Participative assessment of agroecological short food supply chains and proposals for improvement: a case study of Andalusia (Spain)

Depósito de investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ “This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Agroecology and Sustainable Food Systems on 2024, available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/21683565.2024.2311124.” 1 Participative assessment of agroecological short food supply chains and proposals for improvement: a case study of Andalusia (Spain) Alberto Matarán Ruiza, Jose María López Medinab, César de la Cruzb, Rafael Fuentes-Guerra Soldevillab, Marta Soler Montielc, Irene de Hondd, Guillermo Mozo Peñalverd, Juan Manuel Arcosd, and Josefa Sánchez Contrerase aDepartment of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Granada, Granada, Andalucía, Spain; bGranada ofice, Hábitat 4 SCA, Granada, Andalucía, Spain; cDepartment of Applied Economy, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Andalucía, Spain; dDepartment of Organic Agriculture, AGAPA – Andalusian Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries Development, Seville, Andalucía, Spain; eDepartment of Sociology, University To cite this article: Al b e r t o M a t a r á n R u i z , J o s e M a r í a L ó p e z M e d i n a , C é s a r d e l a Cruz , Ra f a e l F u e n t e s - G u e rr a S o l d ev ill a , M a r t a S o l e r M o n t i e l , I r e n e d e H o nd , G u ill e rm o M o z o P e ñ a l ve r , J u a n M a nu e l A r c o s & J o s ef a S á n c h e z C o n t r e r a s ( 21 Fe b 2024 ) : P a r t i c i p a t i ve a ss e ss m e n t o f ag r o ec o l og i c a l s h o r t f oo d s upp l y c h a i n s a nd pr o p o s a l s f o r i mpr o ve m e n t : a c a s e s t ud y o f A nd a l u s i a ( S p a i n ) , A gro ec o l og y and S u s t a i nab l e F ood S y s t e m s , D O I : 10 . 1080 / 21683565 . 2024 . 2311124 ABSTRACT This article presents the participative assessment and design of proposals for the development and consolidation of agroecological short food supply chains (SFSCs) in Andalusia (southern Spain). The results show the problems and the possible solutions for agroecological SFSCs according to the agroecological innovation that has strengthened Andalusian agroecological initiatives and networks. The agroecological SFSC initiatives that make up collective networks are recognized as alternatives to the global agri-food systems but they have to scale-up to replace the hegemonic system. However, there are many factors that complicate this scaling-up process and the medium and long-term survival of the agroecological SFCSs. Institutional support is needed to reinforce the collective processes that are ongoing in Andalusia. Keywords Agroecology; local food; agroecological short food supply chains; participatory methodologies Introduction Guaranteeing a reliable food supply to the public has always been a strategic objective (Toledo and Barrera-Bassols 2008). Since the mid-20th century, the industrialization of agri-food directed to international markets has been the dominant strategy. Food production has become an increasingly globalized activity characterized by greater intensification in production, increasing specialization and complexity in supply chains and greater concentration of ownership by big corporations (Woods 2005). One of the main features of this model is the predominance of longer, more complex food supply chains in which farmers as producers are separated from consumers by a series of intermediaries and corporations. This way, local food supplies have been weakened in favor of global markets and corporations in an agri-food system which is extremely energy dependent and contributes greatly to climate change (IPCC 2022). The current situation, which has been affected by the climate crisis, the pandemic and the war in Ukraine has thrust food security and sovereignty to the center of a socio-political debate in which the rural and agricultural world is rebelling against depopulation and the socioeconomic crisis faced by the countryside mainly in the North of the World. In addition to this, we are starting to experience new types of shortages of energy, materials, and food, resulting in spiraling inflation that is putting pressure on the markets and people’s budgets. We need to strengthen local agri-food resilience to adapt to this new situation by boosting alternative forms of food supply (McGreevy et al. 2022). Guaranteeing a sustainable form of food supply at a local level is a new strategic challenge (Altieri 2018; Gliessman 2016; González De Molina and Lopez- Garcia 2021) that combines the agroecological transition of farms with scaling-up and the territorial reintegration of sustainable distribution networks at a bioregional level (Fanfani and Matarán 2020). 2 The influential International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report published in (2009) indicated that the strategy that would make moving toward food sustainability possible was agroecology. In 2018, the FAO launched their “Scaling-up Agroecology Initiative” affirming that “Transitions require innovation in policies, rural institutions and partnerships, as well as in the production, processing, marketing and consumption of nutritious food, leading to sustainability and equity throughout the entire food and agricultural system” (FAO 2018). The recent report produced by the IPCC (2022) confirms the reduction in the productive capacity of agroecosystems and the need for scaling-up to make the agroecological transition possible. This transition has also been identified by the European Union as a priority in both the Green Deal and structural funds, such as the Recovery Plans using Next Generation funds and Horizon Europe 2030, which is a new European Union (EU) research and innovation (R+I) framework program for 2021– 2027. Therefore, it is understood that boosting short food supply chains (herein-after SFSCs) and local consumption is both an option and a necessity under the current circumstances. According to previous research (Matarán Ruiz et al. 2021; Sevilla-Guzmán et al. 2012; Yacamán Ochoa et al. 2019), by “short food supply chains” we mean those in which there are no more than three agents between the producer and the end consumer, including these two agents themselves, and in which the definition of the consumption and production model is based on these agents. It is important to note that online direct sales by farmers is also included in this definition. This definition matches the proposal of the Regulation of the European Parliament and Council on support for rural development through the European Agricultural Fund for European Development (EAFRD). Article 2 of this regulation highlights that a “short supply chain” is a supply chain in which a limited number of economic agents is involved, and cooperation, local economic development and close geographical and social relationships between producers and consumers are established. In order to provide an alternative to the current global food system, we need to highlight some of the main issues with this definition, as some global food systems only have one intermediary, and therefore they apparently meet the requirements to be an SFSC (Whatmore, Stassart, and Renting 2003). The first major difference between global food systems and SFSCs is related to geographical distances between the consumers and where the food is produced. In the case of SFSCs, this should be a short. Another notable difference is related to organizational issues such as participation and horizontality, which are essential for the governance of SFSCs (Baysse-Lainé and Perrin 2017). Moreover, SFSCs are also based on an equitable redistribution of power and of added value within the chain, including decisions on pricing policies (Renting, K, and Banks 2003). In 2011, the European Committee of the Regions ruled that rural develop-ment strategies (CER 2011) were needed to develop local food systems and short food supply chains. In 2019, the European Economic and Social Committee affirmed that “short supply chains and agroecology are the new horizons for European agricultures” (CESE 2019, 2). In addition to this, over the last few decades, numerous decentralized agroecological socio-territorial innovations related to SFSCs have appeared all over Europe and many of them have been developed according to partici-patory processes (Gallar et al. 2019; Sanz Cañada and Yacamán Ochoa 2022; Yacamán Ochoa et al. 2019; Yacamán et al. 2020). Among other objectives, SFSCs also support recovery of economic, social and geographical links between food products and rural knowledge, local varieties, local culture, as well as the agroecological and climatic conditions of bioregions (Fanfani and Matarán 2020). A comprehensive definition of SFSCs highlights not just economic and social impacts but also addresses environmental and ethical problems from a bioregional perspective (Fanfani and Matarán 2020), in order that they become a real strategy for achieving truly resilient food systems. Those will be called in this paper as agroecological SFSCs according to the accepted definitions of agroecology, local food systems, and SFSCs (Altieri 2018; Gliessman 2016; González De Molina and Lopez-Garcia 2021; Vaarst et al. 2018; Yacamán Ochoa et al. 2019). The attention that these innovations are receiving is growing as a result of their potential contribution to over-coming the challenge of providing local sustainable food and developing SFSCs. Citizen and SFSCs involvement is essential for this development, so governance and participation become a key question 3 (Gallar et al. 2019; Vara Sánchez et al. 2021). This includes participatory processes like the one described in this article that have not been broadly considered in the existing scientific literature. The growing demand for healthy and locally produced food, provided it is affordable, has been considered as a valuable opportunity for the development of agroecological SFSCs. This demand has to be met and increased through the scaling-up of agroecological SFSCs (Ferguson et al. 2019) and developing food hubs, which, according to previous research (Yacamán et al. 2020), has to be carried out by taking the following key issues of SFSCs into account: improving regional food logistics and distribution using a collective approach (Mittal, Krejci, and Craven 2018; Yacamán Ochoa et al. 2019); improving managerial capabilities and supply chain infra-structure for aggregating products for regional markets (Cleveland et al. 2014; Palacios-Argüello, Morganti, and Gonzalez-Feliu 2017); organizing efficient transport (Day-Farnsworth and Miller 2014); developing the exchange of know-how, skills and information (Swagemakers et al. 2019; Yacamán Ochoa et al. 2019); encouraging market differentiation and consumer driven changes (Boons et al. 2013). By considering these premises, the main objective of this article is to present an assessment of the agroecological SFSCs in Andalusia. By using the field work carried out between January and March 2021, a joint assessment has been created with the Andalusian agroecological SFSCs, which has enabled the main difficulties faced by the local networks and initiatives to be identified, as well as highlighting possible improvements that the members of this sector are interested in. Using this assessment, we have summarized the main problems of the Andalusian agroecological SFSCs sector and established its main strengths. Finally, according to this assessment, we have worked in a participatory manner to develop collective strategies and propose public policies that rise to the challenge of promoting local agroecological food systems (González De Molina and Lopez-Garcia 2021) in Andalusia. However, the research presented here is an initial phase of working in a participatory and open manner, toward the construction of a system that involves scaling up the current systems of production, distribution and consumption of local organic products. This process could take steps toward better coordination, synergy, and use of collective resources (Marsden, Hebinck, and Mathijs 2018; Sanz Cañada and Yacamán Ochoa 2022a; Swagemakers et al. 2019; Yacamán Ochoa et al. 2019; Yacamán et al. 2020) and a participatory assessment and the development of collective strategies and demands for public policies must be a previous activity. Materials and methods Case study: Andalusia The Autonomous Region of Andalusia, in the south of Spain, has a total surface area is 87,600 km2, of which 36,348 km2 are farmland and 13,693 km2 are mainly used for grazing, according to the Institute of Statistics and Cartology of Andalusia (2019). Andalusia also boasts a sizable area for organic agriculture and livestock, which was 13,697 km2 in 2021 compared with only 9,732 km2 being used for this end in 2011 (Institute of Statistics and Cartology of Andalusia, 2019). Agri-livestock farming makes up 10% of the Andalusian Gross Value Added and employment (Institute of Statistics and Cartology of Andalusia, 2021) and 16% of the Gross Value Added if we consider the whole agri-food system (CAP 2019). Therefore, agri-food ventures are important drivers of employment and integration in Andalusia, especially in a rural context. And, even though most of the output is exported, agriculture is responsible for the local food supply, which is a central issue in view of the current instability surrounding the geopolitical arena and health issues. Methodology This research was carried out during the COVID pandemic. Therefore, we had to adapt to the restrictions imposed, and in order to carry out a wide-ranging participatory assessment in an extremely diverse sector, this work was done completely online using a mixed methodology (quantitative and qualitative) based on three techniques: A survey (questionnaire), a semi-structured inter-view and a participatory-prospective workshop. 4 Survey As its name indicates, a survey is based on a questionnaire that can be defined as a document that brings together the indicators of the variables included in the objective of the survey in a structured manner (Rojas, Fernández, and Pérez 2000). Specifically, in this case, an online questionnaire using a semi-structured format was designed, with different types of questions (open questions, closed question and multiple-choice questions). The objective was to obtain and compile the largest amount of data and information possible, making the questionnaire as easy to use and as straightforward as possible for those who would respond to it. When drafting of the text for the questions, we started out by using questionnaires that we have employed on other occasions (Yacamán Ochoa et al. 2019; Yacamán et al. 2020) and considering the key issues for SFSCs that we have described in the introduction. The survey is structured using concise quantitative and qualitative ques-tions. Firstly, a series of questions to define the participants was proposed, which includes questions focused on information about company size, system of ownership, legal status and other details that are important for the study. Afterward, by focusing on the key elements for agroecological SFSCs, six blocks of closed and open questions were designed, based on the qualitative aspect of the variables and each individual’s opinion of the current situation, including the priority given to the improvement of each of these issues. The blocks of questions are: (I) Production and processing (II) Commercialisation (III) Quality guarantees and seals (IV) Promotion, dissemination, and demand management. (V) Relationships with public authorities. (VI) Collective action, organization, and innovation. Finally, an open question about the impact of the COVID health crisis on each agroecological SFSC project was added. In conclusion, it is important to highlight the fact that before structuring the final format of the questionnaire, a pretest or pilot test was created and responded by three contacts to enable us to determine whether the questions asked were correctly written and whether they could be understood by all the individuals involved. interview This interview is designed to be unstructured or open, using generic questions that enable the interviewees to openly express their opinions. These questions are followed by more specific ones if the interviewee needs guidance to provide more opinions. As a result of the health measures imposed by COVID 19, the interviews took place online and they lasted between 60 and 90 minutes, approximately. The script was designed in line with the different sections of the questionnaire. These are the questions that characterized the interviews: (1) - What are your strengths or what do you do best? What innovations have you introduced to your venture? Examples of questions to ask about sales channels if the answers are not forthcoming: Direct farm sales Local markets, Wholesale market, Distributors, Restaurants-shops, E-commerce, Consumer groups and consumer cooperatives. (2) - What problems do you have? Examples of questions to ask if the answers are not forthcoming: Legislation/Regulations, Logistics, Costs (supplies, production, processing, distribution, publicity, 5 etc.), Competition in the sector, Marketing/advertising, low levels of production and diversity, Lack of consumer interest. (3) - What are your needs, ambitions, projects? Have you previously received public grants or subsidies? Which ones? Examples of questions to ask about sales channels if the answers are not forthcoming: Direct farm sales, Local markets, Distributors, Restaurants-shops, E-commerce, Consumer groups and consumer cooperatives. (4) - Do you belong to any networks? Do you think working in a network could be a good idea for your venture? Do you have any ambitions or projects that could be worked on in a network? Would you be interested in working in a regional network? Are you aware of what you would need to do to make this happen? The participatory-prospective workshop This is a group technique, which was also carried out online to avoid the risks presented by COVID. The space for discussion that is generated in a workshop must be an environment that is conducive to encouraging all the participants to share their opinions with the group. There are numerous techniques that can be used in a workshop. In this case, the workshop lasted for 4 hours, and it started by sharing the results obtained in both the interviews and the surveys, including a summarized description of the main challenges and problems faced by the Andalusian agroecological SFSCs and the strategies that they have described in the interviews. For the discussion phase, a prospective technique (years and years) was chosen that uses a brainstorming session about the participants’ dreams and visions for the next five years. In this session, the participants were addressed to consider as a starting point the strategies that they are currently using to respond to the problems and challenges that they are facing. This way, their dreams and visions could be their perspective of the future success of their strategies. Finally, the session closed with more brainstorming about new proposals to bring about these ideas and visions, by both working together collectively and potentially with support from the public authorities. All the dreams, visions and proposals were considered in order to have a broader understanding of the agroecological SFSCs and to avoid leaving anything out. The level of participation increased according to the application sequence of the three methodological tools. It starts with a preliminary step based on the questionnaire that is less interactive and gives fewer possibilities for the agroecological SFSCs to give a complete and open opinion, but it is an easy and less time-consuming possibility for a broad range of actors to be considered in the assessment including also their 214 comments in the final open questions. The second level of participation is achieved in the semi-structured interview where the selected agroecological SFSCs can share deep analysis and opinions. Finally, the third level is the most advanced in terms of participation as it allows the agroecological SFSCs to be part of a collective activity along with other actors related to the sector so the output is the result of the interaction of the actors that are building a common view. sample selection Flexible criteria were used to create the sample as only the different agents that were involved in short food supply chains of organic products were required. In addition to this it was proved that the initiatives participating in the study fulfill some of the basic criteria that allows us to call them agroecological SFSCs according to our previous description in the introduction. The guide to Andalusian organic food and drink sales points, published in July 2020 by the Council of Agriculture, Fisheries and Sustainable Development from the Andalusian Regional Government (hereinafter, Junta de Andalucía) that includes 250 sales points, is considered as the main reference of the total organic sales sector in Andalusia. This list was supplemented with other references gathered by the work group according to previous knowledge of the SFSCs in Andalusia that were not included in the institutional guide that had not arrived to all 331 sales points. Among all these sales points we have considered a broad approach to include in our research the 237 SFSCs that comply with some agroecological characteristics according to previous research (Altieri 2018; 6 Gliessman 2016; González De Molina and Lopez-Garcia 2021; Vaarst et al. 2018; Yacamán Ochoa et al. 2019). In addition to this, based on our knowledge of the territory and other earlier pieces of research (Sevilla- Guzmán et al. 2012; Yacamán Ochoa et al. 2019; Yacamán et al. 2020), and in order to attend to all the realities within the agroecological SFSCs, we structured the list by using the following categories: A.- Consolidated networks/networks of agroecological SFSCs in the process of becoming consolidated. These include the networks of organizations working with exchange or cooperation, organic markets and networks of shops and local food systems: (1) They create SFSC’s and boost the SFSC’s of their members. (2) They have individual members (producers and/or consumers) and collective members (associations and/or cooperatives) (3) Their viability does not directly depend on either commercialization or sales. (4) Their scope is at least provincial. (5) They integrate or interact with regional and/or national networks. If they meet these five criteria, they are considered to be a network, which is defined as a consolidated network if it has existed for more than five years, and a network in the process of becoming consolidated if it has started more recently. B.- Cooperative experiences of the integrated management of agroecologi-cal SFSCs. (1) They develop their own SFSCs even though they also use those belong-ing to other organizations. (2) They mainly have individual members (producers and/or consumers) (3) Their viability depends on sales and commercialization. (4) Their main territory/scope is at least at a county level. (5) They mainly interact with provincial and/or regional networks. (6) They develop complete SFSC management systems that cover everything from production to commercialization and sales. They tend to integrate production and consumption networks, including retail. C.- Consolidated SFSCs agroecological experiences/SFSCs agroecological experiences in the process of becoming consolidated. These are experiences in which the main activity is related to the specific links of the SFSC (production, processing, commercialization, consumption) or on transversal areas (training, promotion, consultancy, etc.) (1) They create their own SFSCs and use those created by other organizations. (2) Their members are mainly individuals (producers and/or consumers) (3) Their viability depends on sales and commercialization. (4) Their main territory or scope is at least at a county level. (5) They mainly interact with provincial and/or regional networks. (6) Their main activity is related to the specific stages of the SFSC (production, processing, commercialization, consumption) or in transversal areas (education, innovation, consultancy) As in the case of the networks, if they fulfill these five criteria, they are considered to be an agroecological SFSC experience, which is defined as a consolidated experience if it has been operating for over five years, and in the process of becoming consolidated if it is a more recently created experience. Between February and March 2021, the survey was sent to the whole list and 70 replies were received (23% category A, 48,5% B, and 28,4% C). Considering the existing sales points 7 that comply with the criteria for being agroecological SFSCs (237), 29,5% of the universe participated in the questionnaire. The networks (category A) that participated in the survey represent 43 experiences (category C), so including this, the total participation was 113 experiences (47,7%). Between February and April 22 semi-open interviews were held with a selection of networks and experiences (see Annex I). The selection criteria included a geographical approach in order to cover all the provinces of Andalusia. In addition to this, the interviews focused on collective organizations including those who did not fill out the questionnaire. According to this, the total participation represents 100% of the collective experiences recognized by the administration and the research team. Finally the interviews also represent the three categories that we have described above such as: the only regional organization of agroecological SFSCs, the Andalusian Federation of Organic Consumption and Production (FACPE); the existing agroecological net-works and the associations organizing farmers markets in Sevilla, Córdoba, Granada, Almería, Málaga, and Cádiz; the existing associations of agroecological shops in Granada and Córdoba; representatives of three cooperative experiences of the integrated management of agroeco-logical SFSCs (Las Torcas Coop in Granada, La Reverde in Cádiz, and Subbética Ecológica in Córdoba); the pioneer agroecological SFSCs representing consolidated experiences (Almocafre in Córdoba and La Ortiga in Sevilla); particular cases such as networks in the rural areas that are not still consolidated (Alvelal in Almería, Co-Marca Guadix Natural, and Inspira Territorio and Asociación Matilde in Huelva), an innovative cooperative mill producing pasta and other products in Málaga that is also not consolidated, and finally a cooperative working with migrant integration in Granada (Brotes del Genil). Finally, on the 18th of March 2021, a participatory workshop took place with 36 participants including 15% category A, 18% B, and 26% C. The remaining 41% represents other agents, such as consultants, researchers, and environ-mentalist associations. There are no concrete data of the members of the networks, associations, and cooperatives, but we assume that most of the agroecological SFSCs experiences are part of those organizations. However, as we have included 100% of the collective experiences in the participatory process and as we also received a long list of responses by individual experiences in the survey, we were able to learn, directly or indirectly (through these collective structures), the opinions of most of the agroecological SFSCs in Andalusia. We therefore believe that the study carried out really represents the current situation of agroecological SFSCs in Andalusia. Once all the data from the surveys, interviews and workshop had been collected, the information was organized using the interview blocks as a foundation, even though the contributions from the interviews and the workshop have identified the need to include new blocks of questions. As a result, the final framework of key questions used for the structure is as follows: production; processing, commercialization, consumption; promotion, demand, dissemination and demand management, internal organization, training and consultancy, digitalization; financing; relationships with public authorities; relationships with networks and other actors; and finally, the impact of COVID 19. Results Production In the interviews the question of land tenure appears to be very important as 56% of the agents have access to land through renting and land lending. It can condition medium and long-term investment in medium-sized and large-scale improvements and infrastructure. In addition to this, as presented in Figure 1, the agroecological SFSCs have positively rated agroecological management and rate technical-economic management as acceptable but indicate that improvements in equipment and machinery, cost control, infrastructure management and the profitability of farms as being priorities. The interviews corroborate this question, and one interviewee stated, “we are fine, but we need to be much better.” In both the interviews and the workshop, one demand was always considered by the participants: the need to have full time professional producers instead of part-time jobs for scaling-up on both production and commercial levels. The agroecological SFSCs need producers who are able to follow 8 production plans and provide the quality required. According to the participants their main focus should be on overcoming these problems. Therefore, the interviews showed that the producers who work on a less professional basis, or those who work part time, appear as supplementary suppliers, and/or they participate in commercialization strategies in which guaranteeing a specific quantity of a specific product is not required. Furthermore, the agroecological SFSCs have indicated in the interviews and workshops that there is a need for new production projects and more agroecological producers. As well as being a useful way in which to add new producers, the cooperative networks and experiences interviewed are meeting places for producers; these spaces enable them to increase their professionalism, and they also encourage synergies between small projects and people who are less involved in agroecology. So cooperative networks and experiences enhance coordination and the exchange of information, experiences, and knowledge. Even evaluations of the programming agreed take place in these spaces. Figure 1. Rate the profitability of your project. Source: own elaboration In addition, according to the participants greater product diversity needs to be incorporated into the SFSCs strategies that are carried out in order to provide a more attractive supply of products. This could improve the income of the producers and the organizations that run the SFSCs, which is in line with one of the main challenges considered by the participants: improving the profitability of the agroecological production. Processing The use of shared facilities for food processing is one of the processing strategies and possible public policies that was mentioned by the organizations and individuals who provided information for this assessment. The existing shared projects provide access to infrastructure, equipment and machinery for small producers, which would otherwise be difficult and not particularly accessible. Generally, the collective projects that participated in the research also solve the problems related to the legalization and acquisition of health and safety permits, which can be shared in this case. Furthermore, these initiatives facilitate the creation of new products which increase the diversity of the products offered and provide added value to fresh produce. Therefore, the participants considered that these workshops have the potential to become meeting spaces in which producers can interact and share commercialization strategies, logistics and know-how. The interviews mentioned that the producers have sometimes had to adapt or build machinery which is suitable for the scale at which they are working, the type of product they have or the type of commercialization strategy that they use. The agroecological SFSCs also considered that this knowledge is extremely valuable for the processing of new organic foods and to develop public policies and technological innovation strategies. 15 addressing this question so in this aspect they consider mainly that the solution should be the support of public institutions with communication campaigns and other measures. The aspect of public institutions is very important for the agroecological SFSCs. There were several opinions and proposals in the participatory process related to green procurement and the use of local products in the public provision of food in schools, hospitals, resthomes, etc. Previous research (Soares, Martínez-Milan, and Caballero 2017; Yacamán Ochoa et al. 2019) has shown that stronger institutional support would help to integrate the consumption of local food into institutions run by the government, thus improving the quality of the food provided in these spaces at a lower financial and environmental cost. In addition to this, green procurement would help to increase the awareness on agroecological products, the consumption in agroecological SFSCs, and finally to scale-up as it guarantees a continuous demand all year round and promotes the integration of more actors into collective projects (Yacamán Ochoa et al. 2019). Meanwhile, the agroecological SFSCs, continue working in each territory, albeit with major difficulties and support from the public authorities that is clearly insufficient. In this research, we have proven, once again, that there is a lack of regulations and institutional support, and what does exist is poorly adapted to the characteristics of the agroecological sector. In addition to this, the agroecological SFSCs claim that the required levels of demand are not met as a result of a lack of institutional support, and because there is a lack of suitable marketing channels for their products. The COVID pandemic was a clear example of this reality. On the one hand, some of the restrictions were made that worked against the agroecological SFSCs without any reason, such as the cancellation of open-air farmers markets in Andalusia. And on the other, the sector survived and even increased sales because of its capacity to supply door to door food and to demonstrate that the local organic products are healthy. Finally, the agroecological SFSCs function with multi-level and multi-actor networks, but the participants described problems on workforce, training, and networking capacities, as the experiences are still small, and they do not have financial resources to increase the amount of professionals involved. Conclusions The research that has been carried out has shown that there is a serious need for the creation of collective structures where governance is participatory and horizontal, and where different actors come together with the help of public institutions. This will provide greater innovation and strength to face the current challenges (Marsden, Hebinck, and Mathijs 2018; Swagemakers et al. 2019). The organizations need to be functional and not just a means to an end. We cannot forget that there is a greater need than there has ever been for the practices of eco-social transition to meet the daily needs of our communities. Agroecology is clearly the basis for and the starting point of the rest of the transitional process as it provides solutions to meet the most basic need: food. This takes us back to the founding principles of this sector: the land and the bioregions (Fanfani and Matarán 2020). In their fight to not succumb to the onslaught of the industrialized organic production of large companies, the agroecological SFSCs need to avoid falling into the use of practices that “conventionalise” it. The new organizations that appear and those that have been running for a while need to maintain the values of agroecology, learn together, and become an integrated agroecological sector, making the most of their experience and innovation (Vaarst et al. 2018) and their capacity to build collective projects and networks. Following the innovative and successful examples in other territories (Lioutas and Charatsari 2020; Mier et al. 2018; Mittal, Krejci, and Craven 2018; Sanz Cañada and Yacamán Ochoa 2022a), the wide diversity of agroecological SFSCs initiatives that exist at different developmental levels and with different operational styles need to multiply and consolidate while maintaining their democratic and participatory character in the specific context of each territory (González De Molina and Lopez-Garcia 2021). However, they also need to integrate themselves into networks outside the local area, to create a powerful network that can provide dialogue, representativeness, and action. 16 As the participants indicated in the participatory process, by viewing the strength and consolidation of the agroecological SFSCs networks and experiences from an organizational and functional perspective, it is clear that scaling-up is required. In other words, the operative integration of the agroecological local food systems (González De Molina and Lopez-Garcia 2021), where the construction of direct relationships between all agents is the main function of these agroecological SFSCs networks and experiences, and, as a result, it should be the main objective of the public authorities when creating support strategies for the agroecological sector. Agroecological SFSCs should first focus on achieving real cooperative practices to solve the problems related to production, processing, transport, commercialization, and consumption, which could help to avoid problems such as the limitations on volume and product diversity, and the inability to provide a regular supply throughout the year (Mittal, Krejci, and Craven 2018; Passaro and Randelli 2022; Sanz and Muchnik 2016). Sharing resources and coordination on a large scale is essential as it emphasizes the values of the independence of the experiences or cells and their ability to learn, innovate and work collectively. Each agroecological SFSCs network needs to create spaces (both physical and digital) for the exchange of production and know-how, and for sharing logistics, training, research, and their collective identities (Perrett and Jackson 2015). If this is achieved, these agroecological SFSCs networks can make the most of the economies of scale, as well as benefiting from the efficiency of sharing resources, the social innovations of agroecology, the value of meeting others and cooperation in the face of the predominance of the competition and the monopolies of the conventional global food system. Those spaces can be considered as Food Hubs or Agroecological Centres according to previous research (Palacios-Argüello, Morganti, and Gonzalez-Feliu 2017; Perrett and Jackson 2015; Yacamán et al. 2020) that show that these hubs create a positive impact on the viability and the stability of small-scale farms as they influence the following basic points: a) investment capability; b) joint planning to satisfy the increase in demand and meet requirements of volume and range of products; c) support in tasks like efficient marketing and product development, customer service, commercial negotiation, economic management, etc.; d) reduction in expenses related to logistics and distribution (frequency of deliveries, suitable dispersion of sales points, cold chains, storage facilities, processing and distribution etc.). These strategies could enable the inefficiencies and contradictions of the agroecological SFSCs to be reduced. This will make it easier for these experiences to multiply, reaching more territories and people, and, as a result, compete against the hegemony of the conventional global food system. The networks must be able to organize themselves if they are going to develop these spaces. But even though they can still be independent from and even in opposition to public institutions, as we indicated earlier, the development of public policies and the provision of resources from different authorities is necessary. As the agroecological SFSCs affirm, developing good relationships with public authorities is required in order to reduce the number of obstacles which these networks come up against and to make them more dynamic (Sanz Cañada and Yacamán Ochoa 2022a). All of this needs to be developed with the help of the public, in other words, in a participatory manner, so that it will be much easier to involve all the agents in the collective projects and networks. According to this research, this participatory manner has to start from the very beginning: a participatory assessment. On the other hand, experience shows serious democratic integration problems in the organization of both the collective projects and especially scaling-up, as the organizations become more conventional when they increase in size, and they move away from the democratic precepts of agroecology (Yacamán et al. 2020). It is therefore necessary to promote the internal governance of the agroecological SFSCs networks so that they can scale up, encouraging the creation of relationships based on trust and mutual support that reduce competition and fight isolation. Collective participatory assessments like this research can help start this democratic scaling-up process. 17 Moreover, collective strategies and public policies need to favor co-governance and collaborative management of each agroecological SFSCs network in its corresponding territory. According to this, the biodistrict approach in Italy and other countries (Passaro and Randelli 2022) could be a best practice to imitate in the Andalusian context. In conclusion, the environmental crisis, COVID, wars, the green colonialism of the conventional globalized food system and the increasing gentrification of organic agriculture in the countries of the global north are making the situation worse and making agroecology more difficult. The future is extremely complicated, the institutions should give strong support to agroecology, and the agroecological SFSCs need to group themselves together to react to and be more efficient in a scenario where resources are in short supply. This is especially true for the global south, but it is also an issue in the peripheric territories of the global north and even in the core of the rich countries. Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). Funding This work was supported by the Andalusian Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries Development (AGAPA) Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, fisheries and Sustainable Development, Regional Government of Andalusia (Junta de Andalucía, Spain) [2020 630779]. References Altieri, M. A. 2018. Agroecology: The science of sustainable agriculture. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Baysse-Lainé, A., and C. Perrin. 2017. Les Espaces Agricoles des Circuits de Proximité: Une Lecture Critique de La Relocalisation de l ’ Approvisionnement Alimentaire de Millau. Natures Sciences Sociétés 25 (1):21–35. doi:10.1051/nss/2017017 . Boons, F., C. Montalvo, J. Quist, and M. Wagner. 2013. Sustainable innovation, business models and economic performance: An overview. Journal of Cleaner Production 45:1–8. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.08.013 . Cleveland, D. A., N. M. Müller, A. C. Tranovich, D. N. Mazaroli, and K. Hinson. 2014. Local food hubs for alternative food systems: A case study from Santa Barbara County, California. Journal of Rural Studies 35:26–36. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.03.008 . Comité Económico y Social Europeo. 2019. Promoción de cadenas cortas y alternativas de distribución de alimentos en la UE: el papel de la agroecología. Dictamen de iniciativa 2019/ C353/11. Comité Europeo de las Regiones. 2011. Sistemas de alimentos locales, Dictamen 2011/C 104/01 Comité Europeo de las Regiones. Consejería de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Desarrollo Sostenible. 2019. Contribución del sistema agroalimentario a la economía de Andalucía y su importancia respecto al sistema agroalimentario español, Consejería de Agricultura, Ganadería, Pesca y Desarrollo Sostenible, Junta de Andalucía. Day-Farnsworth, L., and M. Miller. 2014. Networking across the supply chain: Transportation innovations in local and regional food systems, Edited by University of Wisconsin-Madison: and Madison. WI, USA: Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems. Fanfani, D., and A. Matarán. 2020. Bioregional planning and design (volume I). Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG. FAO. 2018. Iniciativa para Ampliar la Escala de la Agroecología. https://www.fao.org/agroecol ogy/overview/scaling-up-agroecology-initiative/es/ Ferguson, B. G., M. Aldasoro Maya, O. Giraldo, M. Mier, C. Terán Giménez, and H. Morales. 2019. Special issue editorial: What do we mean by agroecological scaling? Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems 43 (7–8):722–723. doi:10.1080/21683565.2019.1630908 . 18 Gallar, D., H. Saracho-Domínguez, M. G. Rivera-Ferré, and I. Vara-Sánchez. 2019. Eating well with organic food: Everyday (non-monetary) strategies for a change in food paradigms: Findings from Andalusia, Spain. Sustainability 11:1003. doi:10.3390/su11041003 . Gazolla, M., and J. R. de Aquino. 2022. Reinvention of family farming markets in Brazil: The novelty of digital marketing sites and platforms in times of COVID-19. Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems 46 (6):902–927. doi:10.1080/21683565.2022.2072997 . Gliessman, S. 2016. Transforming food systems with agroecology. Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems 40 (3):187–189. doi:10.1080/21683565.2015.1130765 . González De Molina, M., and D. Lopez-Garcia. 2021. Principles for designing agroecology-based local (territorial) agri-food systems: A critical revision. Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems 45 (7):1050–82. doi:10.1080/21683565.2021.1913690 . Instituto de Estadística y Cartografía de Andalucía. 2019. Anuario Estadístico de Andalucía. Junta de Andalucía. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), and United Nations Environment Programme. 2009. Agriculture at a crossroads: Synthesis report. https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/7862 . IPCC. 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability https://www.ipcc. ch/assessment-report/ar6/ Lioutas, E., and C. Charatsari. 2020. Land use policy smart farming and short food supply chains: Are they compatible? Land Use Policy 94 (104541):104–541. doi:10.1016/j.landuse pol.2020.104541 . Marsden, T., P. Hebinck, and E. Mathijs. 2018. Re-building food systems: Embedding assem-blages, infrastructures and reflexive governance for food systems transformations in europe. Food Security 10 (6):1301–09. doi:10.1007/s12571-018-0870-8 . Matarán Ruiz, A., J. M. López Medina, R. Fuentes-Guerra, C. De la Cruz, and M. Soler Montiel. 2021. Diagnóstico de las redes agroecológicas locales de Andalucía y diseño participativo de propuestas de consolidación. In Granada, Agencia de Agricultura y Pesca de Andalucía. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. McGreevy, S. R., C. D. D. Rupprecht, D. Niles, A. Wiek, M. Carolan, G. Kallis, K. Kantamaturapoj, A. Mangnus, P. Jehlička, O. Taherzadeh, et al. 2022. «sustainable agrifood systems for a post-growth world». Nature Sustainability 5(12):1011–17. doi:10. 1038/s41893-022-00933-5 . Mier, M., C. Terán Giménez, O. F. Giraldo, M. Aldasoro, H. Morales, B. G. Ferguson, P. Rosset, and A. Khadse. 2018. Bringing agroecology to scale: Key drivers and emblematic cases. Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems 42 (6):637–65. doi:10.1080/21683565.2018.1443313. Ministerio de Agricultura. 2013. Alimentación y Medio Ambiente (MAAM). Canales cortos de comercialización en el sector agroalimentario. MAAM: Madrid. Mittal, A., C. Krejci, and T. Craven. 2018. Logistics best practices for regional food systems: A review. Sustainability 10 (2):168. doi:10.3390/su10010168 . Palacios-Argüello, J., E. Morganti, and L. Gonzalez-Feliu. 2017. Food hub: Una alternativa para alimentar las ciudades de manera sostenible. Revista Transporte y Territorio 17:10–33. Passaro, A., and F. Randelli. 2022. Spaces of sustainable transformation at territorial level: An analysis of biodistricts and their role for agroecological transitions, agroecology and sustain-able food systems. Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems 46 (8):1198–1223. doi:10.1080/ 21683565.2022.2104421 . Perrett, A., and C. Jackson. 2015. Local food, food democracy, and food hubs. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development 6 (1):7–18. doi:10.5304/jafscd.2015. 061.003 . 19 Renting, H., M. T. K, and J. Banks. 2003. Understanding alternative food networks: Exploring the role of short food supply chains in rural development. Environment and Planning 35 (3):393–411. doi:10.1068/a3510 . Rojas, A. J., J. S. Fernández, and C. Pérez. 2000. Investigar mediante encuestas Fundamentos teóricos y aspectos prácticos. Psicothema 12 (2):320–23. Sanz Cañada, J., and C. Yacamán Ochoa. 2022. Innovación y alimentación sostenible, Políticas y modelos cooperativos de logística y comercialización en Moyano Estrada, E. (coord.): La España rural: retos y oportunidades de futuro, Mediterráneo Económico nº 35. Fundación Cajamar. Sanz, J., and J. Muchnik. 2016. Geographies of origin and proximity: Approaches to local agro-food systems. Culture & History Digital Journal 5 (1):e002. doi:10.3989/chdj.2016.002 . Sevilla-Guzmán, E., M. Soler Montiel, D. Gallar Hernández, I. Vara Sánchez, and A. Calle Collado 2012. Canales cortos de comercialización alimentaria en Andalucía. In Fundación Pública Andaluza Centro de Estudios Andaluces, Consejería de la Presidencia e igualdad, Junta de Andalucía, 164. Spain: Sevilla. Soares, P., M. A. Martínez-Milan, and P. Caballero. 2017. Compra de alimentos de proximidad en los comedores escolares de Andalucía, Canarias y Principado de Asturias. Gaceta sanitaria 31 (6):446– 52. doi:10.1016/j.gaceta.2017.05.015 Swagemakers, P., M. D. Domínguez, P. Milone, F. Ventura, and J. Wiskerke. 2019. Exploring cooperative place-based approaches to restorative agriculture. Journal of Rural Studies 68:191–99. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.12.003 . Toledo, V. M., and N. Barrera-Bassols. 2008. La memoria biocultural: La importancia ecológica de las sabidurías tradicionales. Icaria: Barcelona. Vaarst, M., A. G. Escudero, M. J. Chappell, C. Brinkley, R. Nijbroek, N. A. Arraes, L. Andreasen, A. Gattinger, G. F. De Almeida, D. Bossio, et al. 2018. Exploring the concept of agroecological food systems in a city-region context. Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems 42 (6):686–711. doi:10.1080/21683565.2017.1365321 . Vara Sánchez, I., D. Gallar Hernández, L. García García, N. Morán Alonso, and A. Moragues Faus. 2021. The co-production of urban food policies: Exploring the emergence of new governance spaces in three Spanish cities. Food Policy 103:102–120. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol. 2021.102120 . Whatmore, S., P. Stassart, and H. Renting. 2003. What’s alternative about alternative food networks? Environment and Planning 35 (3):389–91. doi:10.1068/a3621 . Woods, M. 2005. Rural geography: Processes, responses and experiences in rural restructuring. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd. Yacamán, C., A. Matarán Ruiz, R. Mata Olmo, A. Macías Figueroa, and A. Torres Rodríguez. 2020. Peri-Urban organic agriculture and short food supply chains as drivers for strengthen-ing city/region food systems—two case studies in Andalucía, Spain. Land 9 (6):177. doi:10. 3390/land9060177 . Yacamán Ochoa, C., A. Matarán, R. Mata Olmo, J. M. López, and R. Fuentes-Guerra. 2019. The potential role of short food supply chains in strengthening periurban agriculture in Spain: The cases of Madrid and Barcelona. Sustainability 11 (7):2080. doi:10.3390/su11072080 20 ANNEX I