Impact case study database

As a result of widespread dissemination of R5 and R6 and supported by outreach and engagement activities, impact was generated in two key areas:

1. Contributing Evidence to EU Policy Decisions:

Findings from R5 were ‘essential input’ (p.5) in a report submitted by the European Commission to the European Parliament and Council (06.12.13), which cited specific results from the study (pp. 6, 8, 9 and 10) in discussing the case for local farming and a new short food chain labelling scheme [S1]. R5 thus contributed to the evidence base that informed the European Parliament’s decision to adopt new policy measures to support SFSC in Article 2 of EU Regulation No 1305/2013 on support for rural development. As a result of the measures, 300,000 farmers have been supported to develop SFSC, local markets, enter quality schemes and producer groups during 2014 – 2020 [S2].

Additionally, the 2016 European Parliamentary Briefing on Short Food Chains drew on R5 extensively, and was widely distributed [S3]. Outcomes of both R5 and R6 ‘contributed to the development of the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 Work Programme’, which ‘resulted in many ongoing EU-funded R&I projects, such as SMARTCHAIN, FAIRCHAIN [and] FOX’ [S4]. The reports became important reference points for several of these projects; the Co-ordinator of the EU-funded Short Supply Chain and Knowledge Innovation Network (SKIN) stated that ‘definitions, concepts and case studies’ from R6 helped practitioners ‘to better define models and find alternative solutions to real cases encountered during the activities deployment” [S5].

2. Influencing Policies and Practices in EU Member States and Scotland:

In Scotland, R5 and R6 informed advocacy and policy development around SFSC and LFS, providing an evidence base for organisations. The Executive Director of Nourish Scotland confirmed that ‘core findings’ of the outputs ‘have been integral to our efforts to persuade Scottish Government and national agencies to invest more in SFSC and local food economies.’ As a result, ‘…this year's Programme for Government…includes a commitment to a national strategy for local food’, and the new post-COVID strategic plan for ‘Scotland Food and Drink… prioritises serving the local market.’ Both reports are considered ‘invaluable because they provide evidence… about the actual economic, environmental and social impacts’ of SFSCs, ‘rather than simply declaring that they are nice to have’ [S6].

In Croatia, insights from R5 and R6 were used to inform the AgriShort project (2017-18) which led to four new SFSC initiatives in the Croatian – Hungarian cross-border region [S7]. In 2017 Kneafsey contributed to the first training on SFSC delivered in the country, for farmers and institutional representatives; training materials she provided were subsequently used to inform the ‘Guidelines for Institutions’ to support SFSC in Croatia. Following this, the Croatian Ministry of Agriculture included SFSCs ‘in the new legislation on public procurement and organization of family farms’, establishing the definition of SFSC in legislation for the first time, amongst a ‘growing interest from a wider public’ [S7]. The former Head of Rural Development for the Međimurje region confirmed that the research helped them ‘choose the direction of local food system development in practice’, and develop practical guidance on SFSC. Whereas before there was no collaboration, now farmers were ‘willing to cooperate under the values of SFSC for the first time… thanks to the research, projects and trainings’ [S7].

In Poland R6 was used to shape the agenda of the 2016 ‘Food and Cities’ workshop, hosted by EIP-AGRI in Krakow. The President of the Polish Environmental Partnership noted it was unlikely that any other documents were ‘more influential in relation to promoting SFSCs in Poland’ [S8]. Describing it as ‘an important milestone and point of reference for policy, programming and planning’, the barriers and opportunities to ‘scaling’ SFSCs discussed in R6 provided evidence used to lobby for legislation to support ‘local food for local markets’. This contributed to regulatory changes in 2017-18 that enabled farmers to sell directly to consumers. R6 is directly referenced in guidance prepared in 2019 by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development for the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture, which is responsible for providing financial support for SFSC development.

In Hungary, policy picked up concepts from R5 and 66 million Euros were allocated to short food supply chains as a sub-programme of rural development policy. In 2015 a year of local products was initiated, and in 2016 the handbook of the rural development programme and handbook of local food products were published by Hungary’s Agricultural Chamber, drawing on materials from the study [S9]. In Austria, a senior representative of the Chamber of Agriculture confirmed that both R5 and R6 ‘made clear some characteristics of SFSCs, which are still used (e.g. the typology of SFSCs or that 1 intermediary is possible)’. The research helped raise awareness and drive ‘a clear political position’ in Austria ‘that SFSCs are important in many ways: economically, ecologically, socially’ [S10].