From jg16@cornell.eduMon Apr 10 21:24:27 1995 Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 16:30:42 -0400 From: Judy Green To: sanet-mg@ces.ncsu.edu Subject: FOOD SHED/MARKETSCAPE? I've been following the food shed discussion with much interest. I'm part of a group working on a book tentatively entitled "Sustainaing Rural Landscapes: Applying Innovative Concepts to the Practical Work of Landscape Protection and Land Use Planning". My chapter, and those of a couple of other collaborators, will explore the relationship between food/agricultural marketing systems and the sustainability of Northeast U.S. communities and landscapes. In our discussions we have been using the term MARKETSCAPE rather than food shed,food system, food circle or whatever. Now I'm trying to figure out whether to continue using "marketscape" or buy into one of the other terms which are quickly gaining familiarity (at least with SANET users.) I'd welcome feedback. Does "marketscape" offer any improvements over the other terms in that it does not imply a particular directionality, scale or structure? Anyway, in addition to your comments on terminology, I also welcome comments on this early (READ: ROUGH-VERY ROUGH) outline of ideas for my chapter below. The "social capital and environmental capital" stuff refers to Cornelia Flora's outline of 4 types of capital - 1) physical (including money), 2) human (individuals' skills, education, labor, etc) 3) natural resource and 4) social (the way we are organized to interact, our institutions, cultural norms, level of mutual trust, etc etc...) A high degree of social capital makes more effective use of other forms of capital. My thesis is that locally/regionally integrated marketscapes (eg food sheds) foster the development of social capital and perhaps therefore, natural resource capital. Global marketscapes, on the other hand tend to degrade social capital in both importing and exporting communities. I have not yet delved into the literature which many of you have suggested so I'm sure I will find lots of good stuff in there too. In the meantime, thanks in advance for any comments you have. FIRST DRAFT -THINK PIECE - 10/7/94 J. Green "THE AGRICULTURAL MARKETSCAPE": Implications for Development of Social and Natural Resource Capital I. Definitions: Marketscape: A geographic conceptualization of agricultural marketing systems, mapping the sources and destinations of inputs and outputs to and from farms. (Should be superimposed on a mapping of natural resources and of human population) Locally integrated marketscape: A system of marketing relationships in which there is a high level of recirculation of resources - coupling of farm inputs and outputs (sources and destinations) - within a locality. Eg: generation of agricultural inputs (soil fertility, seed, breeding stock, machinery and equipment, knowledge, training, new farmers, farm labor, credit....) from local resources; and distribution of farm products (food and fiber, "waste" nutrients, recreational access...) to local recipients. "Local" and "integrated" both being relative terms - the tighter the linkages geographically, the more locally integrated; the more numerous and diverse the linkages, the more locally integrated. Locally non-integrated (or non-locally integrated?) marketscape: A system of marketing relationships in which the sources and destinations of farm inputs and outputs are geographically distant, and therefore disconnected from the people and landscape of a locality. Eg: the "global market" II. Social attributes of marketscapes Locally integrated. Marketing relationships are more likely to be personal relationships, maintained over time. High degree of control in creating and defining economic relationships remains with local people. Producers and consumers of inputs and outputs view each other in more than economic terms, have many shared interests including, importantly, an interest in the local landscape. Economic and social relations more horizontal, egalitarian, based more on reciprocity, trust. Negotiation of interdependent but distinct economic interests. Long-term view, shared commitment to locality. High degree of accountability to local community. Farm business decisions made with an eye to many goals - economic, environmental, community relations. Very strong networks involving farm and nonfarm interests .... So, many positive contributions to developing social capital. Non-locally integrated. Disconnection between economic and personal interests and relationships; economic relations primarily vertical (farmers at the bottom?); low level of local control of economic relationships, power remains outside local community and non-accountable. Farm business decisions made against primarily economic criteria. Few opportunities for trustbuilding between farmers and nonfarmers. Little understanding, connection to, "ownership" of local agriculture by non-farmers. Very weak networks - farmers alienated, isolated. Symbolic diversity - us against them. No relationship between the local food supply and the local landscape. III. Implications of marketscape for developing social capital of locality-based communities Development of more locally integrated marketscapes can be seen as a strategy for building social capital in rural communities, and for strengthening horizontal linkages between rural and urban communities......... Following would be case examples of local marketscape development, eg Ithaca, New York and Eastern Europe.... Judy Green Phone: 607-255-9832 Coordinator Fax: 255-9984 Farming Alternatives Program Email: jg16@cornell.edu Dept. of Rural Sociology Cornell University Never attribute to malice that which is Ithaca, NY 14853-7801 adequately explained by stupidity