sfl lh chapter 2 public

8/14/2019 SFL LH Chapter 2 Public

1/50

Sustainable Food Lab

Chapter two - 1 - November 2004

Sustainable Food Laboratory

Learning History

Chapter Two

By Susan Sweitzer

THE LEARNING JOURNEYS IN BRAZIL

August and September 2004

THE INNOVATION RETREAT

Rex Ranch, Amado, Arizona

November 14-19, 2004


2/50



TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................... 3Origins .......................................................................................................................3

Purpose ......................................................................................................................5

Who............................................................................................................................7

How ............................................................................................................................8

Emergent Questions .................................................................................................. 9

THE COURSE OF EVENTS ...................................................................11The Learning Journeys ........................................................................................... 12

Innovation Retreat...................................................................................................15

PHASE ONE: CO-SENSING, GATHERING EXPERIENCES........................15

PHASE TWO: CO-PRESENCING, WILDERNESS SOLO ............................. 19

PHASE THREE: CO-CREATING, 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...........................................................................................39Appendix 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


3/50



INTRODUCTION

This second installment of the Learning History of the

Sustainable Food Laboratory was written at the end ofthe Innovation Workshop in Tucson, Arizona, U.S. It

reflects the thinking and learning which occurred duringthe period from the end of the first workshop in Bergen,

Netherlands in June 2004 through the second workshopin Arizona in November 2004. Events during that time

included three Learning Journeys in Brazil and theInnovation Workshop in Arizona, the second of five

such gatherings over the course of a two-year 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 orderto support further reflection and learning as the work ofthe Food Lab goes forward.

This chapter builds on the Learning History of the

Foundation Workshop, held in Bergen, Netherlands inJune 2004, which is available to Food Lab team

members upon request.

The introductory section of this chapter of the LearningHistory is a slightly edited version of the introduction to

the Foundation Workshop chapter. Reflections andlearning from the Learning Journeys and the Innovation

Retreat begin on page 11 of this document.

This Learning History is intended for use primarily byparticipants 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 growingawareness of the critical nature of the economic,

environmental, social, and political impacts of globalfood systems. There is an emerging recognition in all


4/50



sectors of the food chain that humanity has yet todevelop an optimal global system of food production and

distribution. The Food Lab is a forum for leaders acrossthe system to address the most pressing and significant

problems of food and agriculture.

The Food Lab had its origins in the summer of 2002 atthe launch of the Global Leadership Initiative, an

initiative dedicated to addressing the critical globalchallenges of our time. Over breakfast at that gathering

Hal Hamilton, Don Seville, Adam Kahane, and PeterSenge started exploring the possibility that the polarized

debates over agricultural sustainability might benefitfrom the application of the Global Leadership Initiatives

U-Process, which offers a process to foster breakthroughthinking and action on complex, cross-sector problems.

The conversation then expanded to include Andre vanHeemstra, Jan-Kees Vis and Jeroen Bordewijk of

Unilever and Oran Hesterman of the KelloggFoundation. Oran, Jan-Kees and Jeroen described their

ongoing investments in sustainable agriculture projectsand their desire to influence the mainstream, but all three

expressed a sense that neither the Kellogg Foundationnor Unilever are powerful enough to do this alone.

Over the succeeding year and a half, Hal, Adam, and

their colleagues at Sustainability Institute and Generon

Consulting interviewed dozens of system leaders in theUnited States, Europe and Brazil. From these interviews,individuals were invited to join the Food Lab. The

intention was to bring together entrepreneurial leadersseeking more rapid and far-reaching change in the

direction of sustainability than their current efforts hadachieved. The hope was that bringing together

representatives from each sector of the food chain couldprovide a unique picture of the complexity and critical

nature of the problems intrinsic in the system as a whole.

Adam Kahane comments in pre-workshop interview:

We envision that this team will be

able not only to imagine breakthrough

solutions but to implement them. Indoing so, they will demonstrate that itis possible for humans to address

serious global, vital, complex problemsituations, and to do so peacefully,

not by force.

Hal Hamilton comments in pre-

workshop interview:

This project for me is full of hope. I

have no sense of just what this group

will do, but I am eager for us all totake on the most difficult things we

can.

Pre-workshop Lab Team comments:

You need the synergy of thinkers. Ithink it is impossible that only one

small team can find answers.

In conversations and interviews conducted over thecourse of assembling the Lab Team and Executive

Champions, interviewees identified a variety ofsystemicchallenges that the project needs to address:

Increasing productivity while stewardingbiodiversity and reducing energy use

Comments in pre-workshopinterviews:

We should ask, What do we want as

farmer, trader, processor, consumer


5/50



Enabling mass markets to incorporate

environmental and social impacts of particularfood production

Enlarging market access for developing countrieswhile preserving the future for farmers in the

United States and Europe

Protecting the health of farmers and farmworkers

Increasing opportunities for the rural poor

Enabling smaller farmers to aggregate supply andachieve efficiencies of scale

Attracting talent and entrepreneurship to foodproduction

Enabling a richer flow of information among all

the nodes in value chains, including farmers,food businesses and consumers

Team members set the stage for the Foundation

Workshop by identifying these systemic challenges andby calling for new ways to think about solutions. They

frequently mentioned the need to move beyondpolarization and debate in regard to these challenges, aswell as the need to develop solutions across perceived

boundaries.

and human being? How can weachieve together what we want fromthe system we create together?

There might be some possibility of creating almost an alchemicalreaction with this group so that we

can figure the value chain differentlyand interact differently.

Can mass markets in reality

incorporate quality, including

landscape and culture, in a way that

is even close to what is achieved inEurope with a [regional quality]approach?

Were trying to do something thats

beyond what anyone can do by simply

reacting within their own institution,

and thats the basis for this project:that people from three continents andall this effort can really find a

solution or solutions and ideas for amore sustainable food supply.

Purpose

Incorporating the advice and experience from many

interviews and meetings, the Sustainable Food Lab waslaunched with the purpose of making mainstream food

systems more sustainable. The Lab brings togetherleaders from businesses, governments, farm groups and

non-governmental organizations with this explicit focus.Although a more sustainable food system is at the heart

of this work, the group realizes that perspectives on whatit means to be sustainable differ substantially among the

Team member comments:

I am interested in the outcomes thatpeople have stated repeatedly in termsof getting some kind of shared

understanding of definition, gettingsome projects that are really about

scaleable mainstreaming, and alsohaving new ideas generated that come

from the interaction of different points


6/50



institutions, businesses, and organizations represented inthe Lab. One of the challenges for the Lab Team is to

use these differing perspectives and priorities as acatalyst for shared learning and significant innovations

in the system.

of view and working at the margins these things are really critical for allof us.

I think its a big chance for me to

learn a lot, also for us to buildconcrete projects and make concreteaims 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 changeon the ground through practical action, pilot projects

and viable full-scale food system interventions. Theobjective of the Lab is to create prototypes of

innovations that, once piloted and scaled up, will eithersupport the development of or directly produce

sustainable food supply systems that are large,mainstream, and value-producing for all actors in the

chainnot only small, niche, or philanthropic.

The Foundation Workshop, held in Bergen in June 2004,

focused on developing a collective understanding of thecurrent reality of food systems. The plenary sessions

provided a framework for this work by exploring a broadrange of ideas and perspectives on the Challenges in the

food system, the Indicators of sustainability in a foodchain, and Current Initiatives that are successful or of

interest to sustainable food systems.

The Lab Team also developed two lists outlining theiragendas for the time between the Foundation workshop

and the Innovation Retreat. These took the form of aLearning Agenda and a Research Agenda. The

Learning Agenda focused on the people and places teammembers wanted to learn more about during their

Learning Journeys. The Research Agenda outlinedresearch that team members thought would support their

learning as well as resources team members had to offereach other.

You will find a more in-depth consideration of the

content of that workshop in the Learning HistoryChapter One.

Lab Team member comments inopening plenary:

Weve been in the last 20 years

through a lot of pilot projects, a lot of

meetings, and I was really attracted to

this because of the verb to do.Apparently our group using thisprocess willdo something.


We are here because we would liketo have this food of higher quality

with competitive price [while]

defending the environment and thesocial culture.

What stands out is that we lack aframework and common definition of

what a sustainable, active food system

is. Theres not a commonunderstanding among the

stakeholders of sustainable food

production. I think we still need to

look for that baseline, that commondefinition of understanding andagreement. What is our view on

mainstream, sustainable, agri-foodsystems?


7/50



Who

The original Lab Team is composed of individuals from

three continents and multiple sectors in the food system.

The founding Lab Team consists of people with ademonstrated ability to make change on the ground whohave expressed a high level of frustration about the

current state of the system. They embody a wide rangeof experience and expertise, including global and

regional policy development and implementation,product development and certification, regional branding

of products, developing farmer cooperatives, integratingand advocating for environmental and social policies,

and developing financial incentive programs addressingmany dimensions of food systems.

Team Member comments:

The problem, historically, withalternatives in the food industry is we

[business] will create a strategy and

its separate its very insular fromthe policy people and from the peoplewho are working on hunger/poverty,

the NGO community. This projectprovides an opportunity for us to

integrate our efforts so that we have a

more powerful and focused strategy.

Three principal groups support the work of the Lab

Team: Executive Champions, Advisors, and theSecretariat. The Executive Champions are chief

executives or senior officers of the companies andorganizations with which team members are affiliated.

These Champions provide feedback, credibility, andsupport for mobilizing further resources as Food Lab

projects take shape.

The Advisors are resource persons. They are experts

who provide advice, research support, or intellectualinput to the Lab Team.

The Secretariat is the professional support for the Lab

and was provided initially by Sustainability Institute andGeneron Consulting. Sustainability Institute (SI) is a

non-profit research and consulting group that usessystems analysis and organizational learning to help a

broad array of organizations become more strategic.Generon is an international process-consulting firm with

extensive experience in tri-sector dialogue and action.

Following the Innovation Retreat, Synergos Institutejoined the Secretariat in providing professional support

for the work of the Food Lab. Synergos is aninternational NGO that supports local development and

philanthropy with projects in North America, Asia, LatinAmerica and Southern Africa.

Executive Champions addressing theSustainable Food Lab:

A healthy company can only remainhealthy if it operates in healthycommunities within a healthy

environment. Why is sustainability of

agriculture so important to us andwhy have we picked this particular

topic? Well, over two-thirds of our

base of our profits is agricultural.

Credibility is a key word in this typeof project, specifically credibility of the process and credibility of the

outcome. We have enormous

confidence in the people who arebehind this project in terms of

credibility of the process, and you arethe guarantee of the credibility of the

outcome. If all of you are happy with

what comes out of it, it must be amajor success.


8/50



How

The design of this Lab is based on the U-Process, a

method for deep innovation that has been developed and

applied over the last 20 years by a group of actionresearchers now associated with the Global LeadershipInitiative. In his welcoming statement at the Foundation

Workshop, Adam Kahane characterized the U-Process ashaving three phases: co-sensing, co-presencing and co-

creating. The first workshop focused primarily on theco-sensingphasethat of exploring the varied

perspectives and priorities within the team in order tounderstand the complexity of current reality in the food

system. The co-presencingphasethat of seeing whatsense can be made of the complexity of the system, was

introduced in the Innovation Retreat. The co-creatingphase, in which the group understanding and work

coalesce into practical initiatives, began at theconclusion of the Innovation Retreat.

Although they are described here as distinct, in practice

the co-sensing, co-presencing and co-creating phases ofthe Food Lab overlap with each other and take place in

mini-cycles throughout and between each workshop.

The problems in the food system, as in any complex

system, exhibit high dynamic, social, and generativecomplexity.

Dynamic complexity occurs when cause and effect areseparated in space and time. For example, consumer

taste in Belgium impacts coffee production inGuatemala, and determinations about land tenure and

agricultural practices made 20 yeas ago affect currentopportunities.

Generative complexity occurs when the situation itself isfundamentally unfamiliar. Old solutions may no longer

be useful in our age of globalization, with its newtechnology, new communications, and new networks. In

an unfamiliar situation, using the best practices from thepast wont necessarily solve current problems.

Finally, high social complexity is evident when

influential people in the system have fundamentally

Adam Kahane:

If we already knew the solution, thenwe wouldnt need any of this. Wewould simply move from where we

are to where we want to be. Many of

you have tried to do that and yourehere because theres something

youre trying to do thats beyond what

you can do by simply reacting within

your own institutions. Thats thesimple basis for this project: to bring

together people from different parts ofthe system to try to understand thecurrent reality and bring forward a

new one.

Adam Kahane:

We talk about deeper levels of

response, changing the structure of

the system, redesigning the system,

changing how we think about thesystemand ultimately that is thepurpose of what were doing.


9/50



different views of what is going on, and about whatmatters. When addressing such situations, the

participation of diverse stakeholders makes possible acomprehensive understanding of current reality and

allows the group to identify significant leverage points

for change.

Emergent Questions

Three questions emerged out of the Foundation

Workshop as important to the overall work of the FoodLab:

How much agreement is necessary and desirablefor successful innovation?

Is it possible for successful innovations to shiftthe system on a global scale?

How do we ensure that the voices at the edgesremain in the dialogue?

By the end of the Innovation Retreat, discussions amongteam members had expanded and broadened these initial

questions to include considerations of how to maximize

the potential of the group to effect a shift in the system.

What is possible personally and systemically?

What potential does this group, at this time inhistory, actually possess?

How much impact is possible: across sectors,between continents, locally and globally?

Where is the most leverage to shift the systemtoward more sustainability?


Many people have asked me, Whatdo you really think about the Lab?

And Ive said, I firmly believe that

the lab is what we want to make ofit.

I think this is a point [a Teammember] made at Bergen: when we

talk about projects it may mean

products it may be processes it maybe policies. The question about whatcan we do to shift the system is a

question thats not so far been

answered and we talked about atleast those three categories: project

innovations, process innovationspolicy innovations.

What is our potential here as theFood Lab? Who are we here? We

have actors who can influence how

production is done, what with theenvironmental management, the

social management. We can assessthe economic viability of different

production regimes. We also have

groups that can shape consumerchoice, and we have groups from the

middle who are the ones that link theproduction to the consumption. Andwhatever subjects we look at, we

really want to draw on the strength of

who we are.


10/50



The first questionhow much agreement is needed for

successful innovationwas partially addressed by theTeams agreement at the close of the Innovation Retreat

to focus on five specific Innovation Initiatives:

1. Access to Markets by Small Farmers in LatinAmerica

2. Regional Food Supply to Schools and Hospitals3. Business Coalition for Sustainable Food

4. Commodities and Investment5. Framing

The team also identified two Exploratory Initiatives that

were of great interest to Lab Members but requiredfurther work to be sufficiently defined to gain the full

support of the Food Lab:

6. More Sustainable Fisheries7. Democracy and Citizens

The selection of the Innovation Initiatives and the

Exploratory Initiatives suggested there was sufficientagreement to undertake innovation. In addition,

comments made during the Learning Journeys and at theInnovation Retreat indicated a developing confidence in

the ability of team members with differing perspectives

to work together effectively.

The second questionis it possible for successful

innovations to shift the system on a global scaleiscentral to judging the ultimate success of the Initiatives.

The work of the Food Lab in thinking about this questionis reflected in the discussion of phase two of the

Innovation Retreat (page 20).

The diversity is important, but

having completely diametrically

opposed concepts about, say,

consumer marketing, isnt going to behelpful in a project team. So its aneffort also to work internally within

this Food Laboratory to improve ourprocess of working together.

Im actually very pleased that we got

where we are. I didnt know that we

would get here. We exceeded my

expectations, actually. I still thinkmany of us in the room have a littledifferent view about things but I have

a higher level of respect about thedifferent opinions in the room than I

did previously.

How the initiatives will ensure that the voices on the

edge inform the ongoing development of the initiativesremains an open question. During the selection process

for the initiatives, several threads of intention stood out.One was the idea that the voices of those who are most

affected by system change should be part of thedevelopment of each Food Lab initiative. How this

would be enacted was not finalized, but many voiced the

It still seems to be disturbing me abit is that there is a disconnect

between operationalizing changes and

some of the most disenfranchisedactors in that. There is an intent inthe group to be inclusive, and to look

at all aspects of how [food is]

produced, transformed, and


11/50



intention.

In the closing comments of the Innovation Retreat, oneteam member articulated a question about exactly how

the voices of those most disenfranchised in the Food

System would be part of the work of the Food Lab, butfelt that there was strength in the Initiatives andreiterated a feeling of remaining connected to the work

of the Lab.

Lab members engagement with the final four questionsis embedded in the story of the Learning Journeys and

the Innovation Retreat. As the work of the InnovationInitiative teams and the Food Lab as a whole continue,

these questions and others that were raised over thecourse of the first six months of the project will continue

to frame the thinking of team members and theevaluation of the achievements of the Food Lab.

consumed. But I am struggling withthe complexity of how tooperationalize [this] on a regional

and national level. I do think there is

a danger that the global approach

without sufficient critical mass of action on a local level will make whatwe do vulnerable to collapse.

How are we going to take this work

down to the level of my people and theworkers and be able to execute it to

show results, at the same time that

were doing such work from the top

down? That, I think, is going to be the

strength of the Food Lab. So, I remainengaged and challenged at this

point.

THE COURSE OF EVENTS

At the time of this chapter of the Learning History, the

Food Lab has consisted of three events: the FoundationWorkshop in Bergen, Netherlands (June 2004), the

Learning Journeys in Brazil (August and September

2004), and the Innovation Retreat in the U.S. (November2004).

The Foundation Workshop and the Learning Journeyswere co-sensing activities designed to develop a shared

understanding of the highly complex food system.During the Foundation Workshop, team members began

exploring the wide range of perspectives and experiencewithin the team regarding the complexity of

sustainability in food systems (see Learning History,

Chapter One).


There is a feeling that we should

have the same idea of the problem but my experience is that it oftendestroys a group to try to have the

same definition, whereas it increases

richness to share our understanding

of sustainability.

During the Learning Journeys, talking, listening and

learning to observe in a distinctive way laid thegroundwork for the essential experience of co-sensing

experiencing with new lenses the dilemmas, potentials,and dynamics at work in the food system.

I have been very positivelyimpressed by what I learned in the

Learning Journeys. The challenge wehave ahead is to link what we learned

in the Learning Journeys with thethoughts and hierarchy of leverage


12/50



The co-presencing aspect of the U-Processintended tohelp team members uncover their deeper knowing about

both what is going on in the system and what they,

individually and collectively, need to do about itwas atthe center point of the Innovation Retreat in the U.S. Itwas structured around a 48-hour wilderness solo

experience. After the wilderness solo, the plenary workof the Lab Team culminated in team agreement to pursue

five Innovation Initiative projects and two ExploratoryInitiatives, thus launching the third phase of the U-

Process: the co-creating phase.

points that Donella Meadowsexplains. Now the question is howwill we make that link and how is it

going to help us identify the kind of

prototype that were going to do and

identify where the Lab is really ableto touch in that hierarchy.

The quality of the innovationdepends on the quality of the

sensing.

The final phase of co-creating

requires a different spirit that

involves, among other things, a kind

of teamwork.

The remainder of this history is organized around:

a) the lessons and experiences of the LearningJourneys,

b) reflections on the wilderness experience and the

development of the five Initiatives at theInnovation Retreat, and

c) questions and reflections on the creative process

and the impact of the personal and institutional

relationships in the section entitled Trust Relationships - Commitment.

there has been among the team avery high level of willingness to learnand listen to other people, which is

something I find impressive with such

a wide range of backgrounds that wehave.

We have experienced a profound

level of trust and openness [whichshows] that we can be verycomfortable talking about our

disagreements and our differences

because weve built a relationshiparound common values. I have no

question in my mind that we sharemore common values than we havedifferences.

The Learning Journeys

After the Foundation Workshop, team members were

asked to sign up for one of three Learning Journeys.Initially Learning Journeys were envisioned in Europe,the U.S., and Brazil. However, nearly every team

member indicated a preference for Brazil. As aconsequence, each five-day Journey was organized in

Brazil and was constructed to provide opportunities to:

learn more about food systems,

Lab Team comments on Learning

Journeys:

I need to plow the soil. That is what

we are doing here, preparing the soiltogether. This is a very important part

of planting the seeds which will bear

good fruit.

I think both personal and group


13/50



discover how to learn through disciplined

observation, and

sense the system as a whole, rather than simply

gathering data on the parts.

Each Journey focused on a different geographic regionof Brazil, and each group experienced a wide range of

actors in food systemsfrom farmer cooperatives tomultinational commodity producers, government and

private sector representatives, and environmental NGOs.Team members were encouraged to seek out people who

had differenteven opposingperspectives, in order tostretch beyond their comfort zone and become more

aware of their own assumptions and beliefs. The

Learning Journeys fostered a deeper understandingwithin the Lab Team both of the food system as a wholeand of specific successes and challenges in Brazil.

transformation is essential for thedeeper abilities of seeing and

sensing.

I saw a more complex, larger and

more delicate food chain than I had

understood before.

The [Brazilian] government

structure for agriculture, withagrarian reform independent of the

Ministry of Agriculture, is interesting.This raised lots of questions abouthow fully segmented the sectors were

[agribusiness and family farms], how

the ministries reinforce marketsegmentation, as well as some mixedfeelings of pride and cynicism. Did

this structure support or serve tostructurally isolate the family farmsector?

Team members reported both questioning and seeingmore clearly their own mental models as a result of their

experiences on the Learning Journeys. Many remarkedon the fact that frequently after a visit to a business,

cooperative, or government agency, Lab Members wouldreport remarkably different observations. An example is

the list of team observations after a visit to a smallfarmers cooperative:

- Hard working

- Very political- Not sustainable

- Very sustainable- Needs to modernize

- Needs time to mature- Is an excellent model

I am still amazed that this number of people can look at the same thing andsee something so different, and every

perspective is valid. It doesnt helpme. I find it still confusing. There is

so much I dont understand about

other perspectives.

The final exercise of each Learning Journey involvedconstructing a synthesis of the whole food system out of

the observations from the Journey. The specific questionteam members addressed was: What are the key

aspects of the DNA of the whole food system that yousaw this week?

Team member responses to the DNAquestion:

One of the central things ispolicywe should shift from an ag-policy to a food policy.


14/50



I think we need to identify theboundaries of the system wheredoes it end and where does it begin?

One group reported two major insights from the

synthesis session: (1) a policy shift is needed in the FoodLab from agricultural policy to food policy, and (2)there are multiple agricultural logics at play within the

global food system. There was broad agreement withinthis group that diversity is a desirable characteristic of

the food system and that the multiple logics that existwithin the global food system should be preserved.

Another group noted its observation of a two-speed food

systemone serving local markets and one servinginternational markets, with many differences

necessitated by that distinction. For example, the groupdiscussed the possible opportunity for local markets to

address distribution and poverty issues. In addressinginternational markets, one member suggested the Lab

focus on creating a change process that is complexenough to reflect the intricacies of the food system itself.

In the DNA reflections, many team members pondered

the role and importance of scale in thinking aboutsustainability in food systems. For example, the concept

of mainstreaming, one of the articulated goals of the

Food Lab, caused some team members to reflect on thepossibilities and implications of scale in relation to whatis sustainable. What will mainstreaming look like at

each level of the food system, and how will that occur?

Many on the Lab Team remarked on the profound natureof the shared experience of the Learning Journeys.

Several appreciated how the Journey challenged theirprevious understanding of the food system. Others

welcomed the opportunity to connect to an experienceof the food system rather than an understanding of it.

Most Lab Members were moved by the opportunity toknow others in the Lab more personally. In each

Learning Journey group, members reported deepeningtrust and respect for one another even as there were

many opportunities to explore very differentinterpretations of experiences.

The very notion of family farming,

merits reflection. What definitioncorresponds best to our concerns? Isit size that is important, the way the

holding is organized, or the way it fitsinto the food chain and the market

(local, international)?

Agriculture of two speeds is a reality

everywhere. The two speeds may best

be thought of as serving local markets

and international markets.

We are not addressing distribution

and poverty issues we ought to.

Solutions? A possible outcome

could be a process. My focus is oncreating a process that is complexenough to generate solutions that are

as complex as the reality we are

trying to change.

How can we make the biggest

difference possible? Is biggestdifference and mainstreaming the

same thing?

What do we mean by mainstreamingsustainable systems? Does that mean

scaling up initiatives like APAEB, oris it clustering small successes, or

finding replicable solutions that can

be scaled up?

When I went through the learningjourney reports, the main thing I sawemerging was more confusion, which

I think is good. I think that for now itmakes me feel comfortable.

I had the wonderful experience of connecting in a very different way

with people on the Learning

Journeys.

I dont know if you have noticed it


15/50



we have formed some sort of boundary around us. Going intobreakfast [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-

Process in the Food Lab: it opened with the final stagesof the co-sensing phase, contained the co-presencing

experience, and ended with the initiation of the co-realizing phase. Movement through these experiences

can be intense, chaotic, and unsettling, as well asinspiring, grounding and energizing. Team members

reported all those reactions to the experience of the

Innovation Retreat.


I am thinking about the book

Presence and aspects of this U

Process and Im feeling a realupheaval going on. Its an interesting

and uncertain and kind of wobblyfeeling.

The five-day retreat was organized in three distinct, yetinterdependent, segments. The first two days focused on

synthesizing the Learning Journey experiences,brainstorming possible initiatives, and developing

criteria for selecting initiatives. This segment wasfollowed by the 48-hour wilderness solo, introduced and

facilitated by Brian Arthur. The final two days of theretreat involved refining and choosing five Innovation

Initiatives which would be the focus of the Food Lab forthe remainder of the three-year project

Im living in two worlds from theworld of business and commerce, I

approached this with a fair amount of skepticism because this sort of

process just isnt done, nor does itwork, nor is this possible. Then youland here and all of a sudden you

realize, Well, maybe it is possible.

So the place itself changed my senseof what can be done.

PHASE ONE: CO-SENSING, GATHERING

EXPERIENCES

In the Foundation workshop, team members had

frequently expressed the desire to get to the doingphase of the Food Lab as soon as possible. In this

second workshop, the team wrestled with deciding whatto do and how to do it.

On the afternoon of the first day of the Innovation

Retreat, team members brainstormed preliminary ideasfor potential Innovation Initiatives. Although some ideas

immediately garnered much interest and support, the list


I am curious how the process is

going to deliver concrete projects towork on out of such complexity and

confusion. I feel extremely calm

about it and I feel extremelycommitted that we are going to do

something.


16/50



of ideas in its entirety gives a feel for the challenge ofnarrowing the field to four or five commonly

championed initiatives.

1. Find a means of exchange, other than the currentmonetary subsidies, that could support farmers in

the U.S. without creating a ripple effect onfarmers in developing countries.

2. Look at both production practices and tradepolicy across different countries focusing on

entry points (where entry point is the low pricereceived by the majority of the farmers of the

world).3. Focus on institutional food buying, particularly

through public procurements. Put pressure on thefood supply chain by improving the way in which

public food procurement is done. Use that as avehicle to educate consumers.

4. Focus on keeping the origin of productionpresent in the labeling of all products.

5. Focus on fishing practices, working on betterCode of Conductagreements and linking those

Code of Conductagreements to consumerchoices.

6. Define and solicit membership in some sort ofsystem or process of continual improvement

toward more sustainability or more sustainable

practices.7. Create a Hatchery for Leaders in Sustainability.8. Create a Business Coalition for Sustainability.

9. Develop a Sustainability forum like the WorldEconomic.

10. Create better information about price and activityalong the supply chain. There is a market

distortion issue that could be addressed withpolicy and information.

11. Develop systems to allow local producers to tapinto large national distribution systems.

12. Focus on the market: develop credit and pricediscovery.

13. Focus on the technological linking of theinformation that allows a small production unit to

go big.14. Focus on a brand equity.

15. Develop food policy councils made up of the

We want to see whether it is possible

to think of models and to think ofchanging of systems that can work out

for the benefit of all because in the

end - sustainable production and

sustainable consumption - its allabout development for people.

I think number seven [the hatcheryfor leaders idea] is kind of missioncritical and I understand it doesnthave a lot of very practical appeal,

but its only because were not

thinking long-term. Number sevencould be the epicenter for trying to

really think through who the nextgeneration of sustainability leaders isgoing to be and how we can leverage

existing infrastructure help in

leverage existing projects to do that.

So, I say number seven is at the heartof the food lab it cuts across all the

projects. There isnt a project here

that shouldnt be thinking aboutleadership.

If I learned anything in the last sixmonths, it is the notion that we need

to be working on all different parts of the system in order to be successful to

move the whole system.


17/50



people or citizens living in a number of targetedregions.

16. Define under what conditions the globalcommunity will accept the necessity of

sustainability.

17. Develop and implement a global certificationsscheme for sustainable fooda global food

policy.

18. Coordinate strategies to shift consumer mindsetabout food.

19. Reproduce something like European cheeses andwines, with a regional protected identity for

smaller, disadvantaged producers in an area thathad some market appeal.

20. Pick a globally traded commodity and negotiatethe standards.

21. Develop financial incentives for non-foodproducts from farms.

22. Create an International Youth Corps onsustainability, like the Girl Scouts.

23. Develop ethical standards for business like theBritish 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 gapbetween peoples intentions and actual behavior.

25. Research making branding sustainability

successful. Enlist top advertising and marketingexperts and explore current opportunities to

brand products.

We are not choosing, just getting a

sense of the possibilities. We will

filter out the fluff.

As the team grappled with the sheer quantity and breadth

of initiative ideas, creating criteria for evaluating theproposals became crucial. The discussion of how to

choose initiatives built on the shared aspirations from theFoundation Workshop regarding indicators of progress:

the triple bottom line of social responsibility,environmental stewardship, and financial returns. The

question the group now faced was what additionalcriteria, beyond alignment with these indicators, would

help them select Innovation Initiatives that might havethe potential to shift the food system.

One suggestion was that the team look for those

initiatives that were of interest not only to those in the


You dont have to have the answersfor everything that needs to be done to

solve this problem. In fact, if you did,it might not be an interesting enough

idea.

One point of leverage [is that] this

cuts across any commodity. Its notcommodity specific.


18/50



room, but to other partners as well. Another was that theinitiatives be projects that needed the unique

contribution of the Food Lab Team and that the work bewithin reach of the Lab. While some team members

were energized and enthusiastic about the potential of

the latter idea, given the range of influence of the actorsrepresented in the Lab, others expressed a sense ofneeding to widen the reach of the Lab in the following

months as the work of the initiatives takes shape.

More than once, team members said that finding theleverage in the system was essential in one way or

another for an initiative to succeed. At various timesteam members contributed a number of definitions for

leverage.

Im just thinking of the possibility ofchanging the buying habits of acorporation like that could be big

leverage in the U.S.

If theres something latent and you

need to do little to unleash it, thatsleverage.

Team member comments on criteria

for choosing innovations:

These and other suggestions generated much dialogueand interest within the Lab Team, resulting in the

formation of a cross-sectoral subgroup to further developthe criteria for selection. The subgroup discussed a

number of ideas, including the importance of measurableimpacts and the need for replicable rules or outputs, so

that each project could enhance the overall potential forlearning. The idea of cross-boundary projects attracted

much enthusiasm and was further refined to mean thatthe most interesting projects for the Food Lab would be

ones which included at least one company, civil society,

and one government agency, as well as both stakeholdersin the system and stick holders, by which the teammeant those who end up with the short end of the stick.

There was general agreement that cross-continentprojects would also be of most interest to the Lab.

At the end of its deliberations, the subgroup

recommended to the full Lab Team that in choosing thefinal initiatives the following characteristics of initiatives

be considered particularly valuable:

Impact

High leverage

Create learning

Synergies

Attractive to partners we think we need

Cross boundaries

All these initiatives should be about

trying stuff out in the real world, butthe arguments should be: if itworked, what would the impact be?

How many people, acres, dollars,minds will be effected?

We want to see not just all three

sectors but the stakeholders[involved], including not only the

powerful players in that particular

system, but the stick-holders: people

who have the short end of the stick theres the stakeholders and the stick-

holders.

What about attractiveness? The

point has been raised several timesthat unless most of the existing

participants are really behind this,

and unless this is of interest to other

players, we wont succeed in havingthe impact we say we want.

Ideally the things that end uphaving the highest impact or thehighest leverage for this group have

to reflect all three [sectors andcontinents]. So, I support that wehave to have partners from all three

sectors and from all three

continents.


19/50



The comments of many team members indicate that theysaw a synergistic effect between these criteria. Many

articulated the idea that the projects would havesignificant leverage if their impact was considerable, and

that they would have higher impact if they createdlearning opportunities across projects. Some suggested

that the unique potential of the Food Lab lay in thecross-sectoral relationships, and the projects should

capitalize on that.

This idea generated momentum and enthusiasm asmembers spoke of the possibilities presented by the

diversity of food system actors in the Food Lab withsufficient influence in business, environmental and

social sectors to create projects which would causesimultaneous intervention at multiple points in food

systems. They noted that the synergistic potential of thisstrategy is geometrically larger than is obvious when

examining the individual points of leverage.

What else would need to happen for

this to work? None of these activities

by themselves in any of those single

areas might be enough. What is thecombination of activities that together

could add up to real leverage?

I hope to be able to connect thedots between the good emerging

solutions that are around and try to

reinforce these emerging solutions

into a mainstream agricultural foodchain which I think is probably thebiggest challenge of this century.

What struck me about the process in

this room is that it seemed to me theperfect balance between excitementand frustration and out of that

balance usually something is born.

PHASE TWO: CO-PRESENCING,

WILDERNESS SOLO

What is Possible?

From the beginning, there have been differing viewsregarding the potential of the Food Lab to impact the

food system. In the Foundation Workshop, some teammembers voiced the belief that there was potential for

compelling and previously unimagined breakthroughs.Others, though less convinced of such a possibility,

nonetheless voiced confidence that the Food Lab couldachieve significant systemic change by the less dramatic,

but from their point of view equally effective process ofconnecting existing initiatives.

The second phase of the Innovation Retreat specifically

addressed this question of What is possible? throughan exploration of creativity, innovation, and discovery as

they relate to the potential to address seemingly

Team members in Foundation

Workshop:

This project has the potential for abreakthrough like weve never seenbefore in our work, and that is the

creation of such compelling and

successful prototypes that they attract

more attention, more resources andmore energy than any of us in this

room can imagine.

I expect us to share an experience

that will change the rest of our lives,and through that experience find thebreakthrough that we all would like to

see, that weve all committed to just

by our presence here.


20/50



intractable problems.

Brian Arthur, one of the pioneers of the new science of

complexity and the first director of the economics

program at the Santa Fe Institute in New Mexico, joinedthe Food Lab for this second phase of the InnovationRetreat. He shared his own work in creativity,

economics, science, and business, with an emphasis onwhat he had learned in integrating that experience with

wilderness solo retreats. Brian is familiar with the U-Process, having been involved in the early

conceptualization of it. He described the creativeprocess as consisting of three stages consistent with

those in the U-Process:

1) Observe, observe, observe2) Retreat to a place from which inner knowing can

emerge

3) Act swiftly with a natural flow

He positioned the wilderness solo as corresponding tothe second of the three stages. He explained that the

Presencing part of the U-Process provides anopportunity to retreat and reflect, creating a deeper space

out of which new thinking and action can emerge.

The wilderness solo experience began at noon on thethird day of the Innovation Retreat. Guides led team

members, carrying backpacks of clothing and food, intothe rocky foothills of Mount Hopkins to individual

campsites. Each campsite contained a tent, sleeping bag,and supply of water. The team members were advised to

maintain silence and remain within 50 feet of the tent.The weather was clear and warm, with night

temperatures dipping to freezing. The campsites in thedesert environment were visually isolated from each

other, though many team members reported seeing

native coatimundi, musk hogs and open-range cattle.

Around 9 AM on the fifth morning of the retreat, after

Lab Team members had spent two days and nights alonein the mountains, the guides retraced their steps,

collecting participants and leading them back to the basecamp where they gathered on an open hilltop in silence.

Brian Arthur broke the silence, reminding the group that

Adam Kahane:

I was very keen for Brian Arthur tobe with us this week because he canhelp us with our work through two

areas of his experience: (1) world-class work in creativity and

innovation in science, economics, and

business and (2) wilderness solos.Hes thought probably more than

anybody in the world about how these

two might be related.

Brian Arthur comments:

Creativity seems to come from

somewhere thats a lot deeper thanlogic.

If you want creative things tohappen, cram your mind with stuff

and then rest your mind, let it cook,

let it simmer.

So, maybe lets go deeper becausewhat this team is trying to do is

change a system and do that in abreakthrough way in an innovative

way [that] requires creativity.

What a lot of this takes is courageand I commend all of you from my

heart for joining a group like this

because the courage is symbolicallylike going out into something thats

still unknown and in the wild. Its

wildand Im not talking about safetyhere, Im talking about the unknown.

By taking a step into the unknown,youre taking this step that allows thatsort of creativity.

What happens on the solo is that just

being out there brings you into adeeper part of yourself and no one

seems to know why. And that

continues. Im struck by the fact that


21/50



the effects of being out in nature alone often emergeslowly over days and weeks and even months. He

invited people to share any part of their experiencewhich seemed meaningful at that moment. The feeling

in the group on the hilltop as participants spoke was one

of quiet, gentle directness and openness.

The following are samples of the reflections of team

members at the end of the solo wilderness experience:

whenever Ive done this, maybe twoweeks later, three weeks later,

something falls in place two or three

months later Im still feeling effects

from that. Its almost as if some

things have gotten unlocked that needto be dealt with over time.

I truly listened to birds for the first time. I saw rabbits. I did the best yogaever. 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 cant always manage to look at thingsin life that way. I could bend down and see a whole different, vibrant life

existing beyond my experience.

You often dont 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, butI didnt. 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 theworld 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 becameaware of all kinds of things happening we dont see. I watched the very last

star disappear this morning into the light of dawn. I was very aware that it isstill there, but I dont 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 hereand I was very sad.

I didnt 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 shootingstars, 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


22/50



want, and I decided not to stay with the truth (flight path) but to remainthinking it was two shooting stars.

I thought about 3000 years agopeople trying to save the hunters andgatherers. Are we on a similar path?

I found that the ordinary becomes extraordinary. And then it goes back tobeing ordinary.

*******************************************************

Two people shared dreams of births, which seemed

significant to some who connected the dreams with theconcept of the Food Lab birthing the Innovation

Initiatives. In both dreams, the dreamer was surprised tofind him or herself delivering a baby in a tent. In both

dreams, the baby and mother were healthy, and thedreamer was unsure what to do in the awe-inspiring

moment of birth.

One unexpected event during the wilderness experience

bears recounting because o f its effect on the group. Onthe afternoon of the second day, the silence was broken

by two black helicopters which rose from behind MountHopkins and flew back and forth over the campsite area,

low enough for team members to observe uniformed menstudying the tents on the ground. The helicopters

disappeared as suddenly as they had materialized and theridges and valley returned to the quiet of natural sounds.

Team members reported markedly different reactions tothis event when they gathered the next morning at the

end of the solo experience.

The European team members generally assumed thehelicopters were on a rescue or assistance mission of

some kind and reported feeling reassured by theexperience, jarring though the interruption seemed. The

North Americans generally assumed the helicopters were

searching for illegal drug runners, or Latin Americansillegally crossing the boarder. They reported mixedfeelings of both unease and of being protected. The

Latin Americans assumed the helicopters were from theImmigration 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.

An image that was really strong for

me was the reactions to thehelicopter. It was so easy for me tojust assume they were there for our

safety. I felt the effects of things Iknow intellectually, but that brought

it home very, very poignantly: how

our different experiences shape ourreactions to events so, so strongly.So, thats an image Ill carry for

quite a while.


23/50



The earlier experience on the Learning Journeys

learning to listen to different perspectives and being opento exploring differencesmay have contributed to the

attitude of curiosity and interest with which teammembers approached the very different reactions to the

helicopter saga. No one tried to establish one perspectiveas reality. Rather, there was general acceptance that what

may have been protective action for one was a threat toanother. This reflects a reality in the food system which

has become starkly evident to this group: that somethingwhich benefits one sector or part of the food chain can be

a threat or challenge to another.

The certification standards, they arenecessary, completely needed for

sustainability, but they generate

unsustainability. I dont know how to

resolve the problem that we do needthe standards we do need

certification, but when we createcertifications and we create

standards, we work against the small

producer.

PHASE THREE: CO-CREATING, CHOOSING

INITATIVES

The final two-day segment of the workshop began as theteam re-assembled after the wilderness experience.Many team members commented on the sense of calm

determination in the group after the wilderness campingexperience and expressed confidence that this group was

uniquely capable of the work that was needed in the foodsystem.

One member of the team characterized the feeling in the

group as stillness. Others remarked on a feeling of goodheartedness and convergence. Many became aware of a

new level of commitment and energy. Otherscommented on the focused high energy of the group as it

dove into the challenging work of selecting initiativesthat could shift food systems toward greater

sustainability.


I think, because of the trust that has

been building, its been much easier

for me over the last several days totruly understand the intricacies of

this project, as well as the body of good will thats forming. And my

belief is that that good will and thattrust not only is strong, but is up for

the challenge.

Energy in the group has shifted to

stillness and good heartedness. It is a

much stiller group that came back.

The tangible work of the last two days of the InnovationRetreat involved refining and choosing Innovation

Initiatives that would be the focus of the Food Lab forthe remainder of the three-year project. By the end of the

fifth day, the team had reduced the list of twenty-fiveideas from the first day to nine. Each of the nine was

broadly defined and incompletely developed, and eachwas distilled out of numerous proposals.

I came into this meeting with a lot of

doubt about the processaboutoutcome, certainly, and aboutrelationships, honestly. I leave with

all those doubts converted intoenergy and direction and purpose

and passion.


24/50



The plenary session of the final day of the Retreat

opened with marked dynamism. One team memberdescribed a vivid dream of taming wild horses. Another

reported a sleepless night filled with images of teammembers selling their innovation ideas. Another

described chaotic trains of thought revolving around howto move through the transition phase into implementing

these projects. Others reported not getting much sleep asa result of thinking about a crucial point or an insight

about the power of change, or worrying about how toaccomplish the exciting, significant innovations that were

emerging. There was a sense of momentum in the room,accentuated by excitement, anticipation, disquiet and

determination.

In the end, having brought forward initiative proposalseach with the potential for significant leverage, impact,

synthesis, learning and cross-sector outcomesteammembers voted with their feet by indicating which

initiatives they were personally willing to co-lead orotherwise commit to.

The initiatives that were chosen had germinated from

seeds planted in the earliest plenary sessions. Each wasenriched and changed through much iteration. Generally,

ideas and innovations were influenced by the earlier

group work on indicators of success, information aboutthe work already being done in each area of innovation,the amount of time and resources individual Food Lab

members were able to commit to the work involved, andthe degree to which the initiative had potential for

leverage in the food system.

Several team members remarked on the ease andswiftness that characterized the final deliberations of the

Lab Team. Each initiative was only loosely defined atthe time of this writing, with the expectation that further

definition and prototyping was essential for determiningthe parameters and focus of the work. Below is a brief

description of each of the five Innovation Initiatives andthe two Exploratory Initiatives. A more complete list, as

well as an explanation of the initial proposed scope ofeach initiative, can be found in Appendix B.

I thought a lot last night and was

actually a little bit worried because

now I think weve identified some

great projects and some things thatwe can really do. I was thinking, (1)

how do I convince my company tosupport these, and (2) how do I find

the time I mean, Im already

working 60 hours a week how do Ifind the time to get or to helpanybody get anything done? And

now the work begins, and that scares

the hell out of me.

Robert Browning said, A mansreach should exceed his grasp. I

think we really are grasping beyond

ourselves and theres quite a lot of fear about whether we can deliver. Ithink the biggest insight I got was

about innovation building on other

things that already exist. I thinktheres a big desire to create

something really, really new and itsa bit of a disappointment that all the

projects are building on things that

already exist. My big insight is:delivering incremental projects witha whole is something which hasntbeen done and it is a big innovation.

I was very concerned, up until a

couple of days ago, that we wouldntmake it and then when it happened,

it happened, in my mind, rather

quickly. I mean, things just startedpopping and we got to this pointpretty quickly and that was just

amazing.


25/50



Initial Innovation Initiatives:

Access to Markets by Small Farmers in Latin

America.Goal: To improve the livelihoods of family

producers through innovative marketstructures and infrastructure investments.

Regional Food Supply to Schools andHospitals.Goal: Create demand for food with better

taste, nutrition, and cultural identity bybuilding regional relationships between

institutional buyers and local sources.

Business Coalition for Sustainable Food.

Goal: Build a coalition to drive moresustainable practices in a manner that brings

economic sustainability.

Commodities and Investment.Goal: Institutionalize buyer and investorscreens for major commodities to drive

international adoption of better social andenvironmental practices.

Framing.

Goal: Develop new framings through whichmainstream citizens can connect their valuesto sustainable

Exploratory Initiatives:

More Sustainable Fisheries.Goal: To improve market access forresponsible small fishermen and develop a

sustainable model for aquaculture.

Democracy and Citizens.Goal: To strengthen democratic citizen-action

for sustainable food

If we could invest and bring all our

energies onto these five things we

think we can shift the future of thefood system.

Two innovation areas that had been discussed at lengthby the full Lab Team were eventually integrated into

What about a certifications scheme

for sustainable food relating to


26/50



other initiatives rather than being defined as individual,independent projects. The first was termed Community

Brands, creating sustainable food brands owned by thecommunities where food is sold. This was seen by many

as creating the possibility to leverage advertising and

promotion, generate critical mass and economy of scale,focus on hunger and poverty by creating links tocommunity, and leverage excess manufacturing capacity.

The second was described in the plenary sessions as A

Greenhouse for Leaders. The idea of developing thecapacity for and commitment to responsible leadership

throughout the food system was seen as having thepotential to be catalytic, and generative, but hard to

quantify. The Food Lab was cited as one form of agreenhouse, but the team noted that this idea needed to

be developed through work with specific businesses,foundations and civil society representatives involved in

the Innovation Initiatives. Team members recognizedthat any work directed toward this effort would connect

and substantially increase the impact of any otherinitiative.

branding and labeling? We as agroup could develop something. Itcould include economic and social

analysis of value and compensation

in the food system. Looking at all of

the different values that there actuallyare in the food system that are rightnow not being recognized: What are

those? What are the differences?Whos getting profit and credit? Who

isnt, and how do we rebalancethat?

What are the real points of

significance? It is all about people

because people have taken thechallenge of leadership to movethings forward. If we could find a

way of unleashing more embryonicleaders to be real leverage points

within their own areas and leverage

points between leadership groups upand down the chain, across countries,

then you have something extremely

powerful, extremely powerful.

Germination of Innovation Initiatives: Two

Case Studies

Tracking the development of Innovation Initiatives is

interesting both for the strategies that were discarded orincorporated elsewhere and for the synergies that

contributed to the final chosen initiatives. The two casestudies presented below offer a glimpse into the

creativity and range of thinking that contributed to thedevelopment of the final list of chosen initiatives.

I think the projects are not perfect,but the whole idea of prototyping is

you get it out there and you work onit. These will not be the final projects.

We have more work to do on them

and then more beyond that.

Case Study One: Food Service

The ideas that coalesced into the Food Service Initiative

were first brought to the group at the FoundationWorkshop. In the opening introductions, one member

explained his interest in the Sustainable Food Lab as

Team member comments regardingthe idea of a Food Serviced Initiative:

On a business level we are very


27/50



being grounded in a corporate concern regarding thelong-term prospects for large-scale procurement of

products from small and mid-sized farmers fordistribution to institutional and restaurant suppliers.

Later, during the Sustainability Indicators exercise at theFoundation Workshop, institutional purchasing behaviorwas listed as one indicator of a more sustainable food

system. At this point in time, the interest was in trackingthe number of institutions committed to buying

sustainable food, with the assumption that an increasewould indicate a shift in the food system toward more

sustainability.

concerned that we will not haveaccess to the products that we need to

service our customers in the future.

We see the small and middle-size

farmers numbers decreasing day by

day and, frankly, they are the onesthat are offering the variety and

specialty products that we need to

offer to our customers for theirconsumers. So, I think this is very

important for our industry and forour future in that respect.

The Learning Journey experiences touched directly onthe relationship between large food distributors and small

local producers, although the idea of leveraginginstitutional buying as a strategy to move the system did

not specifically emerge in the reports of any of the threeJourneys.

In Learning Journey two we saw a

lot of what I call the big players: a

large food distributor along withcommodity cooperatives dependent

upon the export market. Juxtaposedwith that, we visited small farmers,not doing so well, not really players

in the global food system. Can our

Food Lab impact both levels ofoperation?

On the opening day of the Innovation Retreat, Lab Teammembers contributed the idea of institutional food buying

to the very first brainstorm of Innovation Initiatives. Atthat time the idea was presented as having great potential

to improve the way public food procurement is done andas a vehicle to educate consumers about more sustainable

choices.

Focusing on institutional foodbuying, particularly through public

procurement, could put pressure onthe food supply chain by improvingthe way in which public food

procurement is done. We can think of

using that as a vehicle to educate

consumers. This is an area wherethere seems to a lot of potential.

As an interested group of Lab Team members discussedthe leverage of focusing on institutional buyers, the scope

narrowed to developing standards for food procurementfor government, military, and health care institutions.

The team considered several strategies, including makingclear the costs of unsustainable choices, creating

traceability indicators, and developing a reward system.

First when the idea was posted,institutional wasnt even there. It

was food buyers, and then that was

such a broad range we reduced it,

and then we decided to excluderetailers and really talked more aboutinstitutions as defined as distributors,

government, military andinstitutionsThis is about creating

traceability with indicators, and

addressing risks and perhaps it mayinclude a reward system for


28/50



experimental opportunity.

After the wilderness solo, at least one team member

offered additional ideas about the potential for the FoodLab to focus on food buyers. This person reiterated the

importance of local food production, and suggested that asignificant shift in the food system might come from

adapting already existing prototypes.

the message that came very clear

to me on the solo was about the

importance for food to be consumed

as close to the site of production as ispossible. Rather than recreatingsomething new or reinventing a

wheel, we might be able to adopt[what is already being done] as a

prototype. Particularly facilitating

connections of all the food buyerswithin a region, so it pulls in the

institutional buyersI think its very

doable. This group could do it.

Your point was that the innovation

was about addressing institutionalfood service, right? Its not about theregional identity of the food as such

at this point.

During the last two days of the workshop, as the list of

potential initiatives was being narrowed from twenty-fiveto nine, there was talk once again of the importance of

focusing on the flow from production to consumption,specifically looking at key institutional buyers who are

perceived as having the greatest leverage. Interested Lab

Members refined the focus further, considering thefollowing issues:

Target audiences

Developing and implementing sustainable screensfor institutional procurement

The pros and cons of a strategy of regulation vs. astrategy of incentives

Rewarding improvement

Minimizing the risks to producers in such a system

Using a unified brand

Applicability of Green Purchasing Programs already

We identified target audiences onewas the end institutional buyer.

Another target would be parents, as it

relates to working with schools. Wewere talking about the flow from

production to consumption andlooking at key institutional buyerswho have the greatest leverage.

We talked about needing

sustainability screening looking atsocial, economic, environmental andnutritional elements. Another target

[was] the alternative health food

supply chain. We had discussionaround regulations versus incentives

as creating motivationbuilding thisbusiness case. We identified factorslike efficiency, bottom-line,

transaction costs, etc. Some of the

limitations that we identified:

would there be enough supply of

sustainably-produced food?

low pricesa risk to producers

in the system.We talked about a need to try to

spread the risk over the wholesystemthats not where most of the


29/50



in existence in many governments in the E.U.

Determining whether there could be sufficientsupply

In the last hours of the Arizona retreat, the team membersmost interested in investing further time and energy onthe Food Service Initiative defined the work as:

Creating more sustainable food services. Building

regional relations in food service and local sourcesthrough taste, nutrition, environment, cultural identity,

and economy.

risk is today, and that would be alimitation and a challengeand theoverall complexity would be a

limitation that would have to be

addressed.

Case Study Two: Commodity and InvestmentInitiative

The idea behind the Commodity and Investment

Initiative was first mentioned in Bergen, althoughinitially Commodities was one focus and Investmentswas another. Both were seen as examples of high-

leverage intervention in the food system.

During the opening remarks of the FoundationWorkshop, at least one Lab member mentioned

commodity-specific round tables as one method orapproach the Food Lab should consider. In the

Indicators of Success session, the idea of incorporatingsocial and environmental benefits of production into the

field of commodity markets was proposed by more thanone team member as an example of a possible project

that could shift mainstream food production toward moresustainable practices.

Team member during Foundation

Workshop introductions:

We need to make the business casefor sustainable commodity agri-

production.

Lab Team comments:

Commodities-specific roundtables.There are at least half-a- dozen

different ones on specificcommodities. Weve got a business

case analysis of how you work in field

commodity markets, and for mesuccess would be to identify two orthree major commodities where we

could actually mainstream these

ideas and incorporate the values of production, the values of theenvironment, and of society. Thats

to me what success would look likebecause those would be the cases that

wed use to multiply across different

systems.


30/50



At various times throughout the Food Lab events, team

members wondered whether there were ways to link

trade policy work, country-specific productionconditions, fisheries, and international certification

programs with an initiative focused on commodities.

Another area where there was realpotential was to look at some kind ofinternational agreement, such as

sugar where there are real tensions

between Brazil, the E.U., the U.S. Is

there a way to begin to look atBrazils desire to export more, theinternal production conditions of

sugar, the issues of production ofsugar inside the E.U. and the U.S.?

Could that be one of the areas whichwe could look at both production

practices and trade policy across

those different countries?

Eventually, a group of Lab members organized arounddeveloping an initiative based on the commodity

roundtable concept. This idea has a five-year history,

stemming from the work of a group from the WorldBank National Aqua-Culture Centers that focused onmaking shrimp aqua-culture more sustainable. The

process of the World Bank group created a prototype thatis beginning to be adopted by other commodities. The

proposal for a Food Lab Initiative was to adopt thisprototyped roundtable process for other commodities,

using the cross-sectoral connections in the Lab to supportthis strategy.

The idea of the commodity work is

to bring together people frombusiness, producer groups, civil

society organizations, NGOs andenvironmental groups, researchersand government to discuss the social,

environmental, and economic impacts

of specific commodity productionsystems around the world, with eachgroup focusing on one. Then to look

at what areas we have agreement

about, disagreement about, and areaswhere we dont have informationabout what those impacts are. We

know that no more than six to eight

impacts for any commodity cause 80percent of most peoples concern, so

the focus of this work is on six oreight topics, not on a laundry lists of impacts.

Its really very strategic the groupshave gotten agreement very quickly

on those six issues. The idea then isto look at what better practicesactually reduce those impacts to

acceptable levels, and which of those

better practices are already beingused by 10 or 20 or 25 percent ofproducers.

These groups are not interested inidentifying perfect, but rather in

looking at better and improving thesystem through that. The goal is tocome up with principles, criteria and


31/50


32/50



Of these three projects, only the development ofcommodity investment screens was included in the final

five Innovation Initiatives. However, essential aspects ofthe micro-credit schemes were integrated into the Latin

American Family Farmers Initiative.

In the final day of the Innovation Retreat, the Finance

and Investment Screens group and the Commodity teamproposed merging for the greatest leverage and impact.

At the end of the Initiative Retreat, the goal for this

initiative was defined by the team as:

Create a common framework for more sustainablecommodity production, resulting in buying and

investment screens and focusing on:

Identifying and agreeing on social and environmentimpacts

Identifying and analyzing better managementpractices for small-medium-large producers

Developing third-party certification programs

Producing high-quality products

Measurably improving practices

opportunities. So, when you look atmicro-finance, you have to thinkabout linkages, contracts with

companies who can sell either locally

or into export markets, and those

contracts can also create riskmitigance to lenders.

If you look in the middle theres

traditional bank financefinance toindustry, including lending to

farmers. We think theres potential toget practice screens for financingcommodity flows, which could be tied

to the commodity initiative. The

Equator Principles for Project

Finance are the environmentalprinciples that investments must meetif theyre to be financed. Theres

some potential scope we ought tolook at to make sure that the right

sorts of things are being done there.

And then if you look at the top ofthe food chain, theres an increasing

interest in what we call Socially

Responsible Investments. There is

good potential to work with some ofthe asset managers in food and agri-business on developing financial

screens which define sustainability orsocially-responsible investment.

Youd make it much more tangibleand clear for the people doing theinvestment and investors. The peoplewho really arent producing the sort

of goods you want in terms of SRI

would over time attract less favorablecapital treatment.

The finance group feels theresrelevance to other subjects, but we

agree that it makes sense to group the

finance work in one project where

theres greatest leverage. I think whatwe can do is bring a lot of value to all

the initiatives, but where we can

deliver the most leverage and createthe biggest impact is with

commodities.


33/50



TRUST RELATIONSHIPS

COMMITMENT

While the tangible outcomes of the Innovation Retreat

were accomplished through an intense and energeticexchange of ideas, the development of less visibledynamics was also essential to the process. For some,

personal and interpersonal changes were as significant asthe development of the initiatives. A number of team

members reflected in their closing comments on the roleof commitment, trust, and respect in enabling the

profound changes which they felt were critical to theFood Labs long-term potential to shift the food system.

Im remembering the firstdescription of the Food Lab where

you said you were looking for leaders

who were frustratedIm now veryexcited to be able to work on things

that I have been working on for many

years and now finally I see apossibility for progress.

In comments and reflections on the Learning Journeys, inthe Innovation Retreat, and on the wilderness solos, teammembers described profound change on several levels:

personally,

interpersonally betwe

sfl lh chapter 2 public

Documents