My sense is that most people prefer to use the term community over local because of the former s positive connotation. Or perhaps the terms are used interchangeably? In an age of individualism and alienation, we all seek more real community. However, the increasing importance given the term local also reflects deep feelings: the sense local people have that they have little to say in many decisions which have large local impact. Its emphasis reflects an increasing opposition to globalization because of the many ways in which it threatens local powers. So local is a term opposing globalization has become important in trying to preserve the structures and powers that enable localities to make meaningful decisions.
Local power can be political and/or economic. And localities can be democratic or undemocratic; the latter run by small elite groups that discriminated against and exploit other members of the locality. If we want to encourage democratic localities, the battle must be fought not only at the local level, but against the economic power of large institutions (corporations, government, big science, etc.) that increasingly threaten local power at all levels. To get more economic power back to the local level, democratic political power needs to be mobilized at all levels. The political battle for economic power can also benefit from the building of informal systems outside the control of dominant economic institutions. These include community gardens, local currencies and be local policies that empower people and generate and recycle local economic activity.
What then are communities? They to can be democratic or authoritarian. Community,revolves around matters of shared values which lead to shared responsibilities. There are concentric circles of community (where it exists) from family to neighborhood, to town, to region, etc., all buttressed by religious, ethnic, work, and other communities. Food- rather like water in natural systems- permeates all of them in one way or another but has very little visibility.
What does all this mean for the discussion of community food security and community food systems? First, it means that we have to see if either really involves community. It is not enough to simply place the label of community on either one. Indeed, in many of the local/globalization battles, democratic values and action may be the focus of our efforts. In local matters of equity, diversity, and sustainability, community values and actions may be the focus. Democratic and community values can be reinforcing, but not necessarily so.
I like the definition that Hugh developed for NESAWG meeting because it includes community values and strongly implies both democratic and local values:
Community food security represents comprehensive community centered approaches to providing adequate resources and access for all people at all times to a readily available, nutritionally adequate safe, and sustainably-produced food supply. Community food security supports sustainable community development and greater involvement and control over all aspects of the food systems by residents and community-based institutions. It also promote greater food self-reliance in the context of the right to food for all people within a globally sustained food system.
However, I would strongly suggest changing the last phrase to ...within a world made up of diverse and sustainable food systems. The original phrase is much too subject to being co-opted by those large corporations that are seeking to establish and impose THEIR global food system-a top down system that undermines or destroys both cultural and biological diversity and replaces it with a plethora of standardized products with many different labels (including sustainable or organic or whatever they think will sell).
Since corporations, governments, and the media are all engaged in labeling and spin and image games, we must be careful not to get caught up in this. Through dialogue, we need to do our best to make sure that our concepts and our labels coincide with realities, not wishes.
Ken Dahlberg
The Jubilant Gardens Project started with a request to have
a trained resource person available for information about biointensive
gardening. Biointensive gardening combines French Intensive crop
raising with biodynamic practices. It is an organic growing method
which stresses a closed system with a very minor portion of land providing
income. Requiring a shovel, a fork, compost, plants and land in the most
basic form, the approach is considered among the most efficient and productive
gardening techniques ever documented. Even the Peace Corps uses this method
in home and market gardening production.
The project used a central location to demonstrate techniques to area gardeners by developing home gardens on plots varying from nine square feet up to 100 square feet. A specialist in-training was available to the growers and instruction topics range from crop selection to compost production to solar dryer design. Seven households have maintained involvement with the project. The specialist also served as facilitator to a soup kitchen garden project which temporarily swelled the project number to a needed 18 participants. However, due to labor shortages, the soup kitchen opted to use pesticides and other non-organic methods and the facilitator withdrew his support.
As a means of increasing knowledge and appreciation of organic gardening methods, the project has been a success. Four of the seven households have developed significantly improved skills. One household had its first productive garden ever after several years of attempts. Another, incorporated foster care teens into bed preparation. Two growers went from stated despair to surprise at their competence.
The demonstration project has run several experimental beds even while building a healthy well developed soil structure. Unique varieties of beets, sorghum, and tomatoes are being evaluated along with several different inter cropping approaches. The results, such as immunity from heat and drought, or increasing soil permeability, will continue to undergo further testing as the project expands in the coming years.
My thanks to the growers involved. Not only were they willing to trust their financial resources on a new and strange gardening technique, they were willing to work very hard. Sometimes, you get back what you invest. My hope is that the participants realize that their investment continues to give dividends compounded.
Ben Brown
Jubilant Gardens Facilitator
Globalization is guided by global market integration of every
farmer and every consumer for every agricultural product. This is
pushing the majority of small farmers out of production and pushing people
out of consumption.
The myth that has supported globalization is that it will lead to growth. But what is never specified is growth of what and for whom. Trade liberalization does lead to growth of profits for global agribusiness corporations. But it is also leading to a decline in food production and food security, economic security for farmers and erosion of ecological security.
Globalization of agriculture can neither provide food security nor sustain ability. Sustainability of agriculture and the right to food requires an alternative to the external intensification (via pesticides and mechanization) and external liberalization of agriculture via export oriented trade agreements.
On the other hand, internal intensification is based on biodiversity intensification which provides internal inputs for agriculture and real food security for the household and the community. Providing internal inputs and food security frees the country of external dependence for purchase of seeds, agrochemical and foods. It therefore builds the processes which allow local markets and domestic markets to prosper and grow and for exports to grow without destroying domestic consumption. Thus, internal intensification breaks free of both centralized government control and corporate monopolies. This is the genuinely free trade based on small producers and as far as possible local markets and local consumption, with national markets and global markets entering only for products that cannot be locally grown.
The alternative to both the Green Revolution and globalization is the biodiversity intensification of farming, which can only be done on small farms. This is the real liberalization of agriculture because it frees the earth of the violence of agrochemicals, it frees diverse species from the assault of poisons and toxins, it frees the farmer of bondage of debt and royalties, it frees the consumers of having to compete with global agribusiness to have access and entitlement to food.
By putting biodiversity and the small farmer at the center of agriculture policy, the logic of free trade can be challenged both on grounds of sustainability and justice. Freedom for corporations can be replaced by freedom for the earth, freedom for diverse species and freedom for small farmers. This shift will, however, need strategic interventions at local, national and global level.
This shift can only be successful by freeing farmers of dependence on seeds, chemicals, and debts for purchase of inputs. Farmers must also be freed of negative export commodity trade links; instead, local markets must be strengthened and new ethical markets must be established for products. In India, for example, basmati rice and neem have been grown in India for centuries, but the export of these products are threatened by biopiracy, through patent rights of basmati (by US based Rice Tec) and the Neem (by US based W.R. Grace). Establishing alternative fair trade links for key strategic products will provide a major challenge to current global trade policy, which is based on piracy and monopolies. It will also protect native biodiversity and livelihoods of small farmers. The promotion of patent free, chemical free and genetic engineering free symbols of fair trading will be a major political step on challenging patents on life industrial agriculture, and genetic engineering.
Local agendas sustainability should be based upon:
In addition to the work on policy advocacy, a national agenda should
establish a network that promotes the paradigm of sustainable agriculture.
This would start to replace the industrial agriculture paradigm both in
farmers' minds and in the minds of agricultural scientists.
A new global agenda must lay out the rules for an ecologically sustainable and socially just agriculture and trade policy. This framework should delineate what decisions should be made at the local, national and global levels and which decisions should be left to local communities and national governments and which decisions are appropriate for global corporations and global markets. Such a framework on sustainable agriculture and global trade decisions, and how this hierarchy of values can be used to bring changes in WTO rules to ensure that free-trade does not undermine sustainability.
Such a positive ecological and social agenda for agriculture could reverse the present free trade agenda. In particular, TRIPS and US patent laws should also be revised in order to establish freedom to save and exchange seeds as a fundamental human right and fundamental human duty for biodiversity conservation.
Vandana Shiva
(reprinted from Focus on Food and Agriculture)
Present:
Ken Dahlberg, Barbara Geisler, Adrian Kaufman, Maynard Kaufman, Andy
Kinor, Margaret Laatsch, Lee Maher, Mike Phillips, Jan Ryan
The minutes of the previous meeting were approved after Ken corrected the reported site of the Deep Ecology meeting.
Treasurer's Report:
This report was deferred as Lisa Phillips was not in attendance.
A report will be available by the next scheduled meeting.
Old and New Business:
Pat Whetham's notebook concerning the MOFFA organic farming project
was passed around. Most of the information was derived from ATTRA
sources. The completed survey from participation farmers will be
mailed at a later date. Maynard mentioned that a financial accounting
of the $3,100 allocated to MOFFA for this project should be on hand and
in the MLT files.
Maynard submitted a MOFFA brochure, "Pesticides and Children," which was finally published after many years of revision. Barbara worked with the Ecology Center in Ann Arbor to complete the effort.
Jan Ryan was encouraged by all present to seek MOFFA board membership when there is an opening.
Mike submitted information received from the Michigan Environmental Council of which the MLT is a member.
Mike apologized for the long overdue MLT newsletter citing a bad case of avoidance coping. They passed a motion that Jon Towne assume editorship. The Board also passed a motion thanking Mike for ten years of producing the MLT newsletter.
Barbara initiated discussion of just how the MLT membership can be better informed of meetings. The possibility of a phone tree was considered. In any case, Jon will send out notices of meetings in upcoming newsletters.
There was discussion of Ben Brown's garden project. He now lives in Lawton and has not submitted a financial proposal.
Maynard's farm land division project may involve too much red tape to be viable. More information will be available after January, 2000. There may be some MLT board involvement with the goal being farm land preservation with a limited number of household lots available on site. Perhaps the farm can be deeded to God?
Ken reported extensively on the Conference for Food Security held recently in Chicago. He may send a report to be included in our newsletter.
Ken also reported on the "Right to Farm" meeting held last week at WMU. Apparently, it was well attended and generated heated discussion. The Michigan Farm Bureau is in favor of related state legislation but there are concerns that small farmers would be left out. Developing townships strongly oppose "Right to Farm".
Maynard initiated discussion of new members being elected to the board by next meeting. Mike will check the bylaws and report then.
With no further new business, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Lee Maher, Acting Secretary
Balance @ Last Report (February 7, 1999)
$12,622.16
DEPOSITS
Land Contract (March 1999 - February 2000
$4,188.00
Memberships
20.00
Dividends
$183.26
$4,391.26
DISBURSEMENTS
Printing
$7.20
State of Michigan Annual Report
$10.00
$17.20
BALANCE
$16,996.22
Respectfully Submitted
Lisa Phillips, Treasurer