Speaker
Description
In recent years, Alternative Food Networks (AFNs) have garnered significant attention for their potential to advance sustainable agricultural, social, and environmental practices. Against the backdrop of a centralised and industrial food governance regime characterised by concentrated economic and political power, AFNs offer a critical and practical response. AFNs are community-based alternatives to traditional food systems (Forssell and Lankoski, 2015) that strive to build mutual trust between producers and consumers while supporting small, often organic farms that provide quality food at reasonable prices.
A key objective of AFNs is to shorten the food supply chain by directly linking producers and consumers at the local or regional levels. This can be achieved in two ways: (a) reducing the physical distance between producers and consumers to cut transportation emissions and foster solidarity (Renting et al., 2003; Sonnino, 2010), (b) minimising intermediaries to decrease exploitation of farmers, increase their share of consumer prices, and enhance transparency by reducing the risk of unsustainable practices (Goodman et al., 2012). The local scale of short food chain seems to be its key characteristics. However, the AFNs’ orientation towards sustainability values and the ambitions of transforming food systems pushes them at widening the scale and scope of their activities (Tregear, 2011). Thus, they employ different kinds of strategies to address the problems beyond their own operational domain. However, expanding the reach of short food chains usually faces significant challenges, like economic and logistical constraints, inadequate infrastructure, market access problems, regulatory barriers, and confronting entrenched consumer preferences (Brunori et al., 2012).
To address these challenges, AFNs employ diverse scaling strategies. Some AFNs focus on expanding their reach by creating networks of local producers and consumers to enhance collective purchasing power and streamline distribution (Brunori et al., 2012). Others target niche markets and specialised products to differentiate themselves from conventional systems and build a loyal customer base (Seyfang, 2006). Collaborations with existing infrastructure, such as local farmers' markets or community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs, can leverage shared resources and expertise. Consumer education and community engagement are integral to successful AFNs and their scaling aspirations, as they promote understanding of the benefits of local food systems and encourage broader participation (Holloway et al., 2007). Promoting supportive policies and regulatory reforms can foster a more favourable environment for local food systems, while investments in technology and innovation can address logistical challenges (Mount, 2012).
This article examines diverse scaling strategies employed by AFNs and their role in advancing inclusiveness and democratic participation within the governance of food production and consumption. The key question is: how do the various strategies employed by AFNs enhance inclusiveness, empower citizens, and promote greater democratic control over food choices, production, and distribution?
To address this question, this study analyses four distinct cases across Europe, each representing a different type of AFN. In Italy, a Food Policy Council (FPC) exemplifies a governance-driven model that integrates local government and civil society to influence food policy at the municipal level, emphasising participatory decision-making and urban food sustainability. In Norway, a Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) initiative highlights a close producer-consumer relationship, with individuals sharing the risks and rewards of farming, fostering mutual responsibility, and a deeper connection to the land and local food production. A food cooperative in Poland provides a cooperative model, where consumers and producers jointly manage the supply chain, ensuring fairness, transparency, and democratic governance over food choices. Lastly, a network of grain producers in the United Kingdom illustrates a producer-centric approach to AFNs, focusing on sustainable agricultural practices and the creation of shorter supply chains that benefit both farmers and consumers.
References
Brunori, G. et al. 2012. On the new social relations around and beyond food. Analyzing consumers' role in Alternative Food Networks. Sociologia Ruralis, 52(1), 1-21.
Forssell, S., & Lankoski, L. 2015. The sustainability promise of alternative food networks: an examination through “alternative” characteristics. Agriculture and Human Values, 32(1), 63–75.
Goodman, D., et al. 2012. Alternative food networks: Knowledge, practice, and politics. Routledge.
Holloway, L. et al. 2007. Possible food economies: A methodological framework for exploring food production–consumption relationships. Sociologia Ruralis, 47(1), 1-19.
Mount, P. 2012. Growing local food: Scale and local food systems governance. Agriculture and Human Values, 29(1), 107-121.
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 A: Economy and Space, 35(3), 393-411.
Seyfang, G. 2006. Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining local organic food networks. Journal of Rural Studies, 22(4), 383-395.
Sonnino, R. 2010. Escaping the local trap: Insights on re-localization from school food reform. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 12(1), 23-40.
Tregear, A. 2011. Progressing knowledge in alternative and local food networks: Critical reflections and a research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies, 27(4), 419-430.
| Keywords | food system; sustainability; alternative food networks |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
