EHJ March 2003, pages 84-86 As Jeanette Longfield argues local sustainability projects not only can empower local people but can also promote health improvement and environmental sustainability

Are you local? goes the catch-phrase from BBC TV’s “League of Gentlemen”. The comedy show began a few years ago, and eerily predicted – and ruthlessly pilloried – the current passion for all things local. The Government is now encouraging – on paper at least – local strategies, local partnerships and local consultations. The voluntary sector, particularly those of us promoting sustainable food and agriculture systems, has been singing the praises of local food. And even the private sector seems to have cottoned on, with supermarkets now boasting of the local produce they stock (albeit often in an expensive niche, rather than with mainstream products). So have we finally started living the cliché where we all “think global and act local”?

In the aftermath of last summer’s Earth Summit in Johannesburg some cynicism is surely justified. The wrecking tactics of the US Government and US multinationals were as flagrant as they were successful. No new money was offered for any of the international agreements reached. Most of these were, in any case, simply a rehash of compromises thrashed out at previous international beanfeasts. And the targets set – such as those on world poverty – would still leave hundreds of millions lacking safe water and adequate food, even if they were met by the scheduled date of 2015. Few believe that even these modest goals will be attained by then.

On the other hand, who would have predicted say, only 10 years ago, that the UK Government would have not only acknowledged the link between environmental sustainability and public health, but also made commitments to improve both? There are government targets to reduce heart disease rates, increase the numbers of farmland birds, prevent cancer, tackle pollution, enhance child health – the list is virtually endless.

And while the target approach is imperfect, it offers useful carrots and sticks. For “carrots”, some new money has been released to help reach some targets, and there is nothing like extra cash to help things along. As for “sticks”, a target that has not been reached can provide useful public embarrassment for recalcitrant parties.

But, health workers might reasonably argue, national government sets the targets and expects all the work to meet those targets to happen at local level. If they are achieved, national government then takes the credit; if they are not, then the local professionals get the blame.

So what is the point of getting involved? Well, depending on how it is done, engaging in local health and sustainability initiatives can tick lots of government target boxes (making it harder for any government criticism to stick) and create mutually supportive networks (making it harder for central government to cut local budgets). And, not entirely incidentally, local projects really do seem to improve health and the environment, although perhaps not in an obvious way, as argued below.

So how can it be done? As a colleague is fond of saying, “first find your local sandal-wearing yoghurt grower”.

Ironically, it is sometimes easier to find local initiatives at national level. Many local projects find it helpful to link with like-minded initiatives, wherever they are, to exchange information and experience, and to offer (and get) handy hints or a shoulder to cry on if the need arises.

Sustain’s Food Poverty Project, for example, has a network of hundreds of members engaged in tackling food poverty, and a database summarising local projects. This can be searched by the type of people involved (such as women, children, ethnic minority groups), by the type of project (such as food co-op, cooking club, growing scheme) and, of course, geographically.

Many of Sustain’s member organisations also have national networks and databases. The Soil Association, for instance, continues to support local food initiatives and is engaged, with others, in developing Food Links UK, a federation of local food networks aimed at regenerating the local food economy, as well as promoting health and sustainability.

Similarly, the Foundation for Local Food Initiatives has developed links with a huge variety of projects and initiatives all around the country. The Countryside Agency’s gloriously named “Eat the view” scheme intertwines local food with beautiful landscapes and jobs in rural areas, and the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens provides irreplaceable educational experiences in unique venues.

This list is far from exhaustive. In short, someone somewhere near you will be working on food, health and sustainability; probably several someones – and that can be tricky. The voluntary sector, just like the public and private sectors, has turf wars. So, having found a local organic lentil-weaving project, you find it is not speaking to the yoghurt growers with interesting footwear. Do not despair. Diversity is strength. Your new contacts will each know several more – involve them all. They will also have contacts beyond the voluntary sector – local authority, health authority, local businesses – so involve them, too. Before you know it, the first government box will be ticked – partnership.

Virtually simultaneously, a tick can go in the consultation box. For as sure as eggs are – well, much less likely to be contaminated with salmonella than they used to be – the assembled partners will be discussing how they can work together and squeeze some money out of the latest government scheme. Since all such schemes require consultation with the people they are supposed to benefit, consultation will take place. The question is: what kind of consultation?

Too many of us have experienced questionnaires with dismally low return rates, sparsely attended public meetings on wet Wednesday evenings and superficial focus groups (run by pricey consultancy firms). But there is another way. Barrow, Brighton, Coventry, Islington (north London), Leicester, Rochdale and south Derbyshire have all undertaken a process called community mapping. Adapted from methods used in villages in southern countries, this approach uses pictures (drawings, diagrams and so forth) more than words, open-ended rather than closed questions, and goes to where people are (literally, streets, shops, parks and pubs) rather than expecting them to come to you.

Crucially, people with some control over budgets are involved from the outset, so that commitments can be made to act on some of the results of the process. In the areas cited above, this has included setting up an advice and information service in a local hairdresser’s, offering food safety training so the only remaining local shop is not closed down because of poor hygiene standards, and expanding local co-ops to provide great value locally grown fruit and veg.

This all sounds terrific, but does it reduce heart disease rates and save the planet? Frankly, it is an almost impossible question to answer, and many people working in or with such initiatives are understandably resentful that a much higher standard of proof seems to be required of them than of, say, the private finance initiative or the common agricultural policy.

While “hard” scientists may scoff at the “soft” methods used by local projects to try to evaluate their efforts, who are they to say that a reported increase in self-esteem, a modest rise in the amount of vegetables eaten and less rubbish in the streets (because of the recycling project) are insignificant?

In search of statistical significance too many researchers continue to view people as subjects, who will yield interesting data but who have an infuriating tendency to “confound the variables” by living their lives and having fun (and fibbing to researchers whom they will never see again).

In the community mapping approach, there are no researchers and subjects, no outsiders and locals, no experts and ordinary people. There is just a large and diverse group of people engaging in an honest attempt to make life better in the environments in which they live and work.

The attempt may fail. Certainly, the obstacles are large enough. Indeed, some people criticise local initiatives not because it is hard to show they work (in a randomised controlled trial way), but because, however successful they are (by whatever measure), their achievements are insignificant in the face of the economic and political forces of globalisation. Some go further, arguing that local projects are a distraction from more important tasks such as boycotting multinationals or forging partnerships with them (according to taste).

Encouragingly, most people seem to realise that acting at local, national and global levels are not mutually exclusive alternatives. Those engaged in community mapping are asked, among other things, what should be done to improve their local food system. The variety and sophistication of the answers is telling; a typical spread of responses might include: be more organised about shopping to save money, lobby the council to improve bus routes, and campaign for the Government to ban junk food adverts targeting kids.

People are not helpless victims waiting for someone else to solve their problems. Nor do they believe in the transformational powers of locally grown organic turnips. Arguably, the most important aspect of any successful local project is that it reminds people that they have power and that they can use it to improve their lives. This might manifest itself in giving the kids fruit for snacks, campaigning to save the local allotment, or marching down Whitehall with a banner.

Or it might involve someone from a local food project joining, say, a neighbourhood watch scheme to tackle local crime. By any conventional measure of “success” this is a failure as it does not appear to contribute to health or sustainability. But as anyone involved in the issue will tell you, crime damages health and rots away the fabric of community life.

So there are the choices. Keep your distance from local sustainability. It is messy, not “proven”, and quite a lot of effort for no instant reward. Or, to end on another TV reference, you can get stuck in and – like Citizen Smith – help give “power to the people”.

For more information about Sustain’s member organisations, visit: www.sustainweb.org

Jeanette Longfield is co-ordinator of Sustain: the alliance for better food and farming.

This article was originally published in Health Matters, issue 50, winter 2002/03.