BEST PRACTICES FOR SUSTAINABLE FOOD PURCHASING AT MCGILL

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Concern over ecological impacts, economic stability, social conditions of agriculture

Sustainability standards require sustainability information

McGill has the potential to institutionalize sustainable food purchasing practices, but the existing system lacks the resources to develop a sustainable system alone. 

PROBLEM ANALYSIS AT MCGILL

Indicator AnalysisDriving Forces

Separation of campus food from farms (spatial and through supply chain)

Industry focus on price, Busy actors, Pressures Lack of product information other than

price, difficulty of defining food sustainability for McGill’s context

State Uninformed decision makers (staff and students)

Impact Difficulty of measuring or improving impact of food sourcing

QUESTION

How can information flow from farm to plate?

Who can coordinate this process?

How can McGill institutionalize sustainable food purchasing?

CONSIDERING STAKEHOLDERS

Students (diners, residence councils, student clubs and initiatives)

Administrators & Staff Mathieu Laperle (Director, Food and Hospitality

Services)

Bill Pageau (Contracts Administrator, Food and Dining Services)

Oliver de Volpi (Executive Chef)

Dennis Fortune (Sustainability Director, Office of Sustainability)

Culinary team and serving staff

Producers and Suppliers, Community partners

CASE STUDIES

In order not to reinvent the wheel, we completed case studies of four peer universities

UC Berkeley

UMass Amherst

U of TorontoYale

SELECTED CASE STUDIES

Forager Model (UMass Amherst, Yale) University creates staff position responsible

for sustainable purchasing (research, sourcing, menu planning, sustainability policy)

Yale: Single grant-funded position

UMass Amherst: Several specialized staff members to enable informed decision-making

SELECTED CASE STUDIES

Outsourcing Model (UC Berkeley, U of T) External organization is responsible for

sustainable purchasing (research, sourcing, information flow to university purchasers and menu planners, sustainability definitions) UC Berkeley: Community Alliance with Family

Farmers (CAFF) relays information to executive chefs via Chuck Davies (Associate Director for Residential Dining)

U of T: Local Food Plus (LFP) relays information to unit managers of each eating facility

SELECTED CASE STUDIES:

Forager Model

(UMass Amherst, Yale)

Outsourcing Model

(UC Berkeley, U of T)

Advantages Control over sustainability definitions

Maintains a relationship between Dining Services and farmers

Smaller time and capital investment

Gain expertise and knowledge of exterior organization 

Disadvantages Large time and capital investment to obtain grants or create a salaried position

Loss of capacity to create or modify existing sustainability definitions

Degree of separation between Dining Services and farmers

MANAGEMENT PLAN: COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

Hire a McGill Food Sustainability Coordinator Coordinate local food research and purchasing Coordinate reporting, stakeholder engagement,

and information flow Partner with Exterior Organization

Provide link to local producers Assist in defining regional food sustainability

criteria Distribution? Benefits of Partnership

McGill gains expert knowledge and capacity Equiterre gains testing ground for program

expansion and research capacity of student projects

Connection of various system components

MANAGEMENT PLAN: COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

Suggested McGill Food Sustainability Coordinator Responsibilities Facilitate the flow and storage of information

between stakeholders Facilitate growth of partnerships with Equiterre and

corporate food providers Coordinate and incorporate student research projects Organize an annual community forum (suggested in

February) Compile an annual report (suggested in August),

including measuring and reporting on indicators Write funding proposals and grant applications Identify cost savings opportunities for local sourcing Perform administrative tasks

MANAGEMENT PLAN: COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS

Partnership with Exterior Organization Assists in defining regional food sustainability

criteria

Provides knowledge of local producers and their products

Develops relationships with farms that meet sustainability criteria

Provides the connection between sustainable producers and McGill Food Services, supplying an inventory of available products and the ability to access them

TIMELINE

TIMELINE: NEXT STEPS

November – December 2009 Begin development of funding proposal for Food

Sustainability Coordinator (FSC) Facilitate project recommendations through

implementation of a multistakeholder group January – February 2010

Develop job description, hiring process and criteria, and governance/oversight structure for FSC

Submit funding proposal for FSC salary (May 2010-April 2011) and related costs to the Sustainability Projects Fund

March 2010 Receive funding confirmation

April 2010 Hiring process for Food Sustainability Coordinator

TIMELINE: YEAR ONE (MAY 2010 – APRIL 2011)

May – August 2010 FSC collaborates with Equiterre and multistakeholder

committee to agree upon sustainability definitions, develops pilot project for self operated cafeterias

September 2010 Launch pilot project in self-operated residences in

collaboration with Equiterre and a distributor like Hector Larivée or CanAm

October 2010 Submit funding proposals for Year Two

February 2011 Review pilot project

March 2011 Renew FSC contract or begin hiring process

TIMELINE: YEAR TWO (MAY 2011 – APRIL 2012)

May - August 2011 evaluate second half of Year One Complete annual report for the period of May 2010-

May 2011 Develop corporate food services pilot project and

expansion model for self-operated cafeterias for implementation in September 2011

September 2010 Implement corporate food services pilot project and

self-operated cafeterias expansion October 2010

Submit funding proposals for Year Three February 2011

Host campus wide forum regarding pilot project and future of food sustainability at McGill

TIMELINE

EXPECTED RESULTS

Benefits for McGill and Equiterre McGill gains capacity to coordinate local

sourcing

Creates student applied research opportunities for undergraduates at McGill

Equiterre gains testing ground for local distribution network

Equiterre gains program capacity and access to additional grant funding opportunities

McGill and Equiterre create a strong, flexible system which neither could accomplish alone

EXPECTED RESULTS (2)

Strengthening Locally and Globally� Diners on campus gain understand the impact of their

food choices and its connection the local community

� Carbon footprint of McGill’s food system is reduced

McGill and Equiterre create an innovative model which can be used by other institutions in the region

McGill and Equiterre help to increase regional capacity of local producers and suppliers

INDICATORS OF SUCCESS (1)

Creating the System Criteria: Have clear definitions for "local,"

"organic," and "sustainable" food been agreed upon? 

Communication & Distribution: Has a system been created that relays information between McGill purchasers and local producers and facilitates distribution?

Capacity & Partnership: Has FSC position been created? Has a partnership with an external organization been established? Is the partnership sustainably funded?

INDICATORS OF SUCCESS (2)

Establishing clear goals:

sustainable purchasing guidelines for fresh produce and non-processed food

percentage targets for local purchasing are these guidelines and targets being used by

self-operated and sub-contracted residences?

Example: Have percentage targets for produce meeting Equiterre-McGill sustainability standards been achieved (20% by April 2013, 35% by April 2014, 50% by April 2015)?

NEXT STEPS

Agreeing on a plan

Developing relationship with outside organization

Determine Food Sustainability Coordinator job description, hiring process and criteria, and governance/oversight structure (December-January)

Submit funding application to Sustainability Projects Fund (January)

DISCUSSION

Do we like the vision?

Is this specific plan achievable?

Does anything need to be revised?

Do we have all the important stakeholders and decision-makers on board?