February 2026 President’s Message
By the time you read this, many of you (members) will have participated in the series of Co-Labs we have staged during the past few weeks. For those of you who are unfamiliar with our less-formal conversations (as opposed to our presentation-focused Studios), Co-Labs are the digital and analogue meetings of peers to address challenges, dream up opportunities, and inform the field of farmers markets at depths that our intense, under-capitalized work lives allow.
In September 2025, we joined forces with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) to conduct an unprecedented international survey of farmers market managers, in order to learn more about the fields’ assets and needs. While differences between regions, scales of operation, and age of institutions may have resulted in varied responses, one of the findings that struck us was this: 88% of respondents indicate that advocating for your market to (especially local) authorities remains a primary challenge.
As a result, we are diving deeper into this question via Co-Labs. Facilitated and organized online, these small group discussions are yielding preliminary insights worth sharing here. Of course, we will publish a full report in due time. In the meantime, here are a few insights to share with you. What are your thoughts? Does this resonate with your experience?
- Multifunctionality matters in communication and intent: During our General Assembly, we devoted one of our first Co-Labs to a deeper examination of multifunctional agriculture (codified in Italian law in 2001). Though we were careful not to promote heavily with a hammer, our increasingly international conversations kept on bringing us back to the chasm that exists between existing policies for agriculture and the realities we live daily. How so? Whether in Italy or California, agricultural policies start from the premise that agriculture is the production of raw products on the land. As a result, farmers should be concerned solely with the production of these goods. Leave the value-added steps, marketing and sales to experts who comprise the existing food system. Even in places where farmers markets operate widely, the direct marketing laws that determine behavior in farmers markets are unprepared for the increasingly multifunctional (or diversified) efforts by farmers to capture greater income, add value to their crops, etc. In this respect, we as a field need to better describe the multifunctionality that farmers wish to pursue to improve their market position. Who better to express this insight about farmers’ needs to diversify than the manager who assembles farmers on a recurring basis together with the consumers (who for their role provide valuable information about consumer trends)? This tension appears to be present in all corners of the world. Moreover, the very concept of multifunctionality should also be applied to the farmers markets themselves, not just the farmers. In this regard, we make stronger cases for why we exist. More than points of sale, farmers markets are places that incubate new business opportunities, identify rising and falling consumer trends, accelerate behaviour change among consumers, and more.
- Urgency can open up doors that remain closed during dull times: We cannot go a week without being reminded of the fragility of social, ecological and political systems. The wiring of the world through information technology may accelerate our knowledge of what is happening where, but add to it, we are connected because we are a community of actors in local food systems. Fortunately, the farmers market renaissance has enough years under its belt to demonstrate that these institutions not only are agile enough to manoeuvre the good economic times, as well as bad. However, based on our conversations, it seems to be much more than that. Whereas we may fight for the attention of decision makers during dull times (when things seem to operate in the wider economy), it is during tragic moments (political instability, natural and unnatural disasters) when our integrity is not only tested (as representatives, in fact among the few representatives of both urban and rural interests) but our insights are valued since we provide a pathway to normalcy, stability and degrees of happiness in everyday life. We have already heard this from our members in Ukraine, Japan, British Columbia, California, and after this past Atlantic hurricane season — Jamaica. It is a real testament to the poise and leadership of the Jamaican Network of Rural Women Producers to recognize that when they gain a seat at the table, little time should be devoted to thanking everyone for the seat and much more time devoted to sharing practical insights from the people who keep food on the table and creative energy to propose next steps to reimagine local food systems. In other words, we may be small, but our credibility and ability to grow the future is huge.
- Where food policy councils are born: Much is made to replicate a successful effort led by civil society in North America to establish local food policy councils. These institutions vary greatly, depending upon who the protagonists are who desire their formation and the political reality in which they operate. In some cases, the focus is finite and the lifespan predetermined (to publish a document of evidence-based proposals on a given subject). In other cases, they become ongoing mechanisms to cultivate new food policies. As attractive as is the concept, there are weaknesses as well. The geographic scope may only involve the municipality (as opposed to the territorial foodshed that surrounds the city or town). This is where there is much to learn from the farmers market experience, since by design the geographic scope is regional (urban, peri-urban, and rural). In this regard, we represent multiple constituencies, but also a vision of how regions should integrate as one. How do we know this? We do it weekly, and in some cases more than weekly. This is a space where there may be more to learn from how farmers markets engage with food policy councils (positively and negatively).
- Defending a recurring dot on the map builds credibility: In my experience, it is intimidating to sit down with what I call “official agriculture.” These are the large institutions, established institutions that are widely understood to represent the interests of farming. When we join these meetings, we are meant to feel small and marginal. Whether it is stories from our members who sit on advisory bodies (at the national or subnational level) or who confront ministries about policies that stand in the way for farmer success to diversify operations, one thing is clear to me. If you manage farmers markets, you have credibility. You have stories to tell, fears to express, and hopes to inspire that are based on real experience. Though you may not be able to use them, you have real names, real numbers, and therefore also real credibility. Lose the self-imposed impression that we are small. Our markets may not have any permanent dot on the map, like a building does, but our recurring presence is real. If you compose your presentations with evidence combined with calm confidence, even those who doubt our presence will walk away with a new sense that we exist, we have numbers, and we are a force.
- Influence versus power: This speaks to a recognition of the importance of your work. You cannot compete with the big box supermarkets. Although it is worth noting that our footprint is greater than we often are led to believe. For instance, in the United States, we are often reminded of how important the mega corporation, Wal-Mart. Industry leader and the originator of the now deliriously damaging system of just-in-time manufacturing, Wal-Mart operates roughly 4,600 stores in the USA. By contrast, there are more than 8,000 farmers markets in operation. Which institution is more efficient with the resources it spends? Which institution is beloved in more places, and shaped by diverse actors as well? Farmers markets. We can never compete with volume of sales, but we can with influence. In short, maybe our strength is to influence, to inspire.
- Sometimes no policy is better than a new policy: This final point also struck a powerful chord from the participants’ experiences. We think of policy advocacy as the steps to introduce new rules, legislation, etc. Not so. We are “forced” into advocacy work precisely because the existing landscape of regulations and rules do not consider our existence. We have to navigate and negotiate with inappropriate rules and regulations. Success is therefore the actions that enable us to operate freely and with confidence. After all, farmers will not invest heavily into operations that appear temporary. They simply cannot afford to take such risks. We are there to mitigate risks, so that their dreams can soar high. If efforts lead to new rules, procedures, etc., then marvelous. These can be replicated. However, we can also replicate the strategies that led to accommodations that keep the current regulatory regimes intact but now recognize our existence. This comes back to reflecting upon our goals: To make it easier for farmers to connect with consumers in predictable ways. We can be modest in our short term goals, as long as we always keep an eye on the prize: To reanimate local food systems as healthy systems that result in a flourishing of trust, wealth, and economies that reward cultural and biological diversity.
