Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Short food chains and the rural development dynamic
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Short food chains and the rural development dynamic


Published on

Some reflections and future directions for research’ and arguements that we need to reposition short food chain activities beyond the ‘rural local’/value-added market-based model that they are more …

Some reflections and future directions for research’ and arguements that we need to reposition short food chain activities beyond the ‘rural local’/value-added market-based model that they are more commonly associated with.

Published in: Technology, Business

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

No notes for slide


  • 1. Short food chain activities: some reflections and future directions for research Damian Maye Countryside and Community Research Institute, Gloucester ‘Food from here’ Conference, Coventry University 3rd July 2013
  • 2. Short food chains and the rural development dynamic • The ‘quality turn’ (Ilbery & Kneafsey, 2000) • SFSCs: niche market; retain added value; more direct connections with consumers • 3 types (Marsden et al., 2000): face-to-face; spatially proximate; spatially extended • Protect rural places; the ‘rural local’ • CAP reforms; endogenous rural dev.
  • 3. Short food chains and the rural development dynamic • SFSCs = new agrarian model of rural dev. • The IMPACT study (Ploeg et al., 2000; Marsden et al, 2002; Renting et al., 2003) • “The ability of quality products to secure premium prices and so generate excess profits is a central plank of (this) market-led, value added model” (Goodman 2004: 8; emphasis added). • Need to extend SFSC focus beyond the ‘rural local’ arena and the activities covered. 3
  • 4. Recent ‘food system shocks’ • Horsemeat scandal • Food price inflation • Food security = new food policy master frame (Mooney and Hunt; 2009; Maye and Kirwan, 2013) • Shocks redefine and revalue SFSCs concept? • Value-added model is too narrow? • Multiple transition pathways 4
  • 5. 5 Landscape Pressures Mainstream Food System Bottom Up Innovations Time Scales of Transition Adapted from Geels & Schott, 2007
  • 6. UK food security discourse: where are LFNs/SFSCs? • ‘Official’ UK food security discourse • LFNs/SFSC activities are sidelined (Kirwan and Maye, 2013) • Support is rhetorical • Sector-level aggregate data are missing • Sustainable fs is not achieved by expanding LFNs/the SFSC niche 6
  • 7. Alternative transition pathways? • This dismissive view of LFNs/SFSCs is a missed opportunity? • Need to focus more on the micro-level and community needs • Market-orientated SFSC model describes ‘first generation’ food relocalisation (Goodman et al., 2012) • But mix of community-orientated projects 7
  • 8. Local Food programme • £60 million programme. • Launched in 2007. • Distributes funds to more than 500 food related projects, ranging from small grants of £2000 up to £500,000. • Aim: to make locally grown food accessible and affordable to local communities. • Ongoing evaluation from November 2009-March 2014. 8
  • 9. LF activity types funded: 9 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Community food growing Education & Learning Allotments School grounds Sharing best practise / networking Celebrating food cultures Community supported agriculture Catering Community gardens Food co-ops City farms Farmers markets Redistribution of Food Box schemes Community land management Composting Social enterprise 155 115 59 56 19 16 15 14 14 11 9 9 6 3 3 2 1
  • 10. General observations • LF supporting community-based projects • Mobilising SFSC concept at community scale • Activities extend beyond ‘rural local’ model • Many LF projects are not about food (i.e. more than just the veg); pretext & vector for social agency (Kirwan et al., 2013) • Many LF projects are urban/peri-urban. 10
  • 11. Civic food networks • Introduced by Renting et al (2012) to examine new sources of c-p innovation. • The role of civil society as a governance mechanism for agri-food networks has increased in significance. • Changing relations between agri-food networks and urban-rural relations; often cities are the starting point. 11
  • 12. Short chain activities in urban and peri-urban contexts • SUPURBFOOD ( • Food policy now viewed as an urban issue • The city-region concept (see Jonas, 2012) • Three activities: – Closing waste, water & nutrient cycles – Shortening food chains – Multi-functional land use • Synergies & innovative policy frameworks 12
  • 13. 13
  • 14. Conclusions • LFNs/SFSCs and the ‘rural local’ • Official fs policy has sidelined LFNs/SFSCs • Need to reassess/revalue the form these networks take and where they take place • Social and community values; civic food networks; peri-urban and urban contexts • Proactive forms of place-based governance 14