A broad range of food production-distribution-consumption configurations can be characterised as short food supply chains (SFSCs), such as farmers' markets, farm shops, collective farmers' shops, community-supported agriculture and solidarity purchase groups. More generally, a food supply chain can be defined as "short" when it is characterized by short physical distance or involvement of few intermediaries between producers and consumers. Being used interchangeably, alternative food networks fall under the same umbrella as SFSCs. Often guided by principles of sustainability, SFSCs are shaped by recent international policy frameworks. While SFSCs boast strengths, they also encounter challenges in their operations.
Origin of the concept SFSCs were originally identified as examples of "resistance" of farmers to modernization of the food system, characterized by the development of supply chains based on long-distance trade.Van Der Ploeg, Jan Douwe, Henk Renting, Gianluca Brunori, Karlheinz Knickel, Joe Mannion, Terry Marsden, and others, "Rural Development: From Practices and Policies Towards Theory", Sociologia Ruralis, 40 (2000), 391–408 <doi:10.1111/1467-9523.00156> Resistance consists in the fact that, by selling directly to consumers, farmers bypass intermediaries and thus can develop autonomous marketing strategies based on differentiation. These strategies give farmers the possibility of keeping a bigger share of the value added within the farm and within the local economies. They have also surfaced as sustainable solutions to tackle the current and future sustainability challenges of the food system, such as promoting food sovereignty, which relates to a citizens' ability to access nutritious, local, and sustainably produced foods for their diets. Given these characteristics, short food supply chains are increasingly taken into consideration by rural food policies as a driver of change in the food system and a policy tool for rural development.
The analysis of short food supply chains has fed a broader debate on "alternative food chains",Ilbery, B., and D. Maye, 2005. "Alternative (shorter) food supply chains and specialist livestock products in the Scottish-English borders", Environment and planning, A 37 (5): 823–844. "alternative food networks",Goodman, D., and M. Goodman. 2008. «Alternative food networks». International encyclopedia of human geography, pp.(Oxford: Elsevier). and "sustainable food chains".Roep, D., and H. Wiskerke. 2006. Nourishing networks: fourteen lessons about creating sustainable food supply chains. Reed Business Information, Wageningen University.
Specificity SFSCs are considered the most appropriate channels for organic and locally specific products and for small farmers. In fact, a closer relation between producers and consumers gives producers the opportunity to develop a richer communication, and to identify market niches. IIbery and Maye state, "the crucial characteristic of SFSCs is that foods which reach the final consumer have been transmitted through an SC that is 'embedded' with value-laden information concerning the mode of production, provenance, and distinctive quality assets of the product".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 2003, volume 35, pages 393–411 Likewise, Marsden et al. (2000) state that "a common characteristic, however, is the emphasis upon the type of relationship between the producer and the consumer in these supply chains, and the role of this relationship in constructing value and meaning, rather than solely the type of product itself".Marsden, T., Banks, J. and Bristow, G., (2000), «Food supply chain approaches: exploring their role in rural development». Sociologia ruralis 40 (4): 424–438. SFSCs have the capacity to redefine the production of food items outside the industrialized food system, creating a disruptive process aimed at enabling primary producers to earn a larger share of the profit generated by food production.
Dimensions of proximity In order to develop a definition of SFSCs, there are a number of candidate criteria that may be used. SFSCs have been conceptualized in terms of Dimensions of Proximity. Kebir and Torre (2012) were perhaps some of the first to propose such a conceptualization, classifying SFSCs based on several dimensions: Geographical Proximity, "Organized" ProximityKebir, L. and Torre A. (2012) Geographical proximity and new short food supply chains. In: Lazzeretti, Luciana (ed.) 2012. Creative Industries and Innovation in Europe: Concepts, Measures and Comparative Case Studies. Routledge. and Social Proximity. The three are defined as:
Geographical proximity: physically close, and is measured as a distance between producers and consumers, meaning the distance between where the food is produced and consumed must be shortened. To elaborate, it is the gap in distance between the place of primary production and the resulting final consumption. Organizational proximity: This principle extends to the organizational structure of the food supply chain. It refers to streamlining the number of actors involved, ideally with only one or no intermediaries between the producer and the consumer. Social proximity: This involves direct (with very few intermediaries) and trustful relations between a producer and consumer who know each other and the product. Including solidarity between producers and consumers, civic engagement in the local food system and (re)connection with local food traditions and identities. Additionally, knowledge and information is shared by the producer to develop a relationship with the consumer. Social proximity focuses on the relationships created during the development of short chains, including how the consumers feel about the producers.
Classification SFSCs are classified by Renting et al. as face-to-face, proximate, or extended. Face to face are characterized by physical encounters between producers and consumers (as in the case of farmers' markets). In the proximate short food supply chains, producers do not necessarily engage in product distribution (as in the case of consumers' cooperatives). In the extended short food supply chains, although geographical distances between producers and consumers may be long, consumers are aware of the identity of the producers and of the products (such as in the case of fair trade and protected denominations of origin).
Community networks Alternative food networks (AFNs) fall within the same category as SFSCs. They offer an alternative to conventional food systems by aiming to localize and socialize food production, distribution, and consumption. AFNs strive to champion local, equitable, and high-quality food options. Alternative Food Networks (AFNs) exhibit diversity, ranging from isolated trials to interconnected community-based entities. Their structures may reflect bottom-up approaches, and how alternative they are depends on the values upheld, the initiative's objectives, and the extent of departure from conventional market norms. The origin of AFNs might have arisen from consumers, producers, or a mix of both, functioning either as single or community ventures, and can range from entirely profit-driven to only socially motivated endeavors. Academic discourse categorizes AFNs according to various criteria, including their temporal and spatial reach, the degree of engagement from producers and consumers, the quantity of intermediaries engaged, the organizational framework and economic models.
Sustainability SFSCs have arisen as viable solutions to tackle the future concerns of food systems. Managing the economic, social, and environmental impacts contributes to the sustainability of the supply chain. They have the potential to support and strengthen urban-rural food economies, promote local bonds and improve social relationships among stakeholders in the food system. Other benefits have been identified, reporting SFSCs having positive effects on society and favorable economic outcomes as well as a reduction in environmental impacts. These benefits can also be extended to other organizational forms of SFSCs, such as AFNs.
A common characteristic for many SFSCs is their potential to improve producers' incomes. When looking at the local level, SFSCs add to their economic and rural development through increasing local finances. Shortening the food chain encourages social sustainability through trust, solidarity, and shared values between producers and consumers, facilitated by closer proximity among supply chain actors. Shortening the food chain also creates positive social sustainability outcomes, such as consumer empowerment, promotion of healthy diets, and social inclusion. In terms of environmental sustainability, SFSCs can play a role in reducing food miles and greenhouse gas emissions. They often prioritize organic or ecological production methods, minimizing the environmental harm associated with synthetic pesticides, insecticides, monocropping, and more. Additionally, SFSCs have the potential to contribute to reductions in food waste and energy consumption.
Policy development Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, established by the United Nations, encompasses 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) aimed at meeting present needs while protecting the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Central to these SDGs is the principle of sustainability. Among these goals is the promotion of decent work and economic growth, which involves the creation of sustainable employment opportunities. Another objective is to encourage responsible consumption and production practices, which entail waste reduction and the adoption of renewable energy sources. Additionally, one of the sustainability targets pertains to supply chains and their contribution to climate action by minimizing their carbon footprint. The role of food and its various societal dimensions, is acknowledged as essential for achieving the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) established by the international community.
New Urban Agenda (NUA)
With urban populations experiencing increased growth and nearly 80% of food already being consumed in urban areas, building resilient and economically prosperous food systems integrated across landscapes is essential. The FAO (2019) have created a 3E approach to assist governments to promote better food policies through laws and governance, to encourage investment and data transparency. It uses context-specific actions like supporting local supply chains and social programs to build thriving communities and sustainable food systems. It shares successful strategies with other governments locally and globally to create a ripple effect and establish international standards for food governance.
Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP)
In 2015, the Milan Urban Food Policy Pact (MUFPP), a joint declaration among the largest cities and metropolitan areas, was created to strengthen the implementation of SDGs within urban food systems. This pact urges institutions to recognize the role of food systems in urban planning through six categories of interventions articulated in 37 recommended actions (RAs). These commitments now serve as the basis of food policy agendas for over 200 major urban conglomerations globally, influencing food distribution and consumption patterns among their 400 million inhabitants.