Short food chains and the rural development dynamic

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.

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 3 rd 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? M ultiple 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

10. General observations LF supporting community-based projects Mobilising SFSC concept at community scale A ctivities 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 ( www.supurbfood.eu ) 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 M ulti-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 P roactive forms of place-based governance 14