Governance for local and regional food systems
Harry Donkers 1
Innonet through my eyes
Irenestraat 3H
5141 GJ Waalwijk, The Netherlands
E-mail: hdonkers@myeyes.info
Tel: + 31 6 28638919
Revised, 26 April 2012
Abstract
Local and regional food systems are emerging. They all have in common not to make
resistance with the problems coupled with the current dominant industrialized and globalised
agriculture and food system. Though local and regional food systems have impressive
challenges and opportunities, we argue that these only can be executed successfully with a
more systematic approach and adequate governance. We reveal a new paradigm of
‘sustainable food security’ and present a clear definition and classification of local and
regional food systems. We discuss the (multi)governance of the local and regional food
systems at different regional levels on the basis of empirical examples.
Keywords: food systems, local, regional, classification, governance
1. Introduction
Since World War 2 in western countries the mainstream development in agriculture and food
systems has been industrialization. These systems of industrial agriculture were initiated
never to let Europeans go hungry again. With supporting and subsidizing agricultural policies
this was successfully implemented, however, via the application of environmentally
inadequate technologies (Ingemann, 2009).
This current mainstream agriculture and food system aimed to increase productivity,
efficiency, cost minimizing and specialization at the farm level and in the production chain.
Specialization and cost minimization lead to scaling-up, to larger farms, bigger and heavier
machinery and larger processing firms, with a high degree of division of labour: a multitude
of small ‘simple’ steps in organizations getting more complex. At the farm level this resulted
in monocultures and an increased dependency on antibiotics, chemical fertilizers and
chemical pesticides, herbicides and fungicides, and the use of genetically modified products,
that threat agricultural resources and might affect human and animal health. Within the
production chain this led to higher interdependencies of companies and less flexibility in the
type and mode of production. Furthermore international operations in long global chains
increased, based on the idea that free trade would be for the benefit of all. This, combined
with a market culture based on Anglo-Saxon forms of organization, characterized by
competition and individualism, however, lead to power concentration through oligopolistic
tendencies (both global and national) and resulted in disturbed markets with a skewed division
of rewards within production chains. Despite the international focus, the system could not
bring the world food problem closer to a solution.
1
The author thanks Lout Jonkers for his valuable comments.
1
De Schutter (2011) argues that the current food crises is about a triple crisis: a poverty, an
ecological and a nutrition crisis. Poverty is a result of small scale farmers receiving too little
support, and rural-to-urban migration that cities cannot cope with. The current system of
agriculture and food exerts heavy pressure on ecosystems. It is not only the shortage of food
that matters, but also nutrient malnutrition. These effects take serious forms and contribute
significantly to the global crises that face us now: climate change, exhaustion of natural
resources, loss of biodiversity and accompanying social crises such as poverty, malnutrition
and conflicts.
Ironically – as is argued by many – it is now this system of industrial agriculture, initiated to
avoid hunger, now contributes to crises in food production and beyond.
This development took place in an image of time where the western society got confused
about sense and praxis of existence. Hyper materialism controls western society not only in
the field of agriculture and food, but also in other sectors of the economy, e.g. the financial
sector. People are not able to oversee the systems they created. The monetary crisis, where
growth of deficits in combination with distrust lead to bankruptcy of banks and even nations
are in danger of failure, could occur in the context of globalizing of unregulated markets and
egocentric powers. Production and consumption are forced up from a false ideology of the
relation between money and happiness. In fact this is a crisis in making sense of life.
Secularizing contributed to the loss of the road to sense finding.
Moeller (2006) describes the reasons for the downward trends of civilization of the western
society. ‘In recent years complaints about an increasingly less humane world seem to be on
the rise.‘ Chain structures have become power structures with long social distances between
producers and consumers with loss of product quality and social trust, and misty organizations
with loss of transparency. The human measure is lost and with that also the sense of existence.
Consumers, through love of ease and hurried life, turned out willing to accept these
impoverishments and less food quality. In fact they loosed the experience and quality of the
sense of existence.
Jonkers (2011) analysis multi-actor value stream systems to understand the successes and
failures of these systems. The crises in our systems are forms of failure of these systems,
possibly in combination with human failures. He aims to build a model for the realization of a
new spiritual culture, of which ‘pragmatic solidarism’ is at the heart. The pragmatic part
covers the value generating process for the participants (praxis) and the solidarism part covers
the process of producing values in the context of fellow-manship (poesis).
We must return to our own conscience. We need a new consciousness (Korten, 2009), a
spiritual consciousness that has the capacity of people to lose oneself in the mystery of the
sense of our existence (as human mankind and nature). Food as a first necessary of life is
perhaps the best vehicle to experience this new society.
In a study on local food systems for global future Donkers (2012) characterizes our post
World War 2-system of agriculture and food as a system of long, global, monofunctional food
chains, that is far off from humans through traditional organized mega farms and firms.
The conclusion was made that the system was developing successfully regarding volumes of
production output and profitability, but suffered with respect to social and ecological values
(Transforum, 2011), and did not succeed in bringing the world food problem closer to a
solution. In fact we lost our capacities for building an authentic life from a meaningful
perspective.
To allow the agriculture and food system to provide in a sustainable way physical and
economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food for all people, Donkers (2012)
2
developed a new paradigm: sustainable food security .2 This paradigm combines the food
security concept of Shiva (2011), that consists of three vital aspects - ecological
responsibility, food sovereignty and food safety - with the sustainability concept of
Brundtland (1987). Food sovereignty is the right of people and nations to determine their own
system of agriculture and food and food safety deals with healthy plants and animals. This
paradigm is urging to reconsider the social and ecological values, to develop quality and
honesty rewarding relationships and to food sovereignty and food safety. In this new
paradigm people again can work on the sense of existence.
Realizing this paradigm asks for a focus on small scale, local and regional resources. Recent
literature (David Suzuki, www.davidsuzuki.org) show that small farms may produce even
higher output levels per unit area than larger farms. Chappell and Lavalle (2011) found
studies demonstrating that small farms, using alternative agricultural techniques, could
produce enough food to sustain human population, without increasing the agricultural land
base. Moreover, research clearly show that small-scale farming, especially using “organic”
methods, has advantages in terms of environmental and biodiversity impact and small farms
may be two to four times more energy efficient than large conventional farms.
Over the last decades we observe a strong focus on local and regional food systems. They
receive a lot of attention by consumers, producers, government, researchers, and partners in
the food supply chain. In literature we find reviews of various kinds of local/regional food
systems. The opportunities and challenges of regional food systems have been explored in a
number of reports and articles (Cotler, 2009, Jensen, 2009, Clancy and Ruhf, 2010, Van
Egmond, 2010, De Lind, 2011, Klimaat en Voedselcrisis, 2011). Local Food Systems (2011)
is a site for networks, co-operation, and building of local food systems. CvdR (2011) notices
that local food systems are more sustainable than the current systems. Cornell University
Library presents a summary (index) of initiatives and sources related to local and regional
food systems. Donkers (2012) characterizes these new local and regional food systems as
multi functional food networks, that are near to humans through meritocratic organized small
farms and micro firms, producing save, healthy, adequate and affordable food for all.
The challenges and opportunities of local and regional food systems could best be addressed
with a systematic approach. Therefore in this paper emphasis is put on classification and
governance of local and regional food systems.
The aim of this article is to demonstrate how structured regional approaches can benefit
sustainable food security. Therefore we propose a classification for these systems based on
geographic and social aspects in section 2. Governance is of key importance to develop local
and regional food systems that meet the requirements of sustainable food security. In section 3
we present some general information on governance structures, give an example of local
spatial governance and go into local and regional food governance. In section 4 we illustrate
the need for adaptation and strengthening of governmental regional food policies. We set up a
2
Basic is the thought that people should have control over their food and food production, and consequently
regions, countries or nations should have the right to food and the right to food production. The world
community has acknowledged that the human right to food must be progressively realized despite the enormous
challenges and inequities that exist in the food systems of both rich and poor. The right to food is an overarching
goal defined by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (De Schutter, 2012) as: ‘The right to have
regular, permanent and unrestricted access, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively
and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the
consumer belongs, and which ensure a physical and mental, individual and collective, fulfilling and dignified life
free of fear.’ When regions, countries or nations have the right to organize own production and consumption they
in fact take food security as a criterion in food policy.
3
framework for multi-level governance systems at the regional scale and discuss examples of
empirical initiatives for the development of local and regional food systems. Section 5
contains conclusions.
2. Classification of local and regional food systems
Both local and regional are notions that refer to a certain area. In contrast to cities,
municipalities, counties, provinces, etc., which have strong political or administrative
boundaries, the boundaries of local and regional are more fluid. Local often refers to a radius
or geographical distance between where food is produced and where it is consumed, of, say,
50–100 miles. The definition adopted by the U.S. Congress in the 2008 Food, Conservation,
and Energy Act (2008 Farm Bill), states that the total distance that a product can be
transported and still be considered a “locally or regionally produced agricultural food
product” is less than 400 miles from its origin, or within the state in which it is produced. This
radius is used for certain Federal rural development loan programs. For a small country like
The Netherlands this radius seems rather large. But is is not only the distance that matters.
The term region refers to areas that are to be seen as entities from a perspective, like history,
culture, etc., with some kind of political or administrative control, but less formal as in cities,
municipalities, counties, provinces, etc.
2.1 Ontology
Each local or regional food system is a whole on itself and at the same time a part of a bigger
whole. This looks like the definition of holons by the American philosopher Wilber (1996).
Characteristic feature of his thought is the notion that we can only make progress from a
certain level when that level is completely understood from the perspective individual collective on the one hand and inside - outside on the other, see figure 2.
Figure 2. Ontological scheme of Wilber applied to local and regional food systems
Inside
Outside
I
It
Individual
Collective
Intentional
(Freud)
We
Cultural
(Gadamer)
Behaviour
(Skinner)
Its
Social
(Marx)
Both the right-upper (objective) and right-lower (interobjective) quadrant contain observable,
empirical, external aspects of holons. The left-upper (subjective) and left-lower
(intersubjective) quadrant deal about internal interpretations.
The right-upper quadrant expresses external descriptions. That what a holon experiences from
inside is internal consciousness expressed in the left-upper quadrant. Cultural in the left-lower
quadrant refers to internal meanings and values that are shared within the community. Social
in the right-lower quadrant refers to the material basis, the external forms of the collectivity.
A fundamental cause of the crises in our society is, according to Wilber, that modernity
focuses too much on the right side of the scheme, denying the left side.
This approach corresponds to a certain extent to Spiral Dynamics (Beck and Cowan, 1969),
that also describes levels of increasing complexity. This implies certain hierarchies in food
systems. A regional food system includes multiple “locals” within a state, and those that cross
state boundaries. Regional food systems operate in relation to other regions as well as to the
national and global food systems (Clancy and Ruhf, 2010). Also Smith and McDonald (1998)
4
use an hierarchical system of field, farm, agricultural landscape or watershed, regions and
countries with respect to review sustainability.
A local or regional food system deal with local food products. There is no broad accepted
definition for local food. We link up with CvdR (2011), that defines local food products as
products that distinguish themselves from other products because of their authentic,
traditional, original, sustainable or seasonal character or other local valued characteristic
feature.
A regional food system at least has two dimensions that should be taken into account. There is
a geographic aspect, with local and regional meanings and an aspect of cooperation, the way
people live and work together.
2.2 Geographic aspects
Agriculture and food depend on geographic conditions, like land/soil, available natural
resources, including water, regional climate conditions, etc. The notion regional in a
geographic sense could be a certain authentic countryside or a town or city as a unity. City
and countryside are well known clearly defined geographic areas, but they are on their own
not yet interesting regions from an agricultural and food provisional point of view. Since most
producers live in the countryside and most consumers live in cities/towns, we should look at a
territory of a city/town with his environs, or a territory of a certain countryside, inclusive of
the towns/cities towards which the countryside is directed. Such a region contains both (a part
of) a city as well as (a part of) a countryside. It is an area, that covers both producers and
consumers of food, with a certain character. A unique definition that is applicable to all
circumstances is hard to present. It depends on the perspective of which one looks towards a
region. The regional character of an area find his roots in activities, historic anchoring or
culture tied to a certain region. Both tourism/recreation, nature are landscape and agricultural
activities are mostly tied to a certain locality. This could be the consequence of certain
characteristics of the area, along with soil structure, “terroir’, providing specific typical tastes
to the food products.
We only speak of a region when the area contains a (part of) a city and a (part of) a
countryside. In this definition city and countryside are not defined as separate entities, but in
conjunction with each other. In this way regional agriculture forms a ‘natural’ transition
between city and nature. Tibaijuka (2009) made the statement: ‘Urban and rural areas are
inseparable. A big mistake that all of us have been guilty of in many parts of the developing
world, and especially in Africa, has been to view cities and rural areas as separate entities. We
need to stop thinking along the lines of urban and rural divides or biases, and begin to think of
a production-consumption chain or rural-urban continuum’ Regions form attractive and vital
areas, where one can experience things, both for the people of the countryside as well as for
citizens, including young people.
We can look at this connection from the countryside as well as from the city. See Figure 3.
5
Figure 3 Rural-urban regions
Rural-urban
Picture
Region
Population density
Low
High
One City with environs
Cityside region
Metropolitan region
Two tied cities with
environs
Twin region
Corridor region
Countryside with
surrounding
Three or more tied
cities
Countryside region
Conurbation region
Within rural-urban regions we make a distinction between high populated and low populated
areas and between the number of towns/cities that are tied to each other. The number of
inhabitants and the surface area of a region stipulate heavily the character of region. The
wishes, needs and possibilities can vary strongly between regions.
- One town and its environment we call a cityside region. When this region is densely
populated (1 mln. inhabitants or more) we speak of a metropolitan region. Often these areas
intend to develop as an urban agglomeration (Stuurgroep Metropolitaan Landschap, 2007).
- Two towns or twin cities often develop in conjunction with each other. Together with their
environs we speak of twin regions, when dealing with a low population density, and of
corridor regions when dealing with a high population density (more than 2 mln. people).
Examples are the Junction Arnhem-Nijmegen, and twin city Hengelo-Enschede (Geertsen et
al, 1999).
- Three or more tied towns combined with their environs form a rim-shaped area. The centre
often consist of a green heart, where nature, agriculture, landscape and recreation are at stake.
With a low population density we call this a countryside region and with a high population
density we speak of conurbation regions.
2.3 Aspects of cooperation
From a social perspective we can think of an agricultural firm as a whole, producing food or a
consumer or a family as a whole that consumes food. The notion regional in a sense of
cooperation deals with a group of farms as an entity that produce local products, and a group
of households as a unity that consume local food. When the relationships between the
producers and consumers are more or less formalized we speak of ‘local food cooperation’.
Working in local food systems or short chains the consumer immediately can follow where
his products come from and a trust relation comes into being. Local food systems or short
chains may create less transport costs (less food miles), recycling systems and other regional
challenges, like organic waste management, water management, re-use of side products - like
heat – and renewable energy. They contribute to maintain products with particular taste,
biodiversity and varieties of fruit, vegetables and animal species that are in danger to
disappear.
6
According CvdR (2011) local food systems support the local and regional economy. They are
very important for areas that miss opportunities, they are driving forces in using the local
potential and provide neglected areas and areas with failed appreciation with a better imago.
We speak of ‘rural, urban or regional food cooperation’ when the countryside, city or region
respectively is an explicit element in the cooperation. This is e.g. the case when the aims of
the cooperation also implies a valuation of the geographical region itself. Because of the
public character of the geographical region as a rule the (local) government also plays a part
in the cooperation.
Going further with the connection of regional food systems we witness the development of
interregional or national food systems. When regions in different countries develop social
relationships and nearness we speak of transregional cooperation. See figure 4. Different
levels of food systems ask for government interference at the appropriate level.
Figure 4. Local and regional co-operation
P
C
P = Producers
P
Short chains cooperation
C
Rural, Urban and
Regional cooperation
O
P
National/Interregional cooperation
C
O
C = Consumers
O = Government
P
C
Global/Transregional cooperation
O
We now come to the following classification of food systems, see figure 5:
Figure 5. Classification of food systems
Interaction
Food systems
Producerconsumer
Producerconsumer government
Reach
Short chains/Local food systems
Rural, urban or ruralurban
Rural food systems
Urban food Systems
Regional food systems
Rural
Urban
Rural-urban
Interregional food systems
Transregional food systems
National
Global
Local food systems or short chains and rural and urban food systems can take various forms.
In section 5 we present some examples. Here the regional food systems ask more attention
because these systems play a crucial role in the regionalization of agriculture and food. This is
so because in these systems not only groups of producers and consumers play a part, together
7
with (local) governments and other area parties, but the region itself, with a rural-urban reach,
is subject of the cooperation. Dependent of the population density the region differs and also
the cooperation in the regional food systems. See Figure 6.
Figure 6. Sub-classification of regional food systems
Regional food
Population density
systems
Low
Cityside food system
One city and
environs
Twin city food system
Two tied cities and
environs
Countryside food system
Three or more tied
cities and environs
High
Metropolitan food system
Corridor food system
Conurbation food system
Returning to the ontological scheme of Wilbur we now can bring in connection with each
other: the intentional, cultural (cooperation development), behavioural and social (stades of
communication) dimensions of the food systems, see figure 7.
Figure 7. Holistic series of Wilber
IndividualInside
IndividualOutside
Experience
Transregional food
systems
Feeling
Interegional food systems
Taste
Rural, Urban and Regional food
systems
Impression
Co-operation
Local food systems
Identifier
Transparency
Certification
Division and responsibility
Brand
Trust
CollectiveInside
CollectiveOutside
Local outlets
The categories in the four quadrants are complementary perspectives. We only can speak of
an ’integral’ approach when all categories in all quadrants are taken into account.
In section 4 we go further into these food systems and discuss the (multi)governance at
different regional levels on the basis of empirical examples.
3. Local governance systems
In this section we first present some general information on local governance structures. We
then give an example of local spatial governance. We discuss a governance system in the field
8
of local implementation of spatial development policies. Finally we go into local and regional
food governance.
3.1 General
Starting point of governance is that the government is not the one and only party that direct
and coordinate in the public space, also other parties are involved. Governance direct both
governmental and non-governmental parties. Governance systems are directing systems that
aim for beneficial outcomes for the whole society (Young, 2009). There are various forms of
interaction between the transactions of these parties. Think of: spatial processes, societal self
direction, distance control of governments, public private partnership, round table and societal
dialogues.
In an era of human-dominated ecosystems Delmas and Young (2009) observe a deficit in
governance for the environment due to waning confidence in the capacity of governments.
They show how governance systems need to fit their specific setting and how effective
policies can be developed without relying exclusively on government. They argue that the
future of environmental policies lies in coordinated systems that simultaneously engage actors
located in the public sector, the private sector, and civil society.
In the Netherlands there is a long trend in public participation as a political principle or
practice. Public participation developed from an instrument to improve democratic quality to
institutional procedures, to a right in the 1990’s (Coenen et al, 2001). Principles for
participation processes (openness, protection of core values, speed and substance) were
identified by HarmoniCOP (2005) in water management. These principles are also valuable in
other participation processes and also in the processes of developing governance systems.
3.2 Governance in the field of spatial development
After the break-out of the classical swine fever in 1997 the Dutch national government
announced an ambitious spatial measure: the reconstruction process. Starting with the areas
where the problems occurred, during time the approach extended towards other problems in
the field of environment, nature, landscape, water and economy (Reconstruction Act). The
Dutch national government responded to the problem of seizing implementation of sectoral
policies by applying the principle of subsidiary. In the reconstruction case on the basis of
starting points of the central government, the provinces had to develop practical
reconstruction plans in cooperation with municipalities, water boards, and social parties.
These parties worked together in ‘reconstruction committees’, that got the task to define
measures to prevent such excesses as classical swine fever, a.o. by spatial measures, e.g. pork
free zones and the development of reconstruction areas (later: LOG). In 2004 the central
government developed a new strategic national spatial policy (Nota Ruimte, 2004). Again,
instead of writing detailed sectoral plans for local implementation, an integral framework of
aims was provided. With the handing over of tasks of the national government relating to
spatial development, the local governments were burdened with heavy tasks. Local
implementation was the task of the local committees (NL: gebiedscommissies), that often
cooperate with the existing reconstruction committees.
Evaluation research of the reconstruction (Boonstra et al, 2007) learned that in practice
provinces manoeuvre between the wishes of the national government, their own policy
priorities and the wishes of the area coalitions (local governments, water boards and societal
groups). The quantified objectives constitute a strict framework for the local implementation
while flexibility is required to integrate sectoral policies (Kuindersma and Selnes, 2009). The
9
research established that citizens themselves practiced little direct influence. This, however, is
not surprising since citizens did not take part in the implementation phase.
During time the aims of the government evaluated increasingly towards measures for
improvement of environmental quality. However the participants in the reconstruction
committees, that also played a large part in the local committees, were selected on the basis of
the swine fever problems. The participants in the field of agriculture and food were
representatives of vested agricultural organizations that played a large part in the development
of the industrial agriculture. It is therefore no more astonishing that the interests of the
industrial agricultural sector were served. Looking back at the development we now see that
the reconstruction areas have become concentration areas of large scale agriculture and food
(megafarms) anticipating on a further liberalization of the world market. There was only
marginal attention for realizing a vital countryside, with multifunctional farms, and hardly no
interest for a local or a regional approach. 3
These lessons learn that it is extremely important which partners or participants take part in
the governance process.
3.3 Governance in the field of local and regional food
Central questions in the governance of all regional food systems relate to the interesting
relationship between urban and rural area development and sustainable food security
challenges. The interaction en strengthening of the relationship between the social, cultural,
ecological and economic diversity and vitality of the regions and locals within the region on
the one hand and desired regionalism and food provision on the other hand, asks for secure
government accompaniment. Elements contain: to identify the key elements of the specific
geographic areas, working with regional leaders and food businesses in specific geographic
areas and/or communities, identifying and measuring key indicators to monitor the regional
food systems, and developing and implementing a process for continuous learning (Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2006).
As appears governance relate to all levels of food systems. Important therefore is also that the
different levels of governance are attuned to each other. With other words a multi-level
governance for food systems is to be developed, starting with decision making at the lower
level (grass-roots movements, food networks, peasants‟ movements, social campaigns, and
others) and ending with the decision making systems dominated by states and international
organizations.
The regional food systems have their roots in the regions. The governance system should be
built in the regions and with parties that are directly involved in the regional development.
Often we see that discussion Platforms participate, but in developing regional food systems
the producers/farmers, consumers/citizens and should be the core parties and have the lead. Of
course discussion Platforms may take part in stimulate and promote sustainable
developments.
The term ‘governance’ is used (Boonstra et al, 2006) in the field of nature for situations with
the following combination of characteristics: multi-actor: policymaking is an open, interactive
process involving multiple, mutually interdependent public and private actors; multi-level:
various government tiers (European, national, local) collaborate in policymaking; multi3
We witness contradictory movements. On the one hand farms that were close to population centers or close to
nature areas were transferred to the LOG’s, while on the other hand rural policies tried to bring citizens in
contact with farmers in the neighbourhood and/or as a recreant/tourist near nature areas.
10
significance: policymaking is a collective process of attaching significance to nature and the
landscape. Governance for local and regional food systems also can be characterized as
multi-actor, multi-level and multi-significance, see Figure 8.
Figure 8. Governance for local and regional food systems
Levels
Aims
Stakeholders
Short
Increasing
direct
markets
Practical farmers/producers and
1
2
chains/Local
food systems
Rural food
systems
3
Urban food
systems
4
Regional
food systems
5
Interregional
food systems
6
Transregional
food systems
between producers and
consumers
Creating employment
opportunities and making
rural attractive
Exploiting urban challenges
and opportunities for
sustainable food production
and biodiversity in urban and
peri-urban areas
Natural development self
sufficiency and sustainable
food security in the region
Increasing efficiency,
exchange information,
products and services
Attaining conditions
favourable for national,
regional and local interests
Tools
Cooperation
consumers
Practical farmers/producers,
local governments, area parties
Supporting, facilitating,
rural cooperation
Practical farmers/producers,
citizens, local governments, area
parties
Supporting, facilitating,
urban cooperation
(Organizations of) producers
and consumers, local and
regional food systems, regional
governments, area parties
National governments, local and
regional food systems, area
parties
National governments,
international governance bodies,
transregional and national food
systems, representatives of
international movements
Integral regional planning,
regional cooperation
Creating logistics hubs,
regulations, interregional
cooperation
Building international
connections, international
agreements, transregional
cooperation
From this figure it appears that the multi-level governance system to be developed has a
territorial basis, where local, national and international authorities and stakeholders work
together, tune to each other and look for synergies. A multi-level governance and a territorial
planning across the urban-rural continuum are also two out of four dimensions of the new
food system paradigm of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO), providing a flexible framework for food and nutrition security of the people (Custot
and Gianfelici, 2012). The other two dimensions of the new FAO paradigm relate to a peoplecentered and social development policy and a natural resources management. These are exact
the two issues of sustainability where the industrial system of agriculture and food remains in
failure. According to FAO all partners have to work together to develop local policies and
implement these in every single city. We caution that these policies should not be restricted to
cities but also lead to urban-rural linkages.
4. Local and regional food governance systems
In this section we discuss governance of local and regional food systems and give examples
throughout the world. We first pay attention to producer-consumer interaction in local food
systems or short chains. Then, in the subsections 4.2 till 4.6 we go into producer-consumergovernment interaction take place in rural, urban, regional, interregional and transregional
food systems respectively.
4.1 Short chains/local food systems
Local food systems enhance the direct contacts between producers and consumers of food.
With Marsden et al (2000) we think of situations that cover face tot face direct purchases,
11
spatial proximity consumers who are aware of local origin and spatially extended chains, that
convey the value and meaning of a place of production to consumers outside of the region
where the product is produced. He defines these situations as Short Food Supply Chains
(SFSC). For these local food system we use the term short chains.
Many connections can be realized between producers and consumers themselves, without
interference of governmental bodies. The role of the government in local food systems is a
stimulating role.
Short chains deal with direct connections and direct sales between producers and consumers,
including sales through new social media like on-line sales through internet, web-shops.
There are many examples: farm sales, farmer stands and market sales, pick your own projects,
neighbouring kitchen gardens, city nurseries, city and urban agriculture, pure markets,
Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), organic allotment gardens, Pergola-constructions,
Neighbour-supers. A number of other examples are to be mentioned.
Crucial is that farmers directly communicate with consumers. Farmers themselves may
produce value added, by processing at the farm, providing back-office and selling. They also
can outsource these activities. Important, however, is that they keep control over the activities
and don’t lose communication with consumers. If this connection is cut, we in fact have the
current dominant situation back again.
Example of local food governance: Raw milk production and consumption.
In many places in the world farmers sell their raw milk directly or through local vendors, who
go deep into the countryside to purchase milk from small farmers, to consumers. More than
80 % of milk marketed in developing countries, and 47 % of the global total, follow that route
(Grain, 2011). These short chains contribute, as a key source of nutrition and a subsistence
food for those with dairy animals and affordable for those without, to the lives of the poor
around the world. These short chains are threatened by intentions to prohibit the consumption,
sale and transport of unpasteurized milk, that would be ‘unhygienic’ or of ‘poor quality’.
These recommendations stem from food safety arguments that are based on screening and
separating monocultures under hygienic control by using antibiotics and encompassed by
large tracking systems, as in the western industrial systems of agriculture and food is the
dominant trend. In these local food systems, however, food safety is based on healthy animals
and plants that are held as natural as possible with much biodiversity and with a direct
connection between producers and consumers. Therefore there is no urgency to fear problems
when milk remains unpasteurized.
4.2 Rural food systems
We only look here at rural food systems as part of rural-urban linkages. All over the world the
countryside region is the poorest part of the country. People leave the countryside for a better
expected life in urbanized areas. Now most people in the world live in urbanized areas.
However the expected better life is often not found in the urban (including peri-urban)
regions. More out-migration does not lift the rural population out of poverty. Changes should
take place in the rural regions themselves. Apart from contributing directly to agricultural
production through know how, technology and inputs, cities and small towns constitute the
marketplace for rural production (Tibaijuka, 2009). ‘Making urban market facilities accessible
12
to regional and local producers will create urban-rural linkages that could slow rural-to-urban
migration, stimulate local economic development, and strengthen food security.’4
Cities benefit from a sustainable supply of rural products and ecosystem services provided by
the rural environment, like ‘Farm to Fork’ projects, Food Teams. However, the rewarding for
these products and services is off balance. Making the rural poor become suppliers of eco
system services and implementing a better rewarding system for these services, as proposed
by Gutman (2007) in a new rural-urban compact5, may improve the situation. Combining this
with an ecological sound agricultural and food production system is a complementing
approach for maintaining biodiversity and creating more employment opportunities and more
income in the rural areas. This could stop rural social exclusion, make the rural attractive
(Aun et al, 2012) and improve youth integration in rural areas (Shucksmith, 2012). This could
not be reached without effective links between rural and urban areas with a role for
governments, development agencies and international negotiations.
Example of rural food governance: Impact of small and private farmers on rural development
in Russia.
The broad objective of Russia’s agricultural policy is to increase Russia's food self sufficiency
and export of some basic food products. Specific objectives are sustainable rural development
(increased rural employment and improved rural living standards), improved competitiveness
of Russian agriculture and natural resource conservation. In that context Russia welcomes
foreign knowledge, entrepreneurs and investors to contribute to the establishment of global
supply chains and support of small and medium-sized enterprises. Government policy is
oriented towards diversification. At this moment half of the food in Russia is produced by
small and private farms. Small and private farmers could bear a huge impact of agricultural
rural development in Russia. Increasing production means increasing rural employment and
gaining better incomes for rural workers and consequently it improves rural living conditions.
Special attention goes to reconstruction of family farms on the basis of peasant holdings in the
region. The system however is not structured. There are programs for small farms, both at the
central level a.o. The Russian Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises Support in Moscow,
and at the regional level, e.g. Krasnodar has a ‘regional portal of small businesses’
(www.mbkuban.ru). However, there is lack of money to execute them.
4.3 Urban food systems
We only look here at urban food systems as part of rural-urban linkages. Urban agriculture is
defined as producing food and food products within the city, or in the city fringe, and
simultaneously provide non-food products and services for city dwellers (AUS, 2012). Urban
agriculture has become important within cities, both in developed as less-developed countries.
The challenges and opportunities that urbanized areas provide for sustainable food production
combined with biodiversity are substantial and many creative solutions are being developed.
Examples are community gardens, roof top farming and greenhouse systems (see e.g.
Denckla, 2011), BioTop-trays on flat roofs, urban permaculture (Holmgren, 2002), etc.
4
Vision Statement from Gerda Verburg, Chair of the Seventeenth Session of the UN-Commission on
Sustainable Development, 15 May 2009, New York.
5
The new rural-urban compact keeps delivering the food and fibers that the world needs, but is able to: a)
improve the jobs and income opportunities of the rural population, b) reduce the rural-urban divide, and c)
reverse the current trend of environmental degradation that is jeopardizing both people and nature.
13
From various studies it appears that urban agriculture is spontaneous and face a lack of policy
support (Wang and Stokman, 2012), or is not an independent item in urban policies
(Haesman, 2012), but part of e.g. a sustainable urban policy of the city.
Though urban agriculture is recognized as a multi pronged tool to address food security, food
sovereignty and issues tied to food deserts, is gaining recognition as a source of livelihood,
employment, community development, as a tool for efficient use of urban natural resources,
and has a significant role to play in biodiversity conservation (Havaligi, 2012). Urban
(including peri-urban) areas, however, are not large enough to feed all the citizens. Therefore
links to the rural areas are needed.
We argue that a specific food policy is urgent and that this policy should not be restricted to
the city borders but has to be integrated in regional food policies, focusing on the
decentralization of inter- and transregional food policies.
Example of urban food governance: Food provisioning in the rapidly growing city of Dar es
Salaam.
Small scale low capital intensity modes of production are found to be competitive and
holding their own against the supermarkets, while making important social and
environmental contributions (Wegerif, 2012). The effectiveness of the small scale industry
challenges the necessity of ‘modern’ production and retailing being required to feed the cities.
Urban food provisioning benefit from enhancing these valuable food networks.
4.4 Regional food systems
If a local food system of producers and consumers is extended with local governments and
possibly other area-partners we arrive at a regional food system, see Figure 9.
In regional food systems interference of the (local) governments is necessary, because
changes in the regional food system may have a huge impact on spatial arrangements and the
social-economic, cultural and ecological development of the areas.
In these systems producers, consumers and government bodies connect to each other in their
region, to achieve a natural development of the region, more self sufficiency and sustainable
food security in the whole region. These regional food systems are the heart and soul of the
regional approach.
14
Figure 9. Regional food systems
Regional
cooperation
Slow Food
communities
Producers/
entrepren
eurship
Sustainable
regional
development
Interaction
with urban
environment
Consumers/
citizens and
institutions
Regional
Food
System
Slow Food
Convivia
Transition
Towns
Supporting
governance
Local
government/
Societal
organizations
Food Strategies
Food Policy Councils
Stimulating knowledge
Practical examples where the three parties (producers, consumers and government) co-operate
together in a formal way are not so much developed. In fact there are a lot of initiatives of the
separate parties towards the realization of these local and regional food systems. Examples
from the producers initiatives are: Food communities of Slow Food (Slow Food Editore,
2006), some examples from the Netherlands: Vechtdal, Groene Woud, Oregional, Lekker
Utregs, Kempen Goed. Initiatives originating from consumers are: Slow Food Convivia,
Transition Towns (Hopkins, 2008). Examples of initiatives undertaken by local governments
are: Urban strategies (London Food Strategy, www.london.gov.uk) (Proeftuin Amsterdam,
2010), Food Policy Councils (Toronto Food Policy Council, www.toronto.nl), (Tilburg Food
Policy Council, Plantinga, 2010).
Proeftuin Amsterdam: eating more healthy and more sustainable in the metropole region
Amsterdam, an initiative of municipalities Amsterdam, Zaanstad, the province Noord-Holland
and the national government and other parties. Aims were improvement of the relationship
between city and environment, health for citizens of Amsterdam, for the environment and
local products from the region. Farmers received new economic perspectives by sales of their
products and services to citizens, awareness of citizens of the meaning of the countryside.
In ‘Proeftuin Amsterdam’ governments local (municipalities), medium (province) and
national (ministry) worked together with societal parties, entrepreneurs and other parties on
different projects: visiting school children to farms near Amsterdam, sustainable food
distribution for the city (partly electric), more local markets, public events on sustainable
food, healthy lunches at schools, sustainable meals in homes.
The role of the municipality was directing and connecting
The Advice of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union (27/28 January 2011) is
positive about the development of local and regional food systems and intend to support these
on a professional, structural and innovative way.
We notice that the strength of the parties and the development of these regional food systems
can improve a lot when more forms of co-operation are undertaken. Local governments play
an important role. However, co-operation is difficult, is not always flexible, certainly not in
the case of groups with different interests. This means that one has to overcome individual
interests, leadership is needed to bring people in one direction.
15
Cityside and Metropolitan food systems
An example of a potential cityside food system is the region Eindhoven with the three city
gates: Karpen, Strijp and Genneper Parks. The countryside’s of Peel, Meierij and Kempen
penetrate Eindhoven through these city gates, almost to the heart of the centre.
A Metropolitan region is a city, or a set of urban cores, tied to her environs, that often consist
of valuable landscapes, nature and watersheds. The center of a Metropolitan region is build by
the city, surrounded by its environs, that could deeply penetrate the city. E.g. in the
Metropolitan region of Amsterdam the green environ Amstelland penetrates the city almost to
the city centre.
Chinese cities are of old entirely dependent upon their environs. For only one decade Chinese
cities were almost self sufficient. The total population of the Metropolitan region of Handan
is almost 8,5 million in the year end of 2002 including almost 7 million agricultural people
and more than 1,5 million of non-agricultural people. Urban population was 1,36 million.
Handan Cities’ population is third in Hebei province. People live in small compact villages in
the environ of the city. The urban part is relatively small. Using large-scale industrialized
methods of agriculture and food, like in western countries, will lead to enormous rates of
unemployment, and greater push to the centre city. Chinese government already anticipates on
this trend by building city enlargements, high living buildings and industrial areas, at the same
time destroying the villages in the environs. However, the new cities are empty because
ordinary people cannot afford these new dwellings.
Twin and Corridor food systems
A different type of subregion is the corridor region. As an example we mention the Iowa
Corridor Food & Agriculture Coalition. This is a regional network of partners revitalizing the
food and agriculture system in Iowa City and Cedar Rapids Corridor region (Benton, Iowa,
Tama, Poweshiek, Linn, Johnson, Washington, Cedar and Jones counties).
Another example is the Twin Cities food system of Minneapolis and Saint Paul, Minnesota.
Countryside and Conurbation food systems
Examples of countryside regions are the Dutch Vechtdal, a green area between the towns
Zwolle, Meppel, Hoogeveen, Nordhorn (Germany) and Almelo (Donkers et al, 2006 en
Donkers en Immink, 2008). Also the area in and around the Loonse en Drunense Duinen
between the towns Waalwijk, ’s-Hertogenbosch and Tilburg, and the so-called ‘Groene
Woud’, which is the green area between the town-triangle Eindhoven, ’s-Hertogenbosch and
Tilburg. Another countryside region in the Netherlands that is under development is
‘Boerenhart’. This is not a ‘region’ in its usual meaning. It is based on a geographical unity of
centuries ago, that at this moment has not yet a clear own identity. In fact it consists of a
conglomerate of smaller regions, that each do have a recognizable unity, with own identity,
history, authenticity and character: Gelderse and Utrechtse Vallei, Eemland, Veluwe and
Flevoland. In this region a number of food related sustainability initiatives are developed. Not
only stimulating tasty, healthy and responsible local food, but also recovery and creation of
sustainable connections between towns and environs, between farmers and citizens, and
between nature and (agri-) culture (www.platformdgo.nl).
Examples of a conurbation food system is the Dutch ’Randstad’, a rim-shaped region of the
cities Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam and The Hague, with a green heart in the centre. Other
16
examples are Midlandton" in England, the Ruhr in Germany, New York-Boston in the United
States, the Greater Tokyo Area and Taiheiyō Belt in Japan and NCR of Delhi in India.
In all these areas important is the independent own agriculture and food, that enables an
optimal interwovenness between farmers and citizens, producers and consumers, and
contributes to spatial quality.
Example of regional food governance: Regional (typical) products in calls for bids of local
and regional governments.
Regional producers want to be considered as suppliers in calls for bids for catering of
municipalities, hospitals, schools, etc.6 In the Netherlands at this moment products of regional
farmers are not considered for e.g. municipal catering, unless these products are certified
organic. For the development of regional food systems it is useful that also local and regional
production (based on ecological criteria and social-economic sustainability) could be
considered as criteria for sustainable purchase of catering. This could be based on
sustainability criteria and self regulation of the local and regional food systems themselves.
4.5 Interregional/National food systems
In interregional food systems governance is directed towards assistance in interaction between
regions. The governance of interregional food system should have a national focus.
It is not easy scaling-up the local food systems, Mount (2011). Important are the ways how
the multiple values are determined and how the processes are structured, through which these
systems are governed.
A good example of interregional development is the project ‘National Integrated Regional
Food System’ of MIT in the USA. In geographical areas where a large part of food can come
from health, sustainability and economic development are crucial. The scheme below, Figure
10, depicts the way of up-scaling through the development of ‘food hubs’ (Albright, 2010).
Figure 10.
In the Netherlands under auspices of the Platform Aarde-Boer-Consument steps are
undertaken for co-operation between various (co-operative) regional initiatives. Derden-Little
6
http://aardeboerconsument.nl/lokale-boeren-cooperaties-willen-ook-in-aanmerking-komen-voor-aanbesteding.
17
and Feenstra (2006) describe branding of agricultural products as a framework for economic
development. Ziping e.a. (2008) stipulate that regional agriculture forms the basis for
sustainable development and that this will be the focus of global research in the future. They
also developed a classification of the Chinese regional agricultural structure, using indices of
natural resources, levels of development of the agro-economy and agro-ecological conditions.
Regional integration is seen a solution for strengthening regional agricultural markets and it
determines the political agenda of many African countries.
In western countries agricultural policies were centralized and put in service of industrializing
agriculture. Industrial agriculture, therefore, has a lead in government support as compared
with regional agriculture.
The development of local food policies by national governments vary to a great extent.
Various countries develop a national policy to stimulate regional food systems: Japan (Aam et
al, 2006, Canada (Parson, 1999), California (Derden-Little en Feenstra, 2006), China (Ziping
et al, 2008).
In the Netherlands a national policy towards regional food systems has no priority. In 2009
150 local initiatives presented themselves to the national government and asked for support.
The result was the inauguration of a Platform with participation of only traditional parties,
with no representatives of consumers and small scale initiatives (LNV, 2009a, 2009b).
In Canada a grassroots-led initiative on a national food policy: Food Secure Canada (FSC)
(http://foodsecurecanada.org). It is based on three interlocking commitments: zero hunger,
sustainable food system and health and safe food. FSC aims to unite people and organizations
working for food security nationally and globally.
In the US government policies support the development of local and regional food systems
food systems “Know Your Farmer, Know Your Food” is a national initiative. The Leopold
Center for Sustainable Agriculture Iowa Local Food & Farm Plan 2011 states that
reconnecting consumers and institutions with local producers will stimulate economies in
rural communities, improve access to healthy, nutritious food for our families, and decrease
the amount of resources to transport our food. In 2010 the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kid’s Act
was signed into law for farm to school programs, which will help connect local farmers
interested in selling fresh produce and other items with interested schools. Other states as well
as metropolitan areas such as New York City invest in their own local food economies and
develop statewide local food plans.
In the EU we see that official policy is oriented towards liberalizing and finishing production
control on the one hand and that the Committee of the regions is developing local and
regional food systems (CvdR, 2011). The Committee of the Regions in the EU has developed
a territorial framework of multi-level governance with applications to food and nutrition
security for urban and rural communities. This framework acknowledges that decentralized
cooperation for both policy and development has emerged as a new and important dimension
of development cooperation.
It is now time to develop a regional policy in the field of agriculture and food at a national
level, that could connect and support the increasing initiatives. It is important to select the
right people and participants in this process, and that also individual participants can take part.
18
Example of interregional food governance: Towards a regional food policy in Europe.
The current Common Agricultural Policy is under discussion and can be changed in 2013.
Various organizations in The Netherlands (Platform Aarde Boer Consument, Afrika-Europa
Netwerk, Boerengroep Wageningen, Nederlandse Akkerbouw Vakbond, Nederlandse
Melkveehouders Vakbond, XminY Solidariteitsfonds, Transition Towns) advocate for a
regional food policy in Europe. The organizations think time has come for a more democratic,
environmental friendly and local–regional policy, after decennia where multinationals and
WTO ran the show. Food is not a global trade object, but a first necessary of life and a human
right. Needed is flexible market regulation, with stable agricultural prices for honest incomes
for farmers and fair prices for consumers. European Common Agricultural Policy may not
harm agriculture and food systems in other countries. International trade in agriculture should
be based on principles of equity, social justice and ecological sustainability. Good labour
conditions and access to agricultural land. Respecting worldwide the environment, protecting
biodiversity and finite stocks of agricultural land and water, increasing animal welfare and
decreasing use of fossil fuels. Mitigating power concentrations of food processing industries
and retail and their influence on what is produced and consumed. Supporting food systems
that diminish the distance between farmers and consumers. Taking care for transparency
throughout the food chain to inform citizens about the ways their food is produced, where it
comes from, what is in it and how the consumers’ price is build-up. Promoting healthy eating
patterns and direction towards more vegetable diets, respecting eating cultures of European
sections of the people. Promoting local seasonal products of good quality, through which
citizens feel connected again with food and food producers. Making that children learn skills
and knowledge to produce, prepare and enjoy healthy and nutritional food.
4.6 Transregional/Global food systems
Governance in transregional food systems deal with relationships of food systems across the
world. The governance of transregional food system should have a global focus. A new policy
is needed to develop on the basis of the concept of sustainable food security a social society,
prosperous inhabitants, well-functioning eco-systems, the right to food, food production and
food safety.
As an example of transregional food systems think of jumelages between various Slow Food
Communities in the world. In practice transregional food systems are scarce. However, a lot
of organizations put efforts in international connections to attain conditions that are favorable
for national and/or local interests, Food First (2011). They are confronted with other players
at the international level, like WTO, UN, OECD and others.
The intergovernmental organization WTO is charged with the supervision over the fulfillment
of trade-agreements between countries, starting from the basic philosophy that international
trade is the best and most effective way to make the world more prosperous. Therefore each
obstacle for international free trade should be removed. WTO is an arena, where all members
defend their own trade interests, Maes (2002). GATT, a precursor of WTO, is one of the
underlying WTO-treatments. Trade liberalization negotiations (goods, services and
intellectual property rights) take place in rounds. Because of negotiation difficulties the Doharound, that started in 2001, is still not finished. The basic philosophy of WTO contradicts with
the basic philosophy of local and regional food systems, that we discuss in this paper. Core
problem is that in practice world trade is not free trade, because of monopolistic and
oligopolistic circumstances.
19
Rio+20 is the new (3e) Conference on sustainable development UNCED (United Nations
Conference on Environment and Development) to be held in Rio de Janeiro, 4-6 June 2012.
Rio+20 has three aims:
- to care for a new political engagement for sustainable development;
- to establish the progress and assess the gaps that remain;
- to deal with the new problems that came into existence.
Topics are a green economy in the context of sustainable development and fighting poverty
and strengthening the institutional framework for sustainable development (governance).
Also UNEP, het United Nations Environment Programme, is involved in the Rio+20-process.
It focuses on green economy and international governance, in combination with the most
important stakeholders. See various reports of UNEP: Why a Green Economy Matters for the
Least Developed Countries; Towards a Green Economy. Pathways to sustainable and poverty
eradication (a synthesis for policy makers); and Towards a Green Economy. Pathways to
sustainable and poverty eradication. OECD developed the new trend of ‘Green growth’,
which aims at stimulating economic growth and employment by sustainable use of natural
resources, efficient energy use and valuation of eco systems services. Green growth strategy is
OESO’s contribution to the Rio+20 Conference. See the reports: ”Towards Green Growth’.
The basic report present recommendations to governments to realize green growth: green jobs
and social aspects, green taxes and regulations, green technologies, peer reviews, co-operation
between OESO-countries and rising economies, involvement of stakeholders. IMF and World
Bank introduced a policy of withdrawal of governments in favor of foreign investors.
A SEED (Action for Solidarity, Equality, Environment, and Development), is an
international, activist, different-globalist campaign organization, that wants to tackle the
structural causes of environmental problems and social injustice by campaigns against
multinationals and their national and international spheres of influence and instruments of
power. At the same time sustainable alternatives and the development of farmer- consumer
connections are promoted. La Via Campesina (McMichael, 2007) is an international
movement of small and medium sized farmers, indigenous and landless people, migrants and
agricultural workers all over the world. They defend small scale sustainable agriculture and
promote local food sovereignty. ANSA (Alternatives to Neo-Liberalism in South Africa) is a
project of labor unions in that region.
IFC (International Finance Corporation), supported by the EU, started an initiative to
strengthen the private agricultural sector in the south of Africa. The ‘Regional Agricultural
Food Security Forum’ tackled the question of how to get more easy access for small scale
farmers to finance production. The International Development Research Centre (IDRC) look
at the international negotiations related to food security and the organizations behind them
(Tansey and Rajotte, 2008).
Example of transregional food governance: Rio+20 to focus on regional economies for
sustainable food security.
In the preamble towards Rio+20 focus is on ‘green economies’ to attain a new political
engagement for sustainable development and fighting poverty. This approach allows a
continuing growth with up-scaling consequences and further world trade liberalization,
though with more attention for sustainability. We argue that for realizing food security
‘regional economies’, with local and small scale approaches, are more appropriate. This is
also recommended by the UN Rapporteur on the Right to Food (De Schutter, 2011, 2012) and
the EU-Committee of the Regions (CvdR, 2011). This focus on regional economics
20
immediately has repercussions on the trade liberalization policies. Apart from green
economies at Rio+20 attention should be paid to limitations on trade liberalization to allow
countries and nations making their own food policies and to oppose oligopolistic tendencies at
the world market.
5. Conclusions
The current dominant system of agriculture and food is an industrialized system, based on
mainstream economic growth. World trends of climate change, peak oil and food crises of
poverty, ecology and nutrition ask for a new approach. A new paradigm – sustainable food
security - was developed, where apart from economic (quality and honesty rewarding
relationships), reconsidering ecological (biodiversity) and social values, also food sovereignty
and food safety play a part, It is concluded that a system of regional agriculture and food is
best suited to tackle these problems.
In the definition regional food systems we take account of geographic aspects and aspects of
cooperation. We define a region as an inseparable entity of (parts of) one or more cities and
countryside environs. Rural-urban linkages are thus characteristic features of regions. We talk
about a regional food system when in these regions both producers, consumers and
governments cooperate in one way or another.
We developed a workable classification of local and regional food systems that enables to
make a more systematic approach to all the various initiatives that we see in the field of local
and regional food systems throughout the world. The first category consist of producerconsumer interaction in local food systems or short chains with rural, urban or rural-urban
reach. In the second category producer-consumer-government interaction take place in rural,
urban, regional, interregional and transregional food systems with rural, urban, rural-urban,
national and global reach respectively.
At the levels of short chains or local food systems we see various and different initiatives that
have taken smart forms, and the developments are so strong that they have become
irreversible.
Regions where apart from producers and consumers also governments take formal part in the
initiatives are in the developing phase. Though in different regions we see many separate
initiatives of these parties: Slow food communities and convivia, transition town initiatives
and food policy councils are but some examples.
An important conclusion is that the strength of the parties can improve a lot when more forms
of co-operation are undertaken, at different levels. However, in this path severe obstacles
arise. Co-operation is difficult, is not always flexible, certainly not in the case of a large group
of individual entrepreneurs and in the case of groups with different interests. This means that
one has to overcome individual interests, leadership is needed to bring people in one
direction.
We discuss some experiences with regional governance systems and conclude that the
selection of partners in the governance process is very important with the possibility that also
individual participants can take part.
Many and different food initiatives are increasing in many countries. Connections however in
national/interregional food systems are still in its infancy. They deserve further support of the
21
national governments. At the level of global/transregional food systems above all interactions
take place at the policy level of various institutions. In many cases we see confrontations
between established institutions and societal movements.
Stimulating local and regional systems of agriculture and food a new policy is needed. In
western countries after World War 2 both the centralized government policy, and also
centralized knowledge development, were put in service of the industrial agriculture and food
system and have the lead. Policies towards regional systems of agriculture and food are in
arrears. It is not easy scaling-up the local and regional food systems. Important are the ways
how the processes, through which these systems are governed, are structured. Now a regional
oriented policy is needed that is tuned to the different hierarchic levels. We caution that these
policies should not be restricted to cities or countryside’s but lead to rural-urban linkages.
At a global policy level governed international trade is necessary to mitigate the power of
monopolistic and oligopolistic elements in international trade.
At each level of the classification of local and regional food systems we conclude the
discussion with an example of the appropriate food governance approach.
Making up arrears in the fields at the policy level will contribute to a social society,
prosperous inhabitants, well-functioning eco-systems, right to food and food production for
all and food safety. We notice that further study is needed on the implementation towards this
new local and regional food systems. This is a holistic process, that, apart from policy
interventions, asks for development of knowledge and innovation, investments and new forms
of financing, information and communication technologies and marketing.
22
References
Aam, K., T. Sasaki and S. Sadekeen, 2006. Activation of organizational management in
agricultural reform: A case study of Lijima Town, Japan, Journal of International Farm
Management, Vol. 3, No. 3.
Albright, T.E., 2010. Applying systems analysis and collaboration to critical social concerns.
MIT Collaborative Initiatives.
Aun, N.J. L., A.C. Norder and G.G. Fagundes, 2012. The involvement of new rural
population in the sustainable rural development. Paper presented at Agriculture in an
Urbanizing Society (AUS), International Conference on Multifunctional Agriculture and
Urban-Rural Relations, Wageningen.
AUS, 2012. Agriculture in an Urbanizing Society (AUS), International Conference on
Multifunctional Agriculture and Urban-Rural Relations, Programme book, Book of abstracts,
Wageningen.
Beck, D. and Ch. Cowan, 1996. Spiral Dynamics.
Boonstra, F.G., W.W. Buunk and M. Pleijte, 2006. Governance of Nature, WOt-rapport 33,
Wageningen UR.
Boonstra, F.G., W. Kuindersma, H. Bleumink, S. de Boer and A.M.E. Groot, 2007. Van
varkenspest tot integrale gebiedsontwikkeling Evaluatie van de reconstructie zandgebieden,
Alterra Rapport 1441, Wageningen.
Brundtland Commission, 1987. United Nations Report: Our Common Future.
Chappell, M.J. and L.A. LaValle, 2011. Food security and biodiversity: can we have both?
Agriculture and Human Values, Vol. 28, p. 3-26.
Clancy, K. and K. Ruhf, 2010. Is Local Enough? Some Arguments for Regional Food
Systems, Choices, The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Vol. 25, No. 1.
Coenen. F., R. Peppel and J. Woltjer. 2001. De evolutie van inspraak in de Nederlandse
planning. Beleidswetenschap, Vol.4, p. 313-332.
Cotler, A., 2009. The Locavore Way, Discover and enjoy the pleasures of locally grown food.
Storey Publishing, Massachusetts.
Custot, J. and F. Gianfelici, 2012. A new food system paradigm for food and nutrition
security in an urbanizing world, Paper presented at Agriculture in an Urbanizing Society
(AUS), International Conference on Multifunctional Agriculture and Urban-Rural Relations,
Wageningen.
CvdR (Committee for the Regions of the EU), 2011. Lokale voedselsystemen,
Rapporteur: Lenie Dwarshuis-van de Beek (NL/ALDE), 27/28 januari 2011.
DeLind, L.B., 2011. Are local food and the local food movement taking us where we want to
go?
23
Delmas, M.A. and O.R. Young (eds), 2009. Governance for the environment: New
perspectives. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Denckla, D., 2011. The Greenest, The Brooklyn Grange, a rooftop farm business in Long
Island City). Retrieved from www.cityfarmer.info.
Derden-Little E. and G. Feenstra, 2006. Regional agricultural marketing: A review of
programs in California. University of California.
Donkers, H., V. Immink and J. Bijman, 2006. With every bite a better countryside (in Dutch
with English summary), Wetenschapswinkel Wageningen UR, Report 218, Wageningen, 88
pp.
Donkers H., and V. Immink, 2008. Regions, finger-licking good, Handbook Regional
Agriculture, with Vechtdal Overijssel as an example (in Dutch with English summary).
Landwerk, Wageningen, 318 pp.
Donkers, H., 2012. Local food systems for global future, Sustainable food security, a
paradigm for local and regional food systems, Paper prepared for: Agriculture in an
urbanizing society, International conference on multifunctional agriculture and urban-rural
relations, Wageningen.
Egmond, K. van, 2010. Een vorm van beschaving, Uitgeverij Christofoor, Zeist.
Food First, 2011. Food Movements Unite! Strategies to Transform Our Food Systems.
Geertsen, S., A. Jansen, R. van der Lecq and P. Wolting, 1999. Het corridorconcept op
regionaal schaalniveau. Rooilijn, Tijdschrift voor wetenschap en beleid in de ruimtelijke
ordening, Vol. 32, No. 8, p. 410-414.
Grain, 2011. The great milk robbery, How corporations are stealing livelihoods and a vital
source of nutrition from the poor. Report, Available at:
http://www.grain.org/article/categories/14-reports
Gutman, P.,2007. Ecosystem services: Foundations for a new rural-urban compact. Ecological
Economics, Vol. 62, p. 383-397. Available at www.sciencedirect.com.
Haesman, M., 2012. Policy challenges for urban agriculture: evidence from the cities of
Vancouver, New York, London and Copenhagen. Paper presented at
Agriculture in an Urbanizing Society (AUS), International Conference on Multifunctional
Agriculture and Urban-Rural Relations, Wageningen.
HarmoniCOP. 2005. Learning together to manage together, Improving participation in water
management, Osnabruck. Available at www.harmonicop.uos.de, accessed March 2011.
Havaligi, N., 2012. Urban agriculture - an (unlikely) biodiversity conservation tool? Paper
presented at Agriculture in an Urbanizing Society (AUS), International Conference on
Multifunctional Agriculture and Urban-Rural Relations, Wageningen.
24
Holmgren, D., 2002. Permaculture: Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability, Hepburn
Victoria: Holmgren Design Services.
Hopkins, R., 2008. The Transition Handbook: from oil dependency to local resilience, Green
Books.
Ingemann, J.H., 2009. Food and agricultural system development information and knowledge,
in: Giancarlo Barbirolim (ed), 2009. Principles of sustainable development, Encyclopedia of
Life Support Systems, EOLSS.
Jensen, J., 2009. Local and regional food systems for rural futures. RUPRI Rural Futures Lab
Foundation Paper No.1.
Jonkers, H.L. with cooperation of J.P. van der Woerd, W.A. van Beek - Vlaanderen Oldenzeel
and B. Gravendeel, 2011. Mensbeeld, cultuur, kennis en beschaving, Beschrijving van de
samenleving als evolutionair bestel van mensen en waardestromen in levende systemen op
een nieuwe spirituele basis, Arnhem.
Klimaat en voedselcrisis, 2011. Duurzame kleinschalige landbouw als deel van de oplossing,
Oxfam België.
Korten, D., 2009. Toward a More Conscious Economy, Interview by Michael Toms,
10/18/2009 (www.newdimensions .org).
Kuindersma, W. and T.A. Selnes, 2009. Het Investeringsbudget Landelijk Gebied: Synergie
en strijd tussen governance en prestatiesturing in het plattelandsbeleid. Wageningen, Alterra.
Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture, 2006. Developing a Vibrant and Sustainable
Regional Food System, Suggestions for Community-Based Groups, Regional Food Systems
Working Group (RFSWG) Subcommittee, Iowa.
Local Food Systems, 2011. Background and issues. www.localfoodsystems.org
Maes,M., 2002. Met hoop op beterschap. Besluitvorming in de Wereldhandelsorganisatie,
opgenomen in: R. de Meyer en E. Vervliet (red.), 2002. Tijd om te handelen, vragen bij de
Wereldhandelsorganisatie, NoordZuid cahier nr. 2, Voil.27, p. 107-116.
Marsden, T., J. Banks, and G. Bristow, 2000. “Food Supply Chain Approaches: Exploring
Their Role in Rural Development.” Sociologia Ruralis Vol. 40, p. 424-438.
McMichael, Ph., 2007. La Via Campesina, A ground-breaking study of the rise of this
significant new political and social force, Cornell University.
Ministry of LNV, 2009a. Duurzaam Voedsel.
Ministry of LNV, 2009b. Nieuwsbrief Duurzaam Voedsel, Kleinschalige initiatieven,
september 2009.
Moeller, H-G., 2006. Luhmann Explained, From Souls to Systems, Open Court Publishing
Company, Chicago, Illinois.
25
Mount, PH., 2011. Growing Local Food: Scale and Local Food Systems Governance, Dept. of
Geography, University of Guelph.
Nota Ruimte, 2004. Nota Ruimte, Ruimte voor ontwikkeling, Ministry of VROM.
Parson, H.E., 1999. Regional trends of agricultural restructuring, Canadian Journal of
Regional Science, Vol. XXII:3, p. 343-356.
Plantinga, S., 2010. Als door een Voedselbril… , Een onderzoek naar de randvoorwaarden,
mogelijkheden en beperkingen voor het opzetten van een Food Policy Council in Tilburg,
Afstudeerwerkstuk Wageningen Universiteit.
Proeftuin Amsterdam, 2010. Naar een metropolitane voedselstrategie.
Schutter, O. de, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, 2011. A tale of four hungers?,
Lecture Series: ‘Agriculture, Rural Employment, and Inclusive Growth, NCDO, The Hague.
Schutter, O. de, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, 2012. Right to Food. Retrieved
from www.srfood.org.
Shiva, V., 2011. India’s food security emergency, Corporate influence on food production and
large, chemical monoculture farms is causing a severe food insecurity crises, 12 juli, Al
Jazeera.
Shucksmith, M., 2012. Social exclusion of young people in rural Europe. Paper presented at
Agriculture in an Urbanizing Society (AUS), International Conference on Multifunctional
Agriculture and Urban-Rural Relations, Wageningen.
Slow Food Editore, 2008. Terra Madre, 1600 Food Communities.
Smith C.S., and G.T. McDonald, 1998. Assessing the sustainability of
agriculture at the planning stage, Journal of Environmental Management Vol. 52, p. 15–37.
Stuurgroep Metropolitaan Landschap, 2007. De kracht van het landschap, Brochure.
Tansey G. and Tasmin Rajotte (eds), 2008. The future control of food, a guide to international
negotiations and rules on intellectual property, biodiversity, and food security, Earthscan,
London.
Taylor, Ch., 1989. Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, Harvard
University Press.
Tibaijuka, A., 2009. There is no sustainable development without sustainable urbanization.
Statement by dr. Anna Kajumulo Tibaijuka, UN-under-secretary-general, at the 17th Session
of the UN-Commission on Sustainable Development, New York.
Transforum, 2011. Groeien naar een duurzame agro-sector, de resultaten van zes jaar
Transforum, Transforum, Zoetermeer.
26
Wang X. and A. Stokman, 2012. People’s attitudes towards intra-urban agriculture in China.
Take Beijing as an example, Paper presented at Agriculture in an Urbanizing Society (AUS),
International Conference on Multifunctional Agriculture and Urban-Rural Relations,
Wageningen.
Wegerif, M.C.A., 2012. Laying eggs for the City: An initial exploration of divergent modes of
egg supply to Dar es Salaam. Paper presented at Agriculture in an Urbanizing Society (AUS),
International Conference on Multifunctional Agriculture and Urban-Rural Relations,
Wageningen.
Wilber, K., 1996. A Brief History of Everything, Shambhalla.
Young, O.R., 2009. Governance for sustainable development in a world of rising
interdependencies. In: Delmas, M.A., Young, O.R. (eds). 2009. Governance for the
environment: New perspectives. New York, Cambridge University Press.
Ziping, M., L. Hongmei, Ch. Guanping and L. Xin, 2008. Classification of regional
agricultural structure: method and its application to China, Ecological Economy, Vol. 4, No.
4.
27