You are on page 1of 115

Finding a sustainable food system for Manchester:

Exploring a successful trading model to increase access to sustainable fruit and vegetables in Greater Manchester.

Helen Woodcock 2:1 Applied Community Studies, Manchester Metropolitan University

SUBMITTED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL TEACHING GROUP, SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MASTER OF SCIENCE.

SCOTTISH AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, 2010

Acknowledgements
I would like to say a huge thank you to everyone who helped make this report possible. In particular I would like to say a big thank you to:

Julie Brown, Marlene Barrett, Graham Hughes, Alan Hewitt, Gary Stokes, Christina Ballinger, Nick Saltmarsh, Sarah Mooney, Seeta Rajani, Rosie Blackburn and Clare Horrell. I am hugely grateful for your time, honesty and practical advice I've learnt loads! and I wish you all the very best with your work. All the members of M.O.G. for letting me sit in on two of your very early meetings, and the Time is Ripe steering group. I look forward to continuing this work with you. Petra Vergunst my very patient and calming supervisor for her much needed guidance and support. SAC library staff and the Organic Farming Course (tutors and class mates) for good advice and company. The Sydney Perry Foundation, Lantra women & work programme, and Business Link Northwest for your contributions. Jo Turner-Baker for your mammoth final read through, and Debbie Ellen for all your wisdom and support. Finally I would like to thank the Kindling Trust, and in particular Matt Fawcett and Chris Walsh for great advice, inspiring debates, and shoulders to lean on.

Declaration
I declare that the work reported in this thesis was devised and carried out by myself, and has not been accepted in and previous application for a degree. All information drawn from other sources, and any assistance received has been acknowledged in the appropriate place.

Summary
Creating sustainable local food systems (SLFS) can have huge implications in helping to reduce carbon emissions and encouraging people back into farming, thereby increasing local resilience. The purpose of this research is to explore the best model for this. A model that is fair, accessible, and environmentally and financially sustainable. This research used mixed methods research with thematic analysis: a survey; semi-structured expert interviews; and participant observation of Manchester growers and buyers meetings.

Examples of SLFS were found that address all areas of sustainability. Practical characteristics were identified that could be mixed and matched to form a model for different contexts. Key elements of a successful model were identified as: an entrepreneurial approach, commitment, rigorous financial systems and trading based on relationships not formal agreements. The main difficulties identified were: Balancing supply and demand, 'good' market price versus fair price, and achieving financial sustainability. Insights were gained from all models and key questions were raised regarding how to ensure engagement and commitment of members. As this model is developed through implementation it will require ongoing evaluation and further detail of the systems required.

Setting up an SLFS needs time and planning, to secure sufficient investment and identify the market, but also to create a common vision and identify the expectations of those involved. Conflict between members or lack of engagement cause major problems in co-operative models. On the other hand strong commitment, relationships of trust, transparency and clear systems can lay the foundations of a successful model. The value of this research is that it brings together successful elements and lessons learnt from a number of initiatives and proposes a model that aims to address all four elements of sustainability. It proposes that this is achievable and provides practical details.

Contents page
Chapter one: Introduction Abbreviations 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Context Rationale Aims and objectives Introduction Sustainable food and food supply systems. Key characteristics of models that supply sustainable food to cities. Key elements of SLFS that enable them to function successfully Strengths and weaknesses of different models in achieving sustainability Conclusion Introduction Research design Data collection Analysis Theoretical approach and epistemology Ethics Introduction Understanding the models: main characteristics and practicalities Lessons learnt from existing Sustainable Local Food Systems (SLFS) Conclusion Key characteristics of models that supply sustainable food to cities. Key elements of SLFS that enable them to function successfully Strengths and weaknesses of each model in achieving sustainability A model of a sustainable local food system for Greater Manchester Research limitations 3 4 7 8 9 9 18 22 26 31 33 33 38 45 46 48 50 52 57 72 74 79 82 93 102 103 106 110 111 112

Chapter two: Literature review

Chapter three: Methodology

Chapter four: Results

Chapter five: Discussion

Chapter six: Conclusion Bibliography & Appendices Bibliography A1 A2 A3 Sustain's 7 principles of sustainable food Survey Semi-structured interview guide

Abbreviations
AFN/S Alternative Food Networks or Systems. BRCC BioRegional Charcoal Company. CO2(e) - Carbon Dioxide (equivalent). CiviCRM - Civi Customer Relations Management Software. CSA - Community Supported Agriculture. EU European Union. FARMA - Farmers' Retail and Markets Association. GC - Growing Communities GHG - Green House Gas. LFS Local Food System MCC Manchester City Council M.O.G Manchester Organic Growers PAR - participatory action research. P&L Profit & Loss. R&D - Research & Development. SLFS Sustainable Local Food System. SME Small to Medium-Sized Enterprise. SWOT - Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. UK United Kingdom. UN United Nations. USA United States of America.

Chapter one: Introduction


1.1 Context
The food system we are dependant upon is truly global. Not only does the UK import 40% of its vegetables and 90% of fruit (Garnett, 2008), we are also reliant on the global commodities trade for fertilisers, pesticides and fossil fuels (Maynard, 2009).

In a global economy, where fossil fuels have historically been relatively cheap (Elkington & Kendall, 2009) and with significant wage disparities between the Global North and South, profits can be made by importing 'cheap' food from developing countries to the UK (McMichael, 2009). Consumers have come to expect year round choice and convenience, and UK farmers find it hard to compete with global food prices (O'Reilly, 2004).

As a result our food system is fossil fuel dependent and directly effected by prices set on the global markets. Increasing oil prices (due to concerns about Peak Oil or market speculation), have consequences not only for the prices we pay for food, but have increased hunger and triggered food riots in the Global South (Cleland, 2008).

Compounding these food security concerns is the growing impact of climate change on the ability to produce food for a growing global population. Consequently, global negotiations between national governments recognise that we need to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050 to give the world a 50:50 chance of not exceeding a global two degree rise in temperature (Smith, 2009).

Paradoxically, the present food system is recognised as contributing significantly to greenhouse gas emissions, with the food chain estimated to be responsible for one fifth of the UK's carbon emissions (Garnett, 2008). Production is the part of the food life cycle that is responsible for the majority of these emissions and, while this is a hugely complex issue, low input farming systems, such as organic farming, have been identified as among the lowest carbon production techniques

(Hird et al., 2010).

Due to this increased awareness of climate change and its consequences for food security in the UK, local resilience is becoming more widely discussed (Barling et al., 2008). Local food is topping the agenda of celebrities, funders and government ministers alike, with a recent Fruit & Vegetable Working Group established to look at how to increase UK food production (Hockley, 2009). Obesity and other health concerns are adding to this drive for fresh food, as well as more positive evidence that an increase of fresh fruit in hospitals and schools is improving health, educational achievement and behaviour (Hockridge & Lonfield, 2005; Belot & James, 2009; Les & Nlting 2009). A wealth of local food initiatives are developing across the UK as community level solutions to these problems (e.g. Freenstra, 1996; Holloway et al., 2007).

On a local level in Manchester, the local authority and other signatories to a Climate Change Action Plan ('Manchester A Certain Future'), have committed to reduce the city's carbon emissions by 41% by the year 2020, and to become the 'Greenest City in the UK'. One of the Action Plan's themes is sustainable food.

Yet, Greater Manchester is one of the counties with the lowest access to locally produced fresh fruit & vegetables (Ricketts Hein, 2006), and is one of the regions with the lowest number of organic producers (Williamson, 2007), despite a strong heritage of horticulture and farming, serving the industrial towns and cities of the Northwest.

Additionally, what is eaten has been found to be as important as where and how it is produced. Meat and dairy are the largest contributor to GHG emissions in the food system - responsible for over 50% of the UK food system's CO2 emissions (Garnett, 2008). A lower carbon diet would be one of less meat and dairy (Hird et al., 2010), and more fruit and vegetables (as meat substitutes are also high carbon foods).

With the clear urgency for action to address climate change it is easy to forget that a sustainable food system is about more than CO2 reductions. Currently, small-scale organic vegetable producers are struggling financially. They generally earn below the minimum wage (often less than others in the food supply chain), and have little control over the system that they supply. With the average age of a UK farmer being 58 years old (Barling et al., 2009), there is a need to address these issues to encourage a younger generation into farming.

Partly because of these many concerns around resilience, environmental sustainability, food security, and additionally health, a growing number of individuals and organisations in Manchester are focusing their work and activism around sustainable food. For example:

- In the last year the Kindling Trust, of which the researcher is a founding member, has facilitated the establishment of a sustainable food network called FeedingManchester, involving over 40 organisations.

- A group of organic growers and buyers in Greater Manchester has come together to start looking at co-ordinating growing and starting a local organic brand.

- The Kindling Trust is running a project called Sustainable Fayre to research the possibility of increasing access to local organically produced vegetables through public procurement.

- As part of this, a year long pilot project with Manchester Fayre (the Local Authority caterers) will start in September 2010 at a local school, sourcing all fresh ingredients for a sustainable soup (five days a week) through the group of local organic growers.

In the next chapter, the literature review will further explore the issues raised here, with a focus on the growing number of food projects that are attempting to address all angles of sustainability (Seyfang, 2006; Horrel et al., 2009; Saltmarsh, 2009). Despite this wealth of research, little has

been written to explore the practical lessons that can be learnt from these projects what works and what does not. This research aims to address this gap.

1.2 Rationale
It is in this context the Kindling Trust (a Manchester based non-profit social enterprise) has begun its work to explore ways of increasing access to sustainable fruit and vegetables in Greater Manchester.

The term sustainable is defined as food that is: environmentally sustainable both in the immediate and long term (recognising the need to reduce GHG emissions, maintain soil fertility and encourage biodiversity); fair, addressing the current imbalances in the food supply chain and providing support for growers to make sustainable food production a more attractive and viable employment option; financially viable, a model that does not have to rely on grant making trusts or government subsidy.

The rationale behind this study is fivefold:

1. The immediate need to increase access to local organic produce in Manchester to help deliver a low-carbon city. 2. The need to identify obstacles to sourcing sustainable food, and supplying it to Greater Manchester. 3. An aspiration to learn lessons from existing sustainable food initiatives, seeking solutions to obstacles identified, and learning more about the practicalities of a successful model. 4. To use the findings to inform the development of a sustainable food system in Manchester, supporting existing and potentially new growers locally. 5. To share what is learnt with groups in other cities.

The aim of such a model is not to propose that Mancunians should only eat what can be grown locally, but that there is a focus on sourcing produce when it is available locally, in a way that brings environmental, social and economic benefits. It is a focus on what can be done practically at a local level and this research aims to explore the best way to do that.1

1.3 Aims and Objectives


The aim of this research project is to explore:

What is a successful trading model to increase access to sustainable fruit and vegetables in Greater Manchester?

In order to try and meet this aim, the following questions will be researched:

What are the existing models that supply sustainable food to cities and what are their characteristics?

What are the key elements of successful Sustainable Food Systems?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of different models in achieving sustainability?

Can key elements of different models, and lessons learnt, be brought together to improve on existing models, or create a new model, to increase access to sustainable food in Greater Manchester?

1 An important issue raised in local food discussions is the plight of organic farmers in the Global South, if their exports are displaced by local produce. While it is not within the remit of this report, it deserves a mention here especially as they are among the most vulnerable to the effects of climate change. The proposal is not to stop trading with the Global South, but it is to look at the most sustainable way of doing so. Continuing an economic dependency through air freighted cash crops is perhaps a questionable form of support, as Garnett says: forms of economic development that are environmentally unsustainable are effectively sawing off the branch they are sitting on (Garnett, 2008 p33).

2 Literature review
2.1 Introduction
The following is a review of a range of material written on the subject of sustainable food. The aim is not to repeat, affirm or criticise existing discussions, but to inform and build the foundations for this research. The review will start by looking at the definition of a sustainable food system (SFS), and the conventional or mainstream food system (MFS). It will then focus on critiques of various models considered to be SFS, in particular aiming to identify the practical characteristics of each model; key elements of success; and the strengths and weaknesses of each model in achieving sustainability.

2.2 Sustainable food and food supply systems


In 1987 the UN-convened World Commission on Environment and Development defined sustainability as:

'meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs ' (DESA, 1987).

Applying this definition more directly to food, a conference in 2000, representing a broad cross section of the alternative farming and food community, defined the characteristics of a sustainable food system as:

relational, proximate, diverse, ecologically sustainable, economically sustaining, just/ethical, sacred, knowledgeable/communicative, seasonal/temporal, healthful, participatory, culturally nourishing, and sustainably regulated (Kloppenburg et al., 2000, p177).

Since these dates a wealth of research has been published highlighting numerous reasons why the

10

current mainstream food system (MFS) (i.e. large scale intensive production systems and global distribution through large wholesalers and multinational retail chains), does not comply with these definitions of sustainability. Reasons include: environmental damage and high fossil fuel dependence in production, distribution, and processing, and the resulting external costs (Pretty et al., 2005; Garnett, 2006); the health effects on those handling toxic chemical pesticides (Brandt, 2007); the negative impact of multinational supermarkets on the local economy (Sacks, 2002; Dalmeny 2008); and the imbalance of power and wealth distribution in the MFS (Kloppenburg, et al 1996) resulting in low paid and therefore decreasing numbers of UK farmers (Barling et al., 2008).

Annual marketing statistics reveal that consumers are showing a greater awareness of their environmental and social responsibilities through purchasing (e.g. fair trade, organic, local), but mainly through multiple retailers (Williams, 2007). Supermarkets, it is argued, do not meet sustainable criteria in terms of social contact, fair pay to the producer and strengthening local economies (Seyfang, 2006). Furthermore by attracting customers through low prices and 'convenience', it is argued that they have a significantly negative impact on initiatives trying to offer an alternative food system, lessening the market for, and diluting the definition of sustainable food (Hughes, 2005; Dalmeny, 2008).

As well as this critique of the MFS, there is an increasing and diverse academic debate regarding the alternatives to it, described varyingly as: Alternative Food Networks or Systems AFN/S ( Venn et al., 2006; Ricketts Hein et al., 2006; Kneafsey, 2007; Jarosz, 2008; Nousiainen et al., 2009); Alternative Agri-Food Networks-AAFN (Seyfang, 2006); Short Food Supply Chains SFSC (Ilbery & Maye, 2005); Local Food Systems LFS (Hindrichs, 2000); and Sustainable Local Food Systems SLFS (Feenstra, 1997). These terms are used to describe a system of food production and consumption that shortens the food supply chain (distance that food travels from farm to table (Norberg-Hodge, undated)), through an array of market arrangements such as box schemes, farmers markets etc. (Hinrichs, 2000). Some argue that further to this, these systems are:

11 rooted in particular places, aim to be economically viable for farmers and

consumers, use ecologically sound production and distribution practices and enhance social equity and democracy for all members of the community (Feenstra, 1997, p28).

This report will use the term Sustainable Local Food Systems (SLFS) for two main reasons. Firstly due to problems highlighted with the use of the term 'alternative', particularly the difficulty of defining 'alternative', especially as many SLFS interact with the conventional MFS e.g. through use of conventional butchers or distribution networks (Watts et al., 2005; Venn et al., 2006; Holloway et al., 2007). Secondly because it is argued (as will be discussed further on), that the term local food on its own does not necessarily equate with environmental or social sustainability (Born & Purcell, 2006; Clarke et al., 2008; Schonhart et al., 2009).

From the wealth of literature discussing and defining sustainable food systems, five main characteristics are repeatedly mentioned: Proximity/Local Environmental impact Fairness within the supply chain Accessibility Financial viability There are a range of views regarding both the importance of each characteristic, and the extent to which SLFS achieve them. The main points relevant to finding a successful trading model for Greater Manchester are summarised below:

Proximity/local Much work has been done to define the term local in relation to food supply, ranging from within thirty miles (FARMA, 2010), to up to seventy miles from point of sale for large cities (Dalmeny, 2008).

12

Local resilience and food security are increasingly used terms (Barling et al.,2008; Saltmarsh, 2009), that refer to increasing the amount of food we produce locally, and lessening our dependence on imports and oil (Maynard, 2009). Although Schonhart et al (2009) argue that our dependence on regional resources could endanger our food security (through flooding and drought), they also highlight our current dependence globally on very limited grain species having moved away from regional crop variations. This as Maynard (2009) points out could potentially threaten not only our local, but our global food security (through crop disease).

According to Renting et al. (2003), embeddedness (information and ethics embedded in local food) is the critical difference between short food supply chains (as described above) and mainstream (and often global) food supply chains (Renting et al., (2003), cited in Venn et al., 2006). Ethics and information enable consumers to make more sustainable food choices based on identification with place, sense of community and/or type of production (Venn et al., 2006). However the assumption that sustainability is embedded in local food is hotly debated. Counter arguments warn of the dangers of over romanticising local food (Hindrichs, 2000) saying that local production can be just as environmentally damaging as global production, and that:

Local as an end for its own sake is merely nativism, defensive localism that frequently is not aligned with social justice goals (Born & Purcell, 2006 p202).

There are also arguments regarding the ability of an SLFS to achieve the local element of sustainability. While the inclusion of 'local' in SLFS seems to point to the fact that the food is local, according to research this is not always the case. Ilbery and Maye (2005) found for example that if inputs (e.g. feed) used in production, and distance from point of sale, were included in the calculations, many specialist local organic foods should not really be defined as local. Equally where a SLFS, is not organic, while the vegetables may be local, the fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides used to grow them were not (Maynard, 2009).

13

However in for years proximity or 'localness' has been discussed as a central pillar of sustainability: reducing food miles (Paxton (1994), cited in Garnett, 2008), improving the local economy (Sacks, 2002) and reconnecting consumers with where their food comes from (Sage, 2003). Equally reports define local food not just as where it is produced, but as including sustainable methods of production, as well as paying producers fairly (Saltmarsh, 2009a). Additionally Garnett (2008) points out that current Green House Gas (GHG) emission calculations for the UK do not include emissions from imported food (or inputs), inclusion of which would significantly raise our GHG emissions. It is important to remember that while local is an important element of a SLFS, it is only one part of a whole.

Environmental impact It has been estimated that the food system as a whole is responsible for one fifth of the UK's and up to 31% of Europe's GHG emissions (Garnett, 2006). Studies calculating the GHG emissions of different stages of the life cycle of food (e.g. production, distribution, refrigeration, preparation), find production to be responsible for the highest percentage (Garnett, 2008). Production of artificial fertiliser contributes significantly to that, estimated to be responsible for 1% of the UK's total GHG emissions (Garnett, 2008; Hird et al., 2010).

The literature that exists on how best to lower the GHG emissions from agriculture is complex, however it has been found that:

organic and other low-input forms of agriculture generally result in substantially lower greenhouse gas emissions per unit area of land compared with conventional agriculture (Hird et al., 2010).

While some argue that increased use of machinery through weeding without herbicide use means that organic farming increases CO2 emissions due to fuel consumption (Trewavas, 2001; Avery,

14

2006), this claim is disputed due to the fact that nitrogen production is not included in the calculations (Maynard, 2009). Furthermore, argue the Soil Association, wide spread uptake of organic farming would offset up to 23% of the UK's GHG emissions through conserving soil carbon (Hird et al., 2010), whilst also providing crucial habitats for biodiversity (Maynard, 2009).

However research shows that if all of the food that we consumed was organic but air freighted this would increase the external environmental costs of our food (Pretty et al., 2005). For example only 1.5% fruit and vegetables are air freighted, but this accounts for 40% of all CO2 emissions from transport of fruit and vegetables (Garnett, 2008).

The lowest emitting scenario seems to be a combination of local and organic production where possible (Pretty et al., 2005), not forgetting other equally important GHG 'hotspots' such as heated greenhouses and refrigeration (Garnett, 2006). Considering that meat and dairy are responsible for 58% of GHG emissions from food consumption (Hird et al., 2010), any real attempt to reduce emissions from food must also include a reduction in consumption of those foods (Maynard, 2009).

As a whole the required change results not only a shift in production, but in eating habits (Garnett, 2008). As discussed previously, while many local food projects are not currently organic, and there are questions about the efficiency of distribution in SLFS (Schonhart et al., 2009), it is argued that SLFS could have an influence on these changes. Direct contact and relationships with consumers and producers potentially puts SLFS in a good position both to encourage change in consumption and to support producers to make those changes (Hird et al., 2010).

Fairness and participation in the food system It is widely acknowledged that creating a sustainable food system is about more than protecting the environment. Creating a fairer system is also a key aim (Feenstra,1997; Hinrichs, 2000; Nousiainen et al., 2009). A more democratic and fair food system is defined as farmers having

15

more control in the decision making process and keeping more of the margins from the sale of their produce (Jarosz, 2006).

A key criticism of SLFS is that farmers are still underpaid and overworked (Jarosz, 2008; Mann, 2009), with very few examples of the producer being paid an equal wage to others in the supply chain (Hindrichs, 2000; Jarosz, 2006; Nousiainen et al., 2009). Born and Purcell (2006) state that imbalances of power may even increase in LFS, pointing to the danger of existing inequalities in the community leading to unequal distribution of benefits.

However inequalities within a community still appear to be easier to address then the inherent inequalities highlighted in the mainstream food system (Seyfang, 2006; Reynolds et al., 2009). Producers reportedly feel they have more bargaining power (Nousiainen et al., 2009) and most literature seems to agree that while producers are not equal to consumers in income they receive better pay then through supplying supermarkets (Kloppenburg et al., 1996; Marsden & Smith, 2005 Clarke et al., 2008).

Accessibility As well as aiming to provide the producers with a balanced share of the margins, SLFS aim to be accessible to a wide range of consumers and to serve disadvantaged communities (Feenstra, 1997), but failure to achieve this is heavily criticised in the literature. The alternative food systems are mainly seen as targeting niche markets (Marsden & Smith, 2004; Ilbery & Maye, 2005), and serving consumers with higher income brackets and qualifications (Mann, 2009). However a number of initiatives are highlighted that access more disadvantaged communities, for example providing volunteering opportunities (Holloway et al., 2007), part work share payments (Mann, 2009), and government voucher schemes (Jarosz, 2006).

Additionally Kloppenburg et al. (1996) challenge the view that the majority of SLFS consumers are

16

high income earners because produce is not affordable, and propose instead that it is due to the fact that people are not aware of the initiatives. This is plausible in the light of research showing that in five out of six cases produce was cheaper through an SLFS than through the mainstream food system (Mathijs et al., (2006) cited in Schonhart et al., 2009).

Working in partnership with the public sector (e.g. supplying schools and hospitals) is also highlighted as a way to increase access to sustainable food for disadvantaged consumers (Jarosz, 2006; OAPSG, 2008; Barling et al.,2008). Various challenges to supplying this market are identified, including confusion over procurement restrictions (what can be specified in tender documents under EU law), and conflicting messages about value for money in government sectors (with a focus on expenditure cuts overshadowing long term benefits such as health and environmental impact) (OAPSG, 2008). However these are perceived to be surmountable where there is commitment from Local Authorities (Watts et al., 2005), and based on the Governments strategy for sustainable farming and food, and the UK's organic action plan both highlighting the public sector as a key area in which to market UK produced organic food (OAPSG, 2008).

Financial viability The final piece of the jigsaw, and argued by some as that most important (Hinrichs, 2000), is the financial viability of local food systems. The idea is to make the production and provision of sustainable food viable by paying the producer sufficiently (Jarosz, 2006) and, in some models such as CSA, by sharing the financial risk with them (Mann, 2009), whilst making fresh healthy food accessible to those on a low income (Feenstra,1997). But is it possible to achieve both of these aims in unison and run a viable business? Some examples of initiatives that are focussed on the more social elements of both accessibility and fairness, such as Sallop Drive Market Garden, are still funding and volunteer dependent (Holloway et al., 2007). According to Horrel et al. (2009):

community-based food hubs routinely struggle to be economically viable (p7),

17

particularly those selling unprocessed fruit and vegetables. Researchers have identified reasons for this, including labour intensiveness (Jarosz, 2006), potentially magnified by farmers taking on wider roles in marketing and/or processing (Nousiainen et al., 2009). Other cost issues include waste management, administration costs, quality control and distribution (with fuel costs) (Saltmarsh, 2009). Although solutions to viability of distribution have also been identified such as using a third party for more efficient distribution, or additionally distributing value-added products (Horrel et al., 2009).

The strong competition of the MFS supplying organic, local, seasonal food is also highlighted as a threat to the financial viability of SLFS (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Dalmeny, 2008), limiting the size of the SLFS market (Nousiainen et al., 2009). Direct competition with the 'fine-tuned economic models' of supermarkets and large wholesalers. (Horrel et al., 2009), is potentially compounded by:

higher transaction costs for retailers through the interaction with many small and local suppliers and incompatibility of small local structures with distribution systems that source globally (Schonhart, 2009 p179).

Although the majority of the examples do not supply supermarkets this last threat is also applicable to supplying public institutions (OAPSG, 2008; Barling et al., 2008; Saltmarsh, 2009a).

A criticism of SLFS is that they favour one element of sustainability above the others. Clarke et al. (2008) argue that environmental concerns are given priority above accessibility; Mann (2009) concludes that while SLFS consumers can have more ownership in the system, the farmers remain poor; Horrel et al. (2009) found that the more commercially focused food projects were more willing to adapt their ethos to improve their viability:

success in commercial viability was acknowledged as having the potential to lead to a drift towards replicating the wider food system they had originally intended to provide an

18

alternative to (Horrel et al., 2009, p3).

In conclusion, although there are numerous criticisms of the importance of each element of sustainability on its own, there seems to be little argument that all of these elements combined would achieve a more sustainable system. Pretty et al. (2005), found that if all of the food in our food basket was organically and locally produced and distributed by rail, external costs would fall from 11.8% of the food basket to 1.11.8%. Garnett (2008) states that it is crucial that food and climate change are addressed together with other other social, ethical and environmental problems. Schonhart et al. (2009), whilst seeming to argue quite strongly at times against SLFS conclude that we should not be asking whether SLFS are good or bad, but identifying the best solutions be that a type of SLFS, or eating more seasonal organic food and less meat. Yet there seems to be a lack of literature exploring the best SLFS model to address all elements of sustainability together, and how this would work in practice.

The following questions aim to explore the possibility of meeting all of the aims of sustainable food in one model to create a truly sustainable system.

2.3 Key characteristics of models that supply sustainable food to cities


Existing trading models can be differentiated based upon a number of characteristics, some of which are similar to characteristics used by Holloway et al. (2007):

Ownership and decision making (similar to constitution of individual and group identity field used by Holloway et al, 2007): who owns an SLFS and how decisions are made is critical when evaluating the fairness factor of the model.

Distribution (called supply chain by Holloway et al, 2007) how the produce reaches the

19

customer effects the environmental impact of the SLFS but, perhaps more importantly, bears upon the practical workings and viability of a model (Horrel et al, 2008).

Consumers motivations (similar to motivation for participation used by Holloway et al, 2007) who are the consumers and what are their reasons for purchasing the product? This is relevant when evaluating the success of the models in terms of accessibility, but also in terms of the marketing and financial viability of the SLFS.

Table 1 lists the main trading models that are considered in the literature to be part of SLFS and summarises how they compare of contrast in terms of these three characteristics.

Table 1: Examples of SLFS and their defining characteristics. Examples & references Farmers Markets Farmers Markets in the USA (Hinrichs, 2000) Ownership & decision making Producer co-op. Committee of representatives. Distribution Producers & Consumers to central point Consumers & their motivations Largely educated middle class consumers, looking for freshness & quality primarily health reasons. Not typical consumer environmental concerns was the single most important issue Privately run franchise decisions made by owners Participative ownership consumers are shareholders/ subscribers, and in some cases commit to work on the farm Owner collects from producers & delivers to consumers People purchasing for health, freshness, quality at a good price - everyday ethics

Eostre (Seyfang, 2006). Box Schemes Riverford (Clarke et al., 2008)

Community CSA in the UK Supported Mann (2009) Agriculture (CSA) CSA in the USA (Hinrichs, 2000) Earthshare, Sallop drive & Share a sheep (Holloway et al., 2007)

Consumers CSA members are high collect from farm income earners and tend to or drop off points be well educated and ideologically motivated people Drop off points Motivation is the novelty value low re-subscription Sent to them in rate Share a sheep the case of distant consumers Share a sheep adopt a sheep

20

Examples & references Producer owned coop Eostre (Seyfang, 2006)

Ownership & decision making Co-op of nine local organic growers & a producer co-op in Padua, Italy with over 50 members of its own Producer group brand owned collectively A producer group of local organic farmers GF doing central marketing.

Distribution Collected from producers and delivered to outlets (presumably sent from Italy). Unspecified

Consumers & their motivations Customers motivations : 94% environmental concerns, supporting local farmers also high, but also health, safety & quality 'every day ethics'. Unspecified

Local brand

Fruitnet (Collet & Mormont, 2003) The Graig Farm Network (Marsden & Smith, 2005)

GF do the Target the quality seeking packaging & customers distribute through a range of outlets Target the quality seeking customers.

The Waddengroup Foundation (Marsden & Smith, 2005)

Co-operative of Unspecified producers & processors each member has a financial interest. Unspecified

Producer, Isle of Juva processor & (Nousiainen et al., retailer owned. 2009) Local Proposal for organic London food (Saltmarsh, 2009) depot/Food hubs SMEs Specialist food producers (Ilbery & Maye, 2005) Co-operative ownership proposed but representation more agreed on. Private businesses often family owned & run.

Speciality shops and grocers - 5% reinvested for R&D and marketing. Open to all customers community projects, independent retailers, caterers etc. but also supermarkets. Niche quality market

Shared distribution is proposed.

Ownership and decision making: Many of the SLFS models studied have strong collaborative elements to their ownership structure and decision making processes. From 'Participative ownership' with Community Supported Agriculture, where consumers are shareholders/subscribers and commit to a number of hours of work (Hinrichs, 2000; Holloway et al, 2007; Mann, 2009), to membership owned and run producer or producer and retailer/processor co-operatives or associations (Collet & Mormont, 2003;

21

Marsden & Smith, 2005; Seyfang 2006; Nousiainen et al., 2009). There are also various examples of private enterprises involved in SLFS (Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Holloway et al., 2007; Clarke et al., 2008), where it is assumed decisions will be made by the individual owners.

Distribution: The methods of distribution also vary. In the example of the Farmers market and CSA the distribution is shared between the consumers and the producers. With both parties coming to a central or drop off point to bring/collect the produce. The Box Scheme owner collects from the producer and delivers to the consumer, as is also the case for a number of producer co-ops with one enterprise playing the central marketing and distribution role (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Seyfang; 2006). In many of the articles distribution methods were not mentioned, however it is often an obstacle and key factor in the viability of an SLFS (Horrel et al., 2009).

Consumers and their motivations: Some suggest that the role of SLFS and its members, is to challenge the unsustainable existing structure or centres of power in food supply (Holloway et al., 2007; Marsden & Smith, 2005), yet others strongly disagree with this assertion, and stress that 'everyday ethics' such as freshness and health are the principle motivation of consumers (Clarke et al., 2009; Hindrichs, 2000; Kloppenburg et al., 1996).

A variety of consumer motivations have been identified, including people looking for the novelty value of adopting a sheep (Holloway et al., 2007), consumers seeking high quality specialist products (Nousiainen et al, 2009; Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Marsden & Smith, 2005), consumers looking to lower their environmental impact and support local farmers (Seyfang, 2006), or ideologically motivated CSA members (Mann, 2009). Most of the studies reviewed here refer to SLFS as niche markets supplying consumers who are well educated high income earners (Mann, 2009; Hinrichs, 2000). Possibilities have been identified for changing this however, and already exist, through government voucher systems for people on low incomes (Jarosz, 2008) and public

22

procurement opportunities (OAPSG, 2008).

Having introduced the various SLFS models and three of their defining characteristics, this review will go on to explore the elements of SLFS that make them successful, the strengths and weaknesses of each model in achieving a sustainable food system, and how the three defining characteristics discussed here might contribute to their success.

2.4 Key elements of SLFS that enable them to function successfully


A number of examples of SLFS models are cited as being successful, but is it possible to extract elements of the models that are essential components for or increase the likelihood of this success?

Quality Clarke et al. (2008), conclude that the quality of the produce is the key to success or failure of the box scheme. This is echoed by others either as a key to success, coupled with continuity of supply (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Seyfang, 2006), or as a problem for the SLFS (see below). Other key factors regarding quality were feedback on quality for producers and quality issues being dealt with immediately for the distributor (Marsden & Smith, 2005).

Understanding consumers motivations Understanding consumer motivations was outlined as one of the key aspects of a successful enterprise. Although much literature states that environmental and ethical issues are motivating factors for SLFS consumers (Seyfang, 2006; Mann, 2009), others found that 'everyday ethics' were a much more common driver and felt that assuming 'higher ethical' reasons could loose customers (Clarke et al., 2009). Kloppenburg et al. (1996), agree with this concluding that people are not ready to make radical changes, but along with Clarke et al., (2009) found that purchasing through an SLFS ('Foodshed') is a first step leading on to further ethical/environmental behavioural

23

changes.

The connection between the producer and the consumer is observed to be a key element to the success of an SLFS (Sage 2003; Seyfang, 2006; Holloway et al., 2007) - although the degree of its importance is debated (Hinrichs, 2000). Connectedness is referred to as crucial by the founder of Riverford box scheme, defined as a connection through the joy and passion for food (Clarke et al., 2008).

Trust Nousiainen et al., (2009) talk about the importance of relationships of trust between all those involved in a local brand (producers, retailers etc.). They highlight the importance of:

transactions built on fairness and reciprocity, which facilitate trust and enhance cooperation and collective action (p572).

This is echoed in studies regarding a number of different models (Sage, 2003; Watts et al., 2005; Horrell et al., 2009). But the reality of this is questioned both in terms of whether this relationship exists and in relation to how important it is to those involved in the SLFS (Hinrichs, 2000).

Marsden and Smith (2005) however, talk about trust in a very practical sense. The importance of trust between the growers regarding the sharing of equipment, and the importance of achieving consumer trust in the brand or logo.

Key individuals & the network Research shows that a founding individual, or small visionary group, possessing dynamism, personality (Ilbery & Maye, 2005), 'ecological entrepreneurship' values and pragmatism (Marsden & Smith, 2005), are a common feature of SLFS (Horrel et al., 2009). Freeing up the time of key individual(s) from day to day tasks to focus on the development of the SLFS was felt to be key

24

(Horrel et al., 2009).

Having a good network is also an essential ingredient (Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Nousiainen et al., 2009), both to reconnect those in the SLFS, and as a general network for problem solving (Marsden & Smith, 2005). Additionally co-operative working relationships (Kloppenburg et al., 1996), and equal power distribution between members of the SLFS has been found to increase the sustainability of business relationships (Reynolds et al., 2009). Marsden and Smith (2005) also found that such networks played a very practical role of building up collective capacity (in production, processing, distribution and sales), and collective knowledge to support new members.

Linked to the people element of an SLFS is the importance of good communication between all parties, including: relevance, accuracy, reliability and timeliness of communications, and attention given to who is put in the position of contact (Reynolds et al., 2009).

Finances Hinrichs presents a picture of proponents of SLFS, as regarding the topic of financial interest as colouring social embeddedness, assumed to be:

'an almost magical attribute of direct agricultural markets'. (Hinrichs, 2000, p297).

However many studies, whilst acknowledging the importance of relationships of trust in SLFS, and finding advantages in non financial benefits of SLFS, also recognise that farmers can not survive on 'mutual regard' alone (Sage, 2003). Hinrichs (2000) states that marketness (price) and instrumentalism (self interest) are key considerations for sustaining a viable SLFS (Hinrichs, 2000). Just as consumers earn the money that they purchase food with, producers and retailers need to earn a living from their work (Watts et al., 2005).

25

Kloppenburg et al. (1996), found that one of the key elements to a successful SLFS was being part of a network with a central organisation negotiating the pricing, thus freeing the time of the producers and not leaving them to fight their own corner (Marsden & Smith, 2005). Efficient and co-ordinated distribution is highlighted in a number of studies as crucial both to free up producers time, keep the costs down and increase customer convenience (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Seyfang, 2006; Clarke et al., 2008; Saltmarsh, 2009; Horrel et al., 2009). Marsden & Smith (2005) also stress the importance of the robustness of internal mechanisms and of a reliable market for produce as key to success in an SLFS.

Horrel et al. (2009), found that where profits were distributed to shareholders, SLFS appeared to have been more successful in developing their commercial work, and that diversification of activities improved viability through consultancy, growing, and adding value to the food. However it was also found that those who were more commercially successful were more willing to compromise on other aspects of sustainability. Finally Saltmarsh (2009), in a piece of research exploring the need for an organic food hub in London, found that there was strong consensus among participants, that costs be as transparent as possible to all SLFS members.

There are many initiatives that are working to increase access to sustainable food in cities, including some of those explored above and numerous unstudied examples. Saltmarsh (2009) mentions a number of London based SLFS projects or proposals such as Growing Communities, and Organic Lea that will be interesting models to explore further. However based on the literature reviewed, it appears that there are various difficulties for all models in terms of achieving all angles of sustainability.

26

2.5 Strengths and weaknesses of different models in achieving sustainability


The main weakness of SLFS are discussed in the literature reviewed in relation to areas of sustainability, rather than in terms of specific characteristics (as with the elements of success). This section will therefore compare the strengths and weaknesses of the models reviewed in achieving a sustainable food system, as summarised in Table 2. Table 2: Strengths and weaknesses of various models in achieving a sustainable food system. Environmental Fairness in the sustainability supply chain Farmers Markets Not mentioned Producers control prices & make FM decisions collectively or by committee of representatives Yes e.g.'s are organic Private enterprise control with 'middleman' prices paid to producers higher Potentially more than other models though issues re low wages & lack of participation Yes producer co-operative Accessibility Financially sustainable Main references Hinrichs (2000) Seyfang (2006) Ellen (2009)

Target market Yes not specified but most common disadvantage was convenience then price Target market not specified Common disadvantage lack of choice Share payment & time an issue Yes though producers wages considered low. Yes

Box Schemes

Clarke et al. (2008) Seyfang (2006) Mann (2009) Hinrichs (2000) Holloway et al. (2007)

CSA

Yes e.g.'s are organic

Producers groups

Yes e.g.'s are organic

Price of supplied outlets was one disadvantage bought up by consumers Say they keep down costs but author refers to target market as niche quality market No niche quality market

At the time of Seyfang Seyfang's (2006) research it was going well but has since folded. Yes Marsden & Smith (2005) Unsure Collet & retailers will Mormont promote brand (2003) Nousiainen et al. (2009) Yes Ilberry & Maye (2005)

Local brand Yes e.g.'s are producer organic group or producer & buyer group

Producer and consumer owned. Distribution of benefits innovative & fair Private enterprises

Speciality food enterprises

No

27

Farmers Markets appear to be a potentially good model for sustainability. A comparison of the carbon emissions per kilogram of the same produce bought at a Farmers Market or a supermarket, found that 187 and 431 grams of CO2 is emitted respectively (cited in Ellen, 2009). However a study of Farmers Markets in Greater Manchester found that while the distance travelled to the markets met the accepted definitions of local (see above), much of the food had travelled a considerable distance, particularly considering that there are producers based more locally (Ellen, 2009).

The balance of power is addressed regarding the decisions and value capture for the farmer (Marsden & Smith, 2005), and in terms of participation of all actors (Nousiainen et al, 2009), there is direct contact between consumer and producer. However although there is potential for collective working among producers in running a farmers market, as Saltmarsh (2009) found with his research into the viability of a local organic food depot, the appetite may fall down for totally cooperative working due to lack of time and capacity. Perhaps as a result of this other benefits of working as a network highlighted as key for the success of other models, such as building collective capacity, problem solving, sharing equipment etc. (Marsden & Smith, 2004; Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Nousiainen et al., 2009) are not felt (or at least not mentioned in the literature reviewed).

The most common disadvantages of Farmers Markets were found to be a lack of convenience, (specifically limited opening hours and difficulty of carrying heavy shopping bags back), and higher prices (Seyfang, 2006). Hinrichs (2000) warns that sentimentality about embeddedness in Farmers Markets can lead to hidden hierarchies, where consumers are given less choice, and assumptions that local equals fair are potentially taken advantage of. However others point out that this model makes sustainable food more accessible to disadvantaged consumers, as cutting out the 'middleman' lowers costs (Schonhart, 2009).

The main disadvantage to the farmer of this model is the time factor of direct marketing/selling

28

mentioned by Jarosz (2006) - becoming the retailer as well as the producer, though presumably the marketing would be through the farmers market as a whole rather than individual producers.

Box schemes address both of these disadvantages of inconvenience for consumers and time for producer farmer, as crops are collected from the farms and delivered to the door or to local collection points. This makes them accessible in one sense, but although affordable prices are an aim (Seyfang, 2006) income level of customers is not specified. Lack of choice is cited as a disadvantage of a box scheme (Seyfang,2006), along with a lack of connection between consumer and producer (Sage 2003; Seyfang, 2006; Holloway et al., 2007). However there is still a connection through the localness of supply, the newsletters and the shared joy of the food itself (Clarke et al., 2008).

Awareness of environmental responsibilities is mentioned as increasing through involvement in the box scheme, both for those running the business and for the consumers as a first convenient step (Kloppenburg et al.,1996; Clarke et al., 2008).

Box schemes that are private businesses do raise a question regarding whether they simply replace and become the all powerful middleman that they are trying to avoid (Clarke et al., 2008). However where the suppliers are organised as producers co-ops they possibly have more collective power over pricing decisions (Kloppenburg et al.,1996; Seyfang, 2006).

CSA is potentially the best example of a fair model (Hinrichs, 2000). Participative ownership provides the consumers with an opportunity for active involvement, and the balance of power is addressed for the producer in the decision making and through shared financial risk between both parties (Mann, 2009). However often the consumers do not fulfil the work element of the share contract, and in the majority of examples the farmer is not paid sufficiently where as the consumers are high income earners (Hinrichs, 2000; Mann, 2009). Mann (2009) found that farmers wishing to develop local markets are opting to use farmers markets and box schemes rather than CSA.

29

The main issues for consumers are: the time required for active participation (Kneafsey, 2007); the lump sum payment as an obstacle for low income earners (Mann, 2009); and as with box schemes (Seyfang, 2006), the lack of choice/control over quantities of food per week (Hinrichs, 2000; Mann, 2009). There are examples of CSA offering monthly payments to customers, but this can penalise the farmer by removing the shared financial risk (Mann, 2009). There are also examples of multifarm CSA where farms come together to provide a wider variety of crops, but the question arises as to whether the CSA ecological and social principles and benefits will be adhered to with these mega projects (Mann, 2009).

Producers co-ops and collectively owned local brands. This model was felt to be more equal in terms of horizontal distribution of the financial benefits (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Nousiainen et al., 2009). There were also felt to be more possibilities of resolving tensions (Nousiainen et al., 2009), and solving problems with networks that are open to new ideas and have entrepreneurial facilitators (Marsden & Smith, 2005). There were a wide number of benefits listed to the farmers including collective capacity building, sharing resources and knowledge (Nousiainen et al., 2009), responding to quality issues, trust, equipment sharing etc. (Marsden & Smith, 2005).

Regarding accessibility, the collectively owned local brands were found to improve the viability of the local communities (Nousiainen et al., 2009). They supplied a number of outlets including grocers, market stalls, box schemes etc. (Seyfang, 2006). However they were still mostly found to reach niche markets (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Nousiainen et al., 2009).

The collectively owned local brands reviewed were mainly organic, both Eostre (Seyfang, 2006) and Fruitnet specified their environmental angle in their mission statement/logo, although Fruitnet was integrated farming rather than organic (Collet & Mormont, 2003). Collet and Mormont (2003), found that the environmental significance of the logo only really became meaningful to consumers through a series of educational activities and that consumers needed to be made aware of the

30

length of time involved in less environmentally damaging production processes in comparison with the short purchasing process (regarding the negative impact on farmers of sudden changes in demand).

As there was no middleman in the process the price could be lower without having a negative effect on the producer (Marsden & Smith, 2005). However Collet and Mormont (2003) found a potential conflict of interest for retailers, that could effect the viability of the local brand, as publicising the true sustainability of one brand could raise questions about the source of other products. The economic and social sustainability of these models over time, and the degree to which this would become diffused if larger areas of rural space were incorporated in the supply area, was also questioned (Marsden & Smith, 2005). Eostre appeared to be one of the most interesting models regarding a holistic concept of sustainability: incorporating both an environmental and social focus; supplying a range of outlets in an urban environment with sustainable food; supplied by a co-operative of local organic growers (of which it was a member); award winning and financially successful at the time of writing (Seyfang, 2006). However Eostre has folded since the time of Seyfang's research, so it will be interesting to explore and learn from what happened as part of this research.

Speciality food enterprises. Ilbery & Maye's (2005) evaluation of the sustainability of six small speciality businesses found that none of the businesses met all of the Sustain criteria (see Appendix 1). Only one of them was proximate (or local) due to inputs (such as feed) bought in; two of the three sold outside the area contributing to food miles; and only half of the SME's they studied were environmentally beneficial regarding conservation practices. Additionally they identified a reliance on intermediaries from the mainstream food system (e.g. processors and distributors), and found that only one of the businesses surveyed was socially inclusive in terms of pricing. This lead the authors to conclude that:

31

the public procurement of local foods and cooperative/community food schemes, offer much greater potential for the development of food supply systems that are more economically, socially and environmentally sustainable (p343).

2.6 Conclusion
From the literature reviewed there does not appear to be one outstanding model that fulfils all of the criteria of a sustainable local food system outlined at the beginning of this review. There are a range of initiatives with different characteristics, and various strengths and weaknesses regarding the different elements of sustainability. The research reviewed does highlight a number of key elements of a successful SLFS, perhaps the main ones that are relevant to Manchester being:

Participation and collective working: creating a fairer system and benefiting from the practical support of being part of a network (Collet & Mormont, 2003; Marsden & Smith, 2005; Holloway et al., 2007; Nousiainen et al., 2009; Reynolds et al., 2009).

Central co-ordination of e.g.: marketing, equipment sharing, skills sharing, and efficient distribution (which was particularly emphasised) could reduce costs and free up time for producers (Seyfang, 2006; Nousiainen et al., 2009; Saltmarsh, 2009; Horrel et al., 2009).

Having good strong mechanisms in place were highlighted as essential elements to facilitating the practicalities (Marsden & Smith, 2005).

Understanding consumers motivations (Kloppenburg et al., 1996; Seyfang, 2006 Kneafsey, 2007; Clarke et al., 2008).

However as Venn et al., (2006) highlight, one of the weaknesses of the research carried out about

32

SLFS is its failure to make findings more widely relevant and transferable to other places and situations.

This research will therefore aim to explore in more detail the key elements for a sustainable local food system, learning lessons from existing models and looking for ways to implement those in the context of Greater Manchester. Perhaps as Holloway et al. (2007) conclude, the solution for a more progressive food system, rather than a particular unique model, is the effect of a combination of models.

33

Chapter three: Methodology


3.1 Introduction
It is only possible to give validity to the findings of a piece of research, if it is put in context of the methodology used to produce them (Critty, 1998). Critty proposes four elements of the research process that should be made clear to the reader: the epistemology, the theoretical perspective, the methodology and the methods used. Setting forth the research process in these terms, Critty states:

constitutes a penetrating analysis of the process and points up the theoretical assumptions that underpin it and determine the status of its findings (Critty, 1998, p6).

The methodology section of this report aims therefore to clearly lay out the four elements of this research process as presented below in table 3. Table 3: Elements of the research process Epistemology (theory of knowledge) Constructionism Theoretical perspective Methodology (philosophical stance) (strategy/design) Critical inquiry Mixed methods research: Data & methods triangulation Methods (techniques employed) Survey Semi-structured interviews Participant observation

Based on a table in Critty (1998, p5) The aim of this section is to give context to the report by firstly outlining the research design used and the reasons for following this strategy; secondly presenting the methods chosen and their practical application; and thirdly briefly outlining the theoretical perspective and theory of knowledge that inform the methodology and methods used. Finally some ethical issues of this research process will be discussed.

3.2. Research design


The aim of this research is to explore a successful trading model for a group a growers and buyers

34

to increase access to sustainable food in Greater Manchester.

To answer this question a study showing that a significantly higher percentage of a particular model more successfully addresses all areas of sustainability, would be extremely beneficial. However, as demonstrated in the literature review, not enough information was found about what works and does not work in different models, to enable a quantitative study of this kind to be designed.

This type of question therefore, rather than starting with a pre-determined hypothesis about what a successful model is, necessitated a more exploratory and qualitative approach (Flick, 1998). For example gathering first hand data from those working in sustainable food systems through interviews about their experiences and lessons learnt.

However as the design for the research process was developed, it became clear that it would need various layers of exploration. Identifying the issues faced by those interested in sourcing/supplying sustainable food in Manchester was a way to ensure that relevant information was sought from successful models. Equally, exploring the relevance and replicability of the findings to this specific context, identified as important both in the literature review and the interviews (Venn et al, 2006), meant it made sense to involve the people who will be putting the model into practice in the process. This process is summarised in figure 1 below.

35

Layer 1:

Survey of Practitioners in Greater Manchester (growers, buyers, community projects). Identifying issues faced to shape questions asked.

Layer 2:

Interviews with Individuals working in or supporting Local Food Systems in the UK.

Identifying key lessons for discussion/triangulation at participant observation meetings. Layer 3: Participant Observations of new group of organic growers and buyers in Greater Manchester & strategic group

Figure 1: Flowchart showing different layers of the research process each informing the next. Although it appears quite linear, this can be seen as a cyclical process of ongoing reflection (Flick 1999; Robson, 1993). Had there been time the findings of the third layer could have informed a fourth level of more structured focus groups, followed by a fifth of seeking feedback from the interviewees on the themes identified and so on.

For each of these layers a different method was identified as being more suitable to gather the data required, including both qualitative and quantitative methods. This is what is known as mixed methods research and more specifically as triangulation (Flick, 1998). There are four types of triangulation as defined by Denzin ((1971) cited in Sim & Wright, 2002), of which this study uses methodological triangulation:

36

The use of more than one method of data collection either within a methodological approach or between methodological approaches (e.g. use of both interviews and observation) (Sim & Wright, 2002, p137).

Table four shows how this study uses triangulation, presenting the research methods used, and showing which questions were addressed by each.

Table 4: methodological triangulation: questions explored with each method Methods used: Research questions: 1) Models & their characteristics 2) Key elements of successful models Literature review Yes Some Survey No No Some Semi-structured Participant interviews observation Yes Yes Yes Yes ideas to discuss in local context No No Some Yes process of discussion started

3) Strengths &weaknesses Some in achieving sustainability 4) Lessons learnt for an improved model in Greater Manchester?

Identified gap re Some practicalities

As shown by the number of questions it addressed the principle research method used was interviewing. However due to the minimal existing knowledge on the specific research area, the initial quantitative survey work was critical in providing the focus for issues to be explored.

Mixed methods research is held up by some as a way to increase:

scope, depth and consistency in methodological proceedings (Flick, 1998, p230),

and by others as a way of validating results (Creswell & Miller (2000), cited in Hussain, 2009), but it also receives strong criticism. Some view there to be an ideological divide between qualitative and quantitative research, and warn that claiming that mixing methods is scientific:

37

is likely to antagonise those of both scientific and humanistic persuasion (Robson,1993, p6).

However others believe that some topics are better served by a marriage of qualitative and quantitative methods, and that the differences between the two have little to do with either the practices of the researchers or the potential of the methods (Bryman 1988). Robson himself states:

that there is in practice an underlying unity of purpose (Robson,1993, p6).

The main criticism of mixed method research seems to be that there is little clarity about how to mix the methods in a meaningful way, leading to questionable results (Bazeley, 2004).

As Robert Yin (one of the strong proponents of Triangulation) states, mixed method research can: inadvertently permit the study to decompose into two or more parallel studies (Yin, 2006, p41), rather than maintaining the coherence of a single study which is, he says, critical to the value of mixed methods research.

In his article on this subject Yin identifies key points in the research process, such as using each method in isolation, that can lead to a more disjointed or unfocused study. Yin suggests that addressing at least some of the questions across the different methods, and maintaining a focus on one unit of analysis throughout the study, however complex the subject and however many different people involved, will strengthen it and keep its outcome focused (Yin, 2006).

This study aims to keep the research integrated and focused in an number of ways: addressing the research questions across different methods used (as shown in table 4); maintaining a very focused unit of analysis regarding the practicalities of a successful sustainable food model; trying

38

to build each stage of the research on what is learnt from the previous stages (as shown in figure 1); and conducting a consistent analysis strategy at each stage and with continuous reflection.

3.3 Data collection As discussed in the previous section three main methods of data collection were used in this study: surveys, semi structured interviews and participant observation of meetings (four with the literature review). This section will examine why each method was used as well as some of its disadvantages, and describe how each method was put into practice.

Literature review It is also important to note here that the literature review was a key part of the research process. It identified various models and some of their key characteristics and weaknesses, but principally identified the gap regarding the practical information available which helped shape focus of the research.

Articles were found for the literature review using two main databases, the web of knowledge and science direct. Initially key words were used to search the databases, including for example sustainable food, local food systems, alternative food networks, co-operatives etc. Once various relevant articles were identified the citations of these and their bibliographies were used to continue the search.

Surveys A well designed and conducted survey is a relatively simple way to gather data about peoples attitudes and motivations that can be made easily accessible to a wider audience (Robson, 1993). Surveys were used for this report to gather data regarding the most common obstacles to sourcing or supplying sustainable food in Greater Manchester. This information was taken from a survey that was part of a larger piece of research carried out to gather information about sustainable food practitioners in Greater Manchester, and to build up a picture of the size of this sector (how many

39

people it employs, how much income it generates and so on), to present to a wider audience.

There are various limitations with using surveys, perhaps the most relevant to this research being the potential for different interpretation of questions/answer options (Robson, 1993). For example many respondents categorised themselves as multiple groupings, particularly 'producer' was selected by both commercial and community growers. This could lead to confusion in the analysis or presentation of the findings, and unfortunately did not arise during the pilot of the survey. Although errors such as this in the design of the survey can be time consuming, this was relatively easy to rectify during the data entry process, through knowledge of the subject area.

Another common problem is that it can be difficult to obtain a high level of involvement from respondents (Robson, 1993). This was not a problem with this survey, possibly because people mainly chose whether to respond to an email or not (rather than being cornered in the street for example), but also perhaps because this is a subject that the sample feel quite strongly about (the obstacles they face in doing what they are trying to do).

The initial survey design was sent out for comments to a market research expert, and was piloted with two known groups, before being conducted with the wider sample. The survey contained both closed and open questions. However the main question used for this research was an open question, so as to avoid the influence of the researcher (see Appendix 2).

The sample was identified via gate-keepers in the public and third sector (charities, community groups, networks etc.), and via internet desktop research (commercial groups mainly through the latter and as known contacts). The sample included:

Local small scale commercial organic producers. Local was defined as joint county areas within 20 miles of Greater Manchester, based on work by Sustain (Dalmeny, 2008), and the FARMA guidance for Farmers Markets (FARMA, 2010).

Buyers (secondary producers, retailer's, caterers, wholesalers etc. who put a focus on local

40

and/or organic in their marketing) Community food growing projects (including support services)

A total of 145 sustainable food practitioners were identified, of whom 51 people completed the survey as shown in table 5 below.

Table 5: Surveys distribution and response rate per category Category: Producer (includes: local organic primary producers selling produce commercially) Buyer (includes: secondary producers, retailers & catering) Community (includes community growing & educational groups, & support services for projects) Total Distribution 10 51 84 145 Response 3 19 29 51

Some say this rate of just over 35% is not an acceptable response rate while others say anything over 30% is (Bryman, 2001), however this is probably less important if the purpose is to gain a general insight into an issue rather than making generalisations about a larger population, as it was in this case. There were responses from approximately a third of those identified for each category.

Respondents chose whether to take part in the survey or not, which can be an issue in terms of how representative the sample then is (Flick, 1998). This was felt to be less of an issue for this study, as the aim was engage practitioners who are already committed sustainable food, and start by looking at how to address the obstacles they face (it was felt that these people would be the most likely to respond). This approach was echoed by interviewees who highlighted committed buyers/growers as crucial in the early stages of setting up a sustainable local food system.

Once identified groups were contacted directly by email (or phone where there was no email address), explaining the purpose of the research and asking them to take part in a short questionnaire. The surveys were carried out in April and May 2009 in person or by phone. This initial work was carried out by a freelance researcher, as part of a funded project, with the

41

exception of six surveys which were conducted by the author of this report (with three buyers and two producers and one community/support services). The data gathered from the questionnaires was then entered into an online database (CiviCRM) designed specifically for this questionnaire.

Semi structured interviews Semi structured interviews are a way of gathering information from people about their experiences, opinions, motivations and so on. The semi-structured interview is a less formal technique then the structured interview. The interviewer develops a guide of topics they would like to cover, but does not follow a rigid set of questions leaving space for flexibility, so that the interviewee can bring up important issues themselves. This avoids the danger with formal structured interviews or questionnaires of potentially missing certain issues by preventing the interviewee from expressing themselves (Flick, 1998).

For this research, the expert interview was used. This type of interview focuses on the subject about which the interviewee has expertise rather than the whole person (Flick, 1998). The reason for this choice was that the literature review raised issues but failed to give sufficient practical solutions, and it was felt these would be best explored through those working in or with SLFS.

There are potential problems with semi-structured interviews. Firstly the potential impact of the interviewer: the interviewee may respond with what they think is expected of them (although this is also a potential danger of surveys and participant observation) (Robson, 1993). Secondly if the interview is too unstructured this can result in more of everyday conversation and, in the case of expert interviews, the interviewer may feel that it is not their place to change the subject. The interview guide can help avoid this problem especially if the interviewee is aware of it (see Appendix 3 for guide used).

Eleven interviews took place, with people from organisations with differing models, including: producer led, customer led (no mixed models were found), co-operatives, non co-operatives, direct

42

supply models (e.g. box schemes & farmers markets), models supplying big institutions, existing and past examples (that no longer existed).

A gradual sampling strategy was used, as examples of initiatives that aim to address all of the sustainability criteria (organic, local, fairness and access) are not high in number (it was found that initiatives focusing on food access do not always focus on organic due to price issues or perceptions of cost). This is based on theoretical sampling, where data is collected to generate theory and groups are identified for interviewing based on who promises the greatest insights (Flick, 1998). This was found to be very much a gradual process, as in each interview more suggestions were made of relevant contacts. Indeed knowing how many interviews to stop at can be a problem of gradual sampling. The interviews were conducted in person (in a caf setting chosen by the interviewees) and two over the phone, and were recorded through field notes. Originally the intention had been to record the interviews digitally. However due to a technical issue this was not possible for an early interview, and on reflection this was found to benefit the efficiency of the note taking, and there was no need for the level of detail that warrants transcribing interviews (Morgan, 1998). The field notes were then typed up immediately and kept in the format of the interview until the analysis stage (see below).

Participant observation Robson claims that the major advantage of using participant observation is its directness you are not asking people what they think or believe, you are observing what they actually do (Robson, 1993), in this case observing the discussion between members of two groups about their role and development.

The researcher attended three meetings as participant observer: one of a strategy group of food practitioners formed in October 2009, looking to increase access to sustainable food across

43

Greater Manchester; and two of a newly forming local organic grower led group. The role of the researcher was to present information to the groups for discussion, taking minutes in the two growers meetings and facilitating the other. The other participants knew that this was their role and that the data gathered would be used as part of a study (Robson, 1993).

The aim of attending these meetings was three fold. 1. To share the information gained through the interview research with the group, for them to learn from the lessons of existing SLFS and support them in forming a more robust model. 2. To feed in relevant information from the research into an evaluation of the potential role of the original grower and buyer group in the light of the newly forming growers group (discussing if and how they could compliment rather than duplicate each other). 3. To observe the discussions and note issues that arose in relation or contrast to issues brought up in the interviews.

The participant observation in this research borders on participatory action research (PAR), due to the active role played by the researcher and the end aim of the research to help shape a model for and with the group (Critty, 1998). Indeed, as a result of this research, the longer term aim of the growers group is to carry out such a piece of PAR, culminating in a report to help other similar groups. However due to timing (and the very early stages of the growers group), PAR was not practical for the purposes of this report. The growers meetings were not organised/facilitated by the researcher, nor structured in the way that focus groups would be, e.g. focused only on the themes, discussed theme by theme etc. (Morgan,1998). For these reasons the method used is instead considered to be a participant observation (Robson, 1993).

One of the disadvantages of this method is the impact that an outside observer can have, of changing the behaviour (or discussion) of those being observed (Flick, 1998). As the researcher had been invited to the meeting to provide information for discussion, this did not appear to be a problem, and the researcher was seen to be useful to and a part of the meeting. However as

44

Robson points out, for someone of more traditional views this in itself:

may sound warning bells of subjectivity and general bad science (Robson, 1993, p194).

i.e. a researcher who is part of the world they are studying may not be the best person to study it. They may hear what they want to hear, interpret data from their own point of view and use their own values to decide what is relevant.

In this case, although the researcher was accepted by the participants, as neither grower nor buyer, they are not a group member and have no vested interest in the group. Whilst the aims of the research clearly lay out values of the researcher regarding sustainability, the belief is that this will only be achieved if lessons are learnt and discussed by those who will form the group. It is therefore in the interest of the research to make the process and analysis as rigorous as possible.

This is easier said than done however. It is surprising for a researcher to find themselves wishing that co-operative working (for example) was not being reported as being too difficult, when they thought they had no preconceived opinion of what a successful SLFS looks like. However being aware of these issues is one of what Robson calls touchstones that can be followed as canons of scientific method:

by paying particular attention to reliability, validity and objectivity, participant observation... can be 'good science (Robson, 1993, p195).

The discussions that the groups were starting to have, about their development and role, made them clearly relevant to the research, and equally the findings of the research relevant to them. As the groups already existed no sampling technique was necessary. As with the interviews field notes were taken during the observation, completed immediately following the meetings, and kept in the format of the interview until the analysis stage.

45

3.5 Analysis
Thematic analysis was used to analyse all three different methods. This is a method of analysis that Braun and Clarke (2006) argue should be taught to all qualitative researchers for use across all methods. They discuss a number of stages to this analysis process, starting with familiarising yourself with the data, done in this case through writing up the notes, re-reading the interviews and then ordering the responses. Four following stages are helpful in ordering and analysing the big blocks of text that result from interviews, as shown in table 6: Table 6: Practical application of thematic analysis stages Stages 1) Familiarising with the data 2) Generating the initial codes 3) Searching for the themes 4) Reviewing & defining the themes 5) Producing the report Practical application in this research process Writing up the notes & re-reading the interviews. Dividing each interview & ordering responses under the relevant research questions. Grouping similar responses under each research question & identifying the main themes. Reducing themes with care not to loose relevant data. Creating tables to compare and contrast e.g. the number of times each theme was mentioned per interview, the number of interviewees that mentioned each theme, themes mentioned under different questions etc.

Although the survey data was simpler, the relevant questions had been open questions so themes still had to be developed from the data for analysis. Analysis of the interviews and participant observation was a more complicated process due to the bigger blocks of text. However as this is a very methodical and structured method of working that ensures a real familiarisation with the text through the various stages. This level of familiarity with the text, followed by a process of dividing the blocks of text and grouping relevant themes, enables the researcher to identify common themes across the interviews without getting overwhelmed by the sheer volume of data in block text form (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

One of the key parts of analysis of data is reducing the number of themes to make the data manageable and the analysis meaningful, but without losing valuable data. Using quotes from the text was a way of ensuring that the practical detail, which was after all the main motivation for the

46

study, was not lost. It also ensures that a voice is given to the participants in the research, a key aspect of real world research (Robson, 1993) and critical inquiry (Critty, 1998).

3.6 Theoretical approach and espistemology


Underpinning this study is the approach that the research process itself can also be an educational and transformative process (Leonardo, 2004). This perspective, that research seeks to change the situation - in this case the mainstream unsustainable food system - rather than just reflect it, is known as critical inquiry (Critty, 1998). It is informed by the belief that participants should be involved in shaping the outcome of the research and generating ideas, rather than just being subjects of research (Kevern & Webb, 2001).

This research aimed to involve the participants in a number of ways, mainly through participant observation (supporting the groups in their formation of a successful SLFS through feeding findings into their discussion); but also through the other methods used: Interviews - involving the people working in the field in improving the sustainability of SLFS. Survey in shaping the research, but also due to the aim of the broader survey (which was to involve people in the formation and ownership of a sustainable food movement in Manchester).

This approach is strongly criticised as a contradiction between the researchers agenda to create change and their obligation to objectivity (Hammersley, 1995, in Humphries, 1997). Indeed it is key that the researcher as designer of a survey, interviewer, participant observer, and analyser of data, acknowledges their own views on the subject and reflects the way that this might affect the findings.

The issue of objectivity was addressed at various stages of the research. For example during: the design process - by seeking advice on the questions posed and doing initial pilots; the data

47

collection - by using a interview guide (to ensure consistency) and by noting all discussion for analysis (whether apparently relevant or not); and during analysis by a rigorous process of theme development and continuous reflection about findings and the researchers own motivations.

This view that the researcher can remain completely objective and find a pure truth that is waiting to be found is called objectivism. The objectivist view is also questioned, as it is unlikely that, even in a controlled quantitative experiment, the researcher would be free from opinion or motive- there is a reason behind every piece of research (Critty, 1998).

This research is informed by a constructionist approach. This is based on the assumption that, even when very practical data is being gathered, truth or meanings are constructed differently by different people shaped by their experiences, situations and social context (Critty 1998). One interviewee may view a co-operative structure as being key to a successful SLFS, where as another, who has had a bad experience of such a structure, may cite a preference to informal relationships (rather than formal co-operative structures), as a lesson learnt.

This does not mean that the results of the research are any less real. Critty (1998), refers to constructionism as both realist and relativist. Real, because meaning even though constructed is real to those involved. Relative, because the reality may be different in different situations. The literature review highlights the relevance of this point to this research, questioning the issue of the regional replicability of existing SLFS research (Venn et al, 2006). Similarly a number of interviewees stated that, while this is the case here (e.g. distance making it difficult to either involve growers more, or making distribution costly etc.), it could well be different in Manchester.

Although at times accused of such, the constructionist approach does not mean that the data gathering and process of analysis is any less scientific or rigorous (Robson, 1993). As with controlled experiments many variables must be considered in the conducting and analysing of qualitative research, including the researchers own impact. Indeed a recognition of and reflection

48

about ones own interest or leanings as a researcher, is perhaps a more honest starting point for the reader (Olsen, 2004), than the position that the researcher is an objective vessel uncovering a pure truth.

3.7 Ethics
There are a number of ethical issues that can arise in people based research. For example seeking consent for the information that someone provides to be used as part of a study is a basic but important ethical consideration (Robson, 1993). Consent was sought from all participants across the various models for the information given to be used in publicly available reports. The surveys included a consent form, and the meeting attendees were asked for permission for notes to be taken and used at each meeting. Interviewees were informed about the nature and outcome of the research when initially contacted, and then contacted again during the writing up of the report to double check that they were happy to be named as individuals with experience of working in named organisations.

Another approach to this ethical dilemma used in many studies is to use quotes anonymously, however as the research is about learning lessons from different models it was felt that it would be more useful if the organisations could be named to give context to the lessons.

One ethical dilemma arose regarding the issue of consent. It was only during a meeting that it became apparent that the discussions were relevant to the study (which the researcher was minuting for the group). The consent of the group to use the notes taken was sought at this point, but this was not ideal as if anyone had an objection they may have felt uncomfortable voicing it in that moment. However this has been checked with participants again, and additionally individuals will not be quoted from these meetings (as this detail is not relevant to the study).

Perhaps the most relevant ethical dilemma to this research process is what Robson talks about as

49

the intention or possibility of change associated with the study...forcing the researcher wittingly or not into value judgements (Robson, 1993, p30).

For example the definition used for sustainable food could have an impact on the participants in terms of making them feel judged if they do not fulfil or prioritise all the criteria. However this study was very much about presenting this definition as an ideal, with the aim being to see if it was possible to achieve it through learning from those with experience.

The critical inquiry perspective of this research specifically carried out with the intention of creating change (Critty, 1998), is also of relevance to this dilemma. However as the aim of this research is to facilitate the participants to create that change, rather than the researcher, this is perhaps less of an issue here. The value judgement of the researcher could come into play during the analysis, when choosing which lessons are the most important or relevant to that group, but awareness of this, continuous reflection and using a structured and methodical system of analysis should make this less of an issue.

Finally it is important to recognise the limitations of this study. Time restrictions regarding both the research process and the full workload of interviewees, means that in a sense this research is just scratching the surface of this subject, and brings up more questions then there is time to answer. However it does provide a snap shot of issues for SLFS and a list of useful questions for a new group to ask themselves. Perhaps rather than answering any questions definitively, this report should be considered more as preparation for the next stage of action research. Working with a group of growers and buyers to develop and put into practice a model that works for them, and then writing up that process to share with other groups.

50

Chapter four: Results


4.1 Introduction
The aim of this research was to explore the best trading model to increase access to sustainable food in Manchester. The main focus was to learn lessons from examples of organisations with a similar focus (Sustainable Local Food Systems SLFS), through eleven semi-structured interviews, about what makes a model successful, the difficulties they face in achieving sustainability, and the solutions they can pass on to others.

The interview focus was shaped by an initial survey of fifty one sustainable food practitioners in Manchester (identifying the obstacles faced in supplying and sourcing sustainable food), and two meetings of a newly forming group of Organic growers and buyers in Manchester (temporary working name: Manchester Organic Growers M.O.G) were observed to look at the replicability of findings in the local context (and to provide them with information from the interviews).

This section of the report is to present the findings from this research process. The results from the survey, interviews and participant observation will be presented together (to avoid repetition), and will be presented in two sections. Firstly the information gathered about the models of the organisations that the interviewees were speaking about, and secondly the main themes that emerged throughout the research.

The main participants in this research were the eleven interviewees who spoke about their experience of working with one or more SLFS, or of their work in an organisation that supports others to increase sustainable food. Table 7 presents the interviewees and the organisations or work that they spoke of, and the two groups whose meetings were observed.

51

Table 7 - Research participants Name & job title 1) Julie Brown Director of Growing Communities Description of organisation/related work A social enterprise operating an organic box scheme, organic farmers market, and urban market gardens with a grower apprenticeship scheme. See: www.growingcommunities.org A workers co-operative producing & selling organic food through a box scheme, market stall & linked caf. A programme called Cropshare also supports local allotment/domestic growers by selling surplus on the stall. See: www.organiclea.org.uk Eostre was an organic growers co-operative supplying independent outlets (including the above two), & a school. Hughes Organics: an organic fruit & vegetable grower & wholesaler supplying independent outlets. Moss Growers was a producers co-operative (in the 1980's) supplying supermarkets & Smithfield fruit and vegetable wholesale Market in London. Ashlyns Growers & Producers is a farmer led co-operative supplying the public sector (schools & 2 hospitals) and the the private sector (e.g. restaurants & hotels). See: www.ashlyns.co.uk SOL (incorporated in 2003 as a company limited by share), recently merged operations with Flaxdrayton Farm. It now combines organic vegetable production, marketing & distribution (including a home delivery service), & supplies independent retailers, restaurants, cafs, fresh food co-ops & market stalls. Somerset Organic Link formed SOL Producers as a sister company in 2006. See: www.somersetorganiclink.co.uk BRCC is a social enterprise that, while not food related, is a model of 'network production' - focused on supporting producers to sell to local branches of large scale retailers. See: www.bioregional.com Work with EAFL: supported Eostre & worked with Universities to make tendering process more accessible to small local producers. As Provenance supports Organic East a new democratic association of organic farmers, shops, box schemes etc. (supply customers & consumers direct). See: www.provenancesupply.co.uk Support Local Authority caterers to increase local ethical procurement e.g. freedom foods; work with local producers to access local markets through the Veg Van and other local retailers in the longer term e.g. freedom foods (although not at time of interview).

2) Marlene Barrett Co-ordinator for Organic Lea workers co-op

3) Graham Hughes Previously co-ordinator & producer member of Eostre. Now runs Hughes Organics as a family business. 4) Alan Hewitt Previously a producer member of Moss growers 5) Gary Stokes Director of Ashlyns Organics Ltd & founding member of Ashlyns Growers & Producers 6) Christina Ballinger Co-founder of Somerset Organic Link (SOL), which she now runs as a private enterprise with her husband, who is an organic vegetable grower. Previously director & company secretary of SOL Producers, an Industrial & Provident Society. 7) Sarah Mooney Account & Operations Manager for BioRegional Charcoal Company 8) Nick Saltmarsh Partner, Provenance supply chain management LLP Director, East Anglia Food Link ltd

9) Seeta Rajani BioRegional's Sutton Food Network Manager

10) Rosie Blackburn, project officer of The project has brought together two procurement Sustain's Good Food on the Public clusters made up of local authorities, universities etc., & is

52

Plate project working with the public helping them write joint tenders for sustainable food i.e. sector in London to encourage them food that is seasonal, local, fairly traded, organic, assured to use more sustainable produce. e.g .LEAF, Freedom Food etc. contracts. By creating larger contracts and thus more buying power these foods become more financially viable to the public sector in London. See www.gfpp.org.uk. 11) Clare Horrell works for Sustain on the Food Supply & Distribution strand of the Making Local Food Work programme. Participant observation Manchester Organic Growers The Time is Ripe A new group of organic growers & buyers in Greater Manchester A strategy group of food practitioners looking to increase access to sustainable food across Greater Manchester Supports a range of local food projects & co-ordinated food hub research & research into the need for a new organic food depot in London. See: www.sustainweb.org

The other participants in the research were the survey respondents who, as described in the methodology section, were a mixture of Greater Manchester based local organic producers, buyers, and community food projects. Throughout the text numbers of respondents will be shown in brackets: interviewees as (I:2), survey respondents as (S:2), meetings as (M).

4.2 Understanding the models: main characteristics and practicalities


The models that the interviewees spoke about can be grouped into four main models: co-operative; informal network; private enterprise; and social enterprise. There were a number of main features and practicalities that characterised each of these models as presented in table 8 below. M.O.G also discussed their potential model during the observed meetings, so this has been included in the final column of the table. Table 8: existing local food supply models and their characteristics (numbers show the number of examples of this model covered by the interviews). Co-operative:5 Decision making Members/ Board of shareholder representatives Informal network: 1 Members Private enterprise: 2 Individual Social enterprise: 2 M.O.G

Management Members committee & growers & staff + Consult buyers. producers Enterprise: Local organic focus Local organic brand

Marketing

Co-op brand Collective Local & organic (3) local organic Local (1)/marketing brand

Enterprise: local organic focus

53

agent Finances Distribution Centrally: coordinator role Centrally &/or Producer distributes Individual members Producer distributes Buyer Central &/or Producer distribution Informal planning Buyer Producer distributes Informal planning Not yet decided Start by adding to members current routes Co-ordinated discussed idea of signature crops Try to minimise costs through systems Not discussed

Growing

Co-ordinated Informal growing/individuals planning specialise/no planning Margins Low cost members Producers

Costs covered by Prices set by

Margins

Margins

Co-op /producers

Buyer

1 Producers 1 Buyer

Due to the focus of the research, quotes will be assigned to the model rather than the person (e.g. co-op, social enterprise etc.), those in supporting roles will be quoted as (other). Where interviewees are talking about their experience in a co-op but currently run a private enterprise they will be quoted as (previous co-op).

This section will summarise the main characteristics of each model and the similarities and differences between the organisations that share the same model.

Co-operatives (5) The examples are models of different scales, supplying varying outlets. One is a workers co-op a producer and running a box scheme and market stall. The other four were producers' co-ops ranging in size and supplying a mixture of independent retailers and restaurants, schools, and food co-ops. One supplied supermarkets and large wholesale markets (in the 1980s). Three of the coops no longer exist.

Various characteristics about the models were the same in all examples. Four of the co-ops were co-ordinated by one of the members (one not discussed), the finances were centrally co-ordinated and the central costs covered by margins charged on top of the price paid to producers. Decisions

54

were made by the members, in one case through a board of shareholder representatives.

There are a number of differences between the characteristics of the co-ops: Marketing: one of the co-ops paid an external marketing agent, one had a separate marketing company (though linked to the producers co-op), for the other three marketing was through the collectively owned co-op brand. For one the brand focus was local for three the focus was local and organic (one not discussed). One of the co-ops organised all of the distribution centrally (collecting from farm), two had a mixture of collection and producer distribution. Interestingly three mentioned shared distribution but in quite different ways. The workers co-op organise transportation with the neighbouring furniture recycling company, one shared transport to the school with the meat delivery van and one has a relationship with a wholesaler at Smithfield market and uses their van during the day (one not discussed). In three examples the prices were set by the co-op.With the workers co-op the price of produce bought in was set by the supplier (one not discussed). Co-ordinated growing was practised to varying degrees by four co-ops but not the fifth: with Eostre and Moss Growers individual growers specialised in crops that were their strengths. SOLP informal co-ordination: the co-ordinator (also of the marketing business) reported to members what they expected to need in time for their crop planning. Organic Lea - are expanding their growing and aim to complement other producers and coordinate with the box scheme co-ordinator.

It is important to highlight here that three of the co-ops no longer exist. One specified that this was a result of being squeezed by the supermarkets they were supplying (on the prices paid for produce and on the prices charged by the supermarkets for packaging that they had to use). The others had two shared reasons for discontinuing the co-op (they both continued as private enterprises with the same services and values):

55

lack of involvement of other members lack of commitment to co-operative principles (wanting discounts as buyers but premium prices for their produce as growers and not investing in the co-op)

Additionally one interviewee discussed financial reasons, highlighting: the distances between small producers (and also from the London market) leading to high distribution costs and unit costs; insufficient capital investment, so always having to expand to meet core costs, and consequently not being forward thinking enough; paying the highest prices to producers (when it was not viable); not having a large scale buyer (e.g. a sufficient number of schools); and a bad summer followed by recession. These issues (and solutions suggested by interviewees), will be addressed in section three of the results.

Informal network of growers (1) The focus of this model is shared marketing, shared ownership of a brand which is about provenance of the product and organic production techniques. Decisions about the brand are made collectively by members, but everything else (distribution, price setting, decisions about what to grow) is done on an individual producer basis. There are therefore no administrative or central costs.

Private enterprise (2) In both examples the enterprise is a producer that also provides a wholesaler service so buying from other producers to supply their customers (largely independent retailers, box schemes etc.). Distribution is part of the service although one enterprise does all distribution (collecting from farms and delivering to outlets), where as with the other example some of the producers deliver produce to the enterprise (and receive a higher price). The owners of the enterprise make all the decisions regarding the sales, sourcing, marketing, and price setting, however both examples were historically co-operatives and retain their co-operative mindedness. Their focus is local and organic.

56

Social enterprise (2) Both of these enterprises act as buyers but are quite different examples of models regarding who they sell to and how. The BioRegional Charcoal Company (BRCC) - the only non food example included due to an interesting model of network production - is focused on supporting producers to sell to local branches of large scale retailers. Growing Communities is focused on supplying organic produce from small local organic producers to consumers via a farmers market and box scheme, and on 'growing' more organic growers through an urban apprenticeship scheme.

In both models decisions are taken by the co-ordinator/management and management committee/ directors, in consultation with the producers (when appropriate) (in Growing Communities households receiving boxes can also have a say). Marketing is centrally organised and organisational costs are covered by margins and finances dealt with centrally, with the exception of the Farmers Market which charges a fee for stalls. BRCC organises distribution through the producers, where as Growing Communities uses an electric milk float to deliver veg boxes to drop off points (individual producers deliver to GC). Prices are set differently in each case BRCC negotiates with the buyers and sets prices, payment and delivery terms and handles invoicing to customers. Growing Communities buys at prices set by the producers.

M.O.G This group is in its very early stages so the formal model and practicalities are as yet undecided (the idea being for this research to help this process), however discussions have started regarding some of the above characteristics. Currently decisions are taken by members of the group at meetings, a co-operative has been mentioned by various members, though this has not been discussed or decided formally. The aim is for the group to: have a shared brand (local and organic), co-ordinate growing (with an idea discussed that each member would specialis in signature crops/grow to their strengths); share distribution (starting by building up customers on current routes) and equipment; have reliable systems in place to keep central costs to a minimum.

57

Finally two of the interviewees work with support organisations that focus on influencing the demand side of the mainstream food supply. This is not shown in this table as it is not a model in the same way, in that the decisions, logistics etc. are controlled by large buyers and wholesalers.

4.3 Lessons learnt from existing Sustainable Local Food Systems (SLFS)
In the research regarding the key elements of successful SLFS, the difficulties they face and the lessons to be learnt, four main themes came up: 1) Supply 2) Markets 3) Economics 4) People These themes, and a wide range of sub-themes, were inherently interlinked. All four were highlighted both as key to a successful SLFS and as difficulties faced in achieving sustainability in some cases confirming and in others contrasting with each other (contrasting issues are highlighted in bold in the tables below).There was also overlap between themes - so issues of supply were also linked to the market and economic themes, and people were found to be important in supply, market and economics. It therefore seemed more useful to present the results by theme rather than by research question, and to map out how all of the themes were linked (figure 2). This section will highlight some of the main results regarding these themes.

58

Key:

coloured circles show the main themes, with the sub-themes leading from them; the dotted lines show the links between sub-themes.
Figure 2: Map of interlinking themes that are key to and/or difficulties faced by SLFS Theme one: Supply The main topics linked to the theme of supply as shown in table 9, were a lack of availability (S:13, I:2, M2) the balance of demand and supply (I:6) and ways of supporting or providing stability for growers (8) in a trading world that does not use formal contracts.

Table 9: Key supply factors & issues for an SLFS Balancing supply & demand (I:6) Equipment (I:4) (M): Lack of availability (S:13) (I:2) (M:2)/surplus(1) Refrigerated van/storage (I:3) Sharing (I:3) + meeting Informal relationships preferred to formal Support/stability for growers (I:8) contracts (I:5) long-term relationships (I:5), practical/ realistic Price setting avoids negotiation with buyers Take lower quality than ideal/impacts on co-op Own outlet/conflict of interest (I:3) A difficulty for SLFS was in creating enough demand for sustainable produce and at the same time

59

balancing it with supply (I:6). Specifically a lack of availability of produce and of local producers was reported as an obstacle to buying sustainable food by thirteen survey respondents, two interviewees and the meetings observed. Although in contrast to this one interviewee found the imbalance to be in the other direction(too much produce for the market).

Regarding stability for the producers, none of the interviewees had formal contracts in place (either as the growers or the buyers), although contracts would be required if supplying the public sector (I:3). Quite the reverse to providing stability to growers, it was felt that formal contracts would deter both growers and buyers (I:5), due to the possibility of not being able to honour the contract (or the cost of buying in) if crops failed, or of having to renegue on contracts as a buyer.

Offering support and stability to producers was however an aim of the SLFS described by eight of the interviewees, through for example long-term purchasing relationships (see People section), paying fair prices to growers (see Market section), and a whole way of working:

We are rolling out a model that uses community led trade to transform the food and farming system.... using the surplus generated to pay people decently and then to develop further projects...Sustainable jobs is part of that you can't rely on funding. We're taking the food system back (Social enterprise).

One interviewee talked about supporting growers by at times taking lower quality than ideally wanted, though in contrast to this another interviewee said that it was key not to take substandard produce due to the impact it would have on the rest of the producers (and SLFS as a whole), emphasising the importance of a quality assurance role of a co-op/group.

Further practical support included reducing farmers market stall fees, lobbying the producers bank managers if loans were refused (social enterprise); a recent price decrease by the retailer was

60

dealt with a by a drop in margins taken by the social enterprise and not passed on to the producers; supporting small producers to tender for public sector contracts (other); and fixing prices so that the farmers did not have to negotiate with the buyers (previous co-op). Although again contrasting with this another interviewee said that producers would not agree to fixed prices formally (Other).

It was felt by all interviewees (including producers) that it was difficult to see how to completely share risk with producers, and that ultimately producers have responsibility for growing good quality produce. One buyer (who offers practical support to producers and who was referred to by two other interviewees as a very committed buyer) stated:

We make an effort to buy the produce that our farmers need to sell, sometimes if this means having something more often than ideal or that is a bit past its best, but ultimately we have to be realistic you can't pay producers for a failed crop when you are trying to feed people every week. (Social enterprise).

Those interviewees who are part of producer groups themselves talked about stability coming through the individual producers having a range of outlets (I:3). However, this had become a problem for two previous co-ops where members had wanted to buy from the co-op at a discount and sell to the co-op at a premium price. There were however also solutions offered to these conflicts of interest such as pooling all the customers from the beginning; being clear about how the group would work from the start; and putting good systems in place (see Economic section). One form of support mentioned in the meeting of the strategic group in Manchester was the role of the meetings themselves, both in terms of playing a strategic role to grow a more stable market, and in the development of the growers and buyers group:

it is important to remember that these meetings are important for thinking time, often there is not time given to reflection and theorising...Don't under estimate the inspiration that

61

these meetings have provided." (private enterprise, member of strategic group and M.O.G).

Theme two: Markets As shown in table 10 the main issues relating to market were price and quality, and clearly knowing and planning for your market. Benefits and demands of supplying specific markets were also discussed.

Table 10: Key market factors and issues for an LFS 'Right' vs 'Fair' price (I:8) Price of organic food (I:4) (S:11) Public perception (I:3) of cheap food & organic High quality produce & service (I:5) (M) Lack of quality assurance (I:1) (S:5) Clear vision of/planning for the market (I:3) (M) Key: Big buyer/viable range of outlets (I:6) Demands of big buyers (I:2) (S:1) Restaurants: there is a market good e.g's (M) Payment conditions/timing, mark-up (I:1) (M) Schools - scale & value, affordability, commitment (I:1) (M) Slow but good with money/Control the menu Farmers Markets: higher income (I:2) Not busy in Manchester The principle market demands that came up in the research were price and quality. Survey respondents reported price to be an obstacle to sourcing organic food (11). Three interviewees felt that the price of organic was too high to influence the larger buyers such as the public sector especially at a time of budget cuts, although one supplied organic milk and yoghurt to schools. M.O.G had a discussion about whether their produce could be affordable to schools and whether it would be viable for them to supply a school.

However in contrast to this, one producers' co-op had supplied organic fruit and vegetables to a school which the interviewee felt could have become feasible on a bigger scale:

with one school at best it was tokenism at worst it was losing money, but twenty or so schools could have given us a back bone (previous co-op).

62

Competition with the cheap price of food globally was felt to be an obstacle for supplying sustainable food both by survey respondents (3) and interviewees (I:3). Eight interviewees discussed issues regarding the expectations of cheap food or the need to offer a good market price (which was highlighted as key to successful model (I:4)) as being in conflict with paying a fair price to growers (which six interviewees said was an aim of their organisations).

In contrast to the focus on good prices, one interviewee felt that the concept of affordability and the cheap price of food needed to be challenged

We should be spending more on food, but it is a hard area to talk about. People think you're heartless, but we have to pay our farmers more not drive the price of food down (Social enterprise).

Perhaps in support of this view three organisations, two of whom pay prices set by the producers, supply organic produce to consumers on low incomes, with thirty percent of customers defining themselves as low income in one box scheme (Social enterprise). Although four interviewees mentioned that producers did not know how to set prices (both too high and too low were mentioned).

One solution to the conflict between wanting to pay producers fairly and needing to offer a good price was a lesson an interviewee felt they had learnt from their bank manager:

Don't pay the highest price pay reasonably and then share any profits at the end of the year (Previous co-op).

The surveys found that quality was an obstacle to buying organic food for five respondents. Mirroring this four interviewees felt that supplying fresh quality produce was key for a successful SLFS and M.O.G felt that their name needs to mean quality.

63

Clearly identifying and planning for your market was highlighted as important (I:3), although there were potentially slightly differing opinions regarding keeping the market lean to avoid over production and growing, anticipating waste (both previous co-ops). M.O.G also discussed the importance of knowing the market and have planned a feasibility study and market research.

A number of particular markets were discussed by interviewees. Only one interviewee was involved with a model that currently supplies large chain stores, although two interviewees referred to previous negative experiences of supplying supermarkets. The markets discussed were either large scale buyers such as schools, universities, hospitals etc.; independent outlets; or own outlets.

As well as the issues of expense previously mentioned in terms of supplying schools, a question of commitment was highlighted (I:2), with a real need for a certain number of schools to be purchasing in order to make it a viable market.

M.O.G echoed these issues and additionally wondered if commitment could be given sufficiently in advance for crop planning, and were concerned about the logistics and availability of produce (see Supply section) for potentially such a large market. Additional issues of supplying big buyers included: Cashflow (I:3) - paying producers on delivery in contrast to slow payment from the buyer. Invoicing issues (I:2) buyers only wanting to deal with one supplier not multiple producers. Value and volume (I:2) the need to supply high value produce such as lettuce (rather than lots of small producers growing potatoes and cabbage). Restrictions of wording for public procurement contracts (I:3) e.g. it is prohibited to specify local, but can use words that encourage local suppliers: seasonal, fresh, certain varieties, certification, fair, field to plate in X hours (Other). In contrast schools were highlighted as a secure market (I:2) that, while slow at paying, are good with money (I:1).

64

What makes this model successful is that he's developed a clear contract with the buyer so has a stable market direct with the schools... it gives the scale that is hard to create with a number of really small outlets (Other).

Additionally Ashlyns producers' co-op have control of this market by designing the menus so they can plan exactly what they need in advance, and change the menu if the prices increase. Supplying schools is also seen as a way of making organic and locally produced high quality food accessible (I:2). M.O.G also felt this was a good thing to be involved in if they could make it work.

The main feeling about supplying restaurants was that it was an unreliable market, as they tend not to pay in time (I:1). This was also felt to be the case by M.O.G (and reportedly by a local wholesaler). However examples were given where farmers successfully deal directly with restaurants by one interviewee and a M.O.G member, and it is felt that they are a potential market. There was a sense that if the right systems were put in place, direct selling to restaurants could work (see Economic section).

Theme three: Economics The importance of seriously making the financial side of the enterprise work was felt to be key (I:7) and some interviewees who mentioned it returned to the topic a number of times, giving various examples of how it could be achieved and the issues involved for an SLFS, as shown in table 11.

Table11: Key economic factors & issues for an SLFS Seriously make it work economically (I:7) Efficiency (I:4)/ Investment (I:2) (M) Costs clear from the beginning (I:6), Takes time to be profitable (I:1) (M) Cost in time & resources to run a co-op (I:5) Distribution costs/complications (I:5) (S:12) (M) Use existing transport network/wholesalers (I:4) Distance (I:1)/not an issue in Manchester (I:2) Time for planning (I:5) & Systems (I:4) Financial systems (I:3) Clear structure (I:4) & constitution (I:2) Social entrepreneur/long-term vision (I:4) Lack of social entrepreneurs (I:3) One principle driver (I:3) (M) All shareholders have understanding/skills (I:1)

Various issues were highlighted as key to achieving financial sustainability, for example ensuring

65

that the business is viable and has enough custom before starting (I:2); keeping on top of payments and avoiding bad debt; efficiency (I:4) and specifically avoiding wasted produce (I:3) and journeys (I:3); ensuring that costs are clear from the beginning (I:6) and knowing how you are going to meet those costs:

We were always looking to grow to get level don't always be looking to expand, to do more to make it right. Be clear from the beginning how much it will cost and how you are going to balance that. Now we have a more or less closed circle of growers and buyers and it works (Previous co-op).

However financial sustainability was also recognised as difficult to achieve (I:6). Perhaps in contrast to being able to cover your costs from the beginning, one successful and thriving co-op took three years to start making profit, and a M.O.G member also referred to having to count your losses at the beginning.

A major problem was seen to be a lack of initial investment or working capital (I:2), particularly when linked to what was seen to be the high costs of running a co-op or involving people (I:5):

The co-operative was never financially secure so they focused on the day to day running and couldn't really look ahead (Other).

Cost in time was discussed in the meetings. Observed both in terms of the time taken up with meetings, but also a longer term aim to create a self sustaining group (without employees) to reduce the running cost of a co-op. In contrast to this, interviewees talked about the high time cost of running a co-op (I:5), with one co-op currently employing eight members of staff. However the decrease in staff needed once good systems are in place was also highlighted (Previous co-op).

Distribution was another obstacle (S:12) and cost referred to in the interviews (I:5), although it was

66

felt this would be less of an issue supplying a smaller city than London (I:2). Additionally having a number of small producers only selling small units led to high distribution costs where there were large distances involved (e.g. in vast rural areas such as East Anglia).

Solutions to reducing distribution costs included using existing transport networks/wholesalers (I:4) (see People section); making less deliveries (although storage could become a problem, it is surmountable where buyers can see long term savings - Other); and gradually building up customers efficiently along a route the approach M.O.G has discussed starting with - described by one interviewee:

Start with one supplier and one customer, introduce a second customer and a second supplier and build it from there. Part of the job that's really fascinating is logistics send the van out full and make sure it comes back full. It takes a certain sort of planning (Private enterprise).

Putting these sort of systems (I:4) in place and putting time into forward planning (I:5) before starting was an important lesson that interviewees wanted to pass on, as once started it is very difficult to find that time (I:3). Financial systems were mentioned in particular by three interviewees including rigorous cash handling, clear payment terms, and very structured reported mechanisms:

Cashflow on weekly basis, Monthly P&L, the board meetings all very professionally done. It doesn't take a lot to mess it up with the troughs of lack of income (Co-op).

Transparency was also highlighted as important (I:2), for example showing the price of produce and what margins are charged, which one interviewee states clearly on their invoices. M.O.G aim to spend the quiet time for growers developing all the systems to have in place for 2011.

Planning and being clear about the structure of the group with the members was highlighted (I:4)

67

with one interviewee suggesting:

a detailed SWOT and not starting until you've got solutions to all the threats and weaknesses (Co-op).

Being sure about the wording of the constitution (I:2) was mentioned in particular (in reference to enabling both buyers and growers to be members), as it takes significant time and effort to make changes at a later date.

Finally under the theme of economics the need for people with financial understanding and drive was mentioned, with a lack of this highlighted as a problem and four interviewees specifically referring to the need for entrepreneurialism in the organisation.

social enterprises need an entrepreneur to make it work Growing Communities is so successful largely because Julie Brown is so committed and driven. You need someone willing to work really long hours and to have a financial and long term strategic view (Other).

Interviewees (I:4) and the meeting discussed a need for a principle person or figurehead dedicated to pushing the organisation (someone willing to go the extra mile, be sensitive to bank managers, suppliers, customers etc.). Although the importance of the shareholders between them understanding all aspects of the business was also an important lesson learnt for one interviewee.

Theme four: People The theme of people came up as key to the success of an SLFS in all of the interviews and in all three of the meetings observed. As shown in table 12 there were also a number of issues that came up as potential difficulties and lessons to be learnt in some cases confirming and in others

68

contrasting with what was felt to be key.

Table 12: People: key factors & issues for an SLFS People's commitment (I:7)/to the principles (I:5) Skills & time (I:3) Lack of engagement/responsibility (I:3) Customer service & personal contact (I:3) (M) Long term relationships & trust (I:4) (M) Wholesalers (I:2) (M)/Differing principles (I:6) Growers & buyers both members (I:1) (M) Conflict of interest (I:3) (M) The details of what research participants said can be categorised in three ways, the importance of: Commitment Membership of the group Personal contact and relationships One member shouldn't co-ordinate Can only work as part of member business Commitment to formal co-op + co-op links (I:2) Notion of co-operation (I:4)(M) Formal co-op or informal network (I:3)

Commitment to the organisation was mentioned as key by seven interviewees, referring to: customers, staff, volunteers, consumers, shareholders/members. Customers (buyers e.g. retailers etc.) and consumers (individual households) were discussed as having a loyalty that was key to the beginning stages of the SLFS and the difficult times, and described by one interviewee as

not a normal market relationship (Previous co-op/private enterprise).

The commitment of the people running the organisations (staff, members and volunteers) was slightly different. Finding people who have the time (I:3), skills and drive to make it happen was felt to have been key to success (I:5).

The right people in the right jobs, wanting to make it work, and feeling anxious that it won't (Co-op).

69

The importance of finding members and staff/volunteers who believe in and really understand the principles of the organisation was also mentioned (I:5). This ranged from co-operative principles, to aiming to increase local quality food in schools, to transforming the food system.

Interestingly in particular reference to the examples of co-ops a lack of member involvement and a lack of commitment to co-operative principles was highlighted as a difficulty in achieving sustainability (I:4). This ranged from slight frustration that members did not come up with solutions, to other members doing nothing at all and using the co-op in an unco-operative and unethical way.

People were quite expansive on their own enterprises so they would sell the potatoes to the co-op at a high price but want to buy the produce that they weren't strong on at the lowest price it was a big problem (previous co-op).

A reason given for the lack of commitment of members was that some did not feel equal responsibility for the co-op (I:3), either because they were not involved from the beginning of the co-op, or because members were more focussed on their own enterprises rather than the co-op as a principle focus.

One interviewee felt that had both producers and buyers been members it could have worked better for the co-op. In contrast to this potential conflicts of interest between producers and buyers were highlighted (I:3), although having buyer representatives at meetings was suggested as a possibility. These issues were discussed by M.O.G, who voiced concerns about different interests but also felt that links and commitment would be stronger if buyers were members.

Personal contact with producers and high quality customer service was felt to be a key element of a successful SLFS (I:3), from a personable person doing orders by telephone rather than email, to knowing each customer by name and their needs.

70

Long term relationships built on trust between the producers and buyers were also felt to be important (I:4). One social enterprise was still purchasing from their original CSA (along with twenty/thirty more growers now) and had used the same wholesaler as back up for thirteen years.

Wholesalers were highlighted as key people to build relationships with, both for buying in produce during gaps in local availability (I:2) and to use existing transport networks (I:4). Two interviewees talked about not re-inventing the wheel where there are existing organic wholesalers:

There's a real tension when you are looking at whether to start something new or work with an existing business. Even in London there's a danger diluting the market they (London organic wholesalers) felt quite threatened by the competition of a new organic supply (Other).

However in contrast six interviewees mentioned the problem of conflicting principles of wholesalers or other big buyers, regarding their focus on the cheapest produce, conflicting with paying a fair price to producers (see Supply and Economic section) and supporting local producers. One interviewee working to influence public procurement wrote after the interview, saying that they were finding working with wholesalers really tough (other).

One interviewee described the potential for personal relationships between buyers and growers to be problematic, if one member played the lead co-ordinating role, resulting in the perception of favouritism: A small group of us (producers) formed a marketing group in 2001, but of the original members who set up the marketing partnership, after a few years, my partner and I were the only active members. So, following advice from the Plunkett Foundation, we set up a producer co-op (in which my partner and I had a share). The producer co-op was separate from the marketing company, which I co-ordinated. I felt quite strongly that my job was to run the marketing company and that I didn't have the capacity also to run a producer group.

71

I did what I could to promote the five members of the producer group and I did feel accountable to them. The problem was that they weren't all happy. Two of the members were big producers and had too much for me to sell. I think they felt I was favouring my husbands supply even though at times I favoured their's to try and keep them happy... But by the end it was a bit ridiculous as I could only afford to buy from my husband, he was the only one re-investing in the co-op, and the only one who had handed over all his customers to the co-op from the beginning. (Previous Co-op). In contrast with this another interviewee felt that a producers' co-op would only work where it was run by a part of another business (which in this example was also a producer that co-ordinated the purchasing) (Co-op).

Finally regarding the structure of the organisation, three interviewees highlighted the importance of thinking through whether a formal co-operative structure is really what is wanted, stating that time and costs of running a formal co-op out-weighed the benefits. It was felt that the same benefits could be gained through an informal network of producers, because what was important in developing the relationship with buyers was buying from a group of growers not a formal co-op.

However in contrast with this the two existing co-ops felt a real commitment to and belief in the cooperative structure, and one of the interviewees who was previously a member of a co-op concluded:

We have the relationships and commitments that we do because of relationships built through Eostre. ...The co-operative was key for building those relationships it's about trust and fairness....The notion of co-operation is very important (Private enterprise).

Additionally interviewees spoke about the benefits of developing links with other co-ops (I:2) or groups (I:3) (M), so that you could buy from organisations that shared your values.

72

4.4 Conclusion
In conclusion, to summarise the main findings relevant to the research questions from eleven interviews, fifty one people surveyed and two meetings observed. Four models were discussed in the interviews: Co-operative; Informal network; Social enterprise and Private enterprise. Important aims of the organisations were to support small local producers and increase access to sustainable (local and/or organic food), with a range of similarities and differences in the practical characteristics of the models.

The findings highlighted four principle themes: Supply; Market; Economic; and People. Within these themes (and overlapping between them) a number of sub-themes were highlighted as key to the success of an SLFS; difficulties that an SLFS faces in achieving sustainability; and important lessons to learn (including some of the characteristics and practicalities of the models). These findings can be summarised as follows:

Key elements of a successful SLFS: People's commitment (customers, members, staff) to the organisation and its principles, and people with the right skills and vision. Make it work economically: know your market and costs before you start, put good systems in place, entrepreneurial person driving it. Quality: high quality produce, quality assurance and good quality customer service Relationships of trust (not formal contracts)

Main difficulties faced by SLFS in achieving sustainability: Balancing supply and demand: growing the market whilst increasing availability of produce Good price versus fair payment: competition with cheap food, the perception of organic as expensive and the need to address this and pay producers fairly. Becoming financially viable: issues of market, cash flow, lack of investment and costs

73

including time (especially of running a co-operative)

Distribution: costs, issues of value and scale and the differing principles of wholesalers.

Key lessons to pass on to a new group Be clear from the beginning about costs and how you will cover them Time to plan: take the time to plan well, know your market and all know what may lay ahead Put good systems in place Get your structure right and be clear about the way you will work

74

Chapter five: Discussion


This section will discuss the most relevant aspects of the findings in identifying the best model for a sustainable local food system (SLFS) in Greater Manchester. It will discuss the key characteristics and practicalities of existing models, the strengths and weaknesses of different models in achieving sustainability and the key elements of successful SLFS. The chapter will conclude with a proposal for a model based on the findings of this research, with a discussion of the challenges for such a model and potential solutions to those.

5.1 Key characteristics of models that supply sustainable food to cities.


This was an area where this research brought to light more detailed information about the practicalities of how the models worked, as well as various issues that had not been highlighted in the literature reviewed.

Co-operatives This research confirmed the importance highlighted in the literature review (Feenstra,1997; Hinrichs, 2000; Jarosz, 2006; Nousiainen et al., 2009), of giving more control to producers in the food system, and confirmed that this is a key characteristic of the co-operative model (formal or informal) (Kloppenburg et al.,1996; Marsden & Smith, 2005; Reynolds et al., 2009). However, in contrast to this a potential problem of this model was found to be a lack of member engagement and commitment. This raises the question of how to engage members and ensure that responsibilities are equally shared, so that there is not a lack of fairness within the co-op.

The findings that co-ordination is useful to the producers in terms of freeing their time, was also confirmed, as well as the time consuming element of this role (Mardsen & Smith, 2005; Horrell et al., 2009). Interestingly this research revealed that members who co-ordinated the co-op received no financial reward for the role. The question of time and workload for those members arises here, adding to the above question: is there a more equitable way of co-ordinating the co-op?

75

A new detail highlighted in this research was the importance of who plays the co-ordinating role and their relationship with the group. Opinions differed, including a strong feeling that a person seen to have vested interests (e.g. with their own produce to sell) should not co-ordinate; conversely that a co-op would only work as part of another business (i.e. one of the members coordinating); and that external marketing agents could be problematic.

These different opinions meant that no clear conclusions could be drawn regarding this issue, but highlight various important issues of the expectations, transparency and trust within the group. This is not just dependent on the co-ordinator and whether they are trusted, but also on members expectations, both of the benefits they gain from membership and their responsibilities to the group. The research also revealed a view that more engagement and commitment from the members could have avoided financial problems, if members had, for example, invested in the coop or provided a longer term vision outside of the day to day business.

The literature reviewed did not include great detail regarding the financial workings of co-ops (aside from Nousiainen et al. (2009), who found that members invested 5% of sales in the co-op). This research found that co-operative costs (e.g. marketing, running costs and distribution) were covered by the margins added to produce before sale (with one exception in which each member paid per hectare committed to the co-op).

Additionally this research found that financial practicalities can be an issue for co-ops, which was not highlighted in the literature. For example: lack of sufficient investment (initially and ongoing from members); cash flow covering the period between the paying the producer and receiving payment for the goods, which can be especially problematic where the co-op is supplying the public sector (who, while reliable have long payment periods) and restaurants who are notoriously late payers, and the cost in time of running a co-op (meetings and co-ordination between

76

members).

Confirming the literature reviewed (Collet & Mormont, 2003; Marsden & Smith, 2005, Seyfang, 2006), this research found a mixture of central distribution by the co-op (farm to customer) and producers delivering to a central point . The problem of distribution costs highlighted in the literature review (Horrell et al., 2009) was also confirmed. Adding further detail, this study found that large distribution distances, combined with small quantities of produce from a number of producers, was problematic, leading to high costs per unit of produce.

Private enterprises While there was little practical detail in the literature reviewed about this model (Ilbery & Maye, 2005), this research confirmed the assumptions made regarding decision making by the owners and a mixture of distribution methods (as described above for co-ops). However the research did find the private enterprises to have commitment to sustainability (in contrast to Ilbery and Maye's (2005) findings), although this may have been due to the historical context of the private enterprises included in this research (as will be discussed below).

Social enterprises The main difference in terms of practicalities between the social enterprises and other models in this research, was that the decisions were made by staff and management committee (and householders with the box scheme). Logistical problems in terms of time and distance were seen as obstacles to involving producers in a meaningful way. The distribution was mainly by the producers although in the case of the box scheme the social enterprise distributed boxes to the collection points.

The literature reviewed did not define any examples as social enterprises, although the description of one CSA included similar characteristics: offering a box scheme with distribution via collection points; volunteer grower opportunities; and consumers as subscribers (Holloway et al., 2007). A big

77

contrast to that example is that the social enterprises in this research generated their income through trading and were not grant or volunteer dependent.

Informal network The informal network differed from the other models researched as it has no central co-ordination. Members are responsible for their own finances and distribution, and the shared element is the marketing through the website. The costs are therefore kept to a minimum and covered by a membership subscription of 30 a year (as oppose to any co-ordinating body adding margins).

This informal network (or association) of growers contrasted with the example in the literature reviewed in these practical characteristics (Collet & Mormont, 2003). In the literature reviewed the association labelled their produce with a brand. They used existing distribution channels but worked collectively in various ways (including educational workshops for consumers and distributors about their brand). However the informal network in this research is in its very early stages and the interviewee did mention potential for future arrangements between individual members for e.g. sharing distribution.

In contrast to previous studies, this research found relatively low levels of collective working between producers in all models. The literature mentioned benefits of working as a network e.g. skills sharing, collective capacity building, and problem solving (Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Marsden & Smith, 2005; Nousiainen et al., 2009), but this research found little evidence of this. Sharing equipment was only mentioned once; co-ordinating growing was not a collective process; and as mentioned previously a problem was found with a lack of engagement of members rather than members pro-actively helping to solve problems.

Having said this the research confirmed a belief in the importance of the co-operative ethos (Kloppenburg et al., 1996; Nousiainen et al., 2009; Reynolds et al., 2009) even from people whose experience had been negative. There was a consciousness of not wanting to be too negative about

78

co-ops and a feeling that they could work in other circumstances, providing ways for producers to support each other and building customer trust. It could also be that focus of the interviews meant that people were more likely to discuss what went wrong (lessons learnt), than practical benefits of the co-op. Additionally after a particularly bad period it is often difficult to remember the positive elements. It raises the question of whether an additional question could have drawn out more examples of the benefits of a co-op. Learning from what went wrong is as useful (if not more so) than hearing about what works, as people (definitely in this case) reflect a great deal on what has gone wrong. It is also of note that the workers co-op was starting to co-ordinate with the box scheme to compliment current suppliers, and one of the social enterprises wanted to look at how to involve producers in a more meaningful way.

Conclusion This research highlights a number of practical issues that appear to become problems in cooperatives more than in other models. However it is important to look at why they have become problems and to ask if these issues could as easily effect other models? The social enterprise network production model also highlighted issues with payment times and cash-flow, and small private enterprises are known for debt and cash-flow problems (Mason, 2010), although this was not found to be the case in this research. Indeed a benefit of being part of a network highlighted in the literature reviewed (Marsden & Smith, 2005), was producers not having to defend their own corner regarding finances.

The research found that these issues are connected to supplying certain markets (large institutions and restaurants). However it also confirmed the literature reviewed in finding that committed large scale buyers can provide a stable market for the producers (Watts et al., 2005; Saltmarsh, 2009) and widened access to sustainable food for more disadvantage consumers (Jarosz, 2006; OAPSG, 2008; Barling et al.,2008). Findings of this research also included solutions to financial issues (returned to in section 5.2 of the discussion).

79

One issue that was found to be problematic for the co-operative model in particular was the potential for conflict caused by a lack of member engagement and commitment to the principles. Although this should be viewed in the context of other models giving less control to the producers (explored further in section 5.3).

An interesting conclusion that can be drawn, is that it appears that models and practical characteristics can be mixed and matched to fit the situation. A box scheme can be run privately (Clarke et al., 2009), or as a producers co-op (Seyfang, 2006) or, as found in this research, as a social enterprise. Equally this research confirmed that a producers group or co-op can co-ordinate distribution, planting, marketing and the finances (Seyfang, 2006; Marsden & Smith, 2005), or do none of those things but market collectively (Collet & Mormont, 2003).

A number of different combinations of these models and characteristics exist, the next question is what is the key to a successful SLFS?

5.2 Key elements of SLFS that enable them to function successfully


The research revealed that there were four key elements needed for an SLFS to function sustainably:

People's commitment (customers, members, staff) to the organisation and its principles, and people with the right skills and vision.

Make it work economically: know your market and costs before you start, put good systems in place, entrepreneurial person driving it.

Quality: high quality produce, quality assurance and good quality customer service. Relationships of trust (not formal contracts).

This research confirmed the importance of people in SLFS, both in terms of the commitment to the organisation, and having the right people in the right posts (Reynolds et al., 2009). While consumer

80

motivation was not specifically discussed in the interviews, consumers were highlighted as key along with knowing your customer and good customer relations. However in contrast to the literature findings that SLFS should be aware of putting consumers with everyday ethics off (Kloppenburg et al., 1996; Clarke et al., 2008), many initiatives involved in the research had strong principles of sustainability which they felt were important to the relationships with, and commitment from, their customers/consumers/members, and which they make very clear on their websites.

The research confirmed the importance highlighted in the literature of dynamic individuals (Ilbery & Maye, 2005; Horrell et al., 2009), and particularly entrepreneurs in the group (Marsden & Smith, 2005). It also confirmed the benefits of being part of a network (lbery & Maye, 2005; Marsden & Smith, 2005), particularly observed in the meetings, and that co-operative relationships were good for building sustainable business relationships (Kloppenburg et al., 1996). However in contrast to this the research found that some of the key problems were caused as a result of members lack of participation in such a network. Reasons given were a lack of feeling of shared ownership and responsibility for the initiative and commitment to co-operative principles, as well as difficulties regarding perception of vested interests of the member/co-ordinator. This raises two questions. How do you make sure that all members feel shared responsibilities for the initiative and commitment to the principles? But also is it good to have one dynamic leading member, or can that lead to other members taking less responsibility?

Additionally a potential conflict of interest was highlighted by the research between growers and buyers. The literature reviewed touched on this subject as a potential conflict for buyers in selling a brand promoting the sustainability of a product, and therefore raising questions about the unsustainable nature of other produce (Collet & Mormont, 2003). However this research went further, questioning whether interests of growers and buyers would be too different to enable them to be members of the same group. The findings were inconclusive in that one respondent asserted that a co-op would have been more likely to succeed had buyers also been members.

81

Findings of this research confirm the importance of the financial sustainability of the model. There were contrasting opinions of how to achieve this however: staying small and focused or expanding to take control of a specific market (in this case the public sector: writing the menus, supplying all the food, and employing the catering staff). The role of efficient distribution and robust and rigorous systems in financial sustainability (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Seyfang, 2006; Clarke et al., 2008; Saltmarsh, 2009; Horrell et al., 2009), was also confirmed by this research, and additionally clearly knowing the market was felt to be key.

Although examples of organisations trying to influence big buyers confirmed that financial viability can lead to other compromises (Horrell et al., 2009), this research identified initiatives that demonstrate that it is possible to work towards all aims of sustainability (including financial viability) and not only to reach niche markets (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Nousiainen et al., 2009). For example one social enterprise, Growing Communities, is all organic, prioritises local producers, has 30% low income consumers, pays fairly and consults and supports producers (though they are not members). Ashlyns producers' co-op makes local food accessible by supplying schools, and though it is not totally organic, a proportion is. Organic Lea workers co-op sources only organic, prioritises local producers and is accessible through a Government voucher system and by supporting local residents to grow. Additionally in contrast to Hindrichs' (2000) belief that there is avoidance of this subject in many LFS circles, this research identified a need to be clear and transparent about the subject of finances.

This research corroborated the literature reviewed that quality was key to the success of an SLFS (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Seyfang, 2006, Clarke et al., 2008). Although there were examples of using what would be considered lower quality produce, e.g. through juices in the caf, or just accepting lower quality than would be ideal to support producers.

The importance of relationships of trust highlighted in the majority of the literature reviewed (Sage, 2003; Watts et al., 2005; Nousiainen et al., 2009; Horrell et al., 2009), was confirmed by this

82

research. In contrast to Hinrichs' (2000) question about the existence of any such relationships and the importance they might play in an LFS, this research revealed that relationships were seen as important by both producer and customer (in the case of Growing Communities and Hughes Organics for example), particularly as formal contracts are not used. This issue of contracts was a surprising finding of the research that was not highlighted in the literature reviewed. Conversely to a way of providing stability to growers, both growers and buyers are considered to be wary of formal contracts.

While this section highlights various essential components for a successful SLFS, it also raises further questions. Namely how to ensure engagement and commitment, as well as the practical details that will ensure financial sustainability, while at the same time maintaining a focus on environmental sustainability, fairness and accessibility.

5.3 Strengths and weaknesses of different models in achieving sustainability


The research focused on organisations that both promoted themselves as sustainable and were recommended by people involved in sustainable food. As summarised in table 13, this section will discuss the findings of this research regarding the strengths of the models in achieving the different areas of sustainability, and the difficulties the organisations faced in doing so. Table 13: Sustainability - strengths & difficulties faced by each model Model summary Co-operative: 4 producer co-ops & a workers co-op with box scheme and stall Environmental Fairness sustainability Yes: organic & local. Efficient/ shared distribution. Yes: member owned & decision making & support network for producers. Prices set by co-op. Accessibility Potential through vouchers, supplying food co-ops & Local Authority (L.A). Financially sustainable Cost/time involved in running a co-op highlighted. 3 had folded (2 became private enterprises) & 2 are viable.

But depends on But price is seen commitment of as an issue for members to principles & schools. shared responsibility. Yes: organic & Yes: decisions made by At the start not local . Individual members, brand owned discussed as a

Informal network:

Yes: low cost model, annual membership

83

Model summary direct to customer/ consumer Private enterprise: Producer & wholesaler Social enterprise: Box scheme & farmers market. Network production. Influencing mainstream food supply Co-operatives

Environmental Fairness sustainability distribution.

Accessibility

Financially sustainable

collectively but focus. subscription (30) individual producers run But need formal covers website. own businesses. body for vouchers & to supply L.A? Decision making and control: individual owners. Decision making & control: producers consulted but not members. Prices: yes Not discussed/ Yes Offer bulk to food co-ops. Yes: 30% consumers self classified as low income. Not discussed Yes

Yes: organic & local. Efficient distribution. Yes: organic/ FSC, local producers. Producers distribute to central point/ local branch No

No

Yes

Yes

As with the literature reviewed (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Seyfang, 2006; Nousiainen et al., 2009), this research focused mainly on co-ops that grew and sourced only organic produce and prioritised local producers (although one of the existing co-ops sells both organic and conventional produce). A need to make distribution as efficient as possible was also confirmed (Horrell et al., 2009), mainly to reduce costs but with knock on environmental benefits.

Fairness was also confirmed to be an important aspect of the co-operative model (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Nousiainen et al., 2009). A fairer distribution of benefits (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Nousiainen et al., 2009) was confirmed, with prices set by the members (although the need to set good prices was also highlighted). As owners, members made the decisions, and had access to a potential support network for producers. Although previous sections of this discussion highlight potential issues regarding equal sharing of responsibilities by members.

In contrast with the literature review findings that producers groups or co-ops mainly supply high

84

income or niche markets (Seyfang, 2006; Nousiainen et al., 2009), this research found that produce was made accessible in different ways. Using a government voucher scheme; supplying produce in bulk at a cheaper rate to food co-ops; and supplying schools, were all ways to make local organic food accessible, although price was seen to be an issue with schools.

This research confirmed that producers co-ops are seen as potential ways of reducing costs, by sharing costs (of equipment and distribution); reducing waste (through co-ordinating growing); and shortening the supply chain, avoiding the additional margins of the middle man (wholesaler) (Marsden & Smith, 2005). However the question was also raised, does it then generate more costs, through taking on this role, than it can cover through sales?

This research found that financial issues were major reasons for the business failure of co-ops, including: supermarkets price squeezing, distribution distances, not cracking a big buyer, and insufficient capital investment (both initially and ongoing). However for two of the co-ops it seemed as much to do with the internal relationships and lack of engagement/commitment of members as the viability of the businesses. Potential solutions were also identified (involving the right people, as well as clarity, forward thinking and planning from the outset). Additionally the research also confirmed that there are examples of financially successful co-ops (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Nousiainen et al., 2009).

Informal network of growers and buyers This research focused on an association of small local organic growers supplying local retailers, which appears to be an environmentally sustainable model. Prices were set by individual members for their own produce; the members have ownership of the collective brand and make decisions, with a potential informal support network. The association's charter states that members aim to provide high quality produce and goods at fair prices for producers and consumers, although as with the literature reviewed (Collet & Mormont, 2003) the target market was unknown so it is difficult to evaluate accessibility. Additionally this example was not supplying a city, or large scale

85

buyers, and might not work for supplying, for example, the public sector (seeking one formal point of purchase).

In contrast with the literature reviewed, where there were quite high, and potentially costly levels of collective working (Collet & Mormont, 2003), this research revealed a low cost model. Annual membership subscription (30) covered the cost of the shared website and individual members were responsible for their own finances. To a large extent the model in this research was of individual businesses with shared marketing. As this example is in the early stages it is difficult to evaluate the success of the model. However there is potential for further collective working, and the literature reviewed appears to demonstrate the potential of the model as environmentally and financially sustainable as well as fair (Collet & Mormont, 2003).

Social enterprise This research found environmental sustainability to be a focus for the social enterprises, prioritising local and solely organic (or in the case of charcoal production Forest Stewardship Certified) produce. Distribution for the farmers market and box scheme was via producers and then onward to pick up points via an electric milk float (electricity supplied by renewable energy). For network production producers distribute to local/regional branches of the retailer (reducing the carbon emissions of central distribution centres).

These examples were also more accountable than private enterprises for example, making decisions by a management committee and staff in consultation with producers, and in the case of the box scheme households can have a say. They also provide practical support to the producers through long term commitment to them and in difficult times (e.g. reduced Farmers Market stall fees). In the network production model the social enterprise took a cut in its own margins to give an increase to producers, when the buyer could not increase the cost prices recently.

However, in contrast to the literature reviewed (Holloway et al., 2007), the producers were not

86

members so did not have ownership of the enterprise or involvement in the running of it. It is important to note however, that the literature review example was a much smaller scale enterprise (Holloway et al., 2007), and additionally that this review found an interest in further involving producers, but logistical issues (as a London based enterprise, with producers based at quite a distance), made this difficult. These findings pose two questions: is there a way producers could be involved in decision making, for example on farmers market days? And do they have an interest in being involved in this way in the enterprise?

Confirming the literature reviewed (Holloway et al., 2007) this model was found to make produce accessible to a wider range of people. Thirty percent of the box scheme consumers defined themselves as low income, and the enterprise accepted the governments food vouchers and gave discounts (e.g. to older people). However, as they are aware, they are not based in a particularly low income area (although they are currently supporting the replication of the model in other areas) Both social enterprises were financially sustainable.

Private enterprise As highlighted previously in the discussion, this research confirms that the decisions are taken by individuals, and that they are financially sustainable, but contrasts with the literature review findings on all other areas of sustainability.

Ilbery and Maye (2005), found that none of the privately owned specialist food enterprises fulfilled the Sustain criteria for sustainable food (see appendix 1). This research found that both businesses have a strong environmental focus, only supplying organic, prioritising local producers, and carrying out distribution with a focus on efficiency. As they were both small fruit and vegetable wholesalers they do not have the issues of external inputs such as animal feed, or of using conventional intermediaries such as abattoirs or processors (Ilbery & Maye, 2005). This research also found that these enterprises did not only target niche markets (Ilbery & Maye, 2005). One enterprise offered produce at bulk rates to food co-ops (often based at schools and used as part of

87

the curriculum), and the other supplied independent customers such as Growing Communities, Organic Lea and Fair Share.

Finally regarding fairness, although these models are not owned collectively, this research found that fairness was important to the private enterprises. The owners do set the prices, but aim to pay fair but realistic prices to producers, and long term relationships and informal networks are considered to be important to the businesses. However it is important to note that both examples of private enterprise are unusual in that they have been involved in organic farming for many years and are known for their commitment to sustainability and historical co-operative involvement.

Influencing mainstream food supply This research found that the organisations trying to influence the mainstream food supply were not focusing on organic initially due to price issues (although one hospital involved was sourcing a percentage of organic food). These examples mirrored the literature reviewed as a way of making local food accessible through schools and other large institutions (OAPSG, 2008; Barling et al., 2008; Jarosz, 2008).

However in contrast to the findings that issues of value for money were surmountable with a committed local authority (Watts et al., 2005), the focus on price meant that even sourcing Freedom Foods (another certification body for meat but with lower animal welfare standards then organic certification) was found to be a struggle for most customers. This research found that although it was seen to be important, ensuring fairness was also difficult (above specifying it in an invite to tender). This was due to the focus on the wholesaler-customer relationship rather than the wholesaler-producer relationship.

Although the examples were found to be financially sustainable and aim to make local food accessible, they are not currently able to focus on environmental sustainability. While one

88

argument is that you have to start somewhere with sustainable food, another is that you have to start with organic, as one interviewee commented:

What's the point in starting with anything else? Lots of people focus on local but local what? - where's your leverage if you don't start with organic?... Organic is the gold standard regarding fertilising the soil and wildlife (social enterprise).

This said, one hospital increasing access to local organic food, confirms the literature review findings that with support the public sector can open up its procurement processes to small local (also defined as sustainable) producers (Saltmarsh, 2009a). The question therefore arises, although it can not immediately focus on organic produce and fairness to producers, is this approach successful in increasing access to sustainable food as part of a wider strategy? Increasing awareness of the need for, and benefits of, ecologically sustainable food; supporting individuals within those institutions who are committed to sustainable food; and paving the way for fairer models, such as producers co-ops, to gain access to larger institutions.

Difficulties faced by SLFS in general Finally in this section of the discussion, this research identified a number of difficulties faced by all models in achieving sustainability, and important to highlight in considering how these issues could be addressed by an SLFS model: Balancing supply and demand: growing the market whilst increasing availability of produce Good price versus fair payment: competition with cheap food, the perception of organic as expensive and the need to address this and pay producers fairly. Becoming financially viable: issues of market, cash flow, lack of investment and costs including time (discussed above under the co-op model summary). Distribution: costs, issues of value and scale and the differing principles of wholesalers.

89

Lack of availability was identified as a barrier to sourcing sustainable food, however there was also a need highlighted to grow the market. The question is therefore, how to grow the market and supply at an even pace? For example if all restaurants stating that they source locally, purchased sustainable food, or if Manchester City Council decided to prioritise sustainable food, would there be sufficient local organic produce? However as a common problem for SLFS, confirmed by this research, is the perception that organic food is too expensive (Dalmeny, 2008; Hughes, 2005), would buyers who blame lack of availability pay the real cost of sustainable food?

This leads on to the good versus fair price challenge for SLFS: is it possible to make sustainable food accessible whilst paying the producer a fairer price? This research confirmed a number of obstacles faced by SLFS.

The globally cheap price of food, and price squeezing of supermarkets/large wholesalers, creates a perception that food is cheap and therefore organic food is expensive (Sacks, 2002; Hughes, 2005; Dalmeny, 2008). A problem compounded by the labour intensiveness of organic fruit and vegetable production (Jarosz, 2006), and the value for money attitude regarding quantity rather than quality as the best deal (OAPSG, 2008)

Yet this research found that price comparisons of Unicorn grocery in Manchester showed some of their organic vegetables to be cheaper than their conventional equivalent in supermarkets, confirming the findings of Mathijs et al.'s price comparison of six products (2006, in Schonhart et al., 2009). While some food in supermarkets is undoubtedly cheaper, often there is significant profit made from food, but this remains with the supermarkets rather than being passed on to producers (Sacks, 2002; Hughes, 2005; Dalmeny, 2008).

Additionally health, educational and environmental benefits have been found to be linked to increasing sustainable food in hospitals and schools (Hockridge & Lonfield, 2005; Belot & James, 2009; Les & Nlting, 2009). While this is not currently given priority in the public sector, there are

90

examples local authorities or independent schools that have prioritised sustainable food and use value for money in this wider benefit sense to justify any rises in cost (Hockridge & Lonfield, 2005). Although there is a general lack of clarity among the public sector purchasers regarding what they can specify in tendering, there are local authorities leading the way and government papers that support this broader definition of 'best value' (Barling et al., 2008; OAPSG, 2008).

Returning to the SLFS model discussion, this research did find other issues with supplying the public sector (e.g. cash flow and invoicing demands) which can be too much of a burden for individual small producers. A co-op or social enterprise could be better placed to secure investment then an individual business or informal network, and could have a pot of money for cash flow, enabling them to pay the producer and wait for the buyer to pay. Similarly a central body, whether a social enterprise or a co-op can secure investment for shared equipment, negotiate on behalf of the producers (whether public sector or banks), and look at the most efficient way to organise distribution.

Finally the findings confirmed that distribution is a key financial issue for SLFS in general (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Seyfang, 2006; Clarke et al., 2008; Saltmarsh, 2009; Horrell, et al., 2009), resulting in a focus on making it as efficient as possible (e.g. through sharing transport, delivering box scheme produce at the same time as coming to the farmers market, or logistical calculations so that the van goes out and comes back full). However one question highlighted in the literature reviewed is: does SLFS distribution in various potentially inefficient vehicles, cause more environmental damage than larger scale distribution (Schonhart et al., 2009)? An alternative, suggested both in this research and in the literature reviewed, was to use existing distribution networks/wholesalers (Saltmarsh, 2009; Horrell et al., 2009). However this research revealed a certain amount of reservation about using large wholesalers due to conflicting priorities of cheapness above sustainability (e.g. local, organic, fairness), concurring withfindings in the literature reviewed regarding wholesale markets as:

91

epitomising many of the deficits of current supply chains particularly promiscuous sourcing and unfair competition from dumped imports and surplus produce (Saltmarsh, 2009).

Conclusion While this research is limited in the detail it has been able to go into, a number of conclusions can be drawn regarding the general strengths and weaknesses of each model in achieving a sustainable food system.

This research found that all models could be strong in the area of environmental sustainability, if they prioritise local organic produce from low carbon farms. Size and scale need to be thought about, as well as vehicle efficiency (Schonhart et al., 2009), to reduce the CO2(e) emissions (and cost) of distribution.

Based on this research the model that best addresses the current imbalance of fairness in the food system is the co-operative. The social enterprises were found to support producers through practical support, long term commitment, fair prices, and taking on a central co-ordination role (freeing up the producers time). The informal network had no co-ordinating role, but producers had ownership and made the decisions, as well as a support network of other producers. The cooperative model combined all of these benefits and, while a need to address issues of engagement and commitment among members was identified, the structure in itself was the fairest.

Accessibility is an area where this research contrasted with the literature reviewed, concluding that rather than targeting niche markets (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Seyfang, 2006; Nousiainen et al., 2009) social enterprises, producers co-ops and private enterprises made their produce accessible in varying ways. However the research also highlighted a need to address the prevailing attitude towards price of food and affordability, both the perception that organic is more expensive, which is not always the case (Mathijs (2006), cited in Schonhart, 2009), but also the expectation that food

92

should be cheap.

This research found examples of each model to be financially viable. The informal network represents the lowest cost model of collective working, but it is quite difficult to draw any conclusions about this due to its early stage of development. While there were clear examples of financial issues facing the co-operatives, the reasons given (e.g. distribution distances and insufficient investment) were found to be surmountable (e.g. through forward planning or slowly building up efficient distribution routes). Additionally these issues could effect other models in a similar context (e.g. supplying the same markets), and the challenges of supplying those markets (e.g. cash-flow issues), need to be measured against the benefits (e.g. stable markets).

Finally this research contrasted with the literature review findings that SLFS focus on one element of sustainability to the detriment of others (Clarke et al., 2008). There are clear examples of this, for example specialist local organic food enterprises that target niche markets at premium prices, and at the other extreme community food projects prioritising access to cheap,fresh (but conventional) food. However this research found that the issue is not black and white. While a coop supplying schools focused on local quality food, it also ensured that all milk and yoghurt was organic (and supplied local organic to restaurants and hotels). A social enterprise that only sources organic and prioritises local food, is both financially viable and accessible (accepting government vouchers and providing discounts).

Additionally while the research did reveal a tension between fair prices and good prices, this was not, as with supermarkets (Hughes, 2005; Dalmeny, 2008), profit driven at the expense of fairness or environmental impact. The aim was not for one party to make more profit than another, but to be able to sell the produce in the context of the wider mainstream food market. How to increase fairness between all parties (producers, distributors, customers, consumers), is a more complicated issue but, as some of the literature reviewed suggests, it does seem more possible and probable in an SLFS than in the mainstream system (Seyfang, 2006; Reynolds et al., 2009).

93

Ideally these models would all work together: bringing together local organic producers and a range of buyers including social enterprise run box schemes and farmers markets, and small private enterprises with shared principles of sustainability. This would provide a network of support not only for growers (who are often isolated in their work environment), but for independent and social enterprises. Organisations would work with the public sector/large institutions, to encourage them to procure more sustainability, making their tendering processes more accessible to local organic producers like the co-op (as well as encouraging fair trade organic for goods that can not be produced locally).

The following section will propose a model for Greater Manchester bringing together the elements discussed above in a practical model for a sustainable food system in a local context.

5.4 A model of a sustainable local food system for Greater Manchester


In terms of creating an SLFS in Greater Manchester that is sustainable in all the different areas there are a number of lessons to be learnt from the findings, to help form a model relevant to this situation. The ideal approach would be for the potential members of a future organisation to develop the model based on discussions between all members of the lessons learnt and how that applies to this local context. This is the approach that will be taken and is the next step for this research through a series of focus group discussions that will be held in the Autumn/Winter 2010 (a quieter time for growers). However for the purpose of this report this section will outline a proposed model based on the findings (including the Manchester Organic Grower's discussions so far), and on the current context and political climate in Manchester.

The recommended model, as presented in figure 3 below, is of a co-operative of organic growers and buyers in and around Greater Manchester.

94

Key: Arrows

show the interaction between the co-ordinating body of the co-op and members/non-

members
Figure 3 the proposed model The co-op would consist of local organic growers1 and buyers (e.g. independent retailers and restaurants) within Greater Manchester. The aim of the co-op is not to be a wholesaler supplying the market with the same fruit and vegetables year round, but to increase the supply of organic produce that is in season locally, and to influence a range of buyers to become more sustainable. This would include expanding the market and increasing supply by supporting conventional growers in conversion and supporting new growers to start up.

The market would include a range of outlets both members and larger scale buyers such as the public sector, with prices agreed for members selling to and buying from the co-op. This would avoid conflicts regarding discounts and premiums, and provide stability for both the growers and

1. From joint county areas within 20 miles of Greater Manchester (Dalmeny, 2008). Using the Sustain
definition for small cities rather than large cities, for logistical purposes of meetings and efficient distribution.

95

the buyers. Growing would be co-ordinated collectively with guidance from the buyers regarding crops and quantities, which they would commit to buy from the co-op.

The co-op would commit to buy from the producer members (observing quality agreements). The producer members would either commit to selling a certain quantity to the co-op or could sell all produce to the co-op. In the case of crop failure the co-op would source from other producer coops regionally or non member producers (directly to avoid additional margins).

The co-op would play a co-ordinating role including for example marketing, distribution (farm to customer) and equipment sharing as detailed in figure 3, employing staff to carry out the daily running of the co-op.

While this research has identified a number of challenges for co-operatives, the benefits that it brings means that it has greater potential than other models to achieve a fairer and more sustainable food system, bringing together a range of enterprises and initiatives to work together.

How the model meets the criteria for a sustainable food system
The co-op would have strong environmental principles, sourcing local organic fruit and vegetables produced and distributed in a low carbon way. For example the co-op would supply a school with the fresh ingredients for dishes on the menu that could change with the season (e.g. salad or soup). Equally buyers such as independent retailers and restaurants would source seasonal ingredients from the co-op, continuing to purchase what is not available locally from other sources. The aim is not for buyers only to source from the co-op (consumers do not only eat what is produced locally), but it is to encourage more seasonal purchasing (e.g. rhubarb crumble in May, strawberries in June, no apples from New Zealand during British apple season).

The model aims to address fairness and the current imbalances in the mainstream food system in

96

a number of ways. This research confirms that as members, producers would have more say than they currently have in the mainstream food system. They would: be involved in setting prices, but not be left to argue their corner with no support (Kloppenburg et al., 1996); gain a fairer share of the margins made on their produce (Jarosz, 2008), and access the shared knowledge and skills, equipment, and problem solving benefits of a network (Marsden & Smith, 2005). While the research identified a fear that conflicts of interest could cause problems between growers and buyers, it also found that this combination could help build relationships of trust, and an understanding of each others situation. Levels of engagement would be agreed and signed up to on becoming a member, and transparency between members and clear agreements and systems would help to avoid conflicts such as perception of vested interests and lack of engagement.

Food would be made accessible to a wider range of people through supplying the public sector (e.g. schools, and care homes), by showing the real value for money of local organic food and using the public sectors buying power. However, the aim of the model is not to make organic food cheap, but to encourage people to pay the real price of food. This will be supported by the work of the wider sustainable food network in Manchester.

This research confirms that, if important lessons are paid heed to, the co-operative is a financially sustainable model (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Nousiainen et al., 2009). Customer and consumer trust in co-operative principals, commitment from buyer members, and access to larger buyers (through having a formal body), will create a more stable market for local organic producers and a more stable supply for buyers. Clearly knowing the market is key, understanding what it is that attracts or motivates customers (retailers, restaurants, box schemes etc.) to source from and get involved with an SLFS and, as a grower and buyer group, understanding what motivates the consumers to choose those outlets. Shortening the supply chain and sharing distribution, equipment and marketing, will reduce costs, although there will be costs incurred by the co-op. However the millions made by supermarkets every year (Dalmeny, 2008), show that profits are made somewhere along the supply chain in the current system. This system aims to redistribute

97

those profits in a fairer way. Challenges of the model As shown in table 14, the research identified a number of potential challenges for this model, but also benefits of it and potential solutions to overcome those challenges. Table 14: challenges and benefits of the co-op Challenges Conflicts of interest between buyers & growers Member engagement & commitment High costs of a co-op: Distribution Buying produce in Time Existing wholesaler feels threatened Produce seen as expensive Financial issues (cash-flow, lack of investment) Grow supply with demand Benefits/solutions Understanding between buyers & growers Transparency & accountability from the outset Reduced costs: No middle man Efficient distribution Co-op co-ordinator New markets avoids wholesaler competition Co-operation builds trust & attracts markets Financial management & attractive investment Support new growers

The research identified a concern that conflicts of interest between buyers and growers could cause tensions or make the model unworkable. One of the aims of the co-op is to address these different interests and perceptions and in so doing create a fairer food system. The research also found a belief that involving both buyers and growers could avoid these issues, building stronger understanding and commitment between the two groups. Transparency of pricing, based on paying fair wages, would hopefully mean buyers (members and non members) understand the pricing, and would not want to argue that producers should receive less income then they do themselves (as is currently the case in both the mainstream and examples of LFS, (Hinrichs, 2000; Mann, 2009)), and visa versa. Involving both growers and buyers from the start in the planning and discussion of potential issues, and putting agreements and systems in place should help to avoid potential conflict with future members.

Additionally it may be easier as a formal co-op to ensure that all members are committed to the coop principles and play an equal role (including future members). While the findings of this research contrasted with this to some extent, a commitment to the co-operative way of working was still felt

98

by those who were no longer co-op members, and a belief that it could work in different situations. Levels of engagement would be agreed and signed up to on becoming a member, and transparency between members and clear agreements and systems would help to avoid conflicts and deal with them if they arose. Additionally, as with many co-ops, there would be induction and a probation period for new members, as well as support provided, encouraging a sense of ownership of and commitment to the co-op.

This research found that a key reason for not having a formal co-op was cost. However the cost in money and time is dependent on the level of co-ordination and co-operation required rather than the formality of the structure. If the aim is to market collectively, an informal network would be more cost effective and less time consuming. However if the aim is to share equipment, supply large scale buyers (such as the public sector), and co-ordinate growing and markets in a more formal way, a co-ordinator and formal structure would be needed (e.g. to receive orders, invoice the larger scale buyers and employ the co-ordinator).

The research confirmed that a co-op could decrease costs and increase financial sustainability in a number of ways. Efficient distribution; robust and rigorous financial systems (Marsden & Smith, 2005; Seyfang, 2006; Clarke et al., 2008; Saltmarsh, 2009; Horrell et al., 2009); long term relationships with customers built on trust; securing a big buyer and clearly knowing the market were found to be critical to managing the finances and ensuring that the income was higher then the cost of the co-op. The dual role of the co-op to enlarge the market and support more organic growers would help to ensure that supply increases with demand.

This research also found that the notion of co-operation was key to building relationships with long term reliable customers. As a new group it can be difficult to form these relationships with customers, however this research revealed that if members have worked in the field for some time they will bring with them these values and trust.

99

While the research confirmed that there was potential for a conflict with existing wholesalers, it also identified various ways to build good relationships with them. For example involving wholesalers in discussions from the outset, committing to use the same wholesaler as a back up supply, inviting representatives to the co-op meetings, and targeting a different market to them (potentially restaurants and schools).

While practical issues such as cash-flow problems and lack of investment were identified as challenges for a co-op, attracting investment is perhaps easier as a co-operative then as an individual enterprise. For example the Co-operative enterprise hub provides advice, small grants and loans for co-ops. Additionally to building a sense of trust through co-operation this model demonstrates a commitment to social and environmental benefits, that potential investors may want to see (as well as a viable model, as discussed above). The co-op could therefore attract investment and support for the initial infrastructure needed, for a pot of money to use as cash-flow (enabling payment of the producer whilst waiting for the payment from the buyer). The co-op would also deal with the invoicing (important for supplying larger scale producers) and put in place rigorous financially management systems. Part of the role of the members would be to have a longer term financial vision outside of the day to day running of the co-op.

Why this model would work in Greater Manchester There are a number of reasons why this model would be successful in Greater Manchester. The history of progressive politics makes Manchester a city that would be receptive to a cooperative model that is about reclaiming the food system. A history of environmental and social activism (and an active student population) has resulted in various initiatives including e.g. Ethical Consumer Magazine and MERCi Manchester's centre for sustainable living). Manchester is also home to the Co-operative Group, and has a strong history of workers co-ops as well as existing food related co-ops such as Eighth Day and Unicorn Grocery.

Manchester City Council (MCC) has committed to reduce carbon emissions by 41% by 2020, and

100

has facilitated the development of a Climate Action Plan (entitled: Manchester A Certain Future) written by a large group of stakeholders. Stakeholders, including a Sustainable Food Steering Group (which aims to adopt FeedingManchester's definition of sustainable food), are involved in drawing up and oversight of delivery plans.

There has been an increase in interest in sustainable food (as highlighted in the introduction to this study), visible through the FeedingManchester network of sustainable food practitioners; a strategic growers and buyers group; Growing Manchester (a programme to support more community growing projects); Sustainable Fayre (a Kindling Trust project supporting the Local Authority caterers to source local organic produce). Support mechanisms also exist in Manchester including Making Local Food Work, Co-operatives UK, and MCC's Food Futures. A struggling independent sector, with the take over of multinationals such as Tesco and Starbucks, has led to anti-tesco campaigns, and a recognition from some independents and small growers that they need to work together to survive (highlighted at FeedingManchester and the formation of the new organic grower and buyer group).

The size and layout of the city means that in some places green belt is only four miles away from the city centre. This means that producers are close enough to the city to have a real involvement in the model. Additionally a history of horticultural production, with areas such as Chat Moss and Carrington Moss once famous for vegetable production, provides hope regarding soil fertility and climate. However the current opportunities for people in Greater Manchester to purchase locally sourced food have been identified as amongst the lowest in the country (Ricketts Hein et al., 2006), and the Northwest is one of the UK regions with the lowest number of organic farmers (Williamson, 2007). This provides a real gap in the market to be filled in the light of MCC (and national) commitments to reducing carbon emissions and increasing local food.

The potential impact of the model on the wider market Based on current food consumption trends, e.g. high rates of imported fresh fruit and vegetables

101

(Williamson, 2007; Garnett, 2008); a relatively low percentage of income spent on food (ONS, 2010); and the organic market declining in 2009 (although there are signs of revival for 2010) (Cottingham & Perrett, 2010); the model may not gain a significant share of the fresh food market in Greater Manchester. However there are reasons to believe that a model like this could have a significant impact in Greater Manchester.

Firstly with the creation of a strong local organic brand, and membership of the majority of local producers and known organic and ethical buyers in Greater Manchester, it could dominate the local organic market.

Secondly it could encourage more local producers into organic production, and more people into the organic farming profession, as a model that treats producers fairly and provides a stronger voice for the organic producer in the trading world.

Thirdly with the wider support of a sustainable food network (FeedingManchester); a commitment from MCC to reduce CO2 emissions; the stakeholder developed Climate Action Plan (Manchester A Certain Future) and enthusiasm from the local authority caterers, it could encourage and provide a practical way for an increased consumption of local organic food.

Fourthly, as found by Holloway et al., (2007) in regards to two quite different case studies it will, if it it is successful and long lasting, provide a small scale example of a 'locus of power' (p13) and a credible voice of opposition against the current unfair food system. But it will also provide a sustainable working model. Showing that all angles of sustainability can be achieved, and that potentially this can also interact with or 'change the overall food supply system for the better' (Holloway et al., 2007, p15), through a co-op supplying the public sector with local organic food.

The model will provide an example, however small, of resilience and mutual support as much as CO2 reduction but with a focus on what can be achieved (and grown) in the Northwest. This acknowledges that while Mancunians will not survive on kale alone, what can be grown here

102

should be, sourcing other produce in as low a carbon and fair a way as possible (be that tomatoes from Lincolnshire or fair trade coffee beans shipped from Guatemala).

There are many challenges in making this model work, both within it and externally. For example the commitment, enthusiasm and support shown by the public sector need to translate into real resources and buying power. The commitment to purchase needs to be real, one school is not enough to make the business viable and MCC needs to address the value for money conflicts and commit to paying fairly for food. On the other hand if demand does rise, supply needs to rise with it. The infrastructure needs to be put in place with more support for new organic growers to start, and good agricultural land protected from development.

5.5 Research limitations


There are various limitations of this research. The time factor means that this can only really be the start of any such discussion, having perhaps raised more questions then it has answered. The question arose at various points in the research of how to engage members and ensure shared responsibility and commitment to the co-op. This is a question that effects all co-ops and lessons could be learnt from talking to co-ops outside the food sector.

It would also be valuable to learn more about the practical detail of the systems that existing SLFS use, and to learn more about the examples of producers co-ops supplying the public sector. While there was not time in this process, a number of interviewees offered future practical support. Finally focus groups in Manchester would have increased the learning about the practical application and replicability of the model. However timing meant that this was not possible.

These are all issues that need more research, however it is important that this moves on to action research, as one interviewee said: You could spend years trying to come up with the perfect model and not get anything done, you just have to get on with it (Social enterprise).

103

6. Conclusion
The research presented in this thesis was aimed at exploring a successful trading model to increase access to sustainable fruit and vegetables in Greater Manchester.

The proposed model is a co-operative of organic growers and buyers. The role of the co-op would be two fold: to co-ordinate day to day practicalities (e.g. marketing, distribution, co-ordinating growing and finances), and a more strategic role: to influence a range of buyers (members and non members such as the public sector) to purchase more sustainably and to increase supply by supporting conventional growers in conversion and supporting new growers to start up.

This model aims to meet the definition of a sustainable local food system in a number of ways, by: Reducing the carbon emissions of the food sector: increasing the supply of and demand for local (seasonal) organic fresh produce that is produced and distributed in a low carbon way. Addressing the imbalances in the mainstream food supply system: supporting producers, giving them equal control to others in the supply chain, and redistributing the margins, currently taken by supermarkets, more fairly along the food supply chain. Making it more accessible: not by making food cheaper, but by the public sector leading the way and paying fairly for good value food, that has both immediate and long term benefits. Developing a trusted brand and identity that people want to support and be part of, as well as an efficient model with rigorous systems in place, ensuring financial sustainability.

While there are reasons of context that this model was chosen for Greater Manchester, the city is not unique, other cities have similar characteristics (e.g. proximity to producers; politically active groups; environment centres; and local authorities with a commitment to carbon reduction and local food). Many of these cities already have a number of SLFS in operation, this model aims to bring together different SLFS to work together and support each other.

104

However, while this model could work in other cities, it will not necessarily be the right model for every city. Different locations, different people, and what food initiatives exist already in that city will all effect the choice of model. What is important is that a process is gone through to identify the aims and needs of those involved, and to put in place the right structure, systems and elements that will work for those people and that context.

While this model may be seen as based on a utopian ideal of a better world, it is, as pointed out by Watts et al. (2005), no less utopian than neo-liberalist economics. It also arguably presents a more practical and realistic way to address the pressing issues of climate change, food insecurity, and other environmental, social and economic issues, than the current model, by looking at the whole picture and not isolated pieces of the puzzle.

It is recognised that we need to reduce our carbon emissions and that the food system plays a large role in this. A whole food chain approach is required, as well as a reduction in meat and dairy consumption and an increase in consumption (and therefore production) of organic locally produced vegetables and fruit, produced and distributed in a low carbon way. Additionally, we need to make farming more attractive to encourage people into the sector, and prevent further decline in UK food production. There is no justifiable reason why the people producing food, working physically hard for long hours, should receive a lower income than anyone else, or have less say over the system in which they play a crucial role.

This model is a way to start making these much needed changes, to reclaim the food system, as one interviewee said, and to make it sustainable in the whole sense of the word. Just because this is not how it currently works, does not mean it will not work and potentially be an improvement.

These changes are achievable, but they will be easier to implement, and much more significant, if central and local government commit to a certain number of measures. Making resources available to: improve research into organic and low carbon production methods; provide support for new

105

organic growers; and develop infrastructure for growers co-operatives or groups (shared equipment, distribution etc.). A substantial increase in the procurement of sustainable food, phased in a way which ensures that local supply grows at a sustainable rate to meet demand. Protection from development of suitable land for food production (made available to growers). Finally a recognition of the external environmental and social costs of the present food system is crucial to addressing the issue of unrealistically cheap food.

This research has identified and reflected on a model, demonstrating that a more sustainable food system is possible. The findings will form the basis for further activities of the Kindling Trust to help put such a system into action:

Continued involvement with the growers and buyers group (M.O.G) to develop the best model for them, focusing on key questions (to avoid conflicts identified in this research), identifying future markets and putting in place arrangements such as membership agreements, financial systems, quality agreements.

Following the growing season a series of focus groups will evaluate progress to date with the group and identify improvements. This will be written up as information and lessons learnt for groups in other cities.

The research will also be a basis for a year long pilot, at a local school, supporting the Local Authority caterers to source ingredients (from M.O.G) for seasonal organic soup.

106

Bibliography
Avery, A. (2006) The truth about organic food. USA: Hendersons publications. Barling, D., Sharpe, R., & Lang, T. (2008) Rethinking Britains Food Security - a research report for the Soil Association. City University, London: Centre for Food Policy. Bazeley, P. (2004) Issues in Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Research in Buber, R., Gadner, J. & Richards, L. (Eds) Applying qualitative methods to marketing management research. UK: Palgrave Macmillan, pp141-156. Belot, M. & James, J (2009) Healthy school meals and Educational Outcomes [online] Available at: http://ideas.repec.org/p/ese/iserwp/2009-01.html [Date accessed:10/05/10] Born, B., & Purcell, M. (2006) Avoiding the Local Trap: Scale and Food Systems in Planning Research. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 26: pp195 - 207 Brandt, K. (2007) Issues paper: Organic agriculture and food utilisation. Italy: International conference of organic agriculture and food security, Food & Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology . Qualitative Research in Psychology. 3: pp77-101 Bryman, A. (2001) Social Research Methods. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bryman, A. (1988) Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman. Clarke, N., Cloke, P., Barnett, C., & Malpass, A. (2008) The spaces and ethics of organic food. Journal of Rural Studies. 24: pp219 230 Cleland, G. (2008) Food riots could spread, UN chief warns [online]. Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1584515/Food-riots-could-spread-UN-chiefwarns.html) [Date accessed: 08/05/10]. Collet, C. & Mormont, M. (2003) Managing pests, consumers, and commitments: the case of apple growers and pear growers in Belgium's Lower Meuse region. Environment and Planning A. 35: pp413 427 Cottingham, M. & Perrett, T. (2010), Organic market report 2010 [online]. Available from: http://www.soilassociation.org/Businesses/Marketinformation/tabid/116/Default.aspx [Date accessed: 08/05/10] Critty, M. (1998) The foundations of social research : meaning and perspective in the research process. London: Sage. Dalmeny, K. (2008) Ethical Hijack. London: Sustain. Elkington, J. & Kendall, G. (2007), The future of oil [online]. Available from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/11/future-of-oil [Date accessed: 07/05/10] Ellen, D. (2009) Farmers Markets: a case study of local food supply in Greater Manchester [online]. Available from: http://kindling.org.uk/our-publications [Date accessed: 04/01/10] FARMA (undated) Certification abridged rules: Guidance on criteria [online]. Available from: http://www.farmersmarkets.net/certification2.htm [Date accessed: 16/04/10]

107

Feenstra, G. (1997) Local food systems and sustainable communities. American journal of alternative agriculture 12(1) p. 28-36 Flick, U (1998), An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage Garnett, T. (2008) Cooking up a storm. Food, greenhouse gas emissions and our changing climate. University of Surrey: Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy. Garnett, T. (2006) Fruit and Vegetables & UK Green House Gas emissions: Exploring the Relationship. University of Surrey: Working paper produced as part of the work of the Food Climate Research Network, Centre for Environmental Strategy. Hinrichs, C. (2000) Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct agricultural markets. Journal of Rural Studies. 16: pp295 - 303 Hird, V., Webster, R., & MacMillan, T. (2010) Local food and climate change: the role of community enterprises. Oxford: Making Local Food Work. Hockridge, E. & Longfield, J. (2005) Getting more sustainable food into London's hospitals: can it be done and is it worth it? London: Sustain. Hockley, S. (2009) Fruit and veg task force positive move for industry [online]. Available from: http://www.nfuonline.com/x42955.xml [Date accessed: 27/12/09] Holloway, L., Cox, R., Venn, L., Kneafsey, M., Dowler,E., & Toumainen, H. (2007) Beyond the AlternativeConventional Divide? Thinking Differently About Food ProductionConsumption Relationships in Maye, D., Holloway., L & Kneafsey, M. (Eds.) Alternative Food Geographies Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd, Chapter 5 pp77:93 Horrell, C., Jones, S.D, & Natelson, S. (2009) An investigation into the workings of small scale food hubs [online]. Making Local Food Work & Sustain. Available from: http://www.makinglocalfoodwork.co.uk/about/ds/learning.cfm [Date accessed: 11/12/09] Hughes, A. (2005) Geographies of exchange and circulation: alternative trading spaces. Progress in Human Geography. 29:pp 496 504 Humphries, B. (1997) From Critical Thought to Emancipatory Action: Contradictory Research Goals? [Online] Sociological Research. 2(1) Available from: <http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/1/3.html> [Date accessed: 07/02/10] Hussein, A. (2009) The use of Triangulation in Social Sciences Research: Can qualitative and quantitative methods be combined? Journal of Comparative Social Work. 1: pp 1-12 Ilbery, B. and Maye, D. (2005) Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy. 22: pp331344 Jarosz, L. (2008) The City in the Country Growing alternative food networks in metropolitan areas. Journal of Rural Studies. 24: pp231-244 Kevern, J. & Webb, C. (2001) Focus groups as a tool for critical social research in nurse education, Nurse Education Today. Vol 21(4), pp 323-333 Kloppenburg Jr. J., Hendrickson, J., & Stevenson, G.W. (1996) Coming in to the Foodshed. Agriculture and Human Values. 13(3): pp33 - 42 Kloppenburg Jr. J., Lezberg, S., De Master, K., Stevenson, G.W., & Hendrickson, J. (2000) Tasting

108

Food, Tasting Sustainability: Defining the Attributes of an Alternative Food System with Competent, Ordinary People, Human Organization. 59(2): pp177 - 186 Kneafsey, M. (2007) Re-connecting consumers, food and producers: Exploring 'alternative' networks [online]. Part of the Cultures of Consumption project, Birbeck University, London. Available from: http://www.consume.bbk.ac.uk/research.html [Date accessed: 23/11/09] Leonardo, Z. (2004) Critical Social Theory and Transformative Knowledge: The Functions of Criticism in Quality Education. Educational Researcher. 33(6): pp11 18 Les, A.K., & Nlting, B. (2009) Organic school meal systems towards a more sustainable nutrition. Agronomy Research. 7(Special issue II): pp 647653. Mann, R. (2009) The Future of CSA in the UK. Aberdeen: Scottish Agricultural College. Marsden, T., & Smith, E. (2005) Ecological entrepreneurship: sustainable development in local communities through quality food production and local branding. Geoforum. 36: pp440 - 451 Mason, M. K., (2010) What causes small businesses to fail? [online]. Available from: http://www.moyak.com/papers/small-business-failure.html [Date accessed 05/05/10]. Maynard, R. (2009) An inconvenient truth about food Neither secure nor resilient. Bristol: Soil Association. McMichael (2009) The World Food Crisis in Historical Perspective [online]. Available from: http://www.monthlyreview.org/090713mcmichael.php [Date accessed 07/05/10] Morgan, D.L. (1998) The Focus Group Guidebook, California: Sage Publications Inc. Nousiainen, M., Pylkknen, P., Suanders, F., Seppnen, L., & Vesala, K.M. (2009) Are Alternative Food Systems Socially Sustainable? A Case Study from Finland. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture. 33: pp566 594 OAPSG: the English Organic Action Plan Steering Group (2008) Strategic Paper on Public Procurement. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Olsen, W. (2004), Triangulation in Social Research, Qualitative and Quantitative Methods Can Really Be Mixed [online]. Available from: www.ccsr.ac.uk/staff/triangulation.pdf [Date accessed: 15/02/10] ONS: Office for National Statistics (2010), Family spending 2009 [online]. Available from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=284 [Date accessed: 12/05/10] O'Reilly (2004) Who needs farmers anyway? [online]. Available from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3559670.stm) [Date accessed: 07/05/10] Pretty, J.N., Ball, A.S., Lang, T., & Morison, J.I.L. (2005) Farm costs and food miles: An assessment of the full cost of the UK weekly food basket. Food Policy. 30: pp1 - 19 Reynolds,N., Fischer, C., & Hartmann, M. (2009) Determinants of sustainable business relationships in selected German agri-food chains. British Food Journal. 111(8): pp776-793 Ricketts Hein, J., Ilbery, B., Kneafsey, M., (2006), Distribution of Local Food Activity in England and Wales: An Index of Food Relocalization , Regional Studies, Vol. 40.3, pp. 289 301 Robson, C. (1993) Real world research : a resource for social scientists and practitioner-

109

researchers. Oxford: Blackwell. Sacks, J. (2002) The Money Trail. London: New Economics Foundation. Sage, C. (2003) Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative good food networks in south-west Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies. 19: pp 4760 Saltmarsh, N., (2009), Making Local Food Work supply chain development: a new local and organic food depot f or London? Report on research and consultation on viability and options [online]. East Anglia Food Link & Making Local Food Work. Available from: http://www.makinglocalfoodwork.co.uk/about/ds/eastangliafoodlink.cfm [Date accessed: 11/12/09] Saltmarsh, N., (2009)a, Making Local Food Work supply chain brokerage: more local food for Cambridge University - Report on brokerage activity and outcomes [online]. East Anglia Food Link & Making Local Food Work Available from: http://www.makinglocalfoodwork.co.uk/about/ds/learning.cfm [Date accessed: 11/12/09] Schonhart, M., Penker, M., and Schmid (2009) Sustainable local food production and consumption: Challenges for implementation and research. Outlook on Agriculture. 38(2): pp 175 182 Seyfang, G. (2006) Conscious Consumer Resistance? Local Organic Food Networks Versus The Supermarkets. Norwich: Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment (CSERGE), University of East Anglia. Simm, J. & Wright, C. (2002) Research in Health Care, concepts, designs and methods. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes Ltd. Smith, L. (2009) Climate scientists warn that world is heading for war of the resources [online]. Available from: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5870702.ece [Date accessed 08/05/10] Trewavas, A. (2001) Urban myths of organic farming. Nature. 410: pp409 - 410 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) (1987) Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development 96th plenary meeting, 11 December 1987 [online]. Available from: http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/42/ares42-187.htm [Date accessed: 16/12/09] Venn, L., Kneafsey, M., Holloway, L., Cox, R., Dowler, E., & Tuomainen, H. (2006) Researching European alternative food networks: some methodological considerations. Area. 38(3): pp248 258 Watts, D.C.H., Ilbery, B., & Maye, D. (2005) Making reconnections in agro-food geography: alternative systems of food provision. Progress in Human Geography. 29(1): pp22-40 Williamson, S (2007), Organic market report 2007, Bristol: Soil Association. Yin, R. (2006) Mixed Methods Research: Are the Methods Genuinely Integrated or Merely Parallel? Research in the Schools. 13 (1): pp41-47 Websites: Co-operative enterprise hub: http://www.cooperative.coop/ethicsinaction/communities/fundsandfoundations/The-Co-operative-Fund/

110

Appendices
Appendix one Sustain's 7 principles of sustainable food (http://www.sustainweb.org/sustainablefood/) In our opinion, people and businesses adopting a sustainable approach to food should: 1) Use local, seasonally available ingredients as standard, to minimise energy used in food production, transport and storage. 2) Specify food from farming systems that minimise harm to the environment, such as certified organic produce. 3) Limit foods of animal origin (meat, dairy products and eggs) served, as livestock farming is one of the most significant contributors to climate change, and promote meals rich in fruit, vegetables, pulses, wholegrains and nuts. Ensure that meat, dairy products and eggs are produced to high environmental and animal welfare standards. 4) Exclude fish species identified as most 'at risk' by the Marine Conservation Society, and choose fish only from sustainable sources - such as those accredited by the Marine Stewardship Council. 5) Choose Fairtrade-certified products for foods and drinks imported from poorer countries, to ensure a fair deal for disadvantaged producers. 6) Avoid bottled water and instead serve plain or filtered tap water in reusable jugs or bottles, to minimise transport and packaging waste. 7) Promote health and well-being by cooking with generous portions of vegetables, fruit and starchy staples like wholegrains, cutting down on salt, fats and oils, and cutting out artificial additives.

111

Appendix two
Note: the questions used for this research were:10 & 11 on the buyer and 12 & 13 on the grower sections (see below).

Survey conducted with sustainable food practitioners in Greater Manchester


1. Name of Group:............................................................................ 2. Contact person/interviewee:............................................................................ 3. Phone no......................................................... 4. Email address........................................................ 5. Address:............................................................................................................................. ............................................................................................................................................... 6. Could you briefly describe the work of your organisation relating to food? ............................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................... ............................................................................................................................................... 7. Would you describe your work as (Tick boxes): Growing: Distribution: Retail: Food preparation/cooking; Awareness Raising/ Education: Other: ............................................................................ Potential buyers section: 8. Are you/would you be interested in sourcing locally produced seasonal organic food? yes/no 9. Have you ever tried to source locally produced organic food?: Yes/No 10.a) If yes what obstacles/problems have you encountered? b) If no what are the factors that stop you from sourcing local produced seasonal organic food? 11. Is there anything that you think would make it easier for you to source locally produced food? Growers section: 8. What do you produce? 9. How do you sell your produce? to a wholesaler; through a co-op; direct to the customer; direct to the consumer (box scheme, farmers market etc.) 10. Do you sell any of your produce to Manchester based buyers? If so what percentage? 11. If no, have you ever tried to sell your produce to Manchester based buyers? 12. What are the problems that you encounter, or that you think other people might encounter, with trying to sell produce locally (Manchester)? 13. What do you think would make it easier for you, and others, to sell your produce locally (Manchester)?

112

Appendix three
Semi-structured interview guide What a successful trading model for a network of growers and buyers would be, to increase access to sustainable fruit and vegetables in Greater Manchester? Local Organic & Low carbon Fairness addressing the imbalance of margins & power in the current system Accessible to a range of people Financially sustainable

Questions: 1) Can you tell me a bit about the ways that you feel your model achieves these 5 aims for sustainable food? 2) What is most difficult about achieving the 5 aims? 3) What would you say are the key elements of your model that make it function successfully? 4) What lessons have you learned from your experiences - that you would recommend to other groups who are starting out? Practical detail questions if these haven't been covered in the answers to the above: a) Who is involved in decision making (e.g. growers, buyers, consumers) how does this work out re time? b) Criteria for selection of growers local, what they can grow, quantity etc. c) How produce for sale is selected - buyers involved in defining what is grown? Co-ordination between growers? Quality issues?. d) Where you have a range of outlets/buyers how do you decide who gets what produce (is it first come first served). e) How do the finances work if you are acting as a broker does the money come through you? How are the margins shared? f) How is stability provided for both the growers and buyers re contracts/legal issues, commitment to buy/grow quantities, crop failures are dealt with etc.

g) How does distribution work & is it viable? (from producer to end point)

You might also like