Skip to main content

Global and Local food chain Assessment: a MUltidimensional performance-based approach

Final Report Summary - GLAMUR (Global and Local food chain Assessment: a MUltidimensional performance-based approach)

Executive Summary:
GLAMUR project addresses a growing need for knowledge that can help decision-makers in the food sector - first of all consumers - to make decisions coherent with values that go beyond individual utility. The project has departed from concerned consumers' daily dilemmas facing food choice: cheap or environmentally friendly? Conventional local or global organic? Seasonal or sourced overseas? The modern consumer choices become more complicated when various sustainability dimensions are considered and weighted: economical, ecological, social, ethical, health. In particular, it addresses a question that has a lot of implications: is 'local' more sustainable than 'global'? This apparently innocent question opens the door to a series of epistemological conundrums. In particular, it challenges the adequacy of traditional ‘scientific’ top-down approaches. Top-down approaches tend to not take into adequate account the complexity of the issue of food choice, the diversity of values and perspectives of decision-makers and consumers alike, and the inherent evolution of the meaning (and measurement) of sustainability in relation to uncertainty of knowledge. The GLAMUR project takes sustainability assessment as a component of a wider process of deliberation and learning involving firms, civil society organizations, citizens and public administrations.
Set within this contextual background, the GLAMUR research programme (2013-2016) investigated how the sustainability performance of food chains varied along the global-local continuum. Fifteen institutions from 10 European countries employed four different methodologies (participatory evaluation, life cycle assessment (LCA), metabolic analysis and shadow pricing) to examine the economic, environmental, health, social and ethical dimensions of eight product commodities (apples, berries, grain (wheat-to-bread), pork, cheese, wine, tomatoes and asparagus) and of global-local food chains in public procurement.
The case studies mapped and analysed how impacts were generated within specific food chains at global, intermediate/regional and local levels along the continuum. Key attributes were identified for each commodity using a multi-criteria performance matrix developed by the project. Sets of indicators were constructed, with analysis of the underlying factors (e.g. political, legislative, geographical etc.) that influenced the performance of the indicators in the respective dimensions (economic, environmental, social, health and ethical). This assessed the sustainability performance levels of chains in each country and provided a set of results for cross-country comparison.
The economic, environmental, health, social and ethical impacts were then compared and contrasted in comparative assessments of products in pairs of countries (e.g. the wheat-to-bread chain was studied by researchers in Italy and the UK). Using questionnaire data supplied by the project teams, the validity of the four methodologies used for analysis (participatory evaluation, LCA, metabolic analysis and shadow pricing) were also compared and contrasted. Then a participatory approach (workshops and on-line questionnaires) was used to assess how performance was perceived by stakeholders in different national contexts to develop a multi-criteria characterisation of the performance of the food chains studied. Concurrent with this research process, a detailed policy analysis report was constructed. This provided valuable information for the policy recommendations, assessing the role of EU and global public and private policies on global and local food chains and identifying key policy and governance drivers of local and global food chains and their multi-dimensional impacts.

Project Context and Objectives:
Summary description of project context and objectives

1. The context
In recent years a relatively small, but growing number of consumers have gained awareness that, when they choose a given product, they activate a system of socio-technical relations, often very distant from the place of consumption, that will have impacts on their health, on other people, the environment and on animals. There is recognition among consumers, in other words, that what you choose to buy, and where from, can have different types of impacts. Ample evidence of the negative impact of the food system on the environment, health, local economies and societies, ethics has strengthened the position of those who claim that a certain degree of relocalization of the food chains would be beneficial to sustainability. The 'local' has been increasingly associated, in the general imaginery, to sustainable and healthy production and consumption patterns. This has opened the way for the growh of product niches and to allow 'weak' actors in the system - first of all farmers - to challenge 'big food' with alternative principles, values, organizational patterns, business models. Local products are sustained by consumers' "willingness to pay" a delta price, as they believe that prices of local products, unlike 'big food', cover the 'real cost' of food, that entails social and environmental costs of production, processing and distribution. After more than two decades from the birth of local food movements, the appeal of local food among consumers is strong. The concept of ‘local food chains’ has generated a myriad of business, civil society and policy initiatives, which have given a strong impulse to open new research and policy fields.

In reaction to a mounting pressure on them, main actors of the food system have started to develop strategies that address sustainability and, in a growing number of cases, use 'the local' in their marketing strategies. As 'local' and 'sustainable' products can be increasingly found into supermarket shelves, the need of clarity about definitions and claims grows. In the past years we have assisted to a blossoming of initiatives aimed at signalling to consumers sustainable or local products: European Union has introduced a compulsory information on product origin in the label for some fresh commodities; retailers dedicate distinguished spaces to fresh local produce; food producers offer to consumers the possibility of acknowledging the origin of the ingredients of food products through Internet applications. As a consequence of the increasing flow of information available to consumers, there is a growing need of tools that can enable consumers - and other decision makers - to filter and validate information, so to make informed choices.

The fulfillment of this need faces an important obstacle in the multidimensionality of the impact of food choice: when considering the total quality of a food product, one should take into consideration (i) the impact on the economy; (ii) the impact on the society; (iii) the impact on the environment; (iv) the impact on human health; (v) ethical dimension. To date, impacts referring to these five dimensions are largely unknown or poorly quantified. But even if quantification was possible, choice would anyway face trade-offs between dimensions and dilemmas, with different decision-makers having different sets of values. Rather than telling decision-makers what is better and what is worse - as cost / benefits methods do - sustainability assessment should provide resources for reflexive choice and deliberation.

In the endeavour to address these issues, the GLAMUR project has developed research around the following principles:

i. Costs and benefits analysis needs methodological update

There is a growing perception of uncertainty about the future of the food system. The traditional perception of “costs and benefits” used in defining the performance of the food system in the 50s-70s requires an updating. There are new perceptions of “costs and benefits” that the consumers would like to see reflected in the institutions regulating the functioning of the food systems, and in new pattern of production and consumption of food. This change is due to the fact that new biophysical realities (the end of the myth of perpetual growth) are more and more acknowledged by the general public. The issue of sustainability (especially in relation with food security for 6 billion of people willing to switch to richer diets) is forcing to re-consider the issue of “resilience” (the ability of a system to maintain its ability to express a given set of structures and functions in the face of stress) and “security” (capacity to guaranteeing a required input by minimizing risk) in the food system. In turn, this requires a re-discussion of the set of attributes of performance that should be considered when discussing of “progress” in the food system. To make a comparative analysis of different typologies of food systems (local versus global) it is essential to build a robust methodological approach capable of individuating and characterizing those attributes of performance which are relevant to make informed decisions.

ii. To turn knowledge into practice a demand-driven approach is necessary

Public policies and business strategies can contribute to the fulfilment of sustainability goals by acting upon the context in which food choice are made. In particular the project will focus on consumers and on their willingness to balance economic determinants of choice with other attributes of performance they consider relevant in relation to health, environment, social, and ethical ones. Following the SCAR 3rd foresight exercise (EU Commission, 2011), we adopted a ‘sufficiency’ narrative, that looks to solutions to the problem of scarcity not only in the ‘efficiency’ realm (reduction of inputs per units of output), but also in a behavioral change that addresses consumption. Applying such a demand-driven approach, policy measures addressing consumers, public food systems and citizens such as food education, information and labeling, public procurement should be explored as effective complementary tools to ‘supply driven’ approaches such as regulation, taxation, incentives to producers and distributors. Sustainability assessment should be a key instrument for these policies.

iii. The complexity of impacts of food chains requires plurality of methods and transdisciplinarity

So far, comparison between food chains has been done by reducing the complexity entailed by the co- existence of several relevant dimensions and scales and taking into consideration only a limited number of parameters at the time, estimating the effect of possible changes under the assumption everything remains the same, the ‘ceteris paribus’. This project has addressed this methodological problem as its starting point, and has proposed a solution to deal with it. The project has adopted a multi-criteria perspective that takes ‘measurement’ and ‘evaluation’ in ways that combine qualitative and quantitative impacts. A specific work package was dedicated to organize a comparison between methodologies and the legitimate perspectives expressed by the social actors involved in cases study.

2. Objectives of GLAMUR
General objective of the GLAMUR project has been to develop a concept of sustainability assessment of food supply chains able to give decision-makers tools to make responsible choice. This general objective has been pursued through the following specific objectives:

• Objective 1: To develop and validate a ‘performance criteria matrix’ of economic, social, environmental, health, ethical performance criteria for assessment and comparison of food chains operating at a range of geographical scales.

• Objective 2: To measure the performance criteria and build a) a database of quantifiable indicators b) a set of case studies.

• Objective 3: To advance knowledge on methodological problems and trade-offs arising when measuring and comparing the impact of food chains.

• Objective 4: To assess how performance is characterised by stakeholders in different national contexts.

• Objective 5: To assess the actual and potential role of public and private policies addressing food chains – with reference with economic, social, health, environmental, ethic policy fields - for the pursuit of smart, inclusive and sustainable growth, and to turn assessment into policy recommendations.

• Objective 6: To build a network that turns the advancement of scientific knowledge on food chains into decision making tools for domestic and public consumers, producers, citizens, scientists, policy makers, civil society organizations .

The schematic in Figure 1 shows how the work packages fit together and build the final policy recommendations. This moved the project process from initial scoping and framing (WP2), to assessing the sustainability performance in the case study supply chains (WP3), to making cross-cutting comparisons between countries (WP4), and then looking in more detail at what stakeholder perceptions were of ‘global’ and ‘local’ food supply chains and their views on what sustainability performance assessment can add to unpicking this complex reality (WP5).

Figure 1- Schematic figure of GLAMUR’s work packages
Project Results:
Description of the main S&T results/foregrounds (not exceeding 25 pages)

(The tables and figures mentioned below can be found in separate attachments)

1. Scoping / framing: analysing the communication of food chains and their performance

The scoping/framing workpackage has addressed objective 1, that is 'building a 'performance criteria matrix'. With this matrix, the GLAMUR project aimed at identifying the most important attributes of sustainability as they emerge in the communication of different spheres of discourse. It is the basis for further assessment, as each attribute has become, in the next phases of the project, a field of investigation. The matrix has been built through a process started with a national-level content analysis of media of different types (scientific, commercial, policy, and public), carried out with a common methodology for collection and analysis of data. Texts have been coded, and codes have been grouped together by semantic closeness (for example, 'support to local economy' and 'contribution to national and local economies'), and as a result a list of 24 attributes have been identified. The matrix is illustrated in Table 1. A synthetic description of the attributes is reported below.

Affordability
Affordability is one of the most cited attributes. It is mentioned by 8 countries: Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands, Peru, Senegal, Latvia, the UK and Spain. It is essentially a consumer-oriented perspective, summarised in terms of “accessibility to food by middle and lower income consumers”. Some reports reflect a whole food chain perspective in the sense that “price competitiveness of the supply chain” (Italy) influences the price of food to the final consumer. It is of high priority wherever mentioned.

Table 1 Performance criteria matrix (source: Kirwan et al. 2014 )

Creation and distribution of added value
While the actual term 'creation and distribution of added value' only occurs in the report of the Netherlands, it encompasses the underlying significance of a range of other terms used in different reports. These include: 'producers income' in Italy, 'value creation' and 'value distribution' in Switzerland, 'fair distribution of costs and benefits' in Belgium, 'farmers' income', 'living standard of farmers', 'cost (inequality)', 'market share', 'value added', 'distribution of profits' and 'living of farmers', all of which are reported in the Spanish report.

Contribution to economic development
The term 'contribution to economic development' does not directly occur in any of the reports. However, it does cover a range of different terms that are used across the reports. The Swiss report talks about 'rural development', the Senegal report about 'contribution to national economy' and 'employment income/revenue', the Netherlands report discusses 'interlinkages with the wider regional rural economy', the French has 'employment', Latvia has 'economic development', 'embeddedness' and 'export', Italy has 'national interest', Belgium has 'support of local economy', Spain has 'employment', 'GDP', 'contribution to GDP', 'rural development' and 'demographics', Serbia has 'multifunctionality' and 'rural development', while Peru has 'contribution to national and local economies'.

Technological innovation
Innovation has been discussed in six national reports: the UK, Denmark, Latvia, the Netherlands, Spain and Serbia. Attributes such as GMO (Latvia and Serbia), the high-tech redesign of health claims (The Netherlands) and sustainable intensification (the UK) each in their descriptions have a close reference to ‘technological innovation’. Technological innovation as an attribute represents the applications of advancements in scientific knowledge in farming, food manufacturing and transportation, which are or could significantly affect food chain performance. There are two main aspects in which innovation serves the food chain: 1) food quality (enhancing health standards and thus safety) (The Netherlands), and/or 2) food production processes (for example, reducing waste and increasing efficiency by reducing costs).

Governance
Some aspect of ‘governance’ is mentioned in most national reports although only the French report uses this term as an attribute label. The attribute covers a broad range of issues. The governance issues covered in the national reports are as follows: France (governance (food democracy), autonomy and justice); The Netherlands (loci of control, self-governance capacity and Corporate Social Responsibility); Denmark (system regulation); the UK (power distribution); Latvia (control); Italy (food activism); Serbia (food chain structure, government regulation) and Spain (negotiation power, farmer perception, concentration of power and participation).

Efficiency
Efficiency is mentioned as an important attribute in the following national reports: Latvia (economic efficiency); Senegal (ecological efficiency/landscape/well-being and ecological efficiency); The Netherlands (ecological efficiency); Switzerland (eco-efficiency); the UK (efficiency); Spain (productivity and efficiency); and Belgium (productivity). Efficiency is defined generally in the UK report as ‘a relative, measureable, quantitative ratio between inputs and outputs’. Efficiency is an important attribute, with links to other attributes and interesting discourse coalitions emerging in some countries. As is clear from the attribute labels listed above and their accompanying descriptions there are two aspects to the efficiency attribute: economic efficiency and ecological efficiency.

Profitability/Competitiveness
This attribute describes the ability of the supply chain to make profit and be competitive in the market. It is mentioned as profitability and/or competitiveness in the following national reports: France, Belgium, Latvia, Denmark, the UK, The Netherlands, Spain, and Serbia. This is an overarching attribute which can be viewed as addressing two aspects of competitiveness and profitability from an economic perspective: first, economic capital defined in relation to “price” (Denmark, Spain), “price stability” (Belgium), “access to finance” (Spain) “cost (production factors)” (Spain), “company size” (Spain), “access to market” (Spain) and “standardization” (Serbia); and second, human capital, defined in terms of “knowledge and skills” (Latvia), “skilled workers” and “labour availability” (Spain) and “labour quality” (Netherlands), the latter of which are necessary to enable competitiveness.

Connection
In discussions about the attribute of 'connection', the notions of cooperation and relationships were also considered. However, it was decided that the notion of connection encompasses a range of related attributes that are highlighted within the national reports. The Latvian report talks about 'co-operation', the Swiss report about 'social capital', the French report discusses 'networks' from a variety of perspectives, the UK report has 'connectivity', the Netherlands 'rural cohesion', Denmark 'nearness', and Spain has 'social relations' and 'proximity'. Inherent within these different terms are economic, social and informational perspectives.

Resilience
This is a tricky attribute to describe in the sense that it combines and involves some different but related arguments expressed in national reports that all in some way have something to say about resilience, although in most cases the link to resilience is indirect. As part of this attribute we have drawn together material from the following national reports (relevant attribute are listed in brackets for each): Belgium (risk and stability); Switzerland (economic resilience); The Netherlands (independency from public funding); the UK (reliability); and Spain (subsidy dependency, import dependency, risk and economic viability).

Food waste
Food waste is an attribute that includes some related issues covered in the national reports as follows: disposed edible mass (Italy, Switzerland); unused or not-recycled chain by-products (the UK, Belgium); and any material waste such as packaging (the UK, Belgium). Overall, waste represents the mismanagement of resources. It can be seen as a measure of the efficiency and effectiveness of a supply chain to manage its resource externalities.

Information and communication
There are quite a number of individual national report attributes included here. The report of the Netherlands includes 'awareness and responsiveness', 'trust and commitment', '(food) integrity' and 'authenticity', the Belgium report also includes 'authenticity', while the UK report includes 'trustworthiness'. The Italian report includes 'information' and 'food activism', Latvia has 'information accessibility', Denmark has 'consumer information' and 'food literacy', France has 'knowledge and skills’, and the Spanish report has 'information', 'information for consumers' and 'product quality'. In addition, the notion of transparency (discussed in the UK, Swiss and Belgian reports) has also been included here, in that in essence it is about ensuring an openness of communication throughout the FSC, which in some cases have become hugely complex and opaque.

Food security
Food security is an important attribute and measure of food chain performance. It is mentioned as an issue in most national reports and some include it and/or related aspects as part of their matrix. It or related aspects are described in the national reports as follows: The Netherlands (food security and resilience; accessibility); Italy (food security); the UK (availability); Denmark (food security; seasonality and freshness); Senegal (food security; availability within the context of affordability); Spain (food security; availability); Serbia (food security; accessibility) and France (access to food). As is apparent from this list, this is a multi-dimensional attribute. The attribute thus combines discussions about availability (which in general terms is about the quantities and qualities of food available) and accessibility (which in general terms is about whether households have physical, social and economic access to food) that are prevalent in national reports. Along with affordability (see separate attribute description), availability and affordability are typically included as key definitional aspects of food security (see e.g. Ericksen, 2008).

Consumer Behaviour
The attribute entitled 'consumer behaviour' could also be called 'consumer behaviour and diet', with diet in this context being understood in behavioural terms rather than nutritional terms. This attribute encompasses consumer behaviour in relation to their dietary practices or habits. None of the reports uses the term ‘consumer behaviour’ specifically. The Latvian report talks about 'consumer habits', the Italian report about 'food activism', the UK report about 'choice options' and 'palatability', the Netherlands report about 'lifestyle feasibility', Senegal about 'easy utilisation, quality and nutrition', Belgian discusses 'taste', while Spain talks of 'consumption habits'. The habits and normalised practices of consumers are at the heart of this attribute. In this sense, it is more about the social dimension rather than the health dimension although the two are clearly linked.

Labour relations
The ‘labour relations’ attribute encompasses worker-related social issues existing in the food chain. Overall, there are three strands to this attribute: 1) socio-economic welfare and recognition of workers; 2) health-related labour risks; and 3) the availability of qualified labour to preserve market competitiveness. This latter aspect, labour availability, links closely with the human capital aspects of the competitiveness attribute and puts a strong emphasis on the economic dimension, especially in relation to global supply chains, as argued by the Latvian and Belgian reports. Five other countries also mentioned labour relations and their interpretation is summarised below.

Resource use
Resource use is an important overarching attribute since it concerns the use and management of the flows of available resources through global and local food chains. It has two main elements. The first element concerns resource consumption. In other words, the different resources/inputs (land, energy, other materials) used to make food. The second related element concerns the tools (techniques) used to measure the resource use performance of food chains. This includes, for instance, ecological footprinting (Spain), ecological efficiency (Senegal, Belgium), and food miles (the UK)

Pollution
Pollution encompasses any input into the natural environment which causes adverse changes to ecosystems. This attribute covers the different forms of pollution which may be caused by food supply chains - for instance, water, soil and/or air pollution through green-house gas emissions and/or the use of chemicals for fertilization processes, which may cause disruption to ecosystems. Pollution as an attribute falls under the ecological resilience theme. The issue is raised mainly by the following countries: Belgium (‘water pollution’ and ‘traceability of pollutants’; France (‘environmental pollution’, ‘product processing’ and ‘transport in relation to environmental pollution’); Italy (‘pollution’), and Spain (‘pollution’, ‘erosion’, ‘soil pollution’, ‘water pollution’, and ‘disruption of ecosystems’)).

Biodiversity
The Italian report provides a useful general description as follows: “‘Biodiversity’ refers to the effects that a food supply chain has on the survival of different animal and vegetal species within a certain spatial environment surrounding the areas where the productive process takes place. The attribute is the result of the unification of two different attributes selected in the previous phase of the survey: “domestic biodiversity” and “wild biodiversity”." The term has been term used by Italy, the UK, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Belgium.

Nutrition
The attribute 'nutrition' is closely linked with the notion of 'diet' as well as 'food safety', but is distinctive from both and considered to be a valuable attribute in its own right when describing the overall performance of a FSC. Due to its close links with other attributes, a number of national report attributes have been included under this attribute. In the Italian report this includes 'obesity', 'healthy diet', 'healthy food', and organic; the Danish report has 'freshness/seasonality' and 'food quality', the Belgian report 'healthy diets', the UK report ‘obesity’, 'nutritional quality' and 'sustainable diet', the Netherlands report has 'freshness' and 'health risk manageability', the Swiss report 'food quality', France 'food quality', Latvia 'diet', and Serbia has 'public health' and 'high-value added food'. In most of the reports the emphasis is on trying to move towards diets that are more nutritionally-balanced in terms of helping to ensure better health and well-being.

Food safety
Food safety features in a number of national reports: Italy, Switzerland, Belgium, The Netherlands, France, Denmark, the UK, Spain and Serbia. Other attributes (namely ‘risk’ and ‘control’ in Latvia, ‘health risks’ in Belgium, ‘health risk manageability’ in The Netherlands, ‘standardisation’ and ‘public health’ in Serbia, ‘certification’ in Spain and ‘pathology’ in France) also have food safety as a prominent feature of their respective descriptions. Food safety is also a central part of the Senegalese report, under the broader umbrella attribute labelled ‘easy utilisation / quality / safety / hygiene / freshness / conservation / nutrition’. For the purposes of this cross-comparative analysis relevant aspects of all of the above are considered as part of the general ‘food safety’ attribute description.

Traceability
Although the term 'traceability' is only used in a small number of reports (Swiss -- 'traceability of origin', Denmark, Spain and France -- 'traceability', and the Netherlands 'traceability and transparency'), it is clearly a very important part of EU FSC accountability. In fact, it is in effect compulsory for all FSC in the EU as set out by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002.

Animal welfare
This attribute is well cited in national reports. Five countries – Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, the UK and Spain – include it and the Swiss report refers to it as ‘animal well-being’. It is much less of an issue in developing countries, where affordability is clearly the priority. Animal welfare, according to the Dutch report, refers to the ability of food chains to “respect animal welfare rights” and “to integrate animal welfare with other food chain performance fields”. The Italian report usefully describes it as:
“...the physical and psychological conditions of well-being of the animals involved in food chains. The expression is usually referred to animals likely to be introduced into highly intensive productive processes... intensive vs extensive breeding, the amount of space that each animal can have during the day, the feeding conditions (adequacy and quality of what they eat), medical care when needed and animal welfare before abatement...”

Responsibility
This attribute is only mentioned in three national reports (Denmark, the UK, and Serbia) but is a broad ethical issue that could be quite powerful as a way to assess food chain performance. It links with a number of other attributes: governance (including power/power relations), consumer behaviour, food safety, pollution and resource use. The attribute has different dimensions. A key question noted in the Danish report is who is responsible in managing, for example, food chain environmental impacts and/or the welfare of workers in developing world contexts. This question applies to other contexts too, as noted in the UK report, which talks also about the responsibility for the food chain to become more sustainable in the context of social justice, global food and environmental security concerns.

Fair Trade
The term is only actually used in the report of the Netherlands, but is also described in terms of 'fairness/equity' in the UK report. The notion of fairness and equity under this attribute is principally concerned with the trading relations between developed and developing countries. The Netherlands report describes this in terms of the 'ability to provide fair prices for primary producers in developing countries' as well as the 'ability to contribute positively to the food sovereignty of developing countries'. Within the UK report, trading relations between developed and developing countries is also recognised, but so too is the importance of honest and just dealings between trading partners more generally. This perspective recognises power imbalances in the trading relations between retailers and farmers (in particular), as well as the need to secure social justice for farm labourers within the UK who may sometimes be poorly paid and exploited.

2. Measuring performance criteria through case studies

The workpackage has addressed objective 2. Figure 2 sketches the methodological framework used in the GLAMUR project and discussed in detail in the WP3 – Guidelines for case studies (Schmitt et al., 2014). In this workpackage, researchers have assessed local and global food chains chosen as case studies through the attributes of the performance criteria matrix. For each supply chain assessed, the most relevant attributes have been chosen and turned into indicators. Each indicator has been measured with a numerical score to allow comparison. Descriptors have been used to illustrate the conditions in the context in which analysed food chains operate.

Figure 2 - GLAMUR methodological framework (Schmitt et al., 2014)

Seven product groups have been investigated. For each product group, a more local and a more global (and sometimes also an intermediary case) were selected in two countries (see table 1 for an overview) following the four criteria identified earlier (distance, governance, resources and territoriality): see Table 2. The spectrum of spatial configurations analysed through the case studies shows an impressive variety, ranging from radically localized chains (on-farm processed products sold to local consumers) to radically globalized chains.

Table 2 – The seven investigated product groups

A « truly » local chain.
Floriddia farm produces bread with flour from ancient varieties of wheat, which are more suitable to organic agriculture practices. Cultivation of the wheat, milling and baking are all done on farm. The bread is sold mostly at a regional and local level: directly from the farm itself, to local bakeries and to the GAS (solidarity purchasing groups); the latter regularly prepare their orders through the online catalogue and the e-commerce service that is available on the website. On-line sales have also been activated, directed to the nationa territory. Floriddia has received many contacts from importers in other countries, but has chosen not to export, as this may undermine the coherence of his business model.

A « truly » global chain.
The Good Farming Global concept heavily depends on global resource flows, especially soy and other fodder inputs, but increasingly also in relation to exports of transformed manure surpluses from the pig farms. The international nature of this business is further manifest in VION’s multiple slaughterhouse locations and processing facilities throughout Europe; in addition, the globalization of the labour force in these slaughter and processing facilities is impressive, where Eastern European workers are now prevalent. Moreover, VION relies on global energy inputs, technology, ICT applications and linkages with global operating pharmaceutical industries.

In most cases, however, it was very hard to make a clear-cut distinction between local and global. Business actors, in fact, tend to have a multiplicity of trade relations, and in any chain it is possible to find actors who participate in a plurality of configurations. In the Serbian raspberry industry (Figure 3) all farmers sell to intermediaries, who have a central role in the network as they have trade relationships with retailers, processors and foreign importers. However, some farmers are able to sell part of their produce to 'green markets', or to process the raspberries on farm to make juices or traditional food.

Figure 3 - Network of actors in the Serbian global raspberry supply chain

Of particular interest is the category of « locality chain » that tend to set the geographical limits of some inputs and production while keeping other inputs (energy, seeds, sometimes feed) or sales global.

A « locality » chain. L’Etivaz is produced in the Canton of Vaud, in specific municipalities located between 1000 and 2000 meters of altitude (Figure 4). Most of the resources used are local. The ripening phase is located in the Pays d’Enhaut region. Thus, production is limited to a small zone, whereas retail and consumption extend beyond the national borders. Producers are allowed to retail 10% of their own production at their chalets. The remaining 90% are sold to “La Maison de L’Etivaz” and then on to exporters and retailers. Around 70% of the total volume is sold in Switzerland, 40% in the French speaking part. The remaining 30% is sold mostly in France, Belgium and Germany. Upstream from the chain, the cattle are mostly fed on alpine meadows. However, concentrated feedstuffs, such as cereals and soy that come from Europe, Argentina and Brazil are authorized up to a maximum of 1 kilogram per cow per day. For processing, global inputs are also used, as for example rennet necessary for the cheese making is purchased on global markets.

Figure 4 - L’Etivaz value chain spreading between the local and the global scale

Evidence shows that 'local' and 'global' labels may be misleading if not related to the organizational history of the chain. 'Locality' chains are in most cases related to PDO (Protected Designation of Origin) and PGI (Protected Geographical Indication) labels under the EU regulations, which underpin a clear link between quality and geographical origin and underpone specific codes of practice. If we look at the evolution of these chains, we normally observe traditional products that have undergone a process of modernization in the past years and that, under the present market trends and existing regulations, tend to differentiate by stressing their local characteristics. L’Etivaz case suggests that we may witness the emergence of ‘post-local’ type of value chains that connect rather small localities and places on a wide territorial scale or globally but without specific claims to strictly embed the product or chain in any of those ‘small places’. Thus the ‘local’ may become decoupled from place and turned into an internationally recognised representation of certain consumer affection with place based food, like the mentioned above ‘local sandwich’ in supermarket or ‘MacFarmer burger’ in a fast food restaurant down the road.
On the other hand, among our case studies we also identified 'globalizing' chains, as in the case of apples in the Flanders.

A globalizing chain.
Throughout history, horticulture has always been an important part of the territory of Flanders because of the good quality of the soils in the regions where the apples are grown. Apples are therefore perceived by many as a regional product. This is emphasized in the global chain by the ‘Flandria’ label. The best quality apples are sold under this label in national and international markets. Apples - of 'global' varieties such as Jonagold, Golden delicious and Elstar - are delivered by farmers to the Belgian fruit auction, the biggest fruit auction in Flanders, with a market share of more than 50 percent. The apples are bought at the auction by big retailers - Carrefour, Colruyt and Delhaize - who between them have a 70% market share. Apples are also exported to the Netherlands, Germany and Russia.

Food chain configurations may change in relation to fluctuating market conditions and/or as an outcome of the strategic choices of the leading actors involved. In some cases, leading companies can decide to adopt localization strategies as a component of a broader differentiation strategy. The possibility of claiming that a product has a local component, becomes a factor of competitive advantage for producers.

A localizing chain.
The "Tuscan bread" initiative was promoted by a Tuscany miller, who applied to the Regional Rural development plan for a cooperation measure. The code of practices agreed with farmers and bakeries limits the sourcing of wheat to the Tuscan territory. The localization strategy pursued by the Tuscan Bread Consotium includes the recognition of the PDO and all operations must take place in Tuscany. The intention of the network is to sell this product in the global market.

3. Local and global compared

3.1 Methodologies
Product teams have considered both country-specific attributes and indicators and common attributes and indicators across countries. Four methodologies have been applied in the GLAMUR project: (1) Participatory evaluation, (2) LCA, (3) Metabolic analysis and (4) Shadow pricing. In Table 3 can be read which methodologies are employed in which case studies.

Table 3 - Methodologies employed in case studies

Participatory evaluation methodologies help the evaluation building process, allowing for the integration of different points of view, values and judgment criteria of different stakeholders (people affected by positive and/or negative supply chains effects). Different stakeholder categories are asked on the one hand to build the structure of the participatory approach, to identify areas of expected impacts (integrating scientific evidences), to define chains of causality and to choose appropriate indicators. On the other hand the stakeholders are asked to participate in providing relevant information for indicators, to interpret results and to evaluate them according to their interests and expectations. The empowerment of different stakeholder categories and the adoption of flexible and inclusive working methods are key issues in the participatory evaluation approach.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a method to analyse environmental issues across the life cycle of a product, from raw material inputs to waste. It can systematically identify key areas to improve environmental and economic performance. In LCA, all inputs are traced back to primary resources; for example, electricity is generated from primary fuels like coal, oil and uranium. A standardised LCA methodology provides results that are comparable between sectors and industries. LCA can be applied to agricultural systems, however, agriculture does not consume resources in a linear sense in the same way as many industrial processes and is therefore not a pure “cradle-to-grave” process. Differences between LCA studies are due to the goal of the study or the quality of the data. The goal, for instance, determines important methodological choices with regard to the system boundary, the functional unit and the type of allocation method. For example, the goal of the study may be the environmental improvement of the farm, or the whole supply chain to the final consumer. This decision will determine whether to include factors such as the emissions associated with the production of medicines, insecticides, machines, buildings and roads in the system boundary. Furthermore, a disclosure of LCA for comparability or marketing purposes requires a critical review. In GLAMUR the LCA complies with ISO14040 in order to be recognized as robust, scientifically sound and comparable with other studies, databases and software.

The shadow price methodology involves the pricing of impacts for which there are no markets, such as in the case of most environmental impacts. Such impacts can be monetised by computing either the cost of abating the pollution or the damage costs following the pollution.

Metabolic analysis changes the focus from the analysis of the value (i.e. assessing costs/benefits) of products – the focus adopted in economic analysis - to the value of the functions/structures which must be maintained and reproduced in order to be able to produce and consume the economic products within specified metabolic patterns. With this change in focus it is evident that not only the fund elements (i.e. the production factors) of the socio-economic process are relevant for sustainability, but also that the maintenance and reproduction of fund elements of the ecological processes (i.e. ecosystem services guaranteeing favourable boundary conditions) has to be considered when dealing with sustainability analysis. This translates into an adoption of the strong sustainability paradigm, acknowledging the impossibility of substituting nature with human technology.

Table 4 presents the indicators used to assess and compare supply chains in the case studies.

Table 4 - GLAMUR indicators used to assess and compare supply chains

3.2 Advancing knowledge about comparison of food chains
Workpackage 4 addressed objective 3. Figure 5 provides an overall representation of the performance of local and global supply chains, based on the case study reports. The coordinates of each attribute positioned on the plane indicate how many times the local chain clearly “wins” over the global chain (and vice versa), divided by the number of comparisons in which that attribute has been considered. “Clearly” means that the authors of the case study make a clear statement on the performance based on the value of the indicators (in some cases, authors state that it is unclear, and this explains why the performances of local and global chains don’t add up to one). On the bisecting line, there are attributes for which local and global chains prevail over each other the same number of times. The upper left triangle shows those attributes for which global wins overover local, whereas the bottom right triangle shows those attributes for which the local wins overover global. It should be noted that intermediate/mixed supply chains are not considered in this representation, and that the assessment on the same attributes across supply chains and products in some cases has been carried out with similar but not absolutely equal indicators (i.e. indicators were adapted to product/chain specificities).

Figure 5 Performance of local and global chains analyzed relative to attributes selected for cross country case study assessment

Results show that the attributes on which global chains performed better than local are affordability, labour relations, safety, pollution, information and communication, and food security. On the other hand, local chains perform better than global chains in relation to animal welfare, resilience, nutrition, territoriality and to a lesser extent on creation and distribution of added value, biodiversity and efficiency. Attributes which do not discriminate substantially between local and global performances are contribution to economic development, governance and technological innovation. “Connection” has been examined only in one case (tomatoes in France), where the prevalence of local over global is unclear.

Out of the attributes analyzed and reported in the above figure, there were others which were included in the matrix, yet were not selected for assessment. For example, consumer behavior was analyzed in the UK and Swiss cheese cases by means of focus groups with consumers, but this information was not framed in terms of performance indicators that enabled comparison, because consumer behaviour is simply impossible to score in relation to a single product. A narrative around why consumers make the choices they make is in this sense more sound for sustainability analysis than scores on quantitative indicators. Another attribute which is largely missing from the supply chain performance assessments is waste. An exception to this is given by the bread cases in Italy and the UK, which include “innovation to reduce waste” relative to all supply chain phases, among indicators of the “technological innovation” attribute. The cheese and wine cases also included an indicator on waste reduction and managemeng during the processing phase in their resource use attribute. This concerns mainly the re-use of the whey as a very important output of the cheese processing and the use of recycled and recyclable materials.

The following paragraphs briefly summarize the main case study findings in relation to the performance of attributes within each dimension of sustainability. The indicators used to assess these attributes, as well as the best performing chains, are reported in the appendix.

Economic dimension
The economic dimension was captured by the creation and distribution of value added (investigated in 12 chain comparisons), the contribution to economic development (7 chain comparisons), resilience (2 chains) and technological innovation (2 chains).

The case study findings indicate that local supply chains tend to create added value by adding characteristics to the product, thereby generating a higher price, while global chains reach the same objective by cutting variable costs and becoming economically more efficient. In terms of the redistribution of added value, the farmer in the local chain captures a higher share of the value added in all the cases that examined this attribute (tomatoes, wine, cheese, berries) with the exception of Serbian raspberries; in the Serbian case, localness does not imply a shortening of the supply chain and as a result farmers in the local chain do not have anymore control over the share of value added. Contribution to economic development is a difficult attribute to evaluate as it encompasses many dimensions. First, there is a difference between value added and jobs. Firms can grow without increasing employment, but by using more capital (technology) and thus increase labour productivity. Second, how value added or jobs contribute to “economic development” depends on whose economic development is to be increased. In relation to this point it is important to keep in mind the distinction between the economy of rural communities and the economy of urban population. Global cases may contribute to economic development elsewhere, while local cases may contribute to the local economy, especially in rural areas. Technological innovation provides an important opportunity to increase resource use efficiency. Only the wheat-to-bread teams have investigated the impact of technological innovation: in this case, the results are mixed and highly dependent on the availability of data. In relation to resilience, investigated by the pork team, it was found to be related to product labeling, farm strategies and vertical integration practices. It must be noted that the notion of ‘supply chain’ excludes actors outside the scope of the chain (e.g. rural development related actors), thus not all relationships between relevant actors may be captured within the notion of the chain.

Social dimension
Within the social dimension, information and communication (6 comparisons), territoriality (4 comparisons), labour relations (4 comparisons), food security (3 comparisons) were investigated.

Information and communication encompasses two dimensions: communication within the chain and communication to the consumer. The evidence on intra-chain communication and communication with the consumer is mixed. In some cases there is more satisfactory communication within local chains (cheese), while in others there is no difference (bread). In some cases, local chains provide more information to consumers (bread Italy, wine), in other cases, local chains provide less information (bread UK, cheese) or differently (more oral communication at the market or on farm rather than on labels). Differences in performance related to information and communication depend strongly on cultural identity of the society which is reflected in the nature of the relationships between the various actors, including the final consumer, and the marketing efforts of global chains. Moreover, the higher the number of actors involved, the more complex the communication processes are. This not only depends on the number of intermediaries, but also on the nature of the product and the size of the chain. As a result, communication may be organised through branch organisations and interbranch platforms. Advances in ICT have the capacity to strongly improve information exchange, both within chains and with the consumer.

Although food security is generally considered to capture four dimensions —food availability, food access, food utilisation and food stability— our research only considered the dimensions of access, affordability and availability. Affordability refers to the price to consumers and supply chains that are more economically efficient are able to offer their produce at lower and thus more affordable prices, but in local chains there are less intermediaries that need to earn a profit. So the effect depends on the margin captured by the farmer: local chains may charge the same price as in the supermarkets, such that affordability is not affected. In other words, there is a trade-off between affordability and the distribution of value added. In fact, the consumer is ignored when discussing the distribution of value added in a supply chain. The teams that have considered affordability find evidence that support these various effects. Global chain cheese is cheaper because of efficiency. Local apples and tomatoes are cheaper, because farmers charge lower prices than supermarkets do. Availability was captured by the amount of time a product (tomatoes and apples) was available. For apples, no differences were found, as storage is used in both local and global chains. Tomatoes from global chains are available for a longer time, which is a result of difference in production methods (heated greenhouses).

Labour relations have only been investigated in the berries team. Global chains offer official contracts, whereas in « grey » chains many more employees work without a contract and are more exposed to a range of possible risks. However, these employees also have the possibility to earn more and are not tied to one specific employer. Global chains tend to be more secure, but offer less possibilities for lower level employees. Local chains are practically unregulated and there is a lack of institutionalized actors. Thus the involved actors are free to choose how they organize their actions.

Environmental dimension
In the environmental dimension, three attributes have been investigated: biodiversity (5 comparisons), resource use (5 comparisons) and pollution (3 comparisons). Biodiversity is captured by various indicators ranging from the level of agrobiodiversity (diversity of crops and varieties) to landscape management practices. For three teams (wine, bread and tomatoes), local or regional chains clearly perform better, although for wine there is a difference between global bottle-based chains (more diversity) and global bulk chains (less diversity). For the cheese and apple teams, there are no clear better performer between local and global , or if so the differences are small, depending on which indicators.

Resource use and pollution are only captured for example by energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (which is strongly related to energy use). A similar pattern is observed as with the employment-efficiency trade-off: global chains tend to consume less resources per unit of product than local chains, due what could be called “ecologies of scale”. However, one should consider the effect of the Jevons’ Paradox [39], the economies of scale determining a lower consumption per unit of product do imply an increase in the size of the overall throughput: more efficient systems of production (per unit) produce much more product (in absolute terms). The result is that increases in efficiency tend to increase the stress on the environment both due to the production and the consumption of inputs in the food chain. In other words, global chains employ more resource efficient transformation, transportation and cooling facilities resulting in less greenhouse gas emissions per unit of product but in a larger amount of resources due to the enlargement in size of operations. This phenomenon of reduction of consumption of resources per unit of product was observed in the cases of apples and tomatoes, while results were mixed for wine, as they depend on the technologies used for bottling and transportation. The wine cases considered water and material use and also the application of environmental mitigation measures, while the cheese cases considered soil improvement practices, material use and ireduction and disposal. No significant differences were found, except for soil improvement practices that were used more by local chains. However, this is to a great extent related to soil type and topography in the concerned regions. For the pork cases, however, different patterns can be observed. In the Netherlands, local chains are more resource efficient when considering the use of water, fossil energy and land; their contribution to eutrophication potential and greenhouse gas emissions are also lower. In Italy, the same pattern can be observed for water use, but not for energy and land use, as global chains use less energy and land, and emit less greenhouse gases.

Health dimension
In the health dimension, two attributes have been investigated in a limited number of cases, i.e. nutrition (2 comparisons) and food safety (1 comparison). The assessment referring to nutrition deals only with the potential effects of salt and fat content in the case of bread, while in the case of cheese the type of fats and calcium content are also considered. Generally, no significant differences were found when comparing local with global chains. Moreover, some differences were related to differences in recipes rather than to the degree of localness. The only exception seems to be calcium content in Switzerland, where local chains outperform global chains, and fat content, which is related to different pasture systems. Food safety in the wine cases is captured by two dimensions: the application of food safety standards and controls, and the presence of sulphur dioxide in the wine (which indicates no difference across the chains). While global chains are more likely to use formalized controls and standards, local chains tend to be more based on interpersonal relations and hence trust between producers and consumers. However, the main health issue regarding wine consumption is the alcool content, but a sustainable use is then directly dependant on the consumer’s behaviour.

Ethical dimension
The ethical dimension has been assessed in 9 comparisons. Animal welfare has been investigated in 3 comparisons (cheese and pork cases), and the other 6 cases have analysed how a variety of ethical issues are embodied into organization standards and rules. For example, some global chains tend to perform better on indicators related to transparency (like in the case of food safety) and complying with governance standards (e.g. berries). In the local pork cases farmers are more involved in decision making processes and local chains more actively engage with external stakeholders, resulting in more institutional support.

Animal welfare is captured in the cheese case by the dimensions animal density, lifetime of dairy cows and grazing time. Grazing time is similar across chains, but cows producing milk for the local chains tend to live longer, which may be due to the smaller volumes produced by each cow or farmers’ strategies, meaning that the animals are under less stress; animal density also tends to be lower in the local chains. Qualitative research highlighted the seasonal dimension of animal welfare, which tends to differ in the summer season (while grazing) versus the winter season (while in the stable). As dairy cows in the Swiss global chains spend more time inside, farmers in these chains tend to invest more in stables with higher quality living conditions.

3.3 Assessment of methodologies
In order to assess and compare different methodologies, all researchers were asked to reflect and evaluate the methodology they employed in relation to a list of criteria. Table 5 shows the results of this assessment. Green boxes show the criteria by which methods perform best. It emerges that participatory methods are better performing when there is the need to give a broader representation of sustainability dimensions and represent a variety of perspectives, while other methods have the advantage to give reproducible and unambiguous results.

Table 5 - Assessment of methodologies employed in GLAMUR

4. Validating assessment exercises

An integrated characterization of the performance of food chains has to be based on a set of non-equivalent criteria of sustainability referring to the economic, social, environmental, health and ethical sphere. When carrying out such an assessment across different societies and different social actors it is unavoidable to find legitimate but conflicting perceptions of what should be considered as an improvement. In different societies different social actors do measure and compare trade-offs over criteria of performance of food chains in different ways. For this reason, WP5 tested the effectiveness and the flexibility of various approaches to integrated assessment used in different case studies of GLAMUR using both workshops and on-line questionnaires to solicit a feed-back from social actors.

The outcomes of case studies have been the input for stakeholders' workshops, the aim of which was to check the validity of basic pre-analytical choices of the project. A total of 9 workshops have been held, involving eight products. Participants were mainly stakeholders of the food chains analysed in the case studies, representing different interests and perspectives. Other actors who have also taken part in the workshops are public administration representatives, retailers, food processors, researchers, experts, activists, and consumers.

The design of each workshop and the methods used were diverse and tailored on the specificity of each case. In most workshop a ranking exercise has been carried out, aimed at assessing the hierarchy of importance of different attributes. In the bread Italian case, the perception of stakeholders on the sustainability of different chains have been measured prior to disclosing the results of the assessment exercise to measure the distance between perception and measurement. Moreover, 'coalitions of respondents' have been identified through cluster analysis. Further discussion has allowed researchers to identify areas of consensus and areas of dissent. In all cases, open discussion has shown that any indicator carry with it a risk of reductionism, and that comparison between 'local' and 'global' can generate a lot of insights, but hardly can bring to winners and losers.

The methodological and conceptual results obtained in WP5 can be divided in three categories: (i) reflections on the implications of the pre-analytical choices determining the quality of the integrated assessment; (ii) lessons learned on how to make more effective the comparison when analysing different food chains operating in different socio-economic, political and geo- graphic contexts; (iii) analysis of pros and cons of the two typologies of participatory processes adopted.

Key findings of WP5 point at the complexity of a process aimed at characterizing the performance of food chains:

(1) the labels defining the dichotomy between “global” and “local” food chains, as GLAMUR was tasked to do, remain ambiguous and inappropriate when using the same set of indicators of performance in different case studies. A more articulated framing of the meaning of “global” and “local” is needed to reflect the specificity of each case study;

(2) the existing storytelling about the performance of food chains has been hegemonized by economic narratives. Social actors admit that the economic dimension is essential, but at the same time they feel that other criteria referring to the environment, social and ethical dimensions should get more attention. A more balanced and complete selection of indicators is needed;

(3) it is impossible to compare food chains having different goals and operating in different contexts using a standard assessment of performance (one size fits all). The process of integrated assessment must be able to reflect the speci- ficity of different food chains and the heterogeneity of interests and normative values found among social ac- tors. This requires the adoption of participatory processes.

5. Policy implications

GLAMUR’s fieldwork and case studies have highlighted the innovation, diversity, experimentation and vibrancy that characterise ‘local’ food chains, including how they can shine a light on food systems and act as a critical voice. However, the evidence also suggests the need for more coherent policies that recognise the hybridity and interconnectedness of ‘global’ and ‘local’ food systems. We note that GLAMUR’s evidence shows how problematic it can be to use current sustainability performance assessments to justify policy interventions in support of scale. For example, democratising food policy at a local level will not help to advance sustainability if efforts continue to work on assumptions - such as that ‘local’ is intrinsically more sustainable than ‘global’ - rather than the evidence.

GLAMUR’s evidence has shown that food systems are inherently multi-scale and operate at multi-levels; thus solving policy problems in one place/level may lead to others in the system. In addition, although consumers are already using a multi-criteria approach to food choice, policymakers do not currently have mechanisms to deal with multi-criteria assessment of food supply chains and their sustainability performance. Complementarities and trade-offs need resolving – such as those between productivity and security of supply versus environmental, social, health and political goals, and the social and cultural values of food that shape consumer preferences need more consideration.

There is also a new and complex reality that challenges ideological views about relocalising food production and consumption. Market globalization, urbanisation, and the retreat of the state from regulating consumer choice is shaping the potential and limits of national policies and food chain practices.

This is a situation where ‘local’ food chains are seen as complementary rather than an alternative to imported food in both European and developing countries and consumers may perceive ‘global’ products as safer because they comply with sanitary controls. The state of EU policy is itself a problem. The Common Agricultural Policy dominates finance and thinking, and is under constant internal and external reform. Other policies affect farm and food system dynamics, especially access to subsidies. Of particular importance in the local/global discourse is the EC’s role in health information, consumer information, and industrial efficiency guidance (such as on resource efficiency, waste, etc.).

As policymakers confront new and complex realities that challenge distinctions between local and global food chains, the range of policy options in a context of market globalization is narrowed. In a rapidly urbanizing world where consumer choice demands new sets of food attributes (especially around provenance and integrity), how can public policies, international trade agreements and public-private strategies support food security and improve sustainable performance along the local-global continuum? GLAMUR’s evidence suggests that science-led priority setting for policy is not enough to conduct valid performance assessment.

Six important policy challenges emerge from GLAMUR’s work. These are headlined below:
• The Local/Global distinction is too simple. There are many different framings of global and local and making comparisons is not straightforward. Local chains have global inputs and vice-versa, which results in a high degree of hybridity.
• The slipperiness of ‘local’. Not only are distinctions between local and global blurred; the same applies to distinctions between ‘local’ and ‘localness’.
• Routes to food sustainability are fluid and dynamic. Food chains find different ways of achieving sustainability goals within their own boundaries. Different policy settings lead to different performance profiles in supply chains. Contradictory policy drivers are not helping this ‘messiness’.
• GLAMUR’s findings uncover contradictory policy drivers. Some policy provides incentives that drive food system localisation/re-localisation, whereas other policy works in opposition and acts as a disincentive.
• Policy blind spots. GLAMUR’s evidence points to policy blind spots that impact on food system sustainability
• The significance of methodology. GLAMUR’s evaluation of the multi-criteria performance assessment methodologies used by project partners shows how trade-offs within and across the various sustainability dimensions and scales means that no individual methodology was able to assess performance comprehensively across all dimensions

Tackling these challenges, backed up by GLAMUR’s evidence, can help policymakers unravel the complex impacts of policy intervention, improve performance assessment, and lead to better informed sustainable food system solutions. These challenges are addressed through the identification of a series of 'processes of engagement' (Table 6) based on the following considerations:
• Academics, scientists and food researchers working on local and global food systems should maximise their efforts to address policy incoherence in the treatment of food chains along the local-global continuum.
• In a world where even giant food companies are rapidly developing ‘Plan Bs’- such as the World Economic Forum’s ‘New Vision for Agriculture’19 and Unilever’s ‘Sustainable Living Plan’20 - and new directions for their business model, the gap between public policy, corporate/commercial policy and civic food actors is still worryingly wide; this balance between regulation, soft law and voluntary initiatives should be a central focus towards more sustainable consumption and production.
• Firm leadership from policymakers, business and civil society champions is required to pursue food sustainability and to prevent tensions over the local/global distinction from being used to maintain the status quo in EU, national and local food supply systems.
• No positive change around the local-global nexus (or sustainability in general) is likely to happen unless there is a well-organised, cross-sectoral, progressive alliance of interests in and outside government, in and outside supply chains, and from civil society.
• The distinctions being made between the ‘global’ and the ‘local’ is partly a ‘proxy’ battle, with proxy indicators, to define the ‘enemy’ as ‘unsustainable’. GLAMUR’s evidence shows that there are some holes in this argument by revealing the ‘slipperiness’ of global-local distinctions.

6. Glamur main messages

GLAMUR research consortium has made a joint effort, based on discussion in specific working sessions and online, to agree on a set of key messages that the empirical evidence suggests and that are the basis of the more divulgative outputs, such as the cartoon. On the one hand, the multidimensionality and multi-scale approach of sustainability assessment underlines how much is being missed by current methodologies that tend to compartmentalise not only assessment methods but also the dimensions of sustainability, such as measuring quantitative aspects of environmental performance using LCA. On the other hand, GLAMUR’s evidence also highlights why making policy choices, preferences and/or investment decisions that improve food chain sustainability performance (for example, between ‘local’ and ‘global’) is such a complex area for public policy intervention. Multiple interests and values require unpicking, and thinking must extend beyond simple ‘global’ and ‘local’ distinctions. The key message are seven, grouped under broader headlines.

Sustainability performance assessment is a multi-stakeholder concept and a process that is both multidimensional and multi-scale.
1. Multi-criteria sustainability assessment challenges existing ‘sustainability’ systems to provide a more integrated framing of their performance using a multi-stakeholder approach.

2. Multidimensional and multi-scale performance assessment is a key to sustainable pathways for food chains; its multi-stakeholder approach moves beyond assumptions such as local versus global, and can provide informed reflexivity on narratives used to frame the performance of the food system.

Sustainability performance assessment draws on multiple values and multiple interests
3. Sustainability performance assessment combines hard and soft indicators. It acknowledges that current methodologies tend to compartmentalise assessment methods and the dimensions of sustainability; it recognises the value of combining science-led evidence with socio-cultural values.

4. Sustainability performance assessment draws on multiple values and multiple interests and for this reason it is subject to contestation. To increase the degree of general validity of sustainability assessment, public institutions should ensure that it is based on participation, on transparency of different positions and distribution of power among stakeholders, and on a dialogue between science and society.

Sustainability performance assessment should recognize ‘difference’, but also the complementarities and synergies between ‘global’ and ‘local’ food chains
5. Disparity of power between actors in ‘local’ and ‘global’ chains may affect the way performance assessment methodologies are developed. Sustainability performance assessment can be based on recognition of these differences.

6. Sustainability performance assessment needs to detect when coexistence of 'local' and 'global' food chains create complementarities and synergies. Scale matters for some sustainability attributes, not for others. In some cases scale improves performance, in others it is the contrary. A generalized, abstract, comparative assessment of 'local' and 'global' food chains as abstract entities cannot be done.

Sustainability performance assessment can be a tool for encouraging transition to sustainability
7. Performance assessment can be a tool for encouraging transition to sustainability along the local-global continuum. In many cases, better performance can be achieved through 'localization' of more global chains or through 'globalization' of more local chains. Performance assessment can capture the dynamics of this hybridity in food chains as actors endeavour to improve sustainability performance with their own solutions.

Table 6 - Processes for engagement - steering a more sustainable food system

Potential Impact:
Potential impact (including the socio-economic impact and the wider societal implications of the project so far) and the main dissemination activities and exploitation of results.

Potential impact
The GLAMUR project has adopted an approach based on post-normal science, which assumes that, given uncertainty on the matter and relevance of interests at stake, research on policy relevant issues should take into consideration all types of knowledge involved in the issue. This approach aims at aligning diagnostic with committment to change through deliberation, and thus aiming at having a faster and more effective impact. Here follow an analysis of the expected impat in relation to what planned.

Impact on the objectives of the Cooperation Work Programme 2012 – Theme 2
With its multidimensional performance-based approach, the project has addressed all the KBBE-related challenges mentioned in the work programme (sustainable primary production, low carbon and resource efficient industry, food security and safety in Europe and beyond, socially inclusive and healthy Europe). The interaction with stakeholders through WP2 interviews, Dephi analysis, Expert meetings, WP5 workshops, the Expo workshop and the final workshop have already consolidated network of academics, industry and stakeholders.

An European Approach
The Consortium has made a deep and broad overview of the national debates related to local and global chains in different spheres of society, and has given the necessary information for an European-wide synthesis of this debate. Case studies have been carried out jointly by teams of different nationalities to assess national variability. The policy report has evidenced the relevance of the European legislation on these matters, and the policy recommendation have a specific focus on action at European dimension.

Impact on Europe 2020 strategy
• Smart growth: The GLAMUR project proposes a new way to approach sustainability assessment of food chains, based on actors and stakeholders' involvement. In this sense it implies a governance framework that organizes participation of consumers and citizens in deliberation and decision-making.
• Sustainable growth: The project gives a relevant contribution to sustainability assessement of food chains, as it addressess all dimensions of food and identifies strategies to take them into consideration when assessing food chains.
• Inclusive growth: By proposing a governance framework open to citizens' deliberation, it promotes the inclusion of voices that are normally excluded by decision-making. Moreover, GLAMUR has developed an approach to sustainability that specifically addresses social issues - in particular equity.

Impact on European Policies
The GLAMUR policy report has analysed in depth policies affecting local and global food chains. The policy recommendations report identifies six challenges that, addressed, may bring to a substantial update of these policies. The report also identifies a number of 'processes of engagement' that three groups of actors (governments, market actors and civil society organization) may undertake to steer a more sustainable food system.

Impact on consumers
Short-term impact of GLAMUR results is a new approach to the local - global debate. On one side, GLAMUR warns agains an excess of emphasis on the virtues of 'the local' in relation to sustainability, and on the other hand calls for a stricter surveillance about definitions of 'the local' and use of 'local sound' into firms' communication.
In a longer-term horizon, GLAMUR provides a frame to place the role of sustainability assessment on consumers' choice. Within this frame, consumers' participation to sustainability assessment is a component of broader governance patterns that link decision-making to 'forums' where consumers, civil society, public administration and firms can deliberate about food issues.

Impact on social equity
WP2 and WP6 have clearly addressed the issue of social equity, identifying hottest topics in the debate, dilemmas and trade-offs, not only in an European context but also in relation to the North South relations. Moreover, many cases studies have specifically addressed the issue of distribution of costs and benefits between stakeholders.

Impact on research
One of the most relevant outcomes of the GLAMUR project is an advancement of transdisciplinary research methods. All partners have experienced the problems related to management of conversations with actors and stakeholders and have advanced in improving its conversion into high quality research.

Creating synergies with existing research
The GLAMUR consortium has also maintained the promise of strong interaction with stakeholders and multidisciplinary approach. The expert meetings have given the consortium the opportunity to exchange the views and methodologies with a much broader set of experts than foreseen, and have established consolidated relations between them. Some of these relations have already turned into collaborations, such as joint project proposals, invitations to local workshops, teaching.

Dissemination activities
In consideration of the extent, nature and appeal of Glamur findings, a comprehensive set of dissemination tools and events has been proposed to address the scientific audience, the policy makers, the value chain players, the mass media and a larger lay public.

Dissemination objectives
The outcomes of the project were aimed at improving decision making at any level, from daily consumption to policy making. Most of the dissemination activity efforts were concentrated on the scientific community, on intermediate food system organisations and on those citizens with a specific interest in food value chains, as they were understood to be, in turn, amplifiers of the message to the majority of the consumers.
Three main objectives of the dissemination activities were identified in the Initial Dissemination Plan corresponding to different target audiences relevant for the Glamur dissemination. Those aims were maintained and fulfilled during the project development, as no reason for change emerged and no deviations occurred. A further fourth objective was included at the beginning of the project pointing to facilitation of the Consortium internal communication.

Objective 1: To disseminate the scientific results of the project within the scientific community
The project carried out and collected many relevant scientific findings. Given its inter-disciplinarity, Glamur could reach out several scientific circles. Virtually all communication tools typically used in the research environment were adopted, in large majority corresponding to the most used scientific channels of interaction (e.g. scientific conferences – papers, oral communications and posters; thematic seminars; journals).

Objective 2: To engage in a dialogue with society about scientific results and questions emerging from society about project issues
Glamur similarly devoted an important attention to practices and policies about food value chains and thus encouraged participation of a variety of relevant stakeholders and their active engagement in the project activities. In particular, value chain operators and civil society groups were actively involved in some crucial phases, being asked to contribute to the project with experiences, questions and debate. All main public events (notably the Expo 2015 webinar and the final conference) reserved an adequate space to the interaction with a selected audience in order to harvest comments and indications, further to get a sort of external validation of the project’s findings. Likewise, national stakeholder workshops offered the opportunity to discuss outcomes and to benefit from contributions coming from value chain players, policy makers, active citizens and other actors. The stakeholder workshops further offered to participants elements to debate and to learn from food chain performance assessment.

Objective 3: To disseminate the scientific results of the project to a non-specialist public
Given the relevance of the project to policies and practices, the dissemination activities constantly strived to use a clear and intelligible language when addressing the lay public. To achieve this goal the project also engaged non-specialist media to reach and appeal a larger audience. Partners carried out a mediation effort aimed at translating research activities and findings in a ready-made information, particularly when channeling through non-specialist media. Focus was then on disseminating specific and simplified Glamur information through press releases, grey literature or the Glamur cartoon, to name few examples.

Dissemination Targets
As already indicated above, the project dissemination structure has been built on a two-track communication, in the same way as the project, addressing both the scientific community and a broader lay audience.

The Glamur dissemination intentionally and explicitly invested energies in delivering the project outcomes to citizens with a high(er) level of interest in food production and to key value chain and civil society organisations. Glamur thus invested in their amplification potential as many entities involved in value chain activities or in active citizenship often act as brokers mediating the message to a broader range of consumers. More traditionally for a research project, Glamur devoted similar attention and interest in delivering its findings to the scientific community, with the aim of presenting an innovating scientific narrative on value chains and their performance assessment.
More specific targets were identified as follows:
• Food industry operators, Farmers’ organisations and associations, Civil society organisations, Policy makers; Consumers and food activists; media operators. Their involvement varied from debating technical aspects, sustainability criteria, policy analyses and recommendations, good practices and the like through a variety of communication means (newsletters, website, cartoon, webinar, public conferences, stakeholder workshops, ....). Glamur specifically targeted mass media in a few occasions providing a summary of the state of the art and translating its findings in an attempt to make them more appealing.
• Academics, students, researchers. Given the interdisciplinary scope of the project, and in particular its focus on economic, social, environmental, health and ethical fields, and the characteristics of the members of its Consortium, Glamur targeted a large range of scholars and learners of several disciplines from universities and research centres through more classic scientific dissemination means.

Dissemination Tools
A wide-ranging set of dissemination tools and events was developed by the project to reach out a varied audience. Most of these dissemination options were foreseen in the Initial and Interim Dissemination Plans, while others were added in itinere to better suit emerging communication needs. The whole set of dissemination tools and activities is meant to provide complementary information and communication channels enabling the Glamur audience to identify the most suitable and accessible documentation at virtually any level of literacy. However, it has to be noted that English, the language commonly used by Glamur in almost all its communication, can represent a dissemination barrier for many EU and non-EU citizens. The aforementioned dissemination activities are briefly individually outlined, where useful, including indications on dates and other details.

Objective 1: the Scientific Community

Scientific reports
Glamur scientific activity developed specific project reports on each case study and on other theoretical issues explored during the project lifespan. Additional reports reflect the dissemination trajectory and the interaction held with the project Advisory Board. 26 out of those reports (thus excluding the Expert meetings proceedings and the Dissemination reports) reflect the scientific activity carried out by the Glamur Consortium across five Work Packages (WP2-6).

Scientific papers
The Glamur reports generated during the project lifespan were often translated into scientific papers submitted to journals and conferences. Papers also reflected cross-cutting matters not necessarily reported by individual project documents and reports. Remarkably, as discussed within the Glamur Consortium, the project Scientific Coordinator and the Sustainability journal (ISSN 2071-1050) publisher have agreed to launch a special issue on "Sustainability Performance of Conventional and Alternative Food Chains". Glamur WP leaders act as guest editors and several Glamur partners planned to submit a paper arising from their project work. Additional to this, the not yet published but submitted publications can be found in the list below:

- Rougoor C.W. Elferink E.V. Lap T., Balkema A.J.,De Roest K., Pignedoli S.
Animal, Comparing local and global pork production chains on environmental impacts using Life Cycle Assessment, forthcoming 2016
Schmitt. E., Barjolle. D., Six. J., 2016. Assessing the degree of localness of food value chains. Submitted to the Journal of Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems. Accepted with major revisions and resubmitted on Jan 9th 2016.
- Schmitt Emilia, Barjolle Dominique, Tanquerey-Cado Anaëlle, Brunori Gianluca. (2015) Sustainability comparison of a local and a global milk value chains in Switzerland. Submitted Paper
- Schmitt. E., Keech. D., Maye. M., Barjolle. D., Kirwan. J. 2016. Comparing the sustainability of local and global food value chains: a case study of cheese products in Switzerland and the UK. Submitted for the special issue in the journal Sustainability.
- Gonzalo Gamboa, Marina Di Masso, Sara Mingorria, Zora Kovacic, Comparing local and global production chanson environmental impacts using Life Cycle Assessment. Animal. Submitted
- Tiziano Gomiero, Marta Rivera-Ferre, Mario Giampietro. The complexity of food systems:Defining relevant attributes and indicators for the evaluation of food supply chains. Sustainability (Submitted)
- Francesca Galli, Fabio Bartolini, Gianluca Brunori, Handling (dis)agreement on food chain sustainability performance**(submitted and accepted with revisions, to be revised)
- Francesca Galli, Francesca Venturi, Fabio Bartolini, Oriana Gava, Chiara Sanmartin, Angela Zinnai, Giampaolo Andrich, Gianluca Brunori, "How do processing practices impact on quality and nutritional value of bread? The Sourdough Tuscan Bread chain" submitted to International Food and Agribusiness Management Review
- Schmitt E., Keech D., Maye D., Barjolle D., Kirwan J. (2016) Comparison of the sustainability between local and global cheeses in Switzerland and the UK. [To be submitted to special issue of Sustainability by the end 2016].
- Stefano Grando, and Luca Colombo, Perceptions on food chain performances in Italy . [To be submitted to special issue of Sustainability by the end 2016].
- Kirwan, J., Maye, D. and Brunori, G. (2017) The place of ethics in defining the performance of food supply chains. [To be submitted to special issue of Sociologia Ruralis on ‘Sustainable food system transitions’ edited by Damian Maye and Jessica Duncan) by the end 2016].
- Maye, D., Kirwan, J. and Brunori, G. (2016) A multi-dimensional assessment of the performance of global and local food chains. [To be submitted to Geoforum by the end 2016]
- Kirwan, J., Maye, D. and Brunori, G. (2016) Acknowledging complexity in 21st Century food supply chains when assessing their performance and sustainability. Submitted to Geoforum
- Oostindie, H., van Broekhuizen, R., de Roest, K., Belletti, G., Arfini, F., Menozzi, D. and Hees E., Sense and Non-Sense of Local-Global Food Chain Comparison, Empirical Evidence from Dutch and Italian pork case-studies [To be submitted to special issue of Sustainability by the end 2016].
- Smith, J., Lang, T., Vorley, B., Barling, D. 2016 Policy frameworks and sustainable performance assessment: the case of local-global food chains (submitted to Sustainability Special Edition)
- Grivins, M. A comparative study of the legal and grey wild product supply chains. Journal of Rural Studies. Forthcoming
- Grivins, M., Tisenkopfs, T., Stojanovic, Z., Ristic, B. Forthcoming. A comparative analysis of the social performance of global and local berry supply chains. (submitted to Sustainability Special Edition)
- Chiffoleau Y., 2016 Dynamique des identités collectives dans le changement d’échelle des circuits courts alimentaires. Revue Française de Socio-Economie, accepted
- Touzard, J.-M. Chiffoleau, Y., Maffezzoli C. What is local or global about wine? An attempt at the objectification of a social construction, submitted to Sustainability

Posters sessions
Posters were prepared and used not always in occasion of scientific congresses, but also to present Glamur findings in different contexts in a way to provide an overview on the project’s state of the art. An example is given by the Glamur event organised at the FAO headquarter in Rome on February 2014. Similarly, a poster session was organised during the project (and External Expert) meeting in Belgrade to share WP3 results. Poster reported case studies results and relative work in progress (posters available at http://glamur.eu/work-packages/database-development/).

Expert forum
A Project Advisory Board (PAB) has been set up, initially including 15 European and international experts, observers and actors with no direct responsibility in the project; a few additional experts were eventually integrated to complement the range of expertise and to provide a supplementing advice. All but two experts attended at least one project event. The main role of the PAB was to enlarge the vision of the project and to validate and enhance the quality of the research, through a scientific scrutiny. PAB often discussed the progress of work in a conference format with a two way process of mutual information and suggestions exchange. Three Expert Fora meetings took place during the project and proceedings of such meetings are available on the project website.
Finally, integration between Glamur partners and the External Experts showed the establishment of a vivid community as demonstrated by the attendance of PAB members at the project final conference held in Bruxelles in January 2016, where many of them joined and contributed to the debate.

Objective 2: the Society

Food industry operators, Policy makers, Farmers’ organisations, civil society associations. Cross-cutting dissemination
As stated above, intermediate organisations were considered a suitable interface to broker the project information to a wider audience with a stake in Glamur topics. The assumption made by the Glamur dissemination is that those organisations and their representatives are already alphabetised on many food system aspects and features. They are thus skilled to capture Glamur results and assumptions and to dialogue with the project researchers.
Cross-cutting dissemination also included in fact activities meant to directly establish a dialogue with the targeted audience, based on both scientific rigour and socioeconomic relevance for the stakeholders. Suitable dissemination activities were then organised with an interactive format, opening Glamur findings to a participatory elaboration and validation (or disagreement) in any event promoted by the project under these requisites.

Finally, though not being a proactive project dissemination initiative, it should be noted that Glamur also benefited from external interest in promoting the project through scientifically literate channels: examples are given by articles published by EC Cordis (http://cordis.europa.eu/result/rcn/169374_en.html ), the H2020 project management platform Xtranet-ISA (http://www.xtranet-isa.com/blog/235) the Rurality.org blog (http://rurality.org/en/2015/09/30/glamur-for-cheese-and-tomatoes/). Reference to Glamur is also made on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_food_supply_chains).

Glamur Webinar
The Universal Exhibition “Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life” has been held in Milan, Italy from May to October 2015. Hosted by the EU pavillon, Glamur had the opportunity to present its findings in a 2 hour workshop titled “GLAMUR: struggling between Glocal and Lobal food chains” (programme available at http://glamur.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/glamur-expo-2015-13-october.pdf).

The event was broadcasted live to present the project results in the webinar format and an edited version of the video is available on the project website homepage (http://glamur.eu/glamur-at-expo-13th-october-2015/). Similarly available on glamur.eu the relative powerpoint presentations.

Public Events
Glamur organized three main public events during the project lifespan, presenting the project outcomes with the aim to establish a dialogue between the Glamur community and invited stakeholders, researchers, experts, journalists and policy makers. These events allowed having participants from different EU Member States and overseas. The FAO and EXPO events represented two global arenas to discuss project findings while the Final Conference in Bruxelles was more directed to the EU policy environment.

The final conference
On 22 January 2016 food system researchers, civil society, governance and market representatives were gathering in Brussels to participate in the final conference of the GLAMUR project. The conference meant to present the project trajectory and its policy considerations, aiming to also signify an international stakeholder workshop where a wide range of participants could discuss the research activities. A dialogue, facilitated by the Glamur research(ers), among social and economic constituencies and between them and policy makers was envisaged, exploring options and conditions for the emergence of a consensus frame.

Held at the end of January and hosted by the Tuscany Region premises, the conference “Local and Global food chains: the quest for sustainability” presented the Glamur findings and main considerations arising from its three-year project.

The final conference proceedings provide an overview of the conference (available at http://glamur.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/glamur-wp7-d7-7-proceedings-of-the-final-conference.pdf).

National stakeholder workshops
The national workshops had the main aim to collect local empirical evidence and to discuss with local/national stakeholders the project findings. An implicit ‘reality check’ and co-validation of the project findings was envisaged by the national workshops. Main outcomes and contributions coming from the workshops fed the project elaboration as a complementary country-led perspective. Particularly active those workshops organised in Latvia, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and UK.

Objective 3 : Non-specialist public

Glamur Logo
A graphic identity was drawn for the project. A bicolour logo representing a target/plate and cutlery was chosen to distinguish Glamur; the acronym and the full project title were included in the logo. The logo has been inserted in any of the project dissemination tools (e.g. website, newsletters) and documents (e.g. posters, prints, powerpoints and deliverables).

Glamur website
The Glamur website represented the project’s key broad dissemination tool and has been designed as the project public window, aiming to reach a widest possible public. The full description of the project is included in the website together with the specificities of each WP and their pertinent documentations; each member of the consortium has been geographically dotted on a map and linked to their home academic/association website. It hosts all project deliverables, the dissemination material, announcements and indications on main Glamur events.
In year 2, the website has undergone a graphic redesign, making it neater and more visitor-friendly. Redesign also meant to provide a more central and evidenced section for Glamur scientific deliverables and outputs.
Some figures can describe the glamur.eu relevance: in 2015 it was visited 44565 times by 23551 unique users, while at the end of January 2016 they were 2678 and 1455 respectively.

The Glamur blog
A specific section of the Glamur website was developed as a blog with the aim of allowing partners and visitors to participate and share their expertise.
The project dissemination thus conceived and developed the blog as a platform for news coming from external resources on Glamur pertinent issues. An unbiased selection of articles of different sources and orientations was displayed on the blog making it one of the few online repertoires on the issue. The posts reflected broad narratives on global and local foods, pertinent stories made available on the web, journals and newsletters. 214 posts were published in this section.

Social Networks
Glamur created its public profile on Facebook and Twitter to build social relations among people who share interests, activities or backgrounds linked to Glamur matters. The Glamur profile on social networks invited users to share their ideas, information, activities and knowledge to expand its learning. A specific linkedin group has been created to promote the project within this professional network.
Yet, it should be recognised that the Glamur dissemination made no tailored efforts to amplify its message through social networks.

Newsletters
A series of six English newsletters has been sent to identified stakeholders mailing list and free online subscribers on project activities and issues at stake. The newsletters were issued at the eve or right after key events to announce and document project reports, meetings, events. A common template was set up and links to key glamur.eu website pages represented the newsletters communication rationale to both convey traffic to the website and keep them concise and readable.
In general terms, newsletters resulted a key “passive” tool enabling the targeted audience to be updated on Glamur issues. Further to a progressive increase in recipients, interest raised by more definite project findings is shown by the active reader escalation towards the final stages of the project.

Cartoon and Infographics
A 6 minute Cartoon summarises the project’s content and key indications. Initially foreseen around ten minutes in the DoW, given the prevalent advice to shrink its duration in order to grasp internet users’ attention and to ensure a larger potential audience, the cartoon was shortened in length and the decision was communicated and accepted during the project mid-term review.
The cartoon has been delivered in October 2015, uploaded on the project homepage (glamur.eu) and it is available online on youtube. A preview was made at the Glamur Expo event.
The cartoon proved to be an effective communication tool to address the broader audience and, with a simplified message, have them to understand the multiple interactions of food consumption. On the glamur.eu website only, 222 unique users visualised the cartoon by January 2016 (after three months of its upload).

Press releases and Grey literature
Partners have been encouraged to disseminate Glamur events to and through the mass media issuing press releases and other communications to appeal a larger audience and raise interest. In addition, partners have been asked to publish articles on magazines and newspapers to largely disseminate the project to the general public. These extra-scientific publications could have a particular interest in the occasion of specific events, however efforts remained partial in this respect.

Project Brochures
At the beginning of the project an initial brochure was issued to summarise the essentials of Glamur and make Glamur’s contents easily graspable. The two side A4 brochure was laid in English and partners were invited to disseminate it electronically or printed to any national or international meeting they may have attended. In January 2016 a final brochure containing the Glamur key messages was printed and distributed during the final conference to all the participants and project partners.

Final Booklet
In January 2016 a final booklet (16 pages) with a description of the project outcomes was printed and eventually distributed during the final conference within the conference folder. Additional copies were made available to the project partners and to those who required them. Further to being available in a printed version, it is uploaded on the project website (http://glamur.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/glamur-booklet.pdf) in electronic format, thus ensuring a possible longer use. It also represents an important tool for dissemination to a wider audience.

Infographics and drawings
Not foreseen by the DoW, it became apparent during the dissemination activities and the cartoon realisation that some concise and vivid communication, such as those granted by infographics, could help to better grasp the project findings. These infographics were handed out at the Glamur Expo event participants providing an idea of Glamur rationale and messages in a nutshell.
With the similar intention to provide an instant pleasant graphic summary to the Glamur final conference participants, Glamur hired a professional team of graphic storytellers to summarise and report the event discussions. The idea was largely appreciated by participants and the visual results have been made available on both the final conference proceedings and on http://glamur.eu/work-packages/dissemination/.

List of Websites:
Contact information:

Project website: www.glamur.eu

Gianluca Brunori (scientific coordinator), gianluca.brunori@unipi.it
Rudolf van Broekhuizen (administrative coordinator), rudolf.vanbroekhuizen@wur.nl
Wageningen University, Rural Sociology Group
Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, The Netherlands
Tel. +31 317 483833 / 48507