Issuu

Food resilient futures in the Caribbean Netherlands

Bonaire, Saba, St. Eustatius

Research report May 2023 – August 2024

Colophon

Date: October 2024

Authors: Leonoor Akkermans1, Heleen Quartel2, Hinno Bell3, Radinka Ustasia4, Jan Fliervoet1, Loes Witteveen1

1Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences, research group Communication, Participation and SocialEcological Learning, Velp.

2Cultural Park Mangazina di Rei, Bonaire.

3Aeres University of Applied Sciences, Wageningen.

4Maanarak of Grey Ltd., Bonaire.

Design: CoPSEL Studio

Funding: This project has received funding from the Nationaal Regieorgaan Praktijkgericht Onderzoek SIA for the call Praktijkkennis voor Voedsel en Groen: Thematische vraagstukken, november 2022.

Food resilient futures in the Caribbean Netherlands

Bonaire, Saba, St. Eustatius

Summary

The project “Food Resilient Futures” intends to contribute to a prosperous society with a resilient population and healthy natural environment on the BES islands: Bonaire, Statia and Saba.

The Caribbean Netherlands are dealing with a situation where imported vegetables and fruits are mostly imported and are hardly affordable. This leads to consuming unhealthy food and high obesities rates as a consequence. A lack of good agricultural practices with regard to water-smart and nature inclusive agriculture, as well as limited coping capacities to deal with hazards and climate change, results in very limited local production and interest.

Initiatives that focused only on agrotechnological solutions for food resilient futures turned out to be ineffective due to a lack of local ownership, which jeopardizes sustainability. Moreover, the ‘green’ and ‘blue’ domains are not seen as attractive career perspectives among youth, hampering a bright future for those domains.

The aim of this research is to contribute to water-smart and nature inclusive food resilience embedded in a local participatory perspective in the Caribbean Netherlands. To address the above challenges, a living lab approach is adopted, where youth will be trained as (co)-facilitators (WP1) who will contribute to a participatory envisioning process and an articulation of food resilient futures (WP2). Finally, based on the envisioning process local stakeholders will select and implement experiments for food resilient futures followed by dissemination of results among key stakeholders as well as children and youth at the BES islands (WP3).

The research strategy follows a living lab approach where professionals and youth work together on food resilient futures. Experiments will be implemented on food and water system alternatives. Moreover, the project will give insight in the strategies to enhance the role of children, youth and the general public in achieving food resilient futures in the Caribbean Netherlands.

The activities will result in the development of educational material (e.g., Living Lab manual) and will organize primary and secondary school excursions in the context of water and food system alternatives to actively encourage youth to be involved in sustainable agriculture and consumption.

This project will contribute to the scientific knowledge about new participatory and deliberative approaches to enhance inclusiveness and citizens science experiments to realize food resilient futures in the Caribbean Netherlands.

This research report is written based on the project proposal and reflects the research activities between May 2023 and July 2024 and includes the project activities of working package 1 and 2 until 15 June 2024.

List of Figures

1 Introduction of the project Food Resilient Futures

1.1 Introduction

Initiatives that focused merely on agrotechnological solutions for food resilient futures turned out to be ineffective due to a lack of local ownership, which jeopardizes sustainability. Moreover, the ‘green’ and ‘blue’ domains are not seen as attractive career perspectives among youth, hampering a bright future for those domains.

1.2 The research project

The research project Food Resilient Futures in the Caribbean Netherlands intends to contribute to a prosperous society with a resilient population and healthy natural environment in the Caribbean Netherlands.

To address the above challenges, a living lab approach is adopted, where youth will be trained as (co)facilitators (WP1) who will contribute to a participatory envisioning process and an articulation of food resilient futures (WP2). Finally, based on the envisioning process local stakeholders will select and implement experiments for food resilient futures followed by dissemination of results among key stakeholders as well as children and youth at the islands of Bonaire, St. Eustatius and Saba (WP3).

The outcomes of the living lab workshops (WP2) is that all participants:

• are able to imagine the 2050 futures encapsulated in the bold scenarios without any feasibility consideration (Imagine a theatre-like plenary presentation of each scenario).

• engage in a process of back casting and fore casting to imagine and articulate ambitions for food resilient futures (Imagine a method like mood boards for social imaginaries).

• are able to exchange imaginaries into collective desired futures.

• are able to analyse and reconsider possible futures for their relevance, envisioned impact, risks, feasibility and other aspects from different cross-cutting perspectives.

• feel engaged to design experiments to advance the exploration of a particular element of their desired food resilient future.

In line with the ‘Natuur- en milieubeleidsplan Caribisch Nederland 2020-2030’ (in English: Nature and environment policy plan Caribbean Netherlands 2020-2030) a consortium of knowledge institutes and societal partners has been organized aiming to contribute to water-smart and nature inclusive food resilience embedded in a local participatory perspective in the Caribbean Netherlands.

Figure 1 Shelves with imported goods. Source: Van den Tweel k

Figure 2 Children trying healthy snacks. Source: Mangazina di Rei

This research strategy will be implemented applying a living lab approach where professionals and youth work together on food resilient futures. Experiments will be implemented on food and water system alternatives. Moreover, the project will give insight in the strategies to enhance the role of children, youth and the general public in achieving food resilient futures in the Caribbean Netherlands. The activities will result in the development of educational material (e.g., Living Lab manual) and will organize primary and secondary school excursions in the context of water and food system alternatives to actively encourage youth to be involved in sustainable agriculture and consumption. This project will contribute to the scientific knowledge about new participatory and deliberative approaches to enhance inclusiveness and citizens science experiments to realize food resilient futures in the Caribbean Netherlands. The research project is funded by “Nationaal Regieorgaan Praktijkgericht Onderzoek” SIA

1.3 The research c onsortium

This project is led by the professorship Communication, Participation & Social Ecological Learning (CoPSEL) at Van Hall Larenstein University of Applied Sciences. Consortium partners include the Public Entity of Bonaire and Saba; Mangazina di Rei Foundation, Inholland University of Applied Sciences; Aeres University of Applied Sciences; HAS green academy; NHL Stenden; and the Centre of Expertise Water Technology. The Public Entity of Statia is also partnering in the project, although not as an official consortium partner.

1. 4 Project planning

Duration of the research project is from 1-5-2023 till 30-4-2025. See the figure below for project planning of the work packages

1.5 Project implementation May 2023 - August 2024

This research report reflects on the research activities between May 2023 and August 2024. The envisioned audience of this report is the research consortium as mentioned above and includes project activities of working package 1 and 2 This report analyses the outcomes of the living lab workshops to provide the foundation for the research activities in a next work package focussing on experimental activities by the participants of the living labs. In addition to this report a visual report of the living lab workshops in May and June 2024 on Bonaire, Saba and Statia is available.

Living lab workshop op Bonaire - verslag voor deelnemers.pptx (in Dutch)

Living lab workshops on Saba - summary for participants.pdf (in English)

Living lab workshops on Statia - summary for participants.pptx (in English)

2 Research proposal

2.1 Problem definition

Today, food and agriculture are at a juncture. Many of the improvements in agricultural productivity have come at tremendous social and environmental costs such as a loss of biodiversity, ecosystem stress, soil degradation, increasing water scarcity, decreasing fish stocks, deforestation and high emissions of greenhouse gases. Coupled with this, millions of people still go hungry, reflecting a food system that is out of balance. Not surprisingly, the Social and Economic Council (SER, 2021) in its advisory report in May 2021 to the Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality on sustainable future perspectives for agriculture based on a 2050 vision, called for urgent action to be taken in the Netherlands to transition towards sustainable agriculture – one that focuses not only on environmental and economic soundness but also includes social sustainability.

Although the Caribbean Netherlands (i.e., Bonaire, Statia, Saba, commonly referred to as the BES islands) setting is very different, many of the sentiments expressed above are reflected in the ‘Plan for Land and Water’, the policy plan for ‘Nature and Environment for Caribbean: Netherlands 2020-2030’, which presents an integrated focus on land and water resources for the development of the local economy (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, 2020). Here, food system resilience is considered to be of vital importance, along with the balancing of environmental concerns related to the tourism sector, a major contributor to the economy. Although the plan places strong emphasis on nature conservation, the problem analysis rightly describes pressures on fragile ecosystems, such as severe erosion, due in no small part to the large population of free-roaming goats and other livestock. And although formulated along nature conservation lines, major long-term objectives clearly focus on sustainable local food production, on the need for knowledge creation and environmental awareness among the general population.

Fostering food system resilience, however, requires a deeper exploration of the issues at play in the BES islands. For example, the assumed reluctance to engage in agriculture and fishery activities. A cursory survey of the literature suggests that this has links to the perception of the nature of the work as associated with times of slavery. A source such as Hartog (1975) mention ‘it is typical of the insignificance of agriculture and fishery that no more than 5.6 % of the working population are engaged in these fields whereas 6.6% work in the building industry’ (p.83). More contemporary is the perception that such work is done by immigrants from the SouthAmerican continent.

The general public on the BES islands is challenged by high food prices of fruit and vegetables, a lack of time, knowledge and skills for growing food themselves leading to an unhealthy consumption pattern. This is especially problematic for youth, who don’t see agriculture as an interesting career opportunity, and are most vulnerable to an unhealthy consumption pattern. Stimulating youth at an early age to enjoy agriculture, care for the environment and consume healthy food, may lead to behavioural change of the next generation. Despite earlier successful initiatives to stimulate school gardens and existing infrastructure, this is not being implemented anymore, partly due to a lack of a governance structure. Commercial agricultural entrepreneurs are challenged with climatic conditions at the Island and limited access to sweet water for irrigation purposes, demanding innovative ways of farming through saline agriculture, hydroponics and other water smart and nature inclusive farming methods.

Furthermore, a recent study by the Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM) in 2022 shows how climate change is expected to have a major impact on the lives of people in Bonaire, the economy and cultural heritage. This requires coping capacities to deal with the risks of severe storms and flooding.

The governmental entities of the BES islands, such as LVV Bonaire, stimulate innovative agricultural methods, but perceive the willingness of the local population to pursue a career in agriculture as well as knowledge utilization as a major challenge to roll out initiatives such as saline agricultural farming or hydroponic farming but also small-scale agriculture production. Implementing innovative agricultural initiatives also require a local governance approach to ensure smooth implementation.

This confirms that agro-technical solutions would contribute to the knowledge base on food production but would not enhance sufficiently to long-term food resilient futures. This can be exemplified by Lotz et al. (2020) concluding that “currentlyinsufficientlocalstakeholderengagementhasbeenexploredand/orestablishedto developtheaforementioned'globallearningpointsandsuggestions”(p.38) into concrete proposals.

In line with the ‘Natuur- en milieubeleidsplan Caribisch Nederland 2020-2030 (NMBP)’ and the research agenda Re-imaginingour realities:strengtheningourcapacitytocopewithcrises(CaribResearch, 2021) the consortium contributes with this research to a prosperous society and cultural identity balanced with a resilient and healthy natural environment. This demands for a sustainable use of water and land, in line with water and climate smart agricultural production methods and with economic perspective. As such, this research links to several Sustainable Development Goals, see figure 4

2.1.1 Food production and health challenges

Recent research work on the current food situation in the Caribbean Netherlands points to the complexity of the food production situation on the Islands and the paucity of information regarding impact and lessons learned from the numerous initiatives undertaken in the islands aimed at improving local food production (Lotz et al., 2020; Verweij et al., 2020; van der Geest and Slijkerman, 2019). The BES islands face many challenges. For example, they are, to a large extent, dependent on food imports. According to van der Geest and Slijkerman (2019) 99% of the food consumed in Bonaire is imported, fresh fruits and vegetables, which are quite expensive and besides that the availability is not stable.

Figure 4 Sustainable development goals related to the research project

Further, an analysis of the islands’ agri-food trade with the EU shows that just over a third of the food imported from the EU in 2020 included tropical fruits (fresh and dried) and preparations of vegetables, fruits or nuts (European Commission, 2021). This dependence on imports has implications for the affordability and diversity of healthy diets of the local populations, especially in the face of increasing consumer food prices (FAO, 2021) and in the wake of far-reaching events such as pandemics (Covid-19) and natural hazards (e.g., hurricanes) which have a disruptive effect on trade. High rates of diet-related chronic diseases like obesity and diabetes type 2 in each island indicate the urgency of food situation as well as the need to raise awareness of the health risks related to unhealthy diets (Table 1).

Unhealthy food consumption is also more generally related to poverty and lifestyle issues. An example worth mentioning are the long working days or double employments which inhibits time available for gardening and cooking and thereby leading to ordering food at fast food restaurants. Paradoxes regarding fast food trends described by Schlosser (2002) as ‘Food nation’ are considered reversable with high levels of awareness and information activities.

For the same reasons as adult obesity, lack of sports and healthy diets schools sometimes provide school meals and focus on sports activities. Other major problem domains articulated in the literature impacting the food situation include free-roaming livestock by goats and donkeys, especially goats overgrazing, resulting in serious erosion problems; limited water management in the face of environmental change, insufficient human capacity to address many issues, and governance.

2.1.2 Climate smart water management

Bonaire has been affected by climate change, resulting in many years of drought, extreme weather such as hurricanes and salinization of the island. Although the salty soils have a lot of barriers for agriculture, there are also opportunities for saline agriculture supported by Smart Farm Foundation, promoting crops like sweet potato, spinach, chard, carrots and tomato.

The lack of sweet water demands for circular principles where water can be reused for irrigation purposes. The sewage water purification in Lagun exists to process wastewater of the sewage system and other not connected sources of wastewater, like sceptic tanks, into environmentally friendly and reusable water for irrigation. Before distribution it is being treated with UV light, killing bacteria and optimizing the quality of the irrigation water. This water does contain organic matter. As a consequence, the irrigation water cannot be used on plants directly but can be applicated to the soil. Also, the so called ‘sewage slurry’ can be used for plants after drying. Drip irrigation is already being used in greenhouses initiated by LVV and private initiatives for a sustainable water use include the aquaponic farm DailyFresh. Such high-tech solutions also demand coping mechanisms for extreme weather such as hurricane or floods. The general public, including most farmers, are still very sceptic to use this water, because in their eyes it is dirty water and not clean enough to use for growing food crops.

(estimated percentage of population) (Source: CBS (Statistics Netherlands), 2017 and 2019)

2.1.3 Current knowledge on governance and stakeholder participation

Aspects of governance and stakeholder participation feature very prominent in the literature. It is remarkable to observe that the governance context is approached in quite distinct ways. For example, in chapter 2 ‘Previously on Bonaire: a Policy Background’ in ‘A Nature inclusive vision for Bonaire in 2050’ by Verweij et al. (2020), governance sometimes remains left aside as if the problematic state of the sector can be decoupled from a governance perspective. The study by Lotz et al. (2020) presents an overview of the timeline from 1990 – 2020 showing the main influential policy plans; and documents developments on Bonaire (p.8), providing evidence of governance as a determining context. The dedicated search for food production alternatives to reduce the high level of food imports sometimes sets the governance context aside (p.27) to focus and returns prominently in the lessons learned sections. The study by Lotz et al. (2020) exemplifies how – despite numerous policies, interventions and bio-physical alternatives – the dependency on food import hardly changes. In a review of assumptions about patterns of ignoring, Espersen (2018) elaborates on the impact of continuous processes of dominant interpretation by outsiders. As an example, he states “Saba’s deserving and undeserving poor had lost control of their own ideological narrative...” (p.791). The author later calls for reflexivity. In this respect, we assume alignment with the report by Verweij et al. (2020) ‘A nature inclusive vision for Bonaire’. This report formulates the following statement which we borrow for this research as the motivation for the study: “anewstoryforBonaireisneeded.Astorythataddressesthesechallenges[problemsmentioned].Astorythat canbeshapedbycitizensofBonaire,andwhichcangrowthissmalldevelopingislandintoanexamplethat alignswell-beingandprosperitywithculturalheritage,andembracestheprotectionofnatureforour livelihoods”(p.6)

In the 2050 perspective, SER (2021) envisions farmers and their employees to earn a fair income, to work in lowemission agriculture without pollution and contribute to a vital sector which produces good affordable food and contribute to public goods such as safeguarding environmental qualities and biodiversity recovery. Agricultural entrepreneurship is challenged and rewarded for innovation capacities, adaptation to local demand and contributing to an attractive landscape and healthy environment (p.9). For this sustainable transition to take place, a broad social agreement is needed between various actors - farmers, stakeholders in the supply chain, trade unions, civil society organizations and the government. Central to this, is the restoration of trust and social dialogue to readdress the currently polarised relationship between these actors.

To accelerate environmental transformations with stakeholder participation an interdisciplinary approach and a high level of stakeholder engagement is required. A level at which knowledge and values are co-created in processes in which governmental organizations and the public stakeholders agree on a common policy agenda and jointly seek for solutions (Edelenbos & Monnikhof, 2001).

Since 2006, so called Living Lab configurations are launched to facilitate an interdisciplinary approach, joint learning and co-creation of knowledge to enhance complex environmental transformations (Dutilleul et al., 2010). Despite, dynamic and different conceptualization of Living Labs, existing Living Labs are learning configurations which refer to a ‘quadruple helix’ innovation process among four main stakeholders: companies, users, public organizations and researchers (Stahlbrost, 2013).

Westerlund & Leminen (2011) define Living Labs as “physical regions or virtual realities where stakeholders form public-private-people partnerships (4Ps) of firms, public agencies, universities, institutes, and users all collaborating for creation, prototyping, validating, and testing of new technologies, services, products and

systems in real-life contexts”. As living labs partnerships are increasingly part of contemporary curricula in higher education, Witteveen et al. (2016) developed design principles from the perspective of higher education where applied research and living labs inspire major learning environments. These design principles indicate that to make a living lab operational and impactful it should create a space which:

• Fosters inclusive ‘quadruple helix’ participation,

• Creates authentic learning environments that focus on a sustainable future,

• Stimulates reflexivity in learning and innovation for sustainability,

• Facilitates interaction, knowledge sharing and open system management.

An adaptation of these principles to food resilient futures-based projects demands for the case of food resilient BES islands the participation of citizens as a critical driving force to overcome hindrances in embarking on new food resilient alternatives. Besides ‘citizens’ as local stakeholders we have opted to position ‘Youth’ with a background and or a relation with the BES islands to be invited for participation as facilitators in the envisioning workshops (based on the demand articulation).

Adopting a learning environment by making use of an interdisciplinary approach and a high level of stakeholder engagement will lead to the articulation of desired food resilient futures in 2050. This learning environment creates thereby an arena for local institutional partners and citizens to engage on a structured process of future thinking or envisioning. The project activities depart from the current situation searching will offer ample options for a diversity of interventions which can be explored in an experimental space. This experimental space will be created by the project and defined by local stakeholders.

The focus on local appropriation of the contemporary food system and inducing engagement for acting on desired food resilient futures searches to create new inspirational narratives for the current food situation on the BES islands.

3 Research strategy

3.1 Introduction

In this chapter the research strategy will be explained in detail with a major focus on elaborating on the living lab approach.

The Caribbean Netherlands are dealing with a situation where vegetables and fruits are mostly imported and are hardly affordable. This leads to consuming unhealthy food and health problems such as obesities as a consequence. A lack of good agricultural practices regarding water-smart and nature inclusive agriculture, as well as limited coping capacities to deal with hazards and climate change, result in very limited local production and interest and engagement with food resilient futures Bonaire, Saba and Statia also face challenges with regard to disturbances in geopolitical issues and weather extremes. Based on the demand articulation, the literature review and validation meetings with the local partners the following aim and main research questions are formulated: The aim of the research is to contribute to water smart and nature inclusive food resilience embedded in a local participatory perspective in the Caribbean Netherlands.

Research questions:

• What participatory and deliberative methods in a living lab approach, contribute to develop awareness and practical experiments leading to food resilient futures in the Caribbean Netherlands?

• What strategies enhance the role of children, youth and the general public in achieving food resilient futures in the Caribbean Netherlands?

• What food and water system alternatives, resulting from citizen science experiments, contribute to food resilient futures?

The research strategy is to empower local stakeholders with an articulated focus on involving youth in the process of developing and determining alternatives for the current food systems. The consortium searches to effectuate practical research results in the society by empowerment of stakeholders and institutes in the field of education, advise and training entities. Collaboration with the Public Entities (Bonaire, Statia and Saba) related to food production and food resilience positions envisioned project experiments in local reality and achieve embedding in the local context for sustainable impact. The outcomes of project are foreseen to contribute to reconsider inter-cultural and international aspects of UAS curricula and the relevance for the multi-cultural student body.

3. 2 The living lab approach

The concept of a living lab varies among different scholars. The following definition is chosen by our consortium: “A living lab is a place where citizens, artists, technologists, business and public sector organizations can come together to co-create ideas, tools and technologies that will address local challenges. It’s a place for innovation and exploring new possibilities but where reflection and evaluation are built into the working process to make sure the living lab can be flexible and responsive to the changing needs of stakeholders and communities” (Evans in Malmberg and Vaittinen 2017;5). It must be noted that we pay special attention to the involvement of youth as actors in co-creation, experimentation and reflection. The ABCD roadmap is often used in living labs to structure the living lab process (Figure 5). The roadmap consists of four steps which are repeated as the living lab progresses towards a food resilient future in this case. The envisioning process is a first step (A), which aims to build a common language, as well as creating a vision of how a sustainable future for the islands looks-like.

The second step focuses on mapping the baseline situation (B) by analysing and evaluating the current situation. In the third step (C), living lab members are asked to brainstorm on potential solutions to the issues highlighted in the baseline analysis without any constraints or considerations for aspects of realism and feasibility; basically, focussing on the relevance and desirability of such alternatives. After the identification of possible solutions, the fourth step follows regarding decide on priorities (D).

In this step, the living lab members prioritise the solutions and enter into action; this action stage is both concrete as reflexive. The analysis of the outcomes and the consequent reflection on the process they embarked will move the living lab community towards the desired vision (step A). To establish and maintain a successful living lab, it is essential to consider specific design principles. In this document the most important design principles are explained and defined for the project “Food Resilient Futures in the Caribbean Netherlands”. In chapter 4 (findings) we evaluate the first 2 themes of the formulated design principles. Despite the similarities among Bonaire, Saba, and Statia, we opted to establish three distinct living lab communities. This structure still allows for collaborative efforts or comparative analyses within similar experimental frameworks. The primary reason for creating three separate living labs lies in the need to acknowledge and address the unique characteristics and challenges to each island. Additionally, this approach is advantageous from practical and logistical perspectives. It must be noted that we pay special attention to the involvement of youth as actors in co-creation, experimentation and reflection.

Design principles for a living lab

To establish and maintain a successful living lab, it is essential to consider specific design principles. The nine design principles as elaborated by Lie et al. (2023) have been adopted as a framework to establish and evaluate our living labs. The design principles are structured according to three themes: A) Setting and system; B. Stakeholders and collaboration and C. Approach, aim and focus. Below we use the model by Lie et al (2023) to present the design principles for the BES living labs.

A.Settingandsystem

1. Think systemic

The complexity and ‘wicked problem’ that will be addressed in the living labs requires a systemic approach. “Systemic” means “in relation to the whole system” (Brouwer et al. 2015). It is essential to look at a wider perspective to understand the food system, but also the related actors, governance of the system and power relations.

Bydesigningfuturescenariosfor2050weintendtothinksystemic. Weuseseveralframeworksincludingthe foodsystemsapproach(see3.3) .

2. Generate an appropriate space : the real life setting

In order to determine strategies to create a safe space and implement the strategies, experienced facilitators need to ensure interaction, communication and learning, whereas the organisation of the living lab encounters should be supportive to the objectives.

Figure 5 ABCD method often used in living labs (source: The Natural Step)

Studentfacilitatorsfromtheregion,studyingataDutchUniversityofAppliedSciences,havebeenselected andtrainedtoco-facilitatetheworkshops.Thisensures thatthecommunication(forBonairein Papiamentu),localembedding,interculturalsensitivityandfocusonyouth(byyouth)willbesecured.They willbesupervisedbytheexperiencedfacilitatorsoftheconsortium.

Intermsoforganizationitincludesmanagingcosts,logistics(invitations),providingtransportationand catering.

3. Work in a context sensitive way

Living labs operate in a specific social, cultural and economic context.

Toensuregoodunderstandingofthelocalcontextthefollowingstrategieshavebeenused:

• WorktogetherwithyouthfacilitatorsfromtheCaribbean

• Ensureclosecollaborationwithlocalpartners.

• Conductascopingstudytocreategoodunderstandingofthelocalsituation Indepthstudyofthe contexttoidentifya)therealcauses ofemergingchallengesand(b)theneeds,interestandpower positionsofthedirectstakeholders,especiallythemarginalizedgroups.

• Usethesaliencemodeltomaptheurgency,power andlegitimacyofthedifferentstakeholders

B.Stakeholderandcollaboration

4. Facilitate stakeholder participation

In a living lab, individuals or groups with multiple backgrounds, expertise, expectations and interest are engaged. It is important to consider who should be involved, in which way, which intensity and how to ensure effective communication between those groups and individuals (Lie et al., 2023). Moreover, special attention should be paid to inclusion of vulnerable groups or groups that usually are less heard. This process requires good facilitation.

Thefollowingstrategieswillbeusedinfacilitation

• Useamixofexperiencedinternationalandlocalyouthfacilitators.Divideclearrolesandresponsibilities.

• Makebothhomogenousanddiversediscussiongroups toexploredifferencesandcommunalitiesand explorecommonground.

• Makeuseofdifferentlanguages.ForSabaandStatiatheworkshopswillbeheldinEnglish,butmultiple languagewillbeusedfordiscussion.ForBonaire,theworkshopswillbepresentedinbothDutchand Papiamentu.

• Weorganizeworkshopsondifferentmomentsofthedayandweek,tomakeitconvenientfordifferent groups ofstakeholderstoattendandtestwhichgroups attendatwhichtime.

• Wedefineacommongoalandclearrolesandresponsibilitiesforthelivinglabas awholeandthe workshopdaysinparticular.

5. Configure active participation throughout the process

For a living lab, it is crucial to actively engage all participants who wish to utilize or benefit from the innovations throughout the entire process. The main challenges which need to be addressed is the challenge of coherence: how to consult, analyze and give feedback to the diversity of citizen voices?

Central to this engagement process are deliberative working methods; approaches to decision-making that emphasize inclusive, reflective, and reasoned dialogue among stakeholders, often with the aim of reaching a consensus or well-considered collective decision. These methods are rooted in the tradition of deliberative democracy, where the focus is on fostering discussion, mutual understanding, and joint problem-solving.

The main benefits of deliberative decision making include legitimacy, well informed and more balanced decision-making and social learning.

It must be noted that the first group of living lab participants are those actors who are seen as changemakers, which may not address a clear picture of the society as a whole.

• Deliberativeworkingmethodsarebeingusedtocreatecommonunderstandingonthemainissuesand organizeactiveconsultationontheinnovations.

• Livinglabparticipantsareactivelyinvolvedintheexperiments;localownershipandalocalgovernance structurewillbecreatedforeachexperiment.

• Allparticipantsareinvolvedintheprocess ofreflectionandlearning.

6. Build rapport and govern responsibly

Collaborative work cannot do without trust and willingness to share data (Lie et al., 2023). Additionally, accountability and transparency are important to maintain trust and commitment (Marais e.a. 2020 in Lie, 2023).

• Giveampleattentiontobuildingtrustinthefirstworkshopdays,includingsettinggroundrulesfor cooperation.

• Analyseandmonitorgroupdynamicsthroughouttheprocess andactasnecessary.

• Setupsystemstoexchangeinformationandreportonprogress.

C.Approach,aimandfocus

7. Co -create

Co-creation is a core principle for a living lab. Cárdenas (2021) describes co-creation as planned interactive processes to trace the system-specific and context-sensitive direction of change and define possible solutions. Creativity and design are key in these processes, which are almost always long term (Cárdenas et al. 2021 in Lie 2023). This creativity is also evident in Gianelli’s approach (2024) where co-creation is described as a specific and “hands-on” co-productive practice, a powerful and engaging way to elicit the knowledge, values, and aspirations that must underpin desirable futures (Gianelli e.a. 2024). Action research concerns open collaboration between scientists and societal stakeholders in iterative cycles of observation, reflection and action (idem)

• Usevariousmethodsthatcatertodifferentpreferences,thinkbeyondspeakingandwritingandalsouse creativemethodssuchastheatre,art,poetryor music.

• Useactionresearchthroughopencollaborationbetweenstakeholdersinthelivinglab.

8. Innovate through reflexivity

A living lab is focused on experimentation and continuous testing in a real-life setting. monitoring the process, regular user feedback and evaluation can ensure the guidance of the search and innovation capacity building (Lie e.a. 2023). Therefore, we will implement;

• Iterativetestingandfeedback.

• Designandfacilitatereflectionactivitiesthroughouttheprocess.

9. Engage with scale and impact

Many innovation platforms still primarily operate locally and might overlook organizational and institutional change needed at a higher level to support scaling (Van Ewijk and Ros-Tonen 2021 in Lie 2023). We need to

work simultaneously on a bundle of related technical/economic, organizational and institutional issues at different scales.

• Howcanweoperatelocally(Bonaire,St.Eustatius,Saba), butalsokeepthesystemapproachtorealize impactonorganizationalandinstitutionallevelsintheCaribbeanNetherlands?

3. 3 Food systems approach

The complexity and ‘wicked problem’ that will be addressed in the living labs require a systemic approach. Besides the living lab approach a food systems approach is used to analyse the current food system as a whole and to explore and analyse the limitations of the system, in order to identify effective interventions (Van Berkum et al., 2018). In this project, we adopt the food system framework discussed by Van Berkum et al. (2018), which is visualized in figure 6 This definition of resilience encompasses diverse activities focused on improving food security, including aspects such as the value chain, service organizations, and regulatory frameworks. These activities interact with socio-economic factors and environmental considerations, shaping outcomes like income, work opportunities, and food access. Moreover, feedback loops between socio-economic and environmental conditions influence the overall functioning of the food system.

3. 4 Research methods

3.4.1 Scoping study

Prior to the Living Lab workshops scoping activities were undertaken to understand the current situation regarding food system resilience on Bonaire, Saba and Statia These scoping activities included preparatory meetings with local partners and stakeholders, validation sessions with LVV, and student research projects.

Figure 6 Food System Framework (Berkum et al. (2018).

Student research projects

Four students of the minor Sustainable Island Management at VHL Leeuwarden conducted a short desk study and interviewed agricultural entrepreneurs on Saba and Statia. The research questions were as follows: What are the current challenges faced by the agriculture sector on Saba and Statia? What existing initiatives and effective practices can be explored to gain insights into the establishment of resilient local food systems on Saba and Statia?

Statia and Saba are grappling with freshwater scarcity, exacerbated by growing local and tourist populations, especially as tourists tend to consume more water than locals. The challenge is further intensified by climate change, which brings more frequent and severe dry spells, hindering the natural replenishment of freshwater in the soil. Another major issue is the stigma associated with manual labor, rooted in the islands' history of slavery, which discourages locals from engaging in agriculture. Agriculture is seen as "dirty slave work," and this perception, combined with limited resources, high costs, and minimal government support, makes farming and fishing unattractive. As a result, both islands rely heavily on imports for food, leading to higher prices due to transport costs and limited availability of fresh, healthy produce. The excessive dependence on imported goods makes the islands vulnerable to food insecurity, particularly during storms and natural disasters. Climate change also impacts local agriculture and fisheries, with storms damaging crops and degrading coral reefs, further reducing fish populations. Statia faces an additional issue with free-roaming goats, cows, and chickens, which damage crops and cause soil erosion that threatens coral reefs. Saba has largely addressed its grazing problems, but the island's steep, infertile terrain limits opportunities for large-scale farming projects.

To summarize these findings, they developed rich pictures for each island and developed filmed portraits. Those filmed portraits were also used for the facilitator training.

Two students from Inholland University of Applied Sciences (from the Food Commerce and Technology programme) conducted a thesis research to provide a comprehensive understanding of the current and present situation of the islands. They interviewed experts, entrepreneurs and representatives of various projects that have been carried out or are still ongoing on Bonaire. All these activities have in mind the goal of achieving a more resilient food system. Examples include educational agriculture projects aimed at young people, commercial aquaponics, alternative feed production, syntropic farming, and goat breeding programs.

Figure 8 Rich picture Statia

Figure 7 Rich picture Saba

Research has been carried out into the effects of these activities and into which success factors stimulate - or which barriers prevent the success of activities in this area. It gives an indication of the feasibility of potential (new) projects and what to focus on in terms of preconditions.

The methodology of the scoping study included a desk study of the existing literature and project documents. A timeline and causal diagrams for each island were used as analytical models. Based on these models, the main unbalances in the food system were identified. Moreover, expected developments based on historic facts, current developments and policies were described which resulted in a future scenario for 2050 both with successes and threats. The scoping document was discussed with the partners. The results of the scoping study are recorded in the documents below, which were discussed with the partners and used by the student facilitators as background information. The English version of the scoping was used as input provision during the living lab workshop on Bonaire; the issues were acknowledged and recognised. However, some concepts were difficult to understand due to jargon used and limited English understanding of some of the participants. Therefore, the document was later translated to Papiamentu and distributed.

Scoping BES islands (English).pdf

Scoping BES islands (Papiamentu).pdf

3.4.2 Youth facilitators and their reflections

Youth facilitators from the region, studying at a Dutch University of Applied Sciences, were selected and trained to co-facilitate the living lab workshops. This strategy would ensure that the communication (for Bonaire in Papiamentu), local embedding, intercultural sensitivity and focus on youth (by youth) would be secured. They were supervised by the experienced facilitators of the consortium. During the selection process, the youth facilitation training program was developed in accordance with the framework outlined in the initial research proposal. Each consortium partner designed a training, this way contributing their specialized expertise in various aspects of food resilience and the living lab methodology. The table 1 presents the planning and topics of the youth facilitation training program. The whole training design can be found here: D1.1 Training design

A facilitation manual was developed as a reference for the youth facilitators to facilitate the living lab sessions. In this manual the concept of the living labs was explored and described.

D1.2 A facilitation manual for youth facilitators of the living labs in the Caribbean Netherlands.docx

Besides this research report other project deliverables have been produced including a training design for the youth facilitators and a living lab facilitator manual for the living lab workshops in May and June 2024 on Bonaire, Saba and Statia. During the living lab workshops, the youth facilitators were requested to write in their online diary every day, based on a specific set of questions:

1. Whatwerethegoalsandoutputofthissession?(thiswasgiven)

2. Towhichextentdoyouthinkthegoalsabovearemet?

3. WhatworkingmethodsoftheLLworkshopoftodayworkedwell,inyouropinion?

4. WhatworkingmethodsoftheLLworkshopoftodaydidnotresultintheexpectedoutcome?Please reflectwhyitdidnotworkoutasexpected?

5. Inwhatwaycouldtheworkshopbeimproved,nexttime?

6. Whatpersonalcontributionshaveyoumadethatmadeyouproud?

7. Whatcouldyouimprovepersonally,nexttime?

8. Openspace,pleaseshareyourthoughtsonanything.

On June 21, 2024 a session was organized to reflect together with the youth facilitators on their experience starting with the recruitment, to the training programme and the living lab workshops.

3.4.3 Living Lab workshops

Despite the similarities among Bonaire, Saba, and Statia, the geographical location does not favour one general Living lab and the project will be implemented in three distinct living labs. This structure still allows for collaborative efforts or comparative analyses within similar experimental frameworks. The primary reason for creating three separate living labs lies in the need to acknowledge and address the unique characteristics and challenges to each island. Additionally, this approach is reasonable from a practical and logistical perspectives.

In the initial project plan, the quadruple helix was used to make an inventory of different stakeholders. In order to map the urgency, power and legitimacy of the different stakeholders we used the salience model to select stakeholders for the living lab on Bonaire. For Saba and Statia it has not been possible to apply the salience model and participants have been invited based on the network of our project partners. In May and June 2024, the first living lab workshops were organized on the BES islands.

4.2

7.2

Formulated outcomes of these living lab workshops were:

• All workshop participants are able to imagine the 2050 futures encapsulated in the bold scenarios without any feasibility consideration (Imagine a theatre-like plenary presentation of each scenario).

• All workshop participants engage in a process of back casting and fore casting to imagine and articulate ambitions for food resilient futures (Imagine a method-like elaborating mood boards for social imaginaries).

• All workshop participants are able to exchange imaginaries into collective desired futures.

• All workshop participants are able to analyse and reconsider possible futures for their relevance, envisioned impact, risks, feasibility and other aspects from different cross-cutting perspectives.

• All workshop participants feel engaged to design experiments to advance the exploration of a particular element of their desired food resilient future.

See annex 1 for an overview of the living lab activities and workshops organized on Bonaire See annex 2 for an overview of the living lab activities of activities and workshops organized on Statia and Saba.

Prior to the living lab workshops, criteria for the selection of experiments were developed with the consortium based on the objectives, budget and timeline of the project. The criteria were shared with the workshop participants before thinking about the experiments.

• The experiment should be implemented in a time frame of maximum 10 months, between May/June 2024 and March/April 2025;

• At least one of the experiments should be targeted at agricultural awareness/exposure for youth;

• At least one of the experiments should be targeted at agricultural awareness/exposure for children;

• At least one of the experiments should be focused on community level or stimulating citizens to have small scale agricultural activities at home;

• At least one of the experiments should be focused on enabling entrepreneurs to produce and to sell locally agricultural products;

• The envisioned outcome of the experiments should have a positive influence on availability of local food, food access, utilisation and/or stability for the general audience and a positive effect on the environment.

In terms of budget we have to deal with the following criteria:

• 4 experiments with material costs budget of 15.000 euros each, or 60,000 in total

• A budget of 3480 euros is available for researchers for the design of each experiment and 5,535 for the coordination and implementation.

• For the Dutch consortium partners, a budget is available for 35 hours for the design and 160 hours for coordination and implementation of each experiment.

4 Results

This chapter presents the results of the Living Lab activities using the adapted framework of the design principles for living labs. The results refer to experiences of the three Living Labs workshops as implemented on the three islands. Reflections and lessons learnt on the research strategy will follow based on the perspectives of the youth facilitators and the facilitators. The chapter ends with a presentation of scenarios and possible experiments as outcomes of the living lab workshop.

4. 1 Results of the living lab approach : evaluating the themes

The results of the living lab activities and workshops are described by using the themes of the living lab design principles (paragraph 3.1) as a structure.

4.1.1 Setting and System

Practical organization

With regard to the practical organisation of the living lab workshops, the focus has been more on the representation of the quadruple helix than on the concrete need of participants to be informed timely and thereby allow integration with their agenda's which turned out to be a hurdle for participation for example by the schools.

After a selection of potential stakeholders, the process requires converting this into list of potential participants to the Living Lab workshops. These stages have not been very distinct. Moreover, the concrete invitations were planned to be sent with full details, an intention which was hampered by the late decision on the venue of the workshops.

On Bonaire the invitations for the workshop were mostly sent via WhatsApp, both by LVV and our local project coordinator. Due to the difficulties with finding a location, the invitation was a bit late. This was especially challenging for schools and other youth organisations, which need to be invited 3 months prior to the activity. This had implications on the involvement of youth in the workshop.

On Statia the organisation was quite the challenge, as the living lab workshop dates coincided with activities, led by a representative of the EU, focusing basically the same stakeholders Since the sessions with the EU representative were perceived as more important, the group of living lab workshop participants was not consistent as individuals frequently changed and rotated throughout the sessions.

On Statia, the late reception of invitations turned into a disadvantage for the Living Lab workshops, and they were received with a hint of scepticism The distribution of the invitations had been outsourced to the partner on Statia; however, due to this delayed delivery (the Friday afternoon before the workshops on Monday morning), it came across as an unprofessional project On Saba, the invitations were sent out by the facilitators themselves two weeks in advance, as indicated by the local partner. Unfortunately also the reception of these invitations was perceived late, although a bit less scepticism was noticed on Saba as compared to Statia. On all three islands the invitation consisted of a formal email with a more creative and informal explanatory video attached.

Scoping Study

A scoping study was conducted in order to research the historical perspective, real causes of emerging challenges and make a thorough analysis of how challenges are connected. The consortium partners were mainly involved in the desk research. This was considered to be beneficial, although real understanding of the local situation also needs exposure. It was felt that the local situation was much better understood after travelling to the islands. Although the living lab participants themselves were not directly involved in the

creation of the scoping study, many of the participants have been involved in former studies. Because of the effort that we have made, with this scoping study we could connect directly to the reality of the islands and that was felt by the participants.

Food system model and sustainable business model CANVAS

The food system model of Van Berkum et al. (2018) was used during the living lab workshops on Bonaire to create understanding about the food system and to analyse the challenges of the food system with input from the scoping study. The participants really liked seeing this model which was new for them. It also helped them to think in a systematic way and to understand the interconnectedness of all the themes mentioned and to identify missing elements Moreover, the sustainable business model Canvas was used to work out potential ideas for experiments in more detail. So far the models have been used as an exercise to stimulate system thinking, but while designing the experiments and conducting the baseline those models will be used and worked out in more detail.

Location

Since there is no public transport on Bonaire and not everyone has access to a car, we had to find locations which were easy to reach for all participants. It would have been nice to be exposed to agricultural activities around Rincon, but we chose for more central locations. Although the training room at LVV was small, we conducted the kick-off and one training day on this location to show our connection with LVV and to be exposed to their agricultural facilities. Most of the training days were held at a local community centre in Amboina. On Statia the meeting room of the public library was chosen as venue. This venue is centrally located and well known amongst everybody on Statia. It was just perfect with enough space to work in different groups whilst it is small enough to feel connected with everybody.

‘Saba Community Development’ was chosen as venue for the workshops. A beautiful meeting room at a government building, centrally located on Saba.

Catering

Prior to the workshops, our local partners already mentioned: “Good food can make or break your event” For the workshops on Bonaire we invited different caterers to provide lunch and snacks. In addition, we prepared punch and other drinks. This was highly appreciated by the participants. However, it was challenging to provide healthy food, in line with our project theme, in relation to a limited budget. Moreover, the vegetarian food prepared by Nature Cooking was not appreciated by all participants who are more used to a meat-based diet. On Statia and Saba, food was provided by a local catering company; it was a mix of local and international snacks. In line with the experience on Bonaire it was very well received, although it wasn’t the most healthy option. It was also considered very helpful to the process to eat together and connect with each other in a more informal setting during lunch.

Facilitation

In the literature (Lie e.a. 2023), the design principles stress the need for experienced facilitators to ensure interaction, communication and learning. However, in our project strategy we used a mix of experienced and youth facilitators. At first, the youth facilitators on Bonaire were mainly involved with the reporting, daily recap, an energizer and an evaluation of the day. Later in the process, they also started to contribute to facilitating discussions. The main challenge for the students was to deal with the process of uncertainty of the living lab and its organisation Although we planned for the workshop days, we had to re-adapt the programme every day, requiring a very flexible attitude. The changes were related to the pace of the training, the workshop

participants being present or not, or the interest expressed. In some cases, we also had to adapt the working methods on the spot, for example if we suddenly had to use a smaller training room. The workload was considered high among the youth facilitators.

With quite assertive youth facilitators on Saba and Statia and the facilitators not being from there, the process was quite different to the one on Bonaire. Combined with the sense of community and the negative feelings about former projects taken place on the islands, one of the facilitators had the feeling he had to prove himself somewhat to the stakeholders. Saba and Statia have a history of involvement in numerous projects initiated by the Dutch government. The workshop participants indicated that in these projects, many promises are made and discussions held, but little action is subsequently taken.

On Saba and Statia, the youth facilitators had real difficulties to deal with setbacks in the implementation of the workshops such as a lack of participants present. The workshop participants expressed dissatisfaction with the preliminary phase, and the youth facilitators felt responsible for this. This resulted in disappointments and frustrations which had a negative effect on their mood and therefore their contribution to the living lab workshops. Dealing with this disappointment and frustrations distracted the facilitators to put efforts in a revised programme of the workshops, whilst the facilitators do agree with the fact that the preparations could have been better. One of the challenges, both in the preparation as the implementation of the living lab workshops, was that a lot of time and efforts were put in coaching of the youth facilitators, whereas we also needed time to find our way into the project and prepare the workshops.

On Saba and Statia it was really appreciated that we involved people from the islands. Also on Bonaire most living lab participants reacted positively on the contribution of the youth facilitators. They appreciated especially their active participation, a clear interest in the participants and their facilitation skills (see figure 9).

Despite the challenges that the youth facilitators encountered, it was also a great learning experience. A youth facilitator who went to Bonaire shares the following:

“Duringthisproject,Ihavedevelopedvaluableskillsthatarehighlyrelevanttomyprofessionalcareer.Oneofthemost importantskillsIhavelearnedistheabilitytoformulateeffectivemessages andconveythemsuccessfullytomy audience.Throughthisproject,Ihavelearnedhowtopresentcomplexideasandconceptsina clearandunderstandable manner,ensuringtheyhaveameaningfulimpacton therecipient.

Figure 9 Evaluation results living lab participants Bonaire about working with the youth facilitators (n=9)

Additionally,Ihavesignificantlyenhancedmy creativethinkingability.Participatinginbrainstormingsessionsandidea generationwithintheprojecttaughtmetothinkoutsidetheboxanddeviseinnovativesolutionstochallengingproblems. Thiscapacityforcreativethinkingandofferingnewperspectiveshasprovenessentialinidentifyingeffectiveandsustainable solutions.

AnothervaluableskillIhaverefinedisthedailyevaluationandadaptationofmyapproachaftereachworkshopor interaction.Bycontinuouslyreflectingandevaluating,Iwas abletorefinemyapproachandtailorittomeetthespecific needsofstakeholders.Thisprocessofcontinuousimprovementnotonlyincreasedmyeffectivenessbutalsoenhancedmy abilitytodrivepositivechangewithinprojectsandinitiatives.

Overall,myparticipationinthisprojecthasnotonlystrengthenedmyskillsbutalsoboostedmy confidencetotackle complexchallengesandaddvalueinmyprofessionalcareer.ThelessonsIhavelearnedwillundoubtedlyhavealasting impactonmy futureworkandstrengthenmy contributiontoinnovativeandpurposefulprojects.”

Usually, workshops on Bonaire are conducted in the English or Dutch language. Participants felt very happy and comfortable that our workshops were mainly conducted in Papiamentu, allowing everyone to be involved. This was possible due to the involvement of the youth facilitators and the collaboration with local facilitators. One of the participants understood Papiamentu, but could not speak it. She would speak Dutch and this worked out fine. One of the facilitators had limited understanding of Papiamentu, so she conducted her parts of the workshop in Dutch which also worked out. The Powerpoint presentations were bilingual (Dutch and Papiamentu). Some of the training materials, including the scoping report, was only available in English. This turned out to be challenging for many participants, so it was translated in Papiamentu. On both Statia and Saba, language wasn’t much of an issue since English is the main language. However, on Saba and Statia the use of youth facilitators who were familiar in the area were very helpful with regard to practicalities and building trust in the project.

On Bonaire, significant efforts were made to build mutual trust among the living lab participants. The energizers and excursions highly contributed to this. Creating trust was a time intensive process but resulted in an effective “harvest” of results. On Stati, at the suggestion of the youth facilitators there was no emphasis on fostering interpersonal connections among the living lab workshop participants, as the small size of the island meant that attendees were already acquainted with one another. Hence, trust within the group of stakeholders on Saba and Statia were less of a concern. Both islands have got tight communities, and everybody involved in (some sort of) agriculture knows each other, the general attitude can be perceived as “we are in this together ” Saba being an even smaller community, the handful attendees were also very well acquainted with each other.

4.1.2 Stakeholder participation

The first year of the project was conducted remotely with no travel included to the BES islands. The first challenge encountered in the project was related to the high workload and understaffed departments of the local partners. Despite the sound familiarity of one team member with the local situation we worked far apart which did not support establishing a conducive relation. Although digital meetings provide a lot of opportunities to meet easily and prevent high costs and environmental pressure of international travel, it was felt that we were not fully connected and that personal contact might have been more beneficial at the beginning of the project. In order to mitigate the risk of limited organization, a local project assistant joined the Bonaire team. Her contribution turned out to be effective.

The project was implemented with a large consortium of Dutch partners. In terms of expertise this ensured we had all the knowledge and experience in our consortium to support the proposed experiments which were not

known in the project proposal phase. However, working together in such a large consortium also provides challenges with regard to project management and a good division of tasks, funds and responsibilities.

For Bonaire there was a good mix of experienced facilitators, support team, local experts and youth facilitators. We made use of a rotating system for responsibilities regarding reporting, recap, energizer and wrap up/evaluation. For Saba and Statia there was only one experienced facilitator who could join the full program, but as said before, there were very assertive youth facilitators. They took up tasks independently and did not need a lot of guidance to facilitate the process: the facilitators and youth facilitators acted mostly as equals during the workshops. During the workshops, it quickly became evident that the communication among stakeholders was balanced, and everyone naturally had the opportunity to voice their opinions. Consequently, the composition of the groups could prioritize achieving a balance in professional perspectives rather than considering individual vulnerability. On Statia, the group of farmers said they could only make time for one meeting, so they had an independent session together.

On Bonaire, the team was able to connect very well with the living lab participants due to their own backgrounds; knowledge of the culture and language. This had a huge impact on the trust building process with the participants. Usually these kinds of projects are guided by foreign researchers which doesn’t allow locals to express themselves freely because of language and cultural barriers. Several times during the whole process the participants gave us positive feedback that they were very happy that everything was in their own language and that they really felt heard and respected because of that. On Bonaire, during the living lab workshops different strategies of homogenous and diverse discussion groups were used. For the selection of the scenarios we divided the group in more homogenous groups of commercial farmers versus small scale farmers, since they are dealing with very different challenges. On Statia and Saba the groups were kept diverse through the whole week, this because of the smaller scale and interconnectedness of the challenges and initiatives. On Saba, except for the dream scenarios, we worked with only one group since there were maximum only six stakeholders present. With designing the dream scenarios we worked in two groups as with Statia.

Originally we intended to organise workshops on different moments of the day and week, to make it convenient for different groups of stakeholders to attend and test which groups attend at which time. For Bonaire it was decided to organize the workshops between 11 and 3, during the hottest moments of the day when farming is challenging. This worked out well for some participants including the commercial farmers who had employees and the government employees. However, for some smaller scale farmers who often have a second day time job, this was more challenging. The kick-off meeting was organized in the evening and visited by many participants. Maybe this would be a better moment in the day. Nonetheless, there were always between 12 - 15 participants present Both Statia and Saba had to fit the workshops in one week. The contents were spread over a full day, an afternoon, a full day, an afternoon and a morning, with the remarks that we were flexible and could move the times in consultation. These times were chosen because most of the stakeholders are government employees, so it had to take place between 9am and 5pm. The sessions with youth were of course planned after school hours, the farmer session on Saba was at the end of the afternoon after work time.

On all three islands the borders between government and non-government and public and private are vague. Many inhabitants have several jobs, so they are for example both a government employee as well as a farmer. We experienced a strong connectedness and common understanding between people and their different interests, but also some frictions with regard to different interests. An example is the friction between nature organisations promoting zero grazing systems for goats or sheep in order not to harm the natural environment, and on the other hand farmers who have free roaming goats and sheep because they are afraid for theft of their animals in a zero grazing system.

On Statia and Saba, sessions were held with a representative group of young people on Statia at the Gwendolin van Putten school and on Saba in a youth centre. Using a creative brainstorming and drawing method, the youth were asked about topics such as nutrition, agriculture, and health. What stood out was that while a portion of the youth showed considerable interest, they all expressed that they had little direct engagement with these areas. This contrasts with claims made by some adults and farmers, who suggest that "none" of the younger generation are interested. On Bonaire, the education department of STINAPA and a representative of AKSESO (social organization) were participants during the living lab workshops. Both could play a role involving more youth in a later stadium of the project.

In the project different systems are being used to exchange information and report on progress. The consortium partners are exchanging information through a MS Teams online environment where the partners and experts can access information and edit where necessary. For the living lab participants different WhatsApp communities were established which are still actively used. This shows the interest in the living lab activities.

Language is an issue regarding inclusion or exclusion of information. The official project language is English, which is also spoken on Saba and Statia, but on Bonaire Dutch and Papiamentu are more common. We pay ample attention to what kind of information is being shared with whom and in which language which should be accessible to the target group.

4.1.3 Approach, aim and focus

It was crucial to our project approach to use deliberative working methods to create common understanding on the main issues and to support the process of co-creation. Even before deliberative working methods can be used, it was of essential value for the participants to get to know each other better and to create mutual trust through name games and energizers In the beginning of the workshop it was challenging to manage expectations of the workshop participants. Working in the setting of a living lab was new for them and they had the perception they would join a “training”, which is different from the methodology of a living lab. Still the workshop participants were happy to learn something new, so they highly valued the food systems framework as well as the sustainable business model Canvas.

The focus of the excursion day on Bonaire was also on mutual learning and understanding. Leading questions raised during the excursion were the following:

• What good practices and challenges do you encounter in the daily operations of the organizations we visit?

• How do these examples contribute to a sustainable and resilient future for the food system?

• How do these examples and challenges fit into the proposed future?

Participants were asked to make photos of the examples and challenges they encountered during the visits and to share them in the WhatsApp group."

During the workshop days on Bonaire we engaged the participants in a process of back casting where we were discussing the current challenges in the food system. Together we visited several farms and the fishermen’s association to experience challenges and successes. Moreover, we cooked a meal together with locally available ingredients to understand the opportunities for a locally sourced cuisine. Based on the challenges perceived, the facilitators invited the participants to exchange imaginaries through a dreaming exercise. All participants were asked to close their eyes and concentrate while the facilitator would lead the dream by encouraging the participants to use all their senses while travelling on the island of Bonaire. After the participants “woke up”, they were asked to visualize and share their dream. This provided a solid ground for collectively desired futures where ambitions were articulated to a resilient food system.

Participants on Bonaire were invited at the last day of the workshop day to give personal feedback to each other through a game where a ribbon connected all participants.

Moreover, on Bonaire we conducted a daily evaluation using different methods were participants were invited to share what they learned, provide new insights and express wishes for future workshop days. The next day a recap was used to share again what was discussed during the previous workshop day(s) and to share this with participants who could not be present the previous days. In addition, the facilitators evaluated both the content and group dynamics after each workshop day and adapted the programme if necessary.

The reactions of the training participants based on the evaluation were mainly positive and included:

“Etainklusivonanivelkuturhendeporsigi.”

“It’s inclusive and on a level everyone can follow”

“Hopibon,pasobopartisipábotakedamas motivá.”

“Very good, because if you participate you will remain more motivated”

“Hopibon.Verwerkideanandihendenandiakinan”

“Very good. Incorporate the ideas of the local inhabitants”

“Sumamentu Importante i interesante”

“very important and interesting”

On Statia and Saba, the approach was less creative and comprehensive due to time constraints. The limited time available restricted the scope of activities and the exploration by creative methods compared to setting in Bonaire. At the suggestion of the youth facilitators, the limited availability of time, and the aforementioned scepticism, the decision was made to "quickly move to business." This approach was also feasible because the participants were already familiar with one another. Although the workshop days on Bonaire were almost equally evaluated the most interesting day was felt to be day 4, when the scenarios were developed. After all, most of the living lab participants felt heard during the workshops and enjoyed being part of a living lab.

Figure 10 Bonaire participants giving feedback to each other

4.2 Outcomes of the living lab workshops: defining 2050 scenarios

To address system thinking and visioning, scenarios have been developed by the living lab participants. It was indicated that one of the scenarios should also be aimed particularly at children and/or youth. The outcomes require mentioning that rather than scenarios participants have come to more concrete formulation of the experiments that will be undertaken in a next series of project activities. It is worth noting that participants were not fully aware on how to formulate a clear bold scenario or experiment, so a next round to reshape this might be necessary. Those results present a direct translation for each living lab of how the participants formulated the scenarios or the experiments.

4.2.1 Scenarios and experiments on Bonaire

On Bonaire, the main challenges regarding food system resilience were identified through a theatre play, by discussing the scoping study and visiting several farms and food initiatives during the excursions. An individual dreaming session was followed by the development of scenarios in 2050. The criteria for the scenarios, as mentioned in 3.4.3 were presented to the participants and future scenarios were developed with two different teams during the living lab workshops One team consisted of commercial farmers (related to scenario 2 and 3) and the other team of small-scale farmers and the “general audience” (scenario 1 and 4).

#1 Awareness about food production and healthy consumption

In 2050 there will be a strong awareness among the inhabitants of the island about the importance of healthy food consumption. Through schools and several government and non-governmental organizations children, young people and adults are confronted with the effects of (un)healthy eating patterns. At the same time, they are being educated about low profile DIY solutions. An experiment for this scenario was proposed to create a magazine in which adults and children will receive information about accessible methods of food production. The magazine is available in various public places and is provided for free.

#2 Stimulating local value chains

In 2050 there will be a distribution center/cooperative where agricultural products are collected and distributed to, for example, supermarkets and restaurants. Commercial farmers are organized to lobby for policy and manage a system to plan and monitor agricultural production, ensuring consistent supply to supermarkets and restaurants.

Figure 11 Evaluation results Bonaire (score 1-5, n=9)

#3 Governance and market protection of local food

In 2050, a policy has been formulated that works in the field of food production on the island. Locally produced products are protected. If continuous production of a particular product can be achieved, it will not be imported. This is enforced by customs. Supply and demand on the island has been mapped. Subsidies for (starting) entrepreneurs are available and exemptions from certain taxes are in place in order to motivate and encourage entrepreneurs in agriculture. It is safe again on the kunuku because forest rangers act upon a legal mandate to protect. All farmers have easy access to water; infrastructure is available for this because access to water is prioritized by the Government.

#4 A food conscious generation

In 2050, the population (including youth) will be nature-conscious and eat healthy. As a result, there are fewer diet-related diseases. The mindset of Bonaireans is one of 'nos mes por!' and there is collaboration with social organizations, overhead and schools. Lectures and workshops are regularly given to keep knowledge up to date. Youth are involved through social media and local influencers. As a result, the kunukeros do not lose their kunuku because the youth have become enthusiastic to take over.

4.2.

2 Scenarios and experiments on Statia

On both Saba and Statia, the main challenges regarding food system resilience were identified through round table discussions and visiting several farms and food initiatives during the excursions. Water management for irrigation purposes was being labeled as the number one challenge in both professional and back yard farming on Statia An individual dreaming session was followed by the development of future scenarios for 2050. On Statia an extra meeting with the Farmers Foundation was also held, because most of the farmers weren’t able to clear their schedule for a whole week, two representatives of the Farmers Foundation did join the Living Lab workshops the Lab and the Foundation connected The criteria for the scenarios, as outlined in section 3.4.3, were presented to the participants, and future scenarios were developed. Because of the small scale and interconnectedness of everyone, it was decided to make multidisciplinary teams. In collaboration with the living lab workshop attendees and the living lab session with the Farmers Foundation, a combination of the following two scenarios was proposed by the participants:

#1 Water security and sustainability: Statia's path to clean, reliable, and equitable access for all In 2050, Statia achieved water security and sustainability through innovative infrastructure, ecosystem management, and equitable distribution: Everybody has access to clean, reliable, and affordable water.

#2 Empowering the Future: Statia’s vision of sustainable agriculture through education and youth Engagement

In 2050, Statia fosters a dynamic agricultural culture through integrating agriculture into the education system. Local educational entities collaborate to inspire and equip the youth of Statia with skills, knowledge and passion for sustainable farming and food production.

The living lab participants proposed possible experiments which were a combination of the above scenarios. A small scale (grey) water set up will set an example and can function as demonstration plot for farmers, schools and the whole community It is proposed to be managed by the Farmers Foundation At the same time, a plan to improve and incorporate agricultural education at the Gwendolin van Putten school can be carried out. This will focus on the basics of agriculture and will make use of the (grey) water set up to promote back yard farming. Different farms, the Farmers Foundation, STENAPA and the school are very much open to collaborate. Since most Farmers are using plots owned by LVV or are employed by LVV, government is also involved

4.2.

3 Scenarios

and experiments on Saba

Saba’s proposed scenario is focused on education:

#1: Growing Health: Saba's 2050 vision for a healthy lifestyle through education, home gardening, and community collaboration

In 2050, Saba cultivates a vibrant culture of healthy living by integrating small-scale food production and lifestyle practices into the education system. Local educational and youth institutions, farms and community volunteers collaborate to inspire and empower Saba’s youth with the skills, knowledge, and passion for sustaining a healthy lifestyle through home gardening and nutritious eating and exercise.

It was proposed by the living lab participants to conduct an experiment with regard to sustainability education (in the broaden sense) on Saba’s middle school. The Sea & Learn initiative is already working on this; since Saba is a small community and different parties are already collaborating, assisting them would be a logical step.

What should be taken into account is that on both Statia and Saba, a shared sentiment emerged that Bonaire, as the largest of the BES islands, often enjoys more advantages and a larger share of budgets from projects This creates a sense of frustration among the residents of Statia and Saba, who feel that their islands receive less support.

5 Discussion

This chapter discusses the research findings, the composition of the living labs, relevant themes and a comparison with existing literature. It explores possible strategies towards solutions and considerations for the recommendations. Moreover, it evaluates the research strategy and indicates limitations of the overall research, including a reflection on the validity and reliability of the research.

5.1 The Living Lab workshops: the current composition

It is important to make a good selection of stakeholders for the living lab. Initially the quadruple helix was proposed as a model, but this was further translated into the Salience model for Bonaire. Although this was considered a useful exercise, it was mainly done by the consortium due to lack of time of the local partners. It would have been more beneficial to do this in a more participatory process.

The actual composition of living lab participants, partly due to invitations that were send late and the timing of workshops, may have influenced the results with regard to the scenarios. In Bonaire we had a group mainly consisting of governmental agencies, commercial and small-scale farmers growing food for home-consumption. The tourism and health sector were less represented. Moreover, on Bonaire it was impossible to reach the youth as living lab participants, since the schools should receive a formal invitation. It is hoped that the youth can join at a later moment.

On Saba and Statia the group of participants was small but diverse; only a small amount of people are active on food production and the sustainability field and they all know each other, so they mobilized themselves. On Saba, no members of the management team of the schools were present at the workshops. While they were represented by designated staff, it cannot be assumed with certainty that the management fully endorses or agrees with the plans and ideas that emerged from the workshops. Furthermore, it must be noted that the first group of living lab participants on all three islands are those actors who are seen as changemakers, which may not give a clear picture of the society as a whole.

5. 2 The Living Lab approach ; themes and design principles

For the theme ‘setting and system’ the most challenging design principles were related to the practical organization of the living lab, including setting dates and aligning with other projects as well as sending timely invitations. This may have influenced the composition of the living lab.

The underlying reasons are felt to be closely related to the relation with the local partners and their work overload, as well as the remote character of the project. In the project design we included little international travel to the BES islands with the underlying idea that this enforces post-colonial power struggles, is not costeffective and provides an environmental burden due to travelling by plane. We assumed that online collaboration provides sufficient opportunities. However, in our opinion we may have underestimated the importance of social capital necessary for a solid basis for project activities.

As a team of facilitators we also felt ourselves “a living lab”. meaning that we learned new things every day and were challenged with uncertainty all the time. This asked a lot of us in terms of flexibility, but also vulnerability. As facilitators we also had a 'senior' role to the youth facilitators and since we were also finding things out on the spot it was sometimes quite hard to deal with the need for information that the youth facilitators had. In the end, this had a positive effect on the whole process, because it challenged the youth facilitators to think as equals and contribute more. It made us also more humble and open to anything that could happen and influence the process.

For the theme “Stakeholders and collaboration”, the cooperation with local partners turned out challenging. In the initial meetings with local stakeholders, it was also noticed that sentiments are expressed that many research activities have been experienced without noticing any observable results. This observation confirms aspects of research fatigue already mentioned in literature (Ashley 2020). Moreover, the majority of the experts of the consortium had limited to no experiences with living labs. As such, the project felt as a living lab itself, where different views of what a living lab entailed had to come together. It was evident in the understanding of some concepts such as “scenario planning”, where different connotations existed, with a more technical or more social lens. In the end on all 3 islands we encountered a lot of goodwill and participated also very motivated people that have the capacity to motivate more people for the cause of the project. On Bonaire, as a result of the living lab workshops, several participants joined together by their own initiative to continue working on one of the scenarios that were written which includes the establishment of a distribution center for locally produced food. Since June they gather weekly working on the idea amongst themselves focusing on lambs meat for local restaurants.

In terms of “approach, aim and focus” the deliberative working methods stood out. On Bonaire, the dreaming exercise was considered a big success. The setting where the youth facilitator took the participants in their dream helped to visualise personal dreams. Participants felt happy to share their personal dream, which resulted in a session which took much longer as anticipated but this also resulted in valuable input for the scenarios. Deliberative working methods were also used to envision desirable futures for small-scale fisheries in Uruguay (Gianelli, 2024). Using an arts-based approach and leveraging the agency of emerging innovative initiatives throughout the country, different food system actors (fish workers, chefs, entrepreneurs) and knowledge systems (local, experience-based, and scientific) were engaged in a creative visioning process. In this project “collage” was chosen as a metaphor for the dynamic assemblage of perspectives, practices, and values derived from different “worlds”. This resembles the experience of Bonaire, where visualizing dreams was seen as an interesting method to create a new narrative with regard to food. Also the excursions on Bonaire turned out to be very beneficial as authentic learning experience where trust and mutual understanding was created among the living lab participants.

5.3 Working with youth facilitators

Collaborating with youth facilitator with a Caribbean background was an interesting experience: challenging and beneficial at the same time. Initially, recruiting students proved to be both challenging and much more time-consuming as expected. Access to the Caribbean student networks was limited and fewer students than expected reacted on the call for youth facilitators. As a consequence it was decided to adapt the selection criteria, allowing also first years students to apply instead of students from year 3 and above. This ensured we had at least sufficient youth facilitators to make a selection.

Facilitator training

The youth facilitation training programme took place form February to April 2024. This gave the youth facilitators the opportunity to prepare themselves for the living lab workshops. There were 9 training days all focussing on another topic related to the project. The youth facilitators training workshops were organized biweekly by the different partners at their own institutions with the idea of it being a nice adventure to visit all these different places.

Though they liked the youth facilitators training themselves, the youth facilitators mentioned the emphasis during the preparation programme was too much on technical aspects in the “green and blue domain” such as agricultural production, hydroponics and water management. The latter part of the programme, focusing on communication skills, facilitation skills and the living lab workshops was felt to be more relevant to prepare them for their role in the living labs.

The focus on the more technical aspects had to do with several factors. First of all, we have a relatively big consortium with Dutch knowledge institutes. All of those partners wanted to organise a day at their institute, situated throughout the Netherlands, and we also wanted the students to get to know the different institutes. Although the youth facilitators liked seeing different places, they found it overall too much of a hassle to travel around. They would have preferred the workshops being held at a central location.

The students expressed they were not fully satisfied with the preparatory training because they missed more background about living labs. The youth facilitators themselves indicated they had difficulties to deal with the uncertainty and dynamics of the living lab; this was recognized by the experienced facilitators. The youth facilitators expected a more defined and detailed elaborated programme which they could prepare beforehand, rather than adapting the daily programme and strategy throughout the workshop days. The latter requires a very flexible attitude and sufficient experience to adapt the programme quickly.

So the most important competence for the youth facilitators seems to be to deal with the dynamics and the uncertainty of the living lab. As facilitators we found it challenging to prepare students for that in a short time frame and it raises the question which methods will be most effective to prepare students for the role of facilitator of a living lab. Probably more authentic methods would have been beneficial such as role plays where the situation would be changed. But students probably learn best in the real situation during the living labs. It is therefore beneficial to involve the current group of students, who already had the experience, throughout the project. Moreover, it is important to share their experiences.

Due to this ‘wrong’ emphasis, the students did not feel well prepared at the start of the living lab workshops and were not very positive about the preparatory programme.

Organizing living lab workshops

The youth facilitators also mentioned they wanted to be more involved in the practical organization, because they felt they were not fully aware of the project details and the organizational aspects. At the same time, they felt the pressure of their studies and were not able to spend more time on the project.

In the initial phase of the research, numerous distinct processes were underway. Working on the facilitator manual was not prioritized, which caused it to finish just before departure. It became a well-designed document, but with the full living lab workshop programme the youth facilitators did not really find time to make use of it.

Embedding in education

The first strategy of facilitation the involvement of the students in the project was to establish a minor programme which should have included the training, a contribution to the scoping study, their participation as youth facilitator during the living lab workshops, and their contribution to the evaluation and reporting. Unfortunately, establishing a minor programme in the context of this particular project could not be realised. The time-frame of this SIA funded research project is 2 years only, and planning a minor requires timely subscription. Moreover we were struggling with the fact that we wanted to recruit and select a very specific segment of students. In addition, we decided to be flexible on the study year of the students; focusing on a minor would only give you the option to select students from year 3 or 4.

Another more flexible option to enhance a better collaboration between education and research might be "capita selecta", a customized, one-time course assignment tailored to an individual student project.

As recruiting students for a minor programme turned out not to be possible, other ways of embedding the students' project activities in their curriculum were explored. It turned out that the incorporation in their curriculum as a research assignment, an internship or a free elective was not realistic. Besides other impairments, all alternatives requested individual attention for each student. Two students achieved to include the project activities in their curriculum. A third student could have also utilized the youth session for her studies; however, due to unforeseen circumstances, she was unfortunately unable to join the trip to Statia and Saba at the last minute. The other students participated in the project as an extracurricular activity. We observed a positive relation between students who could integrate this experience into their curriculum and their level of motivation.

5. 4 Research limitations

In the project and research strategy we encountered several challenges that affected the research.

For the youth facilitators we prepared a diary with reflective questions. However, the youth facilitators were so busy with the workshops they could not find time or motivation to fill the evaluation questions every day. Some of the reflections were added later, but this may have influenced the reliability of the reflection. This becomes evident in the following quote of a youth facilitator:

“On Tuesday, our discussion about the logistics for the final workshop ended quite late, and we returned to the resort around 11:30 pm. Although it was late and I felt tired, I realized I could have begun either packing or working on the evaluation forms that evening. On Wednesday, we had a busy day and returned home late again. If I had started either task on Tuesday night, it would have saved me a lot of time and unnecessary stress from rushing to finish them on the day of the workshop".

In order to deal with this lacking data we recorded (with consent) the evaluation meeting with the youth facilitators and asked them to write testimonials afterwards.

On Saba and Statia, because of the fluctuating nature of the participant group, it is hard to say with certainty that everybody fully endorses or agrees with the formed scenarios and plans. Of course this lack of consistency in attendance was taken into account while guiding the process, but the outcomes are not the product of a process by a fixed group.

Another side effect was that a formal evaluation could not be conducted. As attendees frequently rotated and changed throughout the sessions, it was challenging to apply standardized assessment methods or gather continuous feedback. This hindered the ability to systematically evaluate the process and outcomes of the living lab workshop.

6 Conclusions and recommendations

This chapter provides the main conclusions on the findings which are translated in practical actor-oriented recommendations. In addition, recommendations for the next phase of the project are formulated.

6.1 Conclusions

The series of Living Lab workshops on Bonaire, Saba and Statia confirm the relevance of formulation and adherence to sound design principles. For “setting and system” major challenges on all islands were related to the practical organisation and invitations prior to the living lab which influenced the composition of the living labs and as a consequence also the results of the scenarios and experiments. On Statia, our workshop activities took place alongside those of another project, which was deemed more important due to its larger budget. We also experienced the importance of paying attention to mutual trust building for the new configuration of the living lab, especially on Bonaire.

The scoping study contributed to an understanding of the local situation with regard to food system resilience. On all three islands, it was acknowledged that the reliance on imported food is jeopardizing a stable supply. On Bonaire the driver for this instability was the political crisis with Venezuela, on Saba and Statia extreme weather played a role For all 3 islands economies of scale make the competition to imported goods challenging and the COVID-19 crisis exacerbated the situation of food instability

Although this study is considered valuable and has generated considerable understanding among consortium partners, significant time and financial resources were invested, while the conclusions were far from novel for the living lab participants. It is plausible that an equally valuable outcome could have been achieved on-site with less effort.

It was acknowledged by living lab participants that young people living on the islands showed little interest in pursuing agriculture as a career or even engaging in small-scale farming for personal use. On Bonaire, agriculture is already being implemented in the primary school curricula as part of the project “Kunuku Lifestyle Challenge – Zelf leren planten op school”. On Saba, the NGO Sea & Learn is working together with the local schools and already has some projects regarding sustainability education in which with the different grades, but it advised by both the youth and living lab participants to develop more learning materials on agriculture for the primary school curricula. Commercial farmers on Bonaire were primarily concerned about the lack of collaboration among farmers to establish reliable local value chains, as well as the absence of policies to protect local produce from competition with imported agricultural products. Access to water for irrigation was acknowledged as a challenge on all three islands but most prominent on Statia.

Working with youth facilitators with a Caribbean background required first and foremost an investment in terms of a challenging recruitment procedure and a training programme tailored to the needs to become a good facilitator of a dynamic living lab process, rather than a focus on more technical agricultural subjects. Moreover, we encountered difficulties in terms of motivation and conflicts with other educational activities, due to the fact that it was difficult to embed the training and living lab workshop as part of the official curricula of the students. However, the training and living lab workshops were a great learning experience for the youth facilitators and the use of youth facilitators turned out to be very beneficial in terms of local embedding. For Bonaire it turned out to be very useful in terms of language, whereas youth facilitators for Saba and Statia supported the project practically with their network and organisation skills. However, it must be noted that the efforts used to recruit and educate the youth facilitators were of the expense of the time that could have been invested in the organisation of the living lab workshops.

With regard to “stakeholder consultation” we encountered challenges at the start of the project to collaborate with our local partners in a virtual environment only, and with challenges related to understaffed departments with a high workload, despite the willingness to work together. For the living lab workshops on Bonaire, the use of energizers was considered crucial to create mutual trust among the participants, which created a solid basis for the deliberative working methods.

For “approach, aim and focus” our focus was on the living lab workshops using deliberative and participatory working methods. Both the dreaming exercise for envisioning and the excursions on the islands were contributing to this.

6.2 Recommendations

The design principles for a living lab have proven to be highly effective. It is recommended that other research projects aimed a living labs use these design principles as a foundation for setting up living labs, while contextualizing the principles for every situation. In order to stimulate other projects to benefit from our experiences, we will publish articles for both the general audience as the academic world.

Although being a youth facilitator is a highly valuable learning experience for students, it has been challenging to officially recognize this as part of the curriculum and thus award ECTS credits for it, which affected the motivation of the youth facilitators. In order to strengthen the link between education and research, it is recommended that Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences design more flexible study programmes that acknowledge and reward such learning experiences. This could take the form of "capita selecta", a customized, one-time course assignment tailored to an individual student project, or a minor where students undertake commissioned research. The latter may also beneficial to prepare bachelor students for a professional master together with students who have more working experience.

6.3 Towards work package 3

A next phase of the project will start in September 2024 with the implementation of proposed experiments based on the 2050 scenarios. Based on our findings we recommend the following.

Prior to the living lab workshops it has been discussed whether to have separate scenarios and experiments on each island or to have 1 or 2 experiments to be carried out on 2 or 3 of the BES islands. During the living lab workshops, the participants expressed their vision of the uniqueness of each island. Following the logic of three different Living Labs it is proposed to have different experiments for each island. However, as the islands also have commonalties learning from each other is beneficial if possible.

A total of 6 scenarios have been formulated, but this needs to be aligned with the available aim and budget of the project The scenarios should still be rewritten as actual bold scenarios or visions for 2050 whereas connected experiments need to be redefined and accompanied with a budget. It is recommended to organize a write-shop together with the living lab participants on location with local coordinators to co-create the renewed scenarios with experiments.

What should be taken into account is that on both Statia and Saba, a shared sentiment emerged that Bonaire, as the largest of the BES islands, often enjoys more advantages and a larger share of budgets from projects. This creates a sense of frustration among the residents of Statia and Saba, who feel that their islands receive less

support. Therefore, it is crucial to maintain open communication and ensure a fair and balanced distribution of resources. Only through this transparency and equity can we keep the participants motivated and ensure that all islands equally benefit from the available support and opportunities within this project.

The (youth) facilitators who visited Bonaire and Saba/Statia respectively build a relationship with the living lab participants and were involved in the process how the scenarios have been developed. Therefore, it is considered beneficial to include them actively in the process of the experiments as well. Whilst the student facilitators on Saba and Statia weren’t fully satisfies about the way the project went, they are committed to contribute to ‘their’ islands.

Related to the “setting and system”, the practical organisation, the invitation and timing of the living lab workshops may have influenced the composition of the living lab composition. Before inviting the stakeholders involved again for follow up workshops, a new analysis should be made on the composition of the group together with the living lab participants, to ensure the most stakeholders reflect the different elements of the quadruple helix as well as the themes. Moreover, special attention needs to be given to the involvement of youth in the living lab. In the same time, the relationship and trust build among the current group should not be underestimated. If new stakeholders will be added to the group it implies additional attention should be given to building mutual trust and a basis for successful cooperation.

Using the food system model and sustainable business model Canvas on Bonaire supported system thinking in a complex environment. It is advised to use those models as well for the experimentation phase. Although a scoping study has been conducted, the living lab participants were not actively involved in the creation of this study, despite the fact that some of them contributed indirectly to the research. Moreover, limited attention was paid to the governance of the food system, whereas this turned out to be an important element, especially on Bonaire. Hence, it is advised to develop additional baselines for each scenario by the living lab participants, with clear attention to governance and analyzing the dynamics of different stakeholders.

We faced some challenges in the practical organization due to limited time of our project partners. Using a local coordinator on Bonaire turned out to be a successful strategy and should be considered for Saba and/or Statia as well.

Finally, sustainability of the living lab is at stake as the project ends. Hence, it is advised to pay specific attention to continuation of the living labs during the second phase of the project. This implies we need to promote the work of the living labs actively and share lessons learnt. In the same time the project partners should apply to new projects or subsidies in order to ensure financial sustainability of the living lab on the longer term.

7 References

Ahmed, H (2024). Aquacultuur op Bonaire: Duurzame oplossingen voor lokale voedselzekerheid

Ashley, F. (2020) ‘Accounting for research fatigue in research ethics’, Bioethics, 35(3), pp. 270–276. doi:10.1111/bioe.12829. (Accessed 07 September 2024).

Van Berkum , S. Dengerink, J., & Ruben, R. (2018). The Food Systems Approach: Sustainable solutions for a sufficient supply of healthy food. Wageningen Economic Research. Retrieved from: https://library.wur.nl/webquery/wurpubs/fulltext/451505

Brouwer H, Woodhill J, Hemmati M, Verhoosel K and Van Vugt S. (2015) The MSP guide: How to design and facilitate multistakeholder partnerships. Wageningen, the Netherlands: Wageningen Centre for Development & Innovation (WCDI).

CaribResearch (2021). Re-imaging our realities: strengthening our capacity to cope with crises. Research agenda 2022-2026. Foundation for social research of the Dutch Caribbean and the Region. Aruba, Bonaire, Curacao, St. Maarten, Saba and Statia.

Dutilleul, B., Birrer, F.A.J., & Mensink, W. (2010). Unpacking European living labs: analysing innovation’s social dimensions. Central European Journal of Public Policy, 4(1): 60-85.

Edelenbos, J. & Monnikhof, R. (2001). Lokale interactieve beleidsvorming: een vergelijkend onderzoek naar de consequenties van interactieve beleidsvorming voor het functioneren van lokale democratie. Utrecht: Lemma.

Espersen, R. (2018). From Hell’s Gate to the Promised Land: Perspectives on Poverty in Saba, Dutch Accribean, 1780 to the MidTwentieth Century. Historical Archaeology, 52, 773- 797.

FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO (2021). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2021. Transforming food systems for food security, improved nutrition and affordable healthy diets for all Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb4474en

Gambieraki, Kok, van den Berg, Veldhuis (2023). Nurturing Food Resilience on St. Eustatius and Saba: Challenges and Initiatives. Geest, van der, M., & Slijkerman, D. M. E. (2019). Nexus interventions for small tropical islands: case study Bonaire: Food from the Land. Wageningen Marine Research.

Gianelli, I., M. Trimble, S. Juri, N. A. Beretta, D. Torena, M. Acosta, R. Acosta, M. Del Bó, J. A. Fuster, V. González, D. Kurta, M. Kurta, T. López, M. E. Marfetán, P. Montes de Oca, A. Morales, V. Pardo, J. Sandoval, N. Schuch, C. Taroco, A. V. Norström, L. M. Pereira, and S. Villasante. (2024) Envisioning desirable futures in small-scale fisheries: a transdisciplinary arts-based co-creation process. Ecology and Society 29(1):20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-14869-290120

Lie R, van Paassen, A and Witteveen L (2023). Living labs and innovation platforms: A literature review. Penang, Malaysia: Worldfish. Program Report.

Lotz L.A.P., A.O. Debrot, F. Neijenhuis, C. Stanghellini en R.E.E. Jongschaap (2020). Ontwikkelingsmogelijkheden voor de landbouw in Caribisch Nederland, Wageningen University & Research, Rapport WPR-1026. Marley, B. (1980). Redemption Song. https://genius.com/52077

Ministeries van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Infrastructuur en Waterstaat en Binnenlandse zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties (2020). Plan voor Land en Water. Beleidsplan Natuur en Milieu Caribisch Nederland 2020-2030. Den Haag. https://www.rijksoverheid.nl/documenten/beleidsnotas/2020/04/24/natuur en-milieubeleidsplan-caribisch- nederland-2020- 2030

Peterson, G. D., G. S. Cumming, and S. R. Carpenter (2003). Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology, 17 (2), 358-366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/ j.1523- 1739.2003.01491.x

Schlosser, E. 2002. Fast Food Nation. What The All- American Meal is Doing to the World. Penguin groups. London UK.

Sociaal-Economische Raad, SER (2021). Verkenning naar een landbouwakkoord: Naar duurzame toekomstperspectieven voor de landbouw. Verkenning 21/06. https://edepot.wur.nl/548033

Stahlbrost, A., & Holst, M. (2013). The Living Lab Methodology Handbook. Centre for distance spanning technology, Lulea University. Sweden.

Tal, E. (2024). Succes- en faalfactoren van tuinbouwinitiatieven op Bonaire

Verweij, P., Cormont, A., Nel, J., de Rooij, B., Jones-Walters, L., Slijkerman, D., & Teles, I. D. (2020). A nature inclusive vision for Bonaire in 2050 (No. 3023). Wageningen Environmental Research. Westerlund, M., & Leminen, S. (2011). Managing the challenges of becoming an open innovation company: Experiences from Living Labs. Technology Innovation Management Review: 19–25.

The Natural Step Germany. (2017, April 25). ABCD Process | The Natural Step Germany. https://www.thenaturalstep.de/solution/abcd- process/ Evans in Malmberg and Vaittinen 2017;5

Annex 1: Living lab activities on Bonaire

The facilitation team

The team that traveled to Bonaire consisted of five members; Heleen Quartel and Leonoor Akkermans as head facilitators assisted by Ceylan Theijsen, Paola da Costa Hermano and Jeralma Tromp as youth facilitators. Also, in Bonaire Sherwin Pourier and Radinka Ustasia assisted in the process.

This team was able to connect very well with the living lab participants due to their own backgrounds; knowledge of the culture and language. Except for Leonoor all facilitators (have) live(d) on Bonaire and Aruba. This had a huge impact on the trust building process with the participants. Usually these kinds of projects are guided by foreign researchers which doesn’t allow locals to express themselves freely because of language and cultural barriers. Several times during the whole process the participants gave us positive feedback that they were very happy that everything was in their own language and that they really felt heard and respected because of that.

Stakeholder identification

In the project proposal we made an initial selection of the stakeholders based on the quadruple helix of Government, civil society, commercial enterprises and knowledge institutes.

Figure A1. 1 Facilitation team Bonaire (Heleen, Ceylan, Leonoor, Radinka, Paola, Jeralma, Sherwin) Source: Anonymous Participant

For the final stakeholder identification of Bonaire, we made use of the salience model. This model makes a distinction between power, legitimacy, and urgency. The ultimate stakeholder can be found in the middle where all three circles overlap. The other words in the model indicate what type of stakeholder you find in a certain colour. For example, a stakeholder that is only in power, is a dormant stakeholder who you will need to try and activate.

In this selection we paid special emphasis on the involvement of youth through Forma, the secondary school and the junior ranger programme of STINAPA. In the end, it was especially difficult to involve youth, because our workshops took place during the day. Also, schools weren’t available at such short notice and should have been informed months earlier. There were some stakeholders, representing STINAPA and Akseso that can bring us in contact with youth in a later stadium. Other stakeholders were mostly present, not every day, but most of the time. Some of the farmers didn’t show up and didn’t give us any explanation. They might have been busy working. As a project team, we did manage to visit some of these farmers to collect their opinion on a food resilient future for Bonaire and shared this with the group.

The stakeholders that did participate in the workshops were very enthusiastic and will probably motivate others to join as well.

Figure A1. 2 Initial selection of stakeholders based on the quadruple helix

Participants Living Labs

In the preparation process a list of relevant stakeholders were identified by the team. This was validated with local consortium partner LVV.

Two weeks before the living lab workshops the stakeholders were invited through the following invitation:

Figure A1. 3 Stakeholders for the living lab Bonaire applied to the Salience model

Figure A1. 4 Invitation to the Living Lab in Papiamentu

15 may 2024 Kick-off of activities on Bonaire

16 may 2024 Day 1; Identify priorities

17 may 2024 Day 2; Dream about a food resilient future

18 may 2024 Day 3; Excursion, field day

20 may 2024 Day 4; Write future scenario’s

21 may 2024 Day 5; Determine experiments

23 may 2024 Day 6; Organize commitment living lab

Kick -off meeting

The kick-off meeting was organized in the evening 15th of May at LVV. 25 participants attended this meeting. Maurice Adriaens, head of LVV, opened the evening and welcomed everybody to the process. The facilitation team and the projects' general goals were introduced.

Additionally, the key findings from the scoping study conducted in preparation for the workshops were shared. A printed version of this scoping study was distributed to the participants. Local young people brought the specific identified problems to the attention of the participants through a play. Through the play participants were immediately captivated by the problem and started to share their experiences.

Day 1 : Identifying priorities

The facilitation team explained food resilience and the methodology behind living labs. The participants got to know each other, especially regarding the project's context. Since it is a small island, most people knew each other already but mostly in other contexts. The quadruple helix concept was presented, so the participants could identify themselves as a government, citizen, commercial or a public sector stakeholder. The scoping study was discussed in detail and the participants brainstormed in groups on pressing issues and priorities regarding the food system on the island. The major points mentioned were:

-Lack of an overall vision towards agriculture

• Ancestral knowledge may be beneficial, but it not being shared anymore

• Access to water: a lack of functioning wells or machinery for digging the wells

• Salination of the soil

• Erosion: due to overgrazing and construction activities

• Limited organisation and collaboration between farmers

• Limited motivation of youth to pursue a career in agriculture

• Expensive (imported) fruit and vegetables; local food products not widely available

• Unhealthy diets

Day 2 : Dreaming about a food resilient future

During the second day the facilitation team let the participants envision a food resilient future. This was done through a ‘dream session’, literally everybody closed their eyes and envisioned a food resilient future on Bonaire through a guided imagination process. When everybody opened their eyes again, they were asked to draw their own dream on paper (figure A1.5). This creative process gave everybody the opportunity to share their dreams and ideas. In the end the participants presented their dreams to each other. From all the dreams and ideas shared topics were distilled that could be used as building blocks for scenario planning later (see figure A1.6).

Day 3 : Excursion – field day

During a Saturday all participants and facilitators visited six different farms. Most of the farms were home to the participants themselves, which gave them the opportunity to proudly show their property. It was not only inspiring but also made the group closer in terms of trust and common goals. We spent time together in the field instead of the usual workshop location. This contributed to the bonding process of the group. In the next days of the workshops we could feel that the participants were even more motivated and involved in the process.

Figure A1. 6 Collage of envisioning process Bonaire

Figure A1. 5 Shared topics from envisioning

1. Piskabon

Association of local fisherman, presentation by the president and office assistant. The excursion to Piskabon, the Association of local fisherman, showed the benefits of working together in a cooperative. First of all, the members have access to subsidized inputs. Before corona, the price of oil was 80 dollars, after corona 170. The members now enjoy a subsides price of only 50 dollars. Fishermen

can also buy a safety package for USD 200 which normally costs 500 USD. The fishermen who are a member of Piskabon can also apply for a credit of 3000 USD. They have to comply to some criteria and pay back within 2 years without interest. They also assisted youth to become fishermen. They focus especially on vulnerable youth which is often out of school and face problems related to drugs.

STINAPA also created awareness about fisheries. For example, with regard to the consequences of fishing small fish to the larger ecosystem. Despite the successful efforts of Piskabon the continuity of the “zorgcontract” is jeopardized. In the week of our visit Piskabon was informed their subsidy would be halved.

The lack of clear criteria for this is seriously harming motivation.

2. Nature's cooking/LVV

Bonaire Nature cooking is a local small business that intends to stimulate healthy (vegan) cooking with local products Saeed Lourens, originally from Curacao, rents a plot of land at the LVV terrain. This means that he can make use of the sewage water easily. Saeed works a lot with youth as well. He also worked recently on a recipe leaflet together with Sharine Loozen, head of GGD/diet specialist. We visited his farm on the LVV site, where he demonstrated how to make a pancake out of green plantain. Besides that, LVV staff gave a workshop on sowing and planting local vegetables.

Afterwards we had lunch together, which was prepared by Saeeds team. This was a very healthy lunch, which was new to most of our participants. Some of them liked it, but there were also several participants that weren’t that pleased with the vegan part. Most Bonaireans are very used to a meat-based meal. However, it was good to see that a complete meal could be prepared with mostly local and affordable products.

Figure A1. 7 Presentation at Piskabon

Figure A1. 8 Nature’s cooking workshop

3. Punta blanku chicken farm

Punta blanku chicken farm is the largest commercial egg producer on the island. We visited the huge farm of family Emerenciana, which is a family business on Bonaire for decades. They invested in modern poultry housing that was developed in Spain and meets required European standards. It gives laying chickens more space and makes egg production more efficient. Feeding and collecting eggs are done mechanically, and the feed control is precise. This means that the production doesn’t need a lot of manpower, but it does depend on good technical maintenance. Luckily, the family works together with a maintenance company that was informed and educated about these technical details by the installing Spanish company. Punta Blanku provides together with Bienaventura chicken farm from Rincon all supermarkets in Bonaire with eggs. Although their products are of high quality and can provide for enough eggs on the island, there are still eggs imported from Miami because they are cheaper. This is a big struggle for them.

4. Onnie Emerencia

Onnie Emerenciana is a small-scale farmer that is always experimenting with different farming methods. He showed us a project that he is working on with recycled pallet wood Besides farming, Onnie gives workshops on agriculture, is involved in the agricultural curriculum for schools and runs a weekly farmers market.

Figure A1. 10 Kunuku di Onnie

Figure A1. 9 Punta Blanku Chicken Farm

5. Daymiro Janga

Daymiro Janga’s farm, bienaventura, has goats, sheep and chickens for meat production, in addition to egg production. At the end of the excursion day Daymiro showed us around his farm. Daymiro runs the farm besides his fulltime job as a customs handler in port. His wife and parents were also there and they prepared a very nice goat soup for us. Besides the information on goats, we also had a very nice time sitting together on the kunuku which is situated on a hilltop in Rincon.

Day 4 : Writing future scenarios

The next step was writing future scenarios. Therefore, the shared topics that were presented during the dream session were used. Besides that, the group was divided in four focus groups:

1. Small scale self-sustainable solutions

2. Commercial solutions

3. Policies

4. Education/awareness

The following scenarios were presented:

#1 In 2050 there will be a magazine in which adults and children will receive information about accessible methods of food production. The magazine is available in various public places and is provided for free.

#2 In 2050 there will be a distribution center/cooperative where agricultural products are collected and distributed to, for example, supermarkets and restaurants. Commercial farmers are organized to lobby for policy and manage a system to plan and monitor agricultural production, ensuring consistent supply to supermarkets and restaurants.

#3 In 2050, a policy has been formulated that works in the field of food production on the island. Locally produced products are protected. If continuous production of a particular product can be achieved, it will not be imported. This is enforced by customs. Supply and demand on the island has been mapped. There are subsidies for (starting) entrepreneurs and exemptions from certain taxes; This is to motivate and encourage entrepreneurs in agriculture. All farmers have easy access to water; infrastructure is available for this. It is safe again on the kunuku because forest rangers are doing their work.

#4 In 2050, the population (including youth) will be nature-conscious and eat healthy. As a result, there are fewer diet-related diseases. The mindset of Bonaireans is one of 'nos mes por!' and there is collaboration with social organizations, government and schools. Lectures and workshops are regularly given to keep knowledge up to date. Youth are involved through social media and local influencers. As a result, the kunukeros do not lose their kunuku because the youth have become enthusiastic to take over.

Figure A1. 11 Bienaventura farm

Day 5 : Formulate experiments

During this session the participants worked on the concretizations of the scenarios as described above by using the steps of the Canvas business model. The participants worked in two groups to develop the scenarios into experiments and presented the proposed experiments to each other. At the end of the day the facilitation team presented the criteria and budget for experiments as explained in chapter 4.2.

Day 6 : Organize commitment

The last day we talked about the commitment to the different proposed experiments of the group members. The experiments as mentioned below were the results of the workshops and need to be worked out in more detail.

#1 Awareness about food production and healthy consumption

Experiment: Working group that will design a magazine, with fixed chapter division. Needed: coordinator, photographer, writer, illustrator, printer, logistics, partners for distribution.

#2 Stimulating local value chains

Experiment: Working group that will write an action plan and run a pilot for the distribution centre for regional products “Bonaire Platinum”. Following on from a previously developed initiative by Sherwin and Daymiro, among others.

#3 Governance and market protection of local food Experiment: Formulating an outline of policies that must change to facilitate to local food production. In the first place this must be done by local producers with the help of a local lawyer. Later, we can lobby with the government.

#4 A food conscious generation Experiment: Media campaign about own food production and healthy eating

Figure A1. 12 Participants formulating experiments

Annex 2: Living lab activities on Statia and Saba

It is important to not lump St. Eustatius and Saba together, but because they are visited by the same research team with the same program, we made one overview of the organized activities.

The facilitation team

The team that travelled to Statia and Saba consisted of four people; Radinka Ustasia and Hinno Bel as head facilitators, assisted by Jade Every and Charissa Martis as student facilitators. Radinka Ustasia was also involved in the living labs on Bonaire for monitoring the continuity of the method? The local knowledge and experience was greatly appreciated.

A week before the living lab workshops the stakeholders were invited through a formal email, accompanied by a more creative introduction movie that can be found here.

Date Activity

20/27 May 2024 Day 1; Introduction, Identifying challenges

21/28 May 2024 Day 2; Identifying stakeholders, matching stakeholders to challenges, dream scenarios, back casting

22/29 May 2024 Day 3; Excursions; Dream scenarios with high school students

23/30 May 2024 Day 4; Defining initiatives

24/31 May 2024 Day 5; Initiative plans and presentations

Programme living lab workshops Saba and Statia

Table A2. 1 Program Living Lab Saba and Statia

Figure A2. 1 Facilitation team Statia and Saba (Hinno, Jade, Radinka, Charissa)

Figure A2. 2 Invite Living Lab Saba

Day 1: Kick -off and Identify priorities

Participants were introduced to the project, the team, concept of the living labs, and the ABCD model. Participants identified the challenges to food system resilience in Statia and Saba, which were clustered into 3 main challenges. For Statia “Management & Government”, “Export Limitations” and “Marketing Challenges”. For Saba “Knowledge and Education”, “Supply & Production” and “Future Society”.

Day 2 : Dream about a food resilient future

Participants refined the challenges and matched them to their respective stakeholders. Participants worked in groups to create dream scenarios, then applied the back-casting methodology to think of the necessary steps to reach food system resilience in 2050, each step representing 5 years. Participants presented their dream for 2050 with intermediate steps.

Day 3; Excursion; Dream scenarios with high school students

The excursions were meant as a way to see firsthand the situation, methods, and challenges faced on the farms. The intention was to go with a group of participants, so we could spark dialogue about these issues while visiting the farms and take these lessons in consideration while planning scenarios However, only the participants on Saba participated in the excursions.

St. Eustatius: During the excursions, three farms and a reforestation initiative were visited. The first farm belonged to Mr. Hazel, a commercial farmer that cultivates produce such as cucumber, okra, and melons. The second farm belonged to Paula Brooks, a small-scale farm that resembles the concept of a food forest. Mrs. Brooks processes her harvest into oils, jam, and dried fruits. She also shares her terrain at LVV with other smallscale farmers, including a Hydroponics farmer and Leyo Woodley, with his animal husbandry. Finally, we were invited by STENAPA to visit the ReforeStatia nursery site.

Figure A2. 3 Collage of envisioning process Statia

It was interesting to see that the ‘older generation’ implemented principles in line with agroforestry and biodynamic farming. These farmers produced a wide variety and abundant quantity of vegetables, fruits, and nuts. Despite their success, many farmers express concern that the younger generation shows little interest in agriculture. They worry about the future of farming on the island, as fewer young people are choosing to continue the tradition of working the land. Additionally, it is noticed that the collaboration or in some cases lack of collaboration between farmers is a very delicate matter on such a small island.

Saba: During the excursions, we visited 2 farms. Both farms are property of the government, a ‘classic’ horticulture farm and a hydroponics farm. Both farms are run by government employees and produce a variety of fruits and vegetables for the local market.

The government on Saba is actively involved in Agriculture production, they are investing in both traditional and modern methods of agriculture. They also invested in a professional buchery that shares a terrain with the hydroponic farm. The employees are enthusiastic about their work and improving the availability of locally produced food on the island.

Both excursions were mostly aimed at the facilitators themselves, due to the size of the islands: all stakeholders are already familiar with the farms and projects.

Figure A2. 4 Envisioning process results Saba

Session with the local youth. In a workshop led by one of the student facilitators, a group of local youth was asked to reflect on the local food chain and its sustainability. On St. Eustatius this was done at the high school, on Saba this was done at youth center The Spot. Students were divided into groups and each group was assigned a specific stakeholder role in the food system (e.g., farmer, consumer, policymaker, distributor). Students created posters illustrating the role of their respective stakeholders in the food system, then they listed challenges the stakeholders might have, brainstormed possible solutions, and finally envisioned the perfect food system for Statia. To conclude the session, students presented their posters and discussed whether they see themselves having a role in the food system.

The workshop started with some hesitation. Initially, the young participants found it difficult to grasp how different actors influenced the system. However, through some lively discussions, they became more engaged because their understanding began to grow. It was an eye-opener for many to realize that they could contribute to the food system without being directly involved in food production ‘in the hot sun’. This revelation excited several participants. Of course, some of the children already envisioned different career paths for themselves. Overall, the workshop successfully broadened their perspectives on the various ways they could impact the food system, highlighting roles beyond traditional farming and production. An important highlight is the realization of the youth that these topics are not really included in the school’s curriculum, while they found it really important and interesting.

Figure A2. 6 Statia youth presenting their vision

Figure A2. 5 Saba youth presenting their vision

Day 4; Defining initiatives

St. Eustatius: Due to scheduling constraints with another food systems workshop (by a representative of the EU), day 4 was not well visited. Four participants together with the facilitation team reflected on the outcomes of the workshops and brainstormed about possible initiatives.

The team met with the farmers' foundation to discuss possibilities of working with them for an initiative.

This resulted in each farmer lobbying for what they saw was necessary for their farm. Luckily, they referred us to their secretary with which we met with the next day, Sara Stone. Sara presented us a project plan for project that would promote small gardens, smart water management, and participation of woman and youth in small scale food production. This project brought together many of the issues we learned about throughout the week and formed and could be very valuable in formulating experiments that are beneficial for a larger segment of the population on Statia.

Saba: Participants defined possible experiments. Due to the size of Saba they chose to integrate the two designed scenarios and make it into one feasible experiment with different work packages:

#1: With volunteers and support, implement lessons on small scale food production and healthy lifestyle through the whole school curriculum. Join the Sea & Learn initiative in the schools so it will not be an extra task for the teachers.

Zion’s Hill Farm and the hydroponics farm are open to collaboration.

In an earlier project “Versterking groen onderwijs Bonaire”, Aeres University of applied science together with local partners, developed lesson plans for Bonaire. This can be used to further develop it into a Saba program.

#2: Assess which materials or resources are needed for agricultural initiatives at the schools, the farms, The Spot and Sea & Learn and prioritize: which will have the most impact on this very moment? Also check what materials are already available on the island and what can be repurposed and/or donated.

#3: Assist Sea & Learn with developing lesson plans.

Also creating a network in which students attending the partner universities can participate in the program.

Day 5; Initiative plans and presentations

St. Eustatius: #1 Water management:

Access and availability of water being an identified number one challenge for farming. Assisting in sustainable water management by promoting the use of grey water. In addition, to strengthen the capacity of water catchments, guttering systems, water diversion, and water irrigation systems to help solve the water challenge.

#2 Sparking youths' interest in agriculture: Collaborate with educational entities such as, Gwendolyn van Putten

Secondary School (GVP), to engage youth in traditional agricultural gardening, greenhouse, hydroponics and the innovations of aquaponics.

Saba: With the initiatives in place, they were presented to the Island Council to check if these are in line with political ambitions. The council was enthusiastic about the plans and ‘gave us their blessing.’

Evaluation

On both Statia and Saba, the participants showed interest in the project, however, were skeptical of anything happening as a result of the Living Lab. This is due to many projects initiated in the Netherlands not following through or delivering according to their expectations. Moreover, on Statia they were not timely informed by our

Statia contact, this and the already present scepticism created many discussions. Discussions of this nature put additional constraints on the already limited time to carry out the workshops. With a lot of flexibility and improvisation, the team managed to get two potential initiatives to carry out on Statia. On Saba the invitations to join the workshops were sent out earlier, but participants still found it too late. Sabans have a strong sense of community, which helped get people on the same page, but with late invitations and busy schedules it was hard to get a stable group. Together we came up with an initiative that joins an already ongoing projects, which will enhance the chance for success and sustainability.

Annex 3: Overview recruitment

Name organisation

CaribbeanUnitedTheHague

TuranGoeloe

WeConnect

CaribeEindhoven

HvAnti

HANHuntu

Cari-Mix

CarE

LeidenCaribbeancommunity

Antuba

Description

Study association for Dutch Caribbean students at Inholland UAS

Organization aiming to support international students during their stay in the Netherlands

Educational non-profit organization that connects Dutch Caribbean students and young professionals to the Netherlands

Study association for Dutch Caribbean students in Eindhoven

Study association for Dutch Caribbean students at Amsterdam UAS

Study association for Dutch Caribbean students at HAN UAS

Study association for Dutch Caribbean students at Utrecht UAS

Study association for Dutch Caribbean students at The Hague UAS

Study association for Dutch Caribbean students in Leiden

Mentorship program for Dutch Caribbean students at Rotterdam UAS

Table A3. 1 List with Dutch Caribbean student organisations consulted

Figure A3. 1 Recruitment flyer for youth facilitators

Annex 4: Participants Bonaire

Annex 5: Participants Saba

Participants of the Living Lab Saba

In the preparation process a list of relevant stakeholders was identified by Camilo Usuga from the Public Entity of Saba and Jade, one of the student facilitators who originates from Saba.

Annex 6: Participants Statia

Participants of the Living Lab St. Eustatius

In the preparation process the government on St. Eustatius took upon the task to invite the stakeholders. Unfortunately, due to a flooded agenda and three projects taking place at the same time, the invites were only sent out on the Friday afternoon prior to the start of the workshops on Monday.

Table A6. 1 List of

on Statia

Gwendolyn van Putten School