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
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 (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
– 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