Alternative food networks in the European Union

Summary

This paper provides a qualitative analysis of three European Alternative Food Networks (AFNs) as case examples of the growing number of AFNs which seek to address socio-economic imbalances within the agri-food system of the Global North. AFNs such as the Fair Trade movement and other development organisations have historically promoted more sustainable practice within a Global North/Global South development paradigm, meaning that they focus on improving working conditions and livelihoods of Global South food producers and processors in the context of unbalanced trade relations and consumption patterns in the global North (N-S AFNs). Due to cooperation and development agendas evolving, more actors are forming what the authors term North-North AFNs (N-N AFNs) which focus on agri-food patterns specifically in the Global North.

The researchers highlight that EU food systems which rely on conventional agricultural practices such as synthetic pesticides and fertilisers are contributing to GHG emissions, biodiversity loss, water pollution and soil erosion and degradation. They also note several other issues, including that a significant proportion of total EU energy use is consumed in the agri-food sector, there is increasingly concentrated bargaining power amongst a few supply chain actors, EU farmers’ incomes have been decreasing, the agricultural workforce has widespread exploitation issues and there is significant healthy food access inequality. The Farm to Fork strategy was launched in 2020 to try and address these and other issues but has faced implementation issues with policies being scaled down or abandoned. 

The authors argue that these failures relate to an overreliance on market-driven mechanisms and betting on consumers making more sustainable choices despite steadily declining purchasing power. They emphasise the importance of grassroots movements and farmer centred policies to better address these issues. They cite an extensive body of literature which aims to study the potential of the diverse and expanding imaginaries and practices which have been developed to combat these policy issues and the concentration of power in the agri-food system from the ground up. These initiatives, such as the Fair Trade movement, can be grouped under the umbrella term Alternative Food Networks which often aim to improve the sustainability of Global North/Global South trade relations and consumption patterns.

Increasingly, the authors argue, these organisations are expanding their initiatives to address domestic issues to improve the social and environmental conditions within the EU agri-food sector. To study why these initiatives are forming and how they may differ from N-S AFNs, the authors ask what “are the goals that guide North-North alternative food initiatives vis-à-vis EU food system challenges?” and what “are the mechanisms they use to realise them?” They use qualitative semi-structured interviews with three EU N-N AFNs in Belgium, Italy and Greece to explore these questions. The first is a marketing cooperative formed by a group of producers in Belgium which facilitates the distribution and sales of its members to local supermarkets, restaurants and schools. Originally designed as a N-S AFN, it has since undergone restructuring to form a global network of AFNs including N-N initiatives. The second is a domestic Fair Trade label formed between Italian producers and two Fair Trade intermediaries which manage supply chain logistics of moving ethically sourced products to wholesalers and retailers in several other EU countries. The third is a cooperative shop in Greece formed by a group of citizens to sell local products directly from ethical small-scale farmers and manufacturers in Greece.

The authors used a previously proposed analytical framework to assess the three case studies on four key factors: fairness, accessibility, shortness and sustainability (FASS). They also consider three domains of regulation: governance, supply chain and value. Fairness was defined as an equitable distribution of the benefits and burdens among actors within AFNs including farmers, farm workers, supply chain workers and other enterprises. Accessibility was considered to be the degree to which food provided by the initiative can be accessed by consumers. Shortness was characterised by both how geographically oriented initiatives were in a given community and to what extent intermediaries that operate between farm and fork were reduced. Sustainability was defined as the capacity of the AFN to maintain and regenerate the ecological environment which supports the AFN initiatives. 

The authors argue that N-N AFNs use different regulatory mechanisms than previously studied N-S AFNs but do not yet appear to have a coherent and consistent way of organising which would make them a standalone AFN model distinct from N-S AFNs. The initiatives studied vary significantly in how they emphasise and interpret the key FASS factors. The authors also find that each AFN used different combinations of governance, supply chain and value mechanisms depending on what they viewed as the most pressing social and environmental issues in their context but lacked consistency across the initiatives studied. 

They find that generally, the N-N AFNs share a similar focus on fairness and shortness but show less consistency in regards to accessibility. Sustainable practices were the most polarised across the AFNs studied. Access to market and better overall compensation for small-scale or local producers were the most highly shared values across the N-N AFNs. Many of the N-N AFNs are well situated within local cultural and social systems but some of the initiatives have not successfully widened the participation of local communities. The initiatives varied significantly in their commitment to include discriminated groups as agricultural workers and create affordable products for low-income consumers. There were also mixed ambitions and impacts related to the environmental sustainability of the logistics and agricultural practices associated with the N-N AFNs. A visual representation of the relative comparison of the three case studies based on frequency of these categories can be seen in Figure 1. These frequencies were derived from the qualitative analysis of the interview data and validated by presenting intermediary categories to interviewees to trigger feedback and comment.

Figure 1: Three case studies assessed for their relative ambition and impact measured by the frequency from qualitative data analysis across four key factors (fairness, accessibility, shortness and sustainability) and three domains of regulation (governance, supply chain and value). 

The authors find that the three N-N AFN case studies do not present a distinct group from other AFN initiatives and only blend previously documented AFN configurations. They do note that there is an increasing diversity of N-N projects which use various regulatory mechanisms to try and address significant issues with the EU agri-food sector. The authors argue that whilst N-N AFNs might not be categorically distinct from other previously studied and established initiatives, there is potential for further innovation that integrates N-N and N-S activities which may strengthen the impact of these initiatives across the key dimensions of fairness, accessibility, shortness and sustainability. 

Abstract

Alternative Food Networks (AFNs) have grown globally since the late 1990s to promote responsible consumption and production in the agri-food sector, although their expansion varies across countries and socio-economic contexts. Initially, the Fair Trade movement and development organizations established AFNs to address socio-environmental challenges faced by producers in the Global South. However, as cooperation and development agendas evolve, more Fair Trade and development actors are forming North-North AFNs (N-N AFNs) to tackle socio-economic imbalances in agri-food systems of the Global North, especially in the EU. Despite their prevalence, these initiatives and their structures lack extensive academic study. Drawing on Le Velly’s framework for the analysis of AFNs, this paper conducts an in-depth qualitative analysis of three N-N AFN initiatives in Belgium, Italy, and Greece. The analysis demonstrates that while these initiatives share common objectives in terms of fairness and shortness of the agri-food system, variations arise in terms of its accessibility and environmental sustainability. Furthermore, the findings emphasize that there is no one-size-fits-all model for N-N AFNs across Europe, as different organizational arrangements – such as farmers’ cooperatives, consumers’ cooperatives, and business partnerships – emerge in response to specific project goals within each national context.

Reference

Alberti, N., Esposito, G., Ferrando, T., 2024. Organizing sustainable and fair agri-food systems: exploring the role of north-north alternative food networks in the European Union. Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems 0, 1–42. 

Read more here. See also the TABLE explainer What is food sovereignty?