Interview with USDA

Last week, we interviewed Jim Barham of the USDA. Questions focused on how regional food hubs were truly affecting farmers.  We also discussed funding, assessing the gaps in the market and research, policy prescriptions, and failed food hubs. The conversation with Jim was one of the most informative providing guidance on how to sift through the information we have gathered. Included in the paper is a section on the failed food hubs which will highlight the “what not to do’s” when starting a food hub. The failed food hub case studies were reviewed this past weekend.  Jim also provided information on potential funding opportunities that food hubs can tap into. One such funding program is the Farmer’s and Local Food Promotion program, which just received an additional $15 million expansion for market intermediaries. 

Another major point that he highlighted was that foods hubs will soon be required to comply with the Food Safety Modernization Act. When this piece of legislation enters into effect food hubs will be required to be GAP certified. Assistance will be provided to growers in order meet the GAP standard.  For example, there will be a pilot program for groups of farmers to work together in order to insure that they are all meeting the GAP standards and to potentially reduce the costs of complying with the program.  This means that facilities will need to be up-to-date and that food hubs may need to find the resources to help farmers they wish to source from. Over all, Mr. Barham highlighted that food hubs have been particularly beneficial to mid-size farms.

In terms of a plan for the remainder of our time, Blake & I have entered into the writing phase of our project. We will have a very rough draft complete by April 20^th for Dr. Nicholson. 

Conversation with the Wallace Center

Last week, Blake spoke to the Wallace Center in relation to our research. The Wallace Center confirmed that we are on the right track and that our recommendations to the District will be extremely helpful in helping DC set up its food hub. Later on this week, we plan to have a meeting with USDA to get their perspective on the project. 

Conversation with Greg Heller of American Communities Trust

In our conversation with Greg Heller of American Communities Trust, we had a completely different model of food hub revealed to us than the stereotypical linear model that is touted by the USDA and the Wallace Center. Instead of understanding food hubs as entities that take the produce from the farmer to the consumer through a new middleman, Mr. Heller understands food hubs as a clustering of the local activities that are found within an area. In other words, a food hub brings together the already locally established food economy and consolidates its activities under one area. Blake & I were very excited to hear this definition of a food hub since one of our major concerns regarding the DC food hub plan is the potential for the food hub to wipe out the activities that are already occurring. If DC truly wants to benefit the local food economy, it needs to focus on where the gaps are in the market. This will most likely involve another study being done and setting up a meeting with the active players in the DC local food economy.

One major theme that will come from a conversation with active members in the local food economy is overcoming one of the major issues in terms of growth: real estate. Both DC Central Kitchen and Arcadia said there biggest issue in expanding their operations was the lack of storage space necessary to expand. Both Arcadia and DC Central Kitchen both currently have an amazing deal on their current storage space. It is essentially rent free. The key to the Baltimore food hub that Greg Heller set up was the deal that the city of Baltimore made for the real estate where the food hub will be located. DC may want to look into a similar deal in terms of warehouse rental space or in terms of property. 

Partnerships with other regional food hubs.

Food hub activity in the areas surrounding the District of Columbia is quite rich.  For example,

The Southern Maryland Food Hub is one major player that is building a food hub. Currently the project is being overseen by the Southern Maryland Agricultural Development Commission (SMADC). This organization functions as a nonprofit, and after 10-12 years of negotiations on the food hub, they are likely to break ground within the next three years.  One major point that came out of the conversation with SMADC was their willingness to be a potential supplier to the DC food hub. This may be something DC will want to consider when delving deeper into the creation of its own food hub.

There is potential for DC to compete with the surrounding regions for supply of local foods from farmers to their food hubs. Southern Maryland is an area that has been working extremely hard to build up its capability to supply a food hub. This has meant aid to farmers transitioning from an economy that was once highly focused on the production of tobacco to the production of fruits and vegetables. Southern Maryland has been doing a lot of technical training for their farmers. Therefore, one of the major questions DC needs to ask itself is whether it makes sense to duplicate the efforts that are already occurring around its borders. If SMADC’s food hub has the ability to supply the DC market and provide the necessary technical training to farmers, it may be worth looking into the partnership with other food hubs.  One of the biggest complaints for the existing food hub in DC, DC Central Kitchen and organizations like Arcadia is that issue of seasonality. Partnerships may help assuage any issues that surround seasonality as DC will not have to rely solely on the farmers that are currently associated with its food hub. 

Update Week of 3/16

While our project began by examining what food hub model would be the best for the District of Columbia to implement, it has now evolved to answer a different question. As Blake and I delved deeper into the issues of food hubs, we found that the issue was not so much what model of food hub was best, instead, it was more important to determine how food hubs are working to overcome challenges.  Therefore, our research question has morphed into the following:  In order for a food hub to be successful in the District of Columbia, what challenges would it have to overcome? According to the USDA’s Resource Guide on Regional Food Hubs, all across the country food hubs are running into four major problems that will potentially undermine their longevity. These four challenges are: managing supply and demand, price sensitivity, access to capital, and managing growth. In order to assess how, or if at all, the already established food hubs or food hub-like entities within the District are experiencing these problems, we created a number of interview questions for the list of Food Hubs within or surrounding the District. Another set of interview questions was created for potential buyers from the food hub. This group included universities, restaurant chefs, and hospitals.  

At this point we have had three different interviews. One was conducted with Jay Heller, a chef within the District who has actively been trying to source food locally for a number of years, Benjamin Bartley, Arcadia Center for Sustainable Food and Agriculture’s Director of Food Access, and Amy Bachman, the Procurement and Sustainability Manager at DC Central Kitchen. Mr. Heller pointed out that one major issue from the buyer’s perspective is that price can be a major prohibition to chefs purchasing locally grown food. In addition, for those who are trying to purchase locally, they are experiencing fierce competition in the market. Mr. Heller believes that some type of cooperation needs to be set up among restaurant chefs in order to make sure there is equilibrium between the demand and supply side of local food.

Mr. Bartley and Ms. Bachman both highlighted that another major issue facing food hubs in the District is their inability to grow due to the lack of storage space available. Both entities are currently at capacity given the real estate the currently own. Both are also “renting” storage space from other entities in order to meet their demand, although they do not actually pay rent.  In order for both entities to grow, they underlined the need for affordable real estate. Renting or purchasing property in the District is known to be quite expensive. If the District wants to truly establish a successful food hub within its borders, it will want to look at how prohibitions due to high real estate prices can be assuaged. In order to get a better sense of what the other cities have done to overcome the issue of high real estate prices, we will speak with Greg Heller on March 26^th. Mr. Heller is responsible for setting up the new food hub within Baltimore. The Baltimore case is pertinent, because the land for the food hub was purchased from the city by the food hub for a minimal price of $500,000.

Finally, Blake & I have begun to discuss metrics on how to best measure the sustainability and success of food hubs. These talks are in the preliminary stages and will hopefully solidify further over the next three weeks. 

Op-Ed Critique

What’s the right temperature for the Earth? And what happens when countries disagree about what it should be? By Andy Parker and David Keith

In the Andy Parker’s and David Keith’s op-ed in The Washington Post, “What’s the right temperature for the Earth?” the authors clearly point out the flaws of an international system and the serious effect it would have on the governing of geo-engineering. The major question facing the international community should geo-engineering be put into service is: who will be in charge of the controls for the earth’s temperature system? As Parker and Keith argue, the fights over the climate change controls will most likely mimic climate change negotiations in that countries will not see eye to eye on the best set temperature for the Earth.  Just like in the climate change debates, countries constantly argue about who should cut their greenhouse gas emissions, by how much, and by when.

Using hypothetical examples based on facts, the authors create scenarios that are filled with just as much conflict as the current climate change negotiations. In their example, Russia wants to keep the temperature of the Earth a bit higher than say a country like Tuvalu. This is due to Russia benefiting from climate change in that much of Siberia is likely to melt. This will open vast amounts of land for Russia to then use for agricultural production.  However, the cooler the temperature remains the less likely it is that Tuvalu will be under water. As a result of the conflicting views on what the Earth’s temperature should be, the authors predict the potential for some serious international conflicts. Say, for example, rules are set up to govern the controls of the Earth’s temperature, but one country decides to take matters into their own hands. How will other countries react? In the authors’ point of view, the situation could become quite ugly, particularly if the conflict is between two nuclear powers. These hypothetical examples create a very persuasive argument as to why geo-engineering is not the temporary fix that some proclaim it to be. Instead, it will open up another can of worms in the realm of international relations.  

To peak the readers interest, the authors link their argument to the recent release of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences’ report on geo-engineering.  The authors further hook the reader by arguing that this reality is not off in the distant future, but more rapidly approaching us.  It very well could become a reality within our lifetime. It also engages the reader by showing that the issue of geo-engineering is no longer just a conversation happening on the fringe of climate change circles, but is rapidly coming to the forefront of discussions in relation to climate change. In addition, this op-ed by Parker and Keith teaches a potential op-ed writer that it is good to make a topic relatable to the reader. Not everyone may understand the workings & sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature, however, everyone knows the difference between setting their home thermostat at 64 degrees and 72 degrees. In addition, everyone understands the fights that can ensue should two people in the household disagree over what temperature to set the thermostat at. Overall, Parker and Keith wrote a strong op-ed piece.

Work Plan

Elisa Wilkinson

Blake Stok

SIS 620-002

February 23, 2015

Food Hub Work Plan

Week of 2/23: Due to the snow day on 2/18, our group’s schedule was slightly pushed back. We have rescheduled our face-to-face meeting with Laine Cidlowski from the District Department of Office to do a brief overview to make sure the agreed upon projects meets both the needs of Blake’s class and this class. The meeting will be held on Tuesday 2/24 at 9 a.m. at the Department. In addition, we plan to identify the two cities that we will be using as potential models for D.C.  

Week of 3/2: Have identified the key successes and challenges facing our case study cities. In addition, we will reach out to someone at the food hubs in order to set up an interview with a person in a position of authority to get a better sense of what they feel their successes and challenges are. If the food hub is local, we would like to also set up an in-person interview and hopefully tour of the facility.

Week of 3/9: During this week, we plan to complete the phone/in-person interview with our designated food hubs.

Week of 3/16: This week will be spent organizing our research and notes. A debrief will be given to Laine on the status of the project. We plan to sit down as a team and hash out the major points our research, and begin an outline for paper.

Week of 3/23: Outline of Paper will be finalized and the sections we are responsible for writing will be assigned. Goal: having 1/3 of the paper complete

Week of 3/30: Paper writing goal is to have 2/3 of the paper complete.

Week of 4/6: Paper complete. Begin editing stage. And begin preparation for the presentation.

Week of 4/20:  Finish editing the paper. Completion of PowerPoint for presentation. Potential Presentation week Elisa.

Week of 4/27 Potential Presentation week for Elisa. Present final product to the District.

Goals for the Week of 2/23

This week, Blake and I have set up a meeting with the District Office of Planning, Laine Cidlowski. The meeting was originally scheduled for last Tuesday, but was cancelled as a result of the snowstorm. At the meeting, we expect to have a number of key questions for Laine. In addition, we hope to finalize the scope of the project that meets the needs of both Blake’s class and this class. The meeting will be held on 2/24 at the Office of Planning. After this meeting, Blake and I will then meet later on in the week for a debriefing of the meeting, and to finalize how the scope of the project will meet the requirements for both classes. Moreover, we plan to have identified case study cities that we will use as comparisons for the potential model of the District’s Food Hub. Should our work plan need to be updated, we will do so accordingly.

In terms of what most excites me about the project, I am excited about interviewing the operators of our case study food hubs. I think it is a necessary step for our project. They will have first-hand knowledge of what works and what doesn’t.  In this way, we may receive information that might be missed by solely focusing our research on written articles. In addition, successes and challenges may have changed since the articles we identify have been written. In interviewing an operator of a food hub, we will get the first hand knowledge this project needs. The thing that worries me the most is the unpredictability of the weather. I do not think as team we can afford to have another meeting cancelled. Going forwards, we should have a backup plan should one of our weeks be altered due to weather events. 

Updated Project Proposal

Successful Food Hubs in DC

            Following our initial meeting with Dan Guilbeault at the Department of the Environment, I was introduced to Laine Cidlowski of the Department of Planning, which oversees most of the initiatives related to the DC Sustainability Plan’s food security goals. After reviewing project alternatives with Laine, it was agreed that the most helpful project for the District would recommendations for the creation of successful food hubs.  Food hubs have a number of benefits for the DC community and economy, as well as benefits for the environment. Food hubs primarily focus on building markets for local and regional producers in order to give them access to consumers. Also, Food Hubs create a significant environmental benefit by reducing the number of miles food travels from the producer to the consumer.

            The project will be a comparison between the different types of food hubs that could potentially be implemented within the city. In order to do so, examples from other cities will be examined based on their set up and functionality.  In other words, the main question the project will attempt to answer is: Which elements from other cities’ food hubs could the District use as a template for its own food hubs?  As part of our research, we plan to speak with City Kitchen here in D.C. and food hubs within Maryland. Based on this research my partner, Blake Stok and I will complete a paper with a set of policy recommendations on the best model. It is important to note that my partner is taking AU’s Sustainable Purchasing class and the final paper will also analyze the issue for this lens as well. One important point we expect this perspective to highlight is the potential for reevaluation of 100-mile radius that D.C. has set to define local food.  Our goal is to examine whether the setting of such a localized radius has a negative impact on sustainable purchasing?  The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s “Region Food Hub Resource Guide” will serve as a starting point for understanding what is required in order to build a successful food hub. It is expected that within the next week or two this resource will reviewed completely and a face-to-face meeting with Laine will be scheduled to discuss the project schedule for the rest of the semester.