Just Food System Evaluation Framework

ProceduralJustice

RecognitionalJustice

Distributive Justice

Embracingdifference

6 Outcomes

Dimensionsof justice

The justice dimensions refer to the basic rules of justice established in the literature. The Framework consists of 3 key justice dimensions relevant to food systems: recognitional, procedural, and distributive justice. These dimensions serve as overarching themes that informed the selection and identity of the other Framework components. Example: Distributive justice (see Page 2 for full description).

6 Outcomes

12 Outcomes

Considering past, present and future

Labour justice

Access to food

Respectfulrelations

Capacity toparticipate

Just processes

Outputs

Outputs are the immediate tangible or intangible results of a Framework user's intervention that contribute to achieving an outcome. Outputs can contribute to a single outcome or multiple different outcomes. Example: 200 students eat a free daily nutritious breakfast with culturally preferred food options.

Activity

Activities are the interventions food actors (Framework users) implement and perform that result in outputs. These include a wide range of initiatives, such as policies, programs, and projects. Example: School meal program.

Outcomes

Outcomes are the short- and medium-term effects of an intervention. Outcomes capture details on how meeting a desired impact is done, and thus, they serve as criteria for evaluating progress toward an impact. The Framework features 24 outcomes that are linked to specific impacts. Example: Increased food security for equity-deserving groups (e.g., increased availability of culturally preferred foods, access to nutritious food, affordability of food).

Impacts

Impacts are the are the wider-scale changes in the food system that occur when specific JEDI outcomes are achieved through an activity or intervention. The Framework has 7 impacts derived from the literature. These impacts represent guideposts food actors should work towards. However, interventions can also contribute to other unintended positive or negative impacts. Example: Access to food (See Page 2 for full description).

The Just Food System Evaluation Framework is a tool designed to support food actors in embedding food justice in their work. It responds to several questions: How do you know if food activities are contributing to justice, equity, decolonization, and inclusion (JEDI)? Why is it just? Who benefits, and who bears the burdens of the action? Does it address colonial root causes? Based upon Western liberal justice theories, decolonial theories, and food systems literature*, the Framework contains a suite of outcomes and impacts that indicate progress towards a just food system and act as goalposts for food actors to work towards. The Framework can be used to evaluate how food activities and organizations are contributing to JEDI outcomes in order to identify areas of strengths and gaps where more work can be done. It can also be applied to measure community-wide progress towards a just food system, which can assist in planning and determining where efforts and resources should be allocated.Using a similar approach to a logic model, the Framework's structure is made up of components that are organized under five hierarchical levels: 1) Activities 2) Outputs 3) Outcomes 4) Impacts 5) Dimensions of justice.Hover your mouse over the underlined text for a description of these components before moving on to explore the full framework on Page 2.

*Adapted from Tribaldos and Kortetmäki's Criteria for Just Transition in Food Systems (2022). See report for further details on how the Framework was developed.

1. Framework Structure

Page 2

Distributive Justice

ProceduralJustice

RecognitionalJustice

Embracingdifference

Justice Dimensions

Considering past, present and future

Just processes

Capacity toparticipate

Access to food

Labour justice

Respectfulrelations

Impacts

Click on the text to learn more about each justice dimension, the impacts we aim to see in a more just food system, and the corresponding outcomes that lead to each impact.

2. Exploring the Framework

3. How to Use the Framework

Next

Next:

Food system problems or solutions are often framed by looking at the present. Who is affected? How are they harmed? To what extent? Looking at an issue’s historical roots shifts framing away from present-day damage or deficit, and towards recognizing that inequities stem from historic and ongoing forms of oppression (e.g., colonialism, racism patriarchy).Inequities arise when food systems are built on singular visions and goals that overlook diversity and the needs of future generations. Unfortunately, not all groups have equal power to shape the future, some organizations and communities are better resourced to enact their future plans than others. To reduce inequities, this impact calls food actors to account for historical and persisting legacies of oppression, ensure a diversity of perspectives, and consider the long-term impacts of interventions on future food systems.

Considering Past, Present and Future

Outcomes:

1.5

1.6

1.4

Recognitional Justice - Impact 1.2

*Hover your mouse over the numbers to view each outcome.

Historic and ongoing injustices (e.g., colonial legacies, intergenerational poverty, racism) are incorporated into how food system problems are framed, root causes are understood, and solutions are developed.

Marginalized communities are recognised as experiencing hope, joy, resiliency and vibrancy in the past, present and future, rather than simply being framed as oppressed.

The impact on future generations (of people and other species) is intentionally incorporated into food systems planning (e.g., considering social, economic and environmental impacts).

2.5

2.6

2.4

Just processes question the structures and systems that determine who is designing, delivering, and enforcing procedures and processes. It seeks to examine how decisions are made and what is prioritized. While having seats at the table is an important first step, these spaces must be accessible and safe for people. If not, you risk causing additional harm. It is important to acknowledge and meaningfully address barriers to participation. Planning and decision making must respect and centre relationships by moving at the speed of trust.

Just Processes

Outcomes:

Procedural Justice - Impact 2.2

*Hover your mouse over the numbers to view each outcome.

Reduced systemic power imbalances in governance (e.g., moving from top down, prescriptive, opaque approaches to more transparent, flexible and non-hierarchical approaches).

Equity-deserving communities are leading, or are meaningfully engaged, throughout the planning, implementation and evaluation of policies and programs.

Reduced barriers and increased safety to participate in food systems planning (e.g., offering financial stipends, childcare, transportation, language translation, etc).

3.4

3.3

The “physical and economic access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food... at all times...” is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right. Equity-deserving groups often face barriers to realising this right. This impact aims to address food security at the household and community level. This includes exploring the following questions: is there enough food? How stable is the food supply? Is the food easy to access, high in quality, and culturally appropriate?

Access to Food

3.2

3.1

3.5

Outcomes:

Distributive Justice - Impact 3.1

*Hover your mouse over the numbers to view each outcome.

Increased food security for equity-deserving groups (access to culturally preferred, nutritious, and affordable food).

Processes are established to identify individuals or groups experiencing/ at risk of food insecurity.

Greater Indigenous food sovereignty/ food sovereignty (i.e., more local control over distribution, supply and production).

Increased resilience in local food systems to ensure they can withstand natural disasters, economic shocks, and supply chain disruptions.

Increased food literacy so people can participate in their food system in whatever way they choose (e.g., gardening, preserving classes, nutrition, cooking, cultural and traditional food practices, etc.).

Distributive justice calls for the equitable distribution of resources and fair sharing of benefits (e.g., safe and nutritious food) and burdens (e.g., exposure to pesticides, malnutrition) in the food system. Here, ‘benefits’ and ‘burdens’ refer to both tangible and intangible factors, such as access to food, land, opportunities, partnerships and other resources. Currently, these are not equitably distributed. For instance, low-income groups, Indigenous communities and racialized populations are often at greater risk of food insecurity and have less access to land. To move towards distributive justice, food practitioners should consider: who will be impacted by our actions, and how can we deliver benefits to those who are in the most need?

Distributive Justice

Justice Dimension 3

Different values, life experiences, and knowledge systems inform people’s food practices and the meaning they attribute to these practices. For example, race, culture, gender, and ability-level influences how people interact with food. However, the mainstream food system often limits this difference from thriving by privileging certain values and food traditions over others, such as those that perpetuate individualism and neoliberal capitalism, which ultimately shape food system policies, practices, and interventions. For example, late-stage capitalism requires people to earn enough money to buy food and to prevent hunger. Colonialism limits Indigenous Peoples’ ability to access traditional foods in public settings because the food must meet legislative guidelines, and the law established to protect the safety of the food supply is often experienced as an impediment to traditional gathering and distribution of food. In North America, local food movements and the rise in associated farmers markets have been critiqued for being predominantly White and serving affluent communities. The lack of culturally appropriate food in procurement programs have resulted in calls for food diversity and greater attention to cultural preferences, demonstrating the need for increased diversity of food options. Recognitional justice asks us to consider whose values are being normalised or oppressed, how to challenge this division, and what can be done to value difference.

Recognitional Justice

Justice Dimension 1

3.10

3.12

3.11

3.9

A just food system requires examining its various relationships and the power dynamics between them.This includes developing accountable, reciprocal and respectful relationships between humans, the environment, and non-humans (e.g., animals, plants, fungi, insects, etc.). This impact aims to challenge harmful power relations, and to encourage reciprocal relations, especially between equity-deserving and dominant groups.

Respectful Relationships

Outcomes:

Distributive Justice - Impact 3.3

*Hover your mouse over the numbers to view each outcome.

Reciprocal relationships between equity-deserving (e.g., women, racialized groups, indigenous communities, LGBTQ2SI+, low-income) and dominant groups (e.g., white, cis, hetero, white-collar workers/managerial class) are established.

Equity-deserving food actors have opportunities to provide feedback on partnership relations.

Reciprocal relationships between different food actors (e.g., farmers, processors, distributors, food access organizations, funders) are established.

Humans have an ethical (versus exploitative and harmful) relationship with the animals, plants, and land needed for food (e.g., animal welfare, reduced food waste, agroecological practices, increased biodiversity and ecosystem health)

Procedural justice asks us to consider who makes decisions and how. Decision-making power is often concentrated among a select few. However, due to inherent biases, strategies that prove effective for one individual or group may not necessarily benefit another. When certain groups are excluded from political, social, and economic processes and opportunities, inequities emerge. Procedural justice aims to address this issue by removing barriers and facilitating meaningful participation in decision making, moving beyond tokenistic participation and towards a distribution of power to communities. It honours the approach of “nothing for us without us”. In other words, any decisions that impact communities should be decided by the community members themselves.

Procedural Justice

Justice Dimension 2

3.8

3.7

3.6

Fair labour conditions for workers in food systems include ensuring fair compensations, safe working conditions, the ability of self-employment, and the power to make decisions on issues affecting their livelihoods (e.g., land use decisions relating to farmland).

Labour Justice

Outcomes:

Distributive Justice - Impact 3.2

*Hover your mouse over the numbers to view each outcome.

Fair, adequate and equitable pay in food-related jobs (i.e., across genders and races, providing at minimum a living wage).

Increased employee support (e.g., health insurance, training, adequate staffing) and safety from pollution, hazards, weather, and other adverse conditions in workspaces.

Increased access to food system jobs/business opportunities and infrastructure (e.g., farmland, processing facilities, distribution chains, etc.) for equity-deserving groups and rural/remote communities.

1.2

Embracing difference moves away from privileging certain values while oppressing others by providing space for differing values, experiences, and knowledge systems to co-exist and be shared. Differences can also elicit conflict. This impact also suggests that rather than seeing conflict as something to be managed and removed, consider how it can be generative. Ultimately, embracing difference helps to build strong and equitable relationships.

Embracing Difference

1.3

Outcomes:

1.1

Recognitional Justice - Impact 1.1

*Hover your mouse over the numbers to view each outcome.

Multiple goals, outcomes, and principles are represented in visions of the food system.

Processes are established to allow for differing or conflicting visions to resolve or coexist.

Differing interpretations of problems and solutions are acknowledged and incorporated in food work.

2.2

2.1

2.3

This impact seeks to uplift people’s capacity to engage with decision making processes (in traditional forms of government and self-government). This requires acknowledging and reducing capacity-related disparities and barriers of different social groups to ensure all people have access to the knowledge, skills, resources and funding needed to meaningfully engage in food system governance (either to decide to build their own tables or to sit at existing decision-making tables).Valuing and supporting the ways that equity-deserving groups already organize themselves and supporting the creation of diverse organizations and governance structures is vital to this effort.

Capacity to Participate

Outcomes:

Procedural Justice - Impact 2.1

*Hover your mouse over the numbers to view each outcome.

Increased capacity of equity-deserving groups to address their own challenges and achieve their own objectives (e.g. organizational development, self-determination, resources, business development, food sovereignty).

Increased access to knowledge and understanding of local food system governance, processes and tools.

Food-system grants/funding sources support community-determined priorities, are flexible, and have accessible, low-barrier application and reporting processes.