glamurglamur.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/glamur-booklet.pdf · l atv i( bsc) w ld u ebrs go“...
TRANSCRIPT
The research leading to these results has received funding
from the european union’s seventh framework programme
for research, technological development and demonstration
under grant agreement n° 311778.
GLAMURassessing thesustainability ofGlobal andLocal foodchains
2 46
8
1012
14
16
WP3: Database Development
WP4: Comparing foodchains
WP5: Participatory integrated assessmentWP6:
Policy analysis andrecommendations
GLAMUR’s Policyrecommendations
GLAMUR’s Main Messages
WP2: Scoping / framing:Analysing thecommunication offood chains andtheir performance
2
GLAMUR: assessing
the sustainability
of Global and Local
food chains
What is Global food? And when is food Local? Howshould food chain sustainability performance be meas-ured? These are some of the questions that theGLAMUR project has addressed over its three years ofresearch (February 2013 – January 2016).
Operating under the EU 7th Framework Research Pro-gramme, the GLAMUR Consortium (15 partners from10 European countries) investigated how the sustain-ability performance of food chains varies along theLocal-Global continuum, what characterises perform-ance differences between more global and more localfood chains, and what the implications are for Europeanand Global policymaking and public-private strategiesto increase food chain sustainability.
Food systems operate at multiple scales and layers andGLAMUR used a multi-criteria assessment approach tocompare Global and Local food chain performance,adopting a more holistic understanding of sustainabilitythat included five dimensions - environmental, eco-nomic, social, health and ethical.
The end goal was to provide consumers and policymakers with better knowledge and decision-making
tools to enable more sustainable food choices andpathways. Reflexive governance by value chain playersis also envisaged to address the challenge of shapingsustainability performance in a way that captures foodsystem complexity but also develops clear policy op-tions.
What did GLAMUR do?In a nutshell:
• GLAMUR developed and validated a perform-ance criteria matrix, with 24 attributes for assess-ment and comparison of food chains along thelocal-global continuum.
• GLAMUR employed four different methodolo-gies (participatory evaluation, Llife CcycleAassessment (LCA), metabolic analysis andshadow pricing) to examine the economic, environ-mental, health, social and ethical dimensions ofeight product commodities (apples, berries, grain(wheat-to-bread), pork, cheese, wine, tomatoesand asparagus) and of global-local food chains inpublic procurement.
• Key attributes were identified for each commod-ity (using the multi-criteria performance matrix) andsets of indicators were constructed, with analy-sis of the underlying factors (e.g. political, legislative,geographical etc.) that influenced the performanceof the indicators in the respective dimensions (eco-nomic, environmental, social, health and ethical).
• The sustainability performance levels of chains ineach country were assessed and this provided a setof results for cross-country comparisons.
• The validity of the four methodologies used foranalysis were also compared and evaluated.
3
GLAMUR used a participatory approach and devel-oped a multi-criteria characterisation of the perform-ance of food chains. The approach also integratedvalues, perceptions and expectations around foodchoice and food policies from stakeholders, includingfood businesses, civil society organizations andpublic authorities.
Interaction occurred during conferences, stakeholderworkshops, participatory checklist compilation exer-cises and interviews. This stakeholder engagementaimed to ensure that the project findings were dis-cussed and validated from a range of perspectivesand viewpoints.
What did GLAMUR find?• GLAMUR reveals not only the differences, overlapsand synergies between Global and Local supplychains, but also the blurring of boundaries andtrade-offs that take place between the sustainabilitydimensions.
• Multidimensional and multi-scale performance as-sessment is a key to sustainable pathways for foodchains; its multi-stakeholder approach moves be-yond assumptions such as Local versus Global, andcan provide informed reflexivity on narratives usedto frame the performance of the food system.
• The need for more coherent policies that recognisethe hybridity and interconnectedness of Global andLocal food systems and where policy interventionsgo beyond market mechanisms and adapt to chaindiversity and context.
Insights from GLAMUR’s research on sustainable per-formance assessment in food chains – and the use ofmulti-criteria methods - are described in this booklet. Itconcludes with the policy recommendations and theproject’s main messages.
GLAMUR information: what and whereThe GLAMUR findings and knowledge base is fullyavailable. The project rationale, methodology, researchfindings, reports, messages and recommendations areall accessible on glamur.eu. Project dissemination hasalso taken place through newsletters, scientific and greyliterature, conference presentations, webinars and ex-pert meetings. There is even a cartoon that bringsGLAMUR’s work to life and helps make the project’smessages more accessible to the public.
4
WP2: Scoping / framing:
Analysing the
communication
of food chains and
their performance
GoalThe aim of this work package is to align the multiplemeanings that are attributed to food chains, having re-gard for the contexts involved, and to create a commonunderstanding of food chain performance that has beendeveloped and substantiated by scientific evidence.
Main ResultsThe main result of this WP was the development of amulti-criteria matrix comprised of 24 attributes of foodsupply chain performance. This involved taking a multi-dimensional approach to the performance of foodchains that encompassed their economic, social, envi-ronmental, health and ethical dimensions. In addition,it entailed an examination of a wide range of perspec-tives that covered the public, scientific, market and pol-icy spheres of discourse and interaction. It becameclear that an appreciation of both the geographical andnational political-economic context was critical in orderto explain and understand how the performance of foodchains was perceived, and attributes communicatedand valued across the range of 12 countries examined.In order to help explicate these differences, three coun-try groupings were developed. The first, entitled socio-economic and structural development, emphasisedsocio-economic development as the dominant dis-
course framing food chain performance. The secondgrouping, entitled territoriality and global competition,emphasised ‘territoriality’ as the dominant performanceframe, although the performance discourse was alsolinked to a market-based neoliberal model. The thirdgrouping, entitled neoliberalism and food system sus-tainability, had neoliberalism as the dominant perform-ance frame, set against increasing food systemsustainability and global food security concerns.
Key findings/highlights• Prevailing methods of food chain evaluation areoverwhelmingly economically-oriented.
• The need to incorporate an inclusive and wide rangeof perspectives and multiple dimensions of foodchain performance.
• The importance of recognizing and understandingthe context in which performance is being as-sessed.
• Moving beyond global-local distinctions to explorethe potential of both supply chains for system trans-formation and improved performance.
5
Dimension/Sphere Economic Social Environmental Health Ethical
Public • Affordability
• Creation &
distribution of
added value
• Contribution to
economic
development
• Information &
communication
• Food security
• Resource use
• Pollution
• Nutrition
• Food safety
• Traceability
• Animal welfare
• Responsibility
• Labour relations
• Fair trade
Scientific • Contribution to
economic
development
• Technological
innovation
• Governance
• Consumer
behaviour
• Territoriality
• Resource use
• Biodiversity
• Efficiency
• Technological
innovation
• Food waste
• Nutrition
• Food safety
• Fair Trade
• Animal welfare
Marke • Efficiency
• Profitability /
competitiveness
• Connection
• Technological
innovation
• Resilience
• Information &
communication
• Territoriality
• Connection
• Efficiency • Traceability
• Food safety
• Fair trade
• Territoriality
Policy • Creation &
distribution of
added value
• Contribution to
economic
development
• Efficiency
• Resilience
• Food waste
• Consumer
behaviour
• Labour relations
• Food waste
• Pollution
• Traceability
• Nutrition
• Food safety
• Food security
• Governance
Composite Matrix
6
WP3: Database
Development
GoalThe purpose of WP3 was to collect, analyse and organ-ize data on the performance of food chains from a setof case studies. The performance attributes developedin WP2 have been measured, with both quantitativeand qualitative indicators that are stored into an ad-hocdatabase.
Main ResultsAfter exploratory work, the selection of case studies ispresented in the next page . Each category of productis covered by a minimum of at least a pair of countriesfor both a local and a global value chain (at least 4 casestudies for a similar sector). Intermediary cases werealso introduced as it was realized that the distinctionbetween local and global is better made by studyingthe continuum of cases between local and global andby looking carefully at their interactions. In total, 39 food value chains were studied. Productsfrom outside of Europe were also considered with As-paragus from Peru and Apples from New Zealand. Ex-ports and exchanges between countries in Europe arealso considered for example in the case of the globalwine exported from France to Switzerland and othercountries. Two additional case studies were conductedin Denmark, this time not focusing on specific products
but on the problematic of diets in the public procure-ment and thus studying one local and one global schoolmeal arrangements.
One of the first results was thus that it is very difficult todefine a set of unique indicators to apply to all casestudies and the selection was thus made case by case.Therefore, the definition of performance indicators cov-ering the most relevant attributes for the given context(sector, countries) was a demanding task. A clear un-derstanding of the context surrounding the case studiesand peculiar to each country was essential in the ade-quate selection of performance indicators. This wasdone in close interaction with stakeholders in all cases.Discussion and comparison between cases was donein WP4.
For some case studies, a more exhaustive and sophis-ticated quantitative analysis allows further comparingmethods such as LCA, shadow pricing and metabolicanalysis. Results of this comparison were done in WP4and 5.
Key findings/highlights• The distinction between local and global lies moreon a continuum rather than on a binary contrast:therefore, inclusion of intermediary cases leads tointeresting discussions and conclusions in WP4.
• Participatory approach to select a set of perform-ance indicators helps to find out the right ones, andto integrate the understanding of their value into aspecific context (sector, country, value chain).
• Tools and approaches were mainly inspired by thesustainability assessments methods and tools.Therefore, the results can be discussed with abroader perspective as well.
• A database has been designed and developed, asa storage room of all data required and produced inthe project.
7
Product category
Country (Partner)
Products studied by country
Local case
Intermediary case
Global case
Number of value chains
Pork Italy (CRPA) Cinta Senese Ham Parma-ham
case
generic
cured Ham
3
Netherlands
(WU & CLM)
Lupine Pork De Hoeve Pork VION pork 3
Dairy (Cheese) Switzerland (FiBL) L’Etivaz AOC cheese Le Gruyère
AOC cheese
2
UK (CCRI) 1 Singe Gloucester and
2 Farmhouse Cheddar
Creamery Cheddar 3
Fruits &vegetables
Latvia (BSC) Wild Blueberries Global “grey”
blueberries
Global legal
Blueberries
3
Serbia (BEL) fresh Arilje raspberry Frozen exported
Raspberries
2
Belgium (KULE) Flanders organic
apples
Flanders conventional
apples
New-Zealand
apples
3
Spain (UAB) Catalonia local Apples
(box scheme)
Catalonia global
organic apples
2
Spain (UAB) Local organic tomatoes
(box scheme)
Mixed organic
tomatoes
Global organic
tomatoes
3
France (INRA) Languedoc-Roussillon
tomatoes
1 organic and
2 conventional
Almeria tomatoes 3
Belgium (KULE) White Flanders
Asparagus
Green Peru
Asparagus
2
Wine France (INRA) AOC Languedoc-
Roussillon red wines
AOC Languedoc-
Roussillon exported
as bottles
bulk Pays d’Oc red
wine
3
Switzerland (FiBL) AOC Valais red wines 1
Grains (bread) UK (CITY) CRFT craft bakery
bread
ISB in-store bakery
bread
GC plant bakery
white bread
3
Italy (FIRAB) Floriddia’s farm
bread
Sourdough Tuscan
Bread
Pan Bauletto
(Barilla)
3
TOTAL 39
Case studies of the GLAMUR project
8
WP4: Comparing food
chains
GoalThe objective of WP4 was to compare and contrast theeconomic, environmental, health, social and ethical im-pact of local versus global food chains, and to discussthe conditions of validity of comparison.
Main resultsThe comparison did not find generalizable results whencontrasting local with global food supply chains, mainlybecause local and global are no clear-cut categories,as local chains have many global elements and vice-versa, giving rise to many hybrid situations. In addition,chain strategies influence performance evaluation.When chains apply product differentiation strategies, ef-fects between local and global may even be opposite.
Trade-offs within and across the various sustainabilitydimensions apply, such that no superior strategy thatscores well on all dimensions can be identified. In addi-tion, trade-offs also occur across different scales. Morespecifically, trade-offs have been found between:
1 labour productivity and job creation, as higher labourproductivity generally leads to lower costs and pricesand better labour conditions, but as a result less jobsare created
2 efficiency and diversity, as diversity increases the re-silience of the chain but at the expense of efficiencyand thus costs and prices
3 price and quality, as higher chain efficiency leads tolower prices, but less attention to product quality
4 biodiversity/pollution and resource use, as large-scale operation may save resources and particularlyenergy and land per unit of product, but at the ex-pense of a high pressure on the land being used,leading to higher pollution and less biodiversity perunit of land.
5 informal trust-based approaches versus formal pro-cedures, as informality may lead to more flexibility inlabour relations and in relations vis-à-vis the con-sumer and even resilience, but may also result in lesstransparency and even misuse.
Difficulties related to measuring indicators consistentlymakes an evidence-based approach very difficult, buta combination of quantitative and qualitative method-ologies can help to increase the quality of research re-sults.
9
Team Economic Social Health Environmental Ethical
Apples Contribution to
economic
development
Food security Resource use
Pollution
Biodiversity
Berries Creation and
distribution of added
value
Contribution to
economic
development
Labour relations Governance
Bread Technological
Innovation
Information &
communication
Nutrition Biodiversity
Cheese Creation and
distribution of added
value
Contribution to
economic
development
Information &
communication
Food security
Consumer behaviour
Nutrition Biodiversity
Resource use
Animal welfare
Pork Contribution to
economic
development
Resilience
Resource use Governance
Tomatoes Creation and
distribution of added
value
Contribution to
economic
development
Food security Resource use
Pollution
Biodiversity
Wine Creation and
distribution of added
value
Information &
communication
Territoriality
Food safety Resource use
Pollution
Biodiversity
Governance
Attributes investigated by team
10
WP5: Participatory
integrated
assessment
GoalThe aim of this work package is to develop, throughparticipatory processes, an integrated characterizationof the performance of food chains.
Main Results and ConsiderationsAn integrated characterization of the performance offood chains has to be based on a set of non-equivalentcriteria of sustainability referring to the economic, social,environmental, health and ethical sphere. When carry-ing out such an assessment across different societiesand different social actors it is unavoidable to find legit-imate but conflicting perceptions of what should beconsidered as an improvement. In different societies dif-ferent social actors do measure and compare trade-offsover criteria of performance of food chains in differentways. For this reason, WP5 tested the effectivenessand the flexibility of various approaches to integratedassessment used in different case studies of GLAMURusing both workshops and on-line questionnaires to so-licit a feed-back from social actors. The methodological and conceptual results obtained inWP5 can be divided in three categories: (i) reflectionson the implications of the pre-analytical choices deter-mining the quality of the integrated assessment; (ii) les-sons learned on how to make more effective the
comparison when analysing different food chains oper-ating in different socio-economic, political and geo-graphic contexts; (iii) analysis of pros and cons of thetwo typologies of participatory processes adopted.
Key findings/highlightsKey findings of WP5 point at the complexity of aprocess aimed at characterizing the performance offood chains: (1) the labels defining the dichotomy be-tween “global” and “local” food chains, as GLAMURwas tasked to do, remain ambiguous and inappropriatewhen using the same set of indicators of performancein different case studies. A more articulated framing ofthe meaning of “global” and “local” is needed to reflectthe specificity of each case study; (2) the existing story-telling about the performance of food chains has beenhegemonized by economic narratives. Social actorsadmit that the economic dimension is essential, but atthe same time they feel that other criteria referring tothe environment, social and ethical dimensions shouldget more attention. A more balanced and complete se-lection of indicators is needed; (3) it is impossible tocompare food chains having different goals and oper-ating in different contexts using a standard assessmentof performance (one size fits all). The process of inte-grated assessment must be able to reflect the speci-ficity of different food chains and the heterogeneity ofinterests and normative values found among social ac-tors. This requires the adoption of participatoryprocesses.
11
STEP1
STEP2
STEP3
Quality Check on Issue DefinitionIn relation to the context• Relevant story-telling?• Plausible narrative?
DescriptiveInputQuantitativeAnalysis
Quality Check on Integrated AnalysisIn relation to scales and dimension• Pertinent attributes?• Congruent integrated assessments?
Quality Check on Deliberative ProcessIn relation to the decision making• Is it a fair process?• Is it an effective deliberation?
INFORMED DELIBERATION
NormativeInputChoice ofStory-telling
0 100
10 90
20 80
80
Profit
30 7040 50 60
0 10
6
Self-sufficiency
5
0 10
3
Safety
5
0 10
8
Affordability
5
01000
900 100
800 200
523
700 300600 500 400
0 1000
100 900
200 800
335
Clear rules Infrastructures
300 700400 500 600
0 100
10 90
20 80
80
Biodiversity
30 7040 50 60
01000
900 100
800 200
523
700 300600 500 400
0 1000
100 900
200 800
335
Soil healt Water quality
300 700400 500 600
0 1000
100 900
200 800
964
Generational replacement
Food as a commodityinvestors/entrepreneurs
Food securityNational government
Food as a threat tothe local environmentNGOs, long term policies
Food as an opportunityfor rural developmentcommunity/local admin. 300 700
400 500 600
0 100
10 90
20 80
0
Agritourism
30 7040 50 60
0
Satellite activities
0100
90 10
80
70 3060 50 40
20
Fig. 1A participatoryIntegratedassessment of theperformance of foodchains should bedeveloped using aniterative procedureguaranteeing acheck on the qualityof the process ofproduction and useof quantitativeinformation.
Fig. 2The characterization of the performanceof a food chain should be organized in away that reflects the unavoidableexistence of different story-tellers.
12
WP6: Policy analysis and
recommendations
Goalto assess the actual and potential role of public and pri-vate policies addressing food chains, and address thesignificance for policymakers of the performance basedapproach and the methodologies employed.
Main resultsGLAMUR’s evidence shows the problematic nature ofcurrent sustainability performance assessments whenused to justify policy interventions in support of scale.It exposes the loose framing of ‘local’ versus ‘global’food, and how diversity in supply chains is often place-specific and affected by cultural context. Policy settingsdirectly affected performance profiles in the supplychains studied. There is no simple local-global contin-uum; chains differentiate as they develop and grow.There is a need for strategically varied responses. Thisevidence highlights whymaking policy choices, prefer-ences and/or investment decisions that improve foodchain sustainability performance is such a complex areafor public policy intervention.
We propose• a set of recommendations to encourageprocesses of engagement aimed at public pol-icy, the market and civil society and to addresspolicy challenges raised by GLAMUR’s work;
• three scenarios of food futures and frame-works within which food actors operate. Thesechart possible directions of travel and enable theconsideration of different entry points for GLAMUR’sfindings into the ‘real’ world of policy making.
We identify• existing points of engagement along the local-global continuum. These provide more detailedanalysis, routed in current reality, and connectGLAMUR’s policy challenges with existing policiesand initiatives, enacted at the global, EU, nationaland sub-national levels.
Key findings/highlights:• the most urgent challenge for policy is first to do noharm – such as in ensuring hygiene regulations etc.are adapted to the realities of SMEs;
• there is a strong case to bring ‘local’ food in fromits policy enclave in rural development to occupya more central position in EU policy alongside ‘lo-cality’ foods;
• more coherent policies are needed to recognisethe hybridity and interconnectedness of ‘global’ and‘local’ food systems and where policy interventionsgo beyond market mechanisms and adapt to chaindiversity and context;
• there are many possible entry points andprocesses of engagement which can clarify thelocal/global, drawing upon wider science-based ev-idence as well as being informed by socio-culturalvalues. This mix will ground policy choices on awider understanding of food chain performance.
13
The Lo
cal/Global
distinctio
n is too sim
ple
The slip
periness
of ‘local’
Routes to
food sustainab
ility are b
oth fluid
and dynam
icContradictory policy drivers arenot helping this ‘m
essiness’Policy
blind spots
The sig
nificance of
metho
dology
Public
Policy
(Governm
ent) •G
ive h
igher p
riority
to s
ocia
l
attrib
ute
s o
f food
, such a
s
hum
an c
ap
ital a
nd
the v
alu
es
that u
nd
erp
in fo
od
syste
ms;
•C
ond
uct p
ub
lic c
onsulta
tion
ab
out n
ew
meth
od
s fo
r giv
ing
consum
ers
bro
ad
er in
dic
ato
rs
of w
hat is
in th
eir fo
od
, and
where
it com
es fro
m;
•E
uro
pean
Scie
ntific
ad
vis
ory
bod
ies
to im
pro
ve
metric
s o
f
susta
inab
ility;
•A
pp
licatio
ns fo
r
GIs
need
to ta
ke
note
of th
e
com
ple
xity
of
‘local’
desig
natio
ns;
•B
ette
r pub
lic e
ducatio
n a
bout th
e
com
ple
xity
of s
usta
inab
ility,
partic
ula
rly h
ighlig
htin
g s
ocia
l and
eth
ical v
alu
es a
long
sid
e ‘h
ard
’
data
such a
s C
O2e a
nd
GH
Gs,
and
life c
ycle
analy
sis
data
;
•Foste
ring
plu
ral fo
od
syste
ms
alo
ng
the lo
cal-g
lob
al c
ontin
uum
;
•S
ub
-natio
nal le
vels
should
consid
er
ALL c
osts
and
benefits
when
settin
g p
olic
ies e
g. R
DP
, zonin
g,
health
benefits
, ecosyste
m
serv
ices;
•C
onsid
er re
viv
ing
Com
munic
atio
n
on B
uild
ing
a m
ore
Susta
inab
le
Food
Syste
m;
•E
U to
recom
mit to
a
com
pre
hensiv
e fo
od
polic
y a
nd
this
to lin
k e
conom
ic, h
ealth
,
socia
l, eth
ical a
nd
en
viro
nm
enta
l
polic
y o
bje
ctiv
es;
•E
U &
Mem
ber S
tate
s to
revie
w
the m
ix o
f incentiv
es a
nd
dis
incentiv
es to
tow
ard
s th
e
localiz
atio
n/re
localiz
-atio
n o
f
food
chain
s a
nd
to m
onito
r
imp
lem
enta
tion;
•D
G S
ante
and
DG
Enviro
nm
ent
to c
olla
bora
te m
ore
on im
pro
vin
g
food
susta
inab
ility c
riteria
;
•In
tern
atio
nal a
sp
ects
of
local/g
lob
al d
istin
ctio
n n
eed
partic
ula
r atte
ntio
n;
•C
larific
atio
n is
need
ed
of
prio
rities fo
r develo
pin
g
countrie
s o
ver d
em
and
s th
at
they p
urs
ue e
xp
ort-le
d g
row
th
and
susta
inab
ility;
•Tax p
olic
y n
eed
s re
form
to
enhance tra
nsp
are
ncy a
nd
sup
port S
ME
s
•E
U s
cie
nce ‘c
all’ fo
r
cla
rificatio
n o
f multi-c
riteria
meth
od
s to
assess
susta
inab
le p
erfo
rmance in
food
chain
s;
•S
top
assum
ing
there
is
alw
ays a
positiv
e lin
k
betw
een lo
cal fo
od
chain
s
and
rura
l econom
ic
develo
pm
ent;
•R
ele
vant s
ub
-natio
nal
institu
tions w
ithin
food
polic
y to
get in
volv
ed
in
multi-c
riteria
ed
ucatio
n.
Market
(Consum
ers,com
merce
and sup
ply
chain)
•Toug
h m
onito
ring
of fa
lse
cla
ims a
bout ‘lo
cal’ a
nd
‘glo
bal’ fo
od
;
•C
reate
a n
ew
work
ing
party
to
consid
er h
ow
to e
ncoura
ge
genuin
ely
susta
inab
le lo
cal
food
syste
ms, u
sin
g im
pro
ved
food
metric
s;
•M
ore
transp
are
nt
pro
ced
ure
s fo
r
assessin
g lo
cal
and
locality
food
s to
cla
rify
dis
tinctio
ns fo
r
consum
ers
;
•C
larify
pla
ce-
sp
ecific
lab
elin
g;
•Food
pro
ducers
need
to b
e m
ore
pru
dent in
usin
g ‘s
usta
inab
le’ a
nd
‘local’ in
the s
am
e b
reath
and
em
plo
y g
reate
r care
in th
e u
se o
f
susta
inab
ility p
erfo
rmance
attrib
ute
s;
•P
ut p
ressure
on g
overn
ment to
help
consum
ers
eat a
nd
buy m
ore
susta
inab
ly;
•A
dd
ress c
ontra
dic
tory
polic
y
driv
ers
in s
up
ply
chain
s to
op
timiz
e s
usta
inab
ility a
nd
red
uce ‘tra
de-o
ffs’ w
hic
h lo
wer
sta
nd
ard
s;
•S
top
exp
loitin
g th
e m
essin
ess
with
fals
e c
laim
s;
•C
SR
to in
clu
de p
erfo
rmance in
imp
rovin
g p
rod
ucer
rem
unera
tion (in
com
e o
r share
of v
alu
e) in
sup
plie
r rela
tions;
•B
e c
lear a
bout re
asons fo
r
sup
portin
g fo
od
imp
orts
from
develo
pin
g c
ountrie
s;
•A
pp
ly tra
nsp
are
nt s
ocia
l and
eth
ical s
tand
ard
s fo
r food
exp
orts
, FD
I and
mark
etin
g in
develo
pin
g c
ountrie
s;
•H
elp
imp
rove fo
od
infra
stru
ctu
re in
develo
pin
g
countrie
s fo
r inte
rnal, S
outh
-
South
and
exp
ort tra
des
•C
reate
bette
r learn
ing
for
sup
ply
chain
manag
em
ent
of th
e im
porta
nce o
f multi-
crite
ria a
pp
roaches to
susta
inab
ility;
•S
hare
lessons b
etw
een
sta
kehold
ers
in s
hort a
nd
long
chain
s to
imp
rove
susta
inab
ility p
erfo
rmance
manag
em
ent;
Civil S
ociety •
CS
Os to
ed
ucate
consum
ers
ab
out th
e flu
idity
of g
lob
al /
local d
istin
ctio
ns;
•C
SO
s to
info
rm th
em
selv
es
ab
out th
e w
eaknesses o
f
curre
nt ‘lo
cal/lo
cality
’ term
s a
s
pro
xie
s fo
r susta
inab
ility
perfo
rmance.
•C
SO
s s
hould
cham
pio
n
imp
roved
reg
ula
tion a
nd
info
rmatio
n a
bout
the d
eg
ree o
f
localn
ess in
food
. •C
onsum
ers
need
help
to b
ecom
e
more
‘litera
te’ a
bout th
e
com
ple
xity
of s
usta
inab
ility in
daily
food
choic
e.
•C
SO
s s
hould
cham
pio
n E
U
polic
y c
ohere
nce o
n im
pacts
of
Euro
pean e
xp
orts
an
d F
DI o
n
chang
ing
consum
ptio
n in
develo
pin
g c
ountrie
s (a
nd
imp
acts
on T
HE
IR lo
cal fo
od
syste
ms).
•E
U a
nd
Mem
ber S
tate
s
should
cre
ate
susta
inab
le d
iet
guid
elin
es in
corp
ora
ting
exis
ting
nutritio
n a
nd
food
-
based
guid
elin
es.
•D
evelo
pm
ent o
f EU
sta
nd
ard
s fo
r consum
er-
orie
nte
d ‘a
pp
s’ w
hic
h
pro
fess to
giv
e in
form
atio
n
to c
onsum
ers
ab
out h
ealth
,
socia
l, eth
ical a
nd
enviro
nm
enta
l valu
es in
food
choic
e.
Processes fo
r engagement - steering
a more sustainab
le food system
14
Policy recommendations
Encourage informed reflexivityThis can help democratise food policy by promotingsustainable pathways for food chains, built around ev-idence rather than assumptions about performance.
Address policy incoherenceAll levels of governance from global to sub-na-tional need to assess their policymaking processes, in-cluding monitoring and financial accounting, to helpavoid policy incoherence, taking note, for example, ofinconsistencies in the application and interpretation ofsupports (eg. subsidies) and tools (eg. Geographic In-dications).
Bring local food in from its policy enclaveGLAMUR’s evidence supports a shift from agricul-tural/rural policy to food policy thinking and act-ing. We make the case for bringing ‘local’ food in fromits policy enclave in rural development to occupy amore central position in EU policy alongside ‘locality’foods. This means that mainstream policy instruments– such as food safety - must be adapted to the scaleand diversity of this part of the food system.
Catch up with the consumer GLAMUR’s more complex assessment of sustainabilityis already part of consumers’ framing of sustainabil-ity (and many retailers, manufacturers and CSOs areaware of these framings). This is ahead of scientistsand policymakers, and an endorsement of multi-cri-teria approaches. The EU and its member statesshould create sustainable diet guidelines incorporatingexisting nutrition and food-based guidelines; the Direc-torate Generals (DGs) should collaborate more on im-proving food sustainability criteria; and Civil SocietyOrganisations (CSOs) should champion improved reg-ulation and information about the degree of ‘localness’in food to inform consumers.
15Take greater care in the use of sustainability performance attributesA more central place for ‘local’ food in policy requiresgreater care in the use of sustainability perform-ance attributes and methods. Policymakers,CSOs, and small and medium sized enterprises(SMEs) need to be more prudent in using ‘sustainable’and ‘local’ in the same breath. Multi-criteria sustainabil-ity assessment challenges existing ‘sustainability’ sys-tems to provide a more integrated framing of theirperformance using a multi-stakeholder approach.
Ensure policy choices integrate a more complex version of sustainabilityGLAMUR has accepted a complex version of what ismeant by sustainability. This develops beyond the ‘old’Brundtland tripartite definition which does not have suf-ficient breadth for the analysis of modern food systems.GLAMUR has produced case study evidence that indi-vidual food products carry more complex meanings;culture, health and ethics are key attributes ofmodern foods and food choice.
Call for new researchWe propose the following areas for further research:
• to investigate and refine methodologies (using acombination of quantitative and qualitative ap-proaches) for improved sustainability performanceassessment along the local-global continuum andacross the five dimensions (economic, environmen-tal, social, health and ethical);
• to explore the realities and potential of consumerchoice, which currently turns to the ‘local’ as a proxyfor anti-homogenisation and a more human scale ofcontrol over food. This more complex meaning of‘social’ within sustainability deserves more explo-ration within consumer culture.
16
GLAMUR’s Main Messages
Sustainability performance assessment is a multi-stakeholderconcept and a process that is bothmultidimensional and multi-scale
1 Multi-criteria sustainability assessment challengesexisting ‘sustainability’ systems to provide a more in-tegrated framing of their performance using a multi-stakeholder approach.
2 Multidimensional and multi-scale performance as-sessment is a key to sustainable pathways for foodchains; its multi-stakeholder approach moves be-yond assumptions such as local versus global, andcan provide informed reflexivity on narratives used toframe the performance of the food system.
Sustainability performance assessment draws on multiple values and multiple interests
3 Sustainability performance assessment combineshard and soft indicators. It acknowledges that cur-rent methodologies tend to compartmentalise as-sessment methods and the dimensions ofsustainability; it recognises the value of combiningscience-led evidence with socio-cultural values.
4 Sustainability performance assessment draws onmultiple values and multiple interests and for this rea-son it is subject to contestation. To increase the de-gree of general validity of sustainability assessment,public institutions should ensure that it is based onparticipation, on transparency of different positionsand distribution of power among stakeholders, andon a dialogue between science and society.
Sustainability performance assessment should recognize difference, but also the complementarities and synergiesbetween ‘global’ and ‘local’ foodchains
5 Disparity of power between actors in ‘local’ and‘global’ chains may affect the way performance as-sessment methodologies are developed. Sustainabil-ity performance assessment can be based onrecognition of these differences.
6 Sustainability performance assessment needs to de-tect when coexistence of ‘local’ and ‘global’ foodchains create complementarities and synergies. Scalematters for some sustainability attributes, not for oth-ers. In some cases scale improves performance, inothers it is the contrary. A generalized, abstract, com-parative assessment of ‘local’ and ‘global’ foodchains as abstract entities cannot be done.
Sustainability performance assessment can be a tool for encouraging transition to sustainability
7 Performance assessment can be a tool for encour-aging transition to sustainability along the local-globalcontinuum. In many cases, better performance canbe achieved through ‘localization’ of more globalchains or through ‘globalization’ of more local chains.Performance assessment can capture the dynamicsof this hybridity in food chains as actors endeavourto improve sustainability performance with their ownsolutions.
glamur.eu