By Beth Porter
Follow Beth on or connect with them on .
In October 2021, the landmark (FNFNES) was published. Its findings are sobering; half of First Nation households struggle to get enough food, compared to . Obesity levels are twice the national rate and cultural food practices are in decline. The report also drew a link between chronic and environmental degradation.
How did we get here? What can guarantee sufficient, healthy, and culturally-appropriate foods for First Nation communities?
Oxfam believes the (SLA) is key. Using a complex to map multiple dimensions of poverty, the SLA works with communities to harness their abilities and resources and lift themselves out of poverty.
On paper, the SLAās goals fit neatly with the First Nationsā fight for food. A key SLA outcome is food security, and its focus on sustainable livelihoods that persist ānow and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource baseā (DFID, 2001, 1.1.) mirrors the Miākmaq belief that food security for all generations is only possible through āā - an indigenous worldview that treats Earthās bounty and limits as sacred.
But can the SLA understand First Nationsā food insecurity and advance netukulimk in practice? Its participatory nature certainly illuminates unique indigenous perspectives, like the primary importance of hunting and sharing for food security (Thompson et al., 2012, p.43) - a view that shuns typical Western solutions.
But despite this, indigenous food insecurity is . The SLA is missing a key puzzle piece. Focused on bottom-up perceptions of poverty, it misses vital power structures that make and perpetuate inequalities from the top-down.
This is problematic for aboriginal livelihoods that are disproportionately constrained by through continued state control of indigenous lands and erosion of traditional foodways. The blocks community access to nutrition through (valued to absorb large transportation costs and protect profits), forcing reliance on cheap, highly-processed diets that are feeding the unfolding in First Nations. These systems have , too; state mines on aboriginal lands cause which, entwined with the impact of the on climate change, is destroying the landscapes First Nations view as essential to netukulimk.
Without recognising or challenging these structures, the SLA can only promote local-level to the colonial, capitalist, and ensuing environmental causes of indigenous poverty and food insecurity, holding Mikāmaq and First Nation peoples in their vulnerability. This āD.I.Y developmentā, materialising as business plans and improved social safety nets (Thompson et al., 2014, p.189), may offer temporary respite but is nothing more than a painkiller. These livelihoods are neither food secure, nor sustainable, nor in pursuit of netukulimk.
The FNFNES concluded by recommending measures to advance First Nation food security. Among them were indigenous self-determination, a return to traditional foods, and environmental protection. For these to be achieved, the SLA is not enough. Community-level action must be paired with that challenge the colonial and capitalist barriers to netukulimk. Without it, food security will remain firmly out of reach.
References:
- DFID (2001) Sustainable Livelihoods Guidance Sheets. London: DFID.
- Thompson, S. et al. (2012) āCommunity Development to Feed the Family in Northern Manitoba Communities: Evaluating Food Activities Based on Their Food Sovereignty, Food Security and Sustainable Livelihood Outcomesā, Canadian Journal of Nonprofit and Social Economy Research, 3(2), pp. 43-66.
- Thompson, S. et al. (2014) āPulling in the indigenous fishery cooperative net: Fishing for sustainable livelihoods and food security in Garden Hill First Nation, Manitoba, Canadaā, Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, 4(3), pp. 177-192.
