustainability Office, UBC Food Services, AMS Food and Beverage Department, UBC Waste Management and UBC Farm. The aim of this plan should be (1) to reach concrete solutions to fulfill the objectives (vision) proposed in this document, and (2) support enhancement and integration of current sustainability initiatives on campus” (Group 14). • Work together with “other faculties, such as Engineering and the School of Communit sustainability on campus” (Group 14). • Should be provided with “the opportunity to work more closely with UBC Properties Trust and Campus and Community Planning so that proposed “Urban Agriculture Strategy”, or other proposed amendments to include food, “water, air, transportation, and waste management” components to plans (Group 12). AGSC 450 aching Team • Should modify the “Food Systems Indicator Model to include some key indicators so that it can be used to assess the progress of developmen Te uld create scenarios where groups explore any of the following topics: “enforcing environmental building standards, improving t at UBC.  These indicators are: the distance that people must travel to acquire food; the total production of school and community gardens; the number of gardens; the number of students directly involved in food production; and quality of water outflow. (Group 12) • Sho accessibility of community members to food outlets, and regulating the types of food outlets on campus” (Group 12). • Should create a scenario, based upon our “How-To-Guide” package (see Appendix F) developed for future use by AGSC 450 students (Group 3). Campus Community Planning • Should consider incorporating our proposed addendums to the MCP, and adopting the “Supplementary Food Plan” as well as incorporate other sustainability initiatives as deemed fit (Group 14). • Should consider formulating and implementing a “food and agricultural” strategy which “includes specific guidelines for actions address the following five components: o Community gardens o School gardens Rooftop gardens o Local food procurement o o Waste management” (Group 5).  Overview of 2005 Spring Scenario #5: UBC Farm: Exploring Alternative Routes to Enhanced Viability  S mary of Specific Problem Definition um   125   UBC Farm is currently not financially viable; it is characterized by operating costs that exceed its al revenue. The Farm could increase its revenue if it establishes stronger market relationships with C food providers, participating in a co-op or other collaborative entity (i.e. local farmer’s market)  possibly by creating a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) program. However, numerous iers currently exist that prevent the formation of these relationships, such as a lack of knowledge ut the feasibility, benefits and drawbacks of increasing or forming these relationships. The actu UB and barr abo   “The issue of financial viability is of great concern to the UBC Farm because it must present cially in the face of new threats, such as the newly proposed South Campus Plans for 2012” (Group 10). rket Garden runs an annual deficit.  It seems reasonable to attempt to earn roughly $50,000 from the market garden (and related agricultural endeavors) for the food • arch theme into which various academic programs can fit” (Bomford, Pers. Com. in • d • fit from economies of scale… [yet] the Farm cannot afford any new  To No • itself as a successful venture, espe • The Farm’s “Ma production element to break even” (Mark Bomford, personal communication, March 10, 2005 in Group 2). While the UBC Farm has many “small research projects underway, the farm is in need of a central rese Group 10). Currently, “the success of agroforestry at the UBC Farm is constrained by poor funding an limited human labour” (Group 2). “The Market Garden is not financially viable in part because the cultivated area of the Farm is small and cannot bene machinery given its current revenues.  These factors combined trap the Farm’s production in a negative economic cycle” (Group 2). General Research Question: explore and assess ways the UBC Farm can become a financially viable operation (CSA, contractual agreements with campus and off-campus food providers, co-ops, collaborative entities, alternative production plans, etc.) and at the same time be a place for learning, action and a site of sustainable agriculture.  te: After Group 10 began working on their assigned scenario, which a large component included lementing a CSA program at UBC with the Farm, we found out that the UBC Farm team had ady decided to implement a pilot CSA program in the summer of 2005. Based on this new imp lre that they cold help the Farm ld be integrated into UBC curriculum.  •  Food Providers (Group 2). a knowledge, Group 10 retailored their tasks towards finding ways plement the CSA program this summer as well as in the future. They also explored how the CSA im program cou  Summary of Methodology • Conducted a literature review of secondary sources, including former AGSC 450 papers (spring 2004 Groups 9 and 14, and summer 2004 Group 4) and general outside sources (Groups 2 and 10). Held face-to face interviews with UBC Farm Program Coordinator (Groups 2, 10), and with the Sage Bistro Manager (Group 2). Communicated via email and telephone with UBC Farm Staff (Groups 2 and 10), and UBC •   126 • Distributed a survey (See Appendix B) to local restaurants to “determine whether there is a arket niche for specialty crops and support for the UBC Farm among local restaurants”. The  a one distributed by the North Caroline State University at the beginning laun incl  high-demand specialty items provided by Sage  based on the crops’ suitability to Vancouver’s climate and the  Summary of Central Findings  m survey was based upon prior to launching a “Specialty Crops Program” which found conclusive results to successfully ch the Program (North Carolina State University, 2002 in Group 2). The “food varieties uded in the survey were chosen from a list of Bistro and were selected constraints of the UBC Farm soil”  (Group 2).  Literature Review Review of UBC Farm and Current Farm Projects: food production• The Farm’s total yearly operating costs for education, research,  and community or the Market  Group 2). wax to the public (UBC Farm, 2005 in Group  of fresh vegetables, fruits, berries, herbs, Rev outreach is approximately $150,000 (Mark Bomford, personal communication, March 10, 2005 in Group 2). • “In 2004, farm products incurred $30,000” but needs to bring in about $50,000 f Garden to break-even (Mark Bomford, personal communication, March 10, 2005 in • Some of the “most notable farm projects include the Market Garden, the Musqueam Community Kitchen Garden, the Honeybee Project, the Mayan Garden, and the elementary school programs”(Group 10). • The Mayan Garden “supplies traditional medicinal and nutritional plants to the Maya Cultural Education Society and community” (UBC Farm, 2005 in Group 2). • The “Musqueam Community Kitchen Garden plot is managed by students and nutritionists from the Musqueam First Nation. The garden supplies produce that meets specific nutritional needs such as diets that are compatible with diabetes” (UBC Farm, 2005 in Group 2). The UBC Farm Bee Project sells honey and bees• 2). • The UBC Farmer’s Market offers over sixty types flowers, eggs, and honey from the Market Garden at Saturday markets from May to October. Most of the products sold are grown using organic farming methods and “many of the crop varieties are rare and reflective of our local agricultural heritage”. (UBC Farm, 2005 in Group 2).  iew of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) Programs: finition  eD : • CSA “is a subscription market system… [where] community members pre-pay for a season of fresh produce from a local farm” and in turn the farm typically gives members weekly or bi- monthly boxes which are delivered or picked up (Halman, n.d. in Group 10). Halman, n.d. in Group 10). • Member’s share goes towards “paying for seeds, fertilizer, water, equipment maintenance, and labor” (Roth, n.d. in Group 10). In return members will receive assorted produce boxes where typically “if production is high, the consumers can share extra harvests, and if the production is low due to severe weather, insect, diseases or pest, “they have to share these losses in terms of reduced harvest allotments” (    127 • Two main types of CSA exist: ticip  (1) Par atory CSA Members are involved significantly in the program by assisting in CSA activities such as e ration, ha s some c  the conten (2) Farmer-directed CSA • “budg t prepa hoice as to rve t scheduling, harvesting, distribution of products, and may have ts of their box”.  • “Farmers make most of th (Halman, n.d. in Group .  Advantages e decisions and the participants have minimal involvement” 10) : • Farmers have a guaranteed payments prior to planting. • Farmers are able to share ris • Farmers are able to focus mo • Members benefit by being “ time have an opportunity to • Members can also experience “hands-on learning through sharing on-farm work”. • Enhances support for local e • Environmental benefits fro production, supporting increased biodiversi  Disadvantages market before s/he plants his/her crops, by receiving orders and ks with CSA members, enhancing financial security. re on production than marketing. able to eat fresh, local produce at a reasonable price and at the same bond with local suppliers”. conomies and families. m CSA often include: encouragement of polycultures, organic ty, and resource recycling (Group 10). : • Farmers must conduct much to ensure member’s needs an • CSA programs also “involve the many hours spent bookk  Review of Proposed Visions fo  detailed planning in advance to decide the best time to plant crops d wants are met (Group 10).  added labour and time, due to packaging and delivering boxes, and eeping” (Group 10). r the UBC Farm:  • The UBC Farm Team envis re its mer A roup 4 sion for the UBC Farm should be “to sform itself into a finan ological model farm that enhances the local food sy and functions as the centre piece of sustainability at the Universi • Group 10 proposed that the vision for the UBC Farm should consist if it “becoming financially viable, being an integral part learning, and being recogniz • Another vision for the UBC “part of the university’s ‘Fu n amendment to the Official Community Group 2). The Farm has “prime real estate value estimated at four to ten million dollars an acre” (Magee, 2003 in Group 2).   R f Othe us Farm ions the Farm as a “model of small-scale, diversified and sustainable agricultu • Sum tran centre, serving GSC 450 G  immediate community and beyond” (in Group 10). proposed that the vi cially viable, academically integrated, agroec stem, builds social capital, ty of British Columbia” (in Group 10).  of the campus food system, distinguishing itself as a place of action ed as a model for sustainable agriculture”.  Farm is that it be developed for residential housing. It is currently ture Housing Reserve’ and although it would require a Plan, it could be developed as soon as 2012” (UBC OCP, 2003 in eview o r Camp s:   128  DesFarm Location cription of Activities (campus production plans, CSA Calhoun tory   Carolina. • Farm was established in Spring 2001 Farmer’s Market, which sells fresh vegetables,  on the farm between noon to 3pm every other re only tion” Field Labora Clemson University, South • 80 acre farm • Farm offers a student run Campus cut flowers, and herbs grown Friday in the spring and every Friday in the summer.  “Some produce a sold in the market and is not included in the CFL-CSA program produce box and vice versa”. •  “CSA program maintains 5 acres, which is in transition to organic certifica • Offers a CSA Program: History: Campus Supported Agriculture, a modified version of Community Supported Agriculture, was initiated in summer 2002. Season: October 6 to November 17 Boxes: Contains fresh eggs, flowers, herbs and 5 pounds of vegetables and is xpected to provide for a family of 4. Cost e : Membership entails a non-refundable donation of $175 (7 weeks) plus a one- time refundable deposit of $15 for the 2 produce bins used for pick-ups. General: Members can pick up boxes on a weekly basis on Wednesday’s from 4:30pm vailable for individuals or families living in the university res or to exchange labor for fresh produce from Calhoun man The s to elementary and high school students and now consists of over 40 students and help to 5:30pm. The “CSA program is only a hacommunity, to purchase s Field”. “Only 20 memberships are available, based on a first-come-first-serve basis, and are purchased before the season starts”. Members “receive weekly newsletters with news about what is in their box, what is happening at the farm, recipes for the weekly produce, and it also serves as an invitation to visit or work on the farm”. The CSA “program offers an opportunity to teach Clemson students about the agement, production and marketing of products from the farm”.  CSA program offers an “after-school gardening program called Sprouting Wing other community volunteers”. The farm holds two types of summer day camps for “elementary school students to  them better understand nature and gardening” (Group 10). Harmony Valley Farm Wisconsin • Fruit Program”. Seas Southwestern Offers a CSA, containing a variety of programs, including a “Vegetable Program” and a “ The “Vegetable Program” is described below: on: May to mid-December esBox : Content quantities vary from 10 pounds in the spring and up to 20 pounds in e d to provide for a family of 4. lat summer, and are expecte Cost: 30 boxes for $640 ($21 per box). General: 3 delivery options: 1 box every week, 1 box every other week, or 17 boxes during the peak season only. The “Fruit Program” is described below: Season: 6 weeks in the summer, and 6 weeks in the winter. Boxes: Contain a variety of ready to eat fruit and fruit that will ripen over the next 3- 10 days Cost: Costs more than the Vegetable Program General: Deliveries every other week (Group 10). McGill McGill • Earns farm “revenue from the delivery of its own curricula.  Forty agriculture   129 University Farm University, Montreal, Quebec eir farm’s dairy cows (McGill, 2005, in Group 2). students from McGill participate in a program where they receive academic credit for milking th Nathan Creek Organic Farm Abbotsford, BC • Offers a CSA Program: Season: Mid-June to end of November Boxes: Contain assorted produce Cost: Full share (20 boxes) is $550; half share (10 boxes) is $350; $25 bin fee General: Customers receive box discounts if they renew their membership who to receive discounts.  crops planted each year reflect customer preferences”. Pick up locations are offered at SFU, at the Farm gate, and at Main Street, “Many members help plant, weed, and harvest their food”. “Types and amounts of Vancouver. “In 2004 the CSA provided 30 full shares and 20 half shares” (Group 10). North Carolina State University Farm North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC • Has successfully launched a “Specialty Crops Program” (Group 2).  Thurston Organic Farm Dunsford, Ontario • 9 certified organic acres • Offers a CSA Program: Season: June to October Boxes: “Contain a variety of 10-15 items from 30 different crops” Cost: Single share is $340 and will provide for 1-2 people.  The family share is $590 and will provide for 3-4 people General: “If a pick up is missed, the box is donated to local food bank or composted” (Group 10). Un of ity of California, • Demonstrated that “pursuing a twin mandate of research and farm production is possible. It has extensive research facilities but also cultivates twenty-seven acres of organic produce under, which it sells at a local CSA” (UC, 2005 in Group 2). iversity Univers California Santa Cruz, Farm California Wa Fie Co Far ity of the ut urban with the land”. • The Farm faced a “similar situation to the UBC Farm - it was facing financial ademic integration”. in a similar situation to the UBC . ltham lds mmunity m University of Massachusetts, Waltham, Massachusetts • 56-acre certified organic farm • The Farm’s “mission is to preserve the historical and ecological integr farm, as well as promote it as a place where the public can learn abo agriculture, community-based food systems, and regain a connection difficulties and lacking ac Farm - it was facing financial difficulties and lacking academic integration • Offers a CSA Program: History: “CSA started in 1997, as a project to help save the farm, initially with 150 participating families and deliveries to local pantries and shelters”. Season: June to October or November Boxes: Contain a “variety of freshly harvested vegetables, as well as pick- produce such as peas, beans and cherry tomatoes are offered at the farm”. S your-own hares also include a pick-your-own bouquet of flowers. If and additional fruit share is purchased boxes also contain a “variety of apples, peaches and pears”. Cost: Single share is $500 (21 boxes), and is designed to feed 2-3 vegetarian adults or 4 adults with mixed diets. Payments either consist of a single pre-payment before a season in advance or can be made in two installments.  An additional share can be   130 bought at $65 for a variety of fruits to be included in boxes between mid-a end of October. General ugust to : Shareholders can pick up their boxes every week on Sunday or Thursday evenings. Farm has 250 shareholders and also relies on “v social service agencies to come to the farm and w olunteers from schools, churches and  through  (Group 10). ork”. The Farm “partners with an orchard offering a Fruit Share from mid-August the end of October”  reasing Existing Collaboration with Campus Food Providers and Creating New Business llaborations with Off-Campus Food Providers Inc Co ctory survey of fine-cuisine restaurants in the Point Grey community was developed [see  An introdu Appendix B] to assess what special produce might be desired by chefs at 3 restaurants. After receiving suggestions from the Manager of Sage Bistro, John Flipse to conduct an “investigation of unu could be grown given the constraints of climate, soil, labor, capital and funding at the UBC Farm” Far  any) requested by the chefs as  the Manager of Sage Bistro, hefs, and the results of the survey the g crops that local chefs cannot find − for example, heritage crops, edible native plants, and anything of sual colour”, an internet research was performed to help “determine which of the special crops (Group 2). Also, the UBC Farm Program Coordinator, Mark Bomford, “provided a list of the m’s best-selling produce so we could determine which of the crops (if  already in production” (Group 2). Based upon consultations with w John Flipse, Sprouts staff, as well as off-campus Point Grey c following was found: Sa e Bistro (fine-dining UBC restaurant): Purchased approximately $4000•  of the UBC Farm’s food items in 2004 (Group 2). Spr •  According to Mr. Flipse, they are committed to buying “as much produce as [the Farm] can grow” (Group 2).  outs UBC Food Co-op: Sprouts staff were approached to determine whether or not they would be interested in purchasing specialty items from the Farm. The “management of the store concluded that currently t • here is no demand for specialty items among their customers and that most novelty products end-up as waste” (Group 2). Thus, while Sprouts’ management indicated that they are order only the most popular products”. not interested in ordering specialty Farm products, they “will continue to  Provence Mediterranean Grill (fine-dining restaurant): The restaurant “imports specialty items within Canada and from the United States.  These include items such as field mint, baby carrots, Japanese eggplants, black raspberries, oyster mushrooms, wild strawberries, shiitake mushrooms, and vanilla beans” (Group 2). “After talking to the Food Import Manager of Provence Mediterranean Grill, Justin Faubert, we found that he would be interested in purchasing specialty food items and regular produce from the UBC Farm.  However, he has never done so as he is unaware of the UBC Farm’s production capabilities” (Group 2). • • Th  e Naam (vegetarian restaurant along West 4th):   131 • The Naam “is interested in buying organic crops from the Farm.  However, they are not interested in the purchase of specialty items, which are too exotic for their cuisine. Instead, they would like to purchase items such as potatoes and onions” (Group 2).  West Point Organic Produce (organic retail shop along West 4th ave.): The store “sells specialty foods such as baby carrots, snow peas, sugar snaps peas, shiitake• • lose proximity to each other and their shared organic vision” (Group 2). mushrooms and Asian bok choy” (Group 2). “Though we did not have the chance to speak with the owner or manager, we believe that a potential collaboration could exist between West Point Organic Produce and the UBC Farm, given their c  General: • “Local chefs have little knowledge of the Farm’s crop selection and therefore, do not buy its products” (Group 2). In some cases, growers can receive a minimum of 10 percent increase in profit o• ver wholesale •  Pro terminal prices for standard items at mainstream restaurants (Colorado State University, 2003 in Group 2). Upscale restaurants and specialty stores are often willing to pay higher prices for quality produce and hard-to-get items (Colorado State University, 2003 in Group 2). posed Agroforestry Opportunities for the UBC Farm: Responses from the Survey indicated that “there is a potential local market for non-timber forest products, but any attempts at agroforestry need to • involve a well-researched, well-funded, long- • term commitment” (Group 2). “Our research (supported by responses from our restaurant survey (see Appendix B) suggests that edible native plant production (elderberry, soapberry, wild onion, wild ginger, etc.), mushroom production, and landscape tree/herb/shrub production could profitably satisfy a local niche market and could create exciting research opportunities (Small Woodlands Program of BC, 2001). Agroforestry ecosystems can “enhance forest biodiversity, animal habitat, soil nutrient cycling, water conservation, and microclimate stabilization” (Kurtz, Garret, and Slusher, 1996 in Group 2) posed Alternative and Enhanced Production Plans for the UBC Farm al Production  Pro  Anim : •  project to produce specialty eggs is currently being implemented at the UBC Farm. “Eggs will be sold at the UBC Farm Market, Sprouts and the MacM A illan building for $5.00/dozen in reuse ons (the break even price for the first year is $4.69/dozen). The first year sales are projecte 586.67 with a net income of $406.35 and the secon d cart d to b net and wi legally s room to expand the flock in the future” (Group 2). • It w range) e e $6 d year projection is $7866.67 with a  earning of $678.13” In the current egg production plan, “the flock will consist of 80 birds ll not exceed 99 birds.  However, unlike other small producers, because UBC Farm is tructured as a research institution, it is exempt from the 99-bird quota limit, which leaves  as found that “currently in BC, the demand for specialty eggs (particularly organic, free xceeds the supply (BC Egg Producers Association, 2005)” (Group 2).   132 • If the increas  “current hen house cannot acc 2). • The production of eggs will provide “research oppor env • In sum Farm a exceeds the supply” providing UBC Farm with a future market if it wants to expand its flock (Group 2). Propos UBC wished to increase its flock to increase its market share, the farm would have to e labour and infrastructure investments, since the ommodate more than 85 birds and higher egg volume would require more handling” (Group tunities and create an experiential learning ironment in the areas of animal science, animal management and animal welfare” (Group 2).  the “production of specialty eggs has the potential to increase the revenue of the UBC s currently in BC, and the demand for specialty eggs (particularly organic, free range)  ed ways to Raise Funds for a New UBC Farm Tractor: • One way of increasing revenues for the UBC Farm is to expand production, “but this is not possible without at least one additional tractor…[a to be replac • The Farm coul to purchase attainment could prove to a professio maintain a 21, 2005 in Group 2).  Thus, “an individual or group is needed to commit to a long-term industry lso] the Farm’s existing tractor will soon need ed (Bomford, personal communication, March 21, 2005 in Group 2). d increase it revenue by raising funds through donations or industry partnerships  a new tractor. However, the UBC Farm Program Coordinator, “advised that the of a tractor is not an appropriate project for our group because the research process  be lengthy, because UBC must follow a specific fundraising protocol that ensures nal donor relationship, and because the individual who secures the donation must connection with the donor over a number of years” (personal communication, March partnership or fundraising campaign” (Group 2). Expand current Production for Specialty Item Production:  While the responses from the survey demonstrated that there is indeed a market niche for UBC o value in innovative agricultural research (Group 2). o “Investments should be made on research of suitable production methods for some of ase production of specialty items by guaranteeing an expanded local market for d to “contact potential major customers and Farm specialty items among local high-end restaurants, upon communication with the Farm Program Coordinator, he “indicated that many of the specialty items on the survey are either being produced currently, or have been attempted unsuccessfully in the past”, leading to the conclusion that “the specialty crop program at the UBC Farm must be expanded beyond its current scale in order to increase the farm’s revenue” and meet this demand (personal communication, March 16, 2005 in Group 2). Given the “constraint of limited cultivatable lands on the UBC farm, planting specialty crops that yield higher profit appears to be one of the most efficient ways to improve the profitability of the UBC Farm” (Group 2). Below is list of potential ways to increase production and Farm revenue:  • Using 3 hectares of the currently uncultivated land: Create Organic green houses to enable year-round production as well as to increase the the high-margin, high-demand crops such as shiitake mushrooms and oyster mushrooms, which were either produced unsuccessfully in the past or have not yet been attempted” (Group 2). o Incre these items. A marketing team could be hire advertise for the UBC Farm in the local neighborhood… as well as to establish better communications on the types and availability of produce at the UBC Farm” to facilitate   133 increased market collaboration (Justin Faubert, Provence Mediterranean Bar and Grill, personal communication, March 22, 2005 in Group 2). o To further aid in developing a market niche for UBC Farm specialty items, the “UBC Farm website could be improved to allow feedback from customers, so that the changing needs of the buyers can be met” (Group 2). o “At the launch of the official Specialty Crop Program at the UBC Farm, demonstration et up on the farm to which local businesses and residents could be invited to sample the products and be familiarized with the value and mission of the e fastest positive return in three years with the lowest initial cost during the first two years. Under the current circumstances, this is exactly what the UBC Farm needs, fast returns with low investment. 3. Strawberry farm-sale prices have increased by 42% over the last four years” booths could be s Farm”(Group 2).  • Using the remaining 2 hectares of uncultivated land: o The remaining 2 hectares of uncultivated land should be used to produce strawberries for the following reasons:  1. “There is a great demand for strawberries in Canada. Presently, Canada consumes far more strawberries than it produces, thus importing the majority of purchasable strawberries from California, Florida, Poland and Mexico. 2. Strawberries have th (BCMAFF in Group 2).  Implementing a Community Supported Agricultural Plan at UBC  Current Plans for the Pilot Summer 2005 CSA Pilot Program:  The Farm Team is already aware of many regular market customers who are interested in becoming s in the summer CSA pilot project. The Team decided to limit the number of members r the pilot to between 10 and 15, and aims to offer one size of box. Because the pilot project will ix, peas, peppers, radishes, rnips, spinach, squash, Swiss chard, tomato, tomatillos, and various herbs” (Rekkin, Pers. Com., participant fo be limited to a small number of partners (10-15), only one size of box that can feed between 2 to 3 people for a week will be offered (Group 10). The crops that will be grown for the summer pilot CSA program include: “artichoke, beans, beets, broccoli, carrots, cauliflower, celery, celeriac, corn, cucumber, eggplant, radicchio, fennel, kale, leek, lettuce, signature salad m tu 2005 in Group 10).  Proposed Ideas for the Summer 2005 Pilot CSA Program:  Season:  The pilot could “be run during the same months as the Saturday markets from June to October” roup 10). (G  Box Contents:  The Farm Team should set the box items for the pilot project. The “items for the CSA pilot project should consist of the crops already grown for the market, and should focus on freshness as opposed   134 to perfect aesthetics”. Based upon Nathan Creek Farm’s CSA program, each container should ontain “at least eight to twelve different types of vegetables, herbs, and fruit each week” (Nathan  currently holds with other farms to the CSA pilot program (Group 10). f c Creek Farm, 2005 in Group 10).  Organic fruits and vegetables that are currently not being produced on the Farm should be offered to members by the UBC Farm expanding its partnerships that it  In ormation and Research:  An informative brochure, a customer feedback form and an end of the season customer survey were produced with the hope that they will be included in the CSA containers. Specifically, the first box distributed in the season should contain a brochure about the CSA program (see Appendix E), and every box throughout the season should include a comment form (see Appendix B) to “allow tners to continually provide feedback to the farm, rather that havingpar  to remember and recall their uggestions at the end of the season” (Group 10). Prior to the end of the season, an “End of the s Season” survey (see Appendix B) should be provided in all containers, to “allow partners to reflect back on the entire CSA experience and share their thoughts” (Group 10).  The informative CSA ld also be made available at the Saturday Farm Markets “to entice participants to sign p for the following year” (Group 10). brochure shou u  Cost:  Based upon a review of other CSA programs, the average prices for CSA shares were calculated. For a 22 week session, the value of shares should be priced at $550 ($25 per box), assuming that the  items in the box should be less expensive compared to the Saturday market prices” ld pay a small deposit to cover the cost of the ick up “prices of the (Group 10). At the start of the season members shou reusable containers. Shares should “be purchased at the beginning of the season and partners must agree to share in any losses due to unfavorable growing conditions or disasters” (Group 10).  P :  During each weekly Saturday Farm Market, containers should be available for pick up within the market hours. This will allow “participants to mingle with market customers and to tell them about the CSA program”. Container pickups that are missed should either be sold at the market, donated to various local food charities, or as a last resort composted (Group 10).  Storage and Packaging:  To minimize waste, food containers should be large and reusable.  “Two containers could be assigned per share; one empty container will be returned and a filled container will be ready for pickup each week” (Group 10).  Monitoring:  ince this is a pilot pS roject all information pertaining to the CSA should be recorded, such as “dates ps planted, [and] a list of all the items placed in each weekly and amounts of the different cro container (Group 10).   135 Steps for Implementation:  • “The first step is to send out the CSA brochure [see Appendix E] to potential participants. rson should be contacted by phone, and during this call any questions and concerns would be answered.  pickup and clear and visible Then each pe • Once partners are signed up, the quantity of foods to be put into weekly boxes should be decided upon to reflect the chosen price.  Then, appropriate containers should be purchased. • A harvest day and time should be set to have containers ready in time for weekly pickups. • An appropriate location at the Farm should be designated for CSA signs should be posted. • Forms and brochures will need to be copied and distributed, and a binder for recordkeeping should be designated that all Farm staff are aware of” (Group 10).  Proposed Ideas for Future CSA Programs: Production:  hares for the CSA proS gram “should be expanded to businesses, such as the Sage Bistro, and UBC By buying shares into xpect from the farm Food Services in order to better integrate the Farm into UBC’s food system. he Farm, these food services would have a better idea of what they could et during the season, and they may meet the lower prices they are looking for.  Such a partnership has been formed at many university CSA programs in the United States” (Group 10). CSA Model: In order to give CSA members a greater variety of container content choices, the Farm should heir farmer directed model towards a more participatory one (Group Alt consider turning away from t 10).  ernative Payment Options:  Farm may wish to consider expanding the container payment options from members having to vide a single lump sum payment at the start of the season to giving members the option to make The pro fron to a labo wee wo t wo Far  Tra multiple installments, similar to Waltham Fields Community Farm (Group 10). This would greatly increase accessibility, especially for “students who may not be able to pay the whole amount up t, but they would still sign a contract for the whole season” (Group 10). Also the Farm may wish dopt alternative payment options for containers, such as by allowing members to exchange their ur for containers, similar to Nathan Creek Farm who allows members to “work for one day per k at the farm in exchange for a week of produce” (Nathan Creek Farm, 2005 in Group 10).  This uld provide accessibility for those “people who cannot afford the food boxes to have access to ritious foods, and it also enhances the educational component of the programnu ” (Group 10). While the UBC Farm already provides volunteers and staff with some discounts, this proposed model uld “extend the possibility to the rest of the community and may attract more people to the m” (Group 10). nsportation for Containers:   136 The decision about whether food containers should be picked up and/or delivered should be ecided upon receiving feedback from the pilot summer CSA program and should also be dependent d upon how many members the CSA Program will include (Group 10). Box Contents:  UBC Farm could expand the variety of produce in its containers by “joining with other farms and growers in the lower mainland” (Group 10). The Farm should “offer a choice between a smaller box and a larger box” as well as a substitution option when there is a greater variety of crops to choose from, and sufficient labor to handle substitution requests (Group 10).  informative newsletter should be placed in containers on a bi-monthly basis. The newsletter  An should contain: Farm contact information for members to report questions and concerns, “recipe eve  10). The Farm should also Far Sat me Pro ideas, gardening tips, health information, suggestions for reducing waste and pollution, upcoming nts, volunteer opportunities, and featured local farmers” (Group explore the possibility of making reusable grocery bags with the name of the CSA, and the UBC m website address printed on them to either be included with the food boxes, or for sale at the urday market. This would likely raise awareness of the CSA program and thus attract future mbers (Group 10).  posed Ideas for Integrating the CSA Program into UBC curriculum: formation that is compiled from the pilot project this summer (financial data, survey results from tomers, market worker feedback, etc.) can provide for many [immediate and long-term] cational opportunities” (Group 10). Below is a list of possibilities to integrate the pilot CSA ject into UBC courses:  “In cus edu pro Immediate Opportunities: • Using th the Agro is data gene ject, “case studies can be formulated for classes in ecology an o th the of a CSA r r  in a cology studen decide what steps the Fa would be given data from v _ha of land, __dollars of funding, a the UBC Farm if it wishes to co will allow students e Farm, and the Farm will benefit from these research initiatives” (Group 10). • Food, Nutritional an ct to create menus for th laint of people who receive food boxes i in their boxes, and ther h week. This would benefit all in and the students would learn more about the UBC Farm and the local food system” (Group 10).  rated from the pilot pro d Food and Resource Economics (FRE) programs, which already make blem-based learning.  The FRE students can research a case dealing wiextensive use of pr economic success include the program • “Agroe  p ogram as compared to years without the program in place, o all usiness management plan for the UBC Farm” (Group 10).  sm b ts can work on a scenario reflecting the Farm’s current practices and then rm should take to flourish as a small scale diversified farm.  The students pre ious years at the Farm, and posed the question, “With _ __ vailable staff members, design a realistic land utilization plan for ntinue the Market Garden and expand the CSA program.”  This to be involved in a tangible educational experience, feel connected to th d Health students could also be given data generated from the pilot proje e following CSA iteration, since “a common comp s that they are not sure what to do with all of the vegetables that they receive efore it would be useful to include recipes in the boxes eac  the community that make use of the CSA program, it would aid the Farm, • Sauder School of marketing strategies and developing eff Business students can “help to expand the CSA by applying the latest ective promotional material” (Group 10).   137 Longer-term Opportunities:  The UBC Farm should entire growing season, sim California in Santa Cruz (CASFS)” that has been Advisory Council (Grou n of this season-long cour The course could involv • In the spring month for the coming year, allo Farm managers, the students will be able to learn how to plan the field layout, order seeds and start transplants” (G • In the summer months roviding the necessary committed staff to allow for the expans • In the fall months t prove d rese t year’s group an • “Social Science students a to assess the Farm’s success at serving t and the Saturday marke e community makes the most use of the CSA program?”, “how accessible is the program?”, “should there be va h project would be to e community as best as it   Summary of Recomme audience  implement “a field course for Agroecology students that would span the ilar to the eight month apprenticeship offered at the University of  already discussed at recent meetings of the Farm p 10). The “CSA program creates a great framework for the easy integratio se (CASFS), and the course can track the progress of the CSA” (Group 10). e the following components: s, students could “correspond with customers and find out their preferences wing for high-value crops to be planted that summer.  Working with the roup 10).  the students could “farm - p ion of the area under cultivation” (Group 10). he students could “continue to harvest and gather input from the customers for how to im educational an nex the program for next year.  This model will allow for a concrete, long-term arch opportunity – as the students pass on their recommendations to the d the CSA is molded to best-suit the community” (Group 10).  can also be involved, gathering feedback and dat he entire community.  Community member satisfaction regarding the CSA t could be tracked, and research questions such as, “what sector of th rying price brackets?”, and others could be asked.  The aim of this researc nsure the Farm is enhancing food security and serving the whole can” (Group 10). ndations Recommendations UBC Farm Advisory Board and ƒ gh:   new cal Team & 2006 AGSC 450 Class General financial investments to the Farm should be amplified throu • Establishing partnerships with private companies • Seeking funding through government farm loan programs (Group 2). ƒ Specific financial investments and funding should be sought for purchasing a tractor to enable the expansion of production potential to available uncultivated farmland. Potential donors and partnerships could be sought through: • Establishing a research partnership with the bio-diesel industry • Asking dealerships to collaborate with the Farm by preparing persuasive reasons why it is in their own interest to do so (Group 2). ƒ Various potential tractor models should be researched to determine the most appropriate type for cultivation (Group 2). ƒ An agroforestry program appropriate for the Farm should be researched and plans should be outlined for implementation (Group 2). ƒ Research should be resumed on high profit and demand items that have proven unsuccessful in the past, such as exotic mushrooms (Group 2). the loƒ Explore the potential to create a non-profit Farm component to support Food Bank. The Farm could be “eligible for the Vancity Credit Union EnviroFund Grant of up to $40,000 (Group 2). UBC Sage Bistro & ƒ Explore the potential to create a culinary school, where the facilities at Sage Bistro   138 are used along with UBC Farm products (Group 2). Farm Advisory Board UBC Farm Team ƒ The UBC Farm should establish a marketing team to further promote specialty items and enhance relations with current and potential restaurant buyers (Group 2). ƒ The UBC Farm should expand the production of their free-range organically produced eggs (Group 2). ƒ The UBC Farm should create a summer youth camp to increase farm revenue, agricultural learning’s and fun (Group 2). ƒ “Collect data during the pilot project over the summer, and make it available to students from various faculties in order to conduct the above-mentioned projects (Group 10). ƒ Based on customer feedback, look at expanding the harvested area for the CSA program for the following year. ƒ Construct a link or website describing the CSA program and ways to sign up. ƒ Look at the possibilities of making shares available to UBC food businesses and approach these businesses for their input” (Group 10). 2 C 006 AGSC 450 lass ƒ Students should explore the potential for strawberry and greenhouse production (Group 2). ƒ Students should collaborate with the Sauder School of Business students to develop a business plan for the UBC Farm (Group 2). ƒ Students should directly contact other campus farms for suggestions and related information that would help enhance the economic sustainability of the Farm (Group 2). ƒ “Summarize the data collected from the summer 2005 pilot CSA project and make recommendations on box size(s), box prices, produce selection, land needs, and more efficient organization practices for the 2006 CSA program (Group 10). ƒ Conduct research into other CSA programs or small farms in the area that may want to join with the UBC Farm to enhance the quantity and selection in the food boxes. ƒ Approach AMS Food and Beverage Department, UBC Food Services, Sprouts, and/or Sage Bistro about buying a CSA share from the UBC Farm. ƒ Develop a newsletter template that will compliment the CSA program” (Group 10). F F aculty of Land and ƒ The Faculty should improve networks between the s UBC Farm, UBC’s dairy research facility at Agassiz, and any future components related to the Farm planned at the Okanagan, to help “synergize research and the market garden by supplying services and foods that are unavailable at the Farm” (Group 2). ƒ The Faculty should further engage themselves and advertise to UBC students that they can earn academic credits for work done on the Farm (Group 2). udents and particularly to aid in the marketing of the CSA program. ƒ Encourage more self-directed studies, classes and research topics to take advantage of the Farm as a resource, particularly with the economic, social and environmental implications of a CSA program at the UBC Farm” (Group 10). ood System ƒ The Faculty should encourage other UBC faculties and schools to participate in on-site research projects to help make the individual components of the Farm system a more holistic one (Group 2). ƒ “Use the data generated from the CSA pilot project to incorporate more case studies of the UBC Farm into Agroecology, FRE and FNH classes” (Group 10). ƒ Approach the Sauder School of Business to continue working with Agricultural Science st Sprouts ƒ Should develop an intensive marketing strategy to increase awareness of its   139 services, which could potentially lead them to purchase specialty items from the UBC Farm (Group 2).                        Strengths and Weaknesses of 2005 Spring UBCFSP  Strengths  Student Enthusiasm:  This year, I felt that the majority of the groups were really engaged and excited about the UBCFSP in general, and about their scenarios. I think that groups felt that their work will indeed help contribute C’s food system, which as a result, really inspired many. Many groups in their projects, if only they had more time. I think this is a reflection of e success of the project, and of the pedagogies of “Community-of-Learners”, “Microcosms”, and to positive change in UB wanted to do more work th “Pragmatic –Idealist” approaches.  Quality of Papers:    140 Overall, I was impressed with the quality of content in the papers. The level of creativity that emerged, such as in the design of educational and marketing campaigns was impressive. Also, I was xcited by many of the group’s findings, because I believe they will really aid in moving the project e ahead.  Weaknesses  eflections about Vision StatementR :  W S hile, all groups (except one) provided reflections about the “Consensus Version” of the Vision tatement, the majority did not provide any reflections about the “Plain Language” Vision tatement. This reflects upon the teaching team assignment instructions, in that we did not provide nough specificity or clarity in this area. Also, while all groups provided reflections about the vision tatement, many groups ceased to provide constructive suggestions in regards to how to improve the ision statement (i.e. proposals for alternative wording, etc.). Finally, many groups did not nderstand the difference between a vision statement and detailed plans needed for its plementation. Guiding principles are theoretical by definition and are intended to sound idealistic ince they are those attributes that are supposed to guide us towards our ideal world. The concrete irections regarding how these principles guide us, are supposed to come from the plans for the plementation of the principles. uality of Recommendations S e s v u im s d im  Q : any of the recommendations that students provided lacked detail in whom they were directed wards, as well as they lacked specificity. As a result, I used my judgment to determine who the rget audience for the recommendations should constitute. ime  M to ta  T : he overwhelming majority of groups felt that the UBCFSP should have been introduced much e. Because most of the scenarios entailed contacting food distributors, brokers and e was strongly felt needed due to the time lapses experienced in waiting for their sponses which were necessary to move comfortably forward in other related tasks.  T earlier in the cours retailers, more tim re  File Formats:  any of the groups submitted components of their electronic paper in formats other than in Word, M making it very difficult to integrate these files in one format. Unfortunately, the teaching team did not specify the file format  to the class for all components of group’s papers.  Final Reflections rtaking. ll clarity. I tried my est to honor the language, ideas, findings, proposed methods of data collection, and ize r findings, and if I left  Overall, summarizing and integrating the work of 16 groups proved to be a difficult unde The quality of each paper varied in content, organization, referencing and overa b recommendations presented by each group, as well as give justice to each groups’ voice. I apolog if I have over-generalized and/or misinterpreted any group’s words, ideas o   141 important elements from your work out of this report that you felt was vital to include and to m was amazed by the amount of  AGSC 450 teaching team, students, d partners and collaborators towards this project and with one another.                      References ouris, Kristina. 2003. 2003 UBC Food System Collaborative Project: Summary of Findings. niversity of British Columbia: Campus Sustainability Office. Available online: htt moving the project ahead.  I was surprised to find a vast amount of very specific findings that emerged from group’s work in this iteration of the project, which I feel will contribute significantly this year in moving the project forward, particularly into further action stages. As usual, I a nthusiasm and dedication shown and assistance offered by thee an    B U p://www.sustain.ubc.ca/matrix/seedsindexs/a_zseeds.htm  Brunetti, Tony. 2002. Biting into Sustainability: The 2002 UBC Food System Collaborative Project Report. e: http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/matrix/seedsindexs/a_zseeds.htm University of British Columbia: Campus Sustainability Office. Available onlin  s Towards a Just, Sustainable, and Food Secure UBC Food System: 2004 UBC Food Richer, Liska. 2004. Path System Project (UBCFSP) Report. Available online: http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/matrix/seedsindexs/seedsfood.htm  University of British Columbia: Campus Sustainability Office.  Rojas, A., Richer, L., & J Winter 2005. Faculty of Agricultural Sciences: University of British Columbia. . Wag Collaborative Project, AGSC 450:  ner. Winter 2005. UBC Food System   142  Stringer, E.T. 1999. Action Rese  UBC Sauder School of Busine wn: Marketing Local foods at UBC”. http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/ma arch. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE. ss Group. Fall 2004. “Home Gro Available online: trix/seedsindexs/seedsfood.htm                      Appendix A: Overview of UBCFSP Scenarios   T in Co-I er, Project Coordinator, Teaching Assistant, AGSC 450, M.Sc. student, FAS ies, UBC Andrew Parr, Director, UBC Food Services  Dorothy Yip, General Manager, UBC Food Services he University of British Columbia Food System Project (UBCFSP)   cipal Investigator:         Dr. Alejandro Rojas, Course Instructor, AGSC 450, Agroecology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences Pr (FAS)  nvestigators:                 Liska Rich  Brenda Sawada, Coordinator, Social, Ecological, Economic Development Stud Campus Sustainability Office     143  nator, UBC Farm   Lorenzo Magzul, Teaching Assistant, AGSC 450, PhD student, FAS er ork and dedication are hat made this project possible and who made their work available for future AGSC 450 classes to build upon. borative Project AGSC 450:  Winter 2005 ojas, Liska Richer and Julia Wagner) Nancy Toogood, General Manager, Alma Mater Society (AMS) Food & Beverage Department  Mark Bomford, Coordi  Catherine Jacobsen, Teaching Assistant, AGSC 450, MA student, School of Community And Regional Planning  Julia Wagner, Teaching Assistant, AGSC 450, M.Sc. student, FAS, Project Co-Found   Research Partners: Dr. Freda Pagani, Director, UBC Campus Sustainability Office  John Metras, Associate Director, UBC Waste Management   Since the beginning of this project, many people have contributed to its development and implementation.  Besides the names listed above we acknowledge the important contribution of: Tony Brunetti, Kristina Bouris, Dr. Art Bomke, Derek Masselink, Marcia Thomson, Geoff Urton, and the 2002, 2003 and 2004 AGSC 450 students whose patience, hard w w    UBC Food System Colla  (Alejandro R   Learning Outcomes:  Upon ompletion of this section you should be able to:   c  • co • A • th • n n • those from your program p bal sustainability problems; • • y • • W • •   Introduction: Evaluate in terms of sustainability, using available information sources on specific cases,  the impacts of the growing ncentration of people, urbanization and globalization forces on UBC campus and UBC food system; ssess a wide range of policy alternatives to deal with those impacts; Explore ways the food system at UBC could contribute to sustainable agricultural production, food security and safety, and e health of human communities, within UBC's campus and in Vancouver and the Lower Mainland; I teract with communities involved in the activities promoting sustainable agricultural production, food security and safety, a d the health of human communities, to identify barriers and possibilities to at least partially achieve those aims at UBC; Apply the principles and tools learned in Land Food & Community (LFC) I and LFC II, along with al sustainability issues and the linkages with glos ecializations, to conduct an assessment of loc Apply research methods to investigate, assess and design a local food system; Apply a basic framework for critical thinking, values development and ethical examination of questions related to the food s stem and land use on campus; Act as informed citizens who understand the inter-relations among all sectors of the food system; ork cooperatively in interdisciplinary groups to solve problems directly related to sustainable food system issues; Participate effectively in a community-of-learners that is team-based and student-centered; Demonstrate excellent professional verbal, written, visual and electronic communication skills.    144  The U nvolving multiple takeholders: UBC Food Services, AMS Food and Beverage Department, UBC Waste Management, UBC Farm, UBC Campus he UBCFSP is part of an Agricultural Sciences 450: Land, Food and Community III course, a mandatory capstone course for all th year FAS students. The Project commenced three years ago and has involved four generations of AGSC 450 students, 461 in oals of the UBCFSP are to: conduct a UBC food system sustainability assessment; identify barriers and create pportunities to enhance the sustainability of the UBC food system; and make recommendations to UBCFSP stakeholders. BC Food System Project (UBCFSP) is a collaborative, community-based action research project i s Sustainability Office (CSO) and its Social, Ecological, Economic, Development Studies (SEEDS) program, and the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (FAS). It has a minimum five year plan.  T 4 all.  The main g o  2004 was the third year of the UBCFSP. Based upon the findings of Years One (2002) and Two (2003), students in the Spring 2004 term were expected to: (1) Begin an attempt to reach a shared consensus about what a sustainable UBC food system should look like (vision), and how we should get there (model); and (2) test the applicability of preferred models, principles, indicators, and research designs on one of eight assigned scenarios (each scenario explored a specific aspect of the sustainability of the UBC food system).  A summer term of AGSC 450 was also held in 2004. Based upon the findings of Years One, Two and Three (Spring term), students were expected to: (1) using two scenarios, further develop and refine proposed research designs to enable the 2005 class to engage in actual data collection; and (2) make recommendations on how to refine the best model.  For a comprehensive review of the entire project and a summary of its findings up to and including Summer 2004, see the report written by Liska Richer, 2004:  Paths towards a just, sustainable and food secure UBC food system: 2004 UBC Food System Project (UBCFSP) report. UBC Campus Sustainability Office/SEEDS.  Available online:  http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/pdfs/seedreport04/dec04/UBCFSP2004.pdf   Partners and Principles of Collaboration: he partnerships and collaborations initiated four years ago not only continued with the collaborative UBC Food System Project in • • •  short written assessment of information and • A • C • Th u W T • Report in e • A • Keep in mind that it is easy to find fault and make assumptions, especially when we perceive that the values displayed by ot  T 2004, but the quality and richness of the dialogue was also improved.  The following principles have been jointly established to guide the collaboration among all the partners:  • The process for collecting information from staff will be one that demonstrates a steady, open dialogue. Staff are sharing their time generously and opening themselves and their area of operation to students. This process involves various levels of risk to individuals and their areas of operation. We ask students to act as professionals and demonstrate respect for this generosity. If unsure of the risks involved in comments or critiques, it will be important to check with the teaching team. To avoid unnecessary questions, we request that students seek and access information from readings and websites before contacting staff. Before requesting a meeting with staff, we ask students to send a assumptions to date, along with the questions or information sought. • Sources of information (website, literature, and interview) must be appropriately referenced. ssumptions, if made, must be documented. onfidentiality must be maintained. e o tcome of the projects is public; however, projects that don't meet the required standard will not be included in the ebC  system. s on WebCT will include critical comments from the teaching team, with other UBCFSP partners adding comments  cas s where the reports have particular relevance. t the final presentation of students’ reports, staff will have the opportunity to speak to the issues that have arisen. hers are not in alignment with our own.   145 • Our greatest learning comes from being open and learning to explore the reasons why individuals and organizations make the choic  es they do. Then, we can use that understanding to create the changes we may want to make. mer 2004 consultations and continuing dialogue with the project partners, e have developed a series of scenarios relating to specific aspects of the UBC food system which you will explore this term.  As a result of your AGSC 450 colleagues’ work, Sum w    Scenario 1:  Desirability of Re-localization  Problem:  Food buyers have come to expect year-round availability of an extensive variety of foodstuffs from many regions of the globe. To eet these demands for year-round availability of food, four key developments have taken place within the past 50 years on a aintenance of a transportation infrastructure with low direct (vs. hidden) user costs; 2) tensification of agricultural technology; 3) widespread commitment to global free trade policy; and 4) vertical and horizontal he corporate food system. As a result, food now comes to us from anywhere and everywhere, ut from nowhere in particular (Kloppenburg, Hendrickson and Stevenson, 1996: 2).  North America, food travels an average of 2000 km before it reaches consumers’ plates (Pretty, 2001: 6). This physical  has produced various forms of social and psychological distancing. Many eople do not know where their food comes from, how it was produced and where it ends up. Social and/or psychological  becoming an increasingly characteristic occurrence between farmers and consumers, and between consumers and e natural environment. The food dollar that producers receive for their products has been falling significantly and steadily since m global scale: 1) the building and m in consolidation and centralization of t b  In distancing of consumers from the sources of their food p distancing is th the 1950’s (Pretty, 2001: 2). The cheap cost of food in North America in particular hides many indirect costs and produces “externalities”. These externalities associated with increased food miles include: negative ecological impacts, and decreased nutritional value and overall flavor.  In other words, despite overall growth in the quantity of food production globally, evidence is accumulating regarding the negative social, ecological and economic effects of our current dominant forms of food production, processing, transportation, distribution, consumption and end disposal - that is, all facets of the food system.  Specific Tasks:  Based on secondary sources, your former 2004 AGSC 450 colleagues’ reports (Summer and Spring) and a group of UBC Sauder School of Business students’ work (Fall 2004), and your own experience:  ¾ Develop a research methodology to be carried out by your AGSC 450 colleagues in 2006.  You are expected to find out: (1) whether or not, and to what extent, UBC’s population is willing to buy local food (i.e. level of demand and interest), and (2) if a high interest is indicated to purchase local food, whether or not UBC’s population is willing to pay more for it. In other words, you need to develop a questionnaire to investigate the UBC population’s desire and willingness or capacity to consume and purchase locally produced goods. (For a complete review of research methods and sampling techniques see the AGSC 450 WebCT site: http://www.webct.ubc.ca/SCRIPT/agsc_450/scripts/serve_home  Documents, Archives and Web Resources>Research Methods and Tools)  In order to develop a methodology you will need to answer the following questions typical of any research design: a. What?  ¾   and Why?: Briefly discuss the above problem statement (“what?”) and explain its importance (“why?”).  This discussion should also address the question of what is to be considered “local food”. b. By/With Whom?: Define demographically the population to be studied from which you need to draw a sample. c. When?: Specify the sampling technique to be used (i.e. random sample; stratified random sample, convenience sample; “snowball” sampling, etc).  Provide a timeline for the implementation of your research design: that is, when every specific task will be done. d. Where?: Identify the location(s) of the data collection. e. How?:  Produce and deliver the questionnaire to be tested.    146 ¾ You will administer your advanced version of the questionnaire (see below) to a small sample of the UBC population (a  ¾  This 19; tudents group).  The group will produce a draft questionnaire to be ubmitted to the Teaching Team and the whole class for input, no later than March 16. The group will then incorporate the feedback d  summer of 2005, the feedback. A final version of the questionnaire will then be completed, the students in 2006 will administer the questionnaire to a representative  UBC population, and results will be tabulated and interpreted in summe 0  Division a pilot test). You will then, compile and interpret the results.  Scenario will entail compiling the raw questionnaires developed by previous groups in 2004 (spring groups: 1, 8, 12, 13, 17, summer group: 1; UBC Sauder School of Business s s , an  produce a more advanced version to be tested with the small sample of the UBC population. In the  questionnaire will be further polished (if necessary) by the Teaching Team, and UBCFSP stakeholders will provide their sample (faculty, staff, residents and students) of the r 20 6. of T sks for Scenario 1:  One group to  work on Scenario 1.   Scenarios 2a, 2b, 2c:  Feasibility of Re-localization  Problem: d outlets on campus should provide em with an array of tasty, nutritious and affordable foods. At the same time, UBC food providers need to run an economically s a result of personal communication between the researcher partners and a summer workshop with UBCFSP takeholders, UBC food providers expressed support for the idea of increasing purchases of local foods. In the summer, your foun rdered by UBC Food Services and AMS Food and Beverage Department can be obtained from a cal source,” and some local products were found to be of the same quality and price as non-local products that are currently  UBC food providers are faced with many demands. UBC consumers typically demand that foo th viable business. A s colleagues conducted a feasibility analysis, investigating realistic opportunities to increase local food procurement practices. They d that “83% of the food o lo purchased by these UBC food providers (group 2, summer 2004). Your colleagues were only given one week to conduct this ysis; thus, we require a more comprehensive review. Specifically, UBC food providers need you to conduct an analysis ving more food product distributors, and more of the commonly used food products. , UBCFSP stakeholders are interested in identifying companies, with which they can conduct business, that provides ainably-produced products, or at the very least, that demonstrate an awareness of sustainability issues. However, many ively sustainably-produced items are not local, are very expensive, and often are supplied by small distributors who cannot t the UBC food providers’ quantity and delivery requirements. Thus, in your analysis, we also need you to take into ideration the relationship between sustainability, locality and business scale, and develop criteria for making food anal invol Also sust relat mee cons rocurement decisions. Obviously, you need to find out whether or not distributors exist that can meet these needs in an cenario 2a p economically viable manner.   S : Feasibility of Re-localization on Campus  Specific Tasks:  iscuss the above problem statement (Scenarios 2a, 2b, 2c Based on secondary sources, your former 2004 AGSC 450 colleagues’ work (spring group 17, and summer group 2), UBC Sauder School of Business group of students’ work (Fall 2004) and your own experience: ¾ Briefly d :  Feasibility of Re-localization) (“what?”) and explain its importance (“why?”). This discussion should also address the question of what is to be considered “local food”. local food procurement given the factors governing UBC’s food procurement requirements, such as volume, quality, seasonality, and price. Specifically, UBC food providers need to know what types of and distributors can deliver reliably and consistently, while meeting quantity requirements and quality standards, as well assuring economic viability.  ¾ Investigate the realistic opportunities for foods local producers   147  ¾ Using spring 2004 AGSC 450 Group 17’s method of feasibility analysis (pages 9 to 15 of their paper), and complementin the work done by your summer 2004 AGSC 450 Group 2 (you may wish to verify what they have already done for accura investigate the feasibility of re-localizing UBC’s Food System. You need to expand upon 1) the list of commodities analyzed by your colleagues to include other common items used by food providers (i.e. eggs, poultry); 2) the list of alternative providers analyzed (your colleagues only examined two food product distributors). You will need to answer the following questions in order to conduct the feasibility analysis:  g cy),   a. What commodities do UBC food providers currently use? (I.e., unprocessed foods, eggs, poultry, etc.)  m b. Which of these products can be obtained from a BC source? (for a BC Agricultural Commodity List: go to http://www.agf.gov.bc.ca/stats/103a.ht ) c. What is the seasonal availability of these products? ocally  ivision of Tasks for Scenario 2a d. What are the prices that UBC Food Services and the AMS Food and Beverage Department pay for non-l produced (unprocessed) foods? e. Who (i.e., which specific suppliers, farmer cooperatives) can provide UBC food providers with locally and ideally sustainably produced foods (unprocessed items, eggs, poultry and dairy products) at a competitive price, while meeting quantity and quality requirements?  D : oid dities and distributors to be analyzed.  Two groups to work on this scenario: the two groups should get together and discuss a division of tasks which will av redundancy, including division of commo   Scenario 2b: Feasibility of increasing farm provision of specialty items to Sage Bistro  Specific Tasks:  ¾ Briefly discuss the above problem statement (Scenarios 2a, 2b, 2c:  Feasibility of Re-localization) (“what?”) and explain its importance (“why?”).  ¾ Working with John Flipse, General Manager of University Centre/Sage Bistro, and Mark Bomford, Manager of UBC Farm, explore the potential for further business collaboration between Sage Bistro and the UBC Farm. Specifically, study Sage menus, explore seasonal menu items and determine how the farm can dependably provide specialty items (such as tiny explore ways in which the farm might serve the Sage Bistro more ffectively through more frequent deliveries, longer growing season, and increased availability. Explore the risks and with expanded market relations. Keep in mind the intent of this task is also to develop a model for future expansion to other food outlets on campus and to enhance the availability of local food at UBC. sks for Scenario 2b squash (pattipan), zucchini, yellow beets, heritage tomatoes, pear tomatoes and other interesting vegetables including Asian varieties) which are highly valued by Sage.  Also e benefits, for both stakeholders, associated  Division of Ta : ne group to work on this scenario. c  O   Scenario 2 : Feasibility of Supplying a Food Conference with Local Foods from UBC Farm  The AMS Food and Beverage Department (AMSFBD) have been approached by the Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC) (http://www.foodsecurity.org/) to cater a conference which they wish to hold at UBC with locally produced foods. Below is a letter with details:  From: Nancy Toogood (Manager, AMSFBD) To:  Students and teaching team in AGSC 450  Dear AGSC 450 students:    148 Here's the brief outline of this proposed conference: It is the “Community Food Security Coalition (CFSC) - Eating Locally, Thinking Globally". I attended the conference in Seattle in Oct 2002 along with some other UBC colleagues.  The theme of that conference specifically was “Farm to Cafeteria: Healthy Farms, Healthy Students”.  The second annual conference of that theme is this June in Ohio.  However, the CFSC is interested in holding a conference here at UBC in either August or October of 2006.  They love the rooms and shops and services in SUB, but students should always take precedence for room bookings during the academic year.   They are considering August, but that is still prime growing and harvesting time for most growers and farmers. The timing remains to be seen, but either way, they are keen on having AMS Catering handle their food service requirements. You can imagine that I am thrilled to bits! ) pecific Tasks (… Andy Fisher (the executive director) is very familiar with our farm (…)  I suggested to him that we try and get the farm involved as much as possible and he is  excited about  the idea. (…) The criteria would have to include growing seasons and encompass food that would be suitable for an evening reception, a breakfast, a lunch and snacks. Obviously all this food can't come from the farm exclusively, and I can work the recipes around the product availability. The potential numbers for the conference are approximately 700 to 800.  We need to ascertain quantities, growing time, harvesting, financial feasibility (from both the growers and the purchasers perspective) and I'm sure a dozen things that I can't even think of.  In addition to the farm food, I would need a local coalition to act as brokers for all the farmers in the lower mainland that might be providing some of the food...like Discovery Organics or Pro-Organics.  The beauty of this project is that although it might end up being hypothetical, there is a very realistic chance that the conference will be held here.  If we could commit that year (2006) to the farm in terms of guaranteed purchase that should enable them to secure the funding to plant that spring.  Cheers, Nancy Toogood, Manager of AMSFBD  S :  Briefly discuss the above problem statement (Scenarios 2a, 2b, 2c  :  Feasibility of Re-localization) (“what?”) and explain ¾ its importance (“why?”). This discussion should also address the question of what is to be considered “local food”.  ¾ Working with Nancy Toogood, UBC Farm staff and local food brokers, plan the catering requirements in the eventuality that a food conference is held in 2006 at UBC with catering from AMSFBD. ¾ financial feasibility (from both the growers’ and the purchaser’s perspective).  Division of Tasks for Scenario 2c  As requested by Nancy, design a menu, and estimate required food quantities, growing plans and  : redu  Sce  Two groups to work on scenario 2c: the two groups should get together and discuss a division of tasks which will avoid ndancy. nario 3  : Education, Awareness and Re-Localization  Problem:  Food buyers have come to expect year-round availability of an extensive variety of foodstuffs from many regions of the globe. To meet these demands for year-round availability of food, four key developments have taken place within the past 50 years on a global scale: intensification e policy; and 4) vertical and horizontal consolidation and centralization of the corporate food system. As a result, food now comes to us from anywhere and everywhere, but from  In North merica, food travels an average of 2000 km before it reaches consumers’ plates (Pretty, 2001: 6). This physical distancin s of social and psychological distancing. Many 1) the building and maintenance of a transportation infrastructure with low direct (vs. hidden) user costs; 2) of agricultural technology; 3) widespread commitment to global free trad nowhere in particular (Kloppenburg, Hendrickson and Stevenson, 1996:2). A g of consumers from the sources of their food has produced various form   149 people do not know where their food comes from, how it was produced and where it ends up. Social and/or psychological distancing is becoming an increasingly characteristic occurrence between farmers and consumers, and between consumers and the natural environment. The food dollar that producers receive for their products has been falling significantly and steadily since “exte nutri accu uction, rocessing, transportation, distribution, consumption and end disposal - that is, all facets of the food system. ed food.  UBC food providers have initiated steps towards supporting locally produced food: BC Catering Services and Sage Bistro buy as many products from the UBC Farm as it is able to provide to meet their quantity quirements. However, the UBC Farm can only supply limited foodstuffs (due to economic, labor and seasonal constraints). So,  increase in local food procurement. One way of increasing support mong consumers for local foods is through education and awareness-raising about the benefits of supporting and purchasing . Through personal communication with UBCFSP stakeholders and a workshop held in the summer of 2004, we came  the joint conclusion that there is a need to increase the education and awareness among faculty, staff and students regarding the 1950’s (Pretty, 2001: 2). The cheap cost of food in North America in particular hides many indirect costs and produces rnalities”. These externalities associated with increased food miles include: negative ecological impacts, and decreased tional value and overall flavor.  In other words, despite overall growth in the quantity of food production globally, evidence is mulating regarding the negative social, ecological and economic effects of our current dominant forms of food prod p  A response to this situation is envisioned in the concept of re-localizing the food system to bring the costs and benefits of food production, processing and distribution closer to home. There is a growing trend among consumers that indicates increased desire and support for locally produc U re if UBC food providers are to increase their purchases of local food products from either current or alternative distributors, they need to know whether consumers are going to support their a local foods to the benefits of local foods. Your colleagues from both Spring and Summer 2004 AGSC 450 classes suggested many strategies to increase education and awareness about these benefits, including: providing discounts on local food items, placing stickers and labels on low food mileage items, implementing a Food Miles Goal Week, offering Food Miles Reward cards, creating slogans, using pamphlets, posters, pins, tabletop ads, and handouts advertising the benefits of local foods. While many colleagues proposed and/or designed many excellent instruments, these instruments need to be sorted and examined to find the most effective ones or develop new ones. We also need you to situate these suggested initiatives within a broader educational campaign, and design an action plan for implementation of this campaign.  Specific Tasks:  Based on secondary sources, the findings and proposals of your former 2004 AGSC 450 colleagues’ work (summer group 3, and pring groups 6, 17 as well as suggestions made by  groups 8,10, 12,18 and 19), UBC Sauder School of Business group of 4) and your own experience: s students (Fall 200  ¾ Briefly discuss the above problem statement (“what?”) and explain its importance (“why?”). This discussion should also address the question of what is to be considered “local food”. ¾ successes, and failures), and draw lessons from it for a campaign on  ¾   gn design:   Conduct a review of the “Buy BC” campaign (impacts, campus. Complementing the work done by your AGSC 450 colleagues (spring and summer) and UBC Sauder School of Business student group, continue to refine and develop an educational campaign, including a set of educational pieces (e.g., poster, pamphlets, online campus resource, UBC Local Food Idol Competition, etc.) to increase awareness and education about the benefits of local foods, targeted to UBC food workers or UBC food consumers (students, faculty, staff and campus residents). ¾ Design the actual steps of action required to implement this campaign for your AGSC 450 colleagues in 2006. Thus, along with developing educational piece(s), you will need to answer the following questions typical of any educational campai a.  By/with Whom?: Define who will be administering the educational piece(s) and define demographically who will be receiving/viewing the educational piece(s), that is, the “target population”.  b.  When?: Provide a specific timeline for your educational campaign design considering the time constraints of the AGSC 450 class (i.e. when your educational piece should be administered, etc.). c.  Where?   (Location(s) of administration of educational piece(s), etc.).   150  d.  How? (Techniques of dissemination)  ¾ You will also need to outline a budget for constructing and administering your education piece(s). Keep in mind that yo budget needs to be real ur istic (the smaller the better!) and the more detailed the cost breakdowns you outline, the clearer it will be to adopt and implement. To make your decisions about the nature and scope of your educational campaign, you may begin by consulting with UBC Food Services and AMS Food & Beverage Department to establish a realistic budget. ivision of Tasks for Scenario 3:  D s to work on this scenario: Two groups should design a campaign directed towards food workers, and two groups Four group should design a campaign directed towards food consumers.  The four groups should get together to decide which two groups will be working on each campaign.   Scenario 4: Exploring existing opportunities that enhance and/or barriers that impinge on the sustainability of the UBC food system within current campus development plans  Problem:  The UBC Office of Campus Sustainability, as well as other units and individuals on campus, have coordinated a number of sustainability initiatives at UBC. However, there is considerable debate about the extent to which these initiatives will be further enhanced or hindered by UBC’s Comprehensive Community Plan and related campus development plans. Some of the steps that have been initiated towards sustainability on campus include: waste reduction, reusing and recycling, composting,  incentives  bring reusable cups and containers when purchasing food at UBC, Sustainability Day, Bio-diesel oil recycling, Power Smart, rm (Sage Bistro, Green College, and UBC Catering Services purchase products from the Farm), AMSFBD’s ethical food procurement policy. The key ds further investigation is whether the current form of urban development being implemented by UBC  enhancing or hindering the transition to the sustainability of the UBC Food System. to agreements between Student Union and TransLink to make public transportation cheaper and more efficient for UBC students, provision of Fair Trade coffee, Imagine UBC, ECOTreck, Sustainability Pledge, Sustainability Coordinator Program, C.K. Choi building, Green Building Program, SEEDS, Agora, Natural Food Co-op, initiatives to support the UBC Fa problem that nee is  Specific Tasks:  ¾ Briefly discuss the above problem statement (“what?”) and explain its importance (“why?”).  ¾ Please review the Campus and Community Planning (C&CP) website: http://www.planning.ubc.ca/corebus/landuse.html g south of 16th Avenue bordering Wesbrook Mall).  Study the plans and relevant documents to discover what opportunities med necessary) to address issues related to, and support the possibility of, a sustainable food system at UBC?  For example, do the documents say anything about urban forms of agriculture on ¾ portant to grow food for the campus community on campus? Why? What are the arriers to growing food on campus? What UBC policies support and what policies create obstacles for growing food at  convincing case for the production of food on campus so that our community can see the academic connections and appreciate the rationale for doing so. However, if you come to the conclusion that a convincing case for food production ot be made, present your argumentation to reject such an initiative. n of Tasks for Scenario 4: You will need to take a careful look at UBC's Comprehensive Community Plan (which establishes neighborhood densities), the Official Community Plan (the governing document) and the South Campus Plan (the plan for the first section of buildin exist to enhance and what barriers can be expected to hinder the sustainability of the food system at UBC. Specifically, how can these guiding documents be improved (if dee campus?  Discuss the following issues:  Is it im b UBC?  ¾ The Main Campus Plan (governing the planning of the academic core) is coming up for                                            revision. Present a on campus cann  Divisio    151 Three groups to work on Scenario 4.  The three groups should get together and discuss a division of tasks which will avoid roups could address the whole scenario, but each should focus on different aspects: 1) xisting Plans, Policies and Vision Statements and Principles for the Comprehensive Community Plan; 2) The Local Areas; and e Community Plan.  However, other divisions of task may be possible and we will leave it to . redundancy. For example, the three g E 3) Strategies for the Comprehensiv the groups to jointly decide   Scenario 5: UBC Farm: Exploring alternative routes to enhanced viability  Problem: There are very few university campuses in North America that still have a campus farm that embraces the needs of small-scale nd diversified agriculture. With the UBC Farm, UBC has the potential to be such a university. The intention of UBC Farm is to be the Faculty of Agricultural Science's curriculum. In addition, the le operation, guided by the principles of ecologically, socially and economically sustainable griculture. UBC Farm has established market relationships with some of UBC's independent food service providers and holds  not sufficient for the Farm's financial viability. The Farm community is interested in forming ps with UBC Food Services, AMS Food and Beverage Department and other campus food roviders where there is greater opportunity for high volume sales. 2004 investigated possible avenues to establish market relationships with UBC Food Services and e AMS Food and Beverage Department.  They identified two problems: “1) The UBC Farm’s operating cost exceeds its ers have expressed interest in buying UBC Farm produce but current prices and quantities titive with UBC Food Services current suppliers” (Group 9, 2004). among stakeholders in the UBCFSP and a workshop held in the summer, UBC food  community farms could be invited to participate in forming a co-op or other collaborative ntity (e.g. local farmer’s market) with UBC Farm to meet the need of the existing UBC community base. a a place for action learning and to be an integral constituent of Farm must become a financially viab a summer markets; however, this is and/or increasing market relationshi p  Your colleagues in AGSC 450 th revenue, and 2) UBC food provid supplied are not compe  Based upon personal communication providers suggested that other local and e  Specific Tasks:  Based on secondary sources, your former 2004 AGSC 450 colleagues’ work (summer group 4, and spring groups: 9 & 14), and our own experience: “what y  ¾ Briefly discuss the above problem statement ( ?”) and explain its importance (“why?”). rature about current UBC Farm projects, and discussions about and proposed visions for UBC Farm. uction plans for the UBC Farm (i.e. alternatives to Saturday Markets, in particular Community reased relationships with UBC’s food providers and the UBC Food Co-op (Sprouts)). versity/college farms as case studies that document lessons (both successes and failures) of successful ion plans, particularly with CSA.  Explore ways that UBC could implement a CSA Program, whereby UBC community members and/or UBC food providers  share at the beginning of the growing season and receive produce in return. Prepare a detailed plan of proposed mentation.   ¾ Review available lite  ¾ Explore alternative prod Supported Agriculture (CSA), and inc  ¾ Research other uni campus product  ¾ purchase a steps and actions for imple Division of Tasks for Scenario 5:  Three groups to work on Scenario 5.  The three groups should get together and discuss a division of tasks which will avoid seful Resources redundancy.  U :  UBC:    152 Alma Mater Society (AMS) website ttp://www.ams.ubc.ca/index.cfmh ttp://www.sage.ubc.ca/  Sage Bistro (UBCFS operation) h  UBC Campus and Community Planning (C&CP) http://www.planning.ubc.ca/corebus/landuse.html  UBC Campus Sustainability Office (CSO)  http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/  BC Farm U  http://www.agsci.ubc.ca/ubcfarm/  UBC Food Co-op (and Sprouts) ttp://www.ams.ubc.ca/clubs/nfc/h  UBC Foo http://ww d Services (UBCFS) w.foodserv.ubc.ca/  UBC Hou www sing and Conferences .housing.ubc.ca  UBC Wa http://www.recycle.ubc.ca/index.html ste Management (UBCWM)  UBC Sauder School of Business Group. Fall 2004. “Home Grown: Marketing Local foods at UBC”.  Available in WebCT AGS  Dist nn Marie’s Incredible Goodies Inc. (local food distributor) C, V5K 1A1 C 450 website: UBCFSP 2005 ributors:  A 2695 Commissioner St. Vancouver B Phone: 604-263-6287 http://foodpages.ca/6990  Discovery Island Organics Owned By: Anne Moss & Randy Hooper 4344 Albert St.  Burnaby, BC V5C 2G1 Phone:   604 299-1683 Fax: 604 299-1673 Email:   dislands@telus.net  Pro-Organics http://www.proorganics.com/  Small Potatoes Urban Delivery (SPUD) https://www.spud.ca/index.cfm  Yen Bro http://w s. Food Service (food distributor) ww.yenbros.com  Certified Org ic http://www.c tif an  Association of BC er iedorganic.bc.ca    153 Research Method  Research Methods Resources on the WWW (Stephenson 2004): ethods/ s: http://www.slais.ubc.ca/resources/research_m  Cas tu  Rev n http w e S dies: eali g the Secrets of the All-Iowa Meal: The Local Food Brokering Project of Practical Farmers of Iowa ://w w.farmprofitability.org/research/alliowa/alliowa.htm   Mar g eam Paper (30 out of 40%) eam Paper General Guidelines kin  Guidelines (UBCFSP 40% of overall AGSC 450 mark):  T  T : ¾ The collective paper should be MAXIMUM 25 double-spaced pages (12 point font) including   bibliographical references, appendices (if any), and an abstract (no longer than one or two paragraphs).  You may use single space for questionnaires and educational pieces in your appendices. The maximum length will be strictly enforced. ¾ Please have someone (either your fellow group members or someone else) review your work for spelling, grammar, punctuation, and overall clarity. ¾ Please use MLA format for referencing and use it consistently throughout your paper. ¾ Please make sure that you do not abuse your appendices. Specifically, include only those items that would distract the reader if you included it in the body of your paper (i.e. questionnaires, raw data, educational pieces such as poster design, leaflets, etc.). ¾ Please make sure that if you include appendices that you refer to and describe the content of each item included in the appendices within the body of your paper. ¾ Please use subheadings to organize your work (i.e. results, discussion, specific task titles, etc.). This will greatly enhance the clarity of your work, and the ability of the Project Coordinator to synthesize your findings. ¾ Please write your paper having in mind a public audience, not the Teaching Team! am Paper Specific Guidelines   Te :    Abstract, Introduction, Problem Definition, Vision Statement and Identification of Value Assumptions (5 points)  a. Summarize the content of your paper in a short abstract. b. Write an introduction describing the plan for your paper. c. Comment, and expand if necessary, on the problem definition given to you in the description of your assigned scenario. t collaboratively developed by the project partners (7 influence your views.  Specifically, briefly indicate whether you agree or disagree with the principles and identify anything that should be added to or taken away from the principles. Report if there was more than one position in up.   e. Identify and describe your assigned subsystem or aspect of the UBC food system, your findings, discussion, and any materials or activities you have prepared for your colleagues next year. f. Provide your conclusions or final reflections, including: • A clear (summary) statement of the working team’s central findings and position(s). • Recommendations to the UBC Office of Campus Sustainability, UBC Food Services, AMS Food and Beverage Department, UBC Waste Management, UBC Farm and/or anyone else you deem necessary with reference to 1) d. Briefly present your group reflections on the Vision Statemen guiding principles) (available in the AGSC 450 WebCT site: UBCFSP 2005) and how your value assumptions your gro 2)  Methodology, Findings, Discussion, Recommendations and Conclusion (25 points)   154 your specific task. Also, if necessary, provid  colleagues (i.e. Oral Presentation Guidelines (10 out of 40%)  ame structure paper, at leas  should help to clarify what is to be communicated in the presentation. • The oral presentation should not be longer than 20 minutes with an additional 5 minutes for questions and answers tation should be submitted in the fo ves for f    Appendix B:  Instruments of Data Collection e recommendations for your AGSC 450 2006 research needs, etc.). • The oral presentation should follow the s • We suggest that you prepare the group  as your team paper. t in draft form, before creating the presentation. This (Presentations will take place in four rooms). • The presen rm of a PowerPoint presentation to be included in the project’s archi uture use.               Scenario 1 (Group 8): Desirability of Re-localization  Questionnaire:   Please take a moment to fill out this important survey on consumer preferences and knowledge towards food.   155   2. Do you li _ _   . How many times a week do you purchase food on campus? (including in The Village)   . How would you define locally produced foods? ve: ____On Campus ____Off Campus 3                    0            1-3             4-6               7-9           10+ 4   . What are the benefits of eating locally produced food?  5     . What are the drawbacks of eating locally produced food?  6     . Which do you feel is more important?  K For the remaining questions, locally produced food will refer to food grown within British Columbia  you to purchase it if it was the same price as Would you like to see seasonal BC food items at UBC food outlets?                  __N ____Neutral dergraduate Stud       ___ y Member       ___       _ ate Student          ____Other:_______ 1.  Are you a:       ____UBC U Department: n ent Gender:   M   /   F rcle one): 18 & under      19-30     31-55     56 & over 2a. If you live on Campus, do you live in Totem   Park or Pla        __ _UBC Facult _UBC Staff Age (Please ci___UBC Gradu ___  ce Vanier? ____Yes       _____No  7 _____The distance that food has traveled _____The country in which the food is produced  8. Would knowing a food item was produced locally encourage an identical item produced outside the province?      _____Yes                _____No               _____Neutral  9.                _____Yes   ___ o               _   156 10.  were to cost more to oIf it ffe ally ods at UBC fo utle would you be willing to pay? ____0% 1-5% ____6-10%  Wh ree factors  infl od purchasin oice        (Please rank them in order)  ic _____Convenience Grown  _____Qualit _____Fair trade _____In season _Other __  At t ng fewer im d fo would be w ore locally produced food (like apples)?         __N _Neutral   Thank y r yo esponses w ntri the UBC Food Security Project Comments: r loc produced fo od o ts, how much more ____  11. at are the top th  that uence your fo g ch s? _____Price _____Organ _____BC y ____ :____ _________ 12. he cost of eati porte ods (like bananas),  you illing to eat m       _____Yes     ___ o               ____     ou fo ur time, your r ill co bute to     Scenario #5 (G p 2rou ): UBC Farm: Explori lte o Enhance Viability ng A rnative Routes t  Desirability of Specialty Food Items among Restaurants Survey:  UBC Farm Project – Specialty Item Survey Res  taurant Name: Please highlight your choices for the questions below: 1. Does your restaurant purchase any of the following specialty food items?  ‰  ‰ Enoki mushroom ____11-15% _ ____price is not important ___16-20% ‰ Black huckleberry ‰ Field mint  ‰ Red oak lettuce Red huckleberry ‰ Yerba Buena   157 ‰ Low bush/mountain ‰ Soapberry ‰ Oyster mushroom cranberry  ‰ lingoberry ‰ Soopolallie ‰ Wild strawberry [woodland strawberry] Mountain sweet cicely  y carrot ‰ Purple sweet cicely  ‰ Nodding onion [Hooker’s onion]  ‰ Snow peas ‰ Wild caraway/carrot ‰ Harvest onion ‰ Sugar snaps peas ‰ Indian celery  ‰ Tiger lily ‰ Green zucchini ‰ Shiitake mushroom  ‰ Fairy slipper ‰ Japanese eggplant ‰ Vanilla bean ‰ ‰ Sheep sorrel [mountain sorrel]  ‰ Blackcap ‰ Trailing blackberry ‰ Sas