Content uploaded by Steffen Böhm
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Steffen Böhm on Jun 08, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Circular Food Systems: A blueprint for regenerative
innovations in a regional UK context
Steffen Böhm, Rebecca Sandover, Stefano Pascucci, Laura Colombo, Sophie Jackson, Matt Lobley
(all at University of Exeter, UK)
Book chapter for
A Research Agenda for Food Systems
Edited by Colin Sage
To be published by Edward Elgar [2021]
https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/book-series/geography/elgar-research-agendas.html
Introduction
The global food system is under pressure to supply affordable, nutritious and appetising products. To
maximise production and affordability, the food system has become extractive, linear and excessively
reliant on imports and long supply chains (D'Odorico et al. 2018; Rockström et al., 2020). Some island
communities in the Caribbean, for example, rely on more than 80% on imports to feed themselves
(Thomas, Moore & Edwards, 2018). Even a big, rich and fertile country, such as the United Kingdom,
imports more than half of its food requirements (Lang, 2020). This has resulted in harmful environmental,
human and economic health impacts (Godfray et al., 2010), including: increased greenhouse gas emissions;
biodiversity loss; high levels of food waste; poor diets; preventable diseases; poorly paid jobs; low
productivity; reduced opportunities for SMEs; etc. The average UK diet, for example, does not meet
nutritional recommendations and has a higher carbon footprint than many high-income countries
(Steenson & Buttriss, 2021). The UK imports increasing and unsustainable amounts of foods from climate
vulnerable countries, threatening future food security.
The most promising solutions to these challenges will emerge from a shift to more diverse, regional food
systems that adopt low-carbon and regenerative agriculture principles, engaging consumers to increasingly
consume local, sustainable produce. Based on the principles of closing loops, designing effective and
resilient food systems, diversity, multi-stakeholder cooperation, place-based food culture, participation and
empowerment, as well as value retention and enhancement, we contend that regional circular food
systems can create multiple, interconnected health benefits.
This chapter will introduce the blueprint of a regional circular food system from a UK perspective, which we
believe is best achieved through a dynamic process of cooperation amongst multiple stakeholders
(policymakers, businesses, citizens, NGOs) at the regional level, addressing multiple environmental, social
and economic challenges in a specific geography. We define circularity as the practice of identifying and
optimising feedback processes within systems to enable them to regenerate; reduce their dependency on
external inputs; and maximise the optimisation-value to system actors and to the system as a whole (Fassio
& Tecco, 2019; Alhawari et al., 2021; Sreeharsha & Mohan, 2021; Kowalski & Makara, 2021). Circular
Economy principles and practices are extended here to take an integrated approach to addressing human,
environmental and economic health via food systems transformation.
To instigate transformational change, we will outline three institutional innovations that are of relevance in
the UK context, namely community-supported agriculture schemes, food hubs and public food
procurement partnerships. Discussing existing cases of these institutional innovations, we will show how
we can move beyond feted ‘field-to-fork' approaches, providing a more integrated approach that aims to
transform regional food systems. A word of caution. Our emphasis on ‘regional’ does not imply a
protectionist or isolationist agenda that dovetails with the UK’s recent exit from the European Union. On
the contrary, a predominantly regional focus of food system intervention does not preclude global
cooperation and sharing between regions for mutual co-benefit and global human, environmental and
economic health gain (Sibbing, Candel & Termeer, 2021).
Indeed, our circular approach to food systems closely aligns with a number of Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs) and other governmental and inter-governmental policy agendas. Most notably, regional
circular food systems would help to radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, helping the world tackle
global climate change (Goodman, DuPuis & Goodman, 2012). It would also address other environmental
challenges, such as biodiversity loss, soil health and water quality and security (Rockström et al., 2020;
Schreefel et al., 2020). Our approach aims to improve food security by providing better access to safe,
sustainable and nutritious food, particularly for the most vulnerable members of society, while reducing
childhood and adult obesity and other diet-related health conditions. It also aims to radically improve the
economic health amongst small-scale food producers and workers, which are amongst the lowest paid in
many economies (Böhm, Spierenburg & Lang, 2020).
Currently, many local initiatives exist to address the problems of the food system. Yet, they largely operate
individually, with little opportunity for coordination between them. What is needed is to link and
coordinate local food initiatives to promote a “politics of possibility” and “new economic imaginary” within
networks of place-based action for food systems change across regions. An integrated regional circular food
system enables creative, locally embedded movements to become exemplars of new economic activity that
brings to the fore human and environmental health.
The current food system: extractive and linear
The evidence on the impacts of conventional and linearly designed food systems point to the need to re-
think the design of food provisioning processes, considering simultaneously human, environmental and
economic aspects (Moreau et al., 2017). Linearly-designed food systems have provided unprecedented
agricultural productivity growth, advanced an abundance of technologies and infrastructure dedicated to
food production and distribution, and in so doing, generated wealth and generous returns on investments
for several food system actors (Pascucci, 2020). However, despite its promise, this approach to food
provisioning, from production to market and distribution mechanisms, seems to be unable to feed the
world (FAO et al. 2015), ensuring environmental and social benefits for all. Linear food provisioning
approaches are characterised by economy-driven factors, often organized in large-scale and highly
industrialized processes defined by centralization, dependence on external inputs (e.g. fossil fuel), high
competition, domination of nature, specialization, and exploitation (Pascucci and Duncan, 2017; Rockström
et al., 2017).
All these factors have contributed to the emergence of highly extractive food provisioning systems, with a
growing evidence indicating their lack of resilience and sustainability. Today agricultural expansion is the
leading driver of deforestation. Between the period of 2000 and 2010 localised subsistence agriculture
accounted for 33% of deforestation and large-scale commercial agriculture accounted for 40% of tropical
deforestation and land conversion accounts directly for the loss of 420 million hectares of forest since 1990
(FAO and UNEP, 2020). Additionally, agriculture directly contributes up to 8.5% of global greenhouse gas
emissions with an additional 14.5% of greenhouse gas emissions derived from land use change (IPCC,2019).
This indicates the emergence of diffused food provisioning systems that are highly extractive, creating
specific pressures on finite resources such as water, soil and biodiversity. These pressures are systemic and
affect food systems at different scales and levels, creating a protracted socio-ecological crisis. This is in turn
inherently linked to the linear and extractive design model of conventional food provisioning systems,
employed from production to distribution and consumption. The problem for us lies in the way the food
provisioning systems have been designed. These provisioning systems are typically organised in value
chains in which resources are taken, used and disposed of. In such linearly designed system, natural
resources are extracted, made into products (food, feed or fibre), commodified, consumed, and then
disposed of, generating waste, detrimental emissions, and pollution. This wasteful, exploitative and
resource-use intensive approach is often creating short-term economic benefits at the costs of
deterioration of human and environmental health, for instance in terms of environmental degradation,
food epidemics, and direct contribution to climate change.
The UK is a case in point, which has for perhaps longer than other highly developed countries suffered from
a linear and extractive food system, resulting in high rates of dependency on food imports. For example, for
fresh fruit and vegetable supplies, the UK imports 84% and 47.3% respectively (Food Foundation, 2020). In
consequence, multiple harmful human, environmental and economic health impacts and risks are rising in
the shape of, for example, obesity (28% of all people in England - Health Survey for England), poor diets
(only 26% of UK adults adhere to the 5-a-day guidance of fruit and vegetables intake), chronic non-
communicable diseases; increasing microbial and pest resistance (due to overuse of antibiotics and other
artificial inputs in intensive agricultural systems). Environmental impacts include excessive greenhouse gas
emissions, biodiversity loss (e.g. breeding birds on farmland have declined by 45% from 1970 to 2018),
waste pollution, and degradation of soils, freshwater and other ecosystems. The economic costs of these
impacts are immense (e.g. UK soil degradation was calculated in 2010 to cost £1.2 billion a year).
Meanwhile, those employed in the food system often experience poor working conditions, with jobs
tending to be low-paid and precarious.
In the last few decades, there have been attempts to tackle these issues by stimulating incremental
changes towards more sustainable practices, in all dimensions of food provisioning, as well as increasing
measuring and monitoring of the negative impacts of these activities, such as through life cycle assessment
(LCA), carbon footprint, and other eco-efficiency approaches (Verfaillie & Bidwell, 2000; Braungart et al.,
2007). These concepts are all, in one way or another, concerned with using less resources and producing
less emissions, thus being more efficient and environmentally sustainable. Eco-efficiency approaches
attempt to minimise the speed, toxicity and volume of material flows, but fail to challenge, let alone,
reimagine the linear and extractive approach of food provisioning systems. From an economic point of
view, eco-efficiency can result in a short-term cost reduction as a result of using fewer materials. However,
in the long(er) term, eco-efficiency implies socio-economic growth at expense of the environment and
human health. Thus, a key limitation of eco-efficient approaches to enhanced sustainability is that
(harmful) waste and negative impacts on the environment and human health remain an outcome of the
production process.
Moving away from this extractive and linear approach requires more than just adaptation and more likely a
systemic approach, in which food provisioning is re-imagined and re-designed to celebrate regenerative
and restorative processes. Business-as-usual is no longer an option (IAASTD, 2009). So where do we start?
How do we design our way out of a system that has a destructive impact on human, social and
environmental health and ecosystems? In an attempt to address the limitations of the linearly designed
food systems, we draw inspiration from the concept of regenerative food provisioning systems.
Designing regenerative, circular food systems: three principles
In regenerative food provisioning systems, the aim is to
counter the “taken, used and disposed of” tradition of
conventional food production and, instead, design
approaches where natural resources can be used and safely
returned back to ecosystems. More specifically,
regenerative food provisioning systems are intentionally re-
designed around a set of three key principles: (i) closing
loops and designing for effective and resilient systems; (ii)
celebrating diversity through sharing, participation and
cooperation; and (iii) place-based value retention and
creation. The premise of this approach is that localised food
provisioning systems are best suited for aligning human,
economic and environmental health outcomes. This is
because closer proximity allows for designing circular and
regenerative systems that take account of local topography
and ecosystems, local cultures and infrastructures.
Figure 1 schematically depicts our regional circular food
system approach where the inner circle symbolises the food chain (producing, processing, distributing,
accessing, consuming and waste recycling), while the outer circle categorises the human, environmental
and economic health dimensions of food systems.
The model depicts the design of a circular system that optimises the food chain not only for the economic
benefit of food producers, distributors and consumers but also includes the human and environmental
health dimensions as key parts. In short, it is not enough to produce food efficiently and at ever greater
quantity so that consumers have an ever-wider choice, paying lower prices. This is linear thinking
championed by an extractive regime. Instead, a whole systems approach needs to be taken, which
functions according to the following three main principles:
Closing loops and designing for effective and resilient systems
Following this principle, food production, distribution, and consumption processes should be designed
around the use of renewable energy and materials, taking into account the properties of ecosystems. The
aim is to design processes capable of returning biological nutrients safely back into natural cycles (D’Amato
et al., 2019; Borrello et al., 2020). As such a truly regenerative food system is able to produce and distribute
food avoiding the use of fossil fuels, and in general to use renewable energy and resources. Following this
principle, food provisioning systems need to be designed eco-effectively; that is, in such a way that the use
of hazardous and toxic materials is eliminated (Borrello et al., 2020). In this way, any food product would
contribute to design metabolisms, promoting a positive synergistic relationship between ecological and
social systems, economic growth and human health (Pascucci and Duncan, 2017). Closing loops and
regenerating also means addressing the re-utilization of materials. Inspired by industrial ecology, in a
regenerative economy, food products are designed to be used and consumed such that their biological and
technical (non-biological) components (i.e. packaging) are not mixed (Borrello et al., 2020). Avoiding the
mix of biological and technical materials means designing food products, and managing materials during
the process, in ways that facilitate easy separation and re-use. Issues related to how residual outputs (i.e.
packaging, or wastewater) will be used by another actor/participant in the cycle after usage/consumption
are incorporated in the design of the product (Tukker, 2015; Borrello et al., 2020). In this way, within a
circular food approach, it is not only products that are being designed, but also “streams” of nutrients. In
practice, this means that the design of a food product will include the use of biodegradable or compostable
packaging, or any packaging which can be upcycled as a technical nutrient in a given metabolism (e.g.,
paper, glass, plastics). Key to the design process is avoiding the use of materials that mix biological and non-
biological nutrients. This results in a waste product that cannot easily be returned to the system, leading
some to label such materials as “monstrous hybrids” (Braungart and McDonough, 2002). A typical example
Figure 1: Regional Circular Food System Model
of a monstrous hybrid would be packaging where cellulose and aluminium are mixed together in a way that
they cannot be disassembled nor easily re-used (e.g. drinks cartons).
In linearly designed food provisioning systems, there is an inherent trade-off between resource efficiency
and resilience (Borrello et al., 2020). While resilience calls for an interconnection and diversification of food
systems, such that perturbations can be absorbed by and dealt with the different components (actors) of
the system, efficiency is oriented to streamline production processes and celebrate standardization in
isolation. Diversified systems prove to be more likely resilient and adaptive but are not always efficient in
the short-run (Ulanowicz et al., 2009). Vice versa, highly specialized systems may gain efficiency in terms of
resource use in the short-run, but because they rely on resource-intense and standardized processes and
they are so over-dependent on external inputs, they may lose the adaptability to changes, thus being highly
inefficient in the long-run (Ulanowicz et al., 2009). A food provisioning system designed around sharing
resources aims at reconciling efficiency and resilience through adaptive optimization processes. At farm
level, optimizing stimulate the adoption of technology towards, for example, a more deliberate use of
fertilizers and water (e.g. precision farming), to adopt a crop rotation, reduce the tillage (or eliminate it),
and adopt permaculture and/or agro-ecological practices (Pascucci and Duncan, 2017). Optimizing along
the supply chain also aims at prolonging the life-span of key materials, for example, re-using and up-cycling
packaging (Borrello et al., 2020). At distribution level, it also deals with eliminating food waste, for example
by improving the use of big data and IT-based platform to better organize operations and inventories in the
retailing space (e.g. optimizing the storage capacities of retailers). At consumption level, reducing food
waste entails engaging in changing food habits, fight obesity, starvation and the desertification of food
landscapes.
Celebrating diversity through sharing, participation and cooperation
The re-balancing of efficiency and resilience is also re-enforced by the principle of celebrating diversity. This
is a wide system thinking approach inviting actors involved in the food provisioning system to think about
local communities, justice and power unbalances, as well as collaboratively design rules and decision-
making mechanisms to govern the food system. As food regime theorists have shown, the food system is
highly concentrated today, dominated by a handful of global corporations (McMichael, 2009). This
concentrated, even monopolized system is not very resilient, as it depends on just a few actors to function
well. The call to celebrate diversity is to encourage people to think about how to foster collaborative
interactions and democratize food systems, to make them more inclusive and hence resilient. This entails a
decolonization process that allows local communities to take charge of their own food provisioning, in line
with their local traditions and cultures, providing economic opportunities. A system designed for most
people to shop in large supermarkets, which are owned by international shareholders in distant cities and
countries, is not a diverse system that provides opportunities for the many. Instead, it encourages a culture
of dependency on long supply chains, which, during crisis, are vulnerable. To overcome dependency, food
systems need to be designed for sharing, participation and cooperation, giving voice and material stakes to
local communities (Bharucha et al., 2020).
Circular food system initiatives are intrinsically collaborative (Pascucci, 2020). Often constituted as the
outcome of a process of multi-stakeholder interactions, they rely on cooperation to survive and thrive.
Community-supported agriculture schemes, for example, create stable networks of mutual support among
citizens and with farmers (e.g. sharing skills, knowledge and resources). Food hubs allow food producers
and consumers to come together and empower each other, generating new routes to market and
improving local food accessibility. Public food procurement partnerships are grounded on the relationship
between public authorities and local farmers, creating opportunities for deeper institutional change.
Not only these interactions and collaborations enable local-regional food production, distribution and
trade, but they also create non-material goods (such as ‘relational goods’), which are produced and
consumed within the local community. The importance of relational goods for strengthening social capital
and wellbeing is widely acknowledged by researchers and practitioners (Donati, 2019). Increasing social
capital is essential for overcoming human and economic health crises, such as food related illnesses and
economic exclusion and lack of opportunity.
The UK has a diverse food movement, comprised of a wealth of actors and organisations acting as
advocates for food systems change in a range of ways, including by contributing to consultation processes
such as recently informed the National Food Strategy, or the House of Lords Select Committee on Food,
Poverty, Health and the Environment consultation on links between inequality, public health and food
sustainability. The knowledge produced by civil society food organisations are informing current policy
debates on food and sustainability, whilst also contributing to academic knowledge production. Academics
have a long history of researching social movements but in recent years more participatory approaches are
being deployed where academics research alongside partners in social movements, civil society
organisations and informal community groups (Gillan & Pickerill 2012, Sandover 2020). This switch is
important as there is greater awareness of the wealth of knowledge and evidence produced by civil society
organisations and community groups.
Our approach set out here is informed by working alongside the UK food movement. By taking a
collaborative, participatory approach with research partners, we have been able to gain knowledge on
current debates and concerns relating to sustainability within the food system, whilst also sharing our
expertise with our partners to drive change on the ground. This participatory approach enables knowledge
production processes that support community empowerment through food practices. Examples include the
recent Food for Change Programme that operated in Cornwall to support people back into employment,
volunteering or training. Food for Change ran community-based food skills training via cooking and growing
workshops, alongside one to one mentoring, to support participants who lacked food skills, experienced
food insecurity, poor health and experienced loneliness. Similar programmes that empower communities
through food are being supported by civil society food organisations across the UK (Blake, 2019).
Place-based value retention and creation
Academics, entrepreneurs and policymakers often assume that larger scale equates with greater impact. In
the management literature, scaling is usually referred to as ‘scaling-up’ and considered a synonym for
organisational growth and success (Ruggiero, Martiskainen & Onkila, 2018; Macqueen et al, 2020). Business
strategies are thus often dominated by the search for economies-of-scale and the desirability of
organisational growth is rarely in question. The assumption that global is the optimal scale is also reflected
in current international trade negotiations by the UK government, in which food and agricultural products
feature prominently.
However, initiatives that embrace integrated, circular approaches to food systems (e.g. community-
supported agriculture schemes, food hubs and public food procurement partnerships) challenge these
assumptions. Largely operating at a local-regional level, whilst engaging in multinational cooperation and
solidarity, these initiatives are connected by a web of complex relations and the willingness to address the
global challenges that threaten our future. In the context of alternative food networks, the question of
scale is a question of purpose. What is scaling for? Circular food systems require changing the goal: ‘from
endless growth to thriving in balance’ (Raworth, 2017). Consequently, this requires changing the way scale
and scaling are considered: a global scale is not necessarily optimal; nor is scaling up always a route to
impact.
Research on diverse economies and alternative food networks shows that innovations scale through
different routes including impacting policies (scaling-up); impacting culture (scaling-deep); and impacting
greater numbers (scaling-out). Different scaling routes involve different strategies, such as advocacy and
campaigning (scaling-up), replication and diffusion (scaling-out) and storytelling, transformative learning
and community of practice (scaling-deep) (Moore, Riddell and Vocisano, 2015). Transforming food systems
requires action at different levels, including at local and regional scales. This is where circular food
initiatives are often situated and where they thrive. Operating at a local-regional scale means increasing the
opportunities for different stakeholders to participate in the food system. In a virtuous circle, participation
strengthens trust that, in turn, reinforces cooperation (Jarosz, 2000). Short supply chains enable the
development of local food cultures, improving the sense of belonging and wellbeing; and food sovereignty
allows both producers and consumers to have more influence and control over food production,
distribution and trade.
Whilst operating at a local-regional scale, circular food initiatives rely on each other to increase their impact
(scaling-with). For example, they gather in local networks and constitute food hubs, support each other
through creating solidarity economy districts and join international networks such as La Via Campesina.
Building networks and partnerships is a vital strategy that allows diverse enterprises to retain economic,
social and environmental value locally; and exercise their influence globally. Circular food systems is a term
aligned with other descriptors used for local or place-based food systems, such as Local-Regional or City-
Region Food Systems and Civic Food Networks (Renting et al., 2012). It denotes action towards addressing
contemporary food issues including complex issues of power, social justice and community resilience,
amongst others. A key focus is on local value retention and creation. While a system that is monopolised by
a handful of powerful actors transfers value out of local places into the hands of distant executives and
shareholders, a place-based approach secures local value retention and creation. A community-supported
agricultural farm business, for example, supports local jobs, enhances local social capital and produces food
within a local ecosystem environment. ‘Value’ should here not be seen as simply economic value, but as an
integrated value system that aims to optimise human, environmental and economic health dimensions.
A place-based approach to envisioning and delivering a circular food system fits with wider food policy
scholarship and the work of key civil society organisations, which contends that place-based food policies
are effective in addressing complex food issues (Morgan & Sonnino, 2010, Sonnino et al., 2016, Moragues-
Faus & Morgan, 2015). Place-based Food Initiatives are being deployed at a range of scales across the UK,
from city level, borough to countywide projects, as exemplified by the networks convened by The
Sustainable Food Places Network, Food Power Alliances and Feeding Britain projects. Place-based
approaches take into account context-specific environments and can take a more integrated approach that
works across policy sectors and silos. In the UK a plethora of Local Food Initiatives have arisen in response
to England’s food policy vacuum (although there is hope that this will change via the work of the National
Food Strategy). The ongoing work of the Sustainable Food Places network, with its 57-strong, UK wide
membership, undertaking place-based food policy and programme change, demonstrates the momentum
of activity behind place-based approaches to food systems transformation.
Institutional innovations for regional circular food systems
To transform regional food systems, new, innovative institutional models are required, which are able to
synergise previously disparate activities. In the UK, for example, there have been many local, small-scale
attempts to bring about positive change in the food system. The ‘Making Local Food Work’ campaign, for
example, ‘aimed to reconnect people and land through local food by increasing access to fresh, healthy,
local food with clear, traceable origins’ (Sustain, 2021). This resulted in many positive projects, such as the
establishment of food hubs, food co-ops and buying groups, the mapping of local and regional food
systems, and the improvement of hospital food (Hinrichs & Charles, 2012; Kirwan & Maye, 2013). These
were meaningful projects that created change in local communities, helping to rebuild local food cultures
and economies (Santo & Moragues-Faus, 2019). Yet, they rarely had supported by institutional actors, such
as local authorities and other large so-called ‘anchor organizations’ (Mount, 2012). Change efforts were
hence rarely sustained, keeping dominant food regime structures in place. The dominance by UK
supermarkets is unbroken (Murray & Caraher, 2019), as supply chains are getting ever longer, and UK high-
streets are ever more marked by a proliferation of fast food outlets, serving unhealthy food with low or no
nutritional value (Hubbard, 2017). Meanwhile the human, environmental and economic health indicators
associated with the UK food system are becoming worse, heightened by the COVID pandemic. Obesity
rates, for examples, have increased exponentially over the past two years.
The UK government has tried to take action by bringing in a so-called ‘sugar tax’ in 2018, officially known as
the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (HM Treasury, 2018). Focused on reducing consumption of sugary soft drinks,
it has reportedly made a difference to sugar consumption, particularly by children; i.e. it is working (Jones,
Wu & Buse (2021). Aware of the multiple factors involved in the UK food crisis, the government has also
commissioned Henry Dimbleby to write a National Food Strategy (2021), whose report was published in
2021. These are positive steps in the right direction. Yet, whatever has been done so far has not worked
sufficiently to shift the UK food system towards a more sustainable future.
We suggest that new institutional approaches are needed to create sustained, transformative change in the
UK food system. While large institutions, such as local authorities as well as central government, play an
important role in driving change, it is important to not only think about change as a top-down movement.
As our discussion of scale and placed-based approaches indicated above, cooperation amongst small-scale
actors can equally create sustained, transformative change that is able to create multiple value benefits
local communities, ecosystems and economies. We will now outline three institutional innovations as
examples of how such transformative change can practically look like within regional circular food systems.
Public food procurement partnerships
In the UK the public sector spends about £2.4bn per year procuring food and catering services (DEFRA,
2014). Given the significant spending power and number of people these institutions feed, the purchasing
decisions made by public sector procurers influences every aspect of the food system as well as a myriad of
externalities, including the natural environment, human health, biodiversity, skills and training, the climate,
economies of all scales, sense of identity and material extraction.
As the UK government’s A Plan for Public Procurement (DEFRA, 2014) notes, effective public procurement
can deliver a range of benefits including: supporting a thriving local economy; rewarding food producers for
operating to high animal welfare standards; building training opportunities into contracts to ensure a well-
skilled food and farming sector; tackling health issues by enabling people to eat well across the public
sector; tackle food poverty, which has been raising exponentially during the COVID-19 pandemic; helping
school children value their food by knowing where their food comes from, and how to cook healthy meals.
By choosing to purchase food that is locally and sustainably produced as well as highly nutritious, the public
sector is uniquely placed to drive transformational change that will put a sustainable environment, healthy
people and healthy local economies at the heart of the UK food system.
Yet, in practice, the enormous potential for public sector procurement to drive change has barely been
tapped. Instead, cost-reduction remains an overriding objective for purchasing managers (Marshall et al.,
2020) due to the lack of compelling evidence to prove the value in procuring sustainable food as well as the
lack of enablers to make that procurement possible and feasible (i.e., policy, technology, logistics and
supply). Due to their significant spending power, large ‘anchor’ institutions (e.g. local authorities, schools,
universities, hospitals, prisons, etc.) are ideally placed to transform the agri-food system by demanding
higher standards of suppliers. The Preston model (Whyman, 2021) suggests that anchor organisations can
produce positive knock-on effects beyond the immediate supplier-procurer relationship, positively
influencing local and regional economies. Yet, across the UK, thousands of small, regional suppliers of
nutritious, sustainably produced food find themselves excluded from procurement chains in favour of
larger national or multinational operators (Stahlbrand, 2018). We view this disconnect as a profound
market failure, because smaller-scale and regional suppliers have the potential to support public sector
organisations in driving positive environmental, health and economic outcomes.
We contend that the food chain (see inner circle of Fig 1) can be made more resilient by linking public
sector buyers with a network of producers, delivering multiple human, environmental and socio-economic
health benefits (see outer circle of Fig 1). Our perspective is both informed and supported by non-academic
partners with direct experience of the challenge of sustainable food procurement and its potential for
transformative multiple health benefits. A recent report highlights that this regional approach ‘does not
have to be more expensive – and at the same time we can support local, seasonally produced food, which
is often healthier for the consumer, has lower food miles, and chimes with the Government’s own ‘net
zero’ and future farming ambitions too’ (House of Commons, 2021). This confirms that regional public
procurement ‘has the potential to produce major reductions in food carbon footprints’ (Devon Climate
Emergency Response Group, 2020). Giving local producers access to public sector procurement would
create local jobs and increase economic resilience of rural communities. Those employed in the food
system often experience poor working conditions, with jobs tending to be low-paid and precarious (Lewis
et al., 2015). Cutting out intermediaries and forging direct and equitable business relationships with major
procurers would improve livelihoods for local producers.
Food hubs
Food hubs, which aggregate food, typically from local and smaller producers, distributing it to a local
customer base, have emerged in the UK as an innovative alternative to the current linear agri-food model
dominated by large scale producers, processors, distributors and retailers. Frequently grounded on the
principles of open innovation, food hubs are characterised by collaborative working and a focus on
effectiveness-orientated agro-ecological principles (Psarikidou et al. 2019, Guzman & Reynolds 2019).
Whilst food hubs aim towards relocalising the food economy by supporting local food distribution, they can
have a variety of meanings within academic literature, community organisations and social enterprises.
Guzman and Reynolds’ (2019:4) report found that:
‘In practice, we have found food hubs, both here and in the US, to be very varied in composition
and purpose. Some are focused solely on building an alternative local and/or more sustainable food
supply chain, while others also aim to deliver wider social, economic and environmental benefits.’
Place-based food organisations such as Food Exeter, Bristol Food network, Food Durham and others, see
local food hubs as potentially fulfilling two roles: 1) a collaborative approach to creating new routes to
market that enable small-scale local food producers to access new consumers; 2) providing a physical space
for community food practises that empower communities via affordable access to local, sustainable, fresh
produce, which doubles up as learning space for sharing food skills and social space for sharing and
consuming food, e.g. a community café (Lewis, 2015; Food Exeter, 2019; Blake, 2019). Guzman and
Reynolds (2019) found that food hubs adopted a range of operational approaches that depended on their
assets and capacities, such as whether they had access to a physical space to run a hub from. Alternatively,
telephone or increasingly virtual formats were deployed to link local food producers and consumers.
Innovation in local food distribution is being trialled in the UK by a number of organisations at a range of
scales including The South West Food Hub, Supply Devon, Tamar Valley Food Hubs, with the aim of
supporting small-scale producers to access new customer bases, including local authority procurers.
At the heart of a food hub approach is the idea that food is not only a question of provisioning but also
entails other important social dimensions. Local and regional food hubs can provide jobs and economic
security for local producers (Berti & Mulligan, 2016) as well as foster local food security and justice, which
have been highlighted as challenges particularly during the COVID pandemic (Bellamy et al., 2021).
Whereas food hubs focus on distributing food in an inclusive and just way, the community-supported
agriculture model takes one step further by letting consumers participate directly in food production.
Community-supported agriculture (CSA)
The CSA model has been around for many decades, allowing citizens and consumers to directly get involved
with food producers (Hvitsand, 2016). CSA is an umbrella term for a range of so-called ‘prosumer’ models,
enabling close collaboration between food producers and consumers. There are three main CSA types: a)
shareholder CSAs which are formed and coordinated by members and hire a farmer; b) subscription CSAs,
which are owned and coordinated by the farmer and invite consumers to participate; and c) cooperative
CSAs that operate as non–profit social enterprises for the benefit of their members (Harmon, 2014).
CSAs are generally believed to increase in popularity, alongside box schemes and other local food
initiatives, which has become particularly apparent during the COVID pandemic (Wheeler et al., 2020),
allowing people direct access to local farms and their produce. CSAs create new social and geographically
rich connections amongst producers and communities, which provide vital economic and social benefits
(Brinkley, 2017). In some countries, such as France, there has been a deep seated culture of supporting
small-scale, local producers, and hence CSAs, which in France are referred to as AMAP (association pour le
maintien d’une agriculture paysanne; association for the support of peasant agriculture), have grown there
exponentially over the past twenty years, now involving more than 50,000 families (Peterson, Taylor &
Baudouin, 2015).
CSAs can operate in different ways, ranging from more commercially focused businesses to models that
favour cooperative approaches. Yet, they all entail long-term partnerships and risk-sharing between food
producers and their consumers, which mostly live in close proximity to each other (Henderson & Van En,
2007). Consumers normally pay the producer a monthly subscription or some other form of medium to
long-term commitment is established. This gives the producer economic security, which can sometimes
extend to a full season. Producers get to know their customers, and often organise social events alongside,
creating a close-knit community. Depending on the agreement, members of the community might help
working on the land, particularly at harvest or other crucial times in the agricultural calendar. Often, entire
families are involved, providing opportunities for children to learn about where food comes from and how
it is grown. People also get vital access to the countryside and green spaces, which have reportedly
improved mental health and well-being (Bharucha et al., 2020).
While CSAs can clearly experience ‘growing pains’ (Brinkley, Manser & Pesci, 2021), it is generally agreed
that they can deliver human health, socio-economic and environmental benefits for participants, both on
the producer and consumer side. Due to the close-knit communities that are created by CSAs, they can
foster social connections amongst citizens as well as between producers and consumers like few other local
food models (Espelt, 2020). As modern, hyper-competitive societies often struggle with social alienation
and individualism (McDonald, Wearing & Ponting, 2007), CSAs can provide vital opportunities for rebuilding
social fabrics and solidarity amongst communities (Diekmann, Gray & Thai, 2020). Economically too, CSAs
can provide a lifeline for small-scale, local food producers who are often disadvantaged by a food system
dominated by nationally and internationally operating supermarkets and food distribution companies
(Shideler, Bauman, Thilmany & Jablonski, 2018). From an environmental perspective, CSAs often use
agroecological, organic and other more sustainable farming techniques that have a much smaller ecological
footprint than traditional food production methods (Espelt, 2020). The local nature of CSAs also means that
carbon emissions tend to be lower than in traditional, supermarket-oriented food consumption (Little &
Giles, 2020).
Conclusions
Given the challenges faced by the global food system – producing manifold negative human, economic and
environmental health outcomes – this chapter has argued that a shift to more diverse, regional food
systems, which follow low-carbon, participatory and regenerative principles, would create multi-layered
benefits. Based on a review of existing evidence, we have provided a blueprint for what we have termed a
‘regional circular food system model’ that operates according to three main principles: (i) closing loops and
designing for effective and resilient systems; (ii) celebrating diversity through sharing, participation and
cooperation; and (iii) place-based value retention and creation. We believe that the regional level is best
suited for designing food systems along these principles, simultaneously delivering human, socio-economic
and environmental health benefits. This is because a nested, circular food system creates multiple feedback
loops that allow social, economic and ecological values to cycle within a region, compared to value being
lost through long supply chains that are often wasteful and operate for the benefit of financiers rather than
communities and places.
In this chapter we have outlined three specific institutional innovations that provide practical entry points
to our model, namely community-supported agriculture schemes, food hubs and public food procurement
partnerships. While in the UK and many other countries such and similar local food schemes have existed
for a long time, we have argued that there is now a need to create a “new economic imaginary” by linking
local, small-scale initiatives to larger institutions. We need a step change in the quest for the
transformation of local food system. Our model of an integrated regional circular food system enables
creative, locally embedded movements to become exemplars of new economic activity that brings to the
fore human and environmental health.
References
Alhawari, O., Awan, U., Bhutta, M. K. S., & Ülkü, M. A. (2021). Insights from circular economy literature: A
review of extant definitions and unravelling paths to future research. Sustainability, 13(2), 859.;
Bellamy, A. S., Furness, E., Nicol, P., Pitt, H., & Taherzadeh, A. (2021). Shaping more resilient and just food
systems: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. Ambio, 50(4), 782-793.
Berti, G., & Mulligan, C. (2016). Competitiveness of small farms and innovative food supply chains: The role
of food hubs in creating sustainable regional and local food systems. Sustainability, 8(7), 616.
Bharucha, Z. P., Weinstein, N., Watson, D., & Böhm, S. (2020). Participation in local food projects is
associated with better psychological well-being: evidence from the East of England. Journal of Public
Health, 42(2), e187-e197.
Blake, M.K. (2019). More than Just Food: Food Insecurity and Resilient Place Making through Community
Self-Organising. Sustainability, 11, 2942.
Böhm, S., Spierenburg, M., & Lang, T. (2020). Fruits of our labour: Work and organisation in the global food
system. Organization, 27(2), 195-212.
Borrello, M., Pascucci, S., & Cembalo, L. (2020b). Three propositions to unify circular economy research: A
review. Sustainability, 12(10), 4069.
Braungart, M. & McDonough, W. (2002) Cradle to Cradle; Remaking the Way We Make Things. New York,
North Point Press.
Brinkley, C. (2017). Visualizing the social and geographical embeddedness of local food systems. Journal of
Rural Studies, 54, 314-325.
Brinkley, C., Manser, G. M., & Pesci, S. (2021). Growing pains in local food systems: a longitudinal social
network analysis on local food marketing in Baltimore County, Maryland and Chester County,
Pennsylvania. Agriculture and Human Values, 1-17.
D'Amato, D., Korhonen, J., & Toppinen, A., (2019). Circular, green, and bio economy: how do companies in
land-use intensive sectors align with sustainability concepts? Ecological Economics, 158, 116-133.
DEFRA (2014). A plan for public procurement: food and catering.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/a-plan-for-public-procurement-food-and-catering
Devon Climate Emergency Response Group (2020). The Devon Carbon Plan.
https://www.devonclimateemergency.org.uk/devon-carbon-plan/
Diekmann, L. O., Gray, L. C., & Thai, C. L. (2020). More than food: The social benefits of localized urban food
systems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 4, 169.
D'Odorico, P., Davis, K. F., Rosa, L., Carr, J. A., Chiarelli, D., Dell'Angelo, J., ... & Rulli, M. C. (2018). The global
food-energy-water nexus. Reviews of geophysics, 56(3), 456-531.
Donati, P. (2019). Discovering the relational goods: their nature, genesis and effects. International Review
of Sociology, 29(2), 238–259. doi:10.1080/03906701.2019.1619952
Espelt, R. (2020). Agroecology prosumption: The role of CSA networks. Journal of Rural Studies, 79, 269-
275.
FAO and UNEP (2020). The State of the World’s Forests 2020. Forests, biodiversity and people. Rome.
https://doi.org/10.4060/ca8642en
FAO, IFAD & WFP. (2015) The state of food insecurity in the world: Meeting the 2015 international hunger
targets: Taking stock of uneven progress. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Fassio, F., & Tecco, N. (2019). Circular economy for food: A systemic interpretation of 40 case histories in
the food system in their relationships with SDGs. Systems, 7(3), 43.
Food Exeter (2019). Exploring Community Food Hubs in Exeter. Report available from website
https://foodexeter.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Exploring-Community-Food-Hubs.Food-Exeter.pdf
Food Foundation (2020) ‘Monitoring imports of fruit and veg into the UK’,
https://foodfoundation.org.uk/covid_19/monitoring-imports-of-fruit-and-veg-into-the-uk
Gillan, K., and Pickerill, J. (2012). The difficult and hopeful ethics of research on, and with, social
movements. Soc. Mov. Stud, 11, 133–143.
Godfray, H. C. J., Crute, I. R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J. F., Nisbett, N., ... & Whiteley, R. (2010). The
future of the global food system.
Goodman, D., DuPuis, E. M., & Goodman, M. K. (2012). Alternative food networks: Knowledge, practice,
and politics. Routledge.
Guzman, P. and Reynolds, C. (2019). Food Hubs in the UK: Where are we and what next?. Food Research
Collaboration Food Discussion Paper, https://foodresearch.org.uk/publications/food-hubs/
Harmon, A. H. (2014). Community supported agriculture: A conceptual model of health implications. Austin
Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences, 2(4).
Henderson, E., & Van En, R. (2007). Sharing the harvest: a citizen's guide to Community Supported
Agriculture. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Hinrichs, C., & Charles, L. (2012). Local food systems and networks in the US and the UK: Community
development considerations for rural areas. In Rural Transformations and Rural Policies in the US and
UK (pp. 176-196). Routledge.
HM Treasury (2018). ‘Soft Drinks Industry Levy comes into effect’,
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/soft-drinks-industry-levy-comes-into-effect
House of Commons (2021). Public Sector Procurement of Food. HC469, 21 April 2021.
https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/5509/documents/54917/default/
Hubbard, P. (2017). Fast Food, Slow Food. In The Battle for the High Street (pp. 169-198). Palgrave
Macmillan, London.
Hvitsand, C. (2016). Community supported agriculture (CSA) as a transformational act—distinct values and
multiple motivations among farmers and consumers. Agroecology and Sustainable food systems,
40(4), 333-351.
IPCC (2019). Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land
degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial
ecosystems [P.R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H.-O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts,
P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J.
Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, K. Kissick, M. Belkacemi, J. Malley, (eds.)].
Jarosz, L. (2000). Understanding agri-food networks as social relations. Agriculture and human values, 17(3),
279-283.
Jones A, Wu J H Y, Buse K. (2021). UK’s sugar tax hits the sweet spot BMJ; 372, n463, doi:10.1136/bmj.n463
Kirwan, J., & Maye, D. (2013). Food security framings within the UK and the integration of local food
systems. Journal of Rural Studies, 29, 91-100.
Kowalski, Z., & Makara, A. (2021). The circular economy model used in the polish agro-food consortium: a
case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 284, 124751.
Lang, T. (2020). Feeding Britain: our food problems and how to fix them. Penguin UK.
Lewis et al. (2015). Hyper-precarious lives: Migrants, work and forced labour in the Global North. Prog Hum
Geo, 39:5: 580-600.
Lewis, T. (2015). Access to Markets for Bristol Food Producers. Report for Bristol Food Producers. Available
at https://bristolfoodproducers.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Shared-Distribution-Report.Final-
Nov15_with-Appendices.compressed.pdf
Little, T., & Giles, N. (2020). Evaluation of the Impact of Community Supported Agriculture in Wales.
Macqueen, D., Bolin, A., Greijmans, M., Grouwels, S., & Humphries, S. (2020). Innovations towards
prosperity emerging in locally controlled forest business models and prospects for scaling up.
World Development, 125, 104382.
Marshall, R. et al. (2020) ‘e Procuring Food for the Future’, https://feedbackglobal.org/wp-
content/uploads/2020/11/FF-Procurement-Report-Final-November-2020.pdf
McDonald, M., Wearing, S., & Ponting, J. (2007). Narcissism and neo-liberalism: Work, leisure, and
alienation in an era of consumption. Loisir et Société/Society and Leisure, 30(2), 489-510.
McMichael, P. (2009). A food regime analysis of the ‘world food crisis’. Agriculture and human values, 26(4),
281-295.
Moore, M. L., Riddell, D. and Vocisano, D. (2015) ‘Scaling Out, Scaling Up, Scaling Deep: Strategies of Non-
profits in Advancing Systemic Social Innovation’, Journal of Corporate Citizenship (58): 67–84.
Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/jcorpciti.58.67
Moragues-Faus, A., and Morgan, K. (2015). Reframing the foodscape: The emergent world of urban food
policy. Environ. Plan. Econ. Space, 47, 1558–1573.
Moreau, V., Sahakian, M., Van Griethuysen, P., & Vuille, F. (2017). Coming full circle: why social and
institutional dimensions matter for the circular economy. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 21(3), 497-
506.
Morgan, K., and Sonnino, R. (2010). The urban foodscape: world cities and the new food equation.
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3, 209–224
Mount, P. (2012). Growing local food: scale and local food systems governance. Agriculture and Human
Values, 29(1), 107-121.
Murray, S., & Caraher, M. (2019). Food retail and distribution: A focus on supermarkets. In Healthy and
Sustainable Food Systems (pp. 93-102). Routledge.
National Food Strategy (2021). National Food Strategy. An independent review for Government. The plan.
https://www.nationalfoodstrategy.org/
Pascucci, S. (2020). Circular food economies. In Routledge Handbook of Sustainable and Regenerative Food
Systems (pp. 318-335). Routledge.
Pascucci, S., & Duncan, J. (2017). From pirate islands to communities of hope. In Sustainable Food Futures:
Multidisciplinary Solutions, Duncan J. and Bailey M. (eds.), Routledge, New York.
Peterson, H. H., Taylor, M. R., & Baudouin, Q. (2015). Preferences of locavores favoring community
supported agriculture in the United States and France. Ecological Economics, 119, 64-73.
Psarikidou, K., Kaloudis, H., Fielden, A., and Reynolds, C. (2019). Local Food Hubs in Deprived Areas: De-
Stigmatising Food Poverty?, Local Environment, 24.6, 525–38
Raworth, K. (2017) Doughnut economics: seven ways to think like a 21st-century economist. White River
Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Renting, H., Shermer, M., and Rossi, A. (2012). Building Food Democracy: Exploring Civic Food Networks
and Newly Emerging Forms of Food Citizenship. Int. Jrnl. of Soc. of Agr. & Food, 19:3, pp. 289–307
Rockström, J., Edenhofer, O., Gärtner, J., & DeClerck, F. (2020). Planet-proofing the global food system.
Nature Food, 1(1), 3-5.
Rockström, J., Williams, J., Daily, G., Noble, A., Matthews, N., Gordon, L., ... & Smith, J. (2017). Sustainable
intensification of agriculture for human prosperity and global sustainability. Ambio, 46(1), 4-17.
Ruggiero, S., Martiskainen, M., & Onkila, T. (2018). Understanding the scaling-up of community energy
niches through strategic niche management theory: Insights from Finland. Journal of cleaner
production, 170, 581-590.
Sandover, R. (2020). Participatory Food Cities: Scholar Activism and the Co-Production of Food Knowledge.
Sustainability, 12, 3548
Santo, R., & Moragues-Faus, A. (2019). Towards a trans-local food governance: Exploring the transformative
capacity of food policy assemblages in the US and UK. Geoforum, 98, 75-87.
Schreefel, L., Schulte, R. P. O., de Boer, I. J. M., Schrijver, A. P., & van Zanten, H. H. E. (2020). Regenerative
agriculture–the soil is the base. Global Food Security, 26, 100404.
Shideler, D., Bauman, A., Thilmany, D., & Jablonski, B. B. (2018). Putting local food dollars to work: The
economic benefits of local food dollars to workers, farms and communities. Choices, 33(3), 1-8.
Sibbing, L., Candel, J., & Termeer, K. (2021). The potential of trans-local policy networks for contributing to
sustainable food systems—The Dutch City Deal: Food on the Urban Agenda. Urban Agriculture &
Regional Food Systems, 6(1), e20006.
Sonnino, R., Marsden, T., and Moragues-Faus, A. (2016). Relationalities and convergences in food security
narratives: Towards a place-based approach. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr., 41, 477–489.
Sreeharsha, R. V., & Mohan, S. V. (2021). Symbiotic integration of bioprocesses to design a self-sustainable
life supporting ecosystem in a circular economy framework. Bioresource Technology, 124712;
Stahlbrand, L. (2018). Can values-based food chains advance local and sustainable food systems? Evidence
from case studies of university procurement in Canada and the UK. The International Journal of
Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 24(1), 77-95.
Steenson, S., & Buttriss, J. L. (2021). Healthier and more sustainable diets: What changes are needed in
high-income countries?. Nutrition Bulletin, 46(3), 279-309.
Sustain (2021) ‘Archive: Making Local Food Work’ https://www.sustainweb.org/makinglocalfoodwork/
Thomas, A., Moore, A., & Edwards, M. (2018). Feeding island dreams: exploring the relationship between
food security and agritourism in the Caribbean. Island Studies Journal, 13(2), 145-162.
Tukker, A. (2015). Product services for a resource-efficient and circular economy–a review. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 97, 76-91.
Ulanowicz, R. E., Goerner, S. J., Lietaer, B., & Gomez, R. (2009). Quantifying sustainability: Resilience,
efficiency and the return of information theory. Ecological complexity, 6(1), 27-36.
Verfaillie, H. A. & Bidwell, R. (2000) Measuring Eco-Efficiency: A Guide to Reporting Company Performance.
Geneva, World Business Council on Sustainable Development. Available at:
www.wbcsd.org/web/publications/measuring_eco_efficiency.pdf
Wheeler, A., Dykstra, P., Black, J., & Soares, N. (2020). COVID-19: UK Veg Box Report. Food Foundation.
Whyman, P. B. (2021). The economics of the Preston Model. In The Preston Model and Community Wealth
Building (pp. 128-149). Routledge.
