farmers and short chain - INEA

Transcription

Farmers and short chain
The Knowledge System in Agriculture division develops and conducts research and provides support to central and regional governments in three main areas:
The research system in its main components and in relation to institutional levels that
promote it (European, national, regional);
Regional development services, particularly for measures provided for in European policies;
Social and cultural aspects of agriculture as factors for developing new ways of production and service to the community.
Research and consulting initiatives follow a holistic and relational approach that embraces all the classic components of the knowledge system (research, assistance and
consulting, training, entrepreneurial and territorial fabric) and includes innovation as
an across-the-board objective for the improvement of the agricultural and rural system.
FARMERS AND SHORT CHAIN
collana SISTEMA DELLA CONOSCENZA. Quaderni
Legal profiles and socio-economic dynamics
edited by Francesca Giarè and Sabrina Giuca
INEA 2013
ISBN 978-88-8145-259-0
INEA 2013
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
FARMERS AND SHORT CHAIN
Edited by Francesca Giarè and Sabrina Giuca
INEA 2013
Minutes of study seminar organised by INEA in Rome, on 30 May 2012.
The seminar and minutes were part of the “Promotion of rural culture” project funded by
MIPAAF (Decree n. 0029277 of 27/12/2010) overseen by Francesca Giarè.
Editing secretary: Roberta Capretti
Publishing coordinator: Benedetto Venuto
Graphic layout: INEA Graphic Office (Barone, Cesarini, Lapiana, Mannozzi)
Contents
Introduction5
Francesca Giarè, INEA
Understanding the short chain11
Sabrina Giuca, INEA
From the land to the territory: the role of the farmer in the short chain31
Irene Canfora, University of bari
The economic innovation of the short chain45
Giovanni Belletti and Andrea Marescotti, University of Florence
The environmental aspects of the short chain:
the results of a direct survey of “farmers’ markets” in Italy63
Davide Marino and Luigi Mastronardi, University of Molise
Social innovation of the short chain87
Adanella Rossi, University of Pisa
Experiences
The experience of women agricultural entrepreneurs of the CIA:
“Association of Women in the Field”103
Sofia Trentini, CIA
The “Women in the Field” of Parma107
Elvira Pallone, CIA
Coldiretti initiatives in the field of short chain111
Lorenzo Bazzana, Coldiretti
The short chain path in organic farming, for food sovereignty 117
Andrea Ferrante and Annalisa Gallucci, AIAB
3
The “Sportello Mense Bio” (Organic Canteen Help Desk)
in Emilia-Romagna123
Daniele Ara, Pro.B.E.R
The consumer as “co-producer” 129
Anselme Bakudila, Slow Food
Reducing intermediaries: the “Zolle” case in Rome137
Rossella Guadagno, CURSA
The experience of consumers’ co-ops with “Purchasing Groups”143
Alessandro Mostaccio, Piedmont Consumers' Movement
4
Introduction
Francesca Giarè1
For some time now, reflecting on the evolution of agriculture and rural environment, it has been difficult and often not very useful to speak of a single agriculture. The forms our agriculture takes, in fact, are so many and varied that they
cannot easily be classified, economically or from the point of view of social and
cultural changes.
It is, however, difficult to articulate a language and thought adequate to the
differences that can be observed in Italy, without the risk of aesthetic, cultural and
geographical classifications.
The crisis in conventional agriculture, which fits into the overall crisis context of the dominant economic model, has had and has an important role in the
emergence of "special methods" of farming that characterise some segments of
our system, halfway between the preservation of local traditions and the innovative
drive of new generations of farmers and consumers.
In this context, the distinction between agriculture as a place of food production and the city as a place of food consumption now appears simplistic and
reductive. The same contrast between urban and rural no longer describes the
situation clearly, because our territory mostly appears as a continuum of urban
settlements and green spaces, sometimes cultivated, sometimes abandoned and
scarred, sometimes protected and returned to the community for purposes other
than agricultural.
Agriculture also produces other types of goods (environmental, social, educational, relational, etc.) that contribute to rebuilding a strong relationship between
producer and consumer or user of the environment, including agriculture. This
relationship has many dimensions, ranging from the environmental to the social,
from the economic to the cultural, to arrive at a political dimension that wiews
producers and citizen/consumers as actors who are aware of the development of
the territory and the community.
In particular, we are witnessing a relocation of a part of agriculture in rural
areas, with the aim of increasing self-sufficiency and diversifying production, to
respond more effectively to the emerging demand for a wider range of seasonal
1 INEA Researcher
5
products. This relocation relies on old and new forms of product marketing, called
short chains, that reduce steps and intermediaries to create a new, direct and
trust-based relationship between producers and consumers.
The short chain, however, is internally diverse in goals and methods, for promoters and organisers of initiatives, for economic, social and environmental impact.
To address the issue in all its complexity, INEA, within the "Promotion of rural
culture”2 project, created a seminar on “Farmers and short chain. Legal aspects and
socio-economic dynamics”, which involved experts and representatives of the operational world. The notebook contains papers presented at the workshop, integrated
and enriched by the authors to make the content more usable, and some other experiences that emerged in the course of the day.
In the first part of the work - Legal aspects and socio-economic dynamics Sabrina Giuca introduces the short chain, presenting its features, peculiarities and
critical points and retracing the main stages of its development. The chapter also
questions traditional and innovative aspects of this particular form of supply chain,
and presents interesting reflections on Common Agricultural Policy measures for
its development. Giuca also presents short chain experiences to give a better understanding of the wealth this phenomenon assumes nationally.
Irene Canfora deals with the role of the farmer in the short chain from the legal
standpoint and within the context of Italian and European Union legislation. The chapter
also highlights the limits of exploiting regional products through designated origin labels
and emphasises the privileged role of the farmer in short chain promotional legislation.
This first part of the work concludes with three contributions that focus on the
short chain as an innovative phenomenon in economic, environmental and social terms.
Giovanni Belletti and Andrea Marescotti offer an interesting reflection on
the economic innovation of the short chain, beginning with an analysis of three
different levels: the structure of marketing channels, methods of organising trade
relations and the organisational and production methods of farm management.
Davide Marino and Luigi Mastronardi, in outlining the environmental aspects
of short chain, present the results of a direct survey on "farmers' markets" in Italy,
addressing both their impact on the environment and consumers’ perception of the
environmental value of these forms of marketing.
The social innovation of the short chain, understood as a collective response
2 The “Promotion of rural culture” project was launched by INEA in 2006 with funding from MIPAAF
and the goal of encouraging awareness of the agricultural and rural world, and to examine relevant
aspects of social and cultural change in recent years. This work was part of the third year of the
project (MIPAAF Decree n. 0029277 of 27/12/2010).
6
to problems and perceived opportunities, is the theme addressed by Adanella Rossi, which closes the first part. In this respect, the short chain represents a different
perspective of producers and consumers in dealing with trade relations. The basis
of these processes of change, the author shows, is building new cognitive and normative patterns.
The second part of the notebook contains some valuable experiences from
parties involved in the short chain in various ways, from professional organisations
that are spending heavily on this issue, like Coldiretti and the CIA (Italian Farmers’
Federation), producers’ associations such as AIAB and Prober, which introduce
shortening the supply chain as well as environmental sustainability and organic.
Other experiences highlight the role of consumers and new intermediaries in
launching short chain initiatives.
The work as a whole provides a broad overview of analytical perspectives on
the issue, and Italian experiences, and presents the first step towards a systematic
reflection on the short chain, which we hope will encourage various parties to examine the issue from different perspectives.
7
part I
Understanding the short chain
Sabrina Giuca1
Introduction
The transformation of production organisation, “from artisan and local
models to industrial and delocalised models” (Belliggiano, 2009), has resulted in
a steady increase in geographical and cultural distances between consumers and
producers, as well as high environmental impact, due to intensive preparation,
processing and packaging techniques and long-distance transport.
Today, with “globalisation”, understood as the mixing and enrichment of
cultures2, international products arrive on our tables and Italian products arrive
on tables around the world. But in industrialised countries, in the face of greater
availability of food (food security), the standardisation of products and the loss of
richness and variety, sensitivity has grown in terms of food safety, or a healthy life
guaranteed by safe food. This sensitivity, moreover, is heightened by food scandals
and public health emergencies between the old and the new millennia that have
generated international agreements on the regulation of food and agri-food products and broad legislation by the European Union, aimed especially at improving
health and hygiene standards throughout the food chain from “from farm to fork”.
However, both food risk and trends and sensitivity to common issues closely
related to food and its preparation - pollution of the ecosystem, loss of biodiversity,
conditions of animal husbandry and genetic manipulation - have changed people’s
relationship with food. Cultural more than economic phenomena, with a common
vision about food and the relationship between food, environment and territory,
have generated a high level of innovation in the organisation of consumption and
purchasing, and the organisation of production towards quality food and marketing
1 Researcher at INEA (National Institute of Agricultural Economics).
2 Globalisation, despite the generalised use of the term, can assume different accepted meanings,
depending on context: “an economic meaning”, referring to the internationalisation of production processes and distribution of merchandise; “a commercial meaning”, referring to trade rules
established by international agreements; “a cultural process”, referring to the process which,
through widespread standardised patterns of behaviour and consumption, leads to the loss of local identities; “an ideology”, referring to the triumph of liberalisation and the exaltation of efficient
market mechanisms; “a form of imperialism”, characterised by an unfair transfer of wealth from
South to North worldwide (Lang, 1996).
11
through short chain forms that can reduce the number of steps between producer
and consumer and enhance interpersonal relationships.
By experimenting with new forms of exchange, meeting and cooperation
- to which scholars, the media and policy makers have paid increasing attention
in recent years - producers recover their income margin up the supply chain, or
otherwise are frustrated by the dominant model of marketing in the food industry, characterised by the presence of intermediaries and the prevalence of largescale retail (GDO); buyers, however, find the link between quality products and the
territory and recover the relationship of trust with those who sell “face-to-face”.
They obtain economic advantage, because reducing the number of intermediaries
reduces the final price. At the same time, farmers and consumers contribute to
mitigating the impact on the environment (reduction of energy consumption and
pollution linked to transport and refrigeration, little or no packaging, etc.), “lending a hand” to the local economy and promoting the territory.
The short chain concept
The French agronomist Malassis (1973) described the supply chain as the
set of agents (firms and governments) and operations (production, distribution,
financing) that contribute to the formation and transfer of the product (or group of
products) to the final stage of use, as well as all connected flows. If reducing the
steps in the supply chain (long circuit) shortens the product’s route through the
agri-food system, we can speak generally of the short chain (short circuit) until, in
the absence of intermediaries, there is direct access to the final market, in which
case the short chain coincides with so-called “direct sales”, in which the consumer or other actors, such as restaurants or retail outlets, interact directly with the
farm without other steps (Figure 1). In this circuit, long or short, according to the
Malassis concept, the central elements for analysis are, on the one hand, the identification of products, routes, agents and operations and, on the other, regulating
mechanisms: behaviour of agents, functioning of markets, price formation.
This great diversity of forms, motives and practices that shortening the
chain can take may be defined as “alternative food networks” (AFN) (Holloway and
Kneafsey, 2004). In most cases, these alternative networks arise in response to
dissatisfaction with an industrial-type distribution system, which from many points
of view has disappointed the expectations of consumers and producers (Sonnino
and Marsden, 2006; Raffaelli et al., 2009). In particular, in the face of industry and
market conditioning and the concomitant difficulty of gaining access to conven-
12
tional commercial channels due to the lack of regularity of production, farmers
and small- and medium-sized enterprises have to pay for the progressive loss of
decision-making power, with an inevitable decline in profit margins.
Figure 1 - The supply chain
Agricultural
Output
Long Circuit
Industrial
Processing
Short Circuit
Marketing
Distribution
Purchase
point
Retail
Large- scale
retail
Consumption
The approach in the literature to describe AFNs is mainly geographical or
sociological, partly because of the inherently contextual nature of the phenomenon
and the lack of quantitative data, with case studies and exploratory surveys of local situations (Venn et al., 2006). Apart from e-commerce and catalogue sales3,
the most common forms of short chain are local, where one can choose, evaluate
and buy local products - fresh, ripe and in season - that retain their organoleptic
and nutritional properties, at lower costs than with traditional channels (Knickel
and Renting, 2000, Taylor et al., 2005; Seyfang, 2008). These range from direct
sales on farms to farmers’ markets; from weekly subscription deliveries to households (“box schemes”) to joint purchasing groups (JPG) and organised distribution
groups (GODO); from harvesting products directly in the fields (“pick-your-own”)
3 In Italy, neither of these direct sales methods for agri-food products is widespread, and only packageable and non-perishable products with constant quality and low sales frequency, like olive oil,
wine and jams, are suitable for this sales channel (IRUR, 2011).
13
to raw milk dispensers; from the supply to the HoReCa circuit (hotels, restaurants,
caterers) to consumer cooperatives to new ways of cooperation between producers and consumers (CSA)4.
The term “short chain” is often associated with a number of adjectives
about product requisites - seasonality, freshness, authenticity - as well as
more or less complex concepts such as territoriality, information on the origin of products, food safety and “km 0”. This last expression, indicating the
kilometres that food travels from where it is produced to where it is consumed, aims to express the extent of environmental impact from transport
(Franco, 2007), which is not always proportional to the short chain: with a
simple “click of the mouse” on the producer’s website, for example, you can
directly purchase agricultural products from the South to the North of Italy or
send a wine from one of Italy’s many wineries to the top floor of a skyscraper
in New York (Giuca, 2012). Products reach the consumer, “imbedded” with
information on the origin and method of production (Renting et al., 2003),
thanks to the establishment of trust with the producer, who by talking and
communicating via the web can learn more about consumers and their needs,
and improve service.
In general, in AFNs, the concept of food quality, although complex and
multidimensional 5, becomes essential; the shortening of the distance between production and consumption, to direct contact (and direct communication) between producer and consumer, thanks to the information acquired,
personal knowledge and the stability of the same people and the same places
of purchase, allows the consumer to make more informed choices about, for
example, the use of environment-friendly farming practices or the adoption
of a traditional recipe in food preparation.
4
CSA (English acronym for “Community Supported Agriculture”), a short chain form begun in Switzerland and Japan in the 1960s that later spread to the USA, means a direct commercial partnership between one or more farmers and a network community of supporters/consumers. The latter
help to guarantee part of the operating budget in a determined agricultural activity (often organic),
by subscribing to one or more “shares” of the season’s harvest, thus assuming the costs and risks
inherent in the agricultural activity along with the farmer (Raffaelli et al., 2004).
5 The concept of food quality merges strictly subjective criteria that preclude an unequivocal and
universally acceptable definition, and a definition is not found in legislative texts (Germanò, 2009).
Quality, indeed, tends to satisfy hedonistic needs, by nature plural, negotiable, distinct and adjunctive with regard to hygienic safety (requisites of a hygiene-health nature that agricultural products
circulating in the European Union must possess), which by its nature is, rather, uniform and nonnegotiable (AIDA, 2009).
14
Tradition or innovation?
The short chain is not just a fad, at a time when the economic crisis has
weakened the purchasing power of households and the consumer’s attention has
increasingly shifted to food safety. If, on the one hand, this form of marketing becomes a tool to support food consumption, as well as a response to the growing
demand for natural, high-quality food products, on the other hand it allows the
farmer, usually the weak link in the agri-food chain, to regain his active role in the
food “system”, by giving him the right price for his products (Whatmore et al., 2003)
and the guarantee of market opportunities.
The short chain is not a novelty, either. In the distant past, in the absence of
knowledge and tools, food circulated in a limited geographical area. The absence
of appropriate technical means to prevent fresh meat and fish from spoiling was
partly offset by preservation methods, more and more refined over time, involving salting, drying and the use of spices. Technological innovation, especially in
the nineteenth century with the preservation of food in cans by the French baker
Appert, then contributed to a different relationship with food with respect to the
quantity of supply and the quality aspects of handling, storage and logistics of food
(Albisinni, 2005). The socio-demographic transformations arising from Europe’s
economic development in the twentieth century (rural migration, urbanisation, rising female employment, commuting, etc.), the increase in household income, the
growth and differentiation of demand, and new and different eating habits stimulated, on the one hand, deep innovations in product and process and, on the other,
a significant transformation in the organisation of production and labour (Belliggiano, 2009). The process of development of the food system, with the changes
brought about since the 1960s with the “green revolution”, has also tied agriculture to industrial processes for maximum yield, and this has resulted in intensive
agronomic and livestock systems, with massive use of chemicals, pesticides and
fertilisers, limited variety of cultivars and high-output breeds to provide uniform
products, as well as the inevitable exploitation of soils and heavy pollution of land,
water and air (Giuca, 2009).
Following the general logic of the consumer market, foods began to be consumed farther from where they were produced, adding more steps between producer and consumer and extending the supply chain, and relegating direct sales
and other forms of short chain to a marginal position.
The development and expansion of long chains and the simultaneous modernisation of production processes and standardisation of products, while giving
15
more or less measurable merits to food, have had a significant impact on the global socio-economic set-up and on the social, economic, environmental and cultural
costs related to it, weakening the link between production processes and their local contexts (Paradiso, 2010). Methods of food processing, in fact, have been detrimental for local and artisan producers, favouring large-scale industrial processes
based on uniform quality and standardised flavours. In addition, the changes in
time taken for eating or digesting food, as well as in the spaces for processing,
packaging, handling and storage, continually present sensitive issues of risk to
human health.
Over the past two decades a new model of production and consumption has
developed, with alternative strategies that aim to diversify production and distribution of agri-food products and to rebuild a relationship between consumer and
producer - and the agricultural, social, cultural and territorial world - with respect
for the environment. Most of so-called “food movements”6 maintain the need to relocate the processes of production and consumption, meaning relocating business
in small and medium-sized enterprises in the area, encouraging diversification,
creating space for local indigenous varieties, implementing methods for sustainable agriculture and reviving the habit of buying from the producer (Norberg-Hodge,
2005). And today, what counts for the consumer is no longer the incremental dynamics dictated by the logic of “more is always better”, but the dynamic expressed
by highly motivated niches where food safety and authenticity become essential
objectives (CENSIS and COLDIRETTI, 2010), along with recovery of local knowledge
about production and consumption of foods.
The socio-economic context, the strong changes in consumption patterns
and public policies (food safety, rural development, renewable energy sources)
affect production and consumption practices (with new competitive strategies
based on value creation, differentiation and qualitative excellence), stimulate the
re-internationalisation of processing and reorientation towards quality products,
and a shortening of physical, social, cultural and economic distances between the
worlds of production and consumption. All this focuses the attention of the media
and policy makers and provides impetus to the development of short chain forms.
6 According to Codeluppi (1988), today’s integrated agri-food system simultaneously produces consumer goods and patterns of behaviour; in this context the concept of “food movement”, analysed
on a local level, has been defined as “a collaborative effort to build a self-sufficient local food
economy in which production, processing, distribution and consumption of food are integrated activities with the goal of improving economic, environmental and social health in a given place”
(Kloppenburn et al., 2000).
16
The rediscovery of the territorial dimension of production and consumption in Common Agricultural Policy
Generally, the territorial dimension of production and consumption of food
is central to a rediscovery that, albeit in different forms, is as much about northern Europe and continental realities as about those of Mediterranean Europe,
and touches on rural development processes (Grando, 2009). For this reason, the
Committee of European Regions, in its recent opinions7, considers it essential to
promote short distribution channels and direct sales, and calls for their integration into overall agricultural production policy in EU Common Agricultural Policy
(CAP); through forms of short chain, producers can regain profit margins eroded
by negotiation rules and conditions of sales in force in agri-food chains with highly
concentrated commercial power, making it possible not only to create a strong link
between producer and consumer, but also making it easier to ensure the traceability of products, reassuring consumers as to the origin of the products they consume. Short distribution channels, according to the Committee, should not only
aim to reduce the number of intermediaries between producers and consumers,
but should be able to invigorate the local and regional supply chain; in this sense,
the aim is a “local food system”, defined as “a combination of four factors: a short
chain; a limited physical distance between the place of production and place of
consumption; a process that takes into account factors such as transport, distribution, waste treatment, renewable energy, marketing, promotion and quality control; a process that is managed at the local and regional level”.
The development of short chain systems, as in the previous program to
support rural areas, is supported in the 2007-2013 policy for rural development
through actions aimed at improving farmers’ income, reducing the economic burden of intermediation, and providing services to the population, such as local markets. It has been shown that shortening the supply chain can contribute to the
revitalisation of rural areas (Knickel and Renting, 2000), partly through synergies
with tourism (Brunori et al., 2002), as well as stimulating a new model of rural
development (De Roest and Menghi, 2000; Renting et al., 2003).
Although the short chain is fast-growing, but still limited, and its contribution to rural development cannot be quantified, it is impossible not to recognise the
7
Opinion of the Committee of Regions “Local agri-food systems”, adopted in plenary session on
27 and 28 January 2011 (OJ C 104 of 2.4.2011) and Opinion of the Committee of Regions “For an
ambitious European policy favouring quality schemes for agricultural products”, adopted in plenary
session on 11 and 12 May 2011 (OJ C 192 of 1.7.2011).
17
ability of this form of marketing - and the simultaneous strengthening of the multifunctional role of farms8 - in creating value in rural areas (Raffaelli et al., 2009).
At a recent conference on local agriculture and short supply chains9, the
European Commission said that 15% of EU farms sell more than half of their production locally and, whilst noting contradictions (in the face of demand for local
products, supply is still not well structured and not widely accessible) and bias
(why help uncompetitive farms that produce for niche, often luxury, markets?),
the EC argues that short chains, appropriately structured, help farmers to obtain
higher revenues from the market for their products and to maintain employment
in rural areas. The local community, in fact, reaps economic, social and environmental benefits, by promoting products and the territory, protecting biodiversity
and developing culture and traditions.
For these reasons, in the proposal for the 2014-2020 CAP10 the measure on
short chain is referred to as strategic, and specific and innovative tools are dedicated to it. In this sense, interventions are called for to produce a strong impact
on the development of rural areas and, in particular, incentives for the creation
of short chains, the formation of producer groups, support for innovation of businesses involved in short circuits, and incentives for the development of integrated
actions to link tourism and agriculture; all these could also become the subject of
specific sub-programs of intervention.
According to the European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, Dacian Cioloș (2012), one of the renewal elements of rural development
policy after 2013 will be to “re-establish communication among major urban user
areas and surrounding production areas, favouring market initiatives in cities”;
and if, on the one hand, the new CAP indicates the desire to build “an agricultural
policy for all and for all types of farms” to develop short chains, proposing measures to support small farmers and strategies to raise awareness and the attention of consumers, on the other hand both farmers and policy makers will have
to make “a choice that requires breaking out of the usual schemes”. It is clear, in
this sense, that farms, especially smaller ones, must begin to plan strategically
8
It should be remembered that agriculture today is based on two cardinal points of economic diversification and multi-functionality, meaning it no longer embodies a single production orientation but
expresses new ecological, social and cultural functions (rural tourism, education, therapy, renewable energy sources, etc.) which can drive territorial development (Henke, 2004).
9 European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development, Conference “Local agriculture and
short food supply chains”, Brussels, 20/04/2012, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/events.
10 European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development, Legal proposals for the CAP after
2013, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index_en.htm
18
and have a development plan for distribution; the organisational aspect of short
chain forms, in fact, affects both the calibration of specific production regarding
the allocation of products and the organisation of work in relation to chosen sales
methods (Cicatiello, 2008). Of course, these decisions are influenced by the farm’s
economic resources, the characteristics, knowledge and cooperation of the farmer and his family, geographical location, the socio-economic, environmental and
landscape context, proximity to roads and urban centres, and tourist attractions in
the area (IRUR, 2011).
Short chain experiences in Italy
The short chain, according to the forms and places where all its component
activities take place, calls for a level of organisation and differentiated commitment on the part of businesses, with a diversified spread based on territorial contexts, on characteristics of agricultural sectors and on types of products.
Numerous studies within North European and North American markets
have investigated the most common forms of short chain11: direct sales on farms,
farmers’ markets, weekly deliveries to families on a subscription basis, harvesting of products on the ground by the consumer, e-commerce and various modes
of cooperation between producers and consumers, from more intense forms that
provide a true sharing of business risk to “softer” forms involving the adoption of
head of livestock. According to the literature examined by Raffaelli (Raffaelli et al.,
2009), these case studies fail to provide a framework of the extent of the phenomenon in quantitative terms, as data on the number of businesses and consumers
involved are not readily available.
In Italy as well, the approach to knowledge about short chains has mainly
been through exploratory surveys of local situations12. As in other countries, we
see more and more integration of several parties - farmers, consumers, professional farmers’ organisations, organic associations, cultural and environmental
associations, public administrations - in promoting and implementing collective
experiences of concerted short chains: in Italy you go from “Countryside friend”
(COLDIRETTI) to “Women in the Field” (CIA), from “Earth Markets” (Slow Food) to
11 Between 2000 and 2006, 56 studies were made, in 7 important sector publications (Venn et al.,
2006).
12 Among these, we point out those conducted in Friuli Venezia Giulia (Gregori and Basso, 2006) and
Umbria (D’Allestro, 2011) and the provinces of Turin (Coldiretti and CCIAA, 2008), Trento (Raffaelli
et al., 2009) and Viterbo (Cicatiello, 2008).
19
AIAB initiatives, consumers’ movements and Legambiente, just to name a few, not
to mention European and national campaigns for the consumption of fruit, vegetables and milk in schools, which generate direct supply contracts in public school
catering. As a result of these experiences, there is also growing interest in our
country in quantitative analysis of short chains, closely linked to the availability of
data provided by organisations involved in the supply chain13 in various ways, and
which integrate statistical and census surveys from institutional sources.
The most classic form of short chain, direct sales on farms, farm and farm
stay sites (e.g. lodging, wine cellars, olive mills, huts, dairy farms, warehouses,
and areas for distribution and storage) and organised points (farm stands at fairs,
harvest festivals and local markets and collective sales points like “showcase
shops” promoted by cooperatives and consortia), is a phenomenon that has had
a strong impulse in the last ten to fifteen years, though farms, particularly in the
wine and olive oil and fresh produce sectors (fruit, vegetables and meat), have always practiced it, but in a very marginal way, in areas not subject to strong urbanisation where there remains a strong relationship of local sociability. On the other
hand, especially in rural areas, there are fewer logistical difficulties in purchasing,
such as proximity, timetabling and sorting, and direct selling is a deeply rooted
phenomenon that usually involves a limited number of products in which the farm
specialises14.
Pending results of the last ISTAT census, in 2007 there were about 400,000
farms in Italy (22.1% of total Italian farms, 5% more than in 2000) that engaged in
direct sales, mostly in southern Italy and the islands (65%), especially in Campania
(16.8%) and Sardinia (12.7%), but also in Tuscany (12.4%) (ISTAT, 2007); revenue is
estimated at 3 billion euro (COLDIRETTI and Agri2000, 2010).
Recently, forms of short chain derived from the U.S. and British experience
(“pick-your-own”, “farmer’s market”) or from Northern European countries, such
as “box schemes”, have spread to all regions.
The harvesting of fruits and vegetables by consumers directly in the fields
on farms (“pick-your-own”) is an opportunity to personally select fresh and genuine products, at affordable prices through a friendly and recreational experience.
There are only about 100 farms in Italy involved in the direct harvesting of products
13 Consider the National Observatory on Direct Sales (COLDIRETTI and AGRI2000, 2010), which annually processes data on farms enrolled in the Chamber of Commerce, and the Bio Bank data bank
(www.biobank.it), which makes a yearly census of operators in the organic short chain.
14 When a farm decides to expand supply and offer a wider range of products for direct sales, it can
also make agreements, join or create cooperatives with other farms (IRUR, 2011).
20
on the ground (COLDIRETTI and Agri2000, 2010); the experience is not very common in our country but practiced in Northern Europe and North America, where it
developed in the ‘30s and ‘40s, especially in the United States during the depression after the Second World War, in which the price paid to producers for fruit and
vegetables was so low that farmers could not cover the cost of picking, packaging
and transport (Guidi, 2009).
Farmers’ markets, regulated in Italy by Legislative Decree no. 228/2001 and
Ministerial Decree of November 20, 2007, are managed by farmers gathered in
joint form or through their associations or by the staff of the municipalities that
host them and promote them. COLDIRETTI’s Campagna Amica recorded 878 farmer’s markets in 2011, located in urban centres or just outside town, with access by
surrounding farms, for a total of 20,800 farmers and an estimated turnover of €
320 million in 201015.
Box schemes, the main form of direct sales in the United Kingdom, with
100-million-pound-sterling in sales in 2007 (Soil Association, 2007), are a form of
distribution at agreed-upon intervals (usually weekly or fortnightly) of seasonal
agricultural production, usually organic fruits and vegetables, organised directly
by the farmer, but also by associations and cooperatives, for individual consumers or groups. Given a set price previously agreed upon, the customer accepts the
contents of the box (basket/crate) and/or chooses some products. In Italy this form
of direct sales mainly applies to the supply of products to JPGs, though there are
examples in the sale of frozen foods and pizza at home and in home delivery by
supermarkets to build loyalty among customers, especially older people.
Several regions have established regional registers for JPGs, a phenomenon for more than a decade, though the activities and purposes of these non-profit
organisations were only defined by the law 244/2007. Individual consumers, families, relatives, friends or colleagues, motivated by ideological reasons or simply
by affordability and family supply management, decide to buy food or commonly
used products wholesale, to be redistributed among themselves, with an important reduction the final price in relation to the volume of purchase; the group is
defined as cooperative, as the self-imposed criteria in the selection of suppliers
(small producers and local suppliers) and type of consumption (local and seasonal
foods, organic and/or integrated foods, fair trade products) are based on princi15 Figures available at: www.campagnamica.it.
21
ples of ethics, equity, social solidarity and environmental sustainability16. Currently
there are about a thousand JPGs, each of which involves 20-25 families, but they
are difficult to census because they are formed (and disbanded) all the time17. In
the 2008-2010 period, JPGs increased by 59% and are concentrated in Lombardy
(25%), Tuscany (13%) and Veneto (10%) (Mingozzi and Bertino, 2011).
Other innovative forms of short chain adopted in recent years in Italy have
had good results; there are, for example, 1,435 raw milk vending machines outside
farms or in towns, scattered in 92 provinces, one third of which are concentrated
in Lombardy18. The initial boom in the self-service sale of raw milk, however, has
been hampered by concerns about possible damage to health from ingesting milk
that has not undergone any industrial treatment after milking, but only filtration
and cooling to 4°C. In this way the milk, sold on tap in bulk via vending machine,
using rechargeable keys, maintains all its nutritional properties, but must always
be boiled, as pointed out in mandatory warnings posted on the dispensers. Safety
from the point of view of sanitation is guaranteed by strict controls; unsold milk
is withdrawn within 24 hours and used for the production of ricotta and cheeses.
In another way, using the “Adopt a sheep” format, the “ ASCA Agritourism
Cooperative”, located in the heart of the Abruzzo National Park, has taken steps to
raise awareness on the problem of abandonment of the Aquila mountains and environmental degradation, suggesting long-distance adoption of a “Sopravvissana”
breed sheep. In exchange for the cost of maintenance and rearing, each adopted
animal can provide, in addition to its products (lambsmeat, milk, cheese, ricotta,
wool, fertiliser), safeguards to the portion of land on which the flock lives. This
experience of short chain has led the way in other situations, and has created a
virtuous circle in the rural area for a decade, with a request for adoption/products
and land/hospitality19.
Finally, an all-Italian situation, begun in 2009 on the initiative of the “Valdipiatta” estate, a Siena Wine brand with a protected designation of origin, “Nobile
di Montepulciano”, the format is “tailor-made wine,” in which the farm produces
custom wine, using part of the vineyard according to the needs of the consumer.
16 Though each JPG is founded for its own reasons, which may differ from one group to another, based
on this experience there is always deep criticism of the current model of consumption and global
economy, together with the search for an immediately practical alternative, created through convivial moments, forms of experience and support - like the time bank - and barter and exchange of
bicycles, books, utensils, etc. (Giuca, 2010).
17 Available figures on the national JPG network: www.retegas.org.
18 Figures updated to 15 July 2012 available at: www.milkmaps.com.
19 Figure available at: www.laportadeiparchi.it.
22
The customer is assisted by an expert in choosing the type of grape, directly in the
vineyard, personally selects the preferred mix of flavours, and follows all phases
of the production process through bottling and labelling (Business & Gentlemen,
2009). Begun as a new frontier of luxury and niche excellence, aimed at the U.S.
market, this form of short chain can be accessible for all budgets, if produced using certain methods, in all rural Italian wineries.
6. Conclusions
In the general development of the agricultural world and, in particular, the
fragmentation of production and low profitability, it is clearly important to explore
new models of entrepreneurship (Cicatiello, 2008), in which alternative forms of
product marketing also play a decisive role, in which the farmer becomes an active
player, entering the market in a new, innovative and creative way, also with the opportunity to increase young people’s interest in the sector and foster generational
renewal.
In this context, the various forms of short chain come into play, in re-locating production-distribution-consumption circuits, enhancing the bond of agricultural production with the territory and favouring consumption in local markets.
The potential benefit of the short chain generally recognised by producers and, in
particular, of direct sales, is strongly linked, however, to locational, structural and
production characteristics of farms. The direct relationship established between
producer and consumer offers, as strengths for sellers, the opportunity to control
price and added value, to exploit the quality and characteristics of the product,
and to build customer loyalty, while also offering related services (e.g. amplitude
of supply, timely deliveries, availability of recipes based on seasonal products);
but there are critical elements related to logistics (especially for fresh products or
farms far from towns or roads), breadth and quantity of supply (linked with seasonality of products) and, of course, the size of farms and their marketing possibilities
(IRUR, 2011). Larger farms, therefore, which can sustain the cost of production
in the face of the availability of technological innovation and adequate production
volumes, have a non-exclusive approach to the short chain, using it in addition to
traditional market channels; for smaller farms, however, the short circuit and direct sales represent a viable alternative for their very survival, which is, moreover,
a key requirement for sustainable development of the territory. For farmers in this
regard, it may be advantageous to operate within a network of actors, experiences
and tools, in order to be able, so to speak, to re-accustom to the commercial di-
23
mension of their profession and to facilitate their communication and interpersonal skills (Giuca, 2012).
The short chain thus makes it possible to experiment with new forms of
marketing, modulated in relation to the interests of producers and consumers,
and with positive effects for the collective/local community, shifting emphasis to
the territory, the quality of production processes and consumption, and a rural
development model based on multi-functionality and sustainability. These forms
of sales, in fact, are part of a virtuous circle of local development that includes rural tourism, educational activities, the promotion of local products, transformation
and processing of agricultural products on the spot and on the farm, and various
opportunities which refer to the productive, ecological, scenic, cultural and social
importance of agriculture, and the diversification of activities and sources of income; without forgetting that shortening the distance food travels from the place
of production to consumption can reduce environmental impact in terms of packaging, transport and energy.
On the demand side there is strong value in seeking a relationship with the
producer “you know” and “who has good products” at affordable prices. However,
direct sales or other forms of short chain do not always lead to a real drop in
consumer prices; in this sense it would be desirable to have forms of physical or
virtual aggregation of producers/products, to implement beneficial economic dynamics for all stakeholders in the supply chain, and for the local context.
Bibliography
AIDA (IFLA), Il Libro verde della Commissione Europea sulla qualità dei prodotti
agricoli, Il documento dell’AIDA, Rivista di diritto alimentare, 2009, III, 1, pp. 2-7.
Albisinni F. (2005), Diritto alimentare tra innovazione, regolazione e mercato, Rivista di diritto alimentare, fasc. 4, 2005, pp. 565-590.
Belliggiano A. (2009), Percezione della sicurezza alimentare e nuovi modelli di
organizzazione della produzione, Rivista di Diritto Alimentare, Anno III, n.4, pp.
42-44.
Brunori G. - Cosmina M. - Gallenti G. (2002), Le strade del vino nel Friuli Venezia
Giulia, in Basile E. - Romano D. (a cura di), Sviluppo rurale: società, territorio,
impresa, FrancoAngeli, Milano, pp. 398-429.
24
Business & Gentlemen (2009), Bottiglie su misura: un’idea Made in Italy, B&G,
www.businessgentlemen.it.
Cicatiello C. (2008), La vendita diretta dei prodotti agricoli: un’analisi della situazione locale, Tuscia Economica, n. 1, pp. 35-41.
Cioloș D. (2012), Agricolture locali e filiere corte: rafforzare la dimensione locale della politica agricola comune, Intervento di apertura del Commissario
europeo per l’Agricoltura e lo sviluppo rurale alla conferenza sulle agricolture
locali e le filiere corte, Bruxelles, 20 aprile 2012, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/events.
Codeluppi V. (1989), Consumo e comunicazione. Merci, messaggi e pubblicità
nelle società contemporanee, FrancoAngeli, Milano.
CENSIS e COLDIRETTI (2010), Primo Rapporto sulle abitudini alimentari degli
italiani, Roma.
COLDIRETTI - AGRI2000 (2010), Osservatorio internazionale sulla vendita diretta nelle aziende agricole, Quarta edizione, Bologna.
COLDIRETTI - CCIAA (2008), Le vendite dirette nella provincia di Torino, www.
to.camcom.it.
D’Allestro S. (2011), Indagine sui gruppi di acquisto solidale in Umbria, www.
associazionelegaliitaliani.it.
De Roest K. - Menghi A. (2000), Reconsidering “traditional” food: the case of
Parmigiano reggiano cheese, Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (4), pp.439-451.
Franco S. (2007), Agricoltura biologica e «food miles»: la crisi di un matrimonio
di interesse, Agriregionieuropa, Anno 3, n. 10, pp. 45-47.
Germanò A. (2009), Qualità alimentare: un’Europa, due sistemi, Rivista di diritto alimentare, III, 1, pp. 22-25.
Giuca S. (2009), Cultivar e razze autoctone delle aree rurali: tradizione e innovazione nella conservazione e nell’uso, in Giarè F. (a cura di), Mondi agricoli e
rurali. Proposte di riflessione sui cambiamenti sociali e culturali, Roma, pp.
155-169.
Giuca S. (2010), Il principio di equità e solidarietà applicato agli acquisti: il caso
dei GAS, in Briamonte L. - Giuca S. (a cura di), Comportamenti e consumi socialmente responsabili nel sistema agroalimentare, INEA, Roma, pp. 74-80.
25
Giuca S. (2012), Filiera corta, filo diretto produttore-consumatore, PianetaPSR, n. 11,
www.pianteapsr.it.
Grando S. (2009), Esperienze di diversificazione qualitative degli alimenti: la ri-localizzazione dei circuiti produzione-consumo, Economia agro-alimentare, n. 1, pp.
43-59.
Gregori M. - Basso C. (2006), La vendita diretta nell’agricoltura del Friuli Venezia
Giulia: caratteristiche strutturali ed organizzative, Agribusiness Paesaggio & Ambiente, IX, 1, pp. 25-35.
Guidi F. (2009), Filiera corta: percorsi di innovazione tecnici, organizzativi e sociali
nella gestione strategica delle nicchie. Esperienze in Toscana e in Provenza, tesi di
dottorato, Università di Bologna.
Henke R. (a cura di) (2004), Verso il riconoscimento di un’agricoltura multifunzionale, INEA, Roma.
Holloway L. - Kneafsey M. (2004), Producing-consuming food: closeness, connectedness and rurality in four ‘alternative1 food networks, in Holloway L. - Kneafsey
M. (eds,), Geographies of rural cultures and societies, Ashgate, London, pp. 257-277.
Knickel K. - Renting H. (2000), Methodological and conceptual issues in the study
of multifunctionality and rural development, Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (4), pp. 512-528.
Kloppenburg Jr. J. - Lezberg S. - De Master K. - Stevenson G.W. - J. Hendrickson
(2000), Tasting Food and Tasting Sustainability: Defining the Attributes of an Alternative Food System with Competent, Ordinary People, Human Organization, vol. 2,
pp. 177-186.
IRUR (2011), La vendita diretta nel territorio transfrontaliero, Assessorato all’Agricoltura, Provincia di Cuneo.
ISTAT (2008), Struttura e produzioni delle aziende agricole - Anno 2007, Roma.
Lang T. (1996), Globalisation and the Challenge to the Organic Strategy, in IFOAM,
Fundamentals of Organic Agricultural, Proceedings of the 11th IFOAM International
Scientific Conference, Copenaghen, pp. 199-222.
Malassis L. (1973), Economie de la consommation et de la production agro-alimentaire, in Malassis L. (a cura di), L’économie agro-alimentaire, Edition Cujas, Paris.
Mingozzi A. - Bertino R.M. (2011), Tutto bio 2012, Annuario del Biologico, Egaf Edizioni, Forlì.
26
Norberg-Hodge H. (2005), Pensa globalmente… mangia localmente, L’Ecologist italiano, n. 3, pp. 222-228.
Paradiso C. (2010), La filiera corta, Newsletter di sociologia, Anno VII, n. 5, www.
newsletterdisociologia.unito.it.
Raffaelli R. - Notaro S. - Basani M. (2004), Potenzialità di “nuovi” strumenti economico-contrattuali di tipo partecipativo per la sostenibilità dell’agricoltura di montagna:
la Community Supported Agricolture, Nuovo Diritto Agrario, Nuova serie, 1, pp. 211225.
Raffaelli R. - Coser L. - Gios G. (2009), Esperienze di filiera corta nell’agro-alimentare: un’indagine esplorativa in provincia di Trento, Economia agro-alimentare, n. 1,
pp. 25-41.
Renting H. - Marsden T. - Banks J. (2003), Understanding alternative food networks:
exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development, Environment and
Planning A, 35, pp. 393-411.
Seyfang G. (2008), Avoiding Asda? Exploring consumer motivations in local organic
food networks, Local Environment, 13 (3), pp. 187-201.
Soil Association (2007), How to set up a vegetable box scheme, www.soilassociation.org.
Sonnino R. - Marsden T. (2006), Beyond the divide: rethinking relationships between
alternative and conventional food networks in Europe, Journal of Economic Geography, 6 (2), pp. 181-199.
Taylor J. - Madrick M. - Collin S. (2005), Trading places: the local economic impact
of street produce and farmers’ markets, New Economics Foundation, London.
Venn L. - Kneafsey M. - Holloway L. - Cox R. - Dowler E. - Tuomainen H. (2006),
Researching European “alternative” food networks: some methodological considerations, Area, 38 (3), pp. 248-258.
Whatmore S. - Strassart P. - Renting H. (2003), Guest editorial: what’s alternative
about alternative food networks, Environment and Planning A, 35, pp. 289-391.
27
From the land to the territory:
the role of the farmer in the short chain
Irene Canfora1
Italian legislation regarding farmer’s selling activities
Italian legislation, in outlining the legal framework for agriculture, has always provided special regulation for what in economic terms is called “short chain”
and refers to the regulation of direct sales of agricultural products to consumers.
In national law, sales activities organised by the farmer are crucial to defining the discipline of farm enterprise in the Civil Code (Canfora, 2008).
On the regulatory level, in fact, the range of sales is the parameter for evaluating requirements for the application of the special statute for agricultural enterprise. Verification of sale and processing of products carried out by the farmer
makes it possible to extend the legal statute applicable to the farm, beyond activities of livestock, crops and forestry that make up the farm’s main activity.
Currently, pursuant to Article 2135 of the Civil Code, amended by Article 1 of
the Legislative Decree 228/01, the criterion of prevalence of products coming from
the farm determines the extent to which the farm statute continues to apply, to
activities that otherwise fall under the legal regime of a commercial firm.
Direct sales of products by the farmer, as part of the farm’s activities, have
also (traditionally) been granted a corresponding special administrative discipline,
in line with the requirement to provide special legislation for agricultural enterprises compared to the discipline for commercial enterprises: the different capabilities of farms are considered, both in general farm discipline, and on the level of
administrative regulation of direct sales by the farmer, since farms are considered
to have a weaker economic position in the market and therefore deserving of special regulation.
The special nature of the rules on direct sales of products by the farmer can
also be found in the prior discipline in the Civil Code of 1942 (Iannarelli, 2009).
Think of the earliest special discipline, regarding wine sales directly on
farms, pursuant to art. 206, r. d. n. 62 of 21 January 1929 (the Regulation implementing the Single Text on public safety laws, Royal Decree No. 1848 of 6 Novem1 Associate Professor of Agricultural Law, University of Bari.
29
ber 1926). Wine sale is a prime example of this special discipline, designed to protect agricultural producers, primarily considered as vineyard landowners, when
“the cellars of aristocratic families and even outside the market, but large-scale
producers of prized and sought-after wines”, risked being framed in the context
of acts of trade: the hypothesis recurs, in the debate on the reform of the Commercial Code, cited by Valeri as a classic type of sale by farmers that should be
excluded from trade regulations, to exclude the sale of goods obtained from the
fruit of the land from trade laws (Valeri, 1923). In this regard, in terms of trade
rules, the 1929 law excluded the obligation to obtain a retail license for pouring
wine and selling directly from cellars annexed to farmland structures. An exemption from sellers’ requirements was then introduced for itinerant trading, pursuant
to Article 9 of Law 327 of 5 February 1934: trade licenses were required of direct
producers, while farmers were exempt from paying the deposit otherwise required
of merchants.
In the post-war period, the regulation of commerce extended the simplification of the rules established for commercial activities to direct sales by agricultural producers (La Medica, 2004). The Trade Act no. 59, 1963, which remained in
force and was only repealed with the L. D. of June 25, 2008, n. 112 (made into law
August 6, 2008, n. 133), removed the requirement for farmers to obtain a license,
individually or jointly “for retail, throughout the territory of the Republic, of crops
or livestock products obtained from their own lands”, upon request to the mayor of
the municipality where products are sold.
Trade legislation currently in force does not deviate from this set of rules:
Legislative Decree n. 114/1998, art. 4, in defining the application of the law, excludes “agricultural producers, individual co-op members, who conduct the sale of
agricultural products in compliance with article 2135 Civil Code, the Law of March
25, 1959 n. 125 and subsequent amendments, and the Law of 9 February 1963 n.
59 and subsequent amendments”.
Art. 4 of L.D. 228/2001, amends this provision, defining the rules applicable
to farmers who sell their products directly, by providing a simplified procedure
for access to sales activities, to encourage agricultural enterprises to sell their
products directly.
The arrangement differs depending on whether the sale takes place: in itinerant form, including electronic commerce; or on outdoor areas of the farm, including the private areas available to farmers; or finally in a non-itinerant form on
public areas or those open to the public.
To sell agricultural products directly in itinerant form, after the latest
30
changes introduced by art. 27 of Legislative Decree (simplifications) n. 5/2012, only
requires informing the municipality where the farm is, and selling can commence
as soon as notice is sent (rather than 30 days after receipt of the communication).
For outdoor sales in areas belonging to the farm or belonging to the business, L.D. n. 2/2006 has liberalised activity to the point of excluding even notice of
commencement of activity.
If, however, the sale takes place on public areas or premises open to the
public, it is mandatory to report to the mayor of the municipality in which the sale
takes place (Albisinni, 2001).
There are two limits in how this provision is applied. First, it requires the
observance of sanitary regulations in force, matched by the prohibition of direct
sales by entrepreneurs found guilty of health violations and food fraud. Second,
the provision establishes a criterion that affects the size of the enterprise’s activity,
individual and cooperative2, limiting the application of the rule beyond the general
criterion of prevalence, referred to in the first paragraph: if revenue exceeds that
identified in c. 8, the general rules on trade apply (c. 8 provides that the amount of
revenue from products not produced by the respective farms should not be more
than € 160,000 for individual entrepreneurs and € 4 million for companies).
The discipline thus identified then applies to the sale of products by agritourism businesses, pursuant to Article 10 of Law 96/2006 (Albisinni, 2006).
The farmer’s role in the short chain in promotional legislation
The provisions mentioned so far testify to the favour for a farmer with regard to special rules for farms compared to commercial enterprises, which is also
reflected in the regulation of sales activities, carried out by the farmer, when they
fall under business activities.
In the most recent Italian legislation, however, the rediscovery of the role of
the farmer in the short chain takes on a different meaning, which also takes account of other factors. It operates primarily as a tool to rebalance the market. In
fact, the reduction of the supply chain, as well as meeting the needs of entrepreneurs for a greater return on their business (the farmer can achieve a profit margin that would otherwise be dispersed in other segments of the supply chain), also
contributes to the mirror and opposite consumer demand for a reduction in food
2 On the discipline applicable to entities and cooperatives that sell agricultural products directly,
pursuant to Art. 4 of L.D. n. 99 of 2004, see Albisinni, 2004, in particular p. 266
31
prices3. These individually important economic aspects are supplemented with
other complementary objectives of collective protection: environmental protection
(reducing the cost of transport of goods), but also social objectives of bringing citizens closer to rural reality.
One sees, then, a new central role for the farmer in the direct contractual
relationship with the consumer; the law’s role is to promote and encourage this
distribution channel of “direct sale” or “short chain”. In it, the local dimension of
the market combines the interests of farms with those of consumers, indirect recipients of an economic and social benefit.
Normative instruments are therefore of a promotional nature.
First of all, we must recall the legislation on “Farmers’ markets” provided
for in Article. 1, c. 1065 of the Finance Act 2007 n. 296/2006 and implemented
by MIPAAF decree on November 20, 20074. The legislation was not intended to
regulate sales (for these aspects, see existing legislation), but merely to identify
the conditions for access to support measures. It provides for the establishment
of areas for direct sales markets, for the benefit of entrepreneurs whose business is located “within the administrative territory of the region or within the areas
defined by individual competent authorities”; for agricultural products from own
farms (or from members of the cooperative) within the limit of prevalence stated in
Article 2135 c.c.; with the exclusion of producers guilty of health violations or food
fraud, who are forbidden to conduct direct sales, pursuant to Article 4 of Legislative Decree 228/01.
This legislation, which aims to define “guidelines for the creation of markets
reserved to farmers in art. 2135, including co-operatives”, established or authorised by the municipalities, is then applied in regional legislation, which has provided grants to set up direct sales markets (see, eg., Lazio Regional Law 28/2008,
Article 2).
Other measures have been developed in the context of regional laws, intended to promote quality food products of the short supply chain, with the aim
of encouraging consumption of local products: a recent regulatory trend, in fact,
refers to “zero-kilometre production” (Losavio, 2011).
3 On this point, many studies and EU documents on farm prices and the need to monitor them along
the food supply chain: see in particular the Commission Communication COM (2008)821 and works
by the focus group in 2009. In Italy, see the AGCM study on the fruit and vegetable supply chain: IC28
of 7 June 2007.
4 For an analysis of the main legal aspects of Farmers’ Markets in Italian legislation, see in particular: Alabrese et al., in Sirsi, volume 3/2008 of the Review of Food Legislation; Masini, 2007.
32
In this case as well, the laws refer to short chain of quality products, but
the meaning is understood here in the broadest sense, in that it includes all sales
activities, also via intermediaries that enhance local products, as for example:
-
Increasing the use of local produce in catering services (Sardinia R.L. 1/2010,
Friuli R.L. 4/2010);
-
Marketing of local products in retail outlets (Friuli R.L. 4/2010, Veneto R.L.
7/2008), which can also be done through the medium of industry agreements promoted at the regional level to exploit local products (Article 14
Lazio R.L. 29/2008; a similar provision in the Puglia Region has promoted
supply chain agreements to encourage the supply of regional products in
large retail outlets);
-
The concentration of supply through official websites (Lazio R.L. 29/2008
provides for so-called supply groups (bid groups), which are the counterpart
to joint purchasing groups of consumers.
Overall, regional legislation is directed primarily to protecting local production, relative to origin in the production area (regional) rather than the method of
direct sales, which is subject to legislation on farmers’ markets described above.
Again on measures of a promotional nature, but in this case with regard to
the protection of institutions and associations in the definition of the tax regime
applicable for the circulation of goods, national legislation has defined “joint purchasing groups” (Art. 1, c. 266 of the Finance Act 2008, no. 244/07), which aim to
exploit the short chain through a particular mode of supply of consumer goods,
beginning with consumer initiative, in co-ops, which seek local suppliers of local
products. Regional laws have also expanded the legislative initiative to increase direct sale of food products and quality, by supporting joint purchasing groups (Umbria R.L. 1/2011, Lazio R.L. 29/2008, see Canfora, 2011).
Legislation on short chains and issues of compatibility with EU law
None of the provisions mentioned so far relate to business regulation, nor
the content of contracts with consumers, which remain subject to general provisions. Rather, they concern the law of markets, by strengthening the local supply
chain of products.
As noted, in fact, these are rules on the promotion of products of regional origin, which apply to the generic formulas of “short chain” and selling “km 0
products“: these terms even recall aspects of environmental relevance of regulatory measures, themselves compatible with and exploited in European law.
33
The overlap of the two levels (regional product exploitation and protection
of markets of local importance) emerged in the case concerning the approval of
Veneto R.L. n. 7/2008, originally entitled “Standards to guide and support the consumption of agricultural products of regional origin”. In response to the first draft
of the law, the European Commission made criticisms, noting that the law violates
the rules on state aid and competition; thus, in the second version the term “regional products” was replaced with “0-km products” but without varying the effects of content (Veneto Regional Law 3/2010).
One wonders, then - because these are measures that affect markets - if the
provisions so far mentioned (without presuming to be complete) are compatible
with EU law, in particular with respect to the rules of competition and free movement of goods.
Indeed, precisely because of the need to control the prices of food products, the use of direct sales and the promotion of short chains are considered fully
compatible with the goals pursued by the Commission, which says in its Green
Paper on promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products:
“Regional and local farming has hidden potential that is not currently being fully
exploited. Regional and local markets are an essential meeting place for producers and consumers. They enable the former to receive the rewards for their labours more efficiently and the latter to contribute to the development of their local
areas, reduce the environmental impact of their consumption habits and access a
wide variety of products rooted in their traditions and ways of life”5. In addition, in
the same document collaboration with the retail sector is deemed appropriate, to
provide incentives for strategies to promote local agricultural products involving
shopping centres, neighbourhood stores or rural sales centres, markets, etc.6
In fact it can be said that the instruments for the promotion of short chains
in agriculture can reach those goals of agricultural policy set out in article 33 of
the Treaty (now 39 TFEU), which are difficult to reconcile, and whose convergence
is even considered favourably to purposes of exemption from general competition
5 European Commission, Green Paper On promotion measures and information provision for agricultural products: a reinforced value-added European strategy for promoting the tastes of Europe,
COM (2011) 436 final, of 14.7.2011, p. 4.
6 Cf. p. 5: opposite assessment, in the name of competition principles of Community law, expressed
by our Authority on Competition and the Market, in 2005, with the opinion of 19.10.2005 on L.D.
182/2005, containing “Urgent measures in agriculture and for public bodies in the sector, partly to
counteract anomalous trends in prices in the food chain”, which included in art. 2 the fixing by the
regions of a minimum percentage of selling space to regional agricultural and agri-food products,
and a percentage of space reserved for farmers who conduct direct sales in public areas.
34
rules for agreements adopted in agriculture7: the direct sale of agricultural products in short supply chains, in fact, guarantees an increase in agricultural productivity, improves the income of farmers, stabilises markets, guarantees security of
supply and ultimately ensures reasonable prices for consumers.
More questionable may be the effect of exploiting only regional products, in
light of the principle of free movement of goods. But we must consider the context
of these provisions:
1)
the choice to exploit agricultural products in regional markets under Common Agricultural Policy;
2)
the importance of the local market, which has no effect on the broader dynamics of the EU internal market. Think of the exceptions provided for in Regulation (EC) n. 852/04, in reference to the provision of a national regulation of
local markets, with the exclusion of rules designed for an intra-Community
market;
3)
the fact that these are measures on how to sell products and not to define
promotional legislative instruments on origin of products (worked out in the
form of distinctive labels), which is of greater concern to the EU than anticompetitive effects.
Limits to the exploitation of regional products through brands of
origin
On this last question, it should be noted that regional laws seek legislation
compatible with EU law, also for the exploitation of products of regional origin. This
profile, moreover, is the completion of promoting food products in local markets
but can result in a different impact on the market, because the legislation does not
merely regulate on-site trade of local products. In fact, it produces a transposition
of the wider local market and therefore falls within the Commission’s wide-ranging assessment of the effects and impact on trade among Member States.
In order to avoid conflicts with Community law, one solution adopted by the
regions has been the use of a collective Community label referring to geographical
indication of regional products. Recently, this model was adopted by Trentino to
exploit quality products and, also recently, by the Puglia Region, which has introduced an experimental “products of Puglia” brand.
The Commission’s observations, regarding the violation of the rules laid
7 In the ever-changing interpretation of the Court of Justice of the provisions in Article 176, reg. (EC)
No. 1234/07. On this point, please refer to Iannarelli, 1997; Canfora, 2010, p. 699 ff.
35
down in Article 34 TFEU on the free movement of goods, presented in both cases
to the Ministry of Agriculture, have been overridden by the regions, emphasising
the protection of the quality of products (with respect to indication of origin) and by
reference in the distinctive logo of accession to European support programs (rural
development measures).
In both cases, local authorities have also allowed the quality label for products from outside the region8.
The Regional Council of Puglia, with resolution no. 2953/2011 adopted the
“Circular on the application of procedure for using the Products of Puglia brand”,
which provides a kind of authentic interpretation of the function of a trademark already established by resolution 960/2009, stating that the label “conveys the main
message of quality of the product and a secondary one of indication of origin”: it
is a faithful recall to specifications in paragraph VI.D.2 par. 155 of the Community
Guidelines for State aid in agriculture and forestry 2007-2013, which states that
“in the case of national or regional quality labels, the origin of the products may
be mentioned as a subsidiary message. To assess whether the origin is indeed a
subsidiary message, the Commission will take into account the overall importance
of the text and/or symbol, including pictures and general presentation, referring to
origin and the importance of text and/or symbol referring to unique selling point
of the advertisement, i.e. the part of the advertising message which does not focus
on origin”.
In terms of content of the message, the circular then ordered that the label
may be applied only to quality products, referring to those products that meet the
quality requirements for participation in food quality schemes eligible for funding
under Reg. (EC) no. 1698/2005, Article 32 par. 1 letter. b. (i.e. those that do not have
certification for mandatory requisites).
In closing, the provision states that the label may be used by all agri-food
producers operating in the territory of the European Union and that “the evidence
of origin in the quality label will be replaced based on the region of origin”.
The clause is a now-common system of protections implemented at the regional level, based on the statement made in 1997 by the Court of Justice in its
judgment in Pistre to indicate French mountain areas9.
The criticality of the solution adopted for regional labels, with reference to
deceiving the public about the nature and meaning of the label, can be avoided by
8 For Puglia, see the resolution of the regional Council 29.12.2011, n. 2953.
9 Court of Justice on 7 May 1997 in Joint Cases C-321/94, C-322/94, C-323/94 and C-324/94.
36
amending the regulations governing use of the label [Article 68, par. 3, reg. (EC)
no. 207/2009] - when the change consists, as in this case, in allowing producers
outside the geographical area to use the brand. This is evident in the final text of
the regulations governing use of the label approved by resolution of 5 June 201210.
The content of the label registered with the OHIM as a collective mark of quality
with territorial indication varies depending on the origin of the products, in the face
of tradition and graphical configuration presented in the record referring to the
Puglia region: Article 2 of Regulation indeed states that the use that the “ ‘Quality Products of Puglia’ label referred to in article 1 can be licensed for use by all
EU producers for agricultural and food products and services, in accordance with
Community law, who enjoy special protection of the European Union and meet
certain quality requirements [...]. The elements of origin indicated at the bottom of
the quality label are replaced based on the area of origin,

and by way of example
the formula will read “Quality Products of Tuscany” or “Quality Products of Puglia”,
or “Quality Products of Navarra”, or” Quality Products of Baden-Württemberg”, or
“Quality Products of South Tyrol”.
In a similar situation, the Autonomous Province of Trento also had to introduce a corrective to the “Trentino Quality” label identifying products of Trentino,
emphasising the importance attributed to the presence of higher quality features,
regarding regional origin in the definition of the logo (Provincial Council resolution n. 986/2011); similarly, it introduced a closing clause saying that the logo is
allowed for products from EU Member States, for which “the text relative to origin
is adjusted accordingly” (Article 7, Provincial resolution of 13 May 2011, n. 993,
Approval “Regulating Production for Apples”, DGP n. 2662 of 6 November 2009 Quality label indicating “Quality Trentino” origin).
This solution, while attempting to reconcile the harmonized tool of a geographical label with the principles of regulation of the single market and the prohibition of obstacles to the free movement of goods, however, ends up distorting
the capabilities and functions of the trademark. The presence of a reference to
territorial origin, present in a collective geographical label registered by a public
body, is a consumer’s indication of the choice of the product; when it is assumed
that the product can also come from different geographical areas, to avoid falling
within the prohibition of equivalent measures to obstacles of free movement, it is
likely to cause confusion among consumers, for whom geographical indication is
now an acquired feature along with indications of product characteristics, even if
10 Puglia Region Council Resolution 5 June 2012, n. 1076, in Puglia BUR 27 June 2012, No 92.
37
it is a simple geographical label, where accuracy of information at least must be
respected (even if placed in a subsidiary position in relation to other elements, as
required by the Commission).
It has been noted elsewhere, regarding the introduction of the national logo
for organic products, that the national logo refers to the national authority responsible for certification (Canfora, 2007): in this case, however, it is not a geographical
label, but rather a logo or brand representative of the certification authority, added
to the labelling on method of production harmonized by the EU, to avoid ambiguity
for the consumer.
If, however, a label indicating territory is allowed, the Commission’s position, even if justified by reasons of competition in the single market, has two consequences incompatible with the rules of European law: in fact, in the first place it
deviates from the structural features of the legal figure of a geographical collective
label, permissible by producers in the geographical area concerned; and secondly
(as a result of the first observation) it affects the accuracy of product information,
which, to protect consumers, but also economic operators, should be transparent
and not misleading, as stated most recently also in reg. (EC) no. 1169/11, Article
7, letter a.
Promotion of short chains and regulation in the agri-food supply
chain: compative needs
It can be concluded that the farmer has assumed a “privileged” role in the
legislation promoting short chains, in which national legislation has introduced
various types of support measures compatible with the constraints imposed by
European law. European legislation aimed at regulating the single market is reconciled with the provision of promotional tools for the short chain operating on the
level of local markets, also as regards the principle of subsidiarity.
Less felicitous is the Italian regulatory panorama with regard to the other
aspect of marketing agricultural products, designed to regulate the agri-food supply chain, where a measure on supply contracts for agricultural raw materials to
distribution or marketing companies is essential for the protection of agricultural
enterprises (Iannarelli, 2011).
On this side, however, national laws attempting to regulate the phenomenon
have proved insufficient to protect farmers in negotiations with agri-businesses
and large retailers. This applies not only to the failure of the tools already provided
by Law no. 88/1988 with contracts of cultivation and sales; but also for the estab-
38
lishment of supply chain contracts, by L.D. 102/2005, which have not provided an
effective way of protecting the weaker party in the contractual relationship.
But the most recent legislative instrument to come into force - Article 62 of
L.D. 1/2012 on deregulation - designed to regulate large-scale retail contracting,
is inadequate to regulate the relationships between farmers and buyers of products in terms of protection. In fact, it provides for a contractual formality imposed
on businesses for the protection of the weaker party (on the model of consumer
contracts). Violation results in the voiding of the contract, a tool of arguable usefulness in a sector like agriculture, in which, for example, pricing is done daily
and, therefore, in terms of contractual remedies, many difficulties would result for
farmers in determining the relationship between the parties when the contract is
declared null and void (e.g. the French law, which avoided the nullity claim in the
last legislative provisions, although it originally - 1964 - provided this remedy for
contracts of vertical integration in agriculture). Likewise, assigning the Authority
for Competition and the Market the tasks of monitoring the implementation of provisions and the imposition of sanctions may appear inadequate, even with respect
to the resolution of contractual disputes between the parties, and to the continuity
of contractual relations between the weak and strong players in the supply chain.
These contexts, however, are beyond the scope of this discussion and deserve further and more extensive investigation.
Bibliography
Alabrese M.R. (2008), La vendita diretta dei prodotti agricoli, Rivista di diritto alimentare, 3/2008.
Albisinni F. (2001), Commento all’art. 4 D. lgs. 228/01, Nuove leggi civili commentate, p. 754.
Albisinni F. (2004), Commento all’art. 4 D. Lgs. n. 99/2004 “Disposizioni in materia
di soggetti e attività, integrità aziendale e semplificazione amministrativa in agricoltura”, Rivista di diritto agrario, I, p. 254.
Albisinni F. (2006), Commento all’art. 10 L.n. 96/2006 “disciplina dell’agriturismo”,
Rivista di diritto agrario, I, p. 600.
39
Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (2005), Obbligo di riserva di
spazi commerciali a prodotti agricoli e agroalimentari regionali, Parere AS 314,
del 19.10.2005 (d.l. 182/2005, “Interventi urgenti in agricoltura e per gli organismi
pubblici del settore, nonché per contrastare andamenti anomali dei prezzi nelle
filiere agroalimentari”).
Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (2007), Indagine conoscitiva sulla distribuzione agroalimentare , IC28 provv. N. 16908 del 7 giugno 2007.
Canfora I. (2007), Il nuovo assetto dell’agricoltura biologica nel sistema del
diritto alimentare europeo, Rivista di Diritto Agrario 2007, I, p. 360.
Canfora I. (2008), La commercializzazione dei prodotti agricoli nel diritto italiano e comunitario, Cacucci, Bari.
Canfora I. (2010), La disciplina della concorrenza nel settore agricolo dopo il
Trattato di Lisbona, Rivista di Diritto Agrario, I, p. 689.
Canfora I. (2011), Le nuove forme di commercializzazione dei prodotti alimentari: dalle vendite in rete ai “gruppi di acquisto solidale”, in Goldoni M. – Sirsi
E. (a cura di), Il ruolo del diritto nella valorizzazione e nella promozione dei
prodotti agro-alimentari. Atti del convegno Pisa 1-2 luglio 2011, Giuffré, Milano, p. 237.
Commissione dell’UE (2006), Orientamenti comunitari per gli aiuti di Stato nel
settore agricolo e forestale 2007-2013, 2006/C 319/01.
Commissione dell’UE (2008), I prezzi dei prodotti alimentari, COM (2008) 821,
Bruxelles 9 dicembre 2008.
Iannarelli A. (1997), Il regime della concorrenza nel settore agricolo tra mercato unico europeo e globalizzazione dell’economia, Rivista di Diritto Agrario ,
I, 416.
Iannarelli A. (2009), L’impresa agricola , Giappichelli, Torino.
Iannarelli A. (2011), Profili giuridici del sistema agro-alimentare tra ascesa e
crisi della globalizzazione, Cacucci, Bari.
La Medica D. (2004), La vendita diretta dei prodotti agricoli, Diritto e Giurisprudenza Agraria e dell’Ambiente, p. 299.
Losavio C. (2011), I prodotti agricoli “a chilometri zero” nelle leggi regionali,
Agricoltura, Istituzioni, Mercati, 3/2011, p. 93.
40
Masini S. (2007), I mercatali (mercati degli imprenditori agricoli a vendita diretta),
Diritto e Giurisprudenza Agraria Alimentare e dell’Ambiente, p. 292.
Valeri G. (1923), Il diritto commerciale e l’agricoltura (a proposito dell’art. 4 prog.
prelim. per il nuovo codice di commercio), Rivista di Diritto Agrario, I, p. 10.
41
The economic innovation of the short chain
Giovani Belletti and Andrea Marescotti1
Introduction: meanings and forms of short chain
The development of the short chain is a very evident phenomenon in recent
developments in the food system, drawing the attention of many categories of stakeholders, both within the agricultural world and in public institutions (EC Commission,
2008 and 2009; EU Parliament, 2010) and among representatives of consumers/citizens (Marsden and Arce, 1995; Aguglia, 2009; Allen et al., 2003).
To analyse the short chain as a mode of economic innovation first requires delving into some meanings and relevant aspects.
First of all, the term “short chain” encompasses different operating models,
ranging from direct sales on farms by the farmer to real forms of co-management
among groups of consumers and producers, in competition with each other in meeting the common need for shortening the distance (physical, cognitive and cultural)
between the worlds of production and consumption (Goodman et al., 2011).
There are also different accepted meanings of short chain and objectives pursued through it by various categories of stakeholders, identified as follows:
-
skipping stages of commercial intermediation for a more direct connection
between the farmer and the final consumer: this is a more markedly economic
goal, with a focus on increasing producer prices and re-appropriating value added in agriculture and/or containing consumer prices on the consumer side;
-
reducing the geographical and cultural distance that the product travels before reaching the consumer: these are initiatives focussed (more or less consciously) on social and environmental issues, expressed as solidarity support
between consumers and local producers and reducing the kilometres travelled
by food, and reducing other negative environmental external concerns;
-
increasing the prominent roles of consumers and producers in the agri-food supply chain, allowing both components a re-appropriation of the object
exchanged (agricultural commodity, food) and the biological processes that
underlie it, but also a re-personalisation of relations between producers and
consumers (McGarry et al., 2005, Watts et al., 2005; Brunori et al., 2012).
1 Professors in the Department of Economics at the University of Florence.
43
These meanings and their objectives often coexist within different manifestations of the short chain, albeit with different emphases depending on the players
involved and individual initiatives. Thus, the short chain must be regarded as an
inseparable accumulation of economic, social and environmental issues, and, in
developing more properly economic considerations, it is necessary to take other
aspects into account.
Also regarding the various objectives mentioned, the short chain is configured as a universe of different types of connection between production and consumption (Slee and Kirwan, 2007), affected by a number of trends that determine
important changes at this stage. This paper aims to provide an interpretation of the
phenomena in the light of the concepts of innovation and efficiency.
Short chain, economic innovation and efficiency
The short chain is an innovation in the system of food distribution, now dominant especially in large urban consumption areas. According to the above, innovation is a key to understanding not only the competition between conventional types
of distribution and those of the “short” type, but also to what is happening within
the latter.
The shortening of the chain does not eliminate distribution, which in fact
continues to be the ultimate goal, but a different configuration that requires efficient organisation of trade and of production consistent with it. The innovation of
the short chain, economically speaking, should therefore be analysed taking into
account three different levels: the structure of distribution channels through which
manufacturers and distributors market goods and services; the way exchange relations are organised between operators in these commercial channels; and how
consequent agricultural production is organised and managed.
The survey unit for economic innovation is represented by systems of production-distribution-consumption, understood as systems of separate but interrelated activities, guided by mutually compatible logic. Production-distributionconsumption systems are homogeneous entities within individual supply chains,
consisting of networks of actors that maintain relations of competition/collaboration among themselves, aimed at better exploitation of the agricultural product
from the standpoint of the final consumer, and the distribution of value created by
these activities.
The key parameter proposed here for analysing economic innovation in the
short chain is efficiency, which is considered as a generating factor (the search
44
for gains in efficiency drives the choices of actors) and at the same time as an
ordering criteria among possible alternatives (in a Darwinian logic, solutions with
greater efficiency establish precedence over others). The criterion of efficiency is
also independent of the specific objective pursued by the actors through a short
chain; that is to say, once the objective is defined, it is assumed that the most efficient response, in terms of the system of distribution and organisation of trade
and production, will prevail.
In recent decades, a number of demographic, social, economic and cultural
factors has led to a large-scale model, consolidated in the combination of largescale industry and large retailers, and the affirmation of globalisation-type supply
circuits, where the distance between production and consumption - also because
of the large volumes handled - did not seem to cause problems. Today, this model
is, however, subject to a number of criticisms and shows signs of difficulty, though
certainly not a crisis, but enough to assume that the cycle of concentration (i.e.
based on reducing the number of firms and the resulting increase in average size
at all stages of the supply chain) is entering a cycle of devolution, where space for
small and medium enterprises is growing and where location factors and economies of proximity are reacquiring some importance.
Certainly, it is premature to talk of a turnaround, but this is a sign that, at
least in some dimensions, the efficiency of the model based on the threefold largescale, long chain and relocation is being questioned. To develop an analysis of the
competitiveness of short chains, however, it is necessary to break down efficiency
into its constituent factors, which can be identified as the following four, with corresponding performance evaluation criteria (Figure 1).
The first criterion is the efficiency of logistics and organisation, manifested
in the ability to reduce costs of distribution, obviously without generating a parallel
increase in production costs, and therefore the ability to increase the value created
for actors at the extremes of the production-distribution-consumption system.
The second criterion is efficient distribution of value created within the supply chain, meaning whether the short chain can remove the many competitive imperfections and distribute the value created among the various phases of the supply chain in a more equitable way.
The third criterion is information efficiency, manifested in the ability to convey complex quality attributes, which draw the attention of a growing swath of consumers, better (and at a lower cost) than what occurs with the long chain.
The fourth criterion is environmental efficiency. This is a key criterion in the
light of increasing awareness of the devastating effects of “industrialised” agricul-
45
ture on numerous environmental issues, which leads one to wonder if the short
chain is able to contain the environmental damage generated, but also promote
positive externalities generated by some models of agriculture, in terms of landscape or the protection of agri-biodiversity, for example.
Figure 1 - efficiency criteria of the short chain
Logisticalorganisational
efficiency
Information
efficiency
Efficiency of the SC
Efficiency in
distribution
of value
(Environmental
efficiency)
These dimensions cannot be considered separately from each other, except
for exposition purposes; just as no dimension of efficiency may be considered to
prevail over the others, at least a priori.
A further issue is the perspective to be taken in assessing the performance
and efficiency of the short chain, which can be focused on the whole of the supply
chain or the agri-food system, from the perspective of collective wellbeing or on
particular types of stakeholders and/or on specific objectives of economic, agricultural and/or food policy.
In the context of the short chain, farmers and consumers are the key categories of stakeholders, and the efficiency of the short chain is often measured
based on their expectations. The expectations of farmers typically involve prices,
in terms of level and stability over time, but also aspects such as the ability to
diversify sales channels or to consolidate trade relations; besides these expecta-
46
tions, there are others, less “economic”, such as the search for social gratification
or the awareness of contributing to environmental protection. Consumer expectations are equally diverse: from seeking lower prices to better access to certain
types of products, and certain categories of quality attributes, to a greater role in
consumer choices.
The following paragraphs will discuss the first three dimensions, while the
fourth is dealt with in specific contributions published in this volume.
Logistical-organisational efficiency
Logistical-organisational efficiency is the fundamental dimension, the
basis of the beginning and consolidation of the large-scale, long chain, delocalisation model. Production-distribution-consumption systems perform
a diverse set of services and functions. Their number has increased sharply
with the increase of farm specialisation in stages most closely linked to crops
and/or livestock, with consumers’ increased service needs linked both to the
greater physical distance between areas of production and consumption, and to
the non-seasonal nature of consumption and the demand for more storage and
processing.
The large-scale, long chain, de-localisation model was successful compared to previous models of distribution organisation, and this explains why it is
currently so widespread.
At the same time, shortening the chain does not itself negate the need to
perform certain services and functions, but rather redistributes them among
different actors, in some cases eliminating certain types of operators (such as
commercial intermediaries or transporters) to the “advantage” of others who
must bear the burden, or who knowingly waive the service offered by a particular function (for example, non-seasonal availability provided by cold storage
and/or purchasing in different parts of the world).
Therefore, it must be understood which ways are most efficient in providing these services and whether they affect the organisation of trade and production.
A first method is based on the search for economies of scale, related to
creating large volumes in the same technical unit of production that specialises in performing a single function; this allows a stronger economic advantage
where fixed costs are very high compared to total costs.
An alternative way is achieving economies of scope (or of variety), achiev-
47
able not through specialisation in a single function but by using a given production factor in several different activities (for example, for a farmer, using his own
labour not only for production in the strict sense but also in preparing products
for sale or selling them), so as to achieve complete utilisation.
It is not possible to say absolutely that one of the two ways - economies of
scale or scope - is superior to the other; it depends instead on the type of business and its specific characteristics, as well as the ease with which transactions
between enterprises can operate (lower transaction costs in fact facilitate the
specialisation of firms in one or a few steps, providing they can more easily use
the market to exchange semi-processed products and services).
These two different ways of seeking efficiency apply to both inter-type
competition - between different distribution formulas and therefore to competition between long channel and short channel - and intra-type competition - between different modes within the same distribution formula, such as the various
types of short chain.
The shift from conventional production-distribution-consumption systems to short chain models requires, therefore, a reallocation of functions
performed by actors expelled from the supply chain (e.g. intermediaries or
large-scale retailers), which must at least in part be assumed by actors at the
extremes of the same chain, farmers and consumers. These new roles may also
make costs so high as to compromise the economic sustainability of new forms
of organisation.
Farmers must sustain costs of conversion required by the transition to a
new model of organisation, which may require investment in tangible and intangible assets, added to production costs of the distribution service. For farmers,
these often involve (Brunori et al., 2010):
-
increasing the number of processes, incurring costs for learning, building
new structures and reorganising business operations. There are possible
losses of efficiency due to de-specialisation and lower achievable economies of scale;
-
reinstating previously abandoned phases and activities: transportation, storage, physical presence on sales markets;
-
activating product-processing to make products more storable or effectively
saleable on the retail market;
-
diversifying into not strictly agricultural activities but useful as sales support (e.g. educational activities, farm stays).
The extent and type of costs incurred by the farmer vary depending on the
48
characteristics of the initiative and the intensity of the relationship with consumers.
Consumers also incur new costs, related to change in behaviour and routines of consolidated purchasing, and the performance of functions and charges, which are delegated to third parties on other channels (eg. clean-up tasks
or preparation of vegetables) (Briamonte and Giuca, 2010; Brunori et al., 2012).
Internalisation by farmers and consumers of the distribution functions
carried out in the “long chain” model is therefore not always more economical
than other forms of distribution, when the loss of economies of scale is not adequately compensated by economies of scope.
To obviate these problems, however, responses can be worked out at the
organisational level, abandoning an individualistic approach, which require the
development of inter-actor initiatives based on sharing some phases and tasks
of distribution and logistics. Many expressions of short chain have a collective
dimension, on the production and/or consumption side. The search for a collective dimension is motivated not only by seeking a social aspect, but also by
the search for logistic-organisational efficiency, to be achieved through a more
rational organisation of certain activities affected by constraints of minimum
scale. Based on the distinction between individual and collective logic, it is possible to map forms of short chain pointing from private bilateral forms (i.e.,
direct sales on farms) to collective bilateral forms (e.g. organised groups of
supply and demand - OGSD) (Figure 2).
The level of inter-type competition in short chains is growing, bolstered
by the fact that, given consumers’ attraction to the underlying idea of the short
chain, more and more players in industry and traditional distribution are trying
to adopt some of their operating mechanisms and some values of
the logic of
shortening the chain, thus introducing logistical and organisational innovations.
So we see a “local” emphasis in large-scale distribution, which (when
driven by the search for authenticity) offers space and visibility to the sales point
area and products of local origin. In some cases, large-scale retail has entered
into agreements with “farmers’ markets” by offering them space to hold their
own events periodically, with the purpose of revitalising its image; while some
retail chains are considering the possibility of providing logistics services to
joint purchasing groups in their area. At the same time, an increasing number
of traditional retail and private and public catering operators (Brunori and Galli,
2012) are re-territorialising their supply systems in order to offer better service
(and a renewed image) for the consumer.
49
Figure 2 - Map of short chain forms according to individual or collective logic
Producers
Collective
Collective
Direct sales
Farmers’
shop
Farmers’
market
CONSUMERS
Individual
Individual
Box schemes
GAS
OGSD
CSA
This increased competition to provide a more direct relationship between
producer and consumer assumes very different characters and nuances from case
to case, just as the effective involvement of farmers is highly differentiated (and
sometimes almost entirely absent). Therefore, very significant opportunities open
up for the promotion of short chain values, but at the same time there are also
risks of unfair competition (i.e. where the “false” short chain crushes the more
“authentic” market) and more generally of the dilution of the ideals that

marked
the first phase of development of this innovation.
Efficiency in the distribution of value created
In the agri-food context there is growing attention, both by the public at various levels and by individual and organised consumers, to aspects such as transparency in the setting of product prices, conditions of competition and market access, imperfections in competition and abuses resulting from dominant positions,
which are reflected in the mechanisms of value distribution.
There are two dimensions to consider in the distribution of value: vertical
distribution, or among different parts of the chain, which immediately brings to
mind the issue of fair prices for farmers, and horizontal distribution, or among
50
businesses within the same phase of the supply chain (e.g. agriculture or processing), and in this case the more immediate reference is to the issue of inclusion of
the most vulnerable actors (often small companies or those located in marginal
areas) but which consider themselves able to generate widespread benefits, also
of a non-economic nature (e.g. socioeconomic and environmental effects generated by agricultural enterprises in mountain areas).
Another key issue is that distribution of value should take into account the
contribution made by different economic agents to the formation not only of market price, but also the total economic value of the goods traded, thus considering
the value of external effects arising from performance of production processes
and exchange of the product.
To take proper account of distributive aspects, from the point of view of agricultural enterprise, consideration should be made of the multiple benefits achievable through the use of short chain - which are not all directly quantifiable in monetary terms - and which relate to the following aspects :
-
the increased selling price of products, with the same degree of processing
and services incorporated in the product; this may result from a greater
balance in bargaining power on both sides of the transaction but also from
solidarity mechanisms of consumers toward producers;
-
the possibility of increasing the selling price and value added through processing and preparation of the product and services associated with the product by the farmer;
-
the possibility of a direct relationship with consumers, allowing better acquisition and communication of information to consumers, monitoring the
market, encouraging product differentiation and customer loyalty;
-
the possibility of socialisation and regaining pride and satisfaction in one’s
work.
These potential benefits, however, correspond to many possible additional
costs, organisational and logistical, as well as investments and the acquisition of
skills and professionalism.
The extent and type of benefits and costs enjoyed by individual farms vary
not only according to the characteristics of the short chain and the intensity of the
relationship with consumers, but also according to the characteristics of the farm
itself, especially size and availability of labour.
With regard to the horizontal distribution of the net benefits of the short
chain, a key question is whether in fact this mode of marketing can facilitate the
inclusion of those who have gradually been excluded from the large-scale, long
51
chain, de-locational model. Based on the empirical evidence available in the literature and the results of research conducted by the authors on the subject, it can be
assumed as follows, regarding the two profiles of size rebalancing and territorial
rebalancing:
-
in terms of size, small businesses have frequent difficulties of access, linked
to inefficiencies of scale and lack of manpower required to manage the relationship with the consumer and/or activities of labour-intensive manufacturing and processing. Thus, “small is beautiful” does not always apply to the
short chain and indeed there is a notable development of numerous medium
to large-sized farms that develop business projects focused on short chain
or even set up business for this sole purpose;
-
in terms of the effects at the territorial level, the short chain often excludes
precisely those enterprises and those areas farthest away from cities, the
real drivers of these initiatives. So the potential of re-territorialisation of
short chain is fairly small.
From the point of view of vertical price distribution, the short chain is often
interpreted as a form of exchange that leads to economic benefits at both ends of
the chain: if, on the one hand, consumers may benefit from lower purchase prices,
the producer, on the other, can obtain higher prices than those resulting from
placement on intermediate markets (wholesale, retail). Even in this case, the empirical evidence is not only scarce but also contradictory and not easy to interpret,
given the complexity of the conceptual framework. The matter of price, in fact, is
linked to the issue of total value and, therefore, its real ability to measure not only
the value of immediate use of the product but also its social value, taking associated externalities into account. The issue of price is also linked to the issue of the
structural evolution of the economic system, as the low level of price compared to
cost should (other conditions being equal, including full comparability of product
quality) indicate inefficiency of the producer and therefore the need to innovate or
alternatively to leave the sector.
Proponents of short chains, however, often urge the transition from a logic
of “high” prices (for producers) or “low” prices (for consumers), to a logic of the
“right” price (Belletti et al., 2010 ), that can balance the needs of the producer and
the consumer. In this regard, the experience of “farmers’ markets” or “producers’ markets” is significant, especially where these markets enjoy some form of
public support to be justified as a benefit for the community. In the experience of
farmers’ markets in Tuscany (Belletti et al., 2010) the same regional legislation
that provides co-financing to the short chain demands that market regulations
52
establish the procedures to ensure consumer access to Tuscan products and the
containment of high prices of agricultural products and foodstuffs. The procedures
followed by individual markets have been very diverse and range from a substantial price liberalisation, to monitoring them with advertising of prices compared to
other local channels, to commitment to communication transparency, by revealing the calculation of production costs, to solutions that impose ceilings on sales
determined by what is practised on other channels (e.g. wholesale markets, local
retail chains, “SMS consumers”). In some cases, farmers’ markets have explicitly
adopted conventions not based on prices but on the sharing of a common vision of
product quality, as with some organic or “solidarity” markets.
In general, the application of forms of price control generates non-negligible problems of implementation, first because the business is deprived of an
essential lever of marketing through which to pursue specific objectives of market
conditions, the particular type of product sold, promotional needs or competition
strategies. The assumption underlying the forms of price control is also the perfect consistency of product quality to which different prices refer, which - as noted
above - is far from obvious in the case of agri-food, and especially with reference
to the type of products that pass from the forms of short chain.
Informational efficiency
The third criterion concerns informational efficiency, which becomes more
relevant in proportion to the number of consumers involved, in the purchase of agri-food products, with complex attributes of quality and trust, meaning they are not
verifiable by the consumer even after the consumption of the product itself. These
attributes include, for example, the origin of the products (understood not as mere
geographical origin but as a link between the quality attributes of the product and
the resources specific to the area of production), the fact that the production process protects specific environmental aspects, and the use of particular methods of
cultivation or processing.
Asymmetry of information occurs more on this type of quality attributes, and
the market often fails to provide correct and complete information (Akerlof, 1970).
This requires new mechanisms of assurances, especially those of a formal nature
(certifications), which however are high in cost and generate effects of adverse selection by excluding certain categories of subjects who by their very nature cannot
adapt to formal logic and afford the necessary investments.
The short chain - thanks to more direct interaction between producers and
53
consumers - can be seen as an innovation that manages to convey better (more
effectively and at a lower cost) the complex attributes (of process and product), or
that can actually convey information on aspects that may not be well “covered”
by formal guarantee mechanisms because of their complexity and above all their
specificity (linked to territorial contexts or very specific and niche-oriented values).
The short chain (or at least those initiatives that provide for a greater involvement of producers with consumers) can, therefore, be regarded as an appropriate tool to promote “diversity” in food and the kind of social and environmental
externalities related to production processes and exchange of food products (Sage,
2006). There is a lack, however, of systemic empirical evidence on the increased
presence of products of specified quality, on greater access to quality-oriented
companies, and on the economic benefits in terms of lower costs of information
and needed guarantees.
Figure 3 - identifying type of short chain initiatives based on the intensity of interdependence in decisions between producers and consumers
JPG
Farmers’
market
CSA
Direct sales
Box schemes
OGSD
Farmers’
shop
low
high
One can, however, hypothesise that informational efficiency of the short
chain is positively correlated to the intensity of coordination and interdependence
of decisions between producers and consumers (Figure 3): as the specificity of
products traded increases, so does the complexity and intensity of interaction and
coordination between producers and consumers in order to economise on transaction costs and make possible the exchange of complex attributes, also through
the mechanism of repeated transactions. In forms of short chain such as JPGs
54
(joint purchasing groups), OGSD (Organized groups of supply and demand) and
especially in CSA (“Community Supported Agriculture”), interdependence of producer-consumer decision-making is very high and sometimes even formalised,
allowing the exchange of products with very complex quality attributes at relatively
contained costs.
A regulatory measure may, however, appear appropriate, partly to monitor
problematic aspects related to lack of transparency or to forms of unfair internal
competition, as evidenced by the case of farmers’ markets. The regulatory measure, which can be collective (self-managed by producers taking part in the market)
or public (in the case of initiatives which benefit from public funding), may relate to
the constitutive rules of the market itself (access rules related to the type of producers admitted) and/or in operation (disclosure requirements on specific issues
defined from time to time).
6. Concluding remarks
The quest for efficiency, in its three dimensions - logistics-organisation, information and distribution of value - is a key for reading the reasons for the evolution, but also the problems, that the short chain is encountering in this current
phase of consolidation.
The development of short chains is now often hampered by a shortage of
supply, caused by the dearth of local agricultural enterprises capable of grasping
the opportunities offered by this mode of exploitation. The possible answer lies not
only at the level of individual enterprises, but at the level of local systems of supply
and consumption (on the example of the Food Policy Councils in Britain and the US,
or Food Plans in Italy) (Broad Leib, 2012 ) and, in general, at the level of collective
organisation.
Another threat is increased competition among the various formulas of
short chain or the entry into this segment by traditional and large-scale retail actors. This on the one hand offers interesting growth prospects, but on the other
raises the risk of conventionalising the message and the values that motivate consumption in this type of channel and, therefore, can undermine development in the
medium to long term (Brunori et al., 2009).
In this context, there are obvious roles that the public operator, at various
levels down to local government, can play in this mode of supply, contributing also through the design of appropriate agricultural policies that support businesses and other entities for which entry into the short chain is a radical innovation
55
- to preserve its original character, though within the need to expand supply and
demand. Innovation must therefore increasingly involve policies and public-private
governance of the short chain system.
A final observation concerns the urgency of building an awareness framework about the characteristics and the effects of the short chain in Italy, which
can support the design of policies by providing systematic and objective evidence
about the effects on businesses, on local supply systems and on the territorial distribution of the effects of the short chain, to be achieved by means of appropriate
assessment methodologies.
Bibliography
Aguglia L. (2009), La filiera corta: una opportunità per agricoltori e consumatori, Agriregionieuropa, V, n.17.
Akerlof G. (1970), The markets for “lemons: Quality, Uncertainty and the Market Mecanism, Quarterly Journal of Economics, LXXXIV, 3.
Allen P. - FitzSimmons M. - Goodman M. - Warner K. (2003), Shifting plates in the agrifood landscape: the tectonics of alternative agrifood initiatives in California, Journal of
Rural Studies, n.19, pp.61-75.
Belletti G. - Innocenti S. - Marescotti A. - Margheriti G. - Rocchi B. - Rossi A. (2010), Il
prezzo nei mercati agricoli dei produttori: criteri di determinazione e di comunicazione, Manuale. ARSIA, Regione Toscana.
Belletti G. - Marescotti A. - Innocenti S. - Rossi A. (2010), Prezzo giusto e filiera corta:
una lettura dell’esperienza dei mercati dei produttori agricoli in Toscana, Agriregionieuropa, VI, n. 23.
Briamonte L. - Giuca S (A cura di), (2010), Comportamenti e consumi socialmente responsabili nel sistema agroalimentare, INEA, Roma.
Broad Leib E. (a cura di) (2012), Good Laws, Good Food: Putting Local Food Policy to
Work for Our Communities, Harvard Law School Food Law and Policy Clinic, Harvard.
Brunori G. - Galli F. (2012), Verso una ristorazione scolastica italiana più sostenibile:
sustainable public procurement, Agriregionieuropa, Anno 8, n. 29, pp.71-75.
Brunori G. - Rossi A. - Cerruti R. - Guidi F. (2009), Nicchie produttive e innovazione
di sistema: un’analisi secondo l’approccio delle transizioni tecnologiche attraverso il
caso dei farmers’ markets in Toscana, Economia Agro-alimentare, n.3.
56
Brunori G. - Rossi A. - Guidi F. (2012), On the new social relations around and
beyond food. Analysing consumers’ role and action in Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale
(Solidarity Purchasing Groups), Sociologia Ruralis, 52(1), pp.1-30.
Brunori G. - Rossi A. - Malandrin V. (2010), Co-producing transition: innovation processes in farms adhering to Solidarity-based Purchase Groups (GAS) in
Tuscany, Italy, International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture & Food, 18(1),
pp.28-53.
Commissione CE (2008), I prezzi dei prodotti alimentari in Europa, Comunicazione della Commissione al Parlamento Europeo, al Consiglio, al Comitato Economico e Sociale Europeo e al Comitato delle Regioni, 9.12.2008, COM(2008) 821
definitivo, Bruxelles.
Commissione CE (2009), Migliore funzionamento della filiera alimentare in Europa, COM(2009)591 definitivo, Bruxelles.
EU Parliament (2010), Working document on Fair revenues for farmers: A better
functioning food supply chain in Europe, Committee on Agricultural and Rural
Development, Rapporteur José Bové. 25.2.2010, PE439.275v01.
Goodman D. - DuPuis M.E. - Goodman M.K. (2011), Alternative Food Networks:
Knowledge, Practice and Politics, Routledge.
Marsden T.K. - Arce A. (1995), Constructing quality: emerging food networks in
the rural transition, Environment and Planning, 27(8), pp.1261-1279.
McGarry M. - Spittler A. - Ahern J. (2005), A profile of farmers’ market consumers and the perceived advantages of produce sold at farmers’ markets, Journal
of Food Distribution Research, 36(1), pp.192–201.
Sage C. (2006), La qualità nelle reti alternative di produzione alimentare: convenzioni, normative, governance, in Cavazzani A. - Gaudio G. - Sivini S. (a cura
di), Politiche, governance e innovazione per le aree rurali, INEA Studi e Ricerche,
Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, Napoli, pp. 491-504.
Slee B. - Kirwan J. (2007), Exploring hybridity in food supply chains, 105th EAAE
Seminar ‘International Marketing and International Trade of Quality Food Products’, Bologna, Italy, March 8-10.
Watts D.C.H. - Ilbery B. - Maye D. (2005), Making reconnections in agro-food geography: alternative systems of food provision, Progress in Human Geography,
29(1), pp.22-40.
57
Environmental aspects of the short chain:
results of a direct survey
of “farmers’ markets” in Italy
Davide Marino and Luigi Mastronardi1
Introduction
Food production, especially at the global level, depends directly or indirectly,
but with an ever-greater degree of correlation, on the evolution of environmental
issues. Recurrent food crises in recent years, involving different areas of the world
to varying degrees, provide a perfect “model” to demonstrate this economic and
environmental complexity.
The agricultural production system has to face, through a still evolving and
non-univocal framework, the on-going climate change that threatens to irreversibly damage the natural resource base on which agricultural production systems
depend (Hoffman, 2011). Agricultural productivity depends, in fact, on both climatic and environmental parameters - temperature, rainfall, levels of CO2 and other
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - but also on the intensification of extreme
events such as droughts, heat waves and hurricanes, with significant variations in
the production of major commodities. Climate change affects food production in
an indirect way. In particular, the search for more sustainable energy production
brings with it an increased demand for biofuels, which results in a lower production for food (Figure 1).
In 2050, the rural population will be “only” 2.8 billion; the rest of the 9.2 billion people will be living in cities. For example, in Asia, 66.2% of the population will
be urban (40.8% in 2007); the number of large cities (5-10 million) will increase
from 30 (2007) to 48 (2025).
In light of the above, production and consumption of food on a local scale
can assume strategic value, especially in urban areas. The complexity of the issues
concerning agriculture and nutrition in ecological, social and economic terms,
therefore, has a specific focus in the relationship between agriculture and cities.
In ecological terms, the issue of spatial dynamics should be addressed, between
1 Davide Marino is associate professor in the Department of Biosciences and Land at the University
of Molise; Luigi Mastronardi is a researcher in the same Department.
59
areas of production and consumption, between rural and urban areas, sustainable
use of resources, primarily soil, but also the effects that territorial changes have
produced on landscapes; in economic terms, the question arises, on the one hand,
of efficiency of industrial production systems and the rising cost of transport, and
on the other hand, of food security, in turn influenced by income; and finally, from
the social standpoint, relationships of food with the quality of life take on importance, along with political stability and social order in situations of insufficient food
supply.
In this scenario, the local aspect of the relationship between production and
consumption - symbolised today by various forms of short chain - will take on
increasing importance, if it can provide adequate answers to the questions raised
here. For this reason, the growing phenomenon of “alternative agri-food networks”
(AFNs) is the subject of careful study.
Figure 1 – Potential consequences of climate change on the energy sector and the
food sector
CLIMATE
ENERGY
SCENARIO
∆ - FOOD PRODUCTION
∆ - RESOURCES (WATER, SOIL)
∆ + BIO-FUELS
∆ + FOOD
PRICES
Source: Marino and Pallotta, 2012.
Food demand, in terms of quantity and quality, is also affected by population
growth. The United Nations estimates that by 2050, 65% of the world’s population
will live in cities and suburbs (Figure 2)
60
Figure 2 - Distribution of the world population between urban and rural
billion
world population
Source: UN DESA, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision.
The impact areas of short supply chains
The “short supply chain” (SSC) can be defined as an agri-food supply chain
characterised by a small number of intermediaries between producer and consumer and/or reduced geographical distance between the two (Parker, 2005). In
view of agricultural markets, SSCs are characterised then as alternatives to traditional supply chains (Aubry et al., 2008), in which wholesalers are key players (Sini,
2009).
The literature highlights that this food chain approach is based on a new
metric: not mass production, but sustainable development (Morgan and Morley,
2002; Feagan and Morris, 2009; Aguglia, 2009; Kirwan, 2004; Ilbery et al., 2004;
Holloway and Kneafsey, 2004; Brunori, 2007). AFNs take their name precisely from
their rejection of the main characteristics of traditional supply chains, such as productivity pushed to the extreme, standardisation and industrial organisation (Higgins et al., 2008), dealing rather with other aspects such as quality, origin and the
“naturalness” of agri-food products (Goodman, 2003; Renting et al., 2003).
In this context, several alternative forms of marketing of food products have
been developed, such as “community supported agriculture”, “pick-your-own”,
“farm food box schemes”, “farmers’ markets” (FMs) defined “as a retail outlet
in which two or more vendors sell agricultural products directly to customers
through a common marketing channel” (USDA, 2009).
61
In the vast panorama of short supply chains, FMs represent a case of great
importance, not only economically, but also for the role they can play in representing and disseminating the key principles of marketing food products on a local
scale.
From an analysis of the literature, impact areas were identified (environmental, social, economic), as well as their nature (positive, negative) and extent
(low, medium, high) for the three different types of short chain (Figure 3).
Figure 3 - Areas of impact and types of short chains
Type
Areas of impact
Environmental
Social
Economic
Farmers
Market
Direct
sales
Purchasing
groups
Sustainability of
Farmers’ Markets
The characteristics of these markets and why people use them have been
the subject of numerous studies in recent years. Several findings confirm a profiletype characterised demographically by female consumers, mature in age, with a
high level of education (Govindasamy et al., 1998). These characteristics, however,
do not appear significantly different from consumers who do not use FMs (McGarry
et al., 2005). What distinguishes them, however, is consumption behaviour and
eating habits. Users of farmers’ markets, in fact, are more focused on seeking
fresh, high-quality products, and have an interest in their origin (Brown, 2002; McGarry et al., 2005). Less obvious, however, compared to consumers in traditional
commercial channels, is attention to the price of products (Brown, 2002; McGarry
et al., 2005). Some studies revealed a “willingness to pay” for local products, in
some cases even more than for organic or “GMO-free” products (Louriero and
Hine, 2002; Darby et al., 2006).
62
In light of the ‘’attitude-behaviour gap”, it is important to emphasise that
consumers at FMs also show a lower resistance to changing their eating habits,
which often tend to change in relation to use of forms of direct sales (Govindasamy
et al., 1998; Pascucci et al., 2011). For these consumers, therefore, one can assume a greater ease in translating purchasing intentions into actual behaviour,
also driven by ethical issues and attention to the sustainability of their behaviour.
Several studies have shown the economic, social and environmental impact
that FMs have on producers. From the economic point of view, businesses that
participate in FMs can obtain significant revenues (Brown, 2002), especially those
that sell organic produce (Govindasamy et al., 2003) and this is one of the main reasons why farmers participate in markets (Vaupel, 1989; Raffaelli et al., 2009). FMs,
therefore, provide businesses with good income guarantees (Aguglia, 2009) compared to other forms of marketing. By participating in FMs, companies can have
a direct impact on price (Bigi, 2005), which is determined in full decision-making
autonomy (Cicatiello and Franco, 2008). This allows agricultural businesses to recover control over their production decisions (Hinrichs, 2000), escaping the vicious
circle typical of traditional markets. This prevents the so-called “squeeze on agriculture” (van der Ploeg, 2006), in which the farmer is crushed, on the one hand, by
industries supplying inputs and, on the other, by wholesalers that buy his products,
gradually losing his decision-making autonomy. Businesses participating in FMs
have better entrepreneurial skills in relation to customers, marketing and “business self-confidence” (Feenstra et al., 2003). Another economic advantage is the
availability of immediate financing (Vaupel, 1989). Through FMs, businesses can
also sell products to consumers during periods of the year when supply is greater
than demand (Hardesty and Leff, 2009), by continuing to use traditional marketing channels (Raffaelli et al., 2009). This ensures producers product placement,
avoiding the build-up of surpluses, plus the ability to sell the products at a higher
price than wholesale markets, while consumers can benefit from lower prices than
retail (Tropp, 2008).
From the point of view of social motivations, “the opportunity to meet and
visit with people” is the main motivation of sellers (Hughes and Mattson, 1995). In
local markets, immediate personal relations are built, linked to a shared space
(Lyson and Green, 1999; Hinrichs, 2000). These occasions provide an opportunity
for sharing and exchange of information and opinions on production techniques,
the peculiarities of individual products and, more generally, on rural culture
(Aguglia, 2009; Renting et al., 2003). The relationship that develops between agricultural producers and consumers, encouraged by the creation of a local agri-food
63
system, can create a connection between town dwellers and farmers, developing
a common identity linked to the land (Feenstra, 1997). These considerations allow interpretation of the spread of new forms of supply chains as a political tool
that encourages some public administrations to preserve peri-urban agricultural
activities, rather than allocating once-cultivated areas for urbanisation (Aubry et
al. 2008). From this point of view, the development of a local economy around the
agri-food sector seems like a way to revitalise the community (Feenstra, 1997), by
reinforcing or rebuilding ties among its members. The social value of short supply
chains is of fundamental importance for the territory if, as Hinrichs (2000) points
out, the integration of the community, the construction of social ties, a sense of
trust and reciprocity, are often regarded as the true value added of direct sales
compared to other forms of marketing of agricultural products. Another important
aspect for our analysis is that local markets also allow low-income families access
to fresh and high-quality produce, often at very reasonable prices (Bullock, 2000;
Goodman and Redclift, 1991; SUSTAIN, 2002). Another social impact of the development of short supply chains is on employment, especially youth and women
(Bullock, 2000; Hilchey et al., 1995).
Environmentally, farms that adopt forms of short chain tend to develop more
sustainable production methods, which have a positive impact on biodiversity, landscape and natural resources in the area (Raffaelli et al., 2009; Battershill and Gilg,
1998; Cicatiello and Franco, 2008). The need to diversify production to meet consumers’ demand for variety reduces the need for practicing monoculture and improves
overall biodiversity. In addition, the development of a growing demand for quality
by consumers (Goodman, 2003) encourages farmers to adopt more extensive agricultural techniques, not specialising in one or two products but offering a wide
variety of foods (Aguglia, 2009). This often results in the recovery of traditional varieties of crops, old cultivars of fruit, or dairy products derived from indigenous species (Raffaelli et al., 2009). The reorganisation of production types can also affect
the choice of production methods with low environmental impact, such as organic
farming or integrated agriculture (Bullock, 2000). On the other hand, the short chain
represents an alternative already inherently more environmentally friendly than the
conventional system of production and marketing. It has been demonstrated that
higher environmental costs in the agri-food supply chain are related to production
on a global scale and distribution in areas far removed from the place of production
(Morgan and Morley, 2002). This leads to a significant increase in “food miles”, the
distance between the place of production and consumption (DEFRA, 2005). The short
chain, because it is based on the local relationship between producers and consum-
64
ers, can greatly reduce the distance food travels from the place of production to that
of consumption and, therefore, the negative externalities associated with transport,
such as carbon dioxide emissions, air pollution, traffic, accidents and noise pollution (DEFRA, 2005). Although these externalities do not exclusively concern the area
where food was produced, reducing them plays a key role in assessing the overall
sustainability of foods (SUSTAIN, 2002).
Another aspect to consider, of fundamental importance in the impact that
the short chain can have on an area’s environmental sustainability, is this form
of marketing’s potential to raise environmental awareness among consumers. In
fact, shortening the chain allows consumers to learn more about the nature and
means of production of the food they buy (Bullock, 2000), and it has been shown
that when you have the opportunity to learn about the environmental benefits of
different production techniques by word of mouth from producers, rather than
from newspapers and other forms of indirect communication, you tend more to
look for this type of product (Bullock, 2000). This phenomenon helps to create ecological awareness among consumers that has further repercussions not only on
purchasing decisions but also on everyday behaviour.
The survey of farmers’ markets
Methodological approach
The results presented here come from a new and original processing of data
collected in a specific project on farmers’ markets2. The project was divided into
four basic steps: 1) analysis of the cognitive framework; 2) identifying indicators of
the impact of short chains; 3) setting up and conducting the direct survey; and 4)
assessing the impact of short chains.
The study first involved national mapping of markets, and then selecting
the survey sample, which included producers, consumers and organisers of some
farmers’ markets considered sufficiently representative of the Italian situation by
their type, size and geographical location (Figure 4).
2 In particular, the project, conducted in 2010, was called: “Analysis of new forms of marketing and
consumption on the Italian production system, with particular attention to various forms of ‘Short
Chain’ and their impact on primary production businesses, also in light of European and international best practice”, and was promoted by the Ministry for Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies
(MIPAAF) and carried out by the University Consortium for socio-economic research and the environment (CURSA).
65
Figure 4 - The survey on farmers’ markets
Survey
methodology
Market map
Case study
selection
Organiser
interviewi
Producer
questionnaire
Consumer
questionnaire
Market types
Survey results
The analysis of the survey results made it possible, on the one hand, to draw a
profile of producers and consumers who use different types of farmers’ markets and,
on the other, using appropriate indicators, to assess the environmental, social and
economic impact these markets exercise on the territory as a whole and by farm.
The research process ended by extrapolating a series of guidelines to help
legislators understand the logic and dynamics that drive short chains and, consequently, to set coherent policies that can support balanced development and
promote the benefits for producers and consumers, and enhance and increase the
positive impacts on the territory.
In order to carry out the direct survey on farmers’ market in Italy, it was necessary to reconstruct a frame of reference of the phenomenon in Italy, unavailable
currently, and then identify a congruous sample, as representative as possible, of
markets to use as subjects of the direct survey. In the absence of official data, and
updated and territorially representative surveys, we tried to identify some parameters of farmers’ markets operating in Italy by acquiring the data available on the
Internet in 2010.
In this regard, 947 farmers’ markets were identified, mainly concentrated in
the north (61% of the total) and in urban localities with populations between 10,000
and 50,000 inhabitants (40%).
66
The survey of farmers’ markets involved 13 markets, selected in an attempt
to get the highest possible representativeness in relation to territorial distribution and type of market. The list of sampled markets, broken down by geographic
area, membership organisation and type of market (small, large and alternative)
is shown in Table 1. Sector experts were consulted in the selection of individual
markets.
Table 1 - List of markets analysed
Geographical
area
Region
Province
Municipality
Organisation
Type
North
Piedmont
Turin
Turin
Coldiretti «Country
friend»
Large
North
Veneto
Padua
Padua
friend»
Small
North
Emilia
Romagna
Bologna
Bologna
Slow Food
Alternative
North
Lombardy
Milan
Milan
friend»
Large
Centre
Lazio
Viterbo
Vetralla
friend»
Small
Centre
Tuscany
Arezzo
Montevarchi
Slow Food
Large
Centre
Marche
Pesaro-Urbino
Urbino/Fano
Producers’ association
Alternative
Centre
Tuscany
Arezzo
San Giovanni
Valdarno
friend»
Small
Centre
Lazio
Rome
Rome
friend»
Large
Centre
Lazio
Rome
Rome
Organic market - Aiab
Alternative
South
Campania
Salerno
Pontecagnano
friend»
Alternative
South
Puglia
Taranto
Taranto
friend»
Large
South
Puglia
Bari
Bari
friend»
Large
In markets thus identified, data drawn from the mentioned database were
integrated through a direct survey, carried out using structured questionnaires
administered to producers and consumers, as well as semi-structured interviews
67
conducted with market managers: in total, 458 questionnaires were administered
to consumers and 158 to producers, as well as 13 interviews with market managers.
The survey collected a range of information aimed at a better understanding
of the structure and function of markets, types of farms that participate and different classes of consumers who frequent them.
The environmental sustainability of farmers’ markets has been evaluated
using a set of indicators reported in Table 2.
Table 2 - Indicators of environmental impact
A1 Impact on natural resources and landscape
A1.1 Increased biodiversity and extensiveness of production methods
A1.2 Environmental conservation and the agricultural landscape in marginal areas
A1.3 Extent of organic and integrated farming
A1.4 Preservation of peri-urban agricultural areas
A2 Impact on negative externalities related to food transport (food miles)
A3 Impact on waste related to packaging of food products
A4 Raising environmental awareness among consumers
The sustainability of farms that sell their products in FMs surveyed was
assessed using techniques of rating and ranking of indicators, a normal statistical procedure in the social sciences (Rasch and Stene, 1967, Wright and Masters,
1982; Van Dijk et al., 2007).
The chosen indicators are those most frequently used in studies on sustainability (ECNC, 2000; EC, 2001; EEA, 1998; INEA, 2004, OECD, 1999, 2000, 2001).
They were selected by adopting as the main reference experiences most frequently
cited in the literature on FMs regarding environmental, social and economic impacts (Battershill and Gilg, 1998; Ilbery and Maye, 2005; DEFRA, 2005; Aubry et al.,
2008).
The assessment methodology therefore followed a path of identifying descriptors and scoring. The sustainability index of farms that participate in FMs was
obtained by aggregating the variables in the database into sub-indicators, which
were in turn integrated into three main descriptors of environmental, social and
economic impact listed below:
68
1)
2)
3)
“Environmental Sustainability Index” (ESI);
“Social Sustainability Index” (SSI);
“Economic Sustainability Index” (CSI).
The methods of calculation and aggregation of sub-indicators ranked variation of each of the three macro-descriptors within the [0-6] range.
The sum of the individual macro-descriptors expresses the “Farm Sustainability Index” (FSI), which provides the overall assessment of farm sustainability
on a scale of 0 to 18.
Adopting the FSI, farms were classified according to four levels of sustainability:
-
“Holistic Sustainability” (OS) - range 16-18;
-
“High Sustainability” (HS) - range 11-15;
-
“Medium Sustainability” (MS) - range 6-10;
-
“Low Sustainability” (LS) - range 0-5.
To investigate attention to sustainability among FM customers, the sample was divided into two groups. The first is represented by regular frequenters
of FMs, or consumers who said they go to the market whenever it is open. This
translates, for most of the markets, in a weekly frequency, even daily for others.
These consumers account for about one quarter of the sample. On the other side,
customers who frequent FMs more sporadically were grouped, in the belief that
they represent a consumer profile closer to that of non-regular users of this supply
channel, and that, consequently, they usually shop in other sales channels.
For the two consumer groups, the following were analysed:
•
demographic profile;
•
reasons for participation in the market;
•
potential social component of these consumers’ participation in the market;
•
willingness to change eating habits.
Assessment of the environmental sustainability of farmers’ markets
With regard to the impact on natural resources and the landscape, note
that fewer than 50% of farms have made changes in their crop base and only a
very small percentage involve specific products or livestock. The most significant
changes have to do with diversification, with more than 20% of farms having introduced a greater variety of products, and to a lesser extent, processing. Though
greater variety in production should be considered a positive sign, its impact on
natural resources and the landscape appears to be fairly weak.
69
With reference to conservation of the environment and the agricultural landscape in marginal areas, UAA in protected areas amounts to 10.44 hectares per
farm, in the face of an average total UAA of 51.74 ha (about 20%). However, in the
panel tested in this survey only 30 farms (21% of the total) have surface within protected areas. Considering, therefore, the average UAA of farms with surfaces in
protected areas, the figure rises to 49.75 ha per farm, compared to a total average
UAA of this subset of 84.34 ha, or about 60% of the total. To evaluate the significance of these numbers it would have been useful to compare the survey data, in
terms of area and farms, with absolute data, not an easy operation due to lack of
a precise information framework. It can be said that the importance of agriculture
practiced in protected areas of the panel surveyed appears to be greater than the
total nationally. Probably, the figure is influenced by the spread of protected areas
in peri-urban sections of some cities, but it seems to indicate a positive impact for
the relationship between agriculture and environmental protection, if one considers that continued agricultural production process is good for the landscape and
biodiversity in these areas.
Organic production is very widespread in the panel surveyed, since it is present on 56 farms (46% of the panel). In these units, organic UAA is on average 42.46
ha per farm, compared to an average total UAA of 61.80 ha, with a share, therefore,
of almost 70%. Considering also that, overall in the entire sample, organic UAA is
36% of total UAA, we can say that there is a strong relationship between FMs and
organic production.
One of the most interesting positive impacts of FMs may be the “conservation” of peri-urban agriculture. In this case, assessment must be made on the positive impact that peri-urban agriculture may have on the environment (biodiversity,
CO2 absorption, impact on climate, reduction in soil consumption, etc.). But it is
clear that this is a “polyvalent” indicator, which could also be used to analyse the
social and economic impact of FMs. As a proxy for the presence at farmers’ markets
of farms in the peri-urban belt, the “distance of the farm from its marketplace”
was used. Based on this parameter, not only is the percentage of farms that fall in
peri-urban areas significantly lower than 50%, but this percentage drops with the
urban scale. It drops from 42% for cities to 19% for towns. While for cities the figure
could be regarded as positive, in other cases it is not. Of course it is provable that
the motivations and factors of planning or land use are attributable to economic and
commercial factors, but the figure undoubtedly gives cause for reflection.
As regards the impact on negative externalities related to food transport
(“food miles”), the average distance travelled by producers is 53.29 kilometres.
70
More specifically, 50% of farms are less than 30 km from the market site, while 10%
of farms are more than 100 km away. Overall, these data show that marketed products come mostly from the peri-urban belt of FMs. It could therefore be concluded
that the impact in terms of food miles, and CO2 emissions as a result, is positive. In
this respect, however, the scale of the phenomenon should be considered, so that,
given limited quantities, the “carbon footprint” per kg of product could be greater.
With regard to processed products and the food miles travelled to carry the
product to the processing plant, the data show that:
•
37 farms (23% of the sample) do not process products;
•
100 farms (63% of the sample) process products on the farm;
•
21 farms (13% of the sample) process products at external plants;
•
external plants are an average distance of 33.11 kilometres from the
farm site.
In this case, therefore, the impact of FMs seems to be positive. It can be argued that this sales channel encourages farms to process their products and, given
the percentage of farms undertaking such an operation on their own, there is a
reduction in the impact due to transportation of raw materials and processed products. The assessment is much less positive if we look at infrastructure. In fact, there
was a common storage facility for producers in only 3 of the 13 markets analysed,
and in only one market are farmers organised with common transport of products.
These data, in addition to economic implications, indicate the need for greater frequency of transport, in parity with marketed products.
With regard to the impact on waste associated with packaging of food products, it was not possible to survey the presence and types of packaging for products
sold in the market, and information on the use of bags for carrying purchases is
limited. More information is available about sorted collection, which is practised in
only 4 of the 11 markets where data could be gathered. The value is very low, then,
considering both the highly symbolic nature of FMs at the local level, and the possibility of collecting uniform types of waste with little effort.
Concerning the spread of environmental awareness among consumers,
“helping the environment” is mentioned among the top three most important motivations from 165 consumers (36% of the total); but only 23 consumers (5% of the
sample) said this was the most important motivation of all. In addition, the motivation to “help the environment” gets a rather low average score of importance from
the 458 consumers surveyed, of 0.59. Ultimately, the data highlight that environmental awareness in Italian’s consumption choices, especially when compared with
other European countries, it is still fairly low.
71
Types of producers and demand for sustainability
With reference to the assessment of the sustainability of farms that sell to
FMs, the application of the FSI index reveals a quite compact scenario. Fully 103
farms (65% of the sample) have a medium level of sustainability and 51 reach high
levels of sustainability. Only four farms have a low degree of sustainability, while
none achieves holistic sustainability.
Table 3 shows the structural characteristics of the farms surveyed and classified according to the FSI index. High Sustainability (HS) farms have an average
size of 49 hectares and are distinguished for both the amount of organic surface
(55% of total) and the share of surface in protected areas (25% of total). Farms
are mainly located in flatland areas (61%) and to a lesser extent in hills (26%) and
mountains. Farmland is distributed instead in a more balanced way between plains
(49%) and hills (41%). Production structure appears fairly diverse and the most important farm types are mixed crop and crop/livestock. The workforce amounted, on
average, to 4 units; within the employment structure there is a significant number
of young workers under 40 years of age (about 2 units per holding), while the UAA/
AWU ratio is interesting. Activities connected to agriculture are quite broad and
farm stays are the most common. The distance that separates farms from markets
is rather low, with an average distance of 54 km.
Table 3 - Structural characteristics of the farms surveyed
UAA
%
%
protected
organic
areas
Main
farm type
N.
workers
UAA/
AWU
Young
workers
Women
Distance
from
market
HS
49.26
54.79
25.16
Mixed (mixed crop,
crop/livestock
4.16
11.85
1.80
1.33
54.20
MS
57.90
29.52
20.41
Livestock, fruits
and vegetables
4.67
12.40
1.83
1.82
53.61
LS
33.19
29.58
5.27
Fruits and
vegetables
3.75
8.85
0.75
0.75
23.00
Medium Sustainability (MS) farms reported a size of 58 hectares. The
share of organic surface and in protected areas (respectively 30% and 21%) is
lower than HS farms. Farms have a clear specialisation in livestock production
and fruit and vegetables. There are approximately 5 work units per holding; the
number of young workers under the age of 40 and women working on the farm
(about 2 units per farm) is very significant, while the UAA/AWU ratio is high and
72
greater than the average value for the sample. Connected activities, however,
are essentially irrelevant. Even in this circumstance, the distance from farms to
markets is 54 km. Farms and surfaces are also concentrated mainly in flatland
areas (61% of farms and 62% of surface).
Lower Sustainability (LS) farms have surface of 33 hectares and are characterised by the low share of surface in protected areas (only 5% of the total). The
amount of organic surface is quite significant (30%), while production is mainly fruit
and vegetables. The number of employees is 3.5 units per holding and is lower than
for HS and MS farms; there is a lower presence of young farmers and women working on the farm. Productivity of labour is rather low, while connected activities are
virtually absent. The distance travelled by producers to reach markets is 23 km.
The profile-type that emerges from interviews with consumers is substantially
consistent with the literature on the subject. With regard to respondents’ consumption patterns, it should first of all be noted that the total budget for food expenditure is rather limited, amounting for a majority of respondents to under 100 Euros
per week. Expenditure varies greatly with the type of FMs, reaching values ranging

from a minimum of 11 €, in small markets that sell mainly fruit and vegetables, to
a maximum of 21 € in markets that offer organic products and high-value-added
processed products.
As regards strictly demographic aspects, the two consumer groups do not
differ significantly for the parameters considered (Table 4). The only noticeable difference is the greater proximity of residence for “Regulars” to FM, an element that
probably favours their regular attendance at the markets.
Table 4 - Demographic aspects of the two types of consumers
Type
Age
%
women
%
housewives
Family
member
Distance
from home
Regulars to the market
55,7
70%
11%
2.66
4.07 km
Non-regulars to the market
53,7
65%
11%
2.73
6.05 km
Given this substantial similarity in the demographic profile, significant
motivational differences are found between the two groups of consumers. This
aspect was investigated through a series of questions, asking the interviewee
to evaluate, on a scale from 0 to 3, the importance of a number of aspects in
his choice to participate in the market. Table 5 shows that “Regulars” show a
stronger range of motivations for participation in FMs, scoring a higher average
in all the proposed items.
73
Table 5 - Reasons for market participation in the two groups of consumers
Type
Savings
Purchase of Environmental Quality of
local products
issues
products
Convenience
Freshness
of products
Regulars to the market
0,56
1,62
0,72
1,62
0,59
1,37
Non-regulars to the market
0,55
1,50
0,54
1,42
0,41
1,33
In particular, differences should be underlined in three fundamental
motivations: purchasing local products, environmental issues and quality of
products. These aspects are related to the concept of sustainability: the second to the environment, the third to the social sphere and the first, in light of
its wider implications, for both spheres.
It is reasonable to believe that consumers’ motivations reflect their expectations of what FMs offer; therefore, the fact that the most regular consumers consider aspects of sustainability most important is indicative of
these consumers’ greater attention to these issues.
Moreover, the very low importance of economic motivation for both
groups should be noted. This indicates that the choice to go to the market
is influenced by other factors, as we have seen, which act on a very different
level. However, the high price is one of the main negative aspects of FMs reported by “Non-regulars” and may represent one of the motivations that lead
these consumers to use these forms of marketing only sporadically.
Regular use of FMs indicates a greater willingness to change habits.
This change mainly concerns the consumption of fruit and vegetables, which
definitely has a positive impact on the quality of nutrition, and organic products, with their intrinsic environmental value.
With regard to issues of social sustainability, finally, it should be noted
that the most faithful consumers, in their visits to FMs, add social experience
to the act of purchasing, with around 80% of respondents reporting meeting
acquaintances and friends occasionally or often; the figure drops to 65% in
the case of “Non-regulars to the market”.
From the comparison between these two groups of consumers, it
emerges quite clearly that greater regularity in going to the market is linked
to growing attention to some aspects of sustainability. This means that a
large segment of FM users expects that these alternative marketing experiences can meet their demand - more or less explicit - for a more ethical and
environmentally friendly production and distribution system.
74
Conclusions
The survey clearly shows that FMs can be an effective tool to bring out consumers’ demand for sustainability, either expressed or latent. This is obviously related to
food, but also involves a more general willingness to change consumption patterns and
lifestyle.
FMs become places for conveying nutritional information and education, with the
reflections that these activities also have in terms of environmental sustainability. This
aspect of FMs is of particular interest, since it seems possible to say that the distinguishing feature of this type of market – i.e. the direct relationship between producer and consumer - can replace the informative role played by classic tools, such as labels, brands
and certifications, in the process of consumer choice.
By comparing what we have observed on the demand side and the supply side,
however, the risk emerges that FMs may repeat the usual information asymmetry
between producers and consumers, and that the level of trust that accompanies
and characterises the demand for sustainability among consumers who attend FMs
is not met, with possible repercussions on their development. In this sense, the diversity of farm types at FMs, with the presence - and sometimes the prevalence - of
less sustainable farms, may shake consumer confidence, to the detriment of even
the most virtuous farms.
FMs can certainly be a market form that can promote the spread of a more
sustainable economy. This process seems to be closely related to the territorial
presence of FMs, which should thus be promoted through economic instruments,
but especially through regulation of space and logistical ease.
At the same time, farm strategies should be honed to help meet consumers’
demand for sustainability. Our survey has shown that there is ample room for improvement in this area.
In this sense, the future CAP will be a good opportunity to encourage production
and sustainable enterprises, through ranking systems (“farm greening”) or the application of voluntary schemes.
In any case, it appears necessary to increase the number of enterprises participating in FMs, increasing competition among companies in these markets, no
longer based exclusively on prices but on the reputation of the business itself in
terms of sustainability.
75
Bibliography
Aguglia L. (2009), La filiera corta: una opportunità per agricoltori e consumatori,
Agriregionieuropa, n. 17.
Aubry C. - Kebir L. - Pasquier C. (2008), The (re) conquest of local food supply
function by agriculture in the Ile de France region, Proceedings of 2nd International Working Conference for social scientists “Sustainable Consumption and
alternative agri-food systems”, May 27th to 30th 2008, Arlon, www.suscons.ulg.
ac.be/.
Battershill M.R.J. - Gilg A.W. (1998), Traditional low intensity farming: evidence
of the role of Vente Directe in supporting such farms in Northwest France, and
some Implications for conservation policy, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 14, n. 4.
Bigi M. (2005), Dal produttore al consumatore. La filiera corta. Opportunità di
sviluppo per le razze italiane da carne, Proceedings of 4th World Italian Beef
Cattle Congress, Italy.
Brown A. (2002), FMS Research 1940-2000: an Inventory and Review, American
Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Vol. 17, n. 4, pp. 167-176.
Brunori G. (2007), Local food and alternative food networks: a communication
perspective, Anthropology of Food, Special Issue, n. 2.
Bullock S. (2000), The economic benefits of farmers’ market, Published by Friends of the Earth Trust, London, UK.
Cicatiello C. - Franco S. - Pancino B. (ics), Aree di impatto delle filiere corte e focus
dell’indagine, in Cicatiello C. - Marino D., I farmers’ market: la mano visibile del
mercato, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Cicatiello C. - Franco S. (2008), La vendita diretta: produttori, consumatori e collettività, Agriregionieuropa, n. 14.
Darby K. - Batte M. T. - Ernst S. - Roe B. (2006), Willingness to Pay for Local Produced Foods: a Customer Intercept Study of Direct Market and Grocery Store Shoppers,
American Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meeting, Long Beach, California, July 23th - 26th.
DEFRA (2005), The validity of food miles as an indicator of sustainable development.
Final report for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, issue 7,
London, UK.
76
ECNC, European Centre for Nature Conservation (2000), Agri-Environmental Indicators for Sustainable Agriculture in Europe, Wascher D. W. (ed.).
European Commission (2001), A Framework for Indicators for the Economic and Social Dimension of Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development, Brussels.
European Environment Agency (1998), EU State of the Environment Report, 1998.
Guidelines for data Collecting and Processing, Copenhagen.
Feagan R.B. - Morris D. (2009), Consumer quest for embeddedness: a case study
of the Brantford Farmers’ Market, International Journal of Consumer Studies, Vol.
33, n. 3.
Feenstra G. W. (1997), Local food systems and sustainable communities, American
Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Vol.12, n.1.
Feenstra G. - Lewis C. - Hinrichs C. - Gillespie G. - Hilchey D. (2003), Entrepreneurial
outcomes and enterprise size in US retail farmers’ market, American Journal of Alternative Agriculture, Vol. 18, n. 1.
Franco S. - Marino D. (a cura di) (2012), Il mercato della Filiera corta. I farmers’ market
come luogo di incontro di produttori e consumatori, Gruppo 2013, Working Paper n.19.
Goodman D. (2003), The quality “turn” and alternative food practices: reflections and
agenda, Journal of Rural Studies, n.19.
Goodman D. - Redcliff M. R. (1991), Refashioning nature: food, ecology and culture,
Routledge edition, London, UK.
Govindasamy R. - Pingali A. - Hussain F. (1998), Income Distribution Comparison of
Farms with Innovative Activities: a Probabilistic Approach. Cooperative Extension
Service Publication, Rutgers University, USA.
Govindasamy R. - Italia J. - Zurbriggen M. - Hossain F. (2003), Producer satisfaction with returns from farmers’ market and related activity, American Journal of
Alternative Agriculture, Vol. 18, n. 2.
Guadagno R. - Cicatiello C. - Franco S. - Pancino B. (ics), L’indagine sui farmers’
market, in Cicatiello C. - Marino D., I farmers’ market: la mano visibile del mercato, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Hardesty S.D. - Leff P. (2009), Determining Marketing Costs and Returns in Alternative Marketing Channels, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, Vol. 25, n. 1.
77
Higgins V. - Dibden J. - Cocklin C. (2008), Building alternative food networks:
certification, embeddedness and agri-environmental governance, Journal of
Rural Studies, n.24.
Hilchey D. - Lyson T. - Gillespie G. W. (1995), Farmers’ market and rural economic development: entrepreneurship, small business, incubation and job creation in the rural northeast, Publication for Farming Alternatives Program, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA.
Hinrichs C.C. (2000), Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types
of direct agricultural market, Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 16, n. 3.
Hoffman U. (2011), Assuring Food Security in Developing Countries under the
Challenges of Climate Change: Key Trade and Development Issues of a Fundamental Transformation of Agriculture, United Nations Conference on Trade
and Dev elopement – UNCTAD Discussion Papers n. 201 - Publications Assistant, Macroeconomic and Development Policies Branch (MDPB), Division on
Globalization and Development Strategies (DGDS), United Nations Conference
on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), Palais des Nations, CH-1211 Geneva 10,
Switzerland.
Holloway L. - Kneafsey M. (2004), Producing–consuming food: closeness, connectedness and rurality in four ‘alternative’ food networks, in Holloway L. Kneafsey M. (eds), Geographies of rural cultures and societies, London, Ashgate.
Hughes M. - Mattson R. H. (1995), Farmers’ market in Kansas: A profile of vendors and market organization, Report of Progress 658, Manhattan: Kansas State
University, Agricultural Experiment Station.
Ilbery B. - Maye D. (2005), Food Supply Chains and Sustainability: Evidence from
Specialist Food Producers in The Scottish/English Borders, Land Use Policy,
Vol. 22, n. 4, pp. 331-344.
Ilbery B. - Maye D. - Kneafsey M. - Jenkins T. - Walkley C. (2004), Forecasting
food supply chain developments in lagging rural regions: evidence from the UK,
Journal of Rural Studies, Vol. 20, n. 3.
INEA (2004), Misurare la sostenibilità. Indicatori per l’agricoltura italiana, Roma.
Kirwan J. (2004), Alternative Strategies in the UK Agro-Food System: Interrogating the Alterity of Farmers’ Market, Sociologia Ruralis, Vol. 44, n. 4.
78
Louriero M. L. - Hine S. (2002), Discovering Niche Markets: a Comparison of
Consumer Willingness to Pay for Local (Colorado Grown), Organic and GMOFree Products, Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Vol. 34, n.. 2,
pp.477-487.
Lyson T. A. - Green J. (1999), The agricultural market scape: a framework for sustaining agriculture and communities in the northeast, Journal of Sustainable
Agriculture, Vol. 15.
Marino D. - Cicatiello C. - Franco S. - Pancino B. - Mastronardi L. - De Gregorio D.
(ics), Una prima valutazione degli impatti dei farmers’ market in Italia, in Cicatiello C. - Marino D., I farmers’ market: la mano visibile del mercato, Franco Angeli,
Milano.
Mc Garry M. - Spittler A. - Ahern J. (2005), A Profile of FMS Consumers and the
Perceived Advantages of Produce Sold at FMs, Journal of Food Distribution Research, Vol. 36, n. 1, pp. 192-201.
Morgan K. - Morley A. (2002), Relocalising the food chain: the role of creative public
procurement, Published by The Regeneration Institute, Cardiff, UK.
OECD, (1999), Environmental Indicators for Agriculture, Vol. 2, Issues and Design,
The York Workshop, Paris.
OECD, (2000), Frameworks to Measure Sustainable Development, Paris.
OECD, (2001), Environmental Indicators for Agriculture. Vol. 3. Methods and Results, Paris.
Pallotta L. (ics), Di cosa parliamo quando parliamo di cibo. La filiera corta nel quadro del dibattito sul cibo, in Cicatiello C. - Marino D., I farmers’ market: la mano
visibile del mercato, Franco Angeli, Milano.
Parker G. (2005), Sustainable food? Teikei, cooperatives and food citizenship in Japan and UK. Working Paper in Real Estate and Planning, 11/05.
Pascucci S. - Cicatiello C. - Franco S. - Pancino B. - Marino D. (2011), Back
to the Future? Understanding Change in Food Habits of FMS Customers, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Vol.14, n. 4, pp. 105126.
Raffaelli R. - Coser L. - Gios G. (2009), Esperienze di filiera corta nell’agroalimentare: un’indagine esplorativa in provincia di Trento, Economia Agroalimentare, n.1.
79
Rasch G. - Stene J. (1967), Some remarks concerning inference about items with
more than two, unpublished paper.
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, Vol. 35, n. 3.
Sini M. P. (2009), Aspetti del dibattito sulla filiera corta. Agriregionieuropa, n.16.
SUSTAIN (2002), Local food: benefits, obstacles and opportunities. Briefing paper
1 for Sustainable Food Chains project, London, Italy.
Tropp D. (2008), The growing role of local food market: discussion, American
Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 90, n. 5.
Van der Ploeg J. D. (2006), Oltre la modernizzazione. Rubbettino editore, Soveria
Mannelli.
Van Dijk B. - Fok D. - Paap, R. (2007), A Rank-Ordered Logit Model with Unobserved
Heterogeneity. Ranking Capabilities, Econometric Institute Report.
Vaupel S. (1989), The Farmers of Farmers’ Market, California Agriculture, Vol. 43, n. 1.
Wright B.D. - Masters G. (1982), Rating Scale Analysis, MESA Press, Chicago.
80
Social innovation of the short chain
Adanella Rossi1
Introduction
In its early manifestations and the diversity of forms it has assumed, what
today, in very general terms, is called “short chain” is primarily a social innovation.
The social value of this reorganisation process of part of the agri-food system is obvious. Just think of the benefits of access to “quality” food, the economic
benefit for all or some of the parties involved, the environmental benefits, and the
revitalisation of the food culture. But what is even more important is that the process of change that led to the development of these experiences of reconnection,
rapprochement between production and consumption in more than one dimension
(physical distance, but also cultural, economic and social) and that potentially triggers wider changes in the way we relate to production, distribution and consumption of food (and not only), is itself a social process. Recent research regards these
processes as paths of “social innovation”, meaning a collective response to needs
(with respect to problems or perceived opportunities), through social processes of
building new ways of thinking and doing things (new approaches, new practices)
(Brunori et al., 2009).
The issue, then, is to understand the needs these experiences are intended
to respond to, how this innovation occurs and what forms it takes, and, moreover,
its implications and scope, in terms of broader change that can be generated from
these well-defined paths.
The drive to find alternatives
The needs underlying research and development of alternative modes of the
relationship between production and consumption stem from problems perceived
and experienced within the dominant agricultural model. This, within the different perspectives of producers and consumers or, outside the classic dichotomy of
roles and perspectives, in the single perspective of citizens.
Often cited among the primary needs of food consumers are: access (in
1 Researcher at the Department of Agronomy and agri-ecosystem management at the University of
Pisa.
81
terms of availability and affordability) to quality food, healthy and nutritious, safe,
fresh; and, among producers, the need for an alternative to a system that no longer
offers economic sustainability, or even access to the market.
In reality, behind the social mobilisation that has led to “shortening” the
supply chain, there is a much more extensive range of needs.
There is, first, an unimpeachable desire among marginal players in the
modern food system to regain decision-making autonomy, and freedom of choice:
to regain control, respectively, of production processes (and thus over products
and techniques) and food consumed (what and when). Where there is awareness
of changes in the modernisation process of the agri-food system (not obvious in
itself), there is growing unease about the lack of freedom of action. It’s the frustration felt by the farmer or livestock breeder who, forced into technical choices or in
dealing with the market, finds his role as an entrepreneur and the opportunity to
express his professional capacity greatly reduced. There is also discomfort among
consumers who have seen purchase alternatives decline over time, in a system
increasingly dominated by agri-industry and large-scale retail and their business
strategies.
At the root of this need for autonomy is the desire to achieve consistency
between values and behaviour, to respect in practice the principles of ethics - environmental sustainability, animal welfare and the dignity of labour. This need, obviously, is not properly accommodated in the conventional system. The push to
moralise the economy, to rebuild economic activities on ethical grounds - the concept of the “moral economy” (Sayer, 2000) - and which, more specifically referring
to food, is giving rise to the so-called “ethical foodscape” (Goodman et al., 2010),
originates primarily from civil society’s growing need in this direction.
The ability to provide alternative choices brings with it another need, to regain necessary skills and then build a new culture, namely:
-
a food culture for the consumer: knowledge and practical skills in relating
to food (features of different products, how to use them) and knowledge
of production processes and their “contexts” (places, people, special production); in both cases, such knowledge has been lost in the evolution of
the agri-food system and thus of consumption patterns (Jaffe and Gertler,
2006). The need for younger generations to rediscover production processes and “meanings” of food (from visits to “grandparent farmers” to planting of vegetable gardens in primary schools, courses in nutrition education, learning about critical consumption in secondary school) reflects the
more generalised lack of knowledge and sense about food from the ‘60s
82
onwards (thus involving at least two generations), added to by changes in
lifestyle, but certainly also a consequence of marketing strategies pursued
by industry and food distribution;
-
a wealth of knowledge and skills for producers: regaining and/or relearning
technical skills to manage production, which have gradually been simplified in
the process of modernisation and specialisation of agriculture, and increasingly
dependent on other phases of the supply chain, often with reference to technical requirements that do not coincide with best agronomic practice (think
of the relationship to the land or biodiversity in intensive and specialised
agriculture); but also re-acquisition of organisational and relational skills,
which have also lost their exchange value (the relations of the supply chain
are often one-sided, and few goods are exchanged) and their variety (as a
result of the depletion of relationships between farms and the external environment) (Rossi and Brunori, 2010, 2011a).
Both producers and consumers can become aware of this cultural impoverishment, and this is an important factor driving the search for alternatives.
A strong need emerges for another way to experience production and consumption practices, bringing them back into a human and social dimension, where
producers and their activities are no longer isolated entities, and are visible to
society, and where “consumers” are not only purchasers who use the goods, but
people with desires, expectations and uncertainties, and the ability to assume and
share responsibility. It’s a return to practices of production and consumption and
economic exchange in a relational dimension, where shared knowledge, transparency and respect count, and where there are opportunities for reciprocity and
conviviality. In addition to reconnection between production and consumption,
after being separated in the development of the agri-food system, this process
also involves the relationship between “equals”: among consumers, who become
less “individualised” in their purchasing-consumption practices (Jaffe and Gertler,
2006), by sharing the processes of choice and rediscovering the social mediation of
food; but also among producers, who rediscover interaction and collaboration, in
many cases impoverished in supply-chain relationships.
In addition to the need for re-socialisation of production and consumption
practices, there is a need to re-territorialise them (Renting et al., 2003). In contrast
to the process of de-territorialisation that characterises the development of the
modern food system (van der Ploeg, 2004, Murdoch et al., 2000; Marsden, 2003),
production activities return to a relationship with resources - human, social, environmental, cultural and institutional - of territories (Renting et al., 2003, Watts et
83
al., 2005; Renting et al., 2008; van der Ploeg and Marsden, 2008). In other words, it
is returning the economy within the “space of places” with respect to the domain
of the “space of flows” that characterises the global economy (Castells, 1996). In
this new focus on belonging to territories, which unites producers and consumers,
the micro-economies created exploit local resources - the wealth of knowledge
related to agriculture and food traditions, land and the local bio-genome, labour
and professionalism, the fabric of companies and their ability to network, integration with other projects in the area - whilst ensuring their reproduction over time.
Where there is a greater level of awareness, the search for different relationships between food production and consumption expresses a desire to build an
alternative to the dominant system, claiming the right to food sovereignty in real,
everyday practices.
More generally, active involvement in seeking and building alternatives
shows an implicit need for civic and political engagement. In these cases, food
practices, by their nature, perform the important function of providing a primary,
accessible and effective form of citizenship (Sassatelli, 2004).
Creating change
How to respond to these needs? There is now broad consensus that implementation of needed changes cannot be relegated primarily to individual choices,
but requires changes – developing and adopting new ways of thought and action
- that take on a necessarily social dimension (Seyfang, 2006). This is because individual choices, by both producers and consumers, are conditioned by social structures and cultural norms, institutional contexts, infrastructure, technology and
markets.
In this perspective, adopting alternative models of production and consumption must be read as part of a broader process of social innovation through
which to build new social and technical infrastructure (new identities, new relationship models, new codes and rules, new regulations, new cultural models, new
discourses and related narratives, and new material supports), to enable and support alternative choices.
In this context, we can understand not only that changes in practice cannot
be explained solely on the basis of individual experience, but also that changes
with important economic implications are substantially derived from social and
cultural evolutionary processes.
With reference to the theories of transition (Geels, 2004, Smith 2003, 2006)
84
and through their application to the agri-food system (Wiskerke and van der Ploeg,
2004; Seyfang and Smith, 2006; Brunori et al., 2009), an important body of research
has traced these processes, which lead from the reorganisation of relations of production and consumption to a redefinition of the entire “Socio-Technical System”
(Smith et al., 2005; Geels and Schot, 2007), namely the complex set of agents and
relationships, systems of rules, and material infrastructure that affect production
and the proliferation of practices. Looking at models of production and consumption, we see, as mentioned above, a reconstruction of technical and social infrastructure: the system of values, meanings, preferences, the system of rules and
regulations, knowledge, patterns of relationship, physical infrastructure; a process that involves systems of production and distribution, and also figures in the
routine of domestic consumption, by changing attitudes and habits.
Within the new systems of production and consumption, this process results, in very concrete terms, in a series of aspects that the following points attempt to explain:
-
a different basis of principles of reference, which:
• guide individual actions and resolve the dilemmas encountered with new
regulatory practices (e.g. consistency vs. convenience or vs. freedom of
choice; price vs. quality; convenience vs. health);
• allow, more generally, a repositioning of food in the scale of priorities in life
and in the practice of purchasing-consumption (in contrast to the generalised
decline in importance of buying food relative to other goods);
• promote the shift from a utilitarian-private view to a solidarity-collective logic of defence of the common good (which obviously requires the
development of awareness regarding the social implications of different
patterns of production and consumption);
-
a different set of rules which results in a different relatedness among the
actors involved, based on mutual respect, understanding of respective
needs, transparency (which goes well beyond the “traceability” offered by
conventional chains), and a sense of belonging to a common context of territory and often of planning;
-
and their effects: redefining and strengthening identity, fundamental processes in changing attitudes and practices; the acquisition of “meaning” of
individual labour, which is also important in strengthening convictions and
motivations and translating them into action; creating the special condition
that brings producers and consumers to tightly integrate their roles (and
their needs and expectations) and actions, leading to a kind of partnership
85
-
-
-
-
in the management of production, or at any rate a strong alignment around
common goals (which, as we shall see below, is often called “co-production”
(Holloway and Kneafsey, 2004; Lockie, 2009; Brunori et al., 2011);
also a different system of rules, generally defined and managed in a participatory form (e.g. establishing guarantees of the quality of products/production processes; social control over individual behaviour);
a different wealth of knowledge: background knowledge of production practices (the value of farmers’ skills, developed through social interaction with
other producers, consumers or other actors) and one that supports the
practices of consumption, meaning practical knowledge for dealing with
change of habits, but also new cognitive patterns to decode information and
build awareness, a body of knowledge often completely rebuilt, freed from
the constraints of the system, primarily driven by economic logic, in which
consumers are immersed;
a different conception of food quality, which incorporates a series of meanings and values far beyond the simple attribute of freshness or a generic
“local” character (the idea of “0
Km”); a quality that extends to its productive
system (based on the model of agriculture and its methods of production),
which brings with it a different way of relating to natural resources, a different work ethic, a different attention to culture;
and, consequently, a different conception of the value of sustainable food,
and thus its monetary value, of fair price; an absolutely alternative way of
conceiving the market itself: it is a reconstruction of economic exchange,
which strives to re-internalise all components, reconstructing the value of
goods (Belletti et al., 2010).
The importance of relational space
The basis of these processes of change is therefore, first, reconstruction
of new cognitive and normative schemas - that is, new interpretative keys with
which to process information, interpret reality, evaluate concepts, discourses and
actions - which happens through “collective learning processes” (social learning).
The new cultural codes and new systems of social norms developed within them
go to support training of individuals’ motivations and choices, enabling them to develop critical sense about dominant models and to implement alternative actions,
including a direct involvement in the creation of the material conditions necessary
for the adoption and diffusion of new practices.
86
Figure 1 - The collective process of building alternative food practices: how farmers and consumers develop appropriate solutions to the specific needs of production-consumption systems
Quality of agri-food
production (organic,
local, traditional)
Seasonality of
production, variety
Learning and
adaptation
processes
Input from
consumers
Feedback to
consumers
Logistics,
organisation of
distribution
Co-production of
alternative food systems
Problems/
opportunities
for farmers
Search for
solutions
Overcoming
restrictions
Implementation
Economic dimension of relationships (market price, forms of
payment, ways of sharing economic
risk, financial support…)
New relationships (respect,
direct acquaintance,
reciprocity)
Besides the social nature of the change, the dimension of the process is
also important, because it presupposes a gradual path by individuals, as well as
its repeating nature (the process is restarted for new actors) (Rossi and Brunori,
2011b). This explains these experiences within different levels of awareness and
commitment to change, as well as hybrid behaviour.
What is the relational context that supports these processes?
These processes take place within different systems of relationships that
are (re)created in this re-socialised and re-territorialised dimension of food circuits, namely:
-
in relations between “equals”, i.e. between consumers and producers, a
condition that, as has been said, has often ceased to exist or is severely depleted (especially for producers) in the “long chain”, and that instead plays a
crucial role in the process of change at the individual level;
-
in the relationship between producers and consumers, in which “co-lear-
87
-
ning processes” create new meanings and preferences, rules and regulations that are the basis of alternative technical and organisational models
to these systems of direct relationship; it is what lies behind the term “coproduction”, the keyword developed within these networks to indicate the
different approach to the relationship between production and consumption
and their processes (Brunori et al. , 2011);
in relations that producers and consumers establish and develop with other
actors and organisations at local and non-local levels, involved for various
reasons in these processes of change; because the ability to relate, to share
approaches and projects within inclusive networks - which offer space for
the integration of civil society, businesses, associations and organisations,
local government, education and health institutions, research institutes,
training agencies, technicians - is an essential component in encouraging
wider processes of transition, well beyond a mere restructuring of the supply chain.
The innovation potential of short chain experiences
The literature views these experiences as a “niche of innovation”, areas
of experimentation with alternative practices and models (Wiskerke and Van der
Ploeg, 2004; Seyfang and Smith, 2006; Brunori et al., 2009). In a logic of diversification, they already have a social value because they help create conditions of
greater nutritional and economic democracy, in a system that tends not to offer
many alternatives. In addition, helping to diversify the system will also increase
resilience, making it better able to cope with change, which is already clearly on
the horizon.
Again considering niches of innovation, it is also important to understand
the transformative potential of these experiences, and how and to what extent
they can promote wider social change (Brunori et al., 2009). In a broader transition logic, involving the whole system in a process of change towards more
sustainable models, it then becomes crucial to grasp information from these
experiences, what they represent, their potential, their goals, their model.
In the first place, these experiences clearly show the level of reflexivity and
the desire and the potential to change by a part of civil society and the business
world, the need and the ability to redefine, actively and independently, alternative dietary patterns. This goes far beyond the exercise of freedom of choice, and
shows, rather, the ability to redefine needs and answers independently. It does
88
not appear, in fact, to be merely an expression by producers’ and consumers’
adherence to critical forms of action, within a given array of partial alternatives
(Shove, 2005), such as the desire to protect the environment, cultural heritage,
local economies (near or far) and health. Rather, it represents the effort to build
a concrete “other” system, based on mobilising a different way of conceiving the
production and consumption of food, and the desire to play an active role and
regain decision-making autonomy in food practices (Seyfang, 2006; McMeekin
and Southerton, 2007; Lockie, 2009). In a logic of “nutritional democracy”, where
citizens have the right and responsibility to participate in defining regulations of
food production and consumption (Lang, 1999; Welsh and MacRae, 1998; Hassanein, 2003), this is an important indication to be taken into consideration.
At the same time, there is evident complexity in the processes involved
in activating such innovative paths, in defining obstacles to be overcome, of a
cultural nature first of all, but also technological, organisational, regulatory, institutional and political.
The creation of a new culture and new regulatory models is the first step
in this direction. The real transformative potential of this experience lies in the
process of social reconstruction of cultural and normative codes, to support the
definition of new priorities for individual behaviour and the development of new
technical and organisational solutions to put the new mental attitude into practice.
To some extent, the capacity for innovation on this plane seems to be coming from the micro-level, and is already generating broader change. Think of
how the various experiences of short chain, promoted from below, have created
growing interest in the media and, through it, a wider debate on the ethical implications (environmental, social) related to food production and distribution.
Civil society and economic actors heretofore marginalised by the system have
in fact created a new “conversation about food”, which has increasingly involved
the worlds of culture, public institutions, sector organisations and research. The
dominant food system itself appears to have acknowledged that change is happening and is gearing up with new marketing strategies to meet emerging needs
and in line with the new cultural trend.
In the more general perspective of transition, however, in addition to this
change there remains the importance of overcoming technological, regulatory,
institutional and political barriers. In this case as well, despite the disparity that
still exists between the two models, one can see signs of change, for example,
the adoption of technologies or organisational solutions that meet new needs,
89
as in the case of the recent strategies implemented by distribution. With regard
to institutional and policy aspects, this movement affirming the short chain has
already begun to exert an influence on the political agenda, both nationally and
internationally. Alongside a focus on these processes by the strategies of various
organisations and public policies, nationally and regionally, the tenor of thought
in Europe on this particular issue is emblematic; in this regard the recent Conference organised by DG Agriculture on the theme of the short chain was significant2.
All this is very important because it brings the issue of creating sustainable patterns of production and consumption into the public sphere, leading
to a reconsideration of the relationship between private responsibility (critical
consumption, company responsibility) and public responsibility. It is at the latter
level that broader changes can be made, which are needed to exploit fully the
existing potential for change (Jacobsen and Delsrud, 2007).
In this regard, these experiences of social innovation are pointing the way
to reshaping food patterns, what to work on and how. For example: the concepts
of food quality and price; the spatial structure of production and consumption
systems and their social and environmental implications; the agriculture model
to be supported; land management and land use planning; the type of knowledge
on which to base production and consumption and the manner of training; the
legal system and how to define it; the culture of food, etc.
From all this, it is clearly important to listen, to be open to experimentation, to create the conditions so that these demands for change can emerge and
launch a search for answers. And this, in turn, invokes the need to identify effective tools for the purpose.
Bibliography
Belletti G. - Marescotti A. - Innocenti S. - Rossi A. (2010), Prezzo giusto e filiera corta:
una lettura dell’esperienza dei mercati dei produttori agricoli in Toscana, Agriregionieuropa, Anno 6, n. 23.
Brunori G. - Rossi A. - Guidi F. (2012), On the New Social Relations around and
beyond Food. Analysing Consumers’ Role and Action in Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale
(Solidarity Purchasing Groups), Sociologia Ruralis, n. 52 (1).
2 European Commission, Agriculture and Rural Development, Conference “Local agriculture and
short food supply chains”, Brussels, 20/04/2012, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/events.
90
Brunori G. - Rossi A. - Malandrin V. (2011), Co-producing transition: Innovation processes in farms adhering to solidarity-based purchase groups (GAS) in Tuscany, Italy. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, n. 18 (1).
Brunori G. - Knickel K. - Rand S. - Proost J., (2009), Towards a better conceptual framework for innovation processes in agriculture and rural development: from linear models to systemic approaches, The Journal of Agricultural Education and Extension, n. 15.
Castells M. (1996), The Rise of the Network Society, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
Geels F.W. (2004), From sectoral system of innovation to socio-technical systems. Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory, Research
Policy, n. 33.
Geels F.W. e Schot J. (2007) Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways, Research
Policy, n. 36.
Goodman M.K. - Maye D. - Holloway L. (2010), Ethical foodscapes?: premises, promises,
and possibilities, Environment and Planning A, 42 (8).
Hassanein N. (2003), Practising food democracy: a pragmatic politics of transformation,
Journal of Rural Studies, n. 19 (1).
Holloway L. - Kneafsey M. (2004), Producing-consuming food: closeness, connectedness
and rurality in four alternative food networks, in Holloway L. e Kneafsey M. (a cura di)
Geographies of rural cultures and societies, Ashgate, London.
Jacobsen E. - Delsrud A. (2007), Will consumer save the world? The framing of Political
Consumerism, Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, n. 20 (5).
Jaffe J.A. - Gertler M. (2006), Victual vicissitudes: Consumer deskilling and the (gendered) transformation of food systems, Agriculture and Human Values n. 23.
Lang T. - Barling D. - Caraher M. (2009), Food Policy: integrating health, environment
and society, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lockie S. (2009) Responsibility and agency within alternative food networks: assembling
the “citizen consumer, Agriculture and Human Values, n. 26 (3).
Marsden T.K. (2003), The condition of rural sustainability, Royal Van Gorcum, Assen.
McMeekin A. - Southerton D. (2003), Innovation, demand and final consumption, Mimeo, Centre for Research on Innovation and Competition, University of Manchester and
UMIST.
91
Murdoch J. - Marsden T.K. - Banks J. (2000) Quality, nature and embeddedness:
Some theoretical considerations in the context of the food sector, Economic Geography, n. 76.
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, n. 35.
Renting H. - Oostindie H. - Laurent C. - Brunori G. - Barjolle D. (2008), Multifunctionality of agricultural activities, changing rural identities and new territorial linkages,
International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, n.7.
Rossi A. - Brunori G. (2010), Drivers of transformation in the agro-food system.
GAS as co-production of Alternative Food Networks, in Darnhofer I., - Grötzer
M. (a cura di) Building sustainable rural futures. The added value of systems approaches in times of change and uncertainty. Atti del 9° European IFSA Symposium, 4-7 Luglio 2010, Vienna, Universität für Bodenkultur, Vienna, pp. 1913-1931,
http://ifsa.boku.ac.at/cms/index.php?id=111#c284.
Rossi A, Brunori G. (2011a), “Co-producendo transizione. Processi di innovazione
in aziende legate ai Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale in Toscana.” In: Brunori G. (a cura
di) Le reti della transizione. Impresa, Lavoro, Territorio in un’agricoltura che cambia., Felici Editore, Pisa.
Rossi A, Brunori G. (2011b), Le pratiche di consumo alimentare come fattori di cambiamento. Il caso dei Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale, Agriregionieuropa, Anno 7, n. 27.
Sassatelli R. (2004), The political morality of food: discourses, contestation and alternative consumption, in Harvey M. - McMeekin A. - Warde A. (a cura di) Qualities
of food, Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Sayer A. (2000), Moral Economy and Political Economy, Studies in Political Economy,
n. 61.
Seyfang G. (2006a), Ecological citizenship and sustainable consumption: Examining
local organic food networks, Journal of Rural Studies, n. 22.
Seyfang G. (2006b), Conscious Consumer Resistance? Local Organic Food Networks Versus The Supermarkets, EDM-2006-14, http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/pub/
wp/edm/edm_2006_14.pdf.
Seyfang G. - Smith A. (2006), Community action: A neglected site of innovation for
sustainable development?, CSERGE Working Paper, EDM 06-10.
92
Shove E. (2005), Changing human behaviour and lifestyle: a challenge for sustainable consumption?, in Ropke I. - Reisch L. (a cura di), Consumption - Perspectives
from ecological economics, Elgar, Cheltenham.
Smith A. (2003), Transforming technological regimes for sustainable development: a
role for alternative technology niches?, Science and Public Policy, n. 30(2).
Smith A. (2006), Green niches in sustainable development: the case of organic food
in the United Kingdom, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, n. 24.
Smith A. et al. (2005) The Validity of Food Miles as an Indicator of Sustainable Development: Final report, DEFRA, London.
Van der Ploeg J.D. (2004), The virtual farmer. Past, present and future of the Dutch
peasantry, Royal Van Gorcum, Assen.
Van der Ploeg J.D. - Bouma J. - Rip A. - Rijkenberg F.H.J. - Ventura F. -Wiskerke
J.S.C. (2004) On regimes, novelties and co-production, in J.S.C. Wiskerke - van der
Ploeg J.D. (a cura di), Seeds of transition, Royal Van Gorcum, Assen.
Van der Ploeg J.D. - Marsden T. (2008), Unfolding webs: the dynamics of regional
rural development.
Watts D. - Ilbery B. - Maye D. (2005), Making re-connections in agro-food geography:
Alternative systems of food provision, Progress in Human Geography, n. 29(1).
Welsh J. - MacRae R. (1998), Food citizenship and community food security, Canadian Journal of Development Studies, n. 19.
Wiskerke J.S.C. - van der Ploeg J.D. (2004), Seeds of transition: essays on novelty
production, niches and regimes in agriculture, Royal Van Gorcum, Assen.
93
part
II
Experiences
Experiences
The experience of women agricultural
entrepreneurs of the CIA: “Association of
Women in the Field”
Sofia Trentini1
Introduction
For the final user of the “short chain”, often a “city dweller” and therefore
not in direct contact with rural areas, agricultural produce is not a mere object
of consumption to be supported in terms of nutrition, but takes on a connotation
of intrinsic relationship with the territory where it is produced. In this sense, the
product is enhanced by the experience and professionalism of those who produce
it, with a reassessment of seasonality appreciated for the organoleptic properties
the soil and the environment impart to the food itself. This is useful for the valorisation of the specific taste of the product and can create a real sense of well-being
in the consumer.
Women entrepreneurs who belong to the “Association of Women in the Field”
of the CIA (Italian Farmers’ Confederation) (Figure 1), by focusing on these aspects,
have started to build this new relationship of “contact” with the city dweller, bringing knowledge about production in the country to towns and cities through the first
“farmers’ markets” organised and spread in the late 1990s.
An all-new concept of the farmer-consumer relationship
The Association of Women in the Field had already identified the real
strength and the “unique” characteristic of women in agriculture, in the processing of agricultural produce. Centuries of peasant life - when women, mothers or
wives not only cultivated the land but prepared breads, cheeses and preserves,
and cooked for the family - created female skills, silent and hidden, and generated
many products of excellence over the centuries that our country is proud of today
and that the whole world recognises and envies.
The first Women in the Field market was established in Turin in 1999, thanks
1 Member of National Board of Women in the Field and President of CIA Women in the Field, Emilia
Romagna. Thanks to Patrizia Tavani, coordinator, CIA Association of Persons, Emilia Romagna
97
to some women entrepreneurs who saw direct sales as not only an opportunity for
a direct relationship with consumers and to tell about their own products, but also
to obtain a fair price for their labour.
Later, women entrepreneurs in Lazio set up direct sales markets, and have
also recently joined the “Rhea Silvia” project organised by the region for the promotion of agricultural products.
In May of 2000, a group of women entrepreneurs from Ravenna visited the
Women in the Field market in Turin to see how it worked and was organised, and
on that basis set up the first market in their city, in Piazza del Popolo, with great
success. The market in Ravenna in fact, takes place twice a year, in April/May and
September, on Saturday and Sunday, and despite strong demand from citizens
must be limited to the period for which it is authorised.
In Emilia-Romagna also, Women in the Field in Parma2 and Bologna are
engaged in establishing women’s markets and in the participation of women entrepreneurs in agricultural fairs.
At the beginning of the twenty-first century in Lombardy and Veneto, Padua
and Venice in particular, women agricultural entrepreneurs began to participate
in a large number of fairs and markets in their respective provinces, highlighting
women’s presence in processing and marketing of products.
Figure 1 - The logo of Women in the Field
In 2001 in Tuscany, with the establishment of Women in the Field, women
entrepreneurs gave rise to agricultural markets and intense activity linked to the
marketing of their products and “female” sales policies.
2 See the experience reported in this volume.
98
Experiences
The numbers of direct sales in Emilia-Romagna
The largest numbers for Women in the Field are farms in Emilia-Romagna
that make direct sales: there are 500 and they make up the simplest form of short
chain. In general, the farm itself has a shop for the sale of its products; in this way,
the consumer can know the farm and its cultivation method, often organic and
therefore environmentally friendly.
Many farms are suppliers to joint purchasing groups (JPGs); the region
has registered 106, but it is estimated that the real number is higher since many
groups are formed spontaneously without a formal constitution.
Women in the Field also participate in the 43 “farmers’ markets” offering
organic products in Emilia-Romagna - of these, 26 are weekly markets (15 sell
only organic products), 6 are monthly and 11 are seasonal - and 22 off-farm sales
points, meaning collective outlets and small shops.
The short chain takes advantage, in general, of traditional participation for
Women in the Field and the CIA, and represents an important opportunity to introduce women entrepreneurs to consumers, as well as a “training ground” for all
women who want to invest in this form of marketing.
Women in the Field have their strength in the “reassuring” image of women’s sensitivity to food safety and quality and constitute a heritage that gives important added value for agriculture.
The association believes that at a time when agriculture is recognised for its
value in the production of goods, a value long hidden by an endless line of intermediaries, and in which the agricultural role of “reproduction of the territory” is
achieving inestimable value to society as a whole, direct sale by Women in the Field
is now not only a “cultural relationship” between town and country, but an exploitation of women’s agricultural knowledge. The association believes that the value
of “proximity” of a product negates the principle of distribution as validation, and
that a uniform product, one that responds to everyone’s taste, is a product that has
lost the historical and cultural characteristics that make it unique, thus becoming
a product that has no personality!
Conclusions
Women agricultural entrepreneurs enhance the rural environment with
their different ways of practising agriculture, made of family relationships, environmental sustainability, rediscovering traditions that have been lost or will be lost
99
in time. In this way, Women in the Field, by valuing old but innovated “know-how”,
through a short chain and direct sales, in particular, attract people who have lost
a “living” approach to the changing of the seasons in the countryside; at the same
time, aiming to achieve adequate income for their labour and support family farming, they find professional satisfaction in their creativity of enterprise.
Sitography
ANABIO, Associazione Nazionale Agricoltura Biologica, www.cia.it/anabio.
Associazione Donne in Campo, www.donneincampo.it.
Pro.B.E.R., Associazione degli Operatori Biologici e Biodinamici dell’Emilia-Romgna, www.prober.it.
100
Experiences
The “Women in the Field” of Parma
Elvira Pallone1
Introduction
In 2003-2004, “Women in the Field” in Parma began to participate, with their
own stand, in major local agricultural events, to “educate” people about the character and quality of the products in their territory. Since we began, we have always
been committed to the belief that the direct relationship with the consumer could
be the way to restore strength to our agriculture!
Our enthusiasm and passion for agriculture and its traditions have landed
us at these events and initiatives throughout the province of Parma, but also in
Mantua and Reggio Emilia.
The “Short chain” project
In 2005 the “Short Chain” project began, with assistance from the Province
of Parma2, to enhance the quality of local agriculture, reduce the cost of intermediation and promote and encourage the consumption of local products. Women
in the Field, in their statute, combine objectives: “a fair return to producers; to
educate consumers to an awareness of local products, freshness and seasonality
of goods, to make them informed and knowledgeable; greater assurance of food
quality and safety; to promote consumption of local products and avoid the cost of
transport; to reduce pollution due to transport and waste (packaging); savings and
support for the environment”.
The project also aims to provide haute cuisine with Women in the Field’s
products, and enter fully into the culinary traditions of Parma, with high quality
raw materials. This context includes the initiative “Understanding the dish” and
the “pink cuisine” event of March 2010; the Association of Women in the Field of
the CIA (Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori – Italian Farmers’ Confederation) and
the CONFESERCENTI catering sector invited consumers to four special evenings
where chefs of the ALMA international school of Italian cooking created a series
1 Coordinator of Women in the Field CIA of Parma.
2
Regional Law Emilia-Romagna of 11 August 1998, n. 28 “Promotion of development services for the
agri-food system”.
101
of haute cuisine dishes using Women in the Field of Parma short chain products.
Every evening also featured exhibitions of photography and painting, and artistic
performances, all by women.
The event was an opportunity to focus on good sustainability practices, support for female labour, quality and seasonal produce, the short chain and the promotion of the territory and its resources, all parts of this initiative.
The “farmyard - from farm to fork” farmers’ market
In autumn 2008, the “farmers’ market” was founded in Parma, thanks to
cooperation between the Municipality of Parma and sector associations. It was
regulated, as in many other cities in Italy, following the Ministerial Decree of November 20, 2007.
The CIA and the Women in the Field, in the foreground, saw the rewards of
four years of work on the Short Chain project.
“The farmyard - from farm to fork” is a market for farmers, with or without
organic certification, which takes place every Saturday morning in Strada Imbriani,
in the heart of the quarter across the river in Parma. The market involves 54 farms
in the province, belonging to the three main sector associations, which alternate
according to the season of their products (fruits and vegetables, milk and cheese,
meat and sausages, honey and jams, herbs and aromatics, products for personal
grooming).
Farmers participating in the market subscribe to the market’s code of conduct and discipline. Both of these tools ensure the promotion of relations between
consumers and producers, and transparency and fairness in the sale of local food
products. Operators also commit to promoting models of sustainable development, for example by promoting the use of reusable, eco-friendly packaging and
reducing the production of waste.
To provide a rough indication of prices at the market, tables are published
each market day with a survey of prices, made by the Statistics Office of the Municipality of Parma, in cooperation with the Economic Activities sector. Prices refer
to some products sold the previous Saturday morning and are expressed in €/kg.
With the “Farm expenditure - Short chain” project, which aims to give importance and visibility to women agricultural entrepreneurs, through awareness
raising and information at fairs, festivals and local markets, Women in the Field of
Parma received the “March 8th Prize” in 2008. The project has made it possible to
create a network of farms that make trade-purchases of products for direct sale.
102
Experiences
As of April 2010, the popular Saturday morning farmers’ market “The farmyard - from farm to fork” in Strada Imbriani is also held in Piazzale Lubiana every Wednesday, with the same rules; agri-food products for sale must be grown,
raised and processed directly by the seller farm, to offer the consumer-citizen
a local, typical and seasonal product. In this second market there are around 20
farmers - members of the three associations Coldiretti, the CIA and the provincial Farmers Union - who sell fruit and vegetables, meat, wine, honey, Parmesan
cheese, milk (cow and sheep) and derivatives, preserves and other products from
their own crops or livestock.
Farms that participate in the “farmyard - from farm to fork” market are all
small/medium-sized and family-owned, while some employ full-time or seasonal
outside labour. Some farms also produce organically.
The farms, which are part of all three associations: Union, CIA, Coldiretti
(one of the few cases in Italy) have joined in a consortium to “work better together,
to create joint initiatives during the year, to promote the market, and to study customers”.
Many of the farms are also suppliers to joint purchasing groups (JPGs) and
vegetable producers are thus also able to plan sowing.
Other initiatives
For some time, Parma has also been working on creating a District of Social
Economy (DES), a network of solidarity economy actors in the territory (JPGs, fair
trade shops, ethical finance institutions and responsible tourism, small organic
farmers, cooperatives, etc.) with the intent of reinforcing each other and working
together to promote the territory. The benefit of this mode of operation is to support cycles of production, distribution and consumption that defend the environment and working conditions, and promote social interaction.
In this context, a project was launched on a trial basis for organised smallscale distribution, with active participation from producers delivering their products, JPGs ordering and buying their crates3, the social cooperatives “Il Ciottolo”
(The Pebble) and “Garabombo” which play a role in assembling and distributing
crates, and the DES, which together with other parties defines products and prices
with the idea of “healthy and fair eating for all”.
The “Small retail trade” project (PDO), which the DES has been trying to set
3 The 30 JPGs in the province of Parma, half of which are in the city, will experiment with this new
food distribution system, which will then be shuttled to private citizens.
103
up for a long time, is very ambitious and aims to create a new economy, balancing the needs of producers and consumers. Initially, the project was intended for
vegetable producers, rare in the province of Parma, and especially small ones, to
enable them to organise and find a customer base that goes beyond JPGs. About
a dozen producers are involved, including those registered as RETEBIO organic
producers; they will deliver seasonal produce to the COOP, while the social cooperative “Il Ciottolo” will organise crates and deliveries.
The fundamental change of the short chain toward solidarity will help new
and small local producers to grow and diversify their production and possibly also
to certify their products.
JPG representatives are committed to supporting this project and participating actively in the experimental period - from September to November 2012
- when orders will be made through the website, while the prices of raw materials
will be set to remunerate small local producers fairly.
Sitography
Associazione Donne in Campo, www.donneincampo.it.
Filiera corta Parma, www.filieracortaparma.it.
104
Experiences
Coldiretti initiatives in the field of short
chain
Lorenzo Bazzana1
Introduction
Since the legal guideline (Legislative Decree 228/2011), “much water has
passed under the bridge”, and what at the time was viewed as a lame-duck initiative, destined not to leave a trace, can be now seen as a great intuition that opened
the door to a new way of understanding the activity of agricultural enterprises and
the scope of their activities, which have become increasingly multifunctional.
For Coldiretti, “short chain” means compressing some steps, internalising some functions, and reducing the number of people who claim rights, in an
economic sense, to agricultural products. In other words, the short chain, by
streamlining the activities in the supply chain - middlemen, commission agents,
wholesalers, primary and secondary processing industries, distributors, exporters
- brings producers and consumers closer together.
This observation led to the “Pact with the consumer” of December 2000 and,
thereafter, took the shape of initiatives on direct sales, “Mercati Campagna Amica”
(friendly countryside markets) and “Botteghe” (shops).
Direct sales on farms, and more
Direct sales on farms were the first step, the simplest, often the result of a
choice by the farms, but met with too many loopholes and obstacles. Putting this
type of business activity in place meant simplifying authorisation processes and
broadening the range of agricultural enterprises. It also meant finding the right tax
position, in a situation previously dominated by uncertainty and the risk of pursuing activities that were un-codified, unlawful and not possible.
In addition to the development of direct sales on farms, the growth of agritourism was promoted, something we can consider, in the extreme, as a particular
form of direct sales and delivery of services to the consumer. Agri-tourism sites
are the main reference for anyone who wants to organise a holiday in the country,
1 Head of Technical-Economic Service, Coldiretti National Confederation, Rome.
105
and today these structures have widely varied offers, taking into account the peculiarities of the territory, rural orientation and the specific characteristics of those
who manage them.
Other experiences are business diversification, such as the processing of
farms’ own products, “Educational farms” and “pick our own”, where consumers
come into direct contact with the farm production process, harvesting products
from the field themselves.
Further experiments are “vending”, or automatic distribution, created originally with raw milk and dairy product dispensers and, subsequently, for juices,
salads and fourth range fruit salads and citrus juices.
“Friendly Countryside Markets” and “Shops”
A more structured form of direct selling is “Mercati di Campagna Amica”
(Friendly Countryside Markets), the so-called “farmers’ markets”, organized by
Coldiretti, which have opened throughout Italy. Markets are governed by rules of
procedure which define the conditions and the types of products that can be marketed; participating farms agree to abide by the market rules, submitting to both
internal and external monitoring by a third party.
In 2011, there were 878 Campagna Amica markets in Italy, with 9.2 million
users, but the numbers continue to grow, and in 2012 it was estimated there were
more than 1,000 markets operating throughout Italy.
The Campagna Amica “Botteghe” (shops), however, represent a more organised form of marketing, more like a traditional shop, in size and in the air of
familiarity, but still directly managed by farmers. The Shops offer products from
different regions of Italy, and in this form of marketing as well, farms agree to
abide by shared rules, with internal and external monitoring.
Currently there are 163 Campagna Amica Shops, but their number continues to increase, with the ambition to create a real network that allows the consumer to find a complete assortment of agri-food from the Italian supply chain.
Agreements with other actors in the supply chain
Coldiretti also considers initiatives with the GDO (large-scale retail) and restaurants in the short chain.
Making a short chain with the GDO shows how variegated this concept is
in its many manifestations. As of April 2012, 1,400 COOP sales points offer pasta
106
Experiences
products made exclusively with Italian durum wheat from a factory owned by a
structure controlled directly by the producers. The pasta packages carry the label
of the Italian agricultural supply chain, FAI, signed by Italian farmers.
Then there is a path for the recognition of “0 km” restaurants, which commit
to abide by specific regulations by offering local products on their menus.
These are just the first initiatives of a path to streamline and revolutionise
relationships within the supply chain, in a logic of partnership and the exploitation
of 100% Italian products.
The all-Italian agricultural supply chain
The project of building an all-Italian agricultural sector, which synthesises
and incorporates the initiatives described above, has the objective of creating a
great, truly Italian food system that rewards producers and provides consumers
with quality products at a fair price, creating wealth and employment in the country.
The goal is to cut out middlemen and to offer a “100 per cent Italian” agricultural product signed by farmers, through an extensive national commercial
network, to create more competition and transparency, more bargaining power for
farmers and more benefits to citizens: the “National Network of Campagna Amica
Sales Points”.
In this regard, in order to better understand the scope of the project, and
the economic and social idea behind it, here is the manifesto for an all-Italian agricultural supply chain, symbolically signed on April 30, 2009 at the meeting of the
Coldiretti National Confederation by 15,000 entrepreneurs, on behalf of Coldiretti
members throughout Italy.
107
Manifesto for an all-Italian agricultural supply chain approved by 15,000 entrepreneurs:
“We entrepreneurs of Italian agriculture, in its individual and associated forms - businesses, cooperatives, consortiums and associations recognised in the Coldiretti project - considering that:
• the history and evolution of our country and its territories appear inextricably linked to the role of agriculture
and those who work in agriculture;
• agriculture and Italian food, by their purity and uniqueness, are an essential contribution to the wealth, health
and quality of life of all our citizens;
• the promotion and the richness of the Italian image in the world are in many ways the result of the variety and
distinctiveness of our agricultural products and foodstuffs;
• agriculture - because of the challenges facing the planet in terms of safety, food security and environmental
sustainability - has taken on a central position.
We are deeply aware that, in spite of such a significant role for the country, the weight and the economic and social
recognition of producers along the agricultural supply chain have progressively weakened.
This turns out to be unfair to those at the ends of the chain: thus, there is unjust remuneration and consideration
for farmers, and insufficient transparency in consumer protection.
Profound reform of this situation becomes a duty.
Our mission for the immediate future is to “establish an all-Italian agricultural supply chain, recognisable because
it bears the signature of Italian farmers.
We are thus committed:
• as entrepreneurs to strengthen a covenant with the people, of growth based on quality, safety, conservation of
the beauty of places, including through the adherence to the values of
the Campagna Amica Foundation as a
place of fruitful dialogue with ever-broader segments of Italian society;
• as we are all entrepreneurs, to set up an agri-food supply chain based on the values of identity, transparency,
efficiency and sustainability;
• as co-operatives and consortia already committed to establishing agri-food supply chains that draw
nourishment and strength from the Italian territories and the “signature” of producers, to significantly improve
effectiveness and efficiency, joining forces and making it a powerful tool of economy, in the quality and wealth
of products and services;
• as “Campagna Amica Markets”, to promote the capillary extension of farmers’ markets and all direct sales
formulas, as a way to exploit the signing of producers and respond to the growing demand for truly genuine
Italian food.
As a natural consequence, this will create a new agri-food model, founded by the producers themselves, providing:
• a fair return to the producer,
• a fair price and an effective guarantee of quality and transparency for food,
• the exploitation of primacy and distinctiveness of our territories and those who live and work there,
• an increase in the total assets of our country.
Much is in the hands of governments and politicians, but much depends on us. Farmers, families, citizens, together
we can do so much: we owe it to our children. This is our project for the country.
To achieve these objectives we give our solemn support”.
108
Experiences
Bibliography
Cersosimo D. (a cura di) (2011), I consumi alimentari: evoluzione strutturale, nuove
tendenze, risposte alla crisi, Edizioni Tellus, Roma.
Franco S. - Marino D. (a cura di) (2012), Il mercato della Filiera corta. I farmers’
market come luogo di incontro di produttori e consumatori, Gruppo 2013, Working
paper n.19.
109
Experiences
The short chain path in organic farming, for
food sovereignty
Andrea Ferrante and Annalisa Gallucci1
Introduction
The current food supply chain, based on distribution models with a
large number of intermediaries, is the instrument of a centralised food system that strangles local farmers as well as local food markets. To achieve
“food sovereignty” - or “the right of peoples to healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods,
and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems” 2 - we need to
change not only the models of production, but also the models of distribution
and, more generally, the entire market of foodstuffs.
The organic movement was founded and is driven by farmers who wanted to change their relationship with citizens/consumers, with an explicit criticism of the developing distribution model, and where there was a complete
separation between producers and consumers. This weakened the role of the
farmer, who was replaced by a product without any connotation, available on
the world market. The convergence between the organic movement and food
sovereignty thus becomes natural, since the issue of the rights of consumers
to choose what they want to eat in terms of quality, environmental sustainability and respect for food tradition (Mediterranean diet) is central to both
movements. Equally central is farmers’ right to choose the model of production and distribution, which cannot be imposed by agrichemical multinationals and large retail chains.
Restoring rights as central to the model of organic production also immediately determines a new model of food distribution, which, in this sense,
cannot be considered a mere commodity.
1 Andrea Ferrante is president of the AIAB Federal Directive Council. Annalisa Gallucci is in charge
of AIAB Training for Lazio.
2 Definition of food sovereignty from the Nyéléni Declaration (Mali), at the end of the International
Forum for Food Sovereignty, 2007.
111
Short chain experiences promoted by organic producers
Over the last ten years, many farmers throughout Italy, both individually and in
cooperatives, have found various ways to serve consumers directly through the short
chain. Today it is important to learn from these experiences, as described below and
followed by a referral link, which arose from the need to sell organic products at a
proper price, to understand how it works and how you can create synergies between
different experiences, regionally and nationally.
Organized groups of supply and demand (GODO) - The basic idea was to create a group of producers and consumers, members of AIAB, that would promote
responsible consumption based on local products, direct sales and seasonality. Organised groups ensure a fair price for producers and consumers alike, considering
them part of the same system. The main activity of the group is the collective purchase of organic products, but also the organisation of wine tastings, cultural events,
seminars and training courses on organic farming, through which participants share
common goals and find new paths of cooperation (www.aiabumbria.com/it/godo).
The Cilento Bio-District - The Cilento and Vallo di Diano National Park is the
home base for the “Cilento Bio-District”. In the park there are 400 organic farms,
distributed in 95 municipalities, which contain three outstanding sites of cultural
interest: Paestum, Elea-Velia and Padula. Through the Cilento Bio-District, public
administrations, in partnership with AIAB, have played a key role in promoting the
quality of the area (tourism, agricultural products, etc.), by providing informative,
educational and promotional materials. The main objective of the Bio-District is to
concentrate territorial supply in one common brand, and jump-start the local market through “farmers’ markets” and catering, both public and private. To this end,
the greatest possible number of small producers was involved to create a diversified basket of products, available throughout the year; promoting these products to
potential national and foreign markets is an important part of the Bio-District (www.
biodistretto.it).
The Arete Social Cooperative - The “Arete social cooperative” was founded
in 1987 by movements of volunteers involved in the rehabilitation of prison inmates
at Bergamo. The cooperative produces organic food and has set up a distribution
network of organic products with local producers. The products are sold both in the
cooperative store and in other local channels, such as school canteens, through the
direct involvement of prisoners who base their rehabilitation course on this project,
developing skills that may be important for their future integration into society (www.
aretecoop.it).
112
Experiences
Organic school canteens - In Italy, the Finance Act of 2000 mandated the
use of organic, PDO/PGI and traditional products in the daily diets offered by public canteens. So, today, municipalities are the main buyers of organic products,
with more than one million organic meals served daily (more than 30% of the
total). The small-scale experience, where organic produce for school canteens,
hospitals and restaurants is directly supplied by local producers, is an interesting practice of sustainable development. This model promotes both healthy eating and local agriculture, respecting the environment and health, seasonality, local markets and the relationship between producers and consumers. All citizens
rediscover agriculture, local cuisine and taste through this experience; canteens,
in fact, develop training courses on environment, food and local markets aimed
at chefs and families.
The Other Economy City (CAE) - The main objective of this project is to
revive a long abandoned space. This is the first space in Europe dedicated to
economic practices using processes with low environmental impact. The project provides an adequate redistribution of income between producers, since it
doesn’t operate on the basis of economic profit, but on solidarity between people
and the environment. The CAE hopes to stimulate change, disseminate information and educate, so that this form of alternative economy can become the basis
of an alternative society. Organic farming is part of a larger project, where fair
trade, free software, reuse and recycling, responsible tourism, ethical finance
and renewable energies are in the same place at the same time. The “SpazioBio”
organic shop is run by producers, sells products directly from local organic farms
and is one of the main activities of the CAE (www.cittadellaltraeconomia.org).
Bio Sotto Casa trading platforms - “Bio Sotto Casa” (organic at your doorstep) is a three-year promotional project promoted by the EU and the Italian government to increase awareness of organic products through animation activities
directly involving individual consumers, purchasing groups, producers, etc. in
Italy, France and Germany. AIAB involved Coldiretti and AMAB in this program,
creating three commercial platforms for Italian organic products that come directly from producers. The platform works with France and Germany to promote
Italian organic products directly in the European market. This experience is an
interesting approach to the international market for organic products.
The experiences of short chain, promoted by citizens organised in joint
purchasing groups (JPGs), to which AIAB producers deliver their products directly, are an original and planned response by citizens who are tired of nutrition
models imposed by large-scale retail, as well as a political and cultural move-
113
ment of great importance. In some areas of the country it is also gaining a significant economic role.
What policies should support the short chain?
Supporting the role of farmers in the production, distribution and consumption of food, through best-practice experiences such as those described, driven by
the needs of individuals or group actions, forms the basis of a development policy
that promotes environmental, social and economic sustainability. It is necessary,
however, to go beyond individual virtuous cases to promote policies that support
these kinds of experiences and promote them as a starting point for a new model
of distribution of organic agriculture. The majority of organic producers sell their
products to large retailers, which only in some cases are specialised in organic.
The price, therefore, increases with each step of distribution and farmers’ income
is not commensurate with their labour or their contribution to the enhancement of
common goods, such as soil fertility and water quality.
Below are some reflections on the role that EU and national policies could
have in promoting new models of short chain distribution for organic agriculture.
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) - The main European policy in this regard
is the CAP. Through Pillar 2 on rural development, it could provide important support to local initiatives based on the rural economy. This policy, in fact, has specific
actions in place for the promotion of markets and local economies, using the tools
of training, technical assistance, promotion and support to producers as a whole.
Put together in territorial programs, such instruments are important springboards
for launching alternative distribution experiences.
Tax and health laws - though they often represent a barrier for new distribution models, specific laws at the regional level could help simplify procedures
required in the event of direct contact between farmers and producers and the
processing and administration of products on farms. Many joint purchasing groups
in Italy have developed interesting practical proposals for possible procedures.
Green Public Procurement (GPP) - The policies of “green public procurement”, based on the idea of bringing

environmental issues within public institutions, and processes for the supply of goods and services, represent an important
opportunity. GPPs, in fact, are a powerful tool that public authorities can use to
promote local distribution through consumption of local organic produce in public
canteens (schools, hospitals, government offices, etc.).
Access to public lands - At the political level, such access is an important
114
Experiences
point to promote youth cooperatives who develop their project ideas (e.g. Aretè).
These cooperatives, because of their social makeup, play a key role in communicating to the consumer the values and

principles related to organic products.
These elements, combined with production and agricultural training, are the basis
of the most successful experiences in local distribution (e.g. “Libera cooperative”
- Free cooperative).
Bio-Districts - The four experiences of Bio-Districts in Italy, including the
above-mentioned one in Cilento, for now, identify organic farming as a model for
rural development by local institutions, generating a virtuous circle of sustainability. A network of European Bio-Districts should be recognised by the EU as a tool
for local development.
Research - The role of research is central to the development of new policies. For this reason, in the eighth framework program on European research, in
which dialogue on definition and content has begun in Brussels, it is important to
broach a specific research topic, starting from the study of existing experiences
and their direct involvement, which can support new models of distribution and
forms of short chain to contribute to local development.
Promotional programs - A shared understanding of the principles of organic
farming is the basis of collaboration between producers and consumers in new
distribution models and the adoption of forms of short chain. Promotional programs, therefore, are essential to inform citizens about basic values of
organic and
to encourage consumption.
Certification - The adoption of specific certification models as alternatives
to traditional third-party certification could create a flexible choice, adaptable to
individual contexts; for example, participatory guarantee systems (PGS) and group
certification. Being able to choose the certification model can simplify local distribution procedures.
Towards new models of distribution
The promotion of European policies in support of alternative distribution
models should begin with the creation of a European network of these experiences. Starting from the regional level, it will be essential to create a database with
existing experiences at the European level.
The creation of networks based on sharing local experiences and knowledge
of other realities through exchange visits could give substance to a new political
framework for the distribution of food, based on the policies described. These new
115
models should be accompanied by participatory research to develop alternative
formulations of small-scale food systems.
We need, however, new health and tax regulations and market access (direct sales) for small producers. First of all, common criteria are needed for defining the “small farmer”, for example through a system of guarantees recognised
at the Community level (such as PGS). To this end, a permanent workspace on
alternative food markets would be desirable. It is necessary, however, to work better together (producers, technicians and consumers) and AIAB can be the tool that
brings these forces together.
Bibliography
Colombo L. - Onorati A. (2009), Diritti al Cibo!, Ed. Jacka Book.
Brunori G. (2007), Local food alternative food networks: a communication perspective, Anthropology of Food, Vol. S2.
Renting H. - Marsden TK. - Banks Jo (2003), Understanding alternative food networks: exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development, Environment and Planning, Vol. 35, pp. 393-411.
116
Experiences
The “Sportello Mense Bio” (Organic Canteen
Help Desk) in Emilia-Romagna
Daniele Ara1
Introduction
In Italy, public catering is a key component of the organic products
market. The supply of these products, mainly to school canteens2, has in fact
been a driving force for the whole national sector and is one of the pillars of
trade for organic products (along with exports).
The most widely used products for organic canteens are far and away
fruit and vegetables. Various studies indicate the presence of organic fruit
and vegetables in 75% to 85% of cases, followed by pasta (60%-70%), olive oil
(40%-45%), tomato sauce (40%-60%) and milk and dairy products (25%-50%);
meat and eggs are typically used to a lesser extent (2.5% to 35%).
There are substantial differences among various organic canteens. In
some, the presence of organic is limited to a few staple foods (e.g. pasta, tomato sauce, olive oil), a result of “political” opportunism; in others, however,
and fortunately in the majority of canteens (schools and in some cases hospitals), the adoption of organic food is deeply motivated and backed by public
administrators as well as citizens and students.
At the local level, 10 regions have passed laws that provide economic
support (with the exception of Emilia-Romagna and Trentino) (Table 1). In
fact, specific legislation concerning organic, as well as sensitivity on the part
of public bodies, has provided an incentive for the dissemination of school
canteens throughout Italy.
In particular, the Emilia Romagna region - which has strict fixed percentages of organic products in school canteens - now holds the record with
147 organic canteens, followed by Lombardy (142) and Tuscany (118).
Contrary to what is now considered common knowledge, organic canteens
do not cost more than traditional canteens, if they are carefully and efficiently
1 In charge of «Sportello Mense Bio», Pro.B.E.R.
2 Law 488/99 (Finance Act of 2000) mandates the use of organic, typical, traditional and of protected
origin by public institutions that operate school and hospital canteens.
117
managed. In fact, raw materials make up about 35% of the final cost of the meal;
the higher costs of raw materials are therefore attributable only to this rate.
Table 1 - Regional legislation for the use of organic food in school canteens
A.P. Trento
A.P. Law Trento n. 13 of 13 November 2009
Veneto
Regional Law n. 6 of 1 March 2002
Friuli-Venezia Giulia
Regional Law n. 25 of 17 October 2007 (amended r.l. of 8 August 2000. n. 15)
Emilia-Romagna
Regional Law n. 29 of 4 November 2002
Tuscany
Regional Law n. 18 of 27 May 2002; PGR decree n. 11 of 23/2/07 (amended decree
n.2 of 7/1/03, rule implementing Regional Law 29/02)
Marche
Regional Law n. 4 of 3 April 2002 (amended r.l. of 29 December 1997, n. 76)
Lazio
Regional Law n. 10 of 6 April 2009
Umbria
Regional Law n. 21 of 20 August 2001
Basilicata
Regional Law n. 18 of 20 May 2002
Sardinia
Regional Law n.1 of 19 January 2010
Several national studies indicate that the cost of an organic meal is comparable, then, with the cost of a conventional meal. It should be emphasised that
the most effective organic food projects also define substantial improvement of
service, have a strong educational content and, by involving and training operators,
sometimes even cost less than conventional canteens, as well as giving students
greater enjoyment of food. In these cases, canteens frequently recorded a drastic
reduction of waste - which can be up to 30%-40% of food served in conventional
canteens - and less packaging (previously used for single portions) and plastic
tableware.
To better serve catering needs, the local system should be structured so
that all parties involved (producers, public administrations, catering companies,
schools) engage in concerted actions and interventions of medium to long term, in
an attempt to reconcile the needs of each.
The activity of Sportello Mense Bio
The Sportello Mense Bio (Organic Canteen Help Desk) managed by Pro.B.E.R.
(Organic and Biodynamic Producers’ Association of Emilia-Romagna), has been
active since 2003. It acts on behalf of the Agriculture Board of Emilia-Romagna in:
a)
ordinary activities;
b)
regional survey on school canteens
118
Experiences
c)
events and collaborations
Ordinary activities - The main modes of interface with users of the help desk
are well established and consist of:
-
expert staff, available at set times at the offices of Pro.BER, by phone or by
appointment, available 4 hours/day, in mornings and afternoons five days a
week;
-
website (www.sportellomensebio.it), with interactive features. Graphics
have been improved for usability, and the site is enhanced with new databases to manage research data from all the municipalities of the Region.
Includes information services from the “Greenplanet” circuit, particularly
news, information and events about organic canteens, a significant strength;
-
monthly newsletter, a valuable tool for sharing good practice and all information about nutrition education and consumption of organic products;
-
organisation and support for school catering events.
The Help Desk receives an average of 10-15 requests for information per
week by e-mail and phone, many from outside the region.
Information requested mainly regards:
-
support for specifications, mainly from the municipalities;
-
questions about how to introduce organic products on menus in line with the
recommendations of r.l. 29/02, especially from parents;
-
information on how to form parents’ canteen committees;
-
clarification over the possibility of legal recourse to make municipalities apply the regional law;
-
information on specifications of product prices and cost of meals;
-
request about availability of products and possible release of certificate of
non-availability.
The regional survey on school canteens - A survey was carried out from
mid-2008 until the end of 2009 - updated in 2011 - on regional school catering,
to check the status of application of r.l. 29/02, which provides for the introduction
of organic and integrated farming products, as well as PDO and PGI products in
school canteens.
The study, in cooperation with the Department of Agriculture of the EmiliaRomagna region and the “Intercent-ER” regional purchasing agency, gathered
data from about 200 municipalities across the region.
According to the survey, though some municipalities are virtuous and alert,
others have difficulty in assessing the operation of their own catering services.
In most cases, administrations showed willingness to cooperate, as did catering
119
companies, which put themselves at the service of their clients to provide the information requested in the questionnaire. The survey, therefore, steered municipalities toward greater attention to school catering service.
Below is a summary of key information that emerged from the survey:
-
introducing organic and quality products reveals a patchy situation, with
excellence, critical points and intermediate situations;
-
indirect management is most prevalent, but there are important and lively
examples of direct management in independent relationship with various
product suppliers;
-
compared to the 2005 survey, we see a sharp increase in the use of organic
products, the entry of Fairtrade products and the use of tap water;
-
as for PDO/PGI products, the undisputed leaders are Parmigiano Reggiano
and Prosciutto di Parma; other products have ample room for growth;
-
canteen committees and training courses for operators are increasingly
common;
-
an evident critical issue is the difficulty of determining the percentage cost
of raw materials for each meal. This figure would help administrations to
determine the real cost increase of organic (on average about 20%); this
increase in cost should be calculated only on the raw material and not the
entire meal. Cooks and service staff cost the same, whether the raw material is organic or conventional!
-
another difficult fact to determine is the quantities used for each item introduced.
Events and collaborations - In addition to organising conferences and providing speakers for many meetings, relationships have been established with the
RER Department of Health, and collaborations have been established with the Intercent-ER Agency and INRAN (National Institute for Food and Nutrition Research).
With the latter, in particular, the “Study on standards and specifications for catering in the NAP (National Action Programme for Organic Farming) 2009-2010” has
been prepared. Between 2011 and 2012 the project “BIOPERTUTTI” (organic for
all) of the Emilia-Romagna region was carried out, funded by MIPAAF in the NAP.
Sitography
Sportello Mense Bio, www.sportellomensebio.it.
120
Experiences
The consumer as “co-producer”
Anselme Bakudila1
Introduction
The role of primary purchaser is no longer played by the consumer, but by
intermediaries (wholesalers and organised distribution). It is evident, as Burdese
reports, that “the split between the act of consumption and the acts of production,
processing and distribution has cut consumers out of supply chains to the extent
that they are now little else than the final and largely passive link”. (Burdese, 2012).
In today’s society, new needs have emerged, which have impacted significantly on the dietary habits of the consumer, leading to the introduction of new
types of everyday products, from high service foods such as those of the fourth
range (“convenience foods”) to “take-away”. Access to these new services further
distances the once-active role of the consumer, who formerly chose to buy, what
purchasing channel to use and the type of product, and ended by adopting certain
modes of consumption and waste management. Today, buyers’ attitudes reflect
the role of “consumer-spectator” rather than “consumer-actor”.
Consumers thus become simply users, with little interest in products’ origin, or how they were grown and processed, while organised distribution takes
the lead, setting purchase price from producers and, with or without intermediate
processing, determining the sale price to the consumer. Thus, there is an evident
need for appropriate control systems defined by the application of specific rules;
but along with these instruments of control, other actors are required to protect
the consumer, acting as sources of information and awareness.
But who protects small producers, who are essential to preserving biodiversity? Although the trend of world agriculture appears to be moving toward an
industrial model characterised by specialisation, in fact, Italy still depends on the
deep-rooted presence of farmers, often direct heads of farms, as initiators of the
food chain.
“Slow Food” was founded to defend agri-food heritage and protect biodiversity with respect for the environment; therefore, it identifies virtuous small producers as necessary guardians of this heritage.
1 Studies Centre, Slow Food.
121
Aware that protecting biodiversity is impossible without educating consumer taste, Slow Food is largely committed to communication and information.
The paradigmatic path of a conscious consumer
Food consumption patterns are now driven by two factors: quality and price.
Thus, the study of social dynamics and cultural processes that affect production
and distribution assume a central role in the value and contribution of the territory.
For this reason, in addition to quality and price, Slow Food seeks to promote other
factors of choice related to training and information, to provide the consumer with
notions about the territory, the history of the product and the actors involved in the
process.
The present situation makes awareness in purchasing indispensable, to
allow consumers to become critical and responsible, and this awareness can be
achieved through training and information. In this sense, Slow Food’s activities
have developed from some paradigms, as described below:
The microsystem – It becomes the point of reference in which rural society preserves traditional knowledge and local production techniques. This reality,
in general, is reflected in quality foods, and guarantees the microeconomics of
places in which it is rooted. Based on this principle, Slow Food has identified the
agri-food heritages in danger of extinction, first by cataloguing them in the “Ark of
Taste”2 and then exploiting them with the «Presidia»3 project.
Typicality - A concept linked to the environment or microclimate, cultivation
technique, the use of specific ingredients and the use of special tools. In practice,
typicality translates as quality of food, quality that Slow Food defines individually
per product, indicating whether it is intended for local use and its links with local
traditions. Typicality gives uniqueness and peculiarity that represent added value
of products, of which the producer must have full awareness; this added value is a
starting point and defence, in buying and selling, against any attempt to lower the
sale price.
Information - Knowledge of the product’s uniqueness is associated with
the tools for communicating it. Information on typicality conveys the merits of
2 The Arca del Gusto (Ark of Taste) project began in 1996, to select and catalogue agri-food products
in danger of extinction. The Ark is headed by a commission of professional agronomists, zootechnicians, journalists, veterinarians, gourmets and chefs.
3 The Presidia project of “Slow Food Foundation for Biodiversity” was designed to protect small producers and their artisanal quality products, by improving production techniques, training and communication.
122
Experiences
the farmer’s labour, especially for educational purposes. As for Slow Food, information is provided by taste education and communication campaigns, such as
“Taste Workshops”, the “Master of Food”, school gardens, the initiatives of “Dairy
Resistance”4 and for the defence of artisanal fisheries.
Reciprocity - The combination of consumer-producer is anything but simple
buying and selling. Reciprocity between producer and consumer consists of mutual recognition of their respective roles and shows that we eat because there is
someone who produces, that the producer produces to make a living, and that people who eat must pay a fair and profitable price for the producer, so that the latter
can continue to produce. In other words, understanding that the survival of those
who eat is linked to that of those who produce and vice versa. Reciprocity is therefore a key starting point, to reconsider pricing of food and restore its proper value.
Expansion - Local products should be available all. Through events such as
“Mother Earth”, “Taste Fair”, “Cheese” and “Slow Fish” and through its publications, Slow Food provides information on the concept of quality products and promotes their consumption.
“Co-producer”: the consumer according to Slow Food
Communication of products’ typicality is effective if all individuals who use
them are fully involved. Moreover, conscious involvement by the consumer is precisely the basis for exploiting territorial agriculture, which can reward the spread
of certain products and diversify activities according to structural, natural and cultural characteristics of different geographical areas.
Strengthened by the paradigms mentioned above, informed and involved in
the recognition of quality products, the consumer is led to make informed choices.
In this way, the simple consumer becomes “co-producer”, who identifies himself
as an integral part of the production process and, as such, can influence the market and production by his choices. It is easy to understand, however, that in a global
and highly industrialised system, the ability to act as co-producer is fraught with
obstacles.
In practice, who can be co-producer? Co-producers are usually thought of
as various types of people: students, teachers, cooks, technicians, gourmets, pensioners, housewives and employees - in short, ordinary citizens who share the
Slow Food philosophy and who, thanks to the information at their disposal, are able
4
The Slow Food Dairy Resistance campaign supports small quality dairy production: its purpose is to
combat the loss of variety of cheeses, animal breeds, pastures, herders, skills and professions.
123
to make responsible choices. These people come to the world of food in a spirit of
complete harmony with the producer: the constant search for knowledge of what
it means to be the producer and, above all, with a strong desire to know the characteristics of products.
The behaviour of the co-producer and Slow Food support
The co-producer prefers food from local breeds or varieties, with commercial strategy based on two main features: reference to traditional processing techniques and the strong links among local actors. The co-producer pays attention
to the method of production, that it is respectful of the health of humans, animals
and the environment. All these features can be found in a traditional and informal
context, like farmers’ markets and “Earth Markets”.
The “farmer’s market” concept, as we know, was created to meet the needs
of producers and consumers: the former, by avoiding intermediaries, can maintain
competitive prices on the market and trim profit margins, giving the latter greater
transparency, freshness, seasonality and quality (De Marco and Mazzi, 2011).
Earth Markets are Slow Food projects that aim to create an international
network of farmers’ markets (currently 17 in Italy and 8 in 7 other countries), as
a meeting place where local producers can present their products directly to coproducers. Besides being a place of sale, the Earth Market becomes a place to
chat, eat and establish social relationships. Mutual trust lays the groundwork for
involvement, which can lead to fair prices that reward sustainable productive activities, attentive to the food culture of local communities and the protection of
biodiversity. A market of this type provides healthy food, fresh and in season, at a
sustainable price for producers and co-producers. Earth Markets also have a major impact on the local micro-economy, as demonstrated by the experience of Tel
Aviv. The Israeli situation, previously dominated by Kibbutz economy, viewed the
Earth Market as an opportunity to shift the focus to small-scale production, providing a strong stimulus to the development of short chain initiatives.
Another challenge that involves Slow Food, in collaboration with the Pollenzo University of Gastronomic Sciences and the Polytechnic of Milan, is the“Feeding
Milan”5 project. An opinion poll survey revealed that most respondents in Milan
5 “Feeding Milan – Energy for change” is a Slow Food Italy project in cooperation with the Cariplo
Foundation, Milan Polytechnic, South Milan Agricultural Park and the Municipality of Milan. The
goal, looking toward Expo 2015 and beyond, is to define a metropolitan agri-food model based on
balance between the city and its territory.
124
Experiences
would buy from the producer, given the chance; it was decided to include an Earth
Market in the South Milan Agricultural Park; in spite of increasing human activity it
still has 1,400 farms spread over 39,900 hectares of UAA. In addition to Earth Market, another short chain initiative provides the co-producer the so-called «Cassetta del Contadino” (Farmer’s Crate) directly at home, a delivery service for a
weekly crate of vegetables, according to seasonal and local availability, booked and
paid for on the Internet.
The growth of the co-producer is also consolidated through Slow Food’s interactions in the co-op network, for example, the “Alliance of Italian chefs and
Slow Food Presidia”: alliance chefs exploit Presidia products, by inserting at least
three on their menus, preferably those of their region. In this case, the supply
chain begins with the producer and arrives in the kitchen of the restaurateur, providing the co-producer further access to quality food at a fair price.
The short chain, accompanied by education for sustainable production and
attentive consumption of local food, can be an asset to improve the food system in
developing countries. With this in mind, Slow Food has started the “A Thousand
Gardens in Africa” project, which envisages the creation of community gardens
and educational services to support the development of small-scale economies.
People involved in the project are given the opportunity to cultivate local plant species in a sustainable way, then following a very short supply chain: from garden to
school canteen or from garden to market.
The Slow Food co-producer is also involved in the following initiatives of
sustainable supply:
a) in “periodic” joint purchasing groups (JPGs), i.e. involving the acquisition of
Presidia products at particular times of the year. For example, in the case of
specialties such as Morozzo capons and Saluzzo blonde hens, the JPG is
set up around the Christmas holidays. Another example is the buying group
linked to Dairy Resistance: Slow Food periodically offers a selection of cheeses
made from raw milk produced by small artisan producers, to support their
activities;
b)
in the project under study, in line with the experiences of the French AMAP
and American CSA, distribution models were analysed by Slow Food to
establish a functional synthesis in Italy that can improve access to food and
involve the co-producer in production. These models call for both sides to
invest initial capital, and to decide what species to plant and which cultivation techniques to use. The farm also welcomes any co-producer willing to
perform minor manual labour such as harvesting and weeding.
125
Conclusions
The Italian agricultural sector has undergone profound changes in recent
decades, with a gradual disappearance of small farms in favour of larger units.
According to ISTAT figures (2012), compared to an overall reduction in utilised agricultural area (UAA) of 2.3%, for a total of 13,213,000 ha, average farm size has
grown considerably over the last decade, from 5.5 ha of UAA per farm in 2000 to
7.9 ha in 2010.
The disappearance of small-scale farms may be counterproductive, both for
biodiversity and for traditional knowledge. For this reason, the search for quality food at fair prices must be accompanied by a good knowledge of the value of
the products. Slow Food offers taste education through such tools as training and
information as a way to become co-producers rather than mere consumers, and
able to make sustainable choices.
The co-producer is actively committed to short supply circuits, which represent an opportunity to improve the income of producers and ensure the survival of
many small farms, thanks to higher margins, lower costs and greater autonomy
within the agri-industrial sector.
In the light of the results achieved by Slow Food projects, certain social dynamics can lead to the transition from consumers to citizen co-producers, aware
of their purchasing power and capable of influencing both the market and production.
Bibliography
Burdese R. (2012), Responsible consumption, The Mediterranean Diet for sustainable regional development, Mediterra CIHEAM, Presses de Sciences Po, Paris,
pp. 227-243.
CNMS (2008), Guida al Consumo Critico. Informazioni sul comportamento delle
imprese per un consumo consapevole, Centro Nuovo Modello di Sviluppo, 5° Edizione-Editrice Missionaria Italiana-EMI della Coop. SERMIS, Bologna.
Commissione Europea (2011). Libro Verde Politica di informazione e promozione
dei prodotti agricoli: una strategia a forte valore aggiunto europeo per promuovere
i sapori dell’Europa, COM (436) definitivo, 14.7.2011, Bruxelles.
De Marco N. - Mazzi F. (a cura di) (2011). Relazione sullo stato dell’ambiente-Agricoltura, Ufficio di supporto alle attività divulgative, Roma.
126
Experiences
Esposti R. - Lucatelli S. - Peta E. A. (2008). Strategie di innovazione e trend dei consumi in Italia: il caso dell’agro-alimentare, Materiale Uval. Ministero dello Sviluppo
Economico, Roma.
ISTAT (2012), VI° censimento generale dell’agricoltura.
Masini S. - Scaffidi C. (2008), Sementi e Diritti, Grammatiche di libertà, Slow Food
Editore (Bra).
Migliorini P. - Scaltriti B. (2011), Valutazione di sostenibilità delle aziende agricole
del PAMS e delle loro filiere produttive, Relazione analisi territoriale, Ricerca agroambientale e socio-economica, Progetto Nutrire Milano.
Petrini C. (2005), Buono, Pulito e Giusto. Principi di nuova gastronomia, Einaudi
Editore, Torino.
Sitography
Earth Market Network, www.earthmarkets.net/.
Mille orti in Africa,
http://fondazioneslowfood.com/pagine/ita/orti/cerca.lasso?-id_pg=30 www.dps.
mef.gov.it/materialiuval.
127
Experiences
Reducing intermediaries:
the “Zolle” case in Rome
Rossella Guadagno1
Introduction2
In recent years, consumers increasingly want to eat “sustainably”, to the
point that the food system presents many unusual forms of organisation between consumers and producers, interpreting different degrees of “sustainability”
(Brown et al., 2009).
One of these initiatives, which is gaining increasing popularity, is the “box
scheme”, in which the consumer orders a box from the producer that contains local and seasonal produce, delivered at home or at a drop-off point (Brown et al.,
2009).
“Local” product refers to a certain vicinity, but consumers tend to associate this attribute with other features such as “small scale”, “green” and “quality”
(FSA, 2003). Understood in this way, local products are sustainable because they
reduce transport and provide an opportunity to improve income in the local community (DEFRA, 2002).
Box schemes have features that potentially meet all three criteria of sustainability, that is, being economically, ecologically and socially sustainable (Brundtland Commision, 1987), and contribute to a radical restructuring of food consumption patterns, not only at the individual level, but for families as well.
For farmers, the innovation cycle activated by box schemes is based on diversification, which can compensate the constraints imposed by seasonality and
dependence on weather conditions; consumers, however, include new species and
varieties in their diet, and become used to assessing the diversity of fruits and
vegetables available in each season (Brunori et al., 2010), acquiring new habits of
purchasing, diet, storage and preparation of food.
In this scenario, the Zolle cooperative is an innovative case of home delivery,
and has become the most popular in the city of Rome.
1 Researcher at CURSA (University Consortium for Socioeconomic and Environmental Research)
2
The article is the result of an interview with Simona Limentani, founding member of the Zolle cooperative.
129
The Zolle case
The Zolle idea began in Piedmont, where one of the current members, Simona Limentani, worked at an agricultural cooperative.
The cooperative hosted a group of Japanese farmers, who had already
adopted box schemes as a way of selling their agricultural products in the early
‘80s. Following a severe environmental crisis in Japan, some farmers revaluated
their business by offering to sell their products to families they knew in the city, if
they were willing to forego choice and to seek advice directly from them.
This initiative was seen by the co-op managers as an alternative form of
marketing that might also allow their small and medium size member farms to
sell their products more easily.
Later, Simona returned to Rome and sought to continue the work in Piedmont by involving Ghila Debenedetti, and together they formed the Zolle cooperative in 2008. Zolle currently employs twenty people, including collaborators and
employees, and this alone indicates the growth of the phenomenon.
The cooperative has two fundamental objectives: to support the local economy, beginning with agricultural support, and to help more people eat good, healthy
food, getting to know producers and production methods in an urban context.
Today, Zolle is one of the most widespread forms of home delivery of short
chain products in Rome. The products are delivered in a “zolla” (box) that varies in
size and content according to customer preference, and is delivered once a week
on set days and according to requests.
In this quarter, Zolle has moved 340 tonnes of fruits and vegetables, 19
tonnes of cheese, 18 tonnes of meat, 172,600 eggs and large quantities of bread,
pasta, sauce and olive oil from several small to medium sized farms, mostly in
Lazio.
Zolle farms - During the year, Zolle works with about 90 farms throughout
Lazio, but only has an on-going relationship with about thirty. This depends largely
on the type of products they provide, which is why some partnerships are limited to
specific times of the year (during holidays, for example).
Zolle is preparing a manual outlining criteria for the choice of farms. The
choice is made based on a range of values: environmental management; social
relevance, that is, how the farm fits into the social and territorial context; behaviour of the farm toward work, that is, if it provides employment, to whom and in
what form; the economic structure of the farm; the quality of production; commercial policies adopted; the relationship with its suppliers. Account is also taken
130
Experiences
of how the farm is conducted, giving priority to owner-operator farmers or head
farmers who control the whole production process and strategic choices (regardless of whether the farm is family-operated). The choice is not made solely by considering what is on the farm, but also taking into account its history and its future
prospects.
About 80% of the farms Zolle works with provide organic products, and some
producers farm as a second job and not as their full-time occupation.
Zolle consumers - Zolle has about 1,500 consumers, including families with
young children, singles aged 30-35 with medium-high cultural level, able to use
the Internet and familiar with new technologies. Consumers are economically
comfortable with the exception of people who are not particularly wealthy but have
a high level of education.
The interview revealed that the majority of Zolle consumers are satisfied
and enthusiastic with the home delivery service and the quality of the products.
Sometimes, they try to influence supply with requests, but the Zolle “strategy” is
based on demand adapted to supply, based on stated parameters of seasonality
and quality, and not vice versa, creating economic relations on trust.
Collection and distribution - Farm products are delivered by producers to
the distribution centre at the Zolle headquarters, where they are then prepared
for distribution. Zolle, however, is considering direct harvesting, to optimise time
especially for fresh produce.
Typically, fruit and vegetables and “sensitive” products are delivered less
than 24 hours from harvest. Meat, instead, takes longer because it keeps better. In
any case, collection of vegetables is made by order, which must be communicated
to the farm within four days before delivery, so as to plan the harvest.
The delivery crate contains seasonal products, a descriptive leaflet and a
recipe for possible preparation. On the Zolle site, more detailed information is
available about the geographical origin of the product and the farm that provides it.
Deliveries, as already mentioned, occur once a week on set days (Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday and Friday) for each area of Rome. Distribution is by van and
bicycle, “bypassing” a series of traffic problems in the city and allowing for greater
efficiency.
Environmental, social and economic aspects of Zolle
Zolle’s sustainability can be seen from different aspects, some explicitly
stated and others inherent in nature.
131
With regard to the environmental aspect, for example, the share of products
sold comes from eco-compatible production and this is highlighted in the communication addressed to consumers, describing both the farm and the production
process. Zolle also adopts policies for reducing and recycling of used packaging.
Socially, however, it seems to have an indirect, and difficult to assess, value
on relationships: for example, it happens that regular consumers, especially young
people, organise dinners on days when the box is delivered, or that several people
from the same building share the same crate, and may decide to order a larger
one.
Distribution of the products by van and bike not only facilitates delivery in
city traffic, but also provides environmental and social benefits; on the one hand, in
fact, it reduces emissions of pollutants and, on the other, it supports employment,
by requiring more staff.
Another aspect Zolle emphasises is more closely tied to nutrition; as mentioned, the crate always contains a recipe on how to cook products, and this is in
itself a “rule” of nutrition education that “establishes” a relationship with the product, and allows discovery and/or rediscovery of its organoleptic qualities.
However, as for the economic value of the products, the purchase price from
producers varies according to the farm, their experience in sales in this channel,
and possibly the relationship already established with Zolle. Typically, price is
linked to production costs and, in the case of meat, also the costs of slaughter.
Zolle’s selling prices, to which delivery cost must be added (about 6-7 euro),
may be higher than those of large-scale retail and local markets, but are often
lower than organic products sold in GDA (Grande Distribuzione Alimentare - largescale grocery distribution) or organised sales points.
Conclusions
Zolle is a form of home delivery whose success depends on several factors:
the supply of a wide diversity of products that can satisfy the tastes of consumers;
flexibility in ordering without obligation for the consumer to subscribe to particular forms of membership; people’s growing need to trust a production system and
what is behind what they eat; a very clear shared project of agricultural support
among consumers and producers; continuous information on products and producer farms.
Despite Zolle’s success, there are still some problems to be overcome in the
future so that box schemes can work more smoothly, such as working on logistics
132
Experiences
and introducing legislation to allow products to be sold by item and not only by
weight, depending on how purchase is made from producers.
Surely, Zolle’s example is a positive model of “green economy” founded on
transparency, trust, communication and the concept of sustainability, not limited
to words, but put into practice by good example and perseverance, to create the
right balance of supply and demand.
Bibliography
Brown E. - Dury S. - Holdsworth M. (2009), Motivations of consumers that use
local, organic, fruit and vegetable box schemes in Central England and Southern
France, Appetite, 53, pp. 183-188.
Brundtland Commission. (1987), Our common future: report of the World Commission on Environment & Development, www.un-documents.net/wcwd-ocf.htm.
Brunori G. - Rossi A. - Malandrin V. (2010), Co-producing Transition: Innovation
Processes in Farms Adhering to Solidarity-based Purchase Groups (GAS) in Tuscany, Italy, International Journal of Soc. of Agr & Food, Vol.18, n.1, pp. 28-53.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2002), The strategy
for sustainable food and farming, facing the future, DEFRA, London.
133
Experiences
The experience of consumers’ co-ops with
“Purchasing Groups”
Alessandro Mostaccio1
Introduction
The “Turin Consumer Movement” association, in the Province of Turin,
has been experimenting with short chain projects with Purchasing Groups since
2006.
Thanks to the province of Turin, through the “Programme of public policies
to combat social vulnerability and poverty”, a project began in 2008 to establish
and manage forms of collective buying in the provincial territory. These forms
arose as a response to the need for preserving a quality of food rich in meaning,
also in a situation of social vulnerability, to promote, through the aggregation
of demand, sharing paths of awareness and responsibility towards more sober
styles of consumption, less exposed to the “turbulence” of the market.
We started in 2007 with an initial network of four purchasing groups. Over
the years, the number of groups has grown to 12 and involved more than 1,500
people; considering that 75% of our members belong to families of 2-3 people,
with growing children, it can be estimated that the food impact of this project has
affected about 4,000 people in the past five years.
The initial price (paid to the producer by the Consumer Movement) coincides with the final price (paid by the consumer), with the occasional exception
of transportation costs, meaning in cases where so-called “free port” cannot be
obtained.
In 2012, having achieved encouraging results, we are trying, through an
INTERREGIONAL “ALCOTRA” project, to improve the logistics of the Groups and
technically upgrade it, opening it to joint purchasing groups (JPGs) in the city of
Turin, to create a real logistics platform of purchase for these groups, independent of traditional supply chains.
Today, about a dozen JPGs have decided to “affiliate themselves” with our
platform.
1 President, Piedmont Consumers’ Movement.
135
“COLLECTIVE is BETTER!” The experience begins
“COLLECTIVE is BETTER!” is the operating name of the project funded by the
Province of Turin, Department of active citizen policies, from 2007 to 2011, whose
main objective was to test a concrete new model of economic relations between
producers and consumers.
In the short chain project, the chain is reduced to a minimum, meaning only
two parties, the producer and the consumer, whereas the Consumer Movement acts
as a “purchasing centre”. This model rests its strength not only on the shortened
supply chain, but specifically aims to experiment with a new way of relating between
farmers and consumers. It is a relationship based on respect, transparency and correctness, founded on fairness and the right balance of the needs of everyone. The
intent, therefore, is to try to reverse the trend of “depersonalisation” of relationships,
based mainly on the process of “branding” of the product, with the brand name/logo
as a unique means to influence eating habits through mass advertising campaigns.
With COLLECTIVE is BETTER it was decided to give each person, whatever
their earning capacity, the opportunity to consume quality products, particularly
certified organic products. Since 2007 we have tried to set up the project from a
pro-competitive standpoint. In this way, prices have improved as order volumes have
increased (and the Consumers Movement was able to renegotiate prices), and as, for
a given product, we were able to identify companies that understood the specificity
of our experimentation and were willing to stipulate in a transparent manner prices
applicable to such a “driven” short chain, in which the price of the product corresponds perfectly to what the producer pockets.
Collective Purchasing Groups (CPGs) work on a weekly fixed-day basis (Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday). Every Monday evening, members receive a newsletter with a weekly list of products to be delivered the following week. The association
updates the basket of goods, gathers collective orders from each CPG, creates a
single order which it sends to the producers, receives deliveries from producers at
the central warehouse, divides the goods on the basis of aggregated orders for each
CPG and delivers goods ordered the previous week to each facilitator (CPG coordinator). Each CPG location (normally made available free of charge by the host municipalities) is open three/four hours (usually from 4 to 8 pm) on a fixed day (Tuesday,
Wednesday or Thursday), when members can pick up the previous week’s orders,
pay on delivery, and at the same time place an order for the following week (alternately, orders may be forwarded by e-mail to the coordinator of the CPG).
136
Experiences
“MY BIO”: from organic to “0 km”
All products in the COLLECTIVE is BETTER! basket are Italian, with the exception of those not produced in Italy that necessarily come from abroad, such as
tea, coffee and sugar, which are supplied by the “Equo e Solidale” (fair and supportive) trade circuit. Many products are from Piedmont, while others come from
Emilia-Romagna, Abruzzo, Puglia and Sicily. Since the beginning of COLLECTIVE
is BETTER! we have focused on organic, territorial and, consequently, seasonal
products. In 2009, after two years, with the growing number of members, we realised that if we limited ourselves to offering “0 km” products, we would inevitably
have to increase the number of our suppliers, especially for fruit and vegetables.
Almost none of our suppliers, in fact, would have been able to meet our needs for
quantity.
This led to the “MY BIO” project, funded by the Piedmont Region, to achieve
self-sufficiency of local supplies for organic fruit and vegetables in season. The
goal is to build a network of small and medium organic farmers in Piedmont, who
are interested in establishing alternatives to traditional economic relations. The
result was a large enough network of producers to provide, firstly, organic supplies from Piedmont (and thus 0 km) through the short chain to about 500 families
enrolled in the CPGs within the COLLECTIVE IS BEST! project in 2008 and 2009.
The objective of MY BIO was to encourage conditions for the supply of organic fruit and vegetables from Piedmont in a harmonious and equitable manner:
harmonious, as the result of a strategic planning, shared and participatory, by analysing needs to reconcile the principles of transparency, respect for the environment and health of consumers with producers’ need to make a fair return from
their labour and reduce business risk; equitable, as the result of an agreement
that benefits both “contractors”.
The benefits for farmers can be summarised as follows:
-
lowered risk of unsold produce (at least for the MY BIO part of their output),
through careful participatory planning of sowing and the promise of subsequent purchase;
-
fair purchase price, from genuine bargaining and not dictated unilaterally by
the trade policies of large-scale retail or the interests of wholesalers.
Consumers reap economic benefits, because:
-
total transparency is ensured, both in price setting and traceability of products (which also means knowing who produces - and how - what arrives on
their tables);
137
-
there is effective cost saving compared to equivalent products or branded
products;
-
the wholesomeness of the product, producer reliability and the link with the
agricultural land are guaranteed.
MY BIO proposes a short chain model in which consumer relations are clear
and transparent because they are based on participation, respect and mutual
awareness. A model in which the price is fair, traceable and trackable.
Such ambitious goals have been attained, in the absence of substantial financial resources, only through the involvement of people who were already working to rebuild the economic relationships of the supply chain. Hence the decision
to create a partnership that involved:
-
The Province of Turin, Department of active citizen policies, which provided
the MY BIO project with the work and experience of qualified personnel in
the field of organic farming and short chain projects;
-
The C.R.A.B. (Organic Farming Reference Centre) which brought to MY BIO,
in addition to its experience and professionalism, the experience of “ADOPT
ORGANIC”, a project that won the “CAMPUS 2009 - new agriculture fair”
“Campus Flowers” competition for innovation in promoting and marketing
agricultural products;
-
Coldiretti Turin, an association of farmers in the Province of Turin, which
brought to MY BIO, in addition to its knowledge of the territory, its experience and representation of an association involved for years in an attempt
to counteract the most harmful effects of “globalised” mass commerce,
with projects and initiatives that draw attention to local and seasonal consumption.
After a year of work, the practical objective of supplying fruit and vegetables of the area to all the members of the CPGs has been achieved. Through a
tender, we selected 23 new CPG suppliers, all organic farmers in the Province of
Turin, with whom we entered into a specific agreement to set prices, quantities and
operating procedures shared by all suppliers. To date, 18 of these 23 farms regularly supply our CPGs, and the basket includes about 200 organic products, about
twenty of which alternate according to season.
Purchasing groups as an alternative
After five years of short chain projects, in an attempt to provide a real alternative to those who had the time and inclination to change their own style of
138
Experiences
consumption, at least in part, we still wonder about the reasons for the success of
this experience.
Certainly, it’s not a bad thing being able to eat organic, mostly locally grown,
saving money as well. But if you consider that you can only pick up what you ordered the previous week, and that it must be done on a fixed day and at a fixed time,
and then, sometimes, a couple of the 20 products ordered are missing, you can
also understand the system’s limits. Joining a CPG requires, by necessity, a certain
propensity for organising/planning of your weekly food supply. For example, you
have to start by consuming products that deteriorate more easily, and then others.
It is also necessary to take a little time to prepare (our basket does not include
fourth range products). Finally, if you can only order once a week, if you forget
something, you have to wait until the following week.
CPGs, however, are successful because they meet a need for clarity on the
fundamental choices that motivate our actions of consumption. Our products are
different from those in hyper/supermarkets, where big brands compete for shelf
space with million-dollar advertising campaigns. In contrast, none of our products
are advertised through the media.
Respect for agricultural labour, fairness in supply-chain relationships, environmental protection and the desire to boost the local economy show that an
alternative to this system of distribution is possible.
If we are honest, but a little cynical, we recognise that collective purchasing
at one of our CPGs is a responsible gesture, but that gives satisfaction, for now,
mainly for those who use them. Not because ethical grounds are less important,
but because the overall economy involved in this kind of supply chain cannot reverse the overall impact of “economic neo-liberalism” as applied to food products,
and thus to agriculture.
The role of witness, first on its own behalf, of one’s own family and a small
community like a collective purchasing group, becomes strategically important in
restoring confidence in self-determination and to widen the cracks in a system
that only large companies like. To experience acts of consumption geared primarily to one’s own good and that of the community and the environment (e.g. the
agricultural community in the Province of Turin) encourages determination and
reclaiming sovereignty over our food and the territory.
One may also believe that the success of an experience as effort-intensive
as purchasing groups may derive from the thousand food scares we see regularly
narrated on television: “mad cow”, contaminated chickens, radioactive fish, blue
mozzarella and so on. Maybe we are approaching the truth: awareness is spread-
139
ing that the penetration of big industry in mass food production is not, in itself, a
guarantee of food safety.
Those who join a purchasing group are not “fearful” people, but are certainly
aware of the risks involved in having broken the balance between man and nature.
Nowadays bearing witness is an initial form of conscious opposition to a pattern
of consumption - and hence of development - in which one no longer believes. If
practiced collectively, bearing witness becomes a real commitment and, if genuine, an indispensable basis for participation.
We can infer that this is the key to understanding the desire for concrete
experiences at the family level; since consumers can only choose product quality
subjectively, this means that many consumers are finally changing their patterns
of consumption. And critical consumption is becoming strongest in countries that
have reached the top (almost the crack) of this violent neo-liberal model of development. With the increasing quality/quantity of conscious consumers and critics,
in terms of quality as well as environmental impact of products, or ethical impact,
we begin to create the conditions for a more responsible market, better targeted to
their expectations. In this sense, critical collective purchasing can put the tenets of
traditional supply chains dangerously into question. And most importantly, it helps
to lay bare the major inequities in every supply chain; and it is from this awareness
that individual and collective “critical” experiences have their origin and identity, as
alternatives to the current organisation of relationships in individual supply chains.
140
Printing completed in November 2013
by CSR Centro Stampa e Riproduzione Ltd
Via di Pietralata, 157 – 00158 Roma
Tel. 06 4182113 - Fax 06 4506671 – [email protected]