Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Learning History
Chapter Two
By Susan Sweitzer
THE LEARNING JOURNEYS IN BRAZIL
August and September 2004
THE INNOVATION RETREAT
Rex Ranch, Amado, Arizona
November 1419, 2004
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 1 November 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 3
Origins .......................................................................................................................3
Purpose ......................................................................................................................5
Who ............................................................................................................................7
How ............................................................................................................................8
Emergent Questions ..................................................................................................9
THE COURSE OF EVENTS ...................................................................11
The Learning Journeys ...........................................................................................12
Innovation Retreat...................................................................................................15
PHASE ONE: COSENSING, GATHERING EXPERIENCES........................15
PHASE TWO: COPRESENCING, WILDERNESS SOLO .............................19
PHASE THREE: COCREATING, CHOOSING INITATIVES ......................23
Germination of Innovation Initiatives: Two Case Studies .............................26
Case Study One: Food Service ........................................................................26
Case Study Two: Commodity and Investment Initiative ..............................29
TRUST –RELATIONSHIPS – COMMITMENT...................................33
CLOSING REFLECTIONS.....................................................................37
APPENDICES...........................................................................................39
Appendix A ..............................................................................................................39
Lab Team Members, Executive Champions, Advisors and Secretariat ............39
Appendix B ..............................................................................................................42
Food Lab Prototype Initiatives............................................................................42
Appendix C ..............................................................................................................50
Sustainable Food Lab Meetings ..........................................................................50
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 2 November 2004
INTRODUCTION
This second installment of the Learning History of the
Sustainable Food Laboratory was written at the end of
the Innovation Workshop in Tucson, Arizona, U.S. It
reflects the thinking and learning which occurred during
the period from the end of the first workshop in Bergen,
Netherlands in June 2004 through the second workshop
in Arizona in November 2004. Events during that time
included three Learning Journeys in Brazil and the
Innovation Workshop in Arizona, the second of five
such gatherings over the course of a twoyear project.
The intention of this history is to use the words of the
participants themselves to describe the thinking and
learning of the group at this stage in the process in order
to support further reflection and learning as the work of
the Food Lab goes forward.
This chapter builds on the Learning History of the
Foundation Workshop, held in Bergen, Netherlands in
June 2004, which is available to Food Lab team
members upon request.
The introductory section of this chapter of the Learning
History is a slightly edited version of the introduction to
the Foundation Workshop chapter. Reflections and
learning from the Learning Journeys and the Innovation
Retreat begin on page 11 of this document.
This Learning History is intended for use primarily by
participants in the Sustainable Food Lab: members of the
Lab Team and Secretariat, Executive Champions,
Advisors, and funders. Permission is required for any
more public use.
Origins
The Sustainable Food Laboratory arose from a growing
awareness of the critical nature of the economic,
environmental, social, and political impacts of global
food systems. There is an emerging recognition in all
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 3 November 2004
sectors of the food chain that humanity has yet to Adam Kahane comments in pre
develop an optimal global system of food production and workshop interview:
distribution. The Food Lab is a forum for leaders across
the system to address the most pressing and significant “We envision that this team will be
problems of food and agriculture. able not only to imagine breakthrough
solutions but to implement them. In
doing so, they will demonstrate that it
The Food Lab had its origins in the summer of 2002 at is possible for humans to address
the launch of the Global Leadership Initiative, an serious global, vital, complex problem
initiative dedicated to addressing the critical global situations, and to do so peacefully,
challenges of our time. Over breakfast at that gathering not by force.”
Hal Hamilton, Don Seville, Adam Kahane, and Peter
Senge started exploring the possibility that the polarized
debates over agricultural sustainability might benefit Hal Hamilton comments in pre
from the application of the Global Leadership Initiative’s workshop interview:
UProcess, which offers a process to foster breakthrough “This project for me is full of hope. I
thinking and action on complex, crosssector problems. have no sense of just what this group
The conversation then expanded to include Andre van will do, but I am eager for us all to
Heemstra, JanKees Vis and Jeroen Bordewijk of take on the most difficult things we
Unilever and Oran Hesterman of the Kellogg can.”
Foundation. Oran, JanKees and Jeroen described their
ongoing investments in sustainable agriculture projects
and their desire to influence the mainstream, but all three
expressed a sense that neither the Kellogg Foundation Preworkshop Lab Team comments:
nor Unilever are powerful enough to do this alone. “You need the synergy of thinkers. I
think it is impossible that only one
Over the succeeding year and a half, Hal, Adam, and small team can find answers.”
their colleagues at Sustainability Institute and Generon
Consulting interviewed dozens of system leaders in the
United States, Europe and Brazil. From these interviews,
individuals were invited to join the Food Lab. The
intention was to bring together entrepreneurial leaders
seeking more rapid and farreaching change in the
direction of sustainability than their current efforts had
achieved. The hope was that bringing together
representatives from each sector of the food chain could
provide a unique picture of the complexity and critical
nature of the problems intrinsic in the system as a whole.
In conversations and interviews conducted over the
course of assembling the Lab Team and Executive
Champions, interviewees identified a variety of systemic
challenges that the project needs to address: Comments in preworkshop
interviews:
· Increasing productivity while stewarding “We should ask, ‘What do we want as
biodiversity and reducing energy use farmer, trader, processor, consumer
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 4 November 2004
and human being? How can we
· Enabling mass markets to incorporate achieve together what we want from
environmental and social impacts of particular the system we create together?’”
food production
“There might be some possibility of
· Enlarging market access for developing countries creating almost an alchemical
while preserving the future for farmers in the reaction with this group so that we
United States and Europe can figure the value chain differently
and interact differently.”
· Protecting the health of farmers and farm
workers
“Can mass markets in reality
incorporate quality, including
· Increasing opportunities for the rural poor
landscape and culture, in a way that
is even close to what is achieved in
· Enabling smaller farmers to aggregate supply and Europe with a [regional quality]
achieve efficiencies of scale approach?”
· Attracting talent and entrepreneurship to food
production
· Enabling a richer flow of information among all “We’re trying to do something that’s
beyond what anyone can do by simply
the nodes in value chains, including farmers,
reacting within their own institution,
food businesses and consumers and that’s the basis for this project:
that people from three continents and
Team members set the stage for the Foundation all this effort can really find a
Workshop by identifying these systemic challenges and solution or solutions and ideas for a
by calling for new ways to think about solutions. They more sustainable food supply.”
frequently mentioned the need to move beyond
polarization and debate in regard to these challenges, as
well as the need to develop solutions across perceived
boundaries.
Purpose
Incorporating the advice and experience from many Team member comments:
interviews and meetings, the Sustainable Food Lab was
“I am interested in the outcomes that
launched with the purpose of making mainstream food people have stated repeatedly in terms
systems more sustainable. The Lab brings together of getting some kind of shared
leaders from businesses, governments, farm groups and understanding of definition, getting
nongovernmental organizations with this explicit focus. some projects that are really about
Although a more sustainable food system is at the heart scaleable mainstreaming, and also
of this work, the group realizes that perspectives on what having new ideas generated that come
it means to be sustainable differ substantially among the from the interaction of different points
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 5 November 2004
institutions, businesses, and organizations represented in of view and working at the margins –
the Lab. One of the challenges for the Lab Team is to these things are really critical for all
use these differing perspectives and priorities as a of us.”
catalyst for shared learning and significant innovations
in the system. “I think it’s a big chance for me to
learn a lot, also for us to build
concrete projects and make concrete
aims for what shall happen – not only
to talk, [but] to build something.”
The focus of the Food Lab is expressed by many team
members and Executive Champions as making change
“on the ground” through practical action, pilot projects Lab Team member comments in
and viable fullscale food system interventions. The opening plenary:
objective of the Lab is to create prototypes of “We’ve been in the last 20 years
innovations that, once piloted and scaled up, will either through a lot of pilot projects, a lot of
support the development of or directly produce meetings, and I was really attracted to
sustainable food supply systems that are large, this because of the verb ‘to do.’
mainstream, and valueproducing for all actors in the Apparently our group using this
chain—not only small, niche, or philanthropic. process will do something.”
Team member comments:
The Foundation Workshop, held in Bergen in June 2004,
focused on developing a collective understanding of the “We are here because we would like
to have this food of higher quality
current reality of food systems. The plenary sessions with competitive price [while]
provided a framework for this work by exploring a broad defending the environment and the
range of ideas and perspectives on the Challenges in the social culture.”
food system, the Indicators of sustainability in a food
chain, and Current Initiatives that are successful or of “What stands out is that we lack a
interest to sustainable food systems. framework and common definition of
what a sustainable, active food system
The Lab Team also developed two lists outlining their is. There’s not a common
agendas for the time between the Foundation workshop understanding among the
and the Innovation Retreat. These took the form of a stakeholders of sustainable food
Learning Agenda and a Research Agenda. The production. I think we still need to
Learning Agenda focused on the people and places team look for that baseline, that common
definition of understanding and
members wanted to learn more about during their agreement. What is our view on
Learning Journeys. The Research Agenda outlined mainstream, sustainable, agrifood
research that team members thought would support their systems?”
learning as well as resources team members had to offer
each other.
You will find a more indepth consideration of the
content of that workshop in the Learning History
Chapter One.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 6 November 2004
Who
The original Lab Team is composed of individuals from Team Member comments:
three continents and multiple sectors in the food system.
The founding Lab Team consists of people with a “The problem, historically, with
demonstrated ability to make change on the ground who alternatives in the food industry is we
have expressed a high level of frustration about the [business] will create a strategy and
it’s separate – it’s very insular from
current state of the system. They embody a wide range the policy people and from the people
of experience and expertise, including global and who are working on hunger/poverty,
regional policy development and implementation, the NGO community. This project
product development and certification, regional branding provides an opportunity for us to
of products, developing farmer cooperatives, integrating integrate our efforts so that we have a
and advocating for environmental and social policies, more powerful and focused strategy.”
and developing financial incentive programs addressing
many dimensions of food systems.
Three principal groups support the work of the Lab
Team: Executive Champions, Advisors, and the Executive Champions addressing the
Secretariat. The Executive Champions are chief Sustainable Food Lab:
executives or senior officers of the companies and
organizations with which team members are affiliated. “A healthy company can only remain
healthy if it operates in healthy
These Champions provide feedback, credibility, and communities within a healthy
support for mobilizing further resources as Food Lab environment. Why is sustainability of
projects take shape. agriculture so important to us and
why have we picked this particular
The Advisors are resource persons. They are experts topic? Well, over twothirds of our
who provide advice, research support, or intellectual base of our profits is agricultural.”
input to the Lab Team.
The Secretariat is the professional support for the Lab “Credibility is a key word in this type
and was provided initially by Sustainability Institute and of project, specifically credibility of
the process and credibility of the
Generon Consulting. Sustainability Institute (SI) is a
outcome. We have enormous
nonprofit research and consulting group that uses confidence in the people who are
systems analysis and organizational learning to help a behind this project in terms of
broad array of organizations become more strategic. credibility of the process, and you are
Generon is an international processconsulting firm with the guarantee of the credibility of the
extensive experience in trisector dialogue and action. outcome. If all of you are happy with
what comes out of it, it must be a
Following the Innovation Retreat, Synergos Institute major success.”
joined the Secretariat in providing professional support
for the work of the Food Lab. Synergos is an
international NGO that supports local development and
philanthropy with projects in North America, Asia, Latin
America and Southern Africa.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 7 November 2004
How
The design of this Lab is based on the UProcess, a
method for deep innovation that has been developed and
applied over the last 20 years by a group of action
researchers now associated with the Global Leadership
Initiative. In his welcoming statement at the Foundation
Workshop, Adam Kahane characterized the UProcess as
having three phases: cosensing, copresencing and co
creating. The first workshop focused primarily on the
cosensing phase—that of exploring the varied Adam Kahane:
perspectives and priorities within the team in order to
understand the complexity of current reality in the food “If we already knew the solution, then
system. The copresencing phase—that of seeing what we wouldn’t need any of this. We
sense can be made of the complexity of the system, was would simply move from where we
introduced in the Innovation Retreat. The cocreating are to where we want to be. Many of
phase, in which the group understanding and work you have tried to do that and you’re
here because there’s something
coalesce into practical initiatives, began at the
you’re trying to do that’s beyond what
conclusion of the Innovation Retreat. you can do by simply reacting within
your own institutions. That’s the
Although they are described here as distinct, in practice simple basis for this project: to bring
the cosensing, copresencing and cocreating phases of together people from different parts of
the Food Lab overlap with each other and take place in the system to try to understand the
minicycles throughout and between each workshop. current reality and bring forward a
new one.”
The problems in the food system, as in any complex
system, exhibit high dynamic, social, and generative
complexity.
Dynamic complexity occurs when cause and effect are
Adam Kahane:
separated in space and time. For example, consumer
taste in Belgium impacts coffee production in “We talk about deeper levels of
Guatemala, and determinations about land tenure and response, changing the structure of
agricultural practices made 20 yeas ago affect current the system, redesigning the system,
opportunities. changing how we think about the
system…and ultimately that is the
Generative complexity occurs when the situation itself is purpose of what we’re doing.”
fundamentally unfamiliar. Old solutions may no longer
be useful in our age of globalization, with its new
technology, new communications, and new networks. In
an unfamiliar situation, using the best practices from the
past won’t necessarily solve current problems.
Finally, high social complexity is evident when
influential people in the system have fundamentally
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 8 November 2004
different views of what is going on, and about what
matters. When addressing such situations, the
participation of diverse stakeholders makes possible a
comprehensive understanding of current reality and
allows the group to identify significant leverage points
for change.
Emergent Questions
Three questions emerged out of the Foundation Team member comments:
Workshop as important to the overall work of the Food
Lab: “Many people have asked me, ‘What
do you really think about the Lab?’”
And I’ve said, ‘I firmly believe that
· How much agreement is necessary and desirable
the lab is what we want to make of
for successful innovation? it.’”
· Is it possible for successful innovations to shift “I think this is a point [a Team
the system on a global scale? member] made at Bergen: when we
talk about projects it may mean
· How do we ensure that the voices at the edges products; it may be processes; it may
remain in the dialogue? be policies. The question about what
can we do to shift the system is a
question that’s not so far been
answered; and we talked about at
By the end of the Innovation Retreat, discussions among least those three categories: project
team members had expanded and broadened these initial innovations, process innovations;
questions to include considerations of how to maximize policy innovations.”
the potential of the group to effect a shift in the system.
· What is possible personally and systemically?
“What is our potential here as the
· What potential does this group, at this time in Food Lab? Who are we here? We
history, actually possess? have actors who can influence how
production is done, what with the
· How much impact is possible: across sectors, environmental management, the
between continents, locally and globally? social management. We can assess
the economic viability of different
· Where is the most leverage to shift the system production regimes. We also have
toward more sustainability? groups that can shape consumer
choice, and we have groups from the
middle who are the ones that link the
production to the consumption. And
whatever subjects we look at, we
really want to draw on the strength of
who we are.”
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 9 November 2004
The first question—how much agreement is needed for
successful innovation—was partially addressed by the “The diversity is important, but
Team’s agreement at the close of the Innovation Retreat having completely diametrically
to focus on five specific Innovation Initiatives: opposed concepts about, say,
consumer marketing, isn’t going to be
helpful in a project team. So it’s an
1. Access to Markets by Small Farmers in Latin effort also to work internally within
America this Food Laboratory to improve our
2. Regional Food Supply to Schools and Hospitals process of working together.”
3. Business Coalition for Sustainable Food
4. Commodities and Investment
5. Framing “I’m actually very pleased that we got
where we are. I didn’t know that we
The team also identified two Exploratory Initiatives that would get here. We exceeded my
were of great interest to Lab Members but required expectations, actually. I still think
further work to be sufficiently defined to gain the full many of us in the room have a little
different view about things but I have
support of the Food Lab: a higher level of respect about the
different opinions in the room than I
6. More Sustainable Fisheries did previously.”
7. Democracy and Citizens
The selection of the Innovation Initiatives and the
Exploratory Initiatives suggested there was sufficient
agreement to undertake innovation. In addition,
comments made during the Learning Journeys and at the
Innovation Retreat indicated a developing confidence in
the ability of team members with differing perspectives
to work together effectively.
The second question—is it possible for successful
innovations to shift the system on a global scale—is
central to judging the ultimate success of the Initiatives.
The work of the Food Lab in thinking about this question
is reflected in the discussion of phase two of the
Innovation Retreat (page 20).
How the initiatives will ensure that the “voices on the
edge” inform the ongoing development of the initiatives “It still seems to be disturbing me a
remains an open question. During the selection process bit is that there is a disconnect
for the initiatives, several threads of intention stood out. between operationalizing changes and
One was the idea that the voices of those who are most some of the most disenfranchised
actors in that. There is an intent in
affected by system change should be part of the the group to be inclusive, and to look
development of each Food Lab initiative. How this at all aspects of how [food is]
would be enacted was not finalized, but many voiced the produced, transformed, and
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 10 November 2004
intention. consumed. But I am struggling with
the complexity of how to
In the closing comments of the Innovation Retreat, one operationalize [this] on a regional
team member articulated a question about exactly how and national level. I do think there is
the voices of those most disenfranchised in the Food a danger that the global approach
without sufficient critical mass of
System would be part of the work of the Food Lab, but action on a local level will make what
felt that there was strength in the Initiatives and we do vulnerable to collapse.”
reiterated a feeling of remaining connected to the work
of the Lab. “How are we going to take this work
down to the level of my people and the
Lab members’ engagement with the final four questions workers and be able to execute it to
is embedded in the story of the Learning Journeys and show results, at the same time that
the Innovation Retreat. As the work of the Innovation we’re doing such work from the top
Initiative teams and the Food Lab as a whole continue, down? That, I think, is going to be the
these questions and others that were raised over the strength of the Food Lab. So, I remain
course of the first six months of the project will continue engaged and challenged at this
point.”
to frame the thinking of team members and the
evaluation of the achievements of the Food Lab.
THE COURSE OF EVENTS
At the time of this chapter of the Learning History, the
Food Lab has consisted of three events: the Foundation
Workshop in Bergen, Netherlands (June 2004), the
Learning Journeys in Brazil (August and September
2004), and the Innovation Retreat in the U.S. (November
2004).
The Foundation Workshop and the Learning Journeys Team member comments:
were cosensing activities designed to develop a shared
understanding of the highly complex food system. “There is a feeling that we should
During the Foundation Workshop, team members began have the same idea of the problem –
but my experience is that it often
exploring the wide range of perspectives and experience
destroys a group to try to have the
within the team regarding the complexity of same definition, whereas it increases
sustainability in food systems (see Learning History, richness to share our understanding
Chapter One). of sustainability.”
During the Learning Journeys, talking, listening and “I have been very positively
learning to observe in a distinctive way laid the impressed by what I learned in the
groundwork for the essential experience of cosensing— Learning Journeys. The challenge we
experiencing with new lenses the dilemmas, potentials, have ahead is to link what we learned
and dynamics at work in the food system. in the Learning Journeys with the
thoughts and hierarchy of leverage
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 11 November 2004
points that Donella Meadows
explains. Now the question is how
The copresencing aspect of the UProcess—intended to will we make that link and how is it
help team members uncover their deeper knowing about going to help us identify the kind of
both what is going on in the system and what they, prototype that we’re going to do and
identify where the Lab is really able
individually and collectively, need to do about it—was at to touch in that hierarchy.”
the center point of the Innovation Retreat in the U.S. It
was structured around a 48hour wilderness solo “The quality of the innovation
experience. After the wilderness solo, the plenary work depends on the quality of the
of the Lab Team culminated in team agreement to pursue sensing.”
five Innovation Initiative projects and two Exploratory
Initiatives, thus launching the third phase of the U “The final phase of cocreating
Process: the cocreating phase. requires a different spirit that
involves, among other things, a kind
of teamwork.”
The remainder of this history is organized around: “…there has been among the team a
very high level of willingness to learn
a) the lessons and experiences of the Learning and listen to other people, which is
Journeys, something I find impressive with such
a wide range of backgrounds that we
have.”
b) reflections on the wilderness experience and the
development of the five Initiatives at the “We have experienced a profound
Innovation Retreat, and level of trust and openness [which
shows] that we can be very
c) questions and reflections on the creative process comfortable talking about our
and the impact of the personal and institutional disagreements and our differences
relationships in the section entitled Trust – because we’ve built a relationship
Relationships Commitment. around common values. I have no
question in my mind that we share
more common values than we have
differences.”
The Learning Journeys
· learn more about food systems, “I think both personal and group
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 12 November 2004
transformation is essential for the
· discover how to learn through disciplined deeper abilities of ‘seeing’ and
observation, and sensing.”
“I saw a more complex, larger and
· sense the system as a whole, rather than simply more delicate food chain than I had
gathering data on the parts. understood before.”
Each Journey focused on a different geographic region “The [Brazilian] government
of Brazil, and each group experienced a wide range of structure for agriculture, with
actors in food systems—from farmer cooperatives to agrarian reform independent of the
multinational commodity producers, government and Ministry of Agriculture, is interesting.
private sector representatives, and environmental NGOs. This raised lots of questions about
Team members were encouraged to seek out people who how fully segmented the sectors were
[agribusiness and family farms], how
had different—even opposing—perspectives, in order to
the ministries reinforce market
stretch beyond their comfort zone and become more segmentation, as well as some mixed
aware of their own assumptions and beliefs. The feelings of pride and cynicism. Did
Learning Journeys fostered a deeper understanding this structure support or serve to
within the Lab Team both of the food system as a whole structurally isolate the family farm
and of specific successes and challenges in Brazil. sector?”
Team members reported both questioning and seeing “I am still amazed that this number of
more clearly their own mental models as a result of their people can look at the same thing and
experiences on the Learning Journeys. Many remarked see something so different, and every
on the fact that frequently after a visit to a business, perspective is valid. It doesn’t help
me. I find it still confusing. There is
cooperative, or government agency, Lab Members would
so much I don’t understand about
report remarkably different observations. An example is other perspectives.”
the list of team observations after a visit to a small
farmers cooperative:
Hard working
Very political
Not sustainable
Very sustainable
Needs to modernize
Needs time to mature
Is an excellent model
The final exercise of each Learning Journey involved Team member responses to the DNA
constructing a synthesis of the whole food system out of question:
the observations from the Journey. The specific question
team members addressed was: “What are the key “One of the central things is
policy…we should shift from an ag
aspects of the ‘DNA’ of the whole food system that you
policy to a food policy.”
saw this week?”
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 13 November 2004
“I think we need to identify the
boundaries of the system – where
does it end and where does it begin?”
“I don’t know if you have noticed it –
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 14 November 2004
we have formed some sort of
boundary around us. Going into
breakfast [our first gathering after the
Learning Journeys] it was like seeing
a family gathering.”
Innovation Retreat
The Innovation Retreat formed the nexus of the U Team member comments:
Process in the Food Lab: it opened with the final stages
of the cosensing phase, contained the copresencing
experience, and ended with the initiation of the co “I am thinking about the book
‘Presence’ and aspects of this U
realizing phase. Movement through these experiences
Process and I’m feeling a real
can be intense, chaotic, and unsettling, as well as upheaval going on. It’s an interesting
inspiring, grounding and energizing. Team members and uncertain and kind of wobbly
reported all those reactions to the experience of the feeling.”
Innovation Retreat.
The fiveday retreat was organized in three distinct, yet
interdependent, segments. The first two days focused on “I’m living in two worlds – from the
synthesizing the Learning Journey experiences, world of business and commerce, I
brainstorming possible initiatives, and developing approached this with a fair amount of
skepticism because this sort of
criteria for selecting initiatives. This segment was
process just isn’t done, nor does it
followed by the 48hour wilderness solo, introduced and work, nor is this possible. Then you
facilitated by Brian Arthur. The final two days of the land here and all of a sudden you
retreat involved refining and choosing five Innovation realize, ‘Well, maybe it is possible.’
Initiatives which would be the focus of the Food Lab for So the place itself changed my sense
the remainder of the threeyear project of what can be done.”
PHASE ONE: COSENSING, GATHERING
EXPERIENCES
In the Foundation workshop, team members had Team member comments:
frequently expressed the desire to get to the “doing”
phase of the Food Lab as soon as possible. In this “I am curious how the process is
second workshop, the team wrestled with deciding what going to deliver concrete projects to
to do and how to do it. work on out of such complexity and
confusion. I feel extremely calm
about it and I feel extremely
On the afternoon of the first day of the Innovation committed that we are going to do
Retreat, team members brainstormed preliminary ideas something.”
for potential Innovation Initiatives. Although some ideas
immediately garnered much interest and support, the list
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 15 November 2004
of ideas in its entirety gives a feel for the challenge of
narrowing the field to four or five commonly
championed initiatives.
1. Find a means of exchange, other than the current
monetary subsidies, that could support farmers in
the U.S. without creating a ripple effect on
farmers in developing countries. “We want to see whether it is possible
2. Look at both production practices and trade to think of models and to think of
changing of systems that can work out
policy across different countries focusing on for the benefit of all because in the
entry points (where “entry point” is the low price end sustainable production and
received by the majority of the farmers of the sustainable consumption it’s all
world). about development for people.”
3. Focus on institutional food buying, particularly
through public procurements. Put pressure on the
food supply chain by improving the way in which
public food procurement is done. Use that as a “I think number seven [the hatchery
vehicle to educate consumers. for leaders idea] is kind of mission
4. Focus on keeping the origin of production critical; and I understand it doesn’t
present in the labeling of all products. have a lot of very practical appeal,
but it’s only because we’re not
5. Focus on fishing practices, working on better thinking longterm. Number seven
Code of Conduct agreements and linking those could be the epicenter for trying to
Code of Conduct agreements to consumer really think through who the next
choices. generation of sustainability leaders is
6. Define and solicit membership in some sort of going to be; and how we can leverage
system or process of continual improvement existing infrastructure; help in
toward more sustainability or more sustainable leverage existing projects to do that.
practices. So, I say number seven is at the heart
7. Create a Hatchery for Leaders in Sustainability. of the food lab; it cuts across all the
8. Create a Business Coalition for Sustainability. projects. There isn’t a project here
9. Develop a Sustainability forum like the World that shouldn’t be thinking about
leadership.”
Economic.
10. Create better information about price and activity
along the supply chain. There is a market
distortion issue that could be addressed with
policy and information.
11. Develop systems to allow local producers to tap
into large national distribution systems.
12. Focus on the market: develop credit and price
discovery.
13. Focus on the technological linking of the
information that allows a small production unit to “If I learned anything in the last six
months, it is the notion that we need
go big. to be working on all different parts of
14. Focus on a brand equity. the system in order to be successful to
15. Develop food policy councils made up of the move the whole system.”
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 16 November 2004
people or citizens living in a number of targeted
regions.
16. Define under what conditions the global “We are not choosing, just getting a
community will accept the necessity of sense of the possibilities. We will
sustainability. filter out the fluff.”
17. Develop and implement a global certifications
scheme for sustainable food—a global food
policy.
18. Coordinate strategies to shift consumer mindset
about food.
19. Reproduce something like European cheeses and
wines, with a regional protected identity for
smaller, disadvantaged producers in an area that
had some market appeal.
20. Pick a globally traded commodity and negotiate
the standards.
21. Develop financial incentives for nonfood
products from farms.
22. Create an International Youth Corps on
sustainability, like the Girl Scouts.
23. Develop ethical standards for business like the
British “Race to the Top,” and develop those
standards within the corporate world of business.
24. Create conscious consumers, focusing beyond
preaching to the converted to deal with the gap
between people’s intentions and actual behavior.
25. Research making branding sustainability
successful. Enlist top advertising and marketing
experts and explore current opportunities to
brand products.
As the team grappled with the sheer quantity and breadth Team member comments:
of initiative ideas, creating criteria for evaluating the
proposals became crucial. The discussion of how to “You don’t have to have the answers
choose initiatives built on the shared aspirations from the for everything that needs to be done to
Foundation Workshop regarding indicators of progress: solve this problem. In fact, if you did,
it might not be an interesting enough
the “triple bottom line” of social responsibility, idea.”
environmental stewardship, and financial returns. The
question the group now faced was what additional
criteria, beyond alignment with these indicators, would
help them select Innovation Initiatives that might have
the potential to shift the food system.
“One point of leverage [is that] this
One suggestion was that the team look for those cuts across any commodity. It’s not
initiatives that were of interest not only to those in the commodity specific.”
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 17 November 2004
room, but to other partners as well. Another was that the “I’m just thinking of the possibility of
initiatives be projects that needed the unique changing the buying habits of a
contribution of the Food Lab Team and that the work be corporation like that could be big
“within reach” of the Lab. While some team members leverage in the U.S.”
were energized and enthusiastic about the potential of
the latter idea, given the range of influence of the actors
represented in the Lab, others expressed a sense of “If there’s something latent and you
needing to widen the reach of the Lab in the following need to do little to unleash it, that’s
months as the work of the initiatives takes shape. leverage.”
More than once, team members said that finding the
leverage in the system was essential in one way or
another for an initiative to succeed. At various times
team members contributed a number of definitions for Team member comments on criteria
leverage. for choosing innovations:
These and other suggestions generated much dialogue “All these initiatives should be about
and interest within the Lab Team, resulting in the trying stuff out in the real world, but
formation of a crosssectoral subgroup to further develop the arguments should be: if it
the criteria for selection. The subgroup discussed a worked, what would the impact be?
number of ideas, including the importance of measurable How many people, acres, dollars,
minds will be effected?”
impacts and the need for replicable rules or outputs, so
that each project could enhance the overall potential for “We want to see not just all three
learning. The idea of crossboundary projects attracted sectors but the stakeholders
much enthusiasm and was further refined to mean that [involved], including not only the
the most interesting projects for the Food Lab would be powerful players in that particular
ones which included at least one company, civil society, system, but the stickholders: people
and one government agency, as well as both stakeholders who have the short end of the stick –
in the system and “stick holders,” by which the team there’s the stakeholders and the stick
meant those who end up with the short end of the stick. holders.”
There was general agreement that crosscontinent
“What about attractiveness? The
projects would also be of most interest to the Lab.
point has been raised several times
that unless most of the existing
At the end of its deliberations, the subgroup participants are really behind this,
recommended to the full Lab Team that in choosing the and unless this is of interest to other
final initiatives the following characteristics of initiatives players, we won’t succeed in having
be considered particularly valuable: the impact we say we want.”
· Impact “Ideally the things that end up
· High leverage having the highest impact or the
highest leverage for this group have
· Create learning
to reflect all three [sectors and
· Synergies continents]. So, I support that we
· Attractive to partners we think we need have to have partners from all three
· Cross boundaries sectors and from all three
continents.”
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 18 November 2004
The comments of many team members indicate that they “What else would need to happen for
saw a synergistic effect between these criteria. Many this to work? None of these activities
articulated the idea that the projects would have by themselves in any of those single
significant leverage if their impact was considerable, and areas might be enough. What is the
combination of activities that together
that they would have higher impact if they created could add up to real leverage?”
learning opportunities across projects. Some suggested
that the unique potential of the Food Lab lay in the
crosssectoral relationships, and the projects should “I hope to be able to ‘connect the
capitalize on that. dots’ between the good emerging
solutions that are around and try to
This idea generated momentum and enthusiasm as reinforce these emerging solutions
members spoke of the possibilities presented by the into a mainstream agricultural food
diversity of food system actors in the Food Lab with chain which I think is probably the
sufficient influence in business, environmental and biggest challenge of this century.”
social sectors to create projects which would cause
simultaneous intervention at multiple points in food “What struck me about the process in
systems. They noted that the synergistic potential of this this room is that it seemed to me the
strategy is geometrically larger than is obvious when perfect balance between excitement
examining the individual points of leverage. and frustration; and out of that
balance usually something is born.”
PHASE TWO: COPRESENCING,
WILDERNESS SOLO
What is Possible? Team members in Foundation
Workshop:
From the beginning, there have been differing views
regarding the potential of the Food Lab to impact the “This project has the potential for a
breakthrough like we’ve never seen
food system. In the Foundation Workshop, some team
before in our work, and that is the
members voiced the belief that there was potential for creation of such compelling and
compelling and previously unimagined breakthroughs. successful prototypes that they attract
Others, though less convinced of such a possibility, more attention, more resources and
nonetheless voiced confidence that the Food Lab could more energy than any of us in this
achieve significant systemic change by the less dramatic, room can imagine.”
but from their point of view equally effective process of
connecting existing initiatives.
“I expect us to share an experience
The second phase of the Innovation Retreat specifically that will change the rest of our lives,
addressed this question of “What is possible?” through and through that experience find the
an exploration of creativity, innovation, and discovery as breakthrough that we all would like to
see, that we’ve all committed to just
they relate to the potential to address seemingly by our presence here.”
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 19 November 2004
intractable problems.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 20 November 2004
the effects of being out in nature alone often emerge whenever I’ve done this, maybe two
slowly over days and weeks and even months. He weeks later, three weeks later,
invited people to share any part of their experience something falls in place – two or three
which seemed meaningful at that moment. The feeling months later I’m still feeling effects
in the group on the hilltop as participants spoke was one from that. It’s almost as if some
things have gotten unlocked that need
of quiet, gentle directness and openness. to be dealt with over time.”
The following are samples of the reflections of team
members at the end of the solo wilderness experience:
“I truly listened to birds for the first time. I saw rabbits. I did the best yoga
ever. And I was afraid of the night. I realized connection is most important to
me. Alone does not work for me.”
“If you bend down, I found, you can see new things and things live there, out
of your normal path of experience. You can’t always manage to look at things
in life that way. I could bend down and see a whole different, vibrant life
existing beyond my experience.”
“You often don’t see things that are there. Are we looking for the wrong
things?”
“I was calmed by doing nothing.”
“Time had no meaning for me. I was surprised not to miss my cell phone, but
I didn’t. I saw something new each time I focused on something in nature.”
“I had two experiences that stand out. I got into a space of thinking that the
world right now is like a wolf herding sheep. I was overcome with all the
danger caused by humans. The other feeling was deep thanks. I became
aware of all kinds of things happening we don’t see. I watched the very last
star disappear this morning into the light of dawn. I was very aware that it is
still there, but I don’t see it. There are hidden things in each of us that blaze
out, like that star.”
“Our place in history affected me deeply and unexpectedly. I was camped in
what was once a village with foundations of various sizes and shapes all
around my tent. I thought about the thriving community which was once here
and I was very sad.”
“I didn’t think of the Food Lab at all. I looked in. It takes courage to visit
your self from within. Who am I? What is needed of me? I saw two shooting
stars, in parallel paths and I was completely amazed and excited until I
realized it was actually the flight path of some airplane. You see what you
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 21 November 2004
want, and I decided not to stay with the truth (flight path) but to remain
thinking it was two shooting stars.”
“I thought about 3000 years ago—people trying to save the hunters and
gatherers. Are we on a similar path?”
“I found that the ordinary becomes extraordinary. And then it goes back to
being ordinary.”
*******************************************************
Two people shared dreams of births, which seemed
significant to some who connected the dreams with the
concept of the Food Lab birthing the Innovation
Initiatives. In both dreams, the dreamer was surprised to
find him or herself delivering a baby in a tent. In both
dreams, the baby and mother were healthy, and the
dreamer was unsure what to do in the aweinspiring
moment of birth.
One unexpected event during the wilderness experience
bears recounting because of its effect on the group. On
the afternoon of the second day, the silence was broken
by two black helicopters which rose from behind Mount
Hopkins and flew back and forth over the campsite area,
low enough for team members to observe uniformed men
studying the tents on the ground. The helicopters “An image that was really strong for
disappeared as suddenly as they had materialized and the me was the reactions to the
ridges and valley returned to the quiet of natural sounds. helicopter. It was so easy for me to
just assume they were there for our
Team members reported markedly different reactions to safety. I felt the effects of things I
this event when they gathered the next morning at the know intellectually, but that brought
end of the solo experience. it home very, very poignantly: how
our different experiences shape our
The European team members generally assumed the reactions to events so, so strongly.
helicopters were on a rescue or assistance mission of So, that’s an image I’ll carry for
some kind and reported feeling reassured by the quite a while.”
experience, jarring though the interruption seemed. The
North Americans generally assumed the helicopters were
searching for illegal drug runners, or Latin Americans
illegally crossing the boarder. They reported mixed
feelings of both unease and of being protected. The
Latin Americans assumed the helicopters were from the
Immigration and Naturalization Service and were
tracking illegal immigrants. They reported feeling fear,
intimidation, deep sadness, and compassion for the
people who were the objects of the search.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 22 November 2004
The earlier experience on the Learning Journeys— “The certification standards, they are
learning to listen to different perspectives and being open necessary, completely needed for
to exploring differences—may have contributed to the sustainability, but they generate
attitude of curiosity and interest with which team unsustainability. I don’t know how to
members approached the very different reactions to the resolve the problem that we do need
the standards; we do need
helicopter saga. No one tried to establish one perspective certification, but when we create
as reality. Rather, there was general acceptance that what certifications and we create
may have been protective action for one was a threat to standards, we work against the small
another. This reflects a reality in the food system which producer.”
has become starkly evident to this group: that something
which benefits one sector or part of the food chain can be
a threat or challenge to another.
PHASE THREE: COCREATING, CHOOSING
INITATIVES
The final twoday segment of the workshop began as the
team reassembled after the wilderness experience.
Many team members commented on the sense of calm Team member comments:
determination in the group after the wilderness camping
experience and expressed confidence that this group was “I think, because of the trust that has
been building, it’s been much easier
uniquely capable of the work that was needed in the food for me over the last several days to
system. truly understand the intricacies of
this project, as well as the body of
One member of the team characterized the feeling in the good will that’s forming. And my
group as stillness. Others remarked on a feeling of good belief is that that good will and that
heartedness and convergence. Many became aware of a trust not only is strong, but is up for
new level of commitment and energy. Others the challenge.”
commented on the focused high energy of the group as it
dove into the challenging work of selecting initiatives “Energy in the group has shifted to
that could shift food systems toward greater stillness and good heartedness. It is a
sustainability. much stiller group that came back.”
The tangible work of the last two days of the Innovation “I came into this meeting with a lot of
Retreat involved refining and choosing Innovation doubt about the process—about
Initiatives that would be the focus of the Food Lab for outcome, certainly, and about
the remainder of the threeyear project. By the end of the relationships, honestly. I leave with
fifth day, the team had reduced the list of twentyfive all those doubts converted into
energy and direction and purpose
ideas from the first day to nine. Each of the nine was and passion.”
broadly defined and incompletely developed, and each
was distilled out of numerous proposals.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 23 November 2004
The plenary session of the final day of the Retreat
opened with marked dynamism. One team member “I thought a lot last night and was
described a vivid dream of taming wild horses. Another actually a little bit worried because
reported a sleepless night filled with images of team now I think we’ve identified some
members “selling” their innovation ideas. Another great projects and some things that
we can really do. I was thinking, (1)
described chaotic trains of thought revolving around how how do I convince my company to
to move through the transition phase into implementing support these, and (2) how do I find
these projects. Others reported not getting much sleep as the time – I mean, I’m already
a result of thinking about a crucial point or an insight working 60 hours a week – how do I
about the power of change, or worrying about how to find the time to get or to help
accomplish the exciting, significant innovations that were anybody get anything done? And
emerging. There was a sense of momentum in the room, now the work begins, and that scares
accentuated by excitement, anticipation, disquiet and the hell out of me.”
determination.
In the end, having brought forward initiative proposals— “Robert Browning said, ‘A man’s
reach should exceed his grasp.’ I
each with the potential for significant leverage, impact, think we really are grasping beyond
synthesis, learning and crosssector outcomes—team ourselves and there’s quite a lot of
members voted with their feet by indicating which fear about whether we can deliver. I
initiatives they were personally willing to colead or think the biggest insight I got was
otherwise commit to. about innovation building on other
things that already exist. I think
The initiatives that were chosen had germinated from there’s a big desire to create
seeds planted in the earliest plenary sessions. Each was something really, really new and it’s
enriched and changed through much iteration. Generally, a bit of a disappointment that all the
ideas and innovations were influenced by the earlier projects are building on things that
group work on indicators of success, information about already exist. My big insight is:
delivering incremental projects with
the work already being done in each area of innovation, a whole is something which hasn’t
the amount of time and resources individual Food Lab been done and it is a big innovation.”
members were able to commit to the work involved, and
the degree to which the initiative had potential for
leverage in the food system.
Several team members remarked on the ease and “I was very concerned, up until a
swiftness that characterized the final deliberations of the couple of days ago, that we wouldn’t
Lab Team. Each initiative was only loosely defined at make it; and then when it happened,
the time of this writing, with the expectation that further it happened, in my mind, rather
definition and prototyping was essential for determining quickly. I mean, things just started
popping and we got to this point
the parameters and focus of the work. Below is a brief pretty quickly and that was just
description of each of the five Innovation Initiatives and amazing.”
the two Exploratory Initiatives. A more complete list, as
well as an explanation of the initial proposed scope of
each initiative, can be found in Appendix B.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 24 November 2004
Initial Innovation Initiatives:
· Access to Markets by Small Farmers in Latin
America. “If we could invest and bring all our
energies onto these five things we
Goal: To improve the livelihoods of family
think we can shift the future of the
producers through innovative market food system.”
structures and infrastructure investments.
· Regional Food Supply to Schools and
Hospitals.
Goal: Create demand for food with better
taste, nutrition, and cultural identity by
building regional relationships between
institutional buyers and local sources.
· Business Coalition for Sustainable Food.
Goal: Build a coalition to drive more
sustainable practices in a manner that brings
economic sustainability.
· Commodities and Investment.
Goal: Institutionalize buyer and investor
screens for major commodities to drive
international adoption of better social and
environmental practices.
· Framing.
Goal: Develop new framings through which
mainstream citizens can connect their values
to sustainable
Exploratory Initiatives:
· More Sustainable Fisheries.
Goal: To improve market access for
responsible small fishermen and develop a
sustainable model for aquaculture.
· Democracy and Citizens.
Goal: To strengthen democratic citizenaction
for sustainable food
Two innovation areas that had been discussed at length “What about a certifications scheme
by the full Lab Team were eventually integrated into for sustainable food relating to
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 25 November 2004
other initiatives rather than being defined as individual, branding and labeling? We as a
independent projects. The first was termed Community group could develop something. It
Brands, creating sustainable food brands owned by the could include economic and social
communities where food is sold. This was seen by many analysis of value and compensation
as creating the possibility to leverage advertising and in the food system. Looking at all of
the different values that there actually
promotion, generate critical mass and economy of scale, are in the food system that are right
focus on hunger and poverty by creating links to now not being recognized: What are
community, and leverage excess manufacturing capacity. those? What are the differences?
Who’s getting profit and credit? Who
The second was described in the plenary sessions as A isn’t, and how do we rebalance
Greenhouse for Leaders. The idea of developing the that?”
capacity for and commitment to responsible leadership
throughout the food system was seen as having the “What are the real points of
potential to be catalytic, and generative, but hard to significance? It is all about people
quantify. The Food Lab was cited as one form of a because people have taken the
“greenhouse,” but the team noted that this idea needed to challenge of leadership to move
things forward. If we could find a
be developed through work with specific businesses, way of unleashing more embryonic
foundations and civil society representatives involved in leaders to be real leverage points
the Innovation Initiatives. Team members recognized within their own areas and leverage
that any work directed toward this effort would connect points between leadership groups up
and substantially increase the impact of any other and down the chain, across countries,
initiative. then you have something extremely
powerful, extremely powerful.”
Germination of Innovation Initiatives: Two
Case Studies
Tracking the development of Innovation Initiatives is “I think the projects are not perfect,
interesting both for the strategies that were discarded or but the whole idea of prototyping is
incorporated elsewhere and for the synergies that you get it out there and you work on
contributed to the final chosen initiatives. The two case it. These will not be the final projects.
studies presented below offer a glimpse into the We have more work to do on them
and then more beyond that.”
creativity and range of thinking that contributed to the
development of the final list of chosen initiatives.
Case Study One: Food Service
The ideas that coalesced into the Food Service Initiative Team member comments regarding
were first brought to the group at the Foundation the idea of a Food Serviced Initiative:
Workshop. In the opening introductions, one member
explained his interest in the Sustainable Food Lab as “On a business level we are very
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 26 November 2004
being grounded in a corporate concern regarding the concerned that we will not have
longterm prospects for largescale procurement of access to the products that we need to
products from small and midsized farmers for service our customers in the future.
distribution to institutional and restaurant suppliers. We see the small and middlesize
farmer’s numbers decreasing day by
day and, frankly, they are the ones
Later, during the Sustainability Indicators exercise at the that are offering the variety and
Foundation Workshop, institutional purchasing behavior specialty products that we need to
was listed as one indicator of a more sustainable food offer to our customers for their
system. At this point in time, the interest was in tracking consumers. So, I think this is very
the number of institutions committed to buying important for our industry and for
sustainable food, with the assumption that an increase our future in that respect.”
would indicate a shift in the food system toward more
sustainability.
The Learning Journey experiences touched directly on “In Learning Journey two we saw a
the relationship between large food distributors and small lot of what I call the ‘big’ players: a
local producers, although the idea of leveraging large food distributor along with
institutional buying as a strategy to move the system did commodity cooperatives dependent
not specifically emerge in the reports of any of the three upon the export market. Juxtaposed
with that, we visited small farmers,
Journeys. not doing so well, not really players
in the global food system. Can our
Food Lab impact both levels of
operation?”
On the opening day of the Innovation Retreat, Lab Team “Focusing on institutional food
members contributed the idea of institutional food buying buying, particularly through public
to the very first brainstorm of Innovation Initiatives. At procurement, could put pressure on
that time the idea was presented as having great potential the food supply chain by improving
the way in which public food
to improve the way public food procurement is done and
procurement is done. We can think of
as a vehicle to educate consumers about more sustainable using that as a vehicle to educate
choices. consumers. This is an area where
there seems to a lot of potential.”
As an interested group of Lab Team members discussed “…First when the idea was posted,
the leverage of focusing on institutional buyers, the scope ‘institutional’ wasn’t even there. It
narrowed to developing standards for food procurement was food buyers, and then that was
for government, military, and health care institutions. such a broad range we reduced it,
The team considered several strategies, including making and then we decided to exclude
retailers and really talked more about
clear the costs of unsustainable choices, creating institutions as defined as distributors,
traceability indicators, and developing a reward system. government, military and
institutions…This is about creating
traceability with indicators, and
addressing risks – and perhaps it may
include a reward system for
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 27 November 2004
experimental opportunity.”
After the wilderness solo, at least one team member “… the message that came very clear
offered additional ideas about the potential for the Food to me on the solo was about the
Lab to focus on food buyers. This person reiterated the importance for food to be consumed
importance of local food production, and suggested that a as close to the site of production as is
significant shift in the food system might come from possible. Rather than recreating
something new or reinventing a
adapting already existing prototypes. wheel, we might be able to adopt
[what is already being done] as a
prototype. Particularly facilitating
connections of all the food buyers
within a region, so it pulls in the
institutional buyers…I think it’s very
doable. This group could do it.”
“Your point was that the innovation
was about addressing institutional
food service, right? It’s not about the
regional identity of the food as such
at this point.”
During the last two days of the workshop, as the list of “We identified target audiences; one
potential initiatives was being narrowed from twentyfive was the end institutional buyer.
to nine, there was talk once again of the importance of Another target would be parents, as it
focusing on the flow from production to consumption, relates to working with schools. We
specifically looking at key institutional buyers who are were talking about the flow from
production to consumption and
perceived as having the greatest leverage. Interested Lab looking at key institutional buyers
Members refined the focus further, considering the who have the greatest leverage.
following issues: We talked about needing
sustainability screening— looking at
· Target audiences social, economic, environmental and
nutritional elements. Another target
· Developing and implementing sustainable screens [was] the alternative health food
for institutional procurement supply chain. We had discussion
around regulations versus incentives
as creating motivation…building this
· The pros and cons of a strategy of regulation vs. a business case. We identified factors
strategy of incentives like efficiency, bottomline,
transaction costs, etc. Some of the
· Rewarding improvement limitations that we identified:
· would there be enough supply of
· Minimizing the risks to producers in such a system sustainablyproduced food?
· low prices—a risk to producers
· Using a unified brand in the system.
We talked about a need to try to
spread the risk over the whole
· Applicability of Green Purchasing Programs already system—that’s not where most of the
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 28 November 2004
in existence in many governments in the E.U. risk is today, and that would be a
limitation and a challenge…and the
· Determining whether there could be sufficient overall complexity would be a
supply limitation that would have to be
addressed.”
In the last hours of the Arizona retreat, the team members
most interested in investing further time and energy on
the Food Service Initiative defined the work as:
“Creating more sustainable food services. Building
regional relations in food service and local sources
through taste, nutrition, environment, cultural identity,
and economy.”
Case Study Two: Commodity and Investment
Initiative
The idea behind the Commodity and Investment Team member during Foundation
Initiative was first mentioned in Bergen, although Workshop introductions:
initially Commodities was one focus and Investments
was another. Both were seen as examples of high “We need to make the business case
for sustainable commodity agri
leverage intervention in the food system.
production.”
During the opening remarks of the Foundation Lab Team comments:
Workshop, at least one Lab member mentioned
commodityspecific round tables as one method or “Commoditiesspecific roundtables.
approach the Food Lab should consider. In the There are at least halfa dozen
Indicators of Success session, the idea of incorporating different ones on specific
social and environmental benefits of production into the commodities. We’ve got a business
field of commodity markets was proposed by more than case analysis of how you work in field
one team member as an example of a possible project commodity markets, and for me
that could shift mainstream food production toward more success would be to identify two or
sustainable practices. three major commodities where we
could actually mainstream these
ideas and incorporate the values of
production, the values of the
environment, and of society. That’s
to me what success would look like
because those would be the cases that
we’d use to multiply across different
systems.”
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 29 November 2004
“Another area where there was real
potential was to look at some kind of
international agreement, such as
At various times throughout the Food Lab events, team sugar where there are real tensions
members wondered whether there were ways to link between Brazil, the E.U., the U.S. Is
there a way to begin to look at
trade policy work, countryspecific production Brazil’s desire to export more, the
conditions, fisheries, and international certification internal production conditions of
programs with an initiative focused on commodities. sugar, the issues of production of
sugar inside the E.U. and the U.S.?
Could that be one of the areas which
we could look at— both production
practices and trade policy across
those different countries?”
Eventually, a group of Lab members organized around “The idea of the commodity work is
developing an initiative based on the commodity to bring together people from
roundtable concept. This idea has a fiveyear history, business, producer groups, civil
stemming from the work of a group from the World society organizations, NGO’s and
Bank National AquaCulture Centers that focused on environmental groups, researchers
and government to discuss the social,
making shrimp aquaculture more sustainable. The environmental, and economic impacts
process of the World Bank group created a prototype that of specific commodity production
is beginning to be adopted by other commodities. The systems around the world, with each
proposal for a Food Lab Initiative was to adopt this group focusing on one. Then to look
prototyped roundtable process for other commodities, at what areas we have agreement
using the crosssectoral connections in the Lab to support about, disagreement about, and areas
this strategy. where we don’t have information
about what those impacts are. We
know that no more than six to eight
impacts for any commodity cause 80
percent of most people’s concern, so
the focus of this work is on six or
eight topics, not on a laundry lists of
impacts.”
“It’s really very strategic; the groups
have gotten agreement very quickly
on those six issues. The idea then is
to look at what better practices
actually reduce those impacts to
acceptable levels, and which of those
better practices are already being
used by 10 or 20 or 25 percent of
producers.”
“These groups are not interested in
identifying ‘perfect,’ but rather in
looking at ‘better’ and improving the
system through that. The goal is to
come up with principles, criteria and
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 30 November 2004
then measurable standards around
each impact to develop thirdparty
certification for producers, but also
for buyers to use in the absence of
formal certification programs and for
investors to use as a way to screen
their own projects.”
The idea to link commodity roundtables with a financial “The people who are drawn to the
or investment process was introduced by one Lab roundtable for sustainable palm oil
member on the final day of the Innovation Retreat. This are growers and processors. Only
team member cited the current example of the two banks until now have signed up
for that initiative. By putting the
sustainable palm oil roundtable discussions, which
finance in the fast food community
include two financial institutions, as a possible model for behind the commodity initiative or the
the Food Lab work. commodity initiative behind the
financial community—it doesn’t
matter which way your turn it—you
create a link that is actually needed.
You have to realize, over 90 percent
of the tonnage of production, land
use, and money is in commodities.
We’re talking about incredible
amounts of money and incredible
amounts of material.”
“I’m interested in markets and [the]
At the same time that the commodity work was being psychology of the markets…as a bank
developed, the highleverage possibilities of working we don’t want to be financing
with financial incentives and investment screens became businesses or projects that are clearly
unsustainable. We spend a lot of time
quite compelling to the Lab Team. The finance group
recognizing what is unsustainable in
took a bottomup and topdown approach to finance terms of environment and
strategies, and laid out three project options: development. We recognize that in
finance, winning businesses will be
· Supplying/creating microcredit at the bottom of the sustainable [and] will grow, and
food chain, financial institutions [will]
understand, recognize and make
· Developing productionpractice screens (for profits in that field.”
example: practices which protect the environment
and social systems) for financing commodities in the Report of the group interested in a
Finance Initiative:
middle of the food chain, and
“We’ll start with the bottomup,
· Developing financial screens which define which is getting microcredit to
sustainability or sociallyresponsible investment at farmers who can’t get credit. Micro
the top of the food chain. credit schemes in places where
people need finance is meaningless if
it’s not linked to commercial
production markets, upstream
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 31 November 2004
Of these three projects, only the development of opportunities. So, when you look at
commodity investment screens was included in the final microfinance, you have to think
five Innovation Initiatives. However, essential aspects of about linkages, contracts with
the microcredit schemes were integrated into the Latin companies who can sell either locally
American Family Farmers Initiative. or into export markets, and those
contracts can also create risk
mitigance to lenders.
If you look in the middle there’s
traditional bank finance—finance to
industry, including lending to
In the final day of the Innovation Retreat, the Finance farmers. We think there’s potential to
and Investment Screens group and the Commodity team get practice screens for financing
proposed merging for the greatest leverage and impact. commodity flows, which could be tied
to the commodity initiative. The
At the end of the Initiative Retreat, the goal for this Equator Principles for Project
initiative was defined by the team as: Finance are the environmental
principles that investments must meet
if they’re to be financed. There’s
“Create a common framework for more sustainable some potential scope we ought to
commodity production, resulting in buying and look at to make sure that the right
investment screens and focusing on: sorts of things are being done there.
And then if you look at the top of
· Identifying and agreeing on social and environment the food chain, there’s an increasing
impacts interest in what we call Socially
· Identifying and analyzing better management Responsible Investments. There is
practices for smallmediumlarge producers good potential to work with some of
the asset managers in food and agri
· Developing thirdparty certification programs
business on developing financial
· Producing highquality products screens which define sustainability or
· Measurably improving practices” sociallyresponsible investment.
You’d make it much more tangible
and clear for the people doing the
investment and investors. The people
who really aren’t producing the sort
of goods you want in terms of SRI
would over time attract less favorable
capital treatment.”
“The finance group feels there’s
relevance to other subjects, but we
agree that it makes sense to group the
finance work in one project where
there’s greatest leverage. I think what
we can do is bring a lot of value to all
the initiatives, but where we can
deliver the most leverage and create
the biggest impact is with
commodities.”
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 32 November 2004
TRUST –RELATIONSHIPS –
COMMITMENT
While the tangible outcomes of the Innovation Retreat
were accomplished through an intense and energetic “I’m remembering the first
exchange of ideas, the development of less visible description of the Food Lab where
dynamics was also essential to the process. For some, you said you were looking for leaders
personal and interpersonal changes were as significant as who were frustrated…I’m now very
excited to be able to work on things
the development of the initiatives. A number of team that I have been working on for many
members reflected in their closing comments on the role years and now finally I see a
of commitment, trust, and respect in enabling the possibility for progress.”
profound changes which they felt were critical to the
Food Lab’s longterm potential to shift the food system.
“For me the innovation will not
In comments and reflections on the Learning Journeys, in necessarily be in the ideas. The
the Innovation Retreat, and on the wilderness solos, team innovation will be if together we can
members described profound change on several levels: change the reality. The innovation
has to do with commitment.”
· personally, “This has actually been an amazing
process in relation to building trust
· interpersonally between members of the Food Lab, within the group.”
“On a personal level, I don’t know
really what it means yet, but there’s a
On a personal level, team members spoke of feeling line at the end of ‘The Journey of a
changed by experiences during the Food Lab. Many Magi’ by T.S. Eliot which says,
could not articulate exactly the meaning of the change, basically ‘the kings went back to their
own countries but were no longer
but indicated that something significant had shifted happy in their old dispositions,’ and I
personally for them. Some spoke of a feeling of think that’s what I’m feeling now.”
possibility. Others spoke of getting in touch with things
that sustain them. “On the one hand, as a whole
systems thinker and doer and as a
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 33 November 2004
father of two children, I believe much
more in the possibility of making a
real change. I think that this Food
Lab can make a real change in the
food system. I believe that much
more, and as a consequence of that
my personal motivation as part of this
thing is to see where I can really
make contributions has increased.”
“I’m also even more impressed by the
approach and the process because, to
be honest, I was in the beginning a bit
skeptical about it – also about the
solo. But it works. I don’t think I yet
understand fully why it works, but it
works.”
“You have given me the possibility of
widening my horizons. I have looked
at a compass but I still can’t get my
bearings in personal terms.”
“I got back in touch with things that
really are nourishing for me both
personally and in terms of work.”
In the opening comments of the Arizona Retreat, several “I like the way the process, including
team members who were known for their ability to the Learning Journeys, has been put
articulate the intricacies of the food system remarked on together to allow our humanness to
their own newfound sense of comfort with a feeling of come out, and build trust.”
chaos and confusion coming out of the experiences of the “I’ve heard it called ‘trust’ and
Learning Journeys. Hearing that openness to learning ‘respect,’ but I’ve just got to say, I’ve
and to questioning stronglyheld assumptions contributed experienced a deepening love for all
significantly to the respect and openness in the group. of you. I feel like I’m part of a family
here that has a very tremendous
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 34 November 2004
thread of love passing through it, and
that’s a very special gift. That’s a
huge shift for me.”
“I learned some things on my solo. I
heard a lot of words as I was
meditating on my solo and those were
connectedness, and hope, and
respect.”
“If you remember, in our first
workshop my question was, how you
will handle the tension between
openness—which is essential for
building trust, and trust is totally
necessary for us to deliver—and some
Several team members expressed increased confidence in necessity of steering. I know that
the both the UProcess and in the balanced, evenhanded among people of the Secretariat there
facilitation by the conveners of what could have been a are people with strong views about
biased, advocacy approach to the work of the Food Lab. the subject we are dealing with and I
A number of team members expressed appreciation for admire the fact that today the process
the transparent nature of the process for developing the remains totally open and, in fact, the
innovation initiatives. projects were framed by the group.”
“Although I’ve always been confident
Along with deepening sense of connection and trust about the possibilities of the project, I
between individuals, the level of commitment—both have also been anxious about
personal and institutional—intensified over the course whether it will be realized. I must say
of the Learning Journeys and the Innovation Retreat. that now that I’ve seen the output of
this week, I’m happy. What has
The impact of seeing and feeling increased ownership for changed most is that I can see now
the work of the Lab created momentum in the team. This much more clearly how we as a
was supported by the recognition that the members of the company can look at this process and
Food Lab bring with them a vast set of networks, all the arms of it and take that into
influence, and power in the food system. As team our innovation work.”
members expressed their individual determination and
sense of responsibility for the initiatives, excitement built “Brian used the image of Indiana
around the potential of the combined influence of the Jones stepping out over a chasm and
many institutions and actors represented in the Food Lab. having the bridge shoot out just as he
stepped, and it feels like that now – it
seems like we’re all in unison
stepping out and expecting the bridge
The image of a bridge was important for several team to come… and I’m quite sure it will.”
members. One described the Food Lab process as having
bridged the divide between NGOs, environmentalists, “In terms of .the concept of bridge
and businesses. He suggested that system change toward …my initial aim [in joining] this
sustainability would be inevitable if a similar bridge were group was to make you organic
built between those interests within the wider food [types] understand how important it
system. was to nourish people. Through their
brilliant methodology [the conveners]
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 35 November 2004
have not permitted me to do so and
that’s why we are building something
Brian Arthur described the need for belief or faith in the together. Now I see that we from
creative process by evoking the movie of Indiana Jones business or industrial agriculture
stepping out into a chasm in order to reach the Holy have the same aims as the NGO’s,
but we are so entrenched in our
Grail, believing that a bridge would mysteriously appear arguments that we [have] kept apart.
under his feet. Several team members referred to this Imagine if we could create a bridge
image as representing the trust required within the Lab in the entire system as we have been
Team as commitments to the Innovation Initiatives were able to create a bridge here and
made. encourage cooperation. We see the
aims are common. The speech is
different but if we could bridge them
together it could change things.”
In terms of team members’ sense of the potential for the “I believe that this work is beyond
Food Lab to enact system change, many spoke about any of us individually.”
their own shifting perceptions of the ability of the Food
Lab to influence the global food system. For the most “We are figuring out how to look a
part, team members admitted that they had joined the new way at innovations and also
whole systems – how do we actually
Food Lab because they were intrigued by the possibilities begin to identify and work within
it offered, but were initially at least moderately skeptical whole systems? I think we’re learning
that this group could agree on a course of action or enact right now how complex it is – really
substantial system change. more complex than I thought.”
“I’m hopeful. The right people are in
In the closing remarks of the Innovation Retreat, Lab the room to make something great
team members referred to a sense of having the right happen.”
people in the room. They also expressed confidence that
the initiatives could shift the system—in particular, “Despite getting a big sense of all the
because the initiatives addressed multiple leverage points work we have to do, I feel much more
relaxed about it because when I get
in the system, and they built on the synergies created by back I’ll have this sense that I’m part
individual, institutional, and crosssector commitments of this much bigger effort.”
among the Lab Team.
“I had my doubts about this U
Process. But I have seen the capacity
Several expressed confidence regarding the significance to change in the lab. I go with a
of the potential for the initiatives to mobilize regional much greater degree of responsibility
production capacity, incorporate social justice work, or facing what I have to do, and at the
develop what one termed a “cultural leverage point.” A same time looking at opportunities to
number of people noted a heightened sense of the mobilize regional capacity to change
magnitude of the work ahead and of their responsibility in food systems.”
to that work. “I’ve been sitting here just admiring
how much sheer knowledge is in the
room—you’ve different specialties,
different experiences, but the
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 36 November 2004
collective memory here is
staggering.”
“We can develop a cultural shift that
values what we believe is needed.
How? Through a cultural leverage
point: developing an inclusive
movement that shifts the culture into
valuing food. Our group was fairly
emphatic that this largescale change
was possible and could really click
this sustainability thing along much
faster.”
Beyond the personal, interpersonal, institutional and “It’s very exciting because you’re
systemic changes, an unmistakable sense of excitement about to grasp the thistle of really
emerged over the course of the Innovation Retreat. trying to do something, and that’s
Several team members remarked on the level of energetic really exciting for me to see.”
focus among the Lab Team after the wilderness solo.
“Taking the time to create
Quite a few spoke of newfound confidence that the Lab confidence, trust and to create a level
Team could enact concrete implementation of the of commitment is very important. I
innovations as well as capitalize on the synergistic very much appreciate the process to
potential represented by the Lab Team circles of take the time— not to try, in the first
influence. meeting, to have the commitment of
action.”
The question remains, however, how this team will make
the most of the unique crosssectoral influences and “The buzz in the open space after the
networks that exist in the Food Lab in enacting the solo of everybody running around
Innovation Initiatives. caucusing in small groups, and the
amount of creativity and excitement
and fun we were having was
exhilarating. I want to be there in
that space together more often.”
“The challenges you take on that you
feel you’re not quite sure you can
deal with are the ones that really
make you grow.”
CLOSING REFLECTIONS
The closing comments of participants in the Innovation
Retreat include many references to an initial skepticism
that grew into admiration and profound appreciation—
both for the overall process of the Food Lab, as well as
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 37 November 2004
for the level of trust, respect, and commitment that
developed among members of the team. Many refer to a
sense of optimism and enthusiasm for the work ahead.
Closing Team Member reflections:
“I think we can come up with a lot of recommendations, a lot of things to help solve a lot
of these problems, but it’s going to be quite a change. It’s going to require change on the
part of big business. It’s going to require change on the part of the small family farmer
and everybody in between, and that’s going to have to happen, and I think we have to
have trust to get to that point.”
“I think that the solo was actually very important…dragging us screaming into it – to
focus and to center. One of the things it’s made me realize is I’ve spent years planting
seeds and now I see that there are lots of other people that have been planting very
similar seeds, and it’s time to figure out which ones to tend and which ones to bring to
maturity and which ones to cut down. I think we’ve made a good start here, and the
challenges before us are to figure out how to be supportive and mentoring within this
group, in addition to outsiders, and how to begin to find connections between the issues.
We’ve spent a lot of time focusing on each of them, and I think over the next six months
we need to begin to see linkages between them.”
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 38 November 2004
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Lab Team Members, Executive Champions, Advisors and Secretariat
November 2004
Executive Champions
Antony Burgmans, Chairman, Unilever, Netherlands
Pierre Calame, President, Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation, France
Wout Dekker, CEO and Chairman, Nutreco, the Netherlands
Walter Fontana Filho, President, Sadia, Brazil
Richard Foster, VicePresident, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, United States
Bart Jan Krouwel, Managing Director Sustainability and Social Innovation, Rabobank, the
Netherlands
Joost Martens, Regional Director, Mexico and Caribbean, Oxfam GB
Eugenio Peixoto, Secretary of Agrarian Reform, Ministry of Agriculture, Brazil
Gerrit Rauws, Director, King Baudouin Foundation, Belgium
Mark Ritchie, President, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, United States
Richard Schnieders, CEO, SYSCO, United States
Paul Trân Van Thinh, Former Ambassador of the European Union to the World Trade
Organization
Roland Vaxelaire, Director of Quality and Sustainable Development, Carrefour, France
Lab Team Members
Johan Alleman, King Baudouin Foundation, Belgium
Arie van den Brand, former Member of Parliament, the Netherlands
Pedro de Camargo Neto, Sociedade Rural Brasileira, Brazil
João S. Campari, Director, The Nature Conservancy, Brazil
Juan Cheaz, Regional Policy Coordinator for Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean,
Oxfam GB, the Dominican Republic
Jason Clay, Vice President, Center for Conservation Innovation, World Wildlife Fund, United
States
Osler Desouzart, Consultant, formerly with Sadia, Perdigão and Doux Frangosul, Brazil
Meire de Fatima Ferreira, Sadia, Brazil
Laura Freeman, President and CEO, Laura’s Lean Beef, United States
Gilles Gaebel, Carrefour, France
Rosalinda Guillen, former farm worker and leader in the farm worker movement, United States
Oran Hesterman, Program Director, W. K. Kellogg Foundation, United States
Eugene Kahn, VicePresident for Sustainability, General Mills, United States
Panayotis Lebessis, Economic Analysis and Evaluation, DG Agriculture of the European
Commission
Karen Lehman, The Minnesota Project/Adaptive Leadership, United States
Theresa Marquez, Marketing Director, Organic Valley Cooperative, United States
Neyde Nóbrega Nery, Executive Director, Assocene Associação de Orientação das
Cooperativas do Nordeste, Brazil
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 39 November 2004
Frank van Ooijen, Public Affairs Director, Nutreco, the Netherlands
Henk van Oosten, Innovation Network, Ministry of Agriculture, the Netherlands
Frederick Payton, University of Georgia and farmers’ cooperative, United States and the
Dominican Republic
Bjarne Pedersen, Consumers International, United Kingdom
Larry Pulliam, Senior Vice President, SYSCO, United States
Elena Saraceno, Policy Advisor to the President, European Commission, Belgium
Peggy Sechrist, Texas farmer, President, Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group,
United States
Maureen Silos, Executive Director, Caribbean Institute, Suriname
Bruce Tozer, Managing Director, Structured Trade and Commodity Finance, Rabobank
International, United Kingdom
Pia Valota, Alliance of Social and Ecological Consumer Organizations, Italy
JanKees Vis, Sustainable Agriculture Manager, Unilever, the Netherlands
Bernd Voss, Vice President, Arbeitsgemeinschaft bauerliche Landwirtschaft, Germany
Pierre Vuarin, Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation, France
Marcelo Vieira, farmer and board member, Brazil Specialty Coffee Association and Sociedade
Rural Brasileira, Brazil
Lab Advisors
Sylvia Blanchet, CEO, Forestrade
Frank Dixon, Managing Director, Innovest
Carolee Deuel, VicePresident, Research, Quality and Technology, Kellogg Corporation
Ron Dudley, President, Cargill Specialty Canola Oils
Marsha Echols, Professor, Howard University
Maryline Guiramand, Manager, Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platform
Fred Kirschenmann, Director, Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State
University
Tim Lang, Professor of Food Policy, Centre for Food Policy, City University London
Hannes Lorenzen, European Parliament
Helio Mattar, Founder and President, Akatu Institute for Conscious Consumption, Brazil
Eric Olsen, Patton & Boggs, former chief of staff to US Secretary of Agriculture Glickman
Nicanor Perlas, President, Center for Alternative Development Initiatives, the Philippines
Aromar Revi, Director, TARU, India
Peter Senge, Senior Lecturer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Founder, Society for
Organizational Learning
Gus Schumacher, Consultant to the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and former Under Secretary of
Agriculture, USA
Woody Tasch, Chairman and CEO, Investors’ Circle
Kelly Taylor, Manager New Ventures, John Deere Global Ag Services Division
Bill Vorley, International Institute for Environment and Development, United Kingdom
Roberto Waack, President, Orsa Florestal, Brazil
Mark Wenholz, Market Development, Pioneer HiBred International
Zhang Xiaoshan, Director, Institute of Research and Economic Development of Rural China,
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
Lab Secretariat
Brian Arthur, Presencing Faculty
Hal Hamilton, CoLead
Zaid Hassan, Process Documentation
Adam Kahane, CoLead
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 40 November 2004
Joe McCarron, Solo Guide
Grady McGonagill, Process Documentation
Tom Rautenberg, Partnership Development
Alison Sander, Partnership Development
Don Seville, Research
Andy Sillen, Development
Susan Sweitzer, Learning History
Susan Taylor, Meeting Production and Presencing Faculty
Alain Wouters, Facilitation
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 41 November 2004
Appendix B
Food Lab Prototype Initiatives
November 2004
At the Food Lab Innovation Retreat five major Innovation Initiatives and two additional
exploratory projects were defined and selected. Each is presented here in the very
embryonic form achieved in the Retreat and each is expected to change substantially
through the rapid cycle prototyping work of the teams following the Innovation Retreat.
While each of the initiatives is focused on intervening at a specific place in the system,
the innovation teams will intentionally look for opportunities to directly link the
initiatives and to share learning about changing systems.
Business Coalition for
Framing
Sustainable Food
Develop new framings through
A coalition to drive more
which mainstream citizens can
sustainable practices in a
connect their values to the
manner that brings economic
sustainable agriculture
sustainability
Regional Food Supply to
More Sustainable Democracy and
Schools & Hospitals
Fisheries Citizens
Create demand for food with
Improve market access Develop a model of
better taste, nutrition, and
for responsible small Citizen Food Councils
cultural identity by building
fishermen and develop a that bring the voice of the
regional relationships
sustainable model for poor and disadvantaged
between institutional buyers
aquaculture, into the food system
and local sources
Commodities & Investment Access to Markets by Small Farmers in
Institutionalize buyer and investor screens Latin America
for major commodities to drive international Improve the livelihoods of family produces
adoption of better social and environmental through innovative market structures and
practices infrastructure investments
1. Link sustainable food production from Latin American family farmers to global
markets
2. Deliver highquality nutrition from regional farmers to schools and hospitals
3. Build a business coalition for sustainable food
4. Create sustainability standards for food commodities and related investment screens
for food companies
5. Reframe food sustainability for citizens, consumers, and policy makers
6. Increase the sustainability of fish supply chains
7. Strengthen democratic citizen action for sustainable food
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 42 November 2004
Link sustainable food production from Latin American family farmers
to global markets
Small farmers in Latin America and the Caribbean will prototype access to high end
markets.
The purpose of the sustainable livelihoods initiative is to connect family producers with
highend markets in the United States and Europe and thereby to leverage investments in
infrastructure, credit, and technical assistance.
Likely areas of innovation for this initiative include developing contracts between food
companies and family producers that would establish market access, enabling national
governments and international agencies like the World Bank to provide focused credit
and technical assistance to promote and enable high quality production and more
sustainable practices for those participating farmers. Crops with the potential for this
kind of innovation include fruits, cocoa, and palmetto.
Leaders: Eugenio Peixoto, Secretary of Agrarian Reform in Brazil’s Ministry of Agrarian
Development; Juan Cheaz, Oxfam GB’s Regional Policy Coordinator for Central
America, Mexico and the Caribbean; and Frederick Payton, farmer and cooperative
leader in the Dominican Republic, as well as a faculty member of the University of
Georgia.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 43 November 2004
Deliver highquality nutrition from regional farmers to schools and
hospitals
Schools and hospitals will provide much better nutrition and nutritional education
through contracts with regional producers.
The purpose of the Sustainable Food Services initiative is to build regional relationships
between food services in schools and hospitals in identified regions, and food suppliers to
those institutions, with the intention of increasing the commitment to and amount of
regionally grown food available in that chain. The goals are to change public behavior
with regard to appreciation and preference for food which is has a positive impact on the
local environment, decreases obesity in the local population, and increases public
awareness of hunger issues in the local community. The regions currently targeted are
Minnesota and Texas in the US, and Paris, France and Italy in the European Union. The
initiative will be market driven and include the possibility of regional branding. Beyond
the business model, the initiative will work with schools on curricula development about
cultural identity, environmental and economic impacts in the local community, obesity,
hunger and an appreciation of the nutritional and quality enhancements of locally grown
foods.
This initiative will involve State Departments of Agriculture in the US, institutional food
suppliers in the US starting with SYSCO in MN and TX, the Italian pilot projects already
underway, school and hospital food services in the Paris, France area. The current plan is
to implement this strategy with initially 5 dialogues of 8 participants along an
institutional supply chain in each geographic area with the goals of:
· Identifying and recruiting regional initiative partners
· Planning a locally appropriate strategy for the initiative
· Collecting and analyzing the European experiences in this arena
· Developing a learning journey to Italy to experience prototypes in that region
· Mobilizing partners in Europe and the US.
Initial leader of this initiative will be Pierre Vuarin of the Charles Leopold Mayer
Foundation, France; Karen Lehman of The Minnesota Project/Adaptive Leadership,
United States; and Peggy Sechrist a Texas farmer and President of the Southern
Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, United States.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 44 November 2004
Build a business coalition for sustainable food
Leading businesses will test how to shift the whole agrifood industry toward direction of
sustainability.
The overall purpose of the prospective Business Coalition is to drive improvement in the
social and environmental performance of food and agriculture in a manner that brings all
stakeholders economic sustainability. The founding group of Lab Team members
tentatively described a coalition of at least 20 major food companies, including large and
small food manufactures/producers, distributors and operator customers. Potential
participants include General Mills, Unilever, Sadia, Laura's Lean Beef and the Organic
Valley Cooperative. In addition at least one Food Distributor such as SYSCO
and operators such as Darden's, Brinker, McDonalds, Wendy's and others. Their purpose
would be to spread the objectives of sustainability in the business models of participating
companies. Colleagues from government agencies and civil society, like WWF for
example, will be invited to advise and support the effort.
The initial leader of this initiative is Larry Pulliam, Senior VicePresident of SYSCO
Corporation. Meire de Fátima Ferreira, from the Brazilian food company Sadia,
volunteered to colead the initiative. Eugene Kahn, VicePresident for Sustainability, General
Mills; Theresa Marquez, Marketing Director, Organic Valley Cooperative; and Laura Freeman,
President and CEO, Laura’s Lean Beef, will also be involved.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 45 November 2004
Create sustainability standards for food commodities and related
investment screens for food companies
Cuttingedge commodity supply agreements and investment screens will prototype a
“third way” for the bulk of global food supply.
The purpose of the commodities and investment Much better practices
initiative is to create a common framework for
more sustainable commodity production that
will be leveraged into buyer and investor
screens for responsibly produced commodities.
Initiatives exist for several commodities (e.g
coffee, palm oil, cotton, cocoa, soy) which have
all been shaped by their various histories, Conventional Organic
markets and stakeholders. The C&I initiative
will investigate existing commodity initiatives and try to develop generic learning from
those. Elements on which existing initiatives will be screened include whether the
initiative does:
1. Identify and agree on social and environment impacts
2. Identify and analyze better management practices for small, medium, and large
producers that are appropriate for each region of production that improve social
and environmental performance while maintaining or improving product quality
3. Include barriers to market access for small producers
4. Develop streamlined 3rd party certification programs
5. Build the BMP based certification into buyer and investor screens
6. Leverage the buyer and investor screens to promote voluntary producer adoption
and measurably improve practices
This general commodity initiative is intended to build on existing commodity specific
forums by promoting a common approach to buyer and investor screens and by
facilitating learning between the specific commodity efforts. In addition, the initiative
will structure a “meta commodities dialogue” to address barriers and opportunities that
cut across commodities and to create a forum for stakeholders to address better
management practices for the many commodities that don’t currently have existing
stakeholder dialogues.
The initial leaders of this initiative are JanKees Vis, the Sustainable Agriculture
Manager for Unilever; Jason Clay, Vice President, Center for Conservation Innovation,
World Wildlife Fund; and Bruce Tozer, Managing Director, Structured Trade and
Commodity Finance, Rabobank International. Others who volunteered to be part of this
initiative include: Henk van Oosten, Innovation Network, Ministry of Agriculture, the
Netherlands; João S. Campari, Director, The Nature Conservancy, Brazil; Marcelo Vieira, farmer
and board member, Brazil Specialty Coffee Association; Meire de Fatima Ferreira, Sadia.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 46 November 2004
Reframe food sustainability for citizens, consumers, and policy makers
Carefully designed and tested messages will connect sustainability branding and political
information to the core values of typical people.
The purpose of the Framing initiative will be to develop new mental structures through
which mainstream citizens and consumers connect their core values and behavior to
principles and practices of sustainability. This “framework” to communicate
sustainability will be available for brand marketing, political issue campaigns, and civil
society organization messaging.
The group will hire one firm, or a U.S., a European, and a Brazilian firm, to identify key
themes and common messages. The first tasks, therefore, include scouting different
approaches and firms as well as sharing experiences from market research, outreach
programs and public campaigns. Food Lab team members have already identified several
different such experiences to research and share.
The initial leaders of this initiative are: Oran Hesterman from WKKellogg Foundation,
Johan Alleman from the Belgian King Baudouin Foundation, and Meire de Fátima
Ferreira from the Brazilian food company Sadia. Others involved in the early stages are
Laura Freeman, CEO of Laura’s Lean Beef; Rosalinda Guillen, a Hispanic community
organizer; Bjarne Pederson of Consumers International, Gilles Gaebel of Carrefour;
Neyde Nóbrega Nery, Director of an association of rural cooperatives in Northeast Brazil.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 47 November 2004
EXPLORATORY INITIATIVES
Increase the sustainability of fish supply chains
Sustainable aquaculture and sustainable indigenous fishing systems will receive market
and regulatory support.
The purposes of the fisheries initiative are to gain access to better markets for responsible
small fishermen in Africa and Latin America; develop a sustainable model for
aquaculture, including in China; and contribute information for consumer education
campaigns on challenges to the sustainability of fisheries.
The initiative team intends to involve several different companies in the harvesting and
marketing of sea food, the World Fisheries Forum, WWF, ICSF, and ISECO.
The initiative is led by Pierre Vuarin from the Charles Leopold Mayer Foundation in
Paris; Gilles Gaebel from Carrefour. Henk van Oosten from the Dutch Ministry of
Agriculture is also part of the initiative team.
Strengthen democratic citizen action for sustainable food
Citizen Council organizing will test how to involve the poor in food system
transformation.
The purpose of this exploratory initiative is to develop a model of Citizen Food Councils
which leads to a change in the food culture and reaches out to the poor, the disadvantaged
and the working poor. The impact of this initiative will be to develop democratic
dialogue and participation on the future of food systems at the regional level that leads to
action and change in production, consumption, marketing and distribution with five
projects in each of the following regions: Brazil, US, Europe and Mexico.
The implementation of this initiative will be a two stage process with initial exploration
around the development of the model for bringing together concerned citizens from a
cross section of a local community to identify local initiatives. The councils are currently
imagined to include:
· Building links between business, production, and civil society organizations
· Monitoring process (benchmarks)
· Collective learning processes
· Empowerment
The second stage of this initiative in intended to multiply experiences and disseminate
information. Specifically the initial Citizen Councils and the initiatives developed by
those councils will serve as examples for other regions and provide learning models for
implementing changes. The goals for community impact include:
· Improve capacity of stakeholders to dialogue about change in culture
· Create better jobs for workers in the food system
· Close the loop in the Food Chain (negative feedback)
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 48 November 2004
· Develop a variety of implemented initiatives from Councils
The initial leaders of this exploratory process are: Bjarne Pedersen of Consumers
International, United Kingdom, Neyde Nóbrega Nery, Executive Director of the
Assocene Associação de Orientação das Cooperativas do Nordeste, Brazil, Rosalinda
Guillen, former farm worker and leader in the farm worker movement, United States,
Johan Alleman, King Baudouin Foundation, Belgium; and Peggy Sechrist, Texas farmer,
President, Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group, United States.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 49 November 2004
Appendix C
Sustainable Food Lab Meetings
· Foundation Workshop: June 13, 2004. The team begins to construct a
shared map of the current reality of the system, based on varied perspectives
and experiences and identifies areas for further research and learning.
Location: Bergen, the Netherlands.
· Learning Journeys. Trips organized around learning agendas developed in
the first workshop, designed to help the participants learn about the system by
observing it (and other relevant systems) first hand. Location: Brazil.
· Innovation Retreat: November 1420, 2004. The team will synthesize
observations from learning journeys, construct a set of food system
innovations, crystallize visions of the future that they want and believe need to
come forth, and identify strategic leverage points for shifting the systems
towards this vision. Location: near Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
· Design Studio: from 16:00 Monday April 4 through Thursday evening April
7, 2005. The kickoff for the Innovation Initiatives. Executive Champions are
invited for the whole session or from 18:00 on Wednesday April 6 through the
evening of Thursday April 7, 2005. Location: Salzburg, Austria.
· MidCourse Review: November 811, 2005. This session is to review,
support, and develop the projects identified in Salzburg. Location: EARTH
University in Costa Rica.
· Venture Launch: May 31June 1, 2006 (Executive Champions June 1 only).
The Lab Team, the Executive Champions, and other interested parties will
review the results from the nowcompleted Innovation Initiatives, and decide
which ones will be continued and taken to scale. The group will determine
how this will be accomplished, with what resources and by which institutions.
Executive Champions are invited for the whole session or from 16:00
Wednesday May 31 until 17:00 Thursday June 1, 2006. Location: New York
City, USA.
Sustainable Food Lab
Chapter two 50 November 2004