Culture, Community, and Sustainability - Agroecology: The Ecology of Sustainable Food Systems - page 336

Community-Supported Agriculture produce, including eggs, meat, milk, baked goods, and

even firewood. Some farms team up with others so that
members receive goods on a more nearly year-round
basis. There is excellent opportunity for the design and
management of the farm to reflect this diversity, provid-
ing opportunity and impetus for the application of the
agroecological concepts and principles presented
throughout this topic.
The number of CSA operations in U.S. has grown
rapidly. The first recognized CSA began in 1985, and
by the turn of the century there were more than 1000
(Henry Wallace Center, 2001). In the United Kingdom,
CSA-type arrangements have mushroomed in the past
decade.

Compared to the farmers' market model, which is actually
an ancient form of direct farmer distribution, CSA is a
brand-new innovation. As the name implies, the social and
economic bonds associated with the CSA model differ
greatly from those in the global food system.
In basic terms, a CSA consists of a community of indi-
viduals who pledge support to a farm operation so that the
farmland becomes, either directly or indirectly, the commu-
nity's farm, with the growers and consumers providing
mutual support and sharing the risks and benefits of food
production. Typically, members or “shareholders” of the
farm pledge either to pay a regular subscription cost through
the season, or pay in advance to cover the anticipated costs
of the farm operation and farmer's salary. In return, mem-
bers receive a weekly box or basket share in the farm's
bounty throughout the growing season (Figure 23.6).
Everyone benefits: the grower receives better prices
for his or her crops, gains some financial security, and is
relieved of much of the burden of marketing. Consumers
receive produce that is fresher, tastier, harvested at the
peak of ripeness, and also not fumigated, refrigerated, or
packaged.
Beyond the obvious economic benefits of dealing
directly with the customer, the CSA arrangement allows
the farmer to receive working capital when it is most
needed, reducing the need for bank loans and improving
cash flow. The farmer also has a secure market for in-
season produce and extra yields that might occur. In addi-
tion, it is not the farmer alone who takes on the risks of
farming, including poor harvests due to unfavorable
weather or pests.
While many CSA arrangements do not build in face-
to-face contact between the farmer and the consumer, all
CSAs create abundant opportunity for the democratic flow
of information. The farmer, for example, can include
educational information sheets and recipes along with the
produce, and members can provide feedback about
produce quality and preferences. Some CSAs provide the
option of actually working on the farm. Even when mem-
bers do not participate directly in production, however,
their connection to the land and the production process is
concrete and meaningful.
Many CSAs donate shares to needy families,
soup kitchens, and food banks, or offer sliding-scale
memberships so that their clientele are not just those
with more resources. Each CSA is structured to meet the
needs of the participants, so many types exist, with vari-
ation in the level of financial commitment and active
participation by the shareholders, financing, land own-
ership, payment plans, and food distribution systems
(Imhoff, 2001).
Most CSAs offer a diversity of vegetables, fruits,
and herbs in season; some provide a full array of farm

Extended Networks

Alternatives to the global food system need not be
restricted to local networks. An AFN that extends beyond
an agricultural bioregion can still create shorter food sup-
ply chains, allow for democratic information exchange,
and even — in a virtual sense — promote food-based
community. Such extended networks take advantage of
the communication and distribution infrastructures to
allow consumer and producer (or the producer's represen-
tative) to transact their exchange directly despite their
physical separation.
In extended AFNs, the product matters. It would make
no sense, practically or environmentally, for an extended
network to deal in a product such as lettuce. The best
products for extended networks have no locally produced
alternatives, are not rapidly perishable, have a high value,
and can be shipped easily. Examples include chocolate,
spices, and coffee.
Coffee is the prime example of such a product. It is
the second most valuable commodity traded globally
after oil. It is grown in one part of the world, and pri-
marily consumed in another, distant from the site of
production. This distance has allowed the coffee trade to
develop into one of the most exploitative food chains
known, with several transnational corporations control-
ling the roasting, sale, and distribution of the coffee
produced by more than 25 million, mostly small-scale
growers. The past decade has seen coffee prices paid
to the farmer reach their lowest levels in history,
while prices paid by consumers climbed higher. Exploi-
tation is occurring on both ends of the food chain (Bacon
et al., 2007).
Two types of extended networks have developed
around the goal of providing coffee to consumers in
developed countries without contributing to the exploita-
tion of coffee growers in developing countries. In one
type, the consumer purchases coffee directly from a coop-
erative of growers, with the transaction facilitated by a
nonprofit organization. An example is provided by the