Suchergebnisse

The production and distribution of food are among the hot topics debated in the context of sustainable development. Short food supply chains (SFSCs) are now widely believed to be more sustainable in comparison to mass food delivery systems. To date, very little quantitative evidence exists on the impacts of various types of food supply chains. Using a cross-sectional quantitative approach, this study assesses the sustainability of distribution channels in short and long food supply chains based on 208 food producers across seven countries: France, Hungary, Italy, Norway, Poland, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam. Ten distribution channel types are used in this study. To provide a comprehensive sustainability assessment, a set of economic, social, and environmental indicators are applied. Indicators commonly used in the literature are used, supported by original indicators constructed specifically for the present study. In total, 486 chains are examined and the study confirms that individual producers participate simultaneously in several, short and long chains. Participation in SFSCs is beneficial for producers from an economic perspective. SFSCs allow producers to capture a large proportion of margin otherwise absorbed by different intermediaries. It appears, however, that 'longer' supply channels generate lower environmental impacts per unit of production when measured in terms of food miles and carbon footprint. Finally, ambiguous results are found regarding social dimension, with significant differences across types of chains. ; This research has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program STRENGTH2FOOD under grant agreement no. 678024, and title: "Strengthening European Food Chain Sustainability by Quality and Procurement Policy". ; publishedVersion

International audience ; Abstract The carbon and land footprint of 26 certified food products – geographical indications and organic products and their conventional references are assessed. This assessment goes beyond existing literature by (1) designing a calculation method fit for the comparison between certified food and conventional production, (2) using the same calculation method and parameters for 52 products – 26 Food Quality Schemes and their reference products – to allow for a meaningful comparison, (3) transparently documenting this calculation method and opening access to the detailed results and the underlying data, and (4) providing the first assessment of the carbon and land footprint of geographical indications. The method used is Life Cycle Assessment, largely relying on the Cool Farm Tool for the impact assessment. The most common indicator of climate impact, the carbon footprint expressed per ton of product, is not significantly different between certified foods and their reference products. The only exception to this pattern are vegetal organic products, whose carbon footprint is 16% lower. This is because the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from the absence of mineral fertilizers is never fully offset by the associated lower yield. The climate impact of certified food per hectare is however 26% than their reference and their land footprint is logically 24% higher. Technical specifications directly or indirectly inducing a lower use of mineral fertilizers are a key driver of this pattern. So is yield, which depends both on terroir and farming practices. Overall, this assessment reinforces the quality policy of the European Union: promoting certified food is not inconsistent with mitigating climate change.

International audience ; Abstract The carbon and land footprint of 26 certified food products – geographical indications and organic products and their conventional references are assessed. This assessment goes beyond existing literature by (1) designing a calculation method fit for the comparison between certified food and conventional production, (2) using the same calculation method and parameters for 52 products – 26 Food Quality Schemes and their reference products – to allow for a meaningful comparison, (3) transparently documenting this calculation method and opening access to the detailed results and the underlying data, and (4) providing the first assessment of the carbon and land footprint of geographical indications. The method used is Life Cycle Assessment, largely relying on the Cool Farm Tool for the impact assessment. The most common indicator of climate impact, the carbon footprint expressed per ton of product, is not significantly different between certified foods and their reference products. The only exception to this pattern are vegetal organic products, whose carbon footprint is 16% lower. This is because the decrease in greenhouse gas emissions from the absence of mineral fertilizers is never fully offset by the associated lower yield. The climate impact of certified food per hectare is however 26% than their reference and their land footprint is logically 24% higher. Technical specifications directly or indirectly inducing a lower use of mineral fertilizers are a key driver of this pattern. So is yield, which depends both on terroir and farming practices. Overall, this assessment reinforces the quality policy of the European Union: promoting certified food is not inconsistent with mitigating climate change.

The main objective of the CLAIM Project is to provide the knowledge base to support an effective CAP policy design in the direction of improved landscape management, particularly providing insights into the ability of landscape to contribute to the production of added value for society in rural areas. The CLAIM knowledge platform (KP) represents the interface between the research findings and policy-making contributing to further knowledge on the cause-effect relationships between landscape policy and management and the appearance of landscape (structure and elements) as well as the related ecosystem functionalities to the actual provision of ecosystem services, values and their application for regional competitiveness and social welfare. The theoretical framework of cause-effect-linkages is substantiated by empirical evidence from 25 individual research studies gathered in 9 different regions in the EU and Turkey. The specific challenge of the CLAIM-KP is the integrated presentation of thematically and methodologically heterogenic knowledge in one knowledge platform to enhance policy support in the field of agri-environmental and landscape management. The main addressee of the CLAIM-KP are: European policy maker in the fields of agri-environmental and landscape management policy and rural development, national and regional decision-makers at programming level as well as regional and local stakeholder and interest groups, who are involved in any kind of governance processes within landscape and rural development. The main output of the CLAIM-KP is qualitative knowledge about theoretical knowledge, but also information on empirical finding, which can be of qualitative and quantitative nature. The CLAIM-KP is accessible online under the following internet address http://project2.zalf.de/claimknowledgeplatform

Abstract
The dataset Sustainability performance of certified and non-certified food (https://www.doi.org/10.15454/OP51SJ) contains 25 indicators of economic, environmental, and social performance, estimated for 27 certified food value chains and their 27 conventional reference products. The indicators are estimated at different levels of the value chain: farm level, processing level, and retail level. It also contains the raw data based on which the indicators are estimated, its source, and the completed spreadsheet calculators for the following indicators: carbon footprint and food miles. This article describes the common method and indicators used to collect data for the twenty-seven certified products and their conventional counterparts. It presents the assumptions and choices, the process of data collection, and the indicator estimation methods designed to assess the three sustainability dimensions within a reasonable time constraint. That is: three person-months for each food quality scheme and its non-certified reference product. Several prioritisations were set regarding data collection (indicator, variable, value chain level) together with a level of representativeness specific to each variable and product type (country and sector). Technical details on how relatively common variables (e.g., number of animals per hectare) are combined into indicators (e.g., carbon footprint) are provided in the full documentation of the dataset.

Considering the features of GIs and organic production, Deliverable 5.2 analyses the relationships between Public Goods (PGs) and Food Quality Schemes (FQS). The deliverable evaluates the impacts of the cases study described in Deliverable 5.1 in terms of their contribution to rural development and territorial cohesion given by the capacity to generate positive externalities and hence PGs. The analysis focuses on: i) contribution to local economies; ii) generation of environmental, social and cultural externalities; iii) contribution of different governance mechanisms to ensure the valorisation of producers' know-how and local resources; iv) social cohesion in term of creation of social capital and social networks. Overall, the products that fall within the organic FQS category, contribute to the generation of environmental PGs more than the GI FQS. However, the latter contribute more to the generation of socio-economic PGs. In general, most FQS present a low capacity to generate Cultural Heritage PGs. This indicates that there is considerable space to improve the cultural dimension of these products for the benefit of producers and consumers. The analysis conducted by the Strength2Food methodology show that if there is political will on the part of producers, there is room for improvement in the generation of PGs. At the same time, the measurement of the capacity to produce PGs would further justify the greater economic value of these products to consumers.

Considering the features of GIs and organic production, Deliverable 5.2 analyses the relationships between Public Goods (PGs) and Food Quality Schemes (FQS). The deliverable evaluates the impacts of the cases study described in Deliverable 5.1 in terms of their contribution to rural development and territorial cohesion given by the capacity to generate positive externalities and hence PGs. The analysis focuses on: i) contribution to local economies; ii) generation of environmental, social and cultural externalities; iii) contribution of different governance mechanisms to ensure the valorisation of producers' know-how and local resources; iv) social cohesion in term of creation of social capital and social networks. Overall, the products that fall within the organic FQS category, contribute to the generation of environmental PGs more than the GI FQS. However, the latter contribute more to the generation of socio-economic PGs. In general, most FQS present a low capacity to generate Cultural Heritage PGs. This indicates that there is considerable space to improve the cultural dimension of these products for the benefit of producers and consumers. The analysis conducted by the Strength2Food methodology show that if there is political will on the part of producers, there is room for improvement in the generation of PGs. At the same time, the measurement of the capacity to produce PGs would further justify the greater economic value of these products to consumers.

Considering the features of GIs and organic production, Deliverable 5.2 analyses the relationships between Public Goods (PGs) and Food Quality Schemes (FQS). The deliverable evaluates the impacts of the cases study described in Deliverable 5.1 in terms of their contribution to rural development and territorial cohesion given by the capacity to generate positive externalities and hence PGs. The analysis focuses on: i) contribution to local economies; ii) generation of environmental, social and cultural externalities; iii) contribution of different governance mechanisms to ensure the valorisation of producers' know-how and local resources; iv) social cohesion in term of creation of social capital and social networks. Overall, the products that fall within the organic FQS category, contribute to the generation of environmental PGs more than the GI FQS. However, the latter contribute more to the generation of socio-economic PGs. In general, most FQS present a low capacity to generate Cultural Heritage PGs. This indicates that there is considerable space to improve the cultural dimension of these products for the benefit of producers and consumers. The analysis conducted by the Strength2Food methodology show that if there is political will on the part of producers, there is room for improvement in the generation of PGs. At the same time, the measurement of the capacity to produce PGs would further justify the greater economic value of these products to consumers.