# Life cycle assessment as a prospective tool for sustainable agriculture and food planning at a local level

Andrea Lulovicova, Stephane Bouissou

► To cite this version:

Andrea Lulovicova, Stephane Bouissou. Life cycle assessment as a prospective tool for sustainable agriculture and food planning at a local level. Geography and Sustainability, 2024, 5 (2), pp.251-264. 10.1016/j.geosus.2024.01.008. hal-04905882

HAL Id: hal-04905882

https://hal.science/hal-04905882v1

Submitted on 22 Jan 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
(Robinson and Carson, 2015). In the early 20th century, cities relied on local and peri-urban production for most of their food supply. However, post-World War II, international trade surged, leading regions and countries to specialize in specific crops and livestock to enhance their agricultural comparative advantage. This trend accelerated in recent decades, with global trade volumes doubling since 1995 (FAO, 2020a). Such transformation disrupts the traditional link between the territory and its hinterland fostering an industrialized agriculture. The latter is characterized by standardized production, homogenized practices, increased yields, and mass consumption. This shift spurred mechanization, and the widespread use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides (Rastoin, 2007). The resulting globalization and industrialization of the agri-food sector contribute to an exacerbation of the same environmental pressures that make it more vulnerable, including factors such as climate change and biodiversity loss. The current agri-food system is responsible for 21% to 37% of anthropogenic greenhouse gases (Mbow et al., 2019), and its energy consumption ranges between 15% and 20% of the global demand (Usubiaga-Liaño et al., 2020). Moreover, it is the main driver of deforestation, threatening local and global ecosystems (Kissinger et al., 2012). Owing to its excessive impact and vulnerabilities, addressing the environmental impact of the agri-food system sector is a strategic prerogative to achieve a sustainable and carbon-neutral future.

The European Union (EU) is a global leader in agri-food trade and positions itself as a frontrunner in sustainable and environmental development. To address environmental burdens related to its agri-food production, the EU has implemented policies aimed at reducing the use of synthetic inputs and the emissions of the farming sector, such as the introduction of the “green payment” in the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) in 2014 and the recent Farm to Fork strategy (European Commission, 2023; European Parliament, 2023). However, the effectiveness of these measures remains highly questionable. At the European level, since 2010, the usage of mineral fertilizers has increased, and pesticide use has remained stable (Eurostat, 2022b). Some countries, like Bulgaria, increased the consumption of pesticides by more than 60% during this period (European Environment Agency, 2019). In contrast, the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the EU agricultural sector have decreased since 1990, mainly due to the reduction in the beef cattle herd driven by economic circumstances. Yet, national GHG calculations do not consider imported emissions related to the European food supply. These imports contribute an additional 40% to domestic agricultural emissions and have been rising over the past 20 years (IDH, 2020).

Given the hypothesis that the intensification of environmental impacts in the agri-food system is linked to the globalization of the food chain, such inefficient outcomes are not surprising. The European Union, driven by its CAP, is the world's top exporter and importer of agri-food products in terms of economic value (FAO, 2022). The Union's commercial strategy is based on the promotion of free trade and the opening of new markets. Partly due to the accentuating international competition, the European farming workforce has been decreasing sharply in the past two decades, replaced by industrial machines or workers in countries outside the EU with lax regulations. Since 2005, the number of farms has decreased by 37%, while agricultural land surfaces have remained almost unchanged (Eurostat, 2022a). This is attributed to a substantial reduction in small-sized farms, which have been absorbed by existing large-scale farms, resulting in further farmland concentration. Farmland enlargement, encouraged by CAP subsidies per hectare, fosters industrialization and reinforces energy and input use, contributing to environmental degradation.

Many scholars thus believe that local or regional food organization is more suitable for addressing environmental externalities than a globalized system, enabling local communities to regain control over their agricultural production (Chiffoleau and Dourian, 2020; Dansero and Puttilli, 2014; Delgado, 2023; Morgan and Santo, 2018). Such movements refer to the concept of food “reterritorialization” as a re-creation of the relationship between food and territory, in contrast to deterritorialization driven by globalization (Dansero and Pettenati, 2018).

The concept goes beyond the simple relocation of food chains and considers the empowerment of local authorities to shape the entire food system to increase sustainability. Local food organization, related to any sub-regional scale, implies a more comprehensive management of local food resources and the establishment of policies related to local farming or food supply.

Despite the EU's export-led and free trade orientation, food reterritorialization initiatives are flourishing and being encouraged by the Member States. These initiatives are primarily promoted through public procurement but also include measures developing sustainable farming and food supply practices (Morgan and Morely, 2002; Mansfield and Mendes, 2013; Stefanovic, 2022). France is a notable example of institutional encouragement for food relocation (Kneafsey et al., 2013). The development of a short supply chain has been endorsed by law since 2013 (Wallet and Bouroullec, 2021). The government also subsidizes French municipalities to implement specific programs called “Food Territorial Projects”, aiming to encourage relocation and sustainable agri-food policies. More than 430 such projects have been initiated across France since 2014 (Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 2023). These projects align with environmental and carbon-neutral programs such as the National Low Carbon Strategy (SNBC), aiming to decrease the agriculture and food industries' impact. France's objective is to reduce the farming sector's emissions by 46% by 2050 compared with 1990 levels (Ministry of Ecological Transition 2020). To achieve this, the national low-carbon strategy involves measures including agroecological transformation, awareness campaigns for sustainable diets, and the relocation of agriculture through the development of Food Territorial Projects.

However, the efficacy of such local agri-food strategies, including reterritorialization, remains underexplored, particularly in terms of their environmental potential. Some initiatives led by local authorities have already proven their positive environmental effects, specifically contributing to mitigating climate change and reducing energy consumption (Perez-Neira et al., 2021; Lulovicova and Bouissou, 2023). Yet, at present, most territories employ reterritorialization policies solely through organic public procurement and shortening of the supply chain (Terres en ville, 2020), potentially limiting their environmental benefits. While acknowledging the positive repercussions of such initiatives, local authorities oversee numerous aspects, enabling them to shape their food organization to a greater extent (Pothukuchi and Kaufman, 2000). Specifically, in many European countries, local governments can influence not only the agricultural sector but also other food-related industries, including supermarkets, restaurants, fast-food establishments, and canteens. They also manage land use and planning decisions, directly impacting farmers and food infrastructures. Additionally, they administer food-related waste disposal and address agricultural water pollution within the territory. Simultaneously, local policies influence consumer choices not only through educational institutions but also by managing healthcare facilities and authorizing the development of food chains and promotional activities.

To analyze comprehensively the potential environmental impact of these numerous local strategies, a systemic assessment at the local scale is imperative, encompassing not only on-site agricultural impacts, such as pesticide residues, but also the broader environmental consequences throughout the entire food supply chain. Within the scope of systemic land-use and agri-environmental assessments, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) emerges as the internationally recognized and most widely used method (van der Werf et al., 2011; Loiseau et al., 2012; Park et al., 2016; Perminova et al., 2016; Avadí et al., 2018; Cucurachi et al. 2019; Rouault et al., 2020). The LCA method is a multi-criteria method that accounts for direct and indirect inputs and outputs during the entire life cycle of a product or service and translates them into an environmental impact, following the guidelines outlined in ISO 14040: (2006). The methodology provides the identification of the critical life cycle activities responsible for the greatest impact and thus determines
the most efficient strategies to target (Vidergar et al., 2021). The application of the methodology for urban planning assessments has been developed recently (Dias et al., 2018; Heinonen and Junnila, 2011; Oliver-Solà et al., 2011), but the conceptualization of the LCA application on an entire territory is recent and subject to methodological challenges. Most importantly, LCA was initially an aspatial method, based on the assumption of spatial and temporal homogeneity of the environment (François et al., 2021). Recently, several authors (Loiseau et al., 2013; Mirabella et al., 2019; Nitschelm et al., 2016; Qi et al., 2019) included the spatial dimension and local characteristics in LCA methodology enhancing its territorial application. One of its most comprehensive adaptations, Territorial Life Cycle Assessment (TLCA) developed by Loiseau et al. (2018) enables quantifying the global impact of all local production and consumption activities. The TLCA methodology has since been employed to assess potential strategies of the local agricultural sector, proving to be a promising approach for prospective planning at a local level (Borghino et al., 2021). Its application for prospective local agri-food planning, including both local production and external food supply, has never been conducted and is developed in this paper. The purpose is to understand the environmental impact of a local food system, its sources, and assess potential consequences of various local strategies. Ultimately, the aim is to improve prospective local agri-food planning by adding environmental and life cycle perspectives. To validate the methodology, the French department of Finistere is used as a study area. The subsequent section provides an overview of the study area, followed by a description of the employed assessment methodology.

## 2. Materials and methods

### 2.1. Study area

France is the largest agricultural producer in Europe, contributing 18% to European production (FAO, 2020b). The administrative department of Finistere, located in the French western Brittany region, with over 900,000 inhabitants, is a strategic agricultural area in France. Its farmland constitutes 56% of the department's global surface (Fig. 1).

Local agriculture primarily focuses on conventional export-led livestock farming, but also contains vegetable production in the north of the department. Despite Finistere covering only 1% of the national surface, its farming industry contributes 21% to France's total pig production, occupying an important part of the west coast. Local farming also contributes to 56% and 42% of national artichoke and cauliflower production, respectively, in terms of dedicated surface for these crops (Finistere Departmental Council, 2017a). This makes the department the premier pig and vegetable producer. The department's farmers produce more than one billion liters of milk and one-third of French tuna production. Concerning more alternative approaches to production and distribution, around 19% of this local farming turnover is sold through a short supply chain, mostly through direct sales on farms. Approximately 13% of farms are organic, experiencing a remarkable 150% increase since 2010 (Chamber of Agriculture Brittany, 2020).

The food industry is a major employer, with more than 1000 establishments dedicated to processing, transporting, or selling food items (INSEE, 2021). It is estimated that 39% of industrial workers are employed by the agri-food industry (Agreste Brittany, 2016). Similar to other French regions, Finistere's inhabitants consume excessive amounts of animal proteins and ultra-processed food in comparison to national nutritional recommendations (Anses, 2017).

Over the past two decades, farmland in the department has remained relatively stable. It experienced a modest decrease of 3.1% between 2000 and 2010, and a further 1% reduction between 2010 and 2020, amidst an exponential trend in farm enlargement. In 1970, Finistere counted almost 400,000 farms, a number that declined to 6,267 by 2020 (Chamber of Agriculture Brittany, 2020). The average farm size surged

from 12 hectares in 1970 to 61 hectares in 2020. As of 2020, farms exceeding 100 hectares, which were nonexistent 40 years ago, now constitute over 40% of all farms, cover 60% of the total surface area, and contribute to 85% of the gross output value. Between 2010 and 2020, 20% of farms ceased operations, and the average farm size increased by 23%. Regarding the pig industry, the dedicated surface decreased by 9%, with one in three pig farms ceasing activity during this period (Ibid). In 1961, Finistere bred 353,000 pigs (Flatrès, 1963), compared to the current count of 4.8 million (Finistere Departmental Council, 2017a).

The decline in farm numbers and diversity illustrates the trend of landscape homogenization linked to major environmental issues, as previously outlined. Finistere's soils exhibit excess nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and copper levels due to the intensive use of pesticides, fertilizers, and animal feces. In the north of the department, NO₂ concentration in groundwater surpasses 50 mg/L (GIS SOL, 2022), a level that leads to water eutrophication and toxicity for ecosystems. Annually, approximately 800 tons of pesticides are sold in Finistere, with fluctuating levels and no substantial decrease over the past decade (Eau France, 2020). Farming stands out as the primary source of emissions, contributing to 39% of local greenhouse gas emissions (Air Breizh, 2020). In terms of energy consumption, the agricultural sector accounts for approximately 8% of direct energy usage (Region Brittany, 2020).

The Regional Sustainable and Territorial Planning Strategy (SRAD-DET) (Region Brittany, 2021) aims to reduce regional GHG emissions by 34% by 2040 and decrease the energy use in the farming sector by 7% by 2050. Yet this strategy considers solely direct impacts (scope 1), or indirect impacts associated with the energy use (scope 2) for GHG inventories. It consequently overlooks other consequences related to food supply such as imported animal feed or farming inputs. Regarding the inputs used in agriculture and the diffuse pollution they cause; the regional plan aims towards zero use of synthetic pesticides by 2040. The main actions to develop include the promotion of organic agriculture and other agroecological practices.

At the local level, the Finistere department launched the Food Territorial Project which incorporates measures to promote short supply chain distribution, foster local sustainable production and consumption patterns through consumer awareness, minimize food waste, provide support to local farmers, and enhance organic industries (Finistere Departmental Council, 2017a). Another eight municipalities within the department initiated their own Food Territorial Projects with similar objectives, all aiming to improve local sustainability and diminish environmental impact. However, the lack of environmental assessment or any prospective targets at this sub-regional level hampers the ability to anticipate, measure, and adjust the environmental consequences of various strategies. Recognizing this knowledge gap, the adoption of territorial LCA methodology emerges as a compelling solution tailored to address the expanded environmental aspects of the local food system.

### 2.2. Territorial LCA methodology

The evaluation of the local food system of Finistere and its potential strategies is based on the territorial LCA methodology (Loiseau et al., 2013), which has been adapted for the local food planning context. The adapted methodology comprises four pivotal steps, rooted in the classical LCA method (Fig. 2).

#### 2.2.1. Scope definition

In this initial step, the primary focus is on delineating all agri-food production and consumption activities occurring within the Finistere's local food system to be assessed. The term "local" relates to the analyzed administrative sub-national scale (Finistere department). The assessed activities encompass:
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 1. Map of Finistère's land type surfaces based on Corine Land Cover 2018 data (European Environment Agency, 2020).</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 2.** LCA methodology employed in this study to assess the impact of various sustainable strategies at the local level and improve regional and local agri-food planning.</figcaption></figure>

* Agricultural production: covers locally consumed and exported goods

* Agri-food processing & retail industry: includes the energy consumption of the sector

* Agri-food local transport: involves the local farmer's freight and consumer travel to supermarkets

* Imported food: represents goods imported for inhabitants of the department and their entire life cycle.

### 2.2.2. Life cycle inventory

Proceeding to the life cycle inventory step, local data on assessed agri-food activities are compiled from publicly available resources. These data include the annual farming production volumes measured by the Regional Agricultural Direction Office DRAFF (Agreste Brütanny, 2019) a list of agri-food industries from the SIRENE industry database (INSEE, 2021), their energy consumption through Enedis electricity and GRDF gas Open data (Enedis, 2022; GRDF, 2022) and transportation statistics from local surveys (Charles and Charles, 2020). The data on imported food products use the INCA 3 regional food consumption database extrapolated to the Finistère population (Anses, 2017). The food items produced locally are deducted from the consumption data to estimate the imported food flow supply. The reliability and geo-

graphical and temporal correlations of data are considered satisfactory in light of the paper's objectives.

These activity data are further linked to existing life cycle inventories, which include background data necessary to assess the impact of the selected activities throughout their entire life cycle. The employed life cycle inventories are Agribalyse 3 (Colomb et al., 2015) for all farming and food goods and the Ecoinvent 3 database (Wernet et al., 2016) for energy and transportation-related activities (Table 1).

The quantity of food produced and consumed locally is estimated based on data from the Agricultural Census 2020 (Chamber of Agriculture Brittany, 2020). This database provides details regarding the number and types of farms selling their production through a short supply chain, along with the proportion of production distributed through this channel. As presented in Table 2, the findings highlight a significant level of potential food autonomy, juxtaposed with a modest portion of local food flows sold in a short supply chain. Notably, in the pig and fish industries, agricultural production surpasses local demand by up to 2.882% and 1.516%, respectively. Conversely, for products like fruits, the potential autonomy is approximately 5%. Despite representing a mere 3.4% of the total local pig production in volume, nearly 99% of local pork meat consumption is estimated to originate within the department. For all other sectors, less than 20% of local consumption is evaluated to be procured through short supply chains within the department, despite the substantial production volumes.
<table><caption>**Table 1**

Data sources and LCA databases used for the activities considered in the assessment.</caption><thead><tr><th>Local agri-food activity</th><th>Activity data</th><th>Units</th><th>Data sources</th><th>LCA database</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>Agricultural production</strong></td><td>Annual volume per product type</td><td>t</td><td>(Agreste Britanny, 2019)</td><td>Agribalyse V3.0</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Processing & retail industry</strong></td><td>Annual energy consumption</td><td>MWh</td><td>(Enedis, 2022; GRDF, 2022; INSEE, 2021)</td><td>Ecoinvent 3</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Transport</strong></td><td>Annual local farmers' freight for distribution</td><td>kgkm</td><td>(Charles and Charles, 2020)</td><td>Ecoinvent 3</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Annual inhabitants travel to supermarkets</td><td></td><td></td><td>Ecoinvent 3</td></tr><tr><td><strong>Imported food</strong></td><td>Annual imported food consumption by inhabitants</td><td>t</td><td>(Anses, 2017)</td><td>Agribalyse V3.0</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: More precision related to the activity and inventory data employed can be found in the Supplementary material.

<table><caption>**Table 2**

Quantities in kilograms of major production and consumption considered, the estimations of potential autonomy, and the proportion of local production and consumption produced locally based on data from the Agricultural Census 2020.</caption><thead><tr><th>Major productions in Finistere</th><th>Quantity produced in Finistere (kg)</th><th>Quantity sold locally (kg)</th><th>% of local production sold locally (%)</th><th>The quantity consumed by local inhabitants (kg)</th><th>Potential local food autonomy (%)</th><th>% of local diets produced locally (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Vegetables</td><td>250,051,000</td><td>15,189,938</td><td>6.07</td><td>83,173,172</td><td>300.6</td><td>18.26</td></tr><tr><td>Fruits</td><td>2,508,000</td><td>1,114,320</td><td>44.43</td><td>44,671,021</td><td>5.6</td><td>2.49</td></tr><tr><td>Dairy</td><td>114,440,000</td><td>2,716,601</td><td>2.37</td><td>56,195,895</td><td>203.6</td><td>4.83</td></tr><tr><td>Poultry</td><td>23,690,000</td><td>751,696</td><td>3.17</td><td>11,552,800</td><td>205.1</td><td>6.51</td></tr><tr><td>Beef & veal</td><td>30,700,000</td><td>1,055,691</td><td>3.44</td><td>15,575,756</td><td>197.1</td><td>6.78</td></tr><tr><td>Pig</td><td>427,700,000</td><td>14,712,880</td><td>3.44</td><td>14,838,030</td><td>2,882.5</td><td>99.16</td></tr><tr><td>Fish</td><td>189,118,000</td><td>NA</td><td>NA</td><td>12,477,283</td><td>1,515.7</td><td>NA</td></tr></tbody></table>

### 2.2.3. Impact assessment

The third pivotal step in our analysis centers around the impact assessment, which involves a comprehensive examination through three analyses, each generating distinct results. The initial analysis aims to discern the influence of each local agri-food activity, defined in the initial scope definition step, on crucial environmental indicators. These indicators encompass climate change (kg CO₂eq), fossil resource scarcity (kg oil eq), human non-cancer toxicity (kg 1,4-DCB), and land use (m²a crop eq). A deliberate choice was made to avoid a singular focus on the climate change indicator, a common approach in global strategies and research papers, to prevent potential environmental burden-shifting. The selected indicators represent critical issues for sustainable development studies (Fu et al., 2021). In addition to climate change, we employ the ReciPe 2016 method (Huijbregts et al., 2017) to model the impact on fossil resource scarcity, encompassing the depletion of coal, natural gas, crude oil, and peat. To assess the toxic impact of pesticides and other substances, the USEtox method is employed, focusing on the analysis of the human toxicity (non-cancer) indicator (Fantke et al., 2017). Bio-diversity loss, a significant concern in agriculture, is addressed using the land use indicator through the Ecological scarcity 2013 method (Frischknecht and Büsser Knöpfel, 2014). This method incorporates regionalized eco-factors across 14 diverse biomes, capturing the impact of land use on plant and animal biodiversity. Despite its advantages, the method lacks consideration for the positive impact of diversified agriculture on biodiversity (Nitschelm et al., 2020; van der Werf et al., 2020), not included in this assessment. The primary objective of this initial phase in the impact assessment is to identify major local hotspot activities generating environmental impact, such as local farming, food retail industry, or imported food flows. Identifying these activities and their principal impact sources, including livestock, transport, or energy use, serves as a prerequisite for subsequent assessments.

The second phase of the impact analysis involves spatializing a subset of the major impact sources identified. This entails selecting the most impactful background activities and investigating their potential origins. The aim is to evaluate the geographical extent of environmental consequences tied to the organization of the study area's food system. This second phase enables us to leverage the full potential of local strategies and understand their implications on a global scale.

The final phase of the impact assessment involves evaluating the efficiency of prospective local strategies. This involves the selection of major strategies from existing scenarios (elaborated further in Section 2.3) and an assessment of their environmental potential at a local level. The impact assessment modeling is executed through SimaPro 9.2 software.

### 2.2.4. Interpretation

The ultimate interpretation methodological step follows each of the three impact analyses, interpreting results to highlight major impact sources. The aim is to identify efficient strategies for local planning and suggest recommendations for decision-makers.

## 2.3. Prospective agri-food strategies

In the final phase of the third impact assessment step (Fig. 2), we explore the potential impact of diverse agri-food and land management strategies in the study area by creating a prospective scenario. The scenario's development is inspired by existing studies and scientific reports, showcasing the growing interest of academic and institutional entities in identifying effective measures to mitigate the impacts of food systems through prospective scenarios (Couturier et al., 2021; Hauck et al., 2019; Qu et al., 2020). To summarize the existing assessments, the agro-nomic specialist organization Solagro conducted a comparative analysis of sixteen land-use agriculture and food prospective scenarios intending to achieve a sustainable and carbon-neutral economy. These scenarios encompass technological bets, such as increased yield and smart farming, as well as more systemic approaches like the Ten Years of Agroecology (TYFA) scenario, focusing on dietary changes, agroecology, and supply chain decarbonization (Poux and Aubert, 2018). In the French context, two principal studies have emerged recently including the macroeconomic carbon-neutral scenarios of the French environmental agency ADEME (Barbier et al., 2022) and the French agricultural and food scenario Afterres 2050 (Solagro, 2016). In all studies and reports, scenarios emphasizing systemic changes, including transformations in agricultural and dietary practices, demonstrate more certain and increased environmental potential compared to technocentric approaches.
<table><caption>**Table 3**

Strategies and hypotheses included in the prospective scenario assessing the implementation of national-based structural strategies on a local level.</caption><thead><tr><th>Strategy code</th><th>Strategy</th><th>Hypotheses used</th><th>Hypotheses objectives</th><th>Scenario model/ basis</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>S1</td><td>Agroecology</td><td>Conversion to organic or grassland systems<br>Livestock and fish reduction<br>Whole foods, fruits, and vegetables</td><td>+40%<br>-40%<br>+20%</td><td>Afterres 2050<br>TYFA<br>Afterres 2050<br>TYFA</td></tr><tr><td>S2</td><td>Diet change</td><td>Pulses and nuts<br>Fish and seafood<br>Animal-based food<br>Ultra-processed food</td><td>+300%<br>-70%<br>-50%<br>-50%</td><td>Afterres 2050</td></tr><tr><td>S3</td><td>Food industry energy efficiency</td><td>Decrease in electricity and gas consumption</td><td>-20%</td><td>ADEME Transition(s)<br>2050</td></tr><tr><td>S4</td><td>Food losses and waste reduction</td><td>Reduction in food losses throughout the entire supply chain</td><td>-50%</td><td>ADEME Transition(s)<br>2050</td></tr></tbody></table>

Drawing from this existing literature, an explorative scenario comprising four major strategies is generated for the study area. These strategies are consistent with the measures included in the French ADEME transition(s) 2050 (Barbier et al., 2022), the French agricultural Afterres 2050 (Solagro, 2016), and the European agroecology TYFA (Poux and Aubert, 2018) scenarios. The selected strategies are grounded in systemic and structural changes related to transforming local agriculture, modifying local food diets, optimizing energy use in the agri-food industry, and reducing food waste. The four strategies are detailed as follows:

1) **Agroecology (S1):** This strategy S1 centers on fostering local agroecological principles. An agroecological transformation is the principal basis of each studied scenario and is at the top of the national, regional, and local action lists. While agroecology encompasses various definitions, our analysis focuses on transitioning to organic farming and adopting grassland farming for cattle. Organic farming stands out as the sole agroecologically certified practice adhering to precise regulatory specifications enabling a specific LCA assessment. Aligned with objectives from scenarios like Afterres 2050, this strategy examines the impact of converting 40% of local conventional production to organic farming. However, organic or grassland livestock farming, characterized by more extensive practices, necessitates additional land, thereby calling for a reduction in livestock numbers. We maintain the hypothesis of a 40% reduction in current livestock levels, consistent with scenarios such as TYFA or Afterres 2050.

2) **Diet change (S2):** The second strategy revolves around altering the dietary habits of the local population towards patterns that are both healthier and more sustainable. This shift is a prevalent theme in local political agendas, lacking specific objectives, and is a recurring element in all analyzed scenarios and sustainability-focused food research that deems existing food regimes as unsustainable (Poore and Nemecek, 2018). The adjustments in consumption correspond to the national Afterres 2050 diet change scenario (Solagro, 2016), incorporating nutritional recommendations. This involves an augmentation in the intake of fruits, vegetables, whole grain products, and nuts, coupled with a reduction in animal-based products, particularly red meat, and beverages, including alcohol. Despite not being explicitly outlined in the Afterres scenario, a decline in the consumption of ultra-processed food is also modeled in our strategy. The specific quantities of increase or decrease are detailed in Table 3.

3) **Food industry energy efficiency (S3):** This strategy delves into optimizing and enhancing efficiency in the food processing and retail sector. The reduction of 20% in energy consumption is retained mirroring the scenario of ADEME Transition(s) 2050.

4) **Food losses and waste reduction (S4):** The last strategy focuses on addressing food losses and waste, a solution consistently featured

in every analyzed existing prospective scenario. At the same time, the management of food waste is subject to comprehensive regulations in France and constitutes a primary focus in Food Territorial Projects. In the French context, food losses and waste account for approximately 18% of total food production, with a higher percentage attributed to fruits and vegetables and a lower proportion to animal products (ADEME, 2016). Consistent with scenarios such as ADEME Transition(s) 2050, TYFA, and Afterres 2050, this strategy examines the potential impact of reducing global food waste by 50%.

The hypotheses of the scenario and the quantitative targets of each strategy are summarized in Table 3.

These strategies undergo individual analysis to assess their respective contributions to impact reduction. Subsequently, they are integrated into the overall prospective scenario to model their cumulative effects. The selected strategies incorporate the most recurring elements found in existing scenarios and align with both national and local targets, allowing for an estimation of their environmental contributions to national and regional sustainability policies. In addition to the analyzed strategies, previous scenarios considered technological or agronomic advances and the shortening of the supply chain. However, the present assessment excludes these elements due to challenges in modeling cutting-edge technologies and uncertainties regarding their environmental benefits. Similarly, the shortening of the supply chain is omitted due to the diversity of existing forms, preventing generalization, and its marginal potential impact compared to other strategies (Majewski et al., 2020). Despite the limitations associated with excluding such strategies, the chosen ones encompass the most prevalent components of existing scenarios, providing an initial estimate of their environmental potential through life cycle assessment.

## 3. Results and discussion

### 3.1. Contribution of each agri-food activity to global impact

Applying the territorial life cycle impact assessment for the Finistère's agri-food system yields three distinct sets of outcomes, as detailed in Methods Section 2.2. These results include the assessment of the environmental impact of each local activity and its sources, their partial spatialization, and, lastly, the evaluation of the prospective scenario environmental efficacy.

The results of the first impact assessment part are illustrated in Fig. 3. They encompass the contribution of each territorial agri-food activity and its major sources in an absolute percentage to the overall impacts of Finistère's entire food system, covering a) climate change, b) fossil resource scarcity, c) human non-cancer toxicity, and d) land use indicators.
<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 3.** Distribution of the environmental impact of Finistère's agri-food activities and the principal hotspot background activities in absolute % of their global contribution. The background activities with a contribution lower than 1% are not displayed.</figcaption></figure>

Overall, local agricultural production is identified as the primary environmental hotspot across all indicators, constituting 47% to 76% of the total local food system's impact. Livestock farming, specifically pig and dairy cattle production, is a significant contributor, with the pig industry alone accounting for 10% to 32% of the global impact. Such an outcome is not surprising due to the significant livestock production in the study area (Table 2). Yet, despite substantial vegetable production, exceeding local demand threefold, locally cultivated crops exert a negligible impact. The food imported from other departments and countries is the second most impactful activity across all categories, accounting for up to 38% of the total impact. This is noteworthy, considering the significant potential food autonomy of the territory. The primary contributors to this imported food impact are animal-based products, particularly red meat, and dairy. Despite being produced locally in

quantities twice as high as the actual demand (as demonstrated in Table 2), these products are predominantly directed towards the export market, implying a decreased local offer and a need for imports. In contrast, the impact of the local agri-food-related retail and processing industry, as well as transportation, proves secondary. Their impact is driven by heat usage in supermarkets and the use of vehicles for consumer travel to supermarkets in the case of transportation.

While these findings are consistent across all examined environmental indicators, distinct background impact sources are identified for each indicator, emphasizing the necessity of tailored strategies. Regarding the climate change indicator, major background sources include biogenic methane from livestock, the production of animal feed, and the heat use related to greenhouse tomato production (Fig. 3a). This highlights the imperative to modify local farming practices to reduce the carbon foot-
print, especially in addressing livestock and its methane emissions. Over the past two decades, national and local policies have predominantly focused on decarbonizing the supply chain, with insufficient attention to interventions in livestock practices and methane emissions mitigation, potentially hindering the local climate objectives (French General Accounting Office, 2023). Comparable hotspot impact sources are identified for the imported food, primarily driven by red meat consumption.

For the fossil energy indicator, the contribution of each agri-food activity is more evenly distributed. Hotspot impact sources include diesel combustion and gas production for farm use, synthetic fertilizer production, and transportation, encompassing both freight and consumer travel (Fig. 3b). These findings underscore the environmental repercussions of the industrialization of food supply chains. Notably, diesel usage in marine engines for the local fishing industry accounts for over 15% of the global impact, diesel combustion by private cars used for shopping for 7.31%, and the impact of plastics on imported food packaging for 3.58% of the global impact. To diminish the local dependence on fossil fuels, local authorities thus have the potential not only to address direct energy use at farms but also to implement policies that reduce mineral fertilizer usage, gas heating in food retail, or consumer travel.

The human toxicity non-cancer indicator primarily results from various pesticides employed in animal feed crop production, such as soybean and wheat grain for the pig and cattle industries (Fig. 3c). These crops can be either locally produced or imported due to the limited surface of the study area compared to the significant volumes of local meat and dairy production. Approximately one-third of the global impact arises from imported animal-based products and highly processed items, such as red meat, milk, confectionery, or ultra-processed beverages. This impact stems partly from industrial substances used in processing, like formaldehyde as a preservative, contributing to more than 9% of the entire local food system's impact. These hidden toxicity impacts, absent from local strategies, significantly contribute to negative health and ecosystem pressures in production sites. In addition to addressing local pesticide usage following the regional sustainability plan, local planning can also encompass initiatives aimed at reducing the importation and consumption of ultra-processed foods by promoting the development of local and sustainable alternatives.

Concerning the land use indicator, the cultivation of crops for animal feed, such as wheat and maize for the cattle and pig industry, stands out as the primary source of impact. This impact primarily arises from the occupation of land for annual crops, with pastures contributing to only ~10% of the entire land use impact (Fig. 3d). The cultivation of these crops using industrial inputs poses a threat to biodiversity. To address this issue, local authorities should prioritize food products that demand reduced land use or employ techniques less damaging to ecosystems through subsidies and local agri-food strategies.

In conclusion, to achieve climate and environmental targets in the study area, local planning strategies must first focus on addressing the impact sources associated with local livestock farming and their inputs, particularly those related to animal feed. These critical areas, often overlooked by local and national environmental policies (Marcadet, 2021), highlight the advantages of employing a life cycle methodology in local assessments.

However, the comprehensive nature of using LCA for local assessments introduces limitations linked to the background data, which may not always be fully representative of reality. This implies, for instance, that the employed data do not represent the specific volumes of pesticides or fertilizers used by local agriculture but are derived from national average data. Future research could address this by incorporating more precise data or including local characteristics such as soil types to enhance result precision (Nitschelm et al., 2016). Despite these limitations, the integration of a global perspective in this assessment provides a more profound basis for developing sustainable agri-food policies in the context of a globalized economy. This first impact source identification can further be used to illustrate partially the geographical origins of the identified sources in the second impact assessment phase.

## 3.2. Spatialization of major impact sources

Resulting from the first part of the impact assessment, it can be deduced that the most prevalent hotspot impact sources include pesticides, animal feed, diesel and gas use, and production. Some of these impacts, such as a portion of local crops used for animal feed, occur within the department, yet most of these activities involve imported inputs. While precise data about Finistère's imports are unavailable, we can analyze national importation data. By leveraging national-level data, we can gain insights into the potential geographical extent of Finistère's food system impacts, particularly as some of its impact sources are tied to food imported from other regions of France. This includes analyzing the data related to national statistical data on pesticides (OEC, 2020), animal feed (FAO, 2020c), crude oil, and gas imports (Ministry of Ecological Transition, 2021). Fig. 4 illustrates this second part of the impact assessment. The findings underscore that the impact sources related to Finistère's food system extend far beyond the French borders.

More specifically, despite France ranking among the leading global exporters of pesticides, these substances are largely imported. Major exporting countries include other European nations, notably Germany (529 million dollars worth of pesticides/year), followed by the United States. Meanwhile, France produces twice as much in terms of economic value (Fig. 4a). These pesticides are used not only in local agriculture but also in the production of imported food, including animal feed. Their use is not only toxic for on-site application but can also cause environmental and health issues for factory workers in the producing countries (Van Maele-Fabry et al., 2006).

Concerning feed for livestock, soy is consistently identified as having a significant contribution to the overall impact. This observation holds for both local livestock farming and imported meat into the territory. The cultivation of soy, particularly in the form of soybean meal, remains insufficient in France, producing only approximately 400,000 tons. This necessitates the import of 3 million tons per year primarily from Latin America, specifically from Brazil and Argentina (Fig. 4b). The importation of animal feed and soybeans is a major cause of deforestation in the world's most precious forests, contributing to biodiversity loss and soil degradation (Martínez-Valderrama et al., 2021).

As for fossil fuels such as crude oil or gas, these are almost entirely imported from other countries (Fig. 4c and 4d). France imports 51.5 Mtoe per year of crude oil, mostly from Northern Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, and the Russian Federation, and produces less than 1 Mtoe (Fig. 4c). A similar pattern is noted for natural gas imports, primarily originating from Norway or Russia (Fig. 4d). In addition to being a source of global threats such as climate change, fossil energy extraction poses a threat to local ecosystems and their biodiversity (Butt et al., 2013). These fossil inputs are closely implicated in a significant portion of the impacts for all the studied activities.

Such imports not only reveal a high dependency on external sources but also generate distant and less controllable environmental pressures, contributing to pollution and ecosystem damage in exporting countries. Consequently, local sustainability strategies must adapt to address both local and imported threats. This involves estimating the potential direct and indirect impact of local strategies, as explored in the following section.

## 3.3. Environmental efficacy of prospective strategies

The last step of the impact assessment is dedicated to assessing the potential environmental benefits of strategies based on international and national sustainability plans and scenarios. To assess the potential efficacy of various prospective strategies from a life cycle perspective, we modeled the impact of a prospective scenario composed of four strategies outlined in Section 2.3. The impact of each strategy is individually evaluated for the same environmental indicators: climate change potential, fossil resource scarcity, human non-cancer toxicity, and land use.
<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Fig. 4.** Origins of the hotspot background activities identified in Finistère's agri-food system based on national data on importations of a) Pesticides, b) Soybean meal, c) Crude oil, and d) Natural gas (FAO, 2020c; Ministry of Ecological Transition, 2021; OEC, 2020).</figcaption></figure>

The results demonstrate positive impact reductions for all analyzed indicators and all strategies, as illustrated in Fig. 5.

The obtained environmental reductions vary significantly based on the targeted strategy. This variability is mainly due to the local activities' impact contribution, the majority of which comes from local agricultural production. Consequently, the agroecology strategy S1 displays the most substantial environmental benefits, accounting for 61% to 82% of all decreases. The greatest reduction is observed for the human toxicity indicator, followed by fossil resource scarcity and climate change indicators. The reductions in land use and climate change indicators result from the considered livestock number decrease and the diminished human toxicity indicator mainly due to the conversion to organic practices excluding synthetic pesticides. While local plans and measures are consistent with addressing the hotspots identified in this assessment by supporting organic and local production, the prospective analysis indicates that the most efficient measures should also involve livestock reduction, particularly in the pig industry. Currently, there are no policies targeting livestock reduction at the local or national levels. Although implementing such policies may present challenges, the Netherlands serves as a noteworthy example of their feasibility. The country aims to decrease its pig herd by 25% by 2030 and has initiated the process by subsidizing affected farmers (Flach and Selten, 2021).

The diet change strategy (S2), entailing the substitution of imported meat and ultra-processed food with fresh, plant-based alternatives, exhibits the second most notable impact on all indicators. The impact reduction ranges from 5.8% to 8.3% across various impact categories, with the most significant reductions observed in land use and climate change. This decrease is attributed to the lowered consumption of red meat, impacting climate change through methane emissions and land use through animal feed crops. This impact reduction specifically applies to the imported food supply. It thus underscores the influential role of dietary shifts in affecting environmental pressures in exporting countries, even in agriculturally intensive regions with a high level of potential food autonomy. Consequently, it emphasizes the necessity of incorporating strategies related to dietary choices into local planning efforts.

The strategies S3 (Food industry energy efficiency) and S4 (Food loss and waste reduction) result in an impact decrease of less than 3.5% across all impact categories. Energy efficiency strategy contributes to reducing dependency on fossil resources, and food waste reduction strategy primarily impacts the human toxicity indicator. This modest decrease in impact can be attributed to these activities having a relatively low contribution to the overall agri-food impact in Finistère (Section 3.1). Despite their marginal contribution, consistent with previous re-
Finistere's local food system impact reduction (% of the overall impact) according to major prospective strategies

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /><figcaption>Fig. 5. The reduction of the global Finistere's agri-food system impact for the prospective scenario (S0) combining the four strategies (S1–S4) and for each strategy individually.</figcaption></figure>

<caption>Table 4</caption>

Volumes in kilograms estimated to be produced and consumed in the tested scenarios compared to the volumes produced and consumed.

<table><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Major productions in Finistere</th><th>Actual situation</th><th colspan="3">Scenario</th></tr><tr><th>Potential local autonomy (%)</th><th>New quantity produced in Finistere (kg)</th><th>New quantity consumed by local inhabitants (kg)</th><th>New potential local autonomy (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Vegetables</td><td>300.6</td><td>250,051,000</td><td>99,807,806</td><td>250.5</td></tr><tr><td>Fruits</td><td>5.6</td><td>2,508,000</td><td>53,605,225</td><td>4.7</td></tr><tr><td>Dairy</td><td>203.6</td><td>69,431,115</td><td>28,097,948</td><td>247.1</td></tr><tr><td>ltr</td><td>205.1</td><td>14,071,860</td><td>5,776,400</td><td>243.6</td></tr><tr><td>Beef & veal</td><td>197.1</td><td>18,235,800</td><td>7,787,878</td><td>234.2</td></tr><tr><td>Pig</td><td>2,882.5</td><td>254,053,800</td><td>7,419,015</td><td>3,424.4</td></tr><tr><td>Fish</td><td>1,515.7</td><td>112,336,290</td><td>3,743,185</td><td>3,001.1</td></tr></tbody></table>

search (Barbier et al., 2022), energy efficiency and food waste are extensively addressed in environmental policies. However, our findings suggest that simultaneously, there should be an increased focus on agri-cultural and dietary practices.

The global scenario considers all four strategies and their interactions. For instance, the diet change strategy incorporates modifications from other strategies, such as food waste reduction, among others. Consequently, the impact of the global scenario does not correspond to the sum of the impacts of the strategies analyzed individually. Overall, the scenario demonstrates a significant decrease for all studied indicators. The most significant reduction in the global scenario (48.42%) is observed in the human toxicity indicator, primarily due to a substantial decrease in pesticide use in the agroecological strategy and the reduction of cropland for animal feed. This reduction closely corresponds to regional and national targets of decreasing the use and toxicity of synthetic pesticides by at least 50%. The indicators of fossil resource scarcity and climate change demonstrate a reduction of 35%–36%, approaching the target of a 46% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions set by the French government. The land use indicator decreased by 22.69%. The relatively minor decrease in land use results from an increase in agricultural surfaces for the agroecological strategy, which generally employs more extensive practices, such as grassland systems. Despite the significant decrease observed in all indicators and their alignment with local and national objectives, a more substantial reduction is necessary to address these environmental issues and reply to the ambitious targets defined. Yet, this limited reduction can also be attributed to the restricted number of strategies considered in this analysis. Finally, local authorities should also consider the indirect consequences of their food system, the contribution of which is revealed to be significant and is rarely addressed in national or regional policies.

The achieved reduction in environmental impact raises questions about the prospective scenario's effects on the department's productive

capacities. The results indicate that under the scenario, the potential food autonomy remains highly sufficient for both the local demand and the export. This is illustrated in Table 4, which presents the new quantities produced and consumed. Specifically, the decrease in livestock numbers does not affect the department's potential food autonomy, nor does it significantly alter its exporting potential, given that the produced quantities remain high. Conversely, the reduction in local consumption of certain products in the Diet change strategy (S2) results in an increased potential autonomy for all livestock sectors. For instance, despite the reduction in pig production (–40%), the quantities produced under the scenario are 34 times higher than the newly estimated local consumption (Table 4).

The realism of the selected strategies is to be discussed. Contrary to the ambitious targets set by national and local authorities, the observed evolution is less remarkable. In 2022, soaring inflation prices led to a decreased demand for organic products in Finistere, slowing down the conversion of farms (Minister of Agriculture and Food, 2023b). Similarly, despite national and local awareness campaigns, the proportion of ultra-processed food in diets is on the rise (Anses, 2017). The primary aim of this assessment was to evaluate the efficacy of such measures. While there is a risk that the objectives of the scenario, derived from international and national reports, may not be achieved, the results emphasize the need to accelerate policies and engage in even more ambitious interventions. For instance, despite significant changes in farming and diet practices, the tested scenario does not surpass a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Current Finistere's food policies focus on shortening the supply chain and promoting local, sustainable, and organic products (Finistere Departmental Council, 2017b). Yet they do not question the industrial and export-led farming model, which is the primary potential source of impact reduction. Based on the paper's findings, and prior research (Loiseau et al., 2020; Majewski et al., 2020), the current efforts thus may have only a limited positive impact on environmental issues.
Additionally, the local policy roadmap includes mostly communication and educational actions at schools, raising questions about their efficacy compared to the necessary changes. Finally, the ability of local authorities to exert influence and effectively implement the tested strategies is uncertain, given the prevailing dominance of international and national policies centered around trade liberalization and industrialization.

Nevertheless, the results of the prospective LCA methodology offer a macroscopic and multicriteria perspective on the potential impacts of the evolution of the studied local food system and its environmental externalities. Consequently, it provides a guideline for local authorities outlining the essential changes leading towards increased sustainability. While the paper models only four strategies, the life cycle methodology used enables the analysis of a vast number of strategies, scenarios, and environmental indicators at every geographical scale. This potential could be explored in future research.

## 4. Conclusions

Over the past six decades, the elongation of the food supply chain has contributed to the dilution of responsibility for the impact of food production and consumption. The relocation of production and the implementation of local food policies can play a pivotal role in restoring the accountability of a territory and its stakeholders for the impact it generates. Despite the implementation of various local policies over the last ten years, indicating the commitment of local governments to regain control over the food organization, there is an urgent need to formulate a systematic vision for more environmentally sustainable local measures in food production and consumption.

The innovative application of territorial life cycle assessment methodology for food planning enhances the understanding of principal sources of environmental impact within a local food system and the consequences of diverse planning strategies. It thus offers an expanded view of environmental indicators not accessible through assessments based solely on local indicators related for instance to water or soil pollution, providing insights for local planners and decision-makers. The findings of the prospective analysis underscore that strategies focusing solely on energy and food waste efficiency have a marginal effect on environmental impact. In contrast, the conversion to agroecological practices, involving livestock reduction, and alterations in individual duties represent a greater potential for impact decrease. This emphasizes the need to incorporate such strategies more effectively into territorial planning. Deploying a life cycle assessment in prospective local agri-food planning allows for the integration of territorial aspects into LCA methodologies and improves local assessments with a global perspective. We argue that such a vision is essential in a globally interconnected economy, particularly in industrialized countries. While the development of regional and spatialized LCA models could offer more precise and detailed prospects, this paper serves as an initial step toward territorializing and aligning national sustainability targets and systematic assessments.

## Declaration of competing interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the French Agency for Ecological Transition. The authors wish to thank Alistair Ward for proofreading the article, and the anonymous reviewers for the detailed feedback provided improving the quality of the paper.

## References

* ADEME, 2016. Study of food waste and losses: inventory and waste management for each food supply chain phase. ADEME (in French).

* Agreste Britanny, 2019. Farming statistics memento. Ministry of Ecological Transition, Britanny (in French).

* Agreste Britanny, 2016. Description of Brittany's farming. Agreste Britanny (in French).

* Air Breizh, 2020. ISEA Spatial Inventory of atmospheric emissions 2020. https://isea.airbreizh.asso.fr/index.php?emission=GESTot#cartos (in French).

* Anses, 2017. A national study on food diets (INCA 3) (in French).

* Atallah, S.S., Gómez, M.I., Björkman, T., 2014. Localization effects for a fresh vegetable product supply chain: broccoli in the eastern United States. Food Policy 49, 151–159. doi:10.1016/j.foodpol.2014.07.005.

* Avadí, A., Corson, M.S., van der Werf, H.M.G., 2018. Modeling environmental effects of selected agricultural management strategies with regional statistically-based screening LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 23, 12–25. doi:10.1007/s11367-017-1300-4.

* Barbier, C., Couturier, C., Dumas, P., Kesse-Guyot, E., Baudry, J., Pharabod, I., Pourou-chottamin, P., Toilier, F., 2022. Prospective of the food system and its carbon and energy footprint in 2050. 100 p. (in French).

* Borghino, N., Corson, M., Nitschelm, L., Wilfart, A., Fleuet, J., Moraine, M., Breland, T.A., Lescoat, P., Godinot, O., 2021. Contribution of LCA to decision making: a scenario analysis in territorial agricultural production systems. J. Environ. Manage. 287, 112288. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112288.

* Butt, N., Beyer, H.L., Bennett, J.R., Biggs, D., Maggini, R., Mills, M., Renwick, A.R., Seabrook, L.M., Possingham, H.P., 2013. Biodiversity risks from fossil fuel extraction. Science 342 (6157), 425–426. doi:10.1126/science.1237261.

* Chamber of Agriculture Britany, 2020. Farming statistics. Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

* Charles, E., Charles, K., 2020. Report: mobility in Finistère, reality and perspective for tomorrow ? (in French).

* Chiffoleau, Y., Dourian, T., 2020. Sustainable food supply chains: is shortening the answer? A literature review for a research and innovation agenda. Sustainability 12 (23), 9831. doi:10.3390/su12239831.

* Colomb, V., Ait-Amar, S., Basset-Mens, C., Gac, A., Gaillard, G., Koch, P., Mousset, J., Salou, T., Tailleur, A., Van Der Werf, H.M., 2015. AGRIBALYSE®, the French LCI Database for agricultural products: high-quality data for producers and environmental labeling. OCL Oilseed. Fats Crops Lipids 22 (1), D104. doi:10.1051/ocl/20140047.

* Couturier, C., Aubert, P.M.I., Duru, M.I., 2021. What kind of sustainable agri-food system for tomorrow? Comparative analysis of 16 carbon-neutral scenarios. Solagro, IDDRI, INRAE. Angers 62 (in French).

* Cucurachi, S., Scherer, L., Guinée, J., Tukker, A., 2019. Life cycle assessment of food systems. One Earth. 1 (3), 292–297. doi:10.1016/j.oneear.2019.10.014.

* Dansero, E., Pettenatien, G., 2018. Reterritorialization, proximity, and urban food planning: research perspectives on AFNs. In: Corsi, A., Barbera, F., Dansero, E., Peano, C. (Eds.), Alternative Food Networks: An Interdisciplinary Assessment. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp. 273–301. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-90409-2_14.

* Dansero, E., Puttilli, M., 2014. Multiple territorialities of alternative food networks: six cases from Piedmont, Italy. Local Environ. 19, 626–643. doi:10.1080/13549839.2013.836163.

* Delgado, C., 2023. The role of land as the central piece to sustainable food systems: lessons learned from Portugal national food-related policies. Geogr. Sustain. 4 (1), 84–90. doi:10.1016/j.geosus.2023.01.001.

* Dias, A., Lemos, D., Gabarrell, X., Arroja, L., 2018. Comparison of tools for quantifying the environmental performance of an urban territory. J. Ind. Ecol. 22, 868–880. doi:10.1111/jiec.12614.

* Eau France, 2020. National base for pesticide sales. Sales per French postal code (in French).

* Enedis, 2022. Enedis Open Data. Annual electricity consumption for French communes (in French).

* European Environment Agency, 2020. Corine Land Cover (CLC) 2018, Version 2020_20u1.

* European Environment Agency, 2019. Pesticide sales [WWW Document]. https://www.eea.europa.eu/airs/2018/environment-and-health/pesticides-sales (accessed 31 July 2023).

* European Commission, 2023. Farm to Fork strategy, for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en (accessed 12 January 2023).

* European Parliament, 2023. First pillar of the common agricultural policy (CAP): II – direct payments to farmers. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/109/first-pillar-of-the-common-agricultural-policy-cap-ii-direct-payments-to-farmers (accessed 12 January 2023).

* Eurostat, 2022a. Farms and farmland in the European Union - statistics. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Farms and farmland_in_the_European_Union_-_statistics#The_evolution_of_farms_and_farmland-between_2005_and_2020 (accessed 31 July 2023).

* Eurostat, 2022b. Mineral fertilizer consumption remained high in 2020. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20220628-1 (accessed 31 July 2023).

* Fantke, E.P., Bijster, M., Guignard, C., Hauschild, M., Huijbregts, M., Jolliet, O., Kounina, A., Magaud, V., Margni, M., Mckone, T., Posthuma, L., Rosenbaum, R.K., Van De Meent, D., Van Zelm, R., 2017. USEtox® 2.0 Documentation. https://doi.org/10.11581/DTU:00000011

* FAO, 2012. Biofuel Co-Products As Livestock feed: Opportunities and Challenges, edited by Harinder P. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Makkar, Rome.

* FAO, 2020a. The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2020, The State of Agricultural Commodity Markets 2020. FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb0665en
FAO, 2020b. Farming France. https://www.fao.org/country-showcase/item/detail/en/c/1278517/ (accessed 1 August 2023).

FAO, 2020c. FAOSTAT, Crops, and livestock products.

FAO, 2022. World Food and Agriculture – Statistical Yearbook 2022. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cc2211en

Finistere Departmental Council, 2017a. Finistere's food territorial project: diagnostic. Administrative Departmental Council, Quimper (in French).

Finistere Departmental Council, 2017b. Finistere's food territorial project: action plan. Administrative Departmental Council, Quimper (in French).

Flach, B., Selten, M., 2021. Dutch Parliament Approves Law to Reduce Nitrogen Emissions. NL2020-069. United States Department of Agriculture, Netherlands.

Flatrès, P., 1963. The second farming revolution in Finistere. Etud. Rurales. 8, 5–55. doi:10.34060/rural.1963.10348, (in French).

Francois, C., Gondran, N., Nicolas, J.P., 2021. Spatial and territorial developments for life cycle assessment applied to urban mobility-case study on Lyon area in France. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 26, 543–560. doi:10.1007/s11367-020-01861-2.

French General Accounting Office, 2023. The subsidies for the beef industry. French General Accounting Office (in French).

Frischknecht, R., Büsser Knöpfel, S., 2014. Ecological scarcity 2013—New features and its application in industry and administration—54th LCA forum, Ittigen/Berne, Switzerland, December 5, 2013. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 19, 1361–1366. doi:10.1007/s11367-014-0744-z.

Fu, B., Liu, Y., Li, Y., Wang, C., Li, C., Jiang, W., Hua, T., Zhao, W., 2021. The research priorities of Resources and Environmental Sciences. Geogr. Sustain. 2, 87–94. doi:10.1016/j.geosys.2021.04.001.

Godfray, H.C.J., Beddington, J.R., Crute, I.R., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J.F., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S.M., Toulmin, C., 2010. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 327 (5967), 812–818. doi:10.1126/science.1185383.

Hauck, J., Schleyer, C., Priess, J.A., Veerkamp, C.J., Dunford, R., Alkemade, R., Berry, P., Primmer, E., Kok, M., Young, J., Haines-Young, R., Dick, J., Harrison, P.A., Bela, G., Vadineanu, A., Görg, C., 2019. Combining policy analyses, exploratory scenarios, and integrated modelling to assess land use policy options. Environ. Sci. Policy 94, 202–210. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2018.12.009.

Heinonen, J., Junnila, S., 2011. Case study on the carbon consumption of two metropolitan cities. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 569–579. doi:10.1007/s11367-011-0289-3.

Huijbregts, M.A.J., Steinmann, Z.J.N., Elshout, P.M.F., Stam, G., Verones, F., Vieira, M., Zijp, M., Hollander, A., van Zelm, R., 2017. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 138–147. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1246-y.

IDH, 2020. The urgency of action to tackle tropical deforestation: protecting forests and fostering sustainable agriculture. Prepared for IDH by FACTS Consulting, COWI A/S and AlphaBeta Singapore. IDH, Utrecht.

GIS SOL, 2022. BDAT, Outil cartographique GEOSOL. https://webapps.gissol.fr/geosol/ (accessed 2 August 2023). [dataset].

GRDF, 2022. GRDF Open data on gas consumption. [dataset].

INSEE, 2021. Dataset SIRENE. https://www.sirene.fr/sirene/public/creation-fichier. (accessed 13 September 2022) (in French).

Kissinger, G., Herold, M., de Sy, V., 2012. Drivers of deforestation and forest degradation A synthesis report for REDD+ policymakers. Lexeme Consulting.

Kneafsey, M., Venn, L., Schmutz, U., Balázs, B., Trenchard, L., Eyden-Wood, T., Bos, E., Sutton, G., Blackett Editors, M., Santini, F., Gomez Paloma, S., 2013. Short Food Supply Chains and Local Food Systems in the EU. A State of Play of their Socio-Economic Characteristics. EU Publication CERSC and policy reports. Luxembourg doi:10.2791/88784.

Loiseau, E., Aissani, L., le Féon, S., Laurent, F., Cerceau, J., Sala, S., Roux, P., 2018. Territorial Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): What exactly is it about? A proposal towards using a common terminology and a research agenda. J. Clean. Prod. 176, 474–485. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.169.

Loiseau, E., Colin, M., Alaphilippe, A., Coste, G., Roux, P., 2020. To what extent are short food supply chains (SFCs) environmentally friendly? Application to French apple distribution using Life Cycle Assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 276, 124166. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124166.

Loiseau, E., Junqua, G., Roux, P., Bellon-Maurel, V., 2012. Environmental assessment of a territory: An overview of existing tools and methods. J. Environ. Manage. 112, 213–225. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.024.

Loiseau, E., Roux, P., Junqua, G., Maurel, P., Bellon-Maurel, V., 2013. Adapting the LCA framework to environmental assessment in land planning. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 18, 1533–1548. doi:10.1007/s11367-013-0588-y.

Lulovicova, A., Bouissou, S., 2023. Environmental assessment of local food policies through a territorial life cycle approach. Sustainability 15, 4740. doi:10.3390/su15064740.

Majewski, E., Komerska, A., Kwiatkowski, J., Malak-Rawlikowska, A., Was, A., Sulewski, P., Goła, M., Pogodzinska, K., Lecoeur, J.L., Tocco, B., Török, Á., Donati, M., Vittersø, G., 2020. Are short food supply chains more environmentally sustainable than long chains? a life cycle assessment (LCA) of the eco-efficiency of food chains in selected EU countries. Energies 13 (18), 4853. doi:10.3390/en13184853.

Mansfield, B., Mendes, W., 2013. Municipal food strategies and integrated approaches to urban agriculture: exploring three cases from the Global North. Int. Plan. Stud. 18, 37–60. doi:10.1080/13563475.2013.750942.

ISO 14040, 2006. Environmental Management. Life Cycle Assessment. Principles and Framework, pp. 1–28.

Marcadé, O., 2021. Environment in Food territorial Projects. M.S. thesis, Université de Nantes, Nantes (in French).

Martínez-Valderrama, J., Sanjuán, M.E., del Barrio, G., Guirado, E., Ruiz, A., Maestre, F.T., 2021. Mediterranean landscape re-greening at the expense of South American agricultural expansion. Land 10, 204. doi:10.3390/land10020204.

Mbow, C., Rosenzweig, C., Barioni, L.G., Benton, T.G., Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Masson-Delmotte, E., Calvo Buendia, V., Pörtner, H.O., Roberts, D.C., Zhai, P., Slade, R., Connors, S., van Diemen, R., Ferrat, M., Haughey, E., Luz, S., Neogi, S., Pathak, M., Petzold, J., Pereira, J.P., Vyas, P., Huntley, E., Kissick, K., Belkacemi, M., Malley, J., 2019. Food security: In: 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 (SR2). IPCC, Ginevra.

Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 2023a. Almost 430 Food Territorial projects labeled by the Ministry 1st of April 2023 (in French).

Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 2023b. The Numbers of Organic Agriculture in France in 2022. https://agriculture.gouv.fr/les-chiffres-de-lagriculture-biologique-en-2022 (accessed 6 August 2023) (in French).

Ministry of Ecological Transition, 2020. National Low Carbon Strategy.

Ministry of Ecological Transition, 2021. Key number about energy. https://www.statistiques.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/edition-numerique/chiffres-cles-energie-2021/13-petrole (accessed 3 August 2023) (in French).

Mirabella, N., Allacker, K., Sala, S., 2019. Current trends and limitations of life cycle assessment applied to the urban scale: critical analysis and review of selected literature. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24, 1174–1193. doi:10.1007/s11367-018-1467-3.

Morgan, K.J., Morely, A., 2002. Relocalising the Food chain: the Role of Creative Public procurement. The Regeneration Institute, Cardiff University.

Morgan, K.J., Santo, R., 2018. The rise of municipal food movements. In: Kalfagianni, A., Skordili, S. (Eds.), Localizing Global Food: Short Food Supply Chains As Responses to Agrifood System Challenges. Routledge, pp. 27–40.

Nitschelm, L., Flipo, B., Auberger, J., Chambaut, H., Colomb, V., Gac, A., Dauguet, S., Esagnol, S., Le Gall, C., Malnoe, C., Perrin, A., Ponchant, P., Renaud-Gentié, C., Roinارد, A., Sautiereau, N., Tailleur, A., Van Der Werf, H., 2020. Transition towards organic and sustainable food systems. Using life cycle assessment to assess and improve the environmental performance of organic production systems.

Nitschelm, L., Aubin, J., Corson, M.S., Viaud, V., Walter, C., 2016. Spatial differentiation in Life Cycle Assessment LCA applied to an agricultural territory: current practices and method development. J. Clean. Prod. 112, 2472–2484. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.138.

OEC, 2020. Pesticides. https://oec.world/en/profile/hs/pesticides (accessed 15 December 2022).

Oliver-Solà, J., Josa, A., Arena, A.P., Gabarrell, X., Rieradevall, J., 2011. The GWP-Chart: an environmental tool for guiding urban planning processes. Application to concrete sidewalks. Cities 28, 245–250. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.01.003.

Park, Y.S., Egilmez, G., Kucukvar, M., 2016. Emergy and end-point impact assessment of agricultural and food production in the United States: a supply chain-linked Ecologically-based Life Cycle Assessment. Ecol. Indic. 62, 117–137. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.11.045.

Perez-Neira, D., Simón, X., Copena, D., 2021. Agroecological public policies to mitigate climate change: public food procurement for school canteens in the municipality of Ames (Galicia, Spain). Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 45, 1528–1553. doi:10.1080/21683565.2021.1932685.

Perminova, T., Sirina, N., Laratte, B., Baranovskaya, N., Rikhvanov, L., 2016. Methods for land use impact assessment: a review. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 60, 64–74. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2016.02.002.

Poore, J., Nemecek, T., 2018. Reducing food's environmental impacts through producers and consumers. Science 360 (6392), 987–992. doi:10.1126/science.aaq0216.

Pothukuchi, K., Kaufman, J.L., 2000. The food system: a stranger to the planning field. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 66 (2), 113–124. doi:10.1080/01944360008976093.

Poux, A., Aubert, P.M., 2018. Agroecology in Europe in 2050. Modellisation of European Agri-Food system. IDDRI-ASCa, Study N°9/18, p. 78 (in French).

Qi, Y., Zhang, Y., Jiang, H., Hou, H., Li, J., 2019. Life cycle assessment in urban territories: a case study of Dalian city, China. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 24, 1194–1208. doi:10.1007/s11367-018-1465-5.

Qu, W., Shi, W., Zhang, J., Liu, T., 2020. T21 China 2050: a tool for national sustainable development planning. Geogr. Sustain. 1 (1), 33–46. doi:10.1016/j.geosys.2020.03.004.

Rastoin, J.L., 2007. Introduction. In: Food Offer Prospective. French Agriculture Academy, pp. 1–5 (in French).

Region Brittany, 2017. SRADDET Objectives (in French).

Region Brittany, 2020. Regional sustainable planning document. Brittany, France (in French).

Robinson, G.M., Carson, D.A., 2015. The globalisation of agriculture: introducing the Handbook. In: Robinson, G.M., Carson, D.A. (Eds.), Handbook on the Globalisation of Agriculture. Edward Elgar, pp. 1–28.

Rouault, A., Perrin, A., Renaud-Gentié, C., Julien, S., Jourjon, F., 2020. Using LCA in a participatory eco-design approach in agriculture: the example of vineyard management. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 25, 1368–1383. doi:10.1007/s11367-019-01684-w.

Shukla, P.R., Skea, J., Reisinger, A., Slade, R., Fradera, R., Pathak, M., Al, A., Malek, K., Renée Van Diemen, B., Hasija, A., Lisboa, G., Luz, S., Malley, J., McCollum, D., Some, S., 2022. Climate Change 2022 Mitigation of Climate Change Working Group III Contribution to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policymakers.

Solagro, 2016. Scenario Afterres 2050: Modelling the future farming system (in French).

Stefanovic, L., 2022. SDG performance in local organic food systems and the role of sustainable public procurement. Sustainability 14 (18), 11510. doi:10.3390/su141811510.

Terres en ville, 2020. PATnorama n°1 (in French).
Usubiaga-Liaño, A., Behrens, P., Daioglou, V., 2020. Energy use in the global food system. J. Ind. Ecol. 24 (4), 830–840. doi:10.1111/jiec.12982.

van der Werf, H., Kanyarushoki, C., Corson, M.S., 2011. Life cycle analysis : a new look on farming production systems. Innovations Agronomiques, INRAE (in French).

van der Werf, H.M.G., Knudsen, M.T., Cederberg, C., 2020. Towards better representation of organic agriculture in life cycle assessment. Nat. Sustain. 3, 419–425. doi:10.1038/s41893-020-0489-6.

Van Maele-Fabry, G., Libotte, V., Willems, J., Lison, D., 2006. Review and meta-analysis of risk estimates for prostate cancer in pesticide manufacturing workers. Cancer Causes Control 17, 353–373. doi:10.1007/s10552-005-0443-y.

Vidergar, P., Perc, M., Lukman, R.K., 2021. A survey of the life cycle assessment of food supply chains. J. Clean. Prod. 286, 125506. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125506.

Wallet, F., Bouroullec, M.D.M., 2021. Public policies and development of short supply chains: analysis of the Occitania region. Sustainable Development and Territories 12. doi:10.4000/developpementdurable.18989, (in French).

Wernet, G., Bauer, C., Steubing, B., Reinhard, J., Moreno-Ruiz, E., Weidema, B., 2016. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 1218–1230. doi:10.1007/s11367-016-1087-8.