Monitoring | PANORAMA

Using a metric-based flexible framework for implementation

Lady proud of her produce

Minneapolis

The Good Food Purchasing Program’s metric-based, flexible framework encourages large public institutions to measure and then make shifts in their food purchases. By adopting the framework, food service institutions commit to improving their regional food system by implementing meaningful purchasing standards in all five value categories:

Local Economics: the Good Food Purchasing Program supports local small and mid-sized agricultural and food processing operations.
Environmental Sustainability: the Good Food Purchasing Progam requires institutions to source at least 15% of the food from producers that employ sustainable production systems.
Valued Workforce: the Good Food Purchasing Policy promotes safe and healthy working conditions and fair compensation for all food chain workers and producers.
Animal Welfare: the Good Food Purchasing Policy promotes healthy and humane care for farm animals.
Nutrition: Finally, the Good Food Purchasing Policy promotes health and well-being by outlining best practices that offer generous portions of vegetables, fruit, whole grains and minimally processed foods, while reducing salt, added sugars, saturated fats, and red meat consumption, and eliminating artificial additives.

The Good Food Purchasing Program is nationally regarded as the most comprehensive and metric-based food procurement policy in the country. Verification, scoring and recognition are central components. When an institution enrolls in the Good Food Purchasing Program, staff of the Center for Good Food Purchasing work with them to collect in depth information about purchasing and food service practices.

To become a Good Food Provider, the food service institution has to at least meet the baseline (equal to one point) in each of the five values. Meeting even higher standards results in more points being awarded. The accumulation of points across all values is used to calculate and award a star rating. The baseline and higher standard purchasing criteria are set out in the Good Food Purchasing Standards, which are updated every five years, most recently in September 2017. There are five status levels of a Good Food Purchaser (1-5 Stars) that correspond to a respective range of points. In order to achieve a 5 Star level, the institution must achieve 25 or more points. As of June 2018, five out of 27 institutions have achieved a star rating, amongst them Boulder Valley School District that achieved 5 Stars in 2017 and Oakland Unified School District that achieved 4 Stars in 2016. After one year, purchasers are expected to increase the amount of Good Food that they purchase.

Implementation

Monitoring

Documentation and dissemination of results

Subnational

TEEBAgriFood’s Evaluation Framework and methodologies

Sustainable Food Systems

TEEB

TEEBAgriFood’s Evaluation Framework answers the question: What should we evaluate about food systems? And TEEBAgriFood’s methodologies answer the question: How should we do these evaluations? TEEBAgriFood illustrates five families of applications to compare: (a) different policy scenarios; (b) different farming typologies; (c) different food and beverage products; (d) different diets/ food plates; and (e) adjusted versus conventional national or sectoral accounts.

TEEBAgriFood gives ten examples showing how to apply this framework and methodologies for various types of evaluations. One of them is, for example, a study in New Zealand of 15 conventional and 14 organic fields that valued 12 ecosystem services and found both crops as well as other ecosystem services to be higher in the organic fields.

The TEEBAgriFood evaluation framework provides a structure and an overview of what should be included in the analysis. However, methods of valuation depend on the values to be assessed, availability of data, and the purpose of the analysis. Ideally one should be able to say with some confidence what are the externalities associated with each euro or dollar spent on a given kind of food, produced, distributed and disposed of in a given way. The application of the framework requires an interdisciplinary approach, where all relevant stakeholders, including policy-makers, businesses, and citizens, understand and identify questions that are to be answered by a valuation exercise. Therefore, stakeholder engagement across sectors is critical to the effective application of TEEBAgriFood in specific contexts and policy arenas.

Inception phase

Implementation

Monitoring

Documentation and dissemination of results

Potential as a Transferable Model

Collecting a lettuce

CONQUITO

AGRUPAR could well serve as a model for other cities and form the basis for a national policy on local production.

CONQUITO has favoured observation tours and exchanges of experiences as well as transfer of methodologies, including among ministries and NGOs, for example the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Aquaculture and Fisheries and the Peace Corps.

Since 2015, AGRUPAR contributed to both the City Region Food Systems Project of FAO and the RUAF Foundation, which evaluated Quito’s food system. As a result, AGRUPAR staff decided to work towards a food policy for the city in a more systemic sense, within which urban agriculture is a strategic activity.

Commitment from the municipality to keep continuing and investing into the programme in the long term
A great equipe
The buyin of CONQUITO

Over its 16 years of existence, AGRUPAR has achieved impressive results. These results helped to make it an international well-known example of exemplary urban participatory agriculture and serve now as benchmark for all others that follow their path.

Monitoring

Documentation and dissemination of results

Review phase

Subnational

Promotion of food consumption, healthy diets and nutrition through bio-fairs and education

Young women collecting carrots

CONQUITO

Through the biofairs and other activities, AGRUPAR promotes healthy diets and sustainability. The Programme created 17 bio-fairs where 105 types of food are offered. Through these, 25% of the produce is commercialized, for about USD 350,000 per year.

Since 2007, a total of 6,663 bio-fairs have been organized.
Aall produce is organic.

Nearly 170,000 consumers have attended the bio-fairs and were sensibilized on healthy diets and nutrition. Surveys have identified increased dietary diversity among producers and their families.

Inception phase

Implementation

Monitoring

Documentation and dissemination of results

Subnational

Support for market-oriented local production in the DMQ region

Getting ready for the market

CONQUITO

Once producers achieve household food security, AGRUPAR encourages them to form microenterprises and trains them in business planning, marketing and accounting. The microenterprises are not only engaged in the production of vegetables, fruits, small animals, fish and ornamental plants, but also in the processing of jams, cookies, yogurt, cheese, drinks and traditional snacks and they also supply products to local food processing companies or to restaurants.

AGRUPAR provides training on entrepreneurship-related skills.
Producers who lack the necessary capital are supported through grass-roots investment societies, where each member contributes USD 10 to 20.

Besides strengthening food security, AGRUPAR improves the incomes of vulnerable groups. Half of the participants generate revenue as well as employment. Around 177 started entrepreneurships, of which 104 are formalized. On average their income is USD 3,100 per year and, since 2016, they have created 337 jobs. On average producers benefit from USD 175 of additional income per month. Total savings are more than three times the value of the government human development voucher (USD 50 a month). However, most of 480 participants surveyed in 2010 said that for them the increased quality of life, improved nutrition and health, and personal empowerment were even more important. It is noteworthy that AGRUPAR enjoys a high acceptance among its beneficiaries (over 91 per cent).

Tackling food insecurity and reintegration of former combatants

Training on cooking organically grown food

Municipality of Kauswagan, Lanao del Norte

Kauswagan’s From Arms to Farms Programme is one of the 19 components that frame the strategy of the integrated SIKAD peace agenda. The programme addresses sustainable agriculture and food security while providing for the reintegration of ex-combatants through organic farming. Fighting poverty and increasing food security were prioritized. Organic farming was seen as two-fold tool to develop a resilient agricultural system that does not heavily rely on external inputs and at the same time fosters job creation, providing a source of income for the fighters that surrendered.

At the beginning, 200 rebel commanders as well as farmers were introduced to the programme through a series of meetings and workshops, implemented with help from the Philippine army and the Agricultural Training Institute. A key focus was on capacity building. The local government, together with the Assisi Development Foundation, built a school for agriculture. Once the facility was ready, the local government was able to start supporting ex-combatants and their families, as well as local farmers, to learn how to implement organic and agroecological practices.

In order to facilitate access to microcredit and governmental support, the municipality is supporting the creation of Rebel Returnees Associations and their registration as agricultural cooperatives.
Access to inputs, such as seeds, is also supported through the programme.
In the last five years, development funding from the central Government has been made available and the Programme now receives between EUR 50,000 to 65,000 every year.

Without any doubt, the From Arms to Farms Programme has proven successful. No incidents of crime related to armed conflict between Muslims and Christians have been registered in the last four years in the area. Today all rebels active in the area have surrendered and many ex-commanders are now leaders in organic farming and are trying to convince Muslim fighters in other communities to cease fighting and surrender.

Implementation

Monitoring

Documentation and dissemination of results

Local

Reorientation

Happy pigs in the field

Organic Denmark

The history of governmental support to organic farming in Denmark starts in 1987, when the Danish Parliament adopted the Organic Farming Act, which laid down the basic structure of Danish organic farming policy, which still remains today. Permanent subsidies for organic farming were introduced in 1994. Early Organic Action Plans (OAPs) were established from 1995 to 1999.

The current OAP ‘Working together for more organics’ covers the period 2011 to 2020. It was revised and expanded in 2015, following a change of Government. The plan aims at doubling the land area of organic production by 2020 (against a baseline of 2007), and earmarks specific budgets over the period 2015 to 2018 to a set of different action-points. This plan was initiated by the Ministry for Agriculture and developed with the assistance of an external consultant.

The Danish Organic Action Plan was developed through the involvement of a broad spectrum of stakeholders in charge of defining the action points of the plan through several cycles of interviews, questionnaires and workshops. Since the 80s Denmark has been a forerunner in governmental support to sustainable agriculture, but the country is also a worldwide pioneer when it comes to designing policies according to inclusive and participatory approaches.

Whereas in the past the focus of policy support for organic farming was often production-oriented, the current Danish OAP considers market development (including support for certain marketing channels), promotion and awareness, as well as public procurement, as priorities.
The OAP is a mix of push and pull actions. Push effects are meant to increase production, while pull measures aim at increasing the demand for organic products.

Linking the conversion strategy with the gradual phase-out of synthetic inputs

Destruction of non-organic vegetables

Bernward Geier

One of the strongest components of the plan was to couple the conversion strategy with the gradual phase-out of synthetic inputs. Starting in 2005, the government decided to stop receiving its chemical fertilizer quota from the Government of India and began to gradually reduce subsidies on chemical fertilizers and pesticides at a rate of 10 per cent every year to make them costlier and discourage their purchase. In this way, subsidies were phased-out by 2007-2008. Another measure was to start closing down all sale points and other outlets supplying farmers with synthetic inputs. The state government also started to restrict the import of synthetic inputs and, finally, in 2014 the Sikkim Agricultural, Horticultural Inputs and Livestock Feed Regulation Act was passed, which prohibits the import of any chemical inputs for agriculture and horticulture, and as such constitutes a total ban on the sale and use of chemical pesticides in the state.

During the period between 2010 and 2014, the government earmarked a budget of EUR 6.75 million to support the implementation of the Organic Mission. Recently, the Organic Mission has received also support from central Government schemes, such as the National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA).

The state government showed strong political will and policy consistency, along with well-defined targets and implementation plans, which can be adopted by other states.
The state government’s strategy to phase out chemical fertilizers was implemented gradually, but firmly. It was a bold decision, backed up by substantial measures to build real sustainable alternatives.

Since the policy’s introduction, resolute efforts to halt use of chemicals in the fields and to convert all the national agricultural land to organic practices were implemented by the regional government and the people at large. Measures include the implementation of bio-villages, where farmers are trained in organic farming practices and the production of on-farm organic inputs, such as composting, organic fertilizers and organic pesticides, using with locally available plant materials and cow urine. Mandatory requirements were combined with support and incentives, and by providing sustainable alternatives, the implementation of Sikkim’s strategy became successful.

Implementation

Monitoring

Subnational

Frugal Rehabilitation Demonstration (FRD): developing and adapting the methodology (FRM) through action-research

Once demonstration sites are selected, local ASM groups receive training and are contracted to implement FRM through six steps:

Preparation & Planning: degradation, boundary, hydrological & equipment assessments; labor, volume estimates; waste management; OHS standards
Technical Rehabilitation: infill, regrading and reprofiling; use of limited mechanisation
Topsoils: identification, conservation and re-distribution across sites
Biological Rehabilitation: topsoil enrichment ; natural regeneration assessments; identification of native and key vegetation communities; seed collection; seeds and natural fertilizers distribution into topsoils; tree, shrub and grass plantings
Mitigation Hierarchy: integrating rehabilitation planning into active ASM design and operations so as to reduce primary environmental impacts and unnecessary rehabilitation efforts
Handover of completed rehabilitation site to relevant government administrations for approval/sign-off

National and local government permission to implement Frugal Rehabilitation Demonstration projects.
Resources to fund demonstration labour effort and technical application of methodology at site.
ASM capacity and willingness to receive training and implement the methodology on site.

Successful application of the FRM: all the key physical and ecological requirements for successful rehabilitation are (with few exceptions) available within reasonable proximity of the site. They just need to be identified and adapted to context.
Habitat rehabilitation targeted to native vegetation communities can be successful without the use of non-native species.
Identification and recovery of topsoils are critical to success.
Biological rehabilitation works well together with topsoil seedbank to establish a path to ecological recovery.
Low level mechanised approaches to heavy-lifting of material in topographic filling can be effective but a dependence on mechanisation in the later stages of rehabilitation is not recommended. Overuse of machinery in these latter phases can result in reduced capacity for biological recovery.
FRM can be applied in abandoned areas, where mineral reserves are exhausted, and it can also be integrated into current ASM operations to reduce rehabilitation efforts.
Handover and sign-off from local authorities is key to ensure ongoing commitment.

Documentation and dissemination of results

Establishment of National FRM working group with government and sectoral stakeholders

On the basis that government ministries are willing and able to work together to develop solutions to address impacts of ASM on the wider environment, Protected Areas and on stakeholders impacted by such mining activity, a national working group (which includes such ministries, agencies and relevant representative stakeholders) needs to be established. This will help steer the process of project engagement with local government, artisanal miners and wider stakeholders at the local level to set the scene for Frugal Rehabilitation Demonstration (FRD). A key step in this process is to select sites for FRD that can serve the development and application of the methodology within the ecological, economic and social context. The purpose of establishing this FRM working group is to ensure a participatory, consultative approach to the development of the methodology, and to enable a demonstration site selection process that ensures an informed and strategic approach based on agreed criteria. Sites selected for methodology demonstration need to be typical, representative and associated with formalised ASM capacity to undertake the rehabilitation.

The key enabling factors were the collaborative approach to developing the FRM and adequate resources to undertake the participatory approach both at meetings and in the field. The working group was involved in a coordinated travel program to select, assess, monitor and review rehabilitation progress and approaches at sites.

The working group’s participation and involvement in the development of the FRM was critical to its eventual endorsement and adoption. Key ministries and associated agencies played a role in selecting FRD sites, visiting them through the rehabilitation process and discussing the development of a methodology that was informed through action-research across a range of representative sites. It was also important to have exposure and engagement with formalised artisanal miners, who were keen to participate in the work and help develop a mechanism for promoting best practice and their association with such practice.

Planning phase

Implementation

Monitoring

Documentation and dissemination of results