Response to Kathleen’s Request – 9 17 11…

Response to Kathleen’s Request – 9/17/11
Kyle D. Brown (kdbrown@csupomona.edu)
Motivation for work:
I have become involved in various food projects over the years, including recent work in the South Los Angeles community of Watts, due to a wide variety of interests. However, I believe my overarching motivation is due to my interest in promoting “ecological sovereignty” for marginalized communities. By ecological sovereignty, I am referring to the notion of local communities asserting control over resources and systems which are critical to their sustainability, including food, water, energy and other ecological resources. Many marginalized communities have realized they cannot rely on traditional institutions (government, free market, or even some aid organizations) to chart sustainable futures, and are exploring strategies to increase their ecological sovereignty. This interest in empowering local communities to become sovereign builds on previous scholarship I have conducted related to critical social consciousness and participatory appraisal processes in communities. Food is an effective access point for many communities to begin considering sovereignty issues.
While an interest in empowerment and sovereignty describes my personal motivations, these projects typically include a diverse group of experts from a variety of disciplines, who may have different motivations, such as an interest in technological innovation or ecosystem impact. I believe the challenge for our organization is to engage complex and robust problems, which allow multiple interests to effectively engage in the project.
Expectations:
Based on my knowledge of our local partner, and experience with other community engagement projects, I had a number of expectations/preconceptions before engaging in the Watts food project. These included:
1.The partner and the community they represent were passionate about local food, based in large part on the fact that they approached us about the project. This would provide significant momentum for the project.
2.The partner organization had over 40 years of experience working in Watts promoting economic development and human rights. So sovereignty was a central interest in the organization and they possessed leadership abilities and a strong social network within the community. However previous experience with this partner had raised some concern about their ability to follow through on their commitments.
3.They viewed our role in the project primarily as one which provides technical assistance on food production and related agro-ecological issues, in support of their established vision for local food. This would mean that broader contributions would have to be carefully crafted in order to be well-received.
Modes of Engagement:
The project is in its early stages and is ongoing. However multiple forms of engagement have been utilized and are planned for future work. These include external systems analyses conducted by students and faculty in order to assess the current state of the food system serving Watts, along with a variety of participatory appraisal techniques. I use a framework adapted from international development literature to categorize techniques as spatial (participatory mapping, transect walks, etc.), temporal (seasonal/daily profiles, trend analysis, etc.) and relational (social network mapping, institutional diagramming, etc.). While participatory work is limited on this project today, we expect to engage spatial, temporal, and relational methods throughout this project.
Unforseen Implications:
1.Disconnects between our local partner and the broader community were revealed early in the process. Over the past 20 years, the area has transformed from a predominantly African-American community to a predominantly Latino community (primarily Mexican immigrants). So there is a racial dynamic at work that informs power relationships in the community. In addition, early investigations revealed that connections with other institutions and organizations in the community were not as strong as expected. These revelations have added to the challenges of accessing the community and fostering local leadership and capacity on this project.
2.The partner’s passion for the project was heavily biased toward the production component of the food system and a vision for extensive community gardening anchored by a local demonstration “farm” they had conceptualized prior to engaging us on the project. However, analysis of the food system revealed significant problems and opportunities related to distribution, processing and retailing of food products. These opportunities reinforce other interest of the partner in terms of job training and economic development, but they continue to view this as a gardening/farm development project, as opposed to a broader vision.
3.The systems approach to sustainability reveals the interrelationship of critical resources. As such, students revealed that the goal of food sovereignty may be dependent on achieving sovereignty related to other critical resources, particularly water. So the way in which these types of projects engage in dialogue concerning other resources is a vital issue.
4.Our own capacity to follow-through on the opportunities presented by this project is a major limiting factor, given limitations in time, money and other logistical challenges (distance, institutional policies, etc). This reinforces the need to build a broad coalition of partners within the University to sustain this project over time.