No abstract

This paper summarizes the main findings of the GLAMUR project which starts with an apparently simple question: is "local" more sustainable than "global"? Sustainability assessment is framed within a post-normal science perspective, advocating the integration of public deliberation and scientific research. The assessment spans 39 local, intermediate and global supply chain case studies across different commodities and countries. Assessment criteria cover environmental, economic, social, health and ethical sustainability dimensions. A closer view of the food system demonstrates a highly dynamic local-global continuum where actors, while adapting to a changing environment, establish multiple relations and animate several chain configurations. The evidence suggests caution when comparing "local" and "global" chains, especially when using the outcomes of the comparison in decision-making. Supply chains are analytical constructs that necessarily-and arbitrarily-are confined by system boundaries, isolating a set of elements from an interconnected whole. Even consolidated approaches, such as Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), assess only a part of sustainability attributes, and the interpretation may be controversial. Many sustainability attributes are not yet measurable and "hard" methodologies need to be complemented by "soft" methodologies which are at least able to identify critical issues and trade-offs. Aware of these limitations, our research shows that comparing local and global chains, with the necessary caution, can help overcome a priori positions that so far have characterized the debate between "localists" and "globalists". At firm level, comparison between "local" and "global" chains could be useful to identify best practices, benchmarks, critical points, and errors to avoid. As sustainability is not a status to achieve, but a never-ending process, comparison and deliberation can be the basis of a "reflexive governance" of food chains.

No abstract

No abstract

Between aspirations and reality Making farming, food systems and rural areas more resilient, sustainable and equitable

Summary CAP Reform and Innovation: The Role of Learning and Innovation Networks The technological and organisational solutions the agricultural sector has undertaken in the past are not always compatible with the constraints and opportunities that the rural economy and society will face in the future. There is growing agreement that the goal of sustainability cannot be fulfilled without a profound change in the way the economy is organised. Innovation policies are among the most suitable instruments for this purpose. The article, based on the SOLINSA conceptual framework, adopts a network approach to innovation policies. Based on empirical evidence collected from case studies across Europe in the first phase of the project, the paper proposes the concept of Learning and Innovation Networks for Sustainable Agriculture (LINSA). LINSA are defined as ‘networks of producers, customers, experts, Non‐Governmental Organisations, Small and Medium Enterprises, local administrations and components of the formal Agricultural Knowledge System (AKS), that are mutually engaged with common goals for sustainable agriculture and rural development – cooperating, sharing resources and co‐producing new knowledge by creating conditions for communication'. The article proposes that LINSA be considered as policy devices – in line with the European Innovation Partnership initiative – to foster innovation in the direction of sustainability goals as advocated by Europe 2020 strategy.

Purpose: The paper explores the role of boundary work and boundary objects in enhancing learning and innovation processes in hybrid multi-actor networks for sustainable agriculture ({LINSA}).Design/Methodology/Approach: Boundary work in {LINSA} is analysed on the basis of six case studies carried out in {SOLINSA} project under a common methodology. In developing typologies of boundary work and objects, a grounded approach is used.Findings: {LINSA} analysis demonstrates the dynamic character, diverse forms and multiple functions of boundary work and objects in three domains: learning, innovation, and sustainability. Addressing specific types of goals and actors leads to specific types of boundary work and boundary objects. Context-appropriate boundary work allows aligning differing actor attitudes, gaining increased external support, and developing {LINSA}. The concepts of boundary work and boundary objects are relevant in a broad range of divergent {LINSA} settings. Boundary work has its limitations, but its facilitation supports reaching {LINSA} goals.Practical Implications: The paper proposes recognising context-appropriate forms of boundary work and skilful use of emerging boundary objects to both promote internal consolidation of {LINSA} and effective external communication to foster learning and innovation for sustainability.Originality/Value: The paper provides insights into the forms, dynamic and outcomes of boundary work in {LINSA} in three key domains: developing shared knowledge base, co-producing innovation and negotiating sustainability

No abstract