Upper North Shore Food System Study by The Conway School

UPPER NORTH SHORE

FOOD SYSTEM STUDY PREPARED FOR: THE THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT

The Three Sisters Garden Project (TSGP), a non-profit community farm and local food access organization based in Ipswich, contracted a team of graduate students from the Conway School to conduct a food system study to understand the ways in which it can play a role in increasing the accessibility, affordability, and abundance of healthy, locally grown food in the seventeen-town study area within Essex County, Massachusetts (see front cover for list of towns). The organization’s primary partners for this project include Nourishing the North Shore, The Open Door, and Acord Food Pantry. Through research and analysis, the Conway team’s study led to the development of seven core recommendations and a series of specific action items for TSGP and its community partners. This report identifies barriers to local production, distribution, and access to locally grown food; analyzes the causes and effects of existing barriers; and proposes potential solutions to overcome barriers in the upper North Shore Food System.

GALEN HAMMITT, ALLISON MASON, & BRADY POWELL THE CONWAY SCHOOL | WINTER 2020 Community Partners: The Open Door, Nourishing the North Shore, & Acord Food Pantry For the towns of Salem, Salisbury, Beverly, Gloucester, Rockport, Hamilton, Wenham, Topsfield, Ipswich, Rowley, Newbury, West Newbury, Newburyport, Amesbury, Essex, Peabody, & Manchester

Contents Upper North Shore Food System Study

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION, STAKEHOLDERS, & TERMINOLOGY 7 Introduction 10 Community Partners 12 Stakeholder Engagement 14 Terminology

SECTION 2: CONTEXT, RESEARCH, & ANALYSIS 20 People: Demographics, Public Health, and Target Population 30 Production: Land, Sea, and Agricultural Land Overlays 46 Distribution: Selling, Donating, and Distributing Local Food in the North Shore 56 Food Access: Means of Access, Benefit Programs, Transportation Barriers and Food Access Organizations

SECTION 3: RECOMMENDATIONS 70 Establish a food policy council 74 Expand Upon Food Hub Services and/or Form a Food Hub 82 Increase Farmland Preservation and Local Food Froduction 88 Encourage the Use of Sustainable Agricultural Techniques

Dairy and fruit orchards are among the

94 Facilitate the Widespread Use of Nutrition Assistance Programs

most popular types of production in and

for Food Access

around the upper North Shore.

96 Expand Mobile Market Programs 100 Identify Urban Land Appropriate for Community Food Production

105

SECTION 4: APPENDICES & REFERENCES 106 Appendix A: Community Meeting 1: February 7, 2020 109 Appendix B: Community Meeting 2: March 4, 2020 111 Appendix C: Local Farm List 112 Appendix D: Financial, Conservation, & Educational Resources 114 References

U pp er Nor t h Shore Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

Executive Summary

The Three Sisters Garden Project

particular because of the high cost of

components of the food system (pictured

(TSGP), a non-profit community

land, relatively lower crop yields com-

on page 4) and, in particular, the con-

farm and local food access organization

pared to other parts of the country due

nectivity and interactions. Emphasis was

based in Ipswich, seeks to understand

to limiting geological characteristics, and

placed on the connectivity and interac-

the ways in which it can play a role in

high cost of living that farmers, like other

tions between the components of the

increasing the accessibility, affordability

residents, face. Farmers in the upper

food system, as no single component can

and abundance of healthy, locally grown

North Shore of Massachusetts must set

function in isolation.

food in the seventeen-town study area

prices that reflect the high cost of produc-

within Essex County, Massachusetts (see

tion in order maintain a viable business;

Barriers were defined and examined

Figure 1 on page 4). The organizationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

otherwise, they might need to sell their

within the following sets of relation-

primary partners for this project include

land to developers and pursue other oc-

ships:

Nourishing the North Shore, The Open

cupations. When prices of locally grown

Door, and the Acord Food Pantry (see

food rise to make farmersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ends meet, a

Land and Producers, with an em-

Community Partner Descriptions on page

segment of the population is excluded

phasis on small and mid-size farms

10), all of whom also want to understand

from the possibility of purchasing this

interested in increasing affordability

how locally grown food can be made

food, especially individuals and house-

and availability of local produce for

more accessible and affordable for all

holds who already face food insecurity.

individuals and households who may

residents of the upper North Shore, while

Additionally, despite its long history of

have difficulty accessing healthy,

providing a good income and standard of

small-scale agriculture, the upper North

locally grown food

living for local farmers.

Shore currently has little of its total land under agricultural production (according

Seafood production was examined

Massachusetts has the sixth highest cost

to the USDA Agricultural Census, in 2017,

but not with the level of analysis

of living in the nation, with the seventh

only about 6.5% of land in Essex County

brought to land-based production due

highest average cost of groceries and

was being actively farmed).

to the priority to provide fresh fruits

housing in the country (although that can

and vegetables at more food access

be much higher with increasing proxim-

TSGP contracted a a team of graduate

ity to Boston), with Essex County being

students from the Conway School (re-

one of the most expensive counties in the

ferred to in this document as the Conway

Producers and Distributors, with an

state. Spending a large portion of income

team) to conduct a food system study that

emphasis on food access organizations,

on housing costs means that there is less

provides recommendations for break-

institutions, and schools

income for other living costs such as

ing down barriers to healthy, local food

purchasing food. Healthy, locally grown

access and affordability. Analyses and

Distributors and Consumers, with

food is expensive in Massachusetts in

recommendations consider the various

an emphasis on clients served by food

organizations

access organizations The study found that the most significant barriers farmers experienced producing food included the high cost and limited Up p e r N o r th S h o re Fo o d Syste m St udy

availability of land, due in part to development pressure, especially on high-quality agricultural land; lack of consistencies in regulations and consumer demand across municipalities; and lack of government support for producers, which may make finding and applying for funding time-consuming and challenging. Owners of small and midsize farms experienced the greatest distribution challenges when selling produce to wholesale purchasers such as institutions, schools, and large food access organizations because they could not meet large minimum purchase quantity requirements; divert enough funds to acquire and maintain the required certifications such as Good Agricultural Practices; and navigate the convoluted distribution channels that many of these wholesale purchasers use to buy food. Farmers also reported not having adequate labor and resources to divert to produce donations and the process of gleaning, sorting, packing, and coordinating the timing of these donations. Food pantries and mobile food mar-

^^ Figure 1 Seventeen municipalities are included in

kets reported the greatest barriers to

the Upper North Shore Food System Study

providing healthy, locally grown produce

(yellow only). All are located within Essex

included inadequate size of donations, in-

County (blue and yellow).

consistency of fresh local food donations, challenges in logistical coordination of receiving unplanned farm donations, little to no proper storage for fresh produce and perishable items, and lack of ability to legally pre-process produce for clients. Finally, the study found that the most significant barriers consumers (including food access organization clients) experienced accessing healthy, locally grown food included the high cost of local food, difficulty accessing locations where it is sold or donated, and lack of resources, ability, or knowledge to cook with locally grown produce. The research and analysis, including literature review, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis, research of precedents, two community meetings, and a public presentation and critiquing process (see page 19 for a more detailed description of the research and analysis ^^ Figure 2

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Food System diagram: this study focuses on land, production, distribution, food access, and waste

processes) led to the following recommendations: A. Establish a food policy council B. Expand upon food hub services and/or form a food hub C. Increase farmland preservation and local food production D. Encourage the use of sustainable agricultural techniques E. Facilitate the widespread use of nutrition assistance programs for food access F. Expand mobile market programs G. Identify urban land appropriate for community food production These core recommendations are supplemented by smaller action items and suggestions for the upper North Shore food system and Three Sisters Garden Project. Some of these recommendations can be applied immediately with little to no financial barriers or systemic resistance while others may require substantial expansion and development of infrastructure and organizational capacity. By strengthening connections between components, increasing collaboration among organizations and businesses, and working with local governments to address some of these systemic barriers, the system as a whole can function more efficiently and sustainably, enhancing the vitality of the community through improving local access to fresh food.

Seafood in coastal Massachusetts >> Nearly all seafood caught off of the northeast coast enters the global market. Local seafood co-ops are on a mission to keep Cape-caught seafood in the region (see pages __ & __ for more).

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

Image: Crane Beach, Ipswich, MA Source: The Trustees

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION, STAKEHOLDERS, & TERMINOLOGY INTRODUCTION HISTORIC CONTEXT

he northeastern shore of Massachusetts has been inhabited by humans for over 11,500 years (Lepionka par. 25), changing in stewardship, ownership, and food production methods over the course of time. The transition from a nomadic hunter-

gatherer lifestyle to a more semi-permanent hunter-gatherer lifestyle that included the intentional cultivation of a few key crops, was gradual over thousands of years. An abrupt shift in food cultivation, however, occurred upon arrival of European settlers. In precolonial times, most of the coastal land and salt marsh was seasonally occupied, and agricultural villages were both semi-permanent and permanent further inland near the freshwater rivers and estuaries (Lepionka par. 4). In addition to fishing, hunting, and foraging, native peoples began domesticating several annual seed crops between 1050 B.C. and 250 A.D (Gibbon 239), such as domesticated bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria), marshelder (Iva annua var. macrocarpa), sunflower (Helianthus annuus var. macrocarpus), two cultivated varieties of chenopod (Chenopodium berlandieri), and likely Cucurbita pepo squash and little barley (Hordeum pusillum) (Smith and Yarnell par. 13). After 1150 A.D., staple crops from mesoamerica such as corn, beans, and squash replaced the majority of these plants that were first domesticated, with corn as the dominant staple crop (Gibbon 239). The most recent native groups of people living in the area, being the Quascacunquen (Kwaskwaikikwen, Indian Hill, West Newbury), Agawam (Castle Neck, Ipswich), Wenesquawam (Wanaskwiwam, Riverview, Gloucester), and Naumkeag (Nahumkeak, Salem-Beverly) (see Figure 3 Map of Native Peoples of the Ipswich Bay), cultivated corn as a staple crop and prepared it in a variety of ways. Corn supplemented a diet that likely included many food items like the ones listed in an account from Mary Rowlandson, who was held captive by a group of Nipmuck people during King Phillip’s war in 1676: “the chief and commonest food was ground nuts. They eat also nuts and acorns, artichokes, lilly roots, ground beans and several other weeds and roots…also bear, venison, beaver, tortoise, frogs, squirrels, dogs, skunks, rattlesnakes” (Food for Thought 2). Although Nipmuck peoples were indigenous to more central Massachusetts and relied on freshwater food resources, it is likely that these wild edibles growing throughout the entire state of Massachusetts were a common part of the diet for nearly all groups living in the area at the time. Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

<< Figure 3 Map of Native Peoples of the Ipswich Bay Source: Cape Anne History

were associated with new world poverty, although they still remained a portion of the diet. THE NORTH SHORE TODAY Since the nineteenth century discovery of deep midwestern soils, construction of the railway, increase in national and global trade, and ongoing development of cities and suburbs, local food production has drastically declined in New England, significantly so in the upper North Shore area. Most produce is trucked in from outside the region, and nearly all locally caught seafood enters the global market without first touching down at its source. Locally grown food is available, though not in abundant enough quantities and at a price high enough for farmers to make a living on land with a high property value and expensive mortgages and rent. Although the seventeen towns have The semi-permanent nature of settle-

and crops using European methods, with

considerably high median incomes in this

ments touching the coastline cycled

reverberating effects such as a hotter

region compared to the rest of the state

with the richness of spring and summer

microclimate and increased flooding that

and country, there are still many people

and die-back of fall and winter marshes

had been mitigated by the trees. Peaches,

who struggle to attain food security, and

and shoreline foods, when people lived

pears, and apples grew in their place,

they especially lack access to healthy,

further inland during the cooler months;

brought across the Atlantic Ocean in ad-

locally grown food.

however, this settlement pattern is not

dition to grains such as barley, oats, and

considered nomadic, because people

wheat. The new settlers added an abun-

THE THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT

moved between two permanent locations

dance of beans to their diet, and corn

The Three Sisters Garden Project (TSGP)

and the coastal location was only season-

became a staple crop for them as well, all

is a non-profit community farm and

ally occupied while inland settlements

while the native peoples’ populations de-

local food advocacy group based in

were occupied year-round. This was

clined from European disease and brutal-

Ipswich, Massachusetts, with a vision of

possible and made easier without the

ity. As the European population grew in

an environmentally, economically, and

practices of animal husbandry, existence

the area, the way humans interacted with

socially sustainable community that is

of fences or human-constructed bound-

the land transitioned from land steward-

inclusive of all its citizens. The organiza-

aries, or private land ownership. This

ship to land ownership.

tion was founded in 2014 as a response

all changed when French and English

to some of the major needs of the local

colonists migrated to North America,

While the new locals became sufficient

food system identified by the 2009 Town

carving their values and culture into

at cultivating enough food to supply the

of Ipswich Agricultural Study (Ipswich

the landscape, and bringing with them

growing population, there were still a

iv). The 2009 study identified the need

crops, animals, tools, and new European

great deal of valuable imports such as

to increase overall local food production

diseases from their native lands.

tea, coffee, chocolate, sugar, and spice

and increase coordination between local

as early as 1660 (Food for Thought 10).

producers, vendors, and distributors.

COLONIAL CHANGES

There were also many exports, as the

English Puritans believed it was right and

cape was abundant with fish (hence

The organization is named after what

necessary to separate crops and cattle

such a name as Cape Cod), which was

Samuel de Champlain called the “three

with fences, and enclose their perma-

salted for preservation and sold to many

sisters” of corn, beans, and squash, which

nently-located private property with

European countries. Clams and shellfish,

were cultivated by indigenous peoples

such walls (Food for Thought 4). Forests

valued greatly by the indigenous people,

throughout the Americas as well as on

were cleared to make way for animals

became less valued over time as they

the land where the organization now

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

<< Figure 4 Three Sisters Garden Project Program Model Source: Three Sisters Garden Project

operates. In de Champlain’s words, “with

laboration on improvements to the food

programs for elementary schools and

the corn they put in each hill three or

system to better address the needs of all

preschools (see Figure 4, top left).

four Brazilian beans which are different

stakeholders.

in colors, when they grow they inter-

TSGP community partners include Nour-

lace with the corn, which reaches to the

Reasons for assessing local food systems

ishing the North Shore (NNS), The Open

height of five to six feet, and they keep

can vary depending on the stakeholders

Door, and Acord Food Pantry (see page

the ground very free from weeds” (Food

involved such as improving public health

10 for more on Community Partners). In

for Thought 2). The name indicates the

through nutrition, addressing hunger,

collaboration, these organizations serve

organization’s commitment to working

increasing market share for farmers,

as the steering committee for this food

collaboratively with community partners

etc. Depending upon the objectives of

system study.

to build a sustainable local food system

the study, various sectors of the food

that supports healthy people, communi-

system might be analyzed. Sectors of a

Each of the stakeholders wants to pri-

ties, and environments in Ipswich and

food system that can be assessed include

oritize access to healthy, locally grown

the wider North Shore region.

transportation, land use and zoning, and

food to support local farmers, strengthen

economic development, among others.

organizational capacity to distribute food

The organization comissioned this report

The focus of many studies, including the

and information, and improve access

to identify barriers in the upper North

upper North Shore’s assessment, is com-

to locally grown food to all members of

Shore food system and provide potential

munity food security. More specifically,

the community, especially for those who

solutions to getting local, fresh food onto

the upper North Shore community is

find it difficult to access locally produced

the shelves and into the cafeterias of

interested in assessing food security and

food. In summary, the scope of the proj-

distribution organizations and institu-

access as it relates to local, fresh food.

ect is connecting locally produced food

tions, and into the hands of those most in need. The organization is also seeking

to local consumers, with particular attention to the most statistically vulnerable

This report:

recommendations for strengthening the network of relationships within the

individuals and households. •

Identifies barriers to local

food system in the upper North Shore

production, distribution, and

area, and for developing ways in which

access to locally grown food;

THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS

the organization can better support new farmers, food system advocates, and

GUIDED THE ANALYSES •

AND RECOMMENDATIONS

fects of existing barriers; and

school garden programs. FOOD SYSTEM ASSESSMENT

Analyzes the causes and ef-

•

OF THE STUDY:

Proposes potential solutions to

This study follows the model of a food

overcome barriers in the upper

system assessment. Food system assess-

North Shore Food System.

•

North Shore farms and agricultural heritage are valued components of the local economy,

ments are tools to help communities understand their own food system and fos-

Already, the Three Sisters Garden Project

land use, and local culture, and

ter communication between stakeholders

has begun tending a four-acre farm as

should be preserved.

who may have very different goals,

the location from which they are imple-

concerns, and areas of expertise, such as

menting numerous food access projects,

directors of food pantries, representa-

wholesale and retail produce sales for

tributes positively to human

tives from local hospitals and schools,

local consumption, an affordable and

health.

and local farmers. A food system assess-

subsidized CSA accepting Supplemental

ment can provide a deep understanding

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) pay-

of existing assets and challenges, and

ments, training for new farmers and food

establish a framework for productive col-

system advocates, and farm-to-school

•

Fresh, locally grown food con-

Access to fresh food is a right, not a luxury.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

COMMUNITY PARTNERS: THE OPEN DOOR The Open Door is a non-profit food access organization based in Gloucester whose mission is to alleviate hunger in the community. It operates a variety of programs including two food pantries, a network of free mobile produce markets, nutrition education, and application assistance for federal benefit programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and the Healthy Incentives Program (HIP). The Open Door provides free food to community members from its food pantries or mobile produce markets. It sources local food through donations from farmers and by gleanings from crops left behind in the field after harvest. Additional sources for the food it provides include food rescue programs from grocery stores, contributions from the Greater Boston Food Bank, and wholesale purchases made using grant funding.

NOURISHING THE NORTH SHORE Nourishing the North Shore is a non-profit food access organization based in Newburyport whose mission is to ensure equal access to healthy, local food to all members of greater Newburyport in a manner that builds community, fosters connection, and promotes dignity and self-reliance. Nourishing the North Shore hosts a community garden where members can grow local food, provides educational classes in cooking and gardening, and distributes produce through a CSA program and a network of mobile produce markets.

ACORD FOOD PANTRY The Acord Food Pantry serves the residents of Hamilton and neighboring towns. The pantry offers a weekly grocery pickup and provides additional food to families for holidays and for children during summer and school vacations. Like most food pantries, they primarily serve processed, shelf-stable food items because they are easier to store without spoiling compared to perishable produce. Despite the challenges and barriers of providing perishable produce, the Acord Food Pantry partners with local farms, gardens, and food banks to accept and distribute donations of fresh, locally grown produce to its clients whenever possible. 10

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Volunteer Brownie Troop at Acord Food Pantry

Nourishing the North Shore Mobile Market

The Open Door in Gloucester, MA

Nourishing the North Shore Cooking Classes

A weekâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s supply of groceries from Acord Food Pantry

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT COMMUNITY MEETING ONE : FEBRUARY 7, 2020 The Conway team conducted a community engagement process, consisting of an initial stakeholder meeting and two community meetings, in order to identify barriers and opportunities. The first community meeting was located in Ipswich Town Hall, where over thirty-four meeting attendees were present, representing farms, food access organizations, programs for youth farming and social justice, school districts, culinary training programs, volunteer community meal groups, emergency shelters, and hospitality groups. The Conway team presented preliminary research and moderated group discussions and exercises aimed at identifying barriers that are perceived as the biggest hurdles in the community and food system. Among the most frequent barriers to equitable food access identified by participants were the following: the cost of living is extremely high; the regulatory environment is unsupportive and inconsistent between towns; selling to wholesale purchasers, especially schools, comes with its own set of insurmountable barriers for most small and mid-size farms; the Healthy Incentives Program (HIP) is underfunded; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) qualifying criteria excludes households and individuals who could be served by the program’s benefits; many food-insecure households lack transportation and coordinating public transportation for groceries and food pantry pick up is difficult; pride acts as a barrier to people using food assistance services such as a food pantry; and a lack of nutrition education discourages food pantry clients from trying new foods, especially fresh produce that needs to be processed and prepared. This meeting affirmed the barriers previously identified by TSGP, and offered additional guidance for analyses. Additional findings and details of the community meeting and information gathering exercises can be found in Appendix A: Community Meeting One, page 106.

COMMUNITY MEETING TWO : MARCH 4, 2020 Participants at the second community meeting, also held at Ipswich Town Hall, included five farmers, the nutrition director for Hamilton-Wenham School District, several staff and board members from the Three Sisters Garden Project, Nourishing the North Shore directors, the director of a non-profit culinary training program for young people, a representative from The Greater Boston Food Bank, and representatives from several other food access organizations in and around the North Shore. The Conway team presented the preliminary analyses and initial recommendations, followed by an open-floor feedback session from the audience, which was used to refine analyses and expand upon the initial recommendations. Meeting participants also completed a diagramming and mapping exercise, used to document stakeholders’ perceived radius of influence within the study area as well as the structure, strengths, and challenges of their organizations. Key takeaways from the event were that the Conway team’s preliminary recommendations could be suitable for the upper North Shore food system with audience-recommended revisions and additions. Furthermore, the diagramming and mapping exercise revealed that most organizations experience a shortage of funding that can support overhead costs and staff members, and most food access services were concentrated in the most densely populated towns of Salem, Peabody, Amesbury, Newburyport, and Ipswich. Additional findings and details of the community meeting and information gathering exercises can be found in Appendix B: Community Meeting Round Two, page 109.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Group discussion of barriers in the North Shore Food System

Stakeholders voting on priority issues

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

TERMINOLOGY WHAT DOES “LOCAL” FOOD REALLY MEAN? HOW IS “LOCAL” DEFINED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS STUDY? There is no single accepted definition of local food or consensus about what geographic distance should be used when determining if a food is being produced locally in relation to distributors and consumers. The U.S. Congress in the 2008 Food, Conservation, and Energy Act defined a “locally or regionally produced agricultural food product” as one that has been transported less than 400 miles from its point of origin or within the state of production (Martinez et al. iii). This would allow the upper North Shore to source “local” food from the rest of Massachusetts, as well as New Hampshire, Vermont, Maine, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Delaware, most of Maryland, significant portions of New York, Pennsylvania, and some of Canada. However, most consumers define “local” in terms much smaller than this; one definition of “locavore” (from the New Oxford American Dictionary) is “a local resident who tries to eat only food grown or produced within a 100-mile radius.” This, however, is not a standard for most markets (Martinez et al. 3). A second way to define “local” is based on market arrangements, such as direct-to-consumer sales at farmers markets or community supported agriculture programs (CSAs), or direct-to-retail sales to schools and other institutions within the community. Other characteristics often paired with local food (though not synonymous) include that the food is grown by small, family farms embedded in local society, and that the food is grown using sustainable practices and limited chemical use (Martinez et al. 4). The current study, while recognizing that even the widest definition of local food will not include all of the food necessary to feed the residents of the upper North Shore, is focusing primarily on the production and distribution of “hyperlocal” food, which will be defined as food produced within the seventeen towns of the study area, or the contiguous towns.

Figure 5 >> Local food radii: 400 miles, 100 miles, and hyper local food production from the study area (filled in dark green)

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

WHAT IS A FOOD SYSTEM? A food system includes the resources, activities, infrastructure, and individuals involved in providing food to people and animals. A food system can be local, regional, or global, and the food system of all communities fits within all three scales. Main components of the food system include: •

Land (the inputs, energy, water, and soil that support producers)

•

Production (produce, livestock, dairy products, grains and legumes, maple syrup, fisheries, value-added food, and others)

•

Distribution (processing and packaging; storage on or off farm; distribution and sale via wholesale, retail, or direct-toconsumer markets such as community supported agriculture)

•

Consumption (the individuals/households and institutions that are the end users of the product)

•

Waste/nutrient management (composting, recycling, and manure management)

The system is supported by services, including consumer and producer education, nonprofit advocacy, and technical assistance, and providers such as policy-makers, government agencies, trade associations, researchers, food hubs, food access organizations, investors, and volunteers.

WHAT IS FOOD INSECURITY? Food insecurity refers to a household or individual’s inability to provide enough food for a healthy life, whether consistently or only during times of financial stress (Cohen et al. 2). Food insecure individuals or households may be forced to choose between buying nutritionally adequate foods and spending money on other basic needs, such as housing or medical bills. Communities may be considered food insecure if nutritionally-complete food is not accessible to all community members, whether because of high cost, distance, or insufficient quantity; if there aren’t enough food assistance resources to help low-income people purchase food; if local food production is scarce or completely lacking; if food produced locally is not available to community members, whether because of cost or because the products are sold outside of the community; if there is no support from local government for local food production; or if there is a substantial level of household food insecurity (Cohen et al. 3-4).

WHAT IS THE POVERTY LINE/THRESHOLD? According to the US Census Bureau, the poverty threshold is the dollar amount used to establish poverty status, based on an individual or household’s income before taxes. If the income amount falls below a threshold assigned by the Census Bureau (depending on family size and age, among other factors), then the family or individual is considered to live in poverty. The federal government uses poverty guidelines—simplifications of the poverty thresholds—to determine financial eligibility for some government programs. For example, any household or individual with an income level at 200% or less of the poverty threshold qualifies for SNAP (formerly known as food stamps). However, this definition of poverty may not adequately cover some families and individuals, who may still struggle to afford nutritionally adequate food due in part to high food costs.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

WHAT IS A FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM? Food assistance programs are publicly-funded programs that offer financial assistance to help individuals in need purchase food for themselves and their households. In Massachusetts, food assistance programs include the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program or SNAP (formerly food stamps) and the Healthy Incentives Program or HIP. SNAP The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) is a federal entitlement benefit that qualified households can use to purchase food from participating retailers. In Massachusetts, households automatically qualify for SNAP benefits if their monthly income is below 200% of the federal poverty line. Households with higher incomes can qualify if they include elderly or disabled people, or if their net income after expenses falls below a certain threshold. HIP Since 2017, households receiving SNAP benefits are automatically enrolled in the Healthy Incentives Program or HIP. HIP matches SNAP funds spent on direct sales from local producers at farm stands, farmers markets, and CSA shares up to $80 per month, depending on the size of the household. WIC The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children or WIC is a benefit that supports the health of pregnant women, new mothers, infants, and children up to age 5. Program participants receive funds that can be used to buy certain nutritious foods including fruits and vegetables, eggs, milk, cheese, bread, and cereals. WIC benefits can be redeemed at participating grocery stores or by direct distribution from a state WIC office. The WIC Farmers Market Nutrition Program is a supplemental program that provides additional funds to WIC participants that can be spent at participating farmers markets and farm stands.

Image Source: NH Food Bank

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Image Source: WBAA

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

SECTION 2: CONTEXT, RESEARCH, & ANALYSIS How the Conway Teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s process led from research and analysis to recommendations: Inventory and analysis of land use patterns, ecological context and natural resources, demographics, and infrastructure within the study area was performed at a broad scale in order to create a comprehensive picture of the region. Information sources included GIS and census data, scientific journals and government publications, community and stakeholder meetings and other communications, and precedents from previous food system studies. Different components of the food system were analyzed separately in order to be understood in isolation, and then analyses were combined to reveal deeper patterns and areas of strengths or weaknesses. Recommendations were shaped to respond directly to the information gained from the analyses and to enhance and strengthen the food system as efficiently as possible. Next steps and action plans for current organizations arose from the broader recommendations, to aid the Three Sisters Garden Project and their partners to immediately take steps to improve access to local, fresh food. Community input was an especially important piece of the information gathering. One major stakeholder meeting with the client and partners focused on major goals and intentions of the project. Two broader community meetings, including local producers, representatives from food access organizations and institutions, and other interested individuals involved in the local food system, contributed vital local knowledge and feedback to the process, offering a more complete picture of the upper North Shoreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s particular needs, desires, and strengths (see Appendices A & B). Another important aspect of information gathering is ground-truthing, which is the physical act of confirming or refuting data gathered via GIS or other spatial analysis methods. Due to the large scope and short time frame of the project, ground-truthing all of the data gathered proved to be unachievable within the studyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s time frame, and will be an important next step moving forward.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

PEOPLE DEMOGRAPHICS, PUBLIC HEALTH & TARGET POPULATION In a successful food system, producers and distributors supply enough nutritious, high quality food to allow all people to lead healthy lives, and consumers’ purchases sustain the system economically. There are many factors that determine a consumer’s ability to participate in the food system. In the context of the upper North Shore food system, income, transportation, age, and physical ability are a few of the factors that may enable or disable a consumer from accessing healthy, locally grown food. This portion of the analysis provides a snapshot of the consumers living within the study area, using demographic and public health information.

DEMOGRAPHICS T

he study area includes populous urban centers such

In Essex County as a whole, 7.2% of households (approximately

as Salem, Peabody, Beverly, and Gloucester, as well

55,000 people) experience food insecurity according to Feeding

as smaller towns, and suburban and rural communities. While

America’s Map the Meal Gap project (Map the Meal Gap 2017).

some parts of the study area on Cape Ann and inland are rela-

Hunger and lack of access to healthy foods in the study area are

tively affluent, there is significant wealth disparity, and many

persistent problems that take a significant toll on public health

households live near or under the federal poverty line.

and the quality of life of many upper North Shore residents. The following sections examine the demographics of the study area

Of the residents in the study area 95% are White, 3% are Black

in greater detail, as well as the regional public health costs asso-

or African American, 2% are Asian, and 7.5% of residents iden-

ciated with nutrition, and the community members who might

tify as ethnically Hispanic. Both minority populations and lower

be especially at risk of going without fresh, healthy food.

income populations tend to be concentrated in denser urban centers, though there are residents living near the poverty line in every community in the study area. Essex County is one of the more expensive counties in Massachusetts, with housing costs reaching almost $17,000 per year for a single adult (compared to the MA average of $15,000 and the average of the least expensive state, Mississippi, which is about $6,500 per year) (Glasmeier, Mass). Essex County, like the rest of Massachusetts, also has higher food costs than the national average: about $3,500 per year for one adult, compared to Mississippi at $3,000 (Glasmeier, Mass). The high cost of living

^^ Figure 6

in Essex County means that many residents with low income

Purchasing power of study area residents has been estimated by

struggle to meet their monthly expenses, including purchasing

subtracting average housing cost from per capita annual income.

enough healthy, nutritious food to keep themselves and their household well-fed.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Population of Study Area Towns (2018)

Figure 7 >> Population of Study Area Towns (Impact Essex County 2020). The study area includes 17 out of the 34 towns of Essex County. The total population of the study area in 2018

60,000 50,000 40,000

was 283,617 representing 36% of Essex

30,000

County. The four most populous towns in the

20,000

study area are Peabody, Salem, Beverly, and Gloucester. Peabody, Salem, and Beverly are located at the southern end of the study area

10,000 0

around the mouth of the Crane River, and Gloucester is located on Cape Ann.

<< Figure 8 Annual Income Per Capita (2010) of study area residents by census block (U.S. Census Bureau). Income per capita varies significantly from community to community, throughout the region. Denser urban areas such as Peabody, Salem, Beverly, Gloucester, and Amesbury tend to have the lowest per capita income. Some communities in inland areas or on Cape Ann have high to very high per capita income. This gives the upper North Shore a reputation as a wealthy region, which can lead to social needs being overlooked.

Figure 9 >> Estimated Purchasing Power of Study Area Residents by Census Tract. Purchasing power has been estimated by adjusting per capita annual income by average housing cost (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development). In this study the average purchasing power is estimated by subtracting average housing costs from average income. Housing costs vary throughout the communities of the study area, so the per capita income may not accurately reflect the purchasing power of people in different parts of the region without this adjustment for housing expenses. Areas with lower purchasing power are mostly low-income urban areas.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE IN STUDY AREA (2017)

EDUCATION LEVEL OF ADULTS IN STUDY AREA (2017)

Living with Nonrelatives

Living with Relatives

Less than high school diploma

Single with Children

Married with Children

High school graduate

Living Alone

Married without Children

Some college or associate's degree

Bachelor's degree or higher

6% 34% 24% 44%

24%

25%

26% ^^ Figure 10

^^ Figure 11

RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS OF STUDY AREA (2018) Asian

Black or African American

White

FIGURE 10: Households by Type in Study Area (Impact Essex County 2020). Different household types may be an indicator for the strength of an individual’s immediate social network, and the presence or absence of other adults who can support the individual, financially or otherwise. In the study area married couples with or without children make up 55% of households, individuals living alone make up 27% of households, and

single parents living with their children make up 7% of households. Some

individuals living alone or single parents caring for children may be more socially isolated compared to other household types, which may make them less resilient to economic shocks like losing their job or incurring unexpected medical payments, which could impact their ability to afford food. FIGURE 11: Education Level of Adults in Study Area (Impact Essex County 2020). Residents of the study area tend to be well-educated. Only 7% of adults in the study area have less than a high school diploma, and almost half (44%) go on to earn a Bachelor’s degree or higher. Higher levels of educational attainment are associated with greater earning potential, meaning

95%

that well-educated residents are more likely to be financially self-sufficient. FIGURE 12: Racial Demographics in Study Area (Impact Essex County 2020). Most of the residents of the study area are White with smaller

^^Figure 12

populations of Black and Asian residents. Ethnically, 7.5% of the population identifies as Hispanic. Racial and ethnic minority populations are concentrated in the larger towns of Salem and Peabody (see following page).

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Figure 13 (below)

FIGURE 13: Percentage of Households Receiving

Figure 14 (below)

Figure 15 (below)

SNAP Benefits (U.S. Census Bureau). Many programs

Homeless Persons per 10,000 Residents (2007‐ 2017)

exist to provide financial assistance to households and individuals. These include Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); Women, Infants, and Children (WIC); and the Healthy Incentives

Program (HIP). Low-income urban areas have the

highest proportion of households receiving SNAP

benefits.

FIGURE 14: Racial and Ethnic Composition and Dis-

tribution of Residents in the Study Area (U.S. Census

Bureau). FIGURE 15: Homeless Persons in Essex County (Source: Impact Essex County). In all of Essex County, the number of people living without a home has generally increased since 2007, with a moderate

5 0

2007

2008

2009

2010

Essex County, MA

2011

2012

2013

Middlesex County, MA

2014

2015

2016

2017

Massachusetts

reduction since 2015. The proportion of people living without a home in Essex County was significantly lower than that of Massachusetts as a whole, but significantly higher than that of Middlesex County immediately to the southwest. Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

<< Figure 16 People Living Under or Near the Poverty Line in the Study Area (U.S. Census Bureau). In all of Essex County, 11% of people live below the poverty line with an additional 13% of people living above the poverty line but below 200% of the poverty line (see Poverty Line on page 15). In Massachusetts the largest public benefit program addressing food insecurity, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, is available to those living under 200% of the federal poverty line. Poverty thresholds vary by family composition and year. In 2017, the poverty threshold for a four-person family with two children was $24,858 (The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 2019). In the study area, most towns have a lower poverty rate than the county average of 11%, with the exception of Salem. The towns within the study area with the highest rates of poverty are: Salem at 15%, Peabody at 10%, Hamilton at 10%, Salisbury at 10%, Gloucester at 8%, and Beverly at 8%.

People by Income Relative to Poverty Level (2017) 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Under the Poverty Line

Under 200% of Poverty Line

^^ Figure 17 People Living Under or Near the Poverty Line by Town (Impact Essex County 2020). Salem, Salisbury, Gloucester, and Peabody have the highest percentage of people living near or below the poverty line. With the exception of Salem, all of the communities of the study area have lower rates of poverty than the county and state averages.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Figure 18 >> Environmental Justice Populations within the Study Area (U.S. Census Bureau). All people deserve to live in a clean and healthy environment and be protected from pollution and other environmental harm. Historically, some groups have not experienced equal environmental protection and have been impacted disproportionately by degraded environments. The Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs identifies certain communities as Environmental Justice Populations because they are made up of marginalized groups who have historically been denied equal environmental protections. These marginalized groups include minority communities, low-income communities, and English isolation communities. Within the study area, portions of the densely developed urban areas of Salem, Peabody, Beverly, and Gloucester have been identified as Environmental Justice Populations because they are low income, primarily minority, or have high rates of non-English speakers. Though Environmental Justice Populations arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t specifically associated with a lack of access to fresh, healthy foods, this may be one of the environmental benefits these communities are sometimes denied.

Residents and visitors enjoying the atmosphere of the Newburyport Historic District. Source: Impact Essex County

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

PUBLIC HEALTH According to participants of a community forum conducted by the North Shore Medical Center (NSMC) as part of their 2018 Community Health Needs Assessment, food security and access to healthy food are significant concerns on the upper North Shore (Community Health Needs Assessment 2018). Lack of food security or access to healthy food are linked to poor nutrition and obesity, which are risk factors that may contribute to chronic diseases including diabetes, heart disease, and hypertension. These chronic diseases, along with cancer and respiratory disease, are the major causes of morbidity, disability, and mortality in the upper North Shore, the state of Massachusetts, and the nation (Community Health Needs Assessment 2018). Chronic diseases are difficult to treat and are occurring at increasing rates across the state and nation. The causes of chronic diseases are complex and relate to genetic, environmental, and lifestyle factors, among many others. While efforts to increase access to healthy food and adequate nutrition alone cannot be expected to address the prevalence of chronic diseases among residents of the upper North Shore, they are a vital part of broader efforts to support public health and increase quality of life throughout the region. Community participants cited in NSMCâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Health Needs Assessment were particularly concerned that low income communities especially lack access to healthy food and nutrition. According to these participants, low income communities are disproportionately impacted by these issues because of the high cost of produce at grocery stores and farmers markets, and the abundance of convenience stores and fast food restaurants compared to grocery stores. There have been increased efforts to provide healthy produce to those in need through food banks, but community members noted that the lack of refrigerated storage in food pantries and shelters presents a significant barrier to these efforts.

Figure 19 >> Chronic Disease Among Older Adults (Impact Essex County 2020). The percentage of people 65 or older with four or more chronic conditions in Essex County is consistently above the state or national average. Access to healthy food and a nutritious diet can help people manage certain chronic diseases, or reduce the risk of developing these diseases.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Figure 20 >> Diabetes Incidence of Essex County (Impact Essex County 2020). The incidence of diabetes in Essex County is significantly higher than the state average, and was reported as one of the leading concerns by community participants in the North Shore Medical Centerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 2018 Community Health Needs Assessment. Access to healthy food can help people with diabetes manage the condition.

<< Figure 21 Heart Disease Mortality Rate of Essex County (Impact Essex County 2020). Heart disease is the second leading cause of death behind cancer in Essex County. Though the heart disease mortality rate decreased between 2007 and 2016, it remains a serious health concern in Essex County and the study area. Though the causes are complex and involve many factors, a healthy diet can decrease the risk of heart disease for some people.

Figure 22 >> Prevalence of Overweight Children in Essex County (Impact Essex County 2020). Several communities in the study area have a higher prevalence of overweight children compared to the county and state averages. These include Salem, Gloucester, and Beverly. The prevalence of overweight children generally increased in these communities between 2011 and 2015.

<< Figure 23 Prevalence of Overweight Adults (Impact Essex County 2020). The rate of overweight or obese adults for all of Essex County is close to or slightly above the state and national averages. Obesity is a contributing factor to developing chronic disease. Obesity and the associated risks can be reduced by eating a healthy diet. Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

TARGET POPULATION Three Sisters Garden Project, its partners, and other food access organizations throughout the region are working to make healthy, locally grown food accessible to all residents of the upper North Shore. Currently, not all people in the region have equal access to locally grown food. Due to its high cost relative to processed food items or produce brought in from other parts of the country or internationally, those with a lower income may not be able to consistently afford locally grown food. Those who have the least access to local food due to lower income are most often people who experience general food insecurity. There are many factors that may make people more vulnerable to food insecurity. Because high food cost is often the greatest barrier to maintaining reliable and adequate access to nutritious foods, local or otherwise, this study uses an estimate of peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s purchasing power throughout the region, as well as population density, to identify target areas where people could most benefit from cost-subsidized or free access to local produce. There are many factors besides lack of financial resources that could make people less able to access food, especially locally grown food. People who are socially isolated may have greater difficulty obtaining and preparing adequate food. This may include people who live alone or in single parent households. Some people may have significant physical challenges accessing or preparing food including seniors and people with disabilities. Finally, those without access to a vehicle may be more vulnerable to food insecurity if there arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t adequate food resources that they can access on foot, via bicycle, or via public transportation.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Potential Social Isolation by Household Type (2017)

Figure 24 >> Potential Social Isolation by Household Type in the Study Area (Impact Essex County 2020). People who live alone and single parents living with their children may have more limited social networks and less support in the work that goes into shopping for and preparing healthy

60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

meals. They may also be less resilient to financial shocks like losing a job or unexpected medical or car expenses, which could exacerbate the challenges of obtaining healthy food.

Living Alone

Percentage of Seniors Living Alone (2018) 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

Single with Children

<< Figure 25 Percentage of Seniors Living Alone in the Study Area (Impact Essex County 2020). Seniors who live alone may be particularly isolated socially, and may have additional challenges to providing healthy food for themselves. For instance, some older adults may have reduced mobility that makes it difficult to travel to a grocery store or farmers market, or lack the physical ability to prepare healthy meals especially with labor-intensive local food items such as squash and other whole vegetables.

Percentage of Children Living in Poverty (2018) Figure 26 >> Percentage of Children Living in Poverty in the Study Area (Impact Essex County 2020). Children are dependent on their caregivers and community institutions like schools, churches, and youth programs for their well-being. Families living below the poverty level may struggle to provide adequate healthy, nutritious meals for

25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%

themselves and their children.

Percentage of Households without a Vehicle (2017) 18% 16% 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%

<< Figure 27 Percentage of Households without a Vehicle (Impact Essex County 2020). While there are public transportation networks in some communities on the upper North Shore, it can be challenging for households to access food, especially local food, without a car. Relying on public transportation, bicycling, or walking to shop for food is typically more time-intensive and strenuous compared to using a car, and locations selling locally produced food, such as farm stands, may not be accessible by public transportation. Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

PRODUCTION EXISTING CONDITIONS OF LAND AND SEA Within the upper North Shore, production is limited by many factors, such as the high costs of land, labor, and fuel, in addition to the land’s ability to support agriculture (e.g. soil fertility, slope, and surficial geology) and land-use regulations. Compared to the deep, relatively flat soils of the midwest, the land in the study area, though rich with diverse ecosystems, is more challenging to farm. If local food production is to be maintained or even increased in order to ensure access to local, fresh food for residents, these and other factors will need to be considered. This portion of the analysis examines the existing conditions of the land and sea as it relates to food production, current production in the area, and the barriers that producers face to growing an abundance of food that can be made more accessible and affordable for residents of the upper North Shore.

FOOD PRODUCTION T

he upper North Shore offers incredible beauty and

the establishment of larger farms. Farms in the study area tend

diversity in its natural ecosystems and resources, from

to grow a wide variety of crops, another distinctive feature of

the 20,000-acre Great Marsh, to miles of wind-blown sand dune,

farms in New England; unlike large industrial farms in the Mid-

to the rolling hills and wooded slopes farther inland. Since the

west, New England farms rarely grow only one crop. The most

first humans settled in this region almost 12,000 years ago, the

common types of produce grown in Essex County in 2017 were

beauty and wonder of the beaches, wide rivers, tranquil forests,

mixed vegetables, berries, apples, and peaches (USDA Census of

and relatively mild climate have drawn people here. The rich

Agriculture). Livestock operations are also present, especially

resources of the estuaries and bays, hosting schools of fish and

beef and dairy cattle and hens for egg production.

colonies of shellfish, and the fruit of the land itself, allowed these human inhabitants to not only survive, but thrive. This

Despite its long history of small-scale agriculture, the North

distinctive and diverse landscape is still valued by residents

Shore currently has little of its land under agricultural produc-

today, but rapid development, destruction, and fragmentation of

tion. The number of farms declines each year: in New England,

natural ecosystems, pollution of soil and water, and depletion of

farmland is being lost to development at an average rate of 19

natural resources threaten the character and well-being of local

acres a day—and Massachusetts has the third highest rate of

communities. These challenges will also impact the viability

conversion in the country (Pottern and Barley 9). A steadily

of local agriculture, making it difficult for small family farms,

expanding population (Essex County saw a population increase

an enduring and important piece of the region’s history and

of about 6.5% in the last ten years according to the 2017 USDA

culture, to survive.

Census of Agriculture), expanding development, and increasing availability of cheap food from other parts of the country

The average size of a farm in Essex County is 50 acres, which is

threaten today’s farms in the upper North Shore. Between 2012

well under the 179 acres defined by the 2017 USDA Census of Ag-

and 2017, the USDA Census of Agriculture reported an overall

riculture to constitute a small farm. The physically fragmented

decrease in land being farmed (a 6.4% loss). Although, interest

terrain—broken into distinct pieces by wetlands, forests, and

in consuming locally-grown food, both as a way to support local

other barriers—and dense development in the study area limits

businesses and as a cultural shift, is trending in New England,

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

including within the study area. This interest in supporting local agriculture may be reflected in census data for Essex County that reveals that while average yearly farm expenses did go up from $81,000 to $89,000 between 2012 - 2017, the average market value of crops rose much more dramatically from $48,000 to $78,000 per year over the same period (USDA Census of Agriculture). A surge in the formation of agricultural commissions in the last twenty years (Massachusetts Association of Agricultural Commissions) may also reflect this change, as well as the passing of right-to-farm bylaws and zoning changes that support small-scale production. In 2017, the USDA Census of Agriculture began collecting data on farmer demographics. In Essex County, there are nearly as many female producers as there are male; about 45% of primary producers are female. About 94% of producers are white. Farmers also tend to be older, with young farmers (35 years old or less) accounting for only about 8% of the total, and new farmers (have farmed 10 years or less) accounting for just over a quarter of all farmers. This indicates that farmers may be aging out of the profession, and fewer young people may be choosing to enter agriculture. However, increasing demand for local food may encourage more people to begin farming. ^^ Figure 28: Cultivated Land FARMS AND AGRICULTURAL LAND USE There were approximately 420 farms in Essex County in 2017 (USDA Census of Agriculture). More specific data to the study area was challenging to come by, due to confusing, inconsistent, and scarce sources. Farms shown on the map above (Figure 28, see Appendix C page 110) are those identified by community members at the community meetings, and are only a small segment of total farms in the study area. Land use data was sourced from the 2016 MassGIS land use layer and may differ from current, active farms. The map does not show any equine operations, Christmas tree farms, or other producers focused on products not intended for human consumption. Many farms in the study area grow a wide variety of annual vegetables.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

Appleton Farms, founded in 1688, is one of the oldest continuously worked farms in North America, and the largest in the study area, at 1,000 acres, though much of that land is preserved for recreational use only. Pasture and hay fields make up the majority of active agricultural land in the study area. Cultivated land (used to grow crops for human consumption) tends to be concentrated in the central and northern parts of the study area, especially in Ipswich, Hamilton, Amesbury, and West Newbury. The municipalities with the highest density of people (Peabody, Salem, and Beverly) have very little land in agriculture. The upper North Shore has a strong and enduring heritage of agriculture, especially small, diversified farms. However, farms have been decreasing steadily: between 2012 and 2017 the number of farms in Essex County as a whole declined by almost 20%, with a decrease in almost 2,000 acres lost from production. The USDA Census of Agriculture also records a shift in products, with acreage in vegetables and fruits increasing and acreage in livestock decreasing between 2012 and 2017. Though data was not available for the study area specifically, it is likely that these wider trends occurred here as well. Livestock operations—including dairy and poultry farms—make up a significant portion of the upper North Shore’s agriculture. >>

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

SEAFOOD C

ommunities on the North Shore

In summary, the challenges of seafood

have long relied on the marine

production lie not in the abundance of

bounty for sustenance, trade, and indus-

available seafood, but in the preferences

try. Since the beginning of the fishing

for particular species and local overfish-

industry in the 1600s, the most important

ing of particular fish stocks. Some of the

marine harvests were groundfish, includ-

biggest challenges in keeping locally-

ing cod, flounder, haddock, and hake.

caught seafood in local markets are in the

Vessels from Gloucester and other New

distribution category of a food system.

England ports fished local waters such

There are many efforts currently under-

as Georgeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bank off of Cape Cod and

way along the Northeast coast, striving

ventured further afield to the rich fisher-

to deliver locally-caught seafood to local

ies of the Grand Banks off of Nova Scotia

consumers (see page 48 for Seafood Distri-

(Murawski par. 5). The local waters

bution summary).

around Cape Ann and within the tidal estuaries of the Merrimack and Ipswich Rivers are suitable habitats for a variety of shellfish including mussels, clams, quahogs, and scallops, as well as crustaceans such as lobsters (see Figure 29). Throughout the history of the fishing industry, and continuing to this day, Gloucester has been one of the most important fishing ports in Massachusetts, which is ranked 3rd highest in the country for seafood sales (Urban Harbors 5). Landings of marine products by Gloucester fishermen are the second highest in the state behind New Bedford by weight and commercial value (Mt. Auburn 9). Despite the continued importance of the fishing industry to the region, very little of the seafood that is harvested there is eaten locally. It is estimated that up to 80% of the fish landed in Massachusetts are exported internationally, while 90% of the fish consumed in Massachusetts are imported internationally (Urban Harbors 18). This has been attributed in part to a narrowing of consumer tastes: Massachusetts residents increasingly demand fewer species, like cod and haddock, that have to be imported to supplement diminished local supply, and, as a result, lose familiarity with other abundant local fish species. Imported seafood is also often more affordable than locally-caught seafood (Urban Harbors 18). Figure 29 >> Habitat for Commercially-Valuable Shellfish

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

ACTIVE AGRICULTURAL LAND USE OVERLAYS << Figure 30: Conserved Land and Agricultural Land are open space that is undeveloped and unprotected and could be put into agricultural use. The amount of currently protected land will not be enough to supply food to even a small fraction of the residents of the study area, should the unprotected agricultural land be lost to development. The Northeast as a whole only produces enough food locally to feed 17% of its population (Griffin et al. 34), and the study area has less land in production than many other states in the Northeast (such as New York and Pennsylvania). Temporary protections such as Chapter 61A offer a respite from development pressure, but are not, on their own, assurance of continued protection. Municipalities are given the right of first refusal on Chapter 61A lots that are offered for sale, which could allow communities to purchase and permanently protect the parcels, but a short time frame for making a decision (only 120 days) and lack of funds may prevent municipalities from taking advantage of this opportunity (Healthy Community Toolkit 54). Land protected with a CR may offer a valuable opportunity for ensuring continued agricultural production.

CONSERVED LAND

concentrations are still in the central

Agricultural Preservation Restrictions

and north regions. The southern com-

(APRs) permanently protect 57 parcels of

munities, especially Peabody and Salem,

land within the study area, with a total of

have very few conserved areas. Many

1,530 acres. These parcels are concentrat-

large cultivated lots are permanently

ed primarily in the northern communi-

protected, though not all; several parcels

ties, with a few parcels in Ipswich and

of pastured land are protected under a

Essex. An additional 622 parcels (11,162

CR, with some lots in the north protected

acres) are permanently protected with

under an APR. Not shown on the map

a Conservation Restriction (CR), which

(Figure 30) are parcels under Chapter

may or may not allow agricultural uses.

61A, a program that restricts land to use

Farmland protected under Chapter 61A, a temporary tax

These areas are more widely distributed

to agriculture and is a form of tempo-

incentive program, may be at risk of development in the

through the study area, though the main

rary land production. Also not shown

near future if the landowner unenrolls or sells the land.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

TYPES AND BENEFITS OF CONSERVATION An agricultural preservation restriction (APR) is an incentive that pays farmland owners the difference between “fair market value” and “agricultural value” of their farms in exchange for a permanent deed restriction preventing any use of property that will negatively impact its future agricultural viability. Chapter 61A offers reduced taxes to landowners for land currently used for agriculture; this is a temporary program that owners may choose to unenroll from at any time, though unenrolling early (prior to seven years) requires the payment of accrued back taxes. Conservation restrictions other than APRs may not allow for agricultural use on the protected land, unless such use was written into the original agreement. Preserving local farmland is essential to maintaining healthy, strong communities. Local farms and farmers strengthen the local economy and create jobs, and local food production may improve food access in multiple ways, from offering a more diverse and nutritious range of produce, to increasing locations and opportunities for the purchase of healthy food locally (Healthy Community Toolkit 53). Localized food production also may increase the resilience of food systems to shocks or stressors such as natural disasters or climate change, especially if transportation networks are affected, and improve local economic development and ecosystems (Griffin et al. 24). Farmland protection also has many additional benefits, including protecting open space, maintaining a desirable “rural character” of a community, and preserving habitat for wildlife (Healthy Community Toolkit 53). Farmers often serve as environmental stewards of their land, sequestering carbon, protecting water quality, and improving soil health, and these benefits do not end at parcel boundaries.

LOCAL LEADER: The Greenbelt, one of Essex County’s local land trusts, is an active and locally engaged organization working to conserve open space, farmland, wildlife habitat, and scenic landscapes throughout Essex County. Founded in 1961, the Greenbelt has worked with landowners, farmers, municipalities and other organizations to protect over 17,500 acres of land, including over 30 permanently conserved parcels in the study area.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

<< Figure 31: Agricultural Land Use and Soils

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE AND SOILS

suitable for growing cranberries; these

quire higher inputs of fertilizer, water, or

Areas of cultivation, as identified by

soils cover about 13% of total land in the

other additions to produce high yields, or

the 2016 MassGIS land use layer (see

study area. Soils of statewide importance

be harder to work due to steeper slopes.

Figure 31, above), are concentrated in

are those that are nearly prime farmland

Priority should be given to protecting

the center of the study area (primarily

and can produce high yields of crops

not-yet-disturbed or developed areas

Essex, Hamilton, and Ipswich), and in the

when managed correctly. Soil mapping

of prime soils. However, much of the

northern towns around the Merrimack

may not reflect current use; and soils

existing prime soils may already be lost

River. Pastureland is more widespread,

were mapped even in forested areas not

to development. Prime soils or soils of

with a similar pattern, as well as some

under active production.

statewide importance that are currently

areas in Rockport. The study area

forested offer a potential for increased

includes 2.4 million acres of NRCS prime

Relatively little of the upper North Shore

production, whether by clearing the land

farmland soils (about 7% of the total land

is currently in production. Productive ar-

or by using agroforestry techniques (see

area). Prime farmland is land that has

eas do correspond with prime farmland

page 87). The soils of unique importance,

the ideal combination of characteristics,

soils or soils of statewide importance in

though widespread, are primarily in

such as slope and nutrients, to support

most areas; however, some significant

areas of ecological importance which

high yields of agricultural crops. Soils of

areas of production do not overlap with

may be regulated under the Wetlands

unique importance, in Massachusetts, are

prime soils (most notably in Newbury/

Protection Act.

limited to mucks and peats that may be

Newburyport). Non-prime soils may re-

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

FORESTS OR FARMS? The New England Food Vision (Donahue et al. 2014) is one of several recent publications that highlights the need to increase local food production in New England to strengthen local economies, improve community and individual health, increase food access, and decrease reliance in a global food system that is damaging the planetâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s soils, waters, and climate. However, as Donahue et al. make clear, this expansion could come at a cost: the loss of forested land. Though the study area is less heavily forested than much of New England, there are still areas of forest or woodland that may sit atop prime farmland soils or soils of statewide importance. These areas offer a potential source of valuable agricultural land, but the decision to expand agricultural production into forested land is a decision that shouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t be taken lightly. Forests provide many benefits, including temperature moderation, carbon sequestration, wildlife habitat, and recreation (Donahue et al. 15). Yet not all wooded lands have the same potential to offer these benefits, and woodlands (forested lands that are or could be actively managed) may be more valuable as sources of timber, fuel, agritourism, or food products such as maple syrup. Additionally, farming techniques such as agroforestry (see page 87) may increase food production in wooded areas while maintaining the benefits of mature trees (Pottern and Barley 25). Concentrating development in dense areas (also known as smart growth); expanding livestock or no-till farming into young forest (previously pasture or cropland); and permanently protecting mature, intact forest cores might strike a balance between preservation of forested lands, agricultural expansion, and development (Donahue et al. 16).

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE AND WATER The landscape of the upper North Shore is dominated by wetlands, marshes, and rivers. The Great Marsh is the largest wetland in the region, covering over 20,000 acres of land, mostly in Ipswich. Active agricultural use tends not to overlap with wetlands and other water resources, though there are some notable exceptions. Wetland and aquatic cores indicate the most intact or ecologically significant habitats for rare and endangered plant and animal species in these environments. Wetlands reduce the amount of land available for agriculture, and zoning and wetland regulations near water bodies and rivers may limit some land uses, especially for new or expanding farms, which will not be grandfathered under the regulations. However, the Great Marsh and other coastal wetlands play a vital role in floodwater attenuation, and preventing further saltwater intrusion. When salt water infiltrates into the soil, it threatens the survival of crops. In addition, rivers offer a valuable source of freshwater.

Figure 32: >> Agriculture and Wetlands Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

<< Figure 33: Agriculture and Natural Communities

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE

valuable than maintaining a continuous

of species movement. However, farms

AND NATURAL COMMUNITIES

network of habitat through which animal

may be favorable locations for the move-

and plant species can travel or migrate,

ment or migration of many species, and

The upper North Shore hosts a diversity

and the Nature Conservancyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Resilient

agricultural land can serve as linkages

of ecosystems, including 23 priority

and Connected Landscapes show areas

between areas of intact forest or wet-

natural communities (see Figure 33,

and corridors that contain microclimates

lands. Conserving agricultural land, espe-

above). Priority natural communities are

favorable to the movement of species.

cially parcels that are adjacent or near to

considered by biologists to be valuable

each other, may protect these migratory

to conserve in order to maintain species

Natural communities and areas favorable

corridors. The benefits of expanding

biodiversity, and may contain rare or

to animal and plant movement are of

appropriate agricultural use into these

endangered species. Though natural

high priority for conservation, in order to

sensitive areas will have to be weighed

communities are not protected under

maintain biodiversity in the upper North

against the disadvantages of potentially

the Massachusetts Endangered Species

Shore. Actively farmed areas generally

disturbing rare or endangered species.

Act, some of the species that are found

fall outside of the mapped natural com-

within them may be protected. Protect-

munities (which are largely wetlands),

ing isolated pockets of habitat is less

but may overlap with areas or corridors

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

<< Figure 34: Agriculture and Environmental Hazards

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE AND

34, above). Almost all water bodies and

data for assessment and waters that meet

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

waterways in the study area have been

tested standards for designated uses

Dense development may pose many chal-

found to be impaired by the presence of

(which does not guarantee that they are

lenges to food production. The study area

pollutants. Impaired waters include the

free from pollutants). Development is

is a densely developed area with a popu-

coastal waters of Plum Island Sound and

one of the major threats to agricultural

lation of 267,112 at the 2010 US Census.

the Merrimack River. Some of these wa-

land, both through direct conversion to

Peabody, Salem, Beverly, and Gloucester

ter bodies have had a required clean-up

impervious surfaces or structures, and

are the most populous towns in the

plan completed (known as a Total Maxi-

because development pressure raises the

south; Amesbury and Newburyport have

mum Daily Load or TMDL), while others

cost of land. Storm water runoff from

the highest populations in the north. The

have not yet had a plan completed. A

impervious surfaces may also be one ma-

pattern of impervious surfaces generally

TMDL is the calculation of the maximum

jor contributor to water pollution, which

follows the pattern of denser popula-

amount of a pollutant allowed to enter

presents a challenge to producers who

tion. Hazardous waste dump sites and

a waterbody so that the waterbody will

rely on these freshwater resources for

landfills are especially prevalent in areas

meet and continue to meet water quality

irrigation. Hazardous waste and landfills

of denser development and in the north,

standards for that particular pollutant.

may also contaminate nearby waters, as

southeast, and southwest (see Figure

Also shown are waters with insufficient

well as affect soil health. Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

<< Figure 35: Agriculture and Climate Change

ON RESILIENCE... How can a strong food system based on small local farms foster resilience to climate change? By strengthening the local economy, increasing local food production and distribution, and enhancing the biodiversity and soil health of agricultural land, which will improve its ability to recover in the face of the impacts of climate change.

Cranberry bogs may be threatened by increased flooding and sea-level rise

AGRICULTURAL LAND USE, FLOOD-

1% (for 100-year flood zones) or 2% (for

changes, whether by selecting more

PLAINS, AND COASTAL SEA-LEVEL RISE

500-year flood zones) in any given year,

adaptable or hardy crops, planning for

flooding may occur more frequently in

increased flooding and salt-water intru-

the future.

sion, or preparing for potential long-term

Climate change has affected and will continue to affect agriculture in multiple

droughts. Storm surges and sea-level rise

ways, from rising temperatures, more ex-

Sea level rise data was based on conser-

may especially impact coastal produc-

treme weather events (both droughts and

vative predictions of a rise of one inch

tion such as cranberry bogs and shellfish

floods), and sea-level rise, all of which

every three years, or about a foot by

farms. Focusing increased food produc-

may threaten crop and livestock survival.

2050 (the map above shows the coastline

tion and land conservation in areas

New England is already beginning to

as it might appear in 2050). However,

outside of floodplains and areas subject

see milder winters, wetter springs, and

scientists believe that sea level rise is

to projected sea-level rise may help

hotter, drier summers. This may lead

accelerating, especially on the east coast,

ensure that local production is main-

to an increase in pests, pathogens, and

where the land is simultaneously sinking

tained even in the face of these threats.

fungal diseases. Because floodplains are

(sealevelrise.org), and this map may not

Changes in agricultural techniques, such

generally flat and fertile, making them

represent the true loss of land to sea level

as decreased use of nitrogen fertilizers or

ideal locations for farms, many produc-

rise.

farming practices that enhance carbon

tive areas fall within FEMA floodplains. Though the likelihood of these floods is 40

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

storage in soil, may help lessen the severFarmers will have to adapt to these

ity of future impacts.

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 20 20 << Figure 36: Current Agricultural Commissions

AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONS Five municipalities currently list an agriculture commission on their town website. Gloucester has an active fisheries commission. The remaining eleven communities do not currently have an active agriculture or fisheries commission. There are plenty of opportunities for expanded agricultural commissions in unserved communities within the study area to support producers through legislation, education, promotion of land conservation, and other advocacy and outreach programs (see sidebar). Agricultural commissions may also be able to link farmers to landowners interested in entering into long-term leases. Farmers are often reliant on leased land, and short-term leases can limit the amount of investment they are able or willing to put into the land.

WHAT IS AN AGRICULTURAL COMMISSION? Agricultural commissions, created via a bylaw at a town meeting or at the recommendation of a city council, are committees that advocate for local agriculture in town governance, work to pass Right-to-Farm legislation, establish farmers markets, inventory local farms and agricultural businesses, promote land conservation, and educate the community about agriculture. Right-to-Farm bylaws protect farmers from lawsuits arising from practices that may bother neighbors, such as noise, smell, or visual clutter, assuming the farmer is using accepted and standard farming practices. The definition of “accepted and standard practices” is variable. In Ipswich, as an example, these practices are based on best management practices as defined by the NRCS, MDAR, and other recognized agricultural institutions. Disputes are referred to agricultural commissions for review and recommendations for resolution are reported back to Town officials (Ipswich RTF bylaw 3).

WHAT IS A FISHERIES COMMISSION? Gloucester is home to the region’s only fisheries commission, a town committee similar to an agricultural commission. Their mission is to “investigate, advocate, and recommend measures for the promotion, preservation, and protection of the Gloucester Fishing Industry” (gloucester-ma.gov).

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

ZONING

oning districts and bylaws vary dramatically throughout the upper North Shore. Some municipalities, such as Ipswich, have zoning

bylaws favorable towards agricultural production, while others may limit agricultural uses. In fact, according to the Department of Public Health, wasteful land use encouraged or even required by outdated zoning (e.g. requiring a minimum lot size and a maximum setback for structures) is the biggest culprit of farmland loss (Healthy Community Toolkit 53). All seventeen municipalities allow agriculture in at least one district, usually a rural residential district, though not all have an official agricultural zoning district. Agricultural overlay districts, open space districts, or similar overlay districts can help preserve agricultural land by protecting rural or open spaces from development, sometimes by â&#x20AC;&#x153;tradingâ&#x20AC;? for the right to develop more densely in another area (see Farmland Preservation Bylaw, page 84), or by only allowing non-residential uses in residential or agricultural districts if those uses preserve open space and a rural character. Ipswich and Newburyport are two towns in the study area that have implemented zoning districts that encourage the conservation of agricultural land. Zoning ordinances may also limit food production and/or sale to lots above a certain size (usually two or five acres), making it challenging for backyard growers, landowners seeking to replace lawns with more productive landscapes, or farmers looking to intensively farm small lots. Different zoning districts may also fragment existing areas of good farmland into pieces too small to productively use. Landowners interested in leasing their land to farmers may also be prevented from doing so by zoning restrictions. The addition of agricultural overlay districts, a decrease in allowable parcel size for food production, and allowing sale of agricultural products on smaller lots could support farmers and backyard growers and increase the amount of food produced and consumed locally within the upper North Shore.

Zoning regulations may allow or prohibit the keeping of chickens in town.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Participants at the first community meeting discuss challenges facing the local food system.

PRODUCTION BARRIERS ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS Barriers for producers in the upper North Shore were identified and ranked during the first community meeting, and expanded on during the second (see Community Meetings Appendices A & B on pages 106 & 109). By far the most significant barrier was cost of living, especially cost of land. The cost of land in Massachusetts is the fourth highest in the country, with an average cost per acre at over $100,000 (Frohlich and Sauter par. 47). Competition with developers was also cited by community members as a challenge, as good quality agricultural land is often the first to be developed. This may be because agricultural land tends to be fairly flat and open and near sources of water, which are also favorable criteria for development. The upper North Shore is a densely developed area, with few and increasingly fragmented open spaces. Land that is still available (not yet developed or under production) may be unsuitable for agriculture, due to steep slopes, poor soil, or presence of wetlands. Farmers seeking to buy new land may be unable to compete with the offers made by developers; active farmers may feel unable to say no when offered more money for selling their land to a developer than they could make by farming it. The high cost of land may also discourage people from choosing agriculture as a career, leading to a lack of both new farmers and farm staff (some producers cited difficulties in finding labor as a major barrier). Especially near the coast, lack of fresh water for irrigation can also be a challenge. Another challenge identified during the community meetings was the inconsistencies between communities, both in the regulatory environment (zoning restrictions, regulations around farmers markets) and in consumer demand. Volumes sold at farmers markets may be impacted by weather (e.g., if there is no indoor location for rainy days), and customer volume and interest varies week-to-week, so that farmers may run out of an item one week and sell hardly any the next. Additionally, demand for particular products also varies within the study area, making it challenging for farmers who sell throughout the region to predict which products will be successful. Farmers also talked about the perceived lack of government support for producers, especially for small family farms. Though incentives and grants do exist for farmers (see Funding on page 114), these may be difficult to find and qualify for. For example, tax credits for donating food only apply at extremely large donation sizes. Additionally, local government commissions that support agriculture are lacking in many municipalities in the upper North Shore (see Agricultural Commissions pg. 41).

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

WASTE MANAGEMENT ON FARMS Food waste starts well before the consumer purchases the food, even, in some cases, before the food leaves the farm. Products that are not considered suitable for sale are called “seconds” and may include produce that is slightly damaged, does not meet appearance standards, or simply exceeds demand. Some of this food may be composted on-farm, if the farm has a composting system in place. Some may be “gleaned” and donated to local food access organizations, though this requires time and labor that many farms do not have. Much of the produce may be left to rot in the ground, if farms do not have the resources to harvest and donate or find a market for it. There are programs working to reduce the amount of food wasted on-farm, such as organizations that volunteer to do the gleaning and drop-off of donations, and programs that are working to rebrand “cosmetically-challenged” produce (for example, Imperfect Foods, based out of California, which partners with local farms to sell slightly damaged, deformed, or surplus products at a discount). Another on-farm waste management issue (though not directly related to food waste) is manure management. Mishandled manure from livestock operations emits methane (a greenhouse gas) and may contaminate soil or water, or simply smell bad, causing a nuisance for the neighbors. Proper storage and handling of manure is essential to minimize these concerns. There are many uses for properly handled manure, such as fertilizer, processing into compost, the production of mushrooms, or even biofuel (Ogejo 2).

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

PRODUCTION IN SUMMARY

xisting and potential food production within the upper North Shore is supported by the valuable fresh water resources of local rivers, the abundance of prime agricultural soils, a vital

and deep-rooted agrarian heritage dating back thousands of years, and priceless benefits from the Great Marsh and other coastal ecosystems that buffer communities and agricultural land from sea-level rise and flooding. In addition, the ocean offers a potentially rich source of seafood resources. These assets are vitally important to the culture of the communities within the study area, their economies, and the well-being of human inhabitants. Recognition and restoration or preservation of water quality, soil health, and coastal wetland ecosystems will be essential moving forward in order to maintain the ability of the region to produce nutritionally dense food for its residents. The formation of Agricultural Commissions, the modification of zoning regulations to support producers, and the continued conservation of agricultural land also has the potential to preserve this vital function. Current and potential producers also face many challenges within the upper North Shore. Farmers must compete with developers for high-value land in an already densely developed and increasingly fragmented region, and land that is affordable may be unsuitable for annual crop production due to steep slopes, poor soils, the cost of tree removal, or the presence of wetlands. In addition, hazardous waste sites and landfills contaminate soil in some areas, rendering it unusable for agriculture and potentially threatening the health of the soil and water nearby. Large portions of the study area are designated as priority natural communities, wetlands, or forest cores, all vital and fragile ecosystems that may be regulated or protected in order to preserve their biodiversity and ecological resilience. Depletion of soil nutrients and fish stocks, contamination of freshwater, and polluted runoff from impervious surfaces and industrial sites present additional challenges. Zoning regulations that limit or restrict agriculture while encouraging development and the lack of permanent protection for large portions of agricultural land in the study area increase the barriers for both existing and aspiring producers. In addition, many farmers are older (92% of primary producers in Essex County are over the age of 35 according to the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture) and may not have family members interested in taking over the farm. The difficulties of producing food in the upper North Shore will only increase with the challenges arising from climate change, including increased severity and frequency of floods, sea-level rise, saltwater infiltration, and more extreme weather events (both storms and droughts).

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

DISTRIBUTION SELLING, DONATING, & DISTRIBUTING LOCAL FOOD IN THE NORTH SHORE In a food system, distributors connect production to consumption. In the upper North Shore food system, food distributors pay an important role in ensuring that locally grown food can be purchased and consumed locally. The Three Sisters Garden Project is both a producer and a distributor, and its role as a distributor, in addition to increasing locally grown food consumption, is to work towards establishing equitable access to healthy, farm-fresh food for all residents in the upper North Shore. Many barriers prevent food distributors from connecting local producers to local consumers, including obstacles to farmers selling and donating produce and the barriers that food pantries and food banks face in receiving and storing locally grown produce. This analysis explores the possibilities and challenges distributors have with overcoming these barriers.

THE DISTRIBUTORS A

local food distributor, in the context of the upper North Shore Food Study, is a business or an organization that

prioritizes moving locally-grown food from the farm (producer) to individuals and households living in the area (consumers).

TYPES OF LOCAL FOOD DISTRIBUTORS INCLUDED IN THIS STUDY:

Local food distributors may act as the transportation from farm to storefront by providing produce pick-up and drop-off related services; they may also provide locally grown food through their

Food Banks

own storefronts (e.g., food pantries, farmers markets, CSA pickups) or through schools or institutions, with the additional goal

Food Pantries

of improving access for potentially food-insecure consumers. This definition excludes food service operators like restaurants,

Free Community Meal Kitchens

grocery stores, and foodservice distributors that offer broadline distribution. Grocery stores have been excluded because they do not exclusively prioritize selling healthy, fresh products that

Public Schools and Institutions (e.g., hospitals)

have been produced locally. Unlike large-scale, multi-region food distribution businesses, these local food distributors are

Farmers Markets

focused on increasing local produce sales to keep farms in business and encouraging local produce consumption to provide

CSA programs

nutrient-dense food to the people who live or work locally. Most of these distributors are also working towards reducing hunger

CSF programs

for food insecure consumers or clients by providing food assistance services such as food pantry services, free mobile farmers

Food Hubs

market stands, community meals, free school lunch, summer meal programs, or subsidized CSAs. Some of these organizations

Farm Stands

are providing two or more of these services, serving as a hub for support, information, and resources, and as a model for the expansion of other food access programs. 46

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Gleaning programs

and places. Many established farms in

FROM PRODUCTION

the study area are successful in playing their own distributor role if they have the infrastructure, such as refrigerated

TO DISTRIBUTION

trucks, or programs, such as a CSA, in order to get their harvested crop to customers; even then, they have to compete

ccording to local farmers, most

most often get their food, such as large

with out-of-state industrial commercial

small and mid-size farms in

chain grocery stores, institutions, and

farmers that can provide produce at

eastern Massachusetts can make the best

schools, farmers must sell products at

much cheaper rates, at much larger

profit margins and greatest number of

wholesale prices using the purchasing

quantities, and have year-round growing

sales by selling directly to restaurants,

models established by these buyers.

abilities. These challenges farmers face in running a profitable business make it

small grocers, and Direct to Consumer (DTC) at retail prices due to the increas-

Many public school districts in the study

less likely that producers have the time

ing national trend of consumer prefer-

area, including Hamilton-Wenham and

or resources to donate produce or sell

ence for locally grown produce (Low et

Salem, are working hard to get more

produce at a reduced price to food access

al 1). The DTC category includes farm

locally grown food into their cafeterias.

organizations such as food banks and

stands, farmers markets, Community

Very few farms can meet their wholesale

food pantries when they are preoccupied

Supported Agriculture (CSA) and Com-

purchasing requirements, but there are

with making ends meet.

munnity Supported Fisheries (CSFs).

farms, such as Appleton Farms, that are

There are over 22 farm stands distributed

navigating the process. Companies such

Yet, despite these challenges, many

throughout the study area; over 17 CSAs

as Cape Ann Fresh Catch and Ipswich

producers in the upper North Shore area

and 2 CSFs to choose from; 9 out of the

Shellfish Company are participating in a

still prioritize making healthy, local food

17 towns have weekly farmers markets

Massachusetts Sea-to-School program to

access achievable for all consumers and

(although most are only open from June

get local seafood into school cafeterias.

are seeking avenues to work closely with

to October); 8 out of the 17 towns have

Both Farm-to-School and Sea-to-School

distributors who want to source and

at least one local grocer selling locally

programs can be an effective way of pur-

stock locally grown food for their custom-

grown produce; and many vineyards,

chasing Massachusetts grown or caught

ers and clients.

restaurants, and breweries use locally

products. Sea-to-School is a successful

grown products in their offerings accord-

program, in part because Gloucester has

In the study area, some small and mid-

ing to the MassGrown online mapping

the second highest landings of marine

size farms have overcome the need to

tool (MassGrown Map) and information

products in the state (see more on Seafood

have storage warehouses, distribution

compiled by the blog “North Shore Loca-

Distribution on page 48). It therefore has

trucks, and wholesale growing require-

vore” by John Gettings.

the ability to compete with seafood prod-

ments by using a farm aggregate to com-

ucts from other parts of the Northeast

bine their yields in order to meet the in-

and United States.

creasing demand for locally grown food

While the cost of produce sold in stores may be driven up by operating and

and wholesale high-volume purchasing

retail space rental costs in some cities,

Farm-to-School, however, may not be as

requirements. They’ve done so through

expensive local produce in the upper

successful with very few farms capable

farm aggregate businesses such as Three

north shore is a reflection of the high

of growing and selling for wholesale.

River Farmers Alliance (TRFA) in south-

cost of production due to the challenges

Selling produce wholesale is fraught with

ern New Hampshire (see Local Leader

presented by geology, ecology, and the

challenges such as changing farming

profile on next page). At TRFA, not only

high cost of land. The high price of local

practices to continuous plant-and-harvest

can farmers aggregate their crops to meet

produce competes with TSGP’s goal of

schedules, completing piles of application

demand of high-volume buyers, but also

increasing the affordability of healthy,

paperwork, paying numerous fees, and

farms are supported by the storage and

locally grown food. Although there are

taking a significant cut in profit margins.

delivery infrastructure TRFA provides,

many supportive direct-to-consumer

The process of getting more healthy, lo-

as well as the access to a greater number

outlets, restaurants, and small grocers

cally grown produce to local consumers

of customers through their online sales

in the study area that prioritize sourcing

can be made achievable and even more

platform. This model is not limited to

from local farmers, they may not have

profitable with the “middle-man” role

fresh produce; New Hampshire Commu-

affordable retail prices for individuals

distributors play in aggregating farm

nity Seafood operates on a similar model,

and households on a tight budget (exclud-

products, assisting farmers with produc-

working to keep locally caught seafood

ing farmers markets and subsidized CSA

tion and distribution strategies, and

in the community and combining their

programs). In order for locally grown

complying with wholesale requirements

efforts with TRFA (see NHCS Local Leader

produce to enter markets where people

in place of individual farmers in order to

profile on next page and more on Seafood

who cannot pay premium retail prices

distribute local products to more people

Distribution on page 48). Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

LOCAL LEADER

â&#x20AC;&#x153;A network of local farmers working cooperatively to distribute local food to the greater Seacoast NH regionâ&#x20AC;? - Three River Farmers Alliance website

In 2015, three New Hampshire seacoast farms joined forces to deliver their farm products. Their collaborative efforts allowed them to sell much larger quantities of produce, save time and money on delivery and refrigerated storage, and create a multi-farm CSA. Today, Three River Farmers Alliance (TRFA) provides refrigerated storage, delivery, and an online marketplace for farmers to sell their produce. Over 25 farms participate in its online sales platform, all of whom are able to access a much greater number of consumers and improve their marketing through this intermediated sales channel.

How it works:

Farmers participating in TRFA set the price and quantity for their produce listings on the online platform, also providing their own product photos and descriptions; they drop off their produce at the TRFA walk-in cooler or refrigerated truck for storage and distribution; and TRFA staff make the deliveries to a variety of customers, including restaurants, cafes, retail shops, caterers, schools, small and large grocery stores, event centers, and assisted living communities. For the past five years, the business has operated on a consignment model, where TRFA withholds 16% from the monthly producer payments; however, this model has not proved to be as economically viable as expected. Beginning this year, TRFA will no longer be withholding a certain percentage, instead trying a new method of marking up products by a percentage, depending on customersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; purchase quantity, to better reflect cost of operations.

TRFA is a local leader when it comes to breaking down barriers of food distribution:

TRFA breaks down the barrier farmers experience of not having enough produce to meet large wholesale purchase quantities by aggregating produce from many farms, in addition to alleviating the time- and moneyconsuming marketing, ordering, and delivery processes. TRFA also enables operators small and midsize farms to make a fair profit by allowing them to set their prices; this is different from most food distribution business models, where distributors set the price they pay farmers when pre-purchasing their produce, and then sell to consumers at a higher rate to make a greater profit margin. restaurants. The majority of seafood consumed in Massachusetts

SEAFOOD DISTRIBUTION O 48

has been imported internationally. The primary barrier that accounts for this distribution pattern is a mismatch between the fish species preferred by consumers and the species that remain abundant in New England waters. Consumers tend to be more familiar with once-abundant species like cod and Atlantic salmon which were overfished and are now heavily regulated under the Northeast Multispecies Management Plan in the case of cod, or as Endangered Species in the case of salmon (NOAA).

f the seafood caught in Massachusetts, it is estimated

The overfishing and subsequent regulation of these species

that 80% is exported internationally (Urban Harbors 18). Of the

means they are no longer being caught in high enough numbers

remaining 20%, some portion is distributed out of state, and

to meet local demand. While many commercially-viable spe-

a small remainder is sold in grocery stores, fish markets, and

cies remain abundant in New England waters, Massachusetts

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

consumers have tended to prefer familiar species imported

In order to connect locally caught seafood to local consumers,

internationally rather than shifting their tastes to unfamiliar

advocates like Kate Masury, director of Eating with the Ecosys-

local species.

tem, recommend coordinated efforts by fishmongers, chefs, and other community members to educate consumers about a

Some local fishermen, like Cape Ann Fresh Catch and NH Com-

variety of under-utilized local species whose populations can

munity Seafood, have followed the models established by local

be more sustainably harvested than more popular species such

agriculture movements to form Community Supported Fisheries

as cod and haddock. These abundant wild species include spiny

to connect their seafood products to local consumers. Local

dogfish, scup, butterfish, red hake, a number of flounders, and

companies like Cape Ann Fresh Catch and Ipswich Shellfish Co

Acadian redfish (Northeast Fisheries par. 7).

are also participating in a MA Sea-to-School program to get local seafood into school cafeterias. Alongside these programs, local

(Below) NHCS aboard a local fishing

seafood advocates are working to raise awareness for lesser-

boat filled with a dayâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s fresh catch

known New England species.

LOCAL LEADER

Fishing boats from Seabrook, Hampton, Rye Harbor, and Portsmouth Harbor organized a harvest co-op in the early 2000s in response to the ongoing global auction of seafood caught off the coast of New England, drastic reductions in catch allowances for vital groundfish species, the high cost of fuel, and increased financial constraints in the fishing community. Their demonstration of best practices and protection of marine resources led to being granted the ownership right to collectively manage the federal groundfish fishery. By having the right to decide as to where catch goes, they are better able to keep seafood local. Their efforts are supported by the role that New Hampshire Community Seafood (NHCS) plays in fostering the relationship between local fishermen and local consumers through a Community Supported Fisheries (CSF) program available for individuals and restaurants. The organization was founded in 2013 and has expanded in response to the dwindling fleats of NH Commercial Groundsfishermen. NHCS gives fishermen a 50 cent per pound incentive on every pound of seafood they buy, and then sells the seafood through their CSF and Restaurant Supported Fisheries (RSF) programs. The sustainable management of groundfish fisheries is made possible by the practice of catching a diverse range of species, some of which may be unfamiliar to consumers. NHCS closes that knowledge gap by providing recipes in its weekly newsletter to educate consumers on how to prepare a variety of seafood. NHCS recently began working with Three Rivers Farm Alliance (TRFA) in order to expand their distribution and reach consumers who were already open to a Community Supported sales model.

NHCS Executive Director (middle) aboard a local fishing boat with two local fishermen

Similar to TRFA, NHCS breaks down the barriers of aggregation and distribution, while also building momentum in the local food movement through fostering consumer relationships and providing hope for New Hampshire seacoast fishermen. Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

DISTRIBUTION BARRIERS ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS

BARRIERS FARMERS FACE SELLING PRODUCE ... TO GROCERY STORES, INSTITUTIONS AND SCHOOLS

tification before they consider purchasing

There are many hurdles farmers face on the path to selling

from a farm. Many farms already comply

produce at a wholesale scale to grocers, schools, and other

with these standards for the safety and

institutions. The first challenge comes in growing a large and

preservation of their products, but the

consistent quantity of one or more items. Most purchasers prefer

expensive auditing process (which can

to have fewer sources from which they order fresh produce on a

be between $550 and $750 dollars for

regular basis to reduce logistical complexity. This requires farm-

the initial inspection) and meticulous

ers to plant for continuous harvest and using season extension

record keeping can be too burdensome

methods. Yet, even if a local farm is growing a satisfiable quan-

on a small or midsize farm’s staff and re-

tity of produce consistently, many purchasers have long-term

sources. Furthermore, a GAP certification

contracts with suppliers and commercial chain distributors that

rarely means a higher pay-off, especially

prevent purchasers from replacing their supplier or decreasing

in a wholesale market (Gap Certification

their order quantity to make room for products on limited shelf

par. 4).

space in limited storage (Alcorta et al 1). Schools must also follow competitive procurement guidelines, meaning that they cannot

Farms can also attempt to enter the local

purchase directly from a farmer before obtaining multiple price

school cafeterias through the Department

quotes from a variety of sources (Office of Community Food

of Defense Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Pro-

Systems 1). In order to work their way around this and make the

gram (DoD Fresh), which provides fund-

purchase from local farms, schools can try to add specifications

ing for schools to purchase fresh produce.

that would target their local preferred farm such as freshness,

Operated by the Defense Logistics Agency

farm size, and variety or cultivar of product.

(DLA), the program contracts suppliers

^^ Figure 37

to distribute fresh products to schools

The process of applying

Schools in particular have a layered purchasing process that

(Office of Community Food Systems 1).

for a GAPs certification

presents multiple barriers for small and midsize local farms.

Farms would then sell directly to the

Rarely do they purchase directly from farms, as they typically

Massachusetts DoD vendor, and schools

purchase through their distributor. Districts also competitively

would purchase produce through the pro-

procure distributors. In order to get their products into a school

gram. Schools can specify Massachusetts-

cafeteria, farms must sell products to the district’s distributor

grown produce, but there are no options

and hope that the distributor continues to earn business with the

to target local farms’ produce.

district for the length of time farms wish to sell products to the schools. This is sometimes made possible if the farm contacts the

Another way farms can sell to schools is to become a USDA Foods

district’s nutrition director and asks them to have their distribu-

Vendor selling to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service,

tor purchase from that farm. The nutrition director can make

which supplies 10 to 15% of the produce served in the National

a request that the distributor source from the farm, and the

School Lunch Program. Before farms are able to submit a bid,

distributor can choose to accept or decline that request. In addi-

they must meet all federal regulations, clauses, and provisions

tion, typically, schools require products to be Good Agricultural

that affect USDA commodity contracts, have the ability to fol-

Practices (GAPs) certified. The intention of GAPs is to ensure

low the specified purchasing schedule and comply with a strict

food safety; however, the process of acquiring and maintaining

purchasing process, meet USDA commodity specifications and

the certification presents a major barrier for small and midsize

technical requirements, submit their application, and become

farms.

approved (Become a USDA Vendor). From there, the USDA’s purchasing process is a competitive bidding and award model

In addition to general post-harvest and packing standards, many

across all approved farmers, fishers, ranchers, growers, and pro-

grocers and nearly all institutions also require a GAP plan or cer-

cessors. Schools purchase USDA Foods products with designated

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

“

HAMILTON-WENHAM NUTRITION SERVICES DEPARTMENT WEBSITE: Unlike many other departments in the school, the Food Service Department is a financially self-supporting, non-profit entity and must generate its own revenue to cover its expenses. School food service departments are the entities responsible for providing school meals. This involves purchasing food, paying staff salary and benefits, as well as repairing and replacing equipment. Contrary to popular belief, the food service department does not receive money from the school budget or the local government. In fact, many food service directors also pay a portion of the district’s overhead costs including building utilities and custodial services. School food service departments must have at least 1-3 months of operating money in their accounts to cover any unforeseen expenses and ensure that the program runs smoothly. Revenue for school meals comes from federal reimbursements that subsidize part of the meal costs, student payments for full price and reduced price meals, adult meal payments, a la carte food and beverage sales, and any vending or catering that the food service director offers. But doesn’t the federal government reimburse schools for the full price of the meals? No. Federal reimbursements cover a portion of the cost of school meals, but not all. According to the School Nutrition Association, the estimated average cost to prepare a school meal in 2008 is $2.90, yet the maximum federal reimbursement for a free lunch in SY 2008-09 is only $2.74. This means that food service departments lose money on every free meal that they serve. Does that mean that the kids who pay for their meals subsidize the free meals? Is that why meal prices are going up? Rising food and fuel prices nationwide and the higher cost of healthy foods such as fresh fruits and whole grains have put significant financial pressure on school food service departments. School districts nationwide are increasing their prices in order to cover their costs. All meal price increases must be approved by the local school board. Why does the price of food matter? Don’t schools get free food from the government? While school food service departments receive some low cost food through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Commodity Food Program, this represents only 20% of the food used to prepare school meals. The other 80% is purchased from food vendors at a market rate. To keep prices down, many food service directors order through purchasing collaboratives with other school districts. However, food service directors are still feeling the impact of price increases for milk, cheese, and eggs as well as the higher cost of fresh produce and whole grain bread. Would it be cheaper to make my child’s lunch at home? Despite price increases, school meals are still a great deal! The School Nutrition Association cost estimates show that an equivalent meal prepared at home, including milk, a meat or meat alternate, grains, and fruits and/or vegetables, would cost parents $3.43!” funds termed “entitlement dollars” through an annual request

What’s more, peak harvest season occurs when school is out

process. Entitlement dollars, available only to schools participat-

of session over the summer; this compounded with a lack of

ing in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) are calculated

longer-term storage and preservation facilities makes it even

by multiplying the number of lunches served during the previ-

more difficult to sell fresh, locally-grown produce to schools.

”

ous year (July 1 through June 30) times the mandated rate of assistance (Food Distribution par. 3). According to the Massachu-

For these reasons and so many more, small and midsize farms,

setts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, in

and especially new farmers, choose to sell directly to consumers

2013, the Planned Assistance Rate (PAL) was $0.2275 per lunch.

or food service operators; this includes selling their produce at

Entitlement dollars are also limited to use on USDA Foods that

farmers markets, at CSAs, via U-Pick, or directly to local restau-

the government purchases and makes available to schools.

rants and small grocers with whom they’ve built a relationship.

Grocery stores, institutions and schools also tend to require PLU or UPC codes in order to track deliveries, batches, and individual produce items. As reported in the first community meeting, most schools’ PLU systems are particularly complicated, even for one of the largest farms in the upper North Shore Food System, Appleton Farms. PLU systems are complicated and expensive to implement, requiring the purchase of a digital system, scanning tools, a barcode generator, and training of staff to correctly and regularly use the system. Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

... THROUGH DIRECT SALES armers tend to face the least number of barriers in di-

BARRIERS FARMERS FACE DONATING PRODUCE

rect sales to small stores, local restaurants, CSAs, and at

their own farm stands. If they have established a good relationship with their small-scale purchaser (such as a restaurant or independent local grocery store), they can often avoid additional packing and washing requirements (and pack in-field instead), deliver on their own schedule per independent agreements, and ask the price they want for the product they are cultivating. Yet, these prices may be too high for households and individuals with low purchasing power, who typically acquire their fresh

hese barriers on the path to sales make it difficult to allocate limited time and labor resources to donate

food through grocery stores, food pantries, free school lunches,

produce to non-paying customers, even if the produce is grade

and other institutions that provide food at a lower price or for

B (see box below) and would otherwise be tilled under or left to

free.

compost in the field. The extra time, labor and resources it takes to glean a field or sort unsold market produce is very valuable

Some of these individuals may be able to access direct sale pro-

when this competes with running regular daily operations on

duce from local farms at farmers markets, where many produce

a small or mid-size farm. Both Nourishing the North Shore and

stands accept SNAP and HIP (see Terminology on page 15-16).

the Three Sisters Garden Project have acknowledged this barrier

Farmers markets are a great way for local consumers to connect

and work together to tackle it by performing the gleaning pro-

with their producers; however, there are many barriers to and

cess for partner farms (read more on next page), then delivering

challenges for farmers in selling their produce this way. In order

the produce to food pantries; however, the food system cannot

for a farmer to hold a produce stand at the market, there are

rely solely on these two organizations unless they have the

weekly or seasonal participation fees. These are not the only

capacity and support for expansion to provide these services.

fees associated with hosting a stand; there are also business sales licenses required at each vending location and Temporary Food Establishment (TFE) licenses required for cooking demonstrations (even if they are free) (Iowa Food Safety Task Force 2010). These fees also vary between town and vending location,

GRADING, ACCORDING TO THE USDA:

which all add up if a farmer sells at more than one location or more than one day per week. In addition to the fees, farmers at the first community meeting reported how burdensome the task of hauling an entire produce stand, setting up, selling, and breaking down can be, especially if it’s a bad weather day and

Grade A vegetables are carefully selected for color, tenderness, and freedom from blemishes. They are the most tender, succulent, and flavorful vegetables produced.

few shoppers come to the market. Market shoppers were also reported to be in search of more niche, specialty items typically found at farmers markets more frequently than grocery stores, saving their staple produce and protein shopping for the grocery store. In addition, the desire for certain foods varies from location to location, and it is difficult for farms to cater to an audi-

Grade B vegetables are of excelIent quality but not quite so well selected for color and tenderness as Grade A. They are usually slightIy more mature and therefore have a slightly different taste than the more succulent vegetables in Grade A.

ence when it can vary so greatly, including shoppers’ willingness to pay a premium retail price. Many farmers are also working to make SNAP and HIP available at their farmers market stands so that produce is more affordable and can be purchased with these support programs. In

Grade C vegetables are not so uniform in color and flavor as vegetables in the higher grades and they are usually more mature. They are a thrifty buy when appearance is not too important –for instance, if you’re using the vegetables as an ingredient in soup.

order to do so, they must apply to be a SNAP vendor (and a HIP vendor separately), and apply to receive a subsidized wireless POS system that can swipe SNAP EBT cards. HIP, a program that has been reported by North Shore farmers and food access organizations as incredibly helpful in supporting local produce purchases, has a limited number of spots, and so far, is already full this year (2020) (HIP par. 6).

Image Source: FoodHow.com

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

LOCAL LEADER:

GLEANING SURPLUS CROPS Farming can be an unpredictable business as crop yields respond to variations in weather and pests from year to year. Many farmers plant extra crops to compensate for unexpected losses to ensure they have enough to sell throughout the year. This practice often leaves surplus crops beyond what farmers can sell. Though farmers would like to donate this surplus, they often cannot spare the resources to harvest and prepare it for donation. Nourishing the North Shore, as well as other local and regional organizations, organize employees and volunteers to glean surplus and grade B crops from partner farms and deliver them to food pantries or distribute them at mobile produce markets. Nourishing the North Shore organizes gleanings on request for partners including Heron Pond Farm, Appleton Farm, and Iron Ox Farm in addition to donating the produce from their own half-acre production farm. Boston Area Gleaners, a larger regional organization based in Waltham, partners with over 70 farms in Eastern Massachusetts to glean surplus produce including Alprilla Farm, First Light Farm, Marini Farm and several others in the study area.

BARRIERS FOOD PANTRIES FACE STORING FRESH FOOD

nce the donation arrives at the pantry, it must be stored properlyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;this is especially challenging with

fresh produce in order to preserve the quality and safety of the perishable product. Some produce like potatoes and onions, which do not require refrigeration, still require specific temperature, light, and humidity storage settings in order to last more than one week. Other produce that requires refrigeration, which many food pantries and food banks lack, may also have specific temperature and humidity requirements to preserve freshness and quality. Food pantries and banks hoping to store such produce require commercial refrigeration, a large capital investment that is often difficult to make. It can be challenging to find space for the proper storage in their building. Storage infrastructure such as refrigerators and freezers are necessary in order to provide meat, dairy, frozen goods, and produce that needs cold storageâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;all of which is significantly more nutritionally dense than canned meat, boxed milk, and canned produce (Rickman et al 1).

BARRIERS FOOD PANTRIES FACE RECEIVING DONATIONS

f a farm is able to glean or sort and pack produce for donation, the next hurdle arrives when matching an

available donation to a food pantry need or the time pantry staff is available to receive the drop off. This is also a challenge that NNS and TSGP can encounter. If and when a match is made, farmers or food access organizations often donate their time to deliver the produce. Some food pantries that have the vehicle capacity for pick up may also go to the farm for produce pick-up. It is important that this be done in a timely manner and using proper refrigerated storage when necessary in order to keep food at safe temperatures. Often, donated produce or perishable goods are close to the expiration date already, so proper storage is crucial for their preservation.

Grade B produce for donation ^

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

FOOD WASTE AT FOOD BANKS Food recovery—the diversion of wholesome but unused food products from the trash in restaurants, schools, and other institutions—is a valuable resource for food access organizations. There are, however, some disadvantages to relying on diverted food. Since perishable foods have a limited shelf life and have specific food safety storage requirements before donation, they are donated less often than non-perishables such as canned or dry goods. Donated perishables are also challenging for food access organizations to store, with limited space and capacity and the high cost of temperature-controlled storage. Composting costs more than throwing food away for food pantries, especially since the amount of almost-rotten food they receive means they may be discarding large amounts at a time. Processing “seconds” (food not suitable for sale but still edible) into packaged meals improves recipients’ experience and likelihood of using the food, but requires special licensing. This poses the question: what is the best use for almost-spoiled or excess food, and how can fit can be linked to food access organizations in a way that reduces waste, rather than simply delaying the inevitable disposal of the food into a landfill?

^ Gleaning redskin potatoes

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

DISTRIBUTION IN SUMMARY

here are many direct-to-consumer outlets in the study area where small and midsize farms can market their

products, such as CSAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, farm stands, and farmers markets. These locations often have the most affordable prices for local consumers, but outlets such as farmers markets may be burdensome for farmers due to fees, regulations, and the challenge of physically setting up and breaking down a produce stand weekly. Furthermore, it may be difficult for some consumers to access the location of farmers markets (see Transportation analysis in the next section, page 61). In contrast, although entry is competitive, farmers can make the best profit margins by selling to intermediated market channels such as restaurants and small grocers; however, consumers often pay a much higher price to purchase produce through these outlets, and this excludes consumers with low purchasing power. At the wholesale level, large grocery stores, institutions, and schools purchasing local produce can reach a greater number of consumers and provide food at a lower, subsidized, or free-of-cost option; yet, wholesale growing and selling can be nearly unachievable because of the immensity of the barriers posed to small and midsize farms through large minimum purchase quantities, expensive licensing requirements, and convoluted procurement processes.

FROM DISTRIBUTOR TO CONSUMER >> If distributors have the ability to overcome these barriers with their organizational capacity, infrastructure, and business models, the next set of challenges arises in getting healthy, locally grown food to a larger number of local consumersâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;some of whom already struggle to access staple food items or any meals at all. The responsibility of removing the next set of barriers is most often carried by distributors with the goal of making locally grown food easily accessible and affordable for all.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

FOOD ACCESS BARRIERS TO ACCESSING LOCAL FOOD AND EFFORTS TO REDUCE FOOD INSECURITY Local farms within the study area produce a significant amount of food to sell at restaurants, farmers markets, and through CSA programs. Many residents of the upper North Shore can afford to purchase healthy, locally grown produce and have the time and means of transportation to access it. However, a significant portion of study area residents have limited access to healthy, local food due to low income, lack of transportation, or other barriers. Three Sisters Garden Project and community partners seek to understand the barriers to participating in the local food system and reduce them so all residents can benefit from healthy, local food. This portion of the analysis examines the barriers to local food access and affordability in the upper North Shore with a particular focus on consumers who face general food insecurity and likely lack of access to healthy, fresh, locally grown food.

MEANS OF ACCESSING LOCAL FOOD

eople lacking access to enough food, including local

noted that the study was conducted in July and August when

food, to maintain a healthy, active lifestyle is a signifi-

local produce is most abundant, and costs may vary significantly

cant issue nationally, in Massachusetts, and in Essex

throughout the year.

County. According to Feeding Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Map the Meal Gap project, 7.2% of residents in Essex county were food insecure in 2019

Residents of the upper North Shore can purchase food from

(Map the Meal Gap 2018). The high cost of food is a significant

local farmers directly by shopping at farm stands, farmers mar-

contributing factor to food insecurity. Massachusetts has the

kets, or buying a share in a Community Supported Agriculture

highest cost of food of any state in the nation. The average meal

(CSA) program. They may also be able to enjoy local produce

in Essex County costs $3.73 compared to a national average of

at local restaurants, or buy it in grocery stores, though it can

$3.03. A study conducted by the Greater Boston Food Bank and

be challenging for operators of small and mid-size farms to get

Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Health Watch estimated the avoidable costs of hunger

their products into grocery stores (see Distribution Barriers,

on the healthcare system at $2.4 billion annually (An Avoidable

pages 50-52). The most common distribution systems for local

$2.4 Billion Cost 2).

farmers are farm stands, farmers markets, and CSAs. To shop at farm stands or farmers markets, a consumer must have the time

DIRECT SALES: FARM TO CONSUMER

and a means of transportation to get to a location that may be

While local food is often perceived as trendy and expensive,

out of their way and may only be open during a specific window

direct sales of produce from farms can be less expensive than

of time. Additionally, to participate in a CSA, members typically

produce bought at grocery stores. Though no comprehensive

pay a large fee upfront at the beginning of the season, which

studies were available within the study area, a study conducted

may be impossible for many consumers.

by the Massachusetts Food System Collaborative in ten communities across the state found that a typical selection of produce

For those who are able to access farmers markets, farm stands,

items cost 25% less at farmers markets compared to nearby gro-

or participate in a CSA, consumers with low purchasing power

cery stores (McCarthy 3). The study included the town of Lynn,

may be able to afford more local produce by taking advantage

immediately south of the North Shore study area. It should be

of government food assistance programs or subsidized CSAs offered by local farms.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

^^ Figure 38 Cost of Produce Items at Massachusetts Farmers Markets and Grocery Stores (McCarthy 3). A survey of produce prices in July and August of 2018 found that locally grown produce sold at Massachusetts farmers markets was typically cheaper than comparable items sold at nearby grocery stores.

Figure 39 >> Distance by Road from the Nearest Farmers Market (Massachusetts Bureau of Geographic Information). All of the largest towns in the study area, including Salem, Peabody, Beverly, Gloucester, and Newburyport, have at least one local farmers market which residents can access with a short trip by car. These markets may also be accessible to many residents by public bus, by bicycle, or on foot. Most residents who live outside of the centers of larger towns donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have convenient access to a farmers market and would have to travel a longer distance by car to shop at one. Currently, only 7 out of 15 farmers markets in the study area accept SNAP benefits (see Benefit Programs on next page). Also, some towns with lower purchasing power are located farther away from farmers markets such as Amesbury and Salisbury. Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

Federal and state governments provide programs that subsidize food costs

BENEFIT PROGRAMS

in order to improve equity in food purchasing ability. In Massachusetts, individuals and households can apply for these programs through the Department of Transitional Assistance, and some organizations such as TSGP and Nourishing the North Shore set up stands at farmers markets and offer application assistance for individuals seeking to enroll in the programs.

SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SNAP) The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP (formerly Food Stamps) is a federal entitlement benefit that qualified households can use to purchase food from participating retailers. In Massachusetts, households are eligible for SNAP benefits if their monthly income is below 200% of the federal poverty line (The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 3). Households with higher incomes can qualify if they include elderly or disabled people, or if their net income after expenses falls below a certain threshold. SNAP benefits are widely used in the lowest-income communities in the study area and allow many households to supply themselves with food they would otherwise struggle to afford. SNAP benefits can be used to purchase locally grown food at seven out of fifteen farmers markets in the study area. SNAP benefits can also be used at participating farm stands or to pay for a CSA share.

HEALTHY INCENTIVES PROGRAM (HIP) Since 2017, households receiving SNAP benefits are automatically enrolled in the Healthy Incentives Program or HIP. HIP matches SNAP funds spent on direct sales from local producers at farm stands, farmers markets, and CSA shares up to $80 per month, depending on the size of the household. Stakeholders from local farms and food access organizations see the Healthy Incentives Program as a huge success both in providing food-insecure people access to healthy, locally grown foods and in supporting local farmers economically. Due to the introduction of HIP benefits, SNAP sales at farm retailers in Massachusetts increased by 1250% from 2016 to 2018 (Massachusetts Healthy Incentives Program 1). In its first 10 months, the program paid out $3.3 million in incentives statewide, more than eight times the projected cost (Shemkus). Since its inception, the incentives paid out have consistently outpaced the program’s funding, leading to benefits being suspended and retailers’ applications to accept HIP benefits being denied. Several food access advocates who attended community meetings see expanded funding of HIP as a critical step in increasing access to healthy, locally grown foods, reducing food insecurity, and supporting local producers. Unfortunately, the future of the program is currently in question, due to the state’s inability to support its increasing use. Figure 40 >> Eligibility Requirements and Benefits for SNAP (The fresh guide to EBT in Massachusetts)

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

<< Figure 41 Food Pantries and Free Community Meals Serving Residents of the Study Area. There are at least 15 food pantries and 6 organizations providing free community meals in the study area. The majority of the food pantries and churches or service organizations serving community meals are located within the densely-populated low-income urban centers of Salem, Peabody, Beverly, and Gloucester in the southern portion of the study area with some additional locations distributed throughout the central and northern portions.

FOOD PANTRIES Food pantries identified in the study area range from large organizations like The Open Door that serves over 3,500 households annually to smaller pantries housed in the basement of a local minister. As discussed earlier, food pantries face significant barriers to procure, store, and distribute fresh produce. The Open Door, Acord Food Pantry, and other pantries prioritizing fresh, local food work with local farmers or food banks to secure donations or use grant funding when available to purchase produce directly from wholesale retailers. Both food pantries and small local farms generally have a small staff with many demands on their time and energy to keep the organization running. It can be difficult for farmers with excess produce to find the time to locate a pantry to donate to given the constraints of storage space and timing of distribution that

FREE-OF-COST ACCESS FOR TARGET POPULATION

pantries face (see Distribution Barriers, page 50-52). Currently, there are a few existing partnerships between growers and pantries, like the partnership between Three Sisters Garden Project, The Open

For consumers who cannot afford to

stable food items are typically easier to

Door, and the Acord Food Pantry. Com-

purchase full-cost or subsidized locally-

store and distribute, because they do

munity stakeholders suggest that there is

grown food, there are many organiza-

not require refrigeration or climate-con-

a significant opportunity for food access

tions in the study area that provide

trolled storage. Despite these challenges,

organizations to take on a â&#x20AC;&#x153;middle-manâ&#x20AC;?

free-of-cost food and prepared meals,

many food access organizations and

role to facilitate increased coordination

some of which includes locally grown

local food advocates value incorporating

between growers and pantries. Three Sis-

items, along with shelf-stable items such

fresh, locally produced food as part of an

ters Garden Project, Nourishing the North

as canned goods, dried grains, and pasta.

effort to alleviate regional food insecu-

Shore, and other food access groups are

These organizations may not be able to

rity throughout the region. Through free

well-positioned to step into this role and

prioritize providing fresh, locally grown

access to local produce, vulnerable North

serve as coordinators for nearby farms

food because it is often cheaper to obtain

Shore residents are able to share the

and pantries to match donations to loca-

non-local and processed food items to dis-

benefits of health and quality of life that

tions that have the capacity to distribute

tribute. Additionally, processed and shelf-

come with a vibrant local food system.

them. Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

<< Figure 42 Food Pantries and Mobile Market Locations Serving Residents in the Study Area. Like food pantries, mobile market locations tend to be concentrated in densely populated lower-income urban areas like Beverly and Gloucester, though there is a notable lack of mobile market distribution locations in Peabody and Salem. time in a publicly accessible location. Mobile markets are typically operated by organizations promoting access to fresh, healthy produce, and, unlike farmers markets, the produce is given out free of charge. Food access organizations can obtain produce through donations from local farms, contributions from food banks, and wholesale purchases made using grant funding. Larger food access organizations like The Open Door buy produce from wholesale retailers because it is harder to meet their needs for quantity and consistency with smaller local producers. At least four organizations are currently operating free mobile produce markets in the upper North Shore region, including The Open Door, Nourishing the North Shore, Beverly Bootstraps, and the Salem Pantry. The existing network of free mobile produce markets has many distribution locations in Newburyport, Ipswich, Gloucester, Rockport, Beverly, and Salem which are the areas with lowest Many local pantries make significant

groups partner with local producers or

purchasing power. Amesbury, Salisbury,

efforts to reduce the social stigma people

food access organizations to procure

Peabody, and Salem may be underserved

might feel about using their services. The

locally grown ingredients for their meals.

by mobile markets because they have

Open Door has made the experience of

St. Johnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the Evangelist partners with

few or no distrubution locations. Local

using their pantry as much like shop-

Nourishing the North Shore to host a

food access organizations see the mobile

ping at the grocery store as possible so

community garden, which supplies many

produce markets as an effective way to

their clients donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t feel any loss of dignity.

of the ingredients for the Harvest Meals

make healthy produce affordable and ac-

Clients wheel shopping carts among the

served to any members of the commu-

cessible in areas that may otherwise lack

aisles and choose their own items within

nity who want it. By serving prepared

sufficient access.

the limits set by the pantry. Smaller

meals these organizations can increase

organizations like the Acord Food Pantry

access to food for those who cannot

A study conducted by researchers at the

donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t have the space to operate this way,

afford meals or have difficulty prepar-

University of Wisconsin analyzed mobile

but treat the clients with great respect

ing their own food due to lack of ability,

market distribution systems in six cities

and give them as much choice as possible

knowledge, time, or infrastructure like a

across the country including Worcester,

in selecting their preferred food items.

kitchen and cooking utensils.

MA (Zepeda 21). The study found that

FREE COMMUNITY MEALS

MOBILE MARKETS

at increasing access to healthy food in

Many social service organizations and

A free mobile produce market is a

communities underserved by grocery

religious institutions in the region host

distribution model similar to a farmers

stores, and in some cases can tailor their

weekly or bi-weekly community meals

market where temporary stands are set

produce to best meet the cultural prefer-

open to anyone and free of charge. Some

up to distribute produce at a scheduled

ences of the communities they serve.

mobile markets can be very effective

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

LOCAL LEADER

The Open Door operates one of the largest networks of mobile produce markets in the study area. It increases access to healthy produce for residents of Gloucester, Rockport, Essex, and Ipswich by distributing free produce in accessible locations to anyone who wants it. The cost barrier is reduced by accepting donations from local farms, contributions from the Greater Boston Food Bank, and making wholesale purchases using grant funding. The produce is then distributed at locations where they are likely to reach people who may be experiencing food insecurity. These locations include schools, affordable housing facilities, and senior centers. Along with distributing produce, The Open Door demonstrates cooking techniques and hands out recipes to help overcome barriers around lack of cooking knowledge or lack of experience with local crops. Importantly, The Open Door makes its produce available to any who want it, without consideration of need, and it encourages universal participation at the locations it serves. In this way, it reduces any stigma people might feel about accepting free produce, and creates a wholesome and positive atmosphere that people enjoy participating in. Importantly, the study found that mobile markets can compete with traditional farmers markets serving the same com-

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION >>

munity, potentially reducing the demand on local farm products and reducing rev-

Many of the residents of the upper North

other, less-populous communities lack

enue for local farmers. Where this com-

Shore who experience food insecurity

public transportation systems.

petition exists, though mobile produce

due to low income or financial uncer-

markets are increasing access to produce

tainty may also lack access to a vehicle.

REGIONAL BUS SYSTEMS

for underserved communities, they may

If residents do not have access to a car to

The study area is served by the Merri-

ultimately be undermining the vitality

drive to locations where local produce is

mack Valley Regional Transit Authority,

of the local food system by undercutting

sold or donated, they need to have access

the Cape Ann Transportation Author-

the profitability of local farms. In areas

to regular, reliable, and affordable public

ity, and the Massachusetts Bay Transit

where this conflict is likely to occur, the

transportation or safe and comfortable

Authority. Though these transportation

study suggests that, rather than purchas-

streets for walking and bicycling to near-

authorities provide public bus transpor-

ing wholesale produce to distribute, food

by stores or pantries (Municipal Strate-

tation options in the densely populated

access organizations can use their funds

gies to Increase Food Access 46). Lack of

towns of Salem, Peabody, and Beverly,

to match SNAP expenditures of benefits

transportation is identified by community

and well as Cape Ann and the Merrimack

at the local farmers market to double the

stakeholders as a major barrier reducing

Valley, there is a notable lack of public

amount SNAP usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; can spend on local

access to fresh, healthy food in the study

transportation in the central part of the

food, and increase the profitability of

area. Though there are public transpor-

study area. Even where people do have

local farms rather than competing with

tation routes serving many of the most

access to public transportation, they may

them.

populous communities in the study area,

not be able to get to distribution points

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

Accessible entrance to a MBTA bus. Source: MBTA students, and passengers with disabilities or MediCare cards. The reduced price is offered to many residents of the study area who are vulnerable to food insecurity, though notably none of the local transportation authorities offer a discounted rate to people solely based on low income. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, which serves the greater Boston metropolitan area, offers a Youth Pass with reduced rates for people 18 to 25 with low income, but only in participating communities, none of which are in the study area. Full for locally grown produce such as farm

as well. The limited reach of bus routes

price fares add an additional $2.00 to

stands. Farmers markets, food pantries,

in the study area prohibits people from

$4.00 expense for a round-trip journey to

and mobile market locations tend to be

making on-farm CSA share pickups by

the grocery store, which is a significant

located closer to urban centers compared

bus, though they may be able to access

burden on those who already struggle to

to farm stands, so they are typically more

CSA pickups at farmers markets.

afford food. Some transportation authori-

accessible by public transit. Neverthe-

ties may have regulations that present

less, it is a significant physical challenge

Bus fares for a one-way trip within the

further barriers to using the bus to access

to carry a load of groceries on foot and

service area range from $1.00 to $2.00 for

food such as limiting the number of bags

by public bus compared to using a car,

full price, or $0.50 to $0.85 for reduced

a person is allowed to bring on the bus or

and it may be much more time intensive

price available to seniors, children,

barring folding carts.

LOCAL BUS FARES One-Way Fare

One-Way Fare

Reduced Fare

with CharlieCard MBTA

$2.00

$0.85

MVRTA

$1.25

$1.00

$0.60

CATA(Gloucester) $1.00

N/A

$0.50

CATA(Rockport)

N/A

$0.60

$1.25

^^ Figure 43 Local Bus Fares for Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Merrimack Valley Transportation Authority, and Cape Ann Transportation Authority. Reduced Fare is available to seniors (60+), children (6-12), students (13-17), passengers with disabilities and passengers with MediCare cards.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Figure 44 >> Public Bus Access to Food Pantries and Mobile Markets within the Study Area. Three transportation authorities operate public bus routes within the study area. The larger towns of Salem, Peabody, Beverly, and Gloucester have relatively high access to public bus routes, while the towns around the Merrimack River in the northern portion of the study area have some access to public bus routes. Notably, the central portion of the study area has highly limited or no access to public bus routes, making it difficult or impossible for residents of these areas to access food pantries or mobile markets without a private vehicle, though all the areas with the lowest average purchasing power have at least some access to public transportation.

<< Figure 45 Distance by Road to the Nearest Food Pantry or Mobile Market Location. Residents of the larger towns of Salem, Peabody, Beverly, Gloucester, Newburyport, and Amesbury have relatively short trips to access food pantries and mobile market locations by car, and some residents may be close enough to travel there on foot or by bicycle. Residents of the central portion of the study area and parts of Cape Ann have to make significantly longer trips to access a pantry or mobile market and likely depend on a car to do so. There may be food access organizations outside of the study area which are not represented here and could be more accessible to residents in the western most parts of the study area. Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS TO HEALTHY FOOD AND FOOD PRODUCTION

ndividual and community attitudes, beliefs, and cultural relationships to food are invisible but powerful factors that influence what we eat. In addition to

improving systems for physical and economic access to healthy, locally grown food, food access organizations in the North Shore region care about creating opportunities for communities to strengthen shared values around growing and eating healthy food together. Community gardens and school gardens are valuable spaces in which neighbors and youth can come together to learn about gardening, connect to the land and seasonal rhythm of their home, and enjoy the natural bounty produced by their shared effort. Three Sisters Garden Project, Nourishing the North Shore, and other local organizations offer educational programs for youth and adults to learn to garden and cook with local crops. When community members have the time, space, knowledge, and support to begin producing their own food, they gain the agency to tailor their crop choices to their personal preferences and those of their community. In this way community gardens help to overcome the challenge of local produce available at farmers markets or pantries not always being familiar or culturally relevant to all members of the community. If community gardens become productive enough, they may be able to contribute additional produce to food pantries or mobile markets in their neighborhoods to help these organizations provide crops that are preferred by those communities. Food pantries and food access organizations may also be able to formally or informally gather information on their clientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; produce preferences and communicate them to local growers who could consider tailoring their crops to better match community preferences. Gardening programs in schools can be particularly effective at shaping childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s attitudes towards food while they are young and help to foster a lifetime of healthy habits. Seeing familiar foods growing in the garden (or better yet planting, nurturing, and harvesting them themselves) gives children an important understanding about their relationship to food and the land that they donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t get from seeing them stocked on grocery store shelves. It can be difficult for schools to integrate gardening into their existing curriculum and to find teachers or volunteers who are able to help maintain school gardens, especially over the summer. Organizations like Massachusetts Farm to School provide materials to support teachers in establishing gardens and teaching science, mathematics, writing, and other essential subjects using the garden as a classroom. Three Sisters Garden Project and other community partners already work to support school gardening programs and could continue their efforts by providing consultations on garden building and lesson planning, as well as helping to coordinate summer caretakers.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

FOOD ACCESS BARRIERS ACCORDING TO STAKEHOLDERS THE HIGH COST OF FOOD Though certain products purchased directly from local growers may be more affordable than the same products purchased at the grocery store at certain times of the year, the high cost of food in general is still the primary barrier. There are many food pantries and other food access organizations working to provide affordable or free food to upper North Shore residents, but these organizations face their own challenges in acquiring and storing locally grown produce (see Distribution analysis pages 46-55).

LACK OF TIME OR MEANS OF TRANSPORTATION Another barrier is the challenge in getting to places where local food is being sold or distributed. Individuals may need to make a special trip to a farm stand or farmers market, where most small, local producers commonly sell their products, to access local produce. Many consumers lack the time or means of transportation to make these special trips.

LACK OF FAMILIARITY WITH LOCAL CROPS People may be unfamiliar with certain local crops and not know how to prepare them or incorporate them into their diet. For some residents of the upper North Shore who have immigrated from other parts of the world, crops that grow locally may not be culturally relevant to their diets. This may narrow the types of local produce that residents are likely to purchase and eat.

LACK OF ACCESS TO KITCHEN TOOLS Some residents of the upper North Shore lack access to a kitchen or to cooking utensils that are essential for processing and preparing local produce items. These people may have to rely on buying prepared meals and ready-to-eat food items.

LACK OF ABILITY TO PHYSICALLY PROCESS CROPS Preparing whole foods can be physically taxing and time-intensive. Some residents of the upper North Shore may lack the time and physical ability to process and prepare labor-intensive local food items such as squash. This may include seniors and people with disabilities.

NEGATIVE STIGMA ASSOCIATED WITH USING FOOD ACCESS SERIVICES Some residents of the upper North Shore may avoid using food access services like food pantries out of a sense of social stigma. Local organizations like The Open Door and the Acord Food Pantry emphasize the importance of providing their services in a way that honors their clientsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; dignity.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

HOUSEHOLD FOOD WASTE Food scraps are the largest percentage of municipal solid waste in the United States, accounting for 22% of municipal solid waste (EPA). The USDA has estimated that one-third of all food available every year is thrown away: that’s 133 billion pounds of wasted food. Each year, consumers spend $371 per person on food that is then thrown away, which adds up to about $122 billion per year in the United States. Confusing date labels (90% of Americans are estimated to throw out good food due to confusing best by or sell by labels), excess leftovers, and food spoilage are the main contributors to the problem at the household level. By planning meals ahead, taking inventory of food before shopping trips and only buying what is actually needed, using notes or other reminders to use up perishable foods, and reusing leftovers, households can begin to reduce their food waste, saving themselves money and reducing methane emissions from landfills. Parts of vegetables that aren’t eaten can be saved to make stock. Excess food that is still good can be donated to local food drives. Food scraps may be composted at home or through municipal composting programs. In the upper North Shore there are at least twelve public or private composting facilities in nine communities. One type of composting facility that is lacking in the study area is an anaerobic digester. This type of composting uses organisms that don’t need oxygen to survive to break down waste. Manure, food waste, and even industrial sludge can be broken down in an anaerobic digester, which produces as its end product biogas, a renewable energy source, and digestate, a mixture that can be used as fertilizer or livestock bedding. An anaerobic digester could offer the upper North Shore both an additional way to deal with excess food waste and a source of renewable energy.

LOCAL LEADER Black Earth Compost, located in Gloucester, was founded in 2011 by Conor Miller and it has expanded into a full-service composting company serving eastern Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire with eleven employees and eighteen trucks. The company picks up food scraps and yard/leaf waste from colleges, schools, restaurants, supermarkets, businesses, and residents (through municipal curbside pickup) and turns the waste into high-quality organic compost for garden centers, farms, and home gardeners. Residential customers receive a voucher once a year for compost purchase, or can choose to donate their compost to Backyard Growers, a local non-profit community garden. The company also helps educate students at local schools about the importance of compost and waste reduction.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

FOOD ACCESS IN SUMMARY

esidents of the study area can access locally grown food at farmers markets, farm stands, and through CSA programs. For many people, it is difficult to

access food at these locations or through a CSA due to the high cost of local produce or lack of transportation. Additionally, some residents of the study area may choose not to purchase locally grown food due to an unfamiliarity with the crops; lack of knowledge, experience, time, or physical ability to cook; or lack of access to a kitchen and cooking utensils to prepare whole produce items. Many organizations within the study area are working to make locally grown food more accessible by serving free community meals, providing free groceries, including local produce, at food pantries and mobile produce markets, distributing at accessible locations, and helping people take advantage of federal and state food assistance programs like SNAP, HIP, and WIC.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

68 Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

SECTION 3

RECOMMENDATIONS PRIMARY RECOMMENDATIONS

A. ESTABLISH A FOOD POLICY COUNCIL

B. EXPAND UPON FOOD HUB SERVICES AND/OR FORM A FOOD HUB

C. INCREASE FARMLAND PRESERVATION AND LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION

D. ENCOURAGE THE USE OF SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL TECHNIQUES

E. FACILITATE THE WIDESPREAD USE OF PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR FOOD ACCESS

F. EXPAND MOBILE MARKET PROGRAMS

G. IDENTIFY URBAN LAND APPROPRIATE FOR COMMUNITY FOOD PRODUCTION

The following recommendations aim to support the producers, distributors, and consumers in the local food system as they move towards increased accessibility and affordability of locally grown food. Each of the seven primary recommendations relates directly to challenges and barriers defined by stakeholders, community members, and spatial analyses within the study. Each recommendation also offers specific actions for Three Sisters Garden Project and community partners, and an overview of potential challenges to implementation. Case studies and precedents that accompany each recommendation offer successful examples for inspiration and guidance. Recommendations range in complexity, scale, and time frame. Not all of these recommendations will be easy to implement. Some will take longer to have an impact. Many recommendations will require collaboration between a wide range of communities, individuals, and businesses; others may be achievable by a single organization. The Three Sisters Garden Project and its partners have already established a strong and innovative foundation for a resilient and equitable food system. These recommendations offer an opportunity for stakeholders to continue to dive deeply into the challenges of understanding how locally grown food can be made more accessible and affordable, while providing a good income and standard of living for local farmers.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

FOOD SYSTEM FOCUS

A: ESTABLISH A FOOD POLICY COUNCIL FOR THE UPPER NORTH SHORE AREA

Production

Support farmers by providing resources for education; helping with applications and licensing; promoting the purchase of local food; advocating for policy change; and serving as a link between existing farmers and landowners seeking to lease their land.

Distribution

Advocate for changing policies that hinder distribution for producers and streamline the process of selling and donating fresh produce to institutions and food access organizations.

Food Access

Increase access to fresh, local food by increasing collaboration between more members of the food system and supporting local programs to increase food access.

Waste

Support sustainable waste management at more points in the food system by coordinating stakeholders from a greater variety of sectors; offering education on waste management alternatives; and promoting policies that encourage sustainable disposal of waste.

ne major barrier to strengthening the local food

FPCs are often officially formed by local or state government

system in the study area, identified multiple times

through executive orders or joint resolutions, though this is not

in stakeholder and community meetings,are the gaps in

always the case. There are both benefits and disadvantages to

communication between those working in the food system,

operating under local or state government. FPCs that are highly

inconsistencies in regulations across towns, inadequate govern-

dependent on government’s financial support may be vulnera-

ment support, and resource deficiencies within the seventeen

ble to political change or have difficulty working across political

municipalities. Food policy councils (FPCs) are increasingly the

boundaries if the broader political adgenda is not aligned with

solution for many communities or regions for addressing this

the mission and actions of the FPC; but FPCs that are not operat-

and related issues.

ing within a government office may struggle to secure funding or to secure government buy-in, which is crucial for successful

FPCs usually have four main functions (Harper et al. 2): •

To serve as forums for discussing food issues,

•

To foster coordination between sectors in the food

policy change. Those forming an FPC need to decide whether or not to seek establishment within a government office.

system,

The Salem Food Policy Council is the only FPC currently active in

•

To evaluate and influence policy, and

the study area as far as the Conway team was able to determine,

•

To launch or support programs and services that address

though some active organizations (including the Three Sisters

local needs.

Garden Project) serve many of the functions of a FPC already. Northeast Harvest, serving Essex and Middlesex Counties, aids

Since the first FPC was established in Knoxville, Tennessee

in the collaboration between individuals, organizations, and

in 1982, FPCs have sprung up across the country to serve as

producers, with a focus on increasing awareness and purchase

platforms to address “the actions and inactions by government

of local food. On a larger scale, there are many regional and

that influence the supply, quality, price, production, distribution,

local FPCs in Massachusetts, including the statewide Massachu-

and consumption of food” (Harper et al. 1) through advocating

setts Food Policy Council, closely associated with the Massachu-

for policy change. FPCs provide a collaborative structure to ad-

setts Department of Agricultural Resources. Working with these

dress the food system as a whole, attempting to address multiple

existing councils will likely prove to be beneficial for farmers

issues in a coordinated manner. Ideally, a FPC will include

and food access organizations in strengthening regional food

stakeholders from every part of the food system, from produc-

systems and addressing larger-scale policies.

tion, distribution, and processing, to consumption and waste management, and will also include members from multiple communities. 70

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

In the context of the upper North Shore Food System Study, by

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20 establishing a FPC for part or all of the study area, or expanding services offered by existing organizations, the FPC could coordinate efforts between multiple stakeholders within the food system and serve as a bridge between communities, while advocating for policy change with local, state, and federal government. The Three Sisters Garden Project or their immediate partners could take on or expand programs that address policyrelated issues by playing the role as organizer and coordinator of multiple food activist groups. As a recognized leader already serving a “middleman” role within the local food system, TSGP is well-placed to step into this role.

Organizational meeting at Franklin County Food Council

CASE STUDY: FRANKLIN COUNTY FOOD COUNCIL (FC2) Formed in 2013 as a collaboration between Just Roots, a local non-profit farm focused on food access, Franklin County Community Development Corporation, and Greenfield Community College, the Franklin County Food Council (FC2) in Greenfield, Massachusetts has since expanded to include stakeholders from diverse organizations such as the Franklin Regional Council of Governments, Mount Grace Land Trust, MA in Motion/Communities that Care, Greening Greenfield, New England Farmers Union, Greenfield Public Schools, Franklin Community Co-op, Community Action, Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA), Stone Soup Cafe, and the Franklin County Sheriff’s office. The Council also encourages engagement with and support from the general public. Stakeholders meet quarterly to collaborate on efforts to increase local food production and access, and to engage local institutions to promote healthy eating. FC2’s primary goals are that: •

Franklin County farmers, food entrepreneurs, and consumers benefit from the Franklin County Food Council’s local food advocacy work

•

The Council effectively communicates and collaborates with existing food and farming organizations within the Pioneer Valley while avoiding duplication of efforts

•

The Massachusetts Food Policy Council and the Franklin County Food Council exchange ideas and information that mutually reinforce work efficacy on the state and county levels

•

Access to abundant local food increases across sectors and within households in Franklin County.

The Council has been particularly active through their Farm to Institution Working Group, which partners with local schools, hospitals, colleges, Meals on Wheels, and the Franklin County House of Correction to improve access to healthy, local food for the clients and students served by these programs. The Council has also provided learning and networking opportunities for institutions, is researching policies that will increase the purchase of local food, and is planning to hire a consultant to support schools as they navigate procurement of local food and establish wellness policies. The Council also piloted an inventory of the work member businesses and organizations have done towards achieving the recommendations outlined in MA Local Food Action Plan, identifying the impacts of and gaps in the actions taken and aiding in the collaboration among food policy councils across Massachusetts (Franklin County Food Council).

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

BARRIERS & SOLUTIONS BARRIER Lack of collaboration or communication between communities, organizations, and BARRIER: sectors within the local food system SOLUTION A FPC would serve as a platform on which representatives from a wide variety SOLUTION: of organizations, municipalities, and individuals can communicate

BARRIER Confusing and time-consuming regulations that vary between municipalities, BARRIER: especially around the sale and donation of food products, and lack of funding for producers and non-profits SOLUTION A FPC could supply resources and support for farmers or non-profits to fill out SOLUTION: paperwork, find and apply for funding, and link producers to institutions such as schools and hospitals. Also, a FPC could advocate for more streamlined and consistent policies and regulations between organizations, municipalities, and individuals.

BARRIER Lack of government support or interest in the food system; rapidly changing govBARRIER: ernment programs such as HIP, and restrictive local regulations around zoning and land use SOLUTION FPCs may supply a connection between local and state government officials; SOLUTION: and they can advocate for policies that increase access to fresh, local food and for changes to zoning regulations that increase local food production and sales.

BARRIER: It is challenging for new farmers to access land. BARRIER SOLUTION A FPC could establish platforms to link new and retiring farmers, offer resourcSOLUTION: es and education for current and future farmers, and play a role in encouraging local landowners to consider long-term leases to farmers or donations of land to conservation entities for agricultural use.

BARRIER: Varying demand for produce within the study area BARRIER SOLUTION FPCs could educate consumers on the value of fresh, local, and sustainably proSOLUTION: duced foods, and promote demand for new, potentially unfamiliar products. 72

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES Not all FPCs are successful. Unfortunately, many fail or never are able to successfully get off the ground. There are many factors that may play a role in the failure of a FPC. Top challenges identified by Harper et al. (5) included: • Establishing and maintaining a diverse and representative membership • Not becoming dependent on a single individual, organization, or political figure • Working in complex and quickly changing political environments and working across political boundaries • Designing an effective organizational structure • Obtaining adequate funding and staff • Balancing focus between policy and program work, and between systemic and narrow goals • Measuring and evaluating the FPC’s impact and addressing weaknesses and problems FPCs that are able to address these challenges are those that are able to clearly define specific functions, a strategic plan, and an evaluation and decision-making model, and have a strong understanding of and connection with the local food system. Other important requirements for a successful FPC are: • A centrally located and consistently available location to meet • Committed and engaged constituents from a wide variety of municipalities and organizations • Appointed staff or volunteers to set agendas, run meetings, record minutes, and track assigned tasks • Buy-in from government officials, whether through an official coordination with a local or state government or close collaboration with government staff

ROLE FOR THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT AND PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS: •

Identifying and reaching out to key stakeholders

•

Locating an appropriate location for FPC members to meet

•

Coordinating staff and volunteers and developing an organizational framework

•

Cultivating government buy-in or pursuing a more official connection

•

Identifying locally relevant regulations and policies to advocate for meaningful change

•

Coordinating various organizations and individuals working to impact the local food system in order to increase efficiency and reduce redundancy

•

Establishing networks of communication and collaboration between organizations and municipalities

•

Offering education and resources for local producers such as support for filling out paperwork

•

Launching and supporting local programs to increase food access

•

Locating and organizing funding sources to support the FPC or expanded services

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

FOOD SYSTEM FOCUS

B: ESTABLISH A FOOD HUB AND/OR EXPAND UPON FOOD HUB SERVICES

Production

Distribution

Food Access

Provides logistical support, aggregation services, market advising, and storage solutions

Supports farmers by providing distribution channels, access to wholesale purchasers, and advocacy for local food consumption; supports food pantries by increasing coordination, aggregation, and delivery methods for donations from farms in the area, in addition to providing large-scale storage for fresh food. Breaks down barriers to food access by providing a location for nutrition education and a licensed commercial kitchen where food can be processed for both farmers’ value-added products and food pantry prepared food items

Waste

n order to support an increase in local food production

ability to satisfy wholesale, retail, and institutional demand.”

and demand for healthy, locally grown food, marketing

channels and supply chain infrastructure must also expand

The expansion of food-hub-related services through TSGP or a

(Low and Vogel iii). The majority of small to midsize farms

primary partner has the potential to increase accessibility and

across the United States and within the Northeast choose to

affordability of healthy, locally grown food in the area for all

market their products through Direct-to-Consumer outlets,

consumers. The Operational Services and Community Services

because the volume demanded by grocery stores, institutions,

of a food hub (see Figure 46 below) should be prioritized, as this

and schools is often too high for their scale of operation (4). As

is where the largest gaps are in the upper North Shore food

a result, more and more farms and fisheries are collaborating

system, and these services also support the food accessibility

to form aggregates and meet high-volume demand for locally

missions of TSGP and its community partners. A North Shore

grown or raised food (Strobbe 8) (see Local Leaders on pages 48

food hub could support efforts to conserve agricultural land by

& 49).

providing farmers with the marketing and business tools they need so that, by increasing profitability, they would not have to

As a larger-scale response, many regions, states and counties

consider selling to a developer. It could also link conservation

are forming food hubs, which provide crop aggregation services

advocates with farmers to explain the benefits of Chapter 61 and

in addition to a lengthy list of potential services depending on

APR, and how these programs work.

local demand (see Figure 46, below). A food hub, according to the USDA’s Regional Food Hub Resource Guide (Barham et al 4), is a

Ideally a food hub would incorporate all of the services in each

“business or organization that actively manages the aggregation,

category of production, operation, and community, listed below.

distribution, and marketing of course-identified food products

The first steps that TSGP and community partners can take

primarily from local and regional producers to strengthen their

towards addressing the barriers specific to distributors in the

Figure 46 >>

Possible food hub services according to the USDA Regional Food Hub Resource Guide 74

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20 upper North Shore food system, should be to prioritze the estab-

•

Distributing to “food deserts”

lishment and/or expansion of the following services:

•

Food bank donations

•

Health screenings, cooking demonstrations

•

SNAP + HIP redemptions

Operational Services: •

Aggregation

•

Educational programs

•

Distribution

•

Youth + community employment opportunities

•

Packaging and repacking

•

Light processing + commercial kitchen

All of the community services, some operational services such as

•

Product Storage

aggregation and distribution, and most producer services would ideally be provided at an existing operations center such as

Community Services: •

“Buy local” campaigns

TSGP in order to build upon existing infrastructure. Food Hubs such as Red Tomato in Plainville, Massachusetts (see Red Tomato

CASE STUDY: RED TOMATO (PLAINVILLE, MA) When Red Tomato first began operating as a food distributor in 1997, it followed a model that provided producer services such as on-farm pick up; operational services such as aggregation, packing, climate-controlled warehouse storage, and distribution via its delivery trucks; and community services such as encouraging Northeastern consumers to purchase produce grown in the Northeast. Over time, Red Tomato realized that it was sacrificing time spent on managing infrastructure such as the warehouse and fleet of trucks for time that could be better spent on logistics and coordination in order to include more farms and reach more people (Red Tomato). In 2003, the company decided to close its warehouse and discontinue leasing delivery trucks but continue the logistical operations. Instead of providing this infrastructure, it began working with farms with storage capacity to aggregate product and thirdparty distribution companies to move the product to its final destination. Its focus narrowed in on sales, marketing, and product development. Red Tomato began selling to Whole Foods and other customers who could receive truckloads of produce at a time in order to keep its services at a competitive price and pay farmers a decent price for their products. Yet, the company saw that developing relationships with grocery stores was key to selling more regional produce; so, in order to reach the produce purchasing team and customers at grocery stores, it began working with more local chain grocery stores. Red Tomato plays the “middle man” role between farmers and wholesale purchasers such as grocery stores, institutions, and schools without actually handling the produce. This has opened up windows of time and opportunity for piloting initiatives including (Red Tomato):

“

•

Eco: A progressive, ecology-based farming and certification program created by local farmers, scientific advisers and Red Tomato.

•

The Farming & Food Narrative: A set of effective communication tools, supported by a transparent evidence base, that aim to identify ways to develop a more effective approach to talking to the public about sustainable farming and farm practices.

•

Equitable Food Initiative (EFI): An international program developed by a partnership of farmworkers, farmers, and advocacy organizations to create a new approach to workplace development and worker fairness in the produce industry. EFI focuses on training and empowerment for employees, sustainable agriculture practices, and food safety standards.

•

Double Up Food Bucks: Red Tomato is part of the New Hampshire pilot program of Double Up Food Bucks, working as the supply chain consultant to identify local farmers that are a good fit to work with retailers’ food safety standards, and help to supply product from throughout the region. The Double Up Food Bucks program doubles the value of federal nutrition (SNAP or food stamps) benefits spent at participating markets and grocery stores to increase consumer purchasing power.

Red Tomato demonstrates a food hub model that does not require the tradi-

”

tional infrastructure to manage aggregation and distribution services. It can serve as an example for the beginning stage of a food hub that will later have warehouse infrastructure, or as an example for a food hub that could better act as a remote coordinator for the study area. Currently, Red Tomato neither sources from any farms in the study area nor distributes to any retail or donation sites within the seventeen towns. Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

Case Study on previous page) have demonstrated great success

area, it is easier for producers to to form agreements to grow

in serving as a logistics hub without warehousing or a fleet of

niche items on demand for wholesale pruchasers and tailor crop

trucks by taking produce orders from individuals (restaurants,

plans to market demand than at a large, regional scale (Dimiero

institutions, grocers, etc.) and then sourcing, aggregating, and

and Mayfield 14); furthermore this concept can be applied to

coordinating trucking for the product(s); however the company

supply food banks and food hubs with produce varieties and

only “works with mid-sized producers that already have loading

quantities that their clients are seeking and not able to obtain

docks, refrigeration, and trucking facilities, so the food hub can

elsewhere within their means.

focus its efforts on marketing, trade, and education,” as reported in the World Peas 2014 Guide For Scaling Up Food Hubs (Dim-

In terms of operational services, “what determines a food hub’s

iero and Mayfield 15). Such a sourcing model can potentially be

model and level of success is ultimately location-dependent…”

applied to food distributors by taking orders from food pantries

(Dimiero and Mayfield 2). A food hub will be more successful

and food banks, and then sourcing, aggregating, and coordinat-

in matching supply and demand if there are enough buyers to

ing trucking for reduced-price or grade B farm products avail-

place produce orders, enough farms to meet demand, enough

able for pick-up.

product variety and quantity to aggregate, and enough season extension to be successful over the course of a year within the

Within the study area, New Entry Food Hub, a non-profit food

range that a food hub sources products and distributes them. Ac-

hub located in Beverly, Massachusetts, focuses on supporting

cess to main transportation routes is also important in locating

graduates from its Beginning Farmers program. Originally the

a food hub that would provide storage and distribution services.

food hub was only open to farmers who participated in the

In most food hub models, farmers deliver their items from

Beginning Farmers Program within three years of graduation;

distances much greater than they are typically distributed out

as of less than two years ago, the hub also began supplement-

of willingness to ensure that their products are sold within the

ing its supply with produce grown on farms within 100 miles

short timeframe that they remain fresh (GrowFood Carolina).

of Boston that are certified USDA Organic and with Integrated

In order to further encourage farmers to participate in a food

Pest Management (IPM). Although this Food Hub could be an

hub, farmers need easy routes to make deliveries, and a food

outlet through which qualified farmers in the study area could

hub should be located closest to where they are distributing

sell their products, this distribution option still excludes farmers

produce; in the context of this study, analyses of transportation

who have not taken the program within three years of applying

routes and location of existing food distribution organizations

to participate or farms that are not certified USDA Organic and

and mobile market stops point to a potential node at the border

using IPM. Furthermore, it still does not appear that New Entry

of Beverly and Salem (see map below). This point is nearest to

Food Hub is working towards supplying the participating food

the greatest number of food access organizations, mobile market

pantries and food hubs in the study area that are still actively

stops, and large food activism groups, and it is located at the

seeking healthy, locally grown food to put on their shelves, and

junction of several

New Entry largely focuses on serving the greater Boston area

main roads.

and Middlesex County (New Entry Food Hub). According to New Entry’s 2018 annual report, the organization is supporting food

The current

access through working with nine regional partners seven of

location of TSGP at

which are local senior centers, one of which is a transitional liv-

Cuvilly Arts center

ing center, and one of which is the Merrimack Valley Food Bank,

may also serve as

in addition to supporting five families receiving SNAP with CSA

a suitable location

shares through the HIP (New Entry Annual Report 3). With at

for a food hub, as

least 15 food pantries and 23 free mobile market locations in

it is about 5.3 miles

the study area, there is enough need for the role that a food hub

(11 minutes) from

could play in improving food access for those who struggle to at-

Route 1, one of the

tain healthy, locally grown food within their purchasing power.

main MassDOT

TSGP

roads in the study Furthermore, the seventeen-town study area could become a

area. Farmers

viable micro-region for the establishment of a new Food Hub

should be surveyed

(Berti and Mulligan par. 1) through the creation of new markets

about their willing-

and expansion of existing markets. Conclusions from a seven-

ness to travel to this

year study (Park et al. 15) cross-comparing eleven case studies

location for produce

of fresh and frozen food items sold in a Market Basket grocery

drop-off in order to

store, which often has low-income customers, revealed that

affirm this choice of

there is potential for more locally produced food to be sold at

location.

these markets, many of which were already providing one or two products produced in the Northeast.

^^ Figure 47

Ideal location for a food hub with warehouse storage Additionally, due to the small scale of the upper North Shore

in the upper North Shore. Transportation studies may also be important in order to evaluate if this an ideal

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

location for farmers to travel to given their equipment and regional traffic patterns.

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

BARRIERS & SOLUTIONS BARRIER The minimum purchase quantity set as institutional standards by grocery stores, BARRIER: schools and institutions is too large for most small and midsize farms to fulfill on their own. SOLUTION: Aggregation SOLUTION Farmers could combine their crop with that of other local farms in order to meet the wholesale minimum purchase quantities of larger institutions. “Challenges with local farm to school programs have always been distribution, growing season, price and availability of products that schools use. The Massachusetts Farm to School program has good intentions, but, in my experience has not been very helpful in overcoming these barriers. A local food hub might just be the answer,” says Director of Nutrition Services at Hamilton-Wenham Regional School District (Community Meeting Two). A food hub could dismantle the distribution barrier by acting as a one-stop-shop for regionally viable food products that schools use, by advising local farmers to grow products that are in high demand at schools and institutions. Furthermore, schools may find products through a food hub that they cannot find when sifting through multiple sources, as a food hub performs the seeking and sourcing services relieving the districts’ or schools’ employees from some of the responsibility of sourcing and purchasing food for school lunches; in effect, nutrition directors might have more time to source higher quality and ethically sourced produce from outside the region when the desired crop is not locally or regionally available, such as tropical fruit like bananas. Food hubs can likewise work directly with grocers and grocery store chains to identify gaps in their supply or to support the increasing national trend of selling more locally grown products, satisfying both grocers’ goals and farmers’ needs. Aggregation services also open up production supply to secondary producers, such as community gardens and school gardens, that could donate their relatively smaller harvests if all harvests were coordinated and aggregated for donations to food pantries to meet the desired quantity at these food access points.

BARRIER Many grocers and nearly all institutions require a GAPs plan or certification before BARRIER: they consider purchasing from a farm, which is an expensive certification to acquire and cumbersome to maintain due to the abundance and frequency of record keeping requirements. SOLUTION Food Safety and GAP training; Post-Harvest Handling Training; Buy Local SOLUTION: Campaigns Food hubs can also be information hubs, which is useful to help businesses navigate the regulatory maze of growing, selling, storing, and processing produce. Specific personnel at a food hub can be tasked with assisting farms and food access organizations to complete and maintain standards and documentation required to own and run their businesses; specifically relevant services include Food Safety and GAP training and Post-Harvest Handling Training to help farms comply with mandatory farm food safety standards and requirements for record access and traceability established by the FDA in 2011 under the Food Safety Modernization act as a response to foodborne illness (US Congress). Furthermore, as the audits to assess best practices are often expensive, food hubs have the potential to provide or help find funding to subsidize these costs. On the flipside, food hubs can advocate for institutions and schools to trust farms who do not hold such certifications by educating purchasers on farms’ food safety and best management practices that are sufficient to meet their purchasing criteria (e.g. farms may not hold a GAPs certification because they have not completed the expensive auditing process, although they may be applying GAPs as their food safety standards). Buy Local campaigns can also connect farmer profiles to products, which has been shown to increase trust of the product and a willingness of customers to pay a higher price (Low and Vogel 7). Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

BARRIERS & SOLUTIONS (CONTINUED...)

BARRIER Donating produce can be financially difficult for farmers due to the time, labor, BARRIER: and resources used to glean a field or sort unsold market produce that would otherwise be allocated to regular daily operations on a small or mid-size farm. Coordinating timing of donations is also challenging if food pantry hours and/or staff are limited. SOLUTION: Distribution, Storage SOLUTION A food hub may be able to support and enhance the efforts of Nourishing the North Shore and Three Sisters Garden Project gleaning and donation services by sharing the use of trucks or vans for produce pick up at farms and drop off at food banks or food pantries. For farms that are able to glean grade B produce or sort unsold market produce with their own labor and resources, food hub distribution and logistics management can at least alleviate the valuable time used for matching a need to be filled, coordinating donation drop-off, and delivering donations to food pantries. Furthermore, donations can be repacked and stored at the food hub storage facility until a donation can be matched so that donations can be accepted from farms when they are available, reducing the number of donations turned away due to a mismatch in immediate need or scheduling with food pantry hours. To increase logistical efficiency, a food hub can hold information about what produce is being produced where and when so that when a pantry makes a request for particular types of produce for donation or wholesale purchase, food hubs can make the match, minimizing the time it typically takes for the match-making process.

BARRIER Food pantries and banks that serve a large number of clients would require comBARRIER: mercial refrigeration, a large capital investment that is often difficult to make and expensive to maintain, if they were to offer fresh produce to their clients. It can also be challenging to find space for the proper storage in their building. SOLUTION: Storage SOLUTION A food hub with proper cold storage and humidity-controlled storage could serve as an intermediate storage space for produce gleaned from or donated by farms, until a food pantry or food bank is ready to receive a donation that matches its needs. This can also serve as a central storage facility for mobile market produce between market days to ensure food safety with proper storage and handling practices. Additionally, if food pantries or food banks are serving prepared food, such as The Open Door, this allows for larger bulk batches of prepared items to be properly stored, especially if freezer storage is made available.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

BARRIER The short growing season in the Northeast can create a shortage of healthy, locally BARRIER: grown food over the winter months unless opportunities and infrastructure for preservation are made available. Food processing and preservation such as canning is required to take place in a commercial kitchen, which is an expensive audit and licensing process in addition to being a high-maintenance asset. Food pantries that want to serve lightly processed food to encourage clients to try new food and reduce the burden of food preparation for clients with limited mobility or arthritis, such as seniors, often cannot shoulder these costs and maintenance requirements. SOLUTION: Commercial kitchen; do-it-yourself processing facility SOLUTION By hosting a licensed commercial kitchen, a food hub could provide a place for pantries to process and prepare produce to serve at their sites, meeting food processing regulations without the burden of maintaining licensing through regular audits and fees. Food access organizations with nutritional education could also use the space for classes or to prepare fresh food samples for events and farmers market stands. Farmers could also contribute to a greater availability of locally grown produce during the off-season by using the licensed kitchen to process food through methods such as canning, drying, or freezing. At the second community meeting, one farmer expressed the need for a canning facility or food processing and preservation business that could preserve his harvest. The food hub would have an opportunity to pay for the upkeep of a commercial kitchen by providing memberships to farmers or small food businesses who also need a commercial kitchen to preserve or prepare their products according to food handling and processing regulations. Some food hubs and commercial kitchens also extend liability insurance to their users by shouldering the liability themselves or brokering insurance to each user individually. Creating value-added products such as jam, sauces, or cider requires special licensing and permits and usually access to a commercial kitchen. Value-added products often help many farms be profitable because they can sell at a much higher profit margin than the produce used to make the product. Most of these products also have shelf lives far greater than the ingredients on their own. Currently, there is no large, public commercial kitchen for farmers or food access organizations to use in the study area. A new commercial kitchen or cannery could close a significant gap in the link between consumers and local producers in the off-season.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

Image Source: Open Food Network Australia

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES Not all food hubs are successful. There are many factors that may play a role in the initiation and upkeep of a food hub. Top challenges may include: • Large capital investment required to to purchase warehousing, storage, and distribution infrastructure • Need to significantly scale up organizational capacity to manage logistics and provide recommended services • Increasing demand can often take several growing seasons and up to several years; need to secure funding that can provide for the longevity of the necessary processes to establish adequate demand and business structure and infrastructure

ROLE FOR THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT AND PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS: Aggregation: •

Provide warehousing with proper food storage infrastructure to aggregate weekly donations (large-scale farm donations and small-scale community garden donations).

•

Aggregate community garden and school garden produce donations to meet minimum donation sizes for food pantries and food banks.

•

Create subsidised multi-farm CSA.

•

Partner with Three River Farmers Alliance and serve as an intermediate food aggregate.

Distribution: •

Provide farm pick-up and pantry drop-off services (need refrigerated trucks or vans).

•

Expand gleaning services that TSGP provides to farms in the area.

•

Provide temporary storage for donations until they are matched with a need (must have refrigerated storage).

•

Match food pantries’ produce needs to farmers’ surplus and grade B crops (see Red Tomato Case Study).

Marketing: •

Promote locally grown produce, promote local farms, and advertise/incentivise CSA participation.

•

Market food assistance organizations and services available to those in need in an effort to create awareness of services and reduce stigma of using a food pantry.

•

Create “Buy Local” campaigns and/or branding for healthy, locally grown food.

Crop Planning Assistance: •

Help farmers, community gardens, and school gardens plan a successful crop each season by advising on crop varieties that will be successful in the region, season, soil, and market conditions.

•

Encourage farmers to diversify the crops between farms so that a greater variety of produce would be available for the upper North Shore Food System.

Market Advising: •

Advise farmers on market demand for popular crops on a seasonal basis to support success of sales.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

FOOD SYSTEM FOCUS

C: INCREASE FARMLAND CONSERVATION AND LOCAL PRODUCTION

Production

Protects farmland against development and encourages farmers to expand production.

Distribution

Food Access

Supports access to local food by assuring continued or increased local production.

Waste

evelopment pressure on prime agricultural land and the high cost of living in the upper North Shore has

forced many farmers to sell or consider selling their farms, and

MARGINAL AGRICULTURAL LAND

prevented new farmers from easily entering a career in agriculture. Preserving agricultural land will help protect producers

Traditionally defined as land that would produce less in

from development pressures, support the continued availability

income from agricultural production than it would cost to

of fresh, healthy, local food, and provide the opportunity to

rent that land (Baumol and Blinder 209), what constitutes

increase local production.

marginal land can vary depending on location and, often, product demand.

In the future, protecting existing farmland may not be enough to fully support farmers, especially those who own small parcels of

Land may be considered marginal due to poor water sup-

land and are unable to expand; those who are reliant on leased

ply or soil quality, steep slopes, or difficulty in accessing

land, often without long-term leases, which can limit the amount

it (Pimentel 92), among other factors. However, this does

of investment they are able or willing to put into the land; and

not mean that these lands are useless to producers. Many

new farmers who cannot afford to purchase land (Ipswich ii).

livestock species, such as sheep and goats, may thrive on

Encouraging agricultural production on marginal land (see side-

forage on steeper slopes and poorer soil, and many peren-

bar), encouraging zoning changes or the addition of agricultural

nial crops can survive in land not suitable for annual crop

preservation overlay districts (see page 83), and working with

production (Stoof et al. 1).

landowners to establish long-term leases will help increase the land available for production. Increased food production will be

Another type of potentially marginal land, very small par-

vital to increasing the availability of local food for residents of

cels, may be economically sustainable using intensive rota-

the study area.

tional methods and quick-growing crops (Stone). Orchards also tend to perform better on non-prime soils.

Within the context of the upper North Shore Food System Study, Three Sisters Garden Project and their immediate partners could advocate for the increased preservation of existing and potential agricultural land and increased food production on protected land.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

COMMUNITY PRESERVATION ACT Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 44B, or the Community Preservation Act (CPA), is a tool to help municipalities create a fund to acquire, create, preserve, or restore open space, historical resources, and affordable housing projects. CPA allows municipalities to create a Community Preservation Fund by assessing a surcharge of up to 3% on annual real estate taxes. Funds thus obtained may be used as match money to acquire state and federal grants, and communities that have adopted a Community Preservation Fund also receive additional money from a state trust fund. For the purposes of food access, the spending focus might be on acquiring or preserving farmland, or the restoration of acquired land. To date, most of the communities in the study area have adopted CPA, except for Ipswich, Amesbury, Salisbury, and Topsfield. Expanding CPA into the remaining municipalities may help support efforts to create or preserve open Apple orchards tend to thrive on steeper, poorer soil than most an-

space, including farmland.

nual vegetable crops

Prime farmland—often flat and open—is also great for development.

PRECEDENT: FARMLAND PRESERVATION BYLAW Zoning bylaws and ordinances have the potential to either support or limit agricultural use and the preservation of agricultural land. One successful example of a bylaw that supports preservation of agricultural land is the “Farmland Preservation Bylaw” in Hadley, MA. This bylaw is an example of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, which allows developers to purchase rights to develop in a “receiving area”—an area of high development value—from landowners in a “sending area”—an area of valuable farmland. Both areas have been designated as overlay districts. This allows denser development in high-value areas for development while preserving farmland; farmers receive payment while continuing to occupy and work their land. The Town of Hadley has also placed Agricultural Preservation Restrictions (APRs) on several hundred acres of land using funds contributed by developers.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

CONSERVATION PRECEDENT: THE IPSWICH AGRICULTURE AND AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY Identifying and prioritizing agricultural land for protection is a process that should be undertaken by each individual community, but there may be general methods that will be useful for all communities to consider. The Ipswich Agriculture and Agricultural Land Study, prepared by Walter Cudnohufsky Associates, Inc. in 2009, offers one potential method. Using various criteria such as soil type, slopes, wetlands, and proximity to existing farms, all parcels in Ipswich over 5 acres were assessed for agricultural potential; land already under permanent protection was left out of the analysis. Parcels identified as having agricultural potential were further analyzed for characteristics such as tree cover, habitat for rare and endangered species, and water protection zones. The study also looked at land already in permanent protection but not currently used for agricultural purposes. By combining the results of these analyses with on-the-ground information, a final list of Priority Lands of Agricultural Protection Interest was compiled, and properties were assessed for visibility (proximity to roads), and distance from protected lands and schools. These parcels were grouped into high priority zones of agricultural preservation interest. The study further recommended assessing risk for development of these priority parcels, how to minimize conflict between agricultural uses and recreational uses of open space, and where existing farms might most productively expand. A similar process of analysis, mapping, and prioritizing might be useful to perform in other communities and could aid conservation organizations and municipalities in determining how to use limited funds for acquiring valuable agricultural land. However, these criteria may leave out parcels that are potentially useful for agriculture using less traditional agricultural methods. For example, orchards and many livestock species can thrive on steeper slopes or less prime soils, and small lots (under five acres) can still be intensively managed to produce a sustainable crop. Expanding some of the criteria for additional studies will include these parcels and may offer additional opportunities for assessing agricultural potential in a community. Figure 48: Flowchart showing basic criteria for determining priority parcels for conservation in Ipswich

Figure 49: Updated flowchart showing a decrease in minimum parcel size, an increase in maximum slopes, and removal of prime farmland soils to include marginal agricultural land in the assessment.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

BARRIERS & SOLUTIONS BARRIER: High cost of land and development pressure on high-quality agricultural land BARRIER SOLUTION Permanently protecting agricultural land relieves development pressure. CoSOLUTION: ordinating with landowners for long-term leases, expanding awareness of APR and Chapter 61A programs, and using zoning regulations such as agricultural overlay districts, transfer of development right (TDR) programs, and establishment of a Community Preservation Act (see sidebar on page 83) will also aid in preserving valuable open spaces and farms. Preserving and increasing local food production also aids in the resilience of the local food system. (See also Funding page 112-113).

BARRIER Lack of land suitable for conventional agriculture (primarily annual vegetables) BARRIER: and lack of resources such as fresh water for irrigation SOLUTION Increased use of marginal agricultural land (see sidebar on page 82) will allow SOLUTION: farmers to expand production into areas not suitable for conventional production of annual crops.

Appleton Farms is an extensive, permanently protected farm in Ipswich, MA, operating a large CSA and farm store. Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES In following these recommendations, the upper North Shore food system community may find that: •

• •

Some development is unavoidable and the cost of land is likely to continue to rise. This will inevitably lead to the loss of some existing or potential farmland and prevent some aspiring farmers from entering a career in agriculture. Temporarily protected land may be sold or developed before permanent protections can be put into place. Limited funding and the high cost of land may prevent municipalities and conservation organizations from protecting all high-priority farmland.

Development pressure is high in the already thickly-settled North Shore.

ROLE FOR THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT AND PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS: •

Advocating for increased local food production

•

Implementing and/or coordinating efforts to inventory existing active farmland within the study area

•

Identifying high-priority parcels for conservation (see Ipswich Agricultural Study precedent on page 84)

•

Partnering with local, state-wide, and national conservation organizations and local municipalities to help permanently protect farmable land

•

Educating producers and landowners on the benefits of Agricultural Preservation Restrictions and Chapter 61A enrollment (see sidebar on page 35)

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

FOOD SYSTEM FOCUS

D: INCORPORATE SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE PRACTICES

Production

Encourage the use of agricultural practices that aim to be sustainable and productive into the future by maintaining soil health, reducing erosion, and increasing production in previously unfarmed areas, if appropriate.

Distribution

Food Access

Waste

Suggest the implementation of reduced-input, integrated, “whole-cycle” practices that keep any waste products within the system.

onventional agriculture techniques such as annual tilling (which increases soil compaction and erosion),

the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides, and monoculture

WHAT IS SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE?

crops (which increase vulnerability to pests and pathogens and decrease soil biodiversity and health) may degrade currently

There is no single accepted definition of

farmed land. Sustainable agriculture practices (see sidebar) may

sustainable agriculture. This production method may also

not only improve soil health, leading to the viability and in-

be referred to as alternative or regenerative agriculture,

creased productivity of farms into the future, but may also allow

and generally it includes a wide range of practices and

agricultural production to be expanded into areas within the

ideas, such as permaculture, organic farming, biodynamic

upper North Shore that previously were not considered suitable

farming, integrated pest management, and many others.

for farming, such as steeper slopes, woodlots, small parcels, and land with poor soils.

According to the 1990 Farm Bill, sustainable agriculture refers to “an integrated system of plant and animal produc-

Within the context of the upper North Shore Food System Study,

tion practices having a site-specific application that will,

Three Sisters Garden Project and their immediate partners

over the long term, satisfy human food and fiber needs;

could advocate for the adoption of sustainable agricultural tech-

enhance environmental quality and the natural resource

niques throughout the study area and serve as an educational

base upon which the agricultural economy depends; make

resource for farmers seeking to adopt new techniques or apply

the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-

for funding programs for new infrastructure.

farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles and controls; sustain the economic viabil-

“Soil is a living and life-giving natural resource.”- NRCS

ity of farm operations; and enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.”

Healthy soil is essential to productive agriculture and protecting the health of soils is of paramount importance in order to maintain that productivity into the future. Conventional agriculture techniques and the processing and distribution of food, as well as large-scale deforestation and land-use changes associated with agriculture, are also major 88

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20 contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, making up almost

•

half of all human-caused emissions (Tonsmeier 12).

Improved water retention: Sustainable agriculture tends to reduce runoff of surface water and improve groundwater infiltration both due to increased crop cov-

Sustainable agriculture may involve many different practices, such as low- or no-till farming, cover cropping, use of perennial

erage and improved water-holding capacity of the soil. •

Creation of microclimates: Perennial woody crops of-

crops, agroforestry, silvopasture, and rotational grazing. These

fer shade for livestock and humans, as well as under-

techniques may help producers mitigate or adapt to the effects

story crops, increasing comfort and decreasing the need

of climate change by decreasing the impacts of drought, decreas-

for irrigation. This can also be done with infrastructure

ing greenhouse gas emissions, and increasing carbon sequestra-

such as cold frames, greenhouses, hoop houses, and

tion, as well as offering multiple additional benefits to farmers,

high- and low-tunnels to keep crops warm in the cooler

such as the following (Tonsmeier 54-57):

months or shaded in the summer; this is also known as season extension (see sidebar below).

•

Soil improvement: Sustainable agriculture practices

•

health helps make soil more resistant to drought, while

health by increasing soil organic matter, improving

increased biodiversity of crops increases likelihood of

plant fertility and nutrient uptake, and decreasing loss of nutrients due to leaching. • •

Improved resilience and food security: Increased soil

such as cover cropping and no-till may improve soil

surpluses and stable income sources. •

Increased yields: Generally, sustainable agriculture

Reduced soil erosion: Perennial and cover crops and

techniques lead to increased yields due to improved soil

no-till farming help prevent erosion and stabilize slopes.

health, and enhanced livestock productivity in integrat-

Reduced need for inputs: Increased crop biodiversity

ed management systems.

improves pest resistance, and sustainable agricultural techniques generally require less fossil fuel and fertilizer inputs and result in reduced fossil fuel emissions.

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE METHOD: SEASON EXTENSION In New England, the growing season for many popular crops runs from May to October, and in the remaining months, it can be challenging to find much in the way of local produce. As the climate changes and winters become milder, this growing season may extend, though climate change will also present many challenges to growing food crops: more frequent and severe storms and droughts and unpredictably early or late frosts may threaten the survival of crops. There are many ways producers can extend their growing season, such as using cold-frames, hoop houses (unheated greenhouses) and heated greenhouses, to offer at least some fresh produce year-around. Additionally, the use of storage and processing methods such as root cellaring (traditionally all households had a root cellar to store root vegetables in throughout the winter), freezing, canning, dehydrating, salting, and fermentation (think sauerkraut) can preserve fresh produce for use later in the year. Some crops, such as parsnips, many greens, carrots, leeks, and some cabbages can be left to overwinter in the ground and will stay fresh until harvested in the spring. Some farms may be able to expand enterprises to include sources of income that do not vary as much by season or are mainly harvested in the winter, such as livestock, agritourism or maple sugaring.

PRECEDENT: FOUR SEASON FARM Founded in 1968 by Eliot Coleman in Harborside, Maine, Four Season Farm is an experimental market garden that produces vegetables year-round. The farm is able to maintain almost the same level of crop production even in the harsh Maine winters by using cold-frames and unheated tunnel greenhouses to trap heat from the sun; by planting in small, successional batches rather than all at once; and by adjusting the majority of the crops grown by season (for example, focusing on tomatoes in the summer and hardy greens in the winter). A shift in dietary habits and a focus on season-extending infrastructure could help increase the amount of fresh produce throughout the year in the upper North Shore.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

infrastructure or species may be cost-prohibitive to many

POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES

farmers, and there may be a steep learning curve or lack of educational resources for these types of systems.

o system is perfect or without challenges. Some potential disadvantages to a move towards increasing

sustainable agriculture in the upper North Shore include the

•

Market demand for new crops or varieties may lag behind production.

following (Tonsmeier 60-61): None of these challenges are impossible to overcome, and the •

Not all sustainable agriculture methods increase yields.

benefits appear to outweigh the disadvantages, especially in the

Some techniques actually decrease yields, especially in

long-term.

the short-term, when compared to industrial farming

• •

•

techniques. This is mostly due to space taken up by species

Farmers in New England tend to be passionate, inventive, and

that do not supply food, but are planted to stabilize slopes,

forward-thinking stewards of their land. Many of the farms in

fix nitrogen, or provide mulch. Also, soil that has been de-

the study area are organic or use other sustainable agriculture

pendent on the addition of chemicals needs time to rebuild

techniques, and by nature tend to be smaller and more diversi-

nutrients.

fied than many operations in the Midwest. This heritage of

Many perennial crops and integrated systems take much

diversified family farms, as well as a culture of conservation and

longer to provide productive yields.

stewardship, makes the upper North Shore well-placed to lead

Conventional farm machinery can be difficult to use in

the way to a future of sustainable food production. Increasing

complex, integrated systems, sometimes requiring mainte-

the use of sustainable agricultural practices will improve the

nance and harvest to be performed by hand.

resilience and overall productivity of the local food system and

Switching to a new system of farming or adding new

help maintain it in an uncertain future.

CASE STUDY: MACAULEY FARM (GROVELAND, NY) John Macauley’s 1,100-acre farm in northwestern New York is one example of how a focus on improving soil health has helped decrease costs and labor. John found conventional tilling to be too time-consuming and wanted to save on equipment costs while improving soil health (Soil Health 1). Through an incentive program funded by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), John was able to move to a no-till system of management, using cover crops between his cash crops of soybeans, wheat, and corn, and a four-year crop rotation to eliminate mechanical tilling. In the last ten years he’s significantly decreased his fertilizer applications, since the cover crops increase nitrogen in the soil; they also help reduce erosion. He’s seen a net income increase of over $25,000 per year ($44/acre), a 135% return on investment. No-till and other sustainable agriculture methods that improve soil health could be implemented at farms in the upper North Shore and may increase farm income.

“I am focused on building my soil health and letting nature do some of the work for me… at the end of the day, I’ve got more money in my pocket instead of shelling it all out up-front,” says John.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

SUSTAINABLE HOUSING FOR SUSTAINABLE FARMERS With the cost of living so high in the study area, finding affordable housing can be a major challenge for producers and a barrier for new farmers. While the cost of housing is a systemic issue that is far beyond the scope of this study, one potential solution that may reduce some of the high cost burden is a housing cooperative focused on farmers and farming households. According to the National Association of Housing Cooperatives, a housing coop is â&#x20AC;&#x153;a form of home ownership in which residents collectively own and control the developments in which they live.â&#x20AC;? The main benefit to housing coops is that they allow residents to buy housing (or, more specifically, a share in the housing coop) at a lower cost than would be needed to buy a traditional condo or home. Housing coops may also have the ability to support low-income households who may not qualify for a traditional house loan to purchase a home. Many coops are limited to certain groups, such as the elderly or students; a farmer-only housing cooperative could coordinate with local farms and producers to supply more affordable housing focused on the needs of the farmers and their families. Within the study area, Salem, Topsfield, Beverly, Gloucester, and Peabody have housing cooperatives (Housing Coops), though none specifically aimed at farmers.

BARRIERS & SOLUTIONS BARRIER Lack of land suitable for conventional agriculture (primarily annual vegetables) BARRIER: and lack of resources such as fresh water for irrigation. SOLUTION Increased use of sustainable agricultural techniques that incorporate integrated SOLUTION: systems such as silvopasture can increase production and maintain the ecological viability of farmland into the future, while reducing the need for inputs.

BARRIER: Challenges to agricultural production presented by climate change. BARRIER SOLUTION Intensive and integrated sustainable agricultural systems maintain or improve SOLUTION: soil health, water quality, and crop yield, offering the best chance for maintaining the viability of farms with the increased likelihood of extreme weather events and shifting temperatures.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES In applying these recommendations, the upper North Shore food system community may find that: •

• •

Even given the education they need to implement more sustainable agricultural techniques, farmers may still lack the infrastructure or funding to switch over, and may not see increased income or other benefits right away. Marginal land or land farmed using integrated systems may not produce as intensively as high-quality land farmed using more conventional, high-input systems, especially in the short-term Consumers (both individuals and institutions) may continue to choose the usually cheaper produce grown outside of the study area, even for products that can be sustainably produced locally.

Healthy soil is essential for the long-term production of healthy crops.

ROLE FOR THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT AND PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS: •

Organizing resources and education to support producers to transition to more ecologically sustainable agricultural practices

•

Educating consumers about the value of local and sustainably grown food to increase the demand for local food and new, potentially unfamiliar, products

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

S e c t i on 3: R e c omme nd at i ons

FOOD SYSTEM FOCUS

E: FACILITATE THE WIDESPREAD USE OF PUBLIC BENEFITS INCLUDING SNAP AND HIP WITHIN THE LOCAL FOOD SYSTEM

Production

Help farmers apply to accept SNAP payments so SNAP beneficiariesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; purchases can support local producers economically.

Distribution

Food Access

Help low-income residents of the study area apply for public benefits that can be used to purchase healthy food and inform people where they can spend those benefits on locally grown food.

Waste

hile many local farmers are pleased to be able to part-

of these support efforts, local organizations can also inform

ner with food access organizations to make donations,

residents that their SNAP benefits can be used at participating

the need for fresh produce among those who have the least

farmers markets, farms stands, CSAs, and CSFs to increase direct

access cannot be met solely through donations, and farmers

purchases from local producers. TSGP and partner food access

cannot be expected to supply this need without a sustainable

organizations could also provide technical and application as-

economic model that allows them to provide for themselves

sistance to local farms as they apply to accept SNAP benefits.

and keep their farms in business. The most effective source of funding that allows food-insecure residents of the upper North

Those receiving SNAP benefits automatically receive the Healthy

Shore to purchase fresh, healthy produce is the Supplemental

Incentive Program (HIP) benefits as well, which provides up to

Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP. This federal funding is

an additional $80 in benefits at participating farmers markets,

also a promising yet underutilized source of revenue for local

farm stands, CSAs, and CSFs. As discussed earlier, the HIP pro-

producers. As discussed earlier, only seven out of fifteen farm-

gram has been extremely popular since its inception in 2017 (see

ers markets in the study area accept SNAP benefits as payment

Access Analysis, page 57).

using Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards. Local food access organizations could provide the technical and application as-

As a supplement to public benefits, some food access organiza-

sistance to enable the remaining eight farmers markets in the

tions have been able to secure funding to match SNAP expendi-

study area to accept SNAP benefits as well.

tures at farmers markets, significantly increasing the amount of healthy, local food that SNAP users can purchase. Much like

Local food access organizations are already working to support

HIP benefits, these efforts increase access to healthy food for

the use of public benefits within the local food system. Prior to

low-income and potentially food-insecure people while directly

the Ipswich Farmers Market closing due to onerous regulations

supporting local producers.

by the local health department, Three Sisters Garden Project sponsored the equipment necessary to process EBT payments there. This was a valuable service that allowed low-income residents of Ipswich and surrounding towns to purchase healthy local food and support local farmers. Many local organizations provide assistance to residents who need support applying for SNAP benefits including TSGP, The Open Door, the Pettengill House in Amesbury, and Action, Inc. in Gloucester. As part 94

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

BARRIERS & SOLUTIONS BARRIER High cost of food makes it difficult for many households to afford enough healthy BARRIER: food in order to support members’ ability to maintain healthy lifestyles. SOLUTION Facilitate increased participation in existing public benefit programs for eligible SOLUTION: individuals, local producers, and farmers markets. Advocate for sustainable levels of funding in valuable programs like HIP and seek funding to offer additional programs on a local scale.

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES The greatest challenge to food assistance programs in Massachusetts has been the lack of funding for the Healthy Incentives Program, leading to periodic suspensions of benefits. Though most Massachusetts lawmakers support the program, there are many government programs competing for limited funding, and HIP supporters have yet to achieve the political momentum to secure expanded funding for the program. The widespread use of HIP benefits beyond the funding that was originally allocated indicates that there is substantial interest and demand for the program among SNAP users.

ROLE FOR THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT AND PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS •

Provide application assistance for individuals and households seeking SNAP benefits.

•

Inform SNAP participants about opportunities to spend their benefits on healthy, locally grown food from local producers.

•

Provide application assistance for producers seeking to accept SNAP benefits.

•

Provide technical assistance and infrastructure for all farmers markets in the study area to accept SNAP payments.

•

Unite with stakeholders in other sectors of the food system to advocate for increased public funding to valuable programs like HIP.

•

Seek funding to establish small-scale local programs that match public benefits at farmer’s markets.

•

Run marketing campaigns to raise public awareness of opportunities to purchase healthy, locally grown food using public benefits.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

FOOD SYSTEM FOCUS

F: EXPAND MOBILE MARKET PROGRAMS

Production

Distribution

Food Access

Expand the system of mobile markets that bring free produce into communities that lack access to fresh, healthy foods due to cost or lack of retailers.

Waste

obile markets have been found to be an effective model for increasing access to fresh, healthy food in

many communities in the study area (see Food Access, page 6061). Mobile market networks are currently being operated by at least four organizations in the study area. Nourishing the North Shore serves Salisbury and Newburyport; The Open Door serves Gloucester, Rockport, Essex, and Ipswich; Beverly Bootstraps serves Beverly; and The Salem Pantry serves Salem. There are additional opportunities to expand the service of mobile produce markets to increase access in underserved areas. Of the existing mobile produce markets, Beverly and Gloucester have the most frequent markets and most number of market locations. Service could be expanded in the densely populated areas of Salem, Peabody, Amesbury, Newburyport, and Ipswich. As discussed earlier (see Access Analysis, page 61), mobile produce markets can pose competition to farmers markets in the same communities and undercut the profits of local farmers, ultimately undermining the vitality of the local food system. Locations for mobile markets should be selected in neighborhoods or at community sites that arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t served either by farmers markets or grocery stores. In areas that are served by farmers markets, access to local food can be increased by using public benefits or other funds to allow consumers to purchase more food directly from local producers (see recommendation on page 94).

Figure 50 >> Target Areas for Expanded Mobile Market Service 96

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

CASE STUDY: FRESH TRUCK (BOSTON, MA) Fresh Truck is a non-profit organization founded in 2013 that operates mobile produce markets serving nine neighborhoods in Boston at seventeen weekly market sites. Fresh Truck’s founders were employed at MGH Charlestown Healthcare Center and became concerned about finding a way to connect people to healthy foods in that neighborhood when the only local grocery store closed for a year-long renovation and patients began to report a lack of access. Their solution was to convert a school bus into a fully-integrated market that could bring healthy foods directly into the community (About Fresh 2019 Annual Report). Fresh Truck currently has a fleet of three former school buses which have been converted into fully-integrated markets with cold storage and checkout facilities. Having the markets housed in vehicles saves the organization a significant amount of time and labor in setting up and breaking down the market compared to the pop-up model used at farmers markets and other mobile markets. This allows them to reach more locations and serve more residents per week. Unlike the mobile markets currently operating on the upper North Shore, Fresh Truck charges customers for their produce to support the organization. In an effort to make their produce more affordable for Boston residents experiencing food insecurity, Fresh Truck has established the Fresh Connect program, an innovative partnership with medical providers and financial donors. Patients at Brigham Health Center and Boston Medical Center are asked about their food security, and those who need assistance purchasing healthy food are given Fresh Connect payment cards that can be used at Fresh Truck’s market locations and other participating grocery stores. In 2019, Fresh Connect provided $78,000 in funds for food-insecure shoppers (About Fresh 2019 Annual Report). Fresh Truck’s innovations in mobile distribution and healthcare partnerships represent a strong model for organizations within the study area.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

BARRIERS & SOLUTIONS BARRIER: Difficulty getting to farm stands or other locations selling local produce. BARRIER SOLUTION Establish pop-up markets at locations that are likely to be accessible to many SOLUTION: who would otherwise lack access to fresh produce. Possible locations include affordable housing developments, schools, and senior centers.

BARRIER: Stigma of using social services. BARRIER SOLUTION Food access organizations can make produce available to all regardless of need SOLUTION: and encourage all community members to participate to normalize use and reduce any stigma people might feel in using the service.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

Nourishing the North Shore’s VEGOUT Mobile Market (Source: Nourishing the North Shore).

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES While local stakeholders have identified free mobile produce markets as an effective model for increasing access to local produce, there are significant challenges to their operation. In order to distribute free produce, organizations rely on consistent donations from local farms and food banks, or raising funds to purchase produce directly from wholesale retailers. Because most of the organizations operating mobile produce markets are non-profits providing a variety of social services, there are significant demands on their limited resources. The significant expenses of operating a mobile market may be difficult or impossible to fund on a scale that addresses the regional need for healthy local produce. Another challenge to the mobile produce market model is the seasonality of local produce. Existing mobile markets don’t operate during the winter, both because of the lack of produce and the difficulty of operating outdoors in winter weather.

ROLE FOR THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT AND PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS •

Identify and confirm community sites in underserved neighborhoods including affordable housing developments, schools, and senior centers that could be successful locations for mobile markets.

•

Expand advertisement of services and schedules of mobile markets at community sites.

•

Coordinate with school-day and work-day schedules in order to match mobile market schedules to people’s windows of availability.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

FOOD SYSTEM FOCUS

G: WORK WITH MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS TO IDENTIFY URBAN LAND APPROPRIATE FOR COMMUNITY FOOD PRODUCTION

Production

Identify parcels of land that can be used for community gardens.

Distribution

Give people the opportunity to grow food close to their own homes and kitchens. Large community gardens may also be able to donate excess produce to local food pantries or mobile markets.

Food Access

Waste

Identify land where community members can grow their own food. Community gardens also give people the opportunity to choose crops that are most culturally relevant to themselves and their communities, and to foster meaningful personal connections with the local food system.

Encourage the implementation of reduced-input, integrated, “whole-cycle” practices that keep any waste products within the system.

roduction of food on a small (backyard or community) scale may not be the answer to solving the issues of

food insecurity or hunger by itself, but stakeholders at the initial

VACANT PUBLIC LAND REGULATION

meeting with the Conway student team identified many benefits to community gardens and other programs that involve individuals directly with growing the food they eat. Some of these benefits include: •

The availability of garden space (and sometimes tools) for people who don’t own any land of their own.

•

A heightened sense of connection with both land and food.

•

A better understanding, especially for children, of where food actually comes from and how it grows, which can encourage a diet that includes more fresh produce.

•

Increased sense of connection to a community of other gardeners and ownership in the local food system.

•

Educational and support services for new gardeners: community gardens often offer classes in gardening, garden planning, cooking, and other topics.

•

Resources for households and individuals to grow culturally important foods not available locally.

•

Increased local food production strengthens resiliency in

Regulation 330 CMR 18 in Massachusetts states that all publicly owned vacant lots that could feasibly be used for gardening or farming must be inventoried (by the Department of Agriculture or local government) and made available to individuals, businesses, or other organizations. Landowners could also choose to make their land available to producers through the program. Licensing is for one or five years, with possibility of renewals, and priority for allotment goes to the elderly or families with low income, or children. No products can be sold from these lots without special permissions, but the regulation could support community gardens or individuals without access to their own land. Implementing this regulation could increase community gardens in the upper North Shore.

the local food system. Backyard gardens also supply many of these benefits to families, and food can be grown in raised beds where soil may not be ideal, or in planters on a balcony, or even on a rooftop. Though very few residents of the upper North Shore would consider trying to grow all of their own produce, small gardens may help supplement other sources of food.

100

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Food access organizations can work with municipal governments to identify plots of land that could be used for community agriculture and seek out community groups, non-profits, or individuals who are interested in using these plots to produce food.

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

LOCAL LEADER: BACKYARD GROWERS Founded in Gloucester in 2010, Backyard Growers is a local example of how much impact a community garden can have. Its mission is to “cultivate healthy, connected, environmentally sustainable communities and fight for food justice by teaching people to grow their own food.” It offers gardening education and space for low- to moderate-income families, serving over 300 people a year at 8 sites. They also serve the entire Gloucester School District, constructing garden beds at schools and serving 1,700 students a year at garden-to-cafeteria events (Our Story and Impact).

Backyard Growers supports Pond View Village’s Community Garden in Gloucester (Source: Backyard Growers).

LOCAL LEADER: MASSACHUSETTS FARM TO SCHOOL Located in Beverly, Massachusetts Farm to School aims to strengthen “local farms and fisheries and [promote] healthy communities by increasing local food purchasing and education at schools” (About Us). It offers free workshops, resources, advice, and tools for schools to integrate more local food into their cafeterias, including individual consulting services; advocates for policies to increase farm-to-school programs; publishes free educational guides for teachers to incorporate lessons about food into their classrooms; and offers tools for farmers and fishermen to determine if farm-to-school programs are right for their farm or business.

A productive urban lot: Hancock Street Farm in Springfield (Source: Gardening the Community).

PRECEDENT: FOOD IN THE CITY Prepared for the Springfield, MA, Food Policy Council in 2014 by a team of Conway School students (Berg et al.), this study develops criteria and methodology to assist planners and other community organizations in evaluating the suitability of urban land for community farms and gardens, commercial farms, and urban orchards. Using GIS-based methodology, with an emphasis on city-owned, structure-free vacant lots, the study identified parcels with desirable physical characteristics (such as being located on level ground and free of impervious surfaces) and neighborhood characteristics (such as proximity to schools or potential markets) and ranked them according to a tier system to prioritize lots that had more desirable traits. Sites were also prioritized based on their potential for increasing food access for potentially food-insecure areas. The study was designed to be scalable and repeatable, and may offer a framework for assessing the potential for urban agriculture, including community gardens, within municipalities in the study area. Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

101

BARRIERS & SOLUTIONS BARRIER: Unfamiliarity with local crops. BARRIER SOLUTION School and community gardens and increased education for home gardeners SOLUTION: can help make unfamiliar crops more recognizable and thus often more desirable, especially for children.

BARRIER: Lack of knowledge of food preparation. BARRIER SOLUTION Cooking classes offered by community gardens and classes associated with SOLUTION: school gardens or farm-to-school programs can help individuals become more comfortable with the skills needed to harvest and prepare local produce.

BARRIER Lack of understanding or appreciation of local, fresh food and the local food BARRIER: system. SOLUTION Creating community spaces and school programs that emphasize the value of SOLUTION: fresh, local food and allow individuals to feel involved in food production may instill a sense of personal investment and ownership in the local food system.

102

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

T h e Co nway Sch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 20

POTENTIAL CHALLENGES Establishing community and school garden programs and advocating for increased backyard production is not always easy. Some challenges will have to be overcome in order for these programs to be successful. • Funding for public and school gardens may be limited. • Many individuals may not have the time to participate in community or home gardening, even given space, tools, and education. • School programs may rely on the expertise, time, and energy of teachers and other staff and may be difficult to care for during the summer. • Community garden programs are almost always volunteer-run, and rely on continued time and generosity from many individuals to be established and maintained.

ROLE FOR THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT AND PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS •

Work with municipal governments to identify urban lots appropriate for community food production.

•

Identify engaged community members or community groups who could benefit from access to land for food production.

•

Support community groups in building garden infrastructure and providing gardening classes.

•

Advocate for farm-to-school programs and school gardens

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

103

104

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Co nway S ch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 2 0

SECTION 4: APPENDICES & REFERENCES

• Appendix A: Community Meeting One • Appendix B: Community Meeting Two • Appendix C: List of Local Farms • Appendix D: Financial, Conservation & Educational Resources • References

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

105

S e c t i on 2: C onte x t , R e s e arch & Ana ly s is

APPENDIX A COMMUNITY MEETING ONE FEBRUARY 7, 2020

ver thirty different organizations were represented

at the first community meeting held at Ipswich Town Hall, including farms, food access organizations, programs for youth farming and social justice, school districts, culinary training programs, volunteer community meal groups, emergency shelters, and hospitality groups. The meeting began with a slide-show presentation of the Conway School teamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s current research methods and understanding of existing conditions, followed by critiques from the audience. Next, the audience was broken into six smaller groups of five to six people to a table and asked to focus on answering any three questions from a list of group discussion prompts. The prompt list included questions appropriate for the general audience, questions specific to farmers/producers, questions specific to food access organizations, and questions specific to institutions and schools, all of which were aimed at identifying barriers and gaps that participants experience in their part of the local food system. Most groups had mixed participants with at least one farmer and one food access organization, increasing the likelihood that group members would have varied viewpoints. After ten minutes of discussion, one spokesperson from each group shared their answer to one discussion prompt, which was written by a Conway facilitator at the front of the room. This process continued for three rounds, so that each group could speak to the prompts they chose, with time at the end for 10 minutes of moderated discussion. The result was a collective list of many barriers that producers, distributors, and consumers (residents) of the area face when attempting to grow, purchase, or receive local food. The list also included several suggested solutions to address these barriers. In order to identify barriers that are perceived as the biggest hurdles in the community and food system, participants were asked to indicate the most burdensome barriers with a dot vote. Each participant was given three dot stickers and asked to place

106

a dot next to what they perceived as the most significant barri-

Participants at the first community meeting identifying barriers in

ers.

the local food system.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Co nway S ch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 2 0

Below is the complete list of all barriers as expressed by meeting participants, listed from the most number of votes, or dots, to the least number of votes: FOURTEEN DOTS •

Inconsistent and unsupportive regulatory environment • Specifically emphasized: schools’ budgets for purchasing fresh local food comes from the most restricted budget pools; farmers markets vendor fees, licensing requirements, and regulations are inconsistent between municipalities and vending locations • Local government support varies by city as priorities vary

•

Cost of living is too high

SEVEN DOTS •

HIP program is cut frequently, there are plans to scale it back, and regulations often change

•

Many food-insecure households lack transportation and find coordinating public transportation for groceries and food pantry pick-up difficult

•

Cost of food (especially fresh food) is too high

•

Pride acts as a barrier to people using food assistance services such as a food pantry

•

Lack of nutrition education discourages food pantry clients from trying new foods, especially fresh produce that needs to be processed and prepared

FOUR DOTS •

“We need [more] farmers, but they can’t be expected to donate everything”

•

Lack of culturally-relevant food available at farmers markets and food pantries for refugee families new to the United States

TWO DOTS •

“Is healthy food a public good/right?” Funding/thinking around this issue in government is uncertain and patchy

ONE DOTS •

Households and food pantries often lack tools/equipment for preparing foods

•

Access to local food is unequally distributed between communities; food “realities” vary greatly within a town and between towns

•

General inconsistencies between communities: regulatory, production, accessibility, farmers markets clientele and products available, demand for different products, etc.

•

Challenges of selling to local schools: • Schools fund their own purchases that are not available through specific government-funded purchasing processes using Chapter 30B procurement guidelines (Chapter 30B establishes three sets of procedures for procuring supplies and services, depending on the actual dollar value of the procurement) • The competitive bidding system outlined by Chapter 30B is confusing (for many farmers) • PO system is outdated

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

107

The following barriers did not receive votes but were still identified as important barriers: NO DOT VOTES •

Grocery store minimum purchase volumes are too high for small to midsize farms

•

Wholesale market rates do not cover actual cost of production

•

Challenges of selling at farmers markets: expensive vendor fees; niche markets are often the only successful markets, which do not provide approachable options for individuals who do not often purchase fresh produce but want to try; bringing an entire produce stand to the market just to make a few sales costs farmers too much time and labor resources compared to intermediated sales to restaurants or direct sales to consumers via CSAs

•

Lack of proper storage at food pantries

•

How to connect CSA shares to families in need of fresh produce: subsidize? Break up shares?

•

Mismatch in food variety, quantity, and timing of donation offers with pantry’s need for donations (especially of highly perishable or more exotic items)

•

Lack of communication/cooperation between programs such as HIP, WIC, mobile markets, other programs; too many restrictions as to who can access the program

•

Poor land quality for growing produce and price of land is too high

•

Farmland is some of the first to be developed (typically because it is flat and mostly dry)

•

No tax incentive for farms to donate produce to food pantries unless it is a very large quantity, which is too large for all small farms and most midsize farms to achieve

•

The qualifying poverty line is not high enough for food assistance: people who can’t get SNAP still can’t afford food.

•

Lack of continued funding; need to re-apply for grants on the grant-cycle basis and may not get the grant an organization used previously to fund their program for the next cycle; program then gets cancelled

•

Inconsistent life cycle of market (clientele/participation change over time)

•

Farmers lack time and labor resources necessary to regularly deliver donations

Participants also shared ideas they had for solutions throughout the barrier identification process, listed here: •

Create a system of sharing data between towns/communities (open database)

•

Connect and improve communication between food distributors

•

Educate children about fresh food

•

Hold more free cooking demonstrations, cooking and nutrition classes (such as at farmers markets), and free community meals (with the goal of introducing people to new foods)

•

Sliding scale for increased affordability at a variety of vending locations

•

To become more willing to give and continue donating fresh produce, farmers would prefer if donation recipients would pick up donations at the farm, and they expressed that partners need to be more conscious of farm resources (e.g. bins returned promptly, correct produce taken)

•

Decrease regulations for HIP, WIC, other pilot programs; increase local government support

•

Expand mobile markets: offer free food (funded by grants, donations, and wholesale purchases) as a universal program (available to anyone so that it doesn’t single anyone out) in order to overcome barriers related to transportation, high cost of food, and stigma around using food access services

•

Subsidized CSAs

•

Tie state funding to healthy, fresh food as prescription (Food as Medicine)

Some of the proposed solutions, such as cooking demonstrations, nutrition classes, community meals, mobile markets, and subsidized CSAs are in fact already carried out as programs through food access organizations such as Nourishing the North Shore and The Open Door. The suggestions for initiating actions (thought of as new ideas) that are currently in place demonstrates room for improvement in organization-to-organization communication and understanding of what is already happening to improve access to healthy, locally grown food in the study area.

108

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Co nway S ch o o l , Wi nte r 2 0 2 0

APPENDIX B COMMUNITY MEETING TWO MARCH 4, 2020

esearch and analysis of the barriers identified at

ing the North Shore business address, symbol for partner farms,

the first community meeting led to a series of initial

symbol for volunteer work sites, symbol for mobile market loca-

recommendations, presented to and critiqued by a panel of

tions, symbols in different color for aspiring partner farms, etc.).

critics and interested public at the Conway School on February 28, 2020. These preliminary analyses and initial recommendations (see sidebar, Initial Recommendations) were then brought

Initial Recommendations:

to a second community meeting at Ipswich Town Hall, which focused on verifying identified barriers, feedback on initial

•

recommendations, and understanding stakeholder’s perceived radius of influence within the study area. Participants at the

lated areas that are currently underserved •

second meeting included five farmers, the nutrition director for Hamilton-Wenham School District, several staff and board

Establish a food policy council to coordinate between organizations and advocate for policy change

• The Conway student team presented the preliminary analyses back session from the audience, which was used to refine analy-

Establish a local food hub near distributors and consumers

•

North Shore.

and initial recommendations, followed by an open-floor feed-

Prioritize areas of greatest importance for conservation and permanently conserve farmable land

•

ing program for young people, The Greater Boston Food Bank, and several other food access organizations in and around the

Identify existing actively farmed land and additional potential farmable land

•

members from the Three Sisters Garden Project, Nourishing the North Shore directors, the director of a non-profit culinary train-

Establish or expand mobile markets in densely-popu-

Coordinate food donations from community gardens or home gardens

•

Identify ideal foods for donation based on cost and storage requirements

ses and expand upon the initial recommendations. Feedback revealed that the recommendations were suitable for the upper North Shore food system, with additions from the community and more detailed analysis and descriptions presented in this report.

WHAT DID EVERY DIAGRAM HAVE IN COMMON? Each participant’s diagramming method varied greatly, creating

After the feedback session, meeting participants were given

challenges for comparing and using graphics; however, some

handouts on which to diagram the functions, inputs, and outputs

patterns emerged from the written descriptions that many par-

of their organization. They were also instructed to include what

ticipants provided alongside their diagrams.

might be missing from their organization’s functions, inputs, or outputs to better achieve their mission and serve more people in

100% of the food access organizations present wrote that

the upper North Shore area. Participants were also given a map

funding is lacking for programming, and many organizations

of the study area and surrounding towns, which included town

specified lacking funding for staff. As many grants do not allow

names and boundaries, major roads, and the shoreline. They

funds to go towards overhead costs or salaries, organizations of-

were instructed to mark their organization’s business location

ten struggle to pay staff a reasonable salary, especially with the

on the map and draw a radius that represented their range of

high cost of living in the study area, and therefore rely largely

services around their business location. Additionally, partici-

on volunteer work. Although this kind of funding can be useful

pants were asked to diagram their service distribution and

for purchases such as wholesale produce from local farms to

business function as points on the map (i.e. location of Nourish-

go into food pantries and subsidized CSAs, it cannot fund a staff Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

109

member’s salary or wage to assemble CSA shares or to drive and deliver the boxes. This scenario also leaves organizations shorthanded if volunteers cannot be consistently available outside of their own work and personal lives to donate their time and energy. Many distributors also diagrammed identical service provision

As in the first community meeting, participants freely proposed ideas and potential solutions related to gaps in their individual organizations and their ability to play a bigger role in the upper North Shore food system, including the following: •

in the same areas, yet they reported that many people in need

HIP

of assistance within these overlap areas are still not accessing

•

Develop Beginning Farmer Support Programs

these services. Overlap was concentrated in the most densely-

•

Providing prepared meals to reduce burden of pro-

populated towns of Salem, Peabody, Amesbury, Newburyport,

cessing on consumers, especially for consumers with a

and Ipswich.

physical disability such as a senior with arthritis •

Preserve more land by farming it

WHERE DID EVERY MAP DIFFER?

•

Open a food production commercial kitchen

Almost every farm had a different radius of influence, referring

•

Open a local cannery to process fresh crops for winter

to where their products reach. In general, farms that had been operating for a longer period of time have a far greater reach

distribution •

than any established in more recent years. Farmers diagramed their areas of influence by marking farmers markets and restaurants they sold to as well as estimated range of CSA members. Between the five farms represented, the entire study area was served by at least one, with the most overlap in the south-east area, including Cape Ann, north to Ipswich and south-west to Salem and Peabody. Only two farms served the towns north of Ipswich. Farmers noted diverse challenges and barriers, with the two non-profit farms mentioning problems finding funding and staffing, and the for-profit farms focused on the challenges of finding affordable land, the difficulties of using leased land, accessing fresh water for irrigation, and finding a stable market for their products. Several farms indicated an interest in offering subsidized CSAs or partnering with other organizations in order to donate excess produce, but that finding the time and funding to do so was a challenge. Barriers to other expansion goals focused on restrictive policies that increased the difficulty of selling to schools, the lack of a commercial kitchen in the area, and the challenges of offering WIC, SNAP, HIP, or senior coupons. Due to inconsistent diagramming methods, it was difficult to note any other emergent patterns in the maps and flowcharts.

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

Assist farmers with grant applications and other paperwork

•

110

Provide subsidized CSA shares eligible for SNAP and

Establish a program to pay farmers to grow food exclusively for food access organizations

APPENDIX C LOCAL FARMS LIST Farms in or near the study area, as identified by participants in the community meetings: •

Alprilla Farm, Essex, MA

•

Appleton Farms, Ipswich, MA

•

Backyard Growers, Gloucester, MA

•

Bartlett Farm, Salisbury, MA

•

Cedar Rock Gardens, Gloucester, MA

•

Cider Hill Farm, Amesbury, MA

•

Connor’s Farm, Danvers, MA

•

Farmer Dave’s, Dracut, MA

•

Grant Family Farm, Essex, MA

•

Green Meadows Farm, South Hamilton, MA

•

Heron Pond Farm, Newbury, MA

•

High Road Farm, Newbury, MA

•

Hungry Heart Farm, Beverly, MA

•

Iron Ox Farm, Topsfield, MA

•

Marini Farm, Ipswich, MA

•

Mehaffey Farm, Rowley, MA

•

New Entry Sustainable Farming Project, Beverly, MA

•

New Harmony Farm, Newbury, MA

•

Newhall Fields Community Farm, Peabody, MA

•

Northern Light Farm, Ipswich and Wenham, MA

•

Nourishing the North Shore, West Newbury, MA

•

Russell Orchard, Ipswich, MA

•

Seaview Farm, Rockport, MA

•

Tendercrop Farm, Newbury and Wenham, MA

•

The Food Project, Beverly and Wenham, MA

•

Three Sisters Garden Project, Ipswich, MA

•

Valley View Farm, Topsfield, MA

RESOURCES TO FIND LOCAL FARMS: MassGrown (run by Mass.gov) massnrc.org/farmlocator/map.aspx Organic Farm Locator www.theorganicfoodguide.org/farms-near-me/ Farms offering Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs) www.nofamass.org/content/csa-listings-massachusetts

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

111

APPENDIX D FINANCIAL, CONSERVATION, AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES There are many grant, loan, and financial incentive programs to support individuals and organizations within the local food system. Below is a non-comprehensive list of opportunities and educational resources that may prove valuable.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE: •

Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA): a program to fund the construction or improvement of water management or irrigation structures.

•

Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP): offers financial assistance for techniques that improve resource conditions such as air quality, soil quality, water quality, habitat quality, water quantity, and energy.

•

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP): offers monetary incentives to implement conservation practices or activities, such as conservation planning, that address resource concerns on agricultural land.

•

Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG, part of EQIP): offers grants to stimulate the development and adoption of innovative conservation approaches and technologies while leveraging Federal investment in environmental enhancement and protection.

•

Value-added Producer Grant (VAPG): offers grants to help agricultural producers enter into value-added activities related to the processing and marketing of new products.

•

Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP): funds projects that develop, coordinate and expand direct producer-to-consumer markets to help increase access to and availability of locally and regionally produced agricultural products.

•

Sustainable Agriculture Resource and Education (SARE): offers grants to fund research projects and educational programs related to sustainable agriculture techniques

•

Community Food Projects (CFP) Competitive Grants Program: offers funding for food access organizations or other non profits who are trying to improve food security and nutrition programs, increase the self-reliance of communities in providing for their food needs, and create marketing opportunities that equally benefit producers and consumers.

•

Agricultural Climate Resiliency and Efficiencies Program (ACRE): a reimbursement grant program that funds materials and labor for the implementation of practices that address the agricultural sector’s vulnerability to climate change and improves economic resiliency.

•

Agricultural Environmental Enhancement Program (AEEP): supports active, working farms that implement practices that reduce the negative impact agriculture can have on the environment and natural resources.

•

New Entry Sustainable Farming Project offers lists of grant and loan opportunities for local farmers. They also offer education and workshops for financial literacy.

EASEMENTS: •

Agricultural Conservation Easement Program (ACEP): helps landowners conserve their land in order protect working agricultural lands and limit non-agricultural uses of the land, or protect wetlands and their benefits

•

Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP): helps landowners restore, enhance and protect forestland resources on private lands and promote the recovery of endangered or threatened species through conservation

112

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

CONSERVATION: •

Agricultural Preservation Restrictions (APR) are incentives that pay farmland owners the difference between “fair market value” and “agricultural value” of their farms in exchange for permanent deed restriction preventing any use of property that will negatively impact its future agricultural viability.

•

Conservation Restrictions (CR) work the same as APRs, except that they do not mandate active agricultural use; in fact CRs may prohibit farming if it has not been written into the original agreement.

•

Massachusetts Conservation Land Tax Credit offers a tax credit to individuals who donate their deed restriction to Land Trusts or other conservation organizations, up to 50% of the fair market value of the land, or $75,000, whichever is lower.

•

Chapter 61A is a tax program incentive that offers reduced property taxes for landowners who are actively farming their land; land is valued according to agricultural use rather than “highest and best” use. There are minimum acreage and income requirements, and penalties for early withdrawal (less than 5 years). This is a temporary protection.

•

Agricultural Protection Zoning (APZ) is a tool to protect agricultural lands from development by constraining land uses within the APZ district.

CORPORATE FUNDING: •

Indigo Agriculture offers farmers (with over 300 acres) incentives for switching to regenerative agriculture techniques such as reduced tillage, cover crops, and integrating livestock.

•

Ecosystem Service Market Program links businesses seeking to purchase carbon credits with farmers who have adjusted their production techniques to improve ecosystem services such as soil health and water quality.

•

Nori helps farmers get paid (in carbon credits) for storing carbon in their soil using sustainable agricultural techniques.

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES: •

Cornell Soil Health Testing Laboratory offers soil tests that include soil health management strategies with the results.

•

The Land Institute performs research on perennial crops that may be able to replace major annual crops.

•

UMass Extension Services offers research, education, and outreach to help producers implement best management practices.

•

Northeast Organic Farming Association provides education focusing on healthy soil practices, no-till farming, soil carbon sequestration and related topics such as biological remediation of urban soils and regenerative dairy management.

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

113

REFERENCES “2018 New Entry Food Hub Annual Report.” New Entry Food

Berg, Emily, et al. Food in the City: An Old Way, in a New Time.

Hub, 2018, nesfp.org/sites/default/files/resources/2018_annual_

The Conway School, 2014.

food_hub_report_final.pdf Berti, Giaime and Mulligan, Catherine. “Competitiveness of 330 CMR 18: Land Use. MGL c. 128, § 7F, Massachusetts Depart-

Small Farms and Innovative Food Supply Chains: The Role of

ment of Agricultural Resources, 2016, www.mass.gov/doc/330-

Food Hubs in Creating Sustainable Regional and Local Food Sys-

cmr-18-land-use/download

tems.” Sustainability, 8(7), 616, 2016, doi.org/10.3390/su8070616

“About AgComs: History.” Massachusetts Association of Agricul-

“Chapter 30B History.” Mass.gov, 2020, www.mass.gov/service-

tural Commissions. www.massagcom.org/AgComsHistory.php

details/chapter-30b-history

“About Fresh 2019 Annual Report.” About Fresh, 2019, https://

Cohen, Barbara et al. Community Food Security Assessment Tool-

www.aboutfresh.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/AboutFresh_

kit. USDA Economic Research Service, 2002.

AnnualReport2019.pdf “Community Health Needs Assessment.” North Shore Medical “About Us.” Massachusetts Farm to School, 2020, https://www.

Center, 2018, nsmcwebcontent.blob.core.windows.net/cmsli-

massfarmtoschool.org/about-us/

brary/nsmc/pdf/NSMC_2018%20NSMC%20CHNA%20Report_ FINAL%20082218.pdf

Alcorta, Marisa et al. “Tips for Selling to: Grocery Stores.” National Center for Appropriate Technology, 2012, www.carolina-

“Community Health Needs Assessment.” Executive Summary

farmstewards.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/6-ATTRA-Tips-

for the Town of Ipswich, Massachusetts, Lahey Health, 2018,

for-Selling-to-Grocery-Stores.pdf

www.beverlyhospital.org/media/645957/ipswich%20comm%20 health%20needs.pdf

“An Avoidable $2.4 Billion Cost: The Estimated Health-Related Costs of Food Insecurity and Hunger in Massachusetts.” Chil-

Dimiero, Emily and Mayfield, Christa. A Guide for Scaling up

dren’s HealthWatch and The Greater Boston Food Bank, 2016,

Food Hubs. New Entry Sustainable Farming Project, 2012, nesfp.

macostofhunger.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/executive-

org/sites/default/files/resources/worldpeas_scalingupguide.pdf

summary.pdf Donahue, Brian et al. A New England Food Vision. Food Solutions “Anaerobic Digestion.” EPA, 2017, www.epa.gov/anaerobic-

New England, 2014.

digestion Farm to Plate Strategic Plan: A 10-year Strategic Plan for Ver“Atlantic Cod,” NOAA Fisheries, www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/

mont’s Food System. Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund, 2011.

atlantic-cod “Farmland Preservation Bylaw.” Town of Hadley, Massachusetts. “Atlantic Salmon.” NOAA Fisheries, www.fisheries.noaa.gov/spe-

4 May 2000. ecode360.com/13511544

cies/atlantic-salmon-protected “Food Distribution.” Office for Food and Nutrition Programs, MasBarham, James et al. Regional Food Hub Resource Guide. U.S.

sachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education,

Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. Washing-

www.doe.mass.edu/cnp/food_dist.html

ton, DC. April 2012, www.ngfn.org/resources/ngfn-database/ knowledge/FoodHubResourceGuide.pdf

“Food for Thought: The Origins of Massachusetts Foods and Why it Matters.” Commonwealth Museum, www.sec.state.ma.us/mus/

Baumol, William and Blinder, Alan. Economics: Principles and

pdfs/Massachusetts-Foods.pdf

Policy. Cengage Learning, 2011. “Franklin County Food Council: FC2.” Just Roots, 2020, justroots. “Become a USDA Foods Vendor.” Agricultural Marketing Service,

org/programs/fc2/

United States Department of Agriculture, www.ams.usda.gov/ selling-food/becoming-approved

“The Fresh Guide to EBT in Massachusetts.” Fresh EBT, 2019, www.freshebt.com/state/massachusetts/food-stamps-eligibilityincome-limits/

114

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

REFERENCES Frohlich, Thomas and Sauter, Michael. “Here’s how much an

“Housing Cooperatives in Massachusetts.” Massachusetts As-

acre of land is worth in each of contiguous 48 states in the US.”

sociation of Housing Cooperatives, www.masshousing.coop/

USAToday, 2019, www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/08/

new-page-2

the-most-and-least-valuable-states/39442329/ “How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty.” United States “The Future of Sea Level Rise.” SeaLevelRise.org, sealevelrise.

Census Bureau, 27 Aug. 2019, www.census.gov/topics/income-

org/forecast/

poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html

“Gaps Certification FAQ.” Produce Safety: Producers. Virginia

“Impact Essex County.” Essex County Community Foundation,

Tech, www.hort.vt.edu/producesafety/producers/faqcert.

2020, www.impactessexcounty.org/

html#cost Iowa Food Safety Task Force. “Temporary Food Service EstabGettings, John. North Shore Locavore, www.northshorelocavore.

lishments and Farmers Markets.” Farmers Market Coalition,

com

Iowa Food Safety Task Force, June 2010, farmersmarketcoalition. org/wp-content/uploads/gravity_forms/1-66fc51da018bd946fb1df

Gibbon, Gary, editor. Archaeology of Prehistoric Native America:

b74f4bea1e7/2017/06/228999fac017611f18df5c89ba7c8660.pdf

an Encyclopedia. Garland Publishing, Inc, 1998, page 239. Internet Archive, archive.org/details/archaeologyofpre0000unse/

Ipswich Agriculture and Agricultural Land: A Study of the Chal-

page/238

lenges and Opportunities Facing Land- and Sea-Based Enterprises in Ipswich. Walter Cudnohufsky Associates, Inc, 2009.

Glasmeier, Amy. “Living Wage Calculation for Massachusetts.” Living Wage Calculator, 2020, livingwage.mit.edu/state/25

“Ipswich Right to Farm Bylaw.” Town of Ipswich, Massachusetts. 19 Oct. 2009. www.ipswichma.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1187/

Glasmeier, Amy. “Living Wage Calculation for Mississippi.” Liv-

Ipswich-Right-to-Farm-by-Law-PDF

ing Wage Calculator, 2020, livingwage.mit.edu/state/28 Lepionka, Mary Ellen. “Chapter 2: Where are Agawam and WenGriffin, Timothy et al. “Baselines, trajectories, and scenarios:

esquawam?” Native Americans of Cape Ann, 2018, capeannhis-

Exploring agricultural production in the Northeast.” U.S. Journal

tory.org

of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 8(2), 23–37. 2018. doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2018.082.015

“Logistics.” Red Tomato, redtomato.org/regional-supply-chain/ logistics/.

“GrowFood Carolina.” Coastal Conservation League, www.coastalconservationleague.org/projects/growfood/.

Low, Sarah and Vogel, Stephen. “Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States.” ERR-128, U.S. Depart-

Harper, Alethea et al. Food Policy Councils: Lessons Learned.

ment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, November 2011,

Institute for Food and Development Policy, 2009. foodfirst.org/

www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/44924/8276_err128_2_.

wp-content/uploads/2014/01/DR21-Food-Policy-Councils-Lessons-

pdf?v=0

Learned-.pdf Low, Sarah et al. “Trends in U.S. Local and Regional Food Healthy Community Design Toolkit: Municipal Strategies to

Systems.” AP-068, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic

Increase Food Access. Department of Public Health. 2016. www.

Research Service, January 2015, www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/

mma.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/food_access_160926_01_

publications/42805/51173_ap068.pdf

web.pdf “Map the Meal Gap.” Feeding America, 2017, map.feedingamer“Healthy Incentives Program (HIP) for Farmers and Vendors.”

ica.org/

Department of Transitional Assistance, Mass.gov, 2020, www. mass.gov/service-details/healthy-incentives-program-hip-for-

Martinez, Steve, et al. Local Food Systems: Concepts, Impacts,

farmers-and-vendors

and Issues, ERR 97, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, May 2010, www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/46393/7054_err97_1_.pdf?v=0

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

115

REFERENCES “Massachusetts Healthy Incentives Program.” Massachusetts

Park, Kristen et al. Case Studies of Supermarkets and Food

Food System Collaborative, 28 Feb. 2020, mafoodsystem.org/

Supply Chains in Low-Income Areas of the Northeast: A Cross

media/projects/pdfs/HIPfactsheet.pdf

Case Comparison of 11 Case Studies. College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Cornell University, 2018, agsci.psu.edu/research/

“MassGrown Map.” Massachusetts Grown… and Fresher! Mass.

food-security/publications/supply-chain-case-studies/cross-case-

gov, massnrc.org/farmlocator/map.aspx?Type=Farmers%20

comparison-of-11-case-studies

Markets Pimentel, David. Global Economic and Environmental Aspects of McCarthy, Savannah. “Local and affordable: Massachusetts-

Biofuels. Taylor and Francis, Inc, 2012.

grown produce less expensive than grocery store produce.” Massachusetts Food System Collaborative, August 2018, mafoodsys-

Pottern, Jamie and Barley, Laura. Farms under Threat: A New

tem.org/media/projects/pdfs/LocalandAffordable2018.pdf

England Perspective. American Farmland Trust, 2020.

“Mission.” Massachusetts Farm to School, 2020, www.massfarm-

Rickman, Joy et al. “Review: Nutritional Comparison of Fresh,

toschool.org/about-us/

Frozen and Canned Fruits and Vegetables. Part 1. Vitamins C and B and Phenolic Compounds.” Journal of the Science of Food

“The Mission of the Fisheries Commission.” City of Gloucester,

and Agriculture, 87:930–944, 2007, ucce.ucdavis.edu/files/datas-

Massachusetts. www.gloucester-ma.gov/index.aspx?nid=135

tore/234-779.pdf

“Most Expensive States to Live In.” World Population Review, 17

Shemkus, Sarah. “The Healthy Incentives Program is so popular,

Feb. 2020, worldpopulationreview.com/states/most-expensive-

its future is now in doubt.” The Boston Globe, 2 April 2018, www.

states-to-live-in/

bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/food-dining/2018/04/02/the-healthincentives-program-popular-its-future-now-doubt/zTZofbPM-

Mt. Auburn Associates. “Sustaining Gloucester’s Commercial

RP70zT93MOaAyM/story.html

Fishing Industry: Opportunities and Challenges.” 2009, http:// www.gloucester-ma.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/398

Smith, Bruce and Yarnell, Richard. “Initial formation of an indigenous crop complex in eastern North America at 3800

Muraski, Steven. “A Brief History of the Groundfishing Industry

B.P.” PNAS 21 April, 2009 106 (16) 6561-6566; doi.org/10.1073/

of New England.” NOAA Fisheries Science Center, 1995, www.

pnas.0901846106

fisheries.noaa.gov/new-england-mid-atlantic/commercial-fishing/brief-history-groundfishing-industry-new-england

“Soil Health Case Study: John and Jim Macauley, Macauley Farms LLC, NY.” Natural Resources Conservation Services, United States

“New Entry Food Hub.” New Entry Sustainable Farming Project,

Department of Agriculture, 2020.

nesfp.org/foodhub Stone, Curtis. The Urban Farmer. New Society Publishers, 2015. Northeast Fisheries Science Center. “Dversifying New England’s

Stoof, Cathelijne et al. “Untapped potential: Opportunities and

Seafood Marketplace.” NOAA, 2019, www.fisheries.noaa.gov/

challenges for sustainable bioenergy production from marginal

feature-story/diversifying-new-englands-seafood-marketplace

lands in New York and the Northeast USA”. BioEnergy Research. 8 (2): 482–501, 2015, doi:10.1007/s12155-014-9515-8.

Office of Community Food Systems. “Selling Local Food to Schools: A Resource for Producers.” United States Department of

“The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.” Center on

Agriculture, 2017, fns-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files/f2s/

Budget and Policy Priorities, 25 June 2019, www.cbpp.org/sites/

SellingLocal.pdf

default/files/atoms/files/policybasics-foodstamps.pdf

Ogejo, Jactone. “Manure Management and Environmental Stew-

Strobbe, Marc. “Scaling up to Meet Demand: Two Points of

ardship.” Virginia Cooperative Extension, 2018, www.pubs.ext.

View.” The Practical Farmer, Summer 2012, pg 8, practicalfarm-

vt.edu/content/dam/pubs_ext_vt_edu/442/442-309/BSE-245.pdf

ers.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/The-Practical-Farmer-27.3Summer-2012.pdf

“Our Story and Impact.” Backyard Growers, https://www.backyardgrowers.org/our-story-and-impact

116

Up p er Nor t h S h o re Fo o d Syste m St u dy

REFERENCES “Sustainable Management of Food Basics”. EPA, 2019, www.epa. gov/sustainable-management-food/sustainable-managementfood-basics#what Tonsmeier, Eric. The Carbon Farming Solution. Chelsea Green Publishing, 2016 Tropp, Debra. “Why Local Food Matters: The rising importance of locally-grown food in the U.S. food system.” National Association of Counties Legislative Conference, Agriculture and Rural Affairs Steering Committee Subcommittee on Agriculture, 2 March 2014 United States, Congress. Public Law 101-624. “Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (FACTA)”, Government Publishing Office, 1990. United States, Congress. Public Law 111-353. “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.” U.S. Government Publishing Office, 2011 www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-111publ353/pdf/PLAW111publ353.pdf Urban Harbors Institute. “Building the Massachusetts Seafood System,” University of Massachusetts, 2017, www.mass.gov/files/ documents/2018/05/09/Final%20Report%20Building%20the%20 Massachusetts%20Seafood%20System.pdf USDA 2017 Census of Agriculture. Massachusetts State and County Data. 2019. www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/ Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Massachusetts/ “What is a Housing Cooperative?” National Association of Housing Cooperatives, 2013. coophousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/What-is-a-Housing-cooperative.pdf Zepeda, Lydia and Reznickova, Alice. “Potential Demand for Local Fresh Produce by Mobile Markets.” May 2017, localandorganicfood.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Potential-Demandfor-Local-Fresh-Produce-by-Mobile-Markets-05-18-1.pdf

Up p e r N o r th Sh o re Fo o d Syste m Stu dy

117

UPPER NORTH SHORE

FOOD SYSTEM STUDY PREPARED FOR: THE THREE SISTERS GARDEN PROJECT