1. TRADEIT Innovation for the traditional food sector A European initiative.
Dr. Joan Lockyer

2. Traditional Agri-Food Sector
Growing segment of EU Food Market
Provenance, minimally processed, “natural” attributes, heritage
Innovate to meet consumer demands
21st Century standards
Food safety and quality
Nutritional Content
Convenience
Traceability
Sustainability
Operational Issues
Marketing
Business Models
Supply Chain
Networking
Traditional foods are a significant element of the cultural heritage of each member state and critical for economic inputs in many regions
Commission believes that by improving the COMPETITIVENESS and MARKET REACH companies will be more SUSTAINABLE & CONTRIBUTE more effectively to the Lisbon Strategy for increased growth, employment and social well being.
DEMAND has increased in parallel with consumers increasing awareness and interest the full food chain
Challenging for TFP, few have the expertise, financial or personnel required to engage in and deliver innovation led activities.
This has been acknowledge by the Commission and is the reason the Trafoon and TRADEIT are in place today.
Product & Process Innovations
Organisational & Social Innovation

3. TRADEIT architecture TRADEIT TRADEIT Advisor Training
Finland
Germany
Ireland
Italy
Poland
Portugal
Spain UK
Technology
Knowledge
Collaboration
Entrepreneurial Academy
TRADEIT Advisor
Training
Innovation Partnership
Technology Transfer
Brokerage
SME Missions
SBTTR
TRADEIT
SME Associations
SMEs
Knowledge Providers
Researchers
Consumers
National Food & Drink Associations
Policy Makers
A pan-European Network of Traditional Agrifood stakeholders
Piloting 9 regional Knowledge and Technology transfer hubs
7 key stakeholder groups
Project will deliver Training, Networking, Technology Transfer opportunities and entrepreneurial training to the Network
Managed as 9 sub-networks regional level – via TRADEIT Advisor – relationship building, in-depth support, language appropriate, monitoring and follow up.
Each Hub is delivering an ambitious program of events and supports tailored to the needs of SMEs (Bakery, Meat and Dairy).
Food Safety Cost Models Supply Chain Packaging Labelling Marketing

4. Adding Value to Local Foods: Using Place Identity and Quality Certification
Farm & More Event, Exeter
5th February 2015
Professor Moya Kneafsey
Luke Owen
Centre for Agroecology, Water and Resilience (CAWR)
Coventry University

5. Workshop outline Introductions 1) Local Food: The Scale of the Market
The growth of local food in the UK
Different models for retailing local food
2) Adding Value Through Geographical Indications
PDO, PGI and TSG labels
Labeling and marketing local foods
Summary
Useful links and contacts

6. What is local food? How do you interpret the term ‘local food’?
What are your reasons?
Are there any criteria or factors that come to mind?
Local is about
TRUST
QUALITY
(RE)CONNECTIONS
PLACES
IDENTITY
KEY POINT IS THAT IT IS A RELATIONAL TERM! HOWEVER, IT HAS VALUE (both socially, and economically – for markets). It is something that can be CAPITALISED upon.
DEFINING LOCAL (from CPRE 2012 page 11)
“In England CPRE has promoted a definition of local food as food produced, grown and processed within 30 miles of the store. This distance has also been adopted by a number of large retail chains including Waitrose, Asda, Booths and The Cooperative. Tesco uses a county or neighbouring county definition. The National Farmers Retail and Markets Association (FARMA) has developed this definition into a set of certification criteria for farmers’ markets to protect their integrity. It uses 30 miles as the ideal radius, but this can be stretched to 50 miles for larger cities, or coastal or remote regions, with 100 miles as the maximum recommended. FARMA also recognises distinct geographical areas such as counties and National Parks.”
LOCAL FOOD: Sold within a locale/region.
LOCALITY FOOD: Branded but sold outside the region of production.

7. What is local food? ‘local food’ is not legally defined in the EU/UK
the meaning of ‘local’ is ‘relational’ (what it means varies in relation to who you are and where you are – Texas or Taunton!)
no agreement on all variables which should be included in ‘local food’ e.g. origin of ingredients, location of production, processing, retail, distance travelled
‘local’ can be used to describe many products, even when their link with any identifiable place of origin is weak…

8. 1. What is local food? Local Food Locality or Regional Foods
Locality i.e. produced in a defined place, but not necessarily purchased/consumed in that place. Often associated with ‘speciality’, ‘quality’ foods e.g. Jersey Royals, Welsh lamb, Stilton cheese
1. What is local food?
Local Food
(in a Local Food System)
Locality or Regional Foods
Local i.e. food produced, processed & retailed within a bounded geographical area e.g. farmers’ markets, farm shops, box schemes and community supported agriculture
Source: Buller and Morris 2003

9. ‘Local food’ is a woolly concept, but consumers are interested. Why?
Increasing interest since the 1990s…
Health scares led to mistrust of industrial food chains (most recently, ‘Horsegate’)
Worries about social, economic and environmental problems with industrial and spatially extended food chains
Perception that local = good quality + trustworthy
Desire to support British and local farmers, producers and communities
‘Celebrity’ food and foodie culture
(Many studies agree on the above drivers for example Socio- Economic Research and Intelligence Observatory, 2008)

10. Local Food: A growing market
92% of 26,713 EU citizens agree that EU should encourage local markets and distribution channels (Eurobarometer 2011)
89% agree that there are benefits to buying locally from a farm (Eurobarometer 2011)
96% of 26,593 EU citizens say that quality is important to them when buying food and 71% say that origin of food is important (Eurobarometer 2012)
US sales of locally produced food rose to $12billion in 2014; 2% of food sales
53% of adults seek out locally produced food. Even Wal- mart stocks local!
Supporting local / British producers is one of the most important ethical criteria for shoppers.
36% of shoppers claim they are prepared to pay extra for locally produced foods (IGD 2012)
Local food sales through independent outlets worth estimated £2.7 billion to the economy (CPRE 2012)
In 2009, Asda reported that sales of local food increased by 41% (investment in 9 regional food hubs)
file:///Users/ab2943/Downloads/CPRE_local_food_fact_sheet.pdf
CAP reform towards rural development, agriculture as a key rural industry for endogenous sustainable development
Evidence of growth in e.g. Farmers Markets started in just 1997, but 750 in UK by 2012 (FARMA)
DEFINING LOCAL (from CPRE 2012 page 11)
“In England CPRE has promoted a definition of local food as food produced, grown and processed within 30 miles of the store. This distance has also been adopted by a number of large retail chains including Waitrose, Asda, Booths and The Cooperative. Tesco uses a county or neighbouring county definition. The National Farmers Retail and Markets Association (FARMA) has developed this definition into a set of certification criteria for farmers’ markets to protect their integrity. It uses 30 miles as the ideal radius, but this can be stretched to 50 miles for larger cities, or coastal or remote regions, with 100 miles as the maximum recommended. FARMA also recognises distinct geographical areas such as counties and National Parks.”
IN 2009, the Grocer reported that ASDA sales of local food had increased by 41%; invested in 9 regional hubs.
NFU reported as saying Local is British, ‘regional alternatives just don’t stack up’, according to a report on Foodmanufacture.co.uk , June Responding to CPRE report that supermarkets damage local foods
Figures just publsied In the US, sales of locally produced food rose to $12 billion in 2014; 2% of total food sales. 53% of adults specially seek out locally grown or produced foods. Even Wal-mart sources local food. Source:

11. Demand for local food in the UK
Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) study, 2012:
The main reasons for shoppers buying local food were:
Supporting local farmers and producers (56%)
Quality (54%)
Supporting the local economy (51%)
Taste (41%)
Food miles (34%)
Value for money (19%)
Seasonal Food (19%)
Discussion on definitions?
file:///Users/ab2943/Downloads/CPRE_local_food_fact_sheet.pdf
(CPRE 2012 report data summarised in above link)
Can cherry pick a few key points (e.g. economic impacts)
EU Barometer report 2012
CPRE report 2012:
Shopper surveys, business interviews and public meetingsEngaging the local community Numbers of local volunteers involved: 262 Numbers of shoppers interviewed: 1,873Number of public meetings held (launch meetings/workshops): 52 Number of people attending and contributing views: 1,735Talking to businesses Number of businesses screened in 19 locations (for sales of local food): 804 Number of outlets interviewed: 403 Number of supply chain businesses interviewed: 219Number of case study interviews: 102

12. Producer Perspectives
What are the benefits of selling ‘local’ food?
Price premium – especially if packaged/processed/branded
Potential to link into tourism trails
Direct sales allows for better understanding of consumer demand
Greater share of profit when cutting out ‘middlemen’
More control over the food chain
BUT, also more cost + resource demands (danger of ‘burnout’)
Cost effectiveness of selling direct and/or local is affected by location, existence of processing facilities, cost of distribution etc.
The economic impact will vary according to:
  to type of SFC e.g. a farmers market compared to a farm shop
  the location of the business ie. whether close to large urban markets/ tourism destinations
or not
  the types of food produce involved e.g. higher value, processed foods such as meat pies
or honey, compared to lower value unprocessed goods such as fruit and vegetables
  the existing infrastructure: e.g. the economic performance of local beef chains varies
depending on the location of a slaughter house at proximity
The authors state that whether producers are better off or not in local supply chains depends on volume of sales, size of price premium, cost of additional supply chain functions and the affects of seasonality. The study is important because it compares local and direct marketing chains to mainstream ones. For example, it found that although products in local supply chains travel fewer miles, the fuel use per unit of product can be greater than in mainstream chains. In the mainstream chains, greater fuel efficiency per unit of product is achieved with larger loads and logistical efficiencies which outweigh the longer distances
A conclusion from these contrasting findings is that while certain risks like dependency on single outlets, anonymity and commodity type price pressures can be avoided with SFCs, they are exchanged with new marketing risks, labour requirements and costs. It is also worth noting that many producers operating SFCs primarily do so for ethical reasons, and many put the wider common good ahead of self-interest (Ilbery and Kneafsey, 1998); some authors have highlighted a danger of producer ‘self-exploitation’ whereby producers sacrifice their economic wellbeing for the greater environmental and social good, which is in the long term, unsustainable (Galt 2013).

13. Index of food relocalisation
The SW is in a ‘good position’ to capitalise on local foods according to the work of Ricketts-Hein et al. (2006). Also element of tourism
Useful point to reiterate given the workshop is in Exeter..
Criteria used was:
Ricketts-Hein et al. (2006) use the following indicators to determine the extent of a region’s food relocalisation, with 1-3 being ‘production’ oriented and 4-6 being ‘marketing’ oriented indicators:
Number of local food directories
Number of local food producers advertising in local food directories
Number of organic farmers and growers licensed with the Soil Association.
Number of farm shops selling food items registered with the Farm Retail Association (FARMA)
Number of Women’s Institute co-operative markets
Number of farmers markets
Source: Ricketts-Hein et al. (2006)

14. 2) Adding Value Through Geographical Indications (GIs)
Constructing quality and differentiating in competitive market places is important for brand recognition and sales.
Key mechanisms and ways to do this:
Marketing strategies associated with place
Certification schemes and quality labels

15. (Source: Ilbery et al. 2005: 119)
Possible ‘activity’ to get participants/ audience to consider the ways their own products draw on PLACE and PROCESS as a means to differentiate and access markets?
(e.g. in the labelling imagery, words, website, the ‘branding’).
Constructing quality = differentiating & marketing
Constructing DIFFERENCE
Occupying a niche market space
Capitalise on the 3 Ps to achieve
More than just food commodities
The tighter, stronger and more CLEAR that the connections between PPP are – the more effective a labelling scheme/ marketing strategy (in theory at least).
(Source: Ilbery et al. 2005: 119)

16. Source: Ilbery and Kneafsey (2000)
Source?? (No reference in 336GED lecture notes..)
CERTIFICATION
ASSOCIATION
ATTRACTION
SPECIFICATION
Source: Ilbery and Kneafsey (2000)

17. PDO, PGI and TSG labels

18. PDO, PGI and TSG labels Three EU schemes known as:
PDO (protected designation of origin),
PGI (protected geographical indication)
TSG (traditional speciality guaranteed)
promote and protect names of quality agricultural products and foodstuffs”
(Source: European Commission)
‘Discover the Origin’: Examples of PDO
Quote from
(2 min 31 secs) about PFNs (PDO and PGI )

19. Source: https://www.gov.uk/protected-food-names-guidance-for-producers

20. Example of European geography of PDO, PGI and TSG
*Not all EU country data displayed 9 6 5 57 96
In 2010 the number of Gis in each country were:
UK = 33
Italy = 193
France = 170
Spain = 128
Germany = 68
So a GROWING MARKET (data to reflect this?)
Steady increase in number of Gis throughout EU:
2000: 450
2008: 760
2011: 970
2014: 1196
208
260
170
123
100
Source: Adapted from Rippon (2013)

21. Geography of UK PDO, PGI and TSG
In the SW, notable Gis include:
Fal Oysters (Famlouth, Cornwall)
Cornish Clotted Cream
Cornish Pasty (PGI)
Cornish Sardines
West Country Beef and Lamb
Exmoor Blue Cheese (PGI)
West Country Farmhouse Cheddar
Traditionally Farmed Gloucester Old Spots Pork (TSG)
Source: Google Maps 2015

22. Consumer demand for PDO-PGI-TSG
Opportunities to increase consumer demand by marketing products with a regional label
Perceived quality a strong determinant of willingness to pay for protected regional products
Emotional aspects of regional products are important to consumers (e.g. loyalty to farmers)
(Van Ittersum et. al. 2007)
FROM EU SFSC REPORT:
“Extensive research on PDOs provides some insight into consumer attitudes towards food labelling. Van Ittersum et al. (2007) conducted a large scale, mixed methods investigation into consumer’s appreciation of PDO labels in the Netherlands, Italy and Greece. They drew three key conclusions: Firstly, consumers’ appreciation of regional certification labels may provide opportunities to increase consumer demand by marketing products with a regional label. Secondly, perceived quality is a strong determinant of consumers’ willingness to pay for protected regional products. Finally, as already suggested in the preceding discussion, emotional aspects related to regional products are also part of consumer attitudes – this can include loyalty to local farmers, and can extend to ‘defensive localism’ (Winter 2003) and ‘ethnocentric’ buying behaviour (Chambers et al. 2007). Van Ittersum et al. (2007) conclude that protecting products may be beneficial to stop copy cats spoiling reputation and that communication strategies should focus on quality-warranty and economic support benefits of regional certification labels (this is especially relevant to consumers with close ties to the region). They argue that “regional certification labels help increase the market transparency of regional product-quality, enabling consumers to make better choices and in this way increase consumer welfare” (Van Ittersum et al. 2007: 18), although they recognize that a limitation of the research was that is focused on consumers who already buy PDO products, and not those who do not buy them, and these consumers may already have decided to support regional producers for a range of reasons. Attitudes and behaviour towards PDOs clearly vary by country. In 1998 Tregear et al. found low awareness of PDO/PGI schemes in the UK, as did Teuber in Germany, 2011 (for other studies on consumer and PDOs see Espejel et al. 2008; Herrera and Blanco 2011).”

23. Economic Impacts of PDO/PGI
Total Geographical Indication (GI) sales were over €54bn; 5.7% of the total value of the food and drink sector across the EU of €956bn.
The sales value of British GIs in 2010 totalled €5.506 billion of which food and agricultural products comprised €1.059 billion.
PDO/PGI (GI) products are sold (on average) 2.23 times higher than comparable non-GI products (1.86 times higher in the UK).
In 2010 the UK had only 1.4% of the total number of GI products but these accounted for 10% of total sales value which placed it in fourth behind France (38%), Italy (22%) and Germany (11%).
(Source: EC 2013, Artisan Food Law 2013, Rippon 2014)

24. PDO/PGI/TSG Registration Process
Producer group level
Definition of the product according to precise specifications
Analysis by national authorities (DEFRA)
Examination by the EC (max. 6 months)
First publication in EU official Journal
Opposition period (3 months)
Registration
Rejection if does not comply with EU legislation
If opposition, consultation between parties (3 months).
No agreement = decision by EC
National level
European level
Source of original diagram (
National authority contact: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Simon Johnson
Regional and Local Food Team, Food and Family Group
Area 8E, 9 Millbank, Nobel House
17 Smith Square
LONDON SW1P 3JR
Tel:
Fax:
Source: Adapted from European Commission 2015)

25. Case study 1: Cornish Pasty Association
Key Point: Geographical Indications are an opportunity
CPA formed 2002
50+ members
2011: Cornish pasty granted PGI status
“By guaranteeing the quality of the Cornish pasty, we are helping to protect our British food legacy...
…We lag far behind other European countries like France and Italy, that have hundreds of food products protected, and it's important that we value our foods just as much.”
(Former CPA chairman)
"The texture of the filling is chunky, made up of uncooked minced or roughly cut chunks of beef (not less than 12.5%), swede, potato, and onion with a light seasoning. The pastry casing is golden in colour, savoury, glazed with milk or egg and robust enough to retain its shape throughout the cooking and cooling process without splitting or cracking. The pasty is slow-baked and no artificial flavourings or additives must be used (from Guardian article
PASTY UNDER THREAT 6th Jan 2015 News article
“Under existing EU law, protected regional food specialities, like the acclaimed Cornish pasty, can only be sold under their classic names if they are produced in the relevant region.
The legislative protection offered to products in the EU doesn’t apply in the US, however, where variants of European delicacies commonly surface.
Roughly 60 UK products are on the EU’s list of protected status foods. The list contains 1,100 foods in total, and includes Prosciutto, Parmesan, Feta cheeses, and Black Forest Hams.
While Stilton, Melton Mowbray, Pork Pies and Cumberland Sausage are among UK food products currently protected in the Union, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is not currently considered a risk to them, as they are not imitated by US food producers.
The same, however, cannot be said for Cornish pasties. As the fate of the humble pastry remains unclear, TTIP raises important questions about the changing face of EU sovereignty and Europe’s food industry.”
See also

26. Case study 2: Melton Mowbray Pork Pies
Key Point: Processed products are more complex and can involve more time to agree on…
Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association (MMPA) formed 1998
“By 1998, there weren’t very many [local Melton Mowbray producers] left so getting consensus was—I’m not going to say easy—but not impossible. If you contrast us [the MMPPA] with some of the other Associations—getting an agreement on what the recipe should be was next to impossible…
…It’s such an emotional thing and it gets more difficult the more processed the product [is]. The Melton pie was the first processed product to get a PGI. Cheese is easy, beer is easy but when you bring together meat, pastry and spices— it’s a more complicated affair.”
MMPA Member (Source: Rippon 2013)

27. Case study 3: Stilton Cheese
Key Point: place boundaries and regulations are constructed and contested (not pre-given)
Stilton Cheesemakers Association (SCMA) formed 1936
Stilton granted PDO 1996
Reg. allows milk to be sourced from ‘outside’; during e.g. Christmas period..
Village of Stilton rejected to be included in PDO zone by DEFRA
The
Competition Commission (2009) stated that Stilton
accounted for 1.4 per cent of total UK cheese sales worth
£27 million. Sixteen per cent of Stilton production is
exported; the biggest market is the USA. (Rippon 2014: 5)
On sourcing milk from OUTSIDE the PDO zone:
“Believers in physical terroir claim
that the qualities of milk that derives from specific farms
will be overwhelmed by the intermingling process (Paxson
2008). This argument fails to resonate with the Stilton
producers who assert that quality results from their skilled
techniques. They reject the very idea of a pure ‘natural’
terroir. (Rippon 2014)”
**So the Stilton construction of quality = more PROCESS as opposed to PLACE on the PPP triangle…
On exclusion of Stilton village:
Boundaries exclude the
village that provides the GI name due to the historical
geographies of manufacturing (Rippon 2014) – also could set a precedent to other villages/towns in the area to join the ‘PDO bandwagon’
Source: Rippon (2014)

28. Summary
Demand for local food has held steady and grown in US, EU and UK
Importance of constructing quality (PPP) and creating a story
EU PDO/PGI scheme offers ‘protection’ and differentiation; but also costs (time + money)

29. But beware the ‘Local Trap’
“The local is assumed to be desirable; it is preferred a priori to larger scales. What is desired varies and can include ecological sustainability, social justice, democracy, better nutrition, and food security, freshness and quality” (Born and Purcell 2006: 195).
Critical point: identify goals
and then choose the scale
of action that is appropriate to
achieve them

30. TRADEIT contacts
Tess Lukehurst TRADEIT Project Manager Moya Kneafsey Professor in Food and Local Development Luke Owen Senior Research Assistant TRADEIT website:

31. Discussion

32. Consumer demand for PDO-PGI-TSG: Spanish Case study
Study of consumer perceptions of PDO Olive Oil from Bajo, Aragon, 2008
Highlighted the importance of consumers’ associations of a traditional food product with:
place of origin
territory
regulatory controls
Consumers perceive PDO as a
safety badge
signifier of food quality
Creates consumer satisfaction and loyalty; repeat purchases
(Espejel et al. 2008)
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the relationship between satisfaction, loyalty and buying intention as perceived by Spanish consumers. The food product object of analysis is the “Olive Oil from Bajo Aragon” with protected designation of origin (PDO).
Design/methodology/approach of Espejel et al 2008)
Firstly, scale development was based on the review of the most relevant literature regarding food marketing and agribusiness. Then, to adapt the scales to the specific context of analysis, in-depth interviews to a small sample of consumers were conducted, and the information contained in the preliminary scales was also judged by a group of experts in the food sector. After that, data were collected through a structured questionnaire, where the consumer was asked to indicate his/her level of agreement or disagreement with a series of statements based on a seven-point Likert scale. After the completion of the fieldwork, a depuration process (exploratory and confirmatory analyses of reliability and dimensionality) was performed and, as a result, 223 valid questionnaires were obtained. Finally, a structural equations model was applied to analyze the relationships among consumer satisfaction, loyalty and buying intention.Findings
The results show that a higher satisfaction leads to greater levels of loyalty and buying intention of the PDO “Olive Oil from Bajo Aragon”, Spain.
Importance of consumers’ perceptions regarding: the association of a traditional food product with a place of origin, territory, climate and regulatory controls and know how of a geographical region; and the strict controls to which products under the protection are submitted by the regulatory councils were highlighted.
Both aspects lead the consumer to infer a safety badge and food quality, which helps to develop feelings of satisfaction and loyalty, and a greater predisposition to buy the traditional product again.
(Espejel et al. 2008

33. Industry recognised approval scheme
Developed for buyers and smaller producers
More appropriate food safety certification for smaller producers, SMEs than BRC Global Standard
(SALSA 2015)
SALSA geared towards SMEs – more ‘affordable’ and for producers/manufacturers producing ‘smaller’ quantities but keen to access larger retail markets (e.g. Waitrose).
E.G the British Retail Consortium = £4,000+ for Associate Membership whereas SALSA costs range from £100-£c.900
BRC website:
As a small food producer, you may feel full certification to the BRC Global Standard for Food Safety is not appropriate. With that in mind, we have developed SALSA (Safe and Local Supplier Approval), a food safety standard developed specifically for small food producers, and recognised and accepted across the industry. The SALSA Standard was written by experienced food safety experts and includes the legal requirements of manufacturers and the expectations of 'best practice'. Certification is only granted to suppliers who are able to demonstrate to a SALSA auditor they are able to produce safe and legal food and are committed to continually meeting the requirements of the SALSA standard. SALSA is a non-profit making joint venture developed by:
BRC Global Standards
FDF (Food and Drink Federation)
NFU (National Farmers Union)
BHA (British Hospitality Association)

34. SALSA benefits: routes to markets
access to a growing library of resources designed specifically to assist a business in its audit preparation
access to mentoring support from our cohort of professionally qualified and trained mentors
company profile is immediately visible to regional and national buyers through the directory
an independently audited food safety certificate demonstrating professionalism to food buyers
provides a stepping stone to further quality certification such as BRC, should this be required in the future
Tesco, Sainsbury’s, ASDA, Waitrose, Ocado all support and recognise SALSA certification
HACCP = Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (food safety related)

35. Co-operative ways of working
Retaining values and scaling up

36. Where to go next: useful links
TRADEIT
European Commission Agricultural and rural development: Quality policy:
Summary of EU GI Legislation
Guide for applicants preparing for registration for PDO/PGIhttp://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/quality/schemes/guides/guide-for- applicants_en.pdf
Protected Food Names: Guidance for Producers:
DEFRA:
Taste of the West (Regional Food Group)
SALSA (Safe and Local Supplier Approval)
Artisan Food Law
Cornish Pasty Association
Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association

37. References
Rippon, M. (2013) ‘Traditional Foods, Territorial Boundaries and the TRIPS Agreement: The Case of the Melton Mowbray Pork Pie’ The Journal of World Intellectual Property 16 (5-6)
Rippon, M. (2014) ‘What is the geography of Geographical Indications? Place, production methods and Protected Food Names’ Area 1-9
Ricketts Hein, J., Ilbery, B., Kneafsey, M., (2006)’ Distribution of local food activity in England and Wales: an index of food relocalization’. Regional Studies 40 (3),
Ilbery, B., Morris, C., Buller, H., Maye, D., and Kneafsey, M. (2005) ‘Product, Process and Place: An Examination of Food
Marketing and Labelling Schemes in Europe and North America’. European Urban and Regional Studies 12 (2), 116–132
Institute of Grocery Distribution (2012) ‘Local Food’ available from [accessed Jan 2015]
SERIO (2008) ‘Understanding of Consumer Attitudes and Actual Purchasing Behaviour, with Reference to Local and Regional Foods’ University of Plymouth. Final Report
European Commission (2013) Study on the value of Gis. Memo 13/ [accessed Jan 2015]
Artisan Food Law (2013) The value of EU Geographical Food and Drink Products. Available from gi-food-and-drink-products [accessed Jan 2015]

38. It was suggested that the UK is one of the most centralised, with the vast majority of food sold through large supply chains. Over time this trend is being seen across Europe although the starting point and speed of change are different
1. Urbanisation and household income: More highly urbanised populations tend to create markets for innovative short food chains, which are using the internet and social media as a key tool to ‘reconnect’ consumers, producers and food in the context of consumer demand for a wide variety of food which can be accessed flexibly and conveniently. The concentration of consumer demand in urban areas can pose problems for producers in remote rural areas who are hindered by the high cost of transport. Linked to this, the development of SFCs and local food consumption in different countries is strongly influenced by the size of discretionary income in households. In the poorer new member states sometimes the premium price of the local food is an obstacle for developing producer-consumer relations (especially locally). This can also affect public procurement programmes in an age of austerity, when the rules of public tender dictate the choice of the cheapest food for schools, hospitals, and other public sector catering.
Agricultural development and rural land ownership: In rural areas where small family farms survive, more ‘traditional’ forms of short food chain persist and are integrated into daily consumption practices (e.g. Romania, Poland). The land ownership and farm size is crucial. Scotland for example, has a large amount of rural space relative to its population but also has the most highly concentrated land ownership in Northern Europe. Relatively few small-scale producers survive and the infrastructure to support them is limited. Linked to this, the mode of agricultural development is also vital: regions characterized by large-scale farms oriented towards commodity markets, CAP payments and supplying to multi-national food processors and retailers are arguably less fertile grounds for SFC development, as illustrated by the French agricultural census which showed SFCs to be concentrated in the less productive agricultural regions. Another example is Hungary, where the region of Jászság (in the Eastern part) saw traditional farmsteads destroyed during the 1960s and 1970s and the region now lacks diversification and producer cooperation. In contrast, the region of the rivers of Danube and Tisza is characterised by diversified, sustainable family farms using various kinds of innovative food chains.

39. A key point is that the chain has to be shortened in order that the farmer (or farmers group) has control over the whole or a large part of it, and can thus retain the added value. The flip side of controlling the supply chain is that the farmer has to bear all the risks and costs associated with the whole chain: production, processing, retailing, marketing, distribution. A number of respondents noted measures that can mitigate against these risks and these are summarized below:
1. working co-operatively with other producers to share costs, increase the range of products on offer to consumers, to develop collaborative logistics and marketing systems, and in particular to form strong collective ‘brands’. Many experts discussed the merits of collaborative approaches although there was some disagreement about how complex these collaborations should be. One example is the “Landwinkel Coöperatie”, a group of almost 100 Dutch farmers with a shop that work together on distribution, professionalization (how to present your products, routing in the shop, packaging, internet sales, marketing), product development and branding. Collaboration can enable farmers to supply major customers direct, e.g. retailers or caterers or co-ops, who can take large volumes allowing the farmers to focus on production efficiency to create margins. These are SFCs because they reduce the number of ‘middlemen’ but allow continued specialisation of function that in turn allows efficient supply chains and large markets to be exploited. Working in co-ops allows individual farmers to access more volume, a broader product range, more expertise, process and logistics efficiencies that either increase margins and/or open up new markets to them.
omplex systems of networking between stakeholders who are not only the current decision makers in agriculture. Stakeholders can include local authorities and urban developers, as well as educational institutions, or actors from industries allied to food.
3. sharing of knowledge and know-how between the stakeholders, for instance between cooks and their producers. New forms of educational methods, training and vocational education are required and use of social media to communicate with consumers and other stakeholders.
4. combining several different types or ‘modalities of scheme. In the Netherlands, it is common to find a mix of SFCs, embedded in a multifunctional agricultural company. The company works on its own, but also is a member of a cooperative and also acts as a hub connecting citizens to agriculture. In France, studies have shown that each farmer involved in short food chains typically uses an average of three modalities.

40. single supermarkets in the UK who sell more ‘local/SFC’ product per annum than all the farm shops, box schemes and farmers markets combined”

41. Examples of local food retail models
1. Consumer-Producer Partnerships & Community Initiatives e.g. Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), urban agriculture & gardening
2. On-farm, direct sales e.g. Farm shops, Farm based hospitality, roadside sales, Pick-Your- Own
‘Fair Trade Groups’ in Italy (GAS) Gruppi di Acquisto Solidale 
association pour le maintien de l agriculture paysanne in France – ‘association for the maintenance of peasant agriculture’ (Traditional, small scale agriculture)
3. Off-farm, direct or with minimum
intermediaries
Farmers markets, box delivery schemes
Source: Renting et al. 2003, Kneafsey et al. 2013)

42. Geographical Indications
Distribution reflects agricultural specialisation e.g. cheese in France, beer in Germany
Reflects cultural traditions of ‘typical’ foods in e.g. South West England (Clotted Cream, pasty)
Importance of collaboration amongst food producers to obtain GI
e.g. Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association est , Cornish Pasty Association est. 2002
Replace with story on stilton case study

43. http://www. wipo. int/geo_indications/en/faq_ geographicalindications
geographicalindications.html
ation_on_protection_of_GIs1011.pdf
Good website on why bother getting GI