I'd like to respond to some of Jane Sherman’s questions.
Do we want nutrition education for farmers or for the public?
I think both are necessary, because farmers represent the supply and the public represents the demand. The challenge, then, is finding a coherent way to do both effectively. Our approach has been to start with school greenhouse’s(GH) and the students, which has several advantages:
1. Teachers are a built in support group which is passionate about their students.
2. The vegetables go to school lunches, directly affecting the most vulnerable.
3. The GH’s influence the opinion and behavior of kids at a young age.
The students get hands on learning in the GH, with workshops incorporating everything from math to health, they eat the food with lunch, and sell extras to the community allowing them to buy things for the school.
With this new interest and excitement, the kids go home and tell the rest of the family about the fruits and vegetables they’re growing and eating, shifting their opinion. Just like any parent, you can’t ignore them forever, and the families approach us about their own GH’s, shifting their behavior. So with this model, the kids are really our advocates for change, and both target groups are reached, farmers and the public.
There is a food chain which leads to health, and a chain for farmers which leads to a viable livelihood. Can these two chains run together?
Yes, I think you see this convergence in the projects outlined above. The families and schools eat the produce in nearly every meal (chain to health) and they sell any extra to other community members or other communities (chain to livelihood). While profits are small, we must also consider the "income" of eating veggies previously inaccessible, to both producing families and other local families. Additionally, while we as an organization can’t build roads, the government is in the process of connecting these communities, and the foundations are there for expanded economic benefit (production in communities, viable markets in sacred valley, cuzco).
Can nutrition education induce farmers to produce (for example) more fruit and vegetables to promote dietary diversity? Will they ever do this unless there is very visible market demand? And then is it possible for public nutrition education to generate enough market demand to change farming practices?
Education can support demand (which in turn drives production), but we must work with the communities to understand what is needed. For Peru that meant traditional nutrition education like incorporating it into kids’ classes, but also cooking classes so communities knew how to prepare new food. But education to increase demand, to induce supply is only one side of the equation. In many cases demand is there but produce is unaffordable. This means more or more efficient supply is needed to lower prices and compete with staple starches and processed food. This could include actions as varied as infrastructure improvements or agriculture education to increase yield. In our context, demand is there but produce is inaccessible due to distance and cost. So our programs are designed to increase supply by designing GH’s from local materials to create micro-climates where the produce can grow and then training farmers in how to grow these new crops. So we must address both sides in a mutually reinforcing loop of supply and demand.
Tell us how it is achieved!
Aside from the specifics of our projects (as farming conditions, community assets, etc vary) the core principle that drives our success is relationship building. This means working with the community, within their context, to indentify viable solutions. By living and working in these communities we have built trust with the people and local government, co-designing the process from start to finish. Their involvement from the beginning gives them ownership over the initiative. With this level of buy-in, they supply all the inputs: the community builds the structures and the government roofs them. In this model we provide technical training, but the agriculture techniques are adapted for local conditions and that knowledge is institutionalized in the communities and with government technicians that we train. This involvement and investment of local communities and the adaptation for local context means it will be local, sustainable, and successful over the long run, not a project that will be dropped when outside actors leave.
And how it is assessed!
In the short term we assess success through behavior change. Are they adopting the practices of sustainable, local, organic agriculture to raise these crops (supply)? Are these new crops changing their consumption patterns (demand)? And the answer is an astounding yes, with over 75% of our participants showing significant behavior change. As for long term, it takes a long time to track malnutrition, so we’ll have to wait and see, but based on the results so far, we’re optimistic we will see drastic improvement in the nutrition and livelihoods of these communities.
I hope this was coherent, concise, and helpful. I'd love to hear feedback or insights!
Saludos!
Chris
Mr. Christopher Miller