Graduate Studies, College of (Okanagan)
DSpace
UBCO
Lang, Eva-Lena
Master of Arts - MA
University of British Columbia
Currently farmers and other food system actors in the North Okanagan face numerous challenges. Relationships between some stakeholders within the regional food system do exist; however, there are also silos separating the stakeholders (food producers, processors, wholesalers/distributors, retailers and chefs as well as local government, non-profits and academics) and coordination is lacking. Inspired by the success story of Vermont, a small group began a process that resulted in Land to Table (L2T), a Collective Impact network whose goal is to develop a North Okanagan food system that is economically prosperous, environmentally sustainable and socially accessible. My Research Aim, therefore, was to facilitate a group of stakeholders to further strengthen their regional food system network. To address this aim, an approach combining Community Based Participatory Research and Deliberative Dialogue was used to engage with a Community Advisory Committee and four focus groups. Two customized methods were used. One, called participatory network mapping, was developed to map and analyze the current state of the food system network. The other, called the build the network framework, aimed at developing recommendations for building a network that is more connected, aligned, productive and healthy. Through the mapping exercise, both the strengths and the weaknesses of the current food system network were revealed. The stakeholders that participated noted strong connections between some network members, but they also commented on the absence of certain key members, a number of missing connections and the need for more strategic coalitions within the network. The build the network framework, combined with a carefully designed Deliberative Dialogue that integrated portions of text (literature synthesis) with the results of the mapping exercises (research evidence), proved effective in developing recommendations for building a network. Overall, the Community Based Participatory Research approach was useful for guiding the research, with the Community Advisory Committee providing invaluable input as well as continuity in building from research question to research question, while the focus groups added important perspectives to the mapping. To conclude, this research methodology was effective in engaging stakeholders to further strengthen the North Okanagan food system network and appears to have potential for application elsewhere.
Coming to the Table as a Regional Food System: Mapping and Building a Network by Eva-Lena Lang B.A., University of Victoria, 2010 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Okanagan) September 2019 © Eva-Lena Lang, 2019 ii The following individuals certify that they have read, and recommend to the College of Graduate Studies for acceptance, a thesis/dissertation entitled: Coming to the Table as a Regional Food System: Mapping and Building a Network submitted by Eva-Lena Lang in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts Dr. Mary Stockdale, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Supervisor Dr. Jon Corbett, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Co- Supervisor Dr. Nelly Oelke, Faculty of Health and Social Development Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Donna Senese, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences Supervisory Committee Member Dr. Mike Evans, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences University Examiner Click or tap here to enter text. External Examiner Additional Committee Members include: Click or tap here to enter text. Supervisory Committee Member Click or tap here to enter text. iii Abstract Currently farmers and other food system actors in the North Okanagan face numerous challenges. Relationships between some stakeholders within the regional food system do exist; however, there are also silos separating the stakeholders (food producers, processors, wholesalers/distributors, retailers and chefs as well as local government, non-profits and academics) and coordination is lacking. Inspired by the success story of Vermont, a small group began a process that resulted in Land to Table (L2T), a Collective Impact network whose goal is to develop a North Okanagan food system that is economically prosperous, environmentally sustainable and socially accessible. My Research Aim, therefore, was to facilitate a group of stakeholders to further strengthen their regional food system network. To address this aim, an approach combining Community Based Participatory Research and Deliberative Dialogue was used to engage with a Community Advisory Committee and four focus groups. Two customized methods were used. One, called participatory network mapping, was developed to map and analyze the current state of the food system network. The other, called the build the network framework, aimed at developing recommendations for building a network that is more connected, aligned, productive and healthy. Through the mapping exercise, both the strengths and the weaknesses of the current food system network were revealed. The stakeholders that participated noted strong connections between some network members, but they also commented on the absence of certain key members, a number of missing connections and the need for more strategic coalitions within the network. The build the network framework, combined with a carefully designed Deliberative Dialogue that integrated portions of text (literature synthesis) with the results of the mapping exercises (research evidence), proved effective in developing recommendations for building a network. Overall, the Community Based Participatory Research approach was useful for guiding the research, with the Community Advisory Committee providing invaluable input as well as continuity in building from research question to research question, while the focus groups added important perspectives to the mapping. To conclude, this research methodology was effective in engaging stakeholders to further strengthen the North Okanagan food system network and appears to have potential for application elsewhere. iv Lay Summary The North Okanagan food system, including farmers, processors, distributors, retailers and chefs, faces numerous challenges. Forming a network to strengthen the food system is seen as a solution. The value of evaluating such a network has led to the following Research Aim: to facilitate a group of stakeholders to further strengthen their regional food system network. This was addressed by working closely with community members to: map the food system network to analyze its strengths and weaknesses; plan how to build one that is more connected, aligned, healthy and results-driven; and evaluate the lessons learned overall. Mapping the network was useful for understanding where network members were well-connected, but also where connections were needing to be made, and coalitions were needing to be built. Further discussion helped stakeholders to develop recommendations for strengthening their network. It was felt that this type of work has potential for food system work elsewhere. v Preface The research questions were developed in collaboration with co-supervisor Dr. Mary Stockdale, with guidance from co-supervisor Dr. Jon Corbett. Chapter 2 includes sections from a summary report I co-authored with Dr. Mary Stockdale: Lang, E. and Stockdale, M. (2017). Growing the local food economy in the North Okanagan: A summary report of consultation on opportunities and challenges in the regional food system and recommendations for the future. Chapter 4 presents the build the network framework that was developed, after an initial literature review, in collaboration with Dr. Mary Stockdale. Figure 1 and Figure 2 contain maps created in collaboration with Adam Fage and are used with permission of Adam Fage. The maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) contain data licensed under the Open Government Licence – British Columbia. Figure 3 has been adapted and reproduced with permission of Curtis Ogden (Ogden 2013, 2014). Table 2 has been reproduced with permission of Peter Plastrik (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 33). Figure 7, 8 and 15 are photos taken for the purpose of this thesis and are used with permission from Dr. Jon Corbett. This research was conducted between May 2018 and January 2019. Preliminary results were presented in a poster presentation at the Place-Based Food Systems Conference, Richmond, BC in August 2018. The same poster was presented at the Okanagan Research Forum: Eating the Okanagan in Kelowna, BC in December 2018. Results were presented in a presentation at the Canadian Associations for Food Studies annual conference in Vancouver, June 5th, 2019. Using the results from this research I wrote a report for Land to Table (L2T) in Fall 2018: Lang, E. (2018). Build the network recommendations: Overview and next steps. This thesis was completed independently, with close guidance from my co-supervisors Dr. Mary Stockdale and Dr. Jon Corbett and support from my committee, Dr. Nelly Oelke and Dr. Donna Senese. The Okanagan Research Ethics Board approved this research and issued UBC Ethics Certificate Number H18-00903-A001. vi Table of Contents Abstract ...................................................................................................................................... iii Lay Summary ............................................................................................................................. iv Preface ......................................................................................................................................... v Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. xii List of Figures .......................................................................................................................... xiii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. xiv Dedication ................................................................................................................................. xv Chapter 1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Research objectives .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Thesis structure ......................................................................................................... 3 Chapter 2: Background .............................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 The food system in Canada ...................................................................................... 5 2.3 The food system in British Columbia ......................................................................... 7 2.4 The food system in the North Okanagan .................................................................. 8 2.4.1 The regional district and its people ...................................................................... 8 2.4.2 Food system components ............................................................................... 10 2.4.3 Opportunities and challenges for the food system .......................................... 12 2.5 The North Okanagan Land to Table Network ......................................................... 18 2.5.1 How it all began: the study circle .................................................................... 19 2.5.2 A meeting of key food system stakeholders ................................................... 20 2.5.3 The summary report ........................................................................................ 21 2.5.4 The “Growing the Local Food Economy” Forum ............................................. 21 vii 2.5.5 After the “Growing the Local Food Economy” Forum ..................................... 23 2.6 Summary ................................................................................................................. 23 Chapter 3: Literature Review ................................................................................................... 24 3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 24 3.2 Problems in the food system ................................................................................... 24 3.2.1 Development of the corporate food regime ..................................................... 24 3.2.2 The food crisis and food movements .............................................................. 25 3.2.3 Re-localisation of the food system .................................................................. 26 3.3 Collective Impact ..................................................................................................... 28 3.3.1 The original concept of Collective Impact ....................................................... 28 3.3.2 Development of the concept of Collective Impact ........................................... 30 3.3.3 Other lessons learned ..................................................................................... 33 3.4 Networks ................................................................................................................. 35 3.4.1 What is a network? ......................................................................................... 35 3.4.2 Why networks are important ........................................................................... 36 3.4.3 Types of networks ........................................................................................... 37 3.4.4 How to build a network .................................................................................... 39 3.4.5 How to tell a network is effective ..................................................................... 41 3.5 Collective Impact and networks for food system work ........................................... 42 3.5.1 Collective Impact and networks ..................................................................... 42 3.5.2 Their application to actual food systems ........................................................ 43 3.6 Summary ................................................................................................................. 46 Chapter 4: Methodology ........................................................................................................... 47 4.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 47 4.2 Approach ................................................................................................................. 47 4.2.1 Reflexivity ........................................................................................................ 47 viii 4.2.2 Ethics .............................................................................................................. 49 4.2.3 Community Based Participatory Research ..................................................... 50 4.2.4 Deliberative Dialogue ...................................................................................... 52 4.3 Process ................................................................................................................... 58 4.3.1 First Community Advisory Committee meeting .............................................. 60 4.3.2 Focus group meetings ................................................................................... 60 4.4 Methods .................................................................................................................. 65 4.4.1 Participatory network mapping ........................................................................ 65 4.4.2 Build the network framework ........................................................................... 71 4.4.3 Interviews ........................................................................................................ 76 4.4.4 Worksheet questionnaires .............................................................................. 76 4.4.5 Exit surveys ..................................................................................................... 76 4.4.6 Journaling ....................................................................................................... 76 4.5 NVivo analysis of the meeting data ......................................................................... 76 4.6 Summary ................................................................................................................. 77 Chapter 5: Results – Mapping the Network ............................................................................ 79 5.1 Overview ................................................................................................................. 79 5.2 Sustain the Farmers ............................................................................................... 79 5.2.1 Meeting results ................................................................................................ 79 5.2.2 Mapping results and analysis .......................................................................... 82 5.3 Develop the Middle: Food Wholesale, Distribution, Retail and Services ............... 87 5.3.1 Meeting results ................................................................................................ 87 5.3.2 Mapping results and analysis .......................................................................... 89 5.4 Engage the Consumers ......................................................................................... 91 5.4.1 Meeting results ................................................................................................ 91 5.4.2 Mapping results and analysis .......................................................................... 92 ix 5.5 Support the Processors .......................................................................................... 94 5.5.1 Meeting results ................................................................................................ 94 5.5.2 Mapping results and analysis .......................................................................... 95 5.6 Second Community Advisory Committee meeting .................................................. 98 5.6.1 Meeting results ................................................................................................ 98 5.6.2 Mapping results ............................................................................................... 99 5.6.3 Mapping analysis .......................................................................................... 100 5.7 Summary ............................................................................................................... 105 Chapter 6: Results - Recommendations to Build the Network ........................................... 106 6.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 106 6.2 Third Community Advisory Committee meeting results ........................................ 106 6.3 Build the network framework results ..................................................................... 107 6.3.1 Balancing the network phases ...................................................................... 107 6.3.2 Connectivity of the network ........................................................................... 108 6.3.3 Alignment of the network .............................................................................. 111 6.3.4 Productivity of the network ............................................................................ 112 6.3.5 Health of the network .................................................................................... 113 6.4 Summary ............................................................................................................... 116 Chapter 7: Results – Lessons Learned ................................................................................ 118 7.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 118 7.2 Meeting results ...................................................................................................... 118 7.2.1 First Community Advisory Committee meeting results ................................. 118 7.2.2 Fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting results .............................. 119 7.3 The approach ........................................................................................................ 120 7.3.1 Community Based Participatory Research ................................................... 120 7.3.2 Deliberative Dialogues (DD) ......................................................................... 124 x 7.4 The process ......................................................................................................... 126 7.4.1 Process introduction ..................................................................................... 126 7.4.2 First Community Advisory Committee meeting ............................................. 126 7.4.3 Four focus group and second Community Advisory Committee meetings ... 127 7.4.4 Third Community Advisory Committee meeting ............................................ 127 7.4.5 Fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting ......................................... 127 7.4.6 Process conclusion ....................................................................................... 128 7.5 The methods ........................................................................................................ 128 7.5.1 Participatory network mapping ...................................................................... 128 7.5.2 Build the network framework ......................................................................... 132 7.6 Summary ............................................................................................................... 133 Chapter 8: Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 135 8.1 Overview ............................................................................................................... 135 8.2 Summary of results ............................................................................................... 135 8.2.1 Results for the first research question .......................................................... 135 8.2.2 Results for the second research question ..................................................... 136 8.2.3 Results for the third research question ......................................................... 136 8.3 Limitations ............................................................................................................. 137 8.4 Recommendations ................................................................................................ 137 8.4.1 For future regions .......................................................................................... 137 8.4.2 For future research ....................................................................................... 137 8.5 Summary ............................................................................................................... 138 References .............................................................................................................................. 139 Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 151 Appendix A: Details of the build the network framework draft .......................................... 151 Appendix B: Network strengths and weaknesses ............................................................. 155 xi Appendix C: Confidentiality Agreement ............................................................................ 157 Appendix D: Consent Form ............................................................................................... 158 xii List of Tables Table 1: Timeline for the formation of the Land to Table network .............................................. 19 Table 2: Three network phases or characteristics: desired effects and how to build them ........ 40 Table 3: Overall research process .............................................................................................. 59 Table 4: The build the network framework, listing the framework’s questions, and the literature supporting the question .............................................................................................................. 73 Table 5: Dialogue Literature Synthesis and research evidence handouts used for Deliberative Dialogue in the third Community Advisory Committee meeting .................................................. 75 Table 6: Sustain the Farmers ..................................................................................................... 83 Table 7: Develop the Middle: Food Wholesale, Distribution, Retail and Services ...................... 89 Table 8: Engage the Consumers ................................................................................................ 93 Table 9: Support the Processors ................................................................................................ 96 Table 10: Summary of the network ratified by the Community Advisory Committee ................ 100 xiii List of Figures Figure 1: Map of British Columbia showcasing the RDNO in the Southern Interior ..................... 9 Figure 2: Map of the Regional District of the North Okanagan ..................................................... 9 Figure 3: Three networks in one: connectivity, alignment and productivity. ............................... 38 Figure 4: Network characteristics and Collective Impact conditions ........................................... 43 Figure 5: Meeting space for the second Community Advisory Committee meeting ................... 62 Figure 6: Three examples of network organizational structure ................................................... 63 Figure 7: Mapping guidelines ...................................................................................................... 68 Figure 8: Mapping relationships .................................................................................................. 69 Figure 9: Reviewing the maps, June 2018 ................................................................................. 70 Figure 10: Network member overlaps, June 2018 ...................................................................... 70 Figure 11: Working draft for developing questions used in the build the network framework, June 2018 ............................................................................................................................................ 72 Figure 12: Sustain the Farmers map, May 2018 ........................................................................ 82 Figure 13: Young market gardener map ..................................................................................... 84 Figure 14: Develop the Middle focus group, mapping relationships by drawing on the background paper, June 2018 .................................................................................................... 88 Figure 15: Network member list .................................................................................................. 92 xiv Acknowledgements This research would not have been possible without the dedication and commitment of many individuals. First and foremost, I am ever grateful for the guidance, motivation and patience from my co-supervisor, Dr. Mary Stockdale, and for the inspiration to ground this research in the work of Land to Table (L2T). The valuable advice from my co-supervisor, Dr. Jon Corbett, was an integral part of the process. Thank you for challenging me, and for your words of encouragement, friendship and endless support. I would also like to acknowledge the kind guidance and support of my committee members, Dr. Donna Senese and Dr. Nelly Oelke. To Darcen, Joanne, Nicole, Reza and those I crossed paths with in ICER thank you for the lovely chats and support. I appreciate the many people who helped me throughout the process: Liz, Laura and Kat for your support and words of encouragement. Rob, Kathryn, Jon and Mary for making your kitchen tables available to the community (and my giant maps). I would also like to acknowledge Curtis Ogden for introducing me to networks – it is a fascinating world. To my friends and family, near and far, for their patience and encouragement over the last couple of years as I dove headfirst into this all-encompassing project; thank you for sharing meals and getting me outside. Ein grosses Dankeschoen an mein Familie für ihre Unterstützung und das gute Essen. Liebe Lisa und liebe Heike, vielen Dank für eure aufmunternden Worte und Geschichten. Most importantly, I would like to thank everyone who took part in this research; the L2T steering committee and the North Okanagan community. I hope that this work contributes to strengthening our regional food system and network, as it was intended! xv Dedication To the many individuals who continue to inspire and teach me. Für meine liebe Mama Heidi und mein Papa Helmut, In liebevoller Dankbarkeit für die Kinderjahre auf der Farm. 1 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 Research objectives “A food system is a set of interrelated functions that includes food production, processing, and distribution; food access and utilization by individuals, communities, and populations; and food recycling, composting, and disposal” (McCullum, Desjardins, Kraak, Ladipo, & Costello, 2005, p. 278). Currently stakeholders in the North Okanagan food system face a number of challenges, including, a lack of access to affordable farm land, low levels of support for new farmers and other food system entrepreneurs, the need for a centralized hub to aggregate and distribute local food, and the need for greater consumer engagement in the local food economy. Relationships between some stakeholders within the North Okanagan food system do exist; however, there are also many silos separating the stakeholders in the system, and overall coordination is lacking. There is a clear need for better networking across the North Okanagan food system, both for the enhanced sharing of information and resources as well as coordination of efforts. According to the North Okanagan’s Regional Agriculture Plan, many of the challenges and opportunities faced by farmers can be addressed by a strengthened regional food system (Lawseth, de la Salle, Marshall, & Smith, 2015b). This echoes the claim of the North Okanagan Food System Plan that: “a strong regional food system will support local farmers and rural economies, maintain rural landscapes, improve access to local, fresh food, protect the environment, and contribute to a sense of pride in the uniqueness of the North Okanagan region” (Baumbrough, Aasen, Gunner, Whiting, & Kalina, 2009, p. 3). In recognition of the above, I instigated a study circle in November 2015, gathering a group of women all connected to farming families in the North Okanagan around a kitchen table to discuss the challenges facing our food system. For our study circle, the Vermont Farm to Plate Network (VF2PN) became a source of inspiration in showing us how change could be made by a network of stakeholders, using a framework known as Collective Impact for organizing themselves. Our discussion concluded with a resolution to catalyse a similar initiative in the North Okanagan food system. Two years later in the spring of 2018, the North Okanagan Land to Table (L2T) Network was established; this is a network with a steering committee (I am a member of this committee), a part-time coordinator, and members from the many stakeholder groups across the regional food system (agricultural suppliers, producers, processors, wholesalers/distributors, retailers and services) as well as supporting organizations (government, non-profit, academic). 2 At this stage of the newly formed network, just as it was beginning to embark upon a Collective Impact initiative, it seemed timely for all of us to take stock of the network, analysing its strengths and weaknesses, and thinking carefully about what steps need to be taken next to strengthen it. According to Plastrik et al., (2014) before starting to build a network, there is often a need to analyze the problem that needs to be solved; and to determine who should be involved in solving the problem, what should be done together, and how it should be done. I therefore decided to embark upon a Master’s research project to address this community need, working closely with fellow network members. Thus, my research is of an applied nature, as well as deeply embedded in the community. My Research Aim, is to facilitate a group of stakeholders to further strengthen their regional food system network. It is believed that a stronger food system network will provide numerous benefits for the region’s economy, environment and people. A further benefit of this research will be sharing of the lessons learned about this research project, to guide efforts in other regions. With this Research Aim in mind, I drew upon a review of the literature to develop an overall methodology for facilitating a group of stakeholders to further strengthen their regional food system network. This methodology included a combination of approaches, a process of community meetings, and a set of methods for gathering and analyzing local information. For this research project I used a Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach, with the goal being to fully engage community members in the research project, enhancing their capacity to build networks, and finding an ethical balance between research and action (Buchanan, Miller, & Wallerstein, 2007). In this approach I also incorporated Deliberative Dialogues (DD) principles, designing discussions carefully to ensure a suitable meeting environment, a suitable mix of stakeholder participants, and inputs such as selected texts from the relevant literature, as well as summaries of the research evidence that the participants were generating. CBPR and DD are well established and documented approaches to health, civic engagement and environmental research, but there is little evidence of their use in food systems research. There is also a lack of discussion in the literature of any participatory tools being used to map, analyze and build food system networks. This thesis explores this overall methodology as a more community-relevant alternative to extractive, complex, statistical network analyses. The research process involved a series of eight meetings. Four of these were held with a Community Advisory Committee to guide the research as well as address all three of my Research Questions, building from one meeting to the next. Four other meetings were held with four specific food system stakeholder focus groups: the farmers, the processors, the ‘middle’ 3 (wholesalers, distributors, retail and service), and the consumers; these meetings added valuable perspectives to deepen our understanding of the network. Finally, I developed two key methods for the purpose of this research: one, which I called participatory network mapping, was designed to map the current state of the L2T food system network and analyze its strengths and weaknesses; the other, which we called the “build the network framework” was a series of 14 questions specifically designed to facilitate a structured meeting to make recommendations on how to build a food system network that is more connected, aligned, productive and healthy. These two methods, as well as my overall, interconnected research methodology are featured in my first and second Research Questions, as follows: 1: Has this research methodology (in particular the participatory network mapping method) enabled a group of stakeholders to obtain sufficient information about their regional food system network to effectively analyze its strengths and weaknesses? How or in what ways? 2: Has this research methodology (in particular the build the network framework method) enabled a group of stakeholders to obtain sufficient information about their regional food system network to build one that is more connected, aligned, productive and healthy? How or in what ways? To my knowledge, no-one else in BC or Canada is doing such research, and this community-based participatory methodology represents a distinct innovation even in the more advanced US food system network research. Therefore, I also wanted to evaluate the overall methodology developed here, to see what lessons might be learned for future work in other regional food system networks. This leads me to my third Research Question: 3: What are the lessons learned about the overall methodology (approach, process and methods) used in this research project? 1.2 Thesis structure This thesis is divided into eight chapters. Chapter 1, introduces the research project, including the Research Aim and Questions, as well as the thesis structure. Chapter 2 provides the background to the research, in which I describe the food system of Canada and BC, including some notable issues at these two scales, before I introduce the food system of the North Okanagan, the region in which this research takes place. There is a range of food production, processing, wholesale/ distribution, retail and services in the region, and I describe some of the opportunities and challenges that they collectively face. 4 Chapter 3 provides a literature review, describing some of the problems that have developed in the global food system since the Second World War, as well as the reformist, progressive and radical food movements that have emerged to counteract these problems. One solution that is promoted by these food movements is the relocalization of the food system. The chapter then focuses on Collective Impact, a framework for moving from isolated to collective action to achieve a desired change, before moving on to cover networks: what they are, why they are important, and how to build them. In conclusion, I describe some case studies of food system networks using Collective Impact to achieve change. In Chapter 4, I describe the research methodology. I begin by describing my investment in strengthening the food system, which comes from my life experience growing up on a family farm in the North Okanagan. I then discuss the ethical implications of my research, followed by a discussion of the CBPR and DD approaches. The research process is described next, followed by the specific research methods used, including participatory network mapping and the build the network framework. In Chapter 5-7 I present the results. Each results chapter addresses one Research Question. Chapter 5 presents the results of the participatory network mapping activities of each of the four focus groups as well as the Community Advisory Committee, examining whether this research method supported stakeholders to effectively analyse the network’s strengths and weaknesses. Chapter 6 results are derived from a structured discussion that I facilitated for the Community Advisory Committee, guided by our build the network framework of 14 questions. Again I was interested in determining whether this research method enabled a group of stakeholders to make recommendations to build a regional food system network that was more connected, aligned, productive and healthy. Chapter 7 summarizes the approach, process and methods used, and describes the lessons learned for each of these aspects of the methodology. Chapter 8 concludes with a summary of the results, a discussion of the limitations of this study, and recommendations for future regional food system work as well as future research. 5 Chapter 2: Background 2.1 Overview This chapter explains the background to the research project described in this thesis. The first two sections provide brief backgrounds to the food systems at the national (Canada) and provincial (British Columbia) levels. The chapter continues with a section on the food system at the regional (North Okanagan) level, looking at some of the many opportunities as well as challenges that it faces. Finally, this chapter tells the story of the development of a grassroots organization, eventually called the North Okanagan L2T Network, that aims to address these opportunities and challenges to strengthen the regional food system. 2.2 The food system in Canada The Canadian food system has been described as “a complex and integrated supply chain that includes input and service suppliers, primary agricultural producers, food and beverage processors, food retailers and wholesalers and food service providers” (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2017, para. 2). In Canada, the national food system is closely integrated with the global food system, including its many problematic features, as described in Section 3.2 (Levkoe, Lefebvre, & Blay-Palmer, 2017). Since 1941 the number of farms in Canada have been decreasing and the average size of farms has increased, from 40 hectares in 1871 to 332 hectares in 2016 (Bonti-Ankomah, Stamplecoskie, & Carrier-Leclerc, 2017). Today, only 1.6% of the Canadian population are farmers, and retaining them continues to be a challenge as farming profitability decreases (National Farmers Union, 2017). Farm employment has also been impacted negatively by increased mechanization as well as a greater reliance on farm technology (Bonti-Ankomah et al., 2017). However, many Canadians are not interested in or available to be farm labourers. To compensate for the lack of farm labourers, the Canadian government has introduced two programs: the Temporary Foreign Worker Program (TFWP), established in 1973 (Bonti-Ankomah et al., 2017), and the Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP), established in 1967 (Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council, 2017). These programs bring in workers from countries in the global South to provide inexpensive farm labour. Agricultural production in Canada is likely to continue to contribute to the national economy (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2017). In 2017, the Canadian agriculture and agri-food system totaled 6.7% of Canada’s total gross domestic product (GDP), generating $111.9 billion, and accounting for 12.5% of Canadian employment (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2017). The three main commodity groups in Canada: oilseeds and oilseed products; grains and 6 grain products; and live animals, red meat and other animal products, account for almost two-thirds of Canadian agriculture and agri-food exports (Bonti-Ankomah et al., 2017). The largest manufacturing industry in Canada is the food and beverage processing industry; with over half the value of their shipments in 2016 attributed to meat, dairy and beverage processing (Bonti-Ankomah et al., 2017). Retail food prices have been increasing in Canada (accounting for inflation), while the number of Canadian food stores has declined (Bonti-Ankomah et al., 2017). The value of Canada’s primary agricultural production is an important part of the country’s international trade and over one half of it is currently exported (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2017). In 2016 the value of agriculture and agri-food exports from Canada were at $56.0 billion, and the value of imports were $44.4 billion (Bonti-Ankomah et al., 2017); these exports have tripled in the last 30 years but imports have increased by three and a half times (National Farmers Union, 2019a). International market demands have changed agricultural production and the Canadian agri-food industry, with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and various other policies playing an important role (Bonti-Ankomah et al., 2017). This national focus on exports affects food self-sufficiency by diminishing support for agriculture intended for the domestic market. For example, the specific obligations of the WTO and NAFTA create obstacles for smaller-scale producers and processers, by challenging the legality of any institutional procurement policies where domestic food sources are favoured over imports for hospital, prison, and campus policies food services. Reports on food issues at the Canadian level often have a particular focus; for example, the economy, food security or health, and do not encompass all parts of a food system; however, all of these issues do interact (Levkoe et al., 2017). The National Farmer Union (NFU) and Food Secure Canada (FSC) are two organizations that provide critical analyses of aspects of the Canadian food system. NFU is an organization made up of Canadian farmers representing all commodities produced in this country; their mandate is to work together to achieve fair agricultural policies for farming families, thereby increasing food sovereignty in Canada (National Farmers Union, 2019a). FSC is an alliance of organizations and individuals across Canada working to advance food security and food sovereignty through advocacy. NFU describes the changes to the food system in the last 30 years as dramatic (2019a), providing the following examples: one in five farms have been lost; the average age of farmers has increased; there have been big shifts in Canada’s once 100% Canadian owned processing sector; and 78% of Canada’s grocery business is now controlled by five transnational corporations. Looking at just one commodity, beef, the changes include the consolidation of 95% of Canada’s beef slaughter capacity to two transnational corporations, enabling them to 7 capture almost all of the profits. The result is that beef farmers are paid less than before, while beef consumers are paying more (National Farmers Union, 2019a). Statistics like this are alarming, and the NFU considers them to be the result of Canadian food and agriculture policy regulations being strongly influenced by the transnational agri-business lobby (National Farmers Union, 2019a). FSC has been advocating for a national food policy over the last 15 years and has participated in consultations in 2017 with the Government of Canada to prepare A Food Policy for Canada (Food Secure Canada, 2019; Government of Canada, 2018). Some of the challenges highlighted by FSC are the impact that low income has on diet and health, and how people’ food choices affect the environment (Food Secure Canada, 2019b). FSC would like to change Canada’s food policy to one that would build a healthy, just and sustainable food system. Some of FSC’s goals include: focus on the domestic market; ensuring fair livelihoods for farmers, and shifting to climate friendly methods in agriculture (Martorell, 2017). Achieving the above, however, would require Canada to shift from its “free trade” agenda (National Farmers Union, 2017, para. 5). The Government of Canada’s new Food Guide, which provides recommendations for healthy food choices (Canada, 2018b), has been described by Diana Bronson and Melana Roberts from Food Secure Canada as “a significant step in the right direction” to prioritize transparency and the public interest over profits of the agri-food industry they also praise the food guide for beginning to make connections between various aspects of the food system such as health, food security and agriculture (2019). 2.3 The food system in British Columbia British Columbia’s (BC) eight diverse agricultural regions allow for varied agricultural production. Over 200 crops are grown, with the top ones being, in order, farmed salmon, dairy products, chickens, greenhouse vegetables, floriculture and beef (AgriService BC, 2018). Sweet cherries and grapes, both important crops in the Okanagan, are ranked 11th and 12th on the list, and apples are ranked 14th (AgriService BC, 2018). In 2017, sales in BC included $3.2 billion in agriculture farm cash receipts1, $1.18 billion in seafood, and $9.8 billion in food and beverage processing sales; with total revenues of $14.19 billion (AgriService BC, 2018). In BC the average farm size is 148 hectares (AgriService BC, 2018). The average age of farmers in BC is 56 and there are a total of 26,430 operators (AgriService BC, 2018). 1 Average gross farm receipts represent the size of the agricultural economy, because they represent the average farm income received from the sale of agricultural commodities as well as direct payments made to support or subsidizes the agricultural sector (Statistics Canada, 2017). 8 Over 30 years ago, in reaction to agricultural land being lost to development, the provincial government enacted the Agricultural Land Commission Act and the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) Land Use Regulation. This sets the legislative framework for the preservation of agricultural land and specifies the uses permitted on this land, which can be characterized as those that support agricultural use only (Agricultural Land Commission, 2019a). Nonetheless there have been incursions by development into the ALR, although fewer than what might have happened without this legislation. To overcome some of the other challenges the province is facing, the current Ministry of Agriculture has developed the Grow BC, Feed BC, and Buy BC initiatives to better the agri-food sector and increase the production and sale of BC food and beverage products in the domestic market (BC Ministry of Agriculture, 2019c). Grow BC will help young farmers, food and beverage processors, and nut growers to expand local food production (BC Ministry of Agriculture, 2019c). Feed BC will increase institutional procurement of provincial food; and Buy BC will help re-establish the Buy BC brand to enhance the marketing of BC products (BC Ministry of Agriculture, 2019c). 2.4 The food system in the North Okanagan 2.4.1 The regional district and its people The Regional District of the North Okanagan (RDNO) is located in the Southern Interior of British Columbia (BC) (see Figure 1 and 2). The northern ends of Kalamalka and Okanagan Lakes are located in the southwestern portion of the North Okanagan, and the Shuswap River watershed encompasses much of the remainder. The land area of the RDNO is 7,503 square kilometers (750,260ha) (BC Ministry of Agriculture, 2017a). 9 Figure 1: Map2 of British Columbia showcasing the RDNO in the Southern Interior Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence – British Columbia. Figure 2: Map of the Regional District of the North Okanagan Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence – British Columbia. As of 2016, the approximate number of residents in the RDNO was 84,354, growing by 3.8% since 2011, and continued rapid population growth is expected for the region (Statistics Canada, 2017b). The six municipalities are Vernon (population 48,073), Coldstream (10,648), Lumby (1,303), Armstrong (5,114), Spallumcheen (5,106) and Enderby (2,964) (Statistics 2 The maps in Figure 1 and Figure 2 were created by Adam Fage and Eva-Lena Lang using mapping software QGIS. The map layers are published under the BC open government license: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/data/open-data/open-government-licence-bc. The Agriculture Land Commission polygon was retrieved from: https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/alc-alr-polygons The regional district data was retrieved from: https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/regional-district-boundaries-road-centreline-aligned 10 Canada, 2017a). Additionally, there are five rural electoral areas (B: BX/Swan Lake, C: BX/Silver Star, D: Rural Lumby, E: Cherryville, and F: Rural Enderby). Of the population, 15.1% (11,890 people) are classified as low income, meaning their after-tax income is $22,460 or less (Statistics Canada, 2017b). In the Okanagan Health Service Delivery Area (HSDA), which includes the North, Central and South Okanagan, the rates of people eating less than five fruit and vegetables a day in 2016 was 76% (Interior Health, 2017). 2.4.2 Food system components This section presents an overview of the food system components, including producers, processors, wholesalers/ distributors, retailer, services and consumers. Producers Food production is one of the main economic drivers in the North Okanagan, with total gross farm receipts in the region estimated at $151,684,861 in 2016 (BC Ministry of Agriculture, 2017a). Historically, the North Okanagan was identified early on in settler history as a good region for farming due to its fertile soil, the availability of water for irrigation, and a relatively mild climate. Warm summers and mild winters result in a long growing season from April until October. This allows farmers to grow a diverse range of products, including meat (beef, poultry, sheep, etc.), dairy, forage, cereals, oilseeds, fruits, berries, nuts, wine grapes, vegetables and other horticultural products (BC Ministry of Agriculture, 2013). The number of farms in the RDNO totaled 1227 in 2006, 1167 in 2011, and decreased to 1039 in 2016, a decrease of 5% and 11% over the two time periods (Statistics Canada, 2017). Small scale farms and larger operations are both evident in the RDNO (Lawseth et al., 2015b). The average farm size in the RDNO in 2006 was 62.4 ha, 72.3 ha in 2011 and 78.3 ha in 2016, indicating that farms are getting larger. Still, this is small compared to the average farm size in BC of 147.8 ha (BC Ministry of Agriculture, 2017a). The average gross farm receipts from RDNO was $108,098 in 2011, and the % average gross margin3 was 11%, which is lower than the BC average gross farm receipts of $148,585, although the province has an identical % gross margin of 11%; and much lower than both the 3 Percentage (or %) gross margin is the percentage dollar value remaining after subtracting total operating expenses from total gross farm receipts for all agriculture in a region. It is a means of comparing profitability (Statistics Canada, 2017). 11 Canadian averages of $248,383 and 17% (Statistics Canada, 2017). Many food producers are forced to rely on off-farm income to meet expenses (Nyberg-Smith, 2007). To summarize, farms in the North Okanagan are relatively marginal, being on average smaller in size and lower in gross farm receipts (i.e. contribution to the agricultural economy) and in % gross margin (i.e. relative profitability) compared to both BC and Canadian farms (BC Ministry of Agriculture, 2012, 2013; Statistics Canada, 2017). Processors Food processing is a smaller industrial sector than food production in the North Okanagan, with an estimated total of 92 processors tallied in 2019 (L. Code, personal communication, May 13th, 2019). Some of the processors obtain their ingredients from local sources and some do not. Similarly, their markets range from local to international. Some of the larger processors produce flour, beer, meat products, animal feed and cheese. The smallest food processors may sell their food products at the farmer’s markets only; these products include preserves, honey, cheese, meats, alcoholic beverages, spices and teas (RDNO, 2016a). Wholesalers/Distributors In 2001, there were 50 wholesalers in the North Okanagan who were responsible for the long-term or short-term storage of a variety of food products before their distribution to the consumption end of the food value chain (Nyberg-Smith, 2007). These wholesalers handle a variety of goods, from organic to non-organic. Retailers In 2007, there were 36 mainstream food retail outlets and 18 alternative retailers in the regional district (Nyberg-Smith, 2007). Of the mainstream outlets, most large chain stores are in the north end of Vernon, with small chain stores located in four neighbourhood locations around Vernon and in the downtown cores of Enderby, Armstrong and Lumby. Alternative retailers include direct marketing outlets such as farmer’s markets, U-pick and farm gate sales and box delivery schemes. There are thriving farmer’s and public markets during the growing season in Vernon, Coldstream, Armstrong, Spallumcheen, Cherryville, Enderby, Kingfisher and Lumby. There are also indoor winter farmer’s markets in Vernon, Armstrong and Enderby. At least 21 identified farms in the North Okanagan provided the opportunity for U-pick and farm gate sales of their products in 2007, another way of linking consumers to farms (Nyberg-Smith, 2007). Box delivery schemes may be linked to Community 12 Supported Agriculture (CSA), but they also may not. As of 2016, 288 farms in the North Okanagan were recorded in the Census of Agriculture as selling directly to consumers: 67 at farmers markets, 23 farms also selling value-added products, and 12 using Community Shared Agriculture (BC Ministry of Agriculture, 2017a). Services Although there are a variety of food services, including restaurants, cafes and caterers recorded for the North Okanagan, only a handful emphasize their use of local food. Consumers Regional consumers like to support the agriculture sector, and many have a preference for local food (Lawseth et al., 2015b). An estimated $300 million are spent regionally on food products annually (Lawseth et al., 2015b), but only a small portion is captured by the region’s businesses. 2.4.3 Opportunities and challenges for the food system A review4 of over a dozen planning documents and consultation documents of the past ten years show that there is a shared enthusiasm throughout the North Okanagan for developing a stronger regional food system. However, the same review highlights a number of opportunities and challenges which will be described below in the following order: 1. Production 2. Processing, Wholesale and Distribution 3. Consumption 4. Organizing across the North Okanagan food system Production Protecting farmland, especially the Agricultural Land Reserve The North Okanagan has several fertile valleys, including the Coldstream Valley, Shuswap River Valley and Spallumcheen Valley. The mountainous topography of the North Okanagan results in widely different agricultural capabilities, with the region’s land categories ranging from prime agricultural areas to grazing, forested and stony areas (Smith, Lawseth, de la Salle, & Marshall, 2015a). In 2016, 81,336, or 11% of the total area of the RDNO, was 4 Lang, E. and Stockdale, M. (2017). Growing the local food economy in the North Okanagan: A summary report of consultation on opportunities and challenges in the regional food system and recommendations for the future. 13 actively farmed. This total amount of farmland was 12,415 ha more than the amount of Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) in the region, an area of 68,921 ha, or 9% of the total land area (BC Ministry of Agriculture, 2017a). In the North Okanagan, most of the ALR is located in the valley bottoms where non-farm development pressure has also been high. In the five years between 2011 and 2016, there has been no net loss of ALR land in the region; in fact, there has been a 0.04% net gain of 26 ha (Okanagan Valley Interregional Monitoring and Evaluation Framework, 2017). This is a sign that support for the ALR and farming is high in the North Okanagan, and the strong ALR protection policies have worked. Support for emerging farmers Not enough young or new people are choosing farming as a career, and the result is that there are fewer and fewer farmers available to work in the North Okanagan (Lawseth et al., 2015b). Emerging farmers need a variety of supports. They need education, training and mentorship, as well as access to credit for land, infrastructure, equipment and supplies. The RDNO Regional Agriculture Plan (RAP) highlights the need for ensuring affordable and accessible farmland for young farmers in the North Okanagan (Lawseth et al., 2015b). Leasing land creates instability for farmers as they have no long-term security for their business and cannot invest in infrastructure, or in longer processes like the transition to certified organic status. Sustaining farmers Small scale farming, a common form of farming in the North Okanagan, struggles in the current industrialized, global food system (Lawseth et al., 2015b). The low cost of imported food to the region makes it difficult to persuade people to pay more for local food. As a result, farmers are on a treadmill to keep up with the shifting market trends as well as keep their prices low; they can’t “just farm” anymore and often depend on off-farm jobs. There is a need for support for the marketing challenges faced by existing farm operators. One challenge is that “the majority of small-scale produce growers are unable to provide enough quantity of product for export out of the region independently, or for selling to retail outlets and restaurants on a consistent basis” (Lawseth et al., 2015b, p. 19). Another challenge is that direct marketing – the farmers selling their own products – can also be prohibitive in terms of the time and energy it takes. Small to medium sized producers do not have much of a market within the region other than farmers’ markets farmgate sales and CSAs. In a survey conducted in 2007, North Okanagan farmer respondents stated that it was easier to export their 14 goods out of the region than engage in direct marketing, due to the additional costs of selling locally, such as advertising, transport, storage, packaging and more (Nyberg-Smith, 2007). Another challenge is that some types of local producers can’t keep up to year-round demand for products but can only supply them seasonally (Nyberg-Smith, 2007). It is also becoming more expensive to farm, as the cost of land, equipment and labor increases (also taxes and inputs). Farms must often become larger to be profitable, but in the North Okanagan land is expensive (Nyberg-Smith, 2007). There’s also a growing reliance on increasingly expensive equipment and its associated technology. Finally, there is a shortage of seasonal farm workers, and access to skilled and affordable labour and farmers rely on the Temporary Foreign Farm Worker Program and the Seasonal Agriculture Worker Program for labourers (Nyberg-Smith, 2007; Smith, Andrea, de la Salle, & Marshall, 2015c). Diversifying farmers’ business opportunities There is a need to support farmers in diversifying their business opportunities, these include exploring options for value-added food processing opportunities for processing and value-added (Smith et al., 2015c). There is also great opportunity for growth in agri-tourism, as tourists value the region’s connection to agriculture, enjoying tours of the farms and processing facilities, and sampling foods and beverages on-site (Okanagan Valley Economic Development Society, 2015). Sustainable agriculture, water and climate change Farmers are interested in growing food in a sustainable manner, and community members are interested in having sustainable agricultural practices in the region (Smith et al., 2015a). Challenges to agriculture include high irrigation needs, stony and hard clay soils, steep slopes, shallow soils, poor drainage, invasive species and predator threats to livestock. A number of farms in the region have taken part in the BC Environmental Farm Plan Program. This is a “voluntary program that assists farmers in developing an environmental action plan for their farm that enhances natural resources and reduces the possibility of accidental harm to soil, air, water and biodiversity values”(Smith et al., 2015a, p. 17). The North Okanagan has several lakes and streams, including Okanagan Lake, Kalamalka Lake, Sugar Lake, Mabel Lake, Shuswap River, Waby Lake, Fortune Creek and Deep Creek. In 2015, 46% of monitored water in the RDNO was consumed for agricultural uses, with 8960 ha of farmland under irrigation (RDNO, 2016a). Within the Spallumcheen Valley’s main land use agricultural irrigation uses the largest proportion of source water demands (Smith et al., 2015a). The Shuswap River flows through fertile agricultural land and a number of farms 15 draw water from the river for irrigation in the late summer and early fall; this has the ability to significantly reduce in-stream flows (Smith et al., 2015a). The long-term availability of water will affect the future of agriculture in the region. Water management challenges are only going to be of increasing concern, as water withdrawals will significantly increase with population growth and increased use of agricultural land. Access to water for irrigation is a concern for farmers in the region. According to the Coldstream Agriculture Plan, it is important to “maintain an agriculture voice in decision-making around water” (City of Coldstream, 2009). Agriculture is vulnerable to climatic conditions and farmers are facing more challenges as climate change, extreme weather events and water supply variability threatens farm viability, food production and the local economy (Smith et al., 2015a). Climate change impacts will include a greater risk of both droughts, wildfires, landslides and flooding. The RDNO Regional Agriculture Plan (2015) identifies climate change resilience and sustainable agriculture as a priority for the region. Processing, Wholesale and Distribution The challenge for a regional food system is to increase the quantity of food products flowing between local producers and consumers, through the growth of a local food processing, warehousing and distribution sector, which provides additional jobs and economic growth (Baumbrough et al., 2009). Support for local food processors There is a need for more support for the small and medium scale processing, in the North Okanagan. This includes support in business development, training, accessing facilities, equipment, labour and raw food supplies, as in dealing with government policies and regulations. To date, these trade-focused policies and regulations tend to favour big processors. Shortage of small-scale meat processors Custom meat processing has decreased sharply since the Meat Inspection Regulations (MIR) were fully implemented in 2007 to support food safety. “The small scale, local producer needs custom slaughter capacity: the ability to have a potentially small number of livestock of a variety of species slaughtered and have his own animal returned to him at a reasonable cost” (Johnson, 2008, p. 2). As a result of the MIR, producers were discouraged from raising livestock and poultry as there were no nearby facilities for slaughter, and cattle ranching operations declined by half between 2001-2011 (Smith et al., 2015a). 16 The need for wholesale and distribution at the regional scale Food hubs, combining the functions of wholesaling and distribution, play an important role in the regional food system; however, they do not exist in the North Okanagan. Food hubs provide storage facility and distribution infrastructure to connect small and medium scale farms and processors to institutions, retailers and food services (Mittal, Krejci & Craven, 2018). Consumption There are two distinct consumption issues to consider when attempting to develop the regional food economy: one is increasing access to local food for consumers in the general public; the other is increasing access to local food for consumers experiencing the challenges of a low income, including food insecurity. Access to local food for the general public Agricultural land in the Okanagan is able to support a wide range of food products. Many local producers and processors have indicated that they are willing to sell locally, and most do retail at least a portion of their product within the region (Nyberg-Smith, 2007). However, consumers have identified that it is challenging to find local products within the region (Nyberg-Smith, 2007). There are several ways in which consumers may access local food: through mainstream retailers, through alternative retailers and through food services. 1. Mainstream retailers: Consumers can’t always get access to local foods in traditional retail outlets (Nyberg-Smith, 2007). Also, consumers find that they often cannot identify local products, since this information is not always clearly displayed. 2. Alternative retailers: There are a number of successful alternative retailers such as the popular Vernon Farmers’ Market. The limitations of farmer’s markets are that consumers cannot always access them during the markets’ limited opening hours. Also, farmer’s markets have faced difficulties in the NO in finding a suitable permanent location that is covered and heated for use in the winter season. Farmers also need help in developing the needed infrastructure to extend the growing season to supply these winter markets. 3. Services: Cafeterias in large institutions like the Vernon Jubilee Hospital or UBC Okanagan Campus use large distributors that don’t often access local products. This is true of almost all of the other small restaurants, caterers and food vendors, as well. 17 Consumer education Consumer education is a key theme (Baumbrough et al., 2009; Nyberg-Smith, 2007). With $300 million spent annually on food products in the North Okanagan every year, there is the potential to capture more of these dollars locally and keep them circulating within the region; this is called the multiplier effect (Lawseth et al., 2015b). There is also a need to create awareness of the issues facing local producers and processors. Support for local producers and processor needs to be encouraged, and relationships between consumers and their local food suppliers built. Food insecurity Food insecurity has been identified as an issue in the North Okanagan (Nyberg-Smith, 2007). Low-income families are least able to meet their nutritional needs, as they do not receive government assistance, but they also do not have enough income to provide sufficient nutritious food for themselves. Few resources are targeted for the “working poor” who are not likely to access services because they are working or for reasons of stigma (Nyberg-Smith, 2007). Other community members that have challenges accessing nutritious food are people on social assistance, people with disabilities, single parent homes, children and seniors. The North Okanagan has a high percentage of seniors, single parents, low-income earners and a high proportion of recipients on income assistance and employment insurance benefits (Nyberg-Smith, 2007), which is probably directly related to the statistic indicating that people of this region are in the worst 25% of the province in eating less than 5 fruits and vegetables per day. People’s access to healthier foods (including locally produced food) is compromised by lack of transportation options, the cost of such foods, and their own food storage and cooking capacity. In 2015, a family of four spent $974/month in BC; and $969 in the Okanagan (an increase of $61 from 2013 for BC) (PHSA, 2016). Organizing across the North Okanagan food system According to the North Okanagan’s Regional Agriculture Plan (RAP), many of the challenges and opportunities faced by farmers can be addressed by a strengthened regional food system (Lawseth et al., 2015b). This echoes the claim of the North Okanagan Food System Plan that: “a strong regional food system will support local farmers and rural economies, maintain rural landscapes, improve access to local, fresh food, protect the environment, and contribute to a sense of pride in the uniqueness of the North Okanagan region” (Baumbrough et al., 2009, p. 19). There are many suggestions as to how this is to be done. As mentioned in the RDNO 18 RAP, there is a need for a detailed agricultural economic development strategy to support local agricultural enterprises and their vision statement5 highlights the importance of connections within the food system (2015). The Coldstream Agriculture Plan lays out the importance of Local Government Partnerships; stating that the various communities and districts in the North Okanagan should be encouraged to collaborate and work on the various agricultural plans and their recommendations together (2009). The RDNO Food System Workshop Report urges stakeholders to take action; including community organizations, farmers and other businesses, developers, schools, universities, and various levels of government (RDNO, 2014). It was in the context of this consensus, the need to organize across the North Okanagan food system, that the L2T Network was formed. 2.5 The North Okanagan Land to Table Network The North Okanagan L2T Network, previously named the North Okanagan Food Systems Initiative (NOFSI), is a new (January 2018) network composed of stakeholders from across the regional food system. It has grassroots beginnings; members have been meeting around kitchen tables since 2015, inspired by the idea that a well-connected and coordinated network, sharing a common agenda, can together develop a food system that is economically prosperous, environmentally sustainable and socially accessible. The timeline for the formation of L2T is described in Table 1 as well as in subsequent sections. 5 Regional Agriculture Plan (2015, p. 11) vision statement: “By 2035, agriculture is an important part of the North Okanagan’s past, present, and future identity and offers everyone an opportunity to become connected to the local food system. The land base is affordable for farms of all sizes and profitable agricultural businesses thrive with support from government policies and regulations. Sustainable production practices ensure resilience in the face of climate change and provide residents and visitors with a diversity of healthy food and related agricultural crops”. 19 Table 1: Timeline for the formation of the Land to Table network 2015 • I convened a kitchen table study circle to look at the concept of Collective Impact, and whether it had relevance for the North Okanagan. 2016 • Several of the study circle members convened a meeting of key North Okanagan food system stakeholders, to explore their interest in building the region's food system through Collective Impact. 2017 • An organizing committee formed to organise the Growing the Local Food Economy (GLFE) Forum. • Community Futures of the North Okanagan was selected as a host organization for the organizing committee. • Mary Stockdale and I wrote A Summary Report of Consultations on Opportunities and Constraints in the Regional Food System and Recommendations for the Future. 2018 • The Organizing Committee held the first Growing the Local Food Economy Forum. • The Land to Table Network (L2T) was established with a Steering Committee and a hired Coordinator. • We secured funding from Regional District of the North Okanagan and Real Estate Foundation. • The coordinator facilitated follow-up meetings with four working groups to prioritize actions. • I began the field work component of my Master’s research also involved meetings in the community. 2019 • Action teams are carrying on the prioritized actions. • L2T hosted the second annual Growing Local Connections between Food and the Environment (GCLFE) Forum. 2.5.1 How it all began: the study circle After moving back to the North Okanagan in 2015, I felt motivated to be involved with the community in a meaningful way. I therefore enrolled in a distance certification program coordinated by Simon Fraser University for which I was required to complete a community organizing project in my own community. I decided to gather several prominent local food advocates together to participate in a study circle in November 2015, to discuss the Vermont Farm to Plate Network6: a Collective Impact initiative. More information about the study circle, a DD tool, can be found in Section 4.2.4. This small group of community members became inspired by the concept of Collective Impact and its potential to transform the food system. As a result, members of this group made a commitment to explore whether we could make it happen in the North Okanagan. 6 For more information please see the Vermont Farm to Plate Network website: http://www.vtfarmtoplate.com 20 2.5.2 A meeting of key food system stakeholders Three of us organized a meeting of key North Okanagan food system stakeholders on November 9th, 2016, at Okanagan College in Vernon, to explore whether this idea could attract the interest and support of others. We invited sixteen people, all involved in some aspect of the regional food system in the North Okanagan, to discuss the potential for building our food system through collective impact. At this meeting, the three of us gave a 20-minute presentation on Collective Impact and described the case study from Vermont, where benefits to the state’s food economy over a ten year period included: an increase of $176 million (increasing by 12.9%) in local food purchases and 6,559 new jobs (increasing by 9.9%) in food-related businesses (Vermont Farm to Plate, 2018). Following advice from Vermont, we had decided to start our food system work by addressing the local food economy first; the idea being that once food system members, such as farmers and processors, were more stable economically, it would become easier to turn our collective attention to addressing the food system’s environmental and social issues. After our presentations, we asked the stakeholders for their input. After much discussion, the group recommended the following steps: 1. Form a smaller organizing committee. This committee was formed soon after the meeting. 2. Select a host organization. This was done to facilitate grant applications and financial administration. We chose Community Futures of the North Okanagan as the best fit, for the initial stages. 3. Commission a summary report. In the meeting, the participants with the most experience in working on these issues requested the first step be to review and summarize the information that was already available from previous workshops, meetings and consultations. The general message was: “No more talking, we’ve done enough of that already; go back and look at all the talking we’ve done over the past years. What we want now is action!” The organizing committee therefore applied for a grant from RDNO to hire a consultant to write the summary report. This application was successful, and the report was written by myself as the consultant, together with Mary Stockdale. This report is discussed below. 4. Organize a major regional forum. The final recommendation from this meeting was to organize a larger forum of food system stakeholders to discuss the recommendations from the summary report and develop a plan for action. 21 2.5.3 The summary report We completed the report in draft form, titled A Summary Report of Consultations on Opportunities and Constraints in the Regional Food System and Recommendations for the Future, in December 2017. The purpose of this summary report was to compile information from a number of consultations related to the regional food system of the North Okanagan that had taken place over the previous ten years (from 2007-2017). In all, there were 12 main documents, as well as a number of other ones. Four of the reports used in this review were focused on agriculture, three of those being agriculture plans; two extended the scope to the food system as a whole, while one included an examination of food security. The objectives for this report were to: ● Compile and present the reports’ main points regarding opportunities and challenges for the region’s food system (related to developing the local food economy as well as the associated themes of environmental sustainability and accessibility to food for all). ● List their recommendations for future action. Important points on opportunities and challenges facing the food system, as well as recommendations for improvement, were identified from each report; these were analyzed in terms of how often they were mentioned in the various reports, as well as the level of priority they appeared to have been given. Although there were some differences between reports, many of the reports came to similar conclusions – not altogether surprising, given that the reports were likely not written in isolation of the others. Some of the recommendations have been acted upon by RDNO. The report also reviewed what had and had not been completed by 2017. 2.5.4 The “Growing the Local Food Economy” Forum The “Growing the Local Food Economy” forum was held in January 27th, 2018, with over 85 participants including food producers, processors, wholesalers, distributors, retailers, and chefs, as well as people from government, non-profits and academic institutions. The forum’s objectives were to: 1. Learn about the role of Collective Impact (and networks) in strengthening the food system in Vermont from keynote speaker Curtis Ogden; 2. Prioritize actions to take forward, drawing from the summary report’s recommendations. 22 1. Learn about the role of Collective Impact (and networks) from keynote speaker Curtis Ogden Since we had been originally inspired by the Vermont Farm to Plate Initiative and its implementation of Collective Impact, we reached out to that group to find a keynote speaker for the forum, hoping to inform and inspire our region as a whole. We were put in contact with Curtis Ogden from the Interaction Institute for Social Change, who had been involved with the Vermont Farm to Plate Network (VF2PN) as a professional facilitator from the onset of the initiative. C. Ogden introduced us to the concept of networks. For Curtis, this topic was where the excitement now lay, and he told us he would prefer to talk about food system networks rather than Collective Impact. As a result of our early conversations with Curtis, we incorporated a new objective into our forum: to talk about the potential for building a similar network in the North Okanagan. At this time, I was at the early stages of my Master’s, and was interested in coordinating my research efforts with the ongoing food system efforts in the North Okanagan. I became interested in this concept of network building, and began to explore it as a possible topic for my research. 2. Prioritize actions from the forum to take forward, drawing from the summary report’s recommendations The summary report provided a solid foundation for forum participants to build a plan of action. At the forum, Mary Stockdale and I presented the main findings of the summary report. After our presentation, participants moved to their pre-selected working groups to do some action planning. The five working groups (which eventually led to the focus groups of this Masters’ research, see Section 4.3) were developed from the five sections of the summary report; and titled as: Sustain the Farmers; Support the Processors; Develop the ‘Middle’: Wholesalers, Distributors, Retailers and Chefs; Engage the Consumers; and Build the Network. Each of the ten working group tables consisted of 6-12 people. The discussions amongst the ten tables were guided by a table facilitator and a workbook based on one of the five working group themes. These workbooks listed all the recommendations from the summary report that were related to their particular theme. Participants were asked to discuss the list of recommendations in the workbook, and then identify their priority actions. The intended outcome of the table discussions was to identify prioritized short, medium and long-term actions for each working group theme, with added details on how to approach these actions. 23 2.5.5 After the “Growing the Local Food Economy” Forum After the forum, the North Okanagan Food System Initiative (NOFSI) was formed, together with a Steering Committee for taking the initiative forward. As of March, 2019, NOFSI was re-branded as the North Okanagan L2T, and for the sake of clarity this is the name that will be used throughout this thesis. The Steering Committee produced a forum report listing the short, medium and long term actions identified by stakeholders at the forum. They also submitted grant applications to RDNO and Real Estate Foundation (REF), both of which were successful. This enabled them to hire a Coordinator who will be working for L2T until March 2020. After hiring the Coordinator, the group had greater capacity to follow up on the forum. Meetings with the first four forum working groups were organized to discuss how to carry forward the priority actions identified in the workbooks. By this time I had developed my ideas for my Master’s research, and wanted to focus on mapping and building the regional food system network. I decided to integrate my research into these meetings, treating four of the five working groups as my four focus groups and the Build the Network working group as my Community Advisory Committee. All the five groups worked on the participatory network mapping of the food system network, and the Community Advisory Committee also worked further on developing recommendations using the build the network framework. These methods are covered in detail in Section 4.4.1 and 4.4.2. 2.6 Summary Food systems, whether at the national, provincial or regional levels, are impacted by today’s global food system in a variety of ways, leading to opportunities as well as challenges. In the North Okanagan, I, together with a number of other community members, began a process in 2015 of strengthening our regional food system through Collective Impact. Over time we learned that a network is considered an effective way to do this. I therefore chose to undertake my Master’s research project on how to map and build a network for our food system. In Chapter 3 I explore the literature in the following areas: problems in the food system, Collective Impact, and networks. 24 Chapter 3: Literature Review 3.1 Overview Following the previous chapter’s discussion of the background to this research project, this literature review begins with an analysis of the problems in the global food system, leading to one of the more popular reactions, or solutions, currently being proposed: that of strengthening regional food systems. This is followed by two sections discussing the concepts of Collective Impact and network building, both of which are considered effective approaches to supporting positive change in regional food systems. This leads to the final section, where I conclude with their application in actual food system case studies. 3.2 Problems in the food system The food system is complex within its many interrelated functions including production, consumption and waste management, amongst others (McCullum et al., 2005). There are various scales of food systems including local, national and global (McCullum et al., 2005). The food system consists of interactions between its multiple processes, inputs and outputs, and is influenced by the many environments that it operates in (Wilkins & Eames-Sheavly, 2000) 3.2.1 Development of the corporate food regime After the Second World War a number of technological, social and economic drivers led to the development of a new form of agricultural production (Sage, 2011). Farming has developed from a small-scale model to a large-scale industrial model, which is dominated by capital-intensive efficiency to the detriment of environmental health (Pawlick, 2006). The technological drivers include: increased mechanization based on fossil fuels, high-input cultivation methods involving chemical fertilizers, pesticides and commercial seed varieties; all leading to the industrialization of agriculture and its spread around the world via the Green Revolution (Holt Giménez & Shattuck, 2011; Sage, 2011). The use of expensive technology across the entire agri-food system has also increased (Sage, 2011). The number of people involved in farming has decreased with the “mechanization, capitalization and consolidation of smaller farms into bigger ones” since the Second World War (Pawlick, 2006, p. 163). This has led to increased migration to urban areas for job access (Pimbert, 2008). Other social drivers are altered food purchasing behaviour; and other changes in consumer behaviour (e.g. consumers favouring one-stop shopping) (Sage, 2011). Economic drivers have been influenced by increasing corporate control as mergers and acquisitions of agrifood corporations have grown, and global markets have become more 25 unregulated (ETC Group & IPES-Food, 2017; Sage, 2011). By integrating horizontally (companies within the same industry) or vertically (companies within the same value chain) companies gain more strength and this allows them to control still more of the market (ETC Group & IPES-Food, 2017). Corporate concentration is occurring in the following sectors: seeds and agrochemicals, fertilizers, livestock genetics, animal pharmaceuticals, farm machinery, agriculture commodity traders, food and beverage processors, and food retailer; within these sectors a few companies have great influence and control over policy (ETC Group & IPES-Food, 2017). The result is a global food system that is both industrial in focus and dominated by corporations; this has been named the “corporate food regime” (Holt Giménez & Shattuck, 2011). 3.2.2 The food crisis and food movements The corporate food regime, with its unregulated markets that disregard social and environmental concerns, has caused a major crisis in our global food system (Holt Giménez & Shattuck, 2011). Mainstream neo-liberal policy has caused the decrease of small-scale food producers and indigenous peoples living off the land in the past 60 years (Pimbert, 2008). It causes exclusion, isolation and inequality amongst individuals (Blay-Palmer, Sonnino, & Custot, 2016). Other significant problems in the modern food system include: malnutrition and food insecurity, food providers receiving lower incomes, the loss of farmers as land and input costs rise and the undermining of prices through subsidies of farmers in developed countries leading to the dumping of cheap food in developing country markets (Hodbod & Eakin, 2015; Pimbert, 2008). Environmental costs associated with the global food system include: natural land and biodiversity loss, soil erosion, fisheries in crisis, water use and pollution, increase of invasive species and genetically modified organisms, and climate change (Hodbod & Eakin, 2015; Pimbert, 2008). Food movements have formed as a reaction to the corporate food regime’s social and environmental failures. According to Holt Giménez & Shattuck (2011), food movement trends that have formed include the ‘reformist’ reaction of food security, the ‘progressive’ movement of food justice and the ‘radical’ movement of food sovereignty. The ‘reformist’ reaction of food security calls for voluntary, mild reforms to the corporate food regime (Holt Giménez & Shattuck, 2011). These reforms attempt to address problems in sustainability and poor equity by increasing emergency aid, investing in agricultural development and liberalizing trade (Holt Giménez & Shattuck, 2011). Food banks are an example of a reformist reaction to food security, established as a temporary measure to tackle food insecurity (Cook, 2005). However it has 26 been argued that the implementation of effective and long-term food security processes have been avoided by governments due to the existence of programs like food banks that do not tackle the root causes of the issues (Cook, 2005). While food security addresses the need for access to healthy, culturally appropriate and affordable food, food justice places this need “in the contexts of institutional racism, racial formation, and racialized geographies” (Alkon & Norgaard, 2009, p. 289). Actors, often at the grassroots level (such as food policy councils), involved in the ‘progressive’ movement of food justice are working to “advance practical alternatives to industrial agri-foods, such as sustainable, agroecological and organic agriculture and farmer-consumer community food networks – largely within the economic and political frameworks of existing capitalist food systems” and the “right to food and food justice” (Holt Giménez & Shattuck, 2011, p. 115). Institutionalized racism has caused key food producers such as African American farmers and Indigenous fisherman to lose access to land and water, making them unable to access the food they once relied on; their food consumption choices have also been confined by unfavourable economic access (Alkon & Norgaard, 2009). Activists in the ‘progressive’ food justice movements have pursued strategies that include challenging existing policies and developing new policies, creating alternative food systems and developing direct marketing initiatives in sustainable agriculture (Alkon & Norgaard, 2009). Patel, Holt Giménez and Shattuck (2009) state that the ‘radical’ movement is similar to the ‘progressive’ movement, taking action on the basis of structural transformation to a healthier food system but in addition, its focus on food sovereignty calls for change in the market structure, entitlements and redistribution of environmental resources, and the rights to water and seed (as cited in Holt Giménez & Shattuck, 2011). The concept of food sovereignty is different to food security as it considers the rights of people, including their right to decide where their food comes from, how it is produced and who produced it (Pimbert, 2008). At the international scale, La Via Campesina, a network of grassroots organisations has been a leading supporter of the anti-globalisation ‘radical’ movement (Martínez-Torres & Rosset, 2010). This network, which “has been built from the bottom up and is independent of governments, funders, political parties, NGOs, and non-peasant special interests”, has been a leader in promoting food sovereignty (Martínez-Torres & Rosset, 2010, p. 171). 3.2.3 Re-localisation of the food system According to Palmer et al., (2017) many of the challenges of the modern corporate food regime can be addressed by strengthening food systems at a smaller scale. A local food system 27 starts “at the household level and expands to neighbourhood, municipal and regional levels” (Pimbert, 2008, p. 8); they “depend on many different local organizations to co-ordinate food production, storage and distribution, as well as people’s access to food” (p.3). Local “is assumed to be a space, context, or sociocultural process where ethical norms and values can flourish and citizens’ engagements can be fostered, creating trust, networks, and relationships within a community” (as cited in Abate, 2008, p. 387). The terms ‘community’, ‘local’ or ‘regional’, can be used interchangeably, but ‘community’ emphasizes the “relationships between all components of the food system” (Wilkins & Eames-Sheavly, 2000, p. 1). A community food system is about relationships in which stakeholders are integrated within the community, people are connected with their food supply, policy supports local production and processing, and more dollars stay within the community (Garrett, 1999). “Food security, proximity, self-reliance and sustainability” are aspects that “distinguish community food systems from the globalized food system” (Wilkins & Eames-Sheavly, 2000, p. 1). Garrett defines a community food system as “one in which sustainable food production, processing, distribution and consumption are integrated to enhance the environmental, economic, and social and nutritional health of a particular place” (1999, p. 2). Although the concept of a community food system, with its emphasis on strengthened relationships, is what the L2T network is looking to achieve, the term ‘regional food system’ is used throughout the thesis, given that it best defines the geographical boundaries within which L2T, and therefore this research project, are working – that of the Regional District of the North Okanagan. Developing initiatives to strengthen the regional food system can provide communities with benefits; for example, creating jobs, and increased economic development (Phillips & Wharton, 2015); and can also help diminish the negative results of the global food system (Blay-Palmer et al., 2016). The direct contact between consumers and farmers from local enterprises contributes to strengthening community (Lyson, 2012). The food, beverage and hospitality industries engage in spatial branding, and are critical to regional economies, as they shape the quality of life and spirit of communities (Gatrell et. al, 2017). As Palmer et al. state, strengthening the food system at the regional scale “is critical for building more resilient food systems” (2017, p. 188). Local food networks, such as farmers’ markets or CSAs, provide examples of social networks that challenge global food systems, addressing the concerns of consumers, non-economic food values (animal welfare, sustainability), reconnecting producers with consumers (Lindgreen, 2016) and increasing profit margins for farmers (Nelligan, Cameron, Mackinnon, & 28 Vance, 2016). Networks are suggested by Blay-Palmer et al., as a means of decreasing disconnection in the food system by helping individuals and groups connect and communities work together (2016). Local relationships also matter in the passing on of certain forms of knowledge (Carolan, 2011). What local food networks have in common is that they “have the potential to nurture local economic development, maintain diversity and quality in products, and provide forums where producers and consumers can come together to solidify bonds of community” (Lyson, 2012, p. 120). 3.3 Collective Impact 3.3.1 The original concept of Collective Impact Collective Impact provides a framework for collaboration across isolated silos of effort in the name of community change-making (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Compared to other inter-organizational collaboration, “the Collective Impact framework provides a more structured approach” (Salignac, Wilcox, Marjolin, & Adams, 2018, p. 99). The term Collective Impact was first introduced by Kania and Kramer in 2011 in the Stanford Social Innovation Review, and was defined as “the commitment of a group of important actors from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem” (2011). Collective Impact requires the incorporation of a backbone support organization featuring: “a centralized infrastructure, a dedicated staff, and a structured process that leads to a common agenda, shared measurement, continuous communication, and mutually reinforcing activities among all participants” (Kania & Kramer, 2011, p. 38). Easterling highlights that it is the “shared measurement systems and the role of the backbone organizations that sets it apart from other models of network-based collaboration” (Salignac et al., 2018, p. 95). Kania and Kramer’s 2011 article has inspired many initiatives to pursue Collective Impact. Collective Impact has been widely used by groups working together on complex issues in education, environment, health and indigenous communities, in Canada and other countries, including Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States (Addy & Dube, 2018; Amed et al., 2015; Bradbrook, 2019; Demant & Lawrence, 2018; Johansen et al., 2018; Pasini, 2018; Salignac et al., 2018, 2018). Although many groups have used the Collective Impact framework, it is only recently that research has focused on it (Demant & Lawrence, 2018; Klaus & Weaver, 2019; Salignac et al., 2018). Collective Impact has been embraced as a way “to make deep and durable changes in the social, economic, and even environmental challenges facing” communities (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016, p. 1). It can be used to tackle a complex problem through multiple stakeholders 29 (governments, nonprofits, businesses, networks and individuals) working in collaboration on shared objectives, and achieving efficiency by sharing resources to solve the problem (Kania & Kramer, 2011, 2013; Landers, Price, & Minyard, 2018; Salignac et al., 2018). A few examples of complex or wicked problems include income inequality, climate change and other forms of environmental degradation or lack of sustainability (Gray & Purdy, 2018b; Moor, 2018). An interconnection of a number of such complex problems has been found to impact food systems (Hoey, Colasanti, Pirog, & Shapiro, 2016). Stakeholders in Collective Impact may work together in a variety of collectives, including communities, networks and organizations, with communities and networks often being less structured than organizations (Moor, 2018). The terms “coalitions or partnerships are also used to described collaborative structures and processes” (Sagrestano, Clay, & Finerman, 2018, p. 88). Kania and Kramer state that “complex problems can be solved only by cross-sector coalitions that engage those outside the nonprofit sector” as they frequently “arise from the interplay of governmental and commercial activities” (2011, p. 39). Collective Impact initiatives are different from other forms of partnership and collaboration in a number of key ways. First, they are explicit about the importance of having three preconditions in place: funding, influential champions, a sense of urgency for change (Hanleybrown, Kania, & Kramer, 2012). Second, Collective Impact “requires a highly structured process that leads to effective decision making” (Kania & Kramer, 2011, p.40); bringing a specific form of structure to collaboration (Landers et al., 2018). To shift from isolated impact, which is how many organizations approach community change work, to Collective Impact Kania & Kramer (2011) have recommended the following five conditions for success: 1. A common agenda Participants within their own organizations may have different goals amongst themselves but agreeing on and aligning around a primary goal is necessary to achieve Collective Impact (Kania and Kramer, 2011). The different participants must identify and “agree on a common issue and way to address it” (Salignac et al., 2018, p. 95). According to Sagrestano et al., “to be most effective partners must shift from organizing their work within a framework of compartmentalization and isolation, to a framework of mutual priorities, strategies, and commitment” (2018, p. 100). 2. Shared measurement systems Participants in Collective Impact need to develop and implement a shared measurement system. These systems assess the progress of an initiative using a set of metrics, capturing and 30 transparently sharing the successes and failures while keeping everyone involved accountable (Salignac et al., 2018). 3. Mutually reinforcing activities This “refers to the need to build on the strength of each partner organization” (Salignac et al., 2018, p. 95), by organizing the coordination of activities across partners in a strategic and mutually reinforcing manner. 4. Continuous communication There is a need for strong communication skills to build trust (Norris-Tirrell & Clay, 2010), and “effective communication protocols” and information sharing (Koliba et al., 2017). Continuous communication includes regular, structured meetings to build trust and common understanding of each organization’s goals and a common vocabulary (Kania & Kramer, 2011; Salignac et al., 2018). 5. Backbone support organizations Backbone organizations “are facilitators of change and an interest group pushing the agenda of improved integration” (Bradbrook, 2019, p. 37). They are a key component of Collective Impact, and an important part of what they do is to keep members engaged, using rules of engagement (Gillam & Counts, 2019). These central bodies are also responsible for coordination, serving “six main functions: coordinating the development of a common agenda, enabling dialogue among partners, coordinating shared measurement systems and facilitating the collection of data, liaising with external stakeholders, managing community awareness campaigns, and fundraising” (Salignac et al., 2018, p. 95). During the planning process all of the above five conditions should be kept in mind but Kania and Kramer state they do not need to be applied within a specific order (Hoey et al., 2016; Kania & Kramer, 2013). 3.3.2 Development of the concept of Collective Impact Collaborative work for community change, according to Cabaj and Weaver (2016) and Cabaj (2014), was already happening before 2011, but it was Kania and Kramer who first named this work as Collective Impact in their 2011 article. Their article was well received and praised by community change makers for incorporating many of the most challenging components of community change work into a simple framework (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016). However, five years after the Collective Impact framework was introduced, Cabaj and Weaver published a paper in 2016 called “Collective Impact 3.0. Reviewing lessons learned”. In 31 their paper, they cite two separate articles by Tom Wolff (2016) and Schmitz (2014) that had pinpointed the following limitations to Collective Impact: 1. “insufficient attention to the role of community in the change effort; 2. an excessive focus on short-term data; 3. an understatement of the role of policy and systems change; and 4. an over-investment in backbone support” (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016, p. 2). Other challenges that have been identified were that some members did not know how to engage as a partner (Landers et al., 2018); and that, some participants continued with their isolated impact approach despite adopting Collective Impact (Sagrestano et al., 2018). Power imbalances were another factor that needed to be addressed, and there needed to be an improved understanding of who has the “capacity to take action” (Gray & Purdy, 2018a, p. 5; Landers et al., 2018; Sagrestano et al., 2018). In recent years, a number of recommendations and changes to the five conditions for Collective Impact have been published, as outlined in the next section (Cabaj & Weaver, 2016). From management approach to movement building Although there are some necessary management tasks and activities for running an organization, these tasks and activities are less important than fostering improved relationships amongst organizations that have a common vision and similar values across their network (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016). A better approach than focusing on the details of management is movement building, which is about transforming systems, creating a common vision by bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders from across the food system, changing systems rather than just improving them, and creating long-lasting change (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016). From common agenda to community aspiration A common agenda “requires leadership to bring key stakeholders together; to review the key data which informs the problem or issue; to develop a shared vision for change; and to determine the core pathways and strategies that will drive the change forward” (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016, p. 6). However, Cabaj and Weaver (2016) note that too narrow an agenda can cause problems, and that focusing on community aspirations can sometimes have greater impact by developing outcomes based on ambitious community values. The results are often better for members, as they can pursue their interdependent goals under a strong set of community aspirations (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016). 32 From shared measurement systems to strategic learning Where Collective Impact initiatives have failed, participants were frustrated with the lack of results (Cabaj, 2014). A shared measurement system can ensure alignment and maintain accountability amongst participants by measuring and reporting results (Kania and Kramer, 2011). However, according to Cabaj (2014) there are five things to consider when planning for shared measurement: 1. it is important but not essential; 2. it can limit strategic thinking; 3. it requires work at the policy level for systems change; 4. it is time consuming and can be expensive; and 5. it should be kept simple or it can get in the way of action (Cabaj, 2014). A shared measurement system is important, but it is difficult to implement, and there is greater success if it is treated as part of a strategic learning approach (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016, p.7). Landers et al. (2018) recognize that “learning is a critical component that has to be embedded early and engaged in intentionally and often (p. 91). Steering committee members in a Collective Impact initiative in Colorado concluded that members were keen to learn, and the shared measurement system can create energy, though they warned that new data shouldn’t steer the group in the wrong direction (Landers et al., 2018). Strong leadership, funding and administration are needed to “oversee the measurement process, provide stakeholder training for using the system, facilitate the data management process, and systematically review data for accuracy” (Sagrestano, Clay, and Finerman, 2018, p. 92). From mutually reinforcing activities to high leverage activities While undertaking activities specific to them and their skills, participants should coordinate amongst themselves to support each other in creating a mutually reinforcing plan of action (Kania and Kramer, 2011). Issues can be interdependent and are best addressed by combining individual efforts around a common plan. However, one limitation with mutually reinforcing activities is that members focus on opportunities for cooperation and may miss out on other possibly better opportunities for results; a second limitation is that this may exclude independent projects (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016). Cabaj and Weaver (2016) suggest looking “beyond collaboration and instead focus on strategies that focus on high leverage opportunities for change” (p.8). 33 From continuous communication to inclusive community engagement Continuous communication is considered necessary for building trust amongst participants in a Collective Impact initiative (Kania and Kramer, 2011). One criticism with Collective Impact is that the communities that are the subject of the intended Collective Impact have not always been in the center of the process (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016). Collective Impact requires community members, not just key institutional stakeholders, to participate and engage in the process, and, it is critical their “readiness, capacity and willingness is assessed” for projects to be successful (Demant & Lawrence, 2018, p. 3). From backbone support organizations to containers for change A backbone support organization is needed to plan, organize and support Collective Impact. Usually this comes in the form of a dedicated staff within the backbone organization, to manage the work around the common agenda and to coordinate all the participants involved (Kania & Kramer, 2011). However, Cabaj and Weaver (2016) believe that instead of creating an organization, there is a need to create an environment, which they label more nebulously as a ‘container for change’ that mobilizes specific stakeholders, creates processes to develop empathy and trust, is open to approaching things differently, achieves short-term wins, continues to work on the long-term work, and without overwhelming members, keeps the momentum going. In the case of the Colorado Health Foundation (CHF) Collective Impact initiative, members had a ‘distributed backbone’ model, in which the backbone function was distributed amongst several participating organizations; however, the challenge was the time commitment as stakeholders were also busy managing their own organizations (Landers et al., 2018). It could be however, that this ‘distributed backbone’ model is one that works well in some networks because, as described in the next section, networks are governed without hierarchy or ownership, being bound solely by their shared values. 3.3.3 Other lessons learned Since Kania and Kramer’s (2011) introduction of collective impact, the concept has been developed further and continues to be an important framework used in community change work, although it is recommended that users adapt and modify the framework to suit their local situations (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016, p. 2; Walzer & Weaver, 2018). Each initiative and community is unique, and approaching the various collective impact components “into a 34 checklist” will not work (Gillam, Counts, & Garstka, 2016, p. 221) as each is influenced by its “local context” (Shapiro, Hoey, Savas, & Colasanti, 2015, p. 5). According to their recent study on Collective Impact, Salignac et al., (2018) identify three broad categories of organization, relational and leadership, each with a set of key success factors for collective impact: 1. organization: diversity of stakeholders, direct relationships and a backbone organization with strong governance; 2. relational: positive relationships, meaningful consultations, mutual trust and respect; 3. leadership: effective leadership and a common agenda. An awareness of the challenges that may arise are necessary for Collective Impact success (Bradbrook, 2019). Barriers and limitations (e.g. support, funding, time) need to be considered (Sagrestano et al., 2018). Uncontrollable factors (e.g. funding, trust, flexibility) can make collaborative change even more complicated than it already is (Landers et al., 2018; Minyard, Phillips, & Baker, 2016). Kania and Kramer recommend that “funders support a long-term process of social change” (2011, p. 41). Funders need to understand it takes time to change a system, starting with “facilitation, coordination, and measurement that enable organizations to work in concert” (Kania and Kramer, 2011, p. 41). A challenge with funding is that the grant deliverables take priority; goals often focus on those deliverables; application and implementation may use a hierarchical process; and the funding is not always inclusive (Sagrestano et al., 2018). Funding has an influence on relationships, which is why Landers et al. (2018) suggest funding should be approached in “a low-risk and low-cost way (e.g., funding backbone functions and small actions by the group), which would support a healthier dynamic around relationships and funding” (p. 90). Landers et al., (2018) discuss the development of the CHF Collective Impact initiative (2013-2016); in this initiative, the CHF distributed funding to the various partners, allowing projects to be developed around the funding and to create alignment around the timing and expectations of grants. After some evaluation in 2015, the steering committee decided that the CHF had too much control, and it was decided that they should step down from that initial role, though it would continue to provide support to the initiative (Landers et al., 2018). Finally, there is recognition that Collective Impact cannot tackle every complex issue (Cabaj & Weaver, 2016). Sometimes organizations need to move on from Collective Impact. It can be unpredictable and complex and does not work for all organizations (Landers et al., 2018). In the CHF’s initiative; they decided Collective Impact was not the right approach and moved to a learning network model of working together (Landers et al., 2018). 35 Though Collective Impact does have limitations it is still a useful way to approach complex problems, and it can be very successful in creating community change (Cabaj & Weaver, 2016; Johansen et al., 2018; Landers et al., 2018; Sagrestano et al., 2018; Salignac et al., 2018). Sagrestano et al. (2018) state “a shift to collective accountability and agendas, authentic communication, reciprocal relationships, support for infrastructure, and shared measurement continues to hold promise” (p. 113). Collective Impact also continues to be promoted as a means of addressing food system problems (Hoey et al., 2016, p. 109). In summary, collective impact and network building is an approach unique to a situation and place. 3.4 Networks 3.4.1 What is a network? Networks are made up of “a set of nodes or points connected by links or pathways” (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 107), and “constitute a system of actors” (Adam & Kriesi, 2007, p.135). “The concept of a network emphasizes the fact that each individual has ties to other individuals, each of whom in turn is tied to a few, some, or many others, and so on” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 9). There are two basic elements to networks: “a set of actors and the relations between pairs of actors” (Adam & Kriesi, 2007, p. 133). In social networks, actors or nodes may be people or organizations and the links or ties are the relationships between these people or organizations (Borgatti et al., 2013, p.2). Ogden (2018) further elaborates that nodes are the stakeholders, individuals and organizations that are coming together, to create a bigger impact; and the links can be working relationships, common challenges or shared values. Networks provide a distinct organizing principle to achieve goals (Plastrik, Taylor, & Cleveland, 2014). Consisting of a pattern of connection and flow, a network creates something together that individuals do not create on their own (Ogden, 2018). A network is thus “a way to think about social systems” that “focus on relationships among entities (actors/ nodes) that make up the system” (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013, p. 1). The structural patterns of relations in networks vary, based on whether relationships between nodes are present or absent (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Networks come in different sizes and there can be networks within networks (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006). Provan & Kenis (2008) and Meadows, Randers, & Meadows (2012) share very similar definitions of networks, though Provan & Kenis consider the network members to be “legally autonomous organizations” only, whereas Meadows et al. define them in a less specific way. Both authors distinguish the goals of the individual organizations as being separate from their shared goals as a network. Provan & Kenis (2008) define networks as “groups of three or more 36 legally autonomous organizations that work together to achieve not only their own goals but also a collective goal”; they also state that networks are not legal entities and may be self-initiated, mandated or contracted (p. 232). Meadows et al. (2012) define networks as “webs of connections among equals, held together not by force, obligation, material incentive, or social contract, but by shared values and the understanding that some tasks can be accomplished together that could never be accomplished separately” (p. 318). Multi-organizational networks are there to organize resources to create positive change and they are built on a “foundation of principles” (Stiver, 2019). Members of a network are responsible for the network: “unlike organizations, networks must be governed without benefit of hierarchy or ownership” (Provan & Kenis, 2008, p. 231). 3.4.2 Why networks are important There are various motivations for building a network. For example, an organization may not have the capacity to fulfill its goals, or a group may not be achieving the desired impact on a particular challenge (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006). Lastly, a network of some sort may exist but there may not be much collaboration occurring as a result (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006). Through participation in a network, network members or actors can create and experience significant value. The collective expertise and passion of stakeholders can be unleashed through a network (Stiver, 2019). Within a network, “regular communication and frequent exchange of information lead to the establishment of stable relationships between actors and to the coordination of their mutual interests” (Adam & Kriesi, 2007, p. 129). Network coordination creates many significant advantages “including enhanced learning, more efficient use of resources, increased capacity to plan for and address complex problems, greater competitiveness, and better services for clients and customers” (see Alter and Hage 1993; Brass et al. 2004; Huxham and Vangen 2005, as cited in Provan & Kenis, 2008, p. 229). The Boston Green and Healthy Building Network, a network consisting of City of Boston and Boston-area non-profit organizations, undertook a qualitative and quantitative evaluation exercise (including social network analysis) (Tener & Nierenberg, 2008). They found that organizations had advanced their missions through the Network and key accomplishments were centered around increased connectivity, coordination, alignment, integration of objectives and new collaborations (Tener & Nierenberg, 2008). Plastrik & Taylor (2006, p.40) outline a list of the value created for network members from creating connections and sharing knowledge, skills and resources. Not only is value created for individual members but there is value created for the network as a whole, as 37 collaboration increase overall knowledge and strength (Plastrik et al., 2014). Plastrik et al., (2014) argue that networks provide an organizing principle that is different from that of organizations, when aiming to address social problems. A network “can provide an adaptive and sustainable capacity with unique advantages, something no other organizing method can achieve (Plastrik et al., 2014, p. 29). It is advantageous when “organizations identify a shared goal and then align their capacities and coordinate their efforts to achieve it; they create a new, more powerful ability embedded in a network” (Plastrik et al., 2014, p. 31). 3.4.3 Types of networks It is important to recognize there are different types of networks, and that the term varies “in meaning according to the context of use” (Murdoch, 2002, p. 417). The term network is used frequently; some of the most commonly known types of networks are social, communications, transportation and infrastructure networks. In this research we look exclusively at social networks, and in this paper, I will use the term network when I am referring to social networks. Social networks are “systems of social ties that link people to one another” (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 14). Wherever people are connected, social networks exist. One understanding of social networks are the personal networks that may be built amongst colleagues and friends; these are built to achieve personal goals (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006). However, social networks in the civil sector are built “to achieve collective goals, to produce net gains” (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 14). Goal-directed networks are set up with a specific purpose and there is “some form of governance necessary to ensure that participants engage in collective and mutually supportive action”, address conflict, and use acquired network resources “efficiently and effectively” (Provan & Kenis, 2008, p. 231). Plastrik et al., (2014) acknowledge that the term ‘network’ is used to describe many things but in social change work it is defined as a group “of individuals or organizations that aims to solve a difficult problem in society by working together, adapting over time, and generating a sustained flow of activities and impacts”. In this case, such a social network may be called a ‘generative social-impact network’, a ‘social-impact network’ or a ‘generative network’ (p.5). Simply put, such a network is “a set of people who voluntarily organize themselves for collective action to solve a large, complex social problem”. A complex problem is dynamic and challenging to address, as “they require many people to change their minds and behaviours, and often the people involved are polarized according to their radically different ways of understanding the problem” (Plastrik et al., 2014, p. 25). These networks strive to 38 produce more than one single outcome and to achieve change, resulting in general “social good” (Plastrik et al., 2014, p. 5). Figure 3 illustrates three different types or characteristics of networks: connectivity, alignment and production. These are also described by Plastrik & Taylor (2006) as three different ‘phases’ of a network, even though these phases can coexist simultaneously at one time; nonetheless, the use of the term ‘phase’ conveys their intended meaning, that there is a hierarchy of order to these phases. Figure 3: Three networks in one: connectivity, alignment and productivity. This figure was adapted and reprinted with permission of Curtis Ogden (2013). Connectivity “A connectivity network embodies the essential “platform” of all networks—a foundation of linkages that allows information to flow and transactions to take place among the nodes” (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 33). By knowing where the connections are an organization can influence local interactions and through them, the desired impact (Krebs & Holley, 2006). For example, in a policy network, it may be more effective to influence a few well-connected nodes instead of accessing the top person in the network (Krebs & Holley, 2006). Alignment Within an alignment network, organizations are looking at its “collective value proposition”, the common visions, mission, resources, and how invested people are (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 35). An alignment network requires more trust and has stronger ties than a connectivity network; nodes come together regularly, and nodes in the network “give up a measure of their autonomy in favour of a group” (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p.36). 39 Production A production network evaluates and looks at what it is trying to achieve, has clear goals, and requires coordination to achieve a specific outcome (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006). The structure and effects of production networks are approached in different ways depending upon the goals that they seek; for example, advocacy vs. innovation (Plastrik et al., 2014). A production network often builds off of connectivity and alignment; network organizers often seek to build a production network once they have a vision for a specific outcome (Plastrik et al., 2014). 3.4.4 How to build a network Network members in general “perform the network’s work” and “produce what the network is supposed to produce”, whereas network builders build and manage the network (Plastrik et al., 2014, p. 58). Networks are all different, and the process of building a network also varies. Plastrik et al., (2014) recognize that some networks start impulsively, whereas others are carefully managed through “analysis, planning and negotiation” (p.19). Analyzing the issue before engaging individuals to build the network is recommended by Plastrik et al. (2014). Building a network in a structured manner includes determining its collective value proposition, the type of membership and structure, and how the network operates (Plastrik et al., 2014). Network builders Network builders work on the following tasks to manage a network’s development: weaving, facilitating, coordinating, operations, monitoring and evaluating (Plastrik et al., 2014). Early in a network’s development a builder sometimes plays several roles, but as the network develops the roles often become distributed amongst more than one person (Plastrik et al., 2014). Senge and Steman (1992) state that network building is “a common strategy for leaders who see the world through a holistic, systems perspective” (as cited in Stiver, 2019, p. 42). Network leaders are influential individuals who may or may not have a formal position, and they often arise naturally to facilitate the network processes (Stiver, 2019). In their table, (Table 2), Plastrik and Taylor (2006) focus on the three characteristics or phases of networks (connectivity, alignment and productivity), and the roles played by different types of network builders (the weaver, facilitator and coordinator), in building and managing the three characteristics. 40 Table 2: Three network phases or characteristics: desired effects and how to build them Reprinted with permission of Peter Plastrik. (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 33) Connectivity Alignment Production Network Definition Connects people to allow easy flow of and access to information and transactions Aligns people to develop and spread an identity and collective value proposition Fosters joint action for specialized outcomes by aligned people Desired Network Effects Rapid growth and diffusion, small-world reach, resilience Adaptive capacity, small-world reach, rapid growth and diffusion Rapid growth and diffusion, small-world reach, resilience, adaptive capacity Key Task of Network Builder Weaving – help people meet each other, increase ease of sharing and searching for information. Facilitating – helping people to explore potential shared identity and value propositions. Coordinating – helping people plan and implement collaborative actions. Within a connectivity network, network weavers are helping nodes meet, looking at what is needed, creating support and sharing information (Plastrik et al., 2014). Through network weaving, organizations are connected with each other, and linkages lead to collaboration and improved services (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006). Connecting the most connected nodes will lead to information being shared most quickly (Krebs & Holley, 2006). In an alignment network, the network builder is a facilitator, linking and aligning nodes (Plastrik et al., 2014). In a production network, a coordinator is responsible for working with members of the network to coordinate and implement actions (Plastrik et al., 2014). Network members There are various levels of network membership. Some networks are open to anyone, and other networks are closed and membership is limited (Plastrik et al., 2014). Membership criteria may include: a shared commitment to network goals; expertise and strengths in doing certain types of work; the possession of connections that are important for the network, a capacity to collaborate and be open and willing to learn; and finally, an ability to make the network a priority (Plastrik et al., 2014, p. 46). Network governance Authority and decision making in a network is widely distributed amongst its members, but builders are there to help network members decide what to do, and how to implement it 41 (Plastrik et al., 2014; and Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 15). For an effective network, management is still important and there is a need for builders to understand and respond to network demands (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Networks are “are not legal entities” but “for goal-directed organizational networks with a distinct identity, however, some form of governance is necessary to ensure that participants engage in collective and mutually supportive action, that conflict is addressed, and that network resources are acquired and utilized efficiently and effectively” (Provan & Kenis, 2008, p. 231). Governance provides a structure in which institutions and positions of authority are involved in collaboration, coordination and action across the whole network, and they are also there to distribute resources (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Provan & Kenis (2008) describe three forms of network governance: shared governance, lead organization governance, and the Network Administrative Organization (NAO) model (Provan & Kenis, 2008): 1. Shared governance is a decentralized form in which interaction occurs between organizations that make up the network (Provan & Kenis, 2008). “Shared participant-governed networks depend exclusively on the involvement and commitment of all, or a significant subset of the organizations that comprise the network. Network participants are themselves responsible for managing internal network relationships and operations as well as external relations with such groups as funders, government, and customers” (Provan & Kenis, 2008, p. 234). 2. Lead organization governance is highly brokered, there is governance through one organization (Provan & Kenis, 2008). 3. Lastly, a Network Administrative Organization (NAO model) is a centralized model, in which a “separate administrative entity is set up specifically to govern the network and its activities” (Provan & Kenis, 2008, p. 236). A NAO plays a role in coordinating and sustaining the network, enhancing network legitimacy; it includes a board structure composed of network members (Provan & Kenis, 2008). 3.4.5 How to tell a network is effective Network effectiveness is partly dependent on how the network is governed and how tensions are managed (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Networks are driven by value, and network organizers should not do what members do not find valuable. Trust and reciprocity are the base of relationships in social-impact networks, creating strong connections that allow members to work together on more than one issue (Plastrik et al., 2014). According to Häkli & Minca “trust is seen as a resource pertinent to collectives” (Coleman 1988, and Putnam 1993, as cited in 2009, 42 p. 15). Network leadership is “grounded in building and maintaining relationships that are built on trust” (Stiver, 2019, p. 52). According to Krebs & Holley (2006), there are five general patterns observed in effective networks: 1. New links are added rapidly, there is rapid growth. 2. Networks have reach, as resources and information that already exist are diffused and impact is increased. 3. Networks increase efficiency and effectiveness by linking nodes together. 4. Networks are resilient, they can reorganize and withstand stresses. 5. Networks are adaptive, they have adaptive capacity. The first step to evaluating a network is being clear about what one wants to know about the network (Plastrik et al., 2014). According to Taylor et al. (2014); and Plastrik et al. (2014), the criteria that are generally used to evaluate networks tend to fall into three main categories: connectivity, network health and results. Connectivity, network health, outcomes and impact are the criteria used by Hoppe & Reinelt when evaluating leadership networks using social network analysis (SNA) (2010). The specific indicators of these criteria include the network’s membership, goals, outcomes, structure, resources, infrastructure and advantage (Plastrik et al., 2014; Taylor et al., 2014). The overall health of a network is more than its connections; Plastrik et al. (2006) discuss the need to understand the essential conditions for a network to be sustainable in the long-term such as stable funding, or a network membership that is diverse and increasing. 3.5 Collective Impact and networks for food system work 3.5.1 Collective Impact and networks Collective Impact and network building can both be useful approaches for regional food system work, as they both are about working collectively to achieve positive social change. In many ways, the ideas behind the implementation of Collective Impact and network building overlap considerably. Figure 4 below presents the alignment of the three network characteristics of Plastrik & Taylor (2006) and network health (Plastrik et al., 2014) with the five conditions of Collective Impact. 43 Figure 4: Network characteristics and Collective Impact conditions Figure created by Eva-Lena Lang, aligning important network characteristics (Plastrik and Taylor, 2006) with the five conditions for achieving Collective Impact (Kania and Kramer, 2011). Unlike networks, Collective Impact is a more structured process and there is potential for various difficulties to emerge e.g. a lack of funding, or a lack of collaboration. Some of the challenges faced by Collective Impact initiatives, such as lack of flexibility, or a top-down centralized approach, could be solved with a network structure. Although networks are less structured than many other forms of collaboration structures they are collaborative structures that “offer flexibility required in complex contexts” (Salignac et al., 2018, p. 94). For creating positive change in food systems, they “can play very important roles as informal bridges between different domains and sectors and as catalysts for collective impact” (Moor, 2018, p. 16). Conversely, a looser network structure can sometimes be balanced out by the clear process that a collective impact framework provides (Salignac et al., 2018), and there is always a need to understand and adapt to the specific network of stakeholders in which the Collective Impact framework is being implemented (Moor, 2018). 3.5.2 Their application to actual food systems Both Collective Impact and network approaches to strengthening regional food systems have been increasing in popularity in recent years, with efforts taking place at different geographical scales. Curtis Ogden from the Social Interaction for Social Change Institute has been involved in key Collective Impact and network building projects, including Vermont’s Farm to Plate Network and Food Solutions New England. June Holley published a Network Weaver Handbook in 2012 and has recently been presenting interactive webinars hosted by the John Hopkins Center for a Livable Future through their Food Policy Networks project. 44 In the United States, “statewide food system networks have formed in order to generate more support, mutual learning, collaboration, and collective action across local and regional networks, and/ or to influence policy at the state level” (Harden, Heim, & Bain, 2015, p. 5). In 2015, there were over 250 active food system networks in North America, individuals and organizations working together “to solve complex challenges of the food system” (Harden et al., 2015, p. 5). The Collective Impact framework has also been used in a number of food system initiatives, including: Vermont Farm to Plate Initiative, Minnesota Food Charter for our Healthy Future, Food Solutions New England, Appalachia Foodshed Project, Michigan Good Food Charter, Regional Food System Working Group of Iowa, Roots of Change: California Food Policy Network and Central Appalachian Network (Shapiro, Hoey, Savas, & Colasanti, 2015) The State of Vermont’s Farm to Plate Network, which has developed one of the most comprehensive food system plans in the United States (Koliba et al., 2017), achieved this work using the five conditions of Collective Impact. The Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund is the network coordinator and it is overseen by a steering committee, working groups and various teams (Perry, n.d.). This is a goal directed network, in which participating members are free to choose their level of participation, and may participate or not in various functions (Koliba et al., 2017, p. 285). As cited by Debra Perry (n.d), Erica Campbell from the Farm to Plate Program Director describes the Vermont Farm to Plate Network as highly coordinated and “built to adapt over time” (p. 4). Organization members have almost tripled in three years, each bringing experience to the table and there has been significant positive change in the state’s food system (Perry, n.d.). Hoey et al. (2016) evaluated the compatibility of Collective Impact for driving positive food systems change, using an initiative in Michigan as their case study called The Michigan Good Food Charter. The backbone organization for this initiative is Michigan State University’s Center for Regional Food Systems (CRFS). Their common agenda consists of six goals from the Michigan Food Systems Charter. Their mutually reinforcing activities focus on relationship building by co-convening statewide food networks. Regular communication channels (one-way and interactive information flows) ensure that their continuous communication is “dynamic and multifaceted” (Hoey et al., 2016, p. 110). CRFS has various forms of communication as Hoey et al. (2016) argue that regular in-person meetings to build trust are not sustainable as participants live all over the state. Data collection tools developed to compare common indicators have increased partner capacity through their shared measurement system. In their research, Hoey et al. (2016) found that food system network leaders in Michigan criticized Collective Impact for its limited guidance, lack of policy advocacy and lack of 45 intentional integration of an equity focus; though it is possible to surpass these limitations by lead organizations having “the capacity to build trust and relationships between stakeholders and to thoughtfully integrate strategies for ensuring policy- and equity-based change” (Hoey et al., 2016, p. 103). In response, the network adapted by adding an equity lens and it is now interested in building policy advocacy. Although there are challenges, Collective Impact has been adapted by each region the researchers reviewed, and they conclude that it can be useful to address a food system issues (Hoey et al., 2016; Shapiro et al., 2015). A network map of the Ohio Food Policy Network (OFPN) funded by The Ohio State University’s Initiative for Food and Agricultural Transformation was developed “to assess and quantify the connections between people and organizations within the Ohio food system” (Ohio Food Policy Network, 2017, p. 2). The map presents the needs identified by stakeholders, as well as a plan for how they can be met. The OFPN “provides a foundation for developing the skills and expertise needed to grow and develop a food system that supports and serves all Ohioans” (Ohio Food Policy Network, 2017, p. 3). A governance committee supports the projects of the network, and as the first goal, stakeholders identified the need to engage and facilitate stakeholders through a connected network function (Ohio Food Policy Network, 2017). Food Solutions New England (FSNE) is an evolving network of networks, consisting of a larger regional network of six state networks, with a network team serving “as the principal steward of the FSNE regional network: cultivating greater connectivity and alignment around the FSNE vision and values; and supporting collaborative actions to advance FSNE goals” (FSNE, 2018b, para.2). Compared to the US, there are fewer Canadian examples in the literature on Collective Impact or network building for food system work. However, organizations have expressed interest in using the Collective Impact framework to guide network efforts. A well-known example is the Capital Region Food and Agriculture Initiatives Roundtable (CRFAIR), which has led in food systems work on Vancouver Island since 1997. In recent years, they established the Good Food Network using the Collective Impact framework. A provincial example is a project that started in 2016 as a Collective Impact initiative through the British Columbia Food Systems Network (BCFSN). However, this ambitious plan, called Sustain BC, has moved away from a Collective Impact framework to being more of a ‘Community of Practice’, and has also shifted its backbone organization from the BCFSN to the Institute for Sustainable Food Systems (ISFS) at Kwantlen Polytechnic University. This was mainly the result of a loss of funding for paid staff at BCFSN, reducing its capacity to support Collective Impact at the provincial level. Two other examples based in the Southern interior of BC are the Central Kootenay Food Policy Council 46 and the Fields Forward Initiative. In 2018, BC’s Interior Health Agency contracted consultant Katrina Lebenhauer to look at the network approach and engage stakeholders for interest in future funding being allocated to support network building activities. This has resulted in a recent final report7 which concludes that stakeholders are interested in learning more about networks as a means of advancing community food security. 3.6 Summary As discussed in the beginning of the chapter there are many problems with the current food system at all levels. These problems are causing a range of movements to develop as a reaction to the food crisis. One popular solution is to strengthen the food system at the local or regional level, and researchers and practitioners have been promoting a Collective Impact framework and network building as effective approaches for doing this work. Literature on Collective Impact and networks is relatively new, and most of it is focused on the United States, where food system networks are often at the state level and have support from large institutions, including universities. My review of the literature has shown that no-one has studied these approaches in Canada or British Columbia, although a few regional initiatives do exist. This Master’s research aims to both support and learn from the efforts of a newly formed food system network, L2T, as they seek to strengthen the regional food system. Although Collective Impact is explicitly part of the planning and organization of L2T, it is the building of a strong network that is at the center of my Research Aim; which is to facilitate a group of stakeholders to further strengthen their regional food system network. The next chapter, Chapter 4, will describe the development of the methodology used in this research, including my approach, process and methods, as well as the analysis used on the data these generated, leading ultimately to the three research questions. 7 Lebenbauer, Katrina. 2018. Working together to advance community food security: Exploring regional food security networks in Interior Health. Interior Health. 47 Chapter 4: Methodology 4.1 Overview This chapter describes the research methodology, including the approach, process and methods, as well as the NVivo analysis used for analysing the focus group and Community Advisory Committee meeting data. Before the research began there was already a strong relationship between myself and the North Okanagan food system community, making it a logical step for me to employ a CBPR approach that incorporated DD principles. The research process involved four meetings conducted with a Community Advisory Committee, and additionally four meetings with four different focus groups representing producers, processors, ‘the middle’ and consumers, respectively. In accordance with CBPR, the first Community Advisory Committee meeting was held to seek informed consent to secure the involvement of the committee members in the research project as well as their input into the planning. At the next five meetings the focus groups and the Community Advisory Committee mapped the regional food system network and collectively analysed the mapped results. At the third Community Advisory Committee meeting a framework of 14 questions was used to guide the committee to develop recommendations on strengthening the network from connectivity, alignment, productivity and health perspectives. These two key methods, participatory network mapping and the build the network framework, were developed specifically for the research project. The results from the meetings were analyzed using NVivo and presented to the Community Advisory Committee at their final meeting for further analysis. The approach, process and methods used in this research project were also evaluated at this final meeting. After incorporating the results from the final community advisory committee meeting, further analysis was completed using NVivo. 4.2 Approach 4.2.1 Reflexivity My relationship within the regional food system has been lifelong. Together with two siblings, I grew up on a family farm in the North Okanagan that produced meat (lamb, beef and pork) as well as other products and I was deeply influenced by our experiences there. This included seeing the direct impacts of drought, wildfire, and the border closing to exports due to the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or mad cow disease crisis of 2003. Like other meat producers, my family was also very negatively impacted by the provincial Meat Inspection Regulation, which came into effect in 2007 and disproportionately affected the small and 48 medium scale meat producers and processors in the province (Johnson, 2008). My family always had access to good nutritious food while others in my region have not, and this injustice has always been a concern for me. My background naturally led to my involvement in adult life with the long-term sustainability and health of our regional food system, and in particular the need to re-connect farmers with their communities for mutual benefit. This research project grew from a distance certification program that I completed in 2015-2016 at Simon Fraser University, called the Certificate Program for Community Economic Development Professionals, which included a six-week class by Anne Donaldson. This course required me to conduct a community organizing project in my own community, with the aim of bringing people together to try to solve a problem, and make change happen by building relationships, learning from each other, collaborating and sharing resources. One of the tools for community organizing that was mentioned in this certification course was the study circle, using DD principles which will be described later. A study circle is a small group of people sharing a common interest who come together in order to gain new knowledge after reading and discussing a piece of research. I invited a number of key food system advocates from the community to my study circle, using my existing relationships as a community member and daughter of farmers. These included a food system advocate and academic; an agricultural economist and farmer and several others. In advance of the study circle, I interviewed everyone individually to learn more about what they do. Through these interviews I identified a shared interest in improving the regional food system. Next, a few of us met as a group to discuss three articles that I had shared with the group: two examples of Vermont’s Collective Impact initiative (Olson, 2015; Tener, 2012), and a generic article about Collective Impact (Tamarack Institute, n.d.). The question we discussed, in light of these papers, was: What role does Collective Impact have in strengthening a regional food system and might this framework work in the North Okanagan? In the end, we agreed that this approach to achieving social change had the potential to make a difference in our region. This meeting left us feeling inspired and wanting to make this change happen. This was the spark that initiated the eventual formation of a North Okanagan network, now called L2T, around the goal of achieving Collective Impact in our regional food system. The timeline that has been described in Section 2.5. Thus, I have already played an active role in building this network, not only as initiator also as steering committee member of L2T. In addition to my involvement in L2T, all of my other work (volunteer and paid) in the North Okanagan has been related to the food system in one way or another. This has included working for the Certified Organic Associations of BC, being employed by three different farms in 49 the valley (which entailed selling their products at three different farmer’s markets); and volunteering with the North Okanagan Organic Association, the RDNO’s Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Mabel Lake Hall Community Club. Overall, my commitment to strengthening the food system has led to considerable relationship building over the years, which has led to high personal levels of social capital. Social capital is defined as “connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (Putnam, 2000, p. 19) - and is considered to “enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objects” (Putnam, 1995, p. 664-665). This social capital has proven to be instrumental to achieving success in the community organizing as well as this Master’s research. My co-supervisor, Dr. Mary Stockdale, has also been involved in the development of the L2T network since the first time I interviewed her for the study circle meeting. We have worked together closely on the community project, and the relationship broadened when I started the Master’s program and she became my co-supervisor. Throughout the research project we have continued to work as community members on the L2T Steering Committee, and Dr. Stockdale has also participated in my Community Advisory Committee as a community member. Approaching the research as a CBPR project was therefore a natural fit as we continue to work closely on both the community and university sides of the project. 4.2.2 Ethics To undertake my research with community members, it was necessary to complete the Behavioural Research Ethics Board (BREB) application, for which I received approval. Although this project was considered a low-risk project, I went beyond the basic requirements for completing the BREB and incorporated ethical elements from CBPR as well. I took the ethical considerations of conducting research in my community very seriously and embraced my responsibilities as a researcher. A lot of this research is focused on relationships of trust, and I did not want to lose the trust that existed between myself and community members, as a result of the research. Through a Letter of Introduction, participants were made aware of the purpose of the research before participating in the meetings. At the meetings, I presented the details of the research, provided a Confidentiality Agreement and Consent Form, and asked for feedback. By signing the Confidentiality Agreement and Consent Form, participants agreed to participate in an audio recorded meeting and have their photos taken, while knowing their names would remain anonymous in any materials developed from the research. In the form it was also 50 clarified that data would be stored in a secure location. As the research progressed, I tried to consider the concerns of all the individuals involved and made myself available to answer any questions. If a participant did not want a particular comment or question to be included in the research, which happened on several occasions, I respected their wishes. 4.2.3 Community Based Participatory Research Community Based Research (CBR) occurs in the community; it engages citizens while serving their interests (Caine & Mill, 2016). Researchers and community members collaborate with each other to create practical knowledge or support social change (Caine & Mill, 2016). This can have a broad impact (Caine & Mill, 2016), increasing the social capital and networks of both universities and communities, improving collective capacity and raising awareness (Tremblay & Hall, 2014). The first community based researchers developed this approach out of a shared interest in overcoming social inequalities and co-creating knowledge based on critical reflection (Caine & Mill, 2016; Flicker, Savan, McGrath, Kolenda, & Mildenberger, 2007; Minkler, 2005). CBR “represents a philosophical approach to the conduct of research” that values the input of community knowledge and working towards or creating an environment for social change (Caine & Mill, 2016, p. 23). Minkler & Wallerstein (2008) describe CBR as an overarching term for a wide variety of approaches. Within CBR there are various approaches and methodologies, including: Participatory Research, Participatory Action Research and CBPR and these terms can be used interchangeably (Caine & Mill, 2016). Minkler & Wallerstein (2008) argue that these two terms, CBPR and CBR, arose only as a result of separation by geographical region; overall, they share the same principles (Caine & Mill, 2016). However, they differ in that CBPR takes action in addition to conducting research while CBR has more of a research focus (Caine & Mill, 2016). Throughout the thesis I therefore use the term CBPR as it more closely represents the intentions of my research. As Minkler and Wallerstein (2003) describe, CBPR engages community members and researchers in an equal process that includes a balance of research and action, builds local community capacity, and empowers participants to increase control (as cited in Buchanan et al., 2007). Involving members from the community in the research process enhances its effectiveness and quality, and engages those facing the issue to develop solutions (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995; Minkler, 2005). Partnering with communities can increase the potential to improve issues and research quality (Minkler, 2005). 51 In doing this Master’s research, I hoped to bring the resources of the local university, UBC Okanagan, in assisting the efforts of L2T to build their network. As McCullum et al. say, bringing participatory research processes into food system work can “increase access to resources” such as those that could be provided by a university; and “promote social cohesion and reduce inequities by building connections between local food production and consumption” (2005, p. 280). Buchanen et al. state there are three distinct purposes of CBPR: 1. to demonstrate respect for community autonomy; 2. to elicit ideas in collaboration with community members; and 3. to enhance community capacity (2007). These purposes of CBPR “are seen to operate simultaneously in a mutually reinforcing process” (Buchanan et al., 2007, p. 156). I applied these three purposes of CBPR in my research in the following ways. For the first purpose, to demonstrate “respect for community autonomy” (Buchanan et al., 2007, p. 156), I involved the Community Advisory Committee in initial planning and decision-making; additionally, I reported back to them regularly to receive further feedback and guidance (Wallerstein & Duran, 2006). Ideally, in CBPR the community comes up with the research topic or question (Minkler, 2005). However, in my case, this was approached slightly differently. After some research into network building and a conversation with Curtis Ogden (see section 2.5.4), I consulted with the L2T steering committee about the research topic. Once I completed my research proposal and questions, I presented this to the Community Advisory Committee for feedback and approval. This feedback from the community into the planning of the research is described in Section 7.2.1, the first Community Advisory Committee meeting results. The Community Advisory Committee was also involved in collecting, analyzing and ratifying the results; they were involved in evaluating the project as a whole; and they were involved in determining what forms the research outputs would take, so that could be of benefit to the community as well as the university. Providing results to the community is an important feature of CBPR. For the second purpose, to ‘elicit ideas in collaboration with community members’, I used both qualitative and quantitative methods of data gathering (Buchanan et al., 2007; Caine & Mill, 2016; Minkler, 2005; Wallerstein & Duran, 2006). These included specific methods such as participatory network mapping and the build the network framework. As well, I incorporated DD principles into discussions designed to elicit ideas from community members. A key feature of the CBPR process is that it is committed to action (Minkler, 2005, p. ii7); the recommendations 52 developed from the build the network framework discussion will be used by the L2T steering committee in the years to come. The third purpose, ‘to enhance community capacity’, I intended to achieve through sharing information about network building and the existing network of the North Okanagan food system. Another intended effect of CBPR was the relationship building through the research process. 4.2.4 Deliberative Dialogue What is Deliberative Dialogue? The use of DD principles was an important part of my research. This work grew from the study circle of 2015, which itself was a DD tool. DD was used with community members to generate and analyze data that increased our ability to understand the food system network in the North Okanagan. DD is a process of consultation and knowledge translation that is used to generate rich data. DD provides information by creating and developing research to guide policy-makers and stakeholders (Hwacha, 2005; Lavis et al., 2014, p. 2). With the use of research evidence and by also incorporating their own experience and knowledge, stakeholders can work towards action (Plamondon, Bottorff, & Cole, 2015). The advantages of DD over other consultation processes are that it enables “more meaningful exploration in the time allocated”, and the dialogue amongst participants is generative, not argumentative (Hwacha, 2005, p. 515). Through dialogue, participants consider new ways of understanding and resolving issues (Hwacha, 2005). The process and results of DD are used to engage stakeholders in issues relevant to them and their communities. It provides researchers the opportunity to work with stakeholders who are close to the issues, incorporating these peoples’ essential knowledge and experience (Hwacha, 2005). DD supports research by “helping to identify accordance between research evidence and the beliefs, values, interests or political goals and strategies of politicians, civil servants and stakeholders” (Lavis et al., 2014, p. 1). For example, DD was successfully used to initiate long-term relationships amongst stakeholders involved with and responsible for Canadian disaster mitigation, by developing common ground within their network and identifying alternative approaches (Hwacha, 2005). DD is used in a number of fields, for example: health, social, environmental and other public sectors, and the resulting data is used to inform decision making and policy development (Hwacha, 2005; Lavis et al., 2014; Moat et al., 2014; Oelke, Plamondon, & Mendel, 2016). 53 There are three important components, or defining characteristics, of DD: 1. the meeting environment for constructive discussion; 2. a mix of stakeholder-participants that is purposefully selected; and 3. the use of literature synthesis or research evidence for more impactful conversation (Boyko, Lavis, Abelson, Dobbins, & Carter, 2012; Plamondon et al., 2015). These components were carefully considered and are described in more detail below, as well as in Section 4.3, where the research meetings are described. The meeting environment The environment for DD is important, as the hope is that it will encourage participants to reflect on, and explore different approaches to examining the research material (Boyko et al., 2012; Moat et al., 2014; Plamondon et al., 2015). The season in which the research takes place significantly influences who is available to attend. The months in which the focus group meetings were held, May and June, proved to be problematic. Although timely from the government, non-profit and university point of view, these months were not ideal for food system producers, processors and other members, since the growing season had already begun. Fern (2001) suggests considering the timing and location of the focus groups carefully. Aware of the research process happening during a challenging time of year, I tried to minimize any negative effects that might hinder participation. To overcome one barrier, meetings were held in the evening to remain accessible to participants who had commitments during the day. I also used a doodle poll to consult participants about the most convenient dates and times. In terms of location, it was important that the meeting could be located as close to the prospective participants as possible. For this reason, the Sustain the Farmers meeting was held at the home of two respected market gardeners in Armstrong, as it was closer to where most participants lived, whereas the other meetings were held in two Vernon locations, since this town is a convenient location. An important element of the meeting environment is the need for appropriate “rules of engagement”, to create a safe space where all participants feel comfortable to contribute equally to the conversation (Boyko et al., 2012, p. 1941; Lavis et al., 2014). At the start of the meetings, I discussed the importance of respecting each other’s views, and of protecting other participants’ right to confidentiality beyond the meeting. Conradson (2005) mentions that it is good to provide incentives. Although monetary incentives were not possible, I did provide fresh baking and various refreshments at each 54 meeting to express my gratitude. I also did this in consideration that some people may not have had time that evening to eat their dinner. The stakeholder participant mix DD provides the opportunity to bring together a carefully selected mix of stakeholders that represent a range of experiences and perspectives (Moat et al., 2014; Plamondon et al., 2015; Boyko et al., 2012; Lavis et al., 2014). Different perspectives contribute to participants thoughtfully discussing “a complex issue in potentially new ways that tend to break away from habitual positions or “stuck” and pre-determined solutions” (Hwacha, 2005, p. 512). To ensure broad representation, Oelke et al. (2016) used a purposeful stakeholder analysis to engage stakeholders who could provide rich perspectives. The L2T steering committee and I worked together closely to decide whom to invite to each of the meetings, considering what mix would be suitable for both the Community Advisory Committee and the focus groups, as discussed below. In the end, a total of 33 individuals participated in the research process, apart from myself. Community Advisory Committee members Community advisory boards are common in CBPR (Wallerstein & Duran, 2006), and throughout my research process I worked closely with an advisory board that I named the Community Advisory Committee. Their role was to provide feedback on the research methodology throughout the process, as well as contribute their own data and analysis when engaging in the specific methods of participatory network mapping and the build the network framework discussions. Participants in a group like the Community Advisory Committee should have prior knowledge of and involvement in the issues, they should be interested by the outcomes, and they should understand the groups they are there to represent (Boyko, 2012). The criteria we ended up using to identify key individuals was therefore based on their level of engagement in previous L2T activities, as well as their stake in the regional food system. In terms of their level of engagement, many of the community members who ended up on the Community Advisory Committee had attended initial organizing meetings of L2T and/or had participated in the “Growing the Local Food Economy” Forum held by the L2T network in January, 2018. This included four L2T steering committee members (besides myself) who became members of the Community Advisory Committee. An additional participant joined the Community Advisory Committee after participating in the Sustain the Farmers focus group meeting; she was invited due to the strong commitment to the research that she had 55 demonstrated during the previous meeting. As further demonstration of their level of engagement, some Community Advisory Committee members joined other focus group meetings as well, either as participants or to support me in the facilitation of the meeting. In terms of their stake in the food system, two Community Advisory Committee members represented several of the food system components, production (1) and retail (1), with the remaining six representing various support organizations, including government (4), non-profit (1) and academic (1). This is not weighted as much in favour of the direct food system stakeholders as I would have liked. This is probably partly a result of the time of year, which was a busy period for the stakeholder groups, but less so for the supporting organizations. The consolation for me was that I did insure at least some direct stakeholder involvement through their involvement in the focus groups. The community is small and many people know each other. To provide confidentiality, I have given the participants of the Community Advisory Committee pseudonyms, and I present the pseudonyms here with the food system categories they represent: Mia - producer, Markus – retailer, Jen, Rose, Lisa and Lily – government, and Harriett – academic. Focus Group members In addition to the Community Advisory Committee, my research design included the participation of four focus groups. I chose to use the focus group method for two reasons: first, it helps researcher gain insight into the views of a select group of participants on the research topic at hand; and secondly, it allows for a focused discussion of the topic (Conradson, 2005). An additional component to focus groups is they can be used to disseminate research findings to their particular networks (Conradson, 2005). Conradson (2005) suggests over-recruiting participants, to have enough participants. Initial invitations to the focus groups were sent to a large group of individuals; however, as mentioned earlier, the season in which these meetings were held proved to be problematic. Nonetheless, I did try to ensure representation within these focus groups across age as well as a range of experiences and business operations in the food system. One method I used to increase participation was to contact two individuals who were unavailable to attend the focus groups but who had been identified as important representatives of missing groups (such as young farmers), to arrange separate interviews in order to add their mapping information to the focus group data. There were four focus groups, numbered in the order in which their meetings occurred: Sustain the Farmers; Develop the Middle: Wholesale, Distribution, Retail and Services; Engage 56 the Consumers; Support the Processors, see Section 4.3 for the details of the meetings. For these larger groups, I decided it was not necessary to give all the participants a pseudonym. However, to preserve their confidentiality, when they are mentioned in the thesis, they are mentioned by the organization or food system component that they represent, as follows: 9 producers (3 meat producers, 4 market gardeners, 1 orchardist, 1 beekeeper), 3 processors, 3 distributors, 3 consumers, and 1 waste management; as well as 6 government, 4 non-profits and 1 academic. The use of literature synthesis or research evidence DD often includes a synthesis of the literature or a set of research results as a foundation for discussion, which researchers and stakeholders will analyse to co-create different solutions (Hwacha, 2005; Moat et al., 2014). Using information in this way is important for several reasons, including: 1. “Identifying scientific uncertainties around issues” (Lavis et al., 2014, p. 2) so that participants have equal and scientifically informed understanding of their issue; 2. Starting the discussion from “common ground” (Boyko et al., 2012, p. 1942) and a “common knowledge base” (Oelke et al., 2016, p. 79); and 3. Providing coherent and useful “decision-relevant knowledge” (Boyko et al., 2012, p. 1939) Literature synthesis or research evidence, when used in this way, should be provided in a timely manner to stakeholders, so that they can engage with the material before the DD (Lavis et al., 2014; Moat et al., 2014). Once participants are provided with information to learn about an issue, they are “encouraged to discuss and challenge the information and consider each others’ views before making a final decision or recommendation for action” (Abelson et al., 2003, p. 242). Literature synthesis For my research, the presentation of relevant literature excerpts for discussion during each meeting was considered very carefully and incorporated into each meeting agenda. These materials, as Oelke et al., suggest, were used as a “foundation for dialogue” (2016, p. 75). This happened to some extent in the first Community Advisory Committee meeting and all focus group meetings, where an article on network building was sent in advance. However, the main place where this happened was in the third Community Advisory Committee meeting, where a 57 number of small portions or text from literature were used to inform the discussion structured around the build the network framework, as described in Table 5 or Section 4.4.2. Research evidence I also carefully considered what research evidence to present at the Community Advisory Committee meeting. DD can generate rich data to be analyzed by engaged participants (McCoy & Scully, 2002; Plamondon et al., 2015). As data is interpreted the researcher is a co-learner alongside stakeholders (Plamondon et al., 2015). In DD, the data interpreted by participants is a source of additional primary data (Plamondon et al., 2015). The process of analysis, synthesis, and re-presentation of evidence, including taking a retrospective gaze over the data generated through the study, is important for the creation of a pre-dialogue report to inform a final DD event (Plamondon et al., 2015, p. 1536). Thus, data is analyzed and generated simultaneously; this is different from the researcher being the main interpreter of the data (Plamondon et al., 2015). In this Master’s research, this circular form of analysis and data generation was completed by summarizing meeting results and bringing them to subsequent meetings for review, ratification and further analysis. This happened twice: firstly, when the focus groups’ mapping data was analysed in the second Community Advisory Committee meeting; second, a summary of all the mapping results was presented as a contribution to discussions in the third Community Advisory Committee meeting (as described in Table 5 in Section 4.4.2); and thirdly, when the preliminary results from all previous meetings were analysed by Community Advisory Committee in the fourth meeting. Determining the intended effects of Deliberative Dialogues According to Boyko et al. (2012) the intended effects of the DD need to be identified to determine its effectiveness. There can be several intended effects of DD, occurring at different scales of time when it comes to knowledge translation (Boyko et al., 2012). When DD is used as knowledge translation and exchange strategy (discussing and synthesizing material to pursue action), it leads to capacity building, which “involves strengthening knowledge, abilities, skills and actions in order that an individual, organization community or system can meet its goals” (Boyko et al., 2012, p. 1944). Some of the intended effects of DD can include: • participants develop mutual understanding around an issue; • they learn how to address and solve an issue; 58 • they learn to approach or think about a problem differently; and • their communication skills improve (Boyko et al., 2012), DD can lead to change by enhancing capacity, fostering trust and building relationships (Oelke et al., 2016; Plamondon et al., 2015). A positive effect of DD can be for researchers and practitioners to become better networked. The intended effects of this research were for participants to learn about networks in general and the North Okanagan food system network in particular, and to enhance their capacity to build it through the strengthening of relationships during the research process, and the growth of trust. Using DD leads the research process to include collective interpretation (reflecting various perspectives), decision-making, and priority setting (Plamondon et al., 2015). As new knowledge is created, the steps for action are explored (McCoy & Scully, 2002). According to Abelson et al. (2003) deliberation not only includes discussion of the issues, “emphasis is also given to the product that arises from discussion (e.g. a decision or set of recommendations), and the process through which that product comes about” (p. 241). 4.3 Process The overall research process spanned nine months; seven meetings were in May and June 2018, and a final meeting was in January 2019. Table 3 outlines the overall research process, including details of each meeting such as the date, the name of the group, and the number of participants. The eight meetings were structured around the three research questions. The first meeting of the Community Advisory Committee was held to present the research proposal and receive feedback. The four focus group meetings and the second Community Advisory Committee were held to answer the first research question, related to mapping the regional food system network in order to analyse its strengths and weaknesses. The third meeting of the Community Advisory Committee was used to answer the second research question on how to use a build the network framework to develop recommendations for building this network. The fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting answered the third research question by reviewing the research approach, process and methods, as well as analysing the preliminary results for the first and second research questions. 59 Table 3: Overall research process Details of eight meetings, May-June 2018, and January 2019 Working Group Meeting Date Number of Participants Invited Participated Presented research proposal, received feedback and approval Community Advisory Committee Meeting May 9th, 2018 17 6 First Research Question: Map and Analyse the network Sustain the Farmers May 29th, 2018 48 11 Develop the Middle: Wholesale, Distribution, Retail and Services June 5th, 2018 41 3 Engage the Consumers June 12th, 2018 23 9 Support the Food Processors June 13th, 2018 10 6 Presented, ratified, mapped and analysed a network map compiled of the four working group meeting results Community Advisory Committee Meeting June 20th, 2018 8 6 Second Research Question: Explored strategies on how the network could be built, using the build the network framework Community Advisory Committee Meeting June 26th, 2018 8 8 Third Research Question: Evaluated the approach, process and methods used in order to make the lessons learned available for further replication Community Advisory Committee Meeting Jan. 9th, 2019 7 6 The focus group meetings were set up in collaboration with the L2T coordinator. The coordinator organized these four meetings as follow up for the Growing the Local Food Economy forum’s working groups (see Section 2.5.4). For my research purposes, four of these working groups became my focus groups. A focus group was not organized for the forum’s Build the Network working group. Instead, this working group became, in essence, the Community Advisory Committee of my research process. I sent out a doodle poll with several options for meeting times for participants to choose from. After the initial email invitation, I sent out a second email to those that had not responded. The purpose of the meeting was expressed within the emails, as well as the research intentions. An effort to engage individuals was also done with phone calls. I facilitated the meeting, receiving support from my co-supervisor Dr. Jon Corbett at the first and last Community Advisory Committee meetings. My other co-supervisor, Dr. Mary Stockdale, supported me in all four focus group meetings with answering questions, facilitating and participating in the Community Advisory Committee meetings as a community member. All of the meetings, other than the first Community Advisory Committee and third focus group, were audio-recorded. There was also a note-taker at each meeting. At the start of each meeting, participants received a printout of the meeting agenda and any accompanying documents 60 relevant to the meeting objectives. After each meeting I reflected on how the meeting went and how it could be improved with Dr. Mary Stockdale and the notetaker. Other details, specific to each meeting, are outlined below. 4.3.1 First Community Advisory Committee meeting I developed my workplan in preparation for the first Community Advisory Committee meeting. This included a brief background on L2T and the theory of network building, the research aim and questions, as well as the research approach, process and methods. It also included key definitions8 used within this research. In addition, an article about network weaving was handed out (Krebs & Holley, 2006). Participants expressed interest in the article and recommended that I share it with the focus group participants. The meeting started with a generous amount of time for introductions. This provided the opportunity for everyone to introduce themselves including some storytelling about what life experiences caused them to care about the regional food system. After this, I gave a slide presentation summarizing the contents of my workplan. This was followed by a discussion about the proposed project, where the Community Advisory Committee was asked to provide feedback on how the research plans and outputs could be improved. 4.3.2 Focus group meetings In advance of all four focus group meetings, participants received an email containing the details of the meeting, including location, date, time and what to expect. Attached to the email were three documents sent for the purposes of stimulating discussion in accordance with DD principles. One was an article about network weaving (Krebs & Holley, 2006), another was an outline of the participatory network mapping method and the third was a form for listing food system network members. Participants were asked to review the first two documents and complete the form by listing all of the regional food system individuals, groups or organizations that they were familiar with. Each focus group meeting was divided into two parts. All of the meetings lasted two or more hours. The first hour was facilitated by the L2T coordinator. Within that hour participants focused on forum follow-up, identifying priority actions for L2T to undertake in the fall of 2018. At the beginning of each meeting, time was taken for introductions. The second hour of the 8 I included definitions of the following terms in the workplan and shared these definitions at all of the mapping meetings: Community Based Participatory Research; Deliberative Dialogues; Food System; Collective Impact and network-related terms. 61 meetings was focused on the first research question: mapping and briefly analyzing the current food systems network from the point of view of their particular food system component (i.e. producers, processors, the ‘middle’, and consumers). I facilitated the second hour of the meetings, as it focused on my research. At the start of this second hour of the meeting, we reviewed the meeting agenda, then I explained the research project and its alignment with L2T’s work, the CBPR and DD approaches, the research questions and plans for the study results. I then described the confidentiality agreement and consent form. Once all questions were answered and all forms were signed, I explained the participatory network mapping method, going through the instructions carefully. To assist my explanations, I posted various large sheets of paper around the room with the necessary definitions and instructions, including: the purpose of and steps to participatory network mapping, the legend listing the food system categories, and the questions that I would be asking participants for the analysis portion at the end. Once everything was explained, the groups started the mapping activities (see Section 4.4.1) which I facilitated step by step. At the end of the meeting, time was taken to wrap-up the meeting and answer questions. Participants were made aware they could also email the researcher with questions and comments. At the end of the meeting, participants completed an exit survey (see Section 4.4.5). The order of the focus group meetings was determined by who was available at what time. We started with producers as it was a busy time of year and would become even busier over the research phase. 4.3.3 Second Community Advisory Committee meeting In advance of the second Community Advisory Committee meeting, I sent the committee members an updated version of the work plan reflecting their input from the first meeting. The meeting began with a conversation about what people want to see develop out of this network and the modified work plan. Next, I updated the committee on the results of the previous four focus group meetings by presenting all four network maps from these meetings (Figure 5). I had integrated these maps into one map in advance of the meeting, and this map was also presented to the committee. 62 Figure 5: Meeting space for the second Community Advisory Committee meeting All four network maps were visible around the room, and the compiled map was placed on the center of the table. This is the map the Community Advisory Committee added their information to. The other sheets of paper on the walls included the workshop directions and definitions. June 2018. (Photo by Eva-Lena Lang) Following this, the participants went through the first phase of map analysis, answering the same set of questions as the focus groups. Next, the committee went through the mapping exercise themselves; first taking a few minutes to write down any missing network members on stickies before adding them to the map. After adding these members to the map they discussed the relationships between members. A more detailed analysis of the network map, including strengths and weaknesses, was conducted with each participant completing a worksheet questionnaire (see section 4.4.4) during this process. During the analysis, time was taken between each question for participants to reflect and then answer individually the question in the worksheet, prior to a group of discussion. Participants were free to share their answers, but this was not required. To wrap up the meeting I talked about next steps before asking participants to complete an exit survey to analyze the meeting. 4.3.4 Third Community Advisory Committee meeting In the third meeting, the Community Advisory Committee worked together to develop recommendations for building the network. The agenda and a number of handouts (Table 5, handouts 2 and 3) were sent to the committee prior to the meeting. To prepare for this, my co-supervisor, Mary Stockdale and I had developed a framework of 14 questions to provide a 63 structure for the committee to develop recommendations for building the network (see Section 4.4.2). A worksheet was also prepared to give the Community Advisory Committee the opportunity to take notes while discussing each of the 14 questions. This worksheet included two final questions for evaluating the meeting itself. Several displays were created to hang on the walls, these included the agenda with the meeting purpose; the original diagram illustrating how the framework was constructed (Figure 11); and the build the network framework itself (Table 4). Also displayed in figure 6 were three examples of organizational structure, as described in Table 6 (handout 5). Figure 6: Three examples of network organizational structure Examples were from the Connecticut Food System Network, Vermont Farm to Plate Network, and the Vernon Social Planning Council Partners in Action, presented during the third meeting of the Community Advisory Committee, June 2018. The meeting started with an introduction that included: 1. a review of the agenda 2. the background to the meeting 3. the purpose of the meeting My presentation on the background included a presentation on the process used to develop the build the network framework for guiding the discussion. I also explained that the purpose of this meeting was to build the network, and the output was to produce a series of recommendations for the L2T network coordinator and steering committee on how to do this. I then presented the build the network framework of 14 questions (see Table 4 in Section 4.4.2). The worksheets were presented to the Community Advisory Committee participants at the same time, these were meant as an aid for the participants so that they could work through the questions, taking notes for their own thinking and for the researcher to look at later. We then 64 embarked upon the process of working our way through the framework questions, creating recommendations as we did so, as described in full in Section 4.4.2, on the build the network framework method. After going through the framework questions, participants were asked to evaluate the meeting; and the meeting ended with a discussion of next steps. 4.3.5 Fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting For the final meeting, the participants reviewed and evaluated the entire research project. I prepared a presentation for my introduction and as a visual guide for participants to refer to while they were answering the questions on the worksheet and during discussions. I did not send any literature to the participants in advance but they were given a printed agenda and a worksheet at the meeting. I started the meeting by reviewing the agenda. The introduction included a background to the research process, the research questions, and the meeting purpose. Next, I reviewed the research approach, process and methods used in each meeting, followed by the NVivo analysis used to obtain some of the preliminary results. After this, the preliminary research results were presented, structured as responses to the first and second research questions on mapping and building the network, respectively. After my introduction the meeting moved to an analysis phase, looking first at the preliminary research results, before evaluating the research methodology. First, we looked in turn at the results for the first and second research questions. This was another time in which I used DD principles, generating new data by engaging the participants in reviewing the preliminary results (Plamondon et al., 2015). The results were further structured into sub-sections for each research question, each of which was presented on one slide. After I reviewed each slide. I asked participants the following three questions: 1. What parts do you agree with? 2. What parts do you disagree with? Why? 3. Is there anything missing you would like to add? The participants made notes on their worksheets, we then had a discussion and I received feedback on the results of this sub-section. Next, we analysed the approach, process and methods to address the third research question on the lessons learned from the overall methodology. We began by reviewing the methods, including participatory network mapping and the build the network framework. For each method, I asked the following questions: 4. What worked? 65 5. What did not work? 6. What would you recommend for others in the future? Next, when reviewing the process, I asked the following question: 7. Would there have been a better way of doing it? We then briefly discussed the results from the exit survey in which participants evaluated how each meeting had gone. Finally, I asked the participants if we had achieved the intentions of the of CBPR and DD approaches. At the end, I asked for some brief feedback on the fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting itself, asking what worked, what did not, and whether they had any suggestion for improvement. To conclude, we discussed the next steps which were mainly about how the research results might be followed up on by L2T. 4.4 Methods There were two main methods used in this research project: the participatory networking mapping method, and the build the network framework method. Other methods included interviews, worksheet questionnaires, exit surveys, and journaling. 4.4.1 Participatory network mapping Other forms of network mapping, used elsewhere Network mapping, also known as social network analysis, started in the early 1930s with Jacob Moreno’s invention of the sociogram: “a picture in which people (or more generally, any social entities) are represented as points in two-dimensional space, and relationships among pairs of people are represented by lines linking the corresponding points” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 12). Over the years many people contributed to the development of social network analysis but it was at Harvard where it became a method of structural analysis in the work of Harrison White and colleagues, and Granovetter (Scott, 2000). It was recognized that analytic techniques could be “used to study social structure” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 12). These measures give “insight into the various roles and groups in a network”, including who the connectors and leaders are, and who are in the core versus the periphery of the network (Krebs, n.d.). Social network analysis has been widely used in many disciplines, including in healthcare, sociology and management (Borgatti et al., 2013, p. vi; Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Network mapping is an important part of network building; maps show the members and relationships in the network, revealing the connections or lack of them, and answering important questions for the network building process (Krebs & Holley, 2006). Also, network analysis “can be used to study the process of change within a group over time” (Wasserman & Faust, 1994, p. 66 10). In a report from the Minnesota Food Charter Network, the authors noted that “it is essential to keep working to strengthen the networks, relationships, and connections in order to create a built-in feedback loop and mechanism for ongoing assessment and planning” (Harden et al., 2015, p. 21). Assessing the pattern and quality of a network in a network map improves its connectivity (Krebs & Holley, 2006). Maps help participants to visualize the current network; learning where information and other resources are flowing, identifying common interests and finding out who or what connections are missing (Ogden, 2018). Software-based mapping, using mathematical and statistical approaches, can be useful when analyzing complex network information, but the technical language and requisite software can be difficult to understand (Plastrik et al., 2014; Scott, 2000). An advantage with the software is it “sorts, measures, and organizes data for easier interpretation” (Plastrik et al., 2014, p. 154). An example of some of the software available is: Kumu, Gephi, InFlow and Visualyzer software. Data for these programs is collected through surveys of individual network members and the mathematical results are presented in an image or network map. One challenge with surveys is that network members might not fill the whole survey out, causing the data to be incomplete (Plastrik et al., 2014). A different network mapping method is the Net-Map method. The Net-Map method was first used in northern Ghana, as a low-cost and low tech-tool for improving coordination amongst stakeholders working on sustainable water use (Schiffer & Hauck, 2010). Participants were asked to draw their network on a sheet of blank paper, using multicoloured cards (we used stickie notes) to write down names of network members and coloured pens to draw the different types of links (Hauck, Stein, Schiffer, & Vandewalle, 2015; Schiffer & Hauck, 2010). During the process, participants also analyzed the network information (Hauck et al., 2015). Schiffer and Hauck also used Visualyzer software to analyze the data, but the benefit of the initial participatory analysis was the immediate benefits for the participants, including the formation of common goals and knowledge exchange (2010). Participatory network mapping, used here For this Master’s research, we decided to use a type of mapping that we called participatory network mapping. Compared to software-based analysis, this participatory method is more aligned with our CBPR approach. A characteristic of participatory approaches, as presented by Cornwall and Jewkes, is adapting conventional research methods for use in new contexts with local people (1995). With participatory network mapping, the process of mapping 67 itself can build the network by creating or strengthening relationships amongst participants. It can also enhance understanding of a range of important information as well as stimulate greater ideas for, and engagement in, network building (Krebs & Holley, 2006; Plastrik et al., 2014). Participatory network mapping, also called hand mapping, has been used by a number of communities across the USA, and I developed my ideas for this method from several key sources (Kalda, Schultz, Schwenger, & Nexus, 2011; Krebs & Holley, 2006; Minnesota Food Charter Network, n.d.; Plastrik et al., 2014). In developing a mapping method for this research, I made a series of decisions, as follows: 1. Identify the purpose of network mapping (Krebs & Holley, 2006). Before mapping a network, it is important to know what it wants to achieve (Adam & Kriesi, 2007). The purpose of network mapping in our case was to map the regional food system network that currently exists in order to analyze its strengths and weaknesses. 2. Identify the network boundary. In our case, the boundary of the population under study (Wasserman & Faust, 1994), are the food system stakeholders of the North Okanagan. 3. Identify core, periphery and potential. A core periphery structure is commonly featured in many networks (Hoppe & Reinelt, 2010), and we decided to depict this in the map as well, although we expanded it to three: core, periphery and potential (Figure 7), which were drawn as three concentric circles on a large sheet of paper (the background of the map). These were defined as follows: a. Core: Individuals, groups or organizations that are regularly involved with or work together with in the regional food system. b. Periphery: Individuals, groups or organizations who are less actively involved but who can still influence the success of the regional food system. c. Potential: Individuals, groups or organizations who are not involved at all in the food system at present, but who share common values and may be interested in working together in some capacity to strengthen the regional food system in the future. 68 Figure 7: Mapping guidelines Visual displays explaining core, periphery and potential, and the mapping legend of food system categories. (Photo by Jon Corbett, June 2018) 4. Identify the type of members. For the mapping process, a regional food system network member was defined as follows: any individual, group or organization that is or potentially could be involved in strengthening the regional food system to be more “economically prosperous, socially accessible, environmentally sustainable” (a shorthand for the mission of L2T). A stickie note was used to represent each member. The members were colour-coded to illustrate the following food system categories (Figure 7): producer (bright green), processor (bright orange), agricultural supplier (teal), wholesalers/ distributor (bright pink), retailer (bright blue) or service (bright yellow), or support groups: government (light yellow), non-profit (light pink), academic (light green) other (dark orange). These stickies representing the different food system members were placed on the appropriate part of the map, based on where they were in the core, periphery or potential zones, and whether they had relationships, or not, with neighbouring stickies. 5. Identify the relationships to be mapped. Both strong and weak relationships are important for a network. According to Granovetter (1983), weak ties are an integral part of a network, sharing information that would not necessarily be shared between strong ties as information can be shared through a wider network using the many weak ties. The initial plan was to use a set of strings in three colours (Figure 8) to represent the following relationships. 69 • Yellow: Strong (active) relationships: where individuals, groups or organizations are regularly involved with each other or work together and know each other well. • Blue: Weak (passive) relationships: where individuals, groups or organizations know each other but are not regularly involved with each other or working together. • Red: Information sharing relationships where individuals, groups or organizations are sharing advice, information or expertise. Stickie notes with arrows were used to indicate the predominant direction of the information flow (i.e. experienced farmers >> young farmers). Figure 8: Mapping relationships Using string and masking tape for mapping strong, weak and information sharing relationships, May 2018 (Photo by Jon Corbett). Analysing the maps An analysis of the maps was done at the end of each focus group mapping session. Participants were asked the following questions as suggested by Krebs and Holley (2006): 1. Does the network include all of the individuals, groups, organizations needed for success? 2. Are the right connections in place? 3. Who is not connected but should be? 4. Are any key connections missing? 5. Where are the gaps? Each focus group created one map. The four maps were integrated into one map in advance of the second meeting of the Community Advisory Committee. To do this, I first 70 reviewed each map, cross-checking what was put on the map with what was said in the meeting notes. Once I had reviewed all the maps, I wrote out all the network members on new stickie notes and sorted them by food system category on a large sheet of paper, placed on the floor (Figure 9). Figure 9: Reviewing the maps, June 2018 (Photo by Eva-Lena Lang) Four different coloured markers were used to write these names, enabling the viewer to see which focus groups the data had come from originally. Next, I combined the overlapping members by (e.g. ‘Nature’s Fare’) stacking them (Figure 10). Figure 10: Network member overlaps, June 2018 Organizing stickies and reveals the network member overlaps (Photo by Eva-Lena Lang) 71 Finally, I reassembled the new stickie notes on a new map, after which the map was presented to the Community Advisory Committee at their second meeting. The additional member stickie notes added by the Community Advisory Committee were written in pen, to identify them as the source for this data. Afterwards, I typed up the network members, keeping them sorted by food system category as well as their location in the core, periphery or potential. This resulted in five separate excel sheets, one for each type of map. The Community Advisory Committee was asked to conduct a more in-depth analysis of the final map in their second meeting. In addition to the earlier questions on what members or connections were missing, as had been asked of the focus groups, the Community Advisory Committee were also asked (Krebs & Holley, 2006): 1. Who is actively engaged? What network members are making a difference in the North Okanagan food system network? 2. Who are playing leadership roles in the community? Who is not, but should be? 3. Who are the experts in process, planning and practice? 4. Who are the mentors that others seek out for advice? 5. Who are the innovators? Are ideas shared and acted upon? 6. Are there any collaborative alliances? Should there be? 4.4.2 Build the network framework The purpose for developing the build the network framework was to facilitate a well-structured discussion on how to build the newly formed L2T network. The framework is a set of 14 questions categorized by four network themes of connectivity, alignment, production and health. Below is the process that my co-supervisor, Mary Stockdale, and I used to create the framework. First, I conducted a literature review on network building and Collective Impact. We wanted to include both concepts in our framework, as there is considerable overlap, both conceptually and in terms of how they are applied in food system work (see Section 3.5.1). What we were interested in gleaning from the literature were the many ideas and suggestions for building a strong network and Collective Impact initiative, whether it was about how to ‘weave’ better relationships or how to design the network’s organizational structure, amongst others. After reviewing these many different ideas, we began to write each of them down on stickies, colour coding them according to the information source. Next came the task of organising this information. A scan of the different ideas showed that they all could fit into one of the following network characteristics: connection, alignment, 72 production (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) and health (Plastrik et al., 2014). Once the different ideas were categorized by the above characteristics, they were sub-categorized further, resulting in the working draft of the build the network framework, shown in Figure 11. Figure 11: Working draft for developing questions used in the build the network framework, June 2018 (Photo by Eva-Lena Lang) Finally, questions were developed out of these different sub-categories. The final framework consisted of 14 questions as outlined in Table 4. The literature supporting the question is cited in the right hand column. This supporting literature, plus the ideas extracted from it, are described in greater detail in Appendix A. The purpose of asking the first question was to encourage discussion about the different types of networks (connectivity, alignment and production) to address what balance of these three might be most appropriate for the North Okanagan network. The rest of the questions were structured around network connectivity (questions 2-4), alignment (question 5), production (question 6), and health (questions 7-14). 73 Table 4: The build the network framework, listing the framework’s questions, and the literature supporting the question QUESTION SUPPORTING MATERIAL 1) “What kind of network do you want to build”? Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 32 Connection 2) What recommendations are there for adding missing members or connecting isolated individuals and clusters? Ehrlichman, Sawyer, & Wei-Skillem, 2015 Growing the Local Food Economy (GLFE) Forum Report, 2018; NOFSI Objectives Krebs & Holley, 2006 3) What recommendations are there for building collaborative alliances? Ogden, 2018 Plastrik & Taylor, 2006 Plastrik, Taylor, & Cleveland, 2014 4) What recommendations are there for cultivating trust, reciprocity and inclusiveness? Alignment 5) What recommendations are there for developing a common agenda? Ehrlichman, Sawyer, & Wei-Skillem, 2015 Kania & Kramer, 2011 Plastrik & Taylor, 2006 Plastrik et al., 2014 GLFE Forum Report, 2018; NOFSI Objectives Production 6) What recommendations are there for planning and coordinating mutually reinforcing activities? Kania & Kramer, 2011 Plastrik & Taylor, 2006 GLFE Forum Report, 2018; NOFSI Objectives Health 7) What recommendations are there for identifying and organizing the initial membership of the network? Ehrlichman et al., 2015 Plastrik & Taylor, 2006 Plastrik et al., 2014 8) What recommendations are there for developing a governance model? 9) What recommendations are there for organizational structure, events and other ways of connecting? Kania & Kramer, 2011 Plastrik et al., 2014 GLFE Forum Report, 2018; NOFSI Objectives 10) What recommendations are there for developing and implementing the initial operating principles of the network? Plastrik & Taylor, 2006 Plastrik et al., 2014 11) What recommendations are there for the education and training for network guardians, weavers, facilitators, coordinators and members? GLFE Forum Report, 2018 Krebs & Holley, 2006 Plastrik et al., 2014 12) What recommendations are there for the financial plan? GLFE Forum Report, 2018; NOFSI Objectives Krebs & Holley, 2006 Plastrik et al., 2014 13) What recommendations are there for a communication plan and membership database? GLFE Forum Report, 2018; NOFSI Objectives Kania & Kramer, 2011 Krebs & Holley, 2006 14) What recommendations are there for a shared measurement system plan? GLFE Forum Report, 2018; NOFSI Objectives Kania & Kramer, 2011 Krebs & Holley, 2006 Plastrik & Taylor, 2006 Plastrik et al., 2014 Framing Paper: The State of Network Evaluation, 2014 74 This framework provided a crucial, literature-based structure for the Community Advisory Committee’s discussion in their third meeting of how to build the L2T network. However, there was one more step in the planning of this discussion. This was to build in the DD principles of supplying the committee with small excerpts of the literature (literature synthesis) or the preliminary mapping results (research evidence) at the appropriate time (or framework question) to better inform their decision-making. The way we did this is elaborated in Table 5. 75 Table 5: Dialogue Literature Synthesis and research evidence handouts used for Deliberative Dialogue in the third Community Advisory Committee meeting Handout Description How the handout was used Referencing the build the network framework question (FQ) used below Reference An infographic from the Minnesota Food Charter Network describing statewide food networks as a natural ecosystem Participants took turns reading selections of this out loud and discussed the concept to set the scene and connect before discussing recommendations to build the network. (Harden, Heim, & Bain, 2015, p. 3) 1 Important themes found across a review of five U.S. food systems initiatives: “Investing time, building trust, being strategic about communication, using stories as strategy and evaluation, tracking economic impact and other metrics, engaging diverse stakeholders.” After reviewing the first part of the handout I briefly touched on these themes for participants to learn more about food systems initiatives. (Shapiro, Hoey, Savas, & Colasanti, 2015, p.6). The network triangle showing the three network phases (connectivity, alignment and productivity) similar to Figure 3. To assist while discussing FQ1 (what kind of network participants want to build) and FQ11 (recommendations for education and training). (Ogden, 2013) 2 A table on tasks required for building the three network phases (connectivity, alignment and productivity), see Table 3. (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 33) 3 A table describing the different structures of an idealised network, over four phases of time. We discussed where the L2T network would be placed in these phases. (FQ1). (Krebs & Holley, 2006) 4 Preliminary mapping and analysis results presented in two tables: 1. the missing members or relationships in the network; 2. some proposed collaborative alliances amongst specific members. To refer to while discussing question FQ2 (adding missing members or connecting isolated clusters) and FQ3 (building collaborative alliances). Four focus group meetings and second Community Advisory Committee meeting. 5 The organizational structure of three different food system or other networks. 1. The Farm to Plate Network in Vermont 2. The Connecticut Food System Network 3. The Social Planning Council’s Partners in Action Committee in Vernon To assist with FQ9, on what organizational structure L2T should have. 6 Definitions of the network, guardians, weavers, facilitators and coordinators. These were briefly referred to assist with FQ11, on the education and training of network guardians, weavers, facilitators, coordinators and members. (Holley, 2012, p.363-364) 76 4.4.3 Interviews Key stakeholders who were unable to participate in the focus groups were asked for an interview and their mapping data was pooled with the relevant focus group. In the end, I did two interviews that were relevant to the mapping. The first interview was with a market gardener who had expressed interest in the research, although she did not have time to commit to the meetings. We did the participatory network mapping on a smaller sheet of paper, and this one-on-one process allowed the individual to organize their network members more carefully and identify the strong, weak and information sharing relationships. The second farmer, a meat producer, did not have time to go through the entire mapping process, but she did list her network members under three headings (core, periphery, potential) and explained these relationships. 4.4.4 Worksheet questionnaires During the last three Community Advisory Committee meetings participants each completed a worksheet questionnaire. The purpose of the questionnaire was for participants to reflect on each of the discussion questions as they were asked and take a few moments to write down their comments. This allowed everyone to contribute to the discussion individually and took into account that not everything could be discussed during the meetings due to time limitations. The questionnaires also provided me with more detailed data to analyse later with NVivo. 4.4.5 Exit surveys At the end of 5 of the 8 meetings, participants completed an exit survey on the research process of the meeting and facilitation. The main purpose of the exit survey was to receive feedback on how the meeting went. This information was used to inform the next meeting. 4.4.6 Journaling Throughout the research process I documented my thoughts, taking notes about the research process, reflecting on the meetings and my facilitation, and what improvements could be made. 4.5 NVivo analysis of the meeting data I audio-recorded three focus group and three Community Advisory Committee meetings. Unfortunately, I had an error with the audio recording from the Engage the Consumer group and it did not work; but fortunately, for all meetings I also had a notetaker. I typed up my notes, on 77 the day of or the day following each research activity (Crang, 2005). Within a few days of the meetings I reviewed the meeting process with Liz Blakeway, the notetaker, and Dr. Mary Stockdale, although we did not review the last meeting. I used QSR NVivo International as my data analysis software tool. I transcribed the audio recordings directly into NVivo, and added my notes from all of the meetings. I also included three documents from Community Advisory Committee meetings 2, 3 and 4, in which the results from the participant worksheets had been compiled. The first time I went through the data I briefly went through the meeting notes after the meeting. Once it was time to review the material, using the knowledge developed from the research, I made sense of the material through coding and analytic induction, “going from the material to ideas, back to the material” (Crang, 2005, p. 224). I followed what Crang (2005, p. 223) suggests, and reflected on what was meant, “or what was being done and why”, and wrote down these ideas, known as ‘open coding’ (p. 222), to formalize them into categories or codes. During this process I would refer to and review my facilitation notes and write notes into NVivo. I developed themes “by constantly comparing the codes and their contents, new and old material, so all themes and implications of the materials are drawn out” (Crang, 2005, p.225). Within the coding process, I grouped different codes with similar characteristics (Crang, 2005). I looked at how the themes overlapped, how they opposed each other and developed sub-themes and sub-themes (Crang, 2005). After having coded all the data and developed themes, I developed my understanding further by organizing it within an excel worksheet sheet where I could review and summarize the various themes and sub-themes. 4.6 Summary The approach, process and methods described in this chapter all formed part of the overall research methodology, which was developed to address the Research Aim: to facilitate a group of stakeholders to further strengthen their regional food system network. The more specific research questions were developed as a result of this methodology, each building from the previous one(s) in order to support the Research Aim. First Research Question: Has this research methodology (in particular the participatory network mapping method) enabled a group of stakeholders to obtain sufficient information about their regional food system network to effectively analyze its strength and weaknesses? How or in what ways? 78 Second Research Question: Has this research methodology (in particular the Build the Network Framework) enabled a group of stakeholders to obtain sufficient information about their regional food system network to build one that is more connected, aligned, productive and healthy? Third Research Question: What are the lessons learned from the implementation of the research methodology (approach, process and methods)? The results obtained for these three questions are described in the next three chapters, respectively. The next chapter: Chapter 5, will therefore begin with the first Research Question. 79 Chapter 5: Results – Mapping the Network 5.1 Overview This chapter addresses the first Research Question: Has this research methodology (in particular the participatory network mapping method) enabled a group of stakeholders to obtain sufficient information about their regional food system network to effectively analyze its strength and weaknesses? How or in what ways? The results are presented in the order of the various meetings. The first four sections discuss the meetings held for the four stakeholder focus groups: Sustain the Farmers, Support the Processors, Develop the Middle, Engage the Consumers. These meetings mostly concentrated on doing the participatory network mapping exercise, followed by some preliminary analysis. The final section describes the second meeting of the Community Advisory Committee, in which an amalgamated map from the previous meetings was added to and ratified, after which the Community Advisory Committee conducted a more thorough analysis. Within each section there are two subsections: 1. meeting results, or what happened at the meeting itself; 2. mapping results, or what sort of data was added to the map by the participants, and the results of the participants’ analysis of the map once completed. 5.2 Sustain the Farmers 5.2.1 Meeting results This meeting was well attended; if the group was any larger it would have been challenging to facilitate. Eleven people participated in the Sustain the Farmers meeting (Figure 12) and two additional people were interviewed, making thirteen. It was facilitated by three facilitators. The group consisted of four market gardeners, two meat producers, an orchardist, a beekeeper, two engaged consumers who were interested in supporting the producers, and an agrologist from the government who works closely with producers. Half of the participants knew at least half of the group, and one participant knew almost everyone, but there were also a few participants who did not know anyone before coming to the meeting. In addition, I interviewed two participants separately that were unable to attend the meeting: a market gardener and a meat producer, and I added their information to the Sustain the Farmers map. I did not transcribe the first hour of the meeting as this was the L2T forum follow up portion of the meeting, facilitated by the L2T coordinator, and was not applicable to my research. The second house was the portion of the meeting that I facilitated. Participants would 80 refer to comments made in the first hour, especially the comments made during their introductions, as this session had included some storytelling. The storytelling had been included in the meeting’s agenda to allow people to connect with each other, learn of their common challenges and build trust. This was indeed the outcome; passionate individuals spoke about many of the challenges they face, and there was a sense of trust in the room, as indicated by how openly they spoke. Some of the challenges mentioned included concerns with ground water-use lisence registration, issues with privacy as a result of unannounced government on-site visits regarding water, and the impact of the Meat Inspection Regulations on the community. The participatory network mapping exercise conducted in the second hour was useful for getting people to think about the regional food system as a whole and where each participant is positioned relative to others. As this was the first mapping meeting, there were more questions asked than at later meetings, as the facilitators and participants together worked out some of the details of the method. For example, the colour-coded network member categories listed in the legend, which had included food system components (producers, processors, wholesalers/distributors, retail, services) as well as additional supportive groups (government, non-profits, academics), proved to be insufficient. Additional network member categories added to the legend at this meeting were ‘agricultural suppliers’, including suppliers of seed, sprays, fertilizers, feed, supplies, equipment, repair services, veterinary care, etc.; and ‘other’, who at this meeting included engaged consumers or local food advocates, who would like to support producers through their food purchasing decisions but who are not otherwise members of the food system. When mapping the producers themselves, sometimes the larger or commodity-oriented producers (e.g. some of the larger dairy, chicken, lettuce and cherry producers, or the vegetable and fruit producers who exclusively sell to wholesalers and sometimes they were not. When asked whether they should be included, the facilitator explained that they are not a central part of the L2T network’s efforts to grow the local food economy because they are connected exclusively to external markets. However, the point was made that without these other, often larger producers existing in the region, there would likely not be nearly as many of the agricultural suppliers who are important for the survival of the medium and small-scale producers. During this meeting there was confusion about mapping the actors that exist outside the region but that have strong relationships with network members inside the region. One market gardener, responding in the producer exit survey said: 81 “I am interested in the place in network mapping of entities that are located outside the geographic area but (that) can have a significant influence in the development of the local food network.” When the time came to map the relationships between the different network members, it turned out to be quite challenging. For one thing, it was physically difficult to stick down the string on the map with masking tape. Also, the large number of participants meant they were sitting at a large table to accommodate everyone, and this distance between them created long criss-crossing lines. However, it was evident from the transcript that the process helped to stimulate an interesting discussion of relationships. During this meeting, it was difficult to transcribe the conversation for a number of reasons: there were a large number of participants, and a higher number than usual of questions were being asked of the facilitators, leading to two or three conversations at the same time. An additional challenge was that the producers really welcomed the chance to socialize; thus, there were also personal conversations taking place while others were mapping. However, everyone was engaged, interested and keen to discuss important issues. I was glad to have started the focus group research with the Sustain the Farmers group, because as a farmer myself, we have a high level of mutual trust between us and I felt supported by my peers and mentors. After this first meeting, I decided to change our methods in the following ways: 1. Include additional network member categories: ‘agriculture suppliers’, and ‘other’ 2. Ask everyone to take turns in groups of one to three to place them on the map, allowing others to watch what was going on. 3. Stop using string to map the relationships and instead draw lines on the white background paper, using felt markers of two different colours to represent ‘weak’ and strong’ relationships. 4. Prepare a very clear outline of the whole process, including each of the steps, to better instruct participants at the start. This included a discussion of the different food system categories and how they would be represented by colour-coded sticky notes. We also decided to illustrate how the mapping worked using an example where we placed a sticky representing each of the L2T steering committee members, correctly colour-coded, on the map’s ‘core’ zone. 5. Prepare the participants in advance for the mapping exercise; asking participants as they arrive whether they had filled out the form for listing the network members (this form had been emailed to them in advance). Either way, we planned to encourage them to 82 transfer or add these names to the colour-coded sticky notes, making their own piles of network members or actors, sorted into core, periphery and potential categories. 5.2.2 Mapping results and analysis As can be seen in Figure 12, the Sustain the Farmers focus group mapped a total of 192 regional food system members covering ten network member categories. Table 6 presents the numbers for each of the ten categories, further identifying whether the network members had been placed in the core, periphery or potential concentric circles of the map. The most numerous categories were the producers, followed by the retailers, non-profits, and processors. Figure 12: Sustain the Farmers map, May 2018 (Photo by Eva-Lena Lang) 83 Table 6: Sustain the Farmers Number of network members included on the regional food system network map of the ‘Sustain the Farmers’ focus group during a meeting held in May 2018. These members are classified by category as well as by their position in the network as core, periphery or potential. Network Member Categories Core Periphery Potential Total Agricultural service/ suppliers 13 13 4 30 Producer 24 12 5 41 Processor 7 13 1 21 Wholesaler/ distributor 6 3 0 9 Retailer 20 11 5 36 Service 0 2 2 4 Other 0 0 2 2 Government 5 3 5 13 Non-profit 7 15 9 31 Academic 1 2 2 5 Total 83 74 35 192 Interestingly producers were not all mapped in the core, although more than half were. The remainder were considered peripheral or even potential. During the analysis the beekeeper realized that he was not participating in the local food system as much as he assumed, as he relies mostly on relationships outside of the region, such as the BC Honey Producers Association and the BC Bee Breeders Association. While looking at the map, he had the following to say about his position in the local food system: “I don't think it's too complicated. I think it really puts things into perspective. Like, I am just starting to realize I am not really too much involved in the local food system. Like, like, I never really thought about it. Like, I just thought I'm a farmer in the area so I must be involved in the local <emphasises local> food system. But, it’s its own thing. You know, it's like, its own heartbeat, and you're just chilling and thinking, oh look it's over there.” Organic farmers were mapped in clusters connected by the area they farm in and/ or their affiliation with certain organic certification bodies. This illustrated how they share many similar relationships even though they may have different markets. There are particularly strong relationships amongst the organic market gardeners. Mapping on her own in an interview, a 84 young market gardener drew strong, collaborative, information-sharing relationships between herself and other young farmers, and mentorship relationships with older farmers (Figure 13). Figure 13: Young market gardener map Individual mapping exercise during separate interview, June 2018 (Photo by Eva-Lena Lang) Three meat producers participated; two in the focus group meeting, and one in an individual interview. Meat producers are connected to one another within the region, and also to meat producers and abattoirs outside of the region. Meat producers share information and also supply each other with animal feed, forage and other resources. They listed a number of agricultural suppliers that are unique to them, including feed producers and suppliers, veterinarians, two sheep shearers, and machinery suppliers and services. Many of these suppliers were placed in the periphery by the meat producers. Some of the suppliers were placed inside the region and others outside of the region. Although they are placed in the periphery, these suppliers are still very important, for example, the sheep shearers who shear the sheep once a year, or the veterinarians. Producers identified that there is a lack of connection between them and their suppliers. Producers identified the need for custom small-scale specialized equipment and cited a lack of agricultural suppliers in the region. One producer expressed: “I think a part of it is, also, look at small scale farming (versus) corporates. I mean if I phone up Avenue (Machinery) and say I want to buy a 1/4 million dollar tractor, they're on me like butter on toast. But, if I need a little tractor, 18 horse power for weeding?!”… “Like I said all the equipment is available, just somewhere else.” As another example the beekeeper commented: “It's like I wanna... I want a bee boom, I've got to buy it from Spain for $27,000 dollars”. 85 However, as described earlier, producers made the point that without large-scale producers in the region, small-scale farming would not exist at the scale that it does as there would be even fewer suppliers. Although a number of processors were mapped, the producer group agreed that more processors would be better. A market gardener: “Oh yeah, we have a severe lack of processors”. Interestingly, the majority of the processors were placed in the periphery. The challenges faced by meat producers, especially the lack of a custom or small-scale abattoirs, are issues that all the producers discussed, even the orchardists and market gardeners, as these issues are well known in the region. When asked to map the processors, one participant commented: “Umm like the illegal ones”?! This comment highlights the issue of trust and the impact the Meat Inspection Regulations have had. Discussing a mobile chicken processor in the Armstrong region, one producer mentioned: “He is still around but what happened to it is they got involved but they could not find anyone to run it, so, basically they sold their shares off… But, that was a… otherwise the closest place, if anybody wants to process any chickens or anything, they have to go to Kelowna”. A processor of grains and seeds, was appreciated very much for its other role as a supplier, because they can supply some of these grains and seeds back to farmers for their next crop. An organic market gardener explained at the second Community Advisory Committee meeting the role Fieldstone plays in the region: “They (Fieldstone) were, when we did our little map, a service provider for us (organic farmers), we buy our green manure seed from them, when we can. So that is a really good service to have, plus to have it in the area. We literally go pick up 100 pounds of seed and they don't have to ship it”. With regards to regional marketing, there is a lack of connection between producers and retailers, as well as between producers and food services (restaurants, etc.), in many cases due to the lack of a regional wholesaler/distributor. Most of the retailers that were mapped were in the core, reflecting direct marketing relationships between them and the producers. Connections between small-scale farmers and independent retail do exist but they are limited. One reason might be that the retailers do not have the capacity to support more farmers. The size of the available retail market would increase dramatically if there was a distributor available to supply medium and large retail; producers expressed that the capacity to supply local retail exists but there is a need for aggregating and organizing the food products for convenient delivery. 86 The wholesaler/distributors, although few in numbers, were both in the core and in the periphery. A market gardener, in the exit survey, describing one outside wholesaler/distributor that works with producers within the region: “Discovery Organics - will buy medium sized amounts of wholesale product e.g. 1 pallet, 1/2 pallet, will cooperate on co-shipping, that is significant to the finances of small-medium sized farms”. Discussion also focused on a potential distributor based in Kelowna that was still under formation. A distributor based in the North Okanagan that buys and sells organic produce was placed in the periphery. Few food services were mapped, only the Silver Star Mountain Resort and Basketcase Picnics (the latter are the Okanagan College caterers) were placed in the periphery and two other institutional caterers for hospitals and schools were mapped in the potential. It does not seem as if the regional restaurants and institutional caterers are buying local products. From my work in L2T, I know that there are not any chefs in the region who are known for having a strong policy on using local food. Similar to retailers, it would help to have a distributor to make it easier for food services to access local food. Producers are connected with non-profit organizations, however there are also some gaps. Participants mapped some non-profits in the core and many in the periphery and potential. Young farmers are connected to Young Agrarians (core), which now runs very successful local events and educational programming, and some experienced farmers are also connected to this organization through its business mentorship program. However, others sense a need for greater support from the non-profit sector. Regional organic certification bodies and the Certified Organic Associations of British Columbia umbrella agency all exist in the regional district, and participants said that they could be involved in a greater capacity. Government actors are spread evenly across core, periphery and potential. Producers expressed that there is a lack of B.C. Ministry of Agriculture support, although this government agency was placed in the core. Participants regretted that the Ministry of Agriculture had eliminated their extension services, introducing instead an online platform called the ‘Information Basket’. This platform provided information for producers that mainly focused on exports. When referring to the ‘Information Basket’ a market gardener commented: “You can end up with information from anywhere in the world but nothing local. So that’s how they basically turned it all over to the computer.” One market gardener stated: “Well, they used to have an extension arm, John Price was the specialist, and now it's gone. They more often tell you about regulations, the regulations part of it.” 87 The beekeeper, who had a part time position with the Ministry of Agriculture: “Well, I don't know what it is like in other parts of the Ministry of Ag but I know like, for instance, my boss has been trying to fill my position, for like, two years. Like no one, can't get anyone to take it, can't, no one has the skill sets that he wants, to go in… Most of the people that have that are trying to run an operation, so you're trying to take them away from that to pay them, you know, nothing to do government work, so you, they need to have people coming out of university, that like are going into that or something. Or you have to pay them enough so that it makes sense for someone not to run an operation but actually do this government job instead. And they used to be like 3 full time positions. Now there is one kind of quasi part time position.” The UBCO is engaged in a research capacity with the North Okanagan food system, but UBCO as well as other academic institutions at various levels, including Okanagan College (OC), Kwantlen Polytechnic University (KPU) and School District #22 were identified as potential institutions to be drawn in to the network for various educational purposes. Producers discussed the lack of skilled labour, and the need for training and mentoring for agricultural jobs. Discussing one chicken processor in the region, one producer commented: “Yeah. And it's like right now, I don't know how much work she does. It's help, we talk about going to college, but like there is nothing, no chicken processing person, and how are you going to get any work. Mostly young people, I have gone through hundreds of young kids in my life time and they were good years ago, but you can't find hardly anyone who wants to work anymore. No matter what you pay em. That’s my opinion only”. Producers also identified a need for consumer education and food advocacy. Another market gardener said: “One thing I know is the Ministry of Agriculture, there is no one there, which I think could be a pretty good connection, I don't see the college in there, anywhere, when we're talking, when we talk about education, and I don't see any consumer advocacy groups, as in food security groups … And I think that's a big gap”. 5.3 Develop the Middle: Food Wholesale, Distribution, Retail and Services 5.3.1 Meeting results The Develop the Middle focus group ended up being the smallest group, with three participants representing wholesale/distribution, one of which was a non-profit distribution service. There was no representation from retail or services, although a number of them had been invited to both this meeting and the Growing the Local Food Economy forum. The L2T steering committee had brainstormed about who to invite, as retail and services are not highly engaged categories in the food system network, apart from one retailer who did participate in the first three of the Community Advisory Committee meetings. 88 None of these distributors had known each other before this meeting. This was the second meeting out of the series of four, and the lessons learned from the first meeting turned out to be useful for improving the mapping exercise; for example, the more detailed explanation of the legend and its different, colour-coded network member categories. A challenge was that some participants did not come prepared with their list of network members as requested. They commented that although they have many members connected to their business, they could not recall them all on the spot. The facilitation was not as rushed for this smaller group, allowing more time for discussion. There was a lot of discussion during the mapping process, as individuals were stimulated by the visual development of the map. In this meeting, participants depicted the relationships between network members by drawing lines on the background white paper rather than using string; this was much easier to do, although more difficult to erase if the group’s opinions changed (Figure 14). Finally, each participant took their turn to present their network members and the relationships between them. Additional information was captured through this method. Figure 14: Develop the Middle focus group, mapping relationships by drawing on the background paper, June 2018 (Photo by Eva-Lena Lang) The meeting was more relaxed than expected, with the former strangers sharing their dreams about how their businesses could improve, or how they could support each other. Acknowledging that they are competitors, they also realized that they could work together in the off-season. Participant one (the international organic distributor) could supply organic products 89 to participant two (a local distributor) instead of a company in Vancouver; and vice versa in the growing season as participant one could take the surplus of participant two and distribute it outside of the region. Meanwhile, the third participant (the distributor for low-income households) could take discounted products from the other two at the different seasons for their household box delivery program. A positive result from the focus group meetings therefore is the networking that takes place within them. All three individuals that participated did not know each other previously and were very excited about developing new relationships. This meeting was very different as it was a small group that actively networked throughout the meeting; compared to the producer group where many knew each other already and had often discussed many of the issues. After this meeting I decided to make one modification to the training method, which was to place some actors from my own network on the map as an example of how to do the exercise. 5.3.2 Mapping results and analysis In their map of the food system network the participants mapped 44 actors, see Table 7. Table 7: Develop the Middle: Food Wholesale, Distribution, Retail and Services Number of network members included on the regional food system network map of the Develop the Middle focus group during a meeting held in June 2018. These members are classified by food system category as well as by their position in the core, periphery or potential zones. Network Member Categories Core Periphery Potential Total Agricultural service/supplier 3 0 0 3 Producer 11 0 0 11 Processor 1 0 0 1 Wholesaler/Distributor 6 0 0 6 Retailer 1 1 2 4 Service 0 2 4 6 Other 0 1 0 1 Government 0 0 0 0 Non-profit 3 7 2 12 Academic 0 0 0 0 Total 25 11 8 44 90 For the distributors themselves, six were mapped, all in the core. The strongest relationships of the distributors were with producers, all of whom were in the core; however, this was still a relatively small group of 11 members. The participants in the Develop the Middle focus group described their relationships with the producers as vulnerable. Relationships are lost when producers retire; although the farm may still be active, the relationship with the new farmer may not be continued. Only one processor was mapped, as these distributors do not distribute processed foods. The ‘middle’ discussed the continuous food waste that exists, and that the surplus raw food is not being salvaged by being processed because there is a lack of processors to handle the surplus produce. One participant, who worked with farmers, said: “Or yeah, like with our extra grown stock, we accidentally grew 1000lb too much broccoli. Where there's too much stock. If we take a look at what France is modelling, right, in terms of wastage and spoilage, it’s an unbelievable program”. The relationships of distributors with retailers and services were more in the periphery or potential. Only one of the distributors was supposed to be distributing to the retail and services, but his business was still under development, which is why his retail actors are still in the periphery and potential. For the other two participants, these food system components were not a part of their network. According to the distributors, medium and smaller retail could become more involved in the network but large corporate retail will not. Services like institutions with catering facilities also need to be drawn in, including hospitals, the North Okanagan Hospice Society, seniors centers and long-term care facilities. Non-profits were mapped in the core, periphery and potential, but no government or academic institutions were included in the map. A discussion was had about challenges with food access and the lack of government support. There is also a need to have more involvement of educational groups (e.g. media, museums, non-profits, government bodies, academic institutions) to address food access and educate consumers on what local food is available and how to use it. A distributor said: “I think part of it is social experience, getting out, I’m thinking of, to go to the farmers market, have a rapport with the farmer, the social thing, getting them out, and another piece of the pie is they also have to come to umm some kind of community kitchen, not community kitchen but what you do with these fruits and vegetables. So that's another component that they have to go through”. 91 5.4 Engage the Consumers 5.4.1 Meeting results A very enthusiastic group of nine individuals participated in the Engage the Consumer group. They included government representatives, three non-profits, a waste management business and individual consumer advocates. Unlike the other meetings, which were held at kitchen tables, the location for this meeting was in the Community Futures’ boardroom; which, with its large table, set a more formal tone for the meeting. In the first part of the meeting, facilitated by the L2T Coordinator, participants were once again asked to introduce themselves. The participants made eloquent personal introductions, describing the nature of their connection to the food system, and what it means to them. As in earlier focus group meetings, this was important for bonding and developing a sense of shared values and purpose. However, given the large group size, it also meant that a lot of time was spent in introductions, meaning less time for the mapping exercise, especially the analysis at the end. This third meeting of the focus group series was well-structured, incorporating the lessons learned from the previous meetings. It was very useful to place key elements of my own network on the map as an example of how to do the exercise. A big improvement to the productivity of this meeting was that most participants arrived with their completed list of network members and once again, we had everyone write down their nodes on the stickies and sort them before placing them on the map (Figure 15). Everyone placed the stickies on the map one by one and said out loud what they were placing on the map. This process was useful for stacking the identical stickies and seeing the connections. I did not analyze the stack, but it was interesting to see which members were most connected, and this method could definitely be explored further. This mapping process was much more efficient compared to the other large meeting, using the lessons learned from the Support the Producers. On the other hand, there was less discussion of what was going on, which resulted in less of an understanding of what the map meant. 92 Figure 15: Network member list Consumer advocate referring to their network member list while writing on stickies, June 2018 (Photo by Jon Corbett) Unfortunately, we ran out of time at the end of this meeting and were unable to ask people to map the relationships. This may have been difficult anyway, with so many participants involved in the mapping, and with such a large number of stickies on the map. There was also only very limited time for the analysis questions at the end. Another challenge was that the meeting was not successfully recorded, and the notes taken were fairly brief. After this third meeting, the main lesson learned about the process was that the mapping processing should be flexible and adapt to the size of the meetings. Large meetings need more time for mapping the members, drawing the relationships and analysis. 5.4.2 Mapping results and analysis This group mapped a total 143 members, see Table 8. 93 Table 8: Engage the Consumers Number of network members included on the regional food system network map of the Engage the Consumers focus group during a meeting held in June 2018. These members are classified by food system category as well as by their position in the network core, periphery or potential zones. Network Member Categories Core Periphery Potential Total Agricultural service/ supplier 0 0 0 0 Producer 12 5 1 18 Processor 3 7 1 11 Wholesaler/Distributor 2 0 0 2 Retailer 15 10 3 28 Service 0 13 1 14 Other 1 3 3 7 Government 9 5 0 14 Non-profit 19 11 12 42 Academic 2 4 1 7 Total 64 59 22 143 The largest category, in terms of number of members, were the retailers with 28 members, which makes sense considering that these participants are looking at the food system from the consumers’ perspective. However, the participants were also familiar with most of the other components of the food system, including producers (18) and processors (11), which may reflect the participation of these consumers in direct purchasing from these two groups, for example in the Farmer’s Markets, or their interest in knowing which food products, raw or processed, come from local sources. Participants were also familiar with a number of food services (14), all but one of which they located in the periphery, with one more in potential. This position on the periphery of the network was because participants felt that food services need to be more supportive of locally produced food including restaurants, cafes and food trucks and the caterers that cook for post-secondary institutions, schools, preschools, daycares, hospitals and long-term seniors’ care facilities. Interestingly, participants seemed less aware of the wholesalers/distributors (2), perhaps reflecting their lesser involvement in the actual trade transactions taking place in the regional food system. 94 By far the highest number of network members mapped were from the non-profit category. Non-profit members are fairly evenly distributed between core, periphery and potential. Non-profit groups included groups involved in food security, community economic development and other social issues. In the core were the smaller, local non-profits; in the periphery there was a mix of local non-profits and Okanagan regional groups, while the potential included large groups from even farther away. For example, health and wellness groups (e.g. naturopaths, wellness magazines), disease prevention groups (e.g. Heart and Stroke Foundation, Cancer Society) and funders (e.g. North Okanagan Community Foundation) were placed in the potential zone. The participants also mapped a fairly large number of government members (14) in both the core (9) and the periphery (5). One participant involved in politics mapped political parties in the core. However, similar to the views of the other working groups, government was considered a category that could be engaged more. The group mapped more academic members (7) than any other focus group, although most were in the periphery. The Engage the Consumer participants included some members belonging to the ‘Other’ category. This included a composting business in the core, and a different group, wellness-related professionals, mapped in the potential. They mapped a plant nursery in the periphery, as nurseries are important for supplying seedlings. This was mapped in ‘other’ but can also be considered a ‘supplier’ for both producers and consumers. Similar to the producer group, the Engage the Consumer participants mapped many network members that other groups did not mention. 5.5 Support the Processors 5.5.1 Meeting results Six people participated in the Support the Processors meeting; these included three food processors, one person from government, and two Indigenous participants interested in becoming involved in the L2T network but not sure which focus group to join. At the end of the meeting the group discussed who of the key processors were missing from the meeting. Many of those identified as missing had been invited but did not show up, or had responded to say that they were not able to attend. As mentioned above, it was not a favorable time of year for processors as their busy work season was already underway. One participant chose not to sit at the table or engage, saying they were just there to observe. Unlike the Sustain the Farmers and Engage the Consumer groups, the participants in this meeting were not familiar with one 95 another. However, there was a good discussion at this meeting and several gaps in the network were identified. Mapping the relationships was abandoned in this meeting. At the start of the first hour of the meeting, facilitated by the L2T coordinator, everyone introduced themselves. Once more, it was valuable to take the time for storytelling. One of the processors shared their story of how and why they became a processor: “Ahh, so, I own a organic farm with my wife and another couple, and umm Mary and Eva-Lena hosted a meeting about a year ago, I think, at Okanagan College, (“No, a year and a half ago, it was the original big one”) and I happened to be moseying along, I had no idea what was happening, but I knew X was going, and Y, and Z and a bunch of farmers who I have a lot of respect for and whose opinion matter to me; and W, a local retailer was there too, I remember, and the consensus at the table was we need to do more value added, we need to actually create ways to take a raw ingredient and make value added products, so I, in my head, said, okay, so we formed, me and my wife, formed Shuswap Organics… it is nice to share the story of where this all came from, which was a meeting that you guys hosted.” 5.5.2 Mapping results and analysis As seen in Table 9, the group mapped a total of 75 actors. There were 11 processors in the core, and none in the periphery or the potential. No dairy, cheese or meat processors participated, and no processors of those categories were mapped. There were a large number of producers included in the map, all in the core; these would be important suppliers of raw food product for the processors. All of the listed producers were different to the ones the Middle group had mapped. Other significant categories included retailers, wholesalers/distributors, non-profit and government. The three processors participating in the mapping were not connected to each other, but they all have strong relationships with different clusters of producers, for example, many of the producers mapped here were grain growers connected to the grain and seed processor. 96 Table 9: Support the Processors Number of network members included on the regional food system network map of the Support the Processors focus group during a meeting held in June 2018. These members are classified by category as well as by their position: core, periphery or potential zones. Network Member Categories Core Periphery Potential Total Agricultural service/supplier 6 0 0 6 Producer 21 0 0 21 Processor 11 0 0 11 Wholesaler/Distributor 5 0 1 6 Retailer 7 4 0 11 Service 2 0 0 2 Other 0 1 0 1 Government 6 1 0 7 Non-profit 9 0 1 10 Academic 0 0 0 0 Total 66 6 2 75 One problem that processors agreed with producers about is the lack of processors in the region. A major lack is in custom or small-scale meat processing, which is not meeting the demand of meat producers in the region. One processor commented, although dairy is the biggest agricultural venture in the North Okanagan, there is no dairy processing in the North Okanagan. A processor commented that the larger grain processor, Roger’s Foods, should also be drawn into the food system network. All three processors mapped several important actors outside of the regional food system boundary that were key to their businesses. Only six members in total were mapped in the periphery and two in the potential; these were mostly retailers. Again like the producers, the participants identified a lack of highly specialized or smaller scale equipment, stating also that there are no local suppliers of packaging for processors. Jam processor: “There you go, there is a huge gap, is that everything that I use I have to get shipped up from Richmond… there is no supplier of glass jars, and lids, and packaging, in Kelowna. How does Kelowna not have a packaging supplier? It’s psycho.” 97 Two of the processors have established an additional business importing processing machinery and equipment from overseas as it is not available here. They have become suppliers for other processors. A processor: “The machines came really organically too. Since we started, people would find our website, primarily, and then they go, oh where can we get these machines, and then we would go oh we get them from Austria, and then we hooked them up and then we kind of started…” Grain processor: “We’re the same with flour mills, and we ship them all over Canada”. Participants only mapped a few wholesaler/distributors from whom they buy supplies from as well as sell to. Participants added a courier company as a supplier as they need so many supplies shipped to them. A large part of the processors’ network is outside of the region, as they rely on outside supplies of raw food products during the off season. Jam processor: “I just came off a shoulder season so I gotta put down people like Discovery Organic (who) provide the service of supplying product in the shoulder season.” The retailers on the map are retail stores where the processors sell their products. The two food services that were mapped have commercial kitchens, which the jam processor uses as a processing space. Other food services were not mapped. It was identified by this group that there is a need for greater collaboration and more involvement of non-profits, government and academic institutions (all of the supporting organizations). Having access to funding or programs through the Ministry of Agriculture or Community Futures could be really beneficial. Another way in which supporting organizations might help is with assisting processors to navigate the government regulations, many of which can be difficult for the smaller scale processors to afford. When discussing the Food Safety Traceability Program, one processor stated the benefits of support: “…having that access, having that access to funding allowed me to hire consultants that then helped me do the program, that allowed me to invest in more equipment, to better my food safety, like, everything like that.” It was suggested, that non-profits like the Splatsin Development Corporation, Splatsin Education Department, and Community Futures of the North Okanagan could be more involved in training, mentoring and education for processing specifically. An Indigenous participant from the Splatsin Indian Band, which recently set up a certified commercial kitchen in their community center, said: “I think for the training and all that, it would be umm, the, our social development core… SDC Splatsin, Splatsin Development… and the training, Splatsin Education department, they have Step Programs and dollars to, to get the youth involved just coming out of school, it’s not used for those out. These youths are actually still in school and they give 98 summer jobs, but umm, the Splatsin work with Community Futures to get some funding and that, for people, out of school up to, to, I think that, that’s the reason I am here, is that you’re talking networking and that, and that’s teaching me to network in my own backyard, to see how I can, to get employment and training for our people. And you know with your teaching of using the kitchen, or even preserves and granary and anything that has to do with like, how our people that live way back when, and I always tell them processed food is not how our people survived years ago. We had a way of dehydrating or making our food edible throughout the year without all the stuff that is put in from the big companies that throw stuff together.” All three processors at this meeting are certified organic, and although they are not certified with the same certification bodies, they recognize the benefits of including certification bodies and the COABC in the network. Although they all process different products, they face many of the same challenges, for example, the need for various forms of training and food safety certification. The group felt that organic certifiers need to be better connected to processors, as they they could be a better resource for advocacy. Processor: “Oh ya, and I would put it right by COABC because without COABC kinda of being okay with it, PACS can’t do a lot other than be strange little certification thing however nothing I would love to see more than PACS being involved with growing the local food economy, that would be epic, bring it on. To have that happen, to have it better networked in to use your terminology definitely has to have COABC alongside of it, for sure, and I think COABC has a lot on its plate so it would be great if PACS could do some of that stuff. Like advocacy.” The Interior Pacific Exhibition (IPE), a large agricultural exhibition fair based in the North Okanagan, was included in the periphery as the participants would also like them to become more involved in consumer education. Participants also mentioned non-profits from outside the region. In the first hour, an example about the Small-Scale Food Processors Association of Canada (which has a BC chapter) was shared, how they already have a great network and the L2T network should access it and not replicate what they are doing. The processors did not map any relationships to academics, although, they did discuss the need for education in the various food system components including advocacy and training. 5.6 Second Community Advisory Committee meeting 5.6.1 Meeting results The second meeting of the Community Advisory Committee went well. Participants were engaged and understood the compiled map placed in front of them. It was useful to review highlights of the four maps the focus groups had created first, before turning the group’s attention to the compiled map. 99 5.6.2 Mapping results After the four focus group maps and compiled map were presented and discussed in the second Community Advisory Committee meeting, members stated that there was not much more to add. In total the four focus groups had mapped 455 actors, but there were a number of overlaps. The map I presented to the Community Advisory Committee had 347 actors after overlaps were removed. After 61 additions of members were made by the Community Advisory Committee, the final, ratified network map had 408 actors, as presented in Table 10. Appendix C also contains a detailed list of all the network members. Of the total of 408 network members, 212 members were in the core, 116 in the periphery and 80 in the potential. The order from most to least mapped is as follows: non-profit was the most numerous, followed by producers, government, retailers, agricultural suppliers, processors, services, academic institutions, distributors and other. 100 Table 10: Summary of the network ratified by the Community Advisory Committee Number of network members included on the regional food system map of the Community Advisory Committee during a meeting held in June 2018. These members are classified by network member category as well as by their position in the map: core, periphery or potential. Network Member Categories Core Periphery Potential Total Agricultural service/supplier 18 18 7 43 Producer 44 18 5 67 Processor 19 17 3 39 Wholesaler/Distributor 15 2 0 17 Retailer 27 8 9 44 Service 6 11 7 24 Other 2 2 11 15 Government 30 11 7 48 Non-profit 48 19 26 93 Academic 3 10 5 18 Total 212 116 80 408 All agreed that this is only a start; there is a lot on the map but a lot of information is still missing. As Lily stated: “I think there, there probably are actually quite a few connections missing, or, or, just because we haven't thought of them… this is only the tip of the iceberg”. This map will continue to grow. The Community Advisory Committee made recommendations to follow up with individual distributors, processors, producers, farmers markets etc. to get their network member lists; for example, by contacting the various North Okanagan farmer’s market managers and asking them for their lists of vendors in order to add further information to the map. 5.6.3 Mapping analysis The Community Advisory Committee’s more detailed analysis of the final map included a discussion of surprises, as well as network weaknesses and strengths. The analysis of strengths and weaknesses from all five mapping meetings are summarized in detail in Appendix B, with only the highlights mentioned here. 101 Surprises The analysis began by discussing the surprises from the map. Participants were surprised by the small clusters that exist already. Markus expressed his surprise with the extensive network of producers around Fieldstone Granary. Rose was surprised to find out that a number of producers rely on marketing their product outside of the region, for example at the Kelowna and Revelstoke farmer’s markets. Another surprise was the network itself; as Lily expressed: “Just the whole network, how expansive the network is, it's actually mind-boggling”. Participants were surprised by how many members there are in the North Okanagan food system, particularly the high number of producers in the region. Network Weaknesses Missing members In some cases, what is missing is the existence of a particular type of network member, with the implication being that perhaps they are a gap that needs to be filled to make a stronger food system. One significant gap would be a particular type of wholesaler/distributor called a regional aggregation hub, to take in the food of small to medium sized farms and processors, aggregate them, and organize how they can be distributed to food retailers and services. Mia: “I know there hasn't been much time, the gaps, the Middle is missing. It could be expanded”. Rose expressed the Middle is a gap, “but maybe it is around distribution”. Another missing category are suppliers of all kinds. For producers, these include suppliers of equipment or supplies, organizations to provide or support labour, and landowners to supply land. “I felt like, we really need to notice our suppliers, maybe even need to do a bit of an inventory or assessment of some of the gaps because a lot of people have mentioned it, not just now but in other, some of them, it might be natural that there is no auction (for livestock) anymore because there is not enough of an economic case. But there are people saying that I can't actually get, there is a lot of things small scale that aren't available. The suppliers are just supplying for the larger scale. Like orchards. They have a hard time accessing supplies that are needed. I don’t know what the solution is but it is a thing that surprised me. Need to notice them and think about their role more. Like seeds” Harriett. “If we analyze it, there’s a gap, I think it’s a North American thing where the province, this region, is agricultural, maybe there’s an opportunity there. If the small (and) medium scale businesses’ supply grows, and if they're needing supply” Mia. The suppliers of processors (again, supplies, equipment, labour and facilities) were also identified as missing. 102 Missing connections Whether they belong in the periphery or in the core, a number of actors were identified by the Community Advisory Committee as existing but needing to be better linked into the network. These include: • Independent restaurants. Rose: “I think all the independent restaurants are potential (members). Right, it's hard to like, work with the chain ones but the independent ones?! That they should become more engaged”. • Awareness-raising groups (e.g. media, museum, artists, etc); “There's such a disconnect in such an agriculture area” Lily. • Groups supporting land access and environmental sustainability issues (e.g. landowners, Young Agrarians, organic certification bodies); • Groups supporting food access and other social issues (catered social institutions (e.g. hospitals, seniors’ facilities, schools), emergency food organizations, etc.); • Groups connected to health and wellness: There is a lack of information available to consumers about the role of local food in health. • Financial support organizations (e.g. credit unions, chambers of commerce, etc). This is important for all the small businesses across the food system. • Indigenous organizations and governmental bodies. • Politicians, like the region’s mayors, councilors, and staff. “Yeah, and I was thinking about policy too, like the agriculture land commission, umm, its influences on some decisions by farmers and processors but I don't how to fit in?!” Jen. The Community Advisory Committee also highlighted the following groups that are outside of the region but that need to be linked in. They listed commodity-specific producer groups, the wider food security community, leaders from other regional food systems, and outside media, or various governmental organizations: (e.g. various agencies of the Ministry of Agriculture, Environmental Farm Plan, Agriculture Land Commission). “I added a lot of provincial supports that I didn't talk about but there’s the Provincial Health Services Authority, they actually have a manager of food security. There’s a lot of resources and they have a plan. Melanie Karanie. They're doing a lot of work. They have a community of practice where they support different groups, get these groups connected. They have monthly like connections and people share their ideas of kind of thing. Farm to School BC, Farm to Cafeteria Canada, yeah, so different things like that. They aren't in our region, but they can support us” Rose. Forming strategic alliances within the network There is a need for a more connected network across the entire food system. However, it is important to be strategic about this; not all connections are equal. Collaborative alliances 103 already existing within the L2T network are: the Food Action Society of the North Okanagan (a food security non-profit), the Young Agrarians (an Okanagan chapter) and the Okanagan Farmers’ Cooperative (still under formation). However, key vertical connections are missing (ie. links across all or many of the different components of the food system). For example, there is a need for an agritourism alliance, which might include vertical links amongst the producers, processors, restaurants, retailers and others that are involved in agri-tourism. “So I'm going to say, a missing gap is tourism. Tourism in the North Okanagan” Harriett. Vertical connections may help strengthen the food system the most, when it comes to achieving goals such as improving the local food economy. Another set of vertical connections might be to connect producers and processors that can supply food services, mostly likely through a wholesaler/distributor: “And the other piece, if you were to link the vegetable producers and the meat producers, umm for access to a restaurant for example” Jen. Key horizontal connections may also be lacking (i.e. smaller alliances within each of the food system components). For example, a number of processors have suggested that it might be beneficial to link together all food processors in the region, or even smaller groups within them (ie. meat processors, cheese makers, alcoholic beverage makers, etc.). Another possibility might be to connect all food producers or even some of them. “Linking across producer groups. I think there would be things beneficial to do across producer groups. Shared resources, access to labour, marketing. Access to tools and equipment. Linking up a supplier…” Harriett. Another possible horizontal alliance might be the independent retailers, or the independent food services (restaurants, caterers, food trucks). “Should there be a collaborative alliance between the local restaurants that are sourcing local foods or are they too much competitors to each other?!” Jen. Other strategic alliances would include policy and/or research alliances. Linking network members to organizations supporting research and/or policy advocacy has the potential for broad reaching impact. It was suggested to connect with networks outside of the region, such as the Small-Scale Food Processors Association (SSFPA), to avoid replication of some efforts. Other networks that L2T can link to are Small Scale Meat Producers Association (SSMPA), BC Food System Network (BCFSN), and organic certification bodies (North Okanagan Organic Association (NOOA), Pacific Agricultural Association Society, (PACS), Certified Organic Associations of BC (COABC). 104 Network strengths The Community Advisory Committee was asked to look at the compiled map and identify which network members played key important network-building roles, such as that of leader, expert, mentor or innovator. These members, together, represent the existing strengths of the network. Leaders Leaders named included individual producers, managers in retail, and academics. As Mia mentions, one retailer that stood out is Askews: “I must say, I think Askews is. They are one of the few stores, they are, there's barriers to stocking local food, but umm you know, they give their, I know they sell processed products and different prices of meat, but in my experience, but the produce managers have got, they're are given some discretion. But on a whole Askews is stocking local”. Other leaders in the region who have formed their own networks include the Okanagan Farmers’ Cooperative (potentially; it was still being formed at the time of this research), the distributors Farmbound and the Good Food Box, the various farmer’s markets, and the Monashee Community Co-op. Although they need to be better coordinated, another group of actors who are actively engaged and provide leadership are the various non-profits and government organizations: “I would say it's like, FASNO, L2T, Young Agrarians, Interior Health, umm, they are connected to food. What I think is important with them is to kind of start to be clearer on who does what and start to kind of coordinate better. And divide the roles up, because I think right now, we're a little bit jockeying, like trying to figure each other out, and we don't know each other well” Harriett. Experts Experts in facilitating organizational process, planning and practice are all important for network building, these include specific people from Community Futures, local universities and colleges, the Young Agrarians and the Ministry of Agriculture, staff of the various municipalities and Regional District, and consultants. Mentors Mentors that others seek out for advice include specific experienced producers, senior members of producer associations, Young Agrarian mentors, Ministry of Agriculture staff, Community Futures staff for business training, people from universities and colleges, planners from municipality staff and consultants. 105 Innovators The Community Advisory Committee also identified innovators including various farmer and processor entrepreneurs involved in the food system. Another group of potential innovators are the local academic institutions. “So I am going to say UBCO and Okanagan College are innovators. But they need to be tied in better to what is needed” Harriett. 5.7 Summary This chapter attempts to answer the first Research Question: Has this research methodology (in particular the participatory network mapping method) enabled a group of stakeholders to obtain sufficient information about their current food system network to effectively analyze its strength and weaknesses? How or in what ways? Five different groups, four focus groups and one Community Advisory Committee, together mapped a total of 408 members of the North Okanagan food system network (core 212, periphery 116, and potential 80). Through these mapping exercises, but particularly through the discussions that occurred when analysing the maps, they were able to identify some of the strengths and weaknesses in the current food system network, including key members that are missing, connections that need strengthening, and strategic alliances that need to be formed. They also identified network members that act as leaders, experts, mentors and innovators. This information, compiled in Appendix C, provided valuable material for the third Community Advisory Committee meeting’s discussion of how to build the network. The next chapter, Chapter 6, describes the results of this meeting, which aimed to answer the second Research Question: Has this research methodology (in particular the build the network framework) enabled a group of stakeholders to obtain sufficient information about their regional food system network to build one that is more connected, aligned, productive and healthy? 106 Chapter 6: Results - Recommendations to Build the Network 6.1 Overview The previous chapter outlined the results of my research with four focus groups and the Community Advisory Committee to map and analyze the food system network that currently exists in the North Okanagan, with the goal of answering the first Research Question. The goal of this chapter is to answer the second Research Question: Has this research methodology (in particular the build the network framework) enabled a group of stakeholders to obtain sufficient information about their regional food system network to build one that is more connected, aligned, productive and healthy? This chapter describes the outcome of a structured discussion between myself and the Community Advisory Committee on recommendations for building a stronger network. A build the network framework had been created for this meeting, structured as 14 questions related to network connectivity, alignment, production and health (Table 4). During this meeting, the question-by-question discussions were supported by pre-selected excerpts of text (literature synthesis) and compiled mapping results (research evidence) in accordance with DD principles (see Section 4.2.4). 6.2 Third Community Advisory Committee meeting results The third Community Advisory Committee meeting took place in Vernon on June 26. Participants arrived at 6:30 pm for food, and most participants stayed until 9:30 pm. This meeting took place one week after the second Community Advisory Committee mapping meeting. The meeting started at 7:00 pm and the estimated time for each section of the agenda was fairly accurately estimated. The first part of the agenda, up to the break, was completed on time but the break included socializing and went longer than scheduled. It was evident in the second half of the meeting there was not enough time for all of the questions in Table 5. As a result, Question 11, 12 and 13 were either answered by some participants only in the worksheet, discussed briefly or abandoned. However, some discussion of these questions did take place, in the worksheets or in the fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting, and this chapter compiles the results from all of these sources. Out of the 14 questions the most time was spent on question 1, and the three questions in the connectivity section (questions 2-4). I began the meeting by reviewing the agenda and background to the meeting, including a review of the build the network framework. I then facilitated a discussion of the framework’s 14 questions using DD principles, as described in Section 4.4.2. 107 The discussion of the questions began by exploring what kind of network the stakeholders wanted to build (with optimal balance between connectivity, alignment and productivity). Following this we had a short discussion of the connectivity phase, questions 2-3. After a break we discussed the alignment phase, answering question 5. There was a longer break after this, as participants were keen to socialize and eat food. Next, participants discussed the production phase, referring to question 6. The health section focused on questions 7-14, which were much more about how to set up an organized and sustainable network. In the end, the framework of questions was answered using a number of sources: the participants’ own perspectives and experiences; some relevant excerpts or literature synthesis that I shared before and during the meeting; and the results or research evidence of the participatory network mapping activities. As Oelke et al. (2016) say, stakeholders can create new knowledge through DD as they interpret the evidence and incorporate their own knowledge and experience (Oelke et al., 2016). There was not sufficient time to evaluate this meeting, but there was some space for feedback in the worksheet, and these results will be presented in Chapter 7, where the build the network framework method is evaluated. 6.3 Build the network framework results I analysed the transcripts and worksheets of the third Community Advisory Committee meeting using NVivo, before summarizing the results and presenting them to the Community Advisory Committee at the fourth and final meeting. At this meeting, the Community Advisory Committee further analyzed the material, providing feedback in a second transcript for further NVivo analysis. This section integrates the discussions of the third and fourth Community Advisory Committee meetings. 6.3.1 Balancing the network phases The first question challenged participants to think about how much, if any, of the three phases: connectivity, alignment and productivity, they wanted to see in their network (Question 1). I did this in order to start the meeting with a shared understanding of the group’s intentions for the L2T Network. There was a general consensus of the need to engage in all three phases to have a successful network. Members expressed a strong understanding of the need to engage in connectivity to create alignment for more coordinated action. They also understood the need for simultaneous action on all three phases. 108 6.3.2 Connectivity of the network In this section the Community Advisory Committee discussed strategies for addressing the weaknesses of the network as exposed by the analysis of the mapping exercises. Through their discussion they provided recommendations on how to add or connect the individuals or clusters who are currently missing or existing in isolation in the network (Question 2); build strategic collaborative alliances (Question 3); and build trust, reciprocity and inclusiveness (Question 4). Bringing in individual members or clusters For Question 2, related to connecting missing or isolated members or clusters in the network, the Community Advisory Committee referred to the preliminary results of focus group 1-4 and the second Community Advisory Committee meeting. When analyzing these results, it was clear that there were individuals or clusters working in isolation and there is a need to better connect these individuals or clusters in order to knit and weave the network together. Krebs and Holley recommend that a network weaver connect with diverse clusters, get to know their similarities and differences, allow time to build trust, and finally, grow the network and gain new perspectives by weaving the different clusters together (2006). These results were useful for developing a list of recommendations for L2T to implement. In general, the Community Advisory Committee agreed with the analysis of the mapping meetings (see Section 5.6.3), on which members needed to be added to the network or which connections needed to be made. What the committee focused on more were ideas on how to build these connections between members. They discussed the need to connect people around specific challenges they are facing, by asking them what their needs are and trying to understand whose values align. Related to that, they recommended bringing people together around events that emphasize actions to be taken and to minimize discussion for its own sake, because this provides some people with more incentive to connect. On the other hand, they also recommended to include opportunities to network socially, not around actions but around food, as this provides a chance to find a meeting space for finding common ground, and exploring potential relationships in a more free-wheeling manner. A final recommendation was for L2T to provide members with networking opportunities with other organizations in the region (e.g. Tourism Vernon), where the two groups might learn from each other and collaborate on specific actions. However, before partnering too much with other organizations, L2T needs to be more established in order to be a network that is not controlled by other entities. 109 Supporting collaborative alliances (networks within the network) After discussing how to connect isolated individuals and clusters, the Community Advisory Committee was asked for recommendations for supporting collaborative alliances, or how to build networks within the network. Again, they were presented with the preliminary results of the second Community Advisory Committee meeting, where they analysed which collaborative alliances might be strategic for the region. Before supporting the creation of alliances, the committee recommended further investigation of the level of interest in such alliances, as the L2T network should not invest time in creating linkages that are not needed. To encourage the formation of collaborative alliances, the committee members suggested bringing in the relevant supporting organizations to help make it happen (e.g. Cooperatives First from Saskatchewan, an organization that exists to support the formation of agricultural or food cooperatives). They also recommended that L2T hold educational, training or other networking events between potential collaborative alliance members to explore interest in working together more. Cultivating trust, reciprocity and inclusiveness Trust is a critical element for networks; it needs to be maintained amongst participants in order to address complex problems that an organization cannot do it on its own (Provan & Kenis, 2008). Developing trust amongst members of the L2T network is challenging; in a number of meetings, a lack of trust between people within the food system was identified, as well as a lack of trust between the food system members and the organizations supposedly supporting them, such as government. Lisa, a government official, articulated: “I think there is skepticism of certain roles, like is this strictly political, what is the staff’s motive? Ahh, so it's, maybe allowing them to meet on their own terms and then bringing the, bringing, like letting them come to you with what information they want to provide, but helping facilitate the connection, but maybe not, you know, running the, the show.” Reciprocity, in terms of benefit sharing within the network, also came up in conversation several times. In order to persuade people to join the network activities, the benefits of doing so need to be highlighted. Markus: “I think showing value. Because the biggest thing for people involved, especially in sort of voluntary types of activities that they're trying to, you know, they're trying to improve the conditions for their business, or their farm, or whatever. So, they're already working on their local hub, and then you say, well why don't you network with this other bigger hub, and then they've got to invest time in that. And take time away from the other stuff.” 110 Diversity within the network creates strength as every member has different knowledge, skills and other resources to contribute (Plastrik et al., 2014, p. 59). Inclusiveness, or the lack of it, was addressed in discussing the migrant workers hired from Mexico and the Caribbean through two government programs (see Section 2.2) aimed at meeting producers’ shortfall in labour. During the third Community Advisory Committee meeting there was a discussion about how residents in the North Okanagan do not understand the challenges that migrant workers face in leaving their families to come work away from their home countries for minimal wages. Several incidents of public mistrust and misconceptions about migrant workers were related. One solution proposed was to better educate the public by liaising with the migrant worker organisations that support them, such as Radical Action with Migrants within Agriculture (RAMA). People also agreed it was important that Indigenous representatives be included in all L2T activities. Two Indigenous people came to one focus group meeting and important connections were made, but more needed to be done. In the most recent L2T forum, held in March 2019, Indigenous speakers were invited to contribute to two out of three panel discussions, and a large contingent from the two North Okanagan communities were also invited as participants. Some of the committee’s suggestions for how to foster trust, reciprocity and inclusiveness included: • Develop and share the network vision, goals and deliverables. • Communicate the benefits: be clear about what network members can expect, follow through on commitments, and report on successes. • Consider how to create a safe environment in meetings, by developing and sharing the network’s operating principles. • Consider who would work well together or benefit from each other. • Engagement with stakeholders must be authentic; members must truly listen to one another. • Allow people to meet the network on their own terms, to see that the network has benefit, that there is shared value. • Trust will take time! • Bring people together around food. As a network evolves, the challenges will continue, and Holmes et al. highlight “the need for continuous investment in relationships, trust, and capacity building” (2017, p. 20). 111 6.3.3 Alignment of the network Next, the discussion focused on the alignment of the network (Question 5) and the committee’s recommendations for developing a common agenda. A common agenda is one of the five conditions of Collective Impact, and it is very similar to the concept of network alignment, as both may include a vision, goals and deliverables of the network. Defining the common agenda gives network members the chance to understand the potential benefits, which may give them more of an incentive to get involved. Committee members emphasized the importance of alignment and a common agenda. Mia mentioned the importance of the vision and goals in building trust: “We've been hearing about building that trust and taking the time to develop the vision and goals and guiding principles from how we're going to work together… and then another thing I've heard is just, like, following through on commitments, so that's something that can be stressed. That's how you build trust, right. Like if someone said they were going to do something and they did it, and then it's like okay, its more reciprocal. So it's just trying to build in those principles, and if the coordinator can help with that, at least with what they have committed to, yeah.” Sometimes the common agenda is a little abstract, being more about discussion than action. That can be off-putting for some. In the third Community Advisory Committee meeting it was recognized that although the L2T steering committee had started the alignment work, there is a need to better involve network members in this work. Cabaj and Weaver (2016) discuss the importance of engaging a wider community in discussing their aspirations, rather than focusing too much on a narrow agenda At the Community Advisory Committee meeting some suggestions for developing a common agenda were to start by finding out what people actually had in common, their shared challenges and their overlapping needs and priorities, (e.g. producers and processors both are short on labour) and share this information amongst network members to confirm that these concern and priorities are shared. Lisa used the research process as an example, explaining: “Yeah. Was it part of your process to just feeding back this is what we heard, did we hear it right? And probably have said that, but I think that goes a long way. (Pause). And then sharing that with the other, like, it's neat hearing, being a part of this group, but what did the other groups come out with. And I missed the last meeting, but it is, I think it's neat to reinforce like here are the goals of this group and then it might be similar with a goal that we have.” Committee members formed a tentative plan for reviewing the common agenda. They suggested beginning by holding a stakeholder’s meeting to review and reaffirm a common agenda, including shared challenges, values (or operating principles), vision and goals. The next step should be to distribute the common agenda first to the active network members that 112 have been attending the L2T meetings already, before taking it beyond this group, to producer groups representing all types of agriculture (cattle, tree fruits, etc.) as well as to other groups in the region. It is interesting that one participant emphasized the involvement of these producer groups, stating that farmers are the basis of the network and everything comes back to them. After this widespread distribution amongst stakeholders, the committee recommended looking at what the stakeholder groups come up with, seeing where the overlaps are, and then developing a new draft common agenda. The common agenda should also help the public understand the food system. For the wider community of the North Okanagan to own the common agenda, they also need to understand the challenges faced by the regional food system. The committee’s recommendation for doing this was to hold an open house for network members and the interested public, inviting them to view and contribute to the draft common agenda. It was expressed that as the network grows and changes, the common agenda should also be reviewed. When renewing goals, the network should take the time to step back and give stakeholders the opportunity to look for new opportunities for collaboration; and reassess whether everyone that should be involved is there. A review also gives stakeholders an opportunity to approach things differently. For effective collaboration there needs to be a learning mindset that incorporates flexibility instead of having a structured approach that cannot be modified (Landers et al., 2018). Thus, the final recommendation was to reevaluate the common agenda at regular intervals; this could take place in conjunction with the monitoring and evaluation activities of the shared measurement system. Some of these recommendations have already been carried out. In the fall of 2018, L2T held a stakeholder meeting, which included many of the Community Advisory Committee participants. During this stakeholder meeting a draft common agenda was developed, and L2T plans to circulate this draft amongst network members as well as to the general public at an open house event planned for the fall of 2019. 6.3.4 Productivity of the network After discussing the common agenda, the Community Advisory Committee addressed network productivity (Question 6). A key benefit of working as a network as well as of engaging in collective impact is that the coordination of network activities increases the potential for them to be of benefit to a wider number of members. In collective impact these are called mutually reinforcing activities, and the committee agreed with collective impact practice that coordination 113 of these activities should be done by a backbone support organization like the L2T steering committee and coordinator. Committee members agreed that L2T should start with the agreed priority actions as determined by the L2T forum participants and working groups. Action is needed to maintain morale and continue momentum (Landers et al., 2018). It was also suggested in the future to bring people together around specific actions (e.g. making a local food directory) rather than continuing to address these actions as working groups (e.g. producers, processors, etc.). This will foster cross-pollination across food system components, which is one of the big advantages of networking. It was also reiterated that once projects and activities are completed there is a need to share the successes, in order to enhance network member engagement as well as funder support. 6.3.5 Health of the network The health of the network is important for its functioning. The last eight questions of the build the network framework focus on this aspect of the network. Network membership The committee’s recommendations for identifying and organizing the initial membership (Question 7) of the network included continuing to maintain the L2T network directory while not making membership too formal. Network members can have different levels of participation, ranging from actively participating in action teams or network meetings and forums; to participating by being on the membership database and staying informed. Governance model During the discussion about the governance model (Question 8), the Community Advisory Committee made several recommendations which were implemented in the summer of 2018. This included developing a Terms of Reference and Code of Conduct for the steering committee, a Memorandum of Understanding between the steering committee and the support organization, and a contract for the coordinator. What still remains to be done from the recommendations is to create a reporting structure and Terms of Reference for each action team. Organizational structure During the discussion of organizational structure (Question 9), the Community Advisory 114 Committee began by clarifying that L2T’s backbone support organization is its steering committee together with its hired coordinator, with Community Futures of the North Okanagan acting as L2T’s current host, providing some administrative support. Having really good representation on this steering committee was considered essential. Lisa: “And I think when you have that umm broad representation it gives the group more legitimacy, like if it was just a bunch of… if it was just some umm, like not representing different organizations which our, heavily funded, like Interior Health is at the table, all these bigger, umm, government agencies, then it is kind of like, when it comes to the board for funding they, they are kind of like, oh okay, it’s not, just, and I hate to say it, non-profit, looking for money, but it is a well-established mix of perspectives.” As an aid to the discussion of organizational structure, I presented three examples of how other social change networks had organised themselves. As a result, the Community Advisory Committee recommended that L2T follow the organizational structure of the Social Planning Council’s Partners in Action model, which uses a steering committee, a coordinator and action teams. The feature that was most attractive about the Social Planning Council’s Partners in Action model was its action teams. These action teams were formed of those stakeholders that have an interest in addressing those specific issues. Action teams have a shorter-term commitment, which may help to engage more people; they can disband once the issue has been resolved. Engaging the community and being inclusive of stakeholders, especially those most affected by the issues, creates ownership and long-term commitment, and is another way of building trust (Cabaj and Weaver, 2016). Another possible layer of organization that the Community Advisory Committee discussed, perhaps for later, was the development of longer-lasting cross-cutting teams, on themes like policy, research, funding, education, etc. This type of team is found in the example of the Farm to Plate Network in Vermont. Events Another part of Question 9 is the discussion of how to use events as a way of fostering communication. The major event at present for L2T is its annual regional forum. So far L2T has hosted two: Growing the Local Food Economy was held in January 2019 as described in Section 2.5.4 and one; Growing Local Connections in Food and Environment was held more recently, in March 2019. The committee considered these to be important network connecting and aligning events as well as places where future activities are identified and prioritized. Committee members also felt that L2T can learn from successful events in the region. For example the regional Emergency Food Action Network’s (EFAN) meetings twice a year in 115 Vernon to discuss emergency food challenges, the farm and processors tours in Kelowna, the Dairyman’s Breakfast on the Farm, the Fieldstone Granary’s Come Taste the Valley producers and processors fair, and the Mabel Lake Hall’s 100 Mile Dinner and Potluck. Events like these can be used to create connection and share information. Operating principles Much of the conversation around the meaning of operating principles (Question 10) centered on how these can help to build trust. Operating principles guide conduct during network meetings and other events; they help to ensure that people’s values and opinions are respected and that people feel safe. It was suggested to change ‘operating principles’ to ‘creating a safe environment’, or some such term, as the term creates confusion. Kania and Kramer (2011) and Salignac et al. (2018) describe that a common vocabulary and structured meeting environment are needed to build trust. Education and training Amongst network members there is often an important group known as network builders, who are simultaneously organizing and managing the network, at the same time as the network’s work gets done (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006). Training for network builders, such as guardians, weavers, facilitators, coordinators (Question 11) is recommended in the literature, as well as ongoing education for network members on the value of networks. The Community Advisory Committee’s recommendations for this type of training and education were for L2T to: • Connect with groups in the province doing similar work and share their information. • Collaborate with partners to provide network building workshops and network-related speaking events. • Alert members to webinar opportunities and on occasion, host meetings to discuss the webinars. • Work with mentors (e.g. network facilitator expert, Curtis Ogden). The development of a province-wide Community of Practice was discussed as well, with the conclusion being that this would be better coordinated by Interior Health Authority or the BC Food System Network. Financial plan The Community Advisory Committee recommended that a financial plan (Question 12) needs to be created and there is a need for a strategy for seeking funding. Additionally, a 116 suggestion was made to link with other organizations to host fundraising events, and to receive donations through a ‘Donate’ button on the L2T website, or through a ‘Donations’ jar at events. Communication plan Currently the newly formed L2T steering committee is doing too much of the work. According to Murdoch (2000), to effectively build the “soft infrastructure” of a network, builders need to be a part of the process of engaging members to take responsibility (p. 416). The role of the steering committee is to support and direct the actual network; and the role of the coordinator is to organize and facilitate the meetings. More of the actual work needs to be directed towards the action teams, and for this to happen, a system for communicating (Question 13) amongst the network members is essential. Norris-Tirell and Clay (2010) describe the need for strong communication skills to build trust and engage members. Some early ideas for the communications plan included a website and an email listserve, but the time for discussion of this topic was limited. Shared measurement system Recommendations for a shared measurement system (Question 14) were to develop a plan with key stakeholders to report on network success and track activities. Indicators should be developed that are linked to the goals, and ways of measuring these indicators planned. The work of making these measurements should be shared amongst stakeholders; for example, much of the baseline data can be gathered using the statistics available at the BC Ministry of Agriculture, Interior Health Authority or RDNO. The Community Advisory Committee recommended having an annual meeting on the shared measurement system to review the plan and share the results. 6.4 Summary To conclude, I come back to the second Research Question: Has this research methodology (in particular the Build the Network Framework method) enabled a group of stakeholders to obtain sufficient information about their regional food system network to build one that is more connected, aligned, productive and healthy? The research methodology did enable better planning for the development of the network, through the information obtained from a series of meetings that I organized and facilitated. In particular, the structured discussion of the third Community Advisory Committee, using the build the network framework as a guide, advanced stakeholders’ ideas considerably. 117 Through this research process, participants also gained a better understanding of what a network is, and what L2T could aspire to be. An immediate output of this research was my report: ‘Build the Network Recommendations: Overview and Next Steps’, that I presented to the L2T steering committee and coordinator in November 2018. As discussed in this chapter, some of the recommendations of this chapter have already been implemented, while others have been built into plans for the future. Although it is too early to tell if the desired state for our food system network - one that is more connected, aligned, productive and healthy - has been achieved; there was an overall sense that the recommendations listed above would prove useful to this young network. The Community Advisory Committee reflected that it is important to think about the first three aspects (connectivity, alignment and productivity) simultaneously as they are complementary to each other. Mia: “It kind of occurred to me as well, it's like, you can't have, you need the connectivity to then do the alignment, and then you can't have, the action wouldn't be effective without the other two, it's like a hierarchy of needs”. In a more practical sense, the establishment of a ‘healthy’ network with its various functions (e.g. membership, governance, organization structure, etc.) in place and working, is something that can be more easily achieved in the shorter term, although only time will tell how resilient and long-lasting the network will prove to be. In the next chapter, Chapter 7, I summarize the lessons learned over the course of this research project by the L2T stakeholders and myself, thereby answering the third Research Question: What are the lessons learned from the implementation of the research methodology (approach, process and methods)? 118 Chapter 7: Results – Lessons Learned 7.1 Overview The previous two chapters looked at the findings of this research project in particular the results of the stakeholders’ participatory network mapping exercise where they analysed the strengths and weaknesses of their regional food system network (the first Research Question), as well as the results of their discussions structured around the build the network framework, where they made recommendations for strengthening their network (the second Research Question), respectively. In this final results chapter, I address the broader lessons learned about the research methodology that might assist stakeholders interested in its replication in other regional food systems. This chapter therefore addresses the third Research Question: What are the lessons learned from the implementation of the research methodology (approach, process and methods)? This chapter begins by describing the meeting results for the first and final Community Advisory Committee meetings, as these meetings were where the committee members and I planned and evaluated the overall methodology. Following this, the chapter discusses each aspect of the methodology in turn, beginning with the broadest level, the CBPR and DD elements of the approach; continuing with a discussion of the process, looking at the lessons learned in each meeting as well as overall; and finishing with an examination of the methods used, in particular the participatory network mapping and the build the network framework methods that were specifically designed for this research project. 7.2 Meeting results Both the first and final Community Advisory Committee meetings were well received by the participants. Six people participated in both although one person that had attended the first three Community Advisory Committee meetings was not available for the last one; and one person at the last meeting was not at the first meeting. 7.2.1 First Community Advisory Committee meeting results The first Community Advisory Committee meeting was held on May 9, 2018, lasting a little over two hours. During their introductions, participants each explained why they care about the food system, and how it connected to their core values. This was an act of building connection. In this meeting I reviewed my research plans with the Community Advisory Committee and asked them for feedback. Their input helped me improve a few elements of the plan. For example, while reviewing the confidentiality form, some participants confirmed that 119 confidentiality is important to them. The committee members also assisted me by recommending others to invite to the committee. When I asked the committee members for input into my plans for the participatory network mapping meetings, they suggested that the documents I had shared with this group during this first meeting (about network weaving) should also be sent out to participants before the four focus group meetings. The committee also suggested that I provide a visual example of the map when explaining the mapping process; and to use it for a demonstration of how to map the relationships. The Community Advisory Committee expressed confusion with the relationships component of the mapping process and asked several questions to clarify how this would be done. They then suggested participants evaluate subjectively whether their relationships were ‘strong’ or ‘weak’; as in their opinion, it would be difficult to arrive at an objective definition. There was a brief discussion on whether to colour code network members according to their involvement in the economic, social or environmental aspects of the network (corresponding with L2T’s three forum themes); however, the committee decided that would be too difficult as there are too many overlaps. During this meeting the participants also clarified their preferences for the formats in which the research outputs should be presented. Besides the formal thesis required for the completion of a Master’s, they requested that I produce a report on recommendations for building the network for the L2T steering committee and host an open house to present the final food system network map to the wider community. They also recommended a presentation be made to the RDNO Regional Agricultural Advisory Committee and other local governments. To conclude, the Community Advisory Committee discussed next steps and confirmed the next two meetings in June and decided the final meeting date would be determined later. 7.2.2 Fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting results This last meeting was held on January 9, 2019. Upon arriving there was some socializing, but the meeting was efficient, starting and ending on time, and with only a brief break halfway through the meeting. The slide presentation that I delivered helped us to maintain a consistent flow throughout the meeting. One participant expressed that a review of the research process by email before the meeting would have been useful, as it had been a long time since the previous meetings. Participants appreciated the worksheets for providing a valuable means for reflecting and writing down answers before participating in discussions. The rest of this chapter summarised the results of this discussion, looking at the approach, process and methods. 120 7.3 The approach As described in the Methodology chapter (Chapter 4), two key elements of the approach adopted for this research project were CBPR and DD. After reviewing these two research approaches, the Community Advisory Committee agreed that the objectives of both CBPR and DD were accomplished. Their further comments are covered below. 7.3.1 Community Based Participatory Research Participants in the first Community Advisory Committee meeting were introduced to the ethical parameters of the research as well as the CBPR approach and were immediately involved in contributing their ideas and opinions to many aspects of the research. This included the research ethics, approach, process and methods, to the form that the final research outputs should take. At the fourth meeting they were invited to reflect on how well this CBPR approach had gone, and whether there were any lessons to be learned. These lessons are summarized below. Importance of confidentiality Providing confidentiality was an important principle of mine from the start, as I was aware from personal experiences there is much mistrust amongst members of the food system. After reviewing the confidentiality agreement, a few participants confirmed that confidentiality was important to them, and this was mentioned a few times more during the research process when participants asked that particular statements that they had made not be included in the record of the discussion. For example during the mapping actively, one participant discussed the existence of connections with certain network members; however, they did not include them on the map due to the nature of their transactions. For that reason, I did not keep these comments in my transcript. Facilitators’ initial social capital It is likely that much of the initial participation in the research process, including a commitment to doing the work well, is a result of the personal networks that I have developed over the years. Rose mentioned: “I'm curious, because I think the success of people showing up to these groups and meetings was due to your personal networks, and if it’s supposed to be replicated somewhere else, I wonder, what we could suggest, right, because I don't think, it would just happen the same way”. 121 Building momentum through L2T network activities One other lesson was about the need to use momentum to keep interest and commitment strong. The success of the first L2T forum earlier in the year, possibly also a result of the organizers’ collective social capital, meant that positive connections were already starting to happen. As stated by Lisa in the fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting, this created “initial buy in”. At this forum, the keynote speaker, Curtis Ogden, spoke about networks and their use in food systems work, which was an inspiration to people. As Harriett said: “Well, I know Curtis in his keynote speech talked a lot about trust and saying that it's really worth the investment because umm the more trust you have the truer alignment and action you can have, and you can't rush that process. It's worth investing in.” After the forum there were meetings organized to ensure that the forum’s suggested priority actions were followed up with real action. These meetings were paired with the focus groups for this research and may have contributed to a greater interest in participating in the meeting. Based on this experience, it is suggested that when a forum or other network event is held, the momentum from it may be used to do more network building. For this reason, it is advisable that the dates for these activities should be identified at the forum or closely after the forum, to continue the momentum and keep network members engaged. The research methodology itself built the network The research process itself provided a lot of opportunity for networking. Participants met people they did not know previously and built new relationships. While mapping the relationships, one participant in the Develop the Middle group said to another: “… you know what, we're going to network now, too, so ummm we should put yellows (strong) lines between us.” At the meetings, participants frequently offered to provide information, resources or other forms of support to the network or to each other directly. Others appreciated being on the receiving end of this support. An Indigenous participant expressed at the end of the processor meeting: “Thanks everybody. I’m going home with something that I didn’t know about”. Another processor: “There's such cool stuff happening right now, I can't even keep track of it all”. At the fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting, participants concluded that this research project contributed to the development of the network itself through the various relationships and forms of support that it created. Lily expressed: “… it created a whole lot of ummm other network connections for me, just from the start in January, you know, it's a whole kind of circle.” 122 Facilitators need to be authentic Referring to myself and the Community Advisory Committee (some of whom are also L2T steering committee members), Rose from Interior Health Authority stated: “I think part of the success has been that's been so broad. Like you say, like, it's, people have like a particular interest, right, like, the money is not coming to us, we're not financially benefitting from an action.” Lisa responded to Rose’s comment with: “Yeah, it's like the whole greater good, it's near, it's the benefit for all”. The consultation needs to be meaningful One very important idea in CBPR is that the consultation be meaningful, with the input of participants being heard and acted upon, and with participants having the power to make decisions and affect outcomes. During the third Community Advisory Committee meeting Marcus talked about how cynical people are feeling about consultation: “They used to say that public involvement is like a “close door” button on an elevator, you can push it all you want but it's not actually connected to anything. I would say that is inauthentic. They've improved those elevator buttons. Well, usually once I find out which is the “close door” one, the door is closed… Well, plus the way it is usually done is without being meaningful. So, I mean, people are used to being consulted where no one has any interest, really in what they're saying”. Success will partly be measured through the level of future involvement in the L2T network Participants are interested in the outcomes of the network building that has happened over the research period. However, Jen, who is a L2T steering committee member, expressed at the final Community Advisory Committee meeting that: “we have been a bit slow to action, and I don’t know how empowered our stakeholders feel – maybe more empowered once working on an action team”. Landers et al., (2018) express the need for action to continue momentum in a network. A suggestion made was it would be good to check in later with individuals who had been involved in the focus groups to make sure they understand what has been done with their input, so that they feel included and involved. On the other hand, a general sense of enthusiasm existed during all of the meetings Several participants from the focus groups expressed interest in staying involved with the network building. In the Engage the Consumers meeting, participants commented that there is a lot to be excited about and everyone should work together. Community Advisory Committee members also expressed future interest in continuing to meet as part of any action teams 123 formed later for building the network, such as the shared measurement system team. During the third Community Advisory Committee meeting Lily expressed with enthusiasm “Because of, well, eventually I would really like to see us, like, see it actually develop into something that is sustainable for the North Okanagan. So yeah, no, it's awesome. Awesome, awesome.” Success will partly be measured through replicability of this research methodology in other regions One concern expressed by Harriett was that the research may have been successful mainly because it was a Master’s research project, which entailed myself focusing considerable attention to it for almost a year. She wondered how a different community would do this without the support from a Master’s student, considering the time constraints. The committee concluded that it was likely, in the absence of support from some form of network builder, that most communities would want to focus on action without spending time to do the work of mapping and building the network. Harriett: “I think, that doing it as research, I just don't know how another community would do it, it really forces (us) to do this kind of reflection, and I think a lot of networks with, you know time is almost unlimited, I think most people just want to go ahead and do action, and as minimal attention on the network side as possible, although, I think it’s not true, I think it’s a good idea to spend the time to think about the network, but I think the research forces us to do that in a way maybe we wouldn't have otherwise, I am pretty sure of that, and all the ground work you did, and umm, you know, it was just like a whole lot of extra work went into that, that wouldn't have happened otherwise without doing the research”. However, others felt that this research project has done a lot of the groundwork and other regions can learn from this. Jen: “Yeah, it saves them time doing the research, right, you've already... these are steps that we took, they may not work for everyone or could be in a different order or something but yeah”. Harriett: “It's true, even with some of the recommendations, they might just go, wow, that looks really relevant to us, and not have to do the whole process beforehand”. This past fall (2018) my supervisor Mary Stockdale and I were invited to make a presentation to a small group in the South Okanagan. This included sharing information on networks generally, the work we have been doing, the preliminary results, and some useful literature to steer them in a similar direction. A version of this presentation could be created for communities to guide them in the future. 124 7.3.2 Deliberative Dialogues (DD) The meeting environment There was food at all eight meetings. A break was taken halfway through each meeting for some socializing and eating. Many comments were made how much participants enjoyed this. One participant found it important to bring people together around food, given the issue that unites everyone is the food system, and commented it should be done more often. Another major lesson was about the time of year. This was a huge factor in determining how many stakeholders could participate and which type of stakeholder. May and June were challenging for producers, though a number still made an effort to show up. It was suggested to have these types of meetings in the winter, but it was noted that government is really busy during the winter. “And again, that’s, your, depending on what time of year, you’re going to get different people that are available, you know, this time of year in government organizations is actually a really busy time of year, because its budget time, so you know, we're in a different mind-set than the producers” Lily. The time of year affects who will show up and participate, and perhaps plans for taking action or network building should be tailored to the project and who is needed at the meeting. The stakeholder participant mix Adequate representation is important for DD as well as for CBPR. Thinking about who needs to be at the focus group and Community Advisory Committee meetings was not only important to the L2T steering committee and me, but to the other participants as well. Participants were asked to make suggestions about who should be invited to the meetings. The Support the Processors focus group listed several people who should have been invited; in fact, they were invited but did not show up. Lisa talked in the first and last Community Advisory Committee meetings about the need for good representation: “Is the make-up of the Community (Advisory) Committee reflective of the network? And I think the only reason I probably dwell on it, and I guess mentioned in the past, that I really think the success of the network is that buy in. So, it's just like, okay, it’s just so key”. It proved a challenge to have enough representative stakeholders at the meetings. These included stakeholders from the food system itself; for example, in the Community Advisory Committee there was only one producer and one retailer. In the focus groups, there was good representation of the producers, but lower participation of processors and wholesalers/distributors, and no involvement by retailers (apart from the one in the Community 125 Advisory Committee) and food services. Many important stakeholders were invited to the meetings but were unable to participate. Although some of this can be attributed to the time of year, being too close to the busy growing season; for others, it may be a lack of trust related to a lack of personal connection to myself or other key organizers from L2T, or finally, a lack of interest in, or understanding of, the benefits. It is interesting to speculate on why the producers did show up. Possibly it is because their meeting was held first, and was just early enough, or perhaps it was due to the much higher social capital that I share with these people, giving them a greater sense of obligation to participate. In contrast, the supporting groups from government, non-profits and academic institution were well represented, particularly in the Community Advisory Committee, but also in the Engage the Consumers focus group. The presence of participants from key government institutions in the Community Advisory Committee was commented on and appreciated. During the fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting Mia, who is an engaged and knowledgeable producer, expressed that she “… was intrigued the RDNO, Ministry of Agriculture and Interior Health are here. I don't know how often you three get together.” One of the purposes of DD is to engage stakeholders and researchers who might otherwise not have the opportunity to connect in building relationships and developing a mutual understanding around an issue. (Oelke et al., 2016; Plamondon et al., 2015). In the final meeting, the Community Advisory Committee participants expressed appreciation for being invited to join and participate. They also appreciated those who did show up. Harriett: “I also think this worked partly too because we had really great people come to the Advisory Committee, a thank you to all of you.” The use of literature synthesis or research evidence Literature synthesis A lot of thought went into selecting or creating the materials used for the DD. At the first, second and third Community Advisory Committee meetings, I presented articles or sections of articles, as well as summaries of research results from previous meetings to support the co-creation of knowledge as well as decision-making about how best to build the network. Jen, who is also a L2T steering committee member, expressed in the fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting that it was “helpful to have homework prior to the meeting and be directed to studies and sources instead of having to do the research individually.” Lily noted that “knowledge transfer happened”. The information presented to the committee provoked good 126 discussion and questions relating it to the work the network is doing. During the second Community Advisory Committee meeting, Rose mentioned: “I was interested in the article you shared, about the network building process, and how it was, like, really important to have, like, the doers, or the people that are more similar but you need the diversity for all those connections and you need someone who has the connections to outside the region for the new ideas. That was a really like, big, point for me. That was really interesting, so reaching, like the net, like you can't just be within ourselves, but we need to be reaching out and bringing in that innovation”. Research evidence Presenting the maps created by the focus groups plus my compiled map to the Community Advisory Committee was a learning experience for both myself and participants. The compiled map was described as visually striking and colourful, and members found the individual maps interesting as well. A few comments made by the Community Advisory Committee were: It “blows you away”, “And to have it colourful… let me tell you, that visual we had on the table… it was a really good visualization as to the amount of work that actually went into the process.” The network mapping was considered “an excellent process followed to gain input from different groups” to “visualize the connections and see strategies emerge”. 7.4 The process 7.4.1 Process introduction The research process consisted of the eight meetings held with community members who participated in four focus groups and one Community Advisory Committee to address the three research questions. In the rest of this section I describe the lessons learned about the process. 7.4.2 First Community Advisory Committee meeting The time spent for introductions during this first meeting was a useful investment of time, to understand what everyone brings to the table. The presentation of the research project, clarifying its purpose, combined with the opportunity for the Community Advisory Committee to provide feedback were also beneficial. Individuals were able to ask questions, express concerns and provide suggestions. Some of the ways in which the participants said that the meeting could have been done better next time include: providing more details in advance about the methods to be used in the second (participatory network mapping) and third (build the network framework) meetings. 127 7.4.3 Four focus group and second Community Advisory Committee meetings The structure of the focus group meetings (FG 1-4) was important, as time was limited during these meetings, due to the first hour of the meetings being allocated for discussion of L2T’s priority actions. Sharing articles and my research work plan before the meetings was considered really helpful. In the exit surveys for these meetings, participants expressed regrets that sometimes, however, there was not enough time to cover all the information provided. These meetings also did create a space for learning and networking, and participants appreciated meeting new people. Referring to their network mapping meeting, the Community Advisory Committee agreed the questions were well structured and sparked good dialogue. “I thought this meeting went well and was very valuable. My memory was there were good conversations and points made. It was very good having the stickies from the stakeholder meetings visible and collated” Mia. They also felt that the questions were replicable under other circumstances. 7.4.4 Third Community Advisory Committee meeting The third meeting of the Community Advisory Committee was devoted to preparing for and working through the 14 questions of the build the network framework. Overall, the Community Advisory Committee found the plans for this meeting to be very well organized and thought out. The Community Advisory Committee did conclude, however, that there were too many questions to get through in time and suggested splitting the workshop up over two days or allocating more time for this discussion. 7.4.5 Fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting The fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting was considered interesting and useful for learning about the preliminary results of previous meetings and for participating in the evaluation of the methodology. Participants found the structure of this fourth meeting helpful, especially the slides I had prepared to provide information for participants to refer to while filling out the worksheets. Committee members noted that there was a good balance in the discussions. Mia commented in her worksheet that it worked well to meet with the same group of people in a series of meeting since they all were used to one another after three previous meetings: “Working again with the same group of people, it felt very balanced, different people giving comments, no-one dominating”. 128 7.4.6 Process conclusion The participants received materials to look at in advance of the first, second and third Community Advisory Committee meetings. These materials were useful for the participants and it made a difference in the meeting when participants reviewed the material and came prepared. Lisa: “And there were small materials you sent out beforehand, right, and that helped set the stage”. One participant commented that it would’ve been helpful if this had been done for the fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting, as they would have appreciated a recapitulation of the work already done, since the gap in time from the previous meetings had been quite a long one. In the second, third and fourth Community Advisory Committee meetings participants were given worksheets. They found that filling out the worksheets question by question, intercepted with some discussion for sharing major comments, worked well together, and were complementary. Having the time to reflect on and write down their comments before discussing them as a group helped to draw out information and knowledge from different perspectives. Reflecting on the fourth meeting, Rose stated: “Having the information on the slides to refer to helped. The worksheets were helpful to capture personal thoughts. I liked the time given to first reflect and then discuss as a group”. A final lesson learned about the process was to set aside more time for the meetings themselves. In particular, the focus group mapping meetings should have been longer and not combined with another L2T purpose, and the third Community Advisory Committee meeting to build the network should have been split into two meetings. 7.5 The methods 7.5.1 Participatory network mapping Good engagement by almost all participants in the network mapping activity was evident, and good discussion occurred during the analysis. The rest of this section outlines the lessons learned from the participatory network mapping process. Benefits of mapping The purpose of mapping was to become aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the network. Harriett summarized her experience with the Support the Processors and the Sustain the Farmers meetings as follows: “Sometimes what happens is, when you map the current, the network as it exists now, like, say when we did the producer meeting. We mapped the network, and we even mapped the relationships, it was clear that they were a bunch of tiny clusters that weren’t 129 well connected with each other. So, when you looked at that, and you analyzed it, you were like woah they’re all a little bit in isolation. So maybe there’s ways we can knit, like they talk about ways of knitting and weaving the network, you know, there’s ways of trying to figure out how to better connect people”. Reviewing the network map and adding to it was also a useful exercise for the Community Advisory Committee. Lily: “And just, really how big our, the whole network is, like that was, that was what was really neat about last week. Seeing it on the table and going oh I never even thought of this group being part of the network. And I think, I think making that clear to, to people you want to reach out to in the network is to just say that, you might not be considering the fact that, you know, even though this is your niche that being involved with this bigger group would actually be beneficial for you and everybody else.” Many comments were made about the visual impact of the map. Referring to the map Lisa: “Always think visual representation to display information is a great method to convey linkages and clusters”. Preparation for mapping More time is needed to prepare, introduce and conduct the mapping exercise. It was much more efficient when both facilitators and participants prepared in advance before actually doing the mapping. For the facilitators, it was helpful to prepare visual aids in advance, and to go through the mapping process with the group quite thoroughly before beginning to map, including giving a demonstration of the mapping process with a few examples. It was helpful for facilitators to demonstrate first how to do the mapping, as discussed in the Engage the Consumer meeting results. For the participants, it was a good idea for them to create a list of network members in advance of the meeting, and at the start of the meeting, to write their network member names on the stickies, putting them in the correct colour categories, and sorting them by core, periphery and potential, before placing them on the map. Mapping the boundary An additional challenge was defining the mapping boundary, which was related to the larger issue of where the network itself should begin and end. The mapping boundary used was the political boundary of the RDNO, because L2T’s sphere of influence of work is understood to be at the regional district level, with major funding from RDNO. However, mapping only within the political boundary ended up being challenging, as participants frequently wanted to include key connections to people, groups and organizations outside of the RDNO. I chose to approach this issue with some flexibility, allowing these outside connections to be included, as the information gained from mapping them was very useful. The mapping process identified how 130 much some members rely on support from outside the region, and at times, it made the case for having some of this support moved into the region. Defining the food system categories It is important to carefully define the different network member categories on the legend. and to emphasize that the members may be individuals, group or organizations. One lesson learned is that facilitators need to be flexible about changing or adding categories. Some members may be difficult to categorize at all, requiring them to use the ‘Other’ category, and others may be identified with more than one category. For example, Fieldstone Granary was identified as both a ‘Processor’ and ‘Supplier’. Using the coloured stickie notes to classify the category is a useful method. Lisa was unavailable to attend the second Community Advisory Committee meeting but during the fourth meeting she stated: “Unfortunately, I didn't get to attend the exercise where we were putting stickies on there, but I could follow and understood the results, which speaks to, it must have been pretty effective” Lisa. Mapping the core, periphery and potential Deciding whether to place the network members in the core, periphery or potential resulted in some confusion. Not everyone shares the same perspective. For example, two retailers, Askews and Nature’s Fare, were mapped in both the core and periphery. During the fourth Community Advisory Committee meeting, Harriett and Jen both pointed out that different participants mapped network members in different zones, with the result that the different focus groups had contradictory placements of members in the core, periphery and potential. In the end, the decision about where to locate a member was made by consensus among participants; or, if that was not done, the researcher made this decision when analyzing the final map. In the exit survey it was expressed that a relevant part of mapping was seeing who the core members are. At the same time, both Ogden (2018) and Granovetter (1983) remind us that those in the periphery are important. For example, two sheep shearers were placed in the periphery, as the sheep farmers only work with them once a year. However, despite their peripheral status, they play a vital role in of the network. Mapping relationships Mapping the relationships with the string was a challenge and this technique was no longer used after the first focus group meeting. Participants recommended either using a different method or allocating much more time to map the relationships, as the string did not 131 stick down easily on the map. Participants mentioned that mapping the relationships was complicated; it is a lot of work and more time is needed. However, participants did appreciate the opportunity to discuss the nature of the relationships even if only verbally. One method that might be explored further in another study is to record how many stickies are stacked under each network members’ name. This will only work if each participant prepares their own set of stickies in advance, and these are later stacked whenever duplicates occur. The number of stickies stacked under each network member might well reflect the relative importance of that member to the network. Group size During the mapping it was noted that the smaller the group, the more detailed the information could be, right down to the individual maps done in the two interviews, which were the most detailed of all. In an individual map, the accuracy is high as there is no negotiation required. However, in a group, the interactions between people can add value. Participants felt that they came up with a greater number of contributions during the mapping process, because they were working off of each other’s information and conversations. Mia, a producer, stated during the final Community Advisory Committee meeting: “I think that during the producers’ meeting, it was great, we were doing the stickies, there was different people there, it was quite productive having the initial information, so that we had ideas when people got started, into ahh, like the first people were like oh and then someone else did that, and was like oh yeah, I forgot that”. Other advantages include the benefits of a greater variety of perspectives. The more the perspectives, the more likely it is that the final map reflects the cumulative consensus of the community being mapped. Working on the mapping as a group also enhances the group’s ability to analyse the network as a whole and make relevant recommendations. To some extent, group size influences the methods used. Larger groups require more time, and it gets more and more complicated to map details such as the relationships between members and whether they are weak or strong. In the end, I felt that the larger focus groups, with nine or ten people, were close to the upper limit of number of people who should do this mapping exercise together. Personal point of view versus network point of view During the final Community Advisory Committee meeting the group discussed the best perspective from which to map the network and whether it should be from the personal or the birds eye network point of view. Since the participants were asked to come with their own lists of 132 food system stakeholders, the starting point was often subjective, with participants mapping their own personal networks within the food system. It was suggested that the mapping questions could be shifted from asking participants to think of core, periphery and potential members from their own point of view to the point of view of the entire food system (bird’s eye view). Rose: “I think coming at it from a personal perspective helped trigger, triggers your memory, helps you think about all your missing pieces, right, but I agree with Harriett, that it doesn't work with the relationship between core, periphery and potential, in terms of the whole food system, because it is entirely from your own perspective. So I don't know how you dealt with that, like did, we ended up moving them, but that’s our perspective, I guess”. However, some participants disagreed, stating that there is value asking for the participant’s own perspectives. Jen: “I think there was value in having it from their own perspectives because that was part of the sharing and collaborative, you kind of have to start there and then figure out to get to the other bit”. As Mia mentioned, the perspective the network is mapped from will depend on who is involved and the role they bring to the table. Terminology used: network or food system? Another source of confusion was about whether participants were to map the L2T network, or the regional food system. Harriet: “So, one of my issues too I just wanted to mention is, I think people were confused by our use of the word network, umm because really, what we were mapping is the food system, and not the network because there wasn't yet really a network. And no one was officially in or out of it. So, it would've been clearer in our minds and everyone’s minds if we just said map the food system, rather than the network, and maybe in a few years we could map the network and say who is really in here and doing stuff and who is still not contributing”. In the future, to avoid confusion, instead of mapping the network, participants could be asked to map the food system. The L2T database on network members (including data on how active a member they are) could then be used as an overlay to identify who of these food system members is active in the network. 7.5.2 Build the network framework Participants responded positively to build the network framework, although they also felt there was room for improvement. Some participants mentioned they were impressed by how 133 much thought had gone into preparing the framework. Lisa summarized the discussion around the framework well: “I thought the questions were really well structured. Like, remembering back on our discussions, they sparked good dialogue, they can be brought forward in the future for others entertaining this type of work. I think we could of almost had two meetings because there is so much, we could of gotten in to.” It was suggested that a few of the questions could be changed to include sub questions. Harriett commented: “And then I thought, some of the health ones were somewhat detailed, and it could maybe, maybe the health questions could be, umm questions and sub questions, you know?!”. Lisa, Jen and Harriett recognized that missing from the list of questions were any about the backbone support organization. Harriett: “I just, I have one, just that I think that we probably should have a question about the backbone support organization and the coordinator; don't assume they are there, which is what we did”. Lisa questioned whether there needs to be an established network with a background support in place, to use the framework. “In the other examples that you said were asked to speak about the network, is it, like, kind of an organic mix of people that are like curious on like, trying to do this as well, like I almost wondering if that backbone emerges on its own, and then it kind of formalizes? Just like, when you said Liz (the L2T coordinator) presented in Revelstoke, and then there was interest in the South Okanagan. This could be a guide book, like here is what you need to do, and so I was curious, how that backbone ended up being developed”. This is a valuable comment to consider. In our case the build the network framework discussion took place at the point when the network was newly formed, with a steering committee and coordinator, but somewhere else, it could be a group of interested citizens. The framework can be adapted to fit the situation. “This is all about … a group that steps forward” Harriett. Although the framework can help a group get started in these early stages, it will not complete the work of network building. It was reiterated in the fourth Community Advisory Committee that network building is a process, that it takes time and this is only a start. Overall it was felt that the build the network framework could be used in other regions, although it might need to be adapted to different stages of network development and priorities. 7.6 Summary This final results chapter addressed the broader lessons learned about the research methodology. Feedback was received about the approach, process and methods used, with the 134 final conclusion being that these could be relevant and useful for groups of stakeholders in other regions, although perhaps with modifications. The final chapter, Chapter 8, will conclude the thesis by summarizing the results, discussing the limitations of this research, and making recommendations for the future. It will also, ultimately, review the research aim: To facilitate a group of stakeholders to further strengthen their regional food system network. 135 Chapter 8: Conclusion 8.1 Overview This Master’s research project set out to accomplish the following research aim: To facilitate a group of stakeholders to further strengthen their regional food system network. To accomplish this, I used a CBPR approach and DD principles to facilitate diverse groups of food system stakeholders in a series of meetings, using a combination of methods that included participatory network mapping and a build the network framework. This chapter concludes the thesis by summarizing the results of each of the three Research Questions, the limitations to this research, recommendations for future research, and finally, as a conclusion, addressing whether the research aim has been achieved. 8.2 Summary of results To address the research aim, I developed three research questions, each of which will be addressed in turn below. 8.2.1 Results for the first research question Has this research methodology (in particular the participatory network mapping method) enabled a group of stakeholders to obtain sufficient information about their current food system network to effectively analyze its strength and weaknesses? How or in what ways? By mapping the current food system network, the participants and I gained a better understanding of the North Okanagan food system network, including the diverse set of 408 network members, mapped across ten categories including agricultural suppliers, producers, processors, wholesaler/distributors, retailers, services, government, non-profit, academic institutions, and others. The majority (212) of the mapped actors were considered to be core members of the food system network, although others (116) were considered peripheral, and still others (80) were considered to have potential for contributing to the network, although they had not done so yet. The map showed that a number of actors involved in the regional food system were located outside the regional boundaries. By asking participants to analyze the mapped food system network, both the strengths and the weaknesses of the current food system network were revealed. Strengths included the presence of strong connections and alliances between some groups in the network, as well as the existence of various leaders, experts, mentors and innovators. Weaknesses included the absence of some key network members in the region, the need for better connections to other network members, and the lack of certain strategic alliances. These preliminary results were 136 useful for the Community Advisory Committee to refer to in their third meeting, when developing recommendations to build the network. 8.2.2 Results for the second research question Has this research methodology (in particular the build the network framework method) enabled us to obtain sufficient information about our current food system network to build one that is more connected, aligned, productive and healthy? By holding a DD structured around a set of 14 questions comprising the build the network framework that I and my co-supervisor had developed for this meeting, the Community Advisory Committee was able to develop a set of recommendations on how to build the network. The Community Advisory Committee recognized the need to balance all three network aspects of connectivity, alignment and productivity. In terms of connectivity, they recommended that L2T continue with outreach efforts to add or connect missing or isolated individuals or clusters to the network, while also supporting the formation of collaborative alliances, and building trust, reciprocity and inclusiveness. To create alignment, suggestions were made for a process for developing, sharing and regularly reviewing a common agenda with as wide a group of network members as possible. For productivity, the committee’s recommendations were to bring people together around the L2T priority actions, coordinate the actions amongst the network for better efficiency, and report to the network member on successes, referring back to the common agenda to make sure there is alignment. Finally, the committee suggested a number of ways in which L2T could develop the health of the network further, ensuring structure, resilience and hopefully, long-term sustainability. 8.2.3 Results for the third research question What are the lessons learned from the implementation of the research methodology (approach, process and methods)? The lessons learned for each of the three main aspects of the research methodology can be summarized as follows. CBPR and DD were useful approaches, with the Community Advisory Committee guiding and providing continuity over the entire research process, and the focus groups adding valuable perspectives. The social capital and perceived authenticity of the facilitators, however, is key. Participants found the process of eight community meetings to be well planned and facilitated, with good attention to creating a positive meeting environment, and the careful use of 137 supplementary materials for the DD in the form of literature synthesis and research evidence. Achieving the ideal mix of representative stakeholders at these meetings, however, was the most challenging aspect, with the main limiting factors being seasonal availability and time. The main research methods of participatory network mapping and the build the network framework proved valuable for generating information and ideas useful for analysing and building the network. Mapping allowed the network’s surprises, strengths and weaknesses to be revealed, and the build the network framework enabled a structured and informed decision-making process to take place. 8.3 Limitations There was not enough time allocated for most of the meetings and the time of year was a challenge to get some stakeholders out to the meeting. However, if the meetings were held at a different time of year other category stakeholders may have had to limit their participation. Trust issues, or lack of social capital with some stakeholders, may have been another reason why some stakeholder categories were underrepresented. 8.4 Recommendations 8.4.1 For future regions This research methodology, in total or in part, has good potential for replication in other regions. However, network building takes time, and cultivating trust is key. A network needs all three phases operating simultaneously (connectivity, alignment, productivity), plus it needs to be healthy. As (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) state, network building and actions should be two simultaneous activities. To draw new network members in, social events and food were highlighted as a crucial part of relationship building, to connect people and provide open spaces for conversation to generate new ideas, learning and trust. 8.4.2 For future research Participatory network mapping This method could be explored further by developing a different method to map the relationships. One promising modification of the method would be to count the stacks of duplicate stickie notes representing each network member to quantify their relative importance, similar to the method described in Schiffer and Hauck’s (2010) research in Ghana. Although participatory network mapping is a useful method to engage participants to visualize and analyse the network collaboratively, the data could be also collected in a format 138 suitable to enter into a SNA software tool. It would be interesting to compare the two different methods of network mapping and analysis, and how the results differ. Build the network framework The build the network framework could be adapted further by reorganizing questions as suggested by the Community Advisory Committee. Further tests and evaluation of this tool would highlight its potential for use in other contexts. 8.5 Summary Using a CBPR process and DD principles, North Okanagan stakeholders participated in facilitated discussions using hands-on participatory network mapping tools and a framework for making recommendations on how to build the network. This research has both applied and academic value as other community members and researchers can use and build upon the methodology used. In response to the Research Aim: To facilitate a group of stakeholders to further strengthen their regional food system network, I conclude that, by engaging diverse stakeholders, including four stakeholder focus groups and one community advisory committee, the increased understanding, analysis, decision-making and relationship building that occurred during these meetings all contributed to strengthening the food system network of the North Okanagan. 139 References Abate, G. (2008). Local food economies: Driving forces, challenges, and future prospects. Journal of Hunger & Environmental Nutrition, 3(4), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/19320240802528914 Abelson, J., Forest, P., Eyles, J., Smith, P., Martin, E., & Gauvin, F. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes. Social Science & Medicine, 57(2), 239–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00343-X Adam, S., & Kriesi, H. (2007). The network approach. In P. Sabatier (Ed.),. In Theories of the policy process (2nd ed., pp. 129–154). Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. Addy, N., & Dube, L. (2018). Addressing complex societal problems: Enabling multiple dimensions of proximity to sustain partnerships for collective impact in Quebec. Sustainability; Basel, 10(4), 980. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.3390/su10040980 Agricultural Land Commission. (2019a). Legislation & regulation - ALC. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alc/content/legislation-regulation Agricultural Land Commission, A. L., & Government Communications and Public. (2019c). The ALC Act and ALR Regulations - ALC. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from https://www.alc.gov.bc.ca/alc/content/legislation-regulation/the-alc-act-and-alr-regulations Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. (2017). An overview of the Canadian agriculture and agri-food system 2017 [Media release]. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about-us/publications/economic-publications/an-overview-of-the-canadian-agriculture-and-agri-food-system-2017/?id=1510326669269 AgriService BC. (2018). Fast stats 2017: British Columbia’s agrifood and seafood sector. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/statistics/industry-and-sector-profiles/fast-stats/faststatsbc_2017.pdf Alkon, A. H., & Norgaard, K. M. (2009). Breaking the food chains: An investigation of food justice activism*. Sociological Inquiry, 79(3), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2009.00291.x Best, A., Berland, A., Greenhalgh, T., Bourgeault, I., Saul, j., and Barker, B. (2018). Networks as systems: A case study of the World Health Organisation’s Global Health Workforce Alliance. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 32(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-06-2017-0129 Amed, S., Naylor, P., Pinkney, S., Shea, S., Mâsse, L. C., Berg, S., Higgins, J. W. (2015). Creating a collective impact on childhood obesity: Lessons from the SCOPE initiative. Canadian Journal of Public Health / Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique, 106(6), e426–e433. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/90005920 140 Baumbrough, B., Aasen, W., Gunner, A., Whiting, D., & Kalina, L. (2009). A North Okanagan food system plan. Retrieved from http://www.farmlandinfo.org/sites/default/files/no_food_system_plan_090127_1.pdf BC Ministry of Agriculture. (2017a). Agriculture in brief: Regional District of North Okanagan Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/statistics/census/census-2016/aginbrief_2016_north_okanagan.pdf BC Ministry of Agriculture. (2019c). Grow BC, Feed BC, Buy BC - Province of British Columbia. Retrieved March 25, 2019, from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/industry/agriculture-seafood/growbc-feedbc-buybc BC Ministry of Agriculture. (2012). 2011 Census of agriculture: British Columbia highlights. Retrieved from http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/statistics/census/agricensus_2011_bchighlights.pdf BC Ministry of Agriculture. (2019). Provincially lisenced Class A and B meat plants pursuant to the BC meat inspection regulation. Retrieved from https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/food-safety/meat-inspection/bc_meat_plants_public_list_by_region.pdf BC Ministry of Agriculture (2013). Agriculture in Brief RDNO. Retrieved from: http://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/farming-natural-resources-and-industry/agriculture-and-seafood/statistics/census/aginbrief_north_okanagan.pdf Blay-Palmer, A., Sonnino, R., & Custot, J. (2016). A food politics of the possible? Growing sustainable food systems through networks of knowledge. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-015-9592-0 Bonti-Ankomah, S., Stamplecoskie, A., & Carrier-Leclerc, O. (2017). An Overview of the Canadian Agriculture and Agri-Food System 2017. 129. Retrieved from http://www.agr.gc.ca/eng/about-us/publications/economic-publications/an-overview-of-the-canadian-agriculture-and-agri-food-system-2017/?id=1510326669269 Borgatti, S., Everett, M., & Johnson, J. (2013). Analyzing social networks. London, Great Britain: Sage Publications. Boyko, J. A., Lavis, J. N., Abelson, J., Dobbins, M., & Carter, N. (2012). Deliberative dialogues as a mechanism for knowledge translation and exchange in health systems decision-making. Social Science & Medicine, 75(11), 1938–1945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.06.016 Bradbrook, C. (2019). Theoretical foundations for collective impact applications. In N. Walzer & L. Weaver (Eds.), Using collective impact to bring community change (pp. 17). New York, NY: Routledge. Bronson, D., & Roberts, M. (2019). From food guide to food policy: Resetting Canada’s table. Retrieved April 24, 2019, from https://foodsecurecanada.org/resources-news/news-media/food-guide-food-policy-resetting-canadas-table 141 Buchanan, D. R., Miller, F. G., & Wallerstein, N. (2007). Ethical issues in community-based participatory research: Balancing rigorous research with community participation in community intervention studies. 1, 8. Cabaj, M. (2014). Evaluating collective impact: Five simple rules. The Philanthropist, 26 (16). Retrieved from https://www.tamarackcommunity.ca/evaluatingcommunityimpact Cabaj, M., & Weaver, L. (2016). An evolving framework for community change. 14. Caine, V., & Mill, J. (2016). Essentials of community-based research. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. Canada, H. (2018b). Welcome to Canada’s food guide. Retrieved from https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/ Canadian Agricultural Human Resource Council. (2017). A review of Canada’s seasonal agriculture worker program. Retrieved from https://cahrc-ccrha.ca/.../A%20Review%20of%20Canada%27s%20SAWP-Final.pdf City of Coldstream. (2009). Coldstream agricultural plan. Retrieved from https://coldstream.civicweb.net/document/2222/Coldstream%20Agricultural%20Plan%20-%20Planning%20Strategy,%20.pdf?handle=FA48B65AF23F4946802F809B4398E0CD Cook, I. (2005). Participant observation. In R. Flowerdew & D. Martin (Eds.), Methods in human geography | A guide for students doing a research project (Second, pp. 167–185). Retrieved from http://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781405898416 Conradson, D. (2005). Focus groups. In R. Flowerdew & D. Martin (Eds.), Methods in human geography | A guide for students doing a research project (Second, pp. 128–143). Retrieved from http://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781405898416 Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine, 41(12), 1667–1676. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027795369500127S Crang, M. (2005). Analysing qualitative materials. In R. Flowerdew & D. Martin (Eds.), Methods in human geography | A guide for students doing a research project (Second, pp. 218–231). Retrieved from http://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781405898416 Demant, L., & Lawrence, J. (2018). Back on track: The challenges of implementing a small place-based Collective Impact initiative. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1002/hpja.36 Ehrlichman, D., Sawyer, D., & Wei-Skillem, J. (2015). Five Steps to Building an Effective Impact Network (SSIR). Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/five_steps_to_building_an_effective_impact_network ETC Group, & IPES-Food. (2017). Too big to feed: The short report. Retrieved from http://www.ipes-food.org/images/Reports/Concentration_FullReport.pdf 142 Flicker, S., Savan, B., McGrath, M., Kolenda, B., & Mildenberger, M. (2007). “If you could change one thing...” What community-based researchers wish they could have done differently. Community Development Journal, 43(2), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsm009 Food Secure Canada. (2019b). Food guide launch : Reaction round-up. Retrieved from Food Secure Canada website: https://foodsecurecanada.org/resources-news/news-media/food-guide-launch-reaction-round Food Secure Canada. (2019). Food Policy. Retrieved from https://foodsecurecanada.org/policy-advocacy FSNE. (2018b). How we work. Retrieved June 11, 2018 website: http://www.foodsolutionsne.org/who-we-are/how-we-work Garrett, S. (1999). Growing a community food system. Pullman, WA: Washington State University, Cooperative Extension. Gillam, R. J., & Counts, J. M. (2019). The intangibles: What it takes for a backbone organization to succeed. In N. Walzer & L. Weaver (Eds.), Using collective impact to bring community change (pp. 56). New York, NY: Routledge. Gillam, R. J., Counts, J. M., & Garstka, T. A. (2016). Collective impact facilitators: how contextual and procedural factors influence collaboration. Community Development, 47(2), 209–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2015.1133684 Government of Canada. (2018). What we heard - Consultations on a food policy for Canada. Retrieved from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/aac-aafc/A22-609-2018-eng.pdf Granovetter, M. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233. https://doi.org/10.2307/202051 Gray, B., & Purdy, J. (2018a). Oxford Scholarship Online. 22. Gray, B., & Purdy, J. M. (2018b). Collaborating for our future: multistakeholder partnerships for solving complex problems (First edition). Oxford ; New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Häkli, J., & Minca, C. (2009). Social capital and urban networks of trust. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2012). Channeling Change: Making Collective Impact Work (SSIR). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/channeling_change_making_collective_impact_work Harden, N., Heim, S., & Bain, J. (2015). Cultivating collective action: The ecology of a statewide food network. St. Paul, MN: Health and Nutrition, University of Minnesota Extension, 23. 143 Hauck, J., Stein, C., Schiffer, E., & Vandewalle, M. (2015). Seeing the forest and the trees: Facilitating participatory network planning in environmental governance. Global Environmental Change, 35, 400–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.022 Hodbod, J., & Eakin, H. (2015). Adapting a social-ecological resilience framework for food systems. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 5(3), 474–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13412-015-0280-6 Hoey, L., Colasanti, K., Pirog, R., & Shapiro, L. F. (2016). Implementing collective impact for food systems change: Reflections and adaptations from Michigan. Journal of Agriculture Food Systems and Community Development, 7(2), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2017.072.014 Krebs, V., & Holley, J. (2006). Building Smart Communities through Network Weaving. 18. Holley, J. (2012). Network weaver handbook: A guide to transformational networks (1st ed.). Athens, OH: Network Weaver Publishing. Hoppe, B., & Reinelt, C. (2010). Social network analysis and the evaluation of leadership networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.06.004 Holmes, B. J., Best, A., Davies, H., Hunter, D., Kelly, M. P., Marshall, M., & Rycroft-Malone, J. (2017). Mobilising knowledge in complex health systems: a call to action. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 13(3), 539–560. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426416X14712553750311 Holt Giménez, E., & Shattuck, A. (2011). Food crises, food regimes and food movements: rumblings of reform or tides of transformation? Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(1), 109–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2010.538578 Hoppe, B., & Reinelt, C. (2010). Social network analysis and the evaluation of leadership networks. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4), 600–619. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.06.004 Hwacha, V. (2005). Canada’s experience in developing a national disaster mitigation strategy: A deliberative dialogue approach. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 10(3), 507–523. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-005-0058-3 Interior Health. (2017). Health service delivery area profile: Okanagan. Retrieved from www.interiorhealth.ca/AboutUs/QuickFacts/PopulationLocalAreaProfiles/Documents/Okanagan%20HSA.pdf Johnson, B. (2008). Impact of the Meat Inspection Regulation on Slaughter Capacity in the North Okanagan Regional District (RNDO). Retrieved May, 2, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.spcno.bc.ca/pdf/food_security/meat_inspection_final_report.pdf Johansen, P. H., Ejrnæs, R., Kronvang, B., Olsen, J. V., Præstholm, S., & Schou, J. S. (2018). Pursuing collective impact: A novel indicator-based approach to assessment of shared measurements when planning for multifunctional land consolidation. Land Use Policy, 73, 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.040 144 Kalda, R., Schultz, P., Schwenger, S., & Nexus, H. (2011). Network mapping: At a glance. Retrieved May 17, 2018, from Evaluating Community Impact website: http://www.tamarackcommunity.ca/evaluatingcommunityimpact Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, (Winter), 36–41. Retrieved from http://www.lano.org/resource/dynamic/blogs/20131007_093137_25993.pdf Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2013). Embracing emergence: How collective impact addresses complexity. Retrieved from https://ssir.org/articles/entry/social_progress_through_collective_impact Klaus, T., & Weaver, L. (2019). Progress, challenges, and next steps in collective impact: Collective impact as distruptive illumination. In N. Walzer & L. Weaver (Eds.), Using collective impact to bring community change (pp. 175-). New York, NY: Routledge. Koliba, C., Wiltshire, S., Scheinert, S., Turner, D., Zia, A., & Campbell, E. (2017). The critical role of information sharing to the value proposition of a food systems network. Public Management Review, 19(3), 284–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1209235 Krebs, V. (n.d.). Social network analysis: An introduction. Retrieved May 23, 2018, from http://www.orgnet.com/sna.html Krebs, V., & Holley, J. (2006). Building Smart Communities through Network Weaving. 18. Landers, G., Price, K., & Minyard, K. (2018). Developmental evaluation of a collective impact initiative: Insights for foundations. The Foundation Review, 10(2). https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1417 Lang, E. and Stockdale, M. (2017). Growing the local food economy in the North Okanagan: A summary report of consultation on opportunities and challenges in the regional food system and recommendations for the future. Lavis, J. N., Boyko, J. A., & Gauvin, F.-P. (2014). Evaluating deliberative dialogues focussed on healthy public policy. BMC Public Health, 14(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1287 Lavis, J. N., Boyko, J. A., Oxman, A. D., Lewin, S., & Fretheim, A. (2009). Support tools for evidence-informed health policymaking (STP) 14: Organising and using policy dialogues to support evidence-informed policymaking. Health Research Policy and Systems, 7(1), S14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4505-7-S1-S14 Lawseth, A., de la Salle, J., Marshall, B., & Smith, I. (2015b). Regional District of the North Okanagan Regional Agricultural Plan. Retrieved from http://www.rdno.ca/docs/150915_RAP_Final.pdf Levkoe, C. Z., Lefebvre, R., & Blay-Palmer, A. (2017). Food counts: A pan-canadian sustainable food systems report card. Retrieved from Wilfred Laurier University website: https://fledgeresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/food-counts-pan-canadian-sustainable-food-systems-report-card2.pdf 145 Martínez-Torres, M. E., & Rosset, P. M. (2010). La Vía Campesina: the birth and evolution of a transnational social movement. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(1), 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150903498804 Martorell, H. (2017). Introduction: Towards a healthy, just and sustainable food policy for Canada. Retrieved from FLEdGE and Food Secure Canada website: https://foodsecurecanada.org/sites/foodsecurecanada.org/files/files/introduction_discussion_paper_towards_a_healthy_just_and_sustainable_food_policy_for_canada_2017.pdf McCoy, M. L., & Scully, P. L. (2002). Deliberative dialogue to expand civic engagement: What kind of talk does democracy need? National Civic Review, 91(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.91202 McCullum, C., Desjardins, E., Kraak, V. I., Ladipo, P., & Costello, H. (2005). Evidence-based strategies to build community food security. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 105(2), 278–283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2004.12.015 Meadows, D., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. (2012). Tools for the transition. In D. Young & T. Princen (Ed.),. In The localization reader: Adapting to the coming downshift. (pp. 309–324). USA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Minkler, M. (2005). Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and cpportunities. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 82(2_suppl_2), ii3–ii12. https://doi.org/10.1093/jurban/jti034 Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2008). Community-based participatory research for health: From process to outcomes. Retrieved from http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ubc/detail.action?docID=588918 Minnesota Food Charter Network. (n.d.). Generating maps with hand-drawn activities. Retrieved from mnfoodcharter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Resources-for-Generating-Maps-by-Hand-drawing.pdf Minyard, K., Phillips, M. A., & Baker, S. (2016). The philanthropic collaborative for a healthy Georgia: Building a public-private partnership with pooled funding. The Foundation Review, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.9707/1944-5660.1285 Mittal, A., Krejci, C. C., & Craven, T. J. (2018). Logistics best practices for regional food systems: A Review. Sustainability; Basel, 10(1), 168. http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.3390/su10010168 Moat, K. A., Lavis, J. N., Clancy, S. J., El-Jardali, F., Pantoja, T., & for the Knowledge Translation Platform Evaluation study team. (2014). Evidence briefs and deliberative dialogues: perceptions and intentions to act on what was learnt. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 92(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.12.116806 Moor, A. de. (2018). A community network ontology for participatory collaboration mapping: Towards collective impact. Information, 9(7), 151. Retrieved from https://doaj.org Murdoch, J. (2000). Networks — a new paradigm of rural development? Journal of Rural Studies, 16(4), 407–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(00)00022-X 146 National Farmers Union. (2019a). Public perception of the canadian agriculture and agri-food sector. Retrieved April 23, 2019, from National Farmers Union website: https://www.nfu.ca/policy/public-perception-of-the-canadian-agriculture-and-agri-food-sector/ National Farmers Union. (2017, October 5). A food policy for Canada. Retrieved April 23, 2019, from National Farmers Union website: https://www.nfu.ca/policy/nfu-brief-on-a-food-policy-for-canada/ Nelligan, D., Cameron, N., Mackinnon, B. L., & Vance, C. (2016). Bridging gaps: A framework for developing regional food systems. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 7(1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2016.071.007 Norris-Tirrell, D., & Clay, J. (2010). Strategic collaboration in public and nonprofit administration: A practice-based approach to solving shared problems. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781420088762 Nyberg-Smith, R. (2007). North Okanagan food security assessment and action plan. Retrieved from http://www.socialplanning.ca/food_security.html Oelke, N., Plamondon, K., & Mendel, D. (2016). Using dialogic methods as a participatory knowledge translation approach to promote integration of nurse practitioners in primary healthcare settings. Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership, 29(3), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.12927/cjnl.2016.24894 Ogden, C. (2014). What is network strategy? [Blog]. Retrieved June 25, 2018, from Interaction Institute for Social Change website: http://interactioninstitute.org/what-is-network-strategy/ Ogden, C. (2013). Networking the divide. Retrieved April 4, 2018, from Interaction Institute for Social Change website: http://interactioninstitute.org/networking-on-the-divide/ Ogden, C. (2018, March 28). [Personal Communication, Skype]. Ohio Food Policy Network. (2017). Mapping the vision for the future of Ohio’s food system. Okanagan Valley Economic Development Society. (2015). Okanagan Valley Economic Profile. Retrieved from https://www.vernon.ca/sites/default/files/docs/business/oveds-eco-profile_2015r1.pdf Okanagan Valley Interregional Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. (2017). State of the basin report. Retrieved from http://www.rdno.ca/docs/Inter-regional_v20.pdf Olson, K. (2015). Growing in place: Building a local food economy in Vermont. Retrieved from E3 Network’s Future Economy Initiative website: https://community-wealth.org/content/growing-place-building-local-food-economy-vermont Palmer, A., Santo, R., Berlin, L., Bonanno, A., Clancy, K., Giesecke, C., Rocker, S. (2017). Between global and local: Exploring regional food systems from the perspectives of four communities in the U.S. Northeast. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 7(4), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2017.074.017 147 Pasini, N. (2018). A collective impact approach to the reading achievement gap. Journal of Library Administration, 58(6), 605–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/01930826.2018.1491186 Pawlick, T. (2006). The end of food: How the food industry is destroying our food supply - and what you can do about it. Vancouver, B.C., Canada: Greystone Books, Limited. Perry, D. (n.d.). Vermont farm to plate network: Vermont organizations work to achieve collective impact and transform a food system. Retrieved from https://sustain.org/ Phillips, R., & Wharton, C. (2015). Growing livelihoods - Local food systems and community development (1st ed.). Retrieved from https://doi-org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.4324/9781315688596 PHSA, P. H. S. Authority. (2016). Food costing in BC. Vancouver, B.C., Canada: Provincial Health Services Authority, Population and Public Health Program. Pimbert, M. P. (2008). Towards food sovereignty: reclaiming autonomous food systems. London, Great Britain: IIED. Plamondon, K. M., Bottorff, J. L., & Cole, D. C. (2015). Analyzing data generated through deliberative dialogue: Bringing knowledge translation into qualitative analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 25(11), 1529–1539. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315581603 Plastrik, P., & Taylor, M. (2006). Net gains: A handbook for network builders seeking social change (1st ed.). Retrieved from https://networkimpact.org/downloads/NetGainsHandbookVersion1.pdf Plastrik, P., Taylor, M., & Cleveland, J. (2014). Connecting to change the world: Harnessing the power of networks for social impact. Washington, DC: Island Press. Provan, K. G., & Kenis, P. (2008). Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(2), 229–252. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum015 Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, Tuning out: The strange disappearance of social capital in America. PS: Political Science and Politics, 28(4), 664–683. https://doi.org/10.2307/420517 Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. RDNO. (2016a). State of the Region Report [Regional Growth Strategy - Monitoring & Evaluation Program]. Retrieved from Regional District of the North Okanagan website: http://www.rdno.ca/docs/RDNO_State_of_the_Region_Report_FINAL.pdf RDNO. (2011). Regional District of the North Okanagan Regional Growth Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.rdno.ca/bylaws/Bylaw_2500.pdf RDNO. (2014). Regional District of the North Okanagan, Food System Workshop Summary. Sage, C. (2011). Environment and food. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203013465 148 Sagrestano, L. M., Clay, J., & Finerman, R. (2018). Collective impact model implementation: Promise and reality. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration; Harrisburg, 41(1), 87–123. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/2051208986/abstract/51DD1899E7AD477FPQ/1 Salignac, F., Wilcox, T., Marjolin, A., & Adams, S. (2018). Understanding collective impact in Australia: A new approach to interorganizational collaboration. Australian Journal of Management, 43(1), 91–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0312896217705178 Schiffer, E., & Hauck, J. (2010). Net-map: Collecting social network data and facilitating network learning through participatory influence network mapping. Field Methods, 22(3), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X10374798 Schmitz, P. (2014, October 22). The Culture of Collective Impact. Retrieved November 8, 2018, from Huffington Post website: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-schmitz/the-culture-of-collective_b_6025536.html Scott, J. (2000). Social network analysis: A handbook (2nd ed.). London, GB: Sage Publications. Shapiro, L. F., Hoey, L., Savas, S. A., & Colasanti, K. (2015). You can’t rush the process: Collective impact models of food systems change. 19. Retrieved from http://foodsystems.msu.edu/resources/collective_impa ct_models_of_food_systems_change. Smith, I., Andrea, L., de la Salle, J., & Marshall, B. (2015c). RDNO Regional Agricultural Plan Market Opportunities Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.rdno.ca/docs/Market_Opportunities_Analysis.pdf Smith, I., Lawseth, A., de la Salle, J., & Marshall, B. (2015a). Regional District of the North Okanagan Agricultural Plan Background Report. Retrieved from http://www.rdno.ca/docs/Agricultural_Plan_Background_Report.pdf Statistics Canada. (2017b). Focus on Geography Series, 2016 Census. [No. 98-404-X2016001]. Retrieved from Statistics Canada Catalogue website: http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cd-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CD&GC=5937&TOPIC=6 Statistics Canada. (2017, February 8). Census Profile, 2016 Census - North Okanagan, Regional district [Census division], British Columbia and British Columbia [Province]. Retrieved December 3, 2017, from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/dppd/prof/details/page.cfm?Lang=E&Geo1=CD&Code1=5937&Geo2=PR&Code2=59&Data=Count&SearchText=North%20Okanagan&SearchType=Begins&SearchPR=01&B1=All&GeoLevel=PR&GeoCode=5937&TABID=1 Statistics Canada. (2017d). Focus on Geography Series, 2016 Census - Census division of North Okanagan, RD (British Columbia). Retrieved April 28, 2019, from https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2016/as-sa/fogs-spg/Facts-cd-eng.cfm?LANG=Eng&GK=CD&GC=5937&TOPIC=1 149 Stiver, D. C. (2019). Network agreements. In N. Walzer & L. Weaver (Eds.), Using collective impact to bring community change (pp. 41-). New York, NY: Routledge. Tamarack Institute. (n.d.). Collective Impact | Tamarack Institute. Retrieved November 7, 2017, from http://www.tamarackcommunity.ca/collectiveimpact Taylor, M., Plastrik, P., Coffman, J., & Whatley, A. (2014). Evaluating networks for social change: A casebook. Retrieved from www.networkimpact.org/wp-content/.../NetworkEvalGuidePt2_Casebook_Rev.pdf Tener, B. (2012, November 9). Evaluating Networks: Interview with Susan Foster. Retrieved June 11, 2018, from New Directions Collaborative website: http://www.ndcollaborative.com/foster/ Tener, B., & Nierenberg, A. (2008). Boston Green and Healthy Building Network: A Case Study. Retrieved from https://www.barrfoundation.org/blog/boston-green-and-healthy-building-network Tourism Vernon. (2017, September 19). Farm to Fork. Retrieved March 24, 2019, from http://www.tourismvernon.com/en/eat-and-drink/Farm-to-Fork.aspx Tremblay, C., & Hall, B. (2014). Learning from community-university research partnerships: A Canadian study on comunity impact and conditions for success. International Journal for Action Research. Vance-Borland, K., & Holley, J. (2011). Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving. Conservation Letters, 4(4), 278–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00176.x Vermont Farm to Plate. (2017). Vermont farm to plate network: Overview and network structure. Retrieved June 25, 2018, from Vermont Farm to Plate website: http://www.vtfarmtoplate.com/network Vermont Farm to Plate. (2018). 2018 Farm to Plate Annual Report. Retrieved April 28, 2019, from Vermont Farm to Plate website: https://www.vtfarmtoplate.com/resources/2018-farm-to-plate-annual-report Wallerstein, N. B., & Duran, B. (2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376 Walzer, N., & Weaver, L. (Eds.). (2019). Using collective impact to bring community change. New York, NY: Routledge. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wilkins, J., & Eames-Sheavly, M. (2000). A primer on community food systems: Linking food, nutrition and agriculture. Discovering the Food System Program, Division of Nutritional Sciences/Department of Horticulture, Cornell University, USA. 150 Wolff, T. (2016). Ten places where collective impact gets it wrong. Global Journal of Communitiy Psychology Practice, 7(1). Retrieved from https://www.gjcpp.org/en/resource.php?issue=21&resource=200 151 Appendices Appendix A: Details of the build the network framework draft The two pages present the ‘build the network framework’ draft. The questions developed are listed on the left, categorized under network connection, alignment, productivity and health. These four pages are inserted as images for the purpose of enlarging the image to view the literature and accompanying information in the right side. BUILD THE NETWORK FRAMEWORK Question Network definition/ notes References 1. “What kind of network do you want to build?” Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 32 A. Connectivity Connectivity – connects people to allow “easy flow and access to information and transactions” Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p.33 2. What recommendations are there for connecting clusters and building relationships? 3. What recommendations are there for supporting collaborative alliances (building a multi-hub community)? A network within a network. Collaborative alliance 4. What recommendations are there for cultivating trust, reciprocity and inclusiveness? Cultivate trust (Ehrlichman, Sawyer, & Wei-Skillem, 2015). Build the network. Connecting outside of region. Coordination, Facilitation, Commitment – How will members link and work with each other (Peter Plastrik, Madeleine Taylor, John Cleveland, 2014, pp. 42–43)? Hub and Spoke – Weaving from hub to scattered clusters (Krebs & Holley, 2006). Network ties quality and configuration (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 49). Determine organizational structure (look at other network models) (Pease, 2018). How to connect the existing networks and clusters (NOFSI Objectives).Connectivity/ Structure – How connections between members are structured to what flows through them shape connections (Peter Plastrik, Madeleine Taylor, John Cleveland, 2014). Smart network – creating a cove of overlapping clusters (Krebs & Holley, 2006). 152 C. Production Production fosters joint action for specialized outcomes by aligned people. (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) 6. What recommendations are there for planning mutually reinforcing activities? (Liz’s work) Mutually Reinforcing Activities (Kania & Kramer, 2011). How is planning done? (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) Plan of action (NOFSI Objectives). Launch Network Actions (Forum Actions). Plan to follow-up forums (Forum Actions). Determine plans of action (Forum Actions). BUILD THE NETWORK FRAMEWORK Question Network definition and notes References B. Alignment Alignment aligns people – to develop and spread an identity and collective value proposition. Alignment – align around confronts current reality, goals. Set common terminology. Vision (Agree upon and promote). Value (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p.33). (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006). 5. What recommendations are there for developing a common agenda? Clearly define: Vision, goals, deliverables of network (Forum Actions). Common Agenda (Kania & Kramer, 2011) Purpose – What is the networks reason for being (Peter Plastrik, Madeleine Taylor, John Cleveland, 2014) Collective Value Proposition (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) Shared vision, goals, strategy, Terms of Reference (NOFSI Objectives) Clarify purpose (Ehrlichman et al., 2015) Objectives and Goals (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) What are the values and beliefs of the network (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) What is the purpose of the network – mission, vision, operating principle (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) 153 BUILD THE NETWORK FRAMEWORK Question Network definition and notes References D. Health What is the “collective value proposition” of the network (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 23)? Value Proposition the benefits for individuals and collectively (Peter Plastrik, Madeleine Taylor, John Cleveland, 2014)? 7. What recommendations are there for identifying and organizing the initial membership of the network? What is the initial membership of the network (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) Convene the right people (Ehrlichman et al., 2015) Membership – eligibility/ membership requirements/ How many members? (Peter Plastrik, Madeleine Taylor, John Cleveland, 2014) Network membership arrangements (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) Membership responsibilities (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) 8. What recommendations are there for developing a governance model? How should the network be governed (Peter Plastrik, Madeleine Taylor, John Cleveland, 2014)? Coordinate Action (Ehrlichman et al., 2015) Governance - Who decides what the network will do? How do they decide? (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 23) Operating the network and coping with management issues (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) Coordinating production and network development (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) 9. What recommendations are there for organizational structure, events and ways of communicating? What structure should the network have (Peter Plastrik, Madeleine Taylor, John Cleveland, 2014)? Backbone organization (Kania & Kramer, 2011) Backbone support organization to hold vision, coordination (Forum Actions). Approach champs to lead development of network – form steering committee (Forum Actions). Determine initial scaffolding (organizing structure) for network (Forum Actions). Appropriate organizational structure (steering committee, coordination, working groups, stakeholders, members) (NOFSI Objectives) 10. What recommendations are there for developing and implementing the initial operating principles of the network? What are the initial operating principles of the network (Peter Plastrik, Madeleine Taylor, John Cleveland, 2014)? Operating principles – what rules will guide the network’s culture (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 23)? 11. What recommendations are there for the education and training for network guardians, weavers, facilitators, coordinators and members? Who will build the network (Peter Plastrik, Madeleine Taylor, John Cleveland, 2014)? Support for network weavers so that the network has adequate leadership and initiative (Krebs & Holley, 2006) Identified network guardians who understand the role (Krebs & Holley, 2006) Training agenda for the network (coordinator, steering committee, members) (Forum Actions). Training facilitation, weaving, coordinating, guardian (Forum Actions). Teaching (what, why, how) about networks (Forum Actions). Build awareness; assess level of support and interest (Forum Actions). 154 BUILD THE NETWORK FRAMEWORK Question Network definition and notes References 12. What recommendations are there for the financial plan? Financial resources (Forum Actions). Health financial resources (Peter Plastrik, Madeleine Taylor, John Cleveland, 2014) Access to resources to support the work of the network (Krebs & Holley, 2006) Resources – networks funding model (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006, p. 23)? Apply for funding; approach corporate sponsors (Forum Actions). Ensure long-term sustainability of network in terms of funding (Forum Actions). Long- term funding place (NOFSI Objectives) 13. What recommendations are there for the communication plan and database? Communication Plan and Database/ Organization (Forum Actions) Communication (Kania & Kramer, 2011). Communication (NOFSI Objectives). Communication and networking systems to support interaction and engagement (Krebs & Holley, 2006). Develop and test an appropriate communication mechanism to keep stakeholders engaged (website, listserve, newsletter, forum, meetings, potlucks, green drinks, library speaker) (Forum actions). Training. Gather network information: ie. Directory – database of lands, government, policy makers, non-profits, researchers (Forum actions). Develop appropriate communication mechanisms: ie. App or FB Page (Forum Actions) Make database of information available to stakeholders (Forum actions). How dependant is network on a small numbers of individuals (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) Assets – key players, networkers, leaders (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) 14. What recommendations are there for the shared measurement plan? Shared Measurement System to monitor success (Kania & Kramer, 2011) Set of baseline data (NOFSI Objectives) Design and implement a framework for ongoing planning, monitoring, evaluating and adapting (Forum actions)/ (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) Understanding the system to be transported (Krebs & Holley, 2006) Opportunities for collective sense making to gain maximum benefit from the work (Krebs & Holley, 2006) Results/ Interim outcome. What impact is the network having (indicators) (Peter Plastrik, Madeleine Taylor, John Cleveland, 2014) Assessment – How will condition and performance be monitored? (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) (NOFSI Objectives) Network design/ Joint design/ Res (Krebs & Holley, 2006) Distribution of network resources (budget) (Plastrik & Taylor, 2006) 155 Appendix B: Network strengths and weaknesses Below are the North Okanagan food system network strengths and weaknesses. The strengths are categorized by strong connections, leaders, innovators, mentors, experts in processing, planning and practice. The weaknesses are identified by gaps in the network: missing connections, missing members and missing alliances. STRENGTHS Strong connections Strong connections between some groups within the network Producers: Information sharing relationships amongst organic market gardeners and their Certification bodies; Meat producers connected to specific suppliers and processors; Processors that are already linked to producers have strong relationships with them; Core relationships with small-scale farmers and independent retail; Distributors: Strong relationships with their producers Leaders or individuals who should be playing leadership roles in the regional food system The ones that have shown up and contributed; Community leaders, farmer/ processor advocates; Individually named producers; Distributors: Farmbound (Jaye Siegmuller), Good Food Box; Farmers market manager and boards; Retail managers (Askews – David Askew, Butcher Boys), Monashee Co-op; Rancho Cooling; Interior Health; Ministry of Agriculture/ RDNO/ Municipalities/ Staff/ elected officials; FASNO (Juris Vitners), Young Agrarians; UBCO/ OC/ educators; Mary, Eva-Lena, L2T Innovators Individual producer and processor entrepreneurs (Bella Stella Cheese, Terrior Cheese, Fieldstone Granary, Shuswap Organics, Mobile Juicing, Okanagan Rawsome – their model, Okanagan Food Hub, Spa Hills, Plant and animal breeders, Various academic individuals Mentors Experienced farmers, certain producer associations, centers of the hubs, Andrea Gunner, outside experts (Heather Pritchard, Curtis Ogden), Ministry of Agriculture, municipal planners, Community Futures, Young Agrarians, people from academic institutions, Experts in processing, planning, practice Individual consultants (Victor Cummings, Andrea Gunner, Linda McGrew, Ministry of Agriculture, Local government, Municipalities and municipal planners, Academic institutions, Community Futures, Mary!, Annette Sharkey – Social Planning Council, Young Agrarians, Interior Health WEAKNESSES Gaps in the network Missing connections - Group better connected: in the region but not connected properly/ need to be brought into network (want a change to be made) - Not enough connections - Suppliers and specialized equipment for some producers - Lack of connection between producers and retailers, producers and services, both due to lack of a regional hub - Retail, services (restaurants, caterers, food trucks, institutions that cook for institutions), - Rogers Food - Media (Castanet, Infotel, newspapers, CBC) - Downtown Vernon Association , Okanagan Mission, Hospice House, Shubert Centre, Kindale, Social Planning Council - Splatsin Education Department, Splatsin Development Corporation - Maven Lane Preschool, SD 22, - social organizations in the food sector (food access groups, emergency food services, Salvation Army, Kindale) - Community gardens - independent retailers, getting information out about producers/ processors and they have the potential to educate consumers - Institutions (hospitals, schools, preschools, senior centers, long-term care facilities) 156 Missing connections (continued) - Health Associations, Health and wellness groups, Disease prevention e.g. Diabetes - Processor hubs - Banks/ financial institutions (Bank of Montreal, Farm Credit Canada, Credit unions) - forage producers - Bare Nature Products - Natures Fare Commissary (kitchen) - Beekeepers - Indigenous – food sovereignty - Research, students and faculty - Community kitchens (e.g. community kitchen in Lumby) - Engaging youth - Producer managers or buyers - Provincial supports (Provincial Health Services Authority, Farm to School BC, BC Agriculture in the Classroom) Missing members Groups missing - Food system suppliers (of equipment, labour, seeds and land) - Certain types of processors (meat, dairy, cheese) - Regional wholesaler/distributor (i.e. Hub) - Tourism in North Okanagan - U-pick operations - Local directory - Information about food and health - Ministry of Agriculture extension - Making local food more accessible Missing Alliances Horizontal Connect across producer groups (allow for shared resources, access to labour, marketing, access to tools and equipment, linking to suppliers); Connect processors, possibly independent retailers or services Vertical Connect across producer groups to connect with other food system category (e.g vegetables and meat producers to sell to restaurants, or producers and processors to food services through wholesaler/ distributor); Agri-tourism Other (being strategic about who we’re connecting and why) Policy or research alliances (Community engage research); alliances with networks outside of the region (provincial organizations) 157 Appendix C: Confidentiality Agreement My research explores strategies to help and connect the actors in the North Okanagan food system through a network. A network will break down barriers and encourage more active engagement in our food system. This research will engage actors involved in the North Okanagan food system to further understand the challenges that exist. Any information gathered during the course of the above research project is privileged information, whether these concern interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, or include observations about an individual or individuals. The same applies to all records or documents associated with individuals participating in this research project as participants. I Eva-Lena Lang, the researcher, will conduct semi-structured interviews, focus groups and questionnaires to gather data on the North Okanagan food system. I affirm that I will maintain the anonymity and confidentiality of all individuals participating in the study as well as other information gleaned from the practice setting. I also affirm that I will uphold personally, and in cooperation with my research colleagues, the following: • No record will be reproduced in any manner, in full or in part, having potential personal identification capabilities either directly or indirectly; • keep all research information in any form or format (e.g., disks, tapes, transcripts) secure while it is in my possession. • return all research information in any form or format (e.g., disks, tapes, transcripts) to the Researcher(s) when I have completed the research tasks. • No record will be reviewed in any way, including casual reading, by anyone without express authorization of the Researcher(s); • Through the process of deliberative dialogues, the data will be analyzed by the focus groups and advisory committee. In the context of this community-based research project all the research information shared with me will remain confidential within the advisory committee, focus groups and amongst the interviewees. • No personally identifying information, direct or indirect, will at any time be disclosed to anyone; • No records, or reproductions of records, will be removed at any time from the premises normally used by researcher, without the specific approval of the Researcher; • Remove all copies (e.g., transcript by transcriptionist) from all non-research computers as soon as the files have been successfully and confidentially transferred. 158 Appendix D: Consent Form Principal Investigators: Mary Stockdale, Community, Culture and Global Studies, University of British Columbia Contact phone number: 250-503-2506 Jon Corbett, Community, Culture and Global Studies, University of British Columbia Contact phone number: 250-307-9348 Co-Investigator: Eva-Lena Lang, Interdisciplinary Graduate Studies, Community, Culture and Global Studies, University of British Columbia This research is for a Master’s of Art graduate degree. The research will be a part of a thesis (public document). The purpose of this study is to explores strategies to help and connect the North Okanagan’s food system through a network. Through expert interviews and focus groups the researcher will engage with individuals working in or interested in the North Okanagan food system. You are being invited to take part in this research study because you are engaged with the regional food system. We want to learn more about how to grow the regional food network. What happens if you say “Yes, I want to be in the study”? If you say 'Yes’, here is how we will do the study: We will ask you about your involvement in the regional food system and how we can build our regional food systems network. We will ask you what the challenges and opportunities in growing the North Okanagan food systems network. We will give you a form with questions to answer. If you decide to take part in this research study we will ask you to participate in a focus group. Additionally, some participants will be asked to partake in an expert interview. Focus group: As a volunteer with one of the five working groups in the North Okanagan Food System’s Initiative (NOFSI) you will engage in several meetings between May 2018 and September 2018. Focus groups will be conducted within the NOFSI meetings. Depending on your working group, there will be one or several meetings. The fifth working group from the forum ‘Build the Network’ will be considered a community advisory committee and will meet more than once. Data collected during the first meeting will be analyzed and discussed at the following meeting (s). Expert interviews: Expert interviews will be between ½ hour to 2 hours between the months of May and September 2018. Study Results The results of this study will be reported in a graduate thesis and may also be published in journal articles and books. The thesis will be a public document on cIRcle. The main study findings will available in a report for the North Okanagan food system’s network, and the information will be available to other regions. Potential Risks of Study 159 Minimal risk We do not think there is anything in this study that could harm you or be bad for you. Please let the researcher know if you have any concerns. You do not have to answer any question or questions if you do not want to. Please indicate if you would not like to answer a question. What are the benefits of participating? The benefit of participating is you are you increasing your own network within the North Okanagan food system. This is a community-based research project that will benefit the community by growing the North Okanagan food system network. Measures to maintain confidentiality Your confidentiality will be respected. Information that discloses your identity will not be released without your consent unless required by law”. All documents will be identified only by code number and kept in a locked filing cabinet. Subjects will not be identified by name in any reports of the completed study. • The data records will be kept on a password protected UBCO computer, and on the UBCO workplace server maintained by UBCO. • We encourage participants not to discuss the content of the focus group to people outside the group; however, we can’t control what participants do with the information discussed. If you choose to withdraw from the study, your data from the focus groups and interviews will not be destroyed. The data will still be used because of the nature of the group discussion in the focus groups and the inability to identify speakers. Who can you contact if you have questions about the study? If you have any questions or concerns about what we are asking of you, please contact the research leader. The names and telephone numbers are listed at the top of the first page of this form. Who can you contact if you have complaints or concerns about the study? If you have any concerns or complaints about your rights as a research participant and/or your experiences while participating in this study, contact the Research Participant Complaint Line in the UBC Office of Research Services at 1-877-822-8598 or the UBC Okanagan Research Services Office at 250-807-8832. It is also possible to contact the Research Participant Complaint Line by email (RSIL@ors.ubc.ca). Please reference the study number (H18-00903) when contacting the Complaint Line so the staff can better assist you. PARTICIPANT CONSENT AND SIGNATURE PAGE “Taking part in this study is entirely up to you. You have the right to refuse to participate in this study. If you decide to take part, you may choose to pull out of the study at any time without giving a reason and without any negative impact on your”. • Your signature below indicates that you have received a copy of this consent form for your own records. • Your signature indicates that you consent to participate in this study. • I am aware that the focus group is recorded  160 • I agree that the interview will be recorded.  ____________________________________________________ Participant Signature Date ____________________________________________________ Printed Name of the Participant signing above
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Interdisciplinary Studies
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Graduate
Coming to the table as a regional food system : mapping and building a network
Text