Short food supply chain and ecological transition

INTRODUCTION

In this chapter, we will search for an answer if short food supply chains have a positive effect on greenhouse gases, pollution, and biodiversity. Let’s see a carbon balance in the SFSC when the half-empty vans and consumers travel to a farm outlet to distribute or buy a few kilos of products. In this case, they contribute more to global warming than long-distance transport by truck or boat. This characteristic linked to short circuits serves as an argument for industrial lobbies to promote the industrial food chain. Short circuits are the spearhead of a re-localized economy but also of a new, more ecological, democratic, and social economy. The different elements that will compose it are not yet connected, unlike the globalized economy. There is therefore still a great deal of progress, organizationally and environmentally. In the topic of the last kilometres of products, for example, we will examine how cities are mobilizing to establish the "Low Emission Zones" to meet the environmental criteria. To achieve the European environmental objectives in 2030 rural facilitators can (and must) support the SFSC stakeholders to cut off their CO2 emissions and work on agro-ecological transmission. We suggest in this chapter: to review the elements that can influence the environmental balance of short food supply chain projects, to illustrate good practices for promoting their local implementation.

AIMS OF CHAPTER/ABSTRACT

The rural facilitators will find information about the impacts of SFSC on ecological transition because future facilitators must know and use the most environmentally friendly practices to reduce CO2 emissions, other air pollutant emissions, non-reusable packaging, and applications of harmful chemicals. Thanks to this chapter, they will have solutions to minimize these impacts in the projects they animate at the local level. This subject is based on the French legislative and theoretic movement called ecological transition, which will be detailed to raise the focus on a more sustainable agri-food system.

KEYWORDS

ecological transition, greening agriculture, agroecology, reuse packaging, local processing, pooling logistic, local economy

LEARNING OBJECTIVE

The facilitators are aware of the "weak links" of short circuits from an agroecology point of view. They will gain knowledge of how to argue with their partners (intermediaries, farmers, consumers, local municipalities, etc.) to convince them. They will get to know how to make the decisions (or stimulate dynamics), which will make it possible to improve the environmental assessment of the project(s).

The factors that impact the environmental balance and what needs to be done to improve it

In this chapter, we will examine the possibilities for environmentally friendly techniques through the main stages of short food supply chains. The aim is to present to future facilitators where they shall intervene in the practices to reduce CO2 emissions, other air pollutant emissions, non-reusable packaging, and applications of harmful chemicals. The short food supply chain provides an alternative way to enhance these activities as its consumers are often open-minded and sensitive to environmentally friendly products, moreover, most of them are willing to pay more for eating organic food or using more deliberate farming and transport technologies. This trend requires more knowledge and assistance from facilitators from the environmental aspect to gain better insight into agroecology, biodiversity, food sovereignty, organic production which are often required by conscious consumers and farmers.

First, we shall define the French term of the ecological transmission which importance and future role in the European Common Agricultural Policy is highlighted by the European Parliament (European parliament, 2016) and the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) (Savigny, G. 2019). Savigny argued that the EESC would like to see the agroecology project rolled out across the EU, based on a structured action plan along with various forms of leverage at local, regional, and European levels. She mentioned some measures which would contribute to ecological transitional and development of short food supply chains such as accessible finance in CAP second pillar, the application of food legislation to small farmers in a flexible way for small-scale production, setting up or strengthening appropriate education and advice services for direct sales and agroecology, encouraging exchange networks between farmers; gearing research to agroecology and producers' needs in short chains, an adaptation of competition rules to make it easier to supply community catering through short, local chains.

These points strengthen the role of this chapter and the environmental approach which shall be considered and gained by those actors of short food supply chains who would help farmers to produce, process, and sell.

In the last decade, the French governments started strengthening measures to make agriculture more ecological. Since the “Ecophyto 2018” (European Commission, 2018b) plan adopted by the Ministry of Agriculture in 2008, and up until the new agricultural framework law (the Loi d’avenir of 13 October 2014) that makes explicit reference to agroecology, institutional measures have been strengthened to encourage farmers to adopt more sustainable practices. In the framework of these legislations’ producers are urged to implement alternative production methods to reduce synthetic input use and to combine economic, environmental, and social performance (Magrini et al., 2019).

Magrini et al. (2019) described this political, environmental, social, and at least economic process in their studies which is cited below to have a better understanding:

“This agricultural transformation also calls food into question (Francis et al. 2003; Barbier and Elzen 2012; Hinrichs 2014; Gliessman 2015). The FAO (2012) defines the sustainability of our food as being closely related to that of our agriculture, according to the following five criteria: (i) protects ecosystem biodiversity; (ii) is accessible and culturally acceptable; (iii) is economically fair and affordable; (iv) is safe, nutritionally adequate, and healthy; and v) optimizes natural and human resource use. The sustainability of agriculture and food systems thus simultaneously involves technical changes and the values that govern them: it requires the implementation of “non-technological changes such as those in consumer behaviour, social norms, cultural values, and formal institutional frameworks” (OECD 2010). This is even more relevant, given that our “agricultural practices are not primarily determined by agronomic or ecological science, but by markets, regulations and agricultural support programs” (Weiner 2017).

This systemic transformation consisting of ecologist our agriculture and food, which concerns multiple stakeholders (farmers, supply chains, or natural resource managers) and which is marked with a deliberate political will to change, is qualified as an agroecological transition (Duru et al. 2015a). Note that it is a transition and not a revolution, because it does not explicitly entail the need for other changes relative to the capitalist foundations of the societal model underpinning our agriculture and food (cf. Hinrichs 2014 or Brown et al. 2012). It is a transition in the making within our capitalist regime, to move towards a more sustainable agricultural and food system.”

The other definition that we must clarify is agro-ecology

” The term agroecology was first used in the 1930s by Bensin, a Russian agronomist, initially about applying ecological methods to research on crops. Agro-ecology can broadly be defined as a coherent whole that makes it possible to devise agricultural production systems that harness functionalities provided by ecosystems, reduce pressure on the environment, and protect natural resources. In scientific terms, agroecology can be defined as a discipline at the crossroads between agronomy, ecology, and social sciences, with a preference for systemic approaches. Lastly, when they occur, agroecological movements tend to do so on the fringes of the predominant trend towards modernizing agriculture and promote rural development, food sovereignty, and environmentally friendly farming” (Schaller, 2013).

In the following subsections, we will give an overview of the main stages and practices of ecological transition based on the steps of the supply chains: production, processing, packaging, logistics, consumers, governance.

Agricultural production techniques: the priority

Agricultural production contributes more than 50% to the overall CO2 emission balance sheet, well before transport, packaging, processing (Schaller, 2013). The challenge for a facilitator is therefore both to work with farmers who have the best agroecological practices and to encourage the change of practices among others. Here are some elements on which it can rely:

     A. Inputs

The use of external inputs instead of local resources generates the outsourcing of bodies of knowledge. This knowledge does not depend anymore on local indigenous communities: it comes from outside, being received following a top-down approach from the hands of inputs suppliers and external experts (LRD, 2007). Farmers tend to be reduced into no-choice passive recipients of technology (Medina, 2009). It also reflects a radical shift of relations with nature compared to traditional peasant agriculture.

Mineral fertilizers (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus), widely used in conventional agriculture, come from fossil energy. Their use is often correlated with practices that favour monoculture. That is why these new forms of solidarity will involve managing livestock effluents at the territorial level and replacing mineral fertilizers with organic ones.

The other often highlighted topic is the origin of proteins. European soybean imports have multiplied by 5 since the early 1970s. Soy plays a driving role in the deforestation of the Amazon and the tree savannahs, moreover, there are mainly genetically modified (GM) which means unpredictable risks for human and animal health. The European Union imports 17 million tons of vegetable crude protein each year (soybeans, pulses, sunflower, etc.), including 13 million tons of soybeans, making it the second-largest importer in the world behind China. These huge numbers are governed by monopoly agrifood corporations growing links between food and fuel economies, a ‘supermarket revolution’, liberalized global trade in food, increasingly concentrated land ownership, a shrinking natural resource base, and growing opposition from food movements worldwide” (Holt-Giménez and Shattuck, 2011).

The seeds are selected for yield more than for resistance to disease or water stress. The "seed - phytosanitary products" couple is perfectly illustrated by multinational firms which develop both (ex. Syngenta). However local seed variety can promote resilience against climatic risks by enriching biodiversity, pest-resistance.

     B. Energy autonomy (and source: fossil or renewable)

Anything that saves fossil energy will improve the farmer's environmental balance. Each territory in Europe has productions adapted to the seasons. Producing tomatoes in winter in the Netherlands, even if they are consumed nearby, will have an environmental impact linked to the heating of a greenhouse and the material investment that goes with it.

The solution for the facilitator relies on farmers engaged in agroecology and territories in the greening of agriculture.

     C. By-product approach

Some agricultural production can have other uses than food, its name is the by-product. Such as straw can be used to build houses in addition to produce wheat, hemp to make tissue in addition to produce oil, the leather of the cows to create bags in addition to produce meat or milk, sheep wool in addition to meat[1]. This “by-product” approach allows to increase the impact of SFSC in ecological transition: less pressure on land, less impact on pollution compared to similar products from industry (biodegradable), less transportation (if the products are used mainly in the territory). Additionally, it brings additional revenue. However, the EU and national legislation framework often means a big barrier to use the by-products and second income and to make added value. As a facilitator, it is important to consult on the national regulations mainly in the case of animal by-products.

     D. Agricultural practices

These are some good practices that can guide a facilitator during his exchanges with producers (Osez agriculture, 2020).

  • A rotation that includes legumes to fix nitrogen in the soil
  • A presence of animals (or the existence of cooperation between growers and breeders) to have manure and to enhance the co-products of harvest
  • A use of peasant seeds for better resistance to diseases and pests
  • Non-plowing (or minimum tillage) contributes to the improvement of natural soil fertility
  • A presence of plant cutlery in winter to limit erosion
  • A choice of cultivation techniques that require little or no irrigation to preserve the water resource
  • A presence of hedgerows (or agroforestry practices) to promote biological balance
  • Production choices adapted to the seasonality of the territory
  • Energy-efficient techniques, such as solar drying in fodder barn; animal traction, mechanization
  • Integrated pest management (IPM), which uses ecosystem resilience and diversity for pest, disease, and weed control, and seeks only to use pesticides when other options are ineffective
  • Agroforestry, which incorporates multifunctional trees into agricultural systems, and collective management of nearby forest resources
  • Aquaculture, which incorporates fish, shrimps, and other aquatic resources into farm systems, such as into irrigated rice fields and fishponds, and so leads to increases in protein production
  • Water harvesting in dryland areas, which can mean formerly abandoned and degraded lands can be cultivated, and additional crops are grown on small patches of irrigated land owing to better rainwater retention.

Using agroecology techniques, a farmer will both improve the energy balance of his farm (and its autonomy), promote biodiversity, reduce, or eliminate the use of pesticides. But implementing and completing an agro-ecological approach involves going beyond the farm stage. The majority of environmental issues are played out at higher spatial scales: the maintenance of biodiversity at the level of habitats and landscapes, the quality of drinking water at the level of collection supply area, erosion at the level of a watershed, the sustainability of varietal resistance at the level of territories and production or collection basins, the reduction of GHG emissions to a global level, etc. These spatial scales are thus delimited by both physical factors (basin side) and in connection with human activities. It is a question of "designing Spatio-temporal organizations of agricultural activities and landscape structures, adapted to the characteristics of the environment so that farmers benefit from the services rendered by biodiversity, environments and reduce impacts on the environment” (Mzoughi, 2013). This approach to greening agriculture requires, for its implementation, the involvement of all the actors of a territory (Colin, 2018).

The facilitator must therefore take an interest in this territorial scale, either to cooperate with its actors or to motivate them to act.

Processing local products: the missing link

The effects of product processing on the environment balance remain weak if isolated from its context, compared for example to production methods. Life cycle analysis for bread from organic peasant wheat for example (according to the Recipe H 2016 method) indicates that, apart from the production of fine particles (linked to wood cooking), the impact is 5% on the whole cycle (Colin, 2018).

Imagining local production without the processing units nearby has consequences on the environmental, social but also the economic balance of the entire value chain and the farm in particular. For example, the income for a beef producer (who sells local) could vary from 1 to 4, depending on whether there is a nearby slaughterhouse (Chiffoleau 2020).

In Europe, due to the climate zones, most of the agricultural production is seasonal. It is, therefore, necessary to process raw materials during periods of high production, both to avoid importing the rest of the year and to allow prices of local products to be supported during periods of high production. This also contributes to improving the economic viability of local small producers.

Even if the energy efficiency of a small processing unit is partially worse than an industrial production reduced to a kilo of product, it is necessary to compare with the creation of local jobs, the reduction of the distance between his work and his home, the food autonomy of the bioregion or change the indicators: to measure the energy consumed no longer to the kilo of product but to the number of jobs created/maintained, euros generated (Loiseau et al. 2018).

Small local fruit and vegetable, meat, and milk processing units will allow the establishment of entrepreneurs engaged in the development of the local economy, even in rural regions they can attract other entrepreneurs for generating a virtuous economy. They rely on the facilitators who can support them through short supply chains, to encourage ecological, social, economic transition.

Butchers, bakers, cheese makers, cooks -these food professionals also can buy locally, on condition that they go beyond apparent competition (e.g., breeders may be tempted to set up a cutting and processing plant to control the entire upstream-downstream chain without needing the local butcher, this is the case for the sale of meat in boxes). They can become mutually associated by the support of the facilitator and local craftsmen set up clever processes (or are inspired by traditional techniques), which contribute to improving the environmental balance:

  • Brewers value the brewery breach to make aperitif cookies or for supplying herds, and recover the hot water linked to the manufacturing process for other uses.
  • Natural leaven bread bakers do not use a growth chamber (energy saving and less investment), others recover heat from the wood oven to heat water or choose wood ovens with particulate filters and heat optimization.
  • Distillers, producers of essential oils, heat the still with local wood.
  • Craftsmen use lacto fermentation to store vegetables, a process that does not require cooking and allows for an interesting nutritional balance.
  • Cooking in a wood oven with a particular filter (for bread or pizzas) if energy is renewable and local (as wood pellet which rejects fewer pollutants), allows to reduce CO2 and fine particles.

Packaging: the symbol of an industrial food system  

It is a generally accepted statement that reducing the transport distance between places of production and consumption reduces product packaging. In most SFSC raw products do not demand packaging for transport. In addition, in many cases, consumers use reusable packaging such as fabric bags, wooden crates, etc. which has a serious environmental relevance because it does not generate additional transport. This reuse saves money both to produce packaging and in terms of waste (Ademe, 2017).

Plastic packaging (French Ministry of ecology, 2019), if only greenhouse gases are counted, has a little weight in the overall climate balance compared to production methods and transport but it often goes hand in hand with industrial, de-localized, de-seasonally systems. Consequently, it contributes indirectly to higher greenhouse gases. Therefore, the facilitator must work on the whole chain to reduce the usage of plastic waste during working with local producers.

We also shall mention that glass packaging is appreciated by environmentalists. However, the study of ADAME (Ma-bouteille, 2021) carried out that 2,3 million tons of glasses are trashed per year which represents 49,6% of the total waste. The study also pointed out if we can reuse these glasses which are used for local beer, juices, syrups, wine, etc. we can spare 75% of energy, 33% of water, and 79% of CO2 emissions per country per year. That is why the French Sommières region and the LEADER (local action group supported by the European Unions’ Rural Development Programs) unified to start new projects to collect glasses from consumers and reuse them for local consumption. For example, due to this support, the “Locaverre” enterprise was established who collect glasses and clean them according to the regulations, then the glasses are returned to the farmers. The project is socially sensitive as these activities are operated by disabled people (Helloasso, 2021).

We can determine that facilitators have a crucial role in this chain to sensibilize producers and consumers, to tie them to main actors, and to support them to use European or national funds.

Logistic (and distribution methods): significant margins for progress

If we only consider the CO2 emissions per kilo of transported product, the results of short food chains’ delivery systems are not good: approximately 10 times lower for a heavyweight of 32 tons and 100 times lower for a transoceanic freighter than for a van of fewer than 3.5 tons (Ademe, 2017). It means that on-road transport has a higher greenhouse gas impact than other types of distribution methods. Moreover, according to the Environment and Energy Management Agency, the delivery of the last kilometre represents 25% of GHG emissions and a third of those of CO2. The last kilometre is also very expensive, thus between 20 and 50% of the total cost of the supply chain is devoted to it (Abdelhai, Malhéné, Gonzalez-Feliu, 2014).

These figures only consider CO2 emissions per kilo of product, considering then that a local organic tomato from a peasant seed is the same product as a tomato from a hybrid variety, produced under greenhouse out of season and abroad. They compare, in fact, products that are not comparable. In addition, the environmental (and economic) assessment of public investments that allow trucks to circulate is not integrated. More broadly, the multi-functionality linked to the purchase in short food supply chains is not considered. You must walk in the open-air markets to realize how SFSC contributes to social relationships. It would then be necessary to study the overall behaviour of the buyer: is it not at the same time a hobby to pick up his products from the producer, just like a walk in the forest to the sea? If yes, the environmental impact of the purchase of short food chain products must at least be compared to the impact of a supermarket purchase plus the impact of displacement for leisure.

Nonetheless, SFSCs must make progress, especially on the last km in urban areas. The sector is young, a little or not organized at the logistical level. There are very significant margins for progress in this area (Raton et al.2020). The cities, particularly affected by urban pollution, and under the impetus of the European climate plan, create ZFEs (low emission zones) in which it will no longer be possible to circulate polluting vehicles. This encourages them to get involved in innovative projects. The pooling of transport, at least from the entrance to the cities, is a major issue, to provide individuals, purchasing groups, restaurants, shops, and other outlets, also taking into account that many vehicles come back empty.

Several large cities in Europe have "hubs" projects in their boxes (local logistics platform): Nantes with "Le Kiosque Paysan", Lyon with a "Metropolitan Interest Market", Madrid with the Madrid km 0 project. In Marseille, Fab'lim has just completed a study on needs and it also appears that the logistics Hub(s) associated with pooling is the most suitable solution to solve the problem of the last km (Duret,J., 2020).

Private actors are also developing coordination and pooling initiatives (collection with producers and routing to delivery points with different approaches) like blabla car (co-driving in whole France and Europe, La Charrette, Local Food Hub, etc.

Examples for initiatives to improve economically, organizationally, and environmentally the efficiency of short circuit transport in France, from the private or voluntary sector:

  • Mutualization between GRAP intermediaries (local regional food group): trucks never empty

This organization brings together around fifty local and organic product grocery stores in the Auvergne Rhône-Alpes region.

Innovation: a cheese producer will deliver all orders for grocery stores in the GRAP network to the grocery store closest to home. The GRAP truck that delivers the grocery stores takes the package and dispatches it during its tour, with the grocery stores that have positioned themselves to buy this product. The truck is never empty.

  • Mutualization between producers

Stéphanie Conrad produces dairy products in Normandy. She collects other products from the surrounding farms and makes the market in Paris, 150 km away - She buys the products from other producers and therefore takes commercial risk. Result: a single trip for a dozen producers.

Be aware of the insurance issue during the implementation. It can be varied in each partner country!

In these 2 cases, it is the relationships that the rural facilitator maintains with the other actors in the SFSC that make a success. These interpersonal relationships, these networks that we create on the territory constitute fertile ground for cooperation towards an "other economy".

Another example of a delivery system is the "Promoted" project. Here refrigerated containers are put on farms where farmers will deposit the products, which are then recovered by carriers. An interesting angle of this story is that the peasants of the Lyonnais Mountains did not join, because this system seemed to be too impersonal for them: short food chains aim at the contrary to re-personalize the economy, to re-enter it in interpersonal relationships to promote an economy more sustainable on all fronts.

To reduce transport, another way is to install the producer closer to the consumer. Decision-makers became aware, particularly during the health crisis of spring 2020, of the food dependence of their city. They engage in actions that will facilitate agricultural production in urban areas or near cities (via for example the provision of land). Conversely, by creating activity in rural areas, the consumer is in fact, if the territory is oriented towards this model of SFSC, near the places of production. The health crisis there too is moving the lines: the number of Parisians for example who want to leave Paris to work and live in the countryside increased sharply in 2020 (lechemindesmures, 2019). This naturally brings a new clientele closer to the peasants, namely citizens who are often already consumers of organic products.

The facilitators’ mission is to develop his relational network closer to those who can help him in the search for the most ecological solutions (elected officials, bearers of mobility projects or/and local logistics centres, and so on). He/she must have in mind elements on the cost of logistics, as farmers often neglect to deal with transport and environmental issues however, the cost of delivery is often a cheap item.

The consumers

     A. “Third places”

In all CSA, thus consumer supported agriculture or purchasing groups a new definition the “third places” has appeared where citizen initiatives to supply quality local products are flourishing. The idea is coming from the co-working offices which developed for an intercultural meeting point for those persons who want to meet, eat, discuss, gardening and do something together. These places host a variety of activities: popular education, social accommodation, catering, sale in short food chains, agriculture and gardening, circular economy, citizen research, cultural events, and so on. Their characteristics are diversified as they can be free of paying, for citizens or professionals, linked to agriculture, to food, to gardening, to art, and education.

The motivation of the organizers is to seek suppliers of local products from environmentally friendly agriculture, which help to improve the general culture/attitude of local consumers for purchasing local, healthy products. For example, they accept (and appreciate) irregular fruits (which are not marketable on the market, which contributes to reducing pesticides in the end, because to produce a fruit or a vegetable with "zero defects", it is necessary to treat upstream.

These “third places” are common city gardens, kitchens, farmers’ markets, public places, farms where people learn about agriculture, buy local products, gain knowledge on agroecology practices and farmers, sensibilize the young generation, and help to develop the small villages.

     B. Green public catering

In all of Europe, the reorganization of public catering is an important topic. In France, the Egalim law imposes 50% of durable products, including 20% organic, in public catering by 2022. Buying local in public catering makes it possible to enhance the good sustainable practices already implemented within local agriculture and to encourage - using a contract, for example - the ecological transition with farms who are not engaged in such practices yet. Including in private collective or commercial catering, a cook or a motivated cooking assistant can stimulate the process of purchasing local products and encourage a virtuous cycle in the territory. Parents of students can encourage the local decision-makers to help the transition for organic and local products in public catering.

The facilitator can use this energy to grow her projects, or even depending on her positioning, stimulate approaches of this type.

Governance

None of the 5 stages of the supply chains (production, processing, logistic, packaging, consumer) mentioned above can be implemented effectively by a single facilitator. Cooperation between actors associated with regulation is necessary so that undesirable effects do not occur. This governance is the responsibility of the elected officials and all those who animate the territory. SFSC facilitators have a crucial role to strengthen the ecological transition step-by-step regarding the needs of local stakeholders.

Good governance preserves the territorial identity of a product, avoids overexploitation of local resources, facilitates access to external resources, and distributes costs and benefits among involved stakeholders" (Brunori, G. at el, 2016).

The facilitator should possess the systemic approach to be able to overview all the stages of local supply chains. They can assure the ecological transition if they have a good knowledge of their working territory, insights into personal, political, environmental, economic challenges, a wide picture about involved stakeholders. It must be emphasized that they are not responsible to know everything, but they must have the ability to establish links between people to ensure the undertaken actions.

CONCLUSION

Affirming that short food supply chains and ecological transition go hand in hand is not self-evident. When transport, packaging, and local processing are handled one by one, SFSC cannot demonstrate today their environmental efficiency.

The fact that SFSCs are obtained from peasants engaged in agro-ecological practices (we must make sure) but also contribute to the greening of agriculture is however a determining factor.

To measure the interest of short food supply chains in terms of ecological transition, it is necessary to have a global approach. The consumer, for example, who goes to get his basket of organic vegetables by bike, does much more than buy local vegetables. He ensures the last kilometre without emission of greenhouse gases, inquiries about the quality of the products and shares his knowledge with his children, cooks fresh products without adding an additive, recycles his plant waste. The self-builder who makes his house out of wood and local straw does much more than his accommodation. It values the agricultural by-products (straw), greatly reduces waste (biodegradable materials), does not generate waste, often creates its activity on-site (in telework for example), and then supports the peasant by buying his products.

Large-scale prospective studies have not yet been carried out to show what would be the effects, in terms of ecological transition, of a predominantly re-localized and re-personalized economy.

The multinational distribution companies have for several years felt the wind turn and position themselves on a supply of short chains, on contractualization models which follow the same rules as for long supply chains.

We should expect that short food chains with methods of long supply chain and short circuits of a "re-localized and re-personalized economy" will coexist. No doubt, because demand is growing and it is unlikely that the models set up by the historic players (CSA, producer stores, etc.) will have the capacity to meet them in record time. Short circuits carrying an "other economy" can on the other hand, in the medium term and through a logic of swarming and networking, rebalance the power relations, within sectors as well as territories: the facilitators have a key role to play.

[1] We don’t include land dedicated to non-food production, which can lead to competition with the food needs of the territory