World Food Policy Volume 2, Number 1, Spring 2015 | Page 59

World Food Policy

joint opportunities as well as constraints
and responsibilities (DeLind 2002).
According to Hinrichs (2000), it is not
necessarily easy to disaggregate the
market interests gained by farmers and
consumers through direct transactions,
from more social and civic interests, as
all are embedded.

In France, it is noted that
producers in short chains choose
practices that are meaningful with
regard to the environment, allowing
them to communicate more easily and
that they can turn to greater advantage
in their direct relationship with the
consumer, such as diversification of fruit
and vegetable varieties. In Britany, the
proportion of organic farmers among
producers selling to consumers is
reportedly 30% compared to 15% for atfarm sales (Redlingshöfer 2008).

Finally, when the place of food
production is close to where the food is
consumed, farmers face more directly
the recipients of the shaded health and
environmental costs (i.e., externalities)
of their actions. The consequences of
unsustainable production will be more
“visible” and easy to sanction by local
institutions (Princen 1997).

associated with niche markets, i.e., for
organic markets. Achieving success
stories in terms of quality management,
farmer, and intra-chain coordination
for local produce (i.e., with geographical
indications), without damaging the interpersonal relationships and commitments
which guarantee long-term efforts in
terms of quality, remains a challenge for
many. In the European-funded project
SUSCHAIN which worked in seven
European countries (two cases per
country) (Wiskerke 2003), it is stated
that a small “sustainability” gain within
the 95% (normalized and concentrated
markets) may have a larger overall impact
than a larger “sustainability” gain within
the 5% (typified by producer cooperation
and more direct interactions).

As mentioned above, the
literature on labels indicates that
credence attributes generate information
asymmetries and suppliers’ risks of
cheating, which cannot be satisfactorily
tacked by trust and reputation, and
which require credible labeling based on
verifiable procedures and standards.

Even though studies comparing
the cost disaggregation in short versus
long food chains are scarce, the available
ones show that specialization according
to comparative advantage and economies
of scale as regards production, processing,
and logistics may actually lower the costs
of food produced at a distance, even in
terms of energy (Schlich and Fleissner
2005).
Besides,
centering
on
geographical proximity and advocating
short food miles (i.e., kilometric distance
between producer and final consumer—
see Weber and Scott 2008) has been
criticized for the risk of defensive localism

d. The limits of proximity and the
advantages of standards

Mostly by definition, there is a
geographical limit to the efficiency of
face-to-face interactions, even when it
is supplemented by organized proximity,
modern technologies of communication,
and temporary geographical proximity
at crucial stages of the transaction or
innovation processes (Torre and Rallett
2005). Direct sales are commonly
58