Just Food System Evaluation Framework

Page 2

1. Framework Structure

*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.

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.

Impacts

Outcomes

Activity

Outputs

Just processes

Capacity to participate

Respectful relations

Access to food

Labour justice

Considering past, present and future

12 Outcomes

6 Outcomes

Dimensions of justice

6 Outcomes

Embracing difference

Distributive Justice

Recognitional Justice

Procedural Justice

Next:

Next

3. How to Use the Framework

2. Exploring the Framework

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.

Impacts

Respectful relations

Labour justice

Access to food

Capacity to participate

Just processes

Considering past, present and future

Justice Dimensions

Embracing difference

Recognitional Justice

Procedural Justice

Distributive Justice

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

Recognitional Justice - Impact 1.2

1.4

1.6

1.5

Outcomes:

Considering Past, Present and Future

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.

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

Procedural Justice - Impact 2.2

Outcomes:

Just Processes

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.

2.4

2.6

2.5

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

Distributive Justice - Impact 3.1

Outcomes:

3.5

3.1

3.2

Access to Food

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?

3.3

3.4

Justice Dimension 3

Distributive Justice

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?

Justice Dimension 1

Recognitional Justice

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.

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

Distributive Justice - Impact 3.3

Outcomes:

Respectful Relationships

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.

3.9

3.11

3.12

3.10

Justice Dimension 2

Procedural Justice

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.

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

Distributive Justice - Impact 3.2

Outcomes:

Labour Justice

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).

3.6

3.7

3.8

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

Recognitional Justice - Impact 1.1

1.1

Outcomes:

1.3

Embracing Difference

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.

1.2

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

Procedural Justice - Impact 2.1

Outcomes:

Capacity to Participate

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.

2.3

2.1

2.2