FOOD AND SOCIAL JUSTICE IN SASKATCHEWAN:
COMMUNITY GARDENS AS A LOCAL PRACTICE OF FOOD SOVEREIGNTY
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Arts
in Justice Studies
University of Regina
by
Yolanda Hansen
Regina, Saskatchewan
2008
Copyright 2008: Yolanda Hansen Library and Bibliotheque et 1*1 Archives Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition
395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Canada Canada
Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-42434-6 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-42434-6
NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives and Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par Plntemet, prefer, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans loan, distribute and sell theses le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, worldwide, for commercial or non sur support microforme, papier, electronique commercial purposes, in microform, et/ou autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.
The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. this thesis. Neither the thesis Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de nor substantial extracts from it celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement may be printed or otherwise reproduits sans son autorisation. reproduced without the author's permission.
In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne Privacy Act some supporting sur la protection de la vie privee, forms may have been removed quelques formulaires secondaires from this thesis. ont ete enleves de cette these.
While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires in the document page count, aient inclus dans la pagination, their removal does not represent il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant. any loss of content from the thesis. Canada UNIVERSITY OF REGINA
FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES AND RESEARCH
SUPERVISORY AND EXAMINING COMMITTEE
Yolanda Marie Hansen, candidate for the degree of Master of Arts in Justice Studies, has presented a thesis titled, Food and Social Justice in Saskatchewan: Community Gardens as a Local Practice of Food Sovereignty, in an oral examination held on July 23, 2008. The following committee members have found the thesis acceptable in form and content, and that the candidate demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of the subject material.
External Examiner: Dr. Bonnie Jeffery, SPHERU
Supervisor: Dr. Annette Desmarais, Department of Justice Studies
Committee Member: Dr. Murray Knuttila, Associate VP Academic
Committee Member: Dr. Wendee Kubik, Department of Women's Studies
Chair of Defense: Dr. Joseph Piwowar, Department of Geography i
ABSTRACT
Food justice movements are vital elements of resistance to the conventional food system. As alternatives to producing and consuming food within the dominant agricultural system, food justice movements envision a food system based on positive environmental and social goals. These movements are important for social justice because they benefit and strengthen the practice of human rights and help build community. The significance of such alternatives is reflected in the rising popularity of alternative forms of production and consumption that mitigate the negative impacts of an exploitive industrial and globalized food and agricultural system. This thesis analyzes the contributions of three Saskatchewan community gardens as crucial players within food justice movements.
After evaluating various ideas discussed within food justice movements, including food democracy, food citizenship and sustainability, the concept of food sovereignty is used as a theoretical framework due to its comprehensive address of social and environmental issues. Food sovereignty is the right of peoples or countries to define their own agriculture, food, labour, fishing and land policies in ways that are ecologically, socially, economically and culturally appropriate to their circumstances.
Using a qualitative case study methodology, the history and operation of three community gardens, distinguished by their goals of food security and community building, were studied. They are Grow Regina in Regina, the Saskferco Community
Garden in Moose Jaw and the City Park Community Garden in Saskatoon. By analyzing key themes from the qualitative data using a six-pillar model of food sovereignty, the ii thesis concludes that community gardens can be recognized as local practices of food sovereignty.
By looking at the operations and implications of community gardens, important lessons can be learned about food and social justice in Saskatchewan. Recommendations and suggestions for further research are offered. Ill
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express sincere appreciation and gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Annette
Desmarais for her guidance, support and hours of thoughtful discussion and editing. Her encouragement and belief in the importance of this research made this thesis possible.
Thank you to my supervisory committee, Dr. Murray Knuttila and Dr. Wendee Kubik, for their suggestions and guidance throughout this process.
I would also like to sincerely thank the community gardeners who spoke candidly to me about their experiences. Special thanks to Sylvia Gibson, Tom Wolf, Gord
Androsoff and Pier Binda for taking the time to explain their garden's operations, show me proudly around their garden and for facilitating my contact with other community gardeners. The enthusiasm and commitment of these gardeners is inspiring.
Funding from the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research and the Social
Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada in the form of scholarships is gratefully acknowledged.
Lastly, I wish to thank my family and friends for their support. I would especially like to thank to my husband Jeremy for his unwavering encouragement, support, and patience throughout my academic pursuits. IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Abstract i Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv List of Tables vi List of Appendices vii List of Acronyms viii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Research goal 2 1.2 The context - the current industrial, globalized agricultural system 4 1.3 Thesis outline 21
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL REVIEW 23 2.1 Putting justice back into food 25 2.2 Food system alternatives 33 2.3 Resistance as creating alternatives 36 2.4 Understanding food justice movements 37 2.5 Understanding food sovereignty 43 2.6 Using food sovereignty as an analytical tool 50
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY 52 3.1 Methodology 52 3.2 Contemporary community gardens in Saskatchewan - three case studies 56 3.2.1 Grow Regina - Regina 56 3.2.2 Saskferco Community Garden - Moose Jaw 59 3.2.3 City Park Community Garden - Saskatoon 62 3.3 The evolution of community garden 64
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS 72 4.1 Themes from interviews 72 4.2 Six pillars of food sovereignty 88 4.3 Analysis 90 4.3.1 Active participation in the food system 90 4.3.2 Greater access, power and control by people over their food system 93 4.3.3 Enabling peoples' empowerment 96 4.3.4 Recognizing alternative ways of being 101 4.3.5 Emphasizing human rights 104 4.3.6 Encouraging different values 105 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 5.1 Historical lessons learned from community gardens 109 5.2 Are community gardens resistance? 112 5.3 Implications for building food sovereignty in Saskatchewan 115 5.4 Further recommended research 125
Bibliography 128
Appendix A - Ethical clearance 142 Appendix B - Letter of consent 144 Appendix B - Interview questions 145 Appendix C - Interviewee demographics 147 VI
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1 - Participant gender and roles 147
Table 2 - Participant age and length of involvement in years 147
Table 3 - Participants with a farm background 147
Table 4 - Participant education (highest level achieved) 148
Table 5 - Participant annual household income compared to neighbourhood/city income 148 vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Page Appendix A - Ethical clearance 142
Appendix B - Consent letter 144
Appendix C - Interview questions 145
Appendix D - Interviewee demographics 147 Vlll
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AB Alberta AoA Agreement on Agriculture BSE Bovine Spongiform Encephalopothy, also known as mad-cow disease CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency CHEP Child Hunger and Education Program CPR Canadian Pacific Railway CSA Community Supported Agriculture FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations GATT General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs GMO Genetically Modified Organism HBC Hudson's Bay Company IMF International Monetary Fund MB Manitoba NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement NFU National Farmers Union NWMP North West Mounted Police SHA Saskatchewan Horticultural Association SIAST Saskatchewan Institute for Applied Science and Technology UN United Nations US United States of America VLGA Vacant Lot Gardening Association WTO World Trade Organization 1
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The changing relationship between people and food has been a topic of fascination for scholars, farmers, governments, the media and the public in our recent difficult times. The ability of food, and our means of cultivating it through agriculture, to speak to nearly all facets of life has resulted in an expression of interest from diverse academic disciplines. Food is different from other commodities, as it is intrinsically tied to human relationships, power and our connection to the natural environment. It is both intimate and essential to the human body (Winson, 1993) and plays a central role in our physical relationship to the natural world. The importance of cultivating and consuming food is reflected in our social and cultural values, rituals and practices and nurtures a greater understanding of the environment and our place in it. In our current globalized economy, food and agriculture also demonstrate the uneven flow of power in relationships between people, the corporate sector, international institutions and nations.
In this system, food is often caught between the goals of profit and justice.
Dramatic changes in food production and consumption over the twentieth century have resulted in equally striking consequences, some with implications still untold.
Technological changes in production due to the industrialization of agriculture have resulted in enormous yields and greater human control over the natural processes of plant and animal production and reproduction. The globalized nature of the dominant agricultural system has been a boon for North American consumers, as our food supply is available for most people from anywhere at anytime. Canadians have an abundant array of food at their fingertips, a bountiful supply that could eradicate hunger. Yet these fantastic benefits demand a high and unforeseen price, one that has aroused protest and a search for alternatives to an increasingly unsafe, unequal and unsustainable food system.
This introductory chapter explains the research goals and situates the research by examining aspects of the political, economic and social context from which resistance to the industrial, globalized agricultural system emerges. There are many alternative visions of a more just food system, including that of food sovereignty, which is the main theory examined in this thesis.
1.1 Research goal
The goal of this research is to examine community gardens as a local alternative food system, and the relationships of its participants within this social space, to better understand how food mediates social justice and how this may be improved. My conceptualization of social justice centres on human rights, food sovereignty, empowerment and participation. Human rights are defined by international law as rights we have as humans that states and other actors must respect, protect and fulfill. Food sovereignty emphasizes the rights to food, to produce food, to have access to resources to do so, and to participate in decision-making. The ideas of democratic participation, empowering self-reliant communities, and enabling people to participate in the food system as citizens rather than consumers are important to this conception of social justice.
I am also cognizant that justice encompasses both a social and environmental aspect.
This study investigates how community gardens offer ways of better realizing equity, agency and community. This research studied three Saskatchewan community 3 gardens in the cities of Regina, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon using qualitative case study methodology. My research was guided by the following research questions:
1/ Do these community gardens represent alternatives to the conventional food
system in Saskatchewan? If so, how?
2/ Do these community gardens help build food sovereignty and if so, how?
3/ What are the policy implications of (lessons learned from) these community
gardens if the goal is to build a more just food system?
My hypothesis is that alternative food systems initiated as community gardens in
Saskatchewan may have elements in common with food sovereignty and therefore be an important step in developing a more socially just food system.
Food sovereignty, defined as the right of peoples or countries to define their own agriculture, food, labour, fishing and land policies in ways that are ecologically, socially, economically and culturally appropriate to their circumstances (La Via Campesina,
2003), acts as an important theoretical lens for this research. The idea and practice of food sovereignty as a way of redefining our relationship to food and its producers holds great promise as a means of strengthening social justice by creating new food systems.
Its defence of the right to food, as well as the right to produce food, is redefining social justice questions within the study of food systems. The question of access to food has been expanded to include access to resources to produce food and to decision-making to enable participation and agency. In this way, the empowerment of citizens in food systems is a key tenet of this line of thought. The concept of food sovereignty, with its emphasis on rights, agency and envisioning alternatives, plays a central role in my understanding of social justice and how that applies to alternative food systems. 4
1.2 The context - the current industrial, globalized agricultural system
To understand community gardens as an alternative food system, it is important to examine the social, economic, political and environmental context of the dominant food system. The industrialization of agriculture is a process rooted in the ideas of Western science and industrial progress. As Deborah Fitzgerald (2003) explains, industrial agriculture was based on the idea that food and fibre production should be modernized in the same manner as industrial factories and businesses. Certain industrial principles led the way for radical changes in agriculture practices. These included mechanization, standardizing agricultural products, and notions of efficiency that encouraged large-scale production sites worked by regimented labour. Specialization has been widely propagated, strengthening the colonial practice of competitive advantage.
A double-edged sword for industrial agriculture has been its emphasis on simplifying natural processes for food production. One perspective argues that this simplification has enabled industrial agriculture to focus on more efficient and profitable practices to achieve the goal of feeding the world. James C. Scott (1998) argues that this tendency to abstract and oversimplify production for the goals of profit has failed the complexity of existing farming systems and their practitioners. The short-sighted guiding logic of maximized yields and profits has resulted in a blind eye turned to the broader social and environmental consequences of agriculture. One of the most obvious examples is the faith that industrialized agriculture has in monoculture, or uniformly cultivated agriculture. The homogeneity and orderliness of a monocultured crop has many benefits, including ease of mechanized production, control over large-scale planting and the ability to maximize profits by focusing on one crop per cultivated area. Yet dangers arise by 5 narrowing agricultural production in this way. The greatest threat is posed to genetic diversity; environmentalist and agricultural critic Vandana Shiva (2000) has lambasted this form of agriculture for destroying biodiversity and enabling the means of corporate control over life.
Indeed, off-farm inputs necessitated by oversimplified agriculture are a defining feature of industrial agriculture. Hybridized seeds are one aspect of the various inputs farmers adopt to stay viable; these are seeds crossbred over generations for high-yielding results. While this strengthens farmers' yields, it also increases their dependence on seed engineering companies, for these seeds are fertile only once and must be bought to sow each year (Laidlaw, 2004). Despite this, the use of hybrid seeds spread swiftly after their
American introduction in the mid-twentieth century. Chemical-based fertilizers and pesticides, necessary to protect these biologically uniform plants, as well as mechanization driven by fossil fuel, are critical to this production system. Today, the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is the contemporary extension of this process as these seeds genetically engineered to combat specific problems find a greater foothold in North American, and global industrialized agriculture.
The speed with which industrial innovations have become common practice in
North American agriculture, and their staying power, demonstrates the concept of the technological treadmill. Environmental sociologists have explained the treadmill of production as a political economy driven by economic expansion, which increases production and profitability and spurs further consumption. Social and ecological problems that arise are solved by "speeding up the treadmill" (Schnaiberg, Pellow and
Weinberg, 2003). David Goodman and Michael Redclift (1991) apply this to a critique 6 of industrial agriculture by pointing out that increased intensive production on larger and more specialized lands has greatly increased farmers' dependence on the inputs of machinery, fertilizers and agrochemicals as well as off-farm credit and marketing.
The processes through which industrial agriculture has undergone to modify our food for greater profit and "progress" is exemplified by the examples of chicken and hog production in America during the twentieth century. Hog production has undergone a radical transformation, not only in the ways hogs are raised for market, but also a change in the hog itself. Various innovations have spawned the current intensive hog production we see today. These include changing the hog's environment by confining it to sterilized barns, feeding continual low levels of antibiotics to enhance growth and altering the sow's natural cycles to enable year-round farrowing (Finlay, 2004). These and other technological alterations have created a production system suggestive more of assembly line production than of traditional animal husbandry. The fate of the industrial chicken has been shaped in a very similar process. Early efforts to standardize chicken production have resulted in the uniform white-feathered, meaty broiler chickens whose products are ubiquitous in supermarkets and fast food chains today. Modification of natural growth rhythms to raise large chickens within short periods of time, combined with industry persuasion of customers to eat more has skyrocketed consumption rates of chicken by North Americans (Horowitz, 2004).
The most consistent critique of the industrial agricultural system has come from environmentalists who point to a plethora of environmental costs. A good example of this is author Andrew Kimbrell's scathing definition of industrial agriculture as a system of food that "depends on massive chemicals and biological inputs, huge monocultures and 7 factory-like farms and that results in huge corporate profits" (2002, xi). Greater public and political attention is being paid to the environment as a result of the growing climate change crisis, increasing the volume and insistence of environmental criticism. Negative effects on the soil, water, air and other living creatures have provided ample fodder for debate. While a discussion of all negative environmental effects is beyond the scope of this literature review, two arguments regarding pesticides and water levels are worth noting.
One of the longest standing criticisms of industrial agriculture is its love affair with chemical pesticides, particularly harmful insecticides that leach into the surrounding environment with disastrous effects. Since Rachel Carson's 1962 expose of the indiscriminate use of the deadly pesticide DDT in Silent Spring, the use of chemical pesticides has been a hot issue for the industry. The idea of a pesticide treadmill, akin to the concept of the technological treadmill, encapsulates a leading concern. Our reliance on monocultured crops leaves them vulnerable to pest epidemics, necessitating the use of chemical insecticides (Scott, 1998). Heavy and repeated use of these chemicals not only kills the targeted pest, but also eradicates beneficial insects and soil microorganisms. By destroying the earth's beneficial organisms, a greater dependence on artificial fertilizers to revive the soil is needed, creating cycles of artificial death and resuscitation (Yafa,
2005). Considerable criticism regarding the acute and chronic health dangers of pesticides has also been lobbed at the pesticide and agricultural industry. A common criticism concerns bioaccumulation: the process of passing on pesticide toxins through the food chain, amplifying their damage within the ecosystem (Moore, 2002). 8
As more attention is being paid to the climate change crisis, agriculture is caught up in further environmental debates of currently harmful practices and dire future scenarios. Environmental trends of rising temperatures and falling water tables put world agriculture at great risk, Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute (2004) argues. An estimated 70% of the world's available water is used for agricultural irrigation; a scarcity of water puts both our food supply and human health at risk. Brown predicts a dire decline in agricultural productivity, particularly in countries with already stressed water supplies.
One thing that has not been declining is the role of corporations in the industrial food system. Over the course of the twentieth century, their presence has grown in every aspect of the food system. In the arena of production, corporate agriculture and family farms co-habit the same space uneasily. Family farms survive despite the growing power of corporations and certain types of agriculture resist the wholesale transition to large corporate ownership. This is a trend that economists Allen and Lueck (1998) explain based on the limitations of seasonality in agriculture, especially within grain production.
The continued agricultural importance of the seasons and other biological processes handicap a completely industrialized process.
That said, there are numerous elements that have moved from their natural or farmer-controlled origins to off-farm inputs controlled by corporate interests. These include energy (particularly fossil fuels that power machinery), chemical inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides, seeds (both hybrid and genetically modified), machinery, and credit extended by banks and other fmancers. These are just the production inputs, for the agricultural chain continues with corporate involvement in transportation (including rail 9 lines and trucking companies), grain handlers, food processors, wholesalers and retailers.
Together, these encompass an agri-food chain: a framework encompassing the large number of activities associated with the production, processing and distribution of food, as well as the supporting or guiding apparatuses for other food production-oriented activities (Winson, 1993). The National Farmers Union (NFU) identifies this chain from the "oil well to the drive- through window" and is critical of what it sees (2005, 2).
This global agri-food chain is an undeniable feature in Canadian agriculture. Two trends dominating national agriculture can be traced back to the concentrated power of corporations in production. One is the dwindling number of farms and the concurrent increase in farm size. As the cost of producing agricultural commodities increases, many farmers find their returns unable to keep up; this is the classic cost-price squeeze.1 In an increasingly competitive atmosphere, the leading advice is often "get big or get out", and many farmers are doing just that. Canadian agricultural census statistics for
Saskatchewan in 2006 note that the total number of farms in the province has declined
12.4% over five years, while the average farm size has increased to 587 hectares, an increase of 13.1% (Regina Leader-Post, 2007).
A picture of Canadian family farm profits is equally grim. A NFU report on corporate profits and the farm crisis estimated that Canadian farm realized net-income in
2004 was negative $10,000 per farm; the average for the past ten years has been negative
$323 per farm (2005). The organization argues that if it were not for government subsidies, off-farm income, savings and access to debt, family farming would cease to exist as a viable economic practice. During the same year surveyed, 56 out of 75
1 A cost price squeeze is a well-cited phenomenon in agriculture. This concept is outlined in two books specific to Canadian agriculture (among others): see Mitchell (1975) and Winson (1993). 10 agricultural companies (76%) posted record, or near-record, profits. This glaring disparity between the power of family farms and corporations in Canadian agriculture has fuelled discontent and a continuing debate about control and profitability in the agri-food chain.
The power of corporations over food and agriculture can also adversely affect consumers. The most obvious negative example of corporate control over the consumption of food is found in the fast food industry. Eric Schlosser's examination of this industry in his bestseller Fast Food Nation (2002) is a disturbing account of exploitation of workers, an industrial appetite for factory-farmed agricultural products, the engineering of fast foods and how this model of consumption is spreading around the world. Clever marketing and convenience are promoters of the industry, which has become deeply entrenched in the North American lifestyle, despite proven negative consequences.
One reason for the huge success of fast food has been radical changes to consumers' dietary habits in the latter half of the twentieth century. Authors Goodman and Redclift (1991) trace North American consumption changes back to women's modified roles after World War II: a concurrent shift in the industrial food production and processing, and household food preparation due to transformed domestic labour roles altered how people consumed food. Over the past fifty years, processed foods have a greater importance in our homes as people spend less time and money preparing and eating foods. Although our desire for cheap food may contradict the importance we place
2 Resistance to the fast food industry and lifestyle has arisen within the Slow Food movement: a social movement of food aficionados who advocate physically slowing the preparation and consumption of food as well as preserving local and heritage foods. For more information, see Miele & Murdoch (2003) or Inouye (2001). 11 on food safety, our current habits reflect the primacy of price considerations when buying food (Morgan, Marsden & Murdoch, 2006).
Underlying changes in consumption patterns is the importance of corporations who control the distribution and sale of foods. Influencing consumer buying habits and diets became crucial to the power strategies of corporations when they focused on food products as a central source of profit (Friedmann, 1995). As food in its natural form has limited consumptive options, the creativity of corporations is needed to boost perceived choice and profit. The plethora of branded food products available in supermarkets today is a consequence of this strategy, as is the record profits of food manufacturing and distribution companies.
The spread of industrial agriculture and the bounty of manufactured food choices available to North American consumers were made possible through globalization.
Behind an understanding of the mechanisms of globalization is the theory of how this system became possible through flexible accumulation. David Harvey (1989) and David
Goodman and Michael Redclift (1991) both offer an important analysis of the changes in global capitalism and how that has affected agriculture.
Great changes to the global system of capitalism in the latter half of the twentieth century were facilitated by a transition from fordism to flexible accumulation. Fordism, characteristic of the post-war boom period of 1945-1973, represented a certain set of labour practices, technology, consumption habits and political economy that helped the industrial United States rise to be a global super power. It also signified the authority the
United States had over capitalist practices on the world stage. During this period, industries expanded and mass consumption of standardized products became the norm. 12
Industrial agriculture facilitated this through cheap food policies, ensuring that the working class was able to use most of its purchasing power for non-food consumer items.
This period in the United States witnessed a strengthening of agricultural protectionism that allowed the industry to boom. This was afforded by the social and economic safety nets drawn in the aftermath of the Great Depression and the incorporation of developing nations into a global web of capital. Agribusiness corporations rode a rising tide of success. These corporate food producers, traders, processors and retailers focused on concentrating certain agricultural commodity sectors, coordinated global trade and supply chains (McMichael, forthcoming). As their power grew, they and other transnational corporations began to chafe at the limitations inherent in this form of capitalism: they needed a more flexible system to continue this trend of growth and profit.
Much as postmodernity arose to challenge the ideas of modernity, flexible accumulation gained power as an idea and practice as it confronted the elements of fordism that were unable to attend to the interests of increasingly powerful transnational capital. Together with the ideology of neoliberalism, an age of economic restructuring and political readjustment was initiated. Flexibility became the key word for labour markets and practices, products and patterns of consumption. This was often seen through deregulation, where governments buckled under pressure to slacken laws and other regulations governing industry, corporate diversification and mergers and weakened labour power. Capitalism became more mobile and able to quickly respond to market trends through communications and transportation innovations. These greatly facilitated industrial agriculture's growing international power. The concurrent shift in social norms 13 also resulted in the valuation of competitive individualism, certainly a change from past class-consciousness and agrarian populism.
Other elements of flexible accumulation are helpful to industrial agriculture. An accelerated rate of innovative technologies boosts the practice and productivity of industrial agriculture, with genetically modified seeds being one example. The need to develop new markets for both labour and commodities is a cause industrial agricultural has wholeheartedly taken up since the Green Revolution. As the global spread of a particular model of agriculture, the Green Revolution brought industrial agricultural techniques and technology to Third World countries. It transformed peasant practices into higher yielding agriculture that depended on off-farm inputs, a pernicious import/export model and an emphasis on cash-crop monocultures (Barker, 2002; Shiva, 2000). Once agriculture in lesser-developed nations was opened through the efforts of the Green
Revolution, the model of flexible accumulation could be applied to further "develop" economies to conform to the global marketplace.
Globalization is commonly defined as integrating national economies into a global framework while concurrently reducing or dismantling trade barriers (Hines, 2000;
Sumner, 2005).4 The liberalization of trade has numerous consequences. As control is transferred to international trade agreements and organizing bodies, such as the World
Trade Organization (WTO), the democratic control nation states hold over their economy is diminished. By integrating aspects of international trade agreements, nations agree to a
3 The Green Revolution is a period of intense technological change in the 20th century that transformed agricultural production, research and markets, particularly in developing nations, based on the industrial model perfected by the United States. 4 While some authors, including Sumner (2005), make distinctions between different types of globalization, the type of globalization I refer to in this thesis is the more commonly conceived notion of economic neoliberal globalization based on the international market place. 14 reorganization of national economic priorities and supports. This is seen most clearly through the programs of structural adjustment advocated by the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund (IMF). While the most visible disastrous results of such programs are evident in developing nations, Canada's agricultural industry has also been challenged by increased export production, cuts to government spending and support programs as well as deregulation: all elements of adjustment programs (Qualman &
Wiebe, 2002).
Another consequence of globalization is that greater information and technology flows are possible through the compression of time and space, greatly increasing the intensity of relations carried out at both regional and global levels (Almas & Lawrence,
2003). This integration is argued to be a great benefit for both producers and consumers; by competing in an international market, the advantages of greater choice and Western- style consumerism are available. Unfortunately, the global spread of exploitive and wasteful production and consumption models based on North American lifestyles has increased fears of environmental degradation and social turmoil.
Within this growing globalized economic system, the main international regulatory framework is the WTO. Originally negotiated as the General Agreement on
Trade and Tariffs (GATT) after World War II, the WTO was formalized in 1995 to govern the emerging global trade framework. Its Agreement on Agriculture (AoA) is the mediating policy for agricultural trade decisions. Three key issues among its negotiations are market access, export liberalization, and the reduction of domestic subsidies.
To increase market access in participating countries, the AoA takes a harsh stance against tariffs. These protective measures are considered barriers against free agricultural 15 trade and must be dismantled so that each country's farmers are able to compete on a worldwide scale. Although this dismisses the differentials of power between nations' farmers, particularly North American or European against developing nations, it is an essential component of free trade ideology. To pave the way for free trade exporting, the
AoA has prohibited any new export subsidies or other forms of assistance for participating countries. This line of thought is drawn directly from the tenets of trade liberalization, which views subsidies as trade distorting. It also unabashedly pressures countries to produce more agricultural products for export. Domestic subsidies, or forms of government payments to its farmers, are frowned upon and complex sets of rules, known as "boxes", have been drawn up to reduce and eventually eradicate current forms of subsidies. As many authors and critical social movements have pointed out, these different rules are highly unfair as farm subsidies in the United States and the European
Union continue to be paid to farmers through the arcane box system and its loopholes
(Rosset, 2006; Ostry, 2004).
As a world leader, one must look to the United States and its trade negotiations to get a sense of the power imbalances inherent in the international agricultural trade framework. While diverse country and regional perspectives influence and complicate most trade negotiations, the power and dependence of the US on a strong international export market ensures its trade position is central (Kennedy & Koo, 2002). In pursuit of open agricultural markets, the United States has created an exploitive atmosphere of subsidies for its own farmers, particularly its most powerful players,5 while effectively dumping its agricultural products on open Third World markets. This flooding of cheap
5 For an interesting case study of how powerful American cotton farmers have benefited from government subsidies, see Yafa (2005). 16 food and fibre has a devastating effect on small farmers and peasants and has fuelled a growing movement against the WTO.
The WTO has sparked particular popular resistance due to its perceived unfairness and procedural flaws that make it nearly impossible for equitable measures to be practiced and enforced. The WTO has been criticized on various grounds, with the common theme that it creates an unequal global playing field by pandering to the interests of powerful nations, such as the United States and the European Union. In this arena of economies of scale, smaller nations are simply unable to compete and their voices are lost, dismissed or shut out of negotiations that affect them. Kwa (2002) has collected numerous anecdotes from delegations from developing or smaller nations that have repeatedly experienced frustratingly unbalanced relationships in the WTO. Their complaints include a lack of transparency, the proliferation of exclusionary backroom meetings and coalitions, and a divide-and-conquer mentality that works to the detriment of small or developing nations.
In addition to the WTO, another trade negotiation affecting Canadian farmers is the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which encompasses Mexico, the
United States and Canada. Enacted on January 1, 1994, this agreement liberalized trade between the three North American countries with varied and devastating results for
Mexico and, to a lesser degree, Canada. Since agreeing to NAFTA, Mexico has experienced dramatic growth of its agricultural export industry, both of vegetables and non-essential luxury items like strawberries, coffee and flowers. With its advantages of cheap labour, land and water, the country is attracting US foreign investment that is significantly shaping its current economy. The proliferation of agricultural exports 17 devastates some of the country's least-powerful citizens, especially peasants, women, indigenous people and migrant labourers, due to the growth in contract-based agriculture and seasonal or temporary migratory work (Barry, 1995; Barndt, 2002).
Canada's agriculture also struggles under the liberalized atmosphere of NAFTA and the WTO. Conflicting agendas of increased export production, slashed government support and deregulation, and consistent pressure to privatize key national agricultural institutions such as the Canadian Wheat Board, have led to turbulent times for Canadian farmers (Roppel, Desmarais & Martz, 2006). The National Farmers Union (2007) reports that since 1988,6 numerous economic indicators point to a disempowerment of Canadian farmers. While exports have risen dramatically, the price of commodities has not improved with equal vigour and is often lower than in 1988 levels with inflation counted for. Farmer debt has risen while the number of farmers, particularly those under the age of 35, has fallen sharply. With the disappearance of previous supports such as the Crow rate, and increased corporate concentration that has virtually wiped out grain handling farmer cooperatives, Canadian farmers have felt the long arm of trade liberalization keenly.
As a result of producers and consumers capitulating to the mantra of export- driven markets, we are relying more on imported foodstuffs for consumption.
Consequently, the whole agricultural system is highly energy dependent. This dependence is demonstrated in both agricultural production and the global food distribution system. The energy debate captures many facets of agriculture, including inefficient use of energy in production. For example, it is estimated that in 1940, the
6 In 1989, Canada signed onto the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (CUSTA), the predecessor to 1994's NAFTA. 18 average American farm produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every energy calorie used; today with the rampant use of fossil fuels, this has reversed with the average agricultural operation using three calories of fuel to produce one calorie of food (Laidlaw,
2004). Agriculture's dependence on fossil fuels is a great concern and one causing increasing worry due to predictions of "peak oil" or the end of readily available oil as we know it.7
From oil-based fertilizers and chemicals to the oil-dependent machinery and trucks, ships and airplanes that move food products around the globe, our food system is wholly and unsustainably addicted to oil. While certain foodstuffs, such as spices and salt, have a historical precedent for travelling great distances, the recent fundamental shift in the global food system, accompanied by increased consumer wealth and improved food technology, has resulted in a gross swelling in the volume and variety of food travelling great distances (Mintz, 2006). The concept of food miles, which is the distance food travels from the place of its origin to where it is purchased by the consumer, captures this concern. In a well-known report by the Leopold Center for Sustainable
Agriculture, the distance of produce travelling by truck to Chicago for greater distribution was calculated to be 1,518 miles (2,442 km) (Pirog et al., 2001).8 In Ontario, the
Waterloo Health Region estimated that 58 common foods travelled an average of 4,497 km to reach Ontario consumers, contributing 51,709 tonnes of greenhouse gases annually
(Xuereb, 2005). Since many, if not all, of the vegetables studied could be feasibly grown
7 For more information about peak oil and its implications for agriculture, check out Pfeiffer (2006) or Heinberg (2007). 8 Two of the report's authors, Rich Pirog and Tim Van Pelt (April 2002), dug a little deeper to analyze the specific distances 30 vegetables travelled to reach Chicago. 19 in Ontario or the American Midwest, the authors of these studies have added to the call for a more local-based food system.
Beyond the great physical separation that occurs between consumers and their food supply, a greater sense of disconnect is often present. This is explained in the concept of distancing, a term used by author and former farmer Brewster Kneen (1989) as the separation of people from the sources of their food and nutrition with as many interventions through the convoluted food system as possible. This includes not only copious food miles, but also intellectual distancing between urbanized consumers and natural sources of food as well as stages of processing and packaging that alters the state and form of our food. Our industrial system of food production has allowed us to disconnect our food from its previous natural limitations; seasonality is inapplicable to our food when we are able to source summer fruits and leafy greens all year round. The lack of traceability and transparency of the processes food takes to get to our plates is often more disturbing than the physical distance it has travelled, for consumers are often left in the dark about the social and environmental costs that food item has exacted.
This lack of information about the origins and conditions of our food leads to fears about food safety. Although food adulteration is by no means a new issue, what is alarming about recent food scares is their context. As author Susanne Freidberg (2004) points out, the food safety risks hidden in an industrialized and globalized food system are poorly understood by science and not well regulated by governments, causing anxiety
9 A popular concept arising from this discussion is a regional based diet; two Canadian sources worth noting here are The 100-mile diet by Smith and Mackinnon (2007), as well as Amy Jo Ehman's Home for Dinner blog found at http://homefordinner.blogspot.com/ (Ehman has embarked on a "Saskatchewan only" diet with her husband - this blog chronicles their progress.) 20 in consumers. The panic inspired by BSE in Britain in the 1980's and 1990's, and
Canada in 2003, led to great changes in food inspection systems deeply concerned about meat safety. As seen by reports in local mainstream media, public concern over food safety is widespread. To address these concerns, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency claims to inspect 100% of imported meat products, their highest level of scrutiny (Weeks,
2007c).11 This is a marked difference to their attention to imported fruits and vegetables, which only have a 1 in 10 chance of being inspected, despite recent Canadian examples of spinach tainted with E.coli and contaminated carrot juice (Weeks, 2007b). As the amount of food imported from other countries increases, the ability of national agencies to inspect all imports is severely limited by resources and hampered by a lack of political will (Weeks, 2007a). Instead, many consumers have taken matters into their own hands and turn to alternative food sources as a solution to their food-based anxiety; organic food is often the avenue of choice. While consumers can be assured that these food products adhere to regulations that do not allow pesticides or genetic engineering, organic food is not immune to common safety problems such as bacterial contamination (Weeks, 2008).
With over $19 billion worth of food imported by Canada in 2006 alone, it is unlikely that the issue of the safety of international food will subside.
While the myriad of issues discussed in this chapter are merely an introduction to the complex and ever-changing contemporary agricultural context, they are important to understand as the environment that alternative food systems seek to change. It is from the negative social, political, economic and environmental consequences of this dominant system that more socially just alternatives have emerged.
10 BSE stands for bovine spongiform encephalopothy, also known as mad-cow disease 11 The CFIA Meat and Meat Products Import Control Program (2008) states that the importer of meat products must present each shipment to the country to CFIA for inspect, as per The Meat Inspection Act. 21
1.3 Thesis outline
This thesis attempts to give a coherent analysis of a local phenomenon - community gardening in urban Saskatchewan - to better understand the workings of a larger social structure that influences our daily lives - the conventional agricultural and food system. Chapter two reviews literature and theories on social justice issues and concerns that have arisen as a result of the dominance of the industrial, globalized agricultural. An exploration of the issue of unequal power dynamics is important to set the stage for a justice-focused evaluation of the food system. Existing work on three main areas of justice related analysis is introduced: food security, environmental sustainability and resistance to globalization. The chapter also looks at current alternatives, focusing on organic and local food. Following this, the concepts and struggles of sustainability, food citizenship and food democracy from the food justice movement are introduced. As a movement that has embraced and expanded upon the concepts of the food justice movement, food sovereignty is explained as a foundation for analysis in this research. This in-depth understanding of food sovereignty informs the data analysis of chapter four.
Chapter three explains the methodology used in this research, as well as a background of the three case studies: Grow Regina in Regina, the Saskferco Community
Garden in Moose Jaw and the City Park Community Garden in Saskatoon. To demonstrate that this practice is rooted in an important historical context, Regina's urban gardening history is presented as a demonstration of how Saskatchewan's community gardens fit into a larger North American and European context. Such an historical examination helps explain these social spaces as a continuous, yet fluid practice that has 22 often worked toward social goals during times of change or crisis. This helps to put contemporary practice into perspective.
Chapter four presents the qualitative research findings of the three community garden case studies. Major themes from the interviews conducted in the three gardens will be discussed, including those pertinent to both the people involved in the gardens as well as the community garden as a structure. Using the six pillars of food sovereignty introduced in chapter two, this chapter also analyzes these community gardens to determine if they are a local practice of food sovereignty.
Chapter five completes the thesis with a discussion of the implications of this research for social justice. Recommendations for further action will also be discussed. 23
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL REVIEW
It is important to explore the power dynamics of the current food system to garner an understanding of the role social justice could play. As already pointed out, food is a vital element of human life and has been imbued with power accordingly. Food's symbolic power often becomes a metaphor for other forms of social processes, power and exploitation. Those who are able to control and direct food through the food system are afforded a large amount of power, as they are able to make decisions affecting the lives of consumers and producers alike. Here is it important to remember that it is not the people running corporations or global institutions who are intrinsically malevolent, but that the framework in which they make decisions often serves short-term needs to the detriment of long term social, environmental and economic goals (Wheeler & Thomson,
2004). These short-sighted decisions often minister to the structural or institutional power holders within the food system rather than bettering the lives of individual producers, consumers or their communities.
Despite the status quo, the nature of power in the food system is not so concrete that it is unable to be used by different masters. Harriet Friedman (1995) looks at two different conceptions of power useful to this argument: strategic and numerical power.
Strategic power is afforded to those who are able to control wealth and decision-making.
Under strategic power in the latter half of the twentieth century, corporations have effectively commodified food and disrupted age-old connections between land, producer and consumer in efforts to make agriculture more efficient and profitable. Numerical power is exercised by people working in concert together. From lobby groups to social movements, the ability of people to organize around a cohesive agenda adds power to 24 their cause. Throughout the last century, we have seen this power in the predominantly male farm lobby, workers in food manufacturing and services, and women as consumers.
Yet the aphorism "there is power in numbers" does not always apply to the globalized, industrial food system and its nuances. Although North Americans may be sympathetic to the plight of family farms in their current crisis, there is an ongoing struggle to overcome the crucial power distinction between farmers and strategic power holders in the food system. This is evident in the power involved in knowledge creation and practices. Many critics of the conventional food system point out that farmers have been turned from producers and specialists into consumers of government-advocated, corporate-sponsored and scientifically-produced knowledge. This transfer of knowledge from scientists reduces farmers to mere practitioners, a deskilling and disempowering exercise (Shiva,
2000; Beckie, 2000).
As postmodern thinkers like Michel Foucault have argued, knowledge and its creation are inherently an exercise in power. In his theoretical analysis of the power of totalizing theories,12 he argues that scientific discourse is one such theory with centralizing power (2004). As such, it is in constant struggle with other types of knowledge that science has disqualified. These subjugated knowledges are dismissed as naive, or merely "popular" and non-scientific. Consequently, the knowledge and understandings of marginalized people are particularly vulnerable; examples of peasant knowledge and practices dismissed and replaced by North American or European scientific knowledge abound in the globalized, industrial food system. This is not only an
12 Foucault explains global, totalizing theories as theories or ways of thinking that emphasize a total encompassing way of understanding, or looking at reality. These are essentially theories that claim to be a lens to understanding everything and are prevalent in modernism. He uses Marxism and psychoanalysis as two examples. 25 abstract form of power over other people's knowledge, but an insidious exercise of neocolonialism, classism and even sexism. As examples of these forms of oppression can attest to, underlying assumptions in industrial agriculture have far-reached harmful consequences.
2.1 Putting justice back into food
One of the harshest realities of the globalized, industrialized food system is the widespread occurrence of hunger. While debates about the causes of hunger abound, the facts of its existence are indisputable. In 2006, the UN's Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO) reported more 854 million people were chronically undernourished and food insecure. At the same time, the World Bank reported that about 1 billion people, a fifth of the world's population, were living on less than a dollar a day (World
Bank, 2007). The relationship between poverty and hunger is obvious but poverty is still disputed as a cause of hunger. A social justice perspective argues that hunger is caused by inequitable distribution that prevents access to and control over productive resources for all people. Typical of its scientific worldview, industrial agriculture relates the cause of hunger to strained food supplies. Framed in this manner, the solution is to boost food production.
Due to the willingness of governments to consign control of the food system to economic forces, some citizens have been left economically vulnerable and food insecure. Hunger is often indicated by malnutrition, poverty and food vulnerability or insecurity, which is as easily found in Saskatchewan as it is in other parts of the world.
To illustrate this point, the Public Health Nutritionists of Saskatchewan (2007) reports 26 that it costs an average family of four in an urban setting $564.40 a month to buy adequate and nutritious food. If that same family was on social assistance in Regina, this meant spending 34% of their monthly income on food. When other necessary costs, including shelter, utilities and transportation are accounted for, it may be that a family's food needs are prioritized lower than other needs. In 2003, a Canadian Community
Health Survey reported that 54% of Saskatchewan low-income residents reported food insecurity in the past 12 months (quoted in Sawa, 2007).
The visible rise in food banks across Canada in the last thirty years points to these difficult choices. HungerCount, the Canadian Association of Food Bank's annual survey of food banks and hunger, reported stark statistics in 2007. In the twenty-six years since the first Canadian food bank opened, the need for emergency food has grown so much that 673 food bank centres currently operate. Over 720,000 Canadians use food banks in a typical month, with half of recipients receiving inadequate social assistance. This snapshot, consistent with the larger trend of food bank use in the past ten years, is disturbing in its implication for widespread food insecurity and hunger.
Two concepts have dominated international discussions of eradicating hunger and ensuring an adequate food supply. These are the right to food and food security. The right to food was affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, setting a precedent for the legally binding clauses on food in the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1976) and the Convention on the Rights of the
Child (1990). As author George Kent (2005) warns, meeting a person's need for food in a biological sense is different from fulfilling their human right to food. This distinction is important to consider in a social justice perspective. As a human right, enshrined in 27 international law, the right to food implies that states must respect, protect and fulfill appropriate access to sufficient food of acceptable quality (Windfuhr & Jonsen 2005).
The importance of access is reaffirmed in the concept of food security. As defined by the Food and Agricultural Organization in its 1996 Rome Declaration on
World Food Security, food security in its simplest and most accepted form means "the right of everyone to have access to safe and nutritious food". Its larger meaning is that
"[fjood security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and happy life" (FAO, 1996). The four key components to food security are ensuring availability of food for all peoples, accessibility at all times, culturally acceptable food and nutritional adequacy and safety (Koc & MacRae, 2001). There are various challenges for governments and civil society in meeting this definition, particularly in urban settings. The burgeoning expansions of cities, their incredible social and cultural diversity, and unevenness of accessing markets due to urban poverty makes food security a challenge for cities of various sizes (Koc, MacRae, Mougeot & Welsh,
1999). These are not deterrents for civil society: examples of dedicated groups rising to the challenge of food security are evident around the world.13 It also the inspiration for food policies adopted by municipal and regional governments; some examples include
Vancouver's sustainable food policy, Toronto's food charter, as well as food charters in
Saskatoon, Prince Albert, Moose Jaw and the Kelsey health region (Melfort, Prince
Albert and Nipawin). These are official community declarations to the right to food and are important steps toward community food security.
13 An example for Saskatchewan is the organization Food Secure Saskatchewan, an umbrella network of groups working for food security within the province (see Sawa, 2007 or www.foodsecuresaskatchewan.ca"). Examples from around Canada are compiled in Kirbyson (2005). 28
As a goal, rather than a legally binding obligation, food security offers important language for talking about ensuring food for people. While the definition arising out of the FAO has been very useful for civil society, there are dangers in using this widely accepted but limited definition. On an international scale, the liberalization of agriculture has warped the definition of food security to focus on the practice of comparative advantage, where countries are encouraged to produce specific crops for export and thus import their foodstuffs. This has meant that many countries, including food insecure developing nations, have been taught to source their food supply from the global market, which is flooded with subsidized agricultural products sold at a lower cost than domestic production (McMichael, 2004). This shifting of food security from the national to an international stage has meant less control by governments over the food security of households and individuals. As the US Agricultural Secretary brashly declared, national food security is an "anachronism from a bygone era" (ibid, 6). The destructive consequences of these policies are evident in the disregard of the needs of subsistence farmers and consumers.
The commonly held definition of food security is also silent on aspects relating to how people access food and its processes of production. If defined as access to affordable and nutritious food, it fails to address where and how that food was produced, who was affected by its production and consumption, and the ability of either producer or consumer to fully participate in the food system. The concern for economic power to buy food neglects the non-economic ways people have traditionally obtained their food and how they have been impacted by the neoliberal focus of the global food system. The concept of food sovereignty has emerged in response to the inadequacies of the concept 29 of food security and attempts to address more comprehensive ways of empowering people in their food systems.
Environmental sustainability is also used to re-envision the global food system.
While a common definition of sustainability is contested, the Brundtland Commission on
Sustainable Development has often been used as a starting point in the debate around sustainability and how to implement it. The commission defined sustainable development as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs" (UN, 1987). Its creation as a compromise between the interests of development and environmentalism has meant an inherent vagueness in its definition.
The twisting of the definition of sustainability to meet diverse and sometimes harmful agendas mirrors the struggles of food security and should be a warning for the integrity of new concepts. The vagueness of sustainable development has meant that it is the inspiration for innovative practices and is used to develop the idea of limitations on the environment's ability to meet human needs. It has also been used as an ideological and political tool to limit the development of poorer peoples and nations without reducing wasteful consumption of people with access to resources, particularly by corporations and governments focusing on development interpreted as sustained growth. In the process, the concept has lost much of its radical ideas about limitations and changing human habits to become more of a justification for current industrial practices. The co-optation
14 An analysis of such co-optation of the concept of sustainability is found within a critique of corporate responsibility. Corporations use this idea in the context of a "triple bottom line", an attempt to balance economic growth with social and environmental security. For an introduction to the topic, see New Internationalist (December 2007). 30 of food security and sustainability serve as a caution for the development of future concepts, particularly that of food sovereignty.
Another area of interest to social justice and food is that of resistance to globalization. Although such resistance defies a singular explanation or even identity, the anti-globalization, or global justice, movement has become a focal point for contemporary dissidence. Born of a great diversity of groups and networks, this movement is united in its goals to re-establish democratic control over social and economic institutions after traditional regulations have failed in the face of globalized information, wealth and power (Castells, 2004). Democratic controls are sought through increased representation of people who have long been denied power, including labour union workers, environmentalists, peasants, indigenous peoples, women and others. Two theories that assist in conceptualizing this current struggle and its implication for agriculture are those of Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi.
These two theorists, who emerged from divergent contexts to create different theories, hold a common thread of understanding the role of society in relation to the state and the economy.15 Antonio Gramsci's (1971) theory of hegemony and the role of civil society and Karl Polanyi's (2005) ideas about commodification and the role of active society in regulating the economy both point to the importance of society in leading and strengthening resistance to exploitive and unsustainable systems. Together, they envision society as occupying a specific institutional space in capitalism between the economy and the state, although Gramsci sees society more as a site of struggle while Polanyi claims that society has its own reality and agenda (Burawoy, 2003).
15 Although it will not be discussed here, an instructive concept was sociological Marxism, explained by Burawoy (2003). He links the two previously disparate theorists to create an understanding of how to go beyond traditional Marxism in our post-communist age. 31
Gramsci's understanding of civil society is an important foundation for his ideas.
Civil society is described in a dichotomous fashion; it is the private sphere to the public political sphere of the state and is always understood in its connection to the state.
Included in this sphere are institutions such as political parties, trade unions, mass education and voluntary associations. It is here that political struggles are carried out; hegemony rather than traditional class struggle is evident in this terrain. Gramsci explains hegemony as the balanced combination of force and consent that dominates the majority of people in the interests of a powerful minority. This differs from a dictatorship based on physical or military force yet the peoples' consent is not Marx's spontaneous consent, for a hint of force is always present. The two balance each other out; force recedes to the background to deal with individual dissidents when necessary and consent for the agenda of the powerful is garnered by the expression of public opinion through mass media and voluntary associations as well as state apparatuses like education, law and welfare agencies (Gramsci, 1971; Burawoy, 2003).
Gramsci describes two different ways civil society can buck hegemonic domination using the military metaphors of war of movement or manoeuvre and a war of position. The war of movement is based upon ideas of classical revolution where the people directly seize power of the state; an idea Gramsci sees as no longer viable, particularly for advanced capitalist countries. Instead, the relationship between civil society and the state necessitates a war of position. The revolution turns to the slow, patient work of political strategy and ideology; ideas of counterhegemony gain much of their inspiration from this theory. The basis of counterhegemony is intellectual and moral reform, with the understanding that power is not a "thing" to be seized but is a 32 relationship between social forces that can and must be transformed (Gramsci, 1971;
Dagnino, 1998).
While Gramsci conceptualizes society in its relation to the state, Polanyi understands society in its ties to the economy. This relationship is born out of necessity, for the self-regulating market often acts to destroy society, which leads an active society to defensively react by attempting to subordinate the market. A self-regulating market assumes that human beings will behave to achieve maximum monetary gains and that all production is for sale. This has led to the commodification of land, labour and money, something that Polanyi warns is inherently destructive. As he points out, to view human labour and our natural surroundings as moneyed objects is to "subordinate the substance of society itself to the laws of the market" (Polanyi, 2005). Reducing these elements of production to their exchange-value undermines their use-value and puts them in danger of degradation (Burawoy, 2003).
Our society and capitalism both depend on the constitution of an active society as protection against the destructiveness of commodification. A double movement emerges, which Polanyi describes as a conflict between the operation of the self-regulating market and principles of social protection that arise from active society. These principles are based on the conservation of humans and nature, and are carried out through tools such as protective legislation, restrictive associations and forms of social and governmental intervention. Examples include agrarian protests, political campaigns, workers' movements, and reform and regulation (King, 2000). This double movement has been particularly important to the history of North American agriculture and continues to be present in agricultural nations worldwide. 33
These two theories underscore the importance of civil society actions in attempting to shape the functioning of both states and the global economy. The ability of civil society to engage in debate and action ensures that, while not uniform or unified, it can struggle for a common goal of redistributing and restraining power. The power inequalities inherent in the globalized agricultural and food system have routinely come under attack by civil society, as diverse networks of people fight for a more just food system.
2.2 Food system alternatives
If eating food can be a political act, it can also be an ecological one. The consequences of industrial food can be disastrous for our environment, and as awareness of these costs grow, more people are looking for alternative ways of eating food. A popular alternative is organic foods. Although still a niche market in North America, organic sales have skyrocketed in the United States from $5 billion in 2001 to $13.4 billion in 2003. That year, the global market was estimated to be $23 billion (Cook,
2004; Macey, 2004). Organic agriculture is defined in contrast to the conventional agricultural system, for its practices are regulated to meet environmentally holistic goals.
This generally means that such products are grown without the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, antibiotics and genetically modified materials. These methods of production have become more important to consumers, attracting them from a diversity of backgrounds and motivations. As economic analyst Samuel Fromartz (2006) argues, organic food is flourishing because it fulfills a need that arises from its perceived quality and safety. That does not mean all participants are motivated by health and nutrition 34 concerns, although they do play a large role. Other reasons include environmental ideals, spiritual beliefs, a commitment to sustainable methods of farming, even politics. The ability of organic food to speak to such a wide array of consumers and concerns has meant that its participants range from health-conscious environmentalists to supermarket customers. All economic indicators point to bigger growth.
This explosion of consumption has meant that demand is growing faster than production and the organic industry is scrambling to keep up. As its market and supporters have expanded, so too has the industry itself. Many people, including Julie
Guthman (2004) who analyzes the Californian organic industry, have argued that by attempting to meet this demand, organic agriculture has adopted some of the same methods its early ideology shunned. Its original critique of industrial practices, corporate power and the moral and environmental risks of conventional agriculture, meant that many original organic farms were born of a counterculture grounded in ideology and a genuine attempt to seek alternatives. Exponential growth in Californian organic agriculture since the late 1980's has meant a predominant focus on profit, losing its balance with the original ideals.16 While organic agriculture has been careful to forge new environmental practices, it has often kept or adopted the labour practices, marketing and means of ownership common in conventional agriculture. The changing reality of organic agriculture, and the increasing appearance of industrial or "big organic" has meant an uneasy relationship with critical farmers and consumers alike.
This is not to say that profit was an unimportant goal for its founding farmers, for they too were undoubtedly looking for economical means of support through their organic farming. The opening of the organic production has admitted some farmers motivated solely by profit, which has an influence on the organic market as a whole. 35
Local production for local consumption is also heralded as an alternative to the negative impacts of industrial global agriculture. The local food movement involves people seeking to counteract the negative trends they see in globalization, such as economic concentration, social disempowerment and environmental degradation
(Hinrichs, 2003). By focusing on local production and consumption, various benefits accrue, including profits for local businesses and producers, employment for local workers, garnering greater links of trust and understanding between local producers and consumers, reducing transportation distances, delivering fresh high quality food and using local resources sustainably (Hines, 2000; Halweil, 2004).
Direct agricultural markets have been at the forefront of the local food movement.
From farmers' markets and u-pick stands, to community supported agriculture (CSAs) and food cooperatives, the number and examples of ways people are connecting to local food has been growing exponentially in Canada and the United States. American interest in farmers' markets has been revived, with similar statistics suggested for Canada: in a six year period from 1994 to 2000, the number of markets in the US increased by 63%
(quoted in Sanderson, Gertler, Martz & Mahabir, 2005). Through direct marketing, consumers and producers are able to associate with each other at specific times in particular settings, creating an interaction markedly different from the anonymous purchasing of food from supermarkets (Hinrichs, 2003). The increased visibility of factors behind this food, as well as the seductive rationale behind supporting local industry, bolsters this growing niche market and alternative lifestyle.
Yet some academics caution against the fantastic claims advocates of local food systems boast of. Urban planners Branden Born and Mark Purcell (2006) warn against 36 the "local trap", or the tendency to assume an inherent "goodness" about local scale.
They argue that local-scale food systems are not fundamentally more sustainable or just due to the lesser distance travelled between producer and consumer; they must be informed by an agenda of social and environmental justice to attain these goals. This is an argument repeated by advocates of fair trade. The tendency to draw local food systems in sharp relief against the evils of globalization is also cautioned against, for it has the potential to lead to an elitist defensive localism based on an opposition to
"otherness". Both local and global food systems are much more complex and deserve an understanding and response that appreciates the nuances of motivations and implications behind eating food (Hinrichs, 2003).
2.3 Resistance as creating alternatives
The industrial globalized food system has found its match in the multifarious alternatives that have emerged as its counterpoint. The creation of alternatives, as critiques of the conventional food system, is an interesting process of intellectual challenge and response. Development critic Tariq Banuri (1990) explains the development of ideas as an adversarial process of creating new knowledge. As challenges to conventional practices, alternative critiques engage in a process of analysis that is both external and internal to the mainstream system. These evaluations contribute to the intellectual growth of alternatives, for they force theoretical progress through the adaptation of theories, the assimilation of new ideas and the rejection of claims by the existing paradigm. This intellectual challenge, and the response by the dominant paradigm, creates an arena for debate and the emergence of new ideas. 37
Many alternative theories have emerged as external critiques of the conventional agricultural system. Their rejection of the intellectual and moral basis of the existing system creates a challenge and resistance to the dominant paradigm. As alternative ideas engage with the dominant system, they create change not only through the dominant paradigm's response by developing an internal critique or an analysis that seeks change without attacking its theoretical basis. In this way, change occurs through the practice and influence of alternatives on the dominant paradigm of conventional agriculture.
It is important to analyze this process of intellectual change to understand the implications of alternative paradigms on the theory and practice of the conventional food system. Examples of this intellectual method of challenge and response are evident in the appropriation of concepts like sustainability and food security by corporations and governments in efforts to adapt to a new intellectual climate. These ideas have been adopted as an internal critique, and their perceived co-option by the dominant paradigm has forced agents of alternatives to shift and deepen their analysis.
2.4 Understanding food justice movements
Part of the multiplicity of alternatives is evident in the plethora of names attached to them. Various labels are attached to theories and practices that greatly overlap: for example, the alternative food system, sustainable food system, food justice movement, and the food security movement. To reduce confusion, a word of explanation about the various alternative stakeholders is needed. One of the first distinctions is between the emergency food movement, or anti-hunger advocates, and the alternative food system.
The emergency food movement works for self-explanatory goals with a focus on 38 immediate action based on food as an entitlement; it works largely within the conventional food system and will not be covered by my definition of alternatives.
A second distinction is necessary to sort out the various labels attached to the main camps in the alternative food movement. The sustainable agriculture movement focuses on environmentally sustainable practices and includes proponents of organic agriculture and local or regional food systems. Community food security advocates are diverse but they all view food as a human right and work toward community scale development based on access to food.17 Elements of these movements are evident in the more encompassing theories of food justice movements.
Food justice movements envision an alternative food system based on the goals of social and environmental justice. Although the discourses of food justice movements contain elements of alternative movements previously discussed, such as sustainability
(albeit a more holistic conception), scale (i.e. local), production practices (i.e. organic) and access (i.e. food security), the primary focus is the issue of power and control. An analysis of power is essential to enable people to interact with the food system as citizens rather than consumers, and as empowered producers rather than as pawns of scientific advice and international policy. Food justice movements adopt political ideas of citizenship and democracy and apply them to the food system in a radical effort to ensure social justice. Achieving this goal is both a matter of resistance to the dominant system as well as creating alternative ways of thinking and being. Author Gerda Wekerle explains food justice movements as both a critique of the global food system and a way
Campbell's (2004) discussion of these and other stakeholders in the food system were important to this definition. of framing local initiatives as a practice of democracy and as a means of "de-linkmg from the corporate industrial food system (2004, 379).
The idea of a more holistic vision of sustainability that includes food justice has emerged not only through intellectual and policy discourse, but also from the ideas and practices of ordinary people involved in the food system as agents of change. The idea of sustainability has become an ambiguous concept; one that we are right to be wary of in light of its use by elements of the conventional food system that seek to justify their current practices. Yet it has the potential to be an important instrument of change and we should not give up on it. Participants at a Wisconsin urban-rural conference agreed that their holistic conception of sustainability should act as an important basis for alternative theories. Not only does it include the common refrains of sustainability of the environment (including sustainable practices, local proximity and seasonality), local economy, and social justice, but it also encompasses notions of accessible knowledge, participation, ethical regulations, recognition of the spiritual, health, diversity, cultural nourishment and the creation of trusting relationships (Kloppenburg et al, 2000).
Resisting oppression in the food system is important to both producers and consumers. Many marginalized peoples including indigenous people, peasants or small farmers and women, have been dismissed, misused or persecuted by the industrial, globalized food system. Their resistance to it is the first step towards seeking alternatives. This is also true of consumers. To recognize the disempowering idea of consumerism as the dominant ideology of the conventional food system, and to fight against it and the commodification of food, is to practice resistance. Many have already done so by recognizing that food is more than a commodity and people are more than 40 consumers (Levkoe, 2006; Winson, 1993). The idea that people are unimportant players in the food system and that we have no say other than through our wallets is an idea that powerful interests need us to believe to continue their hegemonic rule. To do so is to concede our power and interests in a just system. Gramsci would argue that this hegemonic idea, perpetrated by various institutions, is oppressive to civil society. By seeking intellectual and moral reform and acting upon it, civil society has the opportunity to revolutionize the way we interact with the food system and its power relationships.
Polanyi's theory of double movements also has relevance to this discussion, for the dominant conceptions of commodification warrant a struggle in opposition by active society. Together, these two thinkers offer frameworks to conceptualize resistance within food justice movements.
Resistance is also conceived as new ways of thinking and being in the food system. The two main concepts of food citizenship and food democracy are important to discuss. To understand food citizenship, the definition of "citizen" must first be carefully examined. The idea of citizenship must not be individualized or equated with consumerism; a good consumer is not necessarily a good citizen. To believe this is to see citizenship as a lifestyle, as something that can be purchased based on individually felt needs (DeLind, 2002). The roots and lessons of food citizenship are applied from the political arena, where citizenship is a learned process of being active in society. Through participation and education, people learn the values, skills and knowledge necessary to be an active member of society: to be a citizen. This is done not only through formal institutions such as the education system or familial socialization, but also through indirect learning in our communities and group participation (Levkoe, 2006). 41
Food justice movements offer important spaces for people to learn food citizenship. By raising awareness of where food comes from and the processes involved in its production and distribution, an intimate knowledge of our food system and our role in it is key to raising consciousness and enabling further learning. The politicized nature of alternative food systems has created a space where people can learn to be a part of political spaces, practice our rights and responsibilities and have an impact on food policy decisions that influence our daily lives. Various values can also be learned, including solidarity, tolerance, openness, responsibility and respect (Schugurensky, 2003). Lauren
Baker's (2004) examination of community gardens in Toronto describes gardeners as
"soil citizens", a particularly meaningful term when the soil is considered to be a public commons (DeLind, 2002).
Intimately related to the concept and practice of citizenship is democracy. Food democracy takes its cue from participatory democracy, described by Daniel
Schugurensky (2003) as an inclusive process of decision-making and governance. Not only does this form of democracy construct more transparent, efficient and just ways of governance, but it also creates a meaningful space for learning citizenship and redistributing power.
The concept of food democracy has been a growing area of interest. The food system is contested terrain and food democracy frames food as caught between the forces of control and pressures to democratize. Tim Lang (1999) gave an early definition as the demand for greater access and collective benefit from the food system to ensure food security for everyone. Neva Hassanein (2003) goes further to describe food democracy as the idea that "people can and should be actively participating in shaping the food 42 system, rather than remaining passive spectators on the sidelines" (79, emphasis mine).
By shaping, Hassanein refers to the ways people can be actively involved in making important decisions regarding food; it is about citizens having the power to determine agro-food policies and practices not only in their local or regional area, but also on a national and global level. This active participation, a key concept in food citizenship, cannot be emphasized enough as an important element of a just food system.
Although food democracy was born out of a concern for creating democratic food policy through meaningful participation, a variety of interests have picked up this call for greater inclusiveness and equitable power arrangements. By including everyone in the decisions regarding food, food democracy has the potential to eradicate hunger through democratic control over productive resources and food supplies. In our current system, monetary power is a poor substitute for genuine control, for it excludes many people involved in the food system (Lappe & Lappe, 2004).18 In an atmosphere of corporate- controlled industrial agriculture, it is also an important concept for producers as a means of reshaping the food system to ensure sustainable and safe production, equitable distribution and access to its products, and a valuation of more than profit. For disadvantaged producers who directly experience the unaccountable power of corporations, democratic control is crucial for their continued survival (Shiva, 2000).
Its holistic vision of sustainability and resistance to classifying people and food strictly in monetary terms show that food democracy, and the related concept of food citizenship, are driving resistance to the current food status quo. Food sovereignty adds another crucial dimension to this resistance.
18 In their analysis of hunger, Frances and Anna Lappe argue that hunger is not due to a scarcity of food, but a scarcity of democracy, where everyone can have a say in their own future. Although related, this is different from previously discussed notions of solving hunger through redistribution. 43
2.5 Understanding food sovereignty
The origins of food sovereignty can be traced to a growing social movement of peasants and other farmers affected by the global, industrial agricultural system whose continued survival depends on greater justice. La Via Campesina arrived on the global justice scene in 1993 as an international coalition of peasants, small farmers, farm workers, landless people, rural women and indigenous organizations. Although of an international scope, as seen through its membership of 149 organizations in 56 countries,
La Via Campesina remains grounded in local and regional practices, spaces and cultures
(Desmarais, 2007). The different goals and struggles of its members come together in an effort of global solidarity among those who share common experiences in different places.
The goals of the movement can be summarized by two overriding concerns: getting the World Trade Organization (WTO) out of agriculture and promoting the idea and practice of food sovereignty as a model for self-determination and justice. These goals arise from the agricultural context that peasants and small farmers have found themselves in for the past thirty years. Based upon a human rights framework, La Via
Campesina rejects the WTO as the determiner of international agricultural policy, arguing that it is an inappropriate institution for democratic decision-making and policy formation. La Via Campesina's demands include stopping the dumping of staple foods, patenting life forms, forcing imports on countries and compulsory market access stipulations. Going further, La Via Campesina calls for agriculture to be removed from regional, bilateral and international trade agreements and for the creation of a truly democratic institution to govern food trade (Desmarais, 2007). These demands are based 44 upon their vision of food sovereignty, a concept designed to go beyond food security to ensure justice for both producers and consumers. It is important to understand la Via
Campesina and their construct of food sovereignty since they are the originators and champions of this concept. The original definition developed by the movement was presented at the World Food Summit in 1996 (La Via Campesina, 2003). Since that time, it has swiftly reshaped the international debate on agriculture and has offered a new way to envision the global food system.
Food sovereignty is articulated as the right of peoples or countries to define their own agriculture, food, labour, fishing and land policies in ways that are ecologically, socially, economically and culturally appropriate to their circumstances (ibid). The framework emphasizes the right to food and the right to produce food, which necessitates farmers' access to resources such as land, water, seeds, livestock breeds and credit. Food sovereignty emphasizes the right of people to be active participants in the decisions and policies that affect them and their livelihoods (Gilpo & Pascual, 2005). At the heart of food sovereignty is a shifting of power; it is about local sovereignty, local control, local autonomy, and a resistance to the institutions and policies that have taken this away from those who need it the most (Grain, 2005). While reiterating the importance of food security, food sovereignty goes beyond that concept to emphasize the rights and importance of farmers and food production as part of a healthy and just society (Patel,
2007; Windfuhr & Jonsen, 2005).
To understand food sovereignty, its key demands must be examined more closely.
One of these is promoting strong and vibrant domestic food systems that stress local production for local consumption. This is a key pillar of La Via Campesina's criticism of 45 the WTO and the agenda of neoliberalization. Following the instructions of neoliberal institutions and policies, many countries have slashed support for their farmers while simultaneously embracing export-led agriculture, with disastrous consequences for small- scale domestic farms and the environment. By advocating food sovereignty, these producers are expressly rejecting the "right to export" to argue for the "right to produce in our own territory" and build local food systems (Desmarais, 2007). Related to this is the struggle against food dumping or inappropriate food imports (Gilpo & Pascual, 2005).
Food sovereignty demands that governments recognize, guarantee and provide opportunities for farmers and communities to participate in decision-making. Within the globalized food system, decision-making has slowly moved away from local and national levels to be carried out in the international policy sphere. Two sets of problems have emerged: not only have most developing countries been shut out of these policy decisions due to international power plays, but the representation of local communities and farmers has also faltered on a national level. Any attempt at food sovereignty must recognize the right of farmers to participate in decision-making in meaningful ways (Farmers, Food &
Trade International Workshop, 2003).
Fast on the heels of this is the demand that the regulation of global agricultural trade be taken out of the WTO in favour of a more equitable and democratic framework.
The shift from national economies to a larger regional or global economy regulated by an institution subject to the interests of powerful nations and corporations has created a highly unequal playing field for the farmers of the world. WTO regulations have often tied the hands of nations, who are often unable to institute economic measures to ensure the security of producers or the food supply. La Via Campesina argues that they are not against trade, but are seeking a fair way to engage in agricultural trade (Rosset, 2006;
Windfuhr & Jonsen, 2005; Desmarais, 2007). The WTO and its AoA are so flawed that the possibility of reform would still fall short of the changes envisioned by this social movement. A new space is essential for enabling the participation of producers and others affected by trade decisions. An alternative framework emphasizing human rights could be realized through numerous means, including reforms to the United Nations to protect the right of all peoples in negotiating sustainable production and fair trade. The dismantling of the current Agreement on Agriculture and creating an international treaty to define the rights of peasants and small producers are also tools that underscore a new framework with the language and practice of human rights (Desmarais, 2007). An overhauled dispute mechanism compatible with these new rights-based conventions and bodies is necessary to ensure the proper application of these policies (Farmers, Food &
Trade International Workshop, 2003).
An essential element of promoting development and sovereign food production is access and control over land and agricultural resources. This is the basis of calls for agrarian reform, as well as ensuring the right of indigenous people to their traditional territories and fisherfolk to fishing areas. Redistributive land reform can be an effective way not only to break down land monopolies and bolster agricultural productivity and efficiency but also to fight poverty and urban migration and has numerous environmental and economic benefits. The other part of control over resources is the security of water and genetic resources, which explains widespread opposition to the patenting of life forms and the growing use of genetically modified organisms (La Via Campesina et al,
2006; Gilpo & Pascual, 2005). 47
Another pillar of food sovereignty is promoting sustainable agricultural practices.
Clearly, the dominant industrial agricultural system has been toxic to the environment, and food sovereignty promotes a shift in policy to recognize more beneficial or benign methods of agriculture as informed by agroecology. From concerns about the state of the world's water to the widespread use of GMOs, this pillar is evident in many of the other goals of food sovereignty. It has also helped the peasant and small farmer movement connect with the environmental movement, strengthening their overall struggle.
Ensuring the equal participation and central role of women in food sovereignty is crucial. While farming is often conceived as a male-dominated occupation, the majority of the world's farmers are women. The distribution of women in agriculture in developing countries varies per region, with an average of 63% of the work force (FAO,
1999).19 Feminist scholars have long recognized that food production and consumption are gendered processes, despite efforts to portray the food system as gender-neutral.
Because small-scale farmers are often women, they are the first to be threatened by industrialized and corporate-influenced agriculture. They are "invisible" and the roles they play in grain production, animal husbandry, forestry and fishing are underrated. Yet they are crucial actors of creating just and sustainable agricultural systems, which is recognized by food sovereignty (ibid).
As a movement of peasants, La Via Campesina has been welcoming of many marginalized groups, and the recognition and participation of oppressed people is an important part of their goals. This arises from the context of their struggles. Agents of the neoliberal agricultural agenda, including transnational corporations and the WTO,
19 Women in sub-saharan Africa make up 75% of the agricultural work force, while in other regions like Latin America and the Caribbean, women are only 11% of this sector, a proportion similar to women's agricultural involvement in developed countries, at 7%. 48 have aggressively pushed for actions limiting the power and control of peasants and small farmers over resources they have been stewards of for many generations. Before the neoliberal push to export agriculture and the widespread implementation of technology disrupted previous social and economic ways of life, most peasants participated in the sector through subsistence agriculture or small amounts of cash cropping. What is happening to Mexico's campesinos after the implementation of neoliberal measures since the 1980's, including NAFTA in 1994, is one that is being experienced around the world
(Barry, 1995). Yet peasants are refusing to stand by and watch their futures fade. In mobilizing to protest such a harmful model of development, La Via Campesina has created a powerful collective identity that empowers marginalized people. In addition to this mobilization is the politicization of agrarian policy (Patel, 2005). The public contestation of deeply unequal relations of power, and the growing counter-movement of marginalized people based on international solidarity is deeply troubling to the status quo.
It is not just the identity of these producers that has been marginalized, but also their knowledge and ways of understanding their world. By focusing on locally controlled food systems, and their bio-cultural diversity, food sovereignty also affords protection to the knowledge inherent in these systems. This is a radical departure from the conventional agricultural knowledge promoted by scientific and policy experts to producers around the world, regardless of their geographical and cultural contexts.
Michel Pimbert (2006) adds to the literature on food sovereignty by explaining ways to transform our current ways of knowing to achieve this radical transformation. Keeping in the vein of increased citizen participation in the food system, he calls for a democratization and deinstitutionalization of science and technological research. This not only includes opening technological decision making bodies and recognizing a diversity of interests in setting and funding scientific agendas, but also the validation of different ways of knowing. Related to this is ensuring that scientific knowledge and the tools for learning it, as well as resulting innovations, are available to all people.
Part of the origin of food sovereignty is built upon the concept of food security and the right to adequate, nutritious and safe food (People's Food Sovereignty Network,
2007; Gilpo & Pascual, 2005). Under the exploitive system of free trade, hunger and its partner poverty have affected millions. Faced with the reality that governments, whose responsibility it is to ensure food security, are often unable to achieve these goals, food sovereignty has deepened the call to equitable access.
Although food sovereignty can trace some of its origins back to food security, it emerged largely as a critique to the co-opted concept of food security. It has not styled itself to be the antithesis to food security, but as a way of seeking a more radical and genuine food security (McMichael, 2004). One of the biggest differences between food sovereignty and food security is their focus on access: food security encourages access to food in general, specifically the purchasing of food, while food sovereignty also addresses access to and control over productive resources. Food security has been carefully crafted as a definition of a broad goal and does not have a specific program delineated to achieve it, while food sovereignty is a more precise policy proposal
(Windfuhr & Jonsen, 2005). As a more holistic set of political demands, food sovereignty also has the potential to be more comprehensive and effective in creating a more just rights-based food system. 50
2.6 Using food sovereignty as an analytical tool
This discussion of food sovereignty has highlighted its key elements and demands as part of a larger food justice movement. Although concepts like food democracy, food citizenship and sustainability are complementary by focusing on certain aspects of food justice, I believe that food sovereignty embraces these theories within a more effective and holistic model. Holistic is defined in this research as an emphasis on the whole of something rather than the sum of its parts: for example, the definition of holistic sustainability used by food justice movements encompasses environmental, economic, social, cultural and spiritual elements. The six main pillars of food sovereignty that will inform my analysis of community gardens are as follows:
a) Active participation in the food system, including decision-making
b) Greater access, power and control by people (producers and consumers) over
their food system
c) Enabling peoples'empowerment
d) Recognizing alternative, more holistic ways of being
e) Emphasizing human rights
f) Encouraging different values
These pillars originate from the basic elements of food sovereignty as defined by the social movement La Via Campesina. I have reorganized their key demands and presented them in this way to be applicable to a local urban context of food production and consumption. This process involved creative thinking around how food sovereignty could be applied to the greatest social justice benefit. These pillars are explored further in chapter four and will be used to analyze the results of the qualitative interviews 51 conducted with community gardeners to determine if these gardens are a practice of food sovereignty. 52
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the research methodology, the three case studies and the historical operation of community gardens in Saskatchewan. To understand these community gardens as a local alternative to the dominant food system, their structure and context must be examined. The following methodology section explains the methods used to do so. The three cases are then examined in light of their operations, goals and local context. The history of urban community gardening is also important to analyze as a continuous yet fluid process of social change encouraged through the methods of gardening. Many of the values and goals reported in early community gardens are found in the contemporary gardens studied, yet there are differences that help us to better understand the various dimensions of community gardening today.
3.1 Methodology
This research examines the goals, practices and implications of community
gardening in Saskatchewan using a qualitative methodology. C. Wright Mill's
conceptualization of the sociological imagination was a tool I found useful in organizing
this qualitative research. He points out that social inquiry ought to be multi-dimensional:
"[n]either the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without
understanding them both" (1959, 3). Three important components of inquiry are the
structures of society, how that society fits into history, and the nature of individual
human beings involved in that structure. The ability to understand the intersection of
these three elements enables the researcher to probe both impersonal and intimate
perspectives to gain a sense of the structure we live in and its implications. A case study approach allowed me to explore these connections of individual biography, history and social structure to gain a more complete picture of community gardens and what they mean to those involved and the larger community. A case study approach was chosen because it offered a way to gather in-depth context-dependent knowledge on the local practice of food sovereignty. As case study advocate Bent
Flyvbjerg (2006) argues, the ability of the case study approach to capture the value of real-life situations and their details offers an important contribution to the creation of knowledge. Its advantage of being close to real practice gives researchers the ability to test views directly against unfolding phenomena.
This case study involved a community garden from each of the Saskatchewan urban centres of Regina, Moose Jaw and Saskatoon. Grow Regina in Regina, the City
Park Community Garden in Saskatoon and the Saskferco Community Garden in Moose
Jaw were selected based on their stated goals of food security and community building.
All are operated by a group of volunteer gardeners, independent from government or business, while the support and resources of a parent non-profit organization are available. While comparable in goals, the three community gardens operate in distinct social and physical contexts, for varied lengths of time, and have encountered different challenges along the way. The lessons learned from these gardens will be valuable not only for understanding the larger food system, but also for the immediate operation of these and other community gardens.
To analyze these community gardens, the methods of literature review, content analysis and semi-structured interviewing were used. Before data was collected, ethical approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Board at the University of Regina (see Appendix A). A comprehensive literature review pertaining to industrialized global agriculture was conducted to situate local community gardening in a larger social and economic frame of reference. This literature formed the basis of the context in chapter one. Information was gathered on the history of community gardening in Regina to place this research within a local historical context, for these gardens do not operate within a social or historical vacuum. This data was collected through content analysis of historical media accounts, including Regina Leader-Post articles, unpublished municipal correspondence obtained through the City of Regina archives and publications from that period. To understand the contemporary background and local context of the three community gardens studied, I conducted a content analysis of their organizational documents, including newsletters and website material where applicable, media accounts, including Regina Leader-Post and Global TV clips, and municipal policies regarding community gardens. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to augment information about the garden and its processes, as well as to offer information about the individuals who play important roles within the gardens. Demographic information about participants was also collected.
Nine interviews were conducted in each community garden, for a total of twenty- seven. Every participant read and signed a consent form, ensuring voluntary consent
(attached as Appendix B). This consent form outlined two options available to participants regarding the publication of their name: to have their name published if they were quoted within the research, or have a pseudonym assigned to conceal their identity and protect their privacy if they did not wish to have their name published. These interviews, of approximately an hour long, were guided by a set of semi-structured 55 questions designed to probe participants' understandings of their gardens and personal thoughts on their involvement. The three main parts of the interviews included questions about the operation of the community gardens, personal motivations and changes in ideas or practice due to participation, and situating these gardens within a larger social and political context. The interview questions are attached in Appendix C. They were conducted face-to-face in a manner that encouraged people to talk about their experiences and other issues they felt pertinent to their understanding of the community garden and the larger food system.
Participants were selected in a purposive manner due to the small size of some of these organizations and their high level of involvement in the gardens. Participant demographic information is outlined in detail in Appendix D. While all of the interviewees were identified as important contributors to their garden, twenty-one held formal leadership roles such as members of the board of directors or steering committee.
Gender was fairly equal among participants with men comprising 55% and women 45%
(see Table One, Appendix D). All of the interviewees are or had been vigorously involved in their community garden, many for a long period of time. The age of gardeners varied per city, with a wide range of ages evident in Moose Jaw's community garden, while Regina and Saskatoon's community gardeners tended to be a bit older, falling within the 40-80 year old age range (see Table Two, Appendix D). As seen in table three (Appendix D), a number of gardeners have lived or worked on a farm. The implications of such a high rate of participants in urban gardening leadership roles are unclear and warrant further research. On the whole, participants are well educated, as the majority has achieved post-secondary educational levels (see Table Four, Appendix 56
D). Annual household income of participants is compared to average neighbourhood or
city incomes (see Table Five, Appendix D).
Their insights, familiarity with the garden and its goals, as well as their experience
with its operations were valuable to this research. Their enthusiasm for community
gardening, as well as its related social and environmental goals, was evident throughout
the research process. A reflection of their personal motivations, changes and challenges
is as important as an analysis of the organization's operations and impacts, for the
leadership and enthusiasm of these gardeners is undoubtedly the primary drive behind
the community gardens. This will be discussed in the following chapter.
3.2 Contemporary community gardens in Saskatchewan - three case studies
All three case studies were community-based efforts to establish gardens to improve their physical and social environments. Their shared similarities and differences in their structure and operations are instructive for this research.
3.2.1 Grow Regina - Regina
The Grow Regina Community Garden in Regina emerged as a food security initiative from the heightened awareness of hunger that followed Mayor Doug Archer's
Hunger Report in 1988. In 1993, over twenty local organizations, including the Regina and District Food Bank, Regina Education and Action on Child Hunger, and the City of
Regina came together to organize the Grow Regina Community Garden on land leased from the provincial government on Broad Street and College Avenue. This location was
20 Unless otherwise cited, this information is gleaned from Grow Regina interviews, the Grow Regina website www.growregina.ca. Background Sheet provided by Paul Viala (no date). 57 deliberately sought, for it was close to downtown's apartment residents and inner city neighbourhoods that struggled with hunger and poverty. As one of the largest community gardens in Regina, gardening began in 1994 with 127 irrigated plots and expanded to 275 plots within four years.21 While gardeners from the surrounding neighbourhoods were given priority, residents from around the city flocked eagerly to this visible and vibrant community garden.
However, in recent years, Grow Regina has faced significant challenges. In 2005, their lease expired when the land was sold to new property owners. Left without a place to cultivate, the Grow Regina Community Garden moved temporarily to the Wascana
Park tree nursery in 2006 before deciding to focus their energies on finding a permanent new location. After many consultations and proposal discussions with the City of Regina, they found a new home in McLeod Park in the Lakeview neighbourhood by the fall of
2007. They also secured funding from Saskferco, a local nitrogen fertilizer company that sponsors Moose Jaw's community garden.23 Although all of the board members interviewed are relieved that their land tenure struggle has been temporarily concluded, expectations for their future in this location are mixed. Some welcome the opportunity to cultivate their new garden in a city park, which may mean more stable tenure and the opportunity to incorporate innovative features, while some fear that being far from their original location and targeted neighbourhoods may mean a worrisome shift in goals.
21 At its inauguration in May 1994, it was estimated that 1,100 people could be fed by the crops grown in the garden (Regina Leader-Post, 1994). 22 Regina City Council passed a five-year renewable lease for the new garden in September 2007, with terms of $1 per year and an exemption of property tax. The Regina and District Food Bank is considered the leaseholder. (Rhodes, 2007). The new location's formal inauguration was November 15, 2007, attended by representatives of the food bank, City of Regina and Saskferco, whose sponsorship was conditional on the lease settlement (Dickson, 2007). 23 Saskferco has agreed to donate $50,000 over two years to help with the start-up costs of the garden; this new community garden will be called the Saskferco-Grow Regina Community Garden. Since this garden has yet to begin operations, for simplicity's sake, I refer to the organization of Grow Regina. 58
Although there have been other community gardens operating in Regina at the same time as Grow Regina, the goals of this project have set it apart. Their original goals of providing affordable gardening space for people to grow fresh food and working toward community food security have been important and continuous aims. As one board member commented, "[w]e want to be [sic] more than a landlord/tenant relationship - we want to think and plan around food security" (Fagan, 2007). Grow
Regina, for example, offers various plots at different sizes and prices, as well as a number of sponsored plots for low-income people. Their close relationship to the Regina and
District Food Bank, which has operated as their "parent" organization, has meant that
Grow Regina donates 15% of their produce to the food bank annually. Education of gardeners and the public, as well as advocating urban green space, are also important goals.
The ability of community gardening to speak to all ages, incomes and backgrounds is demonstrated by the vibrant diversity in this garden. Its ranks include both young and old, immigrants, people of rural and urban backgrounds, low-income families and individuals, schools, single parents, and people with disabilities. Yet some dominant trends have emerged. Seniors are heavily involved, particularly in leadership roles on the board. While both men and women are involved in garden leadership, women are more visible as gardeners. People from farms or rural communities who have moved to the city are also involved. These trends are shared by the other community gardens in this study.
The operational model used by Grow Regina is the most formal of the three community gardens with their twelve-member board of directors. Elected every two years 59 on staggered terms, gardeners voted onto the board are responsible for the management and direction of the garden. In two annual meetings, open to all gardeners, decisions are made in a democratic manner and board members for the next year are nominated from volunteers.24 Throughout the year, anyone who is interested in helping out with maintenance, social committee planning and helping with the newsletter has but to notify the board of their willingness to volunteer their time. The board's response to the turmoil of the past three years has been to discontinue annual gardeners' meetings to focus on the process of finding a new location, and they are anxious to reinstate the democratic process in their new location.
3.2.2 Saskferco Community Garden - Moose Jaw25
The Saskferco Community Garden in Moose Jaw is the newcomer of the three community gardens studied, for it only began operations in 2006. Its two successful gardening seasons fostered a high level of excitement and future anticipation among gardeners and steering committee members alike. Its birth followed a similar trajectory to
Grow Regina; a coalition of community organizations concerned about food security, led by the non-profit cooperative Connecting as Neighbours, provided the impetus for the garden. Ideas for the creation of a community garden had been percolating a few years before its inauguration on Homes Street, located on city owned land adjacent to the CPR tracks. In line with its environmental goals, this land has been "reclaimed" in a polluted
24 To be a board member, willing gardeners must simply volunteer their services and be nominated during a general meeting. There are no formal quotas to fill (ie: a certain number of board members must be women or low-income people) to ensure greater representation of certain groups. 25 Unless otherwise cited, the information in the following section is from interviews with the Saskferco Community Gardens, the Connecting as Neighbours Cooperative website www.connectingasneighbours.ca and "Gone Gardening", the official newsletter of the Saskferco Community Gardens, July 23, 2007. 60 industrial area across the tracks from the CPR diesel engine shop, where engines from all over Western Canada undergo repairs. This area is suspected of pollution, as confirmed by high levels of mercury and other heavy metals in the nearby river (Radwanski, 2007).
The garden's original area of approximately 43 plots, servicing more than 70 gardeners and their families, is too small to accommodate all those interested and expansion plans are currently underway.
This community garden has a unique relationship with its corporate title sponsor
Saskferco. Since the garden's inception in 2005, Saskferco has donated $30,000
($10,000 a year for three years) to the project with more funding promised in the future.
With this money, the community garden was able to erect fencing, a tool shed and other infrastructure as well as pay for a gardening coordinator position.26 This relationship is mutually beneficial; not only does the garden thrive with this financial and material support, but the company also appreciates being involved meaningfully in the community and achieving positive media attention.27 The garden has also partnered with SIAST
Palliser Campus's architectural technology students, who designed and created a green roof on the garden's shed. This environmental project has attracted positive attention and its success has spurred the implementation of other innovations including solar-powered lights and a composting toilet.28
Connecting as Neighbours manages the garden through a paid full-time seasonal garden coordinator. There have been three different coordinators since 2005, whose individual interests and backgrounds have influenced the direction of the garden. 27 The success of this community garden in Moose Jaw is directly related to Saskferco's new involvement with Grow Regina, as pointed out by Saskferco's Director of Corporate Affairs, Brad DeLorey (Saskferco, 2007b; Dickson, 2007). 28 The success of the project has also had a positive impact on SIAST's Office of Applied Research and Innovation. According to SIAST instructor Reg Forbes (2007), who led this project, this success is likely to create more opportunities for applied research within the community. 61
The influence of other community-based organizations is evident in the people who participate in the garden. The involvement of organizations like Metis Local 160,
Kids First, the Moose Jaw Multicultural Council and Empire Community School has enriched the experience of all gardeners. From single mothers to immigrant families, the confluence of people from different backgrounds has necessitated personal interaction within a diverse group. This garden follows Grow Regina's trend of encouraging diversity of gardeners.
The primary goal of the garden is food security. An emphasis on affordable access to gardening space, and being able to grow healthy, nutritious food is ubiquitous. Its participants also strive to donate excess produce to the local food bank; for example, the
Saskferco employees' plot donated all of its produce - 500 lbs of potatoes and carrots - to the Moose Jaw Food Bank in 2007. Education, particularly increasing environmental awareness, is also a stated goal of the garden and one it enthusiastically pursues through various innovations. As the only community garden currently in Moose Jaw, it also strives to build a sense of community among their gardeners.
Due to its relative newness, the decision-making structure of the Saskferco
Community Garden is an interesting mix of committee decisions and gardener participation. A steering committee, composed largely of organizational volunteers instrumental to creating and sustaining the garden,29 is charged with making important decisions for regarding the direction and future of the garden. It is the hope of this committee that the garden will evolve into a cooperative structure, where gardeners themselves provide leadership. In the meantime, all gardeners are encouraged to be
29 The make-up of the committee includes one gardener (with changeable membership), the garden coordinator, two Saskferco staff members and four volunteers from organizations involved in the community garden. There are no formal documents outlining the make-up of the steering committee. involved in participatory gardeners' meetings where decisions regarding the daily operation and management of the garden are made. The garden coordinator shoulders most of the responsibility for implementing management and directional decisions from both of these bodies, forming a bridge between the two groups.
3.2.3 City Park Community Garden - Saskatoon
This community garden in Saskatoon's City Park neighbourhood welcomed residents in 2003. Its creation was driven by a dedicated group of individuals and assisted by CHEP, a local non-profit organization dedicated to food security that acted as an advocate for the garden, and the City of Saskatoon. The impetus behind the garden was a merger of community and environmental aspirations. Two of the original leaders had initiated a community compost pile that continues today in the garden, and environmental goals, endorsed by a conscientious community, play an important role through the garden's organic focus. Supported by the local community association, the garden also seeks to be a focus of community building. It strives to do so through its daily operation and special events. Its recent expansion,31 and gardeners' visible pride in the community garden are indicators of their success.
This community garden holds other important distinctions. It was the first cultivated in a public park in Saskatoon, for it makes Wilson Park its home. Only residents of City Park neighbourhood are permitted to participate in this community garden, a source of envy from nearby areas. It also operates completely free of money: the City of Saskatoon has contributed the land and water supplies, while the
30 Unless otherwise sourced, all information is gathered from interviews with gardeners. 31 In 2007, the garden doubled its size to include 20 more plots. Many of the original, and possibly new, plots are shared or divided among multiple gardeners to accommodate all applicants. 63 infrastructure, including a new shed, was donated by individuals, resulting in gardeners not having to pay a rental fee. From the start, the garden's design enabled the creation of a place of beauty for its participants.32 The gardeners' sense of ownership of the park and increased use of this public space by residents and their families are visible results of the success of this effort.
The diversity of the City Park neighbourhood is reflected in the community garden. As the neighbourhood encompasses both single-dwelling homes and apartments, gardeners who lack their own physical space to garden or find their backyards inappropriate for growing vegetables find a home in the community garden.33 Young families seem to be more prevalent in this community garden than the others, although seniors and single middle-aged professionals also participate. It also seems that few
Aboriginal people participate. While all gardeners enjoy the fresh vegetables grown, food security is a secondary goal for its middle-class participants.
Compared to the other two community gardens, the City Park Community Garden employs a loose, almost laissez-faire, approach to decision-making. A core group of gardeners, many of whom were involved in organizing and creating the garden over five years ago, fuel the garden's structure. Their leadership is critical to making this approach work. There is a formal volunteer coordinator position held by a willing gardener and meetings are called for all gardeners when decisions need to be made, usually at the beginning of the gardening season. Due to a lack of formal structure,34 and the ability of the garden to manage itself communally, there seem to be few decisions requiring regular
32 Gardener and architect David Hutton volunteered his services to design the garden in a "spoke and wheel" design, a source of pride in the garden. 33 Many gardeners interviewed were homeowners and remarked that their backyards were too small or were too shady due to mature trees to plant a garden. 34 This garden operates informally: it does not have a bank account, a formal board of directors or AGMs. 64 formal meetings. The initiative and work ethic of this group of committed gardeners has ensured the smooth running of the garden, yet the lack of a formal structure could pose problems if people in this group decide to cut back on their involvement or leave the garden.
The similarities and differences between these three gardens make an interesting study in the contemporary practices and implications of community gardens. Yet an understanding of what these community gardens are and their meaning is incomplete without discussing their history, the implications of which continue to be seen in their form, structure and practices.
3.3 The evolution of urban gardening
To understand the importance of contemporary community gardening, and its rich foundation of self-provisioning and community, it is necessary to delve into its European and North American history. While the provisioning of European urban centres with food from their surrounding rural regions has been common for hundreds of years, the practice of urban gardening has also flourished. Gardens have been located next to homes and on the outskirts of cities throughout different time periods. Vegetables were largely cultivated for family consumption and provided an important dietary supplement
(Hietala & Vahtikari, 2003). Beginning in the eighteenth century, gardens were organized on a communal basis and administrated by municipal governments. Examples from
European countries abound; from Sweden to Slovenia, citizens have coordinated collective garden spaces (Ibid; Crouch & Ward, 1988). One example worth examining more closely is that of British allotments. 65
The allotment garden has been a ubiquitous sight in Britain for the past 200 years.
Usually designated on "left over spaces" or land not used for other purposes, allotment gardens were provided by local authorities or railroad companies to the poor and working classes as spaces to grow vegetables. From the beginning, allotment gardens were underwritten with a strong theme of self-help for the working class. Drawn into the cities as a result of the enclosures, workers embraced the allotments not only as an extra source of food for their families, but also for the creation of identity and culture, and the politicization it brought to their lives. Key to this culture was land; both the authorities and workers recognized how important having a parcel of earth was to displaced peoples.
While governments and companies looked to these pieces of land to quell agitation, the allotment gardeners used the community that arose from these spaces to create a culture of self-help and to seek greater empowerment through political enfranchisement and further rights for land ownership. Reformers loved the gardens, for they saw them as tools to help keep workers and their money out of the pubs and in the open air with their families. In the dirty, crowded environment of British cities during the early stages of the
Industrial Revolution, the patches of green space allotment gardens provided a much needed refuge for many (Crouch & Ward, 1988; Scott, 2005).
European settlers to the Canadian prairies brought such gardening habits with them as they sought food self-sufficiency in their new land. While native oral history dates the first efforts at gardening in Saskatchewan in the 18 century, recorded examples of kitchen gardens for early settlers, Indian missions and the Northwest
35 First Nations near Fort a la Corne on the Saskatchewan River northwest of Melfort call the area "Ne-cha- me-ka-gi-kanis", which means "the place where we first saw vegetables grow". Members of the HBC company post grew a limited variety of vegetables there from 1753-56. Similar examples in Manitoba and Alberta of gardening by fur traders are recorded at York Factory, MB in 1730, Fort Churchill, MB in 1749 and Peace River, AB in 1778 (SHA, 1977; Fry, 1956). Mounted Police are more common in the mid to late 19l century (Fry, 1956; Rowles,
1952).36 These individual efforts met with various degrees of success, based on the adaptation of settlers' knowledge and seeds to the local climate. As towns and cities were settled and expanded, horticultural societies formed to encourage the practice of gardening and the beautification their new landscapes. The Regina Horticultural
Society37 was the first created in the province and enthusiastically pursued its primary goal of beautifying the city (Fry, 1956; Sherick, 1978).38 By 1913, the establishment of the Regina Vacant Lots Gardening Association signalled an important shift, for it was
Regina's first gardening organization to emphasize a collective gardening agenda.
Although unrecorded, it is likely that urban growth due to waves of immigration and consequential high unemployment was the impetus behind the Vacant Lot Gardening
Association (VLGA).39 As an organization of local "public spirited" citizens, the VLGA managed fifty acres of city-owned land to rent plots of one to five acres to unemployed men for vegetable cultivation (Beach, 1914a). The support of the municipal government through its provision of vacant land as well as a monetary loan (Beach, 1914b) was necessary for the success of the garden, although its control and supervision was the
36 Both Anglican and Catholic missionaries at Stanley Mission and He a la Crosse (respectively) grew vegetables after 1845. The NWMP supplemented their meagre rations by growing vegetables at Fort Walsh after 1874, and settlers around the areas of Regina and Prince Albert after 1880 were recorded as growing vegetables. 37 This organization was originally formed as the Assiniboia Horticultural Society by the St. Paul's Anglican Church Ladies Aid Society in 1896. Eight years later, the name was changed to the Regina Horticultural Society. 38 While this was a common goal for horticultural societies, Regina's sought this with particular gusto, likely because their new prairie city was virtually void of the trees and vegetation that European settlers were accustomed to. This also explains the Victorian influence in later park planning. See Dick (1996) for more information. 39 Regina's population jumped five-fold between 1906-1913 and the city boundaries were extended to quadruple its previous areas (Brennan, 1989). 67 responsibility of this citizen organization (Beach, 1915).40 At the rate of $1 per acre of broken land and with a co-operative seed-buying scheme to assist gardeners, this was affordable for many and during its ten years of operations, the VLGA had a membership exceeding one thousand gardeners (Macoun, 1917; Sheard, 1978). This project attracted attention in the larger social and economic context of World War I. Towns and cities, including Assiniboia (McCullough, 1915), Estevan (National Service League Estevan
Branch, 1917), Calgary (Samis, 1917), and Medicine Hat (Cruikshank, 1917), requested information on the VLGA gardens, hoping to implement their own model as increased garden production was encouraged for the Dominion war effort.
Along with restricting household consumption, the promotion of community gardening was an important strategy for Canadian and American governments during
World War I. By advocating this practice as patriotic, people were inspired to help with the war effort by growing their own food. In this context, Regina's vacant lot gardens were implored to increase food production. In February 1917, the Federal Minister of
Agriculture pleaded with Regina's city council to encourage its citizens to alleviate farm labour shortages and increase food supplies as a boost to the "great cause" (Burrell,
1917). Agricultural pamphlets sponsored by Dominion Experimental Farms and distributed to Canadian farmers and gardeners promoted gardening at home and vacant lots during this time; one even used the example of Regina's VLGA as a encouraging practice (Macoun, 1914 & 1917). The British Empire looked to Canada and the United
40 The location of this garden was north and west of the Regina Cemetery, which at the time encompassed six blocks within the present-day location. It would have been unbroken prairie land on the outskirts of the city. As noted in several letters of correspondence between the VLGA and the city, meeting the challenges of this location, including breaking sod in an efficient and timely manner and fending off two- and four- legged marauders, was a constant struggle. 41 $2 was charged per acre of "new prairie land" that required sod-breaking and further cultivation (Miller, 1917). 68
States to supplement their besieged food stocks, which meant diverting a considerable amount of the domestic supply. Media and catchy slogans encouraged this practice; calls for "soldiers of the soil" to "hoe for liberty" and "plant for freedom" stirred American and Canadian patriotic fever, and would serve as a model for a similar gardening campaign during World War II (Bassett, 1981; Lawson, 2005).
Gardening on vacant lots, that is abandoned or undeveloped urban spaces, has been a lasting form of community gardening in North America. When these locations are located near gardeners' homes42 and in inner city areas they encourage overall neighbourhood beautification, pride and feelings of safety. Despite its practical applications, vacant lot gardens are almost universally temporary due to pressures of development.43 Regina's vacant lot gardening followed a similar trajectory: by the early
1930's, the Regina Horticultural Society had given up "entirely" the handling of vacant lots because it was "practically impossible" to secure property within the city limits
(Sheard, 1978).
With such a history of self-help and as an alternative to charity, it is no surprise that community gardening reemerged during the harsh times of the Great Depression.
Elements of earlier allotment programs were evident in this new model; from the provision of land and occasionally materials, instruction and supervision to the unemployed and working poor, the logic of providing access to healthy food while bolstering the self-respect of "charity cases" was reborn. In Regina, a central community garden was created and administered by the army for unemployment relief recipients
42 This is as opposed to the common practice of gardening on the outskirts of cities, which discourages widespread use due to transportation barriers, particularly for seniors and low-income people. 43 Cities, including Regina, have a long history of struggles against losing community gardens to urban development. For information about these conflicts in New York, see Cashdan, Stein, & Wright (1982). 69 during the 1930's (Viala, 2008), and others were established in different areas of the city with land and seeds supplied through the local relief department (Leader-Post, 1935).44
Local organizations and the provincial department of agriculture encouraged these gardens, the latter organizing competitions to encourage production and boost morale
(Sheard, 1978).45 The model of work relief rather than monetary charity was greatly preferred by governments and relief agencies, and work relief gardens flourished along subsistence gardens during this period (Lawson, 2005).
By the end of the Great Depression, community gardens found a purpose again as patriotic endeavours of World War II, remodelled as the victory gardening campaign. The
Canadian and American governments had not forgotten the success of earlier campaigns.
Citizens were bombarded with the patriotic gardening campaign through many media forms, particularly mass periodicals,46 as well as government propaganda by the Wartime
Information Board on consumer campaigns for rationing and limiting food consumption
(Cole, 1993; Young, 1978). Added to exhortations to reduce demand on national food supplies and railway transportation were more widespread fears about domestic food shortages and a new institutional concern about public health.47 Citizens embraced the tangential benefit of leisure and a sense of control that gardening granted them during the turbulent time of war (Miller, 2003). Gardeners in Regina were determined to take part in this campaign despite the lingering environmental effects of the "Dirty Thirties" and
44 Although there is very little recorded information, the existence of relief gardens in Regina is confirmed from 1933-35. In 1935, the Regina relief department ceased the free provisioning of seeds to unemployed gardeners, with unknown consequences. 45 The prizes for these competitions were groceries and other provisions for needy families. 46 In Canada, one of the most prolific publications was the Canadian Home Journal, publishing numerous articles exhorting Canadians to garden between 1940 and 1945. Some examples worth seeing are Burton (1940), Stevenson (1943), and Lochead (1945). 47 For example, vitamins from fresh produce were publicly discussed for the first time by governments (Miller, 2003). 70 strict wartime rationing. Local organizations like the Kiwanis Club supported these endeavours, awarding a number of cash prizes in 1943 for the best Victory Garden in different areas of the city. By 1944, Regina's efforts struggled due to a lack of gardeners and dissolved at war's end (SHA, 1977).
After the victory gardening fever passed, those who continued to garden did so privately for leisure and food purposes. It was not until the 1970's and 1980's, when the growing environmental and urban green space movement blossomed, that community gardening reemerged in cities. Today's practices began in this latest phase, based on efforts to increase beautiful, useful urban green spaces as well as boosting community food security. The ever-present theme of self-reliance has shifted to encompass all classes of people concerned with a myriad of environmental and food issues. Despite their lasting power, community gardens continue to struggle with ambivalent urban municipalities and planners, as well as pressures from development, particularly in high-demand downtown neighbourhoods (Lawson, 2004; Schmelzkopf, 1996). A diverse range of organizations have adopted community gardens as a strategy to promote community cultural diversity in addition to established goals of education and ensuring food security (Ibid; Baker,
2004).
The patriotism espoused during World War I is just one of many motivations that have fuelled collective urban gardening. Self-help has also been a lasting theme; the linking of "idle land with idle hands" has informed numerous gardening programs aimed at the moral, physical and economic development of the poor (Lawson, 2005, 21). The early demonstration of community gardens as an alternative to charity is still a present, although less obvious, theme. Educating school children and immigrants in the methods 71 of gardening and social values is a continuing goal. From the early beautification efforts of newborn cities to current awareness of global warming and our ecological footprint, concern for the environment has also been a key element. Other reasons have included leisure and exercise, community interaction and the pleasure of working in the soil under the sun for both young and old. Although the resulting food and added household food security is an important and obvious benefit, there have clearly been numerous others for both gardeners and promoters (Lawson, 2005; Lam, 2007; Brown & Jameton, 2000).
The flexibility of community gardens to meet differing social and economic objectives, as well as its common practice in North America, has ensured that community gardening has flourished in different times and settings. Its practice finds special endorsement within periods of conflict and change, while its practical applications are often used as a metaphor to teach people values like self-reliance and patriotism.
Contrary to popular opinion, community gardening is not a new or temporary phenomenon, for its deep roots in historical practices ensure stability and a lasting appeal.
It is evident in contemporary community gardens that participants are drawn for a variety of reasons and help build heterogeneous communities with enduring power. As seen in the following chapter, community gardens and their positive social and environmental actions have much in common with the practice of food sovereignty. 72
CHAPTER FOUR: ANALYSIS
Through interviews with community gardeners in Grow Regina in Regina, the
Saskferco Community Garden in Moose Jaw and the City Park Community Garden in
Saskatoon, numerous themes emerged regarding community gardens and their participants. The men and women who spoke to me candidly described a common picture of community gardening, punctuated by unique experiences in each city. Their words depicted three complex social spaces where people gardened together, overcame challenges and built their own unique community. This chapter discusses the main themes from these interviews, and analyzes whether and how these community gardens are a local practice of food sovereignty.
4.1 Themes from Interviews
This section discusses themes common to participants in all three community gardens. These themes emerged from the results of the interviews, where the interview questions guided participant discussion of key areas relevant to the community gardens and their relationships to social justice. The following themes are considered important because all participants discussed them. Within these categories, other relevant issues were raised by several interviewees and have been included in the analysis.
Motivations
A myriad of motivations are evident in the interviews, underlined by a deep love of gardening and nurturing the growth of new life. For many participants, this love of gardening has been a lifelong passion: "I love digging in the earth and seeing it [my 73 plants] grow. It's been a part of my life since I was a kid on the farm... maybe it's just in
a person's blood" (French, 2007). Although an enjoyment of food production and
gardening are obvious motivations for community gardening, they cannot be overemphasized. The second most common motivation was to pursue this love of gardening in a social or community fashion; the interaction between diverse peoples, the creation of friendships and the sense of building a unique and satisfying community are powerful incentives. Sometimes "[t]he social aspects are larger than the physical food benefits at the end of the day" (Androsoff, 2007). Other motivations include pursuing personal lifestyle choices such as organic gardening or enacting spiritual beliefs.
Gardeners from the three cities gave different explanations as to why their personal participation was important to their community garden, which is likely attributable to their garden's current state of operations. Moose Jaw's participants emphasized the contributions of their personal knowledge and access to resources, and highlighted their interest and enthusiasm. The newness of this garden, as well as the immense effort, skills and resources necessary to start this venture are probable reasons for this focus. Underscoring the garden's main purpose as a community-building project,
Saskatoon's City Park participants spoke of social factors, including community participation, involvement of their family and personal enjoyment. Grow Regina's recent struggles have clearly had an impact on its participants, for volunteering, activism and contributions to the board of directors were main themes. As an established garden searching for a new location, knowledge and access to funding and material resources were emphasized. Board members previously occupied with garden management have been transformed into enthusiastic public advocates of community gardens, for this conflict has made them feel as if they need to justify the garden's continued existence.
This is seen in one board member's reflection that "[n]ow we need to prove to the world that we need community gardens... [which] bothers me a little. This is a valuable asset to the community, a way of integrating community and a way for different ages and economic levels of people to work together... It allows people otherwise marginalized to participate in society" (Krozser, 2008).
Benefits
Community gardeners from the gardens described similar benefits from their experiences. The benefits of growing fresh and healthy produce in a community or social setting were emphasized. Positive environmental benefits were highlighted, including implementing organic horticulture, being outside and learning positive environmental practices such as composting. Associated with this was a strong educational aspect, particularly for children, and a related benefit of spending time with family within the garden.48 This includes teaching children that "everything has its place.. .that things aren't just bought, that it all comes from someplace." (Probert, 2007). The social aspects of meeting people, making friends and sharing produce and knowledge were important.
Being involved in community gardens also boosted perceptions of accomplishment, self- worth and personal satisfaction.
Women highlighted the role the garden played in relieving stress. The combination of being outside in the sun and nurturing living things was almost like therapy. To speak plainly, gardening made them feel good. One female gardener found
Even gardeners who did not participate with their own young children, grandchildren or students noted the importance of involving them in gardening, and educating them about food and the environment. 75
"the growing of food therapeutic; it's joy for the soul" (Smith, 2007), while a male gardener emphasized that it is "good therapy and exercise: it's better than golf in retirement!" (Mitchell, 2007). These feelings of therapy are enhanced if the garden is aesthetically pleasing, particularly in City Park's treed area and architecturally designed garden. One gardener referred to this as "the serenity factor" (Wolf, 2007).
Community gardens offer various ways of reconnecting people to their food and the natural world around them. Brewster Kneen's idea of distancing, in which he argues that people have become physically and intellectually separated from their food, is pertinent to this discussion. The physical acts of working in a garden to grow your own food before preparing and eating it offers a deep and immediate reconnection to the food system. This can relate to a spiritual sense of interconnectedness: gardeners from all three community gardens mentioned that gardening physically and spiritually connected them with the earth, soil and nature. These feelings are evident in the statement of the gardener who said "I enjoy working in the earth -1 feel more human" (Sauer, 2007) while another explained that "I come from a culture where they believe they need to give back to the earth and we haven't been doing a good job of that" (Colenutt, 2007). It was therefore culturally important for her to nurture the soil. That community gardens facilitate this reconnection to nature offers an argument for their spiritual importance.
Characteristics of personal views of the food system and environmental values
While changes in personal views and values relating to food and the environment were mentioned, participants were equally apt to point out that their involvement allowed them to reconcile existing beliefs and philosophies with practice. Half of the 76 interviewees noted that they already had personal awareness or convictions about the food system when they began community gardening. Perhaps an appreciation of fresh produce and the intimate aspect of nurturing your own food explain this high level of awareness. As one gardener pointed out, "[y]ou can't grow your own food and not contrast it to industrial food" (Zawalski, 2008). Many gardeners are concerned about various aspects of the global food system, including the use of pesticides and the long distances that food travels. "Everywhere you look with mechanized, large scale agriculture, we're creating problems and backing away" (Weingeist, 2007).
Self-sufficiency is a strong theme for these gardeners; many rely heavily on their produce during the growing season, thus lessening their dependence on grocery stores and store produce for the fall and winter.49 However, there is no consensus on how to procure food. For those who noted a greater inclination to support local food (mainly through farmers' markets) or organic produce, there seemed to be an equal number of gardeners leery of these markets. With a few exceptions, the general trend in the gardens was that younger and more educated gardeners were more likely to purchase organic produce or support ideas like the 100-mile diet. Older gardeners, particularly those from a rural background, were more likely to dismiss farmers' markets as too expensive, or to see current food trends as "fads". This ambivalent attitude may reflect a strong current of self-sufficiency and/or generational gap between gardeners. It could also be reflective of the period of change in consumption patterns that older gardeners have lived through, particularly the move from limited seasonal produce to readily available foods from global regions in all seasons after World War II.
49 Storing root vegetables, freezing, canning and pickling were all discussed here. All gardeners but one who perform activities themselves are female; a few male participants who garden with their families explained that their wives carried out these endeavours. 77
Participant environmental consciousness illuminates an interesting aspect of these gardens. Over half of the interviewees consider themselves environmentally conscious.
For these people, the community garden is a way to practice their environmental beliefs.
For others, the collective nature of the garden acts as unique tool of environmental education and enforcement of certain gardening practices. All of the gardens practice composting and encourage organic practices, although only one designates itself as completely organic.50 In this space, some gardeners are more likely to try new gardening techniques, particularly if they see successful results from their neighbours' practices.
They are also apt to limit or avoid actions likely to cause neighbours' informal censure or disproval. In this way, this collective of gardeners acts as a mass of informal educators and regulators, often with positive implications for the environmental practices of the garden as a whole. The benefits of this were remarked upon by one gardener who said he
"was the least environmentally friendly person there but this garden creates a new sense of awareness" (Hill, 2007).
The gardens also display some interesting similarities and differences in communal environmental practices. Moose Jaw's implementation of innovative environmental projects, including its green roof and composting toilet, exposes gardeners to new ideas and positive relationships with other organizations in the city. The environmental consciousness displayed in this garden reflects both an awareness of beneficial gardening practices51 and an interest in pursuing ways of making related activities more environmentally friendly. Organic gardening and composting in the City
50 The City Park Community Garden prohibits the use of chemical pesticides and fertilizers, as well as treated seeds, although this policy is not policed. Moose Jaw and Regina encourage organic practices, but prohibit only chemical pesticides. 1 The environmental efforts of the gardening coordinators must be emphasized as the catalyst for many of these practices. 78
Park Community Garden reflects a pervasive environmental consciousness reflective of the awareness and concern of the neighbourhoods' residents. "The whole garden is pretty environmentally conscious... [it's like] preaching to the converted" (Androsoff, 2007).
Although present in the views and actions of many Grow Regina gardeners, a sense of environmental awareness is harder to detect in their community garden as a collective goal or practice.
Leadership
The importance of leadership is a strong theme in these gardens. Capable leaders, in both an individual and collective sense, are emphasized as vital to the creation and sustainability of community gardens. Collective leadership is important to Grow Regina, as evident in the formal decision-making structure of board of directors. "If you're on the board, it goes without saying that it's a leadership role" (Fenske, 2007). Individual leadership is emphasized in the Saskferco and City Park Community Gardens, where gardening coordinators act as the most visible leader and are supported by gardeners or a committee. Attracting new leaders and encouraging them to stay addresses the sustainability of leadership. The Saskferco Community Garden's coordinator felt that a paid coordinator position, as opposed to relying on volunteers, was important to ensuring sustainable leadership (Gibson, 2007). Unsurprisingly, this did not emerge in the other two gardens where volunteers, due to the lack of funding, provide leadership. Community garden leaders, particularly in the early stages of the garden, need to be supported by gardeners and key outside organizations such as the "parent" non-profit organization and the municipal government. 79
There are two identifiable streams of leadership vital to community gardens. The first is management, a primary form of leadership for all three gardens due to its practical and immediate applications. This is undertaken by coordinators in Saskatoon and Moose
Jaw, and the board of directors (and their sub-committees) in Regina. Tasks include assigning plots and collecting payment (where applicable), cultivation, overseeing water use and compost piles, and occasionally conflict resolution. The second is leadership that provides visioning or future direction, which is different in each garden due to their current stage. As the newest garden, the steering committee at the Saskferco Community
Garden provides guidance on the goals of the garden, how they are to be achieved and envisioning the garden's future. Building strong links to the community, searching for funding and working with the municipal government are also important tasks. In City
Park, both leaders and gardeners participated in visioning early in the garden's existence, when garden leaders and CHEP helped create a municipal policy on community gardens in city parks. Grow Regina's board of directors have shifted to this form of leadership since their eviction by advocating community gardens and urban green space, and undertaking earnest visioning and planning of their new garden. It is interesting to note that this focus has created a schism in the board between the more practical and task- focused members and those concerned with more esoteric matters.52
Beyond sharing the obvious requirements, leaders exhibited interesting similarities. Six of the twenty-one identified leaders came from a strong background of advocacy of food security and related issues such as local food, community development and creating a more environmentally and socially just food system. These men and
52 There was speculation over whether the board would split to separately address these concerns, but it was unclear if this was a future course of action or conjecture. 80 women provide leadership on these issues in their occupations and personal lives. Six others had an environmental background through their occupation or post-secondary education, where they too are models outside of the garden.
The necessary skills for leadership also extend to political knowledge and the ability to manoeuvre within city hall. One gardener had shied away from a leadership role because she said "I'm not familiar with the [civic] authorities and I'm limited with
English" (Stafievsky, 2008). All gardens have dealt extensively with their respective municipal governments because they were the "first" of some distinction: the first to pursue the particular goals of food security, to be managed by a non-profit organization,53 or to be located in a public park. This has often meant initiating a city policy to deal with community gardens54 and being involved in a process of drafting and negotiation.
Establishing these community gardens necessitates persuading city hall, perhaps some political manoeuvring and negotiating bureaucratic red tape. In addition to dealing with city authorities, savvy is required to attract funding, particularly corporate sponsorship.
Those in leadership positions no doubt learn these skills through the process of formal decision-making, but their previous existence strengthens personal leadership potential.
Challenges
Community gardens' relationships to the larger community often present challenges that can be baffling for gardeners. "Food production at this level for personal
53 A note about other common structures for community gardens - some, like Moose Jaw's previous community garden in the 1970's and 80's, are administered directly by the city's parks department (common in other Canadian cities), while most of Regina's other gardens are organized by city staff in community associations. 54 Both Saskatoon and Regina have formalized policies dealing with community gardens in 2002 and 2006 respectively (Saskatoon also has an established and well-organized application process). Moose Jaw does not have a formal policy, but deals with community gardens on a case-by-case basis. 81 consumption is a good thing and people don't understand why there are impediments [to pursuing this]" (Fagan, 2007). The most frequently noted challenge, particularly for
Grow Regina, has been the garden's relationship with their municipal government. As one gardener argued, "[cjommunity gardens are a necessary element of the social fabric of the city. The city [administration] should facilitate this instead of being an obstacle"
(Hunter, 2007). Their struggle to find a new location took its toll on the board members who worked to find a sustainable solution, which is reflected in numerous interviews.
One interviewee was particularly expressive: "[Without a location] we were like a hockey team without a rink - how long would you exist?" His reaction was full of anger: "I was so pissed off, so defeated by the fact that they were put out to pasture. I thought it [Grow
Regina] would die. But some people had more stick-to-it-ness, and took the embarrassment of going to these civic meetings until the city said they had some land"
(Fenske, 2008).
While Grow Regina's struggle with authorities perceived as overly bureaucratic, unhelpful and frustrating may be an extreme example, challenges in dealing with local governments was a theme for all the gardens. For the Saskferco Community Garden, the steering committee needed to persuade Moose Jaw city hall to approve the construction of a composting toilet.55 The City Park Community Garden would like to see more inclusive decision-making regarding changes to Wilson Park. They feel they were not meaningfully involved in maintenance decisions with the city after the removal of the tennis courts adjacent to the garden in 2006. Saskatoon's Parks' Department, which is responsible for maintenance of the Wilson Park, graded the land to drain into the garden area, with resultant flooding after heavy rainfall in the spring of 2007. Their frustration is
55 This was approved in the fall of 2007 and will be operational by the next gardening season. 82 indicative of the struggle this community garden has to be an important and appreciated aspect of the park.
Dealing with corporate sponsors can also be challenging. While the Moose Jaw community garden's relationship with their title sponsor Saskferco is relatively stable and mutually beneficial, a clash in values did present a unique challenge to both parties. In pursuing their environmental goals, the garden planned to hold an educational workshop on organic composting for the gardeners and public. Public advertising such an event as hosted by the Saskferco Community Garden put Saskferco, a chemical fertilizer manufacturing company, in an awkward position. It was solved through Saskferco restricting the garden's public advocacy of organic gardening. While this restriction likely does not have an impact on actual gardening practices, its implications are troubling. Repercussions are felt in the new Saskferco-Grow Regina Community Garden, for the company was upfront about this incident to Grow Regina's board when offering their sponsorship and made it clear that they would not appreciate a repeat of this situation. This did not bother Grow Regina, for they do not profess to be organic and were willing to accept that condition. Yet this dissonance of values and agendas presents a troubling lesson for community gardens, for it demonstrates the power that can be wielded by sponsoring agencies.
Challenges faced by community gardens are compounded by interpersonal conflict. While confrontations between gardeners over minor issues like garden maintenance or unacceptable behaviour may indicate differing standards and 83 expectations,56 it may also hint of isolated intolerance for diversity. These gardens should be seen as micro-communities, with their inherent problems, and many interviewees felt that people simply needed to learn to get along. Interpersonal conflict within leadership structures is more challenging. The repercussions of Grow Regina's struggle to find secure land tenure is felt personally by the board members involved; almost all remarked on the toll it has taken on them through feelings of frustration, impotence, anger and bitterness. "I'm a bit tired of fighting. Even the smallest thing is fought over. It's hard to keep people together - after two years without a garden, people get nervous" (Binda,
2008). Within such an atmosphere, the efficient and personable workings of the board begin to fray and strain.
Besides the relatively minor physical challenges in maintaining gardens, lagging gardener participation and leadership hampers their efficient operation. While some people felt it important to be involved in the community garden, it was common for others to want only to rent a plot to garden and not be involved in its operations or community. Most interviewees disagreed with this sentiment, while a few were fairly indignant for they felt that being a part of a community garden necessitated involvement of all gardeners in social events or decision-making; that "everyone has a right and a responsibility to be involved in community" (Colenutt, 2007). Others were apt to shrug it off as inevitable, particularly in larger gardens. All of the gardens struggle to increase participation in decision-making and leadership. Disconnect between this ideal of participation and the gardens' reality presents a troubling challenge for the gardens. This
Some gardeners pushed for greater micromanagement in light of these incidents: for the coordinator to keep a tighter rein on gardening practices and for more enforceable rules. This was most common in Moose Jaw, where gardeners are often reliant on the garden coordinator to solve their interpersonal problems. 84 is likely a common phenomenon for all social organizations and one that will be a life long trial for these gardens.
Community
An emphasis on community is another key theme that research participants raised.
The creation of a unique community within these gardens requires effort from both leaders and gardeners and its establishment is important to success. A sense of community can last beyond the physical presence of a garden, as seen in Regina. There, not only did the board continue working together after its eviction, but public interest in and solidarity with the garden has remained strong three years later. Conversely, the absence of concerted attempts at community building can also affect a garden and its participants. Almost all gardeners in City Park noted a lesser effort in 2007 to maintain relationships and build community. Dismay, sadness and various degrees of guilt based on individual roles in the garden resulted. This trend may be attributable to a change in leadership as well as a vague sense of burnout: after five years of strong effort, many of the original leaders and gardeners want to step back a bit. That said, all of these gardens have made great efforts to build community with positive results.
Although explanations of community are varied among gardeners, most agreed that community is about people sharing and working toward common goals. The diversity of garden participants and interaction within the social space created is also considered community. It is interesting to note that three levels of community emerge from these gardens. Not only is it visible within the garden itself, but a sense of community also spills into the surrounding neighbourhood and/or larger city. This is 85 reflected in one gardener's comments that "[t]he neighbourhood is more alive"
(Weingeist, 2007).
The effect a sense of community had on two neighbourhoods is interesting to note. As a neighbourhood-focused community garden, effects on City Park and the residents' sense of community were to be expected. Unanticipated were the residents' changed views of the neighbourhood. Two female gardeners remarked that the sense of community felt by being a part of the project gave them a greater feeling of safety when walking alone in the area (Weingeist, 2007; Smith, 2007). Another revealed that "I've become much more confident about my place in the community. I feel I'm involved and belong - the garden was a part of this" (Wolf, 2007). Still more pointed out that their involvement gave them something in common with non-gardening residents of the neighbourhood, for all people could enjoy that public space. Grow Regina's involvement with the North Central Community Association to create a community garden on a vacant lot on 1300 block Rae Street in 2007 had similar perceived benefits. A June report by
Global Regina observed an increased sense of pride and ownership in residents near the garden and an account in July noted a decrease in neighbourhood crime statistics for May
2007 in comparison to the previous year (Ivanov, 2007; Nickel, 2007). Grow Regina's involvement also resulted in greater personal reflection among their gardeners on poverty and crime in Regina. Related to this is an increased personal awareness of hunger and food security, where the gardens have a relationship with the local food bank.
These community gardens have different physical relationships with their surrounding communities, for the distinction between public and private property is a line often blurred. All profess to welcome anyone to their gardens, as long as they follow the 86 rules. In Moose Jaw, this is confounded by the presence of a high wire fence. While
Saskatoon and Regina are large, open gardens (now both located in parks) and are visibly friendlier to public interaction, uncertainty surrounding their status as public or private space likely deters people from fully enjoying these gardens.
Community gardens in a larger social context
Regarding the role of community gardens in a larger social and political context, gardeners perceive themselves in taking part in a number of movements including food security, local food, healthy living,58 urban green spaces and citizen participation. While most are humble about the size and impact of their local community garden, they recognize the importance of people working on these collective projects and goals across
Canada. Their own gardens act as a positive example and a model or showcase for others.
The possibility of these community gardens acting as an alternative and resistance to the global food system is accepted and dismissed in equal measure by the interviewees.
The majority of gardeners agree that community gardens could be seen as an alternative, but with certain qualifiers. The most common is scepticism about size and scale; these gardens are not a true alternative unless they increase in size and number of both gardens and participants. The limits of the Saskatchewan growing climate and season are also pointed out, as well as our dependence on a wide variety of foods beyond locally sourced vegetables. Many are also critical of mainstream values by saying that many people would not garden for a variety of reasons, thus limiting expansion. These are all practical
57 A note of explanation: all of these gardens operate under the notion that the land and space is shared, while the produce grown on individual plots is the property or gains of the plot holder. This does not preclude a great deal of sharing or produce swapping among gardeners. 8 This included discussions of nutrition, exercise or recreation for seniors, and fighting childhood obesity. 87 and true limitations. Yet the responses of those who saw these gardens as an alternative points to something interesting. When focusing on community gardens as an idea, people are more likely to see it as an alternative, whereas those thinking of its practice in reality were more likely to add qualifiers to their statement. This gap between ideal and practice may imply a greater social reluctance to undertake such ventures due to their perceived lack of impact on the global food system. It may also mean that those working on these projects as alternatives to the food system may remain a fringe movement.
There are similar ideas regarding these gardens as a resistance to the global food system. Many gardeners conceded that community gardening could be a form of resistance, although few were likely to personally identify with this sentiment. "In talking to them, I don't think they see it as rebellion against grocery stores, they just enjoy it"
(Swenson, 2007). Those who agreed conditionally were again likely to point out that these gardens could not effectively compete against a global system. More negative responses appeared, with the bulk of them confessing a dislike of the word "resistance" as being too negative and defiant, and therefore not reflective of the positive work that the community gardens are doing. Only a few gardeners framed their actions as resistance: "The success [of this community garden] in this part of the world shows there can be resistance" (Gibson, 2007) and "If people are gardening without chemical, they're making a statement against megafarms, but it's a small gesture" (Hunter, 2007). These answers reflect an awareness of how these gardens relate to the global food system and a lack of consensus on their impact.
Taken as a whole, the results of these interviews present a comprehensive and fascinating picture of community gardens in three Saskatchewan locations. Various 88
factors emerge as important to their functioning, including their local context, operating and decision-making structure, and personal characteristics of their participants. While not without their challenges and conflicts, the community gardens are an overwhelmingly positive experience. The following section analyzes these results through the lens of food
sovereignty to ascertain how this idea and practice contributes to social justice.
4.2 Six pillars of food sovereignty
The discussion of food sovereignty in chapter two introduced six pillars of food sovereignty that form the basis of my theoretical analysis. The six following pillars of this complex theory are intended to help organize the qualitative research data in the following section to uncover the multiple dimensions of concern for social, environmental and economic justice.
a) Active participation in the food system, including decision-making. A key
element of food sovereignty is active participation, particularly in decision
making and policies relating to food. This should be applied to all applicable
levels: local, regional/national and global, with radical transformations of existing
decision-making institutions to ensure that ordinary people have access to and a
voice in these spaces.
b) Greater access, power and control by people (producers and consumers) over
their food system. This is vital in the practice of food sovereignty and involves
exercising agency in the food system. A redistribution of power and control is
necessary to enable peoples' empowerment. 89 c) Enabling peoples' empowerment. Since all people have a stake in the food
system, it is important to enable their empowerment, particularly those who have
been dismissed, silenced or oppressed. An emphasis is therefore placed on
creating spaces in which marginalized or disadvantaged people can empower
themselves. A respect for diversity and battling stereotypes to promote inclusion
are important elements of inclusion. d) Recognizing alternative, more holistic ways of being. A more holistic notion of
environmental sustainability is important to food sovereignty. From concern
about the state of the world's arable land, water and seeds to specific agricultural
practices, food sovereignty recognizes that many of agriculture's negative
environmental impacts must be reversed. The creation of alternative spaces for
realizing the rights of people in the food system is also important to this concept,
such as the creation of an alternative institution for discussing international food
policy decisions. This element also recognizes and respects alternative ways of
knowing and learning. e) Emphasizing human rights. The language and practice of human rights provides
an essential framework to the entire concept of food sovereignty. Any solutions
and projects informed by this theory must be organized around legally binding
international human rights agreements. f) Encouraging different values, hi recognizing that people are more than
consumers and that food is not just a commodity, food sovereignty appreciates
and encourages alternative values like respect, cooperation, solidarity and
community. 90
4.3 Analysis
The microcosms of community gardens hold valuable lessons for social justice in the food system. The struggles of these gardens against powerful development pressures, municipalities that overlook their community contributions and the apathy of fellow citizens is similar to larger struggles within the food justice movement. Their triumphs too are echoed: fostering community, encouraging diversity, empowering gardeners and teaching more just and sustainable ways of life. It is clear that community gardens can be a powerful alternative to the dominant food system. They are also, in particular ways, a part of the growing food sovereignty movement as seen through this analysis of data gathered from three community gardens. In the following section, the six pillars of food sovereignty will be discussed based on evidence from the participants from the community gardens studied.
4.3.1 Active participation in the food system
A key element of food sovereignty is peoples' active participation to demand greater access and benefit in the food system, from the local to the international level.
Community gardens fit well within a food sovereignty framework because of the centrality of active participation. As both producers and consumers, gardeners take part in community gardens in different ways due to the variance in decision-making and social structures.
The most obvious form of participation in community gardens is through decision-making. The three gardens have different operational structures and ways people can participate in decision-making directly related to the production of food. From 91 gardeners' meetings to manage the garden operations, to more formal board or committee meetings, there are a variety of ways to discuss issues and decide courses of action. Being involved in decision-making processes, either as a gardener or leader, offers opportunities to learn skills needed for participation. This is as simple as learning the process of committee decision-making or as complex as navigating negotiations for new land tenure.
All interviewees emphasized how important participation is to community gardens.
A second way people participate in community gardens is through the promotion of community. These gardens hold community building as an integral goal, and being community-minded people, many gardeners feel that they have a responsibility to be involved in the community and do so with gusto. One participant's words are telling when he said that "[n]ow it feels like I'm really doing something for the community"
(Blair, 2007). Perhaps the greatest mark of inclusion in community gardens is how all people are welcomed. They are attracted by a common love of gardening and these ties are cemented by positive social interaction. One gardener summed it up when she said that "gardening connects people on a basic level [of food provisioning]: to relate on that level connects people in a fundamental way" (Smith, 2007).
Being community-minded is also linked with being civic-minded, and gardener participation is encouraged in policy making internal and external to the gardens. Internal policymaking is evident through input in gardener manuals and annual decision-making.
External policies such as city policies dealing with community gardens also bear the mark of gardener participation. As a result of the actions and leadership of two gardens,
Saskatoon and Regina now have municipal policies to deal more effectively with future community gardens. When creating their community garden policy in 2005, the City of 92
Regina, through their Parks and Community Services Department, invited community gardeners to participate. The resulting policy recognizes the importance and vibrancy of community gardens to the city and amended the Regina Development Plan to allow for green space, and therefore community gardens, on a neighbourhood-by-neighbourhood basis (City of Regina, 2006). Rather than mandating a minimum number of community gardens, this policy facilitates the creation of community gardens if and when neighbourhoods want to create them in their existing open green spaces or parks. It removes obstacles through amendments to the Regina Zoning Bylaws and the Open
Space Management Strategy to formalize this practice. The removal of procedural and policy barriers is clearly important for the establishment of new community gardens, yet community gardeners criticized this effort as toothless without the backing of resources.
This policy states that these gardens are expected to be "developed, managed, and maintained at no cost to the City" and that any associated city costs are to be identified early in the lease and to be covered by existing operating budgets (City of Regina, 2006).
The overall tone of the policy denotes a willingness to remove barriers but a reluctance to extend any further facilitation or sharing of responsibilities.
Saskatoon's community garden program guidelines specific to the establishment of community gardens in a city park were developed in 1999 by the City of Saskatoon, through their Infrastructure Services Park Branch, and CHEP. This policy outlines the requirements for community garden proposals and states that start-up costs for the gardens are funded through the Park Enhancement Reserve. This policy was necessitated by the establishment of the City Park community garden in Wilson Park, a process in which gardeners worked closely with CHEP and the city (City of Saskatoon, 2004). The 93 existence of such policies will aid in the future creation of community gardens and their current popularity bodes well for future interest.
Gardener involvement in these city policies signals that these men and women recognize the importance of their community participation. Their personal contributions to other movements also emphasize this. Many interviewees noted that they are involved in various environmental and social issues through their chosen careers or community volunteering. Those in leadership roles were apt to seek similar positions in other community organizations or boards and committees involved in municipal governance.
Some gardeners also took it upon themselves to learn more about the social and political dimensions of community gardening and local food to educate others on its benefits. This activism signals an important politicization that may have been sparked or strengthened through their community garden participation.
Not only do community gardens give people the space to participate in various aspects of the food system, but it also gives them opportunities to learn new skills and expand interests both in and out of the garden. Without participation from gardeners and leaders alike, these community gardens would not thrive; it is therefore in their best interest to encourage and sustain such involvement. It is a cornerstone of this practice, as it is in food sovereignty.
4.3.2 Greater access, power and control by people over their food system
Intimately related to a discussion of participation is the greater access, power and control of people over their food system. These elements are vital for confirming the practice of food sovereignty. Participation in a community garden offers people important 94 access to the food system where it may have been previously denied. In the dominant food system, the primary form of access for consumers is through being able to purchase food items. The relationship of producers is also mediated through monetary means by the sale of food items and the purchase of off-farm productive inputs. Although community gardens are often concerned about rent to operate infrastructure such as water, they have also found creative ways of financial inclusion, including sponsored plots, participation through the plots of community-based organizations or operating exclusively by donation.
Participation in decision-making, community building and education cultivates a
"culture of participation". One interviewee pointed out that this culture is not emphasized or taught in mainstream institutions like schools, workplaces, even families: it is up to social spaces like these gardens to teach the skills necessary for participation
(Mitchell, 2007). Within community gardens, this culture enables peoples' empowerment by helping them achieve greater control and ownership over their food production and its social spaces. All of these gardens are controlled and managed by the gardeners themselves,59 rather than outside bodies like municipal authorities, corporations or non profit organizations. Gardeners make important decisions regarding the operation and future of the garden, incorporating an important aspect of autonomy. Notions of ownership are also applicable to gardeners' lives. Rather than feeling like consumers buffeted by uncontrollable actions and events in the food system, they are empowered by their personal ownership of a plot of land and its produce. This is all about control: "the
59 Although Moose Jaw is led by Connecting as Neighbours and a steering committee made of largely non- gardeners, the gardeners maintain a large amount of control over their garden. The leadership model aspires to a cooperative structure where control is transferred to gardeners themselves when the garden has reached a certain level of sustainability. 95 control you have over your life when you're able to grow your own food" (Forbes, 2007).
This results in a greater sense of command over the food they eat and the manner in which it was produced. Many gardeners remarked on the significance of control and ownership, for it is prominently lacking in our dominant food system. Its local reapplication can be very empowering. For example, "[a]n important observation I've made is the pride people took in their gardens. Maybe they hadn't owned land [before].
It's really a stewardship concept - this is my land and I'll take care of it" (Wolf, 2007).
Learning to belong to such a space and exercising agency within it are powerful concepts. Equally, the skills and self-confidence learned through such agency are important. A concrete example is evident in the City Park Community Garden; many gardeners also became involved in the community association that built a new playground in Wilson Park. The success of the community garden, both in the sense of learning the confidence and skills to deal with city hall and gaining community credibility, was attributed to this accomplishment. "[The community garden] has made the neighbourhood more vocal in other issues - you realize you can affect change at city hall, that you can voice concern in other areas and expect change" (Ehman, 2007). In other words, the empowerment of people through the community garden has run-off effects for the community itself.
Power is a slippery concept and one that is difficult to pin down in organizations like community gardens. Two of the community gardens had structured levels of decision-making and leadership that made it easy to discern different levels of power, while the more fluid structure of the City Park Community Garden creates a more amorphous concept and practice. Although people demonstrated different levels of power, all were invested with some amount: even the newest or least involved gardener had the ability to bring forward issues at meetings, to voice concerns and suggestions, and to become involved in various aspects of the garden. It seemed as though power was available for those who were willing to put some work and effort into the garden. There was no evidence to suggest that these community gardens would deny power and control to any participant.
From this discussion, it is evident that community gardens facilitate greater access, power and control of citizens over their food system. These gardens enable the practice of food sovereignty, where people are actively involved in their food system, which in this case is the seasonal production of vegetables for personal consumption.
Community gardens recognize participants as people who have a stake in their food future and as such, will accept their attendant rights and responsibilities. While these gardens operate exclusively on a local stage, they can learn from the tactics and lessons of the entire food sovereignty movement.
4.3.3 Enabling peoples' empowerment
As with other social movements, food sovereignty embraces the participation of all people, particularly those who are marginalized or disadvantaged. The growth of its primary movement, La Via Campesina, is due partly to its ability to include different social groups under the umbrella of a common cause. Peasants, small-scale farmers, rural women, and indigenous people are some of the people included in the food sovereignty movement. Beyond this common cause, they hold social, political and economic marginalization in common. Their involvement in La Via Campesina, points to food 97 sovereignty's dedication to empowering a wide range of disadvantaged people.
Community gardens follow in these footsteps by encouraging the participation of citizens on the margins: women, seniors, Aboriginal people and people of colour, immigrants, low-income people and recipients of social assistance and people with disabilities. Their participation is aided through physical and financial assistance, including sponsored plots, raised garden beds and ensuring accessible locations.
Yet is it not enough just to include such diverse people; their empowerment is key to determining whether community gardens live up to their social justice expectations.
These community gardens create a space where all gardeners have the potential to be involved in decision-making, including leadership. This is an important point, for it leads to the possibility that anyone can become a leader: the different backgrounds of leaders interviewed attests to this fact. This form of involvement is empowering, for it imparts skills, confidence, a sense of accomplishment and pride, and ensures a visible presence of different people in the community gardens. While most interviewees noted that they are advocates for their community garden, some also considered themselves the voice of certain marginalized peoples in the garden, such as seniors, immigrants or low-income people. Their identification with these social groups and their leadership make them important role models.
A respect for diversity is a value and practice evident in community gardens, although this seems to be most strongly associated with their contemporary practice due to a changed social and political context. Grow Regina's and Moose Jaw's origin as collective projects of community-based organizations encourages diverse participation 98 including marginalized people. The diversity of Saskatoon's City Park neighbourhood is also reflected in their community garden, creating a unique, multi-faceted social space.
Part of the process of empowerment is battling stereotypes, the most common revolving around poverty. One gardener remarked that "[m]y mother doesn't know why we community garden - she thinks community gardening is for poor people" (Cook,
2007). With its historical uses as working relief projects, and encouraging self-reliance of the poor and working classes, this stereotype has likely existed for some time.
Contemporary food security projects may also contribute to this, for they are often stereotyped as projects battling poverty. This is supported by one interviewee's remarks that it was "inappropriate" for him to have a plot within his community garden when he felt it would be better used for other people. While this may be altruistic, it could also point to his conception of what community gardens are and who benefits from them.
Another point of discrimination encountered was through food charity and sharing within the garden: one gardener was indignant that she had received vegetables of poor quality when she asked for extra produce to share with her low-income neighbours. She surmised that this was response was due to the prejudice that "because you're poor, you're supposed to settle for anything" (Probert, 2007).
Other evidence points to the struggle against discrimination and prejudices of poverty in the gardens itself. This shows that while community gardens work toward commendable social goals, people within the gardens are not infallible. Personal opinions about the ability of people receiving social assistance to be leaders, as well as discrimination toward single mothers who bring their children to the garden surfaced in interviews. Cultural and language clashes between immigrant and non-immigrant gardeners were also noted.
Despite these difficulties, community gardens do some things remarkably well.
One is welcoming and integrating seniors as gardeners. All gardens noted that seniors constituted a large portion of their gardeners and were proud of their involvement. Many senior interviewees emphasize these types of gardens as important forms of recreation and community involvement. Often, they feel as though they are a missed demographic, for most public programming targets children, families, or physically fit adults. These community gardens offer them important recognition and an outlet for their energy and talents.
The high percentage of women gardeners in these community gardens also points to interesting gender dynamics. A few trends were noted. One was that women almost exclusively remarked upon the use of these gardens for stress relief, which is perhaps a commentary on the stresses working women feel in their lives. Sharing produce with family, friends, neighbours and co-workers was also a trend noted largely by women. A difference in the enjoyment of gardening tasks between men and women is also interesting. Men emphasized the planning of the garden or plot, spring planting and composting, while women seemed to enjoy taking care of the garden, watching their vegetables grow and being able to prepare produce as food, either through feeding their children or storing for later eating. Just as the involvement of women is important to food sovereignty, women's participation adds an important dimension to these community gardens and should be emphasized. The interviews point to a mixed result for the empowerment of marginalized people. The three community gardens do well at targeting and encouraging the participation of marginalized people to achieve their goals of food security and community building, which also realizes the aims of food sovereignty. Yet they struggle with prejudices within and outside of their garden. This should not be seen as discouraging, for it largely indicates heterogeneity in community gardens and much like any other community, they must deal with inherent differences and conflicts. Overall, these community gardens present a positive initial step towards empowerment, but further work must be done to ensure equitable participation, leadership and a meaningful recognition of diversity.
There is also much more work that can be done to create a political consciousness in these gardens, which can further empower their participants. Food sovereignty, as a social movement includes people deeply conscious of inequality and willing to take radical political steps to find just solutions. They are politicized, both as individuals and a collective within a movement. These community gardens are lacking this collective consciousness, although they include a few gardeners who recognize the need for politicization. For example, one gardener declared that "[t]his [community garden] needs more than just good hearted people, it needs political involvement" (Blenkin, 2007).
Their participation and leadership, as well as the gardens' social justice goals, point to a favourable foundation for greater politicization. 4.3.4 Recognizing alternative ways of being
As an alternative food movement, food sovereignty recognizes and upholds ways of being that are different from, or alternatives to, mainstream or dominant values. It does so in a variety of ways, as do community gardens. Just as food sovereignty advocates for an alternative international space to discuss and determine food and agricultural policy - a central aspect of equitable participation - community gardens create a democratic space in their operations. Although this is on a local rather than international scale, it is similar to food sovereignty in that those who are affected by such decisions are welcome to the discussion.
Community gardens are also an alternative space to practice social and environmental ideas, and to hone the awareness and agency of participants. The lack of a rigid model of what community gardens are and how they should operate has meant that they flourish according to local conditions and are led by the passion and creativity of their gardeners. This enables a great amount of autonomy and control and holds innumerable possibilities for affecting positive local change within the gardens and their surrounding communities. For food sovereignty, a key demand is that the people of a territory have the right to produce food in a way best for their sovereignty and environment. A theme of self-determination is evident in both food sovereignty and community gardens. There is also recognition of the importance of local context, for the production of food is often influenced by local social, cultural, environmental and economic factors.
Related to this is an appreciation of alternative knowledge. Food sovereignty recognizes traditional or alternative knowledge as important contributors to food and 102 agriculture, rather than dismissing it as non-scientific. The willingness of community gardens to embrace alternative knowledges can be viewed in light of Foucault's ideas regarding power and subjugated knowledge. Within the dominant food system, scientific experts have often scorned and dismissed the agricultural knowledge and practices of peasants and indigenous peoples, which can be viewed as subjugated knowledge.
Community gardens and other food sovereignty practices offer social and physical spaces that encourage and foster such alternative knowledge. The multi-faceted practice of organic gardening in these community gardens is an example of this, for it encompasses techniques and understandings of organic ranging from insect control based on family kitchen tips to the efficient management of compost piles. These gardens can also be seen as spaces in which knowledge is democratized, for workshops and informal learning ensures that all participants, regardless of class, gender or educational background can learn new information. This satisfies Michel Pimbert's ideas about democratized knowledge as a central theme of food sovereignty and demonstrates the value of community gardens as educational spaces.
Much of the social and physical practices of community gardens are based on holistic ideas of sustainability. The accepted definition of sustainability as pertaining to social, economic and environmental goals is the basis of these gardens. Economically, these community gardens encourage lessened seasonal dependence on grocery stores and possibly save money for participants. The creation of community and pursuing positive social goals, from supporting local food banks to encouraging diversity within the gardens, support social sustainability. Environmentally, these gardens encourage organic gardening by banning chemical pesticides and practicing composting. The Saskferco Community Garden is considered a local, even regional, environmental leader for its implementation of a green roof and composting toilet. All of these gardens have encouraged deepened personal environmental convictions as well as a change in attitudes and practices. This is seen in advocating increased urban green space and local food, and recognition of the importance of land reclamation and stewardship, based upon their positive experiences. Another common theme, particularly for Saskatoon and Regina, is the use of public parks as a holistic and useful space based on the successful implementation of their community garden on such land.
Together, these elements offer a powerful argument for community gardens as a way to achieve sustainability but it does not end with these three aspects. They also incorporate personal spiritual beliefs, as seen by repeated remarks regarding the positive ways community gardens allow participants to practice their beliefs. Cultural sustainability, both in the sense of encouraging different cultures to interact and explore new ideas and practices, and celebrating the "culture of gardening", is also evident.
Lastly, community gardens educate people in a variety of ways including organized workshops on garden-related topics, informal education through interaction and spurring interests and raising awareness in social and environmental issues.
Community gardens as an alternative space, their recognition of alternative knowledge and their basis within a holistic definition of sustainability fulfill many requirements of food sovereignty. Community gardens are spaces in which to implement and showcase creative and sustainable social and environmental practices. Their openness to alternative ways of being further points to their ability to practice food sovereignty. 104
4.3.5 Emphasizing human rights
Underlying food sovereignty is the language and practice of human rights. This theory emerges from the need to entrench human rights, particularly those that empower marginalized producers, in the global food system. An emphasis on multiple human rights is also evident in community gardens. The first and most obvious human right community gardens embrace is the right to food, which informs their goals of food security. The right of everyone to food is something these gardens pursue not only for their participants, who produce their own vegetables, but also for local food banks, which benefit from annual donations.
These community gardens go beyond food security by addressing the right to produce food, a central tenet of food sovereignty. This is the most rewarding and practical right for the gardens as a movement that produces food in a social space, yet it also presents their greatest challenge due to development and political pressures, in both a contemporary and historical sense. Grow Regina's struggle to find secure land tenure is an example of the challenges to ensure this right. When community gardens have secure tenure, they work in various ways to guarantee the right to produce. Access to the garden is key: through sharing plots before their expansion, Saskatoon's City Park community garden demonstrates the possibility of accommodating all interested gardeners. Free or subsidized plots and communal tools and materials like compost or seeds also ensure equitable access to production.
The involvement of outside organizations, including municipal authorities and supportive corporations or non-profit organizations, is important to enable these rights in
60 While there was no formal seed provisioning in these gardens, it is likely that informal sharing between gardeners occurs. As demonstrated in the relief gardens of the 1930's, cooperative seed buying schemes have been successful in the past. community gardens. Granting secure land tenure through agreements with landholdmg municipal governments, enable gardens to practice these rights. Financial or material stability also has a positive impact. Conversely, municipal governments and local business also have the power to prevent community gardens from practicing these rights.
4.3.6 Encouraging different values
Both community gardens and food sovereignty encourage positive values different from those entrenched in the dominant food system. The most important of these alternative values is conceptualizing people and food outside of monetary valuation.
People are not just consumers who interact with food only through its purchase and consumption. They are also rural and urban farmers, community leaders, policy-makers, and citizens. They have a stake, and should therefore have a say, in their food system.
Likewise, food is much more than a commodified object. Other than a plot rental fee for some gardens and purchasing seeds, the relationship of community gardeners to their food takes place outside of the monetary realm. This allows an important alternative physical and social valuation of food. These gardeners are intimately connected to their food through their personal ministrations, and to other people as fellow gardeners. A greater understanding and appreciation for our connection to nature and other human beings arises from these gardens. In these spaces, as in the larger movement of food sovereignty, food is not a commodity, but a right and an embodiment of our relationships with the living world.
From their early endeavours as projects for unemployed men to their current practice of food security and community building, community gardens have proven themselves to be enduring alternatives to a disempowering food system. This would not have been possible without the promulgation of values common to both its historical and contemporary practices. An examination of these three contemporary community gardens reveals that they are predicated on the practice of certain values evident in historical practices. The self-help of vacant lot and relief gardens is the basis of ideas behind the food security aims of these gardens: to enable people to grow their own fresh, nutritious vegetables by granting access to gardening spaces. This does not create total food self-sufficiency due to practical constraints but it does encourage a measure of food security. Educational goals are evident in contemporary community gardens, much as they have been in the past. Not only does this include organized garden workshops, but also informal learning among gardeners. This is especially useful for children who participate with their families or schools, and immigrants whose transition to a new country can be eased by these social spaces. While these gardens are no longer touting their practice as patriotic, plenty of other historically emphasized values are evident in their contemporary form.
Community gardens, in both past and present practices, encourage important
"community" values, such as sharing, cooperation and participating in collective tasks.
Sharing is formally promoted through the use of communal tools and community spaces such as flowerbeds or herbal patches. As the produce grown in these gardens is strictly for personal consumption and not for sale, it is common for gardeners to swap excess produce with their neighbours or to willingly give vegetables when another's crop does not turn out. It is also common for some gardens, such as Regina and Moose Jaw's, to 107 donate excess produce to the food bank. This form of sharing promotes positive social values and encourages greater community awareness and empathy.
Cooperation and participating in collective tasks to improve the garden are also emphasized. Social activities like community spring planting and fall clean up are anticipated activities for community gardeners and ones that clearly emphasize community participation. The building of the City Park community garden's shed was likened to an old-fashioned barn raising and is an example of bringing neighbours and gardeners together for a common purpose. These types of activities cement feelings of good will and community within the gardens.
The value of solidarity is present in community gardens, particularly when dealing with external challenges. During normal operations, solidarity between gardeners is encouraged through social activities and the promotion of community values. When forced to rally behind their garden due to an external threat or challenge, such as eviction, solidarity is a consequence of the determination of leaders and gardeners to ensure the survival of their garden. In some circumstances, like Grow Regina's eviction and relocation, this is not confined to gardeners, for non-gardeners and the general public also expressed solidarity with the community garden. This interesting expression demonstrates how the general community can understand and connect to the challenges and practices of these gardens. This promotion of solidarity is also found in the ideas and practice of food sovereignty. La Via Campesina's growth as an international movement for food sovereignty was enabled by the solidarity of peasants and small farmers with other social groups experiencing similar problems and disempowerment in the global food and agricultural system. 108
It is evident from this analysis that community gardens can be a strong player within the food sovereignty movement. Although they are not a perfect practice of social justice or food sovereignty, they must be commended for their positive social and environmental goals and practices. The food sovereignty movement can embrace the practice of community gardens due to its inclusive nature, its wide-reaching social, political and environmental goals, and its ability to give further structure to projects that go beyond their original food security goals. These gardens in particular fulfill a mandate of food sovereignty and can be recognized as being a part of this progressive movement.
The following chapter will elaborate upon the implications arising from the conclusion that community gardens can be a practice of food sovereignty.
Recommendations for further research will also be discussed. 109
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION
There are numerous lessons to be learned from the study of these community gardens and their position within the food justice movement. They are creative and innovative projects that encourage people to pursue positive social and environmental goals. The diversity of participants and their focus on community building creates a social space where people gather based on their shared love of gardening, but also learn and experience much more. They have attracted the attention of governments, colleges, companies and community-based organizations. The challenges they face demonstrate that these are not easy or short-term projects and that the leadership and determination of participants is essential to their success. Examining the historical evolution and endurance of community gardens in Saskatchewan is important to understand how such food projects are shaped by their context and the values of their participants.
5.1 Historical lessons learned from community gardens
A comparison of the historical and contemporary practice of community gardens illuminates commonalities between time periods although their social and political contexts have changed. Almost a hundred years after the first organized community gardening campaign in Regina, these types of gardens are still struggling to be recognized as permanent urban fixtures. Their precarious existence on vacant land, then and now, highlights a conflict between economic and social goals. The need for municipalities to raise funds through property taxes has resulted in a mindset more conductive to economic development than the social agenda of community gardens. The resulting pressure to develop vacant land was a factor in the VLGA's demise and the Regina Horticultural 110
Society's end to dealing with vacant lots. Yet it has not deterred contemporary gardens like Grow Regina that sought a creative solution to their eviction rather than folding under. A changed political context has facilitated their survival, for Regina's contemporary civic government is more supportive of community gardens cultivating public parks. Although time will tell if this is a permanent solution for the group, their land tenure is temporarily secured.
Within the operations of community gardens, participant dynamics have also changed. The involvement and recognition of women in these gardens is an example of this. Although it was a ladies' aid society that started the Regina Horticultural Society, men as leaders and gardeners have traditionally been at the forefront of organized horticulture and public gardening. The Vacant Lot Gardening Association targeted men as participants while relief gardens were intended for men and their families.
Recognition of women in public gardening emerged during World War II as male gardeners became a wartime rarity.
It is interesting to note that historically, community gardens emerged during periods of crisis, such as the two world wars and the Great Depression, to deal with pressing social and economic issues like unemployment, hunger and producing food to ease strained domestic food supplies. At the same time, community gardens encouraged values important for overcoming these crises, such as patriotism, self-help and community values like cooperation and sharing. The strengthening of the contemporary community garden movement begs the question of whether this theory of facing crises is applicable today. I argue that it is, based on social, economic and environmental factors.
The re-emergence of community gardens in the late 1970's and 80 's coincides with two Ill major trends that are still present, perhaps even amplified, in 2008. These trends include the emergence of Canadian food banks in the early 1980's to provide emergency food supplies and a growing public environmental consciousness aided by economic factors.
Fears about the cost and availability of oil following the 1973 oil crisis may have been an influence on community gardens, just as concerns about peak oil and long distance food miles are present today. A push for more urban green space and a desire for city residents to have their own piece of nature has also been an important factor for community gardens in the past thirty years.
Related to this is an evolution in the goals of community gardens, based on their social and economic context. Early community gardens focused on the idea of work relief in place of monetary charity. While this cultivated goals of self-help, there was still an underlying perception of charity in that these gardens were designed by benevolent citizens and organizations to help poor people. This evolved into the food security push of the 1990's, when these gardens were designed to give people access to gardening space to grow healthy and nutritious food. The diversity of community gardeners, who garden for both food and leisure, points to the applicability of food security to all people.
It is possible that the goals of community gardens could evolve again to embrace the practice of food sovereignty. This shifts the focus of community gardens to the active participation of people in the food system as both producers and consumers who have a stake in its just and sustainable operation. As a practice of local food sovereignty, community gardens provide the space to question the non-transparent and exploitive conditions of the dominant global food system and encourage politicization and agency. 112
The adoption of food sovereignty by communities and nations around the world is increasingly important as the vulnerability of our dominant food system garners more attention in contemporary media accounts. At the completion of this research in April
2008, numerous Canadian media outlets, including national newspapers, reported a growing global food crisis. Fingers are pointing to food shortages, rising fuel costs, competition for grains as the production of agrofuels rises, and market speculation as factors behind the rising price of staple foods, particularly rice, that threatens the food security of the world's poorest (Reguly, 2008; Scoffield & Strauss, 2008). While all of these factors are argued to be contributors to the crisis, little consensus has emerged due to the complexity of the problems now faced (Pratt, 2008; The Western Producer, 2008).
The looming food crisis has the United Nations pleading for funding to cover a $755 million shortfall in the World Food Program to meet emergency food needs. The UN has also pulled together a task force to implement long term solutions, including the provision of seeds to the world's poorest farmers (Engeler, 2008). Economic forecasts predict that Canadians will soon feel the pain of food inflation (Waldie, 2008), although the effects will be nowhere near the violent food riots seen in Haiti and Egypt in recent weeks. Community gardening, as a local practice of food sovereignty that has already proven its social and economic benefits through its historical practice, may be a part of the solution to such crises.
5.2 Are community gardens resistance?
Although community gardens have many elements in common with food justice movements and can be seen as a practice of food sovereignty, gardeners' perception of 113 their gardens poses an interesting question. Can community gardens be a resistance to the global industrialized food system even if most gardeners do not see their gardens in this way? While gardeners are able to situate themselves and their actions within the dominant food system, and agree that it could present an alternative, most do not see these gardens as a resistance. Resistance is interpreted as negative, defiant, and aggressive, which clashes with their understanding of the positive actions their community gardens undertake. This negative perception can be attributed in part to impressions of current forms of resistance vilified in the media, an example of which includes isolated incidents of violent anti-globalization protest. This narrow portrayal blinds people from equating resistance with creating positive alternatives. As a result, few understand themselves as resisting the negative aspects of the global food system, just as few would consider themselves being radical, politicized citizens. Yet this element of politicization is an important aspect of food sovereignty: how can this be reconciled with perceptions of these three community gardens? Here it is instructive to apply ideas of resistance, primarily Gramsci and Polanyi's theories, to the practice of community gardening.
Gramsci's theory of hegemony and counter-hegemony is relevant to the idea and practice of community gardens within the context of the dominant food system. Recall
Gramsci's idea of counter-hegemony as a resistance to powerful minority interests accepted by the majority of people through a balance of force and consent. By creating an alternative space to produce local food, community gardens physically resist the dominant methods of producing and distributing food. They also provide a social space that fosters the exploration of new ideas and alternative ways of being, which can provide 114 the intellectual basis of counter-hegemony. The presence of a few politicized leaders, as is seen in these three cases, can provide a promising foundation for politically and socially conscious community gardens.
Karl Polanyi's theory of counter-movements is also instructive for community gardens. With the rise of the self-regulating market, society was forced to take an active stance against the market's destructive nature. Actions to preserve nature and human labour are the basis of counter-movements, which also reject the commodification of land, labour and money. Food sovereignty would add food as a fourth element and acts as an international counter-movement in the new context of globally commodified relationships (McMichael, 2004). Community gardens can also be seen as a counter- movement for they spring from the desire of an active society to redefine their relationship with food and land in a non-commodified manner. To do so, community gardens remove themselves from the dominant food system, albeit seasonally, and seek permanency through land tenure and community partnerships.
According to the ideas of counter-hegemony and counter-movements, community gardens can indeed be a form of resistance. The lack of wholesale agreement from participants indicates that more work needs to be done to create a political consciousness within these gardens. Here it is important to discuss Paulo Freire's idea of conscientization and the importance of leadership. Conscientization is the creation of a critical consciousness through perceiving social, political and economic contradictions and taking action against oppressive elements of reality (Freire, 1968). Action against oppression necessitates the critical recognition of its causes; indeed, the cycle of action and reflection is elemental to Freire's theory. Leaders, as individuals or teams who 115
exercise authority, play a key role in sparking conscientization through their ability to mobilize people and deploy their "cultural capital", or knowledge, skills, and
qualifications (Nepstad & Bob, 2006). The ability to convey unfamiliar issues or
concepts and motivate diverse audiences is important for politicization in community gardens. These gardens have the potential to be radicalized spaces able to transform peoples' conception of the world and to act as a launch pad for action, yet they will not reach their full food sovereignty potential until such consciousness-raising takes place.
To achieve this, the ability of leaders to introduce and motivate the exploration of new concepts is key.
5.3 Implications for building food sovereignty in Saskatchewan
If these community gardens are elements of food sovereignty, what are the implications on both a localized and larger social, political and environmental scale?
Since these gardens operate in a local context, it is fair to say that the gardens, their
supportive organizations and municipal authorities will feel the biggest impact. Yet repercussions may reverberate on a regional, national, perhaps even international scale, as the idea and practice of community gardens as food sovereignty blossoms.
The success of these contemporary community gardens has ensured a bright
future for this practice in Saskatchewan. Not only have they raised awareness of the benefits and practices of community gardening, but they have also acted as models for creating more gardens. They have attracted attention from other municipal centres, as well as supportive institutions such as non-profit agencies, schools and colleges, and corporate sponsors. The success of the Saskferco Community Garden had a direct impact 116 on company support pledged to Grow Regina in 2007; this example of corporate sponsorship and community involvement may influence other local companies. (Such sponsorship can be highly beneficial to these community gardens, yet a cautionary note must be sounded regarding the possibility of money with strings attached to the company's values or expectations.) SIAST's partnership with Moose Jaw's community garden and the success of their applied research will appeal to other educational institutions. These community gardens have also fostered greater recognition of food security, environmental innovations, community building and ways of encouraging diversity. This may result in more social organizations assisting the creation of community gardens in both large and small urban centres in the province.
As more awareness and partnerships are built, it is likely that advocacy for community gardens and related social and environmental issues will increase. The recognition of community gardens by food charters in the province could mean more advocacy for these spaces by proponents of food security, or more involvement of community gardeners in the creation and enforcement of food charters. The importance of these gardens is already reflected in food charters created by civil society and supported by municipal governments, important regional bodies and other organizations.
The Saskatoon Food Charter, which affirms various aspects of food security, encourages community gardens and urban agriculture as positive means of enforcing community food security. This charter was created by the Saskatoon Food Coalition and adopted in principle by the Saskatoon City Council in 2002. Although city monitoring or the allotment of resources has not yet occurred, the Food Charter has motivated
Saskatchewan's food security movement and has been a positive model for other 117 provincial food charters (Sandford-Beck, 2007). This includes the Moose Jaw-South
Central Food Charter, created in November 2007 as a regional declaration of the right to food and food security. Local, sustainable food systems and the right to participate in our food system feature prominently in this document and community gardens are identified as a key action area. As of December 2007, the South Central Food Network was encouraging local organizations and authorities to endorse this policy (Boyzcuk, 2007).
The creation and strengthening of community leadership through participation in decision-making and garden management has positive implications for these three cities.
Interviewees noted greater interest in and awareness of what is happening in their community, attendance in community events and for some, participation in other community organizations. Community gardening heightened their sense of self- confidence and empowerment, and the gardeners' involvement in other issues and organizations is beneficial to the larger community. If community gardens become more politicized food sovereignty projects, these runoff effects would benefit both the food sovereignty movement and Saskatchewan by creating greater awareness of and action on food issues.
On both a local and larger social scale, the example of these community gardens in parks has the potential to shape how urban citizens understand and participate in public spaces. Although there is an uncertainty regarding these gardens as private versus public spaces, the integration of community gardens into public parks signals a shift in how citizens and cities are viewing the purpose and use of parks. As one City Park community gardener pointed out, their garden "changes the way people see the park; it's not just for sports and city programs. There's an ownership of the park that didn't exist 118 before" (Cook, 2007). This garden is a prime example of how public parks could be successfully and holistically used by their communities for food provisioning and recreation.
Framing these community gardens as local practices of food sovereignty creates new social and political spaces to explore ideas of local participation, control and empowerment. To date, North American community gardeners have not discussed the idea and practice of food sovereignty. A focus on food sovereignty, with its central concerns of environmental and social goals, would turn agricultural and food policy on its head by democratizing the food system and empowering ordinary citizens with greater access to and control over productive resources. To enable further discussion and the implementation of more community gardens based on food sovereignty, various recommendations emerged from this research. These are of interest to present and future community gardens, municipal governments, partners such as corporations, educational institutions and non-profit organizations and the larger food justice movement. The following section explores some of these: a) More provisions for community gardens
The positive experience of these community gardeners suggests the need for further expansion of community gardens, particularly in urban areas lacking public gardening spaces. The expansion of community gardens using a food sovereignty model would signal an important shift in how cities and their citizens are willing to address problems in the food system. New and existing community gardens should consider the lessons learned from the experiences of these three gardens and implement greater food sovereignty measures to fulfill their social and environmental potential. Creative ways to 119 ensure their sustainability, including the possibility of mentorship between new and established gardens, should be explored.
Urban green space and community gardening are linked as important elements of cities and the call for greater provisions for community gardens reflect this. Creating or enhancing municipal policies to encourage the creation and maintenance of these spaces is important. The participation of community gardeners in these policy decisions is necessary to reflect community ownership over public green spaces. There is great potential for urban planners to incorporate these spaces into new urban or suburban developments, as well as downtown or inner city areas, to make these neighbourhoods more beneficial to the community. To do so would communicate the recognition of these gardens as an important urban feature by municipal planners and authorities. b) Financial support and resources for community gardens
If we view community gardens as an important part of our communities, it is imperative that we commit more financial support and resources to this practice.
Financial support is not only an affirmation of these types of gardens, but it could also strengthen their practice by addressing financial access by low-income or marginalized people. It would do so through sponsored plots, or entirely free gardens, as well as purchasing central locations in high demand for development, and therefore previously prohibitively expensive. Financially securing land tenure is essential to recognize the right to produce. If community gardens did not have to worry about tenure on insecure vacant lots, they could instead focus more on creating a beautiful, sustainable garden to benefit the community. Resources could be allocated in a variety of ways, including monetary sponsorship, donations of infrastructure or useful materials and staff supports. While corporate sponsorship is commendable and is a positive local trend, it should be recognized that limitations include possible restrictions on garden autonomy if their practices conflict with the values and expectations of the sponsoring organization. This is not to say that corporations should not be involved in gardens, for their benefits have been recognized by sponsored gardens, but this strengthens the argument for public funding and greater involvement of municipal governments that are the most receptive to these types of projects. This is evident in the recollections of the City of Regina's liaison with Grow Regina: "[When dealing with governments] we had a high success rate with civic leaders but not with provincial or federal. We were told it was not their mandate. It was a struggle. My reply was - but it's not anyone's mandate" (Viala, 2008). The hint that this type of project may combat larger social problems in the future may have contributed to Grow Regina's ability to persuade the City of Regina to be involved.
"Governments have to give priority to these projects that are community controlled and operated, low cost, and allow families to help themselves. The alternative is more expensive" (Viala, 2008).
If municipal governments were to be more involved in community gardens, there must be a concurrent acknowledgment of the economic and social problems, including hunger and marginalization that these gardens seek to address. The resources to support creative and sustainable solutions are needed on community and provincial levels. The benefits of municipal commitment are evident in the City of Saskatoon's donation of land and water to the City Park community garden and the City of Regina's past involvement 121
with Grow Regina through a Department of Community Services staff liaison. Municipal
governments should not take over the role of running these gardens because community
control and power is important, but increased support and resources would indicate that
these authorities take the practice of community food sovereignty seriously.
c) Encouraging community gardens for marginalized people
Community gardens are recognized as an important social space where
marginalized or disadvantaged people are welcomed. It is important that this aspect of
community gardening is strengthened, which necessitates more resources directed
towards encouraging and retaining these participants. While the community gardens
studied do well at attracting certain marginalized groups, like seniors, more attention must be paid to attracting and retaining other groups such as Aboriginal people. Their inclusion would strengthen gardens' goals of diversity and empowerment in
Saskatchewan's social and political context. Alternatively, these gardens could mentor
Aboriginal community gardens, which would allow for a mutual sharing of goals and
skills. To ensure that all marginalized people can continue to access and participate in
the gardens, attention must be given to their location and operations.
The participation of marginalized people as leaders in these gardens must also be
strengthened. Although the democratic model used in community gardens means that
anyone could potentially become a leader, efforts to ensure diversity within the ranks of
formal leaders, including boards and committees, must be strengthened. Women make up a large portion of these garden's participants and this should be reflected in visible
leadership roles. 122
Another important element of these community gardens that must be protected is their community control. To lose this citizen ownership and management is to give up an irreplaceable aspect of empowerment and success. While partnerships with outside organizations are encouraged, and can be very successful, ultimate ownership must lie within the community gardeners themselves. This must be considered when creating new gardens, for they are not likely to be sustainable unless the community is involved in meaningful ways, including leadership. Concerted efforts must continue in the community gardens studied to ensure that all participants are able exercise agency within these gardens. d) Recognizing community gardens as an educational space
From educating the public on innovative environmental ideas, to teaching participation and civic values, community gardens play multiple roles in education that must be realized and strengthened. As food sovereignty projects, these gardens have the potential to teach valuable participation and leadership skills to their participants. Not only would this strengthen participation within the garden, a need pointed to in the gardens studied, but it would also have runoff effects for the broader community. These spaces also have the ability to politicize their gardeners, which must be explored further.
Learning democratic participation and its supportive values like sharing and solidarity is an important goal of the gardens that must emphasized. The idea of food citizenship and food sovereignty's ideas about participation and empowerment must be explored and utilized by these gardens.
Related to this is the recognition of the community gardening as important to children's education. Historical school gardens and contemporary projects integrating 123
gardening in community schools are two examples of how school children can participate
in these types of gardens outside of familial involvement. From learning the basics of
food to the values of cooperation, children can greatly benefit from these gardens and
their greater involvement must be explored.
As seen by public ignorance about community gardens and their roles and
stereotypes about their purpose, there is also a need for greater public education and
promotion of community gardens. This education would not only clear the air of
damaging stereotypes, but it could also encourage more people to participate in and/or
support the movement. Community gardens would be wise to capitalize on current
environmental concerns to connect with the public around issues in the food system.
e) Networking existing community gardens
A sense of isolation and a thirst for knowing what other community gardens are
doing is evident in these gardens, for they are very localized practices and operate
individually. Furthermore, the scarcity of resources often means little or no promotion of
these gardens exists outside of the targeted community. This can make it difficult to
gather information on other existing community gardens and their operations.
Networking community gardens regionally or provincially would give gardeners an
opportunity to meet like-minded people in other communities and to learn about different
operational models and best practices.
Provincial or regional networking could also create a broader base for politicization or consciousness-raising and could further advocacy for community
gardens. Recall Friedman's discussion regarding numeric power: networking these
community gardens would give them an opportunity to increase their collective power when advocating for social and environmental issues, as well as creating a cadre of politicized citizens. By doing so, these community gardens would increase their credibility and position with the food justice, and food sovereignty, movements. f) Further exploration of environmental alternatives
As seen by the innovative environmental projects implemented by community gardens, there is great potential for further creative community environmental action.
These initiatives should be encouraged and supported, financially and socially, through partnerships with outside organizations like municipal governments and other community organizations. The ability of these community gardens to showcase positive environmental action, particularly growing local food in an organic manner, should spur greater recognition of the important role community gardens could play within the environmental movement. The implementation of environmental projects can be a way to introduce new and innovative concepts. This is demonstrated by the remarks of a
Grow Regina member: "I went to see Moose Jaw's garden... The green roof was really interesting - I'm just amazed that you could think of doing something like that!"
(Lauman, 2008). These gardens and their alternative methods should be recognized as an important challenge to the dominant agricultural system's ideas about scientific efficiency and its environmental impact.
All of these recommendations take into account the fact that any attempts to strengthen community gardens must begin by listening to the voices and concerns of the community gardeners themselves. To do so is to fundamentally recognize the human rights and autonomy of local communities central to the theory and practice of food sovereignty. There are many possibilities for further work in this area. 5.4 Further recommended research
This research revealed a number of issues that warrant further investigation. One is that more work needs to be done to uncover the historical practice of community gardening in Saskatchewan and Canada. Although information on community gardening in the United States is readily available, some of which is applicable to Canadian community gardens due to similar goals, their practice is determined by local context and should therefore be recognized as distinct in community gardening literature.
Further research is also needed regarding the intersections between urban gardening and rural agriculture. Many of the gardeners pointed out rural or farming backgrounds with most claiming a long history of gardening. The proliferation of community gardeners with such backgrounds may relate to the exodus of families from rural Saskatchewan due to the family farm crisis within recent times. As leaders in community gardens, how a farming background has affected their actions and values upon moving to an urban area is something that needs further inquiry. Other possible links between urban and rural agriculture like education and skill sharing or marketing food products that urban gardeners are unable to grow could be explored.
To be sustainable and effective, there is a need to evaluate the current practice of community gardens to better embrace food sovereignty principles. This process needs to ask questions like what should community gardens mean to their communities and how are they going to achieve their stated social and environmental goals? This process of evaluation should also incorporate the six pillars of food sovereignty discussed in this research. Currently, the community gardens studied are simply too busy managing operations to engage in such evaluations, yet a process of reflection may help them better achieve their goals and create a more sustainable social and physical space.
Gender dynamics within the public practice of urban gardening is also an issue that warrants further research. Women have been traditionally considered the primary gardener in households but their roles within public gardening have shifted and been receiving greater recognition during the twentieth century. Today, women constitute a majority of gardeners, yet their involvement in leadership is mixed. More research into these dynamics and underlying power structures would be interesting and worthwhile.
Lastly, more research is needed into how food sovereignty can be applied to
Canadian agriculture in both rural and urban contexts. The lack of recognition of food sovereignty in discussion, policy and practice in Canada is something that must be rectified if Canadian food justice movements are to explore new and more sustainable ways of creating social change. Further research would also boost the profile of food sovereignty in this country.
As shown by this research, food sovereignty has great potential to strengthen the practice of social justice and if Canadians are serious about creating meaningful social, political and environmental change, we must explore these ideas. Yet the expressed benefits of adopting food sovereignty are offset by the equal prospect that this social justice theory will be dismissed as radical or overly upsetting to the status quo, for its promotion of greater rights and participation threatens powerful and controlling interests.
Food sovereignty's greatest chance of acceptance in Saskatchewan comes from grassroots social and environmental activists, including community gardeners, who can create positive local change while applying pressure on powerful governments and 127 organizations to adopt food sovereignty's demands. Until that happens, this research can be used as an introduction to merging the concepts of community gardening and food sovereignty. BIBLIOGRAPHY Primary Sources Individual Interviews Conducted by the Author * Some names have been changed to protect individual privacy.
Androsoff, Gord. Gardener, City Park Community Garden. (2007, Nov 16). Saskatoon.
Binda, Pier. Board member and former chair, Grow Regina. (2008, Jan 10). Regina.
Blair, Ken. Steering committee member, Saskferco Community Garden. (2007, Oct 15). Moose Jaw.
Blenkin, Carol. Gardener, City Park Community Garden. (2007, Dec 2). Saskatoon.
Colenutt, Brenda. Steering committee member, Saskferco Community Garden. (2007, Oct 17). Moose Jaw.
Cook, Don. Garden Coordinator, City Park Community Garden. (2007, Nov 17). Saskatoon.
Ehman, Amy Jo. Gardener, City Park Community Garden. (2007, Nov 17). Saskatoon.
Fagan, John. Board member, Grow Regina. (2007, Dec 10). Regina.
Fenske, Harold. Board member, Grow Regina. (2008, Jan 9). Regina.
Forbes, Reg. Steering committee member, Saskferco Community Garden. (2007, Oct 10). Moose Jaw.
French, Susanna. Gardener, City Park Community Garden. (2007, Nov 22). Saskatoon.
Gibson, Sylvia. Garden coordinator (2007), Saskferco Community Garden. (2007, Dec 11). Moose Jaw.
Hill, Darren. Gardener, City Park Community Garden. (2007, Dec 2). Saskatoon.
Hunter, Fraser. Board member, Grow Regina. (2007, Dec 17). Regina.
Krozser, Kit. Board member, Grow Regina. (2008, Jan 13). Regina.
Lauman, Imogene. Board member, Grow Regina. (2008, Jan 8). Regina.
Mitchell, Don. Steering committee member, Saskferco Community Garden. (2007, Oct 1). Regina.
Probert, Lorraine. Gardener, Saskferco Community Garden. (2007, Oct 10). Moose Jaw. 129
Radwanski, Jan. Steering committee member, Saskferco Community Garden. (2007, Oct 15). Moose Jaw.
Sauer, Linda. Gardener, Saskferco Community Garden. (2007, Oct 10). Moose Jaw.
Smith, Melissa. Gardener, City Park Community Garden. (2007, Nov 17). Saskatoon.
Stafievsky, Galina. Board member, Grow Regina. (2008, Jan 15). Regina.
Swenson, Andrew. Steering committee member, Saskferco Community Garden. (2007, Oct 17). Moose Jaw.
Viala, Paul. City of Regina employee & former Grow Regina liaison. (2008, Jan 9). Regina.
Weingeist, Karen. Gardener, City Park Community Garden. (2007, Nov 22). Saskatoon.
Wolf, Tom. Gardener, City Park Community Garden. (2007, Nov 22). Saskatoon.
Zawalski, Wade. Board member, Grow Regina. (2008, Jan 14). Regina.
Unpublished Correspondence Beach, George. (1914a, Oct 10). Letter to C.F. Lidster, City Auditor from City Clerk. City of Regina Archives.
Beach, George. (1914b, Oct 21). Letter to C.F. Lidster, City Auditor from City Clerk. City of Regina Archives.
Beach, George. (1915, Feb 16). Reply to Sgt. J.L. McCullough, Chairman of Assiniboia Board of Trade from City Clerk. City of Regina Archives.
Boyczuk, Christine, member of South Central Food Network. (2007, Dec 10). Personal correspondence with author.
Burrell, Hon. Martin. (1917, Feb 13). Letter to Regina Mayor and City Council from Minister of Agriculture. City of Regina Archives.
Cruikshank, S. (1917, Mar 30). Letter to George Beach, City Clerk from Mayor of Medicine Hat. City of Regina Archives.
McCullough, J.L. (1915, Feb 15). Letter to George Beach, City Clerk from Chairman of Assiniboia Board of Trade. City of Regina Archives.
Miller, Henry. (1917, Feb 12). Letter to W.T. Macoun, Dominion Horticulturalist from Secretary of the Regina Vacant Lots Garden Association. City of Regina Archives. 130
National Service League, Estevan Branch. (1917, Mar 26). Letter to George Beach, City Clerk from National Service League, Estevan Branch. City of Regina Archives.
Samis, AJ. (1917, Mar 27). Letter to George Beach, City Clerk from Calgary City Commissioner. City of Regina Archives.
Sandford-Beck, Janice, coordinator of Saskatoon Food Coalition at CHEP (2007, Dec 20). Personal correspondence with author.
Secondary Sources Allen, Douglas W. & Lueck, Dean. (1998). The nature of the farm. Journal of Law and Economics, 41(2): 343-86.
Almas, Reidar & Geoffrey Lawrence. (2003). Introduction: The global/local problematic. In Almas, Reidar and Geoffrey Lawrence (eds). Globalizations, localization and sustainable livelihoods (pp. 3-24). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Baker, Lauren E. (2004). Tending cultural landscapes and food citizenship in Toronto's community gardens. Geographical Review, 94(3): 305-325.
Banuri, Tariq. (1990). Development and the politics of knowledge: a critical interpretation of the social role of modernization theories in the development of the third world. In F. Apffel-Manglin & S. Manglin (eds.) Dominating Knowledge: Development culture and resistance, (pp. 29-72). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Barker, Debi. (2002). Globalization and industrial agriculture. In Kimbrell, Andrew (ed). The fatal harvest reader (pp. 249-263). Washington: Island Press.
Barndt, Deborah. (2002). Tangled routes: women, work and globalization on the tomato trail. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc.
Barry, Tom. (1995). Zapata's revenge: free trade and the farm crisis in Mexico. Boston: South End Press.
Bassett, Thomas J. (1981). Reaping on the margins: a century of community gardening in America. Landscape, 25(2): 1-8.
Beckie, Mary Anne. (2000). Zero Tillage and Organic Farming in Saskatchewan: An Interdisciplinary Study of the Development of Sustainable Agriculture. Fall. PhD Thesis. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.
Born, Branden & Purcell, Mark. (2006). Avoiding the local trap: scale and food systems in planning research. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26: 195-207. 131
Brennan, J. William. (1989). Regina: an illustrated history. Toronto: Lorimer & Co Publishers.
Brown, Kate H & Jameton, Andrew L. (2000). Public health implications of urban agriculture. Journal of Public Health Policy, 21(1): 20-39.
Brown, Lester R. (2004). Outgrowing the earth: The food security challenge in an age of falling water tables and rising temperatures. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Burawoy, Michael. (2003). For a sociological Marxism: the complementary convergence of Antonio Gramsci and Karl Polanyi. Politics & Society, 31(2): 193-261.
Burton, Peter. (1940). Wartime gardens. Canadian Home Journal, 36: 43.
Campbell, Marcia Caton. (2004). Building a common table: the role for planning in community food systems. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23: 341-355.
Canadian Association of Food Banks. (2007). HungerCount 2007. http://www.cafb.ca/documents/HungerCount2007.pdf
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (2008, Feb 1). Meat Import Control Program, Revised, http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/meavia/mmopmmhv/chapl0/10- le.shtml
Carson, Rachel. (1962). Silent spring. Boston: Houston Mifflin.
Cashdan, Lisa; Stein, Peter R.; & Wright, David. (1982). Roses from rubble: new uses for vacant urban land. New York Affairs, 7(2): 89-96.
Castells, Manuel. (2004). Social movements against the new global order. The power of identity. 2nd edition. Toronto: Blackwell.
City of Regina. (2004, April). Core: 2001 neighbourhood profile. Community Services Department: Urban Planning Division. http://www.regina.ca/pdfs/Core.pdf
City of Regina. (2004, April). Gladmer Park: 2001 neighbourhood profile. Community Services Department: Urban Planning Division. http://www.regina.ca/pdfs/Gladmer%20Park.pdf
City of Regina. (2004, April). Transitional Area: 2001 neighbourhood profile. Community Services Department: Urban Planning Division. http://www.regina.ca/pdfs/Transitional.pdf
City of Regina. (2006, July 19). Providing for community gardens, MN05-11. Memo to Parks and Community Services Committee. 132
City of Saskatoon. (2003). City Park: 2003 Neighbourhood Profile. City Planning Branch. http://www.saskatoon.ca/org/city planning/resources/neighbourhood demographics/200 3/city park.pdf
City of Saskatoon (2004, Jan 5). Creation of comprehensive community gardening program (File No. CK 1870-1). Administrative report - Community Services Department.
Cole, Garold L. (1993). Gardening for victory: Victory gardens in American popular periodicals during World War II. North Dakota Quarterly, 61(3): 163-176.
Connecting as Neighbours Cooperative, www.connectingasneighbours.com/gardens.htm
Cook, Christopher D. (2004). Diet for a dead planet: how the food industry is killing us. New York: The New York Press.
Crouch, David & Ward, Colin. (1988). The allotment: its landscape and culture. London: Faber and Faber.
Dagnino, Evelina. (1998). Culture, citizenship and democracy: changing discourse and practices of the Latin American Left. In Alvarez, Sonia E.; Dagnino, Evelina & Escobar, Arturo (eds). Cultures of politics: politics of cultures: revisioning Latin American social movements (pp. 33-63). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
DeLind, Laura B. (2002). Place, work and civic agriculture: Common fields for cultivation. Agriculture and Human Values, 19: 217-224.
Desmarais, Annette A. (2007). La Via Campesina: Globalization and the power of peasants. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.
Dick, Lyle. (1996). Greening of the West: horticulture on the Canadian prairies, 1870- 1930. Manitoba History, 31: 12-17.
Dickson, Ciara. (2007, Nov 15). Ceremony inaugurates community garden. Regina Leader-Post, A4.
Engeler, Eliane. (2008, Apr 30). UN task force focuses on food shortages, rising prices. The Globe and Mail. A15.
FAO. (1996). Rome Declaration on World Food Security, www.fao.org
FAO. (1999). Filling the data gap: gender-sensitive statistics for agricultural development, www.fao.org
FAO. (2006). The state of food security in the world 2006. www.fao.org 133
Farmers, Food and Trade International Workshop on the Review of the AoA. (2003). Towards food sovereignty: constructing an alternative to the World Trade Organization's Agreement on Agriculture, http://www.tradeobservatory.org.
Finlay, Mark R. (2004). Hogs, antibiotics and the industrial environments of postwar agriculture. In Schrepfer, S. R. & Scranton, P. (eds). Industrializing organisms: introducing evolutionary history (pp 237-260). Hagley Perspectives on Business and Culture, vol. 5. Routledge: New York.
Fitzgerald, Deborah. (2003). Every farm a factory: the industrial ideal in American agriculture. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Flyvbjerg, Bent. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(2): 219-245.
Foucault, Michel. (2004). Two lectures: lecture one: January 7, 1976. In Carroll, William (ed). Critical strategies for social research. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc.
Freidberg, Susanne. (2004). French beans and food scares: culture and commerce in an anxious age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freire, Paulo (1968). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (Ramos, Myrna Bergman, trans.) New York: The Seabury Press.
Friedmann, Harriet. (1995). Food politics: new dangers, new possibilities. In McMichael, Philip (ed.) Food and agrarian orders in the world-economy (pp. 15-33). Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Fromartz, Samuel. (2006). Organic Inc.: natural foods and how they grew. Orlando: Harcourt Inc.
Fry, Harold S (ed). (1956). Development of horticulture on the Canadian prairies: a historical review. Edmonton: Alberta Horticultural Association.
Glipo, Arze & Pascual, Francisco G. Jr. (2005). Food sovereignty framework. http://www.nyeleni2007.org
Goodman, David & Redclift, Michael. (1991). Refashioning nature: food, ecology and culture. London: Routledge.
Grain. (2005). Food sovereignty: turning the global food system upside down. Seedling. April, (pp. 1-4).
Gramsci, Antonio. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. Hoare, Quintin & Smith, Geoffrey No well (editors and translators). New York: International Publishers. 134
Grow Regina. (2008). www.growregina.ca
Grow Regina backgrounder (no date). Supplied by Paul Viala.
Guthman, Julie. (2004). Agrarian dreams: the paradox of organic farming in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Halweil, Brian. (2004). Eat here: reclaiming homegrown pleasures in a global supermarket. New York: W.W. Norton.
Harvey, David. (1989). The condition ofpostmodernity: an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell Inc.
Hassanein, Neva. (2003). Practicing food democracy: a pragmatic politics of transformation. Journal of Rural Studies, 19: 77-86.
Heinberg, Richard. (2007). Peak everything: waking up to a century of declines. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
Hietala, Marjatta, & Vahtikari, Tanja (eds.) (2003). The landscape of food: the food relationship of town and country in modern times. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.
Hines, Colin. (2000). Localization: a global manifesto. London: Earthscan Publications.
Hinrichs, C. Claire. (2003). The practice and politics of food system localization. Journal of Rural Studies, 19: 33-45.
Horowitz, Roger. (2004). Making the chicken of tomorrow: reworking poultry as commodities and as creatures, 1945-1990. In Schrepfer, S.R. & Scranton, P. (eds). Industrializing organisms: introducing evolutionary history (pp. 215-235). Hagley Perspectives on Business and Culture, vol 5. Routledge: New York.
Inouye, Brenda. (2001). Slow Food (Italian movement against fast food) Alternatives Journal, 27(1): 4.
Ivanov, Jennifer (reporter). (2007, June 2). Global evening news [television report]. Regina: Global Regina.
Kennedy, P. Lynn & Koo, Won K. (2002). Issues and obstacles for agricultural trade policy in the new millennium. In Kennedy, P.L. & Koo, W.W. (eds.), Agricultural trade policies in the new millennium (pp. 1-6). New York: Food Products Press.
Kent, George. (2005). Freedom from want: the human right to adequate food. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Kimbrell, Andrew. (2002). Introduction. In Kimbrell, Andrew (ed). The fatal harvest reader: the tragedy of industrial agriculture (pp. xi-xiv). Washington: Island Press.
King, Martin Bruce. (2000). Interpreting the consequences of Midwestern agricultural industrialization. Journal of Economic Issues, 34(2): 425-435.
Kirbyson, Anna Marie (ed). (2005). Recipes for success: a celebration of food security work in Canada. Winnipeg: The Food Project.
Kloppenburg, Jack et al. (2000). Tasting food, tasting sustainability: defining the attributes of an alternative food system with competent, ordinary people. Human Organization, 59(2), 177-186.
Kneen, Brewster. (1989). From land to mouth: understanding the food system. Toronto: NC Press Limited.
Koc, Mustafa & MacRae, Rod, eds. (2001). Working together: civil society working for food security in Canada. Toronto: Media Studies Working Group.
Koc, Mustafa; MacRae, Rod; Mougeot, Luc J.A.; Welsh, Jennifer. (1999). Introduction. In Koc, Mustafa; MacRae, Rod; Mougeot, Luc J.A.; Welsh, Jennifer (eds.) For hunger- proof cities: sustainable urban food systems, (pp. 1-7). Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Kwa, Aileen. (2002). Power Politics in the WTO. Bangkok: CUSRI, Focus on the Global South.
Laidlaw, Stuart. (2004). Saving agriculture from itself. In Heintzman, A. & Solomon, E. (eds.), Feeding the future: from fat to famine: how to solve the world's food crises (pp. 12-35). Toronto: Anansi Press Inc.
Lam, Sunny. (2007). Urban agriculture in Kingston: Potential for food system re- localization and sustainability. MES Thesis, School of Environmental Studies. Kingston: Queen's University.
Lang, Tim. (1999). Food policy for the 21st century: can it be both radical and reasonable? In Koc, Mustafa; MacRae, Rod; Mougeot, Luc J.A.; Welsh, Jennifer (eds.) For hunger-proof cities: sustainable urban food systems, (pp. 216-224). Ottawa: International Development Research Centre.
Lappe, Frances & Lappe, Anna. (2004). Diet for a smaller planet: real sources of abundance. In Heintzman, A. & Solomon, E. (eds.), Feeding the future: from fat to famine: how to solve the world's food crises (pp. 128-153). Toronto: Anansi Press Inc.
La Via Campesina. (2003). "What is Food Sovereignty?" http://www.viacampesina.org 136
La Via Campesina; Monsalve, Sylvia; Rosset, Peter; Vazquez, Saul Vincente; Carino, Jill K; ROPPA. (2006) "Agrarian reform in the context of food sovereignty, the right to food and cultural diversity: "Land, Territory and Dignity". Civil Society Issue Paper, International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICCARD).
Lawson, Laura. (2004). The planner in the garden: a historical view into the relationship between planning and community gardens. Journal of Planning History, 3(2): 151-176.
Lawson. Laura. (2005). City bountiful: A century of community gardening in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Leader-Post. (1935, March 18). Relief plot garden seed board worry. Regina. p3.
Levkoe, Charles Z. (2006). Learning democracy through food justice movements. Agriculture and Human Values, 23: 89-98.
Lochead, H. Nelson. (1945). Victory gardens are still vital. Canadian Home Journal, 41: 54 & 57.
Macey, Anne. (2004, May). "Certified organic": the status of the Canadian organic market in 2003. Report to Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. http://www.ota.com/pics/documents/Organic%20Stats%20Report%20revised%20May% 202004.pdf
Macoun, W.T. (1914). The home vegetable garden and a patriotic gardening competition. Pamphlet No. 13. Dominion of Canada Department of Agriculture Experimental Farms.
Macoun, W.T. (1917). Garden making on vacant lots and the home vegetable garden. Pamphlet no. 13. Dominion of Canada Department of Agriculture Experimental Farms.
McMichael, Philip. (2004) Global development and the corporate food regime. Prepared for Symposium on New Directions in the Sociology of Global Development, XI World Congress of Rural Sociology, Trondheim, Norway.
McMichael, Philip, (forthcoming). Food sovereignty, social reproduction and the agrarian question. In Akram-Lodhi, A. Haroon & Kay, Cristobal (eds). Peasants and globalization: political economy, rural transformation and the agrarian question.
Miele, Mara & Jonathan Murdoch. (2003). Fast food/slow food: standardizing and differentiating cultures of food. In Almas, Reidar and Lawrence, Geoffrey (eds). Globalization, localization and sustainable livelihoods (pp. 25-41). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Miller, Char. (2003). In the sweat of our brow: citizenship in American domestic practice during WWII - Victory Gardens. The Journal of American Culture, 26(3): 395-409. 137
Mills, C. Wright. (1959). The Sociological Imagination. London: Oxford University Press.
Mintz, Sidney. (2006). Food at moderate speeds. In Wilk, R. (ed.), Fast food/slow food: the cultural economy of the global food system (pp. 3-11). Lanham MD: Altamira Press.
Mitchell, Don. (1975). The politics of food. Toronto: Lorimer.
Moore, Monica. (2002). Hidden dimensions of damage: pesticides and health. In Kimbrell, Andrew (ed). The fatal harvest reader (pp. 130-147). Washington: Island Press.
Moose Jaw REDA Inc. (2008). Average salary & incomes. http://mireda.sasktelwebhosting.com/economic profile/average salary incomes.html
Morgan, Kevin; Marsden, Terry; & Murdoch, Jonathan. (2006). Worlds of food: place, power and provenance in the food chain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
National Farmers Union. (2005). The farm crisis and corporate profits. November 30. www.nfu.ca
National Farmers' Union. (2007). "Free trade": is it working for farmers? Comparing 2007 to 1988. (revised and expanded October 19). www.nfu.ca
Nepstad, S.E & Bob, C. (2006) When do leaders matter? Hypotheses on leadership dynamics in social movements. Mobilization: An International Journal, 11(1), 1-22.
New Internationalist. (2007). Corporate responsibility unmasked. New Internationalist\ 407.
Nickel, Lorraine (reporter). (2007, July). Global news at noon [television report]. Regina: Global Regina.
Ostry, Sylvia. (2004). Between feast and famine: fixing global trade. In Heintzman, A. & Solomon, E. (eds.), Feeding the future: from fat to famine: how to solve the world's food crises (pp. 240-257). Toronto: Anansi Press Inc.
Patel, Raj. (2005). "International agrarian restructuring and the practical ethics of peasant movement solidarity". Centre for Civil Society Occasional Paper Series, University of KwaZulu-Natal.
Patel, Raj. (2007).Transgressing rights: La Via Campesina's call for food sovereignty. Feminist Economics, 13(1), 87-93.
People's Food Sovereignty Network. (2007). Primer on People's Food Sovereignty. www.nyeleni.org 138
Pfeiffer, Dale Allen. (2006). Eating fossil fuels: oil, food and the coming crisis in agriculture. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
Pimbert, Michel. (2006). Transforming Knowledge and Ways of Knowing for Food Sovereignty. International Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Pirog, Rich; Van Pelt, Timothy; Enshayan, Kamyar; Cook, Ellen. (2001, June). Food, fuel and freeways: an Iowa perspective on how far food travels, fuel usage, and greenhouse gas emissions. Ames, Iowa: The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. http ://www. leopold. iastate. edu//pubs/staff/ppp/food_mil .pdf
Pirog, Rich & Van, Pelt Tim (2002, April). How far does your fruit and vegetables travel? The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture. http://www.leopold.iastate.edu//pubs
Polanyi, Karl. (2005). The self-regulating market and the fictitious commodities: labour, land and money. In Louise Amoore (ed). The global resistance reader, (p 48-53). London: Routledge.
Pratt, Sean. (2008, May 8). Biofuel rejects food crisis blame. The Western Producer, 4.
Public Health Nutritionists of Saskatchewan. (2007, May). The cost of healthy eating in Saskatchewan in 2006.
Qualman, Darrin & Wiebe, Nettie. (2002, Nov). The structural adjustment of Canadian agriculture. Ottawa: The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
Regina Leader-Post. (1994, May 25). Campaign begins. Regina Leader-Post, A3.
Regina Leader-Post. (2007, May 17). Saskatchewan agriculture: the numbers. B7.
Reguly, Eric. (2008, April 12). Why costs are climbing. The Globe and Mail Online. www.globeandmail.com [May 1, 2008]
Rhodes, Veronica. (2007, Sept 14). Plans for garden moving forward. Regina Leader- Post, A3.
Roppel, Carla, Desmarais, Annette A. & Martz, Diane. (2006). Farm women and Canadian agricultural policy. Status of Women Canada.
Rosset, Peter M. (2006). Food is different: why we must get the WTO out of agriculture. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.
Rowles, Edith. (1952). Bannock, beans and bacon: an investigation of pioneer diet. Saskatchewan History, 5(1): 1-16. 139
Sanderson, Kim; Gertler, Michael; Martz, Diane; Mahabir, Ramesh. (2005). Farmers' markets in North America: a literature review. Saskatoon: Community-University Institute for Social Research.
Saskferco. (2007a). The Saskferco Echo. Belle Plaine.
Saskferco. (2007b). "Groundbreaking for new Saskferco-Grow Regina Community Garden". News release. Belle Plaine.
Saskferco Community Garden. (2007, July 23). Gone Gardening, 1(2). Moose Jaw.
Saskatoon Food Coalition. (2002). Saskatoon food charter. http://www.chep.org/ff/index.html
Sawa, Rick. (2007). Food Secure Saskatchewan: concerned about food security of Saskatchewan citizens. Saskatchewan Notes [Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives], 6(1).
Schlosser, Eric. (2002). Fast food nation: the dark side of the ail-American meal. New York: Perennial.
Schmelzkopf, Karen. (1995) Urban community gardens as contested space. Geographical Review, 85(3): 364-381.
Schnaiberg, Allan; Pellow, David N. & Weinberg, Adam. (2003). The treadmill of production and the environmental state. In Humphrey, Craig R.; Lewis, Tammy L. & Buttel, Frederick H. (eds). Environment, energy and society (pp. 412-425). Toronto: Tomson Wadsworth.
Schugerensky, Daniel. (2003). Citizenship learning and participatory democracy: exploring the connections. The Transformative Citizenship Learning Project. http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel schugurenskv/lclp/lclpwpl.html [2/13/07]
Scoffield, Heather & Strauss, Marina. (2008, Apr 12). Against the grain. The Globe and Mail.Bl.
Scott, Elizabeth. (2005). Cockney plots: working class politics and garden allotments in London's east end, 1890-1918. MA Thesis. Saskatoon: University of Saskatchewan.
Scott, James C. (1998). Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed (pp. 262-306). New Haven: Yale University Press.
SHA. (1977). History of the Saskatchewan Horticultural Association 1927-1977. Regina: Self-published. 140
Sheard, Kay. (1978). Regina Horticultural Society: Historical notes from the period 1901-1978. Regina: Regina Horticultural Society.
Sherick, Dorothy. (1978). Life and times ofReginans during 1903. Regina: Self- published.
Shiva, Vandana. (2000). Stolen harvest: the hijacking of the global food system. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.
Smith, Alisa & Mackinnon, J.B. (2007). The 100-mile diet: a year of local eating. Toronto: Random House.
South Central Food Network. (2007, Nov). Moose Jaw - South Central Food Charter.
Stevenson, Collier. (1943). Victory in backyards and vacant plots. Canadian Home Journal, 40: 61.
Sumner, Jennifer. (2005). Sustainability and the civil commons: rural communities in the age of globalization. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
The Western Producer. (2008, May 8). High food prices blamed on bad policy, not biofuel. The Western Producer, 65.
UN. (1987). Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development (The Brundtland Commission). Presentation to the UN General Assembly, Dec 11. http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm
Waldie, Paul. (2008, Apr 25). Why grocery bills are set to soar. The Globe and Mail Online, www.globeandmail.com [May 1, 2008].
Wekerle, Gerda R. (2004). Food justice movements: policy, planning, and networks. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23: 378-38.
Weeks, Carly. (2007a, Aug 7). Safety of Canada's food supply questioned. Regina Leader-Post. A1-A2.
Weeks, Carly. (2007b, Aug 8). Standard differences frustrate farmers. Regina Leader- Post. A1-A2.
Weeks, Carly. (2007c, Aug 9). Vegetables, fruit bigger risk. Regina Leader-Post. A1-A2.
Weeks, Carly. (2008, Jan 30). Organic safety: false security. The Globe and Mail www, globeandmail.com 141
Wheeler, David & Thomson, Jane. (2004). Brand barons and the business of food. In Heintzman, A. & Solomon, E. (eds.), Feeding the future: from fat to famine: how to solve the world's food crises (pp. 194-235). Toronto: Anansi Press Inc.
Windfuhr, Michael & Jonsen, Jennie. (2005). Food sovereignty: towards democracy in localized food systems. FIAN International: ITDG Publishing.
Winson, Anthony. (1993). The intimate commodity: Food and the development of the agro-industrial complex in Canada. Toronto: Garamond Press.
World Bank. (2007, September). Poverty at a glance, www.worldbank.org
Xuereb, Marc. (2005, November). Food miles: environmental implications of food imports to Waterloo region. Region of Waterloo Public Health. http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/research/marketing files/foodmiles Canada 1105.pdf
Yafa, Stephen. (2005). Big cotton: how a humble fiber created fortunes, wrecked civilizations and put America on the map. New York: Viking.
Young, William Robert. (1978). Making the truth graphic: the Canadian government's home front information structure and programmes during World War II. PhD dissertation. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. OFF1CE OF [ffl^l UNIVERSITY OF RESEARCH SERVICES MEMORANDUM
DATE: September 12, 2007
TO: Yolanda Hansen Department of Justice Studies
FROM: B. Plouffe Chair, Research Ethics Board
Re: Food and Social Justice in Saskatchewan: A Study of food security projects through the lens of food sovereignty (10S0708)
Please be advised that the University of Regina Research Ethics Board has reviewed your proposal and found it to be: v 1. APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. Only applicants with this designation have ethical approval to proceed with their research as described in their applications. For research lasting more than one year (Section 1F). ETHICAL APPROVAL MUST BE RENEWED BY SUBMITTING A BRIEF STATUS REPORT EVERY TWELVE MONTHS. Approval will be revoked unless a satisfactory status report is received. Any substantive changes in methodology or instrumentation must also be approved prior to their implemenation.
2. ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO MINOR CHANGES AND PRECAUTIONS (SEE • ATTACHED). Changes must be submitted to the REB and approved prior to Beginning research. Please submit a.supplementary memo addressing the concerns to the Chair of the REB.** Do not submit a hew application. Once changes are deemed acceptable, ethical approval will be granted.
'.*&•• •'• •'"'•: '•'•• ' • 3. ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO MAJOR CHANGES AND PRECAUTIONS (!SEE ATTACHED). Changes must be submitted to the REB and approved prior to beginning research. Please submit a supplementary memo addressing the concerns to the Chair of the REB.** Do not submit knew application. Once changes are deemed acceptable, ethical approval will be grahted. • 4. UNACCEPTABLE AS SUBMITTED. The proposal requires substantial additions or, redesign. Please contact the Chair of the REB for advice on how the project proposal. might be revised.
Dr. RBrucn mae PI/1Plouff1 iffeo *
^supplementary memo should be forwarded to the Chair of the Research Ethics Board at the Office of Research Services (AH 505) or by email to [email protected] UNIVERSITY OF OFFICE OF RESEARCH SERVICES $L REGINA MEMORANDUM
November 8, 2007
Yolanda Hansen Department of Justice Studies
FROM: B. Plouffe Chair, Research Ethics Board
Re: Food and Social Justice in Saskatchewan: A Study of food security projects through the lens of food sovereignty (10S0708)
Please be advised that the University of Regina Research Ethics Board has reviewed your proposal and found it to be:
\/| 1. APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. Only applicants with this designation have ethical approval to proceed with their research as described in their applications. For research lasting more than one year (Section 1F). ETHICAL APPROVAL MUST BE RENEWED BY SUBMITTING A BRIEF STATUS REPORT EVERY TWELVE MONTHS. Approval willbe revoked unless a satisfactory status report is received. Any substantive changes in methodology or instrumentation must also be approved prior to their implemenation.
2. ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO MINOR CHANGES AND PRECAUTIONS (SEE^ • ATTACHED). Changes must be submitted to the REB and approved prior to beginning research- Please submit a supplementary memo addressing the concerns to the Chair of the REB** Do not submit a new application. Once changes are deemed acceptable, ethical approval will be granted.
''••••-•.••.•."••'• • ' \ 3. ACCEPTABLE SUBJECT TO MAJOR CHANGES AND PRECAUTIONS (SEE • ATTACHED). Changes must be submitted to the REB and approved prior to beginning research,Please submit a supplementary memo addressing the concerns to the Chair of the REB.** Do not submit a new application. Once changes are deemed acceptable, ethical approval willbe granted. • 4. UNACCEPTABLE AS SUBMITTED. The proposal requires substantial additions or, redesign. Please contact the Chair of the REB for advice on how the project proposal might be revised.
O^ytAA^O ft^y^ - Dr. Bruce Plouffe **supplementary memo should be forwarded to the Chair of the Research Ethics Board at the Office of Research Services (AH 505) or by email to [email protected] 144
APPENDIX B LETTER OF CONSENT Presented on University of Regina letterhead
Title: Food and Social Justice in Saskatchewan: A Study of Food Security Projects through the lens of Food Sovereignty Researcher: Yolanda Hansen, graduate student, Dept of Justice Studies Advisor: Dr. Annette Desmarais, Associate Professor, Dept of Justice Studies
This interview is being conducted as part of a graduate thesis exploring the links between food and social justice in Saskatchewan. By examining food security projects, the research will explore how producing and consuming outside of conventional farms and supermarkets can benefit and strengthen the implementation of human rights and create a greater sense of community.
You have been asked to participate in one one-hour long semi-structured interview. This interview will centre on your experiences in a food security project. You may also be contacted following the interview for further clarification on any point raised in the interview. Your participation is completely voluntary; you may decline participation or withdraw at anytime without penalty. There are no known risks involved in this study and the only cost to you will be the hour of your time.
As a participant, you will be free to discuss issues pertinent to this topic and will not be in any way coerced into providing confidential or sensitive information. Complete anonymity may not be guaranteed as there is a slight chance that direct quotes or stories, especially those of staff and leaders may identify the participant to others, particularly colleagues, due to the size and nature of the organization. All participants have the option of having their name used in the research: if they prefer that their name not be publicized, a pseudonym will be used to conceal the participant's identity. For all participants, any information disclosed will be held confidential.
I approve of the publication of my name I do not approve of the publication of my name; please use a pseudonym
I understand that this project was approved by the Research Ethics Board, University of Regina. If I have any questions or concerns about my rights or treatment as a research participant, I may contact the Chair of the Research Ethics Board at 585-4775 or by email: research .ethics(S>uregina.ca.
I, , have read the above protocol and voluntarily agree to participate. The procedure and goals of the interview have been explained to me by the researcher and I understand them. I also understand that I am free to decline participation or withdraw my participation from this interview at anytime without penalty. My refusal to participate will not jeopardize or influence the services I am currently receiving. I have received a copy of this letter of consent for my records.
(signature of participant) (date)
(signature of researcher) If you have questions concerning your participation, the results, or this study in general, place feel free to contact the researcher Yolanda Hansen (949-6117, Regina SK) or her advisor Dr. Annette Desmarais (585-5066, Dept of Justice Studies, University of Regina). 145
APPENDIX C INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
A) The Project (Current situation/history) 1) Give me a picture of the garden right now - If you were to describe this garden in 2007, what would you say?
2) Tell me about what you know of the history of this project.
3) What are the goals of the project? Have these changed since the project first started?
4) Who has been involved in this project? (generally - what kinds of people are involved?)
B) History of Personal Involvement 5) How long have you been involved in the garden?
6) What is your current role? How have you been involved in the garden?
7) Do you consider that you have taken on a leadership role in this project? (How do you define leadership?) a. If yes-What is it? Why did you take it? b. If no - would you consider it in the future? Why/why not?
Personal Motivations & Participation 8) Why did you decide to be a part of the community garden?
9) What would you say your level of participation in the project is? High medium low. Explain.
10) Are there barriers to your greater participation? If so, what are they? (self-imposed or otherwise)
11) Why do you feel your participation is important?
Personal Benefits of Participation 12) What are the personal benefits of your participation in this project? (How and why do you (or your family) benefit from the garden?)
Personal Changes as a Result of Participation 13) Has your experience changed the way you feel or think about food and the global food system, how it is produced and distributed? How so? a. Has this changed or affected your actions, particularly the way you procure food? (ie: changes in your buying habits, increased amount grown by yourself)
14) Has your experience changed the way you think about the environment? If yes, has this changed your practices?
15) Has your experience resulted in any other changes in your personal values or the way you think about social relations?
Personal (or Project) Challenges 16) Have there been some challenges or problems for you in your experience in this project? a. What have they been? b. How were those challenges overcome?
C) Being a Part of a Larger Food System 17) People work on these types of these community gardens all over the province/country/world. How does this garden fit into the larger picture of what's happening?
18) Do you see the garden as a part of a viable alternative to a global or conventional food system? Why/why not?
19) Do you see this project, or your participation in it, as a form of resistance to a global food system or globalization in general? Why/why not?
Participation in Decision-making 20) Does the garden allow you and other members or volunteers opportunities to participate in decision-making? a. If yes - What are these opportunities? b. Both yes and no - Is this important to you? Why?
Sense of Community & Civic Values 21) Do you feel a greater sense of community by being a part of this garden? How so? And how would you define community?
22) Has your involvement in this project affected the way you think about participating in your community? Are you more likely to take part in certain community activities or tasks? (ie: voting, attending community meetings or being a part of a community event)
Implications of the Project 23) How has this project changed or affected your community?
24) If you were able to make any recommendations to the provincial government or other policy makers about this project, or its goals, what would that be?
Last Word 25) Is there anything else you would like to add about this project or anything else? APPENDIX D INTERVIEWEE DEMOGRAPHICS
Table 1 - Participant gender and roles
Location #of Male Female Roles Participants Board Coordinator Gardeners Staff Regina 9 6 3 8 1 Moose 9 5 4 6 1 2 Jaw Saskatoon 9 4 5 1 8 Total 27 15 12 14 2 10 1
Table 2 - Participant age and length of involvement in years
Location Avg Age Years 1 2 3 4 5 6- 10 11 12 13 14 Age Range of 9 (yrs) (yrs) involve ment Regina 61 42-78 3 3 1 1 1 Moose 50 25-64 2 7 Jaw Saskatoon 52 40-71 1 8
Table 3 - Participants with a farming background
Location Lived on a farm Worked on a farm (# of participants) (# of participants) Regina 3 4 Moose Jaw 8 9 Saskatoon 7 6 Total 18 19 148
Table 4 - Participant education (highest level achieved)
Location High Trade Other Some Bachelor's Master's Doctorate School C/D61 C/D PS62 Degree Degree Regina 1 0 0 0 5 2 1 Moose 2 2 0 1 4 1 0 Jaw Saskatoon 0 0 1 1 3 3 1
Table 5 - Participant annual household income compared to neighbourhood/city income
Location Less than $25,000- $50,000- $75,000- $100,000 Average $25,000 $49,000 $74,000 $99,000 and more area income63 Regina 0 1 5 0 3 $33,003 Moose Jaw 1 4 3 0 1 $45,860 Saskatoon64 1 1 2 3 1 $55,552
Certificate or Diploma 62 Post-secondary 63Income averages are based on Statistics Canada 2001 census information. For Regina, the average income from the neighbourhoods of Gladmer Park, Core and the Transitional Area (downtown residential) is compared to participant income because these neighbourhoods surrounded the Grow Regina Community Garden on College Ave & Broad St and were targeted for potential community gardeners (City of Regina, 2004). Moose Jaw is compared to the average city-wide income since gardeners participate from all city areas (Moose Jaw RED A 2008). Saskatoon is compared to the City Park neighbourhood average income (City of Saskatoon, 2003). 64 One participant declined to answer this question.