Short Food Supply Chains: a Dutch Farmers’ Perspective
and Reflections on a Food System in Transition
S ource: http://www.jabbeke.be/bestanden/20087_1.jpg
Course: Interdisciplinary Project Date: 23-12-2016
Tutor: Jaap Rothuizen Supervision: Alison Gilbert Words: 5874
Hanna Baan Hofman 10769900 Human Geography
Louelle Seelmann 10766073
Sociology of Development & International Development Studies Marte Sikkema 10742506
Human Geography
Kris van der Werf 10767983 Business Administration
Abstract
Enforcing a shift in power and capital back to the production side of the chain is necessary, as most food supply chains are organised in such a way that farmers only receive a small amount in comparison to the rest of the supply chain, and hereby facing difficulties managing their farm enterprise. The transition to SFSCs is often considered to be a counter phenomenon to the conventional, globalised food system in which farmers try to re-spatialise and re-socialise the food system in such a way it challenges the conventional food system. By aims of this research we wish to add a farmer's perspective and thereby further complementing the SFSC debate with
empirical evidence.
In this report, the MLP has been used in order to perform a transition analysis about Short Food Supply Chains within the current foodscape in the Netherlands. Furthermore, a qualitative data analysis has been done to uncover the motives and obstructions that farmers experience who produce in a SFSC. Taken the popularity and attention SFSCs are gaining from policy makers, consumers and farmers, it is unlikely that this niche will disappear in the near future. Yet, it seems unlikely that there will be a transition in the Dutch food system in the short term, although the social, ecological and financial challenges faced at the conventional food system reveal that structural adjustments are inevitable. Therefore SFSCs can be seen as reflection of a food system in transition, as it shines light on the issues within the food system and at the same time provides opportunities for some to cope with these difficulties.
Secondly, the motives of farmers to participate in a SFSC are very diverse and overlapping. A rough distinction however can be made between survival, development and diversity motives.
Table of content
Abstract 2
Table of content 3
1. Introduction 4
2. Theoretical Framework 5
2.1 Multi Level Perspective 5
2.2 Short Food Supply Chains 6
3. Research Design 7
3.1 Interdisciplinary approach 7
3.2 Research Methods 7
3.3 Interviews 9
4. Literature & Qualitative Analysis 10
4.1 Multi-Level Perspective Analysis 10
4.1.1 Landscape level 10
4.1.2 Regime Level 11
4.1.3 Niche Level 12
4.1.4 Transition Perspective 14
4.2 Qualitative Data Analysis 15
5. Discussion & Conclusion 18
1. Introduction
Critical Food Policy scholars argue that the 2007 food crisis, where world food commodity prices skyrocketed, was the result of the productionist approach to agriculture (Lang, 2010). This crisis expresses itself in what is often called the “triple burden of over-, under, and malconsumption, all coexisting, often within the same region and country” (p.89). As a leading professor in Food Policy, Lang (2010) suggests policy needs to focus on supply chains; enforcing a shift in power and capital back to the production side of the chain. He argues that this shift in power is necessary, as most food supply chains are organised in such a way that farmers only receive a small amount in comparison to the rest of the supply chain, and hereby facing difficulties managing their farm enterprise. .
Taking this trend, in 2010 the European Parliament recognized the hardship of agricultural producers. By aims of improving the economic situation of farmers, the parliament called on the European Commission to promote Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) as part of many rural development programs (European Parliament, 2010). The transition to SFSCs is often considered to be a counter phenomenon to the conventional, globalised food system in which farmers try to re-spatialise and re-socialise the food system in such a way it challenges the conventional food system (Feagan, 2007; Renting, Marsden & Banks, 2003). Transition theory scholars question whether this relatively new focus on SFSCs by both the European Commission and farm enterprises marks a transition towards a future food system with more coherence and uniformity, or that SFSCs remain a relatively weak niche in relation to the current productionist approach to agriculture (Spaargaren, Oosterveer & Loeber, 2012). We subsequently wonder what the pushes and obstructs farmers to produce in a SFSC, as this uncovers the strengths and weaknesses of the niche level. Therefore our research question is: What are the drivers and obstructions of farmers to be involved in a SFSC, and to what extent are SFSCs a reflection of a food system in transition? By aims of this research we wish to add a farmer's perspective and thereby further complementing the SFSC debate with empirical evidence. We choose to interview farmers in the Netherlands as this enables us to gather more in-depth data, as we share the same mother tongue. .
The research is structured as follows: First, the theoretical framework consists of transition theory, the accompanied Multi Level Perspective (MLP) and SFSCs. Secondly, the research methodology is explained. Then, the research analysis which consist of two sections: first a MLP analysis on SFSCs and transitions; and secondly qualitative analysis. Finally, the overall conclusions are discussed, which also includes a discussion of the research and recommendations for further research.
2. Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework consists of the Multi Level Perspective and SFSCs. As transition theory with the accompanied MLP seem valuable analytical tools to analyse in more detail current trajectories. Together with the explanation of SFSCs, this theoretical framework forms the backbone of the subsequent research.
2.1 Transition theory and the Multi Level Perspective
The Multi Level Perspective (MLP) is a theoretical framework used in transition studies. Transition theory analyses structures, assuming they are dynamic through temporospatial scales to both trends and actors that try to influence these structures. The MLP consists of three levels of analysis: the regime, landscape and niche level (Spaargaren et al., 2013). This chapter will first elaborate on transition- and related theories, followed by the analytical levels respectively.
Transition theory builds on Giddens’ structuration theory, a social theory that studies the interaction between structure and actors. Inhere, ‘structure’ is explained as “rules and resources recursively implicated in social reproduction” (Giddens, 1984: p. 31), often embodied in institutions. Structures influence the practices of the actors, also explained as agency, but at the same time structures are being altered by the agency of the actors (ibid.).
Transitions signify structural changes that alter the regime, resulting in a transition towards a new regime. Hence, transition theory analyses the conditions necessary at all structural levels (landscape, regime and niche), for a regime shift, as these transitions are considered to be of importance to resolving complex societal problems (Spaargaren et al., 2013).
The MLP provides a narrative analytical perspective (Grin et al., 2011) to analyse and explain possible transitions. Regimes are the dominant socio-technological structures that are established by the ongoing reproduction of the practices of the majority of the actors and institutions involved. An example of the structuration of the outcome of these practices at regime level is the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The landscape level is a more underlying, set of organisational trends of the social, political, economic and technological cultures. At the niche level innovations occur that challenge the current regime (Spaargaren et al., 2013). As a counterforce to the dominant productivist paradigm (Feagan, 2007; Renting et al., 2003), SFSCs can be seen as a niche within the current food regime. When the pressure from both the niche as the landscape level on the regime level becomes big enough, a new configuration of the regime can take place, explained by Spaargaren et al. (2013) as a transition. Figure 1 illustrates this process.
Figure 1. Multi Level Perspective on transitions (Spaargaren et al., 2013)
2.2 Short Food Supply Chains
Short Food Supply Chains (SFSCs) are considered to be part of an alternative food network, so to say a ‘niche’ in the MLP analysis. The European Union is promoting this type of food supply chain and defines SFSCs as follows: “The foods involved are identified by, and traceable to a farmer. The number of intermediaries between farmer and consumer should be ‘minimal’ or ideally nil” (Kneafsey et al., 2013: p. 13). Other definitions always include that SFSCs consider both “relational and geographical proximity” (Mundler & Laughrea, 2016; Kebir & Torre, 2013). Geographical proximity considers the transportation distances from the site of production to the place of consumption of a certain product (Galli & Brunori, 2013). Social proximity considers the relationship between producer and consumer which is formed by information about producer, food quality, farming practises and social and ethical values (Ibid.).
Given the aforementioned difficulties experienced by farmers, SFSCs can be seen as a response of the farmer to the changing economic, political and social context of their enterprise (Renting et al., 2003). By being engaged in a SFSC, farmers can regain power in influencing the organisational structure of the supply chain, while giving a counter reaction to the ‘price-squeeze’ (ibid.). However, these farmers cannot be seen as a homogeneous group as they foster contrasting motives to partake in a SFSC. In literature, differentiations are made between defensive and reflexive localisation movements (Wald & Hill, 2016). Defensive localism favours the homogeneity of the ‘local’ and expresses itself in the need to resist external forces and the
importance of protecting local traditions (Wald & Hill, 2016). This bears the risk of going hand in hand with forms of protectionism, particularism, patriotism, elitism, conservatism and even xenophobia” (Feagan, 2007). While reflexive localism, on the other hand, does question the assumption of the ‘local’ being intrinsically good. It bears in mind that “proximity is not the same as social fairness” (Kenis & Mathijs, 2014: p.175). Therefore, observations regarding localisation movements and SFSCs should be nuanced, as the outcome of these movements highly depend on how the ‘local’ is constructed (Wald & Hill, 2016). Additionally, Ibery and Maye (2005) distinguish between a survival- and development strategy for a farmer to partake in a SFSCs. Given the fact that different sources stress different reasons to partake in a SFSC (which will be further explored using literature at the MLP analysis), the qualitative analysis will provide additional insights, to further complement the empirical evidence regarding SFSCs. Moreover, to study transitions in relation to SFSCs, the different perspectives on SFSCs need to be fully comprehended.
3. Research Design
3.1 Interdisciplinary approach
This research topic is interdisciplinary from origin, which asks for theoretical and methodological pluralism (Menken & Keestra, 2016). This is elaborated as follows: first of all, rural sociology will form a crossroad between social sciences and agricultural sciences, which looks at the different rural development paradigms and the socio-economic dynamics of the food system. The second discipline is business, which will make a connection between economic aspects such as revenues, profits and subsidies and the way these aspects influence the farmer to be involved in SFSCs. Finally human geography and food politics, which will look into the proposed policies on different scales for food production and agriculture by the EU and what these policies imply for a food system transition. The integration of the disciplines happens through the integration of motives found in academic literature. The motives identified in the scientific literature are from rural sociology, human geography and business and compressed in five different motives. They are displayed in table 2 in the niche level analysis of the fourth paragraph as they are part of the MLP analysis. The MLP is used as analytical tool to analyse in more detail current trajectories and explanations of SFSCs. These same motives steered the topics and questions in the interview schedule and performed as guidance in the qualitative analysis.
3.2 Research Methods
The research question is twofold and to answer the question thoroughly literature as well qualitative research is required. First, academic literature research is done to gain insights into the current academic knowledge and theories regarding SFSCs and transition thinking. Second, data of European policy is analysed to acquire understanding on the position different actors have with respect to SFSCs and how policy (tries to) influence the transition towards SFSCs. This extensive literature research serves to understand the landscape in which the transition towards SFSCs occur. Through the MLP the transition analysis has been done. Finally interviews were held to obtain the Dutch farmer perspective to partake in SFSCs.The table below gives an overview of the main sources used.
Source Number of sources Method Goal
Academic literature 27 Literature
study
- Find main pushes and obstructions for farmers to partake in SFSCs. - Analyse how SFSCs reflect a food system in transition.
Policy documents
- EU 4
Data analysis
- Find view of policy actors on a transition towards SFSCs Semi structured interviews - Farmers - Expert LTO 12 1 Qualitative analysis - Dutch farmer perspective to partake in SFSCs
Figure 2, 12 interview locations.
3.3 Interviews
After literature research qualitative research in the form of in-depth interviews is done to collect data of farmers pushes and obstructs to produce in a SFSCs and how farmers perceive the influence of policy in their niche of the food system. First an expert from LTO was interviewed to gain more insight in the current situation of the food system and a general overview of SFSCs in the Netherlands. Afterwards twelve Dutch farmers in the SFSC were interviewed. The research focuses on the motives of farmers to sell through SFSCs. And thus farmers who only produce in conventional supply chains were not interviewed, as they cannot explain the drivers and obstructions concerning the participation in a SFSC. In this way, the interviews help to create an understanding of the niche level within the MLP. Furthermore, the reason why the research focusses on policy within the regime level, is because every farmer living in the Netherlands with their own business will experience the influence of policy to some extent. In preparation of these interviews, some questions had been set up in order to get a semi-structured design (see appendix). This interview practice enables for a comparison between farmers perspective, derived from the interviews, and the perspective presented in literature. The interviews provided space for the farmers to bring their own perspective forward. This is evidenced by the fact that the answers of the farmers were partially the same and partially different from each other and
partial different from the literature results. When conducting the interviews, the ethical principles as described in Bryman (2012: p.135) were taken into account. The sample is based on farmers with different types of SFSC businesses. The interviews are meant to acquire in depth knowledge of a farmer with respect to its local context and not to gain generalizable on the whole SFSC farmer community. Therefore the sample size is no bigger and the selection of the farmers was not randomly but strategically chosen to interview various types of farm businesses. These interviews were analysed based on the motives that were conducted from literature and are displayed in table 2.
4. Literature & Qualitative Analysis
This chapter comprises the MLP- and the qualitative analysis. The MLP analysis will have a niche approach to analyse transitions.
4.1 Multi-Level Perspective Analysis
The MLP analysis consists of the the landscape level, regime level and niche level respectively. Taken these findings, in the last paragraph regarding transitions the research question can be answered from a niche level perspective: to what extent are SFSCs a reflection of a food system in transition?
4.1.1 Landscape level
According to Spaargaren et al. (2013) the most dominant landscape trends applicable on the global food system are sustainability and globalisation. Sustainability can be seen as a key concept driving transitions since the Brundtland and Club of Rome report, representing a new body of knowledge regarding sustainable production and consumption of food. In face of problems such as climate change, the transitions towards more sustainable modes of farming become increasingly important. Under the influence of globalisation, (social) relations became stretched out over a global level, influencing practices at a local scale and thereby global-local dynamics (ibid.).
Another relevant landscape trend in relation to SFSCs is the ‘price-squeeze’, which can be explained as the continuous and increased pressure on farmers income as a result of the modernisation approach to agriculture, where upscaling of production volume remain important (Renting et al., 2003). However, this increase of production seems to have reached its limits because of “the saturation of markets, increased possibilities for sourcing food industries with nonagricultural primary materials, and growing opposition to the ‘dumping’ of surpluses on world markets” (p. 397). Meanwhile, production costs increased to meet new environmental-, animal-welfare and sanitary measures, resulting in economic margins of farmers structurally decreasing (Van der Ploeg, 2000). .
4.1.2 Regime Level
The dominant socio-technical regime encompasses the key institutions and actors involved in the conventional supply chain, categorised according to six dimensions: (1) Policy; (2) Markets,
user preferences; (3) Culture; (4) Science; (5) Industry; and (6) Technology (Spaargaren et al., 2013). However, as this research focusses on the niche of SFSCs, only the first two dimensions will be elaborated upon, as these are the most dominant structures farmers in SFSCs interact with. Figure 3 illustrates the dimensions of the regime-level and the first two dimensions are further explicated in the following paragraphs.
Figure 3. Dimensions socio-technical regime relevant for analysing SFSCs
Common Agricultural Policy & Rural Development Policy
Since the very beginning of the CAP in 1962 economic and societal trends have been a cause for reforms of the policy. Currently, the post-2013 CAP reform is in practise, of which the period will last from 2014 until 2020. The European Commission has identified three main challenges facing the agricultural sector in the CAP 2014 -2020: territorial, environmental and economic challenges. The economic challenge includes the ‘deteriorating position of farmers in the food supply chain’ (European Union,
2013
2 , p. 2). The same document describes measures to facilitate producer corporation that should ‘boost the competitiveness of farming by adding value to the primary sector. This includes support for setting up producer groups as well as short supply chains and cooperation’ (European Union, 20132 , p. 6). This implies that the official CAP reform has the emphasis on economic measures concerning food supply chains. Additionally, SFSCs are sometimes promoted within this document without clear arguments about the benefits, it seems like the concept has been given a positive connotation and that it is assumed to be beneficial in many ways. Moreover, the CAP promotes SFSCs, but give no clear guidelines on how to actually stimulate the implementation of SFSCs.However, at EU level initiatives concerning SFSCs can benefit from Rural Development Policy funding, and the Commission proposed in the ‘CAP towards 2020’ drafts that SFSCs may be subject to sub-programmes within Rural Development programs (European Union, 2013¹). The various support measures in place are financial support to investments, certification, research, training and advice. These support system however often fall within certain rural development programs, such as the LEADERSHIP program (see Aubree et al., 2013), therefore a farm enterprise needs to be informed about these programs in order to participate and benefit from these fundings (ibid.).
Green and Political Consumerism
Even though this research focusses on the producer side of the value chain, the consumer demand for localised food products is of equal importance. Consumer trends that can be recognised are green and political consumerism. Political consumerism refers to the different values consumers give to product, which go beyond economic reasoning, but are expressed in social values. Green consumerism are consumer preferences that take into account the environmental context of a product (see Klintman & Boström, 2013).
4.1.3 Niche Level
The niche of SFSCs can be explained according to the different motives, practices and structures of actors involved (Spaargaren et al, 2013). Regarding motives, SFSCs can be seen as a response of the farmer to the ‘price-squeeze’ (Renting et al., 2003). However, the actors involved in SFSCs cannot be interpreted as a homogeneous group. This is because the concept of ‘local’ in localisation movements is contested and socially constructed, therefore different forms of SFSCs co-exist (Feagan, 2007). Hence, different motives and practices co-exist. Furthermore, many farmers involved in SFSCs likewise partake in the conventional food supply chain, thus SFSCs can be seen as ‘hybrid spaces’. Herein, distinction can be made between a survival strategy and a development strategy (see Ibery & Maye, 2005).
By means of an interdisciplinary desk study numerous motives of farmers to partake in a SFSC are identified and categorised, these include: autonomy and entrepreneurship (Mastronardia, et al., 2015; Mundler & Laughrea, 2016; Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Ilbery, et al., 2004); fairness, (financial) recognition and economic viability (Galli & Brunori, 2013; Goodman, 2004; Mundler & Laughrea, 2016; Ilbery et al., 2004; Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Mastronardia, et al., 2015; Tregear, 2011; Wubben et al., 2013); improved producer-consumer contact (Wubben et al., 2013) through social proximity (Eriksen, 2013); adding value to the product (Mastronardia et al., 2015; Ibery et al., 2004; Ibery & May, 2005; Mundler & Laughrea, 2016; Roep & Wiskerke, 2012); and sustainability (Mundler & Laughrea, 2016; Tregear, 2011). What these motives signify in relation to SFSCs is shown in table 2.
Motives Explanation
Autonomy and
independence and professional development (Mastronardia, et al., 2015; Mundler & Laughrea, 2016; Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Ilbery, et al., 2004)
Fairness, (financial)
recognition and economic viability
Social proximity is supposed to lead to more fairness, not only in terms of fairer prices but also in terms of ethical recognition of farmers’ work and their socio-psychological comfort (Galli & Brunori, 2013; Goodman, 2004; Mundler & Laughrea, 2016) . By demonstrating good environmental practice and traceability experts argue that small and medium enterprises may be in the position to increase prices (Ilbery et al., 2004) . Farmers widely agreed on the financial security provided by SFSCs, be it due to better market risk management (price control), revenue or more equitable trade relations (Mundler & Laughrea, 2016) and because they are embedded in locality (Tregear, 2011)
These farmers create a competitive advantage with the aim of direct consumer contact. Therefore, they are able to focus on income and growth. Furthermore, they use the market as a place to govern their transactions wherein the fixed price is used as a coordinator of all the transactions made. This makes that their profits margins are higher than those of conventional farmers (Wubben, et al., 2013). As a second, farmers can regain control of the supply chain, can add value to their ‘own’ products and source the products to food outlets of their preference (Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Ilbery, et al., 2004; Mastronardia, et al., 2015; Mundler & Laughrea, 2016;) Improved producer-consumer contact, social proximity and reconvene trust
This relational proximity between producers and consumers is often presented as immediate, personal, enacted in shared space, as creating responsibility, communication and care for each other and the land (Eriksen, 2013). Producers reconvene trust through proximate trust-relations (Whatmore et al., 2003). Furthermore, improved producer-consumer contact can be considered as value proposition (Wubben et al., 2013)
Adding value to
product Differentiating through raising quality of product (Mastronardia et al., 2015; Ibery etal., 2004; Ibery & May, 2005; Mundler & Laughrea, 2016). Also by providing a positive association, symbolic or qualitative meaning to food (Roep & Wiskerke, 2012) through regionality and/or artisanally of a product and the bioprocesses involved (Renting et al., 2003). This tendency is also explained by the ‘quality-turn’ of producers and consumers towards higher quality products (see Feagan, 2007) and can be seen as a competitiveness advantage (Wubben et al., 2013).
Sustainability SFSCs promote ecological sustainability (Tregear, 2011). For some, sustainability aspects are identified as a driver to partake in SFSCs (Mundler & Laughrea, 2016). Table 2. Motives for farmers to partake in SFSCs.
Regarding structures, SFSCs are often described as a counter phenomenon to the conventional, globalised food system with the aim to re-spatialise and re-socialse the food system in such a way it challenges the conventional food system through decentralisation, democratisation, self-sufficiency and subsidiarity (Feagan, 2007; Renting et al., 2003). Thus, by being engaged in a SFSC farmers can regain power in influencing the organisational structure
of the supply chain they partake in, while opposing a structure of resistance towards the conventional supply chain (Renting et al., 2003). Additionally, they could be seen as a source of inspiration for other farmers to convert to a SFSC or to copy parts of their practices (Spaargaren et al., 2013). However, various case studies reveal that widely shared obstacles for partaking in SFSCs are the complex management structures and/or the bureaucracy involved (Mundler & Laughrea, 2016; Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Ilbery, et al., 2004).
4.1.4 Transition Perspective
The niche level reveals the rules and resources of a new regime-in-the-making. However, niches could also provide potential solutions for sustainability challenges at the regime level, not altering the regime but rather partially adapting it (Spaargaren et al., 2013). According to our analysis the latter is the case regarding SFSCs. The niche of SFSCs has rapidly developed over the past decades, taking in a prominent place in the food scape of the Netherlands and the European Union (Renting et al., 2003). Nonetheless, especially with regards to the Netherlands, SFSCs only represent a fraction of the total supply system. Exact numbers are missing due to the differentiated typologies of SFSCs and the lack of sufficient up-to-date data. However, according to Harvey et al. (2004) numbers range from 5-10% within the Netherlands.
Nevertheless, SFSCs do provide “new spaces of possibility” (Goodman, 2004: 12) for actors preferring change in relation to the conventional supply system from either a ecological, social or economic perspective or a combination of the three. However, when analysing transitions there should be taken into account that these actors apply a plurality of disperse practices and motives, building on a heterogeneous food system rather than a homogeneous one. Therefore the ‘reality’ can be complex and contradictory (Goodman, 2004). Furthermore, it is often assumed SFSCs produce economically, socially and ecologically desired outcomes, while critics state this is not inherently true (Feagan, 2007). Tregear (2011) even argues that the economic viability and socio-economic impacts “depend on the orientation of the actors putting the scalar strategy in place” (p.425). The scalar strategy can be explained as the strategy of a producer to use its scale (e.g. SFSCs) as business strategy (ibid.) In line with this, a differentiation can be made between defensive and reflexive localisation movements (see Wald & Hill, 2016). Therefore, it can be assumed that the impact of SFSCs on the regime depends on the ideology and orientations of the actors involved.
Furthermore, current agricultural policies in place promote SFSCs, while concrete measures seem to be lacking. At the EU-level programs are in place to support farmers through bottom-up implementation. How this works out in practice in the Netherlands did not come forward from the desk study. On the other hand, SFSCs are increasingly mentioned in the CAP2020 meetings, which could potentially mean a new regime-in-the-making. One could say that the current policy regarding SFSCs does the job of placing SFSCs in a positive narrative, but lacks vigour.
Taken the popularity and attention SFSCs are gaining from policy makers, consumers and farmers it is unlikely that this niche will disappear in the near future. Figure ? shows the position of SFSCs within the MLP. It illustrates that SFSCs are beyond a niche in development, but currently remain a niche. Moreover because SFSCs provide space for solutions for the challenges faced at the regime-level. Yet, it seems unlikely that the niche will replace the regime level, although the challenges faced at the regime level reveal that structural adjustments are
inevitable. Therefore SFSCs can be seen as reflection of a food system in transition, as it reveals the difficulties of the regime and likewise provides ”new spaces of possibility” for some to cope with these difficulties (Goodman, 2004: 12).
Figure 4. Position of SFSCs within MLP according to analysis. Original from Spaargaren et al. (2013), editted by authors.
4.2 Qualitative Data Analysis
To gain a general overview about SFSCs in the Netherlands, an interview with an expert of LTO Nederland has been conducted. He stated that certain aspects with regard to SFSCs are becoming more popular, as explained by quote 1.
Consumers think that the products are better, fresher, unsprayed. And their perception changes, which also plays an important role. (quote 1)
This has a positive effect on the economic viability of farming businesses involved in a SFSC. However,
High investments are of great importance, whether the farmers is involved in a SFSC or in a regular supply chain, investments are needed or otherwise you will not make it as a farmer. (quote 2).
On the basis of several motives for farmers to partake in a SFSC, which were drafted prior to the interviews (see table 2), an analysis of these 12 interviews has been made. The interview analysis has resulted in the rough distinction between motives that are part of a survival strategy and motives that are part of a development strategy, to use the terms of Ibery and Maye (2005). The survival strategy motives are mostly about adding value to the product, because the selling of products in a conventional supply chain is not profitable.
We are not such a big farm, we milk 60 cows. And, to gain an income by that... that is not an easy task. When you produce for the factories, you simply will not get enough. So we said, we are located surrounded by consumers, we will just try to add value to our product. (quote 3)
Quote 3 is an example of the explanation by farmers to start creating their own product in order to create a business that is viable. This particular farmer chose to start a cheese makery at the farm, combined with an on-farm shop, in order to create a higher added value to their dairy farm. What this quote also shows, is that a survival strategy is especially chosen by farmers who have the wish or are obliged to maintain a small-scaled farm. Another example of this, is a fruit and vegetable farm which could not expand in size because of the location within a built-up area. Several farmers explained that the location and other contextual factors are important concerning this. For example, the start of an on-farm shop is only viable when there are enough consumers present in the area.
Although the strategies partly overlap, other farmers showed more clear motives of a development strategy. These farmers often want to create high-quality products with a story in a production process that is more environmentally friendly and thus oftentimes organic. Consumers are being involved in the process, which creates a feeling of job satisfaction.
Only natural systems that are sustainable and for the long term can hold on. A new connection, in a new way, with the animals, with the soil. Like the farmers did in the past, with consumers. That consumers recognise and know what they eat, and that it is healthy. (quote 4)
Quote 4 shows how other farmers deliberately want to create good products and run their farm in such a way that it is organic, sustainable and transparent. Farmers who apply a development strategy are more organised and focused on marketing, because they want to gain attention for this high quality product which also often has a special label, for example for cheese.
Surprisingly, a third category of strategy can be added, which will be called a strategy of diversity. Some farmers that were interviewed explained that they simply really enjoy a diverse set of activities within their farm business. They enjoy the production and selling of products, they enjoy contact with customers and many farmers stated that they participate in educational projects in some way. They do this by for example inviting primary school children for a guided tour around the farm. Two farmers that we interviewed were also a host to clients for social care, who work on the farm together with volunteers. These type of activities can also facilitate a more stable base income.
In general, several subjects reappeared when farmers spoke about their experiences of taking part in a SFSC. These could be seen as secondary motives, as they are not the main reason to participate in a SFSC (survival, development and diversity strategies), but are felt as big advantage. Most farmers expressed their feeling of freedom and ‘being your own boss’. In general, they stated that they enjoy to run the farm according to their own plans and wishes.
For me, the biggest advantage is the independence. That you are the one who decides what your product will look like and for what price you are going to sell it. (quote 5) Creating a high-quality product with a story was seen as a satisfying aspect of the job. Also, direct contact with an often close and small group of customers was in most cases seen as fun and awarding, as customers are interested in the story behind the product, which makes them willing to pay a higher price than regular supermarket prices. Surprisingly, some farmers stated that they see the contact with customers as a necessary evil; they do not particularly enjoy the time shared with customers. But, sometimes this task – e.g. running the shop – was carried out by the partner of the farmer, or strict opening hours were in practise.
As a general experience of obstruction, in many interviews there was stated that participating in a SFSC is time consuming, as explained by quote 6.
This is not something for everyone: the making, the selling, the promoting. We all do it ourselves. It is never finished. But I live a good life. (quote 6)
Some farmers explained that selling to factories is oftentimes a lot easier and less work. Several farmers explained that they do not think that it is possible for every farmer to be involved in a SFSC, as all the different tasks like promoting and selling have to suit the individual’s preference and personality.
Concerning transition and government support, none of the farmers made clear statements about regular support, which is in contradiction with the accompanying literature studies. There were remarks of incidentally support of local government in the form of the promotion of local markets, and also the curiosity of officials for the organic and innovative ways of production. Nonetheless, farmers did not experience any form of financial support.
There are even remarks about financial obstructions: farmers for example need to finance the tests and checks on their cheese factory. This kinds of checks result from standard agricultural regulations, from which SFSC farmers are not excluded or compensated for.
Despite the fact that I am involved in a SFSC, I never got 1 euro of support from the European Union. I did It all by myself, honestly. (quote 7)
We can thus state that farmers involved in SFSCs have a diverse set of motives to participate and also the experienced advantages and obstructions are diverse.
5. Conclusion
In this report, the MLP has been used in order to perform a transition analysis about Short Food Supply Chains within the current foodscape in the Netherlands. Furthermore, a qualitative data analysis has been done to uncover the motives and obstructions that farmers experience who produce in a SFSC. The following conclusions can be drawn from these analyses.
Firstly, taken the popularity and attention SFSCs are gaining from policy makers, consumers and farmers it is unlikely that this niche will disappear in the near future. Yet, it seems unlikely that there will be a transition in the Dutch food system in the short term, although the social, ecological and financial challenges faced at the conventional food system reveal that structural adjustments are inevitable. Therefore SFSCs can be seen as reflection of a food system in transition, as it shines light on the issues within the food system and at the same time provides opportunities for some to cope with these difficulties.
Secondly, the motives of farmers to participate in a SFSC are very diverse and overlapping. A rough distinction however can be made between survival, development and diversity motives. Furthermore, obstructions are the very time-consuming activity of promoting and selling of products. Standard agriculture regulations are to a lesser extent also seen as an obstruction.
Some remarks can be made on the research process that have to be taken into consideration addressing the results. First the interviews with farmers could only be conducted with farmers willing to partake in the research. The interviewees could have reasons why they are willing to be interviewed besides helpfulness. For example sharing certain opinions. The farmers who were not willing to partake in our research and/or unable due to lack of time might share motives or obstacles to join SFSCs that differ from the farmers that were willing and able to be interviewed. Agrarians with different types of farms were approached to receive information from a diversified group. The research is only based on information from farmers that were willing to be interviewed on a short notice. This could be seen as a universal characteristic of the interviewed and a risk for biased results.
As a second, only 12 interviews have been conducted as a resource for the qualitative analysis. However, a minimum of 20 interviews is required in order to state that the conclusion are valid. Therefore, this can be seen as a shortcoming within this research.
Finally, the definition of SFSCs in this research is based on multiple scientific articles. Even though following this definition of SFSCs it is not entirely clear what is exact a SFSC farm and what a different type of farm.
We conclude with the suggestion for further research regarding this topic to have a greater scope and place more emphasis on contextual factors like geographic location, as to find in which kind of areas SFSCs seem to be the most viable. In this way, policy recommendations could also be done in order to improve the stimulant of SFSCs.
Aubree, P., Brunori, G., Dvortsin, L., Galli, F., Gromasheva, O., Hoekstra, F., ... & Prior, A. (2013). Short food supply chains as drivers of sustainable development. Laboratorio di studi rurali Sismondi.
Eriksen, S. N. (2013). Defining local food: constructing a new taxonomy–three domains of proximity. Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B–Soil & Plant Science, 63(sup1), 47-55. European Parliament. (2010). European Parliament resolution of 7 September 2010 on fair revenues for farmers: A better functioning food supply chain in Europe. Brussels: European Parliament.
European Union. (2013¹). Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A State of Play of their Socio-Economic Characteristics. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi:10.2791/88784
European Union. (
2013
2 ). Overview of CAP reform 2014 – 2020: Agricultural Policy Perspectives Brief.EIP-AGRI. (2015). EIP-AGRI Factsheet Innovative Short Food Supply Chain Management. Feagan, R. (2007). The place of food: mapping out the ‘local’ in local food systems. Progress in human geography, 31(1), 23-42.
Galli, F., & Brunori, G. (2013). Short food supply chains as drivers of sustainable development. Evidence document.
Galli, F., & Brunori, G. (2013). Short food supply chains as drivers of sustainable development. Evidence document.
Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Univ of California Press.
Goodman, D. (2004). Rural Europe redux? Reflections on alternative agro‐food networks and paradigm change. Sociologia ruralis, 44(1), 3-16.
Grin, J., Rotmans, J., & Schot, J. (2011). On patterns and agency in transition dynamics: Some key insights from the KSI programme. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 76-81.
Harvey, M., McMeekin, A., & Warde, A. (2004). Qualities of food. Manchester University Press. Ilbery, B. & Maye, D., 2005. Alternative (shorter) food supply chains and specialist livestock products in the Scottish - English borders. Environment and Planning A, Issue 37, pp. 823-844.
Ilbery, B. et al., 2004. Forecasting food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK. Journal of Rural Studies, Volume 20, pp. 331-344.
Kebir L., Torre A. (2013). Geographical proximity and new short supply food chains, in Lazzeretti L. (ed), Creative Industries and Innovation in Europe, Concepts, Measures, and
Comparative Case Studies, Routledge, N. York, 328.
Kenis, A., & Mathijs, E. (2014). (De) politicising the local: The case of the Transition Towns movement in Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Rural Studies, 34, 172-183.
Klintman, M., & Boström, M. (2013). Political consumerism and the transition towards a more sustainable food regime: Looking behind and beyond the organic shelf. In Food Practices in
Transition: changing food consumption, retail and production in the age of reflexive modernity.
(pp. 107-128). Routledge
Kneafsey, M., Venn, L., Schmutz, U., Balázs, B., Trenchard, L., Eyden-Wood, T., ... & Blackett, M. (2013). Short food supply chains and local food systems in the EU. A state of play of their socio-economic characteristics. JRC Scientific and Policy Reports. Joint Research Centre
Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, European Commission.
Lang, T. (2010). Crisis? What crisis? The normality of the current food crisis. Journal of
Agrarian Change, 10(1), 87-97.
Mastronardia, L., Marinob, D., Cavallo, A. & Giannellid, A., 2015. Exploring the Role of Farmers in Short Food Supply Chains: The Case of Italy. International Food and Agribusiness
Management Association , 18(2), pp. 109-130.
Menken, S., Keestra, M. (2016) An introdution to interdisciplinary research: Theory and practice Amsterdam University Press B.V.
Mundler, P., & Laughrea, S. (2016). The contributions of short food supply chains to territorial development: A study of three Quebec territories. Journal of Rural Studies, 45, 218-229.
Renting, H., Marsden, T. K. & Banks, J. (2003). Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning, 35, p. 393 – 411
Roep, D., & Wiskerke, J. S. (2012). On governance, embedding and marketing: reflections on the construction of alternative sustainable food networks. Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics, 25(2), 205-221.
Spaargaren, G., Oosterveer, P., & Loeber, A. (2013). Food practices in transition: changing
Tregear, A. (2011) Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: critical reflections and a research agenda, Journal of Rural Studies, 27(4), pp. 419-430.
Van der Ploeg, J. D. (2000). Revitalizing agriculture: farming economically as starting ground for rural development. Sociologia ruralis, 40(4), 497-511.
Wald, N., & Hill, D. P. (2016). ‘Rescaling’ alternative food systems: from food security to food sovereignty. Agriculture and Human Values, 33(1), 203-213.
Whatmore, S. S. P. and Renting, H., 2003. Guest editorial:‘What’s Alternative about Alternative Food Networks?’. Environment and Planning A, 35, 389-391.
Wubben, E., Fondse, M. & Pascucci, S., 2013. The importance of stakeholder-initiatives for business models in short food supply chains: the case of the Netherlands. Journal on Chain and Network Science, 13(2), pp. 139-149.
